Lean not on your own understanding

[JonC]

I mentioned before, and @DaveXR650 identified this on another thread, that we have to be careful not to lean on our own understanding.

God warns us not to be carried away by philosophy and not to lean on our understanding. We are commanded to live by every word that proceeds forth from God.

But we have an understanding. We have philosophies (otherwise we have no understanding of reality).

How, then, do we avoid being carried away by our own understandings?

My view is that we hold our understandings at arms length. We have to allow our understanding to change as we continue in our faith because it is subjective.

But we always have to go back to God's Word as the objective truth for our doctrine (we teach God's words, not our understanding).

This is why I can say that there are Christians who are also Calvinists, Armenians, Methodists, Catholics, Presbyterian, etc. We are united in Christ. We share the same gospel of Jesus Christ.

But if we lean on our understanding, if we allow ourselves to be carried away by philosophy, then we do not share the same gospel with Christians.

Repentance includes changing from trusting in oneself, one's own understanding, and trusting in God and His Word. It is a difficult thing to do because we like to "play God". But it is necessary.

It is beginning by saying "I will believe even if I do not yet understand". Belief, this trust in God, comes first. Understanding grows from there and continues throughout this lifetime.

 

[JonC]

I am going to apply this to what @DaveXR650 and I were discussing.

Common Christian belief:

All Christians believe that Jesus bore our sins, tasted death for everyone to destroy the power of the one who holds the power of death, that is Satan.

All Christians believe that God judged Jesus as righteous, gave Him a name above every name.

All Christians believe those who are in Christ will be raised to glory in Him. We will have glorified bodies. We will be made into new creations in Him and conformed to His image.

All Christistians believe that when God judges the nations we will innocent as we have died to sin and laid aside the old self and will have been made anew, made righteous and holy.

Differences in Understanding

There are several theories in addition to this common belief. We were discussing the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (but this would apply to any of the atonement theories).

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement adds ideas about how the "old self" that will have been laid aside by the time God judges will not be punished.

What we lean on matters

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement does not impact how we view judgment. God still judges those in Christ as being righteous because that "old self" will no longer exist and the one in Christ will be glorified. This is what God declares He has predestined us to - we will be in His image.

The difference is about whether God is obligated to punish sins regardless of the one who committed the sin. It is about the demands of the law on God.

Some hold this understanding in addition to the gospel, in addition to those things common to Christisnity. And God will make them to stand.

But some hold this understanding as a substitution for God's Word, a substitution for that common gospel that unites all believers in Christ. They have been carried away by their philosophy and are leaning on their understanding.


Same understanding but held differently.

 

[DaveXR650]

There is so much compounded error in your posts that it's hard to tell where to start. And after some of your vitriol against Calvinism came out in the other post I really don't see any reason to continue with you. But, you mentioned me in this thread so I am responding.

People just need to realize that support for penal substitution is not only from Calvinists. Now, they don't help much when they do like some and insist that PSA depends upon the whole package of limited atonement along with enough determinism to tie it all together. And so I notice some of the anti-Calvinists on here siding with you now. Good job, I guess. I would just point out that there are non-Calvinists who support PSA. I'll put up on, along with someone you like, who for some reason decided to show up wearing a Pink Floyd tee shirt. Craig is considered by many Calvinists to be a heretic. My own problems with him would center more on his view of Adam and Even and creation than Molinism. But here it is.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

People just need to realize that support for penal substitution is not only from Calvinists

Amen! Charles Wesley had some very hard things to say about Calvinism - all wrong of course, but Hey! No one's perfect - but he was a true man of God, and one of his hymns is a particular favourite of mine:

'Tis finished! The Messiah dies,
Cut off for sins, but not His own;
Accomplished is the sacrifice,
The great redeeming work is done.
'Tis finished! All the debt is paid;
Justice divine is satisfied;
The grand and full atonement made;
God for a guilty world hath died.

The veil is rent in Christ alone;
The living way to heaven is seen.
The middle wall is broken down
And all mankind may enter in.
The types and figures are fulfilled;
Exacted is the legal pain;
The precious promises are sealed;
The spotless Lamb of God is slain.

