Calvinism

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

John Caldwell,

I also have not seen any Calvinist struggle with the issue at all. That, brother, is the problem

.

Let me say this. In a Reformed Baptist Church everyone examines and agrees with the 1689. You do not have to agree 100%, for example, I do not believe the Pope is thee antiChrist.
But having a common confession the Church is able to function well. There is not much strife. Once you are mostly on the same page you can re-examine several doctrines and positions.
You refer to us as a gang, clique or other things, but how about brothers who share of love for God and His truth, and Christian love for each other.
We are not cookie-cutter indoctrinated persons. Archangel might lean to NCT view of the law. I understand but do not agree...nevertheless I see him as a gifted brother who offers much to all Christians. I have Christian friends who do not understand the doctrines of grace as they should, but we are all learning. I learn each day as i go over this and that.
You have some different views. I respect your right to hold and express them.
I do not believe you should ban people because you are censoring their ideas and understanding. You banned me for no reason.it was an error in judgment on your part.
i know I can get under someone's skin, but that is sometimes what happens. You are a big boy...handle it as we handle the non- stop attacks on the doctrine we hold with millions of others.
If I was a moderator I would not ban you. I welcome free expression, disagreement, biblical correction...

 

[John Caldwell]

John Caldwell,

.

Let me say this. In a Reformed Baptist Church everyone examines and agrees with the 1689. You do not have to agree 100%, for example, I do not believe the Pope is thee antiChrist.
But having a common confession the Church is able to function well. There is not much strife. Once you are mostly on the same page you can re-examine several doctrines and positions.
You refer to us as a gang, clique or other things, but how about brothers who share of love for God and His truth, and Christian love for each other.
We are not cookie-cutter indoctrinated persons. Archangel might lean to NCT view of the law. I understand but do not agree...nevertheless I see him as a gifted brother who offers much to all Christians. I have Christian friends who do not understand the doctrines of grace as they should, but we are all learning. I learn each day as i go over this and that.
You have some different views. I respect your right to hold and express them.
I do not believe you should ban people because you are censoring their ideas and understanding. You banned me for no reason.it was an error in judgment on your part.
i know I can get under someone's skin, but that is sometimes what happens. You are a big boy...handle it as we handle the non- stop attacks on the doctrine we hold with millions of others.
If I was a moderator I would not ban you. I welcome free expression, disagreement, biblical correction...

Neither of us can ban the other here, so the point is meaningless. I also welcome free dialogue and it is something I have appreciated about this forum. Discussing theology and the philosophical differences is something that interests me.

But I believe Christians can discuss differences in a Christ-like manner. Where things go south is when one person tries to tell the other what to believe or what the other person does or does not understand. This, not you personally, can get under my skin.

I also do not like when people try to shut people down because they disagree with their beliefs (which is what I often see). But addressing such is not my business.

I do not know Archangel and must have missed his/ her post. Do you mean Preacher4Truth?

My comment is that confessions are good as a common and subjective expression. It can hold a group together but cannot be argued outside of the group.

Calvinism has historically taught that "simple forgiveness" is impossible for God because it is contrary to His nature. So God had to punish sin because divine justice required sin be punished. Without our "sin debt" being paid there can be no forgiveness.

Historically this has been a part of Penal Substitution Theory as expressed by John Calvin in the Institutes and his commentaries.

I object to its validity, but I do not understand your reason for objecting. I was unaware of a branch of Calvinism that rejected the idea.

 

[Steve Owen]

The issue is that Martin Luther never expressed or defined a full doctrine of the Atonement. We need to be very careful not to read into his words what is not there.

If you mean that Luther never wrote a book called 'My theory of the Atonement,' then of course you are right. But one of us needs to be very careful not to read out of his words what most certainly is there.

My post is actually a quote.

Tell me, I'm interested. Do you think that my posts #275 and #296 are not quotes from Luther? That I just made them up and stuck Luther's name on them?

Yes, Luther presented Christ as taking on our sins (Luther did not reject the existing ideas of Atonement in favor of Calvin's Penal Substitution Theory but rather remained very focused on the justification of the believer in Christ by faith alone).

That Luther was focused on Salvation by faith Alone is perfectly true, but it did not stop him from clearly and extensively articulating Penal Substitution in his commentary on Galatians.

Historically the reason Luther is never presented as affirming the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is there is no evidence in Luther's theology that he considered our "sin debt" paid by the act of the Father punishing our sins in Christ. Luther, instead, taught that Christ bore our sins and by His merit, His holiness, His divinity, His perfect obedience, " he entirely engulfed and swallowed it up, and his merit is so great that God is now satisfied and says, “If he wills thereby to save, then there will be a salvation."

