Was just about to post that!
-
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!
Did Jesus experience a separation from God on the cross?
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
- Status
Thank you brother. "Student" is the key here, and I really do appreciate your comments (you really don't know how much today I appreciate it). I don't know MM or IT, and their comments shouldn't bother me and normally they wouldn't. It's just been one of those days for me I suppose. I miss being able to discuss and argue these types of issues as brothers, and I was very hesitant about coming back here for this reason. But I appreciate you and the comment.
Death is the punishment for sin. We die physically and have a future punishment awaiting. When we are saved our future punishment is avoided as Jesus is the propitiation for our sin. But nothing "happens" to that punishment.
Last edited:
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
You're out on a limb and it is beginning to snap. Below is a heterodox slough.
The chastisement was upon him, not "our punishment.". What does that verse attribute as that chastisement?
That's the issue here. I see we are sliding back into established ground and don't want to allow IT to manipulate what is said and play word games. I have already affirmed substitution and penal aspects of the atonement. That means aspects of punishment and " in our stead", IT.
What we are talking about is if we can show Scripture to say that God abandoned Jesus as to cause the Son to be separated from the Father as our punishment if the second death. I do not believe this can be claimed apart from theological reasoning. Thus is heterodox to IT and apparently foolishness to MM.
1. I am not denying that Christ bore our sins and died vicariously for us.
2. I am not denying that Christ experienced the consequences/punishment of human sin in the flesh.
3. I am saying that the idea that God abandoned Jesus and made this separation between the Father and Son as the Son experiencing the second death relies heavily on theory and I believe is an error.
Last edited:
I used the NIV translation as it was the one I had to hand, but the NKJV will do just as well. 'The chastisement for our peace was upon Him.' If this chastisement / punishment was not due to us as sinners, for whom was it? If it was due for us, who is it who has taken it on our behalf?
For whose transgressions was He wounded?
For whose iniquities was He bruised /crushed?
Who has been healed by His stripes?
Brother, I say it with sadness, but I have to say that I.T. is not wrong. There is a terrible abyss once you start downgrading Scripture to make it more palatable; there is nowhere for your feet to grip. Steve Chalke was not always heterodox. If you already affirm substitution and 'penal aspects,' that is good and hopeful; what on earth stops you from putting the two together?
You may mean something other than I mean by 'theological reasoning,' but can you prove the Trinity apart from some form of theological reasoning? Where would you find the text that says, "There is a Trinity"? Even if you accept 1 John 5:7, it doesn't actually come right out and say it.
Hold on to this Branch my brother it will not snap!... Brother Glen
Zachariah 3:8 Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.
Brother, I think your answers are there. The chastisement is for sin. If you will recall the passage in Isaiah - God laid our iniquities (this is our sin) on him and offered him as a guilt offering. Jesus bore our sins. The statement which first elicited the charge of heterodoxy from IT was actually 2 Corinthians 5:19 (IT rejected the use of "reconcile"). In reconciling us to God, Jesus took upon himself our sin, on our behalf.He was wounded for our transgressions (he became man, took on human sin, but never sinned himself....it was OUR sin). He was bruised for our iniquities and by his stripes we are healed.
I understand that we both believe the other is downgrading Scripture. That is always a given in these disagreements. My comments are neither downgrade nor heterodox in that I can quote within historical orthodoxy many commentators who have exactly the same objections as I and what is questioned is theory, not Scripture. I don't appeal to history to say I am correct, but I do to dismiss both your and IT's charges as insult. I am saying this to let you know your insult has not gone unnoticed, although it is nonetheless forgiven (don't worry, not your interpretation of forgiveness but mine).
