No.
I stated that that acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent are both alike an abomination to the Lord.
Our ideas of right and wrong don't apply to God. He IS the Standard of righteousness.
The Wrath of God Poured Out
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Martin Marprelate, Dec 15, 2018.
Page 4 of 8
-
-
-
-
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
God's wrath 'is revealed [present continuous tense] from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men' (Romans 1:18). 'Ungodliness' suggests a lack of reverence towards God; 'unrighteousness,' a lack of reverence to His ordinances, His holy law. Romans 3:9, 19 reveals that this wrath is directed towards all men. '.....We all.....by nature were objects of wrath' (Ephesians 2:3). 'Wrath' here may be defined as the righteous anger of God against sin and those who commit it. God's wrath is not a sudden outbreak of spleen; rather it is the settled fury of a holy God against wickedness. 'God is a just judge; God is angry [with sinners] every day' (Psalms 7:11). Unless we 'get' God's wrath, we are never going to understand propitiation, because whatever is to be done about saving sinners has to take into account God's righteousness, holiness and hatred of sin (c.f. Psalms 5:5-6).
So when we read about 'Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come' (1 Thessalonians 1:10), we know that in order to rescue us from that wrath, the Lord Jesus must satisfy the justice of God, because God 'cannot deny Himself' (2 Timothy 2:13). The reason that I have kept asking you 'why' and 'how' as you have tried to explain your theory, is that you do not deal with God's justice or God's wrath. You write, correctly, that 'God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself' (2 Corinthians 5:19), but you do not say how He has done it. How is the world reconciled to God through Christ? Fear not! I will explain. But not right now because we have guests coming presently to celebrate the New Year with us. -
-
-
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
I appreciate you considering my view. I suppose we could both always expound more on our views. For the most part I believe what you find missing (e.g., how wrath is addressed) is implied in "atonement" and "sacrifice". That said, we still strongly disagree.
Do you understand now how without the Cross the "classic" view cannot hold? Just like your view it is also dependent on Christ suffering death on the cross, bearing our sins.
If you understand this I think we can have a wonderful discussion about how these views differ in explaining how redemption was accomplished through the blood of Christ. -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Guests still haven't arrived.
Also, I do not accept your view as "Classic." I do not accept, most importantly, that it is the Biblical one, nor do I accept that it is of any greater origin extra-biblically than Penal Substitution.
-
-
That said, you are mistaking about my view not being the "classic" view of the Atonement. That is what I affirm (a ransom theory of the Atonement). The claim equates to me arguing that you do not hold the Penal Substitution view (which, even with you holding a neauenced view, would be dishonest of me to claim).
Perhaps this would be a good place to go forward. Please tell me how you believe my view differs from the "classic" view. -
-
The NPP is not a theory of the Atonement. It is a view of Justification popularized by N.T. Wright. It does, perhaps, impact how Wright holds Penal Substitution Theory as he focuses more of a Christus Victor theme in a historic context (the social construct of Rome and Israel).
But the NPP has as much to do with my view as Jehovah Witnesses theology has to do with yours.
Why do you constantly try to use N.T. Wright as some sort of insult when people disagree with you? You do know this is not only a logical fallacy but it is also very dishonest....correct? -
-
The NPP is not a theory of Atonement. The "classic" view is. If Wright agrees with this view then that is good. Many have. I still reject his Penal Substitution Theory and the way he looks to the social conflict of that time.
And by your view looking very much like the JW view I also did not mean it bad. It could just be that you hold a view similar to theirs. -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
This is a post following on from my post #65.
I want now to look at some attributes of God:
First, His aseity. This means that He is of Himself and owes nothing to anyone (e.g. Romans 11:33-36). We as creatures naturally depend on one another to a greater or lesser extent; God is dependent on no one. In Isaiah 40:18, God asks, ‘To whom then will you like Me, or to whom shall I be equal?’ (repeated in 46:5). In Isaiah 40:26-31, God’s sovereignty, eternity and understanding are contrasted with human weakness. God’s ultimate designs cannot be thwarted (Daniel 4:37).
Next, consider God’s simplicity. We are complex beings, made up of various parts; God, on the other hand is simple and spiritual. He is not the sum total of His attributes, but is all that He is all the time. However, each of His attributes identifies a different aspect of His existence and character that cannot be reduced to the other, but nor can one attribute be ranked above another for He is all of them all the time. He is love, even when He judges, and holy and righteous even when He is saving sinners (e.g. 1 John 1:9); He is eternal even when He acts in time. This means that in all of God’s activity, He is self-consistent: ‘He cannot deny Himself’ (2 Timothy 2:13). As we shall see, God’s simplicity does not make Him static or inert, however. On the contrary, He is constantly active (John 5:17), but always consistently, whether we perceive his consistency or not.
Thirdly, there is His immutability. God cannot change His mind because either He would be changing it from worse to better or from better to worse. Change in Him can only reveal imperfections. God has no potential that is not fully realized; there is literally nothing for Him to become. ‘….With whom there is no variation or shadow of turning’ (James 1:17). ‘And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent. For He is not a man that He should relent’ (1 Samuel 15:29). The salvation of sinners was not a change of plan after the Fall; it was a decision made in eternity (Titus 1:2). Nothing catches God by surprise.
