Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Eusebius (260 - 339 AD), the "father of church history", on Isaiah 53:

"In this he shows that Christ, being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on himself. And therefore he will suffer the penalty of sinners, and will be pained on their behalf; and not on his own" (Proof of the Gospel, 3.2).

Penal substitutionary atonement was a view held by the early church, because it's directly from the book of Isaiah. The idea that it is a "new invention" is an outright lie.

---

The Church holds more closely to substitutional atonement focusing on the concept of Jesus's sacrificial and his voluntary offering of himself for the redemption of humanity.

The Church rejects penal substitution as Jesus taking on the punishment deserved by sinners satisfying the demands for justice and experiencing the divine wrath. This view seems to make God an unjust judge. We know that God can't be unjust.

---

They think the main problem in the Bible as individual sin needing forgiveness.
Our sin problem is not the main problem.

The main problem is a PRESENCE problem. We have lost access to the presence of God and as a result have lost perspective on the purposes of God. We have become slaves to sin.

We were already dead in sin (Ephesians 2). Jesus not dying instead of us, He is dying with us. And He calls us to die with Him and die in Him.

The only reason to know God or follow Jesus is not to be saved.
While we do need forgiveness of sin...we need to try to escape the slavery of sin. The Bible speaks abundantly about this.

Biblically, Jesus' death is unjust, and we die with Christ and in Christ, not "Christ instead of us."

---

Jesus died for us so that we don't have to eternally die. It most certainly IS "Jesus instead of us", i.e. substitutionary. You're flatly denying what Isaiah makes clear.

Can you trust a church that lied to you about penal substitutionary atonement?

---

You're denying that we're already dead in sin.

Can you trust your own judgment? How do you know your interpretation is true?

---

I'm denying that we're already "dead in sin"?

So you're saying that Isaiah is NOT speaking of penal substitutionary atonement? What do you say about Eusebius saying exactly what I'm saying, what your church calls a "new invention"?

Can you trust a church that tells you to credit Mary for your salvation?

---

This is your logic:

God's justice requires punishment. The punishment is death. Christ takes our punishment in our place. God's wrath is satisfied. We are declared righteous.

You CANNOT argue for PSA without committing to Nestorianism and Arianism. It's impossible.

Penal substitution only works if humanity's punishment is still awaiting execution. But Scripture says we are already dead in sin. You can't substitute someone into a penalty that's already fully operative.

Dead people don't need a substitute execution, they need resurrection.

Hebrews 2:14

Christ destroys "the one who has the power of death."

1 Corinthians 15:26

"The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

Colossians 2:15 He disarmed rulers and authorities.

God is not the obstacle. The disagreement is more about how the terms in "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" are disambiguated.

I reject that the atonement is penal insofar as you take this to mean that the debt paid to God was paid in the currency of punishment or torment. In my view, the debt is paid in the "currency" of righteousness, not the currency of punishment or torment points.

I reject that the atonement is a substitution in the sense of "Jesus did this so we don't have to, as a disconnected proxy". In my view, Jesus did what he did so that, in with and through Him, we could do likewise. Without this understanding, it is impossible to make sense out of Paul's letters.

---

If you think PSA is Nestorianism and Arianism, then you either don't understand PSA or you don't understand Nestorianism and Arianism, or both.

Scripture clearly tells us that Jesus paid the penalty of sin that was deservedly ours (substitutionary) and that this payment atoned for our sin. No matter how you slice it, that's penal substitutionary atonement defined. You're just not making any case that Scripture says any different. It most certainly is something that "Jesus did so that we don't have to". You are denying the clear teaching of Scripture that Jesus' suffering and death was substitutionary.

I think your problem is that you assume PSA automatically precludes Jesus' death being a defeat of death with his resurrection, and the opening of a pathway for believers to follow. For some reason, you think they are not able to both be true. Your thinking is limited. Jesus' death can BOTH be a payment for sin in our stead, AND a defeat of death. Scripture supports both. Instead of accepting what Scripture teaches, your church rejects one for the other, which you don't have to do. Your belief system is being built on the non sequitur that God subjecting his Son to the penalty of sin means that God is being "unjust". This belief stems from the fact that you don't truly understand and appreciate God's holiness. For us to be reconciled to a holy God, the debt of sin MUST be paid for - if not by Jesus, then it'd have to be paid by us. If we are to pay for it, then the price is eternal death (Romans 6:23). But because Jesus paid the debt with his sacrifice, that eternal price is no longer necessary for those who believe in him and trust in him that he has paid for it in full. Penal substitutionary atonement is the HEART of the Gospel. That's the danger of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy - both are rejecting the true nature of what Jesus has done for us.

---

The issue isn't whether Jesus died "for us." The issue is whether the Father needed to punish the Son before He could forgive. That assumption is precisely what's being questioned.

You haven't provided logic behind your claims. All you've done is come to conclusions. You've asserted that Jesus died for us, which I affirm. But that does not logically entail that the Father poured retributive wrath onto the Son as a legal substitute. That's a theological system layered onto the text. If you want to defend PSA, you need to show the logical bridge from "Christ died for us" to "the Father had to punish Him instead of us." Simply claiming Scripture is clear isn't an argument.

---

I have no idea what or where your problem with all this is. Isaiah is clear that Jesus took the penalty that belonged to us in order to atone for our sin. This isn't my "claim" that I have to provide "logic" for. It's right there in front of you in Scripture. Do you deny what Isaiah says?

