• 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!

Confusion on just what is PSA

Status
Not open for further replies.

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
How do you feel about the new 2000 BF&M of the SBC?
I don't have a problem with the BF&M. Part of the reason is it remains fairly open to interpretation. Christ is our substitute in terms of His righteousness for our unrighteousness, and He is our representative (the "last Adam").

But I am one of those SBC guys who, like RBC Howell (2nd SBC president), is apprehensive about the Convention. IMHO it consumes more than it contributes and has taken over (in several ways) aspects and duties that belong to the local church (biblical discernment, discipleship, etc.).
 

Rebel1

Active Member
I don't have a problem with the BF&M. Part of the reason is it remains fairly open to interpretation. Christ is our substitute in terms of His righteousness for our unrighteousness, and He is our representative (the "last Adam").

But I am one of those SBC guys who, like RBC Howell (2nd SBC president), is apprehensive about the Convention. IMHO it consumes more than it contributes and has taken over (in several ways) aspects and duties that belong to the local church (biblical discernment, discipleship, etc.).

What do you think of the addition that the pastoral office is restricted to men only? That was never in there previously. Now granted that most Southern Baptists agree with this, but they believed it previously without feeling the need to put it in a statement of faith. Too much of the 2000 document seeks to dictate "correct" doctrine, in my opinion.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
What do you think of the addition that the pastoral office is restricted to men only? That was never in there previously. Now granted that most Southern Baptists agree with this, but they believed it previously without feeling the need to put it in a statement of faith. Too much of the 2000 document seeks to dictate "correct" doctrine, in my opinion.
I think the BF&M needs to change in order to address cultural changes. For example, at one time defining marriage as being between a man and a woman for life was unnecessary. But by 1998 the SBC determined such was needed, even if it excluded some churches from association.

I think they are going too far with some resolutions, but I don't have an issue with restricting the role of pastor to men.
 

Rebel1

Active Member
I think the BF&M needs to change in order to address cultural changes. For example, at one time defining marriage as being between a man and a woman for life was unnecessary. But by 1998 the SBC determined such was needed, even if it excluded some churches from association.

I think they are going too far with some resolutions, but I don't have an issue with restricting the role of pastor to men.

I do, and it should also be left to the individual church to make that doctrinal assertion, as it was in the past.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I do, and it should also be left to the individual church to make that doctrinal assertion, as it was in the past.
I can appreciate that. Each time such statements become more restrictive it is to the exclusion not only of those who practice what is excluded but also of those who would consider the issue not to be one of disfellowship.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I suppose I’d characterize my view of the atonement as a fulfilment of Genesis 3:15. A good definition of my view is Hebrews 2:9-15”

Hebrews 2:9-15 But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, "I WILL PROCLAIM YOUR NAME TO MY BRETHREN, IN THE MIDST OF THE CONGREGATION I WILL SING YOUR PRAISE." And again, "I WILL PUT MY TRUST IN HIM." And again, "BEHOLD, I AND THE CHILDREN WHOM GOD HAS GIVEN ME." Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.

In terms of an established view, it would be Christus Victor, but I even more than this the cross looks to the Kingdom.
On what basis than in that system can the father freely forgive sinners who have broken his law, and His wrath towards sin get appeased and paid for?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
On what basis than in that system can the father freely forgive sinners who have broken his law, and His wrath towards sin get appeased and paid for?
You are assuming that the issue is one of breaking God's law rather than possessing a nature that would break God's law. Adam's transgression was not unlike those who would transgress the Law. The issue is not the Law but the nature to which that Law points.

Since I believe sins are manifestations of our sinfulness I believe the basis for divine forgiveness is ontological to God rather than the Law.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You are assuming that the issue is one of breaking God's law rather than possessing a nature that would break God's law. Adam's transgression was not unlike those who would transgress the Law. The issue is not the Law but the nature to which that Law points.

