Reductio_BCE

[Reductio_BCE @Reductio_BCE]

Actually, it says that because we sinned with/in Adam, we die. We die because we participated in his sin. This is because we are an extension and personal expression of the Adamic organism. Adam’s history of disobedience is our history, his nature is ours, the verdict against him is ours and his destiny is ours.

Romans 5:12-21 shows that there is a parallel between Adam and Christ. Through Adam we are made sinners leading to death. Through real union with Christ, we participate in His death, paying for sin, and we rise with him, granting us life and a new nature.

[Reductio_BCE @Reductio_BCE]

@JCBibleInsights For the mind-set of the flesh is hostile to God because it does not submit itself to God’s law, for it is unable to do so. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God

Romans 8:7–8

Men who have not been born again, who do not have the Spirit, are unable to submit to God.

[Reductio_BCE @Reductio_BCE]

@TomBuck Ironically, those that use the word would apply it to you and not your daughter in this context.

[Reductio_BCE @Reductio_BCE]

@Curi_Christian Free to do what they will. Not free to will what they ought.

[Reductio_BCE @Reductio_BCE]

@EvanPaul05 I have faith.

[Reductio_BCE @Reductio_BCE]

The Old Testament is not trying to teach you that God is insecure, petty, or inconsistent. It is teaching you what humanity is, what sin actually does, and why death is required.

God created man for a specific purpose: to image Him. To reflect His goodness, His rule, His righteousness, and His dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26-28). Man was not created morally neutral or autonomous. He was created dependent, relational, and representative.

When Adam sinned, he did not merely break a rule. He rejected God as the source of life, truth, and goodness. And because humanity is one organism under Adam, his corruption became ours (Romans 5:12-19). This is why Scripture does not treat mankind as a collection of innocent individuals who occasionally mess up. It treats mankind as fallen, hostile, and already under sentence.

The law does not introduce death arbitrarily. It formalizes it. It declares what is already true: sin merits death (Ezekiel 18:4). The penalties in the law are not God being cruel. They are God being honest about what sin deserves in a holy order.

The sacrificial system does not contradict this. It reinforces it. Every sacrifice teaches the same thing: life must be given. Blood must be shed. Death is required. Those sacrifices never removed sin. They pointed forward to the only death that could actually satisfy the law (Hebrews 10:1-4).

God’s patience in the Old Testament is not God lowering the bar. It is God carrying out a plan. Scripture tells us plainly that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world and that God has a people whose names are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life (Revelation 13:8). History unfolds because God intends to save His elect, to gather His people, and to bring them into union with His Son.

When Christ comes, He does not negate the law’s demand. He fulfills it. He does not bypass death. He undergoes it. In union with Christ, believers truly die the death the law requires, and truly rise into new life (Romans 6:3-7). This is why salvation is not about free will being honored or ignored. It is about God creating a new humanity by death and resurrection (Ephesians 2:14-16).

So the God of the Old Testament and the God revealed in Jesus are not different. They are the same God working through the same justice toward the same end. The Old Testament shows why death is necessary. The New Testament shows how God satisfies that necessity without losing His people.

[Reductio_BCE @Reductio_BCE]

@Truth_matters20 Worship isn’t a style of church service. Worship is an active response to the greatness and goodness of God. Church should facilitate the revelation of such a God.

[Reductio_BCE @Reductio_BCE]

@BiblicalBeauty We love Him because He first loved us. We love Him and forget not his benefits. His love for us is our solace.

[Reductio_BCE @Reductio_BCE]

@Pastor_Gabe Union preceeds and produces all the things including regeneration, faith, justification, sanctification, adoption, glorification etc.

[Reductio_BCE @Reductio_BCE]

@John_6__47 @Truth_matters20 Evangelicalism is full of obvious discontinuities that just get ignored.

[Reductio_BCE @Reductio_BCE]

Scripture actually does say God creates vessels for destruction in order to display His justice and power - not accidentally, not reluctantly, but intentionally (Romans 9:21-23). Evil is not a surprise to God. It exists to be revealed, judged, and finally undone. Judgment is not a malfunction of goodness - it is one of the ways goodness is made visible (Exodus 9:16, Psalm 92:6-7).

