Did Jesus suffer God's wrath instead of us?

[JonC]

All can't mean all to a Calvinist! It has to be altered, changed to fit the theory.

@Charlie24

There is an illustration about putting a frog in tepid water abd increading the temperature until it willingly boils to death. I don't know if that works (I kinda doubt it) but it does work with false doctrines.

Calvinism is many theories interrelated abd interlocked. If one part of the philosophy is wrong then the whole thing falls apart.

So when challenged by a verse the Calvinist cannot question their understanding. They have to question God's words. And they have to use Calvinism as a lens to rework, reject, or theorize about Scripture - orherwise their lens woukd crack. Calvinism would fall apart.

The 16th century judicial philosophy has to be right.
The RCC doctrine carried over has to be right.

BUT "what is written" (the biblical text) has to teach something other than is written.

Calvinism can twist one verse to its theory and that's a minor disagreement. But put them all in o e place and the water goes to tepid to boiling quickly.

Look at a short list of changes Calvinists have to make by prioritizing philosophy over Scripture:

The Bible says God will not punish the righteous- Calvinism makes an exception in redemption
The Bible says God loved the world - Calvinism redefines "world"
The Bible says God set forth Christ as a Propitiation - Calvinism changes "Propitiation" to a verb
The Bible says Jesus died by the powers of evil - Calvinism changes this to "the powers of God"
The Bible equates death to "returning to the ground, dust to dust" - Calvinism redefines death
The Bible says "the elect" are those already saved - Calvinism takes an illustration of Gentile inclusion to deny God's definition.
The Bible says God will judge the wicked at Judgment - Calvinism ignores the timing
The Bible says God makes men new creations - Calvinism rejects the completeness of this statement
The Bible says Hesus is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole World - Cskvinism redefines "whole World"
The Bible says God forgives sins - Calvinism redefines "forgives"
The Bible says God forgives based on repentance (turning to God, a new heart) - Calvinism denies this
The Bible says God is not wrathful to the righteous - Calvinism denies this
The Bible says God did not withdraw His presence ftom Christ - Calvinism denies this
The Bible says Jesus died for our sins - Cslvinism adds to this
The Bible says God is just snd justifies sinners - Calvinism redefines "just"


If just one of the things Calvinists change (and thst was just a short list) to fit their philosophy is wrong then Calvinism is wrong (so is Arminianism, depending on where Calvinism failed).

 

[Zaatar71]

I don't see how you could get God pleading with Calvinists from that.

Calvin and his theory came about 1500 years later.

Here is what you said;
There's no arguing with a Calvinist, you can't show them it goes against the grain of Scripture.

They totally ignore God's pleadings in Scripture to turn from their wickedness but they don't.

The only people you mentioned here was Calvinists, you did not mention Isrrael at all. it was your post #95

The label Calvinism, does not depend on Calvin! Do you understand that?

Calvinism is just a label.....for the doctrines of grace.

 

[Brightfame52]

All can't mean all to a Calvinist! It has to be altered, changed to fit the theory.

It.càn and does, so all what? There's a difference in all and all mankind

 

[JonC]

The only people you mentioned here was Calvinists, you did not mention Isrrael at all. it was your post #95

The label Calvinism, does not depend on Calvin! Do you understand that?

Calvinism is just a label.....for the doctrines of grace.

BUT the Doctrines of Grace DO depend on the philosophy of John Calvin (as organized by Theodore Beza).

You believe parts of the Doctrines of Grace (you reject some of it....a neo- DOG).

Do you not even know the five heads, contents, and origin of the Doctrines of Grace?????

 

[Charlie24]

@Charlie24

There is an illustration about putting a frog in tepid water abd increading the temperature until it willingly boils to death. I don't know if that works (I kinda doubt it) but it does work with false doctrines.

Calvinism is many theories interrelated abd interlocked. If one part of the philosophy is wrong then the whole thing falls apart.

