Where did the wrath of God go?

[Iconoclast]

"JonC,

[QUOTEI will ask again...why must man be reborn?][/QUOTE]

Until you can answer the very basic question of why men must be born again in order to enter the kingdom there is really no point in going forward.
JonC is unable (and seems to be having a tantrum because of his failure).

The simple question is at the core of our faith. Do you understand the reason (what is written in Scripture)?
Try sticking with Scripture only, until you can truly give an account of the Christian faith. Keep trying, and praying

 

[Iconoclast]

@JonC, it is become obvious that you have read a book that is not canonical which has influenced you tremendously. You so admire that authors take that you have bought in. Your scripture passages are disjointed and not contextually sound. Therefore you have resorted to a claim which many cult leaders use, which is to declare that you only are correct and all others are wrong. The founder of the Jehovahs Witnesses is an example. Now, I am not calling you a cult member. I am simply stating you have resorted to that tactic. On this issue, Jon, you have lost all credibility. Keep writing if you feel you must, but your words have become nothing more than noise at this point.

YES...you and others have noticed this.

 

[JonC]

@JonC, it is become obvious that you have read a book that is not canonical which has influenced you tremendously. You so admire that authors take that you have bought in. Your scripture passages are disjointed and not contextually sound. Therefore you have resorted to a claim which many cult leaders use, which is to declare that you only are correct and all others are wrong. The founder of the Jehovahs Witnesses is an example. Now, I am not calling you a cult member. I am simply stating you have resorted to that tactic. On this issue, Jon, you have lost all credibility. Keep writing if you feel you must, but your words have become nothing more than noise at this point.

The book that I have read is the Bibke. But no, I stopped reading works of men as an authority.

There is a reason my view here is the main Christian view. There is a reason it predates your theory by over 15 centuries. It is the si.ple understanding of the text of Scripture. Within this understanding there are debatable views, but it is the Christian faith.

I read after working out my faith to make sure I had not developed a unique view (then I woukd have suspected error....a failure John Calvin should have realized). I found that the Early Church, Anabaptist Theology, and even Reformed scholars (the ones involved in seeking a more biblical position of the cross within Reformed thrology) confirm my view. This did serve as a type of confirmation. But the greater confirmation is Scripture (that I can see it teaches "what is written" rather than the theories I once shared with you).


If you need evidence, consider how you called 2 passages "error" before realizing they were passages. Consider @Iconoclast 's failure on this thread.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

Consider@Iconoclast's failure on this thread.

I have given you scripture Jn 3;3-7;
Until you can answer the very basic question of why men must be born again in order to enter the kingdom there is really no point in going forward.
JonC is unable (and seems to be having a tantrum because of his failure).

The simple question is at the core of our faith. Do you understand the reason (what is written in Scripture)?
Try sticking with Scripture only, until you can truly give an account of the Christian faith. Keep trying, and praying

And your appeal is not to Scripture but to Regormed teachers who teach what you have chosen to believe.

Again, I understand your position. I once stood where you are now. And I was no less saved then as I am having been enabled by God to let go of those philosophies.

Until you are willing to shake off human tradition you will never be able to grasp the truth of Scripture on this issue.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

I read after working out my faith to make sure I had not developed a unique view (then I woukd have suspected error....a failure John Calvin should have realized). I found that the Early Church, Anabaptist Theology, and even Reformed scholars (the ones involved in seeking a more biblical position of the cross within Reformed thrology) confirm my view. This did serve as a type of confirmation.

Your relying on books of men, and theology of anabaptist theolgians.
I gave you scripture....you rely on books of men for a confirmation

Until you are willing to shake off human tradition you will never be able to grasp the truth of Scripture on this issue.

I want the best for you, brother. You have a zeal to share the gospel. But rather than experiencing the meat of the Word you suckled on the milk and turned back to "worldly wisdom" and humanistic philosophy.

ps.....the use of the funny emoji is immature, and adults should not have any need for it;

Funny x 1
JonC

 

[Aaron]

Until you can answer the very basic question of why men must be born again in order to enter the kingdom there is really no point in going forward.

@Iconoclast is unable (and seems to be having a tantrum because of his failure).

The simple question is at the core of our faith. Do you understand the reason (what is written in Scripture)?

Be careful here, because Jon is redefining rebirth. He asserts that it is merely a re-enactment of the Sixth Day.

