No.
I stated that that acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent are both alike an abomination to the Lord.
Our ideas of right and wrong don't apply to God. He IS the Standard of righteousness.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Wrath of God Poured Out
- Thread starter Martin Marprelate
- Start date
- Status
I stated that that acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent are both alike an abomination to the Lord.
Our ideas of right and wrong don't apply to God. He IS the Standard of righteousness.
Which they would have no doubt received from either the Apostles or the early leaders chosen and instructed by the Apostles Themselves!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.
Sin Debt is the term that I prefer to use, but one can also see it as a sin obligation, the truth is that we owe God for breaking His Law, and either Jesus atones for that by accepting the holy Wrath of God , or else we have to do that!
Arminianism did not come from Arminius himself but is the actual theology of God and Jesus as the Arminians saw it.
In the light of my post #53,I need to be careful in insisting that I have never used a word. However, I try never to use the words 'heresy' or 'heretic' because it conjures up visions of stakes and faggots. I do however believe that the Doctrine of Penal Substitution is very important to the orthodoxy of the churches and that is why I spend so much time arguing for it.
Your error is not in that which you include, but in that which you omit. You wrote something like this before, and I pointed out that the word 'wrath' appeared nowhere in it. At the time you said that you did accept the wrath of God, but here again (unless I have missed it) there is no mention of it whatsoever. This is particularly important in a thread called 'The Wrath of God poured out.' Read the O.P again, please.JonC said:
God's wrath 'is revealed [present continuous tense] from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men' (Romans 1:18). 'Ungodliness' suggests a lack of reverence towards God; 'unrighteousness,' a lack of reverence to His ordinances, His holy law. Romans 3:9, 19 reveals that this wrath is directed towards all men. '.....We all.....by nature were objects of wrath' (Ephesians 2:3). 'Wrath' here may be defined as the righteous anger of God against sin and those who commit it. God's wrath is not a sudden outbreak of spleen; rather it is the settled fury of a holy God against wickedness. 'God is a just judge; God is angry [with sinners] every day' (Psalms 7:11). Unless we 'get' God's wrath, we are never going to understand propitiation, because whatever is to be done about saving sinners has to take into account God's righteousness, holiness and hatred of sin (c.f. Psalms 5:5-6).
So when we read about 'Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come' (1 Thessalonians 1:10), we know that in order to rescue us from that wrath, the Lord Jesus must satisfy the justice of God, because God 'cannot deny Himself' (2 Timothy 2:13). The reason that I have kept asking you 'why' and 'how' as you have tried to explain your theory, is that you do not deal with God's justice or God's wrath. You write, correctly, that 'God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself' (2 Corinthians 5:19), but you do not say how He has done it. How is the world reconciled to God through Christ? Fear not! I will explain. But not right now because we have guests coming presently to celebrate the New Year with us.
I do not have a problem with the term. @Martin Marprelate did not like using it. He explained tve reason is that some can use it as a "monetary" context which may cloud the issue. I can see his point.
God Judged Jesus and punished Him for our sin burden that was laid upon Him on that Cross, in order to be able to freely forgive lost sinners, but also judge their sins apart from what could do for themselves!
I don't have a problem with you using the term, but I prefer not to because I don't find it in Scripture. However, I know what you mean by it, so don't stop on my account.
I don't mind the use of "heresy" at all. But I understand who some may consider that language strong. I believe it is an issue of orthodoxy and not salvation. I'd be more concerned with "faggots" as that has more potential to be misunderstood these days (unfortunately).
I appreciate you considering my view. I suppose we could both always expound more on our views. For the most part I believe what you find missing (e.g., how wrath is addressed) is implied in "atonement" and "sacrifice". That said, we still strongly disagree.
Do you understand now how without the Cross the "classic" view cannot hold? Just like your view it is also dependent on Christ suffering death on the cross, bearing our sins.
If you understand this I think we can have a wonderful discussion about how these views differ in explaining how redemption was accomplished through the blood of Christ.
Guests still haven't arrived.
Also, I do not accept your view as "Classic." I do not accept, most importantly, that it is the Biblical one, nor do I accept that it is of any greater origin extra-biblically than Penal Substitution.
In a word, no. I hope to explain why not tomorrow.
Also, I do not accept your view as "Classic." I do not accept, most importantly, that it is the Biblical one, nor do I accept that it is of any greater origin extra-biblically than Penal Substitution.
I don't think we have to agree in order to have a wonderful discussion. In fact, I think it would make it more difficult.
I am still unclear just why Jesus had to die in your system as he did, and just how that gives to us salvation?
I understand why you would not understand my view as biblical (hence our disagreement). Personally, I don't care when the Penal Substitution Theory originated. Even if it could be proven to have been developed to the extent now present in the 1st Century that would not make it correct (any more than mine is correct based on antiquity).Guests still haven't arrived.
