arial
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by arial on Jul 4, 2023 9:41:55 GMT -8
This will be presented as the debate from my position of Calvinism/Reformed. Rather than just beginning the conversation by disagreeing with whatever points one disagrees with, it would be helpful if the starting point of the other debating party be set forth in full, as relates to the issues raised. Following that a point by point debate can begin. That should help keep it organized rather having be yet another circular argument. First I will define the terms Calvinism and Arminianism as to their usage in the debate. We will stick to the way in which they are commonly used, what most mean when they use them. Calvinism will refer to predestination and election. Arminianism will refer to man's free will in choosing Christ. The debate will focus on two points that Arminianists frequently use to denounce Calvinism. - That it makes God evil
- That it isn't fair
I assert that the statement that predestination makes God evil is not based biblically, but rather on a person's view of who God should be. It is an opinion of one's perception of predestination, and of God. It is not an informed opinion, but an emotional one. That God predestines and elects to salvation is abundantly clear. (Romans 8:29-30; Eph 1:11; 1 Peter 1:2; John 3:16; Acts 13:49; Romans 8:33 Eph 1:4-5; Matt 24:31 etc.) I do not give these as proof texts, but to show that it is in the Bible. If we relate it to the whole counsel of God; we see God always being the One who chooses and equips. From Adam and Eve to Abraham, to his descendents, to the very land that He would give them; He chose the mountain (Sanai) where He would give the Law and Zion where He would meet with His people, and in time set His King; He chose Isaac, Jacob, Joseph; He chose every Seed bearer all the way to Joseph and Mary; He chose Judah; He chose David; He chose kings etc. etc. etc. On the other side of the coin, He chose nations and leaders to bring judgement on unfaithful Israel. To the issue of "it makes God unjust, unfair. This too is not an informed opinion that is biblically based, but an emotional one, and the measurement of fairness and justice, is purely from the human standpoint. In effect it tells God what is fair and just by what we consider fair and just. This is not a just or justifiable measurement. Let's say a nineteen year old has a night of heavy drinking in which on his way home he loses control of his car plowing through a crowd killing five people and injuring many more. After a jury finds him guilty a judge gives him life in prison without the possibility of parole. The families of the victims say justice has been served. The parents of the boy say it is unfair and unjust. He made a serious mistake. He is only nineteen with his whole life ahead of him. He should be punished, yes, but that is far too severe. The human measurement of justice is based on one's point of view. What is justice to God? It is not a different justice but a justice that has much more information so to speak. It is based on His absolute holiness (Holy, holy, holy) and that anything short of that cannot possibly dwell in His presence. If it did, He would be a divided God, and utterly untrustworthy. God's perfect justice is as much a part of Him as is love and mercy. It is in His justice being satisfied that saving mercy comes forth. All are all born headed to face His just judgment. He has no obligation to save anyone. And no one can tell Him how to save anyone. We do not set those parameters. God does. If God is unjust and unfair in electing some to salvation, then He was unfair and unjust in choosing any person or place that we all acknowledge He did choose in the OT along the road to redemption in Christ. And if that is the case then we cannot claim that our God is a just God; we cannot claim that He does not lie, for He says He does not lie; and we lose all validity to the cross justifying many or any. It was God's justice against sin that was satisfied on the cross, and it is this that makes possible justification; by faith in the person and work of Jesus. |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Jul 4, 2023 11:15:18 GMT -8
arial thanks for starting this thread I’m looking forward to this discussion as I was a Calvinist for over 4 decades and left that systematic theology about 2 years ago. I have written a thesis paper which lead me out of Calvinism here . As an fyi I was not allowed to discuss PSA by the sites owner on a condition of my membership there or should I say censorship. Talk about the fear of defending one’s beliefs that takes the cake . They can discuss it and it’s ok as long as I ignore it. Here all discussions are welcome to both attack and defend respectfully . That’s the whole point of an apologetics forum, we don’t all agree and should be able to defend our doctrines and have them questioned by others who do not believe the same as we do. berean.mccafferty1.site/pg3.html
