Featured Justification

You are surely welcome to your own unsubstantiated opinons regardless of what they may be.

Pardon me? Where did I every mention such in our previous discussions? I mentioned nothing but Biblical writers and scripture period! You are confusing what others may have said with me. Please don't do that.

Heretics are just as willing to die for their error as faithful are to die for those. This is hardly a ground to justify either by willingess to suffer for their faith. However, it is scriptural grounds to identify the persecutor as a heretic and part of apostate Christianity.

 

That is your pure imagination at work. I have never even read Acquinas. I tell you the truth that my views are strictly and only a result of Biblical studies - period. For example, who did I quote outside of Scripture to support anything I said? Answer - Nobody!

 

What presumption! You have concluded such views are not Biblically based by this very accusation. The views I presented were developed by the Apostle Paul and my defence of those view are restricted to him and his wording alone - Period!

This is absurd! It is found in the very typology of the Old Testament sacrifical act and langauge describing it. It is found in the Pauline words "died FOR" his people Your very accusation declares you do not believe in any Biblical basis for substitutionary atonement or that anyone who read Paul within the first century could not gather that from his own wording and study of Old Testament typology. Your accusations are simply absurd.

 

Again, you are reading into my point of agreement what is simply not there. I agreed with Martin concerning the Biblical PRINCIPLE regardless of when or to whom you may apply it.

 

In other words you are saying it is impossible to obtain such thoughts from the Biblical writers themselves and their own language? If that is the case then the thoughts of Acquinas, Owen and Gill are heretical and unbiblical according to your own reasoning behind this accusation!

You are wrong, my thoughts were formulated by a careful study of Paul's langauge. It is impossible to bring the "thoughts" of other men whom you have never read!

I refuse to interpret scripture any other way than by contextually development and defintion in accord with sound Biblical principles of interpretation. I and God alone know how I obtained my own views of Romans 3:24-5:2 and you do not. Apparently you are confessing your own method of how you obtained your views of these passages. Please don't make your experience my experience.

 

Like I told you, I discern true from false within the pages of secular history by how it conforms or does not conform to Biblical Christianity. Obviously there are things contained within secular history that I agree conforms to Biblical Christianity as opposed to things that do not. Why try to interpret my words to only one extreme?

 

In other words you are denying that terms like "penal" and "substitutionary" and "active" and "passive" are not equivilent THOUGHTS expressed in other Biblical terms such as dying "for" or "in the place of "another as visualized in the levitical sacrifices. Or that dying due to violating law is not equivilent to "penal" death? In other words, your argument rests completely on the form of words rather than their equivilent meaning to Biblical language and types? If Paul did not use these exact form of terms then he did not express his thoughts expressed in Biblical terms?

Don't you realize that language is in flux and translation and interpretation by its very nature requires the use of other forms of words to express equivalent thoughts expressed by the Hebrew and Greek terms? The very challenge of interpretation is to find the best expression in words of your own language which requires different forms than found in the Biblical text that will express it in your language.

 

You simply don't get it! Unless your native language is Greek you can't take Greek but must translate it into your native tongue which by nature requires OTHER WORD FORMS.

 

If you will honestly evaluate what I said, it is clear I was agreeing only with Martin in principle without any reference to any historical figures. Indeed, I made it abundantly clear that it was the PRINCIPLE I was agreeing with - just read what I said.

 

Hence, the implication in the word itself does not necessitate that one must borrow the thought from later theologians!!!!!