1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured God's dealing with His Son on the cross

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by SovereignGrace, Sep 15, 2015.

  1. Protestant

    Protestant Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    1,300
    Likes Received:
    159
    Directed at SovereignGrace:

    Translation:

    Although the Lord has wisely placed godly Christian teachers in His Body to help others better understand Scripture, I denounce all those who agree with your position.

    From henceforth you are to recognize my interpretation as that which is the only correct one.

    Even though you may quote dozens of relevant verses I will systematically deny the validity of them as proof texts for your position.

    In summation, attempting to enlighten me to the truth of the matter is a supreme waste of your time which is better spent teaching those who are actually eager to learn and teachable.

    Translation:

    No hard feelings. I am but a lowly, humble servant of Christ whose humility knows no bounds.
     
  2. SovereignGrace

    SovereignGrace Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    5,536
    Likes Received:
    1,026
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I did use scriptures and he scoffed at them. He is on ignore now, to rest my eyes from his postings.
     
  3. TrevorL

    TrevorL Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    0
    Greetings "SovereignGrace",
    I voted no as God the Father continued to love His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. God was not angry with His Son, "His beloved Son", in whom He was well pleased. Jesus continued to love God, and humbled himself to become obedient to the death of the Cross. The word propitiation in Romans 3:25 (KJV) can be translated or understood in the sense of the mercy seat. Christ died as our representative, not our substitute.

    Kind regards
    Trevor
     
  4. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,631
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hello Gerhard, thanks for the reply, but I am afraid you are going to have to show me how this verse...


    John 10:18

    King James Version (KJV)

    18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.


    ...has Christ expiating Himself.


    And let's look at the source our friend has used (and I would remind you there is an attempt to prove an "orthodox" view that "God poured out His wrath upon the Son") has to say about expiation:

    The act of expiation is a way to atone for something you did that was wrong. It was originally used in a religious context, with expiation the way a person could gain forgiveness from a god.

    Let's look at the etymology:



    How about this one:


    Dictionaries - Easton's Bible Dictionary - Expiation

    Expiation [N]
    Guilt is said to be expiated when it is visited with punishment falling on a substitute. Expiation is made for our sins when they are punished not in ourselves but in another who consents to stand in our room. It is that by which reconciliation is effected. Sin is thus said to be "covered" by vicarious satisfaction.

    The cover or lid of the ark is termed in the LXX. hilasterion, that which covered or shut out the claims and demands of the law against the sins of God's people, whereby he became "propitious" to them.

    The idea of vicarious expiation runs through the whole Old Testament system of sacrifices. (See PROPITIATION .)



    Now, as in the questionable idea that "the Wrath of God was poured out on the Son," so too I would ask you to explain how Christ "expiated Himself," and do this using the original languages of the Bible, not modern secular sources or commentary.

    Christ was sinless, and did not atone for Himself, thus could not have "expiated Himself."

    Christ was sinless, thus the wrath of God could never be directed at Him, particularly when He took that sin upon Himself freely, and this according to God's own Redemptive Plan.

    The wrath experienced by Christ was at the hands of men:



    Matthew 16:21

    King James Version (KJV)

    21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.


    Matthew 17:22

    King James Version (KJV)

    22 And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men:


    Mark 9:31

    King James Version (KJV)

    31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.


    Luke 24:7


    King James Version (KJV)

    7 Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.




    There was no need for expiation in the Life of Christ.

    That is why He was suitable to die in man's stead.

    The expiation as well as propitiation is man-centered, we are the ones who needed to be atoned for.


    Now wait a minute...what do you mean "poured out in and with their blood"?

    That is the very purpose of Atonement through vicarious sacrifice, my friend, that the sinner not die, nor shed his blood, but that a vicarious substitute stands in their place.


    Correct. Completely innocent of personal sin, that death was not a matter of God's wrath being poured out on Him, but a matter of God's wrath averted for us.

    Just prior to His death the Lord stated...


    John 19:30

    King James Version (KJV)

    30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.



    Well...was it or wasn't it?

