Atonement Theories

[Martin Marprelate]

If, on the other hand, you're going to say that God the Father actually abandoned Him, actually turned His back on Him, which is what R. C. Sproul and many others say and which indicates a much different thing, then we will find exactly zero agreement, because this is blasphemy either against the Trinity proper (if located in His divinity, making it tri- or bi-theism, and also introducing change into the changless), or against the Incarnation (if located in His humanity, making it Nestorianism/two-subject Christology).

Well then we shall have exactly zero agreement, because this is precisely the area of discussion. The question is whether one can change "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" into "My God, My God, you haven't forsaken Me," which is essentially saying that a horse chestnut is really a chestnut horse.

We're also going to have zero agreement if you think that whatever the Father willed was an internal mechanism to Himself, to enable Himself to forgive sins, without which He could not otherwise do so. The Scripture is quite clear (over and over again) that God does whatever He wants. The Cross is properly the revelation of the righteousness and mercy of God -- not the mechanism by which God makes Himself righteous or enables Himself to be merciful.

The Bible tells us that there are indeed certain things that God cannot do. He cannot lie (Numbers 23:19; Titus 1:2), and more pertinently for this discussion, He cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13).

 

[Steve Allen]

The question is whether one can change "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" into "My God, My God, you haven't forsaken Me,"

Quite easily: The same way the Psalm itself does.

My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?
...
For He hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted;
neither hath He hid His face from Him;
but when He cried unto Him, He heard.

It's called context and not cherry-picking, and understanding the perspective of the narrator/person quoting (David & Jesus).

This is easily resolved by reference to the experience of the person praying, where it seems to him (and, frankly, to all the onlookers), as though God has forsaken him. And it is in precisely this moment that the trial is the most sincere: Here is where he will either keep faith and bless the LORD, or else bring an accusation against Him.

And so he cries out to God with the voice of the Psalm, acknowledging his limitation and then remembering the days of old, and pondering on the works of His hands, learning obedience by the things which He suffers, even unto death.

So I could even come to agreement with you if you were able to limit the "abandonment of the Father" to the context of the experience of the situation's quality by the rational human nature assumed by the Word. But if you are going to insist on going beyond and making Ps. 22:1, and Jesus' use of it from the Cross, into a statement of absolute reality in terms of the Father's actual relationship to Him, I cannot go there at all.

Then said Jesus unto them, "When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. And He that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please Him."

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I think it may be helpful to think out a little further what we mean by the presence of God
As they say on cookery programmes, here's something I prepared earlier, on my blog:

The presence of God can be understood in four ways.

Firstly, God is everywhere; He is ‘omni-present.’ This is one of His ‘incommunicable attributes,’ meaning that it is something that He is that mankind never can be. ‘”Do I not fill heaven and earth?” Says the LORD’ (Jer. 23:24). The Locus Classicus for this doctrine is Psalm 139:7-12, but it is found all through the Bible. God is not only present in this sense with believers, but with all mankind. Paul could tell the pagan philosophers in Athens, “…..He is not far from each one of us’ (Acts 17:27). I have heard atheists joke that at least in hell they won’t be bothered with God any more, but that isn’t strictly true. They will indeed know nothing of His blessing or His guidance through all eternity, but that does not mean that they will be free of Him. ‘’If anyone worships the beast and his image………he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb’ (Rev. 14:9-10).

Secondly, there was the Shekinah Glory which was the visible presence of God in the Pillar of Cloud and the Pillar of Fire that led the Israelites through the desert (Exod. 13:21-22). In Exodus 33, Moses pleaded with God not to withdraw His presence from the people. “If Your presence does not go with us, do not bring us up from here. For how then will it be known that Your people and I have found grace in Your sight unless You go with us?” (vs. 15-16). It was also the presence of God in the Temple (2 Chron. 7:1-2) until Ezekiel saw it withdraw shortly before the destruction of the Temple because of the sins of the Israelites (Ezek. 10). This glory was something external to the people. God had made His dwelling-place among them, but not within them, and it had no power to conform them to God’s righteous requirements and therefore they fell into sin.

