Featured Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Romans 5:1

I’d welcome the discussion (all of our discussions are interesting).

The reason I’ve been asking so many questions at the start is to explore your position (for my clarity). I wanted to know how you would respond prior to engaging the topic in depth. This is largely due to the fact that we both know I strongly disagree with your view and, to paraphrase Gibran, you can give me your words but not your understanding.

The problem with long replies is that sometimes they do not adequately focus on the issues or questions the other may have. Even here, though, I don’t think it is the length of a response so much as the broadness.

To me it appears that your description in post#20 separates Christ as the propitiation from God who is propitiated. Based on our previous discussions this leads me to believe (please correct me if I misunderstand your position here) that you view Christ’s punishment on the cross as an abandonment by God and the suffering of wrath to appease that God from whom Christ was separated for three hours.

If that is the case then we view the cross on very different grounds. Before we go there, however, please critique my statement above. I want to make sure we are on the same page.


Thanks

 

I need to clarify here. I do not mean a “separation of the Trinity”. I grant that you do not believe that Christ ceased being God. That said, I do view the idea as an internal inconstance within the members of the Trinity.

Part of our disagreement may be in my rejection of covenants within the Trinity. So there is the hazard that misunderstandings may arise simply by the language we use to describe our views. If possible, I will try to avoid this by asking for clarification of you and striving to be very clear in my own responses.

What you describe is unity. I agree with you here. This, as I understand it, is unity between the members of the Trinity. Could we describe this as roles (i.e., a unity between Father, Son, and Spirit in their roles for accomplishing redemption)?

That said, what I still see is a disharmony – not between Father and Son (I do see it there, but that’s not my main concern) but between the Son and God (as One).

How can a person look at Christ on the Cross and say “there is the fullness of God”? It seems they could only say “there is the Son” and “there is the Father”. But it seems to me that Scripture teaches when we see the Son we see the Father, and when we behold the Son be behold the fullness of God in the flesh.

Does my question make sense to you?

 

Thank you for the reply. From what I understand you are taking God’s counsel (the workings within the Trinity) as a covenantal work. While I may not agree it is in fact a covenant (probably based on a more philosophical reason that God doesn’t use binding agreements within Himself) I think that we mostly agree. I think that the use of God’s Counsel and even God’s internal dialogue in Exodus is more for our understanding than an ontological description of God. But I think that we can work with, and agree, on the truth that is conveyed. So I do not believe it will be too great an issue in this discussion to overcome.

Here is where we disagree on this topic. And here you have illustrated my strongest concern.

I do believe that when we look to the Cross we see the One True God hanging on the tree and dying a human, physical, death for our redemption. I believe this is the meaning of Paul’s words that this was God in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.

And with Charles Wesley I can agree that there is a mystery in the Immortal dying. But I think this is a mystery founded in our own limitations rather than a lack of revelation (anything less than the fullness of God hanging on the cross).

I hopes this helps explain where I disagree a bit more. This disagreement, I’m sure, has far reaching consequences (most theological disagreements do). But in regards to the OP, the last paragraph here is where I believe we differ the strongest.

 

That’s probably a more difficult question than it appears.

No, I don’t agree that the Triune God does not hang upon the cross. But this needs qualification.

I do not believe that Jesus is less than the fulness of God (Father, Son, and Spirit). So when we know Jesus I believe we know the Father. I don’t believe there is more of God to know than is revealed in Christ.

That said, what I believe we do see in the Trinity are the actions of the One Triune God manifested in the work of the Persons of the Trinity. The One True God (who is a Triune God) hung on the Cross for our sins. The Son hung on the Cross. I don’t think we can single out the Father and say He hung on the cross and while I would never use the language of the Trinity suffering the cross, I believe this is exactly what occurred. But we only know God through the Son.

On the cross the Son was submissive to the Father. He was speaking to the Father to Whom He prayed. But if God is Triune (and He is) then Jesus is this same God on the cross. You have touched on this concept with your explanation of how it was just for the Father to punish the Son because this was in fact God taking our punishment upon Himself.

Anyway, I hope this helps. I know it may be as clear as mud but we are speaking of One God in three Persons.

 

Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

 

No one is (to my knowledge) saying that Jesus is the Father.

You are saying that Jesus is fully God. But what I am telling you is that Scripture says that in Christ the fullness of God dwells in bodily form (Colossians 2:9). This is not the same as saying Jesus is fully God (that all Jesus is can be defined as God) but rather all God is can be defined in Christ.

Do you see how your switching around of words changes the meaning of Scripture?

 

Who said Jesus was the Father in the flesh? I said that all the fullness of God dwells in Christ bodily.

 

No. I am saying that God has come to Earth in the person of Jesus Christ - not a sliver of God, or one third of God, but God Himself. I am saying that it is not that Jesus is fully God but that all the fullness of God dwells in Christ bodily. That's what I've been saying over and over again, and I'll keep repeating until it takes.

 

NO. That is not what Paul wrote. You have to stop changing words around and qualifying verses if you want to see what Scripture actually says.

Think of what Paul actually wrote. Think of when Paul actually wrote it. We don't worship three gods - one father god, one son god, and one spirit god. We worship ONE God in three Persons.

Pauline theology specifically teaches that all the fullness of God...of Deity....dwells in Christ bodily. We can't negate that just because we don't like what it says.