He postulates a re-creation, not a begetting.

To be born of the flesh, is simply creation. To be born of the Spirit is to be begotten of God, and to become more than what Adam was in his innocence. It is to become a partaker of the divine nature.

He attempts to make this the central theme of the Gospel, contrary to the Apostle who determined not to know anything among us but Christ, and Him crucified. And also contrary to Christ, Who in the memorial He established to be observed in the churches till He returns shows His death.

Even in His resurrection, Jesus bears the marks of His death.

Crown him the Lord of love;
behold his hands and side,
rich wounds, yet visible above,
in beauty glorified;
no angel in the sky
can fully bear that sight,
but downward bends his wondering eye
at mysteries so bright.​

Christ's death, and what was paid, is the central theme of the Gospel.

It is the central theme in Heaven.

 

[JonC]

Jon, I just answered it with scripture.
You are right. There is no going forward when you ignore the answer that scripture provides you.

Time to close this thread.

Sorry, I missed the last part.

But yes, the passage you provided does explain why one must be born again.

God did not save us by providing somebody to take our punishment instead of us (this is not in the Bible).

Instead :

The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

 

[JonC]

JonC,



Your relying on books of men, and theology of anabaptist theolgians.

This is a false accusation.


I have not relied on any anabaptist theologian.

Look through my posts. I quoted Scripture. I did not rely on Anabaptist theologians. I am not Anabaptist.

You are having a tantrum. Calm down and let's look at Scripture.

What happens to a person when they are reborn?
What sins are committed in the Spirit?
What happens to the "old" us (the flesh)?

There is no need for the wrath of God to go anywhere.

The passage @AustinC said was an error....that this was God's righteousness manifested apart from the law.....is only an error if your theory is correct.

 

[JonC]

The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

We have a passage @AustinC and I agree on.

But this answers where the wrath went. God saves man not by punishment but by requiring the man be recreated. God is just and the justifier of sinners.

What Penal Substitution Theory focuses on is wrath. But not wrath in terms of God saving men. Instead it focuses on God needing to punish. God saved us not by pouring out wrath on the unjust but by recreating the unjust snd making them just.

 

[AustinC]

This is a false accusation.


I have not relied on any anabaptist theologian.

Look through my posts. I quoted Scripture. I did not rely on Anabaptist theologians. I am not Anabaptist.

You are having a tantrum. Calm down and let's look at Scripture.

What happens to a person when they are reborn?
What sins are committed in the Spirit?
What happens to the "old" us (the flesh)?

There is no need for the wrath of God to go anywhere.

The passage @AustinC said was an error....that this was God's righteousness manifested apart from the law.....is only an error if your theory is correct.

Jon, be honest. I said you were in error. I said you clearly have read some noncanonical book that has greatly influenced your thinking and you use verses that don't make your point. All you do is question why Jesus should be our substitute.

 

[JonC]

Jon, be honest. I said you were in error. I said you clearly have read some noncanonical book that has greatly influenced your thinking and you use verses that don't make your point. All you do is question why Jesus should be our substitute.

But, to be honest, you are wrong. The two books that had the most influence in changing my mind were not noncanonical (they were Psalms, particularly Psalm 22, and Isaiah, particularly Isaiah 53).

I do not question Jesus as our substitute. This is simply not in the Bible so I dismissed it without question. Scripture teaches that Jesus is our representative (as the "Last Adam") just as Adam was a representative.

What I have done was provide you the opportunity to post verses thar actually supported your theories. You could only provide verses and a meaning that included ideas absent the passages you provided.

We do not have to believe the same. We're it a matter of interpretation we could talk about that. But it isn't. The idea that God has to pu is sin (apart from this bring a punishment of the actually sinner) is not in Scripture. Neither is the idea that Christ experienced God's wrath. Neither is the idea of Christ as a substitute.

 

[JonC]

Be careful here, because Jon is redefining rebirth. He asserts that it is merely a re-enactment of the Sixth Day.

He postulates a re-creation, not a begetting.

To be born of the flesh, is simply creation. To be born of the Spirit is to be begotten of God, and to become more than what Adam was in his innocence. It is to become a partaker of the divine nature.

He attempts to make this the central theme of the Gospel, contrary to the Apostle who determined not to know anything among us but Christ, and Him crucified. And also contrary to Christ, Who in the memorial He established to be observed in the churches till He returns shows His death.