Thirdly, God indwells His people today (John 14:23-24). When someone is born again, God makes His home within his heart by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19). This is not necessarily something experiential, but it is permanent and unchangeable, ‘For He Himself has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you”’ (Heb. 13:5), and, ‘The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable’ (Rom. 11:29). This presence of God is not confined to the New Testament. The O.T. saints who looked forward to the coming of the Messiah also possessed it. When David had committed sins for which the Mosaic Law offered no forgiveness (Lev. 15:30-31), He was able to go directly to God and plead for mercy (Psalm 51).

Fourthly, there is the felt presence of God; our experience of God’s indwelling. ‘For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God’ (Rom. 8:15-16). The Christian should ‘walk in the Spirit’ (Gal. 5:16)- that is, he should live his life in the consciousness of being a child of God. But there are times when the Holy Spirit comes alongside us and whispers to us, “You believe you are a child of God? Well, I’m telling you that you are one.”

So is this felt presence of God something that is regular and permanent, or does it come and go? Well, I think the experience of the saints is that God sometimes seems very near, and sometimes distressingly far away. The Psalmist cries out, “Return, O LORD! How long [will it be]?” (Psalm 90:13). There would be no point in asking God to return, if He was always present in exactly the same way. We are instructed, ‘Draw near to God and He will draw near to you’ (James 4:8). How could God draw near if He is always at the same distance? Is it not your own experience, if you are a Christian, that sometimes God seems so near that praise and prayer and worship just pours out of you, but at other times, and all too often, the heavens seem as brass and you have to push yourself to express your love to God as you should? This lack of, and yearning for, experiential fellowship with God is found in Psalm 42. ‘As the deer pants for the water brooks, so pants my soul for You, O God. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and appear before God?’ When David fell into sin, he lost the close fellowship with God that he had known. He could not lose God altogether, but he had lost His felt presence. Therefore he cried out, “Do not cast me away from Your presence, and do not take Your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of your salvation, and uphold me by Your generous Spirit’ (Psalm 51:11-12).

Very often the loss of God’s felt presence is our own fault. As James 4:8 suggests, it is we who have wandered away from Him into our own Bypath Meadows, and quenched the Holy Spirit (1 Thes. 5:19) by our worldliness, or grieved Him (Eph. 4:30) by our petty sins and perfunctory repentance. The Holy Spirit is just that- holy. He will not remain in close contact where there is sin without true repentance. This temporary withdrawal is designed to bring the errant Christian back to Him. ‘For His anger is but for a moment; His favour is for life; weeping may endure for a night, but joy comes in the morning’ (Psalm 30:5).

But at other times, the loss of this experiential relationship with God has nothing to do with our sinfulness. It seems that God at times withdraws His felt presence from us to test us, so that we may know what it is truly to walk by faith. ‘The crucible for silver and the furnace for gold, but the LORD tests the hearts’ (Prov. 17:3). When God seems so far away, will we trust in Him and worship Him still in spirit and in truth, or will we seek substitutes for Him as the Israelites did with the golden calf? ‘Who among you fears the LORD? Who obeys the voice of His Servant? Who walks in darkness and has no light? Let Him trust in the name of the LORD and rely upon his God. Look, all you who kindle a fire; who encircle yourselves with sparks: walk in the light of your fire and in the sparks you have kindled- this you shall have from My hand: you shall lie down in torment’ (Isaiah 50:10-11).

So let us now turn our minds to the words of the Lord Jesus Christ upon the cross. “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?’ In what way was our Lord forsaken by the Father? Surely it can only be in in the way of the loss of the Father’s felt presence. It goes without saying that the three Persons of the Trinity must always have enjoyed the closest relationship. ‘He [Christ] was in the beginning with God’ (John 1:2). ‘When He marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside Him as a master craftsman; and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him’ (Prov. 8:29-30). And the Lord Jesus could say, “And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that please Him’ (John 8:29; cf. also John 16:32; 17:23-26).

