Necessarily Implied Doctrine vs True Church Doctrine

[JonC]

You should know because you have come down with a bad case of it. I don't build any doctrine on "necessary implications" but explicit clear statements and then only support that with implicit texts. This is particularly true with Penal Substitutionary atonement. Penal is clearly stated "judged according to your works" and "by one man sin entered the world and death by sin" as "sin is the violation of the law." Substiutionary is clearly presented in Levitical Law "for the people" and "because of their transgressions" and "for an atonement." The sacrificial animals that atones for sin is explicitly and clearly applied to Jesus Christ "the lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world" and "without spot or blemish." Clear explicit language.

The problem is your building (the "mortar" you use to hold verses together to form doctrine).

No one is denying that Christ is the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. No one is denying that Christ bore our sin. No one is denying that the OT system looked to (as a "type") of how God would bring about redemption to man. No one is denying Christ as our "High Priest". No one is denying it was God's will that Jesus suffer the cross. No one is denying that sin becomes a transgression in face of the Law. No one is denying that Christ died so that we would escape the wrath to come. No one is denying that Christ is the "Last Adam". No one is denying that we all will be judged according to our works (what Peter tells the Church - not the world). No one is denying that by His stripes we are healed.

But I, along with many other Christians throughout the history of the Church, am denying that God punished Jesus in our stead.

I understand that you don't "get it". I understand that the fact other ideas of the Atonement have existed throughout history by Christians who affirm the same Scriptures is just beyond your grasp. I can't help that. I can only tell you that you cannot debate the Atonement with blinders on. You cannot engage other people while oblivious to the fact your interpretation is not "clearly" stated in the biblical text.

 

[Reformed]

I understand that you don't "get it". I understand that the fact other ideas of the Atonement have existed throughout history by Christians who affirm the same Scriptures is just beyond your grasp. I can't help that. I can only tell you that you cannot debate the Atonement with blinders on. You cannot engage other people while oblivious to the fact your interpretation is not "clearly" stated in the biblical text.

Jon, I do not want to get into the middle of a debate you are having with another poster (which looks like it may be the case here), but I want to address your specific comment, "You cannot engage other people while oblivious to the fact your interpretation is not clearly" stated in the biblical text." If by "not clearly stated" you mean that there is no passage that states, "God punished Jesus in our stead", then you are correct. Going back to my previous post, there is no clear passage like that on the Trinity or Hypostatic Union. However, that does not mean that the scriptural evidence to support these doctrines is not, upon examination, clear and convincing. Now, that case for penal substitution may not be convincing to you but it is to a great many Christians. The only thing that can be done is for those on opposing sides to make their case from scripture. That may mean piecing together different but related parts of scripture that make a larger point. For example, I may point to the scapegoat being sent off to a solitary land (Leviticus 16) as a picture of what Christ said in Matthew 27:46, “MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?” In this way, the Old and the New are linked together. Again, this is not about the Atonement, it is about arriving at a doctrinal position based on a clear and convincing biblical argument. As theologians, we should be open-minded enough to at least hear out the other side. I am as cessationist as they come but I have considered the continualist argument in the spirit of intellectual honesty. I reject it, not because I think my side is right and do not need to listen to other arguments, but because I have listened to other arguments and find them unconvincing. Anyway, that is all I have to say. I will let you get back to your discussion.

 

[JonC]

