The Wrath of God Poured Out

[Martin Marprelate]

Good morning, Martin.

I hope you and your family had a wonderful Christmas.

Yes thank you. I hope you and yours did too.

Please point out where I have stated that there is no reason for Christ to have come and presumably we should all be Jews or Moslems. Please show where I provided this as the basis for my answer to you.

In my post #16. I asked you,

'If a righteous God shows mercy to the repentant, what then is the purpose of the Lord Jesus Christ coming into the world?'

On the basis of your post #17, I can see no purpose in the incarnation. Hence my statement,

'So you have answered my question in post #16; on that basis there is no reason for Christ to have come and presumably we should all be Jews or Moslems.

But in fact, 'You shall call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins.' 'Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.' 'Even Jesus, who delivers us from the wrath to come.'

Please note my words 'On that basis,' meaning the basis of your post #17, which I answered in some depth, and also the word 'presumably,' meaning that on the basis of your post #17, which was supposed to be the answer to my post #16, one might legitimately suppose that God can forgive sinners without recourse or reference to the Lord Jesus Christ.

I can't help but see the claim above as extremely dishonest by deliberately making false accusations simply because we disagree. This is concerning as there are many Christians who disagree with you theories yet none who make the claim you attach to me.

Regardless, I am trying my best to view your statement as an honest oversight. I prefer to afford you the assumption of integrity indicative of the Christian I believe you to be.

With it being Christmas and all, this is not the time for me to rehearse all my complaints about you. What I suggest is that you provide another, better answer to my post #16, which will enable us to continue the discussion.

The question, why did Christ come into the world is a legitimate one; so much so that a chap called Anselm wrote a book about it.

 

[JonC]

Yes thank you. I hope you and yours did too.

In my post #16. I asked you,
'If a righteous God shows mercy to the repentant, what then is the purpose of the Lord Jesus Christ coming into the world?'
On the basis of your post #17, I can see no purpose in the incarnation. Hence my statement,
'So you have answered my question in post #16; on that basis there is no reason for Christ to have come and presumably we should all be Jews or Moslems. But in fact, 'You shall call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins.' 'Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.' 'Even Jesus, who delivers us from the wrath to come.'

Please note my words 'On that basis,' meaning the basis of your post #17, which I answered in some depth, and also the word 'presumably,' meaning that on the basis of your post #17, which was supposed to be the answer to my post #16, one might legitimately suppose that God can forgive sinners without recourse or reference to the Lord Jesus Christ.

With it being Christmas and all, this is not the time for me to rehearse all my complaints about you. What I suggest is that you provide another, better answer to my post #16, which will enable us to continue the discussion.

We did have a good Christmas. My mother is staying with us until next week and it is nice to have her with us.

From what you post I understand you to be saying that you do not understand my position to hold a reason for Christ to come. And I can accept that, but I don't know I can help it except to let you know our past conversations still apply to my view. I wish I could word my responses in such a way as to help you understand the absolute necessity of the Cross.

I believe the primary view is that Christ had to die was to liberate us from the bondage of sin and death. We are purchased by Christ's own blood. This, I believe, is a righteousness apart from the law rather than through it. Christ is our representative and the "last Adam".

Christ died as a propitiation to reconcile mankind to God. On the cross we the God reconciliation the world to Himself. Apart from the cross we would remain under bondage. But Christ delivers us from the wrath to come.

I also believe Christ had to come to be the Firstborn and our Head. He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

Had I time I would cover old ground. But I think this post enough.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I believe the primary view is that Christ had to die was to liberate us from the bondage of sin and death. We are purchased by Christ's own blood. This, I believe, is a righteousness apart from the law rather than through it. Christ is our representative and the "last Adam".

Christ died as a propitiation to reconcile mankind to God. On the cross we the God reconciliation the world to Himself. Apart from the cross we would remain under bondage. But Christ delivers us from the wrath to come.

