Search results

In the words of Everlast: “You know where it ends, yo, it usually depends on where you start”. When it comes to doctrine (any doctrine) where you begin determines where you end. If you begin with God’s wrath then you end up with wrath being satisfied. If you begin with death then you end up...

@David Taylor cannot see outside of the theories he has been taught, so do not take it personally. He reminds me of many (including myself) within evangelical Christianity (especially Baptists) who were brought into a very loose tradition. At some point (for those who study) seams start to show...

I think you hit the nail on the head. @David Taylor doesn't see it. He does not understand. More, IMHO, is he is not equipped to understand. He has chosen those under whom he will be disciples and is unable to discuss theological differences because he cannot defend his own positions (he dies...

I am not sure who you are referencing but I accept that I am part of the "problem". We are human and as such have interests that can be gotten and buttons that can be pushed. For me, I am very much interested in the "why" of Penal Substitution Theory as I know the "what". That is always the...

The point of the OP (Bible study according to me) is that the more fundamental a doctrine is the closer it should be to Scripture. Otherwise we run the risk of magnifying error in the development of our doctrines. We all see things implied in Scripture. But we are called to stand on the Word of...

Careful.... You are moving closer to Scripture than some theories may allow. Lol.

Not bickering. I think we have established we all agree on what Scripture states while we disagree on what we believe implied. I had hoped he and I could discuss the reasons for believing these implications but I suppose I also knew better. I thought the chance was worth taking. It had...

No. Only those scholars who are Reformed. Most have disagreed (for a long time the choice of "propitiation" was also highly debated even among the Reformed). You don't get outside of your tradition much, do you?

You reject that the word rendered "chastisement" refers to "instruction", most of the time and "discipline" almost as most while rarely meaning "punishment"??? :rolleyes:. Lol..... OK. Goes back to the oysters. Sometimes I have to remember to check out the water they were harvested from. :)

No. I did not ignore it. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. As you probably know the word translated "chastisement" (מוּסָר)‎ is used over 50 times in Scripture. It...

^^^^^ This means "implied" by definition, David. When I introduced "implication" I actually looked up the definition and used it word for word. You rightly say that Scripture does not explicitly state your theory but then you say it nonetheless says it (teaches it, I take you to mean). This...

As a basic doctrine of the Trinity this is what I hold: 1. God is One. 2. The Father is God 3. The Son and the Father are One. 4.The Spirit is the Spirit of God (God’s Spirit). I find this explanation sufficient to deal with passages. So now let's see if I can back this up as stated in...

Red herring fallacy. No one has said that our doctrine must be stated in one verse. No one has even said that Scripture has to explicitly state something to have it say something. A conclusion that can be drawn from something although it is not explicitly stated is called an "implication"...

No, David. You have not. You have not provided EVEN ONE VERSE that states in the text God poured His wrath upon Christ. I do not understand how you think that you did (it's like Adam Schiff thinking Trump's call actually states Trump was bribing another country to investigate a political...

Sorry. I must have misunderstood your point (I thought your point was that the Trinity was not stated in the actual text of Scripture, which had me wondering about you a bit). This makes it much easier. Please provide one verse that states in its text God punished Christ instead of punishing...

The problem is none of the verses you have supplied state that God was wrathful towards Christ. "Propitiation" does have wrath in view, but the definition does not make the propitiator the object of wrath (I know you know this, I am clarifying for others who may read the post). A Propitiation...

David, I hope my explanation helped you to understand why I am so insistent (towards me, not others) that my foundation be stated in Scripture. I also hope I have corrected the misunderstanding that I believe essential doctrine be stated in one verse or place within the biblical text. I...

I will try to explain, David. To me the very basic teaching of the Trinity is that: 1. the Spirit is the Spirit of God (stated in Genesis and Matthew) and sent by the Father and Son (stated in the Gospels and Acts) 2. God is One (stated in Deut. & James) 3. The Father and Son are one...

I do not hold Penal Substitution Theory because what separates Penal Substitution Theory from other theories (the "narrative" or how the "dots" are connected) is not stated in Scripture. In other words, Penal Substitution Theory does not meet my criteria to hold it as a foundational doctrine as...

It depends. I do not place ideas about "personhood" or "natures" on the same level (depending on how they are defined/ used. But I do agree the doctrine that Jesus was in the beginning with God and was God, that He and the Father are One, that the Spirit is the Spirt of God (God's Spirit) is...