Featured The Biblical Atonement (continued 3)

The sacrifice is sacrificed. This is not wrath (the Jews were not punishing animals).

I don't get what you miss about suffering for sins. Jesus suffered for our sins. The Just did suffer for the unjust. But, as Scripture tells us, this was not God's wrath.

 

No, it isn't. It is applied to those passages (as you can perhaps read, the Theory is foreign to biblical text).

The art you got wrong is a reliance on reformed RCC doctrine. But the RCC always approached Scripture from a pagan standpoint.

 

It is pagan for several reasons.

The RCC is pagan (and, by default, so is your reformed RCC belief)

God's design is written in Scripture.

The sacrifice never appeased God's wrath. God is not a child that can be pacified by a toy.

The sacrificial system was God passing over sins committed until the time of our redemption.

You hold a pagan faith on this issue. But to be fair, your theology is very much Roman Catholic with a few major tweaks.

I am grateful that God saved you despite your error. As you continue to study and pray....if you are studying the Bible...perhaps you also will be led to a fuller understanding of the Cross.

As it stands, we are equally saved, you just do not grasp that salvation unto which you were called. You should abandon reformed RCC faith and stick to God's Word. Stop trying to connect dots and fill in blanks. Stop looking for progressive revelation via the Reformers. Stop replacing the Pope with teachers you choose to follow.

And then mature in Christ, gain spiritual understanding. You cannot reform RCC doctrine, for a little leaven leaves the whole.

 

Yes.

I once believed as you - held and taught Penal Substitution Theory. I was a Calvinist, but as I matured and grew I left the errors behind - moved on to the meat of the Word.

God led me to reexamine my understanding via Scripture (something we should continually do).

I realized quickly that Penal Substitution Theory is not actually in the text of Scripture. The next question was whether God's Word made sense....did Scripture need our theories. I have come to see it doesn't.

I knew of the theological development of the Theory for decades. It is not a secret how Calvin worked out Penal Substitution Theory via "reforming" the teachings of Augustine and Aquinas.

Scripture says that the OT period sacrifices was God passing over sins until the New Covenant. You don't have to believe it, but that is what the Bible says. The Bible also says that God will not condemn the Just and acquit the guilty. But you don't seem to believe that either.

The Law does mean something. It shows our sin and testifies to a "better covenant".

 

I apologize for assuming you were aware of Thomas Aquinas.

The idea that Christ's death appeased God was so unChristian that Augustine declared it heresy. It is the adaptation of paganism into the Christian faith.

But what makes it wrong is not that it's neo-Christianity (reformed RCC doctrine). What makes it wrong is it fails the test of Scripture.

As you have demonstrated by your posts, Penal Substitution Theory is not in God's Word. So why do you believe it? Because you believe it is what Scripture teaches.

But what if Scripture actually means what it says? What if your idea that Scripture needs the help of the Reformers is entirely wrong?

All those here have said I and @agedman are wrong because we have restricted our understanding of the Cross to Scripture (we have rejected your additions to God's Word).

The difficulty in understanding Scripture belongs to those, like you, who reject what is written as foolishness without the addition of secular humanistic philosophy. The "wise" have been made "fools".

Just read the Bible and believe what it says. It is really perfect and complete....no need to fill in blanks, connect dots, or look for progressive revelation.

 

This thread is closed