5 Points of Calvinism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reformed
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I really like you and enjoy your comments. I do consider you a brother in Christ. 🙂 Interesting, EMT as a paramedic/fire fighter? I evaluate fire departments and fire districts for a living. Jude 3 is contending for the Faith.
Emergency Medical Technician. I’ve been in sales for years and found it unrewarding (spiritually). So a little research (soul searching) and prayer and I’m the oldest guy in the class. 🙂

Besides, you know how some people shy away when you try and talk to them about God, I figure when I’m on an ambulance, I’ll have a “captive” audience. 😃
 
We both agree that it is a universal command to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for forgivness of sin. I see an actual propitation and atonement at the cross; therefore whatever sin was propitated, Christ paid for it. If Christ paid for the sin of unbelief for the entire world, then I believe all mankind would have to be saved. God would be unjust for pouring out His wrath on Christ for the sin of unbelief and pouring out his wrath on unbelievers in Hell for that same sin Christ paid for. I know it’s difficult, but that is what I believe. I still think Reformed writers like John Owen, John Calvin, and Jonthan Edwards see things much greater and clearer than other non-reformed theologians. I will read Luther’s Bondage of the Will. I should order it and get off the site for the day. Rejoice in the Lord everyone!
Your use of the word “propitiation” is not adequate here. The Latin and English words “propitiation” stress an appeasement of wrath. The biblical word stress a completeness of payment. “Expiation” would have been a better choice here than propitiation. The second misleading statement here is that God accepts the payment for all the sins for which it was offered. The payment was offered for all sins, not just some sins.

The line of argumentation you use above, as well as Owen’s is based purely on reason, not on what Scripture says. The heart of the problem here is making riddles and “playing with” what Scripture says. If passages seem contradictory to our reason, we cannot remove some of them by riddles and reason. We have to let them all stand.

Besides relying on reason, the other fundamental error of the Calvinists is trying to answer the question, “Why are some saved and not others?” as if it were one question with one answer. It is two questions, “Why are some saved?”–it is entirely due to the grace of God and the merit of Christ. “Why are some lost?” It is entirely due to their sin and unbelief, not to any predestination to damnation, nor to a failure of Christ to pay for their sins, nor to a refusal of the Father to accept that payment for them even though it was sufficient to pay for their debt. God the Father will damn them even though Christ paid enough for their sins and even if they would believe it. Truly a “horrible decree” as Calvin said.

Here are a few of the passages. Note especially the last passages which say that even unbelievers are included in the payment.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Romans 5:18,19 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

2 Corinthians 5:14,15 For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.

1 Timothy 1:15 Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.

1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.

In some passages “many” is opposed to few or to one (not to all). The “all” are “many,” the “many” are all.

Isaiah 53:6,12 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. 12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many.

Christ’s payment applies to the world not in abstract, but to each one individually.

1 Timothy 4:10: We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

Christ’s payment covers also those who are lost.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.

1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice (KJV propiation) for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

2 Corinthians 5:19,21 That God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
 
We both agree that it is a universal command to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for forgivness of sin. I see an actual propitation and atonement at the cross; therefore whatever sin was propitated, Christ paid for it. If Christ paid for the sin of unbelief for the entire world, then I believe all mankind would have to be saved. God would be unjust for pouring out His wrath on Christ for the sin of unbelief and pouring out his wrath on unbelievers in Hell for that same sin Christ paid for.
The problem is in your assumption that Christ is “paying” the Father for our sins. Scripture never speaks of our being ransomed from the Father–this is a blasphemous and incoherent concept. We are ransomed back from the powers of death and hell, to whom God justly delivered us because we chose to obey them rather than God. Christ propitiates God’s wrath by ransoming us from Satan. This is the Biblical and traditional way of speaking. Scripture never says that God “poured out His wrath” on Christ.

Having been ransomed from the power of Satan, we can choose to remain under that power. There’s no “double payment” involved.

