Orthodox Christians

[The Biblicist]

It looks like from this statement you are playing with several theological perspectives and attempting to combine them. I would agree that God's Justice must be satisfied.

God's justice includes more than penal justice for violation of His law but requires the very thing that Justice is grounded upon - His righteousness! The life of Christ is as essential to the atonement as his death and one without the other invalidates the atonement altogether. The lamb MUST BE without spot and blemish and MUST die or no atonement is possible as the Law cannot be satisfied merely by one aspect and neither can any sinner be justified by one aspect.

 

[The Biblicist]

The incarnation is key to the atonement.

The incarnation is NOT THE ATONEMENT. It provides the framework to make the atonement possible but it is NOT THE ATONEMENT. It makes the atonement possible but it is NOT THE ATONEMENT! The atonement/reconciliation is what Christ must provide to satsify both aspects of God's Justice. He must satisfy the penal demands of the Law or the "wages of sins" but he also must as equally satifsy the righteousness demanded by the law - without spot or blemish - sinlessness.

So, in the sense of making the atonement possible the incarnation is "the key" to the atonement but in regard to what the atonement IS the incarnation is not the key - the key is satisfaction of both the righteous demands and penal demands of the law in behalf of sinners.

 

[The Biblicist]

But its a shame that you see the incarnation as worthless.

I perfectly and clearly qualified that statement and you know it. The incarnation is worthless without the full satisfaction of both the righteous and penal demands of the law.

But it certianly reveals your view of atonement as focused on the anger of God rather than his love. Which means you certainly hold that the only reason Jesus became man was to take out God's anger on someone who could take it without sin. Rather than joining himself to humanity in love truely making us his children in christ.

Another false distortion of my view. There are two essentials of the atonement not merely one. The full satisfaction of the righteous demands of God's law focus upon his HOLINESS not his wrath. The full penal satisfaction of God's law focus upon his JUSTICE and both are essential to His own RIGHTEOUSNESS as there can be no righteousness without both HOLINESS and JUSTICE.

However, you view sacrifices one for the other and presents a skewed view of God's "love" which also cannot exist apart from true HOLINESS and JUSTICE as it becomes only a SLOPPY AGAPE.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It may not have been your intention (and I believe you) but it was the conclusion of your interpetation of 2 Cor. 5:21

I don't see how. Maybe you would like me to have put it this way.

But that just isn't and the word "made sin" whether you intended it or not.

I didn't put it that way. Paul did. Take it up with him. Still I don't see how you arrived at your view. All I did was quote Paul. But the difference may be that since you approach scripture with your view already in mind it must read that way to you unfortunately.

 

[The Biblicist]

Big difference because in the 1600 imputed was used to mean counted in the sense I mentioned however the conotation that you always apply to it beyond the scope of the text which you imply the theological protestant imputation rather than what it really means which is counted.

It is true that a term may have many shades of meaning and so only the context in which it is used can really be the determinate factor. So I don't have to deny the particular shade of meaning you choose to emphasize. All I have to do is demonstrate from the context your choice is wrong and it is.

It is wrong for several contextual factors.


1. The nature of justification as explained in Romans 4;5-8 completely repudiates your choice of meaning. Biblical justification is complete satisfaction of "righteousness" as well as what is essential for "remission of sins" (penal satisfaction) as one without the other is no justification at all.

2. The one being justified by faith is the "ungodly" not the "godly" as your salvation theory demands.

3. The justificaiton is a completed action confined within "circumcision" rather than overflowing as an incompleted action inclusive of "circumcision."

4. The justification is a PERFECT TENSE kind of justification (Rom. 5:1-2) rather than a PRESENT TENSE kind of justification and thus a completed action that continues as a completed action instead as continuing as an incompleted action.

5. The illustration in Romans 4:18-21 is not designed to define justification as a kind of action but rather it is defined to define the nature of faith exclusive of anything and everything a person could contribute to be justified (v. 21).

 

[The Biblicist]

You clearly haven't read Romans properly. Because it is. Just read the context. Romans 4 isn't alone in the book it follows from chapters one and two and three. Its not a seperate discourse but a logical flow from the previous chapters.

Romans chapters 1 through chapter 15 give a systematic presentation of the "salvation" in its entirety. However, Romans 3:24-5:2 deals with ONE ASPECT of salvation called Justification. To confuse the individual aspects with each other or with the whole of salvation is a serious exegetical error which you are guilty. That is precisely why you do not understand the difference IN SALVATION of justification versus regeneration or justification versus sanctification or regeration versus adoption because you confuse different aspects IN SALVATION with each other or with the WHOLE of Salvation.

