FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

God allegedly pouring out his wrath on a perfectly innocent victim

---

This would never happen. No one is innocent except for the spotless Lamb, Christ. Or is that what you are getting at?

---

Yes, that's what he's saying - it would be unjust to pour His wrath on the innocent Christ.

But where does the part that Jesus offered Himself for us come into play? What was going on on the cross if not His stepping into our place to receive the punishment we deserved?

---

It's a sacrifice of atonement, not the God-foresaken penal substitutionary atonement, but the atonement of self-offering love contemplated in the OT. What makes PSA so abhorrent is the "penal" aspect of it and the way it turns God into an unjust, tantrum-throwing tyrant. It's not the substitutionary aspect of PSA that is abhorrent.

Christ's death is expiatory (removing sin's guilt) and satisfactory (making reparation to God for offense). Jesus atoned for our sins and reconciled us with God. However, there are Church multiple complementary models of atonement, not one rigid framework, and never a penal model. Christ is Victim, Redeemer, Victor over Satan, and Physician of souls simultaneously. No single model exhausts the mystery.

Strict penal substitution suggests God the Father punished an innocent victim (the Son) in place of the guilty. This raises theological problems:
It separates the Father and Son as adversaries rather than one divine will acting in love; i.e, the Trinity.
It implies God's justice requires innocent suffering, making divine justice appear arbitrary and the product of God's passibility.
It portrays God as a judge who is required by an exigency of his own nature as being unable to forgive without blood payment, contrary to His nature as merciful love.

---

Amen. And this is the difference. The character of God. The Jews wanted a thunderbolt throwing, angry, bully God. And they got Jesus. The perfect revelation of God. The Lamb.

And can any Calvinist tell me why God created the non elect?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

God allegedly pouring out his wrath on a perfectly innocent victim

---

This would never happen. No one is innocent except for the spotless Lamb, Christ. Or is that what you are getting at?

---

I actually agree with this. Jesus is the only innocent one.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

God created everything, owns everything, and maintains everything every moment of every day.

---

Agree. And so does every other Christian I know,

---

No you don't. Do you believe he maintains the faith he has given you?

---

Of course. And every Christian I know believes that. His faith can not fail.

---

Every Christian does not believe in the perseverance of the saints.

---

Why are you trying to be devisive? Do you believe that if they don't believe that they are damned? And if not, why does it bother you?

---

No, this is not being divisive. And no, if someone doesn't believe the "P" in TULIP that will not damn them.

But we obviously have radically different views on what God's sovereignty is, because that is ultimately what a reformed person would believe when you boil it all down - God is sovereign over all.

Still waiting for one example of a hero of the faith in the Bible who chose God without God first initiating it.

---

And edited to add, sure God chose special people. To do special things for Him. Has nothing to do with salvation for ordinary Christians. Was Paul the only Christian saved in the NT? Of course not. But he was chosen by God to be the messenger to the Gentiles.

---

So the men and women as outlined in the Bible were unique and their "special" path to salvation is an exception to the rule?

dermdoc said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

God allegedly pouring out his wrath on a perfectly innocent victim

---

This would never happen. No one is innocent except for the spotless Lamb, Christ. Or is that what you are getting at?

---

Yes, that's what he's saying - it would be unjust to pour His wrath on the innocent Christ.

But where does the part that Jesus offered Himself for us come into play? What was going on on the cross if not His stepping into our place to receive the punishment we deserved?

---

It's a sacrifice of atonement, not the God-foresaken penal substitutionary atonement, but the atonement of self-offering love contemplated in the OT. What makes PSA so abhorrent is the "penal" aspect of it and the way it turns God into an unjust, tantrum-throwing tyrant. It's not the substitutionary aspect of PSA that is abhorrent.

Christ's death is expiatory (removing sin's guilt) and satisfactory (making reparation to God for offense). Jesus atoned for our sins and reconciled us with God. However, there are Church multiple complementary models of atonement, not one rigid framework, and never a penal model. Christ is Victim, Redeemer, Victor over Satan, and Physician of souls simultaneously. No single model exhausts the mystery.

Strict penal substitution suggests God the Father punished an innocent victim (the Son) in place of the guilty. This raises theological problems:
It separates the Father and Son as adversaries rather than one divine will acting in love; i.e, the Trinity.
It implies God's justice requires innocent suffering, making divine justice appear arbitrary and the product of God's passibility.
It portrays God as a judge who is required by an exigency of his own nature as being unable to forgive without blood payment, contrary to His nature as merciful love.

