If you deny PSA, you have become an OT Jew.

[TomL]

God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. That took place on the cross. This passage proclaims Perichoresis- the eternal mutual indwelling of the Trinity.

So much for PSA it’s an ungodly doctrine.

Perichoresis is the fellowship of three co-equal Persons perfectly embraced in love and harmony and expressing an intimacy that no one can humanly comprehend. The Father sends the Son (John 3:16), and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and was sent by the Son (John 15:26)—another example of perichoresis, with the result that God’s people are blessed.

There is nothing that separates the Persons of the Trinity or interrupts the mysterious interchange of perichoresis. It can be imagined as a Venn diagram showing three circles intersecting in the center with each circle intersecting the others perfectly and multi-dimensionally, as they rotate about a common center of divine love.

hope this helps !!!

Indeed, the idea of a separation of the Father and the son is problematic for the doctrine of the Trinity and scripture.

2 Corinthians 5:19 (LEB) — 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

John 14:10–11 (LEB) — 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak from myself, but the Father residing in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if not, believe because of the works themselves.

Perichoresis

The Orthodox Formulation

The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity was enunciated in a series of debates and councils that were in large part prompted by the controversies sparked by such movements as monarchianism and Arianism. The Council of Constantinople (381) formulated a definitive statement in which the church made explicit the beliefs previously held implicitly. The view that prevailed was basically that of Athanasius (293–373), as elaborated and refined by the Cappadocian theologians—Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa.

The formula that expresses the position of Constantinople is “one οὐσία (ousia - essence) in three ὑποστάσεις ((hupostaseis).” The emphasis often seems to be more on the latter part of the formula, that is, the separate existence of the three persons rather than on the one indivisible Godhead. The one Godhead exists simultaneously in three modes of being or hypostases. The idea of “coinherence” or, as later termed, perichoresis, of the persons is emphasized. The Godhead exists “undivided in divided persons.” There is an “identity of nature” in the three hypostases. Basil says:

For all things that are the Father’s are beheld in the Son, and all things that are the Son’s are the Father’s; because the whole Son is in the Father and has all the Father in himself. Thus the hypostasis of the Son becomes as it were form and face of the knowledge of the Father, and the hypostasis of the Father is known in the form of the Son, while the proper quality which is contemplated therein remains for the plain distinction of the hypostases.1

1 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology. (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998), 361.

The article discusses the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, particularly as articulated during the Council of Constantinople in 381. It emphasizes the formulation of "one οὐσία (ousia) in three ὑποστάσεις (hupostaseis)," highlighting the coexistence of three distinct persons within one divine essence. The views of Athanasius and the Cappadocian theologians—Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa—are central to this understanding. They argue for the unity of the Godhead while maintaining the individuality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each possessing unique properties. The article addresses concerns about potential tritheism, asserting that the divine activity of revelation is a unified action involving all three persons. It also emphasizes that the divine essence is simple and indivisible, challenging the application of numerical categories to the Godhead. Overall, the orthodox formulation seeks to balance the distinctiveness of the persons with the unity of the divine substance.

This is an AI-generated summary

 

[Dizerner]

Indeed, the idea of a separation of the Father and the son is problematic for the doctrine of the Trinity and scripture.

PSA does NOT TEACH ontological separation and NEVER HAS.

STOP STRAW MANNING THE POSITION.

No, PSA does NOT "divide" the Trinity.

This is an INVALID argument based on INVALID premises.

Wrath does not require ontological separation.

Satan is tormented eternally in the PRESENCE of the Lamb.

God is OMNIPRESENT (how soon we forget), and there IS no such thing as a logical separation from him, separation language is a MISNOMER for "separation from God's goodness," and NOT God altogether.

A negative relation IS NOT an ontological rift—PERIOD.

That's NON SEQUITUR, it does NOT follow.

I swear, it's like no one even listens to any counter arguments but repeats the same illogical brainwashed mantras over and over.

RESPOND TO THE ARGUMENTS INSTEAD OF REPEATING MANTRAS.

WRATH REQUIRES PRESENCE.

 

[TomL]

Indeed, the idea of a separation of the Father and the son is problematic for the doctrine of the Trinity and scripture.

2 Corinthians 5:19 (LEB) — 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

John 14:10–11 (LEB) — 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak from myself, but the Father residing in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if not, believe because of the works themselves.

