Hebrews 2:14. How does the devil have the power of death?

[DaveXR650]

Let God sort us out, as shepherds sort out their sheep from the goats. Let the tares remain among the wheat. In time we will all know which gospel is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

This is true and I think we are finally getting to the core issues. Tell me if I'm wrong but I sense a real reluctance to fully give the work of Christ in his dying for us the sole credit for establishing the righteous standing we can have before God by his bearing our sin in his own body on the cross.

You keep going back to:

And Ezekiel 18 tells us how God forgives sins (repentance, turning from wickedness, turning to God, making a new heart).

This. Which I want to emphasize, is not wrong and no Calvinist I know of would say is not essential for salvation. But tell me if I am mistaken in this. Are you deliberately trying to minimize the centrality of Christ's sacrificial work or is this just being lost in the quick internet replies inadvertently. Because once again, you are talking about sheep and goats, tares and wheat, and implying we are in serious error. We are finally at the point where this has to be clarified.

And just a note: I don't mean to pile on but others beat me to the post so to speak and I know some of the questions seem redundant. Don't feel like you have to answer me separately.

 

[JonC]

This is true and I think we are finally getting to the core issues. Tell me if I'm wrong but I sense a real reluctance to fully give the work of Christ in his dying for us the sole credit for establishing the righteous standing we can have before God by his bearing our sin in his own body on the cross.

You are wrong (I hate phrasing it that way....you are mistaking).

I give Christ in His dying for us the sole credit for establishing the righteousness we now bear (God laying this righteousness on us, Christ being the surety) as well as the righteousness and glorification God has predestined us to in Chrisy.

The difference is I do not believe Christ's death to be as superficial as Calvininism holds. I believe than Christ, rather than merely being punished for our sins (for manifestations of our wickedness) died to reconcile God and mankind to address our state as falling short of God's glory (which fulfills the law).

If you think my post minimizes Christ as a sin offering then you have misunderstood entirely. My complaint is Calvinism views this sacrifice way to superficially.




Now, as far as sheep and goats, I think (this is my opinion) that a lot depends on how one holds their understanding.

One can (again, my opinion) be a Calvinist and a Christian. I think we can hold an understanding at arms length, not leaning on it or teaching it as truth itself.

But there is always a danger of being carried away by these things. So I think the safest bet is God's actual words.

Now that we have arrived here, you seem to be an intelligent fella. You tell me.

Are those things in Calvinism we are talking about, those things that are not in the biblical text (not God's words) but are instead reasoned out of Scripture an understanding of Scripture?

If so, how are Calvinists not leaning on their understanding?

If not, why can those things not actually be highlighted in the biblical text?

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

I actually prefer to deal with you because I respect how you interact. Don't worry, I don't expect the same in return .

Here is a serious question:

Option 1: Christ's sacrifice was God taking our sins from us, laying them on Jesus, and punishing Jesus for those sins.

Option 2: Christ's sacrifice was Jesus tasting death for every man, destroying the power of the one holding the power of death, reconciling God to man in His righteousness so that by faith we will become the righteousness of God.

Christisns will suffer the wages of their sin, their body is dead because of sin. But their spirit is alive because of His righteousness. He is the surety for our salvation, and in this present time we bear His righteousness that God laid on us. But we am predestined to be conformed into His image, to be made a new creation, to be glorified (man being remade to meet the glory of God).


Is Option 1 the same gospel as Option 2?

 

[DaveXR650]

Option 2: Christ's sacrifice was Jesus tasting death for every man, destroying the power of the one holding the power of death, reconciling God to man in His righteousness so that by faith we will become the righteousness of God.

Here is Horatius Bonar, a Calvinist, talking about faith as a recognition on our part of the payment made by the Son of God (which I think would be speaking of Option 1 above). But he immediately says the following:

"By this recognition, we become so one with Him who died and rose, that we are henceforth reckoned to be the parties who have paid the penalty, and treated as it it were we ourselves who had died. Thus we are justified from the sin, and then made partakers of the righteousness of him, who was not only delivered for our offences, but who rose again for our justification".

