God is Just and the Justifier of Sinners (Continuation)

[JonC]

Those really adamant against Penal substitution atonement always seem to just see wrath of God as being a pagan concept, and that for God to pour out His divine arath upon Jesus would be "pagan and barbaric"

This is a false claim. You SHOULD be ashamed for making up things about other people (I say "should" because I know you are not and will simply dismissed this and carry on bearing a false witness against other believers).

For example, ALL Christians agree that God's wrath against the wicked is real, and that this wrath will be exercised on "the day of wrath".

I strongly deny Penal Substitution Theory. BUT it is not "barbaric". The reason is Jesus IS God. Some do argue that it's barbaric, but that is because they do not understand Penal Substitution Theory.

I also do not believe Penal Substitution Theory is pagan. I am unaware of anybody pagan religion or pre-Reformation Christian that held that idea. It was a reworking of Aquinas (Aquinas was not pagan).

So you made three statements on the quoted post, and all three are false accusations.

How careful do you believe Christians should be when dealing with the beliefs of other people (how honest should they be)?

 

[JonC]

Unfortunately this is wrong right from the start. Anselm, in his book Cur Deus Homo, did not teach that Christ's death "satisgied" God's justice, but His outraged honour. Therefore some writers on the subject do not include Anselm among the many Church Fathers who supported Penal Substitution.
The fact is that for several hundred years after the apostles, there was very little discussion about the Atonement. The ECFs were taken up with refuting Gnosticism and Arianism, and these topics dominated their writings. When they did write about PSA, they certainly presented it at times as Christ's victory over Satan, and as the payment of a ransom. Both these are true, but neither of them refute PSA. Christus Victor is certainly true - who believes in Christus Loser? - but His victory over Satan was in paying the penalty for our sins so that the devil can no longer accuse God's people of sin (Rev. !2:10). The ransom, of course, was paid to God's justice and not to Satan as Origen taught. Even the 'moral Influence' theory is valid, so long as it does not supersede PSA. Of course, when we think of what Christ has done for us as our Divine substitute, it should fill us with love and a desire to live for Him.
But right from the start, there was an understanding among the ECFs that Christ had paid the penalty for our sins as a substitute for us:

'In love the Ruler took us to Himself. Because of the love He had for us, Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God; His flesh for our flesh, His life for our life' [1 Clement:: xlix]

Irenaeus is remarkably similar. 'The Lord redeemed us by His blood and gave His life for our life, His flesh for our flesh, and poured out the Spirit of the Father to unite us and reconcile God and man.' 'Adversus Haereses,' v. i. 1-2]

Now where is Christus Victor in either of those extracts? It's not there. What is there is Substitution: 'His flesh for our flesh, His life for our life.' The word 'for' is capable of a number of meanings, but if you buy a car for $5,000, there is an exchange. You get the car, and the seller gets $5,000 instead of the car - as a substitute for it.

One thing is abundantly certain; unless Christ has paid the just penalty for your sins as a substitute - His flesh for your flesh, His life for your life - you will have to pay it yourself.

I never claimed Anselm thought Christ's death satisfied divine justice. I provided a quote from several Christian writers to show that you and @DaveXR650 were wrong to suggest I invented those categories.

One of those writers was even Regormed.


Anyway....I've said multiple times that Anselm came up with the idea Jesus satisfied the demands against man to restore God's honor robbed when Adam sinned. Anselm was seeking to replace the version of Ransom Theory that had become popular by that time (God paying a Ransom to Satan).

Aquinas reformed Anselm's theory by changing honor to merit.

Calvin reformed Aquinas' theory by changing merit to divine justice.


You completely missed the point of my post.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Let's make it simple - quote an ECF that stated Jesus suffered God's wrath so we wouldn't. If you can, great...I'll apologize and admit I was wrong. I'm sure you'd do the same if you can't.

NOTE..
Don't quote somebody and tell me what opinion is about what they thought (I do not care about your opinion)
Just give a quote or an apology. Thanks.

