Article: what is wrong the substitutionary theory of atonement.

[StormyOne]

Looking at yourself is very hard, because of issues relating to observers/etc. Looking at other people is easier because it is easier to have the observation be less corrupted.

Being inward looking gets you nowhere. It is only be being outward looking that you can expand.

JM

ever heard of the concept of "projection?" One would do well to be aware of their own biases lest in their observation of others they attribute those being observed the issues that they themselves possess... example, people attribute to dogs feelings and emotions that dogs may not possess....

 

[sentipente]

I previously wrote:

I realize that there are people in the world who search the Scriptures believing that they are the source of life. I don't think that I am one of those people. The Scriptures testify of Jesus Christ and I believe that it is in HIM that we have eternal life.
​

But that is a misquote. It is in knowing Him that we find eternal life. But that leaves the question of how you get to know an individual who remains invisible to you. We are back to Rom. 1:20. Through the things that He made.

 

[JohnT]

Ever hear of the concept of "pop psychology"? It is usually wrong

 

[JohnT]

But that is a misquote. It is in knowing Him that we find eternal life. But that leaves the question of how you get to know an individual who remains invisible to you. We are back to Rom. 1:20. Through the things that He made.

By what authority do you deem that a misquote?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

We are back to Rom. 1:20. Through the things that He made.

Is Romans 1:20 authoritative?

BFA

 

[sentipente]

The two of you have begun to act in a rather puerile manner. I guess the discussion is over. Enjoy yourselves.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

The two of you have begun to act in a rather puerile manner. I guess the discussion is over. Enjoy yourselves.

Ahhhhhh, the double standard again.

BFA

 

[sentipente]

Ahhhhhh, the double standard again.

BFA

Just what is that double standard that you see? It is childish to assume that one cannot cite from a source because it is not authorititative, especially when that ground has been plowed an nauseum. If you want to challenge an opinion do so without resorting to such puerile tactics. I don't have the time for it.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

But that leaves the question of how you get to know an individual who remains invisible to you. We are back to Rom. 1:20. Through the things that He made.

You've framed a question and you've suggested that the answer to your question is found in Paul's writings. Does this suggest authority? Does this suggest a "guidebook?" Are you ready to set a precedent?

BTW--cool use of a million dollar word. I was so impressed, I gave you rep points for it.

BFA

 

[sentipente]

You've framed a question and you've suggested that the answer to your question is found in Paul's writings. Does this suggest authority? Does this suggest a "guidebook?" Are you ready to set a precedent?

BTW--cool use of a million dollar word. I was so impressed, I gave you rep points for it.

BFA

Paul was simply stating a generally observable principle. Every creation reflects its creator. Why do you keep suggesting that relevance must also include authority?

 

[StormyOne]

Ever hear of the concept of "pop psychology"? It is usually wrong

I am not referring to pop psychology....

 

[JohnT]

Originally, sentipente claimes that Scripture was misquoted. I asked him

By what authority do you deem that a misquote?

His three answers are below

The two of you have begun to act in a rather puerile manner. I guess the discussion is over. Enjoy yourselves.

Just what is that double standard that you see? It is childish to assume that one cannot cite from a source because it is not authorititative,(sic) especially when that ground has been plowed an nauseum. (sic) If you want to challenge an opinion do so without resorting to such puerile tactics. I don't have the time for it.

Paul was simply stating a generally observable principle. Every creation reflects its creator. Why do you keep suggesting that relevance must also include authority?

Notice several things:
When pressed on an issue that he raised himself, he trues unsuccessfully to turn the question back on the questioner.

When pressed as to what authority that he uses to deem a Scripture a misquote, his answer are vacuous and vague, citing nothing other than his say so as proof.

When pressed on an issue that he raised himself, he posits another question, relevance, and then adds the adjective "childish or juvenile" (puerile) to discredit both our motivations and our attempts to clarify himself. Could be an Ad Hominem attack?

When pressed to explain what he posted, he makes those asking for clarification the bad boys.

sentipente, We simply asked for a reasoned response, but your response seems that you want us to take us at your word as an authority. It does not work that way.

From this monitor, your assertion that the Scripture was "misquoted" seemed whimsically capricious. To logically make a statement like that, you need to provide reasoned response. What is "puerile" about asking you for the reasons you make a statement? You said it, not us. We wanna know why, that's all.

Frankly, if you do not want to use a reasoned response for your mere opinions about Scripture, (and your non-answers are simply irrational as I demonstrated above) then please do not post your opinions about Scripture.

It is far easier for you if you do that.

 

[JohnT]

I am not referring to pop psychology....

These are your own words:

ever heard of the concept of "projection?" One would do well to be aware of their own biases lest in their observation of others they attribute those being observed the issues that they themselves possess... example, people attribute to dogs feelings and emotions that dogs may not possess...

The word "projection" is a psychological word. Psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions to others. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without the conscious mind recognize them. It is a Freudian concept.

