Featured I know this horse is dead as dead can be....

I didn't abandon God's covenants. I also offered very little in terms of interpretation. I offered Scripture. That is why @agedman and I agreed so much. I suspect we have some disagreements in interpretation but we never get ast posting Scripture and pleading with others here to seek out God's Word.

I posted that our redemption is God's righteousness manifested apart from the law. You called that false, that it was manifested through tge law - never apart from it. But those were God's words, not mine.

Had you relied on Scripture rather than theory you eoukd have avoided that error.

 

The book I picked up is the Bible. Here is what happened:

For years I taught, believed and defended Penal Substitution Theory. This influenced my preaching as well (of course). I preached a sermon on the cross, which was well recieved. I went to bed that evening content that I had delivered an accurate account of the cross.

I woke up convicted by God that I had adulterated Scripture with Theory (specifically, with Penal Substitution Theory). It was strange as I was a Calvinust but even before that I believed the Theory. I never questioned it. I "saw" it from Genesis to Revelation. This did not make sence.

I de used to prove the Theory to myself. I expected to reinforce Penal Substitution Theory. I purchased a couple of dry erase boards and wrote every passage I could think of dealing dpecifically with Penal Substitution. Then I erased every passage that did not actually confirm the Theory.

In tge end there were no passages on the board. I realized Oenal Substitution Theory was not in the Bible and could not pass the test of Scripture (the only way it "passes" is by comparing what we think the Bible teaches to what we think the Bible teaches, which is meaningless and dubjective).

I posted this on the BB in hopes others would provide passages I had missed. I was only insulted. But between the slander and insults I realized nobody else knew of any passages that actually teach the Theory.

I believe it is important first and foremost to be biblical - to make sure our doctrines (especially doctrines that form foundations to other doctrines) pass the test of Scripture.

Penal Substitution Theory does not. Unlink other disagreements concerning interpretation, there are no actual passages that can legitimately be interpreted to support Penal Substitution Theory (you have to add and change to force Scripture to prop up the Theory).

From then on I have encouraged others to trust in God's Word, lay aside tradition and philosophy, and simply believe "what is written".

The only reason you find Scripture itself insufficient without adding what you belueve it "teaches" is the lens through which you view God and His Word. If you lay that aside you will find Scripture complete, sufficient, and perfect. It will make sence.

 

I agree with the passage. I do see Vhrist dying rot the many here. Not really Penal Substitution, per se.

 

You think wrong.

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

This means that when Jesus had revieved the vinegar (Jesus was on the cross) He said "it is finished", bowed His head and gave up the ghost (or spirit).

It does not mean that He suffered God's wrath. It does not mean that He died instead of us.

It means what it says.

To get a good picture, read Psalm 22 (in its entirety....not just pieces and parts).

 

It means exactly what it says. Christ came not to be served but to serve (or minister) He came to give His life as a ransom for many.

That is not Penal Substitution.

 

And you offer too much.

Why do you believe Scripture itself insufficient?