Atonement (what is written)

[JonC]

*sigh*

If you're going to belabor the point, a cursory search yielded this:

View attachment 14205

Here in your signature arrogance you call PSA pagan, and accuse those who hold to it as presenting a petty God, needing to be pacified with a toy instead of just passing over our sins.

You may not have used the terms "child abuse", but in like manner you have accused us of presenting an abusive God.

Tell me again how "None of what I have said of you is true." On second thought...don't. Instead of using this little diversion to avoid answering the eminent Scriptures I presented about Christ's identity and His work, maybe deal with them.

Oh... the idea that Christ was a sacrifice to appease God is pagan (it is the pagan concept of atonement as opposed to the OT concept of covering or cleansing and the NT concept of reconciliation and cleansing).

But your complaint was not that I stated the fact that the RCC held a pagan views and Calvin maintained a pagan concept of sacrifices.

Your complaint was not that I said "God is not a child to be appeased".

You made up the idea that I said your theory amounts to "child abuse", that I said it would be petty of God to demand a payment for sins.

Your lack of comprehension when it comes to my words (which are not important) highlights your lack of comprehension when it comes to God's words (which are important).

You view my words within a philosophical context I do not hold just as you view God's words through a philosophical context absent Scripture. In both cases it leads you to error.

Sure, I will tell you again if that is ehat you need. None of what you said is true.

God says "ABC". You say it really teaches "DEF" and criticize anybody who believes "ABC". The reason is God's words do not make sence to you. So you, just like @Anthony Pritchard , claim to believe the biblical text while dismissing the text itself.


I also presented Christ's work and God's justice-righteousness. The difference is I presented it God's own words.


If you and @Anthony Pritchard insist on developing philosophical theories to explain the Atonement through a judicial lens then you both should at least stick to the basic passages describing justice.

These are some absolute truths that can serve to keep your theories within bounds:

1. We must pay the most careful attention to Scripture, leaning not on our understanding but on every word that comes forth from God so that we do not drift away.

2. It is not good to punish the innocent.
3. God will not clear the guilty.
4. It is an abomination to punish the just.
5. God will never abandon the righteous.
6. Jesus bore our sins bodily.
7. God laid our iniquity on Him.
7. Jesus died once for all

8. Since we are human, Christ shared in our humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— and free mankind who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.


You cannot just pick a few passages, twist them into your theory, toss out passages that do not work (or explain away those passages) and hold a biblical understanding.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Oh... the idea that Christ was a sacrifice to appease God is pagan (it is the pagan concept of atonement as opposed to the OT concept of covering or cleansing and the NT concept of reconciliation and cleansing).

But your complaint was not that I stated the fact that the RCC held a pagan views and Calvin maintained a pagan concept of sacrifices.

Your complaint was not that I said "God is not a child to be appeased".

You made up the idea that I said your theory amounts to "child abuse", that I said it would be petty of God to demand a payment for sins.

Your lack of comprehension when it comes to my words (which are not important) highlights your lack of comprehension when it comes to God's words (which are important).

You view my words within a philosophical context I do not hold just as you view God's words through a philosophical context absent Scripture. In both cases it leads you to error.

Sure, I will tell you again if that is ehat you need. None of what you said is true.

God says "ABC". You say it really teaches "DEF" and criticize anybody who believes "ABC". The reason is God's words do not make sence to you. So you, just like @Anthony Pritchard , claim to believe the biblical text while dismissing the text itself.


I also presented Christ's work and God's justice-righteousness. The difference is I presented it God's own words.


If you and @Anthony Pritchard insist on developing philosophical theories to explain the Atonement through a judicial lens then you both should at least stick to the basic passages describing justice.

These are some absolute truths that can serve to keep your theories within bounds:

1. We must pay the most careful attention to Scripture, leaning not on our understanding but on every word that comes forth from God so that we do not drift away.

2. It is not good to punish the innocent.
3. God will not clear the guilty.
4. It is an abomination to punish the just.
5. God will never abandon the righteous.
6. Jesus bore our sins bodily.
7. God laid our iniquity on Him.
7. Jesus died once for all

8. Since we are human, Christ shared in our humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— and free mankind who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.


