The Mercy of God From the Reformed View

[Josheb]

Great post. Just a reminder though. I was born a baby girl, grew up a baby girl, am now a woman.

It's the mane. Post amended accordingly. Thx

 

[Arial]

I was quite calm and reserved when I wrote my post. If the premise is flawed, then all that is built upon it is flawed.

However it wasn't flawed as has been demonstrated by post #11 and other comments. So why do you still consider it flawed? Is the only reason because it is not your view or your experience? That would be example of a flawed argument and premise.

My arguments against PSTA have never asserted that it is contrary to God being love to have Christ crucified.

The OP is not about you.

A straw man argument is an argument against X, using information about X as the basis for the argument, but said information is not accurate about X. It has very little to do with your experience; which, by the way, was never established in the OP. It was stated as an objective fact.

A strawman argument is distorting the stated view or statement, usually into an extreme version of itself and then arguing against that version.

If I am stating something from my own observations and view it has everything to do with my own observations and view. And how exactly do you propose I establish my experience to you satisfaction? My experience is a fact of my experience and I stated it as my experience. What did you do? Took that and changed it into "I framed it as a the mainstream objection to PS." And then argued against that extreme position using yourself and your experience as substantiation. (I guess your experience counts for something and mine does not?) Now go back and look at the real definition of a straw man argument.

 

[Arial]

It's the mane. Post amended accordingly. Thx

No problem. I couldn't find a lioness that I found suitable, so rather than representing me, other than my heart and disposition, it speaks of the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. One of my favorite titles of Jesus. That and Ancient of Days.

 

[TibiasDad]

However it wasn't flawed as has been demonstrated by post #11 and other comments. So why do you still consider it flawed? Is the only reason because it is not your view or your experience? That would be example of a flawed argument and premise.

The OP is not about you.

A strawman argument is distorting the stated view or statement, usually into an extreme version of itself and then arguing against that version.

If I am stating something from my own observations and view it has everything to do with my own observations and view. And how exactly do you propose I establish my experience to you satisfaction? My experience is a fact of my experience and I stated it as my experience. What did you do? Took that and changed it into "I framed it as a the mainstream objection to PS." And then argued against that extreme position using yourself and your experience as substantiation. (I guess your experience counts for something and mine does not?) Now go back and look at the real definition of a straw man argument.

Okay, we can put this one to rest. I’m sorry if I have offended you in any way.

 

[ReverendRV]

Okay, we can put this one to rest. I’m sorry if I have offended you in any way.

You are alright in my book Brother. We need more Members like you; invite some folks...

 

[TibiasDad]

However it wasn't flawed as has been demonstrated by post #11 and other comments. So why do you still consider it flawed? Is the only reason because it is not your view or your experience? That would be example of a flawed argument and premise.

The OP is not about you.

A strawman argument is distorting the stated view or statement, usually into an extreme version of itself and then arguing against that version.

If I am stating something from my own observations and view it has everything to do with my own observations and view. And how exactly do you propose I establish my experience to you satisfaction? My experience is a fact of my experience and I stated it as my experience. What did you do? Took that and changed it into "I framed it as a the mainstream objection to PS." And then argued against that extreme position using yourself and your experience as substantiation. (I guess your experience counts for something and mine does not?) Now go back and look at the real definition of a straw man argument.

Okay, we can put this one to rest. I’m sorry if I have offended you in any way.


Doug

 

[Arial]

Okay, we can put this one to rest. I’m sorry if I have offended you in any way.


Doug

You already said this. Post #24

 

[donadams]

Post 2 is fallacious. It commits fallacies of strawman, moving the goalposts, and red herring.

Then how can they say they are of the reformed faith?
Thanks

 

[TibiasDad]

You already said this. Post #24

Inadvertent duplicate.

Doug

 

[Arial]

Then how can they say they are of the reformed faith?
Thanks

Post #2 is yours. Read it. Then read my response.

Reformed theology is a theology. Reformed faith is your concoction.

 

[Josheb]

Then how can they say they are of the reformed faith?
Thanks

Who is "they"?


The point is Post #2 is red herring.

"...can you tell me how there can be such a thing as reformed truth or theology?​

You do not get to come into other's ops and hijack them with your own agenda.

"Truth is of divine [origin] can the tradition of men reform it?"​

You do not get to come into other's ops and hijack them with your own agenda, especially not with fallacy. The implication Reformed thought is not in any way truth of divine origin are that it reformed something unreformable is a strawman.

 

[donadams]

Post #2 is yours. Read it. Then read my response.

Reformed theology is a theology. Reformed faith is your concoction.

Truth and faith are the basis of theology
Theology is the study of God!
How can man reform God?
Or by the tradition of men change what God have revealed and established?

Thanks

 

[Arial]

Truth and faith are the basis of theology
Theology is the study of God!
How can man reform God?
Or by the tradition of men change what God have revealed and established?

Thanks

You have to start with the study of God and you must get that from God Himself as He is the only One capable of revealing Himself. From this study of God and through the illuminating power of the Holy Spirit, one is able to arrive at truth.

Let's take a pause here and define "illuminating power of the Holy Spirit."

