Bighunter43 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And I like you too much to continue this banal discussion. Neither of us will change our minds. Going to watch Georgia beat the sips,

---

Please let this happen…this we can absolutely agree on!

---

Need a hit here.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Derm,

I am curious how you respond to the criticism that if universalism is true, then why did Jesus need to suffer his Passion and death?

---

Because that was required to save us from the wages of sin which is death.

I know you are not a Calvinist but you might ask them the same thing since according the elect are predestined before creation,

---

What do you think is "death"? Temporal punishment?

---

Yes for some. Believers will not suffer temporal punishment.

---

So, Jesus saves us from temporal punishment.

The temporal punishment is the lake of fire but it's only eternal for the devil, beast, and false prophet. It's temporal for unbelievers. Is this accurate to your belief?

---

It is interesting to me that in 20:10 it clearly states the devil, beast, and false prophet will be punished forever. It does not say that in 20:15 about those not found in the Book of Life. I frankly do not know but believe the lake of fire will be a refining event for the unbelievers not found in the Book of Life. I personally hope that there will be few or none whose names are not written in the Book of Life. God desires to save all men. He is merciful, just, and slow to anger. I put my faith and trust in Him. I understand if you don't agree with me.
May I ask what your concept of hell is?

---

2 Thessalonians 1:8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might

Sproul said it pretty well: "Hell, then, is an eternity before the righteous, ever-burning wrath of God, a suffering torment from which there is no escape and no relief."

Since the word for eternal/everlasting used to describe the punishment (in multiple places) is also used to describe life, I have to believe they are of the same duration.

---

The Scripture you posted says everlasting destruction, not punishment.
RC Sproul (RIP) is by far my favorite Reformed theologian. I do not agree with his hell theology. I ask again, What is your hell theology?

And edited to add, don't know about you but if ECT hell exists, I do not want to watch people eternally suffer. Another reason I am not Reformed. Seems to be a recurrent theme.

---

It literally says the destruction is a punishment…

I answered by giving you scripture, a quote from Sproul that I agree with, and explaining why I think the punishment is eternal.

I think hell is just for those who end up there. I don't want that but if it comes to it, it's not wrong.

---

Got it. And destruction is punishment. How can destruction be eternal punishment? I mean if you are destroyed that is obviously all she wrote. But that is different than ongoing eternal torture. And Sproul is not Scripture.

---

It says eternal destruction. Forever being destroyed. Via God's wrath.

I know Sproul is not scripture. I don't understand this comment.

---

So it is not ECT hell? It is destruction, correct? And not ongoing conscious torment?

---

Being destroyed by God's wrath would be tormenting and I do believe they are conscious to it.

---

Agree. But they are destroyed? If they are destroyed how can they be punished further?

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

The disconnect is that you believe the main reason Jesus came was to save us from ECT hell. And there is no Scriptural proof of that.

---

I think Jesus came to save us from God's eternal wrath. He came to reconcile us to God so we can worship Him forever in Heaven.

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

He also saves us from being slaves to sin.

Galatians 5:1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

---

Agree. But "heaven" Scripturally is going to be the New Jerusalem on the new earth.

---

I agree.

---

The problem is that we have totally different concepts of atonement and soteriology. You believe in penal substituionay and I believe in Christus Victor. Because of this you believe the main reason Jesus came was to save us from ECT hell. I think the Gospel is about being born again, loving God, loving neighbors, and following Jesus in this life. We are both children of the most high God.
And that is fine with me. Blessings.

---

I would agree that is a large part of why we disagree (ha!). I'm just going off scripture. I do wish you'd share some scripture that supports your beliefs as we have done for ours.

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Derm,

I am curious how you respond to the criticism that if universalism is true, then why did Jesus need to suffer his Passion and death?

---

Because that was required to save us from the wages of sin which is death.

I know you are not a Calvinist but you might ask them the same thing since according the elect are predestined before creation,

---

What do you think is "death"? Temporal punishment?

---

Yes for some. Believers will not suffer temporal punishment.

---

So, Jesus saves us from temporal punishment.

The temporal punishment is the lake of fire but it's only eternal for the devil, beast, and false prophet. It's temporal for unbelievers. Is this accurate to your belief?

---

It is interesting to me that in 20:10 it clearly states the devil, beast, and false prophet will be punished forever. It does not say that in 20:15 about those not found in the Book of Life. I frankly do not know but believe the lake of fire will be a refining event for the unbelievers not found in the Book of Life. I personally hope that there will be few or none whose names are not written in the Book of Life. God desires to save all men. He is merciful, just, and slow to anger. I put my faith and trust in Him. I understand if you don't agree with me.
May I ask what your concept of hell is?

---

2 Thessalonians 1:8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might

Sproul said it pretty well: "Hell, then, is an eternity before the righteous, ever-burning wrath of God, a suffering torment from which there is no escape and no relief."

Since the word for eternal/everlasting used to describe the punishment (in multiple places) is also used to describe life, I have to believe they are of the same duration.

---

The Scripture you posted says everlasting destruction, not punishment.
RC Sproul (RIP) is by far my favorite Reformed theologian. I do not agree with his hell theology. I ask again, What is your hell theology?

And edited to add, don't know about you but if ECT hell exists, I do not want to watch people eternally suffer. Another reason I am not Reformed. Seems to be a recurrent theme.

---

It literally says the destruction is a punishment…

I answered by giving you scripture, a quote from Sproul that I agree with, and explaining why I think the punishment is eternal.

I think hell is just for those who end up there. I don't want that but if it comes to it, it's not wrong.

---

Got it. And destruction is punishment. How can destruction be eternal punishment? I mean if you are destroyed that is obviously all she wrote. But that is different than ongoing eternal torture. And Sproul is not Scripture.

---

It says eternal destruction. Forever being destroyed. Via God's wrath.

I know Sproul is not scripture. I don't understand this comment.

---

So it is not ECT hell? It is destruction, correct? And not ongoing conscious torment?

---

Being destroyed by God's wrath would be tormenting and I do believe they are conscious to it.

---

Agree. But they are destroyed? If they are destroyed how can they be punished further?

---

Scripture says the destruction is eternal so I guess it's never complete; it's ongoing, for eternity.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

The disconnect is that you believe the main reason Jesus came was to save us from ECT hell. And there is no Scriptural proof of that.

