Transferred Wrath

[ReverendRV]

I was watching a Video today, which I will keep watching over again to better understand it. I liked that it said Christ's Keeping of the Law would fall short of Fulfillment without him also experiencing the Consequences for it being Broken. He Reaped the Blessings for Keeping it, so he had to Reap the Consequences; and experience that too. In order to experience this, he had to be our Substitute. Of course he did this out of Love, but a side effect of the Atonement would be God experiencing the Consequences of Sin as well...

 

[makesends]

Then you reject Jesus as your Substitute, which means that you will be due to receive the just recompense for your own sins.

Do you not know that Jesus was made sin for us, so that we would be made the righteousness of God, in him?

I agree with this statement. My nuanced issue is that though Christ bore our penalty He Himself, though He suffered, technically He was not penalized as the dictionary definition of penalty requires that the penalized person do something sinful and Christ never sinned. Hey, not a big difference. Not worth discussion further. I believe I see your point.

Mod Hat

@David1701 most of us have been here long enough to know that @fastfredy0 is every bit as saved as you are. If the things that he is trying to say come out differently from what you believe, fine, but try to get at his point, which, if I remember right, was made from a few posts, not just that one. I didn't like what he said either, but I'm not going to conclude that he is not saved. You should have said that his words logically work out to Jesus not being the substitute for believers. Your own words logically work out to Freddy not being saved.

Your assessment logically makes even YOU depend on works, because you, there, are implying that it is what words one puts together that saves them. Freddy, if I understand him correctly, is rightly pointing out the monstrosity of Jesus actually deserving punishment, not that Jesus was not our substitute.

The site rules should be read before continuing discourse. Read particularly 2.1 and 2.2. Making public assumptions about another's faith is expressly forbidden.

Can scripture convey the knowledge of the Almighty? If not, perhaps scripture is insufficient when delving deeply into subjects like PSA

Scripture is more than sufficient for delving deeply into the knowledge of the Almighty. Not that you disagree with me here, but, it is our understanding that is stunted—not Scripture. PSA and many other things we conclude are only handles we put on what we think.

 

[Carbon]

Re: IMO, anyone that says God punished Jesus is wrong since Jesus was sinless.

this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. Acts 2:23.

I explained it with premises to validate my statement.

In simple terms, you cannot technically "punish" a person who did nothing wrong because the dictionary definition of punishment requires the recipient do something wrong.

Oh good grief, dont let Wright suck you in with his denial of biblical imputation.

That's a technicality. Yeah, God predestined Christ to be tortured. Acts 2:23, Acts 4:28)

Throw the word torture in there to try and strengthen your meaning (case). Just like transferred wrath, the Father torturing Jesus is not in scripture.

 

[makesends]

We'll see; but, I find nothing difficult to understand about the "terminology" of punishment. It's very straightforward.

Admit that a person doesn't have to understand what / how you do, to have a valid point.

 

[Carbon]

Jesus became sin for us, which means that he was treated as if he had sinned all of our sins. That's what it means to be our substitute.

Cursed is everyone who is hanged upon a tree: that cursed punishment required that the person had done something evil to deserve it. Crucifixion was a punishment (and only a punishment); it was one of the cruelest and most torturous punishments ever devised, reserved for the worst criminals. In other words, God, who ordained the cross to happen, ordained Jesus to be punished, and not only punished, but punished worse than anyone had ever been punished before, in bearing all of our sins and the just recompense for them.

Amen!

Do you believe this, because this is the heart of the gospel; in fact, without it, there is no gospel.

Amen!

 

[fastfredy0]

Scripture is more than sufficient for delving deeply into the knowledge of the Almighty.

Agreed .... I didn't convey my thought out as I intended.
I said: Can scripture convey the knowledge of the Almighty? If not, perhaps scripture is insufficient when delving deeply into subjects like PSA
... and meant to say:
Can scripture convey ALL the knowledge of the Almighty? If not, perhaps scripture is insufficient when delving deeply into subjects like PSA.

for example: John 3:2
"Beloved, now we are God's children, and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is."

 

[fastfredy0]

Oh good grief, dont let Wright suck you in with his denial of biblical imputation.

Oh good grief, deal with my premises. Which premise is wrong? Either:
Premise 1: Christ was sinless
OR
Premise 2: The definition "PUNISH" is defined as: inflict a penalty or sanction on (someone) as retribution for an offense, especially a transgression of a legal or moral code. It is not just to punish someone for another's offense. Now, you can demand payment from person "A" for the offense of person "B".

Premise1: IF you think Christ sinned (premise 1), say so
Premise2: IF you think my definition of PUNISH taken from the dictionary is incorrect, say so .... that would be understandable
IF the 2 premises don't prove my conclusion that Christ was not punished, say why

I think our contention lies upon the definition of PUNISH. It's not a big deal.


Aside: I know nothing of what Wright says.