So when challenged by a verse the Calvinist cannot question their understanding. They have to question God's words. And they have to use Calvinism as a lens to rework, reject, or theorize about Scripture - orherwise their lens woukd crack. Calvinism would fall apart.

The 16th century judicial philosophy has to be right.
The RCC doctrine carried over has to be right.

BUT "what is written" (the biblical text) has to teach something other than is written.

Calvinism can twist one verse to its theory and that's a minor disagreement. But put them all in o e place and the water goes to tepid to boiling quickly.

Look at a short list of changes Calvinists have to make by prioritizing philosophy over Scripture:

The Bible says God will not punish the righteous- Calvinism makes an exception in redemption
The Bible says God loved the world - Calvinism redefines "world"
The Bible says God set forth Christ as a Propitiation - Calvinism changes "Propitiation" to a verb
The Bible says Jesus died by the powers of evil - Calvinism changes this to "the powers of God"
The Bible equates death to "returning to the ground, dust to dust" - Calvinism redefines death
The Bible says "the elect" are those already saved - Calvinism takes an illustration of Gentile inclusion to deny God's definition.
The Bible says God will judge the wicked at Judgment - Calvinism ignores the timing
The Bible says God makes men new creations - Calvinism rejects the completeness of this statement
The Bible says Hesus is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole World - Cskvinism redefines "whole World"
The Bible says God forgives sins - Calvinism redefines "forgives"
The Bible says God forgives based on repentance (turning to God, a new heart) - Calvinism denies this
The Bible says God is not wrathful to the righteous - Calvinism denies this
The Bible says God did not withdraw His presence ftom Christ - Calvinism denies this
The Bible says Jesus died for our sins - Cslvinism adds to this
The Bible says God is just snd justifies sinners - Calvinism redefines "just"


If just one of the things Calvinists change (and thst was just a short list) to fit their philosophy is wrong then Calvinism is wrong (so is Arminianism, depending on where Calvinism failed).

It's a rodeo circus with these Calvinists!

 

[JonC]

It's a rodeo circus with these Calvinists!

Yep. Try asking them what word in the verses speaking of Jesus' suffering they are translating as "wrath".


This is the reason I am so insistent on leaning not on my own understanding but on every word that comes from God. I was at one time a Calvinist. IlGod reached me at just the right time, as I was in danger of being carried away by the philosophy.

But I had a bit of an advantage as I believed "what is written" (God's words) is comolete, perfect, znd the standard for our doctrine.

You would not have had to talk me me into going to God's Word. What I realized was I held two opposing beliefs - God's Word and Calvinism. So leaving Calvinism was the easy part.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 0330 GMT 1130 pm EDT

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Do you believe that from eternity, teh father and the Son had planned the Cross, and that the Son would become incarnated as the man Jesus, and agreed to take upon Himself the very wrath we all deserved of a a Holy God ?

Indubitably. Amen and Amen.

This is what Christianity is, in a nutshell, where no other religion, including most Christian heresies,
have no Satisfaction Made to God Who is Offended by their sins, that HE SAYS THAT HE ACCEPTS.

And that Jesus willingly took upon Himself that required wrath and judgement due to us so that by his death we could now be justified before the father because of what he did, not due to us repenting or anything that we could do period?

Absolutely. I do. Pagons don't.

If I may(?), I find this subject somewhat fascinating,
and I am throwing some thoughts of mine and Gill's out there about your all's comments.

There are times where opinions are useful. We will see things "between the lines", and they may or may not be accurate.

Sin is infinite because man's sins are against an Infinite Being, and they require an Infinite Sacrifice, to Bring about Satisfaction to the Demands of God's Justice.

BUT I do believe that essential and foundational doctrines (essential for salvation and foundational in that other doctrines are built upon it, or important doctrines) have to be in God's Word because we do "lean" on them.

"From sin being punished in Christ, the Surety of His people,
it may be strongly concluded, that Punitive Justice is essential to God;

"or otherwise, where is the Goodness of God to His own Son, that He should not spare Him,
but Awake the Sword of Justice against Him, and Inflict the Whole of Punishment on Him,
due to the sins of those for whom He Suffered, if Jesus did not have to punished for sin,
or this was not necessary?

