The Biblical Propitiation Of God's Wrath, and PSA.

[Zaatar71]

No. It is referring to Christ. He IS the Propitiation not only for our sins but also of the World. Think "human sin" without exception (no people group, the Subject here is Christ Himself).

No one has denied that Jesus Himself is the propitiation. Not the pastors and teachers quoted. That is not the issue.

We know this because of the previous verse (the conjunction καὶ).


If you put the passage together it may be better for you to grasp:

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an 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 whole world.

That is not in any way different from the material offered throughout this thread.

If we (Believers, the target audience) sin then we have an Advocate in Christ Jesus.
This limits the advocacy of Christ to believers.

Now, you make a correct statement here, as that is exactly what the biblical teaching of PSA. teaches. You avoiding the scriptural language of substitution seek to avoid. I have started a thread on "what is written" to demonstrate this.

And (the conjunction καὶ)
He Himself is the Propitiation
Propitiation is referring to Jesus' role or identity, not to man
For our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

No one cited here has said anything different than that. Perhaps you are not reading carefully? Is that how you missed it?

Christ is the Propitiation for all human sin. There is no other.

Christ is the propitiation for all human sin that are performed by those IN Christ. In saving union to The Lord Jesus Christ, not to sinners who die in their sins. They will receive the full wrath of God, which has not been propitiated from them, notice; jn.8:
24 I said, therefore, to you, that ye shall die in your sins, for if ye may not believe that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.'

But having ones sins propiated is a result of Him advocating (present tense) with the Father.

Yes, no one has said otherwise. Can you quote where anyone denied this? I do not think you can.

An example -

We have a cure in vaccine A, and this vaccine is not only our (those who took it) cure for disease A but also for the whole world. Not all will take it, but that has no bearing on the vaccine.

Again, you need to refresh on the English language.

You are talking about sins being propitiated, not propitiation.
Propiation is something that propitiates.
Christ IS the propitiation for all sins.
This does not mean everybody has had their sins propiated for.

Now, you are resorting to a form of double talk, where you contradict what you have posted previously, we can let those who read see it for themself.

John presents Christians being forgiven by the advocacy (in Hebrews, the mediation) of Christ based on Himself being the Propitiation.

Again, you post something that no one has spoken against. You offer such clear statements in an attempt to make as if you believed what was posted by these sources when in fact you posted against them. You once again are welcome to do such a thing, but those who read can see it for themselves.

Basic English, brother.

I understand basic English, despite your posts that suggest otherwise. You question my knowledge of English, which is not the subject of this thread, is it? I question your understanding of the gospel and your reading accurately what is offered. This also is not the subject of this thread.

There are many known professors and theologians that disagree with your theories

Well my friend, you are welcome to them. perhaps you could offer such threads on your own,

. Most theologians and professors did not, for example, even believe Penal Substitution Theory (the theory you are trying to mold every passage to fit).

That is your opinion. I can make such a statement also. I can say that all real Christians believe the biblical teaching of PSA.

So I could ask you why you reject the classic theologians, or professors like Hosclaw,Craig, Smith....or Early Church theologians like Irenaeus, Athanasius, or Gregory.

I am not bound to search all manner of error. We are here to look at scripture, not your rewrites and opinions on church history. Early Church theologians offered to us the Roman catholic Church which I am not bound by.

David Lipscom was a theologian and founder of a seminary who wrote extensively. This does not mean he was right.

It Is not difficult to find men who teach any position. Men are not the criteria for our faith.

I will search out those I find to be God given trusted guides, as you are quite welcome to do the same.

Bottom line is that you are wrong, and obviously I'll equipped in the English language to the extent you cannot grasp the subject of a clause.

Thanks for offering such a high opinion of yourself. My view is that you do not grasp the correct view of the heart of the gospel. You have offered and I have responded .Those who read will see what is written here.

Christ is the Propiation. Not man.

No one said that! here is exactly what I am pointing out! Can you quote where anyone said such a thing. This false claim does not make your wrong view to have any merit.

Not the elect (except being that Jesus is the Elect), not the lost.

Christ Himself is the propitiation.

Now we get to it then, you are one who denies that God has elected and died for His Covenant Children. Now I understand what this about.

 

[JonC]

No one has denied that Jesus Himself is the propitiation. Not the pastors and teachers quoted. That is not the issue.

