BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Acts 2:38 is not saying that water baptism is the means and mechanism by which we are saved, meaning even if you have faith in Jesus, you are still NOT saved until you get water baptized.

Is that what you believe? That someone who has faith, but is not water baptized, still goes to Hell? If you argue "baptism by desire" you're in essence proving the point that water baptism is NOT the necessary mechanism by which someone is saved.

---

Baptism is the Ordinary means of salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You: "God did not ACTIVELY will Jesus to suffer"
Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; HE has put him to grief". It can't get any clearer than that. You are blatantly denying what is written directly in Scripture, placed right in front of your face. Absolutely astounding. That tells us all we need to know.

---

Did God, in His ACTIVE will, desire Jesus to Suffer?

---

if baptism is the "ordinary" means of salvation, which means there are other ways to salvation, then it is not necessary. You're defeating your own argument, and you still don't realize it.

There is no difference between God "ACTIVELY willing" and God "willing" something. You're chasing a pointless argument. The fact remains that the following happened:

The Bible, directly from Isaiah:
"It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief."

YOU: "It was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, he has NOT put him to grief."

There it is, clear as day. I don't know what else needs to be said. You have been exposed (if you haven't been already - hint... you have)

---

Then perhaps you shouldn't claim adherence to the Nicene Creed or its affirmation of the Holy Trinity.

If the Father and Son have entirely separate wills, you break the unity of the one God affirmed at Nicaea. If they share a single will but the Holy Spirit is excluded, the Spirit is effectively left out of the Godhead. Either way, this departs from the Trinity as defined by the council.

Especially since you already reject later ecumenical councils and deny the authority of apostolic succession. I don't even know how you can affirm the Nicean Creed: by rejecting later councils, you undermine the very principle that makes Nicaea authoritative, which is apostolic succession. So you basically have to deny they had any authority to begin with.

---

I have no idea what your reply has anything to do with what I posted. I simply showed how a Roman Catholic directly denies what is written in Scripture, word for word. No insertions or deletions, no interpretations by me, just me copying the text from Isaiah 53 verbatim and posting it in the form of a question:

Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief"
My question: "Was it the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief?"
His answer: "NO, it was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief"

This has nothing to do with any creed, heresy, the Trinity, or any ecumenical council. It's just a demonstration how you guys have to directly deny what is written in Scripture such as shown above, in order to hold your views. If that isn't proof positive that your views are false, then I don't know if anything could convince you. I do, however, think this does convince the rational, intellectually honest Christian who is witnessing all this unfold.

It is absolutely astounding how you guys can directly negate what is in Scripture verbatim, and somehow keep thinking that you're in the right. Quite remarkable, really.

---

Isaiah 53 says it was the will of the Lord to crush Him. It does not go on to define that as the Father turning against the Son, pouring out retributive wrath on Him as a substitute. That conclusion is something you're bringing into the text, not something the text itself explicitly states.

Christians have interpreted Isaiah 53 in multiple ways while fully affirming its truth. Most Protestants don't even accept your view of it. Did you know that?
The disagreement here isn't over whether the text is true, but over how it should be understood.

---

I didn't ask if Isaiah says that "the Father turns against the Son and pours retributive wrath on him as a substitute." I did not ask if you agreed with any conclusions.

I simply asked if it was God's will to crush him and whether it was God who put him to grief - essentially just repeating the verse verbatim, but in a question format. I was essentially asking if you accept the words of Scripture. You guys can't get yourself to even do that. What does that say about your view, your "conclusions"?

This was an exercise to expose your view as false. And it has. Anyone who has to directly and willfully negate the very words of Scripture has by definition a false view.

I would be willing to bet that most Protestants are in agreement with me, that Isaiah 53 is true, that it was God's will to crush Jesus, and to put him to grief. I think you're just making stuff up again.

---

Lol you're so dishonest

Read my first sentence. I said verbatim the scripture and you're acting like I didn't.

You have so much pride that you can't even agree to disagree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

---

I'M dishonest?? I'M the one with pride?

Didn't you just agree with someone that I was "snide, rude, and abusive" to him, yet were completely unable to support it?

Your first sentence doesn't answer my question. I didn't ask you what Isaiah says. That was the given premise - we all know that's what is says, it's undeniable. Rather, I asked YOU:
"Was it the will of God to crush him and put him to grief?"

Answer? "Dishonesty" is constantly dodging pertinent questions. "Pride" is not being able to change your views when they're shown to be wrong.

---

Claiming that "hermeneutics doesn't apply" is actually the height of pride, because it suggests your mind is the standard by which God's Word is measured.

We both agree on the text: Isaiah 53:10 says it was the will of God to crush Him and put Him to grief. There is no dispute there.

The conflict arises because you are engaging in nave realism which is assuming that your specific theological conclusion (PSA) is the "plain meaning" of the text, rather than one of several historical interpretations.

You assume "will" (chaphets) means God was the active executioner pouring out retributive wrath. I view it as God's permissive will. That basically means allowing the world's violence to converge on Jesus to overcome it (as seen in Acts 2:23). Both views "accept the words," but we interpret the agency differently.

The Definition of "Crush": You interpret "crushing" (daka) as a judicial penalty. However, the same Hebrew word is used throughout the Psalms to describe a contrite or broken spirit (Ps 51:17).

---

Where did I say "hermeneutics doesn't apply"? Isn't this an example of the "dishonesty" that you were railing against earlier, attributing me to a quote I didn't say in my comment?

You're wasting your time trying to argue against this. I am not arguing any interpretation. I'm merely asking you whether you believe it was God's will to crush him and put him to grief. A simple yes or no. I'm literally just quoting the verse verbatim in question form.

It's the very fact you guys can't/won't answer it, and the one person who did who's a Roman Catholic outright said NO, thus denying the very words of Scripture. It's to reveal you guys for you really are.

---

Really?

I said this:
"We both agree on the text: Isaiah 53:10 says it was the will of God to crush Him and put Him to grief. There is no dispute there."

I've never denied that. My answer is yes.
What I added, because it actually matters, is what that means. That's called interpretation, and everyone does it, including you.

You're acting as if the only acceptable answer is "yes, and by 'crush' I must mean exactly what you think it means. That's why you're being dishonest. And don't play like that's not your intention

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Acts 2:38 is not saying that water baptism is the means and mechanism by which we are saved, meaning even if you have faith in Jesus, you are still NOT saved until you get water baptized.

Is that what you believe? That someone who has faith, but is not water baptized, still goes to Hell? If you argue "baptism by desire" you're in essence proving the point that water baptism is NOT the necessary mechanism by which someone is saved.

---

Baptism is the Ordinary means of salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You: "God did not ACTIVELY will Jesus to suffer"
Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; HE has put him to grief". It can't get any clearer than that. You are blatantly denying what is written directly in Scripture, placed right in front of your face. Absolutely astounding. That tells us all we need to know.

---

Did God, in His ACTIVE will, desire Jesus to Suffer?

---

if baptism is the "ordinary" means of salvation, which means there are other ways to salvation, then it is not necessary. You're defeating your own argument, and you still don't realize it.

There is no difference between God "ACTIVELY willing" and God "willing" something. You're chasing a pointless argument. The fact remains that the following happened:

The Bible, directly from Isaiah:
"It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief."

YOU: "It was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, he has NOT put him to grief."

There it is, clear as day. I don't know what else needs to be said. You have been exposed (if you haven't been already - hint... you have)

---

Then perhaps you shouldn't claim adherence to the Nicene Creed or its affirmation of the Holy Trinity.

If the Father and Son have entirely separate wills, you break the unity of the one God affirmed at Nicaea. If they share a single will but the Holy Spirit is excluded, the Spirit is effectively left out of the Godhead. Either way, this departs from the Trinity as defined by the council.

Especially since you already reject later ecumenical councils and deny the authority of apostolic succession. I don't even know how you can affirm the Nicean Creed: by rejecting later councils, you undermine the very principle that makes Nicaea authoritative, which is apostolic succession. So you basically have to deny they had any authority to begin with.

---

I have no idea what your reply has anything to do with what I posted. I simply showed how a Roman Catholic directly denies what is written in Scripture, word for word. No insertions or deletions, no interpretations by me, just me copying the text from Isaiah 53 verbatim and posting it in the form of a question:

Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief"
My question: "Was it the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief?"
His answer: "NO, it was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief"

This has nothing to do with any creed, heresy, the Trinity, or any ecumenical council. It's just a demonstration how you guys have to directly deny what is written in Scripture such as shown above, in order to hold your views. If that isn't proof positive that your views are false, then I don't know if anything could convince you. I do, however, think this does convince the rational, intellectually honest Christian who is witnessing all this unfold.

It is absolutely astounding how you guys can directly negate what is in Scripture verbatim, and somehow keep thinking that you're in the right. Quite remarkable, really.

---

Isaiah 53 says it was the will of the Lord to crush Him. It does not go on to define that as the Father turning against the Son, pouring out retributive wrath on Him as a substitute. That conclusion is something you're bringing into the text, not something the text itself explicitly states.

Christians have interpreted Isaiah 53 in multiple ways while fully affirming its truth. Most Protestants don't even accept your view of it. Did you know that?
The disagreement here isn't over whether the text is true, but over how it should be understood.

---

I didn't ask if Isaiah says that "the Father turns against the Son and pours retributive wrath on him as a substitute." I did not ask if you agreed with any conclusions.

I simply asked if it was God's will to crush him and whether it was God who put him to grief - essentially just repeating the verse verbatim, but in a question format. I was essentially asking if you accept the words of Scripture. You guys can't get yourself to even do that. What does that say about your view, your "conclusions"?

This was an exercise to expose your view as false. And it has. Anyone who has to directly and willfully negate the very words of Scripture has by definition a false view.

I would be willing to bet that most Protestants are in agreement with me, that Isaiah 53 is true, that it was God's will to crush Jesus, and to put him to grief. I think you're just making stuff up again.

---

Lol you're so dishonest

Read my first sentence. I said verbatim the scripture and you're acting like I didn't.

You have so much pride that you can't even agree to disagree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

---

I'M dishonest?? I'M the one with pride?

Didn't you just agree with someone that I was "snide, rude, and abusive" to him, yet were completely unable to support it?

Your first sentence doesn't answer my question. I didn't ask you what Isaiah says. That was the given premise - we all know that's what is says, it's undeniable. Rather, I asked YOU:
"Was it the will of God to crush him and put him to grief?"