Thank you. My problem is that if 'God is faithful to forgive those who in repentance turn to Him,' why does Christ need to come and suffer and die and 'purchase us by His own blood'? And how and why does the shedding of His blood purchase us?

If God has to punish Christ for our sin in order to satisfy the demands of divine justice then the rebirth is not necessary for salvation, but may be a following work as the wrath against us has already been satisfied (perhaps a work of sanctification).

The rebirth cannot be work because we are 'born from above.' The wrath of God against the sin of His people is indeed satisfied by the propitiation of Christ, but they need to be born again to enable them to walk in newness of life. God's salvation is a full and complete salvation. It most certainly involves the propitiation of His wrath but it is by no means limited to that.

 

[JonC]

Thank you. My problem is that if 'God is faithful to forgive those who in repentance turn to Him,' why does Christ need to come and suffer and die and 'purchase us by His own blood'? And how and why does the shedding of His blood purchase us?
The rebirth cannot be work because we are 'born from above.' The wrath of God against the sin of His people is indeed satisfied by the propitiation of Christ, but they need to be born again to enable them to walk in newness of life. God's salvation is a full and complete salvation. It most certainly involves the propitiation of His wrath but it is by no means limited to that.

I already told you, Martin. Christ had to become man and suffer under the curse. He became a curse for us. He is the "Last Adam". We are purchased by His blood.

I cannot be more plain, so if you still cannot understand how those who reject your theory at the same time affirm the necessity of the cross then I am sorry. Maybe watch the Lion, Witch and Wardrobe? That was on a couple of nights ago and it is a pretty good allegory (from my perspective). Ignoring, of course, that Aslan wasn't human....and was instead a talking lion.

I really can't articulate it any other way. Try reading Lewis or some of the early church writings. Maybe some pre-21st century Anabaptist theology. I'm just not a good teacher for you.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I already told you, Martin. Christ had to become man and suffer under the curse. He became a curse for us. He is the "Last Adam". We are purchased by His blood.

You keep replying without answering. If, in your words, 'God is faithful to forgive those who in repentance turn to Him,' why does Christ need to become a curse? Why does He need to purchase us? If we repent, we're forgiven. Who needs Christ?

Of course, the point is that you have misquoted the word of God. God 'is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness' (1 John 1:9). God can only ever be righteous, and that is why He will 'by no means acquit the guilty.' But the Lord Jesus Christ has taken our sins upon Himself (2 Corinthians 5:21), borne the curse that should be ours (Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:24) and paid the penalty for our sins on our behalf (Isaiah 53:5). For this reason God can 'Demonstrate His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus' Romans 3:26).

If the best you can do to explain your position is to point me to a High Church Anglican, I think you may be in trouble.

 

[JonC]

You keep replying without answering. If, in your words, 'God is faithful to forgive those who in repentance turn to Him,' why does Christ need to become a curse? Why does He need to purchase us? If we repent, we're forgiven. Who needs Christ?

Of course, the point is that you have misquoted the word of God. God 'is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness' (1 John 1:9). God can only ever be righteous, and that is why He will 'by no means acquit the guilty.' But the Lord Jesus Christ has taken our sins upon Himself (2 Corinthians 5:21), borne the curse that should be ours (Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:24) and paid the penalty for our sins on our behalf (Isaiah 53:5). For this reason God can 'Demonstrate His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus' Romans 3:26).

If the best you can do to explain your position is to point me to a High Church Anglican, I think you may be in trouble.

Martin,

First, those were not "my words". Those were God's words (just not your "go to" verses).

I really don’t know how to help you. I have already said (and will again because I really don’t mind….too much) that I believe God is both faithful and just to forgive our sins. Just as God will not acquit the guilty He will not be fooled into pretending the righteous is guilty. God is just and the justifier of sinners. You like to present verses (over and over and over and over) again that we have both affirmed as if you are doing something. I believe you are using Scripture as a smoke screen rather than dealing with our differences. But that really does not matter. You need someone to help you understand how other views also considered the cross necessary. But I am not that teacher.

