The Enemies Of The Cross of Christ:

[JonC]

No, while Martin will answer for himself, he is probably sleeping, I think he said he lives in England....it is you who are butchering the text of Hebrews. I will show it right here.

In verse7. it shows the offering of the OT. Priest offering the blood of a lamb as the commanded blood sacrifice. It was about the blood...the tabernacle made without hands, while important is not the main issue, the conscience, while important is not the main issue.
Martin is completely correct to be focused on the blood. You mention the parts of the verses but leave out the blood, you talk about the tabernacle, the conscience, even forgiveness, but that is not the focus here. It is about the Blood of the Lamb SLAIN.


He is mediator, and Surety for sure, important, but not the main focus here

No..".not a death has taken place" as if He could have died of a heart attack, or fell off a cliff. It was the Lamb SLAIN. The blood of the lamb slain as Martin correctly points at ,over, and over, and over , The Lamb of God , who takes away the sin. That is the main issue here.

It was for the sins of the elect from all time. Before the Old Covenant, and after the Old Covenant.


He gets it from the whole Ot . sacrificial system, the lamb Slain on the day of Atonement, the blood of the Passover, and here Jesus blood was said to be the better Sacrifice than the one spoken of in verse 7. So while you claim to be following scripture, you are speaking of everything but the Blood of The Lamb Slain

true, but that is not addressing the issue in this passage

true, but not the issue. This way you sound as if you are trying to be biblical, but you avoid what the writer does not avoid.

Yes, but what you avoid , and Martin always brings up is vs.22:
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Here you use the word sacrifice, but divorce it from the work of the High Priest on the day of atonement.

yes 14x in the book of Revelation, we are told , the Lamb that was slain was now on the throne.

A blood sacrifice by the Lamb slain.

while that is true, it does not speak of the priestly sacrifice at all .

You never answer this! What doe sit mean...to bear the sins??? of many...sins plural, each and every sin. Not just generic sin.
What does it mean ...He was offered... Offered how??? you never answer! how did He bear the sin? was it piled into a wheelbarrel and he lifted it up like a weight lifter? Or was it like the texts describe/



No, not what the text points to;
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. The sin has been put away. The sins of the elect were put on him, to take the wrath and penalty of the elect sinners, that is why it says that he beared the sins of Many, not all as you suggest, but a multitude, who will have no condemnation for their sins, because Jesus beared them.

Why again to you slander a Pastor, and suggest he is outside the faith" he is right, you are not right.

you have just butchered the texts here in Hebrews, so you really do not have them then

Martin is not part of a sect. He is a Pastor of a Baptist Church in England. You can hear him preach on the internet.
I have never heard you preach or teach on the internet


It is to those who read it as it is found in context.

Because all the confessing Church believes what Martin believes.

He does believe that. You accuse him, but we all see Martin is right, and you are giving your own view, that no one holds.

No, it is the confessional faith, yesterday, today, and forever.

Lol....I can't have butchered thee text.

1. Martin quoted a sniping (one part of a verse) and went on to say what it "really" teaches.
2. I said Martin was wrong and then literally quoted tge fuller passage.
3. You said that I butchered the text of Hebrews

You prove my point here. Im your opinion @Martin Marprelate correctly said what the text "really" teaches while I, by literally copying the passage and pasting it in my post (adding "God said") have butchered the text.


What you mean is "God butchered the real teaching in Hebrews". (Again, I literally copied and pasted the passage....adding "God said", removing verse numbers, etc).



Another point:

A person can be a Christian and a Calvinistist. I once was.

This would mean that they cannot hold a deeper understanding of God's Word because they exchange parts of it, but it does not mean they have departed from the faith.

It depends on how one holds their understanding. It is when people lean on their understanding rather than the words that come from God that they depart from the faith once delivered. People can and will hold philosophies (we all do). But they must grasp what is God's Words and what is their philosophy. People can be carried away by their philosophy.

I have known @Martin Marprelate (as a member) for almost two decades. From his posts he has been carried away from the faith by his philosophy. He cannot distinguish his understanding of the Bible from Scripture itself.

I do not mean he is not saved. I am talking about doctrine. I know Catholics and SDA people who are saved.

Can philosophy carry one away from the faith? Yes. My opinion (understanding, held at arms length) is that if these oeople are saved then God disciplines them and will correct their disobedience (they may not change their understanding but they will hold it differently...at arms length, not leaning on it).

