It is. Calvinists most commonly associate with Covenant Theology. Dispensationalism proved a little too biblical - didn't fit the rest of their theology.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Satisfaction Atonement
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
It is. Calvinists most commonly associate with Covenant Theology. Dispensationalism proved a little too biblical - didn't fit the rest of their theology.
And that's just about the bottom line< JonC.
To be fair, they are being honest about it. Its like the illustration of boiling a frog (tepid water, hear slowly).
They really see extra covenants, the spiritualizing of the covenants of works, grace, and redemption in the Bible. They are not in the biblical text, but they see them there nonetheless.
...a dry barren land...
Anselm's teaching on the Atonement is found in his book, Cur Deus Homo? or 'Why did God become a man?'
Please note that in giving some of Anselm's teaching, I am not indicating that I agree with it as a whole.
The following is largely taken from an on-line resourse by Sam Storms.
Anselm begins by asking the question: What is sin? He defines sin as the withholding by the creature from God the honor that is due him. Therefore, sin is debt, or the failure to render to God full and proper obedience:
“One who does not render this honor [i.e., obedience in every act of will] to God takes away from God what belongs to Him, and dishonors God, and to do this is to sin.".
“So then, everyone who sins ought to pay back the honor of which he has robbed God; and this is the satisfaction which every sinner owes to God”
(Cur Deus Homo? Book I, ch. 11).
Under what obligation does sin place mankind? According to Anselm, mankind is under a three-fold obligation: first, we must immediately render to God full and proper obedience in everything; second, we must pay back the honor due unto God of which, by our sin, we deprived him; and third, we must pay back more (reparation) than we have taken away; this is because of the infinite degree of the insult we inflicted on God by dishonoring him. Hence, total obedience, repayment, and reparation are required of all humanity. Thus there are only two possible options left to mankind: either we must be punished or we must make the required satisfaction. Punishment is undesirable for all concerned, for God’s plan to bring eternal happiness to his creation would suffer. Satisfaction is the only viable alternative.
Mankind is unable to make the required satisfaction for two reasons. Firstly, we already owe God complete obedience and thus have nothing to offer to make satisfaction that is not already rightfully his. Secondly, sin is infinitely heinous because God, against whom it was committed, is infinitely holy. Thus, whatever satisfaction we make would be eternal in duration, for our sin offended an eternally righteous God.
Why cannot God, in love and mercy, simply dismiss the offense and forgive us our sins? There are two reasons. First, if sin is not punished, it is not subject to any law or regulation. The sinner and saint would thus have equal standing before God, the former being regarded no differently than the latter. Second, it would overturn justice if the creature could defraud the creator of that which is his due. The justice of God has no less a right for expression than do his love and mercy. How, then, can satisfaction be made? Anselm put it this way:
“Satisfaction cannot be made unless there be some One able to pay God for man’s sin something greater than all that is beside God. . . . Now nothing is greater than all that is beside God except God himself. None therefore can make this satisfaction except God. And none ought to make it except man. . . . If, then, it be necessary that the kingdom of heaven be completed by man’s admission, and if man cannot be admitted unless the aforesaid satisfaction for sin be first made, and if God only can, and man only ought to make this satisfaction, then necessarily One must make it who is both God and man” (Book II, ch. 6).
In other words, only we owe the debt, but we cannot pay it. Only God can pay the debt, but he does not owe it. Therefore, only a God-man, i.e., Jesus Christ, can both bear the guilt of human sin and pay the debt incurred by it. This is Cur Deus Homo . . . this is why God became man!
How could the death of Christ honor God and sufficiently outweigh the sins of men? Anselm gives us three answers. First, since the God-man offered to God a gift he did not owe, the gift is adequate to pay for our sins. Second, the God-man did not deserve to die. His death was entirely voluntary. Thus his death, unlike that of all other men, was meritorious in God’s sight. Third, Anselm points out that the assault on Christ is the greatest sin imaginable (Book II, ch. 14). Therefore, since he willed to endure this greatest of all injustices, the merit of his death is itself the greatest imaginable and more than suffices to outweigh the sins of mankind.
Some have argued that in Anselm’s model, God’s justice is given a prominence to the exclusion of divine love. But this objection overlooks the fact that the death of Christ is a voluntary, self-sacrificial giving for the sake of sinners. We should also remember that Anselm posits two ways in which sin may be punished, “and the fact that God chooses the one that spares man and tasks God, - the fact that he satisfies his own justice for the sinner, instead of leaving the sinner to satisfy it by an endless misery in his own person, - shows in the most conclusive and affecting manner that Redemption has man’s welfare in view, as well as the best interests of the universe, and the majestic glory of the divine nature” (W.G.T. Shedd, History of Christian Doctrine, II:284).
