Atonement sparks discussion at NOBTS forum

[thatbrian]

Scripture is my final authority, also. That's why I, like the first Christians and Christians for 1500 years after Jesus, do not hold to PSA. Those early Christians did not see it in scripture. That's why it was unknown for 1500 years.

Some (not all) of the early church, and you, apparently, got things wrong.

Protestant Liberalism doesn't like PSA, which is actually excellent evidence in favor of PSA. PSA is only unknown to those without eyes to see, as you would have to rip 1/2 the pages from a Bible to rid it of the doctrine.

"For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

 

[Rebel1]

Some (not all) of the early church, and you, apparently, got things wrong.

Protestant Liberalism doesn't like PSA, which is actually excellent evidence in favor of PSA. PSA is only unknown to those without eyes to see, as you would have to rip 1/2 the pages from a Bible to rid it of the doctrine.

"For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

You need to study the early church more. Also, the Eastern Church is not liberal, and it has always held the original view of the atonement. The early Quakers were not liberal, and their founder held to the original view of the atonement, as did many Mennonites.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Scripture is my final authority

You need to study the early church more.

I think you need to make up your mind.

 

[Rebel1]

I think you need to make up your mind.

The early church got its doctrine from the apostles, who wrote the scriptures. My mind is made up.

 

[thatbrian]

You need to study the early church more. Also, the Eastern Church is not liberal, and it has always held the original view of the atonement. The early Quakers were not liberal, and their founder held to the original view of the atonement, as did many Mennonites.

Sorry that I was unclear. I do not think that all groups which don't hold to PSA are liberal. Also, I would not hold up the Orthodox nor Quakers as a Christian ideal, no more than I would the RCC.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The early church got its doctrine from the apostles, who wrote the scriptures. My mind is made up.

Many people agree with you. The only problem is that they tend to be Roman Catholics. In fact, the apostasy began right at the start (Acts 20:28-31; 2 John 7; Jude 4 etc.). Scripture is our only reliable guide.

 

[Rebel1]

Sorry that I was unclear. I do not think that all groups which don't hold to PSA are liberal. Also, I would not hold up the Orthodox nor Quakers as a Christian ideal, no more than I would the RCC.

I wouldn't hold up any group as an ideal. But some are closer, much closer, than others. The Magisterial Reformers were far away.

 

[Rebel1]

Many people agree with you. The only problem is that they tend to be Roman Catholics. In fact, the apostasy began right at the start (Acts 20:28-31; 2 John 7; Jude 4 etc.). Scripture is our only reliable guide.

I have no trouble affirming scripture as the final authority. But I think we can test our experience, reason, and tradition by scripture.

 

[thatbrian]

I wouldn't hold up any group as an ideal. But some are closer, much closer, than others. The Magisterial Reformers were far away.

Forgive me. I thought that I was writing in a Protestant forum, as it does say, "Baptist" in the title.

 

[Rebel1]

Forgive me. I thought that I was writing in a Protestant forum, as it does say, "Baptist" in the title.

Baptists might be Protestants, but they were never Magisterial Protestants. They were persecuted and murdered by Magisterial Protestants.

 

[thatbrian]

Many people agree with you. The only problem is that they tend to be Roman Catholics. In fact, the apostasy began right at the start (Acts 20:28-31; 2 John 7; Jude 4 etc.). Scripture is our only reliable guide.

It is helpful to look at which groups your theology is favored by. For instance, if I found that my view of the atonement was consistent with that of the Quakers, I would become concerned. If I found that view of the authority of scripture lined up with Rome's or the OC, I would again worry about where I stood. If scripture has convinced me that a group has another gospel, then I would be wise to understand why all of its doctrines would be tainted in some way because of it.

The Reformers got it right in the 5 Solas.