This I think gets somewhat into "Option 2" above. And I was able to find it in minutes since I have Bonar's writings on hand. So while this doesn't explain everything it is a good start and easily found in minutes. A key point here is that penal substitutionary atonement doesn't stand alone with any of the Calvinist writers I am familiar with. I would say they put huge emphasis on it but I have so far read of none who exclude everything else about the atonement.

Now I will say that if you jump in at one moment - say where Owen is taking on the Arminian faction, he does it vigorously, and if you don't read everything else he wrote on the Atonement you would get the impression that he was only interested in an exact exchange of a specific amount of punishment per each sin of each member of the elect and nothing else mattered. While that may have been his feelings as far as winning a winner take all fight for the heart and soul of the Protestant faith in his mind it does not mean that that was all he said concerning the atonement. His argument looks to me like it was tailored specifically to refute "universalists" as he called them, meaning I think believers in universal atonement (Arminians).

 

[JonC]

Here is Horatius Bonar, a Calvinist, talking about faith as a recognition on our part of the payment made by the Son of God (which I think would be speaking of Option 1 above). But he immediately says the following:

"By this recognition, we become so one with Him who died and rose, that we are henceforth reckoned to be the parties who have paid the penalty, and treated as it it were we ourselves who had died. Thus we are justified from the sin, and then made partakers of the righteousness of him, who was not only delivered for our offences, but who rose again for our justification".

This I think gets somewhat into "Option 2" above. And I was able to find it in minutes since I have Bonar's writings on hand. So while this doesn't explain everything it is a good start and easily found in minutes. A key point here is that penal substitutionary atonement doesn't stand alone with any of the Calvinist writers I am familiar with. I would say they put huge emphasis on it but I have so far read of none who exclude everything else about the atonement.

Now I will say that if you jump in at one moment - say where Owen is taking on the Arminian faction, he does it vigorously, and if you don't read everything else he wrote on the Atonement you would get the impression that he was only interested in an exact exchange of a specific amount of punishment per each sin of each member of the elect and nothing else mattered. While that may have been his feelings as far as winning a winner take all fight for the heart and soul of the Protestant faith in his mind it does not mean that that was all he said concerning the atonement. His argument looks to me like it was tailored specifically to refute "universalists" as he called them, meaning I think believers in universal atonement (Arminians).

There is a blending of options, I agree.

But read the quote from Horatius Bonar again. Is he talking about Christ's death? No. He is talking about something afterwards. And his view of righteousness is being viewed as if we paid the debt.

Do you believe that Calvin's understanding of the Atonement is what Calvinists understand the Bible to be teaching or do you believe those words are actually in the biblical text?

 

[DaveXR650]

Is he talking about Christ's death? No.

I would say yes in that he said "and treated as if it were we ourselves who had died". There has to be some level of imputation as it were because we did not actually die. I could find it if I had more time but in other places Calvinists talk about how in a sense we "died with Christ".

And his view of righteousness is being viewed as if we paid the debt.

Yes but look at his statement carefully. He is not saying that we stand alone now forgiven and free of any obligation to God. He says "we become so one with Him". Calvinists do believe that this atonement is applied to us as we become one with Christ. That is what we say during baptism. A moderate or non-Calvinist holding to penal substitution would stress the becoming one with Christ because they believe that the penalty for everyone's sins was covered at the cross and actualized when people come by faith to Christ. Stricter Calvinists agree. Owen refuted justification from eternity and said that in time someone becomes united with Christ and then they are saved. R.C. Sproul said that an "elect" person is guess what? Lost, until such time as he is saved. I don't wish to get into that now, but your level of belief in strict determinism need not I think have any effect on your belief in PSA. But I must be fair and admit that Calvinists have said not so, and insisted that a limited atonement is essential for PSA to be true. James White is a modern guy who says so. Owen seemed to believe it so hence his line of reasoning in "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ". And that doesn't help in a general debate with those who don't believe PSA at all when we are at the same time condemning each other because we have created so much animosity between different sub groups.

 

[DaveXR650]

And in fact, what attracted me to Calvinism was that there was a coherent integration of the whole of Christian doctrine and not a camping on one aspect. In my own experience, it was non Calvinist, many times anti-Calvinists in doctrine who did indeed make it seem like praying a prayer and "taking care of that" would make your standing into a stand alone individual with a get out of jail free card - and then no obligation to follow Christ or pursue a holy life except as an optional decision that may or may not come later. It was thank God, Calvinism which helped me see how those things were integrated into one true, Biblical, theology. And I will always be thankful for it even though I probably don't agree with every single point.

