Comments on: Substitutionary Atonement

By: Jose

Jose — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:54:09 +0000

Obama in front of AIPAC said ” Jersualem would not be divided and will be Israel’s Capital” The next day said ” sorry that was a mistake ” after palestinians got angry. The man is the biggest flip flopper I ‘ve seen.
As a christian wether it be propaganda or right wing would not vote for someone who calls himself a christian when there are no fruits to show for.

By: pastorboy

pastorboy — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:07:54 +0000

Obama not saluting the flag...truth or fiction?

By: Joe C

Joe C — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:23:30 +0000

PS, sorry about my bleeped out swear back a bunch of comments ago, if pound signs offended anyone that is . There are A LOT of us in the armed services who yes, think it is our duty to fight when told, and yes think we are winning (at ‘what’ we’re not so sure), but who really think our war in Iraq needs to STOP and we need to refocus on a not-so-huge-scale on going after the actual people who attacked us (Osama et al), and this is Obama’s position. This posistion is strategically sound. The Iraqi people and our military commanders agree. I for one KNOW this for sure. McCain is clueless about these things and gets his ideas from his friend, El Presidente, who ignores everyone else.

Sorry to say for the anti Obama crowd, that just seems to be the tide of our perspective in the military. I for one support him because McCain is a terrible, terrible, pathalogical liar (in his town hall meetings, interviews, and especially his ads), who doesn’t even understand the difference between sunni and shi’a. Set the middle east back 50 years? Bush did that already. McCain’s going for 100.

He believes in murdering people (babies that are in the womb are people, especially viable ones)
He refuses to salute the flag at appropriate times
He is a superstar even though he really has not done anything yet, just a freshman senator
He believes there are many paths to God
He is more of a rock star than a politician.
He is extremely popular the world over just by saying the right things, not for substantive stands

All of these are just our own Christian propaganda and right wing talking points. Amazingly, they’re not actually true at face value! It’s just lol…slander actually. ESPECIALLY The flag thing, oh my gosh, people have to stop saying that, it’s just soooooo…false.

I just felt I had to say…

sorry for thread jacking, again.

Joe

By: Rick Frueh

Rick Frueh — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:37:04 +0000

An interesting point, Iggy. I have suggested that many of them never write themselves devotionally, only through links and pastes. But they seem capable of writing about doctrines and attack posts.

By: Joe C

Joe C — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 04:01:33 +0000

It’s entirely possible Ig.

But it’s also entirely possible that we ALL have done, or do that at some point. I think it’s human nature to trust knowledge instead of a person.

By: iggy

iggy — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 01:55:42 +0000

Here is the major difference between emergents and those who hate us…

We believe we are saved by the Person of Jesus Christ. It was He who gave His life for us.

ODM’s believe in their “beliefs”. It is by “right” belief they are saved. This separates Jesus from the picture. Note what he states:

“Any Emergents that deny the Penal Substitutionary Atonement (aka the True Biblical Gospel) will have to try to save themselves based solely on their good works, best of luck to them.”

They do not mention the “Person of JEsus” but the “doctrine they believe”. Their faith is in the doctrine to save them… not in the Person who did the action.

This is a subtle and fatal flaw in the ODM mindset… and one I see common in htem… Placing their own belief over the Person of Jesus and subjecting Jesus to their own belief.

iggy

By: pastorboy

pastorboy — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 22:07:26 +0000

Corey,

I have gotten to the level of arch-nemesis?

YAY!

Anyway, greet Keith and Elga for me!!

Corey, I see you as a friend and a theological arch nemesis, but a Christian brother. Nothing but the blood of Jesus!

By: Rick Frueh

Rick Frueh — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 21:30:39 +0000

I will always speak my conscience, I will speak strongly against what I believe is error, and I will confront what I believe is heresy.

However I will not ever lie even if it seems to forward my postion. To suggest the different views of the atonement are soley based on works salvation is a lie. And I assume one that was known to be so.

By: Chad

Chad — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 21:20:04 +0000

Everytime I hit refresh on this I have to stare for a moment at the OP and find myself re-reading this ridiculous statement that started all this:

“Any Emergents that deny the Penal Substitutionary Atonement (aka the True Biblical Gospel) will have to try to save themselves based solely on their good works, best of luck to them.”

I hope it is pretty obvious by now how retarded such a statement is. Rejection of PSA has absolutely nothing to do with an acceptance of salvation by works. I hope that, at the very least, is clear.

To whomever wrote such silliness, best of luck to you in future endeavors to sound like you know what your talking about.

By: Chad

Chad — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 21:12:47 +0000

I would agree.

I love those words. But of course I am a unity and full, open communion kinda freak

How can His blood be separated and detached from His life and resurrection?

It should’t be, yet so often is portrayed as such. That is one of my issues with PSA – it generally sees the Incarnation and the life of Jesus as a mere means to an end and the resurrection as a footnote. It’s the difference between saying, on the one hand, well of course Jesus had to live or else he could’t have died for me! and saying on the other hand, of course Jesus had to live else God could not have fully entered into our dilemma and all of humanity could not have been assumed into the divine nature and be partakers of not just his death but of his resurrection!

PSA too often deemphasizes what I think are absolute essentials to a more robust view of salvation, namely, Incarnation and Resurrection. Both of those become almost side-shows to the “blood.” Not to mention the focus tends to be on a necessary punishment that had to be meated out rather than a gracious move of God to identify with his beloved Creation and save it in the most radical and loving way imaginable.

peace,
Chad