The Enemies Of The Cross of Christ:

[Zaatar71]

This is true.

Thanks for your response.

Many have chosen to follow men who may be educated but lack wisdom. They turn to philosophy and theiries because they cannot discern spiritual things. To them God's words are foolishness.

Perhaps people do that somewhere, I am sure. Not one of the Calvinists on here do any of what you accuse them of. Could it be that your perception of what happens here is off. let me ask, if any Calvinist would like to confess that they are guilty of what JohnC says, go ahead and let us know! If they do not confess, why not wait until someone says they asks you in what way they are guilty of your allegations.

And these are enemies of the Cross.

Anyone who opposes God, His people, and His cross work are identified in scripture as enemies of the cross. I do not see any basis for your 24/7 accusations.

How many times have we seen "Christians" claim that God punished Jesus or our sins laid on Him? That is a direct refutation of God's Word - Jesus is the Propitiation for our sins. Sins cannot be punished and propitiated (obviously). Thinking themselves wise they become fools.

This is your confusion that seems to be only confined to you. Van has his own version, and take on things. Silverhair foes off on 1 or two ideas.

How many times have we seen "Christians" claim that God punished our sins on Christ because God cannot really forgive sins?

God is going to punish all sins, or he would not be just. You basically miss the cross! You give lip service to it, but deny the language of scripture that gives understanding, that is why we tell you, at this point you lack understanding. We are pulling for you to get it, but you show yourself openly hostile to each person who you differ with, which is basically all who proclaim the doctrines of grace.

Again, a denial of God's own words (sins are punished OR forgiven, obviously not both).

You do not understand what mainstream belief is on these matters. Take a poll on here, for example. I am confident that those who would not want to identify as or with Calvinists, would agree on PSA. They get it.

But many who say "Lord, Lord" will hear "I never knew you".

Yes, all enemies of the Cross will hear that.

Those who trust not in their understanding but lean on every word that comes from God are on a narrow path.

You suggest it is the Calvinist who does this. We all know it is you!

We do not represent the majority of those who call themselves "Christisns", but our faith is much older than these newer philosophies.

Another of your historical re-writes, that is totally subjective and flawed. A defective idea, from start to finish.

The solution is to lean on God's words. If you cannot highlight it in the Bible then hold it loosely as an opinion. If it contradicts what is in the biblical text, abandon it.

This we can agree on, except you clain falsely that none of us do that! Thanks again for your thoughts.

 

[JesusFan]

I agree.

I have read where people deny that God can forgive sins because they teach that divine justice prevents Him from doing so - so He transfers those sins to His Elect and punishes them on Him so that the sinner escapes the wratg to come.

I have also read these same people say that Jesus is not the propitiation for sins but instead suffered God's wrath because His wrath cannot be propitiated.


I agree also that NT Wright's theology is questionable, but I cannot call his theology any worse than those I just mentioned because where they flat out deny Scripture Wright just interprets Paul's writings according to 1st century Judiasm (and he also holds many Catholic traditions, but I cant think of any that flat out reject Scripture).

Your attack upon those of us upholding the traditional Evangelical view on the Atonement of Christ is really something, as you would find more in common on this issue with someone holding to a very questionable view of the Cross of Christ to those of us upholding what has been the standard view among reformed, Baptists even evangelical non Calvinist for centuries

 

[JesusFan]

This is true.

Many have chosen to follow men who may be educated but lack wisdom. They turn to philosophy and theiries because they cannot discern spiritual things. To them God's words are foolishness.

And these are enemies of the Cross.

How many times have we seen "Christians" claim that God punished Jesus or our sins laid on Him? That is a direct refutation of God's Word - Jesus is the Propitiation for our sins. Sins cannot be punished and propitiated (obviously). Thinking themselves wise they become fools.

How many times have we seen "Christians" claim that God punished our sins on Christ because God cannot really forgive sins? Again, a denial of God's own words (sins are punished OR forgiven, obviously not both).

But many who say "Lord, Lord" will hear "I never knew you".


Those who trust not in their understanding but lean on every word that comes from God are on a narrow path. We do not represent the majority of those who call themselves "Christisns", but our faith is much older than these newer philosophies.


The solution is to lean on God's words. If you cannot highlight it in the Bible then hold it loosely as an opinion. If it contradicts what is in the biblical text, abandon it.

