As I was driving into work this morning, I pulled up Charlie Hall’s September through November album on my Ipod, and I was brought back to the evening I was in attendance when he was doing this tour a few years ago. The one thing that I remember most vividly was that his keyboard player read a meditation on Isaiah 9 that just blew me away. I know that Isaiah 9 is a passage we normally associate with Christmas, but I think it’s even more applicable now as we are in the Lenten season heading toward Easter. The following is the meditation piece just captures the heart of the Gospel in a way that is simply beautiful. It was written by Joshua Banner (I hope that is the correct link), whom I sadly know little about. Anyway, I hope it’s a blessing to you.
Meditation on Isaiah 9
by Joshua BannerUnto us a child is born
unto all of us
unto the widow
unto the homeless
the addict
the AIDS patient
unto us the football captain
and the drag queen
unto us the politician
the factory blue collar
us the single mother
the crack baby
and unto us the affluent suburbanite
unto us the Goth
the hippie
the rocker
the alternative and underground
unto us in Hollywood and on Madison Avenue
and unto all of us in between
unto us in the gutters of Calcutta
unto the Muslim
and the Jew
the Buddhist
the Krishna and the Hindu
unto us the fatherless
unto the heavenly fatherlessFor unto us a child is born
a son is given
and a secret revolution begun.
This is what the prophets had been preparing for.They said his name would be,
“Most Beautiful Wisdom”
“the Highest of Heaven’s Secrets”his name would be
“the God who continually bends over backwards for you”
“the God who gets down on his hands and knees”
“the God who would become silly and mis-understood”
“the God who would be mocked- – the God whose name
would be taken in vain.”He would be called
“the God of underdogs”“the God of the powerless and unspiritual”
“the God of those who cannot pray or fast”
And there would be no end to him and his
underdog weaklings or their secret
there would be no end even
while the nations continue to rage on
even as ethnos rises against ethnos
even as valleys are filled with dead bones
and rivers run with blood
even as violence runs through our streets
and schools and hearts
covering us like a thick fog
Even in this dark land of weak people
the God who bends over backwards
will shine forth like a great light
as the dawning of a new day
letting his secret spread forth with healing and joy.Drop the mirror and let it shatter
Crush the hourglass and stop the clocks ticking
stand still
hold your breath
anticipate—imagine
your wildest dreams.
Sell everything and buy the farm
Come with me, cover your eyes and hold out your hands
stop your weeping
stop your groans
the fast is over.Let the celebration begin
the father has come
He has sent his son
Unto us He has been born
even unto us.
148 Comments(+Add)
W O W.
Not many of you were wise, not many of you were rich . . .
good stuff.
I think Rick sums up my thoughts well.
lovely.
where on his blog is this…I couldn’t find it.
I actually didn’t find it on his blog. It’s in the liner notes of the album I mentioned, but I also found it here.
Isaiah 9
1 But there will be no gloom for her who was in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he has made glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations.
2 The people who walked in darkness
have seen a great light;
those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness,
on them has light shined.
3 You have multiplied the nation;
you have increased its joy;
they rejoice before you
as with joy at the harvest,
as they are glad when they divide the spoil.
4 For the yoke of his burden,
and the staff for his shoulder,
the rod of his oppressor,
you have broken as on the day of Midian.
5 For every boot of the tramping warrior in battle tumult
and every garment rolled in blood
will be burned as fuel for the fire.
6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7Of the increase of his government and of peace
there will be no end,
on the throne of David and over his kingdom,
to establish it and to uphold it
with justice and with righteousness
from this time forth and forevermore.
The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.
8The Lord has sent a word against Jacob,
and it will fall on Israel;
9and all the people will know,
Ephraim and the inhabitants of Samaria,
who say in pride and in arrogance of heart:
10″The bricks have fallen,
but we will build with dressed stones;
the sycamores have been cut down,
but we will put cedars in their place.”
11But the LORD raises the adversaries of Rezin against him,
and stirs up his enemies.
12 The Syrians on the east and the Philistines on the west
devour Israel with open mouth.
For all this his anger has not turned away,
and his hand is stretched out still.
13The people did not turn to him who struck them,
nor inquire of the LORD of hosts.
14So the LORD cut off from Israel head and tail,
palm branch and reed in one day—
15 the elder and honored man is the head,
and the prophet who teaches lies is the tail;
16for those who guide this people have been leading them astray,
and those who are guided by them are swallowed up.
17Therefore the Lord does not rejoice over their young men,
and has no compassion on their fatherless and widows;
for everyone is godless and an evildoer,
and every mouth speaks folly.
For all this his anger has not turned away,
and his hand is stretched out still.
18For wickedness burns like a fire;
it consumes briers and thorns;
it kindles the thickets of the forest,
and they roll upward in a column of smoke.
19Through the wrath of the LORD of hosts
the land is scorched,
and the people are like fuel for the fire;
no one spares another.
20 They slice meat on the right, but are still hungry,
and they devour on the left, but are not satisfied;
each devours the flesh of his own arm, 21Manasseh devours Ephraim, and Ephraim devours Manasseh;
together they are against Judah.
For all this his anger has not turned away,
and his hand is stretched out still.
Hardly a “meditation” on the chapter.
Where’s Lyon’s bellyaching about how out of context this meandering drivel is?
Phil,
I think you should be consistent with your hermeneutic on this passage and explain to us how Jesus is not the savior of gentiles. Afterall, Isaiah wasn’t written to 21st Century Americans. Who is the “us” in the sentence “for unto us a child is born”?
Since, Jesus wasn’t punished for our sins because Isaiah 53 wasn’t written to 21st Century Americans then the same hermeneutical principle applies (if you are consistent) and Isaiah 9 doesn’t promise us a savior either. It only promises as savior to the jews.
Chris – even though much of Scripture has some cultural/ethnic context, I would hope (assume) that Phil believes the Scriptures are written to the church as a whole and every individual believer, regardless of the time period and/or ethnic context..
Is it me or does it seem that Chris R and Chris P have just completely lost it? I pray that is not God sending a delusion to them as they pursue their own version of truth…
iggy
Looks like someone’s ego got all black and blue and is looking for some payback.
I hardly think a personal/artistic meditation on a scriptural text is being offered as some kind of 1 to 1 rendering of the text in question.
It’s art, not exposition.
sheeeesh.
then again…if someone is artistically “riffing” off of the familiar part of the passage and you’re mad that they didn’t specify the specific section/verse in the title of their “meditation”…well, then the problem is your nit-picking highminded wanna be God self.
I know we’re all trying to be good solid Christian men (good job), but I’m continued to be surprised that no one has yet to flat out tell Chris R to go F himself or something of that flavor.
His attitude continues to ignite Godly anger in me, hopefully I won’t burst into flames.
Aaron – the evil for evil construct is flawed
Chris R. was referencing another thread where Phil seemed to indicate that Is.53 could not be used in a penal susstitutionary discussion since it was written to the Jews.
Chris R, then took that to the extreme by suggesting Phil didn’t believe the OT was written to us as well. In this instance he wasn’t actually being all that mean, just somewhat relentless.
1. Those of you who are trying to divine my motives and get behind the psychology in my comments need to stop because you suck at it. My ego wasn’t bruised one bit. I came back to the discussion after spending 4 days on the road (business trip) because Phil’s hermeneutic was DEAD WRONG and I am concerned for him and those foolish enough to believe his hermeneutic is valid.
