Penalsubstitutionism.

[Charlie24]

I wouldn't phrase it "once saved always saved" because that is vague.

Do I believe that we inherit eternal life? Yes.

Can I show a verse in the text of Scripture that states we inherit eternal life? Yes.

I also believe that no one can take us out of His hand.

That is the difference in terms of believing Scripture vs believing the theories of men.

But do you see my point? How that certain things are derived from Scripture but not necessarily spelled out.

 

[Charlie24]

But do you see my point? How that certain things are derived from Scripture but not necessarily spelled out.

I'm a dispensationalist, I can go through the OT and without a doubt see different dispensations in time where God dealt differently with man.

That's not written in Scripture, it's what's derived from Scripture. I could go on and on.

 

[JonC]

But do you see my point? How that certain things are derived from Scripture but not necessarily spelled out.

I already grant not everything we may believe is spelled out in Scripture.

BUT the issue I have is foundational doctrines and doctrines upon which other doctrines are built.

I believe the Atonement is at the core of our faith.

 

[JonC]

I'm a dispensationalist, I can go through the OT and without a doubt see different dispensations in time where God dealt differently with man.

That's not written in Scripture, it's what's derived from Scripture. I could go on and on.

Again when we get to secondary issues I agree.

That said, the fact God worked on dispensations is in the text of Scripture. You are talking about whether it should be applied more broadly (same with covenants).

 

[Charlie24]

I already grant not everything we may believe is spelled out in Scripture.

BUT the issue I have is foundational doctrines and doctrines upon which other doctrines are built.

I believe the Atonement is at the core of our faith.

I'm more concerned with the narrow gate and how we pass through it than any doctrine.

The doctrines that lead us away from that narrow gate should be at the top of our list.

 

[JonC]

I'm more concerned with the narrow gate and how we pass through it than any doctrine.

The doctrines that lead us away from that narrow gate should be at the top of our list.

I as well. That is what concerned me when someone kept insisting Penal Substitution Theory had to be right because most Baptist's hold it.

But how far can one stray from Scripture on doctrines so important as the Atonement before it goes too far?

Don't get me wrong, I know many here (most?) Insist that believing we should stay with "what is written" to be missing what Scripture "teaches". I get that. When I posted my belief a couple of years ago I was condemned for "just posting what Scripture says" and not "explaining" what they really mean. I believe that they mean what is stated.

But how far is too far? Is Jehovah Witness doctrine "too far"? (I believe so). What about Seventh Day Adventists?

And how much is too far in terms of doctrine but not too far as to mean people are not saved? I'd place Roman Catholic doctrine here (the doctrine is not Christian, but Catholics are saved despite their doctrine...the gospel is still there).

This last part is where I place Penal Substitution Theory. It is reformed Roman Catholic Doctrine, it is unbiblical, but the gospel is there. Penal Substitution theorists can be Christians, but it is despite their philosophy (it is because of Christ).

The reason I believe this is I was saved prior to and while believing the Theory.


That said, and granting Penal Substitution theorists can also be Christian, there is so much of Scripture they miss by prioritizing what some men thought Scripture taught over what is written in Scripture. It redefines redemption, minimizes sin, and diminishes the Cross.

So it is still a very serious issue even if salvation itself is not negated by the teaching.

 

[Charlie24]

I as well. That is what concerned me when someone kept insisting Penal Substitution Theory had to be right because most Baptist's hold it.

But how far can one stray from Scripture on doctrines so important as the Atonement before it goes too far?

Don't get me wrong, I know many here (most?) Insist that believing we should stay with "what is written" to be missing what Scripture "teaches". I get that. When I posted my belief a couple of years ago I was condemned for "just posting what Scripture says" and not "explaining" what they really mean. I believe that they mean what is stated.

But how far is too far? Is Jehovah Witness doctrine "too far"? (I believe so). What about Seventh Day Adventists?

And how much is too far in terms of doctrine but not too far as to mean people are not saved? I'd place Roman Catholic doctrine here (the doctrine is not Christian, but Catholics are saved despite their doctrine...the gospel is still there).

This last part is where I place Penal Substitution Theory. It is reformed Roman Catholic Doctrine, it is unbiblical, but the gospel is there. Penal Substitution theorists can be Christians, but it is despite their philosophy (it is because of Christ).

The reason I believe this is I was saved prior to and while believing the Theory.


That said, and granting Penal Substitution theorists can also be Christian, there is so much of Scripture they miss by prioritizing what some men thought Scripture taught over what is written in Scripture. It redefines redemption, minimizes sin, and diminishes the Cross.

So it is still a very serious issue even if salvation itself is not negated by the teaching.

Here's the way I see it , Jon, and I see no diminishing of the Cross whatsoever.

Paul told us that Christ paid a ransom for us. Now you can define ransom as you please, but the fact is a ransom involves the setting free of one by another in some form. We have been set free from "the wages of sin is death."

Notice the word "wages" meaning we have earned death through our sin. So the word "ransom" and "wages" implies we have earned something that requires a ransom to be paid, being we have no way to set ourselves free from what we have earned.

There is a price to paid, and we can't pay it, it's impossible for us to pay it. So what does God do? Does He destroy man and start over?

He provided a substitute to pay the price for us, to step in and provide the ransom we must have to be set free.

 

[Charlie24]

Here's the way I see it , Jon, and I see no diminishing of the Cross whatsoever.

Paul told us that Christ paid a ransom for us. Now you can define ransom as you please, but the fact is a ransom involves the setting free of one by another in some form. We have been set free from "the wages of sin is death."

Notice the word "wages" meaning we have earned death through our sin. So the word "ransom" and "wages" implies we have earned something that requires a ransom to be paid, being we have no way to set ourselves free from what we have earned.

There is a price to paid, and we can't pay it, it's impossible for us to pay it. So what does God do? Does He destroy man and start over?

He provided a substitute to pay the price for us, to step in and provide the ransom we must have to be set free.

Before the foundation of the world God created and ordained 2 Laws that Paul discusses in Romans 8.

They are the 2 Laws that all Laws stem from, that every creature in the universe must obey, including God Himself.

!) The Law of Sin and Death.

2) The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.

There is no option to these 2 Laws. This is where God demands payment or else!

 

[Charlie24]

Before the foundation of the world God created and ordained 2 Laws that Paul discusses in Romans 8.

They are the 2 Laws that all Laws stem from, that every creature in the universe must obey, including God Himself.

!) The Law of Sin and Death.

2) The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.

There is no option to these 2 Laws. This is where God demands payment or else!

There are several things from Scripture that help me to see the payment for sin.

Several come from the life of David, here's just one of them.

Remember when the prophet came to David and told him of a man in the kingdom who had just one little lamb.

The man loved and provided for that one lamb, and another man, which had many lambs came and took that one lamb from him.

David flew into a rage and said, As the Lord lives, this man will surly be put to death.

And the prophet said, you are the man! This is referring to David's adultery with Bathsheba.

David's first response, "I have sinned against God." This was David's response many times when he realized he had sinned. The reason God said of him, "the man after my own heart."

He placed God first in his repentance, and sought to make it right with God first.

All the sins David committed in the situation with Uriah and Bathsheba cost him a price. He paid dearly for those mistakes, and God made sure of it, even though he repented in tears and sorrow.

Sin carries a price tag, and the cost is always more than we can afford to pay.

The reason we need to be ransomed, or there is no hope.