11/16/11 ADDRESSING THE ERROR OF PENAL SUBSTITUTION
I posted a video from a well respected ministry, and though I commended the video, I pointed out the error saying that Jesus took our punishment, when it should have said Jesus took our punishment away through His death. Here are some excerpts from the discussion that followed. I started with a basic statement. I will give editorial comments with underlining, in order to make the discussion easier to follow and I will begin my comments with DLG.
EXCERPTS
DLG
Basically a good, clear, concise presentation of the gospel. He (Jesus) actually died to TAKE AWAY our punishment through His sacrifice.
There is a huge difference in Christ "taking away our punishment" through His sacrificial death, and Christ "being punished for our sins."
The Bible does say, He suffered for us and He suffered for our sins, it does not say He, "suffered our punishment."
The Bible does say He paid "the price," it does not say He paid our "penalty." The meaning of the word, "price" and the word, "penalty" are not the same and the difference is enormous.
I only mention this because the video errs along these lines.
I was asked if there is a translation that makes this more clear.
DLG
I don't know any translation that actually supports "penal atonement." The problem is the way the teacher/preacher erroneously presents the passages.
Remember, the Bible never says Christ was "punished" for us; or, "He paid our penalty."
A friend from a different theological background offered these verses to indicate that Jesus did take our punishment.
Remember, the Bible never says Christ was "punished" for us; or, "He paid our penalty."
A friend from a different theological background offered these verses to indicate that Jesus did take our punishment.
FRIEND SAID
The following verses seem to indicate to me that Jesus took our punishment:
Isaiah 53:5 - “He was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed."
John 10:11 - "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."
Galatians 3:13 - "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—"
1 Peter 3:18 - "For Christ also suffered once for sins, >>the righteous for the unrighteous<<, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit..."
DLG (btw, none of these verses contradict my stated position)
I. EXTRA BIBLICAL TERMS
The first thing I notice is that these terms, these phrases used by those who hold to penal atonement are not in the Bible (as in my post and comment above). This may seem insignificant to some, but God's word should guide our thinking concerning eternal truths. Once we start accepting human thinking to re-explain God's word we are in trouble. Better to stay with Biblical terms.
II. BIBLICAL TERMS
The Bible uses the terms, “wounded, suffer, suffered, chastisement, paid, ransom, ransomed, redeem, redeemed, redemption, redeemer, price” in connection to Jesus and His atonement. It also uses the words, “sacrifice, sacrifices and sacrificed” in reference to Christ and the atonement. I believe all of those passages. The Bible never says that Jesus “paid our penalty,” or Jesus “suffered our punishment,” therefore I do not choose to use those terms either. You should know that I am not alone in this. Believers throughout the history of the Church, from various camps, have preached and taught the atonement without ever using those extra Biblical terms. Since God did not use those terms, neither do I.
III. HYPER CALVINISTIC IMPLICATIONS
Another reason I choose not to frame my beliefs in “penal” vocabulary is because it has become associated with the extremist points of view held by Five Point Calvinists (FPC) or Hyper-Calvinists. I believe you are part of this camp (correct me if I am wrong). In other words, the idea of penal atonement is associated with the notion that humans have no actual choice in whether they will be saved or not, through confession, repentance and faith, and God has not made provision for all men to be saved (the notion that Jesus did not die for everyone, which is strongly supported by the “penal theory of atonement.” While I do believe that Jesus has paid the price, to redeem me, so that my punishment can be taken away, and He has removed my penalty for sin, through His sinless, life, sacrificial death and physical resurrection, I do not use such un-Biblical terms as, “Jesus suffered my punishment,” or, “Jesus paid my penalty.” You and I both know that these terms are loaded with Hyper Calvinism.
IV. ATONEMENT GREATER THAN THEORIES
I think you do know that there is a difference in your vocabulary and mine, otherwise you would not argue for your vocabulary, especially since it is not a Biblical vocabulary. Which brings me to another problem with the idea of the, “penal theory of atonement.” By the way, I do believe in the atonement, though I may not have a single or fully defined explanation of the atonement. I am not alone in this either.
I don't think the atonement can be grasped or explained fully, at least in this world at this time. I believe that there is truth in several theories of atonement. However, many of those who understand the implications of the penal theory actually call it the atonement and they discount the faith of Christians who do not subscribe to the penal theory.
