God’s Wrath Poured Out on Jesus on the Cross

Bible Highlighter · Mar 23, 2021

Dorothy Mae said:
There seems to be an inability to understand the words written. I never said Jesus was powerless

Then why did you fight me on John 5:21?
Why did you say that Jesus could do nothing of Himself when I was making a case in regards to His power? I said this was in reference to authority, but you did not appear to agree with me on that point.
It's okay if you are changing your view here. I have done this many times on various topics in the Scriptures.

You can check out this CF thread here to learn how my views have changed over the years based on my studying God's Word more in depth.

What theological things were you mistaken about in your growing knowledge of God's Word?

You said:
and the scripture never says that Jesus suppressed (a psychological trick) something.

It's a logical conclusion. Sort of like how you made a conclusion in Mark 6:5. Granted, I do not agree with your conclusion in that particular instance, though (Because it is a stretch of the text). The text does not specifically say He could not heal them all but it simply says He could not do mighty works there. Mighty works can be many different things.

You said:
The experience Jesus had as a man we cannot understand and yet you make up a story as to his mental gymnastics. I assure you, you have no idea of what you are talking about. Jesus suppressed nothing and certainly not knowing things. The scripture says he prayed and then made choices showing he did not know and had to ask.

Before you were saying that Jesus did not simply choose to know things, and now you are saying that Jesus did not even have the ability to know all things. You are now saying Jesus had to pray in order to know things. I think a Christian can come to this wrong conclusion if they watched too much Assassin AD (a Christian film). But we know according to the Bible that Jesus knew men's thoughts (Matthew 9:4) (Matthew 12:25) (Mark 2:8) (Luke 5:22) (Luke 6:8) (Luke 9:47) (Luke 24:38). We know according to the Bible that Jesus knew about the lives of others (John 2:24) (John 4:17-18) (John 4:29) (John 6:64). Please show me the context in the above verses where Jesus had to pray in order to gain this kind of special knowledge.

You said:
Scripture says Jesus asked men questions indicating he did not know everything and did not think he had to. He was not suppressing knowing and then asking to know.

You are going to have to be more specific on what verses you are referring to here.
Just because God asks a question does not mean He does not know the answer. There are times even in the Old Testament where God asks questions. That does not mean God does not know if He asks a question.

You said:
Jesus was God incarnate. What that was for him we cannot know as we have no reference point. Jesus had to sleep. Did you know that?

I was not born again yesterday. I accepted the Lord as my Savior in 1992; And did my really serious study of God's Word in 2010 ever since. So yes, I am 100% aware of for a really long time that Jesus got tired, hungry, and felt pain, etc. as a man. Jesus was not only God, but He also was a man, as well.

You said:
How could a man with independent powers need to sleep and eat?

Jesus is the God man. He is both God and man.

I can go on and on. The point is not to get power. The point is to walk closely with God who has all the power we need when we need it.

Again, you are making an assumption on something I have never argued for. I never argued for how we are to get power of our own. Not sure where you came up with this idea. I realize only God has power, and therefore we know Jesus had power because He is God.

My point before was that you did not seem to understand that there is a difference between the early church receiving certain miraculous gifts vs. a believer today praying so as to receive a miracle.

Nowhere am I suggesting that we must operate by the gifts that the early church had. Nowhere am I suggesting that we have to gain power that is our own. Jesus is not like us. Jesus is GOD and He would naturally have power as GOD.

You said:
Walking closely with Him and have Him work through you in his power is very different than your assuming what it is.

Are you saying Jesus did not use His own powers during His earthly ministry?
Are you saying Jesus had no power of His own during His earthly ministry?

You said:
You have not had God do miracles through your obedience or you would not make these statments.

So truth is based on experience instead of the Word of God?

You said:
If we say Jesus is the second person of the Trinity you take it from there and make up what that is supposed to mean.

How so? Please explain how I am wrong in that the second person of the Trinity is fully God and has powers naturally inherent to God just as the other persons of the Trinity. You need to make your case with Scripture.

bling · Mar 23, 2021

Dorothy Mae said:
When a man only assumes God has forgiven him, but it is actually not the case, then cleansing hasn’t occurred. The man might claim it is so, but that doesn’t force Gods hand. You forget that there is truth and there is what a man thinks and they aren’t always the same.

