What is Propitiation and is it really the heart of the gospel?

[JonC]

Oh boy! Well, when I see the guy again I'll send him round to you and you can explain the exact mathematical equation that gives the smallest possible bunch of flowers for the biggest apology. That should save him a pile of money! Where's the head-banging emogi?
Don't you undrstad the difference between an illustration and a formula?

Lol....my point is you did not describe propitiation. You described expiation.

Expiation is to "make amends, pay a debt".

Propitiation is to reconcile, to gain favor in an unfavorable situation. An expiation does propitiates. But so does other expiatory acts.

Your example adds to the definition. We have to remember that words have meaning. Words are symbols for thoughts and ideas, but specific thoughts and ideas.

For example, if I say I drive a vehicle this does not mean I drive a car, a red car, or a black pickup truck. It means I drive a vehicle (it is a white Jeep).

 

[DaveXR650]

The wicked do not literally store up wrath. They do not literally take wrath throughout their lives and put that wrath in a drawer or a box.

No. But is that really the point? Wrath can build up and does build up in the mind of God, until at some point he executes judgement and pours out his wrath. "Wrath" as a word may create difficulties for us as humans when referring to God but it's what scripture uses or at least what the translators used. I think what @JesusFan was saying (and it's not really for me to explain him since he can take care of himself) was that there is not wrath building up for us who repent not because (as a primary cause) of our repentance but the primary cause was that the propitiatory death of Christ on the cross sets up a situation where God now forgives those who repent and maintains his justice in his role as judge.

What you do is try to make it such that the repentance of those of us who get saved is what actually causes God to forgive us. It is necessary, but we believe that without Christ bearing our sins in his body on the tree, and thus propitiating God's wrath for the sin we have personally committed and also the sin clinging to us, our repentance would not result in forgiveness because it would be against God's nature to do so. People say that that slanders God's loving nature but it doesn't because it was God's plan, His Son, and in a sense, God taking his wrath upon himself.

 

[JonC]

No. But is that really the point? Wrath can build up and does build up in the mind of God, until at some point he executes judgement and pours out his wrath.

Wrath is constantly against the wicked. And at Judgment (the "day of wrath") God will exercise that wrath.

But divine wrath is not like sexual desire and God like a pubescent teenager. Wrath does not built up until it has to be released.

Instead God's wrath that was towards us when we were numbered among the wicked is propitiated in Christ.


Please answer this - if your wife is angry with you but you apologize and tell you that you love her, you propitiated your wife's wrath.

Where did her wrath go?

 

[JonC]

The fact that you find a verse that says those who refuse to repent are storing up wrath for themselves in the future in no way can be used to show that simple repentance, without propitiation, is the only difference, which that verse, out of context seems to say.

Your post does not make sence.

First, nobody on the BB (thus far) has argued that simple repentance is how we escape the wrath to come.

Second, and more importantly, IF simple repentance is the answer THEN simole repentance would be the propitiation.

I have stated that Christ Himself is the Propitiation for the sins of the Whole world. That is not out of context.


You are saying "propitiation" (reconciliation) but your meaning is "expiation" (paying a debt, making ammends).

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650 between you and @Martin Marprelate there is a combined 20 years of you two trying show that your belief is not an understanding but is actually in the Bible. Yet you have thus far been unable to accomplish that goal.

How long are you going to dedicate to this fruitless task? You will always have to lean on your understanding as "proof" of your faith. It simply is not in "what is written".

 

[DaveXR650]

@DaveXR650 between you and @Martin Marprelate there is a combined 20 years of you two trying show that your belief is not an understanding but is actually in the Bible. Yet you have thus far been unable to accomplish that goal.

How long are you going to dedicate to this fruitless task? You will always have to lean on your understanding as "proof" of your faith. It simply is not in "what is written".

