Again, brother, you are proving my point. I have appealed to Scripture. You appeal to 17th century Reformed theology.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Where did the wrath of God go?
- Thread starter agedman
- Start date
- Status
Turretin and others dealt with your error in his time...
Again: if God was able and willing by his word alone, to pardon our sins without any atonement, then why does the Apostle Paul so often and emphatically refer our justification and salvation to the blood of Christ?
"We are justified by the redemption which is in his blood," Rom 3:24.
"We have redemption through his blood: the remission of sins,"
Eph. 1:7. "He has reconciled all things to himself by the blood of Christ," Col. 1:20.
Now there was no need for his blood to be shed if remission depended solely upon the divine will.
V. If there was no necessity that Christ should die, the greatness of God's love in not sparing his own Son, but delivering him up for us all,1 which the apostle commends, would be not a little diminished. If there was no obstacle on the part of justice in the way of our salvation, it would indeed have been great grace in God to have forgiven our sins. But it would have fallen far short of that stupendous love which, though inexorable justice stood in the way, removed all impediments to our redemption by means found in the treasures of infinite wisdom, displaying a most amiable harmony between justice and mercy. Nor can Christ be said to have appeased the wrath of God, if God could have laid aside his own wrath by mere volition, without demanding any satisfaction.
Your twisted cobbled together paraphrases of scripture are not accurate. Before you took 3 different parts of verses and tried to make them stand.
VI. Finally, our opinion relative to the necessity of an atonement does not in the least derogate from any of the Divine Perfections.
Not from God's absolute Power, because he can neither deny himself nor any of his attributes; nor can he act in such a way as to give the appearance of delighting in sin by holding communion with the sinner.
Not from the Freedom of his Will, because he can will nothing contrary to his justice and holiness, which would be injured if sin were to go unpunished.
Not from his boundless Mercy, for this is exercised towards the sinner though punishment is inflicted on the Surety. On the contrary, it makes a glorious display of the most illustrious of the divine perfections:
Of his Holiness, on account of which he can have no communion with the sinner until, by an atonement, his guilt is removed and his pollution purged;
Of his Justice, which inexorably demands punishment of sin;
Of his Wisdom, in reconciling the respective claims of justice and mercy; and
Of his Love, in not sparing his own Son in order that he might spare us.
Everything depends solely on God's divine will. And it was absolutely necessary for Christ's blood to be shed by the wicked in accordance with the will of God.
You are allowing yourself to be a follower of men (of dead Reformed theologians).
It is interesting that you seem to question their "biblical teaching" on infant baptism but turn to them as authorities when they "tickle your ears".
Do you see the cross as God's righteousness manifested apart from the law?
Either the law was abolished for believers or it is still in effect. Romans 5:
8but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
The judgment that followed one sin brought condemnation, but the gift that followed many trespasses brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive an abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! 18So then, just as one trespass brought condemnation for all men, so also one act of righteousness brought justification and life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. 20The law came in so that the trespass would increase; but where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
For, so far, in Romans, I find it in agreement with what I presented concerning both Ephesians and Colossians.
In what manner was the Law superior to Christ? No
Was Christ made under the law or was Christ the giver of the Law? He was the law giver.
Could and did Christ forgive sins prior to the Cross? Yes
Did He do that without demands of the law for animal Sacrifice? Because He held authority over the law and the application.
Now, I am having a bit of difficulty with my concentration, tonight, but will get back to this later with appropriate Scripture support for the above answers.
That verse is saying that men cannot attain to eternal life by law keeping. Jesus kept the law perfectly exhibiting the perfect righteousness as being obedient to all the Father set out for him to do.
We are found in HIM he taking our sin and punishment, we are partakers of His perfect righteousness.
The controversy does not respect a metaphorical satisfaction which is effected by a nominal remission of sin — a satisfaction which by supplication obtains some favour through the mere indulgence of God.