In a word, no. I hope to explain why not tomorrow.
Also, I do not accept your view as "Classic." I do not accept, most importantly, that it is the Biblical one, nor do I accept that it is of any greater origin extra-biblically than Penal Substitution.
I don't think we have to agree in order to have a wonderful discussion. In fact, I think it would make it more difficult.
That said, you are mistaking about my view not being the "classic" view of the Atonement. That is what I affirm (a ransom theory of the Atonement). The claim equates to me arguing that you do not hold the Penal Substitution view (which, even with you holding a neauenced view, would be dishonest of me to claim).
Perhaps this would be a good place to go forward. Please tell me how you believe my view differs from the "classic" view.
Your own view is close to the Npp viewpoint.
Not at all. You need to do your homework.
The NPP is not a theory of the Atonement. It is a view of Justification popularized by N.T. Wright. It does, perhaps, impact how Wright holds Penal Substitution Theory as he focuses more of a Christus Victor theme in a historic context (the social construct of Rome and Israel).
But the NPP has as much to do with my view as Jehovah Witnesses theology has to do with yours.
Why do you constantly try to use N.T. Wright as some sort of insult when people disagree with you? You do know this is not only a logical fallacy but it is also very dishonest....correct?
His view, as he expressed it in print and in person, does sound a lot like your own in regards to the atonement. Not meant to be bad, just remarking on how you two seem to be similar in some regards in your theology!
I think his view of the Atonement is much more like your view. While he focuses on social issues of that time and a Christus Victor view he also affirms Penal Substitution Theory (something I reject).
The NPP is not a theory of Atonement. The "classic" view is. If Wright agrees with this view then that is good. Many have. I still reject his Penal Substitution Theory and the way he looks to the social conflict of that time.
And by your view looking very much like the JW view I also did not mean it bad. It could just be that you hold a view similar to theirs.
This is a post following on from my post #65.
I want now to look at some attributes of God:
First, His aseity. This means that He is of Himself and owes nothing to anyone (e.g. Romans 11:33-36). We as creatures naturally depend on one another to a greater or lesser extent; God is dependent on no one. In Isaiah 40:18, God asks, ‘To whom then will you like Me, or to whom shall I be equal?’ (repeated in 46:5). In Isaiah 40:26-31, God’s sovereignty, eternity and understanding are contrasted with human weakness. God’s ultimate designs cannot be thwarted (Daniel 4:37-39).
Next, consider God’s simplicity. We are complex beings, made up of various parts; God, on the other hand is simple and spiritual. He is not the sum total of His attributes, but is all that He is all the time. However, each of His attributes identifies a different aspect of His existence and character that cannot be reduced to the other, but nor can one attribute be ranked above another for He is all of them all the time. He is love, even when He judges, and holy and righteous even when He is saving sinners (e.g. 1 John 1:9); He is eternal even when He acts in time. This means that in all of God’s activity, He is self-consistent: ‘He cannot deny Himself’ (2 Timothy 2:13). As we shall see, God’s simplicity does not make Him static or inert, however. On the contrary, He is constantly active (John 5:17), but always consistently, whether we perceive his consistency or not.
Thirdly, there is His immutability. God cannot change His mind because either He would be changing it from worse to better or from better to worse. Change in Him can only reveal imperfections. God has no potential that is not fully realized; there is literally nothing for Him to become. ‘….With whom there is no variation or shadow of turning’ (James 1:17). ‘And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent. For He is not a man that He should relent’ (1 Samuel 15:29). The salvation of sinners was not a change of plan after the Fall; it was a decision made in eternity (Titus 1:2). Nothing catches God by surprise.
Yet what are we to make of texts like 1 Samuel 15:11, where God says that He ‘greatly regrets’ having made Saul king, and other similar passages? We need to understand that one passage of the Bible cannot contradict another, and that therefore it is a fact that both verse 10 & 29 of 1 Samuel 15 are true. The answer is that God’s revealed plans change, but His secret eternal counsels may remain hidden to us (Deuteronomy 29:29). He acts in time, doing one thing now, another later on, but His plans remain unchanged and cannot be thwarted. It is like looking at the workings of an old-fashioned clockwork watch; one cog moves one way, one another, and the fly-wheel is constantly changing direction. But when we look at the face of the watch the hands are moving forward steadily and accurately.
So when we look at the Atonement, and the coming Of Christ in salvation, we must understand that it was decreed in eternity past (Micah 5:2, KJV, NKJV; Titus 1:2). God knew that mankind would fall into sin and had laid His plan of redemption accordingly. Also, God’s mercy cannot override His justice (or vice versa), nor His goodness, His wrath; His simplicity (see above) prevents it. God’s decree, ‘The wages of sin is death’ (Romans 6:23) cannot be set aside because of His immutability, and so we read, ‘Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned’ (Romans 5:12). Death seems so normal and inevitable to us today that we forget that it is actually God’s righteous punishment for disobedience (Genesis 2:17).
