What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[QvQ]

I believe in prayer.

Absolutely, however I always say in each prayer for intercession "Thy Will be done."

 

[Mark Quayle]

My post you quoted was for Jesus is JHWH, but maybe you know that?

I don't believe either that Christ paid for something the sinner also ends up paying for, still I believe in unlimited atonement.

What do you think of what @Clare73 said in post 4519?

A different tack.

Limited atonement is not based on the "quantity" of the atonement, but on no double payment for the same sin.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Maybe you will find this interesting.

"[23] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology [Institutio theologiae elencticae 1679-85], 3 vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992), 14.13. Contrast in this regard Augustine, who affirms penal substitution but appears to deny imputation of our sin to Christ. In Against Faustus he says to his opponent, “Confess that he died, and you may also confess that he, without taking our sin, took its punishment” (14.7). Perhaps he is here speaking ex concessis. But elsewhere he says, “By taking on your punishment, while not taking on your guilt, he canceled both guilt and punishment” (Sermon 171.3). According to Franks, this sentence “Suscipiendo poenam et non suscipiendo culpam et culpam delevit et poenam” is frequently repeated with slight variations in Augustine’s writings (Robert S. Franks, A History of the Doctrine of the Work of Christ in its Ecclesiastical Development, 2 vols. [London: Hodder & Stoughton, (1918)], I:126.) See, e.g., Augustine, The Merits and Forgiveness of Sins 1. 61, where he says that Christ transferred to his own flesh death but not sin."

Is Penal Substitution Unsatisfactory? | Reasonable Faith

I'm not sure I even quite follow what he means, or quite what he is trying to say. After all, Scripture does say that he who knew no sin, BECAME sin for us.

 

[zoidar]

What do you think of what @Clare73 said in post 4519?

Limited atonement is not based on double payment, neither is my view on unlimited atonement. Limited atonement is limiting the quantity of the atonement, sure but that is a wrong understanding of the atonement sacrifice.

"Unlimited atonement = double payment
Limited atonement = single payment"

This is a false dilemma and a misunderstanding of what the atonement sacrifice is. The atonement sacrifice is unlimited in quantity yet limited in it's effect on us and by us.

 

[zoidar]

I'm not sure I even quite follow what he means, or quite what he is trying to say. After all, Scripture does say that he who knew no sin, BECAME sin for us.

I'm not fully sure either, but I found it interesting Augustine held a different view on penal substitution than most Christians today. To me it's saying that it's not a simple topic, but something that is very complex.

"Became sin for us". Did he become a sinner guilty of sin? No we don't believe that. He was the spotless lamb. So it depends what we mean by "became sin".

 

[zoidar]

Man’s sin and rebellion opened the door for the devil to operate (John 12:31). Prayer is not done for show - it gives God permission to operate in the earth on our behalf.

I think I know what you mean by "permission", but I wouldn't have put it that way. If you like you can say something about it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Limited atonement is not based on double payment, neither is my view on unlimited atonement. Limited atonement is limiting the quantity of the atonement, sure but that is a wrong understanding of the atonement sacrifice.

"Unlimited atonement = double payment
Limited atonement = single payment"

This is a false dilemma and a misunderstanding of what the atonement sacrifice is. The atonement sacrifice is unlimited in quantity yet limited in it's effect on us and by us.

@Clare73 said that limited atonement is NOT limiting the quantity of the atonement, but the extent of it —that it [pretty obviously] does not mean Christ paid for the sins of those who end up paying for it themselves.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm not fully sure either, but I found it interesting Augustine held a different view on penal substitution than most Christians today. To me it's saying that it's not a simple topic, but something that is very complex.

"Became sin for us". Did he become a sinner guilty of sin? No we don't believe that. He was the spotless lamb. So it depends what we mean by "became sin".

Hails back to the nature of sin. "...crouches at the door, and desires to have you."

I tend to think we believers have a way of getting everything backwards. Most likely the topic is simpler than we can know, in one regard, but in another regard far deeper and more complex than we can understand in this life.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Limited atonement is not based on double payment, neither is my view on unlimited atonement. Limited atonement is limiting the quantity of the atonement, sure but that is a wrong understanding of the atonement sacrifice.

