Featured TULIP Was Never Alive to Begin With

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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)

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.