October 12, 2019
“Moreover, that it is most solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we cannot be saved…” —Martin Luther
Contrary to the Founding Father of the Protestant Reformation Martin Luther who understood that baptism is NOT the cause of our salvation but that God chose to save through baptism. Salvation is given in baptism, though not because of faith. God is the cause of our salvation, it is not man’s faith or baptism on its own.
We are glad that our baptisms are as meaningless and purposeless as our lives are suppose to be as truly baptism doesn’t save. We are thankful that God has gifted us in this last generation of the End Times with the Greatest Living Teacher of the True Word of God—our very own Protestant Pope of The Truth War—John MacArthur (PBUH) who has come around to correct through Sola Scriptura the Protestant Reformation’s fore-father Martin Luther—the very founder of Sola Scriptura himself 500 years after the fact. Quote:
Faith and repentance are not easy. Submission contradicts the natural disposition of the human heart. And the transforming and sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit is often uncomfortable and difficult.
Salvation would be so much more inviting and enticing to our human understanding if it didn’t require humility, repentance, and the transformation of your entire being. Why can’t it simply be the product of a one-time activity?
For those looking to bypass the difficulty and discomfort of salvation, 1 Peter 3:21 seemingly provides a shortcut in the form of this simple declaration: “Baptism now saves you.” This and a select few other verses are often used to promote “baptismal regeneration”–the view that teaches that one is saved (regenerated) though water baptism. …This interpretation is not true to the facts of Scripture. Throughout the book of Acts, forgiveness is linked to repentance, not baptism.
April 20, 2019
You dare question our unquestionable Doctrines sinners. We know that Wrath=Love as we’ve already presupposed this to be true (as we got our education from unaccredited colleges unlike you sinners who went to worldly schools; worked hard and actually earned a Real Doctoral Degree*) therefore you too must presuppose it to be true as well. Nevermind the fact that this isn’t found in the New Testament:
“Barth distances himself from classic substitution views, especially those stemming from Anselm. He acknowledges that the concept of punishment is present in Isaiah 53, but denies that it is present in the New Testament (a puzzling assertion, since he has used the term himself just earlier ). He then says this:
The decisive thing is not that He has suffered what we ought to have suffered so that we do not have to suffer it, the destruction to which we have fallen victim by our guilt, and therefore the punishment which we deserve. This is true, of course. But it is true only as it derives from the decisive thing that in the suffering and death of Jesus Christ it has come to pass that in His own person He has made an end of us as sinners and therefore of sin itself by going to death as the One who took our place as sinners. In His person He has delivered up us sinners and sin itself to destruction (253).
Earlier on the same page Barth also denies that the concept of satisfying God’s wrath is present in the New Testament. Thus my takeaway is this: Barth affirms a version of PSA, but not propitiation; and for Barth the penal element is peripheral, not central. The main thing for Barth is that Christ deals with our sin itself (and destroys it) by taking our places as the judged. Also, Barth’s version of PSA seems more oriented to Christ’s entire incarnate life, just just his death – this, and his frequent arguments from Christ’s “solidarity” with the world make his version of PSA sounds more compatible with a kind of recapitulation theme, as found in Irenaeus. Thus despite the similarity of language, at a very crucial juncture I think Barth’s doctrine of atonement must be seen as in a quite different category than classic PSA views in the reformed tradition. While I think some of his assertions stand in an ambiguous relationship with Scripture, I do find him an enlivening theological sparring partner, especially on the nature of the incarnation.”
Our Presuppositions are always correct.
*Our official Diploma of Presuppositional Apologetics: