Where did the Wrath of God go? Part 2

[JonC]

JonC,
]I am not insulting him.
yes you do in every post.



You make that claim but no one believes you.


We believe and understand scripture. You have no basis to suggest we are not trusting the Lord...

No. What you want is those who disagree with your opinions to submit to your authority. If anyone disagrees with you or points put an error in your theories then you feel insulted. You are too emotional.

The fact is what you believe is foreign to the written Word (what is written, the text of Scripture).

That is fine, but you need to stop pretending otherwise. You and Martin have been shut down several times, your errors exposed. This is because you ate unable to tell where Scripture ends and your theories begin.

 

[Iconoclast]

yes you do in every post.



You make that claim but no one believes you.


We believe and understand scripture. You have no basis to suggest we are not trusting the Lord...

No. What you want is those who disagree with your opinions to submit to your authority. If anyone disagrees with you or points put an error in your theories then you feel insulted. You are too emotional.

The fact is what you believe is foreign to the written Word (what is written, the text of Scripture).

That is fine, but you need to stop pretending otherwise. You and Martin have been shut down several times, your errors exposed. This is because you ate unable to tell where Scripture ends and your theories begin.[/QUOTE]

You have both your opinion and your false ideas on theology. You are wrong on both counts, Do not get made at me...I am only the messenger.You have not come close at any time to shutting anything down...
Y1 has shut you down.

 

[JonC]

You have both your opinion and your false ideas on theology. You are wrong on both counts, Do not get made at me...I am only the messenger.You have not come close at any time to shutting anything down...
Y1 has shut you down.

You misunderstand. I am not mad at you at all.

I stood where you mow stand for decades. I get it.

My point is that what you believe is not actually in the written Word of God. You know this, which is why you insist on what you believe the Bible "teaches" when "properly understood".

But every cult leader can say the same - it is not what is in the text of Scripture but what it really "teaches".

IF Scripture teaches what is written then you have a very serious problem.

 

[Iconoclast]

You misunderstand. I am not mad at you at all.

I stood where you mow stand for decades. I get it.

My point is that what you believe is not actually in the written Word of God. You know this, which is why you insist on what you believe the Bible "teaches" when "properly understood".

But every cult leader can say the same - it is not what is in the text of Scripture but what it really "teaches".

IF Scripture teaches what is written then you have a very serious problem.

Repeating this does not help your case. We looked at the verses and the words in those verses. I am content to ;let the readers look and see.

 

[JonC]

Repeating this does not help your case. We looked at the verses and the words in those verses. I am content to ;let the readers look and see.

I am also content. Let the readers look at the actual text and highlight the words "Christ is our substitute", "Christ experienced God's wrath", Christ died to appease God", and "Christ died instead of us".

The fact of the matter is if those words are in the actual text of Scripture then I am wrong.

If they are not in the text of Scripture then you are wrong.

A simple highlighter will flesh out the false doctrine.


Part of your issue is you seem to assume the law is God's righteousness. You start in the wrong place. You should start with God.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It does. Read 1 Peter. Christ suffered, doing what is right, in perfect obedience to God. He died at the hands of the wicked, which was the will of God. The wicked esteemed Him stricken and afflicted by God, but God judged otherwise because God is righteous.

But what does this have to do with being 'righteous in Christ'? You have said that the term means "It means being made "right" or "just" in reference to God's standard. It does not mean "substituted for". I want to know what Christ and the cross has to do with us being made righteous in Christ. You agree that Christ suffered, but you don't seem to know why

What you believe is foreign to God's Word. It was foreign to our faith for hundreds of years. You hold a relatively new faith (a theory) that is in no way based on Scripture but rather on what those who "tickle your ears" have told you Scripture teaches. Until Aquinas it would have been unheard of to hear a Christian proclaiming God punished Jesus, and even he clarified it was for man and never for the sins men committed. You hold a Reformed RCC faith. That is OK. Even some RCC members are saved....just despite their doctrine.

You are sometimes very amusing. You keep saying that you only follow Scripture, but then you criticize me because I don't follow the Church Fathers, about whom, of course, you are entirely wrong because you don't know what Penal Substitution is.
I'll give you a hint: it isn't God punishing Jesus.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I had intended to start a new thread today on 1 Peter 2:24 and surrounding verses, but pressures of (church) work and family have prevented me.. However, I will do so in the next day or two (DV).

 

[JonC]

But what does this have to do with being 'righteous in Christ'? You have said that the term means "It means being made "right" or "just" in reference to God's standard. It does not mean "substituted for". I want to know what Christ and the cross has to do with us being made righteous in Christ. You agree that Christ suffered, but you don't seem to know why

You are sometimes very amusing. You keep saying that you only follow Scripture, but then you criticize me because I don't follow the Church Fathers, about whom, of course, you are entirely wrong because you don't know what Penal Substitution is.

I do not understand what you are missing. Have you read 1 Peter or did you just lift a few verses from the text (not being insulting, but an seriously asking)?

