The Enemies Of The Cross of Christ:

[JonC]

When I was first saved, I read the Bible voraciously, as I still do. The church I attended when I was saved I soon found to be doctrine-lite, though it claimed to believe "just the Bible" (something I have personally found to be totally hopeless as there is no agreement as to what the Bible teaches) and I couldn't tell you what it believed about PSA. But my reading of the Bible taught me that Penal Substitution was what the Bible taught. Later I moved churches to one where PSA was taught, but I already believed the doctrine. I atended a conference where the organizers advised us that there was opposition to PSA from various liberals in the UK and advised us to buy Pierced for our Transgressions, which they offered at a very special price. I didn't buy it at the time, because the doctrine seemed so clear to me. But when our discussions began, I felt I needed to look at the doctrine again, so I looked at the teaching of the Bible and was fortified in my belief. I did eventually buy the book (at a higher price than I could have bought it at the conference, and it is a very good book, but it only conformed what I already knew, that PSA is the Biblical doctrine and vitally important to the health of the churches.

PSA is in the text and what the Bible teaches very clearly.

PSA is very clearly written in the Bible as I have explained to you ad nauseam

It is in the Biblical text and everybody should consider it not only valid, but vitally important.

God's words make perfect sense, and are complete. Therefore people should not consider adopting any theory about the atonement other than PSA, especially the one espoused by yourself when you can't even articulate it properly.

Once again I suggest to anyone reading this, especially you, to read the essay that I wrote on the subject and posted here about 10 years ago before putting it on my blog The Theological and Biblical Basis of Penal Substitution

I actually grew up in a church that believed the Pensl Substitution Theory of Atonement. In the US the primary influences to Baotist churches in the 20th century has been the Presbyterians and the Methodists.

Anyway, if the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is in the text of Scrioture then why over the past two decades have you not been able to find even one oassage stating that Jesus suffered God's wrath?

I mean, if the theory is so important to understanding the cross, if not accepting the theory is (as @Zaatar71 posted) apostasy, then it seems reasonable to me that God would have included it in His Word rather than taking 15 centuries for a Reformer to put the pieces together.


You have explained how you can use the Bible to support your theory. But you have not provided any passages that state divine justice is identical to the French Legal Humanism of the 16th century. You have not prov8ded any passages that actually state Jesus suffered God's wrath.

You have orov8ded verses we all agree on and then added that it teaches your theory.

Alexander Campbell once lamented that he created the very thing he was trying to move away from (a denomination).

Reformed theology did the same. Striving to move from Roman Catholic theology Reformed Theology became the very thing it was trying to move from.

Roman Catholic Church
1. Believes the Bible teaches what the Catholic Church tells them it really teaches
2. Have a faith arrived upon vis theological development (theology building on theology)
3. Rejects passages by redefining them when they contradict their theology
4. Tests their faith with Confessions as it is not in the biblical text

Reformed Theology
1. Believes the Bible teaches what Reformed churches tells them it really teaches
2. Have a faith arrived upon vis theological development (theology building on theology)
3. Rejects passages by redefining them when they contradict their theology
4. Tests their faith with Confessions as it is not in the biblical text

Reformed theology IS Catholic theology in structure. The men they follow simply tell them the Bible really teaches different things.

Anyway....post that passage stating Jesus suffered God's wrath. We can go from there.

If it is not in the biblical text then you just made a false claim.

 

[JonC]

Members - regardless on where you stand on the topic, consider the view being defended by @Martin Marprelate and @Zaatar71 . Think about God's command not to kean on our understanding but on the words coming from Him. Consider that we are to test doctrine against "what is written", the "faith once delivered".

1. The Bible says Christ died and the one who holds the power of death is Satan. Calvinists say "yea, but not really. God was really punishing Jesus instead of us"

2. Psalm 22 starts "My God why have you forsaken me" and then continues to show this Servant, while forsaken to suffer, was not abandoned by God and God never hid His face from Him. Calvinists say "well, kind of...God forsaken Him, abandoned Him, separated from Him."

3. The Bible says God forgives sins. Calvinists say "Absolutely, but He does not really. He punishes sins on Christ so that we escape that forgiveness".

4. The Bible says that the basis for forgiveness is "reoent", "turns from wickedness", turn to God", "die to sin", "a new heart". Calvinists say "Umm...yea but only if Jesus experiences God's wrath for those sins".

5. The Bible says that clearing the guilty and punishing the righteous are both abominations to God. Calvinists say "well, only the first part because the second part only counts if man does it".

6. The Bible says that sins cannot be passed to another, that it stays on the sinner unless that sinner repents. Calvinists say "That chapter does not apply to God".

7. The Bible says, regarding our forgiveness and the New Covenant, that a covenant is not in effect as long as the maker is alive, without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Calvinists say "yes, but those are individual truths just strung together. The conclusion is really that God could mot forgive sins without punishing those sins".

8. The Bible says we were chosen in Christ. Calvinists say "God meant to say we were were elected to be in Christ".


Think about the assumptions Calvinists make:

1. Divine Justice is 16th century French Legal Humanism.
2. The Catholic doctrine of the Fall is correct.
3. Sins and guilt are metaphysical "things" that can be treated as material realities.
4. God cannot literally forgive sins.
5. If we are made new creations in Christ but God did not punish Jesus then we are not really righteous.
6. God cannot satisfy the demands of the law except through the law, as the law majes demands God must meet.


Lean not on your own understanding but on every word that comes forth from God.
Test doctrine against Scripture, the faith once delivered.

