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

Again, you (and the Reformers, and the RCC) hold that sin called for a penalty. That is NOT what the Scriptures teach.

The Scriptures clearly state that sin PAYS a wage. It is a matter of reaping the benefits of sin. Sowing to the flesh of the flesh will REAP corruption.

Sin PAYS, by God withdrawing support and allowing the payment of rebuke that the nature has available. Be it sickness, famine, destruction, ... it is always a payment due.

Look throughout the OT for examples of the WAGES of sin. Were they not presented for that which the people worked? When they did evil, were they not paid for that evil? When their thoughts were turned from God, to worship idols, did they not earn the wage for that evil?

They took away some of the more egregious and gregarious aspects of excess of the RCC teaching, certainly.

However, they did not depart from the teaching as reflected in their view of the work of the Cross. Displayed by your own desire to have some physical punishment as satisfying some aspect of the brutality of God.

There was not "WORK" in atonement done by the lamb or the Lamb.

Atonement is by the BLOOD, and the blood was given, freely.

There is NO suffering in the atonement, only death, for the blood letting of the lamb brought death, the blood letting of the Messiah Lamb brought death.

Yet, the RCC and Reformers BOTH want some suffering, some penitence, some justification as a result of the brutality of the Cross.

Why not hold such treatment as the Scriptures do?

As identification marks.

 

Yes, if God desired all sinners to be saved by compulsion, all would be saved. So its your compulsion doctrine that is unbiblical.

 

LOL, can you not grasp the fact that compulsion is the unbiblical doctrine. He desires all sinners to be saved, and so if He used compulsion, all would be saved. Now you can deny that God desires all men to be saved, which shows your contempt for scripture or deny your doctrine of compulsion. So what do you do, you change the subject.

 

It is apparent that you know not the Scriptures state:

14What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means!15For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

16So then it depends not on human will or exertion,b but on God, who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

19You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

 

I would agree in part.

Calvin was an instrument used by God, certainly.

However, the REAL gospel has been taught from the time of Christ.

It was not “rediscovered” by Calvin or anyone else.

 

Let’s pretend for a bit that I agree.

The question then would need to be addressed, how long does one remain in the lake of fire until their sins are sufficiently paid?

Eternity isn’t the answer, for the person didn’t live that long to begin with. Each sin would have a level of “account due” that payment made in suffering would cancel.

 

You have got to change the subject, change the subject, change the subject one more time,
cuz your doctrine is bogus, bad, and baloney all the time

Please grasp the fact that compulsion is the unbiblical doctrine. He desires all sinners to be saved, and so if He used compulsion, all would be saved. Now you can deny that God desires all men to be saved, which shows your contempt for scripture or deny your doctrine of compulsion. So what do you do, you change the subject.

 

Before you run about claiming your not, you need to understand that which you state as your view is found in the semi-pelagic statements.

Please grasp the fact that semi-Pelagianism is heretical.

That you don’t recognize your statements reflecting a heretical view is alarming.

Even the presentation of the unscriptural teaching of “preceding” or “prevenient” grace understands that the fallen person, including the fallen will, is incapable of its own authority to do as you desire.

Is your desire to mar what you do not agree so strongly influencing you that you would do such injustice to the Scriptures?