Confusion on just what is PSA

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.).

 

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 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.

 

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.

 

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).

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Not in the way that you would imagine....simply because this "sin debt" as you've presented does not exist.