biblicalthought.com

1. Mario Herrera

   Hallelujah! Praise Jehovah! Thanks Danny! Keep on keeping on Danny! You encourage me!

   In Atonement Q&A, a song by Shai Linne, He says in the chorus:

   “Just fall back and with the eyes of faith behold the beauty of surprising grace, cause the Lamb had died, third day He had to rise, He’s magnified, God’s wrath is satisfied, So fall back, there’s an Atonement now, the cross of Christ is holy ground, for the Lamb has died, third day He had to rise, He’s magnified, God’s wrath is satisfied.”

   Feb 4th, 2009

2. Danny Pelichowski

   Mario,

   I just listened to Shai Linne for the first time last night and I was pumped! First thing when my wife came home from work today I played some songs of his for her and she loved them as well. She told me that we had to buy his CD as well as Flame’s. I just found out from her that Flame goes to Immanuel Baptist Church in Louisville Kentucky which is where we are members. While we were searching itunes for CD’s we found out that Shai Linne and Flame are friends and are even both featured in certain songs. Praise God for their music and most importantly praise God for the glorious truths of the atonement found in Scripture!

   Feb 4th, 2009

3. Peter Phillips

   Danny,
   It’s a blessing to see you passionately defend the nature and necessity of the penal substitutionary atonement. Especially, because we live in a day when professing evangelicals want to deny the very means by which God makes rebel sinners right with Him. How can rebel sinners be saved from the coming wrath of God? Nothing less than the bloody substitutionary sacrifice of the righteous One, the Lamb of God, the just and the justifier of those who believe in Him. Many today want to cast doubt on the credibility of this doctrine, calling it “Cosmic child abuse” or questioning how the death of an innocent man can justify the guilty, but we must not cease to preach and defend the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement.

   Brothers and sisters at BT, I strongly urge you to participate in these sorts of core discussions, because we can spend a lot of time debating tertiary issues till were blue in the face (which will profit us little), but little time chewing on the meat of the gospel.

   Feb 8th, 2009

4. Peter Phillips

   Danny,
   Check out this video clip, it’s a perfect example of how the Emerging Church (specifically Brian McLaren) is rejecting the doctrine of the atonement. This is exactly why we need to be dealing with these issues as Biblically literate Christians. Here is the website: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOUfsX2fbk

   Feb 15th, 2009

5. Mungo Man

   Am I understanding this right? God killed Christ? God (who is Love) killed wisdom (who is Christ). I’m not following this at all.

   If God is Love, why can’t he just forgive us of our sins without killing something. It’s pretty barbaric, don’t you think? God’s self-image was so damaged by Adam’s sin; his “righteous anger” (does God get red in the face?), so enraged that he had to kill his only Son.

   Is Jesus is asking us to be more mature than His Father? Christ told us to love our enemies . . . but God can’t? He hates with “righteous anger”. I have to pray for those who curse me . . . but God get’s to punish them eternally? And you’re calling that divine justice?

   So, Salvation is God working out his own personal issues? His inner conflict of trying to figure out how he can love me?

   I’m not feelin’ the love.

   Feb 26th, 2009

6. Mario Herrera

   Oh Mr. Mungo Man……Read Isaiah 53. God is just and will punish sin! You are speaking as one does not know God. Christ being fully man and fully God had to die on the cross to accomplish salvation for His people!

   God is love! Salvation for us cost Him the life of His Son! No He cannot “just” forgive our sins. Forgiveness of sin comes through Christ alone! Scripture says that without the shedding of blood, there is no remission for sins!

   Mungo Man, why do you even ask these questions? Do you really want these answers? You sound like a mocker. You need to repent of your sin, if God so grant you the ability to repent. You Mungo man, are the one with personal issues, inner conflict, and not understanding he in fact may not love you! Repent while it is still today and you have breath…in the words of Psalm 2……kiss the Son, lest He become angry, and you perish in the way…….

   There is a reason why you are not “feeling” the love!

   Feb 26th, 2009

7. Danny Pelichowski

   The youtube link that Peter Phillips posted above showing Brian McLaren’s view of the substitutionary atonement as well as his belief’s about Hell are being repeated here by Mungo Man. I’m with Mario, if you Mungo Man are only here to mock the atonement of Christ we will waste our time responding to you. If you want to learn and or debate these issues in a productive way, prove it to us a respond showing that you care about the issue here and let us know you really want to discuss this. Believe me, I know there are a lot of people here who read this blog who are more than welcome to give you a hearty presentation of the Gospel as found in Scripture.

   To all, if you are reading this check out the link above that Peter posted. It illustrates that the emerging church and its leaders are more than simply interested in being culturally relevant. It shows that McLaren is a heretic, but more importantly it reveals to us the authority for guys like Mungo Man. Either Mungo Man is a liberal emergent follower of a teacher like McLaren or he is an unbeliever who hates Christianity. It’s scary how a professing Christian (McLaren) can sound just like an atheist. A wolf in sheep’s clothing is of course a wolf. So the wolf who doesn’t dress up and act like the sheep can have a worldview just like a professing Christian (McLaren). It is clear that McLaren disdains the Gospel by his rejection of penal substitutionary atonement just like an atheist who would never attend a church service even if there was incense, an open pulpit to voice his opinions, and trendy music.

   Feb 27th, 2009

8. Mungo Man

   I am not mocking God’s atonement; but this strange, new understanding presented here.

   The question at hand is, why does God ask me to forgive, without reparation, when he cannot without blood? Didn’t he make the rule “there is no forgiveness of sins without bloodshed”? Can’t he change that rule; or is God bound by something?

   Ask an Orthodox Jew his opinion of atonement and the fall. He won’t see it the way you’re looking at it, that’s for sure. So if this is new, is it true?

   Another interesting thing comes up from here, a judgmental God seems to produce judgmental people. How quick to send a dissenter into the pit of hell and demand his repentance.

   There’s no doubt that the emergent church is straying from the faith. I don’t disagree. But this view of a loving God needing appeasement.

   Let’s look at it in a familiar simile used throughout the New Testament. If my wife cheated on me, what would the loving, Christ-like thing to do be. Demand she make reparations for her sins? Cast her out of my house? Berate her in front of the children? No. Keep her and love her unconditionally, as Christ does for His Church, regardless of what, I am to forgive without expecting anything back.

   Sincerely, a sinner,

   Mungo Man

   Feb 27th, 2009

9. Stephen Macasil

   Mungo Man,

   I can see how your anthropocentric perspective leads to the difficulty you’re expressing here. But try taking a theocentric perspective, the way God views it.