 

[Zaatar71]

You make a mistake with your first paragraph.

I am very capable of making many mistakes, lol

I do not doubt the biblical record.

That is good

In fact, having read the writings of the Early Church I agree with them on this topic. I also agree with the earlier baptistic churches ?on this topic and a few more....actually, probably most of what they wrote in terms of theology). But I do believe that it was a mistake to assume Legal Humanism to be divine justice (it did not work with France, and it does not work with Scripture).

when we venture outside the bible, to historical things, we might learn some things help, some things harmful

What you believe represents a small sect within Christianity.

Here is another of your pronouncements that I do not share. it may or not be true, numerically, however it could also be claimed that what is known as reformed truth, or Calvinists truth, might be the majority of biblical Churches.

That does not make it wrong, but it calls into question your method of evaluation.

And, right back at you. The advantage of such a forum is we can learn from others, but we can also be our Brothers keeper. You suspect I and the other Cals are misled to a large extent. We think you are in danger of totally drifting away from revealed truth. How so? I am not a highly educated person like our resident college professor; however you observe over time how some people get snagged in one way or another, and drift into Apostasy. I used the PhD Bart Ehrman as an example of an academic, who achieved an academic agree but has shown himself to be devoid of the Spirit. Most PhD Christians thankfully are sound and help many people, but that is no guarantee that such a trained person can drift into Apostasy.

My belief is on par with Christianity throughout history.

Most people think they hold truth. I do not know any who say, I am outside the mainstream and plan to drift further away. As you seen driven to warn us, of the "bad Calvinist teaching" that you have uncovered, we in turn warn you, you are drifting. I do not win a prize for confronting your posted error, but we are our brothers keeper.

You can, I know, point to Reformers who were Calvinists and say "See??? That is what I believe as well!!".

Yes, I can.

But I can do the same with a different group. So can Catholics. So can Arminians, and Pentecostals, and Methodists, and Free-Will Baotists.

All can do it, but not all are correct. WE sort it out as best we can, but each one of us will give account of ourselves to God.

I am not interested in pitting your theologians and groups against my theologians and groups.

No need to, I do that on my own, as you have asked about.

That is subjective and useless. I am interested in God's Word.

That is what I and others believe.

I actually thought my posts for years has been an open admission that I outright reject the connections Calvinism makes.

That might be what you have offered over time, I just see what you have revealed recently as you have been open to your opposition to these truths. I thank you for being open, and admitting where you stand!

The only reason you cannot grasp the fact that I once was a Calvinist is you believe Cakvinism is perfect (exceot for those things in the Doctrines of Grace you reject, infant baptism, union of Church and State, at least).

I examine the differences as many godly people have differences.

In other words you believe your understanding is perfect.

I know Calvinism fully , and biblically explained is the truth of God. I know it, because those who have gone before me, have laid it out public ally, and I see no one who has biblically refuted it. You seem like a nice person, but your open opposition has set you up to be scrutinized.

So you cannot imagine anybody believing the same, realizing there was an error and leaving Calvinism (although many have).

No ,I cannot . if a person switches views, they are free to do it, but I am not following their error. Not many have! That is how you justify your failed Journey. Everyone I see make this claim does not get better understanding, but declines.

Arminians feel the same. So do Pentecostals.

So do cults and other false teachers. I can interact and offer them what I can.

I also hold the sane view. I cannot believe you ever devoted yourself to Scripture (to believing God's actual words) and then left for what any sect told you was really taught.

I believe I can, and refute and correct anything you have, or until I am shown biblically a different way.
I have doubts on that, and seek to serve with what i have.

BUT there is a difference. You can't believe it because you consider what your sect teaches

You keep calling biblical confessional believers a sect, so you are not a source I will consider solid .

(at least the parts you agree with) to be perfect.

Some of the men are so gifted and even though they are just men, they open scripture in a way I cannot.

I can't believe you ever believed God's words and chose to follow that sect because I cannot grasp how you would find the teachings of men superior to the actual words of God.

JohnC , I cannot believe you are this dense. None of us have the word of God below the teachings of men as you keep posting as if it was so.
It comes across as an attack, so, it will be met with resistance each time you are compelled to do it.

You are right. My faith is an apostasy from Calvinism.

My responsibility to you is a word of caution. If I and others are correct that as Spurgeon once said, Calvinism fully explained is just a nickname for the gospel, then your comment would put you on the road to perdition. If it is a false system of belief, you have no worries!

I already told you that. I was a Calvinist, now I am not.

I believe you looked, but never were, based on what you post.

I WANT you to point out any belief that I hold that is contrary to God's Word. I have begged you tp do that for awhile now. But you only have offered what one sect says the Bible "really" teaches. I believe thise men are wrong.

That is exactly what is see is wrong about your posting and atated beliefs, so I have no need to add to it. I can only respond in this way.

I AGAIN invite you to post where my faith departs from "what is written", from God's actual words

We have all done that, but you repeatedly deny it, You are in my view in danger of Hebrews 6:4-

I never claimed that my belief is perfect. I know it is not because I am still here on this earth. That is why I gladly welcome any correction. BUT correction from God (His words) not what somebody thinks the Bible really teaches.

We do not think you are welcoming it.

And that invitation is open to everybody here. This is one reason I joined this board.

What I have posted (my stated belief) is what I believe. I simply quoted Scripture because I do not think that I can explain the cross better than God.

You explain nothing what so ever.

