Did Jesus cease being God's Son on the Cross?

[JonC]

Here is what Luther wrote in his commentary on Galatians:

"Without any doubt, the prophets in the Spirit saw that Christ would be the greatest transgressor, assassin, adulterer, thief, rebel, and blasphemer that ever existed on earth. When He was made the sacrifice for the sins of the entire world, He is no longer innocent and without sin, He is no longer the Son of God"
(Luther, Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (1535), Lecture 20 on Galatians 3:13)
What things in the claim above to you find troubling (wrong)?




For me, Luther's words constitute blasphemy against Jesus.

Jesus never became immoral.
Jesus never ceased being God's Son.

Additionally, the prophets in the Spirit never claimed either to be the case.


Early on Luther articulated what Luthersns call "Vicarious Atonement" (it's Substitution Theory). But it was very simplistic (Jesus died so we may live).

I can't help but to see a caution here not to get carried away by philosophy.

. Lutherans hold "Vicarious Atonement" which is a substitution theory but not Penal Substitution Theory.

For the record, this is what you lead with on another thread that you closed and now opened again. (It's nice being the Moderator). But that is how Luther got into this conversation. After you made the erroneous claim that Lutherans do not believe penal substitution I posted a video of probably the most popular internet era Lutheran where he explained your error.

Even though I tried to be fair and show that not all Lutherans believe the same thing, you turned around and started some kind of false garbage with me and @Martin Marprelate where you, on your own, without us stating it or endorsing it, assign us a doctrinal position of your choosing, just to slander us. This is the most pathetic thing I have ever seen on this board.

For me, Luther's words constitute blasphemy against Jesus.

What a disgrace! It's not even fair to the Lutherans. Your views of the atonement sound very similar to some of the modern theories and indeed, when you try to look up someone who agrees with your views you usually end up on a site where their other beliefs include gay acceptance and critical race theory. Time and time again the books, and theologians who supposedly support you are either like that, or it turns out they don't really support your view after all. That is the truth of how the Lutherans got into this discussion.

In addition to that dishonesty, you mentioned me in this thread too, and then closed the thread immediately. You have since gone back and taken out your post closing the thread and the mention of me but you forgot that it is still on my notification - it did not disappear when you did that.
You have lost this silly pursuit of the destruction of penal substitution and now, being out of any rational argument, have resorted to what amounts to weird behavior and slander. Good job.

Here is what Luther wrote in his commentary on Galatians:

"Without any doubt, the prophets in the Spirit saw that Christ would be the greatest transgressor, assassin, adulterer, thief, rebel, and blasphemer that ever existed on earth. When He was made the sacrifice for the sins of the entire world, He is no longer innocent and without sin, He is no longer the Son of God"
(Luther, Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (1535), Lecture 20 on Galatians 3:13)
What things in the claim above to you find troubling (wrong)?




For me, Luther's words constitute blasphemy against Jesus.

John the Baptist called Him "the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Being the unspotted Lamb of God, Christ was personally innocent. But because He took the sins of the world His sinlessness was defiled with the sinfulness of the world. Whatever sins I, you, all of us have committed or shall commit, they are Christ's sins as if He had committed them Himself. Our sins have to be Christ's sins or we shall perish forever.

What I pasted there is a couple of paragraphs down from the partial quote you gave from Luther's commentary. If you read the whole thing he explains what he meant by the part you quoted and why he said it like that. It makes sense when you read the whole thing. Once again, I have never seen anything like what is being done here.

Personally I believe Luther added to Penal Substitution Theory in his philosophy of the Atonement.

I held and taught Penal Substitution Theory for a long time, but I never thought that Jesus ceased being the Son of God.

The reason I posted Luther's comments from his commentary on Galations 3:13 is that @Martin Marprelate said to read it because it proved Luther firmly held the Theory.

Think about many of those theologians who hold my belief of Christ's work. How did you dismiss them? You pointed out other issues that I do not believe. Boyd, for example, holds my belief that Scripture states what occurred on the Cross. But he holds open theology in regard to omniscience (something I disagree with).

So why should I not link Luther to your belief when you provided Luther, and you and @Martin Marprelate posted that was Penal Substitution Theory?

If I was wrong then I apologize (to you, @Martin Marprelate needs to explain why Luther's statement is not Penal Substitution Theory).



Do you believe that the doctrine Jesus ceased being the Son of God is heresy or do you believe it is true?




.

John the Baptist called Him "the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Being the unspotted Lamb of God, Christ was personally innocent. But because He took the sins of the world His sinlessness was defiled with the sinfulness of the world. Whatever sins I, you, all of us have committed or shall commit, they are Christ's sins as if He had committed them Himself. Our sins have to be Christ's sins or we shall perish forever.

