Bob, sola scriptura is based on Scripture, and for the early Christians, before their was the full canon, it was exactly that, Scripture.
Please don't forget that before we had the NT in written form, it already existed in oral form, at least in a type of orthodoxy.
Today I was reading in Act 28 how Paul demonstrated from Torah and Neviim about Jesus the Messiah.
To Timothy he said that Timothy came to faith in Christ from the OT Scriptures (2 Tim 3:15).
Logic and the Literal Payment Theory
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Heavenly Pilgrim, Apr 6, 2008.
Page 4 of 6
-
-
1. Christ only died a potential death--his atonement was only potential, and so each individual may or may not accept it. This is the arminian position.
2. Christ only died for the elect and the whole world refers to all the peoples of the world. This is the calvinist position.
3. Or we can get into all the other theories of the atonement--governmental, moral, accidental and so on. -
HP: You say rightly this is the ‘Calvinist position.’ It is not the position of the Word of God and you did NOT get it from Scripture. It is Calvinistic interpretation which is in direct opposition to the stated Word of God. So much for Calvinism as being the sole torch bearer for the 'doctrines of grace' as you implied they were.
Am I the only one that just witnessed 'Sola Scripture' go up in smoke? -
Acts 17:11 "They searched the SCRIPTURES daily to SEE IF those things were so"
And as our RC bretheren like to point out in defense --"yes but that would be the OT text and surely we all want to ignore it right?"
Sola scriptura also comes from places like 2Tim 3:16
"ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND IS to be used for doctrine"
And there again the RC retort is - "Yes but that too is a primary reference to the scriptures of God - the OT - the WORD of God used by the NT authors -- surely we don't want to pay attention to that -- so can't use that text for sola scriptura with today's Christians"
But that is NOT what we find WRITTEN in the text of the NT. NO NT author says "sorry to say it but the SCRIPTURES you have in written form we will start calling the OT (not really the "good stuff") so for now best thing to do is just pay attention to our oral traditions - ignore the Word of God as much as possible and wait until we can get NEW TEXT to you in WRITTEN form so that you will once AGAIN have the WORD of God in written form -- a better version replacing what we call today "Scripture" and Word of God". (A more perfect Mormon argument could hardly be imagined!!)
As you point out -- the primary reference there is to the OT text.
NOW let's look at the way this adds to our topic.
1. It means that High Priestly role emphasized by Paul in Heb 7-9 IS KEY to the Atonement (As seen in Lev 16) AND it means that the "ATONING SACRIFICE" described by John in 1John 2:2 is ALSO key as we see in Lev 16:15.
John does not have to go into "detail definition" in 1John 2:2 of what "Atoning sacrifice" MEANS since he knows that his readers hear "Moses read in the synagogues every Sabbath" Acts 15:21. He mentions the term and NEEDS NO definition "repeated".
The same is true with Paul in 1Cor 5 "Christ our PASSOVER has been slain" with no need to "define and explain what is PASSOVER".
The same thing with Paul in Hebrews in regard to the WORK of the High Priest -- a reference to it in Heb 9 POINTING TO Lev 16 AS IF the reader was familiar with it.
And BECAUSE those two texts FIT SO WELL (Lev 16 and Heb 7-9) we HAVE an atonement that ALLOWS for NEW SINNERS being converted and forgiven -- and EXISTING saints that may indeed suffere Matt 18 "Forgiveness Revoked".
The "Read no scripture if it is OT -- thinking it still has value" model of Christians today -- is "an innovation" added to what we FIND IN the NT writer's text and it plays right into the hands of the RC argument for oral tradition over scripture INSTEAD of "Sola scriptura" scrutiny.
in Christ,
Bob -
Hopefully people are not so married to Calvinism's view of Atonement that they would gladly trash scripture and claim in its place the new ideas of "oral tradition".
