Propitiation do you know what it means?

Of course you reference a Reformed site to support your position. So, the inventors of PSA affirm it -- what a revelation! :)

 

".....if humanity is guilty of sin and condemned to death, and Christ has laid down His life in the place of the human race, not only are we saved, but we are given an example of how to live. The death of Christ is an example, but only if it also is a substitutionary sacrifice."

Millard Erickson; Christian Theology, Third Edition; Penal Substitution Theory in Relation to other Theories: Atonement as an Example, pg. 748

 

:Biggrin

 

Not speaking for JonC, but I have already done that, elsewhere. As he said, you wish it showed PSA, but it doesn't. No one saw PSA there until 1500 AD.

 

True. And Mennonites don't immerse generally. Church of the Brethren does.

 

None of those teach PSA. Calvin invented PSA. Nobody saw it in the Bible for 1500 years. That's an inconvenient truth for many Protestants.

 

do you really understand what PSA is? If you cannot see this in Isaiah 53, then it is clear that you don't!

 

That might be appropriate for some, especially some I've met on forums. :)

 

Jon, you should not keep on posting complete nonsense! Like the others on here, it is clear that you do NOT even understand what PSA is!

 

I understand what it is -- an abhorrent, non-scriptural doctrine invented by a murderer.

 

another strawman argument, because there is not one that you or the others can really show that Isaiah 53 does not teach it!

 

quit talking RUBBISH!

 

After reading these threads, I am glad that one Western "Tradition" is no longer practiced -- killing other Christians because of their beliefs. I think Baptists and Anabaptists are the only ones who didn't do that.

 

Quite right.

 

He, that is Jesus Christ, was WOUNDED for our transgressions...

What do you think that this means

 

They don't really. The last two do. What I'm saying is that there is a lot of debate about how much influence the Mennonites had on what became the General Baptists because although they did influence Smyth, there are documents showing how many of the Mennonite doctrines were specifically rejected by the Baptists, and the disagreements between Smyth and Helwys show that. There is also disagreement about whether Smyth had as much influence as Helwys and Grantham on the General Baptists. I don't have an axe to grind here. Someday I'll look into it more. But the modern General Baptists are not descendants of Anabaptists - as much as some of them would like to be. By the way, when growing up I went to a Missionary Church which was an off shoot of the Mennonites. I really liked it and the people and don't think I would have any problem with Mennonites either, for that matter.