The Meanings of 'For'

[JonC]

The series was dedicated to giving a Biblical and Philosohical defense of PSA. In doing so, he mentioned all the various views and their merits but pointed out where each one lacked in providing the full Biblical view. I really can't see how you got the idea it was aimed at the neo-Christus Victory is theory when he spells out repeatedly so clearly what his aim was. Perhaps you may have had that idea in view when viewing it?

I called it neo-CV because what he addressed falls within their objections. I did not mean it negatively, but that there is a movement going away from PSA and going to (IMHO) an unsustainable view that excludes God's wrath upon humanity. But this may very well not have been his target.

I agree with Lewis that the objections he tackled often do not hold water. That said, I both understand and disagree with many of his theories.

 

[JonC]

No, it is necessary for you to reply because you are accusing me of misunderstanding your view of the law with relationship to God's nature, obedience, righteousness, holiness, etc. I have spelled out my view clearly and contextually. If you have no disagreement than plainly say you agree with what I have spelled out clearly. If you don't agree with my assessment then don't charge me with misunderstanding your view of the Law of God with regard to the holy nature of God, obedience, righteousness, punishment, sin, etc.



No one said it was! I certainly did not say that or imply that. What I said was that the Law of God reveals the MORAL nature of God and won't you agree with me that God is so much more than his moral nature (eternity, immutability, transcendence, omniscience, etc., etc.). If you don't think the Law of God reveals His own righteousness then you do need to deal with what I provided as I provided proof it does.




Clever, but you are perverting the meaning of that text. The meaning of the text is that the righteousness of God has been manifested in several ways but the clearest way is in the incarnate life of Christ. The written law manifest the righteousness of God, the prophets who interpret the law provide a further written revelation of the righteousness of God, but it is in the incarnation that the righteousness of God is best revealed in its PRINCIPLE form.



Thank you, but no thank you. I know precisely what objectives were accomplished in the cross by PSA - His righteousness was satisfied in the life of Christ for our entrance into heaven (Mt. 5:20; 48) as the sinless man; and his justice was satisfied against sin and sinners in the death of Christ so that we would be conformed to His image with complete victory over death, hell, and the grave to glorify him forever in a new world to come.

I'm not accusing you of anything. I am stating a very obvious fact - your replies have not accurately represented my view. I never denied the Law as revealing God's own nature. I denied that it was through this Law that Jesus merited our salvation. There is a very stark difference here, one that you are missing or obscuring.

 

[JonC]

I am afraid I am missing your point here!

I know, brother. That is what I've been trying to tell you.

God's nature cannot be divided. He cannot choose to be righteous at one moment (by, for example, not justifying the wicked) and then act unjustly the next (by condemning the just). God's wrath is an expression of His love, but His love is centered upon Himself - God is love.

I know your view because I once held it. I know it inside and out. You cannot argue against a view if you do not understand how its conclusions are derived. In order for you to argue against my position you need to first understand my position. I am not talking about knowing this verse or that verse - we all agree on Scripture, we disagree what the passages mean.

Your replies that attempt to explain how my view does not necessitate the cross only serves to show that you lack understanding of positions other than your own. It does not make sense to argue that way.

 

[Yeshua1]

I disagree with the idea that we can pit God's righteousness against His holiness in such a manner. What you are doing is elevating the idea of a righteousness through the Law above God's own nature. Christ had to become flesh and die so that through death He would defeat the power of evil and free us from the slavery of sin and death. The reason He came, after all, was to destroy the works of the devil. The Cross was not something to be avoided, but rather God's predetermined plan. It was God's will that Christ die at the hands of men.

I understand PSA, and reject its base assumption. Based on your arguments, it does not seem that you fully understand the arguments against your view.

Jesus being sinless qualified Him to die in our stead, but the demand of God to have His wrath propitiated was required in order to accomplish salvation of sinners. BOTh the love and wrath of God have to be factored in at the Cross!

 

[Yeshua1]

We can stop here (no need to go on into your reply). Again, you have misunderstood.