Yes, I do know what Penal Substitution Theory is. I held the position for over 3 decades. It influenced my teachings and preaching (a fact I lament, but we as Christians do grow).

When you remove the idea rather Christ suffered God's wrath instead of us suffering God's wrath then what you have ceases to be Penal Substitution Theory and moves closer to Scripture.

I'll give you a hint: it isn't God punishing Jesus.

I am glad we can at least agree Jesus did not experience God's punishment.

I apologize if I misunderstood your position. Some have suggested that Jesus experienced the punishment of God for our sins laid upon Him. And I'm sure we can both agree - given your post - that the idea is a departure from Chriatian faith.

Anyway, go through 1 Peter. Christ suffered the cross in obedience to God, His suffering and death was the wicked reviling Him. God, however, rightly judged.

 

[JonC]

I had intended to start a new thread today on 1 Peter 2:24 and surrounding verses, but pressures of (church) work and family have prevented me.. However, I will do so in the next day or two (DV).

I started a thread for you. I included the entire passage (sovwe are not starting with a "for" or "therefore" and can maintain the context). The OP begins with 1:22 - 1 Peter 1:22 " Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart", but if we need to reach back in Chapter 1 or go to Chapter 3 that is fine (it is not off topic).

That way the thread begins with Scripture (the OP is only the passage).

1 Peter (Discussion about Redemption)

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I do not understand what you are missing. Have you read 1 Peter or did you just lift a few verses from the text (not being insulting, but an seriously asking)?

Yes, I do know what Penal Substitution Theory is. I held the position for over 3 decades. It influenced my teachings and preaching (a fact I lament, but we as Christians do grow).

When you remove the idea rather Christ suffered God's wrath instead of us suffering God's wrath then what you have ceases to be Penal Substitution Theory and moves closer to Scripture.

I want to know what you think being righteous in Christ means and what you think it has to do with Christ.and the cross. I am only asking because it appears that you don't know.
When you remove the idea rather Christ suffered God's wrath against sin instead of us suffering God's wrath then what you have ceases to be Christianity.

I am glad we can at least agree Jesus did not experience God's punishment.

Please do not misquote me. I said that God did not punish Jesus. God punished sin in Jesus who was made sin for us. The difference is vast and appears to be what you don't understand about Penal Substitution.

I apologize if I misunderstood your position.

It is not me that you need to be apologizing to but God. It is His position that you do not understand.

 

[JonC]

I want to know what you think being righteous in Christ means and what you think it has to do with Christ.and the cross. I am only asking because it appears that you don't know.
When you remove the idea rather Christ suffered God's wrath against sin instead of us suffering God's wrath then what you have ceases to be Christianity.

Please do not misquote me. I said that God did not punish Jesus. God punished sin in Jesus who was made sin for us. The difference is vast and appears to be what you don't understand about Penal Substitution.

It is not me that you need to be apologizing to but God. It is His position that you do not understand.

I thought I had already said. Sorry.

Being righteous in Christ means that we are made right with God or considered just. This os why Paul could say "Not I but Christ in me". When Christians speak of being "in Christ" we mean that we are born of the Spirit, Christ is "in us". We have died with Him.

We were born "in Adam", and we have all sinned "in Adam". But Christians die with Christ and we believe therefore that we will also live with Him.

 

[JesusFan]

No. What you want is those who disagree with your opinions to submit to your authority. If anyone disagrees with you or points put an error in your theories then you feel insulted. You are too emotional.

The fact is what you believe is foreign to the written Word (what is written, the text of Scripture).

That is fine, but you need to stop pretending otherwise. You and Martin have been shut down several times, your errors exposed. This is because you ate unable to tell where Scripture ends and your theories begin.

We have the backing of all reformed and most Baptist theologians in church history, while you have who on your side, NT Wright?

 

[JonC]

We have the backing of all reformed and most Baptist theologians in church history, while you have who on your side, NT Wright?

Most Christians worldwide and all Christians prior to the 16th Century (excluding the RCC from the 11th century to present) but, most importantly, Scripture.

 

[AustinC]

Most Christians worldwide and all Christians prior to the 16th Century (excluding the RCC from the 11th century to present) but, most importantly, Scripture.

This is your mantra. Your mantra has been proven false in a number of topic threads. The fact is you refuse to admit you are wrong.

 

[JonC]

This is your mantra. Your mantra has been proven false in a number of topic threads. The fact is you refuse to admit you are wrong.

There are three reasons I refuse to admit I am wrong:

1. I studied Church history and theology for my BA and Master's degree and know I am not wrong.

2. There is no evidence to the contrary. A few Penal Substitution Theorists post quotes of pre-Reformation writings but just assume they believed the Theory (it is not evidenced in their actual writings). I remember one so ignorant they claimed Justin Martyr taught the Theory.

3. I did not initially seek a Christian degree but one in the humanities. Penal Substitution Theory could not have existed prior to the 15th century because the moral philosophy it is built upon (a neo-Greek philosophy) did not exist.

 

[JesusFan]

Most Christians worldwide and all Christians prior to the 16th Century (excluding the RCC from the 11th century to present) but, most importantly, Scripture.

