SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
check the OT, and show just one verse that says that any other nation than Israel were the chosen of God. They ALONE are so. therefore God also saved the "non elect". simple.
-
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!
3 Reasons I changed my mind about Penal Substitution
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
- Status
check the OT, and show just one verse that says that any other nation than Israel were the chosen of God. They ALONE are so. therefore God also saved the "non elect". simple.
no other nation was, but individuals were!
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
can you show from any OT passage, where a person from another nation than Israel, was ever considered "elect"? Where in the OT does God say that He has "His people" in any other race? You are forcing Scriptures to support your theology
Were Rahab and ruth saved?
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
they are mentioned in the Geneaology of Jesus Christ. if not, then we have people that are in the human Geneaology of Jesus Christ (His human nature), who are not only unsaved, but also lost and in hell!
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
Hebrews 11:31, "By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient"
And she was not one of the "elect" of israel!
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
and yet she was saved! showing that also the so called "non elect" are saved. This disproves the refomed teaching of election.
Scripture teaches us that Jesus IS the Atoning Sacrifice for the sins of mankind.
I am not sure what you mean by your question ("how does Jesus atone for our sins?") as the question removed from how Scripture speaks of Atonement.
I guess you could take the Bible's answer about what the Atoning Sacrifice did - He emptied Himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of a cross; He became a curse for us, He, knowing no sin, became sin for us.
Again, there is a difference between cannot and will not. God is not subjective to another.
God will not declare a sinner righteous except He make that sinner righteous. Scripture tells us what God does (He takes out that stony heart, gives the sinner a new one; replaces the sinners spirit with a new Spirit; puts His Spirit in that former sinner; causes them to obey His statutes; makes that old sinner into a "new creation" justified in Christ as the old has passed away. This is the manifestation of divine righteous apart from the Law.
No. That is the core of Paul. (Paul said "the resurection" is our hope). This includes the incarnation through the grave (the reason Christ is glorified and given a name above every name)
Bassoonery
Active Member
I didn't realise what kind of thread this would become - still a newbie! I would like to thank @JonC and @Iconoclast for their edifying and dignified dialogue on page 4. I can understand both sides better now, and am thankful that on a day like today we can be united in turning our eyes to the Lamb. If anyone else uses Spurgeon's Morning and Evening, this morning's devotion seems remarkably pertinent.
Thank you (I think I know @Iconoclast enough that he would share the sentiment).
Theories of the Atonement (whether detailed, worked out theories like Penal Substitution Theory or focuses on themes like Recapitulation and Christus Victor) strike at the heart of our understanding of the gospel. As such, feelings can run strong because what each person is defending is the very foundation of their belief in that these ideas and understandings explain not only Christ's purpose in coming and how redemption was "worked out" but also our purpose in God's kingdom and the reason for our salvation. So feelings can run high because we are emotionally tied to our beliefs (our beliefs are, by their very nature, extraordinary personal things).
One thing that I had to work to remember is that other people see their views as clearly as I see mine. Other people cherish their beliefs just as I cherish mine. Sometimes the difficult part is engaging different ideas, understandings, and interpretations without attacking the person or persons who hold those ideas. Sometimes it is tempting to accuse those who disagree with us as departing from a common faith. We need to remember that Christianity encompasses much more than our personal convictions, beliefs, and understanding.
That said, we always need to make sure we are not a "lone wolf". While @Iconoclast and I disagree, our disagreement is within orthodox faith. We each hold a very common Christian view of the atonement (his is more common among Baptists, mine among Christianity in general). So we can disagree as brothers in Christ with the purpose of uplifting one another, being a voice of opposition to each other (or a "sounding board") without trying to convert the other to our position.
Here is my thought for the day - It is early, but something to ponder is why extraordinary is unusual rather than just more ordinary than normal.
Penal Substitution is rooted in the character of God as He revealed Himself to Moses in Exodus 34:6-7. “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding with goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty.” Immediately the question arises, how can God be merciful and gracious, how can He forgive iniquity, transgression and sin without clearing the guilty? How can He clear the guilty if He abounds with truth—if He is a ‘just Judge’ (Psalm 7:11)? How can it be said that, ‘Mercy and truth have met together; righteousness and peace have kissed’ unless God can simultaneously punish sin and forgive sinners?
