Theology vs. the Bible

[Armchair Apologist]

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.

Seems we are going all over the place here or are you just choosing to take exception to pretty much everything I am saying?

What exactly are your objections to the Penal Substitutionary Atonement? Is it the "Penal" part. If I just said "substitutionary atonement," I am certain that everyone you cited would be in agreement with it. Can you agree if I just said "Substitutionary Atonement?" I would certainly hope so!

A Substitutionary atonement is an absolute, non-negotiable essential to the orthodox Christian faith! Without it, there is no gospel and no redemption! If you reject it, you are outside the realm of orthodoxy and I stand by this.

The differing theories of atonement all have some "truth" to it (even the "moral example theory") but the penal substitutionary atonement gets right to the root of the matter. It is also the one mostly under attack by liberals and apostates! No one ever attacks the Ransom Theory, Christus Victor Theory, or Recapitulation Theory. Why the hostility towards the Penal Substitutionary Atonement?

And for the record, Martin Luther MOST CERTAINLY affirmed the Penal Substitutionary Atonement! Perhaps the liberal ELCA Lutherans of reject it now but their theology is so far removed from Martin Luther that they shouldn't even call themselves "Lutheran!"

Just so you know, the "Cosmic Child Abuse" statement is attributable to Steve Chalke who is vocal opponent of PSA right along with his apostate buddy, Brian Zahnd.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

And someone else might slam down the Institutes of Christian Religion or the Summa Theologica and declare “THIS IS HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE WORD OF GOD!”

The confessions, creeds, and statements of faith say “This is a concise summary of the basic essentials of our belief system.”

Yes, they could do just this. And if they do, you know where they stand, right?

EDIT: I just saw the way you worded "This is how to understand the Word of God." If someone was to actually say this, I would adamantly disagree! A confession declares "What we believe," not what YOU OUGHT TO BELIEVE!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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

To quote Luther, Augustine, Calvin is theology.

I disagree, unless you are quoting totally without comprehension
As soon as you take a view on what whatever it is you are quoting, you are doing theology; Biblical theology, but still theology.

 

[JonC]

Seems we are going all over the place here or are you just choosing to take exception to pretty much everything I am saying?

I was agreeing with you about confessions.

What exactly are your objections to the Penal Substitutionary Atonement? Is it the "Penal" part. If I just said "substitutionary atonement," I am certain that everyone you cited would be in agreement with it. Can you agree if I just said "Substitutionary Atonement?" I would certainly hope so!

My objection to PSA (a position I held most of my life and throughout my time preaching) is that it is unbiblical.

A Substitutionary atonement is an absolute, non-negotiable essential to the orthodox Christian faith! Without it, there is no gospel and no redemption! If you reject it, you are outside the realm of orthodoxy and I stand by this.

No, I would also (along with those who believe PSA) reject Substitutionary Atonement.

Obviously Christ is a representative substitute for man (the "Last Adam", or "Second Adam", God's "Elect"). But I would reject that theory of Atonement.

If you mean substitutionary (lower case "s") then we all believe that.

There is no single atonement theory essential to the Christian faith.

Substitutionary Atonement is the most popular position now.

But many hold Penal Substitution as correct

The most defining, historically, position is Ransom Atonement.


You cannot look at the theories of Atonement and claim they are all right. The reason is that they are whole theories.

It would be like looking at Mormonism and saying "well, they are close enough".


Lutheranism never held PSA as their atonement view. Their position has always been Substitutionary Atonement. I am sure today there are outliers, but not historically.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@Martin Marprelate highlighted the issue with theology in the minds of others when he erroneously said that theology means "God's words".

Many do take theology (or, specifically, their theology) to mean God's words rather than their understanding. This is, IMHO, a form of blasphemy as it demonstrates a complete disdain for God's Word and an utter lack of respect for God.

We, as Christians, have to know where Scripture ends and our understanding begins lest we hold "another gospel" entirely.

Well, theology does mean 'God's words.' A theologian is, or should be, one who studies God's words.
It is a false dichotomy when someone says, "I don't do theology; I just read the Bible."

Confessions are absolutely vital for the understanding of God's word.
1689 Baptist Confession 1:1. The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience.
If someone applies for membership to a church that holds to the 1689 Confession, and does not accept that statement, he's not allowed to join. The key word in the statement is 'only.' A Roman Catholic can say, "Yes, I believe the Bible," but he also believes a lot of other stuff as well.

 

[JonC]

I disagree, unless you are quoting totally without comprehension
As soon as you take a view on what whatever it is you are quoting, you are doing theology; Biblical theology, but still theology.

This is wrong.

One can quote Scripture without it being theology.

Theology incorporates Scripture. If the passage being quoted is taken as the teaching then you are not "doing theology".