Augustine (354 - 430) in his Exposition on Psalm 51:

"For even the Lord was subject to death, but not on account of sin: He took upon Him our punishment, and so looses our guilt."


In his Contra Faustum, Book XIV:

"Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that He might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment.... But as Christ endured death as man, and for man; so also, Son of God as He was, ever living in His own righteousness, but dying for our offenses, He submitted as man, and for man, to bear the curse which accompanies death. And as He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offenses, in the death which He suffered in bearing our punishment."

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Eusebius (260 - 339 AD), the "father of church history", on Isaiah 53:

"In this he shows that Christ, being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on himself. And therefore he will suffer the penalty of sinners, and will be pained on their behalf; and not on his own" (Proof of the Gospel, 3.2).

Penal substitutionary atonement was a view held by the early church, because it's directly from the book of Isaiah. The idea that it is a "new invention" is an outright lie.

---

The Church holds more closely to substitutional atonement focusing on the concept of Jesus's sacrificial and his voluntary offering of himself for the redemption of humanity.

The Church rejects penal substitution as Jesus taking on the punishment deserved by sinners satisfying the demands for justice and experiencing the divine wrath. This view seems to make God an unjust judge. We know that God can't be unjust.

---

They think the main problem in the Bible as individual sin needing forgiveness.
Our sin problem is not the main problem.

The main problem is a PRESENCE problem. We have lost access to the presence of God and as a result have lost perspective on the purposes of God. We have become slaves to sin.

We were already dead in sin (Ephesians 2). Jesus not dying instead of us, He is dying with us. And He calls us to die with Him and die in Him.

The only reason to know God or follow Jesus is not to be saved.
While we do need forgiveness of sin...we need to try to escape the slavery of sin. The Bible speaks abundantly about this.

Biblically, Jesus' death is unjust, and we die with Christ and in Christ, not "Christ instead of us."

---

Jesus died for us so that we don't have to eternally die. It most certainly IS "Jesus instead of us", i.e. substitutionary. You're flatly denying what Isaiah makes clear.

Can you trust a church that lied to you about penal substitutionary atonement?

---

You're denying that we're already dead in sin.

Can you trust your own judgment? How do you know your interpretation is true?

---

I'm denying that we're already "dead in sin"?

So you're saying that Isaiah is NOT speaking of penal substitutionary atonement? What do you say about Eusebius saying exactly what I'm saying, what your church calls a "new invention"?

Can you trust a church that tells you to credit Mary for your salvation?

---

This is your logic:

God's justice requires punishment. The punishment is death. Christ takes our punishment in our place. God's wrath is satisfied. We are declared righteous.

You CANNOT argue for PSA without committing to Nestorianism and Arianism. It's impossible.

Penal substitution only works if humanity's punishment is still awaiting execution. But Scripture says we are already dead in sin. You can't substitute someone into a penalty that's already fully operative.

Dead people don't need a substitute execution, they need resurrection.

Hebrews 2:14

Christ destroys "the one who has the power of death."

1 Corinthians 15:26

"The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

Colossians 2:15 He disarmed rulers and authorities.

God is not the obstacle. The disagreement is more about how the terms in "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" are disambiguated.

I reject that the atonement is penal insofar as you take this to mean that the debt paid to God was paid in the currency of punishment or torment. In my view, the debt is paid in the "currency" of righteousness, not the currency of punishment or torment points.

I reject that the atonement is a substitution in the sense of "Jesus did this so we don't have to, as a disconnected proxy". In my view, Jesus did what he did so that, in with and through Him, we could do likewise. Without this understanding, it is impossible to make sense out of Paul's letters.

---

If you think PSA is Nestorianism and Arianism, then you either don't understand PSA or you don't understand Nestorianism and Arianism, or both.

Scripture clearly tells us that Jesus paid the penalty of sin that was deservedly ours (substitutionary) and that this payment atoned for our sin. No matter how you slice it, that's penal substitutionary atonement defined. You're just not making any case that Scripture says any different. It most certainly is something that "Jesus did so that we don't have to". You are denying the clear teaching of Scripture that Jesus' suffering and death was substitutionary.

I think your problem is that you assume PSA automatically precludes Jesus' death being a defeat of death with his resurrection, and the opening of a pathway for believers to follow. For some reason, you think they are not able to both be true. Your thinking is limited. Jesus' death can BOTH be a payment for sin in our stead, AND a defeat of death. Scripture supports both. Instead of accepting what Scripture teaches, your church rejects one for the other, which you don't have to do. Your belief system is being built on the non sequitur that God subjecting his Son to the penalty of sin means that God is being "unjust". This belief stems from the fact that you don't truly understand and appreciate God's holiness. For us to be reconciled to a holy God, the debt of sin MUST be paid for - if not by Jesus, then it'd have to be paid by us. If we are to pay for it, then the price is eternal death (Romans 6:23). But because Jesus paid the debt with his sacrifice, that eternal price is no longer necessary for those who believe in him and trust in him that he has paid for it in full. Penal substitutionary atonement is the HEART of the Gospel. That's the danger of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy - both are rejecting the true nature of what Jesus has done for us.

---

The issue isn't whether Jesus died "for us." The issue is whether the Father needed to punish the Son before He could forgive. That assumption is precisely what's being questioned.

You haven't provided logic behind your claims. All you've done is come to conclusions. You've asserted that Jesus died for us, which I affirm. But that does not logically entail that the Father poured retributive wrath onto the Son as a legal substitute. That's a theological system layered onto the text. If you want to defend PSA, you need to show the logical bridge from "Christ died for us" to "the Father had to punish Him instead of us." Simply claiming Scripture is clear isn't an argument.

