A question just to start things off.

[civic]

In the end, it was our sin that killed him in a manner of speaking.

Just because the Father enacts the penalty of justice on our behalf upon Christ to bear our sins does not mean:

1. God doesn't love Jesus.
2. God just wants to hurt people.
3. God is a big ole meanie who liked killing Jesus.
4. The Father and Jesus were at odds with each other.

All these and most of what you keep bringing up are what they call "big old fat straw man."

Now some clever debaters have started employing the term "steel man" your opponent, give the best argument in the best light.

I never see you or many detractors really "steel man" a legitimate penal substitution, it's all emotive floundering.

We know the Father:

1. Planned Jesus' death.
2. Orchestrated the circumstances Jesus' death.
3. Deliberately sent Jesus for the purpose of dying.

Now you take that in a any court of law and say, "But the person who planned, orchestrated, and deliberately sent the victim to their death, as not a murderer, your honor! He didn't really kill him, only the people who actually pulled the proverbial trigger."

If I send you into a lion's den, I can't blame the lion for killing you and say I'm completely innocent.

If I set you up to take a wrong turn and end up in a back alley full of thugs, I can't say only the thugs really killed you.

You would just be going into denial at that point, and even the Bible backs up using other killers as a secondary means as merely using an instrument to kill someone: God told King David that he had Uriah murdered "by the sword of the Ammonites."

Now, according to your spectacular logic here, King David didn't really murder Uriah, after all, it was just the big mean old Ammonites that King David planned, orchestrated, and deliberately sent Uriah into.

That's not a straw man—that's an exact correlation.

And now you have another problem—Jesus himself said he came to die. Neither of us think Jesus was committing suicide here, so why did Jesus deliberately say it was for this very purpose he came.

Jesus did not say "Well, it turned out kinda bad, and some bad people are gonna do some bad things cause this is a bad place."

No.

Jesus said he came for this very purpose because the Father commanded him to come exactly for this purpose.

The silly overly-emotional, soulish, poorly reasoned arguments against penal substitution are easily seen to be shallow caricatures of anything real.

There is real sense in which we can say all the following:

1. The Father killed Jesus.
2. Jesus killed himself.
3. The soldiers killed Jesus.
4. The Pharisees killed Jesus.
5. All of Israel killed Jesus.
6. Caesar himself killed Jesus.
7. Our sin killed Jesus.
8. The Triune love of God killed Jesus.

It's just a fact of holiness and justice that sin must be punished.

Let's not let the devil steal the seed of the Word from our heart!

You have made a philosophical not a biblical argument. Mine is based solely upon Scripture and the One who is the Savior, Redeemer and what He said about His very own atonement for sin. You are defending a 16th century doctrine that is from the Reformation and did not exist until that time.

I will repeat the biblical defense that PSA is not the biblical model of the Atonement.

Scripture clearly placed that blame on man, not God.
How did God view His own death, atonement for sin ?

1- Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13

2-No man takes my life I lay it down and I will take it up again- John 10:18

3- I lay My life down for the sheep- John 10:15

4- Destroy this temple and in 3 days I will raise it up again. John 2:19

5-just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many- Matthew 20:28

6-I Am the Good Shepherd who lays down His life for the sheep- substitution, John 10:11

7-Jesus said in John 11:50- nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish- substitution

8-Jesus tells His disciples the cup of suffering that awaited Him and that they too would also drink of this cup- Matthew 20

9-This is my blood of the Covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins- Matthew 26:28

10- Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing- Luke 23:34

Who was responsible for His death by torture snd punishment , wrath ?

Acts 2:23
this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

Acts 2:36
“Therefore, let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”

Acts 4:10- Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole…

Acts 5:30- The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree

Matthew 16:21
From that time on Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and that He must be killed and on the third day be raised to life

Matthew 20:18-19
“We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will deliver Him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. And on the third day He will be raised to life."

Matthew 27:1- When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:

Matthew 27:35- When they had crucified Him, they divided up His garments by casting lots.

Mark 15:24- And they crucified Him. They also divided His garments by casting lots to decide what each of them would take

Nothing penal is mentioned in the NT about the atonement . That alone should make anyone think twice about what they have been told and taught it means .

