A Piece by Josh Barzon which seems well cited and extensive.
🧵 1. What PSA Means
Penal Substitution means that Christ bears the penalty we deserve (penal) in our place (substitution), effecting atonement with God. It doesn’t cancel other atonement motifs (victory, example, ransom); it grounds them. Without Christ taking our sin, we have no salvation. And all of the church echos this loudly as you will see below 👇🏼
🧵 2. Roots in the Old Testament (c. 15th–5th c. BC)
• Exodus 12: 13 – “When I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you.”
• Leviticus 17: 11 – “For the life of the flesh is in the blood… to make atonement for your souls.”
• Leviticus 16: 22 – “The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself to a remote area.”
• Isaiah 53: 5–6 – “He was pierced for our transgressions… the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”
• Also: The Day of Atonement; Isaac’s Substitute; Passover Lamb; Bronze Serpent; and more.
🧵 3. Jesus’ Own Words (AD 30–33)
• Mark 10: 45 – “The Son of Man came… to give his life as a ransom for many.”
• Matthew 26: 28 – “…this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”
• John 10: 11 – “The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.”
• Luke 22: 37 – “…this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’”
🧵 4. The Apostles (AD 40s– 90s)
• Romans 3: 25–26 – “…whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith… so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”
• Romans 4: 25 – “…who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.”
• Galatians 3: 13 – “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us…for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.’”
• 2 Corinthians 5: 21 – “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
• 1 Peter 2: 24 – “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.”
• 1 Peter 3: 18 – “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God…”
🧵 5. Early Church Fathers (2nd–5th c.)
• Nicene Creed (AD 325) – “…who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven… was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried…”
• Epistle to Diognetus (2nd c.) – “O sweet exchange, the righteousness of One justifies many sinners!”
• Athanasius – The Word offered His body “in place of all, suffering for all.”
• Chrysostom (on Gal 3: 13) – Christ “became a curse… and relieved us of ours.”
• Augustine (On the Trinity) – “He took upon Himself our punishment without taking upon Himself our guilt, and by accepting the likeness of sinful flesh, He destroyed sin.”
🧵 6. Early Medieval Church (5th–11th c.)
• Leo the Great – “The sinless blood was shed to pay the debt of sinners.”
• Gregory the Great – Christ “took upon Himself the punishment… not on His own account.”
• Ambrose of Milan – “He took our death upon Himself, that He might destroy it in Himself.”
• Isidore of Seville – “Christ, innocent, suffered the punishment due to sinners.”
• The “Agnus Dei” Prayer – “The Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.”
🧵 7. High & Late Medieval Scholasticism (11th–15th c.)
• Anselm – Only the God-Man can make satisfaction for us.
• Thomas Aquinas – Christ “delivered us… by way of satisfaction,” truly “satisfied for us.”
• Bernard of Clairvaux – “What He did not owe, He paid; what we owed, He canceled.”
• Peter Lombard – Christ “offered Himself to God for us, paying what we could not.”
🧵 8. The Reformation (16th–17th c.)
• Luther – Christ “was made a curse for us.” (On Gal 3)
• Calvin – “Guilt… was transferred to the Son of God.” (Institutes)
• Thirty-Nine Articles XXXI – “…perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction…”
• Westminster Confession – By His obedience and sacrifice, Christ “fully satisfied the justice of His Father.”
• Heidelberg Catechism Q37 – “That… He bore the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race.”
• William Tyndale – “Christ is our righteousness, redemption, satisfaction, … he became sin for us, and we are made the righteousness of God by him.”
🧵 9. The Evangelical Age (18th–19th c.)
• Jonathan Edwards – Christ “suffered the penalty of the law in the stead of sinners.”
• Charles Spurgeon – “If our Lord’s bearing our sin for us is not the gospel, I have no gospel to preach.”
• Andrew Fuller – “The death of Christ was vicarious, penal, and satisfactory.”
• John Wesley – “The Son of God has bought me with his blood; he has satisfied for my sins; he has borne my punishment, and purchased for me the kingdom of heaven.”
• George Whitefield – “The great God… laid on him the iniquity of us all, and Christ by his death made full, perfect, and sufficient satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.”
• B. B. Warfield – “He substituted Himself for us under the penalty of sin; He took our place, bore our guilt, and by His atoning death made satisfaction to the justice of God for us.”
🧵 10. Modern Witness (20th–21st c.)
• Martin Lloyd Jones - “It is therefore, quite fitting to say that no-one really begins to understand the love of God and the love of the Lord Jesus Christ who does not believe the substitutionary and penal doctrine of the Atonement.”
• J.I. Packer - “The penalty due to me for my sins, whatever it was, was paid for me by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, in his death on the cross.”
• John Piper - “For if God did not punish his Son in my place, I am not saved from my greatest peril, the wrath of God”
• John Stott – “The essence of sin is man substituting himself for God; the essence of salvation is God substituting himself for man.”
• R. C. Sproul – “Imputation is real. God really laid our sins on Christ, and He, in turn, gave His righteousness to us.”
• John MacArthur - “If you don’t understand the doctrine of penal substitution, you don’t know why Christ died.
• James White - Consider for a moment how precious it is that the Christian can say, ‘I have been crucified with Christ.’ This is a personal atonement, personal substitution. We revel in the awesome love of our Savior who loved us as individuals and gave Himself up for us. For me! Me, the hate‑filled sinner who spurned Him and His love!”
🧵 Conclusion
Even though it may be “cool” right now to downplay or deny Penal Substitutionary Atonement, Scripture and history speak with one voice: Christ bore our penalty in our place to satisfy God’s justice and secure our salvation. From the Law and prophets to the words of Jesus and the apostles, from the early church to the Reformers and modern preachers, PSA has been proclaimed as a core truth of the gospel. To abandon it is to hollow out the cross; to hold it is to stand in the stream of biblical, historic, and saving faith.
Sources:
The Bible
52 comments:
The formatting on this is strange because of how it was compiled. At least the ads are gone.
Trabue (2025)---"Nyuh uh!"
That is an excellent summary of Dan's astute, and well researched deep thoughts on the matter. It'll probably be "My Reason leads me to conclude nyuh uh.".
Your author leads with an unproven presupposition, and one that is irrational on the face of it.
"Penal Substitution means that Christ bears the penalty we deserve..."