---

God punished himself thru Jesus to complete the punishment of the broken covenant of Abraham.

The resurection created the new covenant

Have a great weekend everyone

Church tomorrow. Find a good Bible believing church and attend

2 Peter 1:20-21 KJV
[20] knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. [21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

https://bible.com/bible/1/2pe.1.20-21.KJV

So how can anyone trust a church that LIED about

• penal substitutionary atonement
• the Eucharist being figurative, or a symbol
• the deuterocanon NOT being canon Scripture
• faith alone (sola fide)
• sola scriptura

all being "new inventions" of the reformers, given the clear evidence presented?

Please take the time to read this first post of you haven't yet

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So how can anyone trust a church that LIED about

• penal substitutionary atonement
• the Eucharist being figurative, or a symbol
• the deuterocanon NOT being canon Scripture
• faith alone (sola fide)
• sola scriptura

all being "new inventions" of the reformers, given the clear evidence presented?

---

The Catholic Church lies about these things. Scripture is the final Authority, NOT the Church. Obviously, the Catholic Church added these things later in their doctrine and then refused to let anyone read Scripture for themselves to hide their error because they knew that it contradicted Scripture. Thank God for men like Martin Luther who were honest enough to tell the truth.

True

Colossians 2:9-10 KJV
[9] For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. [10] And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

Galatians 5:2-4 KJV
[2] Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. [3] For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. [4] Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

I hope you all had a great Sunday as we start the new week

Isaiah 53:5 KJV
[5] But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

A PRAYER OF SALVATION: If you have any doubts about whether or not you are going to heaven, YOU COULD HUMBLY PRAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO GOD FROM YOUR HEART IN FAITH:

"Dear Lord Jesus I know that I am a sinner and need you to save me. I believe that You are the Lord and believe in my heart that You died on the Cross and Rose from the dead, shedding your blood as the Sacrifice for my sins. I turn to You as the only way of Salvation, I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours, I place my Faith and Trust in You alone as Lord of my life, Please save me and I thank You for it, in Jesus holy name, Amen."

If you have truly placed your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord, submitting your life to Him, you can know that you are a child of God and on your way to heaven. Now that you are on your way to heaven, you should attend a bible believing Church and follow in baptism.

---

What churches are not Bible believing? Or is that code language for something?

---

It's interesting that Bible believing is the thing that triggered you.

---

Nobody triggered. It was the most bizarre part of the post and i enjoy trying to help when I get the opportunity to talk with schismed protestants

Still never got a response from you or anyone on the paradise topic. Thats what i expected though.

---

Not sure what you're talking about. What about paradise?

---

Not one single Protestant here responded to my explanation of paradise and where the thief on the cross went with jesus that day. In fact it immediately ended what was a lively discussion so one could only conclude it was unable to be refuted.

---

Sorry, just now seeing this. Many interpretations of this wording believe Christ was referring to Heaven. I think this is the most likely interpretation, as it is used in other places of scripture to refer to Heaven.

I am not sure of the relevance of the question, however. It's certainly not a difficult question, by any measure.

---

Yes. The 80 Other times Jesus spoke of Heaven and never once used this word should make one question where Jesus met the thief on the cross after his death

Any logical person would ponder.

---

Ah, got it. So when Christ said he would be with the thief in paradise, what he really meant is that the thief would be with him in Hades or Purgatory because the thief didn't perform enough works to get into Heaven.

Speaking of a lack of logic, LOL. SMH.

---

Did Jesus go To haven over the weekend? Smh

---

We've been over this. Why are you rehashing old arguments and what does that have to do with the thief on the cross?

I get that you're trying to explain away the thief being with Christ given that it destroys the Catholic narrative on baptism and other sacraments being necessary for salvation. I'd suggest not feeling threatened by scripture but opening your mind to the possibility that your works based faith is built on a faulty premise.

---

You really invent a lot of arguments in your head. I always have to bring you back to the topic. Stick to the topic. Jesus spoke of Heaven 80 times and never once used the word he used with the thief. So where did they go?

Was Jesus in heaven that weekend? Why continued refusal to answer the question? I get no one ever made you look at it this way before with these facts youd never heard before so where was he?

---

I've answered these questions on another thread. I think you either don't read the posts responding to your questions, or you simply ignore the answers inconvenient for your positions.

As I said on another thread, we are not entirely sure what happened to Christ between his death and resurrection. Some verses suggest he went to Hades. Others suggest he went to Heaven. And still others suggest that he went to a place of comfort and rest for the dead in Sheol - the place of the dead - where he released the patriarchs of the faith following his salvific work on the cross. And then other verses suggest he went to all three of these places. We simply do not know, and won't know until we are with Christ in Heaven.

Now, again, I am trying to determine what you believe this discussion proves, because like many of your inane points, it doesn't seem relevant to the issue at hand. Are you attempting to argue that the thief was not saved? Or are you attempting to argue that he had to do certain things to earn salvation? And if these are your positions, what scriptural support do you have for them, if any.

Or I guess the better question is - do YOU even know what your point is, if any?

---

An astute observer, which i guess you dont want to be out of stubborness or other, would rightfully question why Jesus, our Lord and Savior,used a word to the thief that protestants love to use as some way of debunking a 2000 yesr old catholic faith and Jesus' church on earth built upon the rock, as proof of something yet they dont seem to understand or question their struggle to prove that because they dont understand the greek

Just things that should make one overwhelmed with pride of their knowledge togo hmmmmm

That is all

---

I don't know what other protestants say, as unlike you, I don't subscribe to the simplistic and glib idea that "protestants" are some monolithic group who all share the same set of thoughts. All I can say is what I believe.