Jon, I do not want to get into the middle of a debate you are having with another poster (which looks like it may be the case here), but I want to address your specific comment, "You cannot engage other people while oblivious to the fact your interpretation is not clearly" stated in the biblical text." If by "not clearly stated" you mean that there is no passage that states, "God punished Jesus in our stead", then you are correct. Going back to my previous post, there is no clear passage like that on the Trinity or Hypostatic Union. However, that does not mean that the scriptural evidence to support these doctrines is not, upon examination, clear and convincing. Now, that case for penal substitution may not be convincing to you but it is to a great many Christians. The only thing that can be done is for those on opposing sides to make their case from scripture. That may mean piecing together different but related parts of scripture that make a larger point. For example, I may point to the scapegoat being sent off to a solitary land (Leviticus 16) as a picture of what Christ said in Matthew 27:46, “MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?” In this way, the Old and the New are linked together. Again, this is not about the Atonement, it is about arriving at a doctrinal position based on a clear and convincing biblical argument. As theologians, we should be open-minded enough to at least hear out the other side. I am as cessationist as they come but I have considered the continualist argument in the spirit of intellectual honesty. I reject it, not because I think my side is right and do not need to listen to other arguments, but because I have listened to other arguments and find them unconvincing. Anyway, that is all I have to say. I will let you get back to your discussion.

I know. I've just been amazed that he has not understand yet that there are views other than his own that does not reject Scripture while rejecting his interpretation. I am not debating him. He does not acknowledge that other interpretations of the Atonement exist except it denies Scripture. So there is nothing to debate. I know his view, so there is nothing to learn. He does not care to know my view, so there is nothing to tell.

The case for Penal Substitution Theory is convincing. That is why I held it for so long. My request here has been simple, yet thus far no one has honestly addressed my concern.

My complaint is so many here merely post passages we all affirm and say "that proves it!" when in fact it is far from proving the Theory. Intellectual honesty demands that we acknowledge what is ours and what is God's. I respect many who hold to the Theory, but the respect is mutual.

 

[Reformed]

I know. I've just been amazed that he has not understand yet that there are views other than his own that does not reject Scripture while rejecting his interpretation. I am not debating him. He does not acknowledge that other interpretations of the Atonement exist except it denies Scripture. So there is nothing to debate. I know his view, so there is nothing to learn. He does not care to know my view, so there is nothing to tell.

The case for Penal Substitution Theory is convincing. That is why I held it for so long. My request here has been simple, yet thus far no one has honestly addressed my concern.

My complaint is so many here merely post passages we all affirm and say "that proves it!" when in fact it is far from proving the Theory. Intellectual honesty demands that we acknowledge what is ours and what is God's. I respect many who hold to the Theory, but the respect is mutual.

Jon, I do not want to get between you and another poster, so forgive me if I wound up doing that anyway.

 

[David Kent]

I am not speaking of the Christians in Rome, but of the Catholic Church. It became "not a church" in the early fourth century when it became the official religion of the Roman Empire. That is not to say Christians were not a part of the Catholic Church, but the "true church" is not that type of organization (at least not in the Bible).

I believe you are parlly correct. There were believers in the Church of Rome till the reformation. A number of priests were murdered or their faith including John Huss. I believe that the RCC church ceased to be a church when Lartin Luther excommunicated the pope, thus fulfilling Revelation 11:1-2 .

 

[JonC]

Jon, I do not want to get between you and another poster, so forgive me if I wound up doing that anyway.

You didn't.

My purpose here was with the idea what was not in Scripture itself being "implied".

 

[The Biblicist]

But I, along with many other Christians throughout the history of the Church, am denying that God punished Jesus in our stead.

The Biblical penalty for sin is death and it is without dispute Jesus died for our sins. Death is the PENAL consequence of violating God's Law as the violation of God's law is what the Bible calls "sin" and it is for "our sins" he DIED.

If you deny death is the penal consequence of sin then there is no need for the death of Christ "for our sins." If you admit that death is the penalty of sin and Christ died "for our sins" then you admit that the atonement is PENAL satisfaction. Just that simple!

If you deny the necessity of Christ's death, thus denying death is the penalty of sin then we are not condemned under any legal penalty for our sins and therefore need no salvation.

Your view empties the gospel and your words used to proclaim the gospel EMPTY of truth and thus "another gospel."

I think your view is not only irrational, absurd but clearly unbiblical in toto!

 

[Jerome]

Jon, our Presbyterian brethren replace "necessarily implied" with "good and necessary consequence."

