Snuggling With Satan?

[Zaatar71]

Failed ideas is not a reason to start bring dishonest.

Hello Johnc
JohnC, you have a problem in that you accuse people of things that are not true. I am not being dishonest, and this is the third time you have said so.

I have asked you many times to defend your theology. Every time you give passages we all agree with and then tell me what it really teaches.

It is not my fault that you do not understand it. It Is not the fault of every Cal who tries to help you. We are not all dishonest, or whatever you accuse os of. You just do not understand it, so you start to lash out.

You have to explain your presuppositions because they get you from Scripture to what you believe the Bible really teaches.

My understanding (my stayed belief) is simply what God has said. God forgives our sins when we "repent", a "new heart", when we "die to sin", "turns from wickedness", "turns to God".

You say that you acceot my stated belief as true

No, let me clarify! I accept that you are free to believe what you think is true. I accept the same for Van, Charlie, and all those who do not agree. We can differ. That does not mean I am saying to you, yes Johnc I accept what you say is true, I do not. That should be clear by now!

but that God's actual words leave out the most important part - satisfying the demands of justice.

None of the Calvinists believe anything like that, but you are so used to repeating your new found mantra, that you are starting to believe it.When we post how and why we differ, you make denigrating comments, as if I asked you...JohnC ,have you stopped beating your wife, yet???
That would presuppose you were doing that, ask you to answer, the false charge, and then get ready to defend against the next accusation.That is what each of us has tried to communicate to you.

So I ask you to state and defend this philosophy of justice you are using.

You again call it a philosphy...I do not, so I am not going to defend against a false charge,

Then you start with the insults again.

No Johnc, I read your posts and basically say the same things back in your direction...for example...Jesus is God incarnate, did you not realize that Johnc, let me help you with that! Maybe if you learn the basics, than you will make progress...see , that is what you do, you tell Martin he believes Catholic doctrine, when he does not, you say we a re confused, go read your own posts to us. When we say that in your direction, you do not like it at all do you?

You start by misrepresenting what I have posted.

Back at you! That is your specialty .. each of us has said that to you!

That tells me what I already know. You have no clue why you hold your faith except that you like the vonclusions 9f one sect of men.

Here is a perfect example,you try to speak down to me, as if you know what you are talking about. Then accuse me as if I do not study scripture, which I do daily. Where do you get off saying this? Youcan do it if you want, but it does not make it true.

That is what I mean by you not realky being a Calvinist.

I have for got more Calvinistic teaching than you will ever know. Yet you accuse me over and over. Your accusations are foolish.

You adopt the conclusions of these men but cannot grasp how they got there.

another accusation, see ,right here! Now who is being dishonest? It is you my friend ,
JohnC! Take a poll, see what others say.

This is different for actual Calvinists.

You have shown your self to be clueless and unqualified to make such a foul accusation. Your comments betray your posting.

Calvin, for example, explained how he developed Penal SubstitutionTheor.

I do not care much what Calvin saw. I am glad he saw much that people find helpful, but I study on my own. Do I fine tune what I have found, certainly I do. I am not a lone ranger, who says, look at me, I alone have found the correct way to come to truth, when no onwe in Church hsitery agrees with you. nevertheless you set yourself up as Judge over other believers.

He explained his judicial philosophy. You simply regurgitate their conclusions.

I have not quoted Calvin at all. I do not need to. I can offer my own verses.

If you want to resume an honest discussion then start at the point where you ran away.

I am not that interested in your posts, as you insist on three or four accusations when you post to avoid the doctrines of grace. You mostly copy and paste you same false ideas, over and over. There is very little to glean from your posts.

What is the purpose of punishment?

Why is it impossible for God to forgive actual sins?

Why does the Atonement fall under divine justice?

You have been offered many clear verses on how violators of the law are under the wrath of God...not evil men.not Satan, not Demons, the wrath of God abides on them.You oppose this. How can repeating all the verses be of any help, you are in unbelief on them. That can only come from God.

 

[Zaatar71]

We differ on what the Bible actually teaches.

Yes

I believe the Bible teaches "what is written" in the biblical text (God's actual words) and tgat we must conform our understanding to His words.

All the Calvinists do also.

You believe the Bible teaches what men say the Bible really teaches.