 

[The Biblicist]

I didn't put it that way. Paul did. Take it up with him.

Come on stop playing games! You know very well I am not talking about Paul's wording but your interpretation of his wording. It is your interpretation that is impossible and I spelled out exactly why it is impossible which you ignored.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Christ could not satisfy the honor of God without satisfying the justice of God as they are inseparably united one to the other.

I agree with this

. His justice demands the righteousness of His law be satisfied by the life of Christ as much as by the death of Christ as the former satisfies its demand for righteousness while the latter is CONSEQUENTIAL only if the former comes short and satisfies its demand for sin.

I find it funny you would say this as you repudiate the incarnation in the work of the atonement. You also show your view fault in its emphasis particularily

satisfies its demand for sin

in that SIN must demand of God. Ridiculous. Let me place the difficulties with your view. If God the Father was pouring out His wrath on the Second Person of the Trinity, then God was divided against Himself, God the Father hating His own Word against the scriptures teaching that they are one. Or that the Father guilty of the greatest evil of all time (pouring out the punishment for all sin on an innocent man, knowing that he is innocent), or if Christ were truly guilty and deserved all that punishment, then His suffering would be of no benefit to us. Or that God needs to pay of sin or the devil. All three don't work. What does work is joining himself to humanity becoming the second Adam taking in all the righteousness by obedience to the law and in purity and satisfying the debt to Justice. God is motivated by love not the need to beat up on something.

Your view, (anselm's view) is actually a repudiation of Jesus Christ and His righteousness rather than a satisfaction.

I'm glad you identified the origin of my view. But I don't see how you come to your conclusion regarding it.

I

am sorry but theological positions that simply use the term "satisfaction" are worthless unless they harmonize with the Biblical meaning of satisfaction and your theory does not.

There you go again turning the bible into a dictionary. Which it isn't. Suffice it to say both the incarnation and God's divine character with regard to love both play a part in the atonement which you repudiate holding God to be unjust in his actions.

You do not believe in Biblical satsifaction of God's righteousness because your views make that impossible

No, I don't believe God is an impetuous child which must beat something to death in order for him to give us his love which penal substitution holds.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

God's justice includes more than penal justice for violation of His law but requires the very thing that Justice is grounded upon - His righteousness!

Explian further because at this point all you have is vicarious punishment as the whole work for atonement.

The life of Christ is as essential to the atonement as his death and one without the other invalidates the atonement altogether.

Again you repudiate the incarnation's involvment in atonement do you want me to show you your quote?

union with humanity satisfies NO JUSTICE AT ALL!

Then he could atone for humanity or be the second Adam. They are, as I've said, inseperable.

The lamb MUST BE without spot and blemish

No argument here.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The incarnation is NOT THE ATONEMENT.

It is a key aspect to the atonement. Unfortunately you view voids the fact that

it is brought to pass by the Incarnation, by the life, the sufferings, and the death of the Divine Redeemer. All this may be summed up in the word Atonement.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Another false distortion of my view.

You will have to do a better job then of expressing your view and how it is you don't see atonement as God needing to beat someone to death to forgive you of your sins and that it doesn't start or isn't initiated by God's wrath or anger.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It is true that a term may have many shades of meaning and so only the context in which it is used can really be the determinate factor. So I don't have to deny the particular shade of meaning you choose to emphasize. All I have to do is demonstrate from the context your choice is wrong and it is.

It is wrong for several contextual factors.

First why don't you try putting it into context? Paul is clearly speaking about the primacy of faith over the law or the works of the law contrasting being counted as righteous before circumcision in Genesis 15, and uses David's Blessing as an supporting example showing that a man is blessed who doesn't work to get forgiven but is accounted forgiven. You Keep trying to make the example of David the primary thrust of what Paul is talking about but its about faith. And you keep ignoring it.

 

[The Biblicist]

I find it funny you would say this as you repudiate the incarnation in the work of the atonement.

I do not deny the necessity of the incarnation as a prerequiste for the possibility of atonement. I only deny the incarnation IS the atonement or INCLUSIVE in the atonement. The incarnation provides the appropriate body for sacrifice but it does not provide the righteous life to satisfy the righteousness demanded by the law nor does it satisfy the penal demands required by the law and it is therein those two aspects that constitute reconciliation/atonment and thus justification of sinners.

in that SIN must demand of God. Ridiculous.

What? Are you denying that sin has not penal consequences demanded by God's Justice? Yes, God demands that sin be punished and that is the demand of His law - the wages of sin is death -spiritual, phyiscal and eternal.