The biblical standard of the Law (per Scripture....that is) is not to define God but rather to define men in relation to God (to show us our sinfulness) and to testify (along with the prophets) to this righteousness of God apart from the Law. But yes, I do base God's nature on God Himself and not the Law.

To help you out, think of ontological substitution theory (not that I hold the theory but that it is a good start in understanding apart from your presuppositions). Why was the cross necessary under that theory? What was accomplished on the cross per that theory? How was justice satisfied under that theory?

Do you have any room for the wrath of God towards sins, to have a Holy judgement against sins?

 

[JonC]

Do you have any room for the wrath of God towards sins, to have a Holy judgement against sins?

Yes, of course. Haven't you read my view in the other thread?

 

[JonC]

Jesus being sinless qualified Him to die in our stead, but the demand of God to have His wrath propitiated was required in order to accomplish salvation of sinners. BOTh the love and wrath of God have to be factored in at the Cross!

You don't think that Jesus being God, through Whom all things were created, becoming man qualified Him? Have you ever considered that love and wrath could be closer related than you imply here?

 

[The Biblicist]

I know, brother. That is what I've been trying to tell you.

God's nature cannot be divided. He cannot choose to be righteous at one moment (by, for example, not justifying the wicked) and then act unjustly the next (by condemning the just).

Why these straw men responses??????? Who in the world believes this kind of garbage???? Not I! Of course God cannot be divided from Himself but that does not mean that God's attributes cannot be distinguished from each other and defined distinctly from each other.

I know your view because I once held it. I know it inside and out. You cannot argue against a view if you do not understand how its conclusions are derived. In order for you to argue against my position you need to first understand my position. I am not talking about knowing this verse or that verse - we all agree on Scripture, we disagree what the passages mean.

Your replies that attempt to explain how my view does not necessitate the cross only serves to show that you lack understanding of positions other than your own. It does not make sense to argue that way.

It is your interpretations of scripture that "logically" repudiate the cross. What is amusing is that you really think I don't understand either your view or your interpretations of scripture or your reasoning processes - that is very amusing. So any comment I make on your own explanations is met with "you don't understand." If that is the case then you can blame no one but yourself because I am reading your explanations of what you believe. I am reading your interpretations of scripture. Apparently, you have to charge Martin with the same fallacy as he too is responding precisely as I am. So if both of us are misunderstanding what you say, and both of us are misunderstanding your interpretations AFTER SO LONG OF DEBATE then the fault must lie with your ability to communicate effectively or else both of us are complete uneducated idiots who can't understand plain English. Is that it?

 

[JonC]

Why these straw men responses??????? Who in the world believes this kind of garbage???? Not I! Of course God cannot be divided from Himself but that does not mean that God's attributes cannot be distinguished from each other and defined distinctly from each other.

It's not a "strawman argument". Over and over again "God cannot justify the unjust" as a proof God had to punish the sins of the wicked in exclusion of the second part of the verse. It is assumed God not justifying the wicked means the wicked must be punished rather than conversion.

It is your interpretations of scripture that "logically" repudiate the cross.

This is what I mean. We cannot argue our differences because you do not understand that my interpretation demands the cross. I understand your position. I understand why the cross is necessary in your view. But you simply do not understand mine. This statement proves the fact.

It is not that either of us cannot understand English. But it is that you cannot see past your own views to understand mine. This is an example of "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you" (not being insulting, but noting Gibran)

"The astronomer may speak to you of his understanding of space, but he cannot give you his understanding....And even as each one of you stands alone in God's knowledge, so must each one of you be alone in his knowledge of God and in his understanding of the earth."

Until you can see the necessity of the Cross in my view, you will remain unable to argue against my position for lack of understanding (you will keep putting it in the context of your position and end up arguing against your own prejudice rather than my actual position).

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm not accusing you of anything. I am stating a very obvious fact - your replies have not accurately represented my view. I never denied the Law as revealing God's own nature. I denied that it was through this Law that Jesus merited our salvation. There is a very stark difference here, one that you are missing or obscuring.

This is a very interesting response to say the least. First,you say "I'm not accusing you of anything" and then you immediately follow that statement by accusing me (lol). Perhaps you did not mean to say "anything"? (lol).

