|
|
Post by atpollard on Jul 12, 2023 9:32:34 GMT -8
This is the TRUE "Achilles Heel" of Calvinism:
"Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’"
|
|
|
|
Post by civic on Jul 12, 2023 10:07:53 GMT -8
You nailed it as Gods nature and character is not like it is portrayed by calvinism. So, No Omnipotent God who works all things "according to the good pleasure of His will". Our god is like the gold-covered idols of ancient Rome ... mute, dead, impotent ... waiting for MEN to be the change that we desire! [Is that what you meant?]  God is Sovereign but does not force anyone to believe in Him or love Him. |
|
|
|
Post by atpollard on Jul 12, 2023 12:55:13 GMT -8
So, No Omnipotent God who works all things "according to the good pleasure of His will". Our god is like the gold-covered idols of ancient Rome ... mute, dead, impotent ... waiting for MEN to be the change that we desire! [Is that what you meant?] God is Sovereign but does not force anyone to believe in Him or love Him. God doesn't need to FORCE people to believe in Him or to love Him ... People are innately capable of NEITHER:
- "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they will not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." -[2 Corinthians 4:3-4 NASB20]
- "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible [attributes, that is,] His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened." - [Romans 1:18-21 NASB20]
- "[This] was the true Light that, coming into the world, enlightens every person. He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, and [yet] the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own people did not accept Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man, but of God." - [John 1:9-13 NASB20]
God needs to EMPOWER/ENABLE people to BELIEVE IN and to LOVE Him.
- "And you were dead in your offenses and sins, in which you previously walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all previously lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our wrongdoings, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the boundless riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this [is] not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God; not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. - [Ephesians 2:1-10 NASB20]
- What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? Far from it! For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOMEVER I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL SHOW COMPASSION TO WHOMEVER I SHOW COMPASSION." So then, [it does] not [depend] on the [person] who wants [it] nor the one who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY REASON I RAISED YOU UP, IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE EARTH." So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." - [Romans 9:14-18 NASB20]
- 29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent." ... 35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; the one who comes to Me will not be hungry, and the one who believes in Me will never be thirsty. 36 "But I said to you that you have indeed seen Me, and [yet] you do not believe. 37 "Everything that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I certainly will not cast out. 38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of everything that He has given Me I will lose nothing, but will raise it up on the last day. 40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." 41 So then the Jews were complaining about Him because He said, "I am the bread that came down out of heaven." ... 43 Jesus answered and said to them, "Stop complaining among yourselves. 44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. 45 "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 6:29, 35-41, 43-45 NASB20]
(The message of Scripture and the Doctrines of Grace!) |
|
|
|
Post by makesends on Jul 12, 2023 16:14:47 GMT -8
I'm a Calvinist and I have serious trouble with my brethren but not for the issues discussed here. There are certain traditions that the mainstream Calvinist folk hold too for dear life that make no sense at all. Quick example would be Amillennialism. On it's face there is a huge problem with it simply based on stealing it whole cloth from the RCC. It was one of the first things that caused me to start examining long held "traditions" and the reasons for them. I don't care for recreating the wheel but for the love of Mike at least examine anything you import with the same zeal you press to other topics. I appreciate your stance on free speech, Civic. As we discussed privately you have a tough row to hoe with that but thanks for putting it out there. I don't come at Calvinism nor Reformed theology as either one, not having been trained in nor grown up in either one. I discovered what I believe by life and prayer and scripture, (to put it very mildly). So I'm not familiar with anyone holding to Amillennialism necessarily, nor other traditions for their own sakes. I find the five solas, the doctrines of grace, TULIP, the WCF, and so on, to be well-stated versions of what I believe, and that's pretty well it. I'm a long way from making my mind up about Eschatology, except as it relates to Soteriology and the nature of God and such; I was taught as a kid from a Dispensationalist POV, and have long since rejected it whole-cloth because it doesn't make sense to me, with what I understand from Scripture, (even before I came to believe what I do now), though I remain with leftovers for lack of other better learning. But I do have a problem when I hear Reformed Theology or Calvinism described as what (to me) they are not —usually something the detractor takes their teaching to imply, and not what they actually teach. |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Jul 12, 2023 16:19:46 GMT -8
I'm a Calvinist and I have serious trouble with my brethren but not for the issues discussed here. There are certain traditions that the mainstream Calvinist folk hold too for dear life that make no sense at all. Quick example would be Amillennialism. On it's face there is a huge problem with it simply based on stealing it whole cloth from the RCC. It was one of the first things that caused me to start examining long held "traditions" and the reasons for them. I don't care for recreating the wheel but for the love of Mike at least examine anything you import with the same zeal you press to other topics. I appreciate your stance on free speech, Civic. As we discussed privately you have a tough row to hoe with that but thanks for putting it out there. I don't come at Calvinism nor Reformed theology as either one, not having been trained in nor grown up in either one. I discovered what I believe by life and prayer and scripture, (to put it very mildly). So I'm not familiar with anyone holding to Amillennialism necessarily, nor other traditions for their own sakes. I find the five solas, the doctrines of grace, TULIP, the WCF, and so on, to be well-stated versions of what I believe, and that's pretty well it. I'm a long way from making my mind up about Eschatology, except as it relates to Soteriology and the nature of God and such; I was taught as a kid from a Dispensationalist POV, and have long since rejected it whole-cloth because it doesn't make sense to me, with what I understand from Scripture, (even before I came to believe what I do now), though I remain with leftovers for lack of other better learning. But I do have a problem when I hear Reformed Theology or Calvinism described as what (to me) they are not —usually something the detractor takes their teaching to imply, and not what they actually teach. Thats a very reasonable post and observation brother. I think that Arminians also are misrepresented by most Calvinists. I'm not at all saying you do that btw. |
|
|
|
Post by makesends on Jul 12, 2023 16:50:09 GMT -8
Motive....... It is a glarrying issue in Calvinism. When you starting talking through the "WHY's" of existence, all you ever get out of Calvinism is "The Good Pleasure of His Will"..... However, as we know from the Scripture.... God cares about the WHY of humanity. The autonomous actions human matter to God. The Scriptures prove it.... 1Co 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God. The Scriptures are given to discern "motives" within humanity..... Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is alive, effective and sharper than any double-edged sword, cutting to the point of dividing soul and spirit, joints from marrows, astutely judging the thoughts and intents of our human heart. Isn't everyone tired of Calvinists pretend everything happens based upon the "motive" of "God's Good Pleasure"..... Our God is too GOOD...... to be that evil. You nailed it as Gods nature and character is not like it is portrayed by calvinism. I'm not sure what is "portrayed by Calvinism", that is different from my descriptions of God's nature and character, except as viewed from a POV of self-determinism. I certainly don't see God as evil, nor disparaging of any good work, nor any good intent, any good will, any good choice, of man. Just as a f'rinstance, praiseyeshua WHAT is wrong with God's Good Pleasure? How does that detract ANYTHING worthy from anyone? You yourself say that God is good. How then, can his good pleasure be wrong for those to whom he chose to show mercy? Or, to put it more Calvinistically, How can anything for which he made us, come to pass by OUR force of will? Even the things that WE consider worthy and that we righteously desire —such as faithful obedience— have we not seen our inability there? Our weakness, our ignorance, our impetuousness? How much more then, are we unable to accomplish what only God knows concerning his use of us! praiseyeshua How can we even begin to KNOW, nevermind to accomplish, what is best for us? I really don't get your objections. You say, "MOTIVE". Whose motive —ours? —or God's? Is not God's better? Your very description seems to me to assume something someone once told me, that God can't accomplish what he wants apart from our obedience. I'm trying to tell you: God WILL accomplish absolutely everything he set out to do. With or without my cooperation. And it is all good —and for that HE is to be praised and adored and worshiped and loved. And THAT is what I was made for. HOW IS THAT EVIL? |
