Featured Continued from dead tulip

That is my point.

I am not denying that the Lord laid the iniquity of us all on Christ. I am not Denyse ng that He became sin for us. I am not denying that Christ died for us. I am not denying that the wages of sin is death.

So how do you determine that my denial of things people believe in addition to Scripture is somehow a problem?

The real problem is they do not even acknowledge their additions.

 

It is the interesting how some believe they have such a grasp on the mind of God when those like Moses, Job, Paul, John, etc. believed Him so far out of our reach (relying only on what He has revealed of Himself).

 

No, they are not. That is just one issue with your posts.

Often it takes others to see our presuppositions. But you just say I have them (I'm sure I do) without being able to identify them.

What you should do is simply state my presuppositions so that I can consider them.

No, I am able to exegete passages. I have on this forum, but also throughout seminary (they made me). In studying God's Word it is also my practice. I often write out sermons as a study method (and to have a quick reference if needed on the spot).

The issue is you often ask for me to expound on a passage that needs no explanation. Jesus wept. What does that mean? It means Jesus wept. Christ died for us. What does that mean? It means that Christ died for us.

Our disagreements have absolutely nothing to do with Scripture. What you argue is not the Bible but what you believe is taught. I think most often what is taught is what is stated.

Sometimes I do use strawman. They can have a purpose. But with you I haven't (that I can recall).

Not at all. When discussing my beliefs I have provided Scripture. Scripture is not without substance.

Just because you cannot see something does not mean it is not there.

I agree that some promote a human-centeted philosophy and promote it as the gospel. I see you doing exactly this often. We all probably do to an extent. We have life experiences, worldviews, etc. and all of this has an impact on our understanding.

While I could discuss philosophy, but when discussing the things of God I believe it proper to stick with God's Word. Let disagreements be in actual interpretation of what is written rather than extra-biblical ideas.

Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.

It is not my job or responsibility to teach you. I am here to discuss what I believe, what others believe, and the reasons.

If you came to the BB to be taught what to believe then you came to the wrong place. Go to church.

 

Nah. I have provided a very strong biblical foundation for what I believe. A more honest answer would have simply been that you think I am wrong.

This thread was a simple continuation of the one that was closed. You made some unfounded (or unsupported) statements.

I wanted to provide you an opportunity to post the presuppositions that you believe I hold so that I could consider your observations.

 

I do not care what teachings are called. I do care about what is taught.

What I believe is that major doctrines (like the doctrine of the Cross) should be in the text of Scripture.

The way I see it, when we start testing what we believe Scripture teaches against what we believe is taught by Scripture we have lost all objectivity. I believe we should test doctrine by what is written in Scripture.

The issue I have with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is it's presuppositions (as they are typically undefended, often unacknowledged) and that it's teachings are not actually in the Bible.

I understand that many think it is taught by Scripture. And I understand why. But it does not meet the standard (it fails the test) that I would require to accept. That is why I no longer accept the theory as correct.

We all have to decide what we will believe and what we will reject. And people have different standards and different views. That is fine. We argue doctrine and differences, but we do not judge Another's servant.