Penal Substitution

[Michael Wrenn]

Is all of the Word of God the Word of God or not. If you do not believe all of the Bible is the equal Word of God but choose to hold to some and not others then my point has been proven. You cannot dismiss any of the Bible as less than any other part and claim to believe the Word of God. Paul's words are equally inspired as Jesus. To deny this is to pick and choose what is convenient. Nuanced and misused words like preeminence only says what I have said. It is all god's word equally and all of the same exact importance. Paul's words are equally the word of God as Jesus words. All of the OT is equally true and nothing contradicts anything else. Otherwise you have chosen to hold to only those things that are convenient to you.

Anyone who doesn't acknowledge that the Bible, especially the OT, is not a unified and harmonious whole is ignorant of the facts of the historical traditions -- either willfully or unintentionally so. There are plenty of contradictions. I have shown some of them in other threads.

The writings, teachings, etc., that line up with the example and teachings of Jesus are what takes priority for me.

 

[glfredrick]

Anyone who doesn't acknowledge that the Bible, especially the OT, is not a unified and harmonious whole is ignorant of the facts of the historical traditions -- either willfully or unintentionally so. There are plenty of contradictions. I have shown some of them in other threads.

The writings, teachings, etc., that line up with the example and teachings of Jesus are what takes priority for me.

With this statement you have squarely placed yourself into the camp of the liberal Christian -- if, as J. Gresham Machen propositioned so elequently in his book, Christianity and Liberalism, there is such an oxymoronic thing as both liberal AND Christian. While I'll not go so far as to question your salvation, I cannot know the true state of your heart after all, I will call into doubts your doctrines, for once one starts to give way to the Word of God one also gives way to the God who revealed that Word to us in precisely the form He desired, without error and sufficient in its effect so as to be both inspired and illuminated by the Holy Spirit unto salvation.

 

[Amy.G]

Anyone who doesn't acknowledge that the Bible, especially the OT, is not a unified and harmonious whole is ignorant of the facts of the historical traditions -- either willfully or unintentionally so. There are plenty of contradictions. I have shown some of them in other threads.

The writings, teachings, etc., that line up with the example and teachings of Jesus are what takes priority for me.

And you cannot line up with the teachings of Jesus if you don't believe the OT scriptures are of God and perfectly harmonize with all of scripture.
Jesus was a Jew. Salvation came from the Jews. Jesus often quoted from the OT, making it obvious that He taught it was scripture breathed from God. The OT is full of prophecies about the Messiah, Jesus. You must believe it in order to know that Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus is the thread that runs through the entire bible, not just the NT. The entire bible is about one person, Jesus Christ.
You cannot separate Jesus' teachings from the OT and claim to believe in Jesus' teachings. You are following a different Jesus.

 

[mandym]

Anyone who doesn't acknowledge that the Bible, especially the OT, is not a unified and harmonious whole is ignorant of the facts of the historical traditions -- either willfully or unintentionally so. There are plenty of contradictions. I have shown some of them in other threads.

The writings, teachings, etc., that line up with the example and teachings of Jesus are what takes priority for me.

There are no contradictions.You deny scripture as you have once again shown. Your nuanced view of certain passages of scripture show your extreme theological left view for all to see.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

With this statement you have squarely placed yourself into the camp of the liberal Christian -- if, as J. Gresham Machen propositioned so elequently in his book, Christianity and Liberalism, there is such an oxymoronic thing as both liberal AND Christian. While I'll not go so far as to question your salvation, I cannot know the true state of your heart after all, I will call into doubts your doctrines, for once one starts to give way to the Word of God one also gives way to the God who revealed that Word to us in precisely the form He desired, without error and sufficient in its effect so as to be both inspired and illuminated by the Holy Spirit unto salvation.

I cam list all kinds of things to show I'm not a liberal, as well as not a fundamentalist. Both extremes are vabhorrent to me. But of course to a fundamentalist, anyone even slightly to the left of that is a liberal. LOL!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

And you cannot line up with the teachings of Jesus if you don't believe the OT scriptures are of God and perfectly harmonize with all of scripture.
Jesus was a Jew. Salvation came from the Jews. Jesus often quoted from the OT, making it obvious that He taught it was scripture breathed from God. The OT is full of prophecies about the Messiah, Jesus. You must believe it in order to know that Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus is the thread that runs through the entire bible, not just the NT. The entire bible is about one person, Jesus Christ.
You cannot separate Jesus' teachings from the OT and claim to believe in Jesus' teachings. You are following a different Jesus.

And the broad statements you have made show that you are ignorant about the Bible and have not studied it thoroughly or honestly. You obviously have no knowledge of the historicity of the OT.