I know you cannot find fault with what I believe (because my stated belief has been God's words), and the fault you find is in what I do not believe (things one relatively small sect of Christianity believes is really taught by the Bible). So I am not pushing this button (I woukd, but I have started to like you even though we disagree).

That is why I now will view you as hostile to truth

Yea, man. Thanks for the conversation.

Like wise, we both presented what we have.

I am glad we at least got it straight that I am stringly opposed to Calvinism but not Calvinists (Martin may be the exception). I hope the best for you in the future. I pray one day you will take that challenge and look for your faith in God's actual words. If that happens, let's talk again.

Thanks for your honest admission and confession.

 

[JonC]

I am very capable of making many mistakes, lol

That is good

when we venture outside the bible, to historical things, we might learn some things help, some things harmful

Here is another of your pronouncements that I do not share. it may or not be true, numerically, however it could also be claimed that what is known as reformed truth, or Calvinists truth, might be the majority of biblical Churches.

And, right back at you. The advantage of such a forum is we can learn from others, but we can also be our Brothers keeper. You suspect I and the other Cals are misled to a large extent. We think you are in danger of totally drifting away from revealed truth. How so? I am not a highly educated person like our resident college professor; however you observe over time how some people get snagged in one way or another, and drift into Apostasy. I used the PhD Bart Ehrman as an example of an academic, who achieved an academic agree but has shown himself to be devoid of the Spirit. Most PhD Christians thankfully are sound and help many people, but that is no guarantee that such a trained person can drift into Apostasy.

Most people think they hold truth. I do not know any who say, I am outside the mainstream and plan to drift further away. As you seen driven to warn us, of the "bad Calvinist teaching" that you have uncovered, we in turn warn you, you are drifting. I do not win a prize for confronting your posted error, but we are our brothers keeper.

Yes, I can.

All can do it, but not all are correct. WE sort it out as best we can, but each one of us will give account of ourselves to God.

No need to, I do that on my own, as you have asked about.

That is what I and others believe.

That might be what you have offered over time, I just see what you have revealed recently as you have been open to your opposition to these truths. I thank you for being open, and admitting where you stand!

I examine the differences as many godly people have differences.

I know Calvinism fully , and biblically explained is the truth of God. I know it, because those who have gone before me, have laid it out public ally, and I see no one who has biblically refuted it. You seem like a nice person, but your open opposition has set you up to be scrutinized.

No ,I cannot . if a person switches views, they are free to do it, but I am not following their error. Not many have! That is how you justify your failed Journey. Everyone I see make this claim does not get better understanding, but declines.

So do cults and other false teachers. I can interact and offer them what I can.

I believe I can, and refute and correct anything you have, or until I am shown biblically a different way.
I have doubts on that, and seek to serve with what i have.

You keep calling biblical confessional believers a sect, so you are not a source I will consider solid .

Some of the men are so gifted and even though they are just men, they open scripture in a way I cannot.

JohnC , I cannot believe you are this dense. None of us have the word of God below the teachings of men as you keep posting as if it was so.
It comes across as an attack, so, it will be met with resistance each time you are compelled to do it.

My responsibility to you is a word of caution. If I and others are correct that as Spurgeon once said, Calvinism fully explained is just a nickname for the gospel, then your comment would put you on the road to perdition. If it is a false system of belief, you have no worries!

I believe you looked, but never were, based on what you post.

That is exactly what is see is wrong about your posting and atated beliefs, so I have no need to add to it. I can only respond in this way.

We have all done that, but you repeatedly deny it, You are in my view in danger of Hebrews 6:4-

We do not think you are welcoming it.

You explain nothing what so ever.

That is why I now will view you as hostile to truth

Like wise, we both presented what we have.

Thanks for your honest admission and confession.

You have a faulty logic on one point. You did not know me when I was a Calvinist. I could easily say that you are nit a Calvinist, that you do not even understand Reformed theology but are merely repeating what you heard. But then that woukd be faulty logic as well. I am the only one who can evaluate whether I was a Calvinist at one time. Unless you can find something that shows I did nit understand the theology then you have no grounds to believe otherwise (it is a faulty argument borne out of emotion).

There is nothing that I have posted about what Calvinism teaches that is incorrect. If there wrre you woukd have been able to point it out. You merely disagree with my accessment of the philosophy (and you have not taken the time to read its development in the words of the men who developed it).

But that doesn't not matter. The readon is I am not proud of having been a Calvinist. I am ashamed of the error. I let people here know so that they do not have to regurgitate the theory for my benefit.

No Cakvinists here has yet provided any passage stating that Jesus suffered God's wrath. Yet you all claim that there is such a verse, that it is in God's words. Were that not true you would have provided the verses and put the words in bold.


You are welcome. I will always reply openly and honestly. I do not like to pretend we agree when we don't. I see no benefit in that. I expect the same of others. We are talking about doctrine, not one anither (exceot sometimes Martin).

 

[Zaatar71]

You have a faulty logic on one point. You did not know me when I was a Calvinist.

No, i did not know you when you believed you were a Calvinist. I might have been able to help you at that time.

I could easily say that you are nit a Calvinist, that you do not even understand Reformed theology but are merely repeating what you heard.

you can say what you want. But every Cal on here would know the truth by what i post.

But then that woukd be faulty logic as well. I am the only one who can evaluate whether I was a Calvinist at one time.

Not so

Unless you can find something that shows I did nit understand the theology then you have no grounds to believe otherwise (it is a faulty argument borne out of emotion).

well, do you have a book or a sermon or anything from back at that time? if you do, I would take a look, however who or what you are does not depend on my evaluation for sure. I help where I can.

