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?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Thank you for the reply. I am more interested in your belief at this time than passages.

I am more interested in the Bible than I am in your belief. If we are to enter into discussion, it is to find truth rather than to vindicate our own beliefs. One of the things I find most irritating in your posts is that you do not provide Scripture for your arguments. In posts 62-64, you only provide Scripture on the Genesis account, which we all agree upon. The rest contains some odd allusions but is mostly your opinions. I was taught at school always to show my workings; I wish you would do the same.

I assume you have passages that you believe supports your position (although I also assume we will disagree on interpretation).

It is hard to disagree on positions if we don't know upon what Scripture you are basing your position.

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

Just look at Romans 6:23 and tell me what you think. When believers die in the N.T. they are usually said to have fallen asleep (John 11:11; 1 Cor. 15:6; 1 Thes. 4:15 etc.). Our Lord says specifically that 'Whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die' (John 11:26). So although we shall, unless the Lord comes first, shuffle off this mortal coil, we shall not suffer the wages of sin because Christ has already suffered it for us. But death as the wages of sin would also include the judgment spoken of in Heb. 9:27-28.

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"?

Our Lord's physical death is intimately connected to our redemption as Heb. 9:27-28 makes clear. When you wrote:

14. It depends on Jesus' death. Penal Substitution Theory does not need Jesus to have died (to have experienced physical death) as long as He experienced the punishment for the sins God laid upon Him in our stead. This obviously excludes physical death because we experienced physical death.

This is nonsense, and insulting nonsense at that. I do not know of any supporter of the Doctrine of Penal Substitution who believes that Christ did not need to die. I think you should tell us which theologian you have read who believes that.

(Or something else?)


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

Are you?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Now, it is an error to read that divine wrath against the wicked is not addressed. It is most certainly addressed, but not by punishment.

Part of the reason is this view does not look at sin in a materialistic way. Instead sin is viewed as a power (specifically a power of evil).

Scripture, please.

Sins are more than sinful acts to be punished. So this view looks at God's wrath to be against the wicked and against sins as an evil rather than against actions (a parent may be angry at a child for skipping school, but not really against skipping school itself..it's the power or spirit of disobedience in the child at issue and the act merely a manifestation of that power).

This is what I wrote. Sins are what sinners do, sinners are people who commit sins and sinfulness is what leads people to sin. To try and separate these things doesn't work. It is because the Saviour paid for our sins in full that we can be born anew and no longer be slaves to sin. Otherwise there was no reason for Christ to die at all. Your view obviates God's role as Judge. Sin must be punished whether or not the perpetrator is sorry and is currently living a spotless life.

Another reason is this view does not seperate the Incarnation, Christ's life, and the Resurrection from the Atonement. Where physical death is the consequence of sin addressed by Christ unjustly experiencing this death under the same powers that held us in bondage, the Christ-centered judgment on "the Day of Wrath" is our escape "from the wrath to come".

And you believe that the Doctrine of Penal Substitution separates the incarnation, Christ's life and the Resurrection from the Atonement? Didn't you say you studied these things at College or Seminary? Go and find the guy who taught you that and give him what for! It's no wonder you have such a mistaken view about PSA.

The Cross was Jesus overcoming sin and death as the Son of Man. The Day of Wrath or Judgment Day is completely Christ centered

Judgment Day is about the Father's vindication as much as it is about the Son. That's why Peter calls it 'the day of the Lord' and 'the day of God' (2 Peter 3:10, 12).

Sin and death was overcome and God is able to forgive sins (sinful acts). The reason is in Christ we die to ourselves, we are made new creations in Him. We are ultimately made innocent of sins....not guilty with somebody else being punished instead of us.

But in your view, and in actual fact, the Lord Jesus was punished

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Bender, Roth, Burkholder, or even Simon

There are three theologians called Roth, so it's a bit difficult to know which one you mean, but it seems that all the people you mention are Mennonite theologians, and of course Menno Simon was the originator of the sect. So is denial of the Doctrine of Penal Substitution central to Mennonite belief? I'm interested because my pastor's daughter has married a Mennonite and lives with her husband in Western Canada.
Also, are you a Mennonite? Did you study at a Mennonite seminary? If so, should you really be posting on the Baptist portion of the Board?
Finally, one of Menno Simon's beliefs was the error of "Celestial Flesh" or "Melchiorism" - the belief that our Lord did not take His human body from Mary, which suggests that He was not really human. It originated with an earlier Dutch Anabaptist called Melchior Hoffmann. I know very little about modern Mennonite theology, so maybe this error of Simon has been quietly buried. My pastor and his wife go out regularly to see their daughter and family, and attend their very large church. He has not reported any theological aberrations to me. Perhaps you can tell me.