No. I want an apology from you for your terminological inexactitude concerning me in your post #35. It simply isn't true and you know it.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I did. The quote in the OP. You said it was "sad".

So quote what I said. You know, like with a quotation.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I never claimed Anselm thought Christ's death satisfied divine justice. I provided a quote from several Christian writers to show that you and @DaveXR650 were wrong to suggest I invented those categories.

"The terms "Latin" and "classical" in the context of atonement refer to distinct theological persoectives on the meaning and effect of Jesus' death. The Latin or Anselmic view emphasizes that Christ's death satisgied God's justice by paying the penalty for human sin. The "classical" view focuses on Christ's victory over evil, particularly sin and death, liberating humanity from their bondage."

You are talking about "Latin" or "Anselmic" terms. Your quote from Morrison never mentions "Latin" and the quote from Banak, whoever he is/was, is simply all over the place. I have read large numbers of writers on the Atonement and have never come across the term "Latin" or "Classical" in the way you present them. Your two writers I simply disagree with. You haven't even taken the trouble to tell me which books the quotations are from.

One of those writers was even Regormed.

Was he? It sounds nasty.

Anyway....I've said multiple times that Anselm came up with the idea Jesus satisfied the demands against man to restore God's honor robbed when Adam sinned. Anselm was seeking to replace the version of Ransom Theory that had become popular by that time (God paying a Ransom to Satan).

Aquinas reformed Anselm's theory by changing honor to merit.

Calvin reformed Aquinas' theory by changing merit to divine justice.


You completely missed the point of my post.

Did you have one?
Since you suddenly like quotes, here's one for you:
'Despite what some have claimed, there is a significant amount of teaching from the early church period in which the death of Christ is described as both penal and substitutionary. This underlies much of what the early Christian Fathers wrote, and it certainly was not rejected or repudiated by those who remained in the mainstream of Christian orthodoxy. Their writings are frequently pastorally motivated, dealing with issues that troubled their churches, or questions as to how the Gospel was to be related to the social or cultural context. The lack of extensive discussion in some of the early Christian leaders does not imply that penal substitution was an insignificant doctrine to them, but rather that it does not appear to have been a particularly controversial matter' [Ian Shaw and Brian Edwards, The Divine Substitute, Day One Books 2006. ISBN 1-84625-038-2]

 

[JonC]

No. I want an apology from you for your terminological inexactitude concerning me in your post #35. It simply isn't true and you know it.

That is what I thought. You can't because you know you are wrong. You claimed that penal substitution existed "in embryo m" and "the elements were there".

If this were not true then you woukd have proven me wrong by priv8ding just one quote of a Christian before the Reformation stating that Jesus experienced Hod's wrath instead if us.

We both know you can't.

 

[JonC]

So quote what I said. You know, like with a quotation.

All you put was "sad . This was to the quote in the OP. What part are you not grasping?

 

[JonC]

You are talking about "Latin" or "Anselmic" terms. Your quote from Morrison never mentions "Latin" and the quote from Banak, whoever he is/was, is simply all over the place. I have read large numbers of writers on the Atonement and have never come across the term "Latin" or "Classical" in the way you present them. Your two writers I simply disagree with. You haven't even taken the trouble to tell me which books the quotations are from.

Was he? It sounds nasty.

Did you have one?
Since you suddenly like quotes, here's one for you:
'Despite what some have claimed, there is a significant amount of teaching from the early church period in which the death of Christ is described as both penal and substitutionary. This underlies much of what the early Christian Fathers wrote, and it certainly was not rejected or repudiated by those who remained in the mainstream of Christian orthodoxy. Their writings are frequently pastorally motivated, dealing with issues that troubled their churches, or questions as to how the Gospel was to be related to the social or cultural context. The lack of extensive discussion in some of the early Christian leaders does not imply that penal substitution was an insignificant doctrine to them, but rather that it does not appear to have been a particularly controversial matter' [Ian Shaw and Brian Edwards, The Divine Substitute, Day One Books 2006. ISBN 1-84625-038-2]

Actually I was saying that you and @davwete wrong to claim there was no "Classic" view....which is why I posted his quote.

