The Bearer of Sin and Guilt

[Revmitchell]

And this is disputed by @JonC and I, where?

Im sorry but this is just not an honest answer. The reason is that you have ignored the very reason I posted it. You said "Humankind tortured and hung the Saviour, Not God," in response I posted "Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. That verse directly contradicts your false and unbiblical claim. That verse clearly says that Jesus was smitten by God. Since Jesus was smitten by the Father it is clear that the events of the cross were the very actions God put into place. He did not simply allow it He designed it with His purpose. Smitten is representative of God's wrath.

He was also "pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement" all those things represent God's wrath. I know they do because they came from God directly. These are all references to Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

I Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous,.... this verse shows that the innocent suffered for the guilty. That is a direct reference to the substitutionary element of the atonement. The innocent suffered for the guilty. The entire idea of the shed blood is clear evidence of the wrath of God and the substitutionary element of the atonement. To ignore that fact is to be thick headed. It is a flat out denial of the clear and unambiguous context of scripture.

Asking where you disputed it is not a direct answer to what I posted. I never maid that claim.

 

[Revmitchell]

No, Paul said He BECAME a curse.

Not God cursed Him.

Isiah 53:4 said God did it. Further, it would be impossible for the Son of God to become a curse unless God did it. Good grief. The mental gymnastics played here is astounding.

 

[JesusFan]

Isiah 53:4 said God did it. Further, it would be impossible for the Son of God to become a curse unless God did it. Good grief. The mental gymnastics played here is astounding.

They want to get the wrath of God totally removed!

 

[Revmitchell]

They want to get the wrath of God totally removed!

Well I dont know that that is their goal but I do know that the way they are standing against it is weak at best and lacks integrity.

 

[agedman]

Im sorry but this is just not an honest answer. The reason is that you have ignored the very reason I posted it. You said "Humankind tortured and hung the Saviour, Not God," in response I posted "Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. That verse directly contradicts your false and unbiblical claim. That verse clearly says that Jesus was smitten by God. Since Jesus was smitten by the Father it is clear that the events of the cross were the very actions God put into place. He did not simply allow it He designed it with His purpose. Smitten is representative of God's wrath.

He was also "pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement" all those things represent God's wrath. I know they do because they came from God directly. These are all references to Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

I Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous,.... this verse shows that the innocent suffered for the guilty. That is a direct reference to the substitutionary element of the atonement. The innocent suffered for the guilty. The entire idea of the shed blood is clear evidence of the wrath of God and the substitutionary element of the atonement. To ignore that fact is to be thick headed. It is a flat out denial of the clear and unambiguous context of scripture.

Asking where you disputed it is not a direct answer to what I posted. I never maid that claim.

Where is there dishonesty? Is not such a claim, dishonest for it does seem that I honestly posted the supporting Scriptures

Your presentation of support of PSA is nothing more then what others have offered and as such has been without foundation. Taking from the Scriptures verses that state one thing and presenting them to be supporting what they do not is what PSA does.

No one disputes the Saviour suffered. That is not the problem with PSA.

Do you find any place in the Scriptures where there is a statement or example of members of the trinity are brutalizing one member of the trinity?

Do you find any place in the Scriptures where there is a statement of example of members of the trinity being disassociated from each other?

Do you find any place in the Scriptures where there is a statement or example of members of the trinity becoming impure and unholy?

For that is exactly what PSA ascribes.

 

[agedman]

They want to get the wrath of God totally removed!

Why not?

Is any believer under the wrath of God?

Why then would the redeemer, a full member of the trinity, ever be under the Wrath of God.

There is not a single Scripture that I have found that even alludes to God pouring His wrath out upon the Son.

Besides, if God poured out all His wrath for sin upon the Son, what does He pour out in the Revelation, Ice water?

Where in all the sacrificial offerings does God demonstrate wrath? When the offering or the one offering is not pure.

What Christ at any time impure? Did God (for Christ is God in the Flesh) become impure?

What of the Blood of Christ? Was it impure?

