Baptists and Penal Substitution

[Piper]

Since this is the Baptist Section of the Forum, I assume that all people who are here are Baptists, or have answered in their registration that they are Baptists.

In another thread, someone said this: "Most Christians believe it is a false gospel."

Which leads me to ask, do most Baptists on this forum believe it is a false gospel?

Definition: The penal substitutionary view of the atonement holds that the most fundamental event of the atonement is that Jesus Christ took the full punishment that we deserved for our sins as a substitute in our place, and that all other benefits or results of the atonement find their anchor in this truth.
Resources on Atonement | The Gospel Coalition

So, do you, a Baptist, believe it is a false gospel?

 

[JonC]

Since this is the Baptist Section of the Forum, I assume that all people who are here are Baptists, or have answered in their registration that they are Baptists.

In another thread, someone said this: "Most Christians believe it is a false gospel."

Which leads me to ask, do most Baptists on this forum believe it is a false gospel?

Definition: The penal substitutionary view of the atonement holds that the most fundamental event of the atonement is that Jesus Christ took the full punishment that we deserved for our sins as a substitute in our place, and that all other benefits or results of the atonement find their anchor in this truth.
Resources on Atonement | The Gospel Coalition

So, do you, a Baptist, believe it is a false gospel?

While most Christians reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, it depends on how you define "Baptist".

If you mean throughout history and use "Baptist" as the "Baptist distinctive", then most rejected the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

BUT if you mean evangelical Baptist then most accept the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

It gets difficult because many do not view "Baptist" as a denomination or Protestant.

 

[Piper]

While most Christians reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, it depends on how you define "Baptist".

If you mean throughout history and use "Baptist" as the "Baptist distinctive", then most rejected the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

BUT if you mean evangelical Baptist then most accept the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

That is not what I asked.

 

[JonC]

That is not what I asked.

I'm getting to it

Most non-Protestant Baptists (probably all) reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

Most Protestant Baptists accept the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

The reason is that Protestant Baptists (we'd just say Baptist, except that'd exclude groups that hold the "Baptist distinctives") hold a mised theology - a theology that benefitted from Baptistic theology prior to the Reformation and the theology of the Reformation.

My guess would be that most Baptists on this board hold at least some form of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

 

[KenH]

Even having been raised in the Pelagianism of the Church of Christ and adhering to until my 40s, I was taught penal substitutionary atonement. I consider those who do not adhere to penal substitutionary atonement to be badly misguided on the subject.

 

[JonC]

Even having been raised in the Pelagianism of the Church of Christ and adhering to until my 40s, I was taught penal substitutionary atonement. I consider those who do not adhere to penal substitutionary atonement to be badly misguided on the subject.

It is a common view within Protestant churches.

There is a reason Baptistic churches during the Reformation considered Penal Substitution theorists too close to Roman Catholicism.

It would have been better had they chosen to abandon Catholic theology rather than reforming it to a more "biblical" position.

But yes, the Church of Christ holds to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

 

[Piper]

We're not in the Reformation period. The Ransom Theory was seen to be lacking by the Reformers. And it is lacking today. I won't go as far as JonC does in accusing me of believing a false gospel, which is really close to violating a BB rule. (rules 4 and 5 are:
4. It is NEVER ACCEPTABLE to question someone's salvation relative to "interpretation/preferences" of doctrine. If false doctrine is taught, it will be stopped, but assumption is always that the BB member is simply not educated or confused, perhaps using poor word-choices, and not "doomed to eternal hell". Phrases like "If you were as spiritual as I am, you'd believe xyz" is another such put-down not tolerated.

5. Certain terms are OFF-LIMITS in this forum in the name of civility and discussion:
To label someone (individually) or a post (corporately) as "perverted," "satanic," "demonic," "cultic," "heretical," "sacrilegious," etc, is counter-productive to discussion and learning.)

But I will say that the Penal Substitutionary Atonement is the Center of the Gospel, and removing it is removing the TRUE gospel.

