Penal Substitution & Universalism

by **Bob Wilson** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:33 pm

Hi Jim,
First, I like your ideas on "blood & righteousness," except that they mean "paying ransom," if that means penal substituion as my initial paper defined it. On the rest, no one questions that Israel experienced disciplines and punishment, but my interpretation stands that it was not effective, & echoes Wright's way of telling the story of atonement. The need is to offer an interpretation compatible with "passed over," and with Israel's story.

Thanks for the link on N.T. Wright and his familiar quote that P.S. belongs to his own view. My perception is that Wright's atonement view is controversially complex. For many evangelicals that form his paying readership, P.S. is a crucial mark of being orthodox, he is a politically astute Bishop, and I acknowledge that he clearly insists that his view can be called P.S. But I too affirm that Jesus experienced "punishment" & suffered the "penalty" that my sins deserve.

The facts are that yesterday I completed "Evil and the Justice of God," on atonement as the solution, where he clearly states that to him the N.T. view is Christus Victor. More crucial, above I cited "The Atonement Debate," a forum by the British Evangelical Alliance on Penal Substitution, where many papers attacked Wright for opposing P.S. Afterall, he'd endorsed Steve Chalke's book which passionately assaulted P.S., and said that Chalke represented his own view just as Chalke had claimed. After the effort you quoted to put out the firestorm, Chalke reaffirmed that he embraced Wright's view, but would never say it is anything like P.S. And Wright continues to affirm Chalke's exposition as a lead spokesman for an alternative view. Thus many evangelicals continue to define his view as non-P.S.

It may be fair to say that some of these debates get lost in semantics, where everyone says their view has been caricatured, no one wants to admit their view is a departure, and then the reality and reasons for substantive differences never get addressed. The reality is that Wright has expounded at length on Jesus and the cross, and to me as a preacher indoctrinated in P.S. from youth to seminary, none of it sounds like it. Indeed, his writings were strategic in my turn against it.

In the protest you print, he never defines the P.S. he ostensibly affirms. He clearly says that a God whose anger needs to be satisfied is the extreme of what he rejects. I.e. he rejects more than that, and I never hear him say that the cross satisfies God's justice either. In the quote he only affirms that the key is to understand the atonement in terms of the Biblical story. His version of that story is what I tried to describe above as his interpretation of Romans 3. That is very different than P.S.'s view there that the cross is securing 'justice' so that God can be gracious to us.

by **Bob Wilson** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:42 pm

Jim,

Your second post to me on July 11 perceives that the conflicts alleged in the texts of my 12 arguments are "false" or illusory. But your 12 brief notes leave me unclear as to why. Does the cross provide a sacrificial transaction that sufficently substitutes for our rebellion, cancels our sin, or in itself secures our salvation?

E.g. on #6, I argued "no," since 1 Cor. 15:17 sees something additional, the resurrection, as essential to providing that. You respond that it's simply mentioned to protect the apostle's "witness." But I quoted, "If Christ had not been raised, you are still in your sins." Doesn't that pertain to our salvation from sins, and suggest that the cross alone doesn't secure that? I still think the apostles see the risen Christ and the Spirit's work as a crucial part of God's way of meeting our need for redemption. A substitute sacrifice is not enough in itself to deal with our sins.

More pivotally, I say in #1, "The Bible never says God needs a sacrifice to be gracious toward sinners" (to forgive). But you repeat that "substitute sacrifice" is all over the Bible," and "many verses point to the sacrificial system to provide restitution for the consequences of sin." I need to know which verses you think most clearly spell out that this system is what "restitutes sins."

My paper references passages which sound like it did not in itself restitute or pay for sin, or cause God to forgive it.
Psalm 40:6 "Sacrifices and offering You did not desire... sin offerings You did not require." Isa. 66:3 says, "Whoever sacrifices a bull is like one who kills a human being... whoever makes a grain offering is like one who worships an idol." Hos. 6:6 "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." (Hebrews 10 quotes this, and thus says, even "though" the law agrees with sacrifice, Jesus comes to "set aside" that approach; rather than say Jesus' sacrificial life and death endorsed that system, I'd prefer saying it was to end it.)

I also cited texts where God forgives without sacrifices or punishment. In what sense is a sacrifice a necessary substitute for God or us? I don't see that they secure any restitution or retribution, but rather that they invite an essential change in us, as we trust in the God who has always been gracious. Your own #9 acknowledges that all "sacrifices are worthless without genuine repentance." So again, where does it assure than a sacrifice is acceptable in lieu of sin, or "restitution for the consequences of sin"? "Repentance" means that we turn from sin, and I agree with you that no sacrifice is a substitute for any consequences of failing to do that. Forgive me that I may be obtuse about words and how you see this. But why do you insist that sacrifices are necessary to substitute for sin's consequences?

by **RanRan** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:34 am

I came to Universal Redemption by way of Preterism.

The question became: How could a propitiated God still retain and pour out wrath on Jerusalem/Israel in 70AD? He's propitiated, right? There shouldn't be any wrath.

The key to solving that dilemma was to understand Christ when he said that all scripture MUST be fulfilled.

Christ's mission was two-fold - 1. Saving mankind from death and the Law and... 2. Bearing a sword against Israel.

He fulfilled both missions. The first at the Cross - where both he and the Law were nailed. The second in 70AD - where both the Law (every jot and tittle of it) and all prophesy against Israel came down in a horrific display of stored up wrath emptied out in a seven year period within the generation who had killed him TO fulfill scripture.

It HAD to happen. It could not NOT happen because unfulfilled scripture would remain dangling for eternity - and the cosmos on edge - waiting for the other shoe to drop.

But it did drop in 70AD - and that's why we can rest assured that God is propitiated and our sins taken away forever, because, likewise, this will also be fulfilled: every resurrected person will confess that Christ is Lord. That MUST be fulfilled as well.

