Did Jesus bear Gods wrath and was He forsaken ?

Carbon

Well-known member
Yes wrath and the Trinity .
You bring up a subject that I’m sure no theologian ever saw or considered.?

The burden of proof is on you.

From Genesis to Revelation you’ll find support for Penal Substitution.

In scripture not in Mennonite teachings
 

civic

Well-known member
I’ll go down this road and hold you to your own doctrine you say you believe .

Sola Scriptura

I’m 100 % there and have no need of outside sources to defend the Godhead and wrath . You do .
 

Carbon

Well-known member
Find wrath from Father to Son in the Bible not your leaders you trust in or their “ interpretation “ .

Back to Sola Scriptura

Next
As I said about the Trinity, what I’ve read supports my beliefs and I agree if they pass the test of scripture.

Our Hermeneutic has a lot to do with it. Which should be adjusted to scripture
 

Carbon

Well-known member
I’ll go down this road and hold you to your own doctrine you say you believe .

Sola Scriptura

I’m 100 % there and have no need of outside sources to defend the Godhead and wrath . You do .
I do?

Ok thanks for sharing your opinion of me. You know me better than I know me.

And your the one who brings up all the theologians you read on the Trinity. And the Mennonite book you’ll have to read again to get familiar with the doctrines.

Yea ok.

Double standards much?
 

civic

Well-known member
As I said about the Trinity, what I’ve read supports my beliefs and I agree if they pass the test of scripture.

Our Hermeneutic has a lot to do with it. Which should be adjusted to scripture
I’m talking about scripture not theologians or pastors . Sola Scriptura
 

civic

Well-known member
I do?

Ok thanks for sharing your opinion of me. You know me better than I know me.

And your the one who brings up all the theologians you read on the Trinity. And the Mennonite book you’ll have to read again to get familiar with the doctrines.

Yea ok.

Double standards much?
I never said anything about the Trinity with him just the book on the tabernacle. Any more false claims ?
 

Carbon

Well-known member
I never said anything about the Trinity with him just the book on the tabernacle. Any more false claims ?
Civic, do me a favor, don’t use that technique on me please.

but just in case, let me walk you through my post.
Here is what I wrote:
“And your the one who brings up all the theologians you read on the Trinity. And the Mennonite book you’ll have to read again to get familiar with the doctrines.”

see the first half of the sentence? The theologians on the Trinity?

now see the second half? The Mennonite book that you have to read again to get familiar with the doctrines? (So much for sola scripture)

Do you see the break? It’s obvious I’m talking about two different things. And I never said your Mennonite book taught in the trinity. But does it?

So don’t use that technique on me. Thanks
 

Predestined

Well-known member
Somebody “has some ‘splainin’ to do”

“Explain the doctrine of the Trinity to me!” Easier said than done. So how do we do this? We learn here very quickly that even basic biblical truths can be difficult to understand and explain especially in this format. And yet, the doctrine of the Trinity is such a practical necessity to the Christian life that we simply cannot do without it. So we keep on trucking and in our endeavor to be enlightened by God's word.

This is important in our present debate about PSA and God's wrath, because some have suggested that for the Son to propitiate his Fathers wrath would divide the Trinity. But this is simply not true. The principle of inseparable operation underlines that the Father and the Son share a unity of will and purpose.

PSA does not imply that the Father is unwillingly coerced into an attitude of forgiveness, or that the Son is unwillingly coerced into offering himself as a sacrifice. When we say that the Son propitiates the Father, this is not to be understood as if the Son and the Father are acting against each other. They are fulfilling different roles in a plan to which both are equally committed, in pursuit of outcomes they both desire. We're the ones that benefited. It's interesting to try and figure out the intricate details of the cross but I'm actually more concerned with the results. The results of the Cross means that I'm clean, clean, from the inside out salvation... That's what I'm talking about. I've got that joy joy joy overflowing since I put my Faith in Him.​
 
Last edited:

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
@civic @Carbon @Predestined

I'm going to throw out an Early Modern English word at you that might strike a "balance" in this discussion.

"Behoved".....

Luke 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

This is one of a few times that archaic speech can "shed some light" on a topic.

If you study the word "behoove" you will find a reference to a English word that I believe "stands out" in the conversation.

That word is "befitting".

While it is difficult to "wrap our minds" around Calvary. I believe we can agree that God found it "appropriate" and "befitting" that Christ suffer.

My penny... :)
 

eternomade

Well-known member
The three members of the Trinity are inseparable yet distinguishable.