I fully agree there is a problem with knowing you have truly been forgiven and can put those sins behind you and know the warm loving relationship has been fully restored. This is one of the wonderful benefits of willingly submitting to fairly/justly/Lovingly disciplined. If the forgiven child correctly accepts Loving discipline then the child can know there is no second shoe to fall, his parent does Love him/her enough to see to his/her just disciplining, he/she has come out on the other side a better person and like with Jesus/God the parent often is going through the disciplining with them, to have that wonderful learning moment and building a stronger relationship.

Yes! Forgiveness without disciplining is very difficult to feel.

Dorothy Mae said:
Until adulthood, yes. As a mature adult, no more. What does this have to do with the discussion?

We have to enter the Kingdom like a child. The benefits of fair/just/Loving discipline do not go away just because you have become an adult and tell me how “adult” were you when you first became a believer only able to handle milk?

Dorothy Mae said:
Very scary as the people deciding the child “isn’t being disciplined” can have a personal agenda that no one can thwart.
The deciders cannot possibly know if they are just biased.

If you really knew for certain a parent chose not to discipline their child which needed disciplining, what would you think of such a parent?

Dorothy Mae said:
I did a Bible search for “accept Jesus” and got no hits whatsoever. So the concept of “accepting Jesus” is not biblical and therefore has no bearing on being set free. Sorry to tell you that

those who keep his teaching shall know the truth

Those who know the truth are set free.

This freedom is not only not free, it is expensive.

When you are given a command (and there are lots of commands in scripture) people obey or disobey, which I would say accept or refuse, but do you see a difference?

A hear of the Gospel, can either “believe” or “not believe”, in Jesus Christ and Him crucified, but how is that different from accepting or rejecting?

Are you saying: people cannot reject Jesus Christ and Him crucified?

Confused-by-christianity · Mar 23, 2021

I don't understand the statements made sometimes like
"Jesus died on the cross for our sins so we could have everlasting life" ????;
My assumptions were;

He came from the Father to lift humanity up?
He knew if He came to us, we would benefit but we would also kill Him (because we were so backwards)?
The sacrifice is that He chose to come anyway, put up with us, away from heaven, for our benefit - knowing He would die on the cross.

So He really did die for us. He really did sacrifice Himself for us.
I don't understand the bit about dying for our sins. I assumed this was something Paul said to help the Jewish people convert??? The Jewish people had animal sacrifice in their religion and Paul drew parallels with Jesus??

I'm just thinking out loud - Christianity is quite confusing haha ;-)

Dorothy Mae · Mar 23, 2021

bling said:
I fully agree there is a problem with knowing you have truly been forgiven and can put those sins behind you and know the warm loving relationship has been fully restored. This is one of the wonderful benefits of willingly submitting to fairly/justly/Lovingly disciplined. If the forgiven child correctly accepts Loving discipline then the child can know there is no second shoe to fall, his parent does Love him/her enough to see to his/her just disciplining, he/she has come out on the other side a better person and like with Jesus/God the parent often is going through the disciplining with them, to have that wonderful learning moment and building a stronger relationship.

Yes! Forgiveness without disciplining is very difficult to feel.

We have to enter the Kingdom like a child. The benefits of fair/just/Loving discipline do not go away just because you have become an adult and tell me how “adult” were you when you first became a believer only able to handle milk?

Few christians I know can really identify WHEN God is discipline them. They don’t know Him well enough for that.

If you really knew for certain a parent chose not to discipline their child which needed disciplining, what would you think of such a parent?

You assume the very thing that CANNOT be reliably known but can be claimed to be known by those in power. It’s the old “who watches the watchers” question. Many a tyrant claimed to be doing good insisting he/she KNEW! Very dangerous to give unrestricted power to sinful man.

When you are given a command (and there are lots of commands in scripture) people obey or disobey, which I would say accept or refuse, but do you see a difference?

Absolutely. To “accept” is merely to agree. Requires no action. This is especially true today where men divorce applying their theology to their lives.