PSA has so many absolutely wrong presentations, I am amazed that it is even taught.

But then humanity has always blamed God rather then themselves.

 

[agedman]

Well I dont know that that is their goal but I do know that the way they are standing against it is weak at best and lacks integrity.

Weak at best?

Look at PSA for weakness.

It presents a christ that isn't god in the flesh and must suffer divine wrath.

It presents a god that is vindictive and willing to punish even himself as a member of the trinity.

It presents a view totally contrary to the parable of the keepers of the farm and the owner asking for a return on investment so he sends his own son, and THEY beat him, they kill him, they dispose of him.

It presents a contrary view of the statements of the Scriptures made by the prophets, the psalms, Peter, Paul and especially The Lord Jesus Christ.

That, is weakness.

What have JonC and I offered.

Strength from the Scriptures taken at face value showing the Satisfaction and Pleasing work of the Christ.

Strength from the Scriptures taken at face value showing the atonement of reconciliation patterned from the OT, prophesied in the OT, and lived out in the Christ of the NT.

Strength, not weakness.

PSA lacks both veracity and integrity.

 

[37818]

. . . a full member of the trinity, . . .

A nonsense statment. Trinity refers to three distinct Persons who are the one God. The Son of God is referred to as the second Person of the Trinity, who is both the Son and God.

 

[Aaron]

However, WAS the Lord guilty of sin?
Do not the Scriptures state that He took the sin yet remained sinless?

Yes of course.

Did not Peter state

24But God raised Him from the dead, releasing Him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for Him to be held in its clutches.​

​

What is the 'agony' of death? Sin. 1 Corinthians 15:56

Whose sin? Mine. Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the Tree.

If He were not the uncorruptible God, Jesus would have been consumed by the just wrath and fiery indignation of God against my sin. He would still be held by the pains of death. But He IS the uncorruptible God, and so it was not possible that He should be holden of it.

Just as the Ark could not be swallowed by the flood. The Ark was touched on everyside, and tossed about by the righteous jugdement of God upon the sin of the world, but it could not be swallowed.

The sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me: I found trouble and sorrow. Then called I upon the name of the LORD; O LORD, I beseech thee, deliver my soul. Psalm 116:3-4

Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. Acts 2:24
​

My sin was consumed. My sin was swallowed. But not my Sin Bearer.

​

It does not say Christ was cursed, but that He caused Himself to become a curse.

This is utter arbitrary revisionism.

But it makes little difference, because there is no evidence that God cursed the Son nor poured wrath out upon Him.

K. Like I said, I'm willing to concede that perhaps He didn't take your place. He took mine, though.

 

[agedman]

A nonsense statment. Trinity refers to three distinct Persons who are the one God. The Son of God is referred to as the second Person of the Trinity, who is both the Son and God.

Then it is not a nonsense statement.

How does the trinity punish one member and especially if that member is fully God?

Is God not all powerful?

The Father cannot bring punishment to the Son, it is not Scriptural and is not even humanly logical.

God doesn't beat up Himself.

Yet that is the PSA thinking that advocates present.

 

[agedman]

Yes of course.

​

What is the 'agony' of death? Sin. 1 Corinthians 15:56

Whose sin? Mine. Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the Tree.

If He were not the uncorruptible God, Jesus would have been consumed by the just wrath and fiery indignation of God against my sin. He would still be held by the pains of death. But He IS the uncorruptible God, and so it was not possible that He should be holden of it.

Just as the Ark could not be swallowed by the flood. The Ark was touched on everyside, and tossed about by the righteous jugdement of God upon the sin of the world, but it could not be swallowed.

The sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me: I found trouble and sorrow. Then called I upon the name of the LORD; O LORD, I beseech thee, deliver my soul. Psalm 116:3-4

Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. Acts 2:24
​

My sin was consumed. My sin was swallowed. But not my Sin Bearer.

From Psalm 22 we see the scene from the birth, to the garden, to the crucifixion.

