Retribultion Theology

[JonC]

You accused me of not giving the context of the Justin Martyr quote, and then you do the same.
But there was something else that Trypho was concerned about that you seem to have forgotten. Our Lord was actually crucified. He didn't just take our sins, pack them up and go back to heaven with them; He was crucified, a death that, apart from being horrifically agonizing, was particularly shameful to Jews. He took upon Him the curses for the whole human family and paid the penalty for them. If it were not so, why was He crucified?

Why do you feel you have to ask my permission? Just get on with it.

You are mistaken. As Aquinas (who clarified very strongly he was not claiming God punished Christ in our place for sin) insisted Christ was punished for our sin (what you find enough to be PSA). No one is denying Christ died to save us.

 

[Yeshua1]

Not at all. I already said that the wages of sin is death. You seem to be jumping around here. What I said was that PSA is, per you and Martin, broad when you want it to be but narrow when it pleases you. This is dishonest.

Sure, if you are talking about Christ becoming a curse for the human family. You two have already settled on Martyr holding to PSA so you can't go beyond that. PSA includes Martyr, Luther, Wright, and Calvin. Or were you being dishonest before?

Too late to change your mind. It only means a belief that Christ died for mankind, bore man's sins and by His stripes we are healed.

You wanted to make it an inclusive doctrine so there you go. It's meaningless in terms of distinction because all theories fall within its borders. You are, in other words, adrift.

No, I am in the same boat with Calvin/Berkhof/Hodgh/Erickson/Grudem, basicall most of the reformed and th calvinistic Baptists!

 

[Yeshua1]

You are mistaken. As Aquinas (who clarified very strongly he was not claiming God punished Christ in our place for sin) insisted Christ was punished for our sin (what you find enough to be PSA). No one is denying Christ died to save us.

Since jesus Himself became our sin bearer in our stead, and since lost sinners whe judged by God as sinners experience His divine wrath, why wouldn't jesus?

 

[JonC]

Since jesus Himself became our sin bearer in our stead, and since lost sinners whe judged by God as sinners experience His divine wrath, why wouldn't jesus?

Because Scripture states that doing so is against God's nature.

 

[Yeshua1]

Because Scripture states that doing so is against God's nature.

Against His nature to have divine wrath and punishment of sin?

 

[JonC]

Against His nature to have divine wrath and punishment of sin?

Against His nature to condemn the righteous. You have misunderstood the atonement because you you have adopted a theory that not only goes beyond what is said in Scripture but denies it.

The faithfulness and love Jesus experienced on the Cross is the faithfulness and love we can expect from a holy and immutable God.

 

[Yeshua1]

Against His nature to condemn the righteous. You have misunderstood the atonement because you you have adopted a theory that not only goes beyond what is said in Scripture but denies it.

The faithfulness and love Jesus experienced on the Cross is the faithfulness and love we can expect from a holy and immutable God.

Except that while upon the Cross, he was the sin bearer, and as such, would be shown how God treats lost sinners...

 

[JonC]

Except that while upon the Cross, he was the sin bearer, and as such, would be shown how God treats lost sinners...

Do you understand what "immutable" means? It means no except.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Do you understand what "immutable" means? It means no except.

No it doesn't. It means 'unchangeable.'

 

[JonC]

No it doesn't. It means 'unchangeable.'

In the context of theology, it means that God does not change, no exceptions. He is faithful and it is upon His faithfulness that centuries upon centuries of God's people have relied. God does not change. He is faithful to His word. If He says that He will not condemn the righteous then He will not condemn the righteous. If He says He will judge the wicked then He will judge the wicked. The solution is not God deciding upon which promise to break but making the wicked righteous. If God's nature changes once then He is not immutable. If God breaks His Word once, then He is not faithful. It means "no except". God is a faithful to His Word. No exceptions.

You are caught up in a system that is foreign to Scripture but that you superimpose upon it and through that lens you interpret the Cross. This does not mean that you hold to "another gospel", but it does mean that you are not seeing clearly the true gospel upon which you cling. If this is the only way that you can see the gospel of Christ, as it was for me at one time, then that is fine. I would, however, encourage you to at least try to read Scripture apart from the theory you are imposing upon it. Even if you reject the idea, just try it every now and then. You will be surprised, I promise, how much more comes to light when you allow Scripture to simply interpret itself.

 

[agedman]

When consideration of terms such as immutable, one is confronted with a certain level of dilemma.

There are those who would perceive God as flexible and adapting.

There are those who would view God as rigid, inflexible.

The word immutable, does certainly carry as synonyms such as rigid, inflexible, unchageable, set, fixed ..., however immutable is not completely synonymous (imo) with the limit of these types of characterizations.

Rather, immutable has the background of not being able to be mutated. Biologically or chemically altered.

As it relates to God and focusing upon His character, it is that His character is consistent, His purpose unthwarted, His holiness unspoiled...

