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.
Originally Posted by brinny
You're entitled to your opinion. I prefer the Word of God, but thank you for sharing.
Scripture uses an abundance of language to describe the Mystery of the Atonement.
The different theories of Atonement are after-the-fact approaches to that Mystery, it's how we attempt to condense the language of Scripture into a concise summary and narrative.
Penal Substitution is one such approach. Proponents of it can find plenty of biblical language to support that approach.
Likewise Christus Victor is one such approach. Proponents of it can find just as much biblical language to support that approach.
At the end of the day the event of the Atonement itself remains a grand and transcendent Mystery, and we're all trying to put that Mystery into words that we can take hold of.
-CryptoLutheran
A theory is just a theory until it is proven to be true.
The penal substitutionary theory of the atonement is not God's revealed truth, it is just a theory.
Thanks, ViaCrucis,Scripture uses an abundance of language to describe the Mystery of the Atonement.
The different theories of Atonement are after-the-fact approaches to that Mystery, it's how we attempt to condense the language of Scripture into a concise summary and narrative.
Penal Substitution is one such approach. Proponents of it can find plenty of biblical language to support that approach.
Likewise Christus Victor is one such approach. Proponents of it can find just as much biblical language to support that approach.
At the end of the day the event of the Atonement itself remains a grand and transcendent Mystery, and we're all trying to put that Mystery into words that we can take hold of.
So you don't believe in the Trinity?Sorry Clare73, those verses do not say 'penal substitution' nor do they say things that necessarily point to such a theory.
It is just a theory.
There are other ways to understand what Jesus did.
So you don't believe in the Trinity?
What verses in Scripture state there is a Trinity?You'll have to explain that response.So you don't believe in the Trinity?Sorry Clare73, those verses do not say 'penal substitution' nor do they say things that necessarily point to such a theory.
It is just a theory.
There are other ways to understand what Jesus did.
You don't understand how to handle the Scriptures if you think its doctrines must be stated in simple declarative sentences.
It seems completely unrelated to anything I wrote.
It looks absurd to me.
What verses in Scripture state there is a Trinity?
Posturing is easy.The point I made before is that none of the passages you cited before teaches the concept of penal substitutionary atonement.
Posturing is easy
Non-responsive.Typing insults is even easier.Posturing is easy.The point I made before is that none of the passages you cited before teaches the concept of penal substitutionary atonement.
Provide answers to the questions below on Ro 3:25-26 which are consistent with the text and the rest of Scripture, then we'll go from there.
"God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of propitiation (atonement) (4,5) through faith in his blood (6).
He did this to demonstrate his justice (3), because in his forbearance he had passed over (1,2)
(left unpunished) the sins committed beforehand (OT)--he did it to demonstrate his justice (3)
at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies (7)." (Ro 3:25-26)
1) What did God "pass over" the sins committed beforehand (OT)?
2) The "what passed over" consisted precisely of?
3) How did the "what passed over" demonstrate God's justice?
4) For what did Jesus' sacrificial death atone?
5) How does Jesus' sacrificial death atone (make reparation, amends) for it?
6) What is the connection between his atonement and my faith in it (his blood)?
7) How is God both just and the one who justifies?
It is clear (again) in this thread that there are "different reads" of Scripture; I don't know why that justifies anger ...
It's not about a google search of theories.Nor do I.
But it does provoke angry responses.
Any poster can do a google search for "Theories of the atonement" and find many such theories exist.
Not all of them depend on substitution.
It's not about a google search of theories.
It's about Ro 3:25-26:
Provide answers to the questions below on Ro 3:25-26 which are consistent with the text and the rest of Scripture,
then we'll go from there.
"God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of propitiation (atonement) (4,5) through faith in his blood (6).
He did this to demonstrate his justice (3), because in his forbearance he had passed over (1,2)
(left unpunished) the sins committed beforehand (OT)--he did it to demonstrate his justice (3)
at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies (7)." (Ro 3:25-26)
1) What did God "pass over" the sins committed beforehand (OT)?
2) The "what passed over" consisted precisely of?
3) How did the "what passed over" demonstrate God's justice?
4) For what did Jesus' sacrificial death atone?
5) How does Jesus' sacrificial death atone (make reparation, amends) for it?
6) What is the connection between his atonement and my faith in it (his blood)?
7) How is God both just and the one who justifies?
You plead ignorance but she had explained herself in the very next sentence & when she presented scripture that answered your question, you weren't up to the challenge of articulating their relevance or lack thereof.quote=MoreCoffee;Nor do I.
So that just looks like piling on.But it does provoke angry responses.
You plead ignorance but she had explained herself in the very next sentence & when she presented scripture that answered your question, you weren't up to the challenge of articulating their relevance or lack thereof.
Now feigning ignorance deflects the allegation of anger away from you.
Clever.
I didn't see any anger anywhere, anyway...
So that just looks like piling on.
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?