The Wrath of God Poured Out

What is curious is that my understanding is not new. It was articulated in its present form well over 14 centuries before Penal Substitution Theory was articulated as defined today. I find it odd that it seems so new to you.

It is also strange that I can explain your view and why you believe Christ died, but thus far you (and @The Archangel and @Martin Marprelate ) seem unable to grasp how my view also views Christ's death as necessary, even though it has been both held and explained for so long by so many.

How do you think you (or they) can argue against something that you (and they) don't understand?

 

Please provide a post where I have said that it would not have been right for God the Father to treat Jesus as if He were a "bad sinner". That is, of course, rhetorical. I think we both know that is a false assertion on your part.

The closest I can find to your claim is in my response to the claim that God cannot acquit the guilty. What I said was that acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent are both alike an abomination to the Lord.

I did not reference the passage, so I understand you may think it my own thoughts but it is not. It is Proverbs 17:15.

My objection to your theory was never on the basis it made God wrong. It was and is on the basis it is foreign to Scripture.

 

Here are my "philosophical musings" you so detest because you see them as void of Scripture:

"I believe that while we were enemies of God we were reconciled to Him through Christ’s death and having been reconciled we are saved by His life. Christ died for all so that all men might no longer live for themselves but for Him, who died and rose again on our behalf. It was God’s predetermined plan that Christ suffer and die at the hands of godless men. But God raised Him up on the third day, gaining us victory over sin and death.

Jesus is the "Lamb of God" who takes away the sins of the world, dying once for all when He offered up Himself. Jesus gave Himself for our sins so He might rescue us from this present evil age. And having become a curse for us He redeemed us from the curse of the Law. Jesus Himself is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.

He was pierced for our sins, crushed for our iniquities. Men esteemed Him as stricken and afflicted by God, but the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him and by His stripes we are healed. For Christ bore our sins in His body on the cross so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.

He had to be made like us in all things. So He came in the likeness of sinful flesh and condemned sin in the flesh. And being found in the likeness of men Jesus humbled Himself by becoming obedient even to death. This is why God exalted Him and gave Him a nave above all others – that at His name all will bow and confess that Christ is Lord to the glory of the Father.

It is for this reason that the Father loves the Son – because he lay down his life to take it up again.

The Father loved the world by giving His only Son. On the cross God was, in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself. He caused the iniquity of us all to fall on His Son, displaying Him publically as a propitiation in His blood through faith. God loved us and sent Christ to be the propitiation for our sins. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf. He sent His own Son, His Beloved, in the likeness of corruptible flesh.

And as through Adam’s transgression mankind was condemned, so also through Christ’s one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men."

 

I believe your theory holds Christ's death as essential to redemption. I think that you believe that on the Cross God laid our sins upon Christ (who lay down His own life in faithful obedience to the Father) and poured His wrath on Christ as our "Sin Bearer" (not condemning Christ per se, but the sin He bore for us) and this satisfied the demands of divine justice - God is just and the justifer of sinners. In this way God took our penalty instead of us.

What part of this do you deny (where do I not understand your view)?

Either you or @The Archangel can easily prove me wrong by simply explaining how my view necessitates the cross.

Your (and @The Archangel 's) biggest error is that you can't fathom a Christian can understand your theories yet still disagree. I know many who do understand my view and believe I am wrong. All but one of these holds to the Penal Substitution Theory. BUT we can have a Christian dialogue and engage each other's views because we understand one another's positions.

That is what you are lacking. I believe that is why you resort to insults and ad hominem. I "attack" you theory and in return you attack me.

I do not mean this out of a smugness as you would pretend. I mean this because for going on two years you have told me that my view does not make sense to you.

 

I am speaking of Penal Substitution Theory as articulated by the Reformers in the mid-15th Century (A.D., not during the Old Testament period) - that Christ died for us, experiencing God's wrath/ punishment in our place, taking our sins and bearing them for us. The bearing of our sins takes the punishment from us and sets us free form the penal demands of the law.

I do not understand why the "classic" view is so difficult for you to understand. But I suppose when I was more interested in defending myself against those who objected to Penal Substitution Theory I was the same way. We are in a culture steeped in tradition, and sometimes we allow our traditions to become presuppositions that are difficult to break from. I found that I had to make a conscious effort to try and understand rather than decontextualize every statement and reconstruct it in a "Latin" framework.

We, as Christians, have inherited a great wealth of knowledge and a richness in the form of those who have gone before. But, unfortunately, this same benefit can become barriers if one finds themselves trapped in dogmatic theories. I have known many who refused to seek out God's Word except to lift verses to prop up their tradition. I don't really think they were conscious of this, but instead simply thought that their tradition was God's Word.

While it is sad that there are people like this, people who call on Christ as their Lord, it is also wonderful that the gospel of Christ shines through this type of error. That goes to show, IMHO, that it is God who saves.

I also noticed that it seems that you are trying to pick apart one comment to change the subject. My point was that my view (the "classic" view of Atonement) is over 14 centuries old. You stated a belief that you need to defend visitors against exposure to this view but at the same time you admitted that it is a view you do not understand.

Does it not make sense that before you reject a view as wrong (and such a large number of Christians as heretics) you should first be able to grasp the position you are trying to denounce?


