Featured Doctrine, and church membership

False. 1 Peter 3:18, ". . . For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, . . ." that is PSA.

 

everytime you show back up on this board you make the same shallow argument.

 

I have cited Scriptures which teach PSA. All you have done is denied those Scriptures. Without so much as a any rational explaination affirming the truth of those Scriptures.

Two questions. If you were to explain to others how to know God and give others the Gospel, how would you give the Gospel?

 

I studied. And searched. And investigated. And sought God’s wisdom.

Certainly, some agree, and many do not. A change of perspective does not come easily.

I supported and served in the local Baptist church until the pandemic obliged the family to isolate. Now that we are less likely to harm others, my wife and I are back to attending.

No, many do not agree with my view for they are school from their youth in PSA and are uncomfortable in turning loose of the familiar. However, there is agreement in service to the Savior and we actually have cordial jesting that occurs in bantering views.

I really am encouraging you to find a fellowship that will teach you the Scriptures and the principles of them that will guide your heart and mind in the things of Christ.

Such may very well be Baptist, or a Bible church that has Baptist teachings. Do not assume that agreement in every area will happen, but take that as a learning experience to gain insight into how others view passages.

Remember that no Scripture is discerned by only one person. If a teacher presents something that is not in line with Scripture, Paul says to consider it useless as trash, but that witch is consistent with the Scriptures cherish as pure gold.

 

Assuming you recognize the poster, why not share who you think they may have been in the past?

 

Again, I would point out that the verse also fits into other atonement theories as well.

None of the Scriptures you have offered are exclusive to PSA.

For example, stating that, “Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” secured the Ransom Theory as the only one with veracity, would be just as incorrect as any you have offered as “proof” the PSA was the correct one.

History proves the early church did not use the PSA, and that is factual. What they did use was somewhat of a blend in the victorious and ransom thinking. Again, ransom was not from payment owed, but rescue from. Remember Paul encouraged believer to remember the former ways and the rescue from them.

For example, the person is rescued (ransomed) from the market of slavery, removed from the market never to be sold into slavery again, endowed with the garments of the family, given a choice position as adopted into the family of eternal life. All accomplished by the work of the Father, through the Son, and by the Holy Spirit.

The early church greeting was, “He lives.” The response by the believer, “He lives indeed.” We still use that today.

A victorious Christ.

 

A victorious Christ is not in denial by PSA doctrine. Nether is of which are theory but are in fact. Without PSA there would no salvation at all.

 

Then how were people saved prior to Martin Luther? He was the early founder of that thinking. It came from his lawyer training as well as the Roman Catholic background of God needing some penitence. Luther agreed with and taught theology but not the purchase of indulgences. He sought to reform the RC, not withdraw from it, until it became impossible to do other.

I do not know why you cling to PSA with fervor, but I remind you that all views of atonement and presentations are theory and not considered as fact. As theoretically based, they must continually undergo examination and even rejection when the teaching of that theory becomes laced with inaccurate information.

I pointed out some inaccuracies in this thread.

Here is a quick review:

To deny Christ suffered is wrong, but to consider He suffered more than any other is also wrong.

To deny God was pleased with the suffering is wrong, but to teach that God actually did punish the Son is also wrong.

To deny blood was shed for sins of the whole creation is wrong, but to think that the cross was the only place the blood was shed for sins is also wrong.

To see the Christ abandoned because the Father cannot look upon sin is wrong, but to think the Father did not withhold support of the Son is also wrong.

And the list could go on.

I have listened to many who in their zealousness in preaching wax eloquently about the cross attempting to portray the scene as if it were a single outstanding event in the history of that time. To the common person of that day, it was just as attention getting as the commission of the death penalty upon a prisoner, today. People assuming the justice served.

It is the resurrection that is the startling event that turned the people into greater awareness, as Peter’s message at Pentecost validates.

22Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

25For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:

26Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:

27Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

28Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.

30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

…​

 

As I skimmed this thread, I was sad to see how the discussion swerved this way and that.

You seemed to object to "Atonement doctrine" which included Penal Substitution Atonement. Some translations of the New Testament have the English word "atonement" at Romans 5:11. This same word in various forms also appears in three other verses (Romans 11:15, 2 Corinthians 5:18 and 2 Corinthians 5:19. Reconciliation refers to the process of mending discord in a relationship. Thus when God places an individual into Christ spiritually, and they undergo the washing of regeneration, they are reconciled. So one way to understand the doctrine of atonement (at-one-ment) is God's action to transfer a sinner from the domain of darkness into the kingdom of His Son.

However, many conflate what Christ accomplished on the cross, dying as a ransom for all (every human but Jesus). And thus discussions become a muddle.

Best wishes on your question

 

Idiotic question. The New Testament. 1 John 5:9. . . .

 

Not in light of your posting concerning PSA. The theory wasn’t invented until Martin Luther and then John Calvin (also originally educated as a layer) picked up the thinking.

Prior, there was no theory of PSA.

There were other theories, for example Anselm’s satisfaction theory (which was used as the springboard for PSA) as well as Ransom and Victorious Christ.

 

No.
Also, I do not differentiate between "major" and "minor" doctrines.

If I may ask, have you been Scripturally baptized ( Matthew 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11, Acts of the Apostles 8:36-38, Acts of the Apostles 10:47-48 ) since you've believed on Christ and confessed Him before men ( Romans 10:8-10 )?

I'm pretty much a "solitary Christian" in my area, except for one other brother in Christ.
But I understand your concerns.

 

I agree, for the most part, myself.
I can find nothing in the Scriptures that say that He died "in our place, and suffered what we should have suffered".

While it's an attractive and very reasonable idea from a legal standpoint, I have waffled on it for quite some time.
Ultimately, I have to confess that I do not hold to it.

To me, to do so would amount to the Father sending His Son to Hell, leaving Him there to suffer punishment until the Judgment, His own Son being judged at the Judgment ( instead of being the Judge ) in place of all whom He died for, then eternally suffering in the Lake of Fire in place of those that He has saved.

Pray the Lord would have you find a place or a people to assemble with, and commit to waiting on His timing, my friend.
Meanwhile, continue in your studies.

There's a lot in His precious book that He has to show us.

 

Neither by the blood of goats and calves,
but by his own blood
he entered in
once
into the holy place,
having obtained eternal redemption for us.
For if the blood of bulls and of goats,
and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean,
sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
How much more shall the blood of Christ,
who through the eternal Spirit
offered himself without spot to God,
purge your conscience from dead works
to serve the living God?
Hebrews 9:12-14

 

I could not go to a church that I did not agree with their position on the atonement.

 

Yes and maybe. The nature of the disagreement needs to be stated. If the disagreement in any way negates the gospel message, then the answer is no. There are certain doctrines that I will never compromise on, but I may be willing to attend a church that believes different on some doctrines if I am providentially hindered from attending a like-minded church. I stress the word attend from the previous sentence.

Let's say I have health issues that keep me from traveling to a church that I am like-minded with on most doctrinal issues. In that case I am providentially hindered from going to that church. In my immediate area is a "best of the rest" church, but I have a serious doctrinal disagreement with this church. Because this doctrinal issue is a core belief of mine, I will attend the church; support the church; and even serve in ministry, but I could not officially join the church.