   A theocentric perspective will demand that all things are below God and that He is subject to nothing below Him, including man’s theories of justice. He has revealed in His Word what His perspective is, and in doing so He didn’t check with fallen man to get counsel and opinion.

   He told us the way things really are, i. e., the Truth.

   I exhort you to conform your thinking to His thinking. It is the only way to life (Biblical Thought).

   Feb 27th, 2009

10. Stephen Macasil

    P.S. I’m typing on my iPhone at the airport. So please excuse my brevity and lack of über-thoughtful comments.

    Feb 27th, 2009

11. Glen

    Mungo Man,

    You said “If God is Love, why can’t he just forgive us of our sins without killing something. It’s pretty barbaric, don’t you think?”

    I once heard a pastor answering a question very similar to this in the sacrifices of the OT and his answer was absolutely it is barbaric. Now, that might shock some Christians to hear a pastor say that, but what he went on to point out is that the sacrifices of the OT and eventually Jesus only show the depravity and barbarism of our own sin. Just as in our own justice system, when a crime has been committed there must be a consequence to pay for that crime, so it is with our sin. We committed the ultimate crime by disobeying God’s commands and we must pay the price by eternal separation from Him.

    In God’s ultimate love he provided a way for us to be with Him by offering His Son as a substitution for our payment.

    The question I think you are really asking is could God have done it another way and the answer to that question is yes. God could have chose another way to atone for our sin, but He is the sovereign God and we, as His creation, have no right to question Him and what He does (Rom 9:20).

    If you would like to ask pointed and exact questions there are many on this site that would be very willing to dive down deep in the Scripture and walk you through what God has said.

    Let’s deal with one of your questions first:
    >>The question at hand is, why does God ask me to forgive, without reparation, when he cannot without blood? Didn’t he make the rule “there is no forgiveness of sins without bloodshed”?

    First, does God ask us to forgive? Yes. Does He ask us to forgive sin? No. Now before everyone gasps let me explain. We are to forgive the offenses that people commit against us, but that does not forgive their sin. We are commanded to forgive others as God has forgiven us (Eph 4:32) but the sin itself is not forgiven. We, as humans, do not have the authority to forgive sins, only God can do that. The forgiveness that we must grant is not for the benefit of the other person, but for our own. Are we to forgive those that wrong us even if they are not believers? Yes. Does this make them right with God? No. This is part of our sanctification as we walk with God and grow in our spiritual lives.

    So the answer to your question is that we cannot forgive the sin (which requires bloodshed). Yes, are right. Scripture does say that without bloodshed there is no forgiveness of sin (Heb 9:22). That was the blood of Christ when He died on the cross as a substitution for the death that was due us. It is God and God alone who can forgive sin and that forgiveness comes through the shedding of Christ’s blood on the cross.

    Feb 27th, 2009

12. Mungo Man

    All these are nice thoughts and retorts with little essence and no substance in reference to my question.

    Am I not being “Theocentric” when I say that God demands retribution for the offense committed against Himself? That isn’t how YOU (note emphasis) read the scriptures? “Biblical Thought” must mean YOUR Biblical Thought, but not mine.

    Let me try and put this another way. God is unchanging. Man sinned and continues to sin. Someone had to change. It was He that could no longer put up with us. How are we reunited with God? Not by any change in us. Old covenant / New covenant; We can’t touch the Ark of the Covenant, but now we can go boldly before the throne. Christ must die so God can put up with us sinners. No matter how you slice it, at the core you have a God that changed his position towards humanity.

    I use to be a “christian” like you all — Christian school graduate through the University level and beyond –, but some of these things just don’t add up the way you’re describing them. They’re contradictory. Please understand that I am not mocking God — far from it –; only your interpretation of Christianity and the Scriptures.

    Thank you for allowing me to blog with you.

    MungoBlogger

    P.S. Congrats getting off as much as you did on the iPhone. I salute you. It’s not easy.

    Feb 27th, 2009

13. Stephen Macasil

    The short answer to your first question is, because according to His own standards revealed in Scripture, He would be unjust and unrighteous, which according to Scripture, He isn’t.

    Wasn’t that easy?

    Feb 27th, 2009

14. Mungo Man

    I’m sorry, Stephen. Which question did that answer?

    Feb 27th, 2009

15. Stephen Macasil

    This one: “If God is Love, why can’t he just forgive us of our sins without killing something. It’s pretty barbaric, don’t you think?”

    Did you have more?

    Feb 27th, 2009

16. Mungo Man

    Glen,
    Great response and a good answer on the “blood” issue. In truth, I was trying to stick with Mario’s theme. That is a beautiful thought and answer, which I would agree with. But it still doesn’t answer the greater question, which I think you side-swiped. I’m really not asking, “Could God have done it another way?” The blood isn’t my issue. My issue is God’s love. How do you reconcile God’s love with His retribution?

    On to your answer: Let me understand your point. Only God can forgive sins, and we don’t forgive our brother’s sins against us? I must admit, I’m completely lost. When we sin, we sin against God and humanity — if not all the Cosmos. Example: If I steal something from you, undoubtedly that sin is committed against you and God. Does that mean I shouldn’t ask you forgiveness of my sin – my error – against you? What about the Lord’s Prayer? “As we forgive those . . .” We ask someone to forgive us . . . but not forgive us of our sin against them. WOW! Here we have yet another new, confusing and aberrational teaching. What did Jesus mean when he said “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them.” You’ll have to help me with that one, Glen.

    And you ended up right back on the blood issue; since you brought it up, “the death that was due us”. Who is going to kill us? Is God killing sinners?

    Feb 27th, 2009

17. Mungo Man

    Thanks for the clarification, Stephen.

    So I guess God MUST be true his law.

    Feb 27th, 2009

18. Danny Pelichowski

    Glenn,

    I thought your input was great however I just want you to clear one thing up that you said.

    Glenn said…”The question I think you are really asking is could God have done it another way and the answer to that question is yes. God could have chose another way to atone for our sin, but He is the sovereign God and we, as His creation, have no right to question Him and what He does (Rom 9:20).”

    I would say that God was not bound to save sinners at all, he could have left us all in our deserved guilt. However, he did chose to save sinners by his grace and therefore in saving them I am interested to talk about how he could have been just and the justifier of sinners in a way that was different than the penal substitutionary atonement. Thanks Glenn for caring enough about this issue to discuss this here at Biblical Thought. You have proven to be a true brother in Christ and I hope I can meet you someday. When Stephen told me that you were in Dr. Ware’s systematic theology 1 class I thought you were here in Louisville but then I realized you were taking the class from another state. Are you taking any other classes this semester? If you are I hope it is going well for you. God bless brother.

