Our Lord Jesus Was Made A Curse?

[Slug1]

While God loves mankind, His "wrath" MUST be served to all of sinful mankind. This means that even FOR the believer, God's wrath must be executed.

No it doesn't.

So, on "Who" did God's wrath abide on, for believers?

On nobody. It's like when your children are repentant for something they did. You don't take your anger out on anyone for the offense after that, because as a loving father, you forgive them.

God chastens all his children. Even Jesus submitted himself to his Father in this way, although he needed no correction,

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; Heb.5:8

The writer doesn't mean "Jesus learned obedience". He means obedience is learned through suffering and Jesus is the perfect example of this. Look at Heb.12:4-13. Look at what he's saying.

You are missing "righteousness" in your analogy of a loving father. Due to "righteousness" God's punishment MUST be and will be executed. This is a critical part of the Gospel message that is missing from your theology.

So on "Who" did God's wrath abide on, for believers?

[journeyman]

You are missing "righteousness" in your analogy of a loving father. Due to "righteousness" God's punishment MUST be and will be executed. This is a critical part of the Gospel message that is missing from your theology.

Gods punishment isn't missing from my theology. I just showed you on who God's punishment will be executed,

the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all.....who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Rom.1:18

To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them...Jde.1:15

So on "Who" did God's wrath abide on, for believers?

I told you Slug, on nobody. Executing wrath on people who are truly sorry isn't the righteousness of God,

 O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:  Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? Mt.18:32-33

It's unrighteousness to our Father.
[/quote]

[Athanasius]

I just showed you that our Lord viewed people as evil.

You didn't. You quoted a verse, asserted that Jesus was making an ontological statement about his listeners, and then for some reason used this as justification for your self-contempt despite your ongoing failure to properly distinguish between it and righteous hatred.

Matthew 7 does indeed say what it says, but are we going to suggest from that, that anything not good is de facto evil? Creation is truly black-and-white, and there are no moral categories, or degrees? I agree with Jesus that no one is good but God alone, but that doesn't mean that everyone else is evil. Surely there are evil people. Surely, our hearts are inclined towards the things not of God - as we all know very well - but to flatten every category with a finger pointing "evil!" seems a bit much.

Jesus only appeared human; humans are purely evil. This is the stuff the ancient heresies were made of.

Being morally imperfect by nature etc is just another way of saying people are evil.

No, it's not, but it does leave open the possibility for a person to choose a life of evil. Adam and Eve were morally imperfect in the garden even prior to their fall, so should we describe them as evil? Of course, we'd have to say that God's declaration that they were created "very good" means that God viewed His evil creations as "very good". I'm sure you can see how this quickly becomes absurd.

I never said Christ wasn't changing me. In fact it's because of his nature that I realize how evil I am. Maybe you're old nature is no longer with you. I'm in a war against mine every day, because it's contemptible.

Considering my disagreements with St Augustine I would suspect that my "old nature", in his terms, is still quite present. Again, you ought to be engaged in a righteous battle, not one where you view yourself with contempt. I've been there, I've done that, it's not the right way.

[journeyman]

Surely, our hearts are inclined towards the things not of God - as we all know very well - but to flatten every category with a finger pointing "evil!" seems a bit much.

I'm sure the people who wanted to bash in the head of the adulteress felt as you do, until they met Jesus.

Jesus only appeared human; humans are purely evil. This is the stuff the ancient heresies were made of.

The point i was making was, people who saw him were unaware that Jesus is God.

No, it's not, but it does leave open the possibility for a person to choose a life of evil. Adam and Eve were morally imperfect in the garden even prior to their fall...

No they weren't.

Of course, we'd have to say that God's declaration that they were created "very good" means that God viewed His evil creations as "very good". I'm sure you can see how this quickly becomes absurd.

God didn't make any "evil creations". God did make a system that was very good, where good and evil are separated.

....you ought to be engaged in a righteous battle, not one where you view yourself with contempt. I've been there, I've done that, it's not the right way.

The battle against self will contrary to what is pleasing to God is a righteous battle. Think of yourself as you like.

[Athanasius]

I'm sure the people who wanted to bash in the head of the adulteress felt as you do, until they met Jesus.

As someone who doesn't go around playing moral arbiter in the lives of others, I'll have to disagree. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the (entirely off base) implications but what you wrote doesn't even begin to respond to what you quoted.

The point i was making was, people who saw him were unaware that Jesus is God.

Okay, well, that's an odd way to write it.

No they weren't.

They sinned, meaning they had the capacity to sin, so yes, they were morally imperfect.

God didn't make any "evil creations". God did make a system that was very good, where good and evil are separated.

My point is that the flattening of moral categories to only 'good' and 'evil' isn't appropriate. You clearly disagree but you haven't provided an argument in support of your view.

The battle against self will contrary to what is pleasing to God is a righteous battle. Think of yourself as you like.

Yet you fail to provide any Scripture commending self-contempt.

[Slug1]

Yet you fail to provide any Scripture commending self-contempt.

This is on point. Journeyman seems to declare his self-contempt as a badge of honor.

