Rise of Calvinism pt.2

[ivdavid]

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.

I believe the same. I just don't see it as an "Instead..". Which is why I'm confused over what the exact difference is between our positions...

God is appeased and his justice is satisfied, but not via the exercise of the law (by punishing sin).

But that is contained in your beliefs above when you say men must still die to the flesh, right? Rom 3:31, Gal 3:13, Rom 6:23 etc. do talk about God fulfilling our penalty of transgressing the law in order to uphold the law, right? How else am I supposed to read these?

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe the same. I just don't see it as an "Instead..". Which is why I'm confused over what the exact difference is between our positions...


But that is contained in your beliefs above when you say men must still die to the flesh, right? Rom 3:31, Gal 3:13, Rom 6:23 etc. do talk about God fulfilling our penalty of transgressing the law in order to uphold the law, right? How else am I supposed to read these?

Still fail to see how that wrath of God is atoned for if non penal view is held!

 

[ivdavid]

Still fail to see how that wrath of God is atoned for if non penal view is held!

I hold to the penal view myself. I just don't causatively associate penal view with the wrath of God needing to be appeased. It comes down to semantics probably.

When you use the words "appeasement" of "God's wrath" - it implies that God is set in a direction opposed to us in wrath until Christ alters it with His sacrifice, after which God who is now appeased is able to show forth His love for us. Eph 2:4, Rom 5:8 gives me the impression that God was already pleased to show us His love and therein sent His Son to die to uphold His righteousness in doing so (Rom 3:26), but not for appeasement as such.

Of course, had Christ not died for us paying our penalty, we would still have had to face the just wrath of God because by natures we are children (deserving) of wrath - but God has revealed that's not His disposition towards His people.

 

[JonC]

I believe the same. I just don't see it as an "Instead..". Which is why I'm confused over what the exact difference is between our positions...


But that is contained in your beliefs above when you say men must still die to the flesh, right? Rom 3:31, Gal 3:13, Rom 6:23 etc. do talk about God fulfilling our penalty of transgressing the law in order to uphold the law, right? How else am I supposed to read these?

It may not be "instead of". I think we would have to devote more time to discover one another's view here. I do believe Calvinism is wrong (that it has a "false start").

 

[Reformed1689]

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.

Curious how they can even quantify this. Not all Calvinist churches are equal just like all Arminian churches are not equal. And how many churches were surveyed? And honestly, what does attendance have to do with anything?

 

[Yeshua1]

I hold to the penal view myself. I just don't causatively associate penal view with the wrath of God needing to be appeased. It comes down to semantics probably.

When you use the words "appeasement" of "God's wrath" - it implies that God is set in a direction opposed to us in wrath until Christ alters it with His sacrifice, after which God who is now appeased is able to show forth His love for us. Eph 2:4, Rom 5:8 gives me the impression that God was already pleased to show us His love and therein sent His Son to die to uphold His righteousness in doing so (Rom 3:26), but not for appeasement as such.

Of course, had Christ not died for us paying our penalty, we would still have had to face the just wrath of God because by natures we are children (deserving) of wrath - but God has revealed that's not His disposition towards His people.

I just see that we need to account for both John 3:16 and 17, as there abides on all of us right now the wrath of God, if found not in Christ but still in Adam!

​

 

[JonC]

Curious how they can even quantify this. Not all Calvinist churches are equal just like all Arminian churches are not equal. And how many churches were surveyed? And honestly, what does attendance have to do with anything?

They break it down in the research.

 

[Yeshua1]

Curious how they can even quantify this. Not all Calvinist churches are equal just like all Arminian churches are not equal. And how many churches were surveyed? And honestly, what does attendance have to do with anything?

if it really did, than Joel Olsteen must be a modern day Apostle based upon membership!

 

[JonC]

Still fail to see how that wrath of God is atoned for if non penal view is held!

My answer is that people are atoned for, not wrath or sin. Jesus died for our sins, is the propitiation for the sins of the world, and atones for us (our Mediator).

 

[Yeshua1]

I hold to the penal view myself. I just don't causatively associate penal view with the wrath of God needing to be appeased. It comes down to semantics probably.

When you use the words "appeasement" of "God's wrath" - it implies that God is set in a direction opposed to us in wrath until Christ alters it with His sacrifice, after which God who is now appeased is able to show forth His love for us. Eph 2:4, Rom 5:8 gives me the impression that God was already pleased to show us His love and therein sent His Son to die to uphold His righteousness in doing so (Rom 3:26), but not for appeasement as such.

Of course, had Christ not died for us paying our penalty, we would still have had to face the just wrath of God because by natures we are children (deserving) of wrath - but God has revealed that's not His disposition towards His people.

key is "His people", as a;; outside of that will suffer his wrath, as Christ bore that due wrath for us!

 

[Yeshua1]

My answer is that people are atoned for, not wrath or sin.

That divine wrath had to get propiated somehow though in order to allow God to declare us now righteous in Christ!

 

[JonC]

Curious how they can even quantify this. Not all Calvinist churches are equal just like all Arminian churches are not equal. And how many churches were surveyed? And honestly, what does attendance have to do with anything?

What are the other "classic views" of Atonement you were speaking of before, David?

 

[Reformed1689]

They break it down in the research.

Link?

 

[JonC]

Link?

Research Archive - Barna Group

 

[Reformed1689]

Research Archive - Barna Group

Wow, you really won't just post the link to the actual research and expect me to go searching through the archives?

 

[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??

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.

 

[JonC]

Wow, you really won't just post the link to the actual research and expect me to go searching through the archives?

You searched for Calvinism - Barna Group
You want me to read it to you as well?

 

[Reformed1689]

You searched for Calvinism - Barna Group
You want me to read it to you as well?

Ok I found it. John, you said it was a 2019 article, in fact, it was a 2010 article. This research is literally a DECADE old.

 

[JonC]

Ok I found it. John, you said it was a 2019 article, in fact, it was a 2010 article. This research is literally a DECADE old.

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?

 

[Reformed1689]

The topic itself is over a decade old.

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

I've actually not made the claim that it is growing. I really don't know the answer as to whether it is growing or not.

But do you admit you wrongly presented the argument as current research when it is really a decade old?

 

[Reformed1689]

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

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.