    Feb 27th, 2009

19. Stephen Macasil

    Mungo Man,

    “Thanks for the clarification, Stephen. So I guess God MUST be true his law.”

    Actually, His law is true to Him. Not the other way around. There is no standard above God to which He must conform. He establishes the standard according to His own nature, and that standard is revealed in Scripture.

    According to that standard, I answered your question and thus the objection is settled.

    You’ve mentioned another question a couple times: “My issue is God’s love. How do you reconcile God’s love with His retribution?”

    What’s the problem?

    What needs to be reconciled?

    Feb 27th, 2009

20. Peter Phillips

    Hello Mungo Man (this is the place to wrestle with your questions),

    Your objections to the traditional view of penal substitution are not at all new, they are a modern day resurrection of Socinus’ objections in the 16th century (If you profess to be a Christian, you should know that he was condemned as a heretic for his views). I would love to give you an answer to your questions (believe me, he’s been answered and refuted long ago), but first, could I ask you to tell us your own view of the atonement so we can both see where each other is coming from. How do you view the atonement? Why did Christ have to die? Who paid what to whom? Why did it have to be the God-man who paid for sin? In other words, give us a brief explanation of your view.

    After this, we can have a dialog that deals with what you believe as well as your objections. Thanks.

    Feb 27th, 2009

21. Glen

    Danny,

    The point that I was getting at is that, yes God did not have to save us at all, or He in His sovereignty could have chosen a different method for our salvation. But it all comes down to the point that He made the world, us, and everything that exists and therefore has the right to dictate the rules to us. We cannot dictate to Him nor do we have the right to question Him. The Trinity in eternity past mapped out the entire history of the world (for lack of a better way of putting it) and determined that Christ would be our atoning sacrifice and all glory is due Him.

    Mungo Man,

    I was not trying to say that we cannot forgive someone who sins against us, but rather that the actual sin itself cannot be forgiven by us. We can forgive them in our heart, but they have their own reckoning with God to do before the sin is forgiven. The part where we forgive each other is for our own sanctification. For example, if a non-christian steals my car, I can forgive him (whether they ask for forgiveness or not) and that is for my own sanctification. That does not forgive the actual sin they committed for which they deserve to spend eternity in Hell. That sin can only be forgiven by God. If we could erase the actual sin, then Christ would not have had to die on the cross, we simply could forgive each other. But that would lead to another problem in what would happen if I refused to forgive the car thief? Would I then be condemning them to Hell with no chance at all? No, God is the only one who can forgive the actual sin committed. I hope this cleared my thinking up for you.

    Feb 27th, 2009

22. Peter Phillips

    Glen,

    You said: “The point that I was getting at is that, yes God did not have to save us at all, or He in His sovereignty could have chosen a different method for our salvation.”

    I think Danny’s point is that God was under no obligation to save man at all, but, once he chose to save sinners, it could only have been through the substitutionary atonement of the God-man, Jesus Christ. To say otherwise, is to deny the necessity of the Incarnation, Atonement, and resurrection. Thus, the second half of your statement denies the absolute necessity of the atonement once God chose to save. So, that he was free not to save is not the issue Danny is questioning, but the statement that he could have saved another way. Hope that helps.

    Feb 28th, 2009

23. Glen

    I understand what you are saying, but I was going even beyond that. The point I was trying to get at is that God did not even need to make man or the earth. He could have made aliens instead of humans, etc… By His sovereign love He made us and provided a way through the shed blood of His Son to forgive our sins.

    Feb 28th, 2009

24. Danny Pelichowski

    Mungo Man,

    I am with Peter and think that this discussion can only move forward in a productive way if you define what you believe about the atonement. Instead of simply railing off accusations against substitutionary atonement which we will readily defend at all costs, let us know what you believe so we can push this discussion forward. Like I said, there are plenty here who will defend the penal substitutionary atonement against baseless objections that you (and McLaren) have thrown our way but without giving us a picture of what you believe on the topic we will waste a lot of time arguing past one another.

    So I ask that you put your beliefs on the table and answer the question:

    “what do you believe about the purpose, nature, and extent of the atonement?” As well as “Is the Bible necessary in defining this doctrine, or is human reason and common sense all that is needed for you to reject the penal substitutionary atonement presented here?”

    Mar 2nd, 2009

25. Mungo Man

    Danny,

    You have a very wonderful tone and it made me feel welcome on the site. You almost persuade me. However, this is an article YOU wrote, allowing for comment. My system of beliefs is not in question here and I did not write a blog eliciting such comments. What I am suggesting is that this interpretation of atonement doesn’t work scripturally or logically.

    You say you will defend you idea of penal atonment, but you don’t. You want mine to demolish. Defend your position.

    Glen,

    I read your answer a couple times . . . I must be slow or dim. Please explain yourself in light of the Bible. I mentioned a couple of scriptures in my last post that don’t jive with what you’re saying.

    Stephen,

    I don’t even know what to say to you. A God of love demands retribution, yet will not allow his followers to do the same. If you don’t think this is contradictory, we’re on separate planets.

    I’ve explained it with multiple examples, and different phrases, but most of what I’ve received on this Blog site is condemnation, and ridicule with no straight answers, except a “What’s the problem?”

    Respectfully,

    Mungo Man

    Mar 2nd, 2009

26. Stephen Macasil

    Dear Mungo Man,

    I’m not interested in trying to reinvent the wheel. But since you said, “Stephen, I don’t even know what to say to you,” I will help you and tell you what you need to do in order to move the discussion along.

    Your objection is: “A God of love demands retribution, yet will not allow his followers to do the same. If you don’t think this is contradictory, we’re on separate planets.”

    At this point you haven’t even stated the problem. How do you establish the premise that “A God of love demands retribution?” What is “love” and what is “retribution” in your challenge? What is “forgiveness?” You said that you used to be a Christian like me but you no longer are due to your discovery of logical contradictions that don’t “add up.” I appreciate that you do not want to believe something illogical, but what is the contradiction, and have you found something logical to believe in now?

    Let me tell you what you must do to make this a real and rational objection. First, you must establish the premise that God is a God of love in the way you’re defining love. Second, you must establish the premise that God demands retribution in the way you’re defining retribution. Then, you must establish that these two premises necessarily produce the conclusion that it is contradictory for God to demand that we forgive in the way you’re defining forgiveness. Note that you must provide a valid argument for each of your premises in order to establish them. Also, you must have coherent and relevant definitions for all the words and expressions involved, such as “God,” “love,” “retribution,” and “forgive.” If you fail to do any of this, then there is logically no objection for me to answer. Now, if you have never considered these necessary questions, then it seems that you are not nearly as rational as you thought, and it seems hypocritical for you to say that Reformed Christianity is contradictory.

