-
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
It represents His flesh. I posted the Scripture.
I disagree about the veil in the Temple. But Christ is the veil (present).
That is how we know you at wrong. You get to the end of your argument, it fails, you start a smokescreen to cover your tracks.
You simply have no answer, no defence for your presuppositions.
So you make false accusations, believing that is fine because Christ was punished for the sin a couple thousand years ago.
If your faith is benign, unable to prevent you from sinning here by making false claims, then what good is it? Even the demons believe.
Then you disagree with the Scriptures, as I have been pointing out for months.
The real question is how long you'll suffered to belch your sacrilege in regard to the Cross on this board.
My arguments have not failed at all. Your pride won't let you yield to the Scriptures, so I'm mocking it, just like Elijah the prophets of Baal.
No. I agree with Scripture.
His flesh IS the veil. He IS our High Priest. He IS the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world.
But the veil in the Temple, the Jewish high priest, the Hebrew sacrifices....these were not Christ but a foreshadowing of Something better to come.
That is why the veil in the Temple was split from top to bottom. That is why the Hebrew priesthood became obsolete. That is why we do not sacrifice animals today.
I am not mocking you, I am pitying you.
You have preconceived ideas based on revised RCC teachings and cannot see past them. That is why, when questioned, you resort to silly false accusations.
I do not even mock Penal Substitution Theory because I once held that theory. It is wrong, and essentially denies Scripture. But it is not something to be mocked.
lol
You have essentially lost the debate. Not sure who is moved by your virtue signaling, but someone the administration is afraid to rebuff, unless they, too, have lost their first love.
My hymn references basically undid you .
No one is impressed with your labeling or name dropping.
You have failed to answer any scriptural argument.
You are a well without water. Clouds without rain. I flout, mock, and jeer you in the name of Christ and Him CRUCIFIED.
Mathetes66
Member
The problem with not identifying the problem plainly IS the problem. The solution of resorting to childish fleshly, adhomenimic attacks is unbecoming of supposed mature Christians. No wonder the name of Christ is blasphemed among unbelievers. Shame on you & me. Repent. Be cleansed. Move on in the Spirit.
This discussion is vitally important because it rests upon one's definition of who God is & what the gospel message is & why Christ died on the cross.
There are at least 5 dominant views of the atonement. The significance of their differences is immense & important. Only one appears biblically correct, orthodox & historically passed down. The others will have within them some elements of truth, but in fact are insufficient to be consistent with the totality of Scripture teaching.
The purpose of a theory of atonement usually tries to answer: who is God as Scripture defines Him? What is the nature of Jesus’ death on the cross? Why did Jesus die? What does His death mean for the world today?
No real definition of Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory has been offered as I perused this thread. Once the theory is plainly defined, then one can defend or refute it. And no actual plainly defined error has been pointed out in all this thread concerning this theory nor actual Scripture refuting it. Also no actual Scripture has been given defending the idea of God's wrath & how it is applied to both sin & the sinner & how Christ is the One choosing to receive that wrath on Himself in place of those for which He is substituting, 'the righteous (just) for or in place of the unrighteous (unjust). The whole issue revolves around the first word: penal.
So let's first define what the theory of penal substitutionary Atonement is & see if all agree on what it means, whether one disagrees with it or not. Then we can move on from there. If I miss any basic points feel free to incorporate that in the basic definition & we can move on, KNOWING that all are on the same page, discussing the same defined issue, so no misunderstanding is made as to what is being discussed.
Definition#1 (Ray Weedon): A penalty had to be paid, based on God's righteous standards, anger & holiness. It was paid by a substitute on our behalf. Payment was based on the spilling of blood in the death of a perfectly righteous sacrificial Lamb of God. “Christ’s death was “penal” in that He bore a penalty when He died. His death was also a “substitution” in that He was a substitution for us when He died. This has been the orthodox understanding of the atonement held by evangelical theologians, in contrast to other views that attempt to explain the atonement apart from the idea of the wrath of God [all mankind by nature are under the wrath of God--Eph 2:1-3; John 3:36] or payment of the penalty for sin. [In this case the focus is not so much on the intensity of God’s anger remaining on people but on the intensity of the punishment that awaits people who don’t believed in Jesus. He experienced the punishment & wrath of God for our sinful disobedience that we deserved, because He took them upon Himself as a substitute in our place.]