There is no penal aspect/ language Isaiah used that is carried over in the N.T. but that of substitution. Isaiah 53:4- WE (not God) considered Him punished by God.

continued below

 

[civic]

continued:

The following NT passages quote Isaiah 53: Matthew 8:14-17; Mark 15:27-32; John 12:37-41; Luke 22:35-38; Acts 8:26-35; Romans 10:11-21; and 1 Peter 2:19-25. Not one of them uses any penal language where PSA gets its doctrine from in Isaiah 53 in the New Testament.

Notice above not once does any NT writer mention Isaiah 53:10the one verse PSA is based upon.

PSA entire theology is based from a solitary verse ripped away from the rest of scripture and in isolation .

I will let the renown Calvinist Dr Barnes speak on the passage.

To bruise him - (See the notes at Isaiah 53:5). The word here is the infinitive of Piel. 'To bruise him, or his being bruised, was pleasing to Yahweh;' that is, it was acceptable to him that he should be crushed by his many sorrows. It does not of necessity imply that there was any positive and direct agency on the part of Yahweh in bruising him, but only that the fact of his being thus crushed and bruised was acceptable to him

conclusion: The One who made Atonement for my sins completely left out PSA and not once mentioned it or hinted at it in any way, shape or form. There was no wrath from the Father to the Son. The anger, wrath,vengeance, retribution as the Apostles taught in Acts and Jesus taught in the gospels came from evil and wicked men.


hope this helps !!

 

[civic]

Ok...one more time and I'm done with this argument.

Irrelevant my friend. This was the plan of God from before the foundation of the world. God also uses humans as the means to proclaim His Gospel. Odd but true. He could do so by Angels standing in the center of the sun....but no. He chose humans for the task He decreed.

So all you really can say is "both".

Yes it was Gods plan including the Son's from before the foundation of the world that He would be the Lamb who was slayed. And like I pointed out in my previous post those responsible for His death Peter lets us know in Acts- And Jesus agrees too. Jesus did not suffer at Gods hand it was at the hands of wicked men- the most atrocious evil act in all of History. Like with Josephs brothers- what you meant for evil, God meant for good.

Acts 2:36
“Therefore, let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”

Acts 4:10- Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole…

Acts 5:30- The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree

Matthew 16:21
From that time on Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and that He must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Arial]

conclusion: The One who made Atonement for my sins completely left out PSA and not once mentioned it or hinted at it in any way, shape or form. There was no wrath from the Father to the Son. The anger, wrath,vengeance, retribution as the Apostles taught in Acts and Jesus taught in the gospels came from evil and wicked men.

Here is the definition of penal as it seems people are actually talking sideways of each other in this argument. Smoke coming out ears in the process.

Penal: Of, or relating to, or prescribing punishment, as for breaking the law.


Sin is breaking the law of God (not Sinai covenant Law in this case). Sin is transgressing God's holiness, the image and likeness of whom we were created to bear. There is a penal code for sin declared by a perfectly just God, and that penalty is death with no possibility of being reconciled to God. This decree of God was declared to Adam from the very beginning.

It is not Jesus who is being punished by God on the cross. It is sin. It is Jesus who substituted Himself in our place to bear the punishment for sin, that in doing so He would defeat the power of sin and death in one fell swoop, over those who are in Him through faith. It is God's justice against sin that is being met by Jesus on the cross, that God may extend saving mercy to the sinner. It is justice and mercy that kiss on the cross.

Only Jesus could do this for only Jesus had no sin of His own, therefore it is only Jesus that death could not hold. Because He did this, sin cannot condemn those united to Him and death cannot hold them either. Their sins met God's justice in Christ on the cross.

Nevertheless, it was wicked men, sinners every one, who killed Him, and even though it was God's will and Christ's will that this should happen, those who killed Him are responsible for their actions. They killed Him because they wanted to.

God's sovereign will, His sovereign goodness, runs along man's responsibility to God. One does not cancel the other out.

 

[civic]

Here is John Piper

One of my friends who used to be a pastor in Illinois was preaching to a group of prisoners in a state prison during Holy Week several years ago. At one point in his message, he paused and asked the men if they knew who killed Jesus.


Some said the soldiers did. Some said the Jews did. Some said Pilate. After there was silence, my friend said simply, “His Father killed him.”