IT I understand. He is reckless in his doctrine, dependent on commentary, and often posts to elicit response. With you, I have not quite decided. In a way, you seem to genuinely want to discuss Scripture. But when we do, you resort to insult. And yes, it is sad that I was wrong about you. My hope was that you at least believed in Christian discourse and maintaining a Christ-like demeanor. I had wished that we could argue and through our dialog reflect a humbleness, a meekness. I had hoped that we would be able to tolerate each others views in gentleness, offering correction by pointing to Scripture and even suggestion through our reasoning. I thought that perhaps you were the type of person who could discuss God's Holy Word in love rather than insult. My hope may have, as you indicate, been misplaced. Thank you for clarifying, as I now know how exactly we stand.
That, brother, is an excellent question. J.I. Packer once noted that Penal Substitution theory did not exist until Calvin, but that throughout history and within most theories of atonement we can see both penal and substitution elements. Packer, of course, affirms PST. He views the elements there but not "put together" until the sixteenth century. In fact, Packer even argues against taking the exact "methodological rationalism" of the seventeenth century that you consider orthodox. Internet Theologian, of course, views J.I. Packer as heterodox (and I suppose you take the same position as well) for highlighting “reconciliation” as more inclusive than redemption. I doubt Packer cares.
The question could be asked....why for fifteen centuries had these to not been put together as PST if Scripture so obviously states it as fact? The answer is it is not obvious without accepting several presuppositions. Whether right or wrong, PST would not have made much sense without the right framework (forensic justice, for example, is integral to PST). What I am questioning is not that Jesus took on humanity and bore the consequences of sin in the flesh (penal) or that Jesus did this for us as our representative (substitution). What I question is whether or not we actually downgrade the doctrine of cross as presented in Scripture when we place it within the framework of divine justice. I question that this was "our punishment" individually which paid the debt of those who will be saved as a purchase paid to God and the price being our spiritual death/ second death/ eternal separation. I hope you can at least understand that I am not questioning the Scripture that you provide. I am questioning your explanation and conclusions. And this is a fair thing to do. You are more than welcome to question mine. I will not intentionally insult you because...well, because I am a Christian and we are commanded to deal with these disagreements in certain ways and insult is not one of them.
But again, that was an excellent question. I think an equally relevant question is why, since penal and substitution elements existed at least since Polycarp, were they not put together until the Reformation? The reasons are much the same. I did not simply reject PST. I question the primacy of divine justice in the way we consider the Cross, and without that primacy PST is not as complete a system as you may consider it to be. Penal, yes. Substitution, absolutely. God punished Jesus with "our punishment" by separating himself from him on the cross? That is theory and I disagree with the conclusion.
Yes, you are right. This does need defining. No, I don't mean like the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is in Scripture (there are passages that you can state which affirm the Trinity, although they are not present together in one place. The word is not there, and it is systematic theology, but until you get into the workings of the Trinity....hypostatic union, knosis, etc....it's pretty much a biblical fact). I'm speaking of theological reasoning above and beyond actual Scripture. Not the passages but how we explain them
Last edited:
The last enemy shall be destroyed, death. 1 Cor 15:26
Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. fn Rev 20:14 NKJV
Exactly.
In reply to my allusion to Isaiah 53:6, you wrote
To me this is simply an example of a Metonymy. It is ridiculous to suppose that God lays the iniquity on Christ but not the punishment, when the Scripture says that God made Him a sin offering (v.10), that He was pierced for our transgressions etc. (v.5 ); that He was made a curse for us (Gal. 3:13), that He bore our sins in His own body (what can that mean but that He bore the punishment of them?) on the tree.
You cannot deny that Psalm 22 is a Messianic Psalm. The second part of the Psalm is fulfilled in the Resurrection and its aftermath, but verses 1-18 cannot be made to say anything else but that Christ felt Himself forsaken on the cross; that the felt presence of God that He had experienced during all eternity was withdrawn from Him as He experienced vicariously the separation from God that is the due of sinners (Heb. 9:27-28).
'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.'
To me this is simply an example of a Metonymy. It is ridiculous to suppose that God lays the iniquity on Christ but not the punishment, when the Scripture says that God made Him a sin offering (v.10), that He was pierced for our transgressions etc. (v.5 ); that He was made a curse for us (Gal. 3:13), that He bore our sins in His own body (what can that mean but that He bore the punishment of them?) on the tree.
