The Gospel Verses Calvinism

[Edial]

I agree completely.


Jesus demonstrates that God's mercy, justice and love are even greater than ours here:

Matt 7
9"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!

Yes, justice from perspective of fairness.

Hammster meant it from legal ... I slid into the fairness aspect.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[chestertonrules]

Yes, justice from perspective of fairness.

Hammster meant it from legal ... I slid into the fairness aspect.

Thanks,
Ed

Do you mean that God's laws are not necessarily fair?

Not a trick question, just not sure what you see as the difference.

 

[Edial]

Do you mean that God's laws are not necessarily fair?

Not a trick question, just not sure what you see as the difference.

Oh, His laws are definitely fair ... actually, absolutely perfect.

Hammster and I were pushing at the elephant from opposite sides wondering how come he does not topple.

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

 

[chestertonrules]

Oh, His laws are definitely fair ... actually, absolutely perfect.

Hammster and I were pushing at the elephant from opposite sides wondering how come he does not topple.

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

Watch your toes!

 

[nobdysfool]

Moreover, it must be understood that in Reformed models of soteriology--specifically in regards to atonement--the only thing that Christ overcomes in death is divine violence and enmity against humanity, as well as the inability of God to otherwise reconcile that which God has made to Godself.

No, Christ did what no human born of Adam could do, which was to be perfect. The issue here is not one of some sort of self-loathing and self-punishment on God's part. What that paints is a very neurotic God, which is a flat-out contradiction, since neurosis is not perfection, it is a lack of perfection at the point where it takes hold.

God does not require payment for sin out of some need for violence or retribution, as has been portrayed as a Reformed/Calvinist theological view, The issue is that sin fundamentally changes the sinner, and makes it impossible for the sinner to even survive in the presence of a Holy God. God did not create mankind just to snuff them all out. He had already created the Host of Heaven, the Angels, Archangels, Cherubim, etc. His reason for creating Man is not etirely shared with us, but He desires to have fellowship, a meaningful relationship with beings He created, and we are told in scripture that He created all things for His Glory, that His Glory would be manifest.

In other words, in these systems, the fundamental object of Christ's death is to convince--or otherwise free--God to do that which God would not--or could not--do otherwise.

Strange, is it not?

Strange that you propose such a reason. And it shows a complete misunderstanding of what actually happened, and why it happened.

If God can prescriptively will all that occurs, it's a mind-bending wonder that God can't do something so simple as to make a decision outside the requirement of divine self-punishment. Such would be akin to us not being able to get out of bed without an eternity of self-flagellation...not a particularly productive way to spend an eternity.

Since the atonement is not "divine self-punishment", such a statement makes no sense.

And if it's a matter of God simply willing to not do the same (e.g., not forgive humanity until God punishes Godself in Christ...which is precisely what Reformed theology teaches), the neurosis is even more severe, and atonement--nay, the entire drama of salvation--is reduced to being understood simply as God finally reconciling an eternal contradiction within the divine self.

Ridiculous, and quite frankly, a completely false statement about Reformed theology. This is the kind of provocation that causes debate to degenerate. Making such statements does not advance your view, nor make your view true. All it does is aggravate and irritate.

God in the atonement is not punishing Himself as is wrongly charged. Christ bore the sins, and their due, in order to move those who are added to Him past the sin and its wages, and into a place where they can be in the presence of God. In being joined to Christ, they share in His perfection, increasingly until He Returns.

What a happy thought. Someone should write a song about it.

Go for it. We can all watch it sink like a stone.

 

[depthdeception]

No, Christ did what no human born of Adam could do, which was to be perfect. The issue here is not one of some sort of self-loathing and self-punishment on God's part. What that paints is a very neurotic God, which is a flat-out contradiction, since neurosis is not perfection, it is a lack of perfection at the point where it takes hold.

Now you are moving toward a more rational view of atonement (e.g., what Christ does for humanity, not for God)...however, you still have not engaged the primary point, which is identifying the impetus for divine punishment of Christ. As I eruditely pointed out in my previous post, as there is nothing which requires God to punish Christ, the impetus for such violence must be rooted in the desire of God. Otherwise, one must find a source of obligation that is external to God to which God is ultimately beholden.

