1JN.2:2...A.W.Pink

[Martin Marprelate]

My point is penal substitution, while not denying that man is reconciled to God, does not present Christ as accomplishing this reconciliation on the Cross. His death, to these theorists, is just that first step.

Your point is wrong. We were reconciled to God by the death of Christ (Romans 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:18). I don't know of any theologian who denies that.

That is what I said.

It isn't what you said. You said that your penal substitution theory does not present Christ as accomplishing reconciliation at the cross. Well your theory may not do so, but the Bible, and the Doctrine of Penal Substitution both do.
[

The death of Christ was not God punishing our sins but the actual reconciliation of man to God, and we urge men to be reconciled to God.

So according to your theory, God was not troubled about justice, He just wanted Christ to die for no particular reason, and then He was happy.

My point is you always speak of the cross as God punishing sins as but never about man actually being reconciled to God.

On the contrary, it is by God's righteous anger against our sins, and His curse upon sinners being satisfied willingly by Christ that we are reconciled. We are reconciled to God by the death of His Son. 'He was pierced for our transgressions; He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him.' He bore our sins and the punishment of them, that we might have peace with God. You can't have peace without reconciliation. Therefore, '...we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ through whom we have now received the reconciliation.'

Christianity does not hold it is our sins that separate us from God but instead that it is that we fall short of God's glory. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God (Romans 8) and sins are the "fruit" of the flesh (Galatians 5).

Come on @JonC; surely you know your Bible better than that? Isaiah 59:1-2. 'Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened that it cannot save; nor is His ear heavy, that it cannot hear. But your iniquities have separated you from your God; and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear.' That is why those who are in the flesh cannot please God. It is precisely because our sins have separated us from God that we need a Saviour; One who will take our sins upon Himself and pay the penalty for them in full.

If Jesus suffered God's punishment for our sins it would not reconcile man to God because we would still fall short of His glory, we would still be of the flesh.

Well the Bible says it does. 'The punishment that brought us peace was upon Him.'

Your theory is too superficial. The cross, the blood of Christ, is too benign in your understanding.

Your theory may be too superficial. The actual Doctrine of Penal Substitution is profound. Too profound, it seems, for you to comprehend.

I have made a copy of this post just in case it should miraculously disappear as one or two posts on this subject have done.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

My My, You really are a one trick pony, aren't you? I have to ask why you want to make the resurrection of no import?

I have never said that the resurrection is of no import and you will not find anywhere that I have said so.

If we were saved by His death then the whole world would be saved as His death covered all our sins.
1Jn 2:2 he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
Could the Holy Spirit have made that any clearer?

Of course we could not have the resurrection without His death on the cross. While He was the propitiation of the sin of the whole of mankind and we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son the reality is that we can only be saved by His life.

This is too boring. Every single thing comes back to your Pelagian views. Penal Substitution is not tied directly to Calvinism. The Wesleyan Methodists believed in P.S. If you want to talk about the extent of the Atonement, there is a forum where you can thresh it to death and leave me out of it.

 

[JonC]

It isn't what you said. You said that your penal substitution theory does not present Christ as accomplishing reconciliation at the cross. Well your theory may not do so, but the Bible, and the Doctrine of Penal Substitution both do.
[

So according to your theory, God was not troubled about justice, He just wanted Christ to die for no particular reason, and then He was happy.

On the contrary, it is by God's righteous anger against our sins, and His curse upon sinners being satisfied willingly by Christ that we are reconciled. We are reconciled to God by the death of His Son. 'He was pierced for our transgressions; He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him.' He bore our sins and the punishment of them, that we might have peace with God. You can't have peace without reconciliation. Therefore, '...we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ through whom we have now received the reconciliation.'

Come on @JonC; surely you know your Bible better than that? Isaiah 59:1-2. 'Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened that it cannot save; nor is His ear heavy, that it cannot hear. But your iniquities have separated you from your God; and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear.' That is why those who are in the flesh cannot please God. It is precisely because our sins have separated us from God that we need a Saviour; One who will take our sins upon Himself and pay the penalty for them in full.

Well the Bible says it does. 'The punishment that brought us peace was upon Him.'

Your theory may be too superficial. The actual Doctrine of Penal Substitution is profound. Too profound, it seems, for you to comprehend.

I have made a copy of this post just in case it should miraculously disappear as one or two posts on this subject have done.

No, you don't understand.

According to my view justice is not legal justice (your philosophy is wrong).

God is just. This includes not not punishing the righteous and not clearing the unrighteous.

I disagree that righteousness is the law. Instead I believe that the law was one manifestation of God's righteousness, but the New Covenant is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law.

