Calvinism

[Wormwood]

Many of evolutionists brightest minds ignore the fact that in nature there are no beneficial mutations which lead to an increase of information. The observable fact there is not a single example of a beneifial mutation which leads to an increase of information is absolute concluslive proof that the theory of evolution is fallacious. It completely irrelevant as to how many people believe it or the credentials of such people. A simple truth is able to undermine a massive lie.

Likewise overthrusts in sedimentary rock completely undermine (prove wrong) the geological column as represented by evolutionists. Fancy explanations, misdirection, and appeals to authority are all used as a means to ignore the elephant in the room.

It is no different with Penal Substitution.

One of the premises of Penal Substitution is that an individuals sins must be punished by a Holy God. Penal Substitution teaches that Jesus took upon Himself the sins of others and then sttod condemned in their place and was then punished in their place. The sins were punished not forgiven.

Penal Substitution undermines the notion that God forgives sins. There is no possible way to get around this simple truth. One can be like an evolutionist and ignore it and turn their focus on other data whereby they try and establish the soundness of what they believe but the elephant in the room remains.

If one believe in Penal Substitution then one cannot believe God forgives sins.




The reason Penal Substitution is by NECESSITY an excuse for ongoing wickedness if because the doctrine presents the basis of justification as a forensic judicial book keeping entry.

Thus under Penal Substitution one can preach holiness or that evil behaviour cannot continue all they want but the issue of the FORENSIC CLOAK for ONGOING INIQUITY remains.


When the Bible speaks of the blood of Christ it specifically states that it PURGES THE CONSCIENCE (Heb 9:14). The Bible also states that it is by the blood that we approach God with a true heart whereby we are then washed clean (Heb 10:17-22). I have notices that where Penal Substitition is taught the "purging of the conscience" is usually competely omitted. Why? Because under a judicial legal exchnage being the basis of justification the purging of the conscience is no longer necessary. Satan has pulled a bait and swtich deception and very few want to face the truth that they have been fooled.

The Bible says NOTHING of a forensic judicial exchange ANYWHERE. It is not implied in the Old Testament and it is not taught in the New Testament.

Penal Substitution is a 400 year old doctrine which was invented by the reformers. That is a historical fact. it was NEVER taught before then.

The sin offering of Jesus Christ being an "appeasement offering" is very different to it being a "subtitutionary legal exchange."

I'd say this is an incredible leap. Are you really going to associate the doctrine of Penal Substitution and the teaching of early Reformers with evolution? This is just silly and I cant comment on such ridiculous associations.

So your argument is that penal substitution negates forgiveness, excuses wickedness and the purging of the conscience. Lets examine these points.

Does penal substitution negate forgiveness?
No. If Jesus is God (which is what we Christians believe) then Jesus forgave us by taking our punishment and guilt away and placing them on himself. If God had employed a third party (like the JW's believe) to take human sin then I could maybe see your point. Perhaps then we could say God is not forgiving as he is simply putting his punishment on a third party. But since Jesus is God, his forgiveness is all the more overwhelming because it is far more than simply sweeping our evil under a rug and pretending it doesn't exist. Instead, he forgives us by putting our sin on his own body and crucifying it. This is forgiveness...plain and simple.

Does penal substitution excuse wickedness?
No. This doctrine has nothing to do with cloaking evil with judicial righteousness. However, it does assert that our righteousness comes from Christ and not us. Jesus is not merely a moral example who changes our behavior by his love. According to your argument, we save ourselves as we look to the crucifixion of Jesus and change our behaviors as a result. Jesus forgives us, but we have to maintain that status. It is our commitment to change behavior that ultimately saves us, not Jesus. This is why Wesley felt it was essential to cling to this doctrine in his strong appeal to holy living. If holy living is done for the purpose of trying to achieve salvation, then the cross is emptied of its power. As Paul told Peter, "If righteousness were by law, Christ died for nothing." No, we live holy lives because God actually cleanses us by the blood of Jesus (which is not a one and done event), and (I believe) we must continue to walk by faith in Christ's work by our holy actions. To live wickedly after coming to a knowledge of God's cleansing grace in Jesus is to wander from the truth and deny the faith. Like the parable of the unmerciful servant, one who knows they have been judicially forgiven but then acts wickedly in response will still be judged. So you see, penal substitution does not excuse wickedness, but it does force us to put our hope in Christ rather than our own efforts. Jesus did not die to give us a fresh start so we could try again to live by law. No, he came to give us grace. When we embrace the fact that we ARE children and are no longer condemned, then we can walk in freedom and the Spirit's power to transform us by grace.

