1. A meaningful dialog can only exist if both parties respond in an appropriate manner, i.e., when questions posted are answered and they stay on topic. Unfortunately, you have not adhered to either of these principles, but rather you simply restate your premise and ignore nearly all that has been offered to you in the way of biblical references and questions posed. Perhaps you could go back and deal with the fundamental issues that the three of us have asked you to answer.

2. There are several fundamental issues which are the crux of the matter:
  1. The two natures of Christ [cf. The Chalcedon Creed.
  2. The nature of the atonement, i.e., what was the purpose of the atonement.
  3. What actually occurred on the cross and the relationship between God the Father and the incarnate Son?

Here is my observation thus far in this thread:

1. Nearly all your biblical references have no direct relevance to the crucifixion, which is the topic at hand. You make unwarranted inferential conclusions by ignoring the CONTEXT of the references used in your attempt to support your proposition; God's wrath was not poured out on Christ.

2. You have totally ignored the didactic references offered in defense of the biblical, historic, and confessional doctrine concerning the nature of the atonement, e.g., that the transgression of God's law demands punishment and the payment of debt owed; Propitiation, Ransom/Redemption, Sacrifice and Reconciliation.

3. It is unclear whether you even embrace the doctrine of a vicarious substitutionary atonement. Did the Lord Christ voluntarily become a substitute (Gk: huper) for those whom He came to save and thus go to the cross as a sinner (2Cor 5:21; Is 53:4-6,9-12; Zech 13:7; Gal 3:13; 1Pet 3:18), having their guilt imputed to Himself.

Originally Posted by Charlemagne
Here is another quote from the article:

‘When it is stated that ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us’ (Gal. 3:13), not only is it implied that we were ‘the children of wrath’ (Eph. 2:3), and under God’s curse, but also it is implied that when Christ was made a curse for us he was the object of divine wrath.

The author doesn't give us any definitive biblical statement that the Lord Jesus Christ was the object of the wrath of God but only says that it is "implied" within the statement that Jesus Christ became a curse for our sake.
Really? That is EXACTLY what the author did. Being under a curse of God is not a statement of God's love toward anyone who is cursed (cf. Matt 25:41; Gal 3:10).

All that you wrote in the remainder of your reply is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand; Did Christ suffer the eternal wrath of God on the cross as one who was under the just judgment of God in order to redeem those who were actually guilty?

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]