The death of Jesus was a sacrifice

[Logikos]

sorry, you have not shown Jesus died spiritually

Saying it doesn't make it so. The fact that you remain unconvinced is not relevant to whether I've made the argument nor does it serve as any sort of rebuttal to that argument.

You claimed it ignoring its effect on the Trinity

I've ignored nothing other than your undefined and unsubstantiated doctrinal claims.

not quite the same as your view fracturing the trinity and setting God the son and God the father at odds

I've not set them at odds, that's you intentionally misrepresenting my position because you have nothing with which to actually refute it.

And, yes it is the same thing anyway! I do not know how the Trinity works! We are not told how it works and probably for very good reason! What we know is that Jesus was God and that He died, as I have already established. There is no need to believe that Jesus ever stopped being God in anyway whatsoever. In fact, quite the contrary! Jesus Himself said that He had the power to lay down His own life AND the power to take it up again. We are also told that Jesus was raised by the power of the Holy Spirit and so by this we can infer that Jesus and the Spirit while separate persons of the Trinity, are also One in some important way. Since we also know that the Father and the Spirit are One we can further infer that Jesus and the Father remained One in some important way. So there is no fracturing of the Trinity going on here just a function of the Divine relationship that is not explained in sufficient detail. So much so, in fact, that you would literally have no grounds to claim otherwise.

So, at the end of the day, I have not only sound reason but scriptural evidence to support my doctrine. So far, all you've presented in your boldly declared personal opinions and intentional mischaracterizations of my position.

Yes but imputing the sinless lamb a sinner is another matter

Which I have not done!

PSA holds to an exchange - Christ is imputed with all the sins of the world and man is imputed with righteousness

I do not base my doctrine on what PSA holds to. I wouldn't know what it holds to.

BUT....

To the notion that Christ was imputed with sin and that we who believe are imputed with righteousness, I say, "AMEN!"

2 Corinthians 5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.​

​

Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:​

of course, you did

Saying it doesn't make it so.

You held that God the son was separated from God the father and died spiritually

Yes, I did say that. You don't get to simply declare that to mean something ugly. No one cares what your personal opinions are, least of of me.

Except you appear to be unaware there are multiple theories of atonement and there has never been one which was accepted by all parties Even one which hold to a substitutionary atonement

I couldn't care less! I do not take a survey of theologians and then figure out which one of their theories I like the best. If you'd like to make a biblical argument then I'd read it gladly but your appeal to authority/popularity will have exactly zero effect on me.

No see above

Precisely! Your mere declarations of your doctrine that are presented with no arguments whatsoever to support them don't convince me any more than I'd convince you by doing the same! It will accomplish boring me to tears but little else.

That appears totally gratuitous.

Perhaps a bit but not totally. I've been doing this a long time and so experience tells me that if you had any actual arguments to make, you'd have made them already.

You have not shown anything I have stated is untrue of PSA

I have made actual arguments for the positions that I have affirmatively put forward. Arguments that you haven't even attempted to refute. Whether those positions conform to whatever it is you're calling PSA, isn't anything I care about.

 

[Joe]

This question makes no sense. It's like you're asking me to describe the color green without employing the concept of light.
Jesus' death WAS the wrath of God against sin! It's not like Jesus was humanely euthanized like someone beloved elderly pet. He was tortured to death and spent three days separated from the Father!

The question does makes sense. Using your own analogy, you are trying to describe the atonement (the color green) without employing scriptural evidence (the concept of light). You are assuming what is not there.

Please, provide the verses (the concept of light) that Jesus Christ was punished by His Father. You will never find it.
* The word punish is used one time in the NT. (Acts 4:21)
* The word punished is used four times in the NT. (Acts 22:5, Acts 26:11, 2Th 1:9, 2Pe 2:9)
* The word punishment is used four times in the NT. (Matt 25:46, 2Cor 2:6, Heb 10:29, 1 Pe 2:14)
* The word wrath is used 38 times in the NT

In all these instances, not one time are any of these words used towards the Lord.

You told me, "Jesus' life was not taken from Him, He laid it down of His own accord and by His own power (John 10:14-18)", and I completely agree because it is scripture.

So, if He laid down His life and no one took it from Him, then God did not pour wrath upon His Son. Instead, God's Son gave up His life unto death as a sin offering that removes the guilt of our sin. This is not poured wrath. It is the single act of righteousness that saves us (Rom 5:18).

The greatest thing known to creation and recorded for us is about God's Son coming into our form and dying for us, and never once is it mentioned that God poured wrath upon His Son. Not one single author of the bible ever mentions such a thing. Why? Because it did not happen. But what is recorded is a sinless man giving Himself up unto death on our behalf that we could be made right with God. "For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ." (2Co 5:21 )

Think about it for a minute. If a man tortures and then slaughters his son because he loved others that made him angry, and the only way he could not be angry with the others is to take out his wrathful anger on his son, what would we do and why? Let me answer, we would arrest the man, try the man, and convict the man of many heinous felonies, and rightfully so.

Pro 17:15 "He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD."

I hope you can understand how pagan thoughts are found in the doctrine of PSA. It makes God out to be something He is not, and devalues the righteousness of Christ to only be an object of wrath when He willingly gave His life in exchange-ransom to purchase us. This my friend is love, the very thing God is.

God Bless

 

[civic]

The question does makes sense. Using your own analogy, you are trying to describe the atonement (the color green) without employing scriptural evidence (the concept of light). You are assuming what is not there.

