Search results

Penal Substitution Theory is not a philosophy. I agree there. What I said is that is based on humanistic judicial philosophy. That us true. The theory itself goes back to the 15th century, but you are right that the philosophy behind the theory goes back to the Garden.

Steve, All that I have asked here was that those who believe "chasten" Isaiah 53:5 means "punishment" explain why. For example, I believe the word refers to a type of instruction/ discipline The reason I believe this is twofold. 1) Out of the 50 times the word appears in the Old Testament...

I was not disagreeing. I just had not heard death being defined as separation. I also agree (death is a separation from life.... which works with the physical or spiritual). It just seems an awkward definition to me as I have not encountered that explanation as a definition.

Someone (a member here but not in this conversation) said on another forum that God was not wrathful to Christ when Christ experienced what would be wrath to us. I thought that was a good explanation (so good I still remember it.... which for me is a miracle). The crux of the issue to me is...

I agree that Christ suffered the wages of sin on the behalf of mankind, but I do not believe God was punishing Jesus instead of punishing us. Instead I believe God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting man's sins against them and giving all judgment to Christ.

There are a lot of things associated with Penal Substitution Theory and this thread. You are right, one thing leads to another. Penal Substitution Theory is based on worldly philosophy (on 16th century humanism dealing with retribitive justice). Basically, the Theory holds that "simple...

You are confused. I am not calling my position "classic" but pointing to the fact the position I hold is called the "classic view" (as opposed to the "Latin view" to include Penal Substitution Theory). Are you sure you paid attention in seminary? These are not uncommon terms. For some reason I...

Great observations @CharismaticLady This is a problem with Penal Substitution Theory. It does not believe that the “charges were dropped” or that “we are acquitted”. It holds that God is a slave to a humanistic sense of retributive justice and therefore must punish someone for a sin before...

As opposed to Reformed or Calvinist?

I mean that you dislike Mounce's conclusion on the topic of the OP, not personally or as a whole. I think I had @Steve Owen 's reply in mind when I responded. But my argument here was from the Mounce reference I had provided.

It depends on what you mean. The confusion is that we are approaching the topic very differently. Where you start affects where you end. We do, in fact, experience the consequences of our sin. We die (our spirit is separated from our body). It is appointed to man once to die and then the...

Tim Keller is a Presbyterian preacher. He is a very good speaker (although he kinda says the same thing over again). I like watching his lectures. That comment, basically that Hell is bad to the extent it is beyond our grasp, was interesting and for some reason stuck with me. If you are...

That was a good book. I have recommended it as a basic introduction to biblical studies (I am surprised you mentioned that one with your rejection of reliance on the text of Scripture, but it does emphasize principle as the transferable aspect of Scripture). Did you also study the Hermeneutical...

Steve, I never said that I was withdrawing from the thread. I said that I was opting out of discussing the topic with you with the knowledge you would respect that choice. I did so via PM because I thought that the most appropriate method of communication (as it was not technically about the...

I wonder how symbolic the language may be. When asked Tim Keller once assured someone that Hell was not a literal lake of fire but then explained he believed it was the language symbolic for something far worse.

No. I was wondering where you got the definition, that's all. It seemed odd to me (I was wondering, not arguing).

Steve, You have a tendency to add to Scripture and change words of Scripture to suit your theories (post #97 is a good example).

You think this means death means "separation"?

I do not think you mean many of the repercussions of your theories. (I say this to your credit)

I'd say the absence of life. Physical death is the absence of physical life, spiritual death is the absence of spiritual life. I just never heard it defined as "separation". Where does that come from?