Even in His resurrection, Jesus bears the marks of His death.

Crown him the Lord of love;
behold his hands and side,
rich wounds, yet visible above,
in beauty glorified;
no angel in the sky
can fully bear that sight,
but downward bends his wondering eye
at mysteries so bright.​

Christ's death, and what was paid, is the central theme of the Gospel.

It is the central theme in Heaven.

You are making assumptions. What I believe is that rebirth is being born of the Spirit and made alive in Christ. I believe in Christ there is no condemnation.

So that takes care of your strawman argument.

BUT you teach more than Christ crucified, more than what has been given in God's Word (you add that Christ is our substitute, that God punished Him, that He experienced Hod's wrath instead of us, and that God is somehow do needy and weak that He punishes sins apart from the actual sinner.

The crux of the issue is being born again is meaningless to your theory of redemption because you run back to the Law as the mode of our salvation.

 

[AustinC]

But, to be honest, you are wrong. The two books that had the most influence in changing my mind were not noncanonical (they were Psalms, particularly Psalm 22, and Isaiah, particularly Isaiah 53).

I do not question Jesus as our substitute. This is simply not in the Bible so I dismissed it without question. Scripture teaches that Jesus is our representative (as the "Last Adam") just as Adam was a representative.

What I have done was provide you the opportunity to post verses thar actually supported your theories. You could only provide verses and a meaning that included ideas absent the passages you provided.

We do not have to believe the same. We're it a matter of interpretation we could talk about that. But it isn't. The idea that God has to pu is sin (apart from this bring a punishment of the actually sinner) is not in Scripture. Neither is the idea that Christ experienced God's wrath. Neither is the idea of Christ as a substitute.

First, I don't believe you are being honest. Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 show us Jesus as our substitute whose atoning sacrifice made us who were not holy, now holy. Your view smells entirely of a noncanonical source and philosophy of man. It would explain your vagueness and incapacity to interpret scripture and instead just quote a sentence or two of the Bible with no connection to atonement.
You are right we do not agree. Your view is not found in the Bible and you, in fact cannot even articulate what you believe. Therefore, since you are so vague and empty of substance with no apparent desire to provide substance, it is pointless to go on.

 

[JonC]

Until you can answer the very basic question of why men must be born again... .

I did answer why men must be born again. @Aaron n is right in that being born of the Spirit, in Christ, plays a central role to my view of redemption as I see this as God being just and the justifier of sinners.

You are not grasping the argument. You are welcome to believe I am incorrect, but somehow you have missed my replies entirely.

And your appeal is not to Scripture but to Reformed teachers

I am glad to see you agree that there is a difference between what Scripture teaches and what the Reformed teach. This is a start.

And I absolutely agree with you. The Reformed do not teach Scrioture when it comes to this topic.

But this does not mean they have nothing of value to say. One of my favorites is Jonathan Edward's. John Owen is another.

But they are not authorities and, as you have observed, do depart from Scripture.

I understand your position. I once stood where you are now.

Good. Let's look at your previous belief.

At the time you rejected Penal Substitution Theory, exactly where did you believe God's wrath went? How was God just and the justifier of sinners?

 

[JonC]

First, I don't believe you are being honest. Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 show us Jesus as our substitute whose atoning sacrifice made us who were not holy, now holy. Your view smells entirely of a noncanonical source and philosophy of man. It would explain your vagueness and incapacity to interpret scripture and instead just quote a sentence or two of the Bible with no connection to atonement.
You are right we do not agree. Your view is not found in the Bible and you, in fact cannot even articulate what you believe. Therefore, since you are so vague and empty of substance with no apparent desire to provide substance, it is pointless to go on.

Frankly I do not care what you believe.

Those are my references, what first pointed UT that Penal Substitution Theory was wrong.

I told you of why I questioned the theory. The very first places I went to prove the Theory correct were Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53.

I wrote out the entire passages snd erased anything that did not present Christ as our substitute, experiencing God's wrath instead of us.

Rather than calling my integrity into question (something I have not done to ypu) why don't you try it?

Write out the passages. Do not explain them but simply erase ant part that does not say Christ died instead of us. Then erase any part that does mot say Christ experienced God's wrath. There will be nothing left.

It is not by coincidence that your view is rejected by most Christians. It is not an accident that you hold a minority view.