On one hand you seem to genuinely want to understand. But on another you reject any “help” unless it is from someone that is shackled to the same theory and traditions as yourself. Yes, Lewis was an Anglican. But the Puritans weren’t Baptist. That doesn’t mean we can’t learn from them.

I also suggested looking at Anabaptist theologies. Or the beliefs of the early church. Or the beliefs of the medieval church. I don’t care. Just pick someone that doesn’t hold your theory.

Read Mennonite theology by, perhaps, David Augsburger. Peruse Chris Huebner’s view of the cross. Or go back to Menno Simons. Pick up some early church writings. Look at Anabaptist theology by examining the ideas of Johannes Bünderlin, Samuel Kinsey, and Hans Denck. Read James William McClendon Jr.

You could look at contemporary views such as Denny Weaver’s non-violent Atonement. I don’t agree with Weaver but at least you may start to understand that theories other than your own deal with Christ’s death as a necessity. I doubt you could get further from your own than Weaver.

Read Atonement: The Person and Work of Christ by T.F. Torrance.

Examine the arguments of Ontological Substitution Atonement (that actually may be the best to help you grasp the concept of the cross several other positions hold).

Read N.T. Wright (while he holds to your theory, he does so very differently and often points to more traditional reasons for the Cross than you would allow).

But stop looking to me as your teacher. I gave you my answer but how it necessitates Christ proved beyond your grasp. Stop asking me. I can’t articulate my position in a way that will break through the barrier of your theory. I accept that as a failure on my part – not that my position is contrary to Scripture or does not base forgiveness on the Cross, but that I cannot give you the ability to understand how it does so you can make an educated evaluation of your theory. Until then I really don’t think that you can even fathom your theory being anything but the text of Scripture.

Find someone who can explain these things to you in a way you can understand. I’m simply not that person. But I do wish you all the best.


John

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Stop asking me. I can’t articulate my position

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[JonC]

That pretty much sums it up.

That is my point. Throughout all of our conversations you have "lifted" statements to "prove" or make a point.

Here you take a statement I made and present it alone to make it say something out of context. In our conversations about the Early Church Fathers you did the same thing. You ignored what was said before and after their words and lifted a quote to force them to say what you wanted them to say. And you are doing it with Scripture as well. You take a verse here and a verse there and place them into a theoretical script.

When I say that you are not faithful to what is said but are shackled to your own presuppositions, this is what I mean.

Your reply here is not only proof but it is a good example. I said "I can’t articulate my position in a way that will break through the barrier of your theory." You misquoted me by stopping at the first part. This is called "academic dishonesty". It decontextualizes what I actually said to make my own words say something entirely different.

I suspect this was intentional here (as sarcasm), but it is a good example of how you have been lifting Scripture to force God to say what is present only in your theories. This seems to have become natural to your posts.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Your reply here is not only proof but it is a good example. I said "I can’t articulate my position in a way that will break through the barrier of your theory."

There comes a point when all that is left is irony. I have asked you a question over and over again and you have not answered it but pointed me to a bunch of your favourite theologians, without even having the courtesy to quote them. How would you react if I did the same to you? Where would the board be if all we did was to tell each other to read a third party's books?

What you are really saying is "I can't articulate my theory in a way I can defend," and therefore you are utterly determined not to do it. Hence the irony.

 

[JonC]

There comes a point when all that is left is irony. I have asked you a question over and over again and you have not answered it but pointed me to a bunch of your favourite theologians, without even having the courtesy to quote them. How would you react if I did the same to you? Where would the board be if all we did was to tell each other to read a third party's books?

