The Enemies Of The Cross of Christ:

[JonC]

No, I never said quoting God's word is foolishness so let's be a bit more honest when we post. Quoting scripture is always good, but Your ideas about it are quite foolish. You never explain anything you quote. Then you try and claim you go by what is written , but deny thatEzra sought to give the sense, that is the meaning of the text. It is foolish for you to deny that that is indeed the very reason God gave Pastors and teachers to the Local Church for that very purpose. Is that clear enough for you?
Quoting scripture is good. Understanding it is better. You do not seem to understand what the verses mean.

No...you rely on your own little formula that is not used by anyone else but you.

You are a dishonest poster. I never said that! martin never said that! Jesus fan never said that! You once again resort to personal attacks that you dream up in your confused mind, then try and project it on any of us who hold the truth, which you oppose.

People are searching the scripture, and checking with other Godly men to see if they saw the same thing. You do not do that. You despise real Bible teachers and offer your wrong take on everything.

You cannot seem to post a thought on your own, without a personal attack, can you?

Others who deny the true nature of PSA might hear that very thing.

Can everyone see this garbage accusation from JohnC? your comments are profane.

he has , and many of us have come to understand it. Maybe that will happen for you sometime. Looks as if it has eluded you so far, on your journey.


This is the third time, you make an accusation, so I can see you as an enemy of the cross. You are not different from what Paul was speaking about. Are you

I never would, and I have not. This is the third time you try and say this, as if somehow like a Charismatic, you are going to speak it into existence.

People are quoting their beliefs and then showing many others who hold the same view of truth. You post your own novelties

Here this dishonest person tries yet again to accuse me of something that is not true.

Philip Helped in Acts 8 after he was told, How can I unless some man guide me? I guess he did not follow your twisted logic, and say to the Eunuch , Just go by what is written, you know, like JohnC does, lo

Can you try and make an honest post, without the foolish and dishonest lies you add?

You criticized my stated belief as just quoting Scripture, which you said anybody coukd do. The next post you said that my stated beluef was foolishness.


Be honest. You believe that God's words in and of itself is foolishness. His words, to you, be ome trie only whin coupled with what men have told you the Bible really teaches.

You present God as a fool who can only be understood through the clarifications of men. God, in your opinion, is incompetent and in need of men to declare what He was really trying to teach.

We disagree because I believe that God's teaching IS His words. I do not believe we need men as vicars of God.

 

[Zaatar71]

You criticized my stated belief as just quoting Scripture, which you said anybody coukd do. The next post you said that my stated beluef was foolishness.


Be honest. You believe that God's words in and of itself is foolishness. His words, to you, be ome trie only whin coupled with what men have told you the Bible really teaches.

You present God as a fool who can only be understood through the clarifications of men. God, in your opinion, is incompetent and in need of men to declare what He was really trying to teach.

We disagree because I believe that God's teaching IS His words. I do not believe we need men as vicars of God.

Here in yet another ungodly dishonest post, John is totally dishonest once again. He cannot post without making an unfounded and false accusation and shows himself to be an accuser of the brethren.

Try and post honestly. Ihave told you at least a dozen times not to do this. You need to repent of this dishonesty.

 

[JonC]

Here in yet another ungodly dishonest post, John is totally dishonest once again. He cannot post without making an unfounded and false accusation and shows himself to be an accuser of the brethren.

Try and post honestly. Ihave told you at least a dozen times not to do this. You need to repent of this dishonesty.

No, not really. I do realize that I have been speaking to you in an insulting way. This is because you do the same with me. But it is not just empty insults.

I sincerely wish that you and I can discuss our beliefs and Scripture. That is why I gave you my belief. I was hoping that we could discuss exactly where we see the other as departing from God's Word.

Anytime you are willing, I will have a legitimate conversation with you about Scripture.

But what I see more often than not are Calvinists trying to DoG pile () on anybody who dares to disagree with them. So the crux of the disagreement is never reached and honest discussion cannot be had.


All Calvinists are not like this. I have had wonderful and meaningful discussions with Calvinistic friends. When I was a Calvinist I had the same with non-Calvinistic friends.

The difference is probably the format. Being online people tend to me more disagreeable than in person.

This is unfortunate because in ways discussing in writing can be more beneficial.

Anyway, if you ever want to have an honest discussion and discuss our beliefs in light of God's words I would welcome the conversation. If you prefer posture and emotional bickering we can do that for a while (until one of us gets bored).

 

[Zaatar71]

No, not really. I do realize that I have been speaking to you in an insulting way. This is because you do the same with me. But it is not just empty insults.

I sincerely wish that you and I can discuss our beliefs and Scripture. That is why I gave you my belief. I was hoping that we could discuss exactly where we see the other as departing from God's Word.

Anytime you are willing, I will have a legitimate conversation with you about Scripture.