 

[JonC]

I would say yes in that he said "and treated as if it were we ourselves who had died". There has to be some level of imputation as it were because we did not actually die. I could find it if I had more time but in other places Calvinists talk about how in a sense we "died with Christ".

Yes but look at his statement carefully. He is not saying that we stand alone now forgiven and free of any obligation to God. He says "we become so one with Him". Calvinists do believe that this atonement is applied to us as we become one with Christ. That is what we say during baptism. A moderate or non-Calvinist holding to penal substitution would stress the becoming one with Christ because they believe that the penalty for everyone's sins was covered at the cross and actualized when people come by faith to Christ. Stricter Calvinists agree. Owen refuted justification from eternity and said that in time someone becomes united with Christ and then they are saved. R.C. Sproul said that an "elect" person is guess what? Lost, until such time as he is saved. I don't wish to get into that now, but your level of belief in strict determinism need not I think have any effect on your belief in PSA. But I must be fair and admit that Calvinists have said not so, and insisted that a limited atonement is essential for PSA to be true. James White is a modern guy who says so. Owen seemed to believe it so hence his line of reasoning in "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ". And that doesn't help in a general debate with those who don't believe PSA at all when we are at the same time condemning each other because we have created so much animosity between different sub groups.

That is my point.

You said that it seemed to you as if I were minimizing Christ's death. But I pointed out that I viewed your treatment too superficial.

Calvinism does not deny that we will be made righteous, in Christ's image, glorified.

But they view this as the act of the Father reckoning to us as having paid the debt Christ paid.

I am saying that Christ effected this by His death. He reconciled mankind to Himself.

Righteousness is reckoned to us in this present time by Christ as the guarantee of that future state (God predestined us in Christ to be glorified).

But the bottom line is whether one believes God's words sufficiently state His redemption. Calvinists say "no", that His words matter but the Bible teaches a different gospel. I believe the Bible teaches God's words.

As such, I do not see how adding the understanding of one sect (one of many) to God's words can do anything but obscure what is there.

Do you believe that Calvin's understanding of the Atonement is what Calvinists understand the Bible to be teaching or do you believe those words are actually in the biblical text?

 

[JonC]

And in fact, what attracted me to Calvinism was that there was a coherent integration of the whole of Christian doctrine and not a camping on one aspect. In my own experience, it was non Calvinist, many times anti-Calvinists in doctrine who did indeed make it seem like praying a prayer and "taking care of that" would make your standing into a stand alone individual with a get out of jail free card - and then no obligation to follow Christ or pursue a holy life except as an optional decision that may or may not come later. It was thank God, Calvinism which helped me see how those things were integrated into one true, Biblical, theology. And I will always be thankful for it even though I probably don't agree with every single point.

I agree Calvininism is coherent in itself. I disagree that it does justice to the biblical text or to reality.

You show this with your ideas that God requiring us to die to ourselves, to turn from evil, etc. amounts to a "get out of jail free card" while God punishing somebody ekse for our sins is not.

Calvinism is coherent but superficial. It is a mile wide and an inch deep.

Think about it.

What does the law do? It shows righteousness or sinfulness.

What would God punishing Jesus for our sins accomplish? Nothing. We would still fall short of God's glory. Sins are the fruit of that state.

The only thing it would do is make God unrighteous according to the law (He would have punished the Righteous to clear the wicked).

And who says that sins can be treated as material things? These are actions we have committed because we are wicked.

In itself Calvinism makes sense. But in itself so does Mormonism. Both fail the test of Scripture.


I ask again....is Calvinism God's actual words (the biblical text itself) or is it what some understand the Bible to teach?

This is important because since I do not lean on my own understanding I certainly do not intend on leaning on anybody else's.

 

[JonC]

And in fact, what attracted me to Calvinism was that there was a coherent integration of the whole of Christian doctrine and not a camping on one aspect.

@DaveXR650

Ultimately this is the question.

You say Calvinism is a coherent integration of the whole Christian doctrine.

But it is not in the actual biblical text (it is not God's words, not "what is written").

Instead it is an attempt (not unlike other attempts people believe) to integrate the whole of Christian teachings into one coherent theology.