Also

John 16:31–32 (LEB) — 31 Jesus replied to them, “Now do you believe? 32 Behold, an hour is coming—and has come—that you will be scattered each one to his own home, and you will leave me alone. And I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

 

[Dizerner]

John 16:31–32 (LEB) — 31 Jesus replied to them, “Now do you believe? 32 Behold, an hour is coming—and has come—that you will be scattered each one to his own home, and you will leave me alone. And I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

Examine your heart, and see if you just believe what you would rather be true, instead of Jesus' own words on the Cross.

Dishonest every step of the way.

I don't believe what I LIKE and I don't believe WHAT I WANT because I FEAR GOD.

 

[TomL]

PSA does NOT TEACH ontological separation and NEVER HAS.

STOP STRAW MANNING THE POSITION.

No, PSA does NOT "divide" the Trinity. This is an INVALID argument based on INVALID premises. Wrath does not require ontological separation. Satan is tormented eternally in the PRESENCE of the Lamb. God is OMNIPRESENT (how soon we forget), and there IS no such thing as a logical separation from him, separation language is a MISNOMER for "separation from God's goodness," and NOT God altogether. A negative relation IS NOT an ontological rift—PERIOD. That's NON SEQUITUR, it does NOT follow. And the Holy Spirit plays a VITAL role in uniting us all to Christ, empowering Christ's sufferings, and in Christ offering his suffering to the Father.

I swear, it's like no one even listens to any counter arguments but repeats the same illogical brainwashed mantras over and over.

RESPOND TO THE ARGUMENTS INSTEAD OF REPEATING MANTRAS.

PSA

The 17 Claims of the Appeasement School (Atonement School), also called Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

1. Adam as mankind's federal head transmits the guilt of his sin to all mankind. (Augustine)*
2. Because of Original Sin mankind is now totally depraved. (Augustine)*
3. Even Infants, innocent of personal sin, are guilty of Original Sin. (Augustine)*
4. The sin of Adam infinitely offends God because the gravity of the offense depends on the worth of the one offended. (Anselm)
5. All sin is to be understood as a debt we owe God for the crime of having dishonored him. (Anselm)6. Even Infants owe this debt. (Anslem)
7. In the Old Testament era, God insists that this debt be paid by shedding an innocent animal's blood. (Appeasement school)
8. God could have redeemed man by the simple act of wiling it... (Anselm)
9. ...but God cannot forgive sin without first punishing the sinner. (Anselm)
10. Not only must the redemption mirror the fall, but it must also be as painful as possible since the fall was easy. (Anselm)
11. Only the death of God-man is worthy to serve as a recompense to God for his offended honor. (Anselm)
12. Christ becomes incarnate so his humanity can suffer as a substitute for us. (Anselm)
13. God pours out His wrath on Christ pretending that Christ is we, the ones who actually deserve punishment (Appeasement School)
14. On the cross, Christ becomes literal sin and a literal curse. (Appeasement School)
15. God's eyes are too holy to look upon sin, so the Father turns his back on Christ, abandoning him. (Appeasement School)
16. Christ dies on the cross as an unblemished sacrifice and thereby removes the need for further sacrifice by appeasing God's wrath once and for all. (Appeasement School)
17. Thus Christ's death ransoms us from the wrath of God. (Anselm)

BTW where do you see mutual indwelling between Satan and God?

How can you deny there was a relation separation between God and Satan?

Yet a mutual indwelling (Perichoresis) exists between Christ and the Father

but PSA has the Father turning his back upon the Son.

Pastor Matt Oreilly writing against such a separation theory notes

"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Jesus' cry of dereliction from the cross is often taken to mean that God the Father turned his back on God the Son as he hung on the cross. The idea is that, because Jesus carried the weight of the world's sin on himself, and because a holy God can't look upon sin, the Father thus turned away from the Son. This turning is commonly seen as part of the penalty Jesus paid on our behalf - namely, separation from God.

he continues against a common argument

There's are exegetical grounds for rejecting the separation thesis also. And that has to do with how we understand the quote of Psalm 22:1 by Jesus as he died, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me." The Psalm itself is a hymn that acknowledges the pain of feeling abandoned and yet declares abiding faith in God that he will not abandon his righteous faithful one

And Matt Slick, Calvinist and head of the CARM ministry, includes the following article:

Did Jesus Separate from God the Father on the Cross?​

by Matt Paulson | Mar 3, 2011 | Jesus, Questions
Many good Bible preachers have taught that Jesus was separated from the Father on the cross. I have heard it said that for a short while God the Father turned his face from his beloved Son.

