civic
Well-known member
Like “ sin nature “ in the NIV another blunder
The Elect
- Thread starter The Rogue Tomato
- Start date
charismaticlady
Active member
civic this thread looks like you are writing a book!
civic
Well-known member
I’m working on one with PSA.civic this thread looks like you are writing a book!
I have all the chapters and basic content. I need to expand on each chapter with references and research. My project for 2024.
charismaticlady
Active member
Do you remember where they used sin nature? Our sin nature is our spirit and soul combined. When born again that inner old man is cleansed of the "sin." What we are left with is a cleansed nature where the Spirit can dwell.
charismaticlady
Active member
What is PSA.I’m working on one with PSA.
Johann
Well-known member
Says the man who copiously cut and paste large-much larger than me, data , usually from Got Questions, with a got?
Let me say it upfront-you come across as a "know it all" and most here can witness to that fact.
Guess the rules are not applicable to you. Do whatever you wish-I am always trying to stay out of your way but you are always IN my way.
The Lord's work and words will not be stopped. I would rather have a edifying discussion with ONE person on this Forum since the time is short, and be encouraged, not discouraged.
J.
civic
Well-known member
Penal substitution theory of the atonement . The Father tortured/ killed His Son and the Tri- Unity of God was broken fir several hours as God poured out His anger/ wrath on His Son
civic
Well-known member
Do you really want to have this discussion?
Johann
Well-known member
It was not a discussion-but a statement.
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
Ok when you ask your child to come to the dinner table and eat , is that better
Not if the child is deaf, blind, mentally handicapped, and rebellious toward parents.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Do you abandon your disabled child?
It is "interesting" how Calvinists portray God.
Human beings abandon their own. Even abort them when they have "defects".
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
My point is simply that the child will not come to the dinner table when called. It was a stupid analogy, anyway.
Johann
Well-known member
Not acceptable-and there is a context for every isolated scripture quotation.
Matthew 11:28
Verse Concepts
“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.
John 6:44
Verse Concepts
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
John 6:65
Verse Concepts
And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”
John 6:37
Verse Concepts
All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
John 6:45
Verse Concepts
It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.
John 5:40
Verse Concepts
and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.
John 7:37
Verse Concepts
Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink.
Matthew 25:34
Verse Concepts
“Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
Luke 14:26
Verse Concepts
“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.
Matthew 14:28
Verse Concepts
Peter said to Him, “Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water.”
Matthew 14:29
Verse Concepts
And He said, “Come!” And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus.
Matthew 15:12
Verse Concepts
Then the disciples *came and *said to Him, “Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?”
Matthew 15:23
Verse Concepts
But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, “Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us.”
Matthew 22:23
Verse Concepts
On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him,
Matthew 26:49
Verse Concepts
Immediately Judas went to Jesus and said, “Hail, Rabbi!” and kissed Him.
John 1:39
Verse Concepts
He *said to them, “Come, and you will see.” So they came and saw where He was staying; and they stayed with Him that day, for it was about the tenth hour.
John 1:46
Verse Concepts
Nathanael said to him, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” Philip *said to him, “Come and see.”
John 4:30
They went out of the city, and were coming to Him.
John 7:50
Verse Concepts
Nicodemus (he who came to Him before, being one of them) *said to them,
John 11:29
Verse Concepts
And when she heard it, she *got up quickly and was coming to Him.
Source: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Coming-To-Christ
You are familiar with Hebrew and Greek and morphology?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVINISM’s CONFUSION AN APPLICATION OF OUR RECENT SEMINAR“In whom also we have obtained an inheritance,being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will”~ Ephesians 1:111. Introduction a. Calvinism is an example of salvation confused – an application of our recent seminar b.
The major contention is everything predetermined by God? (fate/free will is not new)c. Calvinist result: every sin decreed by God; some determined to be saved others damned. There are not only 2 options: Calvinist or Arminian (no, we are not Pelagian -full or semi)e.
Its strength is taken from Paul grace, predestination, before the world, not works f. Why Christians debate it? Due to the question, “how can I be sure I am saved?”g. There is predestination, there is election, there is grace, but we are not Calvinist.h.