I and other Calvinists are on the same page as to what the bible teaches, you are not.

But you cannot defend how you get from God's words to what those men have told you to believe (you do not understand the thought process in the beliefs you have borrowed from other men).

A false accusation once again.

But yes, I have offered God's words. You criticized me for it, saying snybody can quote Scripture. And you were right. Anybody can quote Scripture.

yes

But not just anybody can believe "the words that come forth from God" as many end up "leaning on their own understanding".

you accuse once again, but it is right back at you.

That said, if you ever find yourself able to legitimately posses the belief you correctly borrow then I am willing to listen to how you move from God's words to what you think it teaches.

I will keep you posted on that.lol

 

[Zaatar71]

Nope. If I were doing it to you then I would say you were replying in kind.

You might not be aware of it, but at least 5 posters that I have seen in the last few weeks, have posted that to YOU, and asked you to stop.Go read over your posts.

That is why I respond to @Martin Marprelate as I do (we have a long history).

I have seen him say several times, he wants you to stop doing that, but you persist.

But I was legitimately hoping you and I could have an honest conversation.

maybe at some other time, but I am not going to respond to false allegations

What you did was join the pack - jump into the frey because of how I responded to a member who agrees with the belief you are currently affiliated with. That is another readon I believe you are not truly a Calvinist. Rather than engaging in our conversation you defend members of the camp you admire.

I do defend brothers under attack. they also Have my back...That is what brothers do ,right? Ask the men you speak of if they think i am a Calvinist, or an arminian?

 

[JonC]

Hello Johnc
JohnC, you have a problem in that you accuse people of things that are not true. I am not being dishonest, and this is the third time you have said so.

It is not my fault that you do not understand it. It Is not the fault of every Cal who tries to help you. We are not all dishonest, or whatever you accuse os of. You just do not understand it, so you start to lash out.

No, let me clarify! I accept that you are free to believe what you think is true. I accept the same for Van, Charlie, and all those who do not agree. We can differ. That does not mean I am saying to you, yes Johnc I accept what you say is true, I do not. That should be clear by now!

None of the Calvinists believe anything like that, but you are so used to repeating your new found mantra, that you are starting to believe it.When we post how and why we differ, you make denigrating comments, as if I asked you...JohnC ,have you stopped beating your wife, yet???
That would presuppose you were doing that, ask you to answer, the false charge, and then get ready to defend against the next accusation.That is what each of us has tried to communicate to you.

You again call it a philosphy...I do not, so I am not going to defend against a false charge,

No Johnc, I read your posts and basically say the same things back in your direction...for example...Jesus is God incarnate, did you not realize that Johnc, let me help you with that! Maybe if you learn the basics, than you will make progress...see , that is what you do, you tell Martin he believes Catholic doctrine, when he does not, you say we a re confused, go read your own posts to us. When we say that in your direction, you do not like it at all do you?

Back at you! That is your specialty .. each of us has said that to you!

Here is a perfect example,you try to speak down to me, as if you know what you are talking about. Then accuse me as if I do not study scripture, which I do daily. Where do you get off saying this? Youcan do it if you want, but it does not make it true.

I have for got more Calvinistic teaching than you will ever know. Yet you accuse me over and over. Your accusations are foolish.

another accusation, see ,right here! Now who is being dishonest? It is you my friend ,
JohnC! Take a poll, see what others say.

You have shown your self to be clueless and unqualified to make such a foul accusation. Your comments betray your posting.

I do not care much what Calvin saw. I am glad he saw much that people find helpful, but I study on my own. Do I fine tune what I have found, certainly I do. I am not a lone ranger, who says, look at me, I alone have found the correct way to come to truth, when no onwe in Church hsitery agrees with you. nevertheless you set yourself up as Judge over other believers.

I have not quoted Calvin at all. I do not need to. I can offer my own verses.

I am not that interested in your posts, as you insist on three or four accusations when you post to avoid the doctrines of grace. You mostly copy and paste you same false ideas, over and over. There is very little to glean from your posts.

You have been offered many clear verses on how violators of the law are under the wrath of God...not evil men.not Satan, not Demons, the wrath of God abides on them.You oppose this. How can repeating all the verses be of any help, you are in unbelief on them. That can only come from God.