Definition#2 (CARM): Penal Substitutionary Atonement is the view that Christ was a legal substitute for us on the cross & that he bore the penalty for our sins that is due to us (all mankind under the wrath of God--Penal means legal as in penal-colony). Jesus was made under the Law (Gal 4:4) & bore our sins in his body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24). At his crucifixion, he was “pierced through for our transgressions” & received our chastening & scourging (Isa. 53:4-5). What was due to us he bore by being made sin (2 Cor. 5:21). This is exactly what the Penal Substitutionary Atonement is. This is also called the Vicarious Atonement of Christ. His sacrifice was according to the Law (Penal) & He took our judgment (substitutionary) thereby satisfying the requirement of the Law of God & saving the lost through His legal, substitutionary atonement.
"HE was pierced through FOR OUR transgressions, He was crushed FOR OUR iniquities; The CHASTENING FOR OUR WELL-BEING fell UPON HIM & BY HIS SCOURGING WE ARE HEALED.”
“HE MADE HIM TO BE SIN on our behalf--Who knew NO sin, SO THAT we might become the righteousness of God IN HIM.”
"HE HIMSELF--BORE OUR SINS IN HIS BODY on the cross, SO THAT we might die to sin & live to righteousness; FOR BY HIS WOUNDS YOU WERE HEALED.”
This discussion is vitally important because it rests upon one's definition of who God is & what the gospel message is & why Christ died on the cross.
There are at least 5 dominant views of the atonement. The significance of their differences is immense & important. Only one appears biblically correct, orthodox & historically passed down. The others will have within them some elements of truth, but in fact are insufficient to be consistent with the totality of Scripture teaching.
The purpose of a theory of atonement usually tries to answer: who is God as Scripture defines Him? What is the nature of Jesus’ death on the cross? Why did Jesus die? What does His death mean for the world today?
No real definition of Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory has been offered as I perused this thread. Once the theory is plainly defined, then one can defend or refute it. And no actual plainly defined error has been pointed out in all this thread concerning this theory nor actual Scripture refuting it. Also no actual Scripture has been given defending the idea of God's wrath & how it is applied to both sin & the sinner & how Christ is the One choosing to receive that wrath on Himself in place of those for which He is substituting, 'the righteous (just) for or in place of the unrighteous (unjust). The whole issue revolves around the first word: penal.
So let's first define what the theory of penal substitutionary Atonement is & see if all agree on what it means, whether one disagrees with it or not. Then we can move on from there. If I miss any basic points feel free to incorporate that in the basic definition & we can move on, KNOWING that all are on the same page, discussing the same defined issue, so no misunderstanding is made as to what is being discussed.
Definition#1 (Ray Weedon): A penalty had to be paid, based on God's righteous standards, anger & holiness. It was paid by a substitute on our behalf. Payment was based on the spilling of blood in the death of a perfectly righteous sacrificial Lamb of God. “Christ’s death was “penal” in that He bore a penalty when He died. His death was also a “substitution” in that He was a substitution for us when He died. This has been the orthodox understanding of the atonement held by evangelical theologians, in contrast to other views that attempt to explain the atonement apart from the idea of the wrath of God [all mankind by nature are under the wrath of God--Eph 2:1-3; John 3:36] or payment of the penalty for sin. [In this case the focus is not so much on the intensity of God’s anger remaining on people but on the intensity of the punishment that awaits people who don’t believed in Jesus. He experienced the punishment & wrath of God for our sinful disobedience that we deserved, because He took them upon Himself as a substitute in our place.]