You are getting very close to becoming blinded to the real truth regarding the cross of Christ my Brother, and you need to stop unloading upon those of us who are just upholding what has been held for centuries among reformed, Baptist, Calvinists, and even Evangelical non Cals

 

[JonC]

Thanks for your response.

Perhaps people do that somewhere, I am sure. Not one of the Calvinists on here do any of what you accuse them of. Could it be that your perception of what happens here is off. let me ask, if any Calvinist would like to confess that they are guilty of what JohnC says, go ahead and let us know! If they do not confess, why not wait until someone says they asks you in what way they are guilty of your allegations.

Anyone who opposes God, His people, and His cross work are identified in scripture as enemies of the cross. I do not see any basis for your 24/7 accusations.

This is your confusion that seems to be only confined to you. Van has his own version, and take on things. Silverhair foes off on 1 or two ideas.

God is going to punish all sins, or he would not be just. You basically miss the cross! You give lip service to it, but deny the language of scripture that gives understanding, that is why we tell you, at this point you lack understanding. We are pulling for you to get it, but you show yourself openly hostile to each person who you differ with, which is basically all who proclaim the doctrines of grace.

You do not understand what mainstream belief is on these matters. Take a poll on here, for example. I am confident that those who would not want to identify as or with Calvinists, would agree on PSA. They get it.

Yes, all enemies of the Cross will hear that.

You suggest it is the Calvinist who does this. We all know it is you!

Another of your historical re-writes, that is totally subjective and flawed. A defective idea, from start to finish.

This we can agree on, except you clain falsely that none of us do that! Thanks again for your thoughts.

You ate welcome.

No, it is not my confusion. We know what "propitiation" means (,it is a late middle English word referring to "restoring favor". Maybe you mean another word, but wrath cannot both be executed and propitiation.

Same with forgiveness. One cannot punish sins (at least not fully) and forgive those same sins. A judge can reduce a sentence, but that is not forgiveness. It is leniency.

No historical rewrites needed.

We have the history of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (we have Aquinas' writings, and Calvin's writings). In absence of any evidence to the contrary the writings of the Early Church cannot be written off as forgeries.


Regardless (I do not care how old something is) the fact remains that a beluef that leans not on man's understanding but on every word that comes forth from God has to be in the words that come forth from God. That should be understood even by the simplest of minds.

 

[JesusFan]

Amen....kinda.....mainstream is not what we should seek (the Way is narrow, many who call Jesus "Lord" will hear "I never knew you"). Be the remnant of the truly faithful. Maintain the teachings of God (His words).

Today so many trace their doctrine back to Augustine (original sin), to the RCC a century later *the nature of the Fall) or to John Calvin (the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement).

So few today hold a faith that extends back to the 1st century when Christians clung to the actual words of God.


But we DO have the teachings of God. We have His words. So many stray from the faith to follow men, ultimately carried away from the faith by their philosophy. The seed starts to grow but dies.

But even in this God will be glorified. Their condemnation demonstrates His holiness.


The best thing we can do is insist that people provide the passages stating their belief.

If their belief on essential truths departs from what is actually written then they are speaking of theory and philosophy, perhaos in danger of being carried away from the faith or perhaos already having been carried away from the faith.

Are you claiming here that you have infallible understanding of the scriptures, that you now are in perfect agreement with all of the Apostolic theology found in the bible?

 

[JesusFan]

You ate welcome.

No, it is not my confusion. We know what "propitiation" means (,it is a late middle English word referring to "restoring favor". Maybe you mean another word, but wrath cannot both be executed and propitiation.

Same with forgiveness. One cannot punish sins (at least not fully) and forgive those same sins. A judge can reduce a sentence, but that is not forgiveness. It is leniency.

No historical rewrites needed.

We have the history of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (we have Aquinas' writings, and Calvin's writings). In absence of any evidence to the contrary the writings of the Early Church cannot be written off as forgeries.


Regardless (I do not care how old something is) the fact remains that a beluef that leans not on man's understanding but on every word that comes forth from God has to be in the words that come forth from God. That should be understood even by the simplest of minds.

We understand that the bible teaches to us the Psa Atonement view as the primary one, and you still have yet to answer the very simple questions of where did the wrath of God stored up for us go to, and on what basis is God allowed to forgive our sins, is it due to us repenting of them, or the Cross of Christ?

 

[Zaatar71]

Amen....kinda.....mainstream is not what we should seek (the Way is narrow, many who call Jesus "Lord" will hear "I never knew you"). Be the remnant of the truly faithful. Maintain the teachings of God (His words).

