Posted on 09/29/2015 8:26:04 AM PDT by smokingfrog
Revd Scott McKenna, minister of Mayfield Salisbury Parish Church in Edinburgh, openly denies one of the most accepted teachings of mainstream Christianity and told his congregation that it was "ghastly theology" to believe that Jesus Christ died for sinners.
Following the comments, the footage was uploaded online and the current Free Church Moderator Revd David Robertson responded by writing a blog post on the subject, saying such preaching was profoundly anti-Christian.
Mr McKenna, who has the potential to be a Church of Scotland Moderator, then contacted Robertson and the men met to discuss theology.
A debate has been set for Wednesday at Mayfield Salisbury Parish Church to talk about the death of Jesus, as well as faith schools and other issues brought up in the Bible.
Revd Angus Morrison, present Church of Scotland Moderator, will chair the debate.
Revd David Robertson said: "After writing the article Scott got in touch with me and we had a coffee.
"I felt we got on well and as a result we agreed to have an open discussion in his church on this subject and others to do with the Christian gospel.
"At a personal level I confess that I liked Scott - I prefer an honest liberal to a dishonest evangelical! However this does not mean that I agree with him at all.
"To me this denial of the Gospel is not a form or variant of Christianity, it is not Christianity at all, because it strikes at the very heart of the Christian faith.
"Therefore it is a vital subject for us to be discussing."
Revd Scott McKenna, who denies that Christ died for sins, has written for the Church of Scotland's monthly magazine.
More recently he was part of the campaign to legalise assisted suicide in Scotland.
(Excerpt) Read more at premier.org.uk ...
>> Bank on it.
You CAN bank on it. We were warned nearly 2000 years ago that this falling away from the truth would happen.
There is a remnant called the Free Church of Scotland, known as the “Wee Frees”. Remains very conservative.
>> Why go to church if they don’t believe in and worship a real God?
To fellowship with like-minded liberals to worship Mother Gaia, and be lectured to on climate change and diversity and gender inclusiveness.
In my mind and heart Jesus died for one reason only, to conquer death and in so doing defeat the Devil.
In my mind and heart Jesus promises that our way to salvation is through Him, that no one reconciles to the Father except through Him the Christ.
It matters not our sins, the nature of our sins, the number of our sins, when we seek Christ we are cleansed and our sins are in remission because of Christ.
Christ is the Redeemer, the Savior promised to Adam by God. Adam had chosen to follow the Devil, even though influenced by deceit. Adam was remorseful and regretted his choice. God promised to him a Redeemer. Adam was immersed in sin and all his descendants were born in sim. The Redeemer was sent to redeem all who are in sin and that believe in God.
I cannot conclude anything other than ultimately Christ died for us even though we are sinners, that we would live forever with the Father.
>> Revd Scott McKenna... told his congregation that it was “ghastly theology” to believe that Jesus Christ died for sinners.
It’s way above my pay grade to judge to condemnation; still I fear that those teachings place “reverend” McKenna in danger of spending eternity apart from GOD.
The whole point of modern theology is to cleanse such thoughts from your mind citizen. Get your mind right! This is the New Religion. You are unfit in our brave new world.
The theology of the cross of Christ is ghastly, indeed, but only because it reveals what price God the Father was willing to pay to provide the sacrifice which—unlike even the best offering of a human “good work”—had the power to “condemn sin in sinful man” and thus give us the truly Good News that:
“Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus, the law of the Spirit of life has set me free from the law of sin and death.”
Romans 8:1
Yup. A simple reading of the Bible and world history would answer a lot of things for a lot of confused people. None of this is hidden science or VooDoo. It’s all been spelled out for a long time.
But really, how is this functionally different from Catholicism directly contradicting the plain teaching of the biblical text as well?
no difference
Why are the beliefs of some crackpot preacher newsworthy?
The only time anyone cares is if he speaks out against homosexuality...
John Knox is weeping.
He’s upset because he found out that Yeshua is Jewish.
"For without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin"; "the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all unrighteousness"; Jesus said: "unless you believe that I am he (i.e., the promised messiah; the "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (through his own blood sacrifice) you shall die in your sin."
“Does the Revd ever read the bible?”
That depends on whether you mean by “the bible” Marx’s Das Kapital, THE holy bible to a lot of these religious frauds.
It strikes me that you'd feel right at home in Lewis' Mere Christianity, so if you're unfamiliar with it I heartily recommend it.
The pope just said that one needn’t believe in Jesus to go to heaven.
Scotland will revert to being a bunch of inconsequential, scattered, backwards tribes, as it was before they found Christianity.
Thank you sir, for upholding the longstanding tradition of Catholic- bashing on FR. And on something not even directly related to Catholicism! A twofer! Well done indeed!
/dripping sarcasm>
CC
I found some biblical text: why does Protestantism contradict its plain teaching?
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Christ the Son of God instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist - the Bread and Wine becoming His Body and Blood - at the Last Supper.
And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."
If any corroborating evidence were needed, St Paul speaks about the Eucharist in Corinthians.
And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.
Why does Protestantism contradict the plain teaching of these Biblical texts?
That they are planning a debate over this and that this crackpot has a chance to become moderator of the church is all one needs to know about the way things are these days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.