Featured The Meanings of 'For'

Look, you obviously do not want to continue this discussion with me and you have invented this excuse so that you won't have to deal with the singular subject that I have placed before you over and over and over and over again and which you have ignored over and over and over again finding every excuse possible not to deal with it. So fine. Convince yourself of whatever strokes your ego. It is a lame excuse because you acknowleged that you viewed Dr. Lewis's video's on this very subject which you admit deal with your view and so you must believe Dr. Lewis is as much as an ignoramous on your view as I am because I am the one who introduced his videos to you rather than you introducing them to me. So your excuses are lame. However, I will drop it.

 

Someone had to pay the purchase debt owed to God for breaking His law, and the sinner will experience the wrath of God, so wouldn't Jesus as our sin substitute on the Cross?

 

paul stated that he was cursed by God, correct?

 

Martin, Jon has convinced himself that I am totally ignorant of his position simply because I claim that his view logically d(not verbally) repudiates the cross.He imagines that I must think down his line of rationale and assert that his view of the cross or else I don't understand his view of the cross. He does not think that I understand his view rejects the cross as the means of retributive justice (and thus that is my basis for charging from my perspective that his view rejects the cross altogether) and that his theory believes the atonement finds its full satisfaction in the active and passive obedience of Christ "apart from the law" and apart from retributive justice or any satisfaction of God's Law in our behalf. That is his delusive thinking about my supposed ignorance of his view.

He refuses to deal with the real issue that exposes his view as a perversion of the cross and that is the true nature of the Law of God in relationship to the moral nature of God. Repeatedly he refuses to enter into a pure biblical based discussion of the Law of God, although I have laid out my position in detail demonstrating it contradicts his whole atonement theory.

So, I am dropping out of this discussion because his only response is "you don't understand my position" and he will not engage the problem of the Law to his position as I have laid it out fully. I hope you have better results with him.

 

God has a sin debt obligation owed Him for breaking His law!