The Wrath of God Poured Out

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.

 

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,

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

In my view God's wrath is propitiated.

 

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.

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.

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

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).

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

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.

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

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).

 

@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.