It IS a reasonable set of questions to ask:
What "penalty" do we "deserve..."?
And WHY do we allegedly "deserve" this penalty?
And WHY do we allegedly "deserve" this SPECIFIC penalty?
For all his many words, he didn't address these obvious hole in his argument. These are rational questions to ask and to expect SOME attempt to answer.
Will you answer?
And for the record, this gentleman (Barzon, who has a B.A. in Pastoral Theology in 2016, so presumably, he's maybe nearly 30, right? I can't find much about him or why we should take his theories seriously - no disrespect, just noting he is a young man without much education or experience), offered FOUR verses "in Jesus' own words" with only TWO of those verses even tangentially possibly talking about anything that could be remotely connected to PSA.
I can't read or enlarge his graphic (it appears that creating graphics is one of this young man's area of expertise, and that's cool, as far as it goes. I love a good graphic design!). I'm not enthused with his theories. Especially since he just entirely skipped over ANY support for or explanation of his foundational theory, that we are "deserving" of some unspecified "penalty."
You want to take a stab at guessing at what he means and why?
Craig and Marshal...
That is an excellent summary of Dan's astute, and well researched deep thoughts on the matter. It'll probably be "My Reason leads me to conclude nyuh uh."
I'd invite you gentlemen to grow up a bit and deal with more reason-based critiques, if you feel a need to critique. Asking the VERY RATIONAL question, "What does this young man theorize about "deserving" some "penalty" and if his theory is, "Humans are deserving of being penalized with an eternity of torment for the 'crime' of being imperfect (or "having a sin nature" or however he might want to theorize it)" then asking the follow up question: HOW is that rational or moral or just? ...is also a reasonable question.
That he and you state this as if it were a fact and somehow "proven" (it's literally not in any objective sense, of course) does not mean that rational people will then bow down to y'all, "Well, they stated it as a certainty, so it must be so..." is not an adult, rational, moral approach to such a wild conspiracy theory with no support. SAYS WHO? is always a rational question.
AND, if the answer to that is, "GOD says..." then asking, in response, "SAYS WHO?" is also a rational, adult, moral response.
AND, if the answer to that is, "Well, I found some scriptures in an ancient text that I personally - and many other humans who think like me - think demand that conclusion..." Then SAYS WHO? is still a rational response/question.
That y'all think it does not demand our compliance to your wild and wildly irrational and unsupported theories.
Where am I mistaken in ANY of that?
LOL!
"Your author leads with an unproven presupposition, and one that is irrational on the face of it."
Dan leads with an unproven proposition, and one that is irrational on the face of it. But that doesn't stop him, nor does he see the irony.
"reasonable" to Dan as an individual, not objectively "reasonable".
Oh My God!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No one has ever asked those questions before!!!!!!!! Thousands of years of Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian theology and scholarship and Dan asked these questions for the very first time!!!!!!!!!! If only there were answers for these previously unasked questions!!!!! Whatever shall we do???????
"Will you answer?"
Not again. It's not my problem if you have a poor memory.
"without much education or experience"
Coming from someone with precisely ZERO "education" in the area of theology, and unknown "experience", this is an absolutely hilarious criticism.
If, however, you are right in thinking that his lack of education and experience is a fatal flaw, then it should be easy for you to dismantle his arguments using your vastly greater Reason and rationality.
"I can't read or enlarge his graphic"
1. Who cares.
2. It could be a problem in the transfer of his original "graphics" from one format to another.
3. Take a screenshot, and manipulate it to your heart's content.
4. You're desperate for criticism if you've stooped to this.
"I'm not enthused with his theories."
I don't care. If you're "not enthused", then shut the hell up and stop bitching. Or, as usual, prove him wrong.
"Especially since he just entirely skipped over ANY support for or explanation of his foundational theory, that we are "deserving" of some unspecified "penalty.""
Yes, that is your opinion and I so appreciate you repeating it so soon after expressing it for the first time. The repetition of your hunches is always so helpful and illuminating.
"You want to take a stab at guessing at what he means and why?"
No.
"I'd invite you gentlemen to grow up a bit and deal with more reason-based critiques..."
Its' so refreshing when Dan gets condescending like this. By basing his "critique" on his personal, flawed, subjective Reason as opposed to actual objective evidence, he gets to pretend like his bitching (critique is too highfalutin for what he's doing) carries some sort of gravitas.
All Dan does, when confronted with something like this is ask repetitive questions as if they haven't been answered, and bitch about minor crap. His addition of straw men, just makes the bitching even more amusing.
If you believe that something is not "proven" to your satisfaction (another subjective claim), then simply prove it wrong. Make an objective, evidence based case for your claims and offer proof that is not grounded in your subjective hunches. It shouldn't be difficult, but you just can't seem to manage this feat.
"That y'all think it does not demand our compliance to your wild and wildly irrational and unsupported theories."
No one, including YHWH, is demanding that you comply with anything. You have the free will to come up with your own "wild and wildly irrational and unsupported theories", make evidence based arguments for them, and follow them if you wish. Likewise, you have no basis to demand that others agree/believe/comply with your unsupported hunches and no basis to describe your hunches as "reality or right". That you can't or won't ground your theories beyond asserting that they are based in your personal, subjective, imperfect, fallible, Reason and rationality is a problem for you. That you can't or won't provide any argument against or proof against the things advocated for in this post, is a problem that you also have. When all you have is "questions" that you believe haven't/can't be answered to your satisfaction isn't proof or even evidence. It's merely you applying some unknown, subjective, standard of proof to questions that have been answered for centuries. I get it, you don't like the answers or don't find them persuasive. Who cares? The world doesn't revolve around you.
"Where am I mistaken in ANY of that?"
As noted, you're mistaken in your claim that anyone is "demanding" anything of you for starters. As usual, your straw men, and reliance on your subjective Reason instead of actual evidence leads you into a narcissistic spiral of bullshit.
So, yes, he made that claim with literally NO support and NO, you are not going to try to even begin to support it, either.
What was it that was said about building a house on sand?
I'd hope that you'd at least have the intellectual honesty to admit you all can't prove any of this kind of nonsense human theories based upon presupposition, not reality or data or shit.
I took another search for the rarely addressed question: WHO says all of humanity deserves Hell and based upon WHAT misdeeds?