Plain and simple Phil’s contention that Isaiah 53 can’t be used to support Penal Substitution, even though the text itself CLEARLY teaches Penal Substitution, on the grounds that it wasn’t written to 21st Century Americans is not only the most self-deceived Bible twisting that I’ve seen in a while, it is a false and untenable hermeneutic.
Here were Phil’s exact words,
“And who is “us” in that Scripture? The Jewish people, that’s who. The book of Isaiah wasn’t written to 21st century Americans, despite your belief that it is all about you”.
2a. This is false and untenable hermeneutic because if Phil were consistent with his handling of Isaiah then he would also have to conclude that when Isaiah 9 says, “unto us a child is born” that the “us” in the text does NOT include 21st Century Americans.
The exact same principle would apply because Phil made it clear that he was denying Penal Substitution based solely upon the intended audience of the Book of Isaiah. That being the case, if 21st Century Americans cannot say that “He was pierced for our transgressions” because they were not the intended audience of the Book of Isaiah then they also cannot say that “unto us a child is born” for the exact same reason. You gentile Americans need to stop celebrating Christmas because a ‘child wasn’t born unto you’ because Isaiah wasn’t written to you.
See the problem with his hermeneutic. It doesn’t work.
If Phil is honest, he’ll admit the deficiencies in his hermeneutic and repent.
2b. The other problem with Phil’s hermeneutic, which mangles God’s word in order to avoid the clear teaching of the text on Penal Substitution, is that it creates a brand new version of Limited Atonement. Unlike the Calvinist version of Limited Atonement Phil’s new and untenable version teaches that the Penal Atonement was limited to only the “Jewish people”.
The Calvinist version, even though I strongly disagree with it, at least has Christ acting as a the Penal Substitution for the elect, both Jews and Gentiles. But, Phil’s newly invented version of Limited Atonement doesn’t even include 21st Century Americans.
Phil you need to either be consistent and come right out and say that “A Child wasnt’ Born Unto Us Americans” or you need to confess that in the heat of a discussion that you erred regarding God’s Word and you need repent.
Oh sure, that makes perfect sense, I mean, someone who has to leave a discussion for a business trip obviously would attack the author in an unrelated posting. Whereas someone who has a bruised ego and is looking to take out their anger on someone would go back and pick up the original discussion.
Or maybe I mixed those two up.
Chris – I believe you are expanding Phil’s comments. I am sure he did not mean that Isaiah was not relevant for the church.
Bo,
I wasn’t “attacking the author”. I was challenging his false hermeneutic. If I were going to ‘attack the author’ I’d tell him that he was a gunky head and that his mom dresses him funny. One of these is appropriate for a discussion of ideas and one is a ‘personal attack’. There is a big difference between the two.
I’m sure that you are mature enough to be able to tell the difference between a personal attack and a point that challenges someone’s ideas and teachings. Because only someone who was immature in their thinking would confuse a challenge to someone’s ideas as a ‘personal attack’.
AND This is not an unrelated topic. Because Phil made a false blanket statement that Isaiah 53 doesn’t apply to 21st Century Americans because Isaiah wasn’t written to them but was written to the Jewish people, that means that this post is fair game because it also quotes from the book of Isaiah.
“gunky head”?
I would like to examine your high school diploma.
Actually, Chris, your lack of reading comprehension is the only thing that requires repentance. If you look back in that thread, I actually defended a version of penal substitution that was based on the contextual, narrative reading of the text. I don’t believe we can take the passage in Isaiah and extrapolate that we all are somehow punished because of Israel’s breaking of covenant. And in the most literal sense, the “us” in Isaiah 9 isn’t really Americans either. But the piece I posted was a “meditation”, not a translation. Although, I will note that when you look at Isaiah 9 through the lens of the New Testament, there is much more support for univeralizing this passage to promise a savior for the whole world than extrapolating that mention of “punishment” in Isaiah 53 applies to every single person.
According to your hermeneutic, we can just ignore the original audience and assume every word in Scripture was written to us. How about this passage:
Was that written to us? Should we start destroying our enemies?
Scripture was written for us, but not necessarily to us.
Rick,
Relevance is NOT the point here.
Phil made a blanket statement in order to avoid the clear teaching of the text of Isaiah 53.
Here is what he said:
Isaiah 53 CLEARLY teaches Penal Substitution. Phil is denying what the text says by claiming that Isaiah “wasn’t written to 21st Century Americans”. That being the case, if Phil’s hermeneutic were valid then Isaiah 9 ALSO does not apply to 21st Century Americans.
Phil cannot arbitrarily and capriciously deny the clear teaching of Isaiah 53 by claiming that we’re not the intended audience and then quote from the same book as if it applies to us. That is the very definition of scripture twisting. It is a dangerous practice, one that I believe has eternal consequences and I cannot sit by and not challenge it because of my love for Phil, he is after all my neighbor.
“Scripture was written for us, but not necessarily to us.”
Good thought. The nuance in that means that context can give us a better understanding of how it DOES apply to us.
Soooo, Chris R, you deny that Christus Victor has anything to do with the Cross? It is JUST Penal Substitution?
iggy
Chris – Isaiah 53 is quoted in the New Testament, and I find it disingenuous to deny fully any penal essence in the cross. I believe Phil and all the rest have counted that view as a valid one among others. Even the thief on the other cross recognized the punishment they were enduring.
AND This is not an unrelated topic. Because Phil made a false blanket statement that Isaiah 53 doesn’t apply to 21st Century Americans because Isaiah wasn’t written to them but was written to the Jewish people, that means that this post is fair game because it also quotes from the book of Isaiah.
Wasn’t this post the point of discussion in the first place?
What’s up with the “gotcha-everything’s open” attitude?
Seriously, Chris R, that’s just so weird. Why the need to ’serve notice’ on something that is inherently part of what this thread is assumed to be about?
so strange. baffling.
and you bristle if people say you sound a little crazy at times.
I might just be misunderstanding what your “point” is…but regardless you would do well to take a deep breath and calm your ass down.
Seriously.
Phil,
Do yourself a favor. Don’t assume you know anything about my hermeneutic. It is much easier and it saves a lot of time if you let me speak for myself and I’ll return the favor.
That being the case it was pretentious of you to assume that according to my hermeneutic, “we can just ignore the original audience and assume every word in Scripture was written to us.”
You always nail ODM’s to the wall if they misrepresent someones’s position, I think you should be consistent and be far more careful so that you don’t misrepresent my position (which is exactly what you’ve done in this case). You wouldn’t want someone accusing you of being a hypocrite. That would undermine your credibility as a watcher of watchdogs.
I should probably post this in the other thread, as it applies there more than here, but everyone is here now.
But if God is holding wrath against everyone before the death of Jesus, please explain this statement from Acts:
It seems to me, that if we are to take Paul seriously here, he’s seeming to say that God did not hold the Roman people accountable for their idolatry until they heard of Jesus. That seems to contradict the point you’re trying to make.
This is a VERY important issue. The Old Testament was written to different people in different times, however the Spirit uses all of it, in context, to apply it to the church and individual believers.
The book of Isaiah has many prophetic chapters that were indeed written to the rebellious Jews, but contained a future truth that would even be more important in its application than the time period in which it was written. The book itself has sometimes been called “The Gospel According to Isaiah” since its messianic revelations were so clear.
Correct. I will gladly stand beside a Christian who says “Jesus died for the sins of the world.” Heck, I will even go as far to say, “Jesus died for the sins of the Elect” (it’s just that everyone has the chance to be part of the Elect now).
I will also stand beside a brother who has a trouble accepting a certain theory of the atonement because they either have been given a poor explanation or they honestly don’t understand. I assume God’s grace is bigger than our misunderstanding our fear.