---

I think Jesus came to save us from God's eternal wrath. He came to reconcile us to God so we can worship Him forever in Heaven.

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

He also saves us from being slaves to sin.

Galatians 5:1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

---

Agree. But "heaven" Scripturally is going to be the New Jerusalem on the new earth.

---

I agree.

---

The problem is that we have totally different concepts of atonement and soteriology. You believe in penal substituionay and I believe in Christus Victor. Because of this you believe the main reason Jesus came was to save us from ECT hell. I think the Gospel is about being born again, loving God, loving neighbors, and following Jesus in this life. We are both children of the most high God.
And that is fine with me. Blessings.

---

I would agree that is a large part of why we disagree (ha!). I'm just going off scripture. I do wish you'd share some scripture that supports your beliefs as we have done for ours.

---

So what do you want me to post? We have done this before. You deny "all" and "whole world" mean everyone. All of the Scriptures you posted say nothing about eternal ongoing punishment except Matthew 25 46, agree? ECT hell is critical to your soteriology although there is no Scripture that says Jesus came to save us from ECT hell.
But whatever Scripture you want me to post I will. There are a ton of ultimate reconciliation Scriptures. It just gets tiresome posting the same stuff.
And I am signing off to hopefully watch the sips go down.
God's blessing and shalom,

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Derm,

I am curious how you respond to the criticism that if universalism is true, then why did Jesus need to suffer his Passion and death?

---

Because that was required to save us from the wages of sin which is death.

I know you are not a Calvinist but you might ask them the same thing since according the elect are predestined before creation,

---

What do you think is "death"? Temporal punishment?

---

Yes for some. Believers will not suffer temporal punishment.

---

So, Jesus saves us from temporal punishment.

The temporal punishment is the lake of fire but it's only eternal for the devil, beast, and false prophet. It's temporal for unbelievers. Is this accurate to your belief?

---

It is interesting to me that in 20:10 it clearly states the devil, beast, and false prophet will be punished forever. It does not say that in 20:15 about those not found in the Book of Life. I frankly do not know but believe the lake of fire will be a refining event for the unbelievers not found in the Book of Life. I personally hope that there will be few or none whose names are not written in the Book of Life. God desires to save all men. He is merciful, just, and slow to anger. I put my faith and trust in Him. I understand if you don't agree with me.
May I ask what your concept of hell is?

---

2 Thessalonians 1:8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might

Sproul said it pretty well: "Hell, then, is an eternity before the righteous, ever-burning wrath of God, a suffering torment from which there is no escape and no relief."

Since the word for eternal/everlasting used to describe the punishment (in multiple places) is also used to describe life, I have to believe they are of the same duration.

---

The Scripture you posted says everlasting destruction, not punishment.
RC Sproul (RIP) is by far my favorite Reformed theologian. I do not agree with his hell theology. I ask again, What is your hell theology?

And edited to add, don't know about you but if ECT hell exists, I do not want to watch people eternally suffer. Another reason I am not Reformed. Seems to be a recurrent theme.

---

It literally says the destruction is a punishment…

I answered by giving you scripture, a quote from Sproul that I agree with, and explaining why I think the punishment is eternal.

I think hell is just for those who end up there. I don't want that but if it comes to it, it's not wrong.

---

Got it. And destruction is punishment. How can destruction be eternal punishment? I mean if you are destroyed that is obviously all she wrote. But that is different than ongoing eternal torture. And Sproul is not Scripture.

---

It says eternal destruction. Forever being destroyed. Via God's wrath.

I know Sproul is not scripture. I don't understand this comment.

---

So it is not ECT hell? It is destruction, correct? And not ongoing conscious torment?

---

Being destroyed by God's wrath would be tormenting and I do believe they are conscious to it.

---

Agree. But they are destroyed? If they are destroyed how can they be punished further?

---

Scripture says the destruction is eternal so I guess it's never complete; it's ongoing, for eternity.

---

So how can that be? ECT hell is awfully important to your belief system.

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

The disconnect is that you believe the main reason Jesus came was to save us from ECT hell. And there is no Scriptural proof of that.

---

I think Jesus came to save us from God's eternal wrath. He came to reconcile us to God so we can worship Him forever in Heaven.

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

He also saves us from being slaves to sin.

Galatians 5:1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

---

Agree. But "heaven" Scripturally is going to be the New Jerusalem on the new earth.

---

I agree.

---

The problem is that we have totally different concepts of atonement and soteriology. You believe in penal substituionay and I believe in Christus Victor. Because of this you believe the main reason Jesus came was to save us from ECT hell. I think the Gospel is about being born again, loving God, loving neighbors, and following Jesus in this life. We are both children of the most high God.
And that is fine with me. Blessings.

---

I would agree that is a large part of why we disagree (ha!). I'm just going off scripture. I do wish you'd share some scripture that supports your beliefs as we have done for ours.

---

So what do you want me to post? We have done this before. You deny "all" and "whole world" mean everyone. All of the Scriptures you posted say nothing about eternal ongoing punishment except Matthew 25 46, agree? ECT hell is critical to your soteriology although there is no Scripture that says Jesus came to save us from ECT hell.
But whatever Scripture you want me to post I will. There are a ton of ultimate reconciliation Scriptures. It just gets tiresome posting the same stuff.
And I am signing off to hopefully watch the sips go down.
God's blessing and shalom,

---

.

No, I don't agree, I've shared several besides the Matthew verse.

He came to save us from God's wrath which is what I believe one experiences in hell.

I guess I was looking for a verse specifically on a temporary punishment but I guess you extrapolate that from the idea that God wants to save all so if that's the case, then punishment must be temporal.

Enjoy the game

dermdoc said:

---

https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2022/12/05/the-inescapable-love-of-god/
Worth a read in my opinion.

---

Another book to consider is by Catholic theologian, Hans Urs Von Balthasar (1905-1988) entitled, "Dare We Hope That All Men be Saved?: With a Short Discourse on Hell"

He stops short of saying no one is in hell, because no one can know for certain. Rather he argues that other theologians such as Edith Stien's The Science of the Cross point to the hope that God has for all to be saved as the basis for a hell (he does not deny this) that is empty of human souls.

You should know that while Von Balthasar is revered by many in the church, especially for his "theodrama" analysis, his theology on hell is not supported by the Catholic Catechism which holds that hell is a real place chosen by poor souls who essentially deny God's mercy. God does not predestined man to hell. For Von Balthasar's theology to work, man would have to die in a state of grace and not in mortal sin.