You are focused on this phrase 'sin debt.' Can you tell me where you find it in the Bible? Can you tell me where I have used it on this thread? I can't recall anyone but you using it. What I know is that He 'Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.........by whose stripes you were healed' (1 Peter 2:24). You seem to be unfamiliar with the idea of the 'active' and 'Passive' obedience of Christ and not to understand that in your post #276. Luther is speaking of His 'active obedience ' and in my quotes in posts #275 and #296. he is speaking of His 'active obedience.' The two cannot be separated if we are to understand atonement properly and Luther, despite his various failings, understood that.

It is wrong to place words into the mouths (or writings) of men long dead, Steve.

It certainly is and you should stop doing it.

Please review the sermon in question (to include your quote above, which is less than Penal Substitution Theory). What you are missing is that no Christian rejects the truth that Christ bore our sins, that Christ is pure and unspotted, that Christ became "as sinful flesh", that Christ suffered under the law and became a curse for us that He might deliver us from the curse of the law. This is a different topic.

Do you understand the Penal Substitution Theory and its distinction from other theories (its distinction from the Classic view, what the ECF's taught, Luther, Anabaptist theology, etc)?

I know nothing of 'Penal Substitution Theory.' What I know about is the Doctrine of Penal Substitution and I have studied it extensively and know it rather well, which is more, I think, than can be said for you.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Hello CL,
The whole tongues thing has got you twisted. You are willing to forego solid teaching by internationally accepted pastors [cessationists} because of it. Think about that. You suggest apostolic sign gifts have not ceased, even though the Apostles have??
12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

Now if you would...what do you mean by Covenant theology?
What does it teach? [whether you believe it or not]...could you give me an idea of what you believe that is?

17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

As you see not the tiniest thing ceases during a covenant; Jesus fulfilled the covenant of the Law that guided men until Christ, but in our New Covenant of the Holy Spirit cessationists actually teach the ceasing of His gifts, among other heresies against the Holy Spirit. Our New Covenant started on the Day of Pentecost and Peter said it was the fulfilling of the prophecy of Joel. The New Covenant teaches the giving of the Holy Spirit in two downpours - the early and latter rain. We are in the time of the latter rain and cessationists are oblivious. They are totally unaware this was prophesied, so attribute to Satan a holy act of God - not only heresy, but blasphemy.

But the other major heresy is regarding sin and is even more damning than not believing in the gifts. Reformists believe that regarding sin, Jesus only paid our penalty for past, present and future sins, and only frees us from the law. They believe that by believing in Jesus, we are free from the penalty from our continuing to sin due to our carnal nature that we will have till death. But that is only true of anyone who has not been born again of the Spirit and has received the divine nature of God that gives us power to not sin. There are many who are believers in Jesus, but not followers of Jesus, and you can only follow Jesus by becoming born again of the Spirit. They also teach that no sin can separate us from God, quoting Romans 8:38-39 about no created thing can separate us. These are outside forces, not regarding sin in our heart and actions. They do not teach that Jesus was manifest to take away our sin and in Him there is no sin, and that whoever continues to sin is still of the devil. They teach that in God's eyes we are free from the sins we continue to commit because all He sees is the blood of Jesus. That sounds good, and those who love darkness and believe they are saved like the fool in 1 John 1:6 seek out false teachers to tickle their itching ears.

 

[Steve Owen]

As you see not the tiniest thing ceases during a covenant;

I do not think that is true. At the beginning of the Sinaitic covenant, the Israelites were fed with manna, their feet did not swell and their shoes did not wear out. As soon as they entered Canaan, the Manna ceased (Joshua 4:12) and although we do not hear about their shoes and feet, I think it is reasonable to suppose that ceased as well.

But the other major heresy is regarding sin and is even more damning than not believing in the gifts. Reformists believe that regarding sin, Jesus only paid our penalty for past, present and future sins. They believe that by believing in Jesus, we are free from the penalty from our continuing to sin due to our carnal nature that we will have till death. But that is only true of anyone who has not been born again of the Spirit and has received the divine nature of God that gives us power to not sin. They also teach that no sin can separate us from God, quoting Romans 8:38-39 about no created thing can separate us. These are outside forces, not regarding sin in our heart and actions. They do not teach that Jesus was manifest to take away our sin and in Him there is no sin, and that whoever continues to sin is still of the devil. They teach that in God's eyes we are free from the sins we continue to commit because all He sees is the blood of Jesus. That sounds good, and those who love darkness and believe they are saved like the fool in 1 John 1:6 seek out false teachers to tickle their itching ears.