Phil – that is a misinterpretation of what Paul was saying. The entire Old Testament narrative underminds your supposition. Paul’s point was about God’s current and supreme focus on Christ, not about His excusing idolatry.
Chris, R,
Will you ever answer my question? Do you deny Christus Victor as a valid view of the Cross? Do you JUST believe in penal substitution?
iggy
Chris R,
In the previous discussion you made the claim that based on that single verse in Isaiah 53 that penal substitutionary atonement is a non-negotiable part of the gospel, and that anyone who take’s Young’s view has a false gospel.
Then when it was pointed out to you that Paul doesn’t seem to care how the resurrection is described in his writings to the Corinthians, or in his interaction with the jailer you disappear.
Care to explain how you come to the conclusion, using scripture, of your view that penal substitutionary atonement is the gospel? I mean, without using the pitiful ADM tactic of assuming everyone who doesn’t agree with you doesn’t really believe the Bible.
How exactly does it undermine it?
The point I’m making is that God isn’t approaching the pagan nations in judgment (as the Jews assumed He should), but He’s offering them a lifeline, to many Jew’s chagrin.
All I’m saying is that perhaps in our attempts to convince people that they are “Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God” we have forgotten to tell them that they are really “Sinners in the Hands of a Loving Father”.
That’s not saying that idolatry does not go unpunished. I believe that idolatry is its own punishment. It robs people of their identity, and by doing so causes them to live lives that they weren’t created for. So perhaps God “overlooked” idolatry in the Romans in that He did not send judgment upon them in the form of fire from heaven, but He did allow them to wander in their sins. But Paul is saying, “hey, stop looking at your idols – Christ is the real deal!”
In my limited view, the cross most represents the penal substitutionary view, while the resurrection solidifies the Christus Victor view (ransom).
Bo,
The only reason I disappeared is because I physically could not stay in the discussion. I was on an airplane, in meetings and then I was in a car for 2 days.
And did all these meetings and travel prevent you from taking up the previous discussion rather than attacking Phil on an unrelated post?
I have noticed a pattern on these posts. There are the exchange of opinions (the comments) and then there is the revealed truth (my comments).
Please distinguish between the two, otherwise confusion ensues.
Rick,
I think that is part of the issue. we tend to separate the actions of the Cross and the Resurrection or we combine them too much on the Cross side and sort of ignore the Resurrection.
Without both we are lost. With out the Cross to take away our sins and the Resurrection to give us life we have nothing…
Yet it seems that some place salvation totally on “penal substitution” and overlook the Resurrection…or at last acknowledge what happened on the Cross was much wider than God tidying up some legalities He had to subject Himself to in order to maintain his own Holiness.
iggy
#26
Calm down, Chris R.
Funny I ask Chris R a direct question twice and still now answer… why?
Let’s try again…
Do you deny Christus Victor and JUST believe in penal substitution?
IOW’s do you believe Christus Victor to be false doctrine?
iggy
“The point I’m making is that God isn’t approaching the pagan nations in judgment (as the Jews assumed He should), but He’s offering them a lifeline, to many Jew’s chagrin.”
Great explanation. I retract my objection, brother.
Chris R. said
Are you saying a sinner cannot be saved by a pocket New Testament? No one can be saved through reading the Old Testament, and no one’s salvation hinges upon his understanding of the Old Testament as it applies to us.
Are you saying that a soul is damned by virtue of possibly misunderstanding the Scriptures?
Take those deep breaths, Chris R. There’s lots of questions directed at you.
You’ll need to think clearly to answer them.
Phil,
Before we begin banging on each other and lobbing texts at each other as if they were hand grenades, I think it would be more productive to try to figure out our common ground.
1. I do not believe that Penal Substitution is a ‘Theory of the Atonement’. I believe it is the clear Biblical explanation of the Atonement and I base it on far more than just Isaiah 53.
2. I believe that those who invent alternative theories of the Atonement and arbitrarily trump up passages that explain different facets of the atonement to the exclusion of Penal Substitution are redefining the atonement and are actually redefining the gospel itself.
Let me give an example. 20th Century Modernist Liberal theologians, who did not believe that miracles are possible and who were offended by Penal Substitution, redefined the atonement in ways where they could get rid of the atonement and turned Jesus death on the cross into a moral example for us to follow. They created theories and their theories redefined the gospel and their ‘gospel’ was a false gospel.
History is repeating itself and there is a renewed assault on Penal Substitution today. Those leading the charge against Penal Substitution are also guilty of redefining the gospel and are fashioning a false gospel.
3. I am NOT a Calvinist. I believe that Christ Died for the Sins of the World, not just the elect.
In fact, before we go on. I think you need to hear a more in depth explanation of what I believe. So that you don’t mistake my position.
The Issues, Etc. Radio program did a 5 part series on the topic of the atonement. I agree with almost everything stated in this series. Please listen, each segment is only 30 minutes long.
Here are the Links:
The Cross of Christ: Atonement
The Cross of Christ: Propitiation
The Cross of Christ: Justification & Reconciliation
The Cross of Christ: Redemption & Ransom
The Cross of Christ: False Views of Atonement
If the authenticity of our salvation hinges upon a pure understanding of atonement views, or many other doctrinal understandings, then we are all undone. In that construct either Arminians are saved or Calvinists are saved, but they cannot both be saved since one of them is twisting Scripture with “eternal consequences”.
NC,
Are Mormons saved? They claim that they believe in Jesus. The problem is that they’ve redefined Jesus and the Gospel. They use the exact SAME words Christians use but those words have different meanings.
So I would ask you this question. What is more important the words that someone uses to share the gospel or the meanings and definitions they attach to those words?
Listen to what the Apostle Paul wrote on this matter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to the Galatian churches:
Paul was pretty clear that those who were teaching a false gospel were ‘eternally condemned’?
Its a lot like trying to nail jello to a wall.
So now I’m confused. Is NC, Phil Miller, or Young a Mormon?
Rick,
The issue is not ‘theories of the atonement’ the issue is the definition of the Gospel. What does scripture mean when it says “Christ Died FOR Our Sins?”
If your definition of the Gospel leaves out the critical aspect of Penal Substitution then you are omitting a key Biblical facet to Christ’s work on the cross and may actually be believing a false gospel.
Historically, those who’ve attacked and denied Penal Substitution almost always have been those who’ve rejected salvation by Grace Alone through faith Alone by Christ’s work alone and created a salvation by works or example scheme.
Chris R,
Yes… sooo? What does this have to do with the conversation other than you are not answering the questions? This is a straw man… and an avoidance of the real discussion..
So again, please, do you deny Christus Victor and JUST believe in penal substitution? Are those who hold the Christus Victor view WITH the PS view heretical?
This is getting tiring as I see that you avoid the real discussion here or maybe do not really understand it…
iggy
You realize that PSA wasn’t present in the early church fathers’ writings? And that it doesn’t really come into play until the 16th century as an extension of Anselm’s (OMG ROMAN CATHOLIC!!!!!) satisfaction theory.
You may want to go back and try again.
Funny, when Paul lays out the Gospel for those in Corinth, I don’t see Penal atonement as one of the keys:
While it says “Christ died for our sins”, I does not define this as penal or ransom, etc. Insisting it must be penal and nothing else is only adding to the Gospel.
Phil,
Would you please ‘approve’ the comment that I posted with the links to audio segments on the atonement?
That phrase says nothing about why He had to die for our sins. I could say He died to set us free from the consequences of our sins, He died to pay a ransom for our sins, He died to remove the shame that our sins cause us and they all are covered in that phrase.