What I pasted there is a couple of paragraphs down from the partial quote you gave from Luther's commentary. If you read the whole thing he explains what he meant by the part you quoted and why he said it like that. It makes sense when you read the whole thing. Once again, I have never seen anything like what is being done here.

Actually Lutheran theologians have pointed out Luther was unbiblical on that one. The defence is that the Atonement was never Luther's focus.

I'm not Lutheran, but I still hate when people try to rewrite history. The man was used by God, but he was also very wrong here. We can't start worshipping men.

I'm not Lutheran, but I still hate when people try to rewrite history. The man was used by God, but he was also very wrong here. We can't start worshipping men.

You aren't qualified to comment on whether Luther was wrong here. You brought Luther into this in the first place. Then, when I put up a Youtube of a popular Lutheran theologian refuting you on Lutheran theology you go with a partial quote from his commentary on Galatians and call it blasphemy. I was just pointing out that you have to read the whole chapter 3 commentary, rather than grab excerpts, to understand what Luther was saying. And it was Luther saying that since he wrote the commentary.

It's one thing to worship men. It's another to not listen to anybody. What Luther meant in that commentary was that "Our sins have to be Christ's sins or we shall perish forever". If he is correct then you are trying to lead people astray on here. This is very serious, far more so than a debate on free will or predestination.

I am most certainly qualified to say Luther is wrong to say Jesus ceased being God.

But you are not qualified to claim that it is blasphemy without also quoting his further explanation of what he meant.

You are again venturing into veneration. I could say you are not qualified because you lack a graduate degree in theology.

You yourself have done a great job of showing the value of a graduate degree in theology. But I'll do you one better. The reason I'm not qualified to comment on Luther's views on the atonement is that I had never in my life read his views till yesterday. Yet I was able to get a charge of blasphemy and now "veneration" in one day. That's an accomplishment.

Seriously Jon. Your statements in the above post are looking beyond disorganized. Almost like there is something wrong with you. You go ahead and pull that silliness with my blessing and go ahead and delete this post in response and what do you say we just stop this. Otherwise it will remain up for all to see.

 

[JonC]

You aren't qualified to comment on whether Luther was wrong here. You brought Luther into this in the first place. Then, when I put up a Youtube of a popular Lutheran theologian refuting you on Lutheran theology you go with a partial quote from his commentary on Galatians and call it blasphemy. I was just pointing out that you have to read the whole chapter 3 commentary, rather than grab excerpts, to understand what Luther was saying. And it was Luther saying that since he wrote the commentary.

It's one thing to worship men. It's another to not listen to anybody. What Luther meant in that commentary was that "Our sins have to be Christ's sins or we shall perish forever". If he is correct then you are trying to lead people astray on here. This is very serious, far more so than a debate on free will or predestination.

I am most certainly qualified to say Luther is wrong to say Jesus ceased being God. You are again venturing into veneration. I could say you are not qualified because you lack a graduate degree in theology. But I believe any Christian is qualified to determine if Luther was wrong here. Scripture is the test.

I agree that we cannot hold a belief in isolation.

Let's continue by looking at Luther. Penal Substitution theorists often claim Luther.But Luther never systemized a position on the Atonement.

Take his commentary on Galatians - the one where he claimed Jesus ceased being the Son of God.


These two, the sin of the world and the righteousness of God, met in a death struggle. Furiously the sin of the world assailed the righteousness of God. Righteousness is immortal and invincible. On the other hand, sin is a mighty tyrant who subdues all men. This tyrant pounces on Christ. But Christ's righteousness is unconquerable. The result is inevitable. Sin is defeated and righteousness triumphs and reigns forever.

In the same manner was death defeated. Death is emperor of the world. He strikes down kings, princes, all men. He has an idea to destroy all life. But Christ has immortal life, and life immortal gained the victory over death. Through Christ death has lost her sting. Christ is the Death of death. (Luther, Commentary on Galatians)

Look at what Luther also taught about the Cross:

He degrades himself so profoundly and becomes a man, yes, even degrades himself below all men, as it is written in Psalm 22, "I am a worm and no man, scorned by men and despised by the people." In such physical weakness and poverty, he attacks the enemy, lets himself be put on the cross and killed, and by his cross in death, he destroys the enemy and the avenger. (Luther, Lecture 1537)

He destroyed the devil, not by a work of God but by a work of the devil himself. For this is the most glorious kind of victory, namely, to pierce the adversary with his own weapon and to slay him with his own sword, as we sing: "He fell prostrate on his own darts." (Luther, Hebrews)


OBVIOUSLY Luther held Substitution.

