Calvinism

[Rach1370]

Do you base your " his attributes are all equal" on any scripture?

Well, firstly, I would think it to be apparent. God, being completely perfect, would not lack in anything. Therefore any traits that he does have, would be equal...full. He is not like us, who have stronger traits, or weaker ones. He is all....

Secondly, we must realise that when scripture talks of God's attributes, it never singles one out as more important or greater than the others. There is a truth implied that every attribute is completely true of God...and is true of all of God's character. Indeed when scripture talks of his attributes, there is no suggestion that part of God is light and part is love (for example), or that God is partly light and partly love. Nor should we think that he is more light than love. Rather it is God himself who is light...it is God himself who is love. Scripture steers us away from thinking of God as a collection of various attributes added together.

Any ideas on what it takes to satisfy God's justice?

Well....I would hesitate to guess the death of his perfect son...!

But...to break it down some...I think to understand what it takes to satisfy God's justice, we must understand what it is that requires justice. The answer is of course sin. Consider:


Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Genesis 18:25b, ESV)






4 “The Rock, his work is perfect,
for all his ways are justice.
A God of faithfulness and without iniquity,
just and upright is he. (Deuteronomy 32:4, ESV)



I the Lord speak the truth;
I declare what is right. (Isaiah 45:19b, ESV)

We see the God always acts in accordance with what is right and is himself the final standard of what is right or just. As a result of Gods righteousness, it is necessary that he treat people according to what they deserve...this it is necessary that God punish sin, for it does not deserve reward, it is wrong and deserves punishment.
We could go further and say that if God did not punish sin, it would indicate that he was not righteous...but I don't think we need to...we all know that this is where Christ comes in:

...25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be
just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:24-26, ESV)


When Christ died to pay the penalty for our sins, it showed that God was truly righteous, because he did give appropriate punishment to sin. But...and I know this is where you disagree....this "passing over" of sins only applies to those who are 'in Christ'. We have his blood washing our sins from us...those who deny Jesus do not have this....and must eventually be punished for their sins....they stand in judgement...


16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:16-18, ESV)

 

[Wormwood]

ScottAU -

You said,

You see under Penal Substitution it is taught that Jesus "satisfied the wrath" of God on the cross and due to this the wrath no longer abides on those whom He "satisfied the wrath for." Yet the Bible does not teach any such thing anywhere.

The concept of "wrath satisfaction" and a "forensic transfer of righteousness" (which are bedrocks of Reformed/Calvinist doctrine) as the means by which a sinner is justified is totally alien to what the Scripture actually teaches.

This Penal Substitution concept completely perverts the Gospel by throwing "obedience from the heart" (Rom 6:17) and the resulting "purity of heart" (1Pet 1:22) right out the window as MANDATORY conditions and facets of genuine salvation. Under Penal Substitution salvation is PURELY forensic or positional, which is why people say they have an "Identity in Christ" but "practically they still sin."

It appears to me that you are arguing from an Arminian and holiness stance such as that which was taught by Wesley (i.e. Christian perfection). While I have no problem with this view, I think you are confusing justification and sanctification. John Wesley, the one who championed the view you are proposing, also adamantly defended penal substitution. Thus, it is quite clear that one can hold to penal substitution and still believe in the necessity of progressive sanctification. Wesley believed that pardon was salvation begun and holiness displayed salvation by faith continued.

Oden writes, "In advancing the penal satisfaction view of atonement, Wesley argued that Christ's death is necessary to the whole fabric of faith. By this time, Wesley thought that [Thomas] Law seemed "not even to know what the term 'justification' means." (Oden, John Wesley's Teachings, Volume 2: Christ and Salvation)

Therefore, I find that your rejection of penal satisfaction as contrary to the importance of progressive sanctification as entirely unfounded as well as your claim that the Bible teaches only of ransom and not of Penal Satisfaction. First, I would ask of you "To whom is the ransom paid?" If you claim the ransom or price of redemption is paid to God then certainly God is being satisfied by death of Christ. His death paid the penalty of our transgressions for surely he "carried our infirmities" and was "bruised for our transgressions." Moreover, 2 Cor. 5:21 declares that "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." Clearly this is a substitutionary view which is the foundation of penal satisfaction. Jesus took our sin and bore the penalty for that sin while we took on Christ's righteous. We are instantaneously justified by faith in the work of Christ. Even Wesley taught that. Without instantaneous justification, we cannot receive the Holy Spirit and thus receive grace to progress in sanctification. Apart from justification, I cannot see how you can avoid the pitfall of Pelagianism and a view of salvation that is ultimately wrought by your own hands rather than the grace of God alone.

 

[jiggyfly]

Well, firstly, I would think it to be apparent. God, being completely perfect, would not lack in anything. Therefore any traits that he does have, would be equal...full. He is not like us, who have stronger traits, or weaker ones. He is all....