|
|
|
|
Post by civic on Jul 4, 2023 11:36:33 GMT -8
1) God hates sin. His ‘wrath’ indicates his opposition to sin 2) The penalty of sin is death, which is the opposite to having eternal life in God’s presence 3) In order for God to grant us eternal life, he must deal with our sin, which he does in the death of Jesus. 4) The result is that the wrath of God against sin is no longer against those who repent and believe, so his rightful and necessary opposition to sin (his wrath) is no longer a barrier to us receiving eternal life. So, in Jesus, God provides a solution to the problem of “our sin and its consequences” as you put it. He does not deliver us from a “hateful God” as you put it. But the wording is an expression of the former and not the latter. The wrath of God continues against sin, and needs to in order for him to be perfect and just. But for those who are in Christ, that wrath against us as sinners is satisfied – it is no longer a barrier to eternal life The language used with respect to God’s wrath / anger is never “sated”, but always “turned away” or “rescued” (or “hidden”). Punishment and repentance is made, and so God’s fierce anger is turned away (Num 25:4, Deut 13:17, Josh 7:26, 2 Chron 29:10, 30:8, Ezra 10:14, Jer 4:8, Jonah 3:9). I think the issue is muddying the distinction between justice and wrath. God’s wrath is coming because of injustice and evil. Embracing justice and good turns away that wrath. Sin demands the punishment of death. Sin also brings God’s wrath. Jesus death pays for (justice) our sins (e.g. Rom 3:25, 4:25), and this turns aside God’s wrath. But God’s wrath does not fall on Jesus per se. In fact, the wrath that was due to us doesn’t go anywhere, because in Jesus justice has been done. When Stephen Travis revised Christ and the Judgement of God, he included an additional chapter specifically responding to those proposing penal substitution as the main way to understand Jesus’ death. The chapter is a tour de force, a masterly exploration of the issue, fully engaging with alternative views, and is worth reading in full. He comments: Most interpreters of Paul would agree with Howard Marshall, that ‘Paul’s vocabulary expresses the results of Christ’s death rather than its character, and this fits in with New Testament thought in general, which is more concerned with the nature of salvation than with the precise way in which it has been achieved.’ (p 181) There is no place [in the OT] for the popular idea that in the sacrificial ritual God is somehow punishing the animal…or for the inference that something parallel to that is happening in the sacrificial death of Christ. (p 197) Paul’s understanding of the death of Christ includes, but does not place at the centre, the idea that he bore the retributive punishment for our sins…To understand the atonement exclusively in those terms involves a misunderstanding of what Paul means by ‘the wrath of God.’ (p 199) The meaning of the cross is not that God punished his Son in order to avoid punishing humanity, but that in Christ God himself took responsibility for the world’s evil and absorbed its consequences into itself. (p 200) Finally comes the question of copyright. The Presbyterian Church were right to consult the hymn’s authors before changing the words in a published work. But what is copyright about? Principally two things: recognition of the author; and recompense for the work. It is not about hymn writers controlling our doctrine. In fact, if you read the words of the song, it is full of biblical language, and would be thought of as theologically conservative, even without this one phrase. There is plenty else here that I would hope the writers are pleased that people want to sing. So my recommendation would be to use it, to amend this one phrase, to credit the original writers, to note the amendment, and to pay up your royalty fee. Who knows? You might even end up provoking reflection on what Jesus’ death and resurrection (the NT holds the two together) actually mean for us. Derek Rishmawy, who is currently undertaking a PhD on doctrine. I think Derek would want to staunchly defend the idea of ‘penal substitution’ as a way of understanding the significance of the death of Jesus, but he offers three important qualifications which match my concerns quite closely. 