CONCLUSION (for this particular answer)
So, I do believe the verses that you mentioned. I just don't understand them in a penal model like you do. These verses are not "penal atonement" verses. I think you do understand that my statements are difference with distinctions, but unfortunately most people do not, and that is why I point out the problem.
I have not attempted to explain the differences in this post. I simply wanted to give a little bit of background for those who might not know.
Let me say again, there is not one verse in the Bible that says Jesus was punished for our sins or that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. If God had wanted to say those things, He would have. Since that is my premise, and it is irrefutably accurate, there is nothing to discuss.
Isaiah 53:5 - “He was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed."
John 10:11 - "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."
Galatians 3:13 - "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—"
1 Peter 3:18 - "For Christ also suffered once for sins, >>the righteous for the unrighteous<<, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit..."
DLG (btw, none of these verses contradict my stated position)
I. EXTRA BIBLICAL TERMS
The first thing I notice is that these terms, these phrases used by those who hold to penal atonement are not in the Bible (as in my post and comment above). This may seem insignificant to some, but God's word should guide our thinking concerning eternal truths. Once we start accepting human thinking to re-explain God's word we are in trouble. Better to stay with Biblical terms.
II. BIBLICAL TERMS
The Bible uses the terms, “wounded, suffer, suffered, chastisement, paid, ransom, ransomed, redeem, redeemed, redemption, redeemer, price” in connection to Jesus and His atonement. It also uses the words, “sacrifice, sacrifices and sacrificed” in reference to Christ and the atonement. I believe all of those passages. The Bible never says that Jesus “paid our penalty,” or Jesus “suffered our punishment,” therefore I do not choose to use those terms either. You should know that I am not alone in this. Believers throughout the history of the Church, from various camps, have preached and taught the atonement without ever using those extra Biblical terms. Since God did not use those terms, neither do I.
III. HYPER CALVINISTIC IMPLICATIONS
Another reason I choose not to frame my beliefs in “penal” vocabulary is because it has become associated with the extremist points of view held by Five Point Calvinists (FPC) or Hyper-Calvinists. I believe you are part of this camp (correct me if I am wrong). In other words, the idea of penal atonement is associated with the notion that humans have no actual choice in whether they will be saved or not, through confession, repentance and faith, and God has not made provision for all men to be saved (the notion that Jesus did not die for everyone, which is strongly supported by the “penal theory of atonement.” While I do believe that Jesus has paid the price, to redeem me, so that my punishment can be taken away, and He has removed my penalty for sin, through His sinless, life, sacrificial death and physical resurrection, I do not use such un-Biblical terms as, “Jesus suffered my punishment,” or, “Jesus paid my penalty.” You and I both know that these terms are loaded with Hyper Calvinism.
IV. ATONEMENT GREATER THAN THEORIES
I think you do know that there is a difference in your vocabulary and mine, otherwise you would not argue for your vocabulary, especially since it is not a Biblical vocabulary. Which brings me to another problem with the idea of the, “penal theory of atonement.” By the way, I do believe in the atonement, though I may not have a single or fully defined explanation of the atonement. I am not alone in this either.
I don't think the atonement can be grasped or explained fully, at least in this world at this time. I believe that there is truth in several theories of atonement. However, many of those who understand the implications of the penal theory actually call it the atonement and they discount the faith of Christians who do not subscribe to the penal theory.
CONCLUSION (for this particular answer)
So, I do believe the verses that you mentioned. I just don't understand them in a penal model like you do. These verses are not "penal atonement" verses. I think you do understand that my statements are difference with distinctions, but unfortunately most people do not, and that is why I point out the problem.
I have not attempted to explain the differences in this post. I simply wanted to give a little bit of background for those who might not know.
Let me say again, there is not one verse in the Bible that says Jesus was punished for our sins or that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. If God had wanted to say those things, He would have. Since that is my premise, and it is irrefutably accurate, there is nothing to discuss.
FRIEND responded by assuming I should have a problem with the words TRINITY and BIBLE, since they are "extra-Biblical. He continued by recounting the background to TULIP and other historical information, as well as stating that he did not see any conflict in saying Jesus was punished or paid our penalty. He then brought in other Calvinistic teaching, which actually veered from my original point.
