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

[agedman]

For when you were slaves of sin, you were free from allegiance to righteousness. So what fruit was produced then from the things you are now ashamed of? For the end of those things is death. But now, since you have been liberated from sin and have become enslaved to God, you have your fruit, which results in sanctification-and the end is eternal life! For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

That is an excellent Romans passage!

The Reformed thinking cannot seem to consider the blood was the remission (cancellation and forgiveness) of all sin.

Sin does not condemn to the Lake of Fire or the typical Mormon and RCC thinking of eventual payment and release would be correct.

What is the condemnation according to John 3?

Unbelief.

Because the historic reformed trip over this issue, it is very good that folks such as the IFCA Home have stepped up to aid in restating reformed thinking to align it more perfectly with the Scriptures.

 

[Yeshua1]

That is an excellent Romans passage!

The Reformed thinking cannot seem to consider the blood was the remission (cancellation and forgiveness) of all sin.

Sin does not condemn to the Lake of Fire or the typical Mormon and RCC thinking of eventual payment and release would be correct.

What is the condemnation according to John 3?

Unbelief.

Because the historic reformed trip over this issue, it is very good that folks such as the IFCA Home have stepped up to aid in restating reformed thinking to align it more perfectly with the Scriptures.

Actually, ALL of us are condemned at our physical births already, as we are now found in Adam, but the Lord knows the ones whom He has chosen to save in death and resurrection of Christ on their behalf!
Its not unbelief, for even those who never heard of him will be guily of being sinners, correct?

 

[agedman]

Actually, ALL of us are condemned at our physical births already, as we are now found in Adam, but the Lord knows the ones whom He has chosen to save in death and resurrection of Christ on their behalf!
Its not unbelief, for even those who never heard of him will be guily of being sinners, correct?

Romans 1 gives the answer about all men saying,

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.​

Again, salvation resides as a matter of belief, and the results of unbelief (not sin) is that which condemns. (John 3).

Peter expressed it this way (1 Peter 1),

17If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth;18knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, 19but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. 20For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you 21who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.​

The blood was for all men,
The death (wages of sin) was for all men.
The resurrection was for all men.

However, ONLY those the Father specifically and with purpose gives to the Son will be saved. (John 6).

How are they saved? By belief (Romans 10)
.

 

[Calminian]

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

I don't know. It's like saying if God desired that none should perish and all come to repentance, than none would perish and all will come to repentance. It doesn't seem to work like that. Some will perish and God will be grieved.

I'm all for sovereignty, I believe God knows the beginning from the end with infinite definite foreknowledge. But If Scriptures says God desires all to be saved, I have to believe that too, even if I can't iron out the details. Guess I'll never be a Theologian.

2Pet. 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

 

[agedman]

I don't know. It's like saying if God desired that none should perish and all come to repentance, than none would perish and all will come to repentance. It doesn't seem to work like that. Some will perish and God will be grieved.

I'm all for sovereignty, I believe God knows the beginning from the end with infinite definite foreknowledge. But If Scriptures says God desires all to be saved, I have to believe that too, even if I can't iron out the details. Guess I'll never be a Theologian.

2Pet. 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

The key to understanding is what you did not highlight.

2Pet. 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

God desires all of His own to believe and not perish.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't know. It's like saying if God desired that none should perish and all come to repentance, than none would perish and all will come to repentance. It doesn't seem to work like that. Some will perish and God will be grieved.

I'm all for sovereignty, I believe God knows the beginning from the end with infinite definite foreknowledge. But If Scriptures says God desires all to be saved, I have to believe that too, even if I can't iron out the details. Guess I'll never be a Theologian.

2Pet. 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

The desire of God is not the same exact thing as His will!

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree. Your view is a take on a theory others hold. My point was that it is not in Scripture itself.