 

[JonC]

I am more interested in the Bible than I am in your belief. If we are to enter into discussion, it is to find truth rather than to vindicate our own beliefs. One of the things I find most irritating in your posts is that you do not provide Scripture for your arguments. In posts 62-64, you only provide Scripture on the Genesis account, which we all agree upon. The rest contains some odd allusions but is mostly your opinions. I was taught at school always to show my workings; I wish you would do the same.

It is hard to disagree on positions if we don't know upon what Scripture you are basing your position.

Just look at Romans 6:23 and tell me what you think. When believers die in the N.T. they are usually said to have fallen asleep (John 11:11; 1 Cor. 15:6; 1 Thes. 4:15 etc.). Our Lord says specifically that 'Whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die' (John 11:26). So although we shall, unless the Lord comes first, shuffle off this mortal coil, we shall not suffer the wages of sin because Christ has already suffered it for us. But death as the wages of sin would also include the judgment spoken of in Heb. 9:27-28.

Our Lord's physical death is intimately connected to our redemption as Heb. 9:27-28 makes clear. When you wrote:

This is nonsense, and insulting nonsense at that. I do not know of any supporter of the Doctrine of Penal Substitution who believes that Christ did not need to die. I think you should tell us which theologian you have read who believes that.


Are you?

The issue is we cannot test a belief against Scripture without understanding that belief. I accept every passage you have posted throughout the past decade we have been discussing this. The issue is qe believe those passages mean different things.

I find it irritating some provide paragraph upon paragraph of biblical text to "support" their belief. Ultimately it appears they are hiding their belief or trying to make it appear biblical by volume. (Not you....but I have seen this).

This is why I try, unless there is a reason, to anyone Scripture references when relevant rather than hive the text (that's also the proper way on any theological discussion). We both have Bibles. We hold the same passages. The difference is belief and interpretation.

I actually have "shown my work", but mostly have not provided reference annotations because I am not defending my position. First we have to understand obe another. Then we test.

If you were to copy my stated belief and Google it you will find that it is primarily verses of Scripture. I believe essential doctrine is stated in "what is written" (although interpretations may still differ).

Our disagreement is not Scrioture but interpretation and belief.


I believe that Jesus had to suffer and die under the curse, to become a curse for us, in order to free us from the bondage of sin and death. He had to be the "Son of Adam" ("Son of Man") and although sinless suffer the wages of sin. This is sharing our infirmity, and vital to being the "Second Adam". Representative Substitution (like the "Second Adam") means that one of us represents the whole. God became man, suffered under the bondage that we suffer and conquered that evil.


I am ASKING you In order to understand what you believe.

What redemptive purpose did Christ's death serve?



Could Jesus have suffered the punishment for our sins laid on Him instead of us and not died physically as we still die physically? Why couldn't Jesus have simply suffered the punishments instead of us and not what we still face (physical death)?



Also, you said that "sins are actiins" committed by sinners. I get your understanding there. BUT ate you saying then that God cannot or does not actually forgive sins?

 

[JonC]

Scripture, please.

This is what I wrote. Sins are what sinners do, sinners are people who commit sins and sinfulness is what leads people to sin. To try and separate these things doesn't work. It is because the Saviour paid for our sins in full that we can be born anew and no longer be slaves to sin. Otherwise there was no reason for Christ to die at all. Your view obviates God's role as Judge. Sin must be punished whether or not the perpetrator is sorry and is currently living a spotless life.

And you believe that the Doctrine of Penal Substitution separates the incarnation, Christ's life and the Resurrection from the Atonement? Didn't you say you studied these things at College or Seminary? Go and find the guy who taught you that and give him what for! It's no wonder you have such a mistaken view about PSA.