That’s what the first half of Romans 8:32 says: God did not spare his own Son but handed him over — to death. “This Jesus [was] delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). Isaiah 53 puts it even more bluntly, “We esteemed him stricken, smitten by God. . . . It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he (his Father!) has put him to grief” (Isaiah 53:4, 10).


Or as Romans 3:25 says, “God put [him] forward as a propitiation by his blood.” Just as Abraham lifted the knife over the chest of his son Isaac, but then spared his son because there was a ram in the thicket, so God the Father lifted his knife over the chest of his own Son, Jesus — but did not spare him, because he was the ram; he was the substitute.

Here is John MacArthur

A Shocking Truth​

The reality of Christ’s vicarious, substitutionary death on our behalf is the heart of the gospel according to God—the central theme of Isaiah 53.

We must remember, however, that sin did not kill Jesus; God did. The suffering servant’s death was nothing less than a punishment administered by God for sins others had committed. That is what we mean when we speak of penal substitutionary atonement. Again, if the idea seems shocking and disturbing, it is meant to be. Unless you recoil from the thought, you probably haven’t grasped it yet. “Our God is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29). This is one of the major reasons the gospel is a stumbling block to Jews, and it’s sheer foolishness as far as Gentiles are concerned (1 Cor. 1:23). “But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, [the message of Christ crucified embodies both] the power of God and the wisdom of God” (v. 24).

And Voddie below :

Voddie Baucham says in the film: “Yeah, God killed Jesus. But did Jesus go to the cross unwillingly? No”

 

[civic]

And here are more quotes which is why I'm no longer reformed or a calvinist. its at the heart of doctrine of PSA.

"O! can ye tell the greatness of that love, which made the everlasting God not only put his Son upon the altar, but actually do the deed, and thrust the sacrificial knife into his Son's heart? Can you think how overwhelming must have been the love of God toward the human race, when he completed in act what Abraham only did in intention? Look ye there, and see the place where his only Son hung dead upon the cross, the bleeding victim of awakened justice! Here is love indeed; and here we see how it was, that it pleased the Father to bruise him."

• Charles Spurgeon ( https://archive.spurgeon.org/sermons/0173.php )

"The sufferings of the Saviour were not purely natural, but also the result of a positive deed of God, Isa. 53:6,10 . . . The sufferings of the Saviour finally culminated in His death . . . God imposed the punishment of death upon the Mediator judicially . . . The sentence of Pilate was also the sentence of God, though on entirely different grounds."

• Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (pages 338-339)

"But let me end by giving you this specific statement which literally tells us that it was God who was doing this thing on Calvary: 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." But have you ever realized that John 3:16 says this? "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son" - to the death of the cross - it is God who gave Him. Take again Romans 3:25: "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God" - there it is again. Or Romans 8:32: "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" He, God, He "spared not His own Son but delivered Him" - it was God who did it . . . Any idea or theory of the atonement must always give full weight and significance to the activity of God the Father."

• Martin Lloyd-Jones, Great Doctrines of the Bible, Volume One, Substitution, 'The Necessity of the Atonement,' Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois, 2003, (pages 317-337)

". . . for he was put to death by his own Father . . . ."

• Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Cross, Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois, 1986, (page 82), ( https://tinyurl.com/y7mqh4b6 )

"If your sins brought Christ upon his knees (as they did in the garden) before God as an angry judge, they may well bring you upon your knees also . . . And considered either as lamb or shepherd, we find that God being angry with him whilst thus he bore our sins, insomuch as he is said in his wrath to have smitten this shepherd with his sword, and smitten him unto death . . . ."

• Thomas Goodwin, Christ Our Mediator, (Grand Rapids: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1971), 370.

". . . God condemned sin in his flesh [Rom. 8:3] and punished him with the accursed death on the cross and that through him we now receive reconciliation and forgiveness, righteousness and life, indeed total and complete salvation . . . ."
Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 3, (page 398)

“The believer is saved- not simply because of what men did to Christ on the cross, but because of what God did to Him: He crushed Him under the full force of His wrath against us.”