What you are really saying is "I can't articulate my theory in a way I can defend," and therefore you are utterly determined not to do it. Hence the irony.

error error error Will Robinson

1. Those are not my favorite theologians (although I do rather like C.S. Lewis...but he's not a theologian).
2. You have done this to me. Over a year ago you mentioned to me Joel Beeke. And guess what? I read several books and a few articles by Beeke. I like him.
3. The reason I suggested "third party's books" was that we have had this discussion for a long time:

I tell you how my view necessitates the Cross. You tell me you do not understand how my view necessitates the Cross.

So I mention Lewis. You object because he is a "High Anglican".

In the past I quoted Torrance. You still could not grasp how his view necessitated the Cross.

I mentioned Barth (who is actually one of my favorites to read). You could not understand how his view necessitated the Cross because it did not satisfy your idea of divine justice.

There is a blindness to you when it comes to views you reject. This is not only sad, but I believe it is dangerous because it makes me wonder if you are able to view the Atonement apart from your theories.

I understand how your view necessitates the Cross. I reject your view.

I understand how Denny Weaver's view necessitates the Cross. I find his view incomplete.

I understand how N.T. Wright states that Christ's death is necessary apart from its penal substitutionary aspects. I think that he draws too much on the social history contemporary to first century Judaism. But he does make some good points.

I cannot teach you how to see outside of the framework you place over Scripture. I tired in the past by suggesting you read a gospel from the perspective of one of the other theories (perhaps Ireaneus). At that time you couldn't and only responded that they would have affirmed your theory had it been articulated for them. I can't help you.

So I recommended sources that you could explore on your own.

When you learn how their understanding views the Cross - how Christians who held other ideas of the Atonement saw the Cross as eternally significant and necessary - then perhaps we can talk about other views.

In the past you rejected any interpretation of "forsaken" except it be God abandoned Christ because "that's what the word means". You rejected the idea of "propitiation" meaning anything except "bearing wrath" because "that's what the word means". Until you come willing to learn about other Christians, about why and how they hold their views, I really don't think you can be helped.

That is why I suggested you read other people's views.

 

[Yeshua1]

I already told you, Martin. Christ had to become man and suffer under the curse. He became a curse for us. He is the "Last Adam". We are purchased by His blood.

I cannot be more plain, so if you still cannot understand how those who reject your theory at the same time affirm the necessity of the cross then I am sorry. Maybe watch the Lion, Witch and Wardrobe? That was on a couple of nights ago and it is a pretty good allegory (from my perspective). Ignoring, of course, that Aslan wasn't human....and was instead a talking lion.

I really can't articulate it any other way. Try reading Lewis or some of the early church writings. Maybe some pre-21st century Anabaptist theology. I'm just not a good teacher for you.

Why did Jesus have to die by shedding his own blood if not as a propiation for sinners, and to pay the sin obligation owed by us towards the Father?

 

[JonC]

Why did Jesus have to die by shedding his own blood if not as a propiation for sinners, and to pay the sin obligation owed by us towards the Father?

I believe Christ had to die as a Propitiation for our sins. It is through His blood that we are redeemed and saved from the wrath to come. Christ became a curse for us.

But I also believe that the idea that God had to punish Jesus instead of us for our sins in order to pay our sin debt and satisfy the demands of divine justice so we can be forgiven is a fairly recent mythology that has originated and resides in one theory. My opinion is that the myth is not only unbiblical but also anti-biblical as it distorts the gospel message.

I believe this myth came about due to a flaw in Reformed theology. Rather than reforming Roman Catholic Theology I believe the Reformers would have done better were they to have simply started from scratch and went to Scripture. I believe the "radical reformers" were correct on this criticism.

Christ had to suffer under the curse, become a curse for us, and become the "Last Adam". This could not have been accomplished except for the Cross.

Does that help understand my position?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I tell you how my view necessitates the Cross. You tell me you do not understand how my view necessitates the Cross.