Judgment Day is about the Father's vindication as much as it is about the Son. That's why Peter calls it 'the day of the Lord' and 'the day of God' (2 Peter 3:10, 12).

But in your view, and in actual fact, the Lord Jesus was punished

Romans 6:1-11.

Do I believe Penal Substitution Theory seperates the Incarnation? No. The Word had to become flesh. I was explaining my view (I do not hold Penal Substitution Theory). Do I believe Penal Substitution Theory laks a focus on the Incarnatiin when it comes to redemption? Yes, although it is obvious that the Incarnation must take place for the crucifixion to occur.

Jesus is the Lord. Jesus is God. All judgment has been given to the Son. Those who are condemned remain in their sins and are condemned because they have rejected the Light which has come into the world. I believe "the Light" is Jesus.

Yes, in my view Jesus is unjustly punished under the powers of the Advasary and the predetermined plan of God.


Why was it necessary for Jesus to physically die?

You said sins are actions committed by sinners. Can God forgive sins?

 

[JonC]

Also, are you a Mennonite? Did you study at a Mennonite seminary? If so, should you really be posting on the Baptist portion of the Board?

No, I am not a Mennonite. My undergraduate degree is in the Christian religion and from a Baptist university and my Masters degree is in theology and from a Baptist seminary.

Can Mennonites join the BB? Yes, and interestingly as baptists. The reason is "Mennonite" is a denomination (by virtue of a split) and the BB holds that "baptist" is a distinction. Mennonites hold what we consider the Baptist distinction.

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate

Rather than attacking my belief why don't we first make sure we understand one another's beliefs? There will be plenty if time time for attacking afterwards.


In your opinion, why was it necessary for Jesus to die physically?

Can God forgive sins or must God punish sins (either on the sinner or laid on Christ) and the believer escape the wrath?

I am trying to understand what you believe and an trying very hard to answer the questions you and @DaveXR650 have asked me, but I feel this is becoming a bit one-sided.

 

[DaveXR650]

You said sins are actions committed by sinners. Can God forgive sins?

You keep asking this. And you say we need to understand one another's beliefs. I'm only speaking for myself but when I hear anyone ask that question my mind goes back to this exchange:

So let me ask you this. Was Sproul right in his anger over this question? When I hear you seem at least to me to suggest that we are going completely overboard with God's wrath and holiness as being primary attributes which do inhibit his ability to forgive without expiation and propitiation I feel the same way Sproul does. So I need you to explain why you keep asking this.

 

[JonC]

You keep asking this. And you say we need to understand one another's beliefs. I'm only speaking for myself but when I hear anyone ask that question my mind goes back to this exchange:

So let me ask you this. Was Sproul right in his anger over this question? When I hear you seem at least to me to suggest that we are going completely overboard with God's wrath and holiness as being primary attributes which do inhibit his ability to forgive without expiation and propitiation I feel the same way Sproul does. So I need you to explain why you keep asking this.

I do not believe Sproul was correct.

First, Scripture does not state that God told Adam he would die on that day. Scripture doubles the word "die", which everywhere else is interpreted as an emphatic (on that day you shall surely die, not you shall die on that day). Death entered the world through Adam's sin. Death became certain (a reality) rather than potential (a consequence of an "if" statement).

Second, Scripture repeatedly claims that death is the wages of sin, sin produces death, sin begats death, etc. Scripture does not present death as God's punishment for sin (God's wrath is "on the Day of Wrath", on "Judgment Day", when Sheol and death are cast into the Lake of Fire, the "Second Death" that the lost will experience). It is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment. These are not the same.



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, what does Christ's physical death acvomplish?

 

[DaveXR650]

I do not believe Sproul was correct.

I believe he was correct in this case. You asked for my opinion and I used that video to illustrate that I feel the same way he did about that question when you keep asking why God can't simply forgive.

Second, Scripture repeatedly claims that death is the wages of sin, sin produces death, sin begats death, etc. Scripture does not present death as God's punishment for sin (God's wrath is "on the Day of Wrath", on "Judgment Day", when Sheol and death are cast into the Lake of Fire, the "Second Death" that the lost will experience). It is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment. These are not the same.

We got into that in previous discussions and I don't want to go there now. Count me out if you wish to go in that direction. No offense intended. I have not read much in that area and don't feel qualified to discuss it on a board.

