Forsaken

[John Caldwell]

This is the problem with @Steve Owen 's comment regarding the "likes of me".

I am a servant and brother to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, purchased not by gold or silver but by His own blood. Where I would fail, in Christ I stand. I am a son, a husband, and a father. I am a retired soldier, and a graduate of a conservative Baptist university and seminary. I am a preacher and a teacher. I am a Baptist and an evangelical. I am being made in the image of my Savior, and it is by His power that I am able to overcome situations in my own life. You can substitute "Christ" for "the likes of me" as I am in Him and belong to God.

This is why I do not call @Steve Owen a heretic (in terms of abandoning Christianity) even though I believe he may hold to serious error (he clings to to a heresy) . But he is also purchased by Christ's own blood and where his theory fails Christ can make him stand.

Far too often people are blinded by their own hatred to the extent they strike out against Christ believing they are just insulting other Christians. This is a struggle we probably all face to an extent. It is easy to yeild to the flesh rather than walk in the Spirit.

But it is the "likes of us" (Christians like @Steve Owen, and me) that God will use for His kingdom. We do not have to agree on issues, but we need to keep in mind that when we resort to insults we are not only insulting one another. We insult Christ and treat as worthless that blood that purchased our very souls.

 

[bbyrd009]

What of His blood is Spirit? ...not the red stuff? “Life is in the blood” Life is in the Spirit. Interested in your perspective there.

yeh, obviously two diff perspectives there huh? I would maybe put that with I came that you might have life, and taking blood we consider murder, right, so a statement about literal life maybe.

The Blood of the Grape is what was offered for the New Covenant though, right

 

[VictoryinJesus]

yeh, obviously two diff perspectives there huh? I would maybe put that with I came that you might have life, and taking blood we consider murder, right, so a statement about literal life maybe.

The Blood of the Grape is what was offered for the New Covenant though, right

makes me think of blood up to the horses bridle. Was told for so long that is the hope ahead of a great slaughter.

 

[Waiting on him]

yeh, obviously two diff perspectives there huh? I would maybe put that with I came that you might have life, and taking blood we consider murder, right, so a statement about literal life maybe.

The Blood of the Grape is what was offered for the New Covenant though, right

Grapes grow on vines.

 

[Steve Owen]

You make too many assumptions, Steve.

I never made the" cosmic child abuse" argument. This is a smoke screen. You can put that card back in your deck.

On the contrary, the arguments - or at least, the assumptions - you make are similar to those made by Steve Chalke; that God would never do such a thing to His Son.

I never called you a heretic. You can rest easy that you do not have that "honor by the likes of me". The idea God separated from Christ is a heresy. But where you stand overall is beyond my judgment.

A heretic is someone who has heretical religious views. In claiming that my views are heretical, you are ipso facto calling me a heretic. To deny it is, to say the least, seeing that it's Christmas Eve, disingenuous.

I will point out it is you and not me who resorted to insult and ad hominem. By any standard of debate your "argument" is nullified. Typically people who stand on weak ground choose to insult persons rather than argue points because they know at some level they have no valid argument.

Right. So accusing someone of heretical views when those same views are espoused by a vast number of evangelicals, past and present, including several that you have claimed to like, is not insulting or an ad hom? Come on, John; the pot is calling the kettle black.

I have never misquoted you. I actually agree with the definition you provide regarding the range of meaning for "forsaken".

I did not accuse you of misquoting me. Here is what I said: "You have deliberately failed to understand the definition I have given. To 'forsake' is a synonym of to 'abandon' according to the Oxford Concise Dictionary." And that is what you have done.

The definition you provide for "forsaken" includes the meaning of "withdrawing one's help". I believe this is adequate in terms of the passage in question and have explained why.

