• 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 New Testament, and the Early Church

J

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Marooncat79 said:
that is an often repeated fallacy
Click to expand...
Jesus was not punished by the Father, but was when imputed to Himself our sins and became then the great sin bearer, was treated as if He had become sin incarnated, so that the Father could not justified freely all who come unto Jesus to get saved!
 
J

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
ntchristian said:
Thank you for your reply. I welcome it, and all replies, even those which disagree strongly with me.

I have and shall continue to search the scriptures and interpret them the way the earliest Christians did.

The early Fathers did not teach PSA or Satisfaction or any of the atonement views which were developed in the Western, Latin Church, whether RCC or Protestant. PSA was invented 1500 years after the early church; it was unknown to the early church. Not only that, it was inconceivable to the earliest Christians, considering their mindset. They had the same scriptures we do yet did not find the doctrine taught there.
Click to expand...
In the Orthodox Church, how then is the Father able to justify lost sinners and still remain Holy?
 
agedman

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
ntchristian said:
This will be a variation on some things I have posted before. It seeks to explore an important question. Before I start, I must say that I often wonder why I continue to stay and post here. I guess I do that because I keep hoping that I might help others and that others might help me.

I believe Protestantism was an inspired, helpful, admirable, and needed effort to get back to the New Testament and to correct the innovations of Roman Catholicism. But in doing so, it still read and interpreted the New Testament according to a Western, Latin paradigm. The problem with this is that the New Testament is an eastern book based on eastern religions, which Judaism and Christianity were originally. I maintain that a correct interpretation of the New Testament cannot be done unless the context in which it was written is taken into account. And that context is an Eastern, Greek context, not a Western, Latin one. Thus, it is improper and will lead to incorrect interpretation and doctrine not to consider what the first century/early second century Christians believed. To do that, one must study what they actually believed. The early Greek Fathers are a tremendous help in this. Those Fathers were not infallible; they were occasionally mistaken. But to correctly interpret the New Testament, one must study to learn how these early Christians interpreted the NT.

When I began to pull away from the EOC, and study in depth early Christianity, then Protestantism and the RCC, I was amazed and startled to discover that although these belief systems differed in some ways because of Protestantism's efforts to get back to the NT, in many basic ways they still shared the same views of God, salvation, original sin. These views were originated in Roman Catholicism and carried on and even expanded in Protestantism. What they had in common was that they originated in the Western, Latin church. I soon came to realize that although I could not be EOC any longer, I was going to have a very difficult time in becoming Protestant since the Protestant mindset shared so much with the RCC. For instance, PSA atonement, invented by Calvin and Luther, is an expanded and worse version of Rome's Satisfaction theory, both of which were unknown in the early church.

The first century, eastern-minded church had the same scriptures that we have today, and yet their views of such central doctrines as original sin, salvation, the character of God, and the atonement were very different than how these doctrines were developed and held in the Western, Latin-influenced church. The latter interpreted the NT and formulated doctrine with a legalist, rationalist mindset foreign to eastern Christians, or New Testament Christians. The Latin West saw God as a judge; the Greek East saw God as a physician. That was just one difference. So, instead of Protestants interpreting the NT in line with the early church/Eastern Christians, they interpreted it in accord with the church they were trying to reform -- the RCC. But in not reforming Christianity as a whole, they simply reformed some of the more egregious RCC errors while maintaining the erroneous Western, Latin soteriology they shared with Rome.

In trying to find a Protestant denomination to fit into, I have become quite discouraged. The Protestant views of God, man, original sin, salvation, the atonement, etc., cause me great spiritual discomfort and even pain. I was earnestly seeking a true New Testament church, one truly reformed and purged of Western, Latin errors. I think now this does not exist. Maybe some Anabaptists and Quakers come close, but I am not a pacifist, nor do I object to judicial oaths. And even if I desired to go that path, these churches do not exist near me. So, I have about lost hope of finding a church home.

And yet, I could not go back to the EOC. I have discovered that apostolic succession is not a NT doctrine or practice, and their doctrines of Mary, while not as extreme as the RCC, are still not scripturally based. There are more problematic areas, but I will not elaborate at this time.

Maybe I will just attend the country Baptist church I was going to regularly before the pandemic but not join. I was preparing to join and be baptized, but that never happened. I would hate not to get baptized, though.

To sum up, I don't see how you can have a New Testament church without believing and practicing what the earliest Christians believed and practiced. While Protestantism restored some early church doctrine and practice, it kept many Western, Latin errors. And those errors are things that are completely foreign to what Jesus and the apostles believed and taught. I think sola scriptura is a good principle, but it must be interpreted in the right context to arrive at right doctrine -- and that context in which New Testament/early church Christians moved was an Eastern, Greek context and mindset, not a Western, Latin context.

I ask for your prayers, and I will pray for all the members of this forum. And may God bring us all safely through this pandemic.
Click to expand...

An excellent post and my heart will continue in prayer that you can find a church home in which to fellowship.

I also agree that the early church did not teach PSA as is taught by some.

Certainly, Christ suffered, but not by the Father's hand, and not because of the Father's wrath.

