brightfame52
Active Member
You dont believe the verses, dont get sanctimonious on me
Why we naturally HATE penal substitution
- Thread starter Diserner
- Start date
atpollard
Active Member
No, just a lot of advanced math and Physics about space-time (the interaction of matter-energy-velocity-time).
atpollard
Active Member
That is why a "Sola Scriptura" Baptist like me had to reject a perfectly good PSA Theory when I tried to prove that the bible really DID teach that and went looking for the verses myself. They are not there. One verse in Isaiah comes close, but a LOT of verses teach exactly the opposite so it was hard to throw out many clear verses because of one "maybe" verse.
Jesus saves. The Father was never angry at the Son.
brightfame52
Active Member
Yeah right
brightfame52
Active Member
Nobody said He was angry with the Son, where that come from ? I have stated many times, His wrath was Justice against sin imputed to the Son. When the authorities execute a criminal for wrong doing, it doesnt mean they are personally angry with the person. I have given the similitude with Rom 13 and human govt punishing evil doers, its called wrath Rom 13:1-4
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Now this doesnt mean the higher powers are angry with the person or persons, there wrath is a matter of justice !
atpollard
Active Member
Really??? You have never heard a sermon about the anger of the Father poured out on Jesus? About the terrible suffering that was inflicted on Jesus being God’s anger at our sin and the punishment that should have fallen on us?
How curious.
I could post dozens of sermons by GIANTS of the faith (but what would be the point).
atpollard
Active Member
Yeah, right!
brightfame52
Active Member
Yeah some may say that, but Im being exact , there is a wrath of God against sin and perhaps against the Son as the sins, wrong doing of the elect were charged, imputed to Him, but that doesnt denote a personal anger against the person of the Son, in Fact the Father Loved the Son during that time. Yet because the Father has to avenge sin, just vengeance was executed upon the Son. Now the non elect, God never loved them, and He hated them, but never did He hate the Son nor His chosen heritage in Him.
civic
Active Member
Ditto
Justice is served because the penalty that sinners deserved was actually carried out, and Jesus voluntarily stood between them and God and took the bullet of punishment aimed at sinners but not guilt. God was never mad at Jesus.
Diserner
Active Member
Part of the punishment of sin is necessarily God's anger. You cannot separate those two things.
However, there is some nuance here, and many speak with imprecision. Obviously God is not angry with Jesus' willingness to substitute himself for sinners in experiencing God's anger—that is, there is an overarching recognition and willingness to what is happening. When we read YHWH was pleased to crush him, one might set those at opposition. What we can say is that, the punishment of sin Jesus experienced was 1) temporary, 2) voluntary and 3) submitted to a higher goal (for a brief moment, I have forsaken you, as Scripture says). It gets a little complex here and even many who strongly preach substitutionary atonement get a little confused at times, and even Calvin used double speak concerning this. Because it is similar to the issue of does God love the lost, where there is a sense in which God both hates and loves the lost simultaneously, in different ways. God loves them in that he wants them to be saved, God hates them in that they embrace a lifestyle of sin. So when Jesus is experiencing our punishment, this does not mean that God is displeased with what he is doing, but rather that Jesus is experiencing displeasure on our behalf because this pleases God. Two different senses and aspects of displeasure there.
However, there is some nuance here, and many speak with imprecision. Obviously God is not angry with Jesus' willingness to substitute himself for sinners in experiencing God's anger—that is, there is an overarching recognition and willingness to what is happening. When we read YHWH was pleased to crush him, one might set those at opposition. What we can say is that, the punishment of sin Jesus experienced was 1) temporary, 2) voluntary and 3) submitted to a higher goal (for a brief moment, I have forsaken you, as Scripture says). It gets a little complex here and even many who strongly preach substitutionary atonement get a little confused at times, and even Calvin used double speak concerning this. Because it is similar to the issue of does God love the lost, where there is a sense in which God both hates and loves the lost simultaneously, in different ways. God loves them in that he wants them to be saved, God hates them in that they embrace a lifestyle of sin. So when Jesus is experiencing our punishment, this does not mean that God is displeased with what he is doing, but rather that Jesus is experiencing displeasure on our behalf because this pleases God. Two different senses and aspects of displeasure there.
civic
Active Member
If you get the time I would appreciate if you take a look at the finished study. I have one simple ask. Like any other book try to see it through the authors lens first. Then critically afterwards.
Similar threads