Answer? "Dishonesty" is constantly dodging pertinent questions. "Pride" is not being able to change your views when they're shown to be wrong.

---

Claiming that "hermeneutics doesn't apply" is actually the height of pride, because it suggests your mind is the standard by which God's Word is measured.

We both agree on the text: Isaiah 53:10 says it was the will of God to crush Him and put Him to grief. There is no dispute there.

The conflict arises because you are engaging in nave realism which is assuming that your specific theological conclusion (PSA) is the "plain meaning" of the text, rather than one of several historical interpretations.

You assume "will" (chaphets) means God was the active executioner pouring out retributive wrath. I view it as God's permissive will. That basically means allowing the world's violence to converge on Jesus to overcome it (as seen in Acts 2:23). Both views "accept the words," but we interpret the agency differently.

The Definition of "Crush": You interpret "crushing" (daka) as a judicial penalty. However, the same Hebrew word is used throughout the Psalms to describe a contrite or broken spirit (Ps 51:17).

---

Where did I say "hermeneutics doesn't apply"? Isn't this an example of the "dishonesty" that you were railing against earlier, attributing me to a quote I didn't say in my comment?

You're wasting your time trying to argue against this. I am not arguing any interpretation. I'm merely asking you whether you believe it was God's will to crush him and put him to grief. A simple yes or no. I'm literally just quoting the verse verbatim in question form.

It's the very fact you guys can't/won't answer it, and the one person who did who's a Roman Catholic outright said NO, thus denying the very words of Scripture. It's to reveal you guys for you really are.

---

Really?

I said this:
"We both agree on the text: Isaiah 53:10 says it was the will of God to crush Him and put Him to grief. There is no dispute there."

I've never denied that. My answer is yes.
What I added, because it actually matters, is what that means. That's called interpretation, and everyone does it, including you.

You're acting as if the only acceptable answer is "yes, and by 'crush' I must mean exactly what you think it means. That's why you're being dishonest. And don't play like that's not your intention

---

So, you concede that you quoted me as saying something I didn't say? Doesn't that make YOU the dishonest one?

And you keep getting the question wrong. I'm not asking you on what the TEXT says. I'm asking you whether it was God's will to crush him and put him to grief. Why is this so difficult for you?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Acts 2:38 is not saying that water baptism is the means and mechanism by which we are saved, meaning even if you have faith in Jesus, you are still NOT saved until you get water baptized.

Is that what you believe? That someone who has faith, but is not water baptized, still goes to Hell? If you argue "baptism by desire" you're in essence proving the point that water baptism is NOT the necessary mechanism by which someone is saved.

---

Baptism is the Ordinary means of salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You: "God did not ACTIVELY will Jesus to suffer"
Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; HE has put him to grief". It can't get any clearer than that. You are blatantly denying what is written directly in Scripture, placed right in front of your face. Absolutely astounding. That tells us all we need to know.

---

Did God, in His ACTIVE will, desire Jesus to Suffer?

---

if baptism is the "ordinary" means of salvation, which means there are other ways to salvation, then it is not necessary. You're defeating your own argument, and you still don't realize it.

There is no difference between God "ACTIVELY willing" and God "willing" something. You're chasing a pointless argument. The fact remains that the following happened:

The Bible, directly from Isaiah:
"It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief."

YOU: "It was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, he has NOT put him to grief."

There it is, clear as day. I don't know what else needs to be said. You have been exposed (if you haven't been already - hint... you have)

---

Then perhaps you shouldn't claim adherence to the Nicene Creed or its affirmation of the Holy Trinity.

If the Father and Son have entirely separate wills, you break the unity of the one God affirmed at Nicaea. If they share a single will but the Holy Spirit is excluded, the Spirit is effectively left out of the Godhead. Either way, this departs from the Trinity as defined by the council.

Especially since you already reject later ecumenical councils and deny the authority of apostolic succession. I don't even know how you can affirm the Nicean Creed: by rejecting later councils, you undermine the very principle that makes Nicaea authoritative, which is apostolic succession. So you basically have to deny they had any authority to begin with.

---

I have no idea what your reply has anything to do with what I posted. I simply showed how a Roman Catholic directly denies what is written in Scripture, word for word. No insertions or deletions, no interpretations by me, just me copying the text from Isaiah 53 verbatim and posting it in the form of a question:

Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief"
My question: "Was it the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief?"
His answer: "NO, it was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief"

This has nothing to do with any creed, heresy, the Trinity, or any ecumenical council. It's just a demonstration how you guys have to directly deny what is written in Scripture such as shown above, in order to hold your views. If that isn't proof positive that your views are false, then I don't know if anything could convince you. I do, however, think this does convince the rational, intellectually honest Christian who is witnessing all this unfold.

It is absolutely astounding how you guys can directly negate what is in Scripture verbatim, and somehow keep thinking that you're in the right. Quite remarkable, really.

---

Isaiah 53 says it was the will of the Lord to crush Him. It does not go on to define that as the Father turning against the Son, pouring out retributive wrath on Him as a substitute. That conclusion is something you're bringing into the text, not something the text itself explicitly states.

Christians have interpreted Isaiah 53 in multiple ways while fully affirming its truth. Most Protestants don't even accept your view of it. Did you know that?
The disagreement here isn't over whether the text is true, but over how it should be understood.

---

I didn't ask if Isaiah says that "the Father turns against the Son and pours retributive wrath on him as a substitute." I did not ask if you agreed with any conclusions.

I simply asked if it was God's will to crush him and whether it was God who put him to grief - essentially just repeating the verse verbatim, but in a question format. I was essentially asking if you accept the words of Scripture. You guys can't get yourself to even do that. What does that say about your view, your "conclusions"?

This was an exercise to expose your view as false. And it has. Anyone who has to directly and willfully negate the very words of Scripture has by definition a false view.

I would be willing to bet that most Protestants are in agreement with me, that Isaiah 53 is true, that it was God's will to crush Jesus, and to put him to grief. I think you're just making stuff up again.

---

Lol you're so dishonest

Read my first sentence. I said verbatim the scripture and you're acting like I didn't.

You have so much pride that you can't even agree to disagree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

---

I'M dishonest?? I'M the one with pride?

Didn't you just agree with someone that I was "snide, rude, and abusive" to him, yet were completely unable to support it?

Your first sentence doesn't answer my question. I didn't ask you what Isaiah says. That was the given premise - we all know that's what is says, it's undeniable. Rather, I asked YOU:
"Was it the will of God to crush him and put him to grief?"

Answer? "Dishonesty" is constantly dodging pertinent questions. "Pride" is not being able to change your views when they're shown to be wrong.

---

Claiming that "hermeneutics doesn't apply" is actually the height of pride, because it suggests your mind is the standard by which God's Word is measured.

We both agree on the text: Isaiah 53:10 says it was the will of God to crush Him and put Him to grief. There is no dispute there.

The conflict arises because you are engaging in nave realism which is assuming that your specific theological conclusion (PSA) is the "plain meaning" of the text, rather than one of several historical interpretations.

You assume "will" (chaphets) means God was the active executioner pouring out retributive wrath. I view it as God's permissive will. That basically means allowing the world's violence to converge on Jesus to overcome it (as seen in Acts 2:23). Both views "accept the words," but we interpret the agency differently.

The Definition of "Crush": You interpret "crushing" (daka) as a judicial penalty. However, the same Hebrew word is used throughout the Psalms to describe a contrite or broken spirit (Ps 51:17).

---

Where did I say "hermeneutics doesn't apply"? Isn't this an example of the "dishonesty" that you were railing against earlier, attributing me to a quote I didn't say in my comment?

You're wasting your time trying to argue against this. I am not arguing any interpretation. I'm merely asking you whether you believe it was God's will to crush him and put him to grief. A simple yes or no. I'm literally just quoting the verse verbatim in question form.

It's the very fact you guys can't/won't answer it, and the one person who did who's a Roman Catholic outright said NO, thus denying the very words of Scripture. It's to reveal you guys for you really are.

---

Really?

I said this:
"We both agree on the text: Isaiah 53:10 says it was the will of God to crush Him and put Him to grief. There is no dispute there."

I've never denied that. My answer is yes.
What I added, because it actually matters, is what that means. That's called interpretation, and everyone does it, including you.

You're acting as if the only acceptable answer is "yes, and by 'crush' I must mean exactly what you think it means. That's why you're being dishonest. And don't play like that's not your intention

---

So, you concede that you quoted me as saying something I didn't say? Doesn't that make YOU the dishonest one?

And you keep getting the question wrong. I'm not asking you on what the TEXT says. I'm asking you whether it was God's will to crush him and put him to grief. Why is this so difficult for you?

---

Yes it was God's will.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Acts 2:38 is not saying that water baptism is the means and mechanism by which we are saved, meaning even if you have faith in Jesus, you are still NOT saved until you get water baptized.

Is that what you believe? That someone who has faith, but is not water baptized, still goes to Hell? If you argue "baptism by desire" you're in essence proving the point that water baptism is NOT the necessary mechanism by which someone is saved.

---

Baptism is the Ordinary means of salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You: "God did not ACTIVELY will Jesus to suffer"
Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; HE has put him to grief". It can't get any clearer than that. You are blatantly denying what is written directly in Scripture, placed right in front of your face. Absolutely astounding. That tells us all we need to know.

---

Did God, in His ACTIVE will, desire Jesus to Suffer?

---

if baptism is the "ordinary" means of salvation, which means there are other ways to salvation, then it is not necessary. You're defeating your own argument, and you still don't realize it.

There is no difference between God "ACTIVELY willing" and God "willing" something. You're chasing a pointless argument. The fact remains that the following happened:

The Bible, directly from Isaiah:
"It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief."

YOU: "It was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, he has NOT put him to grief."

There it is, clear as day. I don't know what else needs to be said. You have been exposed (if you haven't been already - hint... you have)

---

Then perhaps you shouldn't claim adherence to the Nicene Creed or its affirmation of the Holy Trinity.

If the Father and Son have entirely separate wills, you break the unity of the one God affirmed at Nicaea. If they share a single will but the Holy Spirit is excluded, the Spirit is effectively left out of the Godhead. Either way, this departs from the Trinity as defined by the council.

Especially since you already reject later ecumenical councils and deny the authority of apostolic succession. I don't even know how you can affirm the Nicean Creed: by rejecting later councils, you undermine the very principle that makes Nicaea authoritative, which is apostolic succession. So you basically have to deny they had any authority to begin with.