You cannot just pick a few passages, twist them into your theory, toss out passages that do not work (or explain away those passages) and hold a biblical understanding.

John, you’re building your accusations on claims I never made. You said I called PSA “child abuse.” I did not. You said I called God “petty.” I did not. You said I accused you of presenting an “abusive God.” I did not.

That’s deceitful, and it ends the discussion. I’m not defending words I never said.

Do not tag my name anymore.

 

[JonC]

John, you’re building your accusations on claims I never made. You said I called PSA “child abuse.” I did not. You said I called God “petty.” I did not. You said I accused you of presenting an “abusive God.” I did not.

That’s deceitful, and it ends the discussion. I’m not defending words I never said.

Do not tag my name anymore.

A few of points -

1. I NEVER said that you called PSA "child abuse".

2. I NEVER said that you called God "petty".

3. I do not know why you have chosen dishonest and deceitfulness, but your character (or lack thereof) on the quoted post is not befitting a follower of Christ.

You owe me an apology. But given the depravity of your post and false accusations against me, I will not hold my breath.

At least I see who you are now. I admit you had me fooled, which is on me. I thought you a godly man even though we disagreed on theories of Atonement.

That disagreement would not be a show stopper. I do not expect Christians to always agree. But I do expect Christians to be united in Christ.

3. Consider what your post here has done to your witness. You made two very serious false claims against me (two rather nasty lies). Yet you make yourself out to be a believer, sharing articles you wrote about the Christian life.

4. I "tag" members rather than using their names without tagging them to avoid the appearance of gossip. Just using somebody's username without tagging that member is more than not an attempt to gossip without it being noticed by that member.

So no. I will continue to "tag" any member I mention.

 

[JonC]

I do not understand why Christians are willing to completely destroy their witness by making false accusations publically.

A member claimed that I said PSA is "child abuse" and that PSA makes God "petty". I never posted, said, or thought that. I replied with that fact.

I guess to give support (to "prove" me wrong), @Anthony Pritchard made the false claim that I said he viewed PSA as "child abuse" and God as "petty", and to add a bit more he decided to slander me for something I never once said or believed.

Obviously Mr. Pritchard could not produce posts to back up his claims because he made it up (no such posts exist). He wanted to be the victim, so he cried wolf. But in so doing he sold his integrity at a very cheap price (to slander me, and I do not even matter).

TO CLARIFY -

I NEVER posted or believed PSA amounts to "child abuse".

I NEVER said or believed that PSA theorists view God as "petty" or make God appear as "petty".

I NEVER said or believed @Anthony Pritchard views PSA as "child abuse".

I NEVER said or believed @Anthony Pritchard posted or thinks that God is "petty".

@Anthony Pritchard made up those accusations.


This is a major issue in our faith today - many people profess Christ with their tongues but deny Christ with their actions. There was absolutely no reason for @Anthony Pritchard to make false statements about me. There was absolutely no reason for him to slander me. But that is exactly what he did. And why? Because we hold a different theory.

With one hand he makes false accusations against a brother in Christ while with the other he posts articles about Christian studies.

We HAVE to start doing better as Christians.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I do not understand why Christians are willing to completely destroy their witness by making false accusations publically.

A member claimed that I said PSA is "child abuse" and that PSA makes God "petty". I never posted, said, or thought that. I replied with that fact.

I guess to give support (to "prove" me wrong), @Anthony Pritchard made the false claim that I said he viewed PSA as "child abuse" and God as "petty", and to add a bit more he decided to slander me for something I never once said or believed.

Obviously Mr. Pritchard could not produce posts to back up his claims because he made it up (no such posts exist). He wanted to be the victim, so he cried wolf. But in so doing he sold his integrity at a very cheap price (to slander me, and I do not even matter).

TO CLARIFY -

I NEVER posted or believed PSA amounts to "child abuse".

I NEVER said or believed that PSA theorists view God as "petty" or make God appear as "petty".

