Search results

The first Baptist confession of faith appeared in London in 1644, and was revised two years later. Religious tolerance was all but unknown in those days, and these early Baptists come under suspicion of being connected to the Anabaptists who had caused mayhem in the German city of Munster. The...

You didn't quote them; you linked them and I don't read links unless I can escape from their cookies. One was a critique of the book Pierced for our Trangressions, in which the author of the critique failed to reference the definition of Penal Substitution given by the authors whom he was...

[Quick stop in sermon-writing for cup of tea] With respect, I think you do. 'Surety' or 'Guarantor' has a certain meaning in Scripture which is not identical to the definition you have given. And with respect again, in a previous thread, you used the word "guarantee" which I suggested was not...

My definition of "Biblical" is that it is in the Bible.

I'm glad you have brought up the subject of Christ as "surety" and also that you have accepted my use of the word "guarantor." At some point I will start a new thread on what a 'surety' is, based on Hebrews 7:20-28, and also the O.T. uses in Genesis and Proverbs. But I have no time to write...

I am glad you agree with me. It makes all those threads about ECFs look rather silly, doesn't it? PSA is found very clearly in Scripture ("what is written"), in Romans 3:25-26 and in Isaiah 53. The Bible does not use the words "Penal Substitution" any more than it uses "Trinity" or "Supra- or...

We are just going round and round. The blood of Christ (Heb. 9:22), shed upon the cross, does indeed cleanse us from all unrighteousness - but we are not therefore perfectly righteous and still need to confess our sins (1 John 1:7-2:2). The reason that we are so cleansed is that the Lord Jesus...

PSA is both Scriptural and historical and you have not shown otherwise. That the doctrine was not called "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" in ancient times does not mean that the doctrine itself was not understood and acknowledged by the ECFs. I have posted extracts from various church fathers...

I am absolutely certain, without a shadow of a doubt that PSA did exist prior to Calvin and Luther, and on this very thread I have produced evidence to prove it. PSA is entirely Scriptural, and historical.

I want to approach this from two angles. Firstly, from a human viewpoint, I am not particularly familiar with the USA justice system, but it is not my impression that if someone commits murder, rape or some other crime and then says he is sorry, he is immediately forgiven and all charges are...

Dense, either way Let's try and find some common ground. 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.' So we can agree, can't we, that it was God, and not the devil who bruised or crushed Christ and put Him to grief? So why did God do that? Was it because He hated Christ...

Excellent post! A couple of other reasons were the suppression of pirates (by Julius Caesar) and the vastness of the Roman Empire (no borders or customs).

Hello @Alan Dale Gross, I don't have any reason to give as to why other translations give 'Servant' rather than 'Son' in Acts 3:26. Maybe someone else could give a reason. The reason for my post was simply to show that there is no textual variant for the text. I get a bit impatient with people...

The Lord Jesus experienced God's wrath AGAINST SIN. Of course He did. I think you are being intentionally (?) dense. I particularly like the Stott quotation that @DaveXR650 posted earlier. '"The cross was not a commercial bargain with the devil, let alone one which tricked and trapped him; nor...

You really don't get it, do you? Even after all this time. :rolleyes:

Proof positive that you never read my posts. I have maintained this here for almost 20 years! God's wrath is against sin and sinners, and the Lord Jesus willingly bore that wrath and paid the penalty for it in full on the cross. But He never ceased to be the beloved Son.

Heigh-ho! I'll cancel the flowers. :Frown The Lord Jesus did not suffer God's wrath at any time. He always remained the Beloved Son. And while Satan undoubtedly hated Him and sought to kill Him at various points, at the cross he had nothing to do with it, and you will find no text that says...

@DaveXR650 has given a number of excellent definitions of PSA. I have given the same definition times without number: '....that God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity.' That is all I have ever argued for. So if...

No mention of Satan once again. Just like Isaiah 53 and all the N.T. crucifixion accounts. Satan could do nothing to God's people without the permission of God (Job 1:12; 2:6; Luke 4:1; 22:31). All his power came from his being 'the accuser of our brethren, who accused them day and night...

That's another great quote! Is it Stott again?