What you have not done is explain what you mean by "withdrawing one's help. I gave you an example of where withdrawing one's help is tantamount to abandonment. It seems that since you didn't interact with that part of my post, you must have missed it. Here it is again:

'Let us suppose for a moment that you were someone's second at a boxing match. Halfway through the match you withdrew your support from him, and went and sat in the seats at the back of the hall. At the end of the bout, he might well come up and say to you, "Why did you abandon me halfway through the match?" He might equally use the word "forsake" because in that context, the two words are synonymous.' Would your protestations that you had only 'withdrawn your support' from him cause him to change his accusation of abandonment? I think not!

Since you cannot deny the range of the word includes the meaning "withdrawing one's help" as you provided this in your definition, perhaps you can tell us why you believe God separated from Christ for three hours on the cross.

You seem also to have missed another part of my post. Here it is again. It will be helpful if you read the whole of my posts in future:

'Now what was the situation with the Lord Jesus during those hours of darkness? In addition to the physical agony that He was suffering, He had the mental and spiritual anguish of having, as a Man, no sense whatever of the presence of His heavenly Father. "Why are you so far from helping Me, and from the words of My groaning?" And the reason is given in verse 3: "But You are holy."

So holy is God that no human can look at Him and live. So holy is God that when Abraham stood before Him he cried, "I am but dust and ashes!" So holy is He that when Job was in His presence, he said, "Therefore I abhor myself." So holy is He that when Isaiah had a glimpse of His glory, he cried out, "Woe is me! For I am undone....for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!" So holy is He that when Daniel saw a manifestation of Him, he declared, "No strength remained in me; for my vigour was turned to frailty," and Habakkuk declared of Him, 'Your eyes are too pure to behold evil; You cannot look upon iniquity.' When Peter first had an inkling of who Jesus Christ really was, he cried out, "Stay away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man."

And because the Lord Jesus was bearing our sins (1 Peter 2:24), the Holy God would not look upon Him, turned His face from Him, forsook Him; for the Lord had made all our iniquities to meet upon Him (Isaiah 53:6), and all our sins being upon Him as our substitute, the wrath of God against all our offenses was spent upon our sin offering.

But just as 'Our fathers trusted in You. they trusted and You delivered them........' (Psalms 22:4-5), so the father heard the cry of the Son. The darkness evaporated, and the Lord Jesus could cry, "It is finished!" It is completed; it is accomplished; it is paid.'

 

[John Caldwell]

On the contrary, the arguments - or at least, the assumptions - you make are similar to those made by Steve Chalke; that God would never do such a thing to His Son.

A heretic is someone who has heretical religious views. In claiming that my views are heretical, you are ipso facto calling me a heretic. To deny it is, to say the least, seeing that it's Christmas Eve, disingenuous.

Right. So accusing someone of heretical views when those same views are espoused by a vast number of evangelicals, past and present, including several that you have claimed to like, is not insulting or an ad hom? Come on, John; the pot is calling the kettle black.

I did not accuse you of misquoting me. Here is what I said: "You have deliberately failed to understand the definition I have given. To 'forsake' is a synonym of to 'abandon' according to the Oxford Concise Dictionary." And that is what you have done.

What you have not done is explain what you mean by "withdrawing one's help. I gave you an example of where withdrawing one's help is tantamount to abandonment. It seems that since you didn't interact with that part of my post, you must have missed it. Here it is again:

'Let us suppose for a moment that you were someone's second at a boxing match. Halfway through the match you withdrew your support from him, and went and sat in the seats at the back of the hall. At the end of the bout, he might well come up and say to you, "Why did you abandon me halfway through the match?" He might equally use the word "forsake" because in that context, the two words are synonymous.' Would your protestations that you had only 'withdrawn your support' from him cause him to change his accusation of abandonment? I think not!

You seem also to have missed another part of my post. Here it is again. It will be helpful if you read the whole of my posts in future:

'Now what was the situation with the Lord Jesus during those hours of darkness? In addition to the physical agony that He was suffering, He had the mental and spiritual anguish of having, as a Man, no sense whatever of the presence of His heavenly Father. "Why are you so far from helping Me, and from the words of My groaning?" And the reason is given in verse 3: "But You are holy."