But this means it is one of many understandings about what the Bibke as a whole teaches.

How is this not one's understanding rather than God's words?


I seriously encourage you to set aside Calvinism and read the Bible for "what is written" (pretend your understanding is wrong...just pretend), so you have something to compare Calvininism with.

If you do this and find "what is written" in the Bible (the actual text) insufficient without Calvinistic Atonement then by all means reject it and stick with Calvinism.

 

[DaveXR650]

But the bottom line is whether one believes God's words sufficiently state His redemption. Calvinists say "no", that His words matter but the Bible teaches a different gospel. I believe the Bible teaches God's words.

Insisting that we are washed in his own blood, that he bore our sins in his own body, that he was crucified for our transgressions, that his blood was the propitiation for our sins are there whether you accept it or not. The problem here is, and I don't know how many times we have to go over this, you are free to say something true without saying everything that pertains to it. But if you desire to state the whole truth about something like the Atonement, and you leave out or deny penal substitution, and then claim to be fully explaining the Atonement then you are wrong. And in a dangerous position. This is the way with other Biblical truths. You can be saved without believing in the virgin birth of Jesus. Many of us were saved before we knew of such things. But any mature scholar who studies God's word and theology and denies the virgin birth is a heretic.

 

[DaveXR650]

But you need to understand that for two decades we have sat here and seen Calvinists say "I know what the Bible says, but just sit back and let me tell you what it really means".

Obviously, from the discussions on here many of us should not do theology. I am including myself. We are warned about getting involved in knowing secret things in Ecclesiastes and in Deuteronomy at least. I happen to think penal substitutionary atonement is one of the most clearly and consistently taught doctrines in the Bible. I knew it long before I knew about Calvinism.

We would all have to plead guilty of speculation when we get deep into the meaning of free will, how determinism and election and the true offer of the gospel can all be true, whether God can truly know a future autonomous decision which since it is autonomous, does not exist yet, and so on. As for myself, I enjoy discussion of these things and I appreciate the Calvinists who write all this stuff. I do not condemn my fellow believers who disagree with me in these areas and I have not figured all those things out myself. But I feel much different about penal substitution. Denial of that is a very serious heresy and like I said before, much different than not thinking about it or just saying Christ died for us or Christ can forgive sins or he shed his blood for us. That indeed may be as far as you need to go. But to actively deny penal substitutionary atonement is different and cannot be considered just a difference of opinion.

 

[JonC]

Insisting that we are washed in his own blood, that he bore our sins in his own body, that he was crucified for our transgressions, that his blood was the propitiation for our sins are there whether you accept it or not. The problem here is, and I don't know how many times we have to go over this, you are free to say something true without saying everything that pertains to it. But if you desire to state the whole truth about something like the Atonement, and you leave out or deny penal substitution, and then claim to be fully explaining the Atonement then you are wrong. And in a dangerous position. This is the way with other Biblical truths. You can be saved without believing in the virgin birth of Jesus. Many of us were saved before we knew of such things. But any mature scholar who studies God's word and theology and denies the virgin birth is a heretic.

I also believe we are washed in the blood of Christ , that He bore our sins in his own body, that He suffered and died for our transgressions, that God set Him forth as a propitiation in His blood.

My issue is not with what Calvinists believe that IS in God's Word. My issue is with what they believe that IS NOT in God's Word.



We both agree that Jesus bore our sins bodily on the Cross.



I assume we both believe that we also die because of our sins.

Do you know of any passage that states, in the text ("what is written", God's words). that Jesus suffered God's wrath, that God punished Jesus for our sins so we would not be punished?

No, of course you don't. Because those things ARE NOT in the Words of God. They are what one sect (a very small sect historically, and one sect out of many) understand the Bible to really "teach when properly understood".

There are things that we disagree about which do not constitute a different gospel (the birgin birth, the age of the Earth, the nature of Communion, etc.).

I do believe (my opinion) that one can be a Calvinist and a Christian. I also know that one can just be a Calvinist.

BUT how far can one can go with a coherent integration of what they understand as taught by the Bible until they are carried away ftom the faith all together?

When is the point where they are leaning on their understanding as opposed to believing God?


