Transferred Wrath

[DialecticSkeptic]

Your presentation was well articulated, offering both scripture upon which to build and theological exegesis of that scripture. Thank you.

I appreciate that, thank you.

I would REALLY like to know what PSA is before attempting to discuss it. I am weary of one source [saying], "PSA is this," and someone [else replying], "No, it is not."

It is perhaps inevitable that disagreement will exist over the definition and meaning of penal substitutionary atonement (PSA), even if one cites a renowned and well respected scholar like Leon Morris, The Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance (InterVarsity Press, 1983). So, instead of futile attempts to convince the world that this or that understanding of the doctrine should be accepted, let it suffice that the definition and meaning of PSA in any conversation involving me shall be defended as the following:

• Penal substitutionary atonement is the theological doctrine that Christ bore the punishment for sin (penal) in the place of us believers (substitutionary), satisfying divine justice and cleansing us of the guilt and stain of sin, thereby reconciling us and God (atonement).

Whatever PSA means to anyone else, this is what it shall mean in my responses. If someone wants to defend a slightly modified version of PSA or entirely different theory of atonement, they are free to do so, but this is the view that I am defending.

Before we get into your presentation, let me ask a question [that should] help me understand definitions. Got Questions? defined [the doctrine of] penal substitution as follows:

… [snip quoted explanation] …

[I]s there anything in the Got Questions? definition that you disagree with?

Since you have underlined the parts which hold your interest, I will address each of them. (I have left them in place.)

1. "In the simplest possible terms, the biblical doctrine of penal substitution holds that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross takes the place of the punishment we ought to suffer for our sins."

I don't know what the founder and CEO of the Got Questions? web site, Shea Michael Houdmann (Rabey 2022), happens to believe regarding the doctrine of PSA but that sentence you quoted struck me as terribly confused and leaves a lot to be desired. As it stands, I can't agree with it because it doesn't appear to make sense. I would provide the following corrections:

1. It is Jesus who is the substitute, not his sacrifice. God made Jesus, not his sacrifice, to be sin for us.

2. As our substitute, he took the place of the elect, not the place of the punishment which our sins are due. He took our place, not our punishment's place.

3. Jesus did not take the place of our punishment—whatever that means—but rather bore in his body, as our substitute, the punishment our sins were due.
​

So, I could have agreed with their definition if it had said, "In the simplest possible terms, the biblical doctrine of penal substitution holds that upon the cross Jesus bore in their place the punishment that was due for all the sins of the elect." But, alas, that is not what it said.

2. "As a result, God’s justice is satisfied and those who accept Christ can be forgiven and reconciled to God."

I agree with the first underlined part. Christ's atoning sacrifice was both propitiatory and expiatory for the elect because it satisfied divine justice through penal substitution.

And I could almost agree with the second underlined part, but unfortunately it (a) muddies the waters of the interplay between divine eternity and human temporality and (b) reflects a reductionistic gospel presentation that equates salvation with a punctiliar verbal profession or intellectual assent, devoid of repentance, regeneration, sanctification, or enduring faith. I understand that Houdmann and other staff at Got Questions? don't hold such a reductionist view of the gospel, but that's what the average reader can infer from their less than careful language.

Here is how I would express the point that I believe they're trying to make: "Since Christ's atoning sacrifice was both propitiatory and expiatory, satisfying divine justice through penal substitution, all those for whom Christ died will experience the forgiveness purchased by his blood." This forgiveness is not bestowed on the basis of a mere decision or verbal assent; it is applied through union with Christ by grace alone through faith alone, a faith that is the product of divine regeneration and necessarily accompanied by repentance, sanctification, and perseverance.

3. "According to the doctrine of penal substitution, God's perfect justice demands some form of atonement for sin."

Again, less than careful language, making it difficult for me to concur. I would have highlighted the same thing as a problem.

God's perfect justice demands that full payment be made for the debt owed for sin. It does not demand atonement—which, through the cross of Christ, is a matter of electing love and grace. A debt for sin is owed and full payment must be made. Those for whom Christ died have had their debt paid in full. All else must pay it themselves.

(I might be willing to say that the pactum salutis demands atonement for sin, but that is strictly an intratrinitarian covenant. The picture is something like this: "The sheep will be your portion," the Father says to the Son, "but it will require your atoning sacrifice on their behalf." And the Son agrees.)

