| Re: |
/I personally haven't seen any of these words, including penal substitution, in the bible. Man has the need to put things in a nice convenient package that can be easily quoted, easily understood and that serve as a definitive "definition."/
So what's wrong with studying the things of the word so as to understand them in a better and more definitive way and come up with workable terms?
You may not see the words penal substitution in the Bible but we see,
- PIERCED THROUGH for our transgressions
- CRUSHED for our iniquities
- CHASTENING for our well being
- by HIS SCOURGING we are healed
- the iniquity of us all FELL ON HIM
What's not penal substitution about that? The phrase does no violence or harm to the actual text. He bore the "penalty" I deserved by becoming a "substitute" in my place.
/By doing so they rob Christ of His power. Seek not the doctrines of men but the power of God and refrain from putting God in a box./
I didn't know Christ could be robbed of His power.
These "doctrines of men" like penal substitution are taken from the word itself such as Isaiah 53:5-6. Hardly an attempt to put God in a box.
/Seek not the doctrines of men but the power of God and refrain from putting God in a box./
"For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the POWER OF GOD." ( I Cor 1:18)
The danger and harm in doing so is you run the risk of falling into the same trap the pharisees did. You are taking the scriptures and from them and them alone attempting to connect the dots and make a nice packaged doctrine that ties all the strings together. Jesus upbraided the pharisees for seeking Him among the scriptures because He does not dwell in there (though he certainly uses it), He is the creator of the heavens and the earth and He is spirit.
I am not downplaying the bible but I will say that sometimes you need to lift your head out of the book and look around because THERE is Christ. In fact the very things we see are made from Him who cannot be seen.
In regards to not knowing Christ could be robbed of His power...Christ is no thief. He does not take what is not given to Him. If someone turns their heart towards something else or chooses to pursue something other than the Living Word then what is Christ to do? He will plead and remain faithful but he will not infringe on that person. That person has made their choice and Christ is no thief. Did you not read when Jesus could perform no miracles because of the peoples unbelief? (Mark 6:5)
You should not have quoted 1 Corinthians 1:18. For if you look above it at verse 17 it reads "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ should be made void." Does not taking the Living Word and His work on the cross and making it into a doctrinal phrasing with everything neatly packaged fall under the heading of wisdom of speech? But Paul didn't share the Gospel in the wisdom of speech (that is words) but in POWER. Verse 18 hardly supports making a systematic teaching of it. Obviously Paul wasn't too concerned with it because he never outright spoke it because it was about walking in Christ. He didn't need to spell it out.
Look at verse 20 of that same chapter in 1 Corinthians. The wisdom of this world. Does the need to categorize and name things fit in with how this world does things or with how God does things? Who needs to know, the spirit or the flesh?
It's a shame really. Because of Pauls faith in the power of God we now have giant lists like the one posted here trying to figure out exactly what he believed and taught about certain things.
| 2017/4/2 14:47||Profile|
| Re: |
/The danger and harm in doing so is you run the risk of falling into the same trap the pharisees did. You are taking the scriptures and from them and them alone attempting to connect the dots and make a nice packaged doctrine that ties all the strings together./
And that's a bad thing? The Bible is coherent, consistent and unified in a divinely symmetrical way. Pointing this out and tying all the strings together is a bad thing?
/You are taking the scriptures and from them and them alone attempting to connect the dots...
How else should biblical exegesis be done except from the scriptures ALONE and tying together the various passages that shed light on a subject? I'm a firm believer in sola scriptura.
/You should not have quoted 1 Corinthians 1:18. For if you look above it at verse 17 it reads "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ should be made void." Does not taking the Living Word and His work on the cross and making it into a doctrinal phrasing with everything neatly packaged fall under the heading of wisdom of speech?/
No, it's not attempting wisdom of speech. We know more today about the atonement than the early Christians did and we now have the canon of the NT which is somewhat large and to be known cannot be casually studied. Nailing down a message in its specifics and comparing the relevant ppassages is an attempt to understand the words God would have you use.