• Paul Washer, The Gospel’s Power and Message (page 192)

"Then the horrifying thunder of God’s wrath breaks the silence. The Father takes the knife, draws back His arm, and slays “His Son, His only Son, whom He loves” fulfilling the words of Isaiah the prophet: 'Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.... Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.'" (Isaiah 53:4-5, 10)

• Paul Washer, The Gospel’s Power and Message (page 194)

 

[PapaLandShark]

Here is the definition of penal as it seems people are actually talking sideways of each other in this argument. Smoke coming out ears in the process.

Penal: Of, or relating to, or prescribing punishment, as for breaking the law.


Sin is breaking the law of God (not Sinai covenant Law in this case). Sin is transgressing God's holiness, the image and likeness of whom we were created to bear. There is a penal code for sin declared by a perfectly just God, and that penalty is death with no possibility of being reconciled to God. This decree of God was declared to Adam from the very beginning.

It is not Jesus who is being punished by God on the cross. It is sin. It is Jesus who substituted Himself in our place to bear the punishment for sin, that in doing so He would defeat the power of sin and death in one fell swoop, over those who are in Him through faith. It is God's justice against sin that is being met by Jesus on the cross, that God may extend saving mercy to the sinner. It is justice and mercy that kiss on the cross.

Only Jesus could do this for only Jesus had no sin of His own, therefore it is only Jesus that death could not hold. Because He did this, sin cannot condemn those united to Him and death cannot hold them either. Their sins met God's justice in Christ on the cross.

Nevertheless, it was wicked men, sinners every one, who killed Him, and even though it was God's will and Christ's will that this should happen, those who killed Him are responsible for their actions. They killed Him because they wanted to.

God's sovereign will, His sovereign goodness, runs along man's responsibility to God. One does not cancel the other out.

Oooo...now you stepped in it.

Now you get the paper he's written on the subject. Enjoy!

 

[Arial]

And here are more quotes which is why I'm no longer reformed or a calvinist. its at the heart of doctrine of PSA.

You throw apologetics out the window in favor of an emotional reaction?

Did the Father send Jesus for the express purpose of redemption, the plan fully in place, knowing that the only way to redeem any was through the death of Jesus----which would be followed by His resurrection since He had no sin? Did the Father not know this was the only and perfect way? And did Jesus not come willingly, with joy He laid down His life it says, knowing the cross awaited Him? Was it the will of the Father and the Son to do this? Is that what happened? You tend to leave out things, just as I suspect in all the quotes you give from others you isolate a sentence from what was said before and after.

For instance I am quite sure Voddie didn't say, "Yeah God killed Jesus." without saying much more before and after that explains why he said it. I am familiar enough with his methods to presume this.

Did God literally raise a knife over Christ's head and plunge it into Him? Of course not. Neither is He actually talking when it thunders. Personally I would never use those words, that God killed Jesus for obviously men did. And I don't think anyone said that without fleshing it out. You cannot deny that both the Father and Jesus willed that He should die and decreed that it would come to pass and so it did. In this sense He brought about the death of Jesus intentionally. And there was no question as to whether or not it would happen. You simply let your emotions get in the way of looking into concepts.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I agree the atonement is at the heart of the meaning of the Gospel!

And sadly being attacked on every side and watered down into something feel-good and meaningless.

Jesus suffered the punishment for our sins to give us his perfect righteousness is being changed into:

"Jesus died to be a good person and inspire us to be good like him."

The doctrine of the Atonement is complex. It matters more for the preacher of the Gospel than it does for the hearer. HOW people preach Jesus Christ depends upon their view of the Atonement.

How shall they hear without a preacher........

I can assure you, that when I expressed faith in Jesus Christ to received the forgiveness of sin and the benefit of His Atonement, all I knew was I was guilty and HE was setting me free. Sometimes it takes a proper Gospel to "awaken" such in men but when it came to what I understood..... I didn't know hardly anything but that I sure needed Him.....

 

[civic]

I agree the atonement is at the heart of the meaning of the Gospel!

And sadly being attacked on every side and watered down into something feel-good and meaningless.

Jesus suffered the punishment for our sins to give us his perfect righteousness is being changed into:

"Jesus died to be a good person and inspire us to be good like him."

The question is at who's hands was the punishment, suffering, death ?

I've pointed out with plenty of scriptures that make it clear it was man who was the culprit, the responsible party for His death, not the Father being responsible for killing Him as Calvinism teaches through the doctrine of PSA.

