DISQUS

Dude,

That was an amazing piece of satire. I actually did a google on it to see if it was true before I noticed the "satire" comment. However, I am REALLY scared that I actually thought that it could be true... That's it! I could be true. Too many of us pastors are drinking the red kool-aid and bowing at the "success" or die god and missing the kingdom message all together - and it scares the shit out of me as a pastor as well... God, please keep us from this!

Dude,

That was an amazing piece of satire. I actually did a google on it to see if it was true before I noticed the "satire" comment. However, I am REALLY scared that I actually thought that it could be true... That's it! I could be true. Too many of us pastors are drinking the red kool-aid and bowing at the "success" or die god and missing the kingdom message all together - and it scares the shit out of me as a pastor as well... God, please keep us from this!

And to think...

I've been busting my hump to find out what Jesus wants us to do...

How could I have gotten it so backward?

And to think...

I've been busting my hump to find out what Jesus wants us to do...

How could I have gotten it so backward?

Dude,


That was an amazing piece of satire. I actually did a google on it to see if it was true before I noticed the "satire" comment. However, I am REALLY scared that I actually thought that it could be true... That's it! I could be true. Too many of us pastors are drinking the red kool-aid and bowing at the "success" or die god and missing the kingdom message all together - and it scares the shit out of me as a pastor as well... God, please keep us from this!

And to think...


I've been busting my hump to find out what Jesus wants us to do...



How could I have gotten it so backward?

What a great post! I simply loved it, and now, I will have a great reason to live here in this frozen tundra. Blessings on you, my friend!

Trike

What a great post! I simply loved it, and now, I will have a great reason to live here in this frozen tundra. Blessings on you, my friend!

Trike

What a great post! I simply loved it, and now, I will have a great reason to live here in this frozen tundra. Blessings on you, my friend!


Trike

DUDE - I COULD NOT AGREE MORE!!!

Smoke em if you got em!

Ya know, I don't smoke regularly - and I like the clean air and all. And, simply - it AIN'T GOOD FOR YA!!But hey, this is frickin' REEDICKULOUS!! Are we going to outlaw Big Macs, the sun, Rosie O'Donnell (causing heart attacks to conservatives), Rush Limbaugh (same to liberals), lawn darts and fireworks (guess we already did that).

Prohibition doesn't work. And, to quote you, "it isn't a great moral evil." It just smell and causes others to dislike you (so does farting - but I do it regularly!

Trike

DUDE - I COULD NOT AGREE MORE!!!

Smoke em if you got em!

Ya know, I don't smoke regularly - and I like the clean air and all. And, simply - it AIN'T GOOD FOR YA!!But hey, this is frickin' REEDICKULOUS!! Are we going to outlaw Big Macs, the sun, Rosie O'Donnell (causing heart attacks to conservatives), Rush Limbaugh (same to liberals), lawn darts and fireworks (guess we already did that).

Prohibition doesn't work. And, to quote you, "it isn't a great moral evil." It just smell and causes others to dislike you (so does farting - but I do it regularly!

Trike

DUDE - I COULD NOT AGREE MORE!!!


Smoke em if you got em!



Ya know, I don't smoke regularly - and I like the clean air and all. And, simply - it AIN'T GOOD FOR YA!!But hey, this is frickin' REEDICKULOUS!! Are we going to outlaw Big Macs, the sun, Rosie O'Donnell (causing heart attacks to conservatives), Rush Limbaugh (same to liberals), lawn darts and fireworks (guess we already did that).



Prohibition doesn't work. And, to quote you, "it isn't a great moral evil." It just smell and causes others to dislike you (so does farting - but I do it regularly!



Trike

Okay, I'm an airhead - I've already posted this last post on the other site - dude, I am so 42! No need to reply, Mark - you already did on the other post:

Okay, I'm an airhead - I've already posted this last post on the other site - dude, I am so 42! No need to reply, Mark - you already did on the other post:

Okay, I'm an airhead - I've already posted this last post on the other site - dude, I am so 42! No need to reply, Mark - you already did on the other post:

God hates sin so much that he wants to send us to hell. Which is eternal torture at God’s hands. And so, he poured out all of his hatred, anger, venomous rage, and grumpiness on Jesus. His anger was so bad that it demanded blood. And Jesus was born for just that reason–to shed his blood to assuage God’s anger.

Mark, man, that is a pretty easy 'straw man' to knock down about the reformed view of the atonement. Pretty unfair, I would say...

