I have offered Scripture.
But not really on topic
You simply did not recognize it as Scripture (I just used quotation marks).
That said, I have not stated my view.....
No, you have not, neither have you read or replied to the scripture and links offered. Nothing saying you have too of course. many people cannot go against Prof. Murray on these matters. We notice you have not done that.
all I stated of my belief was that God is faithful to forgive those who repent (Ezekiel 18, Acts 3, 1 John 1, 2 Peter 3, . . .).
All Christians believe that, so it was not really
You have without any Scripture supporting your philosophy
Over 54 verses have been offered here supporting the biblical teaching. If you did not want to read or respond to them , that was your choice, but do not say they were not offered. They are still right here on the thread
You provided verses but then went on to state your theory which is unrelated to the verses you provided.
No, lol, you might be confusing our posts, you do that all the time...like you will say, I believe in what is written, then put up some obscure off topic verses as if you answered,lol
Bit I will give you a chance -
Provide a verse stating Jesus died instead of us.
Provide a verse stating Jesus experienced God's wrath.
Provide a verse stating that God cannot forgive sins based on repentance and belief.
These verses have been offered, but you do not believe them. If you do not want to read and react to them, that is up to you. I do not have to read through pages of your denials, we can all read them
I know you can find those things in the writings of the men
The thing is John, when I find these things in the writings of "men", these men give bunches of scripture that they expound, and you seem to avoid that for some reason.
you follow, but I do not recognize those men as the authority for my faith. Use the Bible.
Like I just said, I use the scriptures they present for the rule of faith and practice, but it looks as if you are trying to describe what "you" think I follow, rather than ask me. Do you realize you do this quite often? That is not a good thing to do!
Yes, I know both English and Greek. In both cases, both speak of Chriat.
No one has said they do not speak of Jesus as THE PROPITIATION ...you repeat yourself saying we have said otherwise, but it is just not so.
While I studied Greek at the graduate level, I am mot sure you have.
It does not seem like it, as you are missing basic words, and adding words that are not in the text.
So let's just look at the English.
In the english, you get it wrong also!
Here is the passage in question:
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Again, you add the sins of, when italics are there , those words are not in the actual text, but you know that as a greek expert!
Now, in the English language (and the Grerk) the topic is Christ as the Propitiation,
No one denies Christ is THE PROPITIATION as you try and infer.
not those who benefit from the propitiation.
This shows your lack of biblical understanding of the word propitiation. Jesus had no sin of His own, so he being the propitiation is for the elect alone, who are saving United to Christ, In saving Union with Him, as the actual propitiation.
You should have picked up on this with the first verse (we have an Advocate, who IS the Propitiation for sins).
I am the one who offered you the verse to start with, so why would you post..{ you should have picked up on it} when in fact I did!
I get that English may be your second language.
I get that you are frustrated at not quite being able to step up and answer the Murray links offered! making comments seeking to put me down, does not seem to be Christian kindness or charity now, does it?
If so, I encourage you to get a transkation in your own language.
I am not sure what a transkation is, being I do understand English!
What you did was read into the passage by making assumptions.
No, I read it with comprehension, that might be the missing piece for you!
You want it to say something ir dies not say, so you pretend it does.
No, I see what it clearly teaches, I hear pastors and Professors who can exegete the text and help confirm it! We are supposed to do that
Acts 17:11 might help you on this.
If English is your first language, and you simply struggle with the fundamental parts of the language (nouns, verbs, etc) then take the time to diagram sentences. Identify the subject, the adverbs, etc. It may help you to write them out (we had to in school).
If you have not heard proper exegesis of these texts, it might help you to listen to trained men, who can do that! Otherwise, you are drifting away from the faith by following your own understanding. Are you not worried about this?
If you your time, diagram the sentences, identify the subject, etc. it may help you keep from making such elementary mistakes.
Thanks for that helpful advice, now if you will humble yourself and listen to these gifted men expound truth, it might help you in the same way!
No, you are confused. The Apostolic Church is the church that existed during the time of the Apostles.
I know that, that is why I wrote it! I am not confused at all! You have a very active imagination!
They taught what was written in Scripture.
yes exactly, PSA, and propitiation, that is why the believing Church has believed it throughout time.
The theories you are talking about came much later.
No, you are calling the truth theories. You keep trying to erase teaching by saying it is a theory.
Anselm developed Substitution Theory which was focused on Jedus restoring the honor man robbed of God.
No one cares what he thought, it is about what does scripture teach.
Aquinas reformed Anselm's theory, replacing honor with merit.
No one cares what he did, it is about what scripture says. You are basing your ideas on the writings of men!
Aquinas want a bit more in detail. Until Aquinas nobody entertained the idea that Jesus could be punished instead of sinners.
That is your opinion!
Aquinas developed a system where (he believed) an innocent person could justly be punished insteadbof a guilty person provided both parties were willing and the punishment was not the punishment due the crime committed.
No one caes, what saith the scripture!
Calvin (a lawyer by education) reformed Aquinas' theory by replacing merit with justice, and satisfactory punishment with simple punishment.
No one cares what he said, you are quoting a man!
All three were based on Augustines error. Augustine developed what became the Catholic doctrine of sin. But this was based on the Vulgate which mistranslated "eph hō" as "in quo".
No one cares about your opinions on church history! You are welcome to them however. Thanks for offering your keen insights however!
History can be important for sure.
