Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not this folk.Did folk achieve agreement that "Penal substitutionary atonement" is not biblical but rather a theological construct that is one of many possible constructions derived from the data present in scripture but not necessarily fully consistent with scripture's teaching?
You are in no position to declare penal substitutionary atonement a "theological construct" until you present answers to the following questions that are consistent with the text and the rest of Scripture.Did folk achieve agreement that "Penal substitutionary atonement" is not biblical but rather a theological construct that is one of many possible constructions derived from the data present in scripture but not necessarily fully consistent with scripture's teaching?
In the absence ([post=63164645]here[/post]) of an adequate explanation of the meaning of Ro 3:25-26 consistent with the text and the rest of Scripture (as done [post=63167342]here[/post]), your assertion is made in ignorance of the meaning of Ro 3:25-26, which presents penal substitutionary atonement.MoreCoffee said:You're repeating yourself.
Well, actually it was under all of them.I never really could guess what shell the peanut was under . it's not a fair game .
Most people don't realize that there are different views of the Atonement out there. Most Protestants (not all), especially Calvinists, believe in a form of Atonement called Penal Substitution. This view teaches that Jesus received the punishment the sinner deserved. Well, if the sinner deserves hellfire, then that's must be what Jesus endured in their place!
Consider the following quotes from well known Protestant (mostly Calvinist) authors:
- At 3 oclock that dark Friday afternoon, the Father turned His face away and the ancient, eternal fellowship between Father and Son was broken as divine wrath rained down like a million Soddoms and Gomorrahs. In the terror and agony of it all, Jesus cried, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? (Thabiti Anyabwile, What does it mean for the Father to Forsake the Son? Part 3)
- We should remember that Christ's suffering in His human nature, as He hung on the cross those six hours, was not primarily physical, but mental and spiritual. When He cried out, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me," He was literally suffering the pangs of hell. For that is essentially what hell is, separation from God, separation from everything that is good and desirable. Such suffering is beyond our comprehension. But since He suffered as a divine-human person, His suffering was a just equivalent for all that His people would have suffered in an eternity in hell. (Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Faith. Chapter 3.)
- The penalty of the divine law is said to be eternal death. Therefore if Christ suffered the penalty of the law He must have suffered death eternal; or, as others say, He must have endured the same kind of sufferings as those who are cast off from God and die eternally are called upon to suffer. (Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Vol. 2, Part 3, Ch 6, Sec 3)
- So then, gaze at the heavenly picture of Christ, who descended into hell for your sake and was forsaken by God as one eternally damned when he spoke the words on the cross, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani! - My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? In that picture your hell is defeated and your uncertain election is made sure. (Luther, Martin. Treatise on Preparing to Die.)
- What prevents us from seeing God is our heart. Our impurity. But Jesus had no impurity. And Thomas said He was pure in heart. So obviously He had some, some experience of the beauty of the Father. Until that moment that my sin was placed upon Him. And the one who was pure was pure no more. And God cursed Him. It was if there was a cry from Heaven excuse my language but I can be no more accurate than to say it was as if Jesus heard the words 'God damn you', because that's what it meant to be cursed, to be damned, to be under the anathema of the Father. As I said I don't understand that, but I know that it's true. (R.C. Sproul. Together for the Gospel. April 17, 2008. Louisville, KY. Session V - The Curse Motif of the Atonement. Minute 55:01)
There are more quotes like this, but this should be enough to get people to stop and realize what exactly is being said.
- Hell is all about echoing faintly the glory of Calvary. That's the meaning of hell in this room right now. To help you feel in some emotional measure the magnificence of what Christ did for you when he bore not only your eternal suffering, but millions of people's eternal suffering when His Father put our curse on Him. What a Saviour is echoed in the flames of hell. So that's what I mean when I say hell is an echo of the glory of God, and an echo of the Savior's sufferings, and therefore an echo of the infinite love of God for our souls. (John Piper. Resolved Conference 2008. Session 8 The Echo and Insufficiency of Hell. Min 40:00)
Now the big question is: Does the Bible EVER say that Jesus endured the Wrath of the Father? NO! It is unbiblical and even blasphemy to suggest Jesus suffered the Father's Wrath. Look high, look low, and you'll NEVER find this taught in Scripture.
To understand the heart of salvation, THE CROSS, one must actually study the Bible on the matter and not blindly follow theologians:
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/07/atonement-according-to-scripture-more.htmlhttp://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/07/atonement-according-to-scripture-more.htmlhttp://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/07/atonement-according-to-scripture-more.html
Well, actually it was under all of them.
Penal substitutionary atonement includes Jesus dying as a ransom (Mt 20:28; 1Ti 2:6; Heb 9:15) for the satisfaction (propitiation) of God's justice.
So the "Protestant view" of the cross is not wrong, it is the Scriptural view of Ro 3:25-26.
What's pretty much the Bible's teaching? Penal Substitution? If so, then kindly show a few texts plainly showing the Father poured His Wrath out on Jesus.
I'm curious to see if Protestants really are faithful to that Sola Scriptura thing
Know what else teaches "Sola scripture"? The bible:
Revelation 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll.
Revelation 22:19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.
Know what else teaches "Sola scripture"? The bible:
Revelation 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll.
Revelation 22:19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.
And we receive this arbitration how? (through?)Revelation 22:18-19 tell the reader not to tamper with the text of the book. Some think that book is the whole bible as they hold it in their hand. Others think, with better reasons, that the book is the book of Revelation itself. Neither interpretation can sustain the burden of the weight of sola scriptura. The verses do not teach that the bible and the bible alone is the final arbiter of doctrinal disputes. That role - the role of final arbiter - belongs to Jesus Christ. Just as the final arbiter of the meaning of Jesus' passion is Jesus Christ rather than the various theories of the atonement.
And we receive this arbitration how? (through?)
This time I got your backThrough people, the church, and in some cases through our own "spirit led" inclinations. I put that in quotes because it can be just us or it might be the Spirit really leading but it is no easy task to tell the difference.
Originally Posted by MoreCoffee
Revelation 22:18-19 tell the reader not to tamper with the text of the book. Some think that book is the whole bible as they hold it in their hand. Others think, with better reasons, that the book is the book of Revelation itself. Neither interpretation can sustain the burden of the weight of sola scriptura. The verses do not teach that the bible and the bible alone is the final arbiter of doctrinal disputes. That role - the role of final arbiter - belongs to Jesus Christ. Just as the final arbiter of the meaning of Jesus' passion is Jesus Christ rather than the various theories of the atonement.
And we receive this arbitration how? (through?)
Through people, the church, and in some cases through our own "spirit led" inclinations. I put that in quotes because it can be just us or it might be the Spirit really leading but it is no easy task to tell the difference.
This time I got your back
Fiddler on the roof - Tradition ( with subtitles ) - YouTube
Does it?But that contradicts what Jesus said about his Father
Where is this parable found in the NT?the explanation using the roman legal system was actually a parable as well .
What do you see as "the burden & weight" of sola scriptura? The reason I ask is because I see either interpretation working without destroying the other.Revelation 22:18-19 tell the reader not to tamper with the text of the book. Some think that book is the whole bible as they hold it in their hand. Others think, with better reasons, that the book is the book of Revelation itself. Neither interpretation can sustain the burden of the weight of sola scriptura. The verses do not teach that the bible and the bible alone is the final arbiter of doctrinal disputes. That role - the role of final arbiter - belongs to Jesus Christ. Just as the final arbiter of the meaning of Jesus' passion is Jesus Christ rather than the various theories of the atonement.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?