But there on the cross, the Son is left utterly alone. Why did The Father remove His felt presence from Him? Was it to test Him? Or was it because of sin? Without doubt it was the latter. God had no reason to test His Son, although He was indeed tested when He faced the devil in the desert and resisted Him faithfully. No, it was because of sin that the Father forsook His sinless Son. He was the sin-bearer; ‘For [God] made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him’ (2 Cor. 5:21). There on the cross, God laid all our sins upon the Saviour’s sinless shoulders and He paid the penalty in full. Part of that penalty is separation from God. ‘These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power’ (2 Thes. 1:9). As described earlier, the wicked in hell will know nothing of God’s presence but His abiding wrath. This is the sentence we all deserve (Rom. 3:9), and so Christ endured upon the cross something He had never known before- utter loneliness; the silence of heaven; total separation from His Father. He endured our hell that we might gain His heaven, saved by grace at measureless cost. Because He was deserted, His people will never be deserted. Because He has suffered, not one of those for whom He died will undergo the suffering their sins deserve. What a Saviour, who, when there was nothing in us to recommend us to Him, ‘died for the ungodly’ (Rom. 5:6)! What a God, ‘who did not spare His own Son, but gave Him up for us all’ (Rom. 8:32)!

From The Presence of God and the Desertion of Christ

 

[Martin Marprelate]

So I could even come to agreement with you if you were able to limit the "abandonment of the Father" to the context of the experience of the situation's quality by the rational human nature assumed by the Word.

Would you please explain this to me in more simple language? Thanks! Abandonment seems to me to be rather like pregnancy; either one is or one isn't.

 

[JonC]

Part 1 of 4
----


Well, let's not jump to conclusions quite yet. We can agree at the point that they will share in the cup of Christ's sufferings.



I'm quite pleased I don't have to explain this idea to you. (You'd be surprised how many people don't understand this basic idea.) It will be important. Note for now the word "fellowship" in your answer: koinonia. We'll use it later.

But first we have to uproot and utterly destroy -- root and branch -- this utterly blasphemous idea that Jesus became a sinner in the hands of an angry God so that whatever He was going to do to us, well I guess He's just all out of juice now.



Good, good. (Would you say that James and John "fully underwent" the "certain experience" that Jesus did, in your scheme?)



Agreed.



This is an unsupported assertion thus far. It also happens to be the question at hand (i.e. "Which cup is that?"), so unless you're just restating for review, you're begging the question.

However, for the sake of the discussion, I can pass over this unsubstantiated leap. For now. And (again) conditional on the rest of my viewpoint, of course.



But here's where it begins to unravel. This is the crux of the matter.

No one is arguing that the cup Jesus was given to drink didn't involve suffering and death. The question is whether the cup was more than that, and whether God's anger against sin had to be satisfied or propitiated by fulfillment in action against someone ("someone has to pay!") or whether these terms, insofar as they might be found in Scripture, can be understood in some sense that doesn't end in disaster theologically, and, if I may say, spiritually and practically. (See and consider the spiritual state of those regions which embrace such things (by their fruits you shall know them).

Now here you bring in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 (I assume you meant 2nd, and not 1st, since bringing in 1 Thess. 1:9 makes no sense whatsoever that I can see) as support for this idea that the punishment of the End includes separation from God (the Father) as the condition of punishment. However, this verse does not support that concept directly. Rather, it only says that the destruction will come from the presence of the Lord, and from His glory. (Like destruction of skin [i.e. sunburn] comes from the face of the sun, and its glory.)

You are reading it as, "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction by being cast away from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." But the words I've placed in italics there is are not in the text, and when read without them it gives the sense I said above. This is resonant with verses like Job 21:20, 30; Isaiah 2:10, 19, 21 cf. Rev. 6:12-17; Joel 1:15; Ps. 34:15 cf. 1 Pet. 3:12; Ps. 97:5; 114:7, 8; Jer. 4:19-26; all of Zephaniah [note particularly 1:7], in the same sense as Acts 3:19 (cf. 2 Pet. 310-13 for the full context of "refreshing"). Furthermore, there is no "being cast away from the presence of the Lord", since (as we Orthodox pray) He is everywhere present and filling all things, and at that time His eternal glory and power will be manifest in full to the entire universe. (This is why it's called "the revelation" -- or, "the unveiling" -- of Jesus Christ. Peter, James, and John got a glimpse of this at the Transfiguration, but only insofar as they could bear it.)