Christ's blood to purge the conscience.
Yes, it purges the conscience because it sets us free from our sin and obligation to the law. This does not mean we live lawlessly, but rather that we live by faith in Christ. In your view, Jesus died to give us a fresh start and a new chance at living lives stamped by legal righteousness. However, I believe the Bible teaches that Jesus died to free us from law and allow us to live for him. Thus, it is not about sinning or not sinning, but is about a life surrendered to Christ where true righteousness is manifested. It is the fact that you are still so heavily under law that in your mind you are either living a lawful for lawless life...and Jesus is merely a means to help us live lawfully. Jesus died to free us from this and give us a new means of living holy lives. We are free in him, we live for him and we no longer evaluate ourselves by matters of law. We do not give ourselves to sin because we have given ourselves to Christ. The blood of Christ purges our conscience because we are not burdened anymore by measuring up. We are clean and have died so we can be married to another...Christ (Rom. 7).

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

So your argument is that penal substitution negates forgiveness, excuses wickedness and the purging of the conscience. Lets examine these points.

His argument is based on the flawed premise that economic and social debt are equivalent - http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/18436-bank-loans-and-penal-substitution/#entry199678

Does penal substitution excuse wickedness?
No. This doctrine has nothing to do with cloaking evil with judicial righteousness. However, it does assert that our righteousness comes from Christ and not us. Jesus is not merely a moral example who changes our behavior by his love. According to your argument, we save ourselves as we look to the crucifixion of Jesus and change our behaviors as a result. Jesus forgives us, but we have to maintain that status. It is our commitment to change behavior that ultimately saves us, not Jesus. This is why Wesley felt it was essential to cling to this doctrine in his strong appeal to holy living. If holy living is done for the purpose of trying to achieve salvation, then the cross is emptied of its power. As Paul told Peter, "If righteousness were by law, Christ died for nothing." No, we live holy lives because God actually cleanses us by the blood of Jesus (which is not a one and done event), and (I believe) we must continue to walk by faith in Christ's work by our holy actions. To live wickedly after coming to a knowledge of God's cleansing grace in Jesus is to wander from the truth and deny the faith. Like the parable of the unmerciful servant, one who knows they have been judicially forgiven but then acts wickedly in response will still be judged. So you see, penal substitution does not excuse wickedness, but it does force us to put our hope in Christ rather than our own efforts. Jesus did not die to give us a fresh start so we could try again to live by law. No, he came to give us grace. When we embrace the fact that we ARE children and are no longer condemned, then we can walk in freedom and the Spirit's power to transform us by grace.

Well explained. Well done good and faithful servant.

 

[ScottAU]

Me in blue.

I'd say this is an incredible leap. Are you really going to associate the doctrine of Penal Substitution and the teaching of early Reformers with evolution? This is just silly and I cant comment on such ridiculous associations.

So your argument is that penal substitution negates forgiveness, excuses wickedness and the purging of the conscience. Lets examine these points.

Does penal substitution negate forgiveness?
No. If Jesus is God (which is what we Christians believe) then Jesus forgave us by taking our punishment and guilt away and placing them on himself. If God had employed a third party (like the JW's believe) to take human sin then I could maybe see your point. Perhaps then we could say God is not forgiving as he is simply putting his punishment on a third party. But since Jesus is God, his forgiveness is all the more overwhelming because it is far more than simply sweeping our evil under a rug and pretending it doesn't exist. Instead, he forgives us by putting our sin on his own body and crucifying it. This is forgiveness...plain and simple. You may call it forgiveness all you like but you are ignoring the obvious. If A owes a penalty for a crime and B then pays the penalty for that crime then the penalty has not been forgiven, it has merely been paid for by the second party.

I addressed the simple logic right here...

http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/18436-bank-loans-and-penal-substitution/#entry199678

Such an example cannot be refuted, only blown off with rhetoric.

The doctrine of Penal Substitition is logically used to support the notion of uncondtional eternal security as well as the notion of the atonement being limited. This is due to the reasoning that if the penalty was "paid in full" then is simply cannot be due again. Thus Jesus Christ only died for those to whom the penalty payment is applied and once that payment is made it cannot be undone. It is for this reason that "once a son always a son" is upheld in conjunction that future rebellion is a "fellowship issue" not a "salvation issue."