"God does not predestine men to hell". Amen and amen.
And for me, this is what it comes down to. There are different concepts of hell and none of them are good. Hell theology has nothing to do with salvation. To think that the God I know and love would act in this way is completely foreign to me.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

The disconnect is that you believe the main reason Jesus came was to save us from ECT hell. And there is no Scriptural proof of that.

---

I think Jesus came to save us from God's eternal wrath. He came to reconcile us to God so we can worship Him forever in Heaven.

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

He also saves us from being slaves to sin.

Galatians 5:1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

---

Agree. But "heaven" Scripturally is going to be the New Jerusalem on the new earth.

---

I agree.

---

The problem is that we have totally different concepts of atonement and soteriology. You believe in penal substituionay and I believe in Christus Victor. Because of this you believe the main reason Jesus came was to save us from ECT hell. I think the Gospel is about being born again, loving God, loving neighbors, and following Jesus in this life. We are both children of the most high God.
And that is fine with me. Blessings.

---

I would agree that is a large part of why we disagree (ha!). I'm just going off scripture. I do wish you'd share some scripture that supports your beliefs as we have done for ours.

---

So what do you want me to post? We have done this before. You deny "all" and "whole world" mean everyone. All of the Scriptures you posted say nothing about eternal ongoing punishment except Matthew 25 46, agree? ECT hell is critical to your soteriology although there is no Scripture that says Jesus came to save us from ECT hell.
But whatever Scripture you want me to post I will. There are a ton of ultimate reconciliation Scriptures. It just gets tiresome posting the same stuff.
And I am signing off to hopefully watch the sips go down.
God's blessing and shalom,

---

.

No, I don't agree, I've shared several besides the Matthew verse.

He came to save us from God's wrath which is what I believe one experiences in hell.

I guess I was looking for a verse specifically on a temporary punishment but I guess you extrapolate that from the idea that God wants to save all so if that's the case, then punishment must be temporal.

Enjoy the game

---

I did enjoy watching the sips lose. Thanks.

From my reading, God's wrath in the OT resulted in death, destruction, plagues, etc. Never mentioned hell. Or eternal punishment of any sort. So was hell created after the OT? Or just not mentioned?
So you are saying, Paul, a learned Jew, used the word wrath in a completely different fashion to connote eternal torment in hell? Sorry, but doesn't make sense to me. It seems like eisegesis, where you have a pre conceived bias and read that in to the Scripture. Same thing with the God desires all men to be saved, Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, etc. and you have to change the meaning of words to make it fit your theology.
And edited to add, where was "Hell" in the OT? If you get a good translation like Young's Literal translation the word hell is not found in the OT. What is interesting is that the KJV translators translated the same word Sheol, which means grave, half the time as the grave and half the time as hell. The same exact word. And hell was a word they created. Makes no sense unless there was bias involved and desire for control. And yes when they translated it as hell it was meant to elicit more fear.

PabloSerna said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2022/12/05/the-inescapable-love-of-god/
Worth a read in my opinion.

---

Another book to consider is by Catholic theologian, Hans Urs Von Balthasar (1905-1988) entitled, "Dare We Hope That All Men be Saved?: With a Short Discourse on Hell"

He stops short of saying no one is in hell, because no one can know for certain. Rather he argues that other theologians such as Edith Stien's The Science of the Cross point to the hope that God has for all to be saved as the basis for a hell (he does not deny this) that is empty of human souls.

You should know that while Von Balthasar is revered by many in the church, especially for his "theodrama" analysis, his theology on hell is not supported by the Catholic Catechism which holds that hell is a real place chosen by poor souls who essentially deny God's mercy. God does not predestined man to hell. For Von Balthasar's theology to work, man would have to die in a state of grace and not in mortal sin.

---

I am always quick to disagree with you, so I should also be quick to agree.

Harrumph!!!

dermdoc said:

---

From my reading, God's wrath in the OT resulted in death, destruction, plagues, etc. Never mentioned hell. Or eternal punishment of any sort. So was hell created after the OT? Or just not mentioned?
So you are saying, Paul, a learned Jew, used the word wrath in a completely different fashion to connote eternal torment in hell? Sorry, but doesn't make sense to me. It seems like eisegesis, where you have a pre conceived bias and read that in to the Scripture. Same thing with the God desires all men to be saved, Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, etc. and you have to change the meaning of words to make it fit your theology.
And edited to add, where was "Hell" in the OT? If you get a good translation like Young's Literal translation the word hell is not found in the OT. What is interesting is that the KJV translators translated the same word Sheol, which means grave, half the time as the grave and half the time as hell. The same exact word. And hell was a word they created. Makes no sense unless there was bias involved and desire for control. And yes when they translated it as hell it was meant to elicit more fear.

---

I see the concept of God's wrath thrown around quite a bit in all this, but think it's worth asking the question: does God have and/or experience emotions? Is it not true that Christians have always and everywhere believed that God is impassible, i.e. God does not experience inner emotional changes of state whether enacted freely from within or effected by His relationship to and interaction with human beings and the created order.

I don't think anyone can credibly argue that it isn't true that from the dawn of the patristic period, Christian theology has held as axiomatic that God is impassible. He does not undergo emotional changes of state, nor can the created order alter Him in such a way as to cause Him to suffer any modification or loss.

This flows logically from two other foundational truths about God:
1. Divine Immutability: God does not change. Divine impassibility follows upon His immutability, in that, since God is changeless and unchangeable, His inner emotional state cannot change from joy to sorrow or from delight to suffering.

2. Divine Aseity: this is the idea that God is absolutely independent of any other being. Being affected by the state or actions of another would imply causal dependence. That is impossible as it relates to God.

Ok, so what about God's "Anger" and "Joy" in Scripture? Scripture absolutely speaks of God being angry, joyful, sorrowful, and jealous. This is not error or contradiction it is anthropomorphism, "a literary device by which divine realities are expressed in human terms so that creatures can understand them."

When the Bible describes God as having emotions such as anger, regret, or pleasure, these are metaphors that describe how human beings relate to God, not how God relates to us. Saying God is angry at our sin or pleased with our obedience doesn't mean God is reacting to something we did it means we did something to alienate ourselves from God or to draw us closer to Him.