The reign of sin and death is o'er,
And all may live from sin set free;
Satan hath lost his mortal power;
'Tis swallowed up in victory.
saved from the legal curse I am,
My Saviour hangs on yonder tree:
See there the meek, expiring Lamb!
'Tis finished! He expires for me.

Accepted in the well-beloved
And clothed in righteousness divine,
I see the bar to heaven removed
And all Thy merits, Lord, are mine.
Death, hell and sin are now subdued;
All grace is now to sinners given;
And lo, I plead the atoning blood,
And in Thy right I claim Thy heaven.

 

[DaveXR650]

@JonC . At the 17:17 mark in the above video, Dr. Boyd looks to me like he agrees with penal substitution. What is your honest opinion of that 3 minutes starting at the 17 minute mark? Dr. Boyd brings up a lot of the same things you do but seems rather close in my view.

 

[DaveXR650]

And at 39:40 Dr. Boyd gets into some of the other objections to penal substitution that @JonC has raised, namely, why is retributive justice really necessary. The following discussion covers a lot of what is being said here. Some of you guys who are getting on board with Jon on this because you hate Calvinism should listen to this if for no other reason than the fact that Dr. Craig is no Calvinist. One thing Boyd does admit is that he is totally on board with substitution and Dr. Craig says the only difference left is the legal aspect of it. Interesting.

 

[JonC]

@JonC . At the 17:17 mark in the above video, Dr. Boyd looks to me like he agrees with penal substitution. What is your honest opinion of that 3 minutes starting at the 17 minute mark? Dr. Boyd brings up a lot of the same things you do but seems rather close in my view.

I like his t-shirt.

I agree with some of what he says. I think I told you before (if not, I am now) that I believe Jesus stood in our place as a substitute, but representative substitute (the Second Adam, like the first Adam was a representative substitute for natural man).

I do not agree with him that the judgment of God is simply turning us over to sin.

I believe there are two deaths - the first death as the wage of sin (or consequence of sin) is the death produced by sin itself. But God's judgment is an active judgment against the wicked (the second death) and for the righteous.

I believe it is appointed man once to die and then the judgment. I believe Christ died for our sins as a representative substitute for all mankind. Then He was judged righteous, given a name above every name, and became a life giving spirit who gives a new life to all who believe.

You could say I view two distinct parts to the atonement.

First, since we are flesh and blood, he too shared in our humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil

Second, for this reason (Christ humbling Himself to death) God highly exalted Him. And just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.

I hope that answers your post.

 

[JonC]

And at 39:40 Dr. Boyd gets into some of the other objections to penal substitution that @JonC has raised, namely, why is retributive justice really necessary. The following discussion covers a lot of what is being said here. Some of you guys who are getting on board with Jon on this because you hate Calvinism should listen to this if for no other reason than the fact that Dr. Craig is no Calvinist. One thing Boyd does admit is that he is totally on board with substitution and Dr. Craig says the only difference left is the legal aspect of it. Interesting.

Careful bro!!! That sounds like I would agree with Boyd's objection to retributive justice.

Now...if you mean retribution for the sake of retribution only then yeah, I disagree with that. But God will punish the wicked. And this is wrath. It is punishment. But I think some of this may be perspective (lest we have man controlling God).

I believe the end result of justice is God's own glory. It is creating a holy, righteous, glorified people.

But retributive justice is what the wicked will experience. God's wrath is against the wicked. They store up wrath for themselves for the day of wrath.

But I also believe God forgives sins when the conditions of His forgiveness are met. That is, when the goal of His justice (His own glory) is met then He forgives sins of those who meet the glory of God (those predestined to be glorified).

My objection is not retributive judgment. My objection is Calvin's theory that makes justice a system of accounting and focuses on sins rather than the cause of sin (that we fall short of God's glory).

BTW - Punishing crimes itself is not retributive justice. Retributive justice does center on punishment, but it is punishing the criminal (it is not akin to collecting a debt).