Fortunately he sees the problem


However, in apparent contradiction, these same Bible preachers also say that Jesus is God and He exists in three persons, i.e. the Trinity. Thus, it would seem problematic for these Bible preachers to explain how Jesus (God the Son, incarnate) could be separated from God (the Father) since they are both integral to the Triune God. We need to remember that when anybody sees Jesus, they are seeing God incarnate, or the essence of God (John 14:7).

 

[TomL]

Examine your heart, and see if you just believe what you would rather be true, instead of Jesus' own words on the Cross.

Dishonest every step of the way.

I don't believe what I LIKE and I don't believe WHAT I WANT because I FEAR GOD.

Not because of what I like but because of multiple verses of scripture that lead to a belief of a mutual indwelling/union between the father and the son as well as a verse that ultimately notes there was no separation.

2 Corinthians 5:19 (LEB) — 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

John 14:10–11 (LEB) — 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak from myself, but the Father residing in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if not, believe because of the works themselves.

John 16:31–32 (LEB) — 31 Jesus replied to them, “Now do you believe? 32 Behold, an hour is coming—and has come—that you will be scattered each one to his own home, and you will leave me alone. And I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

and

Psalm 22:1 (LEB) — 1 My God, my God why have you forsaken me? Why are you far from helping me, far from the words of my groaning?

with

Psalm 22:24 (LEB) — 24 because he has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and has not hid his face from him; but he listened to him when he cried for help.

 

[civic]

Indeed, the idea of a separation of the Father and the son is problematic for the doctrine of the Trinity and scripture.

2 Corinthians 5:19 (LEB) — 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

John 14:10–11 (LEB) — 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak from myself, but the Father residing in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if not, believe because of the works themselves.

Perichoresis

The Orthodox Formulation

The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity was enunciated in a series of debates and councils that were in large part prompted by the controversies sparked by such movements as monarchianism and Arianism. The Council of Constantinople (381) formulated a definitive statement in which the church made explicit the beliefs previously held implicitly. The view that prevailed was basically that of Athanasius (293–373), as elaborated and refined by the Cappadocian theologians—Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa.

The formula that expresses the position of Constantinople is “one οὐσία (ousia - essence) in three ὑποστάσεις ((hupostaseis).” The emphasis often seems to be more on the latter part of the formula, that is, the separate existence of the three persons rather than on the one indivisible Godhead. The one Godhead exists simultaneously in three modes of being or hypostases. The idea of “coinherence” or, as later termed, perichoresis, of the persons is emphasized. The Godhead exists “undivided in divided persons.” There is an “identity of nature” in the three hypostases. Basil says:

For all things that are the Father’s are beheld in the Son, and all things that are the Son’s are the Father’s; because the whole Son is in the Father and has all the Father in himself. Thus the hypostasis of the Son becomes as it were form and face of the knowledge of the Father, and the hypostasis of the Father is known in the form of the Son, while the proper quality which is contemplated therein remains for the plain distinction of the hypostases.1

1 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology. (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998), 361.

The article discusses the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, particularly as articulated during the Council of Constantinople in 381. It emphasizes the formulation of "one οὐσία (ousia) in three ὑποστάσεις (hupostaseis)," highlighting the coexistence of three distinct persons within one divine essence. The views of Athanasius and the Cappadocian theologians—Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa—are central to this understanding. They argue for the unity of the Godhead while maintaining the individuality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each possessing unique properties. The article addresses concerns about potential tritheism, asserting that the divine activity of revelation is a unified action involving all three persons. It also emphasizes that the divine essence is simple and indivisible, challenging the application of numerical categories to the Godhead. Overall, the orthodox formulation seeks to balance the distinctiveness of the persons with the unity of the divine substance.

This is an AI-generated summary

Amen brother

 

[civic]

Not because of what I like but because of multiple verses of scripture that lead to a belief of a mutual indwelling/union between the father and the son as well as a verse that ultimately notes there was no separation.

2 Corinthians 5:19 (LEB) — 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

John 14:10–11 (LEB) — 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak from myself, but the Father residing in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if not, believe because of the works themselves.

John 16:31–32 (LEB) — 31 Jesus replied to them, “Now do you believe? 32 Behold, an hour is coming—and has come—that you will be scattered each one to his own home, and you will leave me alone. And I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

and

Psalm 22:1 (LEB) — 1 My God, my God why have you forsaken me? Why are you far from helping me, far from the words of my groaning?

with

Psalm 22:24 (LEB) — 24 because he has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and has not hid his face from him; but he listened to him when he cried for help.

yes the doctrine is true and undeniable. No believer would deny this or else they are denying the Trinity. That makes them not trinitarians if they deny the doctrine.

Tri-Unity=Perichoresis

 

[civic]

PSA

The 17 Claims of the Appeasement School (Atonement School), also called Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

1. Adam as mankind's federal head transmits the guilt of his sin to all mankind. (Augustine)*
2. Because of Original Sin mankind is now totally depraved. (Augustine)*
3. Even Infants, innocent of personal sin, are guilty of Original Sin. (Augustine)*
4. The sin of Adam infinitely offends God because the gravity of the offense depends on the worth of the one offended. (Anselm)
5. All sin is to be understood as a debt we owe God for the crime of having dishonored him. (Anselm)6. Even Infants owe this debt. (Anslem)
7. In the Old Testament era, God insists that this debt be paid by shedding an innocent animal's blood. (Appeasement school)
8. God could have redeemed man by the simple act of wiling it... (Anselm)
9. ...but God cannot forgive sin without first punishing the sinner. (Anselm)
10. Not only must the redemption mirror the fall, but it must also be as painful as possible since the fall was easy. (Anselm)
11. Only the death of God-man is worthy to serve as a recompense to God for his offended honor. (Anselm)
12. Christ becomes incarnate so his humanity can suffer as a substitute for us. (Anselm)
13. God pours out His wrath on Christ pretending that Christ is we, the ones who actually deserve punishment (Appeasement School)
14. On the cross, Christ becomes literal sin and a literal curse. (Appeasement School)
15. God's eyes are too holy to look upon sin, so the Father turns his back on Christ, abandoning him. (Appeasement School)
16. Christ dies on the cross as an unblemished sacrifice and thereby removes the need for further sacrifice by appeasing God's wrath once and for all. (Appeasement School)
17. Thus Christ's death ransoms us from the wrath of God. (Anselm)

BTW where do you see mutual indwelling between Satan and God?

How can you deny there was a relation separation between God and Satan?

Yet a mutual indwelling (Perichoresis) exists between Christ and the Father

but PSA has the Father turning his back upon the Son.

Pastor Matt Oreilly writing against such a separation theory notes

"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Jesus' cry of dereliction from the cross is often taken to mean that God the Father turned his back on God the Son as he hung on the cross. The idea is that, because Jesus carried the weight of the world's sin on himself, and because a holy God can't look upon sin, the Father thus turned away from the Son. This turning is commonly seen as part of the penalty Jesus paid on our behalf - namely, separation from God.

he continues against a common argument

There's are exegetical grounds for rejecting the separation thesis also. And that has to do with how we understand the quote of Psalm 22:1 by Jesus as he died, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me." The Psalm itself is a hymn that acknowledges the pain of feeling abandoned and yet declares abiding faith in God that he will not abandon his righteous faithful one

And Matt Slick, Calvinist and head of the CARM ministry, includes the following article:

Did Jesus Separate from God the Father on the Cross?​

by Matt Paulson | Mar 3, 2011 | Jesus, Questions
Many good Bible preachers have taught that Jesus was separated from the Father on the cross. I have heard it said that for a short while God the Father turned his face from his beloved Son.

Fortunately he sees the problem


However, in apparent contradiction, these same Bible preachers also say that Jesus is God and He exists in three persons, i.e. the Trinity. Thus, it would seem problematic for these Bible preachers to explain how Jesus (God the Son, incarnate) could be separated from God (the Father) since they are both integral to the Triune God. We need to remember that when anybody sees Jesus, they are seeing God incarnate, or the essence of God (John 14:7).

Yep well done.

 

[TomL]

Yep well done.

Thank you!

