https://mobile.twitter.com/thekangminlee/status/1382911612147822594?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1382911612147822594%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fnotthebee.com%2Farticle%2Fready-to-hear-the-co-founder-of-blm-trying-to-justify-her-multi-million-dollar-home-buying-spree

There are those in the Christian community who deny that Jesus experienced the wrath of the Father as a substitute for and representative of sinners on the Cross. These people eschew the penal-substitutionary theory of the Atonement preferring instead some other theory of the Atonement such as the Governmental view, the Moral Influence view, or the Ransom to Satan view, or the Christus Victor view.

Loathing for the idea that the Son was a penal substitute for elect sinners has long been articulated. Going at least as far back as Peter Abelard (1079 – 1142) men have chafed at the Anselmian developed idea of the Son undergoing the wrath of the Father in the offering Himself up as a blood sacrifice to pay the penalty for sin. Below is a succinct clip of how Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) explained this in a conversation with his student Boso,

Anselm: So no one except God can make the satisfaction.
Boso: That follows.
Anselm: But no one except humanity ought to do it — otherwise, humanity has not made satisfaction.
Boso: Nothing could be more just.
Anselm: … So if no one except God can make it and no one except man ought to make it, there must be a God-Man to make it.
Boso: Blessed be God.

Abelard who lived concurrently with Anselm wrote of this Anselmian view;

“Indeed how cruel and wicked it seems that anyone should demand the blood of an innocent person as the price for anything, or that it should in any way please him that an innocent man should be slain — still less that God should consider the death of his Son so agreeable that by it he should be reconciled to the whole world?”

And the liberal wing of the Church has followed Abelard on this ever this with much the same complaint. Of course, Abelard’s complaint breaks down as a complaint against both justice and mercy. It is a complaint against justice because Abelard implies that the penalty paid by the only one who could successfully pay it is somehow cruel of God. It is a complaint against mercy because Abelard would not have God convey mercy to others on the basis of the Son paying the penalty for sin.

Of course, what Abelard failed to see then, and what those who hate the penal satisfaction theory of the atonement fail to see now is that God, in the incarnate 2nd person of the Trinity is the one who pays the penalty of sin Himself. God demanded the price be paid (without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin) and it is the God-Man in a display of mercy who pays the price that was justly demanded. Where Abelard is the cruelty and wickedness in that?

Having said that what does the Scripture say about this matter of the Son bearing the Father’s wrath against sin. The Scripture speaks with a clear voice on this matter.

Consider just a few examples.

^{Mark 10:33} “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death and deliver Him to the Gentiles;

1.) The phrase “handed over to the Gentiles,” is a phrase that is pregnant with meaning that when examined pulls back the curtain that the Son endured the Father’s wrath in His death.

In the OT to hand someone over to the nations (Gentiles) was the equivalent of handing them over to God’s wrath. We see this in the way of warning God gave to Israel in its early formation as a promise to Israel should they break His covenant. God promised that He Himself would hand them over to the Gentiles;

^{Leviticus 26:32} I will bring the land to desolation, and your enemies who dwell in it shall be astonished at it.³³ I will scatter you among the nations and draw out a sword after you; your land shall be desolate and your cities waste….³⁸ You shall perish among the nations, and the land of your enemies shall eat you up.

Much later God delivers the same kind of warning and promise to the Northern Kingdom (Hosea 8:10). A promise that was ignored leading to God’s wrath handing them over to the Assyrians.

Though they hire allies among the nations,
I will soon gather them up.
And the king and princes shall soon writhe
because of the tribute.

Judah ignored the Northern Kingdom being handed over and likewise experienced God’s “handing over” wrath  — this time to the Babylonians. When Israel reflected back upon this notice how they spoke about what happened,

And He gave them into the hand of the Gentiles,
And those who hated them ruled over them. (Psalm 106:41)

This reflection is recorded again in Ezra,

^9:7 Since the days of our fathers to this day we have been very guilty, and for our iniquities we, our kings, and our priests have been delivered into the hand of the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, to plunder, and to humiliation,^[a] as it is this day.

The intertestamental period also records this reflection;

“You were sold to the nations, not for destruction, and because you angered God; you were handed over to your enemies.” (Baruch 4:6)

This kind of language is also used during the Maccabean period in the Maccabee’s struggle against their enemies.