Secondly, we must realise that when scripture talks of God's attributes, it never singles one out as more important or greater than the others. There is a truth implied that every attribute is completely true of God...and is true of all of God's character. Indeed when scripture talks of his attributes, there is no suggestion that part of God is light and part is love (for example), or that God is partly light and partly love. Nor should we think that he is more light than love. Rather it is God himself who is light...it is God himself who is love. Scripture steers us away from thinking of God as a collection of various attributes added together.

So what do you think of Paul's statement to the Corinthians found in 1Cor. 13 on love being the greatest?
I'll ask you again do you base your opinion on any scripture?

Well....I would hesitate to guess the death of his perfect son...!



But...to break it down some...I think to understand what it takes to satisfy God's justice, we must understand what it is that requires justice. The answer is of course sin. Consider:


Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Genesis 18:25b, ESV)




4 “The Rock, his work is perfect,
for all his ways are justice.
A God of faithfulness and without iniquity,
just and upright is he. (Deuteronomy 32:4, ESV)

I the Lord speak the truth;
I declare what is right. (Isaiah 45:19b, ESV)

We see the God always acts in accordance with what is right and is himself the final standard of what is right or just. As a result of Gods righteousness, it is necessary that he treat people according to what they deserve...this it is necessary that God punish sin, for it does not deserve reward, it is wrong and deserves punishment.
We could go further and say that if God did not punish sin, it would indicate that he was not righteous...but I don't think we need to...we all know that this is where Christ comes in:

...25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be
just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:24-26, ESV)


When Christ died to pay the penalty for our sins, it showed that God was truly righteous, because he did give appropriate punishment to sin. But...and I know this is where you disagree....this "passing over" of sins only applies to those who are 'in Christ'. We have his blood washing our sins from us...those who deny Jesus do not have this....and must eventually be punished for their sins....they stand in judgement...


16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:16-18, ESV)

Looking at the scripture accounts of times past paints a bit of a different picture than what your suggesting here. If God's justice was/is satisfied by punishment for sin then in every case we would see death, correct?

Yet while this maybe the result in some cases it is not true in all. What of Cain? How about King Saul or King David? When I look at the scriptures dealing with law and justice I see that restitution and restoration is God's preferred outcome and punishment is simply a means of correction to bring restitution.

Do you refute John's statement in John 1:29 concerning Jesus?
29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

John 1:29 (NLT)

 

[Wormwood]

Jiggy,

I know you are directing your comments to Rach, but it is true that all die. While God did not exact wrath on all people immediately for their sin, Paul explains that it is the death of Christ that explains this forbearance. Romans 3:25-26. The Greek word here is hilistarion which means to turn aside wrath. I think to only view God's justice as mere restitution and restoration is to misunderstand God's judgment and gives no explanation for the torment of the ungodly. If God is not angry at sin, why does he punish the ungodly on the Day of Judgment (unless you believe that such judgment will restore them). Moreover, one does not have to look long into the prophets to see a God whose wrath is continually kindled by evil acts. There was no restitution or restoration for Sodom or Gomorrah. Isaiah says that Israel would have been wiped out just like Sodom and Gomorrah were it not for his mercy. God's wrath toward sin is mentioned hundreds of times in the OT. John 3:36 is also telling. It is not that God is wrathful toward those who reject Christ. Rather this passage indicates that God's wrath is already present and "remains" (meno - to persist, continue, remain) on those who reject the Son.

 

[ScottAU]

Looking at the scripture accounts of times past paints a bit of a different picture than what your suggesting here. If God's justice was/is satisfied by punishment for sin then in every case we would see death, correct?

Yet while this maybe the result in some cases it is not true in all. What of Cain? How about King Saul or King David? When I look at the scriptures dealing with law and justice I see that restitution and restoration is God's preferred outcome and punishment is simply a means of correction to bring restitution.

Do you refute John's statement in John 1:29 concerning Jesus?
29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

John 1:29 (NLT)

That is a good observation you have made.

Another point to consider is that If wrath "must" be satisfied in order that sin be forgiven then is sin truly forgiven?

Let's say I owe Jiggyfly $100.

Jiggyfly comes to me and wants his money and I tell him I simply cannot pay the debt due. Then out of nowhere Rach approaches Jiggyfly and gives him a $100 and says, "this is for Scott."

Jiggyfly takes the $100 and says to me, "Scott, you don't me me anything."

Now was my debt forgiven?



It is the same with sin and forgiveness. If God requires that the debt accrued for sin (wages of sin is death) be satisfied in order for the debt to be discharges then there is simply no forgiveness. This is one of the major problems of the Penal Substitution model of the atonement and adherents to the doctrine cannot answer this point.

