5 Points of Calvinism

[Catholic_Dude]

Justin Martyr

I’ve tried to dig up the old quotes I presented in response to this list you keep putting out.

The Justin quote you gave says nothing about God punishing Jesus. St Justin also said in that same context:

• “For the statement in the law, ‘Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,’ Deut. xxi. 23. confirms our hope which depends on the crucified Christ, not because He who has been crucified is cursed by God, but because God foretold that which would be done by you all, and by those like to you, who do not know.
  ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.xcvi.html

St Justin does not interpret this as Jesus suffering the Father’s wrath but rather the persecutions the Jews would perform.

Gregory of Nazianzus

Nothing about God punishing Jesus.
Further, there isn’t even a source for this quote (ie what book it came from, nor is the context available online), so you cannot just put this kind of stuff out in the first place.

Augustine

You are way off base with this one.

• 1. … Christ has no sin in the sense of deserving death, but He bore for our sakes sin in the sense of death as brought on human nature by sin. This is what hung on the tree; this is what was cursed by Moses. Thus was death condemned that its reign might cease, and cursed that it might be destroyed. …

1. What does Faustus find strange in the curse pronounced on sin, on death, and on human mortality, which Christ had on account of man’s sin, though He Himself was sinless? Christ’s body was derived from Adam, for His mother the Virgin Mary was a child of Adam. But God said in Paradise, “On the day that ye eat, ye shall surely die.” This is the curse which hung on the tree. A man may deny that Christ was cursed who denies that He died. But the man who believes that Christ died, and acknowledges that death is the fruit of sin, and is itself called sin, will understand who it is that is cursed by Moses, when he hears the apostle saying "For our old man is crucified with Him."The apostle boldly says of Christ, “He was made a curse for us;” for he could also venture to say, “He died for all.” “He died,” and “He was cursed,” are the same. Death is the effect of the curse; and all sin is cursed, whether it means the action which merits punishment, or the punishment which follows. Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that He might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment.
2. … “God,” he says, “sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, that by sin He might condemn sin in the flesh.” Christ’s flesh was not sinful, because it was not born of Mary by ordinary generation; but because death is the effect of sin, this flesh, in being mortal, had the likeness of sinful flesh. This is called sin in the following words, “that by sin He might condemn sin in the flesh.” Again he says: “He hath made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.” Why should not Moses call accursed what Paul calls sin? In this prediction the prophet claims a share with the apostle in the reproach of the heretics. For whoever finds fault with the word cursed in the prophet, must find fault with the word sin in the apostle; for curse and sin go together.
   ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.iv.ix.xvi.html

Augustine does not equate this curse with Divine Wrath but rather physical death. The curse of physical death is on he who hangs on a tree. In regards to passages like 2 Cor 5:21 in other places Augustine says “made sin” means “sin offering” Enchiridion ch 41 he comments on 2 Cor 5:21:
…therefore having no sin of His own; nevertheless, on account of the likeness of sinful flesh in which He came, He was called sin, that He might be sacrificed to wash away sin. For, under the Old Covenant, sacrifices for sin were called sins.
As usual, no God the Father punishing Jesus.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont)

John Chrysostom

The most that talks about is physical death, no divine wrath.
On top of that, he goes on in the context to argue just what I do:

• “Him that knew no sin,” he says, Him that was righteousness itself, “He made sin,” that is suffered as a sinner to be condemned, as one cursed to die. “For cursed is he that hangeth on a tree.” (Gal. iii. 13.) For to die thus was far greater than to die; and this he also elsewhere implying, saith, “Becoming obedient unto death, yea the death of the cross.” (Philip. ii. 8.) For this thing carried with it not only punishment, but also disgrace.
  ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf112.v.xi.html

Here St John says Gal 3:13 says the curse was that dying on a cross was the most disgraceful and humiliating way to die. This is what I believe as well. He does not say this was Diving Wrath being unleashed. The “punishment” here is in reference to a physical death, not a spiritual one.

