1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Penal Substitution

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Martin Marprelate, Oct 23, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    475
    This is a hypocritical response and I will demonstrate why it is a hypocritical response. On one hand you claim this point makes no difference to the ultimate question but on the other hand your arguments to support that ulimate question depend entirely upon this very issue you claim does not matter. It matters for you when you defend your position with regard to that question but it does not matter to you when it is proven that your argument based on that point is completely false! You can't have your cake and eat it too! If it does not matter than STOP defending your position by that supposedly irrelevant point. However, it does matter, because the truth that God's law is inseparable from God's nature (LOVE) totally annihilates your whole position.
     
  2. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    15,036
    Likes Received:
    1,357
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Smoke screen. I am not mixing anything. I am asking that you prove divine justice in salvation is retributive justice. As we are five pages into this, trying to get this ONE point affirmed so that we can continue, I take it you cannot because it is something you have read into the text. Perhaps this is why your view is not only new to Christianity (relatively speaking) but also why it has been such a minority view for so long.

    Do you want to just leave it as a presupposition imposed upon Scripture and see if we can continue...perhaps discussing the nature of forgiveness?
     
  3. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    475
    Your response is simply a red herring as no one, and I mean no one denies the sacrificial offering had to be "without spot and blemish" otherwise it could not satisfy the demand of the Law to be righteous but that in no way denies it had to equally suffer death to satisfy the other demand of the Law which is retributive justice against sin.

    Your view is simply a HALF truth and thus a perversion of the truth.
     
  4. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    15,036
    Likes Received:
    1,357
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Again, I am not defending my position (I don't think you even know my position since I have not stated it).

    I am asking you to prove, via Scripture, the context through which you interpret your position.
     
  5. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    15,036
    Likes Received:
    1,357
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am not discussing the sacrificial offering, but instead I am asking you to prove, via Scripture, the contextual framework through which you interpret your position. Perhaps I will start a thread about what I believe at some point in the future, but it will not be this one.
     
  6. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    475
    You talk about "smoke screens" this takes the cake. No, you did not ask me to "prove divine justice in salvation is retributive justice" (although that was the larger question) but you asked me to prove that in God's system of justice if the righteous can justly suffer for the unrighteous. That was the immediate question I responded to! I proved that principle in reverse from a negative perspective with the case of Adam and "many." God could and did justly condemn "many" for the act of one man and therefore God can and did justify the unrigheous by the suffering of one righteous man.
     
  7. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    475
    Are you denying that Christ was the sacrificial offering on the cross for sinners? I never mentioned the Old Testament sacrificial type! Is not the very sacrificial language "without spot or blemish" directly applied to Christ by Peter? Did not John the Baptist say "Behold THE LAMB OF GOD that taketh away the sin of the world"???? We are indeed discussing the sacrificial offering in its ultimate Biblical application.

    We have nailed down our framework repeatedly and the only way you have been able to escape the evidence is by using certain escape hatches (thus vital for the survival of your theory) which when I confront all of a sudden become non-essentials and off topic issues.
     
  8. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    15,036
    Likes Received:
    1,357
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I see. In terms of Christ being our representative I have already affirmed that substitution means the just for the unjust, but this was not in the dialogue between us. You have my apologies for my assumption, and I will try to rephrase the question.

    I agree that the atonement is substitutionary in terms of the just for the unjust. We have been purchased with a price, Jesus - who had no sin - bore our sins and suffered so that we might have life. My disagreement was not on this corporate level (that Christ bore the sins of humanity, took upon Himself all that it means to be human, faced the just wrath against mankind). Instead I was speaking the context which is unique to PSA - that on an individual level Divine Justice demands sins be punished even apart from the one who has actually sinned.

    Now that we are on track, I've been asking that this one thing be proven via Scripture so that we can move on and discuss PSA.
     
  9. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    475
    Your arguments are laced with escape hatch definitions, without which your arguments simply vanish! You can't have your cake and eat it too! If your arguments rest upon such irrelevant definitions and yet you deny they are relevant and refuse to deal with objections that prove they are relevant then why are we continuing this discussion as it can only be an endless irrational loop of hopeless argumentation? You don't have the basics correct and therefore you can't have the proper outcome correct. It is just that simple. If you are not going to face the very false definitions and arguments your arguments consist of, there is no point in furthering this discussion.
     
