If you're going to reject the atonement, be consistent—REJECT IT ALL.

[JonC]

I know the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement because I was a Calvinist. I taught the theory.

One Sunday, as a guest preacher, I preached a sermon on the Cross. Being a Calvinist I obviously preached within the context of Penal Substitution Theory. It was well received. I went to bed content with the sermon.

The next morning I awoke with a conviction that I had strayed from Scripture by offering a theory rather than God's Word. I can't explain the conviction adequately. I had held Penal Substitution Theory as correct all of my adult life. I read it throughout Scripture. But I couldn't shake the conviction.

I bought two dry erase boards and set them up in my office. Over a month I went through writing every verse that proved Penal Substitution correct. Then I examined the verses and erased any passage that did not actually present the theory. In the end no verses remained.

I told you I am a Biblicist. How could I believe a view of the Atonement, such a foundational doctrine, if it was it actually in the Bible? How can we test doctrine against "what is written" except that doctrine actually be written.

I knew that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement was wrong. It was difficult, but I worked to read Scripture without reading into it. Once somebody tells you an ink blot is a bat, it is hard not to see the bat.

I concentrated on the text. And it made sense as written, without adding to it.

I came away believing God's Word - Christ suffered and died under the powers of this world, under the wages of sin....our sin. He did not die instead of us, but as Scripture states He died for us, for our sin.

I was familiar with pre-Reformation writings because my seminary degree was in theology. I had dismissed much of their ideas as undeveloped.

Now I could read the writings of the early church and see that they were correct. They adhered to God's Word (to "what is written".


So my understanding comes solely from Scripture. It was validated through the teachings of the early church, churches outside of the RCC during the Reformation, and current theologies.

Penal Substitution Theory is popular, but it is a small sect within Christianiy that affirms the theory.

My knowledge is above most other posters. I am virtually an ascended master.

 

[Diserner]

Over a month I went through writing every verse that proved Penal Substitution correct. Then I examined the verses and erased any passage that did not actually present the theory. In the end no verses remained.

Lol, mhm.

Okay then, riddle me this, Batman. If "no verse" supports PSA, why does the major antagonist on this forum mock me for not being willing to remove Isaiah 53 from my Bible? That makes no sense at all. Why would he have that visceral reaction to just a mere chapter of the Bible? Why does he constantly want to run away from the oldest and most well attested Bible manuscript, to the distortions in the LXX from the Jewish ancient anti-missionaries, to try to water down the passage, if "no verses" support PSA.

See here: https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/isaiah-53-the-origin-of-psa.508/post-10611

Logically, if this verse really does not pose a threat, there should be literally no reaction at all to it.

I told you I am a Biblicist.

Everybody claims to be a Biblcist. It's shallow, empty self-righteous pious talk. A dime a dozen.

I concentrated on the text. And it made sense as written, without adding to it.

I came away believing God's Word - Christ suffered and died under the powers of this world, under the wages of sin....our sin. He did not die instead of us, but as Scripture states He died for us, for our sin.

And that's not even close to what Scripture tells us, just some watered down demonic version of the atonement.

I meet your "all in," and I personally know I have put decades and thousands of hours of sacrifice and seeking.

I can't "know" just how pure your heart is or how much sincerity you put into your search.

Now I could read the writings of the early church and see that they were correct. They adhered to God's Word (to "what is written".

I've found many references to the ideas of PSA in the ECF, not that logically that is even necessary to affirm what Scripture alone tells me.

So my understanding comes solely from Scripture.

More pious talk. Those who disagree with you claim the exact same thing.

How can you know your method of interpreting is 100% pure and not influenced?

Penal Substitution Theory is popular, but it is a small sect within Christianiy that affirms the theory.

Huh? That seems like a contradiction.

My knowledge is above most other posters. I am virtually an ascended master.

Annnnd here we go. Here's the reason you fell away from the truth.

PRIDE GOES BEFORE THE FALL.


Now, if you want to claim to be humble, then pray this prayer with me. No matter how convinced or convicted any truly humble man would pray this prayer, in fact I will pray it here too.

