• 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

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I don't see any reason to keep refuting you. You exhibit an astounding animosity towards basic Christian teaching
You need to be more truthful with your words. There is a reason that I have been leaning on the writings of the early church rather than simply going off the cuff.

But I realize that you posted to obscure rather than understand.

Anyway, I will tell you where the ideas came from. They cane from "what is written" in Scripture.

I got the "bad tree" imagery from Galatians 5 (the passage refers to "sins" as "fruits" which are produced by a mind "led by the flesh").

In dealing with the nature of the law, justice, and what is addressed by Christ's death I used the writings of the early church rather than just Scripture because of your comment in post #110 equating Calvin's philosophy to being the "core of Christianity".

You are very quick to dismiss any writings that disagree with you and cling to the words of Calvinists. The problem is in your haste you fail to even understand the view of those Christians you dismiss.

Put it this way - what if the early church was right about the Atonement? That would mean you are wrong. Since you view all Christians prior to Calvin, most Christians from Calvin forward (including men like Luther) as missing the very core of Christianity, are you saying they are not Christian?


I asked you several times but you never answered.

Your faith (what you view as the very core of Christianity) is not in the biblical text but it is instead what a sect of men understand to be taught by the Bible.

How is this not "leaning on your understanding"?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I don't see any reason to keep refuting you.
Lol....I don't know why this popped into my head. I guess you remind me of the guy.

Several years ago we had a Calvinist member that posts kinda like you.

I quoted a passage in response to another member.

I mean, that was all I did. I quoted a passage.

This guy responds to my post by calling that passage a demonic, false teaching.

My reply was to provide the chapter and verse number. (I had just posted the text of the passage, no reference).

He went on a rampage about how I was dishonest and plagiarized the Bible.

But he never addressed the real issue, that his faith prevented him from even considering God's words.
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
Put it this way - what if the early church was right about the Atonement? That would mean you are wrong.

Since you view all Christians prior to Calvin, most Christians from Calvin forward (including men like Luther) as missing the very core of Christianity, are you saying they are not Christian?
Good questions and I have gone over this several times.
One. The early church does not have writings refuting the elements of penal substitution. We have put up and argued to what extent they have writings which support it but let's leave that alone for a moment. Let me just say that you make a huge mistake in scripture study if you think that if an explanation of something is true then the other is by definition false. I was taught to think that way and probably you were too. The fact that Christ gave himself a ransom or achieved a victory over Satan does in no way refute penal substitution. And so on. But when you come along, or a Socinian or a modernist, knowing full well what penal substitution means and feel a need to refute it - that's a problem.

And that leads to the second point. Are they not Christians? I believe they were, even those who mistakenly viewed the atonement as Christ paying a ransom to Satan. But if you can produce writings where they refute penal substitution I will look at that. This came up before when I mentioned that many, even most people do not know about the virgin birth when they are saved - but neither do they refute it from a position of enhanced knowledge. That would be a problem. I do not for instance believe that all the Roman Catholics before Luther were lost either, nor do I believe that all the current Roman Catholics are lost.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Good questions and I have gone over this several times.
One. The early church does not have writings refuting the elements of penal substitution.
By your account my belief does not refute the elements of penal substitution. That is because all you consider the elements to be is Scripture.

But you are wrong. The "elements" of Penal Substitution is the philosophy the uses to assemble the ingredients (specific verses).

The problem is the early church beliefs itself stands as a contradiction to penal substitution.

You proved this in your claim that their faith strikes at the "core of Christianity".

All views have what you are calling the "elements of penal substitution".
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
Several years ago we had a Calvinist member that posts kinda like you.

I quoted a passage in response to another member.

I mean, that was all I did. I quoted a passage.

This guy responds to my post by calling that passage a demonic, false teaching.