Well tell me again, please. I have repeated myself over and over again for your benefit. I have asked you, 'if a righteous God shows mercy to the repentant, what then is the purpose of the Lord Jesus Christ coming into the world?' I don't recall having asked you this exact question before, and if I did I don't recall your reply. My reason for doing so is because you mis-quoted 1 John 2:2. It is so rare for you to quote a piece of Scripture that it's like a special event, so humour me.

I am glad you like Pink, though obviously not enough to take note of what he says.

 

[JonC]

Well tell me again, please. I have repeated myself over and over again for your benefit. I have asked you, 'if a righteous God shows mercy to the repentant, what then is the purpose of the Lord Jesus Christ coming into the world?' I don't recall having asked you this exact question before, and if I did I don't recall your reply. My reason for doing so is because you mis-quoted 1 John 2:2. It is so rare for you to quote a piece of Scripture that it's like a special event, so humour me.

I am glad you like Pink, though obviously not enough to take note of what he says.

I take note of what everyone I read says. That does not mean I prostrate myself before them. I evaluate their words with Scripture.

I don't like Pink. I like Joel Beeke (except his prayers...I don't know why he uses "Thee's and Thou's" in public prayer). I actually quote Scripture very often. That said, I rarely cite the passage I am quoting. I've found that people disagree with Scripture much more when they believe it is my words rather than God's they reject. It helps get right to the source of the issue.

The Cross is the crux of God’s love.

Paul tells us that it was the Father’s will for all the fulness of God to dwell in Christ and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross. This is, I believe obviously, not a peace in terms of satisfying divine justice as Paul continues to link this not only to things on earth but also things in the heavens.

So if the blood of His cross is not simply paying a debt so men will not have to, then what is it?

Continuing with Paul, it is a reconciliation in His fleshly body through death in order to present us before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach.

Rather than satisfying the demands of justice so that God could act, so He could forgive men, the Cross IS God’s act of redemption, of reconciliation.


Christ became man and suffered under the curse (became a curse for us) to cast down the principalities and powers that enslave and oppress mankind.

Rather than the Cross being Jesus’ condemnation on our behalf the Cross is His glorification (John 12:20). Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.

We are that fruit. Christ is the Firstborn of many brethren.

And I am saying this with a British avatar, so at least consider my words.....I say, old chap...fancy joining me for a gin and tonic?

I think I'll have a spot of tea. Close your mouth please, Michael. We are not a Codfish.

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe Christ had to die as a Propitiation for our sins. It is through His blood that we are redeemed and saved from the wrath to come. Christ became a curse for us.

But I also believe that the idea that God had to punish Jesus instead of us for our sins in order to pay our sin debt and satisfy the demands of divine justice so we can be forgiven is a fairly recent mythology that has originated and resides in one theory. My opinion is that the myth is not only unbiblical but also anti-biblical as it distorts the gospel message.

I believe this myth came about due to a flaw in Reformed theology. Rather than reforming Roman Catholic Theology I believe the Reformers would have done better were they to have simply started from scratch and went to Scripture. I believe the "radical reformers" were correct on this criticism.

Christ had to suffer under the curse, become a curse for us, and become the "Last Adam". This could not have been accomplished except for the Cross.

Does that help understand my position?

Yes, but still fail to see just how the wrath of God was satisfied by your view of the atonement, as God still had to have someone to take His wrath and pay for ther sin obligation due to God!
Jesus became the Sin bearer for us, and as such, experienced all that a lost sinner will when facing the judgment of God foe their sins!

 

[JonC]

Yes, but still fail to see just how the wrath of God was satisfied by your view of the atonement, as God still had to have someone to take His wrath and pay for ther sin obligation due to God!
Jesus became the Sin bearer for us, and as such, experienced all that a lost sinner will when facing the judgment of God foe their sins!

In my view God's wrath is propitiated.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I take note of what everyone I read says. That does not mean I prostrate myself before them. I evaluate their words with Scripture.