Jon, you don't accept the verses everyone sites. You do understand don't you, that PSA, the necessity of propitiation of the wrath of God by Jesus on the cross, and the idea that this is central to a full understanding of Christianity is a widespread belief. This is supported by numerous scripture, which, while you deny they apply, others as astute as you, think they do. It is not what you believe is written.

 

[DaveXR650]

Where did your wife's anger go? It did not go anywhere. It was propitiated and the two of you reconciled.

I don't think you want to take those types of illustrations too far. As a help in understanding the definition of "propitiation" in a general sense, sure. But the interpersonal relationship you have with your wife cannot be totally applied to God's wrath against our sin in the same way. There is a component of divine justice that is not in play when dealing with your wife. That doesn't mean buying flowers won't propitiate her wrath. But it does mean that we can't apply the illustration too closely to God's judicial dealing with sin. If you wanted to be cynical, or a jokester, you could say you bribed her with flowers. But in God dealing with sin we have a much different situation. Namely, that God himself, for his own reasons, has decided that the sacrifice of Christ is sufficient to propitiate his wrath against us as sinners. So, we tread very lightly, as this involves our very redemption.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@DaveXR650 between you and @Martin Marprelate there is a combined 20 years of you two trying show that your belief is not an understanding but is actually in the Bible. Yet you have thus far been unable to accomplish that goal.

How long are you going to dedicate to this fruitless task? You will always have to lean on your understanding as "proof" of your faith. It simply is not in "what is written".

That Penal Substitution is clearly Biblical has been proved over and over again. Your problem is that your pride won't lt you admit that you are entirely wrong and so the arguments go on for year after year.
I am frankly sick of it. The only reason I keep going with it is in case someone new coming onto the board might mistake your nonsense for truth

 

[JonC]

I don't think you want to take those types of illustrations too far. As a help in understanding the definition of "propitiation" in a general sense, sure. But the interpersonal relationship you have with your wife cannot be totally applied to God's wrath against our sin in the same way. There is a component of divine justice that is not in play when dealing with your wife. That doesn't mean buying flowers won't propitiate her wrath. But it does mean that we can't apply the illustration too closely to God's judicial dealing with sin. If you wanted to be cynical, or a jokester, you could say you bribed her with flowers. But in God dealing with sin we have a much different situation. Namely, that God himself, for his own reasons, has decided that the sacrifice of Christ is sufficient to propitiate his wrath against us as sinners. So, we tread very lightly, as this involves our very redemption.

Obviously illustrations will differ.

My point is that anger can be propitiated or . expiated.

The first (propitiated) negates the expression of anger. The second (expiated) is something that appeases the wrath or amends a debt.

For example, if God punished Jesus for our sins so we would escape wrath, that would be expiation. If Christ Himself is the propitiation for our sins, the wrath we escape is never expressed.

Traditionally Calvinists preferred expiation, with propitiation being the more common choices in translation. The word as used in 1 Jn 2:2 could be translated either way.

 

[Van]

Jesus Christ is the place of reconciliation, if you have been placed into Christ, you have been reconciled. If not, you are a condemned sinner heading for swift destruction.

Jesus Christ is the means of reconciliation, if you have not received the reconciliation, you are a condemned sinner heading for swift destruction.

Jesus Christ provides the reconciliation to those transferred into Him.

No need to create confusion out of marvelous simplicity.

 

[JonC]

That Penal Substitution is clearly Biblical has been proved over and over again. Your problem is that your pride won't lt you admit that you are entirely wrong and so the arguments go on for year after year.
I am frankly sick of it. The only reason I keep going with it is in case someone new coming onto the board might mistake your nonsense for truth

I already said you understand PSA to be taught by the Bible.

But we are not commanded to lean on your understanding. We are not even commanded to lean on our own understanding.

We are commanded to lean on the words that come from God, to trust in His words, and to use "what is written" as the testing standard. That is where your faith fails.

I will never admit that Scripture teaches your understanding of what God's Word teaches as opposed to Scripture actually teaching God's words because I do not believe that is true.