I have an opinion, but I cannot know whether he is a Christian. Only God knows (I doubt @Martin Marprelate knows). It will be revealed "on that day".



I have no issues at all with the Confessing Church. They were right in not allowing the German Nazi government to control their doctrine and resist the German government's attempt to unify Protestant churches into one body. While I do not believe Karl Barth was correct in all his teachings, his work in building the Confessing Church was spot on. But Catholics also opposed the Nazi regime. That does not mean speaking against their doctrine is condemning their stand against Nazism.


If you mean churches that rely on creeds or confessions, not all of these believe as Martin believes. Lutherans would be one good example. So would Anglicans.

I do not believe that any church that holds a creed or confession higher than it holds God's Word is confessing God. They are confessing their own understanding.

 

[JonC]

No, while Martin will answer for himself, he is probably sleeping, I think he said he lives in England....it is you who are butchering the text of Hebrews. I will show it right here.

In verse7. it shows the offering of the OT. Priest offering the blood of a lamb as the commanded blood sacrifice. It was about the blood...the tabernacle made without hands, while important is not the main issue, the conscience, while important is not the main issue.
Martin is completely correct to be focused on the blood. You mention the parts of the verses but leave out the blood, you talk about the tabernacle, the conscience, even forgiveness, but that is not the focus here. It is about the Blood of the Lamb SLAIN.


He is mediator, and Surety for sure, important, but not the main focus here

No..".not a death has taken place" as if He could have died of a heart attack, or fell off a cliff. It was the Lamb SLAIN. The blood of the lamb slain as Martin correctly points at ,over, and over, and over , The Lamb of God , who takes away the sin. That is the main issue here.

It was for the sins of the elect from all time. Before the Old Covenant, and after the Old Covenant.


He gets it from the whole Ot . sacrificial system, the lamb Slain on the day of Atonement, the blood of the Passover, and here Jesus blood was said to be the better Sacrifice than the one spoken of in verse 7. So while you claim to be following scripture, you are speaking of everything but the Blood of The Lamb Slain

true, but that is not addressing the issue in this passage

true, but not the issue. This way you sound as if you are trying to be biblical, but you avoid what the writer does not avoid.

Yes, but what you avoid , and Martin always brings up is vs.22:
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Here you use the word sacrifice, but divorce it from the work of the High Priest on the day of atonement.

yes 14x in the book of Revelation, we are told , the Lamb that was slain was now on the throne.

A blood sacrifice by the Lamb slain.

while that is true, it does not speak of the priestly sacrifice at all .

You never answer this! What doe sit mean...to bear the sins??? of many...sins plural, each and every sin. Not just generic sin.
What does it mean ...He was offered... Offered how??? you never answer! how did He bear the sin? was it piled into a wheelbarrel and he lifted it up like a weight lifter? Or was it like the texts describe/



No, not what the text points to;
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. The sin has been put away. The sins of the elect were put on him, to take the wrath and penalty of the elect sinners, that is why it says that he beared the sins of Many, not all as you suggest, but a multitude, who will have no condemnation for their sins, because Jesus beared them.

Why again to you slander a Pastor, and suggest he is outside the faith" he is right, you are not right.

you have just butchered the texts here in Hebrews, so you really do not have them then

Martin is not part of a sect. He is a Pastor of a Baptist Church in England. You can hear him preach on the internet.
I have never heard you preach or teach on the internet


It is to those who read it as it is found in context.

Because all the confessing Church believes what Martin believes.

He does believe that. You accuse him, but we all see Martin is right, and you are giving your own view, that no one holds.

No, it is the confessional faith, yesterday, today, and forever.

Let me ask you, as you do seem to be a bit more forthcoming and honest than some here:

Sects telling us what the Bible really teaches are a dime a dozen.
You belong to one that is not the largest or smallest, but one among many.

Why did you choose that paticular sect?

Why believe that what they say the Bible really teaches is correct and what others say the Bible really teaches is wrong?

How can those of us who believe the Bible really teaches the actual text of the Bible be wrong even if our understanding of that text contains mistakes?

How do you text your doctrines which are not in God's Word to make sure they are true (what is your standard for parts of your belief that is foreign to the biblical text)?


You seem to challenge the appropriateness of my being critical of Martin's faith on the grounds that many peoole agree with him. But many people also disagree with him. I believe the only ground we can judge doctrine is God's Word ("what is written", not what some say os "really" taught).