BUT what makes this NOT Penal Substitution Theory?

Hint - Who is punishing Jesus instead Luther's view?

Answer - Satan using the curse of God against God. Jesus humbles Himself and allows Satan to murder Him in accordance with the Law because He became like us and bore the sins of the human race.


In Penal Substitution Theory who is punishing our sins laid on Christ? Satan or God.


Augustine famously illustrated this with his fish hook illustration.


My point here is not that Luther is right but that you and @Martin Marprelate reinvented history to "support" your theory even when nobody here cares because we are not Lutheran.


LOOK WHERE YOU ARE AT - You cannot even say whether or not Jesus ceased being the Son of God. Why? Because you do not want to disagree with Luther.

Can you disagree with Luther about Satan punishing Jesus (I don't), or is that a bridge too far as well?

But you are not qualified to claim that it is blasphemy without also quoting his further explanation of what he meant.

You yourself have done a great job of showing the value of a graduate degree in theology. But I'll do you one better. The reason I'm not qualified to comment on Luther's views on the atonement is that I had never in my life read his views till yesterday. Yet I was able to get a charge of blasphemy and now "veneration" in one day. That's an accomplishment.

Seriously Jon. Your statements in the above post are looking beyond disorganized. Almost like there is something wrong with you. You go ahead and pull that silliness with my blessing and go ahead and delete this post in response and what do you say we just stop this. Otherwise it will remain up for all to see.

Sure I can. If I say "Jesus ceased being the Son of God" then I am wrong.

You may feel you are not qualified. But I studied Luther as an undergraduate and a graduate student. This was necessary to earn my Masters in theology.

That said, ANY CHRISTIAN should be qualified to say whether Christ ceased being the Son of God.

Jesus is the Christ. Ceased means stopped. What on earth do you think he could mean except what he wrote???

That is your problem and the readon you have difficulty comprehending God's Word. You reject what is written for some hidden message. If I say "I'm hungry" you'd try to make that mean something other than "I'm hungry".

EVEN Lutherans have called into question that statement.

But you hold him in such high regard you can't question anything he wrote. What about infant baptism? What about his views of Communion (I agree with him, but Calvinists don't)? What about his tendency towards violence that John Calvin complained about? What about the union of Church and State?

Luther should not be your "pope ". He was a man God used, but he was a man. Luther did not die for your sins.


Here is his words in whole:

Without any doubt, the prophets in the Spirit saw that Christ would be the greatest transgressor, assassin, adulterer, thief, rebel, and blasphemer that ever existed on earth. When He was made the sacrifice for the sins of the entire world, He is no longer innocent and without sin, He is no longer the Son of God born of the Virgin Mary but a sinner. He has and carries the sins of Paul, a blasphemer, an oppressor, and a persecutor; of Peter, who denied Christ; and of David, an adulterer and murderer (he is to blame when the Gentiles blaspheme the name of the Lord). In brief, He is the One who has and has carried the sins of all human beings on His own body, although He, Himself, did not commit them, but willingly received them. We are the authors of the sins we have committed, but they were placed on His own body so that He could satisfy them with His own blood. Thus that same sentence given by Moses [“everyone”] also includes Him (although in Himself, He was innocent) because He was found among sinners and thieves. This is no different from the judge’s guilty sentence pronounced against anyone found among thieves and sinners, although such an individual did not do anything worthy of death. Now, Christ was not only found among sinners, but of His own will, and by will of the Father, He was a companion of sinners. He took on Himself the flesh and blood of sinners, thieves, and those who have fallen into all kinds of sin. Therefore, when the law found Him among thieves, it condemned and put Him to death as a thief.


Luther considered Jesus to have humbled Himself below being the Son of God, below the Angles, and below man (a single man). Satan used the Law against Him and punished Him in acvordance with the Law. Jesus defeated Satan because He had not earned those sins, therefore the Law was nullified and its consequences voided. (this from Luther's other commentaries).

YOU ARE AVOIDING THE QUESTION...AGAIN.

You think ad hominem will hide the fact you have not answered the questions. You are wrong.

1. Do you believe that Jesus ever, even for a millisecond, ceased being God's Son?

2. Is Luther's belief that Jesus as the Substitute for the human race suffered and died as the punishment of Satan Penal Substitution Theory?

@DaveXR650

If you believe you are not qualified to know whether or not Jesus ceased being the Son of God on the cross then why are you even posting here?

The OP is clear and your answer is "I don't know". Why not stop posting and read your Bible to find the answer.

Just repeatedly saying "I'm not qualified, maybe Jesus was not the Son of God but maybe He was" is really nothing but a poor reflection on a professing Christian reluctant to read his Bible.