What I mean is you were dishonest when you asked for an honest discussion rather than trading insults. That was not an honest ask. If it were then we would be having a legitimate conversation right now.

You and I were discussing the Atonement and how we differ in our positions.

You asked how I would explain God laying our iniquity on Christ if not removing sin from us to put on Him.

I offered that the Bible uses this laying on and bearing in two scenarios
God lays our sins on Jesus.
God lays Jesus' righteous on us
Jesus bears our sins
We bear His righteousness

I gave the example of wrapping one in righteousness, or sin. I said you can think of it like a blanket (older pastors used this imagery instead of "garmet" and "robe" to illustrate this righteousness is God's righteousness and we are bring conformed, a future glorification....they used "a blanket of righteousness").

Rather than discussing the actual point you chose to start a thread to insult me.


How can that not mean you accepting my offer and desire to have a legitimate discussion to have been a dishonest action?

 

[JonC]

I do defend brothers under attack. they also Have my back...That is what brothers do ,right? Ask the men you speak of if they think i am a Calvinist, or an arminian?

You have not defended me or any other non-Calvinist when under attack. In fact, you have joined those doing the attacking.

I do argue against doctrines I believe are wrong (not interpretations but doctrines that are foreign to the text of Scripture). That is not attacking people.

Yes, I often respond to people in kind (like with Martin). But I do not know Martin (or you). I am responding against the belief we are to lean on our understanding as opposed to the actual words of God.


I do not believe it matters what other people think. If you were a Calvinist or Arminian I would view you as making the same mistake. Both are wrong for the same reason.

My point was not that you are not a member of a camp. I was not saying you had to give up your Calvinist hat.

I was simply pointing out that you hold a belief you borrowed from others. It is not actually your beluef. You accept the conclusions of Calvinists but are unable to arrive at those conclusions. You are not a Cslvinist in that the belief you hold is borrowed.

 

[JonC]

Yes

All the Calvinists do also.

I and other Calvinists are on the same page as to what the bible teaches, you are not.

A false accusation once again.

yes

you accuse once again, but it is right back at you.

I will keep you posted on that.lol

No, Calvinists do not believe that what is taught in the Bible are God's words ("what is written"). Instead they believe that God's words are teaching things other than the biblical text.

This is why you cannot highlight your beliefs in the Bible (in the actual text).

You have to provide explanation by quoting men who have worked out conclusions you agree with.

 

[JonC]

@Zaatar71

I believe we have identified where your understabding fails (it fails where you stopped engaging and started insulting).

So I will bring is back there.

What does punishment accomplish?

 

[37818]

A penal subscription, Isaiah 53:6, All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

 

[MrW]

What is PSA?

 

[Zaatar71]

What is PSA?

Penal Substitutionary Atonement ;
Penal substitutionary atonement is a Christian theological doctrine that posits Jesus Christ's death was a substitutionary sacrifice for humanity's sins, taking the "penalty" or "punishment" for those sins in place of humanity to satisfy God's wrath and justice.
God, as a holy judge, requires that all sins be punished, and Christ, as a substitute, bore the penalty so that believers could be forgiven and reconciled to God through faith. This view is central to the gospel message for many Protestants and is supported by various biblical passages.
FROM GOT QUESTIONS;
In the simplest possible terms, the biblical doctrine of penal substitution holds that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross takes the place of the punishment we ought to suffer for our sins. As a result, God’s justice is satisfied, and those who accept Christ can be forgiven and reconciled to God.

The word penal means “related to punishment for offenses,” and substitution means “the act of a person taking the place of another.” So, penal substitution is the act of a person taking the punishment for someone else’s offenses. In Christian theology, Jesus Christ is the Substitute, and the punishment He took (at the cross) was ours, based on our sin (1 Peter 2:24).

According to the doctrine of penal substitution, God’s perfect justice demands some form of atonement for sin. Humanity is depraved, to such an extent that we are spiritually dead and incapable of atoning for sin in any way (Ephesians 2:1). Penal substitution means Jesus’ death on the cross propitiated, or satisfied, God’s requirement for justice. God’s mercy allows Jesus to take the punishment we deserve for our sins. As a result, Jesus’ sacrifice serves as a substitute for anyone who accepts it. In a very direct sense, Jesus is exchanged for us as the recipient of sin’s penalty.

