In a recent series of posts, Stan at the Winging It blog, toys around with answering some of the questions I've put to him but never gets right down to it. Again, this is not to say anything about Stan. I'm talking about the ideas and ideals promoted by traditionalists who believe in conservative human traditions like the Penal Substitutionary Atonement and being opposed to LGBTQ people, not about Stan specifically. He's not unique in never quite actually answering reasonable questions that his human traditions and theories beg to be answered.
Stan asks in a variety of ways...
"Is what I'm seeing in Scripture the same thing that God's people has seen in the past, or am I coming up with a novel or variant version?"
and...
" Simple "tradition" or "historic teaching" could be wrong, but if I have "this" interpretation of a text and no one has ever suggested it that way, I'm pretty sure I didn't get that from the Holy Spirit."
My responses...
First of all, the "followers of God," as well as the "rich and powerful" have a long and clear history of silencing those they perceive to be "heretics." Oftentimes, its been at its worst when the followers of God became rich and powerful. Indeed, Jesus and others warn that there ARE "wolves" out there (not meaning literal wolves - these were people rich in imagery) who sought power and wealth and used that power and wealth and position in leadership to silence those they deemed "unclean" or "heretics."
From the pharisees, to actual false teachers (the ones who did it as a wealth and power grab - because false teachers are not just those who are honestly mistaken, in a rational or biblical sense), to the rich and powerful that the prophets, Jesus, Mary and James (and Paul, etc, etc) warned about, saying, "Is it not the rich who oppress you? ...they will face judgement, for they are the ones who have killed Jesus..." (paraphrasing there), to the Roman Catholic church who oppressed and marginalized the Reformers, to the Protestants who oppressed and marginalized those they deemed to be "heretics..." throughout church history, there is a consistent theme of the powerful trying to silence the reformers and radicals (the ones seeking to stay true to the root of God's love).
The point being, that we may not see a line of thought throughout church history does not necessarily mean there have not been people who held those thoughts, for instance, disagreeing with the PS theory of atonement or being opposed to slavery or supportive of human rights for all.
Secondly, you still have the problem of presuming that ancient peoples, collectively - some SET or SUBSET of ancient peoples - must have gotten it "right" throughout the ages, setting aside the reality that cultures change. Slavery was just accepted back then and "the Holy Spirit" did not convince anyone to stand opposed to it. Treating women as non-citizens was just accepted back then... selling or giving your daughter away in marriage was just accepted back then... polygamy was just accepted back then... and in each of these cases, the Spirit of God did not apparently speak to the ancients in a way that sufficiently convinced them of these abuses of human rights and great atrocities.
The reality is that we ARE doing greater things that even Jesus did, as Jesus promised/taught. We have grown as a race of people to recognize more fully the notion of human rights that is clearly consistent with the notion of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God as described in the Bible.
So, "Did ANY ONE of the ancients teach this Thing?" is simply not a perfect barometer of what is and isn't right. How could it be, given their silence on the deliberate killing of babies, enslaving people, abuse of women's rights, etc? That is, your presumption that IF at least some church people (the ones with whom you agree) didn't promote a theory, then that theory can't be of God... it's not rational, nor is it biblical.
How can it be? And as always, WHY is it not the case that YOUR heart may be the one that is deceitful, getting you to buy into the traditions of other humans with deceitful hearts?
Thirdly, it seems to me that you're mistaken the appearance of a word or phrase with the idea that a theory is being taught. Yes, Jesus used the word translated "ransom" ONE TIME in a private discussion with some of his disciples. But what Jesus didn't do was mention a theory of atonement and certainly not the human theory of atonement that you prefer.
Yes, the author of Hebrews - who, as with many biblical authors - used rich imagery, imagery with which the Hebrews themselves would recognize... that author refers to blood and other imagery, saying, "the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." But that is not the author of Hebrews saying that this is in support of the Penal Substitutionary human theory of atonement, which was developed in the 1300s give and take.
Also, the text says there that this is what THE LAW requires, but Jesus and Paul and others make it clear that we're not under some set of human laws reflecting what those humans thought God thinks. We are under grace, if we are people who believe in Grace. Indeed, the New Testament teaches and reason supports that the law is death-dealing, whereas grace is life-giving. We are under grace, not the law, EVEN IF the law almost always requires a blood sacrifice.
And indeed, speaking of blood sacrifices, there are repeated clarifications from God's own Self in the Bible that it is NOT blood sacrifices that God wants, but pouring out our lives in sacrifice... to take care of the widow and the orphan and immigrants... THAT is what God wants. Blood sacrifices are just LITERAL symbology, NOT literally what God demands or is powerless to act or forgive if they are not there. Do you not see how trying to make that literal makes that blood god subservient to these rituals, how it makes that god powerless and impotent? As the prophet Isaiah, for one, notes...
"What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?
says the Lord;
I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams
and the fat of well-fed beasts;
I do not delight in the blood of bulls,
or of lambs, or of goats...
learn to do good;
seek justice,
correct oppression;
bring justice to the fatherless,
plead the widow’s cause...."
Do you see the points? That the point of the blood sacrifices to "atone" for sin were always a symbol, one that people then and now misunderstood. God clarifies in multiple places in the Bible, "I don't WANT your blood sacrifices... rather, embrace grace, side with the poor and marginalized, feed the hungry... THAT is the 'sacrifice' I desire..."
And also, that the appearance of a word or phrase does NOT make a theory or rule? ESPECIALLY in these books with so much clear imagery.
97 comments:
PSA is not a "conservative human tradition", but a Biblical teaching to which theologians and Biblical scholars labeled PSA. This truth...this fact...
It's literally not a demonstrated, proven fact. It's literally a 14th century theory of humans. If you could prove it, by all means, do so. But all you all can offer are your literal human opinions when you say, "When the Bible says... X... I THINK it means PSA..." which is, as a point of fact, a human opinion, literally.
I've deleted the rest of your comment as your unsupported human attacks against people you don't know will not stand here. You do have the liberty to be bigoted against people, but you don't get to claim that your bigotry is a fact UNLESS you prove your facts. Unsupported stupidly false claims will not stand here when they are used to oppress.
That comment was from Marshal, along with zero data to support his false claim, along with other false and unsupported claims.
The fact is that humans who read the Bible and say "but, PSA is literally there..." are only offering their subjective opinions. It's literally not literally there. IF you could objectively prove it, you would. No one ever has. Period.
Offering your opinions that you REALLLLLLLY think are true but no factual data is not objective proof. It's just not.
The points in this post, Marshal:
That no one advocated an idea 2000 years ago is NOT evidence that the idea is wrong.
Literally no one was saying that slavery was wrong back then, nor polygamy, nor forced marriages.
And yet, you can probably agree with reasonable moral people that each of these is a great evil.
Is that correct? Do you agree that slavery, forced marriages an polygamy are moral wrongs?
And that no one condemned them 4000-2000 years ago is NOT evidence that they are not wrong?
If you want to comment here, answer those questions.
You won’t get through. They are not reflecting on life with Christ in any theological fashion. They have an ideology that is the most profound of the sources to their identity formation. And you know what that is.
“Reason cannot defeat emotion, an emotion can only be displaced or overcome by a stronger emotion.“
Baruch Spinoza
I may or may not get through. That's not the point for me. (Thankfully, though, someone eventually got through to me, arch-conservative that I was!) The point is just to be the witness for the view of things for people who think as I/we do, and to make the case why I think that is the wiser, more rational, and ultimately, more biblical view.
Case in point, today in Stan's post, he notes:
The Bible is full of warnings of eternal destruction for those who reject Christ. Jesus said, "Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God"
To which, I responded...
Would it not be more factually and literally correct to say that the Bible has SOME warnings, including some that sound like they're talking about "eternal destruction..." for some people... BUT the Bible is also full of phrases speaking of the desire of God that NO ONE be lost, but that ALL would be saved?
And for a "sovereignty of God" person like you claim to be, IF God is recorded as having said that God is not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should be saved... does it not take away from God's sovereignty (as you imagine it) if God can't accomplish what God wants?
Your one verse you cite there, after saying that there are "warnings of eternal destruction for those who reject Christ..." that verse doesn't say anything about eternal destruction, does it?
Here's that passage in question, which has some universalist notes in it and some "destruction" notes in it, if not eternal...
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that
whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world,
but to SAVE THE WORLD through him.
Whoever believes in him is not condemned,
but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because
they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but
people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light
for fear that their deeds will be exposed.
But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light,
so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done
in the sight of God.
So, some takeaways from that passage:
1. God does NOT want to condemn the world. Understand that: The literal will of God is NOT to condemn it...
2. Not only that, but what God DOES want is to "SAVE THE WORLD." That IS what God wants, plans, desires to do. According to the text you cited.
3. The text nowhere says anything about eternal damnation or eternal destruction.
And this, in the context of Jesus who came and spent his ministry between preaching the good news to the poor and marginalized AND having scrapes with the religious pharisees. Nearly all, if not all, passages where Jesus is speaking of eternal damnation (whether that's figurative or literal, which is another question), he's speaking specifically of the oppressors, the rich, the Pharisees and legalists. Look, check, see if I'm not mistaken. This passage - early in John - is right after John records the clearing of the temple and making clear that the Pharisees and Jesus were on a collision course. In THAT context, Jesus speaks in John 3 of those who "loved the darkness" and would not accept Jesus and the Good News of the Realm of God for all. So, who do you suppose that passage is aimed at?
For my part, I don't consider myself a universalist, nor do I believe in a burning hell where most of humanity is tortured forever. But I do recognize that the biblical testimony is weighted much more towards universalism and an open door, a welcome table, specifically for all and even more specifically, beginning with the least of these.
I haven't the time to fully peruse the comments here, but note that mine is again missing after having confirmed that it posted. There's no just reason for deleting my comment. None. But then, there's no comment I post which I expect won't be deleted due to Dan's low character...the same Dan who constantly speaks of "adult" discourse.
The concept of PSA goes back to the earliest church fathers, as well as to Christ Himself and others, like Paul in his epistles. That they don't refer to it as such is meaningless, but John the Baptist's acknowledgement of Christ as the "Lamb of God" hearkens back to the sacrifices made for the atonement of sin.
Recently having read a brief description of the seven leading theories of atonement, it fails to distinguish between them in any way that does little more than present them all as variations on the theme. The bottom line is this: Christ's death on the cross was the purpose of His existence as a man on earth and it paved the way for our inheritance to be realized. Without it, we're still lacking due to no truly perfect sacrifice to stand in our place for our sin.
Dan likes to think that these theories, and specifically PSA means that God can't forgive without a death to penalize sin. But it's not a matter of whether He can or can't, despite how desperately Dan needs for that to be the case to reject the necessity of Christ's death on the cross on our behalf. It's a matter of God having chosen to provide atonement for us by that method. Just as parents possess the authority and ability to simply forgive their children when they misbehave...how Dan insists God has done...good parents most generally require some punishment in order for the kids to atone for their misdeeds. From the beginning, God has said the wages of sin is death. Hence the animal sacrifices to stand in place of the sinner (depending on the specific sin, the more grievous carrying an actual death sentence for the sinner). Christ was our sacrificial Lamb who paid the penalty by substituting Himself for us. That makes the label "our Savior" make sense.
Dan thinks we're saved just because we exist. To him, God's grace means it doesn't matter how offended God is by our sin, there would be something wrong with Him were He to expect the debt to him to be repaid in any way. But had that been the case, Jesus would not have been necessary. All people would already have been forgiven. That's not "grace". That's letting mankind walk all over God. God just has to deal with it or he's a "petty, puny little godling".
Chew on that and I'll return to find if you've again acted in your usual grace embracing manner and do a deeper dive on your comments.
There's no just reason for deleting my comment. None. But then, there's no comment I post which I expect won't be deleted due to Marshal’s low character...the same Marshal who constantly thinks he’s capable of "adult" discourse.
I asked:
But can you admit the reality that these opinions are LITERALLY subjective human interpretations of the texts in question, not definitively proven or objectively shown to be factual?
Just to try to cut you off at the pass, based on what I suspect you'll say: IF you think it's an objectively "proven" "fact" that PSA is authoritatively and demonstrably proven to have been Jesus and Paul's intent, then ALL you have to do is objectively prove it as a fact. Heck, you don't even have to do the work, just CITE someone who has objectively, authoritatively proven it, in the same manner that I can objectively prove that my car is black by showing you a photo of it or showing it to you in person. If it's objectively proven (and it is objectively NOT proven, it's LITERALLY a subjective human opinion), then all you have to do is prove it.
Failing that, have the decency to admit it's not a proven or even a provable proposition. It's a subjective opinion that many humans have held that YOU personally think is very reasonable or even inescapable, in your opinion... but that it's not objectively proven.
Starting with understanding the reality of such opinions is a vital starting place for rational adult conversation.
Unsupported claims from you on this thread, Marshal, will not be accepted UNLESS you provide objective proof. OR admit it's a subjective and unproven opinion. I'm fine with humans having opinions on these unprovable matters. Just not with them trying to pass off subjective interpretations and opinions off as literal proven facts.
Marshal...
But had that been the case, Jesus would not have been necessary. All people would already have been forgiven. That's not "grace". That's letting mankind walk all over God. God just has to deal with it or he's a "petty, puny little godling".
As I've demonstrated as a fact, your opinions about what I think are not my opinions. You have read and interpreted my words incorrectly, as I think you do with much of the written word.
The word Grace means literally, a gift, a kindness. Some have even said it's an undeserved kindness.
Strong’s Concordance lists the definition of charis (the biblical/Greek word for Grace)as:
(a) grace, as a gift or blessing brought to man by Jesus Christ,
(b) favor,
(c) gratitude, thanks,
(d) a favor, kindness.
Period. THAT is the word used in the Bible. I suppose you recognize that reality and the factual reality of that definition (as explained by Greek scholars)?
So, if in the real world, we have a human who has been imperfect. They've done wrong things. While they've never deliberately murdered, raped, beaten or caused physical harm to another, they have stolen ten cookies and 20 pencils, and they've told 1,000 actual lies (and here, I'm not talking about simple misunderstandings where someone was honestly mistaken about the truth, but actual, intended false claims) (most of them to protect themselves from embarrassment, say, but surely some were lies meant to demean others or better position themselves). They've been jealous and yelled at their wife or children many times. They've cursed their boss when their boss was doing something unfair to them as an employee... you know, the typical misdeeds of humanity.
Now, those are REAL wrongs (of varying degrees) and certainly some of them have caused duress or insult to others, maybe even harmed their position in the community or embarrassed them in front of their friends. People were harmed. People who God loves were harmed. And God is affronted by those harms as a God of love and justice.
cont'd...
It is reasonable and biblical to assume that some degree of consequence and punishment, even, would fall upon these imperfect humans who fail to greater and lesser degrees, as all humans do. The person who drove drunk in a school zone, maybe they were punished by authorities by losing their license or even going to jail for a time. There were natural consequences and just and reasonable punishments imposed.
But the parent who has been offended or harmed by a child's misdeeds may WELL set them in a corner, put them in time out, required them to admit they stole the cookie and pay back the store for that cookie... BUT ultimately, what does a GOOD and JUST and LOVING parent do? They show grace. They forgive that child. The punishment and consequences are not for their whole lifetime, they are not cut off from the loving parent. The parent's love shows through and forgiveness is assured.
The parent who punishes the child for a lifetime for temporal misdeeds is not showing justice, love or grace. There is NO grace in such actions. Surely you can agree with that? That is a monstrous parent, not a loving, just and gracious parent.
So, why CAN'T a parent just ultimately forgive and restore that relationship? It is, of course, what a good parent does.
Now, that child can be belligerent and maybe reject the parent's gracious welcome back and the parent may let that child be belligerent and reject the grace, forgiveness and love. But the loving parent - as in the prodigal son - stands ready to forgive the child when they turn back.
Do you think God is less-loving that even a human parent could be?
How are you defining grace or justice that would ultimately spurn any option of restoration of family? Do you recognize that this is not found anywhere in the Bible as a model of a perfect God, full of love and grace?
I suspect in your human theology, you find the notion of all-accepting grace to be weak and "unjust," but that's not biblical or reasonable Christianity.
"I don't reckon he sees his hypocrisy on the point, Feodor, does he?"
There would have to be some in order to see some. feo enjoys commandeering blog threads in submitting off topic comments. Not simply straying toward some tangent, but comments wholly unrelated to the topic of the post. You delete for far less and as such, you're pretending your not hypocritical in how you choose to treat comments and those who submit them. Most important is the reason feo has won himself such rejection by those like me and Craig and Glenn: his having posted the same inane comment literally one thousand times...the same comment, over and over and over, one after another. This is on top of his wholly unjustified arrogance and condescension which has been a hallmark of his character since first he soiled the blogs by his presence. This has been explained before and won't be repeated again, so you'll be able to pretend some moral superiority on this point, too, for as long as you choose as if you're truly unaware.
"These are all certainly HUMAN OPINIONS that many legalistic atonement believers cling to."
Once again, if you choose to write them off as mere "HUMAN OPINIONS", you still have the problem of those "HUMAN OPINIONS" being based on clear Scriptural teaching from Jesus, Paul and others.
It's also curious that you regard those who revere and adhere to actual teachings of Christ and His Apostles as "legalism" when you choose to reject that which is inconvenient to your "HUMAN OPINION" which are no better than mere personal preferences held without basis to support them. All of our "HUMAN OPINIONS" have a solid Scriptural basis which compel them.
"But can you admit the reality that these opinions are LITERALLY subjective human interpretations of the texts in question, not definitively proven or objectively shown to be factual?"
No, because your question fails to accept that these "subjective human interpretations" are directly supported by the text, while at the same time not countered by you with anything more than you subjective preference for that which has no actual basis. In short, you just don't like them.
Said another way, all you truly have are opinions, if we take the word as it's defined at Oxford Languages: a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge (emphasis mine). Ours are "conclusions" drawn directly from teachings of the text, more closely resembling actual fact, since actual facts support them.
"Legalistic PS Atonement theorists believe that God either will not or can not forgive sin without "the shedding of blood..." and specifically, without Jesus shedding his literal blood... that without that, there would be no salvation possible.
Do you affirm that?"
Not in the least. This is your willful distortion of the term and it begins with the inappropriate use of the word "legalistic" as that term refers to a law rather than a teaching. Again, the concept is presented in Scripture without a label which was coined by theologians to identify it.
The term itself does NOT suggest or imply that God will not or cannot forgive sins without having His Only Begotten Son die to pay the price of sin, but rather that is the method He chose to provide us the means by which we can be reconciled to Him. God does get to choose for Himself the manner in which He operates, does He not? Or must He operate on YOUR terms?
"Further, many legalistic PS Atonement theorists believe that UNLESS a human confesses THAT specific belief...snip...God would be unwilling/unable to forgive any sin - even one minor sin.
Do you affirm that or reject that, at least in part?"
First, who are these "legalists" of whom you speak? Second, that's not true at all. Again, you want to suggest anyone believe God unwilling or unable to forgive in any manner of His choosing, that He's not choosing by authority of His absolute sovereignty to forgive by simply putting forth the belief in and acceptance of Christ as Savior as essential for our redemption. Thus, I reject your untrue representation in total.
"Do you understand that much of my actual position?"
