• 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?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Would you agree with the IFCA doctrinal statement, then?
IFCA Home - Doctrine

I read the first 8 points and with a few exceptions agree with those views.
In point 5 where it say mankind "inherited" a sinful nature, I say mankind was corrupted, and therefore, our nature is sinful. We are conceived in iniquity, and therefore in a sinful separated from God, spiritually dead state.

But point 6 deviates from scripture quite a bit. Our faith provides our access to the grace in which we stand, Romans 5:1-2. When we receive the gospel, and put our whole-hearted faith in Christ, as determined by God, then God alone saves us. So we do not receive salvation by our faith, God makes the call. Salvation does not depend on the person who wills to be saved, Romans 9:16.

Christ died as a ransom for all, becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world. Everyone God transfers into Christ undergoes the circumcision of Christ, removing their sin burden, and are made alive together with Christ, their biblical "at one ment."
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You have not a single Scripture to offer in support of this thinking.

There is no 3 hours being equivalent to an eternity for sinner statement, or anything even close to that thinking in Scripture.

However, the real question ask was considering the foundation of your thinking, that sin requires payment and restitution, then it must be taken into consideration that “He became sin for us...”.

Then it follows, what then? Who paid for The salvation of Jesus?

I am merely using your own view, surly it provides an answer.

All sin demand payment.

No one could pay the demand of the debt.

Jesus took on all sin making payment for all and taking the debt upon himself.

Who then paid for Jesus?
Jesus had NO sin debt to pay, for he "becoming sin" on our behalf does NOT mean that he became a sinner in Himself, but that God treated Him as IF he had , as the substitute in our very stead!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You present what cannot happen.

God cannot be separated from God.

There was no equivalent debt/equity transfer.

Such thinking is totally a human construction in an attempt to cling to a principle that the suffering was part of the restitution for sin, that what sin debt was left over from the cross certainly had to be taken care of in hell, that “teleo” had to be put off for three days.

Do folks not understand that the origination is thinking aligns with that of the concept of the papist purgatory thinking?

That Calvin et al carried some of the indoctrination of their own papist education into their established views?
God was not separated from God, but while upon the Cross, the Lord Jesus experienced in His Humanity that same feeling of being forsaken all lost sinners will when judged and condemned by God.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I know.

The parenthetical part may be the problem. :)

But the assumption is that the "prison" was the 2nd compartment of sheol. More likely he preached to those already in hell back when they were still alive in the days of Noah. Which preaching their ignored.
Jesus preached to the captives in hell/Hades, during the time of Noah thru and by the Holy Spirit, and He declared that he was the risen Lord and showed Himself as such by the resurrection, and empting out the side where the redeemed awaited for the coming Messiah at that time.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I read the first 8 points and with a few exceptions agree with those views.
In point 5 where it say mankind "inherited" a sinful nature, I say mankind was corrupted, and therefore, our nature is sinful. We are conceived in iniquity, and therefore in a sinful separated from God, spiritually dead state.

But point 6 deviates from scripture quite a bit. Our faith provides our access to the grace in which we stand, Romans 5:1-2. When we receive the gospel, and put our whole-hearted faith in Christ, as determined by God, then God alone saves us. So we do not receive salvation by our faith, God makes the call. Salvation does not depend on the person who wills to be saved, Romans 9:16.

Christ died as a ransom for all, becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world. Everyone God transfers into Christ undergoes the circumcision of Christ, removing their sin burden, and are made alive together with Christ, their biblical "at one ment."
God did not intend the death of Jesus to be the payment for all sins and sinners, but for the elect chosen to be found in Christ!
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jesus had NO sin debt to pay, for he "becoming sin" on our behalf does NOT mean that he became a sinner in Himself, but that God treated Him as IF he had , as the substitute in our very stead!
Again you can offer no Scriptures to sustain this thinking. I haven’t found any.

But looking for just the verification of the theory being viable discloses some sever problems.

If anyone takes or assumes the debt of anyone, the one taking on the debt is responsible for payment. It is not merely excused without satisfactory remuneration.

With that thinking, consider the debt of sin?

Was it not sufficient for eternital punishment?

Therefore it required eternal payment. Hence the demand for some to suggest Christ did eternity in three days.

However, even then the debt would not be satisfied, for the debt REMAINS in eternity.

So remuneration from some grand bank account had to make payment. Which would then be shown as a debt on that account, and on it goes.

Do you not see how the theory is frail?
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Again you can offer no Scriptures to sustain this thinking. I haven’t found any.

But looking for just the verification of the theory being viable discloses some sever problems.

If anyone takes or assumes the debt of anyone, the one taking on the debt is responsible for payment. It is not merely excused without satisfactory remuneration.

With that thinking, consider the debt of sin? Was it not sufficient for eternital punishment? Therefore it required eternal payment. Hence the demand for some to suggest Christ did eternity in three days.