I agree, only you attack saying we do not, because we do not buy what you are selling. We do, but not in the way you prescribe which is an unbiblical novelty, known only to you.

Today so many trace their doctrine back to Augustine (original sin), to the RCC a century later *the nature of the Fall) or to John Calvin (the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement).

I am not seeing anyone quote those men, only you. We know they existed in Church History, but everyman on here from Brightflame, to Canady, to DaveG , to JF, To Martin to Pollard have said that is not how they came to believe what they do! you keep attacking as an enemy, saying it has to be the way you say it is, no matter how many times the appeal to you and ask you to stop with your insults.

So few today hold a faith that extends back to the 1st century when Christians clung to the actual words of God.

That is what the Calvinists on here do. Those who formed the great Confessions of the faith do that very thing! You deny this of course.

But we DO have the teachings of God. We have His words.

Yes we do.

So many stray from the faith to follow men, ultimately carried away from the faith by their philosophy. The seed starts to grow but dies.

Your skewed ,faulty opinion,

But even in this God will be glorified. Their condemnation demonstrates His holiness.

God will be glorified

The best thing we can do is insist that people provide the passages stating their belief.

The Calvinists have done so, if some reject it ,is on them.

If their belief on essential truths departs from what is actually written then they are speaking of theory and philosophy, perhaos in danger of being carried away from the faith or perhaos already having been carried away from the faith.

Or, they are all on the truth, and your view is off.

 

[Zaatar71]

You ate welcome.

No, it is not my confusion. We know what "propitiation" means (,it is a late middle English word referring to "restoring favor". Maybe you mean another word, but wrath cannot both be executed and propitiation.

Same with forgiveness. One cannot punish sins (at least not fully) and forgive those same sins. A judge can reduce a sentence, but that is not forgiveness. It is leniency.

No historical rewrites needed.

We have the history of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (we have Aquinas' writings, and Calvin's writings). In absence of any evidence to the contrary the writings of the Early Church cannot be written off as forgeries.


Regardless (I do not care how old something is) the fact remains that a beluef that leans not on man's understanding but on every word that comes forth from God has to be in the words that come forth from God. That should be understood even by the simplest of minds.

We see what you post. We have an idea why you post it. You believe it is so. That is your right to do so. We do not agree with your ideas of where these truths came from. Did those you mention discuss it? Yes, but no one is saying they follow them, you insist they are. That is why you get the push back from every one of us.

 

[JonC]

I agree, only you attack saying we do not, because we do not buy what you are selling. We do, but not in the way you prescribe which is an unbiblical novelty, known only to you.

I am not seeing anyone quote those men, only you. We know they existed in Church History, but everyman on here from Brightflame, to Canady, to DaveG , to JF, To Martin to Pollard have said that is not how they came to believe what they do! you keep attacking as an enemy, saying it has to be the way you say it is, no matter how many times the appeal to you and ask you to stop with your insults.

That is what the Calvinists on here do. Those who formed the great Confessions of the faith do that very thing! You deny this of course.

Yes we do.

Your skewed ,faulty opinion,

God will be glorified

The Calvinists have done so, if some reject it ,is on them.

Or, they are all on the truth, and your view is off.

I have not quoted those men. I only mentioned history when discussing historical theology.

You do not know my opinions because I have not expressed my opinions to you.

The only thing you know is my stated belief, which you said was just quoting Scrioture and in the next post calked my stated belief "foolishness". It dies not bother me.

I have stated my belief and provided the oassages that state my belief (in God's words).

I have asked you to do the same, however you have not been able to find your faith in God's words (instead you tell us what verses mean to you).

I do not care what the Bible means to you. I want to know what God has actually said.

Here is another opportunity for you to prove me wrong - and if you do I will acceot your correction.

Provide a passage stating Jesus suffered God's wrath.
Provide a passage stating God cannot forgive sins but punishes sins so the guilty escape punishment
Provide a passage stating God punished Jesus instead of us
Provide a passage stating God separated from Jesus


Go ahead. Look in your Bible and reply with those words that comes from God. NOT what men have told you those passages "really" means (I believe God is competent), but just God's own words stating your faith.

If you can't then why on earth should any Chriatian adopt your philosophy???

