Continued from dead tulip

[JonC]

The problem is what is being denied. ,What is the atonement to be called? Isaiah 53:6, ". . . the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . ." Romans 6:23, ". . . the wages of sin is death . . . ." Romans 5:8, ". . . while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. . . ." What should this Biblically to be called?

That is my point.

I am not denying that the Lord laid the iniquity of us all on Christ. I am not Denyse ng that He became sin for us. I am not denying that Christ died for us. I am not denying that the wages of sin is death.

So how do you determine that my denial of things people believe in addition to Scripture is somehow a problem?

The real problem is they do not even acknowledge their additions.

 

[Reynolds]

That is my point.

I am not denying that the Lord laid the iniquity of us all on Christ. I am not Denyse ng that He became sin for us. I am not denying that Christ died for us. I am not denying that the wages of sin is death.

So how do you determine that my denial of things people believe in addition to Scripture is somehow a problem?

The real problem is they do not even acknowledge their additions.

One of the problems is that General Calvinists need everything to fit in a neat box. High Calvinists do not have that need.

 

[Reformed1689]

That is my point.

I am not denying that the Lord laid the iniquity of us all on Christ. I am not Denyse ng that He became sin for us. I am not denying that Christ died for us. I am not denying that the wages of sin is death.

So how do you determine that my denial of things people believe in addition to Scripture is somehow a problem?

The real problem is they do not even acknowledge their additions.

I honestly don't even think you know what you are denying to be honest.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

One of the problems is that General Calvinists need everything to fit in a neat box. High Calvinists do not have that need.

Yea, the High Calvinist middle name is Legalistic. They are highly puritanical there is absolutely no room for debate… they are right and you are wrong (and not saved).

 

[Reynolds]

Yea, the High Calvinist middle name is Legalistic. They are highly puritanical there is absolutely no room for debate… they are right and you are wrong (and not saved).

So that's how John Macarthur acts? Never saw that in him.

 

[Reformed1689]

Yea, the High Calvinist middle name is Legalistic. They are highly puritanical there is absolutely no room for debate… they are right and you are wrong (and not saved).

What are you talking about? I think @Reynolds would probably put me in the high Calvinist camp and I have never said those who don't follow Calvinism are not saved.

 

[JonC]

One of the problems is that General Calvinists need everything to fit in a neat box.

It is the interesting how some believe they have such a grasp on the mind of God when those like Moses, Job, Paul, John, etc. believed Him so far out of our reach (relying only on what He has revealed of Himself).

 

[Reynolds]

What are you talking about? I think @Reynolds would probably put me in the high Calvinist camp and I have never said those who don't follow Calvinism are not saved.

I consider you a high Calvinist. I agree, you don't seem to have those mentioned views/attitudes.

 

[kyredneck]

What are you talking about? I think @Reynolds would probably put me in the high Calvinist camp and I have never said those who don't follow Calvinism are not saved.

...you haven't caught on yet? Everyone has their own definition for 'high' or 'hyper'. I admit to being 'hyper-Monergist', which basically computes to 'Immediate Regeneration'.

Regeneration Is Immediate | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org

 

[JonC]

Jon, your unchecked presuppositions are noted.

No, they are not. That is just one issue with your posts.

Often it takes others to see our presuppositions. But you just say I have them (I'm sure I do) without being able to identify them.

What you should do is simply state my presuppositions so that I can consider them.

Moreso, your incapacity to exegete any Bible passage while railing against straw men you have created is also noted.

No, I am able to exegete passages. I have on this forum, but also throughout seminary (they made me). In studying God's Word it is also my practice. I often write out sermons as a study method (and to have a quick reference if needed on the spot).

The issue is you often ask for me to expound on a passage that needs no explanation. Jesus wept. What does that mean? It means Jesus wept. Christ died for us. What does that mean? It means that Christ died for us.

Our disagreements have absolutely nothing to do with Scripture. What you argue is not the Bible but what you believe is taught. I think most often what is taught is what is stated.

Sometimes I do use strawman. They can have a purpose. But with you I haven't (that I can recall).

As per your m. o. you provide empty words full of posture, yet with no substance. Like a peacock, you strut around with feathers out, but provide nothing of substance.

Not at all. When discussing my beliefs I have provided Scripture. Scripture is not without substance.

Just because you cannot see something does not mean it is not there.

There are people at the BB who intentionally promote human-centered philosophy and propose it to be gospel. Your posts follow that pattern.

I agree that some promote a human-centeted philosophy and promote it as the gospel. I see you doing exactly this often. We all probably do to an extent. We have life experiences, worldviews, etc. and all of this has an impact on our understanding.

While I could discuss philosophy, but when discussing the things of God I believe it proper to stick with God's Word. Let disagreements be in actual interpretation of what is written rather than extra-biblical ideas.

Congratulations in providing no spiritual edification to the board.

Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.

It is not my job or responsibility to teach you. I am here to discuss what I believe, what others believe, and the reasons.

If you came to the BB to be taught what to believe then you came to the wrong place. Go to church.

 

[Reformed1689]

I agree that some promote a human-centeted philosophy and promote it as the gospel. I see you doing exactly this often.

This is outrageous.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What are you talking about? I think @Reynolds would probably put me in the high Calvinist camp and I have never said those who don't follow Calvinism are not saved.

