Yep. A superficial view of atonement expressed in a superficial confession for superficial Christians seeking an easy-believism form of Christianity.
-
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!
1JN.2:2...A.W.Pink
- Thread starter Zaatar71
- Start date
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
Just one point that I think you have overlooked @Martin Marprelate.
Paul does not agree with you: You said "but it is in His death that we are saved"
Paul says:
Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies of God, we were reconciled to Him through the death of His Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through His life!
Your use of Heb 9:24-28 would, by following your logic, means that all are saved. As we see in 1Jn 2:2 "He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."
So while Christ's death made salvation possible as Paul said in 1Co_15:17 "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins."
Do you believe that Paul was somehow mixed-up when he wrote 1 Cor. 2:2? And the writer of Hebrews mistaken when he wrote Heb. 9?
I have no time at present to write a treatise on Rom. 5:10, but you will find that, properly understood, it will not contradict the other texts.
One more point: I do not believe that Penal Substitution is a Calvinist Doctrine. Many non-Calvinists uphold it. I don't want to put words into the mouth of @Charlie24 but I believe he upholds PSA and he is certainly not a Calvinist. Also, as an unapologetic Calvinist, I believe that the Cal vs. Arm debate is of far less importance than the question of PSA. Although I don't agree with it, and don't mind a discussion about it, Arminianism is an orthodox belief and we have very dear members of our church who take that understanding. Pelagianism, of course, is another matter.
Absolutely right! Thank you for posting that. '.... That both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.' Wonderful! and so succinct! 'Mercy and truth have met together; righteousness and peace have kissed' (Psalm 85:10). People here should read that extract and avail themselves of the proof-texts.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
No I do not think that Paul was mixed-up when he wrote either of those texts but why would you seemly dismiss a clear text on the subject at hand?
You said "but it is in His death that we are saved" but the verses you referenced do not address the issue directly although Rom 5:10 does which is why I asked why you seem to ignore it.
You say when Rom 5:10 is properly understood but the language does not leave room for doubt as to what Paul was saying.
I do not see where the context leaves room for doubt as to the meaning of Paul's words.
Rom 5:6 For at just the right time, while we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.
Rom 5:7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die.
Rom 5:8 But God proves His love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Rom 5:9 Therefore, since we have now been justified by His blood, how much more shall we be saved from wrath through Him!
Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies of God, we were reconciled to Him through the death of His Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through His life!
Rom 5:11 Not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
I look forward to your response regarding this text.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
In regard to the PSA non-PSA debate. I have not looked into that very much so cannot give a learned response.
As for the A vs C debate I see it it as an in house disagreement. We are all saved by the grace of God.
Paul was never confused, you can rest sure of that! The confusion is with us, different approaches from Scripture based on manmade doctrines. Not only from your side but mine also.
I don't argue PSA, I've told @JonC I respect his position that it's not clearly stated in Scripture but the concept is there, here again doctrines created by man whether true or not.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Yep. Charles Ryrie, in his book, Basic Theology, used as a text book at Cedarville College in Ohio is an example. He might be considered somewhat Calvinist, maybe even somewhat on the free grace side, but definitely against limited atonement - said this:
"While there may be truth in views that do not include penal substitution, it is important to remember that such truth, if there be some, cannot save eternally. Only the substitutionary death of Christ can provide that which God's justice demands and thereby become the basis for the gift of eternal life to those who believe."
Among non-Calvinist Baptists in my area he is highly thought of. I even have a study Bible with his notes. This also is very true:
This is the most important thing said on here in a while. It is a big deal.
Penal Substitution Theory is too superficial.
The bad tree produces bad fruit.
Penal Substitution Theory does not require the cross or Christ's death - it requires God punish Jesus for our sins in a manner equitable to the second death.
Penal Substitution does not provide a reconciliation of man and God (it just has God balancing a book).
The cross, Christ's blood shed for us, is ETERNALLY more substantial than Penal Substitution allows.
The bad tree is not bad because it produces bad fruit.
The bad tree produces bad fruit because it is a bad tree.
The blood of Christ cleanses from all unrighteousness by actually accomplishing something more than accounting for sins (bad fruit).
Scripture tells us we bear our sins bodily and die in our bodies because of sin, but are alive in spirit because of righteousness.
@DaveXR650 , I appreciate you engaging the topic. But you are wrong in believing Christ's death was to solve an accounting issue in order not to count bad fruit against bad trees.
Christ actually finished that work of reconciling mankind to God on the cross.
It was never about the bad fruits (sins). It was always about the bad trees (our state of falling short of God's glory).
The reason I argue against the theory is that it diminishes Christ's death to meaningless philosophy, not actually accomplishing anything towards reconciliation.