9You brought me forth from the womb;
You made me secure at my mother’s breast.
10From birth I was cast upon You;
from my mother’s womb You have been my God.​

The Garden

11Be not far from me,
for trouble is near and there is no one to help.​

The trials:

12Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
13They open their jaws against me like lions that roar and maul.
​

The Crucifixion:

14I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are disjointed.
My heart is like wax;
it melts away within me.

15My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth.
You lay me in the dust of death.
16For dogs surround me;
a band of evil men encircles me;
they have pierced my hands and feet.

17I can count all my bones;
they stare and gloat over me.
18They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.​

The cry of being forsaken:

19But You, O LORD, be not far off;
O my Strength, come quickly to help me.
20Deliver my soul from the sword, my precious life from the power of wild dogs.​

Not shown in the Gospels is God's response:

21Save me from the mouth of the lion;
at the horns of the wild oxen You have answered me!

​

Where is it shown that God poured out wrath upon the Son? When God answered the Son?

This is utter arbitrary revisionism.

No Aaron, I used the amplification of the basic definition as suggested by the original language. It was not "argitrary revisionism."
And do not forget, I always, whenever I deal with the original languages desire that those who are far better than I now am to step in and correct me. I am always open to correction in these things. So, if I am wrong, then no doubt someone will examine the work and let me know. You are welcome to look for yourself.

It is a minor thing, and makes no significant change other then how He became a curse.

K. Like I said, I'm willing to concede that perhaps He didn't take your place. He took mine, though.

Substitutionary thinking can be used with a restrictive application in my opinion. However, Satisfaction is actually more accurate to the OT system and the presentation of the prophets.

My problem with substitution (have I gone through this before) is that it carries the thinking of exchange like that of goods for money. Or as that system suggests, payment made to purchase redemption. It places the redemption as some sort of bargain in which agreement between parties is made. It makes the human nothing but a pawn.

My Savior didn't bargain, and didn't pay a ransom. He is the victor, and to the victor goes the spoils.

The redemption then is by His authority and right, and the ransom is by His decree and not by some exchange of service for goods.

He owed nothing, to anyone or thing. But resolved all issues concerning the decrees of the Law against me. He didn't take my place in death, but conquered death, and sin, and the grave. I do not die because of His life living in me.

 

[Revmitchell]

Another post you failed to address. All you can say is no its not. Your arguments are weak and you do not have the capability to directly answer my posts. You obfuscate and redirect but never directly answer.

 

[JonC]

Im sorry but this is just not an honest answer. The reason is that you have ignored the very reason I posted it. You said "Humankind tortured and hung the Saviour, Not God," in response I posted "Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. That verse directly contradicts your false and unbiblical claim. That verse clearly says that Jesus was smitten by God. Since Jesus was smitten by the Father it is clear that the events of the cross were the very actions God put into place. He did not simply allow it He designed it with His purpose. Smitten is representative of God's wrath.

He was also "pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement" all those things represent God's wrath. I know they do because they came from God directly. These are all references to Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

I Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous,.... this verse shows that the innocent suffered for the guilty. That is a direct reference to the substitutionary element of the atonement. The innocent suffered for the guilty. The entire idea of the shed blood is clear evidence of the wrath of God and the substitutionary element of the atonement. To ignore that fact is to be thick headed. It is a flat out denial of the clear and unambiguous context of scripture.

Asking where you disputed it is not a direct answer to what I posted. I never maid that claim.

@agedman may have been referencing Acts (Christ's suffering and death was inflicted not by God but by the wicked....but this was according to the predetermined plan of God).

 

[agedman]

Another post you failed to address. All you can say is no its not. Your arguments are weak and you do not have the capability to directly answer my posts. You obfuscate and redirect but never directly answer.

What post are you considering that I did not respond too?

Do you have something to contribute?

Or are looking for an excuse not to address the basic issue of the threads?

Here try chewing on this tidbit and see if it doesn't stick in your gut.

