The just and the justifier

[Martin Marprelate]

Your answer is in Ephesians 2:4-8, not on one extracted verse in the middle of a statement. Read it as a whole.

(Give a man a fish vs teaching him to fish)

The difference is that I know how the Theory of Penal Substitution speaks of this redemption because I once held and taught that theory. You can't see, however, how Christus Victor teaches redemption as evidenced by your posts. I explain it, but you still ask "where?". You are not looking in the right places.

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?

 

[JonC]

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?

I started a thread about what I believed. Your complaint there was that I provided too much Scripture and not enough explanation or theory.

The best way that I can explain what I believe is to explain how I came to my belief. I wanted to understand how Irenaeus' theology (and the Anabaptists) dealt with these issues. How did they read the same passages without coming to the same theory that I held (that you hold) since Penal Substitution Theory seemed so evident to me at the time. So I made the effort to understand the opposing view.

Take all of the passages we have been discussing. Pretend, for a moment, that the crux of Atonement is not satisfying the demands of divine justice but is a demonstration of the righteousness of God apart from the law.

It will take some effort (it did me) but don't read the Theory of Penal Substitution into any of these texts.

When you can do this you will see that Christus Victor adequately covers all of your questions through Scripture (i.e., those tweets). Scripture IS the explanation.

The next thing I did was to see if my theory (not penal substitution, but Penal Substitution Theory) was in the Bible. I wrote down what separated the Theory from the traditional view. And then I compared this to Scripture and found it lacking. The first step, however, is to learn the opposing view.

I hope this helps. Just keep on mind that Scripture itself (what is written) is often the explanation. You have to set aside your presuppositions before you can understand the traditional understanding because it does not share the part of your understanding that is theory.

One thing I realized quickly, that may help, is that Scripture presents God as punishing the unrighteous and not sins (which is impossible). If I steal a truck God doesn't punish the act of stealing, but He punishes me. We have to die to ourselves and be made alive in Christ. We are made new creatures in Him (the "old man" in us dies and we die physically). God is both just and the Justifier of sinners through the resurrection of Christ.

Good luck, and if you have any questions please feel free to ask. You may not find me helpful, but that wont be for a lack of effort on my part.

 

[JonC]

Sometimes this topic makes me feel like Doc.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I started a thread about what I believed. Your complaint there was that I provided too much Scripture and not enough explanation or theory.

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.

The best way that I can explain what I believe is to explain how I came to my belief. I wanted to understand how Irenaeus' theology (and the Anabaptists) dealt with these issues. How did they read the same passages without coming to the same theory that I held (that you hold) since Penal Substitution Theory seemed so evident to me at the time. So I made the effort to understand the opposing view.

Take all of the passages we have been discussing. Pretend, for a moment, that the crux of Atonement is not satisfying the demands of divine justice but is a demonstration of the righteousness of God apart from the law.

It will take some effort (it did me) but don't read the Theory of Penal Substitution into any of these texts.

When you can do this you will see that Christus Victor adequately covers all of your questions through Scripture (i.e., those tweets). Scripture IS the explanation.

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.

The next thing I did was to see if my theory (not penal substitution, but Penal Substitution Theory) was in the Bible. I wrote down what separated the Theory from the traditional view. And then I compared this to Scripture and found it lacking. The first step, however, is to learn the opposing view.

I hope this helps. Just keep on mind that Scripture itself (what is written) is often the explanation. You have to set aside your presuppositions before you can understand the traditional understanding because it does not share the part of your understanding that is theory.

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..

One thing I realized quickly, that may help, is that Scripture presents God as punishing the unrighteous and not sins (which is impossible). If I steal a truck God doesn't punish the act of stealing, but He punishes me. We have to die to ourselves and be made alive in Christ. We are made new creatures in Him (the "old man" in us dies and we die physically). God is both just and the Justifier of sinners through the resurrection of Christ.

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.

Good luck, and if you have any questions please feel free to ask. You may not find me helpful, but that wont be for a lack of effort on my part.

