Christ's Death

[JonC]

Again, for the 3rd and last time dear brother, he became a serpent and a worm on the cross once he became the physical embodiment of sin. That (serpent, worm) illustrates what Paul meant by "sin".

So you believe "sin" is a metaphor for a symbol for something tangible in an intangible world?

I was offering literal definitions of the word.

 

[DaveXR650]

The offer of salvation in Calvinism cannot be a well meant offer for all as it has exclusions built into it.

No. The offer is real. And I think the Calvinistic descriptions of how this works is far better than what I see from the free will side. It does not appear to me that after Christ accomplished redemption on the cross that God said "Now look. I have provided all the tools you need for salvation and you're going to have to use them or be lost." It does not appear to be a matter of God votes for you, Satan votes against you and you cast the deciding vote, either. If you can get away from the TULIP for a moment, which is not what Calvinism is all about, what you have is an unfolding plan where the gospel is preached, some come and are saved and an allowance is made for the fact that God was in charge and knew what He was doing all the while. Even in your example above of Jeremiah 29:13 notice in context what you have is a prediction where God is completely in control. Look at verse 12. God is not having to wait and hope that they might make wise use of their time in captivity. He knows exactly what they are going to do and exactly when.

Your last comment raised a question, what part of Calvinism makes a good faith offer and which does not do so in your view?

Jonathan Edwards specifically preached that way. Surprisingly so did Owen. In fact we had an argument on here a few months back where I pointed out that every one of the Puritan preachers used the "Behold I stand at the door and knock" as an invitation even though most modern Calvinists criticize that. I have a sermon from George Whitfield where he tells people to go home and pray a prayer that basically asks Jesus into your heart. Then you have Spurgeon, Andrew Fuller, the group called the Marrow Men. Most recently I have been reading a guy named Sam Waldron, who has a book out called "The Crux of the Free Offer of the Gospel". I admit that logically some of the tenets of Calvinism are hard to reconcile. But I maintain they are no worse than other systems. You don't really have to go there to be a Christian but if you do it is not easy to reconcile the various scriptures along with our human point of view - in that we are stuck in time, cannot see the future, and the past is only a fading memory. Plus we have a hard time knowing ourselves, understanding why we do what we do and so, all in all, I find what we call Calvinism to answer these things better than the other systems. Mainly, I like the preaching of what we call Calvinists better than the preaching of most of the non-Calvinists that I have heard so far.

 

[George Antonios]

So you believe "sin" is a metaphor for a symbol?

I was offering literal definitions of the word.

Sin is not a metaphor. I have a dozen times said "literal" and "thing" and "tangible".

 

[JonC]

Sin is not a metaphor. I have a dozen times said "literal" and "thing" and "tangible".

By your use sin has to be a metaphor because "sin" by definition is not a tangible thing.

You can't have it both ways. IF you use "sin" literally the definitions are provided in the OP. BUT no definition of "sin" is a tangible thing.

 

[JonC]

Sin is not a metaphor. I have a dozen times said "literal" and "thing" and "tangible".

Sin is not a tangible thing. It is a non-corporeal "thing" (it is an act).

You are taking "sin" as a metaphor (not a literal definition) for a philosophical understanding (metaphysics is a philosophy).

But you do highlight a problem in today's theology. Many "spiritualize" what was at one time taken literally.

 

[George Antonios]

If the Bible says sin is a thing that can be bagged, then sin is a thing. The end.

 

[JonC]

If the Bible says sin is a thing that can be bagged, then sin is a thing. The end.

Scripture does not say that sin is a thing.

But I understand you believe sin and bags are literal and tangible things in the "spirit world".

But then again, you must believe that God rests His feet on the Earth, the Earth is square, and Israel literally spread her legs for pagan nations.

 

[Silverhair]

No. The offer is real. And I think the Calvinistic descriptions of how this works is far better than what I see from the free will side. It does not appear to me that after Christ accomplished redemption on the cross that God said "Now look. I have provided all the tools you need for salvation and you're going to have to use them or be lost." It does not appear to be a matter of God votes for you, Satan votes against you and you cast the deciding vote, either. If you can get away from the TULIP for a moment, which is not what Calvinism is all about, what you have is an unfolding plan where the gospel is preached, some come and are saved and an allowance is made for the fact that God was in charge and knew what He was doing all the while. Even in your example above of Jeremiah 29:13 notice in context what you have is a prediction where God is completely in control. Look at verse 12. God is not having to wait and hope that they might make wise use of their time in captivity. He knows exactly what they are going to do and exactly when.