But what I see more often than not are Calvinists trying to DoG pile () on anybody who dares to disagree with them. So the crux of the disagreement is never reached and honest discussion cannot be had.


All Calvinists are not like this. I have had wonderful and meaningful discussions with Calvinistic friends. When I was a Calvinist I had the same with non-Calvinistic friends.

The difference is probably the format. Being online people tend to me more disagreeable than in person.

This is unfortunate because in ways discussing in writing can be more beneficial.

Anyway, if you ever want to have an honest discussion and discuss our beliefs in light of God's words I would welcome the conversation. If you prefer posture and emotional bickering we can do that for a while (until one of us gets bored).

We will see what happens moving forward. I see Calvinists being attacked quite often, but not really with scripture. Very few who comment seem to be doing an honest search for truth. I think we should all be doing that.

 

[JonC]

We will see what happens moving forward. I see Calvinists being attacked quite often, but not really with scripture. Very few who comment seem to be doing an honest search for truth. I think we should all be doing that.

I believe we should continuously test our doctrine against Scripture. There should always be room for improvement ("we see as through a glass dimly).

We also need to remember that criticizing a theology is not (should not) be a criticism of the person holding that theology. You and I both fail on that one.

I am very critical of Calvinism because I believe it is wrong, and it is a theology I once believed. Calvinists are often critical of Arminianism because they view it as wrong and many came from that theology.

But yea, I'm ready for a legitimate and honest discussion. I have been wanting one for a decade.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes. If wrath is propitiated it cannot be experienced or expressed because it has been propitiated.

Where is this in the Bible? This is something you have made up for yourself. I have shown you where your theory falls short. Here is my comment again.
To 'propitiate' someone is to turn his anger away and make him 'propitious' towards you. To do that, there usually has to be a 'propitiation.' That is a gift or offering designed to effect the turning away of wrath. You gave the example of buying someone you have offended a lunch. But your argument is that he can look at the lunch, but he can't eat it, because the lunch is the propitiation all on its own; the lunch cannot be both propitiation and 'execution.' That is plainly daft.

You are NOT talking about propitiation. You ate talking about substitution.

I am talking about Propitiation. You don't get to tell me what I'm talking about.

The propitiation is never the object if what is being propitiated. This is by definition of the word.

I don't understand these sentences. Do you mean 'of' rather than 'if'? You really need to check your work before you post it. It's a matter of common politeness.

What we are talking about is ultimately not about God forgiving or punishing the wicked.

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but I am certainly talking about God forgiving or punishing the wicked.

We both believe on the day of wrath the Christian will have been co formed into Christ's image, will have been refined, will have died to sin, will have been made a new creation. There is no guilt because in Christ the "old man" will no longer exist.

So even without the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement God would be just in justifying these new creations, those who are conformed into the image of Christ, snd He would be just in condemning the wicked

Absolutely not! If sinners being conformed into Christ's image is enough for God to forgive them, then there was no need for Christ to suffer and die. Your biggest problem is your 'theory of Penal Substitution' which bears very little resemblance to the actual doctrine. Go back and read the definition of the doctrine which I have posted multiple times, and let's discuss that. But Christ died for the ungodly, and without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. This is straight from the Bible which you claim to follow. Simply co forming [sic] sinners into Christ's image will not satisy God's justice.

What we are ultimately talking about is a 16th century judicial philosophy that subjects the judge to restoring justice via collecting a type of debt.

Why are you talking about the 16th Century if all you are interested in the Bible? However, if you are talking about the Doctrine of Penal Substitution, this is clearly expressed in the Bible and spoken of by many of the ECFs. The doctrine was suppressed by the rise of Roman Catholicism, only partially recovered by Aquinas and missunderstood by Anselm. It was the Reformers and Puritans who went back to the Bible and fully recovered the doctrine despite the attacks upon it by the Socinians, which persist to this day.

In other words, your theory considers justice as a metaphysical force that demands punishment for wrongs.

It's God's 'theory.' I don't know what you mean by a 'metaphysical force' and I suspect you don't either. But what I know is that God set Christ forth as a propitiation in His blood so that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus. If that setting forth had not been done, God would not have been just.

This force cannot be satisfied by God making the wicked a new creation, by removing the old heart and spirit and giving a new heart and spirit, by putting His Spirit in them, by conforming them to the image of Christ, with the death of the "old man", with the person dying to sin, with the person being made righteous in Christ.

Why? Because it is ultimately a force that demands something of God. It demands a debt be paid.

'[God] cannot deny Himself.' (2 Tim. 2:13). Before God can make the wicked a new creation, His justice must be satisfied. That is why Christ has to suffer and die. It what the Bible says, and it is time you accepted it.