My reply was to provide the chapter and verse number. (I had just posted the text of the passage, no reference).
Seriously Jon. In your last post (121) you started out suggesting I am dishonest. And you have done that to at least 2 others on here recently. That's a nice example and it is probably designed to discredit me by drawing a connection between me and a person I don't even know. That's fair enough. Just don't complain then when I say your posts remind me of Socinian arguments and modernist arguments who do not see a reason why Jesus had to die and shed his blood. You, with your line of argument, never seem to be able to answer that because to do so you will always be back at penal substitution. If you want to just leave it at Christ died for our sins, or paid a ransom or bought us with a price, that would be fine. It's when you attempt to refute penal substitution that you get into trouble because you cannot fully explain those other things adequately without it.
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
You proved this in your claim that their faith strikes at the "core of Christianity".
Thanks but I have to give some credit for that statement to J.C. Ryle and J.I. Packer and well, anyone who reads scripture with the idea that verses are not just there in isolation but a truth will be repeated, explained, shown by example and symbolically shown again, and then explained again in different language.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
And that leads to the second point. Are they not Christians? I believe they were, even those who mistakenly viewed the atonement as Christ paying a ransom to Satan.
Those who held Ransom Theory to mean God paid a ransom to Satan (Augustine, for example) as opposed to those who held a different understanding of Ransom theory (Athanasius, for example) may be lost or saved. Saying God paid a ransom to Satan is wrong, but it is closer to truth than your theory.

Penal Substitution theorists may be lost or saved. It depends on how they hold the theory.

If they hold the theory as central to their faith then I'd say they are not saved because it is not the "faith once delivered". If as an understanding, at arms length, then they may be saved.


Are Jehovah Witnesses saved? Does their mistake in understanding mean they are lost?


You hold Calvinism as your understanding of what the Bible teaches, you said as a whole.

How is it that you are not leaning on your understanding?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Thanks but I have to give some credit for that statement to J.C. Ryle and J.I. Packer and well, anyone who reads scripture with the idea that verses are not just there in isolation but a truth will be repeated, explained, shown by example and symbolically shown again, and then explained again in different language.
Yes, I know you credit your understanding to Calvinists.

My point is that your faith, what you call the core of Christianity, was not believed until centuries after the Resurrection (15 centuries, to be percise). And it is foreign to the biblical text. It is not in the Bible. You assume it is what the Bible really teaches.

How are you not leaning on your understanding?
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
How is it that you are not leaning on your understanding?
There again. This shows your inability to understand scripture. You are misusing a passage to prove a point not intended. We technically lean on our understanding, it would be impossible to understand something yourself, and not be - understanding it yourself! But "in all your way acknowledge him and he shall direct thy paths" means that by depending upon God's wisdom your understanding will at least have some chance of being wise and correct. You would have us making sure we don't understand at all, which like I said, I guess is alright if you don't try to figure something out. If nothing else you have shown me the value of a sacramental system, where symbolism and pictures rule, for a lot of people.
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
My point is that your faith, what you call the core of Christianity, was not believed until centuries after the Resurrection (15 centuries, to be percise). And it is foreign to the biblical text. It is not in the Bible. You assume it is what the Bible really teaches.
I guess there is nothing to stop you from repeating this over and over but the fact is that is a disputed statement. Scholars have pointed out, and it looks to me like they have a point, that early church fathers wrote things which look like PSA. They certainly didn't label it. But it doesn't seem they refuted it. And it is in the Bible. Does whoever says it most times win? Or maybe last? This gets juvenile. Let's agree that your points about the early church fathers not believing it are much in dispute, that the early church fathers refuted it is non-existent in their writings, and that it isn't found in scripture is only true if you, like you do, reject all the verses we use to show it.

