dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

You will need to define your version of PSA before I comment.

---

Basically God is mad at us because of our sin and unleashed his wrath and anger via torture and crucifixion of Jesus in our place. So God' s wrath had to be satisfied. So basically God is an angry tyrant who has to kill somebody to satisfy his anger.
I am a Christus Victor guy.

---

Your definition infused with all sorts of gaslighting in my opinion.

Basically infusing the idea that if I ascribe to the fact that Christ did impute to us the righteous life we could never live and did take on the wrath of God in our place on the cross because his wrath must be satisfied via his atoning sacrifice we could never make (I do believe that), that God must then be an "angry tyrant who has to kill somebody to satisfy his anger."

---

Sincere question- is it gaslighting to characterize PSA as most Calvinists profess it?

---

I'm thinking your characterization of Calvinism is different than mine (and most who embrace reformed theology), especially as it relates to PSA.

You enjoy hanging on to the sound bites like "sinners in the hands of an angry God" or whatever provocative things Paul Washer or Steve Lawson says.

I would appeal to basically all of us, that it is hard for me (Reformed) to have a complete and factual understanding of another tradition like Roman Catholicism and likewise it is hard for them to have a complete and factual understanding of everything Reformed.

All I can do is point to Scripture as I embrace key truths of the faith. I don't think I have seen any you have provided that support Christian Universalism other than 1 Tim 2:4.

---

Ironic for you to mention Lawson as he was your pastor and mentor. Out of respect for you, I put him on my prayer list and never posted anything about his adultery. Anybody who is interested Google Steve Lawson sermons on hell and realize while he was describing in gory detail what would happen to people who were not of the elect (in other words they had no say in the matter) he was committing adultery with a church member.
And Jonathan Edwards IS one of the main reformed/Calvinist names in your theology. Why would it be a "sound bite" for me? This is one of the hallmark sermons of your tradition. Does your church not believe that stuff anymore?
And I think I have a pretty good idea of reformed theology Having been in a Baptist reformed church for over 50 years I am very familiar with Calvin's Institutes, TULIP, Westminster catechism, the Dort Synod, etc. I am actually happy that it sounds like you and the other Reformed/calvinists on here have not embraced this harsh theology. From what I can read( and this applies to PSA also) y'all are at best Calvinist lite. Which I applaud.
I also applaud your much more liberal view of PSA than I have been exposed to in the past.
I think one of the biggest problems is I am used to "old school" Reformed/Calvinism and I am happy to see that appears to be disappearing.
I have provided lists of Christian Universalist Scripture numerous times. And obviously you and nobody else on here took the time to read them. Or any of my links for that matter. And I always read y'all's out of simple respect. So if you want a list Google it yourself.
i am retiring for awhile as I do not like the tone developing in this thread. I will leave it to you young folks.
Shalom.

---

I love your posts even if I don't agree with a Christian universalist view of soteriology. If my tone caused you to think otherwise, lo siento amigo.

You are most definitely my brother in Christ.

Peace!

These passages warn against a lifestyle characterized by unrepentant sin.

Eternal Punishment

Matthew 25:41

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'"

Revelation 20:15

"Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire."

The final consequence of unforgiven sin is eternal separation from God.

The Good News

The Bible's message is not merely about the consequences of sin but about God's provision for forgiveness:

1 John 1:9

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."

Romans 8:1

"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."

For those who repent and trust in Jesus Christ, sin is forgiven, guilt is removed, and eternal life is given.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

PSA twists God the Father into a melancholic tantrum thrower whose lust for wrath can only be sated by treating a perfectly just victim as an unjust victim while treating the unjust as being just. It turns God into an unjust wrathful tantrum thrower. It's heretical.

---

Again, this just isn't true of this belief. There is a penalty for those who do not measure up to God's standard of righteousness (every human other than Jesus). God's justice is perfect and Christ provided that perfect spotless lamb for anyone who would believe. It has nothing to do with a God "whose lust for wrath"and it is impossible for God to be "an unjust wrathful tantrum thrower."

Christ knew he was about to face and endure the wrath of God, the cup as it is often referred to. He sweat great drops of blood, asking for God to remove the cup, not because he didn't want to die, but because he was about to have the full weight of that just punishment (we all deserve) on him as he was on the cross. I already referenced Isaiah 53:10. Psalm 75 refers to this bitter cup as well.

PSA is all about the great exchange. We are given Christ's righteousness that we cannot merit on our own while Christ takes our sin and punishment and unites us to him in his death and resurrection.

Why else was Jesus in such distress leading up to Calvary? The only answer possible is the enduring of his Father's wrath on behalf of His people.

I never said I disagreed with Edwards.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

PSA twists God the Father into a melancholic tantrum thrower whose lust for wrath can only be sated by treating a perfectly just victim as an unjust victim while treating the unjust as being just. It turns God into an unjust wrathful tantrum thrower. It's heretical.

---

Again, this just isn't true of this belief. There is a penalty for those who do not measure up to God's standard of righteousness (every human other than Jesus). God's justice is perfect and Christ provided that perfect spotless lamb for anyone who would believe. It has nothing to do with a God "whose lust for wrath"and it is impossible for God to be "an unjust wrathful tantrum thrower."

Christ knew he was about to face and endure the wrath of God, the cup as it is often referred to. He sweat great drops of blood, asking for God to remove the cup, not because he didn't want to die, but because he was about to have the full weight of that just punishment (we all deserve) on him as he was on the cross. I already referenced Isaiah 53:10. Psalm 75 refers to this bitter cup as well.

PSA is all about the great exchange. We are given Christ's righteousness that we cannot merit on our own while Christ takes our sin and punishment and unites us to him in his death and resurrection.

Why else was Jesus in such distress leading up to Calvary? The only answer possible is the enduring of his Father's wrath on behalf of His people.

---

Respectfully, I think you are trying to advocate for PSA without the "penal" aspect as part of your argument.

I will give you the Catholic position and let's see if you do or don't agree. The Catholic view affirms the reality of Christ as our substitute, but with crucial distinctions from PSA. When the Church Fathers speak of Christ being our sacrificial substitute and bearing our sins, they are speaking not of God the Father pouring out His wrath onto Christ. They are speaking of Christ bearing the curse of suffering and physical death described in Genesis 3, and of Christ offering Himself to the Father as both a perfect high priest and a perfect victim a perfect sacrifice of love.

A Catholic view of atonement emphasizes that when Jesus atones for our sins, He transforms them into a source of goodness not by appeasing God's wrath, but by introducing God's love into the world in a new way.

What Jesus did, God willed; and what Jesus wanted, God wanted. In other words, God's love is the motivation and cause of our redemption, not its result. It's only correct to say that Jesus was punished for our sins if we mean that He suffered unjustly the punishment that sinners justly deserve. It's incorrect to say that God punished Jesus for our sins, because Jesus voluntarily out of God's own love chose to accept the death that the world set up for Him.