"God, I am somehow convinced that my position on the atonement is correct. But if my pride let a deceiving spirit in, if I made a mistake and a wrong turn somewhere, if my own heart is deceiving me, I cannot see that without you, and I need you to show me that I'm not where I think, I need you to do something to let me know I'm deceived, I need you to show me the true state of my heart, I need you to host an intervention in my life. If this has potentially happened—and it can happen to any man on earth, for we are all sinful and imperfect—then please open my eyes, do something in my life to arrest my attention, regain the lost sensitivity to my conscience and your Spirit, and show me my secret spiritual pride, and if the devil has deceived me in my life. Please have mercy on this sinner, for all truth comes only from you, and I will remain forever blind if you do not intervene for me. I am so sorry if this has somehow happened in my life, and I want an opportunity to repent and see the truth if that is the case. Amen. Now as I read the oldest complete Bible book manuscript in the world, please convict me and open my eyes to what it really means."

And here the beautiful and precious chapter of Isaiah 53, let us now read it together:

(Chapter 53 1QIsa-a)
Who has believed our report and the arm of YHWH to whom has it been revealed
And he shall come up like a suckling before us and as a root from dry ground
there is no form to him and no beauty to him and in his being seen and there is no appearance that we should desire him.
He is despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and knowing grief
and as though hiding faces from him he was despised and we did not esteem him.
Surely our griefs he is bearing and our sorrows he carried them
and we esteemed him beaten and struck by God and afflicted.
and he is wounded for our transgressions, and crushed for our iniquities,
the correction of our peace was upon him and by his wounds he has healed us.
All of us like sheep have wandered each man to his own way we have turned
and YHWH has caused to light on him the iniquity of all of us
He was oppressed and he was afflicted and he did not open his mouth,
as a lamb to the slaughter he is brought and as a ewe before her shearers is made dumb he did not open his mouth.
From prison and from judgment he was taken and his generation who shall discuss it
because he was cut off from the land of the living.
Because from the transgressions of his people a wound was to him
And they gave wicked ones to be his grave and the rich ones in his death
although he worked no violence neither deceit in his mouth
And YHWH was pleased to crush him and He has caused him grief.
If will appoint his soul a sin offering he will see his seed
and he will lengthen his days and the pleasure of YHWH in his hand will advance.
Of the toil of his soul he shall see light and he shall be satisfied
and by his knowledge shall he make righteous even my righteous servant for many and their iniquities he will bear.
Therefore I will apportion to him among the great ones and with the mighty ones he shall divide the spoil
because he laid bare to death his soul and with the transgressors he was numbered,
and he, the sins of many, he bore, and for their transgressions he entreated.

Qumran Isaiah Scroll Translation



I promise you.

I prayed my own prayer, and read slowly through Isaiah 53.

And there I still see the beautiful Jesus bearing the punishment of my sins.


If I am deceived—may God have mercy on me a sinner!

 

[JonC]

I believe we must test doctrine against the text of Scripture. BUT I do not understand how we can text doctrine against God's Word without requiring that doctrine to actually be in the actual text ("what is written").

 

[JonC]

I do not expect everyone to hold my views. I don't expect everyone to adhere to "what is written" as the test of doctrine as I know many (if not most) use "what is taught" or "what is indicated" as the test.

These differences mean there will never be agreement in this life. And that is fine.

I am too smart for calvinists. I know more than all Puritans. I sometimes lie about other posters who I cannot answer. I tell falsehoods and make personal attacks.

 

[Diserner]

I sometimes lie about other posters who I cannot answer. I tell falsehoods and make personal attacks.

That's not very nice.

 

[civic]

I know the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement because I was a Calvinist. I taught the theory.

One Sunday, as a guest preacher, I preached a sermon on the Cross. Being a Calvinist I obviously preached within the context of Penal Substitution Theory. It was well received. I went to bed content with the sermon.

The next morning I awoke with a conviction that I had strayed from Scripture by offering a theory rather than God's Word. I can't explain the conviction adequately. I had held Penal Substitution Theory as correct all of my adult life. I read it throughout Scripture. But I couldn't shake the conviction.

I bought two dry erase boards and set them up in my office. Over a month I went through writing every verse that proved Penal Substitution correct. Then I examined the verses and erased any passage that did not actually present the theory. In the end no verses remained.

I told you I am a Biblicist. How could I believe a view of the Atonement, such a foundational doctrine, if it was it actually in the Bible? How can we test doctrine against "what is written" except that doctrine actually be written.

I knew that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement was wrong. It was difficult, but I worked to read Scripture without reading into it. Once somebody tells you an ink blot is a bat, it is hard not to see the bat.