What Calvinism holds is called Legal Humanism (it is the 16th century French philosophy that Calvin held....and defended prior to becoming a Reformer). It is an accounting type of system. They actually developed a system for assigning monetary value for years of life to balance the ledgers. But it was not concerned with justice as most think of it. It did not care about reducing crime, the criminal or the victim. To borrow from Calvin, what matters is avenging the law.

 

[DaveXR650]

What Calvinism holds is called Legal Humanism (it is the 16th century French philosophy that Calvin held....and defended prior to becoming a Reformer). It is an accounting type of system. They actually developed a system for assigning monetary value for years of life to balance the ledgers. But it was not concerned with justice as most think of it. It did not care about reducing crime, the criminal or the victim. To borrow from Calvin, what matters is avenging the law.

It's just not true to present that as unique or even new at the time. It sounds like an attempt at proportional justice as seen in Exodus. An eye for an eye sounds brutal at first but read on. Eye for eye and tooth for tooth set up monetary or material payment for an injury. It was also proportional and avoided simple human vengeance which is our human default method. It relieves individuals of fearing massive reprisal out of proportion to an offense and defers administrative justice and even revenge, to a higher power, the State. This is not wrong or weird, it greatly predates Calvin and the French (as far as a national identity). It is found in some manner, in Exodus and in Romans where the magistrate bears not the sword in vain. Discussion of justice like this is familiar to humans and in some form all societies beyond the most primitive use some form of it. To frame that as some unique cause for Calvin getting everything wrong is wrong itself. Of course any person any time in history, looking at sin and offense to God will frame it in what they are familiar with at that time. If you listen on in that video Dr. Craig does the same thing using American and English law and even gets a little into the weeds I would say. But it shows that we have to discuss from what we are familiar with, by necessity.

 

[JonC]

It's just not true to present that as unique or even new at the time. It sounds like an attempt at proportional justice as seen in Exodus. An eye for an eye sounds brutal at first but read on. Eye for eye and tooth for tooth set up monetary or material payment for an injury. It was also proportional and avoided simple human vengeance which is our human default method. It relieves individuals of fearing massive reprisal out of proportion to an offense and defers administrative justice and even revenge, to a higher power, the State. This is not wrong or weird, it greatly predates Calvin and the French (as far as a national identity). It is found in some manner, in Exodus and in Romans where the magistrate bears not the sword in vain. Discussion of justice like this is familiar to humans and in some form all societies beyond the most primitive use some form of it. To frame that as some unique cause for Calvin getting everything wrong is wrong itself. Of course any person any time in history, looking at sin and offense to God will frame it in what they are familiar with at that time. If you listen on in that video Dr. Craig does the same thing using American and English law and even gets a little into the weeds I would say. But it shows that we have to discuss from what we are familiar with, by necessity.

It was new and unique at the time. It was part of a larger movement (the Renaissance). The idea was to revive classical Greek and Roman ideals.

In all forms it is actually distinct from the classical things they sought to revive (it was an interpretation).

Legal Humanism sought a rebirth of Roman Law, but divorced from Roman government, culture and ideals (Roman Law for 16th century France). It was something new. And where Roman Law worked Legal Humanism failed. It did influence civil law.

It does not apply to anybody in history. There were opposing law scholars. And this was fairly localized.

But yes, I agree that since Calvin held this philosophy it would influence his understanding of the Atonement and justice. We can see this in how he developed Penal Substitution (we can read it in Calvin's own words).

My point is today we (you included) would reject that philosophy just as we would reject Anselm's honor system (which he held as a product of his time).

BUT people accept it in the Atonement because it is a religious tradition. Nobody dare ask why so many today hold that theory.

Holding Calvin's theory today is the same as holding Anselm's theory in that we should question using these failed philosophies. We easily reject Anselm's philosophy that Adam created a deficit in God's honor that had to be restored. We should just as easily reject Calvin's theory.


The first rule of interpretation is to set aside one's own presuppositions. This include the philosophies we hold. We need to understand what Scripture says, not how it would look under various worldviews.