These descriptions of God's emotional changes are not expressions of God actually experiencing first pleasure and then sorrow rather, they express the reality of His unchanging love, which is experienced differently by US depending on historical situations and circumstances. God's unchanging love is experienced as grief or even anger in the face of sin, and as jealousy at losing His people through sinful disloyalty. His love is experienced as forgiveness and mercy in the face of repentance.

God's "wrath" as "felt" by us has nothing to do with God in the first instance. It has everything to do with how we experience our sin-driven separation from God. God is love, period. God is not love, except when he's mad at us. God does not experience passions; He never receives anything that shapes or forms Him not even emotionally.

Yet as Thomas Weinandy (Capuchin friar who taught at Oxford) said, "For God to be impassible and immutable is not to deny love and compassion of him, but to establish in his unchangeably perfect being a love that is absolutely and utterly passionate."

Thomas Aquinas gives us a sophisticated account of how it is that God has love, joy, and delight without having emotions in the human sense. Because God's attributes are unified in His simple essence, there are no contradictory or competing "emotional states." God is a single, infinite act of love and holiness, experienced differently by creatures depending on THEIR disposition the repentant experience mercy, the obstinate may experience God's "wrath."

And preemptively, yes, the Incarnation presents an interesting twist to everything I just said. But the mystery of the Incarnation cannot be, and does not in anyway alter any of the foregoing truths about God. In his human nature, Jesus experienced what it means to be human in every way except for sin. He did, however, experience the effects sin when he climbed onto that cross and experienced what sin causes in terms of how we relate to God. He experienced all of that and redeemed it all, praise God.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

From my reading, God's wrath in the OT resulted in death, destruction, plagues, etc. Never mentioned hell. Or eternal punishment of any sort. So was hell created after the OT? Or just not mentioned?
So you are saying, Paul, a learned Jew, used the word wrath in a completely different fashion to connote eternal torment in hell? Sorry, but doesn't make sense to me. It seems like eisegesis, where you have a pre conceived bias and read that in to the Scripture. Same thing with the God desires all men to be saved, Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, etc. and you have to change the meaning of words to make it fit your theology.
And edited to add, where was "Hell" in the OT? If you get a good translation like Young's Literal translation the word hell is not found in the OT. What is interesting is that the KJV translators translated the same word Sheol, which means grave, half the time as the grave and half the time as hell. The same exact word. And hell was a word they created. Makes no sense unless there was bias involved and desire for control. And yes when they translated it as hell it was meant to elicit more fear.

---

I see the concept of God's wrath thrown around quite a bit in all this, but think it's worth asking the question: does God have and/or experience emotions? Is it not true that Christians have always and everywhere believed that God is impassible, i.e. God does not experience inner emotional changes of state whether enacted freely from within or effected by His relationship to and interaction with human beings and the created order.

I don't think anyone can credibly argue that it isn't true that from the dawn of the patristic period, Christian theology has held as axiomatic that God is impassible. He does not undergo emotional changes of state, and does not undergo successive and fluctuating emotional states, nor can the created order alter Him in such a way as to cause Him to suffer any modification or loss.

This flows logically from two other foundational truths about God:
1. Divine Immutability: God does not change. Divine impassibility follows upon His immutability, in that, since God is changeless and unchangeable, His inner emotional state cannot change from joy to sorrow or from delight to suffering.

2. Divine Aseity: this is the idea that God is absolutely independent of any other being. Being affected by the state or actions of another would imply causal dependence. That is impossible as it relates to God.

Ok, so what about God's "Anger" and "Joy" in Scripture? Scripture absolutely speaks of God being angry, joyful, sorrowful, and jealous. This is not error or contradiction it is anthropomorphism, "a literary device by which divine realities are expressed in human terms so that creatures can understand them."

When the Bible describes God as having emotions such as anger, regret, or pleasure, these are metaphors that describe how human beings relate to God, not how God relates to us. Saying God is angry at our sin or pleased with our obedience doesn't mean God is reacting to something we did it means we did something to alienate ourselves from God or to draw us closer to Him.

These descriptions of God's emotional changes are not expressions of God actually experiencing first pleasure and then sorrow rather, they express the reality of His unchanging love, which is experienced differently by US depending on historical situations and circumstances. God's unchanging love is experienced as grief or even anger in the face of sin, and as jealousy at losing His people through sinful disloyalty. His love is experienced as forgiveness and mercy in the face of repentance.

God's "wrath" has nothing to do with God in the first instance. It has everything to do with how we experience our sin-driven separation from God. God is love, period. God is not love, except when he's mad at us. God does not experience passions; He never receives anything that shapes or forms Him not even emotionally.

Yet as Thomas Weinandy (Capuchin friar who taught at Oxford) said, "For God to be impassible and immutable is not to deny love and compassion of him, but to establish in his unchangeably perfect being a love that is absolutely and utterly passionate."

Thomas Aquinas gives us a sophisticated account of how it is that God has love, joy, and delight without having emotions in the human sense. Because God's attributes are unified in His simple essence, there are no contradictory or competing "emotional states." God is a single, infinite act of love and holiness, experienced differently by creatures depending on THEIR disposition the repentant experience mercy, the obstinate may experience God's "wrath."

And preemptively, yes, the Incarnation presents an interesting twist to everything I just said. But the mystery of the Incarnation cannot be, and does not in anyway alter any of the foregoing truths about God. In his human nature, Jesus experienced what it means to be human in every way except for sin. He did, however, experience the effects sin when he climbed onto that cross and experienced what sin causes in terms of how we relate to God. He experienced all of that and redeemed it all, praise God.

---

Agree completely. That is why it is inconceivable to me that we are "Sinners in the hands of an angry God". Or as John MacArthur said that God is angry with us. Makes no sense and is making God into a human with human emotions and reactions. This is the old idea that God is going to send a lightning bolt to zap you if you do bad stuff. Very similar to Dante's version of hell which is how most Western Christians perceive it.