So far, so good. But how does Christ dying vicariously for us differ from His taking our punishment?
On the contrary, it relies entirely upon Scripture. Psalm 22; Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34. You can quibble if you like over whether 'forsake' means something different to 'separate' or 'abandon,' but you cannot deny the plain meaning of the texts. There on the cross, the Father temporarily forsook the Son while He made propitiation for His people.
You cannot deny that Psalm 22 is a Messianic Psalm. The second part of the Psalm is fulfilled in the Resurrection and its aftermath, but verses 1-18 cannot be made to say anything else but that Christ felt Himself forsaken on the cross; that the felt presence of God that He had experienced during all eternity was withdrawn from Him as He experienced vicariously the separation from God that is the due of sinners (Heb. 9:27-28).
Do you believe that when the sins of Israel were "laid" on the head of the scapegoat that their punishment itself was laid on the scapegoat (the scapegoat experienced a literal Hell)?
When I get time I will respond, but for now I'll just point out that I have repeatedly said I believe the atonement to be penal and substitution. I disagreed with how you put those together. If you will recall, what I believed to be penal was Christ taking the punishment for our sin - the difference being the sin of man vs. taking on "our individual punishment for our individual sins." Your comment here goes a bit too far in assessing my view - you're trying to determine what I believe based on what I don't accept of your view.
I am not going to respond to this as it is merely dishonest insult. I do not accept that you are such a fool as to believe I have attempted to deny Psalm 22 as messianic, so we'll just leave it at that. You've spoken falsely, but you've done so to support your doctrine. I don't think it an excuse, but I forgive the insult nonetheless. I will point out, however, that we cannot separate our conduct here from our conduct in the "real world." Be careful, brother - our interaction here "counts."
I suppose I shall have to reprint my post on the scapegoat from the other thread. Here you are:
Lev. 16:20-22. 'And when [Aaron] has made an end to atoning for the Holy Place, the tabernacle of Meeting and the altar, he shall bring the live goat.
Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the live goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man. The goat will bear on itself all their iniquities to an uninhabited land; and he shall release the goat into the wilderness.'
Aaron, as the representative of all Israel, identifies with the goat and symbolically transfers the people's sins to it. The goat is sent away to 'an uninhabited land;' literally (according to one commentary), 'a place of cutting off,' that is a place outside the camp where the creature was expected to die. All through Leviticus, being 'cut of from his people' signifies being given over to death. eg. Lev. 3:20. "I will set My face against that man, and will cut him off from his people, because he has given some of his descendants to Molech, to defile My sanctuary and profane My holy name.' (cf. also vs. 5-6).
The goat is sent away, bearing on itself all the sins of the Israelites. 'Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate.' the goat perishes carrying the sins of the people of God so that they should not suffer the penalty for sin. The Lord Jesus Christ died and carried our sins down into the tomb so that His people should not suffer the penalty for sin. 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.'
Martin let ask for I feel you probably have studied this much more than I have?
Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat: And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness. And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel. Lev 16:15-17 -----
Does that not equate to?---
But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. Heb 9:7-10
And that pointed to Christ presently who has entered into the real holy of holies as our high priest? ----Heb 9:11-15
But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel. How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Relative to Lev. 16: is not Christ the high priest still in the most holy place? Has he returned from the most holy place to deal with the goat for Azazel? "The Scapegoat."
Is that not still in the future and does it not take place after the day of trumpets? What do you think will take place on the day of trumpets, relative to those who were given the firstfruit of the Spirit beginning on Pentecost following the resurrection of the Passover Lamb?
I believe:
Jesus being the firstborn from the dead, washed away our sins in his own blood which has been sprinkled on the mercy seat in heaven, propitiation. Comparing Rev 1:5 with 1 Cor 15:17
Therefore what does our sins, that are wash away in Jesus's own blood, have to do with the goat for Azazel, which I believe to be a still future event?
