Now how long have you been waiting for that?Yea, like 'two peas in a pod'.
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!
Now how long have you been waiting for that?Yea, like 'two peas in a pod'.
Seriously Jon. You read like someone on the former fundy blogspot who has "deconverted" and left the faith.The question is still out there.
You have described the cross as the Father laying our sins on Jesus and punishing Him for our sins. You note that Jesus bore those sins, suffered God's punishment, and died.
Do you believe Christ Himself did anything to save us (other than passively exist)?
Also, how is your theory NOT God viewing Christ as if He were guilty and condemning Him to suffer His wrath for sins in order to clear the wicked? (How is it not an unjust abomination)
One other thing. In truth, even when you refer to the portion of Christ's work as passive, as in being the lamb slain, you have to remember he could not be passive like we would understand it. We could get into a situation where we would know that once beyond a certain point you are "in" for the duration. Jesus said himself he could at anytime have called legions of angels to stop everything. So, not one moment was truly passive even though it is true that it could be described as a passive thing in the sense of being done to him.There is an aspect of Jesus' work that was passive as well as active. Active speaking of his life of perfect obedience as well as his work as our high priest. Read Hebrews again.
Now how long have you been waiting for that?
I quoted part of Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. Someone else has quoted from Clement of Rome. Do I really have to dig them out and post them again? No, because all you will do is wait a couple of weeks and then post as if they didn't exist.@Martin Marprelate
No, Penal Substitution Theory does not go back to the early church writers. Calvinists say they had the "elements", but make assumptions as we all believe those "elements".
The early church looked to the cross trusting God to treat them as He did Jesus. They associated their situation as being forsaken to suffer evil for God's glory trusting He would deliver them as He did Jesus.
Some think they were reading their circumstances into Scripture. But I do not. Point is you are creating a myth, and unnecessary so as antiquity does not mean correct.
But I was not replying to your. I know you do not believe what I posted. I was responding to @easternstar .
And I responded in considerable detail. Deal with it.I was asking what you believed that Christ accomplished (if anything) on the cross. I asked because you seemed very focused on what the Father did to Jesus rather than anything Jesus did other than allowing it.
Yes, you quoted part. I provided the part you did not quote. And it was me who quoted Clement. No, this is not the place to hijack the thread. We went down this road before. You guys quote a part of their writings, assume, and dismiss the parts that disagree with your position.I quoted part of Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. Someone else has quoted from Clement of Rome. Do I really have to dig them out and post them again? No, because all you will do is wait a couple of weeks and then post as if they didn't exist.
Yes, you always respond with considerable detail, I assume to conceal the fact you do not actually answer the question.And I responded in considerable detail. Deal with it.
I agree that Jesus being the Lamb, not fighting back, is important.One other thing. In truth, even when you refer to the portion of Christ's work as passive, as in being the lamb slain, you have to remember he could not be passive like we would understand it. We could get into a situation where we would know that once beyond a certain point you are "in" for the duration. Jesus said himself he could at anytime have called legions of angels to stop everything. So, not one moment was truly passive even though it is true that it could be described as a passive thing in the sense of being done to him.
I did leave a cult (I was in the Calvinist camp). And yes, I have noticed that former cult members are strongly opposed to their former cult (I watched a show of former Scientologists and noticed that). But that is because those in the cult do not see their error, those who were never in the cult have more a passing interest, but former members recognize both the error and the danger.Seriously Jon. You read like someone on the former fundy blogspot who has "deconverted" and left the faith.
I can find many of your arguments there, almost word for word. You need to be careful. Owen has a whole chapter on this type of stuff, written long before the modernist era.Why I De-Converted from Evangelical Christianity
formerfundy.blogspot.com
One thing you can't say without looking like a blithering idiot is that Calvinists don't believe Jesus did anything to save us. That is the main argument they use against non-Calvinists. That being that Jesus did not make it possible for you to save yourself but they he actually did save the elect. Yet you go right ahead and keep affirming this and do so as a person who supposedly used to be a Calvinist.
There is an aspect of Jesus' work that was passive as well as active. Active speaking of his life of perfect obedience as well as his work as our high priest. Read Hebrews again.
As for this charge of God punishing the righteous being a contradiction of some sort, for a more complete explanation consult any of the modern apostate theologians or use the website I listed above. They make the exact same charge word for word. The fact is that we can't know how this was done precisely but we do know that we are given full explanation of the uniqueness of Jesus as fully man and fully God. A complete understanding of that will help realize that only Jesus could have done this and it explains in a sense how God is folding the just wrath for the one's he save back upon himself. And here you are saying he has no right to do this? Romans 8:32-34 explains this very well if you would just read it.