Definition#2 (CARM): Penal Substitutionary Atonement is the view that Christ was a legal substitute for us on the cross & that he bore the penalty for our sins that is due to us (all mankind under the wrath of God--Penal means legal as in penal-colony). Jesus was made under the Law (Gal 4:4) & bore our sins in his body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24). At his crucifixion, he was “pierced through for our transgressions” & received our chastening & scourging (Isa. 53:4-5). What was due to us he bore by being made sin (2 Cor. 5:21). This is exactly what the Penal Substitutionary Atonement is. This is also called the Vicarious Atonement of Christ. His sacrifice was according to the Law (Penal) & He took our judgment (substitutionary) thereby satisfying the requirement of the Law of God & saving the lost through His legal, substitutionary atonement.
"HE was pierced through FOR OUR transgressions, He was crushed FOR OUR iniquities; The CHASTENING FOR OUR WELL-BEING fell UPON HIM & BY HIS SCOURGING WE ARE HEALED.”
“HE MADE HIM TO BE SIN on our behalf--Who knew NO sin, SO THAT we might become the righteousness of God IN HIM.”
"HE HIMSELF--BORE OUR SINS IN HIS BODY on the cross, SO THAT we might die to sin & live to righteousness; FOR BY HIS WOUNDS YOU WERE HEALED.”
My "Theory of Atonement" is that Christ suffered and died at the hands of wicked men. But this was the predetermined plan of God. God sent His Son as an offering. It was His will that Christ suffer and die to redeem mankind from the bondage of sin and death. Man was purchased with His blood - not purchased from anyone but bought with a price. Men esteemed Christ stricken, afflicted by God when infact He was bearing our sins, sharing our infirmity. He became a curse for us, became sin for us, suffered and died under the bondage that held us captive. And God vindicated Christ by raising Him on the third day, glorifying Him, giving Him a name that is above every name. He is a life giving Spirit, the Propitiation for the sins of the world through which we escape the wrath to come. In Him we are reborn, recreated. In Him there is no condemnation and we are freed from the bonds of sin and death.
By the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement I mean the theory articulated during the Protestant Reformation by reworking Aquinas' theory by replacing merit with wrath as the focus of the cross.
I define the Theory, in short, as the doctrine that Christ suffered and died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God transfered our sins (or our guilt) from us and imputed them to Christ. Christ stood in our place and suffered the punishment instead of us. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising divine justice.
The reason I moved from Penal Substitution Theory is that there is no biblical support (insofar as the text of Scripture) for its presuppositions. The understanding of divine justice expressed in the Theory appears to be closer to John Calvin's commentary on De Clementia than Scripture as it reflects Calvin's training in Humanistic law (Renaissance Humanism, not secular humanism as we use today).
One issue is adherents of Penal Substitution Theory (including my self, in the past) are very reluctant to examine, much less defend, these presuppositions. It is taken for granted the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is correct and therefore above examination.
BasketFinch
Active Member
I took their statement about Saul /Paul being a Calvinist as meaning Paul's gospel parallels those of TULIP. Maybe we can address that instead of being dismissive and sarcastic instead.
Mathetes66
Member
Those who falsely judge like yourself play God and want to make like they know the motives of people. I use irony (not being dismissive or sarcastic) often for my humor and several others caught my humor on my post. Sadly you choose to falsely read my motive. And I move on.
Thank you Jon, for responding to my prior post and clarifying your position on your present understanding of atonement theory and also your understanding of the penal substitution atonement theory. It is nice to see a good discussion without all the condescension, false judging, ad hominems, etc. of the flesh. I will try and get back to address what you wrote.
Thank you Jon, for responding to my prior post and clarifying your position on your present understanding of atonement theory and also your understanding of the penal substitution atonement theory. It is nice to see a good discussion without all the condescension, false judging, ad hominems, etc. of the flesh. I will try and get back to address what you wrote.