Featured Where did the Wrath of God go? Part 2

You are partly correct. We do both believe Scrioture is God's Word. But we depart in what we believe God's Word to be. Where I believe doctrine (true doctrine) is found in "what is written" - the task being to first accept the text as true and then understand the actual text - you believe God's Word is not Scripture but what Scripture "teaches".

I view your method as liberalism, and dangerous to the Church. You believe I ignore what is "taught".

The issue becomes how we test doctrine. While I may disagree with some interpretations the actual test (for me) is the text of Scripture. Your test is comparing what you believe to what you believe Scripture teaches (a test that any doctrine can "pass".

You are also wrong in believing you hold a majority view and me a belief few Christians accept.

My view is the most common among Christians world wide. It is the most common view within Christianity, excluding RCC theology (which we both believe false).

You hold a minority (granted, a large minority) view regarding Penal Substitution Theory. But within that Theory you hold an even small minority view as a Calvinist

This does not, in itself, mean your view is incorrect. Truth is not judged based on the number of people who believe it.

But it does raise questions regarding your understanding of the position I affirm.

 

Let's look at the passage together:

1 Peter 2:21–25 For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.


I believe the passage teaches that we have been called to do what is right and suffer for what is right, to patiently endure it, and that this finds favor with God. Christ set the example for us to follow. Jesus was sinless, yet He was abused for doing God's will but He did not abuse in return. Instead He trusted God, who righteously judges and bore our sins in His body on the cross. The reasin was so that we woukd die to sin and live to righteousnes. By His suffering we are heald. We were continually straying from God, from doing right. But now, through Christ as our Shepherd, we have returned.

Where do you find God pouring His wrath on Jesus in that passage? Where does the text say He died instead of us?

It does not. In fact, if anything, the passage proves Penal Substitution Theory to be a false doctrine (rather than Christ experiencing God's wrath on the cross instead of us, Christ was bearing our sins and our abuse for His obedience to God, trusting in God's righteousness to judge).

 

The wrath of God is against unrighteous. This does not change. If you remain unrighteous then you will face the wrath to come. But if you are righteous in Christ then you will escape the wrath to come. Read 1 Peter 2.

 

It means being made "right" or "just" in reference to God's standard. It does not mean "substituted for".

 

Ypu may think God's Word is correct as written, but it is clear to any reader that you do not believe the text of God's Word itself is what God wanted to convey. Otherwise you would have accepted Scripture as written rather than adding to it.

Interpreting passages differently is fine - we are human. But you are not interpreting Scripture. You are adding to Scripture what you believe it teaches.

Loom at @Martin Marprelate 's post. He provided a verse that did not in any way present Christ as our substitute as evidence He is our substitute. Then to defend the mistake questions the meaning of "righteousness" (which does mot mean "substituted for").

What you do is offer Scripture after Scripture without regard to the passages you quote. You just tell is we should believe what you think Scripture teaches because a a minority group of Christians that you like believes it.

 

This is a strange post. I have made an observation and I think most will agree.

You speak of what Scrioture "teaches" when "properly understood". Have you ever stopped to consider that Scripture teaches what is written in the text of Scripture rather than the understanding you reason out from it?

What is worse is you insult and condemn those who do take a more literal view of Scripture than you will allow for daring not to accept what you believe the Bible "teaches".

 

It does. Read 1 Peter. Christ suffered, doing what is right, in perfect obedience to God. He died at the hands of the wicked, which was the will of God. The wicked esteemed Him stricken and afflicted by God, but God judged otherwise because God is righteous.

What you believe is foreign to God's Word. It was foreign to our faith for hundreds of years. You hold a relatively new faith (a theory) that is in no way based on Scripture but rather on what those who "tickle your ears" have told you Scripture teaches. Until Aquinas it would have been unheard of to hear a Christian proclaiming God punished Jesus, and even he clarified it was for man and never for the sins men committed. You hold a Reformed RCC faith. That is OK. Even some RCC members are saved....just despite their doctrine.

 

I am not insulting him. I used to believe as the two of you.

I am simply saying that both of you lean on your own understanding rather than on the Word of God.

Look at the passages that have been discussed. None of them actually say what you claim they "teach".

So how do you test your faith against Scripture? You don't. You test what you believe Scripture teaches against what you believe Scripture teaches.