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

[JonC]

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?

Yes, I definitely did say that.

But I also said that God requires men to die to sin and recreates men.

This is not ignoring sin, but it us also not condemning the righteous to acquit the guilty. We still suffer the same wages of sin that Christ suffered but in Him we have life.

(I am not trying to change your view, just hoping to offer an understanding of mine).

 

[atpollard]

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 actually argue that God had to punish the sins that God forgave to maintain the perfect character of God (Just and Holy and Loving).

I agree that our sins are forgiven by being “born from above” as a new creation, IN CHRIST, and with a new heart. God saves because God chooses to make ALIVE, people that were DEAD in their sins (like in Eph 2:1-10).

 

[Iconoclast]

George Antonios,

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".

The elect were always viewed as being in Christ, in saving union with their mediator and surety.

 

[atpollard]

But I also said that God requires men to die to sin and recreates men.

Sadly, men do not completely “die to sin” until we breathe our last ... already and not yet.

 

[JonC]

I actually argue that God had to punish the sins that God forgave to maintain the perfect character of God (Just and Holy and Loving).

I agree that our sins are forgiven by being “born from above” as a new creation, IN CHRIST, and with a new heart. God saves because God chooses to make ALIVE, people that were DEAD in their sins (like in Eph 2:1-10).

We have a lot in common in regards to God's character, but different ways of looking at the topic.

I believe God is just and the justified of sinners as redemption was His righteousness manifested apart from the law.

God sent His Son to bear our sins, laid our sins upon Him, was "pleased" to crush Him. Jesus humbled Himself and was obedient even to death. He took on our nature (the "Son of Man"). Suffering and dying under the curse (as the Son of man) yet without sin God justified Him and raised Him from the dead - the "Second Adam", the "Firstborn of many brethren".

 

[JonC]

Sadly, men do not completely “die to sin” until we breathe our last ... already and not yet.

I agree. But we will completely die to sin.

This brings up another interesting topic (for another thread and another time) concerning our present salvation in view of a final salvation.

Reading through Scripture it seems both are addressed. Sometimes it's difficult (for me) to kero up (but I'm not the sharpest tool anyway).

 

[rsr]

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

Why not?

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 do you think this is wrong? Are you not, in this case, resorting to the same philosophical constructs that you decry when they lead to a conclusion you don't agree with?

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

OK. Why? Or why not? You know the basis for the doctrine, but you reject it on philosophical grounds.

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.

It seems to me that saying "none of these things are stated in Scripture" would have to reject the so-called "Messianic" prophesies in the Old Testament, as well as the sacrificial system that was explicitly superseded by the covenant of grace and which the writers of the New Testament considered a type of the sacrificial offering of Christ. The ram or bull or even doves that were sacrificed in the temple committed no sin, yet they bore the sins of the the offeror.

And it seems you must chuck huge swathes of the Old Testament if you want to be consistent. Let's posit that Isaiah 53 is not a Messianic prophecy after all. That makes the case much easier. No, Christ was not pierced for our transgressions, he was not crushed for our iniquities, and it is ludicrous to think that the LORD laid upon him all our iniquities.

I listen to a good bit of Catholic radio when driving and am often amused by the juvenile apologies by supposed Catholic intellectuals that agree with you about the impropriety of the Father meting out vengeance upon his Son. It's pretty much child abuse, they say.

But they are bound up in their own philosophical dead ends. The distance from Anselm to Calvin is really a short one, but they must construct nonsensical eisegesis to uphold Trent.

 

[Reformed]

The elect were always viewed as being in Christ

This is correct. Believers are called by the Father, through the Spirit, and given to the Son. This has always been the sovereign decree of God. Our Particular Baptist forefathers understood this:

1.5._____ Those of mankind that are predestinated to life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any other thing in the creature as a condition or cause moving him thereunto.
( Ephesians 1:4, 9, 11; Romans 8:30; 2 Timothy 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:9; Romans 9:13, 16; Ephesians 2:5, 12 )

All believers are predestined in Christ before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:3-4). That is what the text says. It is unambiguous and clear as a bell. Believers throughout out all of human history, have been chosen from the beginning (from eternity) for salvation in Jesus Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:13-14). To suggest that Calvinists believe otherwise is not a simple misunderstanding of Calvinism, it is a blatant falsehood. That is why certain individuals will not receive a direct response from me.