Jonathan Edwards specifically preached that way. Surprisingly so did Owen. In fact we had an argument on here a few months back where I pointed out that every one of the Puritan preachers used the "Behold I stand at the door and knock" as an invitation even though most modern Calvinists criticize that. I have a sermon from George Whitfield where he tells people to go home and pray a prayer that basically asks Jesus into your heart. Then you have Spurgeon, Andrew Fuller, the group called the Marrow Men. Most recently I have been reading a guy named Sam Waldron, who has a book out called "The Crux of the Free Offer of the Gospel". I admit that logically some of the tenets of Calvinism are hard to reconcile. But I maintain they are no worse than other systems. You don't really have to go there to be a Christian but if you do it is not easy to reconcile the various scriptures along with our human point of view - in that we are stuck in time, cannot see the future, and the past is only a fading memory. Plus we have a hard time knowing ourselves, understanding why we do what we do and so, all in all, I find what we call Calvinism to answer these things better than the other systems. Mainly, I like the preaching of what we call Calvinists better than the preaching of most of the non-Calvinists that I have heard so far.

Dave I am not questioning whether God knows what will happen but rather that from the Calvinist view He controls all that happens but then you balk at the obvious reality that if that view were in fact true then God is the one that controls all the sin man does also.
Your right it is not a matter of a vote, it is a matter of man making real choices based on the information that he has. As Jeremiah shows it is still the man that has to do the seeking of God, God does not do it for them. What we see in Jeremiah is the same thing that Israel did a number of times, they would turn away from God and He would punish them and they would turn back to Him.

It is not a matter of getting away from the TULIP it is a matter of the Calvinist Soteriology. Do you deny what the TULIP stands for? Are non-calvinist wrong to say this is what your theology teaches? I have heard a number of Calvinist preachers make a good faith offer but when they do it is just to avoid the realities of your theology. Even that offer has to be qualified, they can't say, in all honesty, that God loves them and wants to save them. How many times have I seen it and heard it said that you can't say that as you do not know if God had chosen them. Remember it is your theology that says God only picked out a few to be saved and condemned the rest to hell with no chance of salvation. And all this was done before they were even born. So much for the love of God and His desire that all come to salvation under calvinism.

Calvinism has to deny way to many scriptures. I do not care what label one wants to put on a theological view, if it does not conform to the bible then it is wrong.

 

[DaveXR650]

I have heard a number of Calvinist preachers make a good faith offer but when they do it is just to avoid the realities of your theology

That's just the point I was making. You have heard that and you will continue to hear that because it is part of a good portion of Calvinist theology. You do not have the right to declare why every Calvinist who makes a good faith offer does so as you tried to do above.

By the way. From earlier:

@DaveXR650 you have man placing their faith in Christ on the cross rather than the risen Christ. We are not saved by His death but rather by His life.

You may have just been stating something from a verse and I didn't notice it at the time but if you really meant the above as a theological statement you are wrong. Your faith, for salvation, is in the work of Christ on the cross. You are not saved by his life. To be clear, as far as your justification is concerned I do have man placing his faith in Christ on the cross and not the risen Christ. Normally, as a general statement I wouldn't think about the difference but on this thread, with everyone so confused, it might mean something that you stated that. Did it?

 

[Silverhair]

That's just the point I was making. You have heard that and you will continue to hear that because it is part of a good portion of Calvinist theology. You do not have the right to declare why every Calvinist who makes a good faith offer does so as you tried to do above.

Logically if they are making a proper good faith offer then they are not presenting the truth of Calvinism are they. There is not way to bring into alignment the Calvinist TULIP and a good faith offer of salvation for all men. So for the true Calvinist to present the good faith offer as what they actually believe is disingenuous. They are just misleading those that hear them.

By the way. From earlier:

You may have just been stating something from a verse and I didn't notice it at the time but if you really meant the above as a theological statement you are wrong. Your faith, for salvation, is in the work of Christ on the cross. You are not saved by his life. To be clear, as far as your justification is concerned I do have man placing his faith in Christ on the cross and not the risen Christ. Normally, as a general statement I wouldn't think about the difference but on this thread, with everyone so confused, it might mean something that you stated that. Did it?

I have to conclude that you are referring to Rom 5:10 by your comment.

Rom_5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

The death of Christ Jesus redeemed all mankind and reconciled us to God. Christ was the propitiation for the sins of the world 1 John 2:2 not just for a few select individuals as Calvinism posits. So while the death of Christ redeemed mankind it is His life that allows for our salvation. As the Holy Spirit says in 1 Corinthians 15:17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
When a person places their trust in the risen Christ Jesus then they are saved and not before.