I concentrated on the text. And it made sense as written, without adding to it.

I came away believing God's Word - Christ suffered and died under the powers of this world, under the wages of sin....our sin. He did not die instead of us, but as Scripture states He died for us, for our sin.

I was familiar with pre-Reformation writings because my seminary degree was in theology. I had dismissed much of their ideas as undeveloped.

Now I could read the writings of the early church and see that they were correct. They adhered to God's Word (to "what is written".


So my understanding comes solely from Scripture. It was validated through the teachings of the early church, churches outside of the RCC during the Reformation, and current theologies.

Penal Substitution Theory is popular, but it is a small sect within Christianiy that affirms the theory.

My knowledge is above most other posters. I am virtually an ascended master.

What church denomination are you affiliated with now ?

Also what do you mean by " ascended master " ?

 

[civic]

I do not expect everyone to hold my views. I don't expect everyone to adhere to "what is written" as the test of doctrine as I know many (if not most) use "what is taught" or "what is indicated" as the test.

These differences mean there will never be agreement in this life. And that is fine.

I am too smart for calvinists. I know more than all Puritans. I sometimes lie about other posters who I cannot answer. I tell falsehoods and make personal attacks.

Please read our rules below. Everyone who joins agrees with them. There are not very many here compared to other forums.

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/the-rules.47/

Members of Berean Apologetic Ministry forum are considerate, motivated by love and not hate, and they respect one another. Because our members are considerate, loving, and respectful, they do not make overly provocative posts, posts which seek to annoy or cause disruption, or posts which personally attack other members out of anger and frustration.

Our members desire to contribute in a positive and loving manner so that this Forum will display the gracious love of God. The above motto on our forum is for the benefit of this community to have a safe place where all faiths and people are welcomed to ask questions, receive answers and express their views freely without hinderance or concern of retaliation. We value your religious freedoms of expression and ideas.

Rules List:

1a. No vulgarity, profanity, name calling, or slang expression(s) that could be interpreted as a suggestion of impropriety or generally regarded as demeaning in nature. (Ephesians 5:3-5)

1b.No abusive, insulting, or derogatory language. (Colossians 3:5, 8)

1c. No attacks on another poster's religious beliefs, race, national origin, or gender.

1d. No chats that deteriorate into petty bickering, gossip, backbiting, or argumentative bantering.

2. No Flaming, Goading, Gaslighting or Harassment.

2a. All members should be treated with the utmost respect and courtesy at all times following the rules of civil discourse.

2b. No insults are allowed. Included in this are all forms of flaming, harassment, and trolling/goading as determined at the discretion of the Berean Board Team. Trolling/Goading is defined as repeated attempts through the use of images, cartoons, smileys or text that is designed to be explicitly demeaning, patronizing, embarrassing, or otherwise upsetting to a member or group of members in the community.

2c. This further includes making false statements or accusations about a member. Do not lie about anyone or call them a liar.
Sarcasm is not included under this rule.

2d-Do not attack another member's character in any way. Address the post content, not the member's character, family, denominational affiliation or any other subject that may be perceived as a personal attack by the Berean Board team and is not germane to the topic or post at hand.

2e-Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christians. Please privately contact the Berean Board Team to voice your concern and not in public.

2f-If a member requests the cessation of all personal contact, then please respect that member's wish.

2g- when a thread starts becoming heated, our staff may edit any offending posts that are targeted negatively toward another member or otherwise disrupt the flow. A staff member may address you in the offending thread or in Private Message. You may be sent a system notification with a brief description of why the message was deleted from the staff member who removed your post.


3. No soliciting

3a. Please limit your posts to 10K characters or less and do not copy & paste large amounts of content.

3b. No soc accounts which will result in a permanent ban from the forum.

3c. 1 link per post, 1 video per thread and only 2 new threads per day for members.

4. Copy and paste of large amounts of text.

4a. Feel free to copy and paste your own writings. But please limit the amount of copy and paste of text from websites and include a link for members to read the rest of the article. What would be ideal would be one paragraph and then the link to the rest of the information.

4b. Threads started by members or posts are not to be considered as a member's thread or otherwise "owned".

4c. When quoting another poster do not change their content or words which will result in a temporary ban or vacation from the forum.

4d. Do not plagiarize. If its not your work quote or reference the source material you are posting.