And who are the resurrected? Everyone. It turns out that Christ's redemption of the quick and the dead included all mankind - all that His Father had given him. So great a salvation.

Bottom-line: Penal Substitution is a hard pill to swallow if one's eschatology has a choke-hold on the gospel.

by **RanRan** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:26 am

Bob Wilson wrote: But I quoted, "If Christ had not been raised, you are still in your sins." Doesn't that pertain to our salvation from sins, and suggest that the cross alone doesn't secure that? I still think the apostles see the risen Christ and the Spirit's work as a crucial part of God's way of meeting our need for redemption. A substitute sacrifice is not enough in itself to deal with our sins.

People are resurrected from death whether they are believers or not. Your argument in untenable: "Christ didn't take away the sins of the world until you believe that he didn't take away the sins of the world." Presumably, at that point, you take over in your salvation - adding a crucial nod, now and then, to Christ for dying.

The verse that you quoted is saying that if Christ's sacrifice was not accepted and he was not resurrected - then he did not take away your sins.

Basically, your argument starts in disbelief and stays there.

by **Bob Wilson** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:25 am

Ran Ran,

Thanks for your reactions to my paper and discussion with Jim. On Sept. 22, you nicely clarify what you think Jesus came to do. But I'm feeling slow because I can't understand what your argument is for it. You appear to offer no Biblical exegesis in its' behalf, unlike my paper and discussion with Jim which cites and wrestles with hundreds of Scriptures. When you conclude that the key is to agree with you about "eschatology," it sounds like a tautology to me: that the key to insight is simply to agree with your conclusions.

On Sept. 25, you call my statement that Paul sees the risen Christ and work of the Spirit as vital to God's redemptive purpose "untenable," saying "Christ doesn't take away the sins of the world until you believe that he didn't..." Again I don't follow your logic. If you are meaning to paraphrase my own view, I don't recognize it as mine. If you mean that the Biblical view of the cross is that the Bible has no concern about our lives or response to what Jesus did or secured at the cross, your reading of countless exhortations and warnings simply baffles me.

You do seem to assert that 1 Cor. 15 only means that if Christ is not resurrected, his sacrifiice was not accepted and thus he didn't take away sins. But I argued with numerous references that Paul seems to think the problem here of still "living in our sins" is more than having a sacrifice remove sin's penalty. Rather, that Paul is often concerned with God's desire to deal with actual sin in our lives by the work of Christ's living Spirit who can produce crucial and genuine actual righteousness as we meet the true "requirements of the law," rather than only grant imputed righteousness that cancel's sin's consequeces. That's the foundation on which I find your interpretation unlikely.

Your apparent closer that the problem is my "unbelief" is unintelligible to me. I may not be following your logic, but it sounds like an empty ad hominem argument.

Grace be with you,

Bobx1

by **RanRan** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:08 pm

Bob Wilson wrote: But I argued with numerous references that Paul seems to think the problem here of still "living in our sins" is more than having a sacrifice remove sin's penalty.

Bob, the problem Paul is expressing in 1Cor 15 is that of a 'futile faith' if Christ is not raised - then, of course, we're still living in our sins! He never took them away!

Where is the sting of death? It used to be sin - but it was taken away. Where is the power of sin - the law? Nailed to the cross.

I don't see Paul being compelled to add anything more to Christ's accomplishment to complete it, as you seem to be suggesting. So I do agree with Paul, not believing in the perfection of His sacrifice does put one back in living in their sins - and, frankly, stuck there in the untruth, lie, illusion - call it what you will. Disbelief will cause that - especially if one calls that 'faith.'

It wasn't an empty ad hominem argument - it's not you - it's the argument itself. I've a heard a thousand variations of it. But in every case, Christ is replaced by another christ who accomplished nothing. Talk about substitution!

by **auggybendoggy** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:22 pm

Seems like Ran is arguing along the lines of Ultra Universalism. If I follow correctly, it's that Jesus died for all sins of all time and therefore sin is left powerless over all he died for.

I would thus question of course the fact that there are far too many warnings of those who don't believe; so many it's not even worth beginning to list. Paul does seem concerned for his own fellow jews that he would cut himself off for their sake. If in fact all will be ressurected to eternal life with no hell awaiting than Paul would appear confused to me. Perhaps you believe Paul was confused on some matters?

Ran, perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly. How do you handle the argument Bob made that Jesus died to save us from God (it appears you do hold to that view)?

by **Bob Wilson** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:27 pm

Ran Ran, thanks for an illuminating clarification of how you read the value of Christ being risen for us. Frankly it seems quite coherent, given the assumptions that are striking to you (especially--am I right?--that not "living in our sins," or our "sins being taken away" simply means being exempted from the penalty our sins would otherwise bring).

But you seem to repeatedly bolster this interpretation with the assumption (1) that any other atonement view than P.S. means "Christ accomplished nothing (but why must that follow?). (2) My argument above that many surrounding texts assume that our response to Christ and his way are important to God and essential, you see as fatally meaning that I "add something to Christ's accomplishment to complete it."

I wouldn't put it that way, perceiving that the grace of God demonstrated at the cross gets the credit for what takes place in us, but that may be a semantic distinction for you. So before perhaps examining pertinent texts, can you confirm that you indeed see no indications that Paul thinks that God judges or deals with us according to the responses seen in our own life? And if I agree with you that "disbelief" would leave us with our sins not taken away, why doesn't that sound like our belief would be "adding" something?

by **RanRan** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 6:52 am

Bob Wilson wrote: And if I agree with you that "disbelief" would leave us with our sins not taken away, why doesn't that sound like our belief would be "adding" something?

That precisely what I don't believe! What I said was that 'disbelief' leaves one with the illusion that their sins were not taken away.

