God is Just and the Justifier of Sinners (Continuation)

[DaveXR650]

I know you believe my view is wrong. But you, again, are not arguing appropriately.

But I suppose you are when you do the same thing but take the opposing view.

I am asking...pleading with you....to either have an honest conversation or withdraw. I am not interested in a "camp" war. I am interested in examining these views.

Any disagreement with you is always "dishonest". Do you ever entertain the possibility that you could be wrong or that you once were teaching correctly but now are going off in a wrong direction? I understand how you must feel having done that but just remember how you felt then and have pity on those who are still unenlightened.

An honest discussion from you would not be "Penal Substitution Theory..." or "Scrioture doesn't support that" but instead "How does Scripture support that."

Excuse me but hasn't "scripture doesn't support that" been your go to response all along. Below is the most recent:

1. It can be defended strictly by what is written in the text of Scripture rather than opinions about what somebody thinks is taught by Scripture (it is an objective position and disagreements center on the written text of Scripture).

If it helps, just pretend you believe neither view and let's look at them.

If you were serious here I would ask first, are you willing to concede that 1. It is reasonable to see a connection between the old testament sacrificial system and Jesus Christ. 2. Is it reasonable for me to use the explanations of many prominent theologians who see that as pointing to penal substitution as a legitimate argument. Not that it has to be true, but that it cannot be dismissed as being unfounded, dishonest, or made up or due to their cultural background. Will you stop making that claim and really look at the specific arguments regarding the sacrificial system.

Will you state plainly what Jesus did about the fact that we had sinned against a Holy God and are guilty of doing so and breaking the law. Are you willing to admit that there are sanctions against breaking the law and that penal substitution is trying to explain that something actual is done in Christ's death. Feel free to use your own belief but please, if you go with solidarity or anything symbolic that doesn't directly do something at least admit that there is a difference.

And, admit that the literature on the atonement by advocates of penal substitution indeed includes other aspects of the atonement and incorporates them and tries to link them with penal substitution. You don't have to agree that they are correct, but just that this is attempted by them. It is disingenuous to make it seem that that is not the case.

There's a start. I have more. The problem I see with you is that everyone else, whether it be Schreiner vs Wright or many of the debates with penal substitution advocates, there is a respect that the other persons argument is at least a coherent argument. It's important that you understand what I'm about to say here. I can't find anyone who opposes penal substitution like you do who is orthodox. The ones like Wright and others may complain about things penal substitution advocates have said, or poetry they have written or that they ignore other aspects but none oppose it directly who are not in a completely different place theologically. The reason for that as far as I can tell and the reason I find discussing this with you fruitless is that none of these other guys will at the same time state that Jesus bore our sins. Sorry for the highlighting but when you do that you are using one of the core statements of penal substitution. Stott goes into detail about this and exactly when and how it means that Jesus bearing our sins can be taken as "instead of us". If you wish to go on record as disagreeing that's fine but you do not have the status, even as a moderator, to just dismiss this out of hand because of the shear number of serious theologians who believe it.

 

[JonC]

But I suppose you are when you do the same thing but take the opposing view.

Any disagreement with you is always "dishonest". Do you ever entertain the possibility that you could be wrong or that you once were teaching correctly but now are going off in a wrong direction? I understand how you must feel having done that but just remember how you felt then and have pity on those who are still unenlightened.

Excuse me but hasn't "scripture doesn't support that" been your go to response all along. Below is the most recent:


If you were serious here I would ask first, are you willing to concede that 1. It is reasonable to see a connection between the old testament sacrificial system and Jesus Christ. 2. Is it reasonable for me to use the explanations of many prominent theologians who see that as pointing to penal substitution as a legitimate argument. Not that it has to be true, but that it cannot be dismissed as being unfounded, dishonest, or made up or due to their cultural background. Will you stop making that claim and really look at the specific arguments regarding the sacrificial system.

Will you state plainly what Jesus did about the fact that we had sinned against a Holy God and are guilty of doing so and breaking the law. Are you willing to admit that there are sanctions against breaking the law and that penal substitution is trying to explain that something actual is done in Christ's death. Feel free to use your own belief but please, if you go with solidarity or anything symbolic that doesn't directly do something at least admit that there is a difference.

And, admit that the literature on the atonement by advocates of penal substitution indeed includes other aspects of the atonement and incorporates them and tries to link them with penal substitution. You don't have to agree that they are correct, but just that this is attempted by them. It is disingenuous to make it seem that that is not the case.

