Come on, brother. You are a more honest person than this post would indicate. Rather than simply responding emotionally please consider reasoning out what is written in Scripture. Misrepresenting opposing positions is beneath your character.
-
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!
Did Jesus take on the wrath of God as propitiation for our sin?
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
- Status
I agree that was their focus. Sometimes error is simply a matter of stretching one truth and ignoring others (to paraphrase Spurgeon).
As I have said, I held, preached, taught, and believed the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement for decades. Throughout seminary this was my belief. As a preacher this influenced my sermons. As a teacher it influenced my teachings. Teaching theology, I presented the necessity of this view.
I have read the Puritians. I have read Calvin's Institutes, John Knox, John Owen (one of my favorites) and Jonathan Edwards (another favorite. especially The Freedon of the Will).
I understand your position. I get Penal Substitution Theory.
But it is not in the Bible. Not only is is not in Scripture, but it stands in opposition to Scripture more than any other major view of the Atonement. And it falsely colors so much of Scripture.
I was no less saved when I believed Penal Substitution Theory than I am now.
I can still "see" the Theory in Scripture, but only as an error I once carried there. The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement cheapens grace and downgrades the character of God.
That said, since God moved me from that Theory towards a greater appreciation and understanding of Scripture I have a better grasp on the work of Christ as presented in the Bible which has encouraged spiritual growth that would have been impossible under the false teachings of Penal Substitution Theory.
I have not wrestled with the fact Penal Substitution Theorists are saved. I was once one. But I have wrestled with the fact many professing Christians cling to the Theory after being exposed to the truth of Scripture...after others pleading with them to shake off "worldly wisdom" and simply read God's Word.
Look at this thread. How many times has @agedman and I been insulted or belittled for sticking to the text of Scripture and denying what others believe those text "teach"? It is not a big deal for me (@agedman and I are not what is important here). What is important is what is (and is not) contained in God's Word.
Eternally Grateful
Active Member
I am amazed at the people who think seemingly the wrath of man poured out on Christ paid for our sin. Or we can be freed from the penalty of sin without someone taking the wrath we deserve.
No, brother. What @agedman and I have done is present Scripture without additions.
Your theory (what you say Scripture "teaches") is not actually in the Bible. They are additions.
Why should they be believed as they fail the test of Scripture?
John
By not dealing with it, you think the issue will not exist,but it does.
Can you show any post where you did not avoid it?
Jon, how many angels can fit on the tip of a pin?
Personally, I couldn't care less what the technical name men have given to what Jesus did. What I care about is that Jesus blood was sufficient and effective to atone for my sin. I see that indeed it is and that Jesus satisfied the Father's requirement.
There is a legal obligation I could not fulfill. Jesus fulfilled that legal obligation on my behalf.
Whatever people want to call it and whatever petty nuance people want to nitpick at, is not my concern. My concern is that Christ is enough and by faith I believe he is.
Peace
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
I get riled up and frustrated but I hope I don't insult and belittle. We come to loggerheads when I look at a portion of scripture and think it indicated penal substitution and you say show me a scripture. The thing that would clearly help me would be for you to clearly state exactly what you believe the atonement did accomplish. Your ideas should fit somewhere in the range of known theologies that can be identified. Even better, exactly how does God deal with human sin and what is God's view of it? What is the natural situation of us as individuals before God?
You are asking me to prove a negative. Can you show any post where @agedman and I dud avoid it? No, of course not. You are just trying to obscure the issue.
Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the world. In Him we escape the wrath to come. All Judgment has been given Him (in Him there s no condemnation). It is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment. We must die to the flesh and be made alive, recreated, reborn in Christ.
The issue is not whether we have dealt with God's wrath but how Scripture (not your theory) actually deals with God's wrath. And here you have denied Scripture in favor of revised Roman Catholic Doctrine.
