Continuation of Why Y'all Aint Calvinists thread

More like holding dogmatic theories in those areas without the ability to engage primarily in Scripture to defend those positions. There are many people who hold to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement but are able to defend their views through Scripture and realize what part is their reasoning. @The_ did this when he explained why and how he interpreted the Old Testament sacrifices. While I believe he was wrong, he knows why he believes what he does. It would be like just saying “Jesus and the Apostles believed (fill in the blank)”.

When I speak of “biblical illiteracy”, this is what I am speaking of:

Notice the above. No passages of Scripture. No explanation of the reasons certain interpretative measures were taken. Only an assumption the tradition is in the Bible.

I’ll start another thread for those interested in the topic. Neither are so worthless an issue we should refrain from discussion (and people are free to join or leave it alone).

Again, what is aggravating is not legitimate discussion but ignorance. What Wright, for example, challenged was tradition since the 16th century. Why do you believe that such things should automatically be considered above examination? Do you see how this is similar to the Catholic Church (with you being the Catholic and anyone who would dare challenge your tradition being the Reformer)? You appeal to history when it comes to the idea of inherited sin, yet you hold to Penal Substitution Theory. Are you able to see the irony?

 

I believe @Yeshua1 is speaking of theories of atonement.

 

Maybe it isn't.

I believe that we are totally depraved, but in contrast to God's righteousness and not Adam's sin (I believe we inherit Adam's nature, i.e., we are human, but not his sin). I believe that God has chosen in Christ a people, and that we can look back and say that we are numbered among the elect. But more times than not I believe that Scripture uses the term "the Elect" corporately. In terms of limited atonement I do not believe that Christ suffered the wrath of God as punishment and a substitute for the elect and not the reprobate (I don't believe that the atonement works that way). I understand Calvinism to assume Calvin's theory of the atonement, which is something I do not hold.

 

"Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself." (Leo Tolstoy)

 

I believe Adam was representative of all mankind.

 

Absolutely. My argument for individual election for awhile has been that the Elect is made up of individuals.

I believe that there are obvious aspects of the Cross that imply both penal and substitution. But I don't believe the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is correct.

 

You've just answered your question. We sin by walking away from God, ignoring God, placing our will over God's, and making up gods in our image. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Scripture tells us of two types of nature - the "flesh" and the "spirit". The flesh in and of itself is not sin, but man's inclination to the flesh leads to sin (read James 1).

 

For some of us, like me and those who agree with me, "right" is descriptive.

 

Looks like your dictionary is missing a word

Unless, of course, your claim is that Monergism is not a word (even though it is listed in the dictionary as a word). Is that what you are claiming?