You've not actually explained a thing about your position except to say I have it wrong. But I don't. I would also say that because we would view a " child should be beaten in a dungeon every day for the rest of their life." being a criminal act for a mother to perpetrate, no mother is God and again you're clearly demonstrating you haven't a accurate or rational understanding of the seriousness of sin. It's a far more serious offense against God than is stealing a cookie or robbing the purse of one's mother.
Your actual position is not aligned with God's terms, but is based on God behaving on yours. Good luck with that.
"IF you think it's an objectively "proven" "fact" that PSA is authoritatively and demonstrably proven to have been Jesus and Paul's intent, then ALL you have to do is objectively prove it as a fact"
That's been done numerous times over the years, providing chapter and verse where the concept is expressed, which is akin to showing a picture of one's care to prove it's color is as was stated. In all those years, you've provided no passage or verse which comes close to counter this obvious conclusion.
"It's a subjective opinion that many humans have held that YOU personally think is very reasonable or even inescapable, in your opinion... but that it's not objectively proven."
Citing chapters and verses are the only ways to objectively prove Scriptural teaching. That's been done comprehensively. The ball remains ever in your court and you simply let it lie and pretend the game is over. You're Monty Python's Black Knight.
"Starting with understanding the reality of such opinions is a vital starting place for rational adult conversation."
True "rational" adult conversation requires you to bring evidence of relatively equal quality, not simply saying the other side hasn't brought any in the first place when that isn't the case at all.
"Unsupported claims from you on this thread, Marshal, will not be accepted UNLESS you provide objective proof."
Verses and passages have been cited many times in the past in support of this clear Scriptural teaching later labeled as PSA. To constantly insist it be presented every time the subject comes up as if it hasn't is petulance and a ruse. At some point you're required to confront those verses and passages if you truly care about "rational" adult conversation, instead of the one-way "agree with me or I'll delete you" posture you take instead.
"I'm fine with humans having opinions on these unprovable matters. Just not with them trying to pass off subjective interpretations and opinions off as literal proven facts."
You don't prove you're "fine" with anything by merely writing them off as mere "subjective interpretations and opinions" when have no legit counter position. And even if you want to continue saying what was brought forth hasn't been proven, merely saying so doesn't make it so, though it's all we get from you.
"As I've demonstrated as a fact, your opinions about what I think are not my opinions. You have read and interpreted my words incorrectly, as I think you do with much of the written word."
The sad truth is that you never "demonstrate" nearly as well as you pretend you do in order to debunk the conclusions about your positions drawn from the words you use. Instead, you pretend the problem is our ability to comprehend. That's pretty convenient, but not at all the case. A clear explanation of your position, firm and without equivocation, would do wonders for moving the conversation along. We're forced to assemble the puzzle without all the pieces provided, then you criticize when we've failed to do so...in your mind.
"Period. THAT is the word used in the Bible. I suppose you recognize that reality and the factual reality of that definition (as explained by Greek scholars)?"
The definition of "grace" has never been the issue. Therein lies a common problem with discussions with you. You don't even focus on the issue.
"So, if in the real world, we have a human who has been imperfect...etc."
Herein we see the start of another example of how you don't understand the true issue. You think it's about stealing pencils. You think it's about particular sinful acts, instead of sin.
"Do you think God is less-loving that even a human parent could be?"
No. But again, you totally miss the point.
"How are you defining grace or justice that would ultimately spurn any option of restoration of family? Do you recognize that this is not found anywhere in the Bible as a model of a perfect God, full of love and grace?"
Actually, this too has been exhaustively provided for you over the years and like with every discussion, you simply ignore what has been provided and then pretend it never has been. This is your universalism which is contrary to Scriptural teaching.
"I suspect in your human theology, you find the notion of all-accepting grace to be weak and "unjust," but that's not biblical or reasonable Christianity."
You again suspect wrong. In my more accurate understanding of what Scripture actually teaches, I know with full certainty...because Christ has said it Himself...not all will be known to Him. Not all will go follow the narrow path or go through the narrow gate. Not all will enjoy God's eternal presence. And no, I'm not going to provide all the passages and verses you've been shown many times to prove these points.
God indeed is willing to forgive and then accept the prodigal who repents and seeks His forgiveness. That doesn't speak to those who won't. That doesn't speak to those who won't do it on His terms, as if He's not allowed to have terms some might not find personally pleasing.
And of course, none of these things to which I've responded do a thing to truly address or contradict the concept of PSA.
Marshal, I asked you to objectively prove your hunch, your subjective personal human hunch. You failed to do so. I've been clear that you can't just make fact claims on here as if they were facts without objectively proving them.
Your comments, therefore, will be going away. You didn't do the very basic thing I asked and the rule I've set for you (you, specifically, as one who regularly makes false claims of facts and rarely if ever tries to support them).
Before I do, let me just reiterate the obvious. You said...
Verses and passages have been cited many times in the past in support of this clear Scriptural teaching later labeled as PSA. To constantly insist it be presented every time the subject comes up as if it hasn't is petulance and a ruse. At some point you're required to confront those verses and passages if you truly care about "rational" adult conversation
Citing a verse is NOT objective proof. The person who cites passages that are LITERALLY in the Bible where it records God as LITERALLY commanding Israel to LITERALLY kill babies and innocents and says, "There, I've proven that enslaving people and killing babies is within God's will..." THAT person has not objectively proven that God is okay with us killing babies or enslaving people. It's literally a subjective interpretation about an unproven opinion about what a perfect God may or may not do or think.
Do you understand that this citing of those passages is LITERALLY not objective proof of the claim that God thinks it's sometimes okay to kill babies and enslave people?
Do you understand that this is literally a subjective and unproven human opinion?
Do not say anything else before answering those questions.
IF you think it DOES make it objectively "proven" that God is okay with sometimes killing innocents and enslaving people, PROVE IT.
Merely citing texts and telling us what you think that means about your godling beast is NOT objective proof. It's literally not.
I had said...
"Legalistic PS Atonement theorists believe that God either will not or can not forgive sin without "the shedding of blood..." and specifically, without Jesus shedding his literal blood... that without that, there would be no salvation possible.
Do you affirm that?"
You responded:
Not in the least. This is your willful distortion of the term
So, good (maybe). You DO think that God CAN and/or DOES forgive sin without blood necessarily being need to be shed - without Jesus' blood needing to be shed. Is that right? I don't think it is, but when I asked the inverse question, you said that you do not (in the least) affirm that. So, make sense of your confusing position.
CAN God simply say, "Neither do I condemn you. Your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more..."? and simply choose to forgive sin? (in your human opinion)
WILL God at least sometimes simply say, "Neither do I condemn you. Your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more..."? and simply choose to forgive sin? (in your human opinion)
I'm pretty sure you're likely to say something like "YES, God COULD simply forgiven sin, but NO God will absolutely NOT choose to simply forgive sin WITHOUT Jesus having to 'pay' for that 'sin' with his 'blood.'" (which is what I said and you responded NO, you do not affirm that)... so you tell me.
I said:
"These are all certainly HUMAN OPINIONS that many legalistic atonement believers cling to."
You replied:
Once again, if you choose to write them off as mere "HUMAN OPINIONS"
If you don't recognize them as human opinions, Marshal, you're just factually mistaken.
Those who hold the opinion that, "When the Bible says 'in the beginning, God created the heavens and earth on the one day, the light and dark on another day, etc... and in seven days created the earth - and furthermore, did it about 6,000 years ago..." They are LITERALLY citing the Bible and LITERALLY reaching a subjective human opinion (a demonstrably factually incorrect human opinion).
Merely citing verses and telling us what YOU as a human think they mean is not objective proof.
Those who hold the opinion that, "When the Bible says that God loves the world and God is not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL will have everlasting life, then that means that God doesn't want ANY to perish but that ALL should have everlasting life..." are literally citing the Bible and literally reaching a subjective human opinion based on those literal words. But citing those literal words does not make it objectively proven. It remains a subjective human opinion, one that is not objectively proven as a fact.
Merely citing verses and telling us what YOU as a human think they mean is not objective proof.
Do you understand?
Do you recognize the point?
Our unproven human opinions are literally subjective and unproven human opinions no matter HOW many verses we cite and say, "here's what that means..." UNLESS we cite some objective source. "What I REALLLLLLY think that text means..." is NOT an objective source.
I suspect at some level, even you can agree with that reality, but you tell me.
But I further suspect that what you mean - when it gets right down to it - is that you REALLY think your subjective opinions are the MOST rational explanation... in YOUR opinion and the opinions of those who agree with you. But that remains subjective, by definition, without objective proof. It's like you're not quite grasping that it doesn't matter HOW much you REALLY think your opinion makes sense given a certain grouping of texts and interpretations, that it remains "proven" until someone else can convince your subjective self otherwise.
That isn't how reality or reason work.
"Marshal, I asked you to objectively prove your hunch, your subjective personal human hunch. You failed to do so. I've been clear that you can't just make fact claims on here as if they were facts without objectively proving them."
Once again you're dishonestly suggesting I've never backed up my position many times in the past. If you want to continue that charade, the delete me again as is your desire anyway. I know you could back far enough and find this support before you began this cancelling tactic, but you don't have the honesty and integrity to do so, then delete me yet again. I expect no better from you at this point. I've done my part as demanded already. I'll not do it every time you demand it of me again because you still have no way of rebutting any of it.
"You didn't do the very basic thing I asked and the rule I've set for you (you, specifically, as one who regularly makes false claims of facts and rarely if ever tries to support them)"
This is not at all true. Absolutely false, both that I've not done what you've demanded and that I regularly make false claims. I never do and if any of my claims are actually false, it would be easy for you to show how they are aside from your lazy claim that they are. Delete away if it eases your cowardly mind. I expect no better from you.
"Citing a verse is NOT objective proof."
Yes it most certainly is since your objection is that PSA isn't Biblical. Saying it's not Biblical because the term coined to describe the Biblical teaching doesn't appear in the text is not a legitimate objection to the fact that it is a Biblical concept.
"The person who cites passages that are LITERALLY in the Bible where it records God as LITERALLY commanding Israel to LITERALLY kill babies and innocents and says, "There, I've proven that enslaving people and killing babies is within God's will..." THAT person has not objectively proven that God is okay with us killing babies or enslaving people."
Except this is a false description of what I've done to support the fact of PSA. You're false description clearly is a case where Scripture is perverted to defend a preferred belief, much as you do to defend your suggestion that God's good with SSM. Therefore, between the two of us, it is you who has failed to connect any passage or verse of Scripture to a claim you've made, while I've totally supported my position.
"It's literally a subjective interpretation about an unproven opinion about what a perfect God may or may not do or think."
Yours doesn't even rise to the level of "subjective interpretation" for there's nothing in Scripture which can legitimately be interpreted to validate or give credibility to your desire that God blesses SSMs. Mine is an objective interpretation (actually made by actual theologians) which the text itself directly implies and any honest person can infer, even if they quibble on the details (which is fine).
"Do you understand that this citing of those passages is LITERALLY not objective proof of the claim that God thinks it's sometimes okay to kill babies and enslave people?
Do you understand that this is literally a subjective and unproven human opinion?"
So let me get this straight: You use this example of someone abusing Scripture to rationalize holding a false belief and now demand I take a position as to whether or not that's appropriate? It's not a "subjective and unproven human opinion". It's a distinctly false belief which can't be held without perverting Scripture. I'm not doing that. Again, that's the only way to insist God would bless and SSM, but not to acknowledge PSA as a Biblical concept.
This takes care of these first two questions.
"IF you think it DOES make it objectively "proven" that God is okay with sometimes killing innocents and enslaving people, PROVE IT."
You've done this for me by stating there are "passages that are LITERALLY in the Bible where it records God as LITERALLY commanding Israel to LITERALLY kill babies and innocents". Thus, with this acknowledgement, it is objectively "proven" that God is okay with sometimes killing innocents. Be careful, though. There's a huge difference between God taking life and any of us taking life. All life is His to do with as He pleases. He's given YOU no authority to decide to do so.
But this discussion isn't really about killing kids, Mr. Abortion Defender. It's about PSA. I recall being required to stick to the topic. Why are you trying to draw me from it?
"Merely citing texts and telling us what you think that means about your godling beast is NOT objective proof. It's literally not."
If you can't address the actual citations used to defend a position held, then perhaps you're unqualified to speak on whether or not I've proven my position. Petulant remarks about "godling beasts" doesn't diminish the truth of my position. Only facts and verses which conflict with those I've cited have any possible chance of doing that. Got any?
"CAN God simply say, "Neither do I condemn you. Your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more..."? and simply choose to forgive sin?"
Of course He can. To whom do you suppose He says that, and how do you support the suggestion?
"WILL God at least sometimes simply say, "Neither do I condemn you. Your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more..."? and simply choose to forgive sin?"
I've no basis for supposing He will. You're citing one specific instance of when Jesus did this, and t"he earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8-11" (from my NIV notes). And again, to whom do you suppose He would say this?
"I'm pretty sure you're likely to say something like "YES, God COULD simply forgiven sin, but NO God will absolutely NOT choose to simply forgive sin WITHOUT Jesus having to 'pay' for that 'sin' with his 'blood.'"
Except that's what already happened. Jesus did pay for our sins by dying on the cross. Thus He doesn't need to say any of those things since Christ already paid the price for our sins and we simply need to accept Christ as our Savior and repent of our sins and we are forgiven.
"(which is what I said and you responded NO, you do not affirm that)... so you tell me."
What I affirmed, and you are free to copy/paste my words if they do not affirm this, is that God is capable of doing anything in any manner He chooses, but He chose to provide for redemption by sending Christ to die as a substitute to suffer penalty for our sins.
"If you don't recognize them as human opinions, Marshal, you're just factually mistaken."
I think we settled the question of "human opinions" already in previous discussions. You insist on using the term as if it means the opinions and positions I hold are somehow unBiblical or contrary to Scriptural teaching. You need to support that contention because however you wish to label what I say, they're still directly and incontrovertibly compelled by and connected to clear and unequivocal Scriptural teaching. So, your constant use of the term "human opinion" is a meaningless ploy to avoid having to provide substance in order to legitimately reject my position. That ploy has no effect or impact on it.
"Those who hold the opinion that, "When the Bible says 'in the beginning, God created the heavens and earth on the one day, the light and dark on another day, etc... and in seven days created the earth - and furthermore, did it about 6,000 years ago..." They are LITERALLY citing the Bible and LITERALLY reaching a subjective human opinion."
If that's as far as it goes, it is indeed merely opinion to take it as fact without anything more to support it. But I don't denigrate real Christians who do that. I simply encourage them to seek out non-Biblical evidence to argue the point with atheists and fakes.
"(a demonstrably factually incorrect human opinion)."
The Young Earth hypothesis has NOT been proven false.
"Merely citing verses and telling us what YOU as a human think they mean is not objective proof."
Fortunately for me, I've not done that. YOU have, but I haven't. Good gosh, you won't let me! But you don't hold yourself to the demands you impose upon others and that's fortunate for you because you haven't the supporting evidence for your unBiblical positions, OR to counter positions of mine you find inconvenient.
So YES! I both understand and recognize the point you continue to assert. They just don't apply to me and what I believe.
"Our unproven human opinions are literally subjective and unproven human opinions no matter HOW many verses we cite and say, "here's what that means..." UNLESS we cite some objective source. "What I REALLLLLLY think that text means..." is NOT an objective source."
This is just you trying to create an environment in which nothing is true beyond what one wants to believe, and only to YOUR advantage. So let's cut to the chase. God's existence and Christ's deity cannot be objectively proven by science. Eyewitness testimony recorded in Scripture is not enough for the obstinate to accept.
But I continue to make the mistake that I'm talking to an actual Christian who takes some things as actual fact on at least blind faith if not faith supported by something...anything...more than "The Bible says so".
So it would really help move things along if you decide to at least pretend you're the Christian you say you are and then dispense with all this superfluous crap which is irrelevant to any discussion where there are no atheists to convince.
Citing the text is a legitimate means of determining objective truth about Christianity and what it teaches. It is objective evidence. If you wish to insist my "interpretation" or "understanding" of a given teaching, passage or verse is in error, you'll need a little something in the area of actual Scriptural evidence...as at least a starting point...for confirming my position is in error. I look forward to the day you can actually do that, but since sometime before 2008, that's never happened.
This is reality and how reason actually works, despite your desperate attempts to claim otherwise. Without a solid, Scripture based argument of your own in opposition to my position, you are yet again, satisfying yourself with nothing more "adult" than "Nyuh uh".
That won't get it done...son.
Citing the text is a legitimate means of determining objective truth about Christianity and what it teaches.
It's literally not. ALL citing the literal text of the Bible or any passage proves objectively is that THOSE words ARE in the text. What they mean, what God thinks of the opinion you're reading into it, what the facts are that are in discussion... NONE of that is objectively proven by merely citing text.
It's just not. You're simply factually wrong.
IF you want to say, "The book of Genesis begins with 'in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...'"
THEN that IS an objectively provable claim.
IF you want to say, "the book of Genesis objectively proves the young earth as a fact and that the universe was literally created in six literal days..."
THEN that is literally NOT an objectively proven claim.
It's just not.
YOUR opinions, MY opinions, ANYONE's opinions about what God may or may not think about Genesis, about the creation of the universe, about salvation, about moral notions are factually subjective and unproven and unprovable.
Period.
You didn't even try to support your claims with ANYTHING more than "Yuh-huh..." and that's simply not objective or rational or, frankly, an adult opinion.
I said:
"Citing a verse is NOT objective proof."
Marshal responded...
Yes it most certainly is since your objection is that PSA isn't Biblical. Saying it's not Biblical because the term coined to describe the Biblical teaching doesn't appear in the text is not a legitimate objection to the fact that it is a Biblical concept.
1. What I'm saying is that PSA has not been OBJECTIVELY PROVEN to be factual. I'm not saying that there aren't SOME HUMANS who read passages in the bible and say, "This, to me, demands PSA... and thus is 'biblical...'" I'm saying it is NOT OBJECTIVELY PROVEN as an OBJECTIVELY KNOWN FACT, not from the biblical text or any other source.
Do you understand the difference?
2. Do you recognize that you have not - no one has - objectively proven PSA as an objectively known/proven fact?
3. I'm NOT (you DO understand the meaning of NOT, don't you?) saying that BECAUSE THE TERM PSA IS NEVER USED, IT'S NOT BIBLICAL. That is not what I'm saying, nor is it what I've ever said and indeed, I've repeated multiple times that I AM NOT saying a specific TERM has to be used to have been talked about in the Bible.
DO you understand that?
4. If so, WHY do you keep repeating that stupidly false claim when I've been so abundantly clear? That the term is not used in the Bible is irrelevant as hell, as I've never suggested a term must be used to have been talked about/referred to.
Marshal...
You use this example of someone abusing Scripture to rationalize holding a false belief and now demand I take a position as to whether or not that's appropriate? It's not a "subjective and unproven human opinion". It's a distinctly false belief which can't be held without perverting Scripture.
I don't know how much more clear I can be: I'm asking if you can acknowledge that this view (the Bible teaches that God sometimes commanded slavery and killing babies, therefore, sometimes God might command slavery and killing babies) IS a subjective opinion... something that is READ INTO what they think God thinks, but is not OBJECTIVELY PROVEN that God thinks thusly.