Ambrose

Same as the rest, no divine wrath mentioned here. I cannot find this quote online, so I cannot say much more.

Eusebius of Caesarea

The first quote says nothing about divine wrath, and in fact shows what I have been arguing, he subjected Himself to insults, dishonor, etc. Further, the immediate context is commenting on 2 Cor 5:21 and says:

“Whom, though he knew no sin, God made sin for our sake, giving him as redemption for all, that we might become the righteousness of God in him.”
But since being in the likeness of sinful flesh He condemned sin in the flesh, the words quoted are rightly used. And in that He made our sins His own from His love and benevolence towards us, He says these words, adding further on in the same Psalm: “Thou hast (b) protected me because of my innocence,” clearly shewing the impeccability of the Lamb of God. And how can He make our sins His own, and be said to bear our iniquities, except by our being regarded as His body, according to the apostle, who says: “Now ye are the body of Christ, and severally members?” And by the rule that “if one member suffer all the members suffer with it,” so when the many members suffer and sin, He too by the laws of (c) sympathy (since the Word of God was pleased to take the form of a slave and to be knit into the common tabernacle of us all) takes into Himself the labours of the suffering members, and makes our sicknesses His, and suffers all our woes and labours by the laws of love.
​

He says 2 cor 5:21 and “made sin” means being in the “likeness of sinful flesh” and this does not mean punished by God. Clearly this is just what I have been arguing, and it goes flatly against Penal Substitution.

The second quote follows similar lines, especially reading the second half. Nothing about divine wrath.

Athanasius

I see nothing objectionable about either of these quotes, nor do I see any mention of God punishing Jesus.

Gregory the Great

I don’t know where the full context is online, so I cant say much. But it isn’t fair for you to quote it without a full context, especially with the ‘…’ in the middle of the quote and the fact you are quoting two incomplete sentences (without even much detail).

Oecumenius

I don’t know where to find this quote, and you did not provide a link so I assume you don’t know where to either. It isn’t fair to quote such sources in the first place. That said, the quote is so brief there is not much detail, and it says nothing about suffering divine wrath so that does not help your case.

Did all these Father blaspheme and teach heresy?

I saw none of those quotes teaching Jesus underwent divine wrath, so your case is already weak. Some of those quotes I provided show you were twisting them (esp St Augustine). Others there was no primary source (only secondary), so it is not fair for you to use them.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

SyCarl,

And yet none–note one–of these Fathers says “God punished Jesus.” Not one of them says "God poured out His wrath on Jesus."

You’re absolutely right that they teach that Jesus bore our punishment. This is undeniably the true doctrine. So why is it that not one of them takes that apparently tiny step of saying–as many more recent Christians have no problem saying–that God poured out His wrath on Jesus? Did they just never happen to use those words? Or is it that, as so often in Christian theology, apparently small steps have great significance?

Jesus was punished for our sins by the will of God and according to the just judgment of God. But God was not actively doing anything to Jesus on the Cross. God did not hate Jesus, even in some weird legal-fiction way. God did not pour out wrath on Jesus. Jesus’ sufferings resulted not from God’s direct action, but from God’s choice to hand Jesus over for our sake to the powers of death and hell.

Part of the problem with Calvinism here is Calvin’s failure (though later Calvinists were more nuanced in this respect) to distinguish adequately between God’s action and God’s permission.

Edwin
I agree with the main substance of this thread.
Jesus offered up his sufferings to God, which was pleasing in God’s sight, and in turn let God to show favor upon sinners.

I don’t think that penal substiution is crucial to Faith Alone. Faith Alone does not require that atonement be accomplished by any particular means. What it does it does say is that the benefit of that atonement, in whatever form that atonement took, is received by us solely through faith.

Then you don’t understand Sola Fide as the Reformers did, in which Penal Substitution was critical.

 

[Crusador]

It’s not that men do not understand us- it is simply that they are bent against us. Therefore we must simply proclaim the truth, and leave them with God. We can only repeat ourselves so many times- until we become convinced that they will not hear us. At this point- we have done our job- and must heed the Scriptures according to Titus 3:9, 10.