Theology "fills in the blanks". The problem is people disagree where the blanks exist and when they see the same blanks they fill them in differently.

 

[JonC]

Well, theology does mean 'God's words.' A theologian is, or should be, one who studies God's words.
It is a false dichotomy when someone says, "I don't do theology; I just read the Bible."

Confessions are absolutely vital for the understanding of God's word.
1689 Baptist Confession 1:1. The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience.
If someone applies for membership to a church that holds to the 1689 Confession, and does not accept that statement, he's not allowed to join. The key word in the statement is 'only.' A Roman Catholic can say, "Yes, I believe the Bible," but he also believes a lot of other stuff as well.

No. Theolgy means the study of God.

Theo means "God".
The prefix "logy" is to study.

You confused "logy" with "logos".

Even here you are wrong as theologos means "to speak with God".

Biology is the study of living organisms, NOT the word of living organisms. The prefix "logy" does not indicate "word".

A biologist is one who studies Biology.

A theologian (or theologist) is one who studies theology.

The words "theology" and "biology" indicate the subject matter.

Where are you getting your ideas?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The Greek word theos means 'God.'
The Greek word logos means 'word.'
To pretend that somehow the study of God's word is not theology is nonsense. It offers a sort of faux humility - "Oh, I'm not a theologian, Ijust believe God's word;" but in fact it is based on pride - "I study the word of God, not the ideas of men." But I have found that those who claim to only follow the word of God tend to be those who quote it least, and eventually they fall back on their favourite theologians, be they Church fathers, Anabaptists or whoever.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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).

Exodus 34:6-7. "The Lord, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty."

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.

“Learn ye, my friends, to look upon God as being as severe in His justice as if He were not loving, and yet as loving as if He were not severe. His love does not diminish His justice nor does His justice, in the least degree, make warfare upon His love. The two are sweetly linked together in the atonement of Christ” (C.H. Spurgeon).

 

[Silverhair]

Then we will have to agree to disagree.

Not saying the confessions should ever be regarded as "final authority" but they are written based upon diligent study of the scriptures and summarizes to any outsider what they (the congregation) believe the scriptures to teach. Does your Church have a "Statement of Faith?" It had better! Where did it come from?

As I have stated elsewhere, candidates for a church office are often required to state that they are in agreement with the prescribed confession of the congregational body. They are allowed to make clarifications and exceptions to the confession according to their conscience and their understanding of the scriptures and I would say that no one is 100% in agreement 100% of the time. If someone was to tell me that they were in 100% agreement, It would raise suspicion that they had not adequately done their homework.

If one says "No Creed but Christ!" or "The King James Bible is my Confession," this raises a serious red flag for me as one can make this mean whatever they wish! This is where the restorationists went completely off the rails during the second great awakening and all of the cults started springing up. No one gets to take the word of God and make it mean whatever they want! If your interpretation of Romans 3 differs from everyone else in a congregation (and you are not in a Kingdom Hall, Mormon Temple, or Unitarian Universalist, etc. congregation), you had better reevaluate your interpretation! What do you think Paul means in Ephesians 4:14?

Notice also that I named an assortment of confessions representing all different sorts of theological views. Pick the one that you are most in agreement with and start from there.

You just agreed with what I said.

Confessions are man made and actually reflect the particular view they hold.

As you said "candidates for a church office are often required to state that they are in agreement with the prescribed confession of the congregational body."

From what you are saying, if that is how they are judged, it would be more important to agree with the confession than the word of God.

 

[JonC]

Exodus 34:6-7. "The Lord, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty."

“Learn ye, my friends, to look upon God as being as severe in His justice as if He were not loving, and yet as loving as if He were not severe. His love does not diminish His justice nor does His justice, in the least degree, make warfare upon His love. The two are sweetly linked together in the atonement of Christ” (C.H. Spurgeon).

Yes. God will not clear the guilty or punish the righteous. Scripture has established both as a "guardrail" when examining God's character.

Why? Because to clear the guilty is just as much an evil as to punish the just. While punishing the just may be the greater crime, both constitute injustice.

So where do we go?

God will not clear the guilty.
God will not punish the righteous.

Obviously God did not punish the righteous, or the crimes of the guilty on the just, in order to clear the guilty.


There is a solution (and Scripture gives it).

God will remove our heart of stone
He will give us a new heart.
God will remove our old spirit
He will give us a new spirit
God will put His Spirit in us
God will make us new creations
God will conform us into the image of Christ
God will require we die to sin
God will make us alive in the spirit
God will require we put to death the flesh
God will require we die to the "old man"
God will make us new
God will give us life

Why people think that is insignificant is beyond me.

Better yet, why they think God committes evil (punishing the just) to commit more evil (clearing the guilty) is ungodly.


