Isaiah 53 the origin of PSA

Johann said:
Oh yes, Jesus did.
Stay strong brother.
J.
Click to expand...

I've said this before. I'll say it again. The more some see Jesus "dirty" because of their sin, the more they feel better about themselves.

There is this narrative that Jesus struggled with sin to the point of ALMOST succumbing sin. That is what is being taught here. Which is a horrible mistake.

Do you feel better the more that you believe Jesus struggled with sin?
 
civic said:
I have the same viewpoint as Jesus and the Apostle’s
Click to expand...

Site logo image Bible Apologetics - A DAILY DEVOTIONAL
Howard G. Hendricks – Quotes that Impact the Heart

Curt Blattman

Dec 17

winding road photography
“Dr. Howard G. Hendricks, known simply as “Prof,” directly or indirectly touched millions of lives in the evangelical community and beyond. For more than sixty years Prof served on the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS), where he taught more than ten thousand students. He also ministered in person in more than eighty countries. Through speaking engagements, radio, tapes, films, the sixteen books he authored and coauthored, countless journal and popular-market articles, his service on numerous boards, and his work as a chaplain to the Dallas Cowboys (1976–1984), his reach was and is worldwide.”1

Professor Hendricks was known as a special mentor to thousands of his students and his great passion was to disciple them to become more conformed to the image of Christ. A small sampling of his deep wisdom on spiritual matters follows.2

“The Bible was written not to satisfy your curiosity but to help you conform to Christ's image. Not to make you a smarter sinner but to make you like the Saviour. Not to fill your head with a collection of biblical facts but to transform your life.”

“You are either in the Word and the Word is conforming you to the image of Jesus Christ, or you are in the world and the world is squeezing you into its mold.”

“Every disciple needs three types of relationships in his life. He needs a ‘Paul’ who can mentor him and challenge him. He needs a ‘Barnabas’ who can come along side and encourage him. And he needs a ‘Timothy,’ someone that he can pour his life into.”

“You are free to make choices. You are not free to escape the consequences.”

“A belief is something you will argue about. A conviction is something you will die for.”

“When God measures a man he puts the tape around the heart, not the head.”

“It is not about where you are but in what direction you're moving. God is into character, not credentials.”

“If you leave the church service thinking about how good the pastor was, he has missed the mark. If you leave consumed with Christ, the pastor has been used by the Lord.”

“The will of God is found in the Word of God. The more a person grows, the more he begins to think instinctively and habitually from a divine perspective.”

“People tell me they want to make the Bible relevant. Nonsense. The Bible’s already relevant. You’re the one that’s irrelevant!”

“How big is your God? The size of your God determines the size of everything.”

“God is not looking for more stars; He’s looking for more servants.”

“In the spiritual realm, the opposite of ignorance is not knowledge, it’s obedience.”

“You never graduate from the school of discipleship.”

“So it is with scripture. The word of God is there, able to transform your life. But you must probe for it. You have to penetrate the surface with more than just a cursory glance.”

“Biblically speaking, to hear and not to do is not to hear at all.”

“There was no identity crisis in the life of Jesus Christ. He knew who He was. He knew where He had come from, and why he was here. And he knew where He was going. And when you are that liberated, then you can serve.”

“Just think about it: God wanted to communicate with you in the twenty-first century - and he wrote His message in a book.”

“So the real question confronting you now is: How can you afford not to be in God’s Word?”
 
James 4:5-6
(5) Or do you think that the Scripture says in vain, "The Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously"? (6) But He gives more grace. Therefore He says:
" God resists the proud,
But gives grace to the humble."

Proverbs 23:6-7
(6) Do not eat the bread of a miser,
Nor desire his delicacies;
(7) For as he thinks in his heart, so is he.
" Eat and drink!" he says to you,
But his heart is not with you.
Romans 12:3
(3) For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith.
New King James Version Change Bible versions

Taken together, James 4:5-6, Proverbs 23:6-7, and Romans 12:3 indicate that what a person thinks of himself is clearly important to God. We all have an image of ourselves that we carry about in our heart. We tend to think of ourselves in a certain way, a persona that we want to project to others. This is not wrong of and by itself. Because we love God, we should greatly desire to project to others an image of Him that is pleasing to Him. What is wrong, though, is that too often the image we project has its basis in some area of pride.