Plus, you have mischaracterized what I believe and have said about the Bible and Old Testament. Jesus is in the lineage of the OT prophets. I love most of the Old Testament, but parts of it do not reflect the teachings of Jesus.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

There are no contradictions.You deny scripture as you have once again shown. Your nuanced view of certain passages of scripture show your extreme theological left view for all to see.

As I said to the other member, fundamentalists consider anyone even slightly to their left to be a liberal.

Anyone who says there are no contradictions in scripture is either ignorant or dishonest. Why do you think there are different denominations?

I have already shown how someone can read the Book of James and disbelieve Luther's "faith alone" doctrine. And how Hebrews 6 refutes the OSAS doctrine.

Here is a link to the Statement of Principles from our Communion's website; I dare anyone to read it and say I'm a liberal. If anyone does, that person is not being honest:

http://www.celtic-anabaptist-ministries.com/celtic-anabaptist-communion.html

 

[Amy.G]

And the broad statements you have made show that you are ignorant about the Bible and have not studied it thoroughly or honestly. You obviously have no knowledge of the historicity of the OT.

Well here's your chance to test my knowledge.

I love most of the Old Testament, but parts of it do not reflect the teachings of Jesus.

Such as? Give me some contradictions. Let's see who knows their bible.

 

[Iconoclast]

There are no contradictions.You deny scripture as you have once again shown. Your nuanced view of certain passages of scripture show your extreme theological left view for all to see.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

No contradictions ....not one:thumbs:

Michael W...you are going the wrong way...I am working now..will go over your link later tonight

 

[Iconoclast]

Well here's your chance to test my knowledge.


Such as? Give me some contradictions. Let's see who knows their bible.

:thumbs::wavey::laugh: get em AmyG:thumbs:

 

[Amy.G]

:thumbs::wavey::laugh: Get em amyg:thumbs:

grrrrr.........lol

 

[glfredrick]

I cam list all kinds of things to show I'm not a liberal, as well as not a fundamentalist. Both extremes are vabhorrent to me. But of course to a fundamentalist, anyone even slightly to the left of that is a liberal. LOL!

Well, if you are suggesting that I am a fundamentalist, then you are mistaken. I am not. I am an infralapsarian Calvinist Evangelical, who identifies with the Southern Baptist Convention. If you pay attention, you would notice that I tend to take fundamentalists to task, but I take liberals to task as well, and you have self-identified by your admission as to the content of Scripture.

 

[jbh28]

As for penal substitution, it teaches that God punished the innocent so that the guilty could go free, and it makes God a child abuser.

Who are these "innocent" people that you are referring to? There are none that are innocent. All are guilty.

EDIT:

I saw you made another post. What is the difference between penal substitution and just substitution? What's the biggest difference that troubles you?

 

[Iconoclast]

27And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself

44And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

45Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

The term inspiration derives from the Lat. inspiro, “to breathe into,”
referring to the human authors. The actual issue, however, is that the
Scriptures themselves are “God–spirated,” i.e., God–breathed [theopneustos]
(2 Tim. 3:16).
The great truth of Divine revelation is that God has spoken to men (Heb.
1:1–3). He has not only spoken to men, but he has spoken in understandable
terms. The great truth of inspiration is that this revelation is preserved and
protected as the very Word of God inscripturated. Inspiration is the
supernatural influence exerted on the sacred writers by the Spirit of God, by
virtue of which their writings are the very Word of God. Thus, Divine
inspiration extends to the very writings themselves. Any view of Divine
inspiration which does not pertain to the very text itself as inspired, is both
inadequate and defective. Inspiration is thus both verbal [extending to the
very words, and therefore to the nuances of grammar and syntax in the
original languages] and plenary [full or equal throughout].
There is a distinct difference between a translation and a version

commentary from a Baptist cathechism with Commentary.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I like to discuss things, but I am trying not to get into something heated with any of you, but you make it difficult when you continue to mischaracterize my position(s). I gave a link which clearly shows that if I am to be labeled anything, it should be "moderate", not fundamentalist or liberal.

I have already given some scriptural examples which show contradiction: the James passage which contradicts "faith alone", the Hebrews 6 passage which contradicts OSAS.

Let me ask this: How do any of you reconcile OT passages which picture God as ordering the extermination of people, including the innocent, with the teachings of Jesus? Surely you must see that both of these pictures cannot be true.

Also, take 2 Kings 2: 23-25. You really believe that Elisha put a curse on children for calling him names, causing a bear to tear 42 of them to pieces? Yeah, this is really what the God of our Lord Jesus Christ would do; this is the character of God that Jesus taught and exemplified, right?