Saying that He died to take the punishment from God for our sins is simply one view.
I got it – the spam filter had sucked it up…
Bo,
Actually, I see Anselm’s view as the best. It covers pretty much all the views.
I see that in HOW some teach PS makes God out to be some evil Father who cared only about his OWN holiness and really does not show the compassion and love of God.
iggy
Chris L,
Really? You don’t see Penal Substitution in 1 Cor 15?
What do the words “Christ Died FOR our Sins” mean?
Why would Christ need to ‘die’ for MY sins? How could someone die FOR MY SINS? Shouldn’t I be the one dying for my sins? Afterall, I’m the one who committed them.
1 Cor 15 only makes sense through Penal Substitution.
How did Christ Die? Answer: Crucifixion
Crucifixion by definition is Penal. It was the DEATH PENALTY. It was Capital Punishment!
In other words, Christ was crucified for MY sins.
If you can’t see the Penal Substitution in 1 Cor 15 then you are truly blind to what the scriptures teach.
If you need to link to multiple audio files to explain your view of the gospel, you might be overthinking the gospel just a bit.
Chris R,
You’re reading back your own view into the scriptures if you believe that “Christ died for our sins” is statement of PSA. As I pointed out before the early church fathers didn’t believe this, so to make your view coherent you have to believe the true meaning of the scriptures didn’t become clear for nearly 1500 years after they were written.
Bo,
I see that most the time these guys theology is jello when I discuss theology with them… and their lack of historical understanding is truly appalling! They claim to be the one’s that KNOW, yet when the jello hits the fan fall very short.
iggy
Chris R,
Actually the word “died” means more like “made known our sins” look it up in the Greek and see what I mean…
And the English would mean simply that Jesus, while on the Cross… died…
Now according to the scripture, you need to notice that the passage you quoted (Isaiah 53) talks much more of the suffering servant than penal substitution, which was not even fully developed as a concept until the 16th century.
So if that was the only view, then there was no one saved before Calvin… sheesh!
iggy
Actually, most people attribute the “moral influence” model to Peter Abelard who lived in the 1100’s, and it can even be found in Augustine’s writings, as well as Athanasius’ writings from the 2nd and 3rd centuries.
Also, I would point out that the PSA model has been criticized as leading to universal salvation. After all, if Jesus took the punishment for sin, and satisfied the justice demanded for it with no part played by humans, then why is there still punishment reserved for some?
Those of you who keep wrongly assuming that I ONLY believe in Penal Substitution need to listen to the audio segments that posted links to above.
I do not deny the Christus Victor facet of the atonement nor do I deny the ransom facet of the atonement.
The problems wrought on humanity by our sin is multi-faceted and no single aspect of the atonement fully addresses all the complexities brought on us by our sin.
I believe in Penal Substitution AND I believe in Ransom AND I believe in Christus Victor. All of these facets of the atonement are Biblical.
The problems occur when people arbitrarily exalt one aspect of the Atonement to the exclusion of the other Biblically supported facets of the atonement.
#56
Chris R – 1 Cor 15 does not specify if the atonement was penal, ransom, etc. You’re engaging in eisegesis now…
Chris _ I see penal fully in the atonement. The scapegoat is a great metaphor as well as the Passover Lamb. But I was fully converted by believing in Christ before I ever was aware of such specifics. I believed that Jesus was God in the flesh and “whosever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life”.
You cannot say that a misunderstanding of the penal essence excludes one from believing on Christ. BTW – Luther was a Calvinist/Arminian mix. The penal substitutionary perspective was indeed the purpose of the cross. However believing that Christ was God, died for sins, and rose from the dead is the gospel. Period.
Which is exactly what you’re doing!!!
Chris – your comment #63 seems to align what most are saying here.
That’s not necessarily a problem of salvation, as you’ve argued in the past. PSA is a relative new comer to the theological table in terms of widespread belief.
Do you really believe that you have to know and acknowledge belief in all the various theories of atonement before entering the kingdom of God?
No. Exhibit A = the saved sinner named Frueh.
Also, I cannot remember a baptized infant giving an accurate treatise concerning the penal view. And their parents are either limited in their understanding or parroting what their church demands they believe. I speak from experience.
Chris L,
Who ever told you that the greek word “apothnesko” means “made known our sins” sold you a bill of goods.
The greek there reads:
hoti Christos apethanen huper ton harmartion
Apothnesko means:
1. to cease to have vital functions, whether at an earthly or transcendent level, die
None of the lexicons that I own, I checked 5 of them define Apothnesko as “made known” it is a verb that means “die”.
Whoever told you that Apothnesko means ‘made known’ lied to you.
That was Chris, not Chris L…
Actually, it was Iggy, not me… but still…
Here’s a thought – since this post had nothing to do with theories of atonement, why don’t we take this discussion to the article that Chris L. just re-posted on atonement theories…
Bo,
“Do you really believe that you have to know and acknowledge belief in all the various theories of atonement before entering the kingdom of God?”
NO.
That being said the question that is the important one is “What is the Gospel?” How is someone defining the Good News that they are proclaiming?
If someone is defining the good news as “Jesus Died for Our Sins” and by that mean that Christ was Vicarously atoning for our sins then more than likely we can claim that we have Christian fellowship with that person and they are bringing us the true Biblical gospel.
If someone is defining the good news as “Jesus Died for Our Sins” and by that they mean that Jesus was a mere martyr and he died to demonstrate the injustices of the Imperial Suicide Machine and make know how unjust we all are and that he wants us to defect from imperialism and join him in his activities of earthly renewal. The person who defines the Good News this way has redefined the Gospel and is teaching a false gospel that cannot and will not save anyone because it is an idol.
Chris L,
I am not eisogeting 1 Cor 15
I stuck to the text itself and simply and plainly answered the question what does “Died for OUR Sins” mean?
The text itself is DRIPPING with Penal Substitution.
And other passages of scripture including Isaiah 53 shed even further light on 1 Cor 15.
Christ Died FOR OUR SINS = “He was wounded for our transgressions”
Christ Died FOR OUR SINS = “He was crushed for our iniquities”
Christ Died FOR OUR SINS = “the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed”
Christ Died FOR OUR SINS = “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us”
Christ Died FOR OUR SINS = He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. (1Pet. 2:24) Notice Peter is quoting Isaiah 53.
Chris R,
Yes you are right… I was wrong… …yet, at the Cross that was what Jesus did… He revealed our sins and also took them away.
When I looked it up again the program I was using used the wrong word the first time…
Still, as I stated, even in the English you are pushing it to say it is Penal Substitution… that phrase simply means Jesus died…. you are adding to the text.
And that was my main point… Jesus died… but to use that as a proof-text is a bad choice.
Again though… you have yet to answer my questions and I have asked them at least 3 times.
That Jesus died on the Cross was buried for 3 days and rose again, ascended and was glorified.
So far you seem to only view the gospel as Jesus died… and that ONLY fulfilled the legalities of the Law… and that is NOT the gospel… it may be a small part, but to claim that IS the gospel means you are missing so much more in what the Gospel really is.
So Chris R, What is the gospel? That Jesus died? Is that ALL you believe? If so, I pray you come to know the LIVING savior…
iggy
Chris R.
Calm down. Breath, boy, breath.
The main problem with Mormon’s is that they start with an additional testament that determines their use of the Scriptures.
They add to the Bible.
We’re talking about Phil, etc. who may or may not understand the Scriptures correctly.
Does their understanding/misunderstanding save or damn Christians?
oh, yeah…and thanks for the reminder that Paul wrote in Galatians under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
I didn’t know that…
sheeesh.
calm down
Chris R,
#75 shows you are eisogeting 1 Cor 15!