John,
Using the verses without understanding the word meanings properly is not to have the verse.
wrath
atonement
redeemed
reconciled
propitiation
peace
bought with a price...
sacrifice
substitution
These have biblical meanings.
You gloss over them most recently in your "forbearance" postings.
You are suggesting that you and Agedman are among the few that can see it....while everyone on our bookshelves has not seen it.
I am staying with those on my bookshelf.
They have looked at all the verses also.
They see scripture clearly teaching PSA.
I gave a helpful link frpm Berkofs Systematic Theology.
I like that he displays how others tried to offer ideas that were also defective.
No one says Christ is not the victor.
He is.
But Gods law, and Gods justice are not to be short changed to declare this.
The idea that the wrath of God being poured on Jesus isnt in scripture has been destroyed on this board. Simply saying scripture doesnt say that is not a defense of that position.
You have not been insulting and I have enjoyed our conversation. I love talking about our redemption. I am not here to change anybody mind but hope that people (including myself) will constantly look at their understandings against the Bible.
How does God deal with human sin? God's wrath is set against the wicked. They are condemned.
Under the Law they must die. But God is just and the justifier of sinners. How? Men must be made new creations. We must die to the flesh....all flesh must die...and be made alive in Christ. The guilty man must perish - must be born again. Those mot born again, not in Christ, will suffer God's wrath at the Judgment.
What did the "atonement" (the reconciliation) accomplish? Man was reconciled to God by Christ's death and men are saved by His Life.
yes I can show it often.
on a previous thread I asked like 7 or 8 questions concerning the law.
your response answered not one of those questions, but skipped along to some thing else.
you did it with most other posters here
Do you really want me to go back and show it?
Go back and read the threads. list the questions you were asked on a legal pad, then see if any of your responses answered......you will find....you responded but did not answer.
About 10 times you said we are giving Rc teaching.
Can you show where any of us quote any such source....no you cannot.
But you offered such ideas in place of an answer.
Yet this is false.
God's wrath is against the wicked. @agedman and I never denied this
The Biblical word for "atonement" (at-one-ment) is "reconciliation". It is not a pagan sacrifice but man being reconciled to God.
There are no passages that present Christ as our substitute. Christ died for us ("on our behalf) which means "in our intrest" or "as a representative" He is "the Last Adam".
We are purchased with a price. Neither @agedman nor I have even discussed this yet (which proves you are obscuring the topic). The price for our redemption is the "blood of Christ". He ransomed us by offering Himself as an atonement for our sins.
Where we depart is we have rejected your theory as not only foreign to Scripture but opposed to it.
I notice you have not acknowledged passages stating that sins will not be transfered and that God will not substitute the just for the unjust. Why? Because you reject those passages to follow the men who "tickle your ears".
I never said you give RC teaching. I said you hold RCC doctrine once removed, reformed RCC doctrine, and revised Roman Catholic Doctrine. You claim the doctrine when you claim Penal Substitution Theory (do you not understand what "reformed" means?????).
Exactly correct.
That is why Paul puts that front and center in Romans 1:16-3:24...
He is not ashamed of the gospel because it is The once for all time sacrifice of our Lord that propitiates that wrath.
The wrath did not vanish, but was met eith the sacrificial love of Jesus....The Servant of the Lord...isa.49-66
You explain these terms away once again, doubling fown on your error.
This shows why you cannot see it.
Yet no member, thus far, has provided ANY passage that teaches Christ suffered God's wrath instead of us.
Don't you find that fact odd? You say it is in Scripture but can't find it in even one passage without adding to that passage.
His cup was the Bowl of wrath described by the OT Prophets God has been storing up against His wrath to come!
Without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sins, and what pleased the father was the death of Lord Jesus upon that Cross, by His shed blood lost sinners could now get reconciled back, as the wrath due us was now fully propitiated!
Unless our sins were imputed upon Christ, unless he paid the sin debt owed in full to the father, we shall pay for them ourselves still!
- Status