4. "Penal substitution means Jesus’ death on the cross propitiated or satisfied God's requirement for justice. God's mercy allows Jesus to take the punishment we deserve for our sins. As a result, Jesus’ sacrifice serves as a substitute for anyone who accepts it. In a very direct sense, Jesus is exchanged for us as the recipient of sin’s penalty."

Allows? What are they trying to say here? Look, I'm just a high school dropout and a truck driver, and yet even I can express this stuff with more theological and grammatical care than they have.

Sorry, that's rude. I know. But I am frustrated.

I would change that first underlined part as follows (thus indicating what I disagree with): "It is the grace and mercy of divine love that sent Jesus to bear the punishment due for the sins of the elect, an atoning sacrifice that was both propitiatory and expiatory through penal substitution for all those in him." In love, God made him to be sin and a curse for us, that we might be the righteousness of God and redeemed from the curse of the law, and all for the glory of his grace and justice.

And that was the last of your underlined sections.

 

[ReverendRV]

Allows? What are they trying to say here? Look, I'm just a high school dropout and a truck driver, and yet even I can express this stuff with more theological and grammatical care than they have.

Sorry, that's rude. I know. But I am frfrustrated.

Oh wow, I would never have guessed. You MUST have a Spiritual Gift from God, to be as great as you are at Theology...

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

…

Oh wow, I would never have guessed. You MUST have a Spiritual Gift from God, to be as great as you are at Theology...

[sniff, sniff] ... I smell snark.

Two things. First, that is a rules violation. You are addressing me, not my argument. Second, careful writing requires a competent grasp of the English language, not supernatural giftedness in theology.

 

[ReverendRV]

[sniff, sniff] ... I smell snark.

Two things. First, that is a rules violation. You are addressing me, not my argument. Second, careful writing requires a competent grasp of the English language, not supernatural giftedness in theology.

Sorry...

 

[fastfredy0]

Sorry...

I didn't know it was against the rules to compliment a person.

@makesends .... I think you are a smart, theological well versed guy.

... let's see if I get a violation warning .... *giggle* ... if he disagrees we can start another thread on the topic (j/k)

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I didn't know it was against the rules to compliment a person.

I said that I smell snark—a critical or sarcastic comment—and he apologized. If it was a compliment, wouldn't he have corrected me?

Now, back to the topic of the thread, please.

 

[atpollard]

Penal substitutionary atonement is the theological doctrine that Christ bore the punishment for sin (penal) in the place of us believers (substitutionary), satisfying divine justice and cleansing us of the guilt and stain of sin, thereby reconciling us and God (atonement).

You and I have no disagreement worth discussing.

This does not actually claim that it was God the Father that punished God the Son (one of the fine points of PSA that I object to and request scriptural support for).

This does not claim wrath was the motive for anything (one point raised by some PSA advocates that I object to and request scriptural support for).

I would question whether the function was to “satisfy divine justice”, but that is a point that may be unanswerable and is certainly too subtle to demand scripture to support WHY God chooses to do WHAT God chooses to do. So I would not choose to engage in a discussion over the unwritten motives of God.

That Christ suffered for sin is not something I would deny.
(Whether that was “punishment” depends on why Christ suffered, another term might be more accurate. I think one might be hard pressed to find a NT writer that describes the death of Jesus as a ‘punishment’.)

That the death and resurrection achieved what you claim it achieved (cleansing us of the guilt and stain of sin, thereby reconciling us and God), I would also not deny.

What should be immediately obvious, is that your definition is significantly different in its details to the underlined portions of the explanation of Penal Substitution from “Got Questions”. This highlights the greatest frustration that I have found with THIS TOPIC … each attempt to engage the portion of the doctrine that I object to is met with:

1. Denial that is PSA
2. Accusations that I am rejecting some other fundamental scriptural truth.

Thank you for the conversation, but I think we have nothing to debate or discuss.

 

[atpollard]

Since you have underlined the parts which hold your interest, I will address each of them. (I have left them in place.)

Just to clarify MY CONCERNS with them (which do not apply to you since your definition does not embrace what I perceive as these potential non-Biblical flaws):

takes the place of the punishment we ought to suffer for our sins.

• Is this describing a transfer of punishment? Do our sins generate some tangible “punishment” or “wrath” that can be transferred from one recipient to another?
• Would such a transfer not violate God’s standard of Justice that the innocent shall not suffer for the guilty?
• Does such a teaching not violate the Biblical evidence that God both FORGIVES sin and that WRATH is stored for delivery on a later day of wrath?

