The Mercy of God From the Reformed View

[Arial]

There is much said against Reformed theology that sees the doctrines of election and predestination, effectual grace and definite atonement as not being consistent with God as love and as being merciful. Those who oppose penal substitution also offer up this cry of a God who is love would never do such a thing as punish Christ on the cross. To this last I simply say God was not punishing Christ on the cross. Jesus of His own will went to the cross for that was what pleased the Father in that it would accomplish His purpose, not only in redemption of a people, but of destroying the devil and all his followers forever. But God was not punishing Jesus. Jesus was bearing the punishment for the imputed sin of Adam and the sins of the sinner. That was how He defeated the enemy.

As to the mercy of God, there are two elements to His mercy. There is general mercy for all His creation that shows itself in His not destroying the entire human race long ago. There is mercy in the rain that falls, the sun that shines, the provision and shelter He provides. There is this mercy in His faithfulness to keep the earth's foundations firm; in setting the boundaries of the seas; in His glory being seen in His creation. And don't forget the mercy of His restraining hand that keeps humanity from becoming depraved as it possibly can be; that says to us, thus far and no farther; His mercy in revealing Himself to sinful man and giving us the scriptures for all time and all men. This is love. And this is mercy. If we were to see and recognize for what it is, all His mercies being poured out on creation, and even in our own lives, we could not begin to number them.

But there is another kind of mercy. A special covenantal mercy and love, a mercy and love of relationship, that redeems. We see it in His relationship with Israel, and not the other nations. We hear it in the Psalms of David, for there David is speaking from that covenant relationship. We see in the new covenant it is that same special mercy and love, that personal relating and relationship, going to all nations to those who are in Christ through faith. Our covenant God.

So in the Reformed teaching of election and predestination no damage is done to God as love and no damage is done to His mercy. If He chooses who to save, who to be in covenant with, does that make Him unfair? No. It makes Him give special mercy to them, not because of anything they did, but because of what Jesus did for them. It is unequal but it is not unfair. His love and His mercy did not go anywhere or change. It remains exactly the same.

And we cannot deny that God is love, and that His mercy endures forever. The Bible tells us this is true. It is love when God hates evil and it is love when He destroys evil and all that is evil. It is merciful that He does so. He is not, and cannot be, merciful to evil or love what is evil.

 

[donadams]

Not your op but can you tell me how there can be such a thing as reformed truth or theology
Truth is of divine orihoe can the tradition of men reform it?

Thanks

 

[Arial]

Not your op but can you tell me how there can be such a thing as reformed truth or theology
Truth is of divine orihoe can the tradition of men reform it?

Thanks

The Reformation was not reforming the truths of the Bible. Therefore you present a premise that is a fallacy. And from that premise then ask a question that is itself a fallacy. Since I know that your assertion and question are coming from the Catholic position, your question presumes that any declaration of what it the truth of the Bible is the tradition of men except whatever Catholic doctrine teaches. With no support for that at all, and not even an openness to declare your intent.

If one does not know that this is the position you are coming from, neither your statement or your question make any sense at all---and as you acknowledged, have zero to do with the OP.

In fact, the Reformation was reforming from the traditions of men standing in the seat of authority over all Christian's, calling its traditions and teachings the one true and only church of Christ, and enforcing their position with, to put it politely, a heavy hand. The truth that is in the Bible pertaining to Christ and salvation and His church, were kept out of the hands of the commoners, even to the point of putting to death any who would dare to translate the scriptures into the language of the people so they could read what it said for themselves.

It is the Reformation that changed that.

The OP title is The Mercy of God From the Reformed View, and how that view does not do damage to God as love as if often said, but rather magnifies the love that is in His mercy, while at the same time not ignoring any of the character and attributes of God. Just because the word "reformed" is used is not license to attack the reformation as being the traditions of men----especially since it is only hinted to be so and is never proven to be so.

 

[donadams]

The Reformation was not reforming the truths of the Bible. Therefore you present a premise that is a fallacy. And from that premise then ask a question that is itself a fallacy. Since I know that your assertion and question are coming from the Catholic position, your question presumes that any declaration of what it the truth of the Bible is the tradition of men except whatever Catholic doctrine teaches. With no support for that at all, and not even an openness to declare your intent.

If one does not know that this is the position you are coming from, neither your statement or your question make any sense at all---and as you acknowledged, have zero to do with the OP.

