Calvinism

Waiting on him · Oct 15, 2019

Steve Owen said:
Well stop making the distinction then and call it a doctrine, which is what it is. The reason Evolution is called a theory and not a law (never a doctrine) is scientific and nothing to do with theology. You know perfectly well that in the past you have attempted to make a difference between a 'doctrine' and a 'theory' of P.S.

But it makes no sense without Penal Substitution. You have the Father crushing the Son for no reason, and then saying to us, "See what you've made Me do!" Or you have Jesus as a sort of autistic teenager saying, "I love you so much I'm going to jump off the Golden Gate bridge for you!" To which we might answer, "That's impressive, but how would it show how much You love us?" There is no purpose behind it.
The Bible tells us that 'God set Him [Christ] forth as a propitiation [a sacrifice that turns away wrath] by His blood through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness' (Romans 3:25-26). Psalm 7:11 tells us that 'God is a just Judge; and God is angry with the wicked every day.' God's anger is not like ours which may flare up and subside in a moment. It is a righteous anger and it burns steadily against sinners. So how is God's anger propitiated? Only by the suffering and death of Christ upon the cross which satisfies His justice.

Let's go through Isaiah 53:4ff.
'Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.........' Here at once is substitution. He has made our burdens His (Matthew 8:16-17; Revelation 21:4).
'.......Yet we [emphatic pronoun] esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted......' And in this the Bible does not say we were wrong. Where we were wrong is in our understanding of why He was stricken.
'.......But He was wounded for our iniquities, the chastisement for our peace was upon Him......' we can stop there, I think. Chastisement is a penalty and He suffered it instead of us. that is penal substitution. But who is responsible for this chastisement?
Two questions:
1. Who transferred our iniquities to Christ? 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all' (v.6).
2. Who punished Him? 'Yet is pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief' (v.10). It is God the Father who has 'chastised' the Son. To chastise someone is to punish him. And God the Father has punished Christ in the place of us. Penal Substitution. the case is proved.

Two quick points which come from John Stott. We must never suppose that the Father inflicted upon the Son a punishment that He was unwilling to bear (John 10:18). Nor must we ever suppose that on the cross, the Son extracted from the Father a mercy that He was unwilling to extend (John 3:16).

Scripture teaches that God made Christ to be sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21). What does that mean? Isaiah 53:6 tells us. All our sins were laid to the account of the sinless Christ. He was personally innocent but judicially guilty. In Psalm 69, which is very clearly messianic (cf. vs 9, 21), Christ describes His sins as real (vs 5, 7, 19).
[QUITE]
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.

It is very clearly in Scripture, in Romans 3:26; 1 John 1:9. How can God be just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness? Because Christ Himself is the propitiation for our sins (1 John 2:2).[/QUOTE]
I WILL SMITE THE SHEPHERD!!

Waiting on him · Oct 15, 2019

Hebrew: נכה
Transliteration: nâkâh
Pronunciation: naw-kaw'
Definition: A primitive root; to strike (lightly or {severely} literally or figuratively): - {beat} cast {forth} {clap} give {[wounds]} X go {forward} X {indeed} {kill} make {[slaughter]} {murderer} {punish} {slaughter} slay ({-er} {-ing}) smite ({-r} {-ing}) {strike} be {stricken} (give) {stripes} X {surely} wound.
KJV Usage: smite (348x), slay (92x), kill (20x), beat (9x), slaughter (5x), stricken (3x), given (3x), wounded (3x), strike (2x), stripes (2x), misc (13x).

Smite.

Steve Owen · Oct 15, 2019

CharismaticLady said:
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?