 

[atpollard]

I agree. But we will completely die to sin.

This brings up another interesting topic (for another thread and another time) concerning our present salvation in view of a final salvation.

Reading through Scripture it seems both are addressed. Sometimes it's difficult (for me) to kero up (but I'm not the sharpest tool anyway).

Salvation: past, present and future.

• We were saved.
• We are saved.
• We shall be saved.

 

[JonC]

Why not?

Because Christianity itself is centered on the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. You do not have to believe that Christ had to die, but it is foolish to believe Christian doctrine (any Christian doctrine) teaches otherwise.

Why do you think this is wrong? Are you not, in this case, resorting to the same philosophical constructs that you decry when they lead to a conclusion you don't agree with?

It is not about right or wrong, but about being able to defend the philosophy that we presuppose. I believe it is wrong because I believe that God is merciful and forgiving, even to people who have rebelled against Him, if the wicked will turn from their ways and turn to God. I believe this because this is what the bible states (here I referenced Psalm 130 and Isaiah 55). I also believe that it is an abomination both to condemn the righteous and acquit the wicked (Proverbs 17). But I see no passages stating that God punishes the righteous in order to forgive the wicked, or even that Divine Justice demands sinful acts be punished in order to forgive the sinner.

OK. Why? Or why not? You know the basis for the doctrine, but you reject it on philosophical grounds.

I do not reject it on philosophical grounds. It is secular philosophy but that does not mean it is incorrect. I do believe it is morally wrong (it is a miscarriage of the purpose of justice). But I reject it on biblical grounds. It has no biblical warrant (it is an addition to, not an interpretation of, Scripture).

It seems to me that saying "none of these things are stated in Scripture" would have to reject the so-called "Messianic" prophesies in the Old Testament, as well as the sacrificial system that was explicitly superseded by the covenant of grace and which the writers of the New Testament considered a type of the sacrificial offering of Christ. The ram or bull or even doves that were sacrificed in the temple committed no sin, yet they bore the sins of the the offeror.


And it seems you must chuck huge swathes of the Old Testament if you want to be consistent. Let's posit that Isaiah 53 is not a Messianic prophecy after all. That makes the case much easier. No, Christ was not pierced for our transgressions, he was not crushed for our iniquities, and it is ludicrous to think that the LORD laid upon him all our iniquities.

No, you are wrong about that but you do make a good observation nonetheless. It is not that one has to reject Messianic" prophesies but it does place these prophesies in a different light (I believe a more literal and biblical light). It demonstrates very vividly the Cross, what occurred and what was accomplished. But I do not think it would meet your expectations in terms of satisfying the system of justice you impose onto these things.

It seems to me that saying "none of these things are stated in Scripture" would have to reject the so-called "Messianic" prophesies in the Old Testament, as well as the sacrificial system that was explicitly superseded by the covenant of grace and which the writers of the New Testament considered a type of the sacrificial offering of Christ. The ram or bull or even doves that were sacrificed in the temple committed no sin, yet they bore the sins of the the offeror.


But they are bound up in their own philosophical dead ends. The distance from Anselm to Calvin is really a short one, but they must construct nonsensical eisegesis to uphold Trent.

I have listened to a bit of Anabaptist theology and some of the more contemporary theologians (like Denny Weaver) make that claim about “cosmic child abuse”. I do not understand the claim as it does not make sense because Jesus is God. IMHO viewing your position as “cosmic child abuse” is no less an error as your position. I do agree that there is way too much humanistic philosophy in the mix (that is why I left Calvinism in the first place).

 

[JonC]

Salvation: past, present and future.