There is nothing that I have posted about what Calvinism teaches that is incorrect. If there wrre you woukd have been able to point it out. You merely disagree with my accessment of the philosophy (and you have not taken the time to read its development in the words of the men who developed it).

You have not posted anything that demonstrates you know much of it. Anyone can quote a sentence of a theologian from the past, you could copy and paste the 1689, but that does not mean you have read, it , or studied it, or believe it.

But that doesn't not matter. The readon is I am not proud of having been a Calvinist. I am ashamed of the error. I let people here know so that they do not have to regurgitate the theory for my benefit.

that is why we will not agree at all.

No Cakvinists here has yet provided any passage stating that Jesus suffered God's wrath. Yet you all claim that there is such a verse, that it is in God's words. Were that not true you would have provided the verses and put the words in bold.

you have turned away from all such posts, and your posts are erroneous to the max, talk about flawed logic!

You are welcome. I will always reply openly and honestly. I do not like to pretend we agree when we don't. I see no benefit in that. I expect the same of others. We are talking about doctrine, not one anither (exceot sometimes Martin).

leave martin alone, I and others enjoy his solid posting.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Members - regardless on where you stand on the topic, consider the view being defended by @Martin Marprelate and @Zaatar71 . Think about God's command not to kean on our understanding but on the words coming from Him. Consider that we are to test doctrine against "what is written", the "faith once delivered".

I agree with this. The 1689 Confession begins with the statement that, The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge and faith. @JonC does not agree with the 1689 Confession.

1. The Bible says Christ died and the one who holds the power of death is Satan. Calvinists say "yea, but not really. God was really punishing Jesus instead of us"

@JonC is not qualified to speak for Calvinists. God was really taking our punishment Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ.

2. Psalm 22 starts "My God why have you forsaken me" and then continues to show this Servant, while forsaken to suffer, was not abandoned by God and God never hid His face from Him. Calvinists say "well, kind of...God forsaken Him, abandoned Him, separated from Him."

@JonC wants us to believe that "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" Really means, "My God, My God, you haven't forsaken Me." However, he is correct when he says that Christ was forsaken to suffer, particularly during the three hours of darkness. Then, as we all know, the sun came out again, and our Lord could say, "It is finished," and it was. The period of being forsaken was ended because God's justice had been satisfied, except for our Lord's death which followed almost immediately.

3. The Bible says God forgives sins. Calvinists say "Absolutely, but He does not really. He punishes sins on Christ so that we escape that forgiveness".

The Bible does indeed say that God forgives sins. That is why God Himself, in the Person of Jesus Christ paid the penalty for our sins Himself, so that He might be 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.'

4. The Bible says that the basis for forgiveness is "reoent", "turns from wickedness", turn to God", "die to sin", "a new heart". Calvinists say "Umm...yea but only if Jesus experiences God's wrath for those sins".

@JonC does not know the Bible. To take just two verses, Romans 5:8-9. 'But God demonstrates His own love towards us....' How? By forgiving our sins unilaterally? No! '.... In that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified....' By what? Simply by repentance? No! '..... By His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.'

5. The Bible says that clearing the guilty and punishing the righteous are both abominations to God. Calvinists say "well, only the first part because the second part only counts if man does it".

No, because God did not take some random bloke and make him a scapegoat, but came Himself (Acts 20:28) in the Person of the Lord Jesus to pay the punishment for our sins.

6. The Bible says that sins cannot be passed to another, that it stays on the sinner unless that sinner repents. Calvinists say "That chapter does not apply to God".

Yep! Because the Bible says that is exactly what He did. One person paying for the sins of another does not work in God's eyes because they are both sinners. That is why it is said repeatedly of the Levitical sacrifices, that they must be 'without blemish' (Lev. 1:3 etc. Cf. 1 Peter 1:19)

7. The Bible says, regarding our forgiveness and the New Covenant, that a covenant is not in effect as long as the maker is alive, without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Calvinists say "yes, but those are individual truths just strung together. The conclusion is really that God could mot forgive sins without punishing those sins".

Yes, that is why the New Covenant is described as being in Christ's blood (Luke 22:20 etc.). God must be 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.'

8. The Bible says we were chosen in Christ. Calvinists say "God meant to say we were were elected to be in Christ".

It means the same thing, as @JonC knows very well.

Think about the assumptions Calvinists make:

1. Divine Justice is 16th century French Legal Humanism.
2. The Catholic doctrine of the Fall is correct.

These are assumptions @JonC makes entirely without basis. The Reformers, who were almost all 'Calvinists' (even before Calvin wrote a word) suffered and died for Biblical truth and against Romanism.

3. Sins and guilt are metaphysical "things" that can be treated as material realities.

The Bible treats sin as something 'metaphysical.' 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all' (Isaiah 53:6). 'And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins' (1 John 3:8)

4. God cannot literally forgive sins.

God 'literally' forgives the sins of all whom He gave to Christ to save (John 6:39).

5. If we are made new creations in Christ but God did not punish Jesus then we are not really righteous.

No one is made a new creation for whom Christ did not die (2 COr. 5:17).

6. God cannot satisfy the demands of the law except through the law, as the law majes demands God must meet.

'The LORD is well pleased for His righteousness' sake. He will exalt the law and make it honourable' (Isaiah 42:21). That was done by Christ upon the cross.

Lean not on your own understanding but on every word that comes forth from God.
Test doctrine against Scripture, the faith once delivered.