The philosophy was used for a couple of centuries in Europe but it failed. It now only survives in religious theories developed during those centuries

This is your philosophy, is it? Denying basic Biblical doctrines like Penal Substitution is a form of liberalism, which has made a wreck of denominations like PCUSA and the Church of England. The churches urgently need to get back to Biblical doctrine, a major part of which is Penal Substitution.

 

[JonC]

Where is this in the Bible? This is something you have made up for yourself. I have shown you where your theory falls short. Here is my comment again.
To 'propitiate' someone is to turn his anger away and make him 'propitious' towards you. To do that, there usually has to be a 'propitiation.' That is a gift or offering designed to effect the turning away of wrath. You gave the example of buying someone you have offended a lunch. But your argument is that he can look at the lunch, but he can't eat it, because the lunch is the propitiation all on its own; the lunch cannot be both propitiation and 'execution.' That is plainly daft.

I am talking about Propitiation. You don't get to tell me what I'm talking about.

I don't understand these sentences. Do you mean 'of' rather than 'if'? You really need to check your work before you post it. It's a matter of common politeness.

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but I am certainly talking about God forgiving or punishing the wicked.

Absolutely not! If sinners being conformed into Christ's image is enough for God to forgive them, then there was no need for Christ to suffer and die. Your biggest problem is your 'theory of Penal Substitution' which bears very little resemblance to the actual doctrine. Go back and read the definition of the doctrine which I have posted multiple times, and let's discuss that. But Christ died for the ungodly, and without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. This is straight from the Bible which you claim to follow. Simply co forming [sic] sinners into Christ's image will not satisy God's justice.

Why are you talking about the 16th Century if all you are interested in the Bible? However, if you are talking about the Doctrine of Penal Substitution, this is clearly expressed in the Bible and spoken of by many of the ECFs. The doctrine was suppressed by the rise of Roman Catholicism, only partially recovered by Aquinas and missunderstood by Anselm. It was the Reformers and Puritans who went back to the Bible and fully recovered the doctrine despite the attacks upon it by the Socinians, which persist to this day.

It's God's 'theory.' I don't know what you mean by a 'metaphysical force' and I suspect you don't either. But what I know is that God set Christ forth as a propitiation in His blood so that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus. If that setting forth had not been done, God would not have been just.

'[God] cannot deny Himself.' (2 Tim. 2:13). Before God can make the wicked a new creation, His justice must be satisfied. That is why Christ has to suffer and die. It what the Bible says, and it is time you accepted it.

This is your philosophy, is it? Denying basic Biblical doctrines like Penal Substitution is a form of liberalism, which has made a wreck of denominations like PCUSA and the Church of England. The churches urgently need to get back to Biblical doctrine, a major part of which is Penal Substitution.

Where in the Bible is it written that red is not blue?

Propitiated wrath cannot be experienced because of the defi itinerary of "propitiation".

Propitiation does not mean "substitute". A propitiation is something that reconciles by removing the obstacle between two parties.


Think of pagan sacrifices (as this is where we most often see the word). They would offer a sacrifice (a propitiation) to propitiate their god's favor. If they are in a drought, they may offer a propitiation for rain. If they believe this drought is due to a god's anger they may offer a propitiation to appease that anger. BUT the propitiation does not become the object of that anger. It propitiates the anger.



BUT YES! Absolutely!!! A propitiated offered to propiate anger does turn away that anger. The anger ceases to exist (it has been propitiated).

Where is this in the Bible? This is something you have made up for yourself. I have shown you where your theory falls short. Here is my comment again.
To 'propitiate' someone is to turn his anger away and make him 'propitious' towards you. To do that, there usually has to be a 'propitiation.' That is a gift or offering designed to effect the turning away of wrath. You gave the example of buying someone you have offended a lunch. But your argument is that he can look at the lunch, but he can't eat it, because the lunch is the propitiation all on its own; the lunch cannot be both propitiation and 'execution.' That is plainly daft.

I am talking about Propitiation. You don't get to tell me what I'm talking about.

I don't understand these sentences. Do you mean 'of' rather than 'if'? You really need to check your work before you post it. It's a matter of common politeness.

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but I am certainly talking about God forgiving or punishing the wicked.

Absolutely not! If sinners being conformed into Christ's image is enough for God to forgive them, then there was no need for Christ to suffer and die. Your biggest problem is your 'theory of Penal Substitution' which bears very little resemblance to the actual doctrine. Go back and read the definition of the doctrine which I have posted multiple times, and let's discuss that. But Christ died for the ungodly, and without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. This is straight from the Bible which you claim to follow. Simply co forming [sic] sinners into Christ's image will not satisy God's justice.