"The pardon of sin was connected with the belief of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and, if he was not raised, they were still in a state of sin. Your sins are yet unpardoned. They can be forgiven only by faith in him, and by the efficacy of his blood. But if he was not raised, he was an impostor; and, of course, all your hopes of pardon by him, and through him, must be vain." Barnes

 

[5 point Gillinist]

The wages of sin is death … so the “debt” for our sins was not paid until either WE or the LAMB died.

Hebrews 9:22 [NKJV] And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

The shedding of blood is a euphemism for the sacrificial death. A little blood letting from a living animal would not suffice. No wounding the lamb and binding its wounds.

Exactly. It's not really that difficult to understand.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Historic Christianity holds that our redemption was accomplished through Christ's physical death on the Cross. Christ suffered under the curse, but the culmination of this suffering was death - the "sinless One" becoming a curse and experiencing the wages of sin on our behalf by dying physically on the Cross.

Theologies of a Calvinistic trajectory, however, view our redemption as as being accomplished through the Father's punishment of sin (NOT through the Son's death on the Cross).

It's very popular for people who deny Penal Substitution to appeal to the early church fathers, but that is in fact a false claim.

Here is an example: Penal Substitution as a Theory of Atonement in the Early Church Fathers

 

[JonC]

It's very popular for people who deny Penal Substitution to appeal to the early church fathers, but that is in fact a false claim.

Here is an example: Penal Substitution as a Theory of Atonement in the Early Church Fathers

Two problems:

1. I don't appeal to the ECFs (although I do reference them as evidence)

2. There is no evidence of Penal Substitution in those early writings except what Pebal Substitution mytholologians read into it (just as they do with Scripture).

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement uses a lot of Scripture and it has becomes popular for them to appeal to the ECFs (60 years ago they didn't and instead considered theology as a process).

But there are, of you actually read the ECFs writings in whole, too many places that contradict the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

But this is an old discussion. Martin Marprelate tried his hand at this, providing snippets of ECFs writings. I (and others) provided the whole for context.

Reference those threads.

 

[DaveXR650]

When a person places their trust in the risen Christ Jesus then they are saved and not before.

"The pardon of sin was connected with the belief of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and, if he was not raised, they were still in a state of sin. Your sins are yet unpardoned. They can be forgiven only by faith in him, and by the efficacy of his blood. But if he was not raised, he was an impostor; and, of course, all your hopes of pardon by him, and through him, must be vain." Barnes

OK. I'm with you there. I had been reading that there are some who, when they say they put their faith in a risen Christ, they mean that they are discounting the cross as the essential core of Christ's work that saves you and are thus laying the groundwork for a developing theology that can compromise on the need for Christ to have gone to the cross. You are obviously not doing that. That was my concern. I sometimes don't think we spend enough time on teaching about our union with Christ and our being "in Christ".

 

[DaveXR650]

Two problems:

1. I don't appeal to the ECFs (although I do reference them as evidence)

2. There is no evidence of Penal Substitution in those early writings except what Pebal Substitution mytholologians read into it (just as they do with Scripture).

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement uses a lot of Scripture and it has becomes popular for them to appeal to the ECFs (60 years ago they didn't and instead considered theology as a process).

But there are, of you actually read the ECFs writings in whole, too many places that contradict the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

But this is an old discussion. Martin Marprelate tried his hand at this, providing snippets of ECFs writings. I (and others) provided the whole for context.

I just think you are all over the place on this and are not able to articulate a "theory" of the atonement you do hold to. Look at your earlier posts on this thread:

Historic Christianity holds that our redemption was accomplished through Christ's physical death on the Cross. Christ suffered under the curse, but the culmination of this suffering was death - the "sinless One" becoming a curse and experiencing the wages of sin on our behalf by dying physically on the Cross.

Theologies of a Calvinistic trajectory, however, view our redemption as as being accomplished through the Father's punishment of sin (NOT through the Son's death on the Cross).

You start out with a satisfaction type of atonement, then make a claim of where Calvinism goes that could not be supported. The only thing penal substitution does that you didn't explain above is go ahead and take the scripture regarding sacrifices in great detain in Leviticus, Hebrews, and the propitiation in Romans and apply it. Somehow that is an adding in of scripture which you say was not found in the early church yet, the early church did have ceremonies where you "eat his flesh and drink his blood" in a symbolic or spiritual sense but I guess that doesn't count.

Do you have a problem with the shedding of blood as being a necessary part of our redemption? If not. Then what exactly did it mean for Christ to shed his blood in your view. You put up the 1-8 points early in the thread and suggested that Calvinistic theology might be able to leave out no. 8. Could the shedding of blood be left out in your view?