Understand? It LITERALLY IS a subjective, unproven opinion. Do you recognize that reality?
Marshal...
The Young Earth hypothesis has NOT been proven false.
The earth and the universe are NOT roughly 6,000 years old. Period. This is an objectively proven/provable reality.
Do you truly not understand this?
Read more actual science and less right wing trash.
What I affirmed, and you are free to copy/paste my words if they do not affirm this, is that God is capable of doing anything in any manner He chooses, but He chose to provide for redemption by sending Christ to die as a substitute to suffer penalty for our sins.
Which is literally what I said. YOU are saying God WILL not simply forgive. That, YOU THINK, in YOUR HUMAN OPINION, that God (according to you) has decided (according to your personal human and unproven subjective opinion) that God WILL not simply forgive sin, but that God, IN YOUR UNPROVEN HUMAN OPINION, is choosing, instead, to forgive and save "by sending Christ to die as a substitute" to "pay" for our sins.
Am I mistaken? This IS what you're saying. That, in your human opinion, the way that God is choosing to "forgive" sins is by means of a literal "blood sacrifice" to literally "pay" for our sins by Jesus being killed and providing his "blood" to "pay" for our sins.
Where am I misunderstanding your personal little human opinion?
And you are welcome to all the silly opinions you may want to hold, but without objective proof, it remains YOUR personal subjective opinion.
Naught else.
That's enough.
"It's literally not. ALL citing the literal text of the Bible or any passage proves objectively is that THOSE words ARE in the text. What they mean, what God thinks of the opinion you're reading into it, what the facts are that are in discussion... NONE of that is objectively proven by merely citing text."
They're not mere words just sitting there randomly with no purpose, meaning or intention. We can deduce the meaning with a basic understanding of the words themselves, then how they're arranged in a sentence, then a paragraph and then an entire chapter. Having done so by honest people seeking the truth, we find a specific teaching which is beyond confusion, simply clear and unassailable in at least... and I mean the very least...75-80% of the text. It isn't difficult. It isn't mysterious or cryptic. To say nonetheless that is not objectively proven by simply deduction and reasoning, not to mention the affirmation of thousands of years of theological study, is no more than an incredibly weak attempt to keep open options for pretend there are alternative meaning of equal value, without so much as a hint of support against the whole of Scripture weighed in favor of how passages have been understood since the beginning.
That is to say, you've got nothing but the empty and impotent objection to suggest what you oppose is truly false or poorly understood. To make matters so much worse for you, you bring absolutely nothing more substantive to the table but your personal and self-serving objection without any actual supportive evidence to justify it.
"It's just not. You're simply factually wrong."
It's certainly possibly I might be if you would care to bring forth something...anything... substantive to prove I'm wrong. You've never done so before. I don't expect you'll do so anytime soon. If you're the Christian you claim to be, you'd be eager and able to provide such evidence. The end of my life is rushing toward me fast. If only I could see this evidence of my mistaken understanding before that time comes.
"IF you want to say, "the book of Genesis objectively proves the young earth as a fact and that the universe was literally created in six literal days..."
THEN that is literally NOT an objectively proven claim."
How fortunate I am to have never made this claim. How it is relevant in a discussion I thought was about PSA, I'll never be able to explain to others.
"YOUR opinions, MY opinions, ANYONE's opinions about what God may or may not think about Genesis, about the creation of the universe, about salvation, about moral notions are factually subjective and unproven and unprovable."
Aside from the fact that this also has nothing to do with PSA, you are more than insistent that science has proven the opposite. How can one side not be proven while the flip side is? You say we can't know about the creation of the universe, but insist it's not 6000 years old and tell me that science has proven it. So which is it? Is it provable or isn't it? In the meantime, the understanding of salvation and moral notions are totally proven by reading the text. If you're truly a Christian...as you insist you are despite great and evidence-based opinion to the contrary...you might want to actually seriously and prayerfully study the text to determine those things.
"You didn't even try to support your claims with ANYTHING more than "Yuh-huh..." and that's simply not objective or rational or, frankly, an adult opinion."
That's so far from true as to be a lie intentionally told. I've provided volumes of support for everything I've claimed about the faith. And as most things revolve around what Scripture says/teaches, I'm more than justified in doing an end zone celebration for every issue we've ever discussed. "You've never even tried to support your objections to my positions on Scriptural issues with ANYTHING more than "Nyuh uh..." EVER! In order for your quote above to come barely close to being true, you'd have to ignore all the years we've engaged in discourse, all the comments I've submitted here and elsewhere with the evidence which cements my position as far more true than not, and pretend you've not deleted so many repetitions of Scripture which supports my position. It's simply a matter of which of these actions you've perpetrated at any specific time.
"1. What I'm saying is that PSA has not been OBJECTIVELY PROVEN to be factual. I'm not saying that there aren't SOME HUMANS who read passages in the bible and say, "This, to me, demands PSA... and thus is 'biblical...'" I'm saying it is NOT OBJECTIVELY PROVEN as an OBJECTIVELY KNOWN FACT, not from the biblical text or any other source.
Do you understand the difference?"
Perhaps you don't understand what Penal Subsitutionary Atonement is and as such you don't know it when you see it in Scripture. Again, the term was coined long after the many books were collected and labeled "The Holy Bible"...which, as it turns out, nowhere is the term "Bible" found in Scripture, either.
The problem is that no matter how many passages there are which suggest this concept as being accurate and true, you're simply going to say "it's not objectively proven". That's an example of "Nyuh uh", not an argument against the concept being accurately presented as Scriptural teaching. The verses aren't being wildly distorted as pro-LGBTQ proponents twist Scripture to suggest any possible tolerance of it by God. They're simply gathered to demonstrate how often the concept appears and it's up to you to provide evidence to show they're taken out of context and don't present evidence of PSA. You don't do that. You just say, "Nyuh uh". That's the only response you give regardless of the quantity and quality of the evidence provided.
"2. Do you recognize that you have not - no one has - objectively proven PSA as an objectively known/proven fact?"
Yet the concept goes back to the early church fathers. Apparently you need a certified document signed by God. That's not "adult" reasoning by any stretch of the imagination. Scripture clearly teaches the concept. For reasons you haven't explained, you simply refuse to accept it. In the meantime, I've provided verses which clearly support the proposition repeatedly since the subject was first broached. You've done nothing to prove the concept is false in any way to any extent. Nothing. I really can't imagine what it is about the teaching you find so objectionable.
" 3. I'm NOT (you DO understand the meaning of NOT, don't you?) saying that BECAUSE THE TERM PSA IS NEVER USED, IT'S NOT BIBLICAL. That is not what I'm saying, nor is it what I've ever said and indeed, I've repeated multiple times that I AM NOT saying a specific TERM has to be used to have been talked about in the Bible.
DO you understand that?"
Yet you've done nothing more substantive to explain how the concept is not Scriptural teaching. Nothing. All you've said is "PSA isn't Biblical", or, "Nyuh uh".
" 4. If so, WHY do you keep repeating that stupidly false claim when I've been so abundantly clear? That the term is not used in the Bible is irrelevant as hell, as I've never suggested a term must be used to have been talked about/referred to."
So if I'm to concede that that isn't the alpha and omega of your objection, on what basis can you insist PSA isn't Biblical? Don't tell me Scripture doesn't teach it, because I've provided the verses which says otherwise. When will you provide Scriptural evidence which renders the concept unBiblical in any way?
"I don't know how much more clear I can be: I'm asking if you can acknowledge that this view (the Bible teaches that God sometimes commanded slavery and killing babies, therefore, sometimes God might command slavery and killing babies) IS a subjective opinion... something that is READ INTO what they think God thinks, but is not OBJECTIVELY PROVEN that God thinks thusly.
Understand? It LITERALLY IS a subjective, unproven opinion. Do you recognize that reality?"
It's a moot and irrelevant point. Have I ever said that God will command anyone to do this since He did something like that in the OT...which records Him as sending the Hebrews to do this sort of thing? Have I ever said that it's OK for folks in 2024 do do such things because God had His Chosen people wipe out all citizens of a morally reprobate city? Why you're even bringing this nonsense up in a discussion about PSA is deranged in its irrelevance. Ask again and I'll treat the demand as not existing.
"The earth and the universe are NOT roughly 6,000 years old. Period. This is an objectively proven/provable reality.
Do you truly not understand this?"
I understand you prefer this explanation for the Creation story. But there's no proof the Young Earth theory is untrue. There's only arguments for an Old Earth theory. Not proof of it.
Of course, the age of the Earth is off topic as well. Indeed, it's possible I could be totally wrong about one or two issues and PSA would still be Biblical. So stop with these irrelevant topics as if you have a handle on those any better than you do PSA.
"Read more actual science and less right wing trash."
I love this cheap petulant crap. Anything which doesn't abide Dan's position is no more than right wing trash...as if all my sources for facts are necessarily politically right wing. That's pretty desperate and weak.
" Which is literally what I said. YOU are saying God WILL not simply forgive. That, YOU THINK, in YOUR HUMAN OPINION, that God (according to you) has decided (according to your personal human and unproven subjective opinion) that God WILL not simply forgive sin, but that God, IN YOUR UNPROVEN HUMAN OPINION, is choosing, instead, to forgive and save "by sending Christ to die as a substitute" to "pay" for our sins."
This is intentionally lying. The question regarded whether or not God was capable or willing to forgive without sending Christ to die to provide the path to forgiveness and redemption. Now you're moving the goal posts. Why do feel the need? Can't you defend your original position without doing so? Can't you respond honestly to my response to your original question?
So pay attention and I'll say it yet again: It's not a matter of what God "WILL" do or what He is "CAPABLE" of doing. I speak of what he DID do!" The manner in which He chose to do it. The torture and crucifixion of Jesus was just for fun? For show? This is Almighty God. In human form. And you're trying to suggest that His brutal murder "just happened" with no meaning attached to it? What are you trying to say about His brutal death if not that it had no relevance to our redemption...despite all verses suggesting that very thing? Perhaps you're suggesting that God just wanted to experience a horrible death?
"This IS what you're saying. That, in your human opinion, the way that God is choosing to "forgive" sins is by means of a literal "blood sacrifice" to literally "pay" for our sins by Jesus being killed and providing his "blood" to "pay" for our sins."
Despite your purposeful attempt to pervert the truth, this is exactly what Scripture teaches...not what I'm "saying". The entirety of the OT speaks of sacrifices made to atone for sin. The sacrifices had to be animals without blemish..."perfect" specimens, as it were. None could truly be "perfect" because all earthly things are stained by Adam's sin. The only truly perfect sacrifice was the Lamb of God, known as Jesus the Christ. This is Christianity 101. Once again. It's NOT "human tradition". It's Biblical teaching. Indeed, a recording of Christian history. Did God have to do it that way? NO! BUT THAT'S THE WAY HE DID IT! I'm so sorry you have a problem with that. Seek professional help...preferably from a true Christian psychologist or minister.
" Where am I misunderstanding your personal little human opinion?"
By pretending what Scripture actually and truly teaches is no more than my "personal 'little human' opinion". Denigrate, mock and insult all you like. But none of that stands as legitimate, adult, fact-based refutations of my accurate understanding of the clear meaning of the text.
" And you are welcome to all the silly opinions you may want to hold, but without objective proof, it remains YOUR personal subjective opinion."
Objective proof has been provided...ad nauseum. You satisfy yourself that rejecting the vast body of evidence I've provided fails to satisfy your demand for proofs. "Nyuh uh" remains your counter. Once more...to concede that what I present is my opinion, it's still opinion based on actual Scriptural evidence...something you've failed forever to present to contradict my "human opinion" as being untrue in any way whatsoever. It's "subjective" not because it is, but because you need it to be subjective so as to allow you the liberty of pretending your unsupported opinions and heresies have any real value. Again, your positions and objection don't even rise to the level of "subjective opinion".
By pretending what Scripture actually and truly teaches is no more than my "personal 'little human' opinion".
Your personal human opinions about what Scripture teaches ARE literally subjective human interpretations of what God thinks. I don't know how to help you, Marshal. You don't seem to understand notions of basic adult reasoning.
IF you have hard data to objectively prove something, you can present that hard data and there is no question.
You're not doing that. You repeatedly are offering YOUR personal human interpretations with zero objective data to support it. Not a damn thing more.
Your personal human opinions - with NO data to support them - ARE subjective personal hunches.
You're done. Don't bother going further.
I get that you probably aren't even understanding your rational failures, but trust me, you've lost. No matter how many times you say, "but, but, but, HERE'S a passage and HERE is what I think that means..." it remains a subjective human opinion.
Sorry. You lose. Even if you don't understand, you still lose.
And you're trying to suggest that His brutal murder "just happened" with no meaning attached to it? What are you trying to say about His brutal death if not that it had no relevance to our redemption...despite all verses suggesting that very thing?
It didn't "just happen." As is repeatedly, historically the case, rich and powerful and religious zealots didn't like his aligning with the poor and marginalized, didn't like his welcoming and inclusive good news for all. And so they killed him. As we see biblically. As we see historically. The rich oppressors choose to oppress. That's just what history factually shows us.
Your personal human opinions about "blood sacrifices" and a pathetic and impotent godling who chooses not to (in your personal subjective opinion) simply forgive and show grace remain your subjective hunches. Nothing else. That you don't understand that and won't recognize that demonstrable reality only means that you don't understand.
You lose. Go away. I may even leave your endless non-answers and misunderstandings to be a testimony to your persona human rational failures of understanding, but don't bother commenting further.
The question regarded whether or not God was capable or willing to forgive without sending Christ to die to provide the path to forgiveness and redemption. Now you're moving the goal posts. Why do feel the need?
That you don't understand what I said and what I'm asking is not evidence that I'm "lying" or otherwise being less than forthcoming.
I've been asking quite clearly IF you believe that God is not willing or not able to simply forgive sin. Your answer is that God is not willing BECAUSE (in your little human opinion), you think that God wanted to "pay" for the "sin" with the "blood of Jesus" as a sort of "sacrifice" to "atone" for human sin. That doesn't change that YOUR personal little human opinion is that God WILL NOT simply forgive sin. That IS. your answer... because YOU THINK that God has this vulgar and irrational and graceless alternative method... is still that you personally don't think that your godling will simply forgive sin.
Yet the concept [PSA, in your personal human opinion] goes back to the early church fathers.
1. PSA didn't show up as a human theory until ~1300 AD
2. That YOU, personally, in your own little human opinion think that the humans in the early church/in the first century affirmed your personal theory is not objective proof. It's a subjective human opinion.
3. EVEN IF your personal human theory about atonement DID go back to other humans in the early church does not mean that it is objectively proven. Unsupported human opinion - in the 21st century or the first century - remain unsupported personal human opinions.
Marshal...
Yet you've done nothing more substantive to explain how the concept is not Scriptural teaching. Nothing. All you've said is "PSA isn't Biblical"
PSA is not biblical, nor is it rational or moral or justice-oriented or decent or anything worth a bucket of piss and shit because...
1. PSA teaches that most people are going to be tortured for an eternity for the "sin" of being imperfect. That's a great moral and justice atrocity.
2. That matters because, as the Bible teaches, God is a God of justice and goodness, of grace and of love. That IS of course biblical. But it's also rational, IF one accepts the notion of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God.
4. Noting the reality that the Bible teaches a perfectly just, perfectly loving God IS a biblical argument for those like you who say you personally want a biblical reason. You may not like it, but it remains a biblical argument. And, it's rational, moral, decent as all that is good and decent. Your personal human theory, on the other hand, is sick and immoral and unjust. It is a spitting upon the notion of a loving and just God as the Bible says and as reason says.
5. WHY are you spitting in the face of Jesus with your personal little human PSA theory? Because your human theory teaches that
your godling will not simply forgive people in the manner that even we mere humans can manage;
your godling plans on punishing most of humanity for an eternity because they are imperfect humans;
your godling will punish Hitler and a 20 year old who was imperfect and committed petty misdeeds in the same manner - this is an affront to justice and the almighty God of Justice as described in the Bible.
That you don't understand the biblical and rational argument against your petty, pathetic, impotent little pissant version of a godling doesn't mean there isn't a biblical and rational argument against that little petty devil-god.
"Your personal human opinions about what Scripture teaches ARE literally subjective human interpretations of what God thinks."
That might be true were it not for so often presenting the text verbatim do show how I've come to my "personal human opinions". As always, you do nothing to correct whatever you want to assert is an incorrect understanding of any bit of Scripture provided to prove a point. You simply reject it out of hand and turn to this default "human tradition/personal opinion" mantra which doesn't do a thing to demonstrate my position is wrong and whatever it is you think is a more superior understanding is better. So OK. Call my position either if you can't help yourself. But without evidence of your own, drawn from Scripture without contorting words so that the passage or verses can mean what you want it to mean, doing so is meaningless, impotent and useless.
"I don't know how to help you, Marshal."
Well, that would be true even if I needed help. Which I don't.
"You don't seem to understand notions of basic adult reasoning."
When will I see some of that reasoning from you? You seem to think "basic adult reasoning" consists of the host demanding evidence to support anything which even remotely appears to be claim and rather than accepting evidence when provided, or simply moving to make your own evidence supported case when it hasn't yet been, just complain the opponent's position is no more than "human tradition/personal opinion" as if that means anything. It's certainly not "adult reasoning".
Indeed, you can dispense with that deflection from your obligation in discourse and I'll simply assume that's what you think of my positions. That'll save tons of both time and keystrokes. And given my devotion to being in line with truth, facts and actual reality, I'm more than open to the possibility that your position might actually be superior, if only you'd state it and support it even half as exhaustively as you demand of me.
"IF you have hard data to objectively prove something, you can present that hard data and there is no question."
Crap and nonsense. You've never accepted ANY "hard data", even when that data is your own words copy/pasted to confirm what you've aid and later denied. You've NEVER changed your tune on ANY topic regardless of the quantity and quality of support provided. NEVER.
"You're not doing that. You repeatedly are offering YOUR personal human interpretations with zero objective data to support it. Not a damn thing more."
I might not be providing HERE, in THIS discussion. But we've debated PSA several times in the past and the rock solid data I've provided then was NEVER confronted by you in a manner suggesting "adult reasoning"...basic or otherwise. But this tactic, too, has been exposed on numerous occasions. To insist that I must provide another mountain of the evidence provided in past discussions just to yet again deflect from proving your own case isn't adult at all. It would at least be honest to say you just don't like PSA despite having no real case against it.
"Your personal human opinions - with NO data to support them - ARE subjective personal hunches."
Oh. Well now that's a bit different than your routine rejection. You usually ignore the data which has been provide ad nauseum and STILL insist my positions are "hunches". But by this statement, I'm covered. When do I get to see an reasoned argument refuting my "hunch" on PSA, already supported in the many past discussions on the topic? Any chance I'll get to see an evidence based counter argument? (That's totally rhetorical. I already know the answer is "fat chance".)
"You're done. Don't bother going further."
Oh...I'm "done" the moment I chose to cross your virtual threshold, knowing well as I do how you operate to avoid actually proving my position erroneous or yours accurate.
"I get that you probably aren't even understanding your rational failures, but trust me, you've lost."
