Penal Substitution

[jbh28]

The wiki links reference scholarly articles.

But so be it. I have spent countless hours, and years, studying church history, theology, and original writings and sources to get to where I am now.

I'm just tired.

I addressed some of the "problems" mentioned in that article. What do you think of my response?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1801858&postcount=65

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Great gravy man, if his limited interaction leaves you tired than I have no idea how you've been able to sustain lengthy engagement at a (truly) scholarly level. Also, btw, just saying you've "spent countless hours" again and again and again then justifying by posting to Wiki doesn't do you case much good. Just saying...:thumbs:

You must have missed the place where I said that my health has not been good -- hasn't been good for several years.

And great gravy , I didn't say my interaction with him made me tired; I was referring to all those years of debate, and to my health issues.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Michael, are you going to address my post? You've really not said anything but called it abhorrent. You gave a personal example, but never said why it caused you the problem, just that it did.

Okay, the whole Calvinist system is abhorrent to me. It casts a dark cloud over God's character; it makes Him a puppetmaster and humans puppets.

As for penal substitution, it teaches that God punished the innocent so that the guilty could go free, and it makes God a child abuser.

All this is very destructive of faith.

I've tried to answer you, if briefly. I don't want to offend you; this is just what I believe and how it affected me.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I addressed some of the "problems" mentioned in that article. What do you think of my response?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1801858&postcount=65

Give me a while to respond, please.

 

[mandym]

As for penal substitution, it teaches that God punished the innocent so that the guilty could go free,

That is right. you just cannot get around this verse

2Co_5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

and it makes God a child abuser.

That is your won personal standard not God's

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I addressed some of the "problems" mentioned in that article. What do you think of my response?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1801858&postcount=65

Actually -- and you may be surprised -- I have no problem with your response. I actually thought it was good.

Again, I am not opposed to all forms of substitution, just penal substitution. It is not scriptural, and it is virtually non-existent in the early church. It is a Reformed doctrine, influenced by Anselm's Satisfaction Theory.

As much as Protestants want to ignore facts, most Western theology has much in common, and Protestantism owes much to Augustinian views of original sin and total depravity and later Roman Catholic views of the atonement. I, on the other hand, prefer the early church, the ancient Celtic church, the Eastern Orthodox, and Anabaptists for their views of God, man, and salvation. The latter is why I was able to re-embrace Christianity, as revealed in the Jesus of the Gospels, and the early church.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

That is right. you just cannot get around this verse

2Co_5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

And I prefer Jesus's own words about his mission, in Matthew 20:28 -- "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."



That is your won personal standard not God's

No, it is the artificial and unbiblical standard created by the penal substitution theory.

 

[mandym]

No, it is the artificial and unbiblical standard created by the penal substitution theory.

So you deny the passage I posted is scripture? By the way I am not Calvinist. Just because they emphasized a doctrine does not lend to the idea they created it.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

So you deny the passage I posted is scripture? By the way I am not Calvinist. Just because they emphasized a doctrine does not lend to the idea they created it.

Where did I say that?

You sure do seem to like to insert words into my mouth.

I simply prefer Jesus's own words about Himself over someone else's.

 

[mandym]

Where did I say that?

You sure do seem to like to insert words into my mouth.

I simply prefer Jesus's own words about Himself over someone else's.

And that makes no sense. Either what I posted is the word of God or it isn't. And if it is it has equal weight to anything else. Your reference" cannot change facts. And as has been posted the two are both equal and true at the same time.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

And that makes no sense. Either what I posted is the word of God or it isn't. And if it is it has equal weight to anything else. Your reference" cannot change facts. And as has been posted the two are both equal and true at the same time.

And what would you do if the direct words of Jesus contradicted or didn't line up with something someone else wrote in the Bible? Which would you follow?

I believe the words of Jesus have the preeminence.

 

[mandym]

And what would you do if the direct words of Jesus contradicted or didn't line up with something someone else wrote in the Bible? Which would you follow?

I believe the words of Jesus have the preeminence.

And where did you get that from?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

And where did you get that from?

Well, because I'm a Christian, not a Paulian, etc.

 

[David Lamb]

And what would you do if the direct words of Jesus contradicted or didn't line up with something someone else wrote in the Bible? Which would you follow?

I believe the words of Jesus have the preeminence.

A. A. Milne's "Winnie the Pooh" was "a Bear of Very Little Brain". I think I must be related, "a Lamb of Very Little Brain". :laugh: I just don't see (a) where we would get "the direct words of Jesus" apart from in the bible, and (b) even if works apart from God's Word did claim to quote "the direct words of Jesus", how would you know (as you seem to be suggesting) that those works are more reliable than the bible?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

A. A. Milne's "Winnie the Pooh" was "a Bear of Very Little Brain". I think I must be related, "a Lamb of Very Little Brain". :laugh: I just don't see (a) where we would get "the direct words of Jesus" apart from in the bible, and (b) even if works apart from God's Word did claim to quote "the direct words of Jesus", how would you know (as you seem to be suggesting) that those works are more reliable than the bible?

No, all I'm saying is that I prefer the Gospels to any other parts of the Bible. I value Isaiah, Romans Chapters 2 and 8, 1 Cor. etc, but I especially love the Gospels, particularly the Gospel of John.

 

[mandym]

Well, because I'm a Christian, not a Paulian, etc.

Well what is obvious by your posts is that all scripture is not considered equally inspired by God where you are concerned. You intentionally avoid scripture that does not fit your presupposition. And we do not have any common ground with which to discuss the things of God. God Bless

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Well what is obvious by your posts is that all scripture is not considered equally inspired by God where you are concerned. You intentionally avoid scripture that does not fit your presupposition. And we do not have any common ground with which to discuss the things of God. God Bless

I am just aware that especially in the Old Testament, there were various traditions represented by the different authors, some mutually contradictory. That being the case, I have to decide, based on the ultimate preeminent example and words of Jesus, which I should believe.

Sad to think that you don't believe we have common ground in Jesus.

 

[mandym]

I am just aware that especially in the Old Testament, there were various traditions represented by the different authors, some mutually contradictory. That being the case, I have to decide, based on the ultimate preeminent example and words of Jesus, which I should believe.

How sad that you cannot know what to believe or trust in God's Word. Of course the OT has nothing to do with the Pauline passages inspired by God. The truth is you pick and choose what you want to believe based on what is convenient for you.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

How sad that you cannot know what to believe or trust in God's Word. Of course the OT has nothing to do with the Pauline passages inspired by God. The truth is you pick and choose what you want to believe based on what is convenient for you.

Just when I thought we might have a fruitful discussion, you go and say some junk like that. That is a total untruth.

Jesus and his teachings are in the lineage of the OT prophets; I believe what they taught and anything that lines up with those teachings. Is Jesus the author and finisher of our faith or not?

 

[mandym]

Just when I thought we might have a fruitful discussion, you go and say some junk like that. That is a total untruth.

Jesus and his teachings are in the lineage of the OT prophets; I believe what they taught and anything that lines up with those teachings. Is Jesus the author and finisher of our faith or not?

Is all of the Word of God the Word of God or not. If you do not believe all of the Bible is the equal Word of God but choose to hold to some and not others then my point has been proven. You cannot dismiss any of the Bible as less than any other part and claim to believe the Word of God. Paul's words are equally inspired as Jesus. To deny this is to pick and choose what is convenient. Nuanced and misused words like preeminence only says what I have said. It is all god's word equally and all of the same exact importance. Paul's words are equally the word of God as Jesus words. All of the OT is equally true and nothing contradicts anything else. Otherwise you have chosen to hold to only those things that are convenient to you.