 

[Charlie24]

But you are not qualified to claim that it is blasphemy without also quoting his further explanation of what he meant.

You yourself have done a great job of showing the value of a graduate degree in theology. But I'll do you one better. The reason I'm not qualified to comment on Luther's views on the atonement is that I had never in my life read his views till yesterday. Yet I was able to get a charge of blasphemy and now "veneration" in one day. That's an accomplishment.

Seriously Jon. Your statements in the above post are looking beyond disorganized. Almost like there is something wrong with you. You go ahead and pull that silliness with my blessing and go ahead and delete this post in response and what do you say we just stop this. Otherwise it will remain up for all to see.

Jon likes to argue, and even though he's very frustrating, he is likable.

The reason I don't really tee off when the opportunity arises.

 

[DaveXR650]

So, I give you an out but you insist on continuing. OK. Right before that quote he quoted Isaiah 53:12 and it is in that sense he he assumed a role not as Son of God but was "numbered with the transgressors", a term you always insist on but I guess now reject since Luther used it. When Luther starts commenting on verse 13 he begins by commenting that some like Jerome try to keep Christ from the "fancied insult of being called a curse". What Luther is clearly doing, and he explains it precisely, is to make sure even a blockhead could understand that when Jesus was made a curse for us, there is a sense where he really was made a curse for us! Thus his statement about ceasing to be the Son of God.

If you want more proof all you had to do was actually read the whole surrounding commentary. Luther clearly states that as Paul said "Not that Christ was made a curse for Himself. The accent is on the two words "for us"." If Christ was a vicarious substitute he was in the role of being made sin, being made a curse for us, and being numbered with the transgressors and it was in that sense that he was not the Son of God.

Of course, he had to be the Son of God in another sense because otherwise this would not have worked on our behalf anyway. So was he wrong? Or was he trying to show the reality of a vicarious substitution so that even you might understand it.

If you believe you are not qualified to know whether or not Jesus ceased being the Son of God on the cross then why are you even posting here?

I didn't say that. You will have to add that to your previous charge of blasphemy. Although I do question why I am posting here. You have a point there.

The OP is clear and your answer is "I don't know". Why not stop posting and read your Bible to find the answer.

My answer is that Luther was making his point about Christ really becoming sin for us by using a strong illustration. I have not read much Luther but I do know he often uses strong, even hyperbolic illustrations to make his point.

Just repeatedly saying "I'm not qualified, maybe Jesus was not the Son of God but maybe He was" is really nothing but a poor reflection on a professing Christian reluctant to read his Bible.

Except for the small detail that I didn't say that. I did say that I only read Luther's commentary on Galatians for the first time yesterday. I do believe that of course Jesus had to always be the Son of God and if you can keep in mind that the Son of God could become a curse then you, with your superior comprehension would have no need of Luther's crude illustration. But you obviously don't get what he was trying to explain so maybe you are the one who needs to to some further study. Maybe you should swallow your pride and actually read his commentary with an open mind to see if you can learn something rather than continuing to be an insulting farce of a moderator.

Penal Substitution Theory, since you seem to be unaware, does (like Luther) hold that Jesus is our substitute who suffered instead of us. BUT Penal Substitution Theory holds (unlike Luther) that Jesus suffered the just punishment of God for our sins laid on Him.

Luther indeed believed and wrote in that very section you said you read that all our sins were laid on Jesus. He even listed the specific sins of Peter and other individuals to make his point. He is not going to be exactly like the Calvinists that believe in a particular atonement because he has to have all the sins of everyone laid on Jesus (which he indeed clearly stated) but then have the benefits applied when a person comes to Christ (or maybe even when baptized - after all he's a Lutheran).

Once again, you just can't seem to contain your arrogance. There are others who are "aware" of things too. Especially if they actually read the sections being discussed.

 

[JonC]

Jon likes to argue, and even though he's very frustrating, he is likable.

The reason I don't really tee off when the opportunity arises.

I do like to argue.

This got me in hot water with some, but it was a funny situation.

A member and I were having a discussion and we decided to argue the other's position.

This is a great practice as you really get to see the other's perspective and understand their belief.

Anyway, another member started calling me a liar because I had discussed my belief on another thread. I can't remember the topic, but that guy called me a liar for years and even followed me on other threads.

But I like arguments. We learn from them. I even like helping opposing people make better arguments.


IF Luther believed Penal substitution theory instead of insisting Satan punished Jesus then he could use the old Calvinist position that God no longer considered Jesus as His Son. That's not much better because it strikes at the nature of God, but it is a little better.