When we move beyond the Cross we hear echoes of this “handed over to the Gentiles” type of language in the book of Acts as another way of speaking about God’s wrath.

^{Acts 2:23} Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death;  (cmp. 3:13; 4:27-28)

In Mark 10:33 Jesus states that he “will be delivered to the Gentiles.” As we have seen this is a phrase that has a linguistic history and is the equivalent of saying that he will be delivered over to the wrath of God. Just as Israel and Judah suffered exile being delivered over to the nations as evidence of God’s wrath upon them, so the greater Israel, the suffering servant, was to be handed over into the hands of the nations by Israel’s “leaders.”

When Jesus says that He “will be delivered to the Gentiles,” He is saying that He will be delivered over to the Father’s wrath.

2.) Mark 10:³⁸ But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” (cmp. 14:23-24; 14:36)

Jesus uses the imagery of the cup and it consistently holds a reference to His coming death. The idea of the drinking of the cup, like the phrase “handed over to the Gentiles”, points to the idea of Jesus bearing the wrath of God.

If we consider the OT in passages like Pss. 11:6; 75:8; Hab. 2:16; Isa. 51:17, 22; Ezek. 23:31-34 we see the usage of the “drinking of the cup” as imagery signifying wrath.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=+Psalm+11%3A6%3B+75%3A8%3B+Habakkuk+2%3A16%3B+Isaiah+51%3A17%2C+22%3B+Ezekiel+23%3A31-34&version=NKJV

The imagery of draining a cup to the last dregs is a powerful picture of being forced to swallow the inescapable and just judgment of God’s wrath. Typical of Israel was that she was convinced that the other nations would have to drink this cup but God’s prophets made it clear that she too would drink this cup.

3.) In Mark 10:38 cited above, there is also a parallel reference to the Baptism with which Christ would be baptized. This idea also points us to Jesus enduring the wrath of the Father.

In point of fact as we listen to Jesus’ words in Mark 10:38 referencing Baptism we could well hear the echoes of the Messianic Psalm that is Psalm 69. In Psalm 69 we hear how baptizo was used metaphorically for being overwhelmed with sorrows and trials. In this Psalm, the psalmist uses the image of Baptism for the overwhelming troubles that he was facing.

“Save me, O God!
For the waters have come up to my^[b]neck.
² I sink in deep mire,
Where there is no standing;
I have come into deep waters,
Where the floods overflow me….

¹⁴ Deliver me out of the mire,
And let me not sink;
Let me be delivered from those who hate me,
And out of the deep waters.
¹⁵ Let not the floodwater overflow me,
Nor let the deep swallow me up;
And let not the pit shut its mouth on me.

In this Messianic Psalm the psalmist also cries out,

¹⁷ And do not hide Your face from Your servant,
For I am in trouble;
Hear me speedily.

Added to the connection between Baptism and God’s wrath we see the Psalmist fearing God’s face being turned from him. This “hiding of the face” is likewise imagery of God’s wrath.

So, Mark’s Gospel when listened to attentively against the backdrop of the rest of Scripture clearly teaches that the Son is to experience the Father’s wrath. This is seen in Jesus’ language of “being delivered over to the Gentiles,” as well as His speaking of drinking the cup and of being baptized.

_____

This is a distillation in my words from what I have learned from Peter G. Bolt’s “The Cross From a Distance; Atonement in Mark’s Gospel,” pages 58, 66-71.

 

This is my tenth and final response to what has to be one of the dumbest critiques of theonomy ever written by a Seminary Prof. In this final response Walker outdoes himself in incredible rhetorical flights of fancy.

AW wrote,

The irony of Theonomy is that its proponents, in theory, promote strict free-market capitalism as the logical result of its tenets. In practice, however, Theonomy relies on a subsidy of the state’s backing. It practices a form of welfare assistance by looking to the state for the legitimacy of its enactments. A theological system that seems incapable of existing apart from state sanction is not a system confident in the church’s structure or mission as laid out in the New Testament. It might demand free-market economics, but what results is statist theology.