God’s justice is satisfied, … can be forgiven

• Are these TWO independent statements of fact, or are they related?
• Does God’s ability to forgive depend upon the satisfaction of God’s Justice?
• Is that really what the Bible teaches?

God’s perfect justice demands some form of atonement for sin.

• Same question as above … Does the Bible really teach that Justice demands an atonement for sin?
• Is forgiveness impossible without atonement?

God’s mercy allows Jesus to take the punishment we deserve

• As the first one … Is this describing a transfer of punishment? Do our sins generate some tangible “punishment” or “wrath” that can be transferred from one recipient to another?

Jesus is exchanged for us as the recipient of sin’s penalty.

• As the first one … Is this describing a transfer of punishment? Do our sins generate some tangible “punishment” or “wrath” that can be transferred from one recipient to another?

 

[Carbon]

This does not claim wrath was the motive for anything (one point raised by some PSA advocates that I object to and request scriptural support for).

Don't you mean a point raised by a PSA advocate?
Who would claim wrath was the motive?

 

[atpollard]

Don't you mean a point raised by a PSA advocate?
Who would claim wrath was the motive?

Maybe more than 1.

This brings me back to my Thread about the Sword of the Spirit not being sharp enough to work on Believers; when it should. You should believe as Saint Peter said, 'This is what Joel said about [Christ's Crucifixion], it was the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord's Wrath'...

As far as God pouring out his anger on Jesus is concerned, we know that God is angry with sin; and Jesus was made sin for us.

Christ himself was punished and suffered the Father's wrath in our place. Not sure how you punish sins?

MacArthur in the gospel according to God says :

We must remember that sin did not kill Jesus; God did. The suffering servants death was nothing less than a punishment administered by God for the sins committed by others.

Grudem in his Systematic Theology :

As Jesus bore the guilt of our sin alone,God the Father, the Almighty Creator, the Lord of the universe, poured out on Jesus the fury of his wrath: Jesus became the object of the intense hatred of sin and vengeance against sin which God had patiently stored up since the beginning of the world.

Calvin says in his commentary on Gal 3:13 :

"He could not cease to be the object of his Father’s love, and yet he endured his wrath. For how could he reconcile the Father to us, if he had incurred his hatred and displeasure? We conclude, that he “did always those things that pleased” (John 8:29) his Father. Again, how would he have freed us from the wrath of God, if he had not transferred it from us to himself? Thus, “he was wounded for our transgressions,” (Isaiah 53:5,) and had to deal with God as an angry judge."

(Now you get to argue over the word ‘motive’).

 

[Carbon]

(Now you get to argue over the word ‘motive’).

No thanks. Either you want to debate it or you dont.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

If you don't want to discuss any of this with me, atpollard, that is fine—unfortunate, but fine.

As for the Father being the one who punished the Son, that was covered by Isaiah 53. For example, it says that he "was crushed for our iniquities" (v. 5). Crushed by whom? God the Father: "It was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer" (v. 10).

Or think about how "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us" (2 Cor. 5:21), whereby he "[became] a curse for us" (Gal. 3:13), fulfilling the covenant imagery of being "hung on a tree," identifying Christ as one judicially cursed by God (Deut. 21:23). He bore the judicial curse, wrath, and abandonment that we deserved, for he was sinless—until God made him to be sin for us.

And what about everything I highlighted regarding the cup of divine wrath, the wine of God's anger mixed undiluted, the judicial penalty for covenant-breaking sin? "Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?" (John 18:11).

As for wrath being the motive for anything, it was not. Divine wrath is a state of affairs, not a motive—the settled opposition of God's nature against evil, his holy displeasure against sinners, and the punishment he justly metes out to them on account of their sins (Dictionary of Theological Terms). Who said it was the motive? Eternal intratrinitarian love was the motive. I will fight anyone on this. "In the New Testament, propitiation is the result of God's love, and he himself provides it, the Son suffering [God's] wrath in himself," Robert Letham said. "Christ's death was a loving act whereby our salvation was won in accord with God's justice, and a grievous penalty was taken willingly on our behalf by God the Son, upheld by the loving Trinity" (Systematic Theology [2019]).

