Rise of Calvinism pt.2

[JonC]

What is this "classic view?"
No one has heard of any such view?
This is a mystery indeed.
Maybe no one else has discovered it yet??

Logical fallacy. The fact you have never heard of the "classic view" reflects ignorance on your part rather than theology as a whole (it is like saying you do not exist because someone does not know you).

Beyond that, good question. I forget some have not studied theology (other than their own views) and may not know these terms.

The “classic view” (subjective theory) and the “Latin view” (objective theory) are two approaches to the Atonement. The “classic view” looks at atonement on the grounds of a change taking place in men rather than a changing God’s attitude towards men. The “Latin view” looks at God as the object of Christ’s atoning work via a reconciliation through satisfaction (in Penal Substitution Theory this is satisfaction to God’s justice, in Satisfaction Theory to God's honor, in Aquinas' Substitution Theory in the form of merit).

The “classic view” would include positions which are themed along the lines of Christus Victor (Ransom Theory, Moral Influence Theory, etc.). The “Latin view” includes positions such as Satisfaction/ Substitution Theories to include Penal Substitution Theory.

If you are truly ignorant of these terms and you are interested there are several pretty good courses available online, some at no cost. Any introductory theology course would explain these views.

 

[Iconoclast]

So well so where was the church where all this teaching was going
what was the name of that church?
Calvinism was on the rise you say you were teaching it so what happened to all these people what happened to that church did they follow you or did they go in a different direction?

 

[JonC]

So well so where was the church where all this teaching was going
what was the name of that church?
Calvinism was on the rise you say you were teaching it so what happened to all these people what happened to that church did they follow you or did they go in a different direction?

No. The church was Christian, not Calvinist. It was founded on Christ, not soteriological theories. Some were Calvinists and some were not.

I never taught anti-Calvinism. I suspect the Calvinists there are still Calvinists while those who were not Calvinists are not Calvinists.

That's one thing I am not sure you have understood about me, @Iconoclast . I understand Calvinism, because I was a Calvinist. Through study and prayer I've moved from that soteriological system to what I believe a more biblical approach. But I have never thought bad about Calvinists (I remember very well when I was one). Many of my close friends remain Calvinists, and many are not.

JonC posted
post140
That is why I have never (and will never) be anti-Calvinist or anti-free-will theologian. Both places men in opposition to God.

JonC#160

I agree. Calvinism does not put believers in opposition to God.

Which is it???

Anti-Calvinism and anti-free-will theology places men in opposition to God. Calvinism and Free-will theology does not. These are not contradictory statements.

 

[JonC]

You think you have a perfect doctrine. I wonder how you'd react to find God not being happy with Calvinism.
MB

My guess is - should @Reformed find God opposed to Calvinism he would react the same as if we found God to be a Calvinist. He would change his view.

I suspect some may say God just does not understand, but I doubt @Reformed is one of them.

One of the first things that we have to understand when it comes to soteriology is that these positions and understandings are products of systematic theology. Theology is man’s study of God. Cults present their theology as god given, Christianity does not.

As C. H. Spurgeon emphasized, this theology of ours has the limitations of the “human condition” and is subject to the limits of our reasoning and understanding. We understand according to what he called our “natural dispositions”. Basically, we see things differently and this influences our interpretations and theological development.

 

[Reformed1689]

Logical fallacy. The fact you have never heard of the "classic view" reflects ignorance on your part rather than theology as a whole (it is like saying you do not exist because someone does not know you).

For the record, there are mutliple views and positions that are referred to as "the classic view." The term is actually meaningless and it is just what certain groups use to try and give more credence to their position.

If you are truly ignorant of these terms and you are interested there are several pretty good courses available online, some at no cost. Any introductory theology course would explain these views.

An introductory theology course would actually use the names of the views and not "classic."

 

[JonC]

For the record, there are mutliple views and positions that are referred to as "the classic view." The term is actually meaningless and it is just what certain groups use to try and give more credence to their position.


An introductory theology course would actually use the names of the views and not "classic."