This is admitted and often spoken of by our adversaries to deceive the simple.
But they pertinaciously deny that Christ has made a true and proper satisfaction by paying a full price, and by obtaining through his merits, the acquittal of the sinner on the ground of justice. We maintain that this is the true scriptural atonement.
Have you considered that God's justice actually demands the condemnation of the unjust (the wicked will perish)?
Under the Law it was unjust to punish one for another's crimes. The wicked are punished for their own sins.
There is no salvation in punishing Christ instead of the wicked for their sins.
Salvation is in rebirth (recreating the unjust man, making him a just man). In the Bible this is called being "born agsin", "born from above", "born of the Spirit", and made "new creations".
The controversy does not respect a metaphorical satisfaction which is effected by a nominal remission of sin — a satisfaction which by supplication obtains some favour through the mere indulgence of God.
This is admitted and often spoken of by our adversaries to deceive the simple.
But they pertinaciously deny that Christ has made a true and proper satisfaction by paying a full price, and by obtaining through his merits, the acquittal of the sinner on the ground of justice. We maintain that this is the true scriptural atonement.
The law foreshadowed Christ. You have the tail wagging the dog. Like the Jews who opposed Christ you are caught up in philosophies you have made centered on the law.
But if you are correct then there woukd be no purpose to a rebirth. God woukd be unjust and the justifier of sinners (the Father woukd have violated His own law).
The Law is not a set of rules man could not follow but Jesus submitted to. The law is one manifestation of God's righteousness....it reveals His nature.
If you spent a fraction of the time you spend studying Reformed theology and works of theologians who "tickle your ears" on studying Scripture then you would have a chance of realizing your error.
Move on from milk to the meat of the Word.
JonC,
Of course I have...All sin will be punished....In the sinner, or the divine substitute. That is why I am disputing all these ideas.
{Under the Law it was unjust to punish one for another's crimes. The wicked are punished for their own sins.}
YES...
This cannot happen unless and until justice is met.
Yes each elect person whose sins are paid in full know that.
Of course I have...All sin will be punished....In the sinner, or the divine substitute. That is why I am disputing all these ideas.
{Under the Law it was unjust to punish one for another's crimes. The wicked are punished for their own sins.}
YES...
That is the only salvation available
This cannot happen unless and until justice is met.
Yes each elect person whose sins are paid in full know that.
Your antinomian false teaching is not the gospel taught in scripture;
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
The law is central to the gospel...Jesus keeps it for the elect.
Until you learn this you will continue to drift from truth.
You are not the fountain of truth...these reformers you ridcule say more in two paragraphs then you say on 200 threads of repeated failed ideas.
I will leave you to your ideas, and I will go back to what I was doing.
It is not whether the death of Christ is advantageous to us, and in various respects promotes our interests; for this they also willingly admit.
It is whether, by substituting himself in our place, he suffered the punishment due us. We maintain that he did. It is not whether Christ is our Saviour, on account of his doctrine announcing to us the way of salvation; or on account of the example of his life, in which by his virtues and miracles he confirmed the truth; or on account of his efficacious power, by which he will assuredly bestow on us this salvation — for Socinus grants all this to Christ.
3 The great subject of debate is whether Christ, by his satisfaction and merits, is our Saviour in the strictest sense of the word. Our opponents have openly made the utmost exertions to overturn this doctrine which has been constantly held by the orthodox, and proved by various solid and irresistible arguments.
It is whether, by substituting himself in our place, he suffered the punishment due us. We maintain that he did. It is not whether Christ is our Saviour, on account of his doctrine announcing to us the way of salvation; or on account of the example of his life, in which by his virtues and miracles he confirmed the truth; or on account of his efficacious power, by which he will assuredly bestow on us this salvation — for Socinus grants all this to Christ.