    Mar 2nd, 2009

27. Mungo Man

    Stephen,

    Unbelievable . . . I thought such terms as “God”, “Love”, “retribution” and “forgive” would be self-evident, especially on a “Christian” website. It IS an English website.

    Go ahead Stephen, why don’t you give them YOUR biblical definition.

    I must say I am about done here. I looked on another “Biblical Thought” blog and the same thing is happening. LOL was asking questions and only getting condemnation and ridicule. That’s YOUR “biblical thought” i guess; even to the point of condemning your own parents.

    Sad

    Mar 2nd, 2009

28. Stephen Macasil

    It stands then, that you’re not as logical or rational as you thought. Thanks for shopping BT. Come again!

    May I help the next humanist in line?

    Mar 2nd, 2009

29. Peter Phillips

    Mungo Man,
    Stick around. A response is forthcoming. I’m in Class right now, and I have work right after, but I will respond to your objections soon.

    Mar 2nd, 2009

30. Mungo Man

    Stephen,

    I’d be careful. Your comments are making you look arrogant. You are trusting in logic and your rational thought. Didn’t our minds fall as a result of sin also? Can you trust them?

    Mar 2nd, 2009

31. Stephen Macasil

    Mungo Man,

    I thought you believe in logic.

    Mar 2nd, 2009

32. Peter Phillips

    Mungo Man,
    I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity and occasion to defend the glorious doctrine of penal substitution. Recently, I was discussing with Danny the importance of these issues, especially with respect to the Gospel. I hope to show you by the end of this post (or perhaps one more) that you really don’t have good news if Jesus did not die a substitutionary death for his people. Secondly, I want to address all of your objections to this biblical doctrine (I’ve decided to do this second, because it will make more sense after I give you the holistic biblical context).

    Why should anyone believe in the substitutionary atonement of Christ? The first and foremost reason is that it is thoroughly biblical. From the Old Testament sacrificial system (which looks forward to Christ’s atonement) to the New Testament teaching (Jesus as the Lamb of God) of Christ’s propitiation for our sins, it is clear that the bible makes the substitutionary atonement of Christ central to its message. When you consider the insitution of Passover during the Exodus (see Exodus 12), you plainly see the idea of subsitutionary atonement in view. The peculiar thing about the last plague upon Egypt was—that it was not specific in application to Egypt alone. The 10 plagues were God’s judgment upon Egypt for their worship of false God’s and other abominable practices, and thus, clearly an instance of God’s wrath towards sin and rebellion. However, the last plague is not directed at Egypt alone, but all the firstborns, including the Israelites (because they were caught up in the worship of the false gods of their Egyptian masters—Ezekiel 20:4-10). The only way to avert the wrath of God was to (by faith in God’s promise) slaughter the spotless Passover Lamb and cover the doorposts with blood. Thus, the Passover lamb was propitiatory (it turned away wrath) in nature. God would spare all the people who atoned for their sin in this fashion, but everybody else had God’s judgment fall upon them (death of their firstborns). Thus, the Passover/Exodus account is telling the story of how God always deals with sin and rebellion. He mercifully spares his people from his wrath and judgment, and he delivers them from their oppressive enemies by means of Judgment. One scholar says, “First, by means of the judgment of God there is salvation from the tyranny of the Egyptians. Secondly, by means of the Passover sacrifice there is salvation from the judgment of God. “ Paul picks this theme up in the NT when he states “Christ is our Passover Lamb (1 Cor. 5:7).” Christ died as an atonement for our sins, and in his death he turned away God’s wrath or satisfied his just wrath of God upon sinners (which we rightly deserve). The book of Romans says that “the wages of sin is death” and we have all sinned, thus we all are under the wrath of God’s judgment apart from Christ (Rom. 1-3). If God let people get away with sin and never judged it, then he would cease to be just. A god who is not just is capricious and immoral, but this is not the nature of the God of Scripture. He is just. But, He also loves, and He is love, John says. Here is the love of God, says the Apostle Paul, “but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8). Why did Jesus have to die for us? because apart from Christ we are all by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3), namely, objects of divine wrath (as sinners who willfully rebel against their creator). In God’s love he sent his Son to be a subtitutionary sacrifice in our place, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.

    Eph. 2:1-10 says it nicely:
    2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body [1] and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But [2] God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

    May I submit to you the proposition, “that you can’t really know the love of God, until you understand his just wrath upon you as a sinner.” He is the ultimate example of suffering love as a willing, innocent substitute for sinful people who deserve justice, but get mercy and grace. That, my friend, is the love of God for His people.

    Let me close with a few explicit texts on penal substitution in the NT:

    1 John 2:2- “He [Jesus] is the propitiation [turn away wrath] for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”

    1 Peter 2:24 “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.”

    This last text is quoting from Isaiah 53, which is all about the Messiah dying in our place as a suffering servant. Another OT idea that is about substitutionary atonement is the Day of the Atonement, which is about sacrifice and substitution to avert God’s wrath upon Israel for sin and bring God’s forgiveness. (Lev. 16). The doctrine of Penal substitution is Biblical, and there is no getting around it!

    Now we come to your objections Mungo Man, if… you still have them. See the next post.

    Mar 2nd, 2009

33. Peter Phillips

    Mungo Man,

    Objection 1: You said, “Am I understanding this right? God killed Christ? God (who is Love) killed wisdom (who is Christ). I’m not following this at all.”

    Reply: Most certainly, the God who is love willfully planed and sent His Son to die and suffer at the hands of sinners, according to his foreordained purposes to redeem a people unto Himself. Let me unpack this biblically:

    Paul says, “31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be [8] against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? 33 Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us (Rom. 8:31-34)”

    Note Paul says that God did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all. If God graciously gave up his own Son, how much more will He not freely give us everything we need? The Christian’s freedom from sin and death came at a price—God had to send his Son to be a propitiation for sins, that we might enjoy relationship with Him through believing on the crucified Messiah.

    In order to hold to your objection, you would have to deny the testimony of Luke’s account of God’s determined purpose in the crucifixion (Peter actually preached the sermon that contains this):
    “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— 23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. 24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it (Acts 2:22-24).