I took an undergraduate theology course (I cannot recall what level) at Liberty University and they used the term "classic view" to refer to "Christus Victor"/ Ransom Theory as a theme (Ransom vire to Moral Influence) . That is where I became accustomed to the term (prior to then it was foreign to me as well).

What other view of atonement have you encountered in mainstream theology called the "classic view"?

Most of the time (about all of the time) I have read of the "classic view" and the "Latin view" (subjective/ objective approaches) it referred to a broader scope than individual theories.

You never studied this in seminary? If not, then think of it this way - the differences concern how atonement reconciled men to God. Within each general position are several theories.

 

[Reformed]

I took an undergraduate theology course (I cannot recall what level) at Liberty University and they used the term "classic view" to refer to "Christus Victor"/ Ransom Theory as a theme (Ransom vire to Moral Influence) . That is where I became accustomed to the term (prior to then it was foreign to me as well).

What other view of atonement have you encountered in mainstream theology called the "classic view"?

I do agree with David that the term "classic" is, for the most part, meaningless. When I was in Bible college the different atonement views were presented by their names and classic was not one of them.

 

[Reformed1689]

I took an undergraduate theology course (I cannot recall what level) at Liberty University and they used the term "classic view" to refer to "Christus Victor"/ Ransom Theory as a theme (Ransom vire to Moral Influence) . That is where I became accustomed to the term (prior to then it was foreign to me as well).

They, Liberty, actually pointed that Aulen called it the classic view. And Yes, that refers, Aulen that is, to Christus Victor and Ransom Theories (which are not identical, there are nuances between the two).

 

[JonC]

I do agree with David that the term "classic" is, for the most part, meaningless. When I was in Bible college the different atonement views were presented by their names and classic was not one of them.

The difference was the overall approaches. The "classic view" looks at mankind being changed in some way (freed from bondage, moral change, etc) while the "Latin view" looks at changing God's attitude towards man (satisfaction, Substitution, appeasement).

The terms became popular with Aulén's work. The "classic view" is Ransom Theory in general (absent a payment received), or what N. T. Wright called a "Christus Victor motif".

I did not know there were other views called "the Classic view" within atonement ideas. I guess Aulén borrowed it from someone but don't know who.

It is how (in seminary) we spoke of the two main approaches to redemption. I never could see exactly where Ontological Substitution fit in (it was a Reformediidea, but seems a blend of both to me) but most others can easily fit in one category or the other.

 

[JonC]

They, Liberty, actually pointed that Auten called it the classic view. And Yes, that refers, Auten that is, to Christus Victor and Ransom Theories (which are not identical, there are nuances between the two).

It refers to the overall theme (subjective vs objective theories).

Regardless, I explained how I was using the term earlier (on this thread). I am not interested in debating its use (I can prove my use is legitimate, and I have no doubt you can as well). So to avoid stupid bickering and foolishness we can just call it a Christus Victor motif (courtesy of Wright).

I think the important thing is doctrine rather than silly arguments about what to call the doctrines.

 

[JonC]

For the record, there are mutliple views and positions that are referred to as "the classic view."

BTW, what are these other views of atonement called the "classic view"?

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

You suggested that whatever church/ churches you allegedly taught and preached Calvinism was none of my business and that eventually, you discovered "in your opinion" that Calvinism was a humanistic doctrine.
Yesterday you told us that opinion with no proof was a red herring debate fallacy.
I asked for the churches to attempt to verify your claims and opinions'

Your story remains totally unverified by your own definition.

No. The church was Christian, not Calvinist. It was founded on Christ, not soteriological theories.

Can you name any Christian church that is not founded on Christ.
This comment is quite ignorant, as there is no Christian Church that is not founded of Christ Jesus.

Some were Calvinists and some were not.[/QUOTE]

that is true in any church.

I never taught anti-Calvinism.

JonC we have no evidence you taught anything. You post that you did, but are unwilling to name those churches? You said it was not my business?
I travel around quite a bit, what if i wanted to know where these "solid churches" were so I could have additional places to worship with like-minded persons.

