37818
Well-Known Member
Meaning what? Ransom from what? How?
Are we not ransomed from a penal demise? Is not Christ taking it instead of us? How is that not a penal substitution? Otherwise it is meaningless misleading claim.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
TULIP Was Never Alive to Begin With
- Thread starter Aaron
- Start date
Are we not ransomed from a penal demise? Is not Christ taking it instead of us? How is that not a penal substitution? Otherwise it is meaningless misleading claim.
Yes, in Him we escape the wrath to come.
That is what I mean by there are penal and substitutionary aspects to the atonement.
But if we call biblical atonement "penal substitution" then it can be easily confused with the false teaching in the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (people may think we are saying God punished Christ instead of punishing us).
I have asked quite a few SBC members if they believe Penal Substitution. They say they do. Then I ask if they believe God poured His wrath on Christ, or that God punished Christ instead of punishing us. They respond that is not Christian, and they do not.
See the confusion? When we use words already being used, then nobody knows where we stand.
37818
Well-Known Member
So disallowing language that describes
what the Bible means. Better translation, ". . . the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his soul as a redemption in exchange-for many. . . ."
We most certainly do represent Christ. We're His ambassadors.
Substitution and representation are entirely different things.
You're trying not to say that the death of the Cross was a penalty, and it was, as stated in the law in which the cross is prescribed, and as affirmed by Paul.
What does that mean?
By the moment he was laid on that Tree, He had been cursed, but what does that mean?
Really? Did He get sick? Did He dash His foot against a stone? Was He aging in the sense of decay? Tell us in what ways he was suffering the wages of sin while not on the Cross?
From whom?
No. I am not saying disallow. I am saying be careful.
You and I both believe Christ was a Substitute, and that there was a focus on delivering us from God's wrath to come.
I could say, then, that I affirm penal substitution. But I do appreciate the risk that some will assume I affirm the false doctrine of Penal Substitution Theory.
I am saying when we use titles it is best to simply explain what we believe.
The Son came not to be served but to serve. He gave His life as a random, or exchange, or purchase, or redemption, for many.
That part is not actually substitution. We do not substitute cash for the car we just sold (it is a purchase, but not a substitute).
That said, Christ died for us - the Just for the unjust.
I just want to be careful to stick with Scripture in how we discuss doctrine, that's all. Using labels that are already taken can mislead.
We could rename our church the Church of Christ because that is a biblical term. BUT would that describe us in today's terms or would people think we were Church of Christ?
I never said we do not represent Christ. I choose my words carefully, @Aaron.
Yes, Christ aged as we do. As such His bones would have developed, His cells would have died and been replaced, His hair would have grown, etc.
The wages of sin is death. Unlike you, I believe that God is sovereign and immutable (His Word stands, He will not be made a liar). We still suffer the wages of sin, and Christ shared in this.
But it is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment. Christ died and was vindicated. We die and will either be justified in Christ or condemned to the Second Death.
If this is even true, I'm not surprised knowing 1) The disingenuous manner in which you phrase things, and 2) The desolation of biblical knowledge and the general shallowness of most Southern Baptists.
What if you had phrased the question, Did Christ die in our place?
37818
Well-Known Member
So it is a penal substitution. Is there better language to more accurately describe this?
We all know Christ died in our place just as Adam sinned in our place. Scripture is clear on this.
I am talking about the false doctrine Penal Substitution Theory.
There has to be. If you call it "penal substitution" then what separates it from the unbilical view called "penal substitution"?
I suppose a better term would be Redemption (in that that is a word you used).
I said in the sense of decay. Yes, we all know He grew up, but would He grow old?
While not on the Cross? You think He would have aged and died?
Whose death did He die?[/QUOTE]
Would Christ grow old? You mean would Christ, if He had not died on the Cross, continued to age?
That is a hypothetical question that deserves no answer.
Once dead, and placed in a tomb, we know His body would not decay because He would be raised from the grave.
Whose death did Christ die? He lay down His own life for us. He died His death, under the curse, for us.
What does that mean? What is it we were spared from by Christ being in that place instead of us?
37818
Well-Known Member
No. That is a false understanding.
Deuteronomy 24:16, ". . . The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. . . ." Ezekiel 18:20, ". . . The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. . . ."
It means that, just as the First Adam stood in the place of mankind, so also did the Last Adam. Where through the First Adam came sin and death, through the Last Adam we have life.
We were spared the wrath to come.
I do not mean transferable sin (any Christian would probably agree that sins cannot be transferred).
I mean Adam stood as a representative of man. If you were in the Garden instead of Adam you would have done the same as he did.
But yes, sins cannot be transfered from one to another. Sins cannot be inherited. This is clear from Scripture (that was not the context I meant).
It only feels hypothetical to you because you are not well acquainted with the testimonies of the Evangelists.
He was never a mere man. He was divine. He couldn't get leprosy or suffer any form of decay as a result of aging. He wouldn't get arthritis, liver spots, an enlarged prostrate, go bald, get cataracts, etc.
So, when was it that He was made to be sin?
So the Cross was a place of wrath.
37818
Well-Known Member
There is a difference. How Christ offered His soul, Psalms 22:1, and the souls of the perishing, Matthew 25:41, Mark 9:48.
Uh....no. You asking IF Christ did not die on the Cross would He have died of old age is by definition hypothetical because Christ DID suffer and die on the cross.
Do you not understand the word "hypothetical"?
If by "evangelists" you mean RCC priests, then perhaps. If you mean ECF's then no.
There is no biblical support for the idea that Christ was NOT made like us in all things. The passage about Christ's body not experiencing corruption, that His body would not undergo decay, was in reference to the fact God would deliver and vindicate Him by raising Him from the grave.
Were you as familiar with Scripture as you are RCC ideas you would know this.
Jesus is man, not more than man in His humanity. Jesus is God, not less than God in His divinity.
I encourage you to rely on God's Word rather than RCC priests and Reformed teachers. Your faith simply does not stand as is, but if you can move further from RCC doctrine (rather than trying to make it biblical just rely on Scripture) and closer to God's Word then this may be one clearer to you.