Who is going yo start another (Part 5)

[percho]

Methinks Jesus died in stead of us and was raised for our sake.

That is for, when dying thou dost die, comes to us, we still have the hope of eternal life. by instant change and or resurrection, because Jesus was raised out of the dead, ie from Sheol, incorruptible.

The promise of God, who cannot lie, made before times of ages, the hope of eternal life was made for the Son of God born of woman, the Son of God the seed of Abraham. Gen 3:16 The law could not give Life nor righteousness. Gal 3:21

Righteousness isn't because Christ kept the law but because of the grace of life, the hope, Christ the seed of Abraham inherited. Gal 3:18 Gal 2:21

Now Consider the following relative to that above.

John 7:39 and this he said of the Spirit, which those believing in him were about to receive; for not yet was the Holy Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
Acts 2:32,33 'This Jesus (of Nazareth V 22) did God raise up, of which we are all witnesses; at the right hand then of God having been exalted -- also the promise of the Holy Spirit having received from the Father -- he was shedding forth this, which now ye see and hear;
Titus 3:6.7 which He poured upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour, that having been [declared righteous by His grace], heirs we may become according to the hope of life age-during.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Methinks Jesus died in stead of us and was raised for our sake.

That is for, when dying thou dost die, comes to us, we still have the hope of eternal life. by instant change and or resurrection, because Jesus was raised out of the dead, ie from Sheol, incorruptible.

The promise of God, who cannot lie, made before times of ages, the hope of eternal life was made for the Son of God born of woman, the Son of God the seed of Abraham. Gen 3:16 The law could not give Life nor righteousness. Gal 3:21

Righteousness isn't because Christ kept the law but because of the grace of life, the hope, Christ the seed of Abraham inherited. Gal 3:18 Gal 2:21

Now Consider the following relative to that above.

John 7:39 and this he said of the Spirit, which those believing in him were about to receive; for not yet was the Holy Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
Acts 2:32,33 'This Jesus (of Nazareth V 22) did God raise up, of which we are all witnesses; at the right hand then of God having been exalted -- also the promise of the Holy Spirit having received from the Father -- he was shedding forth this, which now ye see and hear;
Titus 3:6.7 which He poured upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour, that having been [declared righteous by His grace], heirs we may become according to the hope of life age-during.

There is no point in any more parts on this, as after 4, and many more on BB, there are still some who are BLIND to the Great Bible TRUTH of PSA!

 

[37818]

. . . some who are BLIND to the Great Bible TRUTH of PSA!

Well, @JonC came from a point of view of holding and teaching PSA! So BLIND is not by any means the problem regarding PSA. I hold PSA is true. The point that it is not stated in Scripture explicitly and directly in those terms. The problem is to show that it is there, where it cannot be denied. What was done provided both God's justice and His mercy. Romans 3:23-26, ". . . For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. . . ."

 

[JonC]

Well, @JonC came from a point of view of holding and teaching PSA! So BLIND is not by any means the problem regarding PSA. I hold PSA is true. The point that it is not stated in Scripture explicitly and directly in those terms. The problem is to show that it is there, where it cannot be denied. What was done provided both God's justice and His mercy. Romans 3:23-26, ". . . For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. . . ."

I did indeed hold, believe, preach, teach, and defend Penal Substitution Theory. It is not a matter of being unaware or "blind".

I think that is why I get aggravated with these threads. Nobody thus far has offered "proof" of Penal Substitution Theory that I have not considered.

Part of the issue here is my view of essential and foundational doctrines as they relate to Scripture. I believe that God revealed to us what we should believe in the actual text of Scripture.

Things like remarriage, the nature of Hell, alcohol consumption, music, etc. are not things that form building blocks to our understanding. I am willing to be less binding, less objective, on these things.

But our redemption is foundational. Other doctrines are built on this one. So I fo require (personally) that it's doctrine be actually contained in the text of God's Word. Penal Substitution Theory simply isn't.