|
|
|
Post by praiseyeshua on Jul 13, 2023 4:57:52 GMT -8
You nailed it as Gods nature and character is not like it is portrayed by calvinism. I'm not sure what is "portrayed by Calvinism", that is different from my descriptions of God's nature and character, except as viewed from a POV of self-determinism. I certainly don't see God as evil, nor disparaging of any good work, nor any good intent, any good will, any good choice, of man. Just as a f'rinstance, praiseyeshua WHAT is wrong with God's Good Pleasure? How does that detract ANYTHING worthy from anyone? You yourself say that God is good. How then, can his good pleasure be wrong for those to whom he chose to show mercy? Or, to put it more Calvinistically, How can anything for which he made us, come to pass by OUR force of will? Even the things that WE consider worthy and that we righteously desire —such as faithful obedience— have we not seen our inability there? Our weakness, our ignorance, our impetuousness? How much more then, are we unable to accomplish what only God knows concerning his use of us! praiseyeshua How can we even begin to KNOW, nevermind to accomplish, what is best for us? I really don't get your objections. You say, "MOTIVE". Whose motive —ours? —or God's? Is not God's better? Your very description seems to me to assume something someone once told me, that God can't accomplish what he wants apart from our obedience. I'm trying to tell you: God WILL accomplish absolutely everything he set out to do. With or without my cooperation. And it is all good —and for that HE is to be praised and adored and worshiped and loved. And THAT is what I was made for. HOW IS THAT EVIL? There is nothing wrong with God's Good Pleasure and I didn't say otherwise. What is wrong is how Calvinism portrays "God's Good Pleasure"? This is a typical debate tactic from someone that assumes their position is "lock step" with reality. You're "begging the question". You can not establish that God's "actual" GOOD PLEASURE is the "one and the same" with the doctrinal position presented by many Calvinist. There are actual Calvinist that don't mind properly recognizing secondary cause. You're creating a "circular" argument by assuming your view of "God's Good Pleasure" is accurate. It is not. YOU can do MORE than you're doing for God. All of us can. Appealing to culpability of God in OUR LACK of effort is evil. You're using "God's good name" to sell your position and then appeal to an argument of ambiguity to establish such. I've never said anything to contrary to the statement "God WILL accomplish everything "HE"... set out to do. Absolutely. The problem is... You say God DOES EVERYTHING. He does not. This does not make man's MISTAKES.... God's mistakes. NOR does it make man's INTENT..... God's INTENT. Blaming "God's good pleasure for bad times and the resulting reality in our theology is evil. |
|
|
|
Post by Obadiah on Jul 13, 2023 6:47:04 GMT -8
I'm a Calvinist and I have serious trouble with my brethren but not for the issues discussed here. There are certain traditions that the mainstream Calvinist folk hold too for dear life that make no sense at all. Quick example would be Amillennialism. On it's face there is a huge problem with it simply based on stealing it whole cloth from the RCC. It was one of the first things that caused me to start examining long held "traditions" and the reasons for them. I don't care for recreating the wheel but for the love of Mike at least examine anything you import with the same zeal you press to other topics. I appreciate your stance on free speech, Civic. As we discussed privately you have a tough row to hoe with that but thanks for putting it out there. I don't come at Calvinism nor Reformed theology as either one, not having been trained in nor grown up in either one. I discovered what I believe by life and prayer and scripture, (to put it very mildly). So I'm not familiar with anyone holding to Amillennialism necessarily, nor other traditions for their own sakes. I find the five solas, the doctrines of grace, TULIP, the WCF, and so on, to be well-stated versions of what I believe, and that's pretty well it. I'm a long way from making my mind up about Eschatology, except as it relates to Soteriology and the nature of God and such; I was taught as a kid from a Dispensationalist POV, and have long since rejected it whole-cloth because it doesn't make sense to me, with what I understand from Scripture, (even before I came to believe what I do now), though I remain with leftovers for lack of other better learning. But I do have a problem when I hear Reformed Theology or Calvinism described as what (to me) they are not —usually something the detractor takes their teaching to imply, and not what they actually teach. This is a reply to your question in the shoutbox about notifications as soon as I post this you should have a notification in the upper right hand corner of your screen. Likewise if you reply to this post I'll get a notification. |
|
|
|
Post by praiseyeshua on Jul 13, 2023 7:36:22 GMT -8
I'm a Calvinist and I have serious trouble with my brethren but not for the issues discussed here. There are certain traditions that the mainstream Calvinist folk hold too for dear life that make no sense at all. Quick example would be Amillennialism. On it's face there is a huge problem with it simply based on stealing it whole cloth from the RCC. It was one of the first things that caused me to start examining long held "traditions" and the reasons for them. I don't care for recreating the wheel but for the love of Mike at least examine anything you import with the same zeal you press to other topics. I appreciate your stance on free speech, Civic. As we discussed privately you have a tough row to hoe with that but thanks for putting it out there. I don't come at Calvinism nor Reformed theology as either one, not having been trained in nor grown up in either one. I discovered what I believe by life and prayer and scripture, (to put it very mildly). So I'm not familiar with anyone holding to Amillennialism necessarily, nor other traditions for their own sakes. I find the five solas, the doctrines of grace, TULIP, the WCF, and so on, to be well-stated versions of what I believe, and that's pretty well it. I'm a long way from making my mind up about Eschatology, except as it relates to Soteriology and the nature of God and such; I was taught as a kid from a Dispensationalist POV, and have long since rejected it whole-cloth because it doesn't make sense to me, with what I understand from Scripture, (even before I came to believe what I do now), though I remain with leftovers for lack of other better learning. But I do have a problem when I hear Reformed Theology or Calvinism described as what (to me) they are not —usually something the detractor takes their teaching to imply, and not what they actually teach. Amillennialism is very common among Calvinists. More so than not. |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Jul 13, 2023 7:39:23 GMT -8
And here are some quotes which is why I'm no longer reformed or a calvinist. its at the heart of the doctrine of PSA.
And these are the big guns in Reformed Calvinist Theology both past and present.
"O! can ye tell the greatness of that love, which made the everlasting God not only put his Son upon the altar, but actually do the deed, and thrust the sacrificial knife into his Son's heart? Can you think how overwhelming must have been the love of God toward the human race, when he completed in act what Abraham only did in intention? Look ye there, and see the place where his only Son hung dead upon the cross, the bleeding victim of awakened justice! Here is love indeed; and here we see how it was, that it pleased the Father to bruise him." Charles Spurgeon ( archive.spurgeon.org/sermons/0173.php ) "The sufferings of the Saviour were not purely natural, but also the result of a positive deed of God, Isa. 53:6,10 . . . The sufferings of the Saviour finally culminated in His death . . . God imposed the punishment of death upon the Mediator judicially . . . The sentence of Pilate was also the sentence of God, though on entirely different grounds." Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (pages 338-339) "But let me end by giving you this specific statement which literally tells us that it was God who was doing this thing on Calvary: Isaiah 53:6: "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." But have you ever realized that John 3:16 says this? "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son" - to the death of the cross - it is God who gave Him. Take again Romans 3:25: "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God" - there it is again. Or Romans 8:32: "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" He, God, He "spared not His own Son but delivered Him" - it was God who did it . . . Any idea or theory of the atonement must always give full weight and significance to the activity of God the Father." Martin Lloyd-Jones, Great Doctrines of the Bible, Volume One, Substitution, 'The Necessity of the Atonement,' Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois, 2003, (pages 317-337) Click to expand... ". . . for he was put to death by his own Father . . . ." Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Cross, Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois, 1986, (page 82), ( tinyurl.com/y7mqh4b6 ) "If your sins brought Christ upon his knees (as they did in the garden) before God as an angry judge, they may well bring you upon your knees also . . . And considered either as lamb or shepherd, we find that God being angry with him whilst thus he bore our sins, insomuch as he is said in his wrath to have smitten this shepherd with his sword, and smitten him unto death . . . ." Thomas Goodwin, Christ Our Mediator, (Grand Rapids: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1971), 370. ". . . God condemned sin in his flesh [Rom. 8:3] and punished him with the accursed death on the cross and that through him we now receive reconciliation and forgiveness, righteousness and life, indeed total and complete salvation . . . ." Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 3, (page 398) “The believer is saved- not simply because of what men did to Christ on the cross, but because of what God did to Him: He crushed Him under the full force of His wrath against us.” Paul Washer, The Gospel’s Power and Message (page 192) "Then the horrifying thunder of God’s wrath breaks the silence. The Father takes the knife, draws back His arm, and slays “His Son, His only Son, whom He loves” fulfilling the words of Isaiah the prophet: 'Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.... Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.'" (Isaiah 53:4-5, 10) Paul Washer, The Gospel’s Power and Message (page 194) Here is John PiperOne of my friends who used to be a pastor in Illinois was preaching to a group of prisoners in a state prison during Holy Week several years ago. At one point in his message, he paused and asked the men if they knew who killed Jesus. Some said the soldiers did. Some said the Jews did. Some said Pilate. After there was silence, my friend said simply, “His Father killed him.” That’s what the first half of Romans 8:32 says: God did not spare his own Son but handed him over — to death. “This Jesus [was] delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). Isaiah 53 puts it even more bluntly, “We esteemed him stricken, smitten by God. . . . It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he (his Father!) has put him to grief” (Isaiah 53:4, 10). Or as Romans 3:25 says, “God put [him] forward as a propitiation by his blood.” Just as Abraham lifted the knife over the chest of his son Isaac, but then spared his son because there was a ram in the thicket, so God the Father lifted his knife over the chest of his own Son, Jesus — but did not spare him, because he was the ram; he was the substitute. Here is John MacArthurA Shocking Truth The reality of Christ’s vicarious, substitutionary death on our behalf is the heart of the gospel according to God—the central theme of Isaiah 53. We must remember, however, that sin did not kill Jesus; God did. The suffering servant’s death was nothing less than a punishment administered by God for sins others had committed. That is what we mean when we speak of penal substitutionary atonement. Again, if the idea seems shocking and disturbing, it is meant to be. Unless you recoil from the thought, you probably haven’t grasped it yet. “Our God is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29). This is one of the major reasons the gospel is a stumbling block to Jews, and it’s sheer foolishness as far as Gentiles are concerned (1 Cor. 1:23). “But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, [the message of Christ crucified embodies both] the power of God and the wisdom of God” (v. 24). And Voddie below : Voddie Baucham says in the film: “Yeah, God killed Jesus. But did Jesus go to the cross unwillingly? No” |
|
|
|
Post by makesends on Jul 13, 2023 19:43:15 GMT -8
I'm not sure what is "portrayed by Calvinism", that is different from my descriptions of God's nature and character, except as viewed from a POV of self-determinism. I certainly don't see God as evil, nor disparaging of any good work, nor any good intent, any good will, any good choice, of man. Just as a f'rinstance, praiseyeshua WHAT is wrong with God's Good Pleasure? How does that detract ANYTHING worthy from anyone? You yourself say that God is good. How then, can his good pleasure be wrong for those to whom he chose to show mercy? Or, to put it more Calvinistically, How can anything for which he made us, come to pass by OUR force of will? Even the things that WE consider worthy and that we righteously desire —such as faithful obedience— have we not seen our inability there? Our weakness, our ignorance, our impetuousness? How much more then, are we unable to accomplish what only God knows concerning his use of us! praiseyeshua How can we even begin to KNOW, nevermind to accomplish, what is best for us? I really don't get your objections. You say, "MOTIVE". Whose motive —ours? —or God's? Is not God's better? Your very description seems to me to assume something someone once told me, that God can't accomplish what he wants apart from our obedience. I'm trying to tell you: God WILL accomplish absolutely everything he set out to do. With or without my cooperation. And it is all good —and for that HE is to be praised and adored and worshiped and loved. And THAT is what I was made for. HOW IS THAT