---

Amen. And this is the difference. The character of God. The Jews wanted a thunderbolt throwing, angry, bully God. And they got Jesus. The perfect revelation of God. The Lamb.

And can any Calvinist tell me why God created the non elect?

---

What are you talking about they wanted a thunder bolt throwing, angry God?

They were wrong and looking for the wrong Messiah, but they wanted Rome off their back. Had nothing to do with desiring an angry God.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The difference between yall and us is you think only some will choose death, that though He offers grace to all it's only sufficient for some, and we think everyone will choose death without the Holy Spirit intervening and that His grace is sufficient for all who receive it. He gives some of us mercy when we all choose death, by our choice might I add.

---

In addition there must be the idea that Christ will ultimately have died in vain for many since not all will choose Him, in that scenario. I don't believe that is an acceptable characterization of the blood spilled by the Messiah. Unless of course you believe in universal reconciliation

---

Ok, please explain how you arrived at this calculus.

Quote:

---

In addition there must be the idea that Christ will ultimately have died in vain for many since not all will choose Him, in that scenario.

---

---

I don't know why it wouldn't be so. What happens when you go out of your way to sacrifice something and help someone or perhaps offer a gift you saved up for years to buy. You give them the gift and they stare you in the face and throw it away. I'd say all of that toil and sacrifice was done in vain. How would it not be?

---

Would they be throwing the gift away by their own free will? Or were they predestined to throw away the gift?

---

Neither of those options alleviates the idea of the gift being given in vain, if it was in fact given to those who would not attain it.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

God created everything, owns everything, and maintains everything every moment of every day.

---

Agree. And so does every other Christian I know,

---

No you don't. Do you believe he maintains the faith he has given you?

---

Of course. And every Christian I know believes that. His faith can not fail.

---

Every Christian does not believe in the perseverance of the saints.

---

Why are you trying to be devisive? Do you believe that if they don't believe that they are damned? And if not, why does it bother you?

---

No, this is not being divisive. And no, if someone doesn't believe the "P" in TULIP that will not damn them.

But we obviously have radically different views on what God's sovereignty is, because that is ultimately what a reformed person would believe when you boil it all down - God is sovereign over all.

Still waiting for one example of a hero of the faith in the Bible who chose God without God first initiating it.

---

You do understand that Christians who are not reformed believe God is sovereign over all too?

---

Not over salvation, so it simply cannot be sovereign over all.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

God created everything, owns everything, and maintains everything every moment of every day.

---

Agree. And so does every other Christian I know,

---

No you don't. Do you believe he maintains the faith he has given you?

---

Of course. And every Christian I know believes that. His faith can not fail.

---

Every Christian does not believe in the perseverance of the saints.

---

Why are you trying to be devisive? Do you believe that if they don't believe that they are damned? And if not, why does it bother you?

---

No, this is not being divisive. And no, if someone doesn't believe the "P" in TULIP that will not damn them.

But we obviously have radically different views on what God's sovereignty is, because that is ultimately what a reformed person would believe when you boil it all down - God is sovereign over all.

Still waiting for one example of a hero of the faith in the Bible who chose God without God first initiating it.

---

You do understand that Christians who are not reformed believe God is sovereign over all too?

---

Not over salvation, so it simply cannot be sovereign over all.

---

No, He is still sovereign over salvation. He is salvation. You can be sovereign over say money, or a mansion and yet love your created ones enough to let them choose to accept your free gift. In fact, you used that same example earlier. You are still sovereign. You also are loving.
As I have stated, this is not a disagreement on sovereignty. It is a disagreement on God's character.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

God created everything, owns everything, and maintains everything every moment of every day.

---

Agree. And so does every other Christian I know,

---

No you don't. Do you believe he maintains the faith he has given you?

---

Of course. And every Christian I know believes that. His faith can not fail.

---

Every Christian does not believe in the perseverance of the saints.

---

Why are you trying to be devisive? Do you believe that if they don't believe that they are damned? And if not, why does it bother you?

---

No, this is not being divisive. And no, if someone doesn't believe the "P" in TULIP that will not damn them.

But we obviously have radically different views on what God's sovereignty is, because that is ultimately what a reformed person would believe when you boil it all down - God is sovereign over all.

Still waiting for one example of a hero of the faith in the Bible who chose God without God first initiating it.

---

You do understand that Christians who are not reformed believe God is sovereign over all too?

---

Not over salvation, so it simply cannot be sovereign over all.

---

No, He is still sovereign over salvation. He is salvation. You can be sovereign over say money, or a mansion and yet love your created ones enough to let them choose to accept your free gift. In fact, you used that same example earlier. You are still sovereign. You also are loving.
As I have stated, this is not a disagreement on sovereignty. It is a disagreement on God's character.