    Please note that Jesus was delivered up to be crucified, according to the “definite plan and foreknowledge of God.” But, this was not the end of the story; God raised Him from the dead, showing that he accepted Jesus sacrifice on behalf of sinners. The penal substitutionary atonement is a part of the willful plan of God to save sinners—that’s love, my friend. However, just in case we think that is a slip of the pen, we have many other texts that say the same kind of things.

    When Peter and John were thrown into prison for preaching the gospel, they did not cease to trust in God’s plan. Notice how they pray upon their release. How do they view the events leading to the cross, and, of course, the crucifixion itself?

    Acts 4:23-28 “When they were released, they went to their friends and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them. 24 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, 25 who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, [3] said by the Holy Spirit,
    “‘Why did the Gentiles rage,?and the peoples plot in vain??26 The kings of the earth set themselves,?and the rulers were gathered together,?against the Lord and against his Anointed’ [4]—
    27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.”

    It may come as a shock, but the ones who betrayed, handed over, and crucified Jesus, did “whatever God’s hand and plan had predestined to take place.”

    Perhaps you might object that this is not fair to Jesus, but this would ignore that He willfully went to the Cross in obedience to His Father’s desires (John 10:17-18). Jesus actually rebukes Peter for trying to correct Jesus when he said he must suffer and die on the cross:

    Mark 8:31-33 “And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32 And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. 33 But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

    In fact, according to the doctrine of penal substitution, Jesus died in this fashion to bring glory to himself (John 17:1; Phil. 2:8-9; Heb. 2:9) and to save his people (Rom. 5:8, 1 Pet. 3:18), as well as to glorify His Father. Jesus High Priestly prayer, which takes place right before his crucifixion, conveys this sentiment well:

    John 17:1-5 “When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. 4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.”

    This is a beautiful portrait of the Trinity at work in procuring the salvation of God’s people. The Father plans salvation in this way because it would satisfy his justice and demonstrate his love towards sinners. The Son gladly and willfully accomplished the work of redemption on with his life, substitutionary death and resurrection. The Son takes our sin upon Himself, dies in our place, and satisfies the demands of God’s just wrath against sinners. Lastly, the Holy Spirit applies the work of salvation to the believer by grace through faith in the Gospel.

    Mar 2nd, 2009

34. Mungo Man

    Peter,

    You are graceful in your response.. Thank you for your response. There may be life on “Planet Biblical Thought”.

    Yes, Old Testament visuals and the Levitical laws, of course. I understand all that . . . again . . . I am not a Biblical novice (unless your name is Stephan). Bible University Graduate. Ok. We can throw scriptures at each other all day . . . that’s what most Christians do, right? Yes.

    It’s not necessarily the substitution I’m disagreeing with, as much as the penal part. I’ll need some time to explain, but let me jump (cause it’s late).

    Your statement “that you can’t really know the love of God, until you understand his just wrath upon you as a sinner” is troubling and disturbing. If I could take the liberty to rearrange your statement it sounds like you are saying that God loves those people he sends to hell (those who deserve it)?

    Mar 2nd, 2009

35. Peter Phillips

    Mungo Man,
    We are going to have to talk about the Bible, because that is the basis of what we are to believe about God, the gospel, and morality. So, I’m afraid I can’t avoid discussing the text, but I will not pistol-whip you with the Bible–in the sense that I’m arguing without unpacking things in a logical, coherent fashion. Hopefully, when you read the texts, it will become evident that penal-substitution is in view (please don’t gloss over the texts cited in prior posts—rather, look for the logical implications of them). Also, much of this discussion hangs on whether you define words like “propitiation,” “ransom,” and “atonement.” Greek is very specific. So are the definitions of these words.

    You said, “Your statement ‘that you can’t really know the love of God, until you understand his just wrath upon you as a sinner’ is troubling and disturbing. If I could take the liberty to rearrange your statement it sounds like you are saying that God loves those people he sends to hell (those who deserve it)?”

    I probably could have unpacked this a bit more. God’s redemptive love does not really make sense unless we understand the Gospel—in which, his wrath, is what makes the good news good. John said, “God is love. 9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1 Jn. 4).
    In order to understand the good news, we need to understand the bad news. The bad news is why God has to propitiate for our sins. How serious does God take our sin? He hates it with a most holy and pure intensity, because it is an affront to his very nature, which is good, pure, and just. But, it’s not an uncontrolled, unjustified wrath against sin. It is always an appropriate response to sin. Let me spell this out with an example, if I may, and then bring it home biblically. If you found out that your closest friend or your wife (if you are married) was sodomized and sexually abused as a child, would you be disgusted with the person who had done it? I think you would? Rightly so! Would you be angry at the sin and the sinner, or just the sin? Most likely both! Now, what if the person who did it was never prosecuted and punished, because there was no judges willing to hand down a sentence. Instead, they all just said forgive and forget; let’s just love this person. It would be a moral outrage, because the supposedly just judge was unwilling to hand down a sentence for punishment and uphold justice. The offended party is without any justice and the crime went unpunished. Thus, the justice system was not just, and the crime was not paid for. Now, when we are talking about God, he is the Judge and the offended party, and thus, he would cease to be God if he did not punish sin (and the sinners who commit sin, because he would cease to be just—and God is just. Secondly, the offense would not be dealt with between the offender and the Offended.

    The bad news is, we have offended God by rebelling against Him. He has to punish us to remain just, right, and good. Just like any earthly judge would have to punish evildoers in order to remain just. The problem with our justice system is that this does not always happen, because the judges are not perfect. That’s why—you and I would get upset to see a murdering rapist get off scot-free on a technicality. But, the government is God’s minister to punish the wicked and reward the do-gooder (Rom. 13). When it functions rightly, it exemplifies his Justice. On the other hand, God is perfectly just, and must punish sin in order to maintain his justice. This is bad news for us, because the just wrath of God against sin abides on the unbelieving sinner. Now, you mention, and rightly so, that God is loving. The greatest demonstration of his love, is the death of Christ on behalf of sinners, because they deserve his wrath, but He sends his Son to take on human nature, live a perfect life, die in their stead (because, the wages of sin is death), and raise Him from the dead, thus perfectly dealing with sin, turning away God’s wrath upon his people, and reconciling Himself to his sheep. Who are his sheep? Those that believe on the Son. Does he love them in a deeper sense than the rest of humanity? Yes, there is a covenantal love he has for his sheep, the objects of his redemptive love, and the citizens of his Kingdom. The unbeliever is the child of wrath, under the sway of the evil one, and in the kingdom of darkness. God will never send one of his sheep to hell, because he is no longer at enmity with them, but rather, he gave his Son for them, and he sees them as his adopted children through the gospel.