I lose nothing coming here, but time. One can't lose a contest when the opponent refuses to play the game. You don't return volley, you simply say I have to serve again. But you've been served repeatedly in the many past instances when this topic has been discussed. You won't return volley because you're not capable of proving your position correct or mine wrong. If this was not true, you wouldn't spend all your time pretending it matters whether my position is hunch, opinion or tradition as if that constitutes "basic adult reasoning".
Again. I'm not going to bring you the same exhaustive body of evidence my position on a topic discussed many times simply because you started a new post on it.
" I get that you probably aren't even understanding your rational failures..."
This is an unsupported claim. Simply asserting I don't understand one thing or another doesn't make it true. You know what does? Evidence of your own. And I don't mean spewing more crap about "hunches, opinions or traditions", but evidence which refutes what you refer to as "hunches, opinions or traditions". Label my positions in any way you choose. Labeling them is not refuting them regardless of the terms you use.
""but, but, but, HERE'S a passage and HERE is what I think that means...""
This is a willfully false representation of how I operate. It has no relationship to my methods in any way. You're referring to it in this way to rationalize your refusal to meet your obligation in engaging in "basic adult reasoning". You'll note that I never respond to any of your butchered verses and passages in this manner. As you're obliged to do if you want to use terms like "basic adult reasoning" and make anyone believe you attempt to reason at all, I give an argument why your butchered verse or passage fails to make your case. To which you then counter with your "hunch/opinion/tradition" mantra. And on and on it goes.
" Sorry. You lose. Even if you don't understand, you still lose."
Says the Black Knight!
"It didn't "just happen." As is repeatedly, historically the case, rich and powerful and religious zealots didn't like his aligning with the poor and marginalized, didn't like his welcoming and inclusive good news for all. And so they killed him. As we see biblically. As we see historically. The rich oppressors choose to oppress. That's just what history factually shows us."
No, that's your marxist version of events. But as Scripture tells us, Jesus was targeted prior to this and easily eluded capture. Here He submits to His fate. Why would He do that if He had the power to avoid it? It's because there was a purpose to fulfill. That purpose was the actual Good News you think He brought only for the "poor and marginalized". Indeed, He was born for what was about to befall Him, thus, the only thing you got right was that "it didn't 'just happen'". Of course. But why did it? Your explanation is nonsense. You provided no "why?", but "how?". What the "rich and powerful and religious zealots didn't like" had no relevance to the "why?" of Christ's crucifixion. (At least you're moving toward the actual topic)
"Your personal human opinions about "blood sacrifices" and a pathetic and impotent godling who chooses not to (in your personal subjective opinion) simply forgive and show grace remain your subjective hunches. Nothing else."
1. First, this is not at all a rebuttal, but a mere refusal to provide an evidence-based counter argument.
2. Where do YOU think the concept of PSA originates? Someone just pulled it out of their ass?
3. Nothing about PSA suggests anything at all like a "pathetic and impotent godling" of any kind. And there's no debate on the issue that God chose to provide His Grace in a specific manner which is not simply forgiving without anything conditional attached to it. That's absurd. Using your usual poor analogy, the forgiving mother, it's as if the mother forgave despite the child never making the slightest effort to repenting or even showing the slightest consideration for the mother's feelings or expectations. THAT is what pathetic and impotent looks like. Your "god" is an invention which allows his creation to walk all over him yet he forgives just because. Again..."basic adult reasoning"???? Not in that objection! "godling" indeed!
"I may even leave your endless non-answers and misunderstandings to be a testimony to your persona human rational failures of understanding, but don't bother commenting further."
You can do what you like, but I'll comment as much as I like to respond to your insult laden non-arguments.
"That you don't understand what I said and what I'm asking is not evidence that I'm "lying" or otherwise being less than forthcoming."
That's funny. You can falsely label my comments and positions any way you like, but pointing out your falsehoods is problematic. I'm shocked. But this is the dance you do. It's so much easier than to engage in actual adult debate and address issues. No. Having no actual argument, you have only the default "you don't understand" nerf ball to throw.
"I've been asking quite clearly IF you believe that God is not willing or not able to simply forgive sin. Your answer is that God is not willing BECAUSE (in your little human opinion), you think that God wanted to "pay" for the "sin" with the "blood of Jesus" as a sort of "sacrifice" to "atone" for human sin. That doesn't change that YOUR personal little human opinion is that God WILL NOT simply forgive sin. That IS. your answer... because YOU THINK that God has this vulgar and irrational and graceless alternative method... is still that you personally don't think that your godling will simply forgive sin."
You're moving the goal posts again. You'd serve yourself better to simply go back to the first time you made an objection or response and copy/paste it everytime. You get the only answer your questions can compel so you tweak it a bit or change it altogether with only a superficial resemblance to the question my responses perfectly satisfy (assuming you had the courage and integrity to accept that).
So now you've made one question two. The first is, is God "willing" to simply forgive. The answer is, "yes...God is willing to forgive those who've accepted Christ as their Savior and have repented of their sins". The second is if God is "able to simply forgive sin." Of course He is, if what you mean is that He could have simply forgiven everyone without ever having sent us His Only Begotten Son to die to wash away our sins by the shedding of His blood on the cross. But again, it's not a question of what God can or is willing to do. All that matters is how He did it. He did it by sending us His Only Begotten Son to die so that we can be redeemed.
And the thing is... and pay attention here, because this is where you perfectly avoid providing any supporting evidence to prove or disprove anything...I don't "think" this is how we've come to be saved. I KNOW it's how because that's exactly what Scripture teaches. The Gospels describe it, and Christ's Apostles affirm it in their Epistles. You call the truth "vulgar and irrational and graceless". Good luck with that.
"1. PSA didn't show up as a human theory until ~1300 AD"
Not true at all. I showed up first in OT sacrificing of animals, they being put to death as a substitute for the person seeking atonement for his sins. It's a theme throughout the OT into the new. Then, the early church fathers preached the concept (though some theologians suggest PSA is but one aspect of atonement):
https://www.triumphofmercy.com/blog/the-early-fathers-and-the-penal-substitutionary-atonement
The above is yet another link I now provide wherein the teachings of the early church fathers clearly present the notion of PSA. I've provided other such gatherings of early church father quotations on the subject. There are tons of them.
"2. That YOU, personally, in your own little human opinion think that the humans in the early church/in the first century affirmed your personal theory is not objective proof. It's a subjective human opinion."
See, this is what for you passes for "basic adult reasoning". No matter the evidence, no matter the source, no matter what, you will simply write it off as "personal opinion" and pretend it ends the debate. It doesn't. Because as I've show in response to your first point, you made a claim (with absolutely nothing to support it) and I objected to the claim by presenting evidence which counters the claim. That's what mature adult debate actually looks like. In any case, my presenting these links isn't to suggest that their teachings (they're far more knowledgeable about the faith than are you and much closer to the actual events as well, so pardon me if I put far more stock in what they say than in anything you don't say) are objective proof, but in response to the notion that the theory is relatively new. It's not. It's totally Biblical. These early church fathers simply affirm it...being more knowledgeable than you are.
"3. EVEN IF your personal human theory about atonement DID go back to other humans in the early church does not mean that it is objectively proven."
That's correct. They simply affirmed what Scripture has proven. You need to focus on finding something in Scripture that proves otherwise. I turn 69 soon. I don't have a lot of time. I can't wait forever for you to do more than "Nyuh uh".
"PSA is not biblical, nor is it rational or moral or justice-oriented or decent or anything worth a bucket of piss and shit because..."
Because being crude about a Scriptural teaching is all you have left to defend your preferred alternative that God just forgives. Period. Please provide chapter and verse for this notion.
"1. PSA teaches that most people are going to be tortured for an eternity for the "sin" of being imperfect. That's a great moral and justice atrocity."
I'm pretty sure that's just you pretending you know anything about PSA. It's certainly not an accurate representation of PSA! Maybe you have some hard data to support the charge you're waiting to spring on me someday before I die.
"2. That matters because, as the Bible teaches, God is a God of justice and goodness, of grace and of love. That IS of course biblical. But it's also rational, IF one accepts the notion of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God."
PSA in no way contradicts any teaching of God being just and merciful. Not in the least. Indeed, PSA is the epitome of mercy, given you don't deserve heaven even with Christ, much less without Him. But because He drank from the cup, you have the means by which you can enjoy God's grace. How much more loving is it to come in human form, and submit one's self to a punishment in our place...a punishment we deserve?
"4. Noting the reality that the Bible teaches a perfectly just, perfectly loving God IS a biblical argument for those like you who say you personally want a biblical reason. You may not like it, but it remains a biblical argument."
It might be a start of an argument, but it's no argument by itself. It's a premise and you need to prove that this premise results in God forgiving without having sent His Only Begotten Son to die in our place in order that we might be redeemed. No proponent of the Biblical teaching of PSA regards God as perfectly just and loving. None of them do. To be more precise, there's no lack of congruence in acknowledging the truth of both PSA and God's perfect love and justice. You clearly want there to be a conflict there, but sadly, you fail yet again. It's just another case of God's sense of love and justice must follow Dan Trabue's demand for how that must ever manifest, even by God Himself. Good luck with that.
"You may not like it, but it remains a biblical argument. And, it's rational, moral, decent as all that is good and decent."
Because you say so, not because you've done a damned thing to prove it's true or even most likely true...or even possibly true for that matter.
"Your personal human theory, on the other hand, is sick and immoral and unjust. It is a spitting upon the notion of a loving and just God as the Bible says and as reason says."
Another non-argument lacking basic adult reasoning. First, PSA isn't "my" theory. It is Biblical teaching and the Good News Christ brought by His first coming. Secondly, it is not in any way in conflict with the teaching of a just and loving God. It just conflicts with Dan Trabue's demand of how God must behave in order for God to be truly a loving and just God. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to bring support for your position. You never do.
"5. WHY are you spitting in the face of Jesus with your personal little human PSA theory?"
Again, not "my" theory, but a clear Biblical teaching. If you one day choose to seriously and prayerfully study Scripture, you'll see the error of your ways...assuming you're bright enough to understand the obvious, which seems less than likely.
A better and more accurate example of spitting in the face of Christ is to suppose a behavior God calls detestable no longer is because you know people who indulge in the detestable behavior but are otherwise "nice".
"your godling will not simply forgive people in the manner that even we mere humans can manage;"
I worship no "godling" nor any fictitious invention pulled from my backside as you do. I worship the One True God of Abraham and Moses who sent His Only Begotten Son to die on my behalf. Praise God!
THAT One True God forgives on His terms, not on the terms of Dan Trabue. And He does so by virtue of His great and holy love for those who abide His Will.
"your godling plans on punishing most of humanity for an eternity because they are imperfect humans;"
You clearly have no idea of how or why God will punish anyone He believes are worthy. It's not because they're "imperfect", because there are no perfect people. Try again.
" your godling will punish Hitler and a 20 year old who was imperfect and committed petty misdeeds in the same manner"
It's not because they're "imperfect", because there are no perfect people. Try again.
"this is an affront to justice and the almighty God of Justice as described in the Bible."
No. It's the perspective of one who's never actually studied Scripture, seriously, prayerfully or in any other way which suggests a self-denying search for truth.
"That you don't understand the biblical and rational argument against your petty, pathetic, impotent little pissant version of a godling doesn't mean there isn't a biblical and rational argument against that little petty devil-god."
I can't possibly "understand" what you refuse to present, to support with actual evidence which can be researched and is no more than you insulting the God you pretend to worship because you have no idea how to debate in an adult manner. Is there an actual Bible based argument against PSA? Given it's clear to me it teaches that from cover to cover, I insist no such argument exists. And while there might be one, I'm far more certain you can't find it or you would have presented it long ago and all this time and all these keystrokes would not have been expended in this post and comment thread.
Marshal, you're begging the question, repeatedly, you're making unsupported presumptions, you're appealing to numbers, you're just making ridiculously false claims repeatedly and a good number of other rational fallacies. For instance...
I can't possibly "understand" what you refuse to present, to support with actual evidence which can be researched and is no more than you insulting the God
I've presented what I believe to be a rational defense of a salvation by Grace (actual grace, not the perverted blood-appeasing-angry-god non-grace of PSA) repeatedly and in countless ways over the years. Here are a sampling of posts I've made that deal one way or another with the notion of grace and salvation by grace and the good news of the realm of God:
https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/search?q=salvation+by+grace
Now, to point out the obvious:
1. Grace is simple kindness, especially kindness to those who may not deserve it. That's what the Greek word translated to grace means.
From compellingtruth.com:
The Strong's Concordance defines it as
"graciousness, benefit, favor, gift, good-will, thanks, or grace."
It is especially used for a kindness or favor bestowed on someone who is ill-deserving, such as of a master toward his servants or of holy God toward sinful mankind.
That's it. Just "grace," as we tend to think about it.
2. No where (and just to be clear: NOT ANY ONE PLACE ANYWHERE WHATSOVER) in the Bible does Jesus or anyone else spell out a set of rules or explanations about how we are "saved by grace." Jesus literally doesn't use the word any (as far as I can tell).
3. And of course, there wouldn't be a set of rules or hoops to jump through if we're saved by grace, NOT by works. Why? Because it is by grace, kindness, goodness, a gift of God that we are saved. It is a grace. There are no rules for being saved by grace, any more than there are rules for any other gift. You either accept it or you don't.
4. And even if there are verses in the bible that some humans select out and craft a human theory of "salvation by Grace and by which it's paid for by a blood sacrifice and most people will never get this gift..." I don't care. The Bible is not a rule book. Nowhere does it say it's a rule book, nowhere does it say that it's a source (much less THE SOLE SOURCE) for finding a ruling about who is and isn't saved. For it is not by works that we are saved, it is by grace. It is a gift.
5. I've been abundantly clear over the years that I take this simple biblical teaching (and set of teachings) at face value:
God is not willing that any should perish. God came to save the world. We are saved by Grace, not by works. It's a gift of God for all who would receive it.
cont'd...
IF we are humans who affirm and believe in Justice and IF we believe in Grace, then it's not rational (whatever opinions one may hold about various biblical passages) that there are some who will not be chosen or that there will be some who see no need to "accept" a "blood payment" for their "sin transgressions" and otherwise, they will "perish" or not be saved. Where is the justice in that? Where is the grace in that?
It's a gift IF you understand it correctly (which is further complicated by the "sovereignist" evangelicals who insist that GOD will CHOOSE not to let some large portion of humanity understand it so they don't even get the OPTION to understand it correctly... IF that were necessary)... but if you fail to understand it correctly, THEN you will be punished for an eternity? Where is the justice, love and grace in that?
Given all that, I (and not me alone) am saying that PSA is a theory that is the opposite of grace, contrary to the biblical AND rational notions of justice and grace, and that is why it fails. On a basic definitional level it fails. Whereas, "grace is grace is grace" is simply a tautology.
"We are saved by Grace."
"But what does that mean?"
"Friend, it means we are saved by grace, by kindness, by God's loving graciousness.
By Grace are we saved!"
"But what do you MEAN by that??"
"I mean simply what I said. We are saved by God's grace, by GRACE. Period. It is the gift of God."
THAT is my explanation of what I've always meant by "saved by grace" and why the human theory of PSA is a flawed theory. By definition.
Now, you may not UNDERSTAND my simple, self-evident explanation, but you can't say that I haven't explained it. Nor can you say that I have not made my case for the problems of your pet human theory on the subject.
Nor can you say it's not a human theory.
And look, I've always been clear: MY opinion about what God thinks of Grace IS A HUMAN THEORY, TOO. I've never said otherwise. We can't objectively prove our opinion short of asking God to God's face, and God's face is not here to ask God.
And IF you say, "but the explicit, authoritative answer is in the Bible!!" well, that, too, is a human opinion. You can't prove that the authoritative answer is in the bible, and especially that YOUR specific human interpretation IS that authoritative answer. You just can't do that, not objectively provably.
Good luck. I hope you live to understand "objective" and "prove" some day.
I said:
Noting the reality that the Bible teaches a perfectly just, perfectly loving God IS a biblical argument for those like you who say you personally want a biblical reason. You may not like it, but it remains a biblical argument. And, it's rational, moral, decent as all that is good and decent.
You replied:
Because you say so, not because you've done a damned thing to prove it's true or even most likely true...or even possibly true for that matter.
Do you disagree that God is a perfectly loving, perfectly just God? That this notion is biblical? That it is rational?
I said:
"1. PSA didn't show up as a human theory until ~1300 AD"
Marshal offered this unsupported opinion in response:
Not true at all. I showed up first in OT sacrificing of animals, they being put to death as a substitute for the person seeking atonement for his sins.
I GET that you and people like you read that INTO OT texts (eisegesis), but it's not literally there. It's literally not.
Beyond that, the OT and NT has passages making clear that God did not desire their blood sacrifices. The legalists back in the OT and NT days fell back on the legalism of a ritual blood sacrifice to appease an angry god... and they MISSED THE POINT.
For I [God] desire steadfast love and not sacrifice,
the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. ~Hosea 6
In sacrifice and offering you [God] have not delighted,
but you have given me an open ear.
Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required. ~Psalm 40
What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?
says the Lord;
I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams
and the fat of well-fed beasts...
Bring no more vain offerings;
incense is an abomination to me...
[instead]cease to do evil,
learn to do good;
seek justice,
correct oppression;
bring justice to the fatherless,
plead the widow’s cause.
“Come now, let us reason together," says the Lord...
Isaiah 1
For a few examples.
The blood sacrifices were always literally a figurative exercise and ritual, NOT the salvific method, themselves. Allying with the least of these, being welcoming, open, gracious, forgiving... this GRACE way is the way of salvation.
As if blood means anything. It's a figurative ritual.
Don't mistake the figurative for the literal.
You clearly have no idea of how or why God will punish anyone He believes are worthy. It's not because they're "imperfect", because there are no perfect people. Try again.
Enlighten me. You believe that MOST of humanity will be in torment forever, is that right? Literally in "hell" forever, right?
What temporal "sins" have they committed that are worth a literal torture for all of eternity?
Make your case, because that sounds evil as, well, hell.
Marshal...
Because being crude about a Scriptural teaching is all you have left to defend your preferred alternative that God just forgives. Period. Please provide chapter and verse for this notion.
Bible:
“As far as the east is from the west, so far has God removed our sins from us. As a parent has compassion on their children, so the LORD has compassion on the faithful followers.
for God knows how we are formed,
God remembers that we are dust.” Psalms 103
"Praise the Lord, my soul,
and forget not all God's benefits—
who forgives all your sins
and heals all your diseases,
who redeems your life from the pit
and crowns you with love and compassion,
who satisfies your desires with good things
so that your youth is renewed like the eagle’s.
The Lord works righteousness
and justice for all the oppressed.
Psalm 103
I said:
"4. Noting the reality that the Bible teaches a perfectly just, perfectly loving God IS a biblical argument for those like you who say you personally want a biblical reason. You may not like it, but it remains a biblical argument."
You responded:
It might be a start of an argument, but it's no argument by itself. It's a premise and you need to prove that this premise results in God forgiving without having sent His Only Begotten Son to die in our place in order that we might be redeemed. No proponent of the Biblical teaching of PSA regards God as perfectly just and loving. None of them do. To be more precise, there's no lack of congruence in acknowledging the truth of both PSA and God's perfect love and justice.
