Calvinism : Questions

[Yeshua1]

Thats still talking of animal sacrifices.

Which all pointed towards the final ultimate sacrifice the lamb of God would do!

 

[Yeshua1]

Ones accepting penal substitution theory would depend on one's understanding of justification. It's complex but limited atonement is dependent on one's understanding of penal substitution...which is dependent on one's understanding of justification.

Did God that father intend the death of Jesus to provide potential salvation towards all, or to make definite atonement and salvation for some?

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree.

A few years ago my understanding of justification shifted from a Reformed view towards a position influenced at least in part through studying the writings of the early Church (and leaning towards an early Eastern Orthodox of the purpose of Christ's work).

What sparked the move was a realization that my understanding relied on a philosophy of justice that is not actually in Scripture (it may be correct, but it may not).

Calvinism and Penal Substitution Theory presupposes the same philosophy of justice and imposes it on God as divine justice. I think Calvinism has other philosophical problems, but at its foundation is this Theory. If the Theory is wrong Calvinism crashes.

So it is the basic philosophy of justice I find troubling as it is assumed.

The actual theology under the PST theology was derived form the OT sacrificial system and holding to a Covenant theology view in regards to scriptures, not from reading a law book!

 

[Yeshua1]

@robustheologian ,

I probably should add that by the standards of this board I would be a 5 point Calvinist (or what John Piper calls a 7 point as I also affirm double predestination and the best of all possible worlds).

I no longer consider myself a Calvinist because I do not hold a Reformed philosophy of justice so I cannot affirm Penal Substitution Theory.

It gets difficult for me to use labels because technically one could not be a Baptist and a Calvinist (using a historical definition) and we have all sorts of "calvinists" these days.

I guess I could be a Calvinist who rejects Penal Substitution Theory, although I have trouble grasping that being Calvinism.

The PST theology though is a central aspect of Calvinist theology, regardless if one is a Presbyterian or a Baptist reformed!

 

[Yeshua1]

Ransom is the way, we are redeemed by a ransom paid for our sins. But not paid to Satan that thinking is an error, it is paid to God, the Law of God which required the blood to be shed for the forgiveness of sin. God Himself bore our sins on the Tree, the Tree which He Himself required for our sins, that is such a great love manifested towards us. He required His own death of Himself for us to live towards God.
God the Son paid the ransom back to Himself God the Father. Satan had no part in this.
Otherwise, we would suffer the wrath of God for our sins which are many.
And Christ delivers us from the wrath of God to come.

Isaiah 35:10
And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, And come to Zion with singing, With everlasting joy on their heads. They shall obtain joy and gladness, And sorrow and sighing shall flee away.
Jeremiah 31:11
For the Lord has redeemed Jacob, And ransomed him from the hand of one stronger than he.
Hosea 13:14
“I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O Death, I will be your plagues! O Grave, I will be your destruction! Pity is hidden from My eyes.”
Matthew 20:28
just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
Mark 10:45
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (not all)
1 Timothy 2:6
who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, (not all who have ever lived)

Christ was give Himself a ransom for them who are saved, not that Christ ransomed all people, if so then all people would be redeemed..Christ bore the sins of many...Many are the great host of the redeemed who are named in the family of God in heaven and earth.

Isaiah 53
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.

11 He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.

Right there is Pst outlined in the scriptures themselves!

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree. I think if we restrict Calvinism to soteriology and to its conclusions (rather than how 16th century Calvinists arrived at those conclusions) then Calvinism can be divorced from Oenal Substitution Theory.

And to be fair, that is typically how we use "Calvinism" (to speak of predestination as it applies to salvation, not necessarily how one arrives the there but the actual conclusions held).

I also wonder about * point Calvinists. I believe the logical conclusion of Penal Substitution Theory is Calvinism and the "points" are interrelated to such a degree that one cannot reject a "point" without logical inconsistentcy. (I also believe double predestination necessary for consistency, but that may be my own approach).

All depends on how one define double Predestination, as Dr Sproul did, or a John Gill would?

 

[JonC]

All depends on how one define double Predestination, as Dr Sproul did, or a John Gill would?

I define "double predestination" as the doctrine that men are predestined to salvation while others are predestined to damnation.

 

[JonC]

Did God that father intend the death of Jesus to provide potential salvation towards all, or to make definite atonement and salvation for some?

Why the "or"?

 

[Yeshua1]

I define "double predestination" as the doctrine that men are predestined to salvation while others are predestined to damnation.

Predestined due to them being in Adam, or did God cause and force them directly to go to hell?

 

[Yeshua1]

Why the "or"?

Both cannot be in play at same time!

 

[Scott Downey]

Right there is Pst outlined in the scriptures themselves!

Yes, they are all there, these statements about the atonement.

 

[Barry Johnson]

Which all pointed towards the final ultimate sacrifice the lamb of God would do!

There sins were remitted by the blood of sacrifices but not yet redeemed until Jesus came and Died for everyone's sins . Not just our sins but the sins of the whole world.

 

[Yeshua1]

There sins were remitted by the blood of sacrifices but not yet redeemed until Jesus came and Died for everyone's sins . Not just our sins but the sins of the whole world.

So Jesus atoned for the sins of all lost sinners?

 

[Barry Johnson]

So Jesus atoned for the sins of all lost sinners?

Well he atoned for yours didn't he ? your not so special . He died for the ungodly. Who's not ungodly ?

 

[JonC]

Both cannot be in play at same time!

To keep on track, this is what you are saying cannot be in play at the same time:

"Did God that father intend the death of Jesus to provide potential salvation towards all, or to make definite atonement and salvation for some?"

And they can both be accurate. Even in the 17th century you had Calvinists insisting this exact same thing (it has been an ongoing debate within Calvinism for centuries).

God could intend that Christ's death provide potential salvation towards all AND to make definite atonement and salvation for some. This was Spurgeon's position, BTW.

 

[Barry Johnson]

To keep on track, this is what you are saying cannot be in play at the same time:

"Did God that father intend the death of Jesus to provide potential salvation towards all, or to make definite atonement and salvation for some?"

And they can both be accurate. Even in the 17th century you had Calvinists insisting this exact same thing (it has been an ongoing debate within Calvinism for centuries).

God could intend that Christ's death provide potential salvation towards all AND to make definite atonement and salvation for some. This was Spurgeon's position, BTW.

Or definite atonement for all . But limited glorification for those that recieve the atonement.

 

[Barry Johnson]

So Jesus atoned for the sins of all lost sinners?

Amen .

 

[Yeshua1]

To keep on track, this is what you are saying cannot be in play at the same time:

"Did God that father intend the death of Jesus to provide potential salvation towards all, or to make definite atonement and salvation for some?"

And they can both be accurate. Even in the 17th century you had Calvinists insisting this exact same thing (it has been an ongoing debate within Calvinism for centuries).

God could intend that Christ's death provide potential salvation towards all AND to make definite atonement and salvation for some. This was Spurgeon's position, BTW.

Sounds more like "4 point" Calvinism!

 

[Yeshua1]

Amen .

That would mean that lost sinners in final Judgement would have a legit gripe though!

 

[JonC]

Sounds more like "4 point" Calvinism!

It may, but it isn't.

The idea is that Christ died as a legitimate offer of salvation to all men but also in a particular way to save those who believe (the elect).