Just_Ahead
Active Member
Have you read all or part of The Fundamentals? Do any of the articles strike a chord with you?
If so, then why not post a comment or two.
If so, then why not post a comment or two.
-
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!
The Fundamentals -- Torrey, Dixon and others
- Thread starter Just_Ahead
- Start date
Very good, we should all be able to agree with the Fundamentals of the Faith!Have you read all or part of The Fundamentals? Do any of the articles strike a chord with you?
If so, then why not post a comment or two.
Shunned due to them being seen as too biblical today?
The five fundamentals,
- The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8-9).
- The Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27).
- The Blood Atonement (Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:12-14).
- The Bodily Resurrection (Luke 24:36-46; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 15:14-15).
- The inerrancy of the scriptures themselves (Psalms 12:6-7; Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20).
And exactly how long have you been posting on the BB.
There are disagreements about everything!
Rob
Just_Ahead
Active Member
How you ever thought of getting a kindle edition of The Fundamentals (only $0.99) from Amazon?
Should make it easier to discuss The Fundamentals -- that goes for
shunners
non-shunners
everyone else
Should make it easier to discuss The Fundamentals -- that goes for
shunners non-shunners everyone else
Last edited:
They also would have seen atonement as Penal substitution model! We cannot even agree on these essentials today, as some have only spiritual body resurection, others deny Pst, some see no need for VB, and some have limited inspiration!
You reject that such a model is a theory.
It is only a theory.
Never raised above theory.
There are other theories.
Just said that They would view it in that fashion!
I disagree. There are many highly recognized theologians who held other theories were as valuable and viable. PST isn’t the only scheme that is necessary to resolve issues concerning redemption.
Again, was referring to those authors who wrote those Fundamentals !
Just so the reader might know, the “ransom theory” was pretty much the universally accepted “encapsulating” theory of the early church.
They also included a victorious Christ and the substitution as part of the mix.
PST became prominent during the reformation as reactionary to the teaching of the RCC. As such, it has long been recognized by Protestant theologians as a vital part but not exclusive to the total presentation of the matters in Scriptures.
The early forms of PST did not stress God pouring out wrath upon the Son, but working in concert with the Son.
There are three basic aspects of redemption. The “vicarious atonement” (substitution of Christ for believers), the victorious Christ (over death and the grave) and the adoption as heirs (child of God).
The PST addresses a single and rather narrow thread, and other viable theories may also use the same thread in the fabric, but not run to the extreme the reformers often took.
Now, this post is for information, and is also opinion based.
It would be wise for the readers to do their own work on this topic of theories of atonement and not rely upon typical talking (posting points).
They also included a victorious Christ and the substitution as part of the mix.
PST became prominent during the reformation as reactionary to the teaching of the RCC. As such, it has long been recognized by Protestant theologians as a vital part but not exclusive to the total presentation of the matters in Scriptures.
The early forms of PST did not stress God pouring out wrath upon the Son, but working in concert with the Son.
There are three basic aspects of redemption. The “vicarious atonement” (substitution of Christ for believers), the victorious Christ (over death and the grave) and the adoption as heirs (child of God).
The PST addresses a single and rather narrow thread, and other viable theories may also use the same thread in the fabric, but not run to the extreme the reformers often took.
Now, this post is for information, and is also opinion based.
It would be wise for the readers to do their own work on this topic of theories of atonement and not rely upon typical talking (posting points).
And again, there is history involved.
Part of the “push back” against the German higher thinking, the influence of Mormons, JWs, liberal teaching of most seminaries and universities,... all played into the reactionary stands they took.
It makes little difference, though, for PS is still a theory, and as such is rightfully reviewed periodically for revision.
It is one of other viable presentations in which a theologian must be familiar.
On a personal note: I do not reject but a single point of the PST. 1st, I do not find God’s wrath poured out upon the examples of tabernacle and temple atonement sacrifices, except upon those who would offer such unworthily. 2nd, I do not see it in the prophecies. 3rd, I do not see it in the presentations of accounts in the NT.
But this is ground you and I have already trekked.
One of these days I shall do a mammoth posting of all the evidence for Penal Substitution among the Church fathers, starting with Clement of Rome.
All forms of the Doctrine of Penal Substitution have the Father working in concert with the Son.
The idea that on the cross the Father inflicted upon the Son a punishment He was unwilling to bear (John 10:18) or that the Son extracted from the Father a salvation He was unwilling to bestow (John 3:16), would be an egregious error. I know of no one who committed it.
I
37818
Well-Known Member
Isaiah 53:6, ". . . All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . ." is not theory.
Certainly, Isaiah is fulfilled even in this day when it states,
“we esteemed Him smitten of God and afflicted, but...”
God never smote the Son, rather humans did, and God allowed human kind to do the very worse they could. Satan filled rebellious caretakers of the creation who had killed the prophets and servants God had sent did to the Son all that was in their wicked hearts, just as the parable He stated they would.
I do not disagree with the forensic matters of penal substitution.
What I very much disagree is that such was God’s hand of wrath pour out.
Not a single place in Scripture is such examples by any atonement offering, nor symbolized in construction details.
Not a single work or word of prophecy except that what would be done “pleased - was approved by, or allowed - by God.”
Now, for decades I have heard folks vainly attempt to present Christ as cursed by God. But that thinking doesn’t fit the Galatians restatement of Deuteronomy. Christ removed the curse of the law, He was doomed (accursed) to die by the enforcers and enforcement of the law. Just as Isaiah stated about our (believers) transgressions and sins were laid by human actions upon Him and He returned healing and peace.
It was my sin, my transgressions, at my hand that put Christ on that cross.
How dare penal substitution try to blame my Father!
37818
Well-Known Member
God forsook His Son.
Psalms 22:1, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? . . .."
Matthew 26:, ". . . And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? . . ."
Isaiah 53:6, ". . . the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."
Isaiah 53:4, ". . . smitten of God, and afflicted."
None of those demonstrate God’s wrath poured out upon the Son.
Btw, “forsake” does not mean abandon, it means withdrawing support. Which is exactly the statement of the Psalms, Matthew, and Isaiah.
And “WE esteemed him smitten of God and afflicted, BUT He was...”.
God didn’t afflict Him, but we thought and according to PST still do think God did.
God allowed the affliction. He prophesied the affliction. He endorsed the affliction.
But God did not afflict the Son, or such would have been pictured and a demonstrated part of the atonement sacrifice system in the OT.
37818
Well-Known Member
<Ad hominem.> What dictionarly are you reading?