'Penal Substitution', anyone?

[Butch5]

And if you could simply supply a text showing where a man receives this emotion ((Lk 1:37; Jn 13:21).

Nice try. . .with distraction by irrelevant diversion.

However, [post=62790320]these[/post] texts are still on the table, and have not been addressed. . .

The topic was thoroughly explained and text provided [post=62798383]here[/post].

Review them again.

Q.E.D.

How is it that you think everyone should address your texts but you don't have to address other's texts?

I told you, when you show where Scripture teaches your idea I'll address it. I'm not spending time refuting your inferences.

 

[Butch5]

Agreed.

This discussion on immortality ended at post #255, with your repeated failures to address the texts presented [post=62790320]here[/post].

Since then, it's just been dodging accountability for the failures.

So I'm done.

And you may have the last word if you wish.

It ended because you're not able to show where Men receives this "immortal spirit".

 

[Butch5]

IOW, you're an Annihilationist concerning the unbeliever. Well, I'll excercise some Christian liberty and say that I've known at least one brilliant Calvinist who is an annihilationist (but also a theistic evolutionist which I highly disagree with). Years ago I listened to him debate another Christian, and as far as I was concerned he won the debate. Did it change my view? Not entirely, but I am soft on the issue, and honestly seems to be Scripture (and reasoning) to support both views. I couldn't give a summation of who what and where supported or didn't support throughout Church history. Too many will argue guilt by association on this one. I've read and gone through the various interpretation of what hell will be, etc. I suppose I am somewhat open minded on the annihilation debate, and maybe something not firmly settled for me in this lifetime.

Hi AW,

I used to be of the same understanding as Clare. However, a while back I began a study of this very topic. Someone asked me back then if I was an Annihilationist and I said I wasn't sure at that point. Since then I have completed the study of this topic and have concluded that there is no "spirit" in a man other than God's spirit and Scripture says that spirit returns to God upon death. Since that is the case what is there that would suffer eternally? We have the creation account that speaks of a body and God's spirit, and we have the picture of the resurrection in Ezekiel 37 and both accounts are the same. In both God forms a body and the spirit/breath enters the body and it lives. If I can't establish the existence of "man's" spirit I can't believe it will be eternally tormented. Not to mention everything in Scripture says the wages of sin is death, not eternal torment.

 

[Clare73]

I've already shown they can be understood differently.

Nice try. . .

You've attempted to address one of those texts presented [post=62790320]here[/post], with an explanation which fails to address the others.

You've moved the goal post and now want to know when God gave man his spirit.
God is spirit. He gave man a spirit when he created man in his image.

And in response to the texts, you presented two texts to set the word of God against itself,
addressed by me [post=62787427]here[/post], and [post=62790320]here[/post], at #8.

I'm not going to spend my time refuting every passage you "think" implies an immortal spirit.

Why am I not surprised?

Q.E.D.

 

[Butch5]

Q.E.D.

No Clare, it's not I who has not proven his point. You've claimed from the beginning a spirit in man that live on after death, and yet have given no evidence where man has received it. No, I've not moved the goal posts. I've been asking where man got this spirit in the first place. You're statement about moving the goal posts suggests to me that either you aren't paying attention to what I've said, or you realize you cannot prove this from Scripture and need to redirect the conversation rather than admit this spirit doesn't exist. It's also not I who is setting God's word against itself. It's not my theology that has the gift of God being given to evil men. It's not my theology that flatly contradicts the word of God. Paul said plainly that God alone has immortality. That statement ends the debate.

 

[bling]

Is theft, or the thief, punished by the law?
Both are. They are used interchangeably.

How can anyone punish a theft, it is the thief that is punished they are different words with different meanings.

Eternal punishment is the penalty for sin which is stated in Mt 25:40-41; Mk 9:43, 48; Lk 3:17; Jude 7 .

Matthew 25:40-41 (RSV)
40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;

The fire is described as “eternal” but that really means “cannot be put out and is used like Is. 34: Edom’s streams will be turned into pitch,
her dust into burning sulfur;
her land will become blazing pitch!
10 It will not be quenched night or day;
its smoke will rise forever.
From generation to generation it will lie desolate;
no one will ever pass through it again

Mark 9:43 (RSV)
43 And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire.