In a post in one of the threads, the Vicarious atonement was mentioned. I have no particular disagreement with such presentations that agree with Scriptures such as what Peter States:

14But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear what they fear; do not be shaken.” 15But in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give a defense to everyone who asks you the reason for the hope that is in you. But respond with gentleness and respect, 16keeping a clear conscience, so that those who slander you may be put to shame by your good behavior in Christ. 17For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. 18For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit, 19in whom He also went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

In the ark a few people, only eight souls, were saved through water. 21And this water symbolizes the baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge off a clear conscience toward God—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to Him.
​

However, some take the vicarious atonement to the point that God was obliged to punish the Son. That is in error. At no place is such even portrayed, yet there are those that cling to that weak thinking. Do they not know that the Lord Jesus Christ was God in the flesh?

I have wondered if at times some must adopt this thinking of PSA for it allows the excuse not to blame themself for the crucifixion. Like Adam blaming the woman "God made" for Him, as if she were imperfect. It was God's fault. Just as The Lord's suffering wasn't because of Human sin, Human hands, Human vile actions, it was God's fault. Blame God for causing the Son of Man's suffering.

When Paul says, "You were bought with a price..." I do not disagree. But when folks run to presenting the price was some kind a payment made, that is a problem.

For the Lord made no payment as humans construct the meaning. There was no exchange of goods and services, no debt owed. He is God. He owed Nothing, and owned everything.

So what was the "price" the Paul discusses? It is that found in Colossians where it reads that the Christ is "the fullness of the God head in bodily form." That believers are "made alive in Him." and many other statements.

The price paid was that of victory, not obligation. Again, as it Paul states in Colossians:

...God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our trespasses, 14having canceled the debt ascribed to us in the decrees that stood against us. He took it away, nailing it to the cross!​

Here then is Paul's statement concerning the error of PSA theory:

15The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18And He is the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning and firstborn from among the dead, so that in all things He may have preeminence. 19For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him, 20and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through the blood of His cross.​

God had no wrath to pour out upon the Son, for according to Paul God Himself was pleased to have ALL His fullness dwell in Him. - even while making PEACE through the blood of HIS cross.

That is vicarious atonement, that totally destroys PSA thinking.

You claim I avoid, and not attend to issues.

Here is the choice. Do you make the Scriptures dominate and accept that PSA is error, or do you embrace the traditions of men as the pharisees did and reject the truth of the Scriptures.

 

[Aaron]

From Psalm 22 we see the scene from the birth, to the garden, to the crucifixion.

9You brought me forth from the womb;
You made me secure at my mother’s breast.
10From birth I was cast upon You;
from my mother’s womb You have been my God.​

The Garden

11Be not far from me,
for trouble is near and there is no one to help.​

The trials:

12Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
13They open their jaws against me like lions that roar and maul.
​

The Crucifixion:

14I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are disjointed.
My heart is like wax;
it melts away within me.

15My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth.
You lay me in the dust of death.
16For dogs surround me;
a band of evil men encircles me;
they have pierced my hands and feet.

17I can count all my bones;
they stare and gloat over me.
18They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.​

The cry of being forsaken:

19But You, O LORD, be not far off;
O my Strength, come quickly to help me.
20Deliver my soul from the sword, my precious life from the power of wild dogs.​

Not shown in the Gospels is God's response:

21Save me from the mouth of the lion;
at the horns of the wild oxen You have answered me!

​

Where is it shown that God poured out wrath upon the Son? When God answered the Son?



No Aaron, I used the amplification of the basic definition as suggested by the original language. It was not "argitrary revisionism."
And do not forget, I always, whenever I deal with the original languages desire that those who are far better than I now am to step in and correct me. I am always open to correction in these things. So, if I am wrong, then no doubt someone will examine the work and let me know. You are welcome to look for yourself.

It is a minor thing, and makes no significant change other then how He became a curse.


Substitutionary thinking can be used with a restrictive application in my opinion. However, Satisfaction is actually more accurate to the OT system and the presentation of the prophets.

My problem with substitution (have I gone through this before) is that it carries the thinking of exchange like that of goods for money. Or as that system suggests, payment made to purchase redemption. It places the redemption as some sort of bargain in which agreement between parties is made. It makes the human nothing but a pawn.