I suspect the Calvinists there are still Calvinists while those who were not Calvinists are not Calvinists.[/QUOTE]

So your teaching had no effect?

That's one thing I am not sure you have understood about me,

[
No..we have a clear picture of your M.O.

.

I understand Calvinism, because I was a Calvinist.

You have made this claim and you can claim anything you want.
You might believe you were, but most every Cal I know has not seen such evidence, so it affects the credibility of the discussion points.
You have claimed to be a free will guy, a Calvinist, and now a disciple of the Roman catholic philosopher/theologian Aquinas...
Again, I know of these Catholic theologians, but avoid all of them as I have no confidence in their works gospel, and his canonization by that false teaching Church.
I have no desire to fill my head with any of his garbage, you are welcome to it.

Through study and prayer I've moved from that soteriological system to what I believe a more biblical approach.

That is your claim. people can and do change ideas and positions.
I have found that if a person cannot support those claims, there is not much need to pay too much to what they say.

But I have never thought bad about Calvinists (I remember very well when I was one). Many of my close friends remain Calvinists, and many are not[/QUOTE].

You as we all do will answer to God for your thoughts and intents of the heart.

Logical fallacy. The fact you have never heard of the "classic view" reflects ignorance on your part rather than theology as a whole (it is like saying you do not exist because someone does not know you).

You and others can hide behind your supposed debate fallacies, i see it as avoiding real discussion.

[QUOTE]Beyond that, good question. I forget some have not studied theology (other than their own views) and may not know these terms.

Some have not studied other theologies, and others have, and just reject the false which you seem to hold onto longer than is healthy from what i have seen of your posting. Suggesting that many Calvinists are trying to modify the teaching is laughable.

If you are truly ignorant of these terms and you are interested there are several pretty good courses available online, some at no cost. Any introductory theology course would explain these views.

I have seen all those ideas, but reject them as defective. You are quite welcome to hold onto them, no one is following you down that path.

Calvinism according to the scriptures has everything to do with the gospel when rightly understood. many have looked at these truths and have not had them take root yet. Some never really look.

 

[Reformed1689]

that Calvinism was a humanistic doctrine.

That's funny because Free Will, in the way Arminians try to claim, is the real humanistic doctrine.

 

[Iconoclast]

That's funny because Free Will, in the way Arminians try to claim, is the real humanistic doctrine.

Yes, David. You can see from the posts on message boards that those who oppose these truths have very little scripture to offer, so they must divert to debate fallacies, anecdotal stories, unsubstantiated remarks, and allegations.
Honest speech or views would be responded to, but it does not happen as often as it should.

 

[Iconoclast]

Real Calvinists are on the rise because scripture is being preached and taught and after false mega churches , tricks ,clowns,and gimmicks, people are hungry for truth

 

[Iconoclast]

The Rise of Calvinist Christianity in Urbanising China


Over the past decade, Reformed Christianity, broadly based on the theology of Calvinism, has spread widely in China, especially by appealing to Chinese ‘intellectuals’ who constitute most of the house church leaders in urban areas. It draws its moral guidance from a so-called rational or intellectual focus on biblical theology, reinforced by theological training in special seminaries. It consequently rejects the ‘heresy’ of the older Pentecostal Christianity, with its emphasis on charisma, miracles, and theology based on emotional ‘feeling’. This Reformed theology and its further elaboration have been introduced into China in two main ways. The first is through overseas Chinese, especially via theological seminaries in Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia. For instance, preachings of the famous Reformed pastor Stephen Tong (唐崇荣) have been widely disseminated online and among Chinese Christians. Second, Korean missionaries have established theological seminaries mainly in cities in northern China. This has resulted in more and more Chinese church leaders becoming advocates of Calvinism and converting their churches to Reformed status. This paper asks why Calvinism attracts Chinese Christians, what Calvinism means for the so-called house churches of a Christian community in a northern Chinese city, and what kinds of change the importation of Reformed theology has brought to Chinese house churches. Various significant accounts have addressed this development in China generally. My analysis complements these accounts by focusing on a small number of interconnected house churches in one city, and uses this case study to highlight interpersonal and organizational issues arising from the Calvinist approach.

