37818
Well-Known Member
There has been made the claim, in order to believe Scripture teaches a penal substitution, one must add something to scripture it does not teach.
-
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 Gospel
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
- Status
That is absolutely not true. That is one moderator's made up in his head idea.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Penal substitution involves Christ taking upon himself what we deserved. And "what we deserved" is derived from what we observe reading all we know about God's nature, his view of justice, and his "feelings" as expressed in human terms regarding sin. It's all in the scripture. It does not mean the atonement did not do anything else, either. It is expressed symbolically in Leviticus and explained by scripture itself in Hebrews. When you finally pry out where the "anti penal substitution" people are coming from the links to modern liberalism become apparent. You will have to decide for yourself. This in my mind is way more important than whether you should be a Calvinist. It should no more be allowed on a Baptist only forum than Catholic apologists should be allowed (which they are not by the way).
37818
Well-Known Member
Well we have at least one individual claiming "penal substution" to be a Trojan horse for Calvinism. I am not a Calvinist [0 or 2 point depending on interpertations used]. Though I believe the same Scriptures Calvinists do for their TULUP. I understand the same passages, but differently.
If you believe that God punished Jesus instead of us then you had to have added that to the Bible (because it is not in the text of Scripture) or you believe it is extra-biblical. That is an observation, not an accusation.
If you doubt that then quote a verse stating that God punished Jesus instead of us.
I told you before that I believe foundational doctrines must be in God's Word. The reason is these are important doctrines upon which other doctrines are built. Penal Substitution is not in the text of Scripture. I do not believe it is true.
Now, that f you want to call "Christ bore our sins" penal substitution that's fine. I believe that Christ bore our sins, died for our sin, is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole World, became a curse for us, and that it pleased God to crush Him, and that it is by His stripes we are healed.
What do I not believe that makes me reject penal substitution? Those things penal substitution theorists claim but are not actually in the Bible.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Yes, I'm aware of that and although it's not a Trojan horse the fact is that the most definitive argument in support of limited atonement does depend on penal substitution being true. But I would argue that you don't need to go so far as to reject penal substitution in order to refute limited atonement. Arminians believed in penal substitution and so did both branches of the general or non-Calvinistic Baptists. But James White, an ardent defender of limited atonement, has a video floating around somewhere where he agrees that you lose limited atonement and you lose penal substitution. Like I said, a lot of people don't agree but that is what he says and he is open with it so calling it a Trojan horse is just nasty.
The argument I mentioned above is of course John Owen's "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ". And he bases his argument on the idea that the specific sins of specific individuals (the elect) were dealt with at the cross, and if that was really done and they were forgiven then that can't be undone.
I wouldn't say it's a Trojan horse for Calvinism, but I do believe that Calvinism is the logical conclusion to Penal Substitution.
37818
Well-Known Member
Do you think Jesus offering His soul in exchange for sinners was God punishing Him in exchange for us?
Mark 10:45
Julia E. Smith Literal Translation, 1876
. . . For also the Son of man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his soul a ransom for many. . . .
Modern Literal Version 2020
. . . For* the Son of Man also came, not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a redemption in exchange-for many. . . .
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
So you are saying that if one does not agree with PSA then they should not be on this board. Rather close minded of you there @DaveXR650.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
I have observed for instance that on this board occasionally some well schooled Catholic will get on here and give everyone fits trying to prove the validity of Roman Catholic teachings. And sometimes they are good at it. In a short time the thread will be closed and he will told to stay off because this is a Baptist board.
All I am saying is that I don't think you have the gospel as most Baptists understand it if you don't have as part of your understanding that in some way Jesus took our sins upon himself and either wiped them out at that time or made it possible for this to occur when a person believes. The only modern view attacking penal substitution that anyone has shown on here from Baptists was off a website that is so liberal that it is pro gay, trans, woke and the whole liberal orthodoxy. I don't consider that Baptist but maybe I'm a dinosaur. As far as being open minded I get in more trouble for being so than most. I happen to believe that some Roman Catholics are indeed saved, as well as hyper-Calvinists all the way to semi-Pelagian free willers, and I believe that as far as the atonement is concerned, since we are passive in it, that our coming to Christ is all that is necessary on our part in order to be saved by what he has done on our behalf.
But if you reject penal substitution totally, there is a point where logically there is no reason to "come to Christ". I mean for what? We died with Him already, this is collective not individual, our personal sins are not an issue? Yes, at that point you are getting at the core of the gospel as any Baptist should understand and I think it is irresponsible at best for smart people to get on here and possibly damage the faith of those less able to articulate their beliefs.