    We don’t deserve God’s forgiveness nor his mercy, but we do deserve his justice. That’s why we are saved by grace—an unmerited favor of God, through faith in the Gospel—that includes the penal substitutionary atonement. If God forgives us without demanding punishment, then the demands of his justice are not met. He may not be serious about sin. It’s like saying that there are such things as square circles. It’s unthinkable that God would not be both just and loving. Not just in the OT and then loving in the NT. He is ontologically the same God in both. His essence does not change. Thank goodness, because if he could become unjust one day, we are in trouble. Not to worry the, he never changes. However, this does not mean he’s not relationally mutable.

    This raises the question of why we are not to demand this when we forgive.

    You said: “Is Jesus is asking us to be more mature than His Father? Christ told us to love our enemies . . . but God can’t? He hates with “righteous anger”. I have to pray for those who curse me . . . but God get’s to punish them eternally? And you’re calling that divine justice?”

    First, there is a huge difference between God and us. What is appropriate for God is not always appropriate for us. For instance, God commands we worship him, but it would be sin for us to demand worship from each other. So, we are not to be imitators of God in every area across the board. Some areas we are forbidden to imitate God (Exodus 20:1-6), because he has expressly commanded that it would not be fitting for us to do so—thus, we are told to worship God alone. We are also forbidden to take vengeance upon those who wrong us:
    Romans 12:19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

    Only God has the prerogative to judge sinners in much the same way that he alone ought to be worshipped. The government is the only exception to this, because God has seen fit to govern man through this institution (thus he imputes this responsibility to government). But, it is not his will that we should avenge sin, but in his wise and perfect council, he alone is the only judge who is just by nature.

    Lastly, the real reason the Christian can forgive the sinner, is because God has dealt with his sin on the cross. I can’t begin to love the sinner apart from what God did for me in Christ. It’s the reason I care about people other than my loved ones. Jesus makes this point, but only someone with redeemed heart could love his enemy. I leave the wrath and execution of justice upon sinners to God, because he will deal with it by punishing Christ in our place or punishing the sinner himself.

    Here are my questions: What did Jesus die for? How was God’s justice met in the cross? What makes the good news good? What was Christ ransoming? To whom was payment made? What does propitiation mean? Is a parent unloving when he punishes his child? Does God love his sheep and the goats in the same sense? If God could just forgive, in the way you suggest, why did Jesus die and suffer at all?

    Mar 3rd, 2009

36. Mungo Man

    Peter,

    I hear your argument about God’s prerogative but we’re not talking about worship here. To say I can only forgive my brother in context of the Cross. No one in the Old Testament forgave one another? I don’t think so.

    Jesus tell us to do, yea, demands we do what God can’t. Sin, to God “is an affront to his very nature”. This is a very Platonic thought. If Jesus is the very essence of God, how could he dine with sinners?

    I’m sorry. You’ve really tried, but you’re not understanding the very core of my argument. Instead you run to your standard answers that you’ve learned, instead of thinking them through.

    Through human sin, God was offended. He changed. He had to do something about it. He killed His Son. Humans didn’t change. That’s a Theological problem

    Don’t worry about answering, I’m tired of this run around.

    No answers here.

    Mar 3rd, 2009

37. Peter Phillips

    Mungo Man,
    Your argument needs to be spelled out a bit more. I still don’t know what you believe about the atonement. I see your objecting, but where is your positive case for the atonement. How is Jesus a substitute,but not in our stead and for our punishment?

    You said, “Through human sin, God was offended. He changed. He had to do something about it. He killed His Son. Humans didn’t change. That’s a Theological problem”

    I think you are confused by the relational activity of God as a personal being and his ontological immutability. When God is offended at sin, he does not cease to be just or loving, rather his offense at sin is a proper response to it. God is not so transcendent that he is never immanent in this world. He is both immanent and transcendent. The being of God never changes ontologically–that is what the Bible teaches. I’m not sure how your argument goes through in light of this. The problem of how a holy God can have relationship with rebel sinners is one that is solved by the cross. Your right, humans did not change, and that’s why Jesus had to die, because our situation was hopeless apart from the atoning work of Christ.

    These ideas are biblical Mungo Man. That’s why I quoted the bible. I really think you have to avoid the text to hold your position. Show me how propitiation means anything other than the judicial turning away of God’s wrath. Show me how Jesus can pay his life as a ransom without penal language. I think you won’t because you can’t. You are trying to give us brief objections without any explanation. You clearly bring your own philosophical paradigm to the text or ignore it all together. Perhaps Steven was right, and you really don’t want to dialogue about these issues.

    Mar 3rd, 2009

38. Stephen Macasil

    As Peter rightly noticed, Mungo Man is confusing the doctrine of ontological immutability with his personal relational activity in the universe. Both of these doctrines are taught in Scripture. Both are true. They are non-contradictory, and to affirm both as true poses no theological problem. The only way out of this is for Mungo Man to admit his confusion and continue without the consequences produced by this fallacy. If he chooses to retain his fallacies, he will suffer the inevitable consequences.

    It is in Mungo Man’s humanistic/anthropocentric construction that significant theological problems emerge. But that most likely stems from his general inability to understand. Notice that from Peter’s excellent response, Mungo Man, through a process of severely flawed logic, deduced the following:

    **Your statement “that you can’t really know the love of God, until you understand his just wrath upon you as a sinner” is troubling and disturbing. If I could take the liberty to rearrange your statement it sounds like you are saying that God loves those people he sends to hell (those who deserve it)?**

    It is astonishing to witness how off-base a conclusion can be reached such as this. Where does Mungo Man get the idea that Peter is saying this? What method of reasoning was involved when he took the intellectual liberty to rearrange Peter’s statement? How can such a conclusion be deduced validly? And from which proposition[s] in Peter’s response are they drawn from?

    That is why I demanded that Mungo Man establish the premises in his argument and then show by sound logic how the established premises necessarily produce his conclusion. My guess is that he cannot do it and that is why he whimpered away and avoided dealing with me. I will hold his feet to the fire, and he knows it, and he ran away. This generally pushes the humanist into the exposing light that no longer hides their irrationality and rebellion (which is easy to hide in postmodern contexts, but never in the sight of God).