1. Don’t Break Up the Trinity One common mistake is to speak as if the cross momentarily divided the Trinity. We sing rich hymns with lines like “the Father turned his face away” and mistakenly gain the impression that, on the cross, God unleashed his judgment on Jesus in such a way that ontologically separated the Father from the Son. This suggests a split in the being of the eternal, unchangeable, perfect life of Father, Son, and Spirit. What’s more, this isn’t the historic orthodox view of penal substitution—at least not as we encounter it in Calvin. He’s quite clear: Yet we do not suggest that God was ever inimical or angry toward [Jesus]. How could he be angry toward his beloved Son, “in whom his heart reposed” [cf. Matt. 3:17]? How could Christ by his intercession appease the Father toward others, if he were himself hateful to God? This is what we are saying: he bore the weight of divine severity, since he was “stricken and afflicted” [cf. Isa. 53:5] by God’s hand, and experienced all the signs of a wrathful and avenging God. (Institutes of the Christian Religion, II.xvi.11)… 2. Don’t Forget Love Came First A second mistake is connected to the first. Many have rejected the atonement as the satisfaction of God’s justice because they’ve gotten the impression that Calvary is about a loving Jesus satisfying an angry Father out for blood. Even when not explicitly taught this way, many in the pews can get this impression. But this isn’t what we see in Scripture. Instead, we see the triune God of holy love purposing from all eternity to redeem sinners for himself… 3. Don’t Assume Wrath Is Everything I’ve focused on issues connected to wrath and punishment because Reformed evangelical preaching tends to rightly focus on penal substitution in its preaching of the cross. Penal substitution is central and foundational. Don’t forget, though, that the cross achieved even more. Christ accomplishes a lot in his life, death, and resurrection. Herman Bavinck notes the diversity of the New Testament witness: “Like the person, the work of Christ is so multifaceted that it cannot be captured in a single word nor summarized in a single formula.” We must remember not to sideline the various other aspects of Christ’s cross-work. For instance, when was the last time you preached on Christ’s victory over the powers of sin, death, and Satan? The drama of the gospel isn’t just about interpersonal reconciliation between God and humanity, as glorious as that is, but also about its payout in liberating God’s people from the clutches of his enemies. The apostle John tells us the same Christ who came to make atonement for sin (1 John 2:2) also came to destroy the Devil’s works (1 John 3:8). So, when speaking of Jesus’ death for us, we need to focus on the unity of action of Jesus and the Father (and the Spirit), the primacy of love, and the cross as defeating the powers, reconciling us with God and one another, liberating us, demonstrating God’s love, leaving us an example, destroying the work of the devil and signalling the beginning of the end of ‘this age’, as well as dealing with sin and obtaining the assurance of forgiveness. Whether that leaves much of the more common uses of ‘penal substitution’ in preaching and teaching is an interesting point of debate. I am not quite as convinced as Derek that, for example, having a developed understanding of the ‘two natures’ of Jesus will help us out of this. In the end, the idea that God himself becomes part of our world, and out of his love for us takes on the very sin which has separated, alienated and enslaved us, is a mind-boggling mystery. That does not mean we shouldn’t speak of it, still less that we shouldn’t preach on it (on Good Friday of all days, as some have suggested!). But it does mean that we should be careful to deploy the language and metaphors that we find in the New Testament—and ‘satisfying God’s wrath’ isn’t part of it. www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/did-jesus-die-to-satisfy-gods-wrath/hope this helps !!! |
|
arial
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by arial on Jul 4, 2023 12:59:08 GMT -8