I do not know how to make this relative to the OP but I believe it is.
I should have commented upon Martin's third paragraph that begin with, " The goat is sent away," because it contained a verse from Hebrews 13 verse 12.
Verse 12 is relative to verse 11 which equates Jesus suffering outside the gate to the bodies of the beasts, whose blood was carried into the sanctuary. That was the bull killed for Arron's sin and the blood pf the goat, for the LORD for the sins of the people. The bodies of those beasts, were burned without the camp and had nothing to do with the scapegoat.
No where is death, relative to the scapegoat, to my knowledge.
Last edited:
You said that laying on our iniquities means laying on our punishment. Did the goat upon which Israel's iniquities were laid experience our second death?
Last edited:
Ok, brother, I have few minutes (Star Wars was good, BTW, if you grew up with it anyway).
First, forsake simply does not mean to separate. That is a vague implication that you are using as "definition." Forsake carries with it its own context. Yes, if the Father separated from the Son as Jesus is crying out for deliverance only to be ignored....that would be to forsake. I get it, that's how your mind works....many of us forsook our families this week when we separated to go to work. In the real world, forsake means to abandon TO SOMETHING. Not separation. Have you ever heard of J.I. Packer? He's a Reformed theologian and he holds a Penal Substitution view. Yet he does not seem to believe in this divine separation - "God never left him, but he did refuse him [deliverance on the cross]." Consider C.H. Dodd's view that at the cross the communion between Father and Son was not broken, but it's light was withdrawn (the Father never separated from the Son, but he did offer him as a sacrifice and forsake him to suffer on the Cross, not delivering him except through his divine providence in the Resurrection. Consider Albrecht Ritschlian's definition that the Father forsook Christ not by separation but by refusing to save him from the physical death and torment on the cross. Consider Joel Beeke (president of systematic theology and homiletics at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary) - rather than separation Jesus is "experiencing the agony of unanswered supplication." This is not an unorthodox or new view, brother. But lets move on.
What I wanted to address is this punishment you speak of. I have told you that I believe that the Atonement was both penal and substitution. So if you really considered what I was saying you would have noticed that I also believe Christ took "our punishment." But as I've indicated, I believe it was not our individual punishments for our individual sin. Instead Christ was bearing our sins in his flesh, the sin of humanity, the punishment (in the flesh) for our fallen state. I know that you do not like me using commentary, but I feel I must as Scripture does not seem adequate for you. J.I. Packer explains this difference when he speaks of solidarity. Jesus' death brought remission of sins that were committed in Adam. Why? So that we might live in Christ. Jesus took to the cross, in his body, by penal substitution, this sin....the sin of man. (I know you dismiss Packer as heterodox, but that's as close as I can come at this time to explaining to you what I am talking about).
In other words, our hope in Christ is not a hope for a spiritual birth. We are born again/from above (God gave us a new heart and spirit and put His Spirit in us) in this life, but our hope is this renewed humanity (in Jesus as the "second Adam). I say that to say this, which is really my point -
Jesus did suffer our punishment, the punishment of sin in the flesh, but not the punishment you make him out to suffer. I can only see that your claims confuse the Cross, the rebirth, the integrity of Scripture, and our hope in the Resurrection.
I noted several days ago that you and IT called me a heretic, heterodox, and insulted me without even knowing what I believe. All you know is that I, like many....like many Reformed and orthodox scholars....do not believe that God abandoned Jesus in terms of a separation. But you don't know what I actually believe (in terms of theories of atonement) because you were too busy defending to ask. I already gave you enough so that you know I hold a Penal Substitution view....just not your Penal Substitution view.
Last edited:
Steve,
I am tired of going in circles here and want to let you know what I do believe. I told you early on that I think the best way to look at your own belief is to argue against it and demand support. I hoped that this would be fruitful here, but unfortunately it was not as much. No one could offer what I did not already know. We seem to have gotten caught up in differing definitions that we simply can’t get past. We never got to the meat of the theology. I apologize if it was my lack of facilitation. I also told you that I believed in both penal and substitution aspects of the atonement. I also told you that I sincerely believe that we should consistently examine our doctrines, and that the older they are the more comfortable they become. But I never really stated what I believed and no one asked.