Alluding to "Jesus is God" is no way addresses the issue I have raised. The fact is that Penal Substitution clearly teaches that "Jesus bore the literal wrath of God due the sinner" therefore "satisfying that wrath." So to say that "he forgives us by putting our sin on his own body and crucifying it" is really glossing over the fundamentals of Penal Substition. Our sins were indeed crucified with Jesus on that cross and when we die WITH HIM we are also crucified to those sins and to the way of life whereby we engaged in rebellion to God. Jesus bearing the wrath of God has NOTHING to do with it and there is not a single scripture in the entire Bible which states that Jesus "bore the full wrath of God."

Does penal substitution excuse wickedness?
No. This doctrine has nothing to do with cloaking evil with judicial righteousness. Yes it does. The premise of Penal Substitution is a FORENSIC LEGAL EXCHANGE. Under this doctrine God treats a sinner as if they are Christ and He treated Christ as if He was the sinner. That by its very definition is a judicial cloak. However, it does assert that our righteousness comes from Christ and not us. No, it asserts that "righteousness is FORENSICALLY applied" opposed to actually being MADE MANIFEST. Jesus is not merely a moral example who changes our behavior by his love. See how you are compelled to twist my position here? I have never claimed what you have said here and YOU KNOW IT so why are you compelled to bring up a straw man? According to your argument, we save ourselves as we look to the crucifixion of Jesus and change our behaviors as a result. No. I have said that we are saved by DYING WITH CHRIST whereby our old man is crucified with the passions and desires, whereby we are raised up to newness of life by the POWER OF GOD whereby the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD is then made MANIFEST THROUGH US because we are no longer in rebellion. Thus we approach God with a TRUE HEART seeking to be cleansed inwardly via the blood whereby we can abide in the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ which sets us free from all sin and we are made pure. Jesus forgives us, but we have to maintain that status. Jesus said, "abide in me" (Joh 15:7) and that means CONTINUE/STAY/ENDURE/STAND/TARRY. It is our commitment to change behavior that ultimately saves us, not Jesus. This is a fallacious statement. You must be asserting MONERGISM as it appears you cannot concience that the "change wrought by God" requires "cooperation on our part." We have to "receive with meekness" the implanted word that saves our souls. Our committment to "abide in Christ" is absolutely essential in regards to the outcome of our salvation. This is why Wesley felt it was essential to cling to this doctrine in his strong appeal to holy living. If holy living is done for the purpose of trying to achieve salvation, then the cross is emptied of its power. As Paul told Peter, "If righteousness were by law, Christ died for nothing." When Pauls is speaking against "righteousness being of the law" the context is in regards trying to achieve righteousness via the observance of rules and regulations. Paul refutrs this notion by teaching that "righteousness is via FAITH," in other words righteousness is via an INTERNAL work as opposed to an EXTERNAL work. It via being FAITHFUL to God and ABIDING IN CHRIST that the righteousness of GOd is MANIFEST THROUGH US. This is why Paul writes that FAITH UPHOLDS THE LAW (Rom 3:31). No, we live holy lives because God actually cleanses us by the blood of Jesus (which is not a one and done event), and (I believe) we must continue to walk by faith in Christ's work by our holy actions. Here you have bought into the deception of the "trust in the provision" teaching of Penal Substitution. To live wickedly after coming to a knowledge of God's cleansing grace in Jesus is to wander from the truth and deny the faith. Like the parable of the unmerciful servant, one who knows they have been judicially forgiven but then acts wickedly in response will still be judged. Under Penal Substition the "judicial punishment" cannot be made due again because it has already been meted out on Jesus. Penal Substitition contradicts the parable of the unforgiving servant. So you see, penal substitution does not excuse wickedness, but it does force us to put our hope in Christ rather than our own efforts. Penal Substitition creates a stronghold in the mind of "trust in a provision" for righteousness IN PLACE OF "abide in Christ via the cross." Think about this carefully. Jesus did not die to give us a fresh start so we could try again to live by law. Again a strawman position applied to me. Jesus died to give us a fresh start whereby we could LIVE BY FAITH a FAITH THAT WORKS BY LOVE because LOVE WORKS NO ILL. No, he came to give us grace. Grace is the power of God to live free from sin. When we embrace the fact that we ARE children and are no longer condemned, then we can walk in freedom and the Spirit's power to transform us by grace. The only people not condemned are those who abide in the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ. They walk after the Spirit and not the flesh for they have been broken on the rock of Christ and raised up to newness of life. There is NOTHING POSITIONAL about it. Positional teaching makes allowance for "wiggle room" whereby one can still be engaged in rebellion as they wait for the cleanup. John Wesley taught this "wiggle room" via his doctrine of the second act of grace whereby the stain of original sin is gradually removed.

