Was John Calvin Orthodox in his Atonement view then?

[JesusFan]

The great Reformer held this in regards to the atonement wrought by Christ upon the Cross, and will affirm that this view is biblical, Reformed, and the majority view of all Baptists thru the centuries.

What say you all, as believe that we must see Calvin, not Luther, in this all important doctrine
“Moreover, it was especially necessary for this cause also that he who was to be our Redeemer should be truly God and man. It was his to swallow up death: who but Life could do so? It was his to conquer sin: who could do so save Righteousness itself? It was his to put to flight the powers of the air and the world: who could do so but the mighty power superior to both? But who possesses life and righteousness, and the dominion and government of heaven, but God alone? Therefore, God, in his infinite mercy, having determined to redeem us, became himself our Redeemer in the person of his only begotten Son…

Another principal part of our reconciliation with God was, that man, who had lost himself by his disobedience, should, by way of remedy, oppose to it obedience, satisfy the justice of God, and pay the penalty of sin. Therefore, our Lord came forth very man, adopted the person of Adam, and assumed his name, that he might in his stead obey the Father; that he might present our flesh as the price of satisfaction to the just judgment of God, and in the same flesh pay the penalty which we had incurred. Finally, since as God only he could not suffer, and as man only could not overcome death, he united the human nature with the divine, that he might subject the weakness of the one to death as an expiation of sin, and by the power of the other, maintaining a struggle with death, might gain us the victory. Those, therefore, who rob Christ of divinity or humanity either detract from his majesty and glory, or obscure his goodness. On the other hand, they are no less injurious to men, undermining and subverting their faith, which, unless it rest on this foundation, cannot stand.”

– John Calvin (1509-1564), Institutes of the Christian Religion, II.xii.2-3

Disagree with his take on infant baptism and the Sacraments, but on this issue full agreement

 

[Marooncat79]

Yea. Very

 

[JonC]

All of the Atonement theories within orthodox Christianity are orthodox. Orthodox does not mean correct or even biblical.

I don't like using "the Great Reformer" as it hints at veneration (as if Calvin rather than Luther should be the new vicar of God).

Was Calvin right or was Luther right about the Atonement?

I suspect both were right in places and both were wrong in places. These were men and subject to human limitations.

I believe we should test their doctrines against "what is written", eat the meat and spit out the bones.


Luther maintained the tradition he had been brought up in to a large extent. He never wrote extensively on how the Atonement worked but instead focused on reforming what he observed as errors in the Roman Catholic Church. This focused heavily on justification but did reach out to other areas (naturally).

So Luther maintained that Jesus bore the sum of human sins as our Substitute and recieved the punishment of Satan to free us from the bonage of sin and death. Satan crushed Jesus but this was not a fatal blow. God vindicated Jesus, raised Him to the right hand of God, and He became a life giving Spirit.

Calvin was a student of humanistic judicial philosophy. He wrote extensively on Stoic philosophy prior to his conversion. Having this background he saw the Roman Catholic and initial Reformed position lacking in that it failed to address what he believed justice, and therefore divine justice, required.

His theory is very similar in language to Luther's, but where Luther focused on transformation Calvin shifted to punishment.

Calvin maintained that Jesus bore the sins of the elect, that God punished those sins laid on Christ in order to satisfy the demands of justice and forgive those sins.

Both methods satisfy the issue of a just God justifying wicked people but they do so differently.

I believe neither theory passes the test of Scripture, but if I were to pick one it'd be Luther's.


That said, all of the Atonement theories are orthodox.

 

[Jerome]

The great Reformer...

Oh brother.

 

[JesusFan]

All of the Atonement theories within orthodox Christianity are orthodox. Orthodox does not mean correct or even biblical.

I don't like using "the Great Reformer" as it hints at veneration (as if Calvin rather than Luther should be the new vicar of God).

Was Calvin right or was Luther right about the Atonement?

I suspect both were right in places and both were wrong in places. These were men and subject to human limitations.

I believe we should test their doctrines against "what is written", eat the meat and spit out the bones.


Luther maintained the tradition he had been brought up in to a large extent. He never wrote extensively on how the Atonement worked but instead focused on reforming what he observed as errors in the Roman Catholic Church. This focused heavily on justification but did reach out to other areas (naturally).

So Luther maintained that Jesus bore the sum of human sins as our Substitute and recieved the punishment of Satan to free us from the bonage of sin and death. Satan crushed Jesus but this was not a fatal blow. God vindicated Jesus, raised Him to the right hand of God, and He became a life giving Spirit.

Calvin was a student of humanistic judicial philosophy. He wrote extensively on Stoic philosophy prior to his conversion. Having this background he saw the Roman Catholic and initial Reformed position lacking in that it failed to address what he believed justice, and therefore divine justice, required.

His theory is very similar in language to Luther's, but where Luther focused on transformation Calvin shifted to punishment.

Calvin maintained that Jesus bore the sins of the elect, that God punished those sins laid on Christ in order to satisfy the demands of justice and forgive those sins.

Both methods satisfy the issue of a just God justifying wicked people but they do so differently.

I believe neither theory passes the test of Scripture, but if I were to pick one it'd be Luther's.


