The Theology in Calvinism

[Rockson]

It seems I may be the only Reformed left on the site. Something has managed to send all the others away.

If that is so maybe they were startled to find they were hearing or reading things here they never saw before. Possibly they've taken time aside to recheck things they once held to be true? Perhaps they'll come back and announce I found the Non Calvinist position to be right after all?

I mean you said yourself Arial it had to be something. You've shared your opinion on what it could be but maybe you need to think out of the box? Might shock you and amaze you but on others sites I did get email saying they now were leaving Calvinism. Possible this happened again?

 

[civic]

If that is so maybe they were startled to find they were hearing or reading things here they never saw before. Possibly they've taken time aside to recheck things they once held to be true? Perhaps they'll come back and announce I found the Non Calvinist position to be right after all?

I mean you said yourself Arial it had to be something. You've shared your opinion on what it could be but maybe you need to think out of the box? Might shock you and amaze you but on others sites I did get email saying they now were leaving Calvinism. Possible this happened again?

I personally know atleast 6 people who have left calvinism in the past 3 years.

 

[e v e]

Penal substitutionary atonement refers to the doctrine that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His own holy standard.

yes christ Volunteered to come to this helush satanic earth to get us out. He was not being punished by God. The only wrath was from the depraved satanic monsters who murdered Him.

The sinner realm is this earth, created by the same monsters.

God came to restore us. Being in this hell and the torture we received incarnating here is enough punishment.

Background

The Penal-Substitution Theory of the atonement was formulated by the 16th century Reformers as an extension of Anselm's Satisfaction theory.

Not ever discussed by God.
Next. Anselm and his Greek theology.

Anselm's theory was correct in introducing the satisfaction aspect of Christ's work and its necessity; however the Reformers saw it as insufficient because it was referenced to God's honor rather than his justice and holiness and was couched more in terms of a commercial transaction than a penal substitution.

this is so demonic. pleeeaaase.

This Reformed view says simply that Christ died for man, in man's place, taking his sins and bearing them for him.

if that's all, then fine. And..

The bearing of man's sins takes the punishment for them and sets the believer free from the penal demands of the law: The righteousness of the law and the holiness of God are satisfied by this substitution.

This part is depraved satanic blather. Why? Deity does not self-torture.

 

[Arial]

And your trying to connect doubt to something which is sure doesn't make you right.

I simply showed you where God shows no partiality could not be a universal truth. Can you show me how it is?

So when Jesus brought up being a good neighbor and the royal law that your neighbor is any human being in need Luke 10:29 then your of the opinion it's OK to pass right on by someone. You recall that's what the religious priests did to the beaten up man along the side of the road. So your position is God is like the religious priest who is indifferent and really couldn't care less about the pain and grief of others.

Here is a suggestion. Read what I said about it and you will know what I was saying---which is nowhere near what you throw it back as. Then address what I said instead of what you claim I said.

You're not getting that was not a favoritism in regard to salvation itself but to whom will be used to deliver it to the human race. Israel was chosen to be a lighthouse nation to the world. Lest you doubt that see the next verse. Being Israel and being chosen for a job and assignment had nothing to do with a favoritism you're talking about....a favoritism of who gets life.

Having been found to be mistaken you now add to the mix a different stipulation, "in regard to salvation", to save yourself. And then you change the meaning of favoritism. He didn't choose all nations, He chose to favor only one. And whether it is salvation or anything else, makes no difference. You cannot prove that God does not elect and predestine and choose. Which implies not treating all people the same.

So let's keep this straight and it should be self evident what I've always meant. God not having partiality or favoritism we have ALWAYS meant that to mean when it come to salvation.

Watch the video if you don't want to take my word for it. Does God treat all people the same?

Trying to make it seem that one's neighbor ISN'T REALLY any other human being in need which God says it is and making it seem God won't love people on the same level he asks us to.

Explain to me how I did that. I was just putting into context what you took out of context to show that God shows no partiality meant He would never choose some and not all. In the context that is not even what the passage was talking about.

We can do all things through Christ which strengthens us. Phil 4:13 So....God loves through us all neighbors.....oh but hold on now.....I forgot.....God can't really do that for he doesn't even have love towards them! So I guess we're on our own with our own capacities right? Nope, wrong. God LOVES ALL neighbors a million times more than we ever could and it's his love flowing through us that they're to see.

Put forth a legitimate argument if you can instead of a bunch of who shot John.

Sorry Arial but it's isolated nothing. For your own sake Arial you should just acknowledge. God loves all neighbors and it's not possible that we can love more than God. If you said we can and must I'd have to ask are you kidding me??? And that alone would have God be less than God.

More who shot John. And you did isolate one sentence from it context. Maybe you don't know what that means.

 

[Arial]

If that is so maybe they were startled to find they were hearing or reading things here they never saw before. Possibly they've taken time aside to recheck things they once held to be true? Perhaps they'll come back and announce I found the Non Calvinist position to be right after all?

I mean you said yourself Arial it had to be something. You've shared your opinion on what it could be but maybe you need to think out of the box? Might shock you and amaze you but on others sites I did get email saying they now were leaving Calvinism. Possible this happened again?

Dream on dream boat.

 

[e v e]

The satanic monsters gleefully Cheer at their torturing of christ and how some spelled souls agree with Them.

 

[e v e]

God's intent was to pay our price, get us back from the satanic realm imprisoning us.

Punishing us by torturing Christ is just esau's nonsense version.

 

[civic]

The satanic monsters gleefully Cheer at their torturing of christ and how some spelled souls agree with Them.

yes its anti-god, antichrist. The Father would never torture His beloeved and Holy/Sinless Son in whom He is well pleased. That came from the evil one. Whoa to those who call evil good.

 

[Arial]

I personally know atleast 6 people who have left calvinism in the past 3 years.

And I know of hundreds who have recognized it as the sound theology it is. Of course, they know it doesn't say what you say it does. And they are petrified of it, feeling safer trusting their choice to apply the work of Jesus than trusting God to apply it to them, as some are.

 

[e v e]

I feel so hurt for God that He is blasphemied by being called a torturer.

 

[civic]

And I know of hundreds who have recognized it as the sound theology it is. Of course, they know it doesn't say what you say it does. And they are petrified of it, feeling safer trusting their choice to apply the work of Jesus than trusting God to apply it to them, as some are.

I know Calvinism inside and out- its your strawman argument that says I do not.

 

[civic]

I feel so hurt for God that He is blasphemied by being called a torturer.

Welcome to augustianism, calvinism. It paints God unloving, biased, showing favoritism, predestining millions to hell without a chance do get out, predeterming every evil and sinful act known to man and many other things that God is not as we read in Scripture.

 

[Arial]

yes its anti-god, antichrist. The Father would never torture His beloeved and Holy/Sinless Son in whom He is well pleased. That came from the evil one. Whoa to those who call evil good.

How come Jesus died on the cross and even though He could send legions of angels to save Him from the crucifixion He didn't? How come the Father didn't save Him from the cross? If He could and He didn't then in your shallow theory He stood by while His Son was tortured, And isn't it you who said PSA is evil because even though yes men did the killing, God was held just as responsible, if that is what He desired. What you have is a murder atoning for man's sins

 

[e v e]

Augustine had zero love in him for God and only understood God as Force and Causality and Law, just like in the greek theology... he had no generosity in his soul and fell for the Greek conception of a Theseus hero type righteous soul, (along the line of greek heroes).

 

[civic]

How come Jesus died on the cross and even though He could send legions of angels to save Him from the crucifixion He didn't? How come the Father didn't save Him from the cross? If He could and He didn't then in your shallow theory He stood by while His Son was tortured, And isn't it you who said PSA is evil because even though yes men did the killing, God was held just as responsible, if that is what He desired. What you have is a murder atoning for man's sins

Explained in great detail here.