Please, provide the verses (the concept of light) that Jesus Christ was punished by His Father. You will never find it.
* The word punish is used one time in the NT. (Acts 4:21)
* The word punished is used four times in the NT. (Acts 22:5, Acts 26:11, 2Th 1:9, 2Pe 2:9)
* The word punishment is used four times in the NT. (Matt 25:46, 2Cor 2:6, Heb 10:29, 1 Pe 2:14)
* The word wrath is used 38 times in the NT

In all these instances, not one time are any of these words used towards the Lord.

You that told me, "Jesus' life was not taken from Him, He laid it down of His own accord and by His own power (John 10:14-18), and I completely agree because it is scripture.

So, if He laid down His life and no one took it from Him, then God did not pour wrath upon His Son. Instead, God's Son gave up His life unto death as a sin offering that removes the guilt of our sin. This is not poured wrath. It is the single act of righteousness that saves us (Rom 5:18).

The greatest thing known to creation and recorded for us is about God's Son coming into our form and dying for us, and never once is it mentioned that God poured wrath upon His Son. Not one single author of the bible ever mentions such a thing. Why? Because it did not happen. But what is recorded is a sinless man giving Himself up unto death on our behalf that we could be made right with God. "For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ." (2Co 5:21 )

Think about it for a minute. If a man tortures and then slaughters his son because he loved others that made him angry, and the only way he could not be angry with the others is to take out his wrathful anger on his son, what would we do and why? Let me answer, we would arrest the man, try the man, and convict the man of many heinous felonies, and rightfully so.

Pro 17:15 "He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD."

I hope you can understand how pagan thoughts are found in the doctrine of PSA. It makes God out to be something He is not, and devalues the righteousness of Christ to only be an object of wrath when He willingly gave His life in exchange-ransom to purchase us. This my friend is love, the very thing God is.

God Bless

Excellent response !!

 

[TomL]

Saying it doesn't make it so. The fact that you remain unconvinced is not relevant to whether I've made the argument nor does it serve as any sort of rebuttal to that argument.

And your saying he did, did not make it so.

You stated

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”

And I replied run the reference

That is a quote from the old testament

Psalm 22:1–24 (ESV) — 1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning? 2 O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer, and by night, but I find no rest. 3 Yet you are holy, enthroned on the praises of Israel. 4 In you our fathers trusted; they trusted, and you delivered them. 5 To you they cried and were rescued; in you they trusted and were not put to shame. 6 But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by mankind and despised by the people. 7 All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads; 8 “He trusts in the LORD; let him deliver him; let him rescue him, for he delights in him!” 9 Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts. 10 On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother’s womb you have been my God. 11 Be not far from me, for trouble is near, and there is none to help. 12 Many bulls encompass me; strong bulls of Bashan surround me; 13 they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion. 14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted within my breast; 15 my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws; you lay me in the dust of death. 16 For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet— 17 I can count all my bones— they stare and gloat over me; 18 they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots. 19 But you, O LORD, do not be far off! O you my help, come quickly to my aid! 20 Deliver my soul from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dog! 21 Save me from the mouth of the lion! You have rescued me from the horns of the wild oxen! 22 I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will praise you: 23 You who fear the LORD, praise him! All you offspring of Jacob, glorify him, and stand in awe of him, all you offspring of Israel! 24 For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him.

where have you addressed it?

I've ignored nothing other than your undefined and unsubstantiated doctrinal claims.

Seems to me scripture is a documented claim

I've not set them at odds, that's you intentionally misrepresenting my position because you have nothing with which to actually refute it.

You have not proven Jesus died spiritually. You claimed it

Without any consideration of its effect on the godhead

AS a trinity Jesus the father are one in essence, unity, and purpose

So how can you separate him from the father assuming you are a trinitarian - are you?

Or how can you break up the hypostatic union by separating the divinity from the human

remember, Christ is of one essence with the father

 

[civic]

And your saying he did, did not make it so.

You stated


And I replied run the reference

That is a quote from the old testament

Psalm 22:1–24 (ESV) — 1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning? 2 O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer, and by night, but I find no rest. 3 Yet you are holy, enthroned on the praises of Israel. 4 In you our fathers trusted; they trusted, and you delivered them. 5 To you they cried and were rescued; in you they trusted and were not put to shame. 6 But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by mankind and despised by the people. 7 All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads; 8 “He trusts in the LORD; let him deliver him; let him rescue him, for he delights in him!” 9 Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts. 10 On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother’s womb you have been my God. 11 Be not far from me, for trouble is near, and there is none to help. 12 Many bulls encompass me; strong bulls of Bashan surround me; 13 they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion. 14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted within my breast; 15 my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws; you lay me in the dust of death. 16 For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet— 17 I can count all my bones— they stare and gloat over me; 18 they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots. 19 But you, O LORD, do not be far off! O you my help, come quickly to my aid! 20 Deliver my soul from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dog! 21 Save me from the mouth of the lion! You have rescued me from the horns of the wild oxen! 22 I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will praise you: 23 You who fear the LORD, praise him! All you offspring of Jacob, glorify him, and stand in awe of him, all you offspring of Israel! 24 For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him.

where have you addressed it?




Seems to me scripture is a documented claim

You have not proven Jesus died spiritually. You claimed it

Without any consideration of its effect on the godhead

AS a trinity Jesus the father are one in essence, unity, and purpose

So how can you separate him from the father assuming you are a trinitarian - are you?