1. "NO proponents of PSA regard God as perfect just and loving..."
?? Is that what you mean to say? I mean, if so, I'd say that's part of the problem, isn't it? You all don't imagine or promote a perfectly loving and just god. Or did you do some typo there? That seems like a pretty harsh indictment of you all, but, well, maybe you know best?
2. "It's a premise and you need to prove that this premise results in God forgiving without having sent His Only Begotten Son to die in our place in order that we might be redeemed."
Why do I have to prove that God simply forgives - or at the very least, doesn't mete out punishment in some maniacal/evil manner that cares NOT for justice and punishes Hitler and the 20 year old woman who died young and having never "converted" to your notion of Christianity with the same punishment?
I simply forgive people all the time. Do you think I'm more powerful than your little godling?
To be clear: I'm not saying there are no consequences to our bad behavior. The kindergarten child who slaps another young child should have consequences. A time out. An apology. A sincere apology.
But eternal torture??? GOOD GOD, can you not see how evil that over-punishment would be? (and here, I'm not talking about merely the youngsters, but even a typical 20 year old with the equivalent to slapping another child sort of sins.)
This is one of the great problems with the typical PSA advocate: They imagine in their human theories a greatly unjust god, one that is in stark contrast to the biblical pictures of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God almighty.
Again, I'm not saying there are not bad consequences to bad behavior. I'm saying that we who believe in a perfect, perfectly loving, perfectly just God can count on that God doing any punishment that is in fair measure to the misdeeds at hand. Our God is rational and consistent and just that way, not whimsical evil and unjust, as you paint your godling to be.
And that, too, is an argument from the Bible and from moral reasoning - which all humans have within us, we who are created in the image of God, a little lower than God, created to do good works and with the moral common sense to be able to do so.
Again, that you don't accept my reasoning and explanations (rational and moral and just, though they might be) doesn't mean I haven't offered them, patiently and repeatedly.
"It's a premise and you need to prove that this premise results in God forgiving without having sent His Only Begotten Son to die in our place in order that we might be redeemed."
I'd say the reality that we humans - imperfect though we are, created in the image of God, as we believe - CAN and DO regularly forgive wrongs done to us - even great wrongs AND that we do so without any "blood sacrifice" of another to "pay for" that forgiveness is evidence (if not objective proof) that simple forgiveness is possible. I'd say it's evidence of a perfect all-loving God. HOW does the mother of a murdered child find a way to forgive the killer? That's a lot. But I've seen it. I've been in the homes of Nicaraguan families whose loved ones were killed by Contra soldiers - and they were sitting next to, holding hands with one of those Contra soldiers. That mother had forgiven that soldier. Glory, what forgiveness!
HOW had she forgiven that killer? HOW had she welcomed him to her table? Well, this man was from a neighboring village. She knew the struggles that all Nicaraguans were having at that time. She also was aware of the anti-sandinista propoganda being pushed on to these subsistence farmers and she knew how flawed, imperfect humans can be misled and misguided. She knew him well enough - took time to know him and his reasoning - to find it within her to forgive him.
Why does that sound like a familiar description of great love?
If I speak in the tongues of humans or of angels, but do not have love,
I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal...
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails...
For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror;
then we shall see face to face.
Now I know in part; then I shall know fully,
even as I am fully known.
The almighty God of the universe, as some of us believe, knows us personally. Loves us personally. In spite of our "missing the mark" and shortcomings. IN spite of our deliberate misdeeds. God loves us and loves us perfectly.
Why? Because God KNOWS us perfectly.
Like that Nicaraguan mother who knew the killer of her family well enough (if not perfectly) to understand his motivations and his mistakes and what led to that.
And so, ONCE that Contra soldier had cut off his hand and offered her a blood sacrifice from his bloody stump, THEN Dona Maria could forgive him.
Wait. That's not right.
No, once that soldier brought his child to Dona Maria and KILLED that child to "pay" for his own crimes, THEN Dona Maria could forgive him.
Wait! WHAT? No! That's not right. HOW would killing his own son in any way "pay" for HIS wrongdoing??!
No! NO "blood sacrifice" was required. Little Dona Maria forgave that soldier. She simply forgave him. And God and God's love won out. Love - true love - never fails.
(And I'll tell you a bit more of that story - Dona Maria had not only forgiven the poor neighboring farmer/contra soldier... she had forgiven we US citizens who sat in her house that day, as well. We, who helped pay for the weapons used by that Contra soldier and who helped pay for the propaganda that had misled that soldier. Dona Maria, imperfect human that she is, knew of forgiveness, even over great wrongs. I'm not sure that she ever forgave the Reagan administration - who had never repented - but she forgave a lot.)
Love never fails, indeed.
"Marshal, you're begging the question, repeatedly, you're making unsupported presumptions,..."
I've never once made any unsupported "presumption". That I don't bring the volumes of evidence which supports my far more accurate than yours understanding of Scripture doesn't mean my positions (or "presumptions") are "unsupported". That's something you just say when you haven't support of your own to counter my positions.
"...you're appealing to numbers..."
I don't know from where this comes, as I re-read all my comments between when you responded to them to the first of my comments in response to yours which preceded mine. The only place I can think of where any comments of mine might erroneously be labeled as "appealing to numbers" is my link to all the early church fathers who affirmed the concept of PSA. But providing that link was in response to your insisting the concept never appeared until the 1300s AD. So your criticism here does not even reflect what you criticized. If that criticism refers to something else, you'll have to copy/paste and include the date and time of my comment, and I'll be happy to review it.
"...you're just making ridiculously false claims repeatedly and a good number of other rational fallacies."
Not at all. That's just how you choose to regard them rather than counter them with actual evidence from Scripture.
"I've presented what I believe to be a rational defense of a salvation by Grace (actual grace, not the perverted blood-appeasing-angry-god non-grace of PSA) repeatedly and in countless ways over the years. Here are a sampling of posts I've made that deal one way or another with the notion of grace and salvation by grace and the good news of the realm of God:"
Yes, and I've enjoyed the trip down memory lane, especially the non-arguments from the Bobbsey Twins, Alan and Geoffrey, as well as the non-contributor Marty. It was great fun. Nothing in the several posts I spent a good part of the day reviewing, along with most of the many comments following, gave nothing in the way of any definitive Scriptural basis for you rejection of PSA or a sound understanding of grace. The whole of that link is just another example of you spouting what you feel is profound and a definitive explanation of what you prefer is true without actually succeeding in supporting it, and then insisting anyone must accept it as having accomplished the task. Too bad it doesn't work that way.
"Now, to point out the obvious:"
You do this a lot, too...pretending the problem is a misunderstanding of a word's definition. Not the case at all. That accounts for point #1. As to point #2, we're not speaking of "grace" but of PSA. Christ did indeed speak of why He came, and that is what the Good News is. And why He came was affirmed immediately by His cousin.
3. The implication here again is that one could live one's life in any way possible, rejecting every commandment of God, every teaching of Christ and live in an abjectly counter-Christian manner and it won't matter because "grace". But that wouldn't be Biblical despite your insistence I have it wrong.
More later. From point #4, far more is required than the the first three points demanded. Sit tight. I'm sure you'll be totally persuaded to come to Christ by what I'll post next.
What I said:
3. And of course, there wouldn't be a set of rules or hoops to jump through if we're saved by grace, NOT by works. Why? Because it is by grace, kindness, goodness, a gift of God that we are saved. It is a grace. There are no rules for being saved by grace, any more than there are rules for any other gift. You either accept it or you don't.
How Marshal responded:
3. The implication here again is that one could live one's life in any way possible, rejecting every commandment of God, every teaching of Christ and live in an abjectly counter-Christian manner and it won't matter because "grace". But that wouldn't be Biblical despite your insistence I have it wrong.
I said nothing and implied nothing about how one lives one's life. I'm talking about salvation by grace and forgiveness as a choice without a blood bill that someone must pay or the "forgiver" will choose NOT to forgive and not only that, will punish you to an eternity of torture, no matter how much or little you made mistakes and "sinned."
Further, if one is living BY grace, has accepted grace as the Way to be saved, then one isn't out there misbehaving for the heck of it. For instance, no matter how much you disagree with my OPINIONS about certain behaviors and ideas (as I disagree with your opinions), you can't really say that people like me are not living a Christian life, following the teachings of Jesus. My progressive Christian colleagues - while they may disagree with your personal opinions and traditions on various traditional tenets - are faithful spouses, loving parents, Sunday School teachers, deacons ministering to the needs of the folks in the church, worship leaders, children's workers, kind, compassionate, decent, grace-full people. In their work lives, they are often teachers, social workers, mental health workers, environmentalists who are pouring out their lives sacrificially in service to the least of these, in service to the people and creation that God loves. They're just objectively good people.
What would make you say they aren't? That, in spite of clearly giving, loving lives poured out in service, they must also agree with you about LGBTQ matters? About immigrants? About PSA? All of that would be examples of begging the question. PRESUMING that your opinions and traditions are right on these matters when that is the question at hand.
You simply would have no rational reason to say that they're/we're living a "counter-Christian" (much less an "abjectly counter-Christian") life simply because we disagree with your personal opinions and traditions. It's a counter-rational claim, unsupported by data.
I had said:
"...you're appealing to numbers..."
Marshal responded:
I don't know from where this comes,
You're appealing to church history, the "numbers" of those in church history in traditions that appeal/align with your own to say, "THIS is how we know I'm right... because church people in the past have believed this.
The problem you (and I, as far as that goes) have is that there is no ONE authorized voice or spokesperson for The Church. There wasn't one in the first century and there's not one now.
There's God, but God isn't answering questions for an interview to get clarification:
"Did you REALLY believe that slavery and killing children was moral back then? Was that a universal rule or just applicable back then? How about polygamy?
Were those condemnations of some apparent form of homosexual practice in a few places in the Bible a condemnation of ALL "gay behavior" or some specific ones, like pedophilia? Was it specific for those people or for all time? Are you seriously opposed to gay and lesbian folk getting married like so many traditionalists say about you?
Were you thinking of something like PSA as an explanation for "how to be saved?" Did you/do you want us to try to take the Bible and the rules found therein fairly literally? How do we know which ones are universal rules and which ones are temporal? Is even asking questions like this a big pain in your holy butt? Is the answer, GRACE...?"
We have NO authoritative, objective source to which we can appeal to "prove" our opinions about what God does and doesn't like. TO pretend like because many in the traditional church have had a fairly longstanding set of rules, behaviors and opinions, that THEY are the authority to appeal to is just not objectively sound.
That appeal to numbers, or appeal to some experts (the ones who agree with you who may or may not actually be "expert"), is one set of rational fallacies you're relying upon.
https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/
Since my comment on March 2, 2024 at 11:04 PM, you've posted eight comments. My intention was to continue the comments begun in the two ending on March 4, 2024 at 10:36 PM, as clearly indicated by my final sentences in that comment on March 4, 2024 at 10:36 PM, to wit: "More later. From point #4, far more is required than the the first three points demanded. Sit tight."
So, I had barely scratched the surface of all that you posted between my comments of March 4, 2024 at 10:36 PM and March 4, 2024 at 10:28 PM, and now, with these three comments you added since my last of March 4, 2024 at 10:36 PM, I'm concerned additional comments by you...should I pick up where I left off, will only generate more comments adding difficulty to responding in full to those eight comments, particularly if you demand a response to anything which came after March 4, 2024 at 10:36 PM. But I will take the chance and indeed pick up where I left off. So...I continue with point #4 from your comment on March 3, 2024 at 3:33 PM.
"4. And even if there are verses in the bible that some humans select out and craft a human theory of "salvation by Grace and by which it's paid for by a blood sacrifice and most people will never get this gift..." I don't care."
Clearly. More's the pity. But it's not a matter of merely "some humans" cherry picking and inventing, as if that's even the case ("some"? how many is "some"? three? 400,000?), but that they're looking at every chapter and verse from start to finish. Not only do the commandments of God to the Hebrews institute for them a penal substitutionary atonement...the sacrificing of animals is in response to "the wages of sin is death"...but various prophecies and other foreshadowing passages are not hidden. So it isn't those who came later, but those who actually recorded all which Scripture presents who speak of this concept. But you don't care. It's just not "kumbaya" enough for you. So the fact is there are plenty of verses from the OT on through Paul which clearly speak of the concept.
"The Bible is not a rule book. Nowhere does it say it's a rule book, nowhere does it say that it's a source (much less THE SOLE SOURCE) for finding a ruling about who is and isn't saved."
Just as the Holy Bible doesn't refer to itself as "the Holy Bible", and just as there is no description of the concept of PSA as "PSA", Scripture needn't refer to itself as "a rule book" in order to acknowledge it's chock full of rules and commandments and teachings about salvation and how one comes by it. I know of no other source which is not based on Scripture in order to be regarded as a source, or is totally dismissive of and rejects Scripture to posture as being a source. The latter is no doubt a modern progressive and thus unworthy of regard.
But despite this absurd but common objection of yours, you nonetheless believe your position is Scripturally based despite never providing Scripture to make the case debunking PSA.
"5. I've been abundantly clear over the years that I take this simple biblical teaching (and set of teachings) at face value:
God is not willing that any should perish. God came to save the world. We are saved by Grace, not by works. It's a gift of God for all who would receive it."
So what you're saying...and certainly doing here...is citing a few verses you've selected out to put forth as a counter to PSA. So let's look at it, ignoring that you chose not to provide the Chapter and Verse which can be reviewed in the context from which you've ripped it for this purpose:
"God is not willing that any should perish."
Are you supposing this means that none will? This statement, even as you present it here, does NOT mean that God will indeed save everyone, or grant eternal life with Him...period. Assuming this is a paraphrase of 2 Peter 3:9, it is indeed taken out of context. What follows references what's coming and why God is slow in keeping His promise. That is to say, it is suggesting that He is giving everyone every chance to repent. "Not willing" that any should perish means "not wanting", as in, "Look, I don't want any of you to perish, but if you don't get your act together..."
What's more, in verse 7, Peter clearly speaks of the destruction of ungodly men, and says this in the tone of, "there will be ungodly men who will perish". Thus, your universalist version of "grace" ignores the reality of Scriptural teaching.
"God came to save the world."
If this is from John 12:44, it also fails to consider the admonition left the people concerning those who reject Him and does not accept His words. Moreover, He references His penal substitution and how it was His purpose in verse 27.
"We are saved by Grace, not by works."
Even here, Paul ties this to Christ and our having accepted Him as Lord and Savior and having repented of our old sinfulness. To the Ephesians, he's speaking to those who have converted and it's them who are shown the "incomparable riches of his grace" (NIV Eph 2:7)
"It's a gift of God for all who would receive it."
...which contradicts your suggestion His Grace is just given willy-nilly to everybody just because.
And yet none of this stands as a rebuttal to the Scriptural concept of PSA as it isn't even directly related to it. It's a weak understanding of Grace, but not a rebuttal of any kind to the teachings about PSA.
"IF we are humans who affirm and believe in Justice and IF we believe in Grace, then it's not rational ...snip...that there are some who will not be chosen or that there will be some who see no need to "accept" a "blood payment" for their "sin transgressions" and otherwise, they will "perish" or not be saved. Where is the justice in that? Where is the grace in that?"
How is it NOT "just"? Because you know people who won't abide Christ's teachings but are in your opinion "good" people who do nice things? The fact that Christ came to die so that we don't have to is Christianity 101. To think one is entitled to God's Grace because they're satisfied they're deserving without abiding His Will is one who will be treated justly. Just not in the manner you pretend he must be because of your distorted understanding of God's Grace.
To insist that we are "save by Grace" is true only of Christians (and perhaps Jews...another subject...don't go off on a tangent over it) who accept Christ and abide God's Will. Refer back to your mother analogy. Do you think your mother would tolerate from kids not her own what she would of you? Are all the neighborhood kids granted by her the same love and concern she granted to you? How is that just? Where's the grace in that?
"It's a gift IF you understand it correctly ... but if you fail to understand it correctly, THEN you will be punished for an eternity? Where is the justice, love and grace in that?"
OK. My bad. I let you go off on a tangent about who will be saved or granted God's grace. That's not a discussion about or a rebuttal of PSA, which is the topic of this post. I might not have to respond to all eight comments after all, if they're all so far astray as this is getting here.
"Given all that, I (and not me alone) am saying that PSA is a theory that is the opposite of grace, contrary to the biblical AND rational notions of justice and grace, and that is why it fails. On a basic definitional level it fails. Whereas, "grace is grace is grace" is simply a tautology."
Yeah, and tautology is no argument for or against anything, be it for Grace or against PSA. Your problem is you regard the two as in conflict, but they are not. PSA is to Grace as sacrificing bad habits is to a good life. Good health is for everyone, but sacrifices must be made in order to develop, maintain or recover good health. Grace is granted to all who accept Christ because only through Christ's atoning work on the cross are we able to be worthy of God's saving Grace.
""We are saved by Grace."
"But what does that mean?"
"Friend, it means we are saved by grace, by kindness, by God's loving graciousness.
By Grace are we saved!"
"But what do you MEAN by that??"
"I mean simply what I said. We are saved by God's grace, by GRACE. Period. It is the gift of God."
THAT is my explanation of what I've always meant by "saved by grace" and why the human theory of PSA is a flawed theory. By definition."
That's not an explanation at all. There's nothing to understand there because all you're doing is restating your premise. But aside from that, it does nothing at all, in any way whatsoever, not be a long shot diminish in the slightest PSA as a "flawed theory".
So maybe you might do well to explain who you're referencing when you assert "WE" are saved by Grace alone. Who is "WE"? Be specific. For a change.
"Now, you may not UNDERSTAND my simple, self-evident explanation, but you can't say that I haven't explained it."
Yes I can, because you haven't. Saying so doesn't make it so and it ain't been made so anywhere in your comments.
"Nor can you say that I have not made my case for the problems of your pet human theory on the subject."
As non-existent as your explanation for grace, so much more lacking is any coherent argument against PSA. But then, that's not a "pet human theory". That's a solid, obvious and crystal clear teaching of Scripture.
"Nor can you say it's not a human theory."
Except for that nagging truth of it being a solid, obvious and crystal clear teaching of Scripture.
"And look, I've always been clear: MY opinion about what God thinks of Grace IS A HUMAN THEORY, TOO. I've never said otherwise. We can't objectively prove our opinion short of asking God to God's face, and God's face is not here to ask God."
We're not talking about opinions, here. We're talking about what Scripture teaches. While it does say we're saved by Grace, it doesn't mean what you twist it to mean. In the meantime, Scripture solidly, clearly and obviously teaches PSA.
"And IF you say, "but the explicit, authoritative answer is in the Bible!!" well, that, too, is a human opinion."
That's only true for you because it allows you to reject what you don't like and accept and force upon others what you prefer, regardless of your ability to support it with Scripture or even expend the slightest effort to do so.
"You can't prove that the authoritative answer is in the bible, and especially that YOUR specific human interpretation IS that authoritative answer. You just can't do that, not objectively provably."
It depends on the subject, the issue, the teaching, the recording of events as having happened. You insist on regarding everything as opinion so as to provide you the liberty to believe what you want about Scripture, which gives you license to insist you're really a devout Christian regardless of the truth of what you espouse.
