Bible Study According to Caldwell

[John Caldwell]

I’ve said what needs to be said and I am bowing out of this thread. To the staff, I am sorry it came to this. We just want you to see the truth. Now, it’s up to you to see who has stood with the truth. Again, my apology to you, the staff.

It is true that I no longer affirm Penal Substitution Theory. I have been very honest and forward about my beliefs.

I believe all sides have a right to express their views without being slandered or ganged up on.

I do not know what this has to do with the OP.

 

[farouk]

I’ve said what needs to be said and I am bowing out of this thread. To the staff, I am sorry it came to this. We just want you to see the truth. Now, it’s up to you to see who has stood with the truth. Again, my apology to you, the staff.

Bowing in and bowing out is often part of the same coin....

 

[John Caldwell]

Bowing in and bowing out is often part of the same coin....

And the hokee poke.

The only issue I see is that @SovereignGrace bows in to make comments and then bows out when anyone raises their hand for a question. LOL

 

[Truth]

I am John Caldwell. Who am I? I am a Christian, just like most here. No more, no less.

Apparently this thread was a trolling effort in a personal agenda against me.

On another thread I mentioned that I believe we have to remain very close to Scripture ("what is written") when considering foundational doctrines. We all have beliefs and understandings, but the closer we get to doctrines upon which we will build other doctrines the more important it is that those "truths" actually be in the text of Scripture.

That is my belief, anyway.

So David started this thread asking me how I believe we should handle Scripture. I answered, but then David said this was designed as a trap and not a real discussion.

The issue is I was once a Calvinist. Worse - I was a Calvinistic preacher and taught Calvinism. My sin is that I no longer hold that theology.

After a sermon I was convinced I has preached my understanding (my theology) rather than God's Word. I went through my theology and while I could see how it was based on Scripture many elements were not actually in Scripture. These were foundational elements without which my view woukd not stand. Over the next couple of years of study my understanding changed.

That's it in a nutshell. I Anthony had an agenda against me, Sovereign Grace and Preacher4Truth joined and calked for support (Steve and David Taylor joined the forum to help the cause).

Please forgive my Ignorance, truly I had no clue? I was under a stupid presumption that the person in Question was some how part of Calvinism, to which I have no understanding about! I have never, and never will put on a Label of any denomination, I am merely a believer in the One that was nailed to a tree that He Created and has risen and is Alive!
Sorry! I was being kinda Sarcastic in the other post!

 

[John Caldwell]

Please forgive my Ignorance, truly I had no clue? I was under a stupid presumption that the person in Question was some how part of Calvinism, to which I have no understanding about! I have never, and never will put on a Label of any denomination, I am merely a believer in the One that was nailed to a tree that He Created and has risen and is Alive!
Sorry! I was being kinda Sarcastic in the other post!

I agree.

And Sarcasm is my second language (Southern is my 1st, English my 3rd)

 

[Enoch111]

It is true that I no longer affirm Penal Substitution Theory.

The only problem is (1) the Bible reveals Penal Substitution as a part of the finished work of Christ and (2) Calvinists are not the only ones who believe this Bible truth. So if you reject Penal Substitution, you are actually rejecting Bible truth.

Question: "What is the doctrine of penal substitution?"

Answer: In the simplest possible terms, the biblical doctrine of penal substitution holds that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross takes the place of the punishment we ought to suffer for our sins. As a result, God’s justice is satisfied, and those who accept Christ can be forgiven and reconciled to God.

The word penal means “related to punishment for offenses,” and substitution means “the act of a person taking the place of another.” So, penal substitution is the act of a person taking the punishment for someone else’s offenses. In Christian theology, Jesus Christ is the Substitute, and the punishment He took (at the cross) was ours, based on our sin (1 Peter 2:24).