Our Faith does not propitiate God - but many argue that it does and so usurp Christ.

What one believes does matter. Many people cannot get beyond John's introduction to Christ: "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world" before disbelief kicks in and begins attacking every aspect of that truth.

by **RanRan** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 10:29 am

auggybendoggy wrote:Seems like Ran is arguing along the lines of Ultra Universalism.

Is there any other kind? Universal is universal.

I do think there was confusion in NT church over the Mt. Olivet Discourse. Was Christ coming back within that generation (Mt 24:34) to end everything? After 70AD, the confusion amongst the early church was, for the most part, gone. Nero was the anti-Christ, Christ came against the Jews, destroyed the Temple, but the world would go on. Hind sight helped.

So there's Paul off preaching to the rest of the world and saying things like: "The Law was nailed to the Cross." "Where there is no Law - there is no sin." and imploring people to repent and start loving God and their neighbor. On those things, he was not confused at all.

by **Bob Wilson** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 1:09 pm

RanRan wrote:I do agree with Paul, not believing in the perfection of His sacrifice does put one back in living in their sins

Bob Wilson wrote: And if I agree with you that "disbelief" would leave us with our sins...

RanRan wrote:That precisely what I don't believe!

I usually can follow the views on the board that I find questionable. But I'm afraid that as we often do, you selectively respond to my inquiries seeking understanding and even those comments are cryptic enough that I'm not able to intelligibly decipher your view so as to respond.

My blindness may confirm the view that only a select group can grasp this mystery. Are there any objective accounts of your view written by folk who are not already on the inside of it?

by **RanRan** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 4:35 pm

Bob Wilson wrote:
RanRan wrote:I do agree with Paul, not believing in the perfection of His sacrifice does put one back in living in their sins

Bob Wilson wrote: And if I agree with you that "disbelief" would leave us with our sins...
RanRan wrote:That precisely what I don't believe!

I usually can follow the views on the board that I find questionable. But I'm afraid that as we often do, you selectively respond to my inquiries seeking understanding and even those comments are cryptic enough that I'm not able to intelligibly decipher your view so as to respond.

I suppose it does look cryptic when you fail to quote my entire statement or thought. If one believes that one's sins are not forgiven, not taken away, or taken away and put back on because someone else thinks that's a good idea, then that leaves one where they started - in disbelief. Since disbelief is a type of belief, it's called faith by those in it; but it's faith in something that is not true.

So when you say that you agree that disbelief would leave us with our sins, it begs the question, 'disbelief of what?' That Christ took away the sins of the world?

Martin Luther: "Christ took away the sins of the world, therefore, he took away my sins."

by **Bob Wilson** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:07 pm

Ran, you faithfully repeat your propositions, but I have no idea how you respond to my central NT objections (e.g. that God is never 'propitiated,' or that our own response is repeatedly cited as essential). But Jason's commentaries on "propititation, atone/reconcile," and the thread on "the NT conception of atonement" fully develop precisely what I am posing to you. Thus I'm following closely, hoping you will address his central points.

by **RanRan** » Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:15 pm

Bob Wilson wrote:God is never 'propitiated,'

Oh Bob, then as that ridiculous poet wrote - "Pity poor manunkind not." Even a fool understands our predicament.

In a much greater poet's words this amounts to - "The pale cast of thought."

It is possible to think too much when time may be better spent praying.

by **Bob Wilson** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 9:42 pm

Ran Ran said,
"Bob...this amounts to - "The pale cast of thought." It is possible to think too much..."

Sorry you find that "thinking" fouls things up for you! And that I don't comprehend your poetry. But if you keep acting like just repeating one's assertions is enough to make a case, I'm afraid there's tons of repetitive rhetoric that I'm foolishly inclined to stop and think about before I would espouse it.

by **RanRan** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 7:13 am

Bob Wilson wrote:Ran Ran said,
"Bob...this amounts to - "The pale cast of thought." It is possible to think too much..."

Sorry you find that "thinking" fouls things up for you! And that I don't comprehend your poetry. But if you keep acting like just repeating one's assertions is enough to make a case, I'm afraid there's tons of repetitive rhetoric that I'm foolishly inclined to stop and think about before I would espouse it.

I've said all along that salvation was accomplished unilaterally - it's all God. We are involved in our redemption only by representation in Christ, the God/Man.

Granted, it can be said that we are involved by faith in that accomplishment, but that faith does not change the fact of it. Knowing that our redeemer lives does not make us more redeemed. The purpose of faith then must be love of the good - not the procurement of goodness which has already been gifted.

Repentance is imperfect - an admixture of Christ's perfect finished work and my imperfection makes the whole thing imperfect. So it can't be a mixture of the two.

by **Bob Wilson** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 2:27 pm

Ran, thanks for restating your assertions of unilateral redemption. None of us asserts that humanity achieves a "procurement(?) of redemption," or has not "already been gifted." We've even affirmed a sense in which reconciliation is already secure or completed, and I appreciate your allowance now that in a real sense "we are involved in that accomplishment." But when you seem to then conclude that God can't allow our involvement because we are (as we all confess) "imperfect," I'm left again assuming your impression of God's 'unilateral' program really does insist that any human response is irrelevant.

Again, my difficulty was not grasping that assertion. It is only in grasping what you think argues for it, or how you interpret the many counter-texts cited that appear to make human responses pivotal in God's dealings with us. Grace be with you, Bob

by **RanRan** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:14 pm

Bob Wilson wrote:Again, my difficulty was not grasping that assertion. It is only in grasping what you think argues for it, or how you interpret the many counter-texts cited that appear to make human responses pivotal in God's dealings with us. Grace be with you, Bob

As I mentioned before, I'm a preterist. Christ was very clear in Matt 24:34 that that generation was to experience God's wrath to fulfill scripture. But for every other generation of both temple-less Jews and gentiles since there is no wrath - nor is there any scriptural mandate for it.

