Do we Calvinists really in Fullest sense deny the Trinity then?

[JonC]

Jesus is both God and Man, natures of Deity and sinless humanity in same Person, correct?

Yes, but not two divisible natures (you often say Jesus "did this in His divinity" and "did thst in His humanity", but that is a denial of those creeds and orthodox Christianity.

 

[JonC]

Isaiah 53:10. 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise [or 'crush'] Him; He has put Him to grief.' These words are all of one syllable each and very easy to understand. If anyone's theology leads him to deny that it pleased the Father to bruise the Son and put Him to grief, perhaps that person ought to reconsider his theology.

I agree. I have yet to read any post on this board that rejected "it pleased the Lord to bruise Him, He has been out to grief".

Id go one futher. Not only would denying that be evidence of a false theology but we (Staff) would need to consider whether that heresy is enough to ban the member (this is a Christian board and while different positions exist we cannot permit outright heresy).

I am not sure your philosophy about God not being wrathful towards Jesus but only to our sin laid on Him is sufficiently logical. The reason is this philosophy materializes sin, allows for sins to be transferred from the sinner to Jesus (something in Ezekiel we read God will never do), and kinda makes God look dishonest ("I didn't shoot that guy, I shot the shirt he was wearing" kind of logic....that "stop punching yourself" kids game).

So I absolutely agree with the passages you provided and believe that they are essential to comprehend the gospel of Jesus Christ. I do not know that one can be saved and not belueve those passages as written in God's Word.

BUT I disagree with the things you add to those passages, and I doubt that your philosophy withstands the test of Scripture.

 

[JonC]

Would see it in the light of Baptist Reformed, not as Presbartarian Reformed and their view on the Baptism equating children as being included under the New Covenant via water Baptism now

Ah....Neo-Calvinism. You reject the actual "Doctrines of Grace" (the actual doctrine) but accept the general driving philosophy.

 

[JonC]

The Father saw and treated Jesus upon the Cross as the great sin bearer receiving in his Person was was due to me as a sinner

Verse?

 

[JesusFan]

Yes, but not two divisible natures (you often say Jesus "did this in His divinity" and "did thst in His humanity", but that is a denial of those creeds and orthodox Christianity.

Jesus commanded the storm and walked on Water due to being God

I agree. I have yet to read any post on this board that rejected "it pleased the Lord to bruise Him, He has been out to grief".

Id go one futher. Not only would denying that be evidence of a false theology but we (Staff) would need to consider whether that heresy is enough to ban the member (this is a Christian board and while different positions exist we cannot permit outright heresy).

I am not sure your philosophy about God not being wrathful towards Jesus but only to our sin laid on Him is sufficiently logical. The reason is this philosophy materializes sin, allows for sins to be transferred from the sinner to Jesus (something in Ezekiel we read God will never do), and kinda makes God look dishonest ("I didn't shoot that guy, I shot the shirt he was wearing" kind of logic....that "stop punching yourself" kids game).

So I absolutely agree with the passages you provided and believe that they are essential to comprehend the gospel of Jesus Christ. I do not know that one can be saved and not belueve those passages as written in God's Word.

BUT I disagree with the things you add to those passages, and I doubt that your philosophy withstands the test of Scripture.

Jesus was enduring our due wrath and condemnation in Himself due to our sin debt being placed upon Himself as the sin bearer , not suffering due to His own sinfullness

Ah....Neo-Calvinism. You reject the actual "Doctrines of Grace" (the actual doctrine) but accept the general driving philosophy.

Do not see per the scriptures where God defined elect children only from saved parents

The problem here is tht @JonC has unfortunately made posts that contradict what he is claiming in this post. Way back on Sept 19, 2023, in the thread, "The Classic View (Just a summary)," he wrote:

First of all, the Doctrine of Penal Substitution does not teach that God punished Christ instead of us. Here is a modern definition which I have posted at least 20 times on this board and which @JonC continues blithely to ignore.
"The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin." God did not punish the Lord Jesus; that would accomplish nothing. He punished sin as it was laid upon our Lord. And contrary to what he says above, he plainly does NOT agree with Isaiah 53:6 which I referenced in my post. In the 2023 quote, he plainly states that it is not in the Bible.

If I had time and energy, I could find posts where @JonC adamantly denies that it pleased the Father to bruise or crush the Son (Isaiah 53:10).

