Continuation of Why Y'all Aint Calvinists thread

[JonC]

Would this be like in the areas of the Atonement and the Fall/Original Sin, be areas where you see us as following traditions of men and not the scriptures themselves?

More like holding dogmatic theories in those areas without the ability to engage primarily in Scripture to defend those positions. There are many people who hold to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement but are able to defend their views through Scripture and realize what part is their reasoning. @The_ did this when he explained why and how he interpreted the Old Testament sacrifices. While I believe he was wrong, he knows why he believes what he does. It would be like just saying “Jesus and the Apostles believed (fill in the blank)”.

When I speak of “biblical illiteracy”, this is what I am speaking of:

What is a big problem is that the truths of the Bible in regards to the Atonement views/Original Sin, and effects of the fall in regards to our sin natures are seen by some as holding to traditions of men over that of the scriptures. Problem is that the scriptures affirm all of those doctrines itself though!

Notice the above. No passages of Scripture. No explanation of the reasons certain interpretative measures were taken. Only an assumption the tradition is in the Bible.

As well as the long discussions regarding the fall and Original Sin, and human sin nature...

I’ll start another thread for those interested in the topic. Neither are so worthless an issue we should refrain from discussion (and people are free to join or leave it alone).

Except that those like a NT Wright, and his atonement views, are pretty much stating to us that everyone else has had it wrong period....

Same way those who oppose Original Sin, the fall and its effecting human nature are arguing against the vast majority of Conservative Christians of history!

Again, what is aggravating is not legitimate discussion but ignorance. What Wright, for example, challenged was tradition since the 16th century. Why do you believe that such things should automatically be considered above examination? Do you see how this is similar to the Catholic Church (with you being the Catholic and anyone who would dare challenge your tradition being the Reformer)? You appeal to history when it comes to the idea of inherited sin, yet you hold to Penal Substitution Theory. Are you able to see the irony?

 

[JonC]

Those denying the biblical doctrine of Limited Atonement have to ignore the historical meaning of the word and redefine the word to fit their semi-pelagianism.

Atonement. At-one-ment. The Atonement makes the recipient At One with God through the blood of Christ.

Those denying Limited Atonement have to ignore the historical/theological meaning of the term because if they don't it will destroy their unbiblical teaching of universal atonement.

If the Atonement is Universal, than ALL are At One with God. To be At One with God is to mean nothing separates you from God. If the Atonement is universal, then all, even, presumably Satan and his demons, are At One with God and this destined for heaven.

If, on the other hand, the Atonement is only applied to believers, then only believers are destined for heaven.

They can't have it both ways. At One Ment or At All Ment.

I believe @Yeshua1 is speaking of theories of atonement.

 

[thatbrian]

No. I don't. I think he focused too much on the historical circumstances surrounding first century Judaism. I think he was correct in suggesting we need to reevaluate our traditions insofar as the 16th century definitions and suppositions are often assumed. (He was correct that our view of the 1st century Judiasm sometimes looks an awful lot like the 16th century RCC)..

I would agree that Wright is kinda right, but I also thinks that he goes too far with it. His help is in getting to think more like 1st century Jews and understand how much our thinking has been shaped by the Reformation.

 

[Reformed]

I believe that the heart of man is wicked, that not one of us will seek after righteousness, which means that no one can come to the Son except the Father draw him. So Jesus died, then, to save those the Father draws (to save those who believe). Those God draws will come (God’s purposes will be accomplished), and those who believe will have everlasting life.

Ok. That is Calvinistic theology. You are describing both the effectual call and definite (limited) atonement. How is that different than what any other Calvinist believes?

 

[JonC]

Ok. That is Calvinistic theology. You are describing both the effectual call and definite (limited) atonement. How is that different than what any other Calvinist believes?

Maybe it isn't.

I believe that we are totally depraved, but in contrast to God's righteousness and not Adam's sin (I believe we inherit Adam's nature, i.e., we are human, but not his sin). I believe that God has chosen in Christ a people, and that we can look back and say that we are numbered among the elect. But more times than not I believe that Scripture uses the term "the Elect" corporately. In terms of limited atonement I do not believe that Christ suffered the wrath of God as punishment and a substitute for the elect and not the reprobate (I don't believe that the atonement works that way). I understand Calvinism to assume Calvin's theory of the atonement, which is something I do not hold.

 

[JonC]

That is an excuse and not a very good one. People are nasty because it is their heart to be that way and no other reason.

"Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself." (Leo Tolstoy)

 

[Yeshua1]

Maybe it isn't.