Christ's blood to purge the conscience.
Yes, it purges the conscience because it sets us free from our sin and obligation to the law. The obligation to the law is has NEVER been removed. We are to keep the ROYAL LAW OF LOVE which the MOSAIC LAW is established upon. Thus we are not under the letter of the law but we are most definitely under the Spirit of the law. It is a fallacy to claim that our "obligation" to the law is done away with. LOVE FULFILLS THE LAW. Love does not set one free from the fullfillment of the law. The righteousness of the law is fulfilled IN US who walk after the Spirit (Rom 8:4). This does not mean we live lawlessly, but rather that we live by faith in Christ. Which is A FAITH THAT WORKS BY LOVE. In your view, Jesus died to give us a fresh start and a new chance at living lives stamped by legal righteousness. Another fallacious statement which you attribute to me. No! Jesus died that we may approach God with a TRUE HEART in repentance and faith whereby we are washed of all defilement that we may then serve God in an acceptable manner. In other words Jesus died to set us free from sins dominion as well as sins bondage. We are released from the dominion of sin by the blood and from the bondage by dying with Christ. However, I believe the Bible teaches that Jesus died to free us from law and allow us to live for him. He died to free you from SIN. Not to free you from law. We who have died with Christ have the law written upon our hearts whereby we walk according the Spirit via a faith that works by love. Not the letter, but the Spirit. Thus, it is not about sinning or not sinning, but is about a life surrendered to Christ where true righteousness is manifested. The last past is a true statement yet such a statement is not born our of Penal Substitution but is stated in spite of it. The first pat of "not about sinning or not sinning" is false because one cannot be in rebellion to God and be surrendered to God at the same time, they are opposites. Also note that I am not speaking of "sins of ignorance" only "rebellion. It is the fact that you are still so heavily under law that in your mind you are either living a lawful for lawless life...and Jesus is merely a means to help us live lawfully. Jesus died to free us from this and give us a new means of living holy lives. We are free in him, we live for him and we no longer evaluate ourselves by matters of law. We do not give ourselves to sin because we have given ourselves to Christ. The blood of Christ purges our conscience because we are not burdened anymore by measuring up. We are clean and have died so we can be married to another...Christ (Rom. 7). For some reason it appears you cannot comprehend what I write. Either my writing ability is seriously flawed and I need to be more eloquent or you have strongholds which make you blind. Perhaps it is a mixture of both. Being "under law" means one is trying to establish righteousness by KEEPING RULES AND REGULATIONS which is something devoid of HEART CHANGE. A heart cannot be changed by merely observing rules and regulations. A heart is changed by submission to God where the light of God is made manifest within. It is from God that change occurs NOT LAW.

 

[Wormwood]

ScottAU,

I dont have time or space to address all your comments. I'll try to deal with the major points.

Such an example cannot be refuted, only blown off with rhetoric.

It sounds to me like this is not an open discussion with you, but you are already so convinced that I might as well not even waste my time replying. However, for the benefit of others who may be reading...

Forgiveness means absolution, mercy, pardon or remission. Let's say you owe me a million dollars and I have the bill sitting on my desk. You walk in and beg for mercy, saying you cannot pay. I pick up a briefcase full of 1 million of my dollars and put it on the desk and say..."Dont worry about it...the debt is paid." Would you say I did not forgive you? Such a thought is ridiculous. You were absolved of your debt, you were shown mercy. This is the very essense of forgiveness. Somehow you have formulated the idea of forgiveness as meaning sweeping something under the rug and forgetting about it. While it could mean that, it also means more. I think part of the problem is that you have limited biblical terms in such a way as it has severly limited your theology. If you want to say this is mere rhetoric, fine. However, I think if you open up a dictionary you will find that is not the case.

The doctrine of Penal Substitition is logically used to support the notion of uncondtional eternal security as well as the notion of the atonement being limited.