The actual full phrase from the Presbyterian Confession is: "by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture"
Baptists rejected that, replacing it with: "necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture".

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Westminster Confession of faith, 1637. 1:6.
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether of new revelations of the Spirit, or the traditions of men.

2nd London Confession of faith, 1677/1689.
The whole Counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, Man's Salvation, Faith and Life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture, unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new Revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

As @Reformed has pointed out, the early Particular Baptists felt it necessary to tighten up the language of the WCF, largely because of the question of infant baptism.

However, as has also been pointed out, it is perfectly possible to follow @JonC's suggestion and reject anything that is not expressly stated in Scripture. The only problem with that is that you would have to abandon the Doctrine of the Trinity, the Hypostatic union and probably quite a few other doctrines along with all typology, figures of speech etc. However, perhaps some here feel that is a price worth paying.

However, this has nothing to do with the Doctrine of Penal Substitution which is expressly set down in Scripture so long as one is allowed to compare Scripture with Scripture. But perhaps that is to be banned also.

 

[JonC]

However, as has also been pointed out, it is perfectly possible to follow @JonC's suggestion and reject anything that is not expressly stated in Scripture. The only problem with that is that you would have to abandon the Doctrine of the Trinity, the Hypostatic union and probably quite a few other doctrines along with all typology, figures of speech etc. However, perhaps some here feel that is a price worth paying.

While it is true that one can abandon doctrines that are not expressly stated in Scripture without compromising what is technically the gospel of Christ, it is false that one would have to abandon the Doctrine of the Trinity, the Hypostatic union, or many other doctrines you believe may be a casualty of adhering so closely to Scripture.

For example, Scripture states that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are all God. And Scripture states that God is One. That said, you may have to be a little giving on other aspects of the doctrine (depending on what your doctrine of the Trinity involves) when discussing it with people who affirm the Trinity but offer different views. The same is true of the hypostatic union (it depends on just how much philosophy you include in your belief that the Word became flesh).

No one is suggesting that these doctrines (which are systematically developed, i.e., products of Systematic Theology) must be found as a whole in one book of the Bible (which would be Biblical Theology). Even more importantly, I am not even suggesting that one abandon theories that are not expressly stated in Scripture. I do think that Christians need to understand what is stated and what is reasoned out, and I do believe that we should lean not on our own understanding but to trust in God in all things.

Where we differ is that I do believe that the more important a doctrine is the more important it is that it be expressly stated in Scripture. And I believe that the Atonement falls into this category.

 

[JonC]

The Biblical penalty for sin is death and it is without dispute Jesus died for our sins. Death is the PENAL consequence of violating God's Law

This is not what Scripture actually states. Scripture tells us that the wages of sin is death (sin yields death) and that it is appointed once for man to die and then the Judgment. But Scripture also tells us that this judgment is given to the Son. It is Christ-centered, put under His feet. And God will separate the saved from the lost as a Shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. So even here, at the most fundamental point, you cannot help but assume things of Scripture.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

While it is true that one can abandon doctrines that are not expressly stated in Scripture without compromising what is technically the gospel of Christ, it is false that one would have to abandon the Doctrine of the Trinity, the Hypostatic union, or many other doctrines you believe may be a casualty of adhering so closely to Scripture.

For example, Scripture states that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are all God. And Scripture states that God is One.

'Expressly stated' means expressly stated. There is no text that states expressly that God is a Trinity. To be sure you can compare Scripture with Scripture in the way you describe and find that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God, yet God is one, but that is what our Baptist forebears would have called 'necessarily contained,' and is the case with the Doctrine of Penal Substitution as @The Biblicist and I have shown over and over again.

 

[The Biblicist]

This is not what Scripture actually states. Scripture tells us that the wages of sin is death (sin yields death) and that it is appointed once for man to die and then the Judgment.