 

[agedman]

It is helpful to look at which groups your theology is favored by. For instance, if I found that my view of the atonement was consistent with that of the Quakers, I would become concerned. If I found that view of the authority of scripture lined up with Rome's or the OC, I would again worry about where I stood. If scripture has convinced me that a group has another gospel, then I would be wise to understand why all of its doctrines would be tainted in some way because of it.

The Reformers got it right in the 5 Solas.

Yes, they got the "Five Solas" correct.

BUT, they departed the Scriptures when it came to teaching of the atonement.

Today, most "reformed" wrap the blood and salvation together. They desire to limit the atonement by establishing that there is a limit of blood, saying such things as, the blood was shed only for the elect.

That is un-scriptural teaching.

Scriptures teach that the limit is NOT on the blood supply, but the gift of God - belief, faith.

"Particular" Baptists, who saw the wisdom of the blood for all but also didn't want to offend the reformed thinking, compromised by teaching that the blood was efficient (plenty) for all, but only effective (applied for salvation) for some. (my opinion as to the desire to be unoffensive)

Others were not content with just the blood shed for all, but changed salvation to "whoever" could generate enough (from their own free will) innate personal "faith" to be able to reach out and "accept" the free offer of salvation. Endorsing such un-Scriptural statements such as "everyone has an empty God image that only Christ can fill", and "people are naturally seeking to fill a void, and therefore seeking God," has brought all manner of untruth disguised in evangelistic efforts. The results being seen clearly in this day.

Because it is man generated faith, then God was no longer keeping the believer saved, but all manner of mental and emotional gymnastics that were required to "feel" as one truly saved, and "feel" as one has worshiped, and "feel" as if the Holy Spirit is leading, and "feel" as if they are being taught the Scriptures. Putting "feeling" above the truth - having to be saved again and again because perhaps not being serious enough or some distraction prevented salvation, and even proclaiming that one who strayed from the "camp" wasn't really a part of the camp in the beginning.

All because the reformers decided to pretend the five solas were enough.

 

[thatbrian]

Yes, they got the "Five Solas" correct.

BUT, they departed the Scriptures when it came to teaching of the atonement.

Today, most "reformed" wrap the blood and salvation together. They desire to limit the atonement by establishing that there is a limit of blood, saying such things as, the blood was shed only for the elect.

That is un-scriptural teaching.

Scriptures teach that the limit is NOT on the blood supply, but the gift of God - belief, faith.

"Particular" Baptists, who saw the wisdom of the blood for all but also didn't want to offend the reformed thinking, compromised by teaching that the blood was efficient (plenty) for all, but only effective (applied for salvation) for some. (my opinion as to the desire to be unoffensive)

Others were not content with just the blood shed for all, but changed salvation to "whoever" could generate enough (from their own free will) innate personal "faith" to be able to reach out and "accept" the free offer of salvation. Endorsing such un-Scriptural statements such as "everyone has an empty God image that only Christ can fill", and "people are naturally seeking to fill a void, and therefore seeking God," has brought all manner of untruth disguised in evangelistic efforts. The results being seen clearly in this day.

Because it is man generated faith, then God was no longer keeping the believer saved, but all manner of mental and emotional gymnastics that were required to "feel" as one truly saved, and "feel" as one has worshiped, and "feel" as if the Holy Spirit is leading, and "feel" as if they are being taught the Scriptures. Putting "feeling" above the truth - having to be saved again and again because perhaps not being serious enough or some distraction prevented salvation, and even proclaiming that one who strayed from the "camp" wasn't really a part of the camp in the beginning.

All because the reformers decided to pretend the five solas were enough.

You do know that there is much biblical evidence for limited atonement, right? The Reformers were, and are, people of the Word. And, you can't blame the Free-Willers (what you've described regarding them is spot on, BTW) on the Reformed. They are the product of the Anabaptists.

 

[JonC]

Here is just one statement from Wright that is not biblical, and a misrepresentation regarding PS: Wright cautioned that reducing the atonement to "God needed to kill someone and it happened to be his own son" is a pagan idea imported into today's thinking."

