Not at all. I believe you are too invested in your tradition to shed your presuppositions. I think it not impossible but highly improbable. It would be like Origen abandoning his Ransom Theory.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Retribultion Theology
- Thread starter agedman
- Start date
- Status
God wrath upon Jesus while on the Cross is NOT God changing at all, as he must punish and judge all sin, correct?
W
Why would God judging jesus as the Sin Bearer for the place of His own people be any different from God judging all to follow after Adam fell?
Scripture sees the Cross as the will of God but only attributes Christ's suffering as by "the hands of godless men". So no, you are not correct. For God to look upon God as sin is a denial of the unchanging nature of God.
Serious? You have the categories mixed up.
Those in Adam are judged as being in Adam. Those in Christ judged in Christ.
Again, Martin, you ASSUME that Christ became sinful. And Spurgeon as a resource does not approve your view with Scriptures. Frankly, as much as I admire Spurgeon was wrong on this matter. Let's see how.
Here is the first indication of over reach. For were not ALL born and carried sin in them? Yet, there are more than one of the OT in which God looked upon (sinful as they were) with some measure of pleasure.
Continuing Spurgeon's quote by Martin:
Two points:
1) Spurgeon apparently recognized the Son carried the sin, but was not infested with the sin. That is, Christ at no time became stained as sinful in the matter of baring the sin(s) of the world.
2) God did not "make the Son cry," rather, the cry was a statement of quoting Psalm 22 as validation of what was taking place. Christ was no doubt in agony, just as all crucified suffered agony, but by that statement, the rulers who knew the Scriptures better then anyone could not escape the indication of WHO was suffering. This is a HUGE difference!
Continuing with the quote of Spurgeon:
Here is actually some manner of agreement with Spurgeon.
Certainly, the Christ would not enjoy the sustaining light, the sustaining protection, the sustaining ... of the Father. But, not enjoying the sustaining fellowship once enjoyed does not equal abandonment, but withholding for a purpose.
However, by drawing the conclusion that God abandoned the Son, Spurgeon appoints the horror and great darkness as a result.
That is retaliation - retribution theology which is not completely Scriptural.
Continuing with Spurgeon:
Exuberant appeal aside, Spurgeon is in error in this way:
1) He places the "positive sorrow" as God punishing sin. As the Scriptures state sin cannot be "punished" but is as a stain cleansed (made white), and as an employer, sin pays a wage called death.
2) Spurgeon does have it correct that Christ took upon Himself the sin and the curse, but that was not because He was found (as Satan was) with evil IN him. Rather, again, it was a matter of that ability Christ had to bear the burden, and remain both just and the justifier.
3) Spurgeon quotes a few words from Isaiah to embellish (imo) and make the remarks fit the Scriptures. However, Isaiah, says that HUMANKIND attributed Christ as "smitten of God and afflicted" BUT...
The "but" is not a mere transition word, but a word that indicates a change in comparison in the case of Isaiah that of perspective.
Where humankind has this perspective about the Christ, in reality, this perspective is the situation.
As such, there is NO warrant to assume it was God's punishment, or even God's wrath poured out upon the Son. None!
Continuing with Spurgeon:
Well, part of this has already been addressed, so I will restate for emphasis.
Death is not a "punishment for sin" it is the WAGES of sin. That paid as one who earns.
That is, as with all men for all have sinned, the employer called "sin" will eventually pay for that which we all labored. The payment of such labor is death.
On the Cross, Christ died. That was the end result of taking the sin of all. The payment.
However, that Christ died PHYSICALLY is not punishment! How some miss this!
The death of the Eden is Eternal death - that second death. That which was conquered not by death but by Resurrection.
When reading the "great men" of the past, it is important to do so understanding from what perspective they make pronouncements.
Spurgeon was from the perspective of penal - retribution thinking, which sounds good, is seemingly right, but is just not found supported in the balance of Scriptures.
Again, I admire Spurgeon, but not all Spurgeon was truly Scriptural.
Here is the first indication of over reach. For were not ALL born and carried sin in them? Yet, there are more than one of the OT in which God looked upon (sinful as they were) with some measure of pleasure.
Continuing Spurgeon's quote by Martin:
Two points:
1) Spurgeon apparently recognized the Son carried the sin, but was not infested with the sin. That is, Christ at no time became stained as sinful in the matter of baring the sin(s) of the world.
