Rise of Calvinism pt.2

[JonC]

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 David 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.

No. I had referenced judicial ideologies related to John Calvin (who was a humanistic lawyer). I decided that would only cause confusion (based on the fact that you had not encountered the "classic view" of atonement, I thought that my use of "humanistic" would be confusing to you and did not want to have to get into humanism as related to the Renaissance vs contemporary humanism.

What you imagined was that I was speaking of Calvinism as being humanism and elevating man over God. Perhaps you should concentrate on what is said, ask questions, and refrain from making false conclusions.

How do we know you are you, Iconoclast? Will you please link your facebook account so that we can see if you are really a truck driver in Georgia? (for illustration, not really asking because it is inappropriate, just making a point).

@davidtaylorjr , what is your home church? Where have you preached?

The reason I will not provide information is I think you are weird and it is a weird request. My preaching is not on the internet, so the only reason I can think of for you to want to know where I've gone to church is to stalk me and harass Christians who are not Calvinists. There are too many predators on the internet for me to intentionally subject these Christians to such things.

What you are doing, @Iconoclast , is resorting to ad hominem.

If you were an honest man your focus would be on the doctrine being discussed. My point was:

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.

Why do you resort to false accusation and trolling for personal information?

 

[Iconoclast]

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 David 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.

No. I had referenced judicial ideologies related to John Calvin (who was a humanistic lawyer). I decided that would only cause confusion (based on the fact that you had not encountered the "classic view" of atonement, I thought that my use of "humanistic" would be confusing to you and did not want to have to get into humanism as related to the Renaissance vs contemporary humanism.

What you imagined was that I was speaking of Calvinism as being humanism and elevating man over God. Perhaps you should concentrate on what is said, ask questions, and refrain from making false conclusions.

How do we know you are you, Iconoclast? Will you please link your facebook account so that we can see if you are really a truck driver in Georgia? (for illustration, not really asking because it is inappropriate, just making a point).

@davidtaylorjr , what is your home church? Where have you preached?

The reason I will not provide information is I think you are weird and it is a weird request. My preaching is not on the internet, so the only reason I can think of for you to want to know where I've gone to church is to stalk me and harass Christians who are not Calvinists. There are too many predators on the internet for me to intentionally subject these Christians to such things.

What you are doing, @Iconoclast , is resorting to ad hominem.

If you were an honest man your focus would be on the doctrine being discussed. My point was:

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.

Why do you resort to false accusation and trolling for personal information?

Anyone can see my Facebook page.
Anyone speak to me on the phone.
I have spoken on the phone with more than ten members.

 

[Reformed1689]

@davidtaylorjr , what is your home church? Where have you preached?

I will not post my home church on a public forum. However, I have preached at Independent Baptist Churches, Southern Baptist Churches, United Methodist Churches, Non-Denom Churches, Foursquare Churches, Church Camps, Conferences, and Christian Schools.

I'll preach whenever and wherever invited.

 

[JonC]

I will not post my home church on a public forum. However, I have preached at Independent Baptist Churches, Southern Baptist Churches, United Methodist Churches, Non-Denom Churches, Foursquare Churches, Church Camps, Conferences, and Christian Schools.

I'll preach whenever and wherever invited.

I will as well. I have preached at SBC churches.

Do you understand why I believe it inappropriate for @Iconoclast to insist we post the name if the churches we have preached at so he can verify?

 

[Reformed1689]

I will as well. I have preached at SBC churches.

Do you understand why I believe it inappropriate for @Iconoclast to insist we post the name if the churches we have preached at so he can verify?

I'm staying out of that. You already know my position on that given past issues.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

And some of us value separating our web presence from our real life, Some like John of Japan, Dr. Bob, and TCassidy are happy to mix to two.

Anyone can see my Facebook page.
Anyone speak to me on the phone.
I have spoken on the phone with more than ten members.

 

[JonC]

I'm staying out of that. You already know my position on that given past issues.

I take that as you agree we should not be requested to provide our churches and Facebook accounts for @Iconoclast inspection

I agree. It is a very weird and creepy request.

 

[Reformed]

I take that as you agree we should not be requested to provide our churches and Facebook accounts for @Iconoclast inspection

I agree. It is a very weird and creepy request.

Jon, what I really want is a DNA swab, blood/urine samples, and social security card number for you and @davidtaylorjr . Do you think you two can help me out?

 

[JonC]

Jon, what I really want is a DNA swab, blood/urine samples, and social security card number for you and @davidtaylorjr . Do you think you two can help me out?

Sure, I'll include my bank info so you can reimburse me the money to ship the swab, if that is fair.

 

[Reformed]

Sure, I'll include my bank info so you can reimburse me the money to ship the swab, if that is fair.

Sure thing, Jon. I have some old Confederate script that I will send to you.

 

[JonC]

Sure thing, Jon. I have some old Confederate script that I will send to you.

No rubles?

 

[JonC]

This is the doctrine I introduced as an answer to my view. I see two approaches to the Atonement.

My view looks at atonement on the grounds of a change taking place in men rather than changing God’s attitude towards men. My old view looked at God as the object of Christ’s atoning work via changing God's attitude towards men via appeasement.