Most of us do not really understand exactly what image we project to others. In other words, we often do not succeed in projecting the impression we want others to have of us. For instance, it is easy for a person to think he is projecting an image of one who is serious, quiet, and contemplative, when the reality is that others consider him to be stern and condemning. A wide divergence of conclusions about an individual is actually quite common. While those who know us may see the same person, they take away different impressions, which results in different assessments.

The image that we try to project is what we think we ought to project for someone in our position. As mentioned earlier, the problem in most of this image-projection is that it is driven by pride, and "God resists the proud."

Since so many commentators believe that pride is the father of all sins, it is surprising that "pride" appears only 49 times in Scripture and only three times in the New Testament. The Hebrew term ga'on in a good sense indicates "majesty" or "excellence." However, most of its usages are negative, as the antonym of "humility." It is associated with arrogance, insolence, evil behavior, and perverse speech.

The Greek word translated pride is tuphoo. Its literal meaning is "to envelop in smoke," but metaphorically, it indicates "conceit," "lifted up," and "high-mindedness." The word pictures a person using smoke as a screen to conceal the image he does not want the public to see.

Pride includes a degree of haughtiness, a measure of contempt for others. It is a matter of the heart that is buried under the surface. However, though the one who suffers from it may appear to walk in downcast humility, all the while in his heart he has vast contempt for God and fellow man, which is revealed in his lack of the fear of God and general, overall disobedience.

Why is God so against pride? A person infected by this deadly quality so admires himself that he is unaware of his paucity of vastly more important qualities. A proud person cherishes independence so that he will not be beholden to others. He is so preoccupied with his self-proclaimed goodness that he never realizes that he has any sin from which he needs to be saved, and thus he will not be corrected. He believes that he is above it all.

— John W. Ritenbaugh
 
Johann said:
Site logo image Bible Apologetics - A DAILY DEVOTIONAL
Howard G. Hendricks – Quotes that Impact the Heart

Curt Blattman

Dec 17

winding road photography
“Dr. Howard G. Hendricks, known simply as “Prof,” directly or indirectly touched millions of lives in the evangelical community and beyond. For more than sixty years Prof served on the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS), where he taught more than ten thousand students. He also ministered in person in more than eighty countries. Through speaking engagements, radio, tapes, films, the sixteen books he authored and coauthored, countless journal and popular-market articles, his service on numerous boards, and his work as a chaplain to the Dallas Cowboys (1976–1984), his reach was and is worldwide.”1

Professor Hendricks was known as a special mentor to thousands of his students and his great passion was to disciple them to become more conformed to the image of Christ. A small sampling of his deep wisdom on spiritual matters follows.2

“The Bible was written not to satisfy your curiosity but to help you conform to Christ's image. Not to make you a smarter sinner but to make you like the Saviour. Not to fill your head with a collection of biblical facts but to transform your life.”

“You are either in the Word and the Word is conforming you to the image of Jesus Christ, or you are in the world and the world is squeezing you into its mold.”

“Every disciple needs three types of relationships in his life. He needs a ‘Paul’ who can mentor him and challenge him. He needs a ‘Barnabas’ who can come along side and encourage him. And he needs a ‘Timothy,’ someone that he can pour his life into.”

“You are free to make choices. You are not free to escape the consequences.”

“A belief is something you will argue about. A conviction is something you will die for.”

“When God measures a man he puts the tape around the heart, not the head.”

“It is not about where you are but in what direction you're moving. God is into character, not credentials.”

“If you leave the church service thinking about how good the pastor was, he has missed the mark. If you leave consumed with Christ, the pastor has been used by the Lord.”

“The will of God is found in the Word of God. The more a person grows, the more he begins to think instinctively and habitually from a divine perspective.”

“People tell me they want to make the Bible relevant. Nonsense. The Bible’s already relevant. You’re the one that’s irrelevant!”

“How big is your God? The size of your God determines the size of everything.”

“God is not looking for more stars; He’s looking for more servants.”

“In the spiritual realm, the opposite of ignorance is not knowledge, it’s obedience.”

“You never graduate from the school of discipleship.”

“So it is with scripture. The word of God is there, able to transform your life. But you must probe for it. You have to penetrate the surface with more than just a cursory glance.”

“Biblically speaking, to hear and not to do is not to hear at all.”