Mark 9:48 (RSV) 48 where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.

Luke 3:17(RSV) 17 His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into his granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

Again in all three of these verses: the fire is unquenchable but that does not mean sinners live forever there.


Jude 1:7 (RSV) 7 just as Sodom and Gomor′rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Jude is an excellent example since Sodom and Gomorrah are not burning today. They were burned up be an unquenchable fire.

This has been beaten to death on other threads, but we can all agree Jesus went through what we deserved to go through for our sins and it was not unending punishment for Him.

Jesus paid the penalty due on the sin of those who believe in him (Ro 3:25-26).

Take it up with Jesus, John the Baptist, Paul and Jude.

I am taking it up with your interpretation of what they said and you can certainly address my interpretation of what they said. What Jesus did was for us but not instead of us.

And you obviously know nothing of the substitutional sacrificial system in Leviticus, which foreshadows and patterns the sacrifice of Christ.

Again “substitution” is never suggested in Lev either and in fact a bag of flour is used as an atonement offering sometimes and even you do not see that as substitution. There is lots of discussion about the atonement sacrifice, but it is not refer to as substitution or taking the sinner’s place.

WHERE did this ridiculously foolish notion come from?

I said this:
This is the real heart of the matter: Christ and God are painfully sacrificially allowing “wicked people” to torture, humiliate and murder Christ, so those that believe what He did can experience Acts 2:37. . .a death blow to their heart

I just added “so” and “can” to explanation the “why”, if you take out my “so” and “can”, replace it with “and” is there any issue with what I said? Some sinners did feel a death blow to their heart (Acts 2: 37) for some reason that was significant enough to get the sinners to repent.

Do you see this death blow in Acts 2: 37 as being insignificant or just a side benefit to what is happening?

You believe the experience of Ac 2:37 is equivalent to hell?

Do you believe what Christ went through; was equivalent to hell? (I do)

Since Christ did not experience eternal punishment and because scripture does not support the notion of eternal punishment for sinners, I do not consider hell to be eternal punishment.

Do you believe God the Father in heaven had great anguish while Christ was on the cross; was it as great and/or greater than Christ’s anguish?

Since God and Christ were one and since God could stop this tragedy at any time, and God’s Love for Christ is beyond measure, I would think like any wonderful parent God the father was going through more anguish than Christ went through at the time?

Some people are not affected at all by what Christ did for them, while other are pained like a mosquito bite, but others as they come to realize more and their Love for Christ grows, empathize with Christ all the more, so how does it affect you and how should it affect us?

Pure drivel. . .from pure human foolish reasoning.

The atonement sacrifice was supplied by God/Christ, but we are the once needing atonement (this is not God’s problem [God is not needing atonement]), just like the atonement was done by and for the minor unintentional sinner in the form of some hardship on the sinner. We just have to truly trust (believe) and accept what Christ did for and because of our sins.

I will not be engaging in denying Christ's atoning sacrifice as payment for my sin,
and requiring that I pay for my own sin with a "death" blow to my heart.

Why did you not experience a death blow to your heart when you realized what Christ went through because of your sins?

 

[Clare73]

Pay attention.

I've already shown they can be understood differently.

Nice try. . .
The record shows:

1) You attempted to address one of the 10 texts presented [post=62790320]here[/post] showing immortality of man's spirit, with an explanation which fails to address the others.

2) With presentation of the above 10 Scriptures, you moved the goal post from no basis in Scripture to when did man receive a spirit.
Answer: God is spirit. Man received a spirit when God created man in his own image.

3) And in response to the 10 texts, you also presented two texts of your own which set the word of God against itself,
Ps 90:4 and 1Ti 6:16, and addressed by me [post=62787427]here[/post], and [post=62790320]here[/post], at #8.

4) Then at the answer to your question of when man received a spirit, you stated that God put his own spirit in man, which would mean that the Holy Spirit indwells all men. That is contrary to the NT, and was addressed by me [post=62799943]here[/post].

I'm not going to spend my time refuting every passage you "think" implies an immortal spirit.

Why am I not surprised?

And feel free to deny or misrepresent the record, which clearly shows your Biblical error in maintaining that man does not have an immortal spirit.

Q.E.D.