God does not require payment for sin out of some need for violence or retribution, as has been portrayed as a Reformed/Calvinist theological view,

That is fine--it doesn't really matter why God requires it (btw, I said "punishment" not "payment")...the fundamental philosophical problem is that God requires it all, given the fact that God is under no obligation to act in one way or another. So again, what is the impetus for divine violence against Christ in the cross? If there is nothing of obligation that motivates such an action. we must conclude that it proceeds from the desire and good pleasure of the divine will.

The issue is that sin fundamentally changes the sinner, and makes it impossible for the sinner to even survive in the presence of a Holy God.

Let's assume this is so. It still does not explain the necessity of divine violence in the cross against Christ, as is central to most Reformed theologies of atonement. How does God punishing Christ in the cross make it possible for the sinner to survive in the holy presence of God? Even in this statement, the language indicates a looming necessity on the part of God.

God did not create mankind just to snuff them all out. He had already created the Host of Heaven, the Angels, Archangels, Cherubim, etc. His reason for creating Man is not etirely shared with us, but He desires to have fellowship, a meaningful relationship with beings He created, and we are told in scripture that He created all things for His Glory, that His Glory would be manifest.

I completely agree that God created humanity for relationship and fellowship. However, this statement only deflects from the original challenge: if God is under no obligation to act one way or another, what is the purpose of the divine violence manifest in the cross against Christ, other than to express the desire and good pleasure of God for the same?

Strange that you propose such a reason. And it shows a complete misunderstanding of what actually happened, and why it happened.

No, it shows the rightness of my challenge as any attempt to justify divine violence--other than to root it in the desire and good pleasure of God's will--is immediately seen as a philosophically vacuous deflection.

So let me repeat myself for the 10th time: if God is under no obligation to act one way or another, what is the purpose of the divine violence manifest in the cross against Christ, other than to express the desire and good pleasure of God for the same?

Since the atonement is not "divine self-punishment", such a statement makes no sense.

How is God's violence against Christ in the cross not self-punishment, or at the very least, not self-violence? Again, a elementary doctrine of God understands that God is under no obligation to act in any particular way or to do any particular thing. That God would punish Christ on the cross (which is a fundamental tenant of most reformed atonement theologies) cannot be understood to be based upon any "need" of God to act in such a way. Therefore, we must conclude that if God does something (even punishing or otherwise directing violence against Christ), this "something" must necessarily proceed from the desire and good pleasure of the will of God, lest God be thought to be under obligation to some power higher or greater than God, which power is able to extract such necessity.

Ridiculous, and quite frankly, a completely false statement about Reformed theology. This is the kind of provocation that causes debate to degenerate. Making such statements does not advance your view, nor make your view true. All it does is aggravate and irritate.

It is meant to be provocative. I have outlined an erudite and iron-clad understanding of the nature of God's justice and, more fundamentally, of the underlying impetus for any action that God takes (e.g., it is based upon God's desire and good pleasure). Based on the unfolding of this logic, I have applied it to the fundamental premises of Reformed theology's understanding of atonement, and through sound, straightforward argumentation, have shown that this conclusion is the only one possible, given a proper understanding of the nature of God's justice and action.

Moreover, I advance these ideas because, frankly, Reformed theology has had it too easy for far too long. The Reformed couch their theology in a cloak of systematics which, to those who are not properly trained, appears to be logical and philosophically tenable. However, a moment's thought along the lines of basic principles of philosophical theology quickly reveals that there are severe contradictions in the very core of Reformed theology which--if rigorously pursued to their ends--makes for a very curious theology indeed.

I post these things not simply to provide the antagonists of Reformed theology with better arguments, but to also provide the Reformed with an opportunity to either defend their theology (and its necessary conclusions), or, if possible, come into the light of a better way of thinking about God.

God in the atonement is not punishing Himself as is wrongly charged. Christ bore the sins, and their due, in order to move those who are added to Him past the sin and its wages, and into a place where they can be in the presence of God.

I would agree, in part. However, the fundamental tenant of most Reformed theologies is that human sin incurs divine wrath and punishment. In his death, Christ bears the full punishment from God, thereby releasing humanity (or at least part of it) from the threat of the same.