The Holy Spirit indwells the believer and only the believer. He may work on an unbeliever or through an unbeliever, and certainly He is active in the world today, and is the agent that is responsible for a person's new birth in Christ. But He only indwells on a permanent and active basis the believer. (Romans 8:9; 1 Cor 6:19-20; 2 Tim 1:14; Eph 1:13-14; Romans 5:5) All of scripture is inspired(breathed out) by the Holy Spirit, (1 Peter 1:20-21; Mark 12:36; John 14:26.) Jesus' conversation with the disciples in John 14 tells us that the scriptures we have in the NT are given by the Holy Spirit through the apostles. We also have the scriptures that state spiritual things can only be understood spiritually, and this must be revealed by the Holy Spirit.

So, to put it briefly, the truth is in the scriptures, and the truth leading to faith is in the scriptures. The Holy Spirit sheds the light of understanding into the heart and mind of the believer, only concerning what is written in essence by Him. Not new revelation. Not of the imagination. He sheds the light of understanding in the scriptures, not elsewhere.

You are still using the strawman argument about reforming God. No one in the conversation is even attempting to reform God. I do not even know where you came up with such an idea.

Or by the tradition of men change what God have revealed and established?

The Catholic dogma has blatantly and unapologetically done that very thing. They tell God what He means and then announce it as Christ's church in direct contradiction to the truths actually taught in the scriptures. Those who try to defend the Catholic doctrines cannot even expound on the scriptures they use to support the traditions of men they espouse. And whenever they make an attempt to do so with a Protestant equipped to defend the faith, they go silent or become accusatory, or storm off mad.

 

[atpollard]

But God was not punishing Jesus. Jesus was bearing the punishment for the imputed sin of Adam and the sins of the sinner. That was how He defeated the enemy

At the risk of accidentally getting back on topic, could we talk a bit about this "punishment".

1. Is this a distinction without a difference? If Jesus was bearing OUR PUNISHMENT and God the Father was meting out that punishment, then it seems like semantic games to claim that "God was not punishing Jesus" ... so some explaining might be useful.
2. If GOD was not punishing Jesus, the WHO DID punish Jesus?
3. Why does "punishing Jesus" defeat the enemy?
4. The various historic arguments and theories about atonement have typically centered on "who owes what to whom?" ... so how does this "punishment" fit into the "payment" under PSA?

Thank you for humoring someone neither a particular fan, nor a fist-shaking enemy of PSA ... just someone that has issues with some sloppy descriptions from the pulpit that contradict specific scriptures. It comes down to the definition of the terms.

 

[donadams]

Who is "they"?


The point is Post #2 is red herring.

"...can you tell me how there can be such a thing as reformed truth or theology?​

You do not get to come into other's ops and hijack them with your own agenda.

"Truth is of divine [origin] can the tradition of men reform it?"​

You do not get to come into other's ops and hijack them with your own agenda, especially not with fallacy. The implication Reformed thought is not in any way truth of divine origin are that it reformed something unreformable is a strawman.

Is truth divine and immutable or no?

 

[atpollard]

Is truth divine and immutable or no?

The problem of truth is in a way easy to state: what truths are, and what (if anything) makes them true. But this simple statement masks a great deal of controversy. Whether there is a metaphysical problem of truth at all, and if there is, what kind of theory might address it, are all standing issues in the theory of truth. - Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)​

There you go, knock yourself out ... a great read on TRUTH. [We can even start a topic to discuss the meaning and nature of Truth.]

 

[Arial]

At the risk of accidentally getting back on topic, could we talk a bit about this "punishment".

1. Is this a distinction without a difference? If Jesus was bearing OUR PUNISHMENT and God the Father was meting out that punishment, then it seems like semantic games to claim that "God was not punishing Jesus" ... so some explaining might be useful.
2. If GOD was not punishing Jesus, the WHO DID punish Jesus?
3. Why does "punishing Jesus" defeat the enemy?
4. The various historic arguments and theories about atonement have typically centered on "who owes what to whom?" ... so how does this "punishment" fit into the "payment" under PSA?

Thank you for humoring someone neither a particular fan, nor a fist-shaking enemy of PSA ... just someone that has issues with some sloppy descriptions from the pulpit that contradict specific scriptures. It comes down to the definition of the terms.

1. Jesus was bearing (taking) the punishment but He was not the object of the punishment in God's view. Our sin was. God was not angry with Jesus, He was pleased with Him. It is not a semantic game, it is shadings of application of a word, that deals with God's attitude towards the Son. Jesus was taking sins just punishment, not His own just or unjust punishment. That is the meaning of substitution.
2. Evil men punished Jesus. Their intentions were entirely different from God's even though they also brought about His purpose. That is why they remained responsible for their actions. Their actions came from hate and envy. There was love behind God's purpose. They meant to kill Him, God meant through His death, to raise Him to life, defeating the power of sin and death for those in Christ.
3. Jesus, took upon Himself God's just punishment for our sin. Therefore our sin has met justice in Him. Sin no longer has power to condemn us to facing God's wrath (Jesus already did that), and if sin cannot condemn us, death has no power over us. "The wages of sin is death." Though our corruptible flesh will still die, we go to be with the Lord. And at the resurrection of the dead in Christ, we are raised to life just as the One was in whom we have found our rest. Raised incorruptible.
4. Penal---the just punishment for sin.
Substitutionary---Christ taking the punishment for our sins, which is death, in our place.
Atonement---paying the sin debt, death and the wrath of God against all unrighteousness, being satisfied.

