The Wrath of God Poured Out

[JonC]

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!

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?

 

[Yeshua1]

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

What we do not understand is why you keep on saying that it would not be right to have God the father treat Jesus as if He was a bad sinner, and yet once He assumed the role of being the sin bearer, He became as if chief sinner on that Cross in the sight of God!

 

[JonC]

What we do not understand is why you keep on saying that it would not be right to have God the father treat Jesus as if He was a bad sinner, and yet once He assumed the role of being the sin bearer, He became as if chief sinner on that Cross in the sight of God!

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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!

I recall it extremely well. You had typed out reams of your philosophical musings without any Scripture to back them up. When I and others pleaed with you to provide some, you printed our a dozen or so verses without any context or reference to your argument! You did the same more recently in response either to @The Archangel or @The Biblicist. You simply pasted the first part of John's Gospel, again without any explanation of what you understand the verses to mean. It's no wonder that those two gentlemen have given up in despair. You probably think you won the argument!

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.[/QUOTE} You got the last sentence right. The rest is just smug, patronizing claptrap I'm afraid.

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?

No, I don't. I shall continue to quote Scripture at all times to support my arguments. I shall continue to quote chapter and verse as well, because unlike you I do not misquote the Scriptures as you have done recently with 1 John 1:9.

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.

The devil can quote Scripture, for crying out loud! The truth of Scripture is not established by 'it is written' (Matthew 4:6), but in 'It is written again' (Matthew 4:7). Scripture must be compared with Scripture,and the true understanding deduced. It appears that for all your studies, you have never learned 2 Timothy 2:15.
[/QUOTE I am no less a believer when I affirmed your theories than I am now as I reject them.

I hope that is true. You are certainly a more foolish one (Galatians 3:1).

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.

[/QUOTE]
Do you really not realise how pompous you sound?

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.

No. You are wrong. Certainly you have failed to convince me otherwise.

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).

No. there is enmity between sinful man and God. 'For the carnal mind is enmity towards God' (Romans 8:7), and '...the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men' (Romans 1:18).

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.

I believe Scripture says pretty much exactly that. 'God set Him forth as a propitiation.........to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Scripture does not say that God poured out His wrath on Christ.

There is a whole bevy of verses which, taken together, say exactly that.

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.

Ah! Reconciliation. I was reading The Doctrine of Reconciliation by A.W. Pink only the other day. You should read it. It's the most detailed discussion of the subject I know.

Reconciliation between two parties requires a mediator. In the Scriptures we have the concept of the mediator, one who might fill up the gap between the outraged holiness of God and rebellious man (Isaiah 59:2). Job complained, “For He is not a man, as I am, that I should answer Him, and that we should go to court together. Nor is there any mediator between us who may lay his hand on us both.” But mediation requires a satisfaction to be made to the offended party.

We see this is the book of Philemon. Here we have an offended party, Philemon, whose servant has run away from him, perhaps stealing some goods as he went; an offending party, Onesimus, and Paul who is attempting to mediate between them. Onesimus needs to return to his master, but fears the sanctions that may be imposed upon him if he does so. Paul takes these sanctions upon himself: ‘But if he has wronged you or owes anything, put that on my account. I, Paul, am writing with my own hand. I will repay…..’ (Philemon 18-19). Whatever is wanting to propitiate Philemon’s anger against his servant and to effect reconciliation, Paul the mediator willingly agrees to provide. In the same way, the Lord Jesus has become a Mediator between men and God (1 Timothy 2:5).

In 2 Corinthians 5:19, we learn that God does not impute trespasses against His people; in Christ; He has reconciled the world [believing Jew and Gentile alike] to Himself. How has He done this? Through the Mediator Jesus Christ. ‘For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us….’ (v.21). The Lord Jesus has taken our sins upon Himself and made satisfaction to God for them. Therefore the message of reconciliation can be preached to all.

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).

Well actually I think of it as you disagreeing with the truth. I'm glad that's OK with you.