"Good luck. I hope you live to understand "objective" and "prove" some day."
I've shown without any way for you to honestly, intelligently and maturely contradict me that I fully understand both far better than you. Frankly, I think it is more accurate to say that you know what those words means, too, but AREN'T honest enough to accept when what you don't like is proven to be true with objective proof so easily provided for you.
"I said:
Noting the reality that the Bible teaches a perfectly just, perfectly loving God IS a biblical argument for those like you who say you personally want a biblical reason. You may not like it, but it remains a biblical argument. And, it's rational, moral, decent as all that is good and decent.
You replied:
Because you say so, not because you've done a damned thing to prove it's true or even most likely true...or even possibly true for that matter.
Do you disagree that God is a perfectly loving, perfectly just God? That this notion is biblical? That it is rational?"
OH. MY. GOSH! Can you not see the blatantly obvious problem here? MY response is in reference to that you provided an actual argument to rebut my position. It included this very significant point you left out: "It might be a start of an argument, but it's no argument by itself. It's a premise and you need to prove that this premise results in God forgiving without having sent His Only Begotten Son to die in our place in order that we might be redeemed." Clearly my objection had nothing to do with God's character. But you clearly needed to avoid the real issue to present me as rejecting the truth about it. Very grace embracing of you!
This takes me to the end of your comments on March 3, 2024 at 3:46 PM. I'll pick up from there next time.
"I GET that you and people like you read that INTO OT texts (eisegesis), but it's not literally there. It's literally not."
Nonsense. There's no "eisegesis" necessary. All one need do is to actually read. The sacrifice of animals was substituting the animal for the person who sacrificed it to atone for sins committed by the person doing the sacrificing. This is blatantly presented. There's no mystery to divine and no need to read anything into what the text itself clearly says.
"Beyond that, the OT and NT has passages making clear that God did not desire their blood sacrifices. The legalists back in the OT and NT days fell back on the legalism of a ritual blood sacrifice to appease an angry god... and they MISSED THE POINT."
No. YOU'RE missing the point, and without the actual passage or verse you think proves the fictitious point you support, the reality is that God desired not sacrifices, but that the people had not sinned to require them. It wasn't the sacrifice God wanted, but obedience to His commandments. By your logic, they'd have been regarding sacrifices as you do grace. Anything goes because they can just wack a goat and they're good, just as for you anything goes because "grace". But then, you totally validate my position by providing Scriptural evidence which supports ME instead of you:
For I desire steadfast love (obedience to His Will) and not sacrifice (for failing to be obedient to His Will),
the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. ~Hosea 6
In sacrifice and offering you [God] have not delighted,
but you have given me an open ear.
Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required. ~Psalm 40
The whole of Psalm 40, particularly what follows this snippet, also indicates it is obedience to God's Will as compelling God's delight. You take this verse out of context to prove your point without considering that context.
What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?
says the Lord;
I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams
and the fat of well-fed beasts...
Bring no more vain offerings;
incense is an abomination to me...
[instead]cease to do evil,
learn to do good;
seek justice,
correct oppression;
bring justice to the fatherless,
plead the widow’s cause.
“Come now, let us reason together," says the Lord...
Isaiah 1
Isaiah backs me up in its entirety as the whole of it is a condemnation of those who rebel against God. God was rejecting sacrifices because they were to be made without any intention or effort to repent of the sinful ways which required them. So where it ever says "God doesn't require sacrifices" or rituals or such, it means that what He requires is obedience to His Will. Disobedience is sin and the wages of sin is death...the wage(penalty) Christ paid by substituting Himself for us as the perfect sacrifice for our atonement.
"1. "NO proponents of PSA regard God as perfect just and loving..."
?? Is that what you mean to say? I mean, if so, I'd say that's part of the problem, isn't it? You all don't imagine or promote a perfectly loving and just god. Or did you do some typo there?"
No. It isn't and yes, it's a typo. So happy to see that you questioned it with this possibility rather than jump on it as if it was intentional. There was supposed to be a comma after "NO". It's almost as if you embraced a little grace there. I appreciate it.
"Why do I have to prove that God simply forgives...?"
Because Scripture is crystal clear that God's forgiveness came about as a result of Christ's sacrificial death on the cross. What's more, and yet again, to say "God simply forgives" is at best incomplete if not wholly false. So your premise that "God simply forgives" and does so with absolutely no connection to Christ's death and resurrection is indeed one demanding evidence to support. More precisely, it's a truth claim and you demand others support claims with evidence.
"I simply forgive people all the time. Do you think I'm more powerful than your little godling?"
I don't have a "godling" and you're not God. I don't care how much crap you'll take from people, nor that you don't find that crap as offensive to you as sin is to God. And powerful? You're about as weak a "Christian" as I've ever seen!
"To be clear: I'm not saying there are no consequences to our bad behavior. The kindergarten child who slaps another young child should have consequences. A time out. An apology. A sincere apology.
But eternal torture??? GOOD GOD, can you not see how evil that over-punishment would be?"
Once again, you require that God not be offended by sin as you are by whatever you choose to regard as "bad behavior".
"This is one of the great problems with the typical PSA advocate: They imagine in their human theories a greatly unjust god, one that is in stark contrast to the biblical pictures of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God almighty."
Once again, you demonstrate no understanding of PSA to suppose that those who understand that clear and unmistakable teaching of Scripture indicates and unjust God. Rather, it is a demonstration of God's love and mercy to have sent His Only Begotten Son to stand in our place and suffer and die for our sins. Christ's death and resurrection is the Good News because by that purpose of His existence being fulfilled, He does save those who will believe in Him. That's God's Grace. That's what we don't deserve. And as "grace" is a financial term, the debt is paid. That's grace, not the-do-whatever-it's-OK-because-grace fiction you push.
"I'm saying that we who believe in a perfect, perfectly loving, perfectly just God can count on that God doing any punishment that is in fair measure to the misdeeds at hand."
But you don't understand the vastness of what separates us from God, both in terms of proximity (which will be resolved if one has been saved), and in terms of being to Him less than an atom is to us. You demand He work on YOUR terms and standards without regard for how offended He is, or whether or not He's somehow obliged to tolerate anything we mortals do or are. And through it all, you still can't come up with any logical reason why Christ would willingly submit Himself to horrible torture and death when He had already demonstrated that He couldn't be taken by humans if He chose not to be taken. Why did He do that? Why did He do that after anguishing over what He knew was coming, and praying to the Father that it's His Will that He should go through it? This was Jesus affirming the concept of PSA and you continue to stray from any actual proof that it is not Biblical.
"Again, that you don't accept my reasoning and explanations (rational and moral and just, though they might be) doesn't mean I haven't offered them, patiently and repeatedly."
You think by attaching the words "reasoning" and "explanation" without providing actual reasoned explanation. You simply re-assert your premise, while I provide substance, chapter and verse, historical fact, etc., to support my premises and the truth of PSA. Then, without having done anything at all like that, you then dare to insist your position demonstrates "rationality", "morality" and "justice". Worse, you accuse mine of lacking any of that simply because I reject your unsupported premises. Perhaps you don't understand was "explanation" means.
Gotta go. Dinner awaits.
Marshal, before you do anything else, provide objective support for your opinions cited below or admit it's your unproven opinion. Respond to the two bold requests below, first. Before writing anything else.
Marshal:
you require that God not be offended by sin as you are by whatever you choose to regard as "bad behavior".
Once again, I note that YOU personally happen to believe that a typical human's typical sins are egregiously offensive to your featherweight notion of a god. I don't require ANYTHING of God almighty, but if YOU want to make the suggestion that you think in your head that god is SO offended by someone stealing pencils and lying about their friend and exceeding the speed limit that this god is nearly faint with outrage and is SO OUTRAGED at these petty failures that this lightweight god can ONLY be satisfied by eternal torture.
I GET that this is your opinion. What I don't see anywhere in all of heaven or earth is any objective proof that your god is so whimsical and lightweight when it comes to forgiveness.
Before you do anything else, provide objective support for this hunch or admit it's your unproven opinion.
Marshal...
Rather, it is a demonstration of God's love and mercy to have sent His Only Begotten Son to stand in our place and suffer and die for our sins. Christ's death and resurrection is the Good News because by that purpose of His existence being fulfilled, He does save those who will believe in Him. That's God's Grace.
I GET that this is your opinion. What I don't see anywhere in all of heaven or earth is any objective proof that your it's God almighty's opinion that this was the ONLY way God could/would be willing to forgive, this blood sacrifice you imagine is "necessary" for your god to "forgive."
Before you do anything else, provide objective support for this hunch or admit it's your unproven opinion.
Do you disagree that God is a perfectly loving, perfectly just God? That this notion is biblical? That it is rational?"
OH. MY. GOSH! Can you not see the blatantly obvious problem here? MY response is in reference to that you provided an actual argument to rebut my position. It included this very significant point you left out: "It might be a start of an argument, but it's no argument by itself.
Yes, but I'm trying to take it step by step. I presume you agree that God is a perfectly loving, perfectly just God.
IF SO, then the next step of the argument is: Well, then such a God would NOT be less than perfectly loving or perfectly just. Agreed?
IF SO, then the next step of the argument (and really, this is self-evident, all of it, but just to take it one step at a time) is that to punish a child for an eternity of torture for stealing a cookie and smacking their sibling would NOT be just or loving, would it?
The obvious answer is No, and not only NO, but it would be a great and heinous evil to respond so far overboard with that sort of punishment, but what do you think?
And let's skip ahead. Let's presume you don't think that God will punish children for an eternity for their failure to be perfect (correct? I mean, even though the Bible nowhere teaches that, YOU use your God-given reasoning to recognize that obvious reality, is that not correct?).
So, let's jump ahead to the adult who dies at 20, someone who's matured into a reasoning, accountable adult. Are you fine with making that age 20?
This young woman (Alice, let's say) who has committed 10,000 typical "sins" - no murders, no arson, no genocide, no rape, no sexual assault (unlike your pervert king you support), no assaults, no grand theft... nothing like any of that, at all. She's been angry at her parents, even cussed at her mother, "Damn, mom, let me be an adult!" and slapped her brother in a fit of rage (he'd made a disparaging comment about her breasts repeatedly), taken a cookie that wasn't hers... you know, the typical failures and misdeeds of a typical young person.
Now, GIVEN a perfectly just and loving God will look at Alice who died young (beaten to death by some white Trump supporter because she was born with a penis, let's say), basic moral reasoning would say that it would be a great evil to torture Alice for an eternity for these misdeeds. That is self-evident on the face of it. Indeed, if Alice's father was the one who wanted her imprisoned for the rest of her life, surely you would agree that just THAT much would be a great evil, would you not?
So, on what rational basis (keep in mind that the Bible never once says that such a person would be deserving of eternal torture for being imperfectly human that way) would you suggest she somehow DESERVES to be tortured for an eternity? The premise is crazy and evil on the face of it, can you recognize that?
WHERE is the rational explanation for reading that into biblical text? Especially when biblical text nowhere says that (not literally... I GET that you read such into the text) and certainly God has never said it.
The very insane and immoral suggestion being made is itself a rational (and Biblical, if you think the bible teaches a perfectly just and loving God) failure.
Because Scripture is crystal clear that God's forgiveness came about as a result of Christ's sacrificial death on the cross. What's more, and yet again, to say "God simply forgives" is at best incomplete if not wholly false. So your premise that "God simply forgives" and does so with absolutely no connection to Christ's death and resurrection is indeed one demanding evidence to support.
1. Noting that poor, imperfect humans can and regularly do simply forgive - even forgiving great wrongs - is evidence that it can be done. It's observable, demonstrable, objectively provable.
Do you recognize that much? Forgiveness CAN be done, even by mortals, right?
2. You're begging the question in assuming that forgiveness MUST be connected with "christ's death and resurrection..." Says who?
3. "Because Scripture is crystal clear..." Says who? Where did God tell you this? OR is it not the case that this is YOUR human presumption, something YOU and humans like you hold as true, but which you have not demonstrated to be objectively factual?
3a. IF you think your presumption is objectively factual, provide the objective data to support the claim?
3b. The reality is that, IF one is looking to the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, there are all manner of phrases and words related to forgiveness and salvation, as a simple observable fact. AND as a simple, observable fact, not all of them seem, on the face of it, to align with one another.
"What must I do to be saved?"
"Sell your stuff, give it to the poor and follow me."
and
"Tell me how I can be saved!"
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved”
and
"Welcome to my kingdom, for I was hungry and you fed me, I was lonely and you visited me, I was in jail and you came to me... BUT, DEPART from me, for I was hungry and you didn't feed me, I was lonely and sick and in jail and you did NOT visit me, to hell with you!"
and, well, on and on. Salvation is described in many different ways, factually/observably, in the Bible. And Paul (but not Jesus) does indeed mention Jesus paying with his blood.
But to say it's crystal clear when there are multiple nuanced claims about the topic is a human opinion, not an objective fact.
Right?
OR, provide the proven objective data.
So happy to see that you questioned it with this possibility rather than jump on it as if it was intentional.
As if I ever do that. I am always asking, "Are you really saying that slavery is not always evil...?" "Are you really suggesting that God won't simply forgive in the same manner that we mortals simply forgive...?"
I've been forever giving you all the benefit of the doubt, which is why I ask questions regularly of you all, "are you really saying...?"
The suggestion that I do otherwise is inconsistent with the known and observable data.
I had said...
Do you disagree that God is a perfectly loving, perfectly just God? That this notion is biblical? That it is rational?"
You responded...
MY response is in reference to that you provided an actual argument to rebut my position. It included this very significant point you left out: "It might be a start of an argument, but it's no argument by itself.
I didn't really finish my thought as well as I'd like, so let me repeat a bit:
Yes, it IS the beginning of an argument but I'm trying to take it step by step.
But also, while it is the beginning of the argument, it's a rational beginning with simple, easily morally-reasoned next steps.
The steps, then:
1. Presuming a perfectly good, loving and just God...
2. THEN such a God would NOT be less than perfectly loving or perfectly just.
3. Punishing someone for a misdeed is within the realm of moral reasoning and justice.
4. BUT, the punishment must fit the crime or set of misdeeds.
4a. We do NOT cut a child's hand off for stealing a cookie, that punishment would be so over-the-top to have moved into the category of evil and UN-just.
5. The point of punishment/consequences for misdeeds, for a perfectly loving, perfectly just being would be to deal with the harm done AND to restore to a loving relationship.
5a. That is, a person or god who only uses punishment as a means to really hurt those who hurt someone else is a lesser person or god than the one who is seeking to restore in love and justice.
6. Thus, a perfectly loving and just God would NOT respond to typical temporal misdeeds and failures by an over-the-top, eternal torture punishment. Where is the love in that? Where is the redemption in that, the restoration, the justice? Wildly disproportionate punishments are no longer just or loving. Again, consider the parent who punishes a "bad child" - even an adult bad child - with a lifetime in prison. That would be wildly disproportionate the misdeeds and failures.
7. Now, some PSA theorists suggest that we humans underestimate the severity of even normal misdeeds. That, to GOD (they theorize), even the petty stealing of a cookie is a failure to live up to this god's idea of perfection and justice, and thus, eternal torture is the only appropriate and "just" response.
7a. But where is the PROOF for it? They might say, "Well, there are verses in the Bible that, to me, suggest it... even demand it."
7b. The rational moral and just response is, "Prove it." That is, the person who says typical misdeeds common to imperfect humanity are deserving of eternal torture are, on the face of it, making a wildly unjust and immoral suggestion. It smacks of an obvious evil. The onus on these human theories of a totally depraved humanity is on these "evil human" and "all sins are grotesquely evil and deserving of eternal torture" theorists.
ALL of which is perfectly reasonable, whether or not you recognize it. You all are the ones making the rational incredible, reasonably and morally dubious claims. You have to do SOMETHING to objectively prove it if you don't want to be dismissed.
I really would suggest that your collective greatest failure is in not proving that all human imperfections and sins are, by themselves, deserving of eternal torture. It's a crazy claim. Prove it or admit you can't.
At the very least, can you see how a rational person who did not know anything of your particular human traditions on this point would be aghast at the suggestion that typical sins are deserving of even a lifetime in prison, much less an eternity of torture?
Marshal, I've saved all your comments that have been deleted. I made clear that I was asking you to answer some specific questions. Answer them or move on, defeated and having demonstrated you're not arguing in good faith, nor being respectful, nor are able to answer reasonable questions of your horrid human theories.
SHOULD you come back with answers to the questions I asked you, I may put them back. There are a lot of nonsensical, irrational or vague/weird claims you've made that I may want to deal with them. Here's one of those now-deleted (but saved) comments:
Dan:
"I really would suggest that your collective greatest failure is in not proving that all human imperfections and sins are, by themselves, deserving of eternal torture. It's a crazy claim."
Marshal:
Good thing I never made it. Either prove I have or admit I never did.
Answer:
So, humans ARE not and WILL not be condemned for an eternity of torture (as most conservative evangelicals theorize) for the sins of being imperfect humans? For the "sin" of having a "sinful nature" which is a way of saying that we are imperfect humans, right?
OR are you a universalist (you're not, but just trying to make sense of your vague, dodgy comments and non-answers)?
Explain in a paragraph or two what YOU mean by PSA and what you think happens to humans who don't repent in the way that you deem to be biblical and, in your head, what "god wants..." Explain if you think that most of humanity is going to be tortured for an eternity in hell.
Be clear and concise.
A reminder of the other requests for answers you've dodged. Comments that aren't answering the bold questions/requests for clarity here and above will be deleted. Argue in good faith and be respectful.
Marshal:
you require that God not be offended by sin as you are by whatever you choose to regard as "bad behavior".
Once again, I note that YOU personally happen to believe that a typical human's typical sins are egregiously offensive to your featherweight notion of a god. I don't require ANYTHING of God almighty, but
are YOU wanting to make the suggestion that
YOU think in YOUR head that
YOUR god is SO offended by someone engaging in typical misdeeds of humanity
that this god you imagine is nearly faint with outrage and is SO OUTRAGED at these petty failures that this lightweight god can ONLY be satisfied by eternal torture? IF so, make that clear.
IF NOT, then say, "NO, God almighty is NOT "so offended by humanity's 'fallen nature' or by typical sins that God feels like eternal punishment is not necessary" or otherwise be clear and direct.
Regardless: I GET that this is your opinion. What I don't see anywhere in all of heaven or earth is any objective proof that your god is so whimsical and lightweight when it comes to forgiveness.
Before you do anything else, provide objective support for this hunch or admit it's your unproven opinion.
Marshal...
Rather, it is a demonstration of God's love and mercy to have sent His Only Begotten Son to stand in our place and suffer and die for our sins. Christ's death and resurrection is the Good News because by that purpose of His existence being fulfilled, He does save those who will believe in Him. That's God's Grace.
I GET that this is your opinion. What I don't see anywhere in all of heaven or earth is any objective proof that your it's God almighty's opinion that this was the ONLY way God could/would be willing to forgive, this blood sacrifice you imagine is "necessary" for your god to "forgive."
Now, it SOUNDS like you're vaguely saying that you DON'T think God is only willing/able/going to forgive sin through a literal blood sacrifice that there is some other way..? If so, make that clear with a direct answer.
