Rise of Calvinism pt.2

[Yeshua1]

This is from the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals

"Of course, the thrust of this "ransom" or "classic theory" of the atonement is to emphasize that the cross of Christ more than just a satisfaction of the penalty of sin; it is a mighty victory over the power of sin, death, and the devil--something that many of us confessional Protestants could emphasize a bit more. That is to say, the cross is just as much about our sanctification as it is about our justification."

(The Alliance is a coalition of pastors, scholars, and churchmen who hold the historic creeds and confessions of the Reformed faith and who proclaim biblical doctrine in order to foster a Reformed awakening in today's Church.)

I am not sure about all of the other many "classic views" of Atonement @davidtaylorjr was referencing and cannot explain why the term was overly familiar to him while unknown to you.

The "classic: held view among Reformed and Calvinist Baptists is the penal substitutionary .

 

[Yeshua1]

The topic itself is over a decade old. The ARTICLE was 2019 but I prefer to look at the actual data.

Do you have more recent data from such research or do you just feel like Calvinism is growing?

What are all of these other "classic views" of Atonement you spoke about earlier?

Its growing among the SBC, for example!

 

[JonC]

I have already addressed this. Ther are multiple classic views, inlcuding Penal Substitution. When you say classical view it is only called that because of what Aulen said about it. It has nothing to do with anything and I prefer to call the views by their name as opposed to attributing arbitrary qualifiers to them that are only there due to bias.

I think you are making things up.

Perhaps Aulén's book started the title (it did "Christus Victor"), but that is not why I use the term. I use it because this is how I have seen it used in theological discussions.

Please provide a theological sources that speak of Penal Substitution Theory as the "Classic view" of Atonement.

 

[JonC]

The "classic: held view among Reformed and Calvinist Baptists is the penal substitutionary .

You and @davidtaylorjr seem to be making things up and taking an emotional position on a theological term. This is juvenile as it is the doctrine, not what the doctrine is called, that matters.

This is from the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals

"Of course, the thrust of this "ransom" or "classic theory" of the atonement is to emphasize that the cross of Christ more than just a satisfaction of the penalty of sin; it is a mighty victory over the power of sin, death, and the devil--something that many of us confessional Protestants could emphasize a bit more."

(The Alliance is a coalition of pastors, scholars, and churchmen who hold the historic creeds and confessions of the Reformed faith)

 

[JonC]

Its growing among the SBC, for example!

Please provide the research to which you are referring. There is a difference between loud/ disruptive and growing.

 

[Reformed1689]

Perhaps Aulén's book started the title (it did "Christus Victor"), but that is not why I use the term. I use it because this is how I have seen it used in theological discussions.

Yes, but again, that means it is just an arbitrary term as I have already stated.

Are you going to retract your statement that the Barna research was a 2019 article?

 

[JonC]

Yes, but again, that means it is just an arbitrary term as I have already stated.

Are you going to retract your statement that the Barna research was a 2019 article?

It is not an arbitrary term (as you proved by referencing Liberty's use of the term, Aulén's use, and the Reformed quote I provided to speak of the same specific teaching).

No. I will not retract my statement. I read it in a 2019 article but went to the source (which was a 2010 report). I always try to go to the original sources when possible (something I learned in college and why I am not a Calvinist).

Do you have more recent research that shows Calvinism growing stronger in relation to other views?

 

[Reformed1689]

It is not an arbitrary term (as you proved by referencing Liberty's use of the term, Aulén's use, and the Reformed quote I provided to speak of the specific thought).

It was arbitrarily assigned.

No. I will not retract my statement. I read it in a 2019 article but went to the source (which was a 2010 report).

Then what article did you read? I asked you for the link to what you read (you claimed a 2019 article) and instead I got a link to 2010 research.... Do you see why that raises an eyebrow?

Do you have more recent research that shows Calvinism growing stronger in relation to other views?

Again, I don't even know how you would quantify that. For example, I don't go to a Calvinist church, so does that mean I am contributing to the Arminian number? Attendance at a Church doesn't mean anything.

 

[JonC]

It was arbitrarily assigned.


Then what article did you read? I asked you for the link to what you read (you claimed a 2019 article) and instead I got a link to 2010 research.... Do you see why that raises an eyebrow?


Again, I don't even know how you would quantify that. For example, I don't go to a Calvinist church, so does that mean I am contributing to the Arminian number? Attendance at a Church doesn't mean anything.