I am starting to see that you just cannot understand how so many Christians throughout history missed what you can only see. It is because you are reading into the text.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Except none of the passages you present even come close to your conclusion. And be careful....@Iconoclast condemns the use of partial verses (or he would were he consistent). You may incur his wrath. Probably not, though. He has a double standard.

You may not have noticed, but my post was directed at you, not at @Iconoclast.
What extra part of Scripture do you feel I left out of my last post? Actually, there was one part which @Aaron rightly picked up on. 'He who hangs on a tree is accursed by God' (Deuteronomy 21:23). Martin Luther is very direct here: 'Paul therefore doth very well allege this general sentence out of Moses, as concerning Christ: "Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree." But Christ hath hanged upon a tree; therefore Christ was accursed by God' (Commentary on Galatians, on 3:13).

I cannot quite go as far as Luther here (though I agree with the application he goes on to make). Christ Himself was not cursed by God; sin and sinners suffer under that curse. But Christ has taken our sins upon Himself (Isaiah 53:6; 1 Peter 2:24) and has therefore borne on our behalf the punishment, the curse and the wrath attached to them. If He has not, we shall have to bear them ourselves.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I did answer why men must be born again. @Aaron n is right in that being born of the Spirit, in Christ, plays a central role to my view of redemption as I see this as God being just and the justifier of sinners.

@Aaron is quite right, but you are putting the cart before the horse. The New Birth is the application of redemption. Penal Substitution is its accomplishment. Hence our Lord's cry: tetelestai! "It [redemption] has been accomplished!" God's justice must be satisfied before sinners can be saved.

 

[JonC]

You may not have noticed, but my post was directed at you, not at @Iconoclast.
What extra part of Scripture do you feel I left out of my last post? Actually, there was one part which @Aaron rightly picked up on. 'He who hangs on a tree is accursed by God' (Deuteronomy 21:23). Martin Luther is very direct here: 'Paul therefore doth very well allege this general sentence out of Moses, as concerning Christ: "Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree." But Christ hath hanged upon a tree; therefore Christ was accursed by God' (Commentary on Galatians, on 3:13).

I cannot quite go as far as Luther here (though I agree with the application he goes on to make). Christ Himself was not cursed by God; sin and sinners suffer under that curse. But Christ has taken our sins upon Himself (Isaiah 53:6; 1 Peter 2:24) and has therefore borne on our behalf the punishment, the curse and the wrath attached to them. If He has not, we shall have to bear them ourselves.

The only part of your theory I think is wrong is what you add to God's Word.

I know the prohibition against adding to Scripture technically applies to Revelation, but nevertheless those who teach others will be held to a greater accountability.

For this reason, when we speak of foundational doctrines I believe in sticking closer to what is written in Scripture than you will allow.

I do not hold it against you that you consider Penal Substitution Theory as being taught by Scripture.

But you and I hold a different standard when it comes to testing doctrines. And that is fine. This is actually the reason I can never accept the Theory again (for decades I read into Scripture, so there was a conflict between what I believed regarding testing doctrine and the doctrine I held at the time).

 

[JonC]

@Aaron is quite right, but you are putting the cart before the horse. The New Birth is the application of redemption. Penal Substitution is its accomplishment. Hence our Lord's cry: tetelestai! "It [redemption] has been accomplished!" God's justice must be satisfied before sinners can be saved.

Kinda. But not in the Penal Substitution Theory context. If Penal Substitution Theory were correct then there would be no necessity to the rebirth.

It is by Christ's death that man was reconciled to God, and by His life that we are saved. Man has been reconciled to God, therefore we plea that men be reconciled.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

You are not grasping the argument. You are welcome to believe I am incorrect, but somehow you have missed my replies entirely.

Frankly I do not care what you believe.
I am glad to see you agree that there is a difference between what Scripture teaches and what the Anabaptists teach. This is a start.

And I absolutely agree with you. The Anabaptists do not teach Scripture when it comes to this topic.

[QUOTE]Let's look at your previous belief.
At the time you rejected Penal Substitution Theory, exactly where did you believe God's wrath went? How was God just and the justifier of sinners?[/QUOTE]

My previous belief was I was an unsaved person.
I did not know the gospel.
When God saved me I understood PSA in it's basic truth.
There was never a time when PSA was viewed as anything but truth.

Now that you have confessed to Anabaptist influence by reading those writings of men, we can see why you post as you do.