37818
Well-Known Member
What of it affects how we are to interpret what part of any of the New Testament and why?
-
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!
I am a Baptist
- Thread starter Piper
- Start date
- Status
It does not affect how we interpret Scripture. That was not my point.
What it does affect is our witness. If we are not honest with history then how can we be trusted to be honest with Scripture (if we are unfaithful with the small stuff then how will we be faithful with the big stuff).
It also deprives us if knowing how our theology developed.
The Early Church did not have a worked out theology when it comes to Atonement theories (or eschatology, or Trinity formulas). They held a simple Ransom view. This remained the primary view (some different takes on it), and Recapitulation (see Justin Martyr) for some time.
This changed in the Catholic Church. Anselm rejected (rightly so) what the Ransom Theory had become. In the 11th Century he developed a substitution view (focused on the loss of honor. an important focus at the time). A little over a century later Aquinas reformed that view to focus on merit (an important focus at the time). Three centuries later Calvin reformed it to focus on justice (again, an important focus of that time).
Theological development does not equate to false theology. We can gain by learning exactly how our theology developed as we can evaluate the arguments from which they developed.
If you grew up in 1000 AD you would naturally read satisfaction Theory. If in 100 AD you would naturally read Ransom Theory. If in 20th century evangelical America, penal substitution.
37818
Well-Known Member
.
Isaiah 53 is not theory. Romans 5:8 with Romans 6:23 is not theory. The terminology Penal Substitution fits.
I agree that Isaiah 53 and Romans are not theories. I am not sure what that has the do with anything I posted. I was arguing against Penal Substitution.
37818
Well-Known Member
I understand penal Substitution in Isaiah 53 and Romans 5:8 and Romans 6:23 and not to be theory. Your refusal is yours.
Yes, it is. I completely accept Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, and Paul's letter to the Christian in Rome.
But I do reject the necessity to add penal substitution to Scripture.
Here is the question - if God's Word makes sense without adding penal substitution then why add it? The only reason I can think of us that those passages don't make sense to some without the addition.
But yes, I reject penal substitution while completely accepting what is written in the text of God's Word.
37818
Well-Known Member
In your view. I understand it to be it's Biblical meaning.
We have different ways of understanding Scripture.
I believe that we are to accept Scripture for what is written in its text and to test doctrine against what is written (the actual biblical text). I believe that the Bible teaches what is written.
You seem to prefer to hold to what you believe is taught by the Bible.
For example -
You can post that Romans 5:8 is penal substitution because you think that is what is ultimately taught.
I can say Romans 5:8 does not teach penal substitution by relying on the actual text.
When it comes to Scripture and foundational doctrines I am a "biblicist". This means if the doctrine is important (any doctrine of the Cross is important) and if we are to build on that doctrine then for me to accept it it has to be in the text of Scripture.
37818
Well-Known Member
Trinity?
The Trinity means the Father, Son, and Spirit but One God.
And yes, this is in the text of Scripture
Developed doctrines of the Trinity are not (scholars debated "nature" and "person" for years developing doctrines).
But the foundational doctrine - that Jesus is God, but not the Father and Spirit; the Spirit is the Spirit of God but not the Father and Son: the Father is God and not the Son and Spirit; and God is One - this is in the text of Scripture.
Penal Substitution, on the other hand, is not.
The key (from a biblicist perspective) is to list verses and see if the doctrine is actually stated.
37818
Well-Known Member
But not that term. The term "Baptist" for churches not until the 17th century.
That term?
Who cares if that term is in the Bible? The word "atonement" is not actually in the Bible. Neither is the word "Bible".
I am not saying the term "penal substitution" needs to be in the Bible in order to believe the theory.
I am saying the doctrine needs to be in the Bible if it is a foundational doctrine. And penal substitution is not. That is why it is a theory. Ransom Theory is a theory because of its focus (ransom is in the Bible, but not that ransom is the primary focus of the Atonement).
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
You certainly are on a kick. You are obsessed with deriding the biblical doctrine of penal substitution at every turn. Pick a new hobby. Don't bring it up on just about every thread. It better not show up on current events or the political forum.
The issue about penal substitution is that it is not in the Bible. That is probably why it took so long to be articulated.You certainly are on a kick. You are obsessed with deriding the biblical doctrine of penal substitution at every turn. Pick a new hobby. Don't bring it up on just about every thread. It better not show up on current events or the political forum.
Don't you find it strange that you and your pals see Penal Substitution so clearly yet most Christians believe it is a false gospel?
Not that it's a majority rule thing, but if it was so obvious and you can't even grasp other views...well...perhaps you are the issue.
Maybe it's destined to be the 'new hot topic' that replaces the C vs A controversy. It certainly has of late.
this thread is closed
- Status