I never said anything about you not understanding my theory. I said you don't understand the atonement as a completed action as you confuse it with its ongoing applications.
Got to go, grand kids are here!
The Case for Penal Substitution
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Reformed, Mar 24, 2019.
Page 8 of 9
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
That is a dishonest statement. I have already affirmed the logical necessity of Christ's death on the cross to atone for sins. You just do not like it because I do not affirm your theory.
Christ overcoming the power of sin logically necessitates the cross. Or do you deny this?
Christ sharing our "sickness" necessitates the cross. Or do you deny this?
Christ being the Firstborn of many brethern necessitates the cross. Or do you deny this?
Christ humbling himself in obedience to the Father necessitates the cross. Or do you deny this?
Christ becoming the Head of those who believe necessitates the cross. Or do you deny this?
Christ's death that all who believes will have everlasting life necessitates the cross. Or do you deny this?
Or, I suppose the better question to you and @davidtaylorjr is WHY do you deny this? Why do you deny that any of the things wrought by the Atonement except for punishment is absent the need of the cross? Have you even studied what it means to be "in Christ"?? Have you studied what it means to die to sin? To die in His death? Have you considered how Paul relates this to our hope?? -
Have fun. I'm going to mow the lawn :( .
-
I just got thru, mowing the lawn.
-
I do not even know where to respond given the myriad of crisscrossing posts. My final comments on Penal Substitution will be from another. I want to conclude with the words of J.I. Packer:
-
I'm glad I have a small yard.
-
First and foremost biblical Penal Substitution does not establish the mechanics of the Atonement but is a theological model based on biblical exegesis. It is NOT doctrine as we would speak of such things (like the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity). It is a dramatic, theological model (in the same way Christus Victor is a dramatic model or “motif”).
This is different from Penal Substitution set forward as a theory. As theory Penal Substitution assumes that the logical function of theology is to address the “how” between God and man. It addresses how divine love and divine justice were reconciled (how God is just and the Justifier of sinners). This is THEORY.
The primary issue of biblical Penal Substitution is NOT morality or a rationalization of God’s ways or methods, but the remission of our sins. -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite SupporterOnce again, no mention of the wrath of God, no mention of the righteousness of God.
-
I take it you are not familiar with the word "propitiation"? In a biblical context it always has wrath in view. It is an atonement, but it is a little more specific than this. What "propitiation" refers to is an atonement specifically for appeasing divine wrath. The word is not a "bible" word (it is used to describe specific types of pagan sacrifices as well), so I am a little surprised you've not encountered it in the past.
Also, in several of those passages I referenced there was no mention of divine wrath. Go figure. -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite SupporterJust to say that this is a logical error. Because you have held a point of view and then rejected it is no evidence at all that you understand it.
Just sayin' -
No. It is not a "logical error" any more than to say that you understand the view you now claim to hold.
The reason is evidenced (you have no evidence that I do not understand the position - only evidence that I no longer hold Penal Substitution as a theory. If you understand post 147 then you understand why I reject the Theory. If you do not understand the post, then it could be that you do not understand Penal Substitution except as a theory. -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite SupporterTo say that you understand a doctrine because you once held it and now reject it is a logical error. End of story.
-
To say you understand the doctrine because you hold it is a logical error (people often hold ideas they don't understand). End of story.
I suspect it is out of ignorance (you cannot imagine someone holding the beliefs you now hold yet rejecting them). Which is also a "fool's errand"...it is not logical.
So why don't you study up on Penal Substitution and when you understand it come back and we'll talk. :p
(actually, as evidence, this is what I was talking about on my "final post" a few posts back. You hold Penal Substitution as a theory, not biblically. You just do not understand what you hold. -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite SupporterYou are correct. He never did understand it. Many were hopeful he was going to get it, but truth has to be allowed by God to be grasped..He words his posts awkwardly and seems to try and hold two or three positions at the same time. That leads to confusion.
Your teaching on penal substitution is spot on and consistent. I think your posts along with Biblicist and Reformed have been most helpful to show the difference of those who get it and thosev having turned are drifting. -
This is actually a false accusation (I know we disagree, but I had hoped that you would have been able to keep from making such accusations). And before you go there....I am not questioning your character. Your character is something about which I have absolutely no questions.
I believe you hold it for what Spurgeon called "puffery in doctrine".
One does not have to have held the Theory to have understood it. But I did (actually, not only do I understand it but I grasp its historical construction....something I doubt you comprehend).
If you could prove a misunderstanding (not a rejection or "logical conclusion" but a legitimate misunderstanding) then you may have a point. Fact is you cannot.
I neither want nor expect an apology (I actually have experience with various types of people and am fairly good at determining people's general character...although with an online format it is more prone to error).
The fact remains that you have "spoken" (typed) falsely of something you know nothing about. That alone is sad (and logically disqualifying insofar as expressing a legitimate argument).
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Here is some solid teaching on the atonement;
aw pink;
COLLECTION OF A.W. PINK'S WRITINGS -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Pink continues;
The particular aspect of the Satisfaction of Christ which is now before us leads into the very heart of this wondrous theme. It is most important for the honoring of God and the establishing of our souls in the Truth that the nature of the Atonement should be scripturally and clearly defined.
Mistake at this point is fatal.
[Yes A.W. we have seen that in this thread]
Until we apprehend aright what it was that Christ did, we are not prepared to contemplate the design, the efficacy, the extent, or the fruits and results of it, and still less are we equipped to proclaim and expound it. For these reasons we must proceed slowly and endeavor to make quite sure of our ground. The great majority of the errors of men upon the Atonement are the consequences of an unscriptural conception of the nature of it. We would therefore beg the reader to prayerfully and patiently read and re-read what we are writing on this vital phase of our subject, testing all by God’s Word.
