Seeing how that other thread is now closed, wanted to continue this again, but also ubder the additional feature of just what was/is the classic Calvinistic viewpoint regarding this?
My position has been that the main one viewpoint was and is penal substitution viewpoint, and also that God did have real wrath poured upon Jesus as the Sin bearer, and also that the Father ONLY intended the Cross to really save out of sinful Mankind a specific number of persons, His elect, and that while the offer of salvation is indeed legit from God to all, NONE save his elect will even want or can respond towards Him. The sinners who stay lost do not need to have a real chance to get saved for it to be a legit offer. correct?
Also, how os this expressed viewpoint of mine any different from what those such a s a Calvin held?
What is the Real Calvinist View On the Atonement? Pt2
Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by Yeshua1, Jul 11, 2017.
-
-
1. Penal Substitution (which provides the context and is shared by Arminianism).
2. The depravity of men in that men will not turn to God without the work of the Spirit. That said, the Fall did not negate the fact men are endowed with understanding and will, but it did bring depravity and death.
3. God chose to save men based not on man but on His own will.
4. Jesus died to save those who would believe. Men who reject God's call through the gospel do so of their own accord and not because of a lack of sufficiency in Christ offered.
5. God will finish the work He has begun.
6. Those who believe will have everlasting life.
No, that's not correct.
Those who are called by the ministry of the Word yet refuse to come and be converted are themselves at fault NOT because the gospel or Christ offered in the gospel was insufficient for their salvation (3-4 Heads of Doctrine, Art. 9).
Calvinism (classic Calvinism) places the difference here not in a lack of provision but in a lack if faith being bestowed by God.
Here you depart from Classic Calvinism (not in what you believe but in what you reject).
Calvin believed that Christ was the propitiation for the sins of all men indiscriminately. He did not have a strong doctrine regarding the scope if the Atonement (this was an issue after his death). Calvin's teaching was a universal and legitimate offer of salvation which all men would reject except Gods work towards salvation. You don't believe this universal offer.
Also, we can't ignore Beza's influence. I wouldn't say he altered Calvin's doctrine, but he did systematize his work. Where Calvin wrestled with where Divine Sovereignty would land Beza was less indecisive.
Calvinism does not mean "Calvin disciple". Personally, I think as a soteriological distinction Calvinism speaks of the Five Heads of Doctrine. I think your narrow view (rejecting Calvin's interpretation expressed in the 4th Head of Doctrine that there was an unrealized but legitimate offer of Christ to the reprobate) is a departure from Classic Calvinism and a move to Hyper-Calvinism.
Canons of Dort -
Those who reject Jesus to save them are due to their sin natures, and God has chosen to bypass them over in salvation sense, and allowing them to have their "free will", correct?
-
I look at it this way - Jesus is the Savior of all men, especially the believers. All have an opportunity to repent and believe. None do. But out of fallen man God has chosen for Himself a people and by His mercy for His glory God calls this people out from the world. Apart from the grace of God we would all perish.
-
We agree on that aspect of salvation, so what is our main difference here?
-
That Jesus' work was a legitimate offer of salvation to all men (Jesus is the Savior of all men) as well as a work securing the salvation of those who believe (especially the believers). You rejected the first part and I believe it an important truth of Scripture.
-
No, I affirm that the offer to get saved is real, its just that those in sin and not chosen of God will freely reject!