John Loftus has again commented on my refutation of his questions concerning substitutionary atonement:
Listen up. Before we sinned, or before Adam & Eve sinned, what kind of relationship would you describe God had with his creatures? Did he care for his creation? Did he love his creation? Did he wish for the absolute bery best for his creation? It sure sounds like a metaphor for a father-child relationship to me. At least it is a loving relationsship, right?
Now, go back and re-read my comments on sin and forgiveness, re-read the parable of the lost son. And consider my posts all over again
Loftus teaches us how to not interact with your opponent. He fails to tell me why God should act as a Father to his enemies, to those whom he hates, to those who are hostile toward him. He fails to address the Biblical doctrines concerning the wrath of God and the nature of fallen man, and yet Loftus is attempting to respond to a Biblical principle. The problem is that Loftus lacked an adequate understanding of the gospel even in the days he professed to be a Christian. Such a fact should not surprise us (1 Cor 2:14).
“Listen up.”
Yes sir!
“Before we sinned, or before Adam & Eve sinned, what kind of relationship would you describe God had with his creatures?”
The relationship between God and man was a relationship that was untainted by sin. I would not call it a Father/son relationship, because that is a benefit that comes solely through the gospel. But it was a covenantal relationship. It was a Covenant of Works: God gave the command, and it was the duty of man to obey the command. This covenant ended, however, when man sinned.
But you aren’t seriously equating the relationship between God and man prior to the fall with the relationship between God and man after the fall, are you? You aren’t arguing that because God’s position towards man was a position of love rather than wrath before the fall that after man is dead in sin it must remain the same, are you?
“Did he care for his creation? Did he love his creation?”
Yes, he did. And this is relevant to God’s wrath against sinners…how?
“Did he wish for the absolute bery best for his creation?”
Did God want only “da bery, bery best” for his creation? It depends upon how you define “the absolute bery best.” God wanted his glory to be revealed to his elect, and he accomplished this through his sovereign purpose.
But what does this have to do with God’s infinite wrath against sinners?
“It sure sounds like a metaphor for a father-child relationship to me. At least it is a loving relationsship, right?”
I would disagree that it is a “metaphor for a father-child relationship.” But I would agree that it was indeed a loving relationship, that is, before man expressed his hatred for God through his sin.
Remember, folks, all of this is in response to my statements concerning Loftus’ applying the Fatherly relationship with unregenerate, unadopted sinners. When we remember my statements, we realize how ridiculous Loftus’ questions are. Loftus had stated, “Your God is primarily a judge and not a father.” To which I had replied:
Loftus alludes to the notion that God is “father” a few times in his response (he compares a “creator who cares for us” with a just judge (and Loftus has yet to tell us why God’s just demand for punishment for sin is “harsh and demanding,” apart from his own personal opinions about it). But these statements of his simply show how misinformed he was about Christianity even before he left the faith. Does Loftus honestly believe that Christians think that the relationship between God and all of fallen humanity is that of Father and son? Does Loftus really think that Christians believe that God is the Father of Pharaoh, or that Judas was a child of God? You see, if Loftus had any clue about the religion he is attacking he would know that one must become a child of God (John 1:12), that the Father/son relationship comes only through adoption (Romans 8:15), and that before justification we were all “children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3) and like our father, the Devil, doing his desires (John 8:44). Why should God act as a Father to those who are not his children, and especially to those who are his enemies (Romans 5:10)?
So Loftus’ questions concerning the relationship between God and man prior to the fall have absolutely no relevance here.
“Now, go back and re-read my comments on sin and forgiveness”
No thanks. As a Christian, I don’t practice self-inflicted torture.
“re-read the parable of the lost son”
I’m very familiar with the parable, as well as your misapplication of parabolic literature.
“And consider my posts all over again”
Here’s my charge to you: actually respond to what I have stated.
Listen up! It appears that Loftus confuses the fact that God is our father in the sense that He is responsible for our existence etc. But this is distinguished between the Father/son relationship that only the elect share in.
ReplyDeleteI'm really not interested in forcing the terms father/son relationship on your theology. As far as I can tell, this is a theological discussion that has been raging for centuries.
ReplyDeleteI was interested in your interpretation of a particular passage of scripture, though.
I read one of gene's comments about god's love in which he goes about explaining that the Bible does not really teach that god loves the unregenerate (for some reason, I haven't been able to find it).
If I remember correctly, he left one out that, when I considered myself a Calvinist, always gave me a little trouble.
It's Mark 10:21. The rich young ruler has approached Jesus and claimed that he has kept every one of the mentioned commandments since his youth.
The commentary on Jesus is interesting. It says, "And looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him. . ."
Now, this person was clearly unregenerate. He claimed to have kept the commandments and he ultimately leaves Jesus because he is unwilling to diminish his wealth. Yet, the Bible says that Jesus "felt a love for him."
Is this what John Loftus is getting at when he describes a father/son relationship between god and the unregenerate?
I'm not out to prove anything. I'm not really sure why this matters in the first place, but I am curious about your interpretation of that passage.
I'm really not interested in forcing the terms father/son relationship on your theology.
ReplyDeleteWell, this is very important here. You see, Loftus was objecting to the notion of God's wrath against sin, and he was doing so on the basis that God is a Father. But Scripture no where describes God as Father of the unregenerate, unadopted sinners. We must enter a relationship with the Father and become his child through adoption. Loftus' statements, therefore, are irrelevant.
I read one of gene's comments about god's love in which he goes about explaining that the Bible does not really teach that god loves the unregenerate (for some reason, I haven't been able to find it).
Haven't been able to find that God hates sinners? And you are saying that you used to be a Calvinist?
It's Mark 10:21. The rich young ruler has approached Jesus and claimed that he has kept every one of the mentioned commandments since his youth.
The commentary on Jesus is interesting. It says, "And looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him. . ."
Now, this person was clearly unregenerate. He claimed to have kept the commandments and he ultimately leaves Jesus because he is unwilling to diminish his wealth. Yet, the Bible says that Jesus "felt a love for him."
In Mark 10 we have the context of a young man, who had lived inoffensively (by human standards) inquiring about how to live better. This pleases Jesus. Jesus loves it when young people ask of the way to heaven. So Jesus, in mercy, knowing the heart of the young ruler, tells him to sell all his possessions and give to the poor. This is because Jesus detected in the man an idolatrous love for his possessions, a love that would hinder his reception of the gospel. This simply disheartened the man, and he went away, loving his many possessions.
Calvinism distinguishes between common graces and saving grace. Jesus, being the God-man on earth, dispersed common graces by preaching the gospel in mercy and by healing the sick, etc.
But it would simply be an exegetical error to equate this scene with God’s elective purposes, or to equate Jesus’ common love on earth towards an unregenerate man with the Father’s unique and saving love for his elect in eternity past. Furthermore, it is an exegetical error to isolate a passage (especially a narrative of the ministry of Jesus) and act as if it negates clear and systematic Biblical teaching. Jesus is not disagreeing with Paul in Romans. Jesus knows well God’s wrath against sin.
Is this what John Loftus is getting at when he describes a father/son relationship between god and the unregenerate?
No, Loftus is trying to argue that God’s wrath against sin is unjust, and Loftus is failing miserably.
Loftus: "I used to be a heterosexual, but am a homosexual now, so I really understand you heterosexuals."
ReplyDeleteMe: Well, actually you apparently never were a heterosexual, were you, Mr. Loftus?
EM,
ReplyDeleteI wrote: ". . .for some reason, I haven't been able to find it. . ."
You responded: "Haven't been able to find that God hates sinners? And you are saying that you used to be a Calvinist?"
Sorry, my "it" was a very indefinite pronoun, isn't it?
The "it" I was referring to was gene's comments that I referenced above, not the "god hates sinners" thing. I could not find the comment of his that I had read so I had to recall from memory that he had not mentioned the Mark passage.
When I considered myself a Calvinist, I had no problem with the idea that God hated sinners. I was a camp counselor at a Christian camp one year, and got in trouble for telling some kids after an Arminian presentation of the gospel that the truth of the matter was that "If you are not a believer, God hates you (Psalm 5:5) and the 'wonderful plan' he has for your life is the "fire that is not quenched and the worm that dieth not (Mark 9:48)."
Is that Calvinistic enough for ya? ;)
Anyway, so it seems that you are saying two different things about this "love" Jesus had for the ruler. On the one hand, it seems that you are saying is that Jesus didn't really feel a love for the rich young ruler, but rather, love for "young people [who] ask of the way to heaven."
On the other hand, it seems that you are saying that Jesus is capable of "common love on earth towards an unregenerate man" but that this should not be confused with God's "unique and saving love for his elect in eternity past."
Like I said, though, I really don't care. This seems to be a theological issue and I was simply curious about your interpretation of that one passage.
You wrote: "Loftus is trying to argue that God’s wrath against sin is unjust"
It seems to me that Loftus is simply pointing out that the judicial view of the atonement that most reformed believers hold is an imperfect metaphor.
In human courts, the plantiff is not also the judge. It would be unjust for the judge to "forgive" a defendent without any punishment because the judge is not the one who was harmed.
With your god and your view of judicial atonement, it seems the metaphor is inappropriate. Your god is both the plantiff and the judge. Your god has been sinned against, so it seems that it is in the power of your god to forgive without punishment.
Now, I know about justice! Your god is just must act against sin.
But it seems that this implies that justice and forgiveness are antithetical. It would seem to imply that one cannot be both just and forgive.
Therefore, one can only forgive if one is unjust.
This seems odd, though, to say the least. We admire people who can forgive great injustices. We admire the family who forgives a murderer who takes another family member. We admire the victim of violence who can forgive her assailant, etc.
Couldn't we admire a god who can forgive offenses against him without punishment? Would we really question this god's justice? We don't question other people's justice when they forgive, so why would we question your god's?
Sorry, my “it” was a very indefinite pronoun, isn’t it?
ReplyDeleteThe “it” I was referring to was gene’s comments that I referenced above, not the “god hates sinners” thing. I could not find the comment of his that I had read so I had to recall from memory that he had not mentioned the Mark passage.
Oops. My apologies :-)
When I considered myself a Calvinist, I had no problem with the idea that God hated sinners. I was a camp counselor at a Christian camp one year, and got in trouble for telling some kids after an Arminian presentation of the gospel that the truth of the matter was that “If you are not a believer, God hates you (Psalm 5:5) and the ‘wonderful plan’ he has for your life is the “fire that is not quenched and the worm that dieth not (Mark 9:48).”
Is that Calvinistic enough for ya?
Well, that is different from my gospel presentations.
I certainly don’t tell anyone “God has a wonderful plan for your life, and the gospel is all about discovering that plan.” No, that isn’t what the gospel is about. The gospel is about the Cross of Jesus Christ, and Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice on our behalf to satisfy the wrath of God, and then the effect of the gospel is to discover the joy of his plan.
Anyway, so it seems that you are saying two different things about this “love” Jesus had for the ruler. On the one hand, it seems that you are saying is that Jesus didn’t really feel a love for the rich young ruler, but rather, love for “young people [who] ask of the way to heaven.”
On the other hand, it seems that you are saying that Jesus is capable of “common love on earth towards an unregenerate man” but that this should not be confused with God’s “unique and saving love for his elect in eternity past.”
Like I said, though, I really don’t care. This seems to be a theological issue and I was simply curious about your interpretation of that one passage.
What I meant in this particular exposition was that Jesus’ common love for the rich young ruler is defined as his love for young people who ask of the way to heaven, and this common love that Jesus displays in his ministry should not be confused with God’s sovereign, elective, and saving love for his elect as contrasted with his infinite hatred for the non-elect (by the way, the only way God even loves his elect is through the Cross).
It seems to me that Loftus is simply pointing out that the judicial view of the atonement that most reformed believers hold is an imperfect metaphor.
But he attempts to do this by confusing metaphors. You can’t amalgamate the metaphor of the Father/son relationship between God and his adopted children with the judicial metaphor of justification. Justification and adoption are two different doctrines in Christianity, and Loftus fails to distinguish between them. He also wrongly applies adoption to the whole human race, something the Bible never does.
In human courts, the plantiff is not also the judge. It would be unjust for the judge to “forgive” a defendent without any punishment because the judge is not the one who was harmed.
But in this case, God is the one who is harmed. And to whom is he going to make his case besides himself? For him to appeal to a higher Judge would make him less than God.
With your god and your view of judicial atonement, it seems the metaphor is inappropriate. Your god is both the plantiff and the judge. Your god has been sinned against, so it seems that it is in the power of your god to forgive without punishment.
For God to forgive without punishment would be an unjust act. Furthermore, it does not account for his wrath against sin or his holiness.
Now, I know about justice! Your god is just must act against sin.
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand that statement.
But it seems that this implies that justice and forgiveness are antithetical. It would seem to imply that one cannot be both just and forgive.
No, the Cross is unique in that it marries justice and mercy. Forgiveness comes from justification. Justification is mercy because the sinner himself does not deserve it. You and I do not desire justification. But, it is just in the fact that it is on the basis of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.
In all of this discussion, it seems that the punishment of Christ is being confused with the mercy to the one forgiven. Christ isn’t the one forgiven, and we aren’t the ones punished. It isn’t as if God punishes us and then says “You are forgiven.” That would be justice, but it would not be forgiveness. But that isn’t the case here. Here we have Christ’s taking our punishment, and God’s forgiveness to us based upon Christ.
Therefore, one can only forgive if one is unjust.
The Cross solves this very problem.
This seems odd, though, to say the least. We admire people who can forgive great injustices. We admire the family who forgives a murderer who takes another family member. We admire the victim of violence who can forgive her assailant, etc.
This is forgiveness between two sinners, not forgiveness between a Holy God and a sinner.
Couldn’t we admire a god who can forgive offenses against him without punishment? Would we really question this god’s justice? We don’t question other people’s justice when they forgive, so why would we question your god’s?
Would you admire a Judge who would “forgive” the offense of the one who murdered your friend?
But anyway, God’s isn’t after whether or not we consider him to be just. So whether or not we sinners would not question the justice of a god who would wink at sins is irrelevant. I’m sure you and I would love for a god to do that.
But God is concerned about honoring his own attributes. Not whether or not sinful creatures will answer back to him, when, in fact, they are the clay and he is the Potter and the clay does not have the right to answer back to the Potter (Romans 9).
Evan.