Back by popular demand - An often unpopular view of the Atonement

Irenaeus is obvious - he tells you what he believed (the cross being that "final" stage of human existence). It wasn't penal substitution...but I will let you read it yourself (read the entire chapter from which you lifted your quote).

This thread is what I believe. So I will rephrase your question -

So what does it mean that 'The Lord redeemed us by His blood'? What does it mean that the redemption was 'His life for our life, His flesh for our flesh'?

It means that we were purchased with the precious blood of Christ. It means His flesh for our flesh, His life for our life.

It does not mean His life instead of our life, but as C.S. Lewis was eloquently pointing out, His death on our behalf. Jesus died FOR us - not instead of us.

Did you even notice you changed the words around?

 

Yep. I'm surprised it hasn't taken yet.

Have you noticed how I can tell you what you believe on this topic yet you remain clueless how not only my view but all views that depart from yours address the necessity of the cross and satisfy divine justice?

For example - and correct me if I mistate your view (although I probably won't state it as well as you):

You believe that God's wrath is against sin. All have sinned so all are born guilty and under God's wrath. God can't just forgive sin because this is unjust (it is against God's nature). So God lays our iniquities on His Son and punishes our sin. God pours His wrath upon Christ (who lays down His life in our place and willingly takes the cup of God's wrath in our stead). This satisfies divine justice (God has punished sin). And Jesus has taken this punishment instead of us. Because of this work God is both just (He has punished sin) and the justifier of sinners.

Can you explain how my view satisfies the demand of divine justice and necessitates the Cross?

What about Irenaeus' theory? Can you explain how God's justice is satisfied and why Christ died under Recipitulation? Under Anselm's theory? Moral Influence theory?

In other words, can you see beyond your own narrow presuppositions...your philosophies?

 

we were replying at the same time.

Show me where I miss your view.

 

I believe that there is a miscommunication here, Martin.

I was taught in an argument to restate the other's position. This is not a challenge, but rather to make sure that I understand what the other holds. I've done this repeatedly, asking for you to point out if I erred. I did it in the thread from which you quoted from here.

FROM THE POST YOU QUOTE:

"For example - and correct me if I mistate your view (although I probably won't state it as well as you):

You believe that God's wrath is against sin. All have sinned so all are born guilty and under God's wrath. God can't just forgive sin because this is unjust (it is against God's nature). So God lays our iniquities on His Son and punishes our sin. God pours His wrath upon Christ (who lays down His life in our place and willingly takes the cup of God's wrath in our stead). This satisfies divine justice (God has punished sin). And Jesus has taken this punishment instead of us. Because of this work God is both just (He has punished sin) and the justifier of sinners."

I understand now that you reject the above (because you just told me). But I don't know why. "Wrong" is not clarification.

And then I asked you to explain my view (again, not as a challenge but to make sure that you understood my position as stated in this thread....i.e., the OP).

"Can you explain how my view satisfies the demand of divine justice and necessitates the Cross? "

There really is no need to respond in an insulting manner. This thread is about my view - and I stated my view in detail on this thread. I am trying to discuss my view among Christians - I can explain what I believe, but I can't understand it for you.

If you are so frustrated that you cannot deal with my view or confirm yours, then by all means take a step back. My view is here and we can return to it when your demeanor returns.

But again, when you are able I would appreciate correction of my understanding of your belief as stated above. And as always, you are free to ask me questions of my stated view on this thread.

I hope you get better, brother. What I need from you is not "wrong", but why or how it is wrong. And you have my view in this very thread.

John

 

@Martin Marprelate ,

I am sorry if it appears my replies are sharp. It is difficult for me to go to the trouble to lay out my views (for a second time) only to be met with the comment that I have never laid out my views before. It is also difficult for me to consider you honest when I do present your views asking for clarification if I've made any mistakes only to be met with "wrong" and insulted for the effort (but it's a difficulty I overcome).

MY VIEW

My view, in detail, is here:

Back by popular demand - An often unpopular view of the Atonement

It is the OP of this thread (post # 1). If you want my view in detail, well, there it is. You are more than welcome to ask me questions about what I believe.



MY UNDERSTANDING OF YOUR VIEW

Here is how I presented your view, as I understand it, and asked for clarification if I had made a mistake:

"For example - and correct me if I mistate your view (although I probably won't state it as well as you): You believe that God's wrath is against sin. All have sinned so all are born guilty and under God's wrath. God can't just forgive sin because this is unjust (it is against God's nature). So God lays our iniquities on His Son and punishes our sin. God pours His wrath upon Christ (who lays down His life in our place and willingly takes the cup of God's wrath in our stead). This satisfies divine justice (God has punished sin). And Jesus has taken this punishment instead of us. Because of this work God is both just (He has punished sin) and the justifier of sinners."

It is post # 42. You informed me that I was "wrong", but you did not tell me what part of that understanding you find wrong. Please clarify where I misunderstand your view.

I stated that I understand you to believe:


1. That God's wrath is against sin, and all have sinned so all are born guilty and under God's wrath?

2. That God can't just forgive sin because this is unjust (it is against God's nature). So God lays our iniquities on His Son and punishes our sin?

3. That God pours His wrath upon Christ (who lays down His life in our place and willingly takes the cup of God's wrath in our stead)?

4. That this work satisfies divine justice (God has punished sin)?

5. That Jesus has taken this punishment instead of us?

6. That it is because of this work (the Cross) that God is both just (He has punished sin) and the justifier of sinners?


By your insistence that I'm wrong here, I understand that you reject at least one of those points. Which ones do you deny? How have I misrepresented your view?

Please let me know. While simply answering "wrong" may provide you more opportunities to insult me, I don't see how this can benefit the topic or in any form contribute to a "Christian" dialogue.

Thanks,

John

 

I told you what I believe. I can't help it if my actual beliefs are just beyond your grasp, and I certainly can't anticipate your ignorance of my views.

 

He has taken the punishment that we deserve, both instead of us and on our behalf.
Yes, subject to what I have written above.[/QUOTE]
Yes, as I said - I understand your view and reasoning. You reworded what I stated (your "objections" are addressed in other points). I'm glad we at least agree here.

 

You don't understand. Those words, that Jesus suffered for us rather than in our stead, are not where we differ but are a result of our difference. Others include your understanding that God forsook Christ on the cross where I believe God forsook Him to the cross....you believe God abandoned Christ in His suffering where I believe He abandoned Christ to suffer for us.

These "little" differences are miles apart.

Where we differ is in how God is just and the justifier of sinners. We differ on how God's justice is satisfied. But ultimately our difference is I have not accepted your philosophical approach to God's justice.....and it is this presupposition you must prove to demonstrate your theory correct.

 

Hey MartinM.

I am really not sure how you missed it, perhaps with your studies and preaching it was just an oversight. I can try to explain.

Here are a few comments from the OP:

Your reply?

Post #3 was not an “amendment” to my stated belief but an explanation to your reply. You had missed that I addressed God's wrath, Christ as a propitiation, and divine justice being satisfied.

I trust looking back over the post now you see that I addressed those issues, even though I'm sure we disagree as I do not share your philosophy of justice. But at least you can understand better my position.

John