David, for this reason, observes:



So the punishment coming from the face of the Lord cannot be separation from the Father, for "every eye shall see Him, and they also which pierced Him: and all the kindreds of the earth shall wail because of Him", and "if you have seen me, you have seen the Father", and "then cometh the end, when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He shall have put down all rule and authority and power ... And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."

So there will be no separation from the Father!

Therefore the cup that God will pour out on sinners at the End cannot have that in it. Therefore even if we grant that it's the same cup that Jesus drinks -- even if the bit is true about Jesus being the whipping boy for God's anger that has to have a target and all that -- separation from the Father is not part of it.


In fact, the opposite will be the case: the Father will be all in all in a perichoretic way, full of love. (Don't take this to mean that all will experience this as pleasant, btw. Love, to those who reject it, is a burning coal. For "if thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: for thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the LORD shall reward thee." And again, "love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave: the coals thereof are coals of fire, which hath a most vehement flame.")



Let's stick to what's written, shall we? We are fairly certain and mutually agreed that the drinking of the cup (contents currently under examination per above) is what caused the sweating as a response to impending trauma, but it is a completely unsupported (thus far) leap from that to "because he didn't want to be separated from the Father". That leap assumes the answer to the question at hand (the contents of the cup), and also goes way beyond what is in the text.

In fact, yet again the Scriptures say something else.

----
[snip here because character count]

I've enjoyed following this conversation between you and @Martin Marprelate . Just to make you aware, the thread will probably close fairly soon due to its length. When it does I sincerely hope the two of you continue in a new thread.

That said, we are all influenced by our own worldviews and presuppositions. The Theory of Penal Substitution is short on history but being a reformed RCC doctrine it is very well established within Protestant evangelicalism. The theory rests upon a common idea of secular justice (retributive justice) so it fits naturally into the secular mindset (a system I believe to be the antithesis of the gospel message).

My point is that you are not going to "win" the argument regardless of where you stand biblically. You are asking people to divest themselves of a tradition that has a profound impact on how they view the gospel (I suspect we could think the same of each other given a different topic). But there is benefit to the discussion and I hope it continues.

 

[Steve Allen]

I've enjoyed following this conversation between you and @Martin Marprelate . Just to make you aware, the thread will probably close fairly soon due to its length. When it does I sincerely hope the two of you continue in a new thread.

That said, we are all influenced by our own worldviews and presuppositions. The Theory of Penal Substitution is short on history but being a reformed RCC doctrine it is very well established within Protestant evangelicalism. The theory rests upon a common idea of secular justice (retributive justice) so it fits naturally into the secular mindset (a system I believe to be the antithesis of the gospel message).

My point is that you are not going to "win" the argument regardless of where you stand biblically. You are asking people to divest themselves of a tradition that has a profound impact on how they view the gospel (I suspect we could think the same of each other given a different topic). But there is benefit to the discussion and I hope it continues.

Thank you for the kind words.

Regarding "winning" ... I don't expect to, for the exact reason you said. I have three goals here in continuing with Martin.

1) To have the deepest conversation about these things possible with someone who is, frankly, the most informed and Scripture-based PSA guy I've come across so far. I might learn a thing or two.

2) Given that, I also want to see where the conversation starts to break down, because that can be informative as well.

3) Finally, I do hope to be useful to anyone interested in another viewpoint than PSA.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Steve Allen]

Would you please explain this to me in more simple language? Thanks! Abandonment seems to me to be rather like pregnancy; either one is or one isn't.

You basically did what I said here in your post immediately prior (post 143), by framing the abandonment as limited to the human experience. We can work with that. I have a couple of observations/objections, of course, but I'll address those as a separate post quoting from yours.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Steve Allen]

Firstly[...]

Secondly[...]

Thirdly[...]

Fourthly[...]

[Loss for sin]

[Loss as test]

[Cry of dereliction = human experience]

But there on the cross, the Son is left utterly alone. Why did The Father remove His felt presence from Him? Was it to test Him? Or was it because of sin?