There is a group of Mennonite churches that perhaps you might find common fellowship. They are not Amish, and do not follow an Ordnung rather than Scriptures.

I am Baptist, and at times have to sit quietly in disagreement with that which is presented. But as Paul said, what is not in agreement with Scriptures, throw out as trash.

One other note: Do not be discouraged by those who see no other "theory" as viable other than the PSA. PSA was created (imo) as a distraction from the truth of the victorious work of Christ and from the reconciliation that took place between God and humankind.
 
M

Marooncat79

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
agedman said:
An excellent post and my heart will continue in prayer that you can find a church home in which to fellowship.

I also agree that the early church did not teach PSA as is taught by some.

Certainly, Christ suffered, but not by the Father's hand, and not because of the Father's wrath.

There is a group of Mennonite churches that perhaps you might find common fellowship. They are not Amish, and do not follow an Ordnung rather than Scriptures.

I am Baptist, and at times have to sit quietly in disagreement with that which is presented. But as Paul said, what is not in agreement with Scriptures, throw out as trash.

One other note: Do not be discouraged by those who see no other "theory" as viable other than the PSA. PSA was created (imo) as a distraction from the truth of the victorious work of Christ and from the reconciliation that took place between God and humankind.
Click to expand...


Isaiah disagrees with you as well
Isaiah 53:10-12 KJV - Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; - Bible Gateway
 
agedman

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
@Marooncat79, @37818, and @DaveXR650.

The OP is correct in stating the PSA theory was not taught by the early church. It was a construct from the RC and a way in which to ply upon the emotions of people and gather more wealth. After all, If Christ gave Himself for the Church, then certainly in penitence you must also give.... to support.....

This is not the thread to debate the PSA. There are long threads already serving as background for folks to use. Should you like to spend time on this forum with that topic, please open a thread and I am sure it will be well attended.
 
agedman

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
J

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
agedman said:
An excellent post and my heart will continue in prayer that you can find a church home in which to fellowship.

I also agree that the early church did not teach PSA as is taught by some.

Certainly, Christ suffered, but not by the Father's hand, and not because of the Father's wrath.

There is a group of Mennonite churches that perhaps you might find common fellowship. They are not Amish, and do not follow an Ordnung rather than Scriptures.

I am Baptist, and at times have to sit quietly in disagreement with that which is presented. But as Paul said, what is not in agreement with Scriptures, throw out as trash.

One other note: Do not be discouraged by those who see no other "theory" as viable other than the PSA. PSA was created (imo) as a distraction from the truth of the victorious work of Christ and from the reconciliation that took place between God and humankind.
Click to expand...
Without Psa though, how can God justify the sinner and yet remain Holy at same time?
 
J

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
agedman said:
"It was the Lord's WILL to crush him..." God did not perform the task, but allowed angry hate filled ungodly humankind to have their way, just as He stated in the parable of the vineyard.

Let's take this to another thread in this forum rather then contend in this one where a brother is seeking prayer.
Click to expand...
It was the will of the father, and agreed to by the Son, to have Him get crushed for our sins!
 
M

Marooncat79

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
agedman said:
"It was the Lord's WILL to crush him..." God did not perform the task, but allowed angry hate filled ungodly humankind to have their way, just as He stated in the parable of the vineyard.

Let's take this to another thread in this forum rather then contend in this one where a brother is seeking prayer.
Click to expand...

That’s not what the text says
 
agedman

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Servant of Lord Jesus said:
Without Psa though, how can God justify the sinner and yet remain Holy at same time?
Click to expand...
Because He was victorious.
God did not abuse His Son, He withheld His divine intervention and support that the work of the Cross be accomplished.

More to the point, the temple, the construction, layout, and use all pointed to the Christ. At what point was the sacrifice brutalized by the authorities in charge of offering the atonement? Certainly, if PSA were truth, then such would be portrayed. But it isn't.

But, again, this shouldn't be the thread to discuss PSA, but to hear the plea of a believer seeking the will of the Lord for worship and offer support.
 
M

Marooncat79

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
agedman said:
@Marooncat79, @37818, and @DaveXR650.

The OP is correct in stating the PSA theory was not taught by the early church. It was a construct from the RC and a way in which to ply upon the emotions of people and gather more wealth. After all, If Christ gave Himself for the Church, then certainly in penitence you must also give.... to support.....

This is not the thread to debate the PSA. There are long threads already serving as background for folks to use. Should you like to spend time on this forum with that topic, please open a thread and I am sure it will be well attended.
Click to expand...


Ok, name 3 church fathers who denied PSA?
 
agedman

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Servant of Lord Jesus said:
It was the will of the father, and agreed to by the Son, to have Him get crushed for our sins!
Click to expand...
Certainly, However, the teaching of PSA has God pouring His wrath out on the Son, as God administering the punishment, as God turning away from the Son. Not a single one of those items is Scripturally foundational. The wrath of God remains to be poured out on the earth, God never lifted a finger to punish the Son, but was well pleased, and God never turned away from the Son, but withdrew protection and support. The same is seen in the manner the priests would treat the atonement sacrifices.

Again, I ask that folks start a thread in this forum specifically to deal with PSA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top