Honestly Jon, you have caused me to really look at this carefully and I do see that the case is even more convincing than I thought for the Calvinist explanation of the atonement verses the hopeful universalism or the idea of a potential atonement available to those who step forward to take it. But I still am concerned about you. You have an obviously high I.Q., seem to have time to think, and don't seem to be willing to rely on any type of pastor or teacher or mentor. You are a classic setup for deconstruction my friend.
?? You seriously think he is me?Is there anyone like @Salty, or @rsr, or @Dr. Bob, or @Scarlett O. that can compare the IP addresses of you and @easternstar besides you? That would put this to rest real quick.

?? You seriously think he is me?
I'll show you via pm. Just 'cause I like you.
No problem.Thank you VERY MUCH for the info. I feel better now, didn't want it to be true, sorry for being suspicious.....
You guys that hate PSA need to decide which way you want to go in refuting it. The standard argument is that God was overcome with wrath and had to punish someone. Luckily Jesus stepped forward to take the rap. So now I guess we swing over the other way to where Jesus does nothing but the Father does everything.But you speak of the atonement as the Father laying our sins on Jesus, the Father punishing Jesus, the Father doing this so we are not accountable, then the Father raising Jesus.
Your faith seems to present the Father rather than Christ as making salvation possible (as opening the way for the Spirit to save us).
You keep going back to this for some reason. I don't know why because that is the very reason you have to have some aspect of penal substitution. Those scriptures explain God's high sense of justice. It's so high that in fact it is you - the one who says God can just forget about your sin as long as you repent - who is violating the principle taught in that portion of scripture.If I were to sum up justice I would repeat what God said and what is given throughout Scripture:
"He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns ( וּמַרְשִׁ֣יעַ "declares guilty") the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord."
I believe that passage is true, not only because of God's words there but also because it is echoed throughout Scripture (sometimes as a plea for justice, sometimes as God's righteousness).
So obviously I believe your theory stands in opposition to God's righteousness. That is why I said we need to look at how we view justice. I trust God and His word. It has to be true because God said it.
I think, just like Martin likes Beeke and Owen but disagrees with them, we do not need a camp.You guys that hate PSA need to decide which way you want to go in refuting it. The standard argument is that God was overcome with wrath and had to punish someone. Luckily Jesus stepped forward to take the rap. So now I guess we swing over the other way to where Jesus does nothing but the Father does everything.
You must be joking. Are you really going to state that the primary argument against penal substitutionary atonement is not that it presents the Father as full of wrath so he takes it out on Jesus as in "cosmic child abuse". You've never heard of that? You've never heard that it portrays God as hateful and unforgiving and must have his revenge which fortunately he takes out on Jesus?In fact, I have never once heard of anybody making the claim that the theory holds God was overcome with anger and had to punish somebody (obviously you have read that several scholars opposed to the theory or you would not have posted it, but I have not). Or you could just be blowing smoke. Only you know, but I will offer the benefit of the doubt.
Are you saying that you have references of writings from early church fathers that refute penal substitution? That is the impression you are giving. If so I would at least like the references.Members can read their writings for themselves. But the entire thing, not just parts.
I go back to it because it is one reason we know Penal Substitution Theory is wrong.You keep going back to this for some reason. I don't know why because that is the very reason you have to have some aspect of penal substitution. Those scriptures explain God's high sense of justice. It's so high that in fact it is you - the one who says God can just forget about your sin as long as you repent - who is violating the principle taught in that portion of scripture.
The death of Christ on the cross enables God to forgive sinners. With what you are charging, men would be in no better of a position should they repent. It would violate that same passage for God to make someone unrighteous into someone righteous after what they had done as a sinner. That is the most obvious meaning of that passage. More importantly, no PSA does not say God became unjust, nor does it say Christ actually became unjust or sinful himself, but that he bore our sin.As far as I know the only theory that holds God became unjust per Scripture in order to save man is Penal Substitution Theory.
You mean Romans 3:26 "... that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus"? Verses 23,24, and 25 explain why it is no misquote to say the justified are sinners. You are the one always saying not to take things out of context.You even hear them misquote Scripture by saying "God is just and the justifier of sinners".