IN the same way there are equally differing view as to what scripture says. For example you say scripture clearly says, not implies, there is a Trinity. I, and many people disagree with you that it is anything more than implication. There is no explicit scripture that says there is a Trinity. Our understanding of what is implied can be equally backed up with other scripture as can what you believe is implicit.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Penal Substitution Reprised
- Thread starter Martin Marprelate
- Start date
- Status
IN the same way there are equally differing view as to what scripture says. For example you say scripture clearly says, not implies, there is a Trinity. I, and many people disagree with you that it is anything more than implication. There is no explicit scripture that says there is a Trinity. Our understanding of what is implied can be equally backed up with other scripture as can what you believe is implicit.
The doctrine of the Trinity
Perhaps, because some want some kind of statement such as, "the trinity" found in the Scriptures.
Some could imply just as well see the "seven spirits of God" as God as a Septet.
Is there then something the Scriptures imply but is not Scripture?
Penal Substitution
First, a definition: ‘The doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty of sin’ (Pierced for our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution by Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach. IVP. ISBN 978-1-84474-178-6).
Yet another PSA/PST definition without specificity. Does "Instead of us" refers to only the elect, or to the whole world, all human kind?
Put another way, did Christ die as a ransom for all, or just for some? Was His substitutionary sacrifice a sin offering for all mankind, or for the specific sins of some of mankind.
Christ is the propitiation or means of salvation from God's wrath for the sins of the whole world. Anyone God transfers into Christ has their sin burden which is what God holds against them removed by the circumcision of Christ. Only when we are transferred into Christ are we made alive together with Christ, undergoing the washing of regeneration.
First, a definition: ‘The doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty of sin’ (Pierced for our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution by Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach. IVP. ISBN 978-1-84474-178-6).
Yet another PSA/PST definition without specificity. Does "Instead of us" refers to only the elect, or to the whole world, all human kind?
Put another way, did Christ die as a ransom for all, or just for some? Was His substitutionary sacrifice a sin offering for all mankind, or for the specific sins of some of mankind.
Christ is the propitiation or means of salvation from God's wrath for the sins of the whole world. Anyone God transfers into Christ has their sin burden which is what God holds against them removed by the circumcision of Christ. Only when we are transferred into Christ are we made alive together with Christ, undergoing the washing of regeneration.
You will have to ask Jonc.
You are assuming:
1) All sins were not forgiven for all humanity by the blood shed.
You state, "Anyone God transfers into Christ has their sin burden which is what God holds against them removed by the circumcision of Christ."
2) All sins were forgiven for all humanity by the blood shed.
You state, "Christ is the propitiation or means of salvation from God's wrath for the sins of the whole world."
Which is it?
Either the blood was shed for all, or it was not shed for all.
Either people are condemned from the statement of unbelief, or they are condemned because their sin was unforgivable.
Yet I can give you verses stating the existence of the Godhead, that God is One, the Father is God, Son is God, and Spirit is God. Denying the divinity of Either is denying what is stated (not implied). Denying that God on One is a denial of what is stated, not implied.
That is the difference. Anyone can say anything is implied. But the criteria us "this says the Lord" "it is written" and "it is written again". When we give authority to our subjective theories about what is "implied" we cease being Sola Scriptura and have no objective measure of truth.
How can we deny things like papal authority if we also give what we see as implied the same authority as Scripture?
Scripture teaches.
For example, I can say abortion is wrong and point to several passages that teach principles about murder, God's design and blessings. But Scripture does not imply abortion is wrong.
The key is the the ability to all Scripture (what is written) establish doctrine. What @Revmitchell was doing was allowing a context external to Scripture (what is written) be the lens through which he interpreted Scripture. When asked for proof he could just say "it's implied" (as opposed to "it is written". And anyone can do that.
We have to stick to God's Word.
Yes, it is. It may not suit your definition, but that's where you know where Scripture stops and your understanding begins.
That misrepresents my position. What is written is not definitive. This is because the same thing can be understood in different ways between people. So it is not more secure in being an absolute than what is implied. Implication can be backed up by scripture just as anything else can and always comes from scripture.
Please be more careful of others position when you represent them.
I understand implications to establish principles to live by.
However, all doctrine should not rest upon what is implied, but what is actually stated.
Part of the Pharisees problem was this very issue. For example: They would attempt to rebuke for eating with unwashed hands, or working on the Sabath. Yet, missed the true application by dwelling in that implied
IFB legalism was based most often in such situations.
When it comes to this extremely important topic of atonement, implied isn’t enough.
The Scriptures and historical facts present far too clear of actual statements for much of any implied to be considered.
Ok, relating this statement to the thread:
Because some desire to imply God poured His Wrath upon the Son, irregardless of the clear statements of the events and even the thoughts of Christ showing there was no wrath, then there was wrath from God merely because some might think there was wrath from God?
Implications seem to make a weak foundation for doctrine.
Exactly.
We have no room to argue against false doctrine unless our standard is objective and external to ourselves. Scripture never says "God implies" but "God commands"; never "thus implies Scripture" but "thus says the Lord"; never "it is implied" but "it is written".
The one dancing with paganism is you, but you didn't answer the question.
The victim was a substitute. It was "accepted for him." And that is directly from the Scripture.
No. Not a substitute, although accepted for him.
What Scripture, Aaron?
Where is the Scripture placing victimization upon anyone?
Perhaps I need to review part of the thread.
Lol. That's what substitute means.
- Status