Where you insust that justice is accomplished by punishing crimes (even if apart from punishing the criminial) I view justice as a restoration of a righteous (a just) state.

So if a judge punishes you for my crime I would say justice has not been served even though the law was avenged.

But if the judge somehow makes me just, makes me not guilty but a new person, then justice is acvomplished without punishing my crime.


God and evil is not reconciled even if the righteous is punished for what the evil has done.

Justice is not as superficial as you make it out to be.

The blood of Christ is of more value than you will allow.

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate

Our sins show us that we are sinners. Sins do not make us sinners. We sin because we are sinners.

We sin because we fall short of the glory of God. Sins are the fruit of a mind set on the flesh (Gal 5).

Our sins seperaye us ftom God in that our sins show us who we are.

What is the penalty (under God's law) for theft? Exodus 22 tells us. It is the thieg paying the value of what was stolen back to the individual. That is not punishment, per se, but it is justice.

Your philosophy is that the judge must collect the amount (it does not matter who pays) because that is what the law demands.
But that is false.

The law actually demands that the thief forfeit what was stolen and it be returned to the owner.

Your philosophy of justice is wrong.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Since the reformation time, and indeed way before that time, conservative Christians have held to the Psa atonement view as the primary on

Although not categorized or labeled plainly and given that sort of designation like PSA, all the Holy Prophets in the Old Testament were PSA when they were Inspired to write the Messianic Prophcies. Dig that.

 

[Silverhair]

I have never said that the resurrection is of no import and you will not find anywhere that I have said so.

I said "Sure the cross comes first but we do not stop at the cross do we. Without the resurrection none can be saved. It is not Christ on the cross or Christ in the grave but the risen Christ that saves." And your reply was to say that was a one trick pony.

Isn't your calvinist view that we are saved at the cross, that Christ only died for the "elect"?

Paul disagrees with your view Rom 5:10. 'For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.'

This is too boring. Every single thing comes back to your Pelagian views. Penal Substitution is not tied directly to Calvinism. The Wesleyan Methodists believed in P.S. If you want to talk about the extent of the Atonement, there is a forum where you can thresh it to death and leave me out of it.

Do you find it boring because I do not just accept what you say or because you do not like the fact scripture shows the error of your position?

Are you now calling the biblical views Pelagian? I could call your views Gnostic based on historical facts to show that is the basis of calvinist thought.

But why go there. We were having a discussion on Rom 5:6-11

I do not care who holds to PSA. It is a way that people have come to understand salvation just as the other views have done.

 

[Zaatar71]

I said "Sure the cross comes first but we do not stop at the cross do we. Without the resurrection none can be saved. It is not Christ on the cross or Christ in the grave but the risen Christ that saves." And your reply was to say that was a one trick pony.

Isn't your calvinist view that we are saved at the cross, that Christ only died for the "elect"?

Paul disagrees with your view Rom 5:10. 'For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.'




Do you find it boring because I do not just accept what you say or because you do not like the fact scripture shows the error of your position?

Are you now calling the biblical views Pelagian? I could call your views Gnostic based on historical facts to show that is the basis of calvinist thought.

But why go there. We were having a discussion on Rom 5:6-11

I do not care who holds to PSA. It is a way that people have come to understand salvation just as the other views have done.

Silverhair chooses to ignore that rom.5:1 is speaking of the justified elect, who have peace with God.

 

[Silverhair]

Silverhair chooses to ignore that rom.5:1 is speaking of the justified elect, who have peace with God.

@Zaatar71 you need to learn how to read. I do not see "elect" in that verse. I think you need to get a better translation as that one seems to have a lot of mistakes in it.

Rom 5:1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
Rom 5:2 through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.

Now those two phrases disprove your false religion. Remember it is your particular view that requires you be given faith after you are saved.

 

[Zaatar71]

@Zaatar71 you need to learn how to read. I do not see "elect" in that verse.

Do you see born again in the verse?

I think you need to get a better translation as that one seems to have a lot of mistakes in it.

The mistake here is you do not start at verse one. Anyone who understands verse one would start there and walk down verse by verse to understand vs. 5--11. It has been explained and posted several times, but evidently it is you who need to "learn how to read". Even after it is pointed out to you, you do not understand it.

Rom 5:1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

The therefore points back to what we call charter 4, which explains what Justification is,

Rom 5:2 through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.

people are saved by, or through faith, never because of faith in scripture.

Now those two phrases disprove your false religion. Remember it is your particular view that requires you be given faith after you are saved.