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]

 

[JonC]

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?

I have explained the best I could. You have my apology if it is my fault you still do not understand (personally I suspect it remains an issue of asking the wrong questions).

But since you have quoted Irenaeus in the past, perhaps he can help you here:


[Christ] was in these last days, according to the time appointed by the Father, united to His own workmanship, inasmuch as He became a man liable to suffering ... He commenced afresh the long line of human beings, and furnished us, in a brief, comprehensive manner, with salvation; so that what we had lost in Adam—namely, to be according to the image and likeness of God—that we might recover in Christ Jesus.

He has therefore, in His work of recapitulation, summed up all things, both waging war against our enemy, and crushing him who had at the beginning led us away captives in Adam ...the enemy would not have been fairly vanquished, unless it had been a man [born] of woman who conquered him. ... And therefore does the Lord profess Himself to be the Son of man, comprising in Himself that original man out of whom the woman was fashioned, in order that, as our species went down to death through a vanquished man, so we may ascend to life again through a victorious one; and as through a man death received the palm [of victory] against us, so again by a man we may receive the palm against death.

 

[agedman]

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?

Do you still think that The Christ taking away the wrath of God obliges that The Christ have the wrath of God poured out upon Him?

Ultimately, that seems to be the very stick in which the dogs fight over.

As well known, I do not see such presented in Scripture.

Rather, I see the Father pleased and one pleased has no wrath toward the one who is pleasing.

 

[JonC]

Do you still think that The Christ taking away the wrath of God obliges that The Christ have the wrath of God poured out upon Him?

Exactly! That is exactly the issue.

The Theory of Penal Substitution was not considered by the Church for a thousand years because Christ Himself was enough without having to bear God's wrath. During the Reformation this changed. Not only was men bound by sin, but God shared these shackles through what they viewed to be divine justice. Christ's death alone is viewed as insufficient except God pour out the wrath intended for us upon Him. I can't help but see the Theory as elevating man and diminishing God in redemption. The reason I am concerned about the topic is that it is the only theory I know of that openly states Christ's death alone (apart from bearing our wrath) is insufficient a price.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Do you still think that The Christ taking away the wrath of God obliges that The Christ have the wrath of God poured out upon Him?

Ultimately, that seems to be the very stick in which the dogs fight over.

As well known, I do not see such presented in Scripture.

Rather, I see the Father pleased and one pleased has no wrath toward the one who is pleasing.

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

You are forgetting that Habakkuk also refers to Jesus. It means that God cannot condone sin (and is Habakkuk's appeal to God, not a declaration God would not look upon Christ). This is what I mean when I say you have to set aside your presuppositions in order to understand.

Scripture speaks of God's love as an action, not an emotion separated from the act. God loved the world by sending His Son. You can't be consistent and say God loved Christ by pouring His wrath upon Him. God loved the world by putting forth His Beloved as a propitiation for our sins - not by pouring His wrath upon Him. That is the difference between the Theory of Penal Substitution and the traditional Christian view of the Cross. The Theory of Penal Substitution focuses on man and human sins while the traditional understanding looks to God and His glory in reconciling humanity to Himself.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You are forgetting that Hanukkah also refers to Jesus

Do you mean Habakkuk?

 

[JonC]

Do you mean Habakkuk?

Yea. I guess my phone doesn't like Habakkuk. (I'm on vacation, but did not want the lack of a computer cause you to miss out on my brilliance ).

Habakkuk appeals to God's divine nature - His holiness. Too often this is extracted to create a dichotomy between God and Jesus. But Habakkuk's ultimate appeal is to Christ, for all judgment is given Him. Christ does not condone wickedness, in Him all things were made and all things hold together. In Him there is no darkness.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You are forgetting that Habakkuk also refers to Jesus.

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

It means that God cannot condone sin (and is Habakkuk's appeal to God, not a declaration God would not look upon Christ). This is what I mean when I say you have to set aside your presuppositions in order to understand.