We have the scriptures, and stand with those giants of the past!

 

[AustinC]

There are three reasons I refuse to admit I am wrong:

1. I studied Church history and theology for my BA and Master's degree and know I am not wrong.

2. There is no evidence to the contrary. A few Penal Substitution Theorists post quotes of pre-Reformation writings but just assume they believed the Theory (it is not evidenced in their actual writings). I remember one so ignorant they claimed Justin Martyr taught the Theory.

3. I did not initially seek a Christian degree but one in the humanities. Penal Substitution Theory could not have existed prior to the 15th century because the moral philosophy it is built upon (a neo-Greek philosophy) did not exist.

4) All your reading has been tainted by authors who are antagonistic to the gospel and are your main influences in your rogue theory.

Jon, I have no doubt you are well read. I have a friend whom I have watched fall away into liberalism to the point that I wonder if he even believes Jesus is God. It's been sad to see him following after liberal thinkers and reading texts that influence him to abandon sound theology. You sound much like him. It is disappointing.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

'And so then, Jesus took flesh that He might destroy the curse of sinful flesh, and He became for us a curse that a blessing might overwhelm a curse, uprightness might overwhelm sin, forgiveness might overwhelm the sentence, and life might overwhelm death. He also took up death that the sentence might be fulfilled and satisfaction might be given for the judgement, the curse placed on sinful flesh even to death. Therefore nothing was done contrary to God's sentence when the terms of the sentence were fulfilled, for the curse was unto death but grace is after death.' [Ambrose of Milan (339-397), Flight from the World]

Ambrose's whole argument hinges on Penal Substitution, for the curse that rested on sinful mankind was transferred to Christ, and He died to satisfy God's just sentence of death upon us.

Plenty more where that came from.

 

[JonC]

4) All your reading has been tainted by authors who are antagonistic to the gospel and are your main influences in your rogue theory.

Jon, I have no doubt you are well read. I have a friend whom I have watched fall away into liberalism to the point that I wonder if he even believes Jesus is God. It's been sad to see him following after liberal thinkers and reading texts that influence him to abandon sound theology. You sound much like him. It is disappointing.

But this is where you are wrong. I do not advocate liberalism (quite the opposite).

I am a biblicist. As such, I interpret Scripture literally. This includes acknowledging figures of speech and literary devices (of course...just heading off the typical liberal attack on my position I think you might head).

This is why we disagree - not because I take a liberal approach to Scripture but because my approach is much more conservative than yours.

This is probably the reason it was not difficult for me to change my view of Penal Substitution Theory. I had assumed it correct but had not taken the time to see if it was actually in God's Word.

Once I took the time one of two options, by necessity, had to occur. I either had to accept a more liberal view of Scripture or I had to adopt a more biblical (according to the text of Scripture) view of the Atonement. I chose the latter and moved away from Penal Substitution Theory.

The problem with the liberal view you hold of Scripture is ultimately every doctrine you hold, regardless of its validity, is subjective because you have no objective standard by which to judge doctrine.

Anybody can say the Bible "teaches" such and such "when properly understood". Holiness Pentecostals say Scripture, when properly understood, teaches those born again will speak in tongues as a sign of their rebirth.

You say Scripture, when properly understood, teaches that Christ suffered God's wrath as our substitute.

I say Scripture teaches that Christ died via the wicked but by God's will, bore our sins bodily, and trusted in God as a righteous judge.

Of the three views above, only my view can actually pass the test of Scripture because it is in God's Word.

Your position is just as legitimate as the Holiness Pentecostal view because it is subjective - it is not dependent on God's Word but on what you believe God's Word "teaches".

 

[JonC]

'And so then, Jesus took flesh that He might destroy the curse of sinful flesh, and He became for us a curse that a blessing might overwhelm a curse, uprightness might overwhelm sin, forgiveness might overwhelm the sentence, and life might overwhelm death. He also took up death that the sentence might be fulfilled and satisfaction might be given for the judgement, the curse placed on sinful flesh even to death. Therefore nothing was done contrary to God's sentence when the terms of the sentence were fulfilled, for the curse was unto death but grace is after death.' [Ambrose of Milan (339-397), Flight from the World]

Ambrose's whole argument hinges on Penal Substitution, for the curse that rested on sinful mankind was transferred to Christ, and He died to satisfy God's just sentence of death upon us.

Plenty more where that came from.

His argument does not hinge on Penal Substitution Theory. You are appropriating his words for your Theory (just so you appropriate Scripture for your Theory).

Jesus did take up death that the sentence might be fulfilled and satisfaction might be given for the judgement - the curse placed on sinful flesh even to death.

And I agree that nothing was done contrary to God's sentence when the terms of the sentence were fulfilled, for the curse was unto death but grace is after death.

This is what @agedman and I have argued!!!!

But when you read the quote you read "substitution" instead of "satisfaction". You do the same with Scripture.

If you cannot be faithful to men's words then how can you be faithful to God's words? If you can't be trusted with little, how can you be trusted with much?