But you are right....I like to argue. I'm working overtime 5pm to 6am at a nuclear facility. This helps pass the time. ;-)

 

[Charlie24]

I do like to argue.

This got me in hot water with some, but it was a funny situation.

A member and I were having a discussion and we decided to argue the other's position.

This is a great practice as you really get to see the other's perspective and understand their belief.

Anyway, another member started calling me a liar because I had discussed my belief on another thread. I can't remember the topic, but that guy called me a liar for years and even followed me on other threads.

But I like arguments. We learn from them. I even like helping opposing people make better arguments.


IF Luther believed Penal substitution theory instead of insisting Satan punished Jesus then he could use the old Calvinist position that God no longer considered Jesus as His Son. That's not much better because it strikes at the nature of God, but it is a little better.


But you are right....I like to argue. I'm working overtime 5pm to 6am at a nuclear facility. This helps pass the time. ;-)

I didn't get into this thread because that doesn't sound like something Luther would've said.

I've read some of his work but not all, I just can't see Luther saying this and believing it.

Before I were to get in it, I would have to do an overview, and I'm just to lazy to do that right now.

 

[JonC]

So, I give you an out but you insist on continuing. OK. Right before that quote he quoted Isaiah 53:12 and it is in that sense he he assumed a role not as Son of God but was "numbered with the transgressors", a term you always insist on but I guess now reject since Luther used it. When Luther starts commenting on verse 13 he begins by commenting that some like Jerome try to keep Christ from the "fancied insult of being called a curse". What Luther is clearly doing, and he explains it precisely, is to make sure even a blockhead could understand that when Jesus was made a curse for us, there is a sense where he really was made a curse for us! Thus his statement about ceasing to be the Son of God.

If you want more proof all you had to do was actually read the whole surrounding commentary. Luther clearly states that as Paul said "Not that Christ was made a curse for Himself. The accent is on the two words "for us"." If Christ was a vicarious substitute he was in the role of being made sin, being made a curse for us, and being numbered with the transgressors and it was in that sense that he was not the Son of God.

Of course, he had to be the Son of God in another sense because otherwise this would not have worked on our behalf anyway. So was he wrong? Or was he trying to show the reality of a vicarious substitution so that even you might understand it.

Yes. But that is not an "out". I read the entire commentary (and the other two I mentioned).

The out would be that I think Luther was emphasizing a point and simply chose his words poorly.

You are, however, missing a key point.

The context follows along very well with Penal Substitution ( it is the view Calvin reformed). Luther almost mirrors Augustine.

UNTIL you read the part where Luther taught that Jesus suffered and died under the punishment of Satan.

You can read Luther and bypass that kept point to pretend his view is yours, but the fact is Luther did not develop his view of the Atonement. He retained it. And it is not Penal Substitution Theory.

Penal Substitution Theory, since you seem to be unaware, does (like Luther) hold that Jesus is our substitute who suffered instead of us. BUT Penal Substitution Theory holds (unlike Luther) that Jesus suffered the just punishment of God for our sins laid on Him.

Where Luther focused on Jesus suffering Satan's punishment in order to crush the powers of evil Penal Substitution Theory focuses on divine justice in order to satisfy its demands.

 

[DaveXR650]

I didn't get into this thread because that doesn't sound like something Luther would've said.

He did say that but it was taken out of context, applied as a doctrinal belief of mine, and then he accused a couple of us of blasphemy. If that's your idea of good fun with a likeable guy I guess to each his own. Once again. For the 3rd time. Luther's commentary on Galatians is free and widely available on the internet right now. Go there and go directly to chapter 3 and read for 15 minutes. I myself had never read his commentary on Galatians until yesterday but it is excellent. But he did say that - along with a lot of explanation as to why he said it.

 

[JonC]

I didn't get into this thread because that doesn't sound like something Luther would've said.

I've read some of his work but not all, I just can't see Luther saying this and believing it.

Before I were to get in it, I would have to do an overview, and I'm just to lazy to do that right now.

I'm obviously not Lutheran, although there are some points of agreement. I wanted to see @DaveXR650 's argument, but he didnt have one.

To defend Luther:

Luther believed that Jesus humbled Himself to be less than God, less than the angles, and less than man (the sum of human sins). This is why he says "ceased to be the Son of God". But at the same time Jesus is God, is righteous, is greater than man and the angles.

This is the key to Luther's Atonement theory (it's like Augustine's theory in many ways).

God laid the sum of the sins of mankind on Jesus, making Jesus less than any single man. Satan used the Law, used God's curse, against Jesus. Jesus submitted to Satan's punishment. But Jesus is also God, sinless, eternal. This nullified the Law Satan had used and crushed the Serpent, freeing us from the bondage of evil.