So holy is God that no human can look at Him and live. So holy is God that when Abraham stood before Him he cried, "I am but dust and ashes!" So holy is He that when Job was in His presence, he said, "Therefore I abhor myself." So holy is He that when Isaiah had a glimpse of His glory, he cried out, "Woe is me! For I am undone....for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!" So holy is He that when Daniel saw a manifestation of Him, he declared, "No strength remained in me; for my vigour was turned to frailty," and Habakkuk declared of Him, 'Your eyes are too pure to behold evil; You cannot look upon iniquity.' When Peter first had an inkling of who Jesus Christ really was, he cried out, "Stay away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man."

And because the Lord Jesus was bearing our sins (1 Peter 2:24), the Holy God would not look upon Him, turned His face from Him, forsook Him; for the Lord had made all our iniquities to meet upon Him (Isaiah 53:6), and all our sins being upon Him as our substitute, the wrath of God against all our offenses was spent upon our sin offering.

But just as 'Our fathers trusted in You. they trusted and You delivered them........' (Psalms 22:4-5), so the father heard the cry of the Son. The darkness evaporated, and the Lord Jesus could cry, "It is finished!" It is completed; it is accomplished; it is paid.'

I do not affirm the "cosmic child abuse" illustration. People often misrepresent other views (like saying Calvinism makes men robots, Free-will theology makes men the authors of their own salvation, and the one mentioned here). We need to stay above the nonsense.

Habakkuk confirms that Jesus will not condone sin. But Peter makes the same mistake the Jewish leaders made. Christ came for the sinners.

I agree that "forsaken" can mean "withdraw one's help". I believe this is what it does mean in the passage. God withdrew His help in the context Jesus was not delivered from suffering and death, but He was delivered from the law of sin and death (its bonds). There simply is no reason to add to the passage the idea that God separated from Jesus.

The theory God separated from Jesus is a heresy. It stands in direct opposition to the gospel of Jesus Christ and traditional Christianity. This does not mean I believe you a heretic in terms of abandoning the faith (I believe you are saved despite your theories). To illustrate, teachers can teach some things that are not true without being "false teachers".

 

[Steve Owen]

I do not affirm the "cosmic child abuse" illustration. People often misrepresent other views (like saying Calvinism makes men robots, Free-will theology makes men the authors of their own salvation, and the one mentioned here). We need to stay above the nonsense.

I am glad to hear that you do not affirm Steve Chalke, but he would certainly affirm you.

Habakkuk confirms that Jesus will not condone sin. But Peter makes the same mistake the Jewish leaders made. Christ came for the sinners.

Indeed He does not, and indeed He did, but that does not change the fact that that Yahweh laid all the sins of believers upon Him (Isaiah 53:6) and He bore them for us.

I agree that "forsaken" can mean "withdraw one's help". I believe this is what it does mean in the passage. God withdrew His help in the context Jesus was not delivered from suffering and death, but He was delivered from the law of sin and death (its bonds). There simply is no reason to add to the passage the idea that God separated from Jesus.

The Lord Jesus tells us that God separated from Him. "Why are You so far from helping Me and from the words of My groaning?" Now we must be sensible here; God is omni-present, and was not ignorant at what was going on, but so far as our Lord was concerned, it is clear that at that time He could feel none of the close communion that He had enjoyed with His Father from childhood. It must be so, or we shall experience that separation from God for ourselves if Christ has not experienced it on our behalf.

The theory God separated from Jesus is a heresy. It stands in direct opposition to the gospel of Jesus Christ and traditional Christianity. This does not mean I believe you a heretic in terms of abandoning the faith (I believe you are saved despite your theories).