Christ came with two missions to accomplish - setting the captives free (us and everyone else from death) and the other (something we like to ignore) wielding a sword against Israel. He accomplished both as only he could.

Many of the counter-texts people cite against the possibility of a propitiated God (He's not angry) stem from a confusion of those two missions by Christ. So there was a short time when eschatology did not rule theology - the golden age of the fathers (and the birth place of universalism). Be careful how you use 'counter-texts' if it means nullifying the Gospel.

by **Bob Wilson** » Tue Oct 06, 2009 11:32 am

Ran Ran: "For every other generation of both temple-less Jews and gentiles since there is NO wrath - nor is there any scriptural mandate for it."

Bob: With the temple's destruction assured, which of these apostolic Scriptures fits your apparent drumbeat that only those with "illusions" of unbelief are concerned about facing judgment?

"If we deliberately keep on sinning... there is only fearful expection of judgment and raging fire... The Lord will judge His people."(Hebrews 10:26-31)

"You are storing up wrath against yourself for the Day of God's wrath... God will give to each person according to what they have done... For those who follow evil, there will be wrath and anger." (Romans 2:5-8)

"The wrath of God is coming." (Col. 3:6) "If you do not repent, I will remove your lampstand." (Revelation 2:5) "Judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful." (James 2:13)

Whover rejects the Son, God's wrath remains on him." (John 3:36)

What sort of language would it take to count against your denial of the apostles' own plain account of "wrath" in God's Gospel?

by **RanRan** » Tue Oct 06, 2009 6:08 pm

What sort of language would it take to count against your denial of the apostles' own plain account of "wrath" in God's Gospel?

"I tell you the truth, this generation with certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." Matt 24;34

That sort of language. Yes. 'The wrath of God is coming." It came just a Christ said it would and now it's gone. Poured out on that generation to fulfill scripture.

2 Corinthians 5:18
'All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them.'

If you believe that the 'Gospel' (the good news) is that God is filled with wrath towards us - then what's the bad news?

How can one hope to understand the New Testament if one fails to consider the audience written TO and warned over and over again about what was to befall them? The early church didn't have that problem - the sacking of Jerusalem was fresh in their minds and they preached a lively universalism.

by **Bob Wilson** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:03 pm

I find Scripture sees God's "wrath" to be the intrinsic disposition of his holy nature toward unrepentant evil, not a grudge which gets cured by venting one-time destruction on a person, a building, or a nation. Thus to separate it or God's way of overcoming sin which calls for wrath, from the Bible's account of the Good News, would cancel out the Bible's whole story.

Given my Biblical orientation, I see the apostles as relevant to the message of the "early church" that matters concerning wrath. It appears to me that their consistent warnings about "God's wrath" (in passages where there is wide consensus about the meaning of the early church's view) are cancelled by you on the basis of the much debated Apocalypse in Matthew 24, which you somehow take to assert that there will be no more wrath in God's makeup (an interpretation which is so mysterious, I'm not sure which serious Bible students have found that spelled out there). When it's so unclear, I'd be careful of unbelief regarding the clearer passages and warnings.

by **RanRan** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:24 pm

Bob Wilson wrote:I find Scripture sees God's "wrath" to be the intrinsic disposition of his holy nature toward unrepentant evil, not a grudge which gets cured by venting one-time destruction on a person, a building, or a nation. Thus to separate it or God's way of overcoming sin which calls for wrath, from the Bible's account of the Good News, would cancel out the Bible's whole story.

God's way of overcoming sin was the cross.

"God hates your guts until you believe that he doesn't." That 'theology' of the last 1600 years just won't go away. It works best in 'religious' wars like the Thirty Year's War before the Reformation. Men use 'God's wrath' to justify all kinds of murder.

by **Bob Wilson** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:31 pm

RanRan wrote: That 'theology' of the last 1600 years just won't go away.

Of course it remains! How could it not, if your side fails to address the Scriptures it adduces. I don't want to encourage the "wrath" to be transplanted or sitmulated in you. But my perception is that I began with a paper citing hundreds of Scriptures and challenged how the cross overcomes sin. You respond mostly by repeating that you have a strong attraction to the modern P.S. formulation and the absence of God's wrath, but you never engage the arguments in the historic debate.

I last addressed the weakness of your interpretation in the one text you cited, Matthew 24. But again you don't respond with support or clarification of your interpretation of the data. You again reply with caricatures that aren't even close to my position, such as that I say, "God hates your guts." You imply that the problem with an alternative to Penal Substitution is that it fosters warmongers, when my argument was precisely against its' endorsement and encouragement of violence. You respond as if you can just assert again that only your view believes that the cross is God's way of dealing with sin, or as if my paper insisting on that denies that.

We both are inclined toward a minority view on classic quesions and could have a friendly exchange that sheds light on how and why we differ. But you offer emotion and ad hominem responses, and appear to offer no interpretation or interaction with the Scriptures I present or debate with you. With so little light shed on your rationale, there's no hope that I could reflect upon it. You can't expect others to embrace your view if you just keep complaining that history, thinking, the apostles, or 'even bad' people are stacked against you, but you don't respectfully engage the substance of the historic atonement debate

by **Bob Wilson** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 5:24 pm

Ran,
I cited numerous texts where the apostles, presumbly in the late first century, warn churchmen to avoid facing God's future judgment and wrath. Presuming you think the whole NT was written after 70 AD, do you hold that readers were to understand that if their death loomed ahaed after 70 AD, the Bible's concern was now irrelevant? Or, if they lived far from Jerusalem, could they not be concerned about the Biblical emphasis, even in 69 AD?

