(September 22, 2014 at 10:25 am)ChadWooters Wrote: It matters a great deal; however, whether the state of redemption is based on substitionary atonement, appeasement (propitiatory), or victory.Nope, it only matters that the redemption is vicarious. The mechanism of vicarity in no way changes the vicariousness of the redemption. Any such claim to the opposite is misdirection, deliberate or otherwise.
Quote:The first two are rightly considered heinous by most reasonable people. I find the last to be proper and loving response of a God that reaches down into His Creation and lifting out of ignorance and error.And this is your justification? That's all you've got? You want to believe in this type of "proper and loving" God so you find a way to ignore the immorality of the central tenet of doctrine in order to justify your belief? Don't you care about the continuous ethical pollution this avoidance of responsibility grinds out?
Sum ergo sum