So yep...I picked a statement and asked Dave to affirm or defend it. Dave didn't get the game and tossed eggs from the sideline.

Now Aaron is back (I can't remember his new name). He and I don't get along, but he gets the game.

 

[Charlie24]

He did say that but it was taken out of context, applied as a doctrinal belief of mine, and then he accused a couple of us of blasphemy. If that's your idea of good fun with a likeable guy I guess to each his own. Once again. For the 3rd time. Luther's commentary on Galatians is free and widely available on the internet right now. Go there and go directly to chapter 3 and read for 15 minutes. I myself had never read his commentary on Galatians until yesterday but it is excellent. But he did say that - along with a lot of explanation as to why he said it.

Ok, thanks.

Jon and I are in different ballparks with theology, but he is likable in his own way.

 

[DaveXR650]

I wanted to see @DaveXR650 's argument, but he didnt have one.

Our posts may be crossing but the answer is above. You could have shut this down but if you wish to go on humiliating yourself at this point is alright with me.

So yep...I picked a statement and asked Dave to affirm or defend it. Dave didn't get the game and tossed eggs from the sideline.

When you get in trouble you tend to do this as if I am your student and must answer your challenge. Your "statement" was taken out of context and used to make a false and slanderous charge against a couple of members here. I think I have sufficiently explained that and anyone who wants now knows they can look up the whole complete passage themselves and get at the truth in both senses. One, in the sense of what Luther actually meant, and two, that you indeed lifted a quote to suit your view in a deceptive way from the rest of the text. People can look for themselves.

 

[JonC]

He did say that but it was taken out of context, applied as a doctrinal belief of mine, and then he accused a couple of us of blasphemy. If that's your idea of good fun with a likeable guy I guess to each his own. Once again. For the 3rd time. Luther's commentary on Galatians is free and widely available on the internet right now. Go there and go directly to chapter 3 and read for 15 minutes. I myself had never read his commentary on Galatians until yesterday but it is excellent. But he did say that - along with a lot of explanation as to why he said it.

I am a good fun and likable guy. But I often respond in kind and add a little to it.


I am surprised you think Jesus suffering Satan's punishment for our dins is excellent. But it is a pleasant surprise as Substitution Theory is one step away from Penal Substitution Theory so at least you are going in the right direction. Just don't become a Roman Catholic.


I know we will never agree on many doctrines. The reason is our presuppositions and experiences.

My Presupposition:

I believe that what the Bible teaches is what is written in the Bible. Our role is to accept and apply it to our lives. We study to understand. When we do not understand we prayerfully continue study and still accept it.

My Experience

Spending time in the Word, studying and praying over difficult passages or over not reading into God's Word has benefitted me as many of those difficult passages are not difficult at all. I was the difficult part, always tempted to read what is not there rather than what is there. My experience is God gave us His Word, and His Word makes sense as written.



From what I can tell your presupposition is that we cannot grasp God's Word, the text is not complete, and we must adopt what theologians and philosophers tell us is taught, but only if we agree with what they say.

 

[Charlie24]

I'm obviously not Lutheran, although there are some points of agreement. I wanted to see @DaveXR650 's argument, but he didnt have one.

To defend Luther:

Luther believed that Jesus humbled Himself to be less than God, less than the angles, and less than man (the sum of human sins). This is why he says "ceased to be the Son of God". But at the same time Jesus is God, is righteous, is greater than man and the angles.

This is the key to Luther's Atonement theory (it's like Augustine's theory in many ways).

God laid the sum of the sins of mankind on Jesus, making Jesus less than any single man. Satan used the Law, used God's curse, against Jesus. Jesus submitted to Satan's punishment. But Jesus is also God, sinless, eternal. This nullified the Law Satan had used and crushed the Serpent, freeing us from the bondage of evil.

So yep...I picked a statement and asked Dave to affirm or defend it. Dave didn't get the game and tossed eggs from the sideline.

Now Aaron is back (I can't remember his new name). He and I don't get along, but he gets the game.

I don't want to get into your guys arguments, I have enough of those to contend with.

I would have to do an overview to make any statements, but it sounds to me that Luther was speaking of Christ is His humanity, not deity.

I'm pretty sure without an overview that Luther would have agreed that Christ as deity could not set that aside, but could lower Himself humanity wise while still being God.

But either way I would have to give it some attention, not up to it right now.

 

[DaveXR650]

Jon and I are in different ballparks with theology, but he is likable in his own way.