3 The great subject of debate is whether Christ, by his satisfaction and merits, is our Saviour in the strictest sense of the word. Our opponents have openly made the utmost exertions to overturn this doctrine which has been constantly held by the orthodox, and proved by various solid and irresistible arguments.
I. The first argument is drawn from those texts in which Christ is said to have redeemed us at the price of his blood. For the payment of a price — properly so called and perfectly sufficient — shows that a satisfaction in its true and proper sense has been made, since price always has a reference to distributive justice.
4 These texts are various. "You were redeemed by a price," 1Cor 6:20. "You were redeemed from your vain conversation, not by corruptible things such as silver and gold, but by the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without spot," 1Pet 1:19. "Christ gave himself for us, that he might redeem (purchase) us from all iniquity," Titus 2:14. "In whom we have redemption through his blood," Eph 1:7. "The Son of man came that he might lay down his life a ransom for many," Mark 10:45 — lutron (G3083) anti pollun — i.e., a price of payment in the place of many. The name Jesus was given to him, "because he saves his people from their sins," Mat 1:21.
Many things prove that in the business of man's salvation, the word redemption is to be understood as signifying the payment of a price.
1. This is the primary import of the words lutron and apo-lutron, and we may in no case give them any other, unless it is for a very solid reason. This is not denied by Socinus himself, "To redeem anyone, properly signifies nothing else but to free a captive by paying a price to the one who detains him." 2
2. The condition of man requires this, since he is a prisoner not only of Satan and death, but also of sin, both as to its guilt and its pollution; and therefore he is a prisoner of the divine law and justice. He is condemned by God; he is a child of wrath; and he cannot be released except by a satisfactory payment.
3. Such is the redemption procured by the price mentioned, 1Cor 6:20. Why should the apostle use lutron, price of redemption, and time (G5092), punishment, if no price was paid? The reply usually made to this is that the term is used in a figurative sense, and it denotes that we are freed from the power of sin. This is an assumption which, as we do not grant it, our opponent is bound to prove. Indeed, the contrary is evident. The price is compared to very precious earthly things, such as gold, silver, and jewels, which always have a relation to price, strictly so called, 1Pet 1:18.3
4. We have not only the word lutron, a price of redemption, but also the word anti-lutron (G487), applied to the suffering and death of Christ. Nothing can be more express than this word antilutron. It denotes not merely a price, but such a price that it is perfectly equal to the debt which it pays: this is the force of the preposition anti, which here expresses substitution. Aristotle uses the same word, anti-lutron, in the ninth book of his Ethics, second chapter, to denote the redemption of a life by substituting another in its place. Hence it appears that this redemption is not a mere manumission, such as that in which a master, without any price, sets free his slaves; nor is it simply an act of power, by which captives are rescued from the hand of an enemy; nor is it a bare exchange, as with prisoners of war. It is a real satisfaction, such as a surety makes by paying in full for the debtor. Our deliverance, indeed, is procured without any price paid on our part, and purely through the free grace and mercy of God.
4 The divine power, too, is gloriously displayed in emancipating us from the tyrannical dominion of Satan, over whom Christ obtains a victory and triumph, Col 2:15. There is also an exchange in respect to Christ, who was substituted in our place, and suffered the punishment due us. Yet in relation to the justice of God, there is a real and perfect satisfaction made.
4 These texts are various. "You were redeemed by a price," 1Cor 6:20. "You were redeemed from your vain conversation, not by corruptible things such as silver and gold, but by the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without spot," 1Pet 1:19. "Christ gave himself for us, that he might redeem (purchase) us from all iniquity," Titus 2:14. "In whom we have redemption through his blood," Eph 1:7. "The Son of man came that he might lay down his life a ransom for many," Mark 10:45 — lutron (G3083) anti pollun — i.e., a price of payment in the place of many. The name Jesus was given to him, "because he saves his people from their sins," Mat 1:21.
Many things prove that in the business of man's salvation, the word redemption is to be understood as signifying the payment of a price.