Substantially agreed. (Reservation of agreement on certain irrelevant particulars.)

Without doubt it was the latter.

Color me doubtful. Lol

God had no reason to test His Son

Not per se, no. But He certainly has a reason to test humanity in exactly the thing that got us thrown into corruption and out of Paradise in the first place. His purpose is to destroy the works of the devil, of which that was the first and root.

[...](2 Cor. 5:21)[...]
[...](2 Thes. 1:9)[...]

[Etc.]

Ok, now we're just repeating ourselves. I addressed this already in the four-part post above.


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I've enjoyed following this conversation between you and @Martin Marprelate . Just to make you aware, the thread will probably close fairly soon due to its length. When it does I sincerely hope the two of you continue in a new thread.

That said, we are all influenced by our own worldviews and presuppositions. The Theory of Penal Substitution is short on history but being a reformed RCC doctrine it is very well established within Protestant evangelicalism. The theory rests upon a common idea of secular justice (retributive justice) so it fits naturally into the secular mindset (a system I believe to be the antithesis of the gospel message).

My point is that you are not going to "win" the argument regardless of where you stand biblically. You are asking people to divest themselves of a tradition that has a profound impact on how they view the gospel (I suspect we could think the same of each other given a different topic). But there is benefit to the discussion and I hope it continues.

Absolutely correct Jon.... for me anyway it helps to solidify long standing questions I have so keep on going with this.

BTW Steve, As stated earlier I have always been intrigued by orthodox services & Theology. I was raised RCC but had Eastern European relatives who were staunchly Orthodox so I consider it an interesting debate (for me anyway). The Church Slavonic is fascinating.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The Theory of Penal Substitution is short on history but being a reformed RCC doctrine it is very well established within Protestant evangelicalism.

In fact, the pedigree of any doctrine is totally unimportant; what matters is whether or not it is true. However, as I have stated and shown several times, the Doctrine of Penal Substitution can be found in several of the ECFs, starting with Justin Martyr. If @Steve Allen wants chapter and verse, I suppose I can trot the quotations out yet again.

Interestingly, and to my surprise, I found a quote from Irenaeus the other day which seems to support Penal Substitution, although his main teaching seems to be propitiation by the life and obedience of our Lord rather than by His passion.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

If fact, the pedigree of any doctrine is totally unimportant; what matters is whether or not it is true. However, as I have stated and shown several times, the Doctrine of Penal Substitution can be found in several of the ECFs, starting with Justin Martyr. If @Steve Allen wants chapter and verse, I suppose I can trot the quotations out yet again.

Interestingly, and to my surprise, I found a quote from Irenaeus the other day which seems to support Penal Substitution, although his main teaching seems to be propitiation by the life and obedience of our Lord rather than by His passion.

I guess Load Centers, Breakers, Generators, Wiring Devices are not important to you any more.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I guess Load Centers, Breakers, Generators, Wiring Devices are not important to you any more.

Nope! Happily retired.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Nope! Happily retired.

The Wholesale Distributor market is dead anyway. You can buy anything on line today....so good for you.

Could be worse, you could have been a plumbing distributor....no profit there.

 

[Steve Allen]

If fact, the pedigree of any doctrine is totally unimportant; what matters is whether or not it is true. However, as I have stated and shown several times, the Doctrine of Penal Substitution can be found in several of the ECFs, starting with Justin Martyr. If @Steve Allen wants chapter and verse, I suppose I can trot the quotations out yet again.

I am always interested in what the Fathers have to say about a topic, yes. You don't need to supply the quotes, but if you want to give me the references, I can look them up on my own (or just link to them if they're available online).

Interestingly, and to my surprise, I found a quote from Irenaeus the other day which seems to support Penal Substitution, although his main teaching seems to be propitiation by the life and obedience of our Lord rather than by His passion.

Would be curious to see this as well.

EDIT: Although perhaps another thread would be the best place for it.