  10. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    15,036
    Likes Received:
    1,357
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No. I am saying that your theory looks more like the RCC and the Reformers than it does Scripture. I am saying, regardless of what I believe of the sacrificial system, that you have not justified the context you are using to interpret the issue. My beliefs are not even a part of this thread.
     
  11. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    15,036
    Likes Received:
    1,357
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am not arguing my position. I am asking you to provide biblical support for yours - for the context you provide (i.e., why you interpret the passages as you do) because they have not always (not for most of Christianity) been interpreted that way. This doesn't make them wrong, but I would like to know what verse you can offer.
     
  12. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    475
    But that is not what Peter said! He said that the Just "suffered" for the unjust and so this is not generic substitutionary atonement but substitutionary suffering by the Just for the unjust. All suffering by fallen mankind has its root in sin and all suffering by mankind has its end in death. Death is the PENAL consequence of sin and therefore suffering is the PENAL consequence of our sins, so "substitutionary suffering" is nothing less (it is much more than but at minimum nothing less than) PENAL SUBSTITUTIONARY atonement. If Paul could not say Christ died for "my" sins he certainly could not say Christ died for "OUR" sins or anyone elses sins. So your corporate level distinction versus personal level with regard to the atonement is pointless as application is where the rubber meets the highway and application is always personal/individual.
     
  13. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    475
    What you mean to say is that it "looks more like the RCC and the Reformers than it does Scripture" FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE! But we are denying YOUR PERSPECTIVE is scriptural, so you are charging us by way of your own presuppositions. Let's remain objective and see whose position is more scriptural.
     
  14. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    475
    You are providing arguments against our position and those arguments are laced with false definitions and false reasonings without which your arguments simply vanish away. Stop using those arguments AGAINST our position if you do not want to be held accountable for them. Stop claiming they are irrelevant when your argument against our position depends on their validity if you don't want to be confronted and held accountable for them.
     
  15. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    15,036
    Likes Received:
    1,357
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Ok. Please justify the context of divine justice you suppose via Scripture.
     
  16. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    475
    As far as I can see, you have not attempted to reply to the above post. Please do! Why? Because I believe your arguments against our position rest upon failure to understand basic truth which will be demonstrated by your answers to the above questions.
     
    #116 The Biblicist, Oct 27, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2017
  17. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    475
    You don't understand! We already have done so very thoroughly and the only reaction against our evidence has been your responses that are laced with and thoroughly dependent upon what you claim to be irrelevant issues. Remove these "irrelevant issues" from your arguments and you have no arguments at all. Therefore, our arguments stand as solid Biblical attestation to our position.

    For example, your false dichotomy that one must embrace either/or restorative verus retributive justice is false - a red herring when the atonement is inclusive of both.

    For example, your false dichotomy between the Law of God and the Person of God when the law of God is defined by Christ in essence to be the "love" of God.

    Your argumentation demonstrates lack of understanding of some very basic Biblical truths.
     
    #117 The Biblicist, Oct 27, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2017
  18. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    15,036
    Likes Received:
    1,357
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You are not seeing past your presuppositions. When I was in the military I suffered hardships for my countrymen. This does not mean my nation punished me with the hardships my fellow Americans would have faced had I not been their substitute. I am not saying this illustrates the cross, but it does illustrate your assumptions.
     
  19. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    15,036
    Likes Received:
    1,357
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Out of respect for @Martin Marprelate . My beliefs are not the topic. Martin was gracious enough to start the thread to demonstrate biblical PSA. I am trying to keep with the OP. It is about you and your view, not me and mine. Prove your point, starting with the context you assume.
     
  20. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    475
    Any reasonable dialogue is impossible with a person who responds by arguments against what their opponent has said that is filled with and based upon falsehoods, which that person refuses to be confronted with. I bow out of this argumentation simply because it is a waste of my time.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...