Rather than addressing doctrine @Iconoclast chose to fight confused and deranged imaginings he invented of what he believes I might have meant and engage in some creepy attempt at envasion of privacy.

I suggest we get back to the topic, which is the rise of Calvinism and by virtue of the discussion various competing ideas.

Research (2019 article) shows:

Calvinist church attendance rose 13%.
Arminian church attendance rose 18%

Conclusion by Barna:

"there is no discernable evidence from this research that there is a Reformed shift among U.S. congregation leaders over. . Whatever momentum surrounds Reformed churches and the related leaders, events and associations has not gone much outside traditional boundaries or affected the allegiances of most of today's church leaders.”

Loud and disruptive is not an indicator of actual growth.

 

[Yeshua1]

No. I had referenced judicial ideologies related to John Calvin (who was a humanistic lawyer). I decided that would only cause confusion (based on the fact that you had not encountered the "classic view" of atonement, I thought that my use of "humanistic" would be confusing to you and did not want to have to get into humanism as related to the Renaissance vs contemporary humanism.

What you imagined was that I was speaking of Calvinism as being humanism and elevating man over God. Perhaps you should concentrate on what is said, ask questions, and refrain from making false conclusions.

How do we know you are you, Iconoclast? Will you please link your facebook account so that we can see if you are really a truck driver in Georgia? (for illustration, not really asking because it is inappropriate, just making a point).

@davidtaylorjr , what is your home church? Where have you preached?

The reason I will not provide information is I think you are weird and it is a weird request. My preaching is not on the internet, so the only reason I can think of for you to want to know where I've gone to church is to stalk me and harass Christians who are not Calvinists. There are too many predators on the internet for me to intentionally subject these Christians to such things.

What you are doing, @Iconoclast , is resorting to ad hominem.

If you were an honest man your focus would be on the doctrine being discussed. My point was:

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.

Why do you resort to false accusation and trolling for personal information?

Basically, it boils down to do you see the scriptures teaching to us that God has wrath against sins and thus sinners, and has to have that appeased in order to have salvation rendered or not?

 

[ivdavid]

My view looks at atonement on the grounds of a change taking place in men rather than changing God’s attitude towards men. My old view looked at God as the object of Christ’s atoning work via changing God's attitude towards men via appeasement.

Given Rom 3:26, why can't God still be the object of Christ's atoning work via upholding His righteousness in His favoring the sinner Himself, instead of via appeasement?
This continues to keep the central focus on God while still requiring a change in man but without implying God's attitude towards men itself needs changing.

 

[JonC]

Basically, it boils down to do you see the scriptures teaching to us that God has wrath against sins and thus sinners, and has to have that appeased in order to have salvation rendered or not?

I do see Scripture as saying God's wrath is upon sinners. We were children of wrath. Christ is the propitiation for our sins and in Him we escape the wrath to come. So the first part is not the difference.

How we are redeemed, however, may be the difference. I do not see a sin debt paid but a Ransom or redemption for mankind. Rather than appeasing divine wrath I view Christ as freeing us from the law of sin and death (there is then no condemnation in Christ).

 

[JonC]

Given Rom 3:26, why can't God still be the object of Christ's atoning work via upholding His righteousness in His favoring the sinner Himself, instead of via appeasement?
This continues to keep the central focus on God while still requiring a change in man but without implying God's attitude towards men itself needs changing.

That is one of the views concerning the Atonement.

 

[ivdavid]

That is one of the views concerning the Atonement.

Well quite obviously it is, even if it was just my own view

I'm asking how does this contradict your position? What is keeping you from adopting this yourself? Because all you stated is already covered by what I stated and then some more, right?

 

[JonC]

Well quite obviously it is, even if it was just my own view

I'm asking how does this contradict your position? What is keeping you from adopting this yourself? Because all you stated is already covered by what I stated and then some more, right?

I believe God is righteous (not that His righteousness needs to be upheld). In context of sin I believe God just and the justified of sinners but in a way that is a manifestation of His righteousness apart from the law.

God is appeased and his justice is satisfied, but not via the exercise of the law (by punishing sin). Instead I believe that Christ is a second type of man (a "second Adam"). I believe men must be born again, be born of the Spirit, but still die to the flesh.

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe God is righteous (not that His righteousness needs to be upheld). In context of sin I believe God just and the justified of sinners but in a way that is a manifestation of His righteousness apart from the law.

God is appeased and his justice is satisfied, but not via the exercise of the law (by punishing sin). Instead I believe that Christ is a second type of man (a "second Adam"). I believe men must be born again, be born of the Spirit, but still die to the flesh.

How is that wrath of god towards sin and sinners atoned for though if no penal substitionary atonement? who or what becomes the object of that divine wrath?

 

[Yeshua1]

I do see Scripture as saying God's wrath is upon sinners. We were children of wrath. Christ is the propitiation for our sins and in Him we escape the wrath to come. So the first part is not the difference.

How we are redeemed, however, may be the difference. I do not see a sin debt paid but a Ransom or redemption for mankind. Rather than appeasing divine wrath I view Christ as freeing us from the law of sin and death (there is then no condemnation in Christ).

We get to your position due to the wrath of God first being covered/propiatated for!