Baptist 1689 Confession. The WCF is similar.
Saving repentance is an evangelical grace [Zech. 12:10; Acts 11:18] by which a person is made to feel, by the Holy Spirit, the manifold evil of his sin, and being given faith in Christ, humbles himself over his sin with godly sorrow, detestation of his sin and self-abhorrence [Ezek. 36:31; 2 Cor. 7:11] In such repentance the person also prays for pardon and strength of grace, and has a purpose and endeavour , by supplies of the Spirit's power, to walk before God and to totally please Him in all things [Psalms 119:6, 128]

John Caldwell · Oct 15, 2019

Steve Owen said:
Well stop making the distinction then and call it a doctrine, which is what it is. The reason Evolution is called a theory and not a law (never a doctrine) is scientific and nothing to do with theology. You know perfectly well that in the past you have attempted to make a difference between a 'doctrine' and a 'theory' of P.S.

But it makes no sense without Penal Substitution. You have the Father crushing the Son for no reason, and then saying to us, "See what you've made Me do!" Or you have Jesus as a sort of autistic teenager saying, "I love you so much I'm going to jump off the Golden Gate bridge for you!" To which we might answer, "That's impressive, but how would it show how much You love us?" There is no purpose behind it.
The Bible tells us that 'God set Him [Christ] forth as a propitiation [a sacrifice that turns away wrath] by His blood through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness' (Romans 3:25-26). Psalm 7:11 tells us that 'God is a just Judge; and God is angry with the wicked every day.' God's anger is not like ours which may flare up and subside in a moment. It is a righteous anger and it burns steadily against sinners. So how is God's anger propitiated? Only by the suffering and death of Christ upon the cross which satisfies His justice.

Let's go through Isaiah 53:4ff.
'Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.........' Here at once is substitution. He has made our burdens His (Matthew 8:16-17; Revelation 21:4).
'.......Yet we [emphatic pronoun] esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted......' And in this the Bible does not say we were wrong. Where we were wrong is in our understanding of why He was stricken.
'.......But He was wounded for our iniquities, the chastisement for our peace was upon Him......' we can stop there, I think. Chastisement is a penalty and He suffered it instead of us. that is penal substitution. But who is responsible for this chastisement?
Two questions:
1. Who transferred our iniquities to Christ? 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all' (v.6).
2. Who punished Him? 'Yet is pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief' (v.10). It is God the Father who has 'chastised' the Son. To chastise someone is to punish him. And God the Father has punished Christ in the place of us. Penal Substitution. the case is proved.

Two quick points which come from John Stott. We must never suppose that the Father inflicted upon the Son a punishment that He was unwilling to bear (John 10:18). Nor must we ever suppose that on the cross, the Son extracted from the Father a mercy that He was unwilling to extend (John 3:16).

Scripture teaches that God made Christ to be sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21). What does that mean? Isaiah 53:6 tells us. All our sins were laid to the account of the sinless Christ. He was personally innocent but judicially guilty. In Psalm 69, which is very clearly messianic (cf. vs 9, 21), Christ describes His sins as real (vs 5, 7, 19).
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.
It is very clearly in Scripture, in Romans 3:26; 1 John 1:9. How can God be just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness? Because Christ Himself is the propitiation for our sins (1 John 2:2).

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is a theory. It is also a doctrine.

The theories of Atonement include Ransom Theory, Moral Influence Theory, Recapitulation, Satisfaction Theory, Penal Substitution Theory, and many more.

Each of those are also doctrines. Just like the Theory of Evolution is often referred to as evolution (as a doctrine rather than a theory).

Penal Substitution Theory (or doctrine) is a Latin view falling under a broader category called Substitution (sometimes Satisfaction as it is related to Anselm's theory in its historical development).

Many who hold theories are capable of separating the facts from the theories that hold these facts together. Some are indoctrinated to a belief to the point this proves for them impossible.

John Caldwell · Oct 15, 2019

I always found it odd when Penal Substitution Theory is discussed there are always a group of people who present passages and truths that all agree upon as if it proves the theory.

For example, I do not affirm Penal Substitution Theory. I see it as a false doctrine. BUT I do believe God sent His Son as a sin offering, Christ bore our sins, became a curse for us, it is through Him we escape the wrath to come, and by His stripes we are healed.