To make it even clearer Jesus spoke this parable...

Mat 18:21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
Mat 18:22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
Mat 18:23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.
Mat 18:24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.
Mat 18:25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.
Mat 18:26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
Mat 18:27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.
Mat 18:28 But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.
Mat 18:29 And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
Mat 18:30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.
Mat 18:31 So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.
Mat 18:32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
Mat 18:33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?
Mat 18:34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
Mat 18:35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

In the above parable the the debt is freely forgiven without any requirement for a payment. Thus the debt is not "satisfied."

Likewise when the forgiven servant refuses to forgive his fellow servant the lord becomes angry and reinstates the debt. This parable is a direct refutation of the Penal Substitution model of the death of Christ. it also causes major problems for both the Satisfaction and Moral Government views.

The death of Christ simply was not a penalty payment. The death of Christ was a sin offering whereby sinners were purchased (or ransomed) from their enslavement to sin (the blood purges the former sins from the conscience). Sin holds dominion over a sinner for the wages of sin is death, Christ purchased humanity from the dominion of sin thus granting us the Ministry of Reconciliation.

Sinners thus have the opportunity to disassociate themselves with the "old man" who "serves sin" by "putting on the new man" and thus becoming a "servant of righteousness." The methodology of this transfer is via a death and rebirth.

We die to sin that we may live for God.

What the Reformers did is try and force their knowledge of "judicial law" into the Bible (many were lawyers). They found Anselm's Satisfaction (approx 12th century) view appealing but to make more sense of it they added the aspect of judicial punishment. Thus the entire concept of the death of Christ was shifted from a model that people are intrinsically participatory to a model where people are spectators. Thus the doctrine of being "saved in sin" was cemented into theology and any challenge to the fallacy would be considered "adding to the finished work of Christ."

This is why Reformed Theology is so dangerous because of the inbuilt safeguards against the truth. Any person who stands up in a congregation and challenges the fundamentals of the theological framework will be deemed a heretic. This is one reason that "well intentioned" Arminian's never seem to get anywhere when refuting Calvinism, they simply don't understand the the underlying system of error and how deep the rabbit hole actually goes.



Here is the end of an interesting parable taught by Jesus about entering the kingdom.

Mat 22:8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
Mat 22:9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
Mat 22:10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
Mat 22:11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
Mat 22:12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
Mat 22:13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

In this parable we have a man who approaches the king without a wedding garment. In Revelation there is this very interesting passage...

Rev 19:8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
Rev 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

There are so many people today who base their salvation on Penal Substitution being true. They sincerely believe that their sin was transferred to Jesus and that Jesus was punished in their place thus resulting in the wrath being satisfied (their past, present and future sins all paid for in their minds) and they also believe that the righteousness of Jesus has been credited to their account. This transaction is the underlying foundation of their whole theology. Yet what if it is not true? What if it is actually a satanic deception so insidious that it could fool the very elect if it were possible?

What if the truth was that one is actually reconciled to God through repentance and faith whereby the rebellion is actually 100% forsaken and thus all known sin ceases?

What if then an individual who has forsaken their rebellion is then in a position to fully yield to God whereby the righteousness of God can then manifest through them?

What if these people stood blameless before God not only because they had their consciences cleansed by the blood of Christ (and thus their former sins washed away) but they also walked in union with Christ with a pure heart loving God with all their heart, soul and mind and their neighbour as themselves.

Just imagine that these are the people at the wedding feast who are found acceptable while others who "think" they have been reconciled to God due to a belief in a forensic cloak of Christ are actually naked and still have the wrath abiding on them?

Could it be possible?



Truth is stranger than the fictions people believe as truth.

God bless.

 

[Wormwood]

ScottAU -

I don't know if you saw my post above, but Wesley was a firm defendant of Penal Substitution. So I just don't think your argument holds water that this is a Reformed view based on static legal transactions.

Also, pointing to a parable is not very convincing. There are all kinds of metaphors that help us understand what took place on the cross. Some refer to covenant, sacrifice, atonement, Passover, redemption, reconciliation, propitiation, and justification. The point is that no one verse can depict all that took place on the cross and to try to suggest so is to greatly diminish the cross. Wesley keenly observed that one cannot be "reconciled" with God if one if not God's enemy. The problem with many who are electing to eject Penal Substitution as a picture of the atonement is that sin begins to be seen as merely that which inhibits theosis rather than an act of rebellion that incites the wrath of a holy God. The wages of sin is death. The reason your $100 dollar payment illustration fails is that sin is not merely transaction to be paid. It is an offense to a holy God that corrupts humanity and demands judgment. This is why Paul declares that God displays his justice at the cross in showing forbearance to past sins. He did not punish those sins because that punishment was displayed at the cross. I don't know how else Rom. 3:25 makes sense. Moreover, even elements of the Day of Atonement are imbedded with penal substitution. The reason blood was required was because it pointed to death. This was not some mystical covering that blood gave but a sign of death and shed blood which would have been a very clear and powerful depiction of the severity of Israel's sin.