@JonC mentions the book of Ezekiel. I presume that he is referencing chapter 18, though he doesn't say so. I can find nothing there to support his claims, but if he will give me the verse reference, I will look at it

Ezekiel 18 refers only to one being subject to capital punishment's if they were innocent of what the father was charged with, but nothing to do with Calvary

Do not see per the scriptures where God defined elect children only from saved parents

I was not talking about Scripture. I was talking about "the Doctrines of Grace", specifically tge 1st point.

Jesus commanded the storm and walked on Water due to being God

So Peter walked on water, for a time at least, because Peter was God?

Ezekiel 18 refers only to one being subject to capital punishment's if they were innocent of what the father was charged with, but nothing to do with Calvary

No, it doesn't. The verse also deals with the righteous, states that sins cannot be transferred, and with how those who have sinned are forgiven.

It does deal with some atonement theories because it contradicts God abd God's nature as expressed in those theories. But those who hold the theories stamp that passage "Non Applicable".

Jesus was enduring our due wrath and condemnation in Himself due to our sin debt being placed upon Himself as the sin bearer , not suffering due to His own sinfullness

I agree partly (other than this "sin debt"....not sure where you got that part).

That does not make sense. That statement is a part of the ""Doctrines of Grace", application being how we apply that to our lives and to church.

A more correct statement would be that you do not agree with the Doctrines of Grace, but you believe the philosophy behind parts of the doctrine are correct.

Would see it as more like hold to a Baptist viewpoint and not Presbartarian viewpoint regarding them

So Jesus lied to him?

No, Jesus was the One causing Him to be able to walk on the Water

Part of your statement is correct, but part you added to Scripture.

Can you tell which part you added?

If not then provide the passages and read them along side your post.

This is an ongoing issue with a few Calvinists here. You say something and provide a passage that does not support what you say.

You might as well say "Jesus had an elephant as a pet, John 3:16".

No, we see the scriptures as supporting us, but you have a predetermined view that sees us as being wrong about that period

When did you obtain the authority to rewrite Scripture?

The passage says a lot more than just "sins cannot be transferred".

It sis NOT referring to what happened at Calvary, as we have Isaiah 53 for that explanation

Some of the different word choices only make a difference when one takes the chapter in isolation.
For example, God presented Him vs Jesus laying down His life...both are true.
Same with "pleased God" vs "God's will". They are saying the same thing.

Some translations are questionable ("delighted" when Scripture tells us God takes no delight in the destruction of even the wicked).

Was God the father pleased by His Son Jesus being the great sin bearer on behalf of His own people then?

 

[atpollard]

"The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin." God did not punish the Lord Jesus; that would accomplish nothing. He punished sin as it was laid upon our Lord. And contrary to what he says above, he plainly does NOT agree with Isaiah 53:6 which I referenced in my post.

Have you ever noticed the diversity of TRANSLATIONS of the verses in Isaiah 53?
Such things are critically important to people like me that know NOTHING significant of Greek or Hebrew grammar and must trust the translations for subtlety of meaning (thus we look to many translations for critical passages).

Here is just one example:

Isaiah 53:10
[KJV] Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

[NLT]
But it was the LORD’s good plan to crush him
and cause him grief.
Yet when his life is made an offering for sin,
he will have many descendants.
He will enjoy a long life,
and the LORD’s good plan will prosper in his hands.
[I know people criticize the 'paraphrase' nature of NLT, but sometimes it is more useful to hear the "general idea" rather than "exact wording".]

[NIV]
Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

[ESV]
Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

[AMP]
Yet the LORD was willing
To crush Him, causing Him to suffer;
If He would give Himself as a guilt offering [an atonement for sin],
He shall see His [spiritual] offspring,
He shall prolong His days,
And the will (good pleasure) of the LORD shall succeed and prosper in His hand.

[YLT] And Jehovah hath delighted to bruise him, He hath made him sick, If his soul doth make an offering for guilt, He seeth seed -- he prolongeth days, And the pleasure of Jehovah in his hand doth prosper.

The differences are SIGNIFICANT!
- in some, it was the Lord's WILL
- in some, it was the Lord's PLAN
- in some, it was the Lord's ACTION

What GOD "plans", what GOD "desires" and what GOD actively "does" (personally) ... Does it make a difference? I think it makes an important difference. If the experts disagree on what the Hebrew SAYS, how can I parse so subtle of a meaning to determine exactly what part the LORD played in the "crushing/suffering" of Christ?

Same with the second part ...
- God offered the son (no choice)
- The Son offered himself (Jesus choice) for guilt.
- The act of offering (himself) gained many offspring.