“There was no identity crisis in the life of Jesus Christ. He knew who He was. He knew where He had come from, and why he was here. And he knew where He was going. And when you are that liberated, then you can serve.”

“Just think about it: God wanted to communicate with you in the twenty-first century - and he wrote His message in a book.”

“So the real question confronting you now is: How can you afford not to be in God’s Word?”
Click to expand...
And ?

I have several of his hardbound book in my library
 
Johann said:
“When God measures a man he puts the tape around the heart, not the head.”
Click to expand...
AGONY (Gk. agōnia, “struggle”). Used both in classical and NT Gk. of severe
mental struggles and emotions; our anguish. The Gk. word is used in the NT only by
Luke (22:44) to describe the fearful struggle through which our Lord passed in the
Garden of Gethsemane. The circumstances of this mysterious transaction are recorded
in Matt. 26:36–46; Mark 14:32–42; and Heb. 5:7–8. Luke alone notices the agony, the
bloody sweat, and the appearance of the strengthening angel. All agree that He prayed
for the removal of “this cup” and are careful to note that He qualified this petition by
a preference of His Father’s will to His own. The question is, What did He mean by
“this cup”? What was the cause of this sorrow unto death?
In answer we quote Edersheim: “Not fear, either of bodily or mental suffering: but
death. Man’s nature, created of God immortal, shrinks (by the law of its nature) from
the dissolution of the bond that binds body to soul. Yet to fallen man death is not by
any means fully death, for he is born with the taste of it in his soul. Not so Christ. It
was the unfallen Man dying; it was He, who had no experience of it, tasting death,
and that not for Himself but for every man, emptying the cup to its bitter dregs. It was
the Christ undergoing death by man and for man; the incarnate God, the God-man,
submitting Himself vicariously to the deepest humiliation, and paying the utmost
penalty: death—all death. No one could know what death was (not dying, which men
dread, but Christ dreaded not); no one could taste its bitterness as He. His going into
death was His final conflict with Satan for man, and on his behalf. By submitting to it
He took away the power of death. He disarmed Death by burying his shaft in His own
heart. And beyond this lies the deep, unutterable mystery of Christ bearing the penalty
due to our sin, bearing our death, bearing the penalty of the broken law, the
accumulated guilt of humanity, and the holy wrath of the righteous Judge upon them”
(Life of Jesus, 2:538–39).
Unger.

But you don't agree @civic.
 
ATONEMENT (Heb. kaphar, to “cover, cancel”; Gk. katallagē, “exchange,
reconciliation”).
Definition. In accordance with the force of these terms of Scripture the atonement
is the covering over of sin, the reconcilation between God and man, accomplished by
the Lord Jesus Christ. It is that special result of Christ’s sacrificial sufferings and
death by virtue of which all who exercise proper penitence and faith receive
forgiveness of their sins and obtain peace.
Scripture Doctrine—Terms and Methods. In addition to the terms named above
there are other words used in the Scriptures that express the idea of atonement or
throw special light upon its meaning. Of these may be here cited (1) hilaskomai,
translated (Heb. 2:17; Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2; 4:10) to “make propitiation”; (2) lutron,
translated “ransom,” “redemption” (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; Luke 2:38; Heb. 9:12).
By such words and in such passages as these the doctrine is taught that Christ died to
effect reconciliation between God and man, to propitiate the divine favor on behalf of
sinful men, and to redeem or ransom men from the penalties and the dominion of their
sins.
There are also forms of expression in which the idea of substitution, that Christ
stands as our substitute in the economy of divine grace, appear with marked emphasis
(Rom. 5:6–8; 1 Cor. 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13; Titus 2:14; 1 Pet. 2:24; 3:18).
The divinely appointed sacrifices of the OT dispensation are also full of
significance, embracing as they did special offerings or sacrifices for sin. The uniform
teaching of the NT is that these were typical of the sacrifice that Christ made of
Himself for the sins of the world.
Summary. Although the Scriptures do not give a philosophical theory or
explanation of the atonement, nor perhaps furnish us with data altogether sufficient
for such a theory, they still give much information. (1) The Scriptures reveal the
atonement to us as an accomplished and completed fact (Heb. 9:13–26). (2) They
represent this fact as necessary to human salvation (Luke 24:41–47; Acts 4:12). (3)
Although the whole earthly life of Christ contained an atoning and even sacrificial
element, the virtue of the atonement is to be found chiefly in His sacrificial death,
thus His death was indispensable (John 3:14–15). (4) In the atoning death of Christ
was exhibited not only the holy wrath of God against sin but quite as much the love of
God toward sinful men (Rom. 3:25–26; 5:6–8; John 3:16). (5) The gracious divine
purpose realized in the atonement was wrought into the creation of man. Redemption
was in the thought and plan of the Creator so that man, falling, fell into the arms of
divine mercy. The Lamb of God was in the fore-knowledge of God slain from the
foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8; 1 Pet. 1:19–20). (6) The atonement is not limited
but universal in the extent of its gracious provisions (Heb. 2:9; 1 Tim. 2:5–6; 4:10;
Rom. 5:18; 2 Cor. 5:14–15). (7) The universality of the atonement does not lead to
universal salvation. The greater offer of salvation may be, and often is, rejected, and
when the rejection is final the atonement avails nothing for the sinner (Mark 16:16;
John 3:36; Heb. 10:26–29). (8) The atonement is the actual objective ground of
forgiveness of sins and acceptance with God for all penitent believers (John 3:16;
Acts 2:38; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14).