My belief is that the Bible teaches the actual text of Scripture (that the text is literally what is being taught). So interpretations may vary but these are interpretations of the actual text (what is stated in the actual words). I believe that Scripture interprets Scripture.


There are some, like @Martin Marprelate , who believe God gave us His Word, but not to teach His words. Instead the true teachings is hidden and revealed through men (for him, the men God chose to reveal these hidden teachings is specific Reformview. The role of the Spirit in this view is to imoart revelations about what God's Word provides hints.

But there are others, like me, who believe that God's Word is literally teaching God's words. Think of clay jars. People see them as plain and simplistic. But there could be treasure inside, hidden in plain view. The Spirit illuminates what is actually written in Scripture. The influence is on us, not on truth.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You lack comprehension of my belief.

That is because you seem unable to express yourself

It all centers on Christ and His work of redemption.

Christ had to die under the bondage of sin and death, as one of us, to free us from its bondage.

Why?

He had to bevome a life giving spirit.

Why?

He had to be that second Adam.

Why, if God can simply sort the whole matter out by giving us new birth and forgiving our sins? What need for Jesus?

 

[Zaatar71]

Lol....I can't have butchered thee text.

1. Martin quoted a sniping (one part of a verse) and went on to say what it "really" teaches.
2. I said Martin was wrong and then literally quoted tge fuller passage.
3. You said that I butchered the text of Hebrews

You prove my point here. Im your opinion @Martin Marprelate correctly said what the text "really" teaches while I, by literally copying the passage and pasting it in my post (adding "God said") have butchered the text.
What you mean is "God butchered the real teaching in Hebrews". (Again, I literally copied and pasted the passage....adding "God said", removing verse numbers, etc).

What i mean is you basically ignored the whole teaching and significance of the Lamb, slain. Martin and everyone else does not miss it

A person can be a Christian and a Calvinistist. I once was.

You can claim anything. The Calvinists I know, would never post many of the things you post. That suggests you never really had a biblical grasp of it. You do not have it now, for sure. You are a free moral agent, you can do what you want.

This would mean that they cannot hold a deeper understanding of God's Word because they exchange parts of it, but it does not mean they have departed from the faith.

I cannot fully judge their heart. I can read their posts.

It depends on how one holds their understanding. It is when people lean on their understanding rather than the words

as you do, no one holds your ideas as biblical, except you. Have you noticed that not one other member on staff, says, Yes John, Jesus is not a Divine substitute, and has not taken the punishment due to the sins of a believer.

that come from God that they depart from the faith once delivered.

You are in that process now, by turning from the actual Sacrifical offering of the cross, and seeking to pull others with you.

People can and will hold philosophies (we all do). But they must grasp what is God's Words and what is their philosophy. People can be carried away by their philosophy.

Your go to excuse for your ideas.

I have known @Martin Marprelate (as a member) for almost two decades. From his posts he has been carried away from the faith by his philosophy. He cannot distinguish his understanding of the Bible from Scripture itself.

No, Martin would be seen and respected as orthodox in any Church that believes the bible. You would be a red flag to any alert eldership.

I do not mean he is not saved.

No, but you constantly speak of his departing from the faith, for cult like doctrine, RC doctrine, none of which he himself has said.

I am talking about doctrine. I know Catholics and SDA people who are saved.

You are all over the place, and free to know what you think you know.

Can philosophy carry one away from the faith? Yes.

Then return to biblical teaching. You calling everything philosophy does not dismiss biblical teaching and authority.

My opinion (understanding, held at arms length) is that if these oeople are saved then God disciplines them and will correct their disobedience (they may not change their understanding but they will hold it differently...at arms length, not leaning on it).

You are welcome to your ideas as we all are.

I have an opinion, but I cannot know whether he is a Christian. Only God knows (I doubt @Martin Marprelate knows). It will be revealed "on that day".

I think Martin knows who he trusts ,

I have no issues at all with the Confessing Church.

Your posting tells a different story.

They were right in not allowing the German Nazi government to control their doctrine and resist the German government's attempt to unify Protestant churches into one body. While I do not believe Karl Barth was correct in all his teachings, his work in building the Confessing Church was spot on. But Catholics also opposed the Nazi regime. That does not mean speaking against their doctrine is condemning their stand against Nazism.

This is neither here nor there.

If you mean churches that rely on creeds or confessions, not all of these believe as Martin believes. Lutherans would be one good example. So would Anglicans.