I much prefer the UNITY and HARMONY of the scriptures where the NT text BUILDS on the "foundation of the Apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ Himself as the Corner Stone" Eph 2:20. As Peter said "Holy men of old moved by the HOLY SPIRIT spoke from GOD". The question for Calvinists today is - how much of God's Word are you willing to put aside in favor of Calvinism's brand of "atonement"?
in Christ,
Bob -
In God's OWN "Day of Atonement" instruction (if we can be allowed the luxury of placing other ideas aside for a moment) - God shows that Atonement process is "completed" only AFTER the lamb of God is slain and AFTER the work of the High Priest has ended.
The ceremonial year at that point was OVER -- no more sinners coming to Christ, no more blood to be slain, nor more forgiveness to be applie, no more intercession to be done.. it was as if in our terms "The Second coming" had just happened.
But of course -- that's the Bible - so you need to decide if that is the good part or the "not as good part".
The "Lamb of God" slain -- the "Lord's Goat SLAIN" as in Lev 16:15 but not the High Priest's work ENDED since as Paul confirms it BEGINS in Heb 8!
It is the ultimate marketing spin doctoring (as suggested by Calvinism) to argue that the FEW of Matt 7 are in fact to be gratuitously referred to as "THE WHOLE WORLD" to make God look generous.
To be fair to Calvinism - they have NO CHOICE but to "DOWNSIZE" terms like "WHOLE WORLD" once they claim the ENTIRE Lev 16 process of atonement to be ENDED since there is no possible way to have that process CONCLUDE IN YOUR FAVOR without being saved and in no need of repentance, forgiveness etc.
And THAT is why I object so often to finding Arminians who blindly swallow the Calvinist definition for Atonement and then try to reject the logical conclusion that Calvinism makes regarding "limited atonement" and Christ "not dying for all" no matter what the Bible says -- because in fact if you let them start by owning the definition of the term -- instead of appealing to the bible alone -- you have already lost the argument against Calvinism's limited Atonement.
in Christ,
Bob -
Before Jesus went to the cross he told his disciples that the Spirit would guide them into all truth (John 14-16).
I believe that happened in the time of the apostles, so much so that we see early believers devoting themselves to the apostles' doctrine.
There must have been a recognizable body of doctrine for this to have happened.
No doubt the OT is seminal in our understanding the OT, but we make a colossal mistake to ignore the NT interpretation of the atonement of Christ.
And as a student of Scripture, I believe the NT writers have sufficiently interpreted the atonement of Christ, and this is what I found:
Christ died a substitutionary death once for all, a death which is real and actual and not potential, to propitiate the God by removing the sins of sinners, so they don't have to do the same. -
Perception is everything in this debate and countless others.
Christ died at Calvary to atone for my sins once and for all, so that when I stand before the Father, he sees not my sins or my own righteousness, but the sacrifice of Christ and the righteousness of Scripture:
"God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor 5:21, TNIV).
I know you might find a problem with my interpretation, because it doesn't accord with yours and your church. That's ok. I've come to expect that.
I take my stance on the truths of Scripture, ala Luther. -
For example, the High Priest went into the holy of holies once a year to atone for his sins and the sins of the people.
Then we the Hebrew writer telling us that Christ and his sacrifice has superceded that type (Heb 9-10).
Now I need to spend understanding the death of Christ from the NT writers' perspective. Enough has been said:
"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God" (1 Pet 3:21, TNIV).
If you wish to spend your time in the OT to understand the atonement of Christ, you are free to do so. But I will take no such approach.
11 But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! (Heb 9:11-14, TNIV).
"Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy" (Heb 10:11-14, TNIV).
I rather gaze upon the clearer picture of the NT than the OT on this issue.
If you think the OT is clearer than the NT, then you are free to do so.
That can't be since some are already lost in hell.
So we can offer the potential death theory of Christ. -
HP: Yes,it is for that , but not thought of in the sense the literal payment theory imbibes. Growing up in Arminian circles I believe it was always explained as a substitutionary act, one God accepted as sufficient enough to allow Him to set aside the penalty for sin under certain conditions. I do not believe I ever heard it explained as you are expressing it, as the exact amount of suffering or death that was owed in any literal sense.
