What do these things actually mean to you? Why did Christ have to suffer and die if God can just ignore His own law and make us new creations without an atonement? Exactly what healing do we have by His stripes?
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
1JN.2:2...A.W.Pink
- Thread starter Zaatar71
- Start date
Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil.
God does not ignore His law. The New Covenant is a manifestation of His righteousness apart from the law.
The law never required that God punish each sin. God will cast out (punish) the wicked.
The serpant strikes His heel. It is by His stripes, His suffering, and His death that He broke the power of Satan with the Resurrection.
You deny several. You deny that God forgives sins (you call punishing sins "forgiving sins" if Jesus is the One punished).
You deny that the Atonement is apart from the law.
You deny that the law offers no redemption but shows us that we have fallen short of God's glory by showing us our sins manifestation by that state.
Ascetic X
Member
Martin Marprelate said:
“No again. God's wrath is not to do with His personal feelings, but with His justice. It is a legal wrath (Psalm 7:11).”
Permit me to jump in here merely to address an issue that I have pondered for years. I used to think the wrath of God was just the absence of God. But now that seems too abstract and definitionally deficient.
God’s wrath, in my view, is very much to do with His personal feelings. A “legal wrath” makes no sense to me. When have you ever seen an angry law? The Bible never states that the law of God is angry, but that God Himself is angry. And that wrath can be full of explosive fury, as seen in the book of Revelation in particular. Thankfully, He is long-suffering and merciful, too.
Being Spirit does not mean completely void of feelings or absolutely unemotional. That concept of “divine impassibility” (unchangeableness) is found only in dusty tomes of over-intellectualized scholastic theologians.
We are created in the image of God, which includes having feelings, as well as reason. God’s personal feelings are not exactly like ours, but are similar. God’s nature never changes, but His feelings can go from being pleased to being perturbed. If He never changes emotionally, is God perpetually in just one emotion, being stuck in wrath or happiness?
Jesus, the perfect expression of God, was emotional, for He felt love, sympathized with sheep who had no shepherd, got angry at Pharisees, went ballistic in cleansing the temple, expressed anguish in the garden of Gethsemani, groaned, and wept.
I said all this because recognizing the emotions of God has made me more careful about doing only what will make God happy and not irritable with me personally. This makes my relationship with God more realistic, and not so theoretical, intellectual, or abstract.
“No again. God's wrath is not to do with His personal feelings, but with His justice. It is a legal wrath (Psalm 7:11).”
Permit me to jump in here merely to address an issue that I have pondered for years. I used to think the wrath of God was just the absence of God. But now that seems too abstract and definitionally deficient.
God’s wrath, in my view, is very much to do with His personal feelings. A “legal wrath” makes no sense to me. When have you ever seen an angry law? The Bible never states that the law of God is angry, but that God Himself is angry. And that wrath can be full of explosive fury, as seen in the book of Revelation in particular. Thankfully, He is long-suffering and merciful, too.
Being Spirit does not mean completely void of feelings or absolutely unemotional. That concept of “divine impassibility” (unchangeableness) is found only in dusty tomes of over-intellectualized scholastic theologians.
We are created in the image of God, which includes having feelings, as well as reason. God’s personal feelings are not exactly like ours, but are similar. God’s nature never changes, but His feelings can go from being pleased to being perturbed. If He never changes emotionally, is God perpetually in just one emotion, being stuck in wrath or happiness?
Jesus, the perfect expression of God, was emotional, for He felt love, sympathized with sheep who had no shepherd, got angry at Pharisees, went ballistic in cleansing the temple, expressed anguish in the garden of Gethsemani, groaned, and wept.
I said all this because recognizing the emotions of God has made me more careful about doing only what will make God happy and not irritable with me personally. This makes my relationship with God more realistic, and not so theoretical, intellectual, or abstract.
Last edited:
I agree that wrath in the legal sense makes no sense. This would be forensic.
More to the point, the role of the law was not reconciliation of God and man. The law showed "fruit", whether of the flesh or Spirit. It addressed behavior rather than the heart that produced that behavior.
With our redemption God addressed the heart, and our rebirth ultimately fulfilled the law.
The problem with the theory being discussed (in addition to it being extra-biblical) is it assumes divine justice is legal justice despite what Scripture proclaims. It treats God as balancing the books like one balances an accounting ledger. It is too superficial - a mile wide but an inch deep.
Last edited:
@Ascetic X
It seems that the problem many here have is the same problem the pharisees had...maybe even more severe because they reject even their understanding of divine justice.
The Pharisees could not come to terms with the idea that men would be saved apart from the law.
Now, Nicodemus had this problem. But he understood what @Martin Marprelate can't. When Jesus explained how one could be saved in a way that fulfilled the law Nicodemus seems to have understood the implications.
His question was not how the law would be fulfilled from outside of the law but how one could be born again (or from above). I think Jesus' answer was sufficient.
@Martin Marprelate has applied a philosophy called "legal humanism" as divine justice. This is a type of legal justice developed in 16th century France (and held by John Calvin). This is why Cslvin's theory of atonement assumes this to be divine justice. He understood it as justice.
Basically this justice was not concerned with reducing crime, with the criminal or the victim. It was concerned with (to borrow from Calvin) avenging the law.