Next, you make the claim "I never denied the Law as revealing God's own nature." Is that so? Did you not repeatedly state over and over that the righteousness and obedience of Christ was not of the Law? Yet the Law in its PRINCIPLE form IS LOVE and IS OBEDIENCE and IS RIGHTEOUSNESS and thus IS the manifestation of God's own moral nature. Moreover, when the law of God is written upon the tables our heart (2 Cor. 3:3) that IS the moral nature of God imparted to our very being that the indwelling Spirit enables us to manifest in our daily life that is called "love" "obedience" "righteousness" "holy" etc. Thus,what you are really saying(whether you acknowledge it or not) is that Christ's righteousness, obedience, and love was not of God because if Christ's righteousness, obedience and love was not of the Law in its principle form then it was not of God either. It is very apparent to me that you really don't understand the Biblical view of God's Law and is that misunderstanding or perversion of the Law of God that is key to understanding your rejection of PSA.

My exposition on the Law demonstrated that the Law in its PRINCIPLE form has its source and basis in God's own moral nature. My exposition demonstrated that "love" "righteousness" "obedience" "mercy" "justice" "condemnation" "sin" and "redemption" have no meaning or existence apart from God's law understood in its principle form and in its principle form that God's Law originates with and expresses the very moral nature of God.

Now, concerning your statement "I denied that it was through this Law that Jesus merited our salvation." Let me ask you a simple question. Do you think his love for God and obedience to God merited our salvation? The next question, using the Bible define "love" and "obedience" apart from the Law of God in its principle form? Your view God's Law versus Christ's love and obedience implodes upon itself.

 

[JonC]

This is a very interesting response to say the least. First,you say "I'm not accusing you of anything" and then you immediately follow that statement by accusing me (lol). Perhaps you did not mean to say "anything"? (lol).

Next, you make the claim "I never denied the Law as revealing God's own nature." Is that so? Did you not repeatedly state over and over that the righteousness and obedience of Christ was not of the Law? Yet the Law in its PRINCIPLE form IS LOVE and IS OBEDIENCE and IS RIGHTEOUSNESS and thus IS the manifestation of God's own moral nature. Moreover, when the law of God is written upon the tables our heart (2 Cor. 3:3) that IS the moral nature of God imparted to our very being that the indwelling Spirit enables us to manifest in our daily life that is called "love" "obedience" "righteousness" "holy" etc. Thus,what you are really saying(whether you acknowledge it or not) is that Christ's righteousness, obedience, and love was not of God because if Christ's righteousness, obedience and love was not of the Law in its principle form then it was not of God either. It is very apparent to me that you really don't understand the Biblical view of God's Law and is that misunderstanding or perversion of the Law of God that is key to understanding your rejection of PSA.

My exposition on the Law demonstrated that the Law in its PRINCIPLE form has its source and basis in God's own moral nature. My exposition demonstrated that "love" "righteousness" "obedience" "mercy" "justice" "condemnation" "sin" and "redemption" have no meaning or existence apart from God's law understood in its principle form and in its principle form that God's Law originates with and expresses the very moral nature of God.

Now, concerning your statement "I denied that it was through this Law that Jesus merited our salvation." Let me ask you a simple question. Do you think his love for God and obedience to God merited our salvation? The next question, using the Bible define "love" and "obedience" apart from the Law of God in its principle form? Your view God's Law versus Christ's love and obedience implodes upon itself.

That is not an accusation, brother. It is an observation.

1. We are talking about the work of Christ, the Atonement, and the Cross.
2. I understand how your view necessitates the Cross.
3. You do not understand how my view necessitates the Cross.
4. If you understood how my view necessitates the cross then we could discuss the issue and argue which is the more biblical.

But by your own admission you don't understand my position as you can't see how my view necessitates the cross (and if memory serves, you indicated in the past you have no desire to understand other views as you hold yours correct). This is not accusing you of anything but simply saying that you cannot argue against something you do not understand. Most of your arguments have been straw-man arguments because they fail to adequately oppose what I believe. The only ones that have hit a target have been areas where we disagree about your view - not about my reasons for disagreeing but for your reasons for your conclusions.

