Does the Text of 1 John Demand Penal Substitution Theory ?

God pouring on Jesus His wrath allowed the death to be effectual!

 

Martin and I have been defending the Pst with the Bible, its just that you have already determined that its wrong, mere man made tradition, something Calvin just dreamed up!

 

The Father has to have His wrath appeased for in order to reconcile and justify sinners, so when did that happen?

 

God the Father delight wa in having His own Son crushed/bruised/pierced thru for our sales, and Jesus agreed to that, as he looked forward to His resurrection and sinners now brought back to God!
Crushed/bruised/forsaken are all in there!

 

Southern Baptist Convention > On The Necessity Of Penal Substitutionary Atonement
WHEREAS, On the cross of Christ Jesus the perfect love of God perfectly applies the perfect justice of God to satisfy the perfect holiness of God in order to redeem sinners (Romans 3:26); and

WHEREAS, The denial of penal substitutionary atonement in effect denies the holy and loving God the exercise of His justice, the overflow of which in a sinful world is the outpouring of His just retributive wrath; and

WHEREAS, The denial of penal substitutionary atonement thus displays in effect the denial of the perfect character of the one true God; and

WHEREAS, The denial of penal substitutionary atonement constitutes false teaching that leads the flock astray (Acts 20:28) and leaves the world without a message of a sin-cleansing Savior (Romans 5:6–11); and

WHEREAS, The denial of penal substitutionary atonement necessarily compromises the biblical and historical doctrines of propitiation, expiation, ransom, satisfaction, Christus Victor, Christus Exemplar, and more; and

WHEREAS, The Lord promised a warrior-savior who would crush the head of the serpent to obliterate the enemy (Genesis 3:15; Romans 16:20; Revelation 19:11–16); and

WHEREAS, The sacrificial system of the Old Testament culminated in the blood sacrifice of a spotless lamb on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:11–19); and

WHEREAS, Jesus Himself unveiled the salvific mission that necessitated His incarnation (Hebrews 2:17) when He said, “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28); and

WHEREAS, The confession of the Scriptures is that Christ is our passive and active righteousness, forgiving all our sin by His death and imputing to us all His righteousness through faith (1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Philippians 3:9); and

 

i had been attending a small sbc church for awhile, but did not transfer my membership. I wanted to meet with the pastor and ask some questions about a few concerns we had, and if he was happy with the direction the church was going in...
My wife questioned Him a bit and i started to do it with a couple of emails...but a few weeks ago he asked us to move on...lol...very sad.

 

I am more comfortable in ARBCA. circles.
This pastor sides more with the so called traditionalists but I thought he might be open to differing views and us trying to help. The Church needs plenty of help.....but he felt threatened evidently. It was hard to sit through the unscriptural altar calls, and rededications anyhow, but we were trying to Blend in with our baptist friends who are very local to us....but there was no room at the inn.

 

It makes more biblical sense than any other theory on the Atonement!

 

Would you agree with that statement on the PST that you posted though?

 

Where in your system is the wrath of God appeased than?

 

So jesus took that wrath due us?

 

He was the sin bearer, which meant he assumed on the very wrath owned to us