PSA is necessary for the U and L in TULIP

civic

Well-known member
Since Gods wrath was necessary to be poured out on Christ and there is still Gods wrath to come that falls upon all of the nonelect reprobates , Christs atonement was only for the elect whom Christ endured Gods wrath for on the cross- the limited atonement for the elect.. All others who are the non elect will suffer Gods wrath in the future. This view of the atonement was necessary for reformed theology to fit into their TULIP doctrine and make the atonement work with those other doctrines that were invented by man. Those who support PSA must also support the U/L in tulip. They are 2 sides of the same coin. Justice with the atonement came with the PSA doctrine. It was not taught prior to PSA when the doctrine came into being as we know it now from Hodges in the 1800's with his systematic theology. Just like tulip did not exist until after Calvin died and the doctrine was developed in Dort. PSA is a recent modern day heresy. Those who reject Pre Tribulationalism because its the newest eschatological view must also reject PSA since its the most recent view of the Atonement. See the double standards ?

Isaiah 53 - actually opposes PSA- the calvinist twists this in parenthesis

Who has believed what he has heard from us?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we ( GOD )should look at him,
and no beauty that we ( GOD )should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men,(GOD)
a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men(GOD) hide their (HIS ) faces
he was despised( BY GOD ), and we ( GOD ) esteemed him not.
4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we (GOD )esteemed him stricken,- (PSA teaches God)
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions; ( by man )
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; ( not born a sinner- no TD )
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, ( man led Him )
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away; ( mans oppression, not God )
and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?
9 And they made his grave with the wicked
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; ( no wrath on Jesus )- the word can mean humble, contrite, oppress
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,( reconciled to God, mans deliverance, redeemed, ransom, substitute, atonement)
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities. ( atonement- no wrath )
12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors.
 
Last edited:
It is the Calvinists, in fact, who brought in the whole double jeopardy argument to protect their limited atonement.

Certainly we completely reject this argument, as it denies the logical existence of conditional payments and asserts only unconditional payments.

You also need to realize that proponents of PSA in general agree that verses 1-4 is from man's perspective, and there is nothing contrary in that.

Obviously a sheep turned away is not trying to overturn the sin nature here, and the rest of your notes are forcing your theology on the text.
 
It is the Calvinists, in fact, who brought in the whole double jeopardy argument to protect their limited atonement.

Certainly we completely reject this argument, as it denies the logical existence of conditional payments and asserts only unconditional payments.

You also need to realize that proponents of PSA in general agree that verses 1-4 is from man's perspective, and there is nothing contrary in that.

Obviously a sheep turned away is not trying to overturn the sin nature here, and the rest of your notes are forcing your theology on the text.
PSA was created to support tulip it’s the only way tulip can work with the atonement. It’s as simple as that. It’s why Calvinists reject all the prior theories of the atonement and make PSA a gospel essential belief.
 
I know for a fact that's not true.

Many will say it incorporates elements of past theories.
I’ve argued with them on this and defended it for years as a former Calvinist . I’ll prove it with quotes from Calvinist theologians . They even equate it with the gospel. To deny PSA is to deny the gospel. You even say that lol. Complete rubbish , heresy
 
I’ve argued with them on this and defended it for years as a former Calvinist . I’ll prove it with quotes from Calvinist theologians . They even equate it with the gospel. To deny PSA is to deny the gospel. You even say that lol. Complete rubbish , heresy

Yes, but you are missing the point here.

PSA INCLUDES past theories of the atonement as PART of its definition.

So you set up a false dichotomy of either or that already assumes your position true begging the question.

You set up other atonement theories as polar opposites to help you better attack PSA and make out like it's completely different.

Atonement theories overlap.
 
Yes, but you are missing the point here.

PSA INCLUDES past theories of the atonement as PART of its definition.

So you set up a false dichotomy of either or that already assumes your position true begging the question.

You set up other atonement theories as polar opposites to help you better attack PSA and make out like it's completely different.

Atonement theories overlap.
PENAL has everything to do with tulip- you cannot have one without the other in Calvinism. The entire calvinist systematic is based upon, wrath, justice, punishment, etc........ Love, mercy, forgiveness of sins is secondary whereas in scripture they are primary. PSA has the wrong emphasis on the atonement. They make up wrath from Father to Son in the theory. Its love not anger, wrath, vengeance, retribution, justice in the atonement.
 
To quote from Alexander Renault's book Rediscovering Tulip,

"To walk away from God (i.e., to sin) is by definition, death. Death is the realm of 'Not God.' Likewise, if I pull the plug on my own life support system, the result is death. No one else is killing me. If I jump off the roof, after being warned by my mother not to, and I end up breaking my leg, does that mean that my mother broke my leg? No, that was simply the result of my own choice. Christ gave Himself up to death. If death is an active punishment from God, then Christ was punished by His Father (per penal substitution). But if death is the result of sin, then it is an outside enemy and not God's own wrath."