"and, indeed, where is His Wisdom in being at such an Expense as the
Blood and Life of His Son, if sin could have been let go unpunished,
and the Salvation of His people Obtained without it?

"and where is the Love of God to men, in Giving Christ for them,
for their Remission and Salvation, so much Magnified,
when all this might have been without it?

"but without shedding of blood, as there is no Remission so that none could be Saved, consistent with the Justice of God; no Pardon nor Salvation, without Satisfaction through Jesus:

And, "If Pardon or Salvation could have been in another way,
this Prayer of Jesus Christ would have brought it out; (for all to see),

"Father, if it be possible, let this Cup pass Me", #Mt 26:39."

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Do you believe that sins cannot be transferred to those innocent of these sins?

I want to address the answer, even though you're not asking me, by applying it to Jesus' Situation, where He was Innocent and how it was in the Mind of God that The Triune Godhead Discussed among Themselves in Eternity Past how Condemned sinners could be Forgiven*.

First, this article talks about The Triune Godhead's Scheme to Appease Divine Justice
while, AT THE SAME TIME, being able to forgive THOSE, OTHERWISE, Condemned sinners.

*So they could Commune with them in Heaven Forever.

"The Scheme of Making Peace with God, or of Appeasing Divine Justice, and of making Reconciliation for sin, that is, Satisfaction for it, was Planned in the Everlasting Council;
which, from thence is called, "the Council of Peace", #Zec 6:13.

"God was" then "in Christ", or with Christ, "Reconciling the world",
the whole number of the Elect, "to Himself";

"that is, The Triune Godhead were Consulting Together
to form the Plan of the Elects Reconciliation and Salvation;

"and the Method they Advanced upon Solving this Dilemma was,
by, "not Imputing their trespasses to them";

to not Reckon and Place to their Soul's Account, their sins and Iniquities,
nor, insist upon a Satisfaction from themselves, for their sins;

"Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's Elect?" since God will not,
whoever does try to lay a charge to them, that charge will be of no avail against them,
for "it is God that Justifies" them,
through the Vicarious, Efficacious, Propitiation of Jesus Christ
Making Reconciliation to Himself, God the Father,
by the Atonement Brought to His children by the Holy Spirit.

"and happy are the persons interested in this Glorious Plan and Scheme,
to whom the Lord "Imputeth not Iniquity":

Then, Equally as Important and much more so,
"it was also further Devised in this Council Among The Triune Godhead in Eternity Past,
to Impute the Transgressions of the said persons to Christ, the Son of God;

which, though not expressed in the text referred to, #2Co 5:19
yet it is implied and understood, in the verse following,
in which the Account of the Scheme of Reconciliation is continued;
and Imputation of the Transgressions of the God's Elect persons to Christ, the Son of God,
and is expressed in clear and full terms where God is signifying,

"He hath Made Him to be sin for us, Who Knew no sin";

Try to stay with this a sec, everybody;

that is, the sinless Jesus, Who was Made sin,
NOT 'Made sin', by a Transfusion of sin into Him, which His Holy Nature would not admit of,
AND His Virgin Birth tells us God Did Not 'Make' Jesus 'sin' inherently, by Birth,

but we know it was sin being Placed on Jesus Imputatively,
by a Transfer of the Guilt of sin unto Him, by Placing their Guilt to His Account,
and making Him Answerable for (the Guilt of the sins of the Elect);

After all, When did the Suffering Jesus Experienced Originate as its Cause?

As early as the Council of Peace was Held, and the above Method
was Concerted and Agreed to, by Triune Godhead,
because, that is when Christ became a Surety for His people,

that is when (Eternity Past) the Elects' sins were Imputed to Jesus,
with regard to Him then Becoming Responsible for them;
and this all Laid the Foundation of His Making Satisfaction for sin, in Due Time on the Cross."