According to the doctrine of penal substitution, God’s perfect justice demands some form of atonement for sin. Humanity is depraved, to such an extent that we are spiritually dead and incapable of atoning for sin in any way (Ephesians 2:1). Penal substitution means Jesus’ death on the cross propitiated, or satisfied, God’s requirement for justice. God’s mercy allows Jesus to take the punishment we deserve for our sins. As a result, Jesus’ sacrifice serves as a substitute for anyone who accepts it. In a very direct sense, Jesus is exchanged for us as the recipient of sin’s penalty.

Penal substitution is clearly taught by the Bible. In fact, much of what God did prior to Jesus’ ministry was to foreshadow this concept and present it as the purpose of the Messiah. In Genesis 3:21, God uses animal skins to cover the naked Adam and Eve. This is the first reference to a death (in this case, an animal’s) being used to cover (atone for) sin. In Exodus 12:13, God’s Spirit “passes over” the homes that are covered (atoned) by the blood of the sacrifice. God requires blood for atonement inExodus 29:41–42. The description of Messiah in Isaiah 53:4–6 says His suffering is meant to heal our wounds. The fact that the Messiah was to be “crushed for our iniquities” (verse 5) is a direct reference to penal substitution.

During and after Jesus’ ministry, penal substitution is further clarified. Jesus claims to be the “good shepherd” who lays down His life for the sheep in John 10:10. Paul, in Romans 3:25–26, explains that we have the righteousness of Christ because of the sacrifice of Christ. In 2 Corinthians 5:21, he says that the sinless Christ took on our sins. Hebrews 9:26 says that our sins were removed by the sacrifice of Christ. First Peter 3:18 plainly teaches that the righteous was substituted for the unrighteous.

What is the doctrine of penal substitution? | GotQuestions.org

Once a person departs from one Bible truth, he puts himself on the slippery slope of departing from all Bible truth.

 

[Butterfly]

I am John Caldwell. Who am I? I am a Christian, just like most here. No more, no less.

Apparently this thread was a trolling effort in a personal agenda against me.

On another thread I mentioned that I believe we have to remain very close to Scripture ("what is written") when considering foundational doctrines. We all have beliefs and understandings, but the closer we get to doctrines upon which we will build other doctrines the more important it is that those "truths" actually be in the text of Scripture.

That is my belief, anyway.

So David started this thread asking me how I believe we should handle Scripture. I answered, but then David said this was designed as a trap and not a real discussion.

The issue is I was once a Calvinist. Worse - I was a Calvinistic preacher and taught Calvinism. My sin is that I no longer hold that theology.

After a sermon I was convinced I has preached my understanding (my theology) rather than God's Word. I went through my theology and while I could see how it was based on Scripture many elements were not actually in Scripture. These were foundational elements without which my view woukd not stand. Over the next couple of years of study my understanding changed.

That's it in a nutshell. I Anthony had an agenda against me, Sovereign Grace and Preacher4Truth joined and calked for support (Steve and David Taylor joined the forum to help the cause).

Thanks for explaining John, I have been reading the ' ongoing ' threads - I had never heard of calvanist till I joined this forum. It does feel as if their is an ongoing agenda unfolding, and it seems to have unfolded on other threads as well.
Rita

 

[John Caldwell]

The only problem is (1) the Bible reveals Penal Substitution as a part of the finished work of Christ and (2) Calvinists are not the only ones who believe this Bible truth. So if you reject Penal Substitution, you are actually rejecting Bible truth.

Question: "What is the doctrine of penal substitution?"

Answer: In the simplest possible terms, the biblical doctrine of penal substitution holds that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross takes the place of the punishment we ought to suffer for our sins. As a result, God’s justice is satisfied, and those who accept Christ can be forgiven and reconciled to God.

The word penal means “related to punishment for offenses,” and substitution means “the act of a person taking the place of another.” So, penal substitution is the act of a person taking the punishment for someone else’s offenses. In Christian theology, Jesus Christ is the Substitute, and the punishment He took (at the cross) was ours, based on our sin (1 Peter 2:24).