    And so it stands, that he does not even have an objection for us to deal with. He complains and signs off with, “No answers here…” But we have the final word and say, “No objections here…”

    Attn: Christians. When confronted with objections to the faith, simply repeating what you have learned from Scripture is the best defense. You will be combating with God’s wisdom over and against man’s foolishness. As a friend of mine puts it:

    “My policy is that, while I respect and even prefer polite theological discussions, when my critics try to use me to attack Scripture by proxy, I will expose them as the spiritual hypocrites that they are, and slam them down by the power of Christ the Logos, that is, by the very Scripture and Reason that they try to undermine.” – Vincent Cheung, Professional Morons, p.3

    Mar 3rd, 2009

39. Peter Phillips

    Stephen,
    I think you make a great point. For the record, I think I complimented Mungo Man too much when I said his objections were Socinian. Socinus’ objections were way more intelligent and well explained. He would at least give you the courtesy of dealing with the Biblical text. Furthermore, Socinus had an alternate theory to propose. Mungo Man, on the other hand, never dealt with what I said, and his objections were vacuous.

    Headlines read: Socinian wannabe refuted!

    By the way, they used to call John Owen the “Hammer of the Socinians,” because he singlehandedly decimated every one of their arguments. Their following had a massive Exodus after Owen was done.

    I think this serves as an important reminder that this sort of heretical perversion of the gospel is still alive and well today, and not simply lost in a book somewhere with nobody still advocating this kind of thinking.

    Mar 3rd, 2009

40. Humble observer

    Hi all

    Firstly, Great article Danny. I agree wholeheartedly. The nature of what Christ really did on the cross is widely under appreciated. that distresses me as it is so fundamental to Christianity. I still remember when I truly caught a revelation of what Christ has done for us. I didn’t sleep much that night, I was too excited. Thanks again Danny.

    But here is what made me comment. I’ve had a brief perusal of the comments posted here and am concerned that with all the semantics and theological arguments, a hurting heart may have been missed. None can tell whether Mungo Man was actually interested in seeking truth or simply wished to proclaim his opinion. I must admit that he does seem stubborn about his views, but it did strike me that some were quite quick to be highly critical, perhaps even harsh. Please understand me, I mean no offense but merely want to encourage a greater level of grace. Jesus said “And whosoever shall offend one of [these] little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.” (Mark 9:42). Don’t be to quick to disregard those less theologically minded.

    Mungo Man, if you are still out there, God loves you. But all have sinned and a holy God such as ours CANNOT abide sin. It is impossible. But His great love for us also means that He can’t stand being seperated from us by our sin. The wages of sin is death, so all who have sinned deserve death. That is the requirement for justice, to be fulfilled. A Holy God can’t pervert justice and still be holy. But The price could be paid by another. In the Old testament, goats were sacrificed to satisfy justice (though even that was not quite sufficient, see ). But God’s ultimate plan was that one perfect sacrifice would pay the debt for all. Jesus. God’s only son. the one sacrifice that was without spot or blemish. He took upon himself the sins of all and paid the due price for each and every sin. He took our sin and death so we could live in His righteousness. What amazing grace.

    And that is the answer to the problem you struggle with. “How can God ask us to forgive without retribution when He didn’t?” you ask. Jesus has paid the price for every sin. he took the punishment and freely gave us grace. Freely you have received, freely give. Jesus told a parable of a man who had a large debt forgiven, but then would not forgive another man a much smaller debt. That man had been shown amazing grace but would not do the same and consequently had His debt reinstated (Matt 18:23-35). We have been shown unmeasurable grace. In Isaiah 64:6 our “righteous acts” are described as filthy rags. There is no way for us to pay the debt we owe for our sin, only death. we can never pay it back to God. but this amazing grace we have been shown should flow from our lives to others.

    Unfortunately, those who choose to disregard Christ have choosen to defend themselves on judgement day. and no good thing they have done will save them from the least of their sins. They face the just consequences by their own choice.

    Mungo Man, I pray that You would “Seek the Lord while he may be found; call on him while he is near.” (Isa 55:6). And don’t be afraid to question, just make sure that you are open to Him for answers.

    For the theologians, I hope I have made no critical error in my statements. There is a serious need in the church for those who love God’s word. too many sermons are short on the Word and long on “motivation.” Just make sure your study is God breathed not knowledge driven.

    God bless

    Mar 4th, 2009

41. Stephen Macasil

    Humble Observer,

    “For the theologians, I hope I have made no critical error in my statements.”

    There are a couple, but in the context of your overall statement they can be overlooked for now since they’re not part of the main thrust of your exhortation. Your input is appreciated.

    “Just make sure your study is God breathed not knowledge driven.”

    Can you explain the dichotomy here? I’m not sure I understand what you mean by God-breathed. How can one do a God breathed study? The Scriptures testify of themselves as theopneustos (God breathed, 2 Tim. 3:16), but how can man’s study be expired from the mouth of God (fig.)? And what is a study that is not knowledge driven? What do you mean here by “knowledge” and how can it not “drive” a study? Lastly, assuming that you have explained all this, how can one “make sure” that study is conducted in this way without violating it? I almost trashed the statement outright based on its apparent incoherency. But since I’ve never heard the terms used this way I’ll give you a fair chance to explain it. Perhaps I’ll learn something!!!

    “I’ve had a brief perusal of the comments posted here and am concerned that with all the semantics and theological arguments, a hurting heart may have been missed. None can tell whether Mungo Man was actually interested in seeking truth or simply wished to proclaim his opinion.”

    Mungo man made it clear from the get go that he was mocking the doctrine espoused here. Perhaps an extended perusal of the comments will reveal this to you. According to Scripture we are commanded to defend the faith once for all time delivered to the saints. The precedent is established in Scripture and we have Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles as examples of “how” this is to be done. I’d recommend a Bible study that focuses on these examples and that considers the manner in which the opponents were handled.

    “Don’t be to quick to disregard those less theologically minded.”

    Mungo Man expressly stated that he was not among the less-theologically inclined. He vouched for his own expertise in claiming to be a Bible university grad and not a novice. He came here on a high horse and I pulled down the stronghold of his fortress just like Paul said he did in 2 Cor. 10:3-6.

    “Jesus said “And whosoever shall offend one of [these] little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.” (Mark 9:42).”

    The translation you’re using, perhaps the KJV, mistranslates the word rendered “offend.” Look into it and you’ll see that what is being said is “whoever causes one that believes in me to sin…” although the “in me” is debatable. Still, the picture of judgment is directed to the individual who acts as the cause of another’s sin, not merely one who offends someone. Otherwise Jesus, Paul, et al, would all be wishing for millstones since they were some of the most offensive persons in history!

