Posts: 14,450
Joined: April 2001
|
|
|
Forums30
Topics7,781
Posts54,881
Members974
|
Most Online732 Jan 15th, 2023
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450 Likes: 57
Head Honcho
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450 Likes: 57 |
xyz said: That uniqueness is not stated in Scripture. No doubt the SBC theologian is as aware of that verse as any. IF that uniqueness is not stated in Scripture, then are YOU saying the Father and the Spirit suffered the penalty for those whom Christ died for? That all 3 persons of the Godhead died, were buried and rose from the dead, thus effecting salvation for the elect? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" /> The author may be aware of the text, but that is no guarantee that he has understood it correctly. Most all heresy is based upon an erroneous interpretation and/or application of a biblical passage. In His grace,
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 70
Journeyman
|
Journeyman
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 70 |
xyz said: That uniqueness is not stated in Scripture. No doubt the SBC theologian is as aware of that verse as any. IF that uniqueness is not stated in Scripture, then are YOU saying the Father and the Spirit suffered the penalty for those whom Christ died for? That may be what the theologian is saying. That all 3 persons of the Godhead died, were buried and rose from the dead, thus effecting salvation for the elect? That probably isn't. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450 Likes: 57
Head Honcho
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450 Likes: 57 |
IF this author is saying the Father and the Spirit suffered the penalty for those whom Christ died, then his doctrine of the Trinity is heterodox at best and heretical at worst. Either way, it is contrary to historic biblical Christianity. Since this book raises such questions, why would anyone bother with it? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" /> As far as Mohler's and Challies' criticism of the book, I would personally trust their judgment over those who would accuse their assessment as inaccurate. There are soooooo many sound, conservative and biblical writings available today, why spend one's limited time with this type of dribble? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" /> In His grace,
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 38
Newbie
|
Newbie
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 38 |
I say Amen to that, Pilgrim. Much Ado about a book that is clearly off track. The very idea that the Trinity all bear the nail marks, would be enough for me to toss it
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 193
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 193 |
Pilgrim said: IF this author is saying the Father and the Spirit suffered the penalty for those whom Christ died, then his doctrine of the Trinity is heterodox at best and heretical at worst. Either way, it is contrary to historic biblical Christianity.
Since this book raises such questions, why would anyone bother with it?
As far as Mohler's and Challies' criticism of the book, I would personally trust their judgment over those who would accuse their assessment as inaccurate.
There are soooooo many sound, conservative and biblical writings available today, why spend one's limited time with this type of dribble? My very thoughts exactly <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/applause.gif" alt="" /> -- especially the last paragraph. I do hope that no one (especially Tom) interpreted my words in defense of the historic, orthodox understanding of perichoresis or circumincession as an endorsement of what I imagine are the heterodox or heretical doctrines behind The Shack. I too would generally trust Al Mohler on a matter like this, especially since it's just not the type of book I'd ever make time to read myself.
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
84
guests, and
17
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
|