TULIP Was Never Alive to Begin With

[Mathetes66]

I Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit.

Romans 4:25 Who was delivered up for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

 

[Aaron]

Problem here is that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is not a characteristic of what it means to be a Baptist.

Au contraire, it is central in their teaching on baptism.

Early Anabaptists (the Brethern, Amish, Mennonites, Huttertites, etc. meet the definition of Baptist without clinging the RCC ideas of Atonement. Heck, even today not all Baptists affirm the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement).

I know Mennonites and Amish, and isn't SBG of the Brethren?

They definitely teach Paul's doctrine of substitution. So I'm going to have to call B.S. on this and press you for your sources.

I also reported your post for being another gospel.

 

[JonC]

Penal substitution is the Biblical Atonement. It did not come under attack until the early 20th century.

This is false. The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement did not expect st prior to the 16th Century (Substitutionary Atonement was formulated about 500 years earlier). That said, it was then and always has been a minority view denied by most of Christianity.

 

[JonC]

. . . αντι . . . . Meaning what?

The word in question is λύτρον, meaning random or purchase.

 

[JonC]

Au contraire, it is central in their teaching on baptism.

I know Mennonites and Amish, and isn't SBG of the Brethren?

They definitely teach Paul's doctrine of substitution. So I'm going to have to call B.S. on this and press you for your sources.

I also reported your post for being another gospel.

You are wrong.

They did not affirm the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. But yes, they did teach Paul's doctrine of the Cross. Today many Anabaptists groups have adopted Arminianism.

I hold a more traditional view of the Cross, you hold a newer position. But neither is another gospel.

Given your vile nature (which comes through even with your use of abbreviation) I do not care what you report.

 

[Aaron]

This is false. The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement did not expect st prior to the 16th Century (Substitutionary Atonement was formulated about 500 years earlier). That said, it was then and always has been a minority view denied by most of Christianity.

It was called the vicarious (meaning substitutionary) atonement by the early fathers. 38718 is right.

 

[Aaron]

You are wrong.

They did not affirm the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. But yes, they did teach Paul's doctrine of the Cross. Today many Anabaptists groups have adopted Arminianism.

I hold a more traditional view of the Cross, you hold a newer position. But neither is another gospel.

Given your vile nature (which comes through even with your use of abbreviation) I do not care what you report.

LOL. Oh puh-leeze!

Put up or shut up, Jon.

 

[JonC]

It was called the vicarious (meaning substitutionary) atonement by the early fathers. 38718 is right.

It is substitutionary in that Christ was suffering and dying for another (for us) - the Just for the unjust.

But this does not affirm the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Christ was not punished instead of us.

That is where your dependence on Roman Catholic doctrine comes in. You are as much RCC as you are Baptist, only with some your RCC beliefs altered slightly.

 

[JonC]

LOL. Oh puh-leeze!

Put up or shut up, Jon.

I am not going to do the work for you. You need to learn to read before putting both feet in your mouth. But I can help steer you in the right direction so you can answer your own questions.

Penal satisfaction theories” focus on the penalty for sin that God’s righteousness demands, and on the fact that Jesus “took our place,” satisfying God’s demand for justice (see Isaiah 53:5; Romans 3:25; 5:9; 1 John 2:2). This is probably the most widely accepted theory among many conservative evangelicals today, but it has not been the most widely accepted theory by the church through much of its history . . .First, many who prefer the penal satisfaction theory call it “substitutionary atonement.” That is unfortunate, because all three main theories are about the atonement and all present Jesus as our substitute. To charge those who favour other theories over penal satisfaction with denying “substitutionary atonement” is just plain wrong.

Timothy Geddert is professor of New Testament at MB Biblical Seminary


Rudnerweide Mennonite Confession of Faith (1660/1853)

Mennonite Brethren Confession of Faith (1902)

 

[Aaron]

I am not going to do the work for you. You need to learn to read before putting both feet in your mouth. But I can help steer you in the right direction so you can answer your own questions.

Penal satisfaction theories” focus on the penalty for sin that God’s righteousness demands, and on the fact that Jesus “took our place,” satisfying God’s demand for justice (see Isaiah 53:5; Romans 3:25; 5:9; 1 John 2:2). This is probably the most widely accepted theory among many conservative evangelicals today, but it has not been the most widely accepted theory by the church through much of its history . . .First, many who prefer the penal satisfaction theory call it “substitutionary atonement.” That is unfortunate, because all three main theories are about the atonement and all present Jesus as our substitute. To charge those who favour other theories over penal satisfaction with denying “substitutionary atonement” is just plain wrong.

