If you will honestly evaluate what I said, it is clear I was agreeing only with Martin in principle without any reference to any historical figures. Indeed, I made it abundantly clear that it was the PRINCIPLE I was agreeing with - just read what I said.
I have honestly evaluated what you said. I still view it as agreeing that a theology absent of Penal Substitution Theory equates to a faith that will crumble if pushed to the logical conclusions of not accepting PST. If I am mistaking, then it is an honest mistake, brother.
I cannot accept that all those who have gone before are mere heretics and apostates. I cannot accept that God concealed the “real truth” of the gospel until the Reformation. Even if I was to believe that theological developments add to a correct understanding (actually, I do believe this to an extent), it is wrong to assume such error in those who have gone before.
Again, it is arrogant to sit around in the comfort of our homes and criticize Christians for rejecting PST when these have stood for the faith and died for the faith. It is arrogant to call Anabaptists apostate or heretics or of weaker faith because they reject PST.
Stand for what you stand for. But we have to stop being so critical of those who have different philosophies but the same gospel.
