1. 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!

Featured Penal Substitution Theology and the faith of those without it

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JonC, May 21, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 4 of 13
  1. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    For whom? What is the scope of the Atonement?
     
    #61 TCassidy, May 26, 2016
    • Winner Winner x 2
  2. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,909
    Likes Received:
    2,128
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There is no reference to specific "sinners." It just says "sinners." It might be some, it might be all.
    John Wesley certainly believed in Penal Substitution (citations available on request), and other 'real' Arminians (as opposed to Semi-Pelagians) like Campbell Morgan also upheld PSA.
     
    #62 Martin Marprelate, May 26, 2016
    • Like Like x 2
  3. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    For what purpose?
     
    #63 JonC, May 26, 2016
  4. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Are you saying that Arminianism (which holds a Reformed view of PSA but rejects a Calvinistic view of limited atonement) no longer exists within the modern theological landscape? What about Amyraldianism? Does it no longer exist?
     
    #64 JonC, May 26, 2016
  5. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,030
    Likes Received:
    3,657
    Faith:
    Baptist
    And?

    So you create a standard ie "everyone must use the phrase sinners or they do not mean all sinners" so you can knock down a standard no one else has. Got it.

    Who cares what wiki says. Who uses that as a legitimate source for theology? Well except you.

    No you are parsing words to fit your presupposition and it is obvious.
     
    #65 Revmitchell, May 26, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Something tells me that you are familiar with Admiral Nelson.
     
    #66 JonC, May 26, 2016
  7. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    Faith:
    Baptist
    John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

    HankD
     
    #67 HankD, May 26, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    28,742
    Likes Received:
    1,136
    Faith:
    Baptist
    To repeat, if PSA is defined as Christ paying the penalty for sinful humanity, then we can move on to discuss whether that is the best supported biblical view of what Christ accomplished on the Cross. But if PSA continues to be referring to "our sins" which might or might not exclude the sins of the whole world, or refers to "sinners" which might or might not refer to all humanity, then it is just a Trojan horse for limited atonement.

    Ask yourself this, why do all the modern definitions of PSA include a vague reference to the scope of the atonement. Perhaps we should park it outside the gates until we see what is inside. :)
     
    #68 Van, May 26, 2016
  9. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I always thought it was because so many really don't care about the "scope" of the atonement in terms of those who are not saved. It almost seems as if the Bible focuses on those who are being saved.
     
    #69 JonC, May 26, 2016
  10. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    28,742
    Likes Received:
    1,136
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If you study all that Christ commanded, you will find over and over the command to be fishers of men.

    Christ died for sinful humanity on the cross, to take away the sin of the world. Today, God is reconciling the world to Himself, one sinner at a time.

    If Christ died for sinful humanity, and He did, then how are individuals reconciled to God. The "at one ment" occurs when God transfers a person into Christ where they undergo the circumcision of Christ. Then they are sealed in Christ with the Spirit of Christ, such that they are in Christ and Christ is in them. This is the at one ment, the atonement, the reconciliation.
     
    #70 Van, May 26, 2016
  11. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I agree with you, except maybe that the Atonement is not necessarily encompassed entirely in that term "at one ment". While a bit catchy, it only focuses on the aspect of man being reconciled, so it also falls short of completely representing the biblical doctrine of the Atonement. Christ did die for sinful humanity on the cross. He did die to take away the sin of the world. Today God is reconciling the world to Himself, one sinner at a time. This reconciliation does occur when God transfers a person into Christ, when God "re-creates" us. And yes, we are sealed, such that we are in Christ and Christ is in us.

    Christ also bore our sins and the consequences of that sin in His flesh. Christ also purchased us with His blood. Christ also was delivered to death for our transgressions and raised for our justification. It is penal substitution. It is also reconciliation. And it is victory over sin and death.

    The Atonement is so very much more than penal substitution alone, but a rejection of penal substitution cannot but make the Cross so much less than it really is. You have cornered a truth that many do deny, but you are denying what is right before you simply because others take a doctrine to unbiblical conclusions. I agree that you see the errors, but insofar as seeing the truth you seem to be putting the telescope to the blind eye, brother.
     
    #71 JonC, May 26, 2016
  12. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    28,742
    Likes Received:
    1,136
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thanks Jon, I appreciate discussion of the doctrine more than the gratuitous commentary on my supposed flaws.