"PSA in the ECF" or some such.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Now here you bring in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 (I assume you meant 2nd, and not 1st, since bringing in 1 Thess. 1:9 makes no sense whatsoever that I can see) as support for this idea that the punishment of the End includes separation from God (the Father) as the condition of punishment. However, this verse does not support that concept directly. Rather, it only says that the destruction will come from the presence of the Lord, and from His glory. (Like destruction of skin [i.e. sunburn] comes from the face of the sun, and its glory.)

OK. Let's deal with this. I don't know what your knowledge of Greek is, but 'everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord' is olethron aionion apo prosopou tou kupiou. Apo with the genitive has the meaning of 'from' and it can mean either separation (i.e. 'away from') or origin (e.g. apo tes charas, 'For (from) joy' Matthew 13:44). So linguistically, either of us might be correct; it depends on context. But prosopon means literally 'face.' In those days before photographs and Skype, if you saw someone's face you were in his presence. When God tells the Psalmist, 'Seek My face' (e.g. Psalm 27:8), He is telling him to seek His gracious presence.

So it is not God's face that will give these people everlasting destruction. If that were the meaning, there is no reason to put 'face' in the text. The destruction can only come from the Lord anyway. No, the meaning of the verse is that the everlasting destruction will be away from the presence of the Lord; that they will know nothing of His gracious presence but only His abiding wrath.

Also, apo appears again in Romans 9:3. 'For I could wish myself accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers.....' This clearly means that he could wish himself parted from Christ, rather than cut off by Christ.

I don't want to pass myself off as a great Greek expert, though I have studied it. If someone like @John of Japan wants to correct me on the Greek, I am prepared to stand corrected. However, I am not unsupported. William Hendricksen, who is a well regarded modern(ish) commentator wrote, 'The very fact that this destruction is "everlasting" shows that it does not amount to 'annihilation' or 'going out of existence.' On the contrary it indicates an existence "away from the face of the Lord and from the glory of His might."' And the ESV translation gives '.....away from the presence of the Lord.....'

With this I cease for a while. My sermon preparation awaits!

 

[John of Japan]

OK. Let's deal with this. I don't know what your knowledge of Greek is, but 'everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord' is olethron aionion apo prosopou tou kupiou. Apo with the genitive has the meaning of 'from' and it can mean either separation (i.e. 'away from') or origin (e.g. apo tes charas, 'For (from) joy' Matthew 13:44). So linguistically, either of us might be correct; it depends on context. But prosopon means literally 'face.' In those days before photographs and Skype, if you saw someone's face you were in his presence. When God tells the Psalmist, 'Seek My face' (e.g. Psalm 27:8), He is telling him to seek His gracious presence.

So it is not God's face that will give these people everlasting destruction. If that were the meaning, there is no reason to put 'face' in the text. The destruction can only come from the Lord anyway. No, the meaning of the verse is that the everlasting destruction will be away from the presence of the Lord; that they will know nothing of His gracious presence but only His abiding wrath.

Also, apo appears again in Romans 9:3. 'For I could wish myself accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers.....' This clearly means that he could wish himself parted from Christ, rather than cut off by Christ.

I don't want to pass myself off as a great Greek expert, though I have studied it. If someone like @John of Japan wants to correct me on the Greek, I am prepared to stand corrected. However, I am not unsupported. William Hendricksen, who is a well regarded modern(ish) commentator wrote, 'The very fact that this destruction is "everlasting" shows that it does not amount to 'annihilation' or 'going out of existence.' On the contrary it indicates an existence "away from the face of the Lord and from the glory of His might."' And the ESV translation gives '.....away from the presence of the Lord.....'

With this I cease for a while. My sermon preparation awaits!

I agree with your analysis of the Greek (since you mentioned me ). So does old A. T. Robertson, the great Greek grammarian of a previous generation: "Destruction (cf. 1Th 5:3) does not mean here annihilation, but, as Paul proceeds to show, separation from the face of the Lord (apo prosôpou tou kuriou) and from the glory of his might (kai apo tês doxês tês ischuos autou), an eternity of woe such as befell Antiochus Epiphanes" (Word Pictrues in the NT, accessed through Power Bible CD).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I agree with your analysis of the Greek (since you mentioned me ). So does old A. T. Robertson, the great Greek grammarian of a previous generation: "Destruction (cf. 1Th 5:3) does not mean here annihilation, but, as Paul proceeds to show, separation from the face of the Lord (apo prosôpou tou kuriou) and from the glory of his might (kai apo tês doxês tês ischuos autou), an eternity of woe such as befell Antiochus Epiphanes" (Word Pictrues in the NT, accessed through Power Bible CD).