Looks like the Pst was held from very early on though, so calvin and the reformers did not create it out o the blue!
https://www.tms.edu/nas/content/live/tmsbones/m/tmsj20i.pdf

 

[JonC]

Looks like the Pst was held from very early on though, so calvin and the reformers did not create it out o the blue!
https://www.tms.edu/nas/content/live/tmsbones/m/tmsj20i.pdf

Only if defined outside of the idea of retributive justice (which would mean PSA does not have to include the idea that God punished Jesus with the punishment the lost would experience at Judgment). And if that's the way we are defining PSA, then Justin Martyr, Origen, Thomas Aquinas, and N.T. Wright fall squarely into PSA.

I can also,BTW, provide articles denying the antiquity of PSA. The fact is that no one before Calvin placed it in the framework Calvin provided. You ignore this framework when placing those like Martyr and Luther into PSA - BUT you consider it essential ONLY when dealing with N.T. Wright. That is dishonest.

 

[agedman]

Looks like the Pst was held from very early on though, so calvin and the reformers did not create it out o the blue!
https://www.tms.edu/nas/content/live/tmsbones/m/tmsj20i.pdf

Perhaps what needs to be pointed out is the differences (or perspective) of penal theory.

For some it is that Christ shed His blood and died for sins.

For others they make much of the suffering aspect as some retribution for sin.

The early church view was that of the apostles, for that is all they knew. It was, as generally accepted penal (forensic) substitution was that taught.

However, the focus was upon the blood, not the suffering, as the work of the atonement. “Without the shedding of blood ...”.

It was much later that suffering became more of the focus, imo, as a result of the desire to conform people to the agenda of the RCC.

 

[Van]

Before you run about claiming your not, you need to understand that which you state as your view is found in the semi-pelagic statements.
Please grasp the fact that semi-Pelagianism is heretical.
That you don’t recognize your statements reflecting a heretical view is alarming.
Even the presentation of the unscriptural teaching of “preceding” or “prevenient” grace understands that the fallen person, including the fallen will, is incapable of its own authority to do as you desire.
Is your desire to mar what you do not agree so strongly influencing you that you would do such injustice to the Scriptures?

Now the change o matic poster turns to name calling. He refers to semi-Pelagainism, which is a smear because it is false, plus the implied naming me "heretical, which is a violation, and a change of subject away from the bogus doctrine of total spiritual inability.

 

[Van]

Did God desire Pharaoh to be saved?

Scripture says God desires all men to be saved! Stop denying the very words of Christ. But he does not accomplish that goal by compulsion. Please post, Yes, I agree with scripture, God does indeed desire all men to be saved, but not by compulsion.

And stop changing the subject.

 

[agedman]

Now the change o matic poster turns to name calling. He refers to semi-Pelagainism, which is a smear because it is false, plus the implied naming me "heretical, which is a violation, and a change of subject away from the bogus doctrine of total spiritual inability.

“If the shoe fits...”
“If it walks like a duck...”

You have been shown your view on this matter is not only false, but in direct opposition of the Scriptures.

I was not the only one on the B.B. pointing out the alignment of your thinking with heretical teaching.

Your desire to present humans as being able to exercise some innate faith or ability to enter God’s kingdom (be saved) is unscriptural.

 

[Yeshua1]

Perhaps what needs to be pointed out is the differences (or perspective) of penal theory.

For some it is that Christ shed His blood and died for sins.

For others they make much of the suffering aspect as some retribution for sin.

The early church view was that of the apostles, for that is all they knew. It was, as generally accepted penal (forensic) substitution was that taught.

However, the focus was upon the blood, not the suffering, as the work of the atonement. “Without the shedding of blood ...”.

It was much later that suffering became more of the focus, imo, as a result of the desire to conform people to the agenda of the RCC.

Except that many Ecf also saw it as a form of what we would label PST now, as again, Calvin did not originate the doctrine!
Though several ECF held to at least a part of it, the proper view in full originated with Anselm.

 

[agedman]

Scripture says God desires all men to be saved! Stop denying the very words of Christ. But he does not accomplish that goal by compulsion. Please post, Yes, I agree with scripture, God does indeed desire all men to be saved, but not by compulsion.

And stop changing the subject.

Surely you know better!