    First the scripture refers to reconciliation rather than atonement. Thus being separated from God in a sinful state, when we are united with God, that is our reconciliation, where we are at one with God. (Romans 5:11, 11:15; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19.) Was this accomplished when God accepted Christ's sacrifice on the cross? Nope. It is accomplished when God credits our faith as righteousness and transfers us into the kingdom of His Son.

    Second, Christ's death for sinful humanity covers each and every sin of fallen mankind. So to say He bore our sins does not enlarge from the "sin of the world." It is included. (1 Peter 2:24 - refers to those who have undergone the washing of regeneration.) We were not healed when He died, but when we were put into Christ spiritually and sealed in Him. If we had been reconciled when Christ died, there would be no need for our ministry of reconciliation.

    Third, Christ purchased sinful humanity, those saved and those who are never saved with His blood. (2 Peter 2:1)

    Fourth, yes Christ died for our transgressions which are included in the sins of the whole world. Now lets camp on "raised for our justification." Does this not teach that our (and everyone's) justification occurs subsequent to Christ's death. Jesus lives and we have been baptized into His death and resurrection. This again points to reconciliation occurring subsequent to His death on the cross.

    I only thing I have denied is Christ dying for the specific sins of the elect rather than all mankind. And we agree that is valid. The rest seems to be in the eye of the beholder, friend. :)
     
    #72 Van, May 26, 2016
    Last edited: May 26, 2016
  13. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I know, Van, that the only thing you have denied is that on the Cross Christ was dying for specific sins committed by specific people. And I absolutely agree with you. Sins as in sinful acts have never been the issue. It is sin, the sin of humanity of which sinful acts are but manifestations....fruit, so to speak...that has always been the problem. My objection is that the way you have presented the topic seems almost to deny penal substitution as a whole, not merely the error of some narrow men. Too many have held to penal substitution without crossing that line.
     
    #73 JonC, May 26, 2016
  14. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    28,742
    Likes Received:
    1,136
    Faith:
    Baptist
    And my issue is that when discussing PSA you must define it and draw the line (all mankind, sinful humanity, etc.) Reconciliation, becoming at one with God, occurs when God puts individuals into Christ, and not when Christ died. Try to sort this out in your own mind, what was accomplished when Christ died, and what more is accomplished when God transfers individuals into the kingdom of His Son. If you lump the two separate spiritual transactions together, you get confusion, IMHO.
     
    #74 Van, May 26, 2016
  15. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This is where we disagree. I do believe that we can legitimately discuss the Atonement as penal substitution (without having to touch every other aspect). Scripture does this often. Also, many (yourself included) want to talk about reconciliation but rightly do not feel that each time you open your mouth to deal with that topic you have to reiterate penal substitution.

    I had a conversation in church about divine sovereignty. One member of our group could not discuss the topic of God's sovereignty without insisting we include human decision at ever turn. But if we were talking human responsibility no one would stop to insist we include sovereignty.

    We can discuss Jesus dying on the cross as a guilt offering or sacrifice without turning it into a discussion of "at one ment" and reconciliation. That isn't to say that you are wrong in what you affirm of the atonement. I just am not sure that you are right in what you seem to deny.
     
    #75 JonC, May 26, 2016
  16. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    Faith:
    Baptist
    iconoclast how is it brother that I post a scripture and you disagree?


    HankD
     
    #76 HankD, May 26, 2016
  17. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    21,242
    Likes Received:
    2,305
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I was reading your posts.....as a series. ... I know you quoted the verse. ..
    Explain it please.
     
    #77 Iconoclast, May 26, 2016
  18. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    For the purpose of Atonement. I would think that would be obvious.
     
    #78 TCassidy, May 26, 2016
  19. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, I suppose so. Christ died as the Savior to all people and in such a way as to make the general call of salvation a genuine call to all mankind, if that is what you mean. This was an intended purpose of the Cross and in that sense, the Atonement was purposed for all mankind.

    So there is a universal scope to the atonement. Do you disagree?
     
    #79 JonC, May 26, 2016
  20. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So you have redefined "Atonement" in such a way that no orthodox Christian in history would agree?

    You are free to have your own opinions but you are not free to have your own facts.

    The above is NOT the theological definition of "Atonement."
     
    #80 TCassidy, May 26, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
Page 4 of 13
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...