Moreover, I am amazed at how who label themselves to be followers of Wesley yet adamantly reject a view of the atonement that Wesley himself declared to be essential to be a true Christian.

 

[ScottAU]

ScottAU -

I don't know if you saw my post above, but Wesley was a firm defendant of Penal Substitution. So I just don't think your argument holds water that this is a Reformed view based on static legal transactions.

Also, pointing to a parable is not very convincing. There are all kinds of metaphors that help us understand what took place on the cross. Some refer to covenant, sacrifice, atonement, Passover, redemption, reconciliation, propitiation, and justification. The point is that no one verse can depict all that took place on the cross and to try to suggest so is to greatly diminish the cross. Wesley keenly observed that one cannot be "reconciled" with God if one if not God's enemy. The problem with many who are electing to eject Penal Substitution as a picture of the atonement is that sin begins to be seen as merely that which inhibits theosis rather than an act of rebellion that incites the wrath of a holy God. The wages of sin is death. The reason your $100 dollar payment illustration fails is that sin is not merely transaction to be paid. It is an offense to a holy God that corrupts humanity which demands judgment. This is why Paul declares that God displays his justice at the cross in showing forbearance to past sins. He did not punish those sins because he that punishment was displayed at the cross. I don't know how else Rom. 3:25 makes sense.

Moreover, I am amazed at how who label themselves to be followers of Wesley yet adamantly reject a view of the atonement that Wesley himself declared to be essential to be a true Christian.

Penal Substitution necessitates that "future sins" are forgiven in advance because the "penalty has been paid in full" thus "repentance for remission" is completely undermined,

I upheld the Penal Model for many years before my eyes were opened to its problems. It is not something one can come out of easily, it takes diligence.


Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Propitiation is the mercy seat which covered the law. Jesus is the propitiation for sin (which is transgression of the law) and He was without spot when He offered Himself thus
"His righteousness" is declared for the remission of sins (for His blood purges those sins once and for all) due to God's longsuffering and patience.

We have to get "sin debt being paid" out of our minds. You won't find that concept in the Bible.

Jesus purchased US with His blood, He did not "pay our fine." It is RANSOM, it is a RESCUE.

Jesus died FOR US to rescue us. Jesus did not swap places with us.

The difference is huge.

 

[Wormwood]

I think you need to get the idea out of your mind that penal substitution necessitates a one and done transaction. Wesley taught nothing of the sort. We must continually be responsive to the grace of God, but the relationship that restores and reconciles us (turns us from enemies to friends with God) to God can only be accomplished by through his imputed righteousness. (He who knew no sin became sin for us - that's substitution plain and simple) It is our faith in Christ's completed work that gives us the power to move us by the Spirit into progressive sanctification.

I understand the difference full well, I assure you. So did Wesley. And he, the one who was perhaps the greatest opponent of cold legal transactions and antinomianism, could not disagree with you more. So if the primary architect of your view saw penal substitution as necessary, I think your argument that penal substitution undermines sanctification is very weak indeed.

 

[ScottAU]

I think you need to get the idea out of your mind that penal substitution necessitates a one and done transaction. Wesley taught nothing of the sort. We must continually be responsive to the grace of God, but the relationship that restores and reconciles us (turns us from enemies to friends with God) to God can only be accomplished by through his imputed righteousness. (He who knew no sin became sin for us - that's substitution plain and simple) It is our faith in Christ's completed work that gives us the power to move us by the Spirit into progressive sanctification.

I understand the difference full well, I assure you. So did Wesley. And he, the one who was perhaps the greatest opponent of cold legal transactions and antinomianism, could not disagree with you more. So if the primary architect of your view saw penal substitution as necessary, I think your argument that penal substitution undermines sanctification is very weak indeed.

Well the Bible doesn't teach anywhere that we are reconciled to God via having "His righteousness imputed to us."

The Bible clearly states that it is FAITH that is imputed as righteousness.

Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.


There is no transfer as you are contending.

2Cor 5:21 is more accurately translated as "sin offering" as opposed to "Jesus being made sin." Sin is moral, not a substance and Jesus could not "become sin." Not to mention that if he in fact did "become sin" then He would not have been "without spot" when He offered Himself up to God.

Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?


The power to move us by the Spirit is found...

Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation [ENERGY or POWER] of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Which tied to the QUICKENING or the REFRESHING whereby we are "made alive" to God and thus regenerated.

Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Act 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

It is most certainly not trusting in some "Finished Work" which has been redefined into the legal transaction of Penal Substitution. Yes Jesus finished a work on the cross, but it was not some substitutional legal transaction, Jesus purchased us with His blood, rescuing us from the dominion of sin, whereby our conscience could be purged that we not stand before God condemned for our previous rebellion. It has NOTHING to do with a swap.

We have "faith in the blood" because it is the blood that "purges the conscience of sin."


Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

2Pe 1:9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.



Penal Substitution was invented by the Reformers. It is a relatively new doctrine.

 

[Wormwood]

I think you are splitting hairs here that no one is contending. "A righteousness from God has been made known" which comes by faith. Of course righteousness is of faith, but that faith is in something specific that happened on the cross. Surely you agree that our faith is in the work of Christ. I don't think this point needs to be belabored. It seems only to derail us from the crux of the matter.

Do you know Greek? Then tell me, where do you find "sin offering" in this sentence? “τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ.” (2 Corinthians 5:21, NA27) This seems like a theological move more than a linguistic one on your part.

I do not discount the notion that Christ's sacrifice and innocence provides a moral example for us. Again you are trying to discount one concept of the cross by pointing to another. The cross is multifaceted. Saying that Jesus provided a moral example for us on the cross is accurate. To say Jesus only provided a moral example for us to follow by faith is a horrible distortion (which is where most end up that turn away from concepts of divine wrath and judgment depicted in the cross).

I will try to respond to your other verses when time permits. As for now, suffice it to say that I do not see how they undermine anything that I am saying. Are you suggesting Wesley was unaware of these verses you are pointing toward? You seem reluctant to address the views of the one who has formulated your own.

 

[ScottAU]

Moreover, I am amazed at how who label themselves to be followers of Wesley yet adamantly reject a view of the atonement that Wesley himself declared to be essential to be a true Christian.

I don't follow the teachings of John Wesley. He may have said a lot of true things but he erred in upholding the doctrine of "inborn sin" and which necessitated the error of the "second work of grace" or "entire sanctification."

There is a progressive sanctification in the sense of growing in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ but not in the sense of having to have the "inward corruption of inborn sin" purged out. A babe in Christ is pure as opposed to still being stained by sin.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Scott,

I'm answering an earlier post in a different screen, but want to follow your latest post with this question:

how do you understand the renewing of the mind?

For instance, you've said you didn't used to believe as you do, now. What kind of terminology would you use to explain the changes which have taken place in both your thinking, and your experience of knowing God through sounder doctrine?

If you were deceived by false doctrine unwittingly, were you in sin for believing it? Or do you feel sinned against for having been taught it?

Hi Wormwood and ScottAU,

(He who knew no sin became sin for us - that's substitution plain and simple)

Tyndale also favoured the term 'sin offering', and that is totally in line with the scapegoat on the day of Atonement, when sins were laid on the goat. The goat did not 'become' sin, but he became the vehicle by which, ritually, sin was taken away from those who had committed them.

The point which Scott keeps making about the conscience being purged by the blood of the Lamb, is a major point of Paul's gospel, remarked upon by him in Acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

1 Peter 1:2 '... through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:..' Sprinkling links us to God.


Scott, I thought your use of the parable about the wicked servant who would not forgive, for me at least, clarified an aspect of what you're trying to convey. As I am seeing your thesis, you are saying that the interaction between God and the sinner is essential for forgiveness to mean something. It is all too easy to avoid that interaction by believing certain things about the death of the Christ, but in reality not having repented, or received an inward change by which to be assured that one's sins are forgiven, and one's conscience really purged by the blood of Christ.

Hi Wormwood,

Am I wrong to think that Wesley believed in instant sanctification? I don't mean that there is no ongoing work which we might call 'sanctification'; but I've heard that described by one preacher - referring to 2 Corinthians 3:18 - as better described as glorification. What do you think?


Here is one translation of the verse you mentioned. I see that the Greek does not seem to use a single word which means offering, but there were centuries of shadow in which 'offering' was the appropriate term. I think Scott justified that interpretation well, from other scriptures.

(I'm not sure if this verse will print horizontally or vertically. If the latter, know that I had no control over it! )

http://studybible.info/interlinear/2%20Cor%205

5:21 3588-1063τον γαρFor the one3361μηnot1097γνόνταknowing266αμαρτίανsin,5228υπέρ[3for1473ημών4us266αμαρτίαν2a sin offering4160εποίησεν1he made],2443ίναthat1473ημείςwe1096γινώμεθαshould be1343δικαιοσύνηrighteousness2316θεούof God1722ενby1473αυτώhim.