Of course not. I told you that I am a biblicist when it comes to foundational doctrines. I believe the atonement is a foundational doctrine.
Jesus died for our sins. He offered His life for us (He purchased us with His blood).
But Scripture tells us very clearly that His death was a result of "the powers of this age", "the power of darkness", "evil doers", the "wicked".
Why modern liberalism? (It looks like you are just trying to insult, but I know better if you).
Men like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Augustine, and Origen were not modern, much less modern liberals.
Anabaptist theology is not modern either. I don't think, considering the Amish and traditional Mennonite communities, that it is fair to call them liberal.
It looks like you are characterizing all Christians who have, and who do, hold a view other than penal substitution as liberal based on a small segment of liberals who reject the Theory.
But I could do the same. The Methodist Church is pretty liberal. The Presbyterian Church (USA) is pretty liberal. They affirm Penal Substitution Theory. So do most of the Baptist churches that have become liberal.
I think you may want to reexamine your post on this one.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Right. And they weren't Baptists either. And, as you have noticed in reading them and I agree with you, most of them would have a hard time recognizing us as fellow believers.
I may have overlooked someone but the only example I have seen on here of someone against penal substitution and possibly a modern Baptist was on a website that is well known as being very liberal. And I'm not referring to politics so much as theology. The guy who had the article in Christianity Today, Thomas McCall, was at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and I don't think that is Baptist. Wright, is he a Baptist? Are there any Baptist churches that really refute PSA?
Now I have from the Mennonite website, a paper on the Atonement and they admit themselves that Anabaptists are all over the place, many times did not explain themselves in systematic form and the writer claimed some had a view very similar to PSA.
Direction: The Atonement in Anabaptist Theology
I have a lot of sympathy for Mennonites, being partially raised in a United Missionary Church and I used to have Amish neighbors and have looked into their theology. But the modern Mennonite church, is indeed often "liberal".
What I think happens and why this is important is that from the days of the liberal movement to critique scripture as being unreliable there is always a pull for such folks to get away from views that might seem primitive or that don't fit the modern image of God they have created. They want to make Christianity an ethical system without the baggage of people going to hell or there being a necessity of blood sacrifices. They especially want to avoid people having to give an account to God for their sin so naturally, any view of the atonement that emphasizes collective salvation and minimized the idea of sin being an offense to God would be attractive. Now that does not mean that everyone who disagrees with PSA is automatically thinking along those lines but I am still asking - where are serious, solid, theologically conservative Baptist clergymen who truly dislike PSA?
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
Why would you think I do not hold to the gospel of the bible? I know that I am not a Calvinist but Calvinism is not the gospel although some calvinists think it is just as they think you have to hold to PSA or your salvation is in question.
In a roundabout way you are saying that if one does not hold to the PSA as Calvinists articulate it then you are not saved. That in itself is a silly idea and just a tad offensive. The ECF did not have any particular view in place when they wrote of salvation. I am sure we can find ransom, Christ the Victor, substitution and what have you. You may even find PSA in germ form in their writings. From what I have read, which in the overall scheme is limited, it appears that the ECF viewed the various views as complimentary rather than competing. These views came from scripture and these are what I have seen in scripture also. What I have not found is Christ being punished by God. For God to be just He must hold accountable the sinner for the sins they commit. Christ is not accountable for sins He did not commit but He can and did stand in our place as the sacrifice to appease the wrath of God. I think the bible says it quite clearly Rom 3:25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation G2433 in His blood through faith.
G2433 {used of the cover of the ark of the covenant in the holy of Holies, which was sprinkled with the blood of the expiatory victim on the annual day of atonement (this rite signifying that the life of the people, the loss of which they had merited by their sins, was offered to God in the blood as the life of the victim, and that God by this ceremony was appeased and their sins expiated); hence the lid of expiation, the propitiatory} Thayer
By the way I do not think @Jon or myself are attacking PSA and speaking for myself I definitely do not adhere to liberal theology or go to sites that promote pro gay, trans, woke or the whole liberal orthodoxy.
The sacrifices we see in Leviticus 16 were a type of Christ's sacrifice for us. They were substitutes for the sinners just as Christ is our substitute.
I have listed several serious Baptist theologians who truly reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.
Several were Mennonite theologians (which are Baptist) but a few were Baptist pastors.