---

I have no idea what your reply has anything to do with what I posted. I simply showed how a Roman Catholic directly denies what is written in Scripture, word for word. No insertions or deletions, no interpretations by me, just me copying the text from Isaiah 53 verbatim and posting it in the form of a question:

Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief"
My question: "Was it the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief?"
His answer: "NO, it was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief"

This has nothing to do with any creed, heresy, the Trinity, or any ecumenical council. It's just a demonstration how you guys have to directly deny what is written in Scripture such as shown above, in order to hold your views. If that isn't proof positive that your views are false, then I don't know if anything could convince you. I do, however, think this does convince the rational, intellectually honest Christian who is witnessing all this unfold.

It is absolutely astounding how you guys can directly negate what is in Scripture verbatim, and somehow keep thinking that you're in the right. Quite remarkable, really.

---

Isaiah 53 says it was the will of the Lord to crush Him. It does not go on to define that as the Father turning against the Son, pouring out retributive wrath on Him as a substitute. That conclusion is something you're bringing into the text, not something the text itself explicitly states.

Christians have interpreted Isaiah 53 in multiple ways while fully affirming its truth. Most Protestants don't even accept your view of it. Did you know that?
The disagreement here isn't over whether the text is true, but over how it should be understood.

---

I didn't ask if Isaiah says that "the Father turns against the Son and pours retributive wrath on him as a substitute." I did not ask if you agreed with any conclusions.

I simply asked if it was God's will to crush him and whether it was God who put him to grief - essentially just repeating the verse verbatim, but in a question format. I was essentially asking if you accept the words of Scripture. You guys can't get yourself to even do that. What does that say about your view, your "conclusions"?

This was an exercise to expose your view as false. And it has. Anyone who has to directly and willfully negate the very words of Scripture has by definition a false view.

I would be willing to bet that most Protestants are in agreement with me, that Isaiah 53 is true, that it was God's will to crush Jesus, and to put him to grief. I think you're just making stuff up again.

---

Lol you're so dishonest

Read my first sentence. I said verbatim the scripture and you're acting like I didn't.

You have so much pride that you can't even agree to disagree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

---

I'M dishonest?? I'M the one with pride?

Didn't you just agree with someone that I was "snide, rude, and abusive" to him, yet were completely unable to support it?

Your first sentence doesn't answer my question. I didn't ask you what Isaiah says. That was the given premise - we all know that's what is says, it's undeniable. Rather, I asked YOU:
"Was it the will of God to crush him and put him to grief?"

Answer? "Dishonesty" is constantly dodging pertinent questions. "Pride" is not being able to change your views when they're shown to be wrong.

---

Claiming that "hermeneutics doesn't apply" is actually the height of pride, because it suggests your mind is the standard by which God's Word is measured.

We both agree on the text: Isaiah 53:10 says it was the will of God to crush Him and put Him to grief. There is no dispute there.

The conflict arises because you are engaging in nave realism which is assuming that your specific theological conclusion (PSA) is the "plain meaning" of the text, rather than one of several historical interpretations.

You assume "will" (chaphets) means God was the active executioner pouring out retributive wrath. I view it as God's permissive will. That basically means allowing the world's violence to converge on Jesus to overcome it (as seen in Acts 2:23). Both views "accept the words," but we interpret the agency differently.

The Definition of "Crush": You interpret "crushing" (daka) as a judicial penalty. However, the same Hebrew word is used throughout the Psalms to describe a contrite or broken spirit (Ps 51:17).

---

Where did I say "hermeneutics doesn't apply"? Isn't this an example of the "dishonesty" that you were railing against earlier, attributing me to a quote I didn't say in my comment?

You're wasting your time trying to argue against this. I am not arguing any interpretation. I'm merely asking you whether you believe it was God's will to crush him and put him to grief. A simple yes or no. I'm literally just quoting the verse verbatim in question form.

It's the very fact you guys can't/won't answer it, and the one person who did who's a Roman Catholic outright said NO, thus denying the very words of Scripture. It's to reveal you guys for you really are.

---

Really?

I said this:
"We both agree on the text: Isaiah 53:10 says it was the will of God to crush Him and put Him to grief. There is no dispute there."

I've never denied that. My answer is yes.
What I added, because it actually matters, is what that means. That's called interpretation, and everyone does it, including you.

You're acting as if the only acceptable answer is "yes, and by 'crush' I must mean exactly what you think it means. That's why you're being dishonest. And don't play like that's not your intention

---

So, you concede that you quoted me as saying something I didn't say? Doesn't that make YOU the dishonest one?

And you keep getting the question wrong. I'm not asking you on what the TEXT says. I'm asking you whether it was God's will to crush him and put him to grief. Why is this so difficult for you?

---

Yes it was God's will.

---

God's will TO CRUSH him, and that it was GOD who put him to grief, yes?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Acts 2:38 is not saying that water baptism is the means and mechanism by which we are saved, meaning even if you have faith in Jesus, you are still NOT saved until you get water baptized.

Is that what you believe? That someone who has faith, but is not water baptized, still goes to Hell? If you argue "baptism by desire" you're in essence proving the point that water baptism is NOT the necessary mechanism by which someone is saved.

---

Baptism is the Ordinary means of salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You: "God did not ACTIVELY will Jesus to suffer"
Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; HE has put him to grief". It can't get any clearer than that. You are blatantly denying what is written directly in Scripture, placed right in front of your face. Absolutely astounding. That tells us all we need to know.

---

Did God, in His ACTIVE will, desire Jesus to Suffer?

---

if baptism is the "ordinary" means of salvation, which means there are other ways to salvation, then it is not necessary. You're defeating your own argument, and you still don't realize it.

There is no difference between God "ACTIVELY willing" and God "willing" something. You're chasing a pointless argument. The fact remains that the following happened:

The Bible, directly from Isaiah:
"It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief."

YOU: "It was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, he has NOT put him to grief."

There it is, clear as day. I don't know what else needs to be said. You have been exposed (if you haven't been already - hint... you have)

---

Then perhaps you shouldn't claim adherence to the Nicene Creed or its affirmation of the Holy Trinity.

If the Father and Son have entirely separate wills, you break the unity of the one God affirmed at Nicaea. If they share a single will but the Holy Spirit is excluded, the Spirit is effectively left out of the Godhead. Either way, this departs from the Trinity as defined by the council.

Especially since you already reject later ecumenical councils and deny the authority of apostolic succession. I don't even know how you can affirm the Nicean Creed: by rejecting later councils, you undermine the very principle that makes Nicaea authoritative, which is apostolic succession. So you basically have to deny they had any authority to begin with.

---

I have no idea what your reply has anything to do with what I posted. I simply showed how a Roman Catholic directly denies what is written in Scripture, word for word. No insertions or deletions, no interpretations by me, just me copying the text from Isaiah 53 verbatim and posting it in the form of a question:

Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief"
My question: "Was it the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief?"
His answer: "NO, it was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief"

This has nothing to do with any creed, heresy, the Trinity, or any ecumenical council. It's just a demonstration how you guys have to directly deny what is written in Scripture such as shown above, in order to hold your views. If that isn't proof positive that your views are false, then I don't know if anything could convince you. I do, however, think this does convince the rational, intellectually honest Christian who is witnessing all this unfold.

It is absolutely astounding how you guys can directly negate what is in Scripture verbatim, and somehow keep thinking that you're in the right. Quite remarkable, really.

---

Isaiah 53 says it was the will of the Lord to crush Him. It does not go on to define that as the Father turning against the Son, pouring out retributive wrath on Him as a substitute. That conclusion is something you're bringing into the text, not something the text itself explicitly states.

Christians have interpreted Isaiah 53 in multiple ways while fully affirming its truth. Most Protestants don't even accept your view of it. Did you know that?
The disagreement here isn't over whether the text is true, but over how it should be understood.

---

I didn't ask if Isaiah says that "the Father turns against the Son and pours retributive wrath on him as a substitute." I did not ask if you agreed with any conclusions.

I simply asked if it was God's will to crush him and whether it was God who put him to grief - essentially just repeating the verse verbatim, but in a question format. I was essentially asking if you accept the words of Scripture. You guys can't get yourself to even do that. What does that say about your view, your "conclusions"?

This was an exercise to expose your view as false. And it has. Anyone who has to directly and willfully negate the very words of Scripture has by definition a false view.

I would be willing to bet that most Protestants are in agreement with me, that Isaiah 53 is true, that it was God's will to crush Jesus, and to put him to grief. I think you're just making stuff up again.

---

Lol you're so dishonest

Read my first sentence. I said verbatim the scripture and you're acting like I didn't.

You have so much pride that you can't even agree to disagree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

---

I'M dishonest?? I'M the one with pride?

Didn't you just agree with someone that I was "snide, rude, and abusive" to him, yet were completely unable to support it?

Your first sentence doesn't answer my question. I didn't ask you what Isaiah says. That was the given premise - we all know that's what is says, it's undeniable. Rather, I asked YOU:
"Was it the will of God to crush him and put him to grief?"

Answer? "Dishonesty" is constantly dodging pertinent questions. "Pride" is not being able to change your views when they're shown to be wrong.

---

Claiming that "hermeneutics doesn't apply" is actually the height of pride, because it suggests your mind is the standard by which God's Word is measured.

We both agree on the text: Isaiah 53:10 says it was the will of God to crush Him and put Him to grief. There is no dispute there.

The conflict arises because you are engaging in nave realism which is assuming that your specific theological conclusion (PSA) is the "plain meaning" of the text, rather than one of several historical interpretations.

You assume "will" (chaphets) means God was the active executioner pouring out retributive wrath. I view it as God's permissive will. That basically means allowing the world's violence to converge on Jesus to overcome it (as seen in Acts 2:23). Both views "accept the words," but we interpret the agency differently.

The Definition of "Crush": You interpret "crushing" (daka) as a judicial penalty. However, the same Hebrew word is used throughout the Psalms to describe a contrite or broken spirit (Ps 51:17).

---

Where did I say "hermeneutics doesn't apply"? Isn't this an example of the "dishonesty" that you were railing against earlier, attributing me to a quote I didn't say in my comment?

You're wasting your time trying to argue against this. I am not arguing any interpretation. I'm merely asking you whether you believe it was God's will to crush him and put him to grief. A simple yes or no. I'm literally just quoting the verse verbatim in question form.