Edwin
 
40.png
Reformed:
I have to defer to TriuneUnity on Luther’s view. I will order The Bondage of the Will sometime today. I believe the perseverance of the saints is rooted in the writings of Paul, and the sayings of Jesus. Therefore, I have to go beyond Augustine to support this truth. God saves us for His own glory and name sake as the primary reason. We are only secondary beneficiaries of His amazing transforming grace.
Perseverance is stated in the NT, by authoritative and inspired writings; the writings of post-apostolic writers are not inspired Scripture.

Concerning soteriology, the five points of Calvinism all hang together, and thus truly state only One Point: It is God alone who saves sinners, as you and the Scripture say.
 
According to RC Sproul in a sublink from Reformed’s earlier link, he explains predestination as follows:

…the classic position of Reformed theology on predestination. In this view predestination is double in that it involves both election and reprobation but is not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity…In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves…God shows mercy sovereignly and unconditionally to some, and* gives justice to those passed over in election**. That is to say, God grants the mercy of election to some and justice to others.*

In short, according to Sproul, Calvinism teaches that God mercifully grants some the ability to go to heaven and withholds this ability from others. Those from whom the ability are withheld go to hell. Sproul gives this the label: “justice.” The word hell appears in the article once. I can’t help but feel he is very careful to not articulate more clearly that those who God “passes over” go to hell.

Now either I am not reading it correctly, or this is not the teaching of Jesus Christ.
 
40.png
MarcoPolo:
According to RC Sproul in a sublink from Reformed’s earlier link, he explains predestination as follows:
…the classic position of Reformed theology on predestination. In this view predestination is double in that it involves both election and reprobation but is not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity…In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves…
God shows mercy sovereignly and unconditionally to some, and gives justice to those passed over in election. That is to say, God grants the mercy of election to some and justice to others.

In short, according to Sproul, Calvinism teaches that God mercifully grants some the ability to go to heaven and withholds this ability from others. Those from whom the ability are withheld go to hell. Sproul gives this the label: “justice.”
I understand Sproul to be saying what you understand him to be saying.
40.png
MarcoPolo:
The word hell appears in the article once. I can’t help but feel he is very careful to not articulate more clearly that those who God “passes over” go to hell.
OK.
40.png
MarcoPolo:
Now either I am not reading it correctly, or this is not the teaching of Jesus Christ.
You might begin by articulating your understanding of the teaching of Christ, and comparing your understanding of that to what Sproul is saying.
 
I will define each of the 5 points as I understand them. Please correct me if I get something wrong.

Total depravity – That because of the fall in the garden, our souls are so damaged that we are incapable of pleasing God. We cannot even love Him.
You hit the nail on the head…as far as what Calvin said. Its complete “nonsense” and is in contravention of what the Catholic Church teaches.
Unconditional election – That God chose at the beginning of time who would be saved and who would go to Hell. Man plays absolutely no role in salvation.
Again you hit the nail on the head…as far as what Calvin said. Its complete “nonsense” and is totally in contravention of what the Catholic Church teaches.
Limited atonement – This relates to those few that God has chosen to provide salvation to. Jesus Christ died on the cross, not for the entire world, but only for “the elect” chosen at the beginning of time.
Again you hit the nail on the head…as far as what Calvin said. Its complete “nonsense” and is totally in contravention of what the Catholic Church teaches.
Irresistible grace – This deals with the grace which God gives to those He has elected to be saved. The point of irresistible grace says that these individuals cannot resist the grace given. In other words, they may not freely choose to reject God.
Once again…you hit the nail on the head as far as what Calvin said. Its complete “nonsense” and is totally in contravention of what the Catholic Church teaches. This one amounts to complete, total and abject denial of “man’s free will” as given to him by God.
Perseverance of the saints – The elect that God has destined for Heaven, may not lose their salvation. It is an absolute. A form of OSAS.
And yet again…you hit the nail on the head as far as what Calvin said. Its complete “nonsense” and is in contravention of what the Catholic Church teaches. This is also complete, total and abject denial of man’s free will. It is the foolish notion of “OSAS”.
Concerning Augustine and predestination, I will simply post this link from the EWTN website:
ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUGUSTIN.htm
In so far as Augustine was concerned…all Calvin did was try to pass off that Augustine agreed with him and that they were of one mind…but even his critics outside of the Catholic Church disagreed with Calvin on that point:

