Doctrine, and church membership

[ntchristian]

Assuming you recognize the poster, why not share who you think they may have been in the past?

Yeah, I just asked him to do that.

He thinks he recognizes me, but I know I recognize him. Oh, not him personally, but I recognize the type. I have encountered his type elsewhere -- nasty, pharisaical, accusing without cause. Yes, even my native Orthodoxy had folks like him.

 

[ntchristian]

Again, I would point out that the verse also fits into other atonement theories as well.

None of the Scriptures you have offered are exclusive to PSA.

For example, stating that, “Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” secured the Ransom Theory as the only one with veracity, would be just as incorrect as any you have offered as “proof” the PSA was the correct one.

History proves the early church did not use the PSA, and that is factual. What they did use was somewhat of a blend in the victorious and ransom thinking. Again, ransom was not from payment owed, but rescue from. Remember Paul encouraged believer to remember the former ways and the rescue from them.

For example, the person is rescued (ransomed) from the market of slavery, removed from the market never to be sold into slavery again, endowed with the garments of the family, given a choice position as adopted into the family of eternal life. All accomplished by the work of the Father, through the Son, and by the Holy Spirit.

The early church greeting was, “He lives.” The response by the believer, “He lives indeed.” We still use that today.

A victorious Christ.

Amazing. Thank you. Finally, someone who knows early church history and theology!

 

[ntchristian]

As I skimmed this thread, I was sad to see how the discussion swerved this way and that.

You seemed to object to "Atonement doctrine" which included Penal Substitution Atonement. Some translations of the New Testament have the English word "atonement" at Romans 5:11. This same word in various forms also appears in three other verses (Romans 11:15, 2 Corinthians 5:18 and 2 Corinthians 5:19. Reconciliation refers to the process of mending discord in a relationship. Thus when God places an individual into Christ spiritually, and they undergo the washing of regeneration, they are reconciled. So one way to understand the doctrine of atonement (at-one-ment) is God's action to transfer a sinner from the domain of darkness into the kingdom of His Son.

However, many conflate what Christ accomplished on the cross, dying as a ransom for all (every human but Jesus). And thus discussions become a muddle.

Best wishes on your question

A very intelligent and helpful post.

And, yes, I regret to see that my question veered into a debate on the validity of PSA, etc. Although, some of the posts that have come as a result of that have been helpful and enlightening.

 

[ntchristian]

Not in light of your posting concerning PSA. The theory wasn’t invented until Martin Luther and then John Calvin (also originally educated as a layer) picked up the thinking.

Prior, there was no theory of PSA.

There were other theories, for example Anselm’s satisfaction theory (which was used as the springboard for PSA) as well as Ransom and Victorious Christ.

100% correct and factual!

 

[ntchristian]

No.
Also, I do not differentiate between "major" and "minor" doctrines.

If I may ask, have you been Scripturally baptized ( Matthew 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11, Acts of the Apostles 8:36-38, Acts of the Apostles 10:47-48 ) since you've believed on Christ and confessed Him before men ( Romans 10:8-10 )?

I'm pretty much a "solitary Christian" in my area, except for one other brother in Christ.
But I understand your concerns.

Baptism -- I was immersed, but as a baby. Was about to have "believer's baptism" last spring, until Covid hit.

 

[ntchristian]

I agree, for the most part, myself.
I can find nothing in the Scriptures that say that He died "in our place, and suffered what we should have suffered".

While it's an attractive and very reasonable idea from a legal standpoint, I have waffled on it for quite some time.
Ultimately, I have to confess that I do not hold to it.

To me, to do so would amount to the Father sending His Son to Hell, leaving Him there to suffer punishment until the Judgment, His own Son being judged at the Judgment ( instead of being the Judge ) in place of all whom He died for, then eternally suffering in the Lake of Fire in place of those that He has saved.


Pray the Lord would have you find a place or a people to assemble with, and commit to waiting on His timing, my friend.
Meanwhile, continue in your studies.

There's a lot in His precious book that He has to show us.

Thank you, dear brother. Excellent post!

 

[ntchristian]

I could not go to a church that I did not agree with their position on the atonement.

Thank you for that thought. Now I have to try and consider this sentiment with what some others have said in the opposite direction. This is a crucial decision for me.

 

[ntchristian]

Yes and maybe. The nature of the disagreement needs to be stated. If the disagreement in any way negates the gospel message, then the answer is no. There are certain doctrines that I will never compromise on, but I may be willing to attend a church that believes different on some doctrines if I am providentially hindered from attending a like-minded church. I stress the word attend from the previous sentence.

Let's say I have health issues that keep me from traveling to a church that I am like-minded with on most doctrinal issues. In that case I am providentially hindered from going to that church. In my immediate area is a "best of the rest" church, but I have a serious doctrinal disagreement with this church. Because this doctrinal issue is a core belief of mine, I will attend the church; support the church; and even serve in ministry, but I could not officially join the church.

Very good post, thank you very much for sharing your thoughts here. This could be a viable option for me.

 

[37818]

Chris has died. Christ has risen. Christ will come again. Christ came to give His life as a ransom for many.

As I said, none of the scriptures you cited teach PSA. Read the definition of PSA.

Explain how, in what way, Chirst's death of His soul on the behalf of our sins was done as a ransom. Matthew 20:28, 1 Corinthians 15:3, Ezekiel 18:4, Isaiah 53:6, Isaiah 53:9-12.