---

Jesus willingly accepted our just punishment onto Himself out of His great love. Just as the Israelites laid their hands on a sacrificial animal to transfer their sins, so Jesus took upon Himself our sins and died in our place. His word is full of scripture expressing this idea of Jesus bearing our iniquities.

This doesn't make the cross an unjust punishment toward a perfectly, righteous man; it makes the cross a willing and loving sacrifice.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

PSA twists God the Father into a melancholic tantrum thrower whose lust for wrath can only be sated by treating a perfectly just victim as an unjust victim while treating the unjust as being just. It turns God into an unjust wrathful tantrum thrower. It's heretical.

---

Again, this just isn't true of this belief. There is a penalty for those who do not measure up to God's standard of righteousness (every human other than Jesus). God's justice is perfect and Christ provided that perfect spotless lamb for anyone who would believe. It has nothing to do with a God "whose lust for wrath"and it is impossible for God to be "an unjust wrathful tantrum thrower."

Christ knew he was about to face and endure the wrath of God, the cup as it is often referred to. He sweat great drops of blood, asking for God to remove the cup, not because he didn't want to die, but because he was about to have the full weight of that just punishment (we all deserve) on him as he was on the cross. I already referenced Isaiah 53:10. Psalm 75 refers to this bitter cup as well.

PSA is all about the great exchange. We are given Christ's righteousness that we cannot merit on our own while Christ takes our sin and punishment and unites us to him in his death and resurrection.

Why else was Jesus in such distress leading up to Calvary? The only answer possible is the enduring of his Father's wrath on behalf of His people.

---

Respectfully, I think you are trying to advocate for PSA without the "penal" aspect as part of your argument.

I will give you the Catholic position and let's see if you do or don't agree. The Catholic view affirms the reality of Christ as our substitute, but with crucial distinctions from PSA. When the Church Fathers speak of Christ being our sacrificial substitute and bearing our sins, they are speaking not of God the Father pouring out His wrath onto Christ. They are speaking of Christ bearing the curse of suffering and physical death described in Genesis 3, and of Christ offering Himself to the Father as both a perfect high priest and a perfect victim a perfect sacrifice of love.

A Catholic view of atonement emphasizes that when Jesus atones for our sins, He transforms them into a source of goodness not by appeasing God's wrath, but by introducing God's love into the world in a new way.

What Jesus did, God willed; and what Jesus wanted, God wanted. In other words, God's love is the motivation and cause of our redemption, not its result. It's only correct to say that Jesus was punished for our sins if we mean that He suffered unjustly the punishment that sinners justly deserve. It's incorrect to say that God punished Jesus for our sins, because Jesus voluntarily out of God's own love chose to accept the death that the world set up for Him.

---

Jesus willingly accepted our just punishment onto Himself out of His great love. Just as the Israelites laid their hands on a sacrificial animal to transfer their sins, so Jesus took upon Himself our sins and died in our place. His word is full of scripture expressing this idea of Jesus bearing our iniquities.

This doesn't make the cross an unjust punishment toward a perfectly, righteous man; it makes the cross a willing and loving sacrifice.

---

I don't disagree with any of that until you just assume the cross is about punishment. That's the part that violates the Trinity.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

PSA twists God the Father into a melancholic tantrum thrower whose lust for wrath can only be sated by treating a perfectly just victim as an unjust victim while treating the unjust as being just. It turns God into an unjust wrathful tantrum thrower. It's heretical.

---

Again, this just isn't true of this belief. There is a penalty for those who do not measure up to God's standard of righteousness (every human other than Jesus). God's justice is perfect and Christ provided that perfect spotless lamb for anyone who would believe. It has nothing to do with a God "whose lust for wrath"and it is impossible for God to be "an unjust wrathful tantrum thrower."

Christ knew he was about to face and endure the wrath of God, the cup as it is often referred to. He sweat great drops of blood, asking for God to remove the cup, not because he didn't want to die, but because he was about to have the full weight of that just punishment (we all deserve) on him as he was on the cross. I already referenced Isaiah 53:10. Psalm 75 refers to this bitter cup as well.

PSA is all about the great exchange. We are given Christ's righteousness that we cannot merit on our own while Christ takes our sin and punishment and unites us to him in his death and resurrection.

Why else was Jesus in such distress leading up to Calvary? The only answer possible is the enduring of his Father's wrath on behalf of His people.

---

Respectfully, I think you are trying to advocate for PSA without the "penal" aspect as part of your argument.

I will give you the Catholic position and let's see if you do or don't agree. The Catholic view affirms the reality of Christ as our substitute, but with crucial distinctions from PSA. When the Church Fathers speak of Christ being our sacrificial substitute and bearing our sins, they are speaking not of God the Father pouring out His wrath onto Christ. They are speaking of Christ bearing the curse of suffering and physical death described in Genesis 3, and of Christ offering Himself to the Father as both a perfect high priest and a perfect victim a perfect sacrifice of love.

A Catholic view of atonement emphasizes that when Jesus atones for our sins, He transforms them into a source of goodness not by appeasing God's wrath, but by introducing God's love into the world in a new way.

What Jesus did, God willed; and what Jesus wanted, God wanted. In other words, God's love is the motivation and cause of our redemption, not its result. It's only correct to say that Jesus was punished for our sins if we mean that He suffered unjustly the punishment that sinners justly deserve. It's incorrect to say that God punished Jesus for our sins, because Jesus voluntarily out of God's own love chose to accept the death that the world set up for Him.

---

Jesus willingly accepted our just punishment onto Himself out of His great love. Just as the Israelites laid their hands on a sacrificial animal to transfer their sins, so Jesus took upon Himself our sins and died in our place. His word is full of scripture expressing this idea of Jesus bearing our iniquities.

This doesn't make the cross an unjust punishment toward a perfectly, righteous man; it makes the cross a willing and loving sacrifice.

---

assume the cross is about punishment.

---

It isn't ONLY about punishment but certainly involves it

False. The Roman See is the only that fully comprehends.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

PSA twists God the Father into a melancholic tantrum thrower whose lust for wrath can only be sated by treating a perfectly just victim as an unjust victim while treating the unjust as being just. It turns God into an unjust wrathful tantrum thrower. It's heretical.

---

Again, this just isn't true of this belief. There is a penalty for those who do not measure up to God's standard of righteousness (every human other than Jesus). God's justice is perfect and Christ provided that perfect spotless lamb for anyone who would believe. It has nothing to do with a God "whose lust for wrath"and it is impossible for God to be "an unjust wrathful tantrum thrower."