DLG RESPONSE
NOT OFFENDED
You err by thinking you offended me, but thank you for your concern. However, I was hoping that you would allow me to answer your question concerning the use of the terms, “punishment” and “penalty.” You have no idea how much material I responded with, and then dumped it because you so quickly smothered the subject with other issues. This is usually the problem I have when talking with those who are in agreement with Five Points (of Calvinism). The problem is not that you offer such good points to support your position, but rather you offer so many points that you think are good, and then there is no way to address them, because you then add more points. It is like going for a pleasant ski outing on an inviting slope, only to find you are in the path of a relentless avalanche.
THE AVALANCHE BEGINS
I try to be thorough. But I cannot be thorough when the subject keeps changing. You asked me why it was important to avoid using the term, “penal substitution.” In the same comment you posted four verses that you stated, “seem to indicate that Jesus took our punishment.” Now I am faced with explaining why I reject the phrases concerning “punishment” and “paid penalty” PLUS explaining why those four verses do not support penal atonement (punishment and paid penalty). Those four verses contained words/phrases that would need to be defined and explained in such a discussion (wounded, crushed, chastisement, stripes, lays down life, redeemed, cursed, curse, suffered, put to death). Of course, not one of your verses said “punished” or “paid the penalty” (because it is not in the Bible). You introduced those verses as possible support for your belief in penal substitution by saying that they, “seem to indicate to (you) that Jesus took our punishment.” Where do I begin?
In introducing those verses at the same time you asked the first question diverted the discussion from my answering your initial question. I am not saying that the verses should not be addressed, I am saying that you changed the subject. In your mind, maybe you did not change the subject, but I would have to either answer this new set of questions, concerning the four verses with ten key words, or explain why I reject “punishment” and “paid my penalty.” Whatever path I took would only lead to more collateral issues, thus making it more difficult (impossible) to properly address your initial question.
MY RESPONSE
I attempted to address (if not answer) both of your questions in points (I) and (II) of my next comment. I stated in point (III) that the term, “penal” carries with it a great deal of Calvinistic controversy, and I mentioned a couple of those issues. I also used the terms, “punishment and penalty” in the way that I could accept, yet I still refuted the un-Biblical use of the terms. In point (IV) I stated that I believe in the atonement and even accept some of the principles found in the penal theory of atonement. I also pointed out that I believe the atonement is beyond our ability to adequately articulate.
I stated in my conclusion that I had not tried to explain my position, but simply give an overview of the problem.
YOU ERRED AGAIN
I thought you were funning when you questioned my possible aversion to the use of words like “trinity” and “Bible.” However, you actually used this argument against me when you said that I “would have to assert that if God meant to say He is a Trinity He would have said that, and since He didn't, He isn't, and that is irrefutably accurate and there is nothing to discuss. FRIEND, FRIEND, FRIEND, I am really disappointed in you. Again you have changed the subject and you have mixed apples and oranges and you have misrepresented my position. You must be wanting soundbite responses. Sorry.
MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH.
You err by thinking you offended me, but thank you for your concern. However, I was hoping that you would allow me to answer your question concerning the use of the terms, “punishment” and “penalty.” You have no idea how much material I responded with, and then dumped it because you so quickly smothered the subject with other issues. This is usually the problem I have when talking with those who are in agreement with Five Points (of Calvinism). The problem is not that you offer such good points to support your position, but rather you offer so many points that you think are good, and then there is no way to address them, because you then add more points. It is like going for a pleasant ski outing on an inviting slope, only to find you are in the path of a relentless avalanche.
THE AVALANCHE BEGINS
I try to be thorough. But I cannot be thorough when the subject keeps changing. You asked me why it was important to avoid using the term, “penal substitution.” In the same comment you posted four verses that you stated, “seem to indicate that Jesus took our punishment.” Now I am faced with explaining why I reject the phrases concerning “punishment” and “paid penalty” PLUS explaining why those four verses do not support penal atonement (punishment and paid penalty). Those four verses contained words/phrases that would need to be defined and explained in such a discussion (wounded, crushed, chastisement, stripes, lays down life, redeemed, cursed, curse, suffered, put to death). Of course, not one of your verses said “punished” or “paid the penalty” (because it is not in the Bible). You introduced those verses as possible support for your belief in penal substitution by saying that they, “seem to indicate to (you) that Jesus took our punishment.” Where do I begin?