 

[37818]

No, it is not. None of the verses you have quoted support PSA. Do you know the definition of PSA?

The term Penal Substitutionary Atonement.
Penal, relating to, or involving punishment.
Substitutionary, in place of another.
Atonement, ransom, propitiation.

 

[Yeshua1]

The biggest stumbling block is the doctrine of the atonement, not justification by faith or the "sacraments".

We hold to penal Substitution, while Orthodox do not!

 

[Yeshua1]

If I said exactly how I feeiod wrath has to be propiated in some fashion!

I don't see PSA in any of those scriptures. And neither did the early church.

Jesus and peter and paul referenced Isaiah in a Pst way though![

 

[Yeshua1]

The term Penal Substitutionary Atonement.
Penal, relating to, or involving punishment.
Substitutionary, in place of another.
Atonement, ransom, propitiation.

Only view that allows God to remain Holy and just and also able to freely forgive sinners!

 

[Yeshua1]

Okay, how about this: Jesus said that He came to give His life as a ransom for many (original scriptural atonement teaching). Nowhere did He say that He came to pay the penalty for our "sin debt" (atonement theory invented 1500 years later). PSA cannot be found in scripture or the early church.

Isaish stated that Messiah would die for the sins and in the behalf of his pwn , how is that not pst?

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't deny what those scriptures plainly and explicitly say. I deny what you say they imply -- that Jesus was punished and killed in our place, paying the penalty for our sin debt. You won't find that said in scripture or believed in the early church.

Jesus experienced being forsaken by the Father while upon that Cross, as He tasted wrath of the father for our sins and for our sales!

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't know. I do know that I deny PSA, among other Western atonement doctrines.

How then is the wrath of God appeased towards lost sinners?

 

[Yeshua1]

No sir.

That certainly is not my problem.

Perhaps you are misinformed in your education of various theories of atonement.

They are only theories presented in attempts to encapsulate the plan of God in bringing reconciliation.

Someone clinging to a certain one and pretentiously making all others dismissed is wrong.

God gave a large volume presenting the redemption with many various aspects highlighted differently.

There is no doubt Christ suffered physically. Surprisingly, so did others, perhaps even more so, for the bones of Christ were never broken that he might suffocate. He willing Gave to the Father the care of His Spirit. There is no indication of abandonment, but of withholding support that the Son accomplish fulfillment of Scripture. He laid down his life, not in rebuke by the Father and took it up again still never rebuked by the Father. The PSA does not present without rebuke and punishment by the Father.

At no place in the OT or NT is there a statement of God punishing the Son, nor of the Son suffering by the direct hand of God.

Jesus received in his person the very penalty in judgement all lost sinners will experience!

 

[Yeshua1]

Then how were people saved prior to Martin Luther? He was the early founder of that thinking. It came from his lawyer training as well as the Roman Catholic background of God needing some penitence. Luther agreed with and taught theology but not the purchase of indulgences. He sought to reform the RC, not withdraw from it, until it became impossible to do other.

I do not know why you cling to PSA with fervor, but I remind you that all views of atonement and presentations are theory and not considered as fact. As theoretically based, they must continually undergo examination and even rejection when the teaching of that theory becomes laced with inaccurate information.

I pointed out some inaccuracies in this thread.

Here is a quick review:

To deny Christ suffered is wrong, but to consider He suffered more than any other is also wrong.

To deny God was pleased with the suffering is wrong, but to teach that God actually did punish the Son is also wrong.

To deny blood was shed for sins of the whole creation is wrong, but to think that the cross was the only place the blood was shed for sins is also wrong.

To see the Christ abandoned because the Father cannot look upon sin is wrong, but to think the Father did not withhold support of the Son is also wrong.

And the list could go on.

I have listened to many who in their zealousness in preaching wax eloquently about the cross attempting to portray the scene as if it were a single outstanding event in the history of that time. To the common person of that day, it was just as attention getting as the commission of the death penalty upon a prisoner, today. People assuming the justice served.

It is the resurrection that is the startling event that turned the people into greater awareness, as Peter’s message at Pentecost validates.

22Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

25For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:

26Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:

27Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

28Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.

30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

…​

The OT sacrificial system affirmed Pst, and so did Jesus and his Apostles in the NT!

 

[Yeshua1]

Amazing. Thank you. Finally, someone who knows early church history and theology!

many of us do, but we reject that early church, following the Apostles, did not teach pst!

 

[Dave G]

Was about to have "believer's baptism" last spring, until Covid hit.

If you don't mind the advice,
I recommend that you follow the example of those who believed in the passages I listed in Acts, and do so at your earliest convenience, my friend.

There's really no pressure and it's not like your eternal relationship with Him depends upon it,
but from a Scriptural standpoint, it is an outward expression of our identification with Him and one of the first commandments that He gives us* upon our belief on Him for the forgiveness of our sins;

Plus I believe that it functions as part of our outward confession of faith in Him.

An example of this is here,
in which the ones who had believed Peter's preaching on the day of Pentecost asked what they should do after they had heard and believed:

* " Now when they heard [this], they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men [and] brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call." ( Acts of the Apostles 2:37-39 ).

I wish you well, and may He bless you greatly in both grace and knowledge.