We each have understandings. That is obvious and natural. But as Christians we do not lean on our understanding. We certainly do not teach our understanding. We lean on and teach God's words.


You have not, over the past 15 years, been able to provide even one verse that states Jesus experienced God's wrath. Yet that is the theory at the very center of your faith.

Has PSA been proven? No, obviously not. Why? Because for Christians "what is written" is the only proof and PSA is not there. That is why PSA will always be a theory. It cannot be objectively proven.

If anybody needs evidence they can look at your posts. You say PSA has been proven. You say PSA is clearly taught in the Bible. BUT you cannot produce any passage even mentioning the very basic- that what Jesus suffered was divine wrath.

Instead you drone on with verse after verse telling us what they "teach" when "properly understood".

But that is what EVERY sect that hold extra-biblical doctrine says.

What makes your understanding different from the Roman Catholic understanding?

The only difference is it is your understanding, taught by men you have decided are "God given teachers".

Yet your understanding fails the test of Scripture.

 

[JonC]

Jesus Christ is the place of reconciliation, if you have been placed into Christ, you have been reconciled. If not, you are a condemned sinner heading for swift destruction.

Jesus Christ is the means of reconciliation, if you have not received the reconciliation, you are a condemned sinner heading for swift destruction.

Jesus Christ provides the reconciliation to those transferred into Him.

No need to create confusion out of marvelous simplicity.

That is why I mentioned the Levitical sacrifices (although that was just a foreshadowing).

A sacrifice was made, an animal killed. BUT the priest made atonement for the sins of the people by applying the blood. The reconciliation was not the sacrifice but the blood if the sacrifice applied by the priest.

Likewise, God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith.

This is the very basic truth central to the Christian faith, the "faith once given", "what is written". But people can be carried away from the gospel by philosophies. This is why God gave that warning.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

Propitiation translated from either hilasmos (an appeasement or satisfactory payment) or hilasterion (mercy seat) is very much at the heart of the gospel! There are some who say that propitiation may be used interchangeably with atonement and although I have no real argument here, I believe there are some subtle nuances between the two that should be noted.

The word "Atonement" appears in the New Testament of the King James translation exactly one time in Romans 5:11 and the underlying Greek word is katallage meaning exchange, reconcilliation, or restoration. It is translated as "reconcilliation" in most modern translations as well as elswhere in the King James where this Greek word is found.

I would therefore use the following illustration:

You forget to pay your water bill and the city comes around and shuts off your water and puts a lock on the meter (ask me how I know this).

You go to the city and pay your bill along with the penalties, reconnection fee, and whatever else they decide to tack on. This is your "Propitiation" or payment that is satisfactory to the city officials. This payment puts you back into right standing and the city responds in kind by removing the lock and RESTORING your service (reconciliation).

Of course we can argue this the same way we would argue about repentance, faith, regeneration and justification. All occur at the moment of our salvation (although we may argue about the actual 'order') but each of these terms have a specific meaning.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Lol....my point is you did not describe propitiation. You described expiation.

Expiation is to "make amends, pay a debt".

Propitiation is to reconcile, to gain favor in an unfavorable situation. An expiation does propitiates. But so does other expiatory acts.

Your example adds to the definition. We have to remember that words have meaning. Words are symbols for thoughts and ideas, but specific thoughts and ideas.

For example, if I say I drive a vehicle this does not mean I drive a car, a red car, or a black pickup truck. It means I drive a vehicle (it is a white Jeep).

We definitely need a head-banging emoji. All you can do is play silly word games. Paul did not write 'propitiation,' 'expiation' or 'appeasement.' These are words that theologians and linguists use to try to express what hilasterion, which is what he did write, means.

