"For God SO LOVES the HUMAN RACE..."

No. I was arguing against Penal Substituton Theory and that as the primary view. for all text.

In every thread I affirmed substitutionary atonement (I said that the word "atonement" itself implies not only substitution but penal substitution). In fact, not only did I affirm substitution but I affirmed penal substitution (I agreed with MartinM that his definition of Penal Substitution was, in fact, biblidcal). We disagreed after that.

 

Sorry, Iconoclast, but you and your eisegesis (by definition)are wrong.

The problem with subjective interpretation (redefining words based on one's theology) is people can and do make words mean anything that suits them.

Scripture is God's revelation to man about God. It is God communicating to man. You may believe that the Holy Spirit redefined words so that no one but the initiated could understand them, but how is this any different from a cult?

Why do you believe that God would have an author use a word common to the people, yet give the word an entirely different meaning? What do you think it would communicate? '

For example (illustration) - Scripture states that Jesus is God. If you say that the Holy Spirit meant as "a god" then you've become a heretic. But your system of redefining words allows for this type of thing where legitimate interpretation does not.

 

I don't like it when people use "plainly obvious" because what follows is typically anything but (it's usually a way of trying to get the other guy to back down).

Given the comment "2000 years ago" MB may just be pointing out the fact that we cannot be completely certain about how the language was used at that time so we need to be careful not to get dogmatic about the grammer.

(I have not followed your conversation with MB, so that is the only part I'm addressing....I just noticed the comment)

 

No. I have an atonement that deals with ALL sin.

The difference is in how one considers the Cross. Was it a business transaction or something else (in type)...perhaps something more that appeases the Father's wrath yet people remain in their sin aoart from Christ (Judgment is given to Christ)

 

It doesn't and that would be an interesting thread (perhaps explain other views and prevent others from making the same error).

 

All sin except none.

 

That is a strange conclusion. I almost want to know your reasoning, but I suppose the answer wouldn't matter and would just be a tangent.

We are purchased with the blood of Christ. What does Scripture say "saves" us? Blood? Not exactly. Election? Not exactly. Think about it before responding.

What element, action, or decision does the Bible pull apart from the salvation of man (from God"s grace) to offer as the thing that "saves us" in and of itself?

 

I've been discouraging people from calling themselves "Joncists" much of my life.

 

Exactly!!!! The basis. But what single part of salvation saves apart from the rest (per Scripture)? Is it the blood? Is it faith? Repentance? Belief? Divine obedience? Rebirth (from above), forgiveness?

The failure of your treatment of the "other view" is an unbiblical view of Salvation accomplished as a business type transaction at the Cross isolated from the whole of salvation as offered in Scripture.

The answer is that salvation is the complete work of God from start to finish. Men are always wrong to pull it apart as if God took the "long way around".

The fact is Christ as the propitiation for the sins of the world in toto necessitates neither universal salvation nor sins for which Christ did not die. The "other view" looks to all judgment being given the Son. That is really the primary difference.