Do you assume this was obvious to them because they would piece together words alongside such warnings, such as that they could be those whose sins were not counted against them, along with Jesus' prediction of Jerusalem's fall, and assume that this would disapate God's anger? Why does does Paul and the Bible usually speak of our salvation, reconciliation, and redemption in the future tense of the new age, and assume that we remain in the present evil age? Do you think all the future tense language is cancelled because Paul uses the past tense to speak of the assurance of our position in the future judgment?

by **roofus** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 7:20 pm

Hi guys,
Boy you two are really getting into this issue. Very interesting. I will pray that both of you will find God's Truth on this matter!
Robert

by **RanRan** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:06 am

I cited numerous texts where the apostles, presumbly in the late first century, warn churchmen to avoid facing God's future judgment and wrath. Presuming you think the whole NT was written after 70 AD, do you hold that readers were to understand that if their death loomed ahaed after 70 AD, the Bible's concern was now irrelevant? Or, if they lived far from Jerusalem, could they not be concerned about the Biblical emphasis, even in 69 AD?

The entire NT was written before the fall of Jerusalem. By the fall, all the apostles were dead, except for John - just as Christ said he would be alive to see it. Many expected Christ to return bodily at the return - he did return as a sign in the sky - eyewitnessed by Josephus and others just before the fall. The Jerusalem church had already fled to Pella. All this to fulfill scripture.

God is not angry - he's propitiated and the sins of the world forgiven. Christ's bodily return will be like a thief in the night (without warning) and we will all be changed instantly.

With the advantage of retrospection, no believer should remain confused at the Mt. Olivet Discourse.

It's the truth that sets one free - the Gospel is nullified without it. In none of this am I saying that we don't need fixing and correction by his love - but that he is not angry because of Christ's work.

by **Bob Wilson** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:42 am

Ran, am I rightly surmising that you are in some round-about way answering "yes" to my two inquiries that you reprinted?

Thus, you do hold that an unbeliever, Josephus, verified by a sign that in Jerusalem's fall Christ has already returned and completed all the eschatological promises or warnings. Therefore it would be clear for churchmen who (1) didn't live near Jerusalem, or (2) were approaching death after AD 70, that they were free to ignore all of the apostle's warnings to them about living in a way that did not bring the risk of being subjected to God's wrath or judgment. For all those Scriptural exhortations were written before AD 70 and were plainly only temporarily cautioning them about a now past event which could not touch them.

by **Bob Wilson** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:50 am

Roofus, I always appreciated your perspective. If you have already been helped "to find God's truth on this matter," maybe you shouldn't only pray or keep such light under a bushel. If not joining the interaction means you, like Ran and me, don't have it figured out, I'll keep you in my prayers!

by **RanRan** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:42 pm

Bob Wilson wrote:Thus, you do hold that an unbeliever, Josephus, verified by a sign that in Jerusalem's fall Christ has already returned and completed all the eschatological promises or warnings. Therefore it would be clear for churchmen who (1) didn't live near Jerusalem, or (2) were approaching death after AD 70, that they were free to ignore all of the apostle's warnings to them about living in a way that did not bring the risk of being subjected to God's wrath or judgment. For all those Scriptural exhortations were written before AD 70 and were plainly only temporarily cautioning them about a now past event which could not touch them.

First off, Josephus' 'War of Jews' should be required reading for Christians - it's an eye opener. Lots of interesting details and, of course, he was a contemporary historian who mentions Jesus - one of only two. Did you know that General Titus left the just a portion of wall standing (what is called the 'wailing wall') as a tourist attraction for visiting Romans? Or Titus riding around the city praying to God not to blame him for the blood bath.

The wrath promised on Jerusalem was stored up - meaning, judgment on them for killing the prophets had been made long ago and continued to pile on until Christ.

When the people asked why us? why our generation? Christ reminded them of that tower falling on all those people in Shiloh. Wrong time. Wrong place. The prophesied wrath had to come down sometime. The point is that it was a rare and one time event and is tied to wiping out a world and their claim of being the people of God - that inheritance being passed onto Christians.

Every jot and title of the law came down on those people and they asked for it - 'Let his blood be on us.' There is a difference between His wrath and his justice to fulfill quite different scriptural promises. So when I hear "God is not counting mens sins against them.' I do not nullify that promise by another promise to fulfill something else.

by **JeffA** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:07 am

Of course many are sceptical about Josephus' description of Jesus as it sounds like it was written by a Christian (which Josephus never became). :twisted:

by **RanRan** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:33 am

JeffA wrote:Of course many are sceptical about Josephus' description of Jesus as it sounds like it was written by a Christian (which Josephus never became).

That's the first time I have heard about any skepticism about the veracity of his account. He was a Jewish general turned Roman historian and only mentions Jesus in passing while describing the murder of James (our Lord's brother) by throwing him off the temple roof as the pivot point in the rebellion against Rome starting up in the 3 1/2 year run up to the desolation of the temple. He went on to write other Roman histories as well.

Plunder from Jerusalem (and gold from the Temple roof) paid for the building of Coliseum in Rome - work began in 70ad.

Now back to Bob's claim that God's wrath is common and pervasive and still in effect. When I read in Revelation that the survivors (the ones who listened and fled!) of the desolation sing a song that no other generation can even learn, that also tells me of the one time (done and finished) nature of the wrath poured out in 70ad to fulfill scripture. His wrath is uncommon, pervasive only in regards to Israel in 70ad, and is not in effect.

