Featured TULIP Was Never Alive to Begin With

Yes, in Him we escape the wrath to come.

That is what I mean by there are penal and substitutionary aspects to the atonement.

But if we call biblical atonement "penal substitution" then it can be easily confused with the false teaching in the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (people may think we are saying God punished Christ instead of punishing us).

I have asked quite a few SBC members if they believe Penal Substitution. They say they do. Then I ask if they believe God poured His wrath on Christ, or that God punished Christ instead of punishing us. They respond that is not Christian, and they do not.

See the confusion? When we use words already being used, then nobody knows where we stand.

 

No. I am not saying disallow. I am saying be careful.

You and I both believe Christ was a Substitute, and that there was a focus on delivering us from God's wrath to come.

I could say, then, that I affirm penal substitution. But I do appreciate the risk that some will assume I affirm the false doctrine of Penal Substitution Theory.

I am saying when we use titles it is best to simply explain what we believe.

The Son came not to be served but to serve. He gave His life as a random, or exchange, or purchase, or redemption, for many.

That part is not actually substitution. We do not substitute cash for the car we just sold (it is a purchase, but not a substitute).

That said, Christ died for us - the Just for the unjust.

I just want to be careful to stick with Scripture in how we discuss doctrine, that's all. Using labels that are already taken can mislead.

We could rename our church the Church of Christ because that is a biblical term. BUT would that describe us in today's terms or would people think we were Church of Christ?

 

I never said we do not represent Christ. I choose my words carefully, @Aaron.

Yes, Christ aged as we do. As such His bones would have developed, His cells would have died and been replaced, His hair would have grown, etc.

The wages of sin is death. Unlike you, I believe that God is sovereign and immutable (His Word stands, He will not be made a liar). We still suffer the wages of sin, and Christ shared in this.

But it is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment. Christ died and was vindicated. We die and will either be justified in Christ or condemned to the Second Death.

 

We all know Christ died in our place just as Adam sinned in our place. Scripture is clear on this.

I am talking about the false doctrine Penal Substitution Theory.

 

There has to be. If you call it "penal substitution" then what separates it from the unbilical view called "penal substitution"?

I suppose a better term would be Redemption (in that that is a word you used).

 

Would Christ grow old? You mean would Christ, if He had not died on the Cross, continued to age?

That is a hypothetical question that deserves no answer.

Once dead, and placed in a tomb, we know His body would not decay because He would be raised from the grave.

Whose death did Christ die? He lay down His own life for us. He died His death, under the curse, for us.

 

It means that, just as the First Adam stood in the place of mankind, so also did the Last Adam. Where through the First Adam came sin and death, through the Last Adam we have life.

We were spared the wrath to come.

 

I do not mean transferable sin (any Christian would probably agree that sins cannot be transferred).

I mean Adam stood as a representative of man. If you were in the Garden instead of Adam you would have done the same as he did.

But yes, sins cannot be transfered from one to another. Sins cannot be inherited. This is clear from Scripture (that was not the context I meant).

 

Uh....no. You asking IF Christ did not die on the Cross would He have died of old age is by definition hypothetical because Christ DID suffer and die on the cross.

Do you not understand the word "hypothetical"?

If by "evangelists" you mean RCC priests, then perhaps. If you mean ECF's then no.

There is no biblical support for the idea that Christ was NOT made like us in all things. The passage about Christ's body not experiencing corruption, that His body would not undergo decay, was in reference to the fact God would deliver and vindicate Him by raising Him from the grave.

Were you as familiar with Scripture as you are RCC ideas you would know this.

Jesus is man, not more than man in His humanity. Jesus is God, not less than God in His divinity.

I encourage you to rely on God's Word rather than RCC priests and Reformed teachers. Your faith simply does not stand as is, but if you can move further from RCC doctrine (rather than trying to make it biblical just rely on Scripture) and closer to God's Word then this may be one clearer to you.