That isn’t what he posted.
-
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!
Penal Substitution Theory
- Thread starter agedman
- Start date
- Status
No, none of us have denied propitiation.
Again, this isn’t correct.
The teaching of both Ransom (1 Timothy 2:6) and the Victorious Christ (Rev. 15:12) are both not only present in Scripture, but more abundantly and in principle taught even in this day by both Calvinist and others.
It is not a drifting into apostasy, but the presentation is that of illuminating the teaching of Scripture.
Unlike the PSA, in which a quid pro quo is as a bargaining between God and the Devil with Christ a pawn pleading but submissive as a beaten puppy because God can’t stand the very thing He proclaimed, and pictured, the Christ presented in Scripture is the conqueror, the King of kings, the Kingdom builder in which the gates of hell are cast by His authority into the second death.
Prove your charge that the Victorious Christ is not supported and more thoroughly the teaching of scripture in comparison to PSA.
It is not apostasy but presentation of the Christ for who He is, the mission of His ministry, and the Savior of all snake bitten sinners that gaze upon Him.
Again untrue.
The propitiation (appeasement) of God was not because God punished the Son, but because the Scriptures state, “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness (Hebrews 4) and that the death of the testator must occur before the will is valid to the heirs (Hebrews 9).
Look upon the record of what John saw and recorded in the Revelation concerning the crucifixion.
1Then I saw a scroll in the right hand of the One seated on the throne. It had writing on both sides and was sealed with seven seals. 2And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming in a loud voice, “Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scroll?” 3But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or look inside it. 4And I began to weep bitterly, because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or look inside it. 5Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed to open the scroll and its seven seals.” 6Then I saw a Lamb who appeared to have been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which represent the seven Spirits of God sent out into all the earth. 7And He came and took the scroll from the right hand of the One seated on the throne. 8When He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp, and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9And they sang a new song:
Why is this passage so important? It shows the RESULTS that Hebrews 4, 9 and other passages declare.
The Scroll is a seven seal last will and testimony given to the Saints. Seven seals had to be broken to open to reveal the contents of heirship of the believers. No other document of the Middle East was sealed with the seven seals then the will presented to heirs. Only Christ as both just and justifier had such authority, and the reaction of the heavens was astounding.
PSA does not present anything close to the presentation of the Victorious Christ.
yes it is.
You did; why can't I? But as you very well know, the NKJV is the version I use here almost exclusively. I referred to the ESV to make sure that the NKJV was not out on a limb. It isn't. You can have the NIV as well at no extra charge. 'Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer.'
It is a Roman Catholic ruse to retreat from the Bible and plead the Church fathers when you can't sustain a Biblical argument.
So the Church fathers are OK when you plead them, but not otherwise. Got it!
Another issue with Penal Substitution Theory is Christ Himself plays no active role in the forgiveness of sins. Our sins are simply punished.
I did not. I just have the NASB on my phone.
My point with the Church Fathers and Christianity from the Apostolic Church to the Reformation is that Penal Substitution Theory insofar as Christ's death appearing God, God inflicting suffering on Christ, and God punishing Christ for our sins (or our sins on Him) rather than us is not only foreign to their views but so apprehensive that Augustine called the idea Christ's death appeased God strong heresy, enough to disqualify one from being saved. While I would not go that far (I was no less saved when I held the Therory) we have to acknowledge the Theory is relatively new. And as your posts point out clearly, it is not in the actual text of God's Word.
And it was God's will to crush Him, to put Him to grief. You keep bringing this up as if it proves something but it is just a strawman defense.
Allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture does not mean picking a bunch of Bible versions but testing Scriptire against Scripture. Peter explains it being God's will to crush Him very well. Scripture really is sufficient, MM.
yes you have. in what way did Jesus turn away the wrath of God against the believers sin?
Are you saying there was no penalty for their sin, while the unbeliever pays in unending torment.
why is their no condemnation for the elect?rom 8:1
what happened to the penalty for yheir sins?
yes you have...according to you there was no wrath for individuals sins.
God does not bargain with Satan.
Everyone knows Christ was victorious.
That is not the issue.
Well this is it, is it? Penal Substitution Lite? 'Mountains are in labour and a miserable mouse is born.'
I am pleased that you now admit that the Father forsook the Son, which is something you adamantly denied last time we locked horns. I am pleased also that you have adjusted your 'penal substitution theory' and are no longer insisting that PS declares that God was punishing Christ rather than punishing sin.
But what is missing from your PS Lite is God's requirement for propitiation, and the need for God's justice to be upheld, 'That He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.' God's justice demands that sin must be punished, and so the Lord Jesus Christ, God incarnate, was made sin for us and suffered, willingly, the punishment and God's righteous anger against sin that we deserve.
And you still do not understand, or will not admit, that the Bible declares very clearly, both in type and in actuality that the Father struck the Son, putting Him to grief, 'I will strike the Shepherd........'
What does Romans 8 declare?
1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2For in Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set you free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful man, as an offering for sin. He thus condemned sin in the flesh, 4so that the righteous standard of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Because of God sending the Son, as an offering for sin, Christ condemned sin, so that the righteousness is fulfilled in us.
No mention in the slightest of the brutalizing by the Father upon the Son so prominent in the PSA view.
Who brutalized our Lord? Who put Him upon the cross? Humankind, me!
Do not take my own shame as a contributor to His suffering for me. He suffered not by the hand of God, but my own hand, and the debt I owe Him is far more then appreciation, but His love for me compels me, constrains me, and comforts me.
It’s certainly is the issue, for you proclaimed a drifting was taking place into apostasy.
I am showing a far more perfect view of the atonement then that presented by PSA
What I hold is that God did not pour out His wrath upon the Son.
The bowls of God’s wrath are yet to be poured out.
Had God poured His wrath out upon the Son, the bowls would be emptied. They are not (Revelation 15)
Was Christ the pure sacrifice or did sin present a defect in Him?
Concerning our Lord quoting Zachariah:
7Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd,
against the man who is My Companion,
declares the LORD of Hosts.
against the man who is My Companion,
declares the LORD of Hosts.
Strike the Shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered,
and I will turn My hand against the little ones.
8And in all the land, declares the LORD,
two-thirds will be cut off and perish,
but a third will be left in it.
and I will turn My hand against the little ones.
8And in all the land, declares the LORD,
two-thirds will be cut off and perish,
but a third will be left in it.
9This third I will bring through the fire;
I will refine them like silver
and test them like gold.
They will call on My name,
and I will answer them.
I will say, ‘They are My people,’
and they will say, ‘The LORD is our God.’ ”
I will refine them like silver
and test them like gold.
They will call on My name,
and I will answer them.
I will say, ‘They are My people,’
and they will say, ‘The LORD is our God.’ ”
It does NOT say that God struck the shepherd.
Last edited:
Paul and I agree that the preaching of the Cross is foolishness to them that perish.
The pattern is in God's primer, just as I showed you. It can't be denied.
The Victorious Christ preaches the cross, in all its shame upon those that perish and all the glory to those who believe.
What is not preached is that God so loved the world that He brutalized is only begotten son that some appeasement between obstinate rebellious humanity and His holiness may be credited to some who conjure up enough innate faith to get His attention.
Who kills the victim in the sacrifice?
- Status