Yet what are we to make of texts like 1 Samuel 15:11, where God says that He ‘greatly regrets’ having made Saul king, and other similar passages? We need to understand that one passage of the Bible cannot contradict another, and that therefore it is a fact that both verse 10 & 29 of 1 Samuel 15 are true. The answer is that God’s revealed plans change, but His secret eternal counsels may remain hidden to us (Deuteronomy 29:29). He acts in time, doing one thing now, another later on, but His plans remain unchanged and cannot be thwarted. It is like looking at the workings of an old-fashioned clockwork watch; one cog moves one way, one another, and the fly-wheel is constantly changing direction. But when we look at the face of the watch the hands are moving forward steadily and accurately.
So when we look at the Atonement, and the coming Of Christ in salvation, we must understand that it was decreed in eternity past (Micah 5:2, KJV, NKJV; Titus 1:2). God knew that mankind would fall into sin and had laid His plan of redemption accordingly. Also, God’s mercy cannot override His justice (or vice versa), nor His goodness, His wrath; His simplicity (see above) prevents it. God’s decree, ‘The wages of sin is death’ (Romans 6:23) cannot be set aside because of His immutability, and so we read, ‘Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned’ (Romans 5:12). Death seems so normal and inevitable to us today that we forget that it is actually God’s righteous punishment for disobedience (Genesis 2:17).
In 2 Samuel 14:14, a ‘wise woman’ declares to King David, ‘God….devises means so that His banished ones are not expelled from Him.’ This is true, but the means that David devised to reconcile himself to Absalom did not involve justice, righteousness or God’s moral law and so led to disaster. The means that God uses to restore His sinful people to Himself must satisfy His holiness and justice. The sentence of death upon sinners, the curse upon disobedience (Deuteronomy 27:26) and God’s wrath against unrighteousness and ungodliness (Romans 1:18) must all be satisfied.
On the cross they are. God has given Himself, in the Person of His Son, to suffer instead of us the death, curse and punishment due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. His mercy and justice are exalted in the suffering, death and resurrection of the Saviour, so that the Psalmist can declare (Psalms 89:14). ‘Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne; mercy and truth go before Your face,’ and God can be ‘just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus’ (Romans 3:26).
Now two men called Paul Fiddes and Joel Green have written books insisting that the idea of the Son propitiating the wrath of the Father is to divide the Trinity. I wonder if this is the problem that @JonC has. If so, it is entirely wrong. The Bible declares explicitly that one Person of the Trinity can be the subject of an action of which another is the object. For example, the Father loves the Son (John 3:35 etc.); the Father sent the Son (John 6:39) and gave Him to redeem a sinful world (John 3:16; Romans 8:32). The Father raised the Son from the dead (Galatians 1:1 etc.). The Son loves, obeys and glorifies the Father (John 14:31; 17:1). Father and Son send the Spirit (John 3:34; 14:16; 15:26; Acts 1:4 etc.); the Spirit drives the Son into the desert (Mark 1:12) and also glorifies Him (John 16:14).
The Trinitarian principle of inseparable operation requires that Father, Son and Spirit share a unity of will and purpose. Penal Substitution does not in any way contradict that. The Father loved the world so that He gave the Son to redeem it (John 3:16; Ephesians 1:3-6); the Son willingly gave Himself (John 10:18; 17:19), and the Spirit has willingly sealed the elect for the day of redemption (Ephesians 1:13-14).
The problem with posts like these is that they grow like Topsy. I have written more than I intended to, and yet am conscious of much more that could be said. However, I am now going to follow my New Year's resolution and spend considerably less time on this board as I concentrate on other matters. -
I think that that issue is more common with people who have not held Penal Substitution Theory, or who did not understand the theory when they held it. The reason that I believe this is Penal Substitution Theory ultimately views the Persons of the Trinity acting redemptively towards the same goal and purpose. The theory presents God as taking our punishment Himself. The Father, Son, and Spirit are united in the goal of redemption (the Father pours His wrath upon the Son, the Son lays down His life in obedience and with the purpose of bearing our sins under this wrath). There is, perhaps, a dichotomy in one sense. But Penal Substitution Theory itself does not divide the Trinity.
I think Penal Substitution Theory is a wonderfully thought out theory. Most inconsistencies, IMHO, come from weakening the theory to accomidate more contemporary belief (like Jesus suffering "hell" for 3 hours rather than literally descending into Hell). My objection is that it is simply foreign to Scripture itself. -
-
If I were going to choose who to believe I would probably lean towards the TGC guys (I have enjoyed D.A. Carson and Tim Keller's words for some time now, and John Piper is one of my favorites...so please don't take offence).
That said...what does it matter if Wright leans towards the "classic" view? So what? You claimed my view was like the NPP - not Christus Victor or even a ransom theory. The NPP is not an Atonement theory.
Page 4 of 8