Scripture telks us that the law is NOT God's righteousness (not God's justice) but is one manifestation of that justice.
The law only shows us our fruit. It does not make a bad tree good. It is like a teacher, or a schoolmaster. It shows us our sins so we know we fall short of God's glory.
The blood of Christ is much more significant than you are allowing.
Jesus was not made righteous because He obeyed the law. His obedience shows us He IS righteous.
The bad tree produces bad fruit.
Penal Substitution Theory does not require the cross or Christ's death - it requires God punish Jesus for our sins in a manner equitable to the second death.
Penal Substitution does not provide a reconciliation of man and God (it just has God balancing a book).
The cross, Christ's blood shed for us, is ETERNALLY more substantial than Penal Substitution allows.
The bad tree is not bad because it produces bad fruit.
The bad tree produces bad fruit because it is a bad tree.
The blood of Christ cleanses from all unrighteousness by actually accomplishing something more than accounting for sins (bad fruit).
Scripture tells us we bear our sins bodily and die in our bodies because of sin, but are alive in spirit because of righteousness.
@DaveXR650 , I appreciate you engaging the topic. But you are wrong in believing Christ's death was to solve an accounting issue in order not to count bad fruit against bad trees.
Christ actually finished that work of reconciling mankind to God on the cross.
It was never about the bad fruits (sins). It was always about the bad trees (our state of falling short of God's glory).
The reason I argue against the theory is that it diminishes Christ's death to meaningless philosophy, not actually accomplishing anything towards reconciliation.
Scripture telks us that the law is NOT God's righteousness (not God's justice) but is one manifestation of that justice.
The law only shows us our fruit. It does not make a bad tree good. It is like a teacher, or a schoolmaster. It shows us our sins so we know we fall short of God's glory.
The blood of Christ is much more significant than you are allowing.
Jesus was not made righteous because He obeyed the law. His obedience shows us He IS righteous.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
After all this discussion, and all the claimed study of penal substitution "theorists", this may be the single most absurd statement ever posted on this board. Nothing is further from the truth.
Here's where I think you are correct even though you fail to give credit for the obvious fact that, if you defer to the Calvinist explanation, the blood of Christ actually does accomplish everything in the atonement. They are the one's who do explain it as actually accomplishing this rather than potentially doing so.
Here again. And I can tell you this because I am not a strong Calvinist. But if you want to read folks who really understand and preach on that you will find it mainly, if not exclusively in Calvinist Puritan literature. What you said there is indeed true, but you will not find in clearly taught by modern deniers of PSA.
Other ideas about the atonement are indeed true, and helpful, and PSA by itself as in alone, does not cover every aspect of the atoning work of Christ. But at the very core, at it's essential and most important meaning - PSA is the only explanation that gives a true meaning of the blood of Christ.
These posts are getting worse. You started attacking the core principle of Christianity. I can go on forever, but I would recommend taking some time off and thinking this over. You are moving in a dangerous direction and worse yet may lead others more gullible towards real error. Dr. Ryrie, who I don't agree with on some things, is right on his statement about the atonement. At least think about which groups are saying what and that in itself should be a clue about which direction you are heading in. I wish you well, truly.
You are just reacting rather than considering. Read your previous post.
I am going to borrow an illustration from Jesus as I think it helps.
A bad tree produces bad fruit. A good tree produces good fruit.
A bad tree (unrighteous,) produces bad fruit (sins). A good tree (righteous, spiritual) produces good fruits (fruits of the Spirit).
Penal Substitution addresses the fruits produced through the fruit identifier (the law).
You say God piles all of the bad fruits the bad trees produced and put them on the good tree. There God burned those fruits. Therefore the bad trees are allowed to remain and not be burned.
And you announce "it is finished!!!" Praise God all that bad fruit has been destroyed!!!" as if that would actually reconcile man to God.
You are too focused on the fruit (sins) and the identifier of fruit (the law) that you are missing Atonement entirely.
Christ's death, according to Penal Substitution Theory, was not necessary. It was just how God punished sins.
We still bear our sins in the flesh and fie in our bodies for our sins, and we live in the spirit for His righteousness.
All Penal Substitution Theory does is mistake justice for a manifestation of justice and try to balance the books according to its philosophy.
I disagree with you because I believe that on the Cross God was actually reconciling mankind to Himself, including forgiving man because of this reconciliation (rather than balancing an acvounting log).
So I believe that we (bad trees) are actually redeemed by the blood of Christ. This was actually accomplished by Christ dying on the cross.
Still the same problem. You have sins rather than men who fall short of God's glory in focus.