 

[The Biblicist]

It's not a "strawman argument". Over and over again "God cannot justify the unjust" as a proof God had to punish the sins of the wicked in exclusion of the second part of the verse.

It seems to me that it is your view that has this problem not my view. For example, death, the white seat judgement throne and Gehenna are incontrovertible proofs that God's view of justice is inseparable from not only His Law but in satisfying the full demands of His Law against sinners for their sins through retributive justice.

So, with some sinners and their sins you must have the moral nature of God and His view of Justice expressed and satisfied inseparable from retributive justice. However,with other sinners and their sins you veiew would have the moral nature of God and His view of justice expressed and satisfied apart from retributive justice. So it is your view that divides God's moral nature and view of justice into two contradictory expressions with regard to justifying the unjust. My view is consistent, and makes God view of justice consistent with sinners and sin. A more fuller explanation is given below.

It is assumed God not justifying the wicked means the wicked must be punished rather than conversion.

Again, the disconnect and division with God's nature rests with your theory not mine. Your theory demands that God has two different kinds of moral nature with regard to defining and satisfying justice for the very same kind of sinners and sins.

Let me explain. I hope you will agree that God's view of justice is based upon and determined by God's moral nature is it not? I hope you will agree that with all who remain unjustified before God that God's moral nature is expressed in a view and definition of justice that can only be satisfied by punitive retributive justice as evidenced by the Great White Seat Judgement and Gehenna. Hence, this view of justice must be consistent with God's moral nature or there would be no death, judgement day, and Gehenna. No rational Bible student can deny that self-evident truth as death, the Great White seat judgement and Gehenna are incontrovertible evidences of this view of justice.

However, it is your view of the atonement demands that God's moral nature and sense of justice can be fully satisfied with regard to the very same kind of sinners and sins BUT without that same moral nature based definition of justice administered to the non-elect. Hence, in the instance of some sinners and sins there is no satisfaction without retributive justice while in the instance of other sinners and sins there is satisfaction without retributive justice. So, in one instance the moral nature of God which defines his sense of justice cannot be satisfied against sinners and sins apart from retributive justice administered, while in another instance the moral nature of God which defines his sense of justice can be satisfied against sinners and sins without retributive justice.

Now, remember you have repeatedly stated that justification for sinners and sins under your system of the atonement is "apart from the law" which does demand retributive justice. Remember, also that it is the moral nature of God that defines God's view of justice. We know that God's view of justice is consistent with retributive justice and the Law of God but your system demands it is consistent with a view of justice that does not demand retributive justice for the very same kind of sinners and sins.

In direct contrast, my system is consistent throughout with sinners and sins in requiring retributive justice to satisfy the moral nature of God. I hope you can see why the conflict with God's nature rests in your camp not mine as you have two conflicting views of justice and yet we agree that it is the moral nature of God that defines God's view of justice.

I realize how you attempt to justify this contradiction of moral nature based justice systems. You use the terms "love" and "obedience" with regard to Christ as the basis for satisfaction. However, neither terms have any meaning apart from the law of God in its PRINCIPLE form and once that is understood your system simply falls apart.

This is why I said your view logically and Biblicly repudiates the cross of Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

That is not an accusation, brother. It is an observation.

Lol! From now on that will be my response when you claim I accused you of something! I think my last post will shed more light on your observations that I don't understand your view.

 

[Yeshua1]

You don't think that Jesus being God, through Whom all things were created, becoming man qualified Him? Have you ever considered that love and wrath could be closer related than you imply here?

Jesus being sinless, and being God, qualified for Him to bear our sins and experience the wrath of God in our stead.

 

[Yeshua1]

It's not a "strawman argument". Over and over again "God cannot justify the unjust" as a proof God had to punish the sins of the wicked in exclusion of the second part of the verse. It is assumed God not justifying the wicked means the wicked must be punished rather than conversion.
This is what I mean. We cannot argue our differences because you do not understand that my interpretation demands the cross. I understand your position. I understand why the cross is necessary in your view. But you simply do not understand mine. This statement proves the fact.