A crime creates a debt in the law that must be collected. How is it collected? Doesn't matter, as long as it is collected. The judge is responsible for balancing the deficit.
It is literally an accounting system.
But here comes God who's righteousness is not the law itself (the law was one manifestation of righteousness, the New Covenant a manifestation of the same righteousness apart from the law).
And God throws a monkey wrench in man's philosophy.
God will condemn the wicked. So Calvin says God put the sins of the wicked on Jesus and punished them there.
But what did God do? He made the wicked into new creations, made them lay aside their corrupt selves. Made them into Christ's image.
The reason @Martin Marprelate and his sect cannot accept this is because it does not meet the demands of their philosophy. They want God to punish sins, even if thus can't be on the actual sinners because he is at judgment sinless.
Ultimately they see God as enslaved to their philosophy.
But read the law. Nothing in the law prohibits God from forgiving sins.
And even more important - the law just shows us our fruit (sins as the fruit of a mind set on the flesh). The law never addressed the problem that produces sin - we have fallen short of the glory of God.
It seems that the problem many here have is the same problem the pharisees had...maybe even more severe because they reject even their understanding of divine justice.
The Pharisees could not come to terms with the idea that men would be saved apart from the law.
Now, Nicodemus had this problem. But he understood what @Martin Marprelate can't. When Jesus explained how one could be saved in a way that fulfilled the law Nicodemus seems to have understood the implications.
His question was not how the law would be fulfilled from outside of the law but how one could be born again (or from above). I think Jesus' answer was sufficient.
@Martin Marprelate has applied a philosophy called "legal humanism" as divine justice. This is a type of legal justice developed in 16th century France (and held by John Calvin). This is why Cslvin's theory of atonement assumes this to be divine justice. He understood it as justice.
Basically this justice was not concerned with reducing crime, with the criminal or the victim. It was concerned with (to borrow from Calvin) avenging the law.
A crime creates a debt in the law that must be collected. How is it collected? Doesn't matter, as long as it is collected. The judge is responsible for balancing the deficit.
It is literally an accounting system.
But here comes God who's righteousness is not the law itself (the law was one manifestation of righteousness, the New Covenant a manifestation of the same righteousness apart from the law).
And God throws a monkey wrench in man's philosophy.
God will condemn the wicked. So Calvin says God put the sins of the wicked on Jesus and punished them there.
But what did God do? He made the wicked into new creations, made them lay aside their corrupt selves. Made them into Christ's image.
The reason @Martin Marprelate and his sect cannot accept this is because it does not meet the demands of their philosophy. They want God to punish sins, even if thus can't be on the actual sinners because he is at judgment sinless.
Ultimately they see God as enslaved to their philosophy.
But read the law. Nothing in the law prohibits God from forgiving sins.
And even more important - the law just shows us our fruit (sins as the fruit of a mind set on the flesh). The law never addressed the problem that produces sin - we have fallen short of the glory of God.
He has a pattern of repeating obvious verses that no one is disputing, then he tries to slip in his nonsensical falsehoods among the verses, and say, look I go by what is written,lol
Don't be so hard on Martin. He cannot distinguish his understanding from Scripture.
We were both speaking of you JohnC, we did not want to embarrass you so we did not call you by name.
Oh...not me. I provided passages without any commentary and you called that "foolishness", just Scripture and "anybody can quote Scripture".
I asked you how you tested your faith if not by God's words. You said by men you consider to be God given teachers and confessions of your sect.
This is a falsehood again. We have all seen you do this! Do you think you can fool us? You and your accusations are pathetically sad. Thanks for reminding us of the doctrine of total depravity and how all encompassing it is.
If you were joking, it is not funny. Your posts are the joke.
There was a time when @JonC used to write reams of Scripture that had nothing to do with the issue without comment, and then pretend they did; but now he doesn't quote any Scripture but pretends that he draws all his philosophy from it.
Sad!
Psalm 7:11.
You called my stated belief Scripture without explanation and said anybody can quote Scriptute. In that SAME REPLY you calked my stated belief foolishness.
Why? Because I do not follow your standard - the Reformed confessions of faith (your true "scripture").
You forget Psalm 7:8.
God is a righteous judge (Psalm 7:11).
It is your philosophy of justice that is ungodly.
Well it is here for anyone to see.You could be posting about end times, and he could quote a chapter in 1 kings, and declare I believe what is written! Then post his ideas as if now his ideas were okay? Once you see what he does, it makes you wonder why??? No one else does it!
The other men who run this site do not do that. It is strange that he needs to do such things.
Everyday he insults you with no reason, he is obsessed with you
You are now confusing posting scripture which is always fine..contrasted with your ideas, which are foolish and unbiblical.
Allow me to help you .Quoting scripture is good! Your ideas are foolishness to the Max! Is that clearer for you?
Why, because you oppose yourself and the scriptures offered by godly men that you explain away.You try and do it everyday. people have asked you not to do it, yet you persist. You are free to offer your nonsense, we a re free to reject it as nonsense.
Well, if nothing else I've got you to read Psalm 7.
I don't really expect you to comprehend it.
Yea....we will never agree but we do get to read a lot of passages.Well, if nothing else I've got you to read Psalm 7.