In introducing those verses at the same time you asked the first question diverted the discussion from my answering your initial question. I am not saying that the verses should not be addressed, I am saying that you changed the subject. In your mind, maybe you did not change the subject, but I would have to either answer this new set of questions, concerning the four verses with ten key words, or explain why I reject “punishment” and “paid my penalty.” Whatever path I took would only lead to more collateral issues, thus making it more difficult (impossible) to properly address your initial question.
MY RESPONSE
I attempted to address (if not answer) both of your questions in points (I) and (II) of my next comment. I stated in point (III) that the term, “penal” carries with it a great deal of Calvinistic controversy, and I mentioned a couple of those issues. I also used the terms, “punishment and penalty” in the way that I could accept, yet I still refuted the un-Biblical use of the terms. In point (IV) I stated that I believe in the atonement and even accept some of the principles found in the penal theory of atonement. I also pointed out that I believe the atonement is beyond our ability to adequately articulate.
I stated in my conclusion that I had not tried to explain my position, but simply give an overview of the problem.
YOU ERRED AGAIN
I thought you were funning when you questioned my possible aversion to the use of words like “trinity” and “Bible.” However, you actually used this argument against me when you said that I “would have to assert that if God meant to say He is a Trinity He would have said that, and since He didn't, He isn't, and that is irrefutably accurate and there is nothing to discuss. FRIEND, FRIEND, FRIEND, I am really disappointed in you. Again you have changed the subject and you have mixed apples and oranges and you have misrepresented my position. You must be wanting soundbite responses. Sorry.
MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH.
FRIEND, read your own words.
QUOTE... “But seriously, it honestly sounds to me that a punishment was inflicted on Jesus in my place when I read these verses. I have never heard anyone object to that truth...”
My response to this statement.
YES! it sounds to you...
REALLY? You have never heard. FRIEND, you need to get out more.
WRONG! ...object to THAT TRUTH. Jesus being punished is not a “truth,” it is a theory, based upon interpretations of some people. You cannot even assert that it is either a Bible truth or a provable truth.
(parenthetically)
Let me briefly mention another problem (which actually shows up later in your comment). You refer to people who are 60-80% Arminian (based on the five points), as being Arminian. Wrong again. They are hybrids or Calvi-minans, as I like to call them. This is important because it is not accurate to call people Arminians who believe in OSAS or eternal security or perseverance of the saints. To do so is to skew the discussion.
YOU ERR AGAIN.
I do not have a problem with believing the sovereignty of God (another shelf in your avalanche of distraction). I have a problem with the warped and un-Biblical Calvinistic view of sovereignty. This is a whole other discussion. Too bad you don't really want to cover any one problem, rather than implying or asserting that I do not believe Bible revelation.
YOU ERR AGAIN, AGAIN.
I did not need a lesson in the origin of the Five Points of Calvinism or the “Canons of Dordt (which is short for Dordtrecht,” REALLY?). You said that the Arminians objected to the sovereignty of God. ACTUALLY, what they objected to was the warped view of sovereignty, held by Beza (the son in law of Calvin). The response of the Dutch Reformed Church (which was not originally Calvinistic) was to call them heretics for the very same things that I espouse. So, FRIEND, if you are in agreement with the doctrines espoused at Dordt, you should think that I am a heretic also. But, you said you do not believe I am. Although, I am not bothered very much when someone calls me a heretic, since I know that I am Biblically sound. I believe what the Bible says, without adding to or taking away from it. Besides, there are two kinds of heresy; beliefs which are off center and beliefs that are damnable. Still, I have chosen not to be heretical, in spite of the decision at Dordt, I would love to talk about Arminius, Beza, Dordt and the council, but that is not the purpose of this response.
AND THE AVALANCHE CONTINUED.
Even though I took the time to say that I believed in the atonement and agreed with many facets from various theories, you were not satisfied until you emphasized the Calvinistic position that Jesus did not die for everyone. As I said, I think you asked me questions so you could tell me why I was wrong. I was not offended, but I was disappointed.
THE FIVE POINTS OF CALVINISM
Concerning the Five Points of Calvinism, they do reflect the teachings of Calvin, regardless of how they originated. I have included a brief statement for those who may not be familiar with the Five Points of Calvinism.
The Five Points of Calvinism (sometimes called TULIP because it is an acrostic), which Arminians refuted are as follows.
