Corporate Election

[JonC]

This wouldn't be true even if your theory about the origins of Penal Substitution are correct.

That just isn't how this works. Penal substitution is NOT a Calvinist distinctive! I don't care what else you do believe, if don't believe that God is utterly immutable or that humans are totally depraved then you ARE NOT any sort of Calvinist whatsoever - period.

Again, just because Calvin taught something doesn't make it false nor does it necessarily make it Calvinism.

Yes, it is true when it comes to Calvin's soteriology.

John Calvin moved the Cross from the classic position of solidarity and from the Roman Catholic position of merit to a judicial philosophy expressed as divine justice. This is strictly Calvinistic.


You don't recognize this (you might if you start reading Christian history on the topic), and I don't hold it against you. Others who hold Calvinistic views may not recognize theirs either. That is what influence does - it often goes unrecognized.

When I say you are Calvinistic in your understanding I mean it as factual (based on Christian history), NOT as an insult. There have been wonderful Calvinists through history, and great men who held a faith if a Calvinistic trajectory (John Wesley comes to mind) as well.

I point out that you hold a view that was developed by John Calvin only for your edification - not that you change your position, but that you may consider how you approach others who hold different Calvinistic views.

We all have standards. Mine is the Bible when it comes to doctrine, but when it comes to Calvinism it is holding the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. That is the uniting factor distinctive to John Calvin.

 

[taisto]

Yes, it is true when it comes to Calvin's soteriology.

John Calvin moved the Cross from the classic position of solidarity and from the Roman Catholic position of merit to a judicial philosophy expressed as divine justice. This is strictly Calvinistic.


You don't recognize this (you might if you start reading Christian history on the topic), and I don't hold it against you. Others who hold Calvinistic views may not recognize theirs either. That is what influence does - it often goes unrecognized.

When I say you are Calvinistic in your understanding I mean it as factual (based on Christian history), NOT as an insult. There have been wonderful Calvinists through history, and great men who held a faith if a Calvinistic trajectory (John Wesley comes to mind) as well.

I point out that you hold a view that was developed by John Calvin only for your edification - not that you change your position, but that you may consider how you approach others who hold different Calvinistic views.

We all have standards. Mine is the Bible when it comes to doctrine, but when it comes to Calvinism it is holding the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. That is the uniting factor distinctive to John Calvin.

Jon, you are living alone with your atonement theory and many people on the board have already shown you your error. You keep beating a drum that only you are singing to.

 

[JonC]

Jon, you are living alone with your atonement theory and many people on the board have already shown you your error. You keep beating a drum that only you are singing to.

This is actually a false statement. But many are ignorant of positions outside of their traditions (I am not accusing you of lying, simply stating the fact that you are wrong).

The funny thing is I can and have posted several throughout Christian history (from the Early Church to the present) that holds my view of Atonement.

I realize that doesn't make my view correct. It does, however, make your claim wrong. Yours is a failed attempt to claim correctness based on isolation (a logical fallacy), but more striking is the obvious falseness your claim (I have provided historical and contemporary examples of those who hold my position...as well as the fact that Van agreed with aspects and Arthur King with even more).


Regardless of which doctrines of Atonement are correct, the fact remains that no Christian expressed the Doctrine of Penal Substitution until John Calvin. That doesn't make Calvin incorrect.

Some (like @Martin Marprelate ) have claimed that pre-Reformation Christians believed aspects of the Atonement that he called Penal Substitution in embryo. The problem is that we all believe those aspects correct (it is an assumption to think those ideas equate to the Doctrine of Penal Substitution). We also have to consider exactly why it took fifteen thousand years to put all of those embryonic elements together to form the Doctrine of Penal Substitution.

But I am open to you and @CJP69 providing the Doctrine of Penal Substitution (not hints, or aspects, but the actual doctrine) prior to John Calvin's articulation of Calvinistic Atonement. You prove me wrong and I will change my mind on the doctrine being Calvinistic.

 

[37818]

@taisto,
@JonC's view on the atonement includes the same Scriptures our views do. We do not agree. We believe the same Scriptures. We understand those passages differently.

 

[taisto]

@taisto,
@JonC's view on the atonement includes the same Scriptures our views do. We do not agree. We believe the same Scriptures. We understand those passages differently.

I agree that the same scripture is being viewed and a different conclusion is being made. Yet, Jon still lives alone in his view no matter how adamant he stands in that view.

 

[37818]

I agree that the same scripture is being viewed and a different conclusion is being made. Yet, Jon still lives alone in his view no matter how adamant he stands in that view.

The technicality the terminology "penal" is not used in Scripture. And Christ receives the wage, receiving it on our behalf. He is not paying it out, God is.

 

[JonC]

Yet, Jon still lives alone in his view no matter how adamant he stands in that view.

This is the problem with your statement.

I am far from alone in holding the Christus Victor view of Atonement. On this board there was Arthur King. Insofar as contemporary theology my position is present in Amish theology, Anglican theology, Mennonite theology, Lutheran theology, Orthodox evangelism, and Baptist theology.

