-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Do You Agree with Calvin or Wright On the Nature of the Atonement?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
- Status
Jesus, as man & for man, took on himself our sins, & suffered the wrath of God while he hung on the cross -
Psalm 22:1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me.
His saving work was FINISHED when he died, & he was vindicated - owned to be the Son of God, by his resurrection. See Romans 1, quoting Psalm 2.
I'm amazed that you can boil down Wright to "God vindicating Jesus as being the righteousness One of God!" from the 140,000 or so words he's written on the topic (that number, BTW, I just made up but might not be far from wrong.
Wright continues to insist he believes in penal substitutionary atonement (though, it appears, not the classical version) while insisting that one model of the atonement does not exhaust all its meanings, hence an attraction to Christus Victor, but not at the expense of other explanations.
My own take is that Wright really wants to keep one foot in classical Reformed theology (not an easy task, given that Anglicism has pretty much rejected Reformed theology, and practically any distinctive theology at all) while keeping one foot in the theology of his own creation, brilliant though it is.
Wright continues to insist he believes in penal substitutionary atonement (though, it appears, not the classical version) while insisting that one model of the atonement does not exhaust all its meanings, hence an attraction to Christus Victor, but not at the expense of other explanations.
My own take is that Wright really wants to keep one foot in classical Reformed theology (not an easy task, given that Anglicism has pretty much rejected Reformed theology, and practically any distinctive theology at all) while keeping one foot in the theology of his own creation, brilliant though it is.
In four words: "Jesus paid it all". No further commentary required.
Beware the wolves dressed like sheep.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
Beware the wolves dressed like sheep.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
According to the OP
Did not Calvin hold that sinful human was completely unable to attain God’s salvation, that it was granted by His pleasure because of the work on the Cross?
“21He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”
Holding to the view of just retribution for sin demands payment in full, who then paid for the sin(s) of Jesus?
Surly if the wrath of God is upon all sin, and Jesus became sin, then God’s wrath abides upon Jesus until such sins are paid for. Who paid for Jesus?
This is a foundational flaw with the Wrath of God thinking. God’s wrath is not extinguished until sin is not found. Therefore, again, who paid the penalty for Jesus?
Did not Calvin hold that sinful human was completely unable to attain God’s salvation, that it was granted by His pleasure because of the work on the Cross?
“21He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”
Holding to the view of just retribution for sin demands payment in full, who then paid for the sin(s) of Jesus?
Surly if the wrath of God is upon all sin, and Jesus became sin, then God’s wrath abides upon Jesus until such sins are paid for. Who paid for Jesus?
This is a foundational flaw with the Wrath of God thinking. God’s wrath is not extinguished until sin is not found. Therefore, again, who paid the penalty for Jesus?
Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all, and became the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world. Anyone God transfers into Christ has his or her sin burden removed (the circumcision of Christ) and is made alive together with Christ, and therefore is at one with Christ. Behold the Atonement of Christ!
No need to sow confusion concerning the obvious.
No need to sow confusion concerning the obvious.
The actual atonement though was PST, and God exalted Jesus afterwards...
Jesus as a Man was able to die in the place of sinners, being one who had and knew no sins Himself, and being God meant that His 3 hours of suffering was equivalent to an eternity for sinners who would have to suffer on their own.
Utterly bogus assertion with no biblical foundation.
That is very poorly put but essentially true.
Christ, the Infinite Man, suffered (separation from God) for a finite time to pay for infinite sin.
We, finite men, must suffer (separation from God) for an infinite time to pay for infinite sin.
Which would be the PST viewpoint of the atonement of the Cross...
No, it wouldn't. It would be the biblical viewpoint of Christ's sacrifice on our behalf.
Which would be what Penal substitution states, correct?
I have a question, I can see the points of Calvin and Wright but where are the scriptures that back up what both believe and why they came to that conclusion?... Brother Glen
Calvin would have taken it directly from the OT sacrifice system, as pointing towards the sacrifice of Messiah as sin bearer for the sins of His people, and tied divine wrath into the Cross by the many statements regarding the bowl/cup of wrath of God in OT, but where Wright gets his from?I have a question, I can see the points of Calvin and Wright but where are the scriptures that back up what both believe and why they came to that conclusion?... Brother Glen
- Status