-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Dual Heresy - Torrance
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
I think you have nailed the problem with Calvinist theology, Dave. The men who hold to such a theology as limited atonement are the brightest and most intelligent men on the earth. This is the problem. They are also the most prideful, thinking that God has elevated them the way they claim and declaring they are the only ones he is interested in saving.
Those who understand salvation are babes, according to Jesus Christ and a babe sure is not going to have to wade through limited atonement and election and all this stuff Calvinism puts out. I am not guessing about this because I have read it in the scriptures.
Luke 10:21
In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.
Matthew 19:14
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
2 Cor 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
1 Corinthians 1:26
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
Calvinism falls under this genre, IMO.
They write almost all the books in the Christian book stores and they do not believe the words of the Bibles as they are commonly understood by the simple among us, of which I am one.
But there are also many sheep who call other sheep "wolves" because they disagree with their views.
OK, where do you see Andrew Fuller… sheep or wolf?
I see Fuller as a Christian.
interesting that you use the word “Wolf” as a descriptive to this discussion. By their nature wolves reside in packs and their entire existence depends on packs. So much depends on them working as a team. Let’s just say that the most cunning wolf because of his natural instincts & abilities betrays the pack in some way uncharacteristic of his leadership skills then he has betrayed the pack and endangering them. He would then no longer been master and for abdication they know but one remedy… ‘Execution’… he would be ripped to pieces by the pack. I view that form of abdication extremely efficient in policing the gene pool. Too bad it’s not used when dealing with politicians.
Your description of "wolf" sounds like "Calvinist".
I didn't initiate the term on this thread, but took it as fake "Christians" seeking to destroy the "Sheep".
So my criteria is two questions.
Does the person in question believe (as far as we can tell) the gospel?
Is the gospel evident in their lives?
If the answer to both is "yes" then they are considered "Sheep".
The wolf looks like the sheep (sheeps clothing) but an examination shows their nature.
All of the politicians are wolves (using a different definition of wolf). They devour the flock for their own gain. And yes, they destroy any of their pack that goes astray.
Oh, a Christian wolf I’m thinking. Personally I’d …. Ah, forget it.
Now that you said it, and I read it, I can't forget it
I do not believe that Christians are wolves (they are sheep). If shown to be a wolf then they are not Christian.
I’ve never seen a wolf look like a sheep, it’s not in their nature … dogs on the other hand, especially when raised with sheep will protect the sheep… even though they may die in exchange. A dog that protects the flock is a much better meta for a devoted companion.
I do recall Christs instructing the Rich Young Man to go sell all his possessions and then come and follow Him? Isn’t that the real definition for Christian ie follower of Christ? And how many of us actually do that?
My family are sheep herders back in the old country for generations. Take it from me, sheep are about as dumb as a box of rocks.Now that you said it, and I read it, I can't forget it
I do not believe that Christians are wolves (they are sheep). If shown to be a wolf then they are not Christian.
They are delicious though!
BTW, the wolf scatters the flock, sheep gather together for safety and are targets for wolves, bear, coyotes etc.
So are goats.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Calvinists do tend to be drawn to the theological and intellectual side of things which I don't think is either good or bad in itself. As far as the extent of the atonement, maybe it is limited. I do insist that an "offer" of the gospel made to anyone is real, and that if they believe then they will be saved. There is a whole wing of "Calvinists" who believe that though. I go even further and have no problem telling people "Christ died for your sins", without having to say under my breath "that is if you are elect". A lot of Calvinists won't go that far but we do agree that without the direct work of the Holy Spirit nothing will come of any gospel invitation. You have to figure out how you are going to handle these theological principles in practice on your own. I hate to see the level of animosity over the extent of the atonement. I do however think that certain views of the nature of the atonement put one outside of orthodox Christianity.
A lot of this depends on how one defines "Atonement".
Some look to "Atonement" as solidarity ("at-one-memt"), specifically as God becoming one with mankind. In this case, the Atonement is the person of Jesus Christ and for all man regardless of salvation.
Others look to "Atonement" as a type of sacrifice to appease God or a god. In this case it is what the Father has done in offering His Lamb.
Calvinism takes the latter approach. To be fair, if the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is true then Limited Atonement is probably the most logical conclusion because the act of the Father expending His wrath by killing the Lamb is what constitutes "forgiveness". Therefore this cannot be extended to those who "remain in their sins".