Now- I think I recall someone asking for an Old Testament type that clearly demonstrates that it was God the Father who slew Christ on the cross. Well what about Abraham being called to kill his only son, as a sacrifice for sin?

Was not Abraham Isaac’s Father?
Was not Isaac Abraham’s Son?

In this account- was not Isaac a type of the Lord Jesus?
In this account- was not Abraham a type of God the Father?

 

[SyCarl]

I saw none of those quotes teaching Jesus underwent divine wrath, so your case is already weak. Some of those quotes I provided show you were twisting them (esp St Augustine). Others there was no primary source (only secondary), so it is not fair for you to use them.

Do you deny that Jesus was punished in our place whoever may have inflicted the punishment? I do not twist the quotes I gave and I do not really see how you can escape the statements made by the fathers quoted about punishment and penalties, whatever they thought those things meant.

God sent Jesus and one of the reasons He sent Him was to receive the punishment due to us. Whether God chose to inflict the punishment Himself or allowed the Romans to inflict it, the same way He used the Assyrians and Babylonians to punish Israel and Judah, does not affect that Jesus received our punishment or penalty.

I link to the sources on the net. I have all the volumes of the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture that I quote from. My use is really no different than those who link to sites like Scripture Catholic which quotes without indicating the source it is using. If someone quotes from Jurgens, is that unfair since I don’t have his books?

 

[SyCarl]

Then you don’t understand Sola Fide as the Reformers did, in which Penal Substitution was critical.

Perhaps you can help me here. I cannot see any real references in Calvin’s Institutes to God inflicting His wrath on Jesus. Neither do I find it in a Calvinist confession such as the Westminster Confession of Faith.

I admit that I may have missed it and would appreciate it if you could direct me to such a reference.

I know what some later people who call themselves Calvinists have said but can’t really find such statements in the earlier writings.

I confess that I really have not read much of Luther in order to be able to comment on his view.

By the way, I am not a Calvinist but see some truth in it as I do in various other Christian views.

 

[Reformed]

Perhaps you can help me here. I cannot see any real references in Calvin’s Institutes to God inflicting His wrath on Jesus. Neither do I find it in a Calvinist confession such as the Westminster Confession of Faith.

I admit that I may have missed it and would appreciate it if you could direct me to such a reference.

I know what some later people who call themselves Calvinists have said but can’t really find such statements in the earlier writings.

I confess that I really have not read much of Luther in order to be able to comment on his view.

By the way, I am not a Calvinist but see some truth in it as I do in various other Christian views.

Any parallel truth? What was in the cup that Jesus wanted removed?

The Cup of the Lord’s Wrath

Thus the Lord, the God of Israel, said to me: “Take from my hand this cup of the wine of wrath, and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. They shall drink and stagger and be crazed because of the sword that I am sending among them.” - Jer 25:15

Matthew 26:39
And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.”

Mark 14:36
And he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. - Rom 1

How do you undestand the doctrine of propitiation?

Romans 3:25
whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

Hebrews 2:17
Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

1 John 2:2
He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:10
In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

 

[SyCarl]

Any parallel truth? What was in the cup that Jesus wanted removed?

The Cup of the Lord’s Wrath

Thus the Lord, the God of Israel, said to me: “Take from my hand this cup of the wine of wrath, and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. They shall drink and stagger and be crazed because of the sword that I am sending among them.” - Jer 25:15

Matthew 26:39
And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.”

Mark 14:36
And he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. - Rom 1

How do you undestand the doctrine of propitiation?

Romans 3:25
whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

Hebrews 2:17
Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

1 John 2:2
He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:10
In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

What I was asking for was anything by Calvin himself saying that God inflicted His wrath on Jesus. Jesus accepted our punishment but did Calvin say that God inflicted it Himself. As Edwin commented was the punishment God’s action or only with His permission?

