Orthodox Christians

[Michael Wrenn]

It absolutely is insclusive in the atonement.


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

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this exchange between you and Biblicist. While I don't hold to your view of the atonement -- Satisfaction, or his view -- Penal Substitution, I can agree with certain aspects of your view but none of his.

This exchange clearly highlights what I have said about Penal Substitution compartmentalizing the atonement and isolating it from other aspects of the work of Jesus; It even denies the connection between all the aspects of Jesus's work. It's forensic, legalistic concept is the product of a mind and an age in which God was viewed in the same way -- as a stern, vengeful, wrathful, feudal lord who saves man by a legal transaction carried out by punishing, torturing, and killing an innocent victim -- His own Son -- so that the guilty might go free. This puts a blight on God's character, misrepresents God, and dishonors Christ's life and work. No wonder this was not believed or taught in the first 1500 years of Christian history. It is totally un-Biblical.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

This is about all the response your capable of - calling others liars. I have presented reasonable Biblical based arguments and all you can do is insult and you wonder why you are booted off of some parts of the forum!

Try givng some reasonable responses to my arguments instead of making personal attacks.

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

The position of Thinkingstuff is as wrong as your position. However, at least TS provides some kind of reasonable and rational responses instead of reducing the discussion to insults and accusations.

 

[The Biblicist]

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

The charges that I made above cannot be overthrown IF the scriptures are the basis for determining truth and IF sound Biblical rules of hermeneutics are followed.

Michael's position is based purely upon PITTING scripture against scripture which is always indicative of false doctrine.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

This is about all the response your capable of - calling others liars. I have presented reasonable Biblical based arguments and all you can do is insult and you wonder why you are booted off of some parts of the forum!


What a joke! You have called more people liars on here more times than can be counted. Can you say "hypocrite"? And, see, you have told another lie -- the reason I was asked to leave the Baptist section by the College of Cardinals is because they determined I was not Baptist.

I might have more respect for your viewpoints if you were not continually calling people heretics and liars.


Try givng some reasonable responses to my arguments instead of making personal attacks.


I have given plenty of reasonable responses. One personal attack deserves another - not a very Christian response, but I have admitted I am a long way from perfection.


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



Damnable lie, as I have stated. That is not what Christus Victor teaches. And you have the nerve to charge anyone with intellectual dishonesty. And there you go with the heresy charge again. Since Penal Substitution was not invented until 1500 years after Jesus walked the earth, that shows which view is the real heresy.



The position of Thinkingstuff is as wrong as your position. However, at least TS provides some kind of reasonable and rational responses instead of reducing the discussion to insults and accusations.

See my first answers in red within your quoted post.

Again, Mr Pot, try to find another kettle to accuse.

I have posted in many threads here all kinds of evidence to back up my views. It is an irrefutable fact that Christus Victor or a variant (along with the nmoral influence view in places) was THE view of the atonement for the first millennium. The Latin West (Anselm) produced the satisfaction theory after that, and PS was invented by Calvin centuries after that. Those are facts that can't be changed, no matter how much twisting and squirming those facts cause.

 

[The Biblicist]

Lk. 5:14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Mt 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.


Now, Michaels approach to these two different verses is simply to PIT one against the other and thus cancel one out by the other. That approach is NEVER right as it makes God the Author of confusion. Any interpretation gained from that method is ALWAYS wrong for obvious reasons.

The right interpretation ALWAYS harmonizes with other scripture rather than contradicts other scripture.

The right interpretation is EASY to see if common rules of interpretation are followed. For example:

Who is Jesus talking to? In Luke 5:14 he is talking to a new disciple. In Matthew 9:13 he is talking to his religious enemies - the Pharisees.

What is Jesus talking about? In Luke 5:14 he is commanding his new disciple to be obedience to Leviticus 14 where a person cleansed of leporsy is to go to the priests for ceremonial cleansing and offer up a bloody sacrifice. In Matthew 9:13 he is rebuking the Pharisees for their HYPOCRISY as they were more interested in CEREMONIAL cleanliness then seeking the salvation of the lost. They condemned Jesus for eating with sinners which they were above such a thing as that would CEREMONIALLY defile them.

What is the Point? In Luke 5:14 the point is obedience to God's Word in Leviticus 14. In Matthe 9:13 the point is that God would not accept their sacrifices for EXTERNAL cleanliness since their INTERNAL state was not clean but full of hatred for Christ and the lost instead of mercy for the lost. EXTERNAL sacrifices would not make them "righteous" and thus Christ said "I came not to call the "righteous" IN THAT SENSE - CEREMONIAL PHARISEEICAL SELF-RIGHTEOUS people but sinners to repentance.

