Penal Substitution

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

Give me a while to respond, please.

 

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.

 

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

 

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 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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?