1. This is the primary import of the words lutron and apo-lutron, and we may in no case give them any other, unless it is for a very solid reason. This is not denied by Socinus himself, "To redeem anyone, properly signifies nothing else but to free a captive by paying a price to the one who detains him." 2
2. The condition of man requires this, since he is a prisoner not only of Satan and death, but also of sin, both as to its guilt and its pollution; and therefore he is a prisoner of the divine law and justice. He is condemned by God; he is a child of wrath; and he cannot be released except by a satisfactory payment.
3. Such is the redemption procured by the price mentioned, 1Cor 6:20. Why should the apostle use lutron, price of redemption, and time (G5092), punishment, if no price was paid? The reply usually made to this is that the term is used in a figurative sense, and it denotes that we are freed from the power of sin. This is an assumption which, as we do not grant it, our opponent is bound to prove. Indeed, the contrary is evident. The price is compared to very precious earthly things, such as gold, silver, and jewels, which always have a relation to price, strictly so called, 1Pet 1:18.3
4. We have not only the word lutron, a price of redemption, but also the word anti-lutron (G487), applied to the suffering and death of Christ. Nothing can be more express than this word antilutron. It denotes not merely a price, but such a price that it is perfectly equal to the debt which it pays: this is the force of the preposition anti, which here expresses substitution. Aristotle uses the same word, anti-lutron, in the ninth book of his Ethics, second chapter, to denote the redemption of a life by substituting another in its place. Hence it appears that this redemption is not a mere manumission, such as that in which a master, without any price, sets free his slaves; nor is it simply an act of power, by which captives are rescued from the hand of an enemy; nor is it a bare exchange, as with prisoners of war. It is a real satisfaction, such as a surety makes by paying in full for the debtor. Our deliverance, indeed, is procured without any price paid on our part, and purely through the free grace and mercy of God.
4 The divine power, too, is gloriously displayed in emancipating us from the tyrannical dominion of Satan, over whom Christ obtains a victory and triumph, Col 2:15. There is also an exchange in respect to Christ, who was substituted in our place, and suffered the punishment due us. Yet in relation to the justice of God, there is a real and perfect satisfaction made.
III. Another proof is derived from those Scriptures in which Christ is said to have borne our sins, and on account of them to have been afflicted, to have been wounded, to have died. "He bore our sins in his own body on the tree," 1Pet 2:24. This passage is taken by the apostle from Isaiah 53, in which the Chaldee Paraphrase and the ancient Jews consider the prophet to be speaking of the Messiah. "He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows — he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities — the chastisement of our peace was upon him — the Lord has laid on him the iniquity (i.e., the punishment) of us all — he shall make his soul an offering for sin." In proving the atonement from these texts, we reason as follows: — 1. From bearing our sins — though to bear and to carry are sometimes used figuratively for taking away and pardoning,2 there is no good reason why we should understand them this way in these passages. Indeed, there are most weighty reasons which forbid us departing from the primary and most common signification, "to bear sin," according to which, as Socinus himself acknowledges,3 is the same thing as to bear the punishment of sin. The word nasa' (H5375), which sometimes relates to a simple taking away of sin, is indeed used; but the word cabal (H5445) is also used,
which signifies the bearing of a burden laid upon someone, and clearly intimates the suffering of punishment.
2. The manner of bearing the sins confirms us in this view. The sins are borne by the bearer's being bruised and wounded. Sin is also said to be laid upon him. None of these could be said, unless Christ took upon himself and suffered the punishment of sin.
3. Christ made his soul an offering, and laid down his life an offering for sin, bore sin in the manner of a victim: indeed, he made himself in reality a victim by suffering death and shedding his blood in the place of sinners.
