Penal Substitution.

[JonC]

See this is what is wrong on this board. He didn't refine his view. He may have clarified it but clarify and refine are not eve close. You are suggesting you know that he changed his view altogether when you say refine. Just because you didn't understand him correctly the first time and then he clarified it in an attempt to break through your personal misunderstanding is not refining. He simply clarified his view. But then you already know this don't you.

I said sins cannot be transferred.

He said Aaron transfered the sins of Israel (even used the example of handing money over).

After discussing it he said Aaron did not transfer sins.

I call that refining. You call that clarifying.

So what?

The truth remains that sins are not transferred - not because of what Martin Marprelate says, not because of what I say, but because of what is written in God's Word.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 730 pm EDT / 430 pm PDT

 

[Revmitchell]

So what?

I am not arguing for or against your position, it has already been debunked. I am suggesting there was a lack of forthrightness in your caricature of his post. You should dial that in,

 

[JonC]

I am not arguing for or against your position, it has already been debunked. I am suggesting there was a lack of forthrightness in your caricature of his post. You should dial that in,

I disagree.

You can say I am wrong, but you cannot say that there was a lack of forthrightness or that I made a caricature of his post.

His post was in responces to the passages I provided stating that sins cannot be transferred.

I also disagree that the classic view of Atonement has been debunked on this board or thread.

What I have been asking, for over a decade, is for a Penal Substitution theorist to explain the presuppositions of the Theory. This far no member has even tried.

For example, why do you believe that God must punish sinful actions even apart from punishing the one who actually committed the transgressions?

Why don't you give it a shot?

 

[Revmitchell]

I disagree.

You can say I am wrong, but you cannot say that there was a lack of forthrightness or that I made a caricature of his post.

His post was in responces to the passages I provided stating that sins cannot be transferred.

I also disagree that the classic view of Atonement has been debunked on this board or thread.

What I have been asking, for over a decade, is for a Penal Substitution theorist to explain the presuppositions of the Theory. This far no member has even tried.

For example, why do you believe that God must punish sinful actions even apart from punishing the one who actually committed the transgressions?

Why don't you give it a shot?

And yet you refuse to deal with the crux of my post. You intentional mischaracterization of what he said.

 

[JonC]

And yet you refuse to deal with the crux of my post. You intentional mischaracterization of what he said.

????

I dealt with his clarification. I did not deal with your claim that I intentionally misrepresented his post because you are wrong.

He said that Israel's sins were not actually transfered from them to the animal. I agree.

He says this pointed to Christ. I agree.

Where he and I differ is that I believe our sins are forgiven, not transfered, when Christ bore our sins bodily on the Cross.

I take it you are simply unable to explain why God must punish sinful actions even if this is not punishing the person who committed the transgressions.

You just do not want to admit it, so you try to disparage my posts. That's fine.

 

[Revmitchell]

????

.

I take it you are simply unable to explain why God must punish sinful actions even if this is not punishing the person who committed the transgressions.

You just do not want to admit it, so you try to disparage my posts. That's fine.

And yet we find more of the same from you. More false accusation of me as you did him. You don't know what my motive and and cannot know. Therefore assigning motive that you cannot know lack integrity. This is common practice from you.

 

[37818]

There is the penal substition. The problem is making it in to be somethings it is not. And this making it somethings it is not is being done intentionally or not on both sides.

 

[JonC]

And yet we find more of the same from you. More false accusation of me as you did him. You don't know what my motive and and cannot know. Therefore assigning motive that you cannot know lack integrity. This is common practice from you.

Here's a hint, "rev" -. You do not know my motive and cannot know. Yet you try anyway. That does make you a hypocrite, regardless of motive.

I think you are just trying to wiggle out of answering the question, as normal.


The question still remains.

Why must God punish sinful actions even if this does not mean punishing the person who committed the sin?

 

[JonC]

There is the penal substition. The problem is making it in to be somethings it is not. And this making it somethings it is not is being done intentionally or not on both sides.

I agree this can be the case. Some have different views of Penal Substitution.

I asked several who held the view why Christ had to suffer God's wrath and they insisted Christ did not suffer God's wrath. Others believe God looked at Christ as "the vilest of sinners".

Do you believe that God, in order to forgive sinners, must punish sinful actions even if this does not mean punishing the person who committed the sin? If so why?

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 730 pm EDT / 430 pm PDT

this thread is close