Notes & comments adapted from: His By Grace--"John Gill: A Body of Doctrinal & Practical Divinity"-Doctrinal Book 6, Chapter 5

The Determination of Jesus Making Satisfaction for sin was, of course,
not merely part of Jesus' Experience at the Time of His Sufferings and Death,
although it was at that Time when God Openly and Manifestly "Laid upon Him",
or Made to Meet on Him, as sin was being Placed on Jesus Imputatively
where we read, "the Iniquity of us all", of all the Lord's people,
"Surely He Took Up our Infirmities and Carried our sorrows,
yet we considered Him Stricken by God, Smitten by Him, and Afflicted."

While, by The Determinant Counsel and Foreknowledge of God
Jesus "was Pierced for our Transgressions, He was Crushed for our Iniquities;
the Punishment that Brought us Peace was upon him, and by His Wounds we are Healed", when "the Chastisement of their Peace was on Him";
or the Punishment of their sin was Inflicted on Jesus,
when He Suffered their Guilt for theirs sins, to Make Peace for them;

Jesus was from Eternity Past Decreed by God as,
"The LAMB SLAIN FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD."

"And all that dwell upon the Earth shall Worship him (the Beast),
whose names are not Written in the Book of Life
of the Lamb Slain from the Foundation of the World," Revelation 3:8.

So, the Bible does go into describing the Source of Jesus' Sufferings
to Make Satisfaction to God, as Being God the Father Who said, "Smite the Shepard",
Who "Made Him", and "Laid on Him", and as "we considered Him Stricken by God,
Smitten by Him, and Afflicted", "by the Determinant Counsel and Foreknowledge of God", from Eternity Past.

That is when The Triune Godhead Decreed and were in Agreement, Jesus
was to Drink Cup of the Dregs of God's Wrath, as He Trodden Out The Winepress, Alone.

Revelation 19:13;
"He is Dressed in a Robe Dipped in Blood, and His Name is The Word of God."

 

[JonC]

I want to address the answer, even though you're not asking me, by applying it to Jesus' Situation, where He was Innocent and how it was in the Mind of God that The Triune Godhead Discussed among Themselves in Eternity Past how Condemned sinners could be Forgiven*.

First, this article talks about The Triune Godhead's Scheme to Appease Divine Justice
while, AT THE SAME TIME, being able to forgive THOSE, OTHERWISE, Condemned sinners.

*So they could Commune with them in Heaven Forever.

"The Scheme of Making Peace with God, or of Appeasing Divine Justice, and of making Reconciliation for sin, that is, Satisfaction for it, was Planned in the Everlasting Council;
which, from thence is called, "the Council of Peace", #Zec 6:13.

"God was" then "in Christ", or with Christ, "Reconciling the world",
the whole number of the Elect, "to Himself";

"that is, The Triune Godhead were Consulting Together
to form the Plan of the Elects Reconciliation and Salvation;

"and the Method they Advanced upon Solving this Dilemma was,
by, "not Imputing their trespasses to them";

to not Reckon and Place to their Soul's Account, their sins and Iniquities,
nor, insist upon a Satisfaction from themselves, for their sins;

"Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's Elect?" since God will not,
whoever does try to lay a charge to them, that charge will be of no avail against them,
for "it is God that Justifies" them,
through the Vicarious, Efficacious, Propitiation of Jesus Christ
Making Reconciliation to Himself, God the Father,
by the Atonement Brought to His children by the Holy Spirit.

