Featured Penal Substitution Theology and the faith of those without it

I am saying, brother, that we are at the “end of the road” not because the conversation is exhausted but because you have erected a road block. Humanity, the state of being human, has been reconciled (past tense). I do not understand how you do not see this in Scripture as it is apparent in "the Logos became flesh", it is clear in the words that God was through Christ reconciling the world to Himself, and that He bore our sins in His flesh. If God did not reconcile humanity (mankind) then we have no hope of individual reconciliation (men cannot be reconciled to God through Christ if through Christ humanity is not reconciled to God).

When I say that God has “reconciled” (past tense humanity), I am saying that God has offered His Son as a guilt offering and Christ bore our sins in his body on the cross (1 Peter 2:24). Man (humanity) is reconciled in Christ (because He became flesh and bore our sins on the cross). You are confusing the reconciliation of humanity with the reconciliation of individual men. Jesus was offered as an atoning sacrifice on the cross. We are reconciled through faith.

Insofar as “there was no purchase of an offer”, I’m not sure what you mean but we were bought at a price (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23), we were purchased with the blood of Christ (1 Peter 1:19). Christ is the propitiation for the sins of mankind (1 Jn 2:2); He is the savior of all, especially those who believe (1 Tim. 4:10). Mankind IS reconciled through Christ, and men have been (past tense) and continue to be (present tense) and will be (future tense) reconciled to God through Christ as the guilt offering (atoning sacrifice, offered in the past) because He is the propitiation not only for our sins but for the sins of the world (the only way, the sufficient sacrifice for man).

I never said that Christ being a "ransom" for all means "the elect" on the cross. I said that the Father offered Christ as an atoning sacrifice (a guilt offering) - that is, by the Incarnation, ministry, and obedience to the point of death, even death on a cross (Phil. 2:7-8). That said, I also claimed that God sent His Son into the world that those who believe would be saved (Jn 3:16). Christ's death on the cross was sufficient for all men, it was the "price" to save all men, it was a reconciliation of humanity to God. But the atoning sacrifice is also an atonement (a reconciliation) for only those who believe. In this manner, Christ's death is universal to all humanity but it is also limited as an atonement for "true Israel", for those who believe.

 

Brother, I do not know why you continue in this way. I am trying to believe that you have not carried here some agenda against me (I don't know why, as we agree for the most part in terms of doctrine and I cannot think of a time when I've wronged you). But please stop the agenda. Please stop the insults, and the accusations. Please stop playing the victim and trying to make me something that I am not. In other words, SG, please give me the respect that I am giving you.

The reason that I "disagreed" with your "joke" was not the content. Had TCassidy made the reply then I would not have "disagreed". I disagreed because that "joke" was the only substantial interaction you've had on this thread, and I did not think it the appropriate way to enter the dialogue.

I rated it "disagree" instead of responding because I did not think that it was worth an argument, or an explanation. I simply subjectively disagree.

Please stop returning to your false accusations of the past (I've warned you about that, brother). You've been at it so long I doubt that you can even remember the "agenda" you claimed I was advancing anyway. Your agenda is clear...exactly why it exists is beyond me.

 

You're welcome Hank. If you could, please help me hold this bag of frozen peas over my black eye....that was some sucker punch SG threw my way. Laugh

(I didn't think you minded a joke, but I didn't agree that it was the best response either).

 

To whom??? Laugh

I rated your post, I didn't kick your DoG.

I also did not mean any harm, or that you would take it so severely as to respond as you did. I didn't think that you held any malice either (I just thought it a poor way to enter the dialogue at that point). I am sorry that you took my rating to heart and I didn't mean you to take it that way. As you said, lighten up a bit here. We are not at war with each other. For my part, and regardless of my opinion, I've removed the rating.

 

You thought that I was implying that you were Convicted1? Brother, I don't think that there is anyone here that does not know you are Convicted1. I thought you had that username retired because you couldn't log on (like me with JonC).

Now I see the reason for your conduct towards me was you thought I had some agenda to expose your identity, and I am so sorry that we did not discuss this months ago. I've been wondering why the hostility and the accusations. But Brother, this is so very far from the truth. It never crossed my mind that you thought I was "tossing innuendos" at you and I apologize if something I said led you to that misunderstanding, but please know that it is far from the truth. I do not now, nor have I ever, advanced an agenda on this or any board. You have horribly mistaken an intent I never carried.

Please understand and realize that far too much has already been said on the grounds of misunderstanding. If you ever have a question about anything I say, about why I say it or my purpose, then please ask me. I hate that so much ill feelings and disruptive words have resulted from that one misunderstanding, but I am hopeful as the error is in the open. I am sorry you felt slighted, and that was never my intention.

The other issue is now people know I was JonC (and I was so creative in making a new username).....they'll put things together and find out we were once on good terms and I counted you as a "friend" - which is why I've reached out to you several times to discuss and reconcile whatever is between us, and the invitation is still open (the "ball" has never left your court).

Our secretes are exposed, we emperors have no clothes...Frown

“ And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.”

 

I don't see it a "roadblock", Van, but I do believe the passages I have provided show that in Christ humanity (mankind) is reconciled to God. I believe this evident in the scriptures I provided as support. There is an old quote, but I cannot remember where it originated (or where I picked it up..I think Paul Washer...). By way of explanation it said that God could not redeem what He did not take upon Himself. In reconciling man God first reconciled humanity.

And again, I am saying mankind/humanity was reconciled in Christ on the cross, not men. In other words, Christ is the propitiatiation for the sin of mankind. We were not reconciled two thousand years ago, but in Christ man and God are reconciled. It is a disagreement, not a barrier.



Sent from my SM-T357T using Tapatalk

 

That's fine, Brother. We do pick our own words and wrestle with these things in such a way that disagreements arise. I want to make sure that we understand those differences, and sometimes that is all that we can do.

One reason that I strongly believe that humanity itself (mankind) was at the cross reconciled to God is that this is the basis for individual reconciliation. I do not think this anything but a reconciliation based on Christ's being (completely man, completely God). Prior to the Logos being made flesh, humanity was not reconciled to God. Now there is a "man" in the glory in the person of Christ.

This was how many of the ECF's held Christ's purpose on the Cross (Eusebius and Justin Martyr, for example). Though the Cross God was reconciling the world to Himself and that ministry of reconciliation continues through us. Without the initial reconciliation of humanity, man cannot be reconciled.

Yes, we disagree on the term "reconciliation" as I am using in speaking of humanity. In my defense, reconciliation does mean that type of restoration. In Christ humanity is reconciled to God. I simply do not understand how that can be denied yet we believe that man can be saved.

To put it another way which may be clearer: Humanity was once unreconciled with God. In Christ, humanity is no longer at odds with God but is reconciled in such a way that men can on the ground of the Cross be saved.