1) God hates sin. His ‘wrath’ indicates his opposition to sin 2) The penalty of sin is death, which is the opposite to having eternal life in God’s presence 3) In order for God to grant us eternal life, he must deal with our sin, which he does in the death of Jesus. 4) The result is that the wrath of God against sin is no longer against those who repent and believe, so his rightful and necessary opposition to sin (his wrath) is no longer a barrier to us receiving eternal life. So, in Jesus, God provides a solution to the problem of “our sin and its consequences” as you put it. He does not deliver us from a “hateful God” as you put it. But the wording is an expression of the former and not the latter. The wrath of God continues against sin, and needs to in order for him to be perfect and just. But for those who are in Christ, that wrath against us as sinners is satisfied – it is no longer a barrier to eternal life The language used with respect to God’s wrath / anger is never “sated”, but always “turned away” or “rescued” (or “hidden”). Punishment and repentance is made, and so God’s fierce anger is turned away (Num 25:4, Deut 13:17, Josh 7:26, 2 Chron 29:10, 30:8, Ezra 10:14, Jer 4:8, Jonah 3:9). I think the issue is muddying the distinction between justice and wrath. God’s wrath is coming because of injustice and evil. Embracing justice and good turns away that wrath. Sin demands the punishment of death. Sin also brings God’s wrath. Jesus death pays for (justice) our sins (e.g. Rom 3:25, 4:25), and this turns aside God’s wrath. But God’s wrath does not fall on Jesus per se. In fact, the wrath that was due to us doesn’t go anywhere, because in Jesus justice has been done. When Stephen Travis revised Christ and the Judgement of God, he included an additional chapter specifically responding to those proposing penal substitution as the main way to understand Jesus’ death. The chapter is a tour de force, a masterly exploration of the issue, fully engaging with alternative views, and is worth reading in full. He comments: Most interpreters of Paul would agree with Howard Marshall, that ‘Paul’s vocabulary expresses the results of Christ’s death rather than its character, and this fits in with New Testament thought in general, which is more concerned with the nature of salvation than with the precise way in which it has been achieved.’ (p 181) There is no place [in the OT] for the popular idea that in the sacrificial ritual God is somehow punishing the animal…or for the inference that something parallel to that is happening in the sacrificial death of Christ. (p 197) Paul’s understanding of the death of Christ includes, but does not place at the centre, the idea that he bore the retributive punishment for our sins…To understand the atonement exclusively in those terms involves a misunderstanding of what Paul means by ‘the wrath of God.’ (p 199) The meaning of the cross is not that God punished his Son in order to avoid punishing humanity, but that in Christ God himself took responsibility for the world’s evil and absorbed its consequences into itself. (p 200) Finally comes the question of copyright. The Presbyterian Church were right to consult the hymn’s authors before changing the words in a published work. But what is copyright about? Principally two things: recognition of the author; and recompense for the work. It is not about hymn writers controlling our doctrine. In fact, if you read the words of the song, it is full of biblical language, and would be thought of as theologically conservative, even without this one phrase. There is plenty else here that I would hope the writers are pleased that people want to sing. So my recommendation would be to use it, to amend this one phrase, to credit the original writers, to note the amendment, and to pay up your royalty fee. Who knows? You might even end up provoking reflection on what Jesus’ death and resurrection (the NT holds the two together) actually mean for us. Derek Rishmawy, who is currently undertaking a PhD on doctrine. I think Derek would want to staunchly defend the idea of ‘penal substitution’ as a way of understanding the significance of the death of Jesus, but he offers three important qualifications which match my concerns quite closely. 1. Don’t Break Up the Trinity One common mistake is to speak as if the cross momentarily divided the Trinity. We sing rich hymns with lines like “the Father turned his face away” and mistakenly gain the impression that, on the cross, God unleashed his judgment on Jesus in such a way that ontologically separated the Father from the Son. This suggests a split in the being of the eternal, unchangeable, perfect life of Father, Son, and Spirit. What’s more, this isn’t the historic orthodox view of penal substitution—at least not as we encounter it in Calvin. He’s quite clear: Yet we do not suggest that God was ever inimical or angry toward [Jesus]. How could he be angry toward his beloved Son, “in whom his heart reposed” [cf. Matt. 3:17]? How could Christ by his intercession appease the Father toward others, if he were himself hateful to God? This is what we are saying: he bore the weight of divine severity, since he was “stricken and