Unless you have some other point to make that has not been made I have nothing else to say. We will have to just disagree.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
So what do you think Christ dying for the ungodly accomplished? Do you think it didn't save? Do you think being reconciled to God by the blood of Christ (Col. 19-22) doesn't mean we are saved?
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
Do you think being justified (declared righteous) is not enough to save us.
, 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.
OK. We have been redeemed by Christ's death on the cross from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13). We have been justified by His blood; we have been saved from wrath through Him, and reconciled to God through His death. But we are also saved by the perfect life that He led while on earth (2 Cor. 5:21) That is Luther's 'great exchange.' Our sins are imputed to Him, and His perfect righteousness is imputed to us. The two things go hand in hand.
But God does not leave us even there. Christ was raised from the dead, showing the Father's acceptance of His atoning death, and then ascended to heaven. Now, if we are believers, by our union with Christ, what He has done, we have done. We have died with Christ; we have risen with Him, and we are seated in the heavenly places with Him (Eph. 2:5-6).
Also, Christ sent the Holy Spirit after His ascension (John 16:7; Acts 2:33), and as our Great High Priest, He ever lives to intercede for us. But how do you think He intercedes for us before the Father. Does He say, "Oh, he's not such a bad chap! He loves his mother and he has a monthly standing order for Blanksville Baptist church!"? Not at all! He shows His pierced hands, feet and side and says, "I died for that one!" So when someone trusts in Christ, he is saved by His death, but we are also saved by His life. By the power of the Spirit we are no longer slaves to sin, but slaves of righteousness (Romans 6:18). We are already seen by God as sanctified (holy and righteous) by our union with Christ (1 Cor. 6:11), but through the Spirit's work we are progressively being sanctified (Heb. 10:14). '.... If anyone is in Christ he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.' But there is a residue of sin that remains, not within us, but in the members of our bodies, and this, by the power of the Spirit, we must put progressively to death (Romans 8:13; Col. 3:1-6).

So we are saved by the cross of Christ; but more than that, we are saved by His life. That is the sense in which we should read Romans 5:10. Ours is a complete and utterly wonderful salvation, but the cross comes first.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
There again. This shows your inability to understand scripture.
No, I both understand Scripture and your theory.

The issue is you are assuming that your understanding of what you think the Bible teaches is correct. That is called "leaning on your own understanding".

I am saying that God's words are logical. They make sense as written.

What you object to is not my understanding of Scriptute but that I find your ideas about what the Bible "really" teaches to be wrong and the way you get from God's words to your theory faulty and unbiblical.


So let's look not at God's words (which I believe and you use as "elements" to build your understanding). Let's look at how you go from God's words to your theories.

Why can't God forgive sins (literally forgive sins rather than having to punish them in order to "forgive" sinners?

What verse are you using as an "element" for that understanding?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
So what do you think Christ dying for the ungodly accomplished? Do you think it didn't save? Do you think being reconciled to God by the blood of Christ (Col. 19-22) doesn't mean we are saved?

Do you think being justified (declared righteous) is not enough to save us.

OK. We have been redeemed by Christ's death on the cross from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13). We have been justified by His blood; we have been saved from wrath through Him, and reconciled to God through His death. But we are also saved by the perfect life that He led while on earth (2 Cor. 5:21) That is Luther's 'great exchange.' Our sins are imputed to Him, and His perfect righteousness is imputed to us. The two things go hand in hand.
But God does not leave us even there. Christ was raised from the dead, showing the Father's acceptance of His atoning death, and then ascended to heaven. Now, if we are believers, by our union with Christ, what He has done, we have done. We have died with Christ; we have risen with Him, and we are seated in the heavenly places with Him (Eph. 2:5-6).
Also, Christ sent the Holy Spirit after His ascension (John 16:7; Acts 2:33), and as our Great High Priest, He ever lives to intercede for us. But how do you think He intercedes for us before the Father. Does He say, "Oh, he's not such a bad chap! He loves his mother and he has a monthly standing order for Blanksville Baptist church!"? Not at all! He shows His pierced hands, feet and side and says, "I died for that one!" So when someone trusts in Christ, he is saved by His death, but we are also saved by His life. By the power of the Spirit we are no longer slaves to sin, but slaves of righteousness (Romans 6:18). We are already seen by God as sanctified (holy and righteous) by our union with Christ (1 Cor. 6:11), but through the Spirit's work we are progressively being sanctified (Heb. 10:14). '.... If anyone is in Christ he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.' But there is a residue of sin that remains, not within us, but in the members of our bodies, and this, by the power of the Spirit, we must put progressively to death (Romans 8:13; Col. 3:1-6).