Or how can you break up the hypostatic union by separating the divinity from the human

remember, Christ is of one essence with the father

Yes its a Dis-Unity, Disfunctional not a Tri-Unity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They teach the false doctrine that the Father was angry, wrath, vengeful, retributive and separated Himself from the Son while on the cross bearing His wrath upon sin. What an unbiblical, un-trinitarian, heretical and damaging doctrine. It has a dysfunctional Godhead pitting the Father against the Son. The gods of the pagans, greek philosophy, gnostics etc.......

The reformers have duped the church with both PSA and TULIP. The 2 doctrines must work together in that system. The one needs the other for each of them to work. PSA was invented because if tulip. They needed a doctrine on the atonement to go hand in hand with their soteriology- tulip.

 

[TomL]

Yes its a Dis-Unity, Disfunctional not a Tri-Unity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They teach the false doctrine that the Father was angry, wrath, vengeful, retributive and separated Himself from the Son while on the cross bearing His wrath upon sin. What an unbiblical, un-trinitarian, heretical and damaging doctrine. It has a dysfunctional Godhead pitting the Father against the Son. The gods of the pagans, greek philosophy, gnostics etc.......

The reformers have duped the church with both PSA and TULIP. The 2 doctrines must work together in that system. The one needs the other for each of them to work.

That is a good point. PSA was invented by Calvinistic reformers to be consistent with their theology

 

[civic]

Penal substitution rest on three basic ideas. First and foremost, the notion of retributive justice, that God requires the death of a perfect sacrifice to forgive our sins. In short, that on the cross Jesus Christ died to pay back God’s justice. Second, that the wrath of God must be appeased, that God is full of wrath towards us and must have that wrath satisfied, or “propitiated” in Christ’s death. And finally, the third notion is that God turned His back on Jesus Christ in His death, that Jesus was forsaken and abandoned because God cannot look upon our sin.

Penal substitution is the most common atonement model within the evangelical church today. It’s often preached with the analogy of a courtroom. God is a holy judge, and we are the guilty sinners. God’s justice demands payment, demands our death, and therefore God’s wrath is against us until payment is made. We deserve punishment, but we are unable to pay back God’s justice or appease His wrath. But Jesus Christ came out of love for us and died in our place; God punished Jesus instead of us, thus paying back the Father’s justice, satisfying His wrath, and saving us from hell. God turned His back on Jesus Christ, and in forsaking Him, God now accepts us as His children. God’s wrath is appeased, God’s (retributive) justice is satisfied, and God can now accept us as His own. This is penal substitution: Jesus Christ is punished (penal) in our place (substitution).

Belousek’s Argument

There are many problems I have with this theory, many of which are far too time consuming to address here. Like I said, I plan to eventually put together a short book which contains a concise argument against penal substitution. But here I want to discuss the main argument in Belousek’s book against penal substitution.

Belousek brilliantly sees the foundational presupposition behind penal substitution to be the idea that God’s justice is retributive, that is, that God’s justice demands equal payment for an offense. In short, penal substitution rests upon the lex talionis, the “eye for an eye” of the levitical law. God’s justice demands our death as payment for sin, and God is bound by this kind of justice and thus cannot forgive our sins without payment. Thus Jesus suffers God’s punishment in our place, so that God’s wrath can be appease and we can be forgiven. But the question we have to ask is this: do the scriptures understand God’s justice in this way? Is the justice of God, revealed to us in Jesus Christ, a retributive kind of justice or a redemptive kind of justice?

Simply, the underlying presupposition of penal substitution, the foundation upon which the entire theory rests, is that God’s justice is retributive, that God’s justice demands payment for an offense, tit for tat.

Belousek argues, rightly, that God’s justice is not retributive. Jesus Himself argues against any “eye for an eye” sort of justice in the sermon on the mount. (Matthew 5:38-42) But penal substitutionary atonement basis its entire paradigm on this idea. Belousek thus carefully and thoughtfully takes us through the bible and shows us that this idea comes not from the scriptures but from Greek philosophy. Aristotle and Socrates, who in turn influenced Augustine and thus infiltrated the west with this idea, are the originators of this kind of justice. The scriptures actually have no concept of retributive justice (not even the lex talionis, Belousek argues, is God’s will). The only kind of justice we see in the scriptures is the justice of mercy, the justice which heals, the justice of redemption. The scriptures present a kind of justice that looks more like “making right what’s wrong” (redemptive justice) instead balancing the legal scales (retributive justice). Belousek brilliantly takes you through ever problematic scripture, from Isaiah 53, Romans 3, the levitical law, and the prophets, in order to show this point.

The beauty of this argument is in its successful identification and removal of the foundation of penal substitution; what remains for the rest of the book is the joyful and systematic demolition of this theory. There is nothing left standing by the end of this book. There is no scripture which has not been examined, there is no presupposition left hiding, penal substitution is effectively put to death. There is an elegance and a brilliance to Belousek’s argument, and I have not doubt that this book will be the end of penal substitutionary atonement for anyone who reads it—and hopefully for the evangelical church as a whole.

If you have ever doubted penal substitution, but then thought, what about Isaiah 53? What about Romans 3? Then please, read this book. Maybe you are someone who wholeheartedly believes penal substitution is the gospel, then please, read this book.

I cannot stress how highly I recommend Belousek’s book. Perhaps one day the church will look back to it and say, “This was the book that once and for all exposed and demolished the heretical penal substitutionary atonement theory!. SDMorris

hope this helps !!!

 

[Joe]

I cannot stress how highly I recommend Belousek’s book. Perhaps one day the church will look back to it and say, “This was the book that once and for all exposed and demolished the heretical penal substitutionary atonement theory!. SDMorris

Brother, what is the title of the book?