So which is it? Depending on the translation, what is happening is VERY DIFFERENT!

No wonder we have so much disagreement ... even the EXPERTS offer us disagreement in the basic TRUTH from which we must start.
All we can know for certain is the commonality:

Jesus suffered and died.
It was no accident.
Guilt was removed.
From that came "us" (the Church).

That is the old "Christus Victor" theory of atonement as a starting point.

 

[JesusFan]

So Peter walked on water, for a time at least, because Peter was God?

No, because Jesus as God was suspending physical laws of reality for him

I was not talking about Scripture. I was talking about "the Doctrines of Grace", specifically tge 1st point.

I agree with the 5 doctrines of Grace, but do not agree with that specific application of election unto eternal life just for children of saved parents

That is how the book defined Penal Substitution Theory. I do not claim to hold that theory.

You cannot find a post where I state that "it did not please God to crush Him" because I never claimed that or posted that. Jesus' suffering and death on a cross was carried out by wicked men, in accordance with God's predetermined plan. Jesus was obedient to death, even death on a Cross. This was God's will.

You owe me an apology for that false accusation, and the board an apology for the inaccuracy. You need to be more careful when stating what other people believe.


I can do the same (illustration) -

If I had the energy I can find a post of @Martin Marprelate saying Satan is God.

The trick, of course, is we'd simply never find the energy. The truth, obviously, is I know you never made that claim just as you know I never denied "it pleased the Lord to crush Him".


Do you believe that making such false claims (as you do here) is the same as lying?

I ask because I am not sure. You are old, and I'm getting there. So it is possible that in your age you came to believe what you imagine I think.

Now, is it irresponsible to post a false accusation even if you belueve that accusation but can't find evidence? Yes. Is the claim itself a "lie"? I suppose so, but perhaps a careless one. My question is if it makes you a liar. I don't know.

It certainly makes you untrustworthy. But we can't determine your motivation or state of mind.

What do you think? Is it wrong of you to post I denied Isaiah 53:6 when I didn't? Were you confused, mistemembeting, or lying? Ultimately is there a difference when to comes to your trustworthiness (since regardless of motive your conclusions and posts here are false)?

The scriptures go beyond stating Jesus died at hands of sinners due to the predestined plan of God, as the bible states to us that Jesus was sent and came for the express purpose to die as the sin bearer, to take upon Himself bowl of judgment and wrath stored up by God towards sinners

No, it doesn't. The verse also deals with the righteous, states that sins cannot be transferred, and with how those who have sinned are forgiven.

It does deal with some atonement theories because it contradicts God abd God's nature as expressed in those theories. But those who hold the theories stamp that passage "Non Applicable".

Sins cannot be transferred between humans, as each will be accountable for their own sins before God, but Jesus can and did receive those sins as He is God Man, sinless Himself, and fully God also

I agree partly (other than this "sin debt"....not sure where you got that part).

All who break the Law of God incur a debt that means that God adds to their wrath in their judgement

Ok....let's at least try to be honest (especially when you are ignoring part of my comment you quoted).

Are you saying that you did NOT post that "God was mot punishing Jesus. He was punishing our sins laid on Jesus"?

As a reminder, you posted that several times and I stated the logic is flawed.


This would mean that God does not punish the wicked, just their sins.

Parents do not punish their children for misbehaving, they punish their actions.

As you'd say..."rubbish".

It is trying to explain away error while maintaining thst error.

God the Father judged Jesus due to him bearing the iniquity of our sins, and that he was placed under the curse of God for being now to the Father as if sin incarnated in human flesh . but always Himself staying Holy and sinless

Have you ever noticed the diversity of TRANSLATIONS of the verses in Isaiah 53?
Such things are critically important to people like me that know NOTHING significant of Greek or Hebrew grammar and must trust the translations for subtlety of meaning (thus we look to many translations for critical passages).

Here is just one example:

Isaiah 53:10
[KJV] Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

[NLT]
But it was the LORD’s good plan to crush him
and cause him grief.
Yet when his life is made an offering for sin,
he will have many descendants.
He will enjoy a long life,
and the LORD’s good plan will prosper in his hands.
[I know people criticize the 'paraphrase' nature of NLT, but sometimes it is more useful to hear the "general idea" rather than "exact wording".]