“the compassion of God, which appeared to be lost entirely when we were considering the justice of God and the sin of man, we have now found to be so great and so consistent with justice, that nothing greater or more just can be conceived of. For what compassion can equal the words of God the Father addressed to the sinner condemned to eternal punishment, and having no means of redeeming himself: ‘Take my only-begotten Son, and make him an offering for thyself;’ or the words of the Son: ‘Take me, and ransom thy soul?’ For this is what both say, when they invite and draw us to faith in the gospel” (Book II, ch. 20).
Please note that in giving some of Anselm's teaching, I am not indicating that I agree with it as a whole.
The following is largely taken from an on-line resourse by Sam Storms.
Anselm begins by asking the question: What is sin? He defines sin as the withholding by the creature from God the honor that is due him. Therefore, sin is debt, or the failure to render to God full and proper obedience:
“One who does not render this honor [i.e., obedience in every act of will] to God takes away from God what belongs to Him, and dishonors God, and to do this is to sin.".
“So then, everyone who sins ought to pay back the honor of which he has robbed God; and this is the satisfaction which every sinner owes to God”
(Cur Deus Homo? Book I, ch. 11).
Under what obligation does sin place mankind? According to Anselm, mankind is under a three-fold obligation: first, we must immediately render to God full and proper obedience in everything; second, we must pay back the honor due unto God of which, by our sin, we deprived him; and third, we must pay back more (reparation) than we have taken away; this is because of the infinite degree of the insult we inflicted on God by dishonoring him. Hence, total obedience, repayment, and reparation are required of all humanity. Thus there are only two possible options left to mankind: either we must be punished or we must make the required satisfaction. Punishment is undesirable for all concerned, for God’s plan to bring eternal happiness to his creation would suffer. Satisfaction is the only viable alternative.
Mankind is unable to make the required satisfaction for two reasons. Firstly, we already owe God complete obedience and thus have nothing to offer to make satisfaction that is not already rightfully his. Secondly, sin is infinitely heinous because God, against whom it was committed, is infinitely holy. Thus, whatever satisfaction we make would be eternal in duration, for our sin offended an eternally righteous God.
Why cannot God, in love and mercy, simply dismiss the offense and forgive us our sins? There are two reasons. First, if sin is not punished, it is not subject to any law or regulation. The sinner and saint would thus have equal standing before God, the former being regarded no differently than the latter. Second, it would overturn justice if the creature could defraud the creator of that which is his due. The justice of God has no less a right for expression than do his love and mercy. How, then, can satisfaction be made? Anselm put it this way:
“Satisfaction cannot be made unless there be some One able to pay God for man’s sin something greater than all that is beside God. . . . Now nothing is greater than all that is beside God except God himself. None therefore can make this satisfaction except God. And none ought to make it except man. . . . If, then, it be necessary that the kingdom of heaven be completed by man’s admission, and if man cannot be admitted unless the aforesaid satisfaction for sin be first made, and if God only can, and man only ought to make this satisfaction, then necessarily One must make it who is both God and man” (Book II, ch. 6).
In other words, only we owe the debt, but we cannot pay it. Only God can pay the debt, but he does not owe it. Therefore, only a God-man, i.e., Jesus Christ, can both bear the guilt of human sin and pay the debt incurred by it. This is Cur Deus Homo . . . this is why God became man!
How could the death of Christ honor God and sufficiently outweigh the sins of men? Anselm gives us three answers. First, since the God-man offered to God a gift he did not owe, the gift is adequate to pay for our sins. Second, the God-man did not deserve to die. His death was entirely voluntary. Thus his death, unlike that of all other men, was meritorious in God’s sight. Third, Anselm points out that the assault on Christ is the greatest sin imaginable (Book II, ch. 14). Therefore, since he willed to endure this greatest of all injustices, the merit of his death is itself the greatest imaginable and more than suffices to outweigh the sins of mankind.
Some have argued that in Anselm’s model, God’s justice is given a prominence to the exclusion of divine love. But this objection overlooks the fact that the death of Christ is a voluntary, self-sacrificial giving for the sake of sinners. We should also remember that Anselm posits two ways in which sin may be punished, “and the fact that God chooses the one that spares man and tasks God, - the fact that he satisfies his own justice for the sinner, instead of leaving the sinner to satisfy it by an endless misery in his own person, - shows in the most conclusive and affecting manner that Redemption has man’s welfare in view, as well as the best interests of the universe, and the majestic glory of the divine nature” (W.G.T. Shedd, History of Christian Doctrine, II:284).