Again, I think you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth - you bash the reformers view of penal substitution, yet you said it satisifies the sin and even the anger of God. I am seriously confused. Are you refusing to put yourself into categories to avoid argumentation, or are you trying to be more 'comprehensive' in your view of the atonement?

I too do not like the oversimplification of the gospel message to just the vicarious atonement - however, it is the MOST IMPORTANT PART!

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, (1 Corinthians 15:3, 4, NAS95).

16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. (1 Corinthians 15:16, 17, NAS95).

16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:16-18, NAS95).

Not to be that guywho puts proof texts into his commnets, but I really do see as primary importance the removal of our sins and the wrath of God (which is significant, powerful and aweful (see hell).

Is the gospel more than justification and imputation? Absolutely!!! It is so much more!!! And that is where many evangelicals err, and I agree with you - it is frustrating. Our incredible union with Jesus is so much more now than just getting our sins taken care of - adoption into his family, care for the least of these, environmental issues, justice, love, righteous anger over injustice, etc. However, the atonment is NEVER LESS than justification and imputation.

It seems to me, by your posts that you are trying to elevate the other (correct) view of the atonemnt and (for some reason I don't fully understand) take the reformed view of justification and downplay it or even dismiss it.

Just one man's morning thoughts. Thanks for the posts and I look forward to continued discussion.

By the way, where did my previous post on this issue go?

God hates sin so much that he wants to send us to hell. Which is eternal torture at God’s hands. And so, he poured out all of his hatred, anger, venomous rage, and grumpiness on Jesus. His anger was so bad that it demanded blood. And Jesus was born for just that reason–to shed his blood to assuage God’s anger.

Mark, man, that is a pretty easy 'straw man' to knock down about the reformed view of the atonement. Pretty unfair, I would say...



Again, I think you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth - you bash the reformers view of penal substitution, yet you said it satisifies the sin and even the anger of God. I am seriously confused. Are you refusing to put yourself into categories to avoid argumentation, or are you trying to be more 'comprehensive' in your view of the atonement?



I too do not like the oversimplification of the gospel message to just the vicarious atonement - however, it is the MOST IMPORTANT PART!

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, (1 Corinthians 15:3, 4, NAS95).

16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. (1 Corinthians 15:16, 17, NAS95).

16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:16-18, NAS95).

Not to be that guywho puts proof texts into his commnets, but I really do see as primary importance the removal of our sins and the wrath of God (which is significant, powerful and aweful (see hell).



Is the gospel more than justification and imputation? Absolutely!!! It is so much more!!! And that is where many evangelicals err, and I agree with you - it is frustrating. Our incredible union with Jesus is so much more now than just getting our sins taken care of - adoption into his family, care for the least of these, environmental issues, justice, love, righteous anger over injustice, etc. However, the atonment is NEVER LESS than justification and imputation.



It seems to me, by your posts that you are trying to elevate the other (correct) view of the atonemnt and (for some reason I don't fully understand) take the reformed view of justification and downplay it or even dismiss it.



Just one man's morning thoughts. Thanks for the posts and I look forward to continued discussion.



By the way, where did my previous post on this issue go?

God hates sin so much that he wants to send us to hell. Which is eternal torture at God’s hands. And so, he poured out all of his hatred, anger, venomous rage, and grumpiness on Jesus. His anger was so bad that it demanded blood. And Jesus was born for just that reason–to shed his blood to assuage God’s anger.

Mark, man, that is a pretty easy 'straw man' to knock down about the reformed view of the atonement. Pretty unfair, I would say...

Again, I think you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth - you bash the reformers view of penal substitution, yet you said it satisifies the sin and even the anger of God. I am seriously confused. Are you refusing to put yourself into categories to avoid argumentation, or are you trying to be more 'comprehensive' in your view of the atonement?

I too do not like the oversimplification of the gospel message to just the vicarious atonement - however, it is the MOST IMPORTANT PART!

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, (1 Corinthians 15:3, 4, NAS95).

16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. (1 Corinthians 15:16, 17, NAS95).

16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:16-18, NAS95).

Not to be that guywho puts proof texts into his commnets, but I really do see as primary importance the removal of our sins and the wrath of God (which is significant, powerful and aweful (see hell).