But let's examine what you're saying here. The thief was with Christ in a place called paradise. Even you would agree with that, I believe. So, how does the fact we don't know if that's Heaven or some other place that is apparently like Heaven support any of your positions? The answer is, it doesn't.

The man was with Christ in a place called paradise. In other words, he wasn't condemned to Hell or this fictional and unmentioned place called Purgatory because he wasn't baptized or didn't perform some sort of sacrament to save himself. Indeed, he was saved, as otherwise, he wouldn't be with Christ in paradise.

That honestly should be the end of the discussions right there. But if you feel that should be interpreted differently, feel free to share your interpretation. Do you believe the man was saved or not?

---

Significant amount of misunderstanding hete of the doctrine. Also ive never said theres 1 protestant belief. In fact some here even say they arent protestant and that ended in the 100s. In favt ive said thats the problem. You walk into a church and have no idea what ine is being taught. Then that preacher dies, moves on or goes to prison or whatever and you have to scan for another "bible believing church" they say

---

So in other words, various Protestant denominations are no different than Catholics. I would absolutely agree with that. They are ultimately filled with sinners unfortunately.

But again, I'll point out for the third time you still haven't answered any of my questions regarding the thief or its relevance. I guess this is just another one of those you have no answer for.

---

Let's try to answer questions and just give your honest opinion. If you don't know or have an answer for it right away just say I don't know I will get back with you on it.

Amen

Amen

Doc Holliday said:

---

Christ's life is not a set of points that are to be looked at piecemeal. The whole life of Christ is our salvation.

Annunciation: God becomes incarnate and so mediates the divine and human natures. Restoring the union of the natures allowing for our theosis or deification. God became man so that man might become god (through participation not by natures) St Athanasius

Christmas: Christ fulfills the prophecy of the virgin birth

Circumcision/Temple: Christ joins the covenant and doing so joins the Israelites in their struggle with God.

Miracles and Signs: Proving his ability to forgive sins of his own authority and so declaring himself God.

Passion: Fulfillment of Isaiah, obedience to God, and so becoming New Adam

Death: By his death sin is defeated. Christ desired to join us in death, He is the victorious leader over sin and death, He desired to redeem suffering itself, He taught us to die to ourselves in obedience to God

Resurrection: Christ defeats death. Rescuing humanity from the last hurdle to the theosis of man. He had restored our communion with the divine by his incarnation, restored our image by his perfect life, and restored our immortality by his resurrection allowing us to achieve the goal of the human life: theosis. God created man in his image and likeness so that man could, in love and humility, participate in what God is. That would be impossible without the whole life of Christ.

---

Great points

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

I hope you all had a great weekend

Fre3dombear said:

---

canoso said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

canoso said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

canoso said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

A PRAYER OF SALVATION: If you have any doubts about whether or not you are going to heaven, YOU COULD HUMBLY PRAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO GOD FROM YOUR HEART IN FAITH:

"Dear Lord Jesus I know that I am a sinner and need you to save me. I believe that You are the Lord and believe in my heart that You died on the Cross and Rose from the dead, shedding your blood as the Sacrifice for my sins. I turn to You as the only way of Salvation, I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours, I place my Faith and Trust in You alone as Lord of my life, Please save me and I thank You for it, in Jesus holy name, Amen."

If you have truly placed your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord, submitting your life to Him, you can know that you are a child of God and on your way to heaven. Now that you are on your way to heaven, you should attend a bible believing Church and follow in baptism.

---

What churches are not Bible believing? Or is that code language for something?

---

Liberal Churches are not Bible believing. Also, any Church that gives higher authority to anything above or equal with the Word of God is not a Bible believing Church.

---

Can you name some? How does one conclude if they are in the right pew when even in a group of 10
Protestants one can easily get 10 different interpretations?

---

My friend, the group to which you refer hasn't been protesting anything for several centuries now. Please get caught up.

---

I understand. Its complicated but makes for fun discussion and learning

---

When one understands this truth, one stops using the anachronism "Protestant."

---

How does one describe the new faith that schismed in 1517?

---

Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), Sola Fide (faith alone), Sola Gratia (grace alone), Solus Christus (Christ alone), and Soli Deo Gloria (glory to God alone).

---

None of which are in the Bible

---

Yes they are. There is no Authority above Scripture. Those concepts are all Biblical.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Every early Christian writer, from Irenaeus to Athanasius, used similar exalted language about the saints and about Mary's unique role in salvation history. They don't pray to icons or to Mary as deities, they venerate them as windows into the reality of Christ's work.

The irony is that Protestants reject "tradition" in theory but live by it in practice, from their canon of Scripture to their wedding ceremonies and worship styles. There's no apostolic command or scriptural blueprint for the modern wedding rite (rings, vows, pastor officiating, white dress). Yet virtually all Protestant churches practice it as a sacred ritual and don't see marriage legitimate without it. Many Protestants submit their "reason" to their pastor's interpretations or denominational statements of faith. That's functionally identical to what they accuse Orthodoxy or Rome of doing, just without the historical continuity.

Honestly, Orthodoxy looks a lot more like the faith the apostles actually lived because it still carries the DNA of Second Temple Judaism: the religious world Jesus and the apostles came from. The liturgy, use of incense, vestments, psalms, fasting cycles, and sacraments all directly mirror Jewish worship patterns that were fulfilled in Christ, not discarded. The early Christians didn't suddenly invent a new way of worshiping God; they took the synagogue and temple rhythms and reoriented them around the risen Messiah.