There's a start. I have more. The problem I see with you is that everyone else, whether it be Schreiner vs Wright or many of the debates with penal substitution advocates, there is a respect that the other persons argument is at least a coherent argument. It's important that you understand what I'm about to say here. I can't find anyone who opposes penal substitution like you do who is orthodox. The ones like Wright and others may complain about things penal substitution advocates have said, or poetry they have written or that they ignore other aspects but none oppose it directly who are not in a completely different place theologically. The reason for that as far as I can tell and the reason I find discussing this with you fruitless is that none of these other guys will at the same time state that Jesus bore our sins. Sorry for the highlighting but when you do that you are using one of the core statements of penal substitution. Stott goes into detail about this and exactly when and how it means that Jesus bearing our sins can be taken as "instead of us". If you wish to go on record as disagreeing that's fine but you do not have the status, even as a moderator, to just dismiss this out of hand because of the shear number of serious theologians who believe it.

1. Yes. I absolutely believe that the Levitical system was foreshadowing the Cross.

2. No. It does not help to point to prominent theologians in supporting either view. The readon is that there are numerous theologians in any "camp" (and each of these are respected scholars in their field). I don't think it is beneficial, for example, for you to quote Soroul and me respond by quoting Tiessen. Nothing would be gained.

Also, I am more interested in what you and @Martin Marprelate believe (people in any camp can also have disagreements) rather than tables.

I studied theology and Christian history at a graduate level. I know the history and theology. But that is academic. I am interested in what people believe (not theological definitions).


I also am not interested, at this time, in the passages you and @Martin Marprelate use to support your belief. I assume that you can provide passages, just as I can, and the difference will be interpretation. So I believe the first thing is to understand the belief, and then examine passages to "test" that belief against what is written in God's Word.



Yes, I will state plainly what I believe Jesus did in regard to sin.

We are talking not about the Cross but about the Christ-centered judgment "on the day of wrath", or "Judgment Day".

Having conquered sin and death on the cross and having "nailed the Law to the tree", Jesus "became a life giving Spirit". Those who believe are "in Christ" and have crucified the flesh (have died to sin, become a new creation). In Christ there is no condemnation. Christ made is, ultimately, guiltiness in Him. Our sins are forgiven.


I don't mind the highlighting at all. But I do want you to realize I could say Penal Substitution Theory is using one of my positions core beliefs with Christ bearing our sin bodily on the cross.
No Christian position, even the Roman Catholic position (which I hesitate to call "Christian", denies that Jesus bore our sins, God lain on Him our iniquities, or by His stripes we are healed.But each holds different understandings of those passages.

I use "Jesus bore our sins, died for our sins, God laid our iniquitieson Him, and by His stripes we are healed" because those passages are at the core of my belief concerning the Cross.


In your belief, why did Jesus have to die physically to redeem man? We still die physically, so how important was Jesus' death?

Do you agree with @Martin Marprelate thar sins are actions committed by men?

Do you believe that God can actually forgive sins?

 

[JonC]

Romans 6:23. The Lord Jesus, the sinless One, must pay the wages of sin on our behalf so that we may receive the gift of God 'in Christ Jesus our Lord.'

Thank you for the reply. I am more interested in your belief at this time than passages. I assume you have passages that you believe supports your position (although I also assume we will disagree on interpretation).


So are you saying that physical death is the wages of sin (that Christ died physically so that we would not)?

Or is Jesus' physical death unrelated to our redemption (Jesus did not die for our sins, per se) and is the means by which we become "in Christ"?

(Or something else?)


I'm just trying to understand how you view Jesus' actual death in terms of redemption.

 

[DaveXR650]

2. No. It does not help to point to prominent theologians in supporting either view. The readon is that there are numerous theologians in any "camp" (and each of these are respected scholars in their field). I don't think it is beneficial, for example, for you to quote Soroul and me respond by quoting Tiessen. Nothing would be gained.

Also, I am more interested in what you and @Martin Marprelate believe (people in any camp can also have disagreements) rather than tables.

I disagree. It's not by chance that everyone from Stott to Owen quote others constantly, either in support of their views or even when opposing them. One thing I have noticed on this site in general is that several of the prominent posters have really off the wall interpretations of nearly everything and they seem to be the very ones that want people to just give their opinion. It's not worth doing that and it just reveals foolishness.

I will give my opinion to this extent and I hope you will understand. I am more open minded than most in a lot of areas of popular theological debate. Whether it be the extent of the atonement or the role of man's free will or one's view of determinism I can discuss at length and debate enough to make Talkative from Pilgrims Progress proud, yet without worrying much about the salvation or orthodoxy of the other person. Not so with the atonement. I have discussed this at length and on several occasions on this board with you. I do not understand your opinion and the only way I even hope to figure out what you are saying is to figure out what "camp" you are in or what school of thought you are coming from.