A hear of the Gospel, can either “believe” or “not believe”, in Jesus Christ and Him crucified, but how is that different from accepting or rejecting?

As I said, “accept” means give mental ascent. Means merely agree with. No change in choices needed. Jesus demands surrender, not accept.

Are you saying: people cannot reject Jesus Christ and Him crucified?

I’m saying “accepting Jesus” is not in the Bible anywhere. I didn’t write the book. I just believe it.

Dorothy Mae · Mar 23, 2021

Confused-by-christianity said:
I don't understand the statements made sometimes like
"Jesus died on the cross for our sins so we could have everlasting life" ????;
My assumptions were;

He came from the Father to lift humanity up?

He knew if He came to us, we would benefit but we would also kill Him (because we were so backwards)?

The sacrifice is that He chose to come anyway, put up with us, away from heaven, for our benefit - knowing He would die on the cross.

So He really did die for us. He really did sacrifice Himself for us.
I don't understand the bit about dying for our sins. I assumed this was something Paul said to help the Jewish people convert??? The Jewish people had animal sacrifice in their religion and Paul drew parallels with Jesus??

I'm just thinking out loud - Christianity is quite confusing haha ;-)

I suspect that unless a person actually understands the wrong they’ve done to others as awful as it really is and how dirty it makes them feel, one cannot understand Christianity.

Confused-by-christianity · Mar 23, 2021

Dorothy Mae said:
I suspect that unless a person actually understands the wrong they’ve done to others as awful as it really is and how dirty it makes them feel, one cannot understand Christianity.

I know how it feels when it’s been done to me.

You think I don’t understand Christianity and the reason for that is that I don’t understand the evil I’ve done to others? Had I have understood that evil, I’d understand Christianity??

Ceallaigh · Mar 23, 2021

Dorothy Mae said:
The deciders cannot possibly know if they are just biased. I did a Bible search for “accept Jesus” and got no hits whatsoever. So the concept of “accepting Jesus” is not biblical and therefore has no bearing on being set free. Sorry to tell you that

those who keep his teaching shall know the truth

Those who know the truth are set free.

This freedom is not only not free, it is expensive.

"Accept" is a synonym of "believe".

Believe - accept - accept as true.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16

So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Acts of the Apostles 16:31

Dorothy Mae · Mar 23, 2021

Confused-by-christianity said:
I know how it feels when it’s been done to me.

You mean you know when wrongs have been done to you or the terrible wrong you’ve done to others?

You think I don’t understand Christianity and the reason for that is that I don’t understand the evil I’ve done to others? Had I have understood that evil, I’d understand Christianity??

Its hard to say what your experience has been. I don’t know enough or read enough of what you’ve written.

Your title is „confused by Christianity” so you can see why I assume you are. The heart of the faith is the forgiveness of ones own sins. (Don’t be taken in by a cheap “accept Jesus” line. It’s no where in the Bible.) One must see the sin in oneself and repent seeking forgiveness. The showing of one’s sin is an act of God. The willingness to see is an act we must do. Without this being shown and seeing, I don’t see how anyone can understand Christianity.

(Theologians and others make up ideas as to why God could forgive but that is no where close to the importance of actually being forgiven. It’s the difference between tasting a delicious bite and describing to someone the neurological function of taste buds.)

Dorothy Mae · Mar 23, 2021

MMXX said:
"Accept" is a synonym of "believe".

Believe - accept - accept as true.

Well the Bible doesn’t use “accept” which requires nothing but mental acknowledgment of a point. But it could be argued.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16

So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Acts of the Apostles 16:31

No “accept Jesus” there either. Of course for them, believing was going to cost them and so it was never simply give mental ascent to a point.

Ceallaigh · Mar 23, 2021

Dorothy Mae said:
Well the Bible doesn’t use “accept” which requires nothing but mental acknowledgment of a point. But it could be argued.

No “accept Jesus” there either. Of course for them, believing was going to cost them and so it was never simply give mental ascent to a point.

That's the whole point. Believing something isn't the same as accepting it. Believing there was a man named Jesus isn't enough, one must accept that he is the Son of God and that he died and rose again etc.

You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! James 2:9.