The boys over at Ligonier had this bit of crazy to say:
The “eternal torments” of hell are described by Westminster Confession 33.2 as a place of punishment “with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.” Oftentimes, hell is thought of as a place of separation from God’s presence. But God is omnipresent—He can’t not be somewhere. Rather, Scripture envisages hell as an experience not of His absence but of His wrathful presence, His unending displeasure and punishment. Our God, who is a “consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29), will pour out His “wrath and fury” (Rom. 2:8) on the wicked in hell.
Well, hell!
They continue...
Hell is the destination for those who have chosen to love darkness rather than light (John 3:18–21). This might seem to contradict the rich man’s longing cry, “Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame” (Luke 16:24). But notice that the rich man doesn’t suddenly desire God; he merely desires relief from the punishment of God.
Calvinists can and should readily affirm that every person receives in the end that which he has freely chosen—either to worship God by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit or to curse God. Those who are in hell cannot and will not claim unfairness, for they’ve been given precisely what they’re owed and precisely what they’ve chosen.
Well, hell! Okay, that's their theory. But where is the PROOF - objective proof - that any rational person chooses to be tortured for an eternity? That anyone they believe has "cursed God" has INDEED, cursed God? That they are getting punishment that they're "owed..." and for WHAT?
You see? They make endless claims, but they provide NO support for what is, on the face of it, stupidly idiotically false and unsupportable.
I'm not saying that there aren't folks like you out there saying, "it's REALLLLLLY true! You can know it because we are telling you so... you can know it because we point to verses in the Bible that we personally think suggests that this is what conclusion we should reach, according to us..." But that is NOTHING like even trying to objectively prove anything. It's just an empty claim about a hellish human theory.
So, with your 30 year old and with Ligonier, you STILL have only empty claims and no support and a ghoulish, vulgar, pissant depiction of their theory of a "god..."
Well, I guess if you exclude every single bit of support that constitutes the rest of the piece, you could jump to that conclusion.
You've done this before, and it's intellectually dishonest. You claim that the supposed lack of some form of "proof" in this one specific piece somehow disqualifies the entire piece. It's a stupid, arbitrary, and absurd standard which you regularly violate.
No, I'm not going to jump through your hoops and do something just because you demand that I do so. That the piece provides ample evidence that PSA is not some "recent" phenomenon, contrary to your unsupported claims, is all I why I posted this.
FYI, in the 2000s compacted sand can be an excellent base for buildings.
Again, you demand from us what you demand from yourself.
The absence of evidence for answers to your questions that meet your arbitrary, unknown, standards is not evidence of the absence of those answers. Reality, Truth, and Theology aren't defined by what you can find that satisfies you.
I do appreciate the fact that you are at least going through the motions of looking for the answers you seek to questions that you claim bother you so, instead of demanding that others repeatedly do your research for you.
"They make endless claims,"
False.
"but they provide NO support for"
False.
"what is, on the face of it, stupidly idiotically false and unsupportable."
Based on what objective standard?
If you aren't going to provide "PROOF -objective proof" of your "stupidly, idiotically, false and unsupportable" hunches, then you have no basis to demand that others do what you refuse to do.
I think that part of the problem is that I look at scripture, and the significant number of references provided in this post, and I see the "DATA" you claim to want. You dismiss scripture is inadequate (in authority or number of passages) with no warrant to do so, and you ignore the testimony of thousands of years. You don't even bother to demonstrate that any of it is wrong, or inaccurate, you simply dismiss it.
You then pull this bullshit about the author being "only 30" as if you age somehow confers some great legitimacy on your unsupported hunches and claims. Elsewhere you've dismissed experts for equally vacuous reasons. Why? It's simple. You have no argument against the "DATA", you have no counter to the scriptures or to the testimony of thousands of years, so you play these bullshit games.
Be a man, grow a spine, state your position clearly and unambiguously, and offer "PROOF -objective proof" that unequivocally proves your claim.
You won't because "My Reason tells me so." isn't "PROOF -objective proof".
Craig, opining with no support and apparently missing the point, said:
You claim that the supposed lack of some form of "proof" in this one specific piece somehow disqualifies the entire piece. It's a stupid, arbitrary, and absurd standard which you regularly violate.
Look, it's about building a case. IF a prosecutor says, "Well, he killed the baby and ate its remains and then danced around its bones, therefore, he should be placed in prison for the rest of their life!" And then spends all his time on defending WHY they should be in prison for the rest of their life but NEVER PROVES the initial premise, it simply doesn't matter HOW clever or witty or researched his personal hunches about punishment are, he hasn't proven the very first premise.
You all have not proven - have not even attempted to TRY to prove - your premise. This 30 year old man didn't, the older gentlemen at Ligonier didn't. You haven't.
Do you at least agree that it's a reasonable and PRELIMINARY question to answer - and prove - before moving on the sentencing phase of the trial?
"proof that PSA is not some recent phenomena..."
? I haven't said that. It's clearly been a human theory floating around for centuries, at least and maybe, in some rudimentary forms, from around the first few centuries after Jesus' death. This is a red herring and not sure what your point is with this, other than offering a red herring.
Craig:
you demand from us what you demand from yourself.
I suspect you meant "what you DON'T demand from yourself," and if so, well, no, you're just wrong. If I make a fact claim, then I'm glad to support it OR admit it's not objectively proven.
I AM making a fact claim: I have not seen ANYONE make a proven case that all of humanity is somehow "deserving" of eternal torture OR that most of humanity "chooses" to be tortured for an eternity. The claims are obtuse and ridiculous on the face of it and I've NEVER seen anyone make a sound case for it. And rarely has anyone ever tried.
Just like your young man didn't try. Just like Ligonier didn't try.
NOW, that is an objective fact. I have NEVER seen it (in spite of deep searches over 30 years, at least) and I suspect it doesn't exist.
Now, IF it exists, ALL you have to do is point to the place where the question has been proven objectively. AND, if you can't do that, then intellectual honesty demands that you admit you can't.
Clearly you can't, but you refuse to do the good faith step of admitting it.
That's on you.
Once again Dan proves he isn't a Christian, or at least hasn't the foggiest understanding the doctrine of PSA, as if Jesus came to just tell everyone how much He loves the world with all it deviants and perverts and other sinners and will certainly not allow punishment.
Craig:
I think that part of the problem is that I look at scripture, and the significant number of references provided in this post, and I see the "DATA" you claim to want.