Amen.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I have no time to write as much as I would wish. If it is @JonC's purpose to avalaunch me with posts, he is succeeding.
However, I will quickly respond to this:

You have explained how you can use the Bible to support your theory.

You mean like, quoting the Bible. Well yes, I do that. Guilty as charged.

But you have not provided any passages that state divine justice is identical to the French Legal Humanism of the 16th century.

Surprise, surprise!

You have not prov8ded any passages that actually state Jesus suffered God's wrath.

You mean apart from Romans 3:25-26? You asked for one text and I gave it to you. If you would like more, here are Psalm 89:38; Isaiah 53:5-6, 10; Heb. 9:12-15; Rev. 5:9. But to make a single passage the test of Scripture is a wretched way of doing exegesis. Again I ask, why aren't you a Roman Catholic in the light of Matt. 26:26? There it is, as plain as a pikestaff; "This is My body." And where is the one text that proves the Trinity? You need to stop being so silly.

 

[JonC]

I agree with this. The 1689 Confession begins with the statement that, The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge and faith. @JonC does not agree with the 1689 Confession.

@JonC is not qualified to speak for Calvinists. God was really taking our punishment Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ.

@JonC wants us to believe that "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" Really means, "My God, My God, you haven't forsaken Me." However, he is correct when he says that Christ was forsaken to suffer, particularly during the three hours of darkness. Then, as we all know, the sun came out again, and our Lord could say, "It is finished," and it was. The period of being forsaken was ended because God's justice had been satisfied, except for our Lord's death which followed almost immediately.

The Bible does indeed say that God forgives sins. That is why God Himself, in the Person of Jesus Christ paid the penalty for our sins Himself, so that He might be 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.'

@JonC does not know the Bible. To take just two verses, Romans 5:8-9. 'But God demonstrates His own love towards us....' How? By forgiving our sins unilaterally? No! '.... In that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified....' By what? Simply by repentance? No! '..... By His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.'

No, because God did not take some random bloke and make him a scapegoat, but came Himself (Acts 20:28) in the Person of the Lord Jesus to pay the punishment for our sins.

Yep! Because the Bible says that is exactly what He did. One person paying for the sins of another does not work in God's eyes because they are both sinners. That is why it is said repeatedly of the Levitical sacrifices, that they must be 'without blemish' (Lev. 1:3 etc. Cf. 1 Peter 1:19)

Yes, that is why the New Covenant is described as being in Christ's blood (Luke 22:20 etc.). God must be 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.'

It means the same thing, as @JonC knows very well.

These are assumptions @JonC makes entirely without basis. The Reformers, who were almost all 'Calvinists' (even before Calvin wrote a word) suffered and died for Biblical truth and against Romanism.

The Bible treats sin as something 'metaphysical.' 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all' (Isaiah 53:6). 'And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins' (1 John 3:8)

God 'literally' forgives the sins of all whom He gave to Christ to save (John 6:39).

No one is made a new creation for whom Christ did not die (2 COr. 5:17).

'The LORD is well pleased for His righteousness' sake. He will exalt the law and make it honourable' (Isaiah 42:21). That was done by Christ upon the cross.

Amen.

BUt. ...NONE of thise verses state that what Jesus suffered was God's wrath.

That is my point.

You are not honest when it comes to presenting your faith.

You claim that your faith is not an understanding of what Scripture teaches but what is actually stated in the text of Scripture.

Then you turn around and cannot produce ANY passages that include your faith.

IF the philosophy that John Calvin devoted himself to while a student of law at the University of Orléans and the University of Bourges in France was incorrect then what you read into those passages is incorrect.

Your faith is extra-biblical because you lean on your own understanding rather rhan every word that comes forth from God.

 

[Zaatar71]

I agree with this. The 1689 Confession begins with the statement that, The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge and faith. @JonC does not agree with the 1689 Confession.

@JonC is not qualified to speak for Calvinists. God was really taking our punishment Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ.

@JonC wants us to believe that "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" Really means, "My God, My God, you haven't forsaken Me." However, he is correct when he says that Christ was forsaken to suffer, particularly during the three hours of darkness. Then, as we all know, the sun came out again, and our Lord could say, "It is finished," and it was. The period of being forsaken was ended because God's justice had been satisfied, except for our Lord's death which followed almost immediately.

The Bible does indeed say that God forgives sins. That is why God Himself, in the Person of Jesus Christ paid the penalty for our sins Himself, so that He might be 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.'

@JonC does not know the Bible. To take just two verses, Romans 5:8-9. 'But God demonstrates His own love towards us....' How? By forgiving our sins unilaterally? No! '.... In that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified....' By what? Simply by repentance? No! '..... By His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.'

No, because God did not take some random bloke and make him a scapegoat, but came Himself (Acts 20:28) in the Person of the Lord Jesus to pay the punishment for our sins.

Yep! Because the Bible says that is exactly what He did. One person paying for the sins of another does not work in God's eyes because they are both sinners. That is why it is said repeatedly of the Levitical sacrifices, that they must be 'without blemish' (Lev. 1:3 etc. Cf. 1 Peter 1:19)

Yes, that is why the New Covenant is described as being in Christ's blood (Luke 22:20 etc.). God must be 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.'

It means the same thing, as @JonC knows very well.

These are assumptions @JonC makes entirely without basis. The Reformers, who were almost all 'Calvinists' (even before Calvin wrote a word) suffered and died for Biblical truth and against Romanism.