I believe that we are totally depraved, but in contrast to God's righteousness and not Adam's sin (I believe we inherit Adam's nature, i.e., we are human, but not his sin). I believe that God has chosen in Christ a people, and that we can look back and say that we are numbered among the elect. But more times than not I believe that Scripture uses the term "the Elect" corporately. In terms of limited atonement I do not believe that Christ suffered the wrath of God as punishment and a substitute for the elect and not the reprobate (I don't believe that the atonement works that way). I understand Calvinism to assume Calvin's theory of the atonement, which is something I do not hold.

How can we not be sinners though by nature, as we all have walked away from God, ignored God, are self willed, made up gods in our images etc?

 

[Reformed]

I believe that we are totally depraved, but in contrast to God's righteousness and not Adam's sin

How do you square your view with Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:22?

 

[Reformed]

But more times than not I believe that Scripture uses the term "the Elect" corporately.

There is certainly a corporate aspect of the Elect, especially if you are speaking about all those for whom Christ has or will redeem. They are numbered with the Elect. But the Elect is made up of individuals. God does not call the Elect as an entity and then fill that number with those who choose Him.

In terms of limited atonement I do not believe that Christ suffered the wrath of God as punishment and a substitute for the elect and not the reprobate

So, what you are saying is that you do not believe in penal substitution. Is that correct?

 

[JonC]

How do you square your view with Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:22?

I believe Adam was representative of all mankind.

 

[JonC]

There is certainly a corporate aspect of the Elect, especially if you are speaking about all those for whom Christ has or will redeem. They are numbered with the Elect. But the Elect is made up of individuals. God does not call the Elect as an entity and then fill that number with those who choose Him.

Absolutely. My argument for individual election for awhile has been that the Elect is made up of individuals.

So, what you are saying is that you do not believe in penal substitution. Is that correct?

I believe that there are obvious aspects of the Cross that imply both penal and substitution. But I don't believe the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is correct.

 

[JonC]

How can we not be sinners though by nature, as we all have walked away from God, ignored God, are self willed, made up gods in our images etc?

You've just answered your question. We sin by walking away from God, ignoring God, placing our will over God's, and making up gods in our image. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Scripture tells us of two types of nature - the "flesh" and the "spirit". The flesh in and of itself is not sin, but man's inclination to the flesh leads to sin (read James 1).

 

[Reformed]

I believe Adam was representative of all mankind.

I believe scripture teaches Adam was our fair and just representative. Adam was our federal head.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Revmitchell]

This is exactly what is wrong. The word "Monergist" has a very specific theological meaning, but you deny that meaning and redefine the word in a way in which it has never been used simply because you can't otherwise defend your semi-pelagianism.

This is where you are wrong. I have not defined it, Calvies made this word up. It never existed prior to that. If my view is semi-papagism then your view is neo-gnosticism.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The reason I am in the habit or using the term Monergist vs. Calvinist is because of the erroneous accusations by board drones that Calvinism is about following John Calvin. That canard has been thoroughly debunked but they keep using it all the same. Spurgeon considered Calvinism and the doctrines of grace as one-in-the-same, as do I. For that matter I consider Monergism to be nothing less than Calvinism. The Calvinists I know are people of the book, not disciples of a long dead French theologian and pastor.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

And you would think that you would never have to explain that, right!

 

[Reformed]

And you would think that you would never have to explain that, right!

No comment.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

regardless of what one might "know", it is useless without the aid of the Holy Spirit. But, then too we have to be open to the possibility, that what we have believed in for many years, might be completely wrong. Some cannot do this for reasons known to them.

The need to be right.

 

[Revmitchell]

Monergism - the theological doctrine that regeneration is exclusively the work of the Holy Spirit Definition of MONERGISM

the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration. the definition of monergism

noun, the Christian doctrine that the Holy Spirit alone is responsible for the spiritual regeneration of human beings Monergism definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Collins English Dictionary cites it's first use in 1889 (whereas it traces the word "synergism" to 1819).

synergism - the interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects.

synergism | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

monergism | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

Synergism is used in scripture but never in a soteriological context:

Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

1Co 16:16 That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth.

2Co 6:1 We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.

Jas 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

Scripture never defines these types of terms (i.e. synergism vs. Monergism) in soteriological contexts. In fact the only issue that is dealt with regarding works is to rely on the works of the law. "Works" is never placed in any other context in scripture. Therefore the false dichotomy calvies have created out of thin air is not supported by scripture in any way shape or form.

 

[JonC]

The need to be right.

For some of us, like me and those who agree with me, "right" is descriptive.

 

[JonC]

synergism | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

monergism | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

Looks like your dictionary is missing a word

Unless, of course, your claim is that Monergism is not a word (even though it is listed in the dictionary as a word). Is that what you are claiming?