But the point is that in Romans 1:18, God's wrath is being revealed from heaven right now 'against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men...' In 1:32, we all deserve death; in 3:5-6, God is shown to be righteous in inflicting wrath, and in 3:19, we learn that the whole world is guilty before God. Yet by the time we get to 3:27-31, Paul is talking about justification. How did we get there? Well, something happened between v.21 and v.26 which changed everything so that we are told that God justifies the ungodly (4:5).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You have not, over the past 15 years, been able to provide even one verse that states Jesus experienced God's wrath. Yet that is the theory at the very center of your faith.

I have done it over and over again. You demand one verse, but you are unable to provide one verse that even mentions the word 'Trinity' and no single verse that proves it You say that the concept of the Trinity is found throughout the Bible, and so it is, plenteously. But it is not found so often, nor so clearly that the concept of Penal Substitution.
But if you really want a single verse for some reason, try Gal. 3:13.
1. We were under the law's curse.
2. We are now no longer under that curse.
3. The reason for the change is that Christ took that curse upon Himself. How simple! How satisfying!

Has PSA been proven? No, obviously not. Why? Because for Christians "what is written" is the only proof and PSA is not there. That is why PSA will always be a theory. It cannot be objectively proven.

Yes it has been proven. I have done so in various places You have recently closed one thread which I started to prove it, and you did so without consulting me or even informing me.

If anybody needs evidence they can look at your posts. You say PSA has been proven. You say PSA is clearly taught in the Bible. BUT you cannot produce any passage even mentioning the very basic- that what Jesus suffered was divine wrath.

Well here is the O.P. of the closed thread. Let the people look at it. Nobody, including you, seemed to make any objection at the time:

Firstly then, it needs to be shown that our Lord took and bore our sins which God laid on Him. Secondly, that He took them so as to undergo the punishment due to them, and thirdly that He did this on our behalf and instead of us.

Did the Father lay upon the Lord Jesus the sins of His people? Yes. ‘And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ (Isaiah 53:6). Did the Lord Jesus bear in His body our sins which God laid on Him? Yes. ‘Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree’ (1 Peter 2:24).
Did He take our sins so as to undergo the punishment due to them? Yes. ‘The chastisement [ESV, NIV: ‘punishment’] for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed’ (Isaiah 53:5); “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45); “For You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and nation and people” (Rev. 5:9).
Did the Lord Jesus do this on our behalf and instead of us? Yes. “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29); ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities’ (Isaiah 53:5); “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:38-39); ‘Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree)’ (Gal. 3:13).

So we now need to show is that God punishes sins. I put it this way because it is not for us to tell God what He must do. Psalm 115:3. 'But our God is in heaven; He does whatever pleases Him.' But God, despite His longsuffering, does indeed punish sins; it is His way. We need only consider the Flood and the destruction of Sodom.
Exodus 34:7. '...By no means clearing the guilty...'
Numbers 15:30-31. 'But the person who does anything presuptuously, whether he is native-born or a stranger, that one brings reproach on the LORD,and he shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him.'
John 3:36. 'He who believes in the Son has [present tense] everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on Him.'
Romans 1:18. 'For the wrath of God is [present tense again] revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness of men.....' Plenty more where they came from, but I must move on.

Is it acceptable for God to punish the just to clear the guilty? I don't think it is for us to tell God what we think is acceptable for Him to do. But Isaiah 53:10. 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.....' And then, 'When You make His soul an offering for sin...' But in fact, of course, it is God Himself who, in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, has purchased His own Church with His own blood (Acts 20:28).

Did Christ experience God's wrath? Yes indeed, as long as we are clear that our Lord experienced God's wrath against sin, not against Himself personally. The punishment due to sin is the wrath of God (Rom. 1:18; 2:5; Eph. 2:3; John 3:36). Again, 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.' If it is the case (which it is) that 'The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness of Men,' and that 'The LORD has laid of Him the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:6), and that 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree' (1 Peter 2:24), and that 'Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us ...' (Gal. 3:13), there can surely be no doubt that our Lord underwent the wrath and the curse of God, not against Himself, but against sin and sinners.