I do not believe that any church that holds a creed or confession higher than it holds God's Word is confessing God. They are confessing their own understanding.

That is your opinion, thanks for sharing it.

 

[JonC]

What i mean is you basically ignored the whole teaching and significance of the Lamb, slain. Martin and everyone else does not miss it

You can claim anything. The Calvinists I know, would never post many of the things you post. That suggests you never really had a biblical grasp of it. You do not have it now, for sure. You are a free moral agent, you can do what you want.

I cannot fully judge their heart. I can read their posts.

as you do, no one holds your ideas as biblical, except you. Have you noticed that not one other member on staff, says, Yes John, Jesus is not a Divine substitute, and has not taken the punishment due to the sins of a believer.

You are in that process now, by turning from the actual Sacrifical offering of the cross, and seeking to pull others with you.

Your go to excuse for your ideas.

No, Martin would be seen and respected as orthodox in any Church that believes the bible. You would be a red flag to any alert eldership.

No, but you constantly speak of his departing from the faith, for cult like doctrine, RC doctrine, none of which he himself has said.

You are all over the place, and free to know what you think you know.

Then return to biblical teaching. You calling everything philosophy does not dismiss biblical teaching and authority.

You are welcome to your ideas as we all are.

I think Martin knows who he trusts ,

Your posting tells a different story.

This is neither here nor there.

That is your opinion, thanks for sharing it.

What I mean by "philosophy" is man's study of reality.

If the Bible says "ABC" then why condemn those who believe "ABC" but not "DEF" as enemies of the cross?

I do not mean that @Martin Marprelate is outside of orthodox Christianity. Arminianism, Calvinism, Pentecostalism, Catholicism....all of that is within orthodox Christianity.

By "the faith" I mean "the faith once delivered" (God's Word, the actual text). @Martin Marprelate does mot belueve God's Word ("what is written") is true as it is written. Instead he believes what one group out of many tells him the Bible really teaches.


I have you an example when I quoted Hebrews. There is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. @Martin Marprelate believes that this means Jesus suffered God's wrath as God punished our dins laid on Jesus instead of punishing us.

BUT the passage in Hebrews itself provides a completely different reason there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood.

When I quoted Hebrews you said it was a butchering (but it was literally God's Word). @Martin Marprelate sees it the same way - that God's Word ("what is written") is a butchering of what the Bible really teaches.



I am very interested in a question you have yet to answer.

Why should anybody choose the sect you have chosen to understand what the Bible really teaches?

I was a Calvinist for a long time. I get how you arrive at your belief. But since it is just what you think(and I thought) the Bible really teaches why should anybody consider it better than any other theory?

HOW do you test the parts of your belief that are not actually in God's Word?

Against what teachers you like say? Teachers are a dime a dozen.
Against theologians and scholars who agree with you? Anybody can find a theologian or scholar they agree with (as you pointed out to JoJ).


You look in God's Word, read His actual words, and realize what you believe is not actualky there. But you believe it is what the Bible teaches. How do you know? How do you test that faith? How is it different from being just an understanding we are not to lean on?

 

[JonC]

@Zaatar71

I am not trying to be difficult. I am not attacking.

Those are real questions.

I really want to understand how you chose your belief (what is not actually in the Bible) and how you tested that doctrine.

 

[JonC]

That is because you seem unable to express yourself

Why?

Why?

Why, if God can simply sort the whole matter out by giving us new birth and forgiving our sins? What need for Jesus?

Perhaps. Or, more likely, you did not comprehend because what I posted was God's Word. This is why you have put your trust in men to tell you what the Bible really teaches. You do not believe God expressed Himself adequately.

Why did Christ have to bear our sins and die under the wages of our sin?

In order to reconcile mankind to God. The cross was God reconciling mankind to Himself. It is on this basis that we urge men to be reconciled to God. Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil.

Why did Christ have to bevome a life giving spirit?

So that just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.
For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers , and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.


Why, if God can make man new creations and forgive sins when they repent (turn from wickedness to Him, have a "new heart", die to sin) do we need Jesus?

Because Jesus IS the Way. We are made new creations in Christ, we die to sin and are made alive in Christ, we are bring conformed to the image of Christ, we are righteous in Chriat, we are justified in Christ, we are glorified in Christ. Christ IS how God saves us.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No, while Martin will answer for himself, he is probably sleeping, I think he said he lives in England....it is you who are butchering the text of Hebrews. I will show it right here.