This is simply not true. If it were, Arminians and Wesleyans never would have embraced it. Concepts about penal substitution go back to 1100 with Anselm. Although he did not use the same legal language as Calvin, the concepts of penal substitution were there long before Calvin and his arguments for limited atonement.

there is not a single scripture in the entire Bible which states that Jesus "bore the full wrath of God."

Actually the Greek word translated "to proptiate" is found multiple times and it implies far more than covering, but actually turning away wrath. Leon Morris has done extensive work on this in Greek and extra biblical literature. Moreover, in the OT, we see sin bringing the wrath of God. God is shown to be angry or expressing wrath over sin over 500 times in the Old Testament. This wrath generally expressed through allowing other armies to come and crush the Israelites and even destroy the temple. Thus, we see that sin does bring wrath and judgment. Sin demands blood and the very model of animal sacrifice suggests that the blood covering appeased God's wrath because sin demanded blood. Obviously this foreshadowed the blood of Christ. Christ's blood was not magical in its covering, it was the required payment for our wickedness he took upon himself. He bore our sins.

You must be asserting MONERGISM as it appears you cannot concience that the "change wrought by God" requires "cooperation on our part." We have to "receive with meekness" the implanted word that saves our souls. Our committment to "abide in Christ" is absolutely essential in regards to the outcome of our salvation.

ScottAU, I really dont have the time to do a full scale teaching session with you on theology and you seem very unwilling to be open to accepting any position other than the one you have convinced yourself of. I do believe we must abide in Christ and cooperate with God's grace. I am not a Calvinist. The problem is you try to force everyone in the same box who believes this doctrine even through they adamantly claim the opposite. I cannot help you if you will not read other theologians nor can I help you if you will not believe my plain statements. Wesley was perhaps the most vocal theologican EVER on the importance of cooperating with God's grace for salvation...and he was passionate about penal substitution. So you are simply wrong. You can claim Wesley, myself and others are liars and actually believe things claimed otherwise all day. I cant help you here. It seems your view is so narrow that you have forced people into a position that they forcefully deny. So what else can I do? You simply will not believe history, theologicans or my plain statements so you are beyond what I have to offer.

In all honesty I dont think we are far apart as seen in your comment below. I dont mind your position on this at all. However, I believe the Spirit takes residence in us because we are holy via the blood of Christ. The blood of Christ makes us holy because it removes our debt and pays our penalty. Yes...I believe an actual transaction must occur before our bodies of sin can be declared rightesous and holy temples in which the Spirit can reside. And this view does not mandate limited atonement, or cloaking wickedness. You are very off base and are making invalid (and in my view ignorant) accusations against the bulk of Christians today. You should do some more research before you make such harsh criticisms and condemnations.

He died to free you from SIN. Not to free you from law. We who have died with Christ have the law written upon our hearts whereby we walk according the Spirit via a faith that works by love. Not the letter, but the Spirit

 

[ScottAU]

ScottAU,

I dont have time or space to address all your comments. I'll try to deal with the major points.


It sounds to me like this is not an open discussion with you, but you are already so convinced that I might as well not even waste my time replying. However, for the benefit of others who may be reading...

Forgiveness means absolution, mercy, pardon or remission. Let's say you owe me a million dollars and I have the bill sitting on my desk. You walk in and beg for mercy, saying you cannot pay. I pick up a briefcase full of 1 million of my dollars and put it on the desk and say..."Dont worry about it...the debt is paid." Would you say I did not forgive you? Such a thought is ridiculous. You were absolved of your debt, you were shown mercy. This is the very essense of forgiveness. Somehow you have formulated the idea of forgiveness as meaning sweeping something under the rug and forgetting about it. While it could mean that, it also means more. I think part of the problem is that you have limited biblical terms in such a way as it has severly limited your theology. If you want to say this is mere rhetoric, fine. However, I think if you open up a dictionary you will find that is not the case. You are still putting forth the fallacy of the "debt having to be paid" thus "Jesus paying the sin debt for you." Where does the Bible teach this? It isn't anywhere which is why you don't use scripture to assert your position. You use rhetoric and conjecture.

If the the forgiveness of sin is premised on the debt being paid then that debt cannot be made due again. In the parable of the unforgiving servant there was no payment paid on behalf of the indebted servant. He was freely forgiven and that forgiveness was conditional on him forgiving his fellow servants. Penal Substitition is a direct contradiction of this parable.