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.

Scripture speaks of God's love as an action, not an emotion separated from the act. God loved the world by sending His Son. You can't be consistent and say God loved Christ by pouring His wrath upon Him

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!

That is the difference between the Theory of Penal Substitution and the traditional Christian view of the Cross. The Theory of Penal Substitution focuses on man and human sins while the traditional understanding looks to God and His glory in reconciling humanity to Himself.

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

Habakkuk is appealing to God's righteousness in pleading for Him to act, that He will not condone evil. This is one of the poorest supports for God pouring His wrath upon Christ (because it doesn't support the idea - if anything it denies it).

Do you believe that Christ's death, apart from bearing God's wrath, is sufficient a price to redeem mankind?

 

[agedman]

God is light (1 John 1:5) before He is love (1 John 4:8)..

This is just really weak.

As if the order of occurrence determines the priority or order of attribute!

Common sense?

If the wrath of God was poured out upon the Son, then the question is WHEN?

Does not the Scriptures state that God looked upon Satan in the book of Job?

Does not the Scriptures state that God conversed with Adam, Eve, Cain, Noah, Abraham, ... Were these not sinners?

Does not the Scriptures present the Christ weeping over Jerusalem?

There is wrong reading when one takes a phrase and attempt to construct an attribute of God.

This is done with some using Habakkuk.

What does the Scripture actually state?

13Your eyes are too pure to approve evil,
And You can not look on wickedness with favor.
Why do You look with favor
On those who deal treacherously?
Why are You silent when the wicked swallow up
Those more righteous than they?​

Is Habakkuk stating that God does not look and does not see?

NO!!!!!!

He asking WHY if you are so Holy are you using those who are most unholy (the Caldeans) to oppress your own people.

This thinking that God cannot look upon the Son with favor as the Son took upon Himself the sins of the world is just not scripturally sound thinking.

Just as the above use of Habakkuk is taken out of context and made to support what it was never intended, nor does the balance of Scripture bring credibility.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Habakkuk is appealing to God's righteousness in pleading for Him to act, that He will not condone evil. This is one of the poorest supports for God pouring His wrath upon Christ (because it doesn't support the idea - if anything it denies it).

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.

Do you believe that Christ's death, apart from bearing God's wrath, is sufficient a price to redeem mankind?

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!

 

[agedman]

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.

Because, Martin, that is not what the statement Habakkuk is making in context, nor is that thinking supported by events in the Scriptures. If any "eyes" could not behold, it was human eyes beholding the very face of God (remember Moses looked only upon the reflection).

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.

What makes you think it was "God's wrath" and not merely the human condition of sinfulness that grieved the holiness of Christ?

"He learned obedience" doesn't mean the teaching came from God! In fact, it did not, for the Scriptures record the Lord saying that everything He did and said was directly from the Father. There was no learning curve.

Rather, "He learned (experienced first hand) that sorrows, the griefs, the afflictions "from His youth." Which is simply that there was nothing that afflicts anyone one of any age bracket that the Lord has not first hand experience.

What do you learn by what you suffer? Is it not obedience? But did the Son not already know all that is meant by what we term obedience? Like my late friends Mike and Ruth Greene wrote, "action is the key to obediently, show that you believe."

Again, there was no learning curve when it came to the Father and Son. What was missed was the human experience. So, He suffered, He was afflicted, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, not because of some training ground that Father imposed, but that which He endured of the ungodly and worldly.

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.'

Here is a point that your post is stumbling over.

At no point did the pure lamb of God become ungodly, and unrighteous. Had He, He would have immediately been disqualified as meeting the needs as the single propitiatory sacrifice necessary.

It cannot be both ways. Either Christ remained pure, holy and righteous completely through the whole of the earthly ministry, or He became disqualified as a lamb stained.

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!

Partly true. But the reason was not to make the atonement complete, but that the atonement not be incomplete as a result of digesting an intoxicant.