At one time not long ago we would have completely agreed. But I read a comment that made me decide to reexamine my position. The first time I heard the suggestion was listening to N.T. Wright dealing with Justification. But in this context, it was reading J.I. Packer (What did the Cross Achieve?) as I was going over a sermon that caused me to examine in detail my view.
Here are the two points that affected me the most:
“We have already noticed that some orthodox writers answering Socinus tended to slip in a similar way. The passion to pack God into a conceptual box of our own making is always strong, but must be resisted. If we bear in mind that all the knowledge we can have of the atonement is of a mystery about which we can only think and speak by means of models, and which remain a mystery when all is said and done, it will keep us from rationalistic pitfalls and thus help our progress considerably.”
“Thus, in their zeal to show themselves rational, they became rationalistic. Here as elsewhere, methodological rationalism became in the seventeenth century a worm in the Reformed bud, leading in the next two centuries to a large scale withering of its theological flower.”
I looked at my atonement theory and found a couple of items that I could easily reconcile with my own “methodological rationalism” but not so well with Scripture. I have a couple of friends on a Reformed Board, and I asked there but we were not able to get beyond the theology and definition and to Scripture. Perhaps it was me not simply stating exactly what I believed at the start….and maybe that was my mistake here also. Anyway, I decided to come back here because there was a broader audience.
I hold a Penal Substitution theory of the Atonement, but I do not believe that the theory itself can contain the whole work of Christ on the Cross. This was not a new idea for me. I also see value in other theories as they focus on different ramifications of God’s work of reconciliation. But insofar as the salvation of the believer, I do side with Penal Substitution. This is what that means:
I believe that Jesus died on the Cross as a substitution for me. He took the punishment for sin in my place as through the Cross God was reconciling the world to himself through Christ.
What I question is the rationalistic model of a transaction that we have come to utilize in examining the Atonement. Instead of that legalistic model I had traditionally used, Packer offered this: “We identify with Christ against the practice of sin because we have already identified him as the one who took our place under the sentence for sin. We enter upon the life of repentance because we have learned that he first endured for us the death of reparation. The Christ in whom we now accept incorporation is the Christ who previously on the cross became our propitiation – not, therefore, one in whom we achieve our reconciliation with God, but one through whom we receive it as a free gift based in a finished work”.
So I decided to lay down my interpretive model, my traditional presuppositions, and just read Scripture as it came and simply not explaining through that which I could not in Scripture. Then I would go back and see what was left unanswered. To my surprise, without my explanations Scripture had done a very good on its own. There were some blanks, but these were things that did not apply to our knowledge anyway...and we would be content to leave unanswered on other topics. What worried me was that there were a couple of areas that became more clear when I set aside my own ideas. And it was just a couple of unsupported ideas I held - for the most part my theology had lined up.
Previous to my decision to look again at my view, this is how it was derived:
God purposed to save man. God elected a people. God sent Jesus as an offering to purchase those he chose. Jesus died on the cross to redeem those who would believe. I sided then with John Piper that the atonement provided a universal means, but with a limited purpose, to redeem the elect. God is Just and Justifier. Sin against an Eternal God demands an eternal punishment. God placed our sins on Jesus and Jesus became sin for us. On the cross the Father turned his back, for God has too holy eyes to look on sin, and Jesus suffered a separation from God in my stead. This was my punishment in terms of every sin that I had committed. In a sense, I always considered this when I found myself sinning.
When I wrote it out (a bit more detailed then) I realized that I was building not upon Scripture but upon my own theories. I had developed a framework from my own presuppositions. Reading other works (John Piper, J.I. Packer, Timothy Keller, D.A. Carson, and a few more) and looking back into Church history I realized that my conclusions were far from unorthodox. Packer (and in a way, Wright), I believe, offered the best solution – it was the model that was wrong.