Did Jesus die instead of us? Yes. John 1:29. '.... Who takes away the sin of the world.' How does He do that, if not on the cross, suffering in our place? Matt. 20:28. "....To give Himself a ransom for [Gk. anti] many.' The word anti has the meaning of 'instead of' as in Matt. 2:22; 1 Tim. 2:6. But if we consider 1 Peter 3:18. 'For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for [Gk. huper] the unjust, that He might bring us to God,' or Romans 8:34, it is clear that although huper has the meaning of 'on behalf of,' it also has the meaning of 'Instead of.'

 

[JonC]

We definitely need a head-banging emoji. All you can do is play silly word games. Paul did not write 'propitiation,' 'expiation' or 'appeasement.' These are words that theologians and linguists use to try to express what hilasterion, which is what he did write, means.

But the point is that in Romans 1:18, God's wrath is being revealed from heaven right now 'against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men...' In 1:32, we all deserve death; in 3:5-6, God is shown to be righteous in inflicting wrath, and in 3:19, we learn that the whole world is guilty before God. Yet by the time we get to 3:27-31, Paul is talking about justification. How did we get there? Well, something happened between v.21 and v.26 which changed everything so that we are told that God justifies the ungodly (4:5).

We are not playing word games.

I am saying that the word written can be translated in those ways.

I believe propitiation is correct. I base this on the context of the passage as well as the OT sacrifice system.

But you keep on with "propitiation" while denying Christ is the Propitiation.

Words have meanings. Yes, the Greek word could mean either. BUT pick the one that conveys what you ate saying.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But you keep on with "propitiation" while denying Christ is the Propitiation.

Excuse me! When have I ever denied that Christ is the Propitiation?

 

[JonC]

I have done it over and over again. You demand one verse, but you are unable to provide one verse that even mentions the word 'Trinity' and no single verse that proves it You say that the concept of the Trinity is found throughout the Bible, and so it is, plenteously. But it is not found so often, nor so clearly that the concept of Penal Substitution.

Yes it has been proven. I have done so in various places You have recently closed one thread which I started to prove it, and you did so without consulting me or even informing me.

Well here is the O.P. of the closed thread. Nobody, including you, seemed to make any objection:

Firstly then, it needs to be shown that our Lord took and bore our sins which God laid on Him. Secondly, that He took them so as to undergo the punishment due to them, and thirdly that He did this on our behalf and instead of us.

Did the Father lay upon the Lord Jesus the sins of His people? Yes. ‘And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ (Isaiah 53:6). Did the Lord Jesus bear in His body our sins which God laid on Him? Yes. ‘Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree’ (1 Peter 2:24).
Did He take our sins so as to undergo the punishment due to them? Yes. ‘The chastisement [ESV, NIV: ‘punishment’] for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed’ (Isaiah 53:5); “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45); “For You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and nation and people” (Rev. 5:9).
Did the Lord Jesus do this on our behalf and instead of us? Yes. “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29); ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities’ (Isaiah 53:5); “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:38-39); ‘Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree)’ (Gal. 3:13).

So we now need to show is that God punishes sins. I put it this way because it is not for us to tell God what He must do. Psalm 115:3. 'But our God is in heaven; He does whatever pleases Him.' But God, despite His longsuffering, does indeed punish sins; it is His way. We need only consider the Flood and the destruction of Sodom.
Exodus 34:7. '...By no means clearing the guilty...'
Numbers 15:30-31. 'But the person who does anything presuptuously, whether he is native-born or a stranger, that one brings reproach on the LORD,and he shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him.'
John 3:36. 'He who believes in the Son has [present tense] everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on Him.'
Romans 1:18. 'For the wrath of God is [present tense again] revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness of men.....' Plenty more where they came from, but I must move on.

