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!
Don't tell me what I am saying. Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is based on Scripture. So is Arminianism. So is Calvinism. It's so simple even a caveman can understand it.
Absolutely!
Yes, I agree with you very much here. Both penal aspects and substitutionary aspects of the atonement are found throughout history. They are in the writings of the ECF's, although they themselves did not end up affirming (or denying) what we would call PST. This is because they are present throughout Scripture.Well, as I have said, I have problems with some of your posts because in one breath you say you support Penal Substitution and in the next breath you seem to be denying it, or at least, muddying the waters. However, let us proceed.
As you know, I strongly deny that PST leapt like Athene, fully-armed from the brow of Calvin. I gave you a pile of quotations from Church fathers who supported the doctrine, at least in embryo. Luther spoke of the 'Great Exchange' on the cross (our sins upon Christ; His righteousness upon us) which is certainly substitution. In the book I recommended to you, Pierced for our Transgressions by Ovey, Jeffrey and Sach, the authors give about 50 pages to the historical pedigree of P.S. and show that its development has been much more gradual than you have allowed. Calvin's work was based (to some degree) on that of Athanasius and Aquinas (amongst others), and developed by Turretine and Owen, for example.
The reason may be that the ECFs were taken up with establishing the Deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity and didn't give the attention to P.S. that they should. The later Roman Catholics were absorbed with the 'sacraments.' In the time of Turretine and Owen, there was a specific need to counter the teachings of Socinius, so the doctrine of P.S. needed to be honed and expounded at that time. I think most theology tends to be reactive.
Well I hope I have given you something to chew on, at least.
Then using your logic, I am correct because my conclusions are based on Scripture. If yours were you would agree with me. Not only that, but I can back mine up with Scripture, not just reasoning. So your view is based on human error.
I'm not perverting anything. Reasoning is simply not a direct and inseparable consequence of God's Word. God's word should be it's basis, but reasoning is a human exercise to systematically understand these doctrines. We reason out how the bricks are laid.
This is a product of your reasoning???? And we are supposed to just trust it???!!!!
I don't have a subject I think unbiblical. I already told you that I believe the atonement both penal and substitutionary.
Our reasonings are in agreement with Scripture insofar as our understanding and interpretations are correct. I will agree with that.
What I said and what I meant by what I said is correct. When are reasonings are in agreement with Scripture then we have the mind of Christ with regard to a given text. So reasonings that are a direct and inseparable product of scripture, that is,reasonings that are in agreement with scripture are embracing truth.
Good passage to start. In theory, the congregation of Israel is considered a “kingdom of priests” and a “holy nation” (Ex. 19:6), so the offering here is dealt with much the same as for the high priest.
This is not present in the text. Under the Old Covenant forgiveness was based on the sinner offering an sacrifice and the priest offering that sacrifice as an atonement for the forgiveness of sins. But that forgiveness is based upon the sacrifice itself and not obedience through faith to the covenant (the prescribed regulations) seems to counter arguments that will be brought forth throughout Scripture. The atoning sacrifice entailed much more than the animal being sacrificed. In fact, the offering being sacrificed is consistently secondary to the manner in which the atonement is to occur. So no, forgiveness is not based upon the substitutionary victim but on the faithfulness of the priest (to the Levitical law) interceding on behalf of the people.
True. All of the Law pointed to Christ and is fulfilled in Christ.
This is not true. The Law required an atonement, but even under the Old Covenant the animals being sacrificed did not point to a payment equal to God’s wrath. Instead the atonement (the faith, obedience, offering, etc.) “appeased” God (his wrath). And as you note, this is the exact picture of the Atonement. The issue was it did not have the power to change people and atonement was an ongoing process.
It symbolized their iniquities being laid upon the sacrifice.
Us. Peter says that we (those who believe) will also be judged impartially according to our works (not that we are saved because of them, but also not that they are of no consequence either).
Again, this I believe this is something you have brought with you, not something found in the text. Please provide a passage or explain why you determine that judgment demands exact equivalency for sin debt.
Yes. I agree. Again, I do not think that anyone would disagree that a man sins, an atonement is given, and then forgiveness follows. I simply do not see how it would make sense any other way (this doesn’t mean that there are not other views, I just do not know of any).
The passage states that Moses told Aaron to go quickly to the congregation and make an atonement for them because there is wrath gone out from the Lord. It does not say that this wrath will be symbolically turned on the sinless “substitute”, although the atonement itself is certainly designed (as a whole) to deal with this wrath. Your statement here is an addition to the text.
Again, this is not what Scripture actually states. In fact, the sacrificial system has often been pictured / interpreted differently. For example, it has been offered that what is in view is separation and holiness (think 1 Peter 1:15). Leviticus deals with the Sinai covenant. A holy and just God has revealed himself anew and has presented Israel with a covenant formulation. Communal life was to be regulated by the sacrificial system, which showed human sinfulness (and the limited means which God had adopted for restoring the sinner to fellowship). Atonement for sin must be by substitution as the sinner brings an offering which he has acquired at some cost as a substitute for his own life. The sinner needed to repent and be forgiven if he is not to die in his sin. The sins forgiven here are accidental and circumstantial sins, and inadvertent violations of ceremonial regulations. There was no forgiveness for sins which constituted an abandonment of covenant mercies.
I am not so sure. This seems to fall into the category of a guilt offering (if a breach of faith), but I can accept that it is a sin offering. I am not sure that it makes a difference as all such atonements point to their fulfillment in Christ, and all involve sin, atonement, and forgiveness.
That is not my point! The wrath of God was against the sinners due to their sin and the sacrifice bore the wrath of God in the place of the sinner and that is abundantly clear for the following reasons:
I undestand that we can differ on this issue, as we use same scriptures and may understand them in a different fashion, but the Bible expalins Jesus Death for sinnrs directly in th PST model the best way, so we can have additional understandings, but cannot deny that as the primry way to see the Cross, as Wright and others do! Those who do alway fall backto God would be a moleste rand monster if He poured His wrath upon His own son...