D
Dr. Huk-N-Duck
Guest
I could only justify spending eight hours a day on a forum if I was paralyzed and couldn’t get out of bed. Wow!The problem is that they don't have that kind of time. That guys spends 6-8 hours/day online.
I could only justify spending eight hours a day on a forum if I was paralyzed and couldn’t get out of bed. Wow!The problem is that they don't have that kind of time. That guys spends 6-8 hours/day online.
Jon the Apostate is the Wormtongue to the legacy admins' Theoden.Not interested at all. You could go over to the BB and argue Penal Substitutionary Atonement with JonC, the moderator. He closed my thread when I opposed him.
I'll just say that FSSL and Ransom would run that place much better. The problem is that they don't have that kind of time. That guys spends 6-8 hours/day online.
There are those who deny that Christ died "in our place."Penal Substitutionary Atonement... POW! Talk about a $50 (with membership discount) theological term!
It seems these reformation and later theologians are just hell bent on framing simple doctrine in sophisticated highly educated sounding verbage. I guess it makes them feel important to be able to use such big words.
I guess 1 Peter 3:18 needed enhancement because its simplicity just wasn't doing the job.
Then what was the point of Calvary?There are those who deny that Christ died "in our place."
He says Christ died, but not as payment for our sins. He says that Christ did not take the wrath of God as our punishment. He twists everything. I finally ignored him. He tried to turn every thread into an anti-Penal Substitution thread.Then what was the point of Calvary?
Frankly, I wouldn't even bother to dialogue with these folks until they can reconcile their stand with verses like 1 Peter 3:18. I have more important things to do.
I fail to see how someone can deny Christ paid for our sins then turn around and say He paid our ransom. To me, it's to-may-to vs to-mah-to. The Scriptures are very clear (whether or not Luther or Calvin agree) that Christ paid our debt. I believe that in a couple instances the term ransom is used in scripture though I'm at a loss to remember where right now. Either way, both terms describe the same transaction.He says Christ died, but not as payment for our sins. He says that Christ did not take the wrath of God as our punishment. He twists everything. I finally ignored him. He tried to turn every thread into an anti-Penal Substitution thread.
He holds to the Ransom Theory, from Anselm in the early church and says we believe in a new system. Well, it's from Luther and Calvin, pretty reliable guys.
It seems these reformation and later theologians are just hell bent on framing simple doctrine in sophisticated highly educated sounding verbage.
Luther and Calvin held no such view.He says Christ died, but not as payment for our sins. He says that Christ did not take the wrath of God as our punishment. He twists everything. I finally ignored him. He tried to turn every thread into an anti-Penal Substitution thread.
He holds to the Ransom Theory, from Anselm in the early church and says we believe in a new system. Well, it's from Luther and Calvin, pretty reliable guys.
Calvin held to penal substitution. From his commentary on Galatians:
That place is heavy handed when it comes to being moderated. I visit there as little as possible now.Not interested at all. You could go over to the BB and argue Penal Substitutionary Atonement with JonC, the moderator. He closed my thread when I opposed him.
I'll just say that FSSL and Ransom would run that place much better. The problem is that they don't have that kind of time. That guys spends 6-8 hours/day online.
Sadly my friend, this is true. The worst part is that many them are the kawl-eeeedge-Eddd-jjjjjj ed-geeee-kaaaa-tedddd seminarians who think their theology don't stink!There are those who deny that Christ died "in our place."
Charles Spurgeon was a Calvinist, and SOTL edited his sermons.
Oh yeah? You remind me of Greg Boyd.