Let me place the difficulties with your view. If God the Father was pouring out His wrath on the Second Person of the Trinity,

He is pouring out his wrath on what the incarnation provided as a sacrifice (Heb. 10:5-9) or upon the SECOND ADAM - which is DEATH. The Second Person of the Trinity cannot suffer death in any form whatsoever and that is why the incarnation so that the humanity which is capable of suffering death could suffer and die.

I am only denying that deity is humanity or humanity is deity and the necessity of the incarnation to make atonement possible as it was not possible for the Second Person of the Trinity in regard to deity.

then God was divided against Himself, God the Father hating His own Word against the scriptures teaching that they are one.

The deity and humanity of Christ must be differianted as they are not "one" in regard to SAMENESS but that is the assumption your argument is based upon. It is God the Father that put the Son to death and the Scripture makes that clear:

Isa. 53:10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied:

Or that the Father guilty of the greatest evil of all time (pouring out the punishment for all sin on an innocent man, knowing that he is innocent),

Here is the crux of our disagreement and the real evil of your theory. He acted on the cross as the Second Adam by passive obedience whereby the obedience of "one" shall many be made righteous. This is stated in direct contrast to Adam and by "one man's disobedience" many were made sinners and many be dead. Therefore, in that representative capacity he was "made to be sin" "FOR US" in our place as our sins were imputed to him just as the sins of the peopel had been imputed to the goat by a symbolic act of imputation - laying on of hands.

or if Christ were truly guilty and deserved all that punishment, then His suffering would be of no benefit to us.

Another straw man argument! He deserved that punishment in his capacity of an ordained REPRESENTATIVE "for us" in the place of sinners and thus God poured out his wrath JUSTLY as Christ REPRESENTED sinners on the cross who did indeed deserve the wrath of God.

Or that God needs to pay of sin or the devil. All three don't work.

All three are mere straw men arguments that avoid the real position I take. He acted as the Second Adam both in his active and passive obedience as a substitutionary representative for his people.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I do not deny the necessity of the incarnation as a prerequiste for the possibility of atonement. I only deny the incarnation IS the atonement or INCLUSIVE in the atonement.

It absolutely is insclusive in the atonement.

What? Are you denying that sin has not penal consequences demanded by God's Justice?

I'm suggesting that Sin Cannot make demands of God. Disobeying God Does have consequences. Sin however itself cannot make demands of God.

 

[The Biblicist]

You will have to do a better job then of expressing your view and how it is you don't see atonement as God needing to beat someone to death to forgive you of your sins and that it doesn't start or isn't initiated by God's wrath or anger.

What don't you understand about Holiness and Justice? You think God approves or condemns sin? If he condemns it, do you think it is without consequences!

What is amazing is that you cannot accept the obvious and that is sin has penal consquences under God's Government and Laws.

 

[The Biblicist]

It absolutely is insclusive in the atonement.

Scripture that explicitly states that please?

I'm suggesting that Sin Cannot make demands of God. Disobeying God Does have consequences. Sin however itself cannot make demands of God.

That is your straw man! I never suggested any such thing! If you interpreted my words to mean that you interpreted them wrongly. My words were set in the context of God's law and the law demands sin be punished. Indeed, punishement for sin is written right in the law over and over again.

 

[The Biblicist]

First why don't you try putting it into context?

From the outset (Romans 3:24-26) the subject is justification - "being justified freely by his grace". From the outside of Romans 4 where Abraham is introduced it is justification that is the subject (Rom. 4:1). Faith versus works are introduced as the contrasting means through which that subject is obtained. So the subject is not faith but justification. Faith as a means to obtain justification is clarified by contrast and by further explanation. The contrast is works while the explanation is how faith obtains justification through imputation rather than impartation as you suggest.

So it is you that is failing to regard the context.

Paul is clearly speaking about the primacy of faith over the law or the works of the law

No such primacy is even hinted at. Instead faith is directly contrasted with works to the exclusion of works "without" works. He says this over and over again and you fail to see it! No primacy but pure contrast and exclusion of works.

You Keep trying to make the example of David the primary thrust of what Paul is talking about but its about faith. And you keep ignoring it.

Again, justification is the primary subject and the example of David provides the content of justification that makes justification namely justification. There is no such thing as justification in the sight of God without righteousness provided and sins remitted. That is what makes any man "blessed" in God's sight or justified.

As long as you separate the scripture from your explanations you can spin it with ease. However, if we stick to the scriptures and the development and the terms used , then your explanation is exposed for what it is - perversion of the text as your interpretation attempts it to make Paul say completely opposite of what He actually says.

