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!
No, brother. Their thoughts are not "unbiblical" but they are not scripture. You reject their ideas, and that is not necessarily a rejection of Scripture. But what we are speaking of is not revealed in Scripture. What we are speaking of are our theories of "how".
If you think that your thoughts were formulated by a careful study of Paul's language apart from presupposed thoughts and ideas and worldviews, then you are sadly mistaken. Here is your example:
Penal Substitution Theory was a refinement of Aquinas’ refinement (what I view as “divine penance”) of Anselm’s theory. Anselem’s was a “correction” of the prevailing ransom theory which held God paid a “ransom” to Satan. But Ransom Theory itself did not mean God paid a ransom to Satan. It had grown to that definition by most churches of the eleventh century (and was Origen’s view), but other’s held that view differently. It was a take on the Christus Victor (which is the most common and most historical position) motif.
Take the time, brother, to learn of the thoughts you bring into your understanding. I believe it will benefit you, not necessarily in what you accept but in the way you denounce other positions. Your view is, historically, relatively new (although aspects of that position are woven throughout history).