The demons believe in God, but they don't accept Him as their Lord.

Don't get too hung up on semantics.

Dorothy Mae · Mar 23, 2021

MMXX said:
That's the whole point. Believing something isn't the same as accepting it. Believing there was a man named Jesus isn't enough, one must accept that he is the Son of God and that he died and rose again etc.

You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! James 2:9.

The demons believe in God, but they don't accept Him as their Lord.

You do have a point. I think it is not accepting that he died and rose again but surrendering. The demons accept that he died and rose again. How can they help accepting it? They do not believe Him to be their Lord but in this case "accept" is a better word.

Dorothy Mae · Mar 23, 2021

MMXX said:
I already pointed out that Jesus used the bride and bridegroom analogy regarding His church collectively. Just as the OT used that analogy collectively regarding God and Israel. However when it comes to a personal one on one relationship, the analogy of a father and son is often given. And that's not even really an analogy. God actually is my father and I am actually his son.

The collective description between God and Israel is very often father and son. This is not generally individually in the OT, but only father and son. The analogy is also sheep and shepherd, vine and branches and so on.

Actually the teachers of Lordship Salvation, namely John MacArthur, call it that. Free Grace is called that in reference to Ephesians 2:8-9 stating that grace is a free gift as opposed to something that has to be earned. Even MacArthur stipulates that one can't lose their salvation because they didn't do anything to earn it. Work out your salvation with fear and trembling isn't deleted, it's just interpreted differently. With LS it seems more like "work for your salvation while being scared to death of God taking it away from you". With FG it seems more like "continue to build up your salvation and take it seriously". See, one version is a threat, the other version is an encouragement.

I do not have a great opinion of MacArthur and am aware of his OSAS teaching (as false.) I don't think much of a person who refuses to use Biblical terminiology on the whole in terms of making up new titles. But if one had to do so, "Relationship Salvation" is the best.

I already made it clear that I was discussing the matter as I understood it, rather than as I believed it or followed it. Anyways it seems that you're confusing justification with discipleship. The theory with Free Grace (again as I understand it - not as I believe in it or teach it) is that discipleship comes after justification. Rather than discipleship creating justification. That's putting the cart before the horse as they say.

You know, you might think you are being unbiased but your personal view comes through loud and clear. I know what you believe from what you write. You cannot help but tell. What you believe or follow is clear in your words, as much as you try to discuss it from a distance.

Now I know some elements separate out justification from discipleship as though the latter is merely an optional extra. That is why it is separated. Where Jesus said no one can be his disciple without taking up his cross and following Him, salvation is extracted from that requirement and discipleship, the taking up of the cross, optional if one wants. So one can still be assured of Heaven without the unpleasant aspects of obeying the Living God. Clever.

It's not a matter of accepting Jesus per se, it a matter of accepting ie believing the Gospel.

The Gospel contains repentance and asking forgiveness. Accepting Jesus does not.

Ceallaigh · Mar 23, 2021

Dorothy Mae said:
You do have a point. I think it is not accepting that he died and rose again but surrendering. The demons accept that he died and rose again. How can they help accepting it? They do not believe Him to be their Lord but in this case "accept" is a better word.

Are you really continuing to argue about a word that has different meanings and applications? If you're trying to wear me out, you have succeeded.

Dorothy Mae · Mar 23, 2021

MMXX said:
Are you really continuing to argue about a word that has different meanings and applications? If you're trying to wear me out, you have succeeded.

Ok, we move on. My apologies.

Dorothy Mae · Mar 23, 2021

Bible Highlighter said:
Again, I said I am not discounting the possibility that He could have healed many but that is simply not what the text was saying. It says He could do no mighty works except for healing a few. It does not say that He could not heal them all. In reality the text says he could do no mighty works there. That is what the text says. You are equating might works with healing them all when the text does not specifically say. It merely refers to mighty works.

“And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.” (Mark 6:5).

“And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.” (Matthew 13:58).