While conviction will hit us when we're tempted, point out that we're about to sin... conviction will not leave us in a state of self-contempt.

[journeyman]

As someone who doesn't go around playing moral arbiter in the lives of others, I'll have to disagree. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the (entirely off base) implications but what you wrote doesn't even begin to respond to what you quoted.

Sure it does, because what Jesus wanted them to realize was that they were no better than the girl they were going to put to death. I'm glad you don't condemn others. I don't either, but I did before our Lord taught me.

Okay, well, that's an odd way to write it.

Not odd at all. Although Jesus performed miracles, the people who saw him, saw him only as a man. They didn't realize he created them.

They sinned, meaning they had the capacity to sin, so yes, they were morally imperfect.

Having the capacity to commit sin isn't the same as committing sin.

My point is that the flattening of moral categories to only 'good' and 'evil' isn't appropriate. You clearly disagree but you haven't provided an argument in support of your view.

The support for my view is my own life. I don't need to look any farther than that and neither does anyone who is honest about his own life.

Yet you fail to provide any Scripture commending self-contempt.

Yes I have. I've taken what the scriptures say in relation to my own life. Here it is again,

 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Lk.14:26

So Athanasius, do you believe God viewed his Son as a curse, or that God poured his wrath out on his Son?

[journeyman]

Yet you fail to provide any Scripture commending self-contempt.

This is on point. Journeyman seems to declare his self-contempt as a badge of honor.

While conviction will hit us when we're tempted, point out that we're about to sin... conviction will not leave us in a state of self-contempt.

You didn't respond to post 136.

[Athanasius]

Sure it does, because what Jesus wanted them to realize was that they were no better than the girl they were going to put to death.

It doesn't. Here's a refresher:

Athanasius: Surely, our hearts are inclined towards the things not of God - as we all know very well - but to flatten every category with a finger pointing "evil!" seems a bit much.

Here, I'm suggesting that your dismissal of every moral category other than 'good' and 'evil' is inappropriate in light of your proof-texting of Matthew. To be clear, I'm not arguing that people are 'good' or that this person is better than that person.

What I am saying, and what you're denying, is that the degrees of morality matter. Only God is good, but that does not mean that the murderer is the moral peer of the liar. That does not mean the liar ought to think of herself as better than the murderer. She isn't and is well capable of murder herself.

You then replied:

journeyman: I'm sure the people who wanted to bash in the head of the adulteress felt as you do, until they met Jesus.

There are a few implications here. One is that I haven't met Jesus, and another is that I view myself as being superior to others. Presumably, you think that I see myself as superior to you (since we're currently engaged in this discussion). I do not, to be clear, although as stated I do regard your confusion between self-content and righteous hatred to be misguided and wrongheaded.

I then replied:

Athanasius: As someone who doesn't go around playing moral arbiter in the lives of others, I'll have to disagree.

To which you suggest that just like the scribes and Pharisees I haven't learned that I'm not better than the next person. That's a big assumption, and importantly, wrong. This assumption seems to be informed by your insistence that self-contempt is an appropriate self-view, let alone for a Christian. Having been there, it is not.

I struggle with the opposite, actually. I think that everyone else is better than me, or that my struggles are worse than the struggles of anyone else and I am, in fact, the epitome of the worst of God's creation. Self-contempt is comfortable but it's not the place to be. It's destructive, and ought not be enjoyed in the life of the Christian.

I'm glad you don't condemn others. I don't either, but I did before our Lord taught me.

That's good; I didn't. At least, not in the way you're suggesting.

Not odd at all. Although Jesus performed miracles, the people who saw him, saw him only as a man. They didn't realize he created them.

Your phrasing, I meant.

Having the capacity to commit sin isn't the same as committing sin.

The capacity to sin and be tempted towards sin is a moral defect.

The support for my view is my own life. I don't need to look any farther than that and neither does anyone who is honest about his own life.

Implying the lot of us are dishonest? Upon reflection, are you sure you aren't judging?

es I have. I've taken what the scriptures say in relation to my own life. Here it is again,

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Lk.14:26

So Athanasius, do you believe God viewed his Son as a curse, or that God poured his wrath out on his Son?

The Scripture in questions means that one ought to love God above all else, not that we ought to hate each other - in distinct contradiction to the two most important commandments - or that self-contempt is commendable. It's a tough saying, but the way you're taking it seems to incorrect.

I agree with RK:

Jesus became sin.  God doesn't punish non-sin or innocence.

That is the great theological mystery of the love of Jesus.
He willingly, literally, became the substance of sin... for me, so that I didn't have to suffer the consequences.

Moreover, He became sin for me, so that I could become righteous, in Him.

[Slug1]

You didn't respond to post 136.

I already tried even before your post. Remember the term "propitiation?"

God had to provide a means of atonement for sinful mankind to be reconciled with Him. So, God the Son came to earth in the form of a man, and received God's wrath which mankind is "due" for sin(fullness). Christ received God's wrath which "delivered" us from that wrath.

Any person who believes, Christ has taken the wrath of God "for" them. Goes back to the 1 Cor 5:21 verse :-) Has 1 Peter 2:24 been raised? Or the Isiah "by His wounds" verse? I have to look that one up to ref it. I will if you want.

