Featured The just and the justifier

When you wanted to know what I believed , I spent a significant amount of time writing a 2,000+ word post for you (Not that it did any good since you largely ignored it). Why are you answering me in tweets?

Ephesians 2:4-8. 'But God, who is rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness to ward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through grace, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God......'

Amen! Now what is it you're trying to tell us?

 

You provided no explanation. Simply to provide a pile of texts with no explanation is useless. I know they're in the Bible. I want to know how you interpret them. You talk of Christus Victor theory. I am able to discuss Gustav Aulen who wrote an eponymous book about it, but you tell me to forget him. OK, but you need to tell me how you interpret Christus Victor and you haven't yet done so.

So what you're telling me is to unscrew my head and leave it on the table, and forget all those texts that speak of the righteousness and holiness of God which I keep quoting to you and you keep dodging. It is only when God's justice has been satisfied that anyone can start looking at a righteousness apart from the law. Until that point, the law remains unsatisfied.

It doesn't help at all. Would you like me to bore your pants off telling you how I became convinced of the Doctrine of Penal Substitution when I didn't even know that such a doctrine existed. I did it by reading the Bible and finding it present throughout the Scriptures..

This is, as I've said before, a false dichotomy. If there were no sinners, there would be no sin and vice versa. I don't find the truck analogy helpful, but God hates sin (Psalm 45:7) and is angry with sinners (Psalm 7:11), so if you sin (which everybody does), God will punish you for committing sin. To be sure we have to die to sin and be born anew, but that is not something we can do for ourselves, and before it can happen, our sins must be atoned for.

Someone must pay. God will not justify the wicked (Exodus 23:7 etc.). If the Lord Jesus Christ does not stand in my place and take the just punishment due my sins upon His own sinless shoulders, I must take that punishment myself. But, praise God, 'while we were still sinners, Christ died for the ungodly.' God's wrath against sin and sinners is exhausted in the case of His elect upon the sinless Christ, and God can be 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.' The resurrection is the evidence that Christ propitiation has been effective. Christ 'was raised because of our justification' (Romans 4:25). The justification was achieved upon the cross (Romans 5:9; Hebrews 9:22; 10:12), and God raised the Lord Jesus to show that the sacrifice was accepted.

Not helpful at all, I'm afraid. I still don't understand where your theory of Christus Victor satisfies the justice and holiness of God. If you can show me that, backed up with Scripture, we may get somewhere.

On another thread, you wrote this:

"Mankind was under a curse as evidenced by our disobedience to God and magnified by the Law. The Father gave His Son for the human race, that Christ would take upon Himself our curse, knowing that He would raise Him up from the dead. The Cross was the preordained and foreknown will of God.

God laid on Christ our iniquities. He bears our sins. He makes our sins His own by taking us (flawed as we are) unto Himself. As man He suffered as we suffer and took upon Himself our curse (as one member suffers so does the whole body). Jesus took upon Himself the suffering of man and made our sickness His. And He was chastened on our behalf and suffered a penalty He did not owe but which we owed because of our sins. In this way Christ became the source of our forgiveness – because He received death for us and transferred to Himself the suffering which was due us.

If God’s wrath is to be taken away from me and I am to obtain forgiveness, someone must merit this for me because I cannot do it myself. God cannot remit the wrath towards me unless amends is made (God does not simply ignore unrighteousness). Scripture tells us that Christ mediates on our behalf. Christ became our Advocate by his own blood – His suffering and death – as He lay down His life as a sacrifice for us. His own life, His holiness and righteousness, overshadowed all of the sin and wrath He bore on behalf of mankind because He is God (Hebrews 4-5). Sin and death was swallowed up and by His stripes we are healed."

This might serve as a basis for discussion, but I asked you before if you stand by the statement. I ask you again; is this an accurate reflection of your views?[/QUOTE]

 

As I have pointed out more times than I can remember, the Father loves the Son and has always loved Him, never more so than when He was suffering the righteous anger of God against sin in our place. 'Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life.' But when He was made sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21), the Father, who cannot look with pleasure upon sin Habakkuk 1:13), forsook Him during the hours of darkness on the cross (Psalm 22:1-2 etc.). But the forsaking was only temporary (Psalm 22:21b); the sun reappeared and the Lord Jesus declared His great work 'finished.'
But Christ was 'the Surety of the New Covenant' (Hebrews 7:22). A surety or guarantor has to pay whatever is required to satisfy the creditor. 'If he has wronged you or owes anything, put that on my account......I will repay' ( Philemon 18-19; c.f. Genesis 43:9). Christ as our Surety has drunk to the dregs the cup of God's wrath which otherwise we must drink (Psalm 75:8; John 18:11).