Many who hold Penal Substitution Theory claim that the Early Church held their view. But they cannot find even one quote of anybody prior to the Refornation writing that Jesus suffered God's wrath instead of us.

Jehovah Witnesses claim theirs was the early belief.

Saying that one's view was the early view is easy. Proving it requires one to provide actual evidence.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

That is what I thought. You can't because you know you are wrong. You claimed that penal substitution existed "in embryo m" and "the elements were there".

If this were not true then you woukd have proven me wrong by priv8ding just one quote of a Christian before the Reformation stating that Jesus experienced Hod's wrath instead if us.

We both know you can't.

You are diverting the conversation away from your untruthfulness and, in the light of your attacks upon @JesusFan, hypocrisy. You demand an apology from him, although he never directly named you, but will not give one yourself although you have directly and falsely accused me.
You are also ignoring what I have said to you time and time again: that God's wrath was not against the Lord Jesus - He had done nothing to earn His Father's wrath. That wrath was against the sins of men, but the punishment was inflicted upon Him (Isaiah 53:5-6).
But if you want a quote from a Roman Catholic to satisfy you on this point, then perhaps on Good Friday you were singing that famous hymn by Bernard of Clairvaux, 'O sacred Head sore wounded.'

'I read the wondrous story;
I joy to call Thee mine.
Thy grief and Thy compassion
Were all for sinners' gain;
Mine, mine was the transgression,
But Thine the deadly pain.'

 

[Martin Marprelate]

All you put was "sad . This was to the quote in the OP. What part are you not grasping?

Where? Come on, where exactly? I have read through the previous thread - you know, the one where you attempted to post on it two days after it had been closed - and I cannot see where I wrote "sad." I may have missed it, but since you have put it in the O.P. I'd like to know where I wrote it and what the context was.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Actually I was saying that you and @davwete wrong to claim there was no "Classic" view....which is why I posted his quote.

Many who hold Penal Substitution Theory claim that the Early Church held their view. But they cannot find even one quote of anybody prior to the Refornation writing that Jesus suffered God's wrath instead of us.

I have provided masses of quotes for you, but again, the Lord Jesus did not suffer God's wrath. The Father was never angry with Him. But He suffered the punishment for our sins, and that, as you know perfectly well is found in various parts of the Bible as well as in the ECFs. I quoted Clement of Rome and Irenaeus. The quotes are short, but they clearly show that both writers believed that Christ suffered the penalty for our sins on our behalf. Psalm 7:11 states that 'God is a just Judge; and God is angry with sinners every day.' You ask why God cannot simply forgive sin. What would you think of a human judge who let criminals off their just sentence because they said "sorry"? God must punish sin in order to be just, but in His mercy, in the Person of the Lord Jesus, He has has taken the punishment for our sins upon Himself and expiated the wrath due to us for them (c.f. Isaiah 12:1-2). This is made perfectly clear in Isaiah 53. 'By His stripes, we are healed ....... My righteous servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities ........ Because He poured out His soul unto death, and He was numbered with the transgressors, and He bore the sin of many......'

Jehovah Witnesses claim theirs was the early belief.

Saying that one's view was the early view is easy. Proving it requires one to provide actual evidence.

Indeed, saying that one's view was the early view is easy, although actually, it doesn't matter. Early writers can be as wrong as later ones. What you need to do is show an ECF opposing Penal Substitution. saying that they believed in Christus Victor or a Ransom will not do. Everyone believes that, but He was precisely the Victor because He bore our sins and God's righteous anger against us for them.