If you do not believe that sin incurs divine punishment, you are the better for it. However, the vast majority of Reformed theologies of atonement disagree, and it is against these ideas that my argument is primarily directed.

 

[Robert Pate]

All doctrine should be tried in the light of the gospel. The gospel calls all religious thought into question. For in the gospel the righteousness, mercy and justice of God is revealed.

We are all sinners without works, that is we don't have to sin to prove we are sinners it is our natural condition. Just as we have become sinners without works so are we saved without works.

Because God is just and merciful he has provided salvation for fallen man completely outside of ourselves. God in the person of Jesus Christ clothes himself in human flesh and becomes one with us, but not one of us. By his sinless life he offers everything to the law that the law demands. He does this in our name and on our behalf, just like we did it ourselves. He is our justifier. By his death on the cross he atones for not only our sins, but the sins of the whole world, 1 John 2:2.

To believe the gospel one must believe that God in the person of Jesus Christ is the savior of the whole world. To believe the gospel one must believe that sin, death and the devil have been overcome and defeated. Anything less is unbelief in the work and person of Jesus Christ and lacks faith.

Either Jesus is the savior of the whole world or he isn't. If he isn't then we are still in our sins. A limited atonement does not bring glory to God and makes Jesus Christ a weak savior that was only able to atone for some sins but not all. This doctrine shows lack of faith in the work of Christ.

The reason that Christ was accepted back into heaven is because he was victorious over sin, death and the devil. If he had not atoned for all of the sins of the world he would have been a failure and would not have been able to claim that place of honor at the right hand of God.

Sin has been dealt with, death and the devil have been overcome and defeated. The gates of heaven are now wide open for all who will to enter in. Now, whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord can be saved.

 

[Hammster]

Let's start with this one. You say that predestination is only applicable to being conformed to the image of Christ. Okay, let's see what the passage says.

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
(Rom 8:29-30)

Here in this passage, the call goes out to only those He predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ. And those who were predestined to be conformed were those He foreknew. So, the logical next question is, what does Paul mean by 'those whom he foreknew'?

I was wondering if you would address this, Mr. Pate.

 

[Ghost air]

All doctrine should be tried in the light of the gospel. The gospel calls all religious thought into question. For in the gospel the righteousness, mercy and justice of God is revealed.

Good luck with any explanation of what the gospel actually is...

 

[Robert Pate]

I was wondering if you would address this, Mr. Pate.

I have already addressed those scriptures in post #19.

It is not good theology to build a doctrine on a handful of scriptures. Nowhere in the bible does it say that anyone has been predestinated to heaven or to hell, because of a handful of scriptures you are assuming that it means predestination. There are about 50 scriptures that say salvation is for, all men, all, whosoever. There are also many scriptures that say salvation is by faith in Christ.

 

[Robert Pate]

[/b]

Good luck with any explanation of what the gospel actually is...

The gospel is a very simple message, Romans 5:19 is the gospel in a nut shell. "For as by one man's disobedience (Adam) many (all of humanity) were MADE sinners, so as by the obedience of one (Christ) many (all of humanity) were MADE righteous."

The key word here is MADE we are MADE righteous, we do not become righteous.

 

[Hammster]

The gospel is a very simple message, Romans 5:19 is the gospel in a nut shell. "For as by one man's disobedience (Adam) many (all of humanity) were MADE sinners, so as by the obedience of one (Christ) many (all of humanity) were MADE righteous."

The key word here is MADE we are MADE righteous, we do not become righteous.

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures
(1Co 15:1-4)

 

[Hammster]

I have already addressed those scriptures in post #19.

It is not good theology to build a doctrine on a handful of scriptures. Nowhere in the bible does it say that anyone has been predestinated to heaven or to hell, because of a handful of scriptures you are assuming that it means predestination. There are about 50 scriptures that say salvation is for, all men, all, whosoever. There are also many scriptures that say salvation is by faith in Christ.

Actually, you didn't address it. You gave some generalities, but I was specifically asking for a deeper clarification how you understood the passage I posted. But if you don't care to address the post, then I will not bring it up further.

 

[Edial]

Oh sure.
There is a huge amount of Scriptures presenting that Christ died for all.