Before you do anything else, provide objective support for this hunch or admit it's your unproven opinion.
Marshal offered an unsupported set of opinions:
You want to focus on forgiveness,
PSA deals with the means by which we're forgiven.
That is certainly an opinion that you hold. What you haven't done is objectively prove it or admit that you can't objectively prove (which you can't).
THAT is the question that you're begging. WHO SAYS that the "blood payment" is the literal, objective way and the ONLY way that God is willing/able/going to forgive us? WHERE does God say that, objectively speaking?
God hasn't. It's your subjective human opinion. As a demonstrable fact.
PSA is evidence of a loving God, for what He did in order for us to be saved is about as loving as loving can get. He literally took all the sin which offends Him and suffered OUR fate in order than we can be forgiven.
Jesus literally took on ALL sin which, you theorize, offends him so much that without Jesus taking them on, he would decide to burn everyone forever, is that your unproven subjective human opinion?
And Jesus/God is going to forgive ALL sin of ALL humans who offend God because and only because of this "blood sacrifice" and without it, God wouldn't forgive all sin? Is that your hunch?
And God is going to forgive ALL sin of ALL humans? OR, is it your unproven opinion that God is only going to forgive some SMALLER subset of humans, and NOT all humans? And the ones that will be forgiven are only the ones who have successfully repented or "accepted Jesus" in just the right way that you think is right? And if they want to be saved, if they believe in God, if they confess their sins... BUT don't do it right, they won't be saved (in your unproven opinion)?
Answer. Be direct and clear. These are reasonable questions.
"Marshal, I've saved all your comments that have been deleted. I made clear that I was asking you to answer some specific questions."
You made clear your ultimatums before I got to them. I mentioned that I noticed the ultimatums but was completing responses to previous comments of yours. Once I got to the ultimatums, I responded directly and comprehensively. So post those comments you've saved like one who claims to be a grace embracing Christian.
"I don't require ANYTHING of God almighty,..."
Clearly you require that He operates to your satisfaction, not how Scripture clearly describes Him operating.
"...but if YOU want to make the suggestion that you think in your head that god is SO offended by someone stealing pencils and lying about their friend and exceeding the speed limit that this god is nearly faint with outrage and is SO OUTRAGED at these petty failures that this lightweight god can ONLY be satisfied by eternal torture."
Not even close to anything I've ever said, though you constantly put these words in my virtual mouth.
"I GET that this is your opinion."
No. This is the opinion you need me to hold...another straw man you erect rather than stay on point because that's too difficult for you to do honestly.
"What I don't see anywhere in all of heaven or earth is any objective proof that your god is so whimsical and lightweight when it comes to forgiveness."
My God, Who is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Moses and David, Who sent His Only Begotten Son to die so that we might be redeemed is neither whimsical or lightweight because He doesn't operate in the manner you demand He must, despite the clear record of His works in Scripture.
"Whimsical and lightweight" would be your invented god who forgives no matter what people do and without regard for his will.
"Before you do anything else, provide objective support for this hunch or admit it's your unproven opinion."
Since that's not my opinion, as I've repeatedly told you over and over and over again every time you to try assert without evidence of any kind that it is, there's nothing for me to support.
"I GET that this is your opinion."
It's not my "opinion". It's Christianity 101. Be assured...should I feel compelled to offer opinion, I'll say it's opinion up front.
"What I don't see anywhere in all of heaven or earth is any objective proof that your it's God almighty's opinion that this was the ONLY way God could/would be willing to forgive, this blood sacrifice you imagine is "necessary" for your god to "forgive.""
Nor will you find me ever having said that. I never said the truth of Scripture I continue to point out represents "the ONLY way God could/would be willing to forgive". I assert the FACT of how events transpired to bring about redemption.
"Before you do anything else, provide objective support for this hunch or admit it's your unproven opinion."
Since that's not my opinion, as I've repeatedly told you over and over and over again every time you to try assert without evidence of any kind that it is, there's nothing for me to support.
Ah...it seems I've gone back too far to respond again to that which has already been covered by me. Take it as another opportunity to accept I will not put up with you falsely attributing to me things I haven't said. Now, on with the newest stuff:
From your comment on March 7, 2024 at 5:01 PM:
"So, humans ARE not and WILL not be condemned for an eternity of torture (as most conservative evangelicals theorize) for the sins of being imperfect humans? For the "sin" of having a "sinful nature" which is a way of saying that we are imperfect humans, right?"
So right off the bat we see you're intent on that which is not relevant to any discussion of PSA and what it is or means. PSA is not about how those condemned will be punished and for what. It is about one being being punished to atone for the sin of another. Period. Thus, no...you're wrong in even bringing this distraction up yet again.
Worse, you began this comment (from which these quotes come) with a previous question, then my response which stated clearly I did not say what the previous question presented, then you ask the questions above, ignoring my rebuke of your attributing to me what I did not say.
"OR are you a universalist (you're not, but just trying to make sense of your vague, dodgy comments and non-answers)?"
NO. If either of us resembles a universalist, it would be you, who apparently believes God's Grace means no one is refused salvation or eternity in God's Holy Presence. Even Christ rebukes that notion. I answers are clear and direct, yet you continue to pervert them and then attribute those perversions to me. Anything remotely resembling "non-answers" are responses to demands for support for that which I never said but rather what you've attributed to me.
"Explain in a paragraph or two what YOU mean by PSA and what you think happens to humans who don't repent in the way that you deem to be biblical and, in your head, what "god wants..." Explain if you think that most of humanity is going to be tortured for an eternity in hell."
I explained what PSA is in essence above. To be more accurate, it's that the Being dying on behalf of another is Christ dying on behalf of us sinners. Period. That's the Good News. That He paid our debt with His Life, just as throughout the OT up until Calvary, atonement was through the deaths of animals.
What I might think happens to people after death has no relevance whatsoever to the topic of PSA. What I do know is that "wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." --Matt 7:12-14 (Italics mine) That's but one verse wherein Jesus indicates most won't be going...that is, won't be saved.
All questions from this comment answered directly, clearly and without equivocation, except those questions not related to anything I believe or unrelated to PSA.
Before I proceed, I meant to mention in the last your practice of referencing "what you think in your head" which is insulting and disrespectful as if there's something wrong with my thinking despite your lack of a legitimate and adult counter argument, particularly as regards things I've never even said at any time. Stop it and engage in the respectful, adult discourse you demand of me. If you weren't so lily-livered in the face of the slightest barb or insult, it wouldn't matter to me. But given your demand for respectfulness, it's hypocritical to not hold yourself to the same standard.
"A reminder of the other requests for answers you've dodged."
I dodged no questions related to the topic of PSA. Comments I refused to answer were those based on things I never said.
"Comments that aren't answering the bold questions/requests for clarity here and above will be deleted."
I can't account for your ability to comprehend or not. Thus, clarity on my part doesn't equate to understanding on yours. Try simply admitting you don't understand and I'll try to use smaller words. But you won't have to worry about comments which don't respond to bold questions. If they're not relevant to the topic, I'll just ignore them as I've already insisted I'll do from here on out.
"Argue in good faith and be respectful."
You first...as if I don't more often than not. However, I can't account for "what you think in your head".
"Once again, I note that YOU personally happen to believe that a typical human's typical sins are egregiously offensive to your featherweight notion of a god."
Once again you misrepresent my position. As you continue to do this regardless of how many times I've protested and re-stated my position (where it never bears any similarity to what you attribute to me), it's difficult to believe it isn't intentional. I challenge you to find any comment of mine, which you haven't deleted because I can't verify what I can't see in context, which in any way suggests what you keep attributing to me. I'll say this much about my actual position. It's that YOU personally believe...no, demand...God must NOT be offended by sin in a manner or to a degree you personally find unreasonable, lest He be regarded as a "petty and weak godling". Good luck with that.
continuing...
"are YOU wanting to make the suggestion that
YOU think in YOUR head that
YOUR god is SO offended by someone engaging in typical misdeeds of humanity
that this god you imagine is nearly faint with outrage and is SO OUTRAGED at these petty failures that this lightweight god can ONLY be satisfied by eternal torture? IF so, make that clear."
No. I'm looking to stay on topic, which is PSA. None of this has any relation to the topic of PSA. One thing is clear...these types of questions demonstrate you are indeed a universalist and that anything goes no matter how great or small the infraction and that you have the authority to determine both. God must bow to your will.
"IF NOT, then say, "NO, God almighty is NOT "so offended by humanity's 'fallen nature' or by typical sins that God feels like eternal punishment is not necessary" or otherwise be clear and direct."
There's only life or death. I don't know what death looks like or what the dead will suffer. I'm only concerned with heaven and because Christ died for my sins...actually and literally shed His actual blood and gave His actual life for me, I am redeemed. Maybe someday you will be, too.
"Regardless: I GET that this is your opinion. What I don't see anywhere in all of heaven or earth is any objective proof that your god is so whimsical and lightweight when it comes to forgiveness."
You don't "get" anything. You pervert my position. My God...the God of Abraham, Moses, David, Who sent His Only Begotten Son to die so that I might live...is not at all "whimsical" or "lightweight" when it comes to anything. But His means of providing forgiveness is quite cut and dried. One who studies Scripture understands.
But of course, we're speaking of PSA and you keep wanting to take the discussion off topic.
"Before you do anything else, provide objective support for this hunch or admit it's your unproven opinion."
I'll only support things I've actually said...not these many things you attribute me which I never said.
"Marshal...
Rather, it is a demonstration of God's love and mercy to have sent His Only Begotten Son to stand in our place and suffer and die for our sins. Christ's death and resurrection is the Good News because by that purpose of His existence being fulfilled, He does save those who will believe in Him. That's God's Grace."
"I GET that this is your opinion."
Not "opinion". Basic Christian teaching...the essence of the faith...the Good News Christ brought to everyone and not just poor people.
"What I don't see anywhere in all of heaven or earth is any objective proof that your it's God almighty's opinion that this was the ONLY way God could/would be willing to forgive, this blood sacrifice you imagine is "necessary" for your god to "forgive.""
It's necessary in the sense that it's the way God decreed it should be. Not because He couldn't do things differently, but simply how Scripture records Him carrying out His Will. It's all throughout Scripture. Try reading Hebrews 9 at the very least. Then try reading the whole Bible...the actual Bible, not whatever it is you've been reading instead all these years.
"Now, it SOUNDS like you're vaguely saying that you DON'T think God is only willing/able/going to forgive sin through a literal blood sacrifice that there is some other way..? If so, make that clear with a direct answer."
I'm not ever sure what the hell this means! There's nothing at all "vague" about ANYTHING I've been saying. Everything I've been saying lately is that I'm not saying what you're trying to put in my virtual mouth because you can't rebut the fact that Scripture teaches PSA. PSA is the term coined to refer to Christ's atoning death on the cross. There's nothing at all vague about that essential Christian fact. All through the OT, blood sacrifices were required for the forgiveness of sin. Christ was the final perfect blood sacrifice for sin. Read Hebrews 9. It's PSA in Scripture.
" Before you do anything else, provide objective support for this hunch or admit it's your unproven opinion."
Hebrews 9. It's PSA.
Before you do anything else, provide objective support for this hunch or admit it's your unproven opinion.
"Marshal offered an unsupported set of opinions:"
No I didn't. I offered facts. Everything I've said I've supported many, many times. You've deleted a great deal of that submitted support.
"You want to focus on forgiveness,
PSA deals with the means by which we're forgiven."
"That is certainly an opinion that you hold."
That's not just an abject fact, it's the distinction between what you want to talk about instead of PSA, while I constantly try to steer us back to the topic...which is PSA.
"What you haven't done is objectively prove it or admit that you can't objectively prove (which you can't)."
State this falsehood a hundred more times and it won't be less false.
"THAT is the question that you're begging. WHO SAYS that the "blood payment" is the literal, objective way and the ONLY way that God is willing/able/going to forgive us?"
First, stop saying "willing/able" with reference to what God actually is recorded having done. You're purposely mixing your speculation with what Scripture clearly says. Thus, Scripture records...specifically in Leviticus the requirement of blood sacrifice to cover sins. Some sins required capital punishment for the sinner. But the point here is penal substitutionary atonement, which was first a matter of using animals in place of people. Again, try reading Hebrews 9.
"WHERE does God say that, objectively speaking?"
Leviticus 4 & 5 are two places where God speaks of blood/animal sacrifice for the atonement of sin.
"God hasn't. It's your subjective human opinion. As a demonstrable fact."
I proved otherwise yet again.
"Jesus literally took on ALL sin which, you theorize, offends him so much that without Jesus taking them on, he would decide to burn everyone forever, is that your unproven subjective human opinion?"
There's no "theorizing" here, Dan. This is all Christianity 101. Basic essential truths, the Good News. And to be clear, it has nothing so much to do with how offended God is or isn't. PSA is the means by which we are saved. Period.
"And Jesus/God is going to forgive ALL sin of ALL humans who offend God because and only because of this "blood sacrifice" and without it, God wouldn't forgive all sin? Is that your hunch?"
Not a "hunch" (constantly insulting me after demanding respectful responses!). Biblical truth, fact and reality. With one caveat...God isn't forgiving all sin.
"And God is going to forgive ALL sin of ALL humans?"
No.
"OR, is it your unproven opinion that God is only going to forgive some SMALLER subset of humans, and NOT all humans?"
"wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." --Matt 7:12-14
"And the ones that will be forgiven are only the ones who have successfully repented or "accepted Jesus" in just the right way that you think is right?"
It's got nothing to do with what I think.
"And if they want to be saved, if they believe in God, if they confess their sins... BUT don't do it right, they won't be saved (in your unproven opinion)?"
You've now once again diverted from the topic of PSA. You have the attention span of a two year old.
I've finished with this. I might move on to the more recent post where you beclown yourself again. Maybe not.
About PSA, I noted that I get it that it's your human opinion, Marshal. You responded:
Not "opinion". Basic Christian teaching...the essence of the faith..
It is very literally, objectively your subjective opinion. Failing to understand that, you fail at the argument. And, it is additionally the opinion of many in the traditional church for roughly 1,000 years. But it is also THEIR subjective human opinion... the "essence of faith" as THEY hold to be true in their personal subjective human opinions.
That is the fact and, failing to even TRY to provide objective data to support it, we can see that it remains your collective subjective human opinions. Period. No more comments on that, Marshal, as there's no more to say UNLESS you have objective data.
Similarly with this response:
It's necessary in the sense that it's the way God decreed it should be. Not because He couldn't do things differently, but simply how Scripture records Him carrying out His Will.
That is, indeed, how YOU personally and subjectively - along with people like you - choose to interpret some passages in Scripture. But it remains your subjective personal opinions, naught else, and certainly not as an established fact. Your words make that much clear: YOU can not prove your opinions. Hell, if this were ANYWHERE proven objectively as a demonstrated, objective fact by some great genius, it would be out there on the internet somewhere. It's not. You would have posted it. People would know about it. That's a pretty big deal IF it were a proven fact.
It simply, observably, objectively is not.
I'm debating whether to leave your failed and belligerent attempts to prove what you didn't even TRY to prove up. I asked you simply to objectively prove it or admit you can't and you did neither. But your words SHOW that you did not objectively prove it, even if you're too arrogant or simply blind to how reason works to admit it. I suspect that this is a very emotional issue for you, to admit that you can't prove what you can't prove. Perhaps your emotions are getting the better of you. Or just your staunch allegiance to your partisan religious opinions. Regardless, you have now demonstrated that you can't prove your opinions objectively, so, we're done.
"It is very literally, objectively your subjective opinion. Failing to understand that, you fail at the argument."
Clearly, what you say is true makes it true without actually proving it's true in any way. Have you read Hebrews Chapter 9 yet...or ever? If not, do it now and then try to tell me PSA isn't Biblical teaching. Hebrews 9 IS PSA!
"And, it is additionally the opinion of many in the traditional church for roughly 1,000 years."
This I've proven false as well as still you push the falsehood.
"That is the fact and, failing to even TRY to provide objective data to support it, we can see that it remains your collective subjective human opinions."
This validates the position held by myself and others that no amount of objective data will make any difference in forcing you to accept the truth the facts we present affirm. You'll just write it all off as "subjective human opinion", which doesn't begin to properly describe what in your case is abject leftist invention.
"No more comments on that, Marshal, as there's no more to say UNLESS you have objective data."
Leviticus, the words of Christ Himself, the teachings of His Apostles in their Epistles and most notably Hebrews 9. All of this IS "objective data" which you reject as you reject so much of Scripture which you find inconvenient.
"That is, indeed, how YOU personally and subjectively - along with people like you - choose to interpret some passages in Scripture."
No. That's an accurate representation of what Scripture actually presents. It's not an "interpretation". Worse, you repeat this whine with no more countervailing evidence than you've ever presented, which is in effect NONE.
" Hell, if this were ANYWHERE proven objectively as a demonstrated, objective fact by some great genius, it would be out there on the internet somewhere. It's not."
Except for all those many, many sites which explain PSA as a Biblical teaching. Take those away and you'd be correct.
"You would have posted it."
Uh...I did. Many, many times. You deleted a lot of it because it blew up your false position.
"People would know about it."
Uh...many, many people do. You said so yourself while denigrating a thousand years (actually it goes back five times as long) of people preaching PSA.
"That's a pretty big deal IF it were a proven fact."
It IS a proven fact, but for some twisted reason you have a problem with it. It has no appeal to you universalists who think everybody is going to heaven no matter what they do.
"It simply, observably, objectively is not."
False. If it wasn't, you'd have done more than simply pout and stomp your widdow feet.
"I'm debating whether to leave your failed and belligerent attempts to prove what you didn't even TRY to prove up."
There's been far more belligerence from you in confronting the unassailable evidence I've presented. At this point, I've totally proven PSA is Biblical. THAT is what will explain why you deleted my comments, not because I've failed in any way.
" I asked you simply to objectively prove it or admit you can't and you did neither."
I absolutely proved PSA is Biblical and by doing so I'm not obliged to say I can't. Indeed, that would be a lie because I did indeed prove it. You've done nothing to take any of the evidence I've presented to prove the contrary. Once again, you default to unrelated and irrelevant to the subject verses, blatant invention and your typical fallback position of "Nyuh uh".
" But your words SHOW that you did not objectively prove it, even if you're too arrogant or simply blind to how reason works to admit it."
Another "Nyuh uh". My words absolutely prove it, even if you're too arrogant and prideful to accept that you have no reasonable counter argument.
" I suspect that this is a very emotional issue for you, to admit that you can't prove what you can't prove."
Not at all. Know how you can tell? I've not resorted to "you can't prove what you can't prove" in the face of evidence which proves the case. I've presented evidence and continue to await and adult, intelligent and reasoned explanation of why the evidence isn't the proof you've demanded. Simply saying "it isn't" isn't a counter argument.
"Perhaps your emotions are getting the better of you."
Nope. Not emotional at all. But I guess whatever you can scrape from the barrel is the best you can do in lieu of an actual counter argument to rebut all the proofs I've provided.
" Or just your staunch allegiance to your partisan religious opinions."
By this you're clearly referring to my staunch allegiance to clear and unambiguous Scriptural teaching on the subject of PSA.
"Regardless, you have now demonstrated that you can't prove your opinions objectively, so, we're done."