Terms need defined – timing needs addressed – else there is confusion.2. Setting the Termsa. Predestination is a Bible word and exclusively Pauline: Rom 8:28-29, Eph 1:5, 1:11i. Predestinate ~def. To set the destiny before.ii. Predestination always according to the purpose of God – mystery or prophecyiii. Predestination is not speaking about your next accident, sin, or disease.iv.
Calvin said that the mystery was God’s predestination of some to damnation b.
Election is a Bible word that means “to choose or chosen” – who are the elect?i. Biblical election refers to God’s choice acc. to his own will to fulfill his purposeii. Israel is God’s chosen people (elect) his prophetic purpose –Is 45:4, Mt 24:22-24iii.
Christ is God’s chosen one (elect) – Isa 42:1, 1 Pet 2:6iv. The only time “foreordained” mentioned is about Christ – 1 Pet 1:19-20v. Not - ‘are you the elect’ - but are you in the chosen Christ or the chosen nation?
vi. God chose to fulfill his purpose in Christ – Eph 1:9-10 - 3x we are in Christ -1:4-6vii.
Calvin said election was God’s arbitrary choosing of who will be damned viii.
Calvin said that his doctrine of election is the assurance of salvation c.
The mystery of Christ is you in Christ – Christ in you – Eph 3:6, Col 1:28i. Calvin said the mystery was of God’s predestination of who will be saved d.
Calvinists and Arminians are wrong to find our terms of salvation (gospel) in Prophecy 3.
The Problem of Timing and Delivery (When)a. When do you possess salvation? Now or in the future.b.
Calvin taught it was an error to believe you possess all the blessings of Christ c.
Calvinism teaches that when Christ died his blessings immediately given to the elect i.
Arminians say his blessings immediately offered to all (both are wrong) d.
The delivery is different than the action needed to obtain it. (Provision/possession)i. At the cross – no one was offered salvation, instead, by the cross – Eph 2:16ii. Salvation declared after the purpose made, and act performed – 2 Tim 1:8-11iii. When do we obtain our inheritance? Not before the world began – Eph 1:11-14e. Calvinism brings confusion to the terms of salvation (gospel), and when it is delivered.
Right?
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
God has allowed man to live like Himself in this life. To create. To foster. To build. To love....etc etc..
What we do reflects in eternity.
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
Well - Jesus IS "The elect one" - who was to perform the SIN OFFERING" that cleanses us from our sin, but that's a different breed of cat!!!
"Election" is a "theological football" that theologians toss around, but since nobody (before the fact) knows whether they're "elect" or not, and the Evangelist has no idea who's "Elect", it's just another Theological concept of no real use whatsoever.
BIBLICALLY Romans 9 goes into a dissertation of God's mercy, and calling, and John 6:44 proves that if God doesn't DRAW a person to Jesus, they ain't coming.
Bottom line - if you were DRAWN to Jesus, you're "Elect" and if you're NOT DRAWN, you'd never give any of it a second thought. Everything else is just "Theology".
Diserner
Well-known member
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. (Jn. 12:32)
Who desires that all men should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim. 2:4)
Um It is revelation which is the enablement
Testimony of John the Baptist
John 5:33 “You have sent messengers to John, and he has testified to the truth. 34 But the testimony I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved. 35 He was the lamp that was burning and shining, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light.
John 1:7 (NASB 2020) — 7 He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him.
Testimony of Works
36 “But the testimony I have is greater than the testimony of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish—the very works that I do—testify about Me, that the Father has sent Me.
Testimony of the Father
37 “And the Father who sent Me, He has testified about Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. 38 Also you do not have His word remaining in you, because you do not believe Him whom He sent.
Testimony of the Scripture
39 “aYou examine the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is those very Scriptures that testify about Me; 40 and yet you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. 41 I do not receive glory from people; 42 but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. 43 I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44 How can you believe, when you aaccept glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God? 45 Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have put your hope. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”
New American Standard Bible (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 2020), Jn 5:33–47.
John 17:20 (NASB 2020) — 20 “I am not asking on behalf of these alone, but also for those who believe in Me through their word,
charismaticlady
Active member
Yikes! Is that what your book is about?
Penal substitution is but one theory of atonement
These theories attempt to explain the nature of Jesus’ death on the cross. Why did Jesus die? What does this death mean for the world today? These theories are historically the most dominant, and I hope you enjoy learning some of them today!
#1 The Moral Influence Theory
One of the earliest theories for the atonement is the Moral Influence theory, which simply taught that Jesus Christ came and died in order to bring about a positive change to humanity. This moral change comes through the teachings of Jesus alongside His example and actions. The most notable name here is that of Augustine from the 4th century, whose influence has almost single-handedly had the greatest impact upon Western Christianity. He affirmed the Moral Influence theory as the main theory of the Atonement (alongside the Ransom theory as well).
Within this theory the death of Christ is understood as a catalyst to reform society, inspiring men and women to follow His example and live good moral lives of love. In this theory the Holy Spirit comes to help Christians produce this moral change. Logically, in this theory the Eschatological development too becomes about morality, where it is taught that after death the human race will be judged by their conduct in life. This in turn creates a strong emphasis on free will as the human response to follow Jesus’ example. Although Augustine himself differs here in that he did not teach free will, but instead that human beings are incapable of change themselves, and require God to radically alter their lives sovereignly through the Holy Spirit.
This theory focuses on not just the death of Jesus Christ, but on His entire life. This sees the saving work of Jesus not only in the event of the crucifixion, but also in all the words He has spoken, and the example He has set. In this theory the cross is merely a ramification of the moral life of Jesus. He is crucified as a martyr due to the radical nature of His moral example. In this way the Moral Influence theory emphasizes Jesus Christ as our teacher, our example, our founder and leader, and ultimately, as a result, our first martyr.
#2 The Ransom Theory
The Ransom Theory of the Atonement is one of the first major theories for the Atonement. It is often held alongside the Moral Influence Theory, and usually deals more with the actual death of Jesus Christ, what it actually means and the effect it has upon humanity. This theory finds its roots in the Early Church, particularly in Origen from the 3rd century. This theory essentially teaches that Jesus Christ died as a ransom sacrifice, paid either to Satan (the most dominate view), or to God the Father. Jesus’ death then acts as a payment to satisfy the debt on the souls of the human race, the same debt we inherited from Adam’s original sin.
The Ransom view could be summarized like this:
“Essentially, this theory claimed that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the Devil at the time of the Fall’ hence, justice required that God pay the Devil a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ’s death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan’s grip.” 1
Redemption in this theory means to buy back, and purchase the human race from the clutches of the Devil. The main controversy here with this theory is the act of paying off the Devil. Some have written that this is not a fair statement to say that all Ransom Theorists believe that the Devil is paid, but rather in this act of Ransom Christ frees humanity from the bondage of sin and death. In this way Ransom relates the Christus Victor theory. But it’s worth differentiating here because in one way these views are similar, but in another way they are drastically different.
#3 Christus Victor
Classically, the Christus Victor theory of Atonement is widely considered to be the dominant theory for most of the historical Christian Church. In this theory, Jesus Christ dies in order to defeat the powers of evil (such as sin, death, and the devil) in order to free mankind from their bondage. This is related to the Ransom view with the difference being that there is no payment to the devil or to God. Within the Christus Victor framework, the cross did not pay off anyone, but defeated evil thereby setting the human race free.
Gustaf Aulen argued that this theory of the Atonement is the most consistently held theory for church history, especially in the early church up until the 12th century before Anslem’s satisfaction theory came along. He writes that “the work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil.” 2 He calls this theory the “classic” theory of the Atonement. While some will say that Christus Victor is compatible with other theories of the Atonement, others argue that it is not. Though I have found that most theologians believe that Christus Victor is true, even if it is not for them the primary theory of Christ’s death.
#4 The Satisfaction Theory (Anselm)
In the 12th century Anselm of of Canterbury proposed a satisfaction theory for the Atonement. In this theory Jesus Christ’s death is understood as a death to satisfy the justice of God. Satisfaction here means restitution, the mending of what was broken, and the paying back of a debt. In this theory, Anselm emphasizes the justice of God, and claims that sin is an injustice that must be balanced. Anselm’s satisfaction theory says essentially that Jesus Christ died in order to pay back the injustice of human sin, and to satisfy the justice of God.
