Calvinism

[Mjh29]

Yeah the point is they use Calvin as a Red Herring rather than dealing with the actual teachings of Scripture.

You don't know how right you are. It's the classic "Hey, let's all attack this one guy so that our heresy get's swept under the rug" routine.

The minute they get backed into a corner, they loose their scape goat and play victor.

 

[Waiting on him]

You don't know how right you are. It's the classic "Hey, let's all attack this one guy so that our heresy get's swept under the rug" routine.

The minute they get backed into a corner, they loose their scape goat and play victor.

I don’t know Mr Calvin, and I’ve never really read any of his commentary, but from what I’ve read on this forum, a lot of it aligns with what I read in scripture.

 

[Mjh29]

I don’t know Mr Calvin, and I’ve never really read any of his commentary, but from what I’ve read on this forum, a lot of it aligns with what I read in scripture.

Trust me, friend; if it did not, [and it could be proven from Scriptures] I would not dare associate myself with him. I trust Calvin like a faithful pastor, not a god as people make it out.

 

[John Caldwell]

And again John you are either being willfully ignorant or just absurd.

Notice I did not say what you claim. Those verses show that the penalty for sin is death.

Again, I was showing that the PENALTY for sin is death.

No, I merely presented exactly what the text says. You are the one insisting on one single verse and that is not how this works.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say God is three yet one but you believe that. Your double standard on this is appalling.

We know FROM SCRIPTURE that the penalty of sin is death. What price did Christ pay? Death. THEREFORE, yes, Christ did take the penalty for our sin in our place. You cannot deny this, this is an essential of the faith. Why are you so dead set against it? I have two questions for you.

1. Was in fact the penalty of sin death according to Scripture?
2. Did Christ die in order to pay for OUR sin.

If the answer to both of those questions are 'yes' then you have no choice but to say Christ took the punishment for our sin.

David,

Read those verses again.

When you say "penalty" you are (by your own admission) referring to a punishment.

Paul tells us that the "wages" of sin is death. Genesis tells us that 3 tells us that man will return to the dust.

Do you see how you are dishonoring the text of Scripture by changing the words?

Even if we were to replace the word God chose with "penalty" and assume death is the punishment for sin, we still are far from presenting Christ as being punished instead of us, by God, as we also die. But there is no need to go there because I am not willing to even alter the words of God (I do not believe that we have that right, even if it would make us feel better about our theology).

 

[Waiting on him]

David,

Read those verses again.

When you say "penalty" you are (by your own admission) referring to a punishment.

Paul tells us that the "wages" of sin is death. Genesis tells us that 3 tells us that man will return to the dust.

Do you see how you are dishonoring the text of Scripture by changing the words?

Even if we were to replace the word God chose with "penalty" and assume death is the punishment for sin, we still are far from presenting Christ as being punished instead of us, by God, as we also die. But there is no need to go there because I am not willing to even alter the words of God (I do not believe that we have that right, even if it would make us feel better about our theology).

It pleased the Lord to bruise Him, and He Chastened Him sore.

 

[reformed1689]

When you say "penalty" you are (by your own admission) referring to a punishment.

Paul tells us that the "wages" of sin is death. Genesis tells us that 3 tells us that man will return to the dust.

Do you see how you are dishonoring the text of Scripture by changing the words?

More absurd word games from John. Typical. Yes I am referring to a punishment. The consequence of sin was death. The payment for sin is death. The punishment for sin is death. NEWSFLASH all of those mean the exact same thing.

Even if we were to replace the word God chose with "penalty" and assume death is the punishment for sin, we still are far from presenting Christ as being punished instead of us, by God, as we also die. But there is no need to go there because I am not willing to even alter the words of God (I do not believe that we have that right, even if it would make us feel better about our theology).

John if you want to go in your crazy interpretation skills, that aren't interpretation at all, go ahead. But you are flat wrong. By the way, by YOUR STANDARD you must cease your belief in the Trinity because there is not a single verse that says God is three in one.

 

[Waiting on him]

We don’t have to read much of the Gospels to see that the Lord Jesus Christ fully orchestrated His crusifiction,

 

[Mjh29]

When you say "penalty" you are (by your own admission) referring to a punishment.

Does it really matter? The 2 can be used interchangeably.

"The wages of sin is death"

So, we must pay the price of death for our sins. But Christ [as He said in one of His parables] is like the good King who takes our debt upon Himself, and pays for that debt from His own pocket. How did Christ pay for our sins? By bearing them on His body on the Cross.

Your wordplay, though crafty, is ineffective.

 

[Waiting on him]

We don’t have to read much of the Gospels to see that the Lord Jesus Christ fully orchestrated His crusifiction,

It’s His greatest achievement, no where near the mention in scripture of the creation as there is about his reconciling us to Himself.

 

[reformed1689]

Your wordplay, though crafty, is ineffective.

Crafty is being generous...

 

[Waiting on him]

I’ll give no credit to man as to this achievement. Christ alone. Anything else would be to diminish his accomplishment.

 

[Mjh29]

Crafty is being generous...

Deceit came to mind first, but I'm trying to be gracious.