 

[Logikos]

It makes God out to be something He is not, and devalues the righteousness of Christ to only be an object of wrath when He willingly gave His life in exchange-ransom to purchase us. This my friend is love, the very thing God is.

It is only your frankly weird mischaracterization of it that makes God out to be a murderer, Joe!
The actual doctrine doesn't teach anything similar to what you're saying. Jesus is God Himself, that seems to be the key aspect of this that you're missing, or at least one of them. The Two are One! It isn't murder if the person dying is doing so willingly and for a purpose and Jesus didn't commit suicide!

Another key point you seem to be missing is that death is the punishment! The only reason He had to die is because death is the consequence of sin! That's the debt we owe! And that isn't arbitrary determined by God either, by the way. Sin is a rebellion against God. God is life. A rebellion against God is a rebellion against life, thus the loss of life (i.e. death) is the logical consequence. We owe God our life due to our sin because it is God against whom we have sinned. Jesus, our Kinsman Redeemer, rescues us from this debt by paying for it with His life which is of INFINITE value. That's why it had to be God doing the dying. One man dying would pay the debt for another man but we're talking about the whole human race and billions of lives and so a more noble coin is needed!

In short, there is no sadism happening here! It is simply dealing with sin in a just manner such that mercy can be offered without compromising righteousness.

 

[TomL]

It is only your frankly weird mischaracterization of it that makes God out to be a murderer, Joe!
The actual doctrine doesn't teach anything similar to what you're saying. Jesus is God Himself, that seems to be the key aspect of this that you're missing, or at least one of them. The Two are One! It isn't murder if the person dying is doing so willingly and for a purpose and Jesus didn't commit suicide!

Another key point you seem to be missing is that death is the punishment! The only reason He had to die is because death is the consequence of sin! That's the debt we owe! And that isn't arbitrary determined by God either, by the way. Sin is a rebellion against God. God is life. A rebellion against God is a rebellion against life, thus the loss of life (i.e. death) is the logical consequence. We owe God our life due to our sin because it is God against whom we have sinned. Jesus, our Kinsman Redeemer, rescues us from this debt by paying for it with His life which is of INFINITE value. That's why it had to be God doing the dying. One man dying would pay the debt for another man but we're talking about the whole human race and billions of lives and so a more noble coin is needed!

In short, there is no sadism happening here! It is simply dealing with sin in a just manner such that mercy can be offered without compromising righteousness.

Jesus was not a sinner nor was He guilty of sin

no reason for him to be punished or be the object of God's wrath

Christ remained righteous and by no means did he become a sinner. He bore sins in atonement. He remains holy, sinless

Isaiah 53:11 (KJV 1900) — 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; For he shall bear their iniquities.

Ephesians 5:2 (ESV) — 2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

As the Levitical sacrifice remained holy and undefiled

Leviticus 6:25–29 (ESV) — 25 “Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering. In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the LORD; it is most holy. 26 The priest who offers it for sin shall eat it. In a holy place it shall be eaten, in the court of the tent of meeting. 27 Whatever touches its flesh shall be holy, and when any of its blood is splashed on a garment, you shall wash that on which it was splashed in a holy place. 28 And the earthenware vessel in which it is boiled shall be broken. But if it is boiled in a bronze vessel, that shall be scoured and rinsed in water. 29 Every male among the priests may eat of it; it is most holy.

so Christ remained holy and offered up himself without spot or blemish

Hebrews 9:13–14 (ESV) — 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

 

[Logikos]

And your saying he did, did not make it so.

No kidding! That's why I made an argument instead of merely showing up and stating a naked, unsupported doctrine.

You stated


And I replied run the reference

That is a quote from the old testament

Psalm 22:1–24 (ESV) — 1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning? 2 O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer, and by night, but I find no rest. 3 Yet you are holy, enthroned on the praises of Israel. 4 In you our fathers trusted; they trusted, and you delivered them. 5 To you they cried and were rescued; in you they trusted and were not put to shame. 6 But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by mankind and despised by the people. 7 All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads; 8 “He trusts in the LORD; let him deliver him; let him rescue him, for he delights in him!” 9 Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts. 10 On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother’s womb you have been my God. 11 Be not far from me, for trouble is near, and there is none to help. 12 Many bulls encompass me; strong bulls of Bashan surround me; 13 they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion. 14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted within my breast; 15 my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws; you lay me in the dust of death. 16 For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet— 17 I can count all my bones— they stare and gloat over me; 18 they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots. 19 But you, O LORD, do not be far off! O you my help, come quickly to my aid! 20 Deliver my soul from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dog! 21 Save me from the mouth of the lion! You have rescued me from the horns of the wild oxen! 22 I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will praise you: 23 You who fear the LORD, praise him! All you offspring of Jacob, glorify him, and stand in awe of him, all you offspring of Israel! 24 For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him.

where have you addressed it?

Read the thread. It's all still right here for the entire planet Earth to read.

The passage does not contradict anything I've said.

You have not proven Jesus died spiritually. You claimed it

Seems to me scripture is a documented claim.

Without any consideration of its effect on the godhead

So says you, without evidence or argument.

AS a trinity Jesus the father are one in essence, unity, and purpose

First of all non of that contradict a single syllable of my stated position. Moreover, while it is likely true, even that much is more than we can definitely say. We are simply not told hardly anything at all about the nature of Trinity except that the singular God exists in three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Were, how and why they overlap and related is a COMPLETE mystery.

So how can you separate him from the father assuming you are a trinitarian - are you?

