Penal Substitution

[RanRan]

In terms of subjectivity - I dont see how it is any more subjective or less objective than your view. If someone follows the teachings of Jesus, then the world changes, objectively, into the realm of God.
Peace,
JD

Christ was much more than a mere teacher in terms of objective accomplishment. He is the Savior of the World - a reality seen by faith and on faith's terms. We say that, not because the world of our senses is fundamentally changed, but because He has saved us all from death - the wages of sin.

You know, I could make the argument the it is natural theology (so linked to the senses) that is primary opponent to Penal Substitution and of all things that require faith in a kingdom not of this world. It's a matter a focus.

[infide]

Christ was much more than a mere teacher in terms of objective accomplishment. He is the Savior of the World - a reality seen by faith and on faith's terms. We say that, not because the world of our senses is fundamentally changed, but because He has saved us all from death - the wages of sin.

You keep saying the same things over and over and neglect to engage the discussion.

You know, I could make the argument the it is natural theology (so linked to the senses) that is primary opponent to Penal Substitution and of all things that require faith in a kingdom not of this world. It's a matter a focus.

Thats a red herring if I've ever seen one. I dont think i ever mentioned, hinted, or implied anything about natural theology.

peace,
JD

[RanRan]

Thats a red herring if I've ever seen one. I dont think i ever mentioned, hinted, or implied anything about natural theology.

peace,
JD

Natural theology is so common to man that it is deceptively accepted as true. Beginning with men going on sinning and dying - the senses say Christ accomplished nothing. Faith isn't needed just common sense. You said ' If someone follows the teachings of Jesus, then the world changes, objectively, into the realm of God' That's natural theology asking TOO MUCH.

Faith says - 'Christ's kingdom is not of this world.' Natural theology can never come to grips with that - sorry, but the Gospel never talks in terms of 'improvements.' It's always one of undisputed victory.

'Always pray and NEVER give up!" Christ's kingdom will never be defeated!

[infide]

Natural theology is so common to man that it is deceptively accepted as true. Beginning with men going on sinning and dying - the senses say Christ accomplished nothing. Faith isn't needed just common sense. You said ' If someone follows the teachings of Jesus, then the world changes, objectively, into the realm of God' That's natural theology asking TOO MUCH.

Faith says - 'Christ's kingdom is not of this world.' Natural theology can never come to grips with that - sorry, but the Gospel never talks in terms of 'improvements.' It's always one of undisputed victory.

'Always pray and NEVER give up!" Christ's kingdom will never be defeated!

I must confess i have no idea what you are talking about. I am sure you are using those terms in a way that makes sense to you - but i assure you, not in a way that makes sense to anyone else.

Peace,
jd

[Whipartist]

Natural theology is so common to man that it is deceptively accepted as true. Beginning with men going on sinning and dying - the senses say Christ accomplished nothing. Faith isn't needed just common sense. You said ' If someone follows the teachings of Jesus, then the world changes, objectively, into the realm of God' That's natural theology asking TOO MUCH.

Faith says - 'Christ's kingdom is not of this world.' Natural theology can never come to grips with that - sorry, but the Gospel never talks in terms of 'improvements.' It's always one of undisputed victory.

'Always pray and NEVER give up!" Christ's kingdom will never be defeated!

As long as Infide's ideas are Biblically based, as I believe they are, then labels about natural theology are unimportant. What is important is which position the Scripture supports. Rather than natural theology asking too much, that's inaugerated eschatology. The idea of bringing the realm of God right into the middle of the world in decisive victory. In the world but not of the world, Christianity should be a confrontation of the world. That's what principled non-violence is. That's what resisting sin to the point of death is. It's the conquering of the world's system, which is based in the fear of death. His commandments are not burdensome because greater is He who is in us than he who is in the world. We do overcome the world through our faith. That's the message of Jesus and of the cross and of the Apostles who applied the cross to our lives. That's why the cross crucifies our flesh so that we can be raised up to newness of life. By contrast, the idea that the cross only changed the mind of God is seemingly arbitrary. God was the only one who didn't need changing!!

[RanRan]

That's why the cross crucifies our flesh so that we can be raised up to newness of life.

Everyone is raised up at the end.

By contrast, the idea that the cross only changed the mind of God is seemingly arbitrary. God was the only one who didn't need changing!!

Well things have changed, including God - A MAN is now the judge of heaven and earth.

'Principled non-violence' doesn't require faith - and slapping Christ's name on it doesn't make it the Gospel.

Reducing the Lamb of God to the Great Example completely misses the atonement and the Gospel itself. "We'. 'me', 'I' - the egocentric insert themselves into an atonement of their own making and then get lost in it.

[Whipartist]

Everyone is raised up at the end.

I was paraphrasing Romans 6:4 which clearly refers to those baptized into Christ, and doesn't include those who are not baptized into Him.

Thus inorder for me to understand your position Ran, though I agree with you that everyone is raised up at the final resurrection, John says that some are raised to judgment and the others to eternal life. Jn. 5:29. What happens to the ones raised to judgment? If God's wrath is also propitiated towards them, then why are they judged for their evil deeds? Just trying to understand your position.