I don't like Pink. I like Joel Beeke (except his prayers...I don't know why he uses "Thee's and Thou's" in public prayer). I actually quote Scripture very often. That said, I rarely cite the passage I am quoting. I've found that people disagree with Scripture much more when they believe it is my words rather than God's they reject. It helps get right to the source of the issue.

Beeke is great. The "Thees" and "Thous" are, I think a result of the church he was brought up in. I know some people over here that do it and it's second nature to them. It's not a problem to me and I'm sure God understands what they are praying. Beeke is a great fan of the Puritans, and like them he teaches Penal Substitution and has an orthodox Christology.

I'm sure you think you quote Scripture, but you very seldom do. On one of the myriad threads that we have disagreed on I actually counted your Scripture references and published them. Perhaps you recall.

Next, thank you very much for laying out your view so succinctly; it is a great help.

The Cross is the crux of God’s love.

The cross is where God's love and His justice meet (Psalms 85:10; Romans 3:26; I John 1:9).

Paul tells us that it was the Father’s will for all the fulness of God to dwell in Christ and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross. This is, I believe obviously, not a peace in terms of satisfying divine justice as Paul continues to link this not only to things on earth but also things in the heavens.

Unfortunately, you believe wrongly. First, peace had to be made through the blood of Christ's cross; this presupposes that there was enmity before; then there is reconciliation. Note the connection between Colossians 1:16 and 20. Christ created them all and He has reconciled them all through His suffering on the cross.

Sin ruined the universe. It destroyed the harmony between one creature and another, and between all creatures and their God. Through the blood of the cross (c.f. Ephesians 2:11-18), however, sin in principle, has been conquered. The demand of the broken law has been satisfied, its curse borne (Romans 3:25; Galatians 3:13). Harmony has therefore been restored and peace made. Through Christ and the cross the universe is restored to its proper relationship to God in the sense that Satan is defeated (Mark 3:27; Luke 10:18; Revelation 12:7-9) and, as just reward for His obedience and suffering, Christ is exalted to the Father's right hand (Philippians 2:9-11) and rules the Cosmos in the interest of the Church and to the glory of God.

Continuing with Paul, it is a reconciliation in His fleshly body through death in order to present us before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach.

Rather than satisfying the demands of justice so that God could act, so He could forgive men, the Cross IS God’s act of redemption, of reconciliation.

Why does God need to subject Christ to such terrible suffering if He can just forgive people without satisfying His justice? Why doesn't He just do it?
{QUOTE]
Christ became man and suffered under the curse (became a curse for us) to cast down the principalities and powers that enslave and oppress mankind.[/QUOTE]
How were they cast down by Christ dying on the cross? Why would the Lord Jesus dying on the cross ipso facto cast down principalities and powers?

Rather than the Cross being Jesus’ condemnation on our behalf the Cross is His glorification (John 12:20). Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.

We are that fruit. Christ is the Firstborn of many brethren.

I actually agree with this. The Lord Jesus was certainly condemned by men, but it is never He who is condemned by God. As I have stated over and over again, God's wrath is never against His Christ; He never ceased to be the beloved Son. God's wrath is against sin (Romans 1:18) and it is by bearing the sin of His people that Christ makes reconciliation.

And I am saying this with a British avatar, so at least consider my words.....I say, old chap...fancy joining me for a gin and tonic?

What on earth is it? It looks like the clone of Churchill and Groucho Marx.

I think I'll have a spot of tea. Close your mouth please, Michael. We are not a Codfish.

Mary Poppins was on TV again this Christmas. My children used to love it despite Dick Van Dyke's appalling attempt at a Cockney accent.

 

[JonC]

Beeke is great. The "Thees" and "Thous" are, I think a result of the church he was brought up in. I know some people over here that do it and it's second nature to them. It's not a problem to me and I'm sure God understands what they are praying. Beeke is a great fan of the Puritans, and like them he teaches Penal Substitution and has an orthodox Christology.

I'm sure you think you quote Scripture, but you very seldom do. On one of the myriad threads that we have disagreed on I actually counted your Scripture references and published them. Perhaps you recall.

