Propitiation do you know what it means?

[SavedByGrace]

It means that Christ was wounded for our transgressions.

Did you think God sent His Son to save Himself from His own sins?????!!!!!

He bore OUR sins in His body. By His stripes WE are healed. He was made sin FOR US.

You have a bad habit of pretending those who reject your additions to Scripture also reject Scripture.

You still don't get it

 

[JonC]

You still don't get it

I do get it. I once believed as you believe. But God convicted me that I needed to remain in His Word.

What you seem not to get is that you are actively adding to Scripture what you feel it teaches (or should teach).

That is not right.

 

[Revmitchell]

It Isaiah 53 explicitly teaches the penal subtitional atonement. And it is not theory.


And that statement by itself is nothing more than unsubstantiated generalization.

I think you are misunderstanding the use of the word theory. I will say I cannot account for how others on this board are using it but it seems that you believe the use of theory implies that there can be some question or doubt as to whether something is true. That is not how that word is always used.


Definition of theory


1: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomenathe wave theory of light
2a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of actionher method is based on the theory that all children want to learn
b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theoryin theory, we have always advocated freedom for all
3a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b: an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE
c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subjecttheory of equations
4: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an artmusic theory
5: abstract thought : SPECULATION
6: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

 

[37818]

I think you are misunderstanding the use of the word theory. I will say I cannot account for how others on this board are using it but it seems that you believe the use of theory implies that there can be some question or doubt as to whether something is true. That is not how that word is always used.


Definition of theory


1: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomenathe wave theory of light
2a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of actionher method is based on the theory that all children want to learn
b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theoryin theory, we have always advocated freedom for all
3a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b: an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE
c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subjecttheory of equations
4: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an artmusic theory
5: abstract thought : SPECULATION
6: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

There is the law of gravity. There are theories of gravity. The theory of relatively is not yet deemed to be a law.

 

[JonC]

I think you are misunderstanding the use of the word theory. I will say I cannot account for how others on this board are using it but it seems that you believe the use of theory implies that there can be some question or doubt as to whether something is true. That is not how that word is always used.


Definition of theory


1: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomenathe wave theory of light
2a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of actionher method is based on the theory that all children want to learn
b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theoryin theory, we have always advocated freedom for all
3a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b: an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE
c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subjecttheory of equations
4: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an artmusic theory
5: abstract thought : SPECULATION
6: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

Penal Substitution Theory is unproven conjecture (the standard of proof being God's Word).

This is clear given @SavedByGrace 's failure to find even one verse that states what makes the theory unique (Christ experiencing God's wrath so we would not).

Watch. He will rate this "funny" or "praying".....but what he will not do is actually prove me wrong because he can't.

 

[Iconoclast]

My point is you believe it teaches Penal Substitution Theory but Penal Substitution Theory is not actually in the text of Isaiah 53 (or any Scripture).

Since what you see as being taught in Isaiah is not in the text, what is your standard of testing doctrine (since it is impossible that it is Scripture)?

How is your opinion about what Scripture "teaches" any different from what Jehovah Witnesses see as being "taught"?

My point is we have to have a standard for doctrine. If it is not the Word of God, then what is it?????

The JW says he does see the word trinity in the bible. That is the same reasoning Jonc is using in these threads.
Jonc....where is the words Christus Victor found in scripture?
You think it is there? Where?

 

[Iconoclast]

Penal Substitution Theory is unproven conjecture (the standard of proof being God's Word).

This is clear given @SavedByGrace 's failure to find even one verse that states what makes the theory unique (Christ experiencing God's wrath so we would not).

Watch. He will rate this "funny" or "praying".....but what he will not do is actually prove me wrong because he can't.

You cannot "see" what is there.
No one was born again in Acts, because those exact words are not found in Acts.

 

[JonC]

The JW says he does see the word trinity in the bible. That is the same reasoning Jonc is using in these threads.
Jonc....where is the words Christus Victor found in scripture?
You think it is there? Where?

This is not true.....the issue is you know of your post is false because we have had this discussion.

If you cannot find a verse stating that the Father is God, another that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God or God's Spirit, and yet another that says Jesus is God and a verse stating that God is One then please pm me and I will help.

The Doctrine of the Trinity is in what is written.

Penal Substitution Theory is not.

The reason yours is a strawman argument is that I am not asking for all of Penal Substitution Theory in one place.

Provide a verse that says Jesus experienced God's wrath. Find another stating Jesus' death appeased God. Find a third stating that Jesus died so that we would not.

You can't because they do not exist.

 

[Iconoclast]

This is not true.....the issue is you know of your post is false because we have had this discussion.

If you cannot find a verse stating that the Father is God, another that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God or God's Spirit, and yet another that says Jesus is God and a verse stating that God is O e then please pm me and I will help.

It does not say trinity.
If you are not able to find it in scripture[which is our standard].
You are not believing in the sufficiency of scripture. You are adding mans teaching as you just told everyone.
Same exact thing.

 

[DaveXR650]

I'll make you a deal.

Rather than complaining about people dismissing opinions why not just present Scripture and put in bold where it states IN GOD'S WORD that Jesus suffered God's wrath so we would not.

I don't want "but....but....that's what God wanted to write"....or "that's what it teaches".

Scripture means what it says.