Why are you talking about the 16th Century if all you are interested in the Bible? However, if you are talking about the Doctrine of Penal Substitution, this is clearly expressed in the Bible and spoken of by many of the ECFs. The doctrine was suppressed by the rise of Roman Catholicism, only partially recovered by Aquinas and missunderstood by Anselm. It was the Reformers and Puritans who went back to the Bible and fully recovered the doctrine despite the attacks upon it by the Socinians, which persist to this day.

It's God's 'theory.' I don't know what you mean by a 'metaphysical force' and I suspect you don't either. But what I know is that God set Christ forth as a propitiation in His blood so that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus. If that setting forth had not been done, God would not have been just.

'[God] cannot deny Himself.' (2 Tim. 2:13). Before God can make the wicked a new creation, His justice must be satisfied. That is why Christ has to suffer and die. It what the Bible says, and it is time you accepted it.

This is your philosophy, is it? Denying basic Biblical doctrines like Penal Substitution is a form of liberalism, which has made a wreck of denominations like PCUSA and the Church of England. The churches urgently need to get back to Biblical doctrine, a major part of which is Penal Substitution.

I am talking about the 16th century judicial philosophy because you are assuming it is how divine justice operates.

Much of our disagreement has to do with our ideas of justice.

You and I agree that when God judges (the "day of wrath", "Judgment") that God will seperate people.

One group, "the wicked") has "stored up wrath for themselves for the day of wrath".

The other group will have been "refined", "died to sin", "died to the flesh:, bern "made a new creation in Christ", been "made alive in Christ", "conformed into the image of Christ". This group has no guilt (they are new creations, conformed to the image of Christ". They will live.


So the thing remaining is not how God iz just and the justifier in terms of forgiving the sinner (we both agree on those passages) but a problem of the philosophy of justice one may choose.

Calvin studied a judicial philosophy that treated justice as a metaphysical force and the role of a judge to maintain a judicial balance. A crime equated to a debt that the judge is bound to collect. The focus is not on the criminal or the victim but on meeting the demands justice requires.

I could steal a loaf of bread to feed my starving daughter. If caught, my situation is not a factor. The crime demands a punishment that has to be collected. You could experience that for me and justice would be balanced.

I believe your judicial philosophy is wrong. I do not believe that justice works that way.

God is just in givng life to those who have been conformed to the image of Christ, who have died to sin, who have been recreated in Christ. God is also just in punishing those who stand before Him "on that day" as wicked men.


That is why I being up the 16th century judicial philosophy that John Calvin studied and accepted. It influences how one understands justice. Calvin was a student of Renaissance Humanianism as related to judicial philosophy (he was a student of law). As such, the philosophy he adopted was an adaptation of the Stoic notion of justice (without pantheism).

You can read Calvin's commentary on De clementia for a fuller grasp on his ideas. But ultimately he formed a link between natural and Roman law. Since he viewed natural law as an extention of divine moral law, this judicial philosophy (if correct) had to be divine judicial philosophy.

What I am talking about can be sumerized in Calvin's view that punishment for every crime is necessary "to avenge the violation of the law".


This is the philosophy that you have been using when speaking of God being just. I doubt you studied it aoart from Calvin's theological contributions to your tradition, but the bottoming is I do not believe that this philosophy is valid (I believe it is, as it historically turned out to be, a flawed philosophy to apply to civil law and also that it misconstrues divine justice when applied to God.

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate.

I am trying to offer a better explantation so you can see my point.

Please bear with me and let's make an assumption that Jesus did not experience God's wrath or punishment (just for arguments sake) and see if justice is met.

At Judgment God separates the people.

On one side is the wicked who "store up wrath for themselves" for this very day. God judges them and they are condemned to the "Second Death".

On the other side is the peoole who died to sin, who are at this time "conformed into the image of Chriat", who have been made into new creations in Christ.

God would be unjust to punish the new creation for something the "old man" (who no longer exists) did.


Now....consider why this would be unjust and you have the philosophy that divides us.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@Martin Marprelate.

I am trying to offer a better explantation so you can see my point.

Please bear with me and let's make an assumption that Jesus did not experience God's wrath or punishment (just for arguments sake) and see if justice is met.

At Judgment God separates the people.

On one side is the wicked who "store up wrath for themselves" for this very day. God judges them and they are condemned to the "Second Death".

On the other side is the peoole who died to sin, who are at this time "conformed into the image of Chriat", who have been made into new creations in Christ.

God would be unjust to punish the new creation for something the "old man" (who no longer exists) did.


Now....consider why this would be unjust and you have the philosophy that divides us.

First of all, thank you for simplifying your response. I have a ton of work to do for my church and very little time. Also, my age means that I don't work quite as fast as I used to. I didn't really feel I had the time to plough through your earlier post.

But may I ask you to read your post #48 again and see if something, or more accurately, someone, is not missing?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@Martin Marprelate.

I am trying to offer a better explantation so you can see my point.

Please bear with me and let's make an assumption that Jesus did not experience God's wrath or punishment (just for arguments sake) and see if justice is met.