According to the doctrine of penal substitution, God’s perfect justice demands some form of atonement for sin. Humanity is depraved, to such an extent that we are spiritually dead and incapable of atoning for sin in any way (Ephesians 2:1). Penal substitution means Jesus’ death on the cross propitiated, or satisfied, God’s requirement for justice. God’s mercy allows Jesus to take the punishment we deserve for our sins. As a result, Jesus’ sacrifice serves as a substitute for anyone who accepts it. In a very direct sense, Jesus is exchanged for us as the recipient of sin’s penalty.

Penal substitution is clearly taught by the Bible. In fact, much of what God did prior to Jesus’ ministry was to foreshadow this concept and present it as the purpose of the Messiah. In Genesis 3:21, God uses animal skins to cover the naked Adam and Eve. This is the first reference to a death (in this case, an animal’s) being used to cover (atone for) sin. In Exodus 12:13, God’s Spirit “passes over” the homes that are covered (atoned) by the blood of the sacrifice. God requires blood for atonement inExodus 29:41–42. The description of Messiah in Isaiah 53:4–6 says His suffering is meant to heal our wounds. The fact that the Messiah was to be “crushed for our iniquities” (verse 5) is a direct reference to penal substitution.

During and after Jesus’ ministry, penal substitution is further clarified. Jesus claims to be the “good shepherd” who lays down His life for the sheep in John 10:10. Paul, in Romans 3:25–26, explains that we have the righteousness of Christ because of the sacrifice of Christ. In 2 Corinthians 5:21, he says that the sinless Christ took on our sins. Hebrews 9:26 says that our sins were removed by the sacrifice of Christ. First Peter 3:18 plainly teaches that the righteous was substituted for the unrighteous.

What is the doctrine of penal substitution? | GotQuestions.org

Once a person departs from one Bible truth, he puts himself on the slippery slope of departing from all Bible truth.

Shell game.

On this thread people who advocate the Theory claim Scripture states God punished Jesus instead of punishing us to satisfy the demands of divine justice.

But when they provide Scripture they provide passages common to all Christians...passages that do not actually state the distinction Penal Substitution Theory makes.

The same is true when they try to show the Theory existed throughout history. They show where people believed Christ bore our sins and suffered for our redemption and shout "see, Penal Substitution Theory!". But what is missing is the teaching that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.

I affirm and strongly believe EVERY passage you have provided. You cannot point to even one I deny. Yet I reject Penal Substitution Theory.

That is the problem with these discussions. You have elivated Penal Substitution Theory to the place of Scripture.

Do you deny passages that state it is an abomination to God to condemn the righteous?

You have to ask why you hold the Theory - not what Scripture states but why you see the Theory implied.

We agree on the Scripture. We disagree on the presuppositions. That is what we have to discuss. We have Scripture in common.

I reject the philosophy of Penal Substitution Theory, not the passages it uses.

 

[John Caldwell]

Thanks for explaining John, I have been reading the ' ongoing ' threads - I had never heard of calvanist till I joined this forum. It does feel as if their is an ongoing agenda unfolding, and it seems to have unfolded on other threads as well.
Rita

Thanks Rita.

I am Southern Baptist by denomination. The agenda Calvinists have shown on this thread is the issue that was occurring in SBC churches. This is not all (probably not most) Calvinists. But we had some becoming pastors and once in a church implementing this same agenda. They have been called "cage staged" Calvinist and they cannot see past their theories. They have destroyed churches and caused harm to the witness of the church through disruptions and deceit. So it has been a hot topic in the past with my denomination.

When David Platt was appointed over the mission board that was something which was addressed. He seemed Calvinistic but assured the Convention he was not a Calvinist. It can be a very devisive theology, especially when held by spiritually immature Calvinists.

