Is God Intrinsically Just?

[Martin Marprelate]

I understand your theory. It is not biblical.

God laid our sins on Christ. Christ was pierced for our sin. You got that part right. But you conclusions are wrong.

Christ takes away our sins. They are laid upon Him and He takes them away as prefigured in Leviticus 16:21-22. That is the part you ignore. You say that the context says something else, but it doesn't. "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." Where is the context that shows that actually He doesn't take them away?

And as I said before, you are marking your own homework. That is shameful! Shame on you!

 

[JonC]

Christ takes away our sins. They are laid upon Him and He takes them away as prefigured in Leviticus 16:21-22. That is the part you ignore. You say that the context says something else, but it doesn't. "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." Where is the context that shows that actually He doesn't take them away?

And as I said before, you are marking your own homework. That is shameful! Shame on you!

Look, you said what you believe Scripture teaches. I said I do not believe that is what Scripture teaches. You have added to the text of Scripture. I mean in the sense you are presenting what you believe is taught as what is actually written. It is easy to do. We all do it. But consider the words of the text. I mean we have to keep our understanding separate from Scripture itself in our minds.

I agree that God laid our sins on Christ. I agree He is the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world. I agree that the scapegoat foreshadowed forgiveness (as sins were not actually transferred from people to animals, but instead God was passing over former sins).

You can put up or shut up. I'll make it simple - just post one verse I do not believe. Otherwise your remark is shameful behavior.

 

[DaveXR650]

Otherwise your remark is shameful behavior.

That's a shameful thing to say. Especially when proceeded by:

You can put up or shut up.

Especially since you said this to me:

By repeatedly pointing out that the core of your faith is extra-biblical

Then you have the gall to say my faith is extra-biblical, when I am just going by standard Christian teaching. I thought we weren't supposed to do than on here.
Jon. These threads have a familiar pattern. You jump in with this novel set of arguments where you quote the passages we all use but say they don't say what you just quoted. The stage I'm waiting for next is for some "new" poster to come on here, out of nowhere, who no one has heard of before and then the bizarre fun really begins.

Since these atonement threads have been going on you tend to go nuts, with arguments that no on else is using. The book by Torrance, who you recommended didn't say what you said, Greg Boyd doesn't use the arguments you use and is much more conciliatory than you are, the Mennonite web pages are also more conciliatory re the PSA than you and state that some of them hold to it. In short, I don't think you know what you are talking about and the more I look into it the worse you look.

 

[JonC]

That's a shameful thing to say.

Saying that I, or you, or any member does not believe the Bible is shameful.

All three of us believe the Bible. We all believe the Bible is God's Word.

Where we differ is expounding on Scripture. Maybe a few places of interpretation, but not that I know of. It is in what we believe the Bible teaches that divides us.

But it is NEVER right to say somebody does not believe the Bible because they disagree with your opinion of what is taught.

 

[JonC]

Then you have the gall to say my faith is extra-biblical, when I am just going by standard Christian teaching. I thought we weren't supposed to do than on here.

You do hold extra-biblical views. We all do. The difference is the doctrines that we allow to be affected and how we hold those doctrines.

I am also representing standard Christian teaching. That does not mean that we cannot examine and argue our differences.

I did not recommend Torrance or Boyd, and I know some Mennonites have moved towards the Penal Substitution Theory (many Lutheran's have as well).

I do not know what new posters you are referencing (that itself is a bizarre statement). But I welcome any new members to the frey. The more the merrier.

 

[DaveXR650]

Jon. You suggested Boyd as an example of a recommended theologian in another thread on this subject. I knew nothing of him before that. He does not take the line of argument you do - that he fully agrees with the passages we are all using and yet they somehow don't mean what they say in that the argument is that Jesus bearing our sin instead of us cannot mean our sin was transferred to Him. That's baloney, and you know it is. I fully respect the fact that others, like Boyd, go with more of a Christ as Victor view. If you do then say it, stop this double talk - or at least site someone else who uses it. Here he is debating a non-Calvinist (if that matters) on the atonement, I don't expect people to listen to the whole thing unless they are one of the folk you have tried to influence.