As it relates to humankind, immutable means that God's vows do not change, His statements have full veracity, that complete trust and reliance are securely held because He doesn't even have the flitting thought of modification or mutating into that which would violate Himself.

Unlike humankind, who can be "double minded" confused, perplexed, ... God cannot.

However, does God actually change in how He presents Himself to His creation?

To some, they would suggest He does "appear" to change as more is revealed in Scriptures about His character and purpose. Adam may have not seen these as changes at all, for no other has walked and talked as Adam and God. But human perspective is always marred by the influences and pressures of the human condition.

So, is God immutable?

Perhaps. Did not Christ change from the glory He had with the Father to take upon Himself the form of man? Was this not a forever condition that literally changed God?

Did God actually go through a biological mutation?

 

[JonC]

When consideration of terms such as immutable, one is confronted with a certain level of dilemma.

There are those who would perceive God as flexible and adapting.

There are those who would view God as rigid, inflexible.

The word immutable, does certainly carry as synonyms such as rigid, inflexible, unchageable, set, fixed ..., however immutable is not completely synonymous (imo) with the limit of these types of characterizations.

Rather, immutable has the background of not being able to be mutated. Biologically or chemically altered.

As it relates to God and focusing upon His character, it is that His character is consistent, His purpose unthwarted, His holiness unspoiled...

As it relates to humankind, immutable means that God's vows do not change, His statements have full veracity, that complete trust and reliance are securely held because He doesn't even have the flitting thought of modification or mutating into that which would violate Himself.

Unlike humankind, who can be "double minded" confused, perplexed, ... God cannot.

However, does God actually change in how He presents Himself to His creation?

To some, they would suggest He does "appear" to change as more is revealed in Scriptures about His character and purpose. Adam may have not seen these as changes at all, for no other has walked and talked as Adam and God. But human perspective is always marred by the influences and pressures of the human condition.

So, is God immutable?

Perhaps. Did not Christ change from the glory He had with the Father to take upon Himself the form of man? Was this not a forever condition that literally changed God?

Did God actually go through a biological mutation?

There is a sense whereby immutability of nature (and charter) demands mutability in terms of relationship. God's attitude towards the unrepentant sinner changes upon repentance. And of course, biologically God became man. I believe we can go too far and present a stagnant God entrapped by Himself and unable to truly interact with mankind. But we can also go too far the other way and present God as unfaithful to His own nature and His own Word.

When I say immutable I am referring to nature. God is faithful, unchangeable. Not driven by circumstance but also not unable to engage with and within Creation.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The faithfulness and love Jesus experienced on the Cross is the faithfulness and love we can expect from a holy and immutable God.

No. God's treatment of the Lord Jesus on the cross until the ninth hour was what we expect a holy and immutable God to inflict upon sinners. 'For Christ suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God.'

In the context of theology, it means that God does not change, no exceptions. He is faithful and it is upon His faithfulness that centuries upon centuries of God's people have relied. God does not change. He is faithful to His word. If He says that He will not condemn the righteous then He will not condemn the righteous. If He says He will judge the wicked then He will judge the wicked. The solution is not God deciding upon which promise to break but making the wicked righteous. If God's nature changes once then He is not immutable. If God breaks His Word once, then He is not faithful. It means "no except". God is a faithful to His Word. No exceptions.

Exactly so. God will not condemn the righteous nor justify the wicked. That is why Christ was 'made....... sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.' Wonderful, isn't it?

You are caught up in a system that is foreign to Scripture but that you superimpose upon it and through that lens you interpret the Cross. This does not mean that you hold to "another gospel", but it does mean that you are not seeing clearly the true gospel upon which you cling. If this is the only way that you can see the gospel of Christ, as it was for me at one time, then that is fine. I would, however, encourage you to at least try to read Scripture apart from the theory you are imposing upon it. Even if you reject the idea, just try it every now and then. You will be surprised, I promise, how much more comes to light when you allow Scripture to simply interpret itself.

No. I understand that since you are running short of arguments you might wish to make baseless accusations against me, whom you have never met and about whom you know nothing-- it is easier to play the man instead of the ball. But I have just resisted the almost overpowering temptation to respond in kind.

 

[JonC]

No. God's treatment of the Lord Jesus on the cross until the ninth hour was what we expect a holy and immutable God to inflict upon sinners. 'For Christ suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God.'

Exactly so. God will not condemn the righteous nor justify the wicked. That is why Christ was 'made....... sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.' Wonderful, isn't it?

No. I understand that since you are running short of arguments you might wish to make baseless accusations against me, whom you have never met and about whom you know nothing-- it is easier to play the man instead of the ball. But I have just resisted the almost overpowering temptation to respond in kind.

Jesus IS Holy Immutable God.