I cannot help but notice that the entire argument on these threads have been Calvinists objecting to people (like me) who believe that God's words (the biblical text) is what the Bible is teaching. The objection of Calvinists is that God's words do not teach what those words themselves mean.

 

[JonC]

We would all have to plead guilty of speculation when we get deep into the meaning of free will,

This is a good example.

Why would we all be guilty of speculation? The answer is because we want to possess the mind of God.

Who cares about free will? It is a non-issue.

God says we must repent and believe. He does not ask us to decide if that is Him making us repent and believe, or if it is Him revealing Himself and drawing us so that we come to a point of decision.

All of that is philosophy (actually, it is "pure philosophy").


Calvinism does try to use Scripture but it is do bound by philosophy that it is one of many understandings people choose to lean on.

Rather than believing that God forgives sins based on repentance Calvinism objects because of its philosophy of justice.

Rather than believing nobody can come to Christ unless He draws then AND we must repent and believe Calvinism uses philosophy to determine system of divine vs human will.

If Calvin's philosophy of justice is wrong then Cslvinism is wrong.

If Calvinists are wrong that God's will and man's will are of the same type then Calvinism is wrong.

Those are just two examples. There are hundreds.


Men choose to lean on their understandings, to seek out a concise integration of what they understand the Bible to teach.

The question is exactly how far is too far (when does it become "another gospel)?


I believe it IS "another gospel". Some hold it along with the gospel of Jesus Christ while others as the gospel itself.

 

[JesusFan]

No, and I feel sorry for you (sincerely, not as an insult in any way) otherwise I would not be replying to these threads at all.

Where you present God as redeeming us through the law by transferring our sins on Jesus and punishing them there, God tells us that we still suffer the wages of sin and that the body is still dead because of sin, but our spirit is alive because of righteousness.

Because of Jesus death being the propiation to God the Father, that would be very basis why he can now declare us justified and saved and now new creatures in Christ

 

[JesusFan]

You are wrong (I hate phrasing it that way....you are mistaking).

I give Christ in His dying for us the sole credit for establishing the righteousness we now bear (God laying this righteousness on us, Christ being the surety) as well as the righteousness and glorification God has predestined us to in Chrisy.

The difference is I do not believe Christ's death to be as superficial as Calvininism holds. I believe than Christ, rather than merely being punished for our sins (for manifestations of our wickedness) died to reconcile God and mankind to address our state as falling short of God's glory (which fulfills the law).

If you think my post minimizes Christ as a sin offering then you have misunderstood entirely. My complaint is Calvinism views this sacrifice way to superficially.




Now, as far as sheep and goats, I think (this is my opinion) that a lot depends on how one holds their understanding.

One can (again, my opinion) be a Calvinist and a Christian. I think we can hold an understanding at arms length, not leaning on it or teaching it as truth itself.

But there is always a danger of being carried away by these things. So I think the safest bet is God's actual words.

Now that we have arrived here, you seem to be an intelligent fella. You tell me.

Are those things in Calvinism we are talking about, those things that are not in the biblical text (not God's words) but are instead reasoned out of Scripture an understanding of Scripture?

If so, how are Calvinists not leaning on their understanding?

If not, why can those things not actually be highlighted in the biblical text?

On what basis does God the Father freely declare us now justified and saved?

 

[DaveXR650]

I also believe we are washed in the blood of Christ , that He bore our sins in his own body, that He suffered and died for our transgressions, that God set Him forth as a propitiation in His blood.

My issue is not with what Calvinists believe that IS in God's Word. My issue is with what they believe that IS NOT in God's Word.

If you believe that He bore our sins in his own body, and that the actual reason he suffered and died was for our transgressions, and that God set him forth as a propitiation in His blood; well, the only thing I would suggest is that you look to see if scripture shows that sin can cause a reaction from God that humanly is described as "wrath" in English. Because then, if he bore our sins, he bore God's wrath. It's not really a stretch. Do I think that God the Father was ever personally angry with Jesus? I don't, apologies to R.C. Sproul. But this plan of redemption involves these things. It is plain to see. And we are looking into something we should be careful messing with. We do know God's view of sin. We do know we are children of wrath until we are saved.

We are told directly that "he that believeth not the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him". Now, am I going too far in interpreting scripture directly if I say that I am going to assume that, since this is only 22 verses beyond John 3:14, where the Son as the one being lifted up like the serpent in the wilderness is the one you are to believe in - that is is something in that that solves the problem of God's wrath? You should be careful because if you say no, it's your faith then the question is faith in what. That the events happened? Why are you so adamant that this connection cannot be made when John clearly made it? And from other things you say, are you trying to take John 3 and start with "you must be born again" and then somehow cut out verses 14-16 or act like anyone who sees them is a heretic?

No. The truth is, you must be born again. And this is taught along with the idea that Christ gave himself for us on the cross and to reject that will cause the wrath of God to abide on you. That is clear in John 3 as far as where the look of faith is to be directed. And so I am going to make a big heretical assumption. That is that the wrath of God was abiding on us who now believe and what we believe involves Jesus getting that removed on the cross - as scripture says.

 

[DaveXR650]

@JonC. Post 74 is a mouthful and much of it is true. Let me just answer and say that I am convinced that some Calvinists go too far in determinism. But that post illustrate a point about Calvinism. They are diverse and they have confessions, which look like an effort was made to accommodate a range of beliefs. I believe they are useful as setting up "guardrails" against heresy.

For example you say:

Rather than believing that God forgives sins based on repentance Calvinism objects because of its philosophy of justice.

There you are banging into a guardrail. Just like John chapter 3 has verses 14-16 in them, you cannot say that "God forgives sin bases on repentance" and call it a complete explanation. It is a true statement, but incomplete without including what Christ did on the cross. It is also false to accuse Calvinists of teaching that because they put just as high a premium on repentance as you do.

So. Do I as a laymen use Calvinism as scriptural truth? No. But I find it valuable and I see so clearly on this very site what happens to you folks who "only use scripture" and value your own opinion as much as Calvin's or Owen's or Wesley's for that matter.

 

[JonC]

Because of Jesus death being the propiation to God the Father, that would be very basis why he can now declare us justified and saved and now new creatures in Christ

I am not sure what you mean. We read in Hebrews 2 that Jesus currently propitiates on behalf of believers.

And Jesus is the guarantee of this better covenant. Since God has predestined us in Christ to actually be righteous and glorified, to actually be in the image of Christ, it seems that God declares us just based not on propitiation but on Christ Himself.

But I do agree that Jesus is the Propitiation for our sins. That is one way we can know without doubt that Jesus did not experience God's wrath or punishment.

 

[JonC]

@JonC. Post 74 is a mouthful and much of it is true. Let me just answer and say that I am convinced that some Calvinists go too far in determinism. But that post illustrate a point about Calvinism. They are diverse and they have confessions, which look like an effort was made to accommodate a range of beliefs. I believe they are useful as setting up "guardrails" against heresy.

For example you say:

There you are banging into a guardrail. Just like John chapter 3 has verses 14-16 in them, you cannot say that "God forgives sin bases on repentance" and call it a complete explanation. It is a true statement, but incomplete without including what Christ did on the cross. It is also false to accuse Calvinists of teaching that because they put just as high a premium on repentance as you do.

So. Do I as a laymen use Calvinism as scriptural truth? No. But I find it valuable and I see so clearly on this very site what happens to you folks who "only use scripture" and value your own opinion as much as Calvin's or Owen's or Wesley's for that matter.

I am not talking about determinism. People go too far in both directions, and typically lump the opposing view with those who have gone too far.

The reason we have to go back to our understanding of justice is that Penal Substitution Theory is dependent on one specific philosophy of justice. This is why they believe it is impossible for God to forgive sins (God punishes sins on Christ as a substitute in order to allow the guilty escape wrath). That is not forgiveness. It is substitution.

I do value my opinions. That is natural. BUT I do not argue my opinions. I do not teach my opinions.

How do I know that Calvinism is wrong? Because it fails the test if Scripture.

I cannot say that with many other views I belueve are wrong. Why? Because they are different interpretations of the actual text of Scripture. And I would not insist that they are wrong, even though I would explain why I think they are. God will make them stand.

Calvinism is different. Calvinists do accept many passages. But Calvinism itself is founded on a coherent integration of what they think the Bible teaches as a whole. In this way it is no different from any other cult. It is different from some cults as one can be both a Calvinist and a Christian.