"Unlimited atonement = double payment
Limited atonement = single payment"

This is a false dilemma and a misunderstanding of what the atonement sacrifice is. The atonement sacrifice is unlimited in quantity yet limited in it's effect on us and by us.

Limited atonement means that while Christs sacrifice would have been sufficient to cover the sins of every person ever born, His death and resurrection is specific to/for the elect of God (Those God gave into His Hand), and only those people.

As R. L. Dabney has said, "Christ's sacrifice has purchased and provided for the effectual calling of the elect, with all the graces which insure their faith, repentance, justification, perseverance, and glorification.

It simply is arguing against universal salvation (Hitler etc going to heaven).

Most Christians believe in limited atonement.

Few, if any believe that everyone ever born is going to heaven regardless of what they did or believed in their life, and if Jesus paid the price for Hitler's sins, then Hitler would be in heaven. In the end, we believe in 1 of 3 things - that everyone goes to heaven regardless of what they did or believed in their life, that Jesus' death on the cross was ineffective (Hitler's sins were just too much for even Jesus' blood to cover), or that atonement is of a limited nature (only for the elect).

Most believe it's limited as a result. It's just common sense really. "Whole world" just means some people out of the Jews and Gentiles both, not every single individual ever born.

 

[Clare73]

That's what we are discussing, what the apostolic teaching is. If you just want to say: "I'm right, you're wrong" you are putting the discussions into a bad climate. I have told you this before, but you don't seem to understand. And that's too bad, because it would make the discussions more constructive.

You are saying I don't have the apostolic teaching but you do. Anyone can say that.

No, I am plainly saying that you do not take those Scriptures at their word, and it falls to you to Biblically demonstrate they do not mean what they clearly state.

It's just an empty claim.

Actually, the empty claim and what remains to be shown is that they do not mean what they clearly state.
There is nothing to be shown regarding their meaning, it is self-evident.

Both Jesus: "No one can see (know, be acquainted with) the kingdom of God unless he is born again,"
and Paul: "The man without the Spirit (not born again) does not accept the things of God because they are foolishness to him and he cannot understand them"
could not be more clear in their statements of the spiritual impotency of man than they are in John 3:3-8 and 1 Corinthians 2:14.

If you do not agree, you must Biblically demonstrate your assertion, or it is without merit and just an "empty claim."

You seem to have a lot vested in their plain words not being true, and looking for ways around them.
What's that about?

 

[Clare73]

Limited atonement is not based on double payment, neither is my view on unlimited atonement. Limited atonement is limiting the quantity of the atonement,

Says who?
The merit of the work of the divine Son of God would be infinite.
Until it is applied, it doesn't exist as far as the sinner is concerned.
Why can limited atonement not mean limited in the application of the atonement?

"Unlimited atonement = double payment
Limited atonement = single payment"

This is a false dilemma

And is "false dilemma" not just an "empty claim" with no Biblical demonstration to support your assertion?

and a misunderstanding of what the atonement sacrifice is. The atonement sacrifice is unlimited in quantity yet limited in it's effect on us and by us.

That's what I said. . .it's merit is infinite, while it's application is limited.

 

[Clare73]

I'm not fully sure either, but I found it interesting Augustine held a different view on penal substitution than most Christians today. To me it's saying that it's not a simple topic, but something that is very complex.

Perhaps several hundred years after the fact, Augustine didn't take into consideration the pattern, type, shadow of the OT sacrificial system.

"Became sin for us". Did he become a sinner guilty of sin? No we don't believe that. He was the spotless lamb. So it depends what we mean by "became sin".

The same thing it meant in the OT sacrifices, which is the model of atonement.

The sin of the people was laid on the animal and it was put to death in the sinners' place to pay for their sin; i.e., penal substitutionary atonement.

 

[John Mullally]

I think I know what you mean by "permission", but I wouldn't have put it that way. If you like you can say something about it.

This is a excerpt from Dr. Tony Evan's Holding God Accountable | Tony Evans article. Tony graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary.