Is it acceptable for God to punish the just to clear the guilty? I don't think it is for us to tell God what we think is acceptable for Him to do. But Isaiah 53:10. 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.....' And then, 'When You make His soul an offering for sin...' But in fact, of course, it is God Himself who, in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, has purchased His own Church with His own blood (Acts 20:28).

Did Christ experience God's wrath? Yes indeed, as long as we are clear that our Lord experienced God's wrath against sin, not against Himself personally. The punishment due to sin is the wrath of God (Rom. 1:18; 2:5; Eph. 2:3; John 3:36). Again, 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.' If it is the case (which it is) that 'The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness of Men,' and that 'The LORD has laid of Him the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:6), and that 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree' (1 Peter 2:24), and that 'Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us ...' (Gal. 3:13), there can surely be no doubt that our Lord underwent the wrath and the curse of God, not against Himself, but against sin and sinners.

Did Jesus die instead of us? Yes. John 1:29. '.... Who takes away the sin of the world.' How does He do that, if not on the cross, suffering in our place? Matt. 20:28. "....To give Himself a ransom for [Gk. anti] many.' The word anti has the meaning of 'instead of' as in Matt. 2:22; 1 Tim. 2:6. But if we consider 1 Peter 3:18. 'For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for [Gk. huper] the unjust, that He might bring us to God,' or Romans 8:34, it is clear that although huper has the meaning of 'on behalf of,' it also has the meaning of 'Instead of.'

I agree with the passages you have provided. I believe they acvomplish their meanings through the surrounding passages and Scripture as a whole.

I believe Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures - not according to your theory.

The reason you add to Scripture is the "faith once delivered" does not make sence to you. The flesh cannot understand that which is spiritual. But God's words make sence. The problem is not the Bible but you. It does not make sence to you.

If you could set aside your theory then you might see that the answers you are trying to answer by turning to theory is actually in God's words.

But you are, I believe, too far gone. You have so much theory and philosophy to untangle, I do not know how you could break your bondage. If you grasp ine truth there would be another theory holding you down. You have been carried away by philosophy and are leaning on your own understanding.

All I can tell you is try your best. Do not lean on your own understanding but on every word that comes from God. The truth is right before your eyes. Pray you will be able to grasp it.

 

[JonC]

Excuse me! When have I ever denied that Christ is the Propitiation?

You did. You use the word "propitiation" but change the meaning to a "theological" meaning divorced from the actual word.

You use "double speak".

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I agree with the passages you have provided.

Great! You believe in Penal Substitution

I believe they acvomplish their meanings through the surrounding passages and Scripture as a whole.

Hang on a moment! You wanted a single verse of Scripture just now. When I give you a single verse, you want the whole BIble written out! Make your mind up!

I believe Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures - not according to your theory.

The reason you add to Scripture is the "faith once delivered" does not make sence to you. The flesh cannot understand that which is spiritual.

So you are now questioning my salvation. You know what? I really don't care.

But God's words make sence. The problem is not the Bible but you. It does not make sence to you.

You can't even spell 'sense.' I have quoted the Bible to you extensively. If you cannot make sense of it, that is your problem, not mine.

If you could set aside your theory then you might see that the answers you are trying to answer by turning to theory is actually in God's words.

Yeah, tu quoque. What is an answer someone is trying to answer? You don't even make sense.

But you are, I believe, too far gone. You have so much theory and philosophy to untangle, I do not know how you could break your bondage. If you grasp ine truth there would be another theory holding you down. You have been carried away by philosophy and are leaning on your own understanding.

All I can tell you is try your best. Do not lean on your own understanding but on every word that comes from God. The truth is right before your eyes. Pray you will be able to grasp it.

I have found that when you are losing an argument you usually tend to turn to smarmy and patronizing remarks, as here.
I note that you did not write a single word of Scripture in your post. How about you actually look at the Scripture verses I have written and explain to us all why you think they don't mean what they so evidently do?