The Jerusalem (Jewish) Church was the ONLY generation of believers both under His wrath and under the cross. That makes for a very unique 'song'. So to maintain that God is both filled with wrath at mankind and at the same time reconciled with mankind in regards to every other generation since - is a nonsense argument. Total nonsense and arrogant to boot.

by **Bob Wilson** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:43 am

Ran, I think Jeff makes a good and widely acknowledged point. But I again take it that you are answering a noteworthy "yes" to my two questions about grasping your interpretation (now reprinted 3x: that apostolic cautions to churchmen who live unfaithful to the Gospel and may thus face God's judgment and wrath are irrelevant for those (1) living away from Jerusalem, as well as (2) Christian readers after 70 AD). Thanks for making your assumptions so clear.

by **RanRan** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:00 am

Bob Wilson wrote:Ran, Jeff makes a good point, but I again take it that you are answering a noteworthy "yes" to my two questions about grasping your interpretation (now reprinted 3x: the irrelevance of apostolic cautions on facing judgment for churchmen (1) living away from Jersalem, as well as (2) Christian readers after 70 AD). Thanks for making your position so clear.

Neither of those two groups were among the elect Jews in Israel, and particularly in Jerusalem, called out to flee that wrath from the generation who murdered Christ. They fled because they believed Matt 24;34 was aimed at them, not another far-flung, distant group. Them. If they didn't flee it was because they didn't believe and were crushed in 70ad.

Likewise, the use of 'election' pertains only to that group - otherwise, in every other place and time - it's: 'whosoever may come.' Paul to the greek Timothy: 'Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.'

by **Bob Wilson** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:34 am

Which other interpreters read such a consistent pattern of apostolic warnings about how believers live a life of holy love as only

RanRan wrote:Neither of those two groups were among the elect Jews in Israel, and particularly in Jerusalem

addressed to "elect Jews, and particularly in Jerusalem"?

To my knowledge, the consensus is wide that such admonitions were addressed as universally relevant for believers, Gentile as well as Jew, during "this present evil age."

by **RanRan** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:05 pm

Bob Wilson wrote:To my knowledge, the consensus is wide that such admonitions were addressed as universally relevant for believers, Gentile as well as Jew, during "this present evil age."

Key word 'present' - for Paul! When did Paul warn Timothy to flee Jerusalem when he's 800 miles away in sunny Greece? If the warnings are universally relevant, where does Timothy flee from? Athens? Why? Same goes for the opening of Revelation - 'I'm writing to tell you what will soon happen.' Soon? 2000 or 20,000 years later???

To be a Christian and not know history is to be at the mercy of every other gospel out there.

by **Bob Wilson** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:21 pm

Ran Ran: "When did Paul warn Timothy to flee Jerusalem when he's 800 miles away in sunny Greece? If the warnings are universally relevant, where does Timothy flee from? Athens? Why?"

Bob: I'm lost! You seem to ridicule as "arrogant," ideas that I've never heard anyone espouse. Where did I, or does anyone, say that all the apostolic warnings about how Christians live are about "Timothy," or his need to change geography? Or about the need to flee Athens? Or about Jerusalem? Where does Paul even define the evil world we groan to be delivered from as only about fears of God's wrath in one particular past event for Jews?

I'm afraid the more you clarify the way that you read such passages about godliness, the more incredulous I am about your interpretation, as out of step with the plain and universal meaning of such texts. Across the board, whether they are interpreted by secular scholars, conservative Christians, or more liberal students, to my knowledge, nobody but you finds such a unique and narrow meaning in them.

by **RanRan** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:56 pm

Bob Wilson wrote:I'm afraid the more you clarify the way that you read such passages about godliness, the more incredulous I am about your interpretation, as out of step with the plain and universal meaning of such texts. Across the board, whether they are interpreted by secular scholars, conservative Christians, or more liberal students, to my knowledge, nobody but you finds such a unique and narrow meaning in them.

You need to get out more. As a Lutheran, we believe in objective justification - we're all forgiven - objective fact. As a preterist, that God's wrath was poured out in 70ad. Done deal. No more wrath nor mandate for it.

Neither of those are small groups, but both make a lot more sense than the 'God is still filled with wrath but reconciled when we reconcile Him' or however that bunch of gobble-de-gook goes group you seem to represent. You have your wrath - I'll take the Gospel. I can't MAKE you think. I'm still trying to figure out the basis for your universalism - does God pour out enough wrath and torture on people that they finally start liking it?

by **Bob Wilson** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:10 pm

Brother Ran, are we not blessed to be retired and free to quickly repond about theology! I love your first point since my interaction with Lutherans has been frequent and fruitful. Indeed, my most influential current books are by Lutheran N.T. prof, Dr. David Brondos ("Paul on the Cross" and "Fortress Introduction to Salvation"--tho I'm afraid he finds that the consistent Biblical theme is that our redemption has a future component and is not yet fully realized).

But I am intrigued with your assertion that many hold with you that our frequently cited "godliness passages" with the apostles' admonitions to avoid God's judgment are irrelevant for church folk. I'm anxous to really think. Please help me to get out and grasp more than my "gobble-de-gook goes group" by soon providing me the authors & titles of the main theological treatises that share your advocacy of this .

by **RanRan** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:18 pm

Bob Wilson wrote:Brother Ran, are we not blessed to be retired and free to quickly repond about theology! I love your first point since my interaction with Lutherans has been frequent and fruitful. Indeed, my most influential current books are by Lutheran N.T. prof, Dr. David Brondos ("Paul on the Cross" and "Fortress Introduction to Salvation"--tho I'm afraid he finds that the consistent Biblical theme is that our redemption has a future component and is not yet fully realized).

Bob, I'm not retired but I am free. I may be homeless soon given this Michigan economy. But, hey, on to the next adventure. There is nothing not yet fully realized - don't get taken in by the deserving workaholics. The gates above Auschwitz read "Work is Freedom" theologically, that's a mere step above, 'Abandon all hope, yea who enter here" just a mincing words. Enjoy the 'gospel' you etch above your gates.

The entire world of man is in Christ now, as they were in Adam. That's why we are all going to be resurrected. We are the most beautiful of creatures ever (or ever will be) created in His image. Fallible, flawed but like Him, so that He would even preach to us in the place of dead. Every human being is precious and now immortal - which is fitting for His image.