I am a member of a SBC congregation. Within the SBC there have been several pastors objecting to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. It is not a "hot topic" but enough of a topic for the SBC to write a resolution advocating the Theory. The resolution has been challenged.
This is interesting because the SBC confessional statements have historically been written to accommodate both penal substitution and non-penal substitution Baptists.
Here is part of an article from The Evangelical Theological Society:
Since its founding, the Southern Baptist Convention has deliberately permitted a variety of substitutionary theories of atonement. Apparently unaware of this fact, in 2017, messengers to the annual meeting passed a non-binding resolution on the necessity of penal substitutionary atonement.My Account Status | The Evangelical Theological Society
W.T. Conner was a Baptist theologian rejected Penal Substitution.
James Garrett was (Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Theology at Southwestern Seminary and a leading theologian among Southern Baptists) rejected the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.
I mentioned Greg Boyd (Yale Divinity School, Princeton Theological Seminary). He is Baptist and rejects the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.
Matthew Emerson is a Southern Baptist theologian who rejects penal substitution.
Lucas Stamps is a Baptist professor who rejects the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.
Graham Walker is a Baptist theologian and professor of theology who rejects penal substitution.
Steve Chalke is a Baptist minister and writer who rejects the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.
Mark Baker is a theologian and missionary who rejects Penal Substitution Theory.
That's a quick, short list. If you want more just open your eyes.
But most Baptist theologians hold the theory (or some form of it) as best explaining the cross. Baptists are a mix of Reformed and Baptistic doctrines.
There are Reformed churches who reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement as well, so there should be no surprise there are Baptist theologians who view it as an error.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Maybe I just need to get out more but if you mean guys like Greg Boyd you are confirming exactly what I have been saying. Is that the guy on youtube, who likes open theism and thinks the main LGBTQ issue is that our churches need to repent for not treating them well enough? He claims to be Anabaptist, not Baptist, and he's the one who makes the distinction. Some of your arguments against penal substitution come right out of the Antiochian Orthodox Church. But they are not Baptist. I'm not sure what is going on here but I am still thinking I am right on this. I'm not seeing any quotes from bonified Baptists who would be considered "normal" by most Baptists on here, as strange as we all are. I want to see quotes, and explanations from normal Baptists refuting penal substitution.That's a quick, short list. If you want more just open your eyes.
You're right. I know Greg Boyd and he's so far from mainstream Christianity. He says God does now know what will happen in the future. Just read "Letters to a Skeptic."
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
I wasn't thinking of you at all. I didn't know you had even gotten involved in this subject. I agree with almost everything in your post. Just to repeat one more time. Even if you don't believe in penal substitution, either because you haven't studied that deeply or that you come from a tradition that doesn't emphasize it, because we are passive in the atonement, I believe if you feel the need to come to Christ because of your sin and you believe in Him as Lord and Savior, that is all that is necessary. If though, because of teaching that opposes penal substitution, you are led to believe that there is no necessity to come to Christ in order to be reconciled to God the Father and/or there never was a sin issue involving your sin against God - in that case you are in danger of losing the gospel. In fact, you don't know the gospel. For the record, I do not think @JonC believes this way himself, but some of the things he says I feel could dovetail into what some others are saying and could be damaging to those who don't understand all this.
Boyd is that guy. I don't agree with him, but he is a Baptist and a theologian. I think he's the only one in the list that you'd call "liberal".
You have to keep in mind that conservative Baptists who reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement view the theory as "liberal" in its treatment of God's Word.
I am unfamiliar with the Antiochian Orthodox Church.
If this is Greek Orthodox then kinda. The Orthodox Church maintained the Classic View of Atonement but included the Moral Influence Theory. So their objection to the Penal Substitution Theory, that it is a corruption of Scripture, would be the same.
But it would be the same with any Christian denomination that rejects the theory.
My arguments for what I believe come from Scripture (the text, literally) and I have compared it to the writings of the Early Church and later to the traditional Anabaptists (there are now liberal Anabaptist sects). I believe when we come up with a new view it is most likely wrong and needs to be scrutinized very carefully (which is another reason to doubt the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement).
Heresies are normally mostly truth. So yes, the Classic View of Atonement could be altered to lead to heresy....or apostate congregations could hold the Classic View.
But the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement has also been involved with heresy and apostate groups have also held Penal Substitution Theory.
I think the best argument here (that you could possibly make) is that salvation is not dependent on a persons Atonement Theory but on the person of Christ.
There are wonderful Christians who believe the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. There are wonderful Christians who reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.
I know because I've been both.
- Status