But do you look at Calvinism through the paradigm of church doctrine?
-
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!
More reasons Why The penal Substitution Atonement Model is best One!
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
Do I sense a "magic blood" theory coming?
One thing that is often ignored in these explorations is the death we experience both physically and towards our old nature/spirit. We are made new creations.
If God gives us a new spirit and a new heart, if He puts His Spirit in us, is that "new man" we put on subject to sin as is the "old man"? We still die, physically. We still die spirutally in terms of our old nature. We are, however, freed from the bondage of sin and death (which does not bind our new natures in Christ).
If God gives us a new spirit and a new heart, if He puts His Spirit in us, is that "new man" we put on subject to sin as is the "old man"? We still die, physically. We still die spirutally in terms of our old nature. We are, however, freed from the bondage of sin and death (which does not bind our new natures in Christ).
As a friend wrote,Do I sense a "magic blood" theory coming?
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...e6592a343b8924d35b0eaae5cd16c45d&action=click
It goes against us. Christ redeems us (ransoms us, purchases us) out of the bondage of sin and death (redeems us from the consequence of Sin). We still die, both physically and in our old natures, but we are made alive in Christ.
Your idea that a crime establishes a debt that must be paid, that someone HAS to be punished (even if it is not the person who committed the crime) is a result of Calvin viewing the atonement under the context of retributive justice. PSA itself is of Calvinistic trajectory (which is why 5 point Calvinism is the most logical conclusion to PSA....those who reject it yet hold to PSA have just let more Scripture into their tradition than you would allow).
thanks for this, Y1.
I particularly recommend the 4th link. Americans may not be aware of Garry Williams, but he is one of the best younger theologians in Britain. You need to have your brain in gear to understand him, and I shall certainly be reading his article a second time, but he is worthy of the effort required to engage fully with him.
What did you think of those linked articles?
I also like Williams, and much about the article. The problem is that Williams is directing his argument towards the modern Christus Victor theory that seems to be gaining ground (the theory that those such as Wheeler espouses). In this theory PSA is attacked because of its nature and most often because of it's violence. This type of theory ignores God's wrath entirely (often it seems to pick and choose which verses it will believe).
And there are aspects of William's PSA theory that I agree with. God did will that Christ die. Christ did experience the wrath God had towards humanity. Christ suffered the penalty we deserved.
Where I disagree is not with what you and Y1 call PSA when you bring up the writings of the earlier church, or Luther. What I disagree with is the more specific PSA that believes things like "the wrath of God had to go against someone", that Jesus experienced what the lost will experience at Judgment, and that God was wrathful towards Christ by punishing him for the sins the elect have committed.
I just cannot understand why so many seem to want to revise and scrap this theology on the Cross, as it fits the scriptures the best! And has these articles show, calvin and the other reformers did not just invent this out of thin air, as there was a model of this throughout church history ongoing.
Even though God stated in Isaiah that he would indeed be the suffering servant, that he was "bothered" with the need to take the Cup of Wrath, and that he actually experienced being forsaken by the father in His own Humanity?
Would God be unjust and outright cruel and abusive towards Jesus to take His wrath out of Him as representing sinners before God then?
The first one was very poorly done (he took quotes out of a larger context and assumed too much in order to make his point). I thought the second failed to defend PSA adequately.
I agreed with much of the third and fourth.
The third article gave us these definitions: On the cross God treated Jesus as if He had lived our lives with all our sin, so that God could then treat us as if we lived Christ’s life of pure holiness. The idea that Christ’s death is a sacrifice offered in payment of the penalty for our sins. It is accepted by the Father as satisfaction in place of the penalty due to us. This is a definition I think most would accept as accurate. Ironically, this falls in line with N.T. Wright's definition (yet you reject that he believes PSA).
The fourth article addressed a movement that is growing against PSA. I believe more and more are embracing this newer Christus Victor theory because they see a fault in PSA. I think he addresses these objections very well.
Jesus was forsaken because God did not deliver Him from the consequences due humanity but through it (Psalm 22).
Not at all. You have to remember that the Godhead is Father, Son and Spirit. When God the Father wills that God the Son suffer and die for us it is still God who is taking upon Himself the consequences of human sin.
I never objected to Christ being viewed as our representative. In fact, I repeatedly pointed to Christ as the "last Adam".
Amen
Limited Atonement (Particular Redemption)
Limited Atonement is a doctrine offered in answer to the question, "for whose sins did Christ atone?" The Bible teaches that Christ died for those whom God gave him to save (John 17:9)
Joh 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine... Christ died, indeed, for many people, but not all (Matthew 26:28).
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins
Specifically, Christ died for the invisible Church -- the sum total of all those who would ever rightly bear the name "Christian" (Ephesians 5:25).
This doctrine often finds many objections, mostly from those who think that Limited Atonement does damage to evangelism. We have already seen that Christ will not lose any that the father has given to him (John 6:37). Christ's death was not a death of potential atonement for all people. Believing that Jesus' death was a potential, symbolic atonement for anyone who might possibly, in the future, accept him trivializes Christ's act of atonement. Christ died to atone for specific sins of specific sinners. Christ died to make holy the church. He did not Atone for all men, because obviously all men are not saved. Evangelism is actually lifted up in this doctrine, for the evangelist may tell his congregation that Christ died for sinners, and that he will not lose any of those for whom he died!
