Featured Continued from dead tulip

Jesus did experience what man had rightly earned.

 

Jesus was forsaken to suffer and die. And He was bearing our sins bodily.

Your error is you seem to believe that God transferred our sins from us to Jesus and punished Jesus for our crimes. That is the part that mirrors paganism rather than Christianity.

It is an abomination to acquit the wicked and to condemn the righteous.

 

You said that Wright does not view justification as individual justification. I think that is wrong.

I hold the "classic view" of Atonement.

 

That is the fate of the wicked at Judgment, but that is a future judgment. All of the wicked will perish...no exceptions.

But this is not the consequences of sin that Jesus suffered (and we suffer).

 

Not the non-Baptist viewpoint, but the non-Reformed viewpoint. PSA is not a Baptist distinction.

I mean the classic view as opposed to the Latin view.

 

I do understand that Jesus had to become like us in every way, yet He is without sin. And He had to suffer under the same bondage that we suffer under. God laid our iniquities upon Him.

The only thing I reject is what you have added to Scripture. So stop pretending that I reject Scripture simply because I believe the Bible perfect and complete (not needing man's additions).

 

I don't know how this turned into a condemnation of the "classic view" of the Atonement.

 

Why do you always condemn the classic view of Atonement?

 

Partially correct. Most evangelical Baptists do hold PSA. But there is no "classical" Baptist view on this topic.

If you consider the Baptist distinctive to be pre-Reformation then all Baptists at one time held the classic view instead of PST.

If you view Baptists as distinctively protestant insofar as being a product of the Reformation of RCC doctrine then you are correct.

 

Lol......no. the Orthodox view would fall under the classic view. The RCC view, along with PSA falls under the Latin view.

Neither term means "correct". It is possible that both could contain mistakes.

My point is that you are ignorant of Christianity as a whole. You seem to believe your position is the main Christian view and are dumbstruck when faced with opposing positions. This leads you to believe the Classic position, or the Victorious Christ view, is something I alone have held or hold.

 

You are making assumptions. Scripture tells us he testified of Christ, not told the guy what Scripture "really means".

You do not expound on Scripture. You add to it. There is a difference.