It's the very fact you guys can't/won't answer it, and the one person who did who's a Roman Catholic outright said NO, thus denying the very words of Scripture. It's to reveal you guys for you really are.

---

Really?

I said this:
"We both agree on the text: Isaiah 53:10 says it was the will of God to crush Him and put Him to grief. There is no dispute there."

I've never denied that. My answer is yes.
What I added, because it actually matters, is what that means. That's called interpretation, and everyone does it, including you.

You're acting as if the only acceptable answer is "yes, and by 'crush' I must mean exactly what you think it means. That's why you're being dishonest. And don't play like that's not your intention

---

So, you concede that you quoted me as saying something I didn't say? Doesn't that make YOU the dishonest one?

And you keep getting the question wrong. I'm not asking you on what the TEXT says. I'm asking you whether it was God's will to crush him and put him to grief. Why is this so difficult for you?

---

Yes it was God's will.

---

God's will TO CRUSH him, and that it was GOD who put him to grief, yes?

---

Yes.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Acts 2:38 is not saying that water baptism is the means and mechanism by which we are saved, meaning even if you have faith in Jesus, you are still NOT saved until you get water baptized.

Is that what you believe? That someone who has faith, but is not water baptized, still goes to Hell? If you argue "baptism by desire" you're in essence proving the point that water baptism is NOT the necessary mechanism by which someone is saved.

---

Baptism is the Ordinary means of salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You: "God did not ACTIVELY will Jesus to suffer"
Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; HE has put him to grief". It can't get any clearer than that. You are blatantly denying what is written directly in Scripture, placed right in front of your face. Absolutely astounding. That tells us all we need to know.

---

Did God, in His ACTIVE will, desire Jesus to Suffer?

---

if baptism is the "ordinary" means of salvation, which means there are other ways to salvation, then it is not necessary. You're defeating your own argument, and you still don't realize it.

There is no difference between God "ACTIVELY willing" and God "willing" something. You're chasing a pointless argument. The fact remains that the following happened:

The Bible, directly from Isaiah:
"It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief."

YOU: "It was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, he has NOT put him to grief."

There it is, clear as day. I don't know what else needs to be said. You have been exposed (if you haven't been already - hint... you have)

---

Then perhaps you shouldn't claim adherence to the Nicene Creed or its affirmation of the Holy Trinity.

If the Father and Son have entirely separate wills, you break the unity of the one God affirmed at Nicaea. If they share a single will but the Holy Spirit is excluded, the Spirit is effectively left out of the Godhead. Either way, this departs from the Trinity as defined by the council.

Especially since you already reject later ecumenical councils and deny the authority of apostolic succession. I don't even know how you can affirm the Nicean Creed: by rejecting later councils, you undermine the very principle that makes Nicaea authoritative, which is apostolic succession. So you basically have to deny they had any authority to begin with.

---

I have no idea what your reply has anything to do with what I posted. I simply showed how a Roman Catholic directly denies what is written in Scripture, word for word. No insertions or deletions, no interpretations by me, just me copying the text from Isaiah 53 verbatim and posting it in the form of a question:

Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief"
My question: "Was it the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief?"
His answer: "NO, it was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief"

This has nothing to do with any creed, heresy, the Trinity, or any ecumenical council. It's just a demonstration how you guys have to directly deny what is written in Scripture such as shown above, in order to hold your views. If that isn't proof positive that your views are false, then I don't know if anything could convince you. I do, however, think this does convince the rational, intellectually honest Christian who is witnessing all this unfold.

It is absolutely astounding how you guys can directly negate what is in Scripture verbatim, and somehow keep thinking that you're in the right. Quite remarkable, really.

---

Isaiah 53 says it was the will of the Lord to crush Him. It does not go on to define that as the Father turning against the Son, pouring out retributive wrath on Him as a substitute. That conclusion is something you're bringing into the text, not something the text itself explicitly states.

Christians have interpreted Isaiah 53 in multiple ways while fully affirming its truth. Most Protestants don't even accept your view of it. Did you know that?
The disagreement here isn't over whether the text is true, but over how it should be understood.

---

I didn't ask if Isaiah says that "the Father turns against the Son and pours retributive wrath on him as a substitute." I did not ask if you agreed with any conclusions.

I simply asked if it was God's will to crush him and whether it was God who put him to grief - essentially just repeating the verse verbatim, but in a question format. I was essentially asking if you accept the words of Scripture. You guys can't get yourself to even do that. What does that say about your view, your "conclusions"?

This was an exercise to expose your view as false. And it has. Anyone who has to directly and willfully negate the very words of Scripture has by definition a false view.

I would be willing to bet that most Protestants are in agreement with me, that Isaiah 53 is true, that it was God's will to crush Jesus, and to put him to grief. I think you're just making stuff up again.

---

Lol you're so dishonest

Read my first sentence. I said verbatim the scripture and you're acting like I didn't.

You have so much pride that you can't even agree to disagree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

---

I'M dishonest?? I'M the one with pride?

Didn't you just agree with someone that I was "snide, rude, and abusive" to him, yet were completely unable to support it?

Your first sentence doesn't answer my question. I didn't ask you what Isaiah says. That was the given premise - we all know that's what is says, it's undeniable. Rather, I asked YOU:
"Was it the will of God to crush him and put him to grief?"

Answer? "Dishonesty" is constantly dodging pertinent questions. "Pride" is not being able to change your views when they're shown to be wrong.

---

Claiming that "hermeneutics doesn't apply" is actually the height of pride, because it suggests your mind is the standard by which God's Word is measured.

We both agree on the text: Isaiah 53:10 says it was the will of God to crush Him and put Him to grief. There is no dispute there.

The conflict arises because you are engaging in nave realism which is assuming that your specific theological conclusion (PSA) is the "plain meaning" of the text, rather than one of several historical interpretations.

You assume "will" (chaphets) means God was the active executioner pouring out retributive wrath. I view it as God's permissive will. That basically means allowing the world's violence to converge on Jesus to overcome it (as seen in Acts 2:23). Both views "accept the words," but we interpret the agency differently.

The Definition of "Crush": You interpret "crushing" (daka) as a judicial penalty. However, the same Hebrew word is used throughout the Psalms to describe a contrite or broken spirit (Ps 51:17).

---

Where did I say "hermeneutics doesn't apply"? Isn't this an example of the "dishonesty" that you were railing against earlier, attributing me to a quote I didn't say in my comment?

You're wasting your time trying to argue against this. I am not arguing any interpretation. I'm merely asking you whether you believe it was God's will to crush him and put him to grief. A simple yes or no. I'm literally just quoting the verse verbatim in question form.

It's the very fact you guys can't/won't answer it, and the one person who did who's a Roman Catholic outright said NO, thus denying the very words of Scripture. It's to reveal you guys for you really are.

---

Really?

I said this:
"We both agree on the text: Isaiah 53:10 says it was the will of God to crush Him and put Him to grief. There is no dispute there."

I've never denied that. My answer is yes.
What I added, because it actually matters, is what that means. That's called interpretation, and everyone does it, including you.

You're acting as if the only acceptable answer is "yes, and by 'crush' I must mean exactly what you think it means. That's why you're being dishonest. And don't play like that's not your intention

---

So, you concede that you quoted me as saying something I didn't say? Doesn't that make YOU the dishonest one?

And you keep getting the question wrong. I'm not asking you on what the TEXT says. I'm asking you whether it was God's will to crush him and put him to grief. Why is this so difficult for you?

---

Yes it was God's will.

---

God's will TO CRUSH him, and that it was GOD who put him to grief, yes?

---

Yes.

---

Thanks for answering the question. I agree. We needed to establish a foundation of agreement upon which to build arguments.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Acts 2:38 is not saying that water baptism is the means and mechanism by which we are saved, meaning even if you have faith in Jesus, you are still NOT saved until you get water baptized.

Is that what you believe? That someone who has faith, but is not water baptized, still goes to Hell? If you argue "baptism by desire" you're in essence proving the point that water baptism is NOT the necessary mechanism by which someone is saved.

---

Baptism is the Ordinary means of salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You: "God did not ACTIVELY will Jesus to suffer"
Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; HE has put him to grief". It can't get any clearer than that. You are blatantly denying what is written directly in Scripture, placed right in front of your face. Absolutely astounding. That tells us all we need to know.

---

Did God, in His ACTIVE will, desire Jesus to Suffer?

---

if baptism is the "ordinary" means of salvation, which means there are other ways to salvation, then it is not necessary. You're defeating your own argument, and you still don't realize it.

There is no difference between God "ACTIVELY willing" and God "willing" something. You're chasing a pointless argument. The fact remains that the following happened:

The Bible, directly from Isaiah:
"It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief."

YOU: "It was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, he has NOT put him to grief."

There it is, clear as day. I don't know what else needs to be said. You have been exposed (if you haven't been already - hint... you have)

---

Then perhaps you shouldn't claim adherence to the Nicene Creed or its affirmation of the Holy Trinity.

If the Father and Son have entirely separate wills, you break the unity of the one God affirmed at Nicaea. If they share a single will but the Holy Spirit is excluded, the Spirit is effectively left out of the Godhead. Either way, this departs from the Trinity as defined by the council.

Especially since you already reject later ecumenical councils and deny the authority of apostolic succession. I don't even know how you can affirm the Nicean Creed: by rejecting later councils, you undermine the very principle that makes Nicaea authoritative, which is apostolic succession. So you basically have to deny they had any authority to begin with.

---

I have no idea what your reply has anything to do with what I posted. I simply showed how a Roman Catholic directly denies what is written in Scripture, word for word. No insertions or deletions, no interpretations by me, just me copying the text from Isaiah 53 verbatim and posting it in the form of a question:

Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief"
My question: "Was it the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief?"
His answer: "NO, it was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief"

This has nothing to do with any creed, heresy, the Trinity, or any ecumenical council. It's just a demonstration how you guys have to directly deny what is written in Scripture such as shown above, in order to hold your views. If that isn't proof positive that your views are false, then I don't know if anything could convince you. I do, however, think this does convince the rational, intellectually honest Christian who is witnessing all this unfold.

It is absolutely astounding how you guys can directly negate what is in Scripture verbatim, and somehow keep thinking that you're in the right. Quite remarkable, really.

---

Isaiah 53 says it was the will of the Lord to crush Him. It does not go on to define that as the Father turning against the Son, pouring out retributive wrath on Him as a substitute. That conclusion is something you're bringing into the text, not something the text itself explicitly states.