It is not that either of us cannot understand English. But it is that you cannot see past your own views to understand mine. This is an example of "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you" (not being insulting, but noting Gibran)

"The astronomer may speak to you of his understanding of space, but he cannot give you his understanding....And even as each one of you stands alone in God's knowledge, so must each one of you be alone in his knowledge of God and in his understanding of the earth."

Until you can see the necessity of the Cross in my view, you will remain unable to argue against my position for lack of understanding (you will keep putting it in the context of your position and end up arguing against your own prejudice rather than my actual position).

Jesus was in the sight of God the Sin bearer, while upon the Cross he was the substitute for sinners, so why would it be unjust for the father to judge Jesus and place divine wrath upon Him, as he who knew no sin became sin for us!

 

[JonC]

It seems to me that it is your view that has this problem not my view. For example, death, the white seat judgement throne and Gehenna are incontrovertible proofs that God's view of justice is inseparable from not only His Law but in satisfying the full demands of His Law against sinners for their sins through retributive justice.

So, with some sinners and their sins you must have the moral nature of God and His view of Justice expressed and satisfied inseparable from retributive justice. However,with other sinners and their sins you veiew would have the moral nature of God and His view of justice expressed and satisfied apart from retributive justice. So it is your view that divides God's moral nature and view of justice into two contradictory expressions with regard to justifying the unjust. My view is consistent, and makes God view of justice consistent with sinners and sin. A more fuller explanation is given below.







Again, the disconnect and division with God's nature rests with your theory not mine. Your theory demands that God has two different kinds of moral nature with regard to defining and satisfying justice for the very same kind of sinners and sins.

Let me explain. I hope you will agree that God's view of justice is based upon and determined by God's moral nature is it not? I hope you will agree that with all who remain unjustified before God that God's moral nature is expressed in a view and definition of justice that can only be satisfied by punitive retributive justice as evidenced by the Great White Seat Judgement and Gehenna. Hence, this view of justice must be consistent with God's moral nature or there would be no death, judgement day, and Gehenna. No rational Bible student can deny that self-evident truth as death, the Great White seat judgement and Gehenna are incontrovertible evidences of this view of justice.

However, it is your view of the atonement demands that God's moral nature and sense of justice can be fully satisfied with regard to the very same kind of sinners and sins BUT without that same moral nature based definition of justice administered to the non-elect. Hence, in the instance of some sinners and sins there is no satisfaction without retributive justice while in the instance of other sinners and sins there is satisfaction without retributive justice. So, in one instance the moral nature of God which defines his sense of justice cannot be satisfied against sinners and sins apart from retributive justice administered, while in another instance the moral nature of God which defines his sense of justice can be satisfied against sinners and sins without retributive justice.

Now, remember you have repeatedly stated that justification for sinners and sins under your system of the atonement is "apart from the law" which does demand retributive justice. Remember, also that it is the moral nature of God that defines God's view of justice. We know that God's view of justice is consistent with retributive justice and the Law of God but your system demands it is consistent with a view of justice that does not demand retributive justice for the very same kind of sinners and sins.

In direct contrast, my system is consistent throughout with sinners and sins in requiring retributive justice to satisfy the moral nature of God. I hope you can see why the conflict with God's nature rests in your camp not mine as you have two conflicting views of justice and yet we agree that it is the moral nature of God that defines God's view of justice.

I realize how you attempt to justify this contradiction of moral nature based justice systems. You use the terms "love" and "obedience" with regard to Christ as the basis for satisfaction. However, neither terms have any meaning apart from the law of God in its PRINCIPLE form and once that is understood your system simply falls apart.

This is why I said your view logically and Biblicly repudiates the cross of Christ.

Again, until you are able to deal with my position (which is far from a new advent within Christian theology) by understanding the central position the cross plays, I do not believe it is profitable to attempt a discussion. Had I not at least a fundamental understanding of PSA I would not have engaged you in debate. Please do me the same courtesy of at least understanding the basic premise of my view before arguing against it. This you have not done (as evidenced by an inability to see the necessity of the cross within the view).

