Theology vs. the Bible

[Armchair Apologist]

2 extremes to avoid, one is to take the ole"just the bible" position , and act as if God never sent anyone gifts as scholars, teachers, and other is that thse creeds and confessions get quoted as authority before even the bible

I fully agree. The first extreme comes from the "No creed but Christ" restorationist crowd and the second comes from those who are too lazy to study anything out and just believe what they are told. The Reformed crowd will require pastoral and ordination candidates to go through their respective confession and articulate any "exceptions" they may have. If I were a member of a pulpit committee in such a setting and a pastoral candidate said he had "no exceptions," I would wonder if he had actually done his work!

 

[JonC]

You illustrate why you must have some understanding of theology. The dispute here is whether God can simply forgive sins outright, and disregard his sense of justice and thus his nature. In other words, can God forgive sin without atonement.

This is a misunderstanding of the issue.

It is not about "simply forgiving". Nobody believes God simply forgives sins. All sides believe atonement is necessary.

It is about whether God can forgive sins at all.

Forgiving is a mental issue (here it is a matter of God's mind towards an act that has been committed).

Refraining from punishing a person because of that sin is a result of forgiveness, but not forgiveness itself.

Example....if you punch me and I forgive you then I no longer hold a desire or need to retaliate against you. But the reason is I have cast that sin against me away (mentally).

If I refrain from retribution but still hold unexpressed hard feelings against you, you might think I have forgiven you but I have not. I just refrained from punching you back.

In other words, forgiveness is a matter of the heart. Those who are forgiven their sins experience the result if this forgiveness.

 

[DaveXR650]

In the Old Testament, sins were forgiven through a combination of sincere repentance and a system of animal sacrifices, which served as a temporary covering for sin (atonement) and a visual foreshadowing of the future sacrifice of Jesus.

You answered your own objection. It depended upon "the future sacrifice of Jesus". I'm not going to rehash this whole atonement debate again. You guys can believe what you wish. I just think from what you just posted that you don't really believe like @JonC on this but because you don't understand what is going on here you say things I really don't think you mean.

 

[JonC]

You answered your own objection. It depended upon "the future sacrifice of Jesus". I'm not going to rehash this whole atonement debate again. You guys can believe what you wish. I just think from what you just posted that you don't really believe like @JonC on this but because you don't understand what is going on here you say things I really don't think you mean.

He may not.

But I also believe that OT forgiveness was based on the future sacrifice of Jesus.I also believe that our forgiveness is based on the past sacrifice of Jesus.

One cannot look at forgiveness, whether now or in the OT, and not see the Cross.

But my point was that disagreement is not division in Christ, and that Christians must realize that their understanding of the Bible is not the Bible itself.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

PSA views "forgiveness" from the perspective of man. We escape punishment therefore we are "forgiven" based on God punishing that sin or collecting that debt we owed. From our vantage it just looks like God forgave our sins.

I recently preached about forgiveness from a human standpoint and how human forgiveness falls far short of the forgiveness of God. I believe that Paul does his best to explain forgiveness from God's standpoint but such is still limited by our own human understanding.

In my sermon, I illustrated "One may say they 'forgive' a convicted criminal who did horrible things to family member and even be sincere. Does this mean they will invite this person over for Sunday dinner? Moreover, would they invite this person to come and live in their household and become part of the family?" Of course God did all this and more when he raised us to eternal life and made us joint-heirs with Christ!

I love the way Ray Comfort explains it showing that a Just Judge cannot just "forgive" someone of their crime and let them walk away free. Justice must be served and this is the reason why Christ had to become the propitiation (a satisfactory payment) for our sins. It is only when the debt has ben satisfactorily paid that a guilty sinner may be justified (declared righteous) and made free. God is therefore just and the justifier of him that believes on Christ (Rom 3:26).

I therefore believe the PSA to be non-negotiable and essential to the Christian faith. Some who object to PSA are often those who believe that it was something "invented" by Calvin and in their anti-calvinist tirade, reject anything and everything that has Calvin's name on it! Either that or they are influenced by Christian Liberalism crying "cosmic child abuse" or whatever.

 

[Ascetic X]

I agree with you.
.

PSA is based on the idea thar God cannot forgive sins and remain just (it is based on a specific judicial philosophy which, borrowing Calvin's words, holds the role of the judge is to avenge the law). A secular judge cannot forgive a crime any more than God can forgive a sin.


PSA views "forgiveness" from the perspective of man. We escape punishment therefore we are "forgiven" based on God punishing that sin or collecting that debt we owed. From our vantage it just looks like God forgave our sins.