 

[JonC]

We see what you post. We have an idea why you post it. You believe it is so. That is your right to do so. We do not agree with your ideas of where these truths came from. Did those you mention discuss it? Yes, but no one is saying they follow them, you insist they are. That is why you get the push back from every one of us.

In stating my belief I have only posted God's words. The reason is I trust His words, not my own understanding. So I post His words. I know you do not agree with where my beliefs come from.

The reason I speak so harshly about Cslvinism is I was a Calvinist. At the same time I was a Biblicist. Those two cannot exist together (one negates the other) and I chose the belief that what God's Word a tually teaches is God's words. Having done do I realize where my former belief obscures "what is written" in the text of Scripture.

I do not mean you guys literally follow those men. They are dead. I mean you follow their philosophy. John Calvin developed the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement as a reform of Satisfaction-Substitution (RCC, Lutheran, Aquinas). But I do not know who actually taught that to you. For me (when I held the theory) it was pretty much assumed. I knew the theory long before I knew of John Calvin.

 

[Zaatar71]

In stating my belief I have only posted God's words. The reason is I trust His words, not my own understanding. So I post His words. I know you do not agree with where my beliefs come from.

You post but do not explain anything you post.

The reason I speak so harshly about Cslvinism is I was a Calvinist.

Looks doubtful , you might have glanced at it, without even grasping it, is more likely

At the same time I was a Biblicist.

Also in doubt, but you can try to claim it, but your posts betray your statements

Those two cannot exist together (one negates the other) and I chose the belief that what God's Word a tually teaches is God's words. Having done do I realize where my former belief obscures "what is written" in the text of Scripture.

That is where you are off track. You post but lack comprehension.

I do not mean you guys literally follow those men. They are dead. I mean you follow their philosophy. John Calvin developed the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement as a reform of Satisfaction-Substitution (RCC, Lutheran, Aquinas). But I do not know who actually taught that to you. For me (when I held the theory) it was pretty much assumed. I knew the theory long before I knew of John Calvin.

No one on here is posting anything from these people you mention. You have a habit of suggesting such things, but upon further investigation your ideas come up short.

 

[Zaatar71]

“Southern Baptist Calvinism: Setting the Record Straight”
By Nathan A. Finn
He writes,

Here are more enemies; This myth continues to be promulgated into the twenty-first century. In a 2000 article in
the Baptist Standard, evangelist Freddie Gage is quoted as claiming “There is not a nickels
worth of difference between liberalism, five-point Calvinism [sic] and dead orthodoxy. They are
all enemies of soul-winning.”19 That same year, current SBC President Frank Page wrote The
Trouble With the Tulip, wherein he claims that “If one studies the pages of history, one will see
that Calvinistic theology (Five Point) has encouraged a slackening of the aggressive evangelistic
and missionary heartbeat of the church.”20 In a 2006 editorial in Tennessee’s Baptist and
Reflector, Lonnie Wilkey accuses SBC Calvinists of not sharing Jesus’ sense of urgency for the
lost. He also fears they will cease witnessing, giving to the Cooperative Program, or praying for
unbelievers. But in an effort to be “fair,” Wilkey admits that “some” convention Calvinists
believe in sharing the gospel with non-Christians.21 In an article on his ministry’s website,
Nelson Price argues that “Calvinism offers no incentive to go on mission trips, witness to the
lost, visit for the church, or appeal for souls to be saved. Without such churches dwindle.”22

A second assumption trusts that most of the mischaracterizations of Southern Baptist Calvinism are based upon
misunderstanding or confusion. While this assumption may offend some non-Calvinists, this is certainly not my intention. Simply put, to presuppose many critics of SBC Calvinism are misinformed or confused is better than the alternative, which would be to assume there are Southern Baptists who are deliberately misrepresenting others with whom they disagree. I sincerely hope such a sinful approach does not characterize the majority of those who make
incorrect statements about Calvinism, or vice versa.
As a rule, Southern
Baptists eschew any theology or practice that seems to stifle zeal for the Great Commission.11
Unfortunately, many Southern Baptists perceive Calvinism to be just such a theology.
Beginning in the mid-1990s, several Baptist state papers claimed that Calvinism is a
threat to evangelism. This was largely in response to the 1993 election of R. Albert Mohler Jr. as
president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, For example, in an article published in
the Texas Baptist Standard, Robert Sloan is quoted as claiming that “[Calvinism] is a dagger to
the heart of evangelism. The simple historical fact is that it is a deterrent to evangelism.”