That is not in any way different from the material offered throughout this thread.

Now, you make a correct statement here, as that is exactly what the biblical teaching of PSA. teaches. You avoiding the scriptural language of substitution seek to avoid. I have started a thread on "what is written" to demonstrate this.

No one cited here has said anything different than that. Perhaps you are not reading carefully? Is that how you missed it?

Christ is the propitiation for all human sin that are performed by those IN Christ. In saving union to The Lord Jesus Christ, not to sinners who die in their sins. They will receive the full wrath of God, which has not been propitiated from them, notice; jn.8:
24 I said, therefore, to you, that ye shall die in your sins, for if ye may not believe that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.'

Yes, no one has said otherwise. Can you quote where anyone denied this? I do not think you can.

Now, you are resorting to a form of double talk, where you contradict what you have posted previously, we can let those who read see it for themself.

Again, you post something that no one has spoken against. You offer such clear statements in an attempt to make as if you believed what was posted by these sources when in fact you posted against them. You once again are welcome to do such a thing, but those who read can see it for themselves.

I understand basic English, despite your posts that suggest otherwise. You question my knowledge of English, which is not the subject of this thread, is it? I question your understanding of the gospel and your reading accurately what is offered. This also is not the subject of this thread.

Well my friend, you are welcome to them. perhaps you could offer such threads on your own,

That is your opinion. I can make such a statement also. I can say that all real Christians believe the biblical teaching of PSA.

I am not bound to search all manner of error. We are here to look at scripture, not your rewrites and opinions on church history. Early Church theologians offered to us the Roman catholic Church which I am not bound by.

I will search out those I find to be God given trusted guides, as you are quite welcome to do the same.

Thanks for offering such a high opinion of yourself. My view is that you do not grasp the correct view of the heart of the gospel. You have offered and I have responded .Those who read will see what is written here.

No one said that! here is exactly what I am pointing out! Can you quote where anyone said such a thing. This false claim does not make your wrong view to have any merit.

Now we get to it then, you are one who denies that God has elected and died for His Covenant Children. Now I understand what this about.

Ok....now you are being dishonest (lying on the public forum).

The statement that most theologians and professors rejected Penal Substitution Theory is not a matter of opinion. Penal Substitution Theory belongs to a sect of Protestants influenced by the Reformation.

The number of non-Penal Substitution theorists who were theologians or professors is greater than the number who were Penal Substitution theorists. Again, it's the English language tripping you up again. "Most" refers to this greater number.

This does not mean that I agree with those theologians and professors....or even that they agreed among themselves.

I can point out where you repeatedly denied that 1 John 2:2 is speaking of Christ as the Propitiation (you kept applying it to the elect).


I never denied that Chriat died for His elect. You are lying again. Do you not know that kying is a sin against God? It is "bearing fakse witness". (Given your struggle grasping the English language I'll go ahead and inform you that "bearing" in "bearing false witness" has nothing to do with the animal...it means you are lying).


Jesus is God's Elect (Isaiah 42:1; Matthew 12:18; Luke 9:35). This does not mean that those who are "in Christ" are also not the elect (they were chosen in Him before the foundation of the World").


Maybe instead of reading what all those men think you should read your Bible. Or have you lined out all of the passages you disagree with?

 

[Zaatar71]

Ok....now you are being dishonest (lying on the public forum).

Another accusation on your part, and still no attempt to address the pages of material offered directly

The statement that most theologians and professors rejected Penal Substitution Theory is not a matter of opinion.

Oh, but it is...it is your opinion, and no one I know shares it. You are welcome to your opinion, and notice I do not accuse you of lying!

Penal Substitution Theory belongs to a sect of Protestants influenced by the Reformation.

This is your opinion and nothing more.

The number of non-Penal Substitution theorists who were theologians or professors is greater than the number who were Penal Substitution theorists.

Nothing but your flawed opinion once again,no one is following you down this rabbit trail.

Again, it's the English language tripping you up again. "Most" refers to this greater number.

Again, it is you trying and failing to be condescending, but we see right through that.

This does not mean that I agree with those theologians and professors....or even that they agreed among themselves.

No one really cares about your opinion as it is not fact.

