Ex-Calvinism (Why I am no longer a Calvinist)

[JonC]

I guess the question is why Did Christ have to die? He had to die. If not for punishment if our sin, why?

I believe to be the "Second Adam". Christ had to become one of us (to be a "son of man") and suffer under the bondage of the law of sin and death (to become a curse for us) to be the Firstborn of many brethren.

God could not justify man because men sinned. But God did justify Christ in His obedience even to death. Christ's birth (incarnation), life, temptation, suffering, death and resurrection are absolutely necessary. But not as an object of divine punishment.

The short answer is Christ had to suffer under the law of sin and death to free us from its bondage.

Why would Christ have to suffer and die as divine punishment for God to forgive our sins?

 

[37818]

I believe to be the "Second Adam". Christ had to become one of us (to be a "son of man") and suffer under the bondage of the law of sin and death (to become a curse for us) to be the Firstborn of many brethren.

God could not justify man because men sinned. But God did justify Christ in His obedience even to death. Christ's birth (incarnation), life, temptation, suffering, death and resurrection are absolutely necessary. But notas an object of divine punishment.

I am not understanding your argument. I see Christ's "suffering" and "death" "as an object of divine punishment."

 

[JonC]

I am not understanding your argument. I see Christ's "suffering" and "death" "as an object of divine punishment."

I see Christ as suffering and dying as the son of man, under the curse and bondage (under the law of sin and death). High priests are chosen from man (to represent us Christ had to be one of us). He had to suffer and die. And God justified Him, vindicated Him and raised Him once again to the glory He had set aside.

In other words, Christ had to be the "son of man" en toto, and having emptied Himself by becoming man, by becoming obedient even to the death on a cross He was justified by being raised from the dead.

I hope that helps understand my view better.

How is it justice rendered by punishing one person instead of punishing another? Why does justice require punishment apart from punishing the offender? Why punishment at all if not directed towards rehabilitation?

 

[George Antonios]

Making sure we stay on topic:

The reason I left Calvinism was I rejected the judicial philosophy upon which it is built. This is probably why so much of what I believe seems closely aligned with Calvinism. What I reject of Calvinism is not something that is in the Bible but that is presupposed.

I understand
@George Antonios to have departed from Calvinism as he views Scripture to be basing election on Christ rather than solely on the will of the Father. If I understand correctly, the Son is God's Elect (God's chosen Righteous One) and those in Christ are the elect. This contrasts to Calvinism's view that the Father elects and gives to the Son the sheep He chooses. In the end, both view the elect as those who are in Christ, but the process is different.

@George Antonios , please correct me if I have misunderstood or misstated your view. I am trying to get this train back on track.

The short answer is yes.
I am still amazed at the frowardness of their position: elect apart from Christ. They end up in Christ, sure. But they were elect in eternity past apart from being in Christ. And that view is supposed to be "humble".
How such monstrously proud blasphemy doesn't cause them to shudder is beyond me.
Imagine, in the name of being able to claim great humility ("maybe you think you had to to something for your salvation", say they, "but I, poor humble old me, didn't even believe on Christ of my own, God in his sovereignty made me believe on him, oh praise him, oh praise me for my humility, unlike you proud person who thinks he of his own free will received Christ") end up in a position where they were elect apart from Christ. The irony is just too much. In seeking to be more humble than even God's own standard, they end up proud.

 

[Iconoclast]

When I was in the process of studying this concern I asked other Calvinists to justify the presupposed philosophical view of justice. Several became defensive, a few became insulting, but no one was able to offer a reason except it is "common understanding".

That is one reason I bring it up every now and then - just to see of anyone has a biblical defense for Calvinism's presuppositions. The way I see it, it does not matter how many "biblical" ideas the theology contains if the philosophy governing the process is wrong.

I think it reasonable to test the foundation before building as construction on a poor foundation yields a weak building regardless of the integrity of the building itself.

My experience with @Iconoclast is he will just make blind accusations against anyone who opposes his views, defending his position as divine understanding. I would not take that kind of "argument" personally, nor would I expect a biblical explanation for his presuppositions. He cannot prove it via Scripture so all you can look for is copy and paste commentaries and verses that do not apply accompanied with a bunch of accusations and insults. I believe he has an agenda to demean anyone who disagrees with him at any cost.

Another graceless post.

 

[JonC]

The short answer is yes.
I am still amazed at the frowardness of their position: elect apart from Christ. They end up in Christ, sure. But they were elect in eternity past apart from being in Christ. And that view is supposed to be "humble".
How such monstrously proud blasphemy doesn't cause them to shudder is beyond me.
Imagine, in the name of being able to claim great humility ("maybe you think you had to to something for your salvation", say say, "but I, poor humble old me, didn't even believe on Christ of my own, God in his sovereignty made me believe on him, oh praise him, oh praise me for my humility, unlike you proud person who thinks he of his own free will received Christ") end up in a position where they were elect apart from Christ. The irony is just too much. In seeking to be more humble than even God's own standard, they ended up proud.