In 2 Samuel 14:14, a ‘wise woman’ declares to King David, ‘God….devises means so that His banished ones are not expelled from Him.’ This is true, but the means that David devised to reconcile himself to Absalom did not involve justice, righteousness or God’s moral law and so led to disaster. The means that God uses to restore His sinful people to Himself must satisfy His holiness and justice. The sentence of death upon sinners, the curse upon disobedience (Deuteronomy 27:26) and God’s wrath against unrighteousness and ungodliness (Romans 1:18) must all be satisfied.
On the cross they are. God has given Himself, in the Person of His Son, to suffer instead of us the death, curse and punishment due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. His mercy and justice are exalted in the suffering, death and resurrection of the Saviour, so that the Psalmist can declare (Psalms 89:14). ‘Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne; mercy and truth go before Your face,’ and God can be ‘just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus’ (Romans 3:26).
Now two men called Paul Fiddes and Joel Green have written books insisting that the idea of the Son propitiating the wrath of the Father is to divide the Trinity. I wonder if this is the problem that @JonC has. If so, it is entirely wrong. The Bible declares explicitly that one Person of the Trinity can be the subject of an action of which another is the object. For example, the Father loves the Son (John 3:35 etc.); the Father sent the Son (John 6:39) and gave Him to redeem a sinful world (John 3:16; Romans 8:32). The Father raised the Son from the dead (Galatians 1:1 etc.). The Son loves, obeys and glorifies the Father (John 14:31; 17:1). Father and Son send the Spirit (John 3:34; 14:16; 15:26; Acts 1:4 etc.); the Spirit drives the Son into the desert (Mark 1:12) and also glorifies Him (John 16:14).
The Trinitarian principle of inseparable operation requires that Father, Son and Spirit share a unity of will and purpose. Penal Substitution does not in any way contradict that. The Father loved the world so that He gave the Son to redeem it (John 3:16; Ephesians 1:3-6); the Son willingly gave Himself (John 10:18; 17:19), and the Spirit has willingly sealed the elect for the day of redemption (Ephesians 1:13-14).
The problem with posts like these is that they grow like Topsy. I have written more than I intended to, and yet am conscious of much more that could be said. However, I am now going to follow my New Year's resolution and spend considerably less time on this board as I concentrate on other matters.
I want now to look at some attributes of God:
First, His aseity. This means that He is of Himself and owes nothing to anyone (e.g. Romans 11:33-36). We as creatures naturally depend on one another to a greater or lesser extent; God is dependent on no one. In Isaiah 40:18, God asks, ‘To whom then will you like Me, or to whom shall I be equal?’ (repeated in 46:5). In Isaiah 40:26-31, God’s sovereignty, eternity and understanding are contrasted with human weakness. God’s ultimate designs cannot be thwarted (Daniel 4:37-39).
Next, consider God’s simplicity. We are complex beings, made up of various parts; God, on the other hand is simple and spiritual. He is not the sum total of His attributes, but is all that He is all the time. However, each of His attributes identifies a different aspect of His existence and character that cannot be reduced to the other, but nor can one attribute be ranked above another for He is all of them all the time. He is love, even when He judges, and holy and righteous even when He is saving sinners (e.g. 1 John 1:9); He is eternal even when He acts in time. This means that in all of God’s activity, He is self-consistent: ‘He cannot deny Himself’ (2 Timothy 2:13). As we shall see, God’s simplicity does not make Him static or inert, however. On the contrary, He is constantly active (John 5:17), but always consistently, whether we perceive his consistency or not.
Thirdly, there is His immutability. God cannot change His mind because either He would be changing it from worse to better or from better to worse. Change in Him can only reveal imperfections. God has no potential that is not fully realized; there is literally nothing for Him to become. ‘….With whom there is no variation or shadow of turning’ (James 1:17). ‘And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent. For He is not a man that He should relent’ (1 Samuel 15:29). The salvation of sinners was not a change of plan after the Fall; it was a decision made in eternity (Titus 1:2). Nothing catches God by surprise.
Yet what are we to make of texts like 1 Samuel 15:11, where God says that He ‘greatly regrets’ having made Saul king, and other similar passages? We need to understand that one passage of the Bible cannot contradict another, and that therefore it is a fact that both verse 10 & 29 of 1 Samuel 15 are true. The answer is that God’s revealed plans change, but His secret eternal counsels may remain hidden to us (Deuteronomy 29:29). He acts in time, doing one thing now, another later on, but His plans remain unchanged and cannot be thwarted. It is like looking at the workings of an old-fashioned clockwork watch; one cog moves one way, one another, and the fly-wheel is constantly changing direction. But when we look at the face of the watch the hands are moving forward steadily and accurately.