Is the gospel more than justification and imputation? Absolutely!!! It is so much more!!! And that is where many evangelicals err, and I agree with you - it is frustrating. Our incredible union with Jesus is so much more now than just getting our sins taken care of - adoption into his family, care for the least of these, environmental issues, justice, love, righteous anger over injustice, etc. However, the atonment is NEVER LESS than justification and imputation.

It seems to me, by your posts that you are trying to elevate the other (correct) view of the atonemnt and (for some reason I don't fully understand) take the reformed view of justification and downplay it or even dismiss it.

Just one man's morning thoughts. Thanks for the posts and I look forward to continued discussion.

By the way, where did my previous post on this issue go?

I find everything sexual...but I digress...


Here's what I mean. In his post on The Retribution of God about Chalke's book, Mark states the traditional evangelical view of propitiation as:



"If Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins, and the reason my sins are such a big deal is that they warrent death and wrath. In the end, the Big Consequence for my sins is Hell–which is the eternal pouring out of God’s hot wrath. I need the Cross to save me from God’s hot wrath. Any attempt to diminish or deny this view is an assault on the very Gospel itself!"



Then he goes on to describe his view as:



"Want to know what I think? I think the penal substitutionary view of the Atonement as it currently is articulated by conservative evangelicals is a profound distortion of the Biblical telling. Basically, evangelicals tend to have a bad habit of reading things through bad lenses. When you read the Old Testament and the Gospels through Paul, who you read through the lense of Luther or Calvin, who you read through the lense of American Evangelicalism, who you read through the lense of individualism, you’re going to see things off kilter."



Then in this post he states that the atonement is both propitiation and now about having victory over those things that kept us from loving God and neighbor, and that one must start with that view in order to be missional (which completely doesn't follow in my simple Iron Range, Public School trained mind - toss me a bone on why it is missional to hold Christus Victor?)



I couldn't agree more that the atonement is the cornerstone of the Christian worldview and faith. However, I am one of those crazy, mystical guys who thinks that God can actually have multiple purposes and emotions at the same time (intense love and hot wrath, his desire to be glorified and our desire to be forgiven and fulfilled, him being just and merciful - etc.)



The reason I get there is (WARNING - OVERSIMPLIFICATION COMING!!) from the Bible:



God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished... Romans 3:25



For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Hebrews 2:17



16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. (John 3:16-19, NIV).



That's enough for now...



Thoughts?



Trike

I find everything sexual...but I digress...

Here's what I mean. In his post on The Retribution of God about Chalke's book, Mark states the traditional evangelical view of propitiation as:

"If Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins, and the reason my sins are such a big deal is that they warrent death and wrath. In the end, the Big Consequence for my sins is Hell–which is the eternal pouring out of God’s hot wrath. I need the Cross to save me from God’s hot wrath. Any attempt to diminish or deny this view is an assault on the very Gospel itself!"

Then he goes on to describe his view as:

"Want to know what I think? I think the penal substitutionary view of the Atonement as it currently is articulated by conservative evangelicals is a profound distortion of the Biblical telling. Basically, evangelicals tend to have a bad habit of reading things through bad lenses. When you read the Old Testament and the Gospels through Paul, who you read through the lense of Luther or Calvin, who you read through the lense of American Evangelicalism, who you read through the lense of individualism, you’re going to see things off kilter."

Then in this post he states that the atonement is both propitiation and now about having victory over those things that kept us from loving God and neighbor, and that one must start with that view in order to be missional (which completely doesn't follow in my simple Iron Range, Public School trained mind - toss me a bone on why it is missional to hold Christus Victor?)

I couldn't agree more that the atonement is the cornerstone of the Christian worldview and faith. However, I am one of those crazy, mystical guys who thinks that God can actually have multiple purposes and emotions at the same time (intense love and hot wrath, his desire to be glorified and our desire to be forgiven and fulfilled, him being just and merciful - etc.)

The reason I get there is (WARNING - OVERSIMPLIFICATION COMING!!) from the Bible:

God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished... Romans 3:25

For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Hebrews 2:17

16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. (John 3:16-19, NIV).

That's enough for now...

Thoughts?

Trike

I find everything sexual...but I digress...

Here's what I mean. In his post on The Retribution of God about Chalke's book, Mark states the traditional evangelical view of propitiation as:

"If Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins, and the reason my sins are such a big deal is that they warrent death and wrath. In the end, the Big Consequence for my sins is Hell–which is the eternal pouring out of God’s hot wrath. I need the Cross to save me from God’s hot wrath. Any attempt to diminish or deny this view is an assault on the very Gospel itself!"