As for whether the function of the cross was to "satisfy divine justice," I think those scriptures I had referenced—and repeated above—answer that directly and clearly, as does the term "propitiation" by definition. But it is something that can be explored more fully.

I think one might be hard-pressed to find a NT writer that describes the death of Jesus as a "punishment."

It is not described as a punishment, but as an atoning sacrifice—and in terms of penal substitution.

What should be immediately obvious is that your definition is significantly different in its details to the underlined portions of the explanation of penal substitution from [the] Got Questions? [article].

Since I already addressed this grievance in my response, I don't know why you are repeating it here, nor what relevance this has to our conversation.

Just to clarify my concerns with [the problematic portions of the Got Questions? article]: … [snip rest]

I wonder why you chose not to ask me these questions (e.g., "Would such a transfer not violate God's standard of justice, that the innocent shall not suffer for the guilty?").

 

[ReverendRV]

[MOD EDIT]: Link to a YouTube playlist (six videos) called "PSA Defended: Scripture, History, Philosophy, and Rhetoric" by Christian apologist Mike Winger.

 

[ReverendRV]

Baptism in Christianity, while often understood as a symbolic act of cleansing and new life, can also be viewed in relation to God's wrath, specifically in the context of Jesus's baptism and the Old Testament figures like Noah and the priests in the Jordan. Essentially, baptism can be seen as a symbolic descent into the waters of judgment, mirroring Jesus's willingness to take on the wrath of God on behalf of humanity.

Elaboration:

Baptism as a Symbol of Judgment:

In the context of the Old Testament, Noah's ark and the priests in the Jordan are presented as examples of people who were submerged in water (Noah's ark during the flood, the priests during the crossing of the Jordan River) but remained safe. These are seen as foreshadowings of Jesus's own submersion, not just in water, but in the judgment of God, as he willingly took the wrath of God upon himself.

Jesus's Baptism:

Jesus's baptism is often described as him submitting to the waters of God's judgment, specifically in his willingness to be baptized by John the Baptist. This is seen as a symbolic representation of his willingness to bear the sins of humanity and experience the wrath of God, paving the way for forgiveness and new life.

Connection to the Cross:

The dynamics of Jesus's baptism are seen as echoing the dynamics of his crucifixion. Both involve the righteous one submitting to a flood of judgment, descending to the place of sinners, only to rise in vindication from God. This emphasizes that baptism is not just a symbol of cleansing but also a symbolic participation in Christ's death and resurrection, where we are united with him in his suffering and victory.

Baptism and Repentance:

John the Baptist also spoke about a "baptism of fire," which could be interpreted as the immersion of unbelievers in God's fiery wrath. This highlights the importance of repentance and bearing fruit worthy of repentance, as those who do not repent may face God's judgment.

Baptism as a Public Profession:

Baptism is also seen as a public profession of faith and a commitment to follow Christ. It's a visible act that demonstrates our identification with Christ's death and resurrection, as well as our commitment to living a new life in obedience to him.

Google Search

 

[makesends]

Baptism in Christianity, while often understood as a symbolic act of cleansing and new life, can also be viewed in relation to God's wrath, specifically in the context of Jesus's baptism and the Old Testament figures like Noah and the priests in the Jordan. Essentially, baptism can be seen as a symbolic descent into the waters of judgment, mirroring Jesus's willingness to take on the wrath of God on behalf of humanity.

Elaboration:

Baptism as a Symbol of Judgment:

In the context of the Old Testament, Noah's ark and the priests in the Jordan are presented as examples of people who were submerged in water (Noah's ark during the flood, the priests during the crossing of the Jordan River) but remained safe. These are seen as foreshadowings of Jesus's own submersion, not just in water, but in the judgment of God, as he willingly took the wrath of God upon himself.

Jesus's Baptism:

Jesus's baptism is often described as him submitting to the waters of God's judgment, specifically in his willingness to be baptized by John the Baptist. This is seen as a symbolic representation of his willingness to bear the sins of humanity and experience the wrath of God, paving the way for forgiveness and new life.

Connection to the Cross:

The dynamics of Jesus's baptism are seen as echoing the dynamics of his crucifixion. Both involve the righteous one submitting to a flood of judgment, descending to the place of sinners, only to rise in vindication from God. This emphasizes that baptism is not just a symbol of cleansing but also a symbolic participation in Christ's death and resurrection, where we are united with him in his suffering and victory.

