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

[Diserner]

So there is something being stated in verse 4 but verse 5 clarifies verse 4.

Yes, this line of argumentation has been tried many times.

The point rather is "we esteemed him stricken for his own sins, but it turns out it was ours!"

I recommend Dr. Michael Brown on this as he has covered every anti-missionary argument concerning Isa. 53.


I really have a recommendation no humble man would resent—pray that prayer over Isaiah 53 I have posted.

I literally did pray it.

Look, I understand coming into a chapter intuitively feeling like the most plain meaning can't be right—looking for loopholes on purpose. It's how I approached Romans 9. But I was always, always honest enough to admit Romans 9 sounds Calvinistic, because it does, at least the first half. And I found a lot of anti-Calvinists weren't even honest enough to admit that, and it shows bias and prejudice.

There is a blindness that is natural, and there is a blindness that is intentional—and the difference between them is the willingness to humble one's self and be open to hear what you don't want to hear. I was willing for Calvinism to be true. I gave it an honest chance. I tackled it head on, and I asked God again and again "is Calvinism true?" rather than just be dismissive over what clearly sounds that way.

You will come out in the light if you take this approach.

Peace.

 

[civic]

Yes, this line of argumentation has been tried many times.

The point rather is "we esteemed him stricken for his own sins, but it turns out it was ours!"

I recommend Dr. Michael Brown on this as he has covered every anti-missionary argument concerning Isa. 53.


I really have a recommendation no humble man would resent—pray that prayer over Isaiah 53 I have posted.

I literally did pray it.

Look, I understand coming into a chapter intuitively feeling like the most plain meaning can't be right—looking for loopholes on purpose. It's how I approached Romans 9. But I was always, always honest enough to admit Romans 9 sounds Calvinistic, because it does, at least the first half. And I found a lot of anti-Calvinists weren't even honest enough to admit that, and it shows bias and prejudice.

There is a blindness that is natural, and there is a blindness that is intentional—and the difference between them is the willingness to humble one's self and be open to hear what you don't want to hear. I was willing for Calvinism to be true. I gave it an honest chance. I tackled it head on, and I asked God again and again "is Calvinism true?" rather than just be dismissive over what clearly sounds that way.

You will come out in the light if you take this approach.

Peace.

And PSA came out of calvinism. Looks like you are hanging onto parts of calvinism.

 

[synergy]

Yes, this line of argumentation has been tried many times.

The point rather is "we esteemed him stricken for his own sins, but it turns out it was ours!"

That is definitely plausible. Isa 53:5 does talk about "our" sins which could be said to contrast with the assumed sins of Jesus. Anyways, even with your possible insights, Isa 53:4 still does not lend itself to an explicit account of Propitiation.

I recommend Dr. Michael Brown on this as he has covered every anti-missionary argument concerning Isa. 53.

Thank you.

I really have a recommendation no humble man would resent—pray that prayer over Isaiah 53 I have posted.

I literally did pray it.

Look, I understand coming into a chapter intuitively feeling like the most plain meaning can't be right—looking for loopholes on purpose.

You don't know me very well. @civic knows me better. Both him and I are blessed with a family and society situation that allows us both to go wherever the Bible takes us. Nobody is over our heads ready to drop the guillotine if we stray from the beaten path.

It's how I approached Romans 9. But I was always, always honest enough to admit Romans 9 sounds Calvinistic, because it does, at least the first half. And I found a lot of anti-Calvinists weren't even honest enough to admit that, and it shows bias and prejudice.

The election of the Cross was destined by God to happen. There is no doubt about that. I accept everything that God did to ensure that would happen. Now we are in the post-Pentecost Era where the Cross has occurred and salvation is now available to all those who keep the faith, as did the OT Saints who died in the faith.

There is a blindness that is natural, and there is a blindness that is intentional—and the difference between them is the willingness to humble one's self and be open to hear what you don't want to hear. I was willing for Calvinism to be true. I gave it an honest chance. I tackled it head on, and I asked God again and again "is Calvinism true?" rather than just be dismissive over what clearly sounds that way.

I listened to them but the Bible had way too many verses that fly in the face of Calvinism.

You will come out in the light if you take this approach.

Peace.

Already am taking this approach. Just ask @civic.

Peace to you also.

 

[civic]

That is definitely plausible. Isa 53:5 does talk about our sins which could be said to contrast the assumed sins of Jesus. Anyways, even with your possible insights, Isa 53:4 still does not lend itself to an explicit account of Propitiation.

Thank you.