That said, I still hold a penal substitution view, but I also acknowledge the appropriateness of other theories depending on the context of discussion. I do not believe that Jesus separated from God on the Cross, and I believe that the sin Jesus bore in the flesh was the sin of humanity. I believe that our individual sins still need to be forgiven, and that Jesus actively advocates on our behalf.
As I do not plan on discussing this anymore with you, I hope that you can at least understand what I was trying to accomplish. I wanted to look at the mode through which we interpreted Scripture and built doctrine. This is where our differences lie.
I wish you and yours a blessed Christmas, brother. Goodbye.
I am tired of going in circles here and want to let you know what I do believe. I told you early on that I think the best way to look at your own belief is to argue against it and demand support. I hoped that this would be fruitful here, but unfortunately it was not as much. No one could offer what I did not already know. We seem to have gotten caught up in differing definitions that we simply can’t get past. We never got to the meat of the theology. I apologize if it was my lack of facilitation. I also told you that I believed in both penal and substitution aspects of the atonement. I also told you that I sincerely believe that we should consistently examine our doctrines, and that the older they are the more comfortable they become. But I never really stated what I believed and no one asked.
At one time not long ago we would have completely agreed. But I read a comment that made me decide to reexamine my position. The first time I heard the suggestion was listening to N.T. Wright dealing with Justification. But in this context, it was reading J.I. Packer (What did the Cross Achieve?) as I was going over a sermon that caused me to examine in detail my view.
Here are the two points that affected me the most:
“We have already noticed that some orthodox writers answering Socinus tended to slip in a similar way. The passion to pack God into a conceptual box of our own making is always strong, but must be resisted. If we bear in mind that all the knowledge we can have of the atonement is of a mystery about which we can only think and speak by means of models, and which remain a mystery when all is said and done, it will keep us from rationalistic pitfalls and thus help our progress considerably.”
“Thus, in their zeal to show themselves rational, they became rationalistic. Here as elsewhere, methodological rationalism became in the seventeenth century a worm in the Reformed bud, leading in the next two centuries to a large scale withering of its theological flower.”
I looked at my atonement theory and found a couple of items that I could easily reconcile with my own “methodological rationalism” but not so well with Scripture. I have a couple of friends on a Reformed Board, and I asked there but we were not able to get beyond the theology and definition and to Scripture. Perhaps it was me not simply stating exactly what I believed at the start….and maybe that was my mistake here also. Anyway, I decided to come back here because there was a broader audience.
I hold a Penal Substitution theory of the Atonement, but I do not believe that the theory itself can contain the whole work of Christ on the Cross. This was not a new idea for me. I also see value in other theories as they focus on different ramifications of God’s work of reconciliation. But insofar as the salvation of the believer, I do side with Penal Substitution. This is what that means:
I believe that Jesus died on the Cross as a substitution for me. He took the punishment for sin in my place as through the Cross God was reconciling the world to himself through Christ.
What I question is the rationalistic model of a transaction that we have come to utilize in examining the Atonement. Instead of that legalistic model I had traditionally used, Packer offered this: “We identify with Christ against the practice of sin because we have already identified him as the one who took our place under the sentence for sin. We enter upon the life of repentance because we have learned that he first endured for us the death of reparation. The Christ in whom we now accept incorporation is the Christ who previously on the cross became our propitiation – not, therefore, one in whom we achieve our reconciliation with God, but one through whom we receive it as a free gift based in a finished work”.
So I decided to lay down my interpretive model, my traditional presuppositions, and just read Scripture as it came and simply not explaining through that which I could not in Scripture. Then I would go back and see what was left unanswered. To my surprise, without my explanations Scripture had done a very good on its own. There were some blanks, but these were things that did not apply to our knowledge anyway...and we would be content to leave unanswered on other topics. What worried me was that there were a couple of areas that became more clear when I set aside my own ideas. And it was just a couple of unsupported ideas I held - for the most part my theology had lined up.