Another issue is that without the Theory I find Scripture lacking nothing. It answers how God is Just and the justifier of sins, how our redemption is God's righteousness manifested apart from the law, and so much more.

And it does create a gospel and Church that is in God's Word (not one of many ideas people think is taught by His Word, but actually there).

All I want is for Christians to consider the actual text of Scripture...."What is written". If it dies not make sence without seeking out a "proper understanding" (the rally cry of cultists), or looking for a meaning other than or in addition to what is written, then at least you tried. Go with what Scripture means to you until led differently.



Edit: And yes...I even believe

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus."

as stated, without needing Penal Substitution Theory

 

[AustinC]

The title of this thread made me laugh out loud!
Rt Podcast GIF by Rooster Teeth - Find & Share on GIPHY

 

[37818]

I did indeed hold, believe, preach, teach, and defend Penal Substitution Theory. It is not a matter of being unaware or "blind".

I think that is why I get aggravated with these threads. Nobody thus far has offered "proof" of Penal Substitution Theory that I have not considered.

Part of the issue here is my view of essential and foundational doctrines as they relate to Scripture. I believe that God revealed to us what we should believe in the actual text of Scripture.

Things like remarriage, the nature of Hell, alcohol consumption, music, etc. are not things that form building blocks to our understanding. I am willing to be less binding, less objective, on these things.

But our redemption is foundational. Other doctrines are built on this one. So I fo require (personally) that it's doctrine be actually contained in the text of God's Word. Penal Substitution Theory simply isn't.

Another issue is that without the Theory I find Scripture lacking nothing. It answers how God is Just and the justifier of sins, how our redemption is God's righteousness manifested apart from the law, and so much more.

And it does create a gospel and Church that is in God's Word (not one of many ideas people think is taught by His Word, but actually there).

All I want is for Christians to consider the actual text of Scripture...."What is written". If it dies not make sence without seeking out a "proper understanding" (the rally cry of cultists), or looking for a meaning other than or in addition to what is written, then at least you tried. Go with what Scripture means to you until led differently.



Edit: And yes...I even believe

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus."

as stated, without needing Penal Substitution Theory

How is God's justice against sin satisfied without His wrath against sin?

 

[JonC]

How is God's justice against sin satisfied without His wrath against sin?

Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for Christ's sake shall find it.

God's justice is satisfied as we must die to the flesh and be reborn spiritually. What sin has the Spirit committed against God?

Rather than saving us through the Law God has saved us by recreating us. The law remains fulfilled - and all flesh must die, and God is Just and the justifier of sinners.

Scripture tells us that we are not saved by Christ's death. If Christ took God's wrath instead of us, then why are we not saved through His death?

 

[37818]

Scripture tells us that we are not saved by Christ's death. If Christ took God's wrath instead of us, then why are we not saved through His death?

I presume you are referring to Romans 5:8-10, ". . . But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. . . ." Our promised bodily resurrection at His appearing, 1 John 3:2. But that, I do not think, answers my question regarding the meeting God's justification of our sins so we can receive God's mercy and our death we earned was justly paid.

 

[JonC]

I presume you are referring to Romans 5:8-10, ". . . But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. . . ." Our promised bodily resurrection at His appearing, 1 John 3:2. But that, I do not think, answers my question regarding the meeting God's justification of our sins so we can receive God's mercy and our death we earned was justly paid.

Yes. Our salvation is the complete work of God.

This alone (without the first part of my post) doesnt answer your question.

What does is Christ's statement that we must be born again. We must lose our life to gain our life. We must die to the flesh. We must be made a new creation.

 

[37818]

What does is Christ's statement that we must be born again. We must lose our life to gain our life. We must die to the flesh. We must be made a new creation.

Your statement does not make sense. First to be born again is what God does, John 1:13. The idea we must lose our soul to save our soul is some kind of work. The notion we must die to the flesh is a work.

 

[agedman]

I thought we were all gathering on another thread that was started by @Guido, I suppose that I need to watch two threads now.

Say, why don't some of you look over that thread and see if it might apply to this one, too.