---

"Every early Christian writer, from Irenaeus to Athanasius, used similar exalted language about the saints and about Mary's unique role in salvation history." ---- but did Jesus or his apostles? And we're talking about a lot more than just "exalted language", aren't we? Do you honestly believe it's okay to praise someone and credit them for our salvation other than Jesus, like the Akathist Hymn does? Do you truly not see the idolatry and blasphemy there?

Again, things like wedding ceremonies aren't crucial to salvation or righteousness. On the other hand, to the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church, you are anathematized to Hell for not bowing to and praying to images (icons). See the HUGE difference?

So what do you think, then, of the Orthodox Church's practice of icon veneration (and it's absolute requirement for believers upon pain of anthema) in light of the fact that you insist that we should not stray from the witness of the early church? Because not only is icon veneration completely absent in Scripture, the consensus among the early church fathers was that it was forbidden. How then do you reconcile this with the Orthodox claim of being the one true, undivided and undeviated church?

---

Let's say you're correct…what denomination is right?

We've got so many different interpretations within sola scriptura…who has the authority on the correct interpretation?

Hell we have one pastor saying something completely contradictory to another within even the same denominations. Whose right?

I'm looking for authority on interpretation. Where is it? Someone has to be right. The truth has to exist. The best argument I've found is that the early church knows because they were closest to Jesus.

---

The one who most closely follows what Scripture Actually says is the Dispensationalist. Chat GPT will tell you that they are.

This man is one and a great teacher that walks you through Scripture from Beginning to end in 25 minute lessons.

Through the Bible with Les Feldick https://share.google/TNEWCK2qhoCAkHiqb

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

The one who most closely follows what Scripture Actually says is the Dispensationalist. Chat GPT will tell you that they are.

---

ChatGPT is hardly an authoritative source for spiritual wisdom. Garbage in, garbage out.

Dispensationalists don't even agree amongst themselves what the correct interpretation of prophecy is.

Sam Lowry said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Every early Christian writer, from Irenaeus to Athanasius, used similar exalted language about the saints and about Mary's unique role in salvation history. They don't pray to icons or to Mary as deities, they venerate them as windows into the reality of Christ's work.

The irony is that Protestants reject "tradition" in theory but live by it in practice, from their canon of Scripture to their wedding ceremonies and worship styles. There's no apostolic command or scriptural blueprint for the modern wedding rite (rings, vows, pastor officiating, white dress). Yet virtually all Protestant churches practice it as a sacred ritual and don't see marriage legitimate without it. Many Protestants submit their "reason" to their pastor's interpretations or denominational statements of faith. That's functionally identical to what they accuse Orthodoxy or Rome of doing, just without the historical continuity.

Honestly, Orthodoxy looks a lot more like the faith the apostles actually lived because it still carries the DNA of Second Temple Judaism: the religious world Jesus and the apostles came from. The liturgy, use of incense, vestments, psalms, fasting cycles, and sacraments all directly mirror Jewish worship patterns that were fulfilled in Christ, not discarded. The early Christians didn't suddenly invent a new way of worshiping God; they took the synagogue and temple rhythms and reoriented them around the risen Messiah.

---

"Every early Christian writer, from Irenaeus to Athanasius, used similar exalted language about the saints and about Mary's unique role in salvation history." ---- but did Jesus or his apostles? And we're talking about a lot more than just "exalted language", aren't we? Do you honestly believe it's okay to praise someone and credit them for our salvation other than Jesus, like the Akathist Hymn does? Do you truly not see the idolatry and blasphemy there?

Again, things like wedding ceremonies aren't crucial to salvation or righteousness. On the other hand, to the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church, you are anathematized to Hell for not bowing to and praying to images (icons). See the HUGE difference?

So what do you think, then, of the Orthodox Church's practice of icon veneration (and it's absolute requirement for believers upon pain of anthema) in light of the fact that you insist that we should not stray from the witness of the early church? Because not only is icon veneration completely absent in Scripture, the consensus among the early church fathers was that it was forbidden. How then do you reconcile this with the Orthodox claim of being the one true, undivided and undeviated church?

---

Let's say you're correct…what denomination is right?

We've got so many different interpretations within sola scriptura…who has the authority on the correct interpretation?

Hell we have one pastor saying something completely contradictory to another within even the same denominations. Whose right?

I'm looking for authority on interpretation. Where is it? Someone has to be right. The truth has to exist. The best argument I've found is that the early church knows because they were closest to Jesus.

---

The one who most closely follows what Scripture Actually says is the Dispensationalist. Chat GPT will tell you that they are.

This man is one and a great teacher that walks you through Scripture from Beginning to end in 25 minute lessons.

Through the Bible with Les Feldick https://share.google/TNEWCK2qhoCAkHiqb

---

Chat GPT doesn't know what it's talking about (literally).

---

That isn't the only flawed source of authority from which people here are drawing from, as has been made evident.

Chat GPT IS quite right about that. Dispensationalism is a more literal interpretation of Scripture and it is the correct one.

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

The one who most closely follows what Scripture Actually says is the Dispensationalist. Chat GPT will tell you that they are.

---

ChatGPT is hardly an authoritative source for spiritual wisdom. Garbage in, garbage out.

Dispensationalists don't even agree amongst themselves what the correct interpretation of prophecy is.

