Crucifixion

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
Was the pain suffered by Christ on the cross fundamental and very much a part of satisfying God's wrath for the atonement of the sins for the elect, or was it largely symbolic of the spiritual pain and separation suffered by Christ on our behalf?
 
Since God used anmal sacrfices for the forgiveness of sins Christ had to bare to full sacrfice of himslef in order to satisfy Gods wrath upon the elect. If that makes sense ?
 
I think he's referring to Christ's experience of pain...was that part of fulfilling God's wrath?

The pain you're talking about...do you mean the suffering from the crucifixion itself, or God's wrath?

I can't wrap my mind around it all. Some on the board would say Christ's subsitutionary work was through God's wrath while Christ was on the cross and that his suffering physical pain was not really a part of the wrath...to focus on the physical suffering from scourging, whipping, the thorns, nails, etc...is just too Roman Catholic for them. To an extent I agree. I say to an extent because it's interesting that in the gospels, Christ cries out to God "why have you forsaken me", and in regards to the cross, all He spoke of was His thirsting. It seems His true anguish was from God and it was most real to Him while on the cross. I do think both were necessary and part of His satisfaction. To focus primarily on His physical suffering is to miss out on what actually was accomplished.
 
Basically, was the physical pain Christ suffered part of the actual satisfaction of God's wrath - OR - was it symbolic of the spiritual pain and separation he suffered on the elect's behalf?
 
You would have to ask this question - since he suffered for the elect spiritually on the cross, while at the same time suffering physically, could one actually be a type of the other if they are both happening at once? Or is there something different represented (say for instance, the crown of thorns and creation...etc?)
 
Suffering and pain does not atone. Many were crucified. The focus has to be on His death and resurrection. While terrible and dreadfull, it is very Romish to connect pain and suffering with atonement. And false I may add!!!!!!!!!!!!


DMB
 
Originally posted by D Battjes
Suffering and pain does not atone. Many were crucified. The focus has to be on His death and resurrection. While terrible and dreadfull, it is very Romish to connect pain and suffering with atonement. And false I may add!!!!!!!!!!!!

DMB
Click to expand...

Really? Then how do you explain these passages:

"he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." (Isaiah 53:5)

"it pleased the LORD to bruise him . . ." (Isaiah 53:10)
 
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by D Battjes
Suffering and pain does not atone. Many were crucified. The focus has to be on His death and resurrection. While terrible and dreadfull, it is very Romish to connect pain and suffering with atonement. And false I may add!!!!!!!!!!!!

DMB
Click to expand...

Really? Then how do you explain these passages:

"he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." (Isaiah 53:5)

"it pleased the LORD to bruise him . . ." (Isaiah 53:10)
Click to expand...


Very Easily Joseph.

It was for our good, and in our stead, that Jesus Christ suffered. This is asserted here plainly and fully, and in a very great variety of emphatical expressions.

Our sins were the thorns in his head, the nails in his hands and feet, the spear in his side. Wounds and bruises were the consequences of sin, what we deserved and what we had brought upon ourselves

Sin is not only a crime, for which we were condemned to die and which Christ purchased for us the pardon of, but it is a disease, which tends directly to the death of our souls and which Christ provided for the cure of. By his stripes (that is, the sufferings he underwent) he purchased for us the Spirit and grace of God to mortify our corruptions


By using the analogy of faith, and any disregard for Romish interpretation, there is NO way those scriptures mean that The God Man atones for our sin by His sufferings. Anyone who believes it does might as well climb St. Petes Bascillica on their knees and flog themselves. He did not suffer anymore than anyone else who was crucified. You have to know this. If our Lard purposed for one drop of blood to atone, that is all that would have been needed. Suffering without His death, would not atone. The suffering was in our stead. These statements only show the enormity of sin and its consequences. What we deserved, He undertook,

Did the sacrafices in the OT atone if they suffered more than other goats did?

I am surprised you would question my statement coming from a reformed camp as yourself.


I will answer with a question to you: Would He have had to suffer more or be bruised more if Universal Atonement was true? If you say no, than your scriptures become moot to prove what you attempt to allude to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top