At Judgment God separates the people.

On one side is the wicked who "store up wrath for themselves" for this very day. God judges them and they are condemned to the "Second Death".

On the other side is the peoole who died to sin, who are at this time "conformed into the image of Chriat", who have been made into new creations in Christ.

God would be unjust to punish the new creation for something the "old man" (who no longer exists) did.


Now....consider why this would be unjust and you have the philosophy that divides us.

Well, I'll put you out of your misery.
Imagine you are driving home to see your Mom. She has promised to make you one of her delicious apple pies. So when you arrive, you can hardly wait to munch your way through it. It looks and smells delicious, but when you take a bite -horrors! She has forgotten to put the apples in! The pastry is as scrumptious as ever; the cinnamon, sugar and other spices are there, but there are no apples. So it's not really apple pie.

And so it is with your gospel. There are some good things in there, but you have left out the prime ingregient - Jesus Christ and Him crucified - and so Paul, who was not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, would be very much ashamed of your gospel.

 

[JesusFan]

You criticized my stated belief as just quoting Scripture, which you said anybody coukd do. The next post you said that my stated beluef was foolishness.


Be honest. You believe that God's words in and of itself is foolishness. His words, to you, be ome trie only whin coupled with what men have told you the Bible really teaches.

You present God as a fool who can only be understood through the clarifications of men. God, in your opinion, is incompetent and in need of men to declare what He was really trying to teach.

We disagree because I believe that God's teaching IS His words. I do not believe we need men as vicars of God.

We hold that we are being led and taught by the Holy Spirit, but we are not inventing any new novel theology, as we are just following what has been seen as orthodox in Church for a very long time

 

[JonC]

First of all, thank you for simplifying your response. I have a ton of work to do for my church and very little time. Also, my age means that I don't work quite as fast as I used to. I didn't really feel I had the time to plough through your earlier post.

But may I ask you to read your post #48 again and see if something, or more accurately, someone, is not missing?

You are welcome.

The entire post assumes Christianity (I was trying to keep ot simple) and merely looking at the concept of justice.

If it helps clarify:

1. The wicked and the people who have been recreated in Christ are the people being separated into groups.
2. The Father is separating these groups.
3. God has placed His Spirit in those who are now recreated.
4. Everything is centered on Christ and dependent on the work of Christ (He became a life giving spirit, He is this Life, it is His righteousness and in His image we are conformed, it was by His blood that we are made anew, etc).


I am looking at this as if you and I are brothers in Christ, holding in Common the gospel of Christ, and establishing where we agree in order to more accurately understand where we depart.

 

[JonC]

Well, I'll put you out of your misery.
Imagine you are driving home to see your Mom. She has promised to make you one of her delicious apple pies. So when you arrive, you can hardly wait to munch your way through it. It looks and smells delicious, but when you take a bite -horrors! She has forgotten to put the apples in! The pastry is as scrumptious as ever; the cinnamon, sugar and other spices are there, but there are no apples. So it's not really apple pie.

And so it is with your gospel. There are some good things in there, but you have left out the prime ingregient - Jesus Christ and Him crucified - and so Paul, who was not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, would be very much ashamed of your gospel.

No, I have not left out Christ and Him crucified. I was adking about the Father being just and justifying sinners to see where we truly departed.

Please, @Martin Marprelate do not twist my question of you into something it wasn't. If you merely want to play "gotcha" games I am not interested (it was fun for a time, but became boring).

My question is simple. We can discuss more fully Christ's work, the Cross, Christ becoming a life giving spirit, etc., but first we need to conclude where we depart when it comes to the issue of divine justice.


Simple question. Very specific - God is just.

At Judgment:

1. He sees the wicked and condemns them.

2. He sees the new creations who now have completely died to their sin and been raised in the image of Christ, their old self ("old man") no longer exists and before God stands men who are protected and are like Christ in such a way that they are His brothers (He being the Firstborn). God does not condemn the righteous, which these new creations in Christ's image are (the "old man" no longer exists). These new creations inherit life.


In terms of divine justice God's judgment against the wicked and the new creations in Christ are just.

What I am asking you is to identify what, in that scenario, is misding in terms of how you understand divine justice so that we can compare where we really differ on the issue.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No, I have not left out Christ and Him crucified. I was adking about the Father being just and justifying sinners to see where we truly departed.

Please, @Martin Marprelate do not twist my question of you into something it wasn't. If you merely want to play "gotcha" games I am not interested (it was fun for a time, but became boring).

My question is simple. We can discuss more fully Christ's work, the Cross, Christ becoming a life giving spirit, etc., but first we need to conclude where we depart when it comes to the issue of divine justice.


Simple question. Very specific - God is just.

