Monergists who are not Calvinists

@Reformed,

For a long time I was a Calvinist. Many of the reasons I became convinced Calvinism was accurate are views I still hold.

The reason I am not a Calvinist is that I have come to reject some of its presuppositions.

On the surface we hold similar views. But beneath the superficial (the conclusions) we hold these similar views very differently.

 

Calvinism assumes specific ideas about sin and how man is reconciled to God.

For example, in Calvinism the Atonement has to be limited otherwise universal salvation is the logical conclusion because of how it presupposes men are reconciled to God (payment of a sin debt in the stead of the elect). I believe the Atonement limited because Christ lay down His life for the sheep (to save those who believe) while rejecting the idea that Christ paid our "sin debt" instead of us thereby effecting our salvation.

Same book cover but very different narratives.

 

I have to step back from the claim that I reject penal substitution (in the past I said that I affirm penal substitution in general but reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement).

I am a member of a SBC church and have been all of my adult life. The SBC defines Penal Substitution Theory as Christ's blood shed for us in opposition to the "anti-violence" model of the cross. I believe this to be true. On this board Penal Substitution Theory has been presented as the belief Christ bore our sins, died for our sins, is the Propitiation for our sins, through Him we escape the wrath to come, God was pleased to "crush" Him, and by His stripes we are healed. I believe all of that. On this board it was presented that the teachings of the Early Church Fathers (Justin Martyr was one) who held that Christ died for the human family was an expression of Penal Substitution Theory. I agree with what has been argued of the ECF's view of the Atonement in affirming Penal Substitution Theory. N.T. Wright has affirmed Penal Substitution Theory while holding a view similar to mine in terms of the meaning of the cross. The Gospel Coalition (TGC) is Calvinistic and defends Wright's explanation of Penal Substitution Theory.

Given that labels can only be useful within the context of how they are accepted, I suppose it is not correct to say I reject Penal Substitution or Penal Substitution Theory. In fact, Penal Substitution Theory is, here anyway, a fairly empty term. It simply states the universal Christian truth that Christ died for our sins and we are saved from the wrath to come. As far as I know, to reject this is to reject Christianity itself.

So, to correct my previous claim - I am not rejecting Penal Substitution Theory (as defined on the Baptist Board by several members to include Calvinists).

What I reject is the presupposition that divine justice is in accordance with 15th century humanistic philosophy of justice (Renaissance humanism,not secular humanism). There are things that follow my rejection of the judicial philosophy in terms of logical conclusions, but this is what separates my view from Calvinism.

I apologize if my previous statements clouded where I stand and hope this provided clarity.

 

Thank you for

I did watch it because I do not have a good understand of what Primitive Baptists believe. Thanks for posting it, @kyredneck .

 

Sound like a STD, or something that leads to one.

 

@Yeshua1 ,

Out of respect for members please do not talk about me or any other member (that could be considered gossip). I am here. You can reply to my post or use "@" and the username of the person you are addressing (or mentioning/ talking about).

You are right that I have an issue with the Calvinistic presupposition that supposes one judicial philosophy to govern how divine justice is viewed. But my "issue" is that I have yet to see a defense for the use of that philosophy while it forms a basis for Reformed thought in terms of the Atonement. The "issue" I have is I believe it is a very important doctrine upon which other doctrines are built (as evidenced by TULIP and the debate over the scope of the atonement, none of which can exist apart from this judicial philosophy).

But to clarify, I do not have any issues with the Calvinist viewpoint in regards to the atonement, or any other viewpoint for that matter (to include Denny Weaver's position, which I believe equally wrong). People will believe what they will believe. My move from Calvinism to my current position has not changed me or my understanding of the gospel itself. It has changed how I view topics associated with the gospel. But I try to respect other people's view because I was once one of you and held your position. A few years ago I would have argued very strongly against my current position.

I hope that helps clarify exactly where I stand and I also hope that this will help you realize the inappropriateness of talking about members rather than engaging them and their beliefs.

I rejected the classic Calvinism viewpoint (that Jesus suffered in Hell for three days as explained in the Institutions) even when I was a Calvinist. But I also rejected the classic Calvinistic justification for infant baptism as well so I think there was room for disagreement with the classic Calvinistic position.

 

You didn't say anything bad and I wasn't offended. It is just a pet irritant. To me when one is spoken about without an indicator it approaches gossip (just a personal thing with me).

You are right about me rejecting Calvinism. I was a Calvinist for a long time, but one issue (one fundamental issue) moved me from that position. Either way, I enjoy studying theology and different positions. I always liked Calvinism for its simplicity (it is probably the easiest to understand). I like Reformation Arminianism because it is interesting how it deals with causality (and what is a necessity). I like my view (Christus Victor) because it is more a theme than a formula or theory. I think that we can learn of and from one another without having to compromise our views.