So we are saved by the cross of Christ; but more than that, we are saved by His life. That is the sense in which we should read Romans 5:10. Ours is a complete and utterly wonderful salvation, but the cross comes first.
But Luther did not believe penal substitution (he did not speak against it, but he presented his own belief as Satisfactory Substitution).

God laid our dins on Jesus.
God lays His righteousness on us.
Jesus bore our sins.
We bear His righteousness.

My point is penal substitution, while not denying that man is reconciled to God, does not present Christ as accomplishing this reconciliation on the Cross. His death, to these theorists, is just that first step.

But the Cross IS the reconciliation of God and man. It was finished.
 

Alan Dale Gross

Active Member
God declares us righteous not based on Christ as this surety or guarantee
Do you mean this, or is it a misspeak?

God did not have an innate Attribute of Righteousness which had been Tried and Lived out under His Universal Moral Law, until Jesus was Perfectly Obedient to all the Demands of the Law.
Jesus had to have a Human Life that Lived under the Laws of God to have a Perfectly Righteous Human Life Substitute that God had Entrusted His Son to Accomplish and once Jesus did become "the End of the Law for Righteousness", God Gave Jesus the Right to Give Eternal Life to as many as God had Given Him. (That whole quote of mine qualifies what I am saying about the Righteous Life Jesus Lived).
By Living His Life Perfectly under God's Law, Jesus became the End of the Law for Righteousness.
'became'
That Righteous Life Jesus Accomplished was what was Sacrificed to God.
In the Stead of His Elect, who had sin-cured lifes and had to have a New Righteousness Imputed to them.
The life of the flesh is in the blood.
The Perfect Life Jesus Lived in a Righteous Human Body and Soul were Given as an Offering for sin.
Jesus Righteous Human Body and Righteous Soul were Made an Offering for sin, that was the sins God's Chosen Elect were guilty of, having broken God's Law and Offended His Holiness.
And it looks like I already said that. :Rolleyes
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Do you mean this, or is it a misspeak?


Jesus had to have a Human Life that Lived under the Laws of God to have a Perfectly Righteous Human Life Substitute that God had Entrusted His Son to Accomplish and once Jesus did become "the End of the Law for Righteousness", God Gave Jesus the Right to Give Eternal Life to as many as God had Given Him. (That whole quote of mine qualifies what I am saying about the Righteous Life Jesus Lived).

'became'

In the Stead of His Elect, who had sin-cured lifes and had to have a New Righteousness Imputed to them.

The Perfect Life Jesus Lived in a Righteous Human Body and Soul were Given as an Offering for sin.

And it looks like I already said that. :Rolleyes
No, mistyped. God declares us righteous because of Christ as this surety.

And we are also righteous (our spiritual self).
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I guess there is nothing to stop you from repeating this over and over but the fact is that is a disputed statement. Scholars have pointed out, and it looks to me like they have a point, that early church fathers wrote things which look like PSA. They certainly didn't label it. But it doesn't seem they refuted it. And it is in the Bible. Does whoever says it most times win? Or maybe last? This gets juvenile. Let's agree that your points about the early church fathers not believing it are much in dispute, that the early church fathers refuted it is non-existent in their writings, and that it isn't found in scripture is only true if you, like you do, reject all the verses we use to show it.

Unless you have some other point to make that has not been made I have nothing else to say. We will have to just disagree.
I will repeat facts when applicable. Calvinists insist that while John Calvin was the first to articulate the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement it was always there in elemental forms.

The problem is those "elemental forms" are common Christian views.

Another problem is what they did express is a view that is counter to Penal Substitution Theory.

Would you, as Christians have for over a thousand years, look to the Cross and cry out for God to treat you as He did Jesus?

Probably not, because where you see God punishing Jesus traditional Christianity sees Christ forsaken to suffer evil but God delivering Him through that suffering.

Calvinists often attribute that to the first Christians relating to the cross through their own persecution.

But God chose that specific place and time. And Psalm 22 relates the exact same focus (the Servant looking at God's righteousness towards forefathers who were forsaken to suffer evil).


You hold what is technically neo-Christianity. It is not the "faith once delivered". It is not "what is written". It did not exist until the 16th century (as evidenced that the philosophy you hold was a Renaissance development).

Does that mean I would prefer you not to call yourself "Christian"? In a way, yes. I prefer that title be descriptive of the traditional faith. But I also understand that terms adapt. And doctrine does not save. Instead I prefer to speak of Christian doctrine and Calvinism, or RCC theology, or Mormoninism...just to keep terms straight.

In other words, I prefer to call you a Calvinist because you follow Calvinists rather than to call you a Christian (you do not, technically, follow Christ). But I also believe you are saved, so in that sense you are a Christian.
 
Last edited:

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
The problem is those "elemental forms" are common Christian views.
Yes. That is the point.
Another problem is what they did express is a view that is counter to Penal Substitution Theory.
Not at all. The atonement is consisting of many aspects, but penal substitution is legitimately one aspect. Not including it in a description of some aspect of Christ's atoning work is not the same as refuting it.
Would you, as Christians have for over a thousand years, look to the Cross and cry out for God to treat you as He did Jesus?

Probably not, because where you see God punishing Jesus traditional Christianity sees Christ forsaken to suffer evil but God delivering Him through that suffering.
I don't profess to know enough of the early church writings to know what you are trying to say here but if you are moving in a direction where people had no consciousness of their own sin but rather viewed themselves as innocent before God because of their lives - then you and they, are directly going against scripture. But I imagine they were crying out for mercy amidst deadly persecution and asking that God would vindicate them and either deliver or as I have read in the ECF's, allow them to be martyred, which indeed is almost an unbelievable testimony of faith. But that was not their attempt to explain the atonement. It was showing their belief that they were wanting to follow Christ, even to death, which proves my point because an aspect of the atonement is indeed Christ's obedience. It just still does not explain my and your sin and how Christ propitiates it.

You have developed such an animosity to the shedding of blood for your sin. I would really reevaluate this stance of yours.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Yes. That is the point.

Not at all. The atonement is consisting of many aspects, but penal substitution is legitimately one aspect. Not including it in a description of some aspect of Christ's atoning work is not the same as refuting it.

I don't profess to know enough of the early church writings to know what you are trying to say here but if you are moving in a direction where people had no consciousness of their own sin but rather viewed themselves as innocent before God because of their lives - then you and they, are directly going against scripture. But I imagine they were crying out for mercy amidst deadly persecution and asking that God would vindicate them and either deliver or as I have read in the ECF's, allow them to be martyred, which indeed is almost an unbelievable testimony of faith. But that was not their attempt to explain the atonement. It was showing their belief that they were wanting to follow Christ, even to death, which proves my point because an aspect of the atonement is indeed Christ's obedience. It just still does not explain my and your sin and how Christ propitiates it.

You have developed such an animosity to the shedding of blood for your sin. I would really reevaluate this stance of yours.
You are misunderstanding.

The "elements" are not what makes Penal Substitution Theory wrong any more than those "elements" are what makes Jehovah Witness doctrines wrong.

The problem with the theory is it is itself foreign to Scripture. It reaches back to gather passages, but is itself not in the Bible.

My comments about sin have nothing to do with people viewing themselves innocent. You went way out in left field to get that idea.