afflicted” [cf. Isa. 53:5] by God’s hand, and experienced all the signs of a wrathful and avenging God. (Institutes of the Christian Religion, II.xvi.11)… 2. Don’t Forget Love Came First A second mistake is connected to the first. Many have rejected the atonement as the satisfaction of God’s justice because they’ve gotten the impression that Calvary is about a loving Jesus satisfying an angry Father out for blood. Even when not explicitly taught this way, many in the pews can get this impression. But this isn’t what we see in Scripture. Instead, we see the triune God of holy love purposing from all eternity to redeem sinners for himself… 3. Don’t Assume Wrath Is Everything I’ve focused on issues connected to wrath and punishment because Reformed evangelical preaching tends to rightly focus on penal substitution in its preaching of the cross. Penal substitution is central and foundational. Don’t forget, though, that the cross achieved even more. Christ accomplishes a lot in his life, death, and resurrection. Herman Bavinck notes the diversity of the New Testament witness: “Like the person, the work of Christ is so multifaceted that it cannot be captured in a single word nor summarized in a single formula.” We must remember not to sideline the various other aspects of Christ’s cross-work. For instance, when was the last time you preached on Christ’s victory over the powers of sin, death, and Satan? The drama of the gospel isn’t just about interpersonal reconciliation between God and humanity, as glorious as that is, but also about its payout in liberating God’s people from the clutches of his enemies. The apostle John tells us the same Christ who came to make atonement for sin (1 John 2:2) also came to destroy the Devil’s works (1 John 3:8). So, when speaking of Jesus’ death for us, we need to focus on the unity of action of Jesus and the Father (and the Spirit), the primacy of love, and the cross as defeating the powers, reconciling us with God and one another, liberating us, demonstrating God’s love, leaving us an example, destroying the work of the devil and signalling the beginning of the end of ‘this age’, as well as dealing with sin and obtaining the assurance of forgiveness. Whether that leaves much of the more common uses of ‘penal substitution’ in preaching and teaching is an interesting point of debate. I am not quite as convinced as Derek that, for example, having a developed understanding of the ‘two natures’ of Jesus will help us out of this. In the end, the idea that God himself becomes part of our world, and out of his love for us takes on the very sin which has separated, alienated and enslaved us, is a mind-boggling mystery. That does not mean we shouldn’t speak of it, still less that we shouldn’t preach on it (on Good Friday of all days, as some have suggested!). But it does mean that we should be careful to deploy the language and metaphors that we find in the New Testament—and ‘satisfying God’s wrath’ isn’t part of it. www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/did-jesus-die-to-satisfy-gods-wrath/hope this helps !!! |
|
arial
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by arial on Jul 4, 2023 13:24:07 GMT -8
civic
I don't seem to be able to do individual quotes to deal with one section at a time. And even here I quote and underneath is quick reply button so I don't know if your quote and my response are connected. There is a lot to address, so I will just put forth my view as opposed according to my interpretation of what I think you are saying. I don't look at it the way in which I think you are presenting it. Also I am not sure Reformed does either. My question would be what do they mean by penal substitution and is it the same thing as what you present them as teaching. I don't know as to the last.
But as you arrived at your own definition/explanation of the hypostatic union, I have arrived at my view of Reformed theology,from scripture itself. Whether I agree with them on all points I do not know.
I do not believe that Jesus faced God's wrath. I believe when He cried, "My Father why have you forsaken me?" He felt the separation from God that He knew in the flesh---as man. He took the punishment we deserve as sinners against God so that we would not have to face God's wrath. He is indeed saving us from God's wrath. But He was not being punished. God was not taking any penal action against Him. Jesus was doing what was necessary to meet sin's justice. Death. It was for us.
And I do believe that a God who is perfectly just requires in being consistent,for our sin meet death. When this is done by a substitute as it was, those sins have been nailed to the cross.