There is a difference between “God pouring out his wrath” or some such statement as it pertains to the cross, and Christ taking on the wrath.
The first is not accurate, but the second is Scriptural.
Again, looking at Isaiah 53, the sequence wounded (pierced), bruised (crushed), stripes (scourging) - each a statement of blood letting. Each pertains to that which brings the required blood for reconciliation.
Transgressions, iniquities, and healing each had to be take place for the God to be both just and justifier. This was all necessary for God. Such a requirement for remissions of all that would cause God to stand in opposition to man was brought to a resolution that the first Adam be brought back into Eden (to use a word picture).
However there is one other requirement - chastisement. “The chastisement of our peace (well-being) upon Him.
Christ took upon Himself all necessary for restoration, but this is peculiarly special.
What a monstrous cost the peace, the well-being the intimacy required.
That the believer can have that which only God can give. That which passes understanding, that promise of “unforsaken friendship,” a benefit completely for man delivered to every believer.
That wonderful fellowship that Adam enjoyed with the Father in the cool of Eden is able to be given to the believer by the Father because of the chastisement of the Son.
Now, I know that some may disagree with the sentiment I expressed in this section of Isaiah.
When Paul preached reconciliation, it included restoration which will be completed in glorification.
The first is not accurate, but the second is Scriptural.
Again, looking at Isaiah 53, the sequence wounded (pierced), bruised (crushed), stripes (scourging) - each a statement of blood letting. Each pertains to that which brings the required blood for reconciliation.
Transgressions, iniquities, and healing each had to be take place for the God to be both just and justifier. This was all necessary for God. Such a requirement for remissions of all that would cause God to stand in opposition to man was brought to a resolution that the first Adam be brought back into Eden (to use a word picture).
However there is one other requirement - chastisement. “The chastisement of our peace (well-being) upon Him.
Christ took upon Himself all necessary for restoration, but this is peculiarly special.
What a monstrous cost the peace, the well-being the intimacy required.
That the believer can have that which only God can give. That which passes understanding, that promise of “unforsaken friendship,” a benefit completely for man delivered to every believer.
That wonderful fellowship that Adam enjoyed with the Father in the cool of Eden is able to be given to the believer by the Father because of the chastisement of the Son.
Now, I know that some may disagree with the sentiment I expressed in this section of Isaiah.
When Paul preached reconciliation, it included restoration which will be completed in glorification.
Ah, but another poor soul that places the limit upon the sufficiency of the blood supply.Amen
Limited Atonement (Particular Redemption)
Limited Atonement is a doctrine offered in answer to the question, "for whose sins did Christ atone?" The Bible teaches that Christ died for those whom God gave him to save (John 17:9)
Joh 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine... Christ died, indeed, for many people, but not all (Matthew 26:28).
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins
Specifically, Christ died for the invisible Church -- the sum total of all those who would ever rightly bear the name "Christian" (Ephesians 5:25).
This doctrine often finds many objections, mostly from those who think that Limited Atonement does damage to evangelism. We have already seen that Christ will not lose any that the father has given to him (John 6:37). Christ's death was not a death of potential atonement for all people. Believing that Jesus' death was a potential, symbolic atonement for anyone who might possibly, in the future, accept him trivializes Christ's act of atonement. Christ died to atone for specific sins of specific sinners. Christ died to make holy the church. He did not Atone for all men, because obviously all men are not saved. Evangelism is actually lifted up in this doctrine, for the evangelist may tell his congregation that Christ died for sinners, and that he will not lose any of those for whom he died!
Strange that the OT lamb’s blood brought atonement for all in the land. A picture of what God would do for His land (creation). No limit in the blood.
Strange that the Apostle John wrote specifically that the blood was not just for believers, but all the world. No limit in the blood.
Strange that the Apostle Paul wrote that Christ died for the ungodly, and didn’t specify by indicating a portion of the ungodly.
Strange is that it is not sin that condemns, but unbelief. No limit in the blood.
So what is the Scriptures teach as the actual limit in atonement?
There is a limit to atonement, not from insufficient blood supply, but by God’s own purposed design.
Romans 9 is the statement of Paul on limited atonement. No limit on blood.
Why the “reformed” grab onto that which the Scriptures do not teach is just poor thinking.
Wether you say there is no blood limit or you say there is a limited Atonement, they both mean the same, the blood is ONLY applied to a few predestined elect who will be miraculiously be made born again so that they can believe by faith, Regeneration has to precede faith.
Amen, but the big question is who can or will believe.
Not the statement of either John or Paul.
The blood is once given for all, irregardless of any condition, for while we (all humanity) were sinners, Christ died. Sufficient and efficient, with no limit.
Romans 9 is the focus of Scriptures of where the actual limit resides.
It is that choice of the Father.
Those He chooses are not condemned, those He does not choose are condemned by unbelief, not lack of blood.
You missed the point.
There is no Scripture that states “the blood is only applied to a few predestined elect.”
What the Scriptures do teach is God is the determiner of vessels use, of who is elect and who isn’t.