 

[Wormwood]

Hey dragonfly,

I am not of a holiness tradition (Methodist, Nazarene, Wesleyan, etc.) but I am very familiar with Wesley's writings and teachings. Yes, I do believe Wesley thought that some people's conversion experience could be so powerful that they could immediately walk in perfect love. Although I think he went back and forth on some of these ideas of Christian perfection and what that entailed. However, he was very clear that instantaneous justification did not nullify the need to live a sanctified life as necessary for salvation. I don't know that Wesley ever used the term for glory in reference to sanctification (he may have). I think he preferred "perfection" because he used a Greek translation and the word teleios means "perfect, complete or whole." Though Wesley argued that it was not a static perfection. Our English word "perfect" gives more of the indication of a static and immutable state rather than progressive.

As far as your translation goes, hamartian is the word for sin in the accusative form. I am not sure what you mean by centuries of "shadow" where offering was the appropriate term. The word is used 173 times in the NT and neither the ESV, NIV, NRSV, or NASB ever translate that word as "sin offering" in the NT....ever.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Wormwood,

What I meant by 'centuries of "shadow" where offering was the appropriate term', is that the 'offering' was the general noun used to describe an animal which had been slaughtered to provide a sacrifice. The emphasis was on the power in the blood. That has not changed, although there is a colossal amount of sloppy language used by modern preachers when they describe the blood as 'cover'ing sin, despite that none of the NT writers suggest that is how the blood works in the New Covenant. I believe the point you made earlier, about the wrath of God being turned away by faith in Christ, is very relevant to this discussion. What I like about it is the symmetry of 'turned away', reflected in Isaiah 59:20, and Romans 11:26.

 

[Wormwood]

ScottAU,

I apologize. I had you figured to be in some sort of Wesleyan background. I appreciate the dialogue, but it would be of great benefit to me if you dealt with only one or two verses at a time. My experience in these discussions generally is that someone will throw out 10 verses to try to prove a point which makes it very difficult to respond without writing an entire book examining the context of each verse and why I disagree with the way they are applying those texts. I don't know that I necessarily disagree with your texts, but I think each of these verses are built upon an understanding of Christ's work that you have distanced yourself from. Perhaps what would be more beneficial is to deal with various elements of the atonement and discuss those point by point.

Since I am unclear as to what theological background you are coming from, I may make assumptions from time to time about what you think or the necessary conclusion of some of your theological points. If these are wrong, I apologize. Unless you want to write a book for me about your views on the atonement or give me a denomination or theologian to reference, I will have to wing it message by message.

It seems clear to me that the Bible uses a number of pictures to communicate what happened on the cross. I think most of these are more metaphoric than they are literal, but they communicate in a way that helps us understand. There are some specific metaphors that I think point pretty strongly to concepts imbedded in penal substitution.

Day of Atonement - clearly this is portrayed in the cross. Personally, I do not know how someone can take words like hilaskomai as expiation or remove any sense of punishment or wrath from the butchering of animals and the shedding of blood. To simply point to the blood as "covering" seems to try to place some magical element in the blood itself rather than the death associated with the blood as a picture of judgment/wrath for sin. I think trying to divorce the blood from penalty takes some verbal gymnastics that I do not find very convincing. Maybe you can explain this to me more effectively.

Reconciliation - Jesus death and resurrection are often portrayed as "reconciling" us with God. But how exactly do you see this happening. If faith in Christ's death and resurrection allow us to be friends of God when we were once enemies, how does this take place? What specifically happened in this process in your mind that changed our status before God from enemy to friend? How did our trust in Jesus being crucified make us reconciled? It seems that according to Jesus, the cross was the only way. So what happened on the cross that made God's enemies his friends by faith in what Jesus was doing?

Redemption - Redemption, as I am sure you know, was the price paid for a slave. Sometimes slaves could save and purchase themselves "for freedom" rather than being purchased by another slave owner. I think this is what Paul has in mind when he says we have been purchased for freedom in Christ. In any event, this picture clearly has in mind a people who are in slavery and the death and resurrection of Christ pays a fee in order to free us. So my question to you is, "Who was owed the fee?" Unlike the CS Lewis picture in his Narnia books, I disagree that God was paying a price to the enemy. Against God only have we sinned and become debtors. Thus, I believe the price Jesus paid was to the Father. So how can you distance the death of Jesus as a means to pay for our freedom from any view of substitution?

Justification - Clearly this concept is found everywhere in reference to the cross and resurrection. In Hebrew and Greek, the concept of justice and righteousness are very closely related. This is not a Reformed view developed by lawyers as you suggest. To be justified is to be proved right. The verb also has the meaning of being made righteous. So how is it that when we put our faith in what Jesus did that we become justified? Why is the death of Jesus on the cross significant? Clearly this is not about faith in just anything, but faith specifically in the "cross of Christ" which Paul was determined to preach. So in your view, what is it that we are trusting in with regards to the cross of Christ that results in our being made righteous. I understand that it is the grace of God that makes us righteous, but how specifically is that grace worked on the cross?