/ But Paul didn't share the Gospel in the wisdom of speech (that is words) but in POWER.Verse 18 hardly supports making a systematic teaching of it./
But the entirety of the NT combined with I Cor 1:18 supports trying to tie all the passages together into a comprehensive and coherent meessage. Doing that doesn't mean you are casting aside reliance on the power of the Holy Spirit.
/Look at verse 20 of that same chapter in 1 Corinthians. The wisdom of this world. Does the need to categorize and name things fit in with how this world does things or with how God does things? Who needs to know, the spirit or the flesh?/
We're not talking about studying the wisdom of this world. We are speaking of studying the scriptures which are the inspired God breathed word of God full of His wisdom. How can you make that to mean if we delve deeply into scripture and organize it a bit we are playing into the wisdom of the world? Where does this thinking come from? Worldly existentalism says that truth can't be organized or set down. Perhaps the notion that there is no need for systemization of biblical truth is in itself a product of worldly existentalist thinking.
We have a large NT canon today which the early church didn't have. Thus more study and comparison of passages is required. How that serves to nullify the power of God in gospel presentations is a mystery to me. But to each his own.
Meanwhile, I remain supportive of sola scriptura.
| 2017/4/2 16:19||Profile|
| Re: |
Brother Tyler you seem to take that another brother can hold/maintain a different perspective quite personally...
Am I misunderstanding your words and disposition?
Generally those who hold to a reformed grace (Calvinistic/Lutheran) position have historically also held fast to penal substitution, whereas others do not find the scriptures to teach either... do you feel it incumbent upon you to or compelled by the love of Christ to make an issue out of such things?
At the end of the day all we can really do (that's profitable) is to state our position and (if need be) why we hold to that position all while prayerfully and patiently persuading those whom oppose. Perhaps, in some cases, an individual just isn't "there" yet and we must give grace lest we fall into sin and cause another to stumble... Our Lord had strong words for those whom did so-
| 2017/4/2 16:29||Profile|
| Re: |
Many people object to the idea of penal satisfaction. Some accuse us of painting God in a negative light, as consumed with anger rather than filled with love. They assume that God can simply forgive us because He loves us unconditionally. But, they fail to realize that God is not obligated to forgive sin. He would be perfectly just to condemn all human beings for their sins. Moreover, they fail to realize that these righteous standards find their source in the very nature of God, who is inherently good and just. In other words, He acts in accordance with what He is. Since He is good, He must uphold what is good. Since He is just, He must uphold justice (Dt 32:4, Ps 11:7, Is 61:8, Heb 2:2). In fact, if He overlooked evil, He would cease to be good. If He overlooked injustice or the sins of human beings, He would cease to be just (Pr 17:15, Rm 3:4, Ps 92:15, Rev 16:7). That is why the atoning sacrifice of Jesus is so important. It was the only way to satisfy the demands of God’s righteousness while showing mercy to His people (Rm 3:21-26). God can now reckon those who are in Christ as righteous because He is satisfied with the obedience and substitutionary sacrifice of His Servant, Jesus Christ (Is 52:13, 53:10-11). It was the only way to satisfy God’s justice. In fact, Donald Macleod correctly stated that if the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was not necessary, it could never be an act of divine love, nor could it reveal the righteousness of God. For example, the moral influence theory makes the sacrifice of Christ superfluous and thus undermines the idea that it was an act of love. But, the truth is that because sin inherently deserves condemnation and because there was no other way to satisfy God’s righteous requirements without condemning every human being, we can affirm that the sacrifice of Christ is both the ultimate act of God’s love towards His people and the display of God’s righteousness (Rm 1:17, 1 Jn 3:16, 4:10).
