Did God Kill His own Son Upon The Cross?

[percho]

:thumbs:

It was indeed a war between the kingdom of Satan and the kingdom of God.

Satan has been defeated.

Well I think we can at least say the beginning of the end has been seen and heard of.

I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where thy sting? O hell, where thy victory?

But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
Then the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

 

[percho]

BTW just to set the record straight I believe God gave, offered his only begotten son, as the offering for the sin of the world and he allowed his only begotten son to be slain by sinful men of which we are all guilty.

Jesus the only begotten of God the Father, the man child of Mary the virgin, the one seed of Abraham the Christ was obedient unto death even the death of the cross, shedding his sinless blood for the remission of our sins. It was an agonizing experience for him even to the point of, resisting unto blood, striving against sin. Compare Heb. 12:2-4 with Luke 22:42-44

The sin of being disobedient.

 

[Skandelon]

The noncalvinist cannot see the difference, because at the heart of his disagreement is a carnal sense of justice.

Once again, you beg the question. Either soteriological dogma, if it is not true, would be the "carnal sense of justice."

The biblical revelation of God's holy justice clearly teaches He doesn't even tempt men to sin. Your 'carnal sense of justice' suggests He not only causes the temptation but the choice of the tempted. That is unbiblical and thus carnal.

 

[zrs6v4]

Skandelon,

I missed your question to AA and myself on page 9, sorry I had let it go for a couple days. Anyway AA answered the question nicely and we discussed this topic a few times so I will agree with him and make a comment or two.

First, it is clear that God both determines the future and controls it. Arch gave the example of Joseph and a quotation from Mathew that shows God is sovereign. We can agree here without getting into specifics. Arch pointed out that He somehow controlled every good and evil act in Josephs life to bring about His plan for the Israelites to inhabit Egypt. I would add that all throughout redemptive history God had control even though He wasnt the direct cause of anything evil. Everything went Gods way according to His will. This is also true of Jesus life and death and all surrounding events.

This applies to every event because God wants us to know He is in control. It is error to make Him the cause of things such as bombings or molestation. Now what about natural disasters? Anyway, Arch would agree nothing happens in a way that we would call an accident or apart from Gods plan. It all works together.

Now admittedly, i have no idea how He can remain separate and in control of such great evils we see. Again, he doesnt cause or implant evil thoughts, but all evil is in His control and being used for His doings.

 

[Aaron]

Either soteriological dogma, if it is not true, would be the "carnal sense of justice."

When confronted with the doctrine of election, one dogma continually asks "why doth He yet find fault," and the other doesn't.

 

[Skandelon]

When confronted with the doctrine of election, one dogma continually asks "why doth He yet find fault," and the other doesn't.

We both have a doctrine of election, and both afford that question...just for different reasons.