 

[Butterfly]

I have heard of southern baptists, but obviously they must only be in the south in the USA, I have heard of strict baptist, but they are just too extreme for me. I tend not to be denominational as such, and I get tired of all the infighting between denominations.
I have a very simple faith- what is funny is that I came to faith while hearing a sermon on Ephesians chapter one, about predestination - for me, God did call me - but that's just my testimony and how it all unfolded.........
Rita

 

[farouk]

I have heard of southern baptists, but obviously they must only be in the south in the USA, I have heard of strict baptist, but they are just too extreme for me. I tend not to be denominational as such, and I get tired of all the infighting between denominations.
I have a very simple faith- what is funny is that I came to faith while hearing a sermon on Ephesians chapter one, about predestination - for me, God did call me - but that's just my testimony and how it all unfolded.........
Rita

Strict baptists tend to be British in outlook and Reformed.

Southern baptist tend to be American; many are generally dispensational.

 

[Butterfly]

Strict baptists tend to be British in outlook and Reformed.

Southern baptist tend to be American; many are generally dispensational.

I hear the word dispensational all the time here, don't really know what it means !
I am not sure I understand what reformed means really.
Strict baptist, one of my closest friends came from this church background- they would preach hell and brimstone, have very strong views on soooooo many things, but behind closed doors were sexually abusing her - really messed up her life. Another member of the family was a peodaphile, but everyone hushed it up and he was allowed to help with the children in my church Sunday school ( I found out after I left ) he liked to have little girls sit on his lap ( one of them was my daughter ) I was so angry when I found out it had been hidden. That was an evangelical church.
Rita

 

[farouk]

I hear the word dispensational all the time here, don't really know what it means !
I am not sure I understand what reformed means really.

Dispensational refers to the distinction between the church and Israel in Scripture; and 1 Corinthians 10.32 is often used to show the extant groups of people in the world under God's governance.

Reformed does not simply refer to the Reformation, but also to an outlook which sometimes includes law-keeping; Israel is often read into New Testament passages which dispensationalists accept simply as references to the church; sometimes Reformed people will make a great deal of logical propositions well-argued from linkages with other logical propositions while sometimes the underlying Scripture basis for them will be more claimed than apparent.

 

[John Caldwell]

I hear the word dispensational all the time here, don't really know what it means !
I am not sure I understand what reformed means really.
Strict baptist, one of my closest friends came from this church background- they would preach hell and brimstone, have very strong views on soooooo many things, but behind closed doors were sexually abusing her - really messed up her life. Another member of the family was a peodaphile, but everyone hushed it up and he was allowed to help with the children in my church Sunday school ( I found out after I left ) he liked to have little girls sit on his lap ( one of them was my daughter ) I was so angry when I found out it had been hidden. That was an evangelical church.
Rita

Dispensationalism was a way of looking at how God interacts with man. It was at first limited to Calvinism but spread. Basically it views redemption history as made up of several dispensations, each with its own administrating principles.

Covenant theology is a counter view that holds divides redemption history into various covenants or covenantal relationships between God and man.

Most baptists hold neither fully (Scripture speaks of dispensations and covenants, so perhaps you could say most hold a little of both ) .

 

[John Caldwell]

I have heard of southern baptists, but obviously they must only be in the south in the USA, I have heard of strict baptist, but they are just too extreme for me. I tend not to be denominational as such, and I get tired of all the infighting between denominations.
I have a very simple faith- what is funny is that I came to faith while hearing a sermon on Ephesians chapter one, about predestination - for me, God did call me - but that's just my testimony and how it all unfolded.........
Rita

The Southern Baptists Convention (SBC) is not a governing body over churches. It is a Convention churches can choose to contribute to or leave at any time. Some are Calvinist churches, some free-will, some perhaps even Arminian. Some are dispensational others teach covenant theology, many affirm neither.

The idea is for churches to pool resources for missions (to include funding seminaries).

Their common believes are in the SBC faith and message, but even this is not prescriptive.

 

[Butterfly]

Thank you Farouk and John

 

[Enoch111]

I hear the word dispensational all the time here, don't really know what it means !