John Murray has also pointed out the contrast between this doctrine and the Roman Catholic teaching that the work of Christ “does not relieve the faithful of the necessity of making satisfaction for sins which they have committed” after their baptism. Murray answered that there is no penal liability left for the believer because the satisfaction that Christ achieved by His active and passive obedience is perfect and final. Turretin held the same position and affirmed that Christ both removed our sins by His sacrifice and fulfilled the righteous requirements of God’s law on our behalf. This is not a denial of the fact that God still chastens believers for their sins (Heb 12:5-10). But we recognize that God disciplines believers as His children, rather than as those who are still under the condemnation of the law because of their sins (Rm 8:1). In fact, the Scriptures teach us that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was sufficient to atone for the sins of His people. Unlike the sacrifices of the Old Testament which could never fully satisfy God’s justice or remove the sins of His people, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was enough to cover the sins of God’s elect because it completely satisfied His justice, being sufficient to justify their forgiveness and account them as righteous (Heb 1:3, 9:12, 25-28, 10:1-14).
| 2017/4/2 16:33||Profile|
| Re: |
...We know more today about the atonement than the early Christians did and we now have the canon of the NT which is somewhat large and to be known cannot be casually studied. Nailing down a message in its specifics and comparing the relevant ppassages is an attempt to understand the words God would have you use..
...We have a large NT canon today which the early church didn't have. Thus more study and comparison of passages is required. How that serves to nullify the power of God in gospel presentations is a mystery to me. But to each his own...
So we have a more comprehensive New Testament than the early church had. We can do more study and exegesis. Yet we cannot walk in the power at the first century church had.
For that matter, with all of our commentaries and theologies and systematic expositions we have less Holy Ghost power then the church in North Korea has.
We have the theology. But we lack the Holy Spirit.
| 2017/4/2 18:29|
| Re: |
But then are not these same theologians who do the exegesis of scripture who tell us that the Holy Ghost does not move in apostolic power as he did in the first century. And why does he not move in such apostolic power in this day and age in America. Because we have the canon of scripture.
Something wrong with this picture? And I pose a question that I have repeatedly posted in this forum. If God is not moving as he did in the first century church because we have the canon of scripture. Then why are Muslims having dreams and visions of the Lord Jesus Christ and following him, some even unto death?
Does anyone have the courage to address this question?
| 2017/4/2 18:37|
| Re: docs|
Meanwhile, I remain supportive of sola scriptura.
And I maintain the bible is useful for instruction reproof rebuke, etc. but it is not the binding word of God on my life, Christ is. Christ died to be All in All, not for the bible.
Protestants, (Of which sadly I am one) will have to answer hard for missing what is in front of their faces and mistaking the written word for the Living Word and for not seeing the bible for what it is because they've been taught that to believe it is anything less than 100% the very word of God is heretical. So by fear they cling to it. Christ and the bible have been exchanged in the heart. I read my bible daily but if it disappeared I'd be okay because it's not Christ, it points to Him who is All in All!
| 2017/4/2 18:51||Profile|
| Re: |
/But then are not these same theologians who do the exegesis of scripture who tell us that the Holy Ghost does not move in apostolic power as he did in the first century./
No, not at all. Who are the "same theologians" you speak of? Some have told us what you refer to but hardly all of them! It's a one size blanket covers all assertion you make. Should we throw out all theology because of a minority?
Meanwhile, the thread is about penal substitution and why some people may not hold this view. Comments welcome in that context and subject.
| 2017/4/2 18:54||Profile|
| Re: |
...Meanwhile, the thread is about penal substitution and why some people may not hold this view. Comments welcome in that context and subject...
David respectfully. I almost want to say, who cares. Is it not enough that Paul declares in First Corinthians 15:3-4,
...For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for sins, according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day, according to the scriptures...
Was it penal, or was it otherwise? I honestly don't care. What I do care about is that Christ died for my sins. And simply I will leave it at that.
| 2017/4/2 21:05|
| Re: do or don't |
If you don't care to discuss these things, why not allow those who do to do so?
| 2017/4/2 22:03||Profile|