I simply referenced a passage stating that our sins are "fruits". They show us that we are the problem.


Again, how do you get from God's actual words to the idea that God cannot forgive sins (that He instead punishes sins on Jesus to allow the sinner escape that punishment)?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
@DaveXR650

The bottom line is I say God's words mean what they say.

When I state God's words you say "well, yea...but it really means....".

You never explain how you get from what God's words say to what you think it really means.
 

Alan Dale Gross

Active Member
God declares us righteous not based on Christ as this surety or guarantee
"Some have affirmed that God could Forgive sin, and Save sinners, without a Satisfaction; and this is said, not only by Socinians {3}, but by some, as Twisse, Dr. Goodwin, Rutherford, &c. who own that a Satisfaction is made, and the fitness and expedience of it: but then this is giving up the point;

"because if it is fitting and expedient to be done, it is necessary;

"since whatever is fitting to be done in the affair of Salvation, God cannot but Do it, or Will it to be Done. Besides, such a way of talking, as it tends to undermine and weaken the Doctrine of Satisfaction; so to encourage and strengthen the hands of the Socinians, the opposers of it; much the same arguments being used by the one as by the other.

"It is not indeed proper to limit the Holy One of Israel, or lay a restraint on His Power, which is Unlimited, Boundless, and Infinite; with Whom nothing is impossible, and Who is Able to Do more than we can conceive of;

"yet it is in no way derogatory to the Glory of His Power, nor is it any impeachment of it, nor argues any imperfection or weakness in Him, to say there are some things God cannot Do;

"and for God to not to be able to Do 'some things' are All to His Glory;

1.) For example, God "cannot commit Iniquity,
which is contrary to the Purity and Holiness of His Nature;

2.) "God cannot Do an act of Injustice to any of His Creatures,
that is contrary to His Justice and Righteousness;

3.) "God cannot lie,
that is contrary to His Veracity and Truth;

4.) "God cannot deny Himself,
for that is against His Nature and Perfections;

5.) "and for the same reason God cannot Forgive sin without a Satisfaction,
because so to do, does not agree with the Perfections of His Nature.

"It is a vain thing to dispute about the Power of God; what He can Do, or what He cannot Do, in any case where it is plain, what it is His Will to Do, as it is in the case before us, with respect to the need for a 'Satisfaction', or 'Surity';

"at the same time God Declared Himself a God Gracious and Merciful, Forgiving Iniquity, Transgression, and sin; God has, in the strongest terms, Affirmed, that He "Will by no means clear the guilty"; see #Ex 34:6,7 #Jer 30:11 Na 1:3 Nu 14:18 or let him go unpunished; that is, without a Satisfaction."

God saying that He "Will by no means clear the guilty" also includes His Son, Jesus Christ, when He had the guilt of God's Elect Charged to His Account.

6.) So, another thing God can not Do is, God could not clear the guilty, even when He Found that Imputation of guilt on His Own Son, Who Assumed the Responsiblity for the guilt of His Chosen children.


"Besides, if any other method could have been taken, consistent with the Will of God, the Prayer of Christ would have Brought it out;

"Father, if it be possible, let this Cup of Suffering Death pass from Me":

and then adds, "not My Will, but Thine be Done!" what that Will was, is obvious; as we see from #Heb 10:5-10;

5; "Wherefore when He Cometh into the World,
He saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not,
but a body hast Thou Prepared Me:


6; "In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou hast had no Pleasure.

7; "Then said I, Lo, I Come
(in the Volume of the Book it is written of Me,)
to Do Thy Will, O God.

8; "Above when He said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings
and offering for sin Thou wouldest not, neither hadst Pleasure therein; which are offered by the Law;

9; "Then said He, Lo, I Come to Do Thy Will, O God.
He Taketh away the first, that He may Establish the Second.

10; "By the which Will we are Sanctified
through the Offering of the Body of Jesus Christ once for all."
 
Top