As Eric Hyde argues, "If one chooses to interpret hilasterion as propitiation (literally: "to make favorable," with the implication of placating or appeasing the deity), then the entire Western notion of substitutionary atonement fits well." But, if one uses the word expiation, which implies a cleansing and removing of sin, this fits less into the penal substitutionary atonement model. This turns the death and resurrection of Christ around - no longer is Christ trying to appease an angry God the Father who has wrath that must be satisfied; instead, Christ is lovingly redeeming and restoring humanity. Let's also consider that hilasterion is used in the Septuagint to mean the "mercy seat" or "thing that atones." It also appears again in Hebrews 9:5 as the mercy seat. Given that context to hilasterion, it makes more sense that Christ's self-sacrifice was an act to remove our sins instead of an act to appease or pacify an angry Father, so He can forgive.
 
PENAL has everything to do with tulip- you cannot have one without the other in Calvinism. The entire calvinist systematic is based upon, wrath, justice, punishment, etc........ Love, mercy, forgiveness of sins is secondary whereas in scripture they are primary. PSA has the wrong emphasis on the atonement. They make up wrath from Father to Son in the theory. Its love not anger, wrath, vengeance, retribution, justice in the atonement.

More Arminians believe PSA than Calvinists.

It is not intrinsic to the Calvinist system nor invented by it.

You are just trying to discredit something by association.
 
The Calvinist site 9Marks declares PSA is the gospel. Not only is it the gospel, its the heart of the gospel. Yikes.

I agree it is the heart of the Gospel.

But this is not some Calvinist thing, you are trying to make it look that way by only posting Calvinist sources.
 
As Eric Hyde argues, "If one chooses to interpret hilasterion as propitiation (literally: "to make favorable," with the implication of placating or appeasing the deity), then the entire Western notion of substitutionary atonement fits well." But, if one uses the word expiation, which implies a cleansing and removing of sin, this fits less into the penal substitutionary atonement model. This turns the death and resurrection of Christ around - no longer is Christ trying to appease an angry God the Father who has wrath that must be satisfied; instead, Christ is lovingly redeeming and restoring humanity. Let's also consider that hilasterion is used in the Septuagint to mean the "mercy seat" or "thing that atones." It also appears again in Hebrews 9:5 as the mercy seat. Given that context to hilasterion, it makes more sense that Christ's self-sacrifice was an act to remove our sins instead of an act to appease or pacify an angry Father, so He can forgive.

False dichotomy fallacy.
 
I agree it is the heart of the Gospel.

But this is not some Calvinist thing, you are trying to make it look that way by only posting Calvinist sources.
Thats a false gospel. I'm glad you acknowledged it here. Thanks for admitting its essential to believe PSA to be saved.
 
Desiring God Calvinist website affirms PSA is the gospel. Once again my premise has proved to be correct inspite of what @dizerner claimed I did not know from post 3 and 6. I have proven Calvinist equate the heart of the gospel by which we are saved with believing in PSA.

 
Thats a false gospel. I'm glad you acknowledged it here. Thanks for admitting its essential to believe PSA to be saved.

Now you are twisting what I said.

I never said you have to believe the heart of the Gospel to be saved.

You can believe the spleen or the liver or the small intestine of the Gospel and still be saved.

Please be more careful with your accusations!
 
Desiring God Calvinist website affirms PSA is the gospel. Once again my premise has proved to be correct inspite of what @dizerner claimed I did not know from post 3 and 6. I have proven Calvinist equate the heart of the gospel by which we are saved with believing in PSA.

Did you look for even ONE Arminian who believes that?

No, you didn't.

You're only desire was to make it "look bad."

Shameful.
 
Ligoneer and Mac make it a mandatory belief, is its essential to ones salvation- PSA- In Calvinism one cannot be saved apart from PSA and TULIP. They go hand in hand together. Even Spurgeon called tulip the gospel as do many other calvinist pastors/ theologians just like they do with PSA saying its the heart of the gospel.

My OP stands as proof/evidence its true since I have quoted several calvinist sources affirming my claims about PSA /Tulip are true that they must be believed to be saved. One cannot be saved apart from the gospel and one cannot deny the gospel and be saved.

Looks like this will be added to my paper on PSA.

And I don't know calvinism or what they teach lol. I'm exposing their doctrines they make essential to ones salvation and the gospel. They are adding to the gospel which Paul condemns in Galatians 1. Since wrath with Jesus and the gospel is never mentioned by any NT writer or Jesus its 100% adding to the gospel.


 
Last edited:
Now you are twisting what I said.

I never said you have to believe the heart of the Gospel to be saved.

You can believe the spleen or the liver or the small intestine of the Gospel and still be saved.

Please be more careful with your accusations!
One cannot be saved apart from the gospel- Bible 101.

Now you are twisting scripture and the gospel by which we are saved- 1 Cor 15:3-8.

You went on record saying that PSA is "the heart of the gospel"

your words, not mine so own them or deny them take your pick.

hope this helps !!!
 
One cannot be saved apart from the gospel- Bible 101.

I never said APART from the Gospel.

QUOTE ME WHERE I SAID THAT.

You went on record saying that PSA is "the heart of the gospel"

Yes.

your words, not mine so own them or deny them take your pick.

Okay, Mr. Gunslinger, slow down and use that brain for more than a hat rack.

The heart is not the ONLY thing that makes up a body.

Do you see hearts just beating all by themselves wiggling around?

No, the heart needs a whole framework of a body to live.
 
Back
Top Bottom