In our last chapter we pointed out that the atoning work of Christ was, First , a federal one: that there was an official union existing between the Mediator and those for whom He mediated, that there is a legal oneness between Christ and His people. Before the foundation of the world God’s elect were “chosen in Christ” ( Ephesians 1:4), “promised” eternal life ( Titus 1:2), and were “given” grace in Him ( 2 Timothy 1:9). It was therefore as their covenant Head, and because of this, as their covenant Surety, that when the fullness of time was come God sent forth His Son to transact on their behalf. All that Christ did and all that He suffered was as their legal Representative. Unless this be firmly grasped as what lies at the very foundation of the redemptive sacrifice of Christ, we are certain to err when attempting to interpret its scope and application. Christ and His people together formed one mystical Person in the repute of God.
Second , the atoning work of Christ was a substitutionary one. What Christ did and suffered was not only on the behalf of others, but it was also expressly in the stead of others. True, blessedly true, that His obedience and His sufferings have benefited others, but it needs to be emphatically said and firmly held that His obedience was performed and His sufferings were endured in the actual room of others. Christ took the law-place of His people, assumed their liabilities, became their Sponsor, and undertook to satisfy Divine justice for them. This Christ engaged to do when He accepted the terms of the Everlasting Covenant. This Christ came to do when He became incarnate. From Bethlehem to Calvary He is to be regarded as having taken the place of His guilty people, suffering and doing, doing and suffering, what the righteous law of God required at their hands. “When the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law” ( Galatians 4:4), Christ’s derivation of real humanity through His mother is no unimportant matter, concerning the Atonement, for His fraternity, as our kinsman Redeemer, absolutely depends upon the fact that He derived His humanity from the substance of His mother; for without this He would neither possess the natural nor legal union with His people, which must be at the foundation of His representative character. To be our Redeemer His humanity could neither be brought from heaven, nor immediately created by God, but derived as ours is, from a human mother; but with this difference, His humanity never existed in Adam’s covenant, to entail either guilt or taint. He must be within the pale of mankind. Nevertheless, Christ was “made under the law” not by the condition of creaturehood, but for the ends of Suretyship: hence the imputative value of His obedience. (Condensed from George Smeaton.)
The words “made under the law” need to be carefully defined. “Christ became subject to the law by a special Divine constitution.
-
I have not deleted any of your posts (although I should have). The reason is that I am involved in the conversation (the exception would have been the Atonement thread as I said early on I'd moderate to keep it on topic at first, but if you commented there I probably ignored it). As far as I know, the last time anyone deleted your post it was an administrator. Who knows, though. Looking at the warnings you have received from so many different members of staff....way to set the example.
That said, I am a "moderator". As such, I do edit and delete threads. If you do not want to be edited or deleted, "check yourself before you wreck yourself" ;) . I am not going to apologize for removing insults from your past posts (none recent because I actually want them public).
The fact, however, remains the same. It is not subjective (no matter how much you would like for it to be). I do understand Penal Substitution Theory and I do not agree with the Theory.
Your failure to comprehend such things is beyond me, I think it is because if anyone truly understands your theory and rejects it you'd have a crisis of faith. You have to think that they never understood to begin with. That is why you have to cling so hard to these commentaries you often quote (at length). You can't grasp the fact that many understand and yet reject your theory because it is, I believe, the only theory that you comprehend. That is why I encourage you to cling to it with all your strength. Lean on your understanding, if you must.
I worry about you (genuinely, not being snarky) because I think that if you let loose of your theories and philosophies you would let loose of the gospel as well (throwing out the baby with the bath water, so to speak). I say this because I believe you truly think God has led you in the path of Calvinism for His namesake.
This is a concern I have since there are people of varying degrees of maturity and education here. I would rather see one remain in Christ as a Pentecostal than abandon their faith because their theories fall through. -
I do not know to what extent your replies have merit. I do know that the thread in question was deleted due to a staff decision (at the requestof a member). But to be fair, that is not your business and any inferences you draw are ideas you have to own.
My concern is the falseness of your claims. You have made decisions about people based on your perceptions of their intent, and unfortunately they are very wrong.
That said, I forgive you for the insults and false accusations. I do not need a request or apology because this forgiveness is based on what Christ has done for me. You made false accusations against me. They are easy to simply forgive because because we were forgiven for sins against God.
In the end, I appreciate our "conversations". They have no bearing on this topic, but the they are what sparked my concern about Reformed theology in general and were instrumental in my disinterest in its conclusions. A theology that does not work within those who hold it is simply a theology that does not work. That is one reason I have chosen to leave your (and a few other) posts public. People can benefit from observing our interaction.
For all of my faults (they are many) a lack of integrity is not one of them. I am sure I make mistakes, and even become snarky and insulting quite often. I struggle to care about people sometimes. But I am always honest in my posts (this does not mean my posts are correct, but that any dishonest intent is imagined). That is probably my only virtue, perhaps why I tend to hold people to a higher degree of integrity in their comments than perhaps I should. And it is why it is important that I be able to forgive you for the false accusations you have made against me.
You have brought up people like Skandelion (who has not posted, to my knowledge, in well over a year). I am concerned about your capacity to forgive both real and perceived transgressions. I do not mean this negatively, but as something you may want to examine.
You are and will remain in my prayers. I try to keep a list of people from this board, and I know you are on the road a lot. I have kept Preacher4Truth in mind as well. We had our disagreements but you let me know he had personal struggles that affected his interactions. That goes to show we need to take care because we do not know the condition of those with whom we may otherwise respond to in a hateful manner.
Take care, Icon. And as always, be safe in your travels. -
Thread will be closed due to the number of posts by 11 am EST. Please feel free to start another and continue what topic remains.
Page 8 of 9