You don't know me very well. @civic knows me better. Both him and I are blessed with a family and society situation that allows us both to go wherever the Bible takes us. Nobody is over our heads ready to drop the guillotine if we stray from the beaten path.

The election of the Cross was destined by God to happen. There is no doubt about that. I accept everything that God did to ensure that would happen. Now we are in the post-Pentecost Era where the Cross has occurred and our salvation is now available to all those who keep the faith, as did the OT Saints who died in the faith.

I listened to them but the Bible had way too many verses that fly in the face of Calvinism.

Already am taking this approach. Just ask @civic.

Peace to you also.

Yes you are taking that approach.

 

[synergy]

Penal Substitution theory blown up sky high by Jay Dyer:

CC: @civic @Wrangler @Fred @praise_yeshua @dizerner

 

[civic]

Penal Substitution theory blown up sky high by Jay Dyer:

CC: @civic @Wrangler @Fred @praise_yeshua @dizerner

Thanks I’ll watch it

 

[Brakelite]

I don't know about you but when I sleep I still have some level of consciousness. I'm not totally destroyed/nonexistent when I sleep. That aligns perfectly with Revelation where the souls of dead believers are unmistakably conscious to some degree in Heaven.

You are confusing the first death, sleep, with the second death of the wicked, who are destroyed.

 

[Brakelite]

What about believers? No destruction pending for them as they are recorded, in the Book of Revelation, as being conscious in Heaven right now.

All hanging out under an altar right?

 

[Brakelite]

How do you know that? Do you have inside information about that?

Scripture. As you quoted, Genesis 2:27 ... The spirit returns to God who have it... Cannot mean a conscious living entity. Unless you believe a conscious living entity was inserted into the body. Which again is a pagan concept which we calla version of reincarnation. Where did Lazarus, Tabitha, and Jesus come from when they resurrected? There is nothing in scripture that suggests we continue to live in a conscious state after death. In fact, there are scriptures that speak contrary to that idea.
Those "souls" you claim are actually living entities under the altar, apparently are aware of what is taking place on earth right? Isn't heaven supposed to be a place of joy and peace? What joy will there be in watching Satan control your own children with addiction and sickness? What joy in watching your son in law beating your daughter to death? What joy in watching your parents being deceived by some false pastor and charlatan stealing their property in the name of God?
The scripture is clear. All the redeemed enter glory together. No-one comes before or after. And all receive the gift of immortality at that point... The second coming.

 

[Diserner]

What joy in watching your parents being deceived by some false pastor and charlatan stealing their property in the name of God?

Wait... so because bad things happen on earth no one in heaven is allowed to be happy?

It's idolatrous to base our happiness on circumstances and relationships... very poor argument.

 

[Diserner]

All hanging out under an altar right?

More "pagan" imagery I'm sure, lol.

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/putting-to-death-the-pagan-and-gnostic-genetic-fallacy.582/

 

[Brakelite]

Wait... so because bad things happen on earth no one in heaven is allowed to be happy?

It's idolatrous to base our happiness on circumstances and relationships... very poor argument.

Not the point I was making. Do you believe that simply because we are in heaven, all feelings of love and compassion are left at the door?

 

[synergy]

All hanging out under an altar right?

If you have a problem with that Bible quote then you need to take it up with Apostle John.

 

[synergy]

You are confusing the first death, sleep, with the second death of the wicked, who are destroyed.

You're the one who quoted a verse that describes our conscious state in the afterlife as sleep. Will you own up to it or not? After that we can discuss further verses that talk about 2nd death or anything else you wish.

 

[civic]

Penal Substitution theory blown up sky high by Jay Dyer:



CC: @civic @Wrangler @Fred @praise_yeshua @dizerner

I'm part orthodox.

Good short video.

 

[synergy]

I'm part orthodox.

I'm a combination also, fundamentally a Koine Greek Bible believer.

Good short video.

Excellent Bible-based points on Jesus' descent into Hades and the fact that everyone is resurrected to face judgment, even those who Calvinists call Reprobates.

 

[civic]

I'm a combination also, fundamentally a Koine Greek Bible believer.

Excellent Bible-based points on Jesus' descent into Hades and the fact that everyone is resurrected to face judgment, even those who Calvinists call Reprobates.

Yes I enjoyed the points being made and the one guy was a former calvinist and now orthodox.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Penal Substitution theory blown up sky high by Jay Dyer:

CC: @civic @Wrangler @Fred @praise_yeshua @dizerner

He definitely knows his theology. I disagree with some of it but he is well learned.

