Do You Agree with Calvin or Wright On the Nature of the Atonement?

[agedman]

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.

Interesting.

What is your take on this thinking?

 

[TCassidy]

Interesting.

What is your take on this thinking?

It flies in the face of 2000 years of biblical thought.

Insofar as bible doctrine is concerned I hold firmly to the old adage, "If it is true it is not new and if it is new it is not true."

 

[Van]

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!

Posting falsehoods yet again. You did not support your invention from scripture. God desires all men to be saved. For you to claim otherwise shows your contempt for scripture.

1 Timothy 2:3-6
3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

 

[TCassidy]

For you to claim otherwise shows your contempt for scripture.

How can he show contempt for scripture? He never posts any!

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

Wright denies the heart of PST, as he denies that Jesus suffered the wrath of God as a sin bearer, as He instead holds to Jesus taking on the wrath of Rome that was directed towards israel the nation as was placed upon Himself instead.
He denies the classic Reformed view on this, if you disagree with me on that, just go see what those such as RC Sproul states on His theology!
And again, Brother Martin has done a masterful job supporting Pst, as well as Biblist, so why not address them also?

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Exactly, which was his cute way of stating that since the time of the Reformation we in the Church misunderstand that Paul was never teaching us about individual salvation, but on how those saved ought now to live!

 

[Yeshua1]

Posting falsehoods yet again. You did not support your invention from scripture. God desires all men to be saved. For you to claim otherwise shows your contempt for scripture.

1 Timothy 2:3-6
3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

IF God desired to save all sinners by the death of Jesus, all would get saved!

 

[JonC]

Wright denies the heart of PST, as he denies that Jesus suffered the wrath of God as a sin bearer, as He instead holds to Jesus taking on the wrath of Rome that was directed towards israel the nation as was placed upon Himself instead.
He denies the classic Reformed view on this, if you disagree with me on that, just go see what those such as RC Sproul states on His theology!
And again, Brother Martin has done a masterful job supporting Pst, as well as Biblist, so why not address them also?

But so did Martyr and Luther, and they were close enough for you. Wright even goes so far to agree that Christ drank the cup of God's wrath towards humanity.

 

[JonC]

IF God desired to save all sinners by the death of Jesus, all would get saved!

Prove it.

 

[JonC]

Exactly, which was his cute way of stating that since the time of the Reformation we in the Church misunderstand that Paul was never teaching us about individual salvation, but on how those saved ought now to live!

Arguing from tradition (People believed it for 500 years so it is beyond question).

 

[Yeshua1]

But so did Martyr and Luther, and they were close enough for you. Wright even goes so far to agree that Christ drank the cup of God's wrath towards humanity.

Nearly Everything Wrong with N.T. Wright Summed Up in One Chapter Heading
www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/whats-wrong-wright-examining-new-perspective-paul

 

[Yeshua1]

Arguing from tradition (People believed it for 500 years so it is beyond question).

Except that it is NOT tradition, as its more that Calvin/Luther/Hodgh/Berkhof/Grudem/ and so on have seen the Cross as I see it, and NOT as Wright does!

 

[agedman]

Exactly, which was his cute way of stating that since the time of the Reformation we in the Church misunderstand that Paul was never teaching us about individual salvation, but on how those saved ought now to live!

It is important that when embracing Reformation is to remember that the Reformation folks were NOT wanting to separate from the RCC, and their thinking was greatly influenced by the RCC. They wanted to REFORM the RCC.

Therefore, the view they held of the atonement was aligned with the perverted view of the RCC theology, less some "reforms."

Such views WERE NOT that of the atonement presented in the NT, but were put in the NT stead in order to pervert justice, judgment and politics. The results of the view shows itself very clear in the exercise of justice and the consideration and treatment of the Jews. Typically, the reformers (as is the RCC) blamed the Jews for the crucifixion, and also thought of them as lesser humans who did not deserve to live (Nazi thinking).

The Puritans were not much better, in that they also wanted to purify the Church of England - which was basically a RCC church in disguise. This lead to a huge amount of superstition and excess in regulations (just as is continued in the RCC). Again, the truth was manifested by the treatment of those "not in their group" expressed itself just as that of the RCC and Reformers.

So, I hold the Reformed and Puritan thinking as it agrees with the Scriptures, but any teaching unsupported by Scriptures is considered as trash.