2) God did not "make the Son cry," rather, the cry was a statement of quoting Psalm 22 as validation of what was taking place. Christ was no doubt in agony, just as all crucified suffered agony, but by that statement, the rulers who knew the Scriptures better then anyone could not escape the indication of WHO was suffering. This is a HUGE difference!
Continuing with the quote of Spurgeon:
Here is actually some manner of agreement with Spurgeon.
Certainly, the Christ would not enjoy the sustaining light, the sustaining protection, the sustaining ... of the Father. But, not enjoying the sustaining fellowship once enjoyed does not equal abandonment, but withholding for a purpose.
However, by drawing the conclusion that God abandoned the Son, Spurgeon appoints the horror and great darkness as a result.
That is retaliation - retribution theology which is not completely Scriptural.
Continuing with Spurgeon:
Exuberant appeal aside, Spurgeon is in error in this way:
1) He places the "positive sorrow" as God punishing sin. As the Scriptures state sin cannot be "punished" but is as a stain cleansed (made white), and as an employer, sin pays a wage called death.
2) Spurgeon does have it correct that Christ took upon Himself the sin and the curse, but that was not because He was found (as Satan was) with evil IN him. Rather, again, it was a matter of that ability Christ had to bear the burden, and remain both just and the justifier.
3) Spurgeon quotes a few words from Isaiah to embellish (imo) and make the remarks fit the Scriptures. However, Isaiah, says that HUMANKIND attributed Christ as "smitten of God and afflicted" BUT...
The "but" is not a mere transition word, but a word that indicates a change in comparison in the case of Isaiah that of perspective.
Where humankind has this perspective about the Christ, in reality, this perspective is the situation.
As such, there is NO warrant to assume it was God's punishment, or even God's wrath poured out upon the Son. None!
Continuing with Spurgeon:
Well, part of this has already been addressed, so I will restate for emphasis.
Death is not a "punishment for sin" it is the WAGES of sin. That paid as one who earns.
That is, as with all men for all have sinned, the employer called "sin" will eventually pay for that which we all labored. The payment of such labor is death.
On the Cross, Christ died. That was the end result of taking the sin of all. The payment.
However, that Christ died PHYSICALLY is not punishment! How some miss this!
The death of the Eden is Eternal death - that second death. That which was conquered not by death but by Resurrection.
When reading the "great men" of the past, it is important to do so understanding from what perspective they make pronouncements.
Spurgeon was from the perspective of penal - retribution thinking, which sounds good, is seemingly right, but is just not found supported in the balance of Scriptures.
Again, I admire Spurgeon, but not all Spurgeon was truly Scriptural.
Jesus rejoiced in that the Father would crush Him/bruise Him/as he forsaw being forsaken but by that, would be exaulted and be the messiah over many!
ALL of the trinity was involved in our salvation, as it pleased the father to crush Jesus and have Him experiencing what lost sinners will have to be judged under, and Jesus Himself accepted that Cup of suffering and Wrath knowing that many sinners would get saved by His death and resurrection!
Jesus lay down His life. It was the Father's will. He suffered and died at the hands of godless men. God vindicated Him by raising Him from the dead. Why is Scripture not good enough? Why add to what is there?
Part of the propitiation made to God was to appease and atone for divine wrath, and your understanding seems to not account for that!
Then you misunderstand my position. God's wrath towards us was certainly averted. Read your Bible, the righteous are NEVER the objects of God's wrath.
Jesus was able to take the wrath of God and be the sin bearer due to Him being righteous, as in the atonement, somone MUST experience what lost sinners would under that judgement by God against their sins. The Cup of suffering was far more than just Jesus allowing Himself to bleed to death, but was of a Holy Messiah becoming before sight of His father one of us....
And there it is again....this is both unbiblical and (here) unsupported. It is this one error that you have hinged your entire view upon.
How many times do I have to repeat myself? It becomes wearisome after a while.
I think you are getting desperate.
This is so easy to reply to in the same asinine way, but why don't you grow up and quit the cheap insults?
I don't mean this as an insult. I am saying that you are viewing the Cross through a specific tradition and not allowing the biblical text to speak for itself. I am saying that I do not believe you will abandon this because it is comfortable to you and you are invested in that theory. This is not, and is not meant to be, an insult at all.