You are adding all those thoughts to the phrase that simply means “Jesus died for our sins”. Now other passages may show that PS is in the language but to use this phrase as your proof-text is very weak…
Again, it seems to me you are missing the fullness of the Gospel and are over-focused on a part of the gospel.
iggy
Anyone who says 1 Cor 15 is dripping with PSA is eisogeting.
Iggy,
I am not eisogeting 1 Cor 15.
All of those other phrases that are taken directly from other passages of the Word of God give us the Biblical definition of the phrase “Christ Died FOR OUR SINS.”
This falls under the hermeneutical principle of “Scripture Interprets Scripture”
If you want to know what the phrase “Christ Died FOR OUR SINS” means then we are to look at the other passages that were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and see what they say in regard to that exact same topic.
In this case every single passage that I quoted provides us with synonym phrases that the Holy Spirit inspired to be written and they help us to get the full picture of what God’s Word means when it says “Christ Died for Our Sins.”
You seem to forget that ALL scripture is God breathed. Therefore we can quote different books of the Bible in order to shed light on specific passages.
If you don’t agree with any of these statements, then you need to prove they are NOT valid Biblical synonyms and cross references.
I claim that the Bible teaches:
If you disagree with this, then show me from the text that is not valid.
I claim that the Bible teaches:
If you disagree with this, then show me from the text that is not valid.
I claim that the Bible teaches:
If you disagree with this, then show me from the text that is not valid.
I claim that the Bible teaches:
If you disagree with this, then show me from the text that is not valid.
I claim that the Bible teaches:
If you disagree with this, then show me from the text that is not valid.
NC,
Why would you assume that I am not calm?
Peter quotes part of Isaiah in I Pet.2:24 and applies it to the atonement. Verses 20 through 24 are, in context, a short treatise on substitutionary punishemnt and suffering. We are even commanded to emulate that selfless endurance of evil upon ourselves, even when it is unjust since that, Peter suggests, is what the Savior did.
Great Points Rick!
Notice that Peter isn’t just quoting some obscure passage of Isaiah, he is quoting Isaiah 53. That fact alone blows Phil’s argument that “Isaiah wasn’t written to us”, out of the water.
Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, quotes Isaiah 53 and applies it universally and does not limit it the Jewish People. Therefore, Isaiah 53 and all of its Penal Substitution teaching applies to US, even to 21st Century Americans.
I only have so much tolerance for willful ignorance and idiocy.
The issue is not whether Jesus died for our sins in some way. The issue is who killed Him. You are saying unless a person says God was the one who actually killed Jesus, they are not a Christian. That is just wrong.
It’s not that hard to grasp once you get past your witch hunt version of graceless Christianity.
“You are saying unless a person says God was the one who actually killed Jesus, they are not a Christian.”
I hope that is not what Chris is suggesting. Things can be important, even very important, but not part of the salvation equation.
Well he stated that believing in the Penal Substition model was a non-negotiable part of the gospel…
That’s what got this whole brouhaha started.
Phil,
Red Herring!
You said:
Nope. The issue is PENAL (Punishment) Substitution.
Not once has the question of ‘who killed Jesus’ been the issue.
Isaiah 53 says of Jesus that, “the PUNISHMENT that brought us peace was upon him.” Peter uses this text universally therefore your claim that this text only applies to the Jewish People is false.
As for who killed Jesus.. I DID, IT WAS ME!
When we read Peter’s sermon in Acts 3 he tells the crowd this awful truth, “You killed the author of life!” (Acts 3:15) That statement reaches across time and space and applies directly to me! My sin, my rebellion, my hatred of God and His Son and my wickedness killed Jesus Christ!
But Peter’s sermon doesn’t end there. Peter offers a guilty and wretched sinner even as wicked as me these comforting words, “Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer. Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you — even Jesus. (Acts 3:17-20)
The gospel tells me that Jesus Christ died FOR MY SINS, that Jesus was Pierced for MY TRANSGRESSIONS, that He was CRUSHED FOR MY INIQUITIES, that the PUNISHMENT that brought me peace WAS UPON HIM, and that BY HIS WOUNDS I am healed.
I Killed Jesus! BUT He Was Punished FOR ALL of MY SINS INCLUDING the sin of Murdering him.
Chris R,
1000-1500 years of Christianity didn’t come up with PSA, and yet somehow we’re expected to believe that the phrase “Christ died for your sins” is “dripping” with PSA.
I think its far more likely that your brain is dripping with PSA than that that phrase is and all of Christianity just missed it for a millennium.
Well, I’m sorry Chris, then your ignorance is even more astounding.
You should at least have a grasp on what you’re arguing if you’re going to start throwing heresy charges around.
What do you think the word ‘penal’ means? Penal refers to the punishment from the judge – who in this case would be God. Who else would have the capacity to dole out punishment?
So the issue is indeed “who killed Jesus”?
Bo,
Nice assertion but you didn’t back it up from God’s Word.
Take the time to show me from scripture that the Biblical assertions that I made in comment 80 are false.
Anyone can make an assertion. It’s a different thing altogether to back your assertion up with facts. You need to actually do the hard work and back up what you are asserting with Biblical facts.
You’re killin’ me here…
Coming from someone who runs a website built on throwing out out unfounded assertions, this is quite rich…
Chris R,
We already have twice. Once in 1 Cor 15, and once when Paul gives the gospel to the jailer in Acts 16.
You claim that phrases in which there is no PSA anywhere near them actually are “dripping” with PSA.
So then I go to those who received the scriptures and point out that none of them came anywhere close to PSA.
Then you claim I don’t use the scriptures.
I do use the scriptures, I just don’t make up my mind about what they mean before I use them the way you do.
Phil,
So should I assume that because you have changed the subject (or at least the focus of the discussion) that you are admitting that you were wrong and incorrect in claiming that Isaiah 53, which clearly teaches Penal Substitution, did not apply to 21st Century Americans but only to the Jewish people?
You’ve become noticeably quiet on that issue.
I’ve shown conclusively that the Apostle Peter under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit applies Isaiah 53 universally. This is an undeniable fact. This fact shows your assertion to be false.
So before we change the focus of the discussion, I want to bring closure to this part of the discussion.
Here is what the Apostle Peter said:
Confess your sin and repent. You were dead wrong when you claimed that Isaiah 53 didn’t apply to 21st Century Americans.
Once you’ve done that, THEN we can move on to the other topic.
Bo,
When you learn that Scripture Interprets Scripture then we can talk.
I would never try to interpret a passage in Total Isolation when I have other passages of scripture that help me understand what a passage means.
Again, I’ve shown clearly from the scriptures that the phrase Christ Died FOR OUR SINS is to be understood as Penal. Go back and do your homework. If you disagree with the Biblically Backed Assertions that I’ve given then show me from God’s Word that I was wrong. You keep dodging the facts and make unfounded assertions.
You’re the one that added a theological system to the gospel to start this off. Perhaps you should be leading by example and begin confessing and repenting.
No, you haven’t. You made some assertions, and then you didn’t back them up. Those are two totally different things.
81:
Re-read my previous comments.
Seriously, calm down.
Oh, also, when you claim “scripture interprets scripture” then go on to tell us why a scripture interprets another piece of scripture in a particular way, that’s not scripture interpreting scripture. Its you eisogeting two pieces of scripture at the same time. An act which, were you to be honest with yourself, would require twice the confession and twice the repentance you require of Phil.
Let me allow scripture to interpret scripture for you.