As to never forgetting the many things Christ did in His life, death, resurrection and ascension, I do not, and I don't think Reformed does either. In my experience it explores deeply all those many things, and it certainly caused me to be able to in a way unavailable to me before. Your experience may be different than mine. It is just that we, unfortunately, cannot talk about all things, all at once, and all the time.
It seems that to bring up a couple of preachers to watch on youtube or wherever to you is probably something that would deserve a "been there, done that," reply, but here goes. R C Sproul and Voddie Baucham. They cover all the aspects and probe the depths, expounding, expounding expounding.
|
|
|
|
Post by forgiven on Jul 4, 2023 13:45:37 GMT -8
i am not a fan of the format either very hard to navigate.
|
|
|
|
Post by civic on Jul 4, 2023 13:47:52 GMT -8
civic I don't seem to be able to do individual quotes to deal with one section at a time. And even here I quote and underneath is quick reply button so I don't know if your quote and my response are connected. There is a lot to address, so I will just put forth my view as opposed according to my interpretation of what I think you are saying. I don't look at it the way in which I think you are presenting it. Also I am not sure Reformed does either. My question would be what do they mean by penal substitution and is it the same thing as what you present them as teaching. I don't know as to the last. But as you arrived at your own definition/explanation of the hypostatic union, I have arrived at my view of Reformed theology,from scripture itself. Whether I agree with them on all points I do not know. I do not believe that Jesus faced God's wrath. I believe when He cried, "My Father why have you forsaken me?" He felt the separation from God that He knew in the flesh---as man. He took the punishment we deserve as sinners against God so that we would not have to face God's wrath. He is indeed saving us from God's wrath. But He was not being punished. God was not taking any penal action against Him. Jesus was doing what was necessary to meet sin's justice. Death. It was for us. And I do believe that a God who is perfectly just requires in being consistent,for our sin meet death. When this is done by a substitute as it was, those sins have been nailed to the cross. As to never forgetting the many things Christ did in His life, death, resurrection and ascension, I do not, and I don't think Reformed does either. In my experience it explores deeply all those many things, and it certainly caused me to be able to in a way unavailable to me before. Your experience may be different than mine. It is just that we, unfortunately, cannot talk about all things, all at once, and all the time. It seems that to bring up a couple of preachers to watch on youtube or wherever to you is probably something that would deserve a "been there, done that," reply, but here goes. R C Sproul and Voddie Baucham. They cover all the aspects and probe the depths, expounding, expounding expounding. Did you get a chance to read this link to where I address the atonement and the Trinity ? It addresses everything about the atonement and Christs last words berean.mccafferty1.site/pg3.html |
|
arial
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by arial on Jul 4, 2023 13:56:29 GMT -8
civic I don't seem to be able to do individual quotes to deal with one section at a time. And even here I quote and underneath is quick reply button so I don't know if your quote and my response are connected. There is a lot to address, so I will just put forth my view as opposed according to my interpretation of what I think you are saying. I don't look at it the way in which I think you are presenting it. Also I am not sure Reformed does either. My question would be what do they mean by penal substitution and is it the same thing as what you present them as teaching. I don't know as to the last. But as you arrived at your own definition/explanation of the hypostatic union, I have arrived at my view of Reformed theology,from scripture itself. Whether I agree with them on all points I do not know. I do not believe that Jesus faced God's wrath. I believe when He cried, "My Father why have you forsaken me?" He felt the separation from God that He knew in the flesh---as man. He took the punishment we deserve as sinners against God so that we would not have to face God's wrath. He is indeed saving us from God's wrath. But He was not being punished. God was not taking any penal action against Him. Jesus was doing what was necessary to meet sin's justice. Death. It was for us. And I do believe that a God who is perfectly just requires in being consistent,for our sin meet death. When this is done by a substitute as it was, those sins have been nailed to the cross. As to never forgetting the many things Christ did in His life, death, resurrection and ascension, I do not, and I