No, it’s in Mark Ch 10; I bought in to the dawaguys talking points.
From: Ramier, William
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 4:08 PM
To: 'wramier.godwallblog@blogger.com' <wramier.godwallblog@blogger.com>
Subject: FATHER, protect me from sacrilege and false doctrine
I was this many days old when I realized that the doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement is not straightforwardly mentioned in the Gospels. It is there by inference. And, that bothers me. Although, I don’t know why. I’ll have to explore that emotion. It is, however, very black and white in the epistles and in the Old Testament. It is there. A strongly held belief of mine since before memory, I am bothered.
I’ve been watching a lot of Islamic focused Christian Apologetics as of late, and have been exposed to Muslim objections. So, that could be the reason that I’m aware, that it’s at the forefront of my mind. So, there’s that, but it doesn’t matter. The epistles teach SA as well as, technically, that’s not the same as belief in Jesus Christ.
If we confess with our mouths that Jesus is Lord and believe in our hearts that He was raised from the dead, we will be saved. For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believed in Him should not die, but have everlasting life. If we eat of His flesh and drink of His blood, we will have eternal life. So, we don’t have to understand SA or the Trinity, for that matter. We only have to believe; God is beyond human comprehension anyway.
For the record, I do believe—and accept the gift—that Christ died for my sins, that I may be not judged. I just am shocked that it is not called out in the Gospels (apparently) specifically. We base doctrine on the canonical 66 books, so I’m good.