It is even present in Reformed churches as some have sought to bring Calvinism closer to Scripture and made a move towards the Early Church teachings. I doubt this will go anywhere because I can't see Calvinism existing apart from Calvinistic Atonement (our views of Atonement, whatever they be, are central to our theology).

That is what I mean by you claims being false but most likely out of ignorance. You have simply not been exposed to opposing views, so when you encounter one, like Christus Victor/ Random, you think it is new and one man's view.

 

[JonC]

The technicality the terminology "penal" is not used in Scripture. And Christ receives the wage, receiving it on our behalf. He is not paying it out, God is.

@37818 ,

Taisto is just trolling me. By claiming I invented the Christus Victor/ Ransom position and nobody else holds or held it he is trying to present the view as unique to me.

Christians can disagree on positions and interpretation. But we all need to be honest. Whether the Christus Victor-Ransom theory is correct is a fair discussion. Whether the Penal Substitution Theory is correct is a fair discussion.

But by stating Christus Victor is unique to my mind @taisto is just trolling.

It is best not to feed the trolls.

This thread was about corporate election. As it is drifting to whether Christus Victor existed or if I just made it up I'll start a thread to discuss that. This one has drifted far off topic.

 

[37818]

This thread was about corporate election.

I am of the persuasion that the elect are corporate. And the election is the individual. What is claimed to be unconditional can only be corporate with the view piont of limited atonement. which is a view I cannot hold.

 

[JonC]

I am of the persuasion that the elect are corporate. And the election is the individual. What is claimed to be unconditional can only be corporate with the view piont of limited atonement. which is a view I cannot hold.

I agree.

 

[CJP69]

Consider history.

No theologian before John Calvin articulated the Atonement on the grounds of Penal Substitution.

I do not do doctrine based on history, least of all unsubstantiated historical claims made by people I don't know who are promoting a very nebulous, almost totally undefined doctrine almost no one has ever heard of before.

Do you have a biblical argument to make or not?

 

[CJP69]

Yes, it is true when it comes to Calvin's soteriology.

No, you're wrong and I think you actually know it.

 

[JonC]

I do not do doctrine based on history, least of all unsubstantiated historical claims made by people I don't know who are promoting a very nebulous, almost totally undefined doctrine almost no one has ever heard of before.

Do you have a biblical argument to make or not?

I agree.

Doctrine needs to be clearly defined and I also am very hesitant to entertain a new doctrine (to the point I don't).

One thing that has to be mentioned is that "doctrine nobody has heard of before" is often an expression of ignorance.

On the BB a few members believed that Ransom Theory (after Den kristna försoningstanken was published it became popularly known as "Christus Victor" or the "classic view') was a new idea. But it is the most common theory throughout Christian history.

But antiquity does not make a position correct (while Penal Substitution Theory is newer than my position that does not make it wrong or mine right). A lot can be said for the development of theology over time

While Calvin based Penal Substitution Theory on ideas Aquinas developed in Summa Theologiae the criteria for acceptance should be Scripture, not the fact it was systematically developed. Often theories are refined over time (we cannot fault Calvin for this).




Do I have a biblical argument for the fact that John Calvin developed the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement as articulated today?

No. John Calvin was born long after the New Testament was written. Calvin was born on 1509 A.D. and was a reformer (like Martin Luther). The "Reformation" was a period where members of the Roman Catholic Church initially sought to reform (hence the term "Reformation") the Roman Catholic Church and then formed a split from the RCC. Later Beza systemized John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion.




Anyway, good question. Like you, many Christians are not familiar with many people (like John Calvin) who may be mentioned in these threads. We should probably do a better job at explaining exactly who we are writing when composing our posts.

We know how the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement was developed because Aquinas detailed his development of Substitution Theory (from Satisfaction Theory) in Summa Theologiae and John Calvin detailed his development of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. We actually have their writings explaining and defending their ideas (we do not have to guess how these theological developments occurred).



With John Calvin's theory some of the things that should be considered is whether Aquinas' moral philosophy was correct (as this is a foundation for Penal Substitution Theory). These are the kinds of things that several on this board (and more within theological disciplines) need to weigh with Scripture because many of those philosophies are a part of the Western mindset (and the Bible is not a Western product).

 

[JonC]

No, you're wrong and I think you actually know it.

Anybody who doubts it can simply read Calvin's own words explaining and defending his theology. They can also read Aquinas' Summa Theologiae. While I have copies of both, I believe these can also be read online.

That's the great thing about historic theology. We can not only read about the circumstances through which a theology was developed but we can also read about how they were developed.

Those interested in Christian history can read the original sources for themselves (it is not a mystery, or something we have to read in a second hand way).


That said, I completely understand that many are not interested in theology or the development of Christian doctrines. And that is fine.

I have known many who simply pick a sect or a set of teachers to follow with the mentality that it was good enough for those guys. I can't do that, but I don't hold it against those who can.