At Judgment:

1. He sees the wicked and condemns them.

2. He sees the new creations who now have completely died to their sin and been raised in the image of Christ, their old self ("old man") no longer exists and before God stands men who are protected and are like Christ in such a way that they are His brothers (He being the Firstborn). God does not condemn the righteous, which these new creations in Christ's image are (the "old man" no longer exists). These new creations inherit life.


In terms of divine justice God's judgment against the wicked and the new creations in Christ are just.

What I am asking you is to identify what, in that scenario, is misding in terms of how you understand divine justice so that we can compare whete we really differ on the issue.

No, I have not left out Christ and Him crucified.

I think you'll find you have.

I was adking about the Father being just and justifying sinners to see where we truly departed.

Are we talking about what the Bible says or are we talking about our perceptions of justice. God's justice starts with Him setting Christ forth as a propitiation.

Please, @Martin Marprelate do not twist my question of you into something it wasn't. If you merely want to play "gotcha" games I am not interested (it was fun for a time, but became boring).

You do little else than fire off insults at me. I have twice suggested a truce to you, but you have not replied. However, my post was not a "gotcha" game, whatever that is, it was pointing out that your post excluded Christ, and you can't do that. If that's "gotcha," you been got.

My question is simple. We can discuss more fully Christ's work, the Cross, Christ becoming a life giving spirit, etc., but first we need to conclude where we depart when it comes to the issue of divine justice.

We depart at that very point.

Simple question. Very specific - God is just.

That's not a question, it's a statement.

At Judgment:

1. He sees the wicked and condemns them.

2. He sees the new creations who now have completely died to their sin and been raised in the image of Christ, their old self ("old man") no longer exists and before God stands men who are protected and are like Christ in such a way that they are His brothers (He being the Firstborn). God does not condemn the righteous, which these new creations in Christ's image are (the "old man" no longer exists). These new creations inherit life.

In terms of divine justice God's judgment against the wicked and the new creations in Christ are just.

God sees those who are in Christ. "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out." If people don't come to Christ they are not regenerated, so all this stuff you are talking about is just nonsense unless the Lord Jesus is front and centre. He says, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." The question is, what has He done that has brought these people to the Father. And how is it right for sinners to be justified? How is God reconciled to sinners through Jesus Christ (Romans 5:6-11)?

What I am asking you is to identify what, in that scenario, is misding in terms of how you understand divine justice so that we can compare whete we really differ on the issue.

Christ is missing. God's justice is based on what the Lord Jesus has done on the cross. One more time: "That He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus." Christ's propitiation of the Father is the satisfaction of His outraged justice. It is also the reason that Satan was cast down (Rev.12:10-11). He can no longer enter God's presence (Job 1 & 2; Zech. 3:1-5) to accuse God's people because the Lord Jesus has paid the price for their redemption (Romans 8:31-34).

 

[JonC]

I think you'll find you have.

Are we talking about what the Bible says or are we talking about our perceptions of justice. God's justice starts with Him setting Christ forth as a propitiation.

You do little else than fire off insults at me. I have twice suggested a truce to you, but you have not replied. However, my post was not a "gotcha" game, whatever that is, it was pointing out that your post excluded Christ, and you can't do that. If that's "gotcha," you been got.

We depart at that very point.

That's not a question, it's a statement.

God sees those who are in Christ. "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out." If people don't come to Christ they are not regenerated, so all this stuff you are talking about is just nonsense unless the Lord Jesus is front and centre. He says, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." The question is, what has He done that has brought these people to the Father. And how is it right for siners to be justified? How is God reconciled to sinners through Jesus Christ (Romans 5:6-11)?

Christ is missing. God's justice is based on what the Lord Jesus has done on the cross. One more time: "That He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus." Christ's propitiation of the Father is the satisfaction of His outraged justice. It is also the reason that Satan was cast down (Rev.12:10-11). He can no longer enter God's presence (Job 1 & 2; Zech. 3:1-5) to accuse God's people because the Lord Jesus has paid the price for their redemption (Romans 8:31-34).

We are talking about how each of us define "divine justice" (the ideas we hold and how they may differ).

What we are talking about is the Judgment (on "the day of wrath" or "that day").

Once we determine the difference in our views of justice then we can go back to see how it os achieved.


At Judgment ("on that day") God will separate people as a shepherd separates goats and sheep.

One group are the "wicked who have stored up wrath for themsrlves" for this day.
They will be cast into the Lake of Fire (thos is the "second death").

But the other group are righteous as they have been made new creations, died to sin, been "refined", their old heart snd spirit no longer exist, they have a new spirit and heart, they are conformed to the image of Christ. These will live.


My question is about your view of justice.


God judges the and condemns the wicked but justifies these new creations who are at Judgment in the image of Christ (I think we agree here). That is just.

