Propitiation do you know what it means?

[ntchristian]

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

Of course not. Only those who hold to doctrines invented in 1500 know what the Bible teaches.

 

[SavedByGrace]

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.

Don't flatter yourself

I have given Scripture references in the other thread where you also participated

 

[SavedByGrace]

Of course not. Only those who hold to doctrines invented in 1500 know what the Bible teaches.

Complete HOGWASH

 

[DaveXR650]

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.

I'm not really up on this enough to argue but if you all are interested I would recommend "Baptist Theology, A Four Century Study" and "Arminian and Baptist, Explorations in a Theological Tradition". Both argue against any meaningful direct influence of Anabaptism on either branch of modern Baptist practice.

 

[ntchristian]

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.

References which refute it are not accurate. But, yes, we'll have to disagree. I have no desire to fight about it.

There were two kinds of early Baptists -- the General, which were first, and the Particular. The Generals had a connection to Mennonites; the Particulars did not.

 

[ntchristian]

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.

They can't prove PSA from church history or from the Bible. I have asked several times to show me in scripture where it says that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. They cannot because it is not there. Show me where it says that God punished, tortured, and killed Jesus in our place -- again, not there.

 

[DaveXR650]

There were two kinds of early Baptists -- the General, which were first, and the Particular. The Generals had a connection to Mennonites; the Particulars did not.

You're kidding! Smyth was more influenced by the Mennonites than Thomas Helwys. Helwys and Smith had severe disagreements and Helwys I think even excommunicated Smyths congregation. It is debatable whether Mennonites or Anabaptists had any direct influence on modern day General Baptists. I just haven't had time to really look into it.

 

[SavedByGrace]

They can't prove PSA from church history or from the Bible. I have asked several times to show me in scripture where it says that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. They cannot because it is not there. Show me where it says that God punished, tortured, and killed Jesus in our place -- again, not there.

Penal Substitution | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org

 

[SavedByGrace]

They can't prove PSA from church history or from the Bible. I have asked several times to show me in scripture where it says that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. They cannot because it is not there. Show me where it says that God punished, tortured, and killed Jesus in our place -- again, not there.

 

[Revmitchell]

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!

Its not the only one. Christus Victor is there, Ransom is there and they are all true. Its not an either or scenario

 

[SavedByGrace]

Its not the only one. Christus Victor is there, Ransom is there and they are all true. Its not an either or scenario

How Does Penal Substitution Relate to Other Atonement Theories?

 

[JonC]

They can't prove PSA from church history or from the Bible. I have asked several times to show me in scripture where it says that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. They cannot because it is not there. Show me where it says that God punished, tortured, and killed Jesus in our place -- again, not there.

Yep. They'll give you a verse and tell you what they wish it said.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Yep. They'll give you a verse and tell you what they wish it said.

or you don't like what the verse says!

Show from Isaiah 53, any other "theory" of the Atonement, than PSA.

You have your chance to prove those who hold this view as Biblical, to be wrong!

 

[37818]

@ntchristian,
One major thing Anabaptist and Baptist have in common would be the water immersion. It is my understanding John Smyth's believer's "baptism" for which he and his followers were called Baptist originally did not immerse.

 

[SavedByGrace]

2 Corinthians 5:21

Galatians 3:13

1 Peter 2:24

1 Peter 3:18

etc, etc

 

[JonC]

or you don't like what the verse says!

Show from Isaiah 53, any other "theory" of the Atonement, than PSA.

You have your chance to prove those who hold this view as Biblical, to be wrong!

But there are no verses I have rejected (even if they were not to my liking).

The point is you have not provided any passages that confirm Penal Substitution Theory. You have provided passages, but then ypu add to them and think that is proof. It is not.

 

[Iconoclast]

"Satisfaction of God's wrath" was a concept unknown until Anselm. I wonder how it feels for a Baptist to share so much with Romanism.

Look like the Apostles knew about in the first 4 chapters of Romans.

 

[JonC]

@ntchristian,
One major thing Anabaptist and Baptist have in common would be the water immersion. It is my understanding John Smyth's believer's "baptism" for which he and his followers were called Baptist originally did not immerse.

Early on they used "living water" (water that was moving.....like a river). But they typically poured the water over the head of those being baptized.

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.

 

[JonC]

Look like the Apostles knew about in the first 4 chapters of Romans.

Except it is not actually in the text (it is not "what is written"). I know you belueve it is what is taught, but that cannot stand the biblical test of doctrine.

 

[ntchristian]

You're kidding! Smyth was more influenced by the Mennonites than Thomas Helwys. Helwys and Smith had severe disagreements and Helwys I think even excommunicated Smyths congregation. It is debatable whether Mennonites or Anabaptists had any direct influence on modern day General Baptists. I just haven't had time to really look into it.

How does what you say in your first two sentences disagree with what I said? The General Baptists I was talking about were the early ones. But the modern ones are spiritual descendants.