Surely you take as truthful Paul quoting Moses!

“15For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” 16So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.” (Caps added by source to indicate what is quoted).​

Are the Scriptures not proving the frailty of the view your holding?

Van, remember there is a difference in “mercy” (eleos) which is compassion, clemency... and “desire” (thelo) - wishing/wanting what is best.

What is best for the social order of the world?

1First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions andthanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 2for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.3This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.
​

It is inappropriate to consider the above passage to mean all will be saved because God desires all yo be saved.

Therefore, your view is again shown frail, because it lacks the backing of Scriptures put in context.

 

[agedman]

Except that many Ecf also saw it as a form of what we would label PST now, as again, Calvin did not originate the doctrine!
Though several ECF held to at least a part of it, the proper view in full originated with Anselm.

1) Calvin was not an ecf, but one schooled in Law and RCC. Anselm (before Calvin) held to what one might call a “Satisfaction theory” of atonement.

As one writer puts it, “For Anselm, Christ obeyed where we should have obeyed; for John Calvin, he was punished where we should have been punished.” (Satisfaction theory of the atonement | Theopedia)

2) unlike Calvin, one may hold to a form of PST yet not consider the suffering as any payment on sin. That suffering seems to be a hold over from RCC desires which continues to be manifested in the development of infant baptism, purgatory, and other such. Lawyers (Luther, Calvin...) do tend to view through the lens of just retributionfor a wrong rather than pardon for a wrong.

 

[Calminian]

The desire of God is not the same exact thing as His will!

I agree and like this answer better than

The key to understanding is what you did not highlight.

2Pet. 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

God desires all of His own to believe and not perish.

which adds to Scripture. In fact it's just a distortion of what God's Word clearly says.

 

[agedman]

I agree and like this answer better than



which adds to Scripture. In fact it's just a distortion of what God's Word clearly says.

Perhaps you didn’t reconize that it was Scripture I posted.

I made an appropriate remark concerning the Scripture I posted.

I did not add to the Scriptures.

But, because you have made a claim of such irregard, it must then be followed in some measure by proof.

Look back through any post of which I have made and present when and where I have added to the Scriptures.

 

[agedman]

Better,

2 Peter 3:

8But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
​

Line upon line, precept upon precept, deal with this passage and show how agedman “added to the Scripture.”

Be sure to keep the “you” and “yours” as believers.

Be sure to remember the consistency must carry over into the “any” and “all” being believers.

If you can show something different, then prove it.

 

[Calminian]

Better,

2 Peter 3:

8But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
​

Line upon line, precept upon precept, deal with this passage and show how agedman “added to the Scripture.”

Be sure to keep the “you” and “yours” as believers.

Be sure to remember the consistency must carry over into the “any” and “all” being believers.

If you can show something different, then prove it.

The last part is you adding to scripture. I refuse to go beyond what is written.

1Cor. 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.​

If you want to tell me God is sovereign, I agree. If you want to say God knows the future exhaustively, I agree. If you want to say God predestined I agree. If you want to say we deserve no credit in our salvation, I agree.

But once you say God didn't desire all to be saved and die for all, you've preferred your systematic theology over Scripture. It's the same as any other eisegetical error.

Sola Scriptura, not Scripture plus human systematic theology.

1John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

1Tim. 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.​

 

[Yeshua1]

1) Calvin was not an ecf, but one schooled in Law and RCC. Anselm (before Calvin) held to what one might call a “Satisfaction theory” of atonement.

As one writer puts it, “For Anselm, Christ obeyed where we should have obeyed; for John Calvin, he was punished where we should have been punished.” (Satisfaction theory of the atonement | Theopedia)

2) unlike Calvin, one may hold to a form of PST yet not consider the suffering as any payment on sin. That suffering seems to be a hold over from RCC desires which continues to be manifested in the development of infant baptism, purgatory, and other such. Lawyers (Luther, Calvin...) do tend to view through the lens of just retributionfor a wrong rather than pardon for a wrong.

Jesus was the sin bearer of the father, correct?