[journeyman]

There are a few implications here. One is that I haven't met Jesus.....

The only implication I'm making is that the gospel our Lord taught, doesn't include God pouring his wrath out on his Son.

Implying the lot of us are dishonest? Upon reflection, are you sure you aren't judging?

I'm saying what was done to the Son of God was sinful. When people say, "My sins put Jesus on the cross", the implication should be that our sins are no different than the wrongful shame Jesus was subjected to.

The Scripture in questions means that one ought to love God above all else, not that we ought to hate each other - in distinct contradiction to the two most important commandments - or that self-contempt is commendable. It's a tough saying, but the way you're taking it seems to incorrect.

The way I'm taking it is that we should love the people Jesus mentioned by sharing his gospel with them, because God doesn't love everything about people.

I agree with RK:

Jesus became sin.  God doesn't punish non-sin or innocence.

That is the great theological mystery of the love of Jesus.
He willingly, literally, became the substance of sin... for me, so that I didn't have to suffer the consequences.

Moreover, He became sin for me, so that I could become righteous, in Him.

God didn't punish his Son. Mankind did. Because mankind viewed Jesus as sinful. God never saw his Son as sin.

[journeyman]

I already tried even before your post. Remember the term "propitiation?"

Yes I remember and I told you Jesus turned his wrath away from people who spit on him.

God had to provide a means of atonement for sinful mankind to be reconciled with Him. So, God the Son came to earth in the form of a man, and received God's wrath which mankind is "due" for sin(fullness). Christ received God's wrath which "delivered" us from that wrath.

Sinners are brought into communion with God by the mercy Jesus showed them. God didn't pour his wrath out on his Son. Mankind did and Jesus patiently endured the abuse, instead of dropping the hammer.

Any person who believes, Christ has taken the wrath of God "for" them. Goes back to the 1 Cor 5:21 verse :-) Has 1 Peter 2:24 been raised? Or the Isiah "by His wounds" verse? I have to look that one up to ref it. I will if you want.

Of course we're healed by his wounds, because if Jesus decided to stop the abuse being heaped on him, that would be the end of sinners. I've already explained this my friend,

when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.....
because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example....1Pet.2:20-21

Look at what he's saying.

[Athanasius]

The only implication I'm making is that the gospel our Lord taught, doesn't include God pouring his wrath out on his Son.

Let's stick to the context of the quote:

"I'm sure the people who wanted to bash in the head of the adulteress felt as you do, until they met Jesus."
Implication: like the people who "wanted to bash in the head of the adulteress" I have not met Jesus.

Otherwise, you're making statements in the view expressed above, not implying it.

I'm saying what was done to the Son of God was sinful. When people say, "My sins put Jesus on the cross", the implication should be that our sins are no different than the wrongful shame Jesus was subjected to.

This is what you're saying elsewhere, not what you said in my quote:

"The support for my view is my own life. I don't need to look any farther than that and neither does anyone who is honest about his own life."

But anyway, what exactly do you think was done to the Son of God that was sinful? There were certainly sinful things done to Jesus, but if you mean the crucifixion then you are at odds with the whole of Christian teaching.

The way I'm taking it is that we should love the people Jesus mentioned by sharing his gospel with them, because God doesn't love everything about people.

You quoted that portion of Scripture to defend your view that self-contempt is commended in Scripture. So, Jesus said to hate one's family, but that actually means sharing the Gospel with them, because God doesn't love everything about people, and so, the Christian is justified in her self-contempt?

Care to connect the dots for me?

God didn't punish his Son. Mankind did. Because mankind viewed Jesus as sinful. God never saw his Son as sin.

Do you mind explaining what you mean?

[Slug1]

Sinners are brought into communion with God by the mercy Jesus showed them.

Negative... they are brought into reconciliation with the Father due to the "death" (and resurrection) the Son endured. All one must due is believe that Christ is the Son of God and that "He" died FOR them, so their (the sinner who chooses to believe), sins may be forgiven.

God didn't pour his wrath out on his Son. Mankind did and Jesus patiently endured the abuse, instead of dropping the hammer.

This statement only serves to reveal your resistance to the truth about, "propitiation." Ro 3, Heb 2, 1 John 2 and 4.

[Pbminimum]

Sinners are brought into communion with God by the mercy Jesus showed them. God didn't pour his wrath out on his Son. Mankind did and Jesus patiently endured the abuse, instead of dropping the hammer.

Do you understand that there are no Catechisms, Statements of Faith, or any of the early church Fathers writings that agree with your view ? This should concern you. Also, when you hold this view you would also need to hold the view that there is no literal hell. Why ? God's wrath ( which is real by the way ) is nowhere in your doctrines, even though it is very, very clear in the scriptures.

If Jesus didn't suffer God's wrath ( not mans ) then He is not just. If it was mans wrath poured out an Christ and not God's, then Christ needed not come at all. This doctrine is a house of cards that doesn't line up with any scripture. It puts man in control of his own destiny and makes us judge. jury and executioner- not God. It also makes grace of no effect because the only one who can offer grace is the one put His own judgment on another.