Hence, these two texts do not contradict one another but perfectly harmonize with each other. The disciple had a right heart and thus was commanded to do the right thing by the law - offer sacrifices. The Pharisees had a wrong heart and thus sarifices would do them no good until they had a right heart - therefore they needed to have a heart of "mercy" rather than self-righteousness.


Now watch Michale's reseponse (if he does respond)! He will not be able to deal with this exposition reasonably or rationally. Most likely, he will either ignore it or reduce himself to the low point again of calling others liars.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

My position is based on taking the given words of scripture literally. What part of "I desire mercy and not sacrifice" is not understandable.

Of course, for those who maintain that God instituted the sacrificial system, these verses don't matter. In Jeremiah 7: 22-23, God Himself says that he did not command the sacrificial system. So, do you call God a liar? Or do you look for the real reason for the apparent contradiction? That contradiction and conflict is the contradiction and conflict between priestly religion and prophetic religion, as I have shown in another thread.

It's quite amazing that some here charge Roman Catholicism with paganism and then embrace a version of Christianity amalgamated with paganism. Maybe some of you would be more comfortable with Zoroastrianism; it has several elements that you adore -- such as the concept of an eternal frying pan for human souls.

 

[The Biblicist]

See my first answers in red within your quoted post.

Again, Mr Pot, try to find another kettle to accuse.

I have posted in many threads here all kinds of evidence to back up my views. It is an irrefutable fact that Christus Victor or a variant (along with the nmoral influence view in places) was THE view of the atonement for the first millennium. The Latin West (Anselm) produced the satisfaction theory after that, and PS was invented by Calvin centuries after that. Those are facts that can't be changed, no matter how much twisting and squirming those facts cause.

Again, no substance in your responses, nothing but personal spikes. It is one thing to say a person's interpretation is false, wrong, misleading, a perversion of the context and it is quite another thing to call a person a liar. Please present any post of mine where I called you or anyone else a liar and I will apologize.

Calling someone a "heretic" is wrong unless there is a clear basis for doing so. There is a clear basis for calling you a "heretic" and it has to do with your doctrine not your personality or anything personal.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Again, no substance in your responses, nothing but personal spikes. It is one thing to say a person's interpretation is false, wrong, misleading, a perversion of the context and it is quite another thing to call a person a liar. Please present any post of mine where I called you or anyone else a liar and I will apologize.

Calling someone a "heretic" is wrong unless there is a clear basis for doing so. There is a clear basis for calling you a "heretic" and it has to do with your doctrine not your personality or anything personal.

You surely can't be serious in saying that you have not called anyone a liar. You used to do it almost every day. Remember that poor Moriah? He/she was a constant victim of your vitriol.

Still, I like you better personally than I do DHK. You have at least shown a willingness to be conciliatory occasionally.

 

[The Biblicist]

My position is based on taking the given words of scripture literally. What part of "I desire mercy and not sacrifice" is not understandable.

Readers what did I predict? Exactly! He simply ignored a very simple and clear Biblical based interpretation that not only harmonized Luke 5:14 with Matthew 9:13 but refused to consider the obvious context of both and only doubled down on pitting one text against the other.

Every single text he uses for his position is ripped out of context and violates the very abc's of Biblical rules of interpretation. Anyone who handles the scriptures like Michael does can prove anything they want to prove. His use of scriptures is irrational and unreasonable and that is obvious to any real seeker of truth as his position requires ignoring Biblical context and pitting scripture against scripture.

 

[The Biblicist]

You surely can't be serious in saying that you have not called anyone a liar. You used to do it almost every day. Remember that poor Moriah? He/she was a constant victim of your vitriol.

Still, I like you better personally than I do DHK. You have at least shown a willingness to be conciliatory occasionally.

I remember "poor Moriah" quite well and how his posts were filled with personal insults and absolute lies about those he disagreed with. He could hardly make a post without insulting the other person or making an outright lie about them. SavedByMercy was the same in kind as nearly every post he insulted or outright lied about those he addressed.

When a person repeatedly lies they should be called what they are doing. It is one thing to call someone a liar when they are actually lying and repeatedly doing so and it is obvious but it quite another thing to simply use "liar" as a response to arguments you cannot reasonably overturn. You are using the term "liar" when you cannot respond to arguments in a reasonable rational manner. That is wrong!

 

[The Biblicist]

Readers what did I predict? Exactly! He simply ignored a very simple and clear Biblical based interpretation that not only harmonized Luke 5:14 with Matthew 9:13 but refused to consider the obvious context of both and only doubled down on pitting one text against the other.