Previous to my decision to look again at my view, this is how it was derived:
God purposed to save man. God elected a people. God sent Jesus as an offering to purchase those he chose. Jesus died on the cross to redeem those who would believe. I sided then with John Piper that the atonement provided a universal means, but with a limited purpose, to redeem the elect. God is Just and Justifier. Sin against an Eternal God demands an eternal punishment. God placed our sins on Jesus and Jesus became sin for us. On the cross the Father turned his back, for God has too holy eyes to look on sin, and Jesus suffered a separation from God in my stead. This was my punishment in terms of every sin that I had committed. In a sense, I always considered this when I found myself sinning.
When I wrote it out (a bit more detailed then) I realized that I was building not upon Scripture but upon my own theories. I had developed a framework from my own presuppositions. Reading other works (John Piper, J.I. Packer, Timothy Keller, D.A. Carson, and a few more) and looking back into Church history I realized that my conclusions were far from unorthodox. Packer (and in a way, Wright), I believe, offered the best solution – it was the model that was wrong.
That said, I still hold a penal substitution view, but I also acknowledge the appropriateness of other theories depending on the context of discussion. I do not believe that Jesus separated from God on the Cross, and I believe that the sin Jesus bore in the flesh was the sin of humanity. I believe that our individual sins still need to be forgiven, and that Jesus actively advocates on our behalf.
As I do not plan on discussing this anymore with you, I hope that you can at least understand what I was trying to accomplish. I wanted to look at the mode through which we interpreted Scripture and built doctrine. This is where our differences lie.
I wish you and yours a blessed Christmas, brother. Goodbye.
Last edited:
I decided that it is important that I give a few short statements more about reflection of teachings done and heard rather than substance to add to the thread.
If this was all that was taught, I don't think that there would be argument.
It is the propitiation (the blood) that should be the emphasis. Not the suffering and not some supposed separation that occurred dividing the trinity. There is no redemption without the blood shed. How it was shed (wound, bruising, whipping (chastisement)) is important, however it must remain that the blood was shed and that is is through that shed blood the redeemed received the completed redemption.
I agree.
Far too often one wants to rely upon those of the esteemed when the Holy Spirit would impress a difference.
One aspect of the reformed teaching that I disagree is the application of the blood.
There are those that teach that the blood shed was for only a sub set of the whole. I do not find that thinking Scriptural. The blood was shed for all, the redeem are redeemed through that blood. That all are not redeemed is not a matter of a lack of the blood but a matter of God's sovereignty. That such is disagreeable with some who would diminish the authority of God and place the final authority as human determination does not discredit the blood nor the will of God.
If this was all that was taught, I don't think that there would be argument.
It is the propitiation (the blood) that should be the emphasis. Not the suffering and not some supposed separation that occurred dividing the trinity. There is no redemption without the blood shed. How it was shed (wound, bruising, whipping (chastisement)) is important, however it must remain that the blood was shed and that is is through that shed blood the redeemed received the completed redemption.
I agree.
Far too often one wants to rely upon those of the esteemed when the Holy Spirit would impress a difference.
One aspect of the reformed teaching that I disagree is the application of the blood.
There are those that teach that the blood shed was for only a sub set of the whole. I do not find that thinking Scriptural. The blood was shed for all, the redeem are redeemed through that blood. That all are not redeemed is not a matter of a lack of the blood but a matter of God's sovereignty. That such is disagreeable with some who would diminish the authority of God and place the final authority as human determination does not discredit the blood nor the will of God.
Last edited:
Jon,
I'm sorry, but it really, really does. Its dictionary definition is to 'desert' or 'abandon.' If separation is not directly, rather than 'vaguely,' implied in those two words, I am a banana. If I think that I can forsake my sins without separating myself from them I am deceiving myself.
It's been a busy Lord's day. I'll try to come back on the other stuff tomorrow.
- Status