**With Augustine the Geneva author professed to be at one. “If they have all been taken from a corrupt mass,” he argued, “no marvel that they are subject to condemnation.” But, his critics replied, “were they not antecedently predestined to that corruption?” And “is not God unjust in treating His creatures with such cruel mystery?” **
As for the Magestrium and the 5 points of Calvinism agreeing, I must disagree.
And your disagreement is entirely correct. The Church disagrees thoroughly with Calvinism.
Catholicism supports the truth that humanity has free will.
Precisely…and has done so for centuries. Read # 1704 on this link: vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a1.htm

A better source for the information regarding Calvinism vs Catholicism would be this page from the same source:

newadvent.org/cathen/03198a.htm

And herein is contained the differences between “Calvin” and “Augustine”…and those differences are "significant!

**The Reformers, including Calvin, appealed so confidently to St. Augustine’s volumes that it seems only fair to note the real difference which exists between his doctrine and theirs. Cardinal Newman sums it up as follows:
Code:
The main point is whether the Moral Law can in its substance be obeyed and kept by the regenerate. Augustine says, that whereas we are by nature condemned by the Law, we are enabled by the grace of God to perform it unto our justification; Luther [and Calvin equally] that, whereas we are condemned by the law, Christ has Himself performed it unto our justification -- Augustine, that our righteousness is active; Luther, that it is passive; Augustine, that it is imparted, Luther that it is only imputed; Augustine, that it consists in a change of heart; Luther, in a change of state. Luther maintains that God's commandments are impossible to man Augustine adds, impossible without His grace; Luther that the Gospel consists of promises only Augustine, that it is also a law, Luther, that our highest wisdom is not to know the Law, Augustine says instead, to know and keep it -- Luther says, that the Law and Christ cannot dwell together in the heart. Augustine says that the Law is Christ; Luther denies and Augustine maintains that obedience is a matter of conscience. Luther says that a man is made a Christian not by working but by hearing; Augustine excludes those works only which are done before grace is given; Luther, that our best deeds are sins; Augustine, that they are really pleasing to God (Lectures on Justification, ch. ii, 58).**
Further, it would seem that many followers of “Calvin” were wont to embrace Calvinism on their own terms and only by their own terms:

As, unlike the Lutheran, those Churches which looked up to Calvin as their teacher did not accept one uniform standard, they fell into particular groups and had each their formulary. The three Helvetic Confessions, the Tetrapolitan, that of Basle, and that composed by Bullinger belong respectively to 1530, 1532, 1536. The Anglican 42 Articles of 1553, composed by Cranmer and Ridley, were reduced to 39 under Elizabeth in 1562. They bear evident tokens of their Calvinistic origin, but are designedly ambiguous in terms and meaning.

The OP who made claims to the contrary…is apparently attempting to mislead someone or is sadly misled.
 
40.png
raumzeitmc2:
And substitute it with what, this??

Such was the confusion of opinion in the sixteenth century reigning among Protestants over the Eucharist, that in the 1577, Christopher Rasperger actually published a book with the title:

Two hundred interpretations of the words: This is my Body, Ingolstadt, 1577

Christopher ( Christophorus, Christoph, Christophoro, Christophe ) Rasperger (Raspergero), [2]Latin text

Latin title: Ducentae paucorum istorum et quidem clarissimorum Christi verborum: Hoc est Corpus meum; interpretationes, [3]

German title: Zweihundert Auslegungen der Worte das ist mein Leib [4]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist#Books

For more on Protestant doctrinal confusion, see my post here.

And things have only gotten steadily worse for Protestants since those times!

“By their fruits ye shall know them” Matt. 7:16
It seems you get my point, at least with respect to you.