---

I think the disagreement is how God applies His sovereignty.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

God created everything, owns everything, and maintains everything every moment of every day.

---

Agree. And so does every other Christian I know,

---

No you don't. Do you believe he maintains the faith he has given you?

---

Of course. And every Christian I know believes that. His faith can not fail.

---

Every Christian does not believe in the perseverance of the saints.

---

Why are you trying to be devisive? Do you believe that if they don't believe that they are damned? And if not, why does it bother you?

---

No, this is not being divisive. And no, if someone doesn't believe the "P" in TULIP that will not damn them.

But we obviously have radically different views on what God's sovereignty is, because that is ultimately what a reformed person would believe when you boil it all down - God is sovereign over all.

Still waiting for one example of a hero of the faith in the Bible who chose God without God first initiating it.

---

You do understand that Christians who are not reformed believe God is sovereign over all too?

---

Not over salvation, so it simply cannot be sovereign over all.

---

No, He is still sovereign over salvation. He is salvation. You can be sovereign over say money, or a mansion and yet love your created ones enough to let them choose to accept your free gift. In fact, you used that same example earlier. You are still sovereign. You also are loving.
As I have stated, this is not a disagreement on sovereignty. It is a disagreement on God's character.

---

I think the disagreement is how God applies His sovereignty.

---

I think the disagreement is how you perceive His sovereignty. God applies His sovereignty as He wants. It all comes down to God's character. And that is revealed by Jesus. I do not see how one could attribute God creating creatures only for damnation by the revelation of God's character by Jesus. We will agree to disagree. Shalom.
Actually after thinking about it I believe you are correct.

dermdoc said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

God allegedly pouring out his wrath on a perfectly innocent victim

---

This would never happen. No one is innocent except for the spotless Lamb, Christ. Or is that what you are getting at?

---

Yes, that's what he's saying - it would be unjust to pour His wrath on the innocent Christ.

But where does the part that Jesus offered Himself for us come into play? What was going on on the cross if not His stepping into our place to receive the punishment we deserved?

---

It's a sacrifice of atonement, not the God-foresaken penal substitutionary atonement, but the atonement of self-offering love contemplated in the OT. What makes PSA so abhorrent is the "penal" aspect of it and the way it turns God into an unjust, tantrum-throwing tyrant. It's not the substitutionary aspect of PSA that is abhorrent.

Christ's death is expiatory (removing sin's guilt) and satisfactory (making reparation to God for offense). Jesus atoned for our sins and reconciled us with God. However, there are Church multiple complementary models of atonement, not one rigid framework, and never a penal model. Christ is Victim, Redeemer, Victor over Satan, and Physician of souls simultaneously. No single model exhausts the mystery.

Strict penal substitution suggests God the Father punished an innocent victim (the Son) in place of the guilty. This raises theological problems:
It separates the Father and Son as adversaries rather than one divine will acting in love; i.e, the Trinity.
It implies God's justice requires innocent suffering, making divine justice appear arbitrary and the product of God's passibility.
It portrays God as a judge who is required by an exigency of his own nature as being unable to forgive without blood payment, contrary to His nature as merciful love.

---

Amen. And this is the difference. The character of God. The Jews wanted a thunderbolt throwing, angry, bully God. And they got Jesus. The perfect revelation of God. The Lamb.

And can any Calvinist tell me why God created the non elect?

---

"Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable."
2 Timothy 2:20 ESV


"You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory"
Romans 9:19-23 ESV

Pretty self explanatory.

Pierow said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

God allegedly pouring out his wrath on a perfectly innocent victim

---

This would never happen. No one is innocent except for the spotless Lamb, Christ. Or is that what you are getting at?

---

Yes, that's what he's saying - it would be unjust to pour His wrath on the innocent Christ.

But where does the part that Jesus offered Himself for us come into play? What was going on on the cross if not His stepping into our place to receive the punishment we deserved?

---

It's a sacrifice of atonement, not the God-foresaken penal substitutionary atonement, but the atonement of self-offering love contemplated in the OT. What makes PSA so abhorrent is the "penal" aspect of it and the way it turns God into an unjust, tantrum-throwing tyrant. It's not the substitutionary aspect of PSA that is abhorrent.

Christ's death is expiatory (removing sin's guilt) and satisfactory (making reparation to God for offense). Jesus atoned for our sins and reconciled us with God. However, there are Church multiple complementary models of atonement, not one rigid framework, and never a penal model. Christ is Victim, Redeemer, Victor over Satan, and Physician of souls simultaneously. No single model exhausts the mystery.