It is interesting that some see what we agree upon as not only proof of the theory but as defining their theory UNTIL someone points out what is not actually stated in the passages. But then it never quite registers that those things are not in Scripture. It is almost like a mental block. I guess in a way it is.

There is a condition worse than blindness, and that is, seeing something that isn't there. (Thomas Hardy)

Waiting on him · Oct 15, 2019

John Caldwell said:
I always found it odd when Penal Substitution Theory is discussed there are always a group of people who present passages and truths that all agree upon as if it proves the theory.

For example, I do not affirm Penal Substitution Theory. I see it as a false doctrine. BUT I do believe God sent His Son as a sin offering, Christ bore our sins, became a curse for us, it is through Him we escape the wrath to come, and by His stripes we are healed.

It is interesting that some see what we agree upon as not only proof of the theory but as defining their theory UNTIL someone points out what is not actually stated in the passages. But then it never quite registers that those things are not in Scripture. It is almost like a mental block. I guess in a way it is.

There is a condition worse than blindness, and that is, seeing something that isn't there. (Thomas Hardy)

Do you believe God has ever caused a man to perform His will?
I guess what I’m asking is do you believe that it’s possible that The posy that crucified Christ, could it be possible that the Lord Of Hosts crucified Christ through the hands of these men?
Or would you say God only allows Himself too co labor with regenerated men?

John Caldwell · Oct 15, 2019

Waiting on him said:
Do you believe God has ever caused a man to perform His will?
I guess what I’m asking is do you believe that it’s possible that The posy that crucified Christ, could it be possible that the Lord Of Hosts crucified Christ through the hands of these men?
Or would you say God only allows Himself too co labor with regenerated men?

I don't. In Acts the act of crucifying Christ is considered evil done by wicked men, yet it was God's will it be accomplished.

Insofar as the philosophy of the will, I am lean towards compatiblism, not in terms of soft determinism but in that I believe God is not man (we cannot work with God's will as if God is no more than man). God is eternal and immutable. We can only know God in Christ. So the question (to me) is faulty (like asking if God can make a square circle).

Enoch111 · Oct 15, 2019

John Caldwell said:
The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is a theory. It is also a doctrine.

A doctrine cannot be a theory and a theory cannot be a doctrine. So you should make up your mind. On one hand you deny penal substitution, and in the same breath you affirm it. And it is obvious that you are more focused on theological jargon rather than Bible truth. Looks like you have been indoctrinated also. So let's stick to Bible facts and leave all the jargon behind.

Willie T · Oct 15, 2019

Enoch111 said:
A doctrine cannot be a theory and a theory cannot be a doctrine. So you should make up your mind. One one hand you deny penal substitution, and in the same breath you affirm it. And it is obvious that you are more focused on theological jargon rather than Bible truth. Looks like you have been indoctrinated also. So let's stick to Bible facts and leave all the jargon behind.

Did someone tell you "a doctrine" is a mandate from God? It is just "a teaching." And many "teachings" are only someone's theory. And many theories are "taught" to our college students every day.

Anthony D'Arienzo · Oct 15, 2019

Waiting on him said:
It’s very risky attributing works to God that are of the devil. In my opinion this is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

What are you talking about? That is not what the blasphemy of The Holy Spirit is.

Anthony D'Arienzo · Oct 15, 2019

CharismaticLady said:
@Mjh29 and @Anthony D'Arienzo

It seems you believe Jesus did not free us from sin, including Paul, but only freed us from the law, and its penalty.

I do not think you understand. Christians are not lawless.

Enoch111 · Oct 15, 2019

Willie T said:
Did someone tell you "a doctrine" is a mandate from God?

Actually God told both you and I (and every Christian) that a doctrine is from God -- it is a divine revelation and a teaching from God and Christ.

And Christians are to hold to sound doctrine, particularly the *Doctrine of Christ* (which includes His finished work of redemption).

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: (2 John 1:9,10)

The word *doctrine* is repeated THREE TIMES in two verses. And John was writing by divine revelation.