ISTM that by posting what Jefferson and others say, you expect that I should be influenced away from what I believe on the basis of what they say, but that you should not be so influenced.

By the same token, why should I substitute what I believe for what you believe, and all of the errors and confusion that I believe what you believe contains: the Papacy, and a lack of consensus as to whether or not the present Pope is a valid pope, the addition of Marian dogmas to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, purgatory, transubstantiation, praying to dead people, and so on?
 
If I’m not mistaken, Calvinists believe that justification is extensive, namely, that at the moment one is justified, one’s past, present, and future sins are forgiven. Hence, this precludes any possibility for any sin to undo justification since all sins have been forgiven. Moreover, Calvinists believe - if I am not mistaken - that the gift of faith can never be lost - even while one may have backsliden into grievous sin, so one cannot go from being a believer to an unbeliever. Since justification is extensive and man’s nature has been so fundamentally changed that the gift of faith cannot be lost, no sin can cause a true Christian to fall into condemnation and they can never commit the sin of unbelief. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Hence, if everything stated above is true, then how is this reconciled with what Paul’s says in:

1 Corinthians 11:32

32But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.

It states that the purpose of divine chastening is to prevent condemnation. Whether this chastening is efficacious in producing this result in every single Christian or not is another subject. The problem I find is that what Paul states above does not fit the Calvinist theological model. Chastening is meant to correct behavior and is hence a means of encouraging a Christian to progess in their sanctification (Hebrews 12:10-11). So it is preventative in the sense that it corrects behavior. Now if extensive justification and the impossibility of losing the gift of faith ensures that we will never be condemned, then why is divine chastening necessary to prevent condemnation? Extensive justification alone should be enough to ensure that salvation can never be lost. So why must God discipline us “so that we will not be condemned along with the world?” If this divine chastening is necessary to prevent some kind of sin that can cause of loss of salvation, then is that justification as extensive as Calvinists claim?

God Bless,
Michael
I’ve understood Hebrews 12:10-11 as a Calvinistic scripture. If you are not disciplined then you are a bastard or an illegitimate child of God (James 2 faith). Therefore, this divne chastisement is also a means of grace. Justification is forensic or a legal declaration and not a transformation issue (sanctification). We cannot be more justfied when we first believed, because we receive the righteousness of Christ (perfect righteousness).
 
I’ve understood Hebrews 12:10-11 as a Calvinistic scripture. If you are not disciplined then you are a bastard or an illegitimate child of God (James 2 faith). Therefore, this divne chastisement is also a means of grace. Justification is forensic or a legal declaration and not a transformation issue (sanctification). We cannot be more justfied when we first believed, because we receive the righteousness of Christ (perfect righteousness).
But the the issue is how can prevention of condemnation be the purpose of chastisement when justification in and of itself is sufficient to prevent condemnation? If there is nothing the Christian can do to undo his justification, then there is no need for any chastisement to prevent such an event from happening. So if Paul held the Calvinist view, then that passage makes absolutely no sense. That passage only fits in a Catholic, Lutheran, or classic Arminian context, since all of them believe that one can lose one’s justification and hence there is actually something to prevent.

I have to go. I may be online tomorrow.🙂

God bless,
Michael
 
You might begin by articulating your understanding of the teaching of Christ, and comparing your understanding of that to what Sproul is saying.
I understand Sproul to advance a flowery way of saying God doesn’t send people to hell…but in effect what he describes God doing is effectively sending people to hell. So unless there are idiosyncrasies I don’t get at this point, I cannot see this being an act of God. Do you have further light on this teaching?
 
I understand Sproul to advance a flowery way of saying God doesn’t send people to hell…but in effect what he describes God doing is effectively sending people to hell. So unless there are idiosyncrasies I don’t get at this point, I cannot see this being an act of God. Do you have further light on this teaching?
Far be it for me to defend Calvinism lol…but regardless, every side would have to maintain that God sends people to Hell. Granted, it is due to their actions which are condemnable, but Calvinism would say the same thing.
 
