Rise of Calvinism pt.2

I believe the same. I just don't see it as an "Instead..". Which is why I'm confused over what the exact difference is between our positions...

But that is contained in your beliefs above when you say men must still die to the flesh, right? Rom 3:31, Gal 3:13, Rom 6:23 etc. do talk about God fulfilling our penalty of transgressing the law in order to uphold the law, right? How else am I supposed to read these?

 

Still fail to see how that wrath of God is atoned for if non penal view is held!

 

I hold to the penal view myself. I just don't causatively associate penal view with the wrath of God needing to be appeased. It comes down to semantics probably.

When you use the words "appeasement" of "God's wrath" - it implies that God is set in a direction opposed to us in wrath until Christ alters it with His sacrifice, after which God who is now appeased is able to show forth His love for us. Eph 2:4, Rom 5:8 gives me the impression that God was already pleased to show us His love and therein sent His Son to die to uphold His righteousness in doing so (Rom 3:26), but not for appeasement as such.

Of course, had Christ not died for us paying our penalty, we would still have had to face the just wrath of God because by natures we are children (deserving) of wrath - but God has revealed that's not His disposition towards His people.

 

Curious how they can even quantify this. Not all Calvinist churches are equal just like all Arminian churches are not equal. And how many churches were surveyed? And honestly, what does attendance have to do with anything?

 

I just see that we need to account for both John 3:16 and 17, as there abides on all of us right now the wrath of God, if found not in Christ but still in Adam!

​

 

if it really did, than Joel Olsteen must be a modern day Apostle based upon membership!

 

key is "His people", as a;; outside of that will suffer his wrath, as Christ bore that due wrath for us!

 

That divine wrath had to get propiated somehow though in order to allow God to declare us now righteous in Christ!

 

Link?

 

Wow, you really won't just post the link to the actual research and expect me to go searching through the archives?

 

Ok I found it. John, you said it was a 2019 article, in fact, it was a 2010 article. This research is literally a DECADE old.

 

I've actually not made the claim that it is growing. I really don't know the answer as to whether it is growing or not.

But do you admit you wrongly presented the argument as current research when it is really a decade old?

 

I have already addressed this. Ther are multiple classic views, inlcuding Penal Substitution. When you say classical view it is only called that because of what Aulen said about it. It has nothing to do with anything and I prefer to call the views by their name as opposed to attributing arbitrary qualifiers to them that are only there due to bias.