4. All things which indicate a real satisfaction occur in this portion of Scripture —
Our sins as the moving, meritorious cause, "he was bruised for our iniquities," Isa 53:5;
The suffering of punishment due for sin: "he has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows," Isa 53:4;
The imputation of our sins to Christ by God as a judge: "the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all," Isa 53:6;
The voluntary undertaking of Christ as our surety: "he was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth" in complaining of his sufferings, or in refusing to bear them, Isa 53:7;
An expiation for sin and a full payment of the debt: "yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he has put him to grief: when You shall make his soul on offering for sin," Isa 53:10. Now, with what propriety could all these things be affirmed, if Christ laid down his l
which signifies the bearing of a burden laid upon someone, and clearly intimates the suffering of punishment.
2. The manner of bearing the sins confirms us in this view. The sins are borne by the bearer's being bruised and wounded. Sin is also said to be laid upon him. None of these could be said, unless Christ took upon himself and suffered the punishment of sin.
3. Christ made his soul an offering, and laid down his life an offering for sin, bore sin in the manner of a victim: indeed, he made himself in reality a victim by suffering death and shedding his blood in the place of sinners.
4. All things which indicate a real satisfaction occur in this portion of Scripture —
Our sins as the moving, meritorious cause, "he was bruised for our iniquities," Isa 53:5;
The suffering of punishment due for sin: "he has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows," Isa 53:4;
The imputation of our sins to Christ by God as a judge: "the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all," Isa 53:6;
The voluntary undertaking of Christ as our surety: "he was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth" in complaining of his sufferings, or in refusing to bear them, Isa 53:7;
An expiation for sin and a full payment of the debt: "yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he has put him to grief: when You shall make his soul on offering for sin," Isa 53:10. Now, with what propriety could all these things be affirmed, if Christ laid down his l
http://www.onthewing.org/user/Turretin - Atonement of Christ.pdf
Here is the whole file for those who want to learn.
3. From the three-fold effect of the sacrifice:
In respect to God, by the propitiation of his wrath: In respect to sin, by the expiation and removal of its guilt:
In respect to man, by the pardon which followed from the propitiation of God and the expiation of sin. For a person cannot be freed and obtain pardon, without the substitution of a victim in his place; nor can God be appeased without the shedding of blood; Heb 9.22 nor can sin be expiated without the suffering of punishment
V. Again, we argue for the doctrine of the atonement from our reconciliation with God, which Christ has procured for us by his death. Since that reconciliation supposes the making up of the breach which sin had produced between God and his creatures, this could not be effected without the removal of a two-fold barrier, by a satisfaction. On the part of God, his justice must be satisfied, and on the part of man, the guilt of sin must be removed by suffering the punishment that is due for it. The Apostle Paul, everywhere, teaches us that Christ procured for us such a reconciliation.
2 The substance of the OBJECTIONS which our opponents offer against this argument is that, "this reconciliation is effected by our conversion to God, and not at all by appeasing the divine wrath, because God is not said to be reconciled to us, but we to God. Indeed, he is said to procure for us this reconciliation, which is not the part of an enemy, but of a friend." This capital error of our opponents is refuted by many powerful arguments.
1. The Scriptures speak of a double enmity and reconciliation, not only on the part of man, who by sin has become a hater of God, Rom 1:21, an enemy in his mind by wicked works, Col 1:21: but also on the part of God, by his wrath which is revealed from heaven against all iniquity Rom 1:18. Hence men are by nature children of wrath, Eph 2:5. God is said to be of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, Hab 1:13. He hates all workers of iniquity, Psa 5:5. Now as there is an alienation on both sides, so there must be a reconciliation on each side: on the part of God by turning away his wrath; on the part of man by conversion to God — all of which the Apostle clearly teaches, 2Cor 5:18-19.
Here is the whole file for those who want to learn.