40.png
MarcoPolo:
I understand Sproul to advance a flowery way of saying God doesn’t send people to hell…but in effect what he describes God doing is effectively sending people to hell. So unless there are idiosyncrasies I don’t get at this point, I cannot see this being an act of God. Do you have further light on this teaching?
Let me see if I can help you understand what Sproul is saying:…the classic position of Reformed theology on predestination. **In this view predestination is double in that it involves both election and reprobation but is not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity…**In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves…God shows mercy sovereignly and unconditionally to some, and gives justice to those passed over in election. That is to say, God grants the mercy of election to some and justice to others.Sproul says that classic predestination is double predestination: one group to eternal life, the other to eternal damnation—that’s clear enough.

Sproul continues: ”…but is not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity…,”

Sproul is saying that in election to salvation, God’s mode of activity must be positive. IOW, God must actively work in the elect to bring about their salvation; if God isn’t active in the elect, the elect won’t believe.

Following Sproul’s language with respect to the elect to reprobation, God’s mode of activity is negative. IOW, God does not have to do anything in order for the reprobate to be damned, because left in their natural state, unaided-by-grace, they will not obey the Gospel, and thus will bring damnation upon themselves.

That is known as preterition, which says that God withholds his grace from those not predestined to eternal life.
 
God would be unjust for pouring out His wrath on Christ for the sin of unbelief and pouring out his wrath on unbelievers in Hell for that same sin Christ paid for. I know it’s difficult, but that is what I believe.
God most certainly would be unjust for pouring his Wrath on Christ, that’s why it never happened. Such a notion is abominable and heretical and flatly unbiblical.

The New Testament says quite a bit about the Crucifixion, one detail that is missing is the part where God unleashes His wrath on His Beloved Son.
 
(T)otal depravity
(U)nconditional election
(L)imited atonement
(I)rresistible grace
(P)erseverance of the saints

A Catholic Christian brother asked several excellent questions about the 5 points of Calvinism on another thread. Here is a thread to ask questions and discuss the issues. I appeal to all participants, let’s discuss this topic with mutual gentleness and respect, as we are commanded to by our Triune God. The 5 Points of Calvinism is not the gospel, but are very important issues related to Christian growth. Some Protestant are Calvinists, some are Arminians, some blend both Calvinism and Arminianism in their beliefs. Since Calvinism has strong influence by Saint Augustine, you might be surprised by what the Magestrium allows you to believe as a Catholic on these issues. I believe the gospel of John and Romans are the two major books which supports the 5 points of Calvinism. I believe Calvinism is the systematic theology which glorifies God above all other Christian theologies. The main focus of Calvinism is the sovereignty and glory of God, and the 5 points are understood within those two points. I believe the main strenght of Calvinism is the Bible. I believe Calvinism is a God-centered and God glorifying theology.

I think we should read this Catholic source as a primer for our thread:

newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm

AFAICS they are perfectly compatible with Catholic dogma, though some are not compatible with some Catholic theologies.​

Limited atonement (which RCism rejects) is presupposed by the possibility of damnation (which RCism accepts). If people can be damned, despite the efficacy of the Work of Christ, then they were not elected to salvation, therefore they were reprobated. The Bible knows nothing of a three-class Church, consisting of:
  • the elect
  • the reprobate
  • those in neither group, who end up in Hell
  • it knows only of the first two classes.
One alternative is:
  • to have a Christ Whose Work is not sufficient for those for whom He atones. Result: they must make it sufficient - which means having a two-stage atonement, the first being His Work, the second being ours. This like trying to combine water & oil - it can’t be done, & the only result is a mess.
    This is impossible, because an incomplete atonement leaves us incompletely reconciled to God, so we are not in a position to atone, since to do so requires communion with & obedience to God. But if we can make atonement without being atoned for, why bother with Christ at all ? This kind of soteriology is a cloak for the exaltation of man at the expense of Christ - “He must decrease, that we may increase” :mad: Man-centred doctrines always kill faith, because man is not an adequate object of faith, because he is radically defective. Only a Whole Christ, Who is a Whole Salvation, will do.
An incomplete Christ, offering an incomplete salvation, needs help :mad: - He needs a co-mediator; & once He has help with that, it is only a step from that to having a “co-head of the Church”, a “co-redeemer”, & a “Saviouress”. It ceases to be possible to construct a Biblical picture of Him that will show His Uniqueness, because whatever passages are used to do so are corrupted into being references to others as well.

