Featured Where did the Wrath of God go? Part 2

Sorry...that wasn't me. That was Martin Luther. I was on my phone and the reference ended up as another post. Luther’s Works, 10:228.

I was just offering the opinion of a Reformer.

 

What about the Church Father's"? We have not discussed the fact that they viewed the Cross as Satan rather than God causing Christ's death and suffering.

Omnipotent Wisdom (1 Cor 1:24), coming into the "heart of the earth" (Matt 12:40), was able to make "utterly foolish" (καταμωραναι, compare Rom 1:22; 1 Cor 1:18) that great "Mind" (compare Isa 10:12) which dwells in it, turning his counsel to folly, and catching the wise one (σοφός) in his cunning (πανουργία) and turning back upon him his clever devices (σοφά εγχειρήματα). For this reason, having swallowed the bait (δέλεαρ) of the flesh, he was pierced with the fishhook (αγκιστρον) of deity, and so the dragon (δράκων) was caught with the fishhook, just as it is said in the book of Job, "You shall catch the dragon with a fishhook" (Job 40:25). Gregory of Nyssa

“wherefore he who had led man captive [the Devil], was justly captured in his turn by God.” Irenaeus


The ‘Light shines in the darkness’ (John 1:5) of this life and in this weak flesh, and though persecuted by the darkness it is not overtaken by it (John 1:5)—I mean the opposing power which shamelessly assailed the visible (τω φαινομένω) Adam, but instead encountered God and was defeated... . For since the specious advocate (σοφιστής) of evil baited us with the promise of divinity (compare Gen 3:6), he was himself baited by the snare (πρόβλημα) of the flesh. In attacking [the new] Adam, he encountered God, and the condemnation of the flesh was abolished (Rom 5:16, 18), death being put to death by the flesh. Gregory Nazianzus

 

Penal and Substitution (Substitution as ontological and as representative). Gregory continued -

As long then as I am disobedient and rebellious, both by denial of God and by my passions, so long Christ also is called disobedient on my account. But when all things shall be subdued unto Him on the one hand by acknowledgment of Him, and on the other by a reformation, then He Himself also will have fulfilled His submission, bringing me whom He has saved to God. For this, according to my view, is the subjection of Christ; namely, the fulfilling of the Father's Will. But as the Son subjects all to the Father, so does the Father to the Son; the One by His Work, the Other by His good pleasure, as we have already said. And thus He Who subjects presents to God that which he has subjected, making our condition His own. Of the same kind, it appears to me, is the expression, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" It was not He who was forsaken either by the Father, or by His own Godhead, as some have thought, as if It were afraid of the Passion, and therefore withdrew Itself from Him in His Sufferings (for who compelled Him either to be born on earth at all, or to be lifted up on the Cross?) But as I said, He was in His own Person representing us. For we were the forsaken and despised before, but now by the Sufferings of Him Who could not suffer, we were taken up and saved. Similarly, He makes His own our folly and our transgressions; and says what follows in the Psalm, for it is very evident that the Twenty-first Psalm refers to Christ.

 

I was just quoting Martin Luther for JesusFan. I'm not a Lutheran.

 

Oh....I'm not claiming anything about his view EXCEPT it is not Penal Substitution.

You consider my view Penal Substitution (I believe Christ died for us, His flesh for our flesh, His life for our life). Others, who recognize I do not hold Penal Substitution Theory, will also see where it is lacking in others.

 

I am not trying to be difficult.

Why do you not consider my view Penal Substitution? I affirm every quote you offered of the ECF's which "proved" they held the theory.

You said holding "His flesh for our flesh and His life for our life" was proof of Penal Substitution. I absolutely believe that - and without redefining anything...I believe the statement literally true.

 

I do not believe Satan put Christ on the Cross. I believe He lay down His own life.

But I also believe Genesis 3 contained a prophecy (it is not that snakes bite people and men kill the snakes).

 

. New phone. It writes what it wants.

The Trinity exists in the writings of Scripture. Penal Substitution Theory does not.

 

Sometimes it just makes up words. I type God, it writes Gid. Maybe that one's just my big fingers.

The text does not have to say "God is a trinity" for the doctrine that God is triune to be in Scripture. And the doctrine is in the text of Scripture.

The text does not have to say "Penal Substitution" for the Theory to be correct. But the doctrine does have to be in the text of Scripture, and it is not.

There are no passages that state God must punish to forgive. This is the philosophy through which you interpret the Atonement. You rightly believe divine justice means God punished the wicked, but through your philosophy you understand this to mean God must punish sins to forgive sinners.