One more reason why I can't be Southern Baptist

Batt4Christ · Dec 17, 2017

Van said: ↑

What a joke!! The resolution seems to conflate the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ with the false theology that claims Christ did not die for all mankind.

Was the term defined. Nope

What a joke.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that Christ died for both the saved/elect AND all who ultimately perish in their sins? Surely you don't hold to that unbiblical viewpoint. He died for "all who would believe" - or "whosoever believes". And since Scripture says All who the father draws will come - and by no means be cast aside... it sounds like Jesus died specifically for each and every individual who comes to faith in Jesus Christ - whatever that number might ultimately be. But Christ's death has no value - and no application for those who perish in their sins.

Rebel1 · Dec 17, 2017

Yeshua1 said: ↑

The reformers detailed it to its fullest, but the church saw it in the teaching of Paul early on!
Click to expand...

There is no record of that.

Rebel1 · Dec 17, 2017

thatbrian said: ↑

[Insults removed].

I've posted ECFs (not that it even matters) who held to PSA, and many others here have demonstrated the biblical evidence.

You have a different opinion. That's Okay, but you can't change history.
Click to expand...

You're right about only one thing -- you can't change history. And history and scholarship show that PSA was unknown prior to the Reformation. And scripture proves the point, too. I've posted incontrovertible evidence. BTW, I'm still waiting for someone to show where in scripture it says that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. Do you think you can produce that for me? The only way you can do it is to add to the scripture like Martin Luther did.

Not meaning to be belligerent, so I hope you don't take it that way. I speak in a direct way, and also on forums sometimes things don't come across as intended.

Rebel1 · Dec 17, 2017

thatbrian said: ↑

The very fact that an ECF could mention PSA casually and briefly is evidence that the doctrine is well understood and accepted.

My interests on BB are mainly in the C vs A debate section [edited, insults removed]
Click to expand...

http://therebelgod.com/AtonementFathersEQ.pdf

Rebel1 · Dec 17, 2017

JonC said: ↑

The problem is that the ECF do not mention Penal Substitution Theory. They mention passages and biblical ideas that others articulated into Penal Substitution Theory. Those ideas are true. Those passages are true. It is what Penal Substitution Theory does with those passages that sets the theory apart from other theories.

The problem in this area is simply poor scholarship. Some (some who should know better) extract comments from earlier writings and provide a new context to the authors in order to "prove" a false conclusion.

For example, some will look at the fact that Christ bore our sins in His flesh, suffered and died for us, took upon Himself the wrath that was due man, and died on our behalf as a proof that Penal Substitution Theory was a well known doctrine. But this is reading into the text. What the ECF's do with those biblical truths is what demonstrates they did not hold to the theory you advocate (e.g., Origen with his payment to Satan; Martyr's focus on the physical death and it's implications to the human race; Irenaeus Recapitulation view....even William Tyndale's scapegoat theory).

The theory which we call Penal Substitution Theory does not only hold that Christ died for us so that we would escape the wrath that is to come. It holds that divine justice is retributive, that on the cross the Father was wrathfully punishing Jesus in our place as being guilty for our sins. This part (which is critical to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (PSA) is not present in anything we know of prior to the Reformation. PSA is Thomas Aquinas' theory of atonement reformed.

As a grad student this was one of my passions. Studying the works of the ECF's is interesting and rewarding. But we should never try to conform early works to our own agenda. They reflect the thoughts, worldview, and ideologies contemporary to their world. I can't stand when people get inventive with history.

Once you understand this you can appreciate the value of historic theology and can see not only how each generation addressed its own issues but also how some doctrines developed and were influenced by others.
Click to expand...

Very good and accurate.

Rebel1 · Dec 17, 2017

JonC said: ↑

I see Luther's view as more in line with the substitution theory already in place. Luther seems to have concentrated more on the results of Christ's work than on theories of atonement.

I believe that the reason his position appears to be a combination of PSA and Christus Victor is that he took what was already there (in Satisfaction/Substitution) and ran with it. He never deals with God punishing Christ retributively (simple punishment) but seems to lean towards Thomas Aquinas' acceptance of "satisfactory punishment".

The reason I believe this is how Luther expresses Christ's death as "outweighing the sin and wrath" that was against us based on Christ's ontological being (his divinity; his merit). This looks more like Aquinas (who took reformed Anselm's theory from honor to merit).
Click to expand...

I read some more on Luther after my post, and what I found agrees with what you just said. Thanks for your post. I don't hold to satisfaction, either -- at least not Anselm's view -- but I can see that Luther's view differs from Calvin.

Squire Robertsson · Dec 17, 2017

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 9 AM Pacific.

Van · Dec 17, 2017

Batt4Christ said: ↑

Are you suggesting that Christ died for both the saved/elect AND all who ultimately perish in their sins? Surely you don't hold to that unbiblical viewpoint. He died for "all who would believe" - or "whosoever believes". And since Scripture says All who the father draws will come - and by no means be cast aside... it sounds like Jesus died specifically for each and every individual who comes to faith in Jesus Christ - whatever that number might ultimately be. But Christ's death has no value - and no application for those who perish in their sins.
Click to expand...

Yes that is what the bible actually teaches. Your views, on the other hand, are unbiblical. God desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all.

Squire Robertsson · Dec 17, 2017

This thread is closed.

Squire Robertsson said: ↑

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 9 AM Pacific.
Click to expand...

One more reason why I can't be Southern Baptist

Batt4Christ Member
Site Supporter

Rebel1 Active Member

Rebel1 Active Member

Rebel1 Active Member

Rebel1 Active Member

Rebel1 Active Member

Squire Robertsson Administrator
Administrator

Van Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Squire Robertsson Administrator
Administrator

Useful Searches

One more reason why I can't be Southern Baptist

Batt4Christ Member Site Supporter

Rebel1 Active Member

Rebel1 Active Member

Rebel1 Active Member

Rebel1 Active Member

Rebel1 Active Member

Squire Robertsson Administrator Administrator

Van Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Squire Robertsson Administrator Administrator

Batt4Christ Member
Site Supporter

Squire Robertsson Administrator
Administrator

Van Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Squire Robertsson Administrator
Administrator