Penal substitution is clearly taught by the Bible. In fact, much of what God did prior to Jesus’ ministry was to foreshadow this concept and present it as the purpose of the Messiah. In Genesis 3:21, God uses animal skins to cover the naked Adam and Eve. This is the first reference to a death (in this case, an animal’s) being used to cover (atone for) sin. In Exodus 12:13, God’s Spirit “passes over” the homes that are covered (atoned) by the blood of the sacrifice. God requires blood for atonement in Exodus 29:41–42. The description of Messiah in Isaiah 53:4–6 says His suffering is meant to heal our wounds. The fact that the Messiah was to be “crushed for our iniquities” (verse 5) is a direct reference to penal substitution.

During and after Jesus’ ministry, penal substitution is further clarified. Jesus claims to be the “good shepherd” who lays down His life for the sheep in John 10:10. Paul, in Romans 3:25–26, explains that we have the righteousness of Christ because of the sacrifice of Christ. In 2 Corinthians 5:21, he says that the sinless Christ took on our sins. Hebrews 9:26 says that our sins were removed by the sacrifice of Christ. First Peter 3:18 plainly teaches that the righteous was substituted for the unrighteous.

There are quite a few different theories about how, exactly, Christ’s sacrifice frees us from the penalty of sin. Penal substitution is the most logically and biblically sound view.

 

[MrW]

Thank you, Zaatar71. Sounds right, to me.

 

[Zaatar71]

Thank you, Zaatar71. Sounds right, to me.

This is the mainstream view. One or two are inventing their own doctrine and novelty ideas that are sub biblical, even as they try and claim the bible for their base???

 

[JesusFan]

Failed ideas is not a reason to start bring dishonest.

I have asked you many times to defend your theology. Every time you give passages we all agree with and then tell me what it really teaches.

You have to explain your presuppositions because they get you from Scripture to what you believe the Bible really teaches.

My understanding (my stayed belief) is simply what God has said. God forgives our sins when we "repent", a "new heart", when we "die to sin", "turns from wickedness", "turns to God".

You say that you acceot my stated belief as true but that God's actual words leave out the most important part - satisfying the demands of justice.

So I ask you to state and defend this philosophy of justice you are using.

Then you start with the insults again. You start by misrepresenting what I have posted.


That tells me what I already know. You have no clue why you hold your faith except that you like the vonclusions 9f one sect of men.

That is what I mean by you not realky being a Calvinist. You adopt the conclusions of these men but cannot grasp how they got there.

This is different for actual Calvinists. Calvin, for example, explained how he developed Penal SubstitutionTheor. He explained his judicial philosophy. You simply regurgitate their conclusions.


If you want to resume an honest discussion then start at the point where you ran away.

What is the purpose of punishment?

Why is it impossible for God to forgive actual sins?

Why does the Atonement fall under divine justice?

God CANNOT just excuse away our past sins, for they incurred Him to have a Holy wrath towards us and to judge us as guilty before the Law, so he cannot just pat us on the head and tell us just act better now

 

[JesusFan]

We differ on what the Bible actually teaches.

I believe the Bible teaches "what is written" in the biblical text (God's actual words) and tgat we must conform our understanding to His words.

You believe the Bible teaches what men say the Bible really teaches. But you cannot defend how you get from God's words to what those men have told you to believe (you do not understand the thought process in the beliefs you have borrowed from other men).

But yes, I have offered God's words. You criticized me for it, saying snybody can quote Scripture. And you were right. Anybody can quote Scripture. But not just anybody can believe "the words that come forth from God" as many end up "leaning on their own understanding".


That said, if you ever find yourself able to legitimately posses the belief you correctly borrow then I am willing to listen to how you move from God's words to what you think it teaches.

We do actually hold to what the Bible teaches, as we are not inventing some new novel theology, as our views go right back to the Apostles themselves, and formulated by vast majority of reformed, Baptists, and Non Calvinist even

 

[JesusFan]

This is the mainstream view. One or two are inventing their own doctrine and novelty ideas that are sub biblical, even as they try and claim the bible for their base???

The Reformed and Baptist and even Evangelical view regrading Pauline Justification would be seen as Psa atonement