Christians have interpreted Isaiah 53 in multiple ways while fully affirming its truth. Most Protestants don't even accept your view of it. Did you know that?
The disagreement here isn't over whether the text is true, but over how it should be understood.

---

I didn't ask if Isaiah says that "the Father turns against the Son and pours retributive wrath on him as a substitute." I did not ask if you agreed with any conclusions.

I simply asked if it was God's will to crush him and whether it was God who put him to grief - essentially just repeating the verse verbatim, but in a question format. I was essentially asking if you accept the words of Scripture. You guys can't get yourself to even do that. What does that say about your view, your "conclusions"?

This was an exercise to expose your view as false. And it has. Anyone who has to directly and willfully negate the very words of Scripture has by definition a false view.

I would be willing to bet that most Protestants are in agreement with me, that Isaiah 53 is true, that it was God's will to crush Jesus, and to put him to grief. I think you're just making stuff up again.

---

Lol you're so dishonest

Read my first sentence. I said verbatim the scripture and you're acting like I didn't.

You have so much pride that you can't even agree to disagree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

---

I'M dishonest?? I'M the one with pride?

Didn't you just agree with someone that I was "snide, rude, and abusive" to him, yet were completely unable to support it?

Your first sentence doesn't answer my question. I didn't ask you what Isaiah says. That was the given premise - we all know that's what is says, it's undeniable. Rather, I asked YOU:
"Was it the will of God to crush him and put him to grief?"

Answer? "Dishonesty" is constantly dodging pertinent questions. "Pride" is not being able to change your views when they're shown to be wrong.

---

Claiming that "hermeneutics doesn't apply" is actually the height of pride, because it suggests your mind is the standard by which God's Word is measured.

We both agree on the text: Isaiah 53:10 says it was the will of God to crush Him and put Him to grief. There is no dispute there.

The conflict arises because you are engaging in nave realism which is assuming that your specific theological conclusion (PSA) is the "plain meaning" of the text, rather than one of several historical interpretations.

You assume "will" (chaphets) means God was the active executioner pouring out retributive wrath. I view it as God's permissive will. That basically means allowing the world's violence to converge on Jesus to overcome it (as seen in Acts 2:23). Both views "accept the words," but we interpret the agency differently.

The Definition of "Crush": You interpret "crushing" (daka) as a judicial penalty. However, the same Hebrew word is used throughout the Psalms to describe a contrite or broken spirit (Ps 51:17).

---

Where did I say "hermeneutics doesn't apply"? Isn't this an example of the "dishonesty" that you were railing against earlier, attributing me to a quote I didn't say in my comment?

You're wasting your time trying to argue against this. I am not arguing any interpretation. I'm merely asking you whether you believe it was God's will to crush him and put him to grief. A simple yes or no. I'm literally just quoting the verse verbatim in question form.

It's the very fact you guys can't/won't answer it, and the one person who did who's a Roman Catholic outright said NO, thus denying the very words of Scripture. It's to reveal you guys for you really are.

---

Really?

I said this:
"We both agree on the text: Isaiah 53:10 says it was the will of God to crush Him and put Him to grief. There is no dispute there."

I've never denied that. My answer is yes.
What I added, because it actually matters, is what that means. That's called interpretation, and everyone does it, including you.

You're acting as if the only acceptable answer is "yes, and by 'crush' I must mean exactly what you think it means. That's why you're being dishonest. And don't play like that's not your intention

---

So, you concede that you quoted me as saying something I didn't say? Doesn't that make YOU the dishonest one?

And you keep getting the question wrong. I'm not asking you on what the TEXT says. I'm asking you whether it was God's will to crush him and put him to grief. Why is this so difficult for you?

---

Yes it was God's will.

---

God's will TO CRUSH him, and that it was GOD who put him to grief, yes?

---

Yes.

---

Thanks for answering the question. I agree. We needed to establish a foundation of agreement upon which to build arguments.

---

We need to establish A LOT more than that for a real foundation.

Appealing to "just the text" or "Scripture alone": You're relying on a particular translation, built on particular word choices, shaped by particular theological assumptions. Do you know the word crush itself being used is debated? The Greek word is sometimes used to mean purge.

Hermeneutics are inescapable because any time you read Scripture, you are interpreting it. You are not reading the original languages but a translation, where words carry ranges of meaning and require choices to be made. You also have to account for context, culture, literary style, and whether something is meant to be literal, symbolic, or poetic and if it harmonizes with the rest of scripture.

In your opinion, what constitutes a faithful interpretation and who has the authority to determine it?

Doc Holliday said:

---

We need to establish A LOT more than that for a real foundation.

Appealing to "just the text" or "Scripture alone": You're relying on a particular translation, built on particular word choices, shaped by particular theological assumptions. Do you know the word crush itself being used is debated? The Greek word is sometimes used to mean purge.

Hermeneutics are inescapable because any time you read Scripture, you are interpreting it. You are not reading the original languages but a translation, where words carry ranges of meaning and require choices to be made. You also have to account for context, culture, literary style, and whether something is meant to be literal, symbolic, or poetic and if it harmonizes with the rest of scripture.

In your opinion, what constitutes a faithful interpretation and who has the authority to determine it?

---

We can go to what the text means next. But when you have people who actually say "NO, God did NOT will to crush him, and God did NOT put him to grief" as you yourself witnessed, then we need to start with baby's first steps.

The Holy Spirit is the authority to interpret text. We can know what this interpretation is, by 1) HAVING the Holy Spirit, and that means believing the Gospel and trusting in Jesus alone for one's salvation (this is the loaded part, since many who claim to be Christian really are not), and 2) being consistent with facts and logic, and especially with the whole of Scripture, and 3) STUDY Scripture, know all of Scripture, and study translations, interpretations from theologians, debates, etc.

There is NO "office" in Jesus' body of believers that has infallibility in interpretation. The Holy Spirit is available to ALL who believe. This is one of Roman Catholicism's and Orthodox's BIGGEST errors. Haven't I made that abundantly clear? Do you REALLY think Scripture and the early church teaches icon veneration?? Do you REALLY think Marian "veneration", i.e. worship, that credits her for our salvation, is REALLY from God?

Regardless, we can now proceed. How, in your "hermaneutics", can you say that Isaiah 53 says anything but the fact that it was GOD who made Jesus suffer, and not Satan? Earlier, you said that Genesis "disproved" PSA, because it said that Satan would "strike his heel" which to you meant it was Satan who made Jesus suffer, NOT God. I ask you - do you now concede that this is wrong, that although God may have used Satan to carry out his purposes, that it was GOD who did that to Jesus?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

We need to establish A LOT more than that for a real foundation.

Appealing to "just the text" or "Scripture alone": You're relying on a particular translation, built on particular word choices, shaped by particular theological assumptions. Do you know the word crush itself being used is debated? The Greek word is sometimes used to mean purge.

Hermeneutics are inescapable because any time you read Scripture, you are interpreting it. You are not reading the original languages but a translation, where words carry ranges of meaning and require choices to be made. You also have to account for context, culture, literary style, and whether something is meant to be literal, symbolic, or poetic and if it harmonizes with the rest of scripture.

In your opinion, what constitutes a faithful interpretation and who has the authority to determine it?

---

We can go to what the text means next. But when you have people who actually say "NO, God did NOT will to crush him, and God did NOT put him to grief" as you yourself witnessed, then we need to start with baby's first steps.

The Holy Spirit is the authority to interpret text. We can know what this interpretation is, by being consistent with facts and logic, and especially with the whole of Scripture. There is NO "office" in Jesus' body of believers that has infallibility in interpretation. This is one of Roman Catholicism's and Orthodox's BIGGEST errors. Haven't I made that abundantly clear? Do you REALLY think Scripture and the early church teaches icon veneration?? Do you REALLY think Marian "veneration", i.e. worship, that credits her for our salvation, is REALLY from God?

Regardless, we can now proceed. How, in your "hermaneutics", can you say that Isaiah 53 says anything but the fact that it was GOD who made Jesus suffer, and not Satan? Earlier, you said that Genesis "disproved" PSA, because it said that Satan would "strike his heel" which to you meant it was Satan who made Jesus suffer, NOT God. I ask you - do you now concede that this is wrong, that although God may have used Satan to carry out his purposes, that it was GOD who did that to Jesus?

---

You're treating "God willed it" and "God directly inflicted it in the same way an agent does" as if they are identical categories. They're not. That's a theological conclusion you're bringing into the text, not something the text itself forces in a simplistic form.

Jesus was handed over "according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God" and yet "you crucified and killed him by the hands of lawless men" (Acts 2:23)

So who did it?
God ordained it
Men carried it out
Evil was involved
And yet God is not the author of evil

Genesis says the serpent would strike the heel. That identifies the agent of harm as Satan. Isaiah emphasizes that this suffering falls within God's salvific will. Those are not contradictions unless you collapse all categories into one.

Saying "the Holy Spirit is the interpreter" doesn't actually solve disagreement. Everyone you're arguing against also claims the Holy Spirit.

Let's go ahead and agree to disagree. This isn't a productive argument.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

We need to establish A LOT more than that for a real foundation.

Appealing to "just the text" or "Scripture alone": You're relying on a particular translation, built on particular word choices, shaped by particular theological assumptions. Do you know the word crush itself being used is debated? The Greek word is sometimes used to mean purge.

Hermeneutics are inescapable because any time you read Scripture, you are interpreting it. You are not reading the original languages but a translation, where words carry ranges of meaning and require choices to be made. You also have to account for context, culture, literary style, and whether something is meant to be literal, symbolic, or poetic and if it harmonizes with the rest of scripture.

In your opinion, what constitutes a faithful interpretation and who has the authority to determine it?

---

We can go to what the text means next. But when you have people who actually say "NO, God did NOT will to crush him, and God did NOT put him to grief" as you yourself witnessed, then we need to start with baby's first steps.

The Holy Spirit is the authority to interpret text. We can know what this interpretation is, by being consistent with facts and logic, and especially with the whole of Scripture. There is NO "office" in Jesus' body of believers that has infallibility in interpretation. This is one of Roman Catholicism's and Orthodox's BIGGEST errors. Haven't I made that abundantly clear? Do you REALLY think Scripture and the early church teaches icon veneration?? Do you REALLY think Marian "veneration", i.e. worship, that credits her for our salvation, is REALLY from God?