The text does not say He was only able to heal a few. That is something you are adding to the text. The words “only” and “able” are not in the above verses in relation to healing a few. We do not know what “mighty works” is all referring to there. It could have been a lot more than just healing people. You are just jumping to conclusions and assume it means that Jesus was not able to heal them all when the text does not say that. Again, you are willing to stretch the Bible to defend your conclusions on this point, but when it comes to a more logical conclusion elsewhere in Scripture, you are unable to see it. For you are unable to see God pouring out His wrath upon the sins of the people in the body of Jesus when GOD has always been wrathful towards horrible sins and or sinners who are unrepentant. It's within the consistent character of God to be wrathful towards sin. Just because the sins of the people were transferred does not mean God no longer hates those sins.

While I am not saying you have not operated miracles by the Spirit of God, we know that just doing miracles does not mean a person has a proper understanding on the things of God. For example: In Matthew 7:22-23: Certain believers cast out demons in the Lord's name (i.e. a miracle), but yet Jesus told these believers to depart from Him. Why were these believers told to depart by the Lord Jesus? Well, I hold to the view that these believers were cast out because they also worked sin and or iniquity because Jesus said “depart from me ye that work iniquity.” For to have an assurance that we know God is to keep His commandments (1 John 2:3). This is why Jesus told them that He never knew them. They never really obeyed God, and thus they were doing their own thing (Operating outside the Lord's will). For the person who says they know the Lord and they do not keep His commandments is a liar and the truth is not in them (1 John 2:4). What truth is not in them? Jesus. For Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). And we know a person cannot have eternal life without abiding in Jesus (Who is the truth). For 1 John 5:12 says he that has the Son has life, and he that does not have the Son does not have life. Anyways, my point is that these believers in Matthew 7:22-23 appeared to believe that operating miracles in His name was enough to gain them favor with God, but Jesus told them to depart from Him on account of their sin or disobedience towards God (Thus, this is why they really did not know Jesus). Therefore, they did not have a proper understanding even though they did miracles in Christ's name. So miracle working is not proof we have proper understanding on the mind of God.

Jesus contrasts the raising of the dead to life by God the Father with He Himself being able to raise the dead to life, too. In order for John 5:21 to fit your interpretation, the text would say:

“For even as the Father raises up the dead and gives life, thus also the Son gives life to whom He will (But only by the power of God the Father)” (John 5:21) (The Kenosis Influenced Translation).

But the text does not say “(But only by the power of God the Father)”.

Hebrews 1:3 says, “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;”

Here we see that Jesus clearly had power of His own when He had purged us of our sins upon the cross. For Jesus had power to uphold all things by the word of HIS POWER when he had by himself purged our sins. So Jesus had power of His own during His earthly ministry.

We also learn Jesus had His own power as God because He said that He would raise Himself from the dead.

“Jesus answered and said unto them,
Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” (John 2:19).

Notice the word “I” in there. Jesus is taking responsibility for raising Himself from the dead.

Note: Yes, I am aware that the Scriptures also say that the Father, and the Holy Spirit also helped to raise Jesus from the dead, too. But the point here is that Jesus also said He would raise Himself from the dead, as well. This means that the Resurrection miracle involved all three persons of the Trinity. My guess is that you have no clue that this is the case in Scripture.

I understand perfectly that Jesus operated at times by God the Father and the Holy Spirit. But we know Colossians 2:9 says, “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”

You want there not to be a fulness of the Godhead to be dwelled within Him bodily because you are saying that the second person of the Trinity is crippled and had no power. This would not be the fulness of the Godhead or the Trinity.

Matthew 27:14 BLB says,
“But Jesus gave no answer, not even to a single charge, much to the governor’s amazement.”

To have all knowledge would be a natural inherent ability of God. Under normal circumstances God does not have to choose to use His power of having all knowledge. It just comes naturally to Him in being God. But at some point before the foundation of the world, if the glory that Jesus said He shared with the Father was in fact Omniscience (i.e. the divine power to have all knowledge), then it makes sense that this natural ability inherent to the Son of God was suppressed in some way. For the Scriptures say that Jesus was said to have grown in wisdom as a child. If Jesus already had all the wisdom and He simply was not choosing to access it, then he did not really grow in wisdom. But if His wisdom was suppressed and or buried deep within Him, then He could grow in wisdom. Therefore there is no contradiction in the Scriptures.