There is NOT ONE SCRIPTURE where God definitively says that all of humanity is "deserving" of eternal torture OR that most of humanity "chooses" eternal torture or chooses to reject God.
Not one. Objectively, definitively.
There ARE some passages that many humans have read and said, "Well, to me, that suggests that all of humanity deserves eternal torture..." But that is a case of those humans using their human reasoning to reach that conclusion from texts that don't definitively say that.
EVEN IF there are texts that come close to saying what you all theorize, it remains an undisputed and objective fact that the Bible is a book written by men with all kinds of figurative and poetic and hyperbolic language being used, written in a variety of genres.
Paul, for instance, is engaged in writing letters to specific people in response, usually, to specific questions. And in writing those letters, the human Paul is writing his opinion about how to answer that question or to address a concern. Paul does not make the claim - usually - that he is speaking for God. BUT, even in the instances that Paul, the human, SAYS he is speaking for God, that is not a given, any more than what he is saying should be taken as literally, woodenly factual. According to the text, it is literally Paul, the human, speaking (well, except in those cases where we are not sure of the author/s).
The point being is that, EVEN WHEN we are reading the text of the Bible, WE HUMANS perforce are using OUR HUMAN REASONING to decide what it means. Objectively, factually, demonstrably.
Those are facts. Do you recognize those facts? OR, do you suspect that when YOU read a text and reach a conclusion, it was GOD squishing into your brain and FORCING you to reach that conclusion, apart from your own reasoning?
And if that is what you think, do you recognize that you have no objective proof for that?
MY REASON TELLS ME so IS the answer to how we understand the written text. There IS no external source telling you otherwise, not in any objectively proven manner.
You dismiss scripture is inadequate (in authority or number of passages) with no warrant to do so, and you ignore the testimony of thousands of years.
I do not dismiss one scripture. THAT is an objective fact. That I disagree with YOUR PERSONAL HUMAN OPINIONS on how to best understand Scripture is not the same as me dismissing scripture. That I disagree with the opinions of thousands of other humans (who believed a wide range of things, some of them horrible and evil!) over hundreds of years is not the same as dismissing Scripture. It's me disagreeing with y'all, in exactly the same way that y'all might disagree with me.
Because YOU, using YOUR human reasoning, have reached a different interpretation. As a point of fact.
Do you dispute any of those facts?
Craig:
You won't because "My Reason tells me so." isn't "PROOF -objective proof".
A point which I'm more than glad to admit and do so regularly. I just am noting the objective fact that YOU, too, are using your reasoning and you, likewise, can not objectively prove those human theories in question.
That is a given, until such time as you objectively prove your theories.
What I CAN say is that, given REASON and LOGIC, we can see when a theory is not rationally consistent, where a human argument might fail because it's internally inconsistent and irrational.
The claims:
There is a God who is perfectly loving and perfectly just who loves all of humanity...
Is an unproven claim that many of us would agree with. BUT, the follow up claim of some of y'all:
AND that God has created most of humanity to be sent to be tortured for an eternity...
Is NOT rationally consistent with the first premise. A rational and loving and just Being does NOT - CAN NOT if reason means anything at all - create some humans (MOST!) to be tortured for an eternity! It's an internally flawed premise. Both things can not be rationally valid.
Right?
Same for the other iterations of afterlife theories that you all espouse.
A quick question: it occurs to me that one of your human theories (that humans CHOOSE to reject God, and this, CHOOSE to be tortured forever) is almost certainly a new wrinkle/theory to TRY to make your human atonement theories less evil-sounding. Like, maybe as recent as CS Lewis... but I don't know that, I haven't researched it.
Do you know?
Is this a modern approach to try to explain PSA?
I suspect that's the case.
"Look, it's about building a case."
While this is something I can't recall you doing, I'll simply note AGAIN that in the case of something like this there is no requirement that every single detail of the "case" be laid out in every different piece on a subject. That's just you bitching about nothing, and presuming that the lack of a "case" in this one piece automatically means that no "case" exists.
"
Do you at least agree that it's a reasonable and PRELIMINARY question to answer - and prove - before moving on the sentencing phase of the trial?"
This isn't a trial. Therefore there is nothing that requires this person to abide by some arbitrary rules you've made up based on your hunches about trials. Again, "Reasonable" is subjective.
"I haven't said that."
Then you contradict yourself in the next sentence. But whatever.
Yes, I did mean what you don't demand of yourself. Unfortunately, the following claim is simply unsupported bullshit. FYI, "support" isn't appealing to your subjective Reason or some invented consensus of using straw men.
"I have not seen ANYONE make a proven case..."
This could be the stupidest "fact claim" ever made. As you intentionally limit your "fact claim" to what you "have seen", your claim means nothing beyond you. That you haven't "seen" something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It's possible that you have "seen" the proof you claim to seek and either missed, misinterpreted, or been mistaken about it.
No, I/We don't "have" to do anything just because you demand that we do so.
Anon, please ID yourself.
"There is NOT ONE SCRIPTURE..."
You say that you prove your claims, then prove this one.
Of course, you quickly contradict yourself. By pretending that you are NOT using your "human reasoning" shaped by your biases and prejudices to arrive at your hunches. That so many of your hunches involve concluding that a passage means the opposite of the plain meaning does present problems you pretend don't exist clearly doesn't stop you from making assertions.
Dan offers his hunch about what he calls other's opinions. helpful.
"MY REASON TELLS ME..."
And there it is Dan places what his "REASON TELLS" him above all else, and then expects everyone else to dance to the tune played by his subjective, imperfect, fallible, human "REASON".
"Do you dispute any of those facts?"
I dispute your characterizations of your unproven hunches as "facts", and the notion that your "REASON" is the final arbiter of anything for anyone but you.
It's refreshing to hear you admit that your subjective, fallible, imperfect, human "REASON" is your highest authority. Unfortunately, in the absence of proof beyond "MY REASON TELLS ME...", it's just one more unproven hunch.
Who cares what you "suspect". Not I. But I'm not dignifying this straw man with any of my time today.
It seems germane to note that as of this comment the entirety of Dan unhappiness with this post boils down to three minor things.
1. Dan can't manipulate the pictures easily.
2. The author is 30 and doesn't have enough more education than Dan.
3. The author didn't answer a specific question, in this specific piece, and therefore no possible answer exists because Dan claims he hasn't "seen" one.