"and happy are the persons interested in this Glorious Plan and Scheme,
to whom the Lord "Imputeth not Iniquity":

Then, Equally as Important and much more so,
"it was also further Devised in this Council Among The Triune Godhead in Eternity Past,
to Impute the Transgressions of the said persons to Christ, the Son of God;

which, though not expressed in the text referred to, #2Co 5:19
yet it is implied and understood, in the verse following,
in which the Account of the Scheme of Reconciliation is continued;
and Imputation of the Transgressions of the God's Elect persons to Christ, the Son of God,
and is expressed in clear and full terms where God is signifying,

"He hath Made Him to be sin for us, Who Knew no sin";

Try to stay with this a sec, everybody;

that is, the sinless Jesus, Who was Made sin,
NOT 'Made sin', by a Transfusion of sin into Him, which His Holy Nature would not admit of,
AND His Virgin Birth tells us God Did Not 'Make' Jesus 'sin' inherently, by Birth,

but we know it was sin being Placed on Jesus Imputatively,
by a Transfer of the Guilt of sin unto Him, by Placing their Guilt to His Account,
and making Him Answerable for (the Guilt of the sins of the Elect);

After all, When did the Suffering Jesus Experienced Originate as its Cause?

As early as the Council of Peace was Held, and the above Method
was Concerted and Agree
because, that is when Christ became a Surety for His people,

that is when (Eternity Past) the Elects' sins were Imputed to Jesus,
with regard to Him then Becoming Responsible for them;
and this all Laid the Foundation of His Making Satisfaction for sin, in Due Time on the Cross."

Notes & comments adapted from: His By Grace--"John Gill: A Body of Doctrinal & Practical Divinity"-Doctrinal Book 6, Chapter 5

The Determination of Jesus Making Satisfaction for sin was, of course,
not merely part of Jesus' Experience at the Time of His Sufferings and Death,
although it was at that Time when God Openly and Manifestly "Laid upon Him",
or Made to Meet on Him, as sin was being Placed on Jesus Imputatively
where we read, "the Iniquity of us all", of all the Lord's people,
"Surely He Took Up our Infirmities and Carried our sorrows,
yet we considered Him Stricken by God, Smitten by Him, and Afflicted."

While, by The Determinant Counsel and Foreknowledge of God
Jesus "was Pierced for our Transgressions, He was Crushed for our Iniquities;
the Punishment that Brought us Peace was upon him, and by His Wounds we are Healed", when "the Chastisement of their Peace was on Him";
or the Punishment of their sin was Inflicted on Jesus,
when He Suffered their Guilt for theirs sins, to Make Peace for them;

Jesus was from Eternity Past Decreed by God as,
"The LAMB SLAIN FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD."

"And all that dwell upon the Earth shall Worship him (the Beast),
whose names are not Written in the Book of Life
of the Lamb Slain from the Foundation of the World," Revelation 3:8.

So, the Bible does go into describing the Source of Jesus' Sufferings
to Make Satisfaction to God, as Being God the Father Who said, "Smite the Shepard",
Who "Made Him", and "Laid on Him", and as "we considered Him Stricken by God,
Smitten by Him, and Afflicted", "by the Determinant Counsel and Foreknowledge of God", from Eternity Past.

That is when The Triune Godhead Decreed and were in Agreement, Jesus
was to Drink Cup of the Dregs of God's Wrath, as He Trodden Out The Winepress, Alone.

Revelation 19:13;
"He is Dressed in a Robe Dipped in Blood, and His Name is The Word of God."

Thank you for your view. We don't have to wait to be asked for it around here.


I do not believe that we can know "it was in the Mind of God that The Triune Godhead Discussed among Themselves in Eternity Past how Condemned sinners could be Forgiven".

Part of the reason is this exceeds Scripture.

But another part relates to my understanding of God (more opinion, perhaps, nothing I would insist on).

I just cannot picture God (the Godhead) discussing how to do anything and then arriving at a solution and creating a covenant the Faher and Son entering into this covenant.

Bit it dies help me understand your position. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[MisterChris]

So what is your point ? Jesus Death appeased the wrath of God for the sins of the elect. All others He did not die in behalf of, must endure God's Wrath for their sins.

? While a Calvinist, that's not in my bible. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. (John 3:16 makes that clear, and there are many other passages like it) However, that substitutionary death is ONLY imputed to us, when we Come to Christ. (John 3:18, just a couple verses further).

My perspective is that this argument between Arminians and Calvinists is just stupid. Both views are correct, and both are supported by scripture. This dichotomy cannot be explained until you recognize that FREE WILL is from OUR perspective, and PREDESTINATION is from God's.

