This is not true. Scripture tells us that God freely forgives upon repentance.
-
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.
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
- Status
on what basis? The father cannot just forgive us, as that would violate his holiness!
Penal Substitution Theory hinges on a few presuppositions. These are what need to be proven via Scripture.
@Martin Marprelate will offer many passages that speak of Christ dying for our sins, Christ becoming sin for us, the Just for the unjust, etc. And these are wonderful passages.
The problem is not what these passages affirm but what they do not affirm. They do not validate Penal Substitution Theory.
@SavedByGrace will just say Penal Substitution Theory is the obvious teaching of Scripture, but it is actually not as it is a minority view within Christianity as a whole. Using slogans like "the plain teaching", "obvious meaning", etc when dealing with any writing of substance is a fallacy. And Scripture IS of substance.
@JesusFan will appeal to the Reformers as proof Penal Substitution Theory is correct. He will make odd statements about "Pauline Justification' as if Pauline Justification is divorced from Scripture as a whole.
BUT what we must do is test doctrine against what is written in the text of Scripture. We cannot simply say "well, that's what it teaches", or "it's there in embryo" because when we do we test what we believe against what we believe is taught (which is subjective).
Since Scripture and redemption makes perfect sense without Penal Substitution Theory, what justification is there for adding it?
@Martin Marprelate will offer many passages that speak of Christ dying for our sins, Christ becoming sin for us, the Just for the unjust, etc. And these are wonderful passages.
The problem is not what these passages affirm but what they do not affirm. They do not validate Penal Substitution Theory.
@SavedByGrace will just say Penal Substitution Theory is the obvious teaching of Scripture, but it is actually not as it is a minority view within Christianity as a whole. Using slogans like "the plain teaching", "obvious meaning", etc when dealing with any writing of substance is a fallacy. And Scripture IS of substance.
@JesusFan will appeal to the Reformers as proof Penal Substitution Theory is correct. He will make odd statements about "Pauline Justification' as if Pauline Justification is divorced from Scripture as a whole.
BUT what we must do is test doctrine against what is written in the text of Scripture. We cannot simply say "well, that's what it teaches", or "it's there in embryo" because when we do we test what we believe against what we believe is taught (which is subjective).
Since Scripture and redemption makes perfect sense without Penal Substitution Theory, what justification is there for adding it?
Scripture bases God's forgiveness on repentance.
A holy God does not have to punish a repentant person to remain holy. Where on earth did you get the idea He does?
Fifth time.
'Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man.'
Scripture says Aaron puts the Israelites' sins on the head of a goat (albeit in type); human philosophy says he doesn't..
This is in line with those who make "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me" to read, "My God, My God, You haven't forsaken Me."
'Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man.'
Scripture says Aaron puts the Israelites' sins on the head of a goat (albeit in type); human philosophy says he doesn't..
This is in line with those who make "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me" to read, "My God, My God, You haven't forsaken Me."
The soul that sins must die and must face wrath and judgement!
Someone must experience that in order to allow God means to freely justify and forgive!
Scripture bases God's forgiveness on Christ.
Exactly. This is repentance and belief.
Isaiah 55:7
Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, and He will have mercy on him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon.
Micah 7:18-19
Who is a God like You, pardoning iniquity and passing over the transgression of the remnant of His heritage? He does not retain His anger forever, because He delights in mercy. He will again have compassion on us, and will subdue our iniquities. You will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea.
And we must die, for this is the wages of sin.
Jesus does not save us from death. He saves us through death. We must die with Christ, die to the flesh, and we will die physically.
It is appointed man ONCE to die and then the Judgment. Having died, we escape the wrath in Christ.
Yahweh is able to do all of that due to the psa of his son Lord Jesus for our sake!
God the father must have had someone pay and atone for our sin debt owed to Him for breaking his law!
Why?
But that is not what the Bible says.
unprofitable
Active Member
Christ was the lamb without spot or blemish, which was required for the sin offering. The sin offering was always BURNED outside the camp. The burning of the sin offering would also represent Christ going into hell to suffer for our sins and pay our sin debt so that we might not suffer that wrath.
This was a much greater act than to physically die on the cross at the hands of evil men.
The Law represented types and shadows which could never take away sins. After Christ fulfilled the law, he would provide a better sacrifice for us through the new covenant offering of himself as the sin offering and as we know, all the sacrifices pointed toward Christ.
As far as forsaking, David tells Solomon in 1 Chron 28:20 "...be strong and of good courage and do it, fear not nor be dismayed, for the Lord, even my God will be with thee, he will not fail thee nor forsake thee, until thou hast finished all the work of the house of the Lord."
When Christ died, he said it is finished, referring to his work of the edifying of the house of the Lord. It was near the time when Christ asked, Why hast thou forsaken me?
This was a much greater act than to physically die on the cross at the hands of evil men.
The Law represented types and shadows which could never take away sins. After Christ fulfilled the law, he would provide a better sacrifice for us through the new covenant offering of himself as the sin offering and as we know, all the sacrifices pointed toward Christ.
As far as forsaking, David tells Solomon in 1 Chron 28:20 "...be strong and of good courage and do it, fear not nor be dismayed, for the Lord, even my God will be with thee, he will not fail thee nor forsake thee, until thou hast finished all the work of the house of the Lord."
When Christ died, he said it is finished, referring to his work of the edifying of the house of the Lord. It was near the time when Christ asked, Why hast thou forsaken me?
Except Christ did not go to Hell. Christ shared in our infirmity. He did not experience our infirmity so that we would not.
The fact is Penal Substitution Theory is foreign to the text of Scripture. It cannot pass the test of doctrine. Many see it as taught by Scripture, but Jehovah Witnesses see their theology as taught by Scripture as well.
I'm not sure what you're proposing here. Are you suggesting that the Lord Jesus Christ is unnecessary for salvation?
John 3:16. 'For so God loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.' Salvation is only ever through the Lord Jesus Christ. Any other way of salvation is not Christian.
Let's have another look at Leviticus 16 and other relevant verses:
Sixth time.
'Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man.'
Here we have the Atonement in type or figure. The sins are placed on the goat and are taken away.
Isaiah 53:5-6. 'The chastisement for our peace was upon Him., and by His stripes [wounds] we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone into his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.'
Here we have the Atonement in prophecy. 700 years before the event, Isaiah reveals that it is actually the Lord Jesus Christ, God the Son, upon whom our sins will be laid.
1 Peter 2:24. 'Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we having died to sins, might live for righteousness - by whose stripes you were healed.'.
And here we have the Atonement presented to us as history. The Lord Jesus has borne the sins, the iniquities of all those whom the father has given Him, upon the cursed cross. He could only have borne those sins in His own body if they were laid or placed upon Him, so we have the prophecies of Leviticus and Isaiah specifically fulfilled in this verse.
To be sure those for whom our Lord died will be brought to faith and repentance in due time, but the cross comes first. for, 'Without the shedding of blood there is no remission.' 'God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross!'
No, quite the opposite. I am insisting that Christ is literally our salvation.
I agree with the passages you quote.
I think what you have misunderstood is the meaning of repentance in my post. We must die to the flesh, die with Christ, and be made alive in Him.
You need to be careful in how you present forgiveness. Others may mistake your comments to mean that we no longer need to be forgiven of sins, we no longer need Christ as a mediator.
Jesus experienced hell and separation from the father upon that Cross for our sake!
Your view of the Cross fails the scriptural test!
Jesus did not go to Hell after he died., as that is WoF heresy, but he did taste hell and separation from the father upon that Cross!
- Status