I have offered Scripture. You simply did not recognize it as Scripture (I just used quotation marks).
That said, I have not stated my view.....all I stated of my belief was that God is faithful to forgive those who repent (Ezekiel 18, Acts 3, 1 John 1, 2 Peter 3, . . .).
You have without any Scripture supporting your philosophy. You provided verses but then went on to state your theory which is unrelated to the verses you provided.
Bit I will give you a chance -
Provide a verse stating Jesus died instead of us.
Provide a verse stating Jesus experienced God's wrath.
Provide a verse stating that God cannot forgive sins based on repentance and belief.
I know you can find those things in the writings of the men you follow, but I do not recognize those men as the authority for my faith. Use the Bible.
Yes, I know both English and Greek. In both cases, both speak of Chriat.
While I studied Greek at the graduate level, I am mot sure you have. So let's just look at the English.
Here is the passage in question:
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Now, in the English language (and the Grerk) the topic is Christ as the Propitiation, not those who benefit from the propitiation. You should have picked up on this with the first verse (we have an Advocate, who IS the Propitiation for sins).
I get that English may be your second language. If so, I encourage you to get a transkation in your own language.
What you did was read into the passage by making assumptions. You want it to say something ir dies not say, so you pretend it does.
If English is your first language, and you simply struggle with the fundamental parts of the language (nouns, verbs, etc) then take the time to diagram sentences. Identify the subject, the adverbs, etc. It may help you to write them out (we had to in school).
If you the your time, diagram the sentences, identify the subject, etc. it may help you keep from making such elementary mistakes.
No, you are confused. The Apostolic Church is the church that existed during the time of the Apostles. They taught what was written in Scripture. The theories you are talking about came much later.
Anselm developed Substitution Theory which was focused on Jedus restoring the honor man robbed of God. Aquinas reformed Anselm's theory, replacing honor with merit.
Aquinas want a bit more in detail. Until Aquinas nobody entertained the idea that Jesus could be punished instead of sinners. Aquinas developed a system where (he believed) an innocent person could justly be punished insteadbof a guilty person provided both parties were willing and the punishment was not the punishment due the crime committed.
Calvin (a lawyer by education) reformed Aquinas' theory by replacing merit with justice, and satisfactory punishment with simple punishment.
All three were based on Augustines error. Augustine developed what became the Catholic doctrine of sin. But this was based on the Vulgate which mistranslated "eph hō" as "in quo".
History is important. As you demonstrate with your ignorance of history (which is strange as we have the documdnts) is that by ignoring history it repeats itself.
This is why you can only rely on writings of mem who write what you believe rather than God's Word.
I may interpret some passages incorrectly, but at least I am sticking to Scripture.
Thank you for the information. I am more interested, however, in what God said.
Jehovah Witnesses believe their theologians correct. Mormons believe their theologians correct. I get that you believe the men you follow are correct in their additions to Scripture.
I have no issue with much of what you have posted.
The issue I have is when what you posted teaches unbiblical ideas.
For example -
We all believe that Christ died for our sins and we were purchased by His blood.
But Penal Substitution theorists merely use that truth to prop up their theory. They change it to Jesus dying instead of us, suffering God's wrath, etc.
That is not exposition. That is eisegesis.
Penal Substitution Theory adds to Scripture. The theory was created via reforming another theory (which h was created by reforming another theory).
Try reading the Bible without using the theory. What is actually written in God's Word is complete and makes sence. All Penal Substitution Theory does is offer a theory which os different from Scripture and different from traditional Chriatianity.
I can say your theory is unbiblical because it is foreign to the actual text of Scripture.
You cannot say my position is unbiblical because it is what is written in Scripture.
Years ago I discussed this and was condemned for using too much Scripture without adding to it
The charge was "all you do is quote the Bible". Guilty as charged.
It is not my fault that penal substitution theorists believe Scripture does not make sense. The Spirit guides those of us who believe and opens up Scripture - not bia exposition but by a realization Scripture itself makes sence. Even though interpretations differ we rely on God's Word (different focuses and interpretations of some verses).
You need to use more honest words than exposition. Penal Substitution Theory adds what is not there and denies what is there.