You are correct that I live in England and that there is a time difference between here and the USA. But that is not a big part of the reason I don't keep posting here.
I have duties at my church, and in fact I am preaching in about an hour from now, with another to prepare for next week, not to mention Bible Studies, visitation and elders' meetings. Replying to @JonC is a very long way down my list of priorities. But I expect I will get around to it when I have some spare time.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Perhaps. Or, more likely, you did not comprehend because what I posted was God's Word. This is why you have put your trust in men to tell you what the Bible really teaches. You do not believe God expressed Himself adequately.

Why did Christ have to bear our sins and die under the wages of our sin?

In order to reconcile mankind to God. The cross was God reconciling mankind to Himself. It is on this basis that we urge men to be reconciled to God. Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil.

Why did Christ have to bevome a life giving spirit?

So that just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.
For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers , and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.


Why, if God can make man new creations and forgive sins when they repent (turn from wickedness to Him, have a "new heart", die to sin) do we need Jesus?

Because Jesus IS the Way. We are made new creations in Christ, we die to sin and are made alive in Christ, we are bring conformed to the image of Christ, we are righteous in Chriat, we are justified in Christ, we are glorified in Christ. Christ IS how God saves us.

You have managed to write seven paragraphs without telling us anything.
How does Christ dying on the cross reconcile mankind to God? How does the cross reconcile man to God? How has His death broken the power of Satan? I know, but I don't think you do. Just saying "Jesus is the way" tells us nothing - we all believe that. You need to tell us why and how. Unless you can answer these questions clearly, there is no point in keeping this thread open.
You remind me very much of the early 18th Century Presbyterians in England who abandoned the doctrine of the Trinity. When examined by their presbyteries, they refused to give a clear statement of their beliefs and simply said that they believed the Bible.

Oh yes! And why did our LOrd refuse the wine mixed with myrrh?

 

[JonC]

You are correct that I live in England and that there is a time difference between here and the USA. But that is not a big part of the reason I don't keep posting here.
I have duties at my church, and in fact I am preaching in about an hour from now, with another to prepare for next week, not to mention Bible Studies, visitation and elders' meetings. Replying to @JonC is a very long way down my list of priorities. But I expect I will get around to it when I have some spare time.

Don't worry about it. In fact, I know what you believe because I believed it at one time.

I really just have five questions.

This is what I want to know:

1. Out of all the theories about what the Bible teaches that are foreign to the actual Biblical text, why did you choose the one you hold?

2. Since your faith is not in the biblical text, how did you test the doctrine?

3. Since your belief is not in "what is written", how is it not leaning on your own understanding rather than on the words that come from God?

4. And lastly, given that your theory is just one among many (not the smallest sect, not the largest either) and it cannot pass an objective test (it is not in the biblical text itself) why should anybody consider it valid?

5. If God's words (the biblical text) makes sence and is complete to many, then why should they even consider adopting any theory about what the Bible "really" teaches?

 

[JonC]

You have managed to write seven paragraphs without telling us anything.
How does Christ dying on the cross reconcile mankind to God? How does the cross reconcile man to God? How has His death broken the power of Satan? I know, but I don't think you do. Just saying "Jesus is the way" tells us nothing - we all believe that. You need to tell us why and how. Unless you can answer these questions clearly, there is no point in keeping this thread open.
You remind me very much of the early 18th Century Presbyterians in England who abandoned the doctrine of the Trinity. When examined by their presbyteries, they refused to give a clear statement of their beliefs and simply said that they believed the Bible.

Oh yes! And why did our LOrd refuse the wine mixed with myrrh?

I have told you. It in the post. You simply do not understand it.

For since by a man death came, by a Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. Think another "Adam" the "Firstfruits" of many to come.

We do not know that the wine was mixed with myrrh. It was mixed with χολῆς (gall or bile, indicating a bitter substance). It could be myrrh, or wormwood. Something that tasted bitter and was used to dull the senses.

Jesus woukd not take of it because He came to fully suffer the power of Satan, to taste death for every man.

 

[JonC]

What i mean is you basically ignored the whole teaching and significance of the Lamb, slain. Martin and everyone else does not miss it

You and @Martin Marprelate belongs to a relatively small sect (not the smallest or largest in Christian history, but small in comparison to the whole). So "everyone else" doez mot apply.

Anyway, I do not miss the connections you are making. I once was a Calvinist. I once shared your theory. I once made those same connections.

I am not misding those connections. I am outright rejecting them.

