Propitiation do you know what it means?

[SavedByGrace]

Amazing how many Protestants don't seem to realize what they share with Roman Catholicism. The Reformation didn't reform the RC view of atonement, just took it, expanded it, and made it worse. One thing I will not engage you on is your personal attacks. I guess it's just part of your character that you can't help. However, I know that both of us are still on our way to total sanctification, neither of us having arrived yet.

ntchristian, are you Roman Catholic?

 

[ntchristian]

ntchristian, are you Roman Catholic?

Absolutely not. I grew up Eastern Orthodox but no longer am. In looking for a denomination with which to affiliate, I never once considered the RCC.

 

[ntchristian]

This is baloney as has been explained. But two comments. For a Roman Catholic to bring up Eastern Orthodoxy is rich since they excommunicated each other years ago. But more importantly, Anabaptists should not be connected with modern day Baptists. We are far apart in doctrine and any direct influence of actual Anabaptists on modern day Baptists is hard to prove.

It is not baloney. It is scholarly, historical, and theological fact. I don't understand your "Roman Catholic" statement. I am not Roman Catholic. Anabaptists did influence the General or Arminian Baptists.

 

[ntchristian]

This is a false argument.
Historical Reflections on Substitutionary Atonement - Fuller Studio

As to the sharing so much with Romanism. Of course we share quite a bit. Some of the earliest and most basic confessions are shared. The idea that love and good works must follow saving faith is shared except Romanists mix it into justification. Years ago I stumbled across some writing on the Trinity by then Cardinal Ratzinger and thought it was pretty good. I have Thomas Kempis "The Imitation of Christ" and love it. I watch "Father Brown" mysteries, like the priest in "Les Miserables" and of course the fly fishing priest in "The Quiet Man". It took Martin Luther over a year after posting the 95 theses to finally leave the Roman church. I'm willing to be patient with you too.

You are arguing against factual church history, not only me.

Romanism and Protestantism indeed share much more than generally realized by both. Both shared and still share a Western mindset completely foreign to early Christianity.

My atonement view is 2000 years old. The RCC view is 1000 years old. Yours is 500 years old. I'll stick with mine, it being the original one.

 

[37818]

Anabaptists did influence the General or Arminian Baptists.

Can you give some specifics of this? The doctrine of interest and dates.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Absolutely not. I grew up Eastern Orthodox but no longer am. In looking for a denomination with which to affiliate, I never once considered the RCC.

can you explain this

The Reformation didn't reform the RC view of atonement, just took it, expanded it, and made it worse

 

[ntchristian]

Can you give some specifics of this? The doctrine of interest and dates.

John Smyth, co-founder of the English Baptists, later became a Mennonite.

 

[Revmitchell]

Amazing how many Protestants don't seem to realize what they share with Roman Catholicism. The Reformation didn't reform the RC view of atonement, just took it, expanded it, and made it worse. One thing I will not engage you on is your personal attacks. I guess it's just part of your character that you can't help. However, I know that both of us are still on our way to total sanctification, neither of us having arrived yet.

Since you are going to be dishonest I will place your posts where they deserve

 

[ntchristian]

can you explain this

The Reformation didn't reform the RC view of atonement, just took it, expanded it, and made it worse

I have explained it in other posts in other threads, but, briefly, the Reformers took the RC Satisfaction theory of the atonement and expanded it into PSA.

 

[ntchristian]

Since you are going to be dishonest I will place your posts where they deserve

Since you are going to lie and attack, I shall do the same.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I have explained it in other posts in other threads, but, briefly, the Reformers took the RC Satisfaction theory of the atonement and expanded it into PSA.

There can be NO other than Penal Substitutionary Atonement. This is the ONLY Biblical Teaching in both the Old and New Testaments. PERIOD!

 

[ntchristian]

There can be NO other than Penal Substitutionary Atonement. This is the ONLY Biblical Teaching in both the Old and New Testaments. PERIOD!

In fact, it is the most unscriptural atonement theory of all. The earliest Christians did not see it there and neither did Christians for the first 1500 years of church history. It took a murderous Protestant Reformer to discover it. Come to think of it, the theory is consistent with his personality.

 

[SavedByGrace]

In fact, it is the most unscriptural atonement theory of all. The earliest Christians did not see it there and neither did Christians for the first 1500 years of church history. It took a murderous Protestant Reformer to discover it. Come to think of it, the theory is consistent with his personality.

shows how you don't understand what the Bible Teaches!

 

[DaveXR650]

It is not baloney. It is scholarly, historical, and theological fact. I don't understand your "Roman Catholic" statement. I am not Roman Catholic. Anabaptists did influence the General or Arminian Baptists.

You know, I site references which refute that. You have your own sources. We'll just have to disagree. Sorry about the Roman Catholic statement. I had you mixed up with someone else. You're the "rolling stone". As to the Anabaptist influence. The fact is in the Calvinist wars within the Baptists there is always a group of Baptists that want to make a connection with Anabaptism. I guess is gives some kind of historical credibility to be able to pre-date the Reformation. But the link is never satisfactorily proven.

 

[JonC]

You denial of the truth does not invalidate it!

I prefer to stick to God's Word for essential doctrine.

 

[kyredneck]

Baptists that want to make a connection with Anabaptism. I guess is gives some kind of historical credibility to be able to pre-date the Reformation.

Zactly. Landmarkism is one that I disagree with even with the PBs.

 

[JonC]

Some in the early church taught the Ransom Theory of the Atonement as fact, that Jesus Christ paid a "ransom" to the devil for the lost souls of sinners! This is completely against what the Bible Teaches.

Some in the early church, also accepted some of the "Apocryphal" books Inspired by God the Holy Spirit, and actually used them for their doctrines!

HOW can you say that there were "biblical"?

The Ransom view is that a ransom was paid. It is questionable that Origen literally meant "Satan" (in sermons "Satan" was often used to symbolize the powers of sin and death) but by the end of the 2nd Century this was a common thought among the laity.

Others argued that Christ paid a ransom to death, others emphasized that ransom refers to us being ransomed and not a ransom payment recieved

I doubt many believers would sit comfortable with the claim Christ ransomed us from God.

That said, I am not saying they were biblical in all of their ideas.

I am saying g Penal Substitution Theory is no less biblical than the teaching that God was dangling Christ as bait for Satan. The Theory is simply foreign to Scripture.

I believe the closer we stick to what is written the better.

 

[JonC]

Its much more biblical then Christ is Victor or Moral govt views!

Except the Christus Victor theme is in the Bible while Penal Substitution Theory is not.

In fact, speaking more broafly, the "Classic" view is straight from Scripture while your "Latin" view is completely absent.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I am saying g Penal Substitution Theory is no less biblical than the teaching that God was dangling Christ as bait for Satan.

you don't seem to understand the Bible on this! Penal Substitution Atonement is the ONLY One taught in the Bible. We have been through this only last week!

 

[JonC]

you don't seem to understand the Bible on this! Penal Substitution Atonement is the ONLY One taught in the Bible. We have been through this only last week!

You are wrong.

I completely understand Penal Substitution Theory and I do understand what Scripture says on this.

It is interesting that you gloss over the fact that I can quote Scripture stating what I believe and you cannot.

The best you can do is quote a verse and then tell us what it "really" means by adding to it.

This is following man and not God.