PSA is necessary for the U and L in TULIP

I never said APART from the Gospel.

QUOTE ME WHERE I SAID THAT.



Yes.



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.
The heart of the gospel is the message of the gospel that is preached to be saved.

Quit conflating/equivocating. We are not discussing the human heart but the central message ( heart ) of the gospel truth according to Calvinism , PSA , TULIP and salvation( the gospel ). They connect them all together as one in their soteriology.
 
Last edited:
We are not discussing the human heart but the central message ( heart ) of the gospel truth according to Calvinism , PSA , TULIP and salvation( the gospel ). They connect them all together as one in their soteriology.
As I believe I've shared before....Ah....my position might not make either side of this too happy, but I don't believe one has to believe Jesus took wrath from God the Father. I believe it's sufficient to believe and I lean to this that just like Abraham was willing to slay Issac (but he was replaced as a real lamb by God) but Abraham wouldn't have had all this wrath towards his son....nor do I think he thought of the lamb he slew as being all angry towards it.

There's no reason why anyone should believe that. His mental state was the lamb was a sacrifice. On the other hand however there are some, many or a few that believe what you're calling PSA, that is that you must use the word "wrath" from the emotions or mental state of God (perhaps the mental state isn't a good term) or the disposition of God.....well it has to be an anger upon Jesus.

As stated I don't believe it's necessary to believe that but I don't believe God is really upset that people do. I think he's more concerned that people (and both sides do) that we believe Jesus died as our substitute for sin. I think the focus should be put on that alone.....or I'll put it this way.

I think God would rather us all have discussions on ways and manners in which we can share the gospel to get people saved! In other words tell people that Jesus is the Lord or the universe and the world will be judged by him.....but tell them the good news that Jesus was the substitute who took our sin and that his precious blood remits our sin.

That's the good news to get people saved and to walk in the light of that. To get into the wrath/no wrath issue I sincerely believe is a distraction. As I said I don't believe my position here would make either side too happy for most it seems are insisting IT HAS TO BE defined either way. I'd say PEACE to all sides.
 
Quit conflating/equivocating. We are not discussing the human heart but the central message ( heart ) of the gospel truth according to Calvinism , PSA , TULIP and salvation( the gospel ). They connect them all together as one in their soteriology.
So question here though Civic. When you were a Calvinist did you believe in PSA?
 
So question here though Civic. When you were a Calvinist did you believe in PSA?
Yes 100% hook, line and sinker. As I began to study it on my own in light of the Tri- Unty of God it led me to question the premise of PSA and the Fathers wrath on the Son, departing from Him on the cross, abandoning Him because God is to holy to look upon sin and all the other teachings from PSA. It promotes a fractured Trinity and through those studies I began to question tulip as well and see the connections between them especially when it comes to wrath and who Gods wrath falls upon in scripture. It never once falls on the godly, righteous, holy, upright, redeemed, saints etc…… but always on the wicked, reprobate, haters of God, unrighteous and rebellious sinners.
 
Yes 100% hook, line and sinker. As I began to study it on my own in light of the Tri- Unty of God it led me to question the premise of PSA and the Fathers wrath on the Son, departing from Him on the cross, abandoning Him because God is to holy to look upon sin and all the other teachings from PSA. It promotes a fractured Trinity and through those studies I began to question tulip as well and see the connections between them especially when it comes to wrath and who Gods wrath falls upon in scripture. It never once falls on the godly, righteous, holy, upright, redeemed, saints etc…… but always on the wicked, reprobate, haters of God, unrighteous and rebellious sinners.
And you have quoted some Calvinist writers where they've insisted the same. I have to believe though that there are many that are Calvinists or they go to Calvinists churches some are more into deep theology than others granted but I have to believe a great many Calvinists who will say they accept TULIP but on the PSA thing they'd take the position, "I don't know...who cares!"

