Calvinism
- Thread starter John Caldwell
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How can it not be satisfied, when the work of Christ at the Cross for His people is fully complete?
The distinction is between those covered by the work of Christ by faith, and those who are not.
You know perfectly well, and if you don't, all you need to do is read your post again.
No. The quotes I gave are specifically penal. '......that He, putting off His innocency and holiness, and taking thy sinful person upon Him might bear thy sin, thy death and thy curse, and might be made a sacrifice and a curse for thee, that by these means He might deliver thee from the curse of the law.' Christ bears our sin; that is substitution. He bears our death and curse; that is penal substitution. And this is the teaching of the Bible.
Waiting on him
Well-Known Member
Well I think we shall have to agree to disagree, but thanks for your comments.
People can die in unbelief, rejecting the Saviour; they are clearly not justified by faith.
Well I think we shall have to agree to disagree, but thanks for your comments.
I read her comment while reading my WCF, about how the Word of God is the Supreme Judge. The first thought that came to my mind was "Oh, boy; me and my heresy learning all about the effectiveness of the Word of God."
Made me laugh a lot harder than I'd like to admitJustification is a very important doctrine, right?I read her comment while reading my WCF, about how the Word of God is the Supreme Judge. The first thought that came to my mind was "Oh, boy; me and my heresy learning all about the effectiveness of the Word of God."
As per the opening verses of Ephesians 2, no I did not!
Absolutely! I'd say that how you believe you are justified shows whether or not you are a Christian!
Well, exactly! this is Biblical...
I do not understand the difference some make between the "Doctrine of Penal Substitution" and "Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement". They are one in the same just as the Doctrine of Evolution is identical to the Theory of Evolution and the Ransom Doctrine and Ransom Theory are the same. Calling something a "doctrine" only means it is a teaching (it does not lend validity to the doctrine and is, IMHO, a childish distinction).
The doctrine of penal substitution states (among other things) that God gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin (reference is from Pierced for Our Transgressions, comment in parenthesis mine).
If we breeze by the definition it seems biblical, albeit generic. God did give Himself in the person of His Son to suffer the death and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty or consequence for sin. But the little words in that first make a difference.
Take your Bibles out and look a bit closer. What does Scripture say? Christ suffered on our behalf, for us, representing mankind as the “second Adam”, bore our sins in His flesh, became a curse for us, it was the will of the Father that He suffer at the hands of wicked men, the Father offered Him, He offered Himself, by His stripes we are healed. All of this is basic Christianity.
Do you see what is missing (what the doctrine of penal substitution has added)? Scripture never calls what Christ suffered a punishment suffered instead of us. Scripture never even calls what Christ suffered a punishment except it be by the estimation of “wicked men”. Not only is this idea foreign to Scripture but it is foreign to the first centuries of Christianity.
Now add in what that definition left out. Penal Substitution holds that God punished Christ over and against passages that clearly state it is an abomination for God to condemn the righteous. That is what wicked men do, not God.
Penal Substitution holds that God has to satisfy the demands of divine justice so for this reason God has to punish our sins in Christ. Again, this is absent Scripture except to condemn retributive punishment as a human wisdom to be abolished. Scholars have systematically developed the doctrine/ theory from Scripture, but it is not in Scripture itself. That is why it is both a doctrine and a theory, without distinction. Those little words matter a whole lot.
The doctrine of penal substitution states (among other things) that God gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin (reference is from Pierced for Our Transgressions, comment in parenthesis mine).
If we breeze by the definition it seems biblical, albeit generic. God did give Himself in the person of His Son to suffer the death and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty or consequence for sin. But the little words in that first make a difference.
Take your Bibles out and look a bit closer. What does Scripture say? Christ suffered on our behalf, for us, representing mankind as the “second Adam”, bore our sins in His flesh, became a curse for us, it was the will of the Father that He suffer at the hands of wicked men, the Father offered Him, He offered Himself, by His stripes we are healed. All of this is basic Christianity.
Do you see what is missing (what the doctrine of penal substitution has added)? Scripture never calls what Christ suffered a punishment suffered instead of us. Scripture never even calls what Christ suffered a punishment except it be by the estimation of “wicked men”. Not only is this idea foreign to Scripture but it is foreign to the first centuries of Christianity.
Now add in what that definition left out. Penal Substitution holds that God punished Christ over and against passages that clearly state it is an abomination for God to condemn the righteous. That is what wicked men do, not God.
Penal Substitution holds that God has to satisfy the demands of divine justice so for this reason God has to punish our sins in Christ. Again, this is absent Scripture except to condemn retributive punishment as a human wisdom to be abolished. Scholars have systematically developed the doctrine/ theory from Scripture, but it is not in Scripture itself. That is why it is both a doctrine and a theory, without distinction. Those little words matter a whole lot.
Waiting on him
Well-Known Member
Proverbs 17:15 KJV
[15] He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord.
How do I reconcile this, seeing in Romans I believe 11 time Christ has justified me ( the wicked )??
Tecarta Bible
CharismaticLady
Well-Known Member
I read her comment while reading my WCF, about how the Word of God is the Supreme Judge. The first thought that came to my mind was "Oh, boy; me and my heresy learning all about the effectiveness of the Word of God."
WCF: Chapter 6: Depravity of man. #5
5. This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.
So you say the sins you commit willful and daily are all pardoned? You say the Word of God is the Supreme Judge, and I would agree, so where do you get this false doctrine? Have you ever read Romans chapter 6, or chapter 8? Or 1 John 3?
Did he die only for some people?
John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
Anthony D'Arienzo
Well-Known Member
Jesus died a Covenant death for the elect sheep, given to Him by the Father...the seed of Abraham.
Similar threads
- Locked
