The Power To Go And Sin No More

[Revmitchell]

You can take substitutionary death out of there as it was unknown until the 16th century.

Except that whole scripture thing:


"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation (atoning victim) by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins." Romans 3:23-25 (ESV)


"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." Isaiah 53:6 (ESV)

 

[popsthebuilder]

Preach Tony,

First, read what you pasted. The only begotten son of God, The creator of all things. This is simply saying that Jesus was through God, and that God is the creator of all.

Not required at all. Merely proficeied, and destined. He was perfect, and therefore could not deviate from his directed path from God. Even by others hands.

It is fact that Egypt was a place that was diversified. It is written that Egypt is part of ancient Israel which as holy in parts.

It is a fact that Buddhism, traditional Christianity, Arianism, Judaism, and Muslim, and Bahia religions all stemmed from an ascetic type religion / Faith system to the one all encompassing God, our creator.

Crist is the Godhead,
It is the path to the Word of heaven. The writings are the body, and the one God is the spirit.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[popsthebuilder]

Still researching, technically, though.
Thank you. I am but a man, like yourself.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[Rebel]

Except that whole scripture thing:


"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation (atoning victim) by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins." Romans 3:23-25 (ESV)


"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." Isaiah 53:6 (ESV)

I don't see it those verses or any others, and neither did the churches for 1500 years. PSA is an extension of the Roman Catholic Anselm's Satisfaction view. And evangelicals think they are so far away from Romanism.

 

[Scarlett O.]

You can take substitutionary death out of there as it was unknown until the 16th century.

Isaiah knew all about it. See chapter 53.

But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities;

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't see it those verses or any others, and neither did the churches for 1500 years. PSA is an extension of the Roman Catholic Anselm's Satisfaction view. And evangelicals think they are so far away from Romanism.

See here is the thing. Whenever anyone posts scripture which refutes your position you simply respond by saying you do not see it in those verses. What you do not do is take those same verses and explain why they fit your view.

Do you know what propitiation means?

Do you understand what it means to have our sin put on Him?

 

[Rebel]

Isaiah knew all about it. See chapter 53.

What you all don't seem to get or acknowledge is that the early churches and the churches of the first millennium had all of those scriptures you point to, and yet they did not see them as teaching PSA. The question you must ask yourselves is this: Why not? The answer is because it is not a scriptural doctrine but was invented at a time when Christianity was interpreted in legal terms.

 

[Revmitchell]

What you all don't seem to get or acknowledge is that the early churches and the churches of the first millennium had all of those scriptures you point to, and yet they did not see them as teaching PSA. The question you must ask yourselves is this: Why not? The answer is because it is not a scriptural doctrine but was invented at a time when Christianity was interpreted in legal terms.

So you say, however what I would like to see from you is that you actually deal with scripture that is presented to you.

 

[Rebel]

See here is the thing. Whenever anyone posts scripture which refutes your position you simply respond by saying you do not see it in those verses. What you do not do is take those same verses and explain why they fit your view.

Do you know what propitiation means?

Do you understand what it means to have our sin put on Him?

Because it is evident that it would do no good for me to do that.

If you want to know how the churches for 1000 years saw all those verses all of you put forth as teaching PSA or satisfaction, study how the early churches and Christians saw them. That's what I did. I had to work for it. I suggest all of you go and do the same.

You must be curious why Christians for 1000-1500 years did not hold your views. A view that was invented in the 16th century is not credible to me. Nor was the view invented by Anselm, which went contrary to 1000 years of church history and teaching.

 

[Revmitchell]

Because it is evident that it would do no good for me to do that.

If you want to know how the churches for 1000 years saw all those verses all of you put forth as teaching PSA or satisfaction, study how the early churches and Christians saw them. That's what I did. I had to work for it. I suggest all of you go and do the same.

You must be curious why Christians for 1000-1500 years did not hold your views. A view that was invented in the 16th century is not credible to me. Nor was the view invented by Anselm, which went contrary to 1000 years of church history and teaching.

Ok so you do not have the ability to defend your position from scripture?

 

[Rebel]

Ok so you do not have the ability to defend your position from scripture?

If I did not, I would not have the position.

 

[Revmitchell]

If I did not, I would not have the position.

The only thing you have defended here is your version of history. I posted a couple of passages that have clear language in it that show Christ taking on our sin for us. The word propitiation alone is a problem for your position. No matter what your username has been I have never seen you actually make a scriptural case.

I am not trying to but your chops here but you have taken a pretty strong position and stated it over and over. I believe it is time you stepped up to the plate.

 

[JonC]

I think the most common focus within the early church was Christ’s victory (which is appropriate given the circumstances of the early church), but to say that the idea of penal substitutionary atonement was absent in the early church is not entirely true. It was certainly less dominant and less developed as a “stand alone doctrine,” but it was not absent. Here are just a few examples:

Clement of Rome declared that Jesus Christ gave His blood for us by the will of God, his body for our bodies, and his soul for our souls (Epistle to the Corinthians).

Ignatius concluded that Jesus “suffered all things for our sakes, that we might be saved.” (Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans)

Justin Martyr emphasized that Jesus became a curse for us and suffered on behalf of man without committing the sins for which he suffered. (Demonstratio Evangelica)

 

[Rebel]

The only thing you have defended here is your version of history. I posted a couple of passages that have clear language in it that show Christ taking on our sin for us. The word propitiation alone is a problem for your position. No matter what your username has been I have never seen you actually make a scriptural case.

I am not trying to but your chops here but you have taken a pretty strong position and stated it over and over. I believe it is time you stepped up to the plate.