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)?

Yes. We have to go by what scripture declares. For some reason God does not simply forgive sins. I think he overlooks a lot as explained in Romans regarding sins in the past but at some level sin incurs God's wrath and expiation and propitiation are necessary, in addition to simple forgiveness. We are sinful ourselves so we cannot understand fully the reaction God has toward sin and unholiness.

What about Jesus' death? Did Jesus have to physically die in order to redeem us? If so, what does Christ's physical death acvomplish?

Yes, based on a simple reading of scripture. The shedding of blood is necessary but in scripture life is in the blood and the shedding of blood denotes deliberate death inflicted upon someone. God desired to make sure we understood that which is why you have specific prohibitions on profane uses of blood.

In Christ's physical death all the claims of penal substitution were accomplished. Christ bore our sins at that time. He tasted death for every man and fulfilled the law completely in that he died as a lawbreaker, but it was for our sin. Now, if you are a serious Calvinist you believe that his death actually accomplished the removal of your sin and if you are more Arminian your view is more of either all sin being potentially removed based on whether you repent because now God is free to forgive. But at any rate, reconciliation has been accomplished and now God can be just and the justifier, and he expresses his love without damage to his holiness or justice. So now, because of Christ's death on the cross, a person spreading the gospel has a ministry of reconciliation.

And personally, I believe that what God requires from us is that we want to come and be reconciled to God and that we understand that this is by Christ. I do not believe that an understanding of the specifics of how the atonement works will determine whether someone can be saved. But I do think it is something like the virgin birth. Many people who get saved, because of age or understanding, don't really know anything about the importance of the virgin birth of Christ. However; a theologian, who claims to be in the know regarding this, and consciously rejects the virgin birth I don't believe to be a Christian. With penal substitution, someone who rejects it, with full understanding, is rejecting an essential of the Christian faith. I don't mean that they reject the English words "penal substitution" but that they reject the concept of Christ bearing our sins on the cross and removing the punishment and wrath we were justly liable for.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I believe that Jesus had to suffer and die under the curse, to become a curse for us, in order to free us from the bondage of sin and death. He had to be the "Son of Adam" ("Son of Man") and although sinless suffer the wages of sin.

Do we still suffer the wages of sin? No; of course not. So how is your position not Penal Substitution? He becomes a curse to free us from the bondage of sin and death. He becomes a curse; we don't. Penal Substitution. He, although sinless, suffers the wages of sin. To what purpose? If to save us from the wages of sin, how is it not Penal Substitution? BTW, I think you misunderstand about the term "Son of Man." Think Ezekiel passim, then Daniel 7:13-14 and Mark 14:62. Our Lord is the 'Second Adam,' meaning He must succeed where the first Adam failed. To my recollection He is never called "Son of Adam" except in Luke's genealogy.

This is sharing our infirmity, and vital to being the "Second Adam". Representative Substitution (like the "Second Adam") means that one of us represents the whole. God became man, suffered under the bondage that we suffer and conquered that evil.

Christ in His life on earth magnified the law and made it honourable. His life of sinless obedience is credited to His people (c.f. Jer. 23:6; Phil. 3:9)

I am ASKING you In order to understand what you believe.

What redemptive purpose did Christ's death serve?

I can only answer this so many times. Read my previous posts.

Could Jesus have suffered the punishment for our sins laid on Him instead of us and not died physically as we still die physically?

No. And I have already answered this question.

Why couldn't Jesus have simply suffered the punishments instead of us and not what we still face (physical death)?

Again, I've already answered this. Romans 6:23.

Also, you said that "sins are actiins" committed by sinners. I get your understanding there. BUT ate you saying then that God cannot or does not actually forgive sins?

Again, already answered. God is the righteous Judge. He cannot become unrighteous by justifying the wicked.

Please! If we're going to play Twenty Questions, don't keep asking the same ones.

 

[JonC]

I believe he was correct in this case. You asked for my opinion and I used that video to illustrate that I feel the same way he did about that question when you keep asking why God can't simply forgive.

We got into that in previous discussions and I don't want to go there now. Count me out if you wish to go in that direction. No offense intended. I have not read much in that area and don't feel qualified to discuss it on a board.