What do you make of the many passages that refer to "God's anger was kindled against them" and was immediately followed by God striking down people, plaguing people, hiding from his people, and furthermore the narrative indicates at times that an angel or prophet interceded during these instances?

dermdoc said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

From my reading, God's wrath in the OT resulted in death, destruction, plagues, etc. Never mentioned hell. Or eternal punishment of any sort. So was hell created after the OT? Or just not mentioned?
So you are saying, Paul, a learned Jew, used the word wrath in a completely different fashion to connote eternal torment in hell? Sorry, but doesn't make sense to me. It seems like eisegesis, where you have a pre conceived bias and read that in to the Scripture. Same thing with the God desires all men to be saved, Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, etc. and you have to change the meaning of words to make it fit your theology.
And edited to add, where was "Hell" in the OT? If you get a good translation like Young's Literal translation the word hell is not found in the OT. What is interesting is that the KJV translators translated the same word Sheol, which means grave, half the time as the grave and half the time as hell. The same exact word. And hell was a word they created. Makes no sense unless there was bias involved and desire for control. And yes when they translated it as hell it was meant to elicit more fear.

---

I see the concept of God's wrath thrown around quite a bit in all this, but think it's worth asking the question: does God have and/or experience emotions? Is it not true that Christians have always and everywhere believed that God is impassible, i.e. God does not experience inner emotional changes of state whether enacted freely from within or effected by His relationship to and interaction with human beings and the created order.

I don't think anyone can credibly argue that it isn't true that from the dawn of the patristic period, Christian theology has held as axiomatic that God is impassible. He does not undergo emotional changes of state, and does not undergo successive and fluctuating emotional states, nor can the created order alter Him in such a way as to cause Him to suffer any modification or loss.

This flows logically from two other foundational truths about God:
1. Divine Immutability: God does not change. Divine impassibility follows upon His immutability, in that, since God is changeless and unchangeable, His inner emotional state cannot change from joy to sorrow or from delight to suffering.

2. Divine Aseity: this is the idea that God is absolutely independent of any other being. Being affected by the state or actions of another would imply causal dependence. That is impossible as it relates to God.

Ok, so what about God's "Anger" and "Joy" in Scripture? Scripture absolutely speaks of God being angry, joyful, sorrowful, and jealous. This is not error or contradiction it is anthropomorphism, "a literary device by which divine realities are expressed in human terms so that creatures can understand them."

When the Bible describes God as having emotions such as anger, regret, or pleasure, these are metaphors that describe how human beings relate to God, not how God relates to us. Saying God is angry at our sin or pleased with our obedience doesn't mean God is reacting to something we did it means we did something to alienate ourselves from God or to draw us closer to Him.

These descriptions of God's emotional changes are not expressions of God actually experiencing first pleasure and then sorrow rather, they express the reality of His unchanging love, which is experienced differently by US depending on historical situations and circumstances. God's unchanging love is experienced as grief or even anger in the face of sin, and as jealousy at losing His people through sinful disloyalty. His love is experienced as forgiveness and mercy in the face of repentance.

God's "wrath" has nothing to do with God in the first instance. It has everything to do with how we experience our sin-driven separation from God. God is love, period. God is not love, except when he's mad at us. God does not experience passions; He never receives anything that shapes or forms Him not even emotionally.

Yet as Thomas Weinandy (Capuchin friar who taught at Oxford) said, "For God to be impassible and immutable is not to deny love and compassion of him, but to establish in his unchangeably perfect being a love that is absolutely and utterly passionate."

Thomas Aquinas gives us a sophisticated account of how it is that God has love, joy, and delight without having emotions in the human sense. Because God's attributes are unified in His simple essence, there are no contradictory or competing "emotional states." God is a single, infinite act of love and holiness, experienced differently by creatures depending on THEIR disposition the repentant experience mercy, the obstinate may experience God's "wrath."

And preemptively, yes, the Incarnation presents an interesting twist to everything I just said. But the mystery of the Incarnation cannot be, and does not in anyway alter any of the foregoing truths about God. In his human nature, Jesus experienced what it means to be human in every way except for sin. He did, however, experience the effects sin when he climbed onto that cross and experienced what sin causes in terms of how we relate to God. He experienced all of that and redeemed it all, praise God.

---

Agree completely. That is why it is inconceivable to me that we "Sinners in the hands of an angry God". Or as John MacArthur said that God is angry with us. Makes no sense and is making God into a human with human emotions and reactions.

---

Yes sir. I know I am preaching to the choir when share this stuff with you, but I do so anyway because I hope our brethren in Christ might read it and come to understand that holding to a concept of God that has God venting his wrath on his only begotten son while pinned to a cross and writhing in utter agony is so far from the truth of who God is that it begs the question of whether we are believers in the same God.

Now, having said that, the same love that God is also demands true freedom to be authentic. No soul is forced or created for unending separation from God. The soul that ends up being separated from God forever freely chooses that separation and God, out of love for that soul, permits it to freely choose that result. To do otherwise would do violence to the love that God is by overriding the freedom necessary for that love.

The souls in heaven say to God "thy will be done" while God says to the souls in hell "thy will be done."

10andBOUNCE said:

---

What do you make of the many passages that refer to "God's anger was kindled against them" and was immediately followed by God striking down people, plaguing people, hiding from his people, and furthermore the narrative indicates at times that an angel or prophet interceded during these instances?

---

I think that was humans experiencing bad stuff usually because of their own sin and blaming it on God. Basically humans projecting human emotions on God who is immutable. Just curious do you think God gets mad at us when we sin? And actively punishes us someway? Do you believe in penal substitionary atonement? Because that is where this concept comes from. And the concept of ECT hell where God is actually punishing people.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

From my reading, God's wrath in the OT resulted in death, destruction, plagues, etc. Never mentioned hell. Or eternal punishment of any sort. So was hell created after the OT? Or just not mentioned?
So you are saying, Paul, a learned Jew, used the word wrath in a completely different fashion to connote eternal torment in hell? Sorry, but doesn't make sense to me. It seems like eisegesis, where you have a pre conceived bias and read that in to the Scripture. Same thing with the God desires all men to be saved, Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, etc. and you have to change the meaning of words to make it fit your theology.
And edited to add, where was "Hell" in the OT? If you get a good translation like Young's Literal translation the word hell is not found in the OT. What is interesting is that the KJV translators translated the same word Sheol, which means grave, half the time as the grave and half the time as hell. The same exact word. And hell was a word they created. Makes no sense unless there was bias involved and desire for control. And yes when they translated it as hell it was meant to elicit more fear.

---

I see the concept of God's wrath thrown around quite a bit in all this, but think it's worth asking the question: does God have and/or experience emotions? Is it not true that Christians have always and everywhere believed that God is impassible, i.e. God does not experience inner emotional changes of state whether enacted freely from within or effected by His relationship to and interaction with human beings and the created order.