The extreme points of view of both camps are also wrong, and are NOT supported by scripture. The idea that we ONLY have FREE WILL comes with the idea that we can lose our salvation. That perspective is only obliquely supported in scripture (Heb 6:6), and is counterindicated by much more scriptural references (new creation (2Cor 5:17) and the perseverance of the saints (John 10:29, Rom 8:38-39)) On the other side of that spectrum is the idea that God is not willing that ANY should come to repentence except His elect, and that everyone else was designed and created simply for destruction. While there is a bit of support for this (Rom 9:22, which is framed as a question) God makes it abundantly clear that he offers salvation to ALL (John 3:16, Eze 33:11, 2Pe 3:9, Acts 2:21, and a host of other passages). Paul however makes it clear that on our own we will NOT follow God (Rom 3:10-12) and that we are dead in trespasses and sins (Eph 2:5) and that the faith we needed to be saved was a gift, not of works (Eph 2:8-9) And without that faith it's impossible to please God (Heb 11:6)

So, to recap - God loves all. God calls All. Whosoever WILL may come. Yet ALL turn aside. None seek after God. We are dead in our sins, unable even to drum up saving faith. Yet God, in his infinite mercy, quickens the hearts of SOME, and saves these. You may call them the elect, who he chose before the foundation of the world. We HAVE our free will. But without God's help, we would never make it across the bridge to faith.

 

[Zaatar71]

? While a Calvinist, that's not in my bible. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. (John 3:16 makes that clear, and there are many other passages like it) However, that substitutionary death is ONLY imputed to us, when we Come to Christ. (John 3:18, just a couple verses further).

My perspective is that this argument between Arminians and Calvinists is just stupid. Both views are correct, and both are supported by scripture. This dichotomy cannot be explained until you recognize that FREE WILL is from OUR perspective, and PREDESTINATION is from God's.

The extreme points of view of both camps are also wrong, and are NOT supported by scripture. The idea that we ONLY have FREE WILL comes with the idea that we can lose our salvation. That perspective is only obliquely supported in scripture (Heb 6:6), and is counterindicated by much more scriptural references (new creation (2Cor 5:17) and the perseverance of the saints (John 10:29, Rom 8:38-39)) On the other side of that spectrum is the idea that God is not willing that ANY should come to repentence except His elect, and that everyone else was designed and created simply for destruction. While there is a bit of support for this (Rom 9:22, which is framed as a question) God makes it abundantly clear that he offers salvation to ALL (John 3:16, Eze 33:11, 2Pe 3:9, Acts 2:21, and a host of other passages). Paul however makes it clear that on our own we will NOT follow God (Rom 3:10-12) and that we are dead in trespasses and sins (Eph 2:5) and that the faith we needed to be saved was a gift, not of works (Eph 2:8-9) And without that faith it's impossible to please God (Heb 11:6)

So, to recap - God loves all. God calls All. Whosoever WILL may come. Yet ALL turn aside. None seek after God. We are dead in our sins, unable even to drum up saving faith. Yet God, in his infinite mercy, quickens the hearts of SOME, and saves these. You may call them the elect, who he chose before the foundation of the world. We HAVE our free will. But without God's help, we would never make it across the bridge to faith.

Hello Mister Chris, Welcome to the Baptistboard., I just saw your post late tonight, so I will not fully respond at this time. I just wanted to welcome you, and say that you raise many issues here. In time we will take them one by one, see what we can agree on, and raise some questions for you to respond to.

 

[Brightfame52]

? While a Calvinist, that's not in my bible. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. (John 3:16 makes that clear, and there are many other passages like it) However, that substitutionary death is ONLY imputed to us, when we Come to Christ. (John 3:18, just a couple verses further).

He died for the world in Christ, the elect world . The world He died for is delivered from wrath, so everyone else under the wrath of God He could not have died for them.

 

[Brightfame52]

After all, When did the Suffering Jesus Experienced Originate as its Cause?