The reason is I believe Scripture offers a greater teaching and a greater significance of the Lamb slain. I believe God's words explain the significance of the Old Covenant, the priesthood, the sacrifice system, etc in a much deeper context than what some sects (including yours) say is really taught.


Just pretend you are me (only for a moment...you can go back to beong you afterwards).

You were a Calvinist. You taught theology. You preached sermons. But you are also a biblicist. One day these come to a head and you realize that your faith is not in God's words...you know not to lean on your understanding but on every word ftom God.

So you read Scriptures as if those things your sect says the Bible teaches is wrong. And you realize that God's own words actualky make sense - I mean they make sence from Gen to Rev as a narrative of redemption.

Could you, afterwards, choose to believe what people tell you the Bible teaches instead of God's actual words?


Now be you again.


I see no need for believing what your sect (my former sect) says the Bible really teaches.
I see no need to assume that God adopted a 16th century French philosophy (Legal Humanism) as divine justice.
I see no need to trust the Catholic explanation of the Fall.

So obviously you and I will not agree. We would have years ago, but not now.

 

[Zaatar71]

What I mean by "philosophy" is man's study of reality.

If the Bible says "ABC" then why condemn those who believe "ABC" but not "DEF" as enemies of the cross?

I do not mean that @Martin Marprelate is outside of orthodox Christianity. Arminianism, Calvinism, Pentecostalism, Catholicism....all of that is within orthodox Christianity.

By "the faith" I mean "the faith once delivered" (God's Word, the actual text). @Martin Marprelate does mot belueve God's Word ("what is written") is true as it is written. Instead he believes what one group out of many tells him the Bible really teaches.


I have you an example when I quoted Hebrews. There is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. @Martin Marprelate believes that this means Jesus suffered God's wrath as God punished our dins laid on Jesus instead of punishing us.

BUT the passage in Hebrews itself provides a completely different reason there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood.

When I quoted Hebrews you said it was a butchering (but it was literally God's Word). @Martin Marprelate sees it the same way - that God's Word ("what is written") is a butchering of what the Bible really teaches.

Again, can you quote us where Martin says he does not believe what is written? until I see him say that, I am not going to watch you accuse him of that. martin bellieves what is written, and he knows what it actually means, comparing scripture with scripture, understanding the biblical definitions. I do not see anyone else on the Board post to martin and suggest he does not believe what is written, look through all the posts, and let me know where he himself denies scripture.

I am very interested in a question you have yet to answer.

okay

Why should anybody choose the sect you have chosen to understand what the Bible really teaches?

No Problem. When God saves a person by new birth, he instructs them to assemble with others who He has saved. I do not belong to a sect, but rather confessional Churches. I have visited many kinds of what are called churches, but who have denied the faith, and what it means to function as a NT. Assembly. Once I went into a Methodist Church, and the man up front spoke about, the leaves changing color as the season has changed, and a few anecdotal stories. I do not recall him speak about the lord Jesus Christ at any time during his lecture.
That was a one visit and done, as I sought to hear the word of God preached and taught. The other day I sent a link for a guy who produces what he refers to as, the Holy NOPE. Apostate churches and persons that need to be avoided. Spend some time looking at his page as he shows videos of such apostasy.

I was a Calvinist for a long time. I get how you arrive at your belief. But since it is just what you think(and I thought) the Bible really teaches why should anybody consider it better than any other theory?

Quite frankly, I have seen you post this claim and you yourself might believe it, but I can guarantee that no Calvinist reading what you post, is going to say, oh for sure, JohnC embraced these teachings at one time...Not one. Your posts betray you on this. That is how I see it, in a similar way to what you claim to see.

HOW do you test the parts of your belief that are not actually in God's Word?

I constantly try and re-examine what I hold by taking a fresh read of scripture, also taking those who oppose what I understand as truth, see what they offer, and see what portions of scripture they put forth. Isa.8:20

Against what teachers you like say? Teachers are a dime a dozen.