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

Oh Boy! I wrote a whole screed on it for you at your request, and you never did so much as look at it so far as I know Here it is again. The Theological and Biblical Basis of Penal Substitution

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

It certainly does. And what point are you trying to make?

He had to be made like us in all things.

Why?

He had to become a curse for us to redeem us from the curse.

Why? And whose curse was it? And why was it made?

He had to die in order to become the Firstborn of many brethren (yes, those are passages...no I'm not going to provide the references).

Why? Why does He have to die in order to become that? Why couldn'r He come and teach and then become the Firstborn of those who accept His teaching? Why does He have to die?

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.

I think you'll find it says both those things.(e.g. Isaiah 53:5; Psalms 22:1).

It even goes so far as to say that it is an abomination to God to condemn the righteous.

Indeed it does. That it why Christ was made sin for us (Psalm 69:5). God punished sin, but He did so in Christ.

That does not mean God simply justifies the wicked,

Your theory seems to mean exactly that. At least, you have to explain why it doesn't.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@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.

If you think I enjoy arguing against your appalling smugness and false air of superiority as evidenced in your post #39, you are very much mistaken. However, if you continue to put forward your erroneous theories of the atonement and Christology (the two are very much connected) I will continue to oppose them, not because I expect you to understand what I'm saying-- which you plainly don't-- but in the cause of truth and to prevent (D.V.) new visitors to the site from thinking that your theories are correct.

 

[JonC]

I recall it extremely well. You had typed out reams of your philosophical musings without any Scripture to back them up.

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."

 

[JonC]

If you think I enjoy arguing against your appalling smugness and false air of superiority as evidenced in your post #39, you are very much mistaken. However, if you continue to put forward your erroneous theories of the atonement and Christology (the two are very much connected) I will continue to oppose them, not because I expect you to understand what I'm saying-- which you plainly don't-- but in the cause of truth and to prevent (D.V.) new visitors to the site from thinking that your theories are correct.

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

Is that 14 Centuries before Justin Martyr, 14 Centuries before Romans 3:26 and 1 Peter 2:24 or 14 centuries before Isaiah 53?

 

[JonC]

Is that 14 Centuries before Justin Martyr, 14 Centuries before Romans 3:26 and 1 Peter 2:24 or 14 centuries before Isaiah 53?

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.

 

[JonC]

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."

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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)

And which reformers would that be in the mid-15th Century (A.D. or B.C.)?
But seriously, I have all the quotes from the Church Fathers available if you want to make an issue of it. Penal Substitution was known to the ECFs. That the Reformers developed the Doctrine further is undoubtedly true, but the core of it is stated very clearly by Justin Martyr and others.

 

[JonC]

And which reformers would that be in the mid-15th Century (A.D. or B.C.)?
But seriously, I have all the quotes from the Church Fathers available if you want to make an issue of it. Penal Substitution was known to the ECFs. That the Reformers developed the Doctrine further is undoubtedly true, but the core of it is staed very clearly by Justin Martyr and others.

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?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

You have previously apologized publicly to me for saying that I am following 'tradition,' so I am sorry to see that you are repeating the lie. You know my history quite well so there is no excuse for it.

I am well aware that there were several theories espoused by the ECFs, and one of them was certainly Penal Substitution. To call yours the 'classic'view is a conceit on your part, though in fact the truth of any theory is not determined by its antiquity but by its faithfulness to Scripture.

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.

It is also sad the some people trot out smug, pious claptrap over and over again instead of engaging with the Scriptures. It is you, not I, who is constantly saying, give me a Scripture that says this, instead of comparing Scripture with Scripture to establish the truth.

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.

What I am picking apart is your claim that the doctrine of Penal Substitution is not well over 14 Centuries old.

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?

What I am trying to do is to get you to explain your view so that I can show its inconsistencies. My asking you 'how,' 'what' and 'why' questions is to get you to understand the inconsistency of your position. I am pleased to see that you have put something down below and I will engage with it shortly as I always do.

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.