Propitiation - I don't have time to go into detail on this point, but the verb hilaskomai seems to almost exclusively deal with the turning away of wrath. It is used in the Septuagint numerous times and appears to always refer to diverting wrath. There is simply no real evidence to suggest that these types of words are merely referring to the mercy seat. Moreover, the wrath of God on sin is depicted about 600 times in the Old Testament. To suggest that punishment for sin or God's wrath toward sin is an odd way of looking at the cross fails to appreciate the personal nature of God's wrath toward sin throughout Scripture. See Is. 30:27-30; Ezk. 7:8-9; Ps. 60:1-3, 85:2-3.

Gotta run for now.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

ScottAU

It seems to me that you are condemning people to hell for little more than an idea that differs from your own. What if someone who believes that they are sinful, and believes in penal substitution, through trusting that Jesus blood covers their sinful nature lives a perfect life of faith and doesn't sin?

And what if a person like yourself who trusts in his own righteousness to be saved, doesn't have perfect faith? Whatever is not of faith is sin. What if you are blind to your own sins? The soul that sins dies.

You strike me as the kind of person who gets sucked in by cults and starts regurgitating their propaganda. You harp on fear and dire warnings with little practical edification on how to live a godly life.

 

[ScottAU]

ScottAU

It seems to me that you are condemning people to hell for little more than an idea that differs from your own. What if someone who believes that they are sinful, and believes in penal substitution, through trusting that Jesus blood covers their sinful nature lives a perfect life of faith and doesn't sin?

And what if a person like yourself who trusts in his own righteousness to be saved, doesn't have perfect faith? Whatever is not of faith is sin. What if you are blind to your own sins? The soul that sins dies.

You strike me as the kind of person who gets sucked in by cults and starts regurgitating their propaganda. You harp on fear and dire warnings with little practical edification on how to live a godly life.

First of all I am not condemning anyone to hell no matter how it "seems" to you. That is your perception.

Now I am sure that by discussing the fundamentals by which people "consider" themselves saved some people may feel "uncomfortable." Yet digging deep into the actual fundamentals of what many take for granted and carefully comparing them to what the Scripture actually teaches and also by taking a cursory or even detailed look at history is a far cry from "condemning people."

Secondly I don't "trust in my own righteousness to be saved," that is your misunderstanding. We are to trust in God and in Jesus Christ as all true righteousness has its source right there. We are but vessels abiding in the light. Our righteousness is but a fruit of abiding in that light, or being plugged into God so to speak. When the Bible says "what is not of faith is sin" the context is in regards to "violating one's conscience" hence "ast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth."

Perhaps I strike you as someone who is simply "regurgitating propaganda" but I assure you that I don't take lightly what I write. Most assuredly I have been influenced by other authors and teachers but I carefully examine things for myself and much of what I write are the conclusions I have reached for myself through prayer, careful reflection and study. I do not simply repeat what someone else has said and that is why I endeavour address legitimate objections.

I find that most of the objections people come are knee jerk responses which are reactionary as opposed to well thought out. Thus many of the respondees do not truly understand my position, which is why I have to be very careful in how I frame my words, making sure I take into consideration the framework in which other peoples views are sustained.

You are reading what I write as a "harp on fear and dire warnings with little practically edification on how to live a godly life" yet such an interpretation I find baseless. The method by which we can effectively live a Godly life is simply to surrender all to Christ, for it is through abiding in Jesus Christ that the power of God will manifest through us and the love of God is made perfect within our innermost being. Thus we entrust ourselves to our Creator and EVERYTHING then falls into place.

It was Jesus who stated that "those who hunger and thirst after righteousness are the one's who will be filled" (paraphrased).

In conclusion I recommend you sit back and really think about my statements and if you object to them then carefully explain your reasoning as to why. I will endeavour to do the same.

There is only one truth. Truth is reality and reality is truth. What I believe or what you believe is inconsequential in the context that "opinion does not bend reality." Thus our endeavour is to diligently seek the truth and abide in what we find, no matter where it leads.

Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, and no-one come to the Father but by Him. In other words Jesus Christ is the ultimate reality.

God bless.

 

[rockytopva]

My beliefs on the churches are that they are seven...

1. Ephesus - Apostolic - Left their first love - Paul writes that 'all men of Asia have forsaken me.' - 2 Timothy 1:15
2. Smyrna - Martyrs - Myrrh - A sweet smell - Foxes lists the number of Roman persecutions as seven
3. Pergomos - Orthodox - A pyrgos is a fortified structure - Needed for the dark ages
4. Thyatira - Catholic - The spirit of Jezebel is to kill, control, and to dominate
5. Sardis - Protestant - A sardius is a gem, elegant, yet hard and rigid
6. Philadelphia - Methodist, Morovian, Pentecostal revivals.... 'Open door' these revivals spread very quickly!
7. Laodicea - Rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing?