I think he fishes. That counts for something. Other than that, he's completely in his own stadium with theology. He fancies himself a modern anabaptist or early churchman or something. But he won't divulge a group he's affiliated with. He probably can't find one. And I'm not being mean. The reason I say that is he argues like a modernist but doesn't share the rest of their views. It's confusing so I keep asking for some kind of affiliation but to no avail. He's not really a heretic, even though he calls me one, because he is so close to penal substitution that it's only a nuanced difference but he's too proud to admit it. Maybe he should make some Youtube videos like Flowers. He used to be on here I understand and he's done well for himself.

 

[Charlie24]

I think he fishes. That counts for something. Other than that, he's completely in his own stadium with theology. He fancies himself a modern anabaptist or early churchman or something. But he won't divulge a group he's affiliated with. He probably can't find one. And I'm not being mean. The reason I say that is he argues like a modernist but doesn't share the rest of their views. It's confusing so I keep asking for some kind of affiliation but to no avail. He's not really a heretic, even though he calls me one, because he is so close to penal substitution that it's only a nuanced difference but he's too proud to admit it. Maybe he should make some Youtube videos like Flowers. He used to be on here I understand and he's done well for himself.

Don't be giving Jon any ideas of broadening his horizons just yet.

He's a work in progress just lacking some finishing touches.

I nominate you, to take Brother Jon to the finish line, lol.

Your patience far outweighs mine.

 

[JonC]

Our posts may be crossing but the answer is above. You could have shut this down but if you wish to go on humiliating yourself at this point is alright with me.

When you get in trouble you tend to do this as if I am your student and must answer your challenge. Your "statement" was taken out of context and used to make a false and slanderous charge against a couple of members here. I think I have sufficiently explained that and anyone who wants now knows they can look up the whole complete passage themselves and get at the truth in both senses. One, in the sense of what Luther actually meant, and two, that you indeed lifted a quote to suit your view in a deceptive way from the rest of the text. People can look for themselves.

I don't mind humiliation. I'm a humble guy and proud of it.

I didn't make a slanderous comment (or I may have, can't remember and dint care as I walked it back and simply asked what you believed....you never answered).

So.......What do we know from Luther's commentaries concerning the Atonement?

Well...Luther said very little compared to Calvin. But we know this:

Luther believed that God laid the sum of the sins of mankind on Jesus. Jesus humbled Himself to become even less than a man (He bore all of mankind's sins) and to become less than God, less than righteous, and He ceased being the Son of God.

Satan took advantage of the Law, used God's curse and punished Jesus with all the powers of darkness that are set against man. On the cross Jesus is our substitute, taking upon Himself the punishment of Satan so we will not have to.

But at the same time Jesus is sinless, is righteous, is God. So God vindicated Jesus and crushed the powers of Satan once for all. Every man is freedom from the bondage of sin and death if only he will believe.


This is what you call Penal Substitution Theory. And this is why I say you lack discernment. You pick out things that tickle your ears and ignore key points.

 

[DaveXR650]

I am surprised you think Jesus suffering Satan's punishment for our dins is excellent

I have said nothing nor do I have a strong view on whether what Christ suffered was Satan's punishment or how that works. If I agree with Luther in a specific area that does not obligate me to all his views. Just like your views do not automatically make you a Socinian even though some of them are argued the same way.

From what I can tell your presupposition is that we cannot grasp God's Word, the text is not complete, and we must adopt what theologians and philosophers tell us is taught, but only if we agree with what they say.

This is probably the most important thing said all day. I believe we indeed can grasp God's word. I do put a high regard on what saints have written in their interpretation of scripture. I am very reluctant to go on my own with an important doctrine. I think it is very important and you are correct in promoting individual, prayerful Bible reading, pure Bible, not commentaries as a means of personal growth and communion with God. It's just that when doing this I am very cautious to double check myself with commentaries, theologians, pastors and so on if I am thinking of an actual doctrinal change. I believe that scripture is supreme in importance but my own private interpretation is not of supreme importance. There is a difference.

 

[JonC]

Don't be giving Jon any ideas of broadening his horizons just yet.

He's a work in progress just lacking some finishing touches.

I nominate you, to take Brother Jon to the finish line, lol.

Your patience far outweighs mine.

This is probably the source of contention I have with Dave.

I can excuse @DaveXR650 's ignorance when it comes to theology other than his own. I'd be in the same boat if I hadn't attended seminary and studied different tgeologies, and theological development throughout history. I get that he reads even Luther as if Luther held his view. He gets his information from you-tube videos by people who want to support his belief.

But his comments here (that I somehow hold a unique view) is beyond ignorance. It is lazy. Anybody who has studied theology (not their own theology but a theology class) pretty much knows my view

Given the number of Reformed books written to argue against my view I'm kinda shocked @DaveXR650 is so unaware. Add to that the number supporting it and the only conclusion I can come up with is he is lying to push my buttons or is genuinely too lazy to read anything that might cause him to look at his own position.