Continue--
 
Theological Treatment. This branch of the subject calls for two classes of
statements: (1) as to the history of the doctrine; (2) as to the theological views most
generally held at the present time.
History. During the early centuries of the history of the church, and particularly
prior to the Nicene Council (A.D. 325), Christian theology simply reflected, in the
main, the teaching of the NT upon this subject. The attention of theologians was
concentrated upon the Person of Christ. There was but little speculation as to the
method of the atonement or the exact ground of its necessity.

That the sacrifice of
Christ was vicarious, that He suffered in the stead of men, was, however, an idea
constantly held; that these sufferings were necessary to meet the requirement of divine
righteousness was sometimes declared with emphasis. A fanciful notion, it is true,
began to appear at that early period, a notion that afterward obtained some measure of
prominence. Christ was regarded as a ransom paid to the devil to redeem men who by
their sin had come under the dominion of the devil. This was taught by Origen (A.D.
230) and more emphatically by Gregory of Nyssa (A.D. 370). This view has also, but
incorrectly, been attributed to Irenaeus (A.D. 180). Captious critics and infidels have
often cited this incident in the history of theology in order to bring all theology into
ridicule and contempt. But it is to be remembered that this phase of doctrine was
always met with the strongest denial and opposition, as by Athanasius (A.D. 370) and
Gregory of Nazianzum (A.D. 390). It was never the accepted doctrine of the Christian
church.
Anselm. Prominent in the history of the doctrine of the atonement must stand the
name of Anselm, A.D. 1100. In his book Cur Deus Homo he brings out most clearly
and emphatically the idea of the atonement as satisfaction to divine majesty. He
viewed the necessity of atonement as entirely in the justice of God. He made this term
“satisfaction,” it has been said, “a watchword for all future time.” It is certain that
what is known as the satisfaction theory of the atonement will ever stand associated
with his name, although his satisfaction theory is not quite the same as that of the
Reformers.

Abelard. Chief among the opponents of Anselm was Abelard, A.D. 1141. He
referred the atonement wholly to the love of God and taught that there could be
nothing in the divine essence that required satisfaction for sin. The death of Christ
upon the cross was solely an exhibition of divine love. The effect is moral only. It is
intended to subdue the hearts of sinful men, to lead them to repentance and devotion
to Christ. Thus Abelard stands as the father of what is known as the moral influence
theory.

Grotius. An epoch in the history of the doctrine was reached when Grotius, A.D.
1617, wrote his Defensio fidei Cathol. de Satisfactione. He wrote in refutation of the
teaching of Socinus, who denied the vicarious character of Christ’s death and the need
of any reconciliation of God with man. Grotius held fast to the vicariousness of
Christ’s sufferings and used the term satisfaction. But in his view it was a satisfaction
to the requirements of moral government and not to the justice that inheres in God
Himself.

The necessity of the atonement, accordingly, he found not in the nature of
God but in the nature of the divine government. The purpose of the atonement is to
make it possible to exercise mercy toward fallen and sinful men, and at the same time
maintain the dignity of the law, the honor of the Lawgiver, and protect the moral
interests of the universe. Grotius thus founded what is known as the rectoral or
governmental theory.