 

[Reformed]

What I was asking for was anything by Calvin himself saying that God inflicted His wrath on Jesus. Jesus accepted our punishment but did Calvin say that God inflicted it Himself. As Edwin commented was the punishment God’s action or only with His permission?

I just finished the book called “Calvin and the Atonement - what the renowned pastor and teacher said about the cross of Christ”.

On the back of the book Sinclair Ferguson and J.I. Packer comments on it as an endorsement. I will try to look for Calvin’s view on the wrath of God being poured out on Christ in this book when time permits. Ahhh… I found something already:

Institutes II. xii.3. “He offered as a sacrifice the flesh he received from us, that he might wipe out our guilt by his act of expiation and appease the Father’s righteous wrath”.

On a quick review on the chapter called “Christ our sacrifice” it’s clear that Calvin believed in the two aspects of expiation and propitation. There is much written about propitation as Christ bore the brunt of God’s wrath against their sins.

The book is an easy read - ISBN 185792377-4 and consists of only 272 pages.

 

[Crusador]

Now- I think I recall someone asking for an Old Testament type that clearly demonstrates that it was God the Father who slew Christ on the cross. Well what about Abraham being called to kill his only son, as a sacrifice for sin?

Was not Abraham Isaac’s Father?
Was not Isaac Abraham’s Son?

In this account- was not Isaac a type of the Lord Jesus?
In this account- was not Abraham a type of God the Father?

Also, who do you think is speaking in Zechariah 13:7? :knight2:

“Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.”

“It pleased the LORD, TO CRUSH HIM”- (Isaiah 53:10)

IT DOES NOT SAY:

“It pleased the LORD, TO HAVE HIM CRUSHED” :tsktsk:

 

[SyCarl]

Institutes II. xii.3. “He offered as a sacrifice the flesh he received from us, that he might wipe out our guilt by his act of expiation and appease the Father’s righteous wrath”.

.

Expiation and appeasing God’s wrath is not the same as receiving God’s wrath. He recieved our punishment but I can’t really see anywhere that Calvin claims that it was actually God who punished Him rather than allowing Him to be punished in our place.

 

[Reformed]

Expiation and appeasing God’s wrath is not the same as receiving God’s wrath. He recieved our punishment but I can’t really see anywhere that Calvin claims that it was actually God who punished Him rather than allowing Him to be punished in our place.

What do you think was in the cup that Christ wanted removed? I think if you read the suggested book on the Atonment, I think you would conclude that Calvin believed that the wrath of God was poured out on Christ. It’s interesting on a side note, that you can take the writings of Calvin and conclude for both universal atonement and limited atonement. Do you think the wrath of God will be poured out on unbelievers in Hell?

 

[SyCarl]

What do you think was in the cup that Christ wanted removed? I think if you read the suggested book on the Atonment, I think you would conclude that Calvin believed that the wrath of God was poured out on Christ. It’s interesting on a side note, that you can take the writings of Calvin and conclude for both universal atonement and limited atonement. Do you think the wrath of God will be poured out on unbelievers in Hell?

I have read much of his Institutes and don’t see much to suggest that God poured His wrath on Him rather than just appeasing it. I have looked at portions of his scriptural commentaries where you would expect to find it but I don’t. I know many Calvinsts believe it today but I think it may have been a later development. The Westminster Confession of Faith doesn’t refer to it.

 

[Reformed]

I have read much of his Institutes and don’t see much to suggest that God poured His wrath on Him rather than just appeasing it. I have looked at portions of his scriptural commentaries where you would expect to find it but I don’t. I know many Calvinsts believe it today but I think it may have been a later development. The Westminster Confession of Faith doesn’t refer to it.

I just looked at my abridged addition of The Institutes of Christian Religion by Tony Lane, and Hilary Obsborne, ISBN 0-8010-2524-9 and it seems very clear to me that Calvin believed that the wrath of God was poured out on Christ. Maybe I’m reading into it? I read alot of abridged works because at my old age; I need all the help that I can get.