I am completely a Trinitarian!

And I am not separating anything! This isn't MY doctrine, as though I'm the one who came up with it. Jesus is the One who cried out on the cross about being forsaken by His God and it was Jesus who told Mary that He hadn't yet ascended to the Father and it was the Apostle Peter who, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, recorded that Jesus went and preached to those who were 'in prison". And it was the resurrected, Spiritual Jesus who told John while he was in the spirit, that He is the One "who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore."

Now all that is plenty sufficient to establish that there was some sort of separation that occurred between Jesus and the Father. How that works, the degree to which is occurred and just what that all means, we are not told and so I don't know! All I know is that Jesus's body would not have been sufficient to pay the debt owed by the entire human race. A man may die for another man but dying for a whole race takes a more noble coin.

Or how can you break up the hypostatic union by separating the divinity from the human

I have never ever suggested anything that could even sound like I was separating the divinity from the human!

It is you who are doing that, isn't it? Isn't it you who are saying that it was just Jesus' human body that died?

I am saying the HE DIED - period! All of Him! He was just as dead as any other righteous person has ever been dead. No more, no less.

remember, Christ is of one essence with the father

I don't disagree necessarily but the truth of that depends on just what you mean by "one" and "essence". I can tell you for certain that the vast majority of Christianity takes the Trinity doctrine well beyond what scripture itself will support and use it to teach flagrantly irrational things about the nature of God. There is absolute truth in saying that the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all One but there is also absolute truth in saying that the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Spirit. Christians seem to instinctively leap from there and dive head long into preaching an outright contradiction and then use that as an excuse to believe in all kinds of idiotic, unbiblical and completely irrational doctrines that must be "spiritually discerned". But the bible does not teach contradictions! In some important aspect, God is One and in SOME OTHER important way, there exists a plurality within the Godhead, that plurality consisting of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and that's just about as far as we can go with the information we've been given in scripture.

 

[Logikos]

Jesus was not a sinner nor was He guilty of sin

Amen!

no reason for him to be punished or be the object of God's wrath

His death was not only reasonable it was necessary if God is just and mercy was to be made possible.

Christ remained righteous and by no means did he become a sinner. He bore sins in atonement. He remains holy, sinless.\

Isaiah 53:11 (KJV 1900) — 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; For he shall bear their iniquities.

Ephesians 5:2 (ESV) — 2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

As the Levitical sacrifice remained holy and undefiled

Leviticus 6:25–29 (ESV) — 25 “Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering. In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the LORD; it is most holy. 26 The priest who offers it for sin shall eat it. In a holy place it shall be eaten, in the court of the tent of meeting. 27 Whatever touches its flesh shall be holy, and when any of its blood is splashed on a garment, you shall wash that on which it was splashed in a holy place. 28 And the earthenware vessel in which it is boiled shall be broken. But if it is boiled in a bronze vessel, that shall be scoured and rinsed in water. 29 Every male among the priests may eat of it; it is most holy.

so Christ remained holy and offered up himself without spot or blemish

Hebrews 9:13–14 (ESV) — 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

None of this in dispute and does not appear to be in response to anything I said.

 

[TomL]

No kidding! That's why I made an argument instead of merely showing up and stating a naked, unsupported doctrine.

nothing you posted showed Jesus died spiritually

Did his human spirit separate from his divine spirit?

Read the thread. It's all still right here for the entire planet Earth to read.

The passage does not contradict anything I've said.

Lets see

And I replied run the reference

That is a quote from the old testament

Psalm 22:1–24 (ESV) — 1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning? 2 O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer, and by night, but I find no rest. 3 Yet you are holy, enthroned on the praises of Israel. 4 In you our fathers trusted; they trusted, and you delivered them. 5 To you they cried and were rescued; in you they trusted and were not put to shame. 6 But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by mankind and despised by the people. 7 All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads; 8 “He trusts in the LORD; let him deliver him; let him rescue him, for he delights in him!” 9 Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts. 10 On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother’s womb you have been my God. 11 Be not far from me, for trouble is near, and there is none to help. 12 Many bulls encompass me; strong bulls of Bashan surround me; 13 they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion. 14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted within my breast; 15 my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws; you lay me in the dust of death. 16 For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet— 17 I can count all my bones— they stare and gloat over me; 18 they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots. 19 But you, O LORD, do not be far off! O you my help, come quickly to my aid! 20 Deliver my soul from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dog! 21 Save me from the mouth of the lion! You have rescued me from the horns of the wild oxen! 22 I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will praise you: 23 You who fear the LORD, praise him! All you offspring of Jacob, glorify him, and stand in awe of him, all you offspring of Israel! 24 For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him.

Ooops he had not hidden his face from him

guess he did not abandon him after all

and your claim is unsupported

So says you, without evidence or argument.

Open your eyes

I went into detail of the effect the separation of God the father from God the son would have on the trinity doctrine and the hypostatic union

Your rebuttal was to suggest I did not understand the trinity

Well I know enough to know the doctrine holds they are one essence, unity and purpose

and having God punish God and express wrath against God is not consistent with the doctrine of the trinity

I also know that being one essence, the idea of separating them is problematic

 

[TomL]

Amen!


His death was not only reasonable it was necessary if God is just and mercy was to be made possible.

The issue was wrath

Where have you shown god the father expresses his wrath on God the son

None of this in dispute and does not appear to be in response to anything I said.