I have recommended at least one topic that may help you (ontological substitution theory). Another would be the early ransom theory (not Origen's view but the general idea of ransom without one to whom it was paid). Articles should be readily available for study at your seminary's online collection (I take it as an alumni you maintain access). I'd add to that a good understanding of Christus Victor as expressed by the early church (not the contemporary position held by those such as Danny Weaver). Once you understand how the cross was necessary within these views then you may be equipped to argue the validity of those positions. Until then I recommend that you shy away from this type of debate. You, of all people (given your education) should know not to enter unprepared.

 

[JonC]

Lol! From now on that will be my response when you claim I accused you of something! I think my last post will shed more light on your observations that I don't understand your view.

I am not accusing you of something. I am observing that your conclusions of my view do not reflect my view itself. If a man says a blue car is red and I say it is blue, there is no accusation of lying or stupidity. I'm merely stating the color of the car.

You stated that my position does not show a need for the cross. You've stated this several times. Yet my position hinges upon Christ's work on the cross. So it is merely an observation. You are not arguing against my view but pressing your own presuppositions.

I believe that divine justice is an expression of God’s own nature. There is not two different kinds of moral nature. Your claim that my theory demands two different kinds misunderstands my view. Your statement that my view “of the atonement demands that God’s moral nature and sense of justice can be fully satisfied with regard to the very same kind of sinners and sins BUT without that same moral nature based definition of justice administered to the non-elect” is in error. When you state that my comment God’s righteousness is manifested apart from the law demands retributive justice, you are misunderstanding my position. So your conclusion that my view logically repudiates the cross of Christ is flawed because it misunderstands my position entirely. Instead, you place my comments within your system to repudiate them by arriving at mistaken conclusions.

 

[JonC]

Jesus was in the sight of God the Sin bearer, while upon the Cross he was the substitute for sinners, so why would it be unjust for the father to judge Jesus and place divine wrath upon Him, as he who knew no sin became sin for us!

Which scripture were you pointing to (that said on the cross Jesus was being judged by God)?

 

[JonC]

Jesus being sinless, and being God, qualified for Him to bear our sins and experience the wrath of God in our stead.

Jesus is indeed sinless and He is God. And He bore our sins, lay down His life as a propitiation, came in the likeness of sinful flesh, bore our sins in the flesh, and all that entails. He experienced consequences of sin for mankind and became the "last Adam".

 

[The Biblicist]

Again, until you are able to deal with my position (which is far from a new advent within Christian theology) by understanding the central position the cross plays, I do not believe it is profitable to attempt a discussion. Had I not at least a fundamental understanding of PSA I would not have engaged you in debate. Please do me the same courtesy of at least understanding the basic premise of my view before arguing against it. This you have not done (as evidenced by an inability to see the necessity of the cross within the view).

I have recommended at least one topic that may help you (ontological substitution theory). Another would be the early ransom theory (not Origen's view but the general idea of ransom without one to whom it was paid). Articles should be readily available for study at your seminary's online collection (I take it as an alumni you maintain access). I'd add to that a good understanding of Christus Victor as expressed by the early church (not the contemporary position held by those such as Danny Weaver). Once you understand how the cross was necessary within these views then you may be equipped to argue the validity of those positions. Until then I recommend that you shy away from this type of debate. You, of all people (given your education) should know not to enter unprepared.

I realize you relish in thinking that I don't understand your view. But have you really convinced yourself that I have never studied these atonement theories in Bible College and two Seminaries or in 45 years of ministry?????? Do you realllllly think that? Do you really think I am so stupid that I can neither read with comprehension your explanations in the past four or five threads that have been posted over the past six months??????

Have you really convinced yourself that I don't realize that all these theories (Including your theory) include the cross albeit with various interpretative applications? Don't you understand yet, that it is not your words that I am opposing but the interpretations you have put on the words repeatedly in your posts. I am saying that your interpretative view of atonement taken from my perspective of the Biblical position logically rejects necessity of the cross, not that your view rejects the necessity of the cross. Don't confuse the two.

You reject retributive justice in the atonement but rather claim that active and passive (which your view includes the cross) obedience of Christ provides full atonement for sins.

The real truth is that you have and continue to avoid our discussion on the Law of God and could it be because you simply can't defend yourself?