However, even them the debt would not be satisfied, for the debt REMAINS in eternity. So remuneration from some grand bank account had to make payment. Which would then be shown as a debt on that account, and on it goes.

Do you not see how the theory is frail?
Do you accept the scriptures that states to us that He who knew no sin, Jesus, became sin for us, on our behalf?

Do you think Jesus suffering the wrath of God in our place makes God some kind of child molester, as some have claimed?
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Do you accept the scriptures that states to us that He who knew no sin, Jesus, became sin for us, on our behalf?

Do you think Jesus suffering the wrath of God in our place makes God some kind of child molester, as some have claimed?
Do not confuse two issues; the suffering messiah and becoming sin for us.

These are not the same although occurring at the same event and involving the same person.

The suffering was marks of identification that last for eternity.

Paul reflects that his own suffering could be considered identification marks.

The “becoming sin for us” is as that little innocent lamb’s blood that was sprinkled upon the mercy seat.

Was that little lamb in any manner tortured,or was the little lamb’s bones moved out of joint?

Or was that little lamb, pierced that the blood would flow?
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Do not confuse two issues; the suffering messiah and becoming sin for us.

These are not the same although occurring at the same event and involving the same person.

The suffering was marks of identification that last for eternity.

Paul reflects that his own suffering could be considered identification marks.

The “becoming sin for us” is as that little innocent lamb’s blood that was sprinkled upon the mercy seat.

Was that little lamb in any manner tortured,or was the little lamb’s bones moved out of joint?

Or was that little lamb, pierced that the blood would flow?
There is wrath of God directed towards sinners, due to them now required to atone and pay for their own sin debt, and Jesus bore that wrath in our stead...

That is pauline Justification boiled down...
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
There is wrath of God directed towards sinners, due to them now required to atone and pay for their own sin debt, and Jesus bore that wrath in our stead...

That is pauline Justification boiled down...
Except Paul never actually wrote what you believe. Your presuppositions are driving your theory.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Except Paul never actually wrote what you believe. Your presuppositions are driving your theory.
I don't think they are, as what I hold with has been held by many Systematic Theologians of repute over church history!
Including both Calvin and Luther themselves.
As well as Hodgh/Berkhof/Grudem/Erickson et all!
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I don't think they are, as what I hold with has been held by many Systematic Theologians of repute over church history!
Including both Calvin and Luther themselves.
As well as Hodgh/Berkhof/Grudem/Erickson et all!
I agree. Your view is a take on a theory others hold. My point was that it is not in Scripture itself.
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
There is wrath of God directed towards sinners, due to them now required to atone and pay for their own sin debt, and Jesus bore that wrath in our stead...

That is pauline Justification boiled down...
Paul focused on a few essentials that he seemed to broaden as he would address various issues.

Those would include, the presentation of the gospel as the work of salvation through Christ, the preaching of reconciliation, and of course living consistently as a believer. There are others,too.

However, if there is an element of Paul’s view as far as forensic justification that come through as the strongest, (imo) it is found in this passage:


3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 9For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
Now, what does THE SCRIPTURE state of the death of Christ.

1) That He was singled out as different from all other transgressors by the treatment and marks.

Note: These also were the Prophetic “signs” that validated the true messiah from all other pretenders. Significant signs are given for the return to again show the true messiah as distinct from all pretenders.

Also note: The suffering of Christ was also to be distinguishing marks of believers, who by bearing these marks demonstrate the life of Christ in them.

2) that the blood was shed for the remission of sin.

The nails, the cross, the mocking, the gambling, the earthquake, the sky darkening, the words spoken, ... not any of them made payment for sin.

So what happened to the truth?

Turn a page in history:

Along came some of the “Church authorities” who, because of their educational, political and culrural influences, decided to change the message to include sin accrued a debt owed to God or Satan.

That payment of the debt meant one had to suffer. That the suffering of Christ was for sins up until salvation, but after, the sin caused all manner of evil to happen - be it natural events, political events, or plagues. If the person had not sufficiently paid for the accumulated sin, then a certain length of time in the flames would suffice. Often flagelliant folks would beat themselves and others to pay for sin. Penitence and indulgence were marketed and sold.

Great political advantage and wealth by the “church” holding eternity for sale was eventually confronted on multiple fronts. Kings left to form their own “church,” others were forced out and proclaimed heretical.

Turn the page of history:

A group of folks who, desired not to leave the “church” but to reform it, designed a system of thought which clung in parts to the “church’s” teaching, while attempting to modify other areas. Some of the areas they kept included infant baptism, confessionals, sacraments, and of course that sin accrued a debt that required remuneration.

Of course denial of the unbiblical purgatory meant that Christ only had three days to pay the debt.

To this day, there are some that have high regard for these, later called Puritans.

The teaching of some manner of sin debt was payed not by the blood but the suffering is so far removed from what Paul taught, it is no wonder it is named after a woman - Pauline.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Paul focused on a few essentials that he seemed to broaden as he would address various issues.