Total Depravity... Calvinism teaches that the whole nature of man was depraved or corrupted in the fall of Adam, and destitute of all righteousness and ability to save self (which Arminians also believe) but Calvinism also teaches that man was Totally deserted (maybe a better point) by God, except for those whom He chose to save through unilateral (since God does not give all men the ability to respond to the gospel) and unconditional election (the notion that repentance, confession and faith are not essential human responses for salvation). In other words, all men inherited a sinful nature, which would eventuate in sin and damnation (which Arminians also believe) but God only enables a select group to save, deliberately leaving others without hope. Therefore, eternal souls are conceived without any hope of salvation, eternally and irrevocably bound to sin and suffer forever, because God does not offer salvation to them. According to Calvinism, God deliberately chose not to save even the pre-born from their sinful nature, therefore the pre-born who are not unilaterally elect of God are supposedly lost forever, even if they die in the womb.
Unconditional Election... Calvinism teaches that there are no conditions that must be met, can be met by humans in the salvation experience. This means that humans cannot repent, believe on Christ as Savior or confess their sins or confess faith in Christ, therefore there are no conditions to their salvation.
Limited Atonement... Calvinism teaches that Jesus did not die for everyone; that He only died for those who are unilaterally and unconditionally chosen by God to be saved. The reason they believe this is because they believe that Jesus PAID THE SIN DEBT for the so-called elect and was PUNISHED FOR the sins of the so-called elect. Basically, they figure, if Jesus paid for someone's sins, then God could not judge those people for the same sins. Therefore, according to this notion, Jesus could not have died for everyone or everyone would have to be saved (universalism).
Irresistible Grace... Calvinism teaches that those who are unilaterally and unconditionally chosen by God, for salvation, cannot resist God's so-called sovereign will to save them. This is because God chose them and His will cannot be violated. Not only can they not refuse God's saving grace initially, they cannot ever resist. According to Calvinism, God makes all saving choices and men make no binding choices. The un-chosen cannot seek God and the chosen cannot resist God, according to Calvinism.
Perseverance of the Saints... Calvinism teaches that those who are unilaterally and unconditionally chosen by God, for salvation will not fail to be saved finally. The so-called elect had nothing to do with their so-called election and they cannot change their eternal destiny, regardless of what they do, because, as Calvinism falsely teaches, Jesus was punished and paid the debt for all the sins of the unilaterally and unconditionally elect, past, present and future.
YOU ERR YET AGAIN.
I am not the only Arminian who has a problem with the idea that Jesus was punished for our sins or that He paid our penalty (debt). In fact, there are well known subscribers to the Calvinistic doctrine of eternal security who do not accept the false notion that Christ was punished for our sins.
The fact is, I have never had any success talking with a Calvinist, since they cannot focus on what the word of God actually says. They are always trying to explain why it means something it does not say or why it does not mean what it does say. Instead of taking the time to look at a subject, little by little, they must call down an avalanche of collateral info, which keeps us from actually getting to the heart of a subject.
QUOTE... “But seriously, it honestly sounds to me that a punishment was inflicted on Jesus in my place when I read these verses. I have never heard anyone object to that truth...”
My response to this statement.
YES! it sounds to you...
REALLY? You have never heard. FRIEND, you need to get out more.
WRONG! ...object to THAT TRUTH. Jesus being punished is not a “truth,” it is a theory, based upon interpretations of some people. You cannot even assert that it is either a Bible truth or a provable truth.
(parenthetically)
Let me briefly mention another problem (which actually shows up later in your comment). You refer to people who are 60-80% Arminian (based on the five points), as being Arminian. Wrong again. They are hybrids or Calvi-minans, as I like to call them. This is important because it is not accurate to call people Arminians who believe in OSAS or eternal security or perseverance of the saints. To do so is to skew the discussion.
YOU ERR AGAIN.
I do not have a problem with believing the sovereignty of God (another shelf in your avalanche of distraction). I have a problem with the warped and un-Biblical Calvinistic view of sovereignty. This is a whole other discussion. Too bad you don't really want to cover any one problem, rather than implying or asserting that I do not believe Bible revelation.
YOU ERR AGAIN, AGAIN.
