Propitiation do you know what it means?

[ntchristian]

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

Of course you reference a Reformed site to support your position. So, the inventors of PSA affirm it -- what a revelation!

 

[Revmitchell]

".....if humanity is guilty of sin and condemned to death, and Christ has laid down His life in the place of the human race, not only are we saved, but we are given an example of how to live. The death of Christ is an example, but only if it also is a substitutionary sacrifice."

Millard Erickson; Christian Theology, Third Edition; Penal Substitution Theory in Relation to other Theories: Atonement as an Example, pg. 748

 

[ntchristian]

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

 

[ntchristian]

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!

Not speaking for JonC, but I have already done that, elsewhere. As he said, you wish it showed PSA, but it doesn't. No one saw PSA there until 1500 AD.

 

[ntchristian]

@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.

True. And Mennonites don't immerse generally. Church of the Brethren does.

 

[JonC]

Some (e.g. Joyce Myers) say Jesus descended into Hell and was tortured by Satan for 3 days. Her proof is Ephesians 4:9, which "teaches" that doctrine.

That is how Penal Substitution Theorists work. They provide verses and tell you those passages teach something not actually contained in the Bible.

I do not understand why they can't simply accept God's Word as sufficient.

 

[ntchristian]

2 Corinthians 5:21

Galatians 3:13

1 Peter 2:24

1 Peter 3:18

etc, etc

None of those teach PSA. Calvin invented PSA. Nobody saw it in the Bible for 1500 years. That's an inconvenient truth for many Protestants.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Not speaking for JonC, but I have already done that, elsewhere. As he said, you wish it showed PSA, but it doesn't. No one saw PSA there until 1500 AD.

do you really understand what PSA is? If you cannot see this in Isaiah 53, then it is clear that you don't!

 

[JonC]

Not speaking for JonC, but I have already done that, elsewhere. As he said, you wish it showed PSA, but it doesn't. No one saw PSA there until 1500 AD.

I know you have, and I have as well.

Isaiah 53 teaches EXACTLY what it says, without adding to it Penal Substitution Theory.

In essence @SavedByGrace is denying the sufficiency of Scripture.

 

[ntchristian]

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.

That might be appropriate for some, especially some I've met on forums.

 

[SavedByGrace]

That is how Penal Substitution Theorists work

Jon, you should not keep on posting complete nonsense! Like the others on here, it is clear that you do NOT even understand what PSA is!

 

[ntchristian]

do you really understand what PSA is? If you cannot see this in Isaiah 53, then it is clear that you don't!

I understand what it is -- an abhorrent, non-scriptural doctrine invented by a murderer.

 

[SavedByGrace]

In essence @SavedByGrace is denying the sufficiency of Scripture.

another strawman argument, because there is not one that you or the others can really show that Isaiah 53 does not teach it!

 

[SavedByGrace]

I understand what it is -- an abhorrent, non-scriptural doctrine invented by a murderer.

quit talking RUBBISH!

 

[JonC]

None of those teach PSA. Calvin invented PSA. Nobody saw it in the Bible for 1500 years. That's an inconvenient truth for many Protestants.

I wasn't going to mention John Calvin, but you are right. It is easy to see through the Theory that he was trained as a lawyer and not a theologian. It is based on humanistic judicial philosophy.

 

[ntchristian]

After reading these threads, I am glad that one Western "Tradition" is no longer practiced -- killing other Christians because of their beliefs. I think Baptists and Anabaptists are the only ones who didn't do that.

 

[ntchristian]

I wasn't going to mention John Calvin, but you are right. It is easy to see through the Theory that he was trained as a lawyer and not a theologian. It is based on humanistic judicial philosophy.

Quite right.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I wasn't going to mention John Calvin, but you are right. It is easy to see through the Theory that he was trained as a lawyer and not a theologian. It is based on humanistic judicial philosophy.

He, that is Jesus Christ, was WOUNDED for our transgressions...

What do you think that this means

 

[DaveXR650]

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.

They don't really. The last two do. What I'm saying is that there is a lot of debate about how much influence the Mennonites had on what became the General Baptists because although they did influence Smyth, there are documents showing how many of the Mennonite doctrines were specifically rejected by the Baptists, and the disagreements between Smyth and Helwys show that. There is also disagreement about whether Smyth had as much influence as Helwys and Grantham on the General Baptists. I don't have an axe to grind here. Someday I'll look into it more. But the modern General Baptists are not descendants of Anabaptists - as much as some of them would like to be. By the way, when growing up I went to a Missionary Church which was an off shoot of the Mennonites. I really liked it and the people and don't think I would have any problem with Mennonites either, for that matter.

 

[JonC]

another strawman argument, because there is not one that you or the others can really show that Isaiah 53 does not teach it!

Just as you cannot prove Scripture does not "teach" that cows fly

BUT I CAN prove Penal Substitution Theory is not in the Word of God or the text of Scripture simply by pointing out it is not there (and the fact you cannot provide a passage).

You prove this by mentioning Isaiah 53, which nowhere in the actual text says Jesus suffered our punishment instead of us, that Christ experienced God's wrath, or even that Christ's death appeased God's wrath.