I can point out where you repeatedly denied that 1 John 2:2 is speaking of Christ as the Propitiation (you kept applying it to the elect).

okay, offer a direct quote and we will see who is posting truth or error. Perhaps you do not understand english as written,lol
here is a direct quote from me,lol from post 41...No one has denied that Jesus Himself is the propitiation. Not the pastors and teachers quoted. That is not the issue. Do you understand what i wrote in English? Can you quote me saying otherwise as you claim?

I never denied that Chriat died for His elect. You are lying again.

Another accusation?

Do you not know that kying is a sin against God?

I Know that. That is why I am offering you correction on your false accusations, lol

It is "bearing fakse witness". (Given your struggle grasping the English language I'll go ahead and inform you that "bearing" in "bearing false witness" has nothing to do with the animal...it means you are lying).

Another sad accusation on your part! I would let those who read this thread observe who it doing what!

Jesus is God's Elect (Isaiah 42:1; Matthew 12:18; Luke 9:35).

Yes, you are posting a truth here.

This does not mean that those who are "in Christ" are also not the elect (they were chosen in Him before the foundation of the World").

okay, so you agree then that the Covenant children are individually elected unto salvation In Christ?

Maybe instead of reading what all those men think you should read your Bible.

I do read my bible everyday, yet another false accusation and personal attack from you! Is that what you do? Attack people who do not follow you down a false path. Not everyone follows your opinions.

Or have you lined out all of the passages you disagree with?

I believe in a way that shows how the scripture cannot be broken, and i agree with scripture, despite your accusations. Thanks again for this important feedback!

 

[JonC]

Another accusation on your part, and still no attempt to address the pages of material offered directly

Oh, but it is...it is your opinion, and no one I know shares it. You are welcome to your opinion, and notice I do not accuse you of lying!

This is your opinion and nothing more.

Nothing but your flawed opinion once again,no one is following you down this rabbit trail.

Again, it is you trying and failing to be condescending, but we see right through that.

No one really cares about your opinion as it is not fact.



okay, offer a direct quote and we will see who is posting truth or error. Perhaps you do not understand english as written,lol
here is a direct quote from me,lol from post 41...No one has denied that Jesus Himself is the propitiation. Not the pastors and teachers quoted. That is not the issue. Do you understand what i wrote in English? Can you quote me saying otherwise as you claim?

Another accusation?

I Know that. That is why I am offering you correction on your false accusations, lol

Another sad accusation on your part! I would let those who read this thread observe who it doing what!

Yes, you are posting a truth here.

okay, so you agree then that the Covenant children are individually elected unto salvation In Christ?

I do read my bible everyday, yet another false accusation and personal attack from you! Is that what you do? Attack people who do not follow you down a false path. Not everyone follows your opinions.

I believe in a way that shows how the scripture cannot be broken, and i agree with scripture, despite your accusations. Thanks again for this important feedback!

I did not accuse you of lying for being unaware that most theologians and professors rejected Penal Substitution Theory. That I chalked up to ignorance. The majority today hold Satisfaction Theory and reject Penal Substitution Theory. I believe it is wrong, so I am with you in holding a minority view. I just disagree with your minority view and you disagree with mine (I can say mine was the majority view at one time, you cannot....so there's that).

But it is not an opinion (that Penal Substitution Theory is a minority view within Christianity. It is a fact. Truth is not subjective, no matter your opinion.

Yes, I know that when I posted Jesus was God's Elect I was posting truth.

The readon I called you a liar (and stand by that statement) is that when I said that Jesus is God's Elect and wuoted 1 Jn 2:2 that "He Himself is the Propitiation" you quoted it and replied that I denied God chose His covenant children and that Jesus died for them.

I never posted anything like that. I just quoted Scripture. You siimply lied, and there is no getting around that fact.

No, you fo not agree with Scripture. I think at some level you know this or you would not have been posting the opinions of men who agree with you rather than God's Word.

Scripture cannot be broken. This dies not mean we should change Scrioture to blend together every concept into one. You can't say Jesus wept because He walked on water simply because both are true statements.

John tells us that Jesus advocates for us if we sin, that He is the Propitiation for the sins of rhe World. John is not talking about people groups, but that Christians have an Advocate in Christ Jesus snd He Himself is the Propitiation for our sins, not only ours but also for the World.

I understand your philosophy cannot handle God's Word, at least how you hold it. But that is a you problem, a subjective problem. Scripture is objective. Scripture does not care about your feelings or "your truth". We have "what is written".