Next, thank you very much for laying out your view so succinctly; it is a great help.

The cross is where God's love and His justice meet (Psalms 85:10; Romans 3:26; I John 1:9

I think he tends more to the Puritans than I'd prefer (being Baptist). But do like both his writings and his sermons. I suppose the way he prays is linked to his church. When I was growing up it seems that most people did pray as if they were writing for King James.

I'm sure you think you quote Scripture, but you very seldom do. On one of the myriad threads that we have disagreed on I actually counted your Scripture references and published them. Perhaps you recall.

Yes. I do recall. I also recall that when I explained my view I had several verses of Scripture backing up each and every point of my position. Do you remember your criticism then (it was a little over a year ago, so you may not)? Your complaint was that my view was Scripture without interpretation. You actually condemned my view for not being theoretical enough!

So the charge of not using Scripture (and providing the reference) really does not wash. It's a fabrication of the worst kind. My view remains the same - I accept Scripture but I do not accept your theory. I believe when we reject a view for holding too close to Scripture (apart from dogmatic interpretation) what we are looking for is not theology but philosophy. That is, in my opinion, what you engage in most often. You provide Scripture but only to prop up a philosophical assumption. We look at handling Scripture differently.

We already agreed that where we disagree is not Scripture (we affirm the exact same passages) but in how they are interpreted. Do you not see it as a fools errant to repeat Isaiah 53 and Romans 3 when we affirm the same passages?

The problem goes back to your claim last December that my view is merely bits of Scripture divorced from interpretation. The real issue, however, is that I believe those passages are enough to articulate an understanding of the Atonement without the addition of theories, traditions, and presuppositions. If Scripture is sufficient then, in my opinion, the additions your theory makes is a corruption of Scripture under the pretense of "doing theology". I believe the result of this philosophical approach to the Cross is the creation of a Christian mythology through which many are blinded to some truths of God's Word. That said, I praise God that the gospel of Jesus Christ shines through these humanistic endeavors to approach the Cross. I am no less a believer when I affirmed your theories than I am now as I reject them.

There may also be a bit of a difference in how we reference. In seminary we were told to assume (in theological discussion between Baptists) that the opposing position has the same bible. I don't know if that's just my experience in seminary, but it has stuck. I also confess it is perhaps a guilty pleasure when "my" words are rejected and they are in fact God's words. I probably shouldn't be that way, but for me it drives home the error of your theory.

I tend to think the "copy and past" Scripture people do so because they do not have a firm grasp of Scripture itself (they can't interact with Scripture). But that's just my presupposition.

Next, thank you very much for laying out your view so succinctly; it is a great help.

I am glad. I was starting to think our conversations fruitless.

Unfortunately, you believe wrongly. First, peace had to be made through the blood of Christ's cross; this presupposes that there was enmity before; then there is reconciliation. Note the connection between Colossians 1:16 and 20. Christ created them all and He has reconciled them all through His suffering on the cross.

The first statement is, of course, false. For it to be correct you would have to say "I believe you believe wrongly", as I do you.

I agree that peace had to be made through the blood of the Cross. And I agree there was enmity between Satan and man (I take it you are referring to Genesis). I also agree that there is a wrath to come and that through Christ we escape that wrath.

But Scripture itself does not break down the cross into segmented doctrines. Scripture does not say that the Cross was God satisfying the demands of Divine Justice. Scripture does not say that God poured out His wrath on Christ.

Do you know what Scripture DOES say about the Cross (hazard a guess)? It says that it was God reconciling the world to Himself, not counting people's transgressions against them. It does not, as you suppose, say it was God paying a "sin debt" so that He could reconcile the world.

I don't disagree with your Scripture. I disagree with your explanation (your theory or tradition, how ever you prefer to think of it is fine).

That is why I've repeatedly asked you to prove your theory of divine justice (something you've repeatedly declined).