I don't think anyone can credibly argue that it isn't true that from the dawn of the patristic period, Christian theology has held as axiomatic that God is impassible. He does not undergo emotional changes of state, and does not undergo successive and fluctuating emotional states, nor can the created order alter Him in such a way as to cause Him to suffer any modification or loss.

This flows logically from two other foundational truths about God:
1. Divine Immutability: God does not change. Divine impassibility follows upon His immutability, in that, since God is changeless and unchangeable, His inner emotional state cannot change from joy to sorrow or from delight to suffering.

2. Divine Aseity: this is the idea that God is absolutely independent of any other being. Being affected by the state or actions of another would imply causal dependence. That is impossible as it relates to God.

Ok, so what about God's "Anger" and "Joy" in Scripture? Scripture absolutely speaks of God being angry, joyful, sorrowful, and jealous. This is not error or contradiction it is anthropomorphism, "a literary device by which divine realities are expressed in human terms so that creatures can understand them."

When the Bible describes God as having emotions such as anger, regret, or pleasure, these are metaphors that describe how human beings relate to God, not how God relates to us. Saying God is angry at our sin or pleased with our obedience doesn't mean God is reacting to something we did it means we did something to alienate ourselves from God or to draw us closer to Him.

These descriptions of God's emotional changes are not expressions of God actually experiencing first pleasure and then sorrow rather, they express the reality of His unchanging love, which is experienced differently by US depending on historical situations and circumstances. God's unchanging love is experienced as grief or even anger in the face of sin, and as jealousy at losing His people through sinful disloyalty. His love is experienced as forgiveness and mercy in the face of repentance.

God's "wrath" has nothing to do with God in the first instance. It has everything to do with how we experience our sin-driven separation from God. God is love, period. God is not love, except when he's mad at us. God does not experience passions; He never receives anything that shapes or forms Him not even emotionally.

Yet as Thomas Weinandy (Capuchin friar who taught at Oxford) said, "For God to be impassible and immutable is not to deny love and compassion of him, but to establish in his unchangeably perfect being a love that is absolutely and utterly passionate."

Thomas Aquinas gives us a sophisticated account of how it is that God has love, joy, and delight without having emotions in the human sense. Because God's attributes are unified in His simple essence, there are no contradictory or competing "emotional states." God is a single, infinite act of love and holiness, experienced differently by creatures depending on THEIR disposition the repentant experience mercy, the obstinate may experience God's "wrath."

And preemptively, yes, the Incarnation presents an interesting twist to everything I just said. But the mystery of the Incarnation cannot be, and does not in anyway alter any of the foregoing truths about God. In his human nature, Jesus experienced what it means to be human in every way except for sin. He did, however, experience the effects sin when he climbed onto that cross and experienced what sin causes in terms of how we relate to God. He experienced all of that and redeemed it all, praise God.

---

Agree completely. That is why it is inconceivable to me that we "Sinners in the hands of an angry God". Or as John MacArthur said that God is angry with us. Makes no sense and is making God into a human with human emotions and reactions.

---

The souls in heaven say to God "thy will be done" while God says to the souls in hell "thy will be done."

---

Interesting, I always though it was..."yet not my will, but yours be done"

You will need to define your version of PSA before I comment.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

You will need to define your version of PSA before I comment.

---

Basically God is mad at us because of our sin and unleashed his wrath and anger via torture and crucifixion of Jesus in our place. So God' s wrath had to be satisfied. So basically God is an angry tyrant who has to kill somebody to satisfy his anger.
I am a Christus Victor guy.

And this is what spurred the "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" and "turn or burn" theology.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

You will need to define your version of PSA before I comment.

---

Basically God is mad at us because of our sin and unleashed his wrath and anger via torture and crucifixion of Jesus in our place. So God' s wrath had to be satisfied. So basically God is an angry tyrant who has to kill somebody to satisfy his anger.
I am a Christus Victor guy.

---

Your definition infused with all sorts of gaslighting in my opinion.

Basically infusing the idea that if I ascribe to the fact that Christ did impute to us the righteous life we could never live and did take on the wrath of God in our place on the cross because his wrath must be satisfied via his atoning sacrifice we could never make (I do believe that), that God must then be an "angry tyrant who has to kill somebody to satisfy his anger."

Fair enough. I just listen to Reformed pastors and I hear God is angry at us. And I assume you also believe the atonement is limited just to the elect?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

From my reading, God's wrath in the OT resulted in death, destruction, plagues, etc. Never mentioned hell. Or eternal punishment of any sort. So was hell created after the OT? Or just not mentioned?
So you are saying, Paul, a learned Jew, used the word wrath in a completely different fashion to connote eternal torment in hell? Sorry, but doesn't make sense to me. It seems like eisegesis, where you have a pre conceived bias and read that in to the Scripture. Same thing with the God desires all men to be saved, Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, etc. and you have to change the meaning of words to make it fit your theology.
And edited to add, where was "Hell" in the OT? If you get a good translation like Young's Literal translation the word hell is not found in the OT. What is interesting is that the KJV translators translated the same word Sheol, which means grave, half the time as the grave and half the time as hell. The same exact word. And hell was a word they created. Makes no sense unless there was bias involved and desire for control. And yes when they translated it as hell it was meant to elicit more fear.

---

I see the concept of God's wrath thrown around quite a bit in all this, but think it's worth asking the question: does God have and/or experience emotions? Is it not true that Christians have always and everywhere believed that God is impassible, i.e. God does not experience inner emotional changes of state whether enacted freely from within or effected by His relationship to and interaction with human beings and the created order.

I don't think anyone can credibly argue that it isn't true that from the dawn of the patristic period, Christian theology has held as axiomatic that God is impassible. He does not undergo emotional changes of state, and does not undergo successive and fluctuating emotional states, nor can the created order alter Him in such a way as to cause Him to suffer any modification or loss.

This flows logically from two other foundational truths about God:
1. Divine Immutability: God does not change. Divine impassibility follows upon His immutability, in that, since God is changeless and unchangeable, His inner emotional state cannot change from joy to sorrow or from delight to suffering.

2. Divine Aseity: this is the idea that God is absolutely independent of any other being. Being affected by the state or actions of another would imply causal dependence. That is impossible as it relates to God.