In fact, the Reformation was reforming from the traditions of men standing in the seat of authority over all Christian's, calling its traditions and teachings the one true and only church of Christ, and enforcing their position with, to put it politely, a heavy hand. The truth that is in the Bible pertaining to Christ and salvation and His church, were kept out of the hands of the commoners, even to the point of putting to death any who would dare to translate the scriptures into the language of the people so they could read what it said for themselves.

It is the Reformation that changed that.

The OP title is The Mercy of God From the Reformed View, and how that view does not do damage to God as love as if often said, but rather magnifies the love that is in His mercy, while at the same time not ignoring any of the character and attributes of God. Just because the word "reformed" is used is not license to attack the reformation as being the traditions of men----especially since it is only hinted to be so and is never proven to be so.

No it’s not a fallacy
Theology is the study of God, and God is truth and truth is immutable!

No it changed that not, until the uniform school system of the 20th century most people were illiterate they could not read the scripture in any language
The apostolic authority condemned many faulty translations and even Bible societies not cos they promote the word of God but because they promote errors in relation to it, and the assertion that we just need is for the village idiot to read the scripture for himself and he will be Protestant is absurd as saying the scripture out of context supports the catholic faith and in context the Protestant innovations!

The scripture came from the same teaching authority of Christ in His apostolic church and they opposed in the so-called reformation!

What was reformed?

What authority did the so-called reformers have?

Thanks

 

[Arial]

No it’s not a fallacy
Theology is the study of God, and God is truth and truth is immutable!

No it changed that not, until the uniform school system of the 20th century most people were illiterate they could not read the scripture in any language
The apostolic authority condemned many faulty translations and even Bible societies not cos they promote the word of God but because they promote errors in relation to it, and the assertion that we just need is for the village idiot to read the scripture for himself and he will be Protestant is absurd as saying the scripture out of context supports the catholic faith and in context the Protestant innovations!

The scripture came from the same teaching authority of Christ in His apostolic church and they opposed in the so-called reformation!

What was reformed?

What authority did the so-called reformers have?

Thanks

This entire post fails to substantiate anything it says, therefore it is based on logical fallacies that cannot be addressed because they will only be responded to with more logical fallacies. It is also completely off topic. There are threads for the promotion of and refutation of RCC assertions and this is not one of them. On those two grounds I will not address your post. Please take such conversations and assertions to the thread they belong in or start your own with your own assertions in the denominational specific thread.
Thanks

 

[ReverendRV]

There is much said against Reformed theology that sees the doctrines of election and predestination, effectual grace and definite atonement as not being consistent with God as love and as being merciful. Those who oppose penal substitution also offer up this cry of a God who is love would never do such a thing as punish Christ on the cross. To this last I simply say God was not punishing Christ on the cross. Jesus of His own will went to the cross for that was what pleased the Father in that it would accomplish His purpose, not only in redemption of a people, but of destroying the devil and all his followers forever. But God was not punishing Jesus. Jesus was bearing the punishment for the imputed sin of Adam and the sins of the sinner. That was how He defeated the enemy.

As to the mercy of God, there are two elements to His mercy. There is general mercy for all His creation that shows itself in His not destroying the entire human race long ago. There is mercy in the rain that falls, the sun that shines, the provision and shelter He provides. There is this mercy in His faithfulness to keep the earth's foundations firm; in setting the boundaries of the seas; in His glory being seen in His creation. And don't forget the mercy of His restraining hand that keeps humanity from becoming depraved as it possibly can be; that says to us, thus far and no farther; His mercy in revealing Himself to sinful man and giving us the scriptures for all time and all men. This is love. And this is mercy. If we were to see and recognize for what it is, all His mercies being poured out on creation, and even in our own lives, we could not begin to number them.

But there is another kind of mercy. A special covenantal mercy and love, a mercy and love of relationship, that redeems. We see it in His relationship with Israel, and not the other nations. We hear it in the Psalms of David, for there David is speaking from that covenant relationship. We see in the new covenant it is that same special mercy and love, that personal relating and relationship, going to all nations to those who are in Christ through faith. Our covenant God.

So in the Reformed teaching of election and predestination no damage is done to God as love and no damage is done to His mercy. If He chooses who to save, who to be in covenant with, does that make Him unfair? No. It makes Him give special mercy to them, not because of anything they did, but because of what Jesus did for them. It is unequal but it is not unfair. His love and His mercy did not go anywhere or change. It remains exactly the same.