 

[Anastasia]

No we do not! We don't even come close to the same thing. The good news is the news about COMPLETE SATISFACTION (Rom. 3:25) of the laws two demands:

1. The condemnation/punishment of the law against sin FULLYsatisfied

2. The righteousness demanded by the law FULLY satisfied

That is how Christ won the VICTORY over sin - by fully satisfying God's Law by his life (spotless lamb) offered up substitutionarily for sinners which God accepted and the proof is the resurrection over death by Christ.


Your gospel is BAD NEWS when it comes to satsifying the demands of God's righteous demands! You preach a HALF gospel and thus "another gospel" as you deny the most important aspect.

There are plenty of Baptists and Evangelicals that will say someone is not a Christian/saved if they still cuss, drink, smoke, listen to certain kinds of secular music, don't go to church, etc. Of course heaven forbid they don't completely stop getting drunk, lusting, etc. right away because then a few people may still question their salvation.

There are plenty of Orthodox and even Catholics that will say that sacraments help us understand and experience the grace already offered to us, and it is that grace and not the sacrament that saves us. Performing a sacrament is an act of faith (in God, that this is what He wants for us, that it means something/has a reason), only wrongly interpreted by some as the reason for salvation. Even in Orthodoxy, it is foolish to trust in the deed we do and not in the Lord. Everything we do regarding salvation still comes down to trusting the Lord and the grace we are offered as His children.

Because Baptists also still practice a couple of sacraments (baptism and communion which we were told to do in scripture), would you please cite your source on the Orthodox doctrine of salvation that you believe contradicts the true Gospel?

 

[The Biblicist]

There are plenty of Baptists and Evangelicals that will say someone is not a Christian/saved if they still cuss, drink, smoke, listen to certain kinds of secular music, don't go to church, etc. Of course heaven forbid they don't completely stop getting drunk, lusting, etc. right away because then a few people may still question their salvation.

There are plenty of Orthodox and even Catholics that will say that sacraments help us understand and experience the grace already offered to us, and it is that grace and not the sacrament that saves us.

Because Baptists still practice a couple of sacraments (baptism and communion which we were told to do in scripture), and the Orthodox practice sacraments, would you please cite your source on the Orthodox doctrine of salvation that you believe contradicts the true Gospel?

First, glad to make your acquaintance.

Second, Baptists do not believe in "sacraments" as the very term is ultimately derived from the Greek word "musterion" translated "mystery" and is NEVER used in the scriptures to describe baptism or the Lord's Supper but is taken from the Latin translation "sacramentus" which again is in the Latin Bible is NEVER used to describe them either.

Third, the theological usage of the term "sacrament" demands that justifying grace is received through baptism and the Lord's Supper as well as other "ordinances" (commands) of God which is rejected by Paul in Romans 4:11.

Fourth, since Baptists do not believe saving grace, regeneration, justification is received in connection with external rites but is received in connection with faith in the gospel, then we reject sacramentalism altogether and identify it for what the Bible calls it "another gospel" or justification by works.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

It is pretty obvious you would lose that bet. You are very quick to claim that you are being insulted and attacked. I simply stated what was obvious. Your responses to the scriptures I presented were self-evident that you failed to comprehend the simple truths of these sacrficial types. If that is insultive then demonstrate a better response.

Anyone who would deny the sacrificial system clearly approved of by God in Genesis 4:4 as demonstrated in Hebrews 11:4 is a heathen invention has not done his homework or has such bias that they cannot even comprehend what they are reading.

Anyone who would take a handful of scriptures that IN CONTEXT condemn ONLY HYPOCRITICAL worship by sacrifice and then PIT them against the MASS of scripture that clearly and unmistakenly have God as the author of the Leviticual sacrificial system is living in a fantasy world.

Anyone who would take the clear and explicit command and approval of Christ of the sacrificial system (Lk. 5:12-17) and then PIT his words were he is condemning ONLY HYPOCRITICAL practice of sacrificial worship has really thrown intellectual honesty with scriptures under the bus and out the window.

The real motivation behind this eisgetical mess is the false doctrine of Christus Victor that repudiates any necessity for the cross at all. Hence, it is heresy at the bottom of this total abuse of the God ordained and God commanded sacrificial system that is constantly reaffirmed from Genesis to Revelation

That is a damnable lie. Christus Victor does no such thing. You are either woefully ignorant of what Christus Victor teaches, or you are deliberately lying. And I know it's the latter.

All you can ever do is to throw out the charge of heresy. That's all you've got.