Justice, Wrath, and Propitiation

Maybe when Andre the Giant can stop clinging desperately to the top rope of Psalm 22, he could take the opportunity to engage with the verses in Ephesians 2 I referenced earlier?

The modalist accusation should be addressed as well.

Let us resolve that the manner in which our conversation is conducted shall beget or belie nothing for which the atonement was necessary.

In the expression “Let us,” I included myself and hoped to exhort all other conversants. But the conversation, as far as this thread goes, appears to have ended anyway.

Article from Triablogue titled:

Arminianism and penal substitution

Article from Pulpit and Pen titled:

Bob Terry, the SBC, and Rejecting Christian Doctrine

In the Alabama Baptist article, Terry said “…there remains a question about whether God was an angry God at Golgotha whose wrath had to be appeased by the suffering of the innocent Jesus.”

Careless phrasing aside, among whom does there remain a question about whether God’s wrath was poured out on Christ to satisfy his holy justice? The last time I checked, this was not a question among Southern Baptists or anyone else in the orthodox Christian world. This is not a question among Calvinists or Arminians, charismatics or cessationists. Christians have always agreed that the testimony of Scripture is that the cross was God’s means to satisfy his wrath on sin while saving sinners. In short, this is news to every orthodox Christian who has ever lived, as to whether or not God’s wrath was poured out on Christ as a payment for sin.

After preaching through Isa 52:13-53:12 for the past five weeks, I am astounded at how people can deny the penal, substitutionary nature of the atonement. As I peruse this old, but lively thread, it boggles my mind. I appreciate the article from JohnBrian.