3. From the three-fold effect of the sacrifice:
In respect to God, by the propitiation of his wrath: In respect to sin, by the expiation and removal of its guilt:
In respect to man, by the pardon which followed from the propitiation of God and the expiation of sin. For a person cannot be freed and obtain pardon, without the substitution of a victim in his place; nor can God be appeased without the shedding of blood; Heb 9.22 nor can sin be expiated without the suffering of punishment
V. Again, we argue for the doctrine of the atonement from our reconciliation with God, which Christ has procured for us by his death. Since that reconciliation supposes the making up of the breach which sin had produced between God and his creatures, this could not be effected without the removal of a two-fold barrier, by a satisfaction. On the part of God, his justice must be satisfied, and on the part of man, the guilt of sin must be removed by suffering the punishment that is due for it. The Apostle Paul, everywhere, teaches us that Christ procured for us such a reconciliation.
2 The substance of the OBJECTIONS which our opponents offer against this argument is that, "this reconciliation is effected by our conversion to God, and not at all by appeasing the divine wrath, because God is not said to be reconciled to us, but we to God. Indeed, he is said to procure for us this reconciliation, which is not the part of an enemy, but of a friend." This capital error of our opponents is refuted by many powerful arguments.
1. The Scriptures speak of a double enmity and reconciliation, not only on the part of man, who by sin has become a hater of God, Rom 1:21, an enemy in his mind by wicked works, Col 1:21: but also on the part of God, by his wrath which is revealed from heaven against all iniquity Rom 1:18. Hence men are by nature children of wrath, Eph 2:5. God is said to be of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, Hab 1:13. He hates all workers of iniquity, Psa 5:5. Now as there is an alienation on both sides, so there must be a reconciliation on each side: on the part of God by turning away his wrath; on the part of man by conversion to God — all of which the Apostle clearly teaches, 2Cor 5:18-19.
The wrath of God is being administered daily.
Rom 1:18, 24, 26, 28, 32
From earth, it is in the administration of criminal justice.
Rom 1:18, 24, 26, 28, 32
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; ... Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: ... For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: ... And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; ... Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Notice that wrath IS revealed, not WILL be revealed. From heaven, it is in God 'giving them up' to uncleanness, vile affections, and to a reprobate mind. God's giving them up is a visitation of wrath.
From earth, it is in the administration of criminal justice.
Rom 13:4 But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
There is no response to sin that does not involve the just wrath of God. Even His forbearance and delay is an administration of wrath, letting sinners build their store of wrath against the Day of Wrath and righteous judgment of God, Romans 2:5 .
Last edited:
This is a lie. The Law of the Trespass Offering clearly shows the debts of sin to God and to man being paid by the Offerer.
Christ is the Offerer of His life for sin and for trespass.
This "either-or" declaration is an error. I'm not sure if you can see it, but you are making assumptions that are denied by Scripture.
The law was not abolished and it is not still in effect for believers.
Believers were never under the law. What Christ did was to cancel out that debt of decrees which stood against us
Believers are under the law of Christ. We do not need the OT law because this is fulfilled in Christ. He is the fulfillment.
Yes, it is Scripture itself.
Most will realize that it is very rare - despite the passages you quote - that you actually deal with Scripture. Most often you drift into philosophy, Reformed theology, and the writings of men you have chosen to follow.
You are wrong in the accusation that Scripture is mot enough, that God's Words are "empty husks" without Reformed philosophy, that God revealed His truth via progressive revelation, that the Bible is a bunch of "dots" that need connecting, that wecare to follow Reformed teachers as "given to the world" by God, that we rely not on God's Word but its "teachings when properly understood".
I understand that you do not realize yet what most here see (even those who hold Penal Substitution Theory as being correct). You are a follower of men, not God, when it comes to theology. You have chosen a sect to follow and only those who "tickle your ears" are correct in your mind ...their philosophy bring greater than God's Word.
I encourage you to try to set aside the works of men for a few days and study the Word of God. Stick with Scripture. You will find it, believe it or not, sufficient and not lacking....far from the "empty husks" awaiting to be filled by Reformed teachers you imply it is.
- Status