Search results

No Jon, you're forgetting something that the Calvinists deny. There is a condition to be met that God demands in order to benefit from the atonement for our sins. Do you remember what that condition is?

The Old Covenant with the Ten Commandments was broken by man before Moses could get down off the mountain with the tablets. The New Covenant in Christ is an everlasting Covenant that can't be broken, impossible to be broken. This New Covenant in Christ Jesus is based on His performance...

That's not the way it goes, Martin. We will disagree all the way through this. Christ is the satisfaction for the sins of all of humanity in that Christ has reconciled us to God, making it possible for salvation to take place. The fractured relationship between God and man has been mended so to...

I agree with his view in the video what "you shall surly die" means vs God "killing you" as he put it. As I see it when Adam sinned, the death sentence of spiritual death fell on Adam, this is separation from God, the fractured relationship through disobedience. The physical death would...

You have to make your points as well as I, no offence taken in that, Brother. Yes, I remember he had another view on "you shall surly die." I think he overlooks both a physical death and a spiritual death. He placed the emphasis on the physical death, I place it on the separation from God.

His views make sense to the ear but not according to Scripture. We have to go back to the Garden and see how angry God was with sin. The penalties and reality of the results and seriousness of sin. PSA agrees with what I see taking place, but that's my opinion.

I watched all of the video, Jon. He started out explaining PSA pretty much as I understand it from Scripture. He goes on to explain 7 points of difference in PSA and the Early Church Model (ECM). A lot of hair splitting with analogies taking place. I think anyone here who listens to the video...

This exceeds my expectations of what I was looking for. I'm going to read this again tomorrow before I reply. Thank you Cathode for taking the time to expand my knowledge on this document! I may not agree with some of this, but at least I have a much better understanding of it. Thanks

I'll listen to it in the morning when I'm not so tired, or maybe better said in the morning when my attention span is stronger.

Hey Cathode, glad to hear from you! Things got a little heated with Walter but I don't expect that with you. Go figure I guess, I don't know what happened to be honest. It just goes there sometimes. I would like for you to know I have the utmost respect for Mary. It's my understanding there...

I'm somewht like you, Jon, in that I don't follow the status quo of Doctrine. For example, I may very well be the only one on BB that believes a righteous man declared righteous by God can lose that righteousness, other than the Catholics. The determining factor is not what my denomination...

Jon, I'm no scholar, I'm simple minded in reading much commentary over the years and believing what I see from Scripture. I see no evidence in Scripture of anything other than penal substitution. If someone could point out the alternative from Scripture I would most certainly review it for...

I was always tolerable of those who claimed 4pt. Calvinism, but the 5 pt. make a good argument there is no such thing as a 4pt. Calvinist. I wonder if any of the Calvinists here have been involved on either side of this argument?

That's where that disagreement we have comes from, that thing called free will. Hearing, seeing a need and believing, then granted righteousness.

Contributing to hostility is only natural and all of us at one time or another have contributed to it. That's not an excuse, more like a fact. But yes, I'd like to read what you have.

That's called Hyper-Calvinism. I'm sure you've heard that before. Born-again before you ever hear the Gospel.

If anyone wants it, believes it, and accepts it, they will be born of God. That's why Christ said, "whosoever will let him come and drink of the water of life freely." But if they hear the words of the Gospel and have no hunger and thirst for righteousness as did those Pharisees, they will be...

I never rule out the possibility that I have misunderstood something. At the same time I have studied the atonement in detail and continue to try and better understand it. It will take some powerful truths from Scripture for me to see it any other way. But that's not impossible, I have been...

@JonC Doctrine is formed by Scripture interpreting Scripture, we have to be very careful in how we do that. Especially as you have noted from the beginning there is no direct Scripture confirming PSA. We have to let the Scripture tell us, and I have stated the only way I can see it interpreted.

I'm not defending my belief, I stated it's possible I could be wrong and if I am please forgive me Lord. I'm saying that its the only way I can see it. I'm open for another view but I haven't seen one that fits Scripture.