Christ knew he was about to face and endure the wrath of God, the cup as it is often referred to. He sweat great drops of blood, asking for God to remove the cup, not because he didn't want to die, but because he was about to have the full weight of that just punishment (we all deserve) on him as he was on the cross. I already referenced Isaiah 53:10. Psalm 75 refers to this bitter cup as well.

PSA is all about the great exchange. We are given Christ's righteousness that we cannot merit on our own while Christ takes our sin and punishment and unites us to him in his death and resurrection.

Why else was Jesus in such distress leading up to Calvary? The only answer possible is the enduring of his Father's wrath on behalf of His people.

---

Respectfully, I think you are trying to advocate for PSA without the "penal" aspect as part of your argument.

I will give you the Catholic position and let's see if you do or don't agree. The Catholic view affirms the reality of Christ as our substitute, but with crucial distinctions from PSA. When the Church Fathers speak of Christ being our sacrificial substitute and bearing our sins, they are speaking not of God the Father pouring out His wrath onto Christ. They are speaking of Christ bearing the curse of suffering and physical death described in Genesis 3, and of Christ offering Himself to the Father as both a perfect high priest and a perfect victim a perfect sacrifice of love.

A Catholic view of atonement emphasizes that when Jesus atones for our sins, He transforms them into a source of goodness not by appeasing God's wrath, but by introducing God's love into the world in a new way.

What Jesus did, God willed; and what Jesus wanted, God wanted. In other words, God's love is the motivation and cause of our redemption, not its result. It's only correct to say that Jesus was punished for our sins if we mean that He suffered unjustly the punishment that sinners justly deserve. It's incorrect to say that God punished Jesus for our sins, because Jesus voluntarily out of God's own love chose to accept the death that the world set up for Him.

---

Jesus willingly accepted our just punishment onto Himself out of His great love. Just as the Israelites laid their hands on a sacrificial animal to transfer their sins, so Jesus took upon Himself our sins and died in our place. His word is full of scripture expressing this idea of Jesus bearing our iniquities.

This doesn't make the cross an unjust punishment toward a perfectly, righteous man; it makes the cross a willing and loving sacrifice.

---

I don't disagree with any of that until you just assume the cross is about punishment. That's the part that violates the Trinity.

---

It's not JUST about punishment.

I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say it violates the Trinity.

Much of the cross is a mystery of which none of us will be able to fully understand.

---

My point is it cannot be about punishment at all.

PSA as I understand it says God is wrathful at sin, that he is compelled by an exigency of his own nature to expiate that wrath upon a subject by punishing them, that he imputes the sin of believers to Christ and punishes the perfectly innocent and righteous Jesus vicariously in their stead, and imputes the righteousness of Christ to believers so that they are saved through faith alone in virtue of that exchange when they profess faith in Christ so that they are accounted as righteous for Jesus' sake, even though they remain objectively sinful.

Punishment in PSA is inconsistent with the Trinity because the idea that one person of the Trinity vents his wrath out upon another person of the Trinity is entirely violative of the fundamental principles of the Trinity and the relationship of perfect, self-emptying love among the three divine persons.

Moreover, putting aside the question of how inconsistent PSA is with the relationship of the three divine persons, the idea that God, who is love (agape) somehow pretends that a perfectly just person in Christ is unrighteous, unjust and reprobate and so inflicts upon him the punishment rightfully due to the objectively guilty persons while simultaneously treating the objectively guilty person as though they are perfectly innocent makes a perfectly just and infinitely merciful God into an unjust tyrant.

Any theology that is so fundamentally contrary to the basic precepts of THE most basic precept of Christianity (the Trinity) must be rejected.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

PSA twists God the Father into a melancholic tantrum thrower whose lust for wrath can only be sated by treating a perfectly just victim as an unjust victim while treating the unjust as being just. It turns God into an unjust wrathful tantrum thrower. It's heretical.

---

Again, this just isn't true of this belief. There is a penalty for those who do not measure up to God's standard of righteousness (every human other than Jesus). God's justice is perfect and Christ provided that perfect spotless lamb for anyone who would believe. It has nothing to do with a God "whose lust for wrath"and it is impossible for God to be "an unjust wrathful tantrum thrower."

Christ knew he was about to face and endure the wrath of God, the cup as it is often referred to. He sweat great drops of blood, asking for God to remove the cup, not because he didn't want to die, but because he was about to have the full weight of that just punishment (we all deserve) on him as he was on the cross. I already referenced Isaiah 53:10. Psalm 75 refers to this bitter cup as well.

PSA is all about the great exchange. We are given Christ's righteousness that we cannot merit on our own while Christ takes our sin and punishment and unites us to him in his death and resurrection.

Why else was Jesus in such distress leading up to Calvary? The only answer possible is the enduring of his Father's wrath on behalf of His people.

---

Respectfully, I think you are trying to advocate for PSA without the "penal" aspect as part of your argument.

I will give you the Catholic position and let's see if you do or don't agree. The Catholic view affirms the reality of Christ as our substitute, but with crucial distinctions from PSA. When the Church Fathers speak of Christ being our sacrificial substitute and bearing our sins, they are speaking not of God the Father pouring out His wrath onto Christ. They are speaking of Christ bearing the curse of suffering and physical death described in Genesis 3, and of Christ offering Himself to the Father as both a perfect high priest and a perfect victim a perfect sacrifice of love.

A Catholic view of atonement emphasizes that when Jesus atones for our sins, He transforms them into a source of goodness not by appeasing God's wrath, but by introducing God's love into the world in a new way.

What Jesus did, God willed; and what Jesus wanted, God wanted. In other words, God's love is the motivation and cause of our redemption, not its result. It's only correct to say that Jesus was punished for our sins if we mean that He suffered unjustly the punishment that sinners justly deserve. It's incorrect to say that God punished Jesus for our sins, because Jesus voluntarily out of God's own love chose to accept the death that the world set up for Him.

---

Jesus willingly accepted our just punishment onto Himself out of His great love. Just as the Israelites laid their hands on a sacrificial animal to transfer their sins, so Jesus took upon Himself our sins and died in our place. His word is full of scripture expressing this idea of Jesus bearing our iniquities.

This doesn't make the cross an unjust punishment toward a perfectly, righteous man; it makes the cross a willing and loving sacrifice.

---

I don't disagree with any of that until you just assume the cross is about punishment. That's the part that violates the Trinity.

---

It's not JUST about punishment.

I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say it violates the Trinity.

Much of the cross is a mystery of which none of us will be able to fully understand.

---

PSA as I understand it says God is wrathful at sin

---

Do you not agree with this idea?

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

PSA twists God the Father into a melancholic tantrum thrower whose lust for wrath can only be sated by treating a perfectly just victim as an unjust victim while treating the unjust as being just. It turns God into an unjust wrathful tantrum thrower. It's heretical.