Strict penal substitution suggests God the Father punished an innocent victim (the Son) in place of the guilty. This raises theological problems:
It separates the Father and Son as adversaries rather than one divine will acting in love; i.e, the Trinity.
It implies God's justice requires innocent suffering, making divine justice appear arbitrary and the product of God's passibility.
It portrays God as a judge who is required by an exigency of his own nature as being unable to forgive without blood payment, contrary to His nature as merciful love.

---

Amen. And this is the difference. The character of God. The Jews wanted a thunderbolt throwing, angry, bully God. And they got Jesus. The perfect revelation of God. The Lamb.

And can any Calvinist tell me why God created the non elect?

---

"Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable."
2 Timothy 2:20 ESV


"You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory"
Romans 9:19-23 ESV

Pretty self explanatory.

---

Totally disagree. "What if God" implies to me that God did not do that.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

God allegedly pouring out his wrath on a perfectly innocent victim

---

This would never happen. No one is innocent except for the spotless Lamb, Christ. Or is that what you are getting at?

---

Yes, that's what he's saying - it would be unjust to pour His wrath on the innocent Christ.

But where does the part that Jesus offered Himself for us come into play? What was going on on the cross if not His stepping into our place to receive the punishment we deserved?

---

It's a sacrifice of atonement, not the God-foresaken penal substitutionary atonement, but the atonement of self-offering love contemplated in the OT. What makes PSA so abhorrent is the "penal" aspect of it and the way it turns God into an unjust, tantrum-throwing tyrant. It's not the substitutionary aspect of PSA that is abhorrent.

Christ's death is expiatory (removing sin's guilt) and satisfactory (making reparation to God for offense). Jesus atoned for our sins and reconciled us with God. However, there are Church multiple complementary models of atonement, not one rigid framework, and never a penal model. Christ is Victim, Redeemer, Victor over Satan, and Physician of souls simultaneously. No single model exhausts the mystery.

Strict penal substitution suggests God the Father punished an innocent victim (the Son) in place of the guilty. This raises theological problems:
It separates the Father and Son as adversaries rather than one divine will acting in love; i.e, the Trinity.
It implies God's justice requires innocent suffering, making divine justice appear arbitrary and the product of God's passibility.
It portrays God as a judge who is required by an exigency of his own nature as being unable to forgive without blood payment, contrary to His nature as merciful love.

---

What do you do with this then?

"Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins."
Hebrews 9:22 ESV

Is wrathful, what do you do with that?

"But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury."
Romans 2:5, 8 ESV


"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth."
Romans 1:18 ESV

"Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God."
Romans 5:9 ESV


He destines some for wrath, and some for none:

"For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,"
1 Thessalonians 5:9 ESV


He is angry with sin and disobedience:

"And the Lord's anger was kindled on that day, and he swore, saying, 'Surely none of the men who came up out of Egypt, from twenty years old and upward, shall see the land that I swore to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, because they have not wholly followed me, none except Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite and Joshua the son of Nun, for they have wholly followed the Lord.' And the Lord's anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation that had done evil in the sight of the Lord was gone."
Numbers 32:10-13 ESV

"They made their hearts diamond-hard lest they should hear the law and the words that the Lord of hosts had sent by his Spirit through the former prophets. Therefore great anger came from the Lord of hosts."
Zechariah 7:12 ESV

God is not squishy love. It pleased God to crush Him…put Him to grief:

"But the Lord was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand."
Isaiah 53:10 NASB1995

I understand you have strong opinions about this, can you back any of your thoughts up with scripture?

Pierow said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

God allegedly pouring out his wrath on a perfectly innocent victim

---

This would never happen. No one is innocent except for the spotless Lamb, Christ. Or is that what you are getting at?

---

Yes, that's what he's saying - it would be unjust to pour His wrath on the innocent Christ.

But where does the part that Jesus offered Himself for us come into play? What was going on on the cross if not His stepping into our place to receive the punishment we deserved?

---

It's a sacrifice of atonement, not the God-foresaken penal substitutionary atonement, but the atonement of self-offering love contemplated in the OT. What makes PSA so abhorrent is the "penal" aspect of it and the way it turns God into an unjust, tantrum-throwing tyrant. It's not the substitutionary aspect of PSA that is abhorrent.

Christ's death is expiatory (removing sin's guilt) and satisfactory (making reparation to God for offense). Jesus atoned for our sins and reconciled us with God. However, there are Church multiple complementary models of atonement, not one rigid framework, and never a penal model. Christ is Victim, Redeemer, Victor over Satan, and Physician of souls simultaneously. No single model exhausts the mystery.