 

[praise_yeshua]

PSA does NOT TEACH ontological separation and NEVER HAS.

STOP STRAW MANNING THE POSITION.

No, PSA does NOT "divide" the Trinity.

This is an INVALID argument based on INVALID premises.

Wrath does not require ontological separation.

Nonsense. You believe wrath separates completely absent any sense whatsoever of comfort or abiding presence of God.

That is what you teach.

Satan is tormented eternally in the PRESENCE of the Lamb.

Wow..... "Presence" is more than just witnessing something. What a ridiculous application. I've mentioned this before but you want "your cake and to eat it too" in this. You want to believe Christ had to suffer eternal damnation for you but you.... KNOW that is impossible. So you fabricate nonsense correlations such as this that have no real meaning.

If you didn't value sin, then you'd do with sin what God does with sin. God forgives and destroys sin. God defeats the last enemy.

Did you know that death isn't even defeated yet?

God is OMNIPRESENT (how soon we forget), and there IS no such thing as a logical separation from him, separation language is a MISNOMER for "separation from God's goodness," and NOT God altogether.

Just how do you separate God's goodness from God at any level? Do you listen to what you say at all?

A negative relation IS NOT an ontological rift—PERIOD.

Do you even know that ontological involves metaphysical abstracts?

That's NON SEQUITUR, it does NOT follow.

It doesn't follow in your mind but that is the issue. Your mind. Not reality. It makes perfect sense.

I swear, it's like no one even listens to any counter arguments but repeats the same illogical brainwashed mantras over and over.

RESPOND TO THE ARGUMENTS INSTEAD OF REPEATING MANTRAS.

WRATH REQUIRES PRESENCE.

Maybe you should study biblical languages more. "Presence".... Humm. Lets review the Scriptures.

Lev_22:3 Say to them, ‘If any one of all your offspring throughout your generations approaches the holy things that the people of Israel dedicate to the LORD, while he has an uncleanness, that person shall be cut off from my presence: I am the LORD.

You sound like a Calvinist that try to sell their beliefs with nonsense such as the "two wills" of God. Most Arminians are Calvinist in practice.

NT....

πρόθεσις is rich and often misunderstood. The ESV actually translates πρόθεσις "Presence".

Mat 12:4 how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?

The use of Presence in context of the "Bread of Life" that came down from heaven has so much meaning and you're turning it into nothing but "observation"....

 

[praise_yeshua]

Examine your heart, and see if you just believe what you would rather be true, instead of Jesus' own words on the Cross.

Dishonest every step of the way.

I don't believe what I LIKE and I don't believe WHAT I WANT because I FEAR GOD.

1Jn 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Did Jesus Separate from God the Father on the Cross?
by Matt Paulson | Mar 3, 2011 | Jesus, Questions
Many good Bible preachers have taught that Jesus was separated from the Father on the cross. I have heard it said that for a short while God the Father turned his face from his beloved Son.

Fortunately he sees the problem


However, in apparent contradiction, these same Bible preachers also say that Jesus is God and He exists in three persons, i.e. the Trinity. Thus, it would seem problematic for these Bible preachers to explain how Jesus (God the Son, incarnate) could be separated from God (the Father) since they are both integral to the Triune God. We need to remember that when anybody sees Jesus, they are seeing God incarnate, or the essence of God (John 14:7).

How about we deal with the Truth of what this supposed "separation" involves.....

Our lives are more than just our bodily form. There was an emotional battle that took place against sin on the cross of Jesus Christ. The shame that Jesus took upon Himself was emotionally devastating upon the man Jesus Christ.

Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Heb 12:3 For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.

It wasn't that Christ was separated from the Father. In fact, it was the Father that brought comfort to His Son. The union they shared in Essence could never be defeated. The Holy Trinity shared in this emotional destress battling against sin.

Joh 16:32 Behold, the hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home, and will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone, for the Father is with me.
Joh 16:33 I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”

Men left Christ alone and abandoned Him!

 

[civic]

1Jn 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

Amen

 

[TomL]

How about we deal with the Truth of what this supposed "separation" involves.....

You are not denying that some do teach such a separation, right?