I have no baseless accusations for you, brother. I know your position and held it for decades. I am saying that your arguments are flawed because you assume the same context I once assumed. I don't think you see this. And that is OK. Better the gospel and tradition than no gospel at all.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Jesus IS Holy Immutable God.

What?? You mean Hebrews 13:8 is in the Bible? It didn't stop Him from becoming man though, did it?

I have no baseless accusations for you, brother. I know your position and held it for decades. I am saying that your arguments are flawed because you assume the same context I once assumed. I don't think you see this. And that is OK. Better the gospel and tradition than no gospel at all.

I have had Jehovah's Witnesses be just as condescending and holier-than-thou to me as they told me how they used to follow 'religious tradition' but now they are thinking for themselves

 

[JonC]

What?? You mean Hebrews 13:8 is in the Bible? It didn't stop Him from becoming man though, did it?

I have had Jehovah's Witnesses be just as condescending and holier-than-thou to me as they told me how they used to follow 'religious tradition' but now they are thinking for themselves

Yes, the Word became flesh (a change) but NEVER ceased being God (immutable).

I don't care about your experiences with the JW's any more than you care that your response to my urging you to Scripture apart from your tradition reminds me of conversations with my RCC friends. Why even go there? I'm not JW and you are not Catholic.

 

[agedman]

No. God's treatment of the Lord Jesus on the cross until the ninth hour was what we expect a holy and immutable God to inflict upon sinners. 'For Christ suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God.'
...

Oh, but Christ was "made sin for us," however, that does not mean he sinned.

Christ did not loose His righteousness. He did not conform to the world, and none of the world is found in Him as it relates to the lusts and pride.

Christ suffered once FOR sins, He remained JUST that He might bring us to God.

What some desire is that God "punished" the Son as if the Son was no longer His Son, or had become some sinful creation.

That just isn't the Scripture presentation.

Christ never became unjust.
Christ never became sin.

If He had, there would be no release from injustice, and no resolve to sin.

Can one so bound release one bound? Do blind lead blind?

Christ can not be considered sinful at anytime, or He was not the true Lamb of God taking away the sin. He carried our sin, He bore our sin, He did not become sinful.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes, the Word became flesh (a change) but NEVER ceased being God (immutable).

Really? Wow! And that is supposed to challenge my argument how exactly?

I don't care about your experiences with the JW's any more than you care that your response to my urging you to Scripture apart from your tradition reminds me of conversations with my RCC friends. Why even go there? I'm not JW and you are not Catholic.

Because you seem to think that because you have had a change of mind it must automatically be a change for the better.
I beg to differ.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Oh, but Christ was "made sin for us," however, that does not mean he sinned.

Christ did not loose His righteousness. He did not conform to the world, and none of the world is found in Him as it relates to the lusts and pride.

Christ suffered once FOR sins, He remained JUST that He might bring us to God.

What some desire is that God "punished" the Son as if the Son was no longer His Son, or had become some sinful creation.

That just isn't the Scripture presentation.

Christ never became unjust.
Christ never became sin.

If He had, there would be no release from injustice, and no resolve to sin.

Can one so bound release one bound? Do blind lead blind?

Christ can not be considered sinful at anytime, or He was not the true Lamb of God taking away the sin. He carried our sin, He bore our sin, He did not become sinful.

'God cannot look where there is sin with any pleasure, and though as far as Jesus is personally concerned, he is the Father's beloved Son in whom he is well pleased; yet when he saw sin laid upon his Son, he made that Son cry, "My God! My God! Why hast thou forsaken me?" It was not possible that Jesus should enjoy the light of his Father's presence while he was made sin for us; consequently he went through a horror of great darkness, the root and source of which was the withdrawing of his Father's presence. More than that, not only was light withdrawn, but positive sorrow was inflicted. God must punish sin, and though the sin was not Christ's by his actually doing it, yet it was laid upon him, and therefore he was made a curse for us.....God only knows the griefs to which the Son of God was put when the Lord made to meet upon him the imiquity of us all. To crown all there came death itself. Death is the punishment for sin, and whatever it may mean....in the sentence "In the day thou eatest of it thou shalt surely die," Christ felt.'
C.H. Spurgeon. MTP, Vol. 12.

 

[JonC]

No. God's treatment of the Lord Jesus on the cross until the ninth hour was what we expect a holy and immutable God to inflict upon sinners. 'For Christ suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God.'

Exactly so. God will not condemn the righteous nor justify the wicked. That is why Christ was 'made....... sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.' Wonderful, isn't it?

No. I understand that since you are running short of arguments you might wish to make baseless accusations against me, whom you have never met and about whom you know nothing-- it is easier to play the man instead of the ball. But I have just resisted the almost overpowering temptation to respond in kind.

This is contrary to Scripture. Scripture teaches that God does not condemn the righteous but is instead a faithful God. Second, Jesus is not a demi-god to whom God's nature does not apply.

I don't think you realize the full implications of your theory.