So, Christ should not have to die at all because he did no sin and neither was sin found in him and so death should not be part of his atonement as his life should never "yeild" death? So the cross is unnecesary according to your view but is really an insult to Christ since there was no sin found in him that would yeild death, since sin is what yeilds death???????? So, he does not need to "die for us" because death is no penalty for sin???


So, shedding of blood UNTO DEATH should be no part of the atonement as Christ as there is nothing in the person of Christ that should "yeild" death.

So, Christ should not have to "die for our sins" because sin does not require death as a violation of God's Law and therefore is needless for making atonement???

So, death is not a penalty demanded by God's Law? So Israel's administration of death as penalty for violation God's law is not legal or binding? So "shedding blood" of those who shed blood is not a penalty for that sin?

One error leads only to more serious errors you are holding very very serious errors to the point you are teaching "another gospel" because your doctrine repudiates the truth of the gospel in toto!

But Scripture also tells us that this judgment is given to the Son.

He is talking about future judgement in dispensing to both saved and lost "according to their works."

The more you explain the more serious your errors become.

 

[JonC]

'Expressly stated' means expressly stated. There is no text that states expressly that God is a Trinity. To be sure you can compare Scripture with Scripture in the way you describe and find that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God, yet God is one, but that is what our Baptist forebears would have called 'necessarily contained,' and is the case with the Doctrine of Penal Substitution as @The Biblicist and I have shown over and over again.

If you do not believe that Scripture states that the Father, Son, and Spirit is God and that God is One then perhaps you need to pick up your Bible and read.


It does not matter if one believes that this is called the “Trinity”. What matters is that the doctrine is expressly stated in Scripture.

 

[JonC]

So, Christ should not have to die at all because he did no sin and neither was sin found in him and so death should not be part of his atonement as his life should never "yeild" death?

Christ became flesh. He shared in our "infirmity". He did not just "die". He lay down His own life as a ransom for many. But insofar as being a slave to sin and death, my answer is that Jesus was not. He lay down His life of his own accord in obedience to the Father.

 

[The Biblicist]

Christ became flesh. He shared in our "infirmity". He did not just "die". He lay down His own life as a ransom for many. But insofar as being a slave to sin and death, my answer is that Jesus was not. He lay down His life of his own accord in obedience to the Father.

Adam became flesh but without death as death was introduced by sin (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:12) , not by becoming flesh and Christ was without sin just like Adam before he sinned and there was no death! If death is not the result of sin then Christ should not have to die. If death is not the penalty of sin then Christ should not have to "die" for anyone. You have destroyed any rationale for Christ laying down his life for anyone because his life is sinless and thus should never yield death and because you have denied death is a penalty for violation of law.

So, death is not a penalty demanded by God's Law? So Israel's administration of death as penalty for violation God's law is not legal or binding? So "shedding blood" of those who shed blood is not a penalty for that sin?

The more you explain the deeper you dig your own ditch and the more serious your errors are manifested.

 

[Jerome]

Particular Baptists felt it necessary to tighten up the language of the WCF

What?

Scratching "deduced from Scripture" for "contained in the Holy Scripture" is not just 'tightening up the language'!

 

[JonC]

Adam became flesh but without death as death was introduced by sin

I agree that Adam was created a living being and not a corpse.

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree that Adam was created a living being and not a corpse.

Death was not part of simply being made flesh and you know it, as Genesis 2:17 and Romans 5:12 pinpoint the time death entered into the world and it was not at the point of being made flesh but precisely at the point of sin.

Your theory simply does not stand the test of scripture.

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree that Adam was created a living being and not a corpse.

So, death is not a penalty demanded by God's Law? So "shedding blood" of those who shed blood is ("thou shalt not commit murder") not a penalty for that sin? If death is simply part of being flesh rather than a PENALTY for sin, then on what basis did Israel administer death as a penalty for violating many of God's laws? Indeed, the sacrificial system prevented the death of Israelites when they sinned against God.

The truth is that death is God's penalty for violating His law and is not just part of being made flesh because sin entered the world by sin and is the "condemnation" for violating God's law.