 

[JesusFan]

You are diverting the conversation away from your untruthfulness and, in the light of your attacks upon @JesusFan, hypocrisy. You demand an apology from him, although he never directly named you, but will not give one yourself although you have directly and falsely accused me.
You are also ignoring what I have said to you time and time again: that God's wrath was not against the Lord Jesus - He had done nothing to earn His Father's wrath. That wrath was against the sins of men, but the punishment was inflicted upon Him (Isaiah 53:5-6).
But if you want a quote from a Roman Catholic to satisfy you on this point, then perhaps on Good Friday you were singing that famous hymn by Bernard of Clairvaux, 'O sacred Head sore wounded.'

'I read the wondrous story;
I joy to call Thee mine.
Thy grief and Thy compassion
Were all for sinners' gain;
Mine, mine was the transgression,
But Thine the deadly pain.'

How can JonC and Nt Wright keep claiming that Jesus suffered the "wrath" of an evil system/world only, when the very Cross of Christ was predetermined between Father and Son from eternity past to have the wrath and judgment of God fully satisficed by a sin bearer, does that make what happened even more glorious, as the Trinity among themselves bore and bared what we could never do to redeem us from hell and condemnation?

 

[JesusFan]

This is a false claim. You SHOULD be ashamed for making up things about other people (I say "should" because I know you are not and will simply dismissed this and carry on bearing a false witness against other believers).

For example, ALL Christians agree that God's wrath against the wicked is real, and that this wrath will be exercised on "the day of wrath".

I strongly deny Penal Substitution Theory. BUT it is not "barbaric". The reason is Jesus IS God. Some do argue that it's barbaric, but that is because they do not understand Penal Substitution Theory.

I also do not believe Penal Substitution Theory is pagan. I am unaware of anybody pagan religion or pre-Reformation Christian that held that idea. It was a reworking of Aquinas (Aquinas was not pagan).

So you made three statements on the quoted post, and all three are false accusations.

How careful do you believe Christians should be when dealing with the beliefs of other people (how honest should they be)?

Those against penal atonement will usually claim that the need to have God appease his divine wrath is pagan, that to have the father pour wrath out upon Jesus is "cosmic child abuse", and where does it state in the NT that Jesus death was not due the will and plan of God theFather directly, but do to Him suffering under "wordly evl and system?"

And I have stated this is what you believe, just that many who hold to your view have stated that themselves

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I'm not sure if this extract from an Alastair Begg sermon has been posted here before. Forgive me if it has, but here it is again:

It's only a few minutes long.
Nor is this some new teaching. Here is a verse from an early 18th Century hymn:

When from the dust of death I rise
To claim my mansion in the skies,
E’en then, this shall be all my plea,
Jesus hath lived, hath died for me.
[Count Niklaus von Zinzendorf]

 

[JonC]

Those against penal atonement will usually claim that the need to have God appease his divine wrath is pagan, that to have the father pour wrath out upon Jesus is "cosmic child abuse", and where does it state in the NT that Jesus death was not due the will and plan of God theFather directly, but do to Him suffering under "wordly evl and system?"

And I have stated this is what you believe, just that many who hold to your view have stated that ththemselvesI.

I encourage you to examine the reason, whether emotional or slmply ignoring what I wrote, that would cause you to make such false claims.

As Christians we need to be careful not to sin - here not to make false statements about what other Christians believe.

We represent Christ. This does not mean we can't debate and argue, but our debates and arguments need to be more honest than you are willing.

For my part, I have REPEATEDLY said that the "cosmic child abuse" claim is a misunderstanding of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement because it ignores the claim God is taking His punishment upon Himself.

Please be more cateful.

 

[JonC]

How can JonC and Nt Wright keep claiming that Jesus suffered the "wrath" of an evil system/world only, when the very Cross of Christ was predetermined between Father and Son from eternity past to have the wrath and judgment of God fully satisficed by a sin bearer, does that make what happened even more glorious, as the Trinity among themselves bore and bared what we could never do to redeem us from hell and condemnation?

I can't answer for NT Wtight because I do not hold his belief.

For my part, I believe this because this is what Scripture states in Isaiah 53, John 14. John 14, John 16, Luke 4 and Acts 3 (to name a few). This is expressed throughout the Psalms. BUT nowhere in Scripture is it stated that the unjust oppression was God's wrath suffered by Jesus.