No disputing the scriptures, no disputing the experts.scholars.theologians, no disputing the accuracy of any thing, none of that. Just nitpicking on minor, irrelevant, bullshit.
Craig...
"You say that you prove your claims, then prove this one."
? What are you failing to understand?
I'm noting the factual reality that NOT ONE VERSE IN ALLLLLLLLL the Bible is God definitively saying that all of humanity is "deserving" of eternal torture OR that most of humanity "chooses" eternal torture or chooses to reject God. Not one.
Now, in case you still don't understand,
Genesis 1:1 does not say that.
Genesis 1:2 does not say that.
Genesis 1:3 does not say that.
Genesis 1:4 does not say that...
Revelation 1:1 does not say that...
Etc, etc, etc.
God has not said that.
Now, that is all I can do, is point to the absence of God telling us that.
Beyond that, I can point to what some human authors had to say about God, like, Peter...
"God is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
Or Paul...
"This is good, and pleases God our Savior,
who wants all people to be saved
and to come to a knowledge of the truth. "
For instance.
The objective fact is that the biblical texts offer words that go into all kinds of directions... some texts make it sound God wants and WILL save the whole world. Other texts, sometimes in the same passage, indicates that some sinners will perish (disappear, go away and be gone) and other texts suggesting some sinners "being thrown into a lake of fire..." (thrown, not choosing to go into the fire.) In the OT, there was no serious belief in any afterlife, heaven or hell. And on it goes.
And given the diversity of opinions in these texts, any humans hoping to find one consistent message (not that either God or "the Bible " promise we'll find a consistent message) have to use their human reasoning to try to sort out the variety of phrases, lessons
.. what is figurative? What is literal? What message does God literally want us to hold on to?
Which is fine, as far as it goes.
But the fact remains, NOT ONE VERSE IN ALLLLLLLLL the Bible is God definitively saying that all of humanity is "deserving" of eternal torture OR that most of humanity "chooses" eternal torture.
Where am I mistaken?
Craig, STILL missing the point entirely, said:
The author didn't answer a specific question, in this specific piece, and therefore no possible answer exists because Dan claims he hasn't "seen" one.
No disputing the scriptures, no disputing the experts.scholars.theologians, no disputing the accuracy of any thing
There is literally nothing for me TO dispute. HE DID NOT ADDRESS the giant gaping wound in his theory.
Now, IF he had argued, "There is a verse in Flipertonians 2:14, where the author said that God REALLY thinks that people deserve to rot in hell because of their so-called 'sin nature...'" Well, THEN, I could look at his passage and the text and the context and weigh how apt his human analysis is. But he didn't do that.
THIS is the problem. You all are acting as if your STARTING proposition in your human thesis is a given and should just be accepted as a given... but it's not. It's strange. It's weird. It's counter-rational. It's unholy as a literal hell.
And WHEN someone tries to make a case for this hellish human theory, and they begin to cite scholars and research and whatnot, THEN I could address that theory. But you all haven't done that.
Tell me: Is it the case that YOUR personal human opinion about the "total depravity of humankind" IS a given and that you don't need to defend it... that no one needs to defend it, it just IS and no one can dispute it?
Because, if so, you're just failing at a logic 101 level.
THE INITIAL PREMISE is not a "minor, irrelevant bullshit." Although I WILL allow that this unsupported premise is precisely as valuable AS bullshit (well, except that bullshit has some value, but this unsupported theory has nothing.)
The Brave Sir Anonymous proclaimed...
s if Jesus came to just tell everyone how much He loves the world with all it deviants and perverts and other sinners and will certainly not allow punishment.
Well... Jesus literally DID come to tell everyone how much he loves the world, if you take his recorded words seriously. Indeed, JESUS said that God is not willing that ANY should perish. So, if someone asks you, "Do you know what the Will of God is for humanity?" You can confidently answer, "Well, according to Jesus, God's will is to SAVE the world, so that NONE would perish, THAT is God's will..." IF you take Jesus' words seriously.
(And, as an aside: You could also note that, according to Jesus, God's will is to preach literal good news to the literal poor and marginalized, the sick and oppressed and imprisoned... that TOO, is God's will... IF you take Jesus' words seriously.)
As to your theory about what I said about sin and punishment: I literally did NOT say that God would allow no punishment. Quite the opposite: I noted that IF God is a just God and IF we have misdeeds in our lives, we can trust that IF and WHEN there is any punishment required, that it will be a rational and just punishment, NOT an insanely evil and unjust punishment.
IF even you mortals know how to give good to your children and treat their misdeeds appropriately, is not an almighty, perfectly Just and Loving God able to do what even WE can do?
What a small and petty, graceless vision of a "god..."
Thanks for your graceless critique of my inability to master the tech skill to enlarge the graphic your graphic theologian provided. Given time, I've figured it out. Allow me to address those points (while waiting for you to ignore answering the central questions in his/your human premise)...
He opined:
1. "EVERY sinner faces four consequences of "his" sin..."
Note: He provides NO scripture for this theory. It's just a statement. He continues:
2. This sinner is now separated from fellowship with God...
Again, no scripture, no support. Just an empty and rather ridiculous claim.
But think about it: God is omnipotent and omnipresent. NO human or thing can be separated from an omnipotent, omnipresent God. But "fellowship with God..." Well think about that: IF you have a beloved child and that child takes an action that causes you or others great offense and harm - that child murders someone, for instance! ...would that horrible misdeed cause you to separate from fellowship with your child? Not me. I'm not crazy, that way. And I'm a mere mortal.
Now, will that great horrible crime impact that relationship? Sure, it can't help but impact it... but will a misdeed cause me to actually refuse fellowship... from MY CHILD? Phew, I can't imagine. I mean, maybe, if it was horrible enough, MAYBE, I could no longer love that child.
But there, we're talking about great horrible evil actions... the rare rapist or murderer or enslaver.
But for the majority of humanity, for the majority of our children and beloved family, they will never commit an atrocity. We'll get in smaller fights. A brother will call a sister a "liar" and "thief" because the sister stole his car when they were younger. Would the loving parent break fellowship with either child over lesser misdeeds? Hell, even the "stealing the car" example would be a rare misdeed. It's more like small lies, gossips, misdeeds of that sort. Are such misdeeds terrible/bad? Of course. But would they cause YOU to break fellowship with your own beloved children?