No matter how someone defines smaller aspects of PSA, one thing that cannot be separated from it is the concept of vicarious punishment. The idea is that Jesus was punished by God in our place. Something the proponents of PSA all agree on is that mankind deserved punishment, so God sent His Son in the flesh to die the death mankind deserved in their place. The respected Dr. William Lane Craig put it thusly: "Penal substitution in a theological context may be defined as the doctrine that God inflicted upon Christ the suffering that we deserved as punishment for our sins, as a result of which we no longer deserve punishment."[32] On the PSA system God actively punished Jesus to spare mankind the punishment for sin. The holy, righteous, and perfect judge chose to punish the innocent and guiltless incarnate Son to satiate His own justice and wrath against guilty, unrighteous sinners. Through PSA the law demands a punishment, and the punishment must be inflicted - regardless of the victim being guilty or innocent. This is evident since God is willing to punish an innocent, in place of the guilty, and call it justice.[33] This doctrine goes far beyond the fundamental concept of a vicarious punishment, which already has many questionable ramifications regarding the character of God. PSA also teaches God forsook Jesus and condemned Him on the cross. That God the Father damned God the Son. John Piper put it this way: “We cannot begin to fathom all that this would mean between the Father and the Son. To be forsaken by God is the cry of the damned, and he was damned for us. So he used these words because there was a real forsakenness.”[34] On this view, Jesus was not only punished in the place of sinners but was damned and forsaken by God. How God the Father can forsake God the Son while on the cross appears to be a great mystery in PSA. One argument that is made to bridge this gap is to appeal to the nature of the Son. In his book The Murder of Jesus, John MacArthur described it as: “Christ died in our place and in our stead - and He received the very same outpouring of divine wrath in all its fury that we deserved for our sin. It was a punishment so severe that a mortal could spend all eternity in the torments of hell, and still he would not have begun to exhaust the divine wrath that was heaped on Christ at the cross. This was the true measure of Christ's sufferings on the cross. The physical pains of crucifixion - dreadful as they were - were nothing compared to the wrath of the Father against Him.”[35] MacArthur continues by stating we cannot “begin to fathom” what it would take to pay for our sins. That even our worst nightmares of hell were “realized” in Christ at that moment on the cross as God “abandoned” Him. He then claims that, even though God abandoned Him, the Father’s love was never interrupted.[36] MacArthur says, “Though there was surely no interruption in the Father's love for Him as a Son, God nonetheless turned away from Him and forsook Him as our substitute.” According to MacArthur, God remained loving His Son, despite Him actively forsaking Him.

John Calvin wrote: “Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death. In order to interpose between us and God's anger, and satisfy his righteous judgment, it was necessary that he should feel the weight of divine vengeance. Whence also it was necessary that he should engage, as it were, at close quarters with the powers of hell and the horrors of eternal death... Hence there is nothing strange in its being said that he descended to hell, seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God. It is frivolous and ridiculous to object that in this way the order is perverted, it being absurd that an event which preceded burial should be placed after it. But after explaining what Christ endured in the sight of man, the Creed appropriately adds the invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he endured before God, to teach us that not only was the body of Christ given up as the price of redemption, but that there was a greater and more excellent price—that he bore in his soul the tortures of condemned and ruined man.”[41] In Calvin’s view, it was important Jesus did not just descend into death, or the place of the dead, but rather that Christ experienced all the tortuous agony of a physical and spiritual death as punishment from God in mankind’s place. It was this punishment where Christ “bore all our infirmities” in our place.[42] According to Calvin, Jesus suffered the punishment of physical and spiritual death, and He paid off all moral debt in full as man’s “sponsor” through His death.
Hess, William. Crushing the Great Serpent: Did God Punish Jesus? (pp. 38-41). Kindle Edition.

Our lives are more than just our bodily form. There was an emotional battle that took place against sin on the cross of Jesus Christ. The shame that Jesus took upon Himself was emotionally devastating upon the man Jesus Christ.

Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Heb 12:3 For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.

It wasn't that Christ was separated from the Father. In fact, it was the Father that brought comfort to His Son. The union they shared in Essence could never be defeated. The Holy Trinity shared in this emotional destress battling against sin.

So you deny separation. That is good

Joh 16:32 Behold, the hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home, and will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone, for the Father is with me.
Joh 16:33 I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”

Men left Christ alone and abandoned Him!

Yes, that is among the verses I quoted.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You are not denying that some do teach such a separation, right?