That understanding leads one to embrace atonement thinking along this line: IFCA Home - Doctrine

Who would agree with this statement?
"Some of the great men who are part of IFCA International's history include:

Dr. J. Oliver Buswell (President of Wheaton College)
Dr. M.R. DeHaan (founder of Radio Bible Class and Our Daily Bread devotional)
Dr. William McCarrell (pastor of Cicero Bible Church, teacher at Moody Bible Institute)
Dr. William Pettingill (founder of Philadelphia School of the Bible)
Dr. Judson Rudd (President of Bryan College)
Rev. Peter Deyneka, Sr. (founder of Slavic Gospel Association)
Dr. Louis Talbot (President of BIOLA)
Dr. Charles Feinberg (Dean, Talbot Theological Seminary)
Dr. Lance Latham (Founder of AWANA Youth Ministries)
Dr. John Walvoord (President of Dallas Theological Seminary)
Dr. Samuel Sutherland (President of Biola College and Talbot Seminary)
Dr. J. Vernon McGee (pastor of The Church of the Open Door, Los Angeles)
Dr. Merrill Unger (professor at Dallas Theological Seminary)
Dr. Charles Ryrie (professor at Dallas Theological Seminary)
Dr. Robert Gray (pastor of Westchester Bible Church, Westchester, IL)
Dr. Leslie Madison (President of Calvary Bible College)
Dr. Al Platt (President emeritus of CAM International)
Dr. John MacArthur (pastor of Grace Community Church and President of The Master’s College and Seminary)"​

The problem at this time is MacArthur, who agreed with the group doctrine statement, but has written and spoken somethings in which is opposed to the that same doctrine statement of which he agreed - the man has some near influence that present him as double minded.

 

[Yeshua1]

It is important that when embracing Reformation is to remember that the Reformation folks were NOT wanting to separate from the RCC, and their thinking was greatly influenced by the RCC. They wanted to REFORM the RCC.

Therefore, the view they held of the atonement was aligned with the perverted view of the RCC theology, less some "reforms."

Such views WERE NOT that of the atonement presented in the NT, but were put in the NT stead in order to pervert justice, judgment and politics. The results of the view shows itself very clear in the exercise of justice and the consideration and treatment of the Jews. Typically, the reformers (as is the RCC) blamed the Jews for the crucifixion, and also thought of them as lesser humans who did not deserve to live (Nazi thinking).

The Puritans were not much better, in that they also wanted to purify the Church of England - which was basically a RCC church in disguise. This lead to a huge amount of superstition and excess in regulations (just as is continued in the RCC). Again, the truth was manifested by the treatment of those "not in their group" expressed itself just as that of the RCC and Reformers.

So, I hold the Reformed and Puritan thinking as it agrees with the Scriptures, but any teaching unsupported by Scriptures is considered as trash.

That understanding leads one to embrace atonement thinking along this line: IFCA Home - Doctrine

Who would agree with this statement?
"Some of the great men who are part of IFCA International's history include:

Dr. J. Oliver Buswell (President of Wheaton College)
Dr. M.R. DeHaan (founder of Radio Bible Class and Our Daily Bread devotional)
Dr. William McCarrell (pastor of Cicero Bible Church, teacher at Moody Bible Institute)
Dr. William Pettingill (founder of Philadelphia School of the Bible)
Dr. Judson Rudd (President of Bryan College)
Rev. Peter Deyneka, Sr. (founder of Slavic Gospel Association)
Dr. Louis Talbot (President of BIOLA)
Dr. Charles Feinberg (Dean, Talbot Theological Seminary)
Dr. Lance Latham (Founder of AWANA Youth Ministries)
Dr. John Walvoord (President of Dallas Theological Seminary)
Dr. Samuel Sutherland (President of Biola College and Talbot Seminary)
Dr. J. Vernon McGee (pastor of The Church of the Open Door, Los Angeles)
Dr. Merrill Unger (professor at Dallas Theological Seminary)
Dr. Charles Ryrie (professor at Dallas Theological Seminary)
Dr. Robert Gray (pastor of Westchester Bible Church, Westchester, IL)
Dr. Leslie Madison (President of Calvary Bible College)
Dr. Al Platt (President emeritus of CAM International)
Dr. John MacArthur (pastor of Grace Community Church and President of The Master’s College and Seminary)"​

The problem at this time is MacArthur, who agreed with the group doctrine statement, but has written and spoken somethings in which is opposed to the that same doctrine statement of which he agreed - the man has some near influence that present him as double minded.

The reformed view on the Cross of Christ is the best way to view what God did in the Cross for lost sinners such as both of us once were!

 

[JonC]

Nearly Everything Wrong with N.T. Wright Summed Up in One Chapter Heading
www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/whats-wrong-wright-examining-new-perspective-paul

Hear say doesn't matter to me. This is why you have thus far proved unable to defend PSA.

Wright says what you have already defined as PSA. Piper, who is very critical of Wright's view, has also acknowledged his is PSA.

Now, because you are somehow fascinated with the man, you narrow down PSA to MY definition in order to exclude Wright. Personally I agree that Wright, Martyr, Luther, etc. fall short of PSA - but you can't have it both ways.