They do not disprove anything, as that is the biblical view which we believe, it shows that you are yet without understanding.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No, you don't understand.

I think I understand very well. You have repeated yourself often enough.

According to my view justice is not legal justice (your philosophy is wrong).

According to my view, which is aligned with Scripture, God is a just Judge ( 2 Tim. 4:8; Psalm 7:11 again!). He is also the Judge of all the world who will do what is right (Genesis 18:25; c.f. also James 4:12), will judge His people (Deut. 32:36; Heb. 10:30). In the Person of Christ, He will judge the living and the dead (2 Tim. 4:1) and is the Judge of all (Heb. 12:23). Perhaps it is your philosophy that is wrong

God is just. This includes not not punishing the righteous and not clearing the unrighteous.

Indeed so; that is one reason why God Himself, in the Person of Jesus Christ, paid the penalty for our sin

I disagree that righteousness is the law. Instead I believe that the law was one manifestation of God's righteousness, but the New Covenant is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law.

The New Covenant is God not punishing our sins yet still being righteous, because He, the Lawgiver, has Himself paid the penalty for our sins, not only upholding His own law, but establishing it. 'Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law!' It also shuts the mouth of Satan, the accuser of the brethren. 'What shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? [not Satan; that's for sure] It is Christ who died, and furthermore is risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.' Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?' (Rom. 8:31-35a). The whole of salvation is about the Lord Jesus Christ. It is He who gave the law; it is He who has kept it perfectly, magnifying it and making it honourable; it is He who has borne our sins to satisfy God's justice, offering the one acceptable sacrifice for sins (Heb. 7:27); it is He who has risen from the tomb, and it is He who has ascended into heaven, there to intercede with the Father on our behalf.

Where you insust that justice is accomplished by punishing crimes (even if apart from punishing the criminial) I view justice as a restoration of a righteous (a just) state.

That may well be your philosophy, but it is not God's. Read Psalm 5:4-6.

So if a judge punishes you for my crime I would say justice has not been served even though the law was avenged.

I'm not sure I care too much what you say; I am more interested in what God says.

But if the judge somehow makes me just, makes me not guilty but a new person, then justice is acvomplished without punishing my crime.

It obviously isn't. It would not have satisfied the martyrs in Rev. 6:9-10. "How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?" It would not satisfy those today who have been assualted, raped and/or maimed to hear the judge at their trial say, "The accused has undergone a thorough course of rehabilitaion, and therefore will never commit these crimes against anyone again. Therefore he does not need to be punished for the crimes he committed against you. Case dismissed.

God and evil is not reconciled even if the righteous is punished for what the evil has done.

You may think that, but God says otherwise. See Romans 8:31ff which I have quoted above.

Justice is not as superficial as you make it out to be.

The blood of Christ is of more value than you will allow.

Yeah, yeah! Cheap jibes. You are the one who is making the cross of no effect, not I. You're wrong; get over it.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I said "Sure the cross comes first but we do not stop at the cross do we. Without the resurrection none can be saved. It is not Christ on the cross or Christ in the grave but the risen Christ that saves." And your reply was to say that was a one trick pony.

I called you a one trick pony because you don't seem to have anything to say that does not come down to "Cal vs. Arm." I am an unapologetic Calvinist, but I have said everything I want to say on that matter on various threads, and it would be nice to discuss something else.

Isn't your calvinist view that we are saved at the cross, that Christ only died for the "elect"?

Paul disagrees with your view Rom 5:10. 'For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.'

It is certainly my view that we were saved at the cross. But salvation is not compartmented or salami-sliced. We are equally saved at the resurrection; had our Lord not been raised, He would have been just another good man killed by the wicked. But He was 'declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead.' We are also saved by His ascension as I said to you. Had He not ascended, the Holy Spirit would not have come (John 16:7; Acts 2:33). If you think that the cross is somehow of lesser importance, you need to ask yourself why Paul wrote 1 Cor. 2:2.

Do you find it boring because I do not just accept what you say or because you do not like the fact scripture shows the error of your position?

Are you now calling the biblical views Pelagian? I could call your views Gnostic based on historical facts to show that is the basis of calvinist thought.

But why go there. We were having a discussion on Rom 5:6-11

I do not care who holds to PSA. It is a way that people have come to understand salvation just as the other views have done.

I find it boring because it has been discussed ad nauseam, and I'm sick of it. I called your views Pelagian because they seem to resemble those of Pelagius rather than those of Arminius.
You were having a discussion on Rom. 5:6-11. The thread is about A.W. Pink's understanding of 1 John 2:2. God willing, it will be closed shortly.