It reminds me of what Barth considered looking for a "back door" to Christ. He denied any theology about God that was not centered solely on Christ as being theology at all.. It's just philosophy. (We all probably disagree with Barth on many things but his Christ-centered approach to God had an impression me).

 

[George Antonios]

I see Christ as suffering and dying as the son of man, under the curse and bondage (under the law of sin and death). High priests are chosen from man (to represent us Christ had to be one of us). He had to suffer and die. And God justified Him, vindicated Him and raised Him once again to the glory He had set aside.

In other words, Christ had to be the "son of man" en toto, and having emptied Himself by becoming man, by becoming obedient even to the death on a cross He was justified by being raised from the dead.

I hope that helps understand my view better.

How is it justice rendered by punishing one person instead of punishing another? Why does justice require punishment apart from punishing the offender? Why punishment at all if not directed towards rehabilitation?

I don't know if you have a thread already on that or not, but you should.

I'll quickly offer two answers, the first being a question:
1) You bring your kid into a store, and he breaks something. Who pays for it, your or the kid?

2) Watch this segment >>28:35-30:25 of the following video. I don't pretend to perfectly answer your question now, but it may help

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

How is it justice rendered by punishing one person instead of punishing another? Why does justice require punishment apart from punishing the offender? Why punishment at all if not directed towards rehabilitation?

Perhaps this will need a separate thread, or perhaps I have misunderstood, but…

Did you just question hell, or do you think hell a punishment directed toward rehabilitation?

 

[JonC]

I don't know if you have a thread already on that or not, but you should.

I'll quickly offer two answers, the first being a question:
1) You bring your kid into a store, and he breaks something. Who pays for it, your or the kid?

2) Watch this segment >>28:35-30:25 of the following video. I don't pretend to perfectly answer your question now, but it may help

It would be a wonderful discussion, but probably not on the BB. True me, it has been tried before. There are some things people will simply not allow to be examined or questioned.

 

[JonC]

Perhaps this will need a separate thread, or perhaps I have misunderstood, but…

Did you just question hell, or do you think hell a punishment directed toward rehabilitation?

I do not question Hell. I view death as the wages of sin. I see Christ as becoming a "life giving Spirit". And I believe Hell refers to death and hades bring cast into the lake of fire.

We all suffer the wages of sin. Not all will experience life in Christ. It is appointed men once to die and then the judgement. I believe this judgment is Christ-centered.

 

[JonC]

How is that not a distinction without a difference?

Are you saying that God can forgive sin by fiat, so Jesus did not really NEED to die? If not, then the sin was punished on the cross (He became sin) so the demands of justice HAVE been satisfied.

I am saying that God is faithful to forgive those who repent. And I am saying God does not have to punish sins in order to forgive. It is foolish, however, to think that means Christ did not have to die.

Why do you believe it is just to punish one person for the actions of another?

Why do you believe sinful actions are justly transferable (that it is just to punish the innocent to acquit the guilty)?

Why would God have to punish sin in order to forgive sin?


What I am saying is that I believe none of these things are stated in Scripture but instead is presupposed because it is a secular philosophy of justice presupposed onto Scripture and needs to be defended before adopted.

 

[atpollard]

(For the record, I agree with you .)
For discussion sake, why cant He extend grace without a justice demand being satisfied?

We are venturing into metaphysical “what if’s”, so the only certainty is that we are talking out or our rears (anyone that claims to understand God is a lunatic or a liar). Ignorance of the deep thoughts and ultimate nature of a triune God never stopped me from speculating before, so here goes ...

... I think it has to do with the character of God. God cannot be contrary to His PERFECTLY HOLY nature. To sin is to “miss the mark” of God’s character. God cannot sin because God cannot be untrue to Himself. Perfect Holiness prevents rebellion against God to go unanswered. That would violate Perfect Justice, and God cannot be unjust without acting contrary to His nature. Thus for God to remain true to Himself (Holy and Just), the rebellion must be answered with a response. That is why God decreed that “the wages of sin is death”. It was not because God wanted to punish disobedience, but rather because the act of disobedience required a response ... either separation from God or complete destruction in His perfect presence.

The act of forgiving cannot create SIN in God by causing God to be less than perfectly JUST. Thus some response was required against sin if God was to remain true to Himself. We all know the plan that God came up with to maintain His PERFECT Holiness and Justice and Love without being untrue to His nature and missing His own mark.

 

[JonC]

We are venturing into metaphysical “what if’s”, so the only certainty is that we are talking out or our rears (anyone that claims to understand God is a lunatic or a liar). Ignorance of the deep thoughts and ultimate nature of a triune God never stopped me from speculating before, so here goes ...

