The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Penal Substitution & Universalism

Theology Soteriology
#61

Bob Wilson wrote: And if I agree with you that “disbelief” would leave us with our sins…

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?

#62

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.”

#63

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.

#64

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.

#65

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.

#66

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.

#67

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

#68

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.

#69

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?

#70

“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.

#71

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.

#72

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.

#73

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

#74

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?

#75

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

#76

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.

#77

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.

#78

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!

#79

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.

#80

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