The doctrines of Anselm, Abelard, and Grotius represent the principal tendencies
of thought and discussion throughout the whole history of the doctrine. Under the
treatment of various theologians these doctrines received modification more or less
important, but in their leading principles these three forms of teaching have been the
most prominent in the theology of the Christian church.

Modern Views. Aside from the opinion of rationalists and semirationalists, who
wholly or in part reject the authority of Scripture and accordingly attach but slight if
any importance to Scripture teaching concerning the atonement, the three theories
prominent in the past are still the prominent theories of the present. With various
shadings and modifications and attempts at interblending, they embody in the main
the thinking of modern times upon this subject.
It should be said, however, that the moral influence theory has never obtained
formal or general acceptance in any evangelical communion. It has justly been
regarded as falling far short of adequately representing the teaching of Scripture. It
contains some measure of truth but leaves out the truth most essential: that of real,
objective atonement. It reduces the atonement to an object lesson.

The thought of the Christian church of today is divided in its adherence between
the satisfaction and governmental theories, these theories appearing in various forms.

But no one of these views is free from grave logical objections if held too rigidly and
exclusively. Thus the satisfaction theory, if held in the sense that Christ actually bore
the punishment for the sins of men, or that He literally, according to the figure of
Anselm, paid the debt of human transgressors after the manner of a commercial
transaction, must lead logically to one or the other of two extremes—either that of a
limited atonement or that of universalism. It tends also to antinomianism, to say
nothing of other objections often raised. The governmental theory, held alone and too
boldly, loses sight of the fact that the divine government must be a reflection of the
divine nature and that what is required by that government must be required also by
some quality inherent in God. Further, this theory, if not guarded strongly, and by
bringing in, in some form, the idea of satisfaction to divine justice, reduces the death
of Christ to a great moral spectacle. It becomes, in fact, another moral influence
theory.
A strong tendency, accordingly, of the present day is to seek some way of
mediating between or of uniting the elements of truth found in these various theories.

It is certain that the Scriptures do represent the death of Christ as a most affecting
manifestation of the love of God. It is certain also that His death is represented as
sacrificial and required by the justice of God. And it is equally true that it is often
viewed in its relations to divine law and the moral economy that God has established.
And if the earnest attempts of devout thinkers do not succeed wholly in penetrating
the mystery of the cross and in bringing the exact meaning of Christ’s death within
the compass of their definitions, still it is held as beyond all question that the
atonement wrought by Christ is a fundamental fact in human salvation, a real
“covering” for sin, the divinely appointed measure for “reconciliation” between God
and man.

Extent of Atonement. The extent of atonement is much less discussed than
formerly. Many Calvinists have departed from the view they once strenuously held,
that the atonement was for the elect only.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. Aulen, Christus Victor (1935); L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology
(1950), 3:135–64; 7:25–27; L. L. Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross
(1955); K. Barth, Church Dogmatics (1961), 4:1–3; H. P. Liddon, Divinity of Our
Lord and
d and Saviour Jesus Christ (1978), pp. 480ff.; J. Denney, The Death of Christ
(1982).
 
Last edited:
Johann said:
Theological Treatment. This branch of the subject calls for two classes of
statements: (1) as to the history of the doctrine; (2) as to the theological views most
generally held at the present time.
History. During the early centuries of the history of the church, and particularly
prior to the Nicene Council (A.D. 325), Christian theology simply reflected, in the
main, the teaching of the NT upon this subject. The attention of theologians was
concentrated upon the Person of Christ. There was but little speculation as to the
method of the atonement or the exact ground of its necessity.

That the sacrifice of
Christ was vicarious, that He suffered in the stead of men, was, however, an idea
constantly held; that these sufferings were necessary to meet the requirement of divine
righteousness was sometimes declared with emphasis. A fanciful notion, it is true,
began to appear at that early period, a notion that afterward obtained some measure of
prominence. Christ was regarded as a ransom paid to the devil to redeem men who by
their sin had come under the dominion of the devil. This was taught by Origen (A.D.
230) and more emphatically by Gregory of Nyssa (A.D. 370). This view has also, but
incorrectly, been attributed to Irenaeus (A.D. 180). Captious critics and infidels have
often cited this incident in the history of theology in order to bring all theology into
ridicule and contempt. But it is to be remembered that this phase of doctrine was
always met with the strongest denial and opposition, as by Athanasius (A.D. 370) and
Gregory of Nazianzum (A.D. 390). It was never the accepted doctrine of the Christian
church.
Anselm. Prominent in the history of the doctrine of the atonement must stand the
name of Anselm, A.D. 1100. In his book Cur Deus Homo he brings out most clearly
and emphatically the idea of the atonement as satisfaction to divine majesty. He
viewed the necessity of atonement as entirely in the justice of God. He made this term
“satisfaction,” it has been said, “a watchword for all future time.” It is certain that
what is known as the satisfaction theory of the atonement will ever stand associated
with his name, although his satisfaction theory is not quite the same as that of the
Reformers.