Strict penal substitution suggests God the Father punished an innocent victim (the Son) in place of the guilty. This raises theological problems:
It separates the Father and Son as adversaries rather than one divine will acting in love; i.e, the Trinity.
It implies God's justice requires innocent suffering, making divine justice appear arbitrary and the product of God's passibility.
It portrays God as a judge who is required by an exigency of his own nature as being unable to forgive without blood payment, contrary to His nature as merciful love.

---

Amen. And this is the difference. The character of God. The Jews wanted a thunderbolt throwing, angry, bully God. And they got Jesus. The perfect revelation of God. The Lamb.

And can any Calvinist tell me why God created the non elect?

---

"Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable."
2 Timothy 2:20 ESV


"You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory"
Romans 9:19-23 ESV

Pretty self explanatory.

---

This is what I believe.
https://share.google/f03IjKWgcbgk1qeq5

Question for the Reformed/Calvinist posters on here.
Do you ever read any non reformed/Calvinist theologians or commentaries?
And I will ask the same question of RCC and EO posters. I firmly believe if we read both sides there would be a lot more understanding and unity. We all love Jesus.

dermdoc said:

---

Question for the Reformed/Calvinist posters on here.
Do you ever read any non reformed/Calvinist theologians or commentaries?
And I will ask the same question of RCC and EO posters. I firmly believe if we read both sides there would be a lot more understanding and unity. We all love Jesus.

---

I agree. And believe me, I read everything. The only thing I haven't done yet, because it makes my head hurt, is study Greek or Hebrew. I'm so thankful that we live in a time where I can just look it up. The primary problem with most people (the world at large as well as Christendom) is that they live in a bubble. I strive very hard not to do that. But after 20 years of study, you do develop a sense of what you believe.

dermdoc said:

---

Question for the Reformed/Calvinist posters on here.
Do you ever read any non reformed/Calvinist theologians or commentaries?
And I will ask the same question of RCC and EO posters. I firmly believe if we read both sides there would be a lot more understanding and unity. We all love Jesus.

---

Splitting enough for their to be a "both sides" goes back to the 2nd century. Dialogue doesn't fix much on it's own. Only recognition of the authority Christ left His Church, guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit, has been able to hold this thing together as long as it has.

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Question for the Reformed/Calvinist posters on here.
Do you ever read any non reformed/Calvinist theologians or commentaries?
And I will ask the same question of RCC and EO posters. I firmly believe if we read both sides there would be a lot more understanding and unity. We all love Jesus.

---

Splitting enough for their to be a "both sides" goes back to the 2nd century. Dialogue doesn't fix much. Only recognition of the authority Christ left His Church, guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit, has been able to hold this thing together as long as it has.

---

One can dream. We will all be together in the New Jerusalem.

Pierow said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Question for the Reformed/Calvinist posters on here.
Do you ever read any non reformed/Calvinist theologians or commentaries?
And I will ask the same question of RCC and EO posters. I firmly believe if we read both sides there would be a lot more understanding and unity. We all love Jesus.

---

I agree. And believe me, I read everything. The only thing I haven't done yet, because it makes my head hurt, is study Greek or Hebrew. I'm so thankful that we live in a time where I can just look it up. The primary problem with most people (the world at large as well as Christendom) is that they live in a bubble. I strive very hard not to do that. But after 20 years of study, you do develop a sense of what you believe.

---

Amen. And although we disagree on some non salvific stuff, I like your tone my brother in Christ. I think reading all the different views gives you a much more tolerant and understanding view.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Christ obviously was perfect and innocent displayed by his life as the God man. But as Peter says, "Christ bore our sins in his body." He is the perfect sacrifice and suffered our punishment for our sins. God was not punishing Him for any of His own transgressions. This is the great exchange of our sin bore on Christ and His righteousness (which is alien to us naturally) given to us. This does nothing but bring us to our knees in complete and utter gratitude.

---

It brings me to tears in frustration over how you can't see how the idea of God the Father punishing God the Son, who is begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, and God from God and light from light, true God from true God, for something he not only didn't do but could never do. It's perverse.

---

It is sad. God is not mad at Jesus. Or us. Utter madness.

Isaiah 53:10?

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Christ obviously was perfect and innocent displayed by his life as the God man. But as Peter says, "Christ bore our sins in his body." He is the perfect sacrifice and suffered our punishment for our sins. God was not punishing Him for any of His own transgressions. This is the great exchange of our sin bore on Christ and His righteousness (which is alien to us naturally) given to us. This does nothing but bring us to our knees in complete and utter gratitude.

---

It brings me to tears in frustration over how you can't see how the idea of God the Father punishing God the Son, who is begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, and God from God and light from light, true God from true God, for something he not only didn't do but could never do, is simply wrong.

---

What exactly happened on the cross then?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Christ obviously was perfect and innocent displayed by his life as the God man. But as Peter says, "Christ bore our sins in his body." He is the perfect sacrifice and suffered our punishment for our sins. God was not punishing Him for any of His own transgressions. This is the great exchange of our sin bore on Christ and His righteousness (which is alien to us naturally) given to us. This does nothing but bring us to our knees in complete and utter gratitude.

---

It brings me to tears in frustration over how you can't see how the idea of God the Father punishing God the Son, who is begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, and God from God and light from light, true God from true God, for something he not only didn't do but could never do, is simply wrong.

---

What exactly happened on the cross then?

---

Have you read about Christus Victor atonement? Penal substitutionary atonement is a relatively recent view from Anselm,

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Christ obviously was perfect and innocent displayed by his life as the God man. But as Peter says, "Christ bore our sins in his body." He is the perfect sacrifice and suffered our punishment for our sins. God was not punishing Him for any of His own transgressions. This is the great exchange of our sin bore on Christ and His righteousness (which is alien to us naturally) given to us. This does nothing but bring us to our knees in complete and utter gratitude.

---

It brings me to tears in frustration over how you can't see how the idea of God the Father punishing God the Son, who is begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, and God from God and light from light, true God from true God, for something he not only didn't do but could never do, is simply wrong.

---

What exactly happened on the cross then?

---

And Christ paid for our sins and defeated Satan. God was not mad at Christ. Or us.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Christ obviously was perfect and innocent displayed by his life as the God man. But as Peter says, "Christ bore our sins in his body." He is the perfect sacrifice and suffered our punishment for our sins. God was not punishing Him for any of His own transgressions. This is the great exchange of our sin bore on Christ and His righteousness (which is alien to us naturally) given to us. This does nothing but bring us to our knees in complete and utter gratitude.

---

It brings me to tears in frustration over how you can't see how the idea of God the Father punishing God the Son, who is begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, and God from God and light from light, true God from true God, for something he not only didn't do but could never do, is simply wrong.

---

What exactly happened on the cross then?

---

A willing sacrifice, "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself"

And as mentioned above, there is no part of Christ that is not God. He is at all times 100% God and 100% man. God pouring out his wrath on himself for something he didn't do is asinine. God accepting the burden to restore grace between Himself and creation, in a form that was both fully Himself and Creation is the greatest act of love anywhere anytime.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Christ obviously was perfect and innocent displayed by his life as the God man. But as Peter says, "Christ bore our sins in his body." He is the perfect sacrifice and suffered our punishment for our sins. God was not punishing Him for any of His own transgressions. This is the great exchange of our sin bore on Christ and His righteousness (which is alien to us naturally) given to us. This does nothing but bring us to our knees in complete and utter gratitude.

---

It brings me to tears in frustration over how you can't see how the idea of God the Father punishing God the Son, who is begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, and God from God and light from light, true God from true God, for something he not only didn't do but could never do, is simply wrong.

---

What exactly happened on the cross then?

---

And Christ paid for our sins and defeated Satan. God was not mad at Christ. Or us.

---

I have never said God was mad at Christ. Quite the opposite.

Vox Clamantis said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Christ obviously was perfect and innocent displayed by his life as the God man. But as Peter says, "Christ bore our sins in his body." He is the perfect sacrifice and suffered our punishment for our sins. God was not punishing Him for any of His own transgressions. This is the great exchange of our sin bore on Christ and His righteousness (which is alien to us naturally) given to us. This does nothing but bring us to our knees in complete and utter gratitude.

---

It brings me to tears in frustration over how you can't see how the idea of God the Father punishing God the Son, who is begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, and God from God and light from light, true God from true God, for something he not only didn't do but could never do, is simply wrong.

---

What exactly happened on the cross then?

---

A willing sacrifice, "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself"

And as mentioned above, there is no part of Christ that is not God. He is at all times 100% God and 100% man. God pouring out his wrath on himself for something he didn't do is asinine. God accepting the burden to restore grace between Himself and creation, in a form that was both fully Himself and Creation is the greatest act of love anywhere anytime.

---

Of course it was a willing sacrifice. That is part of what makes it so powerful. No argument there.

Seems to me there may be a Trinitarian language or divergence at play with our understanding. I would not agree that "God poured out wrath on himself." The Father did so (Isaiah 53:10) on his only begotten Son. The Council of Constantinople clarified much of the basic understanding, claiming God is three distinct persons of the same essence (that word " homoousios" that some couldn't agree on). Furthermore, it doubled down on all three persons as having full deity. So your statement of "God pouring out his wrath on himself" just does not make any sense to me. The Father allowed his own Son to be killed on the cross, the final sacrifice for mankind to be right with God.

Isaiah 53:10-11
Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 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.

Psalm 22:1
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?

Matthew 27:46
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Galatians 3:13
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for usfor it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"

1 John 4:9-10
In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Some commentary from Cyril of Alexandria

As our truly great and all-holy High Priest, Christ appeases the wrath of His Father by His prayers, sacrificing Himself for us. (Commentary on John, Vol 2, Book 11, Chapter 8, paragraph 688, pg 282)

He was flogged unjustly that he might deliver us from the blows we deserved. He was ridiculed and slapped so that... we might escape the sin of transgression that clings to us. If we think rightly, we will hold that all of Christ's sufferings happened for us and in our place. (Commentary on John, Vol. 2, Book 12, paragraphs 60-61, pg 333)

All people on earth, since we have fallen into the nets of sin… have become subject to the accusations of the devil. We were all living a gloomy and miserable life. The inscription contained a "record that stood against us" - the curse that the divine law imposes on transgressors and the sentence that went forth against those who went astray from that ancient command. It is like Adam's curse, which extended to the entire race in that everyone broke God's decrees. God was not only angry with Adam when he fell, but he was also angry with those after him who dishonored the decree of the creator. The law's condemnation of transgressors extended from one to all. We are therefore cursed and condemned by God's decree due to the transgression of Adam and to the transgression of the law laid down after him. But the Savior wiped out the record against us, nailing the inscription to his cross, which clearly signifies his death on a tree, which he underwent for the life of those who were condemned. He paid our penalty for us. (Commentary on John, Vol. 2, Book 12, John 19:19, paragraph 84, pgs 344-45)

Bearing on his shoulders the wood on which he was about to be crucified, he went out, condemned already and suffering the sentence of death, even though he was innocent. And he did it for us. He took upon himself the punishment that the law justly assigns to sinners. He became "a curse for us," as it is written, "for cursed is everyone," it says, "who hangs on a tree" (Deuteronomy 21:23; Galatians 3:13). We are all cursed because we cannot fulfill the divine law. "We all sin much," and human nature is very prone to sin. Since the divine law said somewhere, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things written in the book of the law, to do them" (Deuteronomy 27:26; Galatians 3:10), the curse applies to us and not to others. Those who are charged with the transgression of the law and who are very prone to stray from its decrees would be the ones who deserve punishment. So the one who knew no sin was cursed for us in order to rescue us from the ancient curse. God, who is over all, was sufficient to suffer this on behalf of all and to purchase redemption for all through the death of his own flesh.

Christ, then, does not bear a cross of his own deserving but one that we deserved and that hung over us as far as the condemnation of the law is concerned. Just as he died not for himself but for us, that he might become for us the author of eternal life, destroying in himself the power of death; so also he takes upon himself the cross that we deserved, condemning in himself the condemnation of the law, that all lawlessness may shut its mouth, as the psalmist says (Psalm 107:42), when he who has no sin is condemned for the sin of all. (Commentary on John, Vol. 2, Book 12, John 19:16-18, paragraphs 80-81, pgs 342-43)

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Some commentary from Cyril of Alexandria

As our truly great and all-holy High Priest, Christ appeases the wrath of His Father by His prayers, sacrificing Himself for us. (Commentary on John, Vol 2, Book 11, Chapter 8, paragraph 688, pg 282)

He was flogged unjustly that he might deliver us from the blows we deserved. He was ridiculed and slapped so that... we might escape the sin of transgression that clings to us. If we think rightly, we will hold that all of Christ's sufferings happened for us and in our place. (Commentary on John, Vol. 2, Book 12, paragraphs 60-61, pg 333)

All people on earth, since we have fallen into the nets of sin… have become subject to the accusations of the devil. We were all living a gloomy and miserable life. The inscription contained a "record that stood against us" - the curse that the divine law imposes on transgressors and the sentence that went forth against those who went astray from that ancient command. It is like Adam's curse, which extended to the entire race in that everyone broke God's decrees. God was not only angry with Adam when he fell, but he was also angry with those after him who dishonored the decree of the creator. The law's condemnation of transgressors extended from one to all. We are therefore cursed and condemned by God's decree due to the transgression of Adam and to the transgression of the law laid down after him. But the Savior wiped out the record against us, nailing the inscription to his cross, which clearly signifies his death on a tree, which he underwent for the life of those who were condemned. He paid our penalty for us. (Commentary on John, Vol. 2, Book 12, John 19:19, paragraph 84, pgs 344-45)