There are eleven Scripture references in this short post. You can tell me that I am interpreting it wrongly, but please do not tell me that I do not argue from Scripture.

 

Do you mean Habakkuk?

 

If you mean that Habakkuk is addressing the Triune God then no, I hadn't forgotten.

No presuppositions are needed. The text tells us that God is of purer eyes that to behold evil. What pre-suppositions do I need? The text is perfectly clear. It is your pre-supposition that causes you to deny the rather obvious meaning of the text.

I think you'll find that I can. God is light (1 John 1:5) before He is love (1 John 4:8). God's holiness and righteousness have to work in harmony with His love. God loved the world by putting forth His Beloved as a propitiation for our sins - by making Him sin for us; by making Him a curse for us. Why don't you spend some time meditating on those wonderful verses, Isaiah 53:9-10. '.....He had done no violence, nor was any deceit in His mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to crush Him; He has put Him to grief.' How much the LORD must love us, that He was pleased to crush or bruise His beloved One for such wicked creatures. And how much the Lord Jesus must love us, that He, the One who knew no sin, should willingly become sin, and have all the wickedness of His people laid upon Him and suffer the righteous anger of His Father against sin, and to bear alone the crushing weight of our iniquities and the punishment of them. It should humble us to the dust and cause us to love our gracious God and our wonderful Saviour all the more!

This is absolutely, completely, 180 degrees wrong! The Doctrine of Penal Substitution honours and exalts the justice, the righteousness, the holiness and the amazing love of God, and, as I say, should humble us down to the dust.

When I survey the wondrous cross
On which the Prince of Glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss,
And pour contempt on all my pride.

 

I know the context of what Habakkuk is saying, but he is still saying that God is of purer eyes than to behold evil. Why can't to just accept the plain words of Scripture? And when God the Father causes the sun to go dark in the middle of the day and forsakes His beloved Son during those hours of darkness, then we should understand. The Son was made sin for us, and the father turned His face away.

That is not for me to say, since it is a hypothetical question. The Christ did bear God's wrath against sin so the question does not arise.
However, I note a couple of things. First of all, Christ's sufferings did not begin at the cross. He could say, "Many a time they have afflicted Me from My youth" and we are told that He was 'a Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.' Immediately after His baptism, 'the Spirit drove Him into the wilderness' to be tempted by Satan. He must be victorious where Adam was vanquished (Romans 5:19) in order to save us. We are told that, 'Though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things He suffered.' That's quite a difficult statement and I haven't time to explain it now, but I can do later if you want.

If all the Christ had to do was die, He could have come down to earth for a weekend and suffer an infinitely less painful death. But He had to be the surety of the New Covenant, and pay to the last farthing the debt we owed. He had to drain to the dregs the cup of God's wrath which we would otherwise have to drink. God's wrath even now is being 'revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.' 'He saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor; therefore His own arm brought salvation for Him; and His own righteousness sustained Him' (Isaiah 59:16). There was no one among men who could provide propitiation for the sins of mankind, so 'God gave Himself, in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.'

I have said before that one of the many proofs of Penal Substitution is our Lord's refusal to drink the wine mingled with myrrh when it was offered to Him (Mark 15:23). I am glad to discover that Spurgeon agreed with me. In a sermon entitled The Determination of Christ to suffer fir His People (P & D 467), he declared that such a refusal was "necessary to make the atonement complete." If Christ had drunk from the cup, the atonement would not have been valid because He would not have suffered "to the extent that was absolutely necessary." Christ suffered "just enough and not one particle more than was necessary for the redemption of His people." The ransom price would not have been paid in full had the wine cup taken away part of His sufferings. Had so much as a grain of His suffering been mitigated, "the atonement would not have been sufficiently satisfactory. the utmost farthing must be paid; inexorable justice cannot omit one fraction of its claim. Christ must go the whole length of suffering (quoted by Tom Nettles, Living by Revealed Truth).

But Christ has paid, paid in full the price of our sins. 'There is now therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.' Praise His name forever!

 

As I keep pointing out, the wrath (righteous anger) of God is against sin and sinners. Christ was made sin for us and experienced God's wrath against sin on our behalf.

It's there, as I keep pointing out.

I absolutely agree. The Lord Jesus never ceased to be the 'beloved Son.' God's wrath was never against Christ, but against sin, as I keep telling you and @JonC. Our Lord is especially beloved of the Father precisely because He fulfilled the Father's plan to save sinners. 'Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it up again.' 'Therefore God has also highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name........'