Ben

[wonders4oyarsa]

I must confess i have no idea what you are talking about. I am sure you are using those terms in a way that makes sense to you - but i assure you, not in a way that makes sense to anyone else.

Peace,
jd

He called me a natural theologian as well - which I find funny, seeing that I actually don't like natural theology all that much at all. My blog is almost entirely biblical narrative theology.

[RanRan]

Thus inorder for me to understand your position Ran, though I agree with you that everyone is raised up at the final resurrection, John says that some are raised to judgment and the others to eternal life. Jn. 5:29. What happens to the ones raised to judgment? If God's wrath is also propitiated towards them, then why are they judged for their evil deeds?

'God is not counting men's sins against them.' Christ took them away - all of them. Double Jeopardy is not divine justice. The same sin cannot be imputed and not imputed. Yet it must be paid for to fulfill the Law and God's justice on which it stands. The sins of the world were imputed to Christ or they weren't. There is no grey area on which to build a 'theology' in this regard. One is forced to choose - on whom were the sins of the world imputed? Christ or the actual sinners?

Forget about your 'faith' for the moment and allow yourself to be placed with the disobedient, which, in fact, you are placed (and cannot escape) - before answering the question. If you cannot do that - you cannot answer my question since redemption is no longer a concern of yours, but, rather, something you have added - which, by my faith, I am never asked to believe.

Then I will answer your question - which is a good question and a right question and worthy of an answer. I will do my best - faith to faith at that point. Fair?

[Whipartist]

Ran,

I wish to try my best to honor your question, but I'm afraid I so can't fit into that framework that it's basically unanswerable for me. I'll try my best.

'God is not counting men's sins against them.' Christ took them away - all of them. Double Jeopardy is not divine justice. The same sin cannot be imputed and not imputed. Yet it must be paid for to fulfill the Law and God's justice on which it stands. The sins of the world were imputed to Christ or they weren't. There is no grey area on which to build a 'theology' in this regard. One is forced to choose - on whom were the sins of the world imputed? Christ or the actual sinners?

See my understanding of that passage in 2Cor. is that the sins were not imputed to Christ or to sinners. That God is willing to forgive them if people will listen to Paul's message to be reconciled to God. Christ's incarnation and ultimately His death is the expression of this in real existence.

Forget about your 'faith' for the moment and allow yourself to be placed with the disobedient, which, in fact, you are placed (and cannot escape) - before answering the question. If you cannot do that - you cannot answer my question since redemption is no longer a concern.

I was in the disobedient and within that category I was caught by the message of Paul to be reconciled to God, to conclude that because Christ died for me, I died and now live for Him.

Then I will answer your question - which is a good question and a right question and worthy of an answer. I will do my best - faith to faith at that point. Fair?

I didn't try to avoid the question, that's truly my answer to it. I don't think in the same categories, as you know. Now if you are willing to answer my question, do so.

[RanRan]

He called me a natural theologian as well - which I find funny, seeing that I actually don't like natural theology all that much at all. My blog is almost entirely biblical narrative theology.

You are dependent on natural theology and I can prove it.

Men go on sinning and dying. Your senses tell you that nothing has changed.

So Natural theology draws the conclusion that all remain in Adam. Samo-samo.

Revelation (something natural theology cannot handle) tells us that 'all are in Christ' now and that 'all are made alive in Him'.

Natural theology (as Paul noted in Romans) creates an idol - something much less than Christ - as all idols are.

Can the natural inclinations of man's beliefs come against the Gospel revealed?

Of course. Will they call those inclinations - the Gospel? They must. Your blog is a joke. Repent, great teacher of men.

[infide]

You are dependent on natural theology and I can prove it.

Men go on sinning and dying. Your senses tell you that nothing has changed.

So Natural theology draws the conclusion that all remain in Adam. Samo-samo.

Revelation (something natural theology cannot handle) tells us that 'all are in Christ' now and that 'all are made alive in Him'.

Natural theology (as Paul noted in Romans) creates an idol - something much less than Christ - as all idols are.

Can the natural inclinations of man's beliefs come against the Gospel revealed?

Of course. Will they call those inclinations - the Gospel? They must. Your blog is a joke. Repent, great teacher of men.

A pretty obvious case of a false dichotomy.

Even in natural theology, natural theology does not suppose that nothing can be revealed - just that some things are revealed in the natural order, or via the use of God-given natural reasoning.

This seems pretty reasonable to me, given that things like science exist. If you doubt that such things can reveal things, then you have lost the big picture of truth, and exchanged it for a local, religious one.

All truth is the truth of God.

And the Gospel - the Good news of God's boundless Mercy and Goodness, which can rescue mankind from the state it finds itself in - is not beyond the scope of things that could not be known to a mind in its natural state. The specific history of Jesus is revealed - but you cannot narrow what the Gospel is to some simple and trite religious statement. Jesus certainly didnt think this.

Peace,
JD