 

[atpollard]

Atonement---paying the sin debt, death and the wrath of God against all unrighteousness, being satisfied.

To whom is this "debt" owed that it must be paid?
I could loan $5 or $5000 and decide to cancel the debt without someone ELSE needing to pay it ... so why can God not simply "forgive" as He asks us to? [We do not demand another pay the "pound of flesh" that is owed us for the wrong we suffer.]

[PS. Just to be clear, I liked your response. I just thought this point could use a little more discussion and clarification.]

 

[Arial]

At the risk of accidentally getting back on topic, could we talk a bit about this "punishment".

1. Is this a distinction without a difference? If Jesus was bearing OUR PUNISHMENT and God the Father was meting out that punishment, then it seems like semantic games to claim that "God was not punishing Jesus" ... so some explaining might be useful.
2. If GOD was not punishing Jesus, the WHO DID punish Jesus?
3. Why does "punishing Jesus" defeat the enemy?
4. The various historic arguments and theories about atonement have typically centered on "who owes what to whom?" ... so how does this "punishment" fit into the "payment" under PSA?

Thank you for humoring someone neither a particular fan, nor a fist-shaking enemy of PSA ... just someone that has issues with some sloppy descriptions from the pulpit that contradict specific scriptures. It comes down to the definition of the terms.

1. No. Jesus was bearing the punishment for our sin not His own. God was not angry with Jesus, He was pleased with Him. It is not a semantic game but shadings of word usage, having to do with the purpose of the punishment and what it was accomplishing. And the reasons and motives of God. He was not exacting vengeance against Jesus but on Him instead of on us, that we might be released from the bonds of our sin. That is the meaning of substitution.
2.Evil men punished Jesus with evil intent and motive. There was love behind what God had in mind. His intention was to raise Jesus to life. Therefore, even though God was accomplishing His purpose through the actions of evil men, those evil men with evil motives were still responsible for their evil actions.
3. Jesus bore our sin. He took the punishment for our sin which is death. Since He had no sin of His own, death could not hold him. Since our sins met God's justice against them in Christ there is no more punishment for them, and our sins can no longer condemn us to death and facing the judgment of God against them. Jesus did that for us, in our place. And if sin cannot condemn us, death no longer has any power over us. Christ's righteousness is counted as though it were ours. Though our corruptible bodies will die, we will go to be with the Lord. And at the resurrection of the physically dead in Christ, we will be raised just as Christ was, incorruptible.
4. Penal---the just punishment of unrighteousness which is death.
Substitutionary---the Righteous standing in the place of the unrighteous.
Atonement---satisfaction being made for wrongs done

I looked for what is post #37 and thought it didn't post so redid it. I will leave it as I used some different wording.

 

[Arial]

To whom is this "debt" owed that it must be paid?
I could loan $5 or $5000 and decide to cancel the debt without someone ELSE needing to pay it ... so why can God not simply "forgive" as He asks us to? [We do not demand another pay the "pound of flesh" that is owed us for the wrong we suffer.]

[PS. Just to be clear, I liked your response. I just thought this point could use a little more discussion and clarification.]

That is the problem with taking the way a biblical idea was formed in the culture in which it was written, and making an analogy from our cultural understandings.

In the OT law there was a law of the kinsman redeemer that more closely relates to this concept of debt than our money system of debt and repayment. The kinsman redeemer was a male relative who was responsible to help a relative in need or danger. This person delivers, rescues, and sometimes redeems property. The kinsman redeemer laws are found in Lev 25:25-34.

One of Jesus' titles is Redeemer. He delivers and rescues. In the kinsman redeemer law there was also provision for a relative to by back the property of one who had to sell it because of his poverty or sold himself into servitude to another because of his poverty.

The "debt" we owe is to God. We owe Him as creatures He created in His image and likeness, perfect righteousness and full loyalty and obedience to only Him. Our ability to do this has been utterly destroyed by the transgression of Adam. We became creatures that sin. And God is holy, holy, holy.

So the debt is not one that in any way relates to monetary comparisons. It is much bigger than that and there is more at stake than just a simple forgiveness of our sins. Put one way, the devil is the slaveholder, and our sins are the chains that bind us to him, and keep us from God. By God's decree and wisdom, the penalty for sin is death. We are doomed.

God's justice in meeting His own decrees against sin must be met. Sin can't just be forgiven, it must be destroyed. In comes the Redeemer, perfectly righteous, no spot of blemish on Him, who substitutes Himself in the place of the prisoner and meets death for them. Walks right into the open maw of death taking the sins of His people with Him, and conquers sin and death, by rising from the dead for it cannot hold a righteous one. That is the debt satisfied by our Kinsman Redeemer.