Featured The Meanings of 'For'

Jesus being sinless qualified Him to die in our stead, but the demand of God to have His wrath propitiated was required in order to accomplish salvation of sinners. BOTh the love and wrath of God have to be factored in at the Cross!

 

Do you have any room for the wrath of God towards sins, to have a Holy judgement against sins?

 

Why these straw men responses??????? Who in the world believes this kind of garbage???? Not I! Of course God cannot be divided from Himself but that does not mean that God's attributes cannot be distinguished from each other and defined distinctly from each other.

It is your interpretations of scripture that "logically" repudiate the cross. What is amusing is that you really think I don't understand either your view or your interpretations of scripture or your reasoning processes - that is very amusing. So any comment I make on your own explanations is met with "you don't understand." If that is the case then you can blame no one but yourself because I am reading your explanations of what you believe. I am reading your interpretations of scripture. Apparently, you have to charge Martin with the same fallacy as he too is responding precisely as I am. So if both of us are misunderstanding what you say, and both of us are misunderstanding your interpretations AFTER SO LONG OF DEBATE then the fault must lie with your ability to communicate effectively or else both of us are complete uneducated idiots who can't understand plain English. Is that it?

 

This is a very interesting response to say the least. First,you say "I'm not accusing you of anything" and then you immediately follow that statement by accusing me (lol). Perhaps you did not mean to say "anything"? (lol).

Next, you make the claim "I never denied the Law as revealing God's own nature." Is that so? Did you not repeatedly state over and over that the righteousness and obedience of Christ was not of the Law? Yet the Law in its PRINCIPLE form IS LOVE and IS OBEDIENCE and IS RIGHTEOUSNESS and thus IS the manifestation of God's own moral nature. Moreover, when the law of God is written upon the tables our heart (2 Cor. 3:3) that IS the moral nature of God imparted to our very being that the indwelling Spirit enables us to manifest in our daily life that is called "love" "obedience" "righteousness" "holy" etc. Thus,what you are really saying(whether you acknowledge it or not) is that Christ's righteousness, obedience, and love was not of God because if Christ's righteousness, obedience and love was not of the Law in its principle form then it was not of God either. It is very apparent to me that you really don't understand the Biblical view of God's Law and is that misunderstanding or perversion of the Law of God that is key to understanding your rejection of PSA.

My exposition on the Law demonstrated that the Law in its PRINCIPLE form has its source and basis in God's own moral nature. My exposition demonstrated that "love" "righteousness" "obedience" "mercy" "justice" "condemnation" "sin" and "redemption" have no meaning or existence apart from God's law understood in its principle form and in its principle form that God's Law originates with and expresses the very moral nature of God.

Now, concerning your statement "I denied that it was through this Law that Jesus merited our salvation." Let me ask you a simple question. Do you think his love for God and obedience to God merited our salvation? The next question, using the Bible define "love" and "obedience" apart from the Law of God in its principle form? Your view God's Law versus Christ's love and obedience implodes upon itself.

 

It seems to me that it is your view that has this problem not my view. For example, death, the white seat judgement throne and Gehenna are incontrovertible proofs that God's view of justice is inseparable from not only His Law but in satisfying the full demands of His Law against sinners for their sins through retributive justice.

So, with some sinners and their sins you must have the moral nature of God and His view of Justice expressed and satisfied inseparable from retributive justice. However,with other sinners and their sins you veiew would have the moral nature of God and His view of justice expressed and satisfied apart from retributive justice. So it is your view that divides God's moral nature and view of justice into two contradictory expressions with regard to justifying the unjust. My view is consistent, and makes God view of justice consistent with sinners and sin. A more fuller explanation is given below.

Again, the disconnect and division with God's nature rests with your theory not mine. Your theory demands that God has two different kinds of moral nature with regard to defining and satisfying justice for the very same kind of sinners and sins.

Let me explain. I hope you will agree that God's view of justice is based upon and determined by God's moral nature is it not? I hope you will agree that with all who remain unjustified before God that God's moral nature is expressed in a view and definition of justice that can only be satisfied by punitive retributive justice as evidenced by the Great White Seat Judgement and Gehenna. Hence, this view of justice must be consistent with God's moral nature or there would be no death, judgement day, and Gehenna. No rational Bible student can deny that self-evident truth as death, the Great White seat judgement and Gehenna are incontrovertible evidences of this view of justice.

However, it is your view of the atonement demands that God's moral nature and sense of justice can be fully satisfied with regard to the very same kind of sinners and sins BUT without that same moral nature based definition of justice administered to the non-elect. Hence, in the instance of some sinners and sins there is no satisfaction without retributive justice while in the instance of other sinners and sins there is satisfaction without retributive justice. So, in one instance the moral nature of God which defines his sense of justice cannot be satisfied against sinners and sins apart from retributive justice administered, while in another instance the moral nature of God which defines his sense of justice can be satisfied against sinners and sins without retributive justice.

Now, remember you have repeatedly stated that justification for sinners and sins under your system of the atonement is "apart from the law" which does demand retributive justice. Remember, also that it is the moral nature of God that defines God's view of justice. We know that God's view of justice is consistent with retributive justice and the Law of God but your system demands it is consistent with a view of justice that does not demand retributive justice for the very same kind of sinners and sins.

In direct contrast, my system is consistent throughout with sinners and sins in requiring retributive justice to satisfy the moral nature of God. I hope you can see why the conflict with God's nature rests in your camp not mine as you have two conflicting views of justice and yet we agree that it is the moral nature of God that defines God's view of justice.

I realize how you attempt to justify this contradiction of moral nature based justice systems. You use the terms "love" and "obedience" with regard to Christ as the basis for satisfaction. However, neither terms have any meaning apart from the law of God in its PRINCIPLE form and once that is understood your system simply falls apart.

This is why I said your view logically and Biblicly repudiates the cross of Christ.

 

Lol! From now on that will be my response when you claim I accused you of something! I think my last post will shed more light on your observations that I don't understand your view.

 

Jesus being sinless, and being God, qualified for Him to bear our sins and experience the wrath of God in our stead.

 

Jesus was in the sight of God the Sin bearer, while upon the Cross he was the substitute for sinners, so why would it be unjust for the father to judge Jesus and place divine wrath upon Him, as he who knew no sin became sin for us!

 

I realize you relish in thinking that I don't understand your view. But have you really convinced yourself that I have never studied these atonement theories in Bible College and two Seminaries or in 45 years of ministry?????? Do you realllllly think that? Do you really think I am so stupid that I can neither read with comprehension your explanations in the past four or five threads that have been posted over the past six months??????

Have you really convinced yourself that I don't realize that all these theories (Including your theory) include the cross albeit with various interpretative applications? Don't you understand yet, that it is not your words that I am opposing but the interpretations you have put on the words repeatedly in your posts. I am saying that your interpretative view of atonement taken from my perspective of the Biblical position logically rejects necessity of the cross, not that your view rejects the necessity of the cross. Don't confuse the two.

You reject retributive justice in the atonement but rather claim that active and passive (which your view includes the cross) obedience of Christ provides full atonement for sins.

The real truth is that you have and continue to avoid our discussion on the Law of God and could it be because you simply can't defend yourself?