EVIL? There is nothing wrong with God's Good Pleasure and I didn't say otherwise. What is wrong is how Calvinism portrays "God's Good Pleasure"? This is a typical debate tactic from someone that assumes their position is "lock step" with reality. You're "begging the question". You can not establish that God's "actual" GOOD PLEASURE is the "one and the same" with the doctrinal position presented by many Calvinist. There are actual Calvinist that don't mind properly recognizing secondary cause. You're creating a "circular" argument by assuming your view of "God's Good Pleasure" is accurate. It is not. YOU can do MORE than you're doing for God. All of us can. Appealing to culpability of God in OUR LACK of effort is evil. You're using "God's good name" to sell your position and then appeal to an argument of ambiguity to establish such. I've never said anything to contrary to the statement "God WILL accomplish everything "HE"... set out to do. Absolutely. The problem is... You say God DOES EVERYTHING. He does not. This does not make man's MISTAKES.... God's mistakes. NOR does it make man's INTENT..... God's INTENT. Blaming "God's good pleasure for bad times and the resulting reality in our theology is evil. My man, you are getting me just as wrong as can be! I don't assume my view is in lock step with reality, for crying out loud! I don't care in this what Calvinists say, (nor the Reformed) —I'm doing my best to present what I believe. How in the world do I appeal to God's culpability? Where do I not properly recognize secondary causes? Our lack of effort is indeed OURS! —Where have I said differently? God doesn't make mistakes —where did you get that from what I said? Where did I say man's intent is God's intent? I don't BLAME God's good pleasure for anything! This is ludicrous! But do you honestly believe that something can happen independently from God causing it to happen? Would ANYTHING have happened, had he not created? Was he ignorant of the resulting facts? |
|
|
|
Post by makesends on Jul 13, 2023 19:47:47 GMT -8
And here are some quotes which is why I'm no longer reformed or a calvinist. its at the heart of the doctrine of PSA.
And these are the big guns in Reformed Calvinist Theology both past and present.
"O! can ye tell the greatness of that love, which made the everlasting God not only put his Son upon the altar, but actually do the deed, and thrust the sacrificial knife into his Son's heart? Can you think how overwhelming must have been the love of God toward the human race, when he completed in act what Abraham only did in intention? Look ye there, and see the place where his only Son hung dead upon the cross, the bleeding victim of awakened justice! Here is love indeed; and here we see how it was, that it pleased the Father to bruise him." Charles Spurgeon ( archive.spurgeon.org/sermons/0173.php ) "The sufferings of the Saviour were not purely natural, but also the result of a positive deed of God, Isa. 53:6,10 . . . The sufferings of the Saviour finally culminated in His death . . . God imposed the punishment of death upon the Mediator judicially . . . The sentence of Pilate was also the sentence of God, though on entirely different grounds." Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (pages 338-339) "But let me end by giving you this specific statement which literally tells us that it was God who was doing this thing on Calvary: Isaiah 53:6: "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." But have you ever realized that John 3:16 says this? "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son" - to the death of the cross - it is God who gave Him. Take again Romans 3:25: "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God" - there it is again. Or Romans 8:32: "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" He, God, He "spared not His own Son but delivered Him" - it was God who did it . . . Any idea or theory of the atonement must always give full weight and significance to the activity of God the Father." Martin Lloyd-Jones, Great Doctrines of the Bible, Volume One, Substitution, 'The Necessity of the Atonement,' Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois, 2003, (pages 317-337) Click to expand... ". . . for he was put to death by his own Father . . . ." Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Cross, Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois, 1986, (page 82), ( tinyurl.com/y7mqh4b6 ) "If your sins brought Christ upon his knees (as they did in the garden) before God as an angry judge, they may well bring you upon your knees also . . . And considered either as lamb or shepherd, we find that God being angry with him whilst thus he bore our sins, insomuch as he is said in his wrath to have smitten this shepherd with his sword, and smitten him unto death . . . ." Thomas Goodwin, Christ Our Mediator, (Grand Rapids: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1971), 370. ". . . God condemned sin in his flesh [Rom. 8:3] and punished him with the accursed death on the cross and that through him we now receive reconciliation and forgiveness, righteousness and life, indeed total and complete salvation . . . ." Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 3, (page 398) “The believer is saved- not simply because of what men did to Christ on the cross, but because of what God did to Him: He crushed Him under the full force of His wrath against us.” Paul Washer, The Gospel’s Power and Message (page 192) "Then the horrifying thunder of God’s wrath breaks the silence. The Father takes the knife, draws back His arm, and slays “His Son, His only Son, whom He loves” fulfilling the words of Isaiah the prophet: 'Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.... Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.'" (Isaiah 53:4-5, 10) Paul Washer, The Gospel’s Power and Message (page 194) Here is John PiperOne of my friends who used to be a pastor in Illinois was preaching to a group of prisoners in a state prison during Holy Week several years ago. At one point in his message, he paused and asked the men if they knew who killed Jesus. Some said the soldiers did. Some said the Jews did. Some said Pilate. After there was silence, my friend said simply, “His Father killed him.” That’s what the first half of Romans 8:32 says: God did not spare his own Son but handed him over — to death. “This Jesus [was] delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). Isaiah 53 puts it even more bluntly, “We esteemed him stricken, smitten by God. . . . It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he (his Father!) has put him to grief” (Isaiah 53:4, 10). Or as Romans 3:25 says, “God put [him] forward as a propitiation by his blood.” Just as Abraham lifted the knife over the chest of his son Isaac, but then spared his son because there was a ram in the thicket, so God the Father lifted his knife over the chest of his own Son, Jesus — but did not spare him, because he was the ram; he was the substitute. Here is John MacArthurA Shocking Truth The reality of Christ’s vicarious, substitutionary death on our behalf is the heart of the gospel according to God—the central theme of Isaiah 53. We must remember, however, that sin did not kill Jesus; God did. The suffering servant’s death was nothing less than a punishment administered by God for sins others had committed. That is what we mean when we speak of penal substitutionary atonement. Again, if the idea seems shocking and disturbing, it is meant to be. Unless you recoil from the thought, you probably haven’t grasped it yet. “Our God is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29). This is one of the major reasons the gospel is a stumbling block to Jews, and it’s sheer foolishness as far as Gentiles are concerned (1 Cor. 1:23). “But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, [the message of Christ crucified embodies both] the power of God and the wisdom of God” (v. 24). And Voddie below : Voddie Baucham says in the film: “Yeah, God killed Jesus. But did Jesus go to the cross unwillingly? No” Do you believe Death is not the punishment for Sin? |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Jul 14, 2023 4:06:53 GMT -8
And here are some quotes which is why I'm no longer reformed or a calvinist. its at the heart of the doctrine of PSA.
And these are the big guns in Reformed Calvinist Theology both past and present.
"O! can ye tell the greatness of that love, which made the everlasting God not only put his Son upon the altar, but actually do the deed, and thrust the sacrificial knife into his Son's heart? Can you think how overwhelming must have been the love of God toward the human race, when he completed in act what Abraham only did in intention? Look ye there, and see the place where his only Son hung dead upon the cross, the bleeding victim of awakened justice! Here is love indeed; and here we see how it was, that it pleased the Father to bruise him." Charles Spurgeon ( archive.spurgeon.org/sermons/0173.php ) "The sufferings of the Saviour were not purely natural, but also the result of a positive deed of God, Isa. 53:6,10 . . . The sufferings of the Saviour finally culminated in His death . . . God imposed the punishment of death upon the Mediator judicially . . . The sentence of Pilate was also the sentence of God, though on entirely different grounds." Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (pages 338-339) "But let me end by giving you this specific statement which literally tells us that it was God who was doing this thing on Calvary: Isaiah 53:6: "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." But have you ever realized that John 3:16 says this? "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son" - to the death of the cross - it is God who gave Him. Take again Romans 3:25: "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God" - there it is again. Or Romans 8:32: "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" He, God, He "spared not His own Son but delivered Him" - it was God who did it . . . Any idea or theory of the atonement must always give full weight and significance to the activity of God the Father." Martin Lloyd-Jones, Great Doctrines of the Bible, Volume One, Substitution, 'The Necessity of the Atonement,' Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois, 2003, (pages 317-337) Click to expand... ". . . for he was put to death by his own Father . . . ." Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Cross, Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois, 1986, (page 82), ( tinyurl.com/y7mqh4b6 ) "If your sins brought Christ upon his knees (as they did in the garden) before God as an angry judge, they may well bring you upon your knees also . . . And considered either as lamb or shepherd, we find that God being angry with him whilst thus he bore our sins, insomuch as he is said in his wrath to have smitten this shepherd with his sword, and smitten him unto death . . . ." Thomas Goodwin, Christ Our Mediator, (Grand Rapids: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1971), 370. ". . . God condemned sin in his flesh [Rom. 8:3] and punished him with the accursed death on the cross and that through him we now receive reconciliation and forgiveness, righteousness and life, indeed total and complete salvation . . . ." Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 3, (page 398) “The believer is saved- not simply because of what men did to Christ on the cross, but because of what God did to Him: He crushed Him under the full force of His wrath against us.” Paul Washer, The Gospel’s Power and Message (page 192) "Then the horrifying thunder of God’s wrath breaks the silence. The Father takes the knife, draws back His arm, and slays “His Son, His only Son, whom He loves” fulfilling the words of Isaiah the prophet: 'Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.... Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.'" (Isaiah 53:4-5, 10) Paul Washer, The Gospel’s Power and Message (page 194) Here is John PiperOne of my friends who used to be a pastor in Illinois was preaching to a group of prisoners in a state prison during Holy Week several years ago. At one point in his message, he paused and asked the men if they knew who killed Jesus. Some said the soldiers did. Some said the Jews did. Some said Pilate. After there was silence, my friend said simply, “His Father killed him.” That’s what the first half of Romans 8:32 says: God did not spare his own Son but handed him over — to death. “This Jesus [was] delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). Isaiah 53 puts it even more bluntly, “We esteemed him stricken, smitten by God. . . . It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he (his Father!) has put him to grief” (Isaiah 53:4, 10). Or as Romans 3:25 says, “God put [him] forward as a propitiation by his blood.” Just as Abraham lifted the knife over the chest of his son Isaac, but then spared his son because there was a ram in the thicket, so God the Father lifted his knife over the chest of his own Son, Jesus — but did not spare him, because he was the ram; he was the substitute. Here is John MacArthurA Shocking Truth The reality of Christ’s vicarious, substitutionary death on our behalf is the heart of the gospel according to God—the central theme of Isaiah 53. We must remember, however, that sin did not kill Jesus; God did. The suffering servant’s death was nothing less than a punishment administered by God for sins others had committed. That is what we mean when we speak of penal substitutionary atonement. Again, if the idea seems shocking and disturbing, it is meant to be. Unless you recoil from the thought, you probably haven’t grasped it yet. “Our God is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29). This is one of the major reasons the gospel is a stumbling block to Jews, and it’s sheer foolishness as far as Gentiles are concerned (1 Cor. 1:23). “But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, [the message of Christ crucified embodies both] the power of God and the wisdom of God” (v. 24). And Voddie below : Voddie Baucham says in the film: “Yeah, God killed Jesus. But did Jesus go to the cross unwillingly? No” Do you believe Death is not the punishment for Sin? I believe its the consequences or the result of sin. Sin brought forth death. Can you provide a scripture saying God punishes man for sin resulting in death ? Better yet can you provide any teaching by Jesus or the Apostles saying Jesus death was the result of God punishing Him ? |
|
|
|
Post by atpollard on Jul 14, 2023 13:10:53 GMT -8
“Better yet can you provide any teaching by Jesus or the Apostles saying Jesus death was the result of God punishing Him ?”
Good thing you eliminated the OT, where the Prophet Isaiah said exactly that (sort of).
For the NT, what is the definition of PROPITIATION (which the Apostles do say)?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 15, 2023 11:09:07 GMT -8
|
|