“the compassion of God, which appeared to be lost entirely when we were considering the justice of God and the sin of man, we have now found to be so great and so consistent with justice, that nothing greater or more just can be conceived of. For what compassion can equal the words of God the Father addressed to the sinner condemned to eternal punishment, and having no means of redeeming himself: ‘Take my only-begotten Son, and make him an offering for thyself;’ or the words of the Son: ‘Take me, and ransom thy soul?’ For this is what both say, when they invite and draw us to faith in the gospel” (Book II, ch. 20).
I suppose it is for those who can't accept the realities of Hell.
@Charlie24
What I have learned through these forums is Calvinists can only understand through Calvinism. When they read the Bible they read through that lens.
Think of our disagreement. I objected to PSA because, as you acknowledged, it is not in the Bible (the biblical text). But you said that reading the text you see PSA and cannot understand it differently.
You are in the shoes I wore when dealing with PSA.
Calvinists have been told the ink blot is a bat. They will never see the ink for what it really is. They will always see a bat.
What I have learned through these forums is Calvinists can only understand through Calvinism. When they read the Bible they read through that lens.
Think of our disagreement. I objected to PSA because, as you acknowledged, it is not in the Bible (the biblical text). But you said that reading the text you see PSA and cannot understand it differently.
You are in the shoes I wore when dealing with PSA.
Calvinists have been told the ink blot is a bat. They will never see the ink for what it really is. They will always see a bat.
I'm sure I don't have it all worked out, but until I can see something that fits other than PSA I'm sticking with it.
The Calvinists have a completely different theology throughout the Scripture although I do agree with some things they have concluded.
Calvin was dead on the money in where man stands with God and what God has done for us to be redeemed.
It's the application part that I disagree with. In that application there has been some false doctrine established.
That's what I'm trying to point out in my rants and explanations.
“Although man had remained immaculately innocent, yet his condition would have been too mean for him to approach to God without a Mediator. What, then, can he do, after having been plunged by his fatal fall into death and hell, defiled with so many blasphemies, putrefying in his own corruptions; in a word, overwhelmed by every curse? Since our iniquities, like a cloud, intervene between us and God, entirely alienating us from heaven, no one that could not approach to God could be a mediator for the restoration of peace. But who could have approached Him? Could any of the children of Adam? No; they, with their first parent, dreaded the Divine presence. What, then, could be done? Our situation was truly deplorable, unless the Divine majesty itself would descend to us; for we could not ascend to it. Thus it was necessary (as arising from the heavenly decree) that the Son of God should become Immanuel, that is, God with us” (Calvin’s Institutes, Book 2, Chap. 12).
???
| ...the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life... |
The last sentence is where my argument begins with Calvin, although I agree with him on many points.
It was necessary for Christ to come, but not because of God's sovereign decree that Adam would fall, but because Adam freely chose to believe Satan rather than God.
The letter (OT Law) kills man because man can't keep those laws in his fallen condition.
The Spirit (NC in Christ) gives life in Christ keeping the Law for us by faith in Him.
Yep. My point is you are wearing my shoes.
Yea, I know.
Without the Spirit, 'literal interpretation of the letter' kills this:
Psalms Chapter 119
18 | Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold Wondrous things out of thy law. |
162 | I rejoice at thy word, As one that findeth great spoil. |
...a dry barren land...
Lol, the scripture literally says...
Romans Chapter 9
18 | So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth. |
...and you literally reject it, and you literally rail against those that do accept it.
You're literally consumed with it.
There are wondrous things in the Scripture, but our eyes must be unveiled to them through the Spirit.
It's the Spirit that cuts to the heart of man the truth of the Gospel when it's given.
It's the Spirit that guides the believer in truth after conversion.
Without the Spirit revealing this truth, it is indeed a "dry barren land" for man.
You my friend do not understand the principle of Rom. 9:18.
It's based on God having mercy on those who believe and obey Him, and doubling down with hardness on those who choose not the believe and obey Him.
Somewhat as Pharaoh did.
Once again we go back to Rom. 8, Eph. 1, 2 Thess. 2, where we took separate paths in the application of God's mercy and grace on man.
Everything is seen different through that lens.