 

[JonC]

I just think you are all over the place on this and are not able to articulate a "theory" of the atonement you do hold to. Look at your earlier posts on this thread:



You start out with a satisfaction type of atonement, then make a claim of where Calvinism goes that could not be supported. The only thing penal substitution does that you didn't explain above is go ahead and take the scripture regarding sacrifices in great detain in Leviticus, Hebrews, and the propitiation in Romans and apply it. Somehow that is an adding in of scripture which you say was not found in the early church yet, the early church did have ceremonies where you "eat his flesh and drink his blood" in a symbolic or spiritual sense but I guess that doesn't count.

Do you have a problem with the shedding of blood as being a necessary part of our redemption? If not. Then what exactly did it mean for Christ to shed his blood in your view. You put up the 1-8 points early in the thread and suggested that Calvinistic theology might be able to leave out no. 8. Could the shedding of blood be left out in your view?

I have not been arguing for any position. I have been asking questions of those who hold another view.

What you have done is to turn my observations and questions into a belief system and ascribed it to me.

Could the shedding of blood have been left out in my view? Absolutely not. The term "shedding of blood" means "killing". In my view Christ's death is the price paid (rather than God punishing Christ before He died).

My "theory" is that Christ died for our sins.

I do not believe God punished Christ instead of punishing us, that God separated from Christ, and when this was done Christ proclaimed that our redemption was accomplished then He committed His Spirit into the hands of the Father and died.

 

[George Antonios]

Scripture does not say that sin is a thing.

But I understand you believe sin and bags are literal and tangible things in the "spirit world".

But then again, you must believe that God rests His feet on the Earth, the Earth is square, and Israel literally spread her legs for pagan nations.

Just because I believe the Bible that there is a literal manifestation of things in the spiritual world does not mean I don't acknowledge figures of speech in the Bible. And yes, I would not be surprised one bit if, given enough zooming out, and given eyes to behold the spiritual world, we end up seeing God's feet resting on the earth.

John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

 

[DaveXR650]

In my view Christ's death is the price paid (rather than God punishing Christ before He died).

So. You don't have anything against penal substitution or satisfaction views of the atonement because they do not claim that the atonement is about God punishing Christ before He died. The atonement I guess should be taken as a whole and our iniquities were laid on Him so I would say there is an aspect of punishment that Christ suffered because of our sin. You don't have a problem with that then, as long as it is explained that the shed blood and the actual death in that particular way was essential?

If you don't agree with that are you saying that the punishment that Christ took was not needed, or the result of men's actions, or if something else then what? Do you see at least how theologians who deduced that the way Christ died was foretold, and part of a plan that the Father was involved in - that it had to occur that way. That we are not free to speculate on whether different methods would have been sufficient? Do you understand how such talk would make Christians nervous?

A Victorious Christ theory, or Christ as an example, or Christ in the manner he was slain, using that to induce us to understand his love, while all good would leave huge chunks of scripture unexplained and not covered. Same with the governmental theories or the idea that God could now be just and still justify sinners.

 

[JonC]

Just because I believe the Bible that there is a literal manifestation of things in the spiritual world does not mean I don't acknowledge figures of speech in the Bible. And yes, I would not be surprised one bit if, given enough zooming out, and given eyes to behold the spiritual world, we end up seeing God's feet resting on the earth.

John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

The issue is that the Bible does not say our sin is literally manifested in the spirit world as tangible things. That is more Greek paganism than Christian.

 

[JonC]

So. You don't have anything against penal substitution or satisfaction views of the atonement because they do not claim that the atonement is about God punishing Christ before He died. The atonement I guess should be taken as a whole and our iniquities were laid on Him so I would say there is an aspect of punishment that Christ suffered because of our sin. You don't have a problem with that then, as long as it is explained that the shed blood and the actual death in that particular way was essential?

If you don't agree with that are you saying that the punishment that Christ took was not needed, or the result of men's actions, or if something else then what? Do you see at least how theologians who deduced that the way Christ died was foretold, and part of a plan that the Father was involved in - that it had to occur that way. That we are not free to speculate on whether different methods would have been sufficient? Do you understand how such talk would make Christians nervous?

A Victorious Christ theory, or Christ as an example, or Christ in the manner he was slain, using that to induce us to understand his love, while all good would leave huge chunks of scripture unexplained and not covered. Same with the governmental theories or the idea that God could now be just and still justify sinners.

Oh, you misunderstood me.

I don't have anything against the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, but I do believe it is a false doctrine absent from Scripture.

Do I believe God punished Jesus instead of punishing us? No, of course not. I believe the Bible.

But at one time I did believe that. I even thought it was in the Bible. But turns out I was wrong.

I am a "biblicist" when it comes to doctrine (particularly essential doctrine or doctrine upon which other doctrines are built). So if it is not actually in "what is written" (and the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is not) then I side with Scripture.