Let me define prayer by first saying what prayer is not. Prayer is not simply talking to God. Instead, prayer is asserting earthly permission for heavenly interference. Prayer is earth giving heaven authorization to intervene in the affairs of earth as heaven has previously stated it would. That permission is granted based on your legal position and rights. That’s why it is essential to study the Word of God and to know the rights He has granted you through His Word.
​

John Wesley says “God does nothing but in answer to prayer.”

 

[QvQ]

Instead, prayer is asserting earthly permission for heavenly interference.

The premise being that God has abandoned the world to Satan and man? Man gives permission through acceptance of Christ and the Holy Spirit for God to operate in this world? Through man's act of prayer, God has continued permission to interfere in the world?
Is this what you mean? Only asking for clarification.

I am not getting alerts for this thread. Other threads yes. Anyone know why?

 

[Der Alte]

The premise being that God has abandoned the world to Satan and man? Man gives permission through acceptance of Christ and the Holy Spirit for God to operate in this world? Through man's act of prayer, God has continued permission to interfere in the world?
Is this what you mean? Only asking for clarification.

I am not getting alerts for this thread. Other threads yes. Anyone know why?

Go to the top right of the thread just above the post # if it does not read "Unwatch Thread" click it.

 

[QvQ]

Thank you. It reads "Unwatch Thread" so perhaps it will work now.

 

[John Mullally]

The premise being that God has abandoned the world to Satan and man?

For man: God gave us His word, the life of His son Jesus, and sent the Holy Spirit - so there is no abandonment. It is not insignificant, that Jesus was not sent until after Abraham demonstrated his willingness to offer the life of his son (Genesis 22).

Man gives permission through acceptance of Christ and the Holy Spirit for God to operate in this world? Through man's act of prayer, God has continued permission to interfere in the world?
Is this what you mean? Only asking for clarification.

God gave man authority on earth (Genesis 1:26-31 and Psalm 115:16) and man opened the door for Satan's operation through Adam's sin & man's continued sin. The phrase "God interfering" gets people's attention - God desires to act on man's behalf and prayer gives Him permission.

 

[QvQ]

God gave man authority on earth (Genesis 1:26-31 and Psalm 115:16) and man opened the door for Satan's operation through Adam's sin & man's continued sin

Dominion, in reality, is King of the Jungle. Man's dominion is to physically and intellectually dominate nature and beasts. (dominion -dominate)

God did not give man any legal right to grant or deny God permission.

Also in the Book of Job, God granted Satan permission to act in the case of Job. Satan is an angel. He is not a free agent any more than the angels in the Genesis 19 were free agents.

 

[John Mullally]

Dominion, in reality, is King of the Jungle. Man's dominion is to physically and intellectually dominate nature and beasts. (dominion -dominate)

God did not give man any legal right to grant or deny God permission.

Well then what is your take on what Jesus said in Mark 11:22-24 and Matthew 18:18?

Mark 11:22 So Jesus answered and said to them, “Have faith in God. 23 For assuredly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be removed and be cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that those things he says will be done, he will have whatever he says. 24 Therefore I say to you, whatever things you ask when you pray, believe that you receive them, and you will have them.

Matthew 18:18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.​

Also in the Book of Job, God granted Satan permission to act in the case of Job. Satan is an angel. He is not a free agent any more than the angels in the Genesis 19 were free agents.

Yes, even though Jesus called Satan the ruler of this world, He has set some limits on Satan.

 

[zoidar]

This is a excerpt from Dr. Tony Evan's Holding God Accountable | Tony Evans article. Tony graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary.

Let me define prayer by first saying what prayer is not. Prayer is not simply talking to God. Instead, prayer is asserting earthly permission for heavenly interference. Prayer is earth giving heaven authorization to intervene in the affairs of earth as heaven has previously stated it would. That permission is granted based on your legal position and rights. That’s why it is essential to study the Word of God and to know the rights He has granted you through His Word.
​

John Wesley says “God does nothing but in answer to prayer.”

My thoughts about this are that God has decided for us to pray to Him and through our prayer intervene in the world. But I don't think God is bound to our prayers, but He does want us to pray for Him to act. Even so He acts the way He decides in each situation, sometimes without prayer and sometimes because of prayer. Some things He just won't do unless we pray.