---

Again, this just isn't true of this belief. There is a penalty for those who do not measure up to God's standard of righteousness (every human other than Jesus). God's justice is perfect and Christ provided that perfect spotless lamb for anyone who would believe. It has nothing to do with a God "whose lust for wrath"and it is impossible for God to be "an unjust wrathful tantrum thrower."

Christ knew he was about to face and endure the wrath of God, the cup as it is often referred to. He sweat great drops of blood, asking for God to remove the cup, not because he didn't want to die, but because he was about to have the full weight of that just punishment (we all deserve) on him as he was on the cross. I already referenced Isaiah 53:10. Psalm 75 refers to this bitter cup as well.

PSA is all about the great exchange. We are given Christ's righteousness that we cannot merit on our own while Christ takes our sin and punishment and unites us to him in his death and resurrection.

Why else was Jesus in such distress leading up to Calvary? The only answer possible is the enduring of his Father's wrath on behalf of His people.

---

Respectfully, I think you are trying to advocate for PSA without the "penal" aspect as part of your argument.

I will give you the Catholic position and let's see if you do or don't agree. The Catholic view affirms the reality of Christ as our substitute, but with crucial distinctions from PSA. When the Church Fathers speak of Christ being our sacrificial substitute and bearing our sins, they are speaking not of God the Father pouring out His wrath onto Christ. They are speaking of Christ bearing the curse of suffering and physical death described in Genesis 3, and of Christ offering Himself to the Father as both a perfect high priest and a perfect victim a perfect sacrifice of love.

A Catholic view of atonement emphasizes that when Jesus atones for our sins, He transforms them into a source of goodness not by appeasing God's wrath, but by introducing God's love into the world in a new way.

What Jesus did, God willed; and what Jesus wanted, God wanted. In other words, God's love is the motivation and cause of our redemption, not its result. It's only correct to say that Jesus was punished for our sins if we mean that He suffered unjustly the punishment that sinners justly deserve. It's incorrect to say that God punished Jesus for our sins, because Jesus voluntarily out of God's own love chose to accept the death that the world set up for Him.

---

Jesus willingly accepted our just punishment onto Himself out of His great love. Just as the Israelites laid their hands on a sacrificial animal to transfer their sins, so Jesus took upon Himself our sins and died in our place. His word is full of scripture expressing this idea of Jesus bearing our iniquities.

This doesn't make the cross an unjust punishment toward a perfectly, righteous man; it makes the cross a willing and loving sacrifice.

---

I don't disagree with any of that until you just assume the cross is about punishment. That's the part that violates the Trinity.

---

It's not JUST about punishment.

I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say it violates the Trinity.

Much of the cross is a mystery of which none of us will be able to fully understand.

---

My point is it cannot be about punishment at all.

PSA as I understand it says God is wrathful at sin, that he is compelled by an exigency of his own nature to expiate that wrath upon a subject by punishing them, that he imputes the sin of believers to Christ and punishes the perfectly innocent and righteous Jesus vicariously in their stead, and imputes the righteousness of Christ to believers so that they are saved through faith alone in virtue of that exchange when they profess faith in Christ so that they are accounted as righteous for Jesus' sake, even though they remain objectively sinful.

Punishment in PSA is inconsistent with the Trinity because the idea that one person of the Trinity vents his wrath out upon another person of the Trinity is entirely violative of the fundamental principles of the Trinity and the relationship of perfect, self-emptying love among the three divine persons.

Moreover, putting aside the question of how inconsistent PSA is with the relationship of the three divine persons, the idea that God, who is love (agape) somehow pretends that a perfectly just person in Christ is unrighteous, unjust and reprobate and so inflicts upon him the punishment rightfully due to the objectively guilty persons while simultaneously treating the objectively guilty person as though they are perfectly innocent makes a perfectly just and infinitely merciful God into an unjust tyrant.

Any theology that is so fundamentally contrary to the basic precepts of THE most basic precept of Christianity (the Trinity) must be rejected.

---

So Jesus suffered physically, before dying, but that's where that ends? How is that not just as unjust? He should not have suffered at all, right?

"…somehow pretends that a perfectly just person in Christ is unrighteous, unjust and reprobate." - this is not what's happening at all, there is no pretending anything. Jesus willing sacrificed Himself in our place. Believers (and God) know He was perfect, unblemished, like the sacrificial animals at the temple. The ones sinners laid their hands upon to transfer their blame. It's what Moses tried to do in Exodus 32 - punish me instead.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

PSA twists God the Father into a melancholic tantrum thrower whose lust for wrath can only be sated by treating a perfectly just victim as an unjust victim while treating the unjust as being just. It turns God into an unjust wrathful tantrum thrower. It's heretical.

---

Again, this just isn't true of this belief. There is a penalty for those who do not measure up to God's standard of righteousness (every human other than Jesus). God's justice is perfect and Christ provided that perfect spotless lamb for anyone who would believe. It has nothing to do with a God "whose lust for wrath"and it is impossible for God to be "an unjust wrathful tantrum thrower."

Christ knew he was about to face and endure the wrath of God, the cup as it is often referred to. He sweat great drops of blood, asking for God to remove the cup, not because he didn't want to die, but because he was about to have the full weight of that just punishment (we all deserve) on him as he was on the cross. I already referenced Isaiah 53:10. Psalm 75 refers to this bitter cup as well.

PSA is all about the great exchange. We are given Christ's righteousness that we cannot merit on our own while Christ takes our sin and punishment and unites us to him in his death and resurrection.

Why else was Jesus in such distress leading up to Calvary? The only answer possible is the enduring of his Father's wrath on behalf of His people.

---

Respectfully, I think you are trying to advocate for PSA without the "penal" aspect as part of your argument.

I will give you the Catholic position and let's see if you do or don't agree. The Catholic view affirms the reality of Christ as our substitute, but with crucial distinctions from PSA. When the Church Fathers speak of Christ being our sacrificial substitute and bearing our sins, they are speaking not of God the Father pouring out His wrath onto Christ. They are speaking of Christ bearing the curse of suffering and physical death described in Genesis 3, and of Christ offering Himself to the Father as both a perfect high priest and a perfect victim a perfect sacrifice of love.

A Catholic view of atonement emphasizes that when Jesus atones for our sins, He transforms them into a source of goodness not by appeasing God's wrath, but by introducing God's love into the world in a new way.

What Jesus did, God willed; and what Jesus wanted, God wanted. In other words, God's love is the motivation and cause of our redemption, not its result. It's only correct to say that Jesus was punished for our sins if we mean that He suffered unjustly the punishment that sinners justly deserve. It's incorrect to say that God punished Jesus for our sins, because Jesus voluntarily out of God's own love chose to accept the death that the world set up for Him.