 

[Reformed]

Check out the Shorter Catechism from the Westminster Confession:

Question 27

Answer… Christ…undergoing the miseries of this life, the wrath of God, and the cursed death of the cross…

and the Larger Catechism

Question 40

Answer…and bore the weight of God’s wrath…of the cross

 

[Catholic_Dude]

It’s not that men do not understand us- it is simply that they are bent against us. Therefore we must simply proclaim the truth, and leave them with God. We can only repeat ourselves so many times- until we become convinced that they will not hear us. At this point- we have done our job- and must heed the Scriptures according to Titus 3:9, 10.

You realize this could be turned right around on you.
The only difference thusfar is that it is your side making unsubstantiated claims which the Bible does not attest to.

Now- I think I recall someone asking for an Old Testament type that clearly demonstrates that it was God the Father who slew Christ on the cross. Well what about Abraham being called to kill his only son, as a sacrifice for sin?

Was not Abraham Isaac’s Father?
Was not Isaac Abraham’s Son?

In this account- was not Isaac a type of the Lord Jesus?
In this account- was not Abraham a type of God the Father?

The problem here is that this was not a penal-substitution situation, it was a demonstration of obedience only, and second, Abraham did not end up killing Isaac.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Do you deny that Jesus was punished in our place whoever may have inflicted the punishment?

Whomever inflicted the pain is extremely important in this case. If it was mere men, then what they did was only physical pain and furthermore it was 100% unjust and evil.

In the Penal-Substitution model, sin deserves divine punishments, namely hellfire, which only God can inflict and on just occasions only and which man has no ability to.

So depending on who inflicted determines how “punishment” is to be understood. I reject the idea of punishment as described by Penal-Substitution as unbiblical and unjust and blasphemous.

In the first case, of unjust physical pain only, “punishment” could be used only in the sense of willing to suffer to help someone out, but not in the sense of exhausting wrath. So, for example, if Bob breaks Jim’s expensive window Bob will be in trouble with Jim, yet Jesus could volunteer himself to suffer in the heat all day doing manual labor working on Jim’s house to make reparations for Bob. In that sense Jesus took the “punishment,” but it was never in the sense of suffering Jim’s wrath.

In this last case is how I believe the ECFs used the term punishment, and which I see no problem with, though the term punishment here is not understood in the strict sense. Jesus offered up a life of perfect love and obedience to God, even during persecutions He did not waver, the level of sorrow we should have for offending God was present in Christ as he made reparations.

I do not twist the quotes I gave and I do not really see how you can escape the statements made by the fathers quoted about punishment and penalties, whatever they thought those things meant.

As stated above, what those punishments are is very important here. And not being divine chastisement means they were not teaching Penal-Sub.

God sent Jesus and one of the reasons He sent Him was to receive the punishment due to us. Whether God chose to inflict the punishment Himself or allowed the Romans to inflict it, the same way He used the Assyrians and Babylonians to punish Israel and Judah, does not affect that Jesus received our punishment or penalty.

If sin deserves divine punishments (which only God has the power to inflict), and Jesus did not undergo that type of punishment means the who situation is changed.
As for the Assyerians and Babylonians, God justly sent those against sinful Israel, in the case of the Cross God did not send wicked men to unjustly torture His Son. God knew what wicked men would do, and permitted it, but that is not the same as being the direct cause.

I link to the sources on the net. I have all the volumes of the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture that I quote from. My use is really no different than those who link to sites like Scripture Catholic which quotes without indicating the source it is using. If someone quotes from Jurgens, is that unfair since I don’t have his books?

Some of your sources did not have links, and some of your links did not have sources or were secondary quotes themselves. True, it is no different than ScriptureCatholic (if there are quotes not available online), but those ScriptureCatholic quotes would be unfair to use as well, and that is why I avoid using such quotes in such discussions.

Perhaps you can help me here. I cannot see any real references in Calvin’s Institutes to God inflicting His wrath on Jesus. Neither do I find it in a Calvinist confession such as the Westminster Confession of Faith.