Also, you claimed that I did not understand your position. I challenged this idea (as I once shared your theory), but afforded you an opportunity to prove me wrong and correct my understanding.

I believe your theory holds Christ's death as essential to redemption. I think that you believe that on the Cross God laid our sins upon Christ (who lay down His own life in faithful obedience to the Father) and poured His wrath on Christ as our "Sin Bearer" (not condemning Christ per se, but the sin He bore for us) and this satisfied the demands of divine justice - God is just and the justifer of sinners. In this way God took our penalty instead of us.

Please point out what part of the above you reject so I (and any guests here) can see how badly I misunderstood your theory.


You took offense to my affirmation of your statements that you do not understand how my position necessitates the Cross. If you had mistakenly made the comment, then please simply state for us exactly how my position views the Cross as vital to our redemption.


I look forward to your reply as I am sure it will at once correct my misunderstand of your position and clarify that you do in fact understand my view and how it necessitates Christ's death - therefore there is not an issue of integrity.

 

And again, to be clear for our visitors-

Here are my "philosophical musings" that @Martin Marprelate deems heretical and void of Scripture to the point he believes it is his duty to guard against (and I believe it my duty to proclaim):

"I believe that while we were enemies of God we were reconciled to Him through Christ’s death and having been reconciled we are saved by His life. Christ died for all so that all men might no longer live for themselves but for Him, who died and rose again on our behalf. It was God’s predetermined plan that Christ suffer and die at the hands of godless men. But God raised Him up on the third day, gaining us victory over sin and death.

Jesus is the "Lamb of God" who takes away the sins of the world, dying once for all when He offered up Himself. Jesus gave Himself for our sins so He might rescue us from this present evil age. And having become a curse for us He redeemed us from the curse of the Law. Jesus Himself is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.

He was pierced for our sins, crushed for our iniquities. Men esteemed Him as stricken and afflicted by God, but the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him and by His stripes we are healed. For Christ bore our sins in His body on the cross so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.

He had to be made like us in all things. So He came in the likeness of sinful flesh and condemned sin in the flesh. And being found in the likeness of men Jesus humbled Himself by becoming obedient even to death. This is why God exalted Him and gave Him a nave above all others – that at His name all will bow and confess that Christ is Lord to the glory of the Father.

It is for this reason that the Father loves the Son – because he lay down his life to take it up again.

The Father loved the world by giving His only Son. On the cross God was, in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself. He caused the iniquity of us all to fall on His Son, displaying Him publically as a propitiation in His blood through faith. God loved us and sent Christ to be the propitiation for our sins. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf. He sent His own Son, His Beloved, in the likeness of corruptible flesh.

And as through Adam’s transgression mankind was condemned, so also through Christ’s one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men."

 

I do not understand exactly where you are trying to take this thread, Martin.

You stated, with guns ablazing, that I did not understand your position. I said that I believe your theory holds Christ's death as essential to redemption. I think that you believe that on the Cross God laid our sins upon Christ (who lay down His own life in faithful obedience to the Father) and poured His wrath on Christ as our "Sin Bearer" (not condemning Christ per se, but the sin He bore for us) and this satisfied the demands of divine justice - God is just and the justifer of sinners. In this way God took our penalty instead of us.

I asked what part of this do you deny (where do I not understand your view)?

I acknowledged your repeated statements that you did not understand how my view necessitated the Cross. So you insulted me and pretended my statement was "smugness". So I asked, if I were wrong in believing you did not understand my position, for you to please explain to me how this view necessitates the Cross.

Can you address the topic at hand - i.e., tell me where I don't understand your theory and how mine necessitates the Cross....or are you simply trying to change the subject?

 

You would have done well to have reexamined what I said before making this false statement.

Don’t worry about it. I don’t think that you did this intentionally. That’s one reason I’ve been trying to caution you about “lifting” passages out of their context.

Are you intentionally switching terms? I spoke of the Theory as articulated as it stands today. In post #51 you affirm that the Reformers developed the idea even further than was earlier present. I’ve never denied penal substitution as expressed in the early church. I’ve denied the Theory developed by the Reformers. But that was a nice try (I can’t blame you for trying to cloud the waters).

Let me provide clarity on what we are dealing with here:

 

You were responding to my statement

If you click on the arrow at the upper right of the quote it will take you to the exact spot.

Here is the thread:
Confusion on just what is PSA

And again, you never owe me an apology. We are not only brothers but we are human. People make mistakes.

I am more concerned about the first comment (as I was speaking of myself & the traditions inherent in our church culture - not you but "us" as products of our environment), but even there, with being essentially called a liar (again), I am seeking less hostility rather than apology.

(EDIT - @Martin Marprelate , I was on my phone and just noticed it looks different on the computer. The arrow that takes you to the quote is right after the name of the person being quoted).

 

That's fine. The term was introduced by Y1 and carried into your reply somehow. I really don't care if you use "sin debt". I take the term to mean the penalty that must be met to satisfy the demands of divine justice. This does not change the fact that I understand how your theory theory necessitates the Cross.

It is a good example, though, of why it is important to consider peoples words in their own context and as a whole. I could easily "prove" you affirm the use of "sin debt" if I only used that thread (ignoring the two occasions you explained that....and why...you did not like the term). This is exactly what I believe you did with other peoples writings.