 

[Zaatar71]

Longtime Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary church historian William Estep
penned a widely read article for the Baptist Standard that was arguably the most controversial
anti-Calvinism article of the 1990s. Estep claims that historic Calvinism, when logically
followed, is antithetical to missions, arguing “The Great Commission is meaningless if every
person is programmed for salvation or damnation, for evangelism and missionary effort are
exercises in futility.” Estep warns Southern Baptists to avoid Calvinism because the issue will
further divide an already divided denomination.16 Estep’s article provoked a flood of letters to
the Baptist Standard, many of which were reprinted in subsequent issues of the periodical.17 In
addition, the Summer 1997 issue of Founder’s Journal featured several responses to Estep,
including articles by Albert Mohler, Tom Ascol, and Roger Nicole.18While there is little doubt Southern Baptist Calvinists are not as evangelistic as they should be—which makes them like most Southern Baptists—it is incorrect to claim that SBC Calvinists are not committed to evangelism. Founders Journal has published numerous articles
advocating evangelism, and at times entire issues of the periodical have been devoted to Calvinism’s effect on evangelism and/or missions.25 In the Summer 2001 issue of Founders Journal, Tom Ascol authored a lengthy article in response to the charge that Calvinism threatens evangelism. Ascol states unequivocally that “We should not tolerate any teaching which cuts the nerve of biblical evangelism. The doctrines of grace, rightly understood and applied, have never done that.”26 In a 2003 article, Ascol argues that the work of theological reform and the task of
global mission go hand in hand, and Calvinism actually encourages missionary activity.27

 

[Martin Marprelate]

wrath cannot both be executed and propitiation.

This makes no sense as you have written it, but I will assume that you mean that wrath cannot be both executed and propitiated. If you mean something else you will have to tell me.
In a word, the execution is the propitiation. God's wrath is propitiated by the suffering and death of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is why the Scriptures say exactly that. 'Whom God set forth as a propitiation BY HIS BLOOD.' 'The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all iniquity' (1 John 1:7, shortly before 2:2). So who on earth are you to tell God what He can and cannot do? Let God tell you that!

To 'propitiate' someone is to turn his anger away and make him 'propitious' towards you. To do that, there usually has to be a 'propitiation.' That is a gift or offering designed to effect the turning away of wrath. You gave the example of buying someone you have offended a lunch. But your argument is that he can look at the lunch, but he can't eat it, because the lunch is the propitiation all on its own; the lunch cannot be both propitiation and 'execution.' That is plainly daft.

One other point: with all your silly talk about Roman Catholics, you seem to think that evangelicals follow Anselm, who believed that Christ's death was a molifying of God's injured feelings or amour propre. That is nonsense. It is God's justice that needs to be vindicated (Romans 3:26), and to do that His justice needs to be satisfied. That is why Paul tells us that the very first thing of first importance is that 'Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures' (1 Cor. 15:3), and why he says that when he was in Corinth, 'I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified' (1 Cor. 2:2). Christ's atoning death on the cross is the most important part of the Gospel.

Same with forgiveness. One cannot punish sins (at least not fully) and forgive those same sins. A judge can reduce a sentence, but that is not forgiveness. It is leniency.

Don't be so silly! Sin was punished in Christ, and sinners were forgiven. So simple that a child could understand it, and Praise God, many do. A judge sentences a man for his crimes, but when the sentence is completed, the man is forgiven and allowed to start life afresh. For us, the sentence is completed because the Lord Jesus has served it on our behalf.

 

[JonC]

You post but do not explain anything you post.

Looks doubtful , you might have glanced at it, without even grasping it, is more likely

Also in doubt, but you can try to claim it, but your posts betray your statements

That is where you are off track. You post but lack comprehension.

No one on here is posting anything from these people you mention. You have a habit of suggesting such things, but upon further investigation your ideas come up short.

I know you believe my stated beluef is just quoting God, and I know you believe that is foolishness.

You are right that I do not kean on my own understanding but on the words that come from God.

You are wrong to call God a fool.

People here ARE posting what men have determined the Bible to "really, when properly understood" teach.

And they are, as you demonstrate, doing so because they believe God's words are foolishness without men's understanding about what is "really" taught.

Many will hear "I never knew you". Many will be carried away from the faith by philosophies about what God "really means".