And you are still working off of the law (the law identifies our fruits, these fruits identify our condition).
This is what I was getting at. Penal Substitution Theory has never been the core of Christianity. It is one theory or view among many.
You are making your position "another gospel".
You outright (and rightly) reject Satisfaction Substitution, which many believe the core of Chriatianity. Your theory is no better.
Penal Substitution Theory is NOT central to Christianity. It is central to your version of Christianity, which is a problem.
You play around with the "fruits", claiming if the "bad fruits" are destroyed then the tree will be fine.
The bad tree is not a bad tree because it produces bad fruits.
The bad tree produces bad fruits because it is a bad tree.
Stop addressing the fruits we produce as we fall short of God's glory and address the fact we fall short of God's glory.
If Jesus bore our sins instead of us then why do we bear our sins and die in the body because of sin?
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
You have somehow out of no where brought up the good fruit, bad fruit. Read that in context. It is about how we can recognize false prophets, not how the atonement works. Once again, and I keep advising people, whether you're a Calvinist or not, if you listen to those Puritans they won't let you down. Owen said that people get two things wrong. One is that you don't have to be born again. And the other is claiming that having been born again you can go on living a sinful life.
Winter is coming on. Spend some time with Owen this winter and you will be much better off and less confused.
Owen even has a whole chapter on that, seriously. Yes, we still die in our mortal bodies.
No, throughout the New Testament God speaks of the fruits produced by the natural contrasted with the fruits of the Spirit.
It is not a mistake that the plants producing bad fruit is pulled up and burned in the fire. You are avoiding the issue (truth).
I spent too much time with Owen already. We are buds now.
He did have some strange ideas, like God's words to Satan being an explanation that mem would not like snakes. But I think he was intelligent enough to know what it would mean to his theology if he believed it was about Jesus.
You say that Christ's death paid some penalty for our sins (although we still bear our sins in the flesh and die because if sin, He died instead if us as well).
BUT the problem is you are still dealing with sins and the law. You are addressing the fruits of man rather than man. It is superficial. It is NOT biblical atonement.
The atonement of the Bible actually accomplishes what Penal Substitution does not - the salvation of man.
Why keep going under the law when we know the law shows ones nature but is powerless towards salvation?
Why concentrate so much on the fruits and so little on the source that produce those fruits?
Your theory is relatively new, but that us not its downfall. It is not in the actual words of God and is a departure from "the faith once given "
The ultimate heresy of your theory is has a form of godliness but denies the power of God. It is superficial, focusing on God accounting for sins under a failed philosophy rather than reconciling men to God.
I will detail this later on a different thread.
Anyway....what would God punishing Jesus for our sins acvomolish?
It would accomplish nothing towards reconciling God to man. Man would still fall short of God's glory and need a Savior for reconciliation.
All it would do is balance a log book under Calvin's understanding of justice, and understanding that proved itself a failure.
Penal Substitution Theory is superficial. People like it because it is easy believism. But it accomplishes nothing and considers the blood of Christ useless except to account for sins.
Last edited:
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Jon, you are all over the place. For awhile it was Calvinists who were claiming that your sins were legally put away and thus you were saved without repentance and a change in behavior. In other words, the atonement actually did something. Now you're saying no, Calvinists are wrong, they really have a superficial view of the atonement because you have decided to claim that the atonement really did accomplish everything. It's good that you have come that far. So if the atonement:
really does this, then it must be limited or else everyone would be saved. You've just become a full fledged Calvinist. Or a Universalist.
Edit: Scratch the part about the Universalist - I had forgotten what you think of Calvinists because of their views on the atonement. Well, and I would include Ryrie, and J.C. Ryle in case the Calvinist net doesn't include them too.
No. It seems to you that I am all over the place, but that is because you are firing shots to try to defend your position rather than trying to understand mine so that you can legitimately choose (you do not want another position to be valid).
Obviously our sins were not "legally put away". Sins are manifestations of our heart. You cannot legally put away actions. That was NOT what I am saying.
I am saying that the Cross was God reconciling mankind to Himself, not counting their sins (forgiving their sins). The blood of Christ is this reconciliation. The sins are taken care of apart the law.
But your jumping around and my trying to ag along with you does not help. You do not see the impact your theory has on corrupting Scripture when you look at bits and pieces. But look at them together and I think you can't help but see how far the theory has drifted.
But it is my fault too. I have not exercised patients and have jumped along with you.
I will take the time and explain. You at least need to understand before you reject.
Last edited:
@DaveXR650
Here are just a few problems with your theology.
The Law
Calvinism mistakes the law as justice, as the very righteousness of God. Scripture tells us that the law is not God’s righteousness itself but one manifestation of God’s righteousness (Romans 3:21).
The law is just. But the law itself is not justice. The law shows us what we are, like a school master or a teacher (Galatians 3:24). It shows us our sin (Romans 7:7). In other words, through the law comes the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:30).
The law shows us our sin.
But our sins are not the core problem. Sins are fruit that result from the flesh as we give in to sinful passions (Romans 7:5). It is from within the heart of man that these evil thoughts arise (Mark 7:21-23). Sins are fruits of the flesh, things that are produced by the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21).
The law shows us our sins, the fruits that men who live “in the realm of the flesh” produce. A mind set on the flesh is death.
But Calvinism has adopted a philosophy of justice that can only deal with righteousness and justice through the law, and this is why a Calvinist can never understand the Atonement. They hold the philosophy of John Calvin which reduced justice to an accounting ledger and demanded that the judge balance the deficits by collecting a debt (as Calvin put it, the role of justice is to avenge the law).
The Righteousness of Christ
Calvinism mistakes righteousness as being accomplished through the law rather than the law showing one’s righteous or unrighteous state. Often Calvinists state the heresy that Christ is righteous for His perfect obedience to the law and God imputes to us that perfect obedience to the law.
Christ is eternally righteous. He fulfilled the law because He is righteous. The law testifies to the righteousness of Christ (Romans 3:21). The law shows us that Jesus is righteous and the law shows us our sins.
We are declared righteous in the present because Christ is the guarantee that we will be righteousness as we are predestined to be conformed to His image, justified and glorified.
Calvinism twists and redefines terms and words
Forgiveness is the act of foregoing vengeance, punishment or anger. Calvinists redefines the word to suit their philosophy. God, under their philosophy, cannot be just if He forgives sins. So God punishes our sins on Jesus and considers this to be “forgiving” sins. The problem, obviously, is this is not the definition of forgiveness. Forgiveness is something that one does in order to forgive.
Surety is another word Calvinists like to twist. It is used in accounting, so it naturally fits into their philosophy. The problem is that the main use of the word is not in accounting at all. The main use of the word is in a type of bond, an arrangement between three parties. One is given something in advance. The Giver accepts a guarantee that conditions of the thing advanced will be met. The Surety is the guarantee (in secular terms, this is a surety bond).
God declares us righteous. He does this because Jesus is the surety of a better covenant. We are predestined to be conformed into the image of Christ. He is Himself the guarantee that we will be righteous.
Propitiation is another fun word that Calvinists redefine. The word itself means “to gain favor” (the word comes from propitious which means “favorable, gracious”). Calvinists view Christ as the Propitiation, but in reality they mean “substitution”. If God’s wrath is propitiated then that wrath ceases to exist as it is turned to favor. The propitiation is NEVER the object of wrath or displeasure. It is the opposite. The propitiation merits a change towards the one for whom the propitiation is made.
Superficial Atonement
Calvinistic Atonement treats the cross and the blood of Christ as accomplishing something superficial. It views the Atonement as God punishing Jesus for our sins. But our sins are merely manifestations of the problem of man. Punishing the sins of man does not bring man back into a good standing with God, it merely satisfies the demands Calvin’s philosophy places on God.
The problem is not sins but that we fall short of the glory of God. Our sins point to our condition.
Calvinism denies Scripture in explaining it away
I talked about Calvinism redefining terms. But in so doing Calvinism denies Scripture.
Scripture presents the basis of God forgiving sins as being repentance, and defines this repentance as ultimately becoming a man that does not fall short of God’s glory. Man must repent, turn to God, turn from evil, God gives man a new heart and spirit, the man dies to sin, dies to the flesh, dies to their former lusts, dies to their old self, and is made alive in Christ.
But Calvinists have determined that God cannot actually forgive sins. Although nowhere in God’s words, Calvinists have decided that, per Calvin’s philosophy of justice, God has to punish sins so He treats sins as if they are material things and takes them from us to put on Jesus, Jesus suffers this punishment and we are “forgiven”.
Just and the Justifier of Sinners
God tells us that He overlooked the sins prior to the New Covenant so that He would be just and the justifier of sinners. Calvinists assume that this means God had to punish those sins on Jesus in order to clear the books. But the verse specifically speaks of those sins committed prior to the New Covenant.
God is just. But rather than working a way through the law to justify sinners God chose another path – that is, a manifestation of His righteousness apart from the law.
God justifies sinners without being unjust because of the Cross. We are justified based on the righteousness of Christ. The law holds no condemnation for the just, and we will be justified. We will be glorified.
Here are just a few problems with your theology.