You have dismissed people like John Murray, Albert N. Martin, The Puritans , and Reformers. Again, you are a free moral agent. look on this board, those non cals rarely offer anything close to a solid source. Alan posts john Gill and some of his works...our friend Charlie accuses Gill of being a hyper, but fails to offer from Gill's own writings where he is off.
He does not because he cannot. he heard someone else say that, most likely, and repeats it. I mentioned John Murray in reference to Redemption Accomplished and Applied. rather than comment on that work, you were quick to point out, his understanding of padeo baptism instead. That was not the topic. For any Baptist, we could easily dismiss any Presbyterian person because of the baptism discussion, but we would forsake much useful teaching.. For anyone to suggest to me that Sinclair Ferguson, or Rc. Sproul are not helpful to any Christian is beyond foolish, and in fact absurd. Do I say that any of the trusted guides are equal to the Apostles, no. To dismiss any of these men, let's say Gill goes off, and is indeed a hyper Calvinist, does that mean he has nothing to say? A.W. Pink had some odd quirks, but he offered much helpful study. If they were all infallible, we would all be Presbyterian, or Lutheran, or Methodist. There are reasons we are not any of those.

Against theologians and scholars who agree with you?

I read all I can, but not so to make poor use of my time.Rom.16:
18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

19 For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.

20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

Anybody can find a theologian or scholar they agree with (as you pointed out to JoJ).

Even if we agree in general, each will vary. The Calvinists on here vary a bit, it is not like you have to be forced in a mold and exact. there are different gifts and abilities. Your fundamentalists avoid any who are not exactly as legalistic as they.

You look in God's Word, read His actual words, and realize what you believe is not actualky there.

No, What I believe is there, and I understand it.

But you believe it is what the Bible teaches. How do you know? How do you test that faith? How is it different from being just an understanding we are not to lean on?

I compare what i see with solid confessional belief, to make sure, I have not drifted like some I observe.

 

[JonC]

Again, can you quote us where Martin says he does not believe what is written? drifted like some I observe.

Yes. I am not going to look up the quotes, but if you doubt it you can.

What does God say about forgiveness (the basis for God to forgive sins)?
"Repent", "turns from wickedness", "turns to God", "die to sin", "a new heart"
What does @Martin Marprelate say? God cannot firgives sins but He forgives the sinner by punishing their sins laid on Christ.

What does the Bible say about Jesus suffeting God's wrath? Nothing. It is not in the Bible.

What does the Bible say about Adam dying spiritually? Nothing. It says "in that day dying you shall die" or "in that day you shall die" and when Adam sinned God told him what woukd happen- he woukd return to the ground, for dust you are and to dust you shall return.

What does the Bible say about God separating from Jesus on the Cross. The Bible says God will not abandon Christ (see Psalm 22), that although He be forsaken to suffer God will not hide His face from Him.

No, What I believe is there, and I understand it.

I compare what i see with solid confessional belief, to make sure, I have not drifted like some I observe.

I agree that your beliefs are on some confessions - perhaps not most condessions but in Reformed confessions.

But Confessions are not our standard. Confessions simoly express common understanding among a paticular group. Christians are commanded not to lean on our own understanding but on every word that comes forth from God.

Ultimately you are the one who chooses the Confessions you will believe. It goes back to subjective opinion.

What I observed is that you cannot find your faith (on these topics) if God's words (in the text of Scripture). You read the text but believe what oeoole tell you that text means.

For example....what passage states Jesus suffered God's wrath (not necessarily those exact words, but the words that are there)? It is not in God's Word. It is something you, using your own mind, reason out of Scripture.

I do not trust my mind, so forgive me for not trusting yours.

 

[JonC]

You have dismissed people like John Murray, Albert N. Martin, The Puritans , and Reformers. Again, you are a free moral agent. look on this board, those non cals rarely offer anything close to a solid source. Alan posts john Gill and some of his works...our friend Charlie accuses Gill of being a hyper, but fails to offer from Gill's own writings where he is off.
He does not because he cannot. he heard someone else say that, most likely, and repeats it. I mentioned John Murray in reference to Redemption Accomplished and Applied. rather than comment on that work, you were quick to point out, his understanding of padeo baptism instead. That was not the topic. For any Baptist, we could easily dismiss any Presbyterian person because of the baptism discussion, but we would forsake much useful teaching.. For anyone to suggest to me that Sinclair Ferguson, or Rc. Sproul are not helpful to any Christian is beyond foolish, and in fact absurd. Do I say that any of the trusted guides are equal to the Apostles, no. To dismiss any of these men, let's say Gill goes off, and is indeed a hyper Calvinist, does that mean he has nothing to say? A.W. Pink had some odd quirks, but he offered much helpful study. If they were all infallible, we would all be Presbyterian, or Lutheran, or Methodist. There are reasons we are not any of those.

I never dismissed those men.