My personal opinion is that penal substitution is the only way the actual work of the cross can be explained at the point of dealing with our sins. I believe that the old testament sacrificial system points to what we describe as penal substitution. I believe numerous scriptures in the NT refer to this. I have never heard an aspect of the work of Christ on the cross that I did not think had some truth in it but penal substitution is always at the core. Without it something is always lacking in understanding our salvation. Because of this I also believe that you can potentially do real damage to someone who lurks on this site and sees what you say and the way you attempt to deconstruct penal substitutionary atonement.

So in my opinion, which you asked for, I think that unlike other areas where good honest debate can be useful, what you do, where you consistently try to take apart penal substitution is more akin to allowing an atheist or a Roman Catholic to come on and do the same deconstruction of what I think is true Christianity itself. This board usually quickly tosses RC's who come on and do that and they should with you too.

 

[JonC]

I disagree. It's not by chance that everyone from Stott to Owen quote others constantly, either in support of their views or even when opposing them. One thing I have noticed on this site in general is that several of the prominent posters have really off the wall interpretations of nearly everything and they seem to be the very ones that want people to just give their opinion. It's not worth doing that and it just reveals foolishness.

I will give my opinion to this extent and I hope you will understand. I am more open minded than most in a lot of areas of popular theological debate. Whether it be the extent of the atonement or the role of man's free will or one's view of determinism I can discuss at length and debate enough to make Talkative from Pilgrims Progress proud, yet without worrying much about the salvation or orthodoxy of the other person. Not so with the atonement. I have discussed this at length and on several occasions on this board with you. I do not understand your opinion and the only way I even hope to figure out what you are saying is to figure out what "camp" you are in or what school of thought you are coming from.

My personal opinion is that penal substitution is the only way the actual work of the cross can be explained at the point of dealing with our sins. I believe that the old testament sacrificial system points to what we describe as penal substitution. I believe numerous scriptures in the NT refer to this. I have never heard an aspect of the work of Christ on the cross that I did not think had some truth in it but penal substitution is always at the core. Without it something is always lacking in understanding our salvation. Because of this I also believe that you can potentially do real damage to someone who lurks on this site and sees what you say and the way you attempt to deconstruct penal substitutionary atonement.

So in my opinion, which you asked for, I think that unlike other areas where good honest debate can be useful, what you do, where you consistently try to take apart penal substitution is more akin to allowing an atheist or a Roman Catholic to come on and do the same deconstruction of what I think is true Christianity itself. This board usually quickly tosses RC's who come on and do that and they should with you too.

Yes, I always entertain the possibility I may be wrong. No, I do not consider it possible that I was wrong about the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

I don't want to get off track, but my issue with relying on theologians is that it ultimately boils down to the individual theologians one selects.

For example, you could select Stott to Owen. But why not Bender, Roth, Burkholder, or even Simon (all very respected theologians who disagree with Penal Substitution Theory).

I believe you might read those scholars but you would not choose them in examining the atonement because you hold a different belief.

Those scholars would be great if I wanted to understand Penal Substitution Theory. But I've already studied them and get the Theory.

If you want to find scholars who oppose Penal Substitution Theory and believe as I do then you will have to look outside of Reformed theology (those you mention, like NT Wright, exist within Reformed theology and offer a different take on penal substitution). Bender, Roth, Burkholder, Simon, etc are within orthodox Christianity and hold the view of atonement I hold.

If using respected theologians to validate orthodoxy or help demonstrate a belief isn't held in solitude is important to you then I concede to using these men's opinions. But not as a statement of what we believe (we should state our own beliefs). Is that fair?

The reason the BB can't "toss" me because of my view of atonement is that my view is within the orthodox Baptist faith. A few who shared my view have left the BB because they felt harassed, but they were not kicked out. If this were a Reformed Baptist forum it would be different.

I'm interested in what you believe.

Ultimately I would want to "take apart" your belief and text it against God's Word. I also want you to do the same with my belief.

But first we must understand each other's beliefs. Do we believe something we don't understand or defend (do we hold somebody else's belief, one we have no right to hold)? Did we make an error?

Can we tear apart our beliefs and test the pieces against God's Word?


I am asking for your help in understanding what you believe, and I am asking your permission to test your belief against God's Word. I am inviting you to do the same with my belief.

Iron sharpens iron, but not without both pieces of iron being made vulnerable (when iron is sharpened the dull edges of both pieces are removed).


This is why I asked those questions. Before you defend your view I need to understand your view. I have many questions, and will start with a couple.


1. What role does Jesus' physical death play in our redemption?

2. Is God able to actually forgive sins?

 

[DaveXR650]

This is why I asked those questions. Before you defend your view I need to understand your view. I have many questions, and will start with a couple.