This is a gross calumny upon Reformed Christians, and if you really believe it you are deeply misinformed. Just read the WCF or the 1689 Confession.

 

[Waiting on him]

My post is actually a quote. Yes, Luther presented Christ as taking on our sins (Luther did not reject the existing ideas of Atonement in favor of Calvin's Penal Substitution Theory but rather remained very focused on the justification of the believer in Christ by faith alone).

Faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit, only He can bring saving faith. The inferior faith that man has leaves him sinking in a sea of doubt, we see this in the Gospels, it was till Pentecost that man received saving faith.

 

[CharismaticLady]

I do not think that is true. At the beginning of the Sinaitic covenant, the Israelites were fed with manna, their feet did not swell and their shoes did not wear out. As soon as they entered Canaan, the Manna ceased (Joshua 4:12) and although we do not hear about their shoes and feet, I think it is reasonable to suppose that ceased as well.

This is a gross calumny upon Reformed Christians, and if you really believe it you are deeply misinformed. Just read the WCF or the 1689 Confession.

Of course it was true. But it was not part of the "covenant." God gives us what we need. In the wilderness it was not a land flowing with milk and honey. God provided their food. "I have never seen the righteous go hungry."

As for the WCF, I have read it and it about made me sick from reading heresies. It is a slap in the face of Jesus whose death did so much more than He is given credit for.

 

[Waiting on him]

17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

As you see not the tiniest thing ceases during a covenant; Jesus fulfilled the covenant of the Law that guided men until Christ, but in our New Covenant of the Holy Spirit cessationists actually teach the ceasing of His gifts, among other heresies against the Holy Spirit. Our New Covenant started on the Day of Pentecost and Peter said it was the fulfilling of the prophecy of Joel. The New Covenant teaches the giving of the Holy Spirit in two downpours - the early and latter rain. We are in the time of the latter rain and cessationists are oblivious. They are totally unaware this was prophesied, so attribute to Satan a holy act of God - not only heresy, but blasphemy.

But the other major heresy is regarding sin and is even more damning than not believing in the gifts. Reformists believe that regarding sin, Jesus only paid our penalty for past, present and future sins, and only frees us from the law. They believe that by believing in Jesus, we are free from the penalty from our continuing to sin due to our carnal nature that we will have till death. But that is only true of anyone who has not been born again of the Spirit and has received the divine nature of God that gives us power to not sin. There are many who are believers in Jesus, but not followers of Jesus, and you can only follow Jesus by becoming born again of the Spirit. They also teach that no sin can separate us from God, quoting Romans 8:38-39 about no created thing can separate us. These are outside forces, not regarding sin in our heart and actions. They do not teach that Jesus was manifest to take away our sin and in Him there is no sin, and that whoever continues to sin is still of the devil. They teach that in God's eyes we are free from the sins we continue to commit because all He sees is the blood of Jesus. That sounds good, and those who love darkness and believe they are saved like the fool in 1 John 1:6 seek out false teachers to tickle their itching ears.

Glad you cited till heaven and earth pass away, because for those in Christ....
All things have been made new!(new creature.

 

[Waiting on him]

Matthew 22:14 KJV
[14] For many are called, but few are chosen.


Tecarta Bible

 

[John Caldwell]

If you mean that Luther never wrote a book called 'My theory of the Atonement,' then of course you are right. But one of us needs to be very careful not to read out of his words what most certainly is there.

Tell me, I'm interested. Do you think that my posts #275 and #296 are not quotes from Luther? That I just made them up and stuck Luther's name on them?

That Luther was focused on Salvation by faith Alone is perfectly true, but it did not stop him from clearly and extensively articulating Penal Substitution in his commentary on Galatians.

You are focused on this phrase 'sin debt.' Can you tell me where you find it in the Bible? Can you tell me where I have used it on this thread? I can't recall anyone but you using it. What I know is that He 'Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.........by whose stripes you were healed' (1 Peter 2:24). You seem to be unfamiliar with the idea of the 'active' and 'Passive' obedience of Christ and not to understand that in your post #276. Luther is speaking of His 'active obedience ' and in my quotes in posts #275 and #296. he is speaking of His 'active obedience.' The two cannot be separated if we are to understand atonement properly and Luther, despite his various failings, understood that.
It certainly is and you should stop doing it.

I know nothing of 'Penal Substitution Theory.' What I know about is the Doctrine of Penal Substitution and I have studied it extensively and know it rather well, which is more, I think, than can be said for you.

No. I mean Luther never defined his theory of Atonement. The quotes you provide are from Luther (as are mine). But in the quotes you provide Luther's view (as expressed in your quote) is not the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (it would under Anselm's Theory, probable more specifically Aquinas' take).

It is wrong (IMHO) to assume he believed anything but what he wrote. The man is not here for us to ask "when you said this you really meant that...right?". We cannot infer of people what was not stated. All Christians believe Christ bore our sins and because of His work we escape the wrath to come.

Do you understand the difference between what Luther wrote and Penal Substitution Theory?

 

[John Caldwell]

If you mean that Luther never wrote a book called 'My theory of the Atonement,' then of course you are right. But one of us needs to be very careful not to read out of his words what most certainly is there.

Tell me, I'm interested. Do you think that my posts #275 and #296 are not quotes from Luther? That I just made them up and stuck Luther's name on them?

That Luther was focused on Salvation by faith Alone is perfectly true, but it did not stop him from clearly and extensively articulating Penal Substitution in his commentary on Galatians.

You are focused on this phrase 'sin debt.' Can you tell me where you find it in the Bible? Can you tell me where I have used it on this thread? I can't recall anyone but you using it. What I know is that He 'Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.........by whose stripes you were healed' (1 Peter 2:24). You seem to be unfamiliar with the idea of the 'active' and 'Passive' obedience of Christ and not to understand that in your post #276. Luther is speaking of His 'active obedience ' and in my quotes in posts #275 and #296. he is speaking of His 'active obedience.' The two cannot be separated if we are to understand atonement properly and Luther, despite his various failings, understood that.
It certainly is and you should stop doing it.

I know nothing of 'Penal Substitution Theory.' What I know about is the Doctrine of Penal Substitution and I have studied it extensively and know it rather well, which is more, I think, than can be said for you.

No, if you do not know of or understand the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement I think anything you could offer in terms of its validity (to include its historical development and its association with other theories of atonement) would be moot....don't you?

You seem to be stating what all believers hold (Christ bore our sins in His own body on the tree...became a curse for us...by Him we escape the wrath to come....by His stripes we are healed). Origen believed this while he taught a ransom theory. Irenaeus believed that while his Theory of Atonement is Recapitulation. Anselm believed it while he developed the Satisfaction Theory. Luther believed it while he taught a Substitution Theory. Calvin believed this as he articulated the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

If you call "Penal Substitution Atonement" what every believer throughout history as affirmed, then it becomes meaningless in any type of argument or debate. It has no distinction whatsoever within a Christian milieu of competing doctrines. It is like saying "Calvinists believe Jesus is the Son of God" (the reply to which is "duh...we all believe that").

There are essentially two categories of viewing the Atonement (the Classic and the Latin) and throughout each you can see the development of individual theories. But all believe that Christ bore our sins in his own body, became a curse for us, through Him we escape the wrath to come, and we are healed by His stripes.

I do not blame you for having no interest in theology as far as the subject goes. It is something that I find interesting, but I absolutely love studying the history of the church and how doctrines develop. Each of us is that way (we have somethings we like, others not so much....I have no interest in eschatology).

 

[Mjh29]

Hello everyone!
'Calvinism' as generally understood today does not mean that one is a supporter of Jean Calvin, but that one holds to the position expressed in the acronym 'T.U.L.I.P.'
To be 'Reformed' is much more than to be Calvinistic. It means:
1. To uphold the five 'Solas' of the Reformation:' Grace alone, Christ alone, faith alone, the Scriptures alone, to the Glory of God alone.
2. To believe in Covenant Theology (and therefore not in Dispensationalism).
3. To believe in the Reformed Principle of Worship: that is, that nothing is to be introduced into Church worship and practice for which no probable command can be found in Scripture.
Reformed theology is not exclusively Presbyterian. There are Reformed Episcopalian churches and Reformed Baptist churches.
For me Reformed Baptist churches are true fulfillment of the Reformation since they have disposed of the last element of Romanism, infant 'baptism.'

*Me the grumpy Presbyterian murmuring under his breath about covenant signs*

Only playing, brother! It is a blessing to see another brother in Christ joining the forum! Welcome from me!

A note to those who read this: Notice how we can have differences in things like baptism, and yet still stand united for the truth of Christ?! This is the power of the true Christian church; to be able to respectfully disagree and still part as friends and brothers in Christ!

