Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But 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…it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
–Isaiah 53:4-5, 10 (KJV)–

Being now justified by his blood,
we shall be saved from wrath through him.
–Romans 5:9 (KJV)–

Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.
–1 Thessalonians 1:10 (KJV)–

He that believeth not the Son shall not see life,
but the wrath of God abideth on him.
–John 3:36 (KJV)–

—

Adam Clarke, Christian Theology (Schmul, 1990).

Dr. Harald Lindstrom, Wesley and Sanctification (Zondervan, 1998).

Dr. Kenneth J. Collins, Wesley on Salvation (Zondervan, 1989).

Dr. Donald Bowdle, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Pathway Press, 1981).

Dr. Channing Crisler, 40 Questions About the Atonement (Kregel, 2025).

Dr. J. Matthew Pinson, 40 Questions About Arminianism (Kregel, 2022).

Dr. Roger Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (IVP, 2006).

Dr. B. B. Warfield, Perfectionism, vol. 2 (Oxford UP, 1931), ch. 1: “Oberlin Perfectionism.”

Gordon Olson, The Moral Government of God (Men for Missions, 1966). This heretical booklet rejects the substitutionary atonement of the cross; and has influenced all the SOAPA street preachers. The Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center says: “Gordon C. Olson (1907-1989) was an engineer, pastor, teacher, author, and theologian. He had no affiliation with the Assemblies of God, but his theology must have caused some concern. Howard L. Bailey, AG ordained pastor of Evangel Temple, Ann Arbor, Michigan, wrote a critical report on Gordon’s theology in 1976.” Albert Barnes’ The Atonement (Bethany, 1980) should be avoided as well: as it may be the true originator of the substitutionary-atonement-rejecting moral influence theory. So far as I can tell, Olson took his lead from Barnes more than from Finney. In this book, on pages 20-22 of the old 1860 version, Barnes actually rejects the satisfaction theory as too pagan: the idea that blood sacrifices can appease the wrath of the angry gods! Hasn’t he read the Old Testament? Hello! And so he rejects penal substitution and the view of the Bible that the cross satisfies the wrath of God at human sin. So don’t use Barnes’ Notes, ok? The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica says that Barnes “had been tried (but not convicted) for heresy in 1836, the charge being particularly against the views expressed by him in Notes on Romans (1835) of the imputation of the sin of Adam, original sin and the atonement.”