But yes, Christians can learn from them (as well as DL Moody, AW Tozer, NT Wright, Alister MacGrath, Michael Sattler, John Wesley, Hans Denck.....to name a few more).

BUT Christiians are told to test doctrine before adopting it against God's Word, to hold fast to this faith once given (not to Confessions but to God's Word).


You said that you test your faith against Confessions.

Have you tested your faith against the Arminian Confession of 1621?

Do you see what I mean? Your faith all boils down to you rather than God and His Word. It is subjective to your understanding rather than making your faith subject to God's Word.

You choose the people to follow and the Confessions to believe.

Anyway...Just one passage stating Jesus suffered God's wrath and I'll concede your belief may not be unbiblical.

 

[Zaatar71]

Yes. I am not going to look up the quotes, but if you doubt it you can.

What does God say about forgiveness (the basis for God to forgive sins)?
"Repent", "turns from wickedness", "turns to God", "die to sin", "a new heart"
What does @Martin Marprelate say? God cannot firgives sins but He forgives the sinner by punishing their sins laid on Christ.

What does the Bible say about Jesus suffeting God's wrath? Nothing. It is not in the Bible.

What does the Bible say about Adam dying spiritually? Nothing. It says "in that day dying you shall die" or "in that day you shall die" and when Adam sinned God told him what woukd happen- he woukd return to the ground, for dust you are and to dust you shall return.

What does the Bible say about God separating from Jesus on the Cross. The Bible says God will not abandon Christ (see Psalm 22), that although He be forsaken to suffer God will not hide His face from Him.



I agree that your beliefs are on some confessions - perhaps not most condessions but in Reformed confessions.

But Confessions are not our standard. Confessions simoly express common understanding among a paticular group. Christians are commanded not to lean on our own understanding but on every word that comes forth from God.

Ultimately you are the one who chooses the Confessions you will believe. It goes back to subjective opinion.

What I observed is that you cannot find your faith (on these topics) if God's words (in the text of Scripture). You read the text but believe what oeoole tell you that text means.

For example....what passage states Jesus suffered God's wrath (not necessarily those exact words, but the words that are there)? It is not in God's Word. It is something you, using your own mind, reason out of Scripture.

I do not trust my mind, so forgive me for not trusting yours.

I will stick to Confessional Christians that know what the fall actually teaches, that Adam died Spiritually that very day, with physical death to follow. You now doubt the biblical record, you are in unbelief. I believe the biblical record of the centrality of the cross. along with every other Christian. You on the other hand claimed to have moved past the fundamental teaching of the faith. I believe those things, you are unbelieving in them. That is okay as far as you can freely do what your nature suggests to you. You have had your say, but at least now you openly admit
you stated this;

Anyway, I do not miss the connections you are making. I once was a Calvinist. I once shared your theory. I once made those same connections.

I am not misding those connections. I am outright rejecting them.

To me, this is a confession of apostasy, so when you post against the truth of God, I will point out your error. Glad we have been able to interact, but I will be looking to see if others would like a more edifying interaction. two cannot walk together, unless they be agreed, so good luck to you in the future wherever that winds up to be. Your drift is away from, and not toward truth. I can just see what you have openly confess, which leads you to cast doubt on pastors, teachers, all manner of people.

 

[Zaatar71]

I never dismissed those men.

But yes, Christians can learn from them (as well as DL Moody, AW Tozer, NT Wright, Alister MacGrath, Michael Sattler, John Wesley, Hans Denck.....to name a few more).

BUT Christiians are told to test doctrine before adopting it against God's Word, to hold fast to this faith once given (not to Confessions but to God's Word).


You said that you test your faith against Confessions.

Have you tested your faith against the Arminian Confession of 1621?

Do you see what I mean? Your faith all boils down to you rather than God and His Word. It is subjective to your understanding rather than making your faith subject to God's Word.

You choose the people to follow and the Confessions to believe.

Anyway...Just one passage stating Jesus suffered God's wrath and I'll concede your belief may not be unbiblical.

The passages have been offered, but we cannot give you eyesight. itell you what start a thread, and ask the other administrators the question s you ask us. Ask Dr Bob, Salty, The seminary teacher JoJ, ask them if they believe the bible teaches that Jesus is the only Savior for sinners, the only
Divine substitute to remove God's wrath? Ask them if Adam died spiritually at the fall into sin and death?
Ask the college professor what he believes on that. Let us see if any of them agree with your posts on this...we will wait to see such a thread.