Penal Substitution

Anyone who doesn't acknowledge that the Bible, especially the OT, is not a unified and harmonious whole is ignorant of the facts of the historical traditions -- either willfully or unintentionally so. There are plenty of contradictions. I have shown some of them in other threads.

The writings, teachings, etc., that line up with the example and teachings of Jesus are what takes priority for me.

 

With this statement you have squarely placed yourself into the camp of the liberal Christian -- if, as J. Gresham Machen propositioned so elequently in his book, Christianity and Liberalism, there is such an oxymoronic thing as both liberal AND Christian. While I'll not go so far as to question your salvation, I cannot know the true state of your heart after all, I will call into doubts your doctrines, for once one starts to give way to the Word of God one also gives way to the God who revealed that Word to us in precisely the form He desired, without error and sufficient in its effect so as to be both inspired and illuminated by the Holy Spirit unto salvation.

 

And you cannot line up with the teachings of Jesus if you don't believe the OT scriptures are of God and perfectly harmonize with all of scripture.
Jesus was a Jew. Salvation came from the Jews. Jesus often quoted from the OT, making it obvious that He taught it was scripture breathed from God. The OT is full of prophecies about the Messiah, Jesus. You must believe it in order to know that Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus is the thread that runs through the entire bible, not just the NT. The entire bible is about one person, Jesus Christ.
You cannot separate Jesus' teachings from the OT and claim to believe in Jesus' teachings. You are following a different Jesus.

 

I cam list all kinds of things to show I'm not a liberal, as well as not a fundamentalist. Both extremes are vabhorrent to me. But of course to a fundamentalist, anyone even slightly to the left of that is a liberal. LOL!

 

And the broad statements you have made show that you are ignorant about the Bible and have not studied it thoroughly or honestly. You obviously have no knowledge of the historicity of the OT.

Plus, you have mischaracterized what I believe and have said about the Bible and Old Testament. Jesus is in the lineage of the OT prophets. I love most of the Old Testament, but parts of it do not reflect the teachings of Jesus.

 

As I said to the other member, fundamentalists consider anyone even slightly to their left to be a liberal.

Anyone who says there are no contradictions in scripture is either ignorant or dishonest. Why do you think there are different denominations?

I have already shown how someone can read the Book of James and disbelieve Luther's "faith alone" doctrine. And how Hebrews 6 refutes the OSAS doctrine.

Here is a link to the Statement of Principles from our Communion's website; I dare anyone to read it and say I'm a liberal. If anyone does, that person is not being honest:

http://www.celtic-anabaptist-ministries.com/celtic-anabaptist-communion.html

 

Well here's your chance to test my knowledge.

Such as? Give me some contradictions. Let's see who knows their bible.

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

No contradictions ....not one:thumbs:

Michael W...you are going the wrong way...I am working now..will go over your link later tonight

 

:thumbs::wavey::laugh: get em AmyG:thumbs:

 

grrrrr.........lol

 

Well, if you are suggesting that I am a fundamentalist, then you are mistaken. I am not. I am an infralapsarian Calvinist Evangelical, who identifies with the Southern Baptist Convention. If you pay attention, you would notice that I tend to take fundamentalists to task, but I take liberals to task as well, and you have self-identified by your admission as to the content of Scripture.

 

Who are these "innocent" people that you are referring to? There are none that are innocent. All are guilty.

EDIT:

I saw you made another post. What is the difference between penal substitution and just substitution? What's the biggest difference that troubles you?

 

27And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself

44And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

45Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

commentary from a Baptist cathechism with Commentary.

 

I like to discuss things, but I am trying not to get into something heated with any of you, but you make it difficult when you continue to mischaracterize my position(s). I gave a link which clearly shows that if I am to be labeled anything, it should be "moderate", not fundamentalist or liberal.

I have already given some scriptural examples which show contradiction: the James passage which contradicts "faith alone", the Hebrews 6 passage which contradicts OSAS.

Let me ask this: How do any of you reconcile OT passages which picture God as ordering the extermination of people, including the innocent, with the teachings of Jesus? Surely you must see that both of these pictures cannot be true.

Also, take 2 Kings 2: 23-25. You really believe that Elisha put a curse on children for calling him names, causing a bear to tear 42 of them to pieces? Yeah, this is really what the God of our Lord Jesus Christ would do; this is the character of God that Jesus taught and exemplified, right?

If the Bible is not contradictory, why do you think there are so many different denominations and theological systems and positions, all claiming scriptural support and claiming that their position is correct and others aren't? And each one, just as sincerely as the other, believes the scripture teaches their position.

I'm still waiting for someone to look at this objectively instead of just spitting back what you've been taught.

 

I'll try to answer; I appreciate your non-accusatory post.

Penal substitution bothers me for one reason because it says that Jesus was punished by God. I was listening to Charles Stanley one night, and he said that God killed Jesus. To me, that encapsulates much of what I find objectionable with penal substitution and the entire Calvinist system. I don't know if I can adequately put into words in a relatively brief way just how much I dislike this and how harmful I think, and know, it is.

Maybe I'd just better leave it at that, for now anyway.

 

I am tempted not to reply to you, but as long as you continue to post falsehoods and attack me, I will reply.

It is you and those who believe as you who have no credibility. No matter what you assert that the scriptures teach on this, the early church which had those same scriptures did not interpret the atonement the way you people do. And the fact that you can never change is that penal substitution was developed by Calvin, influenced by Anselm. It was virtually unknown before then. You are not just arguing with me about this but with most scholars. What is shameful is that you refuse to admit that this is the case and attempt to smear me to try to avoid the truth.

The early church and scholars agree with me and not with you. That says it all. No, facts can't be changed; facts are objective, and they are all on my side, regardless of who rails against that.

 

MW, can you share any links as to the early church fathers and their understanding of atonement. Also any links which indicate that PS was developed by the reformers. I, myself, do not understand all the intricacies and nuances of the various (and apparently multitudinous) atonement theories. I have only read one "bio sketch" book on the early church fathers and found it fascinating. Thanks

 

I would be glad to do that, for you. Give me some time, as I've stayed up all night and need to get some sleep. I might PM you with this; I'll decide about that when I get up, but I'll definitely answer you.

Thanks for your post.