    Over all though, I appreciate the exhortation. If I understand you correctly, you’re basically urging to do what is right according to Scripture and avoid doing what is wrong. With that I cannot disagree, so thanks…

    Mar 4th, 2009

42. Peter Phillips

    Humble Observer,

    If you read through my posts to Mungo Man you will see that I was very gracious to him (he admits this) and answered every one of his objections, but he did not have the courtesy to address what I wrote or explain his view. He does not consider the Scripture as his authority and he wanted to avoid talking about issues from that standpoint. He said he was going to explain his view, but never did. I spent a few hours writing a clear, cogent response to his concerns, and he never dealt with it. It’s clear he is not interested in biblical truth when it comes to this issue. We’ve done all we can do for him, and I lament his rejection of this Biblical doctrine, and I realize that this is an issue that has a direct impact on one’s eternal destination. We will continue to pray for him, but leave the results to God. Thanks for your thoughts.

    Mar 4th, 2009

43. Stephen Macasil

    For the record, lest Peter be charged with tooting his own horn, I vouch for him and his reply and have no complaints with it other than he didn’t thank Mungo Man for shopping at BT.

    Mar 4th, 2009

44. Humble observer

    Stephen

    Thank you for overlooking my errors. As I am sure you can tell, I have little formal theological training. I am learning, hence my presence here.

    On the issue of “God-breathed study”, my statement was meant as a metaphor, rather than a theological concept. Theopneustos – God-breathed, inspired by God. Cannot our own study be inspired by God rather than the sole purpose being to fill our minds with knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. As for the inability of Biblical student to ensure that he studies with a specific attitude, I disagree. But is that what you mean. I study with the mindset to seek Holy Spirit revelation as opposed to seeking information. There is a difference.

    On the issue of Mungo Man’s theological qualifications, I was aware he went to a Christian University. Where I’m from, that doesn’t mean a lot. You may pick up some of the lingo but can slide through without any firm belief or understanding. But maybe it’s different there (USA?). Regardless, I still think one or two of those early responses were a bit harsh. Assess the language –

    “You Mungo man, are the one with personal issues, inner conflict, and not understanding he in fact may not love you!”

    As to the word “offend”, I hadn’t chosen this scripture because it used that word but because of the meaning. “To put a stumbling block or impediment in the way, upon which another may trip and fall” is one way to translate “offend” in this context. Let us resolve not to cause others to stumble.

    Peter

    You need not defend yourself to me You went to great lengths to Give clear and logical defence to this important doctrine, and for that I hold you in high regard. I will be seeking out your other posts when I get the chance to properly explore this site.

    Thank you both for responding.

    “As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.” Proverbs 27:17.

    Mar 5th, 2009

45. Mario

    Humble Observer,

    I answered the way I did because I perceived Mungo Man as mocking the Triune God of Scripture. I can say that I lack patience and do ask the Lord to give me more…….

    The way Mungo Man asked his questions was not as one who is seeking biblical answers. If Mungo Man went to a Christian university, the questions he is asking should have been addressed by his professors.

    Christians are to speak the truth. If one hears that God may not love them, perhaps it will drive them to repentance rather than lying to him by telling him not to worry because God loves everybody and saves everybody, which we know of course is not biblical.

    The truth is a stumbling block to the non-believer, would you not say?

    One who loves the Lord and knows him, does not address the God of Scripture as having inner conflict and personal issues. Therefore I had to say what I said in the way I said it.

    Mar 5th, 2009

46. Peter Phillips

    Humble observer,
    I’m not so concerned about my own image, but I wanted you to know that he got a fair and respectful response on this website. But, if you note the tone he came with, then it might explain why people wrote him off as a mocker. I gave him the benefit of the doubt, because I can’t know his situation from one post, but it turned out that Mario and Stephen were right in their assessment.

    I just wanted to clear any confusion away with respect to your initial post. Sometimes people skim through these blogs and get offended at one or two isolated comments, but it sounds like you read everything. Thanks for you thoughts, brother.

    Mar 5th, 2009

47. Stephen Macasil

    It should be noted that we do not need to justify whether or not we perceived or discerned a mocking tone in Mungo Man’s comments. He explicitly stated that he was mocking – more than once. He basically said, “I am not mocking God, I’m mocking your doctrine.” Just scroll up to his first few entries. So we don’t need to guess.

    That’s fine with me. If someone wants to mock someone’s doctrine they should go right ahead. Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles did it. I especially like when Paul mocked those that were considering it spiritual to be circumcised. He said, “I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!” (Gal. 5:12) Many more examples can be found in the Scriptures (like Elijah’s mockery of the pagan god Baal that wasn’t answering. Elijah mocked, saying, “Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.” 1 Kings 18:27b).

    But in the case of Mungo Man’s mockery, it only magnified his foolishness and exposed his hidden hostility to our God. For when it came time for him to stand upon his foundation for mockery, the loose sand under his feet began to shift as the earthquake of Scripture rattled on. Riddled with fear he looked down and realized his lack of safety in the ground on which he stands, but prevented by pride and sinful disposition, cowardly ran for the hills.

    Mar 5th, 2009

48. Mario

    Stephen….well said!

    Mar 6th, 2009

49. Jean Cauvin

    Hello,

    I can tell you one thing. Christ did not die for Bill Maher or Chris Matthews.

    He did not die for the Democratic Party. All consistent democrats are reprobates designed for the purpose of fuel for the eternal fire.

    Respectfully,

    Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).

    Mar 11th, 2009

50. Jay Gober

    I am teaching a Lenten series, using Jerry Bridges’ book the Great Exchange and am attempting to augment their excellent presentation with what much Scriptural back-up as I am by God’s grace, able to discern. Terms like atonement, propitiation, sacrifice, expiation, reonciliation, et. cet. all have multiple exposition in both the OT and NT. However, I have been unable to find scriptural reference to the English term “substitution”. Is is possible that the English preposition “for” as used in Gal 1:4 denotes “substitution”? Is the “for” in Rom 5:8 rendered in Greek as “hyper” connoting “on behalf of” or perhaps “anti” meaning “instead of or in place of”? And if this is indeed the case, is there a scriptural reference that employs the actual English wording of something like …while we were still helpless, at the right time, Christ died ‘on behalf of’ the ungodly.” Rom 5:6 NASB
    I can lay claims to that kind of understanding as my audience mostly likely has “less Greek” than I’ve be gifted to have, but good solid scriptural reference would go a long way to help all of us understand on of the mysteries of the Gospel.
    An Apprentice in Christ

    Feb 21st, 2010

Reply to “For Whom Did Christ Die? (part IV)”