No matter how someone defines smaller aspects of PSA, one thing that cannot be separated from it is the concept of vicarious punishment. The idea is that Jesus was punished by God in our place. Something the proponents of PSA all agree on is that mankind deserved punishment, so God sent His Son in the flesh to die the death mankind deserved in their place. The respected Dr. William Lane Craig put it thusly: "Penal substitution in a theological context may be defined as the doctrine that God inflicted upon Christ the suffering that we deserved as punishment for our sins, as a result of which we no longer deserve punishment."[32] On the PSA system God actively punished Jesus to spare mankind the punishment for sin. The holy, righteous, and perfect judge chose to punish the innocent and guiltless incarnate Son to satiate His own justice and wrath against guilty, unrighteous sinners. Through PSA the law demands a punishment, and the punishment must be inflicted - regardless of the victim being guilty or innocent. This is evident since God is willing to punish an innocent, in place of the guilty, and call it justice.[33] This doctrine goes far beyond the fundamental concept of a vicarious punishment, which already has many questionable ramifications regarding the character of God. PSA also teaches God forsook Jesus and condemned Him on the cross. That God the Father damned God the Son. John Piper put it this way: “We cannot begin to fathom all that this would mean between the Father and the Son. To be forsaken by God is the cry of the damned, and he was damned for us. So he used these words because there was a real forsakenness.”[34] On this view, Jesus was not only punished in the place of sinners but was damned and forsaken by God. How God the Father can forsake God the Son while on the cross appears to be a great mystery in PSA. One argument that is made to bridge this gap is to appeal to the nature of the Son. In his book The Murder of Jesus, John MacArthur described it as: “Christ died in our place and in our stead - and He received the very same outpouring of divine wrath in all its fury that we deserved for our sin. It was a punishment so severe that a mortal could spend all eternity in the torments of hell, and still he would not have begun to exhaust the divine wrath that was heaped on Christ at the cross. This was the true measure of Christ's sufferings on the cross. The physical pains of crucifixion - dreadful as they were - were nothing compared to the wrath of the Father against Him.”[35] MacArthur continues by stating we cannot “begin to fathom” what it would take to pay for our sins. That even our worst nightmares of hell were “realized” in Christ at that moment on the cross as God “abandoned” Him. He then claims that, even though God abandoned Him, the Father’s love was never interrupted.[36] MacArthur says, “Though there was surely no interruption in the Father's love for Him as a Son, God nonetheless turned away from Him and forsook Him as our substitute.” According to MacArthur, God remained loving His Son, despite Him actively forsaking Him.

John Calvin wrote: “Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death. In order to interpose between us and God's anger, and satisfy his righteous judgment, it was necessary that he should feel the weight of divine vengeance. Whence also it was necessary that he should engage, as it were, at close quarters with the powers of hell and the horrors of eternal death... Hence there is nothing strange in its being said that he descended to hell, seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God. It is frivolous and ridiculous to object that in this way the order is perverted, it being absurd that an event which preceded burial should be placed after it. But after explaining what Christ endured in the sight of man, the Creed appropriately adds the invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he endured before God, to teach us that not only was the body of Christ given up as the price of redemption, but that there was a greater and more excellent price—that he bore in his soul the tortures of condemned and ruined man.”[41] In Calvin’s view, it was important Jesus did not just descend into death, or the place of the dead, but rather that Christ experienced all the tortuous agony of a physical and spiritual death as punishment from God in mankind’s place. It was this punishment where Christ “bore all our infirmities” in our place.[42] According to Calvin, Jesus suffered the punishment of physical and spiritual death, and He paid off all moral debt in full as man’s “sponsor” through His death.
Hess, William. Crushing the Great Serpent: Did God Punish Jesus? (pp. 38-41). Kindle Edition.


So you deny separation. That is good



Yes, that is among the verses I quoted.

To explain my intent, I'm not looking to just "bash" PSA entirely. There is guilt that exists that is removed in the Atonement. Guilt that is not solely our own. Guilt that is due all of us because of our flesh. Against such there is condemnation. PSA overstates the requirements of dealing with this "guilt" but we must understand what is our responsibility and ultimately our guilt that common to humanity.

I'm being exacting in this.

