Do You Agree with Calvin or Wright On the Nature of the Atonement?

I think this will cover the theological statements of both men... Brother Glen

Luke 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

 

You have not a single Scripture to offer in support of this thinking.

There is no 3 hours being equivalent to an eternity for sinner statement, or anything even close to that thinking in Scripture.

However, the real question ask was considering the foundation of your thinking, that sin requires payment and restitution, then it must be taken into consideration that “He became sin for us...”.

Then it follows, what then? Who paid for The salvation of Jesus?

I am merely using your own view, surly it provides an answer.

All sin demand payment.

No one could pay the demand of the debt.

Jesus took on all sin making payment for all and taking the debt upon himself.

Who then paid for Jesus?

 

PST

 

You present what cannot happen.

God cannot be separated from God.

There was no equivalent debt/equity transfer.

Such thinking is totally a human construction in an attempt to cling to a principle that the suffering was part of the restitution for sin, that what sin debt was left over from the cross certainly had to be taken care of in hell, that “teleo” had to be put off for three days.

Do folks not understand that the origination is thinking aligns with that of the concept of the papist purgatory thinking?

That Calvin et al carried some of the indoctrination of their own papist education into their established views?

 

The Old Testament sacrifice system certainly had its many types, but the NT considers only one when it comes to redemption.

That one is concerning the furniture (which Paul referred) and the Blood (which John referred). It is that Lamb slain. The slaying of the lamb was not torturous, nor inhumane.

So then why the suffering Saviour?



All the suffering was to fulfill prophecy as to WHO (the identification tag) was to be the actual messiah.

God knew (as John and Paul state) there would be multiple claims to being the messiah, just as there will be many who can carry the label anti-Christ.

But, just as Peter was able to point to the exact person, in that first sermon, so we, too, may see the suffering as appointed and pointing out just who is the Redeemer.

 

PST = Pacific Standard Time
PSA = Trojan Horse for Limited Atonement
Substitutionary Reconciliation = Biblical Doctrine, Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all, becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world. Everyone God transfers into Christ undergoes the circumcision of Christ which removes their sin burden, and are made alive together with Christ, the biblical at one ment.

 

1) forsake does not mean abandon. We have agreed on this previously.
2) however, by subscribing to the wrath of God thinking as Yeshua1 seems to hold, it remains that you agreed with his statement of post # 10 (unless I was again carelessly reading).
3) thank you for not agreeing with the paid in hell thinking!
4) it is taken from 1 Peter 3 says that during the time of death and resurrection He preached to those in prison

18For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.​

5) I knew you didn’t hold to anything such as a purgatory.

There was a time that a gathering of theologians (as a second Dort) could have decisively dealt with areas of excess and unscriptural aspects of Calvinistic thinking.

I doubt it would be worth the effort in this latter age.

 

Van,

PST = Penal Substitution Theory.

It is held by some no matter the view on limited atonement.

 

This is an interesting subject that a thread may be developed. (More than one perhaps of the past could be resurrected- a play on OP topic).

My own thinking has generally trailed along that those before the flood were very aware of the promise, but weary in waiting.

Didn’t Methuselah die The year of the flood?

The dates of Methuselah’s life span from before the death of Adam to the flood.

Not that any of that matters, just that the promised redemption was shown fulfilled to all OT believers in Abraham’s bosom.

 

Jon... You will blame anything on gorging yourself on your kids Halloween candy!... Brother Glen

 

I do think you have CHOCOLATE FEVER!!!

 

Implied?... I never heard of that brand!... Brother Glen

 

That would be the Penal Substitution Theory of Limited Atonement, or PSTOLA!!

No matter the ignorance of those waving the Trojan Horse into the gates, it is a bogus and unbiblical doctrine.
Christ died as a ransom for all, becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world. Everyone God transfers into Christ undergoes the circumcision of Christ, removing their sin burden, and are made alive together with Christ, their biblical "at one ment."

 

Would you agree with the IFCA doctrinal statement, then?

IFCA Home - Doctrine