[NIV]
Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

[ESV]
Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

[AMP]
Yet the LORD was willing
To crush Him, causing Him to suffer;
If He would give Himself as a guilt offering [an atonement for sin],
He shall see His [spiritual] offspring,
He shall prolong His days,
And the will (good pleasure) of the LORD shall succeed and prosper in His hand.

[YLT] And Jehovah hath delighted to bruise him, He hath made him sick, If his soul doth make an offering for guilt, He seeth seed -- he prolongeth days, And the pleasure of Jehovah in his hand doth prosper.

The differences are SIGNIFICANT!
- in some, it was the Lord's WILL
- in some, it was the Lord's PLAN
- in some, it was the Lord's ACTION

What GOD "plans", what GOD "desires" and what GOD actively "does" (personally) ... Does it make a difference? I think it makes an important difference. If the experts disagree on what the Hebrew SAYS, how can I parse so subtle of a meaning to determine exactly what part the LORD played in the "crushing/suffering" of Christ?

Same with the second part ...
- God offered the son (no choice)
- The Son offered himself (Jesus choice) for guilt.
- The act of offering (himself) gained many offspring.

So which is it? Depending on the translation, what is happening is VERY DIFFERENT!

No wonder we have so much disagreement ... even the EXPERTS offer us disagreement in the basic TRUTH from which we must start.
All we can know for certain is the commonality:

Jesus suffered and died.
It was no accident.
Guilt was removed.
From that came "us" (the Church).

That is the old "Christus Victor" theory of atonement as a starting point.

Different translations have different wording here due to textual sources being different, and due to some being formal translation, while others DE

 

[JonC]

No, because Jesus as God was suspending physical laws of reality for him

So Jesus lied to him?

I agree with the 5 doctrines of Grace, but do not agree with that specific application of election unto eternal life just for children of saved parents

That does not make sense. That statement is a part of the ""Doctrines of Grace", application being how we apply that to our lives and to church.

A more correct statement would be that you do not agree with the Doctrines of Grace, but you believe the philosophy behind parts of the doctrine are correct.

The scriptures go beyond stating Jesus died at hands of sinners due to the predestined plan of God, as the bible states to us that Jesus was sent and came for the express purpose to die as the sin bearer, to take upon Himself bowl of judgment and wrath stored up by God towards sinners

Part of your statement is correct, but part you added to Scripture.

Can you tell which part you added?

If not then provide the passages and read them along side your post.

This is an ongoing issue with a few Calvinists here. You say something and provide a passage that does not support what you say.

You might as well say "Jesus had an elephant as a pet, John 3:16".

Sins cannot be transferred between humans, as each will be accountable for their own sins before God, but Jesus can and did receive those sins as He is God Man, sinless Himself, and fully God also

When did you obtain the authority to rewrite Scripture?

The passage says a lot more than just "sins cannot be transferred".

Would see it as more like hold to a Baptist viewpoint and not Presbartarian viewpoint regarding them

Makes sence as it is Presbyterian doctrine. I wonder why Baptists call it "Cal inism" and "Doctrines of Grace" when they have to change it to believe it.

No, Jesus was the One causing Him to be able to walk on the Water

So you do believe Jesus' explanation to Peter was wrong?

My problem with this is Peter's sinking had to have been a failure on Jesus' part (if you are correct).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Have you ever noticed the diversity of TRANSLATIONS of the verses in Isaiah 53?
Such things are critically important to people like me that know NOTHING significant of Greek or Hebrew grammar and must trust the translations for subtlety of meaning (thus we look to many translations for critical passages).

Thanks for the post. I have very little time to reply as I am in the midst of sermon preparation. I take it that you are considering the word translated 'pleased, ''will' and 'plan.' I know no more Hebrew than you do; the following comes from a word study dictionary.
The Hebrew word in question is "hepes" or "chaphets" (Strongs 2656). The root idea is to incline towards something. It is used for the 'blessed' man's delight in the word of the Lord (Psalm 1:2) and in His works (Psalm 111:2), delight in a fruitful land (Mal. 3:12) and the delight of hands in their labour (Prov. 31:3). It is used of God's own pleasure in His works (Isaiah 46:10; 48:14) and also for His lack of pleasure in foolish or disrespectful people (Eccl. 5:4; Mal. 1:10).
So when we think of Isaiah 53:10, how the Lord must love His people to be pleased to crush His beloved Son, however willing He was, to save guilty sinners like us!

 

[JonC]

Have you ever noticed the diversity of TRANSLATIONS of the verses in Isaiah 53?
Such things are critically important to people like me that know NOTHING significant of Greek or Hebrew grammar and must trust the translations for subtlety of meaning (thus we look to many translations for critical passages).

