Abandonment of the Son in PSA.....

[Diserner]

Or another viable option is its a proclamation He is the Messiah.

It's difficult for me to understand the rejection of PSA from any natural point of view.

It seems they just get over sensitive about exact phraseology with the idea of some kind of negative emotion about Christ suffering for our sins.

 

[civic]

It's difficult for me to understand the rejection of PSA from any natural point of view.

It seems they just get over sensitive about exact phraseology with the idea of some kind of negative emotion about Christ suffering for our sins.

If you begin with the Messiah's teaching Himself on the topic its easy to see PSA is missing.

I'm 100% behind Christ suffering for our sins since He taught it and so did the Apostles. They didn't teach any wrath, anger, vengeance, retribution from the Father upon the Son.

 

[Diserner]

I'm 100% behind Christ suffering for our sins since He taught it and so did the Apostles. They didn't teach any wrath, anger, vengeance, retribution from the Father upon the Son.

This makes no sense to me. Suffering for sin logically necessitates ideas of judgment from God. Otherwise, this suffering is not related to God's holiness.

 

[civic]

Suffering for sin logically necessitates ideas of judgment from God.

Can you show me where Jesus taught the above ?

or Paul ?

If not its nothing but a presupposition.

 

[TomL]

Depends on how you define "abandon," because what happened when Christ said "Why have you forsaken me?" was temporary.

This has to be when the atonement happened in time, when the clouds became dark to symbolize the judgment happening.

Jesus said "It is finished," before he died, and that doesn't fit the theology of those who deny PSA and make atonement mere physical death.

So you affirm a separation in the godhead?

The Son and the father are of one essense. Was this essence broken into parts now?

The Father and the son are one in unity. Was that unity now broken?

Jesus is both God and man. Was his nature now in conflict with itself?

It seems to me, the only thing which can be lost or separated is his physical life without effecting the godhead or the hypostatic union.

 

[TomL]

This makes no sense to me. Suffering for sin logically necessitates ideas of judgment from God. Otherwise, this suffering is not related to God's holiness.

I would say Suffering can be the result of a consequence or carrying someone's else burden