Not only is your usage of the word erroneous, but it is unethically used. No one with any education in that science dares to diagnose another via blogs on the Internet.

Nor is it ethical to accuse another of "having issues".

You owe some people apologies.

 

[StormyOne]

JohnT this is a discussion forum you cannot come here and tell people not to post their opinions or ideas just because they don't follow the script/style you prefer.... last I checked no one died and left you in charge much less a moderator in this forum.... really you need to chill.....

 

[StormyOne]

double post

 

[JohnT]

JohnT this is a discussion forum you cannot come here and tell people not to post their opinions or ideas just because they don't follow the script/style you prefer.... last I checked no one died and left you in charge much less a moderator in this forum.... really you need to chill.....

I am very sorry that you do not like me correcting you; however my correction was accurate.

You used the word way outside of its psychological meaning. The word you should have used is "personification",

Second, you seemed to use the word "issues" to describe other people. Erroneously, I picked it up as an attack on JM. For that I apologize, for I was in error.

\|/
oo <-------your head.....
L
had you been following the conversation you would have realized that my comments were in response to JM's post about how people observe other people.... since you think so concretely, it went right by you... nuff said.....

I surely hope that this part in bold was not meant as a personal attack. Perhaps we'll let a mod decide.

 

[StormyOne]

I am very sorry that you do not like me correcting you; however my correction was accurate.

You used the word way outside of its psychological meaning. The word you should have used is "personification",

Second, you seemed to use the word "issues" to describe other people. Erroneously, I picked it up as an attack on JM. For that I apologize, for I was in error.



I surely hope that this part in bold was not meant as a personal attack. Perhaps we'll let a mod decide.

I used the word I intended to use, the example could have been different, but I used the word I wanted to use.... your concrete thinking prevents you from grasping the context.... as for the other.... it was an observation, the point went right over your head.... have a great day.....

 

[JohnT]

Stormy

It is obvious you create your own meanings to words, and them expect others to understand your misapplication.

From what I have seen here and elsewhere on this site, you do the same thing with Scripture, creating your own theology, expecting others to accept that concoction, and believe in the whimsical authority of Clay, as equal to the study of systematic theology.

Consistent in your pattern in both areas is being upset when you are pressed to explain what you mean, and then reacting negatively towards those making corrections. That is not logical behavior, and I do not deal with the illogical; it makes rational discussion impossible.

And to get back to the OP, it is also why this has gone so far astray from the OP, discussion of the Atonement. To understand the Atonement, one must also study the OT in terms of types and antitypes, and see how the OT is fulfilled in the NT.

By definition, study takes logic to understand things, and belief in the whimsically irrational is the same as no belief at all; it is pure relativism. God has not revealed himself to be relative, so your beliefs are contrary to the ontological attributes of God.

 

[StormyOne]

Stormy

It is obvious you create your own meanings to words, and them expect others to understand your misapplication.

From what I have seen here and elsewhere on this site, you do the same thing with Scripture, creating your own theology, expecting others to accept that concoction, and believe in the whimsical authority of Clay, as equal to the study of systematic theology.

Consistent in your pattern in both areas is being upset when you are pressed to explain what you mean, and then reacting negatively towards those making corrections. That is not logical behavior, and I do not deal with the illogical; it makes rational discussion impossible.

And to get back to the OP, it is also why this has gone so far astray from the OP, discussion of the Atonement. To understand the Atonement, one must also study the OT in terms of types and antitypes, and see how the OT is fulfilled in the NT.

By definition, study takes logic to understand things, and belief in the whimsically irrational is the same as no belief at all; it is pure relativism. God has not revealed himself to be relative, so your beliefs are contrary to the ontological attributes of God.

thanks for sharing..... have a good day...

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

What is interesting to me is how these former Adventists so regularly ignore the issues in this thread to focus upon triviality. This who derailment about looking at people to get to know God, do they really not know that the Bible is filled with stories about people...people and relationships to other people and to God.

Then weeks ago I asked twice the important question about how in their view of the atonement sin was transferred to Christ (who is God) and the silence was deafening. They claim they follow the Bible and some even claim they follow logic yet in reality when asked for the logic they can't demonstrate any. Oh they can post a verse such as He became sin but that is a paradoxical statement at the conclusion of a statement and it does not mean what they think it means. Because there is nothing about transference in the context. It is simply read into a verse and when questioned they have no answer yet are quick to declare themselves right and others wrong and illogical.

Why not try again instead of all the dodging and purposeful misinterpretations.

Well at least the first two would be easy, since the only authority to the question what do you believe is the "you" being asked the question. But then why the change in subject why don't you explain to us how sin is transferred, I would really like to hear your explaination. Was guilt for sin transferred. well if that was the case and the one who did not commit sin feels guilt for the sin isn't that a legal fiction? Was the attitude of the sinner transferred? how could that be as the people living still have that attitude. If they still have the sin attitude how could it have been transferred

. I am dying to hear your answer. http://christianforums.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=47931949
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=47931949&postcount=109