I have, in fact, "revealed" the denominatiin I associate with. I am Southern Baptist. I was a member of a SBC church growing up in Marrietta, a member as a teen in Nashville, and a member of one outside of Nashville. I went to a SBC affiliated college and seminary (and Troy Statem but that doesn't count here). I earned my Masters from a SBC affiliated seminary. I am now a member of a SBC church. All of the churches I've taught at, or preached at, were SBC churches.

I'm pretty sure that most here know I'm a Southern Baptist because we've talked about Southern Baptist convention topics here.

Does my church hold Ransom Theory? No. Some members do, some don't. Does my church hold Penal Substitution Theory? No. Some members do, some don't, The church is a Baptist (it holds a Baptist distinctive called "soul liberty").

I'd say most members of the SBC hold a loose form of Penal Substitution Theory. The SBC defines Penal Substitution vaguely, as Jesus dying for the wicked so we may be imputed with His righteousness.


BUT......INTERESTING FACT....some of the key founders of the SBC (founded in Augusta GA, BTW) were strongly opposed to Penal Substitution. The SBC confession of faith was crafted carefully to include those who hold my belief as well as those who believe Penal Substitution Theory.


Another fact....that church where the SBC was founded is vacant and in danger of being condemned (if it hasn't been already). All that will be left soon is a historical marker.

 

[JonC]

I have said nothing nor do I have a strong view on whether what Christ suffered was Satan's punishment or how that works.

The readon I was asking this is "Penal substitution" specifically states that Christ had to suffer God's punishment (God as Judge punishing our sins laid on Christ).

If you are not sure whether God or Satan punished Jesus then I think it safe to say you are somewhere between Substitution Theory and Penal Substitution Theory.

I don't know what denomination you attend, but many of the SBC founders held my belief and many held Penal Substitution Theory. Their statement of faith was crafted to allow both views (in the convention....local churches may demand one or another but you will find most include both).

And, as a bonus, the SBC passed a resolution both adopting Penal substitution and redefining it so that it is all inclusive (I actually agree with the SBC definitiin....Jesus did die to save the wicked).

If you settle on Satan punishing Jesus and can live with infant Baptism (not that it saves the infant) then you might want to consider a Lutheran church.

 

[Charlie24]

This is probably the source of contention I have with Dave.

I can excuse @DaveXR650 's ignorance when it comes to theology other than his own. I'd be in the same boat if I hadn't attended seminary and studied different tgeologies, and theological development throughout history. I get that he reads even Luther as if Luther held his view. He gets his information from you-tube videos by people who want to support his belief.

But his comments here (that I somehow hold a unique view) is beyond ignorance. It is lazy. Anybody who has studied theology (not their own theology but a theology class) pretty much knows my view

Given the number of Reformed books written to argue against my view I'm kinda shocked @DaveXR650 is so unaware. Add to that the number supporting it and the only conclusion I can come up with is he is lying to push my buttons or is genuinely too lazy to read anything that might cause him to look at his own position.

I have, in fact, "revealed" the denominatiin I associate with. I am Southern Baptist. I was a member of a SBC church growing up in Marrietta, a member as a teen in Nashville, and a member of one outside of Nashville. I went to a SBC affiliated college and seminary (and Troy Statem but that doesn't count here). I earned my Masters from a SBC affiliated seminary. I am now a member of a SBC church. All of the churches I've taught at, or preached at, were SBC churches.

I'm pretty sure that most here know I'm a Southern Baptist because we've talked about Southern Baptist convention topics here.

Does my church hold Ransom Theory? No. Some members do, some don't. Does my church hold Penal Substitution Theory? No. Some members do, some don't, The church is a Baptist (it holds a Baptist distinctive called "soul liberty").

I'd say most members of the SBC hold a loose form of Penal Substitution Theory. The SBC defines Penal Substitution vaguely, as Jesus dying for the wicked so we may be imputed with His righteousness.


BUT......INTERESTING FACT....some of the key founders of the SBC (founded in Augusta GA, BTW) were strongly opposed to Penal Substitution. The SBC confession of faith was crafted carefully to include those who hold my belief as well as those who believe Penal Substitution Theory.


Another fact....that church where the SBC was founded is vacant and in danger of being condemned (if it hasn't been already). All that will be left soon is a historical marker.

You have the mind of a scholar, Jon, cutting, dissecting the Word for a perfect understanding.

I'm afraid you're injecting to much of Jon into your understanding.

Try letting the Scripture explain the Scripture without Jon.