Regardless, we can now proceed. How, in your "hermaneutics", can you say that Isaiah 53 says anything but the fact that it was GOD who made Jesus suffer, and not Satan? Earlier, you said that Genesis "disproved" PSA, because it said that Satan would "strike his heel" which to you meant it was Satan who made Jesus suffer, NOT God. I ask you - do you now concede that this is wrong, that although God may have used Satan to carry out his purposes, that it was GOD who did that to Jesus?

---

You're treating "God willed it" and "God directly inflicted it in the same way an agent does" as if they are identical categories. They're not. That's a theological conclusion you're bringing into the text, not something the text itself forces in a simplistic form.

Jesus was handed over "according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God" and yet "you crucified and killed him by the hands of lawless men" (Acts 2:23)

So who did it?
God ordained it
Men carried it out
Evil was involved
And yet God is not the author of evil

Genesis says the serpent would strike the heel. That identifies the agent of harm as Satan. Isaiah emphasizes that this suffering falls within God's salvific will. Those are not contradictions unless you collapse all categories into one.

Saying "the Holy Spirit is the interpreter" doesn't actually solve disagreement. Everyone you're arguing against also claims the Holy Spirit.

I beginning to think this might be too complex for you.

---

See, THAT's your error - Isaiah doesn't just say that God "willed" it as in he merely "allowed" it to happen. It clearly says that GOD is the one who did it. The text does NOT say that "It was the will of the Lord that something else crush him; he willed something else to put him to grief." God is actually telling us that HE is the one who did these things. He CAUSED it. HE put him to grief. Meaning he CAUSED Satan to do it. He is the ultimate cause That is undeniable, and I really would like to hear your "hermeneutic" on how you can escape this.

See, THIS is why I had you answer my question about Isaiah 53. It's on record that you agreed with the fact that it was GOD who put him to grief. And you're gonna have a really hard time trying to explain how God CAUSING something by his own will, is any different theologically, practically, and morally than actually doing it physically himself. No one is saying he did it physically himself. But if you're argument is that doing it physically himself "divides" the Trinity, then it's a very difficult argument to make that WILLFULLY AND DIRECTLY CAUSING IT, which you agreed to, would do any different.

Are you sure that it's too complex for me?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

We need to establish A LOT more than that for a real foundation.

Appealing to "just the text" or "Scripture alone": You're relying on a particular translation, built on particular word choices, shaped by particular theological assumptions. Do you know the word crush itself being used is debated? The Greek word is sometimes used to mean purge.

Hermeneutics are inescapable because any time you read Scripture, you are interpreting it. You are not reading the original languages but a translation, where words carry ranges of meaning and require choices to be made. You also have to account for context, culture, literary style, and whether something is meant to be literal, symbolic, or poetic and if it harmonizes with the rest of scripture.

In your opinion, what constitutes a faithful interpretation and who has the authority to determine it?

---

We can go to what the text means next. But when you have people who actually say "NO, God did NOT will to crush him, and God did NOT put him to grief" as you yourself witnessed, then we need to start with baby's first steps.

The Holy Spirit is the authority to interpret text. We can know what this interpretation is, by being consistent with facts and logic, and especially with the whole of Scripture. There is NO "office" in Jesus' body of believers that has infallibility in interpretation. This is one of Roman Catholicism's and Orthodox's BIGGEST errors. Haven't I made that abundantly clear? Do you REALLY think Scripture and the early church teaches icon veneration?? Do you REALLY think Marian "veneration", i.e. worship, that credits her for our salvation, is REALLY from God?

Regardless, we can now proceed. How, in your "hermaneutics", can you say that Isaiah 53 says anything but the fact that it was GOD who made Jesus suffer, and not Satan? Earlier, you said that Genesis "disproved" PSA, because it said that Satan would "strike his heel" which to you meant it was Satan who made Jesus suffer, NOT God. I ask you - do you now concede that this is wrong, that although God may have used Satan to carry out his purposes, that it was GOD who did that to Jesus?

---

You're treating "God willed it" and "God directly inflicted it in the same way an agent does" as if they are identical categories. They're not. That's a theological conclusion you're bringing into the text, not something the text itself forces in a simplistic form.

Jesus was handed over "according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God" and yet "you crucified and killed him by the hands of lawless men" (Acts 2:23)

So who did it?
God ordained it
Men carried it out
Evil was involved
And yet God is not the author of evil

Genesis says the serpent would strike the heel. That identifies the agent of harm as Satan. Isaiah emphasizes that this suffering falls within God's salvific will. Those are not contradictions unless you collapse all categories into one.

Saying "the Holy Spirit is the interpreter" doesn't actually solve disagreement. Everyone you're arguing against also claims the Holy Spirit.

I beginning to think this might be too complex for you.

---

See, THAT's your error - Isaiah doesn't just say that God "willed" it as in he merely "allowed" it to happen. It clearly says that GOD is the one who did it. The text does NOT say that "It was the will of the Lord that something else crush him; he willed something else to put him to grief." God is actually telling us that HE is the one who did these things. He CAUSED it. HE put him to grief. Meaning he CAUSED Satan to do it. He is the ultimate cause That is undeniable, and I really would like to hear your "hermeneutic" on how you can escape this.

See, THIS is why I had you answer my question about Isaiah 53. It's on record that you agreed with the fact that it was GOD who put him to grief. And you're gonna have a really hard time trying to explain how God CAUSING something by his own will, is any different theologically, practically, and morally than actually doing it physically himself. No one is saying he did it physically himself. But if you're argument is that doing it physically himself "divides" the Trinity, then it's a very difficult argument to make that WILLFULLY AND DIRECTLY CAUSING IT, which you agreed to, would do any different.

Are you sure that it's too complex for me?

---

You're claiming that God directly caused Christ's suffering, not just ordained it through human or demonic agents, but actively "put Him to grief" in a way that makes Him the immediate source. The logical consequence of that claim is that God is the author of evil.

Scripture is clear that God is perfectly holy and cannot be the author of sin (James 1:13, 1 John 1:5). Your interpretation collapses the distinction between ultimate providential causation and direct moral causation.

This is why PSA is dangerous. You've taken a later development of PSA to the extreme and you think it's infallible.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

We need to establish A LOT more than that for a real foundation.

Appealing to "just the text" or "Scripture alone": You're relying on a particular translation, built on particular word choices, shaped by particular theological assumptions. Do you know the word crush itself being used is debated? The Greek word is sometimes used to mean purge.

Hermeneutics are inescapable because any time you read Scripture, you are interpreting it. You are not reading the original languages but a translation, where words carry ranges of meaning and require choices to be made. You also have to account for context, culture, literary style, and whether something is meant to be literal, symbolic, or poetic and if it harmonizes with the rest of scripture.

In your opinion, what constitutes a faithful interpretation and who has the authority to determine it?

---

We can go to what the text means next. But when you have people who actually say "NO, God did NOT will to crush him, and God did NOT put him to grief" as you yourself witnessed, then we need to start with baby's first steps.

The Holy Spirit is the authority to interpret text. We can know what this interpretation is, by being consistent with facts and logic, and especially with the whole of Scripture. There is NO "office" in Jesus' body of believers that has infallibility in interpretation. This is one of Roman Catholicism's and Orthodox's BIGGEST errors. Haven't I made that abundantly clear? Do you REALLY think Scripture and the early church teaches icon veneration?? Do you REALLY think Marian "veneration", i.e. worship, that credits her for our salvation, is REALLY from God?

Regardless, we can now proceed. How, in your "hermaneutics", can you say that Isaiah 53 says anything but the fact that it was GOD who made Jesus suffer, and not Satan? Earlier, you said that Genesis "disproved" PSA, because it said that Satan would "strike his heel" which to you meant it was Satan who made Jesus suffer, NOT God. I ask you - do you now concede that this is wrong, that although God may have used Satan to carry out his purposes, that it was GOD who did that to Jesus?

---

You're treating "God willed it" and "God directly inflicted it in the same way an agent does" as if they are identical categories. They're not. That's a theological conclusion you're bringing into the text, not something the text itself forces in a simplistic form.

Jesus was handed over "according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God" and yet "you crucified and killed him by the hands of lawless men" (Acts 2:23)

So who did it?
God ordained it
Men carried it out
Evil was involved
And yet God is not the author of evil

Genesis says the serpent would strike the heel. That identifies the agent of harm as Satan. Isaiah emphasizes that this suffering falls within God's salvific will. Those are not contradictions unless you collapse all categories into one.

Saying "the Holy Spirit is the interpreter" doesn't actually solve disagreement. Everyone you're arguing against also claims the Holy Spirit.

I beginning to think this might be too complex for you.

---

See, THAT's your error - Isaiah doesn't just say that God "willed" it as in he merely "allowed" it to happen. It clearly says that GOD is the one who did it. The text does NOT say that "It was the will of the Lord that something else crush him; he willed something else to put him to grief." God is actually telling us that HE is the one who did these things. He CAUSED it. HE put him to grief. Meaning he CAUSED Satan to do it. He is the ultimate cause That is undeniable, and I really would like to hear your "hermeneutic" on how you can escape this.

See, THIS is why I had you answer my question about Isaiah 53. It's on record that you agreed with the fact that it was GOD who put him to grief. And you're gonna have a really hard time trying to explain how God CAUSING something by his own will, is any different theologically, practically, and morally than actually doing it physically himself. No one is saying he did it physically himself. But if you're argument is that doing it physically himself "divides" the Trinity, then it's a very difficult argument to make that WILLFULLY AND DIRECTLY CAUSING IT, which you agreed to, would do any different.

Are you sure that it's too complex for me?

---

You're claiming that God directly caused Christ's suffering, not just ordained it through human or demonic agents, but actively "put Him to grief" in a way that makes Him the immediate source. The logical consequence of that claim is that God is the author of evil.

Scripture is clear that God is perfectly holy and cannot be the author of sin (James 1:13, 1 John 1:5). Your interpretation collapses the distinction between ultimate providential causation and direct moral causation.

This is why PSA is dangerous. You've taken a later development of PSA to the extreme and you think it's infallible.

---

Several questions:

1) If I kill you with my bare hands, that divides us..... but if I hire someone to kill you with their bare hands instead, then we're cool?

2) Why do you presuppose that causing Jesus to suffer is evil, even when Jesus himself, knowing it was necessary, volunteered to receive it? Why is it not justice to a Holy God, and loving? This is one of the many presuppostions you make regarding this topic that clouds your understanding. I think this is what forms the basis of your opposition to it.