 

[Arial]

The question is at who's hands was the punishment, suffering, death ?

I've pointed out with plenty of scriptures that make it clear it was man who was the culprit, the responsible party for His death, not the Father being responsible for killing Him as Calvinism teaches through the doctrine of PSA.

I think you completely misunderstand what "Calvinist" are saying. None are saying that God came down and nailed Jesus to that cross Himself which is what you seem to imply they are saying. None are saying that God murdered Jesus as you seem to imply they are saying.

The Bible clearly tells us that it was God's pleasure (meaning that it had to happen or no one would be redeemed and all would die in their sins, not that He was joyful or vindictive about it, or that God hated His Son) that Jesus, Son of man, die on the cross to purchase a people for God. And the Bible clearly tells us that He was killed by men who did do it out of vindictiveness.

If you deny that both those things exist and both are true, then you deny the atonement completely, only giving lip service to it. If you can't put the two things together as part of a whole, you walk blindly because your emotions will accept some truth but only what your emotions can handle.

And btw, it is not only "Calvinists" who say what I have said. The apostles taught it themselves and it has always been a part of true Christianity. If the cross was only about wicked men murdering Jesus, how did it save anyone?

I have pretty much abandoned the hope that you would respond to my posts that I post to you. It is disconcerting.

 

[civic]

I think you completely misunderstand what "Calvinist" are saying. None are saying that God came down and nailed Jesus to that cross Himself which is what you seem to imply they are saying. None are saying that God murdered Jesus as you seem to imply they are saying.

The Bible clearly tells us that it was God's pleasure (meaning that it had to happen or no one would be redeemed and all would die in their sins, not that He was joyful or vindictive about it, or that God hated His Son) that Jesus, Son of man, die on the cross to purchase a people for God. And the Bible clearly tells us that He was killed by men who did do it out of vindictiveness.

If you deny that both those things exist and both are true, then you deny the atonement completely, only giving lip service to it. If you can't put the two things together as part of a whole, you walk blindly because your emotions will accept some truth but only what your emotions can handle.

And btw, it is not only "Calvinists" who say what I have said. The apostles taught it themselves and it has always been a part of true Christianity. If the cross was only about wicked men murdering Jesus, how did it save anyone?

I have pretty much abandoned the hope that you would respond to my posts that I post to you. It is disconcerting.

No I'm not misunderstanding- They hold the Father as culpible for His punishment and death. I have quoted enough of them at-least a dozen and I believed and taught it for over 4 decades myself as a Calvinist.

 

[e v e]

He does nothing wrong or evil.

His judgment is only ever against the evil ones and their principalities (realm) with whom as souls we, His sons and daughters, are in enmity ---

Because they plotted eden to fall.... and by adam's cooperation with them, hurt us. These evil ones are the sons of ammon in the other reality, and entities of the satanic realm.

Because they continually twist his words to prevent us from hearing Him in order to prevent us from going home and to try to prevent us from being restored to our birthright and to prevent their judgment by God for what they did to us -- God's actual family.

This earth is not our home. The home of us who are His souls is in paradise with God... as Christ said, I am not from here.

This earth is the corruption resulting from the fall, from adam's crimes, which had cosmological effects.

Christ took a huge step down to incarnate into this corrupt reality to undo what adam did to us.. The only wrath against Christ is by God's enemy masquerading as a god and hating us. It's they the satanic ones who hurt Christ. God would never do that.

The sin is by that evil realm which we went to after the fall.... that realm is the good and evil tree and its mindset .... it is the construct of the evil ones and not of God.


Adam betrayed God,
the evil realm twists His words, making theology a mess...,
this earth is a foreign land,
God made eden paradise in the other reality....,
this current one resulted from the fall...
the Nature here is inert matter, death, and does not love.

This is a rescue mission and God will get us out of here. Christ saved our souls and now very soon He will come for us and meet us on the clouds and restore us to our eden paradise in the other reality.

 

[Arial]

No I'm not misunderstanding- They hold the Father as culpible for His punishment and death. I have quoted enough of them at-least a dozen and I believed and taught it for over 4 decades myself as a Calvinist.

Did it ever occur to you that what you were believing and teaching as Calvinism was also misunderstood by you? Why did it take four decades for you to hear "God killed Jesus!" and then reject everything you had spent four decades teaching?