The above statement shows a complete lack of understanding of why Christ had to die, and we know that Wright is no fool. He understands the covenant blessings and curses. He knows that sin brings death, and he also knows that someone did have to die, yet he chooses to twist, distort, and mislead in regards to the atonement. He carefully phrases that statement with the goal of undermining an essential doctrine of Christianity. He acts as a scoffer, using language that would make anyone who holds to PS look barbaric and foolish. He is attempting to make the atoning sacrifice of Christ look like a pagan ritual. In doing so, He is disgracing the blood of Christ.

Regarding C.S. Lewis, we all know that Lewis' theology left a few things to be desired, but I don't see his errors in the same way I do Wright's. Lewis was a literary scholar. Wright is a biblical scholar. Lewis acted in ignorance, while, Wright does not. Wright understands precisely what he is doing. That is evident from his own work. His efforts are focused on undermining the gospel, and for that, the Apostle Paul would have some very choice words. . .

Unfortunately N.T. Wright is correct with that statement. It is not a reflection of his understanding of why Christ had to die but rather his reflection of how some people believe. There are some who believe that divine justice demanded that someone be punished for sins committed regardless as to the state of the person who committed those sins. A man could repent and turn to God, but if no one suffered punishment for the sins he had committed then he could not be forgiven because justice has not been satisfied. This is a pagan idea.

I disagree regarding Lewis. I don't think that he acted in ignorance at all. His theology rejected PSA, and this was the difference. We see the same thing in Anabaptist and contemporary Mennonite theology; and we see something similar in Karl Barth's theology as he considered satisfaction itself a "doubtful concept". We see the same in Justin Martyr, who viewed the atonement as something corporate, for the "human family" or "mankind". The key to these disagreements center on how each views divine justice and its demands.

 

[Revmitchell]

There are some who believe that divine justice demanded that someone be punished for sins committed regardless as to the state of the person who committed those sins. A man could repent and turn to God, but if no one suffered punishment for the sins he had committed then he could not be forgiven because justice has not been satisfied. This is a pagan idea.

If I understand this correct it is not only what scripture teaches it is the orthodox understanding of scripture.

 

[thatbrian]

Unfortunately N.T. Wright is correct with that statement. It is not a reflection of his understanding of why Christ had to die but rather his reflection of how some people believe. There are some who believe that divine justice demanded that someone be punished for sins committed regardless as to the state of the person who committed those sins. A man could repent and turn to God, but if no one suffered punishment for the sins he had committed then he could not be forgiven because justice has not been satisfied. This is a pagan idea.

I disagree regarding Lewis. I don't think that he acted in ignorance at all. His theology rejected PSA, and this was the difference. We see the same thing in Anabaptist and contemporary Mennonite theology; and we see something similar in Karl Barth's theology as he considered satisfaction itself a "doubtful concept". We see the same in Justin Martyr, who viewed the atonement as something corporate, for the "human family" or "mankind". The key to these disagreements center on how each views divine justice and its demands.

Just about every page of the OT is covered in blood. All of that blood is PSA. Blood had to be shed even for sins committed in ignorance. Christ is the Lamb of God. He didn't get that name because He has a wooly coat. . .

If I crash your car and repent, would you be "satisfied" with my repentance alone? No. Your satisfaction comes not from my repentance but my checkbook. The covenant had blessings and curses. Failure to do ALL that was written in the Law meant death. Yes, sinners must die; however, praise be to God, "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

 

[Revmitchell]

"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Substitution right there. Doesn't get any clearer

 

[JonC]

If I understand this correct it is not only what scripture teaches it is the orthodox understanding of scripture.

It is neither.

 

[JonC]

Substitution right there. Doesn't get any clearer

This is clearer - "the just for the unjust".

No one is denying substitution on that ground.

 

[Revmitchell]

This is clearer - "the just for the unjust".

No one is denying substitution on that ground.

Again it is then your position which is unclear