There are many "Universalists" and etc that have a different intent in rejecting PSA than I do. They seek to avoid the aspect of guilt within our human existence. We can't avoid this in what the "Atonement" really means.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You are not denying that some do teach such a separation, right?

No matter how someone defines smaller aspects of PSA, one thing that cannot be separated from it is the concept of vicarious punishment. The idea is that Jesus was punished by God in our place. Something the proponents of PSA all agree on is that mankind deserved punishment, so God sent His Son in the flesh to die the death mankind deserved in their place. The respected Dr. William Lane Craig put it thusly: "Penal substitution in a theological context may be defined as the doctrine that God inflicted upon Christ the suffering that we deserved as punishment for our sins, as a result of which we no longer deserve punishment."[32] On the PSA system God actively punished Jesus to spare mankind the punishment for sin. The holy, righteous, and perfect judge chose to punish the innocent and guiltless incarnate Son to satiate His own justice and wrath against guilty, unrighteous sinners. Through PSA the law demands a punishment, and the punishment must be inflicted - regardless of the victim being guilty or innocent. This is evident since God is willing to punish an innocent, in place of the guilty, and call it justice.[33] This doctrine goes far beyond the fundamental concept of a vicarious punishment, which already has many questionable ramifications regarding the character of God. PSA also teaches God forsook Jesus and condemned Him on the cross. That God the Father damned God the Son. John Piper put it this way: “We cannot begin to fathom all that this would mean between the Father and the Son. To be forsaken by God is the cry of the damned, and he was damned for us. So he used these words because there was a real forsakenness.”[34] On this view, Jesus was not only punished in the place of sinners but was damned and forsaken by God. How God the Father can forsake God the Son while on the cross appears to be a great mystery in PSA. One argument that is made to bridge this gap is to appeal to the nature of the Son. In his book The Murder of Jesus, John MacArthur described it as: “Christ died in our place and in our stead - and He received the very same outpouring of divine wrath in all its fury that we deserved for our sin. It was a punishment so severe that a mortal could spend all eternity in the torments of hell, and still he would not have begun to exhaust the divine wrath that was heaped on Christ at the cross. This was the true measure of Christ's sufferings on the cross. The physical pains of crucifixion - dreadful as they were - were nothing compared to the wrath of the Father against Him.”[35] MacArthur continues by stating we cannot “begin to fathom” what it would take to pay for our sins. That even our worst nightmares of hell were “realized” in Christ at that moment on the cross as God “abandoned” Him. He then claims that, even though God abandoned Him, the Father’s love was never interrupted.[36] MacArthur says, “Though there was surely no interruption in the Father's love for Him as a Son, God nonetheless turned away from Him and forsook Him as our substitute.” According to MacArthur, God remained loving His Son, despite Him actively forsaking Him.

John Calvin wrote: “Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death. In order to interpose between us and God's anger, and satisfy his righteous judgment, it was necessary that he should feel the weight of divine vengeance. Whence also it was necessary that he should engage, as it were, at close quarters with the powers of hell and the horrors of eternal death... Hence there is nothing strange in its being said that he descended to hell, seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God. It is frivolous and ridiculous to object that in this way the order is perverted, it being absurd that an event which preceded burial should be placed after it. But after explaining what Christ endured in the sight of man, the Creed appropriately adds the invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he endured before God, to teach us that not only was the body of Christ given up as the price of redemption, but that there was a greater and more excellent price—that he bore in his soul the tortures of condemned and ruined man.”[41] In Calvin’s view, it was important Jesus did not just descend into death, or the place of the dead, but rather that Christ experienced all the tortuous agony of a physical and spiritual death as punishment from God in mankind’s place. It was this punishment where Christ “bore all our infirmities” in our place.[42] According to Calvin, Jesus suffered the punishment of physical and spiritual death, and He paid off all moral debt in full as man’s “sponsor” through His death.
Hess, William. Crushing the Great Serpent: Did God Punish Jesus? (pp. 38-41). Kindle Edition.


So you deny separation. That is good



Yes, that is among the verses I quoted.

To elaborate more.... lets review the following narrative in Romans 8.

Rom 8:18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.
Rom 8:19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God.
Rom 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope
Rom 8:21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.
Rom 8:23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

I believe any and every theologian needs to deal with the bondage that this entire world faces in the existence upon the face of this earth.

What frees creation itself from bondage?