1. 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!

Featured The Meanings of 'For'

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Martin Marprelate, Dec 5, 2017.

  1. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    12,464
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
  2. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    12,464
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
  3. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    12,464
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
  4. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    33,935
    Likes Received:
    836
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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!
     
  5. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    33,935
    Likes Received:
    836
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Do you have any room for the wrath of God towards sins, to have a Holy judgement against sins?
     
  6. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    12,464
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, of course. Haven't you read my view in the other thread?
     
  7. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    12,464
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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?
     
  8. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,974
    Likes Received:
    305
    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 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?
     
  9. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    12,464
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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).
     
  10. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,974
    Likes Received:
    305
    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.
     
  11. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    12,464
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
  12. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,974
    Likes Received:
    305
    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.
     
    #72 The Biblicist, Dec 13, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2017
  13. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,974
    Likes Received:
    305
    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.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  14. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    33,935
    Likes Received:
    836
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Jesus being sinless, and being God, qualified for Him to bear our sins and experience the wrath of God in our stead.
     
  15. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    33,935
    Likes Received:
    836
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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!
     
  16. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    12,464
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
  17. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    12,464
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
  18. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    12,464
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Which scripture were you pointing to (that said on the cross Jesus was being judged by God)?
     
  19. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    12,464
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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".
     
  20. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,974
    Likes Received:
    305
    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?
     
Loading...