Do You Agree with Calvin or Wright On the Nature of the Atonement?

I read the first 8 points and with a few exceptions agree with those views.
In point 5 where it say mankind "inherited" a sinful nature, I say mankind was corrupted, and therefore, our nature is sinful. We are conceived in iniquity, and therefore in a sinful separated from God, spiritually dead state.

But point 6 deviates from scripture quite a bit. Our faith provides our access to the grace in which we stand, Romans 5:1-2. When we receive the gospel, and put our whole-hearted faith in Christ, as determined by God, then God alone saves us. So we do not receive salvation by our faith, God makes the call. Salvation does not depend on the person who wills to be saved, Romans 9:16.

Christ died as a ransom for all, becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world. Everyone God transfers into Christ undergoes the circumcision of Christ, removing their sin burden, and are made alive together with Christ, their biblical "at one ment."

 

Again you can offer no Scriptures to sustain this thinking. I haven’t found any.

But looking for just the verification of the theory being viable discloses some sever problems.

If anyone takes or assumes the debt of anyone, the one taking on the debt is responsible for payment. It is not merely excused without satisfactory remuneration.

With that thinking, consider the debt of sin?

Was it not sufficient for eternital punishment?

Therefore it required eternal payment. Hence the demand for some to suggest Christ did eternity in three days.

However, even then the debt would not be satisfied, for the debt REMAINS in eternity.

So remuneration from some grand bank account had to make payment. Which would then be shown as a debt on that account, and on it goes.

Do you not see how the theory is frail?

 

Do not confuse two issues; the suffering messiah and becoming sin for us.

These are not the same although occurring at the same event and involving the same person.

The suffering was marks of identification that last for eternity.

Paul reflects that his own suffering could be considered identification marks.

The “becoming sin for us” is as that little innocent lamb’s blood that was sprinkled upon the mercy seat.

Was that little lamb in any manner tortured,or was the little lamb’s bones moved out of joint?

Or was that little lamb, pierced that the blood would flow?

 

Paul focused on a few essentials that he seemed to broaden as he would address various issues.

Those would include, the presentation of the gospel as the work of salvation through Christ, the preaching of reconciliation, and of course living consistently as a believer. There are others,too.

However, if there is an element of Paul’s view as far as forensic justification that come through as the strongest, (imo) it is found in this passage:

3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 9For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
​

Now, what does THE SCRIPTURE state of the death of Christ.

1) That He was singled out as different from all other transgressors by the treatment and marks.

Note: These also were the Prophetic “signs” that validated the true messiah from all other pretenders. Significant signs are given for the return to again show the true messiah as distinct from all pretenders.

Also note: The suffering of Christ was also to be distinguishing marks of believers, who by bearing these marks demonstrate the life of Christ in them.

2) that the blood was shed for the remission of sin.

The nails, the cross, the mocking, the gambling, the earthquake, the sky darkening, the words spoken, ... not any of them made payment for sin.

So what happened to the truth?

Turn a page in history:

Along came some of the “Church authorities” who, because of their educational, political and culrural influences, decided to change the message to include sin accrued a debt owed to God or Satan.

That payment of the debt meant one had to suffer. That the suffering of Christ was for sins up until salvation, but after, the sin caused all manner of evil to happen - be it natural events, political events, or plagues. If the person had not sufficiently paid for the accumulated sin, then a certain length of time in the flames would suffice. Often flagelliant folks would beat themselves and others to pay for sin. Penitence and indulgence were marketed and sold.

Great political advantage and wealth by the “church” holding eternity for sale was eventually confronted on multiple fronts. Kings left to form their own “church,” others were forced out and proclaimed heretical.

Turn the page of history:

A group of folks who, desired not to leave the “church” but to reform it, designed a system of thought which clung in parts to the “church’s” teaching, while attempting to modify other areas. Some of the areas they kept included infant baptism, confessionals, sacraments, and of course that sin accrued a debt that required remuneration.

Of course denial of the unbiblical purgatory meant that Christ only had three days to pay the debt.

To this day, there are some that have high regard for these, later called Puritans.

The teaching of some manner of sin debt was payed not by the blood but the suffering is so far removed from what Paul taught, it is no wonder it is named after a woman - Pauline.

 

Perhaps it would be advantageous for you to take a paragraph or so and explain Pauline Justfication, and what you agree and disagree with the thinking.

 

It matters little who the person is.

Calvin was as much a product of his time as is Wright.

The call is to discern exactly the scripture teaching.

So far, it seems if one accepts the thinking of the RCC then they are in agreement with the suffering was payment for at least some sin(s).

Unfortunately, the result ran to the excess and much injury.

And more, such thinking is not Scriptural.