So John Calvin is your typical Sardisean...


And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. -Revelation 3:1


To the Sardisian everything comes in the mind first. The Sardisians....

1. Very rigid on the doctrine - Cannot imagine anyone outside their mindset going to heaven.
2. Elegant - Gandhi, after reading his bible, took to the likings of Christianity and decided to go to church when he was a young man practicing law in South Africa. He had become attracted to the Christian faith, had studied the Bible and the teachings of Jesus, and was seriously exploring becoming a Christian. And so he decided to attend a church service. As he came up the steps of the large church where he intended to go, a white South African elder of the church barred his way at the door. "Where do you think you're going, kaffir?" the man asked Ghandi in a belligerent tone of voice. Ghandi replied, "I'd like to attend worship here." The church elder snarled at him, "There's no room for kaffirs in this church. Get out of here or I'll have my assistants throw you down the steps." So this is the typical Sardisean church, they study the bible, yet have not the spirituality they have so often read about.


What a rotten hearted guy we have in John Calvin? After he spotted Michael Servetus in church, he has the guy arrested and torched. He then issues this statement regarding the execution... "Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are. There is no question here of man's authority; it is God who
speaks, and clear it is what law he will have kept in the church, even to the end of the world. Wherefore does he demand of us a so extreme severity, if not to show us that due honor is not paid him, so long as
we set not his service above every human consideration, so that we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory." - John Calvin

John Calvin... The example of the Sardisean know-it-all... Yet with no inner spirituality at all, except for arrogance.

 

[ScottAU]

Hi Scott,

I'm answering an earlier post in a different screen, but want to follow your latest post with this question:

how do you understand the renewing of the mind?

For instance, you've said you didn't used to believe as you do, now. What kind of terminology would you use to explain the changes which have taken place in both your thinking, and your experience of knowing God through sounder doctrine?

If you were deceived by false doctrine unwittingly, were you in sin for believing it? Or do you feel sinned against for having been taught it?

Thanks for your response dragonfly.

In regards to the renewing of the mind I would go to this passage...

Rom 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

When an individual sins repeatedly it actually hardwires the brain towards sinning hence the "nature" in Eph 2:3.

Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Nature - G5449 - phusis
From G5453; growth (by germination or expansion), that is, (by implication) natural production (lineal descent); by extension a genus or sort; figuratively native disposition, constitution or usage: - ([man-]) kind, nature ([-al]).

Thus the "nature" is something that develops with time. "Sin unto death" breeds a native disposition to sin while the opposite which is "obedience unto righteousness" breeds a native disposition to righteousness.

Thus with this in mind it makes sense that Peter would write that "escaping the corruption that is in the world through lust" is an occurrence PRIOR to being able to "partake in the divine nature."

2Pe 1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
2Pe 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Which is why he would say...

2Pe 1:2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,

Whereby...

2Pe 1:5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
2Pe 1:6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
2Pe 1:7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
2Pe 1:8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This is all part and parcel of the "renewing of the mind" by which the native disposition to produce righteousness grows. Thus a babe in Christ may be "tempted to evil" very powerfully (due the former life of habitual sin) yet if they are resistant the "temptation" (due to having crucified the flesh with the passions and desires) then over time the temptation will lessen. One individual I know who was in bondage to porn is a living testimony to this truth, for when he initially came to Christ he would still have filthy dreams when he slept (when the free exercise of the will is compromised) but over time the dreams lessened until I think they stopped.

This is why we are to...

2Co 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
2Co 10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds
2Co 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

This is the striving we do, this is the contending for the prize. This is where the diligence to walk in the light comes in. God empowers us to do it but WE have to effectualise that power by being steadfast doers.

I hope that answers your question.






As to this...

If you were deceived by false doctrine unwittingly, were you in sin for believing it? Or do you feel sinned against for having been taught it?

I was actually still double-minded back then. I had fallen for the doctrines of Total Depravity and Unconditional Election and thus I held to "fatalism" and thus waited on God to "do something" while I continued on in rebellion. I was a Calvinist without knowing the term.

I was in sin for believing it because I lacked diligence and those who deceived me were sinful wolves. Yet we are all personally responsible for our own choices. Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the serpent yet both had the capacity to CHOOSE and thus were responsible for their own actions.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

In conclusion I recommend you sit back and really think about my statements and if you object to them then carefully explain your reasoning as to why. I will endeavour to do the same.

I intend to.

You didn't answer my question: 'What if someone who believes that they are sinful, and believes in penal substitution, through trusting that Jesus blood covers their sinful nature lives a perfect life of faith and doesn't sin?'

Would you please?