The ontological change in man has occurred. And there's not a damn thing we can do about it. We will worship mankind's hero with all our hearts because He has saved us - both from death and ourselves. The resurrection of mankind looms even for the prideful who think they deserve it. 'The last will be first.' It's going to be a strange parade and don't assume your place in it. I'm not. God loves mankind.

Bob, take your wrath and shove it - because it's all your own, not God's. Try being homeless and loving God. In your world, misfortune is wrath - you didn't grab enough soon enough. Mother Theresa is listening. Your turn.

by **Bob Wilson** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:06 pm

RanRan wrote: the basis for your universalism - God pours out enough torture on people that they finally start liking it

Wow! WHICH LINE gave it away

, that "torture" is where my trust is at? How did I presume that my paper presenting Scriptures about a loving God as the basis for universalism and a non-violent atonement would cleverly disguise my vicious view? How did you see through me and expose my true perversity?

Some say "it takes one to know one." Could it be that your insight that God has a need to propitiate his anger by torturing and abandoning his Beloved Son, as well as violently venting its' wrath on Jews and Jerusalem, enables you to find that my own confidence is in such vindictive retribution?

Ran, I'm afraid my real perverity is pushing the buttons of your wrath. If I have, I hope you can find grace to forgive me. I'm also sorry I presumed you were retired, and to learn that you are without employment. I know that can be painful and I understand Michigan's economy is far worse even than the Inland Empire here in California. I've been without work and without my home for several years.

I'm afraid I've failed to convey a clear view of my own faith, but I am deeply glad that you share in a rich hope. You are more than right that we share in the ceaseless love of a great hero. I am grateful to you for providing a human face in the midst of our invigorating theological back and forth. In all honesty, while you can see that I formulate the Biblical message in different words and love to debate, your own way of strongly affirming that God's love has secured grace and blessing for everyone of his beloved is grand, and in my view far superior to 99% of the perspectives and attitudes that I observe in the Christian world.

Grace be with you, Bob

by **RanRan** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 9:56 am

Bob Wilson wrote:Some say "it takes one to know one." Could it be that your insight that God has a need to propitiate his anger by torturing and abandoning his Beloved Son, as well as violently venting its' wrath on Jews and Jerusalem, enables you to find that my own confidence is in such vindictive retribution?

Thanks for the nice post, Bob.

God did not torture His Son - we did. God did abandon His Son to death and said so. He did violently vent His stored up wrath and vengeance on the Jews and Jerusalem (not mankind in general) - He said he would do that and we have a record that He did do that and on His timetable. That needed to happen and, indeed, had to happen because 'all scripture must be fulfilled.'

Death is not wrath - it's the separation of spirit and body. Christ has fixed that 'unnatural condition' and considers it man's last enemy which He conquered.

God is not angry now - both because His wrath has been poured out and His justice is satisfied by the removal of sin by His Son. So we see both the end of His anger and the removal of it's cause.

by **Bob Wilson** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:34 am

I really appreciated your reply and clarifications. Your distinction between our torturing and God's is a huge common ground (also your distinction between death and wrath). Maybe our other difference about God's presence at the cross is semantic. I do see God surrendered or "gave up" Jesus to death, but for the same reasons as Jason I wouldn't put it that the Biblical thrust is that he "abandoned" Jesus. I see the Biblical context of Jesus' "forsaken" quotation as one not to be ignored. Again, FWIW, when I say that the word, "wrath," conveys God's opposition to evil, I don't think of God as a torturer, or as one who needs to deal with "anger" (perhaps because I associate anger with a problematic human emotion).

Your line that "God's justice is satisfied by the removal of sin" is word for word the theme of my paper on atonement that you responded to. But I do perceive that we see the cross's role in the removal of sin differently. Since you said I was wrong that we remain in "this evil age," does it follow that you think sin and evil are now only illusions? In my perception, even some of our economic travail could involve the reality that sin and greed continue to be forces during the age of "this world." So, most important, in what sense do you think there has been a "removal of sin"?

All the best to you,
Bob

by **RanRan** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:11 am

Bob Wilson wrote:...does it follow that you think sin and evil are now only illusions?

In the sense that sin and evil are not eternal. Yes. Goodness and love are real and everlasting because that's what God is. Heaven is real and we will be real but sin and evil will be gone - there never was any substance to evil, except by comparison.

Sin and evil is 'real' to us now, just as our forgiveness is real - not an illusion - but a time will come when both sin and evil will go 'poof' along with our guilt which can seem very real at times.

by **Bob Wilson** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:30 pm

Yes, I like your language and could use the same words. Though what Christians would disagree that evil is not as eternal as God? I also agree that "evil is real for us now." Thus as I inquired above, I am a crazy minority skeptical that the Biblical language is that the cross means "sin has already been removed," or that it was a transaction that changed the ontological nature of God or humanity or the universe. If you mean that the cross "demonstrates" that God loves us, and assures our faith that He forgives us, and ultimately as you say "a time will come" when evil is removed, that would be my language. What more does it mean that God is already satisfied that sin has been removed? My impression is that we and God look forward to the day when sin is no longer real, and is in every sense removed.

by **RanRan** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:37 pm

Bob Wilson wrote:I am a crazy minority skeptical that the Biblical language is that the cross means "sin has already been removed," or that it was a transaction that changed the ontological nature of God or humanity or the universe.

Ontologically, both God and mankind has been changed. Past tense.

God has a body now - a human resurrected body. Big change.

Mankind, on the other hand, finds itself in the first of the resurrected - Christ. Whereas, previously, mankind was in Adam - sinning and being given (abandoned) over to death from which there was no escape. That's a huge ontological change for mankind and it became a reality the moment Christ was resurrected. Just as Adam was not and then he was. i.e. a fiat.