First, the Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution is no heresy; it is the glorious truth of what our gracious God has done for us. It is the very essence of the Gospel.
Second, you are accusing a vast array of Christians, starting at the very earliest times and travelling through to today of teaching heresy. Joel Beeke, Don Carson, Mark Dever, John Frame, Timothy George, R. Kent Hughes, Trumper Longman III, John Piper are just a few of the contemporary figures that you are branding as heretics.
Thirdly, you are speaking weasel words. If I were teaching stuff that stands in direct opposition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and traditional Christianity, then I would be a heretic, and that is what you are accusing me of.

And now, a very happy Christmas to all the other 'heretics' on the Christianity Board.

 

[John Caldwell]

I am glad to hear that you do not affirm Steve Chalke, but he would certainly affirm you.

Indeed He does not, and indeed He did, but that does not change the fact that that Yahweh laid all the sins of believers upon Him (Isaiah 53:6) and He bore them for us.

The Lord Jesus tells us that God separated from Him. "Why are You so far from helping Me and from the words of My groaning?" Now we must be sensible here; God is omni-present, and was not ignorant at what was going on, but so far as our Lord was concerned, it is clear that at that time He could feel none of the close communion that He had enjoyed with His Father from childhood. It must be so, or we shall experience that separation from God for ourselves if Christ has not experienced it on our behalf.

First, the Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution is no heresy; it is the glorious truth of what our gracious God has done for us. It is the very essence of the Gospel.
Second, you are accusing a vast array of Christians, starting at the very earliest times and travelling through to today of teaching heresy. Joel Beeke, Don Carson, Mark Dever, John Frame, Timothy George, R. Kent Hughes, Trumper Longman III, John Piper are just a few of the contemporary figures that you are branding as heretics.
Thirdly, you are speaking weasel words. If I were teaching stuff that stands in direct opposition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and traditional Christianity, then I would be a heretic, and that is what you are accusing me of.

And now, a very happy Christmas to all the other 'heretics' on the Christianity Board.

I cannot help who would and would not affirm "me". On this issue, there are many who would yet we do not hold to everything the other affirms (C.S. Lewis, N.T. Wright, George MacDonald, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Ignatius....to name a few). The point is not affirming my position but explaining what I believe.

"Why are You so far from helping Me and from the words of my groaning" does make sense. This is the point of the passage. I do not understand why you believe God had to separate from Jesus in order for Jesus to save us. That seems to be a very unbiblical idea, certainly different from traditional Christian belief at least until the Reformation period.

I am accusing many people whose teachings I admire as holding to a very false doctrine. These include D.A. Carson, Mark Dever, Joel Beeke, John Piper, Timothy Keller...among many others. But I am Baptist, so that may give you a glimpse into my own presuppositions when it comes to "following men" and doctrinal disagreements.

Often, however, the crux is not the philosophies and theory held but how they are held. For example, I believe that John Gill's belief that Jesus and Michael the Archangel are the same is a heresy. I believe it misunderstands the nature of angels and God. But on the same hand, I do not believe John Gill himself a heretic because of how he held this belief.

There is simply NO reason to believe that God separated from Jesus on the Cross. This is true because no verse states that God separated from Jesus (by your own definition "forsake" can mean to "withdraw help"); there are many verses that state God will NOT forsake the righteous, and the dichotomy presented in your theory is absent Scripture.

Rather than Christ's suffering and death (the blood of Christ) being sufficient to redeem mankind, why do you add this separation?

 

[bbyrd009]

makes me think of blood up to the horses bridle. Was told for so long that is the hope ahead of a great slaughter.

yeh, so just consider who is hoping ahead for a great slaughter, right? Some Ordained Guy, huh? Ha i tell you things are perfect, just like they are

"blood to a horse's bridle" is not even literally possible i dont think

 

[John Caldwell]

yeh, so just consider who is hoping ahead for a great slaughter, right? Some Ordained Guy, huh? Ha i tell you things are perfect, just like they are

"blood to a horse's bridle" is not even literally possible i dont think

What about a Shetland pony?

 

[Nancy]

What about a Shetland pony?