My Savior didn't bargain, and didn't pay a ransom. He is the victor, and to the victor goes the spoils.

The redemption then is by His authority and right, and the ransom is by His decree and not by some exchange of service for goods.

He owed nothing, to anyone or thing. But resolved all issues concerning the decrees of the Law against me. He didn't take my place in death, but conquered death, and sin, and the grave. I do not die because of His life living in me.

blah blah blah. You're just prattling about your feelings.

I, on the other hand, get right to the point with unimpeachable exposition firmly grounded in the texts. And you haven't answered a single point.

You also focus on only one aspect of the work of Redemption, and you refuse to consider the others eminently and equally revealed in the Scriptures.

There are many offerings in the law that instruct us about the many facets and broad scope of Christ's one offering. There are two main categories: those of a sweet savor, and those that are not.

Those that are of a sweet savor are acceptable worship, pleasing to YHWH. They are burned on the altar in the court of the Tabernacle, and rise to God as a sweet savor. These are the Burnt, the Meat, and the Peace offerings.

Those that are not of a sweet savor, are offered in confession of sin, and the offering is given for God's judgement on that sin. These are not burned on the altar, and do not rise as a sweet savor. These are taken outside the camp, far away from God's abode, and burned on the ground with its dung, the filth and stench of sin. These are the sin and trespass offerings.

You only want to see Christ as the one offering, acceptable and pleasing. But you don't want to see him as the other, submitting to the righteous judgment of YHWH.

 

[Revmitchell]

What post are you considering that I did not respond too?

Do you have something to contribute?

Or are looking for an excuse not to address the basic issue of the threads?

Here try chewing on this tidbit and see if it doesn't stick in your gut.

In a post in one of the threads, the Vicarious atonement was mentioned. I have no particular disagreement with such presentations that agree with Scriptures such as what Peter States:

14But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear what they fear; do not be shaken.” 15But in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give a defense to everyone who asks you the reason for the hope that is in you. But respond with gentleness and respect, 16keeping a clear conscience, so that those who slander you may be put to shame by your good behavior in Christ. 17For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. 18For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit, 19in whom He also went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

In the ark a few people, only eight souls, were saved through water. 21And this water symbolizes the baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge off a clear conscience toward God—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to Him.
​

However, some take the vicarious atonement to the point that God was obliged to punish the Son. That is in error. At no place is such even portrayed, yet there are those that cling to that weak thinking. Do they not know that the Lord Jesus Christ was God in the flesh?

I have wondered if at times some must adopt this thinking of PSA for it allows the excuse not to blame themself for the crucifixion. Like Adam blaming the woman "God made" for Him, as if she were imperfect. It was God's fault. Just as The Lord's suffering wasn't because of Human sin, Human hands, Human vile actions, it was God's fault. Blame God for causing the Son of Man's suffering.

When Paul says, "You were bought with a price..." I do not disagree. But when folks run to presenting the price was some kind a payment made, that is a problem.

For the Lord made no payment as humans construct the meaning. There was no exchange of goods and services, no debt owed. He is God. He owed Nothing, and owned everything.

So what was the "price" the Paul discusses? It is that found in Colossians where it reads that the Christ is "the fullness of the God head in bodily form." That believers are "made alive in Him." and many other statements.

The price paid was that of victory, not obligation. Again, as it Paul states in Colossians:

...God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our trespasses, 14having canceled the debt ascribed to us in the decrees that stood against us. He took it away, nailing it to the cross!​

Here then is Paul's statement concerning the error of PSA theory:

15The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18And He is the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning and firstborn from among the dead, so that in all things He may have preeminence. 19For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him, 20and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through the blood of His cross.​

God had no wrath to pour out upon the Son, for according to Paul God Himself was pleased to have ALL His fullness dwell in Him. - even while making PEACE through the blood of HIS cross.

That is vicarious atonement, that totally destroys PSA thinking.

You claim I avoid, and not attend to issues.