What Scripture states directly that God does is recreate the guilty man into an innocent man. We put to death the "old man", the flesh. We die to sin. He makes us into new creations and conforms us into the image of His Son.

 

[JonC]

The Greek word theos means 'God.'
The Greek word logos means 'word.'

But we are talking about THEOLOGY.

The logos here is used for REASON.

Theologia means "study of God".
Theo = God
Logos = rational discourse

Our term "theology" comes from Theologia

Before Christianity used the term it was used in Greek to mean "study or discussion anout religion"

It was used by early Greek philosophers, including Plato, to describe an account of the gods, or rational discourse concerning the divine.

Theology is the STUDY of God.

You are redefining words based on the original meanings of the root (on one original meaning...logos always meant "reason" in Greek).

This is an example of why I mentioned, in the past, the danger of language tools in the hands of the uneducated (in the topic).

A pineapple, if you employ your method, is the apple of a pine tree. But it really isn't.

England means "land of the Angles". But it isn't.

Theologia is the word from which "theology" comes.


If you need any more help just let one of us who actually have a graduate degree in theology know. I'm sure I am not the only kne willing to lend a hand.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

As you said "candidates for a church office are often required to state that they are in agreement with the prescribed confession of the congregational body."

Would you not agree with this? Do you want someone coming into the pulpit of your church teaching something contrary the Church's official "statement of faith?"

From what you are saying, if that is how they are judged, it would be more important to agree with the confession than the word of God.

I would say this is an unfair statement. If such does happen, perhaps one should, in good conscience decide to head on down the road and choose not to affiliate with this group? Confessions should always be seen in light of the scriptures, not vice versa and I do believe this to be the majority view.

Confessions typically allow for some broadness of interpretation plus one is allowed to take exception to anything in the confession so long as they make a clear and reasonable argument regarding their exceptions and the organization determines whether this is something they are willing to allow. Either way, the scriptures have their primacy.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes. God will not clear the guilty or punish the righteous. Scripture has established both as a "guardrail" when examining God's character.

Why? Because to clear the guilty is just as much an evil as to punish the just. While punishing the just may be the greater crime, both constitute injustice.

So where do we go?

God will not clear the guilty.
God will not punish the righteous.

Obviously God did not punish the righteous, or the crimes of the guilty on the just, in order to clear the guilty.


There is a solution (and Scripture gives it).

God will remove our heart of stone
He will give us a new heart.
God will remove our old spirit
He will give us a new spirit
God will put His Spirit in us
God will make us new creations
God will conform us into the image of Christ
God will require we die to sin
God will make us alive in the spirit
God will require we put to death the flesh
God will require we die to the "old man"
God will make us new
God will give us life

Why people think that is insignificant is beyond me.

Better yet, why they think God committes evil (punishing the just) to commit more evil (clearing the guilty) is ungodly.


What Scripture states directly that God does is recreate the guilty man into an innocent man. We put to death the "old man", the flesh. We die to sin. He makes us into new creations and conforms us into the image of His Son.

If we were actually made perfect, you might have a point, but unfortunately you are showing a lack of understanding of theology 101 i.e.. the word of God. You write that 'God will require we die to sin.....require we put to death the flesh.... require we die to the old man' - in other words that we are saved by our works. God help us all if that is how we are saved! 'For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse.' The Bible tells us that we are justified by Christ's blood (Rom. 5:9), have redemption by His blood (Eph. 1:7), were brought near by His blood (Eph. 2:3), have peace through the blood of His cross (Col. 1:20), are redeemed with His precious blood (1 Peter 1:19; Rev. 5:9) and that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.
When you stand before God on the Last Day, you can point to all the great things you've done as laid out in your post, and see how that works out for you - not well, I fear. But when Martin Marprelate, chief of sinners, stands before Him, he will plead nothing but the blood of Jesus.

 

[Ascetic X]

If we were actually made perfect, you might have a point, but unfortunately you are showing a lack of understanding of theology 101 i.e.. the word of God. You write that 'God will require we die to sin.....require we put to death the flesh.... require we die to the old man' - in other words that we are saved by our works. God help us all if that is how we are saved! 'For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse.' The Bible tells us that we are justified by Christ's blood (Rom. 5:9), have redemption by His blood (Eph. 1:7), were brought near by His blood (Eph. 2:3), have peace through the blood of His cross (Col. 1:20), are redeemed with His precious blood (1 Peter 1:19; Rev. 5:9) and that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.
When you stand before God on the Last Day, you can point to all the great things you've done as laid out in your post, and see how that works out for you - not well, I fear. But when Martin Marprelate, chief of sinners, stands before Him, he will plead nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Actually there are many works that God commands us to after we are born again. They are not working to achieve salvation, but are duties we must perform to grow in Christ and lead others to Him. This is basic Christianity.

I will not quote any theology. I will quote the Bible.