My question is why would God have to punish the sins of the "old man" if the "old man" will not exist at Judgment because the "new man" is a new creation who has (at Judgment) been conformed to the image of Christ.

I am questioning your judicial philosophy because it seems (without you explaining otherwise) that you are viewing justice as purposed "to avenge the violation of the law".

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate

Do you understand what I am asking?

We both agreed that God is just. But how we understand this playing out in redemption depends on how we view divine justice. If we view it differently then we need to understand and acknowledge our differences, otherwise we just end up talking past one another and never get to the real root of our disagreement.


We agree that God is just abd the justifier of sinners. We agree that this was accomplished through the cross. But what do we mean by "justice"?


So looking forward to when justice is realized - on the Day of Judgment -

1. The wicked are punished (we agree here, I think).

2. The elect at Judgment have been "refined", are at that moment conformed to the image of Christ, are made new creations in Christ. There is therefore no condemnation in Christ. The "wickedness" in us mo longer e ists. The "old man" no longer exists. God os just in justifying us. We are new creations, made to be a holy people, sanctified.

To me that is justice. If we remained wicked at Judgment then God would justly condemn us.
But if we are made new creations, if we have died to sin, if we have been conformed into the image of Christ,
IF God predestined us in Christ for justification and glorification then we are at that time glorified and justified in Christ. There is no just condemnation. We are not the "old man" but the "new creation".


I am asking what you would add to divine justification. The reason I ask is you seem to follow a judicial philosophy that I reject, one that views the purpose of justice as to "avenge the violation of the law".

If you are assuming that judicial philosophy to be divine justice then that may be the foundation of our disagreement.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@Martin Marprelate

Do you understand what I am asking?

I hope so. No doubt you will tell me if I don't. I can't help noticing that you have quoted no Scripture here. this seems to be your own opinion. I would have liked to see how you marry your opinion to the various references to JUdgment in the Bible. But we'll get there, God willing.

We both agreed that God is just. But how we understand this playing out in redemption depends on how we view divine justice. If we view it differently then we need to understand and acknowledge our differences, otherwise we just end up talking past one another and never get to the real root of our disagreement.

OK.

We agree that God is just abd the justifier of sinners. We agree that this was accomplished through the cross.

I am glad to hear this, but it is not clear to me that you agree it, and how exactly you reconcile some of your earlier comments. I shall be glad to hear you on this.

But what do we mean by "justice"?


So looking forward to when justice is realized - on the Day of Judgment -

1. The wicked are punished (we agree here, I think).

2. The elect at Judgment have been "refined", are at that moment conformed to the image of Christ, are made new creations in Christ. There is therefore no condemnation in Christ. The "wickedness" in us mo longer e ists. The "old man" no longer exists. God os just in justifying us. We are new creations, made to be a holy people, sanctified.

To me that is justice. If we remained wicked at Judgment then God would justly condemn us.

This then is where we disagree (that didn't take long, did it?). What you are looking at is the situation after judgment. Even after we are born anew, we are still sinners (Romans 7:7ff; Gal. 5:16-18; 1 John 1:5-10), but 'The blood of Jesus Christ... cleanses us from all sin....... And if anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous' (2:1). 'There is now therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus...' (Romans 8:1).
In the 'Great White Throne Judgment of Rev. 20:11-15, we read that '...The dead were judged according to their works, by the things that were written in the books,' and that '...anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.' We learn from various places that it is the Lord Jesus Christ who will actually be doing the judging (Matt. 16:27; John 5:22; Acts 10:42; 17:31; Rom. 2:16; 14:9; 2 Cor. 5:10). Before I go any further, I would like your comments on what I have written so far.

But if we are made new creations, if we have died to sin, if we have been conformed into the image of Christ,

These are things that have happened to us at the New Birth (2 Cor. 5:17; Rom. 6:2; 2 Cor. 3:18, and yet we still sin.

IF God predestined us in Christ for justification and glorification then we are at that time glorified and justified in Christ. There is no just condemnation. We are not the "old man" but the "new creation".

As I have pointed out, even Christians are still sinners. It is more to the point to say that there is no just acquittal. It is the blood of Jesus that cleanses us from our sins; by His wounds we are healed; the chastisement (NIV, ESV 'punishment') for our peace was upon Him.

I am asking what you would add to divine justification.

I would add nothing to divine justification. It seems to me that you subtract from it because divine justice is entirely based upon the cross (as I have shown in the past and will show again here)

The reason I ask is you seem to follow a judicial philosophy that I reject, one that views the purpose of justice as to "avenge the violation of the law".

If you are assuming that judicial philosophy to be divine justice then that may be the foundation of our disagreement.