Christ died for our sins = Christ died for our sins.
Whatever Chris, get over yourself…
First of all, I know you seem to have an aversion to the truth, but don’t put words in my mouth. I did not say that the scripture “didn’t apply”, but rather, I said it was not written to us. It can apply to us, but you can’t read without knowing the context.
To look at it without an understand of Israel’s history and an understanding of God’s covenant with them makes the talk of punishment a non sequitor. To say that we are under God’s wrath because of that portion is a stretch.
There are plenty of other portions of Scripture that point to the fact that we need to be reconciled to God, and that He is calling sinners to Himself. But to base your whole view of the cross on the passage in Isaiah, seems to be a very narrow view.
Bo,
Bravo! Yet another unfounded and unproven assertion on your part. Do you even know how to back up an assertion with evidence? I am embarrassed for you by your seeming lack of ability to even argue rationally and Biblically.
I’ve been arguing directly from the texts of scripture and have backed up the claim that Christ Was Punished for Our Sins using God’s Word.
Again, if you disagree with my use of scripture, go back to comment #80 and show me from God’s Word that I am wrong.
You haven’t even come close to doing that.
Chris R,
bro.
calm.
down.
My comment from another thread:
to deny PSA is a problem.
to make PSA the heart of the Gospel is a problem.
why not say that PSA is part of a cluster or constellation of legitimate ways of speaking about the Gospel and that cluster is non-hierarchical?
Why not just say to dismiss any portion of this atonement theory cluster is to lose something?
why, after years and years of imbalance and fixation on one part of that cluster, is asking for balance a rejection of the gospel and making my own god?
Then again…
we probably shouldn’t be surprised when Chris R takes a “hard line” on PSA. He’s accustomed to adding to the Gospel.
*cough*baptismal*cough*regeneration*cough*
Chris R,
You are a bigger buffoon than I ever imagined. Ever wonder why people who agree with you like Steve Brown Etc, and The White Horse Inn don’t give you the time of day yet host guys you excoriate like the Internet Monk? Well there’s your answer.
But let me illuminate your buffoonery for you. You kicked this whole thing off by saying:
Meanwhile Christendom did not know PSA for over 1000 years.
PSA does not show up in the verses you quote. Quoting verses and claiming they mean something that isn’t there isn’t “knowing the Bible” its extending your ignorance to the Bible.
No you haven’t at all. You’ve quoted a few scriptures and inserted your own beliefs.
I already have, Acts 16, Acts 2:38ff, Acts 15:1ff.
But I understand you’re probably too busy getting your car painted up to look like whatever gimmick you’ve decided to push this week.
Phil,
Go back to Comment #80. I have not based my argument on only 1 passage of scripture.
Again, I have conclusively proven that the Apostle Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit applies Isaiah 53 universally. Again this shows that your argument was false and wrong.
Since, the Apostle Peter, Under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit applies Isaiah 53 UNIVERSALLY, it is absolutely correct for me, a 21st Century American to say of Jesus that “the PUNISHMENT that brought us peace was upon him” Therefore, Jesus Christ was PUNISHED for my sins.
This is most certainly true and you erred in contradicting this Biblical truth.
I will say this one more time, but then I have better things to do.
No one here denies that Christ died for our sins! No one denies that is He is our substitute. Those things in and of themselves are not penal substitution.
Penal Substition asserts that God’s wrath is upon sinners prior to knowing Christ, and if they die in their sins, they will be punished by Him for eternity. The issue is who is doing the punishing. A good overview of it by John Piper can be found here.
The question I would ask about this view is why does God “have” to punish anyone? Is His law greater than His love and grace? Is his hand forced?
Chris R,
if you calmed down and read slowly and calmly Phil’s responses to you then you could probably be in a position to off-load your highminded fighting for the faith attitude.
It might be time for you to take up all the proof text verses that are available to you and develop a passion for “slow to speak”, “restoring people gently”, etc.
I mean…I think Paul and others wrote that stuff down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in God’s Word.
Calm down.
It might be fun also to discuss who Isaiah ‘had in mind’ when he originally prophesied. It might be real fun if he actually had more than one person in mind.
I love the word ‘conclusively.’ It’s such a nice way of saying, ‘Shut up inferior. I and I alone know what Scripture means. There is no debate.’
I also love the word ‘proven.’ As if Scripture exists for us to ‘prove’ as if anyone has ever ‘disproved’ it.
If it is ‘right belief’ that saves us, we are all lost. If it is the right person, however, ah…then we might just have a chance.
jerry
Chris R,
Here is the passage you are stating has in it all your assertions.
Now show me exactly where is states:
Christ Died FOR OUR SINS = “He was wounded for our transgressions”
Really you are reading every one of those thoughts into the text as I do not see this… it simply states ” Christ died for our sins”.
Now elsewhere the thoughts you espouse is there, but you are adding these thougts into the text itself.
and I won’t even bother to ask my questions again… as it is obvious you either have no idea what I am asking or are dodging the questions. I have asked them about 6 times and so much assume you think any theory other than Penal Sub. is heretical…
So now repent of being a Lutheran…
jggy
I have no conclusively proved that the Ransom Theory of atonement is the ONLY biblical view. It cannot be a Penal Substitution if God paid a ransom.
iggy
Phil,
What is the point of bringing clear texts when all you do is weasel out of the clear meaning of these texts?
Let’s Biblically look a few of your statements regarding Penal Substitution.
And what is wrong with this?? Isn’t this EXACTLY what scripture says?
John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”
Romans 2: 5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are lstoring up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.
And what is wrong with this? This again is what scripture clearly teaches:
Matt. 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. … 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
As for who was punishing Christ. Hmmm… there is no mystery there either.
Matt. 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
Answer: God the Father.
So what exactly is your problem again with Penal Substitution? It is clearly taught in the Scriptures.
Jerry,
The Galatian Judiazers redefined the gospel and Paul said “let them be eternally condemned”. Apparently they didn’t have a right understanding of the gospel and polluted it with false doctrine.
The same principle applies. If you redefine the Biblical definition of the Gospel, and what Jesus did on the cross is at the heart of that definition, then you are believing a FALSE Gospel.
So Sound Doctrine is Critical.
Chris – you cannot equate a works gospel with a distorted view of the penal mystery. All that must be believed is that Christ died for our sins and rose again.
Period. The good news. Rejection or blindness to the penal view is unfortunate, however nowhere do the Scriptures indicate that is eternally damnable. But suggesting a “cosmic child abuse” in the penal view is blasphemy, however here again not damnable.
Rick,
Then the mormons are saved because they claim that Jesus Died for the Sins and rose again.
Chris – that is a classic strawman. Of course the Mormons deny the eternal deity of Christ, and even preach works (including BAPTISM!).
Again class – If we believe that Jesus, the incarnation of the eternal God, died for our sins and rose from the dead, we are saved. So be careful, Chris, anything else IS a false gospel.
Chris R,
No they believe in a DIFFERENT Jesus not THE Jesus… and again, this is a straw man that really has nothing to do with this conversation.
Jesus was not a man like us who became a god and was not the brother of Lucifer… He is The God that became a man…
iggy
Chris,
You wrote:
Yes. That’s because they ‘added to it.’ What the Galatian Judaizers had done, actually, was to state that some thing more than grace was necessary for salvation; ie. circumcision. In context, “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different Gospel.” In adding to grace, they were actually nullifying grace and the work of Christ.
So, to be sure, they had not, as you say ‘redefined the gospel.’ They had actually believed a ‘different Gospel’ which Paul states unequivocally was ‘no gospel at all.’