And there is not one verse that states Christ died ONLY for the elect, or ONLY for the sheep.

It is a conclusion, train of thought ... but no verses.

In my opinion that is the biggest weakness of such theological train of thought - no clear supporting verses.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Hammster]

Oh sure.
There is a huge amount of Scriptures presenting that Christ died for all.

And there is not one verse that states Christ died ONLY for the elect, or ONLY for the sheep.

It is a conclusion, train of thought ... but no verses.

In my opinion that is the biggest weakness of such theological train of thought - no clear supporting verses.

Thanks,
Ed

I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.
(Joh 10:14-15)

Not all are sheep. Who are the sheep?

Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
(Joh 10:25-29)

 

[nobdysfool]

Now you are moving toward a more rational view of atonement (e.g., what Christ does for humanity, not for God)...however, you still have not engaged the primary point, which is identifying the impetus for divine punishment of Christ. As I eruditely pointed out in my previous post, as there is nothing which requires God to punish Christ, the impetus for such violence must be rooted in the desire of God. Otherwise, one must find a source of obligation that is external to God to which God is ultimately beholden.

The impetus is choice, born out of Love. Until you understand that, you will miss the point.

That is fine--it doesn't really matter why God requires it (btw, I said "punishment" not "payment")...the fundamental philosophical problem is that God requires it all, given the fact that God is under no obligation to act in one way or another. So again, what is the impetus for divine violence against Christ in the cross? If there is nothing of obligation that motivates such an action. we must conclude that it proceeds from the desire and good pleasure of the divine will.

Sin is an offense to a Holy God, because it is a manifestation of selfishness, and of rebellion. For some reason, you seem to think that actions should not necessarily have consequences. God's Creation does not work that way, whether you agree or not. Characterizing the Cross as "Divine violence" is actually very inaccurate, and comes from a refusal to see sin for what it is, a rebellion against the Sovereignty of God in all things. It postulates that man has a right to life apart from God, when the reality is that God is the source of all that is, and creation could not exist apart from Him.

Let's assume this is so. It still does not explain the necessity of divine violence in the cross against Christ, as is central to most Reformed theologies of atonement. How does God punishing Christ in the cross make it possible for the sinner to survive in the holy presence of God? Even in this statement, the language indicates a looming necessity on the part of God.

Because sin incurs a debt. That's a simple as I can put it. A debt which must be paid, if man is to be able to be in the presence of a Holy God. it's not a necessity on the part of God, it is a necessity on the part of man. God doesn't "need" man, but man needs God, Sin has blinded man to the fact that without Him, he is nothing, and can do nothing, just as Jesus said.

I completely agree that God created humanity for relationship and fellowship. However, this statement only deflects from the original challenge: if God is under no obligation to act one way or another, what is the purpose of the divine violence manifest in the cross against Christ, other than to express the desire and good pleasure of God for the same?

Love. That is the motivating factor behind Jesus taking on the debt of sin, and paying its price. What you want to call "divine violence" is a demonstration of the seriousness of sin, and what is required to remove the debt incurred by sin.

No, it shows the rightness of my challenge as any attempt to justify divine violence--other than to root it in the desire and good pleasure of God's will--is immediately seen as a philosophically vacuous deflection.

Obviously you're quite impressed with yourself and what you've come up with. Referring to your arguments as "erudite", "the rightness of my challenge", "iron-clad", etc. show that you apparently fancy yourself as someone who can "bring Reformed theology down". Pardon me if I disagree with what looks to me a like a lot of post-modern, false logic.

So let me repeat myself for the 10th time: if God is under no obligation to act one way or another, what is the purpose of the divine violence manifest in the cross against Christ, other than to express the desire and good pleasure of God for the same?

Love. Pure and simple, and completely scriptural, that is if you accept scripture as authoritative beyond our own limited ability to understand the Divine, and accept scripture as a revelation of that Divine to us.

How is God's violence against Christ in the cross not self-punishment, or at the very least, not self-violence? Again, a elementary doctrine of God understands that God is under no obligation to act in any particular way or to do any particular thing. That God would punish Christ on the cross (which is a fundamental tenant of most reformed atonement theologies) cannot be understood to be based upon any "need" of God to act in such a way. Therefore, we must conclude that if God does something (even punishing or otherwise directing violence against Christ), this "something" must necessarily proceed from the desire and good pleasure of the will of God, lest God be thought to be under obligation to some power higher or greater than God, which power is able to extract such necessity.