Well if you are defending PSA

then you need to defend the idea that sin was imputed unto Christ

That Jesus then appears as a sinner and God therefore exhausted his wrath against sin upon Christ

PSA was invented as a commercial transaction by Calvinistic thinkers who saw in it the idea Jesus receives your sin, and you receive his righteousness

They did not view atonement as a provision for the most part to be received through faith, rather it was thought the atonement applies its own benefits for all that Christ died for which was for them the unconditionally elected.

 

[101G]

But it’s not all bad news. Golgotha is also where we experienced the ultimate love of God in its greatest form – sacrificial love. Jesus, even as he was lynched in the name of religious truth and imperial justice, was able to express God’s heart in one sentence, as He plead for God to forgive us, for we do not know what we do. At the cross, we discover the deepest level – not of God’s wrath and anger, but of God’s love and grace. Although He could have killed men for the sake of justice and set His Son free, He chose to allow His Son to die in the name of love – for ours sake.

Correct, his death was a sacrifice. for the term Forsook , or forsaking is the act of, or the allowing of one to be sacrifice. Note, to clearly see this, another word, or some synonyms words for forsook is, renounced, relinquished, “sacrificed” Forsook , or forsaking is the act of, or the allowing of one to be sacrifice. this is bared out in Isaiah chapter 59, read this chapter good.

101G

 

[Logikos]

nothing you posted showed Jesus died spiritually

Yes it did. Just because it doesn't convince you doesn't mean I didn't present the biblical evidence nor does it count as a rebuttal of that evidence.

Did his human spirit separate from his divine spirit?

He does not have two spirits. Where would you get such a notion?

Lets see

And I replied run the reference

That is a quote from the old testament

Psalm 22:1–24 (ESV) — 1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning? 2 O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer, and by night, but I find no rest. 3 Yet you are holy, enthroned on the praises of Israel. 4 In you our fathers trusted; they trusted, and you delivered them. 5 To you they cried and were rescued; in you they trusted and were not put to shame. 6 But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by mankind and despised by the people. 7 All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads; 8 “He trusts in the LORD; let him deliver him; let him rescue him, for he delights in him!” 9 Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts. 10 On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother’s womb you have been my God. 11 Be not far from me, for trouble is near, and there is none to help. 12 Many bulls encompass me; strong bulls of Bashan surround me; 13 they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion. 14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted within my breast; 15 my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws; you lay me in the dust of death. 16 For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet— 17 I can count all my bones— they stare and gloat over me; 18 they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots. 19 But you, O LORD, do not be far off! O you my help, come quickly to my aid! 20 Deliver my soul from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dog! 21 Save me from the mouth of the lion! You have rescued me from the horns of the wild oxen! 22 I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will praise you: 23 You who fear the LORD, praise him! All you offspring of Jacob, glorify him, and stand in awe of him, all you offspring of Israel! 24 For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him.

Repeat yourself all you like! The fact is that Jesus didn't say, "For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him." and so it isn't relevant.

Ooops he had not hidden his face from him

Removing texts from the context is how poor doctrines are formed.

guess he did not abandon him after all

Who said anything about abandonment?

and your claim is unsupported

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Open your eyes

Right back at ya!

I went into detail of the effect the separation of God the father from God the son would have on the trinity doctrine and the hypostatic union

No, you merely made the claim.

Your rebuttal was to suggest I did not understand the trinity

No one does.

Well I know enough to know the doctrine holds they are one essence, unity and purpose

Yes, perhaps your doctrine holds that but you couldn't prove it biblically. Not that I deny that its true, by the way. The point is that its an extrabiblical doctrine. Maybe its entirely true and maybe we don't have any idea what we're talking about. I prefer to be dogmatic about what the bible actually says and what sound reason demands and very little else.

and having God punish God and express wrath against God is not consistent with the doctrine of the trinity

Once again, your oddball and intentional mischaracterization of the doctrine is fallacious and unconvincing to anyone other than those who already agree with you.

I also know that being one essence, the idea of separating them is problematic

There is more biblical evidence of the separation that happened at Calvary, as I have now presented on more than one occasion, than there is anything about this "one essence" idea. I very much doubt that you could define what that phrase actually means. Again, perhaps its completely true! In fact, I prefer to believe that it is, but the point is about the biblical evidence for it and your apparent double standard regarding the need for such biblical evidence.

Further, it isn't problematic just because you've shown up here to declare it so.

 

[TomL]

Yes it did. Just because it doesn't convince you doesn't mean I didn't present the biblical evidence nor does it count as a rebuttal of that evidence.

nope

nowhere do we read he died Spiritually

He does not have two spirits. Where would you get such a notion?

You do not believe Christ was fully man and fully God?

You are sporting a defective Christology here

Repeat yourself all you like! The fact is that Jesus didn't say, "For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him." and so it isn't relevant.

Scripture stated it

don't you believe scripture?

Removing texts from the context is how poor doctrines are formed.

Er that is a cross reference check it out on any bible that has cross-references or one that list Old Testament quotations in the new

The Jews would instantly recognize any such use

Who said anything about abandonment?

Penal substitutionary atonement and you in claiming he died spiritually

Saying it doesn't make it so.


Right back at ya!


No, you merely made the claim.


No one does.


Yes, perhaps your doctrine holds that but you couldn't prove it biblically. Not that I deny that its true, by the way. The point is that its an extrabiblical doctrine. Maybe its entirely true and maybe we don't have any idea what we're talking about. I prefer to be dogmatic about what the bible actually says and what sound reason demands and very little else.


Once again, your oddball and intentional mischaracterization of the doctrine is fallacious and unconvincing to anyone other than those who already agree with you.