Ephesians 2:10

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

 

[JonC]

And for the record, Martin Luther MOST CERTAINLY affirmed the Penal Substitutionary Atonement! Perhaps the liberal ELCA Lutherans of reject it now but their theology is so far removed from Martin Luther that they shouldn't even call themselves "Lutheran!"

I need to point out something you may have overlooked (something that makes your comment above incorrect).

Luther did not object to Penal Substitution Atonement, but he did not hold that view.

When it came to the Atonement Luther held what is referred to as a götterdämmerung. He viewed tge Atonement as a type of epic battle between God and Satan.

What he held was generally Anselm's position (Satisfactory Atonement) but without the legal or judicial element (Anselm's view was based on honor, Calvin's view on justice, both within a forensic/ legal focus).

If you took Satisfactory Atonement or Penal Substitution Atonement and removed the legal focus (remove God's wratg against sin, remove Christ experiencing God's punishment) and then replace it with general Christus Victor elements then you have Lutheran Atonement.

This is why the Luthern Church calls its view "Satisfactory or Victorious Atonement" rather than Penal Substitutiin Atonement


On this forum we have discussed this topic extensively. By the standard of most who have argued against me I hold Penal Substitution Atonement because I believe that Christ died for us.

When it comes to trying to find support PSA advocates tend to use a general and superficial criteria based on key words. It is only when it comes to arguing against people that they get specific.

 

[JonC]

If we were actually made perfect, you might have a point,

That IS my point (and, I think, a part of our disagreement).

God has appointed a time for judgment. There is a "Day of Wrath". It is appointed to man once to die and then (AFTER death) the Judgment.

When we stand before God, after this life is done, after Christ has returned, there will be a judgment.

We stand before God having been made perfect or we will stand before God as wicked men.

If we are saved then we are foreknown in Christ. Those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that Jesus might be the firstborn among many. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

When we stans before God we will have been conformed into the image of His Son. We will have been actually made perfect.


The crux of our disagreement is not whether we will actually be perfect at rhe time of Judgment. I think we both accept the numerous passages stating we will.

It is instead whether God can actually recreate a man (recreate a guilty wicked man into an innocent, perfect man in the image of Christ).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Actually there are many works that God commands us to after we are born again. They are not working to achieve salvation, but are duties we must perform to grow in Christ and lead others to Him. This is basic Christianity.

I will not quote any theology. I will quote the Bible.

Ephesians 2:10

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

I agree, but if we suppose that doing good works is going to gain us salvation, we are in for a great big shock. Our very best efforts are not enough to save us. Paul, in 1 Tim. 1:15 says, 'Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.' He doesn't say, 'of whom I was chief' but of whom I am chief' (present continuous tense). Even after his conversion and new birth he still regarded himself as a sinner (c.f. also Romans 7:15-25).

 

[JonC]

I agree, but if we suppose that doing good works is going to gain us salvation, we are in for a great big shock. Our very best efforts are not enough to save us. Paul, in 1 Tim. 1:15 says, 'Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.' He doesn't say, 'of whom I was chief' but of whom I am chief' (present continuous tense). Even after his conversion and new birth he still regarded himself as a sinner (c.f. also Romans 7:15-25).

The question, however, is whether Paul will stand before God at the time of Judgment (when the wicked will be judged) and say "I am still a sinner" or "I have been made into the image of Christ".

When it comes tp divine judgment we have to look at the day of God's judgment (not before judgment).


You and I view this differently.

I view our salvation now being based on Christ as the Guarantee (we will, at judgment, be in His image) and that directly because of the Cross.

The reason I think this is I truely believe that God foreknew us and has predestined us to be made in the image of His Son so that Jesus will be the firstborn of many, and that we will without any doubt be glorified.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

That IS my point (and, I think, a part of our disagreement).

God has appointed a time for judgment. There is a "Day of Wrath". It is appointed to man once to die and then (AFTER death) the Judgment.

When we stand before God, after this life is done, after Christ has returned, there will be a judgment.

We stand before God having been made perfect or we will stand before God as wicked men.

If we are saved then we are foreknown in Christ. Those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that Jesus might be the firstborn among many. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

When we stans before God we will have been conformed into the image of His Son. We will have been actually made perfect.


The crux of our disagreement is not whether we will actually be perfect at rhe time of Judgment. I think we both accept the numerous passages stating we will.

It is instead whether God can actually recreate a man (recreate a guilty wicked man into an innocent, perfect man in the image of Christ).

When you stand before God, will you stand in the filthy rags of your own righteousness, or in the garments of salvation and the robe of righteousness provided by the Lord Jesus? He says, "Unless I wash you, you have no part with Me!" Read my last post again. Nothing but the perfect righteousness and the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ will avail you on that day. This is serious stuff. We don't even agree on the way of salvation!