Baptism and Repentance:

John the Baptist also spoke about a "baptism of fire," which could be interpreted as the immersion of unbelievers in God's fiery wrath. This highlights the importance of repentance and bearing fruit worthy of repentance, as those who do not repent may face God's judgment.

Baptism as a Public Profession:

Baptism is also seen as a public profession of faith and a commitment to follow Christ. It's a visible act that demonstrates our identification with Christ's death and resurrection, as well as our commitment to living a new life in obedience to him.

Google Search

I don't see a specific mention there of what in Christendom is referred to as both a literal baptism of/in the Spirit and symbolic (the dunking) as representative of being born of the Spirit.

 

[atpollard]

As for the Father being the one who punished the Son, that was covered by Isaiah 53. For example, it says that he "was crushed for our iniquities" (v. 5). Crushed by whom? God the Father: "It was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer" (v. 10).

For the sake of argument, if we accept the RANSOM THEORY as a given (I do not, but it WAS believed by honest Christian theologians at one point before PSA became more popular), then GOD was no less sovereign under RANSOM than PSA, so Isaiah 53 was no less true … however SATAN was the one to whom the debt was paid under RANSOM, so it was the LORD’s will that SATAN punish Jesus.

I merely point out that the punishment coming from the FATHER is an assumption of PSA inferred from scripture rather than an explicit statement of scripture. The very word “punishment” is far more frequently used in scripture in a far different context that “redemption”. That is why there were so many other theories prior to PSA and why other views persist.

It is not a matter of my “not wanting to discuss it”, but a case that YOU do not hold those details of PSA true that I have scriptural objections to. We could only discuss what we agree on or tangential minutia. That is not the stuff of “iron sharpening iron” conversation. You are simply not the correct opponent to defend the portions of PSA that I object to.

 

[ReverendRV]

I don't see a specific mention there of what in Christendom is referred to as both a literal baptism of/in the Spirit and symbolic (the dunking) as representative of being born of the Spirit.

I'm about to go to Church. I meant that Post to drag the Wrath of God during the Flood, into the discussion here. It's not so much about Baptism, as it is about the Wrath of God; and our Ark, the Lord God Jesus Christ...

I'm not trying to change the Thread to a discussion about Baptism. But one thing missing from a discussion on PSA, is a discussion about the Days of God's Judgment and Wrath against Sin. Jesus fulfills the Type which was the Flood...

Happy Resurrection Day!

 

[atpollard]

And what about everything I highlighted regarding the cup of divine wrath, the wine of God's anger mixed undiluted, the judicial penalty for covenant-breaking sin? "Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?" (John 18:11).

It is your opinion, right or wrong, that the cup of which Jesus spoke was the cup of wrath from the OT. Jesus was not EXPLICIT in that and no NT writer was explicit in making that connection. Even if that is true, your chosen definition of PSA does not list that as a required belief of PSA, so I would be free to reject it and still claim orthodoxy to your definition of PSA.

Thus it is a moot point to PSA (as defined).

 

[atpollard]

I wonder why you chose not to ask me these questions (e.g., "Would such a transfer not violate God's standard of justice, that the innocent shall not suffer for the guilty?").

I started this topic assuming that we (those with which I was conversing and myself) had a common understanding of what PSA advocated and taught. I quickly discovered that the definition of “PSA” was as slippery as the definition of “Calvinism”. I wished to avoid repeating the same error with you, so I wanted a common definition and understanding of what PSA means before asking anything about it.

Your chosen definition indicates that I would be asking you to defend beliefs that you do not hold on “transferred wrath” and the need for “Justice and Mercy to balance”. So there was no need to ask you those questions.

I only offered those questions later as an explanation for why I had underlined those points and to illustrate why your definition did not agree with those questions.

 

[atpollard]

Since I already addressed this grievance in my response, I don't know why you are repeating it here, nor what relevance this has to our conversation.

The reason it was repeated was explained in the lines immediately following it:

What should be immediately obvious, is that your definition is significantly different in its details to the underlined portions of the explanation of Penal Substitution from “Got Questions”. This highlights the greatest frustration that I have found with THIS TOPIC … each attempt to engage the portion of the doctrine that I object to is met with:​

1. Denial that is PSA
2. Accusations that I am rejecting some other fundamental scriptural truth.

Thank you for the conversation, but I think we have nothing to debate or discuss.​