That is rather funny you do not recognize classic trinitarian doctrine and call it oddball

How many God's are there

How many persons are God

If your answer is more than one in what sense are they one?

These are thing the church has come to agreement on just as with the nature of Christ

 

[Logikos]

The issue was wrath

Where have you shown god the father expresses his wrath on God the son

Wrtath is your word, not mine. Death, that is permanent removal from God's presence and eternal torment in Hell, is the penalty for sin. Sounds sort of wrathful to me but you do you!

Well if you are defending PSA

then you need to defend the idea that sin was imputed unto Christ

I've already done that.

That Jesus then appears as a sinner and God therefore exhausted his wrath against sin upon Christ

Again, this is your INTENTIONAL mischaracterization of the doctrine. You're the only person I've even seen put it such terms. And the terms themselves aren't even an issue for me. It's the weird sadistic connotation that you're implying that is the problem. The fact is that Christ's death did indeed "exhaust" God's wrath against sin! Put another, much better way, we need not endure God's wrath because of Christ's death. It is Christ's death that saves us from God's wrath! You must surely believe that!

PSA was invented as a commercial transaction by Calvinistic thinkers who saw in it the idea Jesus receives your sin, and you receive his righteousness

Nonsense. Calvinists didn't write the New Testament. It is Paul and the author of Hebrews that speak about our being "bought at a price" and who use terms such as "reckon" and "account" and "redeem" and "ransom", et al.

They did not view atonement as a provision for the most part to be received through faith, rather it was thought the atonement applies its own benefits for all that Christ died for which was for them the unconditionally elected.

Look, I have no affection whatsoever for Calvin or Calvinism but I also don't go looking for anything at all that I can find to hang around their neck. Nor do I reject a doctrine on the basis that Calvin taught it. A doctrine isn't wrong because Calvin believed it and taught it. If that were true, we'd all be Catholics. A doctrine is wrong if it's unbiblical and/or irrational.

 

[Logikos]

nope

nowhere do we read he died Spiritually

You repeating yourself will be ignored from this point forward.

You do not believe Christ was fully man and fully God?

I completely believe that! He DID NOT HAVE TWO SPIRITS!

I don't know what idiot taught you such a thing but if you want to talk about something that has exactly ZERO biblical support, the frankly silly notion that Jesus had two spirits takes the cake!

You are sporting a defective Christology here

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Scripture stated it

don't you believe scripture?

Repetition ignored.

Er that is a cross reference check it out on any bible that has cross-references or one that list Old Testament quotations in the new

The Jews would instantly recognize any such use

Irrelevant. Jesus could have quoted verse 24 but He chose instead to quote verse 1. Even if He had quoted the entire passage, NONE OF IT contradicts anything other than your INTENTIONAL mischaracterization of my position.

That's the last time I'm going to say that.

Penal substitutionary atonement and you in claiming he died spiritually

Not merely claiming but providing biblical support for it. Whether it's consistent with PSA or not means nothing to me.

That is rather funny you do not recognize classic trinitarian doctrine and call it oddball

No, I consider your characterizations of TSA as oddball and I do not base my doctrine on "Classic" anything other than "Classic" scripture!

How many God's are there

1

How many persons are God

3

If your answer is more than one in what sense are they one?

I do not know the answer. Neither do you. Nor does anyone else, for that matter.

These are thing the church has come to agreement on just as with the nature of Christ

That sentence belongs in the Pope's mouth! Are you a Catholic?

 

[TomL]

You repeating yourself will be ignored from this point forward.


I completely believe that! He DID NOT HAVE TWO SPIRITS!

well, classical christology says you are wrong

Which do you deny

He was fully man?

As a man he would have a spirit

He was fully deity?

as God he would be spirit



ANCIENT CHRISTOLOGY

BACKGROUND

The Trinitarian controversy was clearly also a Christological controversy. The discussion involved not only the true deity and genuine humanity of Christ, but also the relationship of His two natures. The pendulum swung back and forth: the Docetists denied Jesus’ humanity; the Ebionites denied His deity; the Arians “reduced” His deity, while the Apollinarians “reduced” His humanity; the Nestorians denied the union of the two natures, while the Eutychians emphasized only one nature.


APOLLINARIANISM

Apollinaris (the Younger) was opposed to Arianism so that he taught an opposite extreme, which also proved heretical. Apollinaris taught “that the divine pre-existent Logos took the place of the ‘spirit’ in the man Jesus, so that Jesus had a human body and a human ‘soul’ but not a human ‘spirit.’ He held also that Christ had a body, but that the body was somehow so sublimated as to be scarcely a human body … Apollinaris reduced the human nature of Christ to something less than human.” Apollinaris believed the spirit of man was the seat of sin; therefore, to remove any possibility of sin from Christ, Apollinaris felt he had to deny the humanity of Jesus’ spirit.
The problem with Apollinaris’s view was that while retaining the deity of Christ, he denied the genuine humanity of Christ. In Apollinaris’s teaching Jesus was less than man. In seeking the unity of the person of Christ, Apollinaris denied Jesus’ humanity. Apollinaris was condemned at the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381.


NESTORIANISM

Nestorius disliked the Chalcedon statement describing Mary as “mother of God.” Although the statement also affirmed “as to his humanity,” Nestorius resisted this statement that led to the worship of Mary. Instead of acknowledging two natures in one Person concerning Christ, Nestorius “denied the real union between the divine and the human natures in Christ … (and) virtually held to two natures and two persons.” Nestorius taught that while Christ suffered in His humanity, His deity was uninvolved (which was also the view of John of Damascus). The teaching was a denial of a real incarnation; instead of affirming Christ as God-man, He was viewed as two persons, God and man, with no union between them. Nestorius believed that because Mary was only the source of Jesus’ humanity, He must be two distinct persons.
Nestorius sought to defend Christ’s deity against Arianism and to resist Mariolatry. But he ultimately denied the unity of Christ. He was condemned at the Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431.


