Saved from wrath

[Sobornost]

Hi 1824

It is funny you mention Van Til. I am a member of the Presbyterian denomination that he and his colleagues started around the same time they left Princeton and to found WTS.

In this circle, Van Til is viewed as one of the (if not “the”) greatest minds of the 20th century. If one is not Van Tillian, it is best he keep it to himself! Especially, don’t say you agree with Clarke!

Well it’s been a long time since I rock and rolled ; but I do remember there was quite a lot of furious ill feeling between Clark and Van Til – and their respective followers -over the different weight given to persuppositional arguments in Christian apologetics (or something like that).

In my view, one of the problems with the Van Tils of this world is they are very isolated from the thinking of other theologians and Christian traditions. It’s not only the fault of van Til and his ilk mind you–other Christians haven’t engaged properly with his arguments to sift them for what has some worth and what does not, and to see how he fits into a bigger story. He’s been largely ignored outside of his circle. It’s always a joy to see a top notch mainstream theologian like Gary Dorrien paying really close attention to van Til as he does in ‘The Remaking of Evangelical Theology – a book that I greatly enjoyed.

Blessings (and listen to your heart as well as your head – the heart sometimes makes leaps that the head takes many years to catch up with. The space given for mystery in other forms of Christianity allows for this, and celebrates this. You’ll be fine

[rowinski]

Thanks for your response. If by rejecting the Satisfaction theory, you are either accepting the Moral Influence theory or the Ransom theory, then I understand why we will never see eye to eye on this.

Thanks,

Dan.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say one needs to reject Satisfaction theory, only that it is an incomplete understanding, as are most atonement theories by themselves.

[AllanS]

This is the heart of the gospel: Justification on the merits of the finished work of Jesus Christ.

The prodigal son was set free from his legal obligations to his father by faith in the finished work of the innocent party (his father) who graciously and willingly suffered in his place. Having been justified, he now will be sanctified by active and willing participation in the loving spirit that unites the members of the household.

But how helpful is this sort of language?

In plain English:

The father says, “You’ve come home!”

The son says, “Look what I’ve done. I’m so sorry for hurting you…”

The father says, “That’s all in the past. It’s done and dusted. Forgotten. We’ll begin afresh! Tomorrow’s a new day!”

The son says, “Yes. Tomorrow will be a new day.”

[SLJ]

It’s not the work of Christ that is a legal fiction, it is the “imputation” of that righteous to sinners that creates the legal fiction. God does not justify the wicked.

Sonia

Then we have no hope. The declaration of Romans 3:11 “There is none righteous” condemns us all.

I wonder if our disagreement is just in the way we’re saying it? I’ll try to describe better what I mean, and you can tell me what you think.

True – on our own we have no hope. I don’t mean to say that we can make ourselves righteous. As Paul says, “who shall deliver me from this body of death?” We are unable.

We are slaves to sin, and Master Sin rewards his slaves with death. But thanks be to God, we have a Savior who comes to set us free.

When I said that God does not justify the wicked, I meant in in the sense we see here:
Exd 23:7 Keep yourself far from a false matter; do not kill the innocent and righteous. For I will not justify the wicked.
Pro 17:15 He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD.

That is that God does not approve of judging a wicked person “innocent” nor will He do what is an abomination to Him.

God will not call a wicked or ungodly person “just” while they remain dead in sin – He justifies the sinner only by making him actually just/righteous.

Jn 8:34ff Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

He sets us free indeed, thus we can be righteous indeed.

The first definition of δικαιόω (justify) here is “set right.”

I believe that is what God does when he justifies sinners – He sets them right, and the beginning of that righteousness is faith. (Perhaps you would call this “regeneration”?)

So when it says that Abraham’s faith was counted or credited to him as righteousness, it was because faith really is righteousness.

I hope that clarifies my view a bit. (And let me add, I consider my understanding of this, and all things, a work in progress – I’m a student, not a teacher.)

Sonia

[Matt_Wiley]

Wild discussion here… but a little too theological for me

And I’m one of those more ‘liberal’ folks (though I’m not sure how one would define liberal or conservative when it comes to one’s beliefs… one man’s liberal may be another man’s conservative, and vice versa ) that likes to hang around here 'cuz it’s a cool place, and the people are friendly, and not necessarily 'cuz I could comfortably take on the label of ‘evangelical’ (though I could comfortably take on the label of ‘universalist’), so I might not really fit into a discussion such as this

By the way, welcome 1824, not sure if I said hi yet

I can relate to your struggle with trusting God’s character and heart, even if our backgrounds and viewpoints and ways of thinking are different. I’ve been through the ringer of fear and doubt and anger and confusion about that too.

Hang in there bro, you’re not alone, and I believe the God who is Love is with you

Blessings

Matt

[SLJ]

Dan,
I finally read through this thread in detail and saw this:

I’m thinking that if there is one theological concept that my church might consider “worse” than universalism it would be the denial of penal substitution.

To be honest, it is not something that I really I want to think about at this time. Isn’t one “heresy” enough for the moment?

Forgive me for pushing a topic you didn’t want to discuss.

It is indeed a big issue. I’ve discussed my universalism at least a little bit with several of the pastors at my church, but I have never brought up atonement issues – definitely one heresy at a time!

When I first started investigating UR, it never occurred to me to question PSA – it was probably a couple of years at least before I did.

Sonia

[Paidion]

Mikhail Hany, a Coptic Orthodox teacher explains that penal substitution is not a teaching of the historic church but came about in the middle ages in Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.

Here is the first talk in a series of 12, entitled “Divine Justice”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCjS0YvXeRc