The Bible treats sin as something 'metaphysical.' 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all' (Isaiah 53:6). 'And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins' (1 John 3:8)

God 'literally' forgives the sins of all whom He gave to Christ to save (John 6:39).

No one is made a new creation for whom Christ did not die (2 COr. 5:17).

'The LORD is well pleased for His righteousness' sake. He will exalt the law and make it honourable' (Isaiah 42:21). That was done by Christ upon the cross.

Amen.

Thank you Martin for this solid edifying post. You have clearly set forth the biblical teaching we understand to be truth and showed the contrast of the poster JohnC. I think you get the bulk of his angst in that you remain on point scripturally in a way that he cannot sneak past!
he does not think he is trying to sneak past, however examining his posts, we see the evidence of leaving out words, not defining words, repeating his mantra, as if it will make all posted references to the wrath of God against all sin,[even the sin of believers] just vanish, which of course would suggest God is unjust. Have you noticed one group of objectors who say, show me the exact wording that I want to see or I will not believe what you say, as I only go by what is written? for example ...it is as if JohnC is saying, Martin ...
show me a verse that says-JohnC> I have removed My wrath against all of the elect, My wrath has been turned away, that of course what the word propitiation is getting at! Unless I see those exact words "written" I will not believe the best of Pastors and teachers on it!Thanks again for your stedfast instruction that you have offered freely, to WHOSOEVER WILL,OR, EVERYONE BELIEVING!

 

[Zaatar71]

BUt. ...NONE of thise verses state that what Jesus suffered was God's wrath.

That is my point.

You are not honest when it comes to presenting your faith.

You claim that your faith is not an understanding of what Scripture teaches but what is actually stated in the text of Scripture.

Then you turn around and cannot produce ANY passages that include your faith.

IF the philosophy that John Calvin devoted himself to while a student of law at the University of Orléans and the University of Bourges in France was incorrect then what you read into those passages is incorrect.

Your faith is extra-biblical because you lean on your own understanding rather rhan every word that comes forth from God.

Or, you cannot comprehend what Martin has offered so you seek to be critical of him to make it as if he is not accurate.

 

[JonC]

No, i did not know you when you believed you were a Calvinist. I might have been able to help you at that time.

you can say what you want. But every Cal on here would know the truth by what i post.

Not so

well, do you have a book or a sermon or anything from back at that time? if you do, I would take a look, however who or what you are does not depend on my evaluation for sure. I help where I can.

You have not posted anything that demonstrates you know much of it. Anyone can quote a sentence of a theologian from the past, you could copy and paste the 1689, but that does not mean you have read, it , or studied it, or believe it.

that is why we will not agree at all.

you have turned away from all such posts, and your posts are erroneous to the max, talk about flawed logic!

leave martin alone, I and others enjoy his solid posting.

@Zaatar71

The people who were Calvinists and realized the error are the ones who are the most vocal against the philosophy because we are the ones who have seen the damage it has caused.

A person can be a Calvinist and a Christiann. A person can also be just a Calvinist.

I interact with you differently than I do with Martin because you do not understand Calvinism
You are not a Calvinist any more than a child who plays fireman is actually a fireman.

Now, I grant that you want to be a Calvinist, probably believe that you are. But you are are not at this time.

The reason we know this is you do not understand Calvinism or Reformed theology. You just hit the Cliff Notes ("Calvinism for Dummies) and repeat what you have seen. But you cannot interact with that understanding because it is not your belief.


I disagree with your theories, but at the same time I enjoy our interactions because I know that you do not actually believe those theories. You just want to fit in a group you admire.

The reason we do not agree, really the ONLY reason (our disagreements all boil down to one critical disagreement) is that I believe the judicial philosophy at the core of Calvinism is wrong.

As a law student John Calvin was a disciples of Rennasance Legal Humanism at the Universitties of Orléans and Bourges. This is the philosophy that Calvinism assumes to be divine justice. It did not work in France, but it did influence Western law (primarily in civil law).

I believe this philosophy is wrong (and is not justice at all). Remove that philosophy and Calvinism cannot be right.

If you ever become a Calvinist, rather than sitting as a fan in the stands cheering them on, you will understand what I mean. But until Reformed Theology is actually your belief, rather than another's belief you read about and quote, you will not understand Calvinism.


So here I discuss theology with you because we can look at doctrine. With Calvinism you and I both look at the Theology as outsiders.

I have been a Calvinist and left, you are not a Calvinist but want to be one.

If it were not for that fact I probably would not have bothered to interact with you. I already have Martin (I do not actually interact with him as much as use him, a tool). I do not need another.

The only reason you and I have been discussing this topic is that I realized early on that you were not actually Reformed and that while you wanted to understand Calvinism you were not yet there. They are your sports team. You are working to be on that team, but right now you are just reading their play book without really understanding the plays. Right now you are a fan. Maybe one day you will be on the team.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

BUt. ...NONE of thise verses state that what Jesus suffered was God's wrath.

Yes they do! Because you are too blind to see it does not mean that no one else can.

 

[Zaatar71]

@Zaatar71

The people who were Calvinists and realized the error are the ones who are the most vocal against the philosophy because we are the ones who have seen the damage it has caused.

A person can be a Calvinist and a Christiann. A person can also be just a Calvinist.

I interact with you differently than I do with Martin because you do not understand Calvinism
You are not a Calvinist any more than a child who plays fireman is actually a fireman.

Now, I grant that you want to be a Calvinist, probably believe that you are. But you are are not at this time.

