1JN.2:2...A.W.Pink

[Zaatar71]

Yes, you have.

You offer passages and then your conclusion about what those passages really teach. That is by definition a theory.

To evaluate your theory you would have to explain how you get from God's words to your conclusions (something you have consistently proven unable to do). But even if you could evaluate it, it would still be a theory (it cannot be proven with the Bible as the standard).

So your theory could be right, or it could be wrong.

But since you are unable to even explain how one goes from the biblical text to your conclusions you simply claim it is not a theory at all.

But if it is not a theory then it is the biblical text.

You have already called the biblical text as a belief "foolishness".

No Johnc, once again...I like the biblical teexts, they are great. Your ideas I find to be foolishness. See the difference?

Now you are elevating your understanding to Scripture itself and yourself to the position of God.

No, Johnc Not doing that either.

You have not even done the very basic task in explaining your theory.

I do not have a theory, I have the faith once delivered to the saints as Jude spoke of. Jude said contend for the faith, not contend for the theory, maybe you missed when I offered that scripture.

You have not explained why legal justice is divine justice. You have not explained how punishing Jedus for our sins would allow us to escape punishment. You have not explained how forgiving our sins would somehow make us reconciled to God.

I just read and believe the scriptures on these matters. All the other men believe those scriptures also.

You can't because you merely believe the conclusions the men you worship gave you.


Penal Substitution Theory is far too superficial. It does nothing to reconcile God and man. It merely tries to address how God can not punish evil acts.


If you could take a step back and look, you would see the flaw. But you can't any more than a Mormon can step back and objectively look at the teachings they have been taught by their "God-given" teachers to believe.

 

[JonC]

No Johnc, once again...I like the biblical teexts, they are great. Your ideas I find to be foolishness. See the difference?


No, Johnc Not doing that either.

I do not have a theory, I have the faith once delivered to the saints as Jude spoke of. Jude said contend for the faith, not contend for the theory, maybe you missed when I offered that scripture.

I just read and believe the scriptures on these matters. All the other men believe those scriptures also.

The problem you have is your theory is not in the actual biblical text. No text states God cannot forgive sins upon repentance (several state He does), no test states Jesus experienced God's wrath (to the contrary, God glorified Him), no passage states Jesus bore our sins instead of us (again, to the contrary, the Bible says we die in our bodies because of sin).

Is there any part of your theory that is actually in the Biblical text, or is it all just man's understanding about what the Bible "really" teaches?

 

[Zaatar71]

The problem you have is your theory is not in the actual biblical text. No text states God cannot forgive sins upon repentance (several state He does), no test states Jesus experienced God's wrath (to the contrary, God glorified Him), no passage states Jesus bore our sins instead of us (again, to the contrary, the Bible says we die in our bodies because of sin).

Is there any part of your theory that is actually in the Biblical text, or is it all just man's understanding about what the Bible "really" teaches?

Millions of saints see what I see in scripture. Sorry you have not seen it yet. Who see's it your way? I have never seen any theologian see what you see. Maybe Van comes close sometime. Seriously, did anyone see what you claim?Did Charles Finney believe part of your idea? I do not remember. Who in the last 50 years has your stated beliefs?

 

[JonC]

Why are Christians even entertaining the idea that Christ's blood was shed to pay God the penalty for our sins?

Christians should be offended that Christ's blood is viewed so lightly. They should cry "heresy" and insist on Christ as actually accomplishing the reconciliation of God and man, something that goes far deeper than helping man to avoid the consequences of his behavior.

But to see they have to take a step back from theory, and they won't because their has become their tradition.

So, like @Zaatar71 , they will condemn those of us who do adhere to God's words and who believe the blood of Christ shed for us actually accomplished the reconciliation of man rather than merely making us unaccountable for our sins.

 

[JonC]

Millions of saints see what I see in scripture.

Oh...you misunderstand.

I know millions share your theory and millions are opposed to it. I do not care.

I have seen what you see, and it is not in Scripture. That is why you find it impossible to highlight it in your Bible.

You trample the blood of Christ by devaluing the cross. You teach Christ as dying do that men can escape accountability.

 

[Zaatar71]

Oh...you misunderstand.

I know millions share your theory and millions are opposed to it. I do not care.

I have seen what you see, and it is not in Scripture. That is why you find it impossible to highlight it in your Bible.

You trample the blood of Christ by devaluing the cross. You teach Christ as dying do that men can escape accountability.

Maybe you are too smart for me. I just see the scriptures and believe what I see. You with all your studying must have gone past me. I will just seek to learn me from the teachers at church.

 

[Zaatar71]

Why are Christians even entertaining the idea that Christ's blood was shed to pay God the penalty for our sins?

years ago I saw an older man on TV. He said the blood of Christ never saved anyone, then he repeated it. It was some large church, I think the man was Herbert Armstrong.Is that what you are saying??

Christians should be offended that Christ's blood is viewed so lightly. They should cry "heresy"

Why are Christians even entertaining the idea that Christ's blood was shed to pay God the penalty for our sins?
So this is a heresy???
I have only heard that other man Hebert Armstrong say this? Is that where you got this idea?

 

[JonC]

Maybe you are too smart for me. I just see the scriptures and believe what I see. You with all your studying must have gone past me. I will just seek to learn me from the teachers at church.

No, I don't not think myself smart at all.

That is where we differ. I read the Bible and believe God's words. I can take a highlighter and highlight what I believe in my Bible.

You were blessed with the intelligence to find a group of people who understood what the Bible really teaches.

If I relied on my understanding that much, given that there are all sorts of groups saying what God really teaches, who knows where I would have ended up.

God blessed you with a mind such as you do not need to lean on His words. Good for you.

But don't condemn those like me who are of lesser capabilities, who were given a lesser intellect so that we are limited to God's words.

You may pity us for our naivety, our lack of prowess when it comes to understanding what the Scriptures really teach.

You have the God-given mind to root out which teachers God has provided to tell you what the Bible really teaches. I am fully confident when you stand before God He will say "well done. You have used your intelligence and those men will make you to stand". All we have, in our mentally incapacitated stupor, to rely upon is God and His Word.

So pity us, but don't condemn us because by trusting in His Word rather than the understandings of the men you discern are the oracles of truth as He will make us to stand. He is simply enough for many of us, and His words have not yet failed so I have no reason to think they will at Judgment.

 

[JonC]

So this is a heresy???

Yes. And I don't not know Armstrong.

It is heresy because it diminishes the blood of Christ to making is not accountable for our sins. We are forgiven, but the cross is deeper than you are allowing.