As far as the universe goes, and if there are other human beings on other planets, the word will surely go there - perhaps delivered by us!

by **Bob Wilson** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:42 pm

Yes, I must admit that your view that the Bible is about an ontological change in God (and us), is held by the overwhelming majority of Christians with which I converse! I frankly find little support for my own sense that God's nature and loving character toward humanity is fundamentally steady.

Still, however they understand such a 'change' or transaction, I think the majority of Bible students agree with my larger point that it views us as now remaining in a condition of looking forward to that day you mentioned when evil and sin is fully removed in actuality. My own impression is that nothing less than that is the 'justice' or "righteousness" that fully 'satisfies' God. Maranatha!

by **firstborn888** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:55 pm

RanRan wrote:
Bob Wilson wrote:I am a crazy minority skeptical that the Biblical language is that the cross means "sin has already been removed," or that it was a transaction that changed the ontological nature of God or humanity or the universe.

Ontologically, both God and mankind has been changed. Past tense.

God has a body now - a human resurrected body. Big change.

Mankind, on the other hand, finds itself in the first of the resurrected - Christ. Whereas, previously, mankind was in Adam - sinning and being given (abandoned) over to death from which there was no escape. That's a huge ontological change for mankind and it became a reality the moment Christ was resurrected. Just as Adam was not and then he was. i.e. a fiat.

As far as the universe goes, and if there are other human beings on other planets, the word will surely go there - perhaps delivered by us!

Just a reminder that I believe orthodoxy is completely missing the real picture and true meaning of the good news. Christ is symbolic of all mankind. The penalty of eating from the tree is the death which now is manifest in the earth (ie: expulsion from paradise and separation from the conscious presence of God). All God's waves and billows (wrath) pass over the son of man for three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The resurrection is awakening from that death into the paths of life.

Ps. 16:11 You will show me the path of life; In Your presence is fullness of joy; At Your right hand are pleasures forevermore.

by **RanRan** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:34 am

Bob Wilson wrote:Still, however they understand such a 'change' or transaction, I think the majority of Bible students agree with my larger point that it views us as now remaining in a condition of looking forward to that day you mentioned when evil and sin is fully removed in actuality. My own impression is that nothing less than that is the 'justice' or "righteousness" that fully 'satisfies' God. Maranatha!

If Christ were to return today - we would all be changed instantaneously. In the 'twinkling of eye' as Paul put it. So to say that sin is not totally removed because people continue to sin is to miss what has happened. Christ has taken away the sins of the world and is not counting mankind's sins against them. What can we possibly provide in that instant, that hasn't already been provided? Christ's righteousness for our sins. How does one improve upon that trade?

So to say that sin is not actually removed is to say that Christ was not actually sacrificed and making Him the illusion and not sin itself. Nothing can harm us - He speaks often to us as though we were already resurrected.

'Where there is no law, there is no sin.' That's a reminder of the illusionary quality of sin. If you look at Christ's depiction of the Judgment (Matt 25) - it's not about sin, it's not about faith, it's in how we advanced His Kingdom - cups of water given or not given.

by **Bob Wilson** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:29 pm

Ran, I think we differ on how to balance Paul's past and yet future tense accounts of salvation. I agree that "nothing (ultimately) can harm us," and that in God our salvation is secure. But based I think on Pauline language, you again suggest that evil now is "illusionary" and oppose me in saying that God's righteousness remains to be completed, or that "sin is not already totally removed." But you seem to favor selected verses over others (at least after AD 70).

You say that God "trades" "Christ's righteousness for our sins." Yet you rightly cite Jesus' words that we will be judged according to whether our love "advanced God's kingdom." Indeed, He also says, "I have not come to abolish the law," for until "your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes, you can't enter God's kingdom... If you want to enter eternal life, keep God's commands (Matt. 19:16f; 16:27).

It appears to me that Paul lines up with Jesus: "God will repay everyone according to what they have done... Those who persist in doing good... He will give eternal life.. It is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous!" (Rom. 2:6-13). "Keeping God's commands is what counts... Wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 7:19; 6:9).

This kind of consistent theme in 100's of passages makes me uncomfortable with saying that Paul's glorious past tense affirmations mean that nothing more is vital to be accomplished, or that since the cross & 70AD, God is satisfied with Christ's goodness in place of working that out in our lives as we "advance God's kingdom." Neither Paul nor Jesus give me the impression that there is a substitute for that.

by **firstborn888** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 2:50 am

To all: God is not holding anyone's wrongdoings against them. He ONLY seeks to disperse darkness with light. The wrath and atonement and punishment threads proved this as no one could give me one definitive answer as to how God is punishing humans. Except that they were just sure that sometimes it is definitely God wrathing people when things go really wrong (!). Except of course, that He also blesses the unjust as well as the just.

How can anyone follow such an ambiguous system :?:

To Ranran: You (of all people) are waiting for Christ's return? As hard as it is bro. we need to let go of fairytale solutions in favor of God's present reality. Taking this literalistic approach to the resurrection will get mankind nowhere. The path of life. That's what it's all about.

You are right - God speaks to us as if we are already resurrected. There's a reason for that

The night was far spent - the day was at hand in Paul's day. YOU KNOW THIS! You are so close but keep coming up against this wall of orthodoxy and literalism.

To all: There is no 'sin' people. The law was feeble and weak (through the flesh) and so passed away with the announcement of a 'better hope' (vast understatement). The only judgement is to judge our egos DEAD because of sin and our spirits ALIVE unto God because of (His) righteousness - end of story. All else is senseless struggle, dead religion and madness.

Faith comes alive causing you to believe this truth and then you will experience the fullness of resurrection (escape from the lie of separation which is spiritual death).

Joy unspeakable and full of glory.

Who is online