What’s happening in objections like this is misplaced empathy. You’re emotionally siding with God’s enemies and assuming their moral innocence. But Scripture never invites us to take the sinner’s side against God. “Shall the thing formed say to Him who formed it, ‘Why have you made me like this?’” (Romans 9:20). Compassion for creatures does not mean moral indictment of the Creator.

The Bible’s claim is sharper than people want. Fallen humanity deserves death - not because God is cruel, but because evil is real and culpable (Romans 6:23, Ezekiel 18:4). Mercy is extraordinary precisely because justice would have been enough (Ephesians 2:4-5).

So the issue isn’t that Calvinism lacks empathy. It’s that modern objections redefine justice by emotionally identifying with rebels rather than with the God they’re rebelling against (Isaiah 66:2, Proverbs 28:5).

[Reductio_BCE @Reductio_BCE]

The claim that “no known teacher” has held annihilationism except Kirk Cameron is simply false.

In the early church, figures like Arnobius (explicitly), and others who denied innate immortality, held views consistent with conditional immortality long before Augustine. In the modern evangelical world, annihilationism has been defended by John Stott, Edward Fudge, John Wenham, Clark Pinnock, Michael Green, and others — all orthodox, Trinitarian, substitutionary-atonement–affirming Christians. Entire Protestant traditions hold it today.

You’re free to reject the view, but portraying it as novel, trendy, or outside orthodoxy just isn’t historically accurate.

[Reductio_BCE @Reductio_BCE]

This reply doesn’t engage the argument at all. It replaces exegesis with appeals to authority, imputes motive, and labels disagreement as heresy without demonstrating it from Scripture.

The issue has never been whether Christ alone satisfies divine justice - annihilationism affirms that explicitly. The issue is what Scripture says the penalty for sin actually is, and whether Christ paid that penalty in kind.

Appealing to consensus, caricaturing motives, and invoking heresy language does not answer verses that define the wage as death, tie propitiation to blood and life given up, and repeatedly contrast life with perishing and destruction. If you want to argue the text, I’m happy to do that. If not, I’ll leave it here.

[Reductio_BCE @Reductio_BCE]

First, appealing to “the entirety of the church” is an argument from authority. As Protestants, Scripture is the only binding authority. Church history can inform us, but it does not settle the question.

Second, the claim itself is false. Annihilationism has existed within orthodox Christianity, even if eternal torment became dominant after Augustine. Consensus does not determine truth.

Third, John 3:36 contrasts those who receive life with those on whom wrath remains. It does not say unbelievers receive eternal life in torment. “Wrath remains” describes their unforgiven status, not an eternal mode of conscious experience. Scripture elsewhere names the outcome as death.

Fourth, your statement about propitiation needs clarity. You said, “punishment doesn’t appease wrath - propitiation does.” But propitiation means wrath being appeased. So as written, you’re saying: “punishment doesn’t appease wrath; wrath-appeasement does.” That isn’t a distinction - it’s a definition restated. If you’re claiming that Christ’s death did not involve punishment, then say that plainly and explain how wrath is appeased apart from penalty being borne. Scripture ties propitiation directly to blood—life given up (Rom 3:25; Lev 17:11). Without punishment, there is no appeasement.

You can disagree with annihilationism, but asserting authority, overstating texts, and redefining basic terms doesn’t resolve the issue. The disagreement is about what Scripture says the penalty for sin actually is – and Scripture repeatedly answers: death.

[Reductio_BCE @Reductio_BCE]

@DoctrinalPossum He ensures such relationships will happen in Calvinistic theology.

[Reductio_BCE @Reductio_BCE]

@coconservative7 @The2nd1776 So you disagree with scripture. Noted.

[Reductio_BCE @Reductio_BCE]

@The2nd1776 @coconservative7 Capital punishment is everlasting punishment.

[Reductio_BCE @Reductio_BCE]

@coconservative7 The wages of sin is death. If I die, payment has been made. Logical, no?

[Reductio_BCE @Reductio_BCE]

@DaveShapi David has reached maximum fury.

[Reductio_BCE @Reductio_BCE]

@_DHDS @coconservative7 Exactly