Ok, so what about God's "Anger" and "Joy" in Scripture? Scripture absolutely speaks of God being angry, joyful, sorrowful, and jealous. This is not error or contradiction it is anthropomorphism, "a literary device by which divine realities are expressed in human terms so that creatures can understand them."

When the Bible describes God as having emotions such as anger, regret, or pleasure, these are metaphors that describe how human beings relate to God, not how God relates to us. Saying God is angry at our sin or pleased with our obedience doesn't mean God is reacting to something we did it means we did something to alienate ourselves from God or to draw us closer to Him.

These descriptions of God's emotional changes are not expressions of God actually experiencing first pleasure and then sorrow rather, they express the reality of His unchanging love, which is experienced differently by US depending on historical situations and circumstances. God's unchanging love is experienced as grief or even anger in the face of sin, and as jealousy at losing His people through sinful disloyalty. His love is experienced as forgiveness and mercy in the face of repentance.

God's "wrath" has nothing to do with God in the first instance. It has everything to do with how we experience our sin-driven separation from God. God is love, period. God is not love, except when he's mad at us. God does not experience passions; He never receives anything that shapes or forms Him not even emotionally.

Yet as Thomas Weinandy (Capuchin friar who taught at Oxford) said, "For God to be impassible and immutable is not to deny love and compassion of him, but to establish in his unchangeably perfect being a love that is absolutely and utterly passionate."

Thomas Aquinas gives us a sophisticated account of how it is that God has love, joy, and delight without having emotions in the human sense. Because God's attributes are unified in His simple essence, there are no contradictory or competing "emotional states." God is a single, infinite act of love and holiness, experienced differently by creatures depending on THEIR disposition the repentant experience mercy, the obstinate may experience God's "wrath."

And preemptively, yes, the Incarnation presents an interesting twist to everything I just said. But the mystery of the Incarnation cannot be, and does not in anyway alter any of the foregoing truths about God. In his human nature, Jesus experienced what it means to be human in every way except for sin. He did, however, experience the effects sin when he climbed onto that cross and experienced what sin causes in terms of how we relate to God. He experienced all of that and redeemed it all, praise God.

---

Agree completely. That is why it is inconceivable to me that we "Sinners in the hands of an angry God". Or as John MacArthur said that God is angry with us. Makes no sense and is making God into a human with human emotions and reactions.

---

The souls in heaven say to God "thy will be done" while God says to the souls in hell "thy will be done."

---

Interesting, I always though it was..."yet not my will, but yours be done"

---

That's exactly what it says. The souls in heaven submit to God's will. The souls in hell are given the desires of their will.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

What do you make of the many passages that refer to "God's anger was kindled against them" and was immediately followed by God striking down people, plaguing people, hiding from his people, and furthermore the narrative indicates at times that an angel or prophet interceded during these instances?

---

I think that was humans experiencing bad stuff usually because of their own sin and blaming it on God. Basically humans projecting human emotions on God who is immutable. Just curious do you think God gets mad at us when we sin? And actively punishes us someway? Do you believe in penal substitionary atonement? Because that is where this concept comes from. And the concept of ECT hell where God is actually punishing people.

---

I am struck by the idea that universalism is basically a version of purgatory on steroids.

Isaiah 53:10-11
Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.

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

1 Thessalonians 1:10
and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

You will need to define your version of PSA before I comment.

---

Basically God is mad at us because of our sin and unleashed his wrath and anger via torture and crucifixion of Jesus in our place. So God' s wrath had to be satisfied. So basically God is an angry tyrant who has to kill somebody to satisfy his anger.
I am a Christus Victor guy.

---

Your definition infused with all sorts of gaslighting in my opinion.

Basically infusing the idea that if I ascribe to the fact that Christ did impute to us the righteous life we could never live and did take on the wrath of God in our place on the cross because his wrath must be satisfied via his atoning sacrifice we could never make (I do believe that), that God must then be an "angry tyrant who has to kill somebody to satisfy his anger."

---

Sincere question- is it gaslighting to characterize PSA as most Calvinists profess it?

---

I'm thinking your characterization of Calvinism is different than mine (and most who embrace reformed theology), especially as it relates to PSA.

You enjoy hanging on to the sound bites like "sinners in the hands of an angry God" or whatever provocative things Paul Washer or Steve Lawson says.

I would appeal to basically all of us, that it is hard for me (Reformed) to have a complete and factual understanding of another tradition like Roman Catholicism and likewise it is hard for them to have a complete and factual understanding of everything Reformed.

All I can do is point to Scripture as I embrace key truths of the faith. I don't think I have seen any you have provided that support Christian Universalism other than 1 Tim 2:4.

dermdoc said:

---

And I assume you also believe the atonement is limited just to the elect?

---

Of course, I'm reformed, LOL.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

You will need to define your version of PSA before I comment.

---

Basically God is mad at us because of our sin and unleashed his wrath and anger via torture and crucifixion of Jesus in our place. So God' s wrath had to be satisfied. So basically God is an angry tyrant who has to kill somebody to satisfy his anger.
I am a Christus Victor guy.

---

Your definition infused with all sorts of gaslighting in my opinion.

Basically infusing the idea that if I ascribe to the fact that Christ did impute to us the righteous life we could never live and did take on the wrath of God in our place on the cross because his wrath must be satisfied via his atoning sacrifice we could never make (I do believe that), that God must then be an "angry tyrant who has to kill somebody to satisfy his anger."

---

Sincere question- is it gaslighting to characterize PSA as most Calvinists profess it?

BTW, I fully agree that Jesus paid a price we could nver pay, but it's not a sacrifice of accepting God's wrath, it's a sacrifice of atonement. They are not the same thing and that's the rub.

There's a big difference in lovingly agreeing to suffer for another and standing in between a wrathful God who must vent his anger on someone in order to have justice satisfied. The former is entirely consistent with Trinitarian love. The latter is a badly flawed theory designed to match a novel soteriology.

---

It is an extreme minority of those who hold to PSA that would come anywhere close to portraying God as a bloodthirsty tyrant who, out of anger, had to torture and kill someone to satisfy his wrath.

It was out of love that God came to earth and died a horrific death in our place. Taking our sin in exchange for His righteousness. This is mainstream PSA, and it is all over Scripture.