I did not need a lesson in the origin of the Five Points of Calvinism or the “Canons of Dordt (which is short for Dordtrecht,” REALLY?). You said that the Arminians objected to the sovereignty of God. ACTUALLY, what they objected to was the warped view of sovereignty, held by Beza (the son in law of Calvin). The response of the Dutch Reformed Church (which was not originally Calvinistic) was to call them heretics for the very same things that I espouse. So, FRIEND, if you are in agreement with the doctrines espoused at Dordt, you should think that I am a heretic also. But, you said you do not believe I am. Although, I am not bothered very much when someone calls me a heretic, since I know that I am Biblically sound. I believe what the Bible says, without adding to or taking away from it. Besides, there are two kinds of heresy; beliefs which are off center and beliefs that are damnable. Still, I have chosen not to be heretical, in spite of the decision at Dordt, I would love to talk about Arminius, Beza, Dordt and the council, but that is not the purpose of this response.
AND THE AVALANCHE CONTINUED.
Even though I took the time to say that I believed in the atonement and agreed with many facets from various theories, you were not satisfied until you emphasized the Calvinistic position that Jesus did not die for everyone. As I said, I think you asked me questions so you could tell me why I was wrong. I was not offended, but I was disappointed.
THE FIVE POINTS OF CALVINISM
Concerning the Five Points of Calvinism, they do reflect the teachings of Calvin, regardless of how they originated. I have included a brief statement for those who may not be familiar with the Five Points of Calvinism.
The Five Points of Calvinism (sometimes called TULIP because it is an acrostic), which Arminians refuted are as follows.
Total Depravity... Calvinism teaches that the whole nature of man was depraved or corrupted in the fall of Adam, and destitute of all righteousness and ability to save self (which Arminians also believe) but Calvinism also teaches that man was Totally deserted (maybe a better point) by God, except for those whom He chose to save through unilateral (since God does not give all men the ability to respond to the gospel) and unconditional election (the notion that repentance, confession and faith are not essential human responses for salvation). In other words, all men inherited a sinful nature, which would eventuate in sin and damnation (which Arminians also believe) but God only enables a select group to save, deliberately leaving others without hope. Therefore, eternal souls are conceived without any hope of salvation, eternally and irrevocably bound to sin and suffer forever, because God does not offer salvation to them. According to Calvinism, God deliberately chose not to save even the pre-born from their sinful nature, therefore the pre-born who are not unilaterally elect of God are supposedly lost forever, even if they die in the womb.
Unconditional Election... Calvinism teaches that there are no conditions that must be met, can be met by humans in the salvation experience. This means that humans cannot repent, believe on Christ as Savior or confess their sins or confess faith in Christ, therefore there are no conditions to their salvation.
Limited Atonement... Calvinism teaches that Jesus did not die for everyone; that He only died for those who are unilaterally and unconditionally chosen by God to be saved. The reason they believe this is because they believe that Jesus PAID THE SIN DEBT for the so-called elect and was PUNISHED FOR the sins of the so-called elect. Basically, they figure, if Jesus paid for someone's sins, then God could not judge those people for the same sins. Therefore, according to this notion, Jesus could not have died for everyone or everyone would have to be saved (universalism).
Irresistible Grace... Calvinism teaches that those who are unilaterally and unconditionally chosen by God, for salvation, cannot resist God's so-called sovereign will to save them. This is because God chose them and His will cannot be violated. Not only can they not refuse God's saving grace initially, they cannot ever resist. According to Calvinism, God makes all saving choices and men make no binding choices. The un-chosen cannot seek God and the chosen cannot resist God, according to Calvinism.
Perseverance of the Saints... Calvinism teaches that those who are unilaterally and unconditionally chosen by God, for salvation will not fail to be saved finally. The so-called elect had nothing to do with their so-called election and they cannot change their eternal destiny, regardless of what they do, because, as Calvinism falsely teaches, Jesus was punished and paid the debt for all the sins of the unilaterally and unconditionally elect, past, present and future.
YOU ERR YET AGAIN.
I am not the only Arminian who has a problem with the idea that Jesus was punished for our sins or that He paid our penalty (debt). In fact, there are well known subscribers to the Calvinistic doctrine of eternal security who do not accept the false notion that Christ was punished for our sins.
The fact is, I have never had any success talking with a Calvinist, since they cannot focus on what the word of God actually says. They are always trying to explain why it means something it does not say or why it does not mean what it does say. Instead of taking the time to look at a subject, little by little, they must call down an avalanche of collateral info, which keeps us from actually getting to the heart of a subject.
No comments:
Post a Comment