If you have any questions or concerns private message one of the administrators.

 

[synergy]

Lol, mhm.

Okay then, riddle me this, Batman. If "no verse" supports PSA, why does the major antagonist on this forum mock me for not being willing to remove Isaiah 53 from my Bible? That makes no sense at all. Why would he have that visceral reaction to just a mere chapter of the Bible? Why does he constantly want to run away from the oldest and most well attested Bible manuscript, to the distortions in the LXX from the Jewish ancient anti-missionaries, to try to water down the passage, if "no verses" support PSA.

See here: https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/isaiah-53-the-origin-of-psa.508/post-10611

Logically, if this verse really does not pose a threat, there should be literally no reaction at all to it.

Let's approach this in a more professional manner, without unwarranted stigmatizing remarks if you don't mind.

First of all, the LXX was the Apostles' preferred OT from which they extracted verses from to build their Epistles. Therefore, you have the Apostolic seal of approval mainly on the LXX.

Second of all, this is where election comes in. Do you believe that God had the foresight to disperse the Hellenized Jews, who naturally use the LXX, across the Roman Empire so that it would be the LXX that would gain an immediate foothold across the Empire through them?

(1 Pet 1:1) Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect sojourners of the Dispersion of Pontus, of Galatia, of Cappadocia, of Asia, and of Bithynia,

Third of all, I need someone who knows Hebrew well enough to actually tell me if the Hebrew word of the English word "God" appears in Isaiah 53:4 (within the Dead Sea Scrolls) and if the Hebrew word of the English word "pleased" (in KJV) in Isaiah 53:10 (within the Dead Sea Scrolls) is volitional or emotive.

Logically, if the LXX poses no threat then why your stigmatizing insults against it in the first place? Not to mention your derogatory remarks against those who God elected to carry His word into Gentile territory, with the result being that you yourself are a Christian right now.

 

[civic]

Let's approach this in a more professional manner, without unwarranted stigmatizing remarks if you don't mind.

First of all, the LXX was the Apostles' preferred OT from which they extracted verses from to build their Epistles. Therefore, you have the Apostolic seal of approval mainly on the LXX.

Second of all, this is where election comes in. Do you believe that God had the foresight to disperse the Hellenized Jews, who naturally use the LXX, across the Roman Empire so that it would be the LXX that would gain an immediate foothold across the Empire through them?

(1 Pet 1:1) Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect sojourners of the Dispersion of Pontus, of Galatia, of Cappadocia, of Asia, and of Bithynia,

Third of all, I need someone who knows Hebrew well enough to actually tell me if the Hebrew word of the English word "God" appears in Isaiah 53:4 (within the Dead Sea Scrolls) and if the Hebrew word of the English word "pleased" (in KJV) in Isaiah 53:10 (within the Dead Sea Scrolls) is volitional or emotive.

Logically, if the LXX poses no threat then why your stigmatizing insults against it in the first place? Not to mention your derogatory remarks against those who God elected to carry His word into Gentile territory, with the result being that you yourself are a Christian right now.

Amen !

 

[Diserner]

Let's approach this in a more professional manner, without unwarranted stigmatizing remarks if you don't mind.

And who says this very comment is not an "unwarranted stigmatizing remark"?

You?

Because in my opinion it is, and thus you are engaging in the very thing you condemn.

You are simply poisoning the well with your own presuppositions utilizing them as an ad hominem attack.


I defended the logic behind my statement and I stand by it.

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/isaiah-53-the-origin-of-psa.508/page-3#post-10634

 

[civic]

And who says this very comment is not an "unwarranted stigmatizing remark"?

You?

Because in my opinion it is, and thus you are engaging in the very thing you condemn.

You are simply poisoning the well with your own presuppositions utilizing them as an ad hominem attack.


I defended the logic behind my statement and I stand by it.

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/isaiah-53-the-origin-of-psa.508/page-3#post-10634

Where did he attack you personally ? I must of missed the personal attack " ad hominem "

 

[Diserner]

First of all, the LXX was the Apostles' preferred OT from which they extracted verses from to build their Epistles. Therefore, you have the Apostolic seal of approval mainly on the LXX.

You are ASSUMING the preference is ONLY because of accuracy.

There is no reason to assume this.

Second of all, this is where election comes in. Do you believe that God had the foresight to disperse the Hellenized Jews, who naturally use the LXX, across the Roman Empire so that it would be the LXX that would gain an immediate foothold across the Empire through them?

