Propitiation do you know what it means?

[JonC]

On what basis did God forgive guilty sinners?

On the basis of faith (the New Covenant....i.e., God's righteousness manifested apart from the law).

You keep looking at it like the Father is judging the World via the law BUT Scripture tells us that all Judgment has been given to the Son.

If you are open to God then I encourage you to try and set aside theology and just prayerfully read Scripture. God does not need man's additions and theories to make His Word make sense. He will guide you to truth and maturity.

If you do this I think you will grow to realize just how much the Penal Substitution Theory twists Scripture.

 

[Iconoclast]

On the basis of faith (the New Covenant....i.e., God's righteousness manifested apart from the law).

You keep looking at it like the Father is judging the World via the law BUT Scripture tells us that all Judgment has been given to the Son.

If you are open to God then I encourage you to try and set aside theology and just prayerfully read Scripture. God does not need man's additions and theories to make His Word make sense. He will guide you to truth and maturity.

If you do this I think you will grow to realize just how much the Penal Substitution Theory twists Scripture.

At the white throne what standard will judge the world?
Gal.4:4 tells us about it....read that.

We could not keep the law, but I have a substitute who kept it perfectly for me.

Yes a Divine substitute.
I now how God could forgive my sins and punish them all at once...the cr_ss..
The blood of the lamb slain.

 

[atpollard]

People argue "baptism" means "to immerse" (it does)....but it also means to marinate or soak. I have not seen any who marinate new Christians in water.

There was a small group that believed that, but all the new converts drowned so the movement died out.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,
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. .[/QUOTE]
It is because I base what I believe on scripture that I believe in PSA.
As Jesus died a covenant death on behalf of the elect.
I believe in an accomplished redemption, an actual atonement, an actual propitiation, an actual reconciliation...You seem to be drifting...claimed to believe in the doctrines of grace...no more, claimed to believe in PSA, no more....you are drifting...not us.

 

[JonC]

At the white throne what standard will judge the world?
Gal.4:4 tells us about it....read that.

We could not keep the law, but I have a substitute who kept it perfectly for me.

Yes a Divine substitute.
I now how God could forgive my sins and punish them all at once...the cr_ss..
The blood of the lamb slain.

For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds.

For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son,

 

[JonC]

“Taint so” isn’t really an exegetical refutation.
I don’t particularly lean towards PSA (too legalistic and not relational enough for other scripture), but the words of Isaiah 53 seem to say that Jesus died for our sins … that’s PUNISHMENT and SUBSTITUTION without any doubt, so it needs more of a refutation than “PSA is only imagined in the verses.”

It isn't "taint so". I agree with EVERY passage that has been provided.

BUT no member has, as of yet, provided even one verse stating Jesus experienced God's wrath.

Nobody has provided even one verse stating Christ's death appeased God.

No member has provided even one verse stating Christ suffered instead of us suffering.

I do not care what a passage seems to say to you. It does not matter what any passage means to us. It matters what it means. What is written.

Now, look through Isaiah 53 and show me just one verse stating that Jesus experienced God's wrath. One stating Christ suffered instead of us suffering. One verse stating Christ's death appeased God.

If you cannot then why on earth are you acting as if we should belueve what it seems to you? Why should we even consider those ideas if they are not in the written Word of God?

 

[Iconoclast]

For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds.

For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son,

John, that judgment is not speaking of the cross.
That verse has nothing to do with the justice of God being upheld by Jesus as our mediator and surety. Jesus did not judge himself on the cross.

No one minds a discussion suggesting Jesus was victorious on the cross. He was. That is not really the issue.

 

[JonC]

John, that judgment is not speaking of the cross.
That verse has nothing to do with the justice of God being upheld by Jesus as our mediator and surety. Jesus did not judge himself on the cross.

No one minds a discussion suggesting Jesus was victorious on the cross. He was. That is not really the issue.

The only Judgment is "on that day". It is appointed man once to die and then the judgment.

You are holding to too much Roman Catholic Fontaine when it comes to the work of Christ. Have you ever considered the Reformers were wrong to try to reform RCC doctrine and would have done better to simply go back to the Bible?

 

[JonC]

No one minds a discussion suggesting Jesus was victorious on the cross. He was. That is not really the issue.

This is silly. It is the strawman @Martin Marprelate offered. In reply I'd say nobody who rejects Penal Substitution Theory rejects the truth that He bore our sins and is our Propitiation.

The Classic view (Victorious Christ) differs from the Latin View (Satisfaction Theory, Substitution Theory, Penal Substitution Theory) not just in name but in the way it views how Christ ransomed men.

This is the second time you resorted to strawman arguments. When you do this it shows you are less secure in your position than you want. You are better than this.

 

[Iconoclast]

This is silly. It is the strawman @Martin Marprelate offered. In reply I'd say nobody who rejects Penal Substitution Theory rejects the truth that He bore our sins and is our Propitiation.

The Classic view (Victorious Christ) differs from the Latin View (Satisfaction Theory, Substitution Theory, Penal Substitution Theory) not just in name but in the way it views how Christ ransomed men.

This is the second time you resorted to strawman arguments. When you do this it shows you are less secure in your position than you want. You are better than this.

What does it mean...He bore our sins?
Explain in detail...
Then explain He was our propitiation?
On what basis was just wrath turned away from us.?
..

 

[JonC]

What does it mean...He bore our sins?
Explain in detail...
Then explain He was our propitiation?
On what basis was just wrath turned away from us.?
..

Jesus bore our sins. He, although sinless, was made sin for us. He was obedient even to death on a cross.

In Him we escape the wrath to come.

On the basis of our rebirth - being made new creations in Christ (in Whom there is no condemnation).

Scripture really is sufficient. God does not need our help - He delivered His revelation to us in His Word and through His Word.

 

[Salty]

six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 1130 pm EST / 830 pm PST

This thread is closed