JonC,
[We HAVE to get back Scripture....not the Reformers....not what we see as "taught"....not men who "tickle our ears"....but the ACTUAL WORD OF GOD.]
You keep trying to raise this objection but in reality it is not valid
In this thread we are showing that we must get back to scripture for sure.
we have already seen that the understanding of the actual words used in scripture dictate correct doctrine.
The reformers and puritans also had scripture and the Holy Spirit.
They did not have to get back to scripture, they did not depart from it in the first place.
these links being posted concerning these key words have not been refuted
You men do not like that they are melting away the defects in your stated beliefs, so you look to pick at it...we understand that is all you can do.
Yes I did that because we do not believe what you 2 guys are saying does not mean that we don't study the scripture or we're not using the scripture or we need to get back to scripture.
No. You do give us Scripture, like "He is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole World", but then you say it means "He was the
sacrifice for the sins of the elect".
By "getting back to Scripture" I mean actual Scripture ("what is written").
I have dealt with people who say Scripture does not
mean sexual immorality is wrong. I've talked with Jehovah Witnesses who say their doctrine is "taught" in Scripture "when properly understood". I have Catholic friends who believe RCC doctrine is "taught" in Scripture and is its "proper understanding".
You are no different. You believe your understanding is what Scripture "teaches", is Scripture "properly understood".
But just like the JW's and the RCC, Penal Substitution Theory fails the test of "what is written" in Scripture.
Have you ever considered that God's Word may actually teach what it says?
