Really?
There isn’t a string of martyrs from the time of Steven even till the end of the age?
These folks died for what was lost?
-
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!
Martin Luther on Galatians 3:13
- Thread starter Martin Marprelate
- Start date
- Status
There isn’t a string of martyrs from the time of Steven even till the end of the age?
These folks died for what was lost?
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
That he was accursed by God for our sakes.
And this is denied by other theories?
only heretical ones deny the suffering and curse.
it is the HOW and WHY of the suffering that makes the PSA theory unscriptural.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
So he's automatically disqualified because he's a member of the Reformed camp. With that view no one can say anything that follows the logic of their group, which of course is absurd. Of course keep in mind who writes what - all I ask is that you look at the actual quotes from the early church leaders - and make your own decision. You guys came on to those of us who have not studied this much with the idea that PSA was unheard of until 1500. That has proven to be FALSE.
No it is not false.
What has been posted of the early church is no more supportive of PSA then it is of other theories such as Substitution, Satisfaction, and Victorious.
It seems that any mention of the suffering and the curse of Christ is the PSA. It is NOT!
What distinguishes the PSA is the HOW and WHY of the suffering and the curse.
The PSA presentation is a failure in holding to sound Biblical rendering. That is why @JonC and I have continued.
PSA is a product of the times and thinking of the 1500's in which people grabbed at any excuse to blame God.
The Spanish developed steel to make swords. So, they considered such was a gift from God and therefore permission to conquer and enslave others. Blame God.
The English king could sire a son, so he needed permission to start his own church. Blame God.
The Reformers desired to reform the RCC and needed a reason to blame God for their persecution of others who didn't agree (like the anabaptists and separatists).
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Most of the other views of the atonement are true if you start with the idea of penal substitution. Christ is victorious and nothing in history shows God's love for us more than the crucifixion. I have so far not seen a post suggesting you are required to reject any other view of the atonement - just that the other views, by themselves, leave out an absolutely essential element.
Belief in Christ, repentance toward God and the resulting union with Christ and being viewed by God as "in Christ" are true. But there must be a basis for this. And the basis is Jesus taking our sin and guilt onto Himself at the time he was crucified. Is there any reason that God could not have just decided to let bygones be bygones and give anyone who came to him a pardon? Yes. His holy nature. That's why we have all the scripture teaching us about God's wrath toward sin and toward those who sin, and the sacrificial system showing us what the remedy for sin is. It concluded in the crucifixion of Christ.
I admit I know a lot less than some of you about the theology behind this but I have read enough at this point to know that the modern rejection of PSA has as it's goal the elimination of the necessity of the crucifixion. I have flat out asked on the other closed thread what group or school of thought some of you are with and have not received any answer. Since this is a Baptist Board and since this subject is one where for the first time since I've been on here I have seen Calvinists and Fundamentalists in agreement I want to know where this is coming from.
Belief in Christ, repentance toward God and the resulting union with Christ and being viewed by God as "in Christ" are true. But there must be a basis for this. And the basis is Jesus taking our sin and guilt onto Himself at the time he was crucified. Is there any reason that God could not have just decided to let bygones be bygones and give anyone who came to him a pardon? Yes. His holy nature. That's why we have all the scripture teaching us about God's wrath toward sin and toward those who sin, and the sacrificial system showing us what the remedy for sin is. It concluded in the crucifixion of Christ.
I admit I know a lot less than some of you about the theology behind this but I have read enough at this point to know that the modern rejection of PSA has as it's goal the elimination of the necessity of the crucifixion. I have flat out asked on the other closed thread what group or school of thought some of you are with and have not received any answer. Since this is a Baptist Board and since this subject is one where for the first time since I've been on here I have seen Calvinists and Fundamentalists in agreement I want to know where this is coming from.
God did not let “by gone be by gone ,” but so loved the creation He gave us His Son as the light of the world.
The crucifixion satisfied the legal decrees against believers. (Galatians 2, Colossians 2).
You would think that if PSA was presenting factually, there would be statements concerning God brutish behavior toward the Son, but instead terms of victorious overcoming of the world, sin, death and the grave are used throughout the NT.
God merely used them to rediscover a lost and neglected great truth!
Those against Psa basically want to delete out of the Bible all things pertaining to the wrath of God, and to a need to have it propitiation!
The true Gospel was close to being lost during that time!
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
The trouble with Colossians 2 is that there is also Colossians 1, which clearly describes PSA. I still would like to know where this is coming from. You either have completely derived this from you own research, which is fine I guess, or you are getting this from somewhere else. Have you been reading Ritschl, or C.H. Dodd?
Or NT Wright?
No, never. God's word of sowing and reaping continued as He saw fit.
Rome very nearly had managed to replace true gospel with sacramental salvation heresy!
Colossians 1:
15The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him.
17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
18And He is the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning and firstborn from among the dead, so that in all things He may have preeminence. 19For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him, 20and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through the blood of His cross.
21Once you were alienated from God and were hostile in your minds, engaging in evil deeds. 22But now He has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy, unblemished, and blameless in His presence— 23if indeed you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope of the gospel you heard, which has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.
17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
18And He is the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning and firstborn from among the dead, so that in all things He may have preeminence. 19For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him, 20and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through the blood of His cross.
21Once you were alienated from God and were hostile in your minds, engaging in evil deeds. 22But now He has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy, unblemished, and blameless in His presence— 23if indeed you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope of the gospel you heard, which has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.
I very rarely read any books over these past years sense I retired.
If you follow my posts on the thread you will see that substitution isn't a problem if taken in the thinking of it being a work of satisfaction such as the blood of lambs, bulls and goats and other offerings in the OT.
NONE of them were brutalized by God, but if he was unsatisfied both the death of the priest and rejection of the sacrifice was certain.
Neither occurred at the crucifixion.
I have seen people try this, but it is false.
The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement stands against every view of the Cross that Christians held before Penal Substitution Theory was articulated.
When you change the purpose of the Cross to satisfying divine justice, when you change the source of Christ's suffering and death to God, and when you add to Scripture things like Christ's death was to appease God, God punished Jesus instead of punishing us, etc. then there is not enough left of biblical doctrine to to redeem tge error.
Penal Substitution Theory and Christianity are opposing things.
Sure, but Rome wasn't everywhere. God's work cannot be thwarted by human connivance.
How are our sins atoned for if not by the Psa view?
And has the Holy Spirit Himself gifted you to know Psa is the only invalid atonement view, as He seemed to have missed giving that to nearly all Baptists and Reformed?
John, I use satisfaction because that was portrayed in the OT and is expressed by NT writers. I also read that it was heard at various times by those near the Christ.
Satisfaction does not remove the aspects of blood sacrifice, but what it does is remove the thinking that Christ's suffering was not a quid pro quo or some kind of exchange that is often expressed by those who endorse substitution thinking.
Christ is not a substitute, but the divine and through Him we have life everlasting. If anything, Christ is the substitute by removing the temporary and providing the permanent reconciliation.
- Status