But what if God is not the fool you make Him out to be? What if God not only can but has given us what we are to believe in Hos own words?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

“Southern Baptist Calvinism: Setting the Record Straight”
By Nathan A. Finn

Unfortunately some Baptists seem to be ignorant of their own history. Modern overseas missions started with William Carey who was a Particular Baptist, as were all the people in his missionary committee. Adoniram Judson was a Particular Baptist, and so, of course was perhaps the greatest soul-winner (under God, of course) of all, C.H. Spurgeon.

 

[Zaatar71]

Tom Nettles contends that the emphasis on public invitations is a result of pragmatism, rooted in the so-called “new measures” of the Second Great Awakening. He argues that the practice represents a departure from the earlier understanding that the entire sermon was intended to press the claims of Christ on lost sinners.39

He further claims that the invitation system, along with other pragmatically driven approaches to evangelism, is largely responsible for the great disparity between SBC baptismal numbers and actual church membership and attendance.40 Paul Alexander, writing for IX Marks Ministries, gives nine reasons that many Calvinists are uncomfortable with “altar call evangelism.”

Many of his reasons are concerned with avoiding the appearance that the invitation is a saving event or judging the merits of a worship service based upon the number of people who come forward at its conclusion.41

Some non-Calvinist scholars argue that Calvinism is a Presbyterian belief, implying that authentic Baptists do not embrace the doctrines of grace.

In his essay “The Ascent of Lost Man in Southern Baptist Preaching,” Mark Coppenger argues that the SBC has increasingly been characterized by a view of human free will that inadequately accounts for bondage to sin. In this setting, effectual calling is viewed as doing violence to one’s will rather than genuinely freeing the will to pursue God.

The final myth this chapter addresses contends authentic Baptists are not Calvinists. From time to time, non-Calvinists argue that Calvinism is a foreign element that was introduced into either the Baptist tradition in general or, more specifically, the Southern Baptist Convention

 

[JonC]

This makes no sense as you have written it, but I will assume that you mean that wrath cannot be both executed and propitiated. If you mean something else you will have to tell me.
In a word, the execution is the propitiation. God's wrath is propitiated by the suffering and death of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is why the Scriptures say exactly that. 'Whom God set forth as a propitiation BY HIS BLOOD.' 'The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all iniquity' (1 John 1:7, shortly before 2:2). So who on earth are you to tell God what He can and cannot do? Let God tell you that!

To 'propitiate' someone is to turn his anger away and make him 'propitious' towards you. To do that, there usually has to be a 'propitiation.' That is a gift or offering designed to effect the turning away of wrath. You gave the example of buying someone you have offended a lunch. But your argument is that he can look at the lunch, but he can't eat it, because the lunch is the propitiation all on its own; the lunch cannot be both propitiation and 'execution.' That is plainly daft.

One other point: with all your silly talk about Roman Catholics, you seem to think that evangelicals follow Anselm, who believed that Christ's death was a molifying of God's injured feelings or amour propre. That is nonsense. It is God's justice that needs to be vindicated (Romans 3:26), and to do that His justice needs to be satisfied. That is why Paul tells us that the very first thing of first importance is that 'Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures' (1 Cor. 15:3), and why he says that when he was in Corinth, 'I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified' (1 Cor. 2:2). Christ's atoning death on the cross is the most important part of the Gospel.

Don't be so silly! Sin was punished in Christ, and sinners were forgiven. So simple that a child could understand it, and Praise God, many do. A judge sentences a man for his crimes, but when the sentence is completed, the man is forgiven and allowed to start life afresh. For us, the sentence is completed because the Lord Jesus has served it on our behalf.

Yes. If wrath is propitiated it cannot be experienced or expressed because it has been propitiated.

You are NOT talking about propitiation. You ate talking about substitution.

The propitiation is never the object if what is being propitiated. This is by definition of the word.



What we are talking about is ultimately not about God forgiving or punishing the wicked.

We both believe on the day of wrath the Christian will have been co formed into Christ's image, will have been refined, will have died to sin, will have been made a new creation. There is no guilt because in Christ the "old man" will no longer exist.

So even without the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement God would be just in justifying these new creations, those who are conformed into the image of Christ, snd He would be just in condemning the wicked



What we are ultimately talking about is a 16th century judicial philosophy that subjects the judge to restoring justice via collecting a type of debt.