---

Jesus willingly accepted our just punishment onto Himself out of His great love. Just as the Israelites laid their hands on a sacrificial animal to transfer their sins, so Jesus took upon Himself our sins and died in our place. His word is full of scripture expressing this idea of Jesus bearing our iniquities.

This doesn't make the cross an unjust punishment toward a perfectly, righteous man; it makes the cross a willing and loving sacrifice.

---

I don't disagree with any of that until you just assume the cross is about punishment. That's the part that violates the Trinity.

---

It's not JUST about punishment.

I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say it violates the Trinity.

Much of the cross is a mystery of which none of us will be able to fully understand.

---

PSA as I understand it says God is wrathful at sin

---

Do you not agree with this idea?

---

I think it is anthropomorphic to think an impassable God is wrathful or joyful or sad or angry. I think those words are used in scripture to describe what our lived experience will be if we don't live in accordance with God's will.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

PSA twists God the Father into a melancholic tantrum thrower whose lust for wrath can only be sated by treating a perfectly just victim as an unjust victim while treating the unjust as being just. It turns God into an unjust wrathful tantrum thrower. It's heretical.

---

Again, this just isn't true of this belief. There is a penalty for those who do not measure up to God's standard of righteousness (every human other than Jesus). God's justice is perfect and Christ provided that perfect spotless lamb for anyone who would believe. It has nothing to do with a God "whose lust for wrath"and it is impossible for God to be "an unjust wrathful tantrum thrower."

Christ knew he was about to face and endure the wrath of God, the cup as it is often referred to. He sweat great drops of blood, asking for God to remove the cup, not because he didn't want to die, but because he was about to have the full weight of that just punishment (we all deserve) on him as he was on the cross. I already referenced Isaiah 53:10. Psalm 75 refers to this bitter cup as well.

PSA is all about the great exchange. We are given Christ's righteousness that we cannot merit on our own while Christ takes our sin and punishment and unites us to him in his death and resurrection.

Why else was Jesus in such distress leading up to Calvary? The only answer possible is the enduring of his Father's wrath on behalf of His people.

---

Respectfully, I think you are trying to advocate for PSA without the "penal" aspect as part of your argument.

I will give you the Catholic position and let's see if you do or don't agree. The Catholic view affirms the reality of Christ as our substitute, but with crucial distinctions from PSA. When the Church Fathers speak of Christ being our sacrificial substitute and bearing our sins, they are speaking not of God the Father pouring out His wrath onto Christ. They are speaking of Christ bearing the curse of suffering and physical death described in Genesis 3, and of Christ offering Himself to the Father as both a perfect high priest and a perfect victim a perfect sacrifice of love.

A Catholic view of atonement emphasizes that when Jesus atones for our sins, He transforms them into a source of goodness not by appeasing God's wrath, but by introducing God's love into the world in a new way.

What Jesus did, God willed; and what Jesus wanted, God wanted. In other words, God's love is the motivation and cause of our redemption, not its result. It's only correct to say that Jesus was punished for our sins if we mean that He suffered unjustly the punishment that sinners justly deserve. It's incorrect to say that God punished Jesus for our sins, because Jesus voluntarily out of God's own love chose to accept the death that the world set up for Him.

---

Jesus willingly accepted our just punishment onto Himself out of His great love. Just as the Israelites laid their hands on a sacrificial animal to transfer their sins, so Jesus took upon Himself our sins and died in our place. His word is full of scripture expressing this idea of Jesus bearing our iniquities.

This doesn't make the cross an unjust punishment toward a perfectly, righteous man; it makes the cross a willing and loving sacrifice.

---

I don't disagree with any of that until you just assume the cross is about punishment. That's the part that violates the Trinity.

---

It's not JUST about punishment.

I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say it violates the Trinity.

Much of the cross is a mystery of which none of us will be able to fully understand.

---

My point is it cannot be about punishment at all.

PSA as I understand it says God is wrathful at sin, that he is compelled by an exigency of his own nature to expiate that wrath upon a subject by punishing them, that he imputes the sin of believers to Christ and punishes the perfectly innocent and righteous Jesus vicariously in their stead, and imputes the righteousness of Christ to believers so that they are saved through faith alone in virtue of that exchange when they profess faith in Christ so that they are accounted as righteous for Jesus' sake, even though they remain objectively sinful.

Punishment in PSA is inconsistent with the Trinity because the idea that one person of the Trinity vents his wrath out upon another person of the Trinity is entirely violative of the fundamental principles of the Trinity and the relationship of perfect, self-emptying love among the three divine persons.

Moreover, putting aside the question of how inconsistent PSA is with the relationship of the three divine persons, the idea that God, who is love (agape) somehow pretends that a perfectly just person in Christ is unrighteous, unjust and reprobate and so inflicts upon him the punishment rightfully due to the objectively guilty persons while simultaneously treating the objectively guilty person as though they are perfectly innocent makes a perfectly just and infinitely merciful God into an unjust tyrant.

Any theology that is so fundamentally contrary to the basic precepts of THE most basic precept of Christianity (the Trinity) must be rejected.

---

So Jesus suffered physically, before dying, but that's where that ends? How is that not just as unjust? He should not have suffered at all, right?

"…somehow pretends that a perfectly just person in Christ is unrighteous, unjust and reprobate." - this is not what's happening at all, there is no pretending anything. Jesus willing sacrificed Himself in our place. Believers (and God) know He was perfect, unblemished, like the sacrificial animals at the temple. The ones sinners laid their hands upon to transfer their blame. It's what Moses tried to do in Exodus 32 - punish me instead.

---

I think perhaps we are talking past each other. So I apologize if I am contributing to that.

I don't understand the point of your questions. So I will simply say that Jesus suffered physically and emotionally and psychologically all the sufferings that were due to all mankind. He went all the way down into our wretchedness and in doing so he redeemed it all by way of sacrificing himself unto death. But not because God's nature demanded, absolutely mandated that he expiate his wrath on someone. This is an absolutely fundamental aspect of PSA as I understand.

Here is where PSA fractures under the weight of Nicene orthodoxy. PSA suggests a picture of the Triune God in which the Son is a "detachable person" of the Godhead from whom the Father can separate himself and remove himself to a distance, over against whom the Father can stand, and upon whom the Father can act for his own sake, to satisfy himself. The penal substitution model thus implies a Trinity comprising not only distinct but separable, even conflicting persons quite contrary to the ecumenical creedal affirmation of Nicaea and Constantinople.
This is the core problem. The Council of Nicaea and the entire Catholic tradition insist on the perichoresis the mutual indwelling and perfect unity of the three Divine Persons. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three separate agents who can take opposing positions against one another. They are one God, one will, one act of being. PSA, in its popular formulations, effectively posits the Father and Son as adversaries at Calvary which is nothing less than tri-theism dressed in redemptive language. The concern is that popular preaching about God's wrath being poured out onto Jesus on the cross can be at odds with orthodox Trinitarian theology. "God against God" theories of the atonement imply or explicitly teach that God's Trinitarian life was ruptured on Good Friday.