 

[Brightfame52]

The issue we were discussing was Scripture. My point had nothing to do with various theories, their merits or lack thereof.

I was simply saying that 1 John 2:2 does not apply itself to any people group. Verse 1 does apply Christ as an Advocate (in the present tense) should a Christian sin, so verse 1 does apply to a people group. But "propitiation in verse 2 is descriptive of Christ, not a group of men.

Yeah but Christ is the propitiation for a people group the world of God's elect from amongst the Jews and gentiles. You seem to be very unsure about what you really understand about propitiation!

 

[JonC]

Yeah but Christ is the propitiation for a people group the world of God's elect from amongst the Jews and gentiles. You seem to be very unsure about what you really understand about propitiation!

My point is this is not what John was saying.

He says that if Christians sin we have an Advocate in Jesus who is the Propitiation for all sin.

There are other places where you could make your argument, but this verse neither supports or refute your position. You just zoned in on the word "propitiation" (which several Calvinist theologians think should be translated "atonement" as it includes propitiation....I disagree as I think propitiation is good).

Propitiation is easily understood. It is not a "biblical" word but a word used in the Bible. It means something that allows the avoidance of wrath or anger.

Propitiation is the "something" (a sacrifice, an apology, flowers, etc). Propitiated is what you are talking about.

 

[Brightfame52]

My point is this is not what John was saying.

He says that if Christians sin we have an Advocate in Jesus who is the Propitiation for all sin.

There are other places where you could make your argument, but this verse neither supports or refute your position. You just zoned in on the word "propitiation" (which several Calvinist theologians think should be translated "atonement" as it includes propitiation....I disagree as I think propitiation is good).

Propitiation is easily understood. It is not a "biblical" word but a word used in the Bible. It means something that allows the avoidance of wrath or anger.

Propitiation is the "something" (a sacrifice, an apology, flowers, etc). Propitiated is what you are talking about.

Christ propitiation is valid for anybody he died for even before they believe, for he paid for the sins of his sheep before they were believers that's why they become believers

 

[JonC]

Christ propitiation is valid for anybody he died for even before they believe, for he paid for the sins of his sheep before they were believers that's why they become believers

Again you are still reading into the text.

Illustration:

A rose is the propitiation for my wife's anger, not o ly my wife's anger but every wife's anger. This does not mean that all husband's experience this propitiation (not all will but the rose).

What you offered is some truth and some theory. Even if your theory is correct, it would not change the fact you are reading into 1 Jn 2:2.

Another way of summarizing the verse is to say that in Christ we escape the wrath to come.

We need to be faithful to Scripture. If you replace what is said by another truth you have truth, but you also missed what the verse was actually saying.

Don't forget that John Calvin, who taught your doctrine of election, taught that 1 Jn 2:2 said Jesus is the Propitiation for the sins of the world (without distractions or qualifications).

The verse does not contradict your faith. You are reading into it. Verse 1...maybe another story.

There are only two legitimate ways of interpreting verse 2. I told you one (mine). Yours is not the second.

 

[Brightfame52]

Again you are still reading into the text.

Illustration:

A rose is the propitiation for my wife's anger, not o ly my wife's anger but every wife's anger. This does not mean that all husband's experience this propitiation (not all will but the rose).

What you offered is some truth and some theory. Even if your theory is correct, it would not change the fact you are reading into 1 Jn 2:2.

Another way of summarizing the verse is to say that in Christ we escape the wrath to come.

We need to be faithful to Scripture. If you replace what is said by another truth you have truth, but you also missed what the verse was actually saying.

You just dont understand 1 Jn 2:2 propitiation

 

[JonC]

You just dont understand 1 Jn 2:2 propitiation

No, I understand propitiation in 1 Jn 2:2. Where you view it as a verb it is actually a noun. Christ Himself is the Propitiation.

You are confusing propitiation with propitiation and propitiated.

I do not understand why. Most Calvinist professors would call you out on your failure to diagram the sentence even though they would agree with you regarding whose sins are propitiated.

In fact....do that. Diagram the sentence. If you do you may realize your mistake.

There are only two legitimate interpretations of that verse.

Essentually you are saying, under one, that the wicked have a different propitiation for their sins.

