Featured Doctrine, and church membership

How does Christ victorious exclude PSA?

 

Actually, those verses support all the theories concerning the atonement.

The early church taught of the victorious Christ soon returning.

 

That Christ victorious and to suddenly return is not at issue. Was the PSA being denied? The NT atonement is not theory.

 

Not true. The NT atonement is not theory. And some of those teaches are not NT.

 

Well yes… too far away for a family home church. Are there any Primitive Baptist churches around you?

 

then you misunderstand what propitiation is

 

The early church did not teach PSA.

Certainly you recall that crucifixion and brutal interrogation were common with those thought to be criminal.

The alarming claim the early church used was the resurrection and return of the victorious Christ.

Luther, originally schooled as a lawyer, and began the thinking that God demanded punishment. It (in my opinion) was a carry over from the RC thinking in which he taught in which some penitence was demanded for sin. Luther regularly beat himself with a whip prior to his conversion.

During the early Protestant development, the thinking continued and became further developed into what is now held by many.

But it was not the early church views.

Admittedly, the early church held to a blend of victorious Christ who ransomed sinners to His purpose, however, the current presentations of ransom theory have some payment associated, yet, it seems the ancients taught more of the idea of rescuing.

Folks have continually had the thinking that God needed “satisfaction” by some form of payment or exchange. Even the ungodly cultures of the world engage in some sort of bribery to get good favor from their god. It is true that the PSA has this same thinking in mind.

The atonement of God was never depending upon ability, nor the human thinking of payment due. If it such was the thinking of God, then the second death would not be eternal but an education camp that sinners would endure to eventually work out their punishment. The ability of Christ, as presented in the OT was never in question, but always stated as fact. The same with the presentation of atonement.

The crucifixion pictured in the Revelation presents the victorious Christ taking from the hand of God the Scroll. The scene never portrayed a vengeful God, nor a God demanding retribution.

My mind is wandering and not desiring to focus so this post must seem jumbled.

I apologize for not being more definite and clear.

 

Then those churches were not NT churches.

 

No sir.

That certainly is not my problem.

Perhaps you are misinformed in your education of various theories of atonement.

They are only theories presented in attempts to encapsulate the plan of God in bringing reconciliation.

Someone clinging to a certain one and pretentiously making all others dismissed is wrong.

God gave a large volume presenting the redemption with many various aspects highlighted differently.

There is no doubt Christ suffered physically. Surprisingly, so did others, perhaps even more so, for the bones of Christ were never broken that he might suffocate. He willing Gave to the Father the care of His Spirit. There is no indication of abandonment, but of withholding support that the Son accomplish fulfillment of Scripture. He laid down his life, not in rebuke by the Father and took it up again still never rebuked by the Father. The PSA does not present without rebuke and punishment by the Father.

At no place in the OT or NT is there a statement of God punishing the Son, nor of the Son suffering by the direct hand of God.

 

Was John not the leader of the church of The Ephesians? Did not the Lord’s mother live with John there?

Look at the teaching of John and Polycarp or any one of that age.

Will you find PSA theory?

Nope!

 

PSA is not theory. Polycarp what did he write in the first century before the Revelation of Jesus Christ John wrote?

 

move never dismissed any of them. In fact I hold to I believe all of them. They are all in fact true and none are contrary to the other. Be careful of accusing others of things they never claimed.

 

The wife and I have done it several times. I am a Fundamental Baptist, she is Reformed.

The wife is TULIP

I am:
T
Conditional Election
L
Resistible Grace
P

1. We attended a Free-Will Baptist that we agreed with on the basics (Gospel, evangelizing, etc). The Pastor taught you could lose your Salvation if you specifically and verbally rejected Christ. We do not believe you can lose your Salvation, but we tithed for years. He was our favorite Pastor ever.

2. We currently attend a Reformed Baptist Church with CCM stuff. I am not a full-on Calvinist and I absolutely abhor CCM. I really, really hate it, but I suck it up and we are joined to this Church as CCM is a secondary issue and the fellowship is what Church life should be like.

3. I visit my neighbor's church once every couple months. They are Mennonites, and I happily worship and fellowship with them. I agree with a bunch of Mennonite doctrine, especially separation and technology restrictions, acapella worship, but I don't agree with Pacifism. I still support the Church when I visit. If for some reason we all lost the ability to travel in cars (EMP?) then we would attend this Church happily.

 

Sorry what is CCM?

 

Contemporary Christian Music

 

Our indy fundy Baptist church has no music at all, except when we use a CD player to play traditional hymns during certain occasions such as the foot-washing observance. We follow NO man-made doctrines of faith/worship whatsoever. We don't consider music all that important to our worship. After all, JESUS never preached about it nor performed it far as we know.