Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
1a – Jesus has deceived the Father and therefore the Father and Jesus are not God because God cannot be deceived, or sin.
Or
1b – Jesus has not deceived the Father and the Father knows Jesus is acting to save sinners by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. The Father is then involved in a deception, or a lie, making the Father and Jesus sinners. Therefore penal substitution is blasphemous.
Then
1c – The Father and Jesus must also be redeemed by Jesus’ death and resurrection. Yet such is never taught in the scriptures. Therefore penal substitution is unbiblical.
2 – The Father sent the son to do a sinful act to deceive the Father into believing we are righteous even though we are not. Therefore penal substitution is blasphemous.
3 – There is no need for faith, because a substitute is a substitute for all our sins. Yet the scriptures say we need faith to be justified. Therefore penal substitution is inconsistent with biblical faith required for salvation.
4 – Nobody can go to hell, because Jesus has already taken the punishment for sin as a substitute. Yet we are taught in Mat 25 that some men will go to hell. Therefore penal substitution is unbiblical.
5 – The scriptures nowhere say Jesus was a substitute for our sins. The term propitiate is used, but never substitute. Therefore penal substitution is unbiblical.
6 – The Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son, after the Son has deceived the Father into thinking we are righteous, even though we are sinners. Therefore the Holy Spirit has been sent on a mission by a deceiver and the deceived, to guide the church into the truth of forensic imputation of righteousness, which is itself a deception. Evidently the Holy Spirit is also a deceiver and has been deceived. It’s as though the only real persons that are never redeemed are those divine persons of the Trinity. Therefore penal substitution is idolatrous.
7 – There is no precedent in the OT for a substitute atoning for a sinner and the sinner having the substitutes righteousness imputed to the sinner, therefore if penal substitution is correct, it is not based upon the OT, so Jesus cannot be the Messiah, because he didn’t fulfil the OT. Therefore penal substitution is unbiblical.
8 – There is no need for repentance because the substitute has been made and the Father sees all men as righteous. After all faith alone, is alone, which excludes repentance. Therefore penal substitution contradicts the doctrine of faith alone.
Or
1b – Jesus has not deceived the Father and the Father knows Jesus is acting to save sinners by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. The Father is then involved in a deception, or a lie, making the Father and Jesus sinners. Therefore penal substitution is blasphemous.
Then
1c – The Father and Jesus must also be redeemed by Jesus’ death and resurrection. Yet such is never taught in the scriptures. Therefore penal substitution is unbiblical.
2 – The Father sent the son to do a sinful act to deceive the Father into believing we are righteous even though we are not. Therefore penal substitution is blasphemous.
3 – There is no need for faith, because a substitute is a substitute for all our sins. Yet the scriptures say we need faith to be justified. Therefore penal substitution is inconsistent with biblical faith required for salvation.
4 – Nobody can go to hell, because Jesus has already taken the punishment for sin as a substitute. Yet we are taught in Mat 25 that some men will go to hell. Therefore penal substitution is unbiblical.
5 – The scriptures nowhere say Jesus was a substitute for our sins. The term propitiate is used, but never substitute. Therefore penal substitution is unbiblical.
6 – The Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son, after the Son has deceived the Father into thinking we are righteous, even though we are sinners. Therefore the Holy Spirit has been sent on a mission by a deceiver and the deceived, to guide the church into the truth of forensic imputation of righteousness, which is itself a deception. Evidently the Holy Spirit is also a deceiver and has been deceived. It’s as though the only real persons that are never redeemed are those divine persons of the Trinity. Therefore penal substitution is idolatrous.
7 – There is no precedent in the OT for a substitute atoning for a sinner and the sinner having the substitutes righteousness imputed to the sinner, therefore if penal substitution is correct, it is not based upon the OT, so Jesus cannot be the Messiah, because he didn’t fulfil the OT. Therefore penal substitution is unbiblical.
8 – There is no need for repentance because the substitute has been made and the Father sees all men as righteous. After all faith alone, is alone, which excludes repentance. Therefore penal substitution contradicts the doctrine of faith alone.
Comment