 

[Waiting on him]

I have no interest in eschatology).

So most would say Christ fully satisfied the wrath of God, so what’s with the wrath to come, I mean where does that come from, from an eschatological point of view.

 

[Waiting on him]

So most would say Christ fully satisfied the wrath of God, so what’s with the wrath to come, I mean where does that come from, from an eschatological point of view.

Unless you believe there is no wrath to come, which wouldn’t align with Baptist theology?

 

[Waiting on him]

As far as PST goes, if someone I loved was a victim of a hideous crime let’s say rape/murder and it went to court and the perp was found guilty by the judge/jury beyond a shadow of a doubt, and the judge asked the perp to stand and face the bench, and stated you are found guilty, but I’m a loving and righteous judge your free to go. Would this judge be just?

 

[Steve Owen]

No, if you do not know of or understand the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement I think anything you could offer in terms of its validity (to include its historical development and its association with other theories of atonement) would be moot....don't you?

I understand the Doctrine of Penal Substitution very well, thank you.

You seem to be stating what all believers hold (Christ bore our sins in His own body on the tree...became a curse for us...by Him we escape the wrath to come....by His stripes we are healed). Origen believed this while he taught a ransom theory. Irenaeus believed that while his Theory of Atonement is Recapitulation. Anselm believed it while he developed the Satisfaction Theory. Luther believed it while he taught a Substitution Theory. Calvin believed this as he articulated the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

If you call "Penal Substitution Atonement" what every believer throughout history as affirmed, then it becomes meaningless in any type of argument or debate. It has no distinction whatsoever within a Christian milieu of competing doctrines. It is like saying "Calvinists believe Jesus is the Son of God" (the reply to which is "duh...we all believe that").

'The Doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen mankind as the penalty of sin' [taken from 'Pierced for our Transgressions' by Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach, IVP Books]
You must have seen that definition about 20 times by now, so why are you asking me what I believe? It is clear from the Luther quotes that I have given that Luther believed the same.

There are essentially two categories of viewing the Atonement (the Classic and the Latin) and throughout each you can see the development of individual theories. But all believe that Christ bore our sins in his own body, became a curse for us, through Him we escape the wrath to come, and we are healed by His stripes.

I do not blame you for having no interest in theology as far as the subject goes. It is something that I find interesting, but I absolutely love studying the history of the church and how doctrines develop. Each of us is that way (we have somethings we like, others not so much....I have no interest in eschatology).

You have a fine line in sneering. It is not a becoming trait in a Christian.
If you want to do something useful to the debate, why don't you tell us what it is about the Doctrine of Penal Substitution that you disagree with?
Do you agree with the definition above, and if not, why not?

 

[Waiting on him]

I understand the Doctrine of Penal Substitution very well, thank you.

'The Doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen mankind as the penalty of sin' [taken from 'Pierced for our Transgressions' by Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach, IVP Books]
You must have seen that definition about 20 times by now, so why are you asking me what I believe? It is clear from the Luther quotes that I have given that Luther believed the same.

You have a fine line in sneering. It is not a becoming trait in a Christian.
If you want to do something useful to the debate, why don't you tell us what it is about the Doctrine of Penal Substitution that you disagree with?
Do you agree with the definition above, and if not, why not?

the only covenant keeper suffered the curses of the covenant breaker.

 

[John Caldwell]

So most would say Christ fully satisfied the wrath of God, so what’s with the wrath to come, I mean where does that come from, from an eschatological point of view.

1 thes 1:10

 

[farouk]

So most would say Christ fully satisfied the wrath of God, so what’s with the wrath to come, I mean where does that come from, from an eschatological point of view.

"It is finished" (John 19.30).

 

[John Caldwell]

I understand the Doctrine of Penal Substitution very well, thank you.

'The Doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen mankind as the penalty of sin' [taken from 'Pierced for our Transgressions' by Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach, IVP Books]
You must have seen that definition about 20 times by now, so why are you asking me what I believe? It is clear from the Luther quotes that I have given that Luther believed the same.

You have a fine line in sneering. It is not a becoming trait in a Christian.
If you want to do something useful to the debate, why don't you tell us what it is about the Doctrine of Penal Substitution that you disagree with?
Do you agree with the definition above, and if not, why not?

What do you believe was sneering?

I was saying Luther's quote (both yours and mine ) fall short of the doctrine of penal substitution and is closer to the doctrine of substitution.

Brother, please be careful about reading into my words what is not there. I have been posting off and on rather quickly. But I have not been engaging in ad hominem (no need to go there).