• We were saved.
• We are saved.
• We shall be saved.

Ok. I get that part.

 

[Iconoclast]

This is correct. Believers are called by the Father, through the Spirit, and given to the Son. This has always been the sovereign decree of God. Our Particular Baptist forefathers understood this:

1.5._____ Those of mankind that are predestinated to life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any other thing in the creature as a condition or cause moving him thereunto.
( Ephesians 1:4, 9, 11; Romans 8:30; 2 Timothy 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:9; Romans 9:13, 16; Ephesians 2:5, 12 )

All believers are predestined in Christ before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:3-4). That is what the text says. It is unambiguous and clear as a bell. Believers throughout out all of human history, have been chosen from the beginning (from eternity) for salvation in Jesus Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:13-14). To suggest that Calvinists believe otherwise is not a simple misunderstanding of Calvinism, it is a blatant falsehood. That is why certain individuals will not receive a direct response from me.

Reformed,
I believe the reason many struggle to welcome these very truths and fine verses you have offered is a major failure to consider the work of all three persons of the Trinity in all these phases of redemption.
sometimes to better understand redemption, each individual frame,
[like the old 8 mm movies] is slowed down and scrutinized, but Gods work is fluid in real-time.
God does instantly what it takes us years to fully grasp.

 

[JonC]

This is correct. Believers are called by the Father, through the Spirit, and given to the Son. This has always been the sovereign decree of God. Our Particular Baptist forefathers understood this:

1.5._____ Those of mankind that are predestinated to life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any other thing in the creature as a condition or cause moving him thereunto.
( Ephesians 1:4, 9, 11; Romans 8:30; 2 Timothy 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:9; Romans 9:13, 16; Ephesians 2:5, 12 )

All believers are predestined in Christ before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:3-4). That is what the text says. It is unambiguous and clear as a bell. Believers throughout out all of human history, have been chosen from the beginning (from eternity) for salvation in Jesus Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:13-14). To suggest that Calvinists believe otherwise is not a simple misunderstanding of Calvinism, it is a blatant falsehood. That is why certain individuals will not receive a direct response from me.

I think that the issue is that there are two different things being discussed.

One is foreknowledge in terms of God having a type of relationship via Christ with those who are saved. This is a difficult topic because it places God outside of time, but God is eternal.

The second is election. Calvinism does not hold that God elected people based on their status in Christ. If this is what you are hinting at, then I strongly disagree. Election is based solely on the sovereign will of God.

But the Trinity is always involved. This is why Penal Substitution Theory is not "cosmic child abuse". Jesus is God. Essentially the theory places God as taking the punishment upon Himself. That said, we have to discuss individual doctrines, at least to an extent, individually or they become too cluttered.

 

[atpollard]

Ok. I get that part.

A good Southern Baptist Pastor spent almost a year teaching through the Southern Baptist Faith and Message and the themes of “past-present-future” promises and “already and not yet” came up a lot.

For example, the Bread:

• Christ’s body on the cross (past),
• one body of Christ assembled (present),
• the perfected ‘Body of Christ’ as all of the Saints forever in heaven (future)

... all three symbolized at the same time in the bread held in your hand and uniting each of us to the past, present and future realities through “in Christ”.

 

[Reformed]

Reformed,
I believe the reason many struggle to welcome these very truths and fine verses you have offered is a major failure to consider the work of all three persons of the Trinity in all these phases of redemption.
sometimes to better understand redemption, each individual frame,
[like the old 8 mm movies] is slowed down and scrutinized, but Gods work is fluid in real-time.
God does instantly what it takes us years to fully grasp.

This is a good observation. When we speak of God doing something it must not be lost on us that all three members of the Godhead are in unity. Each person in the Godhead has a unique role but they work in unison. When the Son of God died on the Cross the Father and the Holy Spirit were not sitting on the sidelines. The Son was active in creation (Hebrews 1:2) even though He is not mentioned directly. Predestination and Election are not different.

 

[Reformed]

One is foreknowledge in terms of God having a type of relationship via Christ with those who are saved. This is a difficult topic because it places God outside of time, but God is eternal.

The second is election. Calvinism does not hold that God elected people based on their status in Christ. If this is what you are hinting at, then I strongly disagree. Election is based solely on the sovereign will of God.

First, you have not presented a biblical argument for any of this. You are doing exactly what @rsr accused you of. You have brought a knife to a gunfight; philosophy instead of a biblical case.

Foreknowledge means to know beforehand. I have no idea what "God having a type of relationship via Christ" is supposed to mean because such language is foreign to scripture. An individual is either in Christ or he is not in Christ. God's foreknowledge in this regard is simply "a dimension of God's omniscience. God eternally knows all things that to humans appear to be "in the future."* God elected individuals after the counsel of His own will (Ephesians 1:11). Each and every person God predestined** He predestined as being in Christ.

You mention that it is problematic because it places God outside of time. That is not so. God created time. He operates in and out of linear time as we know it. The law of physics and all of the physical dimension were created by God. Mankind was created to operate within God's physical creation and to be governed by its laws. However, God is not limited by the laws He created. Those whom God elected were seen by God as already in Christ. They were not elected because of their status in Christ (as you stated) but because God, through election, placed them in that status. There was no soteriological cart before the horse.

*McKim
**Election and predestination are interchangeable terms.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

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.

This seems to sidestep the question, as it does not specifically address what the punishment is. It is unclear whether you are denying punishment altogether, or have an idea of how the punishment rendered at the judgment will lead to rehabilitation, or what. Again, this may need a separate thread.

 

[JonC]

First, you have not presented a biblical argument for any of this. You are doing exactly what @rsr accused you of. You have brought a knife to a gunfight; philosophy instead of a biblical case.

Foreknowledge means to know beforehand. I have no idea what "God having a type of relationship via Christ" is supposed to mean because such language is foreign to scripture. An individual is either in Christ or he is not in Christ. God's foreknowledge in this regard is simply "a dimension of God's omniscience. God eternally knows all things that to humans appear to be "in the future."* God elected individuals after the counsel of His own will (Ephesians 1:11). Each and every person God predestined** He predestined as being in Christ.

You mention that it is problematic because it places God outside of time. That is not so. God created time. He operates in and out of linear time as we know it. The law of physics and all of the physical dimension were created by God. Mankind was created to operate within God's physical creation and to be governed by its laws. However, God is not limited by the laws He created. Those whom God elected were seen by God as already in Christ. They were not elected because of their status in Christ (as you stated) but because God, through election, placed them in that status. There was no soteriological cart before the horse.

*McKim
**Election and predestination are interchangeable terms.

I am not making a case at all. I am explaining why I left Calvinism. It is because Calvinism does not have a biblical case for their presuppositions.

My comment was that Calvinists hold God elected men based solely on His sovereign will.

And then I mentioned that Calvinist have presented foreknowledge two ways. John Calvin argued it as pre-knowledge (cognitive knowledge beforehand) based on God's decree of election.

But others (Legioner Ministries, for example) define foreknowledge as a relationship -
"This view does not reckon with the fact that God created time, and therefore all events in time, when He created the world,... A study of the idea of knowledge in the Bible will show that it usually involves a choice of intimate relations, as when Adam “knew” his wife Eve and she conceived. Romans 8:29 means that God “fore-loved” certain people, and predestinated them. He chose them; they did not choose Him."

I am not claiming either view is correct so why would I try to defend them biblically?

You are offering smoke, Reformed.

 

[Reformed]

I am not making a case at all. I am explaining why I left Calvinism. It is because Calvinism does not have a biblical case for their presuppositions.

A biblical case has been made in this thread for some of those presuppositions and you either failed to see them or you reject them. Either is fine but they have been made. That is far from smoke. That is fire.

 

[Reformed]

OK, good people. It is bedtime. See you tomorrow. Same bat time; same bat channel.