CharismaticLady · Oct 15, 2019

Anthony D'Arienzo said:
We are freed from the reigning power of sin and are not bound by it. You need to flee out of that Church.

Flee out of what Church? You just correctly answered my question. For some reason I thought you were Calvinist.

CharismaticLady · Oct 15, 2019

Anthony D'Arienzo said:
I do not think you understand. Christians are not lawless.

I understand perfectly.

CharismaticLady · Oct 16, 2019

Waiting on him said:
It’s very risky attributing works to God that are of the devil. In my opinion this is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

What are you talking about. It is God that frees us from sin, the devil doesn't free us from sin!

Steve Owen · Oct 16, 2019

This thread is on the subject of 'Calvinism.' Somehow, some of us have managed to move the discussion onto Penal Substitution, but it should be noted that this is not a specifically Calvinist doctrine. John and Charles Wesley were Arminian in their theology, but still upheld P.S. as this hymn by Charles shows. It is one of my favourites.

If the mods want to pull the posts on P.S. out from this thread and make them into a new one, I would have no problem with that.

Steve Owen · Oct 16, 2019

CharismaticLady said:
No, that is where you are wrong. Read John 8:34-36, and 1 John 3. Born again of the Spirit Christians do not commit willful sin, but you admitted you do everyday.

1 John 1:8-10; 2:1-2.

John Caldwell · Oct 16, 2019

Enoch111 said:
A doctrine cannot be a theory and a theory cannot be a doctrine. So you should make up your mind. On one hand you deny penal substitution, and in the same breath you affirm it. And it is obvious that you are more focused on theological jargon rather than Bible truth. Looks like you have been indoctrinated also. So let's stick to Bible facts and leave all the jargon behind.

This is simply not true. I do not think you realize the meanings of these words.

The reason Penal Substitution Theory is a theory has nothing to do with the facts it uses which are in Scripture. It has to do with how these facts are put together, the additions, interpretation, and philosophies that are present.

For example, there are no passages that says Christ experienced God's wrath, was punished by God in our place. This is theoretical and a philosophical conclusion. No passage tells us that God departed from Christ (whole several passages state this as an impossibility).

Notice in your rebuttal that you reply with a suggestion to stick to Scripture but you come up empty.

This is why Penal Substitution Theory is one theory among several. It is nit in Scripture but us systematically derived from it. It is also a doctrine, one I believe to be a false doctrine.

John Caldwell · Oct 16, 2019

Steve Owen said:
This thread is on the subject of 'Calvinism.' Somehow, some of us have managed to move the discussion onto Penal Substitution, but it should be noted that this is not a specifically Calvinist doctrine. John and Charles Wesley were Arminian in their theology, but still upheld P.S. as this hymn by Charles shows. It is one of my favourites.

If the mods want to pull the posts on P.S. out from this thread and make them into a new one, I would have no problem with that.

As the arthor of the OP, I have no problem with the Theory being discussed here. It is actually relevant to the point of the OP (it has an impact on how those who affirm the Theory and those who don't define TULIP - a point of the OP).

John Caldwell · Oct 16, 2019

Enoch111 said:
Actually God told both you and I (and every Christian) that a doctrine is from God -- it is a divine revelation and a teaching from God and Christ.

And Christians are to hold to sound doctrine, particularly the *Doctrine of Christ* (which includes His finished work of redemption).

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: (2 John 1:9,10)

The word *doctrine* is repeated THREE TIMES in two verses. And John was writing by divine revelation.

Scripture tells us to carefully examine doctrines against Scripture and that there are many doctrines that are untrue.

John Gill believed the doctrine that Michael and Jesus was one in the same. This was theoretical.

Dispensationalism began as a Calvinist doctrine. It is also a theory (it is not simply Scripture) as is Covenant theology.

Many of our eschatological doctrines (most or perhaps all) are also theories.

You need to look up the meanings of words before you choose to use them.

The question is not whether the Theory is a doctrine but if the teaching is in the Bible. It is not.

Calvinism

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Heaven Sent

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads