Calvinism

[dragonfly]

Hello Scott,

Thank you for your answers. I do agree that the renewing of the mind follows on practising righteousness. There are many other verses but I like

John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

 

[ScottAU]

Thanks for your reply Wormwood.

ScottAU,

I apologize. I had you figured to be in some sort of Wesleyan background. No problem. I have found myself guilty many times of presumption. Often due to misguided zeal we can easily fall into the trap of categorising people. 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. I am open to that although it can often be difficult because one or two verses often do not give the complete picture of a subject thus it can limit understanding. The Bible is like the frame of a building where all the studs and joists interconnect to support the greater structure, hence we have the WHOLE counsel of God made up of here a little, there a little, line upon line, precept upon precept.

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. Good point. I think the way to get around this is in an attempt to examine the underlying framework of a position. Often by approaching from a different angle much light can be shed. 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. Well you'll have to remember that my perception of Christ's work is far different to that which is commonly taught. Thus from my perspective I am not distanced at all. Perhaps what would be more beneficial is to deal with various elements of the atonement and discuss those point by point. Sure. I am still learning and would enjoy the discussion.

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. I am not aware of any theologians which I am really in agreement with suffice to say I enjoy the writings of the patristic era of the Church (ie. Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Ignatius etc.). I was raised Catholic, was agnostic by my late teens, I was reformed by my mid-late twenties, and only came out of all that a couple of years ago. My message is pretty simple really, "repentance proven by deeds for the remission of sins" and "faith in Jesus Christ." Thus the call is for people to forsake their rebellion to God and yield to Him from the heart. Do that and live.

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. I agree. There are some specific metaphors that I think point pretty strongly to concepts imbedded in penal substitution. I think the concept of "Penal Substitution" can be "read into" a few passages which do not actually teach Penal Substitution. For example Isa 53:4-5, Rom 3:22, 2Cor 5:21.

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 The focus was always the "blood" not the actual death of the animal. Punishment and wrath being poured out is read into the text, the text doesn't say that. There are also logical objections that can be made against "punishment and wrath being poured out." To simply point to the blood as "covering" seems to try to place some magical element in the blood I believe it is figurative. God has used blood as the means by which to purify an offering and thus expiate sin. In Romans 3:25 for example the word "Propitiation" is used which translates in meaning to "Mercy Seat." Jesus was the propitiatory sacrifice in the sense that he "covered the law" as the Mercy Seat covers the law. We enter into the Holy of Holies as it teaches in Hebrews 10 and are a "living sacrifice" (Rom 12:1-2) which is the "new and living way" and the blood of Christ is sprinkled on us. 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. Yet the Bible is silent on the "penalty being paid" but is VERY SPECIFIC on "the blood purging the conscience." Why do the Pastors always preach on the "penalty being paid" yet NEGLECT teaching on the "purging of the conscience" ?? I'll tell you why, their view of the atonement totally redefines and shifts the focus off of heart purity which is the ultimate purpose of Christ coming to earth. 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? Reconciliation literally means "restoration to divine favour."

Carefully read the following...

2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
2Co 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
2Co 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Notice that we are reconciled to God by being IN Christ. Hence the gift of God is eternal life THROUGH Jesus Christ (Rom 6:23). It is not positional as Penal Substitution teaches. It is a present manifest reality.

Jesus Christ is our kinsman redeemer. He was made a man like us and by walking in perfect obedience to God found favour with the Father (He was well pleased). Redemption (which means "ransomed") is by becoming identified in actuality with the Spirit of life IN Jesus Christ (Rom 8:2) who ransomed us from the dominion of sin. It is through repentance and faith that we shed our old master (the old man is put to death) and come into servitude to our new master which is Christ. It is the man who "serves sin" which is condemned, in a Christian that man dies along with the condemnation, hence those who are IN Christ are not under condemnation.

This is the Ministry or Word of Reconciliation which the servants of God, on behalf of God, implore their fellow men to be reconciled to God (2Cor 5:20). All this fits with the whole tenet of Scripture so beautifully.

Hence Jesus Christ was made to be a sin offering on our behalf or you could even say "made like unto sinful flesh" (Rom 8:3) so that we can be made the righteousness of God IN Him.

What Penal Substitution does is destroy this message by redefining the whole thing within the parameters of a forensic legal transaction which people "trust in." It is all very deceptive. Satan is most definitely a master theologian. He introduces leaven at the root which ends up poisoning the whole tree. Have you ever wondered why there are so many different denominations? Have you ever wondered why the church system is full of sin and hypocrisy? Well this is your answer. The message being preached is a lie.

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? The cross is the only way for several reasons. One reason is that the cross is the New Covenant sealed by the blood of Christ (Heb 9:16). Another reason is that the cross is the means by which we approach God for WE DIE WITH CHRIST through repentance and faith (repentance for remission) hence Romans 6:4-7.. The third reason I can think of is how the blood of Christ purges our conscience of sin, which is something we are unable to do. A sinner cannot be redeemed simply by returning to obedience because the guilt remains, it is only through the blood of Christ that the consciousness of guilt is removed, otherwise a sinner stands before God self-condemned.

Redemption - Redemption, as I am sure you know, was the price paid for a slave. That's right. Ransom. 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. We have been purchased from the dominion of sin. The dominion was the "condemnation of death" that hung over us. A sinner abides in the wrath of God and it is through Jesus Christ dying on our behalf as a kinsman that we change masters. The purchase is what takes place first, but then we have to obey our new master otherwise we remain slaves of the old (Rom 6:16). 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. I agree, but it is not a "payment of the penalty" rather it is a "purchase of us." So my question to you is, "Who was owed the fee?" No-one was "paid the fee." Jesus "suffering on our behalf" as in "coming to rescue us" was the payment. Unlike the CS Lewis picture in his Narnia books, I disagree that God was paying a price to the enemy. Origen had that view but I don't support it personally. I think many people want to nail down the atonement into a more human experience that can be related to and thus add their own perspective to it. Am I guilty of this? People can make their own minds up about that. 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? Jesus did not swap places with us nor did he act as our substitute. Jesus is our rescuer. Jesus is our ransomer. The only context in which "substitution" could be used would be as "another mode" whereby something takes place as opposed to the alternative of judgment and death. Some of the early church fathers did use the term "substitute" in that context and some Penal scholars have attempted to quote those examples out of context as proof of the Penal view being put forth in ancient times.

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. I agree. This is not a Reformed view developed by lawyers as you suggest. The forensic transfer of righteousness is purely a reformed teaching. Martin Luther invented it and he used the term "Blessed Exchange.' Later on it came to be known as the "Imputed Righteousness of Christ." As I said earlier the Bible specifically teaches that it is FAITH that God reckons as righteousness, not "by faith a forensic transfer." FAITH ITSELF. For faith works by love (Gal 5:6), love fulfills the righteousness of the law (Gal 5:14, Rom 8:4) and thus it is by faith that the law is upheld (Rom 3:31). The forensic transfer teaching totally negates what the Scriptures teach on "faith" and redefines it to be simply "trust" as opposed to "trust AND doing." 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? It is not by simply putting one's faith in what Jesus did we are made righteousness. That is a complete fallacy as it pertains to the view of the death of Christ as a "Forensic Legal Exchange" and only a "half truth" in relation to trusting in the blood for cleansing. The other half is that faith = obedience and righteousness is a manifest by product of abiding IN Christ. Hence when we yield to God from the heart we are MADE RIGHTEOUS IN HIM. That is what tey don't teach. The false teachers preach everything as positional as it relates to justification thus negating the NECESSITY of MANIFEST righteousness. This is why they teach Sanctification as "sinning less and less." Hence you have Romans 7:14-25, and 1Joh 1:8 used to defend ongoing sinfulness and rebellion in a Christian. The deception consists of layer upon layer upon layer of error. This is why it is so difficult to come out from under it once it has you. That is why you ought to very carefully consider what I write. Why is the death of Jesus on the cross significant? I outlones the three aspects that I can see above. Clearly this is not about faith in just anything, but faith specifically in the "cross of Christ" which Paul was determined to preach. Indeed, but not as it is redefined in modern theology. 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. The New Covenant being sealed in His blood, His example which we follow by partaking in His death and resurrection, the blood cleansing our consciences. I understand that it is the grace of God that makes us righteous, but how specifically is that grace worked on the cross? The grace of God that brings salvation teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live soberly, righteously and godly in the present world. Grace is simply God's provision, it is by faith that we make effectual that provision to the save of our soul, hence faith is the substance and evidence of things not seen. Grace is God's lead, faith is us following. Hence we are saved by grace THROUGH faith, not of works (anything done apart from grace) lest any man should boast, ie. we cannot save ourselves apart from God.

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. Yes, Jesus was the propitiatory sacrifice by which our sins are expiated as per the sacrificial system under the Old Covenant. The blood of Christ purges out conscience of sin as the Bible clearly states in many places. Which is why "ongoing rebellion" leaves no more sacrifice for sin (Heb 10:26). When we are cleansed we are meant to stay clean, otherwise we are treating the blood of Christ with contempt as if we can use it as a license to sin. 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. The word appears twice in the New Testament.
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;
Heb 9:5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.
As does the root word for it...
Luk 18:13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

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. As I made the point earlier, if God punished Jesus as your substitute, then your sins were never forgiven, they were merely transferred and an innocent was punished in order to excuse the guilty. That is not justice, that is not forgiveness. Also sin is moral as virtue is moral, neither are substances which can be transferred. To believe that one must throw reason out the window.

Gotta run for now.

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?

Well perhaps an individual might be confused as to their definition of sin and thus view "temptation" as sin and thus perceive they are not clean. It is not up to me to judge the heart, I can only judge the fruit someone bears or the words they speak.

I would encourage a person who lives blameless yet believes in Penal Substitution and Original Sin to examine carefully the Biblical basis of their beliefs. I do think it is possible that some people "in the system" do genuinely get saved but it is not due to the message they hear, it is due to internal conviction and their yielding to the truth. If that individual is diligent they will begin to notice the contradictions within the system otherwise they are likely to be swallowed up in error and fall away.

That is just how I see it. The system argues in favour of sin and a truly redeemed person is going to come into conflict with that perspective for sure.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Well perhaps an individual might be confused as to their definition of sin and thus view "temptation" as sin and thus perceive they are not clean. It is not up to me to judge the heart, I can only judge the fruit someone bears or the words they speak.

I would encourage a person who lives blameless yet believes in Penal Substitution and Original Sin to examine carefully the Biblical basis of their beliefs. I do think it is possible that some people "in the system" do genuinely get saved but it is not due to the message they hear, it is due to internal conviction and their yielding to the truth. If that individual is diligent they will begin to notice the contradictions within the system otherwise they are likely to be swallowed up in error and fall away.

That is just how I see it. The system argues in favour of sin and a truly redeemed person is going to come into conflict with that perspective for sure.

Nice dodge.

To whom was the ransom paid?

 

[ScottAU]

Nice dodge.

To whom was the ransom paid?

I wasn't dodging your question. I was answering it from my heart.

Your approach appears to be more in line with quick snipes as opposed to reasoned objections.


I don't believe the ransom had to be paid to anyone. Kind of like how I might do some work on your behalf, whereby I would be paying a price consisting of my actions without actually having to pay a third party.

Perhaps it could be said to have been "paid to us" in the sense that we receive the value that was produced from Christ's redemptive work.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I wasn't dodging your question. I was answering it from my heart.

Your approach appears to be more in line with quick snipes as opposed to reasoned objections.


I don't believe the ransom had to be paid to anyone. Kind of like how I might do some work on your behalf, whereby I would be paying a price consisting of my actions without actually having to pay a third party.

Perhaps it could be said to have been "paid to us" in the sense that we receive the value that was produced from Christ's redemptive work.

I like short direct answers to short direct questions. I mistrust reasoned elaborations to simple questions, because from my experience people who do that try to make connections with many words that don't really exist. When you know what the truth is, it's simple to explain.

A ransom paid to a non-entity is nonsensical, as so much of what you teach is, IMO. Paid to us? Perhaps? That doesn't sound very reasoned.

I genuinely want to study this issue so I can see in my mind and heart just where your mind jumps the tracks.

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

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.

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.

Good to see you don't have a beam in your eye, hey. {sarcasm off}

 

[Wormwood]

Whew, thanks for the lenghy response. I know I will not be able to address everything, but let me question you on a few issues and make some other points.

The focus was always the "blood" not the actual death of the animal. Punishment and wrath being poured out is read into the text, the text doesn't say that. There are also logical objections that can be made against "punishment and wrath being poured out."


I think we simply have to agree to disagree on this point. Blood had many facets but I think one is clearly the diversion of God's wrath. This seems to be the whole point of the Passover to which Jesus' death is clearly linked in John's gospel. The Angel of Death was exacting wrath on Egypt but was diverted by the Lamb's blood. This seems to be heavily drawn on in John's Gospel.

Yet the Bible is silent on the "penalty being paid" but is VERY SPECIFIC on "the blood purging the conscience."

Actually I hear people preach regularly on the "cleansing blood of Jesus." Clearly the teaching on the cleansing power of the blood frees from guilt and shame. However, this does not negate the fact that Jesus condemned sin in sinful man on the cross and the way this was done was through our sin being placed upon him on the cross and thus the Law of sin and death being also nailed to the cross. You see, I think the issue here is that I have no real problem with the points you are making, but you seem to only be willing to embrace a very narrow angle of the cross that I find to be very incomplete. You are suggesting that I am nullifying your position when I am not. I embrace your ideas but also see the cross as far more inclusive than what you give it credit for.

Notice that we are reconciled to God by being IN Christ. Hence the gift of God is eternal life THROUGH Jesus Christ (Rom 6:23). It is not positional as Penal Substitution teaches. It is a present manifest reality.

I disagree with the order here. We are reconciled by Christ's death and presented to God as holy in Christ. "But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation--if you continue in your faith, establish and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel" (Col. 1:22-23). Our position changes by faith in Jesus Christ and we maintain that postion through continued faith in Jesus Christ. Faith in the NT is almost always a present participle or an ongoing action. It is not static. I am not a Calvinist. But I do believe the Bible teaches we are instantaneously justified by faith in Christ yet we must continue in the faith. Our being IN Christ has to do with our confidence in his work. This faith is what pleases God and what the Holy Spirit uses to transform us internally and manifests good works in our lives. Christ's work is a finished work and we are included in that work so long as we remain in faith and IN Christ.

What Penal Substitution does is destroy this message by redefining the whole thing within the parameters of a forensic legal transaction which people "trust in." It is all very deceptive. Satan is most definitely a master theologian. He introduces leaven at the root which ends up poisoning the whole tree. Have you ever wondered why there are so many different denominations? Have you ever wondered why the church system is full of sin and hypocrisy? Well this is your answer. The message being preached is a lie.

I think you go too far with this comment. It is one thing to disagree with a theological position many Christians hold and its another to chalk this position up to the root of all evil and Satanic. Again, I am not a Calvanist, but I do believe there are many good points to Calvinism. It is certainly not Satanic and such comments really take away from your well reasoned approach in other areas. Again, I think you are mistaken badly here and fail to see that the most vigorous proponents of progressive sanctification as essential to salvation had no problems with penal substitution. But in my mind, this goes beyond penal substituion to the very heart of justification. You will need to clarify your understanding of justification. Do you believe that once a person is justified they will never sin again? Or do you believe that a person is only justified after they have died IN Christ? In your view, what exactly do we put our "trust in" as we look to Christ. From where does our assurance come, if you believe there is any assurance?

No-one was "paid the fee." Jesus "suffering on our behalf" as in "coming to rescue us" was the payment.

This seems to be some verbal dancing here. If Jesus "suffered on our behalf" then there was a purpose to his suffering which resulted in our freedom. Why was suffering and the horror of crucifixion necessary for our rescue? Moreover, I think Genesis is quite clear that we are cursed by God due to our rebellion and sin and Jesus took that curse upon himself, as it is written "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." I think the picture you are creating suggests that we are simply captive to our own devices rather than we are cursed and under the wrath of God. Jesus diverts that wrath by his payment and rescue. That payment was his blood. Thus, we are under wrath...Jesus rescues us from wrath...that rescue required his suffering and blood. Which part of that last sentence do you disagree with?

Some of the early church fathers did use the term "substitute" in that context and some Penal scholars have attempted to quote those examples out of context as proof of the Penal view being put forth in ancient times.

I do believe substituion and penal satisfaction are very close but not the same. I agree that early church fathers did not argue for the penal view. However, many of our views of atonement were not argued for until later. However, I think the Biblical texts themselves support the penal satisfaction view. Regardless of whether or not you want to believe that Jesus took on God's wrath, I think his becoming our substitute by becoming sin for us and dying in our place is sufficient enough for me. I do not think it is a matter worth fighting over to say that God's wrath had to be appeased by Jesus' death so long as we are clear on the issue of substitution. However, my limited understanding of your view senses that this is not the underlying issue.

The forensic transfer teaching totally negates what the Scriptures teach on "faith" and redefines it to be simply "trust" as opposed to "trust AND doing."

This is just completely and totally wrong. I think you need to revisit the teachings of Arminius, Wesley and even the early writings of Augustine. The substitutionary view (regardless of whether you want to argue for penal satisfaction) clearly gives a sense of instant justification by faith in Christ. Baptism was administered upon belief and maked a washing and rebirth. Even Calvinists would argue that because we do not know the "elect" that we must display our faith by good works. Yet certainly for Arminians, trust and doing is essential because we do not believe in "once saved always saved." Even those who do argue for the perseverence of the saints claim they do not know who the true saints are so works is essential to show oneself to be among the elect. Perhaps this view of yours can be a negative outworking of Calvinist throught, but this is not true of Calvinism and is certainly not true of Arminians who have always taken Calvinists to task on this very issue. In any event, you are way off base here and if this is the catalyst for your theological crusade, then you are greatly misinformed.

It's getting late so I better leave it at that for now.

 

[rockytopva]

Good to see you don't have a beam in your eye, hey. {sarcasm off}

As spoken in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings... "One Ill turn deserves another."

 

[jiggyfly]

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.

Seems a bit contradictory of One who instructs others to always forgive, love enemies and refrain from being angry more than a day don't you think?

When it comes to God's interaction with us it is important to discern between flesh and spirit. I do believe such judgment is indeed a means of restoration. Fire and brimstone (sulfur) was/is used to cleans, purge, purify.

 

[Rach1370]

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 think that this passage is clearly not speaking of God or his attributes. It's talking about the gift we receive from God, and doesn't actually have anything to do with the character of God. Notice how it says again and again "I"....
We already know from Christ's teaching that for his followers love is the most important. But I do not think we can look at that chapter and see anything that is talking about God or his character. How do you see that it does...?

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?

I'm sorry...could you paint this out a bit clearer...I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that God's justice is NOT satisfied by death...as in, people don't drop dead every time they sin...?

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?

I think it is quite apparent in scripture that God reserves 'final judgement' for after death.
We know from Peter that God is patient and wishes us all to repent. We also know from Genesis that while man was made to live forever, God took that away from us, so that we wouldn't reside with sin forever. That is why that in the bible (and indeed now) all people live to the end of their days, regardless of the state of their hearts. But once we die, then the state of our hearts come into play....either we are safe in Christ's blood, or we're not.

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.

A means to bring restitution? I'm sorry...but I disagree strongly. What necessitated the death of God's perfect son, was not simply a means to bring us back to the same state we were created in. God cannot be a truly just God if he overlooks the magnitude of what sin is against him. We did not simply wander away from God...we tried to replace him with ourselves....it was treason on a cosmic scale. Treason cannot go unpunished....and punishment cannot simply be a 'method' to bring a wandering people back, like the idea that putting a hurricane in the path of people will turn them around. Punishment must be the full acknowledgement of our wrath inducing wrongs. To admit to anything less makes a mockery of everything Christ did.

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)

No....but I put it in harmony with every other scripture that tells us that to be saved we MUST believe in Jesus. How on earth do you deal with all the scriptures that tell us that only those who are covered in the blood of Christ will be saved? Do you refute them? And I'm asking honestly here...how do you deal with all those scriptures?

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

As spoken in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings... "One Ill turn deserves another."

Is that a fact. Right, well at least we understand where you're coming from.

 

[Axehead]

Hey there everyone,

I wish I had time to participate in this but I don't. So, I thought I would contribute this link by James Fowler and hope it enriches your conversation further.

Concepts and Models of the Atonement <- Click here

The work of Christ is explained in Scripture by utilizing numerous figurative concepts, which have then been formed into various theological models.

Jim gives a synopsis on the following:
The Liberational Concept
The Legal and Penal Concept
The Purificational Concept
The Necrological Concept
The Sacrificial Concept
The Covenantal Concept
The Economical Concept
The Transactional Concept
The Triumphal Concept
The Vital Concept
The Spiritual Concept
The Functional Concept
The Relational Concept
The Ontological Concept

Models
The Legal/Penal Model
The Personal/Relational Model
The Spiritual/Ontological Model

Here is a nice diagram for you: Models of the Atonement

Blessings to you all as you continue this very interesting discussion.

Axehead

 

[dragonfly]

Hi HeRoseFromTheDead and Scott,

I don't believe the ransom had to be paid to anyone.

There is a sense in which the ransom was paid to Satan, but the irony and the triumph is, that in receiving it, he himself was destroyed.

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same;
that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

In the sense of Christ's victory in buying us back from Satan's power, He paid did pay Satan, but He also paid Himself, taking to Himself the value that He sees in us. See Ephesians 5, below. That would be the equally true and paradoxical reverse of what you said, Scott:

Perhaps it could be said to have been "paid to us" in the sense that we receive the value that was produced from Christ's redemptive work.

Ephesians 1 covers it this way:

ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance [This is what we receive.]

until the redemption of the purchased possession, [This is what God receives.]

and

18 '... that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,'

Acts 20:28 '... the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.'


Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing but that it should be holy and without blemish.

We understand that Satan wanted to destroy the Son of God and His inheritance in the saints, but because He was pure and holy, death could not hold on to Him, just as had been prophesied in different ways. You can't fault Satan for his optimism, though!

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.




A word to brother Wormwood,

Perhaps you come from a non-Catholic background, and grew up with the idea that sin had been conquered once and for all by Christ?

Now try to imagine growing up as a Catholic, with a focus on the sinfulness of sin, the practice of confession to priests, and penance again and again due to that church's teachings of the inadequacy of Christ's death. I do think that will explain why it matters intensely to Scott to wrestle with scripture until he has extracted the real truth.

For myself, I am grateful for being made to look again at what the word actually says and doesn't say, because I, too, have sat under false doctrine; it has an effect of keeping one back from hearing the true word of God, so that the faith-creating effect of 'hearing', cannot take place. The word unmixt with faith produces no changes in the hearer.

As we see from Israel's history, they got carried away with the idea they were the sole possessors of truth about God, and they judged their relationship with Him by a standard which had become obsolete, adding their own traditions to God's simple instructions. Remember Moses who said, 'Let me not see my wretchedness'? It is that kind of attitude which leads to people being shut out of the promised land, despite getting extremely close to possessing it.

Picking up on your statement that Calvinism is not Satanic or evil, it may look that way to one who accepts the responsibility for his own actions and choices as they are endorsed in scripture, without going so far as to label oneself 'Arminian', but if all you know is Calvinism, and it leads you to feel justified in wearing a T shirt stating, 'Too bad you weren't chosen', or other similarly smug slogans, then you are deceived, and not by God.

A recent thread, here, Does God love sinners, advocates a variety of Calvinism. I challenge you to see how far you can read and remain calm.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

In the sense of Christ's victory in buying us back from Satan's power, He paid did pay Satan, but He also paid Himself, taking to Himself the value that He sees in us. See Ephesians 5, below. That would be the equally true and paradoxical reverse of what you said, Scott.

I'm a bit confused by the concept of Satan receiving payment for something. Mankind was never a debtor to satan, but it was to the law, and by extension to GOD. Satan is only a deceiver, and has no standing or authority except that which he can deceive man to do for him.

The ransom was a debt payment paid by the kinsman redeemer to deliver his brethren out of bondage to their sins. It is not sitting in satan's coffers, but is now deposited in the bank of the one to whom the debt was owed. The blood abides on the mercy seat as evidence that the one who forgave mankind their debt, sacrificed his own blood as payment in their stead.

Scott continually brings up the parable of a king forgiving debt to advance the idea that GOD forgives debts without requiring payment. That is not true, by any means. GOD said that he will not forgive sin. That is the whole reason for the blood of sacrifices on the mercy seat, ie, to cover sin until one could appear who could pay the debt.

And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the LORD: for he [is] an holy God; he [is] a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins. Joshua 24:19

 

[Wormwood]

Seems a bit contradictory of One who instructs others to always forgive, love enemies and refrain from being angry more than a day don't you think?

When it comes to God's interaction with us it is important to discern between flesh and spirit. I do believe such judgment is indeed a means of restoration. Fire and brimstone (sulfur) was/is used to cleans, purge, purify.

Actually Jiggy,

One of Jesus' favorite metaphors for hell was the valley of Hinnom. This was a garbage dump. And I don't think the Jews were concerned with recycling. Moreover, you may want to check with the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah about the purifying power of fire and brimstone. The purification comes by burning up the dross...which completely eradicates that which is impure...not by polishing it. We are to love, and God loves beyond imagination. Yet he is just. It seems to be an attribute that recent authors like Rob Bell and others have chosen to ignore.

A word to brother Wormwood,

Perhaps you come from a non-Catholic background, and grew up with the idea that sin had been conquered once and for all by Christ?

Now try to imagine growing up as a Catholic, with a focus on the sinfulness of sin, the practice of confession to priests, and penance again and again due to that church's teachings of the inadequacy of Christ's death. I do think that will explain why it matters intensely to Scott to wrestle with scripture until he has extracted the real truth.

For myself, I am grateful for being made to look again at what the word actually says and doesn't say, because I, too, have sat under false doctrine; it has an effect of keeping one back from hearing the true word of God, so that the faith-creating effect of 'hearing', cannot take place. The word unmixt with faith produces no changes in the hearer.

As we see from Israel's history, they got carried away with the idea they were the sole possessors of truth about God, and they judged their relationship with Him by a standard which had become obsolete, adding their own traditions to God's simple instructions. Remember Moses who said, 'Let me not see my wretchedness'? It is that kind of attitude which leads to people being shut out of the promised land, despite getting extremely close to possessing it.

Picking up on your statement that Calvinism is not Satanic or evil, it may look that way to one who accepts the responsibility for his own actions and choices as they are endorsed in scripture, without going so far as to label oneself 'Arminian', but if all you know is Calvinism, and it leads you to feel justified in wearing a T shirt stating, 'Too bad you weren't chosen', or other similarly smug slogans, then you are deceived, and not by God.

A recent thread, here, Does God love sinners, advocates a variety of Calvinism. I challenge you to see how far you can read and remain calm.

Yes, I come from a non-Catholic background. I don't know that penance has to do with the "inadequacy of Christ's death" so much as it is seen as sacramental and a means of receiving grace from Christ's death through the Catholic Church. I find that we Protestants are often guilty of judging Catholics by our standards. Their understanding of how grace is applied is quite different than ours and it is not about the personal faith of the individual so much as it is the sacraments of their church they see as what provides access to grace. In any event, its a whole other ballgame.

Also, I understand your frustration with Calvinism. I haven't looked at the link yet but I am very familiar with it and find doctrines such as limited atonement and double predestination as particularly distasteful and unbiblical. My point was, however, that the practical outworking of Calvinism is not antinomianism when it is properly understood. I think many misunderstand it and it leads to antinomianism, but that does not mean this is the direct result of that doctrine as ScottAU and many others suggest. Again, I'm not a Calvinist, but I do believe we ought to be fair and not paint people in a way that is inaccurate.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi ChristRose,

I'm a bit confused by the concept of Satan receiving payment for something.

But he didn't. Nevertheless, it was he who had taken mankind captive, and he to whom any 'ransom' would have been due. It is clear from the temptations of Christ that he power over creation as well, and this also is part of what Christ died to recover, as well as our redemption. But don't you see that it was a kind of legitimate double-cross by the Godhead, because the Son could not remain dead?

Mankind was never a debtor to satan,

I did not suggest that man was a debtor to Satan. One does not pay a ransom (which is what you were asking about) to a creditor. One pays back what was credited.

Perhaps this fits in with the point Scott has been making about forgiveness, when we look at one of the events in Jesus life, upon which He pronounced: (Luke 7: 47) Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little. 48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.

I find the 'debt' picture of sin a bit hard to grasp.

but it was to the law, and by extension to GOD.

Is this really New Covenant theology?

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. 13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

The ransom was a debt payment paid by the kinsman redeemer to deliver his brethren out of bondage to their sins.

To whom did he pay it? Yes, the redeemer bears the cost to obtain the one(s) to be redeemed. But isn't the 'kinsman' closer to the one to be redeemed, than the one who already has possession? And for us, that was borne out by Messiah coming 'in the likeness of sinful flesh'.

The blood abides on the mercy seat as evidence that the one who forgave mankind their debt, sacrificed his own blood as payment in their stead.

This is why I quoted Ephesians 5 - that He might present it to Himself...

Scott continually brings up the parable of a king forgiving debt to advance the idea that GOD forgives debts without requiring payment. That is not true, by any means. GOD said that he will not forgive sin. That is the whole reason for the blood of sacrifices on the mercy seat, ie, to cover sin until one could appear who could pay the debt.

First let me acknowledge your point that God does not forgive sin, except through the tragedy of the death of His Son, and His shed blood.

But, I think you may be missing what Scott is getting at. I'm sure he knows that the king would have had to bear the loss of what was owed, by forgiving the debtor the whole debt. That is how the king's books would have been balanced. He would have taken from His own estate, and credited it to the debtor, so that now the debtor owed nothing. What I think Scott is really getting at, is the need for that conversation between the king and the debtor. It is not enough for the debtor to know that the king is rich, and assume it will be okay if he doesn't pay up. The reckoning must take place. The debtor must acknowledge the whole debt, must ask forgiveness, and must appreciate the grace being extended to him when he is forgiven.

Having been forgiven at the king's expense, the king was justified in expecting a 'new heart' in the forgiven one, and justified in being angry when the forgiven one did not show his gratitude by offering a similar standard of grace to the one who owed him a smaller debt.




Hi Wormwood,

I don't know that penance has to do with the "inadequacy of Christ's death"

Penance is not really 'fruit worthy of repentance'. It is a dead religious activity, devoid of spiritual merit in God's sight.

so much as it is seen as sacramental and a means of receiving grace from Christ's death through the Catholic Church.

Are you seriously suggesting that 'as sacramental and a means of receiving grace from Christ's death' justifies it?

I find that we Protestants are often guilty of judging Catholics by our standards.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I think you are mixing up Catholics and Catholicism in your thinking.

Their understanding of how grace is applied is quite different than ours and it is not about the personal faith of the individual so much as it is the sacraments of their church they see as what provides access to grace. In any event, its a whole other ballgame.

The point I am hoping you will see, is that if Catholicism has erected a system which purports to dispense the grace of God, but in fact God dispenses grace through the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ, their method is preventing Catholics from genuinely receiving the grace of God.

Also, I understand your frustration with Calvinism. I haven't looked at the link yet but I am very familiar with it and find doctrines such as limited atonement and double predestination as particularly distasteful and unbiblical.

Okay. So if you agree that Calvinism contains unbiblical teachings, why would you go on to justify any of it in your next sentence?

My point was, however, that the practical outworking of Calvinism is not antinomianism when it is properly understood.

'When it is properly understood'??? The practical outworking of Calvinism, is that people think they know what the Bible teaches about their salvation, and they erroneously imagine that they are special, regardless of their sinning which they find hard to stop - if indeed it even crosses their mind that it should stop - and they have a jaded view of other members of the human race, who, they believe, have been chosen for an altogether different destiny... outside of God's grace... And there is a lot more beside which in no way recommends Calvinism as a construct.

I think many misunderstand it and it leads to antinomianism, but that does not mean this is the direct result of that doctrine as ScottAU and many others suggest.

Antinomianism? Anyone can pick up a religious model and comply with its outward requirements. I agree that the genuine seeker for God will be met by Him, and indeed, the Calvinists I've met are extremely serious about their Christianity. My question to you, is whether their Calvinism isn't more of a hindrance than a help, towards true compliance with well-balanced New Testament doctrine?

Again, I'm not a Calvinist, but I do believe we ought to be fair and not paint people in a way that is inaccurate.

You have focused on people - both Catholics and Calvinists - when really, the discussion is about the doctrinal construct, and whether it properly conveys the Bible's teaching about God's thinking, and His actions and expectations towards those who try to come to Him through Jesus Christ?

I was not brought up in Calvinism, so I am always amazed that it has a following among adults of above average intelligence, since there is so much scripture to contradict it, even if one only takes the teachings of Jesus Christ, Himself. What's that all about? It's a bondage!

Therefore, I have no idea why you are defending any of it. Are you nervous about upsetting people, by telling them the truth?

If necessary, please forgive my forthrightness. I'm beginning to join the ranks of those who are less worried about offending people, than offending God by not conveying His word as accurately as possible to His sheep, who are trying to feed on muddied pastures. Ezekiel 34:18, 19

 

[Wormwood]

dragonfly,

A couple of points I think are important here. Though you claim you are not attacking people, but doctrinal systems, that line gets very fuzzy. For instance, you say, "The practical outworking of Calvinism, is that people think they know what the Bible teaches about their salvation, and they erroneously imagine that they are special, regardless of their sinning which they find hard to stop." So are you critiquing the Calvinist theology here or the people? You claim Calvinists "imagine they are special, regardless of their sinning..." This sounds like a critique on people of a certain theology. So you see it gets convoluted when we try to split hairs between theological systems and the lives that are shaped by those systems. We cannot help addressing real people when we critique their beliefs. Its hard to sift out Catholics from Catholicism or Calvinists from Calvinism. If I went after views you hold dear to your heart, you would probably find it hard to separate your views from yourself...so I think a word of caution is in order here, especially if we are wrong about the real substance of those views. Often our sins do not come as a result of core theologies but our misunderstanding of those views or failure to live up to those views.

Anyway, as far as the discussion on Catholicism goes...

"The point I am hoping you will see, is that if Catholicism has erected a system which purports to dispense the grace of God, but in fact God dispenses grace through the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ, their method is preventing Catholics from genuinely receiving the grace of God."

The point I am hoping you will see is that Protestantism and Catholicism are built on two entirely different foundations. You said that the practices of Catholics suggest that they see Christ's death as inadequate. This is simply not true. They just simply believe that we access the grace of God through the sacraments of the church rather than through individual faith. So the issue here is not that Christ's death and grace is insufficient but there is an entirely different paradigm on how humanity receives that grace (sola fide "faith alone" or through the church). This does not mean they do not have faith, but they do not see faith alone as what is important, but faith in Christ displayed by partaking of church sacrament. You and I agree as Protestants in "faith alone" but Catholics do not think this way. So yes, Catholics make bad Protestants because they do not think like we do and they are not trying to be Protestant. But this does not mean that they view the death of Christ as insufficient or have a weak view of grace (or necessarily that they do not "genuinely receive" God's grace. Hopefully God grants grace to all of us who are misinformed in areas so long as our hope is in Christ). That was the only point I was trying to make.

As far as Calvinism goes...

Okay. So if you agree that Calvinism contains unbiblical teachings, why would you go on to justify any of it in your next sentence?

A couple things here. First of all, everyone claims they are entirely biblical. Calvinists would say we are unbiblical. However, we are all Christians in spite of our differences because we hold to the fundamental truths of Christ and his work for us. So while I may believe parts of their theology to be unbiblical, the majority of it I believe is very biblical (or we wouldn't consider them Christian!). Certainly there are some very good things about Calvinism. I agree with their view on total depravity and salvation by grace alone. I am not Pelagian and do not believe we can do good in and of ourselves apart from the grace of God. I love the way they uphold the sovereignty of God and tend to be very focused on the purity of the Bible. Many Arminian camps are sliding off the theological cliff in their views of the Bible and its authority. I also love how most Calvinists are heavily evangelical. So there are lots of things I love about those from Calvinist backgrounds. Some of the most influential and helpful theologians today are strong Calvinists (and not all Calvinists are rabid 5-point Calvinists...).

However, the main point here is that Calvinism, as it is taught by most, does not lead to antinomianism. They will say that the only way to know you are one of the "elect" that is predestined for salvation by God is through a life of faith and good works. So if you want to prove yourself to be elect, then you need to do good works and hold to the faith. If you lose faith and do evil, you will discover you were never one of the "elect." So, practically speaking, the outworking of this is hardly different from Arminianism. We both believe in good works and a life of faith. Calvinists only say that your works and persistence in the faith show you to be elect by God from before the foundation of the world where an Arminian such as myself would say that we need to persist in faith and do good work in order to be elect (which God knows from before the foundation of the world based on his foreknowledge...not by divine decree).

I hope this helps.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I did not suggest that man was a debtor to Satan. One does not pay a ransom (which is what you were asking about) to a creditor. One pays back what was credited.

You're confusing the issue. Debts are not just paid to creditors. Debts are due society when someone breaks the law. Society doesn't issue credit to be paid back, yet when someone breaks a law, they become a debtor to society. We broke the law of GOD; we were, therefore. debtors to the law, or GOD, or the kingdom of GOD:

I find the 'debt' picture of sin a bit hard to grasp.

Per the above, do you now?

Is this really New Covenant theology?

We are no longer debtors to the law or the flesh because the debt has been paid in full. The deposit is on mercy seat; the receipt is in our hearts.

First let me acknowledge your point that God does not forgive sin, except through the tragedy of the death of His Son, and His shed blood.


But, I think you may be missing what Scott is getting at. I'm sure he knows that the king would have had to bear the loss of what was owed, by forgiving the debtor the whole debt. That is how the king's books would have been balanced. He would have taken from His own estate, and credited it to the debtor, so that now the debtor owed nothing. What I think Scott is really getting at, is the need for that conversation between the king and the debtor. It is not enough for the debtor to know that the king is rich, and assume it will be okay if he doesn't pay up. The reckoning must take place. The debtor must acknowledge the whole debt, must ask forgiveness, and must appreciate the grace being extended to him when he is forgiven.

Having been forgiven at the king's expense, the king was justified in expecting a 'new heart' in the forgiven one, and justified in being angry when the forgiven one did not show his gratitude by offering a similar standard of grace to the one who owed him a smaller debt.

If Scott was only saying that a reckoning must take place in the form of confession and repentance before redemption can occur, and afterwards the same must happen before reconciliation of fellowship can occur, I wouldn't have any problem with it. But Scott's teachings go far beyond that to the point of uprooting what I consider to be the fundamentals of the faith. I am willing to reevaluate my faith vis-a-vis the witness of truth, but so far I've been anything but impressed by the teachings of DeSario's disciples (skinski7 & Tommy4Christ [who was recently banned] @ christianchat are others). They state all kinds of fallacies as facts, which, to be honest, I really don't want to have to wade through.

 

[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... Doctrine in the head, little in the heart.
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?

I believe that Augustine said... "Mans extremity is God's opportunity." -But as far as I am concerned mans extremity is God's big headache. John Calvin is extreme Sardisean and the example of what it is to be a Sardisean. Since Sardis is part of the church I do not label his teachings heresy, but rather extreme Sardisean mindset... In which I have no interest in studying. My sister went to Andy Griffith country for her anniversary. There was a preacher preaching the hell, fire and brimstone there on the sidewalk. But he was doing it without any love and compassion. Which is typical of your Sardisean preacher. Was the preacher right? Of course he was... The problem was there was no love in his heart. Give me some good John Wesley, William Seymour, and Smith Wigglesworth teachings and I will be content.

 

[ScottAU]

If Scott was only saying that a reckoning must take place in the form of confession and repentance before redemption can occur, and afterwards the same must happen before reconciliation of fellowship can occur, I wouldn't have any problem with it. But Scott's teachings go far beyond that to the point of uprooting what I consider to be the fundamentals of the faith. I am willing to reevaluate my faith vis-a-vis the witness of truth, but so far I've been anything but impressed by the teachings of DeSario's disciples (skinski7 & Tommy4Christ [who was recently banned] @ christianchat are others). They state all kinds of fallacies as facts, which, to be honest, I really don't want to have to wade through.

You blow a lot of smoke but have very little substance to what you write.

Take this thread for example.

#9 I bring up the problem of "inability" as it relates to the Doctrine of Total Depravity and how this teaching supports the contention that a Christian convert remains in a double minded state still n bondage to sin. I also make the point (using the Scripture) that we are not born dead as the Totaly Depravity teaches.

#58 I make the point that both John Calvin and Martin Luther heavily relied on Augustine of Hippo in the formulation of their theology especially as it relates to the "inability" and "inborn sin."

#62 I reference a video by brother Mike where he is teaching that we cannot serve two masters.

#75 I state the fact that Penal Substitution is a "recently invented doctrine" and how under Reformed Theology justification is disconnected from the manifest character of an individual.

#76 You then respond to my post by indicating that:-
1. You find my ideas extremely disturbing.
2. You object to the concept that Christ's death did not satisfy the wrath of God.
3. You assert confusion over "saved FROM sin" and "saved IN sin" indicating in your mind there is no difference.
4. You claim that we are in "sinful bodies" and that due to this we won't actually be saved from sin until glorification (clearly you believe the problem of sin is rooted in being in a flesh body as opposed to CHOICE).

#77 I respond to you with concise references in regards to the development of the various doctrines of the atonement. Penal Substitution is of recent invention. I also make a concise and reasoned list of my chief objections to Penal Substitution.

#78 You respond by indicating that you:-
1. Are not interested in looking at history.
2. My posts are too long.
3. You claim I make connections which do not exist.
4. You claim there is no difference between ransom and wrath satisfaction.
5. You also claim that there doesn't seem to be any practical implications to what I am saying (in other words my writings are some abstract theological constructs which are not really relevant.

#80 I reemphasise the practical implications I have already clearly outlined in my previous posts, in particular that a genuine Christian cannot serve two masters. We cannot serve sin and righteousness at the same time and that these doctrines I am refuting teach that we can and do.

#81. You respond by claiming that:-
1. Vice and virtue are indeed transferable properties because the old has died and the new is Christ.
2. In regards to justice what is man to conform God to man's ideas (thus you resort to argumentum e silentio).
3. Jesus is legally liable for our sin.

#82 I cite specific verses which Reformed Theology and Penal Substitution flat out deny.

#83 You claim I am reading thing into Penal Substitution and thus I am viewing it how I choose to see it.

#84 I allude to the parable of the unforgiving servant and how forgiveness was granted without a payment being made. Thus forgiveness is conditional on repentance and faith NOT on a "sin debt" having to be paid. The death of Christ has to do with the REMISSION of sin in that the blood of Christ purges the conscience of sin.

#85 You respond by saying you are "getting a whiff" that I don't believe in a sinful nature which "causes" us to sin. (I respond to this in #89)

#86 I again address the problem of double mindedness as it relates to forensic justification which disconnects manifest deeds from faith.

#87 You claim that everything you mention is in the Bible and that because the blood cleanses it is the eternal evidence that the penalty has been paid.

#89 I examine the sinful nature with the Scripture. I address Rom 5:12 and how Augustine erred in understanding that verse due to his dependance on the Latin Vulgate which translates it wrong (this verse being the foundation upon which Augustine established his erroneous doctrine of sin being passed down in the male sperm). I also explain Eph 2:3 and examine Rom 7:9. I then explain that dualism (ie. the flesh in and of itself is sinful, the soul is not) was Gnostic heresy which was actually refuted by Christian's before Augustine.

#91 You then claim I make distinctions without difference. Yet like every single post you have so far made you do not explain WHY. You then make a double-tongued statement that sin is not ok but permissible.

and so on...

Not a single response of yours actually specifically addresses anything I write with any reasoning whatsoever.

All you do is say things like, "it is not so." "The Bible does not teach that." "You are wrong." "I don't need to examine that," etc.

Every single response is just a smoke blowing exercise.

Now your latest response is this...

They state all kinds of fallacies as facts, which, to be honest, I really don't want to have to wade through.

You just blow everything off and never address anything. I don't even know why you honestly post replies, to fill up space perhaps?

For the record I am not a disciple of Mike DeSario. Mike DeSario is a sound teacher who preaches repentance and faith proven by deeds. Thus he is a preacher of righteousness who contends earnestly that sinners forsake their sin and turn to God.

Mike's preaching definitely caused me to re-evaluate my doctrine and thus led me to a strong conviction of the Holy Spirit and thus to repentance. Yet I follow Christ, not Mike. God gives the increase and people like Mike water the plants.

Instead of making simplistic blanket statements why don't you SPECIFICALLY address the SUBSTANCE of what I post? Otherwise you are just proving yourself irrelevant in this context.

I am Skinski7 on christianchat.com by the way.

Also, I understand your frustration with Calvinism. I haven't looked at the link yet but I am very familiar with it and find doctrines such as limited atonement and double predestination as particularly distasteful and unbiblical. My point was, however, that the practical outworking of Calvinism is not antinomianism when it is properly understood. I think many misunderstand it and it leads to antinomianism, but that does not mean this is the direct result of that doctrine as ScottAU and many others suggest. Again, I'm not a Calvinist, but I do believe we ought to be fair and not paint people in a way that is inaccurate.

The issue is not as to whether Reformed Theology teaches full blown antinomianism or not. The issue is that conversion under Reformed Doctrine necessitates the serving of two masters. At the root of Reformed Theology is the complete denial of the teaching that the "eye must be single" and that fact that we "cannot" serve two masters,

Due to the doctrine of Total Depravity man is viewed as UNABLE to obey God thus they teach...

V. This corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated;[11] and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.[12]

Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. 6

They attach "sin" to the "flesh." This is what Augustine did when he introduced dualism into Christianity. Augustine saw concupiscence (natural desire) as evidence that the "flesh itself" was sinful and thus the problem with mankind was not the choices he made but rather it was being in a flesh and blood body which had been corrupted by the sin of Adam. Thus actual sin is a SYMPTOM of a disease. This doctrine completely and utterly throws the concept of human responsibility out the window and denies that human beings can obey God (unless God offsets the inability with some kind of irresistible or prevenient grace).

Under this doctrine a human being must simply "recognise" their "wretched condition" and then "trust and wait" on God to change them. This is why the Gospel is presented as "confess, trust and receive" today instead of "repent and yield." In the book of Acts they preached repentance proven by deeds and faith in Jesus Christ, all for the remission of sin. There was no doctrinally induced double-mindedness like we have today. They didn't go around claiming they were PRESENTLY the "chief of sinners," "the Romans wretch" and that "if you claim you are not sinning then you are a liar." Those particular scriptures were not ripped out of their context and used to justify ongoing sinfulness until the corrupted philosophy of dualism infected Christian orthodoxy.

Under this heresy the blame for sin is on the "nature" and not the choice.

III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed;[6] and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.[7]

IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,[8] and wholly inclined to all evil,[9] do proceed all actual transgressions.[10]

Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. 6
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/


They totally misunderstand the inherent passions of the flesh. Temptation IS NOT sin. The flesh "draws" people to sin due to the natural passions and desires. Those natural passions and desires are not sinful at all, they are to be ruled over responsibly. It is sinful when human beings let their natural passions rule over them and they suppress their knowledge of righteousness in order to satisfy carnal desire (which is to be carnally minded)`.

Evil is simply the misuse of the human will and is rooted in selfishness.

Under Reformed Theology the convert serves two masters for the rest of their life.

II. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man;[7] yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part;[8] whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.[9]

III. In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail;[10] yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome;[11] and so, the saints grow in grace,[12] perfecting holiness in the fear of God.[13]

It is for this very reason they have have to deny heart purity and have to deny all the warnings in Scripture about continuing in sin. To them being made pure is simply impossible because they view "sin" as some kind of "substance" inherent in the flesh itself. It is PURE GNOSTIC DUALISM posing as Christianity. This is why they have invented doctrines which teach a FORENSIC justification, for they have to have a methodology whereby God is reconciled to man's sinfulness (when in reality it is man that has to be reconciled to God, not God to man).

The Bible CLEARLY connects MANIFEST CONDUCT with being BORN AGAIN.

1Jn 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
1Jn 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
1Jn 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
1Jn 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
1Jn 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
1Jn 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

There are so many Bible teachers today who are deceiving people that they can be reckoned righteous by God (justified) while they DO wickedness. It is a lie strait from the pit of hell.

1Jn 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

Jesus taught that we would know the false prophets by the fruit they produce, that is their converts. Today we have a multitude of religious teachers whose converts are double-minded hypocrites who run around professing to be the Romans Wretch, the Chief of Sinners, and claim that if one claims to be pure and not sinning that they are liars.

Thus they deny...

1Jn 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

Tit 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

1Pe 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

These wolves never preach on those Scriptures. They espouse "moral lessons" and cushion their listeners from the warnings in the Bible about continuing in sin.

Paul was so clear...

Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

We either yield ourselves to sin or we yield ourselves to righteousness. NOT BOTH. Reformed Theology teaches that "although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail" which means they believe a Christian still serves BOTH. It could not be any clearer.

Ask any reformed teacher if there is any sin or sins that have to cease BEFORE God will grant forgiveness. They will all say NO, except for "unbelief" of course. I have spoken with 100's of pastors and I can hardly find any who will emphatically state that any sin MUST stop. They all believe you get saved IN sin and that the sin NEVER stops.

People really do need to wake up to what is going on because valuable souls are at stake here.

Mat 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
Mat 6:23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.