3) What real, practical, moral, and theological difference is there between God KNOWINGLY AND WILLINGLY CAUSING something, and God directly doing something? If we knowingly and willfully cause another person's death, it's murder on our part. Why are we held to a higher standard then God?

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

I don't think the Lord is an "Angry God". I think He is very patient and kind and does everything He can so that He does not have to pour His wrath out on mankind. But it is certainly true that it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God. He is not sitting up in heaven waiting for us to mess up though and hoping to destroy us. He's up there patiently waiting and hoping to save us.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

I don't think the Lord is an "Angry God". I think He is very patient and kind and does everything He can so that He does not have to pour His wrath out on mankind. But it is certainly true that it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God. He is not sitting up in heaven waiting for us to mess up though and hoping to destroy us. He's up there patiently waiting and hoping to save us.

---

Depends on your theological framework. Calvinists certainly don't believe that as they buy into Monergism.

Doc Holliday said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

I don't think the Lord is an "Angry God". I think He is very patient and kind and does everything He can so that He does not have to pour His wrath out on mankind. But it is certainly true that it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God. He is not sitting up in heaven waiting for us to mess up though and hoping to destroy us. He's up there patiently waiting and hoping to save us.

---

Depends on your theological framework. Calvinists certainly don't believe that as they buy into Monergism.

---

I am mostly Arminian Theology. We believe in hell too, but we don't see God as angry.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

I don't think the Lord is an "Angry God". I think He is very patient and kind and does everything He can so that He does not have to pour His wrath out on mankind. But it is certainly true that it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God. He is not sitting up in heaven waiting for us to mess up though and hoping to destroy us. He's up there patiently waiting and hoping to save us.

---

Depends on your theological framework. Calvinists certainly don't believe that as they buy into Monergism.

---

I am mostly Arminian Theology. We believe in hell too, but we don't see God as angry.

---

Isaiah 5:24-25 -

"for they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts,
and have despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.
Therefore the anger of the Lord was kindled against his people,
and he stretched out his hand against them and struck them."


God indeed has divine anger against sin and rebellion.

Also note that Scripture clearly indicates it is BY GOD'S OWN HAND that he "strikes" people in judgement.

Question for you guys: when God exacts his judgement, i.e. punishment in divine wrath..... does he cease to be love?

I KNOW that God judges sin and gets angry with sin, but He isn't an angry God, waiting to judge mankind. He is trying to save us from His wrath and He is doing everything He can to avoid having to throw men into hell. God also does chasten His people. I know that I have angered Him and have recieved His chastening. It's not fun, but even then, it's done out of love.

Hebrews 12:5-6 NKJV
[5] And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons: "My son, do not despise the chastening of the Lord, Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him; [6] For whom the Lord loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

if baptism is the "ordinary" means of salvation, which means there are other ways to salvation, then it is not necessary. You're defeating your own argument, and you still don't realize it.

There is no difference between God "ACTIVELY willing" and God "willing" something. You're chasing a pointless argument. The fact remains that the following happened:

The Bible, directly from Isaiah:
"It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief."

YOU: "It was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, he has NOT put him to grief."

There it is, clear as day. I don't know what else needs to be said. You have been exposed (if you haven't been already - hint... you have)

---

Re: Baptism - this has been explained to you ad nauseum, but you refuse to understand it in the light of your incorrect "faith alone" belief.

You are forcing a literally interpretation into the texts when it fits your belief system when you refuse to believe the literal "This is MY body" and "My flesh is true food and My blood is true drink." Your belief structure choses when it wants to except or deny history.

God didn't actively will and delight in the suffering of His Son. It was part of His divine plan. God didn't punish Jesus.

Jesus voluntarily paid a debt that we couldn't pay.

Doc's and Sam's later posts in this thread have pointed this out as they done the heavy lifting here.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

if baptism is the "ordinary" means of salvation, which means there are other ways to salvation, then it is not necessary. You're defeating your own argument, and you still don't realize it.

There is no difference between God "ACTIVELY willing" and God "willing" something. You're chasing a pointless argument. The fact remains that the following happened:

The Bible, directly from Isaiah:
"It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief."

YOU: "It was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, he has NOT put him to grief."

There it is, clear as day. I don't know what else needs to be said. You have been exposed (if you haven't been already - hint... you have)

---

Re: Baptism - this has been explained to you ad nauseum, but you refuse to understand it in the light of your incorrect "faith alone" belief.

You are forcing a literally interpretation into the texts when it fits your belief system when you refuse to believe the literal "This is MY body" and "My flesh is true food and My blood is true drink." Your belief structure choses when it wants to except or deny history.

God didn't actively will and delight in the suffering of His Son. It was part of His divine plan. God didn't punish Jesus.

Jesus voluntarily paid a debt that we couldn't pay.

Doc's and Sam's later posts in this thread have pointed this out as they done the heavy lifting here.

---

Getting stumped by my questions about water baptism and the Eucharist, and having to dodge them or avoid them completely is not doing "heavy lifting". LOL.

My views are from and consistent with the word of God. Yours is from the word of men at the expense of the word of God. When you have to directly deny what is said in Scripture as you did, that makes it obvious to all who read this.

You: "God didn't actively will AND DELIGHT IN the suffering of His Son" - there's your dishonesty again. What does it say about your view if you have to create straw man to preserve it? What does it say about your views when you're stumped by simple questions about marian apparitions or the questions posed here about water baptism vs. the Eucharist? Or by the fact that you have to directly deny God's word?

Rational, intelligent, honest people, especially those that are true Christians, can easily see all this.

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

We need to establish A LOT more than that for a real foundation.

Appealing to "just the text" or "Scripture alone": You're relying on a particular translation, built on particular word choices, shaped by particular theological assumptions. Do you know the word crush itself being used is debated? The Greek word is sometimes used to mean purge.

Hermeneutics are inescapable because any time you read Scripture, you are interpreting it. You are not reading the original languages but a translation, where words carry ranges of meaning and require choices to be made. You also have to account for context, culture, literary style, and whether something is meant to be literal, symbolic, or poetic and if it harmonizes with the rest of scripture.

In your opinion, what constitutes a faithful interpretation and who has the authority to determine it?

---

We can go to what the text means next. But when you have people who actually say "NO, God did NOT will to crush him, and God did NOT put him to grief" as you yourself witnessed, then we need to start with baby's first steps.

The Holy Spirit is the authority to interpret text. We can know what this interpretation is, by being consistent with facts and logic, and especially with the whole of Scripture. There is NO "office" in Jesus' body of believers that has infallibility in interpretation. This is one of Roman Catholicism's and Orthodox's BIGGEST errors. Haven't I made that abundantly clear? Do you REALLY think Scripture and the early church teaches icon veneration?? Do you REALLY think Marian "veneration", i.e. worship, that credits her for our salvation, is REALLY from God?

Regardless, we can now proceed. How, in your "hermaneutics", can you say that Isaiah 53 says anything but the fact that it was GOD who made Jesus suffer, and not Satan? Earlier, you said that Genesis "disproved" PSA, because it said that Satan would "strike his heel" which to you meant it was Satan who made Jesus suffer, NOT God. I ask you - do you now concede that this is wrong, that although God may have used Satan to carry out his purposes, that it was GOD who did that to Jesus?

---

You're treating "God willed it" and "God directly inflicted it in the same way an agent does" as if they are identical categories. They're not. That's a theological conclusion you're bringing into the text, not something the text itself forces in a simplistic form.

Jesus was handed over "according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God" and yet "you crucified and killed him by the hands of lawless men" (Acts 2:23)

So who did it?
God ordained it
Men carried it out
Evil was involved
And yet God is not the author of evil

Genesis says the serpent would strike the heel. That identifies the agent of harm as Satan. Isaiah emphasizes that this suffering falls within God's salvific will. Those are not contradictions unless you collapse all categories into one.

Saying "the Holy Spirit is the interpreter" doesn't actually solve disagreement. Everyone you're arguing against also claims the Holy Spirit.

I beginning to think this might be too complex for you.

---

See, THAT's your error - Isaiah doesn't just say that God "willed" it as in he merely "allowed" it to happen. It clearly says that GOD is the one who did it. The text does NOT say that "It was the will of the Lord that something else crush him; he willed something else to put him to grief." God is actually telling us that HE is the one who did these things. He CAUSED it. HE put him to grief. Meaning he CAUSED Satan to do it. He is the ultimate cause That is undeniable, and I really would like to hear your "hermeneutic" on how you can escape this.

See, THIS is why I had you answer my question about Isaiah 53. It's on record that you agreed with the fact that it was GOD who put him to grief. And you're gonna have a really hard time trying to explain how God CAUSING something by his own will, is any different theologically, practically, and morally than actually doing it physically himself. No one is saying he did it physically himself. But if you're argument is that doing it physically himself "divides" the Trinity, then it's a very difficult argument to make that WILLFULLY AND DIRECTLY CAUSING IT, which you agreed to, would do any different.

Are you sure that it's too complex for me?

---

You're claiming that God directly caused Christ's suffering, not just ordained it through human or demonic agents, but actively "put Him to grief" in a way that makes Him the immediate source. The logical consequence of that claim is that God is the author of evil.

Scripture is clear that God is perfectly holy and cannot be the author of sin (James 1:13, 1 John 1:5). Your interpretation collapses the distinction between ultimate providential causation and direct moral causation.

This is why PSA is dangerous. You've taken a later development of PSA to the extreme and you think it's infallible.

---

Several questions:

1) If I kill you with my bare hands, that divides us..... but if I hire someone to kill you with their bare hands instead, then we're cool?

2) Why do you presuppose that causing Jesus to suffer is evil, even when Jesus himself, knowing it was necessary, volunteered to receive it? Why is it not justice to a Holy God, and loving? This is one of the many presuppostions you make regarding this topic that clouds your understanding. I think this is what forms the basis of your opposition to it.

3) What real, practical, moral, and theological difference is there between God KNOWINGLY AND WILLINGLY CAUSING something, and God directly doing something? If we knowingly and willfully cause another person's death, it's murder on our part. Why are we held to a higher standard then God?

---

Doc, these questions and your inability/unwillingness to answer them are revealing that your views against PSA are untenable, apparently being built on very faulty presuppositions. Isn't it easier to just accept what Scripture says? God can "crush" Jesus in place of us, and yet it is not at all inconsistent with the Trinity, his holiness, or his love. Especially since Jesus was in full and voluntary agreement with the plan.