As early as the Council of Peace was Held, and the above Method
was Concerted and Agreed to, by Triune Godhead,
because, that is when Christ became a Surety for His people,

that is when (Eternity Past) the Elects' sins were Imputed to Jesus,
with regard to Him then Becoming Responsible for them;
and this all Laid the Foundation of His Making Satisfaction for sin, in Due Time on the Cross

So do you believe this also is the basis for the eternal justification of the elect, B4 they were born?

 

[JesusFan]

@Charlie24

There is an illustration about putting a frog in tepid water abd increading the temperature until it willingly boils to death. I don't know if that works (I kinda doubt it) but it does work with false doctrines.

Calvinism is many theories interrelated abd interlocked. If one part of the philosophy is wrong then the whole thing falls apart.

So when challenged by a verse the Calvinist cannot question their understanding. They have to question God's words. And they have to use Calvinism as a lens to rework, reject, or theorize about Scripture - orherwise their lens woukd crack. Calvinism would fall apart.

The 16th century judicial philosophy has to be right.
The RCC doctrine carried over has to be right.

BUT "what is written" (the biblical text) has to teach something other than is written.

Calvinism can twist one verse to its theory and that's a minor disagreement. But put them all in o e place and the water goes to tepid to boiling quickly.

Look at a short list of changes Calvinists have to make by prioritizing philosophy over Scripture:

The Bible says God will not punish the righteous- Calvinism makes an exception in redemption
The Bible says God loved the world - Calvinism redefines "world"
The Bible says God set forth Christ as a Propitiation - Calvinism changes "Propitiation" to a verb
The Bible says Jesus died by the powers of evil - Calvinism changes this to "the powers of God"
The Bible equates death to "returning to the ground, dust to dust" - Calvinism redefines death
The Bible says "the elect" are those already saved - Calvinism takes an illustration of Gentile inclusion to deny God's definition.
The Bible says God will judge the wicked at Judgment - Calvinism ignores the timing
The Bible says God makes men new creations - Calvinism rejects the completeness of this statement
The Bible says Hesus is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole World - Cskvinism redefines "whole World"
The Bible says God forgives sins - Calvinism redefines "forgives"
The Bible says God forgives based on repentance (turning to God, a new heart) - Calvinism denies this
The Bible says God is not wrathful to the righteous - Calvinism denies this
The Bible says God did not withdraw His presence ftom Christ - Calvinism denies this
The Bible says Jesus died for our sins - Cslvinism adds to this
The Bible says God is just snd justifies sinners - Calvinism redefines "just"


If just one of the things Calvinists change (and thst was just a short list) to fit their philosophy is wrong then Calvinism is wrong (so is Arminianism, depending on where Calvinism failed).

We are not redefing what the bible teaches, but now defining it as was originally taught

 

[JesusFan]

The only people you mentioned here was Calvinists, you did not mention Isrrael at all. it was your post #95

The label Calvinism, does not depend on Calvin! Do you understand that?

Calvinism is just a label.....for the doctrines of grace.

I just find it so funny that others think that Calvin and others just basically ignored the scriptures and developed entire theology from :man made doctrines traditions and philosphy"

 

[JesusFan]

BUT the Doctrines of Grace DO depend on the philosophy of John Calvin (as organized by Theodore Beza).

You believe parts of the Doctrines of Grace (you reject some of it....a neo- DOG).

Do you not even know the five heads, contents, and origin of the Doctrines of Grace?????

No Calvinist rejects any of the 5 Doctrines of grace

 

[JesusFan]

Thank you for your view. We don't have to wait to be asked for it around here.


I do not believe that we can know "it was in the Mind of God that The Triune Godhead Discussed among Themselves in Eternity Past how Condemned sinners could be Forgiven".

Part of the reason is this exceeds Scripture.

But another part relates to my understanding of God (more opinion, perhaps, nothing I would insist on).

I just cannot picture God (the Godhead) discussing how to do anything and then arriving at a solution and creating a covenant the Faher and Son entering into this covenant.