Christ was offered drink twice. He spit out the first, for it was an intoxicant regularly given to those on crosses to aid in prolonging the suffering. It was not an unusual offering, but regularly given at intervals, that the suffering last as many days as possible.

When Christ tasted that cup, He spit it out, not because he wanted to end the suffering, but because it would allow for some element of His Holiness to be perverted as all intoxicants are formulated.

Second, if anything, the taking away of the cup hastened His death, not prolonged it.

Therefore, as much as I respect others that tend to hold only this thinking, it remains just not supportable by historical facts, by physical evidences of the crucifixion, nor by the balance of the presentation of Scriptures.

Btw, I no longer have access to the resource, but there are some authorities who suggest that Spurgeon was not so enamored with PSA theory as to reject other theories out of hand. That two he contemplated was satisfaction and Christus Victor. This is why in some statements he used the terms as you posted above concerning the satisfaction for the atonement to be complete and not satisfaction for God's wrath to be extinguished.

But, like I said, I no longer have such resources at hand, and really no energy to find them.

You young blooded folks can journey that road without me.

 

[JonC]

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!

Brother,

Using your own words - why can't you just accept the plain words of Scripture? God will not condone sin. The Righteous will not experience God's wrath. Period. (No "ifs ands or buts).God is faithful and throughout Scripture this is a faithfulness to His word. We know we will experience God's deliverance and not His wrath because Christ experienced Gods deliverance and not His wrath.

I'll ask again. Do you believe Christs death - based on His divinity and apart from bearing God's wrath - sufficient a price to redeem man?

 

[agedman]

I need to clarify when I used my recall suggesting Spurgeon not rejecting other atonement theories out of hand.

When dealing with the atonement he usually spoke of the suffering of Christ as meeting all the demands of the atonement. Which it did. However, so do other theories. What he rejected was that satisfaction thinking some preached in his day that. Phil Johnson has this posted that you can read what Spurgeon’s issue in his day as to the teaching some presented. PyroManiac: Spurgeon on substitutionary atonement

What is the sticking point of PSA theory is that some present the wrath of God was satisfied by God retributively dumping the wrath upon the Son.

Such retribution thinking comes from the basic retribution theory in which is expressed to The Christ when the disciples ask, who sinned, this man or his parents.

I may be wrong, but I just don’t recall Spurgeon placing such retribution at the crucifixion as God being satisfied because He exhausted His wrath by pouring it out upon the Son.

Rather, he pointed to the suffering as necessary for the atonement - the shedding of the blood, but only as necessary as was obliged to satisfy the demands of the atonement. That as the Scriptures state, “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness for (of) sin.”

Here is a sermon Spurgeon gave specifically on the atonement and the type (picture) of the OT fulfilled at the crucifixion. The Day of Atonement by C. H. Spurgeon

If ever there would be a place to state that God poured out vengeance retribution upon the Son, certainly it would occur in this message. But it does not.

Make no mistake, reader, the blood was important, the suffering important, the crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection are all most important aspects in the atonement.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Do you still think that The Christ taking away the wrath of God obliges that The Christ have the wrath of God poured out upon Him?

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.

As well known, I do not see such presented in Scripture.

It's there, as I keep pointing out.

Rather, I see the Father pleased and one pleased has no wrath toward the one who is pleasing.

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........'

 

[agedman]

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.

'

However, there is no such displayed at the crucifixion.

The OT atonement offerings were displays of the transfer of sin, yet not once was torture and wrath involved.

What some have done is take the Scriptures that show God’s justice against the ungodly, and apply that to the Christ as if He became ungodly.

He did not.

Just as the OT sacrifice was pure to the death, the Christ was unstained by the sin He took from humankind.

What some present in PSA thinking, is an impure sacrifice was ultimately the solution God approved and hence He had to pour out His wrath, when the Scriptures do not support such.

If Christ was stained by taking on sin, then He became polluted and unqualified as the perfect and final sacrifice.