EUTYCHIANISM

In reaction to Nestorius, Eutyches (A.D. 380–456) founded the monophysite heresy, declaring that Christ had only one nature. “The divine nature was so modified and accommodated to the human nature that Christ was not really divine … At the same time the human nature was so modified and changed by assimilation to the divine nature that He was no longer genuinely human.”
The result of the Eutychian teaching was that Christ was neither human nor divine; Eutychians created a new third nature. In their teaching, Christ had only one nature that was neither human nor divine.
This view was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451, but the view continued in the Coptic church in Egypt.
A variation of this view was later propagated under a new designation, the monothelite view, suggesting Christ had only one will. This teaching was condemned at Constantinople in A.D. 680.

I don't know what idiot taught you such a thing but if you want to talk about something that has exactly ZERO biblical support, the frankly silly notion that Jesus had two spirits takes the cake!

Obviously you do not understand he was both fully human and fully divine



THE HYPOSTATIC UNION

The hypostatic union is the description of the unity of the divine and human natures in Jesus’ one Person. An adequate understanding of this doctrine is dependent on a complete understanding of each of the two natures and how they constitute the one Person.
The teaching of Scripture about the humanity of Jesus shows us that in the Incarnation He became fully human in every area of life except the actual commission of any sin.
One of the ways we know the completeness of Jesus’ humanity is that the same terms that describe different aspects of humanity also describe Him. For example, the New Testament often uses the Greek word pneuma, “spirit,” to describe the spirit of man, this word is also used of Jesus. And Jesus used it of himself, as on the cross He committed His spirit to His Father and breathed His last breath (Luke 23:46).
Contextually, the word “spirit” (Gk. pneuma) must mean the aspect of human existence that goes on in eternity after death. This point is quite important because it is as a human being that Jesus died. As God the Son, He lives eternally with the Father. In Jesus’ experience of death we see one of the most powerful attestations to the completeness of His humanity. He was so human that He died a criminal’s death.
The Incarnate Jesus also had a human soul. He used the Greek word psuchē to describe the workings of His inner self and emotions in Matthew 26:36–38.

Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.” He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. Then he said to them, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.”

Jesus was capable of the depths of human emotion. As we see in the Gospels, He felt pain, sorrow, joy, and hope. This was true because He shared with us the reality of being human souls.
Finally, Jesus had a human body just like ours. Blood ran through His veins as His heart pumped to sustain His human life in His body. This is clearly indicated in Hebrews 2:14–18. In this powerful passage, Jesus’ bodily existence on earth is said to provide the very possibility for our atonement. Because He was flesh and blood, His death could defeat death and bring us to God. Jesus’ body in the Incarnation was just like our bodies. His human body was placed in a tomb after His death (Mark 15:43–47).
Another witness to the completeness of Jesus’ humanity is His participation in ordinary human weakness. Although He was God, He humbled himself, taking on human form. In John 4:6 we find the simple fact that Jesus became weary, as anyone would who traveled a long distance on foot. It is clear from Matthew 4:2 what Jesus was capable of hunger in the normal human way. “After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry.” Jesus also clearly expressed a limitation of His knowledge. Speaking of the time of the Second Coming in Mark 13:32, He says, “ ‘No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.’ ” Certainly this limitation was allowed by himself under the conditions of the Incarnation, but it was a human limitation nevertheless.
The cumulative weight of these Scripture passages should cause us to conclude that Jesus was fully human. He was just like us in every respect but sin. His lowering of himself to servanthood as a man made it possible for Jesus to redeem us from sin and the curse of the Law. The New Testament writers attribute deity to Jesus in several important passages. In John 1:1, Jesus as the Word existed as God himself. It is hard to imagine a clearer assertion of Jesus’ deity. It is based on the language of Genesis 1:1 and places Jesus in the eternal order of existence with the Father.
In John 8:58 we have another powerful witness to Jesus’ deity. Jesus is asserting of himself continuous existence, like that of the Father. “I AM” is the well-known self-revelation of God to Moses at the burning bush (Ex. 3:14). In saying “I am,” Jesus was making available the knowledge of His deity to those who would believe.
Paul also gives us a clear witness to the deity of Jesus: “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness” (Phil. 2:5–7).The Greek uses very strong language here. The participle huparchon is stronger than eimi and is a forceful statement of Christ’s state of existence. The statement hosen morphē theou huparchōn (Phil. 2:6) should be rendered “who, existing in the form of God.” The statement einai isa theo (Phil. 2:6) should be rendered “to be equal with God.” The meaning Paul conveys here is that Jesus was in a state of existence in equality with God. However, He did not grasp, or cling, to this state, but rather released it and became a servant, dying on the cross for us.
When we use all the data of the New Testament on this subject, we realize that Jesus did not stop being God during the Incarnation. Rather, He gave up the independent exercise of the divine attributes. He was still fully Deity in His very being, but He fulfilled what seems to have been a condition of the Incarnation, that His human limitations were real, not artificial.


David R. Nichols, “The Lord Jesus Christ,” in Systematic Theology: Revised Edition (ed. Stanley M. Horton; Springfield, MO: Logion Press, 2007), 315–317.