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/the-nature-of-god-in-the-atonement.30/

 

[e v e]

How come Jesus died on the cross and even though He could send legions of angels to save Him from the crucifixion He didn't? How come the Father didn't save Him from the cross? If He could and He didn't then in your shallow theory He stood by while His Son was tortured, And isn't it you who said PSA is evil because even though yes men did the killing, God was held just as responsible, if that is what He desired. What you have is a murder atoning for man's sins

Because Christ loves us so much He submitted to the evil realm's unspeakable evil so we would not.

Because He volunteered to take our place rather than let the evil realm torture and murder us.

He didn't just weasel out and run back to heaven. He is Christ and followed through on what he volunteered to do.

God is not responsible for the evil realm (satanic principalities + this earth), that is, mystery-babylon and all they have done. This is why satan will never enter paradise, neither will this flesh. To keep us safe from them.

God desired to Save us from unspeakable monsters, the same ones who made eden fall through adams cooperation with them!

There is no such solid satanic determinism. It was Not Gods plan for the evil realm to conquer eden and adam to betray Him.

 

[Arial]

I know Calvinism inside and out- its your strawman argument that says I do not.

Civic you show in what you say about it that you do not know it inside out. See if you can get in a debate with Voddie Baucham, MacArthur, Sinclair, any of the well known reformed/Calvinist teachers of today. I would pay top dollar to see that. They would make mincemeat out of your claims, hold your feet to the fire. You only get away with it here because of the insulation a forum format gives you. Which is why you do it here. And you know that.

 

[civic]

Civic you show in what you say about it that you do not know it inside out. See if you can get in a debate with Voddie Baucham, MacArthur, Sinclair, any of the well known reformed/Calvinist teachers of today. I would pay top dollar to see that. They would make mincemeat out of your claims, hold your feet to the fire. You only get away with it here because of the insulation a forum format gives you. Which is why you do it here. And you know that.

They would have no chance with this here. They couldn't win a debate on the Trinity and the Atonement with me. It proves Calvinism wrong. Calvin and Luther would lose. It’s why the Calvinists run from it. I have been down that road with them for the past few years and they avoid the discussion.

Go invite your Calvinist pastor here to debate me on the Trinity and the atonement .

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/the-nature-of-god-in-the-atonement.30/

 

[e v e]

This is a War! Between the sons of ammon/esau who God hates and jacob who He loves.

 

[Rockson]

Saying that God reserves His anger for sometime in the future does not mean that His anger is playing second fiddle to other attributes. My gosh!

Well your mockery emoticon is merely used for effect. I think you KNOW deep down that I made a valid point. I trust readers do. If God's wrath, anger or judgement is held back due to his love and mercy than than he's longing to show mercy. The Lord is SLOW to anger. Why? Because he wants RATHER to show mercy.

And God IS sovereign. As we are speaking of God, that means all the time over all things.

Of course! But how about you not insist on just HOW he must exercise his sovereignty. . Because he is all powerful and can do somethings which would be his perfect will such doesn't mean he demands it. Parents do this with children all the time. They let them learn from mistakes and give them the freedom to make them.

And you also ask that others consider that your way is just as valid even more valid than their way, but you don't do the same for them.

Sorry Arial but you can't say that I haven't considered if the Calvinists way is valid. I've done that from the first time I read concerning it. I believe I have my answer though....no it is not.

There is not even any attempt to discuss their way that differs from yours. You simply tell them they are wrong.

So how about you right now lead my example and tell us that yes very possibly the Non-Calvinist way is valid? That we might not be wrong?

Which btw is rude, and counter productive.

Didn't you say earlier that you didn't want to see ANYONE attack another character? Didn't you say you wanted things to be about the teachings and not the person? Maybe I should go back and check where that is?