I'll try to link to the video when I get home, but there is a great conversation between Eric Ybarra (Rome) and Gavin Ortlund (Reformed) on this where these two see a lot of unity between Rome and Protestants.

It's on Gavin's Youtube if someone else wants to link it.

The key takeaway is I think Derm, through his passion for this topic, has really created two extremes for himself and is left with a binary discussion.

Just looking at his definition of PSA, what he seems to be doing is creating a strawman of his making that he then attacks.

The conversation really needs to start with correct definitiions (and Ybarra goes to great lengths on that).

Edit to add the link:

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

You will need to define your version of PSA before I comment.

---

Basically God is mad at us because of our sin and unleashed his wrath and anger via torture and crucifixion of Jesus in our place. So God' s wrath had to be satisfied. So basically God is an angry tyrant who has to kill somebody to satisfy his anger.
I am a Christus Victor guy.

---

Your definition infused with all sorts of gaslighting in my opinion.

Basically infusing the idea that if I ascribe to the fact that Christ did impute to us the righteous life we could never live and did take on the wrath of God in our place on the cross because his wrath must be satisfied via his atoning sacrifice we could never make (I do believe that), that God must then be an "angry tyrant who has to kill somebody to satisfy his anger."

---

Sincere question- is it gaslighting to characterize PSA as most Calvinists profess it?

---

I'm thinking your characterization of Calvinism is different than mine (and most who embrace reformed theology), especially as it relates to PSA.

You enjoy hanging on to the sound bites like "sinners in the hands of an angry God" or whatever provocative things Paul Washer or Steve Lawson says.

I would appeal to basically all of us, that it is hard for me (Reformed) to have a complete and factual understanding of another tradition like Roman Catholicism and likewise it is hard for them to have a complete and factual understanding of everything Reformed.

All I can do is point to Scripture as I embrace key truths of the faith. I don't think I have seen any you have provided that support Christian Universalism other than 1 Tim 2:4.

---

Let me be clear: I am not a Christian universalist. I believe that was formally declared a heresy in the 7th century.

But I also absolutely believe that penal substitutionary atonement does violence to the Trinity to the point that it makes me question whether it is contemplating a different God. It is not only anti-Trinitarian, it is also a convenient novelty meant to fill in the gaps of the novel soteriology that birthed it.

I think there is massive failure to understand what a sacrifice of atonement is and how what Jesus did on the cross was a sacrifice of atonement and had nothing to do whatsoever with penal substitution.

To make the point more clear, when the Hebrews were told to sacrifice an unblemished lamb and eat its flesh and place its blood on the mantle of their doors it wasn't so God could vent his anger on the lamb. It was to demonstrate that those who would be saved by the lamb had offered a sacrifice that cost them something. Just as when second temple Jews in Jesus's time offered turtle doves or any other sacrifice in the temple, it wasn't so God could be wrathful to the turtle dove instead of the offeror. It was an act of sacrificial love. This is what "pays the price" for our sin: sacrificial love of the incarnate Son of God, whose perfection was necessary to make up for the deficit of love we faced.

PSA twists God the Father into a melancholic tantrum thrower whose lust for wrath can only be sated by treating a perfectly just victim as an unjust victim while treating the unjust as being just. It turns God into an unjust wrathful tantrum thrower. It's heretical.

It's the penal part that is wrong. God accepts Jesus's offer of atonement from the cross in our place because it is the single greatest act of sacrificial love ever. It is a perfect reflection of the love Jesus and the Father share with each other. The Father is not venting wrath on Jesus. He's looking down at the invaluable act of sacrificial love and accepting it as a substitutionary atonement for us. Punishment has nothing to do with it.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

You will need to define your version of PSA before I comment.

---

Basically God is mad at us because of our sin and unleashed his wrath and anger via torture and crucifixion of Jesus in our place. So God' s wrath had to be satisfied. So basically God is an angry tyrant who has to kill somebody to satisfy his anger.
I am a Christus Victor guy.

---

Your definition infused with all sorts of gaslighting in my opinion.

Basically infusing the idea that if I ascribe to the fact that Christ did impute to us the righteous life we could never live and did take on the wrath of God in our place on the cross because his wrath must be satisfied via his atoning sacrifice we could never make (I do believe that), that God must then be an "angry tyrant who has to kill somebody to satisfy his anger."

---

Sincere question- is it gaslighting to characterize PSA as most Calvinists profess it?

---

I'm thinking your characterization of Calvinism is different than mine (and most who embrace reformed theology), especially as it relates to PSA.

You enjoy hanging on to the sound bites like "sinners in the hands of an angry God" or whatever provocative things Paul Washer or Steve Lawson says.

I would appeal to basically all of us, that it is hard for me (Reformed) to have a complete and factual understanding of another tradition like Roman Catholicism and likewise it is hard for them to have a complete and factual understanding of everything Reformed.

All I can do is point to Scripture as I embrace key truths of the faith. I don't think I have seen any you have provided that support Christian Universalism other than 1 Tim 2:4.

---

Ironic for you to mention Lawson as he was your pastor and mentor. Out of respect for you, I put him on my prayer list and never posted anything about his adultery. Anybody who is interested Google Steve Lawson sermons on hell and realize while he was describing in gory detail what would happen to people who were not of the elect (in other words they had no say in the matter) he was committing adultery with a church member.
And Jonathan Edwards IS one of the main reformed/Calvinist names in your theology. Why would it be a "sound bite" for me? This is one of the hallmark sermons of your tradition. Does your church not believe that stuff anymore?
And I think I have a pretty good idea of reformed theology Having been in a Baptist reformed church for over 50 years I am very familiar with Calvin's Institutes, TULIP, Westminster catechism, the Dort Synod, etc. I am actually happy that it sounds like you and the other Reformed/calvinists on here have not embraced this harsh theology. From what I can read( and this applies to PSA also) y'all are at best Calvinist lite. Which I applaud.
I also applaud your much more liberal view of PSA than I have been exposed to in the past.
I think one of the biggest problems is I am used to "old school" Reformed/Calvinism and I am happy to see that appears to be disappearing.
I have provided lists of Christian Universalist Scripture numerous times. And obviously you and nobody else on here took the time to read them. Or any of my links for that matter. And I always read y'all's out of simple respect. So if you want a list Google it yourself.
i am retiring for awhile as I do not like the tone developing in this thread. I will leave it to you young folks.
Shalom.

I will still give free skin advice.