This theory was developed in reaction to the historical dominance of the Ransom theory, that God paid the devil with Christ’s death. Anselm saw that this theory was logically flawed, because what does God owe satan? Therefore, in contrast with the Ransom theory, Anselm taught that it is humanity who owes a debt to God, not God to satan. Our debt, in this theory, is that of injustice. Our injustices have stolen from the justice of God and therefore must be paid back. Satisfaction theory then postulates that Jesus Christ pays pack God in His death on the cross to God. This is the first Atonement theory to bring up the notion that God is acted upon by the Atonement (i.e. that Jesus satisfies God).
#5 The Penal Substitutionary Theory
Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a development of the Reformation. The Reformers, Specifically Calvin and Luther, took Anselm’s Satisfaction theory and modified it slightly. They added a more legal (or forensic) framework into this notion of the cross as satisfaction. The result is that within Penal Substitution, Jesus Christ dies to satisfy God’s wrath against human sin. Jesus is punished (penal) in the place of sinners (substitution) in order to satisfy the justice of God and the legal demand of God to punish sin. In the light of Jesus’ death God can now forgive the sinner because Jesus Christ has been punished in the place of sinner, in this way meeting the retributive requirements of God’s justice. This legal balancing of the ledgers is at the heart of this theory, which claims that Jesus died for legal satisfaction. It’s also worth mentioning that in this theory the notion of inputed righteousness is postulated.
This theory of the Atonement contrasts with Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory in that God is not satisfied with a debt of justice being paid by Jesus, but that God is satisfied with punishing Jesus in the place of mankind. The notion that the cross acts upon God, conditioning Him to forgiveness, originates from Anslems theory, but here in Penal Substitution the means are different. This theory of the Atonement is perhaps the most dominant today, especially among the Reformed, and the evangelical.
#6 The Governmental Theory
The Governmental Theory of the Atonement is a slight variation upon the Penal Substitutionary theory, which is notably held in Methodism. The main difference here is the extent to which Christ suffered. In the Governmental Theory, Jesus Christ suffers the punishment of our sin and propitiates God’s wrath. In this way it is similar to Penal Substitution. However, in the Governmental Theory, Jesus Christ does not take the exact punishment we deserve, He takes a punishment. Jesus dies on the cross therefore to demonstrate the displeasure of God towards sin. He died to display God’s wrath against sin and the high price which must be paid, but not to specifically satisfy that particular wrath. The Governmental Theory also teaches that Jesus died only for the church, and if you by faith are part of the church, you can take part in God’s salvation. The church then acts as the sort of hiding place from God’s punishment. This view contrasts both the Penal and Satisfaction models, but retains the fundamental belief that God cannot forgive if Jesus does not die a propitiating death.
#7 The Scapegoat Theory
The Scapegoat Theory is a modern Atonement theory rooted in the philosophical concept of the Scapegoat. Here the key figures Rene Girard and James Allison. Within this theory of the Atonement Jesus Christ dies as the Scapegoat of humanity. This theory moves away from the idea that Jesus died in order to act upon God (as in PSA, Satisfaction, or Governmental), or as payment to the devil (as in Ransom). Scapegoating therefore is considered to be a form of non-violent atonement, in that Jesus is not a sacrifice but a victim. There are many Philosophical concepts that come up within this model, but in a general sense we can say that Jesus Christ as the Scapegoat means the following. 1) Jesus is killed by a violent crowd. 2) The violent crowd kills Him believing that He is guilty. 3) Jesus is proven innocent, as the true Son of God. 4) The crowd is therefore deemed guilty.
James Allison summarizes the Scapegoating Theory like this, “Christianity is a priestly religion which understands that it is God’s overcoming of our violence by substituting himself for the victim of our typical sacrifices that opens up our being able to enjoy the fullness of creation as if death were not.” reference source lost
Diserner
Well-known member
All other theories of the atonement derive from Jesus paying the penalty for sin.