So apparently the opponents' arguments against penal substitutionary atonement didn't hold water. Let's move to another point:

The argument was made that Peter saying "Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins" is proof from Scripture that water baptism is the necessary means and mechanism by which we are saved.

But I'm still not hearing an answer to my question: how can that be true, if the literal interpretation of Jesus in John 6 clearly says that "eating his flesh" is what saves a person, not water baptism? In orther words, if one gets water baptized, but has not "eaten his flesh" which Roman Catholicism says is done in the Eucharist, then Jesus is clearly saying that they still are not saved:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

The words are clear, unambiguous, and undeniable. How can salvation be contingent upon water baptism, when Jesus unequivocally says, rather, that it's "eating his flesh", which is the Eucharist (as Roman Cathoilcs see it).

Anyone? I sure hope this is not yet another question that gets ignored, dodged, or talked past. Or one that gets me called a "Pharisee", "hateful", or "abusive" for simply asking it.

Peter was still Preaching John's Baptism for Israel at that point. We are under the Gospel of Grace as revealed by Paul to the Church. Water Baptism does not save. Paul says the Baptism that saves is by the Holy Spirit:

I Corinthians 12:13 NKJV
[13] For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one bodywhether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or freeand have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

Peter was speaking to believing Jews who were still obeying Law. We are under grace. Listen to Paul.

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

Acts 15:14, 16 NKJV
[14] Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name.
[16] 'After this I will return And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, And I will set it up;

Please take the Time to read the this forst post

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Well, there you have it, folks.

They simply can not acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture. When you ask them to, they call it a "stupid-ass game". They have to deny, twist, avoid, and divert away from it in order to get around it. Look how one directly denies the very wording of Isaiah.

It's clear that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not from God.

---

Acts 2:38: Peter commands, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins".

So directly written in scripture it says get baptized for the forgiveness of sin. That's baptismal regeneration.

You think baptism can only be symbolic and that it's really unnecessary. Why differ from the very wording?

---

It is clear that he "simply can not(sic) acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture."

---

Lol

It's a classic case of imposing a modern operating system on ancient hardware. When we approach these texts with a post-Enlightenment, nominalist lens, we try to isolate variables that were never meant to be separated. In a nominalist framework, everything is a discrete unit. "Faith" is one bucket, "Works" is another, and "Grace" is the currency moved between them.

The Apostles and the Church for the first millennium + operated on a participatory ontology. It's essentially the difference between knowing about a person (nominalism/data) and being in a marriage with them (ontology/union). In a marriage, you don't ask, "If I don't do the dishes, are we still legally married?" You just do the dishes because you're in a shared life together.

Someone could read James and Paul and be like "well do I just need to believe? We're justified by works, not faith alone, but maybe faith alone saves us...but our works don't save us, but we have free will and faith can't be dead. What do I do?!?!"

Faith wasn't just "mental assent" to a proposition, or just "hey Jesus is Lord, I'm certain of that"; it was an alignment of one's entire being toward God.

---

You never could answer why, if water baptism is how one is saved, how "eating Jesus flesh" could be necessary for salvation, given your literal interpretation of John 6. If literal, then clearly Jesus said that without eating his flesh, you do NOT have eternal life. This would mean even if you were water baptized. So how can water baptism be the means by which one is saved? Your views are in contradiction, and thus, obviously incorrect.

---

You'd have to throw that same accusation at the Bible: that my views are contradicting:

Scripture lists several things as "saving" us:
Faith saves us: "Your faith has saved you; go in peace." (Luke 7:50)
Baptism saves us: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you." (1 Peter 3:21)
Grace saves us: "For by grace you have been saved..." (Ephesians 2:8)
Hope saves us: "For in this hope we were saved." (Romans 8:24)
Works save us: "A person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24)

There's also past, present and future tense:
Past Tense: "By grace you have been saved" (Ephesians 2:8).
Present Tense: "The word of the cross... is to us who are being saved" (1 Corinthians 1:18).
Future Tense: "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matthew 24:13).

I'm not presenting a contradiction and neither are these verses competing for the "salvation slot", they're all different parts of the same "salvific journey"...but you're trying to argue that there's a salvation slot. Why don't you give me a reason why you need a single marker for salvation?

You said "If John 6 is literal, then Baptism isn't enough." but it also says in John 3:5: "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." If salvation is a process of union (the Orthodox view), then Jesus is simply describing the Entrance (John 3) and the Abiding (John 6).

Your theology is directly from the reformers who were deeply concerned that if salvation was a lifelong process requiring participation in sacraments (like Baptism or the Eucharist), then people would try to "earn" their way into heaven. That was their key to breaking away from Rome. I get it, Rome was nuts back then...but the reformers committed themselves to reductionism and in doing so opened a giant can of worms. Its why nearly a billion people will be flopping on the ground and speaking gibberish at Pentecostal churches as the second, maybe even the largest Christian group in the world by the end of the century.

---

Notice you aren't answering the question. Make it make sense, according to your theology: if water baptism is the means by which we are saved, then how can John 6 be literal? Then bring everything you mentioned above together, and answer: is water baptism the means or mechanism by which we are saved, without which we are NOT saved - yes or no? Because your assertion is that the verse which says "Repent and be baptized.... for the forgiveness of your sins" is Scripture directly telling us that it is.

This doesn't need a reply that's a long essay. It's a simple, uncomplicated question. Either the act of water baptism is the necessary mechanism or means by which we attain salvation, or its not. Answer?

---

I can't answer a question that doesn't make sense. Your question is like asking "is a human alive by Birth or by Breathing, Yes or No?".

Why do you believe your question is valid in a biblical context? You're demanding that I choose between two 'means' of salvation (Baptism in John 3 and the Eucharist in John 6) as if they are competing for a single slot. Where does Scripture say there is only one 'mechanism' for salvation?

---

Your answer is what's known around here as a "dodge".

Here is the issue, which you obviously haven't comprehended. If you say that the verse "Repent and be baptized.... for the forgiveness of your sins" means that water baptism is the means by which we are saved and thus is required for salvation, then your literal interpretation of John 6 contradicts that. Because in John 6, Jesus clearly says that it's "eating his flesh", i.e. the Eucharist that gives salvation, not water baptism. And he clearly says that if you DO NOT eat his flesh, then you DO NOT have eternal life. This would mean that your salvation is contingent upon "eating his flesh", not water baptism. So how do you square this with your theology?

The second question is just a straightforward one: do you, or do you not believe that water baptism is the means or mechanism by which we are saved?

---

All of these verses are competing in your framework. You're the one who has to harmonize them because your claim is we're saved ONLY by faith and nothing else.

So how do you fit all of these into your framework? I don't have this problem, you do:
Baptism saves us: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you." (1 Peter 3:21)
Grace saves us: "For by grace you have been saved..." (Ephesians 2:8)
Hope saves us: "For in this hope we were saved." (Romans 8:24

---

NONE of those verses are "competing in my framework".

• I explained the verse about water baptism
• Grace saves us... which is received through our faith. We receive this grace by our faith, even if we aren't water baptized
• "For IN this hope we were saved" - IN, not BY or because of this hope we are saved. Another way to look at it, is that the "hope" being talked about there is.... faith. Scripture says "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for"

The real question is, how is it that you "don't have a problem with these", since you believe that water baptism is the real and necessary means by which we are saved? Because these verses you're referencing are clearly saying that it's not. That is, unless you're saying that we don't receive grace UNTIL we've been water baptized, even though we have true faith (which would contradict pretty much everything said by Paul and by Jesus himself), and saying that we don't have hope UNTIL we've been water baptized, which doesn't make sense. Are these what you believe?

---

You only demand answers and outright refuse to answer any of mine. You keep demanding a yes-or-no answer, but you haven't justified the framework that makes your question make sense in the first place.

Until you do that, you're not exposing a contradiction. You're just asserting one.

You're collapsing everything into an "all-or-nothing before vs after" framework. Paul doesn't contradict this at all. In fact, he says we are baptized into Christ's death and put on Christ.I'm not saying grace starts at baptism. I'm saying baptism is where Scripture says we are united to Christ and receive forgiveness. Those aren't the same claim.

Your argument only works if there can be one and only one mechanism of salvation. Where does the Bible teach that?
If you can't show that, then there's no contradiction to resolve.

---

Are you blind? I literally outlined your contradiction above. How do you resolve your belief about water baptism with your belief in the literal interpretation of John 6, which in the literal sense clearly states that salvation is contigent upon the Eucharist, NOT water baptism?

So, you're now saying that water baptism is ONE of other different mechanisms of salvation. Then doesn't that contradict your claim that water baptism is "real and necessary" for salvation? in other words, if the Eucharist is also a means and mechanism to salvation (according to your literal interpretation of John 6), then someone can take the Eucharist and NOT be water baptized, and is saved. That would indicate that water baptism is NOT "necessary" for salvation.

How are you not understanding this?

---

Neither water Baptism or Communion (Eucharist) save a man. They are merely symbols

Understanding The Ladder of Divine Ascent

Realitybites said:

---

Understanding The Ladder of Divine Ascent

---

What exactly is this Ministry?

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Understanding The Ladder of Divine Ascent

---

What exactly is this Ministry?

---

Josiah Trenham, an Orthodox Priest from California.

"A survey of Orthodox churches around the country found that parishes saw a 78% increase in converts in 2022, compared with pre-pandemic levels in 2019. And while historically men and women converted in equal numbers, vastly more men have joined the church since 2020.

Father Josiah Trenham has led Saint Andrew's Orthodox Church in Riverside, California, for nearly three decades and he's noticed a swift jump in interest: "The last four to five years have been a massive uptick. It's showing no sign of tapering off. If anything, it's increasing still … It's happening massively in untold numbers all over the country."

Trenham's church has 1,000 active participants, and, although recent converts in his congregation have been split roughly evenly between men and women, he agrees that most Orthodox churches around the country are gaining far more men.

"The feminization of non-Orthodox forms of Christianity in America has been in high gear for decades," Trenham explained.

He points to the fact that the vast majority of attendees at most Christian churches are female, and many services are accordingly dominated by emotional songs, swaying, uplifted hands, and eyes closed in ecstasy.
"Men are much less comfortable [in those settings], and they have voted with their feet, which is why they're minorities in these forms of worship," he said. "Our worship forms are very traditional and very masculine."