As I understand PSA, Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a theological doctrine asserting that Jesus Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners, bearing the legal penalty (penal debt) of human sin to satisfy God's justice and wrath. It holds that God imputed human guilt to Christ, who paid the penalty in our place. Jesus became sin for us, thus enabling divine forgiveness for mankind, as they accept it.

Human sin and guilt is transferred to Christ. Then His righteousness and freedom from condemnation is transferred to believers.

I see no biblical reason to disagree with PSA. If this is a Calvinistic concept, then hooray for Calvin on this point.

I reject the Ransom Theory, that Christ’s sacrifice was a payment to Satan.

Some of the early church fathers posited the Christus Victor concept, that Jesus displayed His triumph over evil, by submitting to crucifixion, then rising from the dead. Humans were trapped in a prison of wickedness, and Jesus set them free. This is also true, but PSA completes the picture. It affirms the Gospel of Isaiah.

Isaiah 53

4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

5 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.

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.

7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

 

[JonC]

I recently preached about forgiveness from a human standpoint and how human forgiveness falls far short of the forgiveness of God. I believe that Paul does his best to explain forgiveness from God's standpoint but such is still limited by our own human understanding.

I love the way Ray Comfort explains it showing that a Just Judge cannot just "forgive" someone of their crime and let them walk away free. Justice must be served and this is the reason why Christ had to become the propitiation (a satisfactory payment) for our sins. It is only when the debt has ben satisfactorily paid that a guilty sinner may be justified (declared righteous) and made free. God is therefore just and the justifier of him that believes on Christ (Rom 3:26).

I therefore believe the PSA to be non-negotiable and essential to the Christian faith. Some who object to PSA are often those who believe that it was something "invented" by Calvin and in their anti-calvinist tirade, reject anything and everything that has Calvin's name on it! Either that or they are influenced by Christian Liberalism crying "cosmic child abuse" or whatever.

That was how we benefit from discussions (why I like talking with people who hold other views). It does not matter what you or I believe. It matters what God has said.

You are, obviously, incorrect about PSA being non-negotiable in terms of Christianity (although it may be in your mind or sect). And obviously rejecting PSA has nothing to do with liberalism or "cosmic child abuse".

The reason I say this is history.

Traditional Anabaptists, such as the Schwarzenau Brethren, strongly objected to PSA. They certainly could not be accused of holding liberal doctrine, and their objection was not "cosmic child abuse".

Historically Lutherans vocally rejected PSA. At the time they did not hold liberal theology and their rejection was not "cosmic child abuse".

The first SBC President (and architect of the SBC) was a theologian who strongly rejected PSA. But he was far from liberal and his rejection had nothing to do with "cosmic child abuse".

The "cosmic child abuse" argument is a strawman on both sides. Thise who use it do not understand PSA, and those who argue against it do not understand the historical objections or development of PSA.


You are welcome to believe what ever you desire to believe. But I do not think that truth is subjective. And history is not something to be remade in order to support one's theology.
We live in a time of "your truth" (subjective, individual "truth"). I cannot change that attitude in people, so I think it best to leave them to their devices.

 

[JonC]

As I understand PSA, Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a theological doctrine asserting that Jesus Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners, bearing the legal penalty (penal debt) of human sin to satisfy God's justice and wrath. It holds that God imputed human guilt to Christ, who paid the penalty in our place, Jesus became sin for us, thus allowing for divine forgiveness.

Human sin and guilt is transferred to Christ. Then His righteousness and freedom from condemnation is transferred to believers.

I see no biblical reason to disagree with PSA. If this is a Calvinistic concept, then hooray for Calvin on this point.

I reject the Ransom Theory, that Christ’s sacrifice was a payment to Satan.

Some of the early church fathers posited the Christus Victor concept, that Jesus displayed His triumph over evil, by submitting to crucifixion, then rising from the dead. Humans were trapped in a prison of wickedness, and Jesus set them free. This is also true, but PSA completes the picture. It affirms the Gospel of Isaiah.

Isaiah 53

4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

5 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.

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.

7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors

Your summary is correct.

The part involving involving forgiveness is that God cannot forgive sins because that would make God unjust. God has to punish sins.

But God can punish the Righteous in order to clear the guilty. This allows the guilty to escape punishment while God punished sins in order to meet the demands of justice.

The problem is this is not forgiveness.

If you slap me I have a few options:

1. I could slap you back (punishment you for that sin against me).

2. I could refrain from slapping you without forgiving that slap.

3. I could forgive the sin against me, which means I relinquish any claim of harm against you as well.


With God, either He forgives sins or He dies not. Scripture does not give us different definitions of forgiveness (no "simple" forgiveness vs "complicated" forgiveness).