 

[JonC]

That's funny because Free Will, in the way Arminians try to claim, is the real humanistic doctrine.

Strawman argument as this is not being argued.

Are you referencing Renaissance humanism (a move from medieval ideology) or modern humanism? These are VERY different ideas.

 

[JonC]

JonC,

You suggested that whatever church/ churches you allegedly taught and preached Calvinism was none of my business and that eventually, you discovered "in your opinion" that Calvinism was a humanistic doctrine.
Yesterday you told us that opinion with no proof was a red herring debate fallacy.
I asked for the churches to attempt to verify your claims and opinions'

Your story remains totally unverified by your own definition.



Can you name any Christian church that is not founded on Christ.
This comment is quite ignorant, as there is no Christian Church that is not founded of Christ Jesus.

Strawman argument.

No one argued Calvinism to be humanistic in terms of contemporary humanism (focused on man). This you made up, invented. You are imagining things (or are simply confused).

My statement that I was a Calvinist, preached and taught Calvinism is not an "opinion". I do not need to provide a list of churches where I taught and it is overstepping to ask. @davidtaylorjr should be able to testify to that fact (we hold he preaches without demanding he provide a list of churches). Your thinking here is confused.

Perhaps if you would learn to use the quote feature you would see your confusion before posting. If you are not capable enough to work the simple features of this forum how can you be capable enough for more complex understandings?

I do believe Calvinism to elevate man by employing a humanistic sense of justice (not humanism in the sense of elevating man in the place of God but elevating a humanistic philosophy as divine justice). You dishonestly project a view onto me.

Can you name any Christian church that is not founded on Christ.
This comment is quite ignorant, as there is no Christian Church that is not founded of Christ Jesus.

Red herring and dishonest.

I never claimed that Christian churches were not founded on Christ.

I said the ones I attended were not founded on either soteriological position. They were founded on Christ. We had members of both camps.

 

[JonC]

They, Liberty, actually pointed that Aulen called it the classic view.

And you did not encounter the "classic view" until taking some advanced theology class at Liberty?

We discussed it as undergraduates. At least you heard of the "classic view" as I use the term.

What are all the other "classic views" of atonement that you were speaking of?

Do you agree with @Iconoclast that we have to post on the public forum the church where we preach and teach for the membership to validate otherwise it is merely an opinion?

I do not because I see it as a violation of privacy and approaching a violation of BB rules concerning privacy. It is a weird request.

What do you think?

 

[Iconoclast]

Strawman argument.

No one argued Calvinism to be humanistic in terms of contemporary humanism (focused on man). This you made up, invented. You are imagining things (or are simply confused).

My statement that I was a Calvinist, preached and taught Calvinism is not an "opinion". I do not need to provide a list of churches where I taught and it is overstepping to ask. @davidtaylorjr should be able to testify to that fact (we hold he preaches without demanding he provide a list of churches). Your thinking here is confused.

Perhaps if you would learn to use the quote feature you would see your confusion before posting. If you are not capable enough to work the simple features of this forum how can you be capable enough for more complex understandings?

I do believe Calvinism to elevate man by employing a humanistic sense of justice (not humanism in the sense of elevating man in the place of God but elevating a humanistic philosophy as divine justice). You dishonestly project a view onto me.

Red herring and dishonest.

I never claimed that Christian churches were not founded on Christ.

I said the ones I attended were not founded on either soteriological position. They were founded on Christ. We had members of both camps.

Perhaps you would like to restore the deleted post once again and we could see exactly what you said...oh no wait, we did that whole thing about a year ago,lol.
So once again you did not post it, I imagined it.lol
..okay JonC... was trying to get examples or proof
I guess these items were not new years resolutions....
You have claimed many things, to ask you for examples or proof is quite natural to clarify and remove the confusion, but nevermind....we understand.
If I asked @davidtaylorjr where he is a member, or anyone else they would say so.
What is the big secret?
I have heard some members preach on sermonaudio, again, nothing to hide, no strange request....Dr. Bob posted his sermons online on facebook.