How true to your nature that you close with an intentional lie.
Dan:
"It is very literally, objectively your subjective opinion. Failing to understand that, you fail at the argument."
Marshal:
Clearly, what you say is true makes it true without actually proving it's true in any way. Have you read Hebrews Chapter 9 yet...or ever? If not, do it now and then try to tell me PSA isn't Biblical teaching. Hebrews 9 IS PSA!
But why stop at Hebrews 9? What about chapter 10:
If we deliberately keep on sinning
after we have received the knowledge of the truth,
no sacrifice for sins is left,
but only a fearful expectation of judgment and
of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
IF we deliberately keep sinning... have YOU sinned since being saved, Marshal? Yes, of course, you have. You've deliberately sinned. Multiple times. Thousands of times. Right?
THEN, according to Hebrews 10, there is NO sacrifice for sins left. You WILL go to hell. That's LITERALLY what that passage says.
If you pluck it out of the Biblical context.
IF you assume you read "after we have received the knowledge of the truth."
IF you assume it's a literal warning and not a figurative warning.
IF you consider the Bible a rulings book to determine who is and isn't saved.
That is biblical proof that YOU, Marshal, are going to hell. Literally from the Bible.
That's the problem with your claim, Marshal. It's not as if ANYONE thinks that every line in the Bible is a literal fact, that there is no figurative language, no hyperbole, no contextual meaning. We all recognize that the text is a mixture of a lot of genres and figurative and literal sayings.
That YOU personally happen to take a given passage a certain way is simply not objective proof that you are understanding it correctly.
I mean, Jesus said quite clearly that it's impossible for the rich to be saved. James said quite clearly that it is the rich who are oppressing you. Jesus said quite clearly that he'd come to preach good news to the poor. You take NONE of that literally or at face value.
It's hard to see how a grown man can simply not understand this basic reasoning.
Depending on who's counting, there are over 70 biblical passages that speak to Universalism, especially if you are one who tends to take biblical passages fairly literally.
1. “The Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world.” (1 John 4:14)
2. Jesus is “the Christ, the Savior of the world.” (John 4:42)
3. “This is good and acceptable in the sight of our God our savior; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” (1 Tim. 2:3-6, KJV)
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/keithgiles/2021/07/76-bible-verses-to-support-universal-reconciliation/
...etc.
How many biblical passages are there, do you guess Marshal, seem to suggest something like PSA?
This conservative lists EIGHT...
https://trinitybiblechapel.ca/penal-substitution-in-the-gospels/
This list includes more than 70, but many of them literally do not say anything like PSA, more that it hints at something that could be taken to sound PSA-y if you look and interpret just right.
https://www.openbible.info/topics/penal_substitution
For instance:
And he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.
Which COULD be taken to be suggesting PSA, but it's also suggesting clearly universalism (If he died for ALL, then why are not ALL saved? Did God fail?)
Or this one, which doesn't suggest PSA at all, just selfless love:
Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.
Or this one, which doesn't say anything about PSA:
He answered, “Whether he is a sinner I do not know. One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see.”
Likewise, many of the OT passages say nothing about PSA:
The Lord said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, “This month shall be for you the beginning of months. It shall be the first month of the year for you. Tell all the congregation of Israel that on the tenth day of this month every man shall take a lamb according to their fathers' houses, a lamb for a household. And if the household is too small for a lamb, then he and his nearest neighbor shall take according to the number of persons; according to what each can eat you shall make your count for the lamb. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats, ...
Regardless, the point remains: There are certainly some passages that people can look at and conclude something like PSA (NOT that objectively proves it, but could be taken that way), but that's only if one ignores the rest of the bible or just our God-given reasoning.
Marshal...
That's a stupid point, because for it to have any weight or hint of truth, it requires something substantive to demonstrate PSA isn't Biblical. It presumes that people can only "conclude" rather than accept what is clear and obvious...
I'm no longer interested in continuing if you're not going to do your part. Simply pretending I've not done mine is boring...
Your part - IF you are going to say that PSA is an established objective FACT that can't be disputed, it's literally PROVEN that this is what God thinks - is to support it with objective facts, NOT interpretations and opinions. You can't do that, you just can't and that's why you haven't. From there, then, your part is just to admit:
"I can't objectively prove this (PSA) is what God thinks. It's my subjective and unproven opinion that this is the most rational conclusion, but I can't prove it."
I think, on some level, you recognize this, in spite of your belligerent refusal to simply admit the reality that we can all see. So, present your evidence (you can't) or just admit you can't prove it objectively.
As to MY explanation of what's wrong with PSA - from both a biblical and rational point of view - I've done that repeatedly. But again, briefly:
The Bible has many passages that deal with the questions:
What must I do to be saved? Or
Who is saved? Or
what is the good news? Or
Is there a hell and who will go there and why?
Some passages use language like "Sell your belongings, give to the poor and come, follow me" as to how to be saved. No mention at all of PSA.
Some passages use language like, "God is not willing that ANY should perish." and "God came to save the whole world," with no mention at all of PSA.
Some passages use language like, "Believe on Jesus and be baptized, and you will be saved - and your whole family!" with no mention at all of PSA.
And some passages use phrases like, "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed." which could be taken rather literally as some notion of PSA.
The point being, the Bible says a lot of things and we have no reasonable basis to pluck out one and say, THIS one... THIS is THE WAY that God has chosen, as an objective proven fact.
We have no way of proving authoritatively and objectively even what the author of the words intended... we have no way of asking them and getting clarity. And we have no objective way to ask God what God thinks (or at least, that can be proven - we can certainly ask, in prayer, for instance, but proving that God has answered is subjective, not objective. Literally.
cont'd...
Do you understand that the Bible has many things to say that touch on these subjects/questions and that there is no authoritative way to prove objectively that one is THE answer from God?
It's like with the Elect theory. There are literally passages in the Bible that use phrases like "chosen by God" or "the elect" to suggest that there are SOME people who God is deliberately choosing to be saved AND that there are some people (the majority) who God is choosing to torture for an eternity, and that they are never even given the chance to be saved. You recognize that there are some conservatives who believe in this theory of a "sovereign god" who only "chooses" SOME and to hell with the rest, right?
And unless I'm mistaken, you don't agree with those conservatives who believe in this human theory, is that right? (and, of course, I don't.)
But surely you can recognize that there are passages in the Bible that these "sovereignists" point to that cause them to think it, right? But because they can point to some passages that they think supports that theory (ie, those passages are literally in the Bible, and thus, it's "biblical" in that sense) does not make it objectively proven, right?
My primary concern with the PSA is that it's just plain irrational and paints a picture of a petty, pathetic, whimsical, evil godling just running around willy nilly making up rules and hoops through which to jump IN ORDER to be forgiven. That this godling wouldn't simply "just forgive," as we mortals have the power to do.
It's further problematic because those humans who hold these theories hold them in part because of the further silly theory that all of humanity is "totally depraved," and the typical failures of imperfect humans are "worthy" of being punished by eternal torture... It's a ridiculous and immoral and unjust and unloving notion on the face of it. CONTRARY to the Biblical (and rational) ideas of a perfectly just, perfectly loving God.
It fails rationally.
So, where you allege that I haven't done "my part" in making a case against the human PSA theory, there it is. NOW, the onus is on you to demonstrate who it's not crazily irrational and unjust, as it appears on the face of it. The onus is on you to prove that typical failures of humanity are somehow worthy of eternal torture.
Do you not at least recognize how crazy that sounds on the face of it?
"She cursed 100 times, stole a pencil, a cookie, ten Milky Way bars, she lied 1,000 times, she punched her brother in the arm 15 times and she had sex outside of marriage twice. VILE WOMAN! She deserves to be tortured for an eternity for these crimes!!"
Do you see how crazy that sounds? How evil? How unjust and unloving?
Think about it.
Marshal:
That's a stupid point, because for it to have any weight or hint of truth, it requires something substantive to demonstrate PSA isn't Biblical.
Noting that
IF one affirms a perfectly loving and perfectly just God (as reason and the Bible teaches)
THEN that God would not whimsically punish imperfect humans with an eternity of torture for typical human failures...
IS a huge, weighty counter-argument, substantive as an Almighty Immortal God, perfectly loving and perfectly just.
Marshal, in a now deleted comment:
PSA has nothing to do with how one might be punished by God or in what way. It's about how we're able to be forgiven, to be redeemed. It is not in any way in conflict with the notion of a perfectly just and loving God.
1. WHY does God need a human sacrifice and fresh blood in order to forgive us?
2. WITHOUT this blood sacrifice, what happens to mere mortals? We go to heaven anyway or are sentenced to eternal torture?
3. Is it NOT the case that PSA is predicated upon the notion that every human is totally depraved and WILL be tortured for an eternity if some means of salvation not provided?
Let me see if I can guess your answers:
1. God doesn't need a blood sacrifice, BUT it is how God decided (whimsically?) that we CAN be saved from eternal torture. And since this god made this decision, it IS the only way that mere mortals can be spared from eternal torture that, these theorists guess, mere mortals actually deserve for our collective crimes of being imperfect humans/having a theorized "sin nature."
2. Without God killing God's own son to spill Jesus' blood, there would be NO forgiveness forthcoming and, because mere mortals actually deserve an eternity of torture, we all WOULD go to hell.
3. Yes.
Correct?
Given that, then, you're still faced with the biblical and logical problem: HOW in the name of all that is good, just and holy are mere mortals, imperfect though we are, sufficiently depraved/evil/awful/criminal enough to warrant an eternity of torture? HOW does that square with the notion of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God?
Answer (which you never get to): It doesn't.
"Noting that
IF one affirms a perfectly loving and perfectly just God (as reason and the Bible teaches)
THEN that God would not whimsically punish imperfect humans with an eternity of torture for typical human failures...
IS a huge, weighty counter-argument, substantive as an Almighty Immortal God, perfectly loving and perfectly just."
It's really arrogant to suggest that God's ways are "whimsical" simply because you can't handle the truth. You dare insist you've the authority to demand of God the details of His "Master Plan" and that you need to fully understand it in order to accept His chosen path to provide salvation. Wow.
Then, you assert that because you don't like His "plan" that it is somehow in conflict with YOUR notion of what a perfectly loving and just God is, rather than accepting the Truth of Scripture and adapting your pathetic life to conform with it. Actual Christians aren't obsessed with demanding God's Will be perfectly understood by them in order for them to accept and abide it. Modern progressives think themselves entitled to that which they have no standing to demand of Him.
On what basis can you dare presume to regard God's Will as "whimsical" or "capricious" simply because it makes no sense to your small mortal mind and offends your sensitive feelings. Who the hell are you? You haven't jack squat to present to show how PSA is in any way in conflict with God being perfectly just and loving. You merely demand that it must be.
Good luck with that. I'm sure God will be ashamed to have acted contrary to the will of Trabue.
"1. WHY does God need a human sacrifice and fresh blood in order to forgive us?"
I have no idea. I can speculate, but what difference would it make to the fact that He requires a Perfect sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins? Not having an answer (as if one exists that you wouldn't just whimsically, capriciously and without basis reject out of hand) doesn't mitigate the truth that God required a Perfect sacrifice to forgive your sorry ass.
"2. WITHOUT this blood sacrifice, what happens to mere mortals? We go to heaven anyway or are sentenced to eternal torture?"
I don't care. The question is irrelevant to the fact that PSA is Biblical teaching.
"3. Is it NOT the case that PSA is predicated upon the notion that every human is totally depraved and WILL be tortured for an eternity if some means of salvation not provided?"
No. It is no more than a label attached to the teaching of how we come to be forgiven. Why do you continue to deflect to these irrelevant questions?
"Let me see if I can guess your answers:"
The very suggestion that you can is hilarious. The reality is that you will attribute to me answers I would never give. Let's look:
"1. God doesn't need a blood sacrifice, BUT it is how God decided (whimsically?) that we CAN be saved from eternal torture. And since this god made this decision, it IS the only way that mere mortals can be spared from eternal torture that, these theorists guess, mere mortals actually deserve for our collective crimes of being imperfect humans/having a theorized "sin nature.""
What He needs is not addressed by PSA, but only what He chose to do. Period. End of freakin' story. There's no "theorizing" here, but merely pointing to clear and unambiguous teaching about the necessity of Christ's death on the cross and what it's purpose was.
"2. Without God killing God's own son to spill Jesus' blood, there would be NO forgiveness forthcoming and, because mere mortals actually deserve an eternity of torture, we all WOULD go to hell."
Most likely, but really, I have no idea what would become of us had Jesus not willingly allowed Himself to be sacrificed on our behalf. He didn't go to His death simply because some Sanhedrin didn't like Him. He didn't because some Romans acquiesced to the self-serving demands of some Sanhedrin Trabues. He died for the forgiveness of sin. Christianity 101.
"3. Yes."
No. It is no more than a label attached to the teaching of how we come to be forgiven.
"Correct?"
That's funny.
"Given that, then, you're still faced with the biblical and logical problem: HOW in the name of all that is good, just and holy are mere mortals, imperfect though we are, sufficiently depraved/evil/awful/criminal enough to warrant an eternity of torture? HOW does that square with the notion of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God?
Answer (which you never get to): It doesn't."
Actually, I've answered this question directly in other discussions. In fact, the truth has been provided for you countless times and you simply reject it without basis. You haven't shown how God's denial of salvation to some indicates He is not the perfectly loving and just God you in your childish mind need to believe He MUST be.
YOU are still faced with the problem that despite your many claims to have "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture, you haven't done either or else you wouldn't be rejected Biblical truth as often as you do.
I have no idea how old your are, but judging by your picture, you're quickly running out of time. You really need to put your marxist, "modern progressive" corruption aside and come to Jesus on HIS terms, not on yours and the marxist, "modern progressives" you seek to impress.
Study Hebrews. Try to find a way to deny it is not PSA, especially in Chapter 9. And I mean finding evidence to dispute that it describes what PSA is...not simply saying, "Nyuh uh" because the truth makes you wet yourself.
Universalism has been a constant presence in Christian theology. Among writers we know who proposed universalism - or the easter notion of apokatastasis/restoration of creation to its perfection - there are Bardaisan, Clement, Origen, Didymus, St. Anthony, St. Pamphilius Martyr, Methodius, St Macrina, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St Evagrius Ponticus, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, St. John of Jerusalem, Rufinus, St. Jerome [until his famous repudiation of Origen] and St. Augustine (at least initially), Cassian, St. Isaac of Nineveh, St. John of Dalyatha, Ps. Dionysius the Areopagite, probably St. Maximus the Confessor, up to John the Eriugena.
And then, of course, there is Marshal's book, to which he gives zero attention:
“But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. For since death came through a human, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human, FOR AS ALL DIE IN ADAM, SO ALL WILL BE MADE ALIVE IN CHRIST.
BUT EACH IN ITS OWN ORDER: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For “God HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET.” But when it says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him. WHEN ALL THINGS ARE SUBJECTED TO HIM, THEN THE SON HIMSELF WILL ALSO BE SUBJECTED to the one who put all things in subjection under him, SO THAT GOD MAY BE ALL IN ALL.”
Universalism has been a constant misrepresentation of Christian teaching. Even Origen had it wrong.
-MA
That's an unsupported claim, Marshal. ALL your stuff is unsupported.
To be clear and more factual: MARSHAL NOTES that SOME PEOPLE think IN THEIR PERSONAL HUMAN OPINIONS that "universalism has been a misrepresentation of Christian teaching... ACCORDING TO those humans who disagree with it."
Jesus certainly never disagreed with it. God has not. "The Bible," (as if it were a sentient god-thing) has not. Some HUMANS have formed this opinion. As a point of demonstrable fact.
Just to be clear.
Feodor certainly made a much better case than this simple assertion of your human opinion.
Dan:
"1. WHY does God need a human sacrifice and fresh blood in order to forgive us?"
Marshal correctly responded:
I have no idea. I can speculate...
Marshal, you ARE literally correct: YOU have no idea why God would need a human and blood sacrifice before your notion of God would deign to forgive. You simply don't know and have no reason to know. You're just begging the question and assuming you're correct EVEN WHILE you can't answer a basic question like this.
Just to be clear.
Marshal, continuing...
I have no idea. I can speculate, but what difference would it make to the fact that He requires a Perfect sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins?
IF you can't answer with some kind of rational answer, it makes a great deal of difference. You're asking people to go along with your human theory NOT because you have an answer to this basic question, but just because you presume your human theory is correct and above needing to give reasoned, rational, moral, just answers.
No. No, thank you. I don't care what views you hold with NO RATIONAL EXPLANATION. If you believed in viking unicorns who live on the moon and who plan an imminent take-over of the earth BUT you can offer NO rational explanation for why you believe something as crazy and unsupported as that, I wouldn't care about that, either. Crazy and unsupported/irrational opinions are just that. No one need worry about it.
I once had a friend who pointed to the 16 wheat-shaped drawer pulls on her dresser who told me confidently, "Isaiah 16! 16 wheat-shapes... it means Isaiah 16 and all that implies!" I just smiled and said OK, because there's nothing else to say to sincerely-held opinions about gibberish.
Marshal...
Not having an answer (as if one exists that you wouldn't just whimsically, capriciously and without basis reject out of hand) doesn't mitigate the truth that God required a Perfect sacrifice to forgive your sorry ass.
Well, it DOES beg the question and it's a question that according to YOU, you can't even begin to answer.
So, why should anyone care about your unsupported, irrational circular reasoning?
That, too, is a reasonable question. One that won't be answered.
Out of town. Using my phone is a pain. Will begin responding to your typical nonsense by Tuesday at the latest.
Marshal made many unsupported, vulgar, crude and irrational claims. Now deleted. Amongst them, he said:
Christ dying for our sins, to take our place as the perfect sacrifice so that we might be redeemed and relieved of experiencing God's Wrath is a crazy and unsupported/irrational opinion? This is the essence of Christianity.
Yes. YOUR personal take on the reason for Jesus' death is literally an unsupported opinion that, on the face of it, is crazy.
WHY????
WHY is an all-powerful, perfectly loving, perfectly just, perfectly gracious God limiting God's self to this ONE barbarous method of forgiveness? How many people must be killed and have their blood sacrificed before you can find it within yourself to forgive someone, Marshal? NONE? Of course, not. It's a barbaric, cultic notion that there MUST be a blood sacrifice before someone can be forgiven. It's simply NOT sufficient for you to say that it's "obvious" to YOU. The rest of the rational world is not obliged to bow down to Marshal's (et al) irrational barbaric godling forgiveness theories.
IF you want to make the case, you have to actually do so and not just try to berate people into accepting your wild godling conspiracy theories.
"This is the essence of Christianity..."? EVEN THOUGH, you can't find ONE sermon of Jesus' actual words that actually say ANYTHING like this?
YOU and your type of theories are exactly what pushed me away from conservative notions of "christianity..." because your ridiculous and barbaric theories were so thoroughly absent in the actual words of Jesus.
YOU insisting we must agree with you and not question you (much like the Pharisees who plotted to kill Jesus) is meaningless. Entirely devoid of weight and gravity. Your opinions are vile fart gas, no more.
If there was ANY substance to them, you'd provide something like data and evidence. Bullying claims are less than nothing.
Your opinions are, at best, a shit streak in your stained underwear.
Post a Comment