Since no creature
  • was “made sin for us”
  • drank the cup of the wrath of God
  • was Prophet & Priest & King
  • was put forward by the Father as the expiation for our sins
  • is the propitiation for our sins
  • was crucified for us
  • was raised again for our justification
  • is the first-born from the dead
  • was obedient to death, even death on a cross
  • etc…
  • no creature can be His co-anything; for to be that, a creature would have to do & be all that He is.
 
God most certainly would be unjust for pouring his Wrath on Christ, that’s why it never happened. Such a notion is abominable and heretical and flatly unbiblical.

The New Testament says quite a bit about the Crucifixion, one detail that is missing is the part where God unleashes His wrath on His Beloved Son.
Are you saying that God did not unleash the curse of the Law upon Him?
 
Are you saying that God did not unleash the curse of the Law upon Him?
What is your definition of “curse of the law”? If it means God’s wrath was poured out on Jesus with the punishment equivalent to what a damned soul in hell goes through, that is pure blasphemy.

If it means suffering a humiliating physical death, then that is fine, though God didn’t unleash it upon Jesus.
 
What is your definition of “curse of the law”? If it means God’s wrath was poured out on Jesus with the punishment equivalent to what a damned soul in hell goes through, that is pure blasphemy.

If it means suffering a humiliating physical death, then that is fine, though God didn’t unleash it upon Jesus.
Then who unleashed it upon Jesus? I would suggest reading Isaiah 53 on this point.

The penalty for violating the law is death. That penalty was placed on Christ rather than on us.

I would also suggest reading shoeleg.yak.net/49 by St. Anselm. Hopefully you wouldn’t consider him a blasphemer or heretic.
 

AFAICS they are perfectly compatible with Catholic dogma, though some are not compatible with some Catholic theologies.​

That is not accurate. Total Depravity is not the same as what Catholics believe about original sin. See Ch 1 of the link in my sig for more info. Irresistible Grace can be compatible to the Catholic notion of Efficacious Grace, but grace can also be resisted (eg 2 Cor 6:1). Limited Atonement is wrong and heretical, it misunderstands the atonement. Unconditional Election is compatible with Catholicism. Perseverance of the Saints was a concept stolen from Scripture and St Augustine and given a heretical spin by Calvinism. PoS in Calvinism has nothing to do with persevering because they believe salvation cannot be lost (while the Bible is very clear it can be).
Man-centred doctrines always kill faith, because man is not an adequate object of faith, because he is radically defective. Only a Whole Christ, Who is a Whole Salvation, will do.
This can be true or false depending on the theology behind it. The Lutheran-Calvinist system ends up trading orthodox Christology (as the Ecumenical Councils teach) in order to salvage Sola Fide.
Since no creature
  • was “made sin for us”
  • drank the cup of the wrath of God
  • was Prophet & Priest & King
  • was put forward by the Father as the expiation for our sins
  • is the propitiation for our sins
  • was crucified for us
  • was raised again for our justification
  • is the first-born from the dead
  • was obedient to death, even death on a cross
  • etc…
  • no creature can be His co-anything; for to be that, a creature would have to do & be all that He is.
It depends on how you mean “made sin”, the Protestant notion is heretical. No passage says Christ drank the cup of God’s wrath. All the rest of your passages are agreed upon by both sides.
 
This can be true or false depending on the theology behind it. The Lutheran-Calvinist system ends up trading orthodox Christology (as the Ecumenical Councils teach) in order to salvage Sola Fide.
Which Christological error are you referring to?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top