tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16818808.post1815957183084082109..comments2023-10-16T05:20:27.672-05:00Comments on the Contender: Woodland Hills Church Has A Different GospelEJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10885830096757444438noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16818808.post-55780304890376911362012-09-27T20:50:13.619-05:002012-09-27T20:50:13.619-05:00Wow...just wow...
We're talking about an exce...Wow...just wow...<br /><br />We're talking about an excellent Bible scholar as well as a fervant-hearted pastor. We're talking about someone who has talked about a radical change of heart at the time of his conversion. <br /><br />Do you know what you're saying when you call him a heretic? You're saying his theology excludes him from the Kingdom You're saying he doesn't know Christ. <br /><br />No, I don't agree with Boyd on everything, and I think the theory of penal substitution is helpful to an extent, but it is not meant to be anything more than a tool for understanding the atonement. <br /><br />It's not found explicitly in Scripture. In fact, penal substitution, or the forensic theory of atonement, wasn't taught in the early church at all. Anselm's satisfaction theory was the closest idea before the reformation, and p.s. seems to be a derivative of that. <br /><br />Today, the neo-reformers have turned this explanation into a basic doctrine, which is a mistake. It was never intended to be more than an explanation. Check out Christus Victor, Anselm's satisfaction, and recapitulation to get a more complete view.<br /><br />So, again, penal substitution can be a helpful tool, but it is not more than a theory. Putting in the same category of doctrines as the virgin birth and bodily resurrection (in which I and Greg Boyd believe wholeheartedly, by the way) is nothing short of ridiculous. A quick read of a good systematic theology survey would tell you this much.<br /><br />Seriously, man, I admire the zeal with which you approach this material, but I would highly suggest you study the history of atonement theory on your own.Jonathanhttp://togodpraiseandglory.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16818808.post-84647176338415208572012-09-27T12:30:03.320-05:002012-09-27T12:30:03.320-05:00Thanks for your comment, Jonathan.
Since it’s be...Thanks for your comment, Jonathan. <br /><br />Since it’s been over two years since I wrote this, I took the time to go back and review it and think about it before I responded. <br /><br />First of all, I wonder if you agree with Dr. Boyd’s position and characterization of the gospel and penal substitution. I guess that you do by your description that it falls “woefully short”. Remember, it was Dr. Boyd who characterized what I believe as basically worshipping Satan. If that’s not a worthy of a charge of heresy (from his side or mine)…I’m not sure what would qualify as one. Do you agree with his straw-man characterization of the gospel and substitutionary atonement? Whether or not you believe it is a straw-man is irrelevant at this point, the question is whether you agree with the issue as Dr. Boyd framed it. <br /><br />So from Dr. Boyd’s standpoint, there can’t be fellowship in what the gospel is between him and those who believe and the bible’s teaching on penal substitution. I would make the same distinctions of orthodox/heresy as Boyd does, but he did it here in what he said, I merely responded to it. <br /><br />Secondly: To say that Dr. Boyd (or anyone else, for that matter) believes in Christ’s atonement - when the discussion is about the meaning and implications of the atonement of Christ - is a vacuous statement and means absolutely nothing. It’d be something like this: You’re a “trickle-up” economist and I’m a “trickle-down” economist, but we both believe in “economic policy” and therefore there is some unity/common bond in what we believe. That’s foolish and making that statement doesn’t actually mean anything. What he believes the atonement to be is very different than what I believe in. <br /><br />Thirdly – I’ve penal substitution into an idol? Really? Are the bodily resurrection, virgin birth, eternality, or His status as one Person in the Triune Godhead an idols as well (assuming you believe in these)? <br /><br />If I preached a message denying Jesus’ bodily resurrection, I’d not be preaching the biblical gospel of Jesus. If I preached a message denying that Jesus was born of a virgin, I’d be denying a key part of who Jesus is and how the Bible describes him and I’d not be preaching the biblical gospel of Jesus. If I preached that Jesus was not a Person in the Triune Godhead or that there infact is no Triune Godhead, I would not be preaching the biblical gospel of Jesus. These are not idols. They are discernable fundamental truths about who Jesus is and what He has done, and denying their truthfulness changes the message to such a degree that the message is no longer the biblical gospel and would be subject to separation on the Galatians divide. In the same way, Penal Substitution is not an idol and is a truth that separates people according to that Galatians divide. <br /><br />I have not said that there are not many facets to understanding what Jesus did on the cross. There are. But the denial of and disbelief in the primary one pictured in Scripture is one that Christians have – for ages – seen as heresy because of how the Scriptures describe the work of Christ. <br /><br />I’ve had very lengthy and face to face conversations with individuals who reject penal substituation and I’ve said this: to be unclear/unsure about something is one thing, but to knowingly deny it or teach against it is another. <br /><br />I stand by my label of Dr. Boyd as a heretic. His position on this issue alone is worthy of that. But other positions would also incur this status (i.e. open theism). <br /><br />Thanks for your comment, Jonathan. <br />I hope you see the truth of Christ’s substitutionary death on the cross for sinners. <br />EJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10885830096757444438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16818808.post-19757822428776654472012-09-27T10:45:32.585-05:002012-09-27T10:45:32.585-05:00You have made penal substitution itself into an id...You have made penal substitution itself into an idol, which it was never meant to be. It is a theory of atonement, one of many, that is used to help us understand the mystical reality of our being made one with Christ. Some are more valid than others, yes, but they are all just mere attempts made throughout history to explain a spiritual reality. And, of course, any human attempt to reconcile the whole thing is going to fall woefully short. Penal substitution falls woefully short.<br /><br />Greg Boyd is not a heretic. He believes in Christ's atonement. You need to be careful when you say someone preaches a different gospel. Very careful.Jonathanhttp://togodpraiseandglory.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16818808.post-8128539920689370102010-05-20T12:43:03.959-05:002010-05-20T12:43:03.959-05:00Hello masooma here i make a site where you got fre...Hello masooma here i make a site where you got free balance,calls,wallpapers, songs,softwares,onlien Chatting<br />datting and many more ...<br />Please Visit www.ispfun.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com