Featured Biblical Atonement (Part 4....but who's counting)

It's just that I see it all over the place just from scripture. I don't know why my seeing it is any less valid than you not seeing it when you read just scripture. That is one reason I'd love to know what denomination or school of thought agrees with your take on it. I don't agree with the Catholics who used to think that reading scripture on your own means you are engaging in private interpretation but when I'm reading scripture I find it very helpful as a layman to be able to take an idea I get on my own and compare it to other people's theological system or a good commentary. I find I need the assistance of others in these areas.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this idea that it isn't in scripture after 4 threads of insisting on this. I don't see how anyone could say that unless your Bible doesn't have Leviticus, Isaiah, Psalms, Romans, 1 John, Hebrews, or Revelation. You dismiss any verse that is given and you dismiss references from church history prior to the reformation. It seems funny to me when you try to make a case that it is not found in any early church writings yet you haven't shown where your theory is found anywhere ever. That should be a cause for concern.

 

Even when he denies that it was fully Inspired?

 

Does God have a wrath that must be propitiated? Did He show His wrath in the flood, in Sodom or not?

 

He is basically stating that his views trump all of the views of the Cross held by Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Hodge, Berkhof, etc, basically all Reformed and Calvinist Baptists in history!

 

Of course not. There were churches. And only in the time of Apostles was the Apostolic age.

Well, . . . just saying that does not make that so. The fact is, our New Testament is the Apostolic authority on Christ's atonement paying for our sin. Romans 5:8, ". . . Christ died for us. . . ."

 

God’s wrath is ALWAYS focused upon those who are rebellious. Anytime the Scriptures discuss, portray or prophecy concerning God’s wrath it is always toward rebellious people, unrepentant and mocking the Creator.

at what point was the Christ in rebellion? NEVER.

Christ was without sin! Absolutely NO rebellion.

That alone shows how much in error the PSA theory remains.

 

The dynamic duo somehow avoids answering that. When you cannot answer...you just say anything...like this-
I believe Jesus once entered a boat.
I believe Jesus wept.
Jesus prayed.

These are true statements, but have nothing to do with answering questions on the topic.

 

Really, iconoclast?

I thought if anyone would se through the error of PSA it would have been you.

Neither @JonC nor I have “avoided”, “denied” or “misapplied” Scriptures.

Certainly, what we have presented is dramatically and sharply in contrast to that of the PSA, but it is nevertheless based totally upon Scripture without modification of ANY passage.

We do not impose wrath we’re wrath is not mentioned, or even implied by the Scriptures.

Did you see post #56?

Is THAT post consistent with the presentation of Scriptures? If not, where is it in error?

 

Read my signature!
And what was?

 

JonC,

No....The issue is your lack of understanding, that is the cancer.

I noticed you are not interested in the truth. I noticed you evade truth. I like to help those who want truth. RM.directly identified what you are doing when he started his own thread.
He asked you for one verse that teaches the Trinity as several others have, and you did not supply that.

I am avoiding your error as it is the consequence of bad theology.
Your inability to grasp the doctrines of grace properly leaves a void that you seek to fill with this defective idea.

 

Stop right there.

Sharing our human nature has nothing to do with suffering for sin. I think you're being disingenuous on purpose. But granting you the benefit of the doubt, it means that you don't know your own sin, and the only way that could be possible is that you have a very dim view of the righteousness of God. To know God, is to know one's self.
[/QUOTE]

 

My friend... I saw that both of you have failed to answer direct questions, from MM. rm, and Aaron.
You have responded like how Roman Catholics respond.
You use the same words but offer different meanings.

 

No, he is correct. I would say you respond like JW's and Mormons. You use the biblical jargon, but the concepts you use them to describe are completely foreign to the Scriptures, and even diametrically opposed.

You even violate the use of plain language, betraying an irrationality that belies ignorance. It's a blindness. And that's giving you the benefit of the doubt.

 

I have read that God will not justify the wicked, but guess what you say He did in your case.

How about citing that standard for us.