Featured The Case for Penal Substitution

I believe that both you and jon are seriously wrong in your estimation of guaging the seriousness of these errors have with regard to the gospel. Certainly, God can use his word regardless of what spin the bearer of the gospel may put on it. He can take the reading of God's word by a Catholic Priest whose entire message goes on to absolutely pervert it and in spite of that perversion can empower it and save anyone he pleases hearing his word. Certainly, error does not change the state of salvation of the one propagating the error but that is not the criteria by which the seriousness of the error is to be judged.

The seriousness of the error is not determined on what God can do with His Word, or whether the error being propagated does not change the spiritual condition of the speaker/writer/teacher/preacher but the seriousness of the error is determined by the explanations, definitions and meanings being attributed biblical langauge especially when dealing with absolute doctrinal essentials as the gospel.

Nearly every "Christian" religion/denomination claims we are saved "by grace" but not every Christian denomination explains or defines "grace" in keeping with its true biblical meaning. Nearly every "Christian" religion/denomination claims to preach the gospel and uses the Biblical words that express the gospel but that does not mean their definitions and explanations actually conform to the Biblical meaning of the gospel and its language.

You cannot possibly deny the true biblical meaning of "penal" and "substitonary" atonement and claim you are preaching the true gospel of Christ! Can't be done. Redefinion, repudiation of the Biblical truth with regard to "penal" atonement is NO GOSPEL at all. Redefinition, repudiation of the Biblical truth with regard to "substionary" is NO GOSPEL at all. And to claim that the seriousness of error is ultimately determined or guaged on whether or not God can still use the biblical language to save and/or because the wrong explanation, wrong meanings, repudiation of those truths does not unsave the person teaching/preaching is completely ludricrous.

It is not the words but the meaning and explanations attached to Biblical words that determines the seriousness of the error with regard to absolute essential doctrines.

False doctrine is usually conceived by redefining pivotal words, redefining Biblical lines of distinction or by making absolutes into relatives and/or transforming finalities into transitions

 

IMHO, The gospel is PSA, also God created/made man like this:

What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels;
And Jehovah Elohim formed Man, dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Man became a living soul.
for the soul of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh;
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

Because before the foundation of the world God had foreordained the Christ as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, was, by his precious blood, going to redeem man from sin and death.

Before the foundation of the world, the Son of God was going to be manifested in the flesh, conceived out of spirit, brought forth by the virgin woman, born under the law, as the Son of Man, made a little lower than the angels. God with us.The Word made flesh.

Adam was going to bring death by sin to all men.

I do not know what that does to any theories but to me it is the gospel.

 

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Even if you don't go with any said theory you should be able to articulate your view FROM SCRIPTURE giving clear reasons as to why Scripture supports your view, from Scripture.

You cannot and then expect others to do what you will not.

 

You are missing the point. Serious error is not determined by whether or not you are prepared to say a person holding that that error is outside of Christ. Serious error is determined by whether essential doctrines are robbed of the truth content regardless if they are being expressed by Biblical terms. Biblical terms robbed of Biblical content is error. Essential doctrines expressed by Biblical terms void of Biblical truth is serious error.

The infamous ETC is a prime example! ECT was based upon agreement of common Biblical language but void of Biblical truth content. Evangelicals compromised the essential truth of the gospel and adopted justification by works because they omitted the word "without" works.

In Galatians "another gospel" is defined by ADDING error to the correct verbal contents of the gospel that transform it into another gospel by which the additive error repudiates the essential "truth" of the gospel and makes it "another gospel."

In 1 Corinthians 15 another gospel is defined by SUBTRACTING essential truth from the contents of the gospel so that it becomes a "vain" object of faith.

Any view of atonement, even though it uses Biblical terms, even though it is propagated by saved people if that view is empty of the Biblical content/truth of penal satisfaction or the truth of substitution destroys the very heart of the gospel truth and is serious error.

 

Your theory failed your own test. For example, you attempted to use John 3:18 to demand a singular basis for condemnation "unbelief". What you actually did, was jerk a text out of context because in context there are a plural bases for condemnation that is not restricted to "unbelief." This is not a matter of questionable interpretation but this is the explicit and clear statement of scripture as the very next verse explicitly and clearly states "And this is the condemnation, that...." which goes on to speak of the nature of the human heart loving darkness and hating light as the underlying reason for their inability to beleive and thus the underlying cause for their condemnation. Proper exegesis demands there are at minimum three different criteria for condemnation stated in John 3:17-20. By proper exegesis I am referring to the grammar, tenses in context. There is a condemnation already existent prior to his incarnated coming (v. 18a). There is a condemnation occurring manifested by unbeleif after his coming (present tense participles - v.18b). There is condemnation due to the internal nature of the human heart (vv.19-20). That is immediate context. Overall context demands that the already existent condemnation in verse 18a has its source not with anything experientially based in the individual's believer's life but in the singular act of Adam due to his one act of disobedience - "for the judgment was by one to condemnation,
....Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;" - Rom. 5:16,18

You are forced to EXPLAIN AWAY the plain sense of scripture and deny fundementals of exegesis or else your whole theory collapses due to this singular truth. So, your theory collapses under the criteria of your own test.

Your theory empties the essential truths of the gospel that is necessary to actually save any sinner as your theory repudiates any necessity for "shedding blood" unto death for the remission of sins because your theory denies death is a penalization and therefore your theory denies the necessity of death for any legal satisfaction with regard to the holiness of God and remission of sins. Your theory denies the necessity of "substitionary" atonement as your theory denies any necessity for having a legal substitute to satisfy the wrath of God against sin. Your theory is a complete and utter repudiation of the "truth" of the Gospel as it completely empties the gospel of every essential necessary to actually save anyone.