I have argued this case over five or six years on this board and shall not do so again. At one stage I was challenged to present the Biblical case of the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. I posted it on this board, but newcomers may not have read it. I have since put it on my blog. Here it is again.
The Theological and Biblical Basis of Penal Substitution
I was further challenged as to how God the Father could forsake God the Son without 'breaking' the Trinity. Here is my reply to that:
Penal Substitution and the Trinity
I have argued this case over five or six years on this board and shall not do so again. At one stage I was challenged to present the Biblical case of the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. I posted it on this board, but newcomers may not have read it. I have since put it on my blog. Here it is again.
The Theological and Biblical Basis of Penal Substitution
I was further challenged as to how God the Father could forsake God the Son without 'breaking' the Trinity. Here is my reply to that:
Penal Substitution and the Trinity
There is also the moral government understanding of the atonement, which none other than SBC Founder William B. Johnson, the first president of the Convention, held to.
His sermon "Love Characteristic of the Deity" expounds the moral government view centered on God's love:
Founders Ministries • Sermons
"Taking this view of the atonement then, it will evidently appear, that the love of God is the procuring cause of the atonement....it represents him as an amiable Father, and infinitely benevolent moral Governor" — William B. Johnson
From the official history of SBTS, regarding the creation of the seminary's Abstract of Principles in the 1850s:
Southern Baptist Seminary 1859-2009 by Gregory A. Wills
"there was one other view prevailing among Southern Baptists...a universal atonement based on a 'moral government' view of Christ's death....Two prominent Southern Baptists held this view, William B. Johnson and Edwin Mims, Boyce's predecessor at Furman." In drafting the Abstract of Principles, Basil Manley made sure to "accommodate the moral government view."
More on the Southern Baptist Convention's founding president's moral government view of atonement:
Studies in Baptist History, chapter on William B. Johnson
"For example, within his sermon, Eternal Misery the Desert of the Sinner, he refers, on several occasions, to God as being the 'Moral Governor of the Universe', in a manner similar to Hugo Grotius (1583-1645)."
His sermon "Love Characteristic of the Deity" expounds the moral government view centered on God's love:
Founders Ministries • Sermons
"Taking this view of the atonement then, it will evidently appear, that the love of God is the procuring cause of the atonement....it represents him as an amiable Father, and infinitely benevolent moral Governor" — William B. Johnson
From the official history of SBTS, regarding the creation of the seminary's Abstract of Principles in the 1850s:
Southern Baptist Seminary 1859-2009 by Gregory A. Wills
"there was one other view prevailing among Southern Baptists...a universal atonement based on a 'moral government' view of Christ's death....Two prominent Southern Baptists held this view, William B. Johnson and Edwin Mims, Boyce's predecessor at Furman." In drafting the Abstract of Principles, Basil Manley made sure to "accommodate the moral government view."
More on the Southern Baptist Convention's founding president's moral government view of atonement:
Studies in Baptist History, chapter on William B. Johnson
"For example, within his sermon, Eternal Misery the Desert of the Sinner, he refers, on several occasions, to God as being the 'Moral Governor of the Universe', in a manner similar to Hugo Grotius (1583-1645)."
Last edited:
I think most are rooted in the same passage, but each views exactly how a righteous God justifies unrighteous people. This is certainly true of the Moral Influence Theory and Recapitulation (although I believe both flawed). It is true of "Christus Victor" and the "Ransom Theories" as well.
Sometimes the "problem" is expressed that God will not acquit the guilty nor will He condemn the innocent as both are abominations. So how will God make unrighteous people righteous rather than simply destroying them for their unrighteousness. Each of those theories "solve the problem" in different ways. They are competing theories.
I think the simplest answer (the most biblical answer) is that God recreates the sinner into a new creation (the "new man" is sinless, the "old man" must die).
No, shows that all who are saved are the elect of God!
God cannot declare a sinner to be saved and justified in his sight apart from the death of Jesus, as he became in their place their sin bearer, and was treated by the father just as if the sinner himself was there!
The theology of paul is that of God!
- Status