    That sacrifice is said to be the reason for our redemption, not some concept of Christ undergoing some spiritual punishment in Hades, Hell, or elsewhere.

    As you say, that blood was spilled for us, that our own deaths not be exacted for our sins, rather than His. While we might say expiation was accomplished, we don't say Christ "expiated Himself," which would imply there was something in the Christ which had to be atoned for. That flies in the face of vicarious death. Not one sacrifice ever offered prior to the Sacrifice of Christ had a sacrifice that was directly guilty.

    Not unless we consider animals capable of sin.


    God bless.
     
  5. Reformed

    Reformed Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    4,960
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Trevor, you do not understand propitiation either. That the Father always loved the Son does not negate His wrath being poured out upon the perfect sacrifice for sin, His Son. The Son of God was an acceptable sacrifice for sin, even though He never sinned Himself. The Son of God is not our representative, He is our mediator (1 Tim. 2:5). There is a difference.
     
  6. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,631
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hmm, still smarting from our last encounter, eh? I would have hoped you may have grown a little in the meantime.

    I guess it is "godly" to speak about people behind their back.

    If you have something to say, or something to contribute to the discussion, try to do it with a little more than backbiting.


    Perhaps you might actually read the thread. Then you would see that you have erred completely on what has been said.

    I can't help it if people don't have the courage to stand up and defend their doctrine.

    I can't help it that some think they can present doctrinal positions without a Scriptural Basis.

    And I can't help it that some, like you, are equally prone to defend their friends instead of the faith, hatred for others being their motivation.

    But, what I can help is pointing out questionable doctrine, in hopes that someone might consider what is said, instead of spouting out spurious opinions and then trying to justify those opinions without even once presenting a Biblical Basis.


    I would ask you to point out where I have "denounced" anyone, lol.

    Simple questions posed to, well, I'll leave it at simple questions posed.

    ;)

    If you think challenging someone to not only back up a doctrinal position, or rebuking someone for being a quitter who gives off arrogance, not godliness or wisdom (for there is nothing wise in an inability to defend a doctrinal view), then...maybe you're right.


    Simply can't be found in my posts, only in the hatred in your heart, which stems from pride.

    They have done just about as well as you when your doctrinal positions were challenged some months back.

    Nothing wrong with trying the spirits. Maybe if you would consider your charge is to make disciples, not friends, you would not involve yourself in making posts like this, but something of substance.


    I challenge you to present even one relevant verse to "God pouring out His Wrath on His Son."

    Just one.

    Just as I have challenged your buddies.

    And there is nothing, by the way, wrong with the term "proof-text." We use texts to prove our positions.

    Well...some of us do.

    ;)


    Do I come across as one who gives up? Quits, because someone doesn't embrace my views?

    You would be wrong.

    That would be you, amigo, and everyone who is forced to use the ignore feature.


    That would actually be an interpretation, wouldn't it? You let me know.

    But, if you would like to help your friends, let me give you a little advice: you're not going to help them with posts like this.

    You might help them if you could actually verify your statements and present those "dozens of relevant verses" you speak of.

    But that's not going to happen, is it, because your Doctrine nor your attitude has the benefit of having a Biblical Basis.

    Step up to the plate, Protestant.


    2 Timothy 1:7

    King James Version (KJV)

    7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.




    God bless.
     
  7. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,631
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Then perhaps you would like to present the Biblical Basis for God "pouring out His wrath upon His Son"?


    God bless.
     
  8. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,631
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Or is it to let your brain thaw out? lol

    I saw no Scripture that validates that God poured out His wrath upon His Son.

    I have seen no Scripture that teaches Christ "expiated Himself."

    Where are these Scriptures you speak of? Please give me the post numbers, perhaps I have missed them.


    God bless.
     
  9. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

    From Zane Hodges quoted in Walvoord's and Zuck's commentary, "The Bible Knowledge Commentary:
    Propitiation is simply the legal satisfaction of the demands of God. What were those demands, and how were they met?
    All throughout the OT one sees that sin demanded an offering of blood: from a sacrifice for Adam, for Cain and Abel, throughout all humanity:
    "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin."
    Christ had to shed his blood.