Under the other you are denying those who reject Christ are condemned for rejecting Him (that the Father has given all judgment to Him).

You are wrong because no man can come to the Father but by Jesus. I know you dont see it. Diagram the sentence and you might.

 

[Zaatar71]

I did not accuse you of lying for being unaware that most theologians and professors rejected Penal Substitution Theory. That I chalked up to ignorance. The majority today hold Satisfaction Theory and reject Penal Substitution Theory.

Again, you are welcome to your opinion which is highly subjective !

I believe it is wrong,

Yes you do and again you are welcome to your opinion.

so I am with you in holding a minority view. I just disagree with your minority view and you disagree with mine (I can say mine was the majority view at one time, you cannot....so there's that).

more opinion

But it is not an opinion (that Penal Substitution Theory is a minority view within Christianity.

it is an opinion that no one I know shares !

It is a fact.

Your narrow opinion does not

Truth is not subjective, no matter your opinion.

Yes, I know that when I posted Jesus was God's Elect I was posting truth.

[The readon I called you a liar (and stand by that statement) is that when I said that Jesus is God's Elect and wuoted 1 Jn 2:2 that "He Himself is the Propitiation" you quoted it and replied that I denied God chose His covenant children and that Jesus died for them.

I never posted anything like that. I just quoted Scripture. You siimply lied, and there is no getting around that fact.]

there was no lie, you just tried to say it was for all men, and that is not true.


[ you do not understand the topic, and seem to think calling me and No, you fo not agree with Scripture. I think at some level you know this or you woothers names makes your posted errors ok.
John tells us that Jesus advocates for us if we sin, that He is the Propitiation for the sins of rhe World. John is not talking about people groups, but that Christians have an Advocate in Christ Jesus snd He Himself is the Propitiation for our sins, not only ours but also for the World.

I understand your philosophy cannot handle God's Word, at least how you hold it. But that is a you problem, a subjective problem. Scripture is objective. Scripture does not care about your feelings or "your truth". We have "what is written".

Evidently ,what is written eludes you, and you still have failed to address the links written. It is obvious you cannot do it, or you would have by now.

 

[JonC]

Again, you are welcome to your opinion which is highly subjective !

Yes you do and again you are welcome to your opinion.

more opinion

it is an opinion that no one I know shares !

Your narrow opinion does not

Evidently ,what is written eludes you, and you still have failed to address the links written. It is obvious you cannot do it, or you would have by now.

Ot does not matter if nobody you knows is aware of the fact that Oenal Substitution Theory has never been the predominant Christian understanding. Facts are facts. Since the 1300's the predominantly theory has been Satisfaction Theory (even among protestants...technically this is still the orthodox theory among Lutherans). Ransom theory gets the second spot. Recapitulation takes the third. Christus Victor is in fourth. Penal Substitution Theory is fifth.

But among Presbyterians, Penal Substitution Theory is the prominent view (the only ones until a few decades ago). Baptists are in a spectrum....most hold not-quite-Penal Substitution Theory (a mixture of several competing ideas applied depending on the topic). Reformed Baptists hold Penal Substitution Theory, as do Methodists.


I did not address the links because I did not read the links. I held Penal Substitution Theory. I taught it in theology. It influenced my sermons about the Cross. I do not need to read penal substitution theorists defending their position becausecI was one of them.

I also have no interest in reading the Book of Mormon, although I was never a Mormon.

BUT if you post Scripture I will read that.

 

[Zaatar71]

Ot does not matter if nobody you knows is aware of the fact that Oenal Substitution Theory has never been the predominant Christian understanding.

Facts are facts. Since the 1300's the predominantly theory has been Satisfaction Theory (even among protestants...technically this is still the orthodox theory among Lutherans). Ransom theory gets the second spot. Recapitulation takes the third. Christus Victor is in fourth. Penal Substitution Theory is fifth.

But among Presbyterians, Penal Substitution Theory is the prominent view (the only ones until a few decades ago). Baptists are in a spectrum....most hold not-quite-Penal Substitution Theory (a mixture of several competing ideas applied depending on the topic). Reformed Baptists hold Penal Substitution Theory, as do Methodists.


I did not address the links because I did not read the links. I held Penal Substitution Theory. I taught it in theology. It influenced my sermons about the Cross. I do not need to read penal substitution theorists defending their position becausecI was one of them.

