Propitiation do you know what it means?

[SavedByGrace]

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.

Jesus Christ is said in Isaiah to be wounded FOR which is ON BEHALF OF us

How much clearer can it be???

 

[Revmitchell]

Jesus Christ is said in Isaiah to be wounded FOR which is ON BEHALF OF us

How much clearer can it be???

You cannot have a reasonable discussion with someone who lack a fundamental understanding and has presuppositions against what is clear in scripture. If you are wanting to have a discussion of what someone else position is that often work. If you are trying to demand submission to your position you are going to fail.

I know it is there, you know it is there, and we have an understanding of the true character of God on this. Leave the keyboard warriors to themselves.

 

[DaveXR650]

SBG, he just hears a verse and side steps it. A casual dismissal of anything said is not a debate point. I guess there isn't anything else to say.

 

[ntchristian]

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.

Thanks for clarifying. I don't disagree with what you said here. I think it is mostly correct. Were I Baptist, I would fit the General Baptist camp, not the Particular. But I do not affirm the Mennonite aversion to oaths, or affirmation of pacifism. That's two areas of disagreement between the Mennonites and early General Baptists.

 

[SavedByGrace]

You cannot have a reasonable discussion with someone who lack a fundamental understanding and has presuppositions against what is clear in scripture. If you are wanting to have a discussion of what someone else position is that often work. If you are trying to demand submission to your position you are going to fail.

I know it is there, you know it is there, and we have an understanding of the true character of God on this. Leave the keyboard warriors to themselves.

Then prove from the Bible what I have said from isaiah 53 to be wrong

 

[ntchristian]

You cannot have a reasonable discussion with someone who lack a fundamental understanding and has presuppositions against what is clear in scripture. If you are wanting to have a discussion of what someone else position is that often work. If you are trying to demand submission to your position you are going to fail.

I know it is there, you know it is there, and we have an understanding of the true character of God on this. Leave the keyboard warriors to themselves.

Presuppositions??!! You mean like what you inherited from your Western-mindset ancestors, the ones who invented PSA.

The God I worship would not torture, punish, and kill His Son to supposedly appease some kind of need in His character -- wrath, etc. Sounds more like a pagan god to me, or a god invented by a murderous lawyer.

 

[SavedByGrace]

SBG, he just hears a verse and side steps it. A casual dismissal of anything said is not a debate point. I guess there isn't anything else to say.

Who is the HE?

 

[Revmitchell]

Then prove from the Bible what I have said from isaiah 53 to be wrong

You seem to be misunderstanding what I am saying. I agree with you. Its there. Be careful not to react but read to understand

 

[Revmitchell]

SBG, he just hears a verse and side steps it. A casual dismissal of anything said is not a debate point. I guess there isn't anything else to say.

There isnt. Some folks just avoid dealing with passages they know prove otherwise and just say "it aint so". They are not interested in a conversation only being right.

 

[SavedByGrace]

You seem to be misunderstanding what I am saying. I agree with you. Its there. Be careful not to react but read to understand

I thought that you were agreeing but it must be the way you wrote it

 

[Revmitchell]

I thought that you were agreeing but it must be the way you wrote it

Hmmm.....let's see, in the post I said "I know it is there, you know it is there, and we have an understanding of the true character of God on this"

 

[SavedByGrace]

Hmmm.....let's see, in the post I said "I know it is there, you know it is there, and we have an understanding of the true character of God on this"

Pardon me sir

 

[DaveXR650]

Who is the HE?

JonC.

 

[37818]

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

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

In essence @SavedByGrace is denying the sufficiency of Scripture.

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

 

[SavedByGrace]

JonC.

Yeah, JonC is not alone in this...

 

[SavedByGrace]

Presuppositions??!! You mean like what you inherited from your Western-mindset ancestors, the ones who invented PSA.

The God I worship would not torture, punish, and kill His Son to supposedly appease some kind of need in His character -- wrath, etc. Sounds more like a pagan god to me, or a god invented by a murderous lawyer.

yet more rubbish by those who cannot GRASP what the Bible really teaches on the Death of Jesus Christ!

 

[JonC]

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

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?????

 

[JonC]

SBG, he just hears a verse and side steps it. A casual dismissal of anything said is not a debate point. I guess there isn't anything else to say.

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.

 

[Salty]

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

 

[JonC]

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

What do you think that this means

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.