It wearies me as well. But all I can do is offer up Scripture.
You also think that God was angry with Jesus and poured out His wrath upon Him, punishing Him as He hung on the cross in perfect obedience so forgive me if I take your thought here with a grain of salt.
Well OK then; Proverbs 26:5 applies. You have read some book, by N.T. Wright, R.N. Whybray, John Carroll and Joel Green, or someone else and you have been taken in by it, and you think you've worked everything out for yourself but you just swallowed a line. I've seen it many times in church life. It comes of people always looking for something new and 'clever' (2 Timothy 4:3-4).
It would be nice if you did, but most of the time you just stonewall and throw insults.
Not for the first time you are either caricaturing what I say or you are totally ignorant of what Penal Substitution is, so I take your thought with a grain of salt. Nya nya nya!You also think that God was angry with Jesus and poured out His wrath upon Him, punishing Him as He hung on the cross in perfect obedience so forgive me if I take your thought here with a grain of salt.
What a great way of discussing this is!
Again, you are mistaken.Well OK then; Proverbs 26:5 applies. You have read some book, by N.T. Wright, R.N. Whybray, John Carroll and Joel Green, or someone else and you have been taken in by it, and you think you've worked everything out for yourself but you just swallowed a line. I've seen it many times in church life. It comes of people always looking for something new and 'clever' (2 Timothy 4:3-4).
It would be nice if you did, but most of the time you just stonewall and throw insults.
Not for the first time you are either caricaturing what I say or you are totally ignorant of what Penal Substitution is, so I take your thought with a grain of salt. Nya nya nya!
What a great way of discussing this is!
Here is how I arrived at my view:
I had preached a sermon on 1 Peter 1:16 (not for the first time) and outlined God's wrath that was poured out upon Christ while He hung on the cross. I remember saying that God never turned His back on His Son, but looked at Him head on and punished Him for the sins that we had committed. Anyway, at the time I thought the sermon went well. Monday morning I awoke with a great conviction that I had relied on my own tradition. I was shaken. I mean, really shaken. I didn't preach for a couple of years but dedicated that time to studying the Atonement from Scripture. I started out by trying to prove my own presuppositions, which I found impossible. We can look at verses that indicate penal substitution if the context of PSA is assumed, but when it is not it all falls apart.
This is why I do not mean my remarks as an insult but am trying to get you to think. You share those presuppositions. My first was that divine justice demands that sins be punished. And I went down the list from there.I did not read Wright, Carroll, Green, or anyone else in opposition to my view. Instead I read John Piper, J.I. Packer, Joel Beeke, and listened to sermons by Tim Keller and John MacArthur. I still appreciate those men, but I came to realize that they never evidenced the issue at the root of their theories. The reason, of course, is that there exists no biblical evidence. Just like the Ransom Theory, PSA was an articulation of the atonement that fit not the biblical narrative but the narrative contemporary to the scholars that came up with the theories.
We (you and I, and a few others) have been discussing this for over a year. Not once has evidence been given that proved the actual basis of PSA (the contextual framework of the theory). Every passage and every verse given in support of PST thus far has assumed the context provided to be true. But Scripture seems very much to indicate otherwise. The error was introduced long before PSA reached its conclusions.
So if you have taken my language as an insult, or if I have hurt your feelings, then you do have my apology. That was not my intention. Sometimes I suppose my jabs may appear more sincere than intended. But rest your mind at ease, I haven't been "lured away" by some book. Neither do I believe that I have discovered all the answers. I have only discovered one part of my theology that did not fit with Scripture and have tossed it aside so that I will at least not be carrying around traditions and theories I know to be wrong. If you are wondering what happened - I ran into a problem - the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and it is a problem with which I am unwilling to part.
How do you know? You know nothing about me. You are deceiving yourself if you believe you are following sola scriptura, because you reject the clear and obvious meaning of those very Scriptures when taken together and all you have are insults and a pile of false pride.
When I gave you a detailed analysis of the relevant texts you ignored it and wasted the thread on a pile of irrelevant nonsense. The evidence for Penal Substitution is absolutely clear, not from one 'killer' text, but from the whole of Scripture.
Last edited:
- Status