Am I misunderstanding or misrepresenting your sentiments? -
HP: My point is that you are not getting your ideas only from Scripture, and that the idea you have of grace is not necessarily that of Scriptures. You have no right to act as if though you alone own the rights to the idea of grace and all that oppose you and the developed ideas of Calvinism as it defines grace are in reality deniers of grace. Augustine was a clear example of that frightfully wrong opinion. The notion of grace that you are aligning yourself with comes straight out of the Augustinian/Calvin playbook, not directly from Scripture. -
If claiming from Scripture that my salvation, from start to finish, is wholly of God and nothing of me, and this was taught by Augustine and Calvin, then I'm grateful to be among these men on this issue.
Scripture is the source of my doctrine of grace:
"When he arrived, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed" (Acts 18:27, TNIV, emphasis mine). Solely by the grace of God can we ever come to faith in His Son.
"8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast" (Eph 2:8-9, TNIV, emphasis mine).
I can only stand on Scripture--sola scriptura--take away Scripture from me and I have nothing on which to stand. -
We both agree that "God was satified that the suffering of Christ met the conditions of the Law" -- I simply argue that this is not "fuzzy logic" it is exact accounting -- perfect reconning on God's part.
I am not sure how that breaks the model that you have held except that you do not think God takes the suffering and death down to such a finite exact level.
However consider this -- that was the MOST EXPENSIVE payment heaven ever made - it cost the suffering torment and death of God's Son. Was He not going to pay very close attention such that Christ sufferred no "more" than was absolutely positively necessary to meet the demnds of His Law?
While all in the fires of the second death - fire and brimstone seen in Rev 20 lose out on eternal life -- ALL do not "suffer the same" as Luke 12:47-48 points out regarding the torment owed by the wicked -- some owing much and others owing less. Again -- I am simply saying that the truth of that statement is far more concrete than some might have supposed.
The implications are great -- for it means that the Romans soldier's cruel treatment AND the Jew's rejection and abuse of Christ merely ADDED to the debt that He would pay.
It also means that when we as Christians -- continue in sin we also add our part to the weight of torment and suffering of our precious Lord and Savior. A debt that He fully "foresaw" but a needless contribution to that debt (on our part) nonetheless.
in Christ,
Bob -
The NT authors of the letters sent to the churches relied on the fact that the readers had access to scripture.
And as pointed out above - this is why they could simply reference the fact of "Atonement" rather than "fully detail it" and in the case of "Adam created first not Eve" a small snippet detail in a much larger story found in scripture to which the reader of the NT letter had access.
For as James said "Moses is read every Sabbath in the Synagogues".
I have to think that this is one reason that Luke is divinely lead to include that incident.
What we DON't find is that the High Priest's role (Christ's role as OUR High Priest -- to give that OT fact a Christological amplification) "as GOD defined it in Lev 16" is NOT APPLICABLE to atonement. We do not find such a teaching in EITHER the NT or the OT text "of scripture".
RATHER we find that the OT PREDICTS the future work of the Messiah in not only dying for sin but fully providing ALL aspects of what God called "Atonement".
God HIMSELF chose to point out in Lev 16 that the Atonement COMPLETES the plan of salvation to a far more pefect end than the Calvinist model allows. God places this as THE LAST sacrifice -- no more sins brought in, no more mediation of the priests, no more "conversions" claiming the blood. At the end of the year on the Day of Atonement -- all accounts are settled. The story "is over" -- it is the point that most closely resembles what we call today "The Second coming".
And THAT is why Arminians who accept this all-encompassing scope for the Atonement as we find God defining it in Lev 16 -- find PERFECt accomodation for "continued evangelism and confession of sin" AFTER the time of the Cross. UNTIL the High Priestly work of Christ in applying the blood of the atonement ends - the gospel marches on!
in Christ,
Bob -
Acts 17:11 "They studIED the SCRITPURES daily to SEE IF those things were so"
1john 2:2 "He is the ATONING SACRIFICE for OUR SINS and not for OUR sins only but for the SINS of the WHOLE world"
They themselves CLAIM they are teaching "nothing but what the Prophets" predicted.