Bearing on his shoulders the wood on which he was about to be crucified, he went out, condemned already and suffering the sentence of death, even though he was innocent. And he did it for us. He took upon himself the punishment that the law justly assigns to sinners. He became "a curse for us," as it is written, "for cursed is everyone," it says, "who hangs on a tree" (Deuteronomy 21:23; Galatians 3:13). We are all cursed because we cannot fulfill the divine law. "We all sin much," and human nature is very prone to sin. Since the divine law said somewhere, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things written in the book of the law, to do them" (Deuteronomy 27:26; Galatians 3:10), the curse applies to us and not to others. Those who are charged with the transgression of the law and who are very prone to stray from its decrees would be the ones who deserve punishment. So the one who knew no sin was cursed for us in order to rescue us from the ancient curse. God, who is over all, was sufficient to suffer this on behalf of all and to purchase redemption for all through the death of his own flesh.

Christ, then, does not bear a cross of his own deserving but one that we deserved and that hung over us as far as the condemnation of the law is concerned. Just as he died not for himself but for us, that he might become for us the author of eternal life, destroying in himself the power of death; so also he takes upon himself the cross that we deserved, condemning in himself the condemnation of the law, that all lawlessness may shut its mouth, as the psalmist says (Psalm 107:42), when he who has no sin is condemned for the sin of all. (Commentary on John, Vol. 2, Book 12, John 19:16-18, paragraphs 80-81, pgs 342-43)

---

We are in agreement on all this, but that's not the part I take issue with, it's the God pouring out his wrath until he's satisfied on Jesus part, as if there's a quota of pain that needs to be achieved before God relents.

Rather, that Christ's perfect love for humanity and obedience to the Father so exceeded the harm caused by Adam and Eve that creation was reconciled with creator.

"For this reason the father loves me, because I lay down my life"

Do you believe God has a wrath that must be satisfied?

Quote:

---

They pierced my hands and my feet- what else can that mean except the Cross? and Psalms 87 and 68, again speaking in the Lord's own person, tell us further that He suffered these things, not for His own sake but for ours. Thou has made Thy wrath to rest upon me, says the one; and the other adds, I paid them things I never took. For He did not die as being Himself liable to death: He suffered for us, and bore in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression, even as Isaiah says, Himself bore our weaknesses.

---

https://www.livefatima.io/letter-of-st-athanasius-archbishop-of-alexandria-to-marcellinus-concerning-the-psalms/

Quote:

---

Chapter 33. Men, Being by Nature the Children of Wrath, Needed a Mediator. In What Sense God is Said to Be Angry.

And so the human race was lying under a just condemnation, and all men were the children of wrath. Of which wrath it is written: All our days are passed away in Your wrath; we spend our years as a tale that is told. Of which wrath also Job says: Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble. Of which wrath also the Lord Jesus says: He that believes in the Son has everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him. He does not say it will come, but it abides on him. For every man is born with it; wherefore the apostle says: We were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. Now, as men were lying under this wrath by reason of their original sin, and as this original sin was the more heavy and deadly in proportion to the number and magnitude of the actual sins which were added to it, there was need for a Mediator, that is, for a reconciler, who, by the offering of one sacrifice, of which all the sacrifices of the law and the prophets were types, should take away this wrath. Wherefore the apostle says: For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. Now when God is said to be angry, we do not attribute to Him such a disturbed feeling as exists in the mind of an angry man; but we call His just displeasure against sin by the name anger, a word transferred by analogy from human emotions. But our being reconciled to God through a Mediator, and receiving the Holy Spirit, so that we who were enemies are made sons (For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God ): this is the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

---

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1302.htm

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Do you believe God has a wrath that must be satisfied?

---

God is immutable, his wrath isn't a state of being but rather his manifestation of goodness and justice being the polar opposite of sin. The way that you're using wrath sounds like it was a mood that God got into and needed to vent on someone to make himself feel better

The idea that God went from "wrathful" to "not wrathful" implies change, which implies non perfection, which is not God.

My understanding of your perception is that there is a bill that has to be paid, and God absolutely has to make sure it's paid, or no one is getting into heaven. Since we cannot pay the Bill, Christ stepped up and God said "sure I'll exact revenge on you that way I'll be made whole".

Christ went over and above and reconciled; justice was done, wrath wasn't poured out.