Every single text he uses for his position is ripped out of context and violates the very abc's of Biblical rules of interpretation. Anyone who handles the scriptures like Michael does can prove anything they want to prove. His use of scriptures is irrational and unreasonable and that is obvious to any real seeker of truth as his position requires ignoring Biblical context and pitting scripture against scripture.

Instead of getting all wrapped up in personal accusations and the like, lets look at substance. I presented an interpretation of Matthew 9:13 that cannot be overturned contextually as it correctly presents what Jesus intended and that intent is completely compatible with what he commanded the man healed of leporsy in Lk 5:14.

The same contextual based interpretation of Matthew 9:13 fits every single proof text of like kind that Michael uses to PIT against clear, explicit and abundant scriptures that make God the author of the sacrificial system.

Michael realizes this and I will tell you why I know he realizes this. He cannot defend any text he uses with contextual support because the context will not support his use of those texts. The context of those texts perfectly harmonize with the interpretation I gave based upon the context of Matthew 9:13.

So, what does Michael do? He simply repeats his text, ignores its context and hopes the readers will do the same thing. That is sad, but that is true and it is obvious.

 

[The Biblicist]

Lk. 5:14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Mt 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.


Now, Michaels approach to these two different verses is simply to PIT one against the other and thus cancel one out by the other. That approach is NEVER right as it makes God the Author of confusion. Any interpretation gained from that method is ALWAYS wrong for obvious reasons.

The right interpretation ALWAYS harmonizes with other scripture rather than contradicts other scripture.

The right interpretation is EASY to see if common rules of interpretation are followed. For example:

Who is Jesus talking to? In Luke 5:14 he is talking to a new disciple. In Matthew 9:13 he is talking to his religious enemies - the Pharisees.

What is Jesus talking about? In Luke 5:14 he is commanding his new disciple to be obedience to Leviticus 14 where a person cleansed of leporsy is to go to the priests for ceremonial cleansing and offer up a bloody sacrifice. In Matthew 9:13 he is rebuking the Pharisees for their HYPOCRISY as they were more interested in CEREMONIAL cleanliness then seeking the salvation of the lost. They condemned Jesus for eating with sinners which they were above such a thing as that would CEREMONIALLY defile them.

What is the point? In Luke 5:14 the point is obedience to God's Word in Leviticus 14. In Matthe 9:13 the point is that God would not accept their sacrifices for EXTERNAL cleanliness since their INTERNAL state was not clean but full of hatred for Christ and the lost instead of mercy for the lost. EXTERNAL sacrifices would not make them "righteous" and thus Christ said "I came not to call the "righteous" IN THAT SENSE - CEREMONIAL PHARISEEICAL SELF-RIGHTEOUS people but sinners to repentance.

Hence, these two texts do not contradict one another but perfectly harmonize with each other. The disciple had a right heart and thus was commanded to do the right thing by the law - offer sacrifices. The Pharisees had a wrong heart and thus sarifices would do them no good until they had a right heart - therefore they needed to have a heart of "mercy" rather than self-righteousness.


Now watch Michale's reseponse (if he does respond)! He will not be able to deal with this exposition reasonably or rationally. Most likely, he will either ignore it or reduce himself to the low point again of calling others liars.

I have reposted my contextual based explanation hoping that Michael will respond to the contextual based merits of it rather than ignoring it, or just reasserting his interpretation that offers no contextual based foundation to justify his interpretation.

 

[The Biblicist]

What is clearly noted is you start in Romans 4 when it was part of the larger discouse started in Chapter 2.

Actually, I start at the transition from one subject to another subject in Romans 3:24. The subject of God's wrath, judgment and condemnation of sin has been the theme from Romans 1:18 to Romans 3;23. In Romans 3:24 he introduces another subject - Justification of sinners. So, I properly differ between the subjects and deal with the subject of Justification in its proper place and context in Romans which is Romans 3:24-5:21.

Thus you play on peoples ignorance of the scripture because they don't realize chapter numbers and verses were not originally written into the text but a later development thus contextually his discourse about the primacy of faith started before chapter 4. Which then causes me to question your Hermeneutics.

You need to look at the context more carefully. The subject introduced in Romans 3:24 is justification not the primacy of faith. Faith is only introduced as a means in receiving justification as opposed to works. However, justification is the primary subject throughout.

Also you failed to deal with the natural contextual divisions in Romans 4 which deals with the topic of justification in connection with Abraham. Again,

1. Statement made - Romans 4:1-3 - justification by faith versus works
2. Statement supported by principles - Romans 4:4-5
3. Statement supported by example - Romans 4:6-8
4. Statement confirmed by application to Abraham and seed - Rom. 4:9-12

1. Statement made - Romans 4:13 - Promise obtained by grace versus Law
2. Statement supported by principles - Romans 4:14-17
3. Statement supported by example - Romans 4:18-20
4. Statement confirmed by application to Abraham and seed - Rom. 4:21-25

Conclusion drawn - Romans 5:1-2

The second grouping and second argument concernng how the "promise" was obtained by grace and the principles that define grace repudiate obtaining the promise by law keeping or by any kind of personal contribution but rather by the power of God to keep His promises.

