Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sometimes a significant point can be made by quoting a Scripture verse without comment. Perhaps he thinks that those verses teach penal substitution, but they do not.I'm really not sure why people do this. They'll randomly post bits of scripture, add no commentary of their own and then click "Post Reply" as though they're dropping the mic. I guess maybe they think they're proving something... even though someone invariably replies asking what exactly they meant by that.
So.
What exactly did you mean by that?
I will not discuss this issue further with you unless you answer my questions with a "yes," "no", "true" or "false" as previously requested.Actually the previous assertions were refuted and not responded to in kind.
I agree, I don't think they do either. Satisfaction Theory can be adduced from those passages and so can other interpretive models.Sometimes a significant point can be made by quoting a Scripture verse without comment. He probably thinks that those verses teach penal substitution, but they do not.
The same thing as when I posted it 4 times. I provided commentary as well.I'm really not sure why people do this. They'll randomly post bits of scripture, add no commentary of their own and then click "Post Reply" as though they're dropping the mic. I guess maybe they think they're proving something... even though someone invariably replies asking what exactly they meant by that.
So.
What exactly did you mean by that?
Perhaps fix your false premise and we have a deal.I will not discuss this issue further with you unless you answer my questions with a "yes," "no", "true" or "false" as previously requested.
Of course, I understand if you do not want to do that. Have a nice day.
No, my questions do not contain any false premises. That is false.Perhaps fix your false premise and we have a deal.
Yes, I disagree. The situation below corresponds exactly to the situation that you describe above:Yes, it is indeed unjust to punish an innocent man.
It is also unjust to place the sins of guilty man on an innocent man.
Unless the innocent man agrees to take the blame and be punished for the guilty.
Do you disagree?
The problem with your questions is that no one knows if it is based on human natural law, ex Lex or sub lego.No, my questions do not contain any false premises. That is false.
Within human jurisprudence you would be correct.I think he would be a terrible judge, personally. And I would say that the judge has not acted justly. I would say that the judge has done a horrendous thing by punishing the innocent man and allowing the guilty man to go free, even if the innocent man agreed to it.
In fact Isaiah 53 is ample evidence alone for both satisfaction and penal substitution.Sometimes a significant point can be made by quoting a Scripture verse without comment. Perhaps he thinks that those verses teach penal substitution, but they do not.
The problem with your questions is that no one knows if it is based on human natural law, ex Lex or sub lego.
I would even throw in there theodicy must be discussed. Meaning if all or most are not established first your actual line of questioning could create a false dichotomy. Why because there is a paradox to identify first as was debated for hundreds of years after Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo.
If we were to stick to human jurisprudence in accordance with what YHWH gave in Torah and before it (Genesis 9) it would be unjust for a righteous man to suffer for the offense(s) of the wicked offender.
Now you can ask the actual question you really want to discuss...How can Jesus pay the penalty for the unjust as that would be unjust and it would be unjust for a Holy Father in Heaven to be associated in any decision involving the just to take upon the sins of the unjust.
Yet that is exactly what happened.
Within human jurisprudence you would be correct.
Now you should consider why a righteous and just sinless Jesus Christ did indeed suffer and die for the unjust.
Then ask for what purpose or according to Whose will. The Incarnation is a valid starting point. However, before the foundations of the earth is the better “starting point.”
I will not discuss this issue further with you unless you answer my questions with a "yes," "no", "true" or "false" as previously requested.In fact Isaiah 53 is ample evidence alone for both satisfaction and penal substitution.
Sometimes a significant point can be made by quoting a Scripture verse without comment. Perhaps he thinks that those verses teach penal substitution, but they do not.
I agree, I don't think they do either. Satisfaction Theory can be adduced from those passages and so can other interpretive models.
I find it telling that those who hold to PSA don't seem to recognize how much they project onto the scriptures when having these discussions. In their minds, they seem to think that a given passage harmonizing with their preferred interpretation is somehow evidence that their interpretation is explicitly taught in scripture.
As a general remark, I believe that the degree to which sacred scripture is open to interpretation points to a need for an infallible authority to depend upon for interpretation.
I just did answer your question. See the portion where I speak of human jurisprudence.I will not discuss this issue further with you unless you answer my questions with a "yes," "no", "true" or "false" as previously requested.
We can examine this simply by asking the question:I agree, I don't think they do either. Satisfaction Theory can be adduced from those passages and so can other interpretive models.
I find it telling that those who hold to PSA don't seem to recognize how much they project onto the scriptures when having these discussions. In their minds, they seem to think that a given passage harmonizing with their preferred interpretation is somehow evidence that their interpretation is explicitly taught in scripture.
As a general remark, I believe that the degree to which sacred scripture is open to interpretation points to a need for an infallible authority to depend upon for interpretation.
I agree and the context most theologians and churches including the Roman Catholic Church calls this chapter the Suffering Servant.Yes but! that does not necessarily mean that anyone other than the person posting the scripture verse knows what the poster was thinking when they posted it.
The three c's of Bible study context, context and context.....
I just did answer your question. See the portion where I speak of human jurisprudence.
What you are nipping is at the periphery of a much larger theological debate.
I will not discuss this issue further with you unless you answer my questions with a "yes," "no", "true" or "false" as previously requested.We can examine this simply by asking the question:
Are the wages of sin death?
I answered your inquiry theologically. Yet you want everyone to address your false dilemma using non theological situations and terms.I will not discuss this issue further with you unless you answer my questions with a "yes," "no", "true" or "false" as previously requested.
I will not discuss this issue further with you unless you answer my questions with a "yes," "no", "true" or "false" as previously requested.I answered your inquiry theologically. Yet you want everyone to address your false dilemma using non theological situations and terms.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?