PST gives to us biblical answer to how God can remain Holy and still freely forgive sinners, but if not PST atonement view, how does God do such then?
Calvinism : Questions
Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by LaGrange, Nov 10, 2020.
Page 3 of 7
-
-
The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is one theory among many. The primary concern is not the basis of these theories (penal aspects, substitutionary aspects, governmental themes, ransom aspects, moral influence implications, recapitulation themes, ontological transformation, ect.).
If we accept scripture then we accept all of those ideas. But what makes one a theory is the emphasis on one or two ideas above or over others and building upon that to form a theory.
All Christians believe Christ suffered a penalty for our sakes. That is part of what it means to be a Christian (taking a part in that suffering and death do that we will take a part in the Resurrection). -
How are personals sins atoned and accounted for then if not PST?
-
By God becoming man in the Person of Jesus Christ, living as one of us, tempted in all points as we are (yet without sin), suffering and dying by the predetermined will of God and by the hands of wicked men, and by God's faithful deliverance from the bondage of death that could not hold Him as the Father vindicated the Son on the third day and Jesus became the Firstborn of many brethern - the Last (or Second) Adam (or type of man).
-
Barry Johnson Well-Known MemberThats still talking of animal sacrifices.
-
Barry Johnson Well-Known MemberGlorification is what’s limited, not atonement. (Rom. 3:23; 8:17-30)
-
robustheologian Well-Known MemberSite SupporterThat's flawed exegesis to not see animal sacrifices as the type and Christ's sacrifice as the antitype.
-
robustheologian Well-Known MemberSite SupporterOnes accepting penal substitution theory would depend on one's understanding of justification. It's complex but limited atonement is dependent on one's understanding of penal substitution...which is dependent on one's understanding of justification.
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite SupporterWww.sermonaudio.com.
Monergism.com....650 free ebooks...pdf -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite SupporterMonergism.com free ebooks
-
I agree.
A few years ago my understanding of justification shifted from a Reformed view towards a position influenced at least in part through studying the writings of the early Church (and leaning towards an early Eastern Orthodox of the purpose of Christ's work).
What sparked the move was a realization that my understanding relied on a philosophy of justice that is not actually in Scripture (it may be correct, but it may not).
Calvinism and Penal Substitution Theory presupposes the same philosophy of justice and imposes it on God as divine justice. I think Calvinism has other philosophical problems, but at its foundation is this Theory. If the Theory is wrong Calvinism crashes.
So it is the basic philosophy of justice I find troubling as it is assumed. -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite SupporterParticular Redemption is the teaching of scripture that Calvinism and Calvinists understand from scripture . It is not based on logic or philosophy, but rather a biblical view of the Covenant of Redemption.
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite SupporterParticular Redemption is the teaching of scripture that Calvinism and Calvinists understand from scripture . It is not based on logic or philosophy, but rather a biblical view of the Covenant of Redemption.
-
Craig, Kenneth Keathley along with the philosophical question of the Problem of Evil exposing Hard Determinism to unavoidably lead to Theological Fatalism have all been an influence on my soteriological position which maintains Human Volition throughout the scriptures within the values of Divine Foreknowledge .
-
@robustheologian ,
I probably should add that by the standards of this board I would be a 5 point Calvinist (or what John Piper calls a 7 point as I also affirm double predestination and the best of all possible worlds).
I no longer consider myself a Calvinist because I do not hold a Reformed philosophy of justice so I cannot affirm Penal Substitution Theory.
It gets difficult for me to use labels because technically one could not be a Baptist and a Calvinist (using a historical definition) and we have all sorts of "calvinists" these days.
I guess I could be a Calvinist who rejects Penal Substitution Theory, although I have trouble grasping that being Calvinism. -
robustheologian Well-Known MemberSite SupporterI half agree with that. But, as I mentioned before, I know people who hold to a Calvinist soteriology without holding to the theory of penal substitution. There acceptance is purely based on Scripture...albeit a lot of proof texting.
That's honest. I'd be interested in what about that philosophy of justice you have a problem with. I'll probably start another thread on that subject.
I cringe when I see *-point Calvinist lol. I feel like it's a bit reductionist but I understand why people use the terminology.
That's true lol. But I understand when someone says they're a Calvinist, they mean they hold to a Calvinistic soteriology. So like you said, we have all types of Calvinists...non-confessional Calvinists, dispensational Calvinists, 4-point Calvinists, and a ton in between. However, Calvinists and Baptists are more compatible than people think (i.e. Particular Baptists). -
Barry Johnson Well-Known MemberI was just pointing out that verse was still talking about animal sacrifices.
-
Scott Downey Well-Known MemberRansom is the way, we are redeemed by a ransom paid for our sins. But not paid to Satan that thinking is an error, it is paid to God, the Law of God which required the blood to be shed for the forgiveness of sin. God Himself bore our sins on the Tree, the Tree which He Himself required for our sins, that is such a great love manifested towards us. He required His own death of Himself for us to live towards God.
God the Son paid the ransom back to Himself God the Father. Satan had no part in this.
Otherwise, we would suffer the wrath of God for our sins which are many.
And Christ delivers us from the wrath of God to come.
Isaiah 35:10
And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, And come to Zion with singing, With everlasting joy on their heads. They shall obtain joy and gladness, And sorrow and sighing shall flee away.
Jeremiah 31:11
For the Lord has redeemed Jacob, And ransomed him from the hand of one stronger than he.
Hosea 13:14
“I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O Death, I will be your plagues! O Grave, I will be your destruction! Pity is hidden from My eyes.”
Matthew 20:28
just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
Mark 10:45
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (not all)
1 Timothy 2:6
who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, (not all who have ever lived)
Christ was give Himself a ransom for them who are saved, not that Christ ransomed all people, if so then all people would be redeemed..Christ bore the sins of many...Many are the great host of the redeemed who are named in the family of God in heaven and earth.
Isaiah 53
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.
11 He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors. -
I agree. I think if we restrict Calvinism to soteriology and to its conclusions (rather than how 16th century Calvinists arrived at those conclusions) then Calvinism can be divorced from Oenal Substitution Theory.
And to be fair, that is typically how we use "Calvinism" (to speak of predestination as it applies to salvation, not necessarily how one arrives the there but the actual conclusions held).
I also wonder about * point Calvinists. I believe the logical conclusion of Penal Substitution Theory is Calvinism and the "points" are interrelated to such a degree that one cannot reject a "point" without logical inconsistentcy. (I also believe double predestination necessary for consistency, but that may be my own approach). -
How are we imputed then His very righteousness in that scenerio?
Page 3 of 7