 

[JonC]

Jon. You suggested Boyd as an example of a recommended theologian in another thread on this subject. I knew nothing of him before that. He does not take the line of argument you do - that he fully agrees with the passages we are all using and yet they somehow don't mean what they say in that the argument is that Jesus bearing our sin instead of us cannot mean our sin was transferred to Him. That's baloney, and you know it is. I fully respect the fact that others, like Boyd, go with more of a Christ as Victor view. If you do then say it, stop this double talk - or at least site someone else who uses it. Here he is debating a non-Calvinist (if that matters) on the atonement, I don't expect people to listen to the whole thing unless they are one of the folk you have tried to influence.

I didn't recommend him.

I mentioned him when you asked if there were any theologians who did not accept the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

Arthur King quoted him or mentioned him on a thread.

I don't know enough about Boyd.

 

[JonC]

God laid upon Him the iniquity of us all.

If I say iniquity means sin and you say it means immorality then we have different interpretations.

You expound on the verse (which is perfectly fine, we do this often in application).

You say God laid upon Him the iniquity of us all means that God transferred our sins from us and laid them on Christ.

That is expounding. That is offering your opinion of what the verse teaches. That is one of many opinions of what the verse teaches. It is extra-biblical in that "transferring our sins from us" is NOT in the verse at all.

And it cannot be tested against what is written because it is not in the text of Scripture.

All of that is fine.

The problem comes in when you claim it is in the text of Scripture (when you cannot separate your understanding of Scripture from God's Word itself).

And then you and @Martin Marprelate go the extra step of accusing those who do not believe your opinion of what the Bible teaches as not believing the Bible.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You ADD to Scripture.

You are reading into Scripture,

You have added to the text of Scripture.

You are still adding to Scripture.

Let's be clear what is being insinuated here: 'For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book.'
I have been goaded, not for the first time, into responding to constant baseless insults with anger rather than longsuffering.
This board brings out the worst in me; I have intended to leave several times before, but have been drawn back in because I believe the subject-matter to be of prime importance.
But continuing is bad for my sanctification, as well as drawing me away from more important Christian duties. I am therefore finished for good with the Baptist Board.

I will leave though with one sentence, which is offered to all who read this, not in anger, but in love and concern (Leviticus 19:17): If Christ has not paid in full the penalty for your sins, nothing is more certain than that you will pay that penalty yourself.

 

[JonC]

. The stage I'm waiting for next is for some "new" poster to come on here, out of nowhere,

We have to deal with this odd comment as well.

You do not control who can and cannot post on this (or any) thread. A member, regardless of how long they have been a member, can post on any thread from r which they have access.

You don't get to pick and choose which can post here.

 

[JonC]

Let's be clear what is being insinuated here: 'For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book.'
I have been goaded, not for the first time, into responding to constant baseless insults with anger rather than longsuffering.
This board brings out the worst in me; I have intended to leave several times before, but have been drawn back in because I believe the subject-matter to be of prime importance.
But continuing is bad for my sanctification, as well as drawing me away from more important Christian duties. I am therefore finished for good with the Baptist Board.

I will leave though with one sentence, which is offered to all who read this, not in anger, but in love and concern (Leviticus 19:17): If Christ has not paid in full the penalty for your sins, nothing is more certain than that you will pay that penalty yourself.

You said that I do not believe the Bible because I do not believe what you believe is taught by the Bible. You were wrong to do that.

You do add to Scripture. This does s clear in that you post that those who disagree with your opinions regarding what the Bible teaches do not believe the Bible.

You infer teachings from Scripture.

That is fine.

But then you post that what you believe is taught by Scripture is actually in "what is written".

That is literally adding to Scripture.

I have not said that you added to the prophecy of that book (Revelation). We have not been discussing the prophecy in that book.

But I do believe you will face consequences for elevating your understanding to God's Word. What they are is none of my business. But teachers will be held accountable for where they depart from Scripture


Try this - TEST your teaching against what is written.

God laid upon Him the iniquity of us all.

Highlight "transferred our sin from us". It isn't there.

And Christ is the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world.

Highlight where this is done by transfer. It isn't there.


We have several opinions about what is taught by Scripture. Yours is one of many. And like most, yours is also extra-biblical.