PSA hinges on it being impossible for God to forgive sins. He either punished sins laid on Christ or He punished then on the wicked at Judgment.

 

[JonC]

"One may say they 'forgive' a convicted criminal who did horrible things to family member and even be sincere. Does this mean they will invite this person over for Sunday dinner? Moreover, would they invite this person to come and live in their household and become part of the family?"

BTW....this is a good example of the difference between forgiveness and restoration.

 

[Ascetic X]

Your summary is correct.

The part involving involving forgiveness is that God cannot forgive sins because that would make God unjust. God has to punish sins.

But God can punish the Righteous in order to clear the guilty. This allows the guilty to escape punishment while God punished sins in order to meet the demands of justice.

The problem is this is not forgiveness.

If you slap me I have a few options:

1. I could slap you back (punishment you for that sin against me).

2. I could refrain from slapping you without forgiving that slap.

3. I could forgive the sin against me, which means I relinquish any claim of harm against you as well.


With God, either He forgives sins or He dies not. Scripture does not give us different definitions of forgiveness (no "simple" forgiveness vs "complicated" forgiveness).

PSA hinges on it being impossible for God to forgive sins. He either punished sins laid on Christ or He punished then on the wicked at Judgment.

There is a fourth option.

4. You slap me. As I readied myself to slap you back, your brother got between us and said, “I’ll take the slap that my brother deserves.” So I slap him, instead of you.

If I feel justice has been served in a substitutionary manner, I can then forgive you for slapping me, but warn you not to slap me again.

I do not agree that is is impossible for God to forgive sins.

But it is impossible for God to pretend that sins unrepented of never happened.

It is possible for God to devise a way for sins to be forgiven, and He certainly did so.

It is impossible for God to delight in punishing sins.

He would rather see the sinner repent and ask for mercy. In the OT, this meant having faith in the coming sacrifice of Jesus, foreshadowed by Levitical animal sacrifice.

Ezekiel 18:23

Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?


Ezekiel 33:11

Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?


Exodus 20:6

And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.


Psalm 103:12

As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

 

[JonC]

I love the way Ray Comfort explains it showing that a Just Judge cannot just "forgive" someone of their crime and let them walk away free. Justice must be served and this is the reason why Christ had to become the propitiation (a satisfactory payment) for our sins.

I want to address this, and will here briefly (but if more dialogue is needed we may want to do it on another thread).

1. Ray Comfort is wrong here, depending on his audience. He has simplified traditional Christianity to the point he is making a strawman argument. I can only guess he is talking to non-Christians.

It is true that a Just Judge will not just forgive someone of their crime. This is the "simple" forgiveness strawman.

But no Christian theology holds that God just forgives sins.

Traditional theology holds that God forgives sins now based on a future reality accomplished in Christ on the Cross (Chriat Himself being the surety or Guarantee of this covenant).

2. Propitiation is not a satisfactory payment. It could be. But the word itself points to wrath or consequences being turned aside.

 

[JesusFan]

I agree with you.

My point was that PSA holds that ot is impossible for God to forgive sins or wrongs committed against Him.

Forgiveness is first related to the one forgiving, not the one benefiting from the forgiveness. It results in refraining from punishing or collecting a debt, but is itself a mental change. It is foregoing any resentment or attitude necessitating a desire for retribution.

If I forgive a sin against me then I do not seek retribution for that sin because I no longer consider that sin as an offense (that sin against me is cast away). Since I forgive that sin the one who had sinned against me is forgiven (they escape my retributive action because my anger over that sin no longer exists).

Forgiveness is not punishing one person instead of another. Forving a debt is not collecting the debt by other means so that the debtor does not have to pay.

PSA is based on the idea thar God cannot forgive sins and remain just (it is based on a specific judicial philosophy which, borrowing Calvin's words, holds the role of the judge is to avenge the law). A secular judge cannot forgive a crime any more than God can forgive a sin.


PSA views "forgiveness" from the perspective of man. We escape punishment therefore we are "forgiven" based on God punishing that sin or collecting that debt we owed. From our vantage it just looks like God forgave our sins.

We hold that unless there is the sin debt paid owed God, the Holiness of God means he cannot just forgive and stay faithful to Himself

 

[JonC]

There is a fourth option.

4. You slap me. As I readied myself to slap you back, your brother got between us and said, “I’ll take the slap that my brother deserves.” So I slap him, instead of you.