The more pertinent question is how you and others look at the verses in question and interpret them according to a view that didn't exist until the 16th century. The question is, why do you not interpret them the way the earliest Christians did and the way they were interpreted for 1000 years, to 1500 years? It is very clear that the NT churches did not teach a Satisfaction or PSA view of the atonement. So, one is compelled to ask, where did these come from and why? Anselm's position arose as a reflection of the times -- the society and culture, which was feudalistic. And PSA arose because the holders of it saw God in a legalist way -- a stern judge and the fate of man decided in a courtroom. This is NOT the way the NT churches, the early churches, or the churches until Anselm and Calvin interpreted those verses in question.

So, if you don't hold to the original interpretation, the burden is on you to explain why. What gives anyone the right to completely and drastically change the obvious teaching of the NT churches and the churches of the first millennium on this?

Oh, about "propitiation". The word should be "expiation".

If anyone wants to know how the early churches and Christians believed and why, and how they interpreted the relevant verses, let them study, and I means seriously study, as I have done passionately for 40 years. And then let them ask themselves this crucial question: Who has the right to so drastically change such a central doctrine into something unknown and untaught for 1500 years, something that would have been completely unbelievable and even abhorrent to the early churches. Satisfaction, the RCC version, and PSA, the Protestant version, are false gospels. It is surely one of the ironies of history that the RCC and Evangelical Protestant views of the atonement are close cousins. And this is not the only views that the two have in common. Original sin is another, and that is derived from Augustine. But I won't get into that now.

 

[Rebel]

I think the most common focus within the early church was Christ’s victory (which is appropriate given the circumstances of the early church), but to say that the idea of penal substitutionary atonement was absent in the early church is not entirely true. It was certainly less dominant and less developed as a “stand alone doctrine,” but it was not absent. Here are just a few examples:

Clement of Rome declared that Jesus Christ gave His blood for us by the will of God, his body for our bodies, and his soul for our souls (Epistle to the Corinthians).

Ignatius concluded that Jesus “suffered all things for our sakes, that we might be saved.” (Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans)

Justin Martyr emphasized that Jesus became a curse for us and suffered on behalf of man without committing the sins for which he suffered. (Demonstratio Evangelica)

None of that supports or implies penal substitution. It supports that Jesus died on our behalf and for our benefit, but not in our stead. Look at the wording; that is what they are all saying. PSA was absolutely not known, taught, or believed in the early churches or by the Fathers.

 

[Revmitchell]

The more pertinent question is how you and others look at the verses in question and interpret them according to a view that didn't exist until the 16th century. The question is, why do you not interpret them the way the earliest Christians did and the way they were interpreted for 1000 years, to 1500 years? It is very clear that the NT churches did not teach a Satisfaction or PSA view of the atonement. So, one is compelled to ask, where did these come from and why? Anselm's position arose as a reflection of the times -- the society and culture, which was feudalistic. And PSA arose because the holders of it saw God in a legalist way -- a stern judge and the fate of man decided in a courtroom. This is NOT the way the NT churches, the early churches, or the churches until Anselm and Calvin interpreted those verses in question.

So, if you don't hold to the original interpretation, the burden is on you to explain why. What gives anyone the right to completely and drastically change the obvious teaching of the NT churches and the churches of the first millennium on this?

Oh, about "propitiation". The word should be "expiation".

If anyone wants to know how the early churches and Christians believed and why, and how they interpreted the relevant verses, let them study, and I means seriously study, as I have done passionately for 40 years. And then let them ask themselves this crucial question: Who has the right to so drastically change such a central doctrine into something unknown and untaught for 1500 years, something that would have been completely unbelievable and even abhorrent to the early churches. Satisfaction, the RCC version, and PSA, the Protestant version, are false gospels. It is surely one of the ironies of history that the RCC and Evangelical Protestant views of the atonement are close cousins. And this is not the only views that the two have in common. Original sin is another, and that is derived from Augustine. But I won't get into that now.

OK well I have given you every opportunity to deal with the scriptures instead of just your version of history. Again I do not mean to bust your chops but it is now evident that you do not have the ability to defend your position through scripture.

 

[Rebel]

OK well I have given you every opportunity to deal with the scriptures instead of just your version of history. Again I do not mean to bust your chops but it is now evident that you do not have the ability to defend your position through scripture.

I have the ability. I came to my position through in-depth study of the relevant scriptures -- word meanings, scriptural context, comparing scripture with scripture, studying the issue in its historical context and setting, studying what the early churches believed and why, how and why the NT and early churches interpreted the relevant verses the way they did.

See, all of you interpret through the lens of the 16th century Protestant Reformers, whose views were influenced by Anselm. You have no clue nor apparently any concern as to what the churches of the first century and for a thousand years believed or why they believed it. That seems strange for Baptists who claim to be the original, NT church. In this area, if you believe like Anselm and Calvin, you do not believe as the NT churches believed. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

 

[Revmitchell]

I have the ability. I came to my position through in-depth study of the relevant scriptures -- word meanings, scriptural context, comparing scripture with scripture, studying the issue in its historical context and setting, studying what the early churches believed and why, how and why the NT and early churches interpreted the relevant verses the way they did.

Great! If you say so then I take you at your word. Let's see it.

Let's begin with the Isaiah 53 passage and the NT word "propitiation". Tell me about your understanding of them.

 

[popsthebuilder]

The incomprehensible God is known through Christ, by faith, rather than by philosophical speculations. He manifests God to us, being the expression of His very being, and through him alone, God can be known. The scriptures reveal Him to those who have faith; and thus we come to know the Holy Spirit as the Divine impulse within us.[49]

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[popsthebuilder]

That was from Micheal Servitus

Faith in selfless Unity through Good