Thank you. May God bless you even more.

I can say the same for you, but we both cannot be right.

The Scriptures imply that His Omniscience was suppressed. If Jesus is indeed the Last Adam (a parallel with the first Adam), then Jesus must be a type of Adam in the fact that Adam did not have knowledge of some kind before the Fall; And seeing Jesus is God incarnate, it would also be impossible for God to not truly know something because such a thing is an inherent power of naturally being God. So I believe this ability was not removed, but it was simply suppressed or buried deep within Him.

Your posts are for one too long. And you use too much imagination in adding to what is described going beyond the text. I am moving on.

Bible Highlighter · Mar 23, 2021

Dorothy Mae said:
Your posts are for one too long. And you use too much imagination in adding to what is described going beyond the text. I am moving on.

Peace be unto in the Lord.

Ceallaigh · Mar 23, 2021

Dorothy Mae said:
The collective description between God and Israel is very often father and son.

Where? What verse?

Dorothy Mae said:
This is not generally individually in the OT, but only father and son. The analogy is also sheep and shepherd, vine and branches and so on.

None of those denotes a husband and wife dynamic.

Dorothy Mae said:
I do not have a great opinion of MacArthur and am aware of his OSAS teaching (as false.) I don't think much of a person who refuses to use Biblical terminiology on the whole in terms of making up new titles.

MacArthur didn't make it up. He along with other Lordship Salvation teachers call it Lordship Salvation themselves. Your assertion that the term is a pejorative is incorrect. Lordship Salvation along with Relationship Salvation are concise descriptors. Lordship Salvation means that Jesus is your Lord, and since He is your Lord, that means you serve and obey Him Luke 6:46, so there's nothing unbiblical about the term.

Dorothy Mae said:
But if one had to do so, "Relationship Salvation" is the best.

I agree, salvation is in the relationship. My personal preference to that relationship is Theosis or Christification. Christification being the Protestant version of Orthodox Theosis.

Dorothy Mae said:
You know, you might think you are being unbiased but your personal view comes through loud and clear. I know what you believe from what you write. You cannot help but tell. What you believe or follow is clear in your words, as much as you try to discuss it from a distance.

It's usually best to stick to the subject rather than to harp on the person.

Dorothy Mae said:
Now I know some elements separate out justification from discipleship as though the latter is merely an optional extra. That is why it is separated. Where Jesus said no one can be his disciple without taking up his cross and following Him, salvation is extracted from that requirement and discipleship, the taking up of the cross, optional if one wants. So one can still be assured of Heaven without the unpleasant aspects of obeying the Living God. Clever.

The Gospel contains repentance and asking forgiveness. Accepting Jesus does not.

Accepting Jesus starts with confession of sin, asking for forgiveness and repenting. That's how one gets saved. You know the Apostles in the Book of Acts didn't mention going to heaven to the thousands they saved. They didn't use it as an incentive. One can look look upon sin as a sickness and Jesus as the loving Great Physician out to cure, or one can look upon sin as a crime and Jesus as being a wrathful prosecutor out to punish. I find the term "unpleasant aspect" telling. As in an unpleasant, cold, harsh, demanding job, where one must keep their nose to the grindstone, or they will lose it and face something even more unpleasant.

Dorothy Mae · Mar 24, 2021

MMXX said:
Where? What verse?

Mal 1, Hosea 1... I will get more if you want but I’m on my phone in the way to work.

None of those denotes a husband and wife dynamic.

The husband wife is only a metaphor part of which is representative of the relationship and part not same as vine and branches and sheep-shepherd.

MacArthur didn't make it up. He along with other Lordship Salvation teachers call it Lordship Salvation themselves. Your assertion that the term is a pejorative is incorrect. Lordship Salvation along with Relationship Salvation are concise descriptors. Lordship Salvation means that Jesus is your Lord, and since He is your Lord, that means you serve and obey Him Luke 6:46, so there's nothing unbiblical about the term.

Ok, probably trying to rescue the fruit of years of easy grace OSAS preaching.

I agree, salvation is in the relationship. My personal preference to that relationship is Theosis or Christification. Christification being the Protestant version of Orthodox Theosis.