Since I believe sins are manifestations of our sinfulness I believe the basis for divine forgiveness is ontological to God rather than the Law.
We are all guilty before God though before we even commit our first sin, correct?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
We are all guilty before God though before we even commit our first sin, correct?
Yes. I am saying that salvation does not mean God dealing with our sins as a way of satisfying the demands of the Law but with our Sin (it is ontological). As such the Atonement itself is ontological (Jesus becomes man, becomes a curse for us, is tempted in all points as we are but without sin, takes on our infirmity).
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yes. I am saying that salvation does not mean God dealing with our sins as a way of satisfying the demands of the Law but with our Sin (it is ontological). As such the Atonement itself is ontological (Jesus becomes man, becomes a curse for us, is tempted in all points as we are but without sin, takes on our infirmity).
Even when it is a legal issue though, as the law being broken has to have someone to pay the due penalty for doing that!
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Even when it is a legal issue though, as the law being broken has to have someone to pay the due penalty for doing that!
Yes, exactly. If it were a legal-accounting issue then the debt needs to be paid in order for the account to be balanced....a "yin and yang" type of thing. But it is not. The issue is that we are sinners just as Adam was a sinner (as demonstrated by our failure to keep God's law) and in need of one who is not a sinner to replace Adam as representative of our race.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yes, exactly. If it were a legal-accounting issue then the debt needs to be paid in order for the account to be balanced....a "yin and yang" type of thing.
??? Yin and yang have nothing to do with accounting SFAIK.
But it is not. The issue is that we are sinners just as Adam was a sinner (as demonstrated by our failure to keep God's law) and in need of one who is not a sinner to replace Adam as representative of our race.
If that is all we need there was no need for Christ to die at all. He could merely have established His credentials by not succumbing to Satan's temptation and that would have been that.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
If that is all we need there was no need for Christ to die at all. He could merely have established His credentials by not succumbing to Satan's temptation and that would have been that.
I don't believe you understand the views outside of Penal Substitution Theory (at least the reasoning and context of other views). The reason I say this is what I offered was a need for Christ to suffer and die on the Cross in order to redeem man based on Christ Himself due to our sinful nature. Your reply seems to indicate you do not understand how this would necessitate the cross.

I think, perhaps, this is because you are evaluating my comments as if they were coming from the context you accept. Does my position view the cross as necessary based on Christ being punished with our punishment under the Law? No. I don't. But still, the idea that a righteousness apart from the Law that justifies men through Christ as the "last Adam" would not necessitate Christ's death dies not make sense.

Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Christ became a curse for us, to free us from the cruse. The Cross was as necessary as the Incarnation, and the Resurrection.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
??? Yin and yang have nothing to do with accounting SFAIK.

If that is all we need there was no need for Christ to die at all. He could merely have established His credentials by not succumbing to Satan's temptation and that would have been that.
true, for if it was just God needing to have Jesus live a perfect life in order to save us, why did he need to die on a cross exactly, for wouldn't any type of death do?
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I don't believe you understand the views outside of Penal Substitution Theory (at least the reasoning and context of other views). The reason I say this is what I offered was a need for Christ to suffer and die on the Cross in order to redeem man based on Christ Himself due to our sinful nature. Your reply seems to indicate you do not understand how this would necessitate the cross.

I think, perhaps, this is because you are evaluating my comments as if they were coming from the context you accept. Does my position view the cross as necessary based on Christ being punished with our punishment under the Law? No. I don't. But still, the idea that a righteousness apart from the Law that justifies men through Christ as the "last Adam" would not necessitate Christ's death dies not make sense.

Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Christ became a curse for us, to free us from the cruse. The Cross was as necessary as the Incarnation, and the Resurrection.
So Jesus did not have to pay God the sin debt that sinners owe Him than?
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I don't believe you understand the views outside of Penal Substitution Theory (at least the reasoning and context of other views). The reason I say this is what I offered was a need for Christ to suffer and die on the Cross in order to redeem man based on Christ Himself due to our sinful nature. Your reply seems to indicate you do not understand how this would necessitate the cross.
I think if you read your post again, you will see that you did not say that at all. What you wrote was:
The issue is that we are sinners just as Adam was a sinner (as demonstrated by our failure to keep God's law) and in need of one who is not a sinner to replace Adam as representative of our race.
Perhaps you meant something more than that, but if you did, you didn't state it.
Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Christ became a curse for us, to free us from the cruse. The Cross was as necessary as the Incarnation, and the Resurrection.
Indeed.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I think if you read your post again, you will see that you did not say that at all. What you wrote was:

Perhaps you meant something more than that, but if you did, you didn't state it.
Indeed.
Yes, indeed there is infinitely more to the Atonement than I've stated, and certainly more to my view than I have presented on this thread (which was about a variance between what traditional Calvinists believe PSA to be and a more contemporary expression of the theory in Baptist churches).

Christ became man. The Word became flesh. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh and bearing our sins suffered death on the cross. Without this there could be no atonement for human sin. My view greatly depends on the Cross as it hinges on the resurrected Christ Himself. If you have not understood this yet, then please PM me and I'll start a thread to examine how views other than the Penal Substitution Theory necessitate the Cross. Or, if it is only a few questions you have, please feel free to simply PM me and I'll do my best to explain.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yes, indeed there is infinitely more to the Atonement than I've stated, and certainly more to my view than I have presented on this thread (which was about a variance between what traditional Calvinists believe PSA to be and a more contemporary expression of the theory in Baptist churches).

Christ became man. The Word became flesh. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh and bearing our sins suffered death on the cross. Without this there could be no atonement for human sin. My view greatly depends on the Cross as it hinges on the resurrected Christ Himself. If you have not understood this yet, then please PM me and I'll start a thread to examine how views other than the Penal Substitution Theory necessitate the Cross. Or, if it is only a few questions you have, please feel free to simply PM me and I'll do my best to explain.
Did jesus HAVE to die upon the Cross and shed His blood, or was that not required, as God would accept that jesus kept the law perfectly as sufficient in itself?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top