-
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!
False Gospel
- Thread starter Rebel1
- Start date
- Status
I would not be comfortable branding entire denominations that way. But certain teachings, yes. I'll get into that further in a while.
Zog Has-fallen
Member
Every individual or group that disagrees with my fellowship on the gospel is self-condemned and has no gospel or is teaching a false gospel.
I will check back to see when you share your views and then I will respond.
Okay, here is one. I believe all the major Western views of the atonement are false gospels. They present an untrue view of the nature of God. Particularly loathsome is penal substitution.
What do you believe is a correct atonement theory?
The earliest ones -- the ones that were held for the first 1000 years of church history: Ransom/Christus Victor/Recapitulation.
According to your atonement view(s), how does a person come into a right relationship with God?
Through faith in Jesus Christ, based on His incarnation, atonement, and resurrection. But Jesus did not "pay the penalty" of our sin, as in the PSA theory. That phrase cannot be found in the Bible.
Please supply a scriptural reference.
In support of penal substitution, consider this passage: 2Co 5:21 KJV - For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Faith is certainly a component part of entering into a right relationship with God. Do you believe that starting at birth, man has an inherent sin problem that separates him from a right relationship with God? Do you believe that faith in Jesus Christ includes repentance from sin? I am asking these things because the definition of terms is essential to a correct understanding of what you believe. Since you reject penal substitution, it may be that you reject other Reformation-period doctrines. Obviously, that is going to put you at odds with most Baptists. It is a help to me to drill down some more on your beliefs so that I am able to respond intelligently instead of just yelling "Heretic!".
I'm sure you know the scripture passages where the word ransom is used. The problem for those who see penal substitution in scriptures is this: Why didn't the earliest Christians see penal substitution there? Penal substitution was invented by Calvin and the other Magisterial Reformers; it was formed in an age where the work of Jesus was interpreted in a legalist way, just as Anselm's Satisfaction theory was a product of its age, as well -- feudalism.
I understand. I do appreciate your willingness to wait for more info before calling me a heretic.
My view of original sin would be more along the lines of the Mennonite and Eastern view. I do not believe in original sin as held by the Latin church, which was influenced by Augustine. Yes, I believe faith in Christ includes repentance from sin. That is one of the reasons I hold to believer's baptism.
To me, Latin Christianity has a wrong view of God and man. It is based in Augustinian thought and legalist, "courtroom" analogies.
I do believe you are in error, but yelling "Heretic!" every time we disagree with someone cheapens the term when something really is heretical.
By which you mean more Pelagian. I surmised as much, but it is always better to have a person state what they believe as opposed to stating it for them.
The term "Latin church" is somewhat misleading. Protestants (like me) share similarities in some doctrinal areas with Romanism, such as the Trinity, and yes, original sin. However, we depart with Rome over many more things that we agree on. Protestants would argue that original sin pre-dates any type of Latin influence, and we would base our belief on scripture alone. Augustine of Hippo's writings are certainly helpful in understanding an early 5th century understanding of the nature of man, but he also held to other beliefs that Protestants reject. The Reformation yielded the creed of Sola Scriptura, which drove Christians to the ad fontes aspect of their faith, back to the Word of God. Now, I am quite capable, and prepared, to get into the weeds on what the Bible has to say about original sin and the nature of the atonement, but I am wondering whether that is a worthwhile discussion.
I'll reply to parts of your post that I put in bold.
I am not Pelagian, but even less so Augustinian.
A worthwhile discussion: yes, but I have discussed these things in depth on this forum already.
I do appreciate your responses.
Indeed.
I agree with this absolutely. That's why I hold to Penal Substitution.
- Status