---

Its wild that dispensationalism didn't really come about until the 1830s. It was a niche theological framework and now its literal dogma and a statement of faith for many as you can see above. Its a required belief for leadership and membership in many evangelical/baptist or non denom bible churches. I think it's fair to say that most Baptists are de facto dispensationalists, even without knowing it, just by way of that being what they've always been taught.

A lot of the early dispensationalists were Presbyterian, oddly enough. They baked dispensational notes right into the pages of Scripture in the Scofield bible in 1909 which made it the "gold standard" for most pastors/people. Like straight up dual-covenant theology. Now rejecting it is pretty much viewed not just as a difference in opinion, but as a rejection of the authority of Scripture itself.

And like you said, its now under even higher criticism and disagreements. I'm pretty sure Gavin Ortlund has pushed back on it and stated that covenant theology is correct and that dispensationalism is a secondary issue.

IMO, its just more rejection of ascetism: the rapture gets you out of suffering.

You can go all the way back to Genesis 3 to see that God's plan from the moment of the fall was the Incarnation of Christ. A singular, continuous covenant rather than a series of distinct "tests" or "managements" where God relates to humans differently in each era.
Fun fact: Genesis 3 also disproves PSA.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

The one who most closely follows what Scripture Actually says is the Dispensationalist. Chat GPT will tell you that they are.

---

ChatGPT is hardly an authoritative source for spiritual wisdom. Garbage in, garbage out.

Dispensationalists don't even agree amongst themselves what the correct interpretation of prophecy is.

---

Its wild that dispensationalism didn't really come about until the 1830s. It was a niche theological framework and now its literal dogma and a statement of faith for many as you can see above. Its a required belief for leadership and membership in many evangelical/baptist or non denom bible churches. I think it's fair to say that most Baptists are de facto dispensationalists, even without knowing it, just by way of that being what they've always been taught.

A lot of the early dispensationalists were Presbyterian, oddly enough. They baked dispensational notes right into the pages of Scripture in the Scofield bible in 1909 which made it the "gold standard" for most pastors/people. Like straight up dual-covenant theology. Now rejecting it is pretty much viewed not just as a difference in opinion, but as a rejection of the authority of Scripture itself.

And like you said, its now under even higher criticism and disagreements. I'm pretty sure Gavin Ortlund has pushed back on it and stated that covenant theology is correct and that dispensationalism is a secondary issue.

IMO, its just more rejection of ascetism: the rapture gets you out of suffering.

You can go all the way back to Genesis 3 to see that God's plan from the moment of the fall was the Incarnation of Christ. A singular, continuous covenant rather than a series of distinct "tests" or "managements" where God relates to humans differently in each era.
Fun fact: Genesis 3 also disproves PSA.

---

How in the world does Genesis 3 "disprove" penal substitutionary atonement which is clearly taught in Isaiah 53?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

The one who most closely follows what Scripture Actually says is the Dispensationalist. Chat GPT will tell you that they are.

---

ChatGPT is hardly an authoritative source for spiritual wisdom. Garbage in, garbage out.

Dispensationalists don't even agree amongst themselves what the correct interpretation of prophecy is.

---

Its wild that dispensationalism didn't really come about until the 1830s. It was a niche theological framework and now its literal dogma and a statement of faith for many as you can see above. Its a required belief for leadership and membership in many evangelical/baptist or non denom bible churches. I think it's fair to say that most Baptists are de facto dispensationalists, even without knowing it, just by way of that being what they've always been taught.

A lot of the early dispensationalists were Presbyterian, oddly enough. They baked dispensational notes right into the pages of Scripture in the Scofield bible in 1909 which made it the "gold standard" for most pastors/people. Like straight up dual-covenant theology. Now rejecting it is pretty much viewed not just as a difference in opinion, but as a rejection of the authority of Scripture itself.

And like you said, its now under even higher criticism and disagreements. I'm pretty sure Gavin Ortlund has pushed back on it and stated that covenant theology is correct and that dispensationalism is a secondary issue.

IMO, its just more rejection of ascetism: the rapture gets you out of suffering.

You can go all the way back to Genesis 3 to see that God's plan from the moment of the fall was the Incarnation of Christ. A singular, continuous covenant rather than a series of distinct "tests" or "managements" where God relates to humans differently in each era.
Fun fact: Genesis 3 also disproves PSA.

---

How in the world does Genesis 3 "disprove" penal substitutionary atonement which is clearly taught in Isaiah 53?

---

"…He will crush your head, and you will strike his heel"

PSA argues God's wrath poured out…but it says "you" aka satan will strike His heel, not God.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

The one who most closely follows what Scripture Actually says is the Dispensationalist. Chat GPT will tell you that they are.

---

ChatGPT is hardly an authoritative source for spiritual wisdom. Garbage in, garbage out.

Dispensationalists don't even agree amongst themselves what the correct interpretation of prophecy is.

---

Its wild that dispensationalism didn't really come about until the 1830s. It was a niche theological framework and now its literal dogma and a statement of faith for many as you can see above. Its a required belief for leadership and membership in many evangelical/baptist or non denom bible churches. I think it's fair to say that most Baptists are de facto dispensationalists, even without knowing it, just by way of that being what they've always been taught.

A lot of the early dispensationalists were Presbyterian, oddly enough. They baked dispensational notes right into the pages of Scripture in the Scofield bible in 1909 which made it the "gold standard" for most pastors/people. Like straight up dual-covenant theology. Now rejecting it is pretty much viewed not just as a difference in opinion, but as a rejection of the authority of Scripture itself.