And you have many non Calvinists who believe in PSA but couldn't care less what a Calvinist writer says. They may hold NO I'm against Tulip but they've come to the conclusion that PSA is justified to believe. And where did they hear of it to begin with? They could argue from their own study not even reading from Calvinistic sources or maybe they did get it without even knowing from a Calvinistic writer ....there's a

lot of talk of many subjects within Christendom about everything. From a non Calvinist who believes in PSA one has to give allowance to their claim at how they came to believe in it and just let the discussion be based on the word.....not on who it's said came up with it.
 
The heart of the gospel is the message of the gospel that is preached to be saved.

This literally says nothing. Words need interpretation. God didn't say "the Law brings wrath" for us to ignore that.

Quit conflating/equivocating. We are not discussing the human heart but the central message ( heart ) of the gospel truth according to Calvinism , PSA , TULIP and salvation( the gospel ). They connect them all together as one in their soteriology.

Metaphors draw their meaning from parallels. You may desire to completely separate the parallels to try to make the other position look worse, and just assume yours is right—but the heart of something is, by definition, not the sum of something, rather the single most important part. Otherwise why use the word "heart" at all, the point of a heart is to draw a parallel to it's position in the body.

So yes, God is SO gracious that we can deny the HEART of the Gospel in stubborn stupid demonic deception, and still be saved by the very branch we are so callously trying to saw off that we are sitting on.

Jesus took wrath for denying he took wrath!

Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound.

Personally, I wouldn't play around with that though.
 
And you have quoted some Calvinist writers where they've insisted the same. I have to believe though that there are many that are Calvinists or they go to Calvinists churches some are more into deep theology than others granted but I have to believe a great many Calvinists who will say they accept TULIP but on the PSA thing they'd take the position, "I don't know...who cares!"

And you have many non Calvinists who believe in PSA but couldn't care less what a Calvinist writer says. They may hold NO I'm against Tulip but they've come to the conclusion that PSA is justified to believe. And where did they hear of it to begin with? They could argue from their own study not even reading from Calvinistic sources or maybe they did get it without even knowing from a Calvinistic writer ....there's a

lot of talk of many subjects within Christendom about everything. From a non Calvinist who believes in PSA one has to give allowance to their claim at how they came to believe in it and just let the discussion be based on the word.....not on who it's said came up with it.
But here is the thing, the doctrine came from Calvin/ Luther and was fully developed by the Calvinist Hodges in his systematic theology in the 1800’s. It’s good to know church history and how the doctrines came into the church and their origins. Just like knowing how original sin, total depravity and determinism came into the church through augustine.
 
But here is the thing, the doctrine came from Calvin/ Luther and was fully developed by the Calvinist Hodges in his systematic theology in the 1800’s. It’s good to know church history and how the doctrines came into the church and their origins.
Yeah perhaps....but it still doesn't substantiate as evidence that it's not true.

And Civic you said this in your OP.

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 ?

No offence but what it seems you're doing there is trying to herd people to a certain mind set because they look upon Pre Trib as new and what seems new can't be true then they must reject PSA for the same reason. Well they don't have to reject Pre Trib things for that reason but if they do two wrongs don't make a right then correct? I guess I'm wondering why pressure them into a way of thinking if their reasons for doing the first were wrong as well? I'm sure you don't want them to reject anything that might be scriptural.

.
 
You made the snarky comment about Jesus dying of old age not me.

Plus you said this :

“ PSA is kind of important. I mean, it wouldn't be much of a Gospel”

You tied PSA with the gospel, not me.

So you are projecting.

Deleted for personal attack
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah perhaps....but it still doesn't substantiate as evidence that it's not true.

And Civic you said this in your OP.

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 ?

No offence but what it seems you're doing there is trying to herd people to a certain mind set because they look upon Pre Trib as new and what seems new can't be true then they must reject PSA for the same reason. Well they don't have to reject Pre Trib things for that reason but if they do two wrongs don't make a right then correct? I guess I'm wondering why pressure them into a way of thinking if their reasons for doing the first were wrong as well? I'm sure you don't want them to reject anything that might be scriptural.