Not me. And I'm not God, but I can find the grace and wisdom to work through that with them. And I never would presume to say, "Hey, for those 100 lies about me and that gossiping you did, I'm going to put you in prison for life... for an eternity! AND, And, AND! I'm going to TORTURE you in that prison!!"
What kind of graceless, loveless ghoul would do that? Not me. You?
3. The sinner is now a slave to sin and Satan...
[Rolls eyes]. Again, NO support, just a silly little claim referencing to non-existent Beings. "SIN" rationally speaking, literally speaking, is not a Being to be enslaved to. It's simply missing the mark... it's just not being perfect, in the text and context of biblical teachings. And also, to that great bogey man, Satan. Now, if he'd like to clarify that he's speaking figuratively (you know, when we spend much of our time dedicated to something, one might reasonably say you are a "slave" to that thing. People have been called a slave to fashion. Those with addictions have talked about being enslaved to that addiction... that's fine, as a metaphor. Regardless, we don't know what he means because he didn't support it and again, there are no biblical verses he cites to help clarify this theory/meaning there.
4. The sinner must die (presumably because of the sin).
Again, no support, just a claim.
5. The sinner must bear God's wrath...
Again, no support, just a claim.
That's the entirety of the first section. And there again, there is nothing to dispute. ALL I can do is note that they are empty, unproven claims. They are subjective opinions that are rationally suspect.
More to come...
No. It's reflective of "I Am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before thee." Thus, it's no more a "new wrinkle" than is PSA.
"For all his many words, he didn't address these obvious hole in his argument."
What you present as an "obvious hole" isn't at all given his premise is simply that PSA is Biblical. He says what it means and goes on to show how it was a fully accepted concept from the beginning.
As to what you stupidly regard as "reasonable questions", Craig is correct in saying they've all been answered before, in this blog and my own and in a manner including Scriptural evidence which backs it up.
"Nyuh uh" won't work for you.
Your fella continues, saying:
The Atonement proceeds from God's Love and Justice...
Okay, what's that mean?
In Love, God desired to save those whom God predestined to belong to God...
So, God did NOT desire to save "the world," in spite of the passages that say that directly? Well, again, I'm glad to note that the biblical authors say A LOT of things regarding salvation and any potential afterlife, and not all of them are consistently the same. Some are directly contradictory, on the face of it. But who says that God only wants to save "the predestined" and that God decided to see the rest of humanity - the majority, if you listen to these human theories - to eternal torture? And why, for what Crime??
He continued...
AND yet, God's justice demanded the penalty due to sinners must be fully paid...
? What "penalty?" Is it one penalty for ALL sinners, no matter the level of their misdeeds? That seems crazy, don't it... I mean, just on the face of it? Where is the justice in that? He continued...
Sin's consequences could be overcome only when justice had been satisfied.
Well, that IS a hell of a helluva human theory. But says who? Based upon what? What are the details of the "cost" of sin and who says that's right? Asking SAYS WHO? is always a reasonable question to ask, especially when someone is espousing a slightly (or very) crazy/cruel-sounding theory.
In this section, he offered three scriptures, plopped down with no explanation. So...
John 3:16:
For God so loved the world that that God gave the one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life"
Well, that DOES speak how God loved the whole world (not just some theoretical subset of allegedly "predestined" people and to hell with the rest!), but it does not in any way suggest that most of humanity had committed some crimes or misdeeds that are SO awful that the ONLY just way to respond is to torture them forever. It just doesn't.
Of course, the rest of that passage speaks (again) of God's plan to come to see NO ONE perish, but the whole world be saved and continues...
Light has come into the world,
but people loved darkness instead of light
because their deeds were evil.
Everyone who does evil hates the light,
and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.
Okay, so it's a given that there is a lot of figurative language being used here, but let's look at it. "People loved darkness/evil..." WHICH people? ALL people? The text literally doesn't say that. It makes clear, the evil-doers are the ones who DO EVIL. Duh. Of course. But not everyone engages in evil. So... The text here says that God WANTS everyone to be saved
BUT that there are some evil-doers who do no want "the light" or presumably to be saved...
continued...
But that does not speak to the "cost" of sin or the specifics of who incurs those costs and how. People COULD read into the text that the "evil doers" are every human, but that would be reading into the text, not what the text says. At any rate, that passage doesn't address the many holes or questions I've raised. He also cites Romans 3:26 (I'll include 25, for context)...
God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
So, yes, we get it... Paul was very big on the "shedding of the blood" imagery but it remains to be seen how literally (if at all) Paul took that imagery. And, in the text, why did Jesus shed his blood? To "demonstrate his righteousness..." although Paul doesn't explain how that is or why that is. It's just placed there. But whatever... it still doesn't explain this fella's theories about WHAT "penalty" must be paid and WHY he thinks that or what "fully paid" means or why he thinks that. It doesn't answer any of the questions raised by his theories. He offers a third verse, Ephesians 1:4-5. Let's see if THESE address the theories at all that he's advocating.
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will...
Okay, whatever. None of that supports his theory of a "just penalty" needing to be "fully paid..." It doesn't explain WHAT the penalty is or what/why it needs to be paid and to what degree. One might argue that this passage mentions the word "predestined" so it could be a point on the page of a belief in "predestination..." but it doesn't address the points he raised in this section. It just doesn't.
Am I mistaken?
Where?
You ASKED me to go through and deal with their so-called "biblical" arguments. I'm doing just that and he's coming up with nothing/not much.
Just to do a bit of re-capping.
This fella theorizes that there are four consequences of "sin" in our lives, separation from God, slavery to "sin" and "the debil, we gonna die and we must face God's punishment.
BUT, he provided nothing to support those claims... nothing biblically or rationally. He just made the claims and let them go, as if the claim were self evident.
It's not.
He then continued suggesting
In Love, God desired to save those whom God predestined to belong to God...
But that immediately raises a question: What DECENT, non-crazy, non-evil human parent (HUMAN, not even God!) has six children and decides, "You know what, to hell with FOUR of those kids. I hate them and want them to suffer an eternity... but I WILL love and offer salvation for TWO of them!" IF you heard a human parent say something like that, you'd get CPS involved and take those children away from those parents.
