Rise of Calvinism pt.2

Logical fallacy. The fact you have never heard of the "classic view" reflects ignorance on your part rather than theology as a whole (it is like saying you do not exist because someone does not know you).

Beyond that, good question. I forget some have not studied theology (other than their own views) and may not know these terms.

The “classic view” (subjective theory) and the “Latin view” (objective theory) are two approaches to the Atonement. The “classic view” looks at atonement on the grounds of a change taking place in men rather than a changing God’s attitude towards men. The “Latin view” looks at God as the object of Christ’s atoning work via a reconciliation through satisfaction (in Penal Substitution Theory this is satisfaction to God’s justice, in Satisfaction Theory to God's honor, in Aquinas' Substitution Theory in the form of merit).

The “classic view” would include positions which are themed along the lines of Christus Victor (Ransom Theory, Moral Influence Theory, etc.). The “Latin view” includes positions such as Satisfaction/ Substitution Theories to include Penal Substitution Theory.

If you are truly ignorant of these terms and you are interested there are several pretty good courses available online, some at no cost. Any introductory theology course would explain these views.

 

No. The church was Christian, not Calvinist. It was founded on Christ, not soteriological theories. Some were Calvinists and some were not.

I never taught anti-Calvinism. I suspect the Calvinists there are still Calvinists while those who were not Calvinists are not Calvinists.

That's one thing I am not sure you have understood about me, @Iconoclast . I understand Calvinism, because I was a Calvinist. Through study and prayer I've moved from that soteriological system to what I believe a more biblical approach. But I have never thought bad about Calvinists (I remember very well when I was one). Many of my close friends remain Calvinists, and many are not.

Anti-Calvinism and anti-free-will theology places men in opposition to God. Calvinism and Free-will theology does not. These are not contradictory statements.

 

My guess is - should @Reformed find God opposed to Calvinism he would react the same as if we found God to be a Calvinist. He would change his view.

I suspect some may say God just does not understand, but I doubt @Reformed is one of them.

One of the first things that we have to understand when it comes to soteriology is that these positions and understandings are products of systematic theology. Theology is man’s study of God. Cults present their theology as god given, Christianity does not.

As C. H. Spurgeon emphasized, this theology of ours has the limitations of the “human condition” and is subject to the limits of our reasoning and understanding. We understand according to what he called our “natural dispositions”. Basically, we see things differently and this influences our interpretations and theological development.

 

I took an undergraduate theology course (I cannot recall what level) at Liberty University and they used the term "classic view" to refer to "Christus Victor"/ Ransom Theory as a theme (Ransom vire to Moral Influence) . That is where I became accustomed to the term (prior to then it was foreign to me as well).

What other view of atonement have you encountered in mainstream theology called the "classic view"?

Most of the time (about all of the time) I have read of the "classic view" and the "Latin view" (subjective/ objective approaches) it referred to a broader scope than individual theories.

You never studied this in seminary? If not, then think of it this way - the differences concern how atonement reconciled men to God. Within each general position are several theories.

 

The difference was the overall approaches. The "classic view" looks at mankind being changed in some way (freed from bondage, moral change, etc) while the "Latin view" looks at changing God's attitude towards man (satisfaction, Substitution, appeasement).

The terms became popular with Aulén's work. The "classic view" is Ransom Theory in general (absent a payment received), or what N. T. Wright called a "Christus Victor motif".

I did not know there were other views called "the Classic view" within atonement ideas. I guess Aulén borrowed it from someone but don't know who.

It is how (in seminary) we spoke of the two main approaches to redemption. I never could see exactly where Ontological Substitution fit in (it was a Reformediidea, but seems a blend of both to me) but most others can easily fit in one category or the other.

 

It refers to the overall theme (subjective vs objective theories).

Regardless, I explained how I was using the term earlier (on this thread). I am not interested in debating its use (I can prove my use is legitimate, and I have no doubt you can as well). So to avoid stupid bickering and foolishness we can just call it a Christus Victor motif (courtesy of Wright).

I think the important thing is doctrine rather than silly arguments about what to call the doctrines.

 

BTW, what are these other views of atonement called the "classic view"?

 

Strawman argument as this is not being argued.

Are you referencing Renaissance humanism (a move from medieval ideology) or modern humanism? These are VERY different ideas.

 

Strawman argument.

No one argued Calvinism to be humanistic in terms of contemporary humanism (focused on man). This you made up, invented. You are imagining things (or are simply confused).

My statement that I was a Calvinist, preached and taught Calvinism is not an "opinion". I do not need to provide a list of churches where I taught and it is overstepping to ask. @davidtaylorjr should be able to testify to that fact (we hold he preaches without demanding he provide a list of churches). Your thinking here is confused.

Perhaps if you would learn to use the quote feature you would see your confusion before posting. If you are not capable enough to work the simple features of this forum how can you be capable enough for more complex understandings?

I do believe Calvinism to elevate man by employing a humanistic sense of justice (not humanism in the sense of elevating man in the place of God but elevating a humanistic philosophy as divine justice). You dishonestly project a view onto me.

Red herring and dishonest.

I never claimed that Christian churches were not founded on Christ.

I said the ones I attended were not founded on either soteriological position. They were founded on Christ. We had members of both camps.

 

And you did not encounter the "classic view" until taking some advanced theology class at Liberty?

We discussed it as undergraduates. At least you heard of the "classic view" as I use the term.

What are all the other "classic views" of atonement that you were speaking of?

Do you agree with @Iconoclast that we have to post on the public forum the church where we preach and teach for the membership to validate otherwise it is merely an opinion?

I do not because I see it as a violation of privacy and approaching a violation of BB rules concerning privacy. It is a weird request.

What do you think?