I admit that I may have missed it and would appreciate it if you could direct me to such a reference.

I know what some later people who call themselves Calvinists have said but can’t really find such statements in the earlier writings.

I confess that I really have not read much of Luther in order to be able to comment on his view.

By the way, I am not a Calvinist but see some truth in it as I do in various other Christian views.

This is from the Institutes:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2063202#post2063202
Those quotes clearly show Jesus undergoing a divine punishment which eclipsed any physical pain.

Here is what famous Calvinist Lorraine Bottener said as an example:
We should remember that Christ’s suffering in His human nature, as He hung on the cross those six hours, was not primarily physical, but mental and spiritual. When He cried out, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me,” He was literally suffering the pangs of hell. For that is essentially what hell is, separation from God, separation from everything that is good and desirable. Such suffering is beyond our comprehension. But since He suffered as a divine-human person, His suffering was a just equivalent for all that His people would have suffered in an eternity in hell.

reformed.org/calvinism/tr…rf/part_3.html
(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont 2 of 2)
And from Calvinist Charles Spurgeon:
I mention myself as the representative of you all. I am condemned to die. God says, “I will condemn that man; I must, I will—I will punish him.” Christ comes in, puts me aside, and stands himself in my stead. When the plea is demanded, Christ says, “Guilty;” takes my guilt to be his own guilt. When the punishment is to be executed, forth comes Christ. “Punish me,” he says; “I have put my righteousness on that man, and I have taken that man’s sins on me. Father, punish me, and consider that man to have been me. Let him reign in heaven; let me suffer misery. Let me endure his curse, and let him receive my blessing.” This marvellous doctrine of the changing of places of Christ with poor sinners, is a doctrine of revelation, for it never could have been conceived by nature. Let me, lest I should have made a mistake, explain myself again. The way whereby God saves a sinner is not, as some say, by passing over the penalty. No; the penalty has been all paid. It is the putting of another person in the rebel’s place. The rebel must die; God says he must. Christ says, “I will be substitute for the rebel. The rebel shall take my place; I will take his.” God consents to it. No earthly monarch could have power to consent to such a change. But the God of heaven had a right to do as he pleased. In his infinite mercy he consented to the arrangement. " Son of my love," said he, "you must stand in the sinner’s place; you must suffer what he ought to have suffered; you must be accounted guilty, just as he was accounted guilty; and then I will look upon the sinner in another light. I will look at him as if he were Christ; I will accept him as if he were my only- begotten Son, full of grace and truth.
spurgeon.org/sermons/0126.htma
And from some classical Reformed Confessions/Catechisms which I quote in Chapter 2 of my apologetics article in my signature: We believe that God-- who is perfectly merciful and also very just-- sent his Son to assume the nature in which the disobedience had been committed, **in order to bear in it the punishment **of sin by his most bitter passion and death.

So God made known his justice toward his Son, who was charged with our sin, and he poured out his goodness and mercy on us, who are guilty and worthy of damnation, giving to us his Son to die, by a most perfect love, and raising him to life for our justification, in order that by him we might have immortality and eternal life.
We believe that Jesus Christ is a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek-- made such by an oath-- and that he presented himself in our name before his Father, to appease his wrath with full satisfaction by offering himself on the tree of the cross and pouring out his precious blood for the cleansing of our sins, as the prophets had predicted.
…
So he paid back what he had not stolen, and he suffered-- the “just for the unjust,” in both his body and his soul-- in such a way that when he senses the horrible punishment required by our sins his sweat became like “big drops of blood falling on the ground.” He cried, “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” [1]

This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake, which that He might discharge He was made under the law, and did perfectly fulfill it, and underwent the punishment due to us, which we should have born and suffered, being made sin and a curse for us; enduring most grievous sorrows in His soul, and most painful sufferings in His body; was crucified, and died … … [2]

Q. 12. Since then, by the righteous judgment of God, we deserve temporal and eternal punishment, is there no way by which we may escape that punishment, and be again received into favour?