Yes. We have to go by what scripture declares. For some reason God does not simply forgive sins. I think he overlooks a lot as explained in Romans regarding sins in the past but at some level sin incurs God's wrath and expiation and propitiation are necessary, in addition to simple forgiveness. We are sinful ourselves so we cannot understand fully the reaction God has toward sin and unholiness.

Yes, based on a simple reading of scripture. The shedding of blood is necessary but in scripture life is in the blood and the shedding of blood denotes deliberate death inflicted upon someone. God desired to make sure we understood that which is why you have specific prohibitions on profane uses of blood.

In Christ's physical death all the claims of penal substitution were accomplished. Christ bore our sins at that time. He tasted death for every man and fulfilled the law completely in that he died as a lawbreaker, but it was for our sin. Now, if you are a serious Calvinist you believe that his death actually accomplished the removal of your sin and if you are more Arminian your view is more of either all sin being potentially removed based on whether you repent because now God is free to forgive. But at any rate, reconciliation has been accomplished and now God can be just and the justifier, and he expresses his love without damage to his holiness or justice. So now, because of Christ's death on the cross, a person spreading the gospel has a ministry of reconciliation.

And personally, I believe that what God requires from us is that we want to come and be reconciled to God and that we understand that this is by Christ. I do not believe that an understanding of the specifics of how the atonement works will determine whether someone can be saved. But I do think it is something like the virgin birth. Many people who get saved, because of age or understanding, don't really know anything about the importance of the virgin birth of Christ. However; a theologian, who claims to be in the know regarding this, and consciously rejects the virgin birth I don't believe to be a Christian. With penal substitution, someone who rejects it, with full understanding, is rejecting an essential of the Christian faith. I don't mean that they reject the English words "penal substitution" but that they reject the concept of Christ bearing our sins on the cross and removing the punishment and wrath we were justly liable for.

Actually, I don't want your opinion. I am asking about what you believe so that I can better understand where you stand on the topic.

I know that the shedding of blood is necessary for forgiveness. I think this was foreshadowing Christ's sacrifice rather than because life is in the blood (a theological rather than biological meaning). But both could point to Christ's sacrifice. This isn't my point of disagreement.

What I am trying to understand is the reason you believe Jesus had to die in order to redeem man.

I also am interested in whether you believe God can or will forgive sins.

The video did not answer this (the video addressed death as God's wrath, but this dies not explain why Jesus had to die physically in order to redeem man yet we still die physically).

What I mean is if Jesus died physically because this is God's wrath against sin then why do we die physically. Jesus couldn't die instead of us if we still die.


I don't get your reasoning about why Jesus died in terms of redemption.

I also do not understand if you believe God actually forgives sins. It appears to me you are insisting that God cannot forgive sins (that He must punish sins), so the only way for men to escape divine wrath is for God to punish man's sins laid on somebody else.


If you can, will you please explain those two issues. Sorry if I seem slow on the uptake. I know theology but everybody's understanding is unique.

 

[DaveXR650]

I also do not understand if you believe God actually forgives sins. It appears to me you are insisting that God cannot forgive sins (that He must punish sins), so the only way for men to escape divine wrath is for God to punish man's sins laid on somebody else.


If you can, will you please explain those two issues. Sorry if I seem slow on the uptake. I know theology but everybody's understanding is unique.

You are not slow on the uptake. You are deliberately obtuse maybe, but you know what you are doing. Which way to you want to go with this? Were you in those years when you taught this at a level beyond my education in theology, did you really not understand the standard arguments that are always put forth the same way in regards to this?

There is no necessity of atonement except as the necessity grows out of the holy nature of God. Atonement is necessary to resolve the conflict between man and God, since God has placed man under condemnation. God cannot simply forgive sin. The atonement, happening in the manner it did must be accepted as happening that way because God wanted it to and it was therefore necessary that it did.

We know that God likes to show grace but we have to respect God's nature. Any view of grace that is not grounded in the understanding of sin, holiness, and the high regard for law that is manifested in atonement will be empty, shallow, and shot through with the tendencies of antinomianism. My belief is that while there are many lessons we can learn from Jesus atoning sacrifice, and many aspects of the atonement, when you carefully consider the above you always will end up back at penal substitution.