Furthermore, the reference to Genesis 22 is not by contextual design to prove that "justification" is progressive, linear and uncompleted in action but rather to prove that God's promises of grace are kept by God's power and that the nature of justifying faith merely receives and rests in those promises - Rom. 4:21 - rather than participates actively in contributing to or obtaining those promises. This explanation completely defies the whole Roman Catholic system of salvation.

 

[Anastasia]

You guys don't have a lot of hobbies outside of this, do you?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Readers what did I predict? Exactly! He simply ignored a very simple and clear Biblical based interpretation that not only harmonized Luke 5:14 with Matthew 9:13 but refused to consider the obvious context of both and only doubled down on pitting one text against the other.

Every single text he uses for his position is ripped out of context and violates the very abc's of Biblical rules of interpretation. Anyone who handles the scriptures like Michael does can prove anything they want to prove. His use of scriptures is irrational and unreasonable and that is obvious to any real seeker of truth as his position requires ignoring Biblical context and pitting scripture against scripture.

So, you're going to write about me in third person now. I'll respond in kind.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I remember "poor Moriah" quite well and how his posts were filled with personal insults and absolute lies about those he disagreed with. He could hardly make a post without insulting the other person or making an outright lie about them. SavedByMercy was the same in kind as nearly every post he insulted or outright lied about those he addressed.

When a person repeatedly lies they should be called what they are doing. It is one thing to call someone a liar when they are actually lying and repeatedly doing so and it is obvious but it quite another thing to simply use "liar" as a response to arguments you cannot reasonably overturn. You are using the term "liar" when you cannot respond to arguments in a reasonable rational manner. That is wrong!

I call it a lie when it is a lie -- period. Just like what you continually post about Christus Victor -- that is a lie, and a deliberate one. So, if it is a lie, what does that make you? Is that rational enough for you?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

You guys don't have a lot of hobbies outside of this, do you?

No, I'm socially stunted.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Since out of the mouth of God Himself directly in Jeremiah 7: 22-23, He explicitly states that he did not establish the sacrificial system, where then did it come from? A study of ancient history and priestly religion provides the answer. Now fundamentalist blood-letters must ignore this because it destroys their whole theological system and the idea that blood must be spilled before God can forgive. But even in the Jewish OT priestly sacrificial system, this wasn't the case, as I have cited scriptures to prove.

There is not a single doubt in my mind about my position because I have scripture, including the very words directly from the mouth of God Himself, and history to prove its correctness.

 

[The Biblicist]

I call it a lie when it is a lie -- period. Just like what you continually post about Christus Victor -- that is a lie, and a deliberate one. So, if it is a lie, what does that make you? Is that rational enough for you?

It is easy to make an accusation! It is easy to make an asserted intepretation.

However, you have not thus far dealt with the detailed data that I have provided to prove your interpretations are wrong! Why? Are you afraid to deal with the arguments?

 

[The Biblicist]

Since out of the mouth of God Himself directly in Jeremiah 7: 22-23, He explicitly states that he did not establish the sacrificial system, .

18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
19 Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?
20 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground; and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched.
21 ¶ Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh.
22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:

Use some common sense! You are interpreting verse 22 not only contrary to its immediate context but you are interpreting it so that it invalidates not merely the whole book of Leviticus but the clear and repeated command God gave Moses to tell Pharoah that Israel was to go three days journey into the wilderness in order to offer up SACRIFICES to God:

Ex 3:18 And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God.

Ex 20:24 An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.

Now look at the immediate context of Jeremiah 7:18-22. They were actually offering sacrifices up to false gods and then coming into God's House and offering up sacrifices to Him as well. God repudiated this MIXTURE of worship in Egypt when he said:

Ex 30:9 Ye shall offer no strange incense thereon, nor burnt sacrifice, nor meat offering; neither shall ye pour drink offering thereon.


Ex 34:15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;

This is what Jeremiah is referring to in Jeremiah 7:22 - offering pagan sacrifices upon God's altar. He forbid Israel to do this when he brought them out of Egypt.

Again you have chosen to PIT scripture against scripture instead of providing an interpretation that harmonizes scripture with scripture. Anyone who takes that kind of approach is obviously wrong or else God is the author of confusion and scriptures are not inspired.