Search results

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  1. S

    What I believe about the Atonement

    The three instances of musar that I have previously mentioned are Deuteronomy 12:2-7; Isaiah 53:5-6; Jeremiah 30:12-15, where is word used by the KJV is 'chastisement.' I leave it to the reader to decide whether these examples refer to divine punishment or not. There is no doubt in my mind...
  2. S

    What I believe about the Atonement

    You are correct that the Hebrew word is usually translated 'teach' or something similar. However, I have shown that 'punish' is within its semantic range. The reason that the translators of the NIV and CSB have rendered Isaiah 53:5 as 'punishment' is that the context demands it. It is in the...
  3. S

    What I believe about the Atonement

    No. A propitiation is a sacrifice that turns away wrath. If someone reading this has ever done something to upset his wife, he may have bought her a bunch of flowers to propitiate her righteous anger against him The flowers are a propitiation. Now of course it is possible that she will not...
  4. S

    What I believe about the Atonement

    Hello Chris, First of all, welcome to the discussion. :) It;s no problem coming in late. I don't have any problem with your reasoning except that it does not seem to explain why Christ had to become a curse, why He had to become sin for us, how His becoming sin makes us the righteousness of God...
  5. S

    What I believe about the Atonement

    It isn't, but we press on. So do I (Proverbs 17:15). That is one of the two reasons that God Himself, in the Person of Jesus Christ, came to earth to shoulder the burden of our sin and to pay the penalty of it. The other reason, of course, is found in Ecclesiastes 7:22. But none of that...
  6. S

    What I believe about the Atonement

    OK. This is like pushing treacle uphill, but we'll persevere. How do you square these verses with, say, Exodus 23:7, 'I will not justify the wicked.' How can God 'be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus'? How can He be 'faithful and just to forgive us our sins' if He will...
  7. S

    What I believe about the Atonement

    So how do you believe the 'sheep' are saved? On what basis are they called the 'righteous'? Is it by works?
  8. S

    What I believe about the Atonement

    Exactly. That is why Statements and Confessions of faith are so important.
  9. S

    What I believe about the Atonement

    Oh dear! Oh dear! Oh dear! @John Caldwell! 'Mountains travail and a miserable mouse is born!' I suppose I should say thank you for trotting out a whole load of Scriptures, but what you don't say is what they mean to you. You give no expositions and I'm still in the dark about what you...
  10. S

    Penal Substitution is NOT a “Theory”

    Has it occurred to you that Wesley might have thought that you are inconsistent?
  11. S

    Penal Substitution is NOT a “Theory”

    Pathetic! The Death Penalty, when it existed in Britain, was also called Capital Punishment.
  12. S

    Penal Substitution is NOT a “Theory”

    You are correct about Wesley's inconsistency, but that is beside the point. Here is a professed Arminian who held strongly (and rightly) to the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. But Calvin was certainly not the originator of the doctrine, though he was the one who set it out in the greatest...
  13. S

    Penal Substitution is NOT a “Theory”

    Penal Substitution is true, and John Wesley and others realized that without also realizing the truth of Definite Redemption.
  14. S

    Penal Substitution is NOT a “Theory”

    I have very little time so my replies are going to be very brief. I am happy to expand later where requested. God's justice is first restorative and only then retributive (cf. Amos 4:6-12). 'By no means clearing the guilty.' Hebrews 9:6-7. Not so. It was necessary for God Himself in the...
  15. S

    Penal Substitution is NOT a “Theory”

    True, but they then limit it to those who believe.
  16. S

    Penal Substitution is NOT a “Theory”

    What you don't say is why Christ had to bear my sin and what it means that Christ became a curse for us. I know the answer to both these things, but I don't think you do. Justification is a legal term (cf. Deuteronomy 25:1), and God is a Judge (Psalms 7:11). What nonsense is this? Christ...
  17. S

    Penal Substitution is NOT a “Theory”

    'I have six honest serving-men; They taught me all I knew. Their names are What and Why and When And How and Where and Who.' [Rudyard Kipling] So why did Christ have to suffer? And did He really submit to the power of sin? What on earth does the second part of this mean this mean? Do you mean...
  18. S

    The Serpent King

    I apologize if anyone is offended by the title. It is not original to me. Numbers 21:4-9, NKJV. 'Then they journeyed from Mount Hor by the Way of the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom; and the soul of the people became very discouraged on the way. 5 And the people spoke against God and...
  19. S

    Penal Substitution is NOT a “Theory”

    The usual question: Why did Christ have to suffer and what did it achieve.
  20. S

    Penal Substitution is NOT a “Theory”

    You really are the king of cheap jibes. :( No, as a matter of fact it is you who are following a theory, and one which you are struggling to articulate, hence your recourse to the aforementioned jibes. If your theory was really Biblical you would be able to show some Scripture for it. The...