Im not familiar with technical terms.

It's usually best to stick to the subject rather than to harp on the person.

If you bring up a person as an authority then they are fair game. It’s usually better to stick to the subject than try to bring up a person.

Accepting Jesus starts with confession of sin, asking for forgiveness and repenting. That's how one gets saved. You know the Apostles in the Book of Acts didn't mention going to heaven to the thousands they saved. They didn't use it as an incentive. One can look look upon sin as a sickness and Jesus as the loving Great Physician out to cure, or one can look upon sin as a crime and Jesus as being a wrathful prosecutor out to punish. I find the term "unpleasant aspect" telling. As in an unpleasant, cold, harsh, demanding job, where one must keep their nose to the grindstone, or they will lose it and face something even more unpleasant.

The first century christians didn’t focus on assurance of them going to heaven or heaven at all. That’s a modern theology reflected in both sides you mention which is the problem. I cannot a single evangelical message where “accepting Jesus” was mentioned along with repentance or asking forgiveness except as a very dry and painless “repeat after me” prayer.

Ceallaigh · Mar 24, 2021

Dorothy Mae said:
Mal 1, Hosea 1... I will get more if you want but I’m on my phone in the way to work.
The husband wife is only a metaphor part of which is representative of the relationship and part not same as vine and branches and sheep-shepherd.
Ok, probably trying to rescue the fruit of years of easy grace OSAS preaching.

The teacher I first learned the term Lordship Salvation from and who teaches it, does not believe in OSAS. There's both a Calvinist version and an Arminian version (unlike Calvinism, Arminianism teaches that you can lose your salvation).

Dorothy Mae said:
If you bring up a person as an authority then they are fair game. It’s usually better to stick to the subject than try to bring up a person.

I meant sticking to the subject you are discussing with someone, rather than harping on the person you are discussing it with. There's technical term for that called ad hominem, which is Latin for "to the person". In other words it's best to address the subject rather than address the person. The person you're discussing or debating with should only have to defend the position they are maintaining, rather than having to defend themselves.

Dorothy Mae said:
The first century christians didn’t focus on assurance of them going to heaven or heaven at all. That’s a modern theology reflected in both sides you mention which is the problem. I cannot a single evangelical message where “accepting Jesus” was mentioned along with repentance or asking forgiveness except as a very dry and painless “repeat after me” prayer.

Again accepting Jesus is just another way of saying believing in Jesus. Accepting / believing in Jesus as the Christ, the Lord and Savior. The words are interchangeable. The Bible actually doesn't use either the English word "accept" or "believe", but rather uses Greek words like "pisteuōn" which means to have faith, i.e. credit; by implication.

Dorothy Mae · Mar 24, 2021

MMXX said:
The teacher I first learned the term Lordship Salvation from and who teaches it, does not believe in OSAS. There's both a Calvinist version and an Arminian version (unlike Calvinism, Arminianism teaches that you can lose your salvation).

I am well acquainted with these matters. I was lucky enough to have dodged the new terminology over the decades. The salvation I know is Knowing and Understanding God, if there is a term to it.

I meant sticking to the subject you are discussing with someone, rather than harping on the person you are discussing it with.

Ad hominem is attacking the person, not their words. I don’t think much of MacArthurs teaching. I know nothing about the man personally, that’s not ad hominem.

There's technical term for that called ad hominem, which is Latin for "to the person". In other words it's best to address the subject rather than address the person. The person you're discussing or debating with should only have to defend the position they are maintaining, rather than having to defend themselves.

Correct

Again accepting Jesus is just another way of saying believing in Jesus. Accepting / believing in Jesus as the Christ, the Lord and Savior. The words are interchangeable. The Bible actually doesn't use either the English word "accept" or "believe", but rather uses Greek words like "pisteuōn" which means to have faith, i.e. credit; by implication.

Thought you didn’t want to talk about the words anymore.

But you’ve brought up a new point. How does faith give one a credit?

God’s Wrath Poured Out on Jesus on the Cross

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

May God be with you and bless you.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

May God be with you and bless you.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

May God be with you and bless you.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

May God be with you and bless you.

Well-Known Member

May God be with you and bless you.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads