Lol, I'm pretty sure the OP considers it nothing short of apostasy to grow out of strict Calvinist dogma.
[add]
...might even would deem them as 'false believers'....
Last edited:
-
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!
Moving away from Doctrine? Maturity or Apostasy?
- Thread starter Iconoclast
- Start date
- Status
Lol, I'm pretty sure the OP considers it nothing short of apostasy to grow out of strict Calvinist dogma.
[add]
...might even would deem them as 'false believers'....
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
which is exactly what?
Incorporating human philosophy (adopting the error pointed out in Isaiah 53).
Scripture presents a different Atonement. The Serpent would strike His heel, He would crush it's head. The World would esteemed Him stricken by God, but really He was redeeming them. He would suffer under the bondage of sin and death, sharing our infirmaty. He would suffer and die at the hands of wicked men, by the predetermined will of God.
Penal Substitution Theory abandons biblical teaching and claims the exact opposite. God strikes Christ, not the Serpent. Penal Substitution Theorists consider Him stricken by God, not the World in error. He suffers under the wrath of God, not the World. He suffers and dies at the hand of God, not the evil of this world.
Where Christianity rejects the idea Christ's death appeased God (where Augustine rightly called it a heresy) Penal Substitution Theory embraces it.
There is a reason Penal Substitution Theory did not arrive on the scene until the World became enamored with humanism and its own "wisdom".
This is correct however, it is not the ransom of the earliest, for in them they were the debtors to God, and God redeemed them by or through the Son.
No ransom as we consider a ransom was not part of the process as far as I can tell.
Their thinking would more along the lines of a rescue by exchanging His righteousness for our sin and slavery to this world.
The idea that some payment was made or a quid pro quo to either God or the satanic system would not fit their thinking, of one who gathers a stranger to his home and therefore is under the family protection. (This is a Middle East concept that few in the west would recognize as foundational to the topic for it is not our custom.)
The Bible shows that many people drift away from the Lord as they grow older.
When King Solomon was old, his many wives turned his heart after other gods.
King Asa 'did what was good and right in the eyes of the LORD his God' (2 Chronicles 14:2) while he was young, but at the end of his life, 'he did not seek the LORD, but the physicians' (16:12).
King Joash followed the Lord while he was young, but after the death of Jehoiada, his heart was turned away (2 Chronicles 24:2, 15-22).
We might mention King Uzziah (2 Chron. 26), and even King Ahaz who started badly and got worse (2 Chronicles 28:22). People imagine that they will become wiser as they grow older, but very often it is not the case.
When King Solomon was old, his many wives turned his heart after other gods.
King Asa 'did what was good and right in the eyes of the LORD his God' (2 Chronicles 14:2) while he was young, but at the end of his life, 'he did not seek the LORD, but the physicians' (16:12).
King Joash followed the Lord while he was young, but after the death of Jehoiada, his heart was turned away (2 Chronicles 24:2, 15-22).
We might mention King Uzziah (2 Chron. 26), and even King Ahaz who started badly and got worse (2 Chronicles 28:22). People imagine that they will become wiser as they grow older, but very often it is not the case.
Except Psa is what Paul and Jesus held to, and that is the very basis for Pauline Justification!
Ah, my friend, I would also agree!
However, in my opinion, it is not so much a drifting, as it is a revealing of who they really are.
As long as some mentor of authority is their guide, they do not reveal their inner self, but when that mentor is removed, then they have only themself which is foam and frothy.
Unlike you and others who teach the sheep and feed them in a manner to one day seek out Scripture truth for themselves, these that appear to stray and drift have no principles of Scriptureto quite them, but are as babies.
Jesus drank in full the Cup of wrath, the Bowl of wrath God had stored up towards sinners such as you and I!
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
You mean Biblical Justification. It does not come from Paul
You are mistaken.
At no place did Paul use the PSA teaching, and neither did the Lord.
This line of thought you used is merely an excuse taught without foundation. Sounds good, but isn’t Scripturally found.
Then where comes the wrath found in the buckets dumped on the earth?
the RC consider it part of the sins since the cross and therefore a purgatory is necessary.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
The ONLY Biblical Teaching on the Atonement is
Penal Substitution
Period
All the others are not from the Bible
you have that backwards.
For example: because it seems the only Scripture people can find is Isaiah 53, where in that chapter does it state God punished the Son? Does it rather not stake that it pleased God (or as we might state, fit His plan) to be ….?
Does it not state “WE esteemed him smitten and afflicted of God,” but it Does Not state God afflicted Him, but the results of the affliction we caused, Just as Peter stated in Acts.
Nope, you have it totally opposite then what is Scripturally sound.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Yes, and I didn't say specific doctrines did I? No I didn't.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
is not Isaiah 53 enough? is it not also the Inspired, Infallable Word of God? Should not even one reference be enough from the Bible? There are others
Penal Substitution | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org
I would take it that either you are now in agreement that Isaiah 53 does not support PSA theory, or you are pointing to other resources who may or may not be as authoritative as what we are discussing.
If you disagree with what I have presented from Isaiah, then perhaps your other sources are also in error.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
Isaiah 53:4 and 10 are sufficent to show PSA
"Surely he has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted...Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief: when you shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand"
Do you disagree with this?
Isaiah 53:4–10 Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him. He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth. By oppression and judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered that He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due? His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. But the Lord was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief; if He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.
Kinda takes on a different meaning when read as a whole.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
Nonetheless this chapter clearly teaches PSA!
It may teach some things Penal Substitution Theorists believe.
But:
It does not teach that Christ died to appease God.
It does not teach that Christ suffered God's wrath.
It does not teach that God inflicted pain and suffering on Christ.
It does not teach that God punished Christ (or our sin on Christ) instead of punishing us.
So there is that part of Penal Substitution Theory we know is unbiblical.
- Status