The reason we know this is you do not understand Calvinism or Reformed theology. You just hit the Cliff Notes ("Calvinism for Dummies) and repeat what you have seen. But you cannot interact with that understanding because it is not your belief.


I disagree with your theories, but at the same time I enjoy our interactions because I know that you do not actually believe those theories. You just want to fit in a group you admire.

The reason we do not agree, really the ONLY reason (our disagreements all boil down to one critical disagreement) is that I believe the judicial philosophy at the core of Calvinism is wrong.

As a law student John Calvin was a disciples of Rennasance Legal Humanism at the Universitties of Orléans and Bourges. This is the philosophy that Calvinism assumes to be divine justice. It did not work in France, but it did influence Western law (primarily in civil law).

I believe this philosophy is wrong (and is not justice at all). Remove that philosophy and Calvinism cannot be right.

If you ever become a Calvinist, rather than sitting as a fan in the stands cheering them on, you will understand what I mean. But until Reformed Theology is actually your belief, rather than another's belief you read about and quote, you will not understand Calvinism.


So here I discuss theology with you because we can look at doctrine. With Calvinism you and I both look at the Theology as outsiders.

I have been a Calvinist and left, you are not a Calvinist but want to be one.

If it were not for that fact I probably would not have bothered to interact with you. I already have Martin (I do not actually interact with him as much as use him, a tool). I do not need another.

The only reason you and I have been discussing this topic is that I realized early on that you were not actually Reformed and that while you wanted to understand Calvinism you were not yet there. They are your sports team. You are working to be on that team, but right now you are just reading their play book without really understanding the plays. Right now you are a fan. Maybe one day you will be on the team.

So, as we zero in on your many errors you now resort to attack another of the growing list of messengers who see your inconsistencies, So your answer is now to suggest, I am not reformed in any way, and certainly not a Calvinist, because you make such a pronouncement as if you have been appointed the sole authority on what a Calvinist is and who can be a Calvinist!. Of course, why did I not see this sooner, lol
What is next JohnC are you going to pull a rabbit out of your hat? haha! Thanks for your thoughtful evaluation and infallible assessment. This is rich, I am a wannabe Calvinist, lololol!
That's fine as long as I never become a failed Calvinist who rejects scripture teaching as some have ! Thanks again for your words of edification!

 

[JonC]

Yes they do! Because you are too blind to see it does not mean that no one else can.

You prove my point.

Ronans 3:25-26. whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in God’s merciful restraint He let the sins previously committed go unpunished; for the demonstration, that is, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

The passage DOES NOT state Jesus suffered God's wrath.

The word "propitiation" DOES NOT mean "object of wrath".

That is why I use you so much. You are a tool that serves as a warning to others.

You tell us that you are not saying that passage teaches that Jesus suffered God's wrath because that would make your belief a theory.

So you say it literalky states that Jesus suffered God's wrath in the actual text.


But it could mean that Jesus is the propitiation for our sins. It could mean that in Christ God's wrath towards us is propitiated. Those are legitimate interpretations of the actual text.

The reason I use you as a tool to warn others is you actually read "Jesus suffered God's wrath" in the text.

There is a condition worse than blindness, and that is, seeing something that isn't there.

This is what I mean by being carried away by philosophy, no longer able to even discern the difference between the text of Scripture (God's words, "what is written") and your own understanding.

 

[JonC]

So, as we zero in on your many errors you now resort to attack another of the growing list of messengers who see your inconsistencies, So your answer is now to suggest, I am not reformed in any way, and certainly not a Calvinist, because you make such a pronouncement as if you have been appointed the sole authority on what a Calvinist is and who can be a Calvinist!. Of course, why did I not see this sooner, lol
What is next JohnC are you going to pull a rabbit out of your hat? haha! Thanks for your thoughtful evaluation and infallible assessment. This is rich, I am a wannabe Calvinist, lololol!
That's fine as long as I never become a failed Calvinist who rejects scripture teaching as some have ! Thanks again for your words of edification!

No. I am pointing out that you, personally, are not Reforned. You do not have a reformed belief.

This is something that CS Lewis mentioned (in a non-theological context). What you currently hold is another's belief, something that is not yet yours because you do not actually understand it. You have not worked it out. It is not your belief.

You are not a Calvinist. But that is what you want to be. And, unfortunately, you will probably get there ine day
But first you have to understand Calvinism. Right now you only know how Reformed Theology addresses some verses (you have memorized what they teach).

I would not call you a "wannabe" Calvinist as that is an insult. I am merely pointing out the fact that you are not Reformed. They are your "team" but right now you are just a fan. One day you may actually be on that team.


That is why I entertain your posts. You and I are outsiders on opposite ends of Reformed Theology. I was a Calvinist but left. You are at its door trying to get in.

 

[Zaatar71]

So, as we zero in on your many errors you now resort to attack another of the growing list of messengers who see your inconsistencies, So your answer is now to suggest, I am not reformed in any way, and certainly not a Calvinist, because you make such a pronouncement as if you have been appointed the sole authority on what a Calvinist is and who can be a Calvinist!. Of course, why did I not see this sooner, lol
What is next JohnC are you going to pull a rabbit out of your hat? haha! Thanks for your thoughtful evaluation and infallible assessment. This is rich, I am a wannabe Calvinist, lololol!
That's fine as long as I never become a failed Calvinist who rejects scripture teaching as some have ! Thanks again for your words of edification!