I NEVER said or believed @Anthony Pritchard views PSA as "child abuse".

I NEVER said or believed @Anthony Pritchard posted or thinks that God is "petty".

@Anthony Pritchard made up those accusations.


This is a major issue in our faith today - many people profess Christ with their tongues but deny Christ with their actions. There was absolutely no reason for @Anthony Pritchard to make false statements about me. There was absolutely no reason for him to slander me. But that is exactly what he did. And why? Because we hold a different theory.

With one hand he makes false accusations against a brother in Christ while with the other he posts articles about Christian studies.

We HAVE to start doing better as Christians.

John, let me clarify this calmly so there is no further misunderstanding.

When I wrote, “You’re building your accusations on claims I never made,” I was referring to the fact that you were responding to those attributions as though they were things I had actually said. My intent was to correct the misrepresentation, not to accuse you of originating those phrases.

If my wording was unclear, I’m clarifying it here. But correcting a false attribution is not lying or slander. It is simply stating the truth.

I’m not engaging in personal accusations, and I’m not continuing the dispute. This clarification is all I intend to say on the matter.

 

[JonC]

John, let me clarify this calmly so there is no further misunderstanding.

When I wrote, “You’re building your accusations on claims I never made,” I was referring to the fact that you were responding to those attributions as though they were things I had actually said. My intent was to correct the misrepresentation, not to accuse you of originating those phrases.

If my wording was unclear, I’m clarifying it here. But correcting a false attribution is not lying or slander. It is simply stating the truth.

I’m not engaging in personal accusations, and I’m not continuing the dispute. This clarification is all I intend to say on the matter.

Tony,

No, I was not and I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion.

What made it false was I never made ANY accusations.

I replied to Aaron that I never posted, thought or believed that PSA is "child abuse".

I replied to Aaron that I never posted, thought, or believed that PSA makes God "petty".

Dude....MY POST IS STILL THERE (POST 81).


I did tell Aaron that, just like you, he claims to believe the biblical text while dismissing the text itself (that "it is wrong to punish the innocent", for example).

I did tell Aaron if the both of you insisted on developing philosophical theories to explain the Atonement through a judicial lens then you both should at least stick to the basic passages describing justice (God's justice
..I listed several passages).


BUT your post was COMPLETELY FALSE - either by intention or mistake.


READ POST 81 AGAIN.

Then please let me know if your reply was intentional or an error in discernment.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Tony,

No, I was not and I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion.

What made it false was I never made ANY accusations.

I replied to Aaron that I never posted, thought or believed that PSA is "child abuse".

I replied to Aaron that I never posted, thought, or believed that PSA makes God "petty".

Dude....MY POST IS STILL THERE (POST 81).


I did tell Aaron that, just like you, he claims to believe the biblical text while dismissing the text itself (that "it is wrong to punish the innocent", for example).

I did tell Aaron if the both of you insisted on developing philosophical theories to explain the Atonement through a judicial lens then you both should at least stick to the basic passages describing justice (God's justice
..I listed several passages).


BUT your post was COMPLETELY FALSE - either by intention or mistake.


READ POST 81 AGAIN.

Then please let me know if your reply was intentional or an error in discernment.

Let's let the appeal, the review process take place.

 

[JonC]

I’m not engaging in personal accusations, and I’m not continuing the dispute. This clarification is all I intend to say on the matter.

Tony,

It is easy for you to move on because you are the one who made the false accusations.

You will find support for that here (there are "camp" people who would support you if you said I posted "Satan is God"). But I believe there are more who, while sharing your view of the Atonement, would question your integrity because of your false claims.

The bold is your words -

You said I called PSA “child abuse.”

???? I never said ANYBODY called PSA "child abuse"

You said I called God “petty.”

???? I never said ANYODY called God "petty".


You said I accused you of presenting an “abusive God.

???? I never said ANYBODY accused ANYBODY ELSE of presenting an "abusive God".

That’s deceitful,

No, my comments were true. I NEVER made those claims. Not once. Never.

 

[JonC]

Let's let the appeal, the review process take place.