Bit it dies help me understand your position. Thanks for the explanation.

This would be the standard biblical and Christian understanding, not Calvinist only , but Christian in general

What does it mean that Jesus became sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21)? | GotQuestions.org

What does it mean that Jesus became sin for us? What is the meaning of 2 Corinthians 5:21?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

do you believe this also is the basis for the eternal justification of the elect, B4 they were born?

I see a difference between a purpose to do a thing and the carrying out of that purpose.

The LONDON BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH speaks to how a soul that is lost must be Pardoned and, therefore, Given the Righteousness of Christ, prior to God Seeing them having their own Righteousness, as He Sees them then being without any sin of their own.

Then, once that Purpose to Pardon the sinner is Carried Out, when God looks upon the Saved soul and Sees the Perfect Righteousness of Jesus Credited to their soul, there is no sin to Judge and that soul must, therefore, be Justified, before Him and His Law and the entire Universe.

In that way, we are Pardoned/Made Righteous, first logically, then we are able to be Justified.

So, while the effect of the Covenant of Peace in Eternity Past was to fulfill God's Purpose, for His Elect to be Called, Justified, Glorified and to Commune with Him Forever in Heaven, I see those as being able to be seen by God as being as Sure as His Surity He Provided in Jesus, meaning as good as if they had already happened. However, I see that Covenant of Peace and The Triune Godhead's Council Together in Eternity Past as being the Original Source and Cause of His Purpose, which is inevitably Carried Out to Absolute Perfection, in Time, when the soul is Born Again.

We don't have a Command to Repent and Believe the Gospel, whereby we are Commanded to Repent of being in a Spiritual State of Justification. We're not Justified and then told to Repent of it, in my mind, much less the fact that we have no Spiritual State prior to being Born Again, that involves our soul being a Partaker of the Divine Nature, which would be necessary to be Justified.

I have to guess that John Gill and others may be considering the circumstances where God is dealing with His Elect, as He views them from His Perspective, as those who would have to have already been Saved, you would think, in order for God to Talk that way, but that's all.

It's just a matter of Perspective, for us to see a difference between the Purpose as the Cause and it being Carried Out as the Effect.

The sad consequences of mixing the two have resulted in the Two-Seedism heresy, which in turn led to the idea that souls are Justified from Eternity Past, the way they are preceived by those encaged within Hardshellism, or Primitive Baptists, as they came to be known after their split with Missionary Baptists, or BAPTISTS, as they are called, without any other distinction needed.

Those things may be conveniently assumed to disobey God's Sovereignty concerning His Command to Preach the Gospel, while at the same time, attempting to Profess belief in the sovereignty of God, but other than that, it must be some muddy misunderstanding.

Also, from https://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/simmons.two-seed.html

"Union with Christ is brought about through faith. Therefore, actual justification takes place only when faith is exercised. See Romans 3:28; 5:1; 8:1; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 6:11; Galatians 2:16. But again, in order to be absolutely true to the Word of God, we are forced to say something further.

"While actual justification takes place only at the time one believes in Christ, yet Romans 8:29, 30 represents the Elect as being already justified.

Let us note this Scripture:

"Whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brethren.

"Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them he also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified."

"This Scripture represents God as calling, justifying, and glorifying His elect at the time He foreknew them as His own.

"All these verbs are in the past tense. Was this actual justification? No.

"For in that case we would have a contradiction between this Scripture and the even tenor of Scripture teaching, which represents justification as taking place through faith.

"How then were the elect justified when they were foreknown of the Lord? They were justified in the Purpose of God. God Determined that they should be justified, and His Decrees are so certain that the things Decreed are considered, in a sense, as having been already Accomplished. This is a case of God calling things that are not as though they were. See Romans 4:17."

 

[Brightfame52]

I see a difference between a purpose to do a thing and the carrying out of that purpose

So when did God make Christ a surety in the everlasting covenant of Grace for the sins and condemnation of the elect? When was He responsible for their sins?