And like you said, its now under even higher criticism and disagreements. I'm pretty sure Gavin Ortlund has pushed back on it and stated that covenant theology is correct and that dispensationalism is a secondary issue.

IMO, its just more rejection of ascetism: the rapture gets you out of suffering.

You can go all the way back to Genesis 3 to see that God's plan from the moment of the fall was the Incarnation of Christ. A singular, continuous covenant rather than a series of distinct "tests" or "managements" where God relates to humans differently in each era.
Fun fact: Genesis 3 also disproves PSA.

---

How in the world does Genesis 3 "disprove" penal substitutionary atonement which is clearly taught in Isaiah 53?

---

"…He will crush your head, and you will strike his heel"

PSA argues God's wrath poured out…but it says "you" aka satan will strike His heel, not God.

---

Isaiah 53: "Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief;"

Jesus, while dying on the cross (quoting Psalm 22): "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

The one who most closely follows what Scripture Actually says is the Dispensationalist. Chat GPT will tell you that they are.

---

ChatGPT is hardly an authoritative source for spiritual wisdom. Garbage in, garbage out.

Dispensationalists don't even agree amongst themselves what the correct interpretation of prophecy is.

---

Its wild that dispensationalism didn't really come about until the 1830s. It was a niche theological framework and now its literal dogma and a statement of faith for many as you can see above. Its a required belief for leadership and membership in many evangelical/baptist or non denom bible churches. I think it's fair to say that most Baptists are de facto dispensationalists, even without knowing it, just by way of that being what they've always been taught.

A lot of the early dispensationalists were Presbyterian, oddly enough. They baked dispensational notes right into the pages of Scripture in the Scofield bible in 1909 which made it the "gold standard" for most pastors/people. Like straight up dual-covenant theology. Now rejecting it is pretty much viewed not just as a difference in opinion, but as a rejection of the authority of Scripture itself.

And like you said, its now under even higher criticism and disagreements. I'm pretty sure Gavin Ortlund has pushed back on it and stated that covenant theology is correct and that dispensationalism is a secondary issue.

IMO, its just more rejection of ascetism: the rapture gets you out of suffering.

You can go all the way back to Genesis 3 to see that God's plan from the moment of the fall was the Incarnation of Christ. A singular, continuous covenant rather than a series of distinct "tests" or "managements" where God relates to humans differently in each era.
Fun fact: Genesis 3 also disproves PSA.

---

How in the world does Genesis 3 "disprove" penal substitutionary atonement which is clearly taught in Isaiah 53?

---

"…He will crush your head, and you will strike his heel"

PSA argues God's wrath poured out…but it says "you" aka satan will strike His heel, not God.

---

Isaiah 53: "Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief;"

Jesus, while dying on the cross (quoting Psalm 22): "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

---

Forgiveness is freely given, it doesn't require payment.

Have you even read all of Psalm 22?
"He has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help" "

You have to claim that God is infinitely offended, that justice demands infinite punishment, and that someone must absorb it. That pictures God as a being whose anger must be appeased before love can flow.

It makes God less free and loving than the father in the Prodigal Son parable, who forgives without demanding anyone be punished first.

Do you even understand Christus Victor? It's more loving, it's taking on the cross to defeat death and sin. It's so we can join him AS WE'RE CALLED TO DO.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

The one who most closely follows what Scripture Actually says is the Dispensationalist. Chat GPT will tell you that they are.

---

ChatGPT is hardly an authoritative source for spiritual wisdom. Garbage in, garbage out.

Dispensationalists don't even agree amongst themselves what the correct interpretation of prophecy is.

---

Its wild that dispensationalism didn't really come about until the 1830s. It was a niche theological framework and now its literal dogma and a statement of faith for many as you can see above. Its a required belief for leadership and membership in many evangelical/baptist or non denom bible churches. I think it's fair to say that most Baptists are de facto dispensationalists, even without knowing it, just by way of that being what they've always been taught.

A lot of the early dispensationalists were Presbyterian, oddly enough. They baked dispensational notes right into the pages of Scripture in the Scofield bible in 1909 which made it the "gold standard" for most pastors/people. Like straight up dual-covenant theology. Now rejecting it is pretty much viewed not just as a difference in opinion, but as a rejection of the authority of Scripture itself.

And like you said, its now under even higher criticism and disagreements. I'm pretty sure Gavin Ortlund has pushed back on it and stated that covenant theology is correct and that dispensationalism is a secondary issue.

IMO, its just more rejection of ascetism: the rapture gets you out of suffering.

You can go all the way back to Genesis 3 to see that God's plan from the moment of the fall was the Incarnation of Christ. A singular, continuous covenant rather than a series of distinct "tests" or "managements" where God relates to humans differently in each era.
Fun fact: Genesis 3 also disproves PSA.

---

How in the world does Genesis 3 "disprove" penal substitutionary atonement which is clearly taught in Isaiah 53?

---

"…He will crush your head, and you will strike his heel"

PSA argues God's wrath poured out…but it says "you" aka satan will strike His heel, not God.

---

Isaiah 53: "Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief;"

Jesus, while dying on the cross (quoting Psalm 22): "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

---

Forgiveness is freely given, it doesn't require payment.

Have you even read all of Psalm 22?
"He has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help" "

You have to claim that God is infinitely offended, that justice demands infinite punishment, and that someone must absorb it. That pictures God as a being whose anger must be appeased before love can flow.

It makes God less free and loving than the father in the Prodigal Son parable, who forgives without demanding anyone be punished first.