I also have no interest in reading the Book of Mormon, although I was never a Mormon.

BUT if you post Scripture I will read that.

Your opinions do not mean much. No one I know, read, or have spoken with denies the PSA. only you. You admit you did not read the links, I give you credit for that. Maybe if you read them carefully you will come to a better understanding than what you tried to hold in the past.
they posted at least 54 scriptures, that you did not read. They are still right there on the thread. No one is stopping you from reading them now.

 

[JonC]

Your opinions do not mean much. No one I know, read, or have spoken with denies the PSA. only you. You admit you did not read the links, I give you credit for that. Maybe if you read them carefully you will come to a better understanding than what you tried to hold in the past.
they posted at least 54 scriptures, that you did not read. They are still right there on the thread. No one is stopping you from reading them now.

I doubt I would understand Penal Substitution Theory any better. I have a very good understanding.

I have read Murray, Knox, and Owen (about everything they wrote). I have also read every Spurgeon sermon and his notes. I have read most of John Gill's works, all of FF Bruce's commentaries, most of John MacArthur sermons and many of his books. I have read most of JI Packer's books, I think all of John Piper's books.

I have a large library. And I have most on the library digitized (I had the John Murray book I quoted, for example).

I'll look at your link and see who wrote them. Not wasting any time reading them, though.

 

[JonC]

Your opinions do not mean much. No one I know, read, or have spoken with denies the PSA. only you. You admit you did not read the links, I give you credit for that. Maybe if you read them carefully you will come to a better understanding than what you tried to hold in the past.
they posted at least 54 scriptures, that you did not read. They are still right there on the thread. No one is stopping you from reading them now.

I can't find the link. Is it in this thread?

Of those you quoted -

I know the Murray books you reference, and I have read at least one of Albert Maryin's books (that I can think of...Practicle Calvinism..? Something like that).

I know of Nick Batzig and have seen his sermons (met him once in North Charleston as well). I think he is or was (this was several years ago) a Presbyterian preacher.

I know too much about Greg Bahnsen to care about his opinions. He departed from mainstream Christianity and advocated a very unbiblical view of the church.

But I can't find the link. Too many posts and threads.

 

[JonC]

Not interested in your ideas of church history. You have offered no scripture at all


John Murray, and Al martin are not cult leaders. You cannot deal with what they have offered. More of your false history


This is a complete falsehood/, It shows you do not understand the word. Thanks for trying.
The Apostolic church taught psa as they taught scripture as given by God. You do not understand the language of substitution as is written.

WGT,Shedd
In the majority of the passages, however, which speak of Christ's sufferings and death, the preposition "ὑπέρ" (hyper) is employed: "This cup is the new covenant in my blood which is shed for (ὑπέρ) you" (Luke 22:19–20); "the bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world" (John 6:51); "greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for (ὑπέρ) his friends" (John 15:13); "Christ died for (ὑπέρ) the ungodly; while we were yet sinners Christ died for (ὑπέρ) us" (Rom. 5:6–8); "he delivered him up for (ὑπέρ) us all" (Rom. 8:32); "if one died for (ὑπέρ) all then all died" (2 Cor. 5:14–15); "he made him to be sin for (ὑπέρ) us" (2 Cor. 5:21); "being made a curse for (ὑπέρ) us" (Gal. 3:13); "Christ gave himself for (ὑπέρ) us an offering and a sacrifice to God" (Eph. 5:2, 25); "the man Christ Jesus gave himself a ransom for (ὑπέρ) all" (1 Tim. 2:5–6); Christ "tasted death for (ὑπέρ) every man" (Heb. 2:9); Christ "suffered the just for (ὑπέρ) the unjust" (1 Pet. 3:18).

The preposition ὑπέρ, like the English preposition for, has two significations. It may denote advantage or benefit, or it may mean substitution


You have failed to interact with what has been offered, You seek to dismiss it. You do not really grasp the gospel evidently. I have no choice but dismiss your non responsive entries. Thanks for trying.


The apostles were used by God to write the NT, which contains PSA in that which was written. You have failed once again to interact to the many posts showing what scripture teaches. If you want to give your revised version, start a thread on your own. Professor John Murray is known worldwide. I am not sure if you are known anywhere??? Have you written or published anything, anywhere? I think not.
So again, try your ideas on a new thread. No one seems interested in what you are saying, all off topic. Thanks again

I never said they were cukt keaders...although some soeak about them as if they are in their cult.