@Van has mentioned this several times. Penal Substitution Theory and Limited Atonement are very much linked. One is inconsistent without the other.
I I am responding to the sentence I have highlighted.
I do not believe that at all. It is the gospel of Jesus Christ that works in a persons heart to convince him of his need of salvation, not the Holy Ghost. The Scriptures are the power of God onto salvation we are told. God has chosen the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. The gospel comes first to a sinners ears and then down to his heart. The human element is always present in some manner when a sinner is saved and it is much more profitable for the preacher to be where the sinner is than for the Holy Spirit to be there. God does not coerce the sinner into being saved but he does send his preacher to tell him of his salvation and it is the decision of the sinner whether he receives the truth and repents of his sin and believes the gospel. It is then that the Holy Spirit becomes a real part of the sinners being. There are many things the Holy Spirit does for the person when he believes but it is after the person believes. Sinners must decide from the heart to be saved,
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Well, that's where I respect Calvinistic theology. The gospel is a set of propositions. How can it work in a person's heart without the Spirit? Why do some study scripture and get saved and others become expert atheist debaters? What is it that you naturally possess that causes you to recognize your need for Christ and your guilt as a sinner? I believe the difference is an action of the Holy Spirit on a person and that this action is dependent on God's sovereignty. It is not applied to all in the same way or extent. Why would we pray for someone to be saved if the choice is totally up to their evaluation of the propositions of the gospel?
I do agree that the human element is always present. John Owen himself said that all work of the Holy Spirit on a person for their salvation will come through their rational mind and thought processes. Both the preacher and the Holy Spirit are needed. Some Calvinists do make it seem like they believe that the individual does not have to repent and believe but that is not true Calvinistic theology.
I completely disagree that the Holy Spirit's involvement is only after you decide to be saved. But I agree that the idea that one is actually born again before they believe is debatable at best, if that is what you mean. Sinners do decide from the heart to be saved. The question is, why did you decide from your heart to be saved. I just happen to think that Calvinistic theology best explains what really happens.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
What I like about Torrance is that he really looks into all the aspects of Christs work, not just the actual death of Christ. But in fairness to the reformers, a lot of what he covers is in their writings too. There is a point at which our sins, personally, must be dealt with somehow. Torrance took the position that Christ's actions on our behalf were primarily collective, as "man", yet he did not deny that within that was a penal, vicarious, substitution of Christ for all of us and a bearing of the wrath of God due us which we could not bear ourselves.
@Van is right on this. There is a Youtube by James White where he takes the same position - that without limited atonement you lose penal substitution. I don't agree with him because the Arminians and Amyraldians believed in PSA and general atonement but Torrance's approach was new to me in that he believed that the sins were truly and actually atoned for for everyone (not just potentially atoned for) and yet he specifically refuted limited atonement.
Yes, I as well. Too often our redemption is narrowed to Christ dying and his ministry merely preparing for that "main event".
I know Torrance is Reformed, but I appreciate that he does not simply "toe the line" (his theology, while influenced, is not dictated by Reformed theology).
In the first reference I noted he offers a criticism to Barth's treatment of the Godhead (Barth was more "Christocentric"), this given that he had very much in common with Karl Barth (Torrance studied with Barth, worked with him and Church Dogmatics, and regarded him as one of the greatest theologians of Church History).
Today questioning a position is often met with hostility (see Wright, for example, who is also Reformed and affirms penal substitution).
But I like the openness and honesty of Torrance, and Barth....and Wright, when it comes to examining Scripture outside of their "tradition".
All three of my examples here disagree at points. BUT all three place Scripture and honestly handing God's Word to the best of their ability above their "camp" and even public opinion.
We do not see this in the works of Owen, Knox, or even Wesley (we do in Edwards). But to be fair they were most often defending their theology, or strengthening those in their "camp" to some extent (a different context...although Torrance and Barth were fighting against liberal theology).
The result, though, is that Torrance, Barth, and Wright are more academic while men like Owen and Knox are more practical. Both types have a role, but I find the former more tied to Scripture (application probably being the most attached to Scripture....Tim Keller and Spurgeon were great here, but this is more pastoral than theological).
Long way of saying....I agree.