Timothy Geddert is professor of New Testament at MB Biblical Seminary


Rudnerweide Mennonite Confession of Faith (1660/1853)

Mennonite Brethren Confession of Faith (1902)

LOL. That's not puttin' up. But when did you change your mind that Christ was our substitute? When you found that substitution was called vicarious atonement by the early fathers?

 

[Aaron]

It is substitutionary in that Christ was suffering and dying for another (for us) - the Just for the unjust.

I can suffer and die for Christ, but I am not His substitute.

So what is the substitution? What is it that Christ is doing instead of us?

 

[JonC]

LOL. That's not puttin' up. But when did you change your mind that Christ was our substitute? When you found that substitution was called vicarious atonement by the early fathers?

You are changing terms. Christ is our substitute. He stood in the place of humanity, represented all of us on the Cross.

I am saying the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement did not exist until the 16th century.

But all Christians believe Christ is our substitute in terms of Him being the "Last Adam", the "Firstborn of many brethern", and that redemption was the Just for the unjust.

You are so caught up in Roman Catholicism that you cannot see it. Stop trying to make RCC doctrine align with Scripture and just go with the Bible.

 

[JonC]

I can suffer and die for Christ, but I am not His substitute.

So what is the substitution? What is it that Christ is doing instead of us?

No, you aren't. BUT He was our substitute in that He represented (to borrow from Justin Martyr) "the human family". You only represent you.

What was Christ doing? Christ was bearing our sins, becoming a curse for us, being made like us in all things (including suffering the wages of sin), purchasing us and freeing us from the bonds of sin and death.

 

[37818]

This is false. The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement did not expect st prior to the 16th Century (Substitutionary Atonement was formulated about 500 years earlier). That said, it was then and always has been a minority view denied by most of Christianity.

Totally false. Isaiah 53:6, ". . . the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . ." For what purpose? If penal substitution is not the proper terminology to discribed the Biblical Atonement then give us the correct terminology that states what the Biblical Atonement is. Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45.

 

[JonC]

Totally false. Isaiah 53:6, ". . . the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . ." For what purpose? If penal substitution is not the proper terminology to discribed the Biblical Atonement then give us the correct terminology that states what the Biblical Atonement is. Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45.

Why do you believe the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is the only view that addresses God laying on Christ the iniquity of us all?

I suspect it is not because you reject other views but because you do not understand them - you do not understand how God laying our sins on Christ could be anything but Penal Substitution Theory.

But for over 2,000 years Christians have held views other than Penal Substitution Theory, and they do not reject God laying the iniquities of us all on Him.

First understand what you are arguing against. Then evaluate that view. Then, if you still disagree, argue against it.

 

[37818]

But this does not affirm the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Christ was not punished instead of us.

Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45? Meaning what?

 

[JonC]

Totally false. Isaiah 53:6, ". . . the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . ."

Yes. We all believe God laid on Christ the iniquity of us all. The purpose is our redemption. Christ was made like us in all things, became a curse for us, and by His stripes we are healed.

But those facts have nothing to do with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

 

[37818]

Why do you believe the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is the only view that addresses God laying on Christ the iniquity of us all?

Romans 6:23 with Romans 5:8. I know no better language to use to state what it means.

 

[37818]

Yes. We all believe God laid on Christ the iniquity of us all. The purpose is our redemption. Christ was made like us in all things, became a curse for us, and by His stripes we are healed.

But those facts have nothing to do with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

It is damn lie to deny what it is. What is the better more accurate language than "penal substitution?"

 

[JonC]

It is damn lie to deny what it is. What is the better more accurate language than "penal substitution?"

What is more accurate language than "Penal Substitution"? Perhaps the language the Bible uses. Redemption. Salvation. Ransom.

The problem with using man-made terms is they can be misleading. I do not use "Substitution" because it is too often mistaken for the false doctrine of Penal Substitution Theory.

I understand both penal and substitution is involved in redemption, but using the term "penal substitution" could lead others to believe we are saying God punished Christ instead of punishing us (again, an unbilical idea).

So I think it best to stick with God's Word when discussing doctrine. Titles (like "Penal Substitution Theory, Victorious Christ, Trinity, Classic view, Latin view, etc.) are unavoidable. But the doctrine needs to be biblical.