And we cannot deny that God is love, and that His mercy endures forever. The Bible tells us this is true. It is love when God hates evil and it is love when He destroys evil and all that is evil. It is merciful that He does so. He is not, and cannot be, merciful to evil or love what is evil.

But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.
Isaiah 53:5 NIV

Isaiah 53:5

Isaiah 53:5 - But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.

isaiah.bible

 

[TibiasDad]

Those who oppose penal substitution also offer up this cry of a God who is love would never do such a thing as punish Christ on the cross.

If the rest of your argument is based on this, I need not continue with the rest of the OP. I am certain that there can be someone who has claimed such a thing, but that is certainly not a mainstream objection, and it most certainly isn’t anything that I have ever heard, much less said.

You have framed this as if it is the standard argument for those who question the PSTA, and that is a straw man argument.

Doug

 

[His clay]

If the rest of your argument is based on this, I need not continue with the rest of the OP. I am certain that there can be someone who has claimed such a thing, but that is certainly not a mainstream objection, and it most certainly isn’t anything that I have ever heard, much less said.

You have framed this as if it is the standard argument for those who question the PSTA, and that is a straw man argument.

Doug

Did the poster say that this was a mainstream objection?

If you have not heard it, then your head is in the dirt. At CARM, this was promoted by multiple posters for several weeks if not several months. Many of the objections to PSA can be seen as originating from liberal theology.[1] People have written histories of the voices for and against the doctrine of PSA.[2] It would help you to become aware of what took place at CARM and in the history of theology.

Sadly, while liberal in origin, the various voices have impacted many with the bad arguments. I wish that their arguments did not impact the mainstream. But I don't have that kind of naivete.

Where did that author say that this is a standard argument for those who question PSA? Perhaps it was implied. However, it is certainly an objection PSA deniers have used, and a response is given by various authors.[3] I have also seen the objection used by those who argued against PSA at CARM.

=====================
[1] Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, Andrew Sach. Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution. Crossway Books, Wheaton, 2007. p. 22.
[2] Ibid. p. 21-32.
[3] Ibid. p. 228-235. This is the "cosmic child abuse" objection. And it is the objection that PSA is against a God of love.

 

[Josheb]

Not your op but can you tell me how there can be such a thing as reformed truth or theology
Truth is of divine orihoe can the tradition of men reform it?

Thanks

Are you familiar with basic logic and the elements of forming a rational case for your beliefs?


I ask because this post is a bait and switch, goalpost-moving, red herring that was either posted unawares of its logical failure or posted intentionally to disrupt the op.

Not your op...

Then Rule 3 of the Forum's Rules has been violated, and since Mod 5 recently reminded everyone including you about Rule 3 so we both know you knew better.

...but can you tell me how there can be such a thing as reformed truth or theology[?]

He probably could, but since that is not his op, he too would be violating the forum's rules if he answered the question. More importantly, the op states nothing about "reformed truth." The phrase does not exist in the opening post at all. The op's phrase "Reformed view" has been changed to "Reformed truth." Misrepresenting someone's position and then arguing against the misrepresentation is called a strawman. Strawmen are ALWAYS fallacious. They are NEVER reasonable, rational, or scriptural (and they most definitely come from God).

When theology, the study of God, goes wrong the errors should be corrected. Correcting errors is called reform. This is not rocket science. Everyone knows this. The Reformation was a landmark event in human history. The Protestant Reformation prompted reformation in the Roman Catholic Church and every Catholic knows that to be factually correct. The Reformation began when a Roman Catholic priest became frustrated with unbiblical practices within the Roman Catholic Church and the Church's leaders refusing to correct the errors. In other words, the Reformation was begun by Catholics. So when you ask, "Can you tell me how there can be such a thing as reformed truth or theology?" we all know what is really being asked is how can there be such a thing within Catholicism as reformed truth? ALL the early Reformers were Catholic. The ONLY reason they became Protestants is because the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church became murderous persecutors.

The Roman Catholic Church was selling absolution from sins. There is no truth selling absolution from sin.

Truth is of divine orihoe can the tradition of men reform it?

Selling absolution is a tradition of men and the practice and the theology driving the practice needed and deserved to be reformed.

The sad irony is that mush of what is posted in the op is consistent with Roman Catholic theology, and Christian thought, doctrine, and practice going all the back through the early Church fathers and on into scripture itself. There is, therefore, absolutely no warrant for Post #2.

Not your op but...

No, it is not her op and there are no "buts". Please stick to the topic of discussion, respect your fellow CCAM members and don't undermine their threads.

 

[Josheb]

The Reformation was not reforming the truths of the Bible. Therefore you present a premise that is a fallacy. And from that premise then ask a question that is itself a fallacy.

No it’s not a fallacy

Post 2 is fallacious. It commits fallacies of strawman, moving the goalposts, and red herring.

 

[Josheb]

Those who oppose penal substitution also offer up this cry of a God who is love would never do such a thing as punish Christ on the cross.

If the rest of your argument is based on this..... You have framed this as if it is the standard argument for those who question the PSTA, and that is a straw man argument.

Did the poster say that this was a mainstream objection?

Man, logic is taking a beating tonight!

In point of fact (at least according to Wiki, at least) one of the four most common objections to PTSA is "It is unjust both to punish the innocent and to allow the guilty to go free," and an enormous controversy exists over the view, "The cross isn't a form of cosmic child abuse — A vengeful Father punishing his Son for an offense he has not even committed." So even if the op does not state that is a "standard argument" or a "mainstream objection," it is, in fact, both. Whether others hold different objections or not is irrelevant and the worse that can be said of the op is that perhaps it is not more encompassing (and possibly hyperbolic), and thereby representative of other protests.

Regardless, the fact of scripture is that it pleased the Father to crush His Son on Calvary.

Isaiah 53:4-10
Surely our griefs he himself bore, and our sorrows he carried; yet we ourselves esteemed him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was pierced through for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon him, and by his scourging we are healed.............. But the LORD was pleased to crush him, putting him to grief; if He would render himself as a guilt offering, he will see his offspring, He will prolong his days, and the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

...God who is love would never do such a thing as punish Christ on the cross.

Scripture says otherwise.

2 Corinthians 5:21
He made him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him.

I cannot think of anything more punishing than for an innocent man who has no knowledge of sin whatsoever to be made sin by his Father and that sin include the sins of all humanity.

Leviticus 27:9-10, 33
Now if it is an animal of the kind which men can present as an offering to the LORD, any such that one gives to the LORD shall be holy. He shall not replace it or exchange it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good; or if he does exchange animal for animal, then both it and its substitute shall become holy..... He is not to be concerned whether it is good or bad, nor shall he exchange it; or if he does exchange it, then both it and its substitute shall become holy. It shall not be redeemed.

Hebrews 9:23
Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

Christ is a substitute, a better substitute. It was a punishing experience to be made sin and it pleased God to do so. There is nothing new or different from scripture in this Reformed perspective.

 

[TibiasDad]

Those who oppose penal substitution also offer up this cry of a God who is love would never do such a thing as punish Christ on the cross.

Did the poster say that this was a mainstream objection?

“Those who oppose penal substitution” sure sounds like a generalized statement of majority opinion, thus a mainstream concept.

I, nor anyone I am familiar with, would espouse such a statement, and I don’t recall ever engaging it on CARM in the nine years since I joined the group.

I typically don’t interact with such nonsense, and something that carried on for ‘several weeks or maybe months’ in the course of my time on CARM may not have ever registered on my radar.

Since it was an expression of God’s love that sent Jesus into the world, it cannot follow that God cannot have done such a thing!

My objection to Ariel’s statement is that it is a generalized assertion about non-PSA adherents that does not reflect the reality of my experience or theology.


Doug

 

[Arial]

“Those who oppose penal substitution” sure sounds like a generalized statement of majority opinion, thus a mainstream concept.

It has been my experience that those who oppose penal substitution present their objection to it as an assault on a loving God. What is your objection to it?

My objection to Ariel’s statement is that it is a generalized assertion about non-PSA adherents that does not reflect the reality of my experience or theology.

As I said, it does reflect my experience, which is why I said it. Am I supposed to present what I have to say according to your experience and theology? And is the OP about penal substitution or is it about the mercy of God?

 

[Arial]

If the rest of your argument is based on this, I need not continue with the rest of the OP. I am certain that there can be someone who has claimed such a thing, but that is certainly not a mainstream objection, and it most certainly isn’t anything that I have ever heard, much less said.

You have framed this as if it is the standard argument for those who question the PSTA, and that is a straw man argument.

Doug

That often happens. People find one sentence early in a post and lose all control over their emotions and feel qualified to comment negatively against the post or poster while admitting to not reading it.