BLMc responds,

Here we reach the crescendo of stupid. Honestly, the stupidity of this is breath-taking. I’m tempted to say only a Baptist could come up with this level of stupidity but the existence of WestCal Seminary in Escondido prevents me from saying that.

1.) Theonomy looks for the State to define justice as consistent with God’s word and this is equal to a “state subsidy?” If that is the case then every law-order in existence is guilty of taking subsidies from the State. Indeed, Walker plea for Natural law to be the law that the State enforces is likewise guilty of the very same thing he is now accusing Theonomy of.

2.) Walker likewise looks to the State for the legitimacy of the enactments of Natural law. By all that is right, this man cannot be this stupid.

3.) Theonomy has existed now for nigh unto fifty years without state sanction. It’s not going anywhere.

4.) I do hope that Dr. Walker has found in my responses that this theonomist remains plenty confident in the church’s structure and mission as laid out in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. The church’s structure guarantees godly dominion and the Church’s mission is to glorify God and to fully enjoy him forever. Now, I’m wondering what is the Anabaptist church structure and mission? Let me guess… the Church’s structure per Walker is to guarantee defeat in space and time and the Church’s mission is begging people to invite Jesus into their hearts.

5.) The idea that theonomy advocates statist theology is just so off the reservation that the only response it deserves is to say, “only a dumb-ass could say such a thing.”

AW wrote,

If we reject the Theonomic approach to Scripture and culture, does that mean we have less reverence for Scripture’s inspiration, authority, and sufficiency? By no means. The dispute is over how those concepts are applied in this redemptive-historical era—an era marked by unbelief. God’s Word is indeed all-sufficient and the final authority against all counterfeits. The question we have to contend with, though, is how to understand the task of cultural apologetics when the Bible itself is rejected.

Bret L. McAtee responds,

1.) Clearly, in Walker’s appeal to Natural Law and the idea of a common realm that is not to be shaped by Biblical Christianity or God’s Law Word we are witnessing a man who has significantly less reverence for Scripture’s inspiration, authority, and sufficiency. Walker’s constant appeals to the “New Testament,” as well as his insistence that Natural Law has always been superior to covenant law testifies that the man has less reverence for the inspiration, authority and sufficiency of the Old Testament. Indeed, Walker is so bad that it would not be errant to say that Walker believes in Sola Naturalis legis instead of Sola Scriptura.

2.) Once again Walker’s eschatology comes shining through when he talks about the era after the Cross being characterized as one of “unbelief.” It is clear that Walker believes that the era after the Cross will always be one of unbelief. That is more pessimillennialism. Theonomic postmillennialists don’t by that pessimist because it is not taught in Scripture. Scripture teaches that the knowledge of the glory of the Lord will cover the earth as the water’s cover the sea. Though we may well in a time of unbelief now, the time is coming when belief in the ascended Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be the norm. Christ’s Spirit will make it so. The Christ who was crucified by His enemies in space and time will be seen to be triumphant by his enemies in space and time.

3.) Walker’s “cultural apologetics” guarantees that the Bible will always be rejected.

I have now completed my fisking of Dr. Andrew Walker in his attempt to denigrate theonomy. This is at least the 2nd time I’ve done this kind of thing on Iron Ink. There is a previous entry on Iron Ink where I had the same kind of go with Dr. J. Ligon Duncan and a hit piece he had written against theonomy.

Some day there is going to arise someone who can provide a challenging critique to theonomy and theonomists but to date, we await that challenge.

 

This is part IX of my response to what has to be one of the dumbest critiques of Theonomy ever penned.

AW wrote,
Proclaiming the Gospel’s Power

In a well-intentioned effort to protect biblical sufficiency, Theonomy stretches the concept beyond biblical recognition. It yields a grasp of Scripture more focused on casuistry than redemptive drama.

BLMc responds,

1.) So says Andrew Walker. Big deal. A lot of different people say a lot of different things. Who is Andrew Walker that I should be mindful of him? In other words, all Walker is done in that paragraph is make assertions.