Well, you wrote in your post #38:

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.

First, I have never, ever, in two years arguing this subject, used the term "sin debt." Secondly, you think I don't know that Scripture says God was reconciling the world to Himself on the cross, which is very odd since I used the term in my post #37 So no, I don't think you do understand my position. Nor, it seems, do you bother to read my posts before replying.

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 understand that you think your position necessitates the cross. My purpose in drawing you out is to show that it doesn't.

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.

Since you appear to have laid out your position, for which I am very grateful because it gives me something to work on, I will reply shortly, but not tonight because it is bed-time in Britain. I may also not be able to do so tomorrow as we have visitors most of the day. But rest assured I will reply as soon as I can.

 

[JonC]

You have previously apologized publicly to me for saying that I am following 'tradition,' so I am sorry to see that you are repeating the lie. You know my history quite well so there is no excuse for it.

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

It is also sad the some people trot out smug, pious claptrap over and over again instead of engaging with the Scriptures. It is you, not I, who is constantly saying, give me a Scripture that says this, instead of comparing Scripture with Scripture to establish the truth.

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.

What I am picking apart is your claim that the doctrine of Penal Substitution is not well over 14 Centuries old.

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:

First, I have never, ever, in two years arguing this subject, used the term "sin debt."

I should also add that He pays our 'sin debt' on the cross. We pray, 'forgive us our debts' (Matthew 6:12), and surely the parable of the unjust servant makes no sense unless the vast debt forgiven is our sins?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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

I should also add that He pays our 'sin debt' on the cross. We pray, 'forgive us our debts' (Matthew 6:12), and surely the parable of the unjust servant makes no sense unless the vast debt forgiven is our sins?

Will you please point me to the thread where I wrote this? It is not a term that I like at all, so I'm puzzled at to where I would have said it. If I used it without quoting someone else I certainly owe you an apology, but I find it hard to believe I did.

 

[JonC]

Will you please point me to the thread where I wrote this? It is not a term that I like at all, so I'm puzzled at to where I would have said it. If I used it without quoting someone else I certainly owe you an apology, but I find it hard to believe I did.

You were responding to my statement

The "requirements"? No. Jesus fulfilled the law - Christ is the One to Whom the Law was but a witness.

In other words, Jesus did not come to obey the law so that His perfect law-keeping could be attributed to us. Instead Jesus is the righteousness of God manifest apart from the Law as the Law and prophets bear witness to Christ.

Likewise, the Law was not a set of rules we had to obey in order to merit righteousness. Paul makes this very clear when he explains that the purpose of the Law was not to justify but to magnify to mankind their own sinfulness.

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).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

On reflection you are right and I don't owe you an apology. In fact I was responding to your post #119 which was in turn responding to Y1's post #116. However, it is a lesson to me not to be so dogmatic in my denials

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.

You know the truth of that, and I will accept your word . I apologize for taking the remark as an attack upon me.
In fact,if I could I would gladly take my chance with having a 'church tradition.' It is far better to be raised in a Bible-believing church and take one's chance with being caught up in its traditions than to grow up without any real knowledge of the Saviour for nearly 40 years.

 

[JonC]

On reflection you are right and I don't owe you an apology. In fact I was responding to your post #119 which was in turn responding to Y1's post #116. However, it is a lesson to me not to be so dogmatic in my denials

You know the truth of that, and I will accept your word . I apologize for taking the remark as an attack upon me.
In fact,if I could I would gladly take my chance with having a 'church tradition.' It is far better to be raised in a Bible-believing church and take one's chance with being caught up in its traditions than to grow up without any real knowledge of the Saviour for nearly 40 years.

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

You have stated though that it would be wrong for God to treat Jesus as If he was a sinner, as a righteousness person would not be treated that way by God, correct?
I believe you used the term would an Abomination, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

The actual Pst theology did not come from the reformers themselves, but they derived it from the actual theology given to us by Both Jesus and the Apostle Paul! As they say Him as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, which fits right into Pst!