That kind of attitude is NOT loving, as loving is understood. Indeed, it's evil and depraved, as evil and depravity are understood.
Am I mistaken?
And if we mere mortal human parents can understand the depth of evil and complete lack of love in that kind of parent, is not God MORE capable of us than love, rather than LESS capable?
It's a vulgar insult to God, to suggest this, just at face-value.
WHERE am I mistaken?
Do you theorize that I don't understand God's love? Well, maybe not fully. But then again, maybe YOU don't understand God's love. Especially if you think, "I'm going to torture forever 4/6 of my children... because truly, I hate four of them!"
Your theorist continues with the question of "Was the Atonement necessary" and answers...
There was no external requirement that God save ANYONE
Well, how about just the commonsense notion that God isn't a huge graceless, unloving jackass? Basic decency says a parent (or GOD) wants to save their children, right? This is crazy and unsupported. He continues:
Once God determined that he WOULD save some, there was no other way through atonement... (Which, in context, I'm sure he means something like PSA - because there are other ways of thinking about atonement).
Well, that's a pretty narrow and pathetic view of an allegedly almighty God. God CAN'T save people EXCEPT by killing Jesus, scooping up that blood and taking it to the cash register to pay off sin (for SOME people), one drop at a time??
My God is bigger than that. You? My God is almighty and all-loving and not limited by bloody business deals. Pppff!
He laughingly offered as biblical support for this nonsense, demeaning-to-God theory Matthew 26:39...
Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”
Um... literally NO mention of a weakly, vulgar god who can ONLY forgive people if there is a killing and blood shed. (And again, I don't think you can understand how ridiculous that sounds on the face of it. We who were raised in Atonement Land just accept it as rational, but truly, it's gaga goofy if you step away from it... and again, terribly demeaning to the notion of a mighty, loving God.) Anyone, there's just nothing here. In the other verse he cited, Hebrews 2:17, we find...
For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.
Which at least addresses this theory of "blood atonement." BUT, the passage does NOT say there was "no other way" to achieve forgiveness. And, of course, it doesn't address the earlier reasonable questions of WHAT penalty and for WHAT "crimes" and Says who?
So many holes and unanswered question. So very little in the way of rational biblical support.
It's like if one could find a phrase in the biblical text ("the four corners of the world" for instance) and fashion an entire theology around those words, in spite of the rest of the Bible, in spite of common sense or decency or justice or love (the flat earth society, for instance).
JUST because there is a phrase found in the bible DOES NOT MEAN you can build your entire theology around that phrase, just because you found it in the Bible - even IF you find it four or five times! (And literally, the words "atone/atonement" are in the NT just a handful or two of times, depending on the translation).
Do you see the problem in his "defense..." (or lack, thereof)?
Do you see how he's not answering the questions he's raising?
Craig irrationally claimed:
This could be the stupidest "fact claim" ever made.
Of course, it's not stupid. IF SOMEONE SAYS, "Why I know as a fact that there are flying purple unicorns on the dark side of the moon..." Then the rational person can respond with the exceedingly rational and apt, "There is no data to support that claim... I've seen NOTHING from anywhere to suggest that's true..."
It's another way of saying, "That's bullshit" but keeping it within the realm of the provable. I can't objectively PROVE that there are no no purple unicorns on the moon or that someone has provided objective proof for your awful theories, but I CAN rationally say, "I've seen NOTHING to support that conclusion."
WHERE AM I MISTAKEN?
Come on. Be a better human and reasoner than this.
Early on, you said...
Dan leads with an unproven proposition, and one that is irrational on the face of it. But that doesn't stop him, nor does he see the irony.
My proposition, just to be clear, is that this guy does NOT objectively prove (or even TRY to) his theory...
"Penal Substitution means that Christ bears the penalty we deserve..."
It is NOT unproven that he did not prove it (or even tried to). He merely made the claim with NO support, as if it didn't need to be proven. In case you aren't clear on what I was saying. That is an objectively factual observation: HE DID NOT TRY TO PROVE THIS CLAIM. Thus, my claim is NOT an unproven proposition, as you falsely (mistakenly?) suggest. It's just a demonstrable, objective fact.
Understand now?
By all means, do the right thing and apologize for this false claim, now demonstrated to you. Demonstrate that you're trying to have a discussion in good faith.
Now, having said that, there WERE two parts to my response:
A. Your author leads with an unproven presupposition, and
B. one that is irrational on the face of it.
It is an objective fact that anyone can see that he led with an unproven presupposition. THAT is a fact and to say I'm promoting an unproven proposition in noting that clear reality is wrong.
Understand?
Now, the SECOND part of what I said...
B. one that is irrational on the face of it.
THAT might be a matter of debate and opinion. It's less cut-and-dry. So, if THAT is what you were objecting to, fair enough. THAT part (alone) IS an unproven opinion, albeit a rational one. HERE is how it is rational, if not completely proven. The claim:
"Penal Substitution means that Christ bears the penalty we deserve..."
...IS a correct description of the meaning of how conservatives theorize about the theory of "penal substitution..." I was NOT saying otherwise, just to be clear. That IS your human theory.
What is irrational about that part is the notion that free-grace forgiveness can only happen with a literal blood payment is that a payment - a BLOOD payment!!! FROM AN INNOCENT MAN!!! - to "pay for" or "buy off" forgiveness, is NOT free-grace forgiveness. It's a business deal, not grace.
If I tell my beloved son, "You know, lying about me was not kind and it was wrong, BUT, I stand prepared to forgive you... IF you pay me with 2 pints of blood..." That's not free-grace forgiveness. It's sick, ill, graceless. Disturbed, frankly.
When I forgive someone, it's because I choose to forgive them of their misdeed, even if there were some cost to me. That's LITERALLY what "forgive" means. I surrender the cost. Period.
1
: to cease to feel resentment against (an offender) : pardon
forgive one's enemies
2
a
: to give up resentment of or claim to requital (see requital sense 1) for
forgive an insult
b
: to grant relief from payment of
Can you see that, even if you ultimately disagree?
Craig, responding to a reasonable question, respectfully asked, from Dan:
I'm not dignifying this straw man with any of my time today.
Me asking you IF you know how old/recent the theory of "humans choose hell" is to the theory of atonement is literally not a "strawman fallacy." It's literally a good faith question that was respectfully asked. I was and am just curious.
