What particular question do you think I have not answered? Is it this?
It seems to me that |I answered it very fully in my post #59, but if there is an aspect on which you would like clarification, just let me know and I will try to give it.
-
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!
Thinking about the Atonement or Reconciliation
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
Have a super time, enjoy, and take things easy. Is this 'Veterans' Day'? I was in the USA three years ago at Lake Havasu at this time, and the shore was choc-a-bloc full of families relaxing. I saw the old London Bridge there! London Bridge - Lake Havasu City
On your return, I shall be grateful if you will reply to some questions that I asked earlier in my post #59.
1. You wrote:
Gustav Aulen saw no need for the satisfaction of God's justice. Do you see a difference between God's justice and His righteousness? If so, will you please define it?
2. You wrote:
Will you please quote to me the verses you are using to substantiate this statement concerning the powers of this world falling upon Christ?
3. Why exactly did Christ HAVE to suffer the wages of sin at the hands of sinners if not to satisfy God's justice?
4. If Christ suffered unjustly, and it 'pleased the LORD to bruise Him' (Isaiah 53:10), then how is God not punishing the innocent?
No hurry! Take your time.
I will respond this weekend when I am back.
Christ suffered unjustly "at the hands of wicked men". Yet this was by God's predetermined plan.
We would come back with that the Pst is biblical, as that agrees with the prophets, paul, and Jesus Himself on what the Cross did!
Lost sinners taste physical death due to the fall, and for atonement must have shed blood and physical death, so jesus died in our stead to fulfill scripture!
Think that thiose against Pst still have no answer to how the wrath of God is averted towards lost sinners, and that Jesus fully agreed to be the sin bearer, and when he became 'sin", in the sight of the Father was no longer innocent at that time in the sense was bearing the sins of all of His people, as per Isaiah!
Oh... @Martin Marprelate, it is Memorial Day weekend.
This is not true. I reject PSA and, as you know because we have discussed this in the past, I do have an answer for how we escape the wrath to come. You just prefer your own theory.
These are the type of mischaracterizations that only serve to obscure, not to edify.
That said, your comment was that Jesus had to die a physical death because of the Fall (I agree). But then you just through stuff together.
Why such a horrible death? I know why my view makes the cross necessary but what about PSA?
Yes, please clarify.What particular question do you think I have not answered? Is it this?
It seems to me that |I answered it very fully in my post #59, but if there is an aspect on which you would like clarification, just let me know and I will try to give it.
The wages of sin are death (we agree). But PSA believes Jesus suffered a physical death and something akin to the punishment we would have endured. Some believe Jusus experienced a 3 hour separation from God.
But why do you believe Jesus had to experience such a horrible physical death. Granted, countless others died in much the same way (physically). So why do you believe the cross necessary?
I believe the cross was necessary for it was the cross that was the suffering unto death. It was through the sufferings of the cross that, the obedience, was learned by Jesus born of woman [Heb 5:7,8. Through sufferings, becoming obedient unto death [Phil 2:8], even the death of the cross (sufferings).
I believe, what ever death is, whatever dying, thou shall surly die is, relative to man and God, Jesus experienced it [death] for three days and three nights.
because also Christ once for sin did suffer -- righteous for unrighteous -- that he might lead us to God, having been put to death indeed, in the flesh, and having been made alive in the spirit,
having been put to death indeed, in the flesh, Being he actually gave is life rather than being put to death a better understanding to me would be:--- Being caused to die indeed to flesh. Relative to, atonement, reconciliation, propitiatory shelter Jesus died, when he commended his spirit. that which is in the blood that makes the flesh, soul <see Lev 17:11] into the hands of his Father is when Jesus died and made atonement, reconciliation, propitiatory shelter. And IMHO Jesus was dead for three days and three nights the spirit of him was in the hands of the Father. BTW the spirit of him was in the hands of the Father Jesus was not on the right hand of the Father at this time.
But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able A. to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and B. to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
BTW I believe those to be two different things not the same thing. A and B
BTW I believe those to be two different things not the same thing. A and B
It gets almost incredibly wearisome to write the same things out over and over again.
'The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.' If this does not explain sufficiently, perhaps you will tell me why it doesn't.
If you want more detail, try this. The Theological and Biblical Basis of Penal Substitution I originally composed and posted it on this forum at your request about four years ago, and again a couple of times since, yet you have never interacted with it. So now is your opportunity.
You are still not answering the question. I understand that the doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. I held PSA for most of my life, I studied PSA as a graduate student in seminary, I taught PSA. I know you do not mean it this way, but it is a little insulting to assume that I do not even grasp the basics of a theory that I held and taught for over 30 years.It gets almost incredibly wearisome to write the same things out over and over again.
'The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.' If this does not explain sufficiently, perhaps you will tell me why it doesn't.
If you want more detail, try this. The Theological and Biblical Basis of Penal Substitution I originally composed and posted it on this forum at your request about four years ago, and again a couple of times since, yet you have never interacted with it. So now is your opportunity.
In the near future I may interact with your link. I told you then I thought it was an excellent presentation of PSA, but I do not see a need to go line by line as the reason I do not hold PSA is because I do not hold the philosophy of justice it assumes to be divine justice (I've explained this before). I agree with your passages on the link, I disagree with the assumptions.
Yes, PSA holds that Christ had to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse. But that was not my question, was it? I do not think it intentions but you are obscuring the issue rather than answering.
Let me try to explain the question and then I'll rephrase it. Christus Victor, Ransom Theory, Moral Influence Theory, Government Theory, Recapitulation Theory...almost every articulation of Reconciliation holds that Christ had to specifically suffer the Cross at the hands of "wicked men" - NOT under the law at the hands of "godly men" but at the hands of the Romans (who were in power in that area at that time). PSA is the only exception that I can think of that does not hold Christ's death on the Cross an absolute necessity. I'll speak for my view, but it applies to most others as well (not yours). Christ could not suffer and die under the law of God. Christ had to suffer and die under the world's justice because it is this justice, these powers, that Christ came to overcome.
Now to the question - I think that we can both agree that Christ did not die under the law (that would be stoning at the hands of the Jews, not crucifixion at the hands of the Romans). Here we are talking physical death. We both know that PSA requires (as you posted and I affirmed twice in this post). But the curse does not require Christ to suffer the cross. The curse requires Christ to die a physical death. The punishment (the "wrath to come") does not require Christ to suffer the Cross. The "wrath to come" would require Christ to experience an spiritual abandonment at least associated with the "Second Death".
You have not provided an answer as to why Christ had to suffer the Cross. Why not have Christ suffer under God's law (under the Law God gave to the Jews)? It would be a horrible death, and it would be under the law). How do you believe that the Cross itself was necessary?
I do not believe men are spiritually dead in the sense of inanimate. The term spiritually dead means separated from God not unable to respond to the gospel as in Calvinism
I disagree. Adam was a living soul and walking and talking with God would be a spiritual experience.. I do not believe Adam ever seen God because God is Spirit. Not to mention He still spoke with God even after he sinned. Calvinism says men cannot speak to God before Salvation because they are unable to do so. If true how was it Adam spoke with God after He sinned? Was he not totally depraved as Calvinism claims?. Totally unable to do anything spiritual?
I agree with scripture I have confessed my sins and I asked Christ to save me and He did
Martin,It gets almost incredibly wearisome to write the same things out over and over again.
'The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.' If this does not explain sufficiently, perhaps you will tell me why it doesn't.
If you want more detail, try this. The Theological and Biblical Basis of Penal Substitution I originally composed and posted it on this forum at your request about four years ago, and again a couple of times since, yet you have never interacted with it. So now is your opportunity.
So as not to hijack this thread I started another looking at your blog.
PSA as defined in "Pierced for My Trangressions"
You are welcome to join me there as well.
Oh! I see. 'The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and CURSE due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.'
Galatians 3:13. 'Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree." 1 Peter 2:24. 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree......'
