• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Be On Guard against false doctrine.....False Ideas on PSA considered

Status
Not open for further replies.

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
JonC,

[We HAVE to get back Scripture....not the Reformers....not what we see as "taught"....not men who "tickle our ears"....but the ACTUAL WORD OF GOD.]

You keep trying to raise this objection but in reality it is not valid
In this thread we are showing that we must get back to scripture for sure.
we have already seen that the understanding of the actual words used in scripture dictate correct doctrine.
The reformers and puritans also had scripture and the Holy Spirit.
They did not have to get back to scripture, they did not depart from it in the first place.
these links being posted concerning these key words have not been refuted

You men do not like that they are melting away the defects in your stated beliefs, so you look to pick at it...we understand that is all you can do.
Yes I did that because we do not believe what you 2 guys are saying does not mean that we don't study the scripture or we're not using the scripture or we need to get back to scripture.
No. You do give us Scripture, like "He is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole World", but then you say it means "He was the sacrifice for the sins of the elect".

By "getting back to Scripture" I mean actual Scripture ("what is written").

I have dealt with people who say Scripture does not mean sexual immorality is wrong. I've talked with Jehovah Witnesses who say their doctrine is "taught" in Scripture "when properly understood". I have Catholic friends who believe RCC doctrine is "taught" in Scripture and is its "proper understanding".

You are no different. You believe your understanding is what Scripture "teaches", is Scripture "properly understood".

But just like the JW's and the RCC, Penal Substitution Theory fails the test of "what is written" in Scripture.

Have you ever considered that God's Word may actually teach what it says?
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
No. You do give us Scripture, like "He is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole World", but then you say it means "He was the sacrifice for the sins of the elect".

By "getting back to Scripture" I mean actual Scripture ("what is written").

I have dealt with people who say Scripture does not mean sexual immorality is wrong. I've talked with Jehovah Witnesses who say their doctrine is "taught" in Scripture "when properly understood". I have Catholic friends who believe RCC doctrine is "taught" in Scripture and is its "proper understanding".

You are no different. You believe your understanding is what Scripture "teaches", is Scripture "properly understood".

But just like the JW's and the RCC, Penal Substitution Theory fails the test of "what is written" in Scripture.

Have you ever considered that God's Word may actually teach what it says?
yes I have. that is why I know you have much error.
Your ideas are off.
The only people whose sins are forgiven are the elect.The whole world does not get saved.
The whole world is not reconciled to God.
The wrath of God has not been turned away from the non elect.
You are mistaking your carnal reasoning for what scripture actually teaches,like when a JW quotes a verse and says see..scripture says the Father is greater than the Son.
so you would say...no we cannot explain it to him.
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 7 am EDT / 4 am PDT
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top