I have not offered any opinions or ideas about church history. I mentioned a few facts about Christian History. No opinions.

Like you I disagree with the most popular position on Atonement. But that's fine with me. Narrow is the way.

There is a glaring problem with your post. You say that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is in whatvis written in the New Testament BUT you can't serm to find sny actual verses in the New Testament where the teachings of Penal Substitution Theory is written.

Start with this one - quote a New Testament verse that states Jesus suffered God's wrath.

 

[Zaatar71]

I doubt I would understand Penal Substitution Theory any better. I have a very good understanding.

I have read Murray, Knox, and Owen (about everything they wrote). I have also read every Spurgeon sermon and his notes. I have read most of John Gill's works, all of FF Bruce's commentaries, most of John MacArthur sermons and many of his books. I have read most of JI Packer's books, I think all of John Piper's books.

I have a large library. And I have most on the library digitized (I had the John Murray book I quoted, for example).

I'll look at your link and see who wrote them. Not wasting any time reading them, though.

I posted it for others who might want to learn.

 

[JonC]

I posted it for others who might want to learn.

OK. That is the reason I continue our discussion as well. I have no illusions of bring you back to God's Word. You have Murray to tell you what to believe, as long as you like what he says.

I have been replying so others who pass by may decide to read the Bible as if God's Word actually teaches what is written in its pages.

I know of two that have chosen Scripture over theory. That is two over a decade, but it is two that have not been carried away by philosophy.

 

[Zaatar71]

I never said they were cukt keaders...although some soeak about them as if they are in their cult.

I have not offered any opinions or ideas about church history. I mentioned a few facts about Christian History. No opinions.

Like you I disagree with the most popular position on Atonement. But that's fine with me. Narrow is the way.

There is a glaring problem with your post. You say that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is in whatvis written in the New Testament BUT you can't serm to find sny actual verses in the New Testament where the teachings of Penal Substitution Theory is written.

Start with this one - quote a New Testament verse that states Jesus suffered God's wrath.

When you describe godly men and mention them with Mormons and Jw's it is not a good example is it?

Sure, nt verses;
24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls..

Heb9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? He was High priest and the sacrifice offered.

Heb.9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Rev .13:8...8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. these are enough for those who want to read and understand.

 

[JonC]

When you describe godly men and mention them with Mormons and Jw's it is not a good example is it?

Sure, nt verses;
24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls..

Heb9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? He was High priest and the sacrifice offered.

Heb.9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Rev .13:8...8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. these are enough for those who want to read and understand.

But none of those passages state what you wish they stated.

You cannot even interpret those passages to mean that Jesus experienced God's wrath. You added to God's Word and call it "interpretation".


Jesus did bear our sins bodily on the tree.
It is by His stripes we are healed.
He is the "Bishop" of our souls.
It is by His own blood He obtained our redemption.
He died for our sins.
He who knew no sin was made sin for us.
It was necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
It is appointed man once to die and then the judgment.
He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the World (there is a lesson for you here)
He is the Lamb that takes away the sins of the World.
He is the Propitiation for our sins.
He was made a curse for us.
It pleased the Lord to crush Him.

We all agree on what those passages say.

We disagree on what you add to those passages (what is not a different interpretation but an addition).

You still have not given even ONE passage that states Jesus experienced God's wrath.

For that you have to go to Calvin, not Christ.

That is why you run from Scripture to Presbyterian ministers. They give you what God will not - the faith you are seeking.

And that is perfectly fine. Each of us has to decide who we will follow.

Christians are never aware when they are carried away by vain philosophy. They only realize this when they return to God. But in the end, even that is a choice- a choice to be a disciples of Murray or of God. You can't have it both ways. God will do the separating. He will say "well done" or "I never knew you". It is an issue between you snd God, not me.

For me, God led me from this theory, this philosophy, at just the right time. I was in danger of following the same men rather than God. I cpuld not have convenced myself to reject the philosophy, so I do not pretend to think I can help you.

I made my decision to rest in His Word. You made your decision as well. Trust in your faith. Go where it leads you. That is between you and God. You have God's Word. You have Presbyterian ministers. Your choice, not mine.