Sin ruined the universe.

But is this what the Bible says? Or does the Bible say that Creation was subjected to futility by God Himself?

Why does God need to subject Christ to such terrible suffering if He can just forgive people without satisfying His justice? Why doesn't He just do it?

He had to be made like us in all things. He had to become a curse for us to redeem us from the curse. He had to die in order to become the Firstborn of many brethern (yes, those are passages...no I'm not going to provide the references).

But what does the Bible NOT say? It does not say that Jesus had to die to satisfy the demands of divine justice by having God pour upon Him the wrath reserved for the wicked at judgment. It does not say God separated from Jesus on the Cross. It even goes so far as to say that it is an abomination to God to condemn the righteous. That does not mean God simply justifies the wicked, but it does mean that your theory is problematic in the face of Scripture.

What on earth is it? It looks like the clone of Churchill and Groucho Marx.

It's an album cover from a boxed set of the Grateful Dead, Europe '72 (my last one was as well).

Mary Poppins was on TV again this Christmas. My children used to love it despite Dick Van Dyke's appalling attempt at a Cockney accent.

yea....I've never been to the UK but even as a child I thought the accent a bit over the top. It is one of my favorite movies (I can't decide whether or not to see the new one).

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate

I completely understand your position. At one time I held your view. I know why your theory demands a Christ and the Cross. I understand why your theory necessitates that Christ die. Your theory is probably the most philosophically worked theory of the Atonement. It is very logical. I get it. I understand your theory and I believe it false.

The problem, however, is that you have thus far failed to grasp opposing views of the Atonement. You do not understand my view as evidenced by your repeated plea for explanation and claim that you cannot understand how my view (and any theory that opposes yours) necessitates the Cross.

You cannot argue against a position you do not understand.

I believe the reason is that you are more interested in defending your theory than you are with examining Scripture apart from any presupposed philosophical framework. I do not believe that you are able to examine passages testifying to the Atonement except through the lens of Penal Substitution Theory.

We have been discussing this going on two years. You still cannot grasp how my view necessitates the Cross. Until you find yourself unshackled by your theory, even if your theory were correct, you will be unable to understand how any other view centers itself on the Cross. And no one can help you grasp other views until you are able to see outside of your traditions and theories.

Until you find yourself able to look beyond your theories I do not see a need in continuing this discussion. If in two years we are still where we started, you stating that you don't understand how my view necessitates the Cross, I don't think going forward will really help.

 

[Yeshua1]

@Martin Marprelate

I completely understand your position. At one time I held your view. I know why your theory demands a Christ and the Cross. I understand why your theory necessitates that Christ die. Your theory is probably the most philosophically worked theory of the Atonement. It is very logical. I get it. I understand your theory and I believe it false.

The problem, however, is that you have thus far failed to grasp opposing views of the Atonement. You do not understand my view as evidenced by your repeated plea for explanation and claim that you cannot understand how my view (and any theory that opposes yours) necessitates the Cross.

You cannot argue against a position you do not understand.

I believe the reason is that you are more interested in defending your theory than you are with examining Scripture apart from any presupposed philosophical framework. I do not believe that you are able to examine passages testifying to the Atonement except through the lens of Penal Substitution Theory.

We have been discussing this going on two years. You still cannot grasp how my view necessitates the Cross. Until you find yourself unshackled by your theory, even if your theory were correct, you will be unable to understand how any other view centers itself on the Cross. And no one can help you grasp other views until you are able to see outside of your traditions and theories.

Until you find yourself able to look beyond your theories I do not see a need in continuing this discussion. If in two years we are still where we started, you stating that you don't understand how my view necessitates the Cross, I don't think going forward will really help.

The problem is that your new understanding still does not explain just why Jesus had to die, and by what basis God can justify us and still be the Holy Judge of us?
And when those such as @The Archangel posts, he understands this better than either of us, and yet you belittle his posting also!