I've learned in studying this thread out that the idea of the inseparability of the persons takes us to a principle known as inseparable operation. As Augustine of Hippo put it, ‘the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as they are indivisible, so [they] work indivisibly’.

The principle of inseparable operation highlights that the persons of the Trinity do not act without each other any more than they can exist without each other.

Yes, this is typically called "perichoresis" I believe. I made a topic about this in the Trinity forum a long time ago and was not completely satisfied with the answers...I wonder if @TheLayman would chime in, regarding the OP especially. Did Jesus suffer the wrath of the Father?

Here's a look at how their inseparable operation and their mutual indwelling works. As Jesus explains in John 14:10: ‘Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.’

That shows us that our salvation is the work of the triune God, not an action done by one of the persons of the Trinity acting independently such as an angry God pouring out his wrath on another member of the Trinity. Much less by one person acting against the others. If the principle of inseparable operation did not hold, there would be no guarantee that the saving work of the individual persons would be effective. So that leaves the possibility of Trinity being divided off the table if in fact God's wrath was poured out on Jesus.
Can you explain if you hold to this, why the Father did not suffer as well? Or the Holy Spirit?

I know I haven't been on as much but has the hypostatic union been discussed? @civic , would you agree that the wrath of God was poured out on Jesus humanity but not divinity? That's the only way I understand why Patripassism is heresy.
 

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
Yes, this is typically called "perichoresis" I believe. I made a topic about this in the Trinity forum a long time ago and was not completely satisfied with the answers...I wonder if @TheLayman would chime in, regarding the OP especially. Did Jesus suffer the wrath of the Father?


Can you explain if you hold to this, why the Father did not suffer as well? Or the Holy Spirit?

I know I haven't been on as much but has the hypostatic union been discussed? @civic , would you agree that the wrath of God was poured out on Jesus humanity but not divinity? That's the only way I understand why Patripassism is heresy.

The Hypostatic Union has been discussed extensively. Civic is an expert on the subject and is as Orthodox as they come.
 

Predestined

Well-known member
@civic @Carbon @Predestined

I'm going to throw out an Early Modern English word at you that might strike a "balance" in this discussion.

"Behoved".....

Luke 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

This is one of a few times that archaic speech can "shed some light" on a topic.

If you study the word "behoove" you will find a reference to a English word that I believe "stands out" in the conversation.

That word is "befitting".

While it is difficult to "wrap our minds" around Calvary. I believe we can agree that God found it "appropriate" and "befitting" that Christ suffer.

My penny... :)
What's archaic speech... Is that like the way Archie Bunker talks? Just kidding [of a word or a style of language) no longer in everyday use but sometimes used to impart an old-fashioned flavor. But seriously folks... You're absolutely right. Thank God for His plan of salvation.
 

Predestined

Well-known member
Yes, this is typically called "perichoresis" I believe. I made a topic about this in the Trinity forum a long time ago and was not completely satisfied with the answers...I wonder if @TheLayman would chime in, regarding the OP especially. Did Jesus suffer the wrath of the Father?


Can you explain if you hold to this, why the Father did not suffer as well? Or the Holy Spirit?

I know I haven't been on as much but has the hypostatic union been discussed? @civic , would you agree that the wrath of God was poured out on Jesus humanity but not divinity? That's the only way I understand why Patripassism is heresy.

Hypostatic Union Has been discussed but more is welcome.

This is the first time I've ever heard of Patripassism so I'm going to study it out. But off the top of my head my answer to if the Father and the Holy Spirit suffered as well would be... I think any father especially I heavenly father would suffer seeing their son becoming a curse and hanging on a tree.

We know that God said "this is my son in whom I am well pleased" Matthew 17:5 I'm sure God felt that pleasure the same way he feels displeasure. Or anger or wrath for that matter.

But the Cross was a plan they all agreed on. They agreed on it since the day they created Adam.

What is so awesome about this thread is that it seems like there is more and more we can learn
 
Last edited:

Carbon

Well-known member
So are you going to share which books on the Trinity you have studied?
No, actually I’m not. Another time maybe, but not now. So we can leave that behind now and refocus.

let’s go through the OT for a while, you’ll see the Trinity all over it. The Trinity in the tabernacle, the law, the sacrifices etc.,.

I believe by studying scripture, not someone else’s books, we should see plenty. Then as times goes on, we can express our thoughts and even quote some teaching to see if they harmonize or not.

It’s good to keep on track with scripture and see what our God is doing in His word. Not so good to read and explain it through someone else’s eyes.

Im not against theologians. Or studying their books. Matter of fact, I enjoy them.
 
Top