But no one here has tried to ‘preach another gospel which is no gospel at all.’ And neither, for that matter, has Paul Young (I bring him up only because it was my post on this subject that set off the firestorm). He clearly states he believes in substitution, just not a particular Reformed version of it.
The Galatians did not have a polluted version of the Gospel which they peppered with false doctrine. They had an entirely different gospel altogether and I submit to you, friend, that this is to state two entirely different ideas. No one here has a different gospel because we all believe in Jesus Christ, his death, burial and resurrection. Paul seems to think this is sufficient in 1 Corin 15.
Now, if we are to make our case, then we could say that you are doing the same thing as those Galatian Judaizers except that you have replaced ‘circumcision’ with ‘right belief about substitution.’ Thus if you say ‘right belief’ is necessary to salvation, then you might as well say ‘circumsion’ is necessary. (I don’t think that is what you are doing, but in your zealousness to defend an interpretation of a doctrine, you move close to that edge.)
Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying that one can be a heretic and ‘be saved’ (although you and I probably widely divergent ideas about what constitutes a heretic). What I am saying is that we have no right to add to the Gospel as you seem to be doing. That is, you are saying your interpretation trumps all others and if one doesn’t believe as you then one is lost. Sorry. We are saved by grace through faith not by right belief as you are defining it.
Again, Paul was condemning some preachers who were saying that what was necessary for salvation was the Gospel plus circumcision. There is nothing that can be added to the sufficient Gospel of God’s grace in Christ. I’ll say it again: If right belief (as you define it) is necessary, we are all lost.
No one here has ‘redefined’ the Gospel in the sense that the Galatian Judaizers did (that is, no one here added to the Gospel of grace of Jesus Christ). We all accept the Gospel as written, while not necessarily accepting *all* interpretations of said Gospel. The Biblical definition of ‘Gospel’ is found in 1 Corin 15:1-11: Death, burial, Resurrection of Jesus. It’s that simple. That is the Gospel. (Incidentally, I preached on 1 Cor 15:1-11 yesterday and I’d be happy for you to read my manuscript. It might help you to understand that we are not heretics here because we don’t accept, carte blanche, a particular theological system.)
For the record, I happen to think there is something in the Gospel concerning substitution and propitiation of God’s wrath. I even lean towards the penal idea. What I reject, however, is that idea as the ‘core’ of the Gospel (which is death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus) and making it a litmus test for ‘right belief’ and thus a determinative factor in one’s salvation status before Christ. I also happen to think that Isaiah 53 is not the place to start when proving your case because that is not where the Bible begins stating it’s case for what God intended to do through said sacrifice.
The proto-evangelion in Genesis 3:15 says nothing about penal substitution. And Genesis 3:15 is a mighty powerful place to begin even when speaking of Reformed theological ideas about substitution and atonement.
jerry
Iggy,
You are a legalist because you are making “correct teaching” about Jesus a requirement of salvation.
The only thing that is needed is that someone believes that Jesus died for their sins and rose again. Period. That’s what Rick said.
Mormons believe both those statement, ipso facto they are saved.
–
If correct teaching about the Gospel isn’t necessary for salvation and its possible to believe a false gospel and still be saved then correct teaching about Jesus Christ isn’t necessary either.
You don’t get to claim that the Mormons aren’t saved because they believe in a different Jesus while at the same time claiming that people who believe in a different gospel are saved. Scripture warns us about both False Christs and False Gospels.
“The only thing that is needed is that someone believes that Jesus died for their sins and rose again. Period. That’s what Rick said.”
I believe I said:
“If we believe that Jesus, the incarnation of the eternal God, died for our sins and rose from the dead, we are saved.”
Chris – you undermine your contribution when you deal in strawmen and abridged versions of other’s perspectives.
Chris R,
calm down.
now you’re not just adding more to the gospel, you’re starting to throw other strange and baffling charges around.
calm.
down.
If you weren’t in “fighting” mode all the time, you might actually be able to “hear”.
BTW Chris – everything you are saying Rick Warren agrees with and teaches. Just so ya know.
Jerry,
There is more than one way to create a false gospel. Some doing by adding to the gospel (Judiazers). Others do it by subtraction (Modernist Liberals). Others do it by distraction (Word Faith).
The Scriptures Clearly Teach that the PUNISHMENT that brought us Peace was upon Christ. This is not vague or unclear. Those who refuse to bend the knee to the clear teaching of God’s word and prefer to redefine what Christ Died according to their own sensibilities are monkeying with the very definition of the Gospel itself and history has shown over and over again that those who do that almost always redefine the gospel and end up denying the Lord who bought them.
Again Isaiah 53 clearly says that the PUNISHMENT that brought us peace was upon Christ. Phil tried to brush that clear passage aside by claiming that it didn’t apply to 21st Century Americans. The Apostle Peter’s use of that passage shows that Phil’s attempt at explaining away the clear meaning of this text was wrong.
I stand on Isaiah 53 and the Apostle Peter’s universal application of that passage.
The Passage Clearly States Christ Was PUNISHED for me and I don’t care if you don’t like what the passage says. The passage says He was PUNISHED. Phil needs to stop trying to weasel out of what the passage says and let God’s Word be true and binding upon his mind and conscience. I believe Isaiah and the Apostle Peter and it is foolish and rebellious of a person to call themselves a Christian and yet outright deny and obfuscate God’s word.
The Word of God says Jesus was Punished. Deal with it!
Chris R
Goes to show what you really know!
Hey instead of casting accusations and lying about me how about actually having a conversation?
I believe if one has the Christ Jesus they have The Truth and the Source of Truth… and I guess then you believe in “no-doctrine” truth… whatever that is… (I was accused of that one time and still have no idea what that is!)
I believe in sound doctrine… that comes from Jesus through the Holy Spirit… so have no idea even what you are getting at.
You are so “hot” to prove all wrong and yourself right (self justification and self righteousness) that even when you agree you want to fight and be divisive…
You are on a bad path Chris…and it seems to be getting worse the longer I have gotten to know you.
My prayers are with you… not against you.
iggy
Rick,
I had the privilege of discussing this issue with Warren in person.
Warren’s problem is not that he doesn’t affirm an orthodox doctrinal statement. He most certainly does. His problems have to do with his homiletics and his practices. Both undermine and work against orthodoxy. But that is a discussion for another time and place.
OK CHris, you asked for it. You claim that Christ was punished in full for our sins, and that adding to that is works, but you teach that this gift must be presented in baptism to be redemptive. That is works – waterworks to be more specific.
Show me in Jn.3:16 where Christ mentions baptism. We are commanded to baptize disciples, not make them through baptism. You just cannot have a conversation without accusing others of not being a Christian. That is sad and ungracious and deeply self righteous.
So what else is new.
Once a-freakin’-gain I don’t deny Jesus was punished. Sheesh…
It’s the question of who was doing the punishing that’s the issue.
Rick,
My point and Paul’s point in Galatians 1 bears this out is that a false gospel is no gospel at all and a false Gospel just like a false Christ cannot and will not save a person.
I believe that a person who rejects and denies Christ’s Vicarous Atonement has a false gospel because they have an unbiblical definition of the atonement. I will not treat them as confused brothers but as those outside of the body of Christ who need to repent and believe the true gospel and as people whom the body of Christ need to be warned about.
Chris R,
Here you go… do a word search on the word “punish” as you are using with Jesus. Even in Isaiah 53 the word can mean discipline, rebuke, chastisement or correction… and though is translated “punishment” seems to carry in it much more than what you are stating…
But again… show me the verse that states Jesus was punished for our sin…
I want EVERY new testament verse you can find… everyone… that states Jesus was “punished
for our sins…
iggy
Just want to know what the bible actually states about Jesus being punished.