1. What role does Jesus' physical death play in our redemption?

2. Is God able to actually forgive sins?

Let's not try to go into a role of you as the teacher and me trying to answer questions to your satisfaction. We're not in your classroom. I am of the opinion that you believe God can just forgive sins if he wants to. Do you mean that there is no actual purpose in Jesus death that does something to facilitate this and if not why did Jesus have to die for our sins? Or did he not? I contend that if he did have to die and if our sins were involved somehow in that then you cannot avoid penal substitution. There is no sense going around this again. And as much as I would like to know if there are real Baptists at real churches who teach that penal substitution is wrong I don't think I will get an answer. Is this in any church you could list? Or a whole denomination? I'm not saying you are lying. What I am saying is that if you show one we can look to see where there are on other matters of theology and Christian living.

This is not real difficult. If God were able to just forgive sins (and by that I mean if it were according to his nature) to do so then he could have told Adam and Eve "Look, I don't want to have to keep telling you, don't eat any more of that fruit!" He could have said after giving the Law that we should do our best and not worry about it if we mess up. But he didn't. Instead, we know that His reaction to sin can go to the point of wrath. We know that there was this plan for Christ to go to the cross and we know it involved our sin. I think we should be very careful in questioning the plan as it is what God chose to do and it would be the height of blasphemy to decide that was not a wise plan. It would not have been wise on the day of atonement for the priest to decide to use a bouquet of flowers instead of a sacrifice. This is serious. This is not like whether the KJV is the best version or whether if I choose to come to Christ someone thinks it's now a work.

To clarify, because this comes up. I don't think it dishonors God if we try to go by his revealed nature as to what he "has" to do. Obviously, God is self existent and all powerful and there is nothing he can't do or nothing he has to do and he is under no obligation to explain it to us. But he has graciously given us some insight into his own nature and we are I think allowed to believe that and make statements based on that without any dishonor to God. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin, so scripture says. The life is in the blood scripture says. The soul that sins will die. It doesn't take a degree in theology to realize that such truths put us in an untenable situation without God's intervention.

 

[JonC]

Let's not try to go into a role of you as the teacher and me trying to answer questions to your satisfaction. We're not in your classroom.

This is not where I am going. I am simply asking questions that I have of your belief so that I can understand you better. I would expect you to do the same to me. It is important that we understand each other's beliefs before we start discussing our beliefs.

I have found the best way to understand somebody is to ask questions and listen rather than make assumptions.

I am of the opinion that you believe God can just forgive sins if he wants to.

I have never considered whether God can forgive sins simply out of a desire to do so. I would be uncomfortable saying that God "can't", but it seems to me that God has revealed that He won't. Throughout the Bible we read of God desiring to forgive only if those would seek forgiveness and turn to Him.

So if you were to ask "Does God just forgive sins because He wants to?" my answer would be "no:. This would make God unrighteous as He would be violating His own law and nature.

Do you mean that there is no actual purpose in Jesus death that does something to facilitate this and if not why did Jesus have to die for our sins? Or did he not?

No, that is not what I mean. To redeem man it was necessary that Jesus come under the curse, that our sins be laid on Him, and He suffer the wages of sin. On the cross God was reconciling mankind to Himsrlf, not counting sins against them. And it is because of this that we who are saved urge men to be reconciled to God.

I believe the cross, what Jesus suffered and His death, is what was foretold in Genesis with the Serpent striking (or crushing) the heel of the woman's Seed and the Resurrection the crushing of the Serpent's head. Christ's death and resurrection are essential to my belief.

Jesus' death was absolutely necessary because death is the wage of sin. Had Jesus not come under the curse, shared in our infirmity, He wouldn't have redeemed us from the curse and freedom us from the bondage of sin and death.

Remember, in Genesis God did not curse Adam. He pronounced that because of Adam's actions he would die as a wage. Sin begats death. It is also important that Jesus' death be crucifixion on a Roman cross (the Romam Empire at the time, represented the powers of the World to the Hebrew people).

This is not a substitution in terms of "instead of us" but representative substitution (one of us representing the whole). So if you are asking if the purpose of Jesus' death was to pay a debt of sin owed to God by man then my answer is "no".

I view the wages or consequences of sin and God's wrath against the wicked as two distinct things. Sin begats (or produces) death (Romans 6:23; James 1:15; Romans 7:11). The wrath of God is not a product of sin but a righteous judgment. This judgment is, because of Jesus' work and obedience, Christ centered. The solution is not to punish but to transform or recreate man.

I hope that answers your question. If not, I will try to clarify. Just let me know.


Am I correct in understanding that you believe God can not forgive sins, but instead must punish sins (that men escape punishment but punishment must be rendered in some form)?


What about Jesus' death? Did Jesus have to physically die in order to redeem us? If so, why?