Those would include, the presentation of the gospel as the work of salvation through Christ, the preaching of reconciliation, and of course living consistently as a believer. There are others,too.

However, if there is an element of Paul’s view as far as forensic justification that come through as the strongest, (imo) it is found in this passage:


3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 9For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
Now, what does THE SCRIPTURE state of the death of Christ.

1) That He was singled out as different from all other transgressors by the treatment and marks.

Note: These also were the Prophetic “signs” that validated the true messiah from all other pretenders. Significant signs are given for the return to again show the true messiah as distinct from all pretenders.

Also note: The suffering of Christ was also to be distinguishing marks of believers, who by bearing these marks demonstrate the life of Christ in them.

2) that the blood was shed for the remission of sin.

The nails, the cross, the mocking, the gambling, the earthquake, the sky darkening, the words spoken, ... not any of them made payment for sin.

So what happened to the truth?

Turn a page in history:

Along came some of the “Church authorities” who, because of their educational, political and culrural influences, decided to change the message to include sin accrued a debt owed to God or Satan.

That payment of the debt meant one had to suffer. That the suffering of Christ was for sins up until salvation, but after, the sin caused all manner of evil to happen - be it natural events, political events, or plagues. If the person had not sufficiently paid for the accumulated sin, then a certain length of time in the flames would suffice. Often flagelliant folks would beat themselves and others to pay for sin. Penitence and indulgence were marketed and sold.

Great political advantage and wealth by the “church” holding eternity for sale was eventually confronted on multiple fronts. Kings left to form their own “church,” others were forced out and proclaimed heretical.

Turn the page of history:

A group of folks who, desired not to leave the “church” but to reform it, designed a system of thought which clung in parts to the “church’s” teaching, while attempting to modify other areas. Some of the areas they kept included infant baptism, confessionals, sacraments, and of course that sin accrued a debt that required remuneration.

Of course denial of the unbiblical purgatory meant that Christ only had three days to pay the debt.

To this day, there are some that have high regard for these, later called Puritans.

The teaching of some manner of sin debt was payed not by the blood but the suffering is so far removed from what Paul taught, it is no wonder it is named after a woman - Pauline.
I still prefer to stand with likes of a Calvin on this issue than some like Wright!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I agree. Your view is a take on a theory others hold. My point was that it is not in Scripture itself.
So you are agreeing with NT Wright that the church prtetty much misunderstood Pauline Justification until he came along, at least severely misunderstood since the reformation?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
So you are agreeing with NT Wright that the church prtetty much misunderstood Pauline Justification until he came along, at least severely misunderstood since the reformation?
No. I am saying that every time I ask that you provide Scripture and put in bold where it states God was wrathful towards Christ you respond that you agree with Calvin and Luther.

I know Wright holds to PSA, actually even more than Luther given what has been quoted of each.

But I don't really care what NT Wright teaches. I gave you several passages from the BIBLE and said it was what I believed. Did you reject those passages thinking they were authored by Wright? If so, what does that say about your theory?
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
So you are agreeing with NT Wright that the church prtetty much misunderstood Pauline Justification until he came along, at least severely misunderstood since the reformation?
Perhaps it would be advantageous for you to take a paragraph or so and explain Pauline Justfication, and what you agree and disagree with the thinking.
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I still prefer to stand with likes of a Calvin on this issue than some like Wright!
It matters little who the person is.

Calvin was as much a product of his time as is Wright.

The call is to discern exactly the scripture teaching.

So far, it seems if one accepts the thinking of the RCC then they are in agreement with the suffering was payment for at least some sin(s).

Unfortunately, the result ran to the excess and much injury.

And more, such thinking is not Scriptural.
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Perhaps it would be advantageous for you to take a paragraph or so and explain Pauline Justfication, and what you agree and disagree with the thinking.
I don't think that is the issue. More likely the issue is Wright's "New Perspectives on Paul."

Wright's position seems to be that the new perspective is that Judaism at the time Paul was writing was not a works based religion but a covenant community under God’s grace.

He claims that mainstream Judaism believed that through God’s covenant they were already right with him and the law was not the way of being saved initially, but of staying saved. Keeping God’s law was to them the proper response to God’s covenant.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I don't think that is the issue. More likely the issue is Wright's "New Perspectives on Paul."

Wright's position seems to be that the new perspective is that Judaism at the time Paul was writing was not a works based religion but a covenant community under God’s grace.

He claims that mainstream Judaism believed that through God’s covenant they were already right with him and the law was not the way of being saved initially, but of staying saved. Keeping God’s law was to them the proper response to God’s covenant.
That seems to be right - the Jews believed they were God's covenant people not by works but by covenant. But if they have to keep the Law in order to remain a part of this people (on the blessing side of the covenant) then it seems it's still a works based religion.

I'm not sure how this makes him deny PSA, but I'm also not sure why it's so important since he is Anglican and we are Baptist. Some disagreement is, I believe, to be expected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top