You gave isolated quotes completely out of their context so who knows what else was said to clarify the statement. I clarified it myself and it is as though I said nothing at all. Just like a person can isolate a scripture to make the Bible say whatever they want it to say. And btw the only way in which Calvinism is ever refuted.

I can make the Bible say it is a sin for men to have long hair. It is a sin for women to have short hair and a sin for them to wear jewelry.

 

[Arial]

Did it ever occur to you that what you were believing and teaching as Calvinism was also misunderstood by you? Why did it take four decades for you to hear "God killed Jesus!" and then reject everything you had spent four decades teaching?

@civic Everything I have seen you state about TULIP as being what Calvinism teaches, I have shown you where you do not have a correct understanding of it. When I do that, and give the correct understanding it goes unresponded to so I have no idea how you would go about refuting what I said.

 

[civic]

Did it ever occur to you that what you were believing and teaching as Calvinism was also misunderstood by you? Why did it take four decades for you to hear "God killed Jesus!" and then reject everything you had spent four decades teaching?

You gave isolated quotes completely out of their context so who knows what else was said to clarify the statement. I clarified it myself and it is as though I said nothing at all. Just like a person can isolate a scripture to make the Bible say whatever they want it to say. And btw the only way in which Calvinism is ever refuted.

I can make the Bible say it is a sin for men to have long hair. It is a sin for women to have short hair and a sin for them to wear jewelry.

Tulip is based upon isolated verses and presuppositions which is why it came along during the reformation. Calvin got most of his beliefs from augustine who was into gnosticism, paganism, greek philosophy among other non Biblical beliefs.

 

[Arial]

Tulip is based upon isolated verses and presuppositions which is why it came along during the reformation. Calvin got most of his beliefs from augustine who was into gnosticism, paganism, greek philosophy among other non Biblical beliefs.

I could be debating with a Unitarian! Well---when all else fails there is always that "argument" to fall back on. I have yet to see anyone support it with facts.

Calvin did agree with Augustine on a lot of things, which is not the same thing as getting one's beliefs from him. And even if it were, beliefs always come from somewhere and someone. Sometimes they even agree with the beliefs one gets from Paul, or John, or Peter or-----Jesus! "It's only logical captain."

Who do you get your beliefs from? It is such an empty assertion.

 

[civic]

I could be debating with a Unitarian! Well---when all else fails there is always that "argument" to fall back on. I have yet to see anyone support it with facts.

Calvin did agree with Augustine on a lot of things, which is not the same thing as getting one's beliefs from him. And even if it were, beliefs always come from somewhere and someone. Sometimes they even agree with the beliefs one gets from Paul, or John, or Peter or-----Jesus! "It's only logical captain."

Who do you get your beliefs from? It is such an empty assertion.

No one believed anything augustine taught until he married his paganism about God with christianity. I will post several Calvinists who affirm what I just said.

 

[Diserner]

No I'm not misunderstanding- They hold the Father as culpible for His punishment and death. I have quoted enough of them at-least a dozen and I believed and taught it for over 4 decades myself as a Calvinist.

Part of the fundamental misunderstanding is Jesus just suffered physically.

Physical death and suffering does not pay for sins, or every time a sinner dies they would have paid off their debt and thus earned heaven.

What happened to Jesus was not just physical death on the Cross, as Jesus himself said.

There is only ONE judge who enacts the punishment of sin.

Shall the ax boast itself against him who chops with it? Or shall the saw exalt itself against him who saws with it? (Isa. 10:15 NKJ)


It is absurd to think anyone enacts punishment except the Judge of all Morality.

 

[Diserner]

No one believed anything augustine taught until he married his paganism about God with christianity. I will post several Calvinists who affirm what I just said.

You know many people blame Trinitarianism on the same type of paganist philosophy, or even the classical attribute of omniscience.

Ask Eve on this forum, or "Idol Killer" who is always on Soteriology101.

I can point you to a dozen people arguing for this at length, including people who argue against PSA.


So just address all the Scriptures being proclaimed and stop poisoning the well with a genetic fallacy as a red herring.

Anyone can just make some loose generic connection to a pagan idea, people use that to say God never really commanded any sacrifices at all.