The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Original post deleted

Deleted originally post.

I’m not convinced that being a just being requires punishment. One gains retributive rights when one has been wronged, but I don’t thinking choosing not to exercise these rights would make the one who has been wronged unjust. So I don’t see why God remaining just in light of human sinfulness would be conditional on him punishing someone, in the case of penal substitution, sinless Jesus.

1 Like

deleted post

deleted

Chris, I know you addressed these words to Qaz, but I want you to know that I read your posts, but failed to understand them, in spite of the fact that I graduated from university with a Bachelor of Science degree, and then took an additional year at university beyond that.

All I can say is that if God were “satisfied” by punishing His Son instead of us guilty human beings and allowing Him to be put do death in our place so that we wouldn’t have to receive the death penalty for sin (“the wages of sin is death” Romans 6:23), then God would be unjust indeed!

Would a human father be satisfied to punish one of his fully innocent sons for crimes committed by one of his other sons?

When you read the reasons given in the New Testament for the reasons that Christ died for us, you don’t find that He died in order to satisfy God’s anger so that He wouldn’t punish us, but was happy to punish His innocent Son instead of us. Here are the reasons you do find as given for Christ’s death:

I Peter 2:24 He himself endured 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.

II Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living .

Titus 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds .

Heb 9:26 …he has appeared once for all at the end of the age for the abolition of sin by the sacrifice of himself.

3 Likes

deleted

Maybe it’s the framing that’s problematic? Instead of courtroom analogies, it would be better to have parental analogies, with God as the Parent who absorbs all the sins and consequences His children commit, even His rebellious children. For me, when God is pictured as a judge first and foremost, it makes Him seem distant and unconnected.

Chris, I am a member of a “classical” Reformed church but find myself questioning 400-year old Calvinist dogma. It would really help me as I wrestle with what I believe if you would expand upon your affirmation of “classical Reformed theology”.

Chris, I have master’s and doctoral degrees in Bible and Reformed Theology, but don’t grasp what you advocate. What makes you believe the Father has huge “offense against the Son and the Spirit”? Or that taking out his feeling offended upon Jesus was showing “His love for the Son”?

My impression is more that He is well pleased with the Son. And I find the Bible speaks clearly against punishing the innocent in place of the guilty. Nor do I see anywhere that doing that is something from which God gets satisfaction.

2 Likes

Chris, I don’t think I misunderstood you. What I affirmed is that I failed to understand your posts.
Bob Wilson who is better educated than I, stated that he doesn’t grasp what you advocate either.
Could that possibly indicate that you are not clear in your explanations?

This is not what I said. That would be blasphemy.

deleted

deleted

deleted

A slightly unfair example, don’t you think? That’s a pretty vicious assessment of a man.

If Trump’s actions are so evil, how can he oppose horrendous acts such as late-term abortion, and post-natal destruction of a child? Is that good thought not worth preserving? But perhaps I’m guilty of throwing aside your thoughts

Chris, you might have a good minor point or two, but you’ve got to take the time to spell it out clearly. We’re smart, but we’re not mind-readers.
Why not start by unpacking the quoted statement? No matter how brilliant we are, if we cannot get our ideas across in an understandable manner, noone can benefit from our brilliance.

“(i) It is necessary for a Father of love, to demonstrate His love for the Son and the Spirit, by making all unfathomable depth of offence against them be known.”

Is the offence against the Son and the Spirit human sin?

1 Like

Deleted

deleted

deleted