.
Well if you think about it the Calvinists reject pre trib, pre mil and are amil and say all the time it’s false because it was not a doctrine until late in church history all the while accepting PSA as true and they are the last theory in church history. I was showing the double standards with their reasoning is all.
 
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.
Here are my 2 cents.

Calvinists are hell bent on monergism. TULIP is evidence of this as it totally discounts human positive activity or energy. PSA is also bent towards that. PSA posits a relationship of sadistic "satisfaction" wrath from the Father to the Son and in the process removes any and all human energy and positive activity. A proper view of Atonement would recognize Christ's entire life on Earth as an Atonement. Everything Christ did from his Incarnation, to his Baptism, to the Cross, to his Resurrection, to his sending of the Holy Spirit, to everything he did is an Atonement. Now notice that I mentioned the Incarnation. Is the Incarnation monergistic? Of course not. Mary, a human, was positively involved. Thus the Atonement, viewed properly, is not monergistic. In fact, the sadistic "satisfaction" idea of PSA cannot hold and vanishes when you consider the entire scope of the Atonement of Christ.
 
Here are my 2 cents.

Calvinists are hell bent on monergism. TULIP is evidence of this as it totally discounts human positive activity or energy. PSA is also bent towards that. PSA posits a relationship of sadistic "satisfaction" wrath from the Father to the Son and in the process removes any and all human energy and positive activity. A proper view of Atonement would recognize Christ's entire life on Earth as an Atonement. Everything Christ did from his Incarnation, to his Baptism, to the Cross, to his Resurrection, to his sending of the Holy Spirit, to everything he did is an Atonement. Now notice that I mentioned the Incarnation. Is the Incarnation monergistic? Of course not. Mary, a human, was positively involved. Thus the Atonement, viewed properly, is not monergistic. In fact, the sadistic "satisfaction" idea of PSA cannot hold and vanishes when you consider the entire scope of the Atonement of Christ.
Thanks for your input and from that vantage point it makes perfect sense.
 
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.
Here is the clear picture that emerges from Scripture is that Jesus was not the unfortunate victim of the angry/wrathful Father. Rather, the Father and the Son were working in concert through the cross to pay for the sins of humanity and make atonement. There is no division of will between the Father and the Son. Jesus’ atonement was done in love which provided covering and forgiveness of sins as He declared was a ransom.

And this view harmonizes with God’s wrath that is still yet to come and was not poured out on Jesus on the cross. Our loving God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11). Our loving Father took pleasure to bruise His Son to reconcile us to God as an offering for our sins. (Isaiah 53:10).

It is by faith in the Son through the message of the gospel that saves and unbelief which condemns. The gospel is for all mankind, all the world, for everyone. God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:4). God is the Savior of all men, especially of believers (1 Timothy. 4:10), For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to everyone (Titus 2:11) For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all (Romans 11:32). The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise as some understand slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).

God sent His Son into the world to take away the sin of the world (John 1:29) and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2). and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again (2 Corinthians 5:15). But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. (Hebrews 2:9)

hope this helps !!!
 
The famous Calvinist Theologian J.I. Packer here affirms my claims about calvinism where PSA must of necessity be a limited atonement for Gods elect. The logic and reasoning of the calvinist systematic demand it must be so otherwise as Packer knows he is stuck with universalism. This is the only view of the atonement that can work in determinism but its easy to see and refute its many flaws biblically. You see when everything is preordained by God including your faith then one is left with a limited atonement and PSA is a limited atonement since Gods wrath was taken by Christ only for His elect. This is why there is a wrath to come for all the non elect that God does not grant/gift faith to save them. They face a future penal/judicial wrath because their sins were never atoned for in the first place. They were not the choice meats of God. They were not in the special class of the elect, the chosen whos sins were propitiated for by Christ. But we know this fails because of John 3:16, 1 John 2:2 and other passages where we see Christ died for all, everyone, all sin, all sinners, all the world etc........

 
Back
Top Bottom