... I think it has to do with the character of God. God cannot be contrary to His PERFECTLY HOLY nature. To sin is to “miss the mark” of God’s character. God cannot sin because God cannot be untrue to Himself. Perfect Holiness prevents rebellion against God to go unanswered. That would violate Perfect Justice, and God cannot be unjust without acting contrary to His nature. Thus for God to remain true to Himself (Holy and Just), the rebellion must be answered with a response. That is why God decreed that “the wages of sin is death”. It was not because God wanted to punish disobedience, but rather because the act of disobedience required a response ... either separation from God or complete destruction in His perfect presence.

The act of forgiving cannot create SIN in God by causing God to be less than perfectly JUST. Thus some response was required against sin if God was to remain true to Himself. We all know the plan that God came up with to maintain His PERFECT Holiness and Justice and Love without being untrue to His nature and missing His own mark.

If God recreates a man in Christ (in whom there is no condemnation) and that man dies to sin and death, then how is God unjust if He does not punish the "old man's" sinful actions?

We cannot make God a slave to humanistic law.

 

[atpollard]

It is foolish, however, to think that means Christ did not have to die.

Why did Christ have to die?

 

[JonC]

Why did Christ have to die?

Serious? It is appointed man to once to die.

I see Christ as suffering and dying as the son of man, under the curse and bondage (under the law of sin and death). High priests are chosen from man (to represent us Christ had to be one of us). He had to suffer and die. And God justified Him, vindicated Him and raised Him once again to the glory He had set aside.

In other words, Christ had to be the "son of man" en toto, and having emptied Himself by becoming man, by becoming obedient even to the death on a cross He was justified by being raised from the dead.

Under your view, given that physical suffering and death is common to man, why did Christ die?

His death, His blood shed, could not have been a punishment instead of us or we would not experience suffering and physical death. What you see as our punishment is more like this "second death" (which renders the Cross itself, Christ's suffering, His blood shed, His physical death as a worthless path to a different goal).

 

[atpollard]

If God recreates a man in Christ (in whom there is no condemnation) and that man dies to sin and death, then how is God unjust if He does not punish the "old man's" sinful actions?

Was King David “just” when he refused to punish the rebellion of his son?
In what sense is it JUST for God to do nothing about someone that rebels?
Why did God bother to punish Satan and 1/3 of the angels?
For that matter, why did God bother to drive Adam and Eve out of the garden?

You seem to be arguing that it is equally just to something about a sin as it is to do nothing about a sin.
Do you really believe that?

 

[JonC]

Was King David “just” when he refused to punish the rebellion of his son?
In what sense is it JUST for God to do nothing about someone that rebels?
Why did God bother to punish Satan and 1/3 of the angels?
For that matter, why did God bother to drive Adam and Eve out of the garden?

You seem to be arguing that it is equally just to something about a sin as it is to do nothing about a sin.
Do you really believe that?

I believe that sinful actions are manifestations of the real issue (bad fruit points to a bad plant).

I did not argue God does nothing. Where you argue man must have his sins punished in order to be forgiven I am arguing he has to be born again in Christ.

I believe there is no condemnation in Christ but man must repent and believe.

Your presentation reduces Christ's blood shed, His suffering and death as just a meaningless byproduct of a more substantial punishment. Do you really believe that?

 

[atpollard]

Serious? It is appointed man to once to die.

I see Christ as suffering and dying as the son of man, under the curse and bondage (under the law of sin and death). High priests are chosen from man (to represent us Christ had to be one of us). He had to suffer and die. And God justified Him, vindicated Him and raised Him once again to the glory He had set aside.

In other words, Christ had to be the "son of man" en toto, and having emptied Himself by becoming man, by becoming obedient even to the death on a cross He was justified by being raised from the dead.

Under your view, given that physical suffering and death is common to man, why did Christ die?

His death, His blood shed, could not have been a punishment instead of us or we would not experience suffering and physical death.

Some people die as infants and some die in their sleep as old men and some have massive heart attacks and die and some are run through with a Roman Spear. If there is no need to punish sin, the Christ is not an OT sin offering, is he? Therefore he just had to die and the “crucifixion” was unnecessary cruelty on God’s part.

[Remember that I believe that Christ died that death because WE deserve nothing less for challenging a Holy God, but you claim that Jesus death has nothing to do with my sins except that Jesus just had to die.]

 

[Iconoclast]

If it has never been in dispute, It should be easily proven in Scripture

You mis-read my post.

 

[atpollard]

I did not argue God does nothing.

No, but you did state that God does not need to punish sin in order to forgive it. That seems to imply that God certainly has the option to do nothing but forgive. How have I misunderstood your position?