It is not a strange thing to have a series of scriptures and put them together and give a name to the theme of the scriptures. And you know it. Those verses in Isaiah 53 for example describe something going on. We have decided to call it penal substitution for the past 500 years. It was true before that. And it is true no matter what name we give it and it was true before it had a name. You are simply raising an absurd argument that scripture has to say the words of what we call the doctrine or else it is invalid. I am complaining about this: You owe the rest of us enough respect to refute the scriptures we site rather than side stepping the issue by bringing up the idea over and over that the name of the doctrine is not actually part of the text. That is not an argument.

 

[JonC]

It does not say trinity.
If you are not able to find it in scripture[which is our standard].
You are not believing in the sufficiency of scripture. You are adding mans teaching as you just told everyone.
Same exact thing.

Now rather os silly and you are better than this.

I never asked for a verse stating the title of the Theory.

Look through Scripture and find a verse simply stating Christ experienced God's wrath. Find snother saying Christ's death appeased God. Find another stating Christ died so we would not.

You can't because they do not exist.

I know you are heavily invested in Calvinism (which depends on Penal Substitution Theory). I do not expect you to turn to Scripture at this stage. BUT God may use this forum to turn people towards a more biblical view and reject the Theory for Scripture.

 

[37818]

My point is you believe it teaches Penal Substitution Theory but Penal Substitution Theory is not actually in the text of Isaiah 53 (or any Scripture).

There is a problem with the use of words. Isaiah 53:6, ". . . the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . ." Meaning what? Gibberish?

 

[JonC]

It is not a strange thing to have a series of scriptures and put them together and give a name to the theme of the scriptures. And you know it. Those verses in Isaiah 53 for example describe something going on. We have decided to call it penal substitution for the past 500 years. It was true before that. And it is true no matter what name we give it and it was true before it had a name. You are simply raising an absurd argument that scripture has to say the words of what we call the doctrine or else it is invalid. I am complaining about this: You owe the rest of us enough respect to refute the scriptures we site rather than side stepping the issue by bringing up the idea over and over that the name of the doctrine is not actually part of the text. That is not an argument.

None of the passages that have been resented teach that Christ experienced God's wrath, died instead of us dying, or even that Christ's death appeased God.

What am I supposed to do? You guys give a passage and then a vo.etely unrelated conclusion.

You say Isaiah 53 proves Christ suffered God's wrath instead of us suffering it.....but it doesn't!

We can't discuss the passage because you guys keep adding to the passage what is not there and pretend to see it.

Try this....HIGHLIGHT it in your Bible before posting.

 

[SavedByGrace]

You say Isaiah 53 proves Christ suffered God's wrath instead of us suffering it.....but it doesn't!

then WHAT does this mean?

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted...Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand verses 4, 10

which words do you not understand?

 

[Iconoclast]

Now rather os silly and you are better than this.

I never asked for a verse stating the title of the Theory.

Look through Scripture and find a verse simply stating Christ experienced God's wrath. Find snother saying Christ's death appeased God. Find another stating Christ died so we would not.

You can't because they do not exist.

I know you are heavily invested in Calvinism (which depends on Penal Substitution Theory). I do not expect you to turn to Scripture at this stage. BUT God may use this forum to turn people towards a more biblical view and reject the Theory for Scripture.

You believe the trinity theory is taught...but cannot find one verse that says trinity.
Same thing

 

[Iconoclast]

then WHAT does this mean?

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted...Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand verses 4, 10

which words do you not understand?

He will repeat the verses one by one, but ignore why they are written.
He has done this in the last several threads.

 

[Iconoclast]

This is not true.....the issue is you know of your post is false because we have had this discussion.

If you cannot find a verse stating that the Father is God, another that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God or God's Spirit, and yet another that says Jesus is God and a verse stating that God is One then please pm me and I will help.

The Doctrine of the Trinity is in what is written.

Penal Substitution Theory is not.

The reason yours is a strawman argument is that I am not asking for all of Penal Substitution Theory in one place.

Provide a verse that says Jesus experienced God's wrath. Find another stating Jesus' death appeased God. Find a third stating that Jesus died so that we would not.

You can't because they do not exist.

Where did Gods wrath against believers sins go?
Was it swept under the rug?
Does God even punish sin?

 

[JonC]

You believe the trinity theory is taught...but cannot find one verse that says trinity.
Same thing

That is stupid.

I am not looking for a verse that says "Penal Substitution Theory".

I believe the doctrine of the Trinity because I can find a passage stating the Father is God, another that the Spirit is God's Spirit, and yet another that Jesus is Lord.

Do the same with Penal Substitution Theory.

Show me a passage stating that Jesus experienced God's wrath. Show me another that says Jesus died instead of us dying and yer another that says Christ's death appeased God.

IF Penal Substitution Theory is biblical then you could. But you can't. It's just reformed Roman Catholic doctrine.

 

[JonC]

Where did Gods wrath against believers sins go?
Was it swept under the rug?
Does God even punish sin?

You have a lot of questions. Why not just rely on Scripture?

God forgave sinners. God does punish the unrighteous. There is no condemnation in Christ.

You are approaching the Bibe as a Pharisee.

 

[Iconoclast]

You have a lot of questions. Why not just rely on Scripture?

God forgave sinners. God does punish the unrighteous. There is no condemnation in Christ.

You are approaching the Bibe as a Pharisee.

On what basis did God forgive guilty sinners?