The Bible is clear that God freely forgives sins on the conditions of repentance and faith. The Bible teaches that Jesus PURCHASED YOU with His blood. Jesus RANSOMED YOU with His blood. The Bible does not teach that Jesus "paid your fine."

The wages of sin is death. Both instant spiritual death (separation from God) and ultimate death via the lake of fire. Jesus died on a cross, He was not cast into the Lake of Fire nor was he separated from God. The Father removed His protection on Jesus whereby men killed Him which was the means God used that Jesus offer Himself up to God as a sacrifice. The Bible says NOTHING of Jesus being a Penal Substitute. The New Testament teaches that the blood of Christ cleanses us of all sin and makes us pure.

If Penal Substitution is a truth then why didn't Jesus teach it? Why does it contradict what Jesus taught? Why didn't James, Paul, Peter, John, or Jude teach it?





This is simply not true. If it were, Arminians and Wesleyans never would have embraced it. Concepts about penal substitution go back to 1100 with Anselm. Concepts yes. Penal Substitition adds an individual judicial penal punishment to Anselm's "justice being satisified." Indeed "concepts about Penal Substitition" go back to Anselm. As I have said many times the Penal doctrine is a development of Anselm's model. Yet it does not go back to the early church. It is of recent invention. Although he did not use the same legal language as Calvin, the concepts of penal substitution were there long before Calvin and his arguments for limited atonement. Anselm viewed the atonement as "satisfying justice" in the sense that it brought balance to the forgiveness of sins without which God's justice would have been undermined. The Limited Atonement is a logical necessity for the Penal Model because the Penal Model adds the "individual price due being paid" as opposed to Anselm's "broad satisfaction" taking place. Thus under the Penal Model the Atonement must be limited because the price cannot be due twice. Thus if one is to be under the wrath of God obviously that wrath could not have been satisfied by Jesus, hence Jesus died only for the elect.

Satisfaction teaches JUSTICE WAS SATISFIED.

Penal Substitition teaches that WRATH WAS SATISFIED.

Quite a marked difference between the two although the latter was a development of the former.


Actually the Greek word translated "to proptiate" is found multiple times and it implies far more than covering, but actually turning away wrath. Leon Morris has done extensive work on this in Greek and extra biblical literature. Moreover, in the OT, we see sin bringing the wrath of God. God is shown to be angry or expressing wrath over sin over 500 times in the Old Testament. This wrath generally expressed through allowing other armies to come and crush the Israelites and even destroy the temple. Thus, we see that sin does bring wrath and judgment. Sin demands blood and the very model of animal sacrifice suggests that the blood covering appeased God's wrath because sin demanded blood. Obviously this foreshadowed the blood of Christ. Christ's blood was not magical in its covering, it was the required payment for our wickedness he took upon himself. He bore our sins. Indeed this is true (ie. appeasement offering) to a degree but an appeasement offering does not mean Penal Substitition. The Bible doesn't teach that "God's wrath was appeased" but rather "God was appeased." The wrath of God still abides on the disobedient (Eph 5:6, Col 3:6). How do you skirt around the notion of a "Limited Atonement" due to the "wrath of God being appeased" when it "still abides on the disobedient" ? Penal Substitition FORCES the Limited Atonement position, to believe otherwise it to be logically inconsistent.


ScottAU, I really dont have the time to do a full scale teaching session with you on theology and you seem very unwilling to be open to accepting any position other than the one you have convinced yourself of. Is anyone willing to directly address my points? I see a lot of straw positions being drawn and then attributed to me but a lack of direct refutation. I do believe we must abide in Christ and cooperate with God's grace. I am not a Calvinist. The problem is you try to force everyone in the same box who believes this doctrine even through they adamantly claim the opposite. Wesleyian/Arminian theology is inconsistent which is why Calvinists eat it up. Wesyian/Arminian theology tries to assert many truths of the Bible but unfortunately it is all done within a framework of error. This is why the whole Arminian versus Calvinism debate is absolutely worthless. All it serves to do is confuse people whereby many surrender and try to take some middle of the road position. Both sides of the debate are in error and thus a middle of the road position is still error. They are both rooted in the errors of Augustinian Theology and thus uphold dualism (ie. dual nature of man). I cannot help you if you will not read other theologians nor can I help you if you will not believe my plain statements. You have not said anything that addresses the fundamental flaws of what you believe. Like most others you dance around the issues and then appeal to authority as a contrast to my ignorance. Wesley was perhaps the most vocal theologican EVER on the importance of cooperating with God's grace for salvation...and he was passionate about penal substitution. And John Wesley was unfortunately a very deceived man who wrote to his brother late in his life claiming that he NEVER knew God. I don't claim to know the end of Wesley for I leave that up to God BUT he most definitely willfully deceived people for many years not wanting them to be in the place of darkness he found himself in.