That was option 2. I did not forgive the sin, but you still escaped being slapped back.

I think we often see this in the world. One person is wronged but instead of taking it out on the one who did the harm they take it out on an innocent party. Like a man beating his wife because of an abusive boss.

I do not think we can use this when speaking of God for several reasons.

First, the sin is not forgiven. Retribution is just shifted.

Second, it is an abomination to punish the righteous and to clear the guilty. There must be another way as God is just.

Third, this implies that man causes a harm to or deficit in God that must be balanced.


I believe the option I did not list is correct.

Option 5:

I sin against God.

God, being just, will punish me at judgment for my sin. He will also condemn me for my wickedness (the wickedness that produced that sin).

God will not punish the Righteous for my sins AND He will not clear me of my guilt because He punishes the wicked.

God does a new thing. He sends His Son, who comes under our sin, who comes under our curse. Although without sin, His Son suffers the wages of our sin.

Christ dies once first all man, the Just for the wicked, and removes the power of the one who holds the power of death, that is the Devil.

God vindicates Him, raises Him to life, gives Him a name above every name.

Christ became one of us. It is appointed man once to die and then the judgment. Sin produces death, Jesus bore our sin. But He was judged righteous. This "last Adam" was made a life giving Spirit.

In Christ the wicked man dies and is made a new creation. The "old man" will not exist at Judgment but is guaranteed to be made righteous (Christ Himself is this Guarantee...for we will be made like Him).

At Judgment the new me will stand before God as He has predestined me in Christ to stand (conformed into the image of Christ, glorified). The old me no longer exists.

God justly finds me righteous.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

To attempt to separate theology and the Bible is crackers. 'Theology' simply means 'God words.' If you beieve in anything at all about God, you are indulging in theology.
The only question is whether one's theology is based on the Bible.

 

[Ascetic X]

To attempt to separate theology and the Bible is crackers. 'Theology' simply means 'God words.' If you beieve in anything at all about God, you are indulging in theology.
The only question is whether one's theology is based on the Bible.

To quote the Bible is not theology, it is Bible.

To quote Luther, Augustine, Calvin is theology.

 

[Jerome]

"the Bible, the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible, is the standard of the true Christian. Alas, alas, many make an iron ring of their doctrines and he who dares to step beyond that narrow circle is not reckoned orthodox. God bless heretics, then! God send us more of them! Many make theology into a kind of tread wheel consisting of five doctrines which are everlastingly rotated. For they never go on to anything else."
—Charles Spurgeon, "Preach the Gospel"

 

[Jerome]

"Teeth are needlessly broken over the grit of systematic theology, while souls are famishing. To turn stones into bread was a temptation of our Master; but how many of His servants yield readily to the far worse temptation to turn bread into stone! Go thy way, metaphysical divine, to the stone-yard, and break granite for McAdam, but stand not in the way of loving spirits who would feed the family of God with living bread. The inspired Word is to us spirit and life, and we cannot afford to have it hardened into a huge monolith or a spiritual Stonehenge—sublime but cold, majestic but lifeless; far rather would we have it as our own household book, our bosom companion, the poor man's counselor and friend."
—Charles Spurgeon, Feathers for Arrows

 

[JonC]

To attempt to separate theology and the Bible is crackers. 'Theology' simply means 'God words.' If you beieve in anything at all about God, you are indulging in theology.
The only question is whether one's theology is based on the Bible.

Lol....no.

Theology means "the study of God".

"Theo" means "God". "Logy" means "study of".

It is the "logy" part that makes theology subjective to human understanding. It incorporates more than God's words.

Think sociology. The study of society.
Or anthropology. The study of humanity.
Or pneumatology. The study of the Holy Spirit.


All Christian theology (whether right or wrong) is based on the Bible.

But not all philosophy used in theology is biblical or correct. Not all archaeological conclusions are correct. Not all theological developments are correct.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Romans 3:26. '....That He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.'
There are two possible alternatives to this text.
1. That He might be unjust and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus
2. That He might be just and not the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.

If one takes the view that Romans 3:26 is true, one has to look and see what God has done so that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus. One finds it in Romans 3:24-25. 'Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood....' God is propitiated by the blood of Jesus shed for sinners on the cross.

One can do the same exercise with 1 John 1:9 if one is so minded.

 

[JonC]

To quote the Bible is not theology, it is Bible.

To quote Luther, Augustine, Calvin is theology.

Great post!!!!!

You highlight one think many here ignore.

There is a HUGE difference between giving what the Bible says and telling us what it really means "when properly understood".