Thank you for your contribution, brother - I'm glad you joined the conversation.
And I see what you are very plainly saying about the topic. Within retributive justice the thread has reached a certain number of posts and, regardless of the thread itself or if it has repented and turned back to the OP, it will be closed. Using the principles of PSA, you would be justified to close a engaging new thread by @John of Japan in it’s place….as long as a thread is closed you are satisfied.
Under restorative justice, however, you would be just to forego the rule if the thread had begun to advance. He could not close another thread in place of this one because that would be unjust - this is the thread that has reached 160 posts. And the reason for closing this thread would be to maintain the forum itself – not to simply close threads.
Great illustration. :Smile
Penal Substitution
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Martin Marprelate, Oct 23, 2017.
Page 9 of 9
-
PSA is bogus, but Subsitutionary Reconciliation is biblical. Christ is taking away the sin of the world, one sinner at a time as they are transferred into Christ. Behold, the gospel of Christ. -
That what remains is the unfettered (by sin condemnation) reconciliation.
The difficulty remains between us as to how such reconciliation is both initiated and completed. -
-
-
-
First:
Where you picture the blood as specific to the elect, I do not hold to that exclusivity.
If the blood was to follow the OT type, it could not exclude anyone.
However, do not jump to the conclusion that there is no condemnation as some would attempt to cast discredit. For the unbeliever is condemned already, not from lack of blood, but lack of reconciliation belief. (John 3).
Therefore, contrary to the reformer thinking (in my opinion, obliged by the circumstances of that time) the wrath was not because of God being enraged by the presence of sin, but the fulfillment of prophecy the Father stated would take place.
Why would the Father be angry at what He had already established as what would occur? Was the Father angry at Satan appearing before Him in Job, for if ever there was a time to show anger it would be in the presence of the father of all lies?
Even in the human thinking, if one establishes a scheme that has no chance of success does one have the right to be disappointed, angry, take retribution if the scheme doesn't work? Of course not. The scheme failed because it was planned to fail.
Second:
In the thinking that God must balance the scales by being angry at sin and sinners, there is an element of merrit pay. One sins results in God’s anger at both sin and sinner and some manner of restitution is obliged.
However, I don’t see such playing out in the Scriptures as it seems some describe.
The principle is that sin earns death (wages of sin is death), and the eternal punishment is based upon belief, not sins.
Another principle is that God acknowledge the sinfulness and presented not wrath, but solution. (While we were yet sinners...)
A third principle is how does God display wrath throughout the Scriptures. His wrath occurs by Him withholding His protection and sustaining. In every time the wrath of God occurs, it is when He objects and rises in opposition. (Think of the typical courtroom when a judge opposes a lawyer). It is then humankind reap what is sown (destruction) and the nature unconstrained revolts (earthquake, famine...)
So, at the cross wrath it is shown through both human and natural events that God did have wrath, but He did not pour it out on the Son, He withheld support for the Son, allowing the ungodly natural forces of human and nature to be displayed. (Father, why have you forsaken me).
Christ knew this would transpire which is given in the Gethsemane prayers.
Having written all this, you can see that I place the limit of atonement not as a lack of blood, but a lack of the Father, by His Sovereign purpose, granting reconciliation to any but the elect.
The doctrines of Grace are very precious, but there is a need to allow a greater consistency with the presentations and types shown in Scripture. -
That is one problem with PSA. It seems to be more individualistic and man-centered on certain points than is Scripture itself. -
Did Jesus purchase back the redeemed only by His blood/death, or all sinners? -
-
-
Not everyone is and will be reconciled.
It didn’t stop the preaching of reconciliation.
I look at reconciliation as individual and as individuals are grouped the reconciliation remains individual loyalty to the group.
Second,
The PSA ( if I understand the history) was (as was Calvinism) modified into more exclusive thinking by the counsel of Dort.
The original thinking was not nearly as structurally askew from Scriptures in some areas as the counsel’s remodel work.
The actual limit of blood to the elect was by that group (relying on my recall).
It was as much politically motivated as it was socially desired.
Much of the Wesley movement to bring the gospel to the “less fortunate” is directly related to the long term results of the counsel of Dort. -
-
Both regarded the writings of Paul through that prism of justice and infustice.
However, theology particularly of the events of the cross cannot be constricted by legal thinking.
This ,IMO, is a difficulty the typical theological framework constructs. That it is built using the existing parameters and understanding of the theologian. -
Squire Robertsson AdministratorAdministrator
This thread is closed.
Page 9 of 9