You don't have to know the answer (any more than I know the answer) but to falsely call it a "straw man" is just factually wrong and a mistake on your part. Perhaps you'd demonstrate some good faith by admitting as much.
Craig:
This isn't a trial. Therefore there is nothing that requires this person to abide by some arbitrary rules you've made up based on your hunches about trials.
YOU all are the ones who theorize that the majority of humanity will be judged by God as not worthy of being part of God's realm/God's heaven and that, you theorize, they will be punished by being sent to "hell," which is a literal eternity of punishment, according to you all.
This is very much how one talks about a trial - and the most serious of all possible trials, with an eternity of torture in play.
IF ONE is theorizing a human opinion that God may send/allow people to go to eternal torture, THEN one has a rational obligation to make it clear what it is based upon.
That is some serious-as-literal-hell shit you're espousing. Step up, son, and be responsible in what you're advocating.
I'm not sure what you're failing to understand.
So, the claim that you so boldly "prove" is that not one verse in the Bible says exactly what you have formulated. That not one single verse in the Bible uses the exact words that you've used.
Who cares?
Yeah, screw Peter and Paul, what could he possibly have known about Jesus and YHWH and stuff? While you're at it, screw the Holy Spirit as well, there's no way for the Holy Spirit to have inspired Peter and Paul to write Scripture to communicate Truth.
"Where am I mistaken?"
As usual, when you place your own imperfect, subjective, fallible, human, Reason over all else. BTW, this is a stupid question, and gives the impression that you believe that it is impossible for you to be wrong.
"HE DID NOT ADDRESS the giant gaping wound in his theory."
You're right. He didn't address the one thing that Dan obsesses over and that Dan has decided is a "giant gaping wound" because we all know that Dan defines reality and in his arrogance and hubris gets to decide what is or is not a "giant gaping wound" in something that's been around for thousands of years.
It's strange, when Dan starts with a proposition that he demands be accepted as a "given" ("God blesses gay marriage" or "all humans are essentially good" or "minor sins") we're simply expected to accept his unproven bullshit as gospel. But when he decides that someone else has done what he regularly does, then it's as "unholy as hell".
Coming from someone who regularly posts anonymously (because he's too lazy or incompetent to figure out how Blogger works), this bit of passive aggressive bullshit is a bit much.
But thank goodness, Dan is here to set Anon straight and arrogantly tell him what's what.
You're the one who had to bitch about your inability.
If you can prove his claims wrong, do so. If all you have is this crap, don't waste my time.
"that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life"
It's refreshing when Dan proof texts like this, then ignores the part of the proof text that doesn't fit the round hole he's trying to pound a square peg into.
FYI, I know Dan dismisses or questions the notion of an eternal afterlife, I guess he's just not listening to Jesus.
Again with a proof text that makes exactly the opposite point Dan is trying to force it to make. Elsewhere Dan insists that people are forced or sent to Hell, here we find that people "love darkness instead of light", or Love Sin more than Jesus and that the stay in "darkness" because they don't want their "deeds exposed". But whatever, it doesn't matter in Dan's fantasy world.
This notion that (apparently) every text (or every bit of writing about scripture) must contain the answers to every question Dan can come up with. It's impossible to glean information from other Scriptures.
This notion of just asking random questions and "Am I mistaken?" isn't really proving anything to be wrong or proving Dan to be right.
"Do you theorize that I don't understand God's love?"
Yes, because you're not YHWH. I suspect that you conflate your hunches about YHWH with YHWH's actual word.
The concept of atonement for Sin is inextricably woven through Scripture from beginning to end. That Jesus was the final outworking of the atonement is simply the final act in a lengthy narrative.
It's not that YHWH "CAN'T", as much as YHWH CHOSE to do things in the manner that He decided was the best for His purposes.
You lose the larger narrative when you unilaterally decide to write off the Hebrew scriptures as "myth" and "revenge fantasies". "Blood atonement" is inextricably woven throughout the Hebrew scriptures, and instituted by YHWH.
Dan's confusion is evident here. He clearly thinks that merely asking the questions that bother him personally, or pointing out things he personally disagrees with or doesn't understand somehow invalidates the argument being presented. Instead of proving PSA in general to be false, or even offering any actual evidence to do so, Dan just catalogues a bunch of bitching because he doesn't get what he personally wants. No positive case for any alternative to PSA, not proof the PSA is wrong, just bitching.
Yeah, still a stupid thing to claim as a "fact".
You literally say that there is "NOTHING", because you literally do not have the capability to discount every possible option. Grounding your fact claim in what you have "seen", likewise is stupid as what you have "seen" is a meaningless measuring stick.
"My proposition, just to be clear, is that this guy does NOT objectively prove (or even TRY to) his theory..."
Which is, of course, and unproven proposition which you (so far) haven't attempted to prove. You coming up with random questions or complaints is not proof.
Likewise drawing conclusions that you treat as objective, yet are only grounded in your individual, subjective, personal, imperfect, fallible, human Reason of Rationality isn't proof.
Anytime you "ask a question" that changes the subject, it's a straw man. You do it regularly, and I see no reason to dignify them by taking them seriously.
I've previously referred to this by quoting CS Lewis, who was a pretty intelligent guy, because he puts it quote well.
I'd argue that it goes back to people "choose darkness instead of light'. I'd further argue that it goes back to Israel choosing to worship false gods instead of YHWH. I'd argue that it's grounded in Exodus where YHWH repeatedly saves the Hebrews and they demand that Aaron make them a golden idol.
If someone has spent their entire life avoiding YHWH, why would they possibly conclude that spending eternity in His presence is anything but punishment?
No, we read what Jesus said.
It's not a trial. That is you imposing your hunch on scripture and on YHWH.
It's based on scripture.
I'm not failing to understand anything. You seem to be failing to understand that "Because my Reason tells me..." isn't proof. Or that you being able to come up with questions or criticisms, also isn't proof.
Dan seems to think that his ability to ask random questions, somehow invalidates whatever he asks questions about. That he's confused, uninformed, biased, stupid, or incapable of comprehending, is not enough to invalidate anything. It's telling that he didn't even try to demonstrate that anything in the post was factually wrong, he merely asked random questions which have answers available. That Dan doesn't like, or finds those answers unsatisfying, also does not invalidate the post.
Post a Comment