Athanasius' understanding of the Father-Son relationship disqualifies PSA where the Son receives the punitive and retributive wrath of God, and questions any definition of justification in which the Father has a different experience of us than the Son and the Spirit.

For Athanasius, who was the great defender of Nicene orthodoxy, the Father and Son are in perfect, unbroken communion. There is no and cannot be any scenario in which the Father directs wrath at the Son. The Son does not suffer from God; He suffers for humanity, with the full willing participation of the entire Trinity.

What is your explanation on Isa 53:10?

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

PSA twists God the Father into a melancholic tantrum thrower whose lust for wrath can only be sated by treating a perfectly just victim as an unjust victim while treating the unjust as being just. It turns God into an unjust wrathful tantrum thrower. It's heretical.

---

Again, this just isn't true of this belief. There is a penalty for those who do not measure up to God's standard of righteousness (every human other than Jesus). God's justice is perfect and Christ provided that perfect spotless lamb for anyone who would believe. It has nothing to do with a God "whose lust for wrath"and it is impossible for God to be "an unjust wrathful tantrum thrower."

Christ knew he was about to face and endure the wrath of God, the cup as it is often referred to. He sweat great drops of blood, asking for God to remove the cup, not because he didn't want to die, but because he was about to have the full weight of that just punishment (we all deserve) on him as he was on the cross. I already referenced Isaiah 53:10. Psalm 75 refers to this bitter cup as well.

PSA is all about the great exchange. We are given Christ's righteousness that we cannot merit on our own while Christ takes our sin and punishment and unites us to him in his death and resurrection.

Why else was Jesus in such distress leading up to Calvary? The only answer possible is the enduring of his Father's wrath on behalf of His people.

---

Respectfully, I think you are trying to advocate for PSA without the "penal" aspect as part of your argument.

I will give you the Catholic position and let's see if you do or don't agree. The Catholic view affirms the reality of Christ as our substitute, but with crucial distinctions from PSA. When the Church Fathers speak of Christ being our sacrificial substitute and bearing our sins, they are speaking not of God the Father pouring out His wrath onto Christ. They are speaking of Christ bearing the curse of suffering and physical death described in Genesis 3, and of Christ offering Himself to the Father as both a perfect high priest and a perfect victim a perfect sacrifice of love.

A Catholic view of atonement emphasizes that when Jesus atones for our sins, He transforms them into a source of goodness not by appeasing God's wrath, but by introducing God's love into the world in a new way.

What Jesus did, God willed; and what Jesus wanted, God wanted. In other words, God's love is the motivation and cause of our redemption, not its result. It's only correct to say that Jesus was punished for our sins if we mean that He suffered unjustly the punishment that sinners justly deserve. It's incorrect to say that God punished Jesus for our sins, because Jesus voluntarily out of God's own love chose to accept the death that the world set up for Him.

---

Jesus willingly accepted our just punishment onto Himself out of His great love. Just as the Israelites laid their hands on a sacrificial animal to transfer their sins, so Jesus took upon Himself our sins and died in our place. His word is full of scripture expressing this idea of Jesus bearing our iniquities.

This doesn't make the cross an unjust punishment toward a perfectly, righteous man; it makes the cross a willing and loving sacrifice.

---

I don't disagree with any of that until you just assume the cross is about punishment. That's the part that violates the Trinity.

---

It's not JUST about punishment.

I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say it violates the Trinity.

Much of the cross is a mystery of which none of us will be able to fully understand.

---

PSA as I understand it says God is wrathful at sin

---

Do you not agree with this idea?

---

I think it is anthropomorphic to think an impassable God is wrathful or joyful or sad or angry. I think those words are used in scripture to describe what our lived experience will be if we don't live in accordance with God's will.

---

Didn't God say "this is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased" when Jesus was baptized? Would that not be the emotion of Joy?

Bighunter43 said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

PSA twists God the Father into a melancholic tantrum thrower whose lust for wrath can only be sated by treating a perfectly just victim as an unjust victim while treating the unjust as being just. It turns God into an unjust wrathful tantrum thrower. It's heretical.

---

Again, this just isn't true of this belief. There is a penalty for those who do not measure up to God's standard of righteousness (every human other than Jesus). God's justice is perfect and Christ provided that perfect spotless lamb for anyone who would believe. It has nothing to do with a God "whose lust for wrath"and it is impossible for God to be "an unjust wrathful tantrum thrower."

Christ knew he was about to face and endure the wrath of God, the cup as it is often referred to. He sweat great drops of blood, asking for God to remove the cup, not because he didn't want to die, but because he was about to have the full weight of that just punishment (we all deserve) on him as he was on the cross. I already referenced Isaiah 53:10. Psalm 75 refers to this bitter cup as well.

PSA is all about the great exchange. We are given Christ's righteousness that we cannot merit on our own while Christ takes our sin and punishment and unites us to him in his death and resurrection.

Why else was Jesus in such distress leading up to Calvary? The only answer possible is the enduring of his Father's wrath on behalf of His people.

---

Respectfully, I think you are trying to advocate for PSA without the "penal" aspect as part of your argument.

I will give you the Catholic position and let's see if you do or don't agree. The Catholic view affirms the reality of Christ as our substitute, but with crucial distinctions from PSA. When the Church Fathers speak of Christ being our sacrificial substitute and bearing our sins, they are speaking not of God the Father pouring out His wrath onto Christ. They are speaking of Christ bearing the curse of suffering and physical death described in Genesis 3, and of Christ offering Himself to the Father as both a perfect high priest and a perfect victim a perfect sacrifice of love.

A Catholic view of atonement emphasizes that when Jesus atones for our sins, He transforms them into a source of goodness not by appeasing God's wrath, but by introducing God's love into the world in a new way.

What Jesus did, God willed; and what Jesus wanted, God wanted. In other words, God's love is the motivation and cause of our redemption, not its result. It's only correct to say that Jesus was punished for our sins if we mean that He suffered unjustly the punishment that sinners justly deserve. It's incorrect to say that God punished Jesus for our sins, because Jesus voluntarily out of God's own love chose to accept the death that the world set up for Him.

---

Jesus willingly accepted our just punishment onto Himself out of His great love. Just as the Israelites laid their hands on a sacrificial animal to transfer their sins, so Jesus took upon Himself our sins and died in our place. His word is full of scripture expressing this idea of Jesus bearing our iniquities.

This doesn't make the cross an unjust punishment toward a perfectly, righteous man; it makes the cross a willing and loving sacrifice.

---

I don't disagree with any of that until you just assume the cross is about punishment. That's the part that violates the Trinity.

---

It's not JUST about punishment.

I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say it violates the Trinity.

Much of the cross is a mystery of which none of us will be able to fully understand.

---

PSA as I understand it says God is wrathful at sin

---

Do you not agree with this idea?

---

I think it is anthropomorphic to think an impassable God is wrathful or joyful or sad or angry. I think those words are used in scripture to describe what our lived experience will be if we don't live in accordance with God's will.

---

Didn't God say "this is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased" when Jesus was baptized? Would that not be the emotion of Joy?

---

I think God has divine, perfect, immutable emotions. We can't even comprehend what it's like because our emotions are tainted by sin. Love, anger, wrath, joy, hate, jealousy…

Our emotions came from somewhere though. And Jesus experienced emotions as well.

Bighunter43 said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

PSA twists God the Father into a melancholic tantrum thrower whose lust for wrath can only be sated by treating a perfectly just victim as an unjust victim while treating the unjust as being just. It turns God into an unjust wrathful tantrum thrower. It's heretical.

---

Again, this just isn't true of this belief. There is a penalty for those who do not measure up to God's standard of righteousness (every human other than Jesus). God's justice is perfect and Christ provided that perfect spotless lamb for anyone who would believe. It has nothing to do with a God "whose lust for wrath"and it is impossible for God to be "an unjust wrathful tantrum thrower."

Christ knew he was about to face and endure the wrath of God, the cup as it is often referred to. He sweat great drops of blood, asking for God to remove the cup, not because he didn't want to die, but because he was about to have the full weight of that just punishment (we all deserve) on him as he was on the cross. I already referenced Isaiah 53:10. Psalm 75 refers to this bitter cup as well.

PSA is all about the great exchange. We are given Christ's righteousness that we cannot merit on our own while Christ takes our sin and punishment and unites us to him in his death and resurrection.

Why else was Jesus in such distress leading up to Calvary? The only answer possible is the enduring of his Father's wrath on behalf of His people.

---

Respectfully, I think you are trying to advocate for PSA without the "penal" aspect as part of your argument.

I will give you the Catholic position and let's see if you do or don't agree. The Catholic view affirms the reality of Christ as our substitute, but with crucial distinctions from PSA. When the Church Fathers speak of Christ being our sacrificial substitute and bearing our sins, they are speaking not of God the Father pouring out His wrath onto Christ. They are speaking of Christ bearing the curse of suffering and physical death described in Genesis 3, and of Christ offering Himself to the Father as both a perfect high priest and a perfect victim a perfect sacrifice of love.

A Catholic view of atonement emphasizes that when Jesus atones for our sins, He transforms them into a source of goodness not by appeasing God's wrath, but by introducing God's love into the world in a new way.

What Jesus did, God willed; and what Jesus wanted, God wanted. In other words, God's love is the motivation and cause of our redemption, not its result. It's only correct to say that Jesus was punished for our sins if we mean that He suffered unjustly the punishment that sinners justly deserve. It's incorrect to say that God punished Jesus for our sins, because Jesus voluntarily out of God's own love chose to accept the death that the world set up for Him.

---

Jesus willingly accepted our just punishment onto Himself out of His great love. Just as the Israelites laid their hands on a sacrificial animal to transfer their sins, so Jesus took upon Himself our sins and died in our place. His word is full of scripture expressing this idea of Jesus bearing our iniquities.

This doesn't make the cross an unjust punishment toward a perfectly, righteous man; it makes the cross a willing and loving sacrifice.

---

I don't disagree with any of that until you just assume the cross is about punishment. That's the part that violates the Trinity.

---

It's not JUST about punishment.

I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say it violates the Trinity.

Much of the cross is a mystery of which none of us will be able to fully understand.

---

PSA as I understand it says God is wrathful at sin

---

Do you not agree with this idea?

---

I think it is anthropomorphic to think an impassable God is wrathful or joyful or sad or angry. I think those words are used in scripture to describe what our lived experience will be if we don't live in accordance with God's will.

---

Didn't God say "this is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased" when Jesus was baptized? Would that not be the emotion of Joy?

---

From our perspective we might ascribe a human emotion to that event as described, but it simply cannot be an accurate description of God's actual state because God is impassable.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

PSA twists God the Father into a melancholic tantrum thrower whose lust for wrath can only be sated by treating a perfectly just victim as an unjust victim while treating the unjust as being just. It turns God into an unjust wrathful tantrum thrower. It's heretical.

---

Again, this just isn't true of this belief. There is a penalty for those who do not measure up to God's standard of righteousness (every human other than Jesus). God's justice is perfect and Christ provided that perfect spotless lamb for anyone who would believe. It has nothing to do with a God "whose lust for wrath"and it is impossible for God to be "an unjust wrathful tantrum thrower."

Christ knew he was about to face and endure the wrath of God, the cup as it is often referred to. He sweat great drops of blood, asking for God to remove the cup, not because he didn't want to die, but because he was about to have the full weight of that just punishment (we all deserve) on him as he was on the cross. I already referenced Isaiah 53:10. Psalm 75 refers to this bitter cup as well.

PSA is all about the great exchange. We are given Christ's righteousness that we cannot merit on our own while Christ takes our sin and punishment and unites us to him in his death and resurrection.

Why else was Jesus in such distress leading up to Calvary? The only answer possible is the enduring of his Father's wrath on behalf of His people.

---

Respectfully, I think you are trying to advocate for PSA without the "penal" aspect as part of your argument.

I will give you the Catholic position and let's see if you do or don't agree. The Catholic view affirms the reality of Christ as our substitute, but with crucial distinctions from PSA. When the Church Fathers speak of Christ being our sacrificial substitute and bearing our sins, they are speaking not of God the Father pouring out His wrath onto Christ. They are speaking of Christ bearing the curse of suffering and physical death described in Genesis 3, and of Christ offering Himself to the Father as both a perfect high priest and a perfect victim a perfect sacrifice of love.

A Catholic view of atonement emphasizes that when Jesus atones for our sins, He transforms them into a source of goodness not by appeasing God's wrath, but by introducing God's love into the world in a new way.

What Jesus did, God willed; and what Jesus wanted, God wanted. In other words, God's love is the motivation and cause of our redemption, not its result. It's only correct to say that Jesus was punished for our sins if we mean that He suffered unjustly the punishment that sinners justly deserve. It's incorrect to say that God punished Jesus for our sins, because Jesus voluntarily out of God's own love chose to accept the death that the world set up for Him.

---

Jesus willingly accepted our just punishment onto Himself out of His great love. Just as the Israelites laid their hands on a sacrificial animal to transfer their sins, so Jesus took upon Himself our sins and died in our place. His word is full of scripture expressing this idea of Jesus bearing our iniquities.

This doesn't make the cross an unjust punishment toward a perfectly, righteous man; it makes the cross a willing and loving sacrifice.

---

I don't disagree with any of that until you just assume the cross is about punishment. That's the part that violates the Trinity.

---

It's not JUST about punishment.

I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say it violates the Trinity.

Much of the cross is a mystery of which none of us will be able to fully understand.

---

PSA as I understand it says God is wrathful at sin

---

Do you not agree with this idea?

---

I think it is anthropomorphic to think an impassable God is wrathful or joyful or sad or angry. I think those words are used in scripture to describe what our lived experience will be if we don't live in accordance with God's will.

---

Didn't God say "this is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased" when Jesus was baptized? Would that not be the emotion of Joy?

---

From our perspective we might ascribe a human emotion to that event as described, but it simply cannot be an accurate description of God's actual state because God is impassable.

---

I don't think it's us ascribing human emotion though?

Scripture records the words the Father used. I don't think we can see "well pleased" as neutral or unemotional? That is a positive connotation.

"I think God has divine, perfect, immutable emotions."

I know this is crude, but I think God does have a sense of humor. Man is the only creature to laugh at a fart. I've seen/heard my dog fart and not blink an eye. My kids on the other hand will just fall out laughing with just the thought of one.

I don't know that God does not have what our limited minds understand as emotion, but given the gifts he has bestowed on man to include humor- I can't help but think he smiles on us from time to time.

Let's come at this a different way.

What is the Doctrine of Divine Impassibility? The word "impassible" comes from the Latin for suffering (passio). Divine impassibility, therefore, refers to that essence of God which cannot suffer, cannot be acted upon, overwhelmed, or changed by external forces.
This is not a peripheral idea. Divine impassibility has been taught by the Christian Church from the beginning. The early Church held it as self-evident that God was unchangeable, eternal, and incapable of being acted upon from within or without.

What do we do with passages of Scripture that certainly appear to show God experiencing emotions like any other person? God is described as grieving (Genesis 6:6), being angry (Exodus 4:14), rejoicing (Zephaniah 3:17), and even "repenting" (1 Samuel 15:11). How do we reconcile this with impassibility?

The answer lies in a crucial interpretive tool: anthropopathism.

Just as the Bible often describes God as having various body parts, a strong arm, a long nose, a footstool under his feet, calling these anthropomorphisms (talking about God using the language of human physicality), the Bible is equally full of anthropopathisms: talking about God using the language of human emotions.

Insistence upon the literal interpretation of the metaphorical leads to the error of anthropomorphism. The inadequacy of human thought to comprehend the greatness, goodness, and infinite perfection of God, is at the heart of this. In other words, when God is described as "angry" or "grieving," Scripture is accommodating to human understanding. God is not literally experiencing a turbulent inner state the way a human does. Rather, Scripture uses human emotional vocabulary to communicate something real about God's eternal disposition toward sin, love, and justice, those truths that would otherwise be beyond our capacity to grasp. The limitations of our conceptual capacity mean we have to represent God to ourselves in ideas originally drawn from our knowledge of self and the objective world.

There is a distinction between Affections and Passions.
Thomas Aquinas provides the essential philosophical distinction here:

God has affections (motions of the will), but philosophically speaking, He does not have passions (experiences that happen to Him or render Him passive). God cannot be affected from without, nor does He will to be changed from within. God is so completely full of action that He cannot change. Impassibility does not reject God's vitality. It safeguards it. This is the key. God's "wrath" against sin is not an emotion that overtakes Him the way anger overtakes us. It is an eternal and perfect act of His will. It is a divine orientation that, when described to finite human minds, sounds like emotion. Similarly, God's love is not a feeling He falls into. It is His very being, unchanging and total.

Now, what are the implications of the Incarnation on this? The Son of God assumed a full human nature and became a man. The one divine person had one divine and one human nature, each with its own intellect and will, and these two natures did not mix together or exclude one another.

So when the Gospels show Jesus weeping at the tomb of Lazarus, or experiencing agony in Gethsemane, those are real human emotions experienced in His human nature, not disruptions to the impassible divine nature. The early Church did not think of the impassible God as static and lifeless. The Church Fathers believed that the impassible God was also passionate. God is immoveable, but not inert.

So what? Far from making God cold or distant, divine impassibility actually provides perfect security for the believer. Think about it. A God whose love could waver, whose faithfulness could be shaken by circumstance, whose commitment to you could be diminished by His own inner turmoil, that would be a terrifying God, completely destabilizing and disorienting. The God of Scripture loves perfectly because His love is not subject to mood, fatigue, or fluctuation. God's love is unwavering and free from fleshly fluctuation. When Scripture says God "repents" or "grieves," it is not reporting a change in God. It's reporting a change in the situation and describing God's perfect eternal response to that change in terms we can understand.

The tension between the vivid, relational language of Scripture and the timeless perfection of God's nature is not a contradiction. Scripture uses the language of the heart so that hearts can receive what pure philosophy alone could never convey.

I think that is a well written understanding of a stable God unmoved from within or without.

Help me understand then, if man is made in the image of God, and what little we know of love, grief, anger, and humor- are those senses man's alone as in (fully man) or are they someway a reflection of the creator?

Is it not written:

1 John 4:8: "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."

PabloSerna said:

---

I think that is a well written understanding of a stable God unmoved from within or without.

Help me understand then, if man is made in the image of God, and what little we know of love, grief, anger, and humor- are those senses man's alone as in (fully man) or are they someway a reflection of the creator?

Is it not written:

1 John 4:8: "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."

---

Imho, everything, including all of our emotions and thoughts and desires, etc, is a reflection of the Creator to some degree, although in various imperfect and often disordered ways. The extent to which creation, including us, reflects our Creator is what it means to be made in the image and likeness of our Creator.

But more importantly to this question, God is not made up of elements of something else. God is ultimately simple. This is divine simplicity.

Divine simplicity is the doctrine that God, unlike all creation, is utterly simple, without parts, without composition, without any division whatsoever between what He is and how He is. This is entirely consistent with God's impassibility.

More concretely: in God there is no composition of any kind, whether of substance and accidents, of essence and existence, of nature and person, of power and activity, of genus and specific difference. Put simply: God is not made of anything. Divine simplicity teaches that God has no parts, passions, or possibility. He is infinitely active. The doctrine answers the question, "What is God made out of?" by saying "nothing"

Just because we experience things elementally doesn't mean God is elemental. We and all our aspects are derived from God. God is derived from nothing.

That's the best way my feeble mind can answer your question.