    Christ was the Lamb of God chosen before the foundation of the world.
    He met the demands of God and paid for the sins of the world by his sacrifice on the cross. The justice of God or the demands of God were met.
     
  10. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,631
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The quote does not, in my view, really address the issue as it has unfolded in this discussion...

    I don't think anyone refutes the truth that God's wrath on our parts, or, the wrath rightly directed at us, has been appeased, for we know we have been delivered from the wrath to come.

    From my perspective I can't see how we could not both see God's wrath appeased upon our part, or...that cleansing of sin is not a secondary view but part and parcel with salvation itself.

    So just out of curiosity, DHK, where do you stand in regards to the view that "God poured out His wrath upon His Son on the Cross."

    I can't seem to get anyone who feels He did to actually try to validate that view with Scripture.


    God bless.
     
    #50 Darrell C, Sep 20, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 20, 2015
  11. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,631
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You might want to first show someone doesn't understand something before making such a sweeping and obscure statement.


    So where is your Scripture?

    Where do we see this is a truth, and not just another questionable and popular teaching?


    No-one denies that, and nothing said in the post you responded to intimated the poster denied it.


    Anyone who stands in the place of another can be considered a representative. Christ is representative of Humanity itself. He has acted on behalf of Man, because for man to be there themselves would negate what He did on their behalf.

    I agree there is a difference, but a good case could be raised to show how Christ represented you and me at the place of judgment. I was not there on the Cross, you were not there on the Cross, and in fact no man was. Only the Father was with the Lord then, as pointed out before in this thread.

    So, if you don't mind, I would be greatly interested to see a Biblical presentation of God pouring out His wrath on the Son on the Cross.

    And it is not just a matter of debating and someone being right, and someone being wrong, but a matter of this is a view that I have heard numerous times from the pulpits I have sat under, and in numerous Sunday School lessons.


    God bless.
     
  12. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    That is what I was trying to answer in a round about way.
    For example, in the sacrifice provided for Adam and Eve, I don't really see the wrath and anger of God being torn into that animal, being ripped apart in anger, with blood being splattered everywhere. Nor do I see God angry with himself. Nor do I see God angry "angry" with Adam and Eve. Where is the wrath in this picture, which prefigures Christ.

    The sacrifice was provided to make an atonement, a reconciliation, a propitiation for sins. So it was all through the OT. And never was there any anger or wrath involved in any sacrifice. Is the Lamb of God angry? Was God the Father angry with the Lamb of God?
    More importantly Can God be angry with God?
    He was and is and always will be deity.
     
  13. TrevorL

    TrevorL Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    0
    Greetings Reformed,

    I will leave the concept of representative vs substitute to another time. Now the word under consideration only occurs in two places in the NT. Please compare how the KJV, the NIV and the Net translate Romans 3:25 and also the KJV of Hebrews 9:5.
    Romans 3:25-26 (KJV): 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

    Romans 3:25 (NIV): God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—

    Romans 3:25 (NET): God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed.

    Hebrews 9:5 (KJV): And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.


    Romans 3:25-26 is one of the most important parts of Paul’s exposition of the Gospel of Christ. Nowhere in this passage are we given a picture of the wrath of God against Jesus. Rather it shows that by means of the sacrifice of Christ God’s righteousness was declared. This declaration forms the basis of God being able to not only be seen to be just or righteous, but also God can use this as a basis for forgiveness of past sins of those who believe in Jesus.

    The very expression “Mercy seat” conveys this concept, that there is established a basis for mercy. Jesus has been set forth to declare God’s righteousness, and the explanation of this is “that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus”

    If God was angry with His Son, where does this demonstrate the righteousness of God. If I commit a sin, what right has my father to be angry with my brother and punish him for my sin? And how could my father then say to my brother, now that my wrath has abated I forgive you your sin and “justice” has been done.

    Please also note that the same word translated propitiation in the KJV of Romans 3:25 occurs in Exodus for the mercy seat:
    Exodus 25:17 (KJV): And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof.
    Exodus 25:20 (KJV): And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.
    Exodus 25:21 (KJV): And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.