I can show the many verses that state Jesus suffered for our sins… but really I seem to not find one that states that Jesus was punished for our sins… strange huh?
iggy
Rick,
Are you ready to do that public debate on Baptism yet? Seriously, that is a whole other topic.
Jesus does mention baptism in John 3.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
But again that is another topic and I’m running out of time for today.
I can remain silent no longer.
Chris,
Phil has stated repeatedly that did not say this passage does not “apply.” He said it was not written “to” us.
When you continue to say someone said something when they continue to say they did not, that makes you (at best) antagonistic.
The core doctrine of the atonement has been affirmed by the writers and commentors here. And yet you continue to come back with the same tired arguments.
When people stop replying to your comments, it will not be because you won, as if winning is anything. It will be because they are tired of stating the same replies to the same accusations.
Iggy,
Punishment, chastisement and discipline are synonyms.
Comment #133 – a false gospel. And Ken Silva allows a false teacher to post on CRN? I do not debate heretics, of which you are one. Your Pharisee spirit was dormant for a while but now has slithered out of its heart shaped cave.
You wouldn’t know the gospel of Jesus Christ if it fell on you.
Phil,
Plain and simple God the Father was the one punishing God the Son who was acting as our substitute.
Rick,
If I wouldn’t know the gospel if it fell on me. Then why don’t you tell me what the gospel is.
I thought I saw you writing it today on this blog. I even said amen and amen to the gospel that you wrote today. Was I mistaken?
Debate – that is what fuels your Pharisitical spirit. You are not interested in love and compassion, you desire doctrinal debate and self righteous satisfaction on the deck of your hubristic pirate ship. You travel the land and scour the sea looking for people totear down, and you strain at gnats while imagining yourselves warriors for truth, when in fact you are destroyers of people.
You are incapable of true fellowship because the garments of conceit insulate you from bearing burdens or showing humble respect. You emulate Attila the Hun and think you represent Christ. Your pseudointellectualism is in fact the humanism you say you reject.
You have little knowledge of true redemption, and your Christ is words on paper rather than living expressions of the Suffering Servant. Grace is a doctrine rather than a manifestation, and love to you is self and all the other self elected theologians who know more creeds than Christ.
Driscoll is more a Christian than are you, and you and others like you have twisted Scripture to form a spear rather than a plowshare. The Jesus you project, although with all the correct systematic essences, is nothing more than a hollow lifeless tyrant who revels in the destruction of others and loves sending the non-elect to the fires of hell simply because it pleases Him.
Arguing is your religion and debating your spirit. You have no credibility and anything you say that is Biblical is coincidental and carved in tablets of self righteous stone. Go back to your little band of pirates and sit around your doctrinal campfires and search for your next journey of doctrinal pillage and plunder.
Dead men tale no tales.
“…and really bad eggs.”
Chris R,
Seriously.
Calm down.
#139:
tell it, Rick.
Preach, Reverend.
Chris,
You wrote:
I never denied there is more than one way to make a false Gospel. But that’s not what you said in your original reply to me. And your application of Galatians to make that point is specious at best. Again, I never denied punishment. If you read my reply to you, you will see that I used the words ‘i lean towards the penal idea.’ In fact here it is again:
However, you also seemed to blow right by Genesis 3:15 where there is no mention of your ideas of penal substitution. And Genesis 3:15 is the first mention of the Gospel, not Isaiah 53. Let’s not confuse the issue here. Substitution is a part of the idea, but it’s not the entire idea presented in Scripture.
And besides, even if someone ‘denies’ it, does that somehow nullify what may have happened? In other words, it’s not our acknowledgment that makes it true. It’s its truth that makes it true.
Thanks,
jerry
Rick,
Could you please drop the baptism issue? If you look at Matthew 28 you will see that your statement ‘we are to baptize disciples not make them by baptism’ is not true at all. Matthew used present tense participles indicating that the process of making a disciple is happening while they are being baptized and taught. In other words, it’s not a step by step process he is talking about, but a one time occurrence. “Going…Making…baptizing…teaching…” are all a part of discipling a person. Is your stance also against the teaching and the going and the making or just the baptizing?
You really need to lighten up on the whole baptism thing. Seriously.
jerry
‘one time occurrence’ should be read in the spirit of the word ’simultaneous’. Sorry for the confusion.
Rick,
You’ve seriously mis-characterized me and what I believe, teach and confess.
Part of that is squarely my fault. For my part, I am sorry that I’ve acted in ways that would cause you to think that about me.
The other part is squarely your fault and I would hope that you would take the time to re-evaluate and re-consider your false characterizations of me. I do not believe in a God that takes joy in sending anyone to hell. The Christ I believe in wept over Jerusalem and wanted to gather her people to himself but they would not. The God I believe in says that it is not His will that any should perish. The Christ I believe in loved the world so much that He stood as our substitute and took the punishment and wrath of God that we all deserved upon himself and that work was accomplished for every human sinner from Adam and Eve to the last human born on the last day.
The Jesus Christ I believe in also warns us about wolves in the church who devour the sheep through false doctrine. The Apostles that Christ sent out took Jesus’ warning against these wolves so seriously that they came into “sharp debate” with them (Acts 15:2) for the sake of protecting Christ’s Sheep and the purity of the Gospel (Gal 1:4-8).
I will not apologize for pointing out the wolves and false doctrine that have infiltrated the Church. Nor will I apologize for believing that apostasy and false doctrine have eternal consequences for those who preach and believe it.
Jerry – you are free to “lighten up” on the issues about which you feel ambivilent and I will “once in a while” address the issue as I see fit, especially when it includes someone who labels everyone else as false gospel teachers.
Seriously.
Jerry,
Do you believe in progressive revelation or do you believe the Bible fell out of the sky completed in its entirety?
Could a person living prior to Christ’s incarnation be accused of being a heretic for denying the doctrines taught in 1 Corinthians? Of course not.
Your argument regarding Gen 3 is a non-sequitor considering the fact that we have a complete canon. None of the authors and teachers who are denying Penal Substitution today lived prior to the giving of the canon.
The issue again is what does God’s word say. What does the Bible say that Jesus was doing on the cross. If your answer deviates from the clear teaching of scripture you are wrong at best and an apostate heretic at worst.
Chris R,
Nice sidestep… well anticipated on my part though. I guess you looked and could not find one verse huh?
Maybe to you there is no difference, but in the Bible there are specific differences.
Does God “punish” the believer? As that was what Jesus took on the cross… and I know about the “God punishes those he loves” verse… yet that is more “disciplines” and it is out of love… not wrath.
So now look up chastisement… and Jesus… did you do that? Now if discipline is the same as punish… where does it say Jesus was disciplined? As far as discipline… God does that to those he loves… so how did God pour out his wrath and love on Jesus?
Again… show me every verse that states Jesus was disciplined, chastised, and punished in the NT.
Show me all of them… will ya?
What I see is that God chastened Jesus and Jesus was obedient to the Father unto death. No doubt Jesus was “punished” for our sake, yet, it seems that you are over-focused on the “punished” side and are missing many other aspects of the Crucifixion. Yet, in context to Isaiah 53, where does it say God punished or chastened Jesus? In fact was the beatings and Crucifixion what man did to Jesus? In the end there is a much stronger argument for the Suffering Servant. Again, you are reading into the text that which is not there.
But I do want that list of all the verses that have chastisement, punish, discipline in relation to Jesus.
iggy