Rise of Calvinism pt.2

I think you are making things up.

Perhaps Aulén's book started the title (it did "Christus Victor"), but that is not why I use the term. I use it because this is how I have seen it used in theological discussions.

Please provide a theological sources that speak of Penal Substitution Theory as the "Classic view" of Atonement.

 

You and @davidtaylorjr seem to be making things up and taking an emotional position on a theological term. This is juvenile as it is the doctrine, not what the doctrine is called, that matters.

This is from the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals

"Of course, the thrust of this "ransom" or "classic theory" of the atonement is to emphasize that the cross of Christ more than just a satisfaction of the penalty of sin; it is a mighty victory over the power of sin, death, and the devil--something that many of us confessional Protestants could emphasize a bit more."

(The Alliance is a coalition of pastors, scholars, and churchmen who hold the historic creeds and confessions of the Reformed faith)

 

Please provide the research to which you are referring. There is a difference between loud/ disruptive and growing.

 

It is not an arbitrary term (as you proved by referencing Liberty's use of the term, Aulén's use, and the Reformed quote I provided to speak of the same specific teaching).

No. I will not retract my statement. I read it in a 2019 article but went to the source (which was a 2010 report). I always try to go to the original sources when possible (something I learned in college and why I am not a Calvinist).

Do you have more recent research that shows Calvinism growing stronger in relation to other views?

 

The fact you find
"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)." as arbitrary is odd. Seems rather specific.

You do know that" Calvinism" originally stood for "anti-Lutherism" in terms of communion.

What matters is doctrine, not what you want to call doctrine.

I think it is telling that you have not addressed any doctrine here but instead whined about my use of an accepted use of a theological term and cried that I provided an original source rather than the article that pointed me to the source.

 

So you have no more current data?

Interesting.

I think sometimes people are simply too willing to be misled. Sometimes they are fools and this can't be helped. But other times people just want a cause and a sense of perceived wrong to argue against. I think this is just smoke to hide their inability to grapple with opposing views.

And then, of course, there is the actual doctrines that separate our positions - something you, in your many posts, have not even addressed.

 

But (aside from people attending churches that teach what they do not believe) what data have you offered to support the idea of Calvinistic growth. Looks like the same people saying the same thing for the same few decades while their churches are not growing.

 

That is called "Penal Substitution Theory". It falls under the "Latin view" (objective theory). The reason is it approaches the Atonement as a work to appease God to change His attitude towards us (Christ is punished by God to satisfy God's wrath towards us).

 

Pleaae provide a verse or if none exists the philosophy justifying this idea.