I think you've seen me throughout the forum denying that Christ was the "Perfect Sacrifice" based upon the "keeping of the law". Which I believe is a ridiculous theology. To me, this feeds some of the extreme versions of PSA that we're dealing with in Calvinism. I do believe there is some sense of wrath expressed in the death of Christ and he does a great job at dealing with this. Calvinism doesn't mind such a position because they believe "THEY" are "chosen" and the ultimately consequence are insignificant" to them. While Arminianism does the opposite.

The battle over the theology of the Atonement has taken a dramatic turn in my lifetime. There is a desire to abandon any sense of holiness via "rules/laws" and it begins with the teachings of the Atonement. I try not to let my own desires influence my theology. I simply take myself out of the circumstances and seek the truth. There are many ambiguous areas in the teaching of the Atonement and I believe God designed it that way. We have to make choices and often our bias is revealed in what we easily seek. When it comes to this subject I struggle to maintain a balance between by natural inclinations and what God has done.

I do have an issue with the doctrine of "Federal Headship" which drives much of teaching that comes out of PSA. I also have an issue from this video stating that Adam's sin made Satan Adam's god.

Power over death is at issue here.

Sin is of the devil. We know it predated man. We know that sin entered the world but it was more than just eating an "apple". Adam literally chose Eve over God. God's creation for him over the one that created her.

Christ was made under the dominion of sin. The Dominion of death in the Incarnation. He became sin for us that knew no sin..... This just didn't start at Calvary. It came to Christ through the seed of Eve.

1Jn 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Rom 6:9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.

God doesn't as He pleases but His actions are a result of His character. Some appeal to such for a sense of "Holiness" they believe shows God's love for THEM at the expense of their brothers in Adam. Which is wrong. God committed His love for us while we were yet sinners.... Christ died for us.

Ultimately, I believe Christ came to WIN US to Himself. To appeal to us through His own loving actions. It is God tasting death for us that destroyed the work of Satan.

What you believe and trust is what you love. It can never start with endless commandments. I must start with our faith in WHO saved us.

 

[civic]

He definitely knows his theology. I disagree with some of it but he is well learned.

I think you've seen me throughout the forum denying that Christ was the "Perfect Sacrifice" based upon the "keeping of the law". Which I believe is a ridiculous theology. To me, this feeds some of the extreme versions of PSA that we're dealing with in Calvinism. I do believe there is some sense of wrath expressed in the death of Christ and he does a great job at dealing with this. Calvinism doesn't mind such a position because they believe "THEY" are "chosen" and the ultimately consequence are insignificant" to them. While Arminianism does the opposite.

The battle over the theology of the Atonement has taken a dramatic turn in my lifetime. There is a desire to abandon any sense of holiness via "rules/laws" and it begins with the teachings of the Atonement. I try not to let my own desires influence my theology. I simply take myself out of the circumstances and seek the truth. There are many ambiguous areas in the teaching of the Atonement and I believe God designed it that way. We have to make choices and often our bias is revealed in what we easily seek. When it comes to this subject I struggle to maintain a balance between by natural inclinations and what God has done.

I do have an issue with the doctrine of "Federal Headship" which drives much of teaching that comes out of PSA. I also have an issue from this video stating that Adam's sin made Satan Adam's god.

Power over death is at issue here.

Sin is of the devil. We know it predated man. We know that sin entered the world but it was more than just eating an "apple". Adam literally chose Eve over God. God's creation for him over the one that created her.

Christ was made under the dominion of sin. The Dominion of death in the Incarnation. He became sin for us that knew no sin..... This just didn't start at Calvary. It came to Christ through the seed of Eve.

1Jn 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Rom 6:9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.

God doesn't as He pleases but His actions are a result of His character. Some appeal to such for a sense of "Holiness" they believe shows God's love for THEM at the expense of their brothers in Adam. Which is wrong. God committed His love for us while we were yet sinners.... Christ died for us.

Ultimately, I believe Christ came to WIN US to Himself. To appeal to us through His own loving actions. It is God tasting death for us that destroyed the work of Satan.

What you believe and trust is what you love. It can never start with endless commandments. I must start with our faith in WHO saved us.

Excellent thoughts and commentary on the issues with the atonement in some circles. You and I have very similar views on the atonement, the Person and work of Christ, His 2 natures and the Trinity. It’s no wonder they as so interconnected and intertwined in theology.

 

[Wrangler]

Penal Substitution theory blown up sky high by Jay Dyer:

CC: @civic @Wrangler @Fred @praise_yeshua @dizerner

Thanks for posting this. I hope to watch it later today.