Would not many , even among so called Calvinists, get hung up on limited vrs unlimited atonement?
-
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!
Calvinism : Questions
- Thread starter LaGrange
- Start date
- Status
Limited atonement is Calvinism pushed to it's logical conclusion.
I would add....Limited Atonement is Penal Substitution Theory pushed to its logical conclusion.
I definitely would say that too. However, I chose not to because, surprisingly, there are "Calvinists" who don't necessarily hold to penal substitution.
Which is why its biblical and consistent!
Very few Calvinists as in particular Baptists and Reformed would not though!
I have seen a reformed movement to move closer to a "biblical understand" of the atonement by either reforming or moving away from Penal Substitution Theory.
I just cannot see that as anything but moving from Calvism as Calvin was completely dependent on the theory.
I guess the conclusion (or many of the conclusions) would be same although for different reasons.
I was a Calvinist for a long time. The reason I left was I ended up rejecting Calvinistic presuppositions (I thought the topic too important to be founded on assumption). But I can actually affirm TULIP (largely along the philosophy of Jonathan Edwards). At a minimum, if God is omniscient the everything is predestined and also decreed in the act of creation.
That does depend on "omniscience" being defined as knowing everything, including contingencies (as opposed to knowing what can be known).
That said, I do believe Calvinism to be a serious error and corruption of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The reason is I believe Calvin's presuppositions to be flawed and unproven.
Uh....no. Of the theories of Atonement Penal Substitution Theory is relatively new.
It could be true, but it is not proven by the Biblical text.
It is supported by the scriptures!
True.
Most scholars would admit that Calvin isn't Calvinism though. I'm Calvinistic (I hate the term though for a myriad of reasons) in my soteriology largely due to philosophical reasoning which I secondarily found backed by scripture.
I am confused how you can affirm TULIP (hate that reductionism too) but reject Calvinism.
Yeah, while I do agree it is a relatively new doctrine, it became doctrine because of it's scriptural support.
Exactly
This is good. I you asked a question that actually required me to go to a computer rather than use my pone to respond.
At a very basic level predestination can be rooted in divine omniscience. If God knows what will occur then everything is predestined to occur as God knows it will. If God, knowing what will occur, engages in the act of Creation then God has ordained everything to occur in that manner by the very act of creation.
If I know for certain that I will eat a ham sandwich if I go to the ham sandwich shop, then my eating of the ham sandwich was predetermined by my going to the ham sandwich shop.
So I believe that everything is predestined and even decreed, based on an omniscient Creator. This leads me to most of the conclusions that is held by Calvinists. God unconditionally chose who would be saved and who would be damned based on (at a minimum) omniscience and decreed by the act of creating. Christ died to save those who would be saved and to (ultimately) condemn those who would not be saved. What God has known would happen will happen. That would at least get me to four point Calvinism. I believe that there is nothing in us, apart form the work of the Spirit, that will lead us to salvation.
But I arrive at those conclusions without the judicial philosophy of Calvinism. I still use, of course, philosophy. But it is different and I do not pretend it is written in the text of Scripture. I simply believe that Creator God is omniscient. The rest falls into place (except for depravity, which is derived from Scripture).
BINGO!!! That's me...I'm more a Calvinist because of my philosophical understanding of determinism (as you outlined). But I have found that such a philosophical understanding changes your lens in which scripture that didn't seem point to a Calvinistic viewpoint suddenly do.This is good. I you asked a question that actually required me to go to a computer rather than use my pone to respond.
At a very basic level predestination can be rooted in divine omniscience. If God knows what will occur then everything is predestined to occur as God knows it will. If God, knowing what will occur, engages in the act of Creation then God has ordained everything to occur in that manner by the very act of creation.
If I know for certain that I will eat a ham sandwich if I go to the ham sandwich shop, then my eating of the ham sandwich was predetermined by my going to the ham sandwich shop.
So I believe that everything is predestined and even decreed, based on an omniscient Creator. This leads me to most of the conclusions that is held by Calvinists. God unconditionally chose who would be saved and who would be damned based on (at a minimum) omniscience and decreed by the act of creating. Christ died to save those who would be saved and to (ultimately) condemn those who would not be saved. What God has known would happen will happen. That would at least get me to four-point Calvinism. I believe that there is nothing in us, apart form the work of the Spirit, that will lead us to salvation.
But I arrive at those conclusions without the judicial philosophy of Calvinism. I still use, of course, philosophy. But it is different and I do not pretend it is written in the text of Scripture. I simply believe that Creator God is omniscient. The rest falls into place (except for depravity, which is derived from Scripture).
Most of those against Penal Substitution seem to equate with a form of Cosmic child abuse, as God "forced" Jesus to die, even though they say did not deserve to!
That and they fail to understand the necessity of penal substitution.
The soul that sins must die, can't be any clearer then that!
In addition to Hebrews 9:22 - Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
The problem is that this is way beyond our minds to really grasp, as how could God as a sinless Man become sin for us, and yet never Himself sin nor become a sinner?
I do not think so. The "cosmic child abuse" argument is too rudimentary wrong an argument to be taken seriously.
And that from someone who affirms penal and substitutionary aspects of Christ's work while rejecting the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.
How does one do that though, as of Jesus death was penal and a substitution for our sakes, why was it not PST then?I do not think so. The "cosmic child abuse" argument is too rudimentary wrong an argument to be taken seriously.
And that from someone who affirms penal and substitutionary aspects of Christ's work while rejecting the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.
37818
Well-Known Member
Well, should you change your mind and choose to stick around. There is the individual ignore option. The Trolls can be ingnord.
- Status