Here is just one example:

Isaiah 53:10
[KJV] Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

[NLT]
But it was the LORD’s good plan to crush him
and cause him grief.
Yet when his life is made an offering for sin,
he will have many descendants.
He will enjoy a long life,
and the LORD’s good plan will prosper in his hands.
[I know people criticize the 'paraphrase' nature of NLT, but sometimes it is more useful to hear the "general idea" rather than "exact wording".]

[NIV]
Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

[ESV]
Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

[AMP]
Yet the LORD was willing
To crush Him, causing Him to suffer;
If He would give Himself as a guilt offering [an atonement for sin],
He shall see His [spiritual] offspring,
He shall prolong His days,
And the will (good pleasure) of the LORD shall succeed and prosper in His hand.

[YLT] And Jehovah hath delighted to bruise him, He hath made him sick, If his soul doth make an offering for guilt, He seeth seed -- he prolongeth days, And the pleasure of Jehovah in his hand doth prosper.

The differences are SIGNIFICANT!
- in some, it was the Lord's WILL
- in some, it was the Lord's PLAN
- in some, it was the Lord's ACTION

What GOD "plans", what GOD "desires" and what GOD actively "does" (personally) ... Does it make a difference? I think it makes an important difference. If the experts disagree on what the Hebrew SAYS, how can I parse so subtle of a meaning to determine exactly what part the LORD played in the "crushing/suffering" of Christ?

Same with the second part ...
- God offered the son (no choice)
- The Son offered himself (Jesus choice) for guilt.
- The act of offering (himself) gained many offspring.

So which is it? Depending on the translation, what is happening is VERY DIFFERENT!

No wonder we have so much disagreement ... even the EXPERTS offer us disagreement in the basic TRUTH from which we must start.
All we can know for certain is the commonality:

Jesus suffered and died.
It was no accident.
Guilt was removed.
From that came "us" (the Church).

That is the old "Christus Victor" theory of atonement as a starting point.

Some of the different word choices only make a difference when one takes the chapter in isolation.
For example, God presented Him vs Jesus laying down His life...both are true.
Same with "pleased God" vs "God's will". They are saying the same thing.

Some translations are questionable ("delighted" when Scripture tells us God takes no delight in the destruction of even the wicked).

 

[JonC]

It sis NOT referring to what happened at Calvary, as we have Isaiah 53 for that explanation

We have Scripture for that account. You are wrong to remove passages that you disagree with and pick those you find less problematic in supporting your theory.

The passage says sins cannot be transferred FROM the sinner, and tells how the sinner can be forgiven

Was God the father pleased by His Son Jesus being the great sin bearer on behalf of His own people then?

The Lord was pleased to crush Him. It was His will. It was His predetermined plan.

 

[JesusFan]

The Lord was pleased to crush Him. It was His will. It was His predetermined plan.

So in the ultimate sense, the Godhead themselves placed Jesus upon that Cross for His glory and for our salvation?

 

[JonC]

So in the ultimate sense, the Godhead themselves placed Jesus upon that Cross for His glory and for our salvation?

No. The problem with that is the same problem that we see in "hyper-Calvinism" (making God the ultimate cause of evil). It is the "God made Juda's betray Jesus" argument, or "God ultimately cast Joseph on that pit".

That said, it was in accordance with God's predetermined plan and Jesus willingly lay down His life.

But I do get the "God is the ultimate source of evil" argument, and I grant it is logical. But here we have ti set aside philosophy and simply accept Scripture.

 

[JonC]

Interesting. I have considered this for some time. That is, did Jesus use the power of God Holy Spirit, rather than His own divine power (kenosis), to perform all His miracles? Scripture attributes the miracles to Jesus.

Does Jesus have two distinct natures… Divine and human?

Peace to you

I actually hold the traditional Christian view here - two natures without mixture AND inseparable, not less than God in terms of divinity and not more than man in terms of His humanity.

Scripture tells us that Jesus relied on the Spirit. It was a matter of faith. He did nothing of His own accord but lived in complete obedience and reliance on the Father (see John 5).

 

[JonC]

It seems that some people are confused between Trinitarianism and Modalism. Another look at the Chalcedonian Creed:

I agree. The problem comes in when people try to have Jesus exercising one nature separate from the other.

AND this is not necessary a problem of ignoring Scripture. It is simply disagreeing with that Creed.

"two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union".