I follow the Bible; it seems to me that you don't. Where will you quote me as saying that the purpose of justice is to avenge the violation of the law? I have no recollection of ever writing that. I don't even like to use the term 'judicial philosophy' in connetion with God. He is the very essence of justice. I suppose that Deut. 25:1 might set out divine justice; it is complicated by the fact that 'there is none righteous, no not one.' So if strict justice were applied to mankind there would be no justification for anyone. Hence we have the Lord Jesus Christ being set forth as a propitiation.

 

[JesusFan]

We are talking about how each of us define "divine justice" (the ideas we hold and how they may differ).

What we are talking about is the Judgment (on "the day of wrath" or "that day").

Once we determine the difference in our views of justice then we can go back to see how it os achieved.


At Judgment ("on that day") God will separate people as a shepherd separates goats and sheep.

One group are the "wicked who have stored up wrath for themsrlves" for this day.
They will be cast into the Lake of Fire (thos is the "second death").

But the other group are righteous as they have been made new creations, died to sin, been "refined", their old heart snd spirit no longer exist, they have a new spirit and heart, they are conformed to the image of Christ. These will live.


My question is about your view of justice.


God judges the and condemns the wicked but justifies these new creations who are at Judgment in the image of Christ (I think we agree here). That is just.

My question is why would God have to punish the sins of the "old man" if the "old man" will not exist at Judgment because the "new man" is a new creation who has (at Judgment) been conformed to the image of Christ.

I am questioning your judicial philosophy because it seems (without you explaining otherwise) that you are viewing justice as purposed "to avenge the violation of the law".

God has been storing up for all of us divine wrath based upon our sinning against Him and His Holy law, and that sins MUST be atoned for and provide a surety towards a Holy God Holy wrath against sin
To provide for God the very basis to be able to offer eternal life to any of us as a free gift, someone must die for those sins and face condemnation and judgment. Its either jesus doing that in our stead for us, or we ourselves, no other options!

 

[JesusFan]

I hope so. No doubt you will tell me if I don't. I can't help noticing that you have quoted no Scripture here. this seems to be your own opinion. I would have liked to see how you marry your opinion to the various references to JUdgment in the Bible. But we'll get there, God willing.

OK.

I am glad to hear this, but it is not clear to me that you agree it, and how exactly you reconcile some of your earlier comments. I shall be glad to hear you on this.

This then is where we disagree (that didn't take long, did it?). What you are looking at is the situation after judgment. Even after we are born anew, we are still sinners (Romans 7:7ff; Gal. 5:16-18; 1 John 1:5-10), but 'The blood of Jesus Christ... cleanses us from all sin....... And if anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous' (2:1). 'There is now therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus...' (Romans 8:1).
In the 'Great White Throne Judgment of Rev. 20:11-15, we read that '...The dead were judged according to their works, by the things that were written in the books,' and that '...anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.' We learn from various places that it is the Lord Jesus Christ who will actually be doing the judging (Matt. 16:27; John 5:22; Acts 10:42; 17:31; Rom. 2:16; 14:9; 2 Cor. 5:10). Before I go any further, I would like your comments on what I have written so far.

These are things that have happened to us at the New Birth (2 Cor. 5:17; Rom. 6:2; 2 Cor. 3:18, and yet we still sin.

As I have pointed out, even Christians are still sinners. It is more to the point to say that there is no just acquittal. It is the blood of Jesus that cleanses us from our sins; by His wounds we are healed; the chastisement (NIV, ESV 'punishment') for our peace was upon Him.


I would add nothing to divine justification. It seems to me that you subtract from it because divine justice is entirely based upon the cross (as I have shown in the past and will show again here)

I follow the Bible; it seems to me that you don't. Where will you quote me as saying that the purpose of justice is to avenge the violation of the law? I have no recollection of ever writing that. I don't even like to use the term 'judicial philosophy' in connetion with God. He is the very essence of justice. I suppose that Deut. 25:1 might set out divine justice; it is complicated by the fact that 'there is none righteous, no not one.' So if strict justice were applied to mankind there would be no justification for anyone. Hence we have the Lord Jesus Christ being set forth as a propitiation.

The Atonement "purpose" was to have the Holy Wrath of A Holy God directed towards all of us be appeased and satisfied by the father accepting the blood shed and death of Jesus as surety for all our sins , as that divine Wrath must be accounted for in our theology, as God does not just forget it once we are saved

 

[Zaatar71]

God has been storing up for all of us divine wrath based upon our sinning against Him and His Holy law, and that sins MUST be atoned for and provide a surety towards a Holy God Holy wrath against sin
To provide for God the very basis to be able to offer eternal life to any of us as a free gift, someone must die for those sins and face condemnation and judgment. Its either jesus doing that in our stead for us, or we ourselves, no other options!

If you watch a police show, and there is a judge ruling about two criminals, the criminals are both guilty,but the judges let's one go free, and sends the other one to prison with no chance for parole! You would say that Judge was unjust! This is not rocket science