If the Bible is not contradictory, why do you think there are so many different denominations and theological systems and positions, all claiming scriptural support and claiming that their position is correct and others aren't? And each one, just as sincerely as the other, believes the scripture teaches their position.

I'm still waiting for someone to look at this objectively instead of just spitting back what you've been taught.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Who are these "innocent" people that you are referring to? There are none that are innocent. All are guilty.

EDIT:

I saw you made another post. What is the difference between penal substitution and just substitution? What's the biggest difference that troubles you?

I'll try to answer; I appreciate your non-accusatory post.

Penal substitution bothers me for one reason because it says that Jesus was punished by God. I was listening to Charles Stanley one night, and he said that God killed Jesus. To me, that encapsulates much of what I find objectionable with penal substitution and the entire Calvinist system. I don't know if I can adequately put into words in a relatively brief way just how much I dislike this and how harmful I think, and know, it is.

Maybe I'd just better leave it at that, for now anyway.

 

[mandym]

I'll try to answer; I appreciate your non-accusatory post.

Penal substitution bothers me for one reason because it says that Jesus was punished by God. I was listening to Charles Stanley one night, and he said that God killed Jesus. To me, that encapsulates much of what I find objectionable with penal substitution and the entire Calvinist system. I don't know if I can adequately put into words in a relatively brief way just how much I dislike this and how harmful I think, and know, it is.

Maybe I'd just better leave it at that, for now anyway.

So what happens is when people do not like certain doctrines they work to discredit them by tying them to a recent time frame and an objectionable group of people. Much like you have done here. It is a common and shameful tactic. Yet when scripture is given to you that makes clear that this doctrine is neither recent nor tied to Calvinists you avoid dealing with the passages posted.

You claim to know history but refuse and fail to post anything that would indicate that to be truthful. And the best resource you can come up with is the unreliable wiki site.

Jesus was punished. He took our punishment that we rightly deserve. Its called grace. You may not like it but you cant change facts. And you have no credibility on your position.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

So what happens is when people do not like certain doctrines they work to discredit them by tying them to a recent time frame and an objectionable group of people. Much like you have done here. It is a common and shameful tactic. Yet when scripture is given to you that makes clear that this doctrine is neither recent nor tied to Calvinists you avoid dealing with the passages posted.

You claim to know history but refuse and fail to post anything that would indicate that to be truthful. And the best resource you can come up with is the unreliable wiki site.

Jesus was punished. He took our punishment that we rightly deserve. Its called grace. You may not like it but you cant change facts. And you have no credibility on your position.

I am tempted not to reply to you, but as long as you continue to post falsehoods and attack me, I will reply.

It is you and those who believe as you who have no credibility. No matter what you assert that the scriptures teach on this, the early church which had those same scriptures did not interpret the atonement the way you people do. And the fact that you can never change is that penal substitution was developed by Calvin, influenced by Anselm. It was virtually unknown before then. You are not just arguing with me about this but with most scholars. What is shameful is that you refuse to admit that this is the case and attempt to smear me to try to avoid the truth.

The early church and scholars agree with me and not with you. That says it all. No, facts can't be changed; facts are objective, and they are all on my side, regardless of who rails against that.

 

[quantumfaith]

I am tempted not to reply to you, but as long as you continue to post falsehoods and attack me, I will reply.

It is you and those who believe as you who have no credibility. No matter what you assert that the scriptures teach on this, the early church which had those same scriptures did not interpret the atonement the way you people do. And the fact that you can never change is that penal substitution was developed by Calvin, influenced by Anselm. It was virtually unknown before then. You are not just arguing with me about this but with most scholars. What is shameful is that you refuse to admit that this is the case and attempt to smear me to try to avoid the truth.

The early church and scholars agree with me and not with you. That says it all. No, facts can't be changed; facts are objective, and they are all on my side, regardless of who rails against that.

MW, can you share any links as to the early church fathers and their understanding of atonement. Also any links which indicate that PS was developed by the reformers. I, myself, do not understand all the intricacies and nuances of the various (and apparently multitudinous) atonement theories. I have only read one "bio sketch" book on the early church fathers and found it fascinating. Thanks

 

[Michael Wrenn]

MW, can you share any links as to the early church fathers and their understanding of atonement. Also any links which indicate that PS was developed by the reformers. I, myself, do not understand all the intricacies and nuances of the various (and apparently multitudinous) atonement theories. I have only read one "bio sketch" book on the early church fathers and found it fascinating. Thanks

I would be glad to do that, for you. Give me some time, as I've stayed up all night and need to get some sleep. I might PM you with this; I'll decide about that when I get up, but I'll definitely answer you.

Thanks for your post.