The New Testament, and the Early Church

[agedman]

New thread started.

PROVE PSA is Scriptural.

 

[kyredneck]

God did not abuse His Son, He withheld His divine intervention and support that the work of the Cross be accomplished.

Yes, God would have intervened had the Son asked for it*:

53 Or thinkest thou that I cannot beseech my Father, and he shall even now send me more than twelve legions of angels?
54 How then should the scriptures be fulfilled that thus it must be? Mt 26


* 27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour. But for this cause came I unto this hour. Jn 12

 

[Marooncat79]

New thread started.

PROVE PSA is Scriptural.

I did read my replies

starting with where I quote Isaiah

 

[Marooncat79]

 

[Marooncat79]

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Isaiah 53:5

 

[JonC]

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Isaiah 53:5

He indeed was. Of course, even Christians who reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement belueve this.

 

[ntchristian]

Wow. That’s an heretical position to hold

Then you must believe that the early church and the church of the first millenium were heretical.

 

[ntchristian]

Just to be crystal clear

if anyone denies PSA, they do not understand the Gospel and are not believers

That is a false charge, and you lay it against not only me but Christians in the first millenium. Just to be crystal clear.

BTW, I thought it was not allowed to question one's salvation here.

 

[ntchristian]

It holds to another Gospel!

To the extent that any church does not hold to scripture and the teachings of the early church, that church holds to another Gospel. That is true of much that Protestantism holds.

It cannot be stated often enough: Christianity in its origins is an Eastern religion. The early church held Eastern, not Western, views.

 

[ntchristian]

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.

Thank you. I take solace in your post.

I am constantly astonished at the ignorance by Western Christians of the atonement view held in the East, in the NT, and in the early church.

Yes, I believe I could possibly find common fellowship with certain Mennonite churches, if there were any near me.

Seeing that you, and JonC, are Baptists gives me some slight hope that I might be able to be one also.

 

[ntchristian]

That’s not what the text says

You don't know what the text says because you cannot or refuse to see it in the context in which it was written -- an Eastern one.

 

[ntchristian]

Okay, I am through arguing the atonement in this thread, especially with someone who has accused me of being a non-believer. I did not post the thread to argue the atonement. But it does prove that many Christians with a Western mindset are incapable, willfully or not, of reading and interpreting scripture in the context in which it was written, thus consigning to heresy all of the early church and the church of the first millenium.

 

[JonC]

What Do Expiation and Propitiation Mean?

They mean different things....but both deal with atonement (and are different translations of the same original word).

Regardless, in Christ we escape the wrath to come...so there is propitiation.

It is not Penal Substitution Theory (which is a gross addition to Scripture), but we can't ignore wrath.

 

[JonC]

Okay, I am through arguing the atonement in this thread, especially with someone who has accused me of being a non-believer. I did not post the thread to argue the atonement. But it does prove that many Christians with a Western mindset are incapable, willfully or not, of reading and interpreting scripture in the context in which it was written, thus consigning to heresy all of the early church and the church of the first millenium.

Members hold traditions and beliefs very close. These discussions always get heated, and real debate is never had.

This is true of the Eastern tradition as well (they are not unaffected by historical secular influences either).

The benefit for those able to hear is we can learn from one another.

 

[agedman]

They mean different things....but both deal with atonement (and are different translations of the same original word).

Regardless, in Christ we escape the wrath to come...so there is propitiation.

It is not Penal Substitution Theory (which is a gross addition to Scripture), but we can't ignore wrath.

The church will not be on earth when God pours the bowls of wrath upon it.

 

[agedman]

Folks, take PSA discussions to the thread I started.

 

[JonC]

Penal Substitution Atonement Theory

 

[DaveXR650]

Well. In you view why did Jesus die on the cross?

@ntchristian. My post was not to engage in an argument about the theories of the atonement. In light of your original post - if you are searching for answers, a central place to start has to be about the cross. All forms of Christianity have the cross as central to it's existence. What I was interested in was what does the death of Christ mean to YOU, in your own words. That will help determine which type of church would be best for you. For instance, most Baptists could not articulate a "theory of the atonement", but if you reject the idea that in some way Christ died for your sins then you cannot be a Baptist. So that narrows down your search.

 

[Eliyahu]

FYI, Islam rejects the Substitutional Atonement.
Everyone should take the responsibility for his or her own sins in Islam
I refute them by saying that Jesus Christ is the Son of God different from any human beings and that He could take over the sins of the world and die on behalf of the others, to the effect that whosoever believes in Him is forgiven by virtue of His Blood and His Death.
I think only the Christianity has the Substitutional Atonement because of the Son of God, Jesus Christ. In other religions like all paganism, Substitutional Atonement cannot be found as nobody claimed he was dying for the sins of the world
The fact that Jesus Christ died in one's stead is the core truth of the Christian Faith which can never be found in other religions.

Eliyahu

 

[JesusFan]

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.

But if he does not have the true Gospel, what good will be coming here until that is remedied?