The Law
Calvinism mistakes the law as justice, as the very righteousness of God. Scripture tells us that the law is not God’s righteousness itself but one manifestation of God’s righteousness (Romans 3:21).
The law is just. But the law itself is not justice. The law shows us what we are, like a school master or a teacher (Galatians 3:24). It shows us our sin (Romans 7:7). In other words, through the law comes the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:30).
The law shows us our sin.
But our sins are not the core problem. Sins are fruit that result from the flesh as we give in to sinful passions (Romans 7:5). It is from within the heart of man that these evil thoughts arise (Mark 7:21-23). Sins are fruits of the flesh, things that are produced by the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21).
The law shows us our sins, the fruits that men who live “in the realm of the flesh” produce. A mind set on the flesh is death.
But Calvinism has adopted a philosophy of justice that can only deal with righteousness and justice through the law, and this is why a Calvinist can never understand the Atonement. They hold the philosophy of John Calvin which reduced justice to an accounting ledger and demanded that the judge balance the deficits by collecting a debt (as Calvin put it, the role of justice is to avenge the law).
The Righteousness of Christ
Calvinism mistakes righteousness as being accomplished through the law rather than the law showing one’s righteous or unrighteous state. Often Calvinists state the heresy that Christ is righteous for His perfect obedience to the law and God imputes to us that perfect obedience to the law.
Christ is eternally righteous. He fulfilled the law because He is righteous. The law testifies to the righteousness of Christ (Romans 3:21). The law shows us that Jesus is righteous and the law shows us our sins.
We are declared righteous in the present because Christ is the guarantee that we will be righteousness as we are predestined to be conformed to His image, justified and glorified.
Calvinism twists and redefines terms and words
Forgiveness is the act of foregoing vengeance, punishment or anger. Calvinists redefines the word to suit their philosophy. God, under their philosophy, cannot be just if He forgives sins. So God punishes our sins on Jesus and considers this to be “forgiving” sins. The problem, obviously, is this is not the definition of forgiveness. Forgiveness is something that one does in order to forgive.
Surety is another word Calvinists like to twist. It is used in accounting, so it naturally fits into their philosophy. The problem is that the main use of the word is not in accounting at all. The main use of the word is in a type of bond, an arrangement between three parties. One is given something in advance. The Giver accepts a guarantee that conditions of the thing advanced will be met. The Surety is the guarantee (in secular terms, this is a surety bond).
God declares us righteous. He does this because Jesus is the surety of a better covenant. We are predestined to be conformed into the image of Christ. He is Himself the guarantee that we will be righteous.
Propitiation is another fun word that Calvinists redefine. The word itself means “to gain favor” (the word comes from propitious which means “favorable, gracious”). Calvinists view Christ as the Propitiation, but in reality they mean “substitution”. If God’s wrath is propitiated then that wrath ceases to exist as it is turned to favor. The propitiation is NEVER the object of wrath or displeasure. It is the opposite. The propitiation merits a change towards the one for whom the propitiation is made.
Superficial Atonement
Calvinistic Atonement treats the cross and the blood of Christ as accomplishing something superficial. It views the Atonement as God punishing Jesus for our sins. But our sins are merely manifestations of the problem of man. Punishing the sins of man does not bring man back into a good standing with God, it merely satisfies the demands Calvin’s philosophy places on God.
The problem is not sins but that we fall short of the glory of God. Our sins point to our condition.
Calvinism denies Scripture in explaining it away
I talked about Calvinism redefining terms. But in so doing Calvinism denies Scripture.
Scripture presents the basis of God forgiving sins as being repentance, and defines this repentance as ultimately becoming a man that does not fall short of God’s glory. Man must repent, turn to God, turn from evil, God gives man a new heart and spirit, the man dies to sin, dies to the flesh, dies to their former lusts, dies to their old self, and is made alive in Christ.
But Calvinists have determined that God cannot actually forgive sins. Although nowhere in God’s words, Calvinists have decided that, per Calvin’s philosophy of justice, God has to punish sins so He treats sins as if they are material things and takes them from us to put on Jesus, Jesus suffers this punishment and we are “forgiven”.
Just and the Justifier of Sinners
God tells us that He overlooked the sins prior to the New Covenant so that He would be just and the justifier of sinners. Calvinists assume that this means God had to punish those sins on Jesus in order to clear the books. But the verse specifically speaks of those sins committed prior to the New Covenant.
God is just. But rather than working a way through the law to justify sinners God chose another path – that is, a manifestation of His righteousness apart from the law.
God justifies sinners without being unjust because of the Cross. We are justified based on the righteousness of Christ. The law holds no condemnation for the just, and we will be justified. We will be glorified.