In other words, your theory considers justice as a metaphysical force that demands punishment for wrongs. This force cannot be satisfied by God making the wicked a new creation, by removing the old heart and spirit and giving a new heart and spirit, by putting His Spirit in them, by conforming them to the image of Christ, with the death of the "old man", with the person dying to sin, with the person being made righteous in Christ.

Why? Because it is ultimately a force that demands something of God. It demands a debt be paid.


The philosophy was used for a couple of centuries in Europe but it failed. It now only survives in religious theories developed during those centuries

 

[Zaatar71]

I know you believe my stated beluef is just quoting God, and I know you believe that is foolishness.

No, I never said quoting God's word is foolishness so let's be a bit more honest when we post. Quoting scripture is always good, but Your ideas about it are quite foolish. You never explain anything you quote. Then you try and claim you go by what is written , but deny thatEzra sought to give the sense, that is the meaning of the text. It is foolish for you to deny that that is indeed the very reason God gave Pastors and teachers to the Local Church for that very purpose. Is that clear enough for you?
Quoting scripture is good. Understanding it is better. You do not seem to understand what the verses mean.

You are right that I do not kean on my own understanding but on the words that come from God.

No...you rely on your own little formula that is not used by anyone else but you.

You are wrong to call God a fool.

You are a dishonest poster. I never said that! martin never said that! Jesus fan never said that! You once again resort to personal attacks that you dream up in your confused mind, then try and project it on any of us who hold the truth, which you oppose.

People here ARE posting what men have determined the Bible to "really, when properly understood" teach.

People are searching the scripture, and checking with other Godly men to see if they saw the same thing. You do not do that. You despise real Bible teachers and offer your wrong take on everything.

And they are, as you demonstrate, doing so because they believe God's words are foolishness without men's understanding about what is "really" taught.

You cannot seem to post a thought on your own, without a personal attack, can you?

Many will hear "I never knew you". Many will be carried away from the faith by philosophies about what God "really means".

Others who deny the true nature of PSA might hear that very thing.

But what if God is not the fool you make Him out to be?

Can everyone see this garbage accusation from JohnC? your comments are profane.

What if God not only can but has given us what we are to believe in Hos own words?

he has , and many of us have come to understand it. Maybe that will happen for you sometime. Looks as if it has eluded you so far, on your journey.

I know you believe my stated beluef is just quoting God, and I know you believe that is foolishness.

This is the third time, you make an accusation, so I can see you as an enemy of the cross. You are not different from what Paul was speaking about. Are you

You are wrong to call God a fool.

I never would, and I have not. This is the third time you try and say this, as if somehow like a Charismatic, you are going to speak it into existence.

People here ARE posting what men have determined the Bible to "really, when properly understood" teach.

People are quoting their beliefs and then showing many others who hold the same view of truth. You post your own novelties

And they are, as you demonstrate, doing so because they believe God's words are foolishness

Here this dishonest person tries yet again to accuse me of something that is not true.

without men's understanding about what is "really" taught.

Philip Helped in Acts 8 after he was told, How can I unless some man guide me? I guess he did not follow your twisted logic, and say to the Eunuch , Just go by what is written, you know, like JohnC does, lo

But what if God is not the fool you make Him out to be? What if God not only can but has given us what we are to believe in Hos own words?

Can you try and make an honest post, without the foolish and dishonest lies you add?

 

[JonC]

Unfortunately some Baptists seem to be ignorant of their own history. Modern overseas missions started with William Carey who was a Particular Baptist, as were all the people in his missionary committee. Adoniram Judson was a Particular Baptist, and so, of course was perhaps the greatest soul-winner (under God, of course) of all, C.H. Spurgeon.

Many are ignorant of their own history.

The seminary I attended was SBC (my thesis was on RBC Howell).

@Zaatar71 is right that there were SBC pastors who were moderate Calvinists. I never said otherwise.

But the architect of the SBC, the first president of the SBC, the founder of the SC Baotust Convention (and president for 27 years) was strongly opposed to the Penal Substitution Theory of.

Like I said, their first statement of faith was designed to premit both traditional Christianity and penal substitution theorists. It was not a point churches separated over.


Calvinistic Baptists are indeed often ignorant of their history. They are ignorant of historical theology and church history.

They do not recognize that their view is Aquinas' theory with penal substitution taking the place of satisfactory substitution. And they have no idea how Aquinas arrived at his theory.

When they read historical positions they assume others held their philosophy. They cannot discern the difference between Luther's Satisfaction Theory and Calvin's Penal Substitution Theory. They hold a myth.