Do you even understand Christus Victor? It's more loving, it's taking on the cross to defeat death and sin. It's so we can join him AS WE'RE CALLED TO DO.

---

So, are you saying Jesus and Isaiah are wrong, and that church fathers like Augustine were wrong? Did Jesus suffer the penalty for us, and was it dealt by God, or was it by Satan, which is what you suggested Genesis 3 "proves"?

I will never use grace as a doctrine, a principle, or a system rather than grace as the costly call to discipleship and death to self.

If you're comfortable, your heart is not in it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

The one who most closely follows what Scripture Actually says is the Dispensationalist. Chat GPT will tell you that they are.

---

ChatGPT is hardly an authoritative source for spiritual wisdom. Garbage in, garbage out.

Dispensationalists don't even agree amongst themselves what the correct interpretation of prophecy is.

---

Its wild that dispensationalism didn't really come about until the 1830s. It was a niche theological framework and now its literal dogma and a statement of faith for many as you can see above. Its a required belief for leadership and membership in many evangelical/baptist or non denom bible churches. I think it's fair to say that most Baptists are de facto dispensationalists, even without knowing it, just by way of that being what they've always been taught.

A lot of the early dispensationalists were Presbyterian, oddly enough. They baked dispensational notes right into the pages of Scripture in the Scofield bible in 1909 which made it the "gold standard" for most pastors/people. Like straight up dual-covenant theology. Now rejecting it is pretty much viewed not just as a difference in opinion, but as a rejection of the authority of Scripture itself.

And like you said, its now under even higher criticism and disagreements. I'm pretty sure Gavin Ortlund has pushed back on it and stated that covenant theology is correct and that dispensationalism is a secondary issue.

IMO, its just more rejection of ascetism: the rapture gets you out of suffering.

You can go all the way back to Genesis 3 to see that God's plan from the moment of the fall was the Incarnation of Christ. A singular, continuous covenant rather than a series of distinct "tests" or "managements" where God relates to humans differently in each era.
Fun fact: Genesis 3 also disproves PSA.

---

How in the world does Genesis 3 "disprove" penal substitutionary atonement which is clearly taught in Isaiah 53?

---

"…He will crush your head, and you will strike his heel"

PSA argues God's wrath poured out…but it says "you" aka satan will strike His heel, not God.

---

Isaiah 53: "Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief;"

Jesus, while dying on the cross (quoting Psalm 22): "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

---

Forgiveness is freely given, it doesn't require payment.

Have you even read all of Psalm 22?
"He has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help" "

You have to claim that God is infinitely offended, that justice demands infinite punishment, and that someone must absorb it. That pictures God as a being whose anger must be appeased before love can flow.

It makes God less free and loving than the father in the Prodigal Son parable, who forgives without demanding anyone be punished first.

Do you even understand Christus Victor? It's more loving, it's taking on the cross to defeat death and sin. It's so we can join him AS WE'RE CALLED TO DO.

---

So, are you saying Jesus and Isaiah are wrong, and that church fathers like Augustine were wrong? Did Jesus suffer the penalty for us, and was it dealt by God, or was it by Satan, which is what you suggested Genesis 3 "proves"?

---

I'm arguing the atonement is more intense and costly than your framework allows, not less. PSA is a relatively late Western development,

When God warned Adam and Eve 'you will die,' that was a statement of natural consequence…it wasn't a courtroom sentence or something along those lines. Separation from the source of Life naturally produces death. They weren't cursed from outside, they walked into consequences that were inherent in the choice itself.

We aren't born guilty of sin. We're born into a wounded nature with a major pull toward sin. And then we choose it. Every one of us. You don't get to opt out of it being entirely your fault. The guilt is real, but it's ours, earned by our own choices, not inherited from a courtroom verdict handed down from Eden.

Christ enters fully into our state of being, mortality, suffering, vulnerability, the whole weight of a human existence bent toward death. Everything Adam's choice unleashed, Christ inhabits. He didn't earn it, didn't deserve it, had no debt to pay. He walked into our condition completely innocent of it.
And then he defeated it anyway.

That's the scandal.

Not that God punished someone in our place, but that God entered our broken condition without deserving it and broke it from the inside. We then do our absolute worst to him (betrayal, torture, judicial murder etc.) and God's response is not wrath. It's forgiveness. He never made the choice that earns death. So when death took him anyway it overreached. It claimed someone it had no right to claim. That's precisely why it shattered and why he resurrected.

The cross and resurrection defeat sin and death themselves. PSA only clears a legal ledger. Ask yourself which one is actually bigger.

Doc Holliday said:

---

I will never use grace as a doctrine, a principle, or a system rather than grace as the costly call to discipleship and death to self.

If you're comfortable, your heart is not in it.

---

That's not what "grace" is.

You don't seem to understand God's holiness, and that our sin MUST be accounted for, and that Jesus' sacrifice accomplished that, fully. You're not understanding that grace is Jesus saying "For al those who want to be forgiven and have eternal life with me, come to me and ask of me, and I will give it to you at NO COST - just BELIEVE." ==> said over and over in Scripture, and summarized by Jesus himself at the end of the Bible, in Revelation 22:17

You're putting the onus of achieving righteousness on yourself. What you're saying is that God gives us "grace".... to work for our own righteousness. That's a yoke that Peter noted no one ever can bear (Acts 15:10). Jesus is telling you that righteousness is a gift we receive by FAITH, not by how "good" you are. You're not understanding what "grace" is, and it means you aren't understanding and believing the gospel.