You can be a Christian and deny essential doctrine

Just interesting that a VAST number of theologians agree with me, and only Wright and Arminians seem to with your take!

 

I have been using the scriptures, as did all those people that I listed, and the PST has been held by a vast majority of Conservative reformed and Baptists since the Reformation, correct?

 

Again, its only mainly Arminians and those following Wright and His erroneous NPP that take your view!

 

What is astounding is you willingness to cling to a scheme irregardless of Scripture just because some notables who you might esteem as intellectually your superiors agree to that scheme.

There would never have been a reformation with that thinking.

 

My point is that those who are much more learned than I do agree that the Bible teaches that.....

 

Or were such constrained by socio/political and educational background to hold that thinking?

Thinking that because the socio/political and educational background are no longer a factor can be seen as not aligned with Scripture.

Basic to the question is the priority of Scripture. If one clings to a teaching in spite of the evidence of Scripture, then that is like the worship of icons and idols.

It is important to also recognize that Calvin followed the teaching of others more than developing his own thinking when it comes to limited atonement.

So what guarantee is that they got it right? None

 

Yes, as there are general blessings and specific ones from the Cross!

 

I have over and over again, and yet you simply refuse to accept that God treated Jesus as he will all lost sinners in the judgement while upon the Cross!

 

This is strange.

“Nothing needed added to His work.”

Yet, here is the list added:
Hearing the gospel,
Drawn by the Father,
Regenerated by the Holy Spirit,
Endowment of faith to believe...

“Be not dismayed!”

I do not disagree with a single item, nor the order given, for it is certainly Scriptural.

That which I disagree is some supposed limit of the blood including the efficiency and effectiveness.

Certainly, I can rationalize such thinking established as an attempt to placate the Arminius and the Calvinist in attempt to find unity, however, there is no Scripture support. It is at best a human endeavor that actually doesn’t need to take place.

Take the blood, as Scripture states it as given as complete, and then place redemption as the Scripture does as limited to the authority of God.

That resolves all issues of bias and continued strife under the standard of the Scripture, as the sole authority.

 

Isaiah screams that Jesus was the suffering Messiah, and that he took upon Himself the due penalty deserved by us as being law breakers.

 

Isaiah 53, which leads right into Romans and Pauline justification!

 

Is it that you believe that it would be unfair to have Jesus treated as if He was a sinner by God then?

 

I know that the Bible teaches that Jesus suffered and paid for my sin debt owed to God in my stead....