don't think Reformed does either. In my experience it explores deeply all those many things, and it certainly caused me to be able to in a way unavailable to me before. Your experience may be different than mine. It is just that we, unfortunately, cannot talk about all things, all at once, and all the time. It seems that to bring up a couple of preachers to watch on youtube or wherever to you is probably something that would deserve a "been there, done that," reply, but here goes. R C Sproul and Voddie Baucham. They cover all the aspects and probe the depths, expounding, expounding expounding. Did you get a chance to read this link to where I address the atonement and the Trinity ? It addresses everything about the atonement and Christs last words berean.mccafferty1.site/pg3.html |
|
arial
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by arial on Jul 4, 2023 14:00:25 GMT -8
Did you get a chance to read this link to where I address the atonement and the Trinity ? It addresses everything about the atonement and Christs last words berean.mccafferty1.site/pg3.htmlNot yet but I will. I am in a situation at the moment where I only have short blocks of time. |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Jul 4, 2023 14:02:57 GMT -8
Not yet but I will. I am in a situation at the moment where I only have short blocks of time. No worries take your time and I believe lots of things will make sense .  |
|
arial
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by arial on Jul 4, 2023 14:37:17 GMT -8
civic
Ok I read the paper on the atonement and Trinity. I really don't know how to address it here. I can say that I disagree with Calvin when he says that Jesus felt the wrath of God and took the wrath for us. I have heard that before, found it unlikely and had to think through it for myself. I do not know if it is the official position of Reformed.
That Jesus had to die on the cross is without question. It is without question had to do something that would bring about the complete forgiveness of the sins of those who would believe. That is, so that sin could no longer condemn us to facing God's wrath. So what did it do? It took sins penalty which is death, and for us eternally condemned to hell. Jesus was not being punished, He was taking the punishment for sin vicariously. The punishment was real on His physical body, His humanity. That cannot be denied. And in this punishment was a the cry of His flesh that God had turned away from Him. A person suffering that kind of humiliation, shame, and pain who has walked every step and breathed every breath in perfect unbroken fellowship with the Father, is going to feel that. If He didn't He wouldn't have really been human.
And perfect love was in all of it---not wrath. (Who said it was wrath? Not me.) The Father so loved the world He sent His Son, the Son so loved the Father and us that He came and did. It was all about and out of love---for us, that Jesus did what He did. If He hadn't done so, we would be facing God's wrath. His wrath is against sin.
|
|
|
|
Post by civic on Jul 4, 2023 14:43:28 GMT -8
civic Ok I read the paper on the atonement and Trinity. I really don't know how to address it here. I can say that I disagree with Calvin when he says that Jesus felt the wrath of God and took the wrath for us. I have heard that before, found it unlikely and had to think through it for myself. I do not know if it is the official position of Reformed. That Jesus had to die on the cross is without question. It is without question had to do something that would bring about the complete forgiveness of the sins of those who would believe. That is, so that sin could no longer condemn us to facing God's wrath. So what did it do? It took sins penalty which is death, and for us eternally condemned to hell. Jesus was not being punished, He was taking the punishment for sin vicariously. The punishment was real on His physical body, His humanity. That cannot be denied. And in this punishment was a the cry of His flesh that God had turned away from Him. A person suffering that kind of humiliation, shame, and pain who has walked every step and breathed every breath in perfect unbroken fellowship with the Father, is going to feel that. If He didn't He wouldn't have really been human. And perfect love was in all of it---not wrath. (Who said it was wrath? Not me.) The Father so loved the world He sent His Son, the Son so loved the Father and us that He came and did. It was all about and out of love---for us, that Jesus did what He did. If He hadn't done so, we would be facing God's wrath. His wrath is against sin. Yes the reformed position is Gods wrath , anger , retribution was poured out from the Father to the Son. I reject that doctrine known as PSA. The penal substitution theory of the atonement. It’s contrary to Gods nature and character. |
|
arial
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by arial on Jul 4, 2023 16:07:33 GMT -8