 

[Silverhair]

We're not in the Reformation period. The Ransom Theory was seen to be lacking by the Reformers. And it is lacking today. I won't go as far as JonC does in accusing me of believing a false gospel, which is really close to violating a BB rule. (rules 4 and 5 are:
4. It is NEVER ACCEPTABLE to question someone's salvation relative to "interpretation/preferences" of doctrine. If false doctrine is taught, it will be stopped, but assumption is always that the BB member is simply not educated or confused, perhaps using poor word-choices, and not "doomed to eternal hell". Phrases like "If you were as spiritual as I am, you'd believe xyz" is another such put-down not tolerated.

5. Certain terms are OFF-LIMITS in this forum in the name of civility and discussion:
To label someone (individually) or a post (corporately) as "perverted," "satanic," "demonic," "cultic," "heretical," "sacrilegious," etc, is counter-productive to discussion and learning.)

But I will say that the Penal Substitutionary Atonement is the Center of the Gospel, and removing it is removing the TRUE gospel.

I can see that the atonement is the center of the gospel message but I do not see PSA clearly shown in the text of the bible. The bible is clear that Christ saves us from the wrath of God 1Th 1:10, Rom 5:9 and that those that do not trust in Him will suffer the wrath of God Joh 3:36, Rom 3:5. What I have not found is Jesus suffering the wrath of God as a punishment. Did He {Jesus} go to the cross, suffer and die YES but He did it voluntarily. He did this so that He could redeem those that trusted in Him. Gal 4:5, Tit 2:14

So for someone to deny PSA does not equate to them denying the gospel. 1Co 15:1-4

 

[JonC]

We're not in the Reformation period. The Ransom Theory was seen to be lacking by the Reformers. And it is lacking today. I won't go as far as JonC does in accusing me of believing a false gospel, which is really close to violating a BB rule. (rules 4 and 5 are:
4. It is NEVER ACCEPTABLE to question someone's salvation relative to "interpretation/preferences" of doctrine. If false doctrine is taught, it will be stopped, but assumption is always that the BB member is simply not educated or confused, perhaps using poor word-choices, and not "doomed to eternal hell". Phrases like "If you were as spiritual as I am, you'd believe xyz" is another such put-down not tolerated.

5. Certain terms are OFF-LIMITS in this forum in the name of civility and discussion:
To label someone (individually) or a post (corporately) as "perverted," "satanic," "demonic," "cultic," "heretical," "sacrilegious," etc, is counter-productive to discussion and learning.)

But I will say that the Penal Substitutionary Atonement is the Center of the Gospel, and removing it is removing the TRUE gospel.

I have not accused you of believing a false gospel at all.

I said that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is a corruption of the gospel (the biblical gospel). But I also said that within that the gospel shines through.

I believe Roman Catholicism is a corruption of the gospel. Yet somehow the gospel shines through that error. It is the same with Penal Substitution theorists (which is essentially reformed Catholic doctrine).

I agree that labeling people as "unorthodox", "perverted," "satanic," "demonic," "cultic," "heretical," and "sacrilegious,
That is something I don't do. That said, it is not inappropriate to acknowledge that Calvinists have considered believers baptism as a heresy, or non-Protestant Baptists have considered the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement a heresy. Or that many Baptists consider SDA a heresy.

People get offended easily. But in order to think you have to risk offending.

You think I come close to violating BB rules. But I don't. I choose my words carefully.

 

[Arthur King]

Since this is the Baptist Section of the Forum, I assume that all people who are here are Baptists, or have answered in their registration that they are Baptists.

In another thread, someone said this: "Most Christians believe it is a false gospel."

Which leads me to ask, do most Baptists on this forum believe it is a false gospel?

Definition: The penal substitutionary view of the atonement holds that the most fundamental event of the atonement is that Jesus Christ took the full punishment that we deserved for our sins as a substitute in our place, and that all other benefits or results of the atonement find their anchor in this truth.
Resources on Atonement | The Gospel Coalition

So, do you, a Baptist, believe it is a false gospel?

Yes, penal substitution is a false gospel:

5 Biblical Corrections to Penal Substitution

I wouldn't say anyone is not saved if they believe it, but they are saved in spite of penal substitution, not because of it.