If you want to know what NT Wright believes then read NT Wright.

If you want to know what I believe then ask me.

 

[JonC]

I have provided masses of quotes for you, but again, the Lord Jesus did not suffer God's wrath. The Father was never angry with Him. But He suffered the punishment for our sins, and that, as you know perfectly well is found in various parts of the Bible as well as in the ECFs. I quoted Clement of Rome and Irenaeus. The quotes are short, but they clearly show that both writers believed that Christ suffered the penalty for our sins on our behalf. Psalm 7:11 states that 'God is a just Judge; and God is angry with sinners every day.' You ask why God cannot simply forgive sin. What would you think of a human judge who let criminals off their just sentence because they said "sorry"? God must punish sin in order to be just, but in His mercy, in the Person of the Lord Jesus, He has has taken the punishment for our sins upon Himself and expiated the wrath due to us for them (c.f. Isaiah 12:1-2). This is made perfectly clear in Isaiah 53. 'By His stripes, we are healed ....... My righteous servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities ........ Because He poured out His soul unto death, and He was numbered with the transgressors, and He bore the sin of many......'

Indeed, saying that one's view was the early view is easy, although actually, it doesn't matter. Early writers can be as wrong as later ones. What you need to do is show an ECF opposing Penal Substitution. saying that they believed in Christus Victor or a Ransom will not do. Everyone believes that, but He was precisely the Victor because He bore our sins and God's righteous anger against us for them.

I never said that you believe God was angry with Jesus. I know what you believe (I shared your belief for a long time, and taught it when teaching theology).

Penal Substitution Theory DOES believe that the punishment Jesus suffered was the punishment due the sins God laid on Jesus.

You have not provided even one passage stating that what Jesus suffered was God's punishment on the sins laid upon Christ instead of us suffering that punishment.

This is what you, probably without realizing, add to Scripture.

My intention is not to change your belief. My intent is for others to realize that yours is not the only interpretation- there is another that takes Scripture more literally (does not add to the text).


I agree with you that a view being an earlier one does not validate anything. I disagree that it does not matter, at least in understanding how theology developed.

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate

What would be beneficial is to state each position (mine and yours) point by point. My interest is presenting both accurately and honestly. The history of it is my own interest, but it does not really speak to the merit of each view.

 

[JonC]

Where? Come on, where exactly? I have read through the previous thread - you know, the one where you attempted to post on it two days after it had been closed - and I cannot see where I wrote "sad." I may have missed it, but since you have put it in the O.P. I'd like to know where I wrote it and what the context was.

Post 205 on the previous thread. I started this one because after I posted I realized the thread had been closed.

 

[JonC]

You are diverting the conversation away from your untruthfulness and, in the light of your attacks upon @JesusFan, hypocrisy. You demand an apology from him, although he never directly named you, but will not give one yourself although you have directly and falsely accused me.
You are also ignoring what I have said to you time and time again: that God's wrath was not against the Lord Jesus - He had done nothing to earn His Father's wrath. That wrath was against the sins of men, but the punishment was inflicted upon Him (Isaiah 53:5-6).
But if you want a quote from a Roman Catholic to satisfy you on this point, then perhaps on Good Friday you were singing that famous hymn by Bernard of Clairvaux, 'O sacred Head sore wounded.'

'I read the wondrous story;
I joy to call Thee mine.
Thy grief and Thy compassion
Were all for sinners' gain;
Mine, mine was the transgression,
But Thine the deadly pain.'

@JesusFan has been claiming I believe things I have repeatedly rejected. I don't understand why, but that is what he has been doing.

I am not driving this thread, you and @DaveXR650 are. You two claim that my position does n9t exist, that I made up the "classical view" . So I posted a few that mention these categories.


If I were driving this thread we would be discussing how these views differ. As it stands, it seems that you two want to simply claim an opposing view does not exist.