Featured The Biblical Atonement (continued 3)

Well, then let's look at it.

@Iconoclast says that we "two" (yes, he included me) believe that mother nature caused the flood.

Yet nothing that @agedman or I have posted even mentions the flood. He (@Iconoclast ) was taking liberties simply because we believe any understanding of the Cross has to be centered in Scripture. So he made an outlandish and false accusation without even asking us if it is remotely accurate to our belief.

Both of us have already said Chrust's suffering was by the will and predetermined plan of God. I will even say Judas' betrayal was according to God's plan.

Now, I also need to point out to you that the Flood is not mentioned in Genesis 3. The reason I said to start there is it is a passage Penal Substitution Theorists deny, but it has contributed to the traditional understanding of the Cross and Christ's victory.

As far as the flood goes, this was not the wrath to come towards which Christ is the Propitiation.

But it does show that the wages of sin is a physical death, and then there is a Christ-centered Judgment to come. Noah, while a sinner, was saved from that death by relying on God.

 

Romans 5:8 teaches that God loved us while we were still sinners by Christ dying for us.

Romans 6:23 teaches that the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ.

Neither have anything to do with Penal Substitution Theory. And neither teaches that Christ experienced God's wrath instead of us.

Read the passages again.

 

What reasons? I guess there could be several. If you grew up in church being taught Scripture through Penal Substitution Theory, like me, then you would see it there. Maybe ones own philosophy would put it there.

I can understand how people see it, but at the same time I know it is not there.

If I tell show you an ink blot and tell you it is a bat, it will be difficult for you to see it for an ink blot and not a bat.

If you take a highlighter to your Bible and highlight every passage that says Christ died instead of us and that He experienced God's wrath you will have highlighted nothing. It is not there.

A better question is why do people read Christ dying for us as Christ dying instead of us?

The answer is the Reformation. There are no recorded writings prior to the Reformation containing Penal Substitution Theory. The RCC is close, but focused on merit instead of wrath.

All of the other churches held a type of Victorious Christ theme. This includes the early church, the Orthodox Church, and Anabaptist Theology. Each disagreed, but their disagreements fell under the same umbrella- Christ died under the powers of this world to free us from its bonds.

 

No, @agedman and I am not sidestepping the law of God or the wrath of God. We are simply abiding by Scripture.

All have sinned, and tge wages of sin is death. It is appointed to man once to die and then the Judgment.

You and @Martin Marprelate deny passages that state that God will not substitute the just for the unjust snd then add to Scripture.

There is a reason Penal Substitution Theory is neo-Christian. There is a reason Augustine denounced the idea that Christ's death appeased God as heresy. It is foreign to Scripture and was foreign to Christianity until the Reformation. It is reformed RCC doctrine.

That is why you have to rely on teachers that you choose to follow, and your imagination, to hold Penal Substitution Theory as biblical. That is why you are unable to find the teaching that Christ experienced God's wrath instead of us in God's Word. And that is why Penal Substitution Theorists, while many, has been a minority cult within our faith and thankfully many of these are turning to Scripture and away from the theory.

 

But banging two rocks together ain't sharpening anything (kidding....just having a little fun).

Seriously, though, I think you may be missing the point of iron sharpening iron. It isn't hearing what you want to hear but refining what you do believe. When iron sharpens iron each piece loses some of its metal and is the better for it.

That is what I am suggesting. Turn to Scripture and from secular philosophies and theories. Don't try to come up with what you think Scripture is teaching but instead approach Scripture as if it is teaching what is written in its text. . because it is.

Why do you believe it is necessary to add to the text of Scripture?

If it is because you feel Scripture alone does not make sense, then maybe the issue is with how you are approaching Hod's Word (as it made sense without adding Penal Substitution Theory for a millenia and a half before the Theory was developed).

If it is because Scripture fails to answer your questions to your satisfaction then perhaps you are asking the wrong questions (or simply rejecting the answers).

We all start off our journey as believers with presuppositions. And we all carry them with us until we lay them aside for the pure Word of God. This is an ongoing process.

I encourage you to prayerfully seek out God's Word in Scripture (not in preachers who teach or taught what you want to hear). This is the only way you will move from elementary things towards a greater understanding of God and His works. The irony is the difficulty you seem to be having is accepting the simple teachings of Scripture in favor of a more complicated philosophy.

 

Absolutely. But this has nothing to do with Penal Substitution Theory, except perhaps that the Theory minimalizes the passing from death unto life part.

All who believes shall not come into condemnation but is passed from death unto life.

Man is reconciled to God by Christ's death, men are saved by His life.

But this does not change the fact that men die physically and then the Judgment. The judgment is not deciding if the wicked are guilty but rather exercising judgment on all who are condemned (and all judgment is given to Christ, in Whom there is no condemnation for those who believe).

 

Both @agedman and I have shown examples of you using secular humanistic philosophy (and pagan philosophy) as well as theories.

You assume God's Word is a series of dots that need to be connected. But they are not. God's Word is perfect and complete. Secular wisdom deems it foolishness because of its simplicity. When Christians are driven by philosophy they also view Scripture as too simplistic and incomplete....like dots needing to be connected or blanks needing to be filled in.

As far as humanistic philosophy is concerned, Penal Substitution Theory is based on 15th to 16th century humanism. Additionally, the idea one man can be punished for the crimes of another, that justice is focused on the crime, etc. is philosophy.

As far as pagan philosophy is concerned, the theory adopts a pagan view of sacrifice (an ANE view) and redefines true atonement (reconciliation).

As far as theory goes, we'll, that is the most obvious part. Scripture never once presents Christ as suffering God's wrath, dying instead of us dying, or even that Christ's death appeased God. Scripture never speaks of Christ suffering a spiritual separation from God, or God removing His favor from Christ. These are theories Penal Substitution Theory uses to connect "the dots".

Spiritual growth is a process. As you continue to study, if it is Scripture you are studying, God will lead you into a more mature understanding of His Word, one that sees perfection rather than dots. Those hints at truth, those dots, will become clearer.

 

Only those who are new creatures in Christ are truly reconciled...
17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ,

19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself,
not imputing their trespasses unto them;
This is only true of the elect. Because of PSA.[/QUOTE]
Let me ask you, does Scripture truly make no sense to you without adding to it (without "connecting the dots")? Can you really not understand Scripture except through the lens of Penal Substitution Theory?

If that is the only way you can accept Scripture, then be faithful where you are. Share the gospel of Christ in and out of season. I pray you will continue to grow and one day see Scripture as complete, perfect, and without the need of our help. If not, that is fine as well. But you are missing so much spiritual truth that is concealed by Penal Substitution Theory.

 

The difference between views here is simple.

Some believe Scripture is, as @Iconoclast suggests, dots that need to be connected. Of course these people connect the dots differently and come up with diverse theories. These remain theories because they are not actually in Scripture. These theories cannot be proven by Scripture. But often, as with Penal Substitution Theory, they stand in contrast to what is actually written in the Word of God. Scripture says that it is an abomination to substitute the righteous for the unrighteous. But Penal Substitution Theorists tells us this is exactly what God did.

Others believe Scripture is perfect, complete, and (to the objection of the former category of people) makes sence without additions and theories. These people do not see dots needing to be connected but God's revelation in the actual text of Scripture.

This is why I suggested using a highlighter when studying the Bible. If a doctrine is not in the Bible then how can it be tested against Scripture? It can't. In the end theorists hold in authority those who proclaim their theory.