 

[amadeus]

yeh, so just consider who is hoping ahead for a great slaughter, right? Some Ordained Guy, huh? Ha i tell you things are perfect, just like they are

"blood to a horse's bridle" is not even literally possible i dont think

If we were to place a horse in a large duck blind and then released all the blood from all carefully measured number of donors into the blind, it would certainly be possible. But... getting the horse into the duck blind might present a problem.

 

[bbyrd009]

again, no blood can be Quoted at all, huh?

Grapes grow on vines.

but note the earth has just been harvested, too, 16So the One seated on the cloud swung His sickle over the earth, and the earth was harvested. So, maybe Yah just wants to drown horses in grape juice?

 

[bbyrd009]

that blood that purchased our very souls.

more steps on that ladder, ok Esau?

Happy Hollies to all

 

[John Caldwell]

more steps on that ladder, ok Esau?

Happy Hollies to all

Easu? The one that killed the hunter back in 1969?

 

[bbyrd009]

Easu? The one that killed the hunter back in 1969?

sorry, lost me there. But i guess you helped make the point anyway, yeh

 

[bbyrd009]

makes me think of blood up to the horses bridle. Was told for so long that is the hope ahead of a great slaughter.

the blood of the innocents killed since the New Covenant was instituted might reach that high, but fwiw
"horse's bridle, for a distance of 600 stadia" is code anyway. Note the wineprss was trodden "outside the city" too, Revelation 14:20 Lexicon: And the wine press was trodden outside the city, and blood came out from the wine press, up to the horses' bridles, for a distance of two hundred miles. and wow is Strong's useless for this one, yikes. Too, i mean, as that english xlation is crap too. Some even say "1600 stadia?" Lets just make numbers up now lol, 200 miles, tra-la

ἑξακοσίων
(exakosiōn) 1812: six hundred pl. cardinal number from hex and hekaton
σταδίων
(stadiōn) (the Roman thing, Circus Maximus et al; see, not a puzzle at all)

 

[bbyrd009]

On the contrary, the arguments - or at least, the assumptions - you make are similar to those made by Steve Chalke; that God would never do such a thing to His Son.

go Steve!

I desire mercy, not sacrifice

John 18:14 Lexicon: Now Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was expedient for one man to die on behalf of the people.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

the blood of the innocents killed since the New Covenant was instituted might reach that high, but fwiw
"horse's bridle, for a distance of 600 stadia" is code anyway. Note the wineprss was trodden "outside the city" too, Revelation 14:20 Lexicon: And the wine press was trodden outside the city, and blood came out from the wine press, up to the horses' bridles, for a distance of two hundred miles. and wow is Strong's useless for this one, yikes. Too, i mean, as that english xlation is crap too. Some even say "1600 stadia?" Lets just make numbers up now lol, 200 miles, tra-la

ἑξακοσίων
(exakosiōn) 1812: six hundred pl. cardinal number from hex and hekaton
σταδίων
(stadiōn) (the Roman thing, Circus Maximus et al; see, not a puzzle at all)

Also
James 3:2-6 For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body. [3] Behold, we put bits in the horses' mouths, that they may obey us; and we turn about their whole body. [4] Behold also the ships, which though they be so great, and are driven of fierce winds, yet are they turned about with a very small helm, whithersoever the governor listeth. [5] Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth! [6] And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.

James 1:26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.


Job 41:11-14 Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine. [12] I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion. [13] Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle? [14] Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.

which (imo) doesn’t make your comment (not)too far off. “but note the earth has just been harvested, too, 16So the One seated on the cloud swung His sickle over the earth, and the earth was harvested. So, maybe Yah just wants to drown horses in grape juice?
“

 

[John Caldwell]

Steve Chalke is right in that it is against God's nature to punish the righteous in place of the wicked. In fact, Scripture is clear that this is an abomination to God. Also, Scripture is clear that Jesus "has too pure eyes to behold sin" (Jesus cannot condone sin). While the "cosmic child abuse" argument can be easily explained away, the disregard for Scripture cannot.