To any Calvinistic believers here, am I non reformed in my posts?
Am I Arminian in my posting, and trying desperately to make believe I am in some small way a Calvinist?
Are links or threads that I post suspect and not God centered?
Does JohnC as a failed Calvinist by his own testimony, who now speaks against it, Is he the authority on who is a Calvinist, or Can a Christian be a Calvinist also, or can a Calvinist even be a Christian?

So I ask, am I on the team yet?

​

 

[JonC]

To any Calvinistic believers here, am I non reformed in my posts?
Am I Arminian in my posting, and trying desperately to make believe I am in some small way a Calvinist?
Are links or threads that I post suspect and not God centered?
Does JohnC as a failed Calvinist by his own testimony, who now speaks against it, Is he the authority on who is a Calvinist, or Can a Christian be a Calvinist also, or can a Calvinist even be a Christian?

So I ask, am I on the team yet?

​

You are a fan. One way we can tell is your reliance on the works of other men.

I do not seek to have authority as a Calvinist. I am not longer a Calvinist.

In fact. I do not seek authority over doctrine at all (not even my doctrine).

I am simply saying thar what you call "being a Calvinist" and "being Reformed" is wrong. It is more than simoly accepting what Calvinists say and regurgitating that teaching at the right time. It is more than accepting the conclusions. It is understanding and actually believing the theology.

You do not understand Calvinism, nor are you Reformed. You simply holds the beliefs of Calvinists (they ate, at the moment, borrowed beliefs).

This is evident in your inability yo defend (or even recognize) the philosophies used by Calvinism. Since you do not grasp that you cannot explain why Calvinists understand divine justice. You simply know the answers.

An example - The student studying nuclear physics can memorize the interactions and pass the test, but if he never really learns the why of the interactions then he will never really be a nuclear physist. He os limited to the understanding of others.

But yes, I acknowledge that you accept the conclusions of Calvinism and Reformed theology. But this does not make you a Calvinist. You lack understanding of Reformed Theology (you hold a belief that is not yours).

You are not a Calvinist any more than I am a mechanic because I drive a car.

 

[JonC]

@Zaatar71.

You can prove me wrong. Defend the judicial philosophy upon which Calvinistic atonement is founded.

That is what I mean when I say you are not a Calvinist, nor do you believe Reformed Theology. You believe those things are correct, but you merely affirm their conclusions.

I tried to help you by suggesting you look at historical theology. I believe it would be a mistake, but if you have your heart set on being a Calvinist then you might as well get on with the work. No reason for you just to sit back and cheer on the team.

 

[Zaatar71]

You are a fan. One way we can tell is your reliance on the works of other men.

Any men I have quoted are far more gifted than I am. I can openly admit that.
You evidently think yourself superior to all men!

I do not seek to have authority as a Calvinist. I am not longer a Calvinist.

No one is ever going to accuse you of that. There is no proof anywhere for your claim , but you are certain you can know and judge the level of a persons reformed ideas.

I am simply saying thar what you call "being a Calvinist" and "being Reformed" is wrong.

It is more than simoly accepting what Calvinists say and regurgitating that teaching at the right time. It is more than accepting the conclusions. It is understanding and actually believing the theology.

You do not understand Calvinism, nor are you Reformed.

You simply holds the beliefs of Calvinists (they ate, at the moment, borrowed beliefs).

You are such an original thinker, there is no one else like you, except maybe Van

This is evident in your inability yo defend (or even recognize) the philosophies used by Calvinism.

your philosophy excuse again

Since you do not grasp that you cannot explain why Calvinists understand divine justice. You simply know the answers.

I see, I know the answers, but do not understand , or believe the answers I know

An example - The student studying nuclear physics can memorize the interactions and pass the test, but if he never really learns the why of the interactions then he will never really be a nuclear physist. He os limited to the understanding of others.

Of course, I forgot you have a secret Calvinist/ Reformed person test kit!

But yes, I acknowledge that you accept the conclusions of Calvinism and Reformed theology.

So, I accept the conclusions, but do not believe the things I accept. You are clearing it up

But this does not make you a Calvinist.

I wonder what I am???

You lack understanding of Reformed Theology (you hold a belief that is not yours).

OIC. so, if I mention Calvin, and your go to name, Beza, that let's me into the club?

You are not a Calvinist any more than I am a mechanic because I drive a car.

Well let's see what actual Calvinists say

 

[JonC]

Any men I have quoted are far more gifted than I am. I can openly admit that.
You evidently think yourself superior to all men!

No one is ever going to accuse you of that. There is no proof anywhere for your claim , but you are certain you can know and judge the level of a persons reformed ideas.







You are such an original thinker, there is no one else like you, except maybe Van

your philosophy excuse again

I see, I know the answers, but do not understand , or believe the answers I know

Of course, I forgot you have a secret Calvinist/ Reformed person test kit!

So, I accept the conclusions, but do not believe the things I accept. You are clearing it up

I wonder what I am???

OIC. so, if I mention Calvin, and your go to name, Beza, that let's me into the club?

Well let's see what actual Calvinists say

Me? No. I do not think that I am superior to others.

I am saying that you simoly are not a Calvinist. The belief you hold is not your own.

You prove it in this thread.

You defer to men you think ate superior, who really understand Calvinism, to tell you what to believe.

That means you are holding their beluef. You say that you are too inferior to understand Calvinism (I disagree, I tbink you are smart enough but simply have not bothered). This means that you are mot the Calvinist. You simply acceot as true what Calvinists tell you.

I can accept what my doctor tells me. That does not make me a doctor.

You are claiming a belief to which you have no right. You do not believe Reformed theology, you just believe Reformed Theology is correct