Answer: God will have his justice satisfied: and therefore we must make this full satisfaction, either by ourselves, or by another.

Q. 14. Can there be found anywhere, one, who is a mere creature, able to satisfy for us?

Answer: None; for, first, God will not punish any other creature for the sin which man has committed; and further, **no mere creature can sustain the burden of God’s eternal wrath

** Q. 17. Why must he in one person be also very God?

Answer: That he might, by the power of his Godhead sustain in his human nature, the burden of God’s wrath; and might obtain for, and restore to us, righteousness and life. [3]

Q. 27. Wherein did Christ’s humiliation consist?

A. Christ’s humiliation consisted in his being born, and that in a low condition,made under the law, **undergoing the miseries of this life, the wrath of God **,and the cursed death of the cross; in being buried, and continuing under the power of death for a time. [4]

Q. 49. How did Christ humble himself in his death?

A. Christ humbled himself in his death, in that having been betrayed by Judas, forsaken by his disciples, scorned and rejected by the world, condemned by Pilate, and tormented by his persecutors; having also conflicted with the terrors of death, and the powers of darkness, felt and borne the weight of God’s wrath, he laid down his life an offering for sin, enduring the painful, shameful, and cursed death of the cross. [5]
This is pure blasphemy and heresy (Nestorianism), yet this is critical for Sola Fide to work (because Sola Fide** requires** a “divine exchange” of righteousness and punishment)

 

[SyCarl]

(cont 2 of 2)
And from Calvinist Charles Spurgeon:

This is pure blasphemy and heresy (Nestorianism), yet this is critical for Sola Fide to work (because Sola Fide** requires** a “divine exchange” of righteousness and punishment)

Thank you for the quotes.

However, I fail to see how Faith Alone requires a divine exchange of righteousness and punishment. In whatever way He did it, Christ atoned for our sins. Faith alone requires only that we receive the benefit of that atonement through faith alone. It does not even require that justification be by imputation of righeousness. If justification, rather than regeneration, was by means of infused righteousness it still would not mean that infusion could not be received through faith alone.

However, I believe that what God requires of us is that we believe that Jesus did atone for our sins and not that we understand exactly how He did it. Firstly I do not think that we are capable of understanding exactly how any of God’s plans are carried out. Secondly, what would happen to those Fathers, cited by J.N.D Kelly, who believed that the atonement involved an actual ransom being paid to Satan.

When we dispute things like faith versus works, infused rigteousness versus imputed righteousness, predestination versus freewill and many similar things, I think we often fall into what the situation that Paul warned Timothy about.

For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.
(1 Timothy 1:6-7 NASB)

​

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I feel John was writing about Old Testament scriptures that foretold the Messiah in the scripture you provided. You have to remember, John was writing to those of those times particularly. Many times the Lord referred to Old Testament scriptures for those of those times to see who He was.

Had the Apostles known what they wrote was going to be Holy scriptures or in a “Bible”, why didn’t they all get together and write it as such?

Jesus never wrote anything, nor did He have anything scribed.

**Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God. **

Please provide the evidence that Jesus Himself dictated letters. This is the very first time I’ve ever heard that.

Ok, let’s assume for the sake of argument that the earliest Church fathers who learned directly from the Apostles erred. What happened to make the writings of Martin Luther, John Calvin or any of the other reformers have a better insight 1500 years later? (Reformed may want to chime here as he quotes or refers to the articles of faith and other writings from the reformers.)

Paul started or had provided oral instructions for those Churchs he wrote. He wrote specific corrections for specific problems that arose. Would he have written anything about those things that were being done correctly through oral tradition?

Being cautious of the early Church fathers because they received letters of correction would fully support the argument that the teachings of the reformers can not be trusted. Again, the reformers wrote and taught things 1500 years later and never received a letter of correction for anything they could have erred on. Can you not see the contradiction of your argument?

Bumped for SyCarl