NT Wright believes Christ drank the cup which is God's wrath towards sinful man, experiencing the consequences we deserve. That is much closer to PSA than Luther ever ventured and does, in fact, meet your (not mine) definition as you already stated.

 

[Yeshua1]

Hear say doesn't matter to me. This is why you have thus far proved unable to defend PSA.

Wright says what you have already defined as PSA. Piper, who is very critical of Wright's view, has also acknowledged his is PSA.

Now, because you are somehow fascinated with the man, you narrow down PSA to MY definition in order to exclude Wright. Personally I agree that Wright, Martyr, Luther, etc. fall short of PSA - but you can't have it both ways.

NT Wright believes Christ drank the cup which is God's wrath towards sinful man, experiencing the consequences we deserve. That is much closer to PSA than Luther ever ventured and does, in fact, meet your (not mine) definition as you already stated.

Your statements on what Wright hods to regarding the Cross though does not square with what Wright Himself has written and stated!
He does deny Pauline Justification as held by Calvin, and more importantly, paul!

 

[Yeshua1]

Hear say doesn't matter to me. This is why you have thus far proved unable to defend PSA.

Wright says what you have already defined as PSA. Piper, who is very critical of Wright's view, has also acknowledged his is PSA.

Now, because you are somehow fascinated with the man, you narrow down PSA to MY definition in order to exclude Wright. Personally I agree that Wright, Martyr, Luther, etc. fall short of PSA - but you can't have it both ways.

NT Wright believes Christ drank the cup which is God's wrath towards sinful man, experiencing the consequences we deserve. That is much closer to PSA than Luther ever ventured and does, in fact, meet your (not mine) definition as you already stated.

Again, why look to me to defend it only? Look to martin and Bibllist, as both of them did it much better than I can, and especially deal with what Calvin state don this issue!

 

[JonC]

Again, why look to me to defend it only? Look to martin and Bibllist, as both of them did it much better than I can, and especially deal with what Calvin state don this issue!

Because you are the one making claims without substance.

 

[agedman]

The reformed view on the Cross of Christ is the best way to view what God did in the Cross for lost sinners such as both of us once were!

I disagree.

The reformed view was merely the RCC view with a few adjustments.

That view does not follow the prophetic type of the atonement sacrifice of the OT tabernacle / temple.

If anything, it presents a false view of the "payment of sin" had to include the suffering aspects.

What lamb of atonement was tortured and beaten before sacrifice? NONE.

What was the suffering messiah treated so meanly?

1) Because it was prophetic identification markers to signify which of the great number claiming to be the messiah would actually be the Messiah. Each mark was a fulfillment of prophecy so folk could identify the correct Messiah.
2) It displays the wrath of God just as any other time when God withdraws His support. God did not abandon Christ! That is just poor teaching. Rather, He withdrew support from the Son. This is born by the words, "My God, My God..." They were words asking - where are you? These are the words of a Son crying out from the need of support.
3) The marks also show identification before the throne. As John looks through his tears, he sees one as a tortured lamb before the throne taking the scrolls, and all heaven bowing to that Lamb. Again, the marks were identification for recognition born before the Father. NO other present could take the scrolls, but that Lamb, identified as different from all other beings, did.

This is not RCC teaching, nor is it Reformed teaching.

But it is right teaching, and consistent with the Scriptures.

 

[Yeshua1]

I disagree.

The reformed view was merely the RCC view with a few adjustments.

That view does not follow the prophetic type of the atonement sacrifice of the OT tabernacle / temple.

If anything, it presents a false view of the "payment of sin" had to include the suffering aspects.

What lamb of atonement was tortured and beaten before sacrifice? NONE.

What was the suffering messiah treated so meanly?

1) Because it was prophetic identification markers to signify which of the great number claiming to be the messiah would actually be the Messiah. Each mark was a fulfillment of prophecy so folk could identify the correct Messiah.
2) It displays the wrath of God just as any other time when God withdraws His support. God did not abandon Christ! That is just poor teaching. Rather, He withdrew support from the Son. This is born by the words, "My God, My God..." They were words asking - where are you? These are the words of a Son crying out from the need of support.
3) The marks also show identification before the throne. As John looks through his tears, he sees one as a tortured lamb before the throne taking the scrolls, and all heaven bowing to that Lamb. Again, the marks were identification for recognition born before the Father. NO other present could take the scrolls, but that Lamb, identified as different from all other beings, did.

This is not RCC teaching, nor is it Reformed teaching.

But it is right teaching, and consistent with the Scriptures.

And, as the statements revealed in the NT suggest, the Jews understood as the correct teaching.

God HAD to have someone judged and experience the due penalty for sins, as his divine wrath against sin must get appeased, and either Jesus pays for it, or else we do!
And the reformers were miles apart on the theology of the Cross according to Rome, as How they view justification was not as Rome did and still does!