Abelard. Chief among the opponents of Anselm was Abelard, A.D. 1141. He
referred the atonement wholly to the love of God and taught that there could be
nothing in the divine essence that required satisfaction for sin. The death of Christ
upon the cross was solely an exhibition of divine love. The effect is moral only. It is
intended to subdue the hearts of sinful men, to lead them to repentance and devotion
to Christ. Thus Abelard stands as the father of what is known as the moral influence
theory.

Grotius. An epoch in the history of the doctrine was reached when Grotius, A.D.
1617, wrote his Defensio fidei Cathol. de Satisfactione. He wrote in refutation of the
teaching of Socinus, who denied the vicarious character of Christ’s death and the need
of any reconciliation of God with man. Grotius held fast to the vicariousness of
Christ’s sufferings and used the term satisfaction. But in his view it was a satisfaction
to the requirements of moral government and not to the justice that inheres in God
Himself.

The necessity of the atonement, accordingly, he found not in the nature of
God but in the nature of the divine government. The purpose of the atonement is to
make it possible to exercise mercy toward fallen and sinful men, and at the same time
maintain the dignity of the law, the honor of the Lawgiver, and protect the moral
interests of the universe. Grotius thus founded what is known as the rectoral or
governmental theory.

The doctrines of Anselm, Abelard, and Grotius represent the principal tendencies
of thought and discussion throughout the whole history of the doctrine. Under the
treatment of various theologians these doctrines received modification more or less
important, but in their leading principles these three forms of teaching have been the
most prominent in the theology of the Christian church.

Modern Views. Aside from the opinion of rationalists and semirationalists, who
wholly or in part reject the authority of Scripture and accordingly attach but slight if
any importance to Scripture teaching concerning the atonement, the three theories
prominent in the past are still the prominent theories of the present. With various
shadings and modifications and attempts at interblending, they embody in the main
the thinking of modern times upon this subject.
It should be said, however, that the moral influence theory has never obtained
formal or general acceptance in any evangelical communion. It has justly been
regarded as falling far short of adequately representing the teaching of Scripture. It
contains some measure of truth but leaves out the truth most essential: that of real,
objective atonement. It reduces the atonement to an object lesson.

The thought of the Christian church of today is divided in its adherence between
the satisfaction and governmental theories, these theories appearing in various forms.

But no one of these views is free from grave logical objections if held too rigidly and
exclusively. Thus the satisfaction theory, if held in the sense that Christ actually bore
the punishment for the sins of men, or that He literally, according to the figure of
Anselm, paid the debt of human transgressors after the manner of a commercial
transaction, must lead logically to one or the other of two extremes—either that of a
limited atonement or that of universalism. It tends also to antinomianism, to say
nothing of other objections often raised. The governmental theory, held alone and too
boldly, loses sight of the fact that the divine government must be a reflection of the
divine nature and that what is required by that government must be required also by
some quality inherent in God. Further, this theory, if not guarded strongly, and by
bringing in, in some form, the idea of satisfaction to divine justice, reduces the death
of Christ to a great moral spectacle. It becomes, in fact, another moral influence
theory.
A strong tendency, accordingly, of the present day is to seek some way of
mediating between or of uniting the elements of truth found in these various theories.

It is certain that the Scriptures do represent the death of Christ as a most affecting
manifestation of the love of God. It is certain also that His death is represented as
sacrificial and required by the justice of God. And it is equally true that it is often
viewed in its relations to divine law and the moral economy that God has established.
And if the earnest attempts of devout thinkers do not succeed wholly in penetrating
the mystery of the cross and in bringing the exact meaning of Christ’s death within
the compass of their definitions, still it is held as beyond all question that the
atonement wrought by Christ is a fundamental fact in human salvation, a real
“covering” for sin, the divinely appointed measure for “reconciliation” between God
and man.