Did I say you? I spent a few years as an Orthodox Presbyterian and I’d consider them severe and legalistic. Allow me some comment I heard in that church points to illustrate:

-All those who are predestination unto salvation, Jesus Christ came and died for them, therefore the Holy Spirit will quicken each one of them and theySHALl hear with an effectual ear the gospel and rejoice in Christ as their Savior and be converted.

-Gospel Preachers are an inherent part of Gods work in the salvation of His elect and will be until the second coming.

-A certain amount of Christian orthodoxy is necessary to final salvation

I could go on but you probably take my point. I will repeat myself in saying that I find the judge mental spirit that calls the eternal destiny of others in question extremely disconcerting. My own wife has never made a public profession in baptism, nor has my son for that matter. Would they be considered unsaved because they don’t agree with the Baptistic style of church indoctrination? Both are good Christian’s and are very loving and supportive people to people who need help.

 

[Reformed1689]

I could go on but you probably take my point. I will repeat myself in saying that I find the judge mental spirit that calls the eternal destiny of others in question extremely disconcerting. My own wife has never made a public profession in baptism, nor has my son for that matter. Would they be considered unsaved because they don’t agree with the Baptistic style of church indoctrination? Both are good Christian’s and are very loving and supportive people to people who need help.

The better question would by, if they are saved, why have they not followed in obedience to be baptized?

 

[AustinC]

This is outrageous.

Indeed.
The OP provides no biblical foundation for his own opinions but opens thread after thread complaining about others. At this point it is a waste to respond to his non-edification and intentional discord.
There are a handful of people who have made it their mission to simply provoke with empty speech. Time to let this thread die and not respond to the empty words of the OP.

 

[JonC]

Indeed.
The OP provides no biblical foundation for his own opinions but opens thread after thread complaining about others. At this point it is a waste to respond to his non-edification and intentional discord.
There are a handful of people who have made it their mission to simply provoke with empty speech. Time to let this thread die and not respond to the empty words of the OP.

Nah. I have provided a very strong biblical foundation for what I believe. A more honest answer would have simply been that you think I am wrong.

This thread was a simple continuation of the one that was closed. You made some unfounded (or unsupported) statements.

I wanted to provide you an opportunity to post the presuppositions that you believe I hold so that I could consider your observations.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The better question would by, if they are saved, why have they not followed in obedience to be baptized?

Because they were infant baptized in Dutch Reformed and Presbyterian churches and they don’t see any reason to repeat the process. They are still children of God though, brought into the family. They don’t identify with the Baptists, that’s my thing. My wife is comfortable as a Reformed Presbyterian.

 

[37818]

The problem is what is being denied. What is the atonement to be called? Isaiah 53:6, ". . . the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . ." Romans 6:23, ". . . the wages of sin is death . . . ." Romans 5:8, ". . . while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. . . ." What should this Biblically to be called?

That is my point.

I am not denying that the Lord laid the iniquity of us all on Christ. I am not Denyse ng that He became sin for us. I am not denying that Christ died for us. I am not denying that the wages of sin is death.

So how do you determine that my denial of things people believe in addition to Scripture is somehow a problem?

The real problem is they do not even acknowledge their additions.

We disagree that anything is being added by giving one's understanding of the plain Biblical teaching a name of "Penal Substitution." You, as I understand your view, claim that understanding is adding to Scripture.

Do you have a better Biblical name for our Biblical atonement for what it does for us?

So to my question.

What should this Biblically to be called?

 

[JonC]

We disagree that anything is being added by giving one's understanding of the plain Biblical teaching a name of "Penal Substitution." You, as I understand your view, claim that understanding is adding to Scripture.

Do you have a better Biblical name for our Biblical atonement for what it does for us?

So to my question.

I do not care what teachings are called. I do care about what is taught.

What I believe is that major doctrines (like the doctrine of the Cross) should be in the text of Scripture.

The way I see it, when we start testing what we believe Scripture teaches against what we believe is taught by Scripture we have lost all objectivity. I believe we should test doctrine by what is written in Scripture.

The issue I have with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is it's presuppositions (as they are typically undefended, often unacknowledged) and that it's teachings are not actually in the Bible.

I understand that many think it is taught by Scripture. And I understand why. But it does not meet the standard (it fails the test) that I would require to accept. That is why I no longer accept the theory as correct.

We all have to decide what we will believe and what we will reject. And people have different standards and different views. That is fine. We argue doctrine and differences, but we do not judge Another's servant.

 

[Reformed1689]

Nah. I have provided a very strong biblical foundation for what I believe. A more honest answer would have simply been that you think I am wrong.

This thread was a simple continuation of the one that was closed. You made some unfounded (or unsupported) statements.

I wanted to provide you an opportunity to post the presuppositions that you believe I hold so that I could consider your observations.

All you have provided is humanist philosophy. Not biblical backing.

 

[Reformed1689]

Because they were infant baptized in Dutch Reformed and Presbyterian churches and they don’t see any reason to repeat the process. They are still children of God though, brought into the family. They don’t identify with the Baptists, that’s my thing. My wife is comfortable as a Reformed Presbyterian.

This is off topic, but as a note of encouragement to you for your family, you should tell them that is not biblical. It is repent and be baptized. Repentance comes first. Their infant baptism is not valid.