    Kind regards
    Trevor
     
  14. savedbymercy

    savedbymercy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    6,058
    Likes Received:
    166
    dhk

    No, but He can be angry at Man, do you deny the Manhood of Christ ? Do you deny His Manhood was different from His Deity ?
     
  15. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,631
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist

    Do you deny that Christ was God?


    God bless.
     
  16. savedbymercy

    savedbymercy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    6,058
    Likes Received:
    166
    No He is Both, so do you deny that as you deny that His Death alone failed to save them He died for?
     
  17. blessedwife318

    blessedwife318 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    445
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Its very clear that this whole discussion hinges on what does "propitiation" mean. Or even more accurately what does the Greek word "hilasmos"mean in the 1st century. I did a little research and found this quote about its use in Classical Greek lit.
    Smeaton, The Apostles’ Doctrine of the Atonement, p. 455, cited by Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, p. 126.

    Now I can already hear the argument that who cares how the pagan Greeks used the word. But I would remind everyone that every word in the Bible is inspired by God. He had John use the Greek word "hilasmos" for a reason, and as with any difficult word the best way to understand it is to look at contemporary usage.

    Now to those who say that God is not wrathful, I found this useful article by John Walvoord that has this to say:
    Link

    Link


    Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, p. 159

    Even in the NT we can see that God's wrath is still there. Its not like there is two different gods one in the OT and one in the NT although that is a a popular idea in this day and age.
    Just a few examples of God's wrath in the NT
    Matthew 3:7

    Mark 3:5

    Luke 21:23

    John 3:36

    Romans 9:22

    Ephesians 5:6

    Colossians 3:6

    Pulse basically the entire book of Revelation but I think you get the point. Wrath is not unknown to God.

    John Walvoord continues on his article look at the use of the word in Romans 3:25
    He says this:
    link
    Bold mine


    Read the whole article, Walvoord makes some very good points about Jesus being our Propitiation.
     
  18. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, for during that time, He experienced eternal seperation from the father, just as all sinners will in the end...

    It pleased God to crush him, in order to be able to freely and forever justify and redeem those whom come to Jesus, and Jesus was a willing partner to that!
     
  19. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    He does make some very good points.
    The conclusion in his article is:
    There is nothing here mentioned about the wrath of God, particularly about the wrath of God upon the Son. It is about the justice of God not his wrath.
    The death of Christ satisfied the divine justice of God. He accepted it on behalf of all mankind making it possible for the sinner to obtain justification through faith.
     
  20. TrevorL

    TrevorL Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    0
    Greetings again "SovereignGrace",

    The concept that God was angry with Jesus in the crucifixion seems to me to be like some of the pagan deities, where they offered their children as a substitute to be burnt and consumed to appease the deity, for example Moloch.

    The Law typified the sacrifice in the various offerings, the Sin Offering, the Trespass Offering, the Burnt Offering and the Peace Offering. Accompanying the Peace Offering were the Meal and Drink Offerings. The Law also specified when and how these were to be offered acceptably, and some were punished for offering strange fire, Nadad and Abihu, or entering the Temple to offer incense Uzziah. The only blood that entered the Most Holy was on the Day of Atonement, and the body of this sacrifice (I need to check this detail) was burnt outside the Camp. This showed in a sense that all the other offerings were ineffectual. The Passover Lamb also typifies Christ. But none of all these typical offerings could be said to depict an angry God, whose anger must be appeased by a substitutionary sacrificial victim. Each offering was given and offered to represent the individual, and this pointed forward to the fact that only the voluntary sacrifice of the sinless and holy Christ would find acceptance before God.

    The representative nature of the crucifixion is also suggested by the following:
    Luke 9:23 (KJV): And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

    Romans 6:1-8 (KJV): 1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7 For he that is dead is freed from sin. 8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:

    Galatians 2:20 (KJV): I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.


    To be a disciple we must follow the example of our Lord Jesus Christ. He is not our substitute, otherwise we would not die. He is our representative, the captain of our salvation and we need to follow his lead.

    Kind regards
    Trevor
     
Loading...