Featured Ex-Calvinism (Why I am no longer a Calvinist)

True, buj at least in regards to proper salvation, we have it right!

 

Yes and that is not the stance “That is scriptural,” that I dispute.

if you wish to discuss the psyche of the Calvinist and their beliefs, then change the topic of the thread and invite them to reveal their thoughts & beliefs... perhaps you could even change their minds.

 

[QUOTE="JonC, post: 2564704,

 

Jon C. wrote: “But I do reject the idea that sins must be punished as reconciliation/ forgiveness or before reconciliation/ forgiveness can take place.”

I can’t for the life of me understand Jon’s dilemma. The punishment of sin before reconciliation/forgiveness can take place is Christianity 101.

As I understand it, the entire thrust of the Old & New Testaments is to teach the following truths:

(1) God willed to create a family.

(2) God willed His family love Him as a child his father.

(3) God warned there would be punishment for disobedience. That punishment was punitive.

(4) The punishment for disobedience was spiritual and physical death, among other distasteful accompanying evils.

(5) But before God created the world and mankind He foreknew the sin of Adam was inevitable once Satan entered the Garden, resulting in the fall of the human race.

(6) But rather than wash His hands of the whole affair, He entered into covenant with His Son, who willingly agreed to take on flesh, and live on Earth in humble, loving obedience to the Father’s every will. His active sinless obedience would then qualify Him as a viable substitute who would take the loathsome, unimaginable infinite punishment due sinners. He would experience a torturous, excruciating death on their behalf. This is nothing less than the infinite wrath of God poured out upon His Son.

(7) The infinite wisdom, righteousness, holiness and grace of God determined that He could forgive guilty sinners in no other way, but that Christ must suffer the punishment in their stead; then those who believed on the person and work of Christ crucified would be forgiven of all sin.

(8) Not only would they be forgiven, they would be justified, having the righteousness of Christ imputed to their account.

(9) In no other way can man be justified.

(10) Had there been another way, Christ’s prayer in the Garden would have been answered and the cross avoided.

(11) Christ not only paid the sin debt of those given Him by the Father, He also purchased all gifts necessary for depraved sinners to believe in Him with a saving, enduring faith.

The pains of eternal punishment await all who reject Christ. The punishment is punitive.

Some reject out of total unbelief, while others reject because they believe in a false Christ, a figment of their imagination.

The phrase ‘I am saved’ declares being saved from the eternal wrath and deserved eternal punishment of a holy and just God.

We Christians understand the true meaning of grace and the just punishment Christ took upon Himself -- punishment we rightly deserved. Amen?

 

Hmmm...after reading this thread I note that scripture is never the reason why a person leaves the soteriological observations of Calvin. Instead it is some philosophical idea or a human argument from a preacher.
I left Arminian soteriology because I read the Bible and the Bible didn't support such synergism.
As for Jesus death and atonement, it is apparent that it secured the new covenant for His chosen people of the promise.

 

I understand what you said. I see you creating a theology about atonement and then rejecting that theology. What I don't see is specific scripture that presents any theology to question.
There has been no scripture presented to present the view you are now holding and no scripture shown for the view you formerly held.
Ultimately no scripture is addressed in this entire thread to support opinions. This thread is empty of any spiritual value.

 

Not because God hit a regenerate button? Sounds different from your born again testimony. version 3 now or what?

 

Or your “ bless me Father for I have sinned” act of contrition.

 

Jon, I am curious about your series of threads here.
While I believe I understand (and share) your critique of what is generally the Calvinistic explanation of the Atonement, I don't quite see how that necessitates your departure from the 5 points.

I.O.W. while I think I'm following your critiques (and am sympathetic) the particular flavor of penal substitution usually espoused by Calvinists isn't strictly necessary to adhere to the five points right?
If I understand you correctly, you are partial to something of a Christus Victor model. Does that disqualify the five points? I am not sure I see them as mutually exclusive.

Obviously, Penal Substitution fits rather nicely in the Calvinist schema....The older Calvinist Theologians especially often took it to estremes I think, speaking almost as though there were a ratio of exchange between so much volume of blood in exchange for x amount of sin-debt owed and a limited supply et. al. Just think about that absurd John Owen question in the preface of Death of Death in Death of Christ someone posted and the weird assumptions it makes as though there's x-amount of blood available to be spent, but only for the elect, and why would God throw good money after bad wasting it on the y-sins of someone who isn't elect etc....

That being said...none of your critiques, as I've seen, are strictly incompatible with Calvinism. Which exact point of our honorable TULIP can you not accept and why?

 

Why be so vague, Jon? Why shy from sharing what you actually believe?
You make vague reference about Reformed theology, yet you provide no evidence for what you actually believe. Why?

 

m-kay....I suppose I agree with RSR and Reformed that if you still embrace TULIP you can properly consider yourself Calvinist.
While you might be a rare breed of Christus Victor loving Calvinist, I suppose you can still be one.
If Spurgeon can not embrace the Ordo-Salutis held by Calvinists and yet still maintain his bona-fides.....you can embrace a view of atonement not generally taught by Calvinists and still be squarely in the camp I think.

I do enjoy reading your discussions on the topic of Atonement b.t.w.

 

It's not biblically specific, Jon. You state a type of atonement you don't agree with because something persuaded you it was wrong. What scripture persuaded you about God's atonement and why His Son was a sacrifice?