The Enemies Of The Cross of Christ:

[Zaatar71]

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

So, i cannot follow Jesus and the Apostles teaching, because it is not my own? What are you posting about!

 

[JonC]

So, i cannot follow Jesus and the Apostles teaching, because it is not my own? What are you posting about!

You? I do not know what you can or cannot follow.

You follow Calvinism. But my point is youvare nit a Calvinist.

Just doing what Hesus and the Apostles did is one thing. Actual belief is another.

I am posting about you and Calvinism (you started this discussion). I am saying that you are not a Calvinist. You do not believe Reformed Theology.

Instead you believe that the conclusions of Calvinism is correct.

There is a difference (one you should understand).

 

[Zaatar71]

You? I do not know what you can or cannot follow.

You follow Calvinism. But my point is youvare nit a Calvinist.

Just doing what Hesus and the Apostles did is one thing. Actual belief is another.

I am posting about you and Calvinism (you started this discussion). I am saying that you are not a Calvinist. You do not believe Reformed Theology.

Instead you believe that the conclusions of Calvinism is correct.

There is a difference (one you should understand).

I believe what Jesus and the Apostles taught was Calvinism, fully expounded

 

[JonC]

I believe what Jesus and the Apostles taught was Calvinism, fully expounded

No, you do not. Because you do not understand Calvinism.

You believe that the conclusion of Calvinists accurately teaches what the Bible teaches.

Those are very different things. Calvinism is not its conclusions. It includes how it goes from the text of Scrioture to its conclusions.

Calvinism itself is a systematic theology. It looks at the Bible as a whole, looks at other theologies and tries to "iron out" any wrinkles, reasons out biblical events, incorporates philosophies and understandings.

For you to understand Calvinism you woukd have to understand how Calvinists go from the Biblical text to what they think the biblical text teaches. You only know the biblical text and what Calvinists say that text teaches.

That is why you are not actually a Calvinist. You just agree with the conclusions of Calvinists.

For example, you do not even understand the Calvinistic philosophy of justice (and Calvinism focuses the Cross on divine justice). You just claim to be a Calvinist as a short cut to say you agree with the conclusions of actual Calvinists. But you do not even understand those conclusions because you do not understand how they were arrived at.

 

[Zaatar71]

No, you do not. Because you do not understand Calvinism.

You believe that the conclusion of Calvinists accurately teaches what the Bible teaches.

Those are very different things. Calvinism is not its conclusions. It includes how it goes from the text of Scrioture to its conclusions.

Calvinism itself is a systematic theology. It looks at the Bible as a whole, looks at other theologies and tries to "iron out" any wrinkles, reasons out biblical events, incorporates philosophies and understandings.

For you to understand Calvinism you woukd have to understand how Calvinists go from the Biblical text to what they think the biblical text teaches. You only know the biblical text and what Calvinists say that text teaches.

That is why you are not actually a Calvinist. You just agree with the conclusions of Calvinists.

For example, you do not even understand the Calvinistic philosophy of justice (and Calvinism focuses the Cross on divine justice). You just claim to be a Calvinist as a short cut to say you agree with the conclusions of actual Calvinists. But you do not even understand those conclusions because you do not understand how they were arrived at.

Or I do understand the teaching and you never have. That is more likely as you confess how you are not believing it.

 

[JonC]

Or I do understand the teaching and you never have. That is more likely as you confess how you are not believing it.

Not a logical option. You already said that you rely on men superior to you. You already said you rely on Confessions.

If you understood Calvinism then you would be able to explain the philosophy you use to define justice (thus far you seen oblivious to the development of the theology you want to believe....you just say people "ironed out" all of those wrinkles....you don't know how or even what those wrinkles were).

You hold a belief that is not yours. You only know what Calvinists (those who actually understand the theology) have told you to believe.

You are not a Calvinist. You rely on Calvinists. But you are not a Calvinist any more than relying on what a doctor telks you majes you a doctor.

I can say I was a Calvinist not because I believed what they said is true but because I read and studied Anselm and Calvin's Institutes. I know how the theology developed. I read Calvin's commentary on judicial philosophy. I held that philosophy. I arrived at the same conclusions. Calvinism was my belief. Then I realized one error. Then another (Calvinism is a tightly developed theology, its strength is also its weakness...it has to be right in most of its parts because they interlock).

That is why it bothers me to see people like you who jump on the bandwagon and claim to believe you are something you do not understand. You are not a Calvinist because you have not put in the work.

 

[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.

John never explains anything like he might quote:
'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all' John has no clue what this means, If someone asks him, he has no reply.How was the iniquity in some way, laid on Christ? he never has an answer. When the text says The iniquity was laid on Him, John has no answer.

 

[JonC]

John never explains anything like he might quote:
'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all' John has no clue what this means, If someone asks him, he has no reply.How was the iniquity in some way, laid on Christ? he never has an answer. When the text says The iniquity was laid on Him, John has no answer.

I do not understand what part of that verse is giving you trouble.

The Lord is referring to God.
The "He" is Jesus".
"Iniquity" means "wickedness"

Put it together.

It means that God laid on Jesus the iniquity of us all.


You complain that I do not explain that verse to you. But it makes sence to me as written. You have to tell me what part you do not understand (what part you need explained).

 

[Zaatar71]

I do not understand what part of that verse is giving you trouble.

The Lord is referring to God.
The "He" is Jesus".
"Iniquity" means "wickedness"

Put it together.

It means that God laid on Jesus the iniquity of us all.


You complain that I do not explain that verse to you. But it makes sence to me as written. You have to tell me what part you do not understand (what part you need explained).

How did He lay the iniquity on him?
If someone asks you what that actually means?
Exactly what does that mean? I did not ask you to quote the verse.
I asked you what does it mean?
You cannot answer. The verse does not give me any trouble, just you.

 

[JonC]

@Zaatar71

You ate looking for explanations for things you do not understand, and that is good.

But you need to first read God's Word. Just asking questions is not a good practice. First read God's Word.

I recommend reading Genesis 1-3, then Matthew and John. Most of the things that are causing you confusion will be cleared up.

It is the teach a man to fish idea. Stop trying to short cut God.

Be patient, study Scripture. More and more will become clear (the Spirit teaches us, illuminates "what is written"..

 

[Zaatar71]

How did He lay the iniquity on him?
If someone asks you what that actually means?
Exactly what does that mean? I did not ask you to quote the verse.
I asked you what does it mean?
You cannot answer. The verse does not give me any trouble, just you.

you did not answer here. We all know why.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 1100 GMT; 6 am EST