 

[John Caldwell]

Does it really matter? The 2 can be used interchangeably.

"The wages of sin is death"

So, we must pay the price of death for our sins. But Christ [as He said in one of His parables] is like the good King who takes our debt upon Himself, and pays for that debt from His own pocket. How did Christ pay for our sins? By bearing them on His body on the Cross.

Your wordplay, though crafty, is ineffective.

It matters for two reasons.

1. God's word is not so trivial a thing that we should feel at liberty to interchange words.

2. "Wages" and "penalty" are not interchangeable ("wages" does not indicate a punishment whereas "penalty" does).

This is just another example of Calvinism redefining words to exclude the classic or traditional understanding of Scripture.

If this thread is any evidence, Calvinists are illiterate fools (which I know is not the case because not only are there brilliant Calvinistic scholars but I was once a Calvinist and am still brilliant ).

Let's look ar the list so far - Calvinism redefines:

1. "Whole world" as "the elect"
2. "All" as " the elect"
3. "Forsake" as "separate from"
4. "Theory" as "scientific theory"
5. "Doctrine" as "divine truths"
6. And now "wages" as "penalty implying punishment"

You know what they say - tell a Calvinist a word and he'll redefine it, give him a dictionary and he'll philosophize over it .... they don't really say that but they should.

 

[John Caldwell]

Deceit came to mind first, but I'm trying to be gracious.

Yes, words have meanings and we cannot redefine them.

That is why I was saying there is no reason to discuss the topic. I cannot simply abide with people interchanging and redefining words to suit their theology. It is sinful.

I am not blaming any of you for the doctrine you hold. But the practice of replacing words in Scripture is wrong.

 

[Waiting on him]

It matters for two reasons.

1. God's word is not so trivial a thing that we should feel at liberty to interchange words.

2. "Wages" and "penalty" are not interchangeable ("wages" does not indicate a punishment whereas "penalty" does).

This is just another example of Calvinism redefining words to exclude the classic or traditional understanding of Scripture.

If this thread is any evidence, Calvinists are illiterate fools (which I know is not the case because not only are there brilliant Calvinistic scholars but I was once a Calvinist and am still brilliant ).

Let's look ar the list so far - Calvinism redefines:

1. "Whole world" as "the elect"
2. "All" as " the elect"
3. "Forsake" as "separate from"
4. "Theory" as "scientific theory"
5. "Doctrine" as "divine truths"
6. And now "wages" as "penalty implying punishment"

You know what they say - tell a Calvinist a word and he'll redefine it, give him a dictionary and he'll philosophize over it .... they don't really say that but they should.

Psalm 118:18 KJV
[18] The Lord hath chastened me sore: but he hath not given me over unto death.

How do you reconcile this?
Tecarta Bible

 

[John Caldwell]

I don’t know Mr Calvin, and I’ve never really read any of his commentary, but from what I’ve read on this forum, a lot of it aligns with what I read in scripture.

Read his works on prayer.

 

[Waiting on him]

Read his works on prayer.

Do you have an answer for my post 115?

 

[Waiting on him]

Do you have an answer for my post 115?

Sorry 515

 

[John Caldwell]

Psalm 118:18 KJV
[18] The Lord hath chastened me sore: but he hath not given me over unto death.

How do you reconcile this?
Tecarta Bible

God does discipline us. I never said otherwise.

Sctipture tells us two things here -

1. God disciplines those who are His but they are NEVER objects of His wrath.

2. Those who are not His are not disciplined, and they ARE objects of His wrath.

I am not saying that Christ refused to submit to the wages of sin. I am saying Scripture never states that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.

It is asinine to argue the idea God does is like the idea of the Trinity because whether y'all believe it or not Scripture DOES state that the Godhead is Father, Son, and Spirit. That you guys believe it absent the text, albeit not in one place, of Scripture is telling.

 

[reformed1689]

1. God's word is not so trivial a thing that we should feel at liberty to interchange words.

Unless of course it doesn't change the meaning.

2. "Wages" and "penalty" are not interchangeable ("wages" does not indicate a punishment whereas "penalty" does).

In the context it is. What is the payment for your sin? What gets dished out to you for your sin? It is a penalty. No different than getting caught speeding. What is the payment for speeding? A fine. And that fine is a penalty. That penalty is a punishment. It all means the same thing John no matter how you try to philosophize it.

This is just another example of Calvinism redefining words to exclude the classic or traditional understanding of Scripture.

Nothing has been redefined here, you just willfully ignore the plain and obvious meaning to uphold your ridiculous theology.

but I was once a Calvinist and am still brilliant ).

Professing themselves to be wise.....

Let's look ar the list so far - Calvinism redefines:

1. "Whole world" as "the elect"
2. "All" as " the elect"
3. "Forsake" as "separate from"
4. "Theory" as "scientific theory"
5. "Doctrine" as "divine truths"
6. And now "wages" as "penalty implying punishment"

1. This is false. It depends on the context.
2. Again, context.
3. What are you referring to?
4. Again, what are you referring to?
5. Who has said that? Doctrine can be true or false.
6. In the context of Romans 6, absolutely.