So when we look at the Atonement, and the coming Of Christ in salvation, we must understand that it was decreed in eternity past (Micah 5:2, KJV, NKJV; Titus 1:2). God knew that mankind would fall into sin and had laid His plan of redemption accordingly. Also, God’s mercy cannot override His justice (or vice versa), nor His goodness, His wrath; His simplicity (see above) prevents it. God’s decree, ‘The wages of sin is death’ (Romans 6:23) cannot be set aside because of His immutability, and so we read, ‘Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned’ (Romans 5:12). Death seems so normal and inevitable to us today that we forget that it is actually God’s righteous punishment for disobedience (Genesis 2:17).
In 2 Samuel 14:14, a ‘wise woman’ declares to King David, ‘God….devises means so that His banished ones are not expelled from Him.’ This is true, but the means that David devised to reconcile himself to Absalom did not involve justice, righteousness or God’s moral law and so led to disaster. The means that God uses to restore His sinful people to Himself must satisfy His holiness and justice. The sentence of death upon sinners, the curse upon disobedience (Deuteronomy 27:26) and God’s wrath against unrighteousness and ungodliness (Romans 1:18) must all be satisfied.
On the cross they are. God has given Himself, in the Person of His Son, to suffer instead of us the death, curse and punishment due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. His mercy and justice are exalted in the suffering, death and resurrection of the Saviour, so that the Psalmist can declare (Psalms 89:14). ‘Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne; mercy and truth go before Your face,’ and God can be ‘just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus’ (Romans 3:26).
Now two men called Paul Fiddes and Joel Green have written books insisting that the idea of the Son propitiating the wrath of the Father is to divide the Trinity. I wonder if this is the problem that @JonC has. If so, it is entirely wrong. The Bible declares explicitly that one Person of the Trinity can be the subject of an action of which another is the object. For example, the Father loves the Son (John 3:35 etc.); the Father sent the Son (John 6:39) and gave Him to redeem a sinful world (John 3:16; Romans 8:32). The Father raised the Son from the dead (Galatians 1:1 etc.). The Son loves, obeys and glorifies the Father (John 14:31; 17:1). Father and Son send the Spirit (John 3:34; 14:16; 15:26; Acts 1:4 etc.); the Spirit drives the Son into the desert (Mark 1:12) and also glorifies Him (John 16:14).
The Trinitarian principle of inseparable operation requires that Father, Son and Spirit share a unity of will and purpose. Penal Substitution does not in any way contradict that. The Father loved the world so that He gave the Son to redeem it (John 3:16; Ephesians 1:3-6); the Son willingly gave Himself (John 10:18; 17:19), and the Spirit has willingly sealed the elect for the day of redemption (Ephesians 1:13-14).
The problem with posts like these is that they grow like Topsy. I have written more than I intended to, and yet am conscious of much more that could be said. However, I am now going to follow my New Year's resolution and spend considerably less time on this board as I concentrate on other matters.
While I am aware that some object to the "problem" Penal Substitution Theory divides the Trinity, that is not an issue I have with the theory.
I think that that issue is more common with people who have not held Penal Substitution Theory, or who did not understand the theory when they held it. The reason that I believe this is Penal Substitution Theory ultimately views the Persons of the Trinity acting redemptively towards the same goal and purpose. The theory presents God as taking our punishment Himself. The Father, Son, and Spirit are united in the goal of redemption (the Father pours His wrath upon the Son, the Son lays down His life in obedience and with the purpose of bearing our sins under this wrath). There is, perhaps, a dichotomy in one sense. But Penal Substitution Theory itself does not divide the Trinity.
I think Penal Substitution Theory is a wonderfully thought out theory. Most inconsistencies, IMHO, come from weakening the theory to accomidate more contemporary belief (like Jesus suffering "hell" for 3 hours rather than literally descending into Hell). My objection is that it is simply foreign to Scripture itself.
The View of Wright on the atonement is Christ as Victor, as he HATES the concept of Jesus had to take the wrath of God!
I don't know (or really care). I know he says he holds both a "Christus Victor motif" and Penal Substitution Theory and on the The Gospel Coalition site they clain he holds to Penal Substitution Theory (with non-standard views).
If I were going to choose who to believe I would probably lean towards the TGC guys (I have enjoyed D.A. Carson and Tim Keller's words for some time now, and John Piper is one of my favorites...so please don't take offence).
That said...what does it matter if Wright leans towards the "classic" view? So what? You claimed my view was like the NPP - not Christus Victor or even a ransom theory. The NPP is not an Atonement theory.
- Status