Here is the choice. Do you make the Scriptures dominate and accept that PSA is error, or do you embrace the traditions of men as the pharisees did and reject the truth of the Scriptures.

i responded directly to your claim that God didn't directly cause Jesus suffering. I used scripture that clearly refutes it. Since then you have avoided it with yet another obfuscation. Until you get the courage to respond directly to mi initial response to you false and unbiblical claim then we have nothing further to discuss. I will not play your debate tactics

 

[agedman]

@agedman may have been referencing Acts (Christ's suffering and death was inflicted not by God but by the wicked....but this was according to the predetermined plan of God).

Jon, You and I have spent considerable time pleading by use of Scripture concerning the issue(s) of the threads. Then along comes one who has not been engaged and right off start spouting nonsense and creating animosity by demeaning.

You and I consistently and constantly showed Scripture in these threads.

You and I showed consistently and constantly showed logic in these threads.

The claim by this poster is made that I don't answer to some preconceived level of that poster's approval, as if that poster has some claim to exalted standards of what is acceptable or not.

If that poster had been openly engaged and presented as others, then it would have been different, but I find no credibility in the opinions the poster spouts if there is not reasonable exchange and not a spouting of little value trite quips.

If the poster is as intellectual as one thinks one is, then that poster has the obligation to present the thinking and allow the exchange of Scriptures and views to be shared.

But, no, it would seem that poster desires a one way conversation in which he may control the narrative, and try to win the day on tactics and not Scripture.

 

[Revmitchell]

Jon, You and I have spent considerable time pleading by use of Scripture concerning the issue(s) of the threads. Then along comes one who has not been engaged and right off start spouting nonsense and creating animosity by demeaning.

You and I consistently and constantly showed Scripture in these threads.

You and I showed consistently and constantly showed logic in these threads.

The claim by this poster is made that I don't answer to some preconceived level of that poster's approval, as if that poster has some claim to exalted standards of what is acceptable or not.

If that poster had been openly engaged and presented as others, then it would have been different, but I find no credibility in the opinions the poster spouts if there is not reasonable exchange and not a spouting of little value trite quips.

If the poster is as intellectual as one thinks one is, then that poster has the obligation to present the thinking and allow the exchange of Scriptures and views to be shared.

But, no, it would seem that poster desires a one way conversation in which he may control the narrative, and try to win the day on tactics and not Scripture.

Good grief you are guilty of the exact thing you are accusing others of. You seriously need to seek Gid on your behavior.

 

[JonC]

Jon, You and I have spent considerable time pleading by use of Scripture concerning the issue(s) of the threads. Then along comes one who has not been engaged and right off start spouting nonsense and creating animosity by demeaning.

You and I consistently and constantly showed Scripture in these threads.

You and I showed consistently and constantly showed logic in these threads.

The claim by this poster is made that I don't answer to some preconceived level of that poster's approval, as if that poster has some claim to exalted standards of what is acceptable or not.

If that poster had been openly engaged and presented as others, then it would have been different, but I find no credibility in the opinions the poster spouts if there is not reasonable exchange and not a spouting of little value trite quips.

If the poster is as intellectual as one thinks one is, then that poster has the obligation to present the thinking and allow the exchange of Scriptures and views to be shared.

But, no, it would seem that poster desires a one way conversation in which he may control the narrative, and try to win the day on tactics and not Scripture.

Unfortunately that is how these threads always go.

My hope is that some may pass by and think about the role Scripture actually plays in their doctrine. Maybe some will at least re-examine their views against Scripture.

In the end, some just have too much invested in their theories and theologies. Scripture alone is foolishness to them. It is too simple.

To be fair, it was not difficult for me to realize Penal Substitution Theory was actually an addition to the Bible but it was a challenge for me to set aside my own presuppositions.

But when one does (if one does) the simplicity and perfect nature of God's redemptive plan is amazing.

 

[JonC]

Good grief you are guilty of the exact thing you are accusing others of. You seriously need to seek Gid on your behavior.

Who's Gid and why should we seek him?