Then he goes on to describe his view as:

"Want to know what I think? I think the penal substitutionary view of the Atonement as it currently is articulated by conservative evangelicals is a profound distortion of the Biblical telling. Basically, evangelicals tend to have a bad habit of reading things through bad lenses. When you read the Old Testament and the Gospels through Paul, who you read through the lense of Luther or Calvin, who you read through the lense of American Evangelicalism, who you read through the lense of individualism, you’re going to see things off kilter."

Then in this post he states that the atonement is both propitiation and now about having victory over those things that kept us from loving God and neighbor, and that one must start with that view in order to be missional (which completely doesn't follow in my simple Iron Range, Public School trained mind - toss me a bone on why it is missional to hold Christus Victor?)

I couldn't agree more that the atonement is the cornerstone of the Christian worldview and faith. However, I am one of those crazy, mystical guys who thinks that God can actually have multiple purposes and emotions at the same time (intense love and hot wrath, his desire to be glorified and our desire to be forgiven and fulfilled, him being just and merciful - etc.)

The reason I get there is (WARNING - OVERSIMPLIFICATION COMING!!) from the Bible:

God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished... Romans 3:25

For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Hebrews 2:17

16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. (John 3:16-19, NIV).

That's enough for now...

Thoughts?

Trike

i like the picture... glad I'm married!


Anyway, I don't disagree with your assessment, except for the fact that you seem to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth - in that in previous posts you rail against the traditional view of penal substitution and the wrath of God being satisfied, but here acknowledge it.



My whole deal is that the gospel is a WHOLE LOT more than the penal substitution of the Father's wrath upon the Son for the reconcilliation of humans, but certainly never LESS. I see a loss of this precious doctrine in much of the writing of today on the Atonement. Perhaps this is a reaction to the single lens look at the cross many have had, but it is the baby and must not go down the drain with all the other baby poo of underemphasis of other beautiful aspects of our Lord's passion (you supply the mental imagry and smell associate with that on your own!).



My main idea is that you can never OVER emphasize penal substitution - you just must elevate all the other elements of the cross as well:



Christus Victor

Christus Exemplar

Revelation

Expiation

Justification

Imputation

etc.



Thoughts?



Trike

i like the picture... glad I'm married!

Anyway, I don't disagree with your assessment, except for the fact that you seem to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth - in that in previous posts you rail against the traditional view of penal substitution and the wrath of God being satisfied, but here acknowledge it.

My whole deal is that the gospel is a WHOLE LOT more than the penal substitution of the Father's wrath upon the Son for the reconcilliation of humans, but certainly never LESS. I see a loss of this precious doctrine in much of the writing of today on the Atonement. Perhaps this is a reaction to the single lens look at the cross many have had, but it is the baby and must not go down the drain with all the other baby poo of underemphasis of other beautiful aspects of our Lord's passion (you supply the mental imagry and smell associate with that on your own!).

My main idea is that you can never OVER emphasize penal substitution - you just must elevate all the other elements of the cross as well:

Christus Victor
Christus Exemplar
Revelation
Expiation
Justification
Imputation
etc.

Thoughts?

Trike

i like the picture... glad I'm married!

Anyway, I don't disagree with your assessment, except for the fact that you seem to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth - in that in previous posts you rail against the traditional view of penal substitution and the wrath of God being satisfied, but here acknowledge it.

My whole deal is that the gospel is a WHOLE LOT more than the penal substitution of the Father's wrath upon the Son for the reconcilliation of humans, but certainly never LESS. I see a loss of this precious doctrine in much of the writing of today on the Atonement. Perhaps this is a reaction to the single lens look at the cross many have had, but it is the baby and must not go down the drain with all the other baby poo of underemphasis of other beautiful aspects of our Lord's passion (you supply the mental imagry and smell associate with that on your own!).

My main idea is that you can never OVER emphasize penal substitution - you just must elevate all the other elements of the cross as well:

Christus Victor
Christus Exemplar
Revelation
Expiation
Justification
Imputation
etc.

Thoughts?

Trike

I , too, look forward to your comments on this issue, although I think we seriously disagree. I think the cross and vicarious, penal, substitutionary atonement is the pinnacle of all of the faith, proclaimed loudly through the resurrection. "I came preaching Christ, and him crucified." I must confess, this is a biggie with me, and would love to enter the conversation to make sure I am hearing you correctly.