This is the logic of King James Onlyism.

There is no basis to think majority means God-approved.

Third of all, I need someone who knows Hebrew well enough to actually tell me if the Hebrew word of the English word "God" appears in Isaiah 53:4 (within the Dead Sea Scrolls) and if the Hebrew word of the English word "pleased" (in KJV) in Isaiah 53:10 (within the Dead Sea Scrolls) is volitional or emotive.

I don't think you need these particular things, but ok. I have no problem with that.

Logically, if the LXX poses no threat then why your stigmatizing insults against it in the first place?

WHERE AND WHEN DID I EVER SAY THE LXX POSES NO THREAT?

PLEASE QUOTE ME, OR APOLOGIZE, AS WOULD BE FITTING A CHRISTIAN.

Not to mention your derogatory remarks against those who God elected to carry His word into Gentile territory, with the result being that you yourself are a Christian right now.

I absolutely and categorically deny that I owe my Christianity to whatever weird text tradition you are imagining.

I am born NOT OF THE WILL OF MAN but OF GOD.

It is not textual scribes that we owe our salvation to, or even their preservation of God's Word, but rather his sovereignty.

 

[Diserner]

Where did he attack you personally ? I must of missed the personal attack " ad hominem "

False accusation is slander. I was not unprofessional nor unwarrantedly stigmatizing.

But you miss a lot of personal attacks.

And make a bunch up that aren't even there!

I'm used to it.

 

[civic]

False accusation is slander. I was not unprofessional nor unwarrantedly stigmatizing.

But you miss a lot of personal attacks.

And make a bunch up that aren't even there!

I'm used to it.

You were the one attacking me in the post that was quoted. You are projecting. I attack your PSA doctrine not you so you are conflating them. I attack the doctrine not the poster. There is a huge difference between attacking an argument vs the poster. I use to use ad hominem all the time on the old forum we came from but I don’t do that here.

 

[JonC]

That's not very nice.

Yes...it seems like a good idea at the time, but it might not be a nice thing to do. I mostly just insult calvinists so that makes it okay.

 

[Diserner]

Yes...it seems like a good idea at the time, but it might not be a nice thing to do. I mostly just insult calvinists so that makes it okay.

No, it doesn't make it okay, lol.

Return not evil for evil.

 

[synergy]

False accusation is slander. I was not unprofessional nor unwarrantedly stigmatizing.

But you miss a lot of personal attacks.

And make a bunch up that aren't even there!

I'm used to it.

Please explain your following remark, with supporting evidence:

the distortions in the LXX from the Jewish ancient anti-missionaries,

 

[civic]

I believe we must test doctrine against the text of Scripture. BUT I do not understand how we can text doctrine against God's Word without requiring that doctrine to actually be in the actual text ("what is written").

ditto !

 

[synergy]

You are ASSUMING the preference is ONLY because of accuracy.
There is no reason to assume this.

I am assuming nothing. It's a fact that the LXX was the Apostles' preferred OT from which they extracted verses from to build their Epistles. Therefore, you have the Apostolic seal of approval mainly on the LXX.

This is the logic of King James Onlyism.
There is no basis to think majority means God-approved.

You are appealing to the Guilt by Association fallacy.
And you conveniently skipped over 1 Pet 1:1 that supports the distribution & usage of the LXX throughout the Roman Empire because of God's plan of election.
Do you believe that God had the foresight to disperse the Hellenized Jews, who naturally use the LXX, across the Roman Empire so that it would be the LXX that would gain an immediate foothold across the Empire through them?

(1 Pet 1:1) Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect sojourners of the Dispersion of Pontus, of Galatia, of Cappadocia, of Asia, and of Bithynia,

I don't think you need these particular things, but ok. I have no problem with that.

Let's see if there's anyone out there that can help us.

 

[synergy]

TO: @civic , @dizerner

During my contemplation of Isaiah 53:4, I noticed that there is a "But" starting on the next verse. So there is something being stated in verse 4 but verse 5 clarifies verse 4. So what is it in verse 4 that needs to be clarified by that which is in verse 5? We (not God) did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted BUT he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. In other words, we thought Jesus was our Propitiation but in reality He was our Expiation.

(Isaiah 53:4) Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
(Isaiah 53:5) But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.