I will let what was said and doubled down on in the public forum be "appealed" on the public forum.

The bold is your words -

You said I called PSA “child abuse.”

???? I never said ANYBODY called PSA "child abuse"

You said I called God “petty.”

???? I never said ANYODY called God "petty".


You said I accused you of presenting an “abusive God.

???? I never said ANYBODY accused ANYBODY ELSE of presenting an "abusive God".

That’s deceitful,

No, my comments were true. I NEVER made those claims. Not once. Never.

You are making stuff up.

 

[JonC]

I will start my rebuttal of an appeal here.

This is from Post 81 (starting where I involve the posts of @Anthony Pritchard ) -

God says "ABC". You say it really teaches "DEF" and criticize anybody who believes "ABC". The reason is God's words do not make sence to you. So you, just like @Anthony Pritchard , claim to believe the biblical text while dismissing the text itself.

I also presented Christ's work and God's justice-righteousness. The difference is I presented it God's own words.

If you and @Anthony Pritchard insist on developing philosophical theories to explain the Atonement through a judicial lens then you both should at least stick to the basic passages describing justice.

These are some absolute truths that can serve to keep your theories within bounds:

1. We must pay the most careful attention to Scripture, leaning not on our understanding but on every word that comes forth from God so that we do not drift away.

2. It is not good to punish the innocent.
3. God will not clear the guilty.
4. It is an abomination to punish the just.
5. God will never abandon the righteous.
6. Jesus bore our sins bodily.
7. God laid our iniquity on Him.
7. Jesus died once for all

8. Since we are human, Christ shared in our humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— and free mankind who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.

You cannot just pick a few passages, twist them into your theory, toss out passages that do not work (or explain away those passages) and hold a biblical understanding.

This was the reply from @Anthony Pritchard

John, you’re building your accusations on claims I never made. You said I called PSA “child abuse.” I did not. You said I called God “petty.” I did not. You said I accused you of presenting an “abusive God.” I did not.

That’s deceitful, and it ends the discussion. I’m not defending words I never said.

Do not tag my name anymore.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I will start my rebuttal of an appeal here.

This is from Post 81 (starting where I involve the posts of @Anthony Pritchard ) -



This was the reply from @Anthony Pritchard

My point stands. I corrected a false claim that you repeated as if it were true. When someone repeats another person’s accusation and treats it as fact, he is taking ownership of it. People can see that for themselves.

 

[JonC]

My point stands. I corrected a false claim that you repeated as if it were true. When someone repeats another person’s accusation and treats it as fact, he is taking ownership of it. People can see that for themselves.

No, you did not.

You confused the words of @Aaron to me as being my words to you. My accusation had nothing to do with "child abuse" or "divine pettiness".

@Aaron thought I had stated those things in the past, but I did not. To be fair, another member did (I can't remember his name... it was the guy always talking about the Orthodox Church). But even then I said that anti-PSA arguments like "child abuse" are wrong because they mistepresent the theory.

MY accuation was that you and @Aaron are not allowing the biblical text to define justice. The Bible says "ABC" and you say it teaches "DEF" by ignoring passages describing justice like:

It is not good to punish the innocent.
God will not clear the guilty.
It is an abomination to punish the just.
God will never abandon the righteous.


An honest rebuttal would have been addressing those passages, explaining how they are involved in your atonement theory.

But you chose another direction - a misdirection (I can only assume because you couldn't face the passages I was discussing).

 

[JonC]

If it is not obvious by now I don't care about staying on topic with this thread.

Also, if not obvious by post 81 - my argument has nothing to do with pettiness or child abuse. I have no idea how @Anthony Pritchard got so confused (chalking it up to confusion rather than dishonesty, and obviously pride in defending his mistake).


I will restate my argument from post 81 as I may discuss it on a thread.

My argument is that when discussing the Atonement we must define justice/ righteousness by the biblical text.

Scripture gives us many passages.

If one is going to dismiss those passages then they have no solid ground. It opens the door to picking and choosing which verses to believe as written and which ones to dismiss or explain away.

A correct Atonement view accepts all of God's words.


That was my argument.