A straw man argument would be for me to frame my statements according to your experience rather than my own, and to expect me to do so shows a great deal of self absorption.

 

[Arial]

No, it is not his op and there are no "buts".

Great post. Just a reminder though. I was born a baby girl, grew up a baby girl, am now a woman.

 

[TibiasDad]

That often happens. People find one sentence early in a post and lose all control over their emotions and feel qualified to comment negatively against the post or poster while admitting to not reading it.

A straw man argument would be for me to frame my statements according to your experience rather than my own, and to expect me to do so shows a great deal of self absorption.

I was quite calm and reserved when I wrote my post. If the premise is flawed, then all that is built upon it is flawed.

My arguments against PSTA have never asserted that it is contrary to God being love to have Christ crucified.

A straw man argument is an argument against X, using information about X as the basis for the argument, but said information is not accurate about X. It has very little to do with your experience; which, by the way, was never established in the OP. It was stated as an objective fact.

deleted by mod46 for personal remarks against admin.

As I said to David, I will be traveling out of the country, and am not sure how much I will be able to respond for the next week or so, so forgive any delay in responding.


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

It has been my experience that those who oppose penal substitution present their objection to it as an assault on a loving God. What is your objection to it?

My objections to PSTA is the simple fact that it makes Jesus’s death a one for one substitution and that you infer from that that that person for whom he is substituted is, because of that fact alone, necessarily saved.

It makes all other aspects, such as believing, forgiveness, repentance and confession moot points.

Jesus’s “substitution” was not in place of, but on behalf of all men, and whoever repents, confesses and believes in his work on the cross will be saved. The atonement reconciled God to to world, not the world to God! That is the purpose of the gospel! It is the ministry of reconciliation to preach the gospel to all people.

Doug

 

[Ladodgers6]

If the rest of your argument is based on this, I need not continue with the rest of the OP. I am certain that there can be someone who has claimed such a thing, but that is certainly not a mainstream objection, and it most certainly isn’t anything that I have ever heard, much less said.

You have framed this as if it is the standard argument for those who question the PSTA, and that is a straw man argument.

Doug

Agreed, but PSA is a biblical truth, and without it, we would be condemned for eternity. Christ becoming a curse for us is Christ propitiating the judgement to come, that we deserve. If this judgment is not rendered, then God is not just. Which is why the Last Adam was pierced for our transgressions, to not only redeem us form the curse of God, but to triumph over sin, death, Satan.​

 

[Arial]

My objections to PSTA is the simple fact that it makes Jesus’s death a one for one substitution and that you infer from that that that person for whom he is substituted is, because of that fact alone, necessarily saved.

Is this what you meant? "My objections to PSTA is the simple fact that it makes Jesus' death one of substitution and that you infer from that, that a person for whom He substitutes is, because of that fact alone, saved."

If so, that is quite a conglomeration of word salad that takes only one thing into consideration while at the same time jumbling whole distinct parts of the doctrine of penal substitution and the atonement together. And then expecting a response.

Jesus' death on the cross is a substitution. The Bible tells us so quite plainly. Gal 3:13; 1 Tim 2:5; 1 Peter 3:18; Romans 3:25; 2 Cor 5:21. The animal sacrifices of the OT were a substitution prefiguring Christ. The person for whom He substitutes will be saved. That would be the ones who God gives Him. The sheep He laid down His life for. It is because of that fact alone, (that He substitutes for them)that they will hear the gospel of who Jesus is and what He did, they will believe it, and in believing, they are saved.

It makes all other aspects, such as believing, forgiveness, repentance and confession moot points.

How so?

Jesus’s “substitution” was not in place of, but on behalf of all men, and whoever repents, confesses and believes in his work on the cross will be saved. The atonement reconciled God to to world, not the world to God! That is the purpose of the gospel! It is the ministry of reconciliation to preach the gospel to all people.

In that case it was ineffective to a great degree. Is God reconciled to the world? It is still in the process of being reconciled, one person at a time as they are placed in the One who does the reconciling. What do you say that work on the cross was? What did it do and how did it do it? And what would cause someone dead in tresspasse and sins, bound in slavery to sin, to repent and believe?

 

[Josheb]

....it is a generalized assertion about non-PSA adherents that does not reflect the reality of my experience or theology.

....because we all know how veracious appeals to personal anecdotal experience are. It certainly trumps Wiki .