Extent of Atonement. The extent of atonement is much less discussed than
formerly. Many Calvinists have departed from the view they once strenuously held,
that the atonement was for the elect only.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. Aulen, Christus Victor (1935); L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology
(1950), 3:135–64; 7:25–27; L. L. Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross
(1955); K. Barth, Church Dogmatics (1961), 4:1–3; H. P. Liddon, Divinity of Our
Lord and
d and Saviour Jesus Christ (1978), pp. 480ff.; J. Denney, The Death of Christ
(1982).
Click to expand...
Origen, Anselm, and Calvin: the unholy trinity of mass deception.
 
praise_yeshua said:
I've said this before. I'll say it again. The more some see Jesus "dirty" because of their sin, the more they feel better about themselves.

There is this narrative that Jesus struggled with sin to the point of ALMOST succumbing sin. That is what is being taught here. Which is a horrible mistake.

Do you feel better the more that you believe Jesus struggled with sin?
Click to expand...
That is so true
 
civic said:
Agreed but it’s difficult to leave Augustine out.
Click to expand...
This ranking was focused more on the primary deceivers of Biblical Atonement. As far as deceiving us on the entire Christian faith is concerned, Augustine clearly ranks number one. I should create a new thread to rank Christianity's greatest deceivers.
 
Johann said:
Extent of Atonement. The extent of atonement is much less discussed than
formerly. Many Calvinists have departed from the view they once strenuously held,
that the atonement was for the elect only.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. Aulen, Christus Victor (1935); L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology
(1950), 3:135–64; 7:25–27; L. L. Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross
(1955); K. Barth, Church Dogmatics (1961), 4:1–3; H. P. Liddon, Divinity of Our
Lord and
d and Saviour Jesus Christ (1978), pp. 480ff.; J. Denney, The Death of Christ
(1982).
Click to expand...
Then they are not Calvinists . No such thing as a 3 or 4 point Calvinist . A Calvinist believes all 5 or they are not a Calvinist.

Concerning the Five-Points of Calvinism, Loraine Boettner has stated on p. 59 of his book, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, "prove any one of them true and all of the others will follow as logical and necessary parts of the system. Prove any one of them false and the whole system must be abandoned." Since Mr. Boettner is considered an authority on the subject, I would encourage you to follow his advice and abandon the system when you find one of the Five-Points to be wrong.

The Five-Points of Calvinism are as follows:


1. Total Inability

2. Unconditional Election

3. Limited Atonement

4. Irresistible Grace

5. Perseverance of the Saints

And PSA goes hand in hand with TULIP. It was developed to fit in with it as a complete systematic. A real Calvinist who believes tulip will never reject PSA.

Jesus Himself argues against any “eye for an eye” sort of justice in the sermon on the mount. (Matthew 5:38-42)

Jesus refutes PSA above along with the command to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you just as Jesus demonstrated on the cross when He said : Father forgive them for they know not what they do. Jesus and the Apostle's taught just the opposite of PSA.


hope this helps !!!
 
Last edited:
synergy said:
This ranking was focused more on the primary deceivers of Biblical Atonement. As far as deceiving us on the entire Christian faith is concerned, Augustine clearly ranks number one. I should create a new thread to rank Christianity's greatest deceivers.
Click to expand...
Ok I can see that for sure 👍

Great idea for a thread
 
dizerner said:
Sometimes I think it is all "phraseology."

A person isn't "fat" (gasp).

They are just "calorically enabled and gravitationally challenged."

And in the end you are saying the same thing anyway, you just don't like a certain "phrasing."
Click to expand...
it is becoming too personal and divides the brothers.
 

Similar threads

civic
Origin of PSA
Replies
17
Views
442
101G
101G
civic
Isaiah 53:10 and the LXX
7 8 9
Replies
179
Views
3K
praise_yeshua
P
Johann
Why I hold to PSA.
Replies
5
Views
129
TomL
T
civic
PSA is necessary for the U and L in TULIP
2 3
Replies
54
Views
758
TomL
T
The Rogue Tomato
Isaiah 53 from the dead sea scrolls
Replies
2
Views
309
Johann
Johann
Back
Top Bottom