TrevorL
Junior
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2023
- Messages
- 319
- Reaction score
- 37
- Points
- 28
- Age
- 80
- Location
- Lake Macquare, NSW
- Faith
- Christadelphian
- Country
- Australia
- Marital status
- Married
- Politics
- Do not participate in politics - God rules in the kingdoms of men Daniel 4:17
Greetings again Carbon, Eleanor and Sereni-tea,
Kind regards
Trevor
Fine line, but I understand that a person who teaches heresy is more or less a heretic, but it may come down to whether the person can be educated in the correct teaching.Im sorry you think that was calling you aa heretic. I assure you I am not, and if you read what I wrote, "Trying to take away a biblical doctrine an essential part of the gospel, I believe is heresy." Do you disagree?
If I say that I doubt very much that I will ever accept PSA, and I could uses stronger terms, then possibly you may label me a heretic already.Personally, I do not see you doing that yet. I see you more as not being 100% settled. I also believe if you study and understand scripture you will accept it also.
Yes, I am fixed in my opinion, that the Father's wrath was not upon Jesus. God the Father was with Jesus in love and care every inch of his trial, suffering, death and resurrection. To quote the experience of Abraham and Isaac and the anti-typical burnt offering and resurrection, "they went both of them together" Genesis 22:6,8.how he endured the Father's wrath in our place, you will then agree "by removing this doctrine, you lose the gospel."
I may add another post later or another day, on another additional theme starting with Genesis 3:15. You may like to comment on this verse first.Please explain your view.
PSA says that Jesus paid the price or received ALL the wrath of God against sin and the punishment for sin is suffering and death and return to the dust.Looks to me like you have a few things (errors) mixed together. Do I understand you as saying if Jesus was our substitute, he would never have risen again? But would still be in the grave? Wow!
I have already stated that my understanding of other Bible teachings differ from most here on this forum, and hence we have different foundations as a basis to understand the Atonement.I think your misunderstanding stretches much further than PSA.
I will not answer the above as I cannot understand your objection.Because people, both unsaved and saved, there is no PSA? That is such a silly argument, I won't reply to that.
Also I will not detract what I stated about the Book of Job.Wow, I am surprised by your lack of understanding. I don't mean to be rude or disrespectful, I am just not good at saying things any other way but right out and bluntly.
The death of the animal was not simply a swap, a substitute. The whole series of sacrifices, the sin, trespass, burnt, peace offerings and the Passover Lamb was to teach that salvation would come through the representative sacrifice of Jesus. Without proper faith their offering was like a pagan ritual.You do not address the OT sacrificial system here, the death of a perfect animal in the place of the sinner, which was the pattern for Christ's sacrifice.
Penal (death) substitionary (of the animal) atonement (for remission of sin).
I believe Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Son.But He could only do that because of who He is - the Son of God, the second person of the blessed Trinity.
Kind regards
Trevor