2.) I would contend however, that the nations walking in the way of the Lord Christ certainly is part of Redemptive drama. It is the kind of Redemption drama that we find in Micah 4 and Isaiah 2 which prophesies that the day of redemption is coming wherein

It shall come to pass in the latter days
That the mountain of the Lord’s house
Shall be established on the top of the mountains,
And shall be exalted above the hills;
And all nations shall flow to it.
3 Many people shall come and say,
“Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
He will teach us His ways,
And we shall walk in His paths.”
For out of Zion shall go forth the law,
And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

Of course I read this text as a postmillennialist and Walker as a pessimillennialist would never agree but hey … we’ve spent all this time having to put up with Walker’s horrific eschatology and I think its time we let a little postmillennial redemptive drama sunshine in

AW wrote,
It would be right for a Theonomist to read this essay and ask, “But what if the nation, on the whole, experiences another awakening that produces a predominantly Christian nation? What then?”

The answer is not to enact a theonomic agenda. The answer, to quote my denomination’s confession, is that “a free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.”

BLMc responds,

1.) God forbid that any nation would enact an agenda that honors God’s word over Natural law… even if that is what people wanted.

2.) Pfffft … what do I care what a Anabaptist confession teaches. I am Reformed after all. Reformed people don’t do Anabaptist.

3.) I will stick with the original Westminster Confession which taught, contrary to the crummy Anabaptist confession that Walker adheres to,

Chapter XX
Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience

IV. And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or, to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the civil magistrate.

4.) Notice that Walker’s crummy Anabaptist confession makes room for all heretics being allowed to propagate their Islam, Talmudism, Humanism, Shamanism, Witch-craft, etc. Walker’s crummy Anabaptist confession provides “liberty” for wickedness to flourish. We right now have Critical Race Theory as religion thanks to that crummy Anabaptist confession. We have queer Library hour because of that crummy Anabaptist confession. We have the Baptists filing a amicus curiae to support the building of a Mosque. If Christianity requires me to support wickedness I want no part of it.

AW wrote,

We are not discipling nations for the sake of political hegemony. Satan would be content with a moral nation animated by the values of civil religion if those values eclipse the scandal of the cross. We are discipling nations to glorify Christ and to see obedience in every domain of life. Yes, that includes those who occupy government. But just government is not the object of our mission; it is a byproduct of transformed consciences adhering to the natural law, not submitting to the Mosaic law.

BLMc responds,

1.) Natural law the way that Walker embraces it is a myth. We’ve established that in our rebuttal.

2.) Except for the stupid part about consciences adhering to natural law and not God’s special revelation no theonomist would disagree with the paragraph from Walker above.

AW wrote,

American culture seems irreparably broken and perverse. We are a nation in moral rebellion against God’s creation and Word. No wonder Theonomy is tempting and attractive right now—it provides an easy adhesive to fix America’s problems. Let me suggest, though, that turning toward a just society doesn’t begin with installing parapets on our roofs (Deut. 22:8). We look not for culture to be redeemed, but for the redeemed to speak prophetically to the culture as only the church can: through the power of the gospel.

BLMc responds,

1.) Easy adhesive? Does Walker know how much work it would take for God’s people to no longer be antinomian again? In order for theonomy to gain traction theonomists have to pray that the Spirit of Christ would convert men like Walker. This is a work only God can do.

2.) Walker proves his absolute idiocy on this subject by appealing to the parapet. Theonomists going back to Bahnsen have routinely used the parapet to show the effect of embracing the civil law as adapted by the general equity. Theonomists have routinely said that the general equity on the parapet means that while we would not require building a parapet around our roofs (since we don’t entertain on pitched roofs as Israel did on their flat roofs) we might take the general equity principle of the parapet and insist that in-ground swimming pools by God’s law should have a parapet around them since someone could fall into them just as someone could fall off a roof in ancient Israel. I find it stunning that Walker is criticizing theonomy without knowing this.

3.) Theonomists do look for the culture to be reconciled to Christ. As Christians (and not Anabaptists like Walker) theonomists have been given the ministry of reconciliation ( II Cor. 5:18) and theonomist know that as men are reconciled to Christ then the culture they create will share in that reconciliation. Reconciled men create reconciled culture. So theonomists do look for culture to be reconciled but only as the inevitable byproduct of the creators of culture being reconciled. This isn’t that difficult Andy.

4.) Walker above gives us yet another false dichotomy. There is no reason that reconciled men cannot speak prophetically to a culture that is going from reconciliation to reconciliation and that as through the power of the Gospel.