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.