That said, all of the Atonement theories are orthodox.

Yea. Very

Calvin was not an inspired apostle, not infallible in his views on theology, but on this specific topic, was biblically spot on

 

[JonC]

Calvin ... but on this specific topic, was biblically spot on

No, not biblically. Even if Calvin was correct his position here is not biblical.

Being correct and being biblical are not always the same thing.

Biblical is always correct but correct may be biblical.

I am correct to say my bedroom contains a bed. That is not biblical.

Do you see the difference?

Calvin's theory is not in the Bible. It is not biblical.

That in itself does not mean Calvin's theory is wrong.

To determine this you'd have to compare what is in the Bible (without imposing Calvin's theory) to what Calvin taught and evaluate the differences for contradictions.

If there are no contradictions then Calvin's theory, while not biblical,has a possibility of being right.

If there are contradictions Calvin's theory is unbiblical and wrong

 

[JesusFan]

No, not biblically. Even if Calvin was correct his position here is not biblical.

Being correct and being biblical are not always the same thing.

Biblical is always correct but correct may be biblical.

I am correct to say my bedroom contains a bed. That is not biblical.

Do you see the difference?

Calvin's theory is not in the Bible. It is not biblical.

That in itself does not mean Calvin's theory is wrong.

To determine this you'd have to compare what is in the Bible (without imposing Calvin's theory) to what Calvin taught and evaluate the differences for contradictions.

If there are no contradictions then Calvin's theory, while not biblical,has a possibility of being right.

If there are contradictions Calvin's theory is unbiblical and wrong

Just in this area of theology, the Atonement of the Cross of Christ, He was spot on

 

[JonC]

Just in this area of theology, the Atonement of the Cross of Christ, He was spot on

He developed a very logical position based on his judicial philosophy.

If you look at Penal Substitution Theory you will see how each following step is necessary until you end up with a solid "five point" Calvinism position.

This is why the debate has continued since Calvin developed that theory.

The only logical conclusion of Penal Substitution Theory IS 5 point Calvinism.

It is a pretty cool philosophy. But it is not biblical.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Another principal part of our reconciliation with God was, that man, who had lost himself by his disobedience, should, by way of remedy, oppose to it obedience, satisfy the justice of God, and pay the penalty of sin.

Spurgeon had some quick thoughts on The Atonement and even Calvin (brace yourself).
http://sovereigngrace.ddns.net:81/die2.html
For Whom Did Christ Die?
by C. H. Spurgeon

---

"Now, you are aware that there are different theories of Redemption.

"All Christians hold that Christ died to redeem, but all Christians do not teach the same redemption. We differ as to the nature of Atonement, and as to the design of redemption.

"For instance, the Arminian holds that Christ, when He died, did not die with an intent to save any particular person; and they teach that Christ's death does not in itself secure, beyond doubt, the salvation of any one man living.

"They believe that Christ died to make the salvation of all men possible, or that by the doing of something else, any man who pleases may attain unto eternal life; consequently, they are obliged to hold that if man's will would not give way and voluntarily surrender to grace, then Christ's Atonement would be unavailing.

"They hold that there was no particularity and speciality in the death of Christ. Christ died, according to them, as much for Judas in Hell as for Peter who mounted to Heaven. They believe that for those who are consigned to Eternal fire, there was as true and real a redemption made as for those who now stand before the throne of the Most High.

"Now, we believe no such thing. We hold that Christ, when He died, had an object in view, and that object will most assuredly, and beyond a doubt, be Accomplished.

"We measure the design of Christ's death by the effect of it.

"If any one asks us, "What did Christ design to do by His death?" we answer that question by asking him another--"What has Christ done, or what will Christ do by His death?" For we declare that the measure of the effect of Christ's love, is the measure of the design of it. We cannot so belie our reason as to think that the intention of Almighty God could be frustrated, or that the design of so great a thing as the Atonement, can by any way whatever, be missed of.

"We hold--we are not afraid to say that we believe--that Christ came into this world with the intention of saving "a multitude which no man can number;" and we believe that as the result of this, every person for whom He died must, beyond the shadow of a doubt, be Cleansed from sin, and Stand, Washed in Blood, before the Father's Throne.

"The Greatness of Christ's Redemption
may be measured by the EXTENT OF THE DESIGN OF IT.

"He gave His life "a ransom for many." I must now return to that controverted point again. We are often told (I mean those of us who are commonly nicknamed by the title of Calvinists--and we are not very much ashamed of that; we think that Calvin, after all, knew more about the Gospel than almost any man who has ever lived, uninspired), we are often told that we limit the Atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a Satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved.

"Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, "No, certainly not."

"We ask them the next question--Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer "No." They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, "No; Christ has died that any man may be saved if"--and then follow certain conditions of salvation.

"We say, then, we will go back to the old statement--Christ did not die so as beyond a doubt to secure the salvation of anybody, did He? You must say "No;" you are obliged to say so, for you believe that even after a man has been pardoned, he may yet fall from grace, and perish.

"Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you.

"You say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ's death; we say, "No, my dear sir, it is you that do it." We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved.

"You are welcome to your 'atonement'; you may keep it.

"We will never renounce ours for the sake of it."

We, would be, me.