The difference is Christians should not lean on their own understanding but on God's Word. Hold your understanding, but don't confuse it with God's Word.

 

[DaveXR650]

You do not control who can and cannot post on this (or any) thread. A member, regardless of how long they have been a member, can post on any thread from r which they have access.

You don't get to pick and choose which can post here.

This is another example of what happens on here. Please quote where I said I did. It's up to you to be clear whether you are responding as a member or as a moderator. I have noticed two different poster in past threads about this particular subject who came on out of nowhere and joined in with a whole different background of views, some of which I am beginning to recognize as to where they come from. This is just something I observed, make of it what you will, at least they did not try to use the argument you do, that the very scriptures we all use for penal substitution don't really say - what they plainly say.

 

[DaveXR650]

I have intended to leave several times before, but have been drawn back in because I believe the subject-matter to be of prime importance.
But continuing is bad for my sanctification, as well as drawing me away from more important Christian duties. I am therefore finished for good with the Baptist Board.

This is truly a shame.

 

[JonC]

This is another example of what happens on here. Please quote where I said I did. It's up to you to be clear whether you are responding as a member or as a moderator.

The stage I'm waiting for next is for some "new" poster to come on here, out of nowhere, who no one has heard of before and then the bizarre fun really begins.

We don't not need to discourage new members from posting. You don't get to choose who posts and who does not post.


When I post as a moderator it will start with "Mod hat on" and conclude with "Mod hat off".

 

[JonC]

This is truly a shame.

Except we have seen this multiple times before when @Martin Marprelate crosses a line. He never addressed his comment (here stating that I do not believe the Bible because I do not agree with what he thinks the Bible teaches) but simply gets quiet and let's a bit of time pass hoping his sin will be forgotten.

 

[kyredneck]

This is truly a shame.

If it came to a wager, my money's on 'he'll be back'.

 

[JonC]

If it came to a wager, my money's on 'he'll be back'.

Yea....that seems to be the status quo. Make an accusation he can't back up and all of a sudden he's too busy and finds the board too challenging to his character to remain. Wait until his false accusations are forgotten and he comes back.

It's the circle of life .

 

[JonC]

And this is another example:

This is another example of what happens on here. Please quote where I said I did.

The stage I'm waiting for next is for some "new" poster to come on here, out of nowhere, who no one has heard of before and then the bizarre fun really begins.

We don't not need to discourage new members from posting. You don't get to choose who posts and who does not post.

 

[DaveXR650]

We don't not need to discourage new members from posting. You don't get to choose who posts and who does not post.

Why do you keep reposting that. I don't and didn't care that this happened. I just observed that it did. Are you having some kind of issue? Their posts at the time, although difficult for me to sort out at first because they were not the usual Protestant type arguments and I have since and even still am finding out where they were coming from - were still better than the meaningless stuff you do where you simply declare someone's scripture post invalid because you simply declare it so and then repeat it over and over again. It's you that is obviously unable to address the points raised even in this thread which you have destroyed. You never address why for instance you can't say someone taking your sin from you and bearing it cannot be said to mean that they were a substitute for you bearing your own sin. You simply declare it invalid.
[Snip] I don't mind a bit who posts on here and I have to my knowledge not caused anyone to leave.

 

[JonC]

Why do you keep reposting that.

I'm doing my best to make sense of your post.

This is what you said:

The stage I'm waiting for next is for some "new" poster to come on here, out of nowhere, who no one has heard of before and then the bizarre fun really begins.

So new posters come here and what? It gets bizarre?

When you make strange comments don't be surprised if others misunderstand what you are talking about. We can only do the best with your weird posts.

Learn to speak plainly and misunderstanding, if I have misunderstood, will not occur so often.

If you were not complaining about new members posting then what on earth are you talking about???


Edit: it isn't a shame that @Martin Marprelate said he is finished here. This has been said multiple times. And he was back yesterday (11-22 at 5am EST). @DaveXR650 was here the evening prior.

People get aggravated and say things they don't mean all the time. But when they cool down they typically start posting again. I've looked over this thread - my comments were not as bad as you two claim (I stand by them). But you too posted in a much more insulting way (didn't hurt my feelings, no issue). People simply get aggravated.