Again, Love is the motivation, not self-loathing, which is what your idea of "divine violence" logically leads to. God does not loathe Himself. What Jesus did on the cross was not for God, but for those of us who believe and are saved.

It is meant to be provocative. I have outlined an erudite and iron-clad understanding of the nature of God's justice and, more fundamentally, of the underlying impetus for any action that God takes (e.g., it is based upon God's desire and good pleasure). Based on the unfolding of this logic, I have applied it to the fundamental premises of Reformed theology's understanding of atonement, and through sound, straightforward argumentation, have shown that this conclusion is the only one possible, given a proper understanding of the nature of God's justice and action.

Moreover, I advance these ideas because, frankly, Reformed theology has had it too easy for far too long. The Reformed couch their theology in a cloak of systematics which, to those who are not properly trained, appears to be logical and philosophically tenable. However, a moment's thought along the lines of basic principles of philosophical theology quickly reveals that there are severe contradictions in the very core of Reformed theology which--if rigorously pursued to their ends--makes for a very curious theology indeed.

I post these things not simply to provide the antagonists of Reformed theology with better arguments, but to also provide the Reformed with an opportunity to either defend their theology (and its necessary conclusions), or, if possible, come into the light of a better way of thinking about God.

More like remaking God in an image more to your liking. Provocative because of an inflated sense of philosophical sophistication, rather than any actual substance. Such arguments are old as the hills, and twice as dusty. They can be summed up in "Yea, hath God said...?"

I would agree, in part. However, the fundamental tenant of most Reformed theologies is that human sin incurs divine wrath and punishment. In his death, Christ bears the full punishment from God, thereby releasing humanity (or at least part of it) from the threat of the same.

Another name for it, is "actions have consequences".

If you do not believe that sin incurs divine punishment, you are the better for it. However, the vast majority of Reformed theologies of atonement disagree, and it is against these ideas that my argument is primarily directed.

Well, since scripture specifically shows that sin does incur divine wrath and punishment, I'll have to go with scripture, and reject your arguments as faulty, uninformed, and antithetical to scripture.

 

[Robert Pate]

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures
(1Co 15:1-4)

1 Corinthians 15:22-22, "For since by man (Adam) came death, by man (Christ) came also the resurrection of the dead." "For as in Adam ALL die, even so in Christ shall ALL be MADE alive."

 

[Hammster]

1 Corinthians 15:22-22, "For since by man (Adam) came death, by man (Christ) came also the resurrection of the dead." "For as in Adam ALL die, even so in Christ shall ALL be MADE alive."

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
(1Co 15:12-22)
Notice how Paul is addressing this to his people. He is telling them that if Christ hasn't been raised, then their (the Christians) hope has been futile. But, since Christ has been raised from the dead, they have hope. So when he says that in Adam all die, in this context he is referring to those he is writing to. And in the same sense, since Christ has risen, then all of them shall be made alive. Context is key.

 

[Robert Pate]

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
(1Co 15:12-22)
Notice how Paul is addressing this to his people. He is telling them that if Christ hasn't been raised, then their (the Christians) hope has been futile. But, since Christ has been raised from the dead, they have hope. So when he says that in Adam all die, in this context he is referring to those he is writing to. And in the same sense, since Christ has risen, then all of them shall be made alive. Context is key.

The ALL is ALL of humanity not just those who Paul was speaking to.

If ALL died in Adam then all of humanity is made alive in Christ.

Christ as the new Adam puts to death humanity in himself and brings forth a new humanity in the resurrection.

"For since by man (Adam) came death, by man (Christ) came also the reurrection from the dead." 1 Corinthians 15:21.

As Adam was the federal head of humanity, so is Christ the new federal head of humanity.

 

[Ghost air]

1 Corinthians 15:22-22, "For since by man (Adam) came death, by man (Christ) came also the resurrection of the dead." "For as in Adam ALL die, even so in Christ shall ALL be MADE alive."

Yes, even the damned will be raised... at least according to John's gospel..

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.