 

[ReverendRV]

Oh good grief, deal with my premises. Which premise is wrong? Either:
Premise 1: Christ was sinless
OR
Premise 2: The definition "PUNISH" is defined as: inflict a penalty or sanction on (someone) as retribution for an offense, especially a transgression of a legal or moral code. It is not just to punish someone for another's offense. Now, you can demand payment from person "A" for the offense of person "B".

Premise1: IF you think Christ sinned (premise 1), say so
Premise2: IF you think my definition of PUNISH taken from the dictionary is incorrect, say so .... that would be understandable
IF the 2 premises don't prove my conclusion that Christ was not punished, say why

I think our contention lies upon the definition of PUNISH. It's not a big deal.


Aside: I know nothing of what Wright says.

Premise 1 is false; a False Dilemma cannot be a Premise...

 

[fastfredy0]

the Father torturing Jesus is not in scripture.

God is the cause of Christ's torture (though the word be indelicate). I can hit a nail with a hammer and you can say "I didn't do it, it was the hammer"... but I was the cause.
It is GOD making the sacrifice of His Son for the elect and not men.

Acts 2:23. There we read, “Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.”
His counsel or decree was the ground of His foreknowledge. So again, in Romans 8:29. That verse opens with the word “for,” which tells us to look back to what immediately precedes. What, then, does the previous verse say? This: “All things work together for good to them...who are the called according to His purpose.” Thus God’s foreknowledge is based upon His “purpose” or decree (see Psalm 2:7).
Acts 4:28 They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.
Christ is God and he said: Matthew 26:53 "Or do you think that I cannot ask my Father, and he will give me more than twelve legions of angels?".

 

[fastfredy0]

Premise 1: Christ was sinless

Premise 1 is false; a False Dilemma cannot be a Premise...

So, premise 1 is false? You believe Christ sinned? What sin did He commit?

 

[Carbon]

God is the cause of Christ's torture (though the word be indelicate). I can hit a nail with a hammer and you can say "I didn't do it, it was the hammer"... but I was the cause.
It is GOD making the sacrifice of His Son for the elect and not men.

Acts 2:23. There we read, “Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.”
His counsel or decree was the ground of His foreknowledge. So again, in Romans 8:29. That verse opens with the word “for,” which tells us to look back to what immediately precedes. What, then, does the previous verse say? This: “All things work together for good to them...who are the called according to His purpose.” Thus God’s foreknowledge is based upon His “purpose” or decree (see Psalm 2:7).
Acts 4:28 They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.
Christ is God and he said: Matthew 26:53 "Or do you think that I cannot ask my Father, and he will give me more than twelve legions of angels?".

Does scripture read that the Father tortured the Son?
Yes?
No?

 

[fastfredy0]

To lighten the mood ... BITCOIN is up today ... woohoo .... *giggle*

 

[fastfredy0]

Does scripture read that the Father tortured the Son?
Yes?
No?

I grant torture is a strong word and looking at the dictionary definition "torture" is not the word I should have used. Rather, I would say God was the cause of Christ being on the cross and suffering grievous pain.

 

[Carbon]

I grant torture is a strong word and looking at the dictionary definition "torture" is not the word I should have used.

Right.

Rather, I would say God was the cause of Christ being on the cross and suffering grievous pain.

Okay.

 

[ReverendRV]

Premise 1: Christ was sinless

So, premise 1 is false? You believe Christ sinned? What sin did He commit?

No, not me; Christ never Sinned...

Christ was the one who caught the Hot Potato of Sin...


Ah, a good Title for a new Gospel Tract...

Hot Potato

 

[fastfredy0]

Christ was the one who caught the Hot Potato of Sin...

*giggle* at Hot Potato ..... I don't think you will find "Hot Potato" in scripture ... *LOL*


Premise 1: Christ was sinless
Well, then I don't understand your statement that follows:

Premise 1 is false; a False Dilemma cannot be a Premise...

 

[Carbon]

No, not me; Christ never Sinned...

Christ was the one who caught the Hot Potato of Sin...


Ah, a good Title for a new Gospel Tract...

Hot Potato

Actually, that makes it sound like He was the unlucky one who caught it. It very well could have been someone else.

 

[Carbon]

*giggle* at Hot Potato ..... I don't think you will find "Hot Potato" in scripture ... *LOL*

Are you getting it, finally?

Premise 1: Christ was sinless
Well, then I don't understand your statement that follows:

Me neither.

 

[fastfredy0]

Actually, that makes it sound like He was the unlucky one who caught it. It very well could have been someone else.

The "hot potato" could only be caught by the Almighty. It's in 3rd Corinthians somewhere.

 

[Carbon]

The "hot potato" could only be caught by the Almighty. It's in 3rd Corinthians somewhere.

The funny thing is, there is a 3erd Corinthians. We just never found it, but that's the way God wanted it, I'm sure.