Christ on the cross was visibly under the curse of God against sin. Had He been stoned, that would not have been the case. That is why Peter uses xulon, 'tree' when one would expect him to use stauron, 'cross.'
Why the cross? There were three people that day suffering the cross. Were they all visibly under the curse of God against sin? I why Peter uses "tree". And I know the implications. The OT was about Jesus, not the other way around. Were Jesus to have been stoned then Peter would have spoken otherwise.
So again, why a death on the cross and all of the physical suffering? I know PSA holds Christ had to die and suffer our punishment for sin. But the Cross is not our punishment for sin. The Cross is not "a curse" but the significance of hanging on a tree was that the person was marked as cursed (in the Old Testament). You have not offered a reason that the cross was necessary.
You have told us that it was foretold Christ would die on a tree and that he had to die under the curse as a punishment for sin (and that this was a physical death and a spiritual issue, i.e., the "wrath to come"). But thus far you have not said anything about the Cross even being necessary. The Sadducees could have even crucified Christ at the Temple as they had done so many just a few centuries prior.
Why the Cross? Why was it necessary that Christ suffer and die "at the hands of wicked men"?
I think you'll find I have. Read my post #76 again.
And where exactly have I talked about 'the wrath to come'?
It really would help if you read my linked article. The answers are all in there.
AND NOW
I shall be grateful if you will reply to some questions that I asked earlier in my post #59.
1. You wrote: 'Satan's power does not consist of an appeal to justice but includes an appeal to God's own righteousness. This is a major point in the Christus Victor position.'
Gustav Aulen saw no need for the satisfaction of God's justice. Do you see a difference between God's justice and His righteousness? If so, will you please define it?
2. You wrote: 'With the Christus Victor view Christ HAD to suffer the wages of sin at the hands of sinners for a crime He did not commit. The cross is absolutely necessary because it is the point where the principles of this world, the powers of this world, fell upon Christ as He unjustly but willingly submitted to the bondage of sin and death to liberate mankind.'
Will you please quote to me the verses you are using to substantiate this statement concerning the powers of this world falling upon Christ?
3. Why exactly did Christ HAVE to suffer the wages of sin at the hands of sinners if not to satisfy God's justice?
4. If Christ suffered unjustly, and it 'pleased the LORD to bruise Him' (Isaiah 53:10), then how is God not punishing the innocent?
Super. The weekend is nearly over.
You have not, brother, but I know you think you have. I believe that we need to get this part settled before we move on, but once we do I am more than willing.
You have told us what the cross represented, what it was (that on the cross Christ on the cross was visibly under the curse of God against sin) and that Peter referenced Christ's death on a "tree" - I have not looked that up but I know that Paul did - which is a reference for Israel when in Deuteronomy 21:23.
BUT you never explained WHY THE CROSS. Why at the hands of "godless men" rather than Israel? Why under secular law rather than God's law? Why the Romans" In other words, you do account for Christ's death (both physical and whatever you want to call the additional experience). BUT YOU DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE CROSS (or at least have not thus far).
Is the Cross itself meaningless? For our forgiveness did Jesus just have to experience the punishment for human sin and the curse, both physically and spiritually, and God just threw in the cross for good measure? I think not.
I ask again...why the death He experienced on the cross?
That is exactly what I have done. I can understand that you don't like the answer, but there it is. It was absolutely necessary that the Christ should die upon the cross, partly because it fulfilled the prophecies of Psalms 22:14-16 and Psalms 34:20, but mostly because our Lord had to be seen to be suffering the curse of God against sin.
I have accounted for the cross, and have now repeated myself. However, you show a curious lack of understanding of what was going on at the cross and just before. Who was it that was clamouring for Christ to be crucified? Was it the Romans or the Jews? Who was trying desperately not to have Him crucified? Have a little think about that and ask yourself why the chief priests especially wanted the Lord Jesus to die by crucifixion which, as you rightly say, was not part of their law.. I'm not going to tell you, not yet anyway; work it out for yourself.
No, the cross is absolutely vital. You just haven't worked out why.
Now. The weekend's almost gone. Surely you don't want to be seen to be breaking your word?