Dispensationalism is simply a method of interpreting Scripture as it is written. God's dealings with men have varied since creation, and the various covenants also reflect the various dispensations (or divine administrations). But through all that, the Gospel has always been the same, and sinners have always been justified by grace through faith.

I am not sure I understand what reformed means really.

The Reformation was essentially a return to the Scriptures and a rejection of Roman Catholicism. But the Reformers did not go completely biblical with their theology. The Gospel was changed from the Gospel of Grace to the Gospel of Sovereignty, and that totally perverted the Gospel (as seen in TULIP).

 

[farouk]

Thank you Farouk and John

YW; sometimes the definition as given are not exactly 'watertight'; often you will find ppl with a combination of views which develop as they read Scripture.

 

[Willie T]

This is a pretty simple explanation of Dispensationalism
A New Look at Dispensationalism & the Manifestation of the Sons of God – The Teaching Ministry of Bill Nugent

This is one paragraph from the site:
To set up the teaching in this article let me give you a thumbnail sketch of Dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is a method of biblical interpretation that divides the Bible into time periods of history. It is in contrast to the more traditional Covenant Theology Method of biblical interpretation. Covenant Theology views the Bible through the lens of the several covenants made between God and man.

 

[Davy]

I hear the word dispensational all the time here, don't really know what it means !
I am not sure I understand what reformed means really.
Strict baptist, one of my closest friends came from this church background- they would preach hell and brimstone, have very strong views on soooooo many things, but behind closed doors were sexually abusing her - really messed up her life. Another member of the family was a peodaphile, but everyone hushed it up and he was allowed to help with the children in my church Sunday school ( I found out after I left ) he liked to have little girls sit on his lap ( one of them was my daughter ) I was so angry when I found out it had been hidden. That was an evangelical church.
Rita

Just as what Satan tried to do in tempting our Lord Jesus in Luke 4 by adding to Scripture, likewise men's leaven doctrines do the same.

Many of you won't have all the following Scripture in your modern Bibles, but all of this is in the Greek NT Textus Receptus. That highlighted in green is what Satan added to his quote from Psalms 91...

Luke 4:9-11
9 And he brought Him to Jerusalem, and set Him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto Him, "If Thou be the Son of God, cast Thyself down from hence:
10 For it is written, 'He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee:
11 And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.'"
KJV

Satan quoted from Psalms 91 almost perfectly. Except he added that phrase "at any time" which changes the meaning of the Psalms 91:12 verse.

Men's leaven doctrines do the same things. John Nelson Darby's Dispensationalist theories included different times for the covenants and promises, and to whom they went to, but he also added some ideas not written in God's Word to his theory.

One item added was influenced by the pre-trib rapture theory he got from the Edward Irving church in 1830's Britain (Darby believed in a post-trib coming before that). Since that theory preaches a rapture of the Church prior... to the tribulation, and there is much written in the Old Testament prophets about Israel being re-established as a kingdom on earth, that posed a dilemma for the pre-trib theory. Easy fix, just separate the kingdom of Israel from Jesus' Church.

Thus Darby's Dispensationalist theory includes the false idea that after Christ's return, the kingdom of Israel will be established on earth again as written in the prophets, but Christ's Church will remain in Heaven and reign from there. Since the pre-trib rapture idea gives the Church having been raptured to Heaven prior to the tribulation, it's easy to just go ahead and keep them there throughout Christ's future thousand years reign too. But most of those ideas do not follow God's Holy Writ. It is mostly men's leaven.

Thus Dispensationalism actually, is just leaven added to Scripture, an act just like what Satan tried to do in adding a short phrase while quoting from Psalms 91.

What really is written in God's Word, is that Christ's Church is only gathered after the tribulation, by Jesus as He descends to earth, to Jerusalem, bringing the asleep saints from Heaven with Him. At that same time, those of us still alive on earth are also gathered to Him with His asleep saints, and all go to Jerusalem, on earth. Revelation 5:10 says the saints shall reign on the earth, not from Heaven.