The fact you find
"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)." as arbitrary is odd. Seems rather specific.

You do know that" Calvinism" originally stood for "anti-Lutherism" in terms of communion.

What matters is doctrine, not what you want to call doctrine.

I think it is telling that you have not addressed any doctrine here but instead whined about my use of an accepted use of a theological term and cried that I provided an original source rather than the article that pointed me to the source.

 

[Reformed1689]

cried that I provided an original source rather than the article that pointed me to the source.

No, that I pointed out that your post was misleading at best, deceptive at worst about the year that research was conducted.

 

[JonC]

No, that I pointed out that your post was misleading at best, deceptive at worst about the year that research was conducted.

So you have no more current data?

Interesting.

I think sometimes people are simply too willing to be misled. Sometimes they are fools and this can't be helped. But other times people just want a cause and a sense of perceived wrong to argue against. I think this is just smoke to hide their inability to grapple with opposing views.

And then, of course, there is the actual doctrines that separate our positions - something you, in your many posts, have not even addressed.

 

[Reformed1689]

So you have no more current data?

I'm saying the data is faulty to begin with. It assumes that if someone is in an Arminian church they are themselves Arminian and same with Calvinism. It's bad from the start.

Interesting.

I think sometimes people are simply too willing to be misled. Sometimes they are fools and this can't be helped. But other times people just want a cause and a sense of perceived wrong to argue against.

And then, of course, there is the actual doctrines that separate our positions - something you, in your many posts, have not even addressed.

And the fact that you still won't acknowledge you were misleading in your post is telling.

 

[Jerome]

Remember the Young Restless Reformed book their hype man Collin Hansen put out?

He profiled such shooting stars as:

Mark Driscoll (we know how that turned out)
CJ Mahaney ditto
Timmy Brister (now selling insurance)
Joshua Harris ahem

 

[Yeshua1]

I think you are making things up.

Perhaps Aulén's book started the title (it did "Christus Victor"), but that is not why I use the term. I use it because this is how I have seen it used in theological discussions.

Please provide a theological sources that speak of Penal Substitution Theory as the "Classic view" of Atonement.

How about is the prominent view held among both Reformed and Calvinistic Baptists?

 

[JonC]

I'm saying the data is faulty to begin with. It assumes that if someone is in an Arminian church they are themselves Arminian and same with Calvinism. It's bad from the start.


And the fact that you still won't acknowledge you were misleading in your post is telling.

But (aside from people attending churches that teach what they do not believe) what data have you offered to support the idea of Calvinistic growth. Looks like the same people saying the same thing for the same few decades while their churches are not growing.

 

[Yeshua1]

The fact you find
"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)." as arbitrary is odd. Seems rather specific.

You do know that" Calvinism" originally stood for "anti-Lutherism" in terms of communion.

What matters is doctrine, not what you want to call doctrine.

I think it is telling that you have not addressed any doctrine here but instead whined about my use of an accepted use of a theological term and cried that I provided an original source rather than the article that pointed me to the source.

the change of man is directly due to how God views that man, depending if now in Christ or still in Adam!!
The wrath of God still needs to have an object for it, and its either going to be Jesus or us!

 

[JonC]

How about is the prominent view held among both Reformed and Calvinistic Baptists?

That is called "Penal Substitution Theory". It falls under the "Latin view" (objective theory). The reason is it approaches the Atonement as a work to appease God to change His attitude towards us (Christ is punished by God to satisfy God's wrath towards us).

 

[Yeshua1]

The fact you find
"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)." as arbitrary is odd. Seems rather specific.

You do know that" Calvinism" originally stood for "anti-Lutherism" in terms of communion.

What matters is doctrine, not what you want to call doctrine.

I think it is telling that you have not addressed any doctrine here but instead whined about my use of an accepted use of a theological term and cried that I provided an original source rather than the article that pointed me to the source.

the very heart of the Gospel is the Cross of Christ and his resurrection, and the very heart of that is His penal substitionary death!

 

[JonC]

The wrath of God still needs to have an object for it

Pleaae provide a verse or if none exists the philosophy justifying this idea.

 

[Yeshua1]

That is called "Penal Substitution Theory". It falls under the "Latin view" (objective theory). The reason is it approaches the Atonement as a work to appease God to change His attitude towards us (Christ is punished by God to satisfy God's wrath towards us).

Would you agree that it is the prominent view held by those 2 groups?