civic Ok I read the paper on the atonement and Trinity. I really don't know how to address it here. I can say that I disagree with Calvin when he says that Jesus felt the wrath of God and took the wrath for us. I have heard that before, found it unlikely and had to think through it for myself. I do not know if it is the official position of Reformed. That Jesus had to die on the cross is without question. It is without question had to do something that would bring about the complete forgiveness of the sins of those who would believe. That is, so that sin could no longer condemn us to facing God's wrath. So what did it do? It took sins penalty which is death, and for us eternally condemned to hell. Jesus was not being punished, He was taking the punishment for sin vicariously. The punishment was real on His physical body, His humanity. That cannot be denied. And in this punishment was a the cry of His flesh that God had turned away from Him. A person suffering that kind of humiliation, shame, and pain who has walked every step and breathed every breath in perfect unbroken fellowship with the Father, is going to feel that. If He didn't He wouldn't have really been human. And perfect love was in all of it---not wrath. (Who said it was wrath? Not me.) The Father so loved the world He sent His Son, the Son so loved the Father and us that He came and did. It was all about and out of love---for us, that Jesus did what He did. If He hadn't done so, we would be facing God's wrath. His wrath is against sin. Yes the reformed position is Gods wrath , anger , retribution was poured out from the Father to the Son. I reject that doctrine known as PSA. The penal substitution theory of the atonement. It’s contrary to Gods nature and character. |
|
arial
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by arial on Jul 4, 2023 16:24:08 GMT -8
If that is the Reformed position I am unaware of it. One would have to know exactly what they meant when they said it if they did. For instance does it say from the Father to the Son or on the Son? (Meaning His flesh as substituting for us.) Does it actually use the word "retribution"? Jesus did actually go through the suffering and He died a death reserved for sinners, or the worst of crimes which is sin. And it was the will of the Father for the Bible says it was. And Jesus willingly laid down His life. It was undeserved punishment in place of deserved punishment. But it was not the Father doing the punishing, it was men. It was the Father's will that it be done---and that was love. Love for Jesus and love for us. We are His inheritance. (We see how far our definition of love fails when it comes to God's love. The same is true with His justice.)
In any case, no matter what the Reformed view is my view is: Jesus did not take the wrath of God for us upon Himself. He took the punishment for our sins upon Himself so we would not face the wrath of God. In the way in which He did it, He conquered both the power of sin over us and death. Both of which lead to facing the wrath of God. And if that differs from the Reformed position that would not mean that in essence I am not Reformed, as I hold to the doctrines of TULIP and the tenants of traditional Christianity. The label merely differentiates me from the free will, free choice, view.
|
|
|
|
Post by civic on Jul 4, 2023 17:22:55 GMT -8
If that is the Reformed position I am unaware of it. One would have to know exactly what they meant when they said it if they did. For instance does it say from the Father to the Son or on the Son? (Meaning His flesh as substituting for us.) Does it actually use the word "retribution"? Jesus did actually go through the suffering and He died a death reserved for sinners, or the worst of crimes which is sin. And it was the will of the Father for the Bible says it was. And Jesus willingly laid down His life. It was undeserved punishment in place of deserved punishment. But it was not the Father doing the punishing, it was men. It was the Father's will that it be done---and that was love. Love for Jesus and love for us. We are His inheritance. (We see how far our definition of love fails when it comes to God's love. The same is true with His justice.) In any case, no matter what the Reformed view is my view is: Jesus did not take the wrath of God for us upon Himself. He took the punishment for our sins upon Himself so we would not face the wrath of God. In the way in which He did it, He conquered both the power of sin over us and death. Both of which lead to facing the wrath of God. And if that differs from the Reformed position that would not mean that in essence I am not Reformed, as I hold to the doctrines of TULIP and the tenants of traditional Christianity. The label merely differentiates me from the free will, free choice, view. Calvinism/Reformed Theology teaches it was the Fathers ( Gods ) wrath poured out on the Son,
Wrath means retribution, anger, vengeance.
Take a look here:
|
|