Thank you, John.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 11:15 PM Pacific.

 

[JonC]

In fact, the pedigree of any doctrine is totally unimportant; what matters is whether or not it is true. However, as I have stated and shown several times, the Doctrine of Penal Substitution can be found in several of the ECFs, starting with Justin Martyr. If @Steve Allen wants chapter and verse, I suppose I can trot the quotations out yet again.

Interestingly, and to my surprise, I found a quote from Irenaeus the other day which seems to support Penal Substitution, although his main teaching seems to be propitiation by the life and obedience of our Lord rather than by His passion.

While I am not sure we can simply dismiss the lateness the Theory of Penal Substitution was articulated, I do agree that antiquity doesn't equate to correct doctrine. Don't forget that one can very easily agree with Martyr on the atonement while rejecting the Theory of Penal Substitution as unbiblical.

 

[Steve Allen]

I don't know what your knowledge of Greek is [...]

Intermediate. I can read it to varying levels of understanding pretty easily, and I'm pretty familiar with a lot of the vocabulary, and basic conjugation and cases. I use various lexicons if I run into something I don't recognize.

I did check the Greek before posting my original observation, and I was already familiar with the fact that apo can be either "away from" or "off of." Now I have examined other instances of the same construction elsewhere, and I see that it really does admit of either reading, and I can demonstrate that with some more time, which I don't have now before the thread closes, unfortunately.

...seek His gracious presence.

Hey hey! Adding qualifiers is moving the goalposts! LOL

But in this case I'll allow it because I think it's important to the discussion to note that there is a qualification of the type of presence experienced.

So it is not God's face that will give these people everlasting destruction.

If that were the meaning, there is no reason to put 'face' in the text.

No, there are other places in Scripture where they use the same construction, including "face", and it seems unnecessary there as well.

The destruction can only come from the Lord anyway.

Yes, but saying it comes from the face of the Lord and His strong glory -- which, we are told elsewhere (2 Cor. 4:6), shines from His face -- indicates that the punishment they are receiving is from the glory. Recall how the Jews could not even look on the glory of Moses' face. How much more burning (for our God is a consuming fire) must the glory of the Lord in all His beauty be? And who is to say that this is not also the brightness of the burning of His wrath against sin?

This is why the wicked flee from before His face. As do the earth and the heavens. And there was found no place for them. So either things fleeing from the face of God at the judgment are annihilated (which neither of us believe), or this being driven/fleeing (it's mutual, frankly) from the face of the Lord is an impossible flight, and they are caught in the fire. Which Peter indicates regarding the heavens and the earth already:

But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
...
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

The "times of refreshing from the face of the Lord" the Peter speaks of in Acts is precisely the time he speaks of in his epistle.

This is why the Psalmist sings:

Let God arise, let His enemies be scattered:
let them also that hate Him flee from before His face. [LXX: ἀπὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ]
As smoke is driven away, so drive them away:
as wax melteth before the fire [LXX: ἀπὸ προσώπου πυρός "before the face of fire"]
so let the wicked perish at the presence of God. [LXX: ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ θεοῦ]

Does wax melt "away from" fire? Absolutely (due to gravity, mostly, but still). But is the reason it melts the fire? Also without a doubt.

So maybe it's both! They will want to be sent away from His face, to not be able to see Him or feel Him. That would be a blessing, not a torment! (They hate Him anyway.)

In fact, St. Paul seems to think it's both, too:

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. Knowing [Gr. Εἰδότες, "beholding"] therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men;

[...] Romans 9:3 [...] clearly means that he could wish himself parted from Christ, rather than cut off by Christ.

These are one and the same. No difference.

With this I cease for a while. My sermon preparation awaits!

Have fun.