Ephesians 2:20
having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,
Acts 26:22
"So, having obtained help from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place;
No question that Christ is now doing for "real" what the prior services merely "predicted".
I am going to have to go with their word on that.
in Christ,
Bob -
I note that the "Scripture" appealed to by the NT writers authorotatively has this teaching...
Perfect harmony between what they were calling "scripture" and what they were claiming about the MESSIAH.
This is a case of FULFILLING the predictions made in scripture.
Peter calls it a "more sure word of PROPHECY" because we SEE that "scripture" was in deed CORRECT -- affirmed - validated, SHOWN to be reliable so as Peter goes on to day "HOLY men of old MOVED by the Holy Spirit spoke from GOD".
This is an argument FOR scripture -- not for "dumping it and starting over with oral tradition".
Your "either OR" approach is NOT the one we find the NT writers using.
in Christ,
Bob -
Which means "God was right" to tell us about the all-encompassing scope of Atonement in Lev 16 that goes far BEYOND the "Atoning Sacrifice" of vs 15.
-
Bottom line -- I agree with your arguments that IF those Calvinist terms and conditions were true - THEN the Calvinist conlusions for limited atonement is also true ALTHOUGH you would still be stuck with "no conversions, no repentance, no confession" for NO CHANGE can take place once the end-of-year Atonement process ends (as we see at the 2nd coming and the end of Christ's role as High Priest).
When I counter the Calvinist argument - I am countering the entire argument with a Bible solution that works in EVERY respect -- no dangling bits of Calvinism to account for in the middle of an "otherwise" arminian solution.
in Christ,
Bob -
BobRyan said:The "Sola Scriptura" point is Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures Daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul - were so".Click to expand...
The NT authors of the letters sent to the churches relied on the fact that the readers had access to scripture.Click to expand...
And as pointed out above - this is why they could simply reference the fact of "Atonement" rather than "fully detail it" and in the case of "Adam created first not Eve" a small snippet detail in a much larger story found in scripture to which the reader of the NT letter had access.Click to expand...
I have no doubt about the NT letters being ADDED to scripture - what I have a problem with is the "scrap the old and start over" ideas that sometimes gain popularity since that would be the "death of sola scriptura". The only way sola scriptura can possibly be claimed as the model for NT saints in the first century is to accept that the Acts 17:11 principle "BUILDING on the OT text not replacing it" was the "norm".Click to expand...
It is highly questionable whether we have ANY evidence that NT authors viewed the "Atonement" of Christ in the "absence of what THEY called scripture" - rather we constantly find THEM arguing that the Atonement of Christ was "ACCORDING to scripture".Click to expand...
"1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Heb 10, TNIV).
What we DON't find is that the High Priest's role (Christ's role as OUR High Priest -- to give that OT fact a Christological amplification) "as GOD defined it in Lev 16" is NOT APPLICABLE to atonement. We do not find such a teaching in EITHER the NT or the OT text "of scripture".Click to expand...
RATHER we find that the OT PREDICTS the future work of the Messiah in not only dying for sin but fully providing ALL aspects of what God called "Atonement".Click to expand...
God HIMSELF chose to point out in Lev 16 that the Atonement COMPLETES the plan of salvation to a far more pefect end than the Calvinist model allows. God places this as THE LAST sacrifice -- no more sins brought in, no more mediation of the priests, no more "conversions" claiming the blood. At the end of the year on the Day of Atonement -- all accounts are settled. The story "is over" -- it is the point that most closely resembles what we call today "The Second coming".Click to expand...
And THAT is why Arminians who accept this all-encompassing scope for the Atonement as we find God defining it in Lev 16 -- find PERFECt accomodation for "continued evangelism and confession of sin" AFTER the time of the Cross. UNTIL the High Priestly work of Christ in applying the blood of the atonement ends - the gospel marches on!Click to expand...
"For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy" (TNIV).
Page 4 of 6