Read his own words for yourself...

http://www.ausdisciples.com.au/forum/showthread.php?659-John-Wesley......a-MIGHTY-man-of-God&s=77d1688229b4daf131b4d9923dfe93be&p=2364#post2364


So you are simply wrong. You can claim Wesley, myself and others are liars and actually believe things claimed otherwise all day. I won't call you a liar. You are deceived though and you ought to seriously consider the contradictory nature of what you believe and the historical basis of what you believe. I cant help you here. It seems your view is so narrow that you have forced people into a position that they forcefully deny. So what else can I do? You simply will not believe history, theologicans or my plain statements so you are beyond what I have to offer. History is clear. Penal Substitition is a 400 year old doctrine which was invented by the Reformers. It was NEVER taught before them. The early church did not teach anything remotely close to Penal Substitition.

In all honesty I dont think we are far apart as seen in your comment below. I dont mind your position on this at all. However, I believe the Spirit takes residence in us because we are holy via the blood of Christ. The blood of Christ makes us holy because it removes our debt and pays our penalty. This is EXACTLY what I mean. Penal Substitition gets you to view the blood of Christ in a "debt penalty payment" context instead of a HEART PURIFICATION context. The blood of Christ makes us Holy because...

Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
Heb 10:21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
Heb 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised
Heb 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
Heb 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Yet you teach... "The blood of Christ makes us holy because it removes our debt and pays our penalty." WHERE DOES THE BIBLE SAY THAT??????????

CAN YOU SEE THE PROBLEM HERE???? Instead of alluding to what the Bible actually teaches you promote doctrines of men.

Yes...I believe an actual transaction must occur before our bodies of sin can be declared rightesous and holy temples in which the Spirit can reside. And this view does not mandate limited atonement, or cloaking wickedness. Yes it does because the transaction is POSITIONAL and is thus VOID OF GENUINE HEART CLEANSING thus there is no ACTUAL HOLINESS WITHIN whereby the Spirit can reside. You have the Holy Spirit residing in a MANIFEST filthy vessel due to the the blood of Christ pertainign to a LEGAL TRANSACTION. You are very off base and are making invalid (and in my view ignorant) accusations against the bulk of Christians today. You should do some more research before you make such harsh criticisms and condemnations. I would love to see someone correct my ignorance instead of dancing around what I write with rhetoric and strawmen.

The root error of Penal Substition is a DENIAL OF HEART PURITY being MANIFEST in those whom are BORN AGAIN.

Original Sin is the root doctrinal heresy that leads to this denial.

Reformed Theology teaches Total Depravity whereby the inherited corruption due to Adam's sin REMAINS in those who are regenerated and that this corruption even RULES from time to time.

Arminian Theology teaches a Partial Depravity whereby the inherited corruption due to Adam's sin REMAINS in those who are regenerated and that this corruption is purged out during a second work of grace, ie. entire sanctification.

Both systems deny the purging of iniquity in the heart via a genuine broken repentance whereby the rebellion to God ceases once and for all. Thus there is no "heart being sprinkled of an evil conscience" and thus converts remain DOUBLE-MINDED wretches still serving two masters. The only real difference between the two systems is that the Arminian side teaches a measure of human responsibility (ie. choice) whereby salvation is viewed as "conditional" in regards to how you live. The Reformed view has God doing it all and conduct is simply the measure of whether one is a member of the elect or not.

Both system preach "ye CAN sin and not surely die" because they both teach that "ingoing rebellion" is inevitable. There are some exception I have found in the Arminian side BUT those exceptions are in spite of their doctrine and these people need to sit down and examine the contradictions and lay aside the errors, not promote them blindly.

Think folks. Think, think, think. Dig, dig, dig. Seek God DILIGENTLY in regards to these things. I am not blowing smoke here, there is a real fire and it is growing.

God bless.