For who did Christ die?

[Zooey]

We can agree that the blood of Christ is sufficent to save all mankind, all fallen angels, and other creatures that have sinned that we are not aware of. However, please tell me why the blood of Christ does not redeem the fallen angels?

The will of the angels is a thing entirely different in nature from the will of man.
We poor ornery humans fall a thousand times, pick ourselves up, repent, and return to the house of our Father.
The will of the angels is such that, having entered upon the choice of rebellion, they no longer can return, because they no longer desire to return. Their very perseverance in whatever they set themselves to do, has damned them for all eternity. They wanted to rebel; very well; they have done so. And now, having chosen, they choose to continue to rebel. It is in their natures that they are made so.
Angels and men are two entirely different orders of being.* We must never confuse the two.*

 

[mathematician]

It is interesting to consider that it is the lack of understanding of this same thing that causes some to become Calvinists, and some to become Universalists. (Both are wrong, only in, as it were, opposite directions from the truth.

Actually, Calvinists and Universalists both believe in unconditional predestination (think about it). In that sense they are both closer to the truth than Methodists.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Actually, Calvinists and Universalists both believe in unconditional predestination (think about it). In that sense they are both closer to the truth than Methodists.

Which Angels did not fall and why? The answer is found in one of the letters of Paul.

 

[2nd_Adam]

The will of the angels is a thing entirely different in nature from the will of man.
We poor ornery humans fall a thousand times, pick ourselves up, repent, and return to the house of our Father.
The will of the angels is such that, having entered upon the choice of rebellion, they no longer can return, because they no longer desire to return. Their very perseverance in whatever they set themselves to do, has damned them for all eternity. They wanted to rebel; very well; they have done so. And now, having chosen, they choose to continue to rebel. It is in their natures that they are made so.
Angels and men are two entirely different orders of being.* We must never confuse the two.*

That’s interesting speculation. How did you come up with those ideas? In all due respect, I think John Wesley would appear to be a staunch Calvinist in comparison to modern day Methodist ideas.

 

[Contarini]

That’s interesting speculation. How did you come up with those ideas? In all due respect, I think John Wesley would appear to be a staunch Calvinist in comparison to modern day Methodist ideas.

Which modern-day Methodist ideas? And to non-Calvinists it generally seems a bit ridiculous to use Calvinism as a standard of comparison. Wesley was certainly a lot more Augustinian than most modern Methodists–but not all. My advisor from grad school, David Steinmetz, is a very Augustinian Methodist, and so is my friend Beth Felker Jones who teaches at Wheaton now.

Edwin

 

[Zooey]

mathematician:

Actually, Calvinists and Universalists both believe in unconditional predestination (think about it).

Oh, that’s perfectly true. Indeed, that was more or less my point.
There are these 2 seemingly diametrically opposed groups of people, and yet they gave both fallen afoul of the same heresy.

In that sense they are both closer to the truth than Methodists.

:nope: Au contraire. They have both run afoul of an inadequate view of the nature of grace, they both have an inadequate Christology, and they are both equally enraptured with a sense that they, personally, (as opposed to the rest of us) are just no end of really Nice People Who Are God’s Own Chosen.(Think about it).

That’s interesting speculation. How did you come up with those ideas?

The ECFS. I recommend them.
As did Father Wesley.
2nd Adam:

In all due respect, I think John Wesley would appear to be a staunch Calvinist in comparison to modern day Methodist ideas.

:bigyikes::doh2: It is nae kind tae be speaking ill of your elders & betters, yean!!:tsktsk::tsktsk:

 

[2nd_Adam]

Which modern-day Methodist ideas? And to non-Calvinists it generally seems a bit ridiculous to use Calvinism as a standard of comparison. Wesley was certainly a lot more Augustinian than most modern Methodists–but not all. My advisor from grad school, David Steinmetz, is a very Augustinian Methodist, and so is my friend Beth Felker Jones who teaches at Wheaton now.

Edwin

Please help me understand… kind of like a Free Will Baptist? What’s an Augustinian Methodist. And BTW, since Pope Benedict is an Augustinian… what distinction makes the Pope Augustinian?

 

[2nd_Adam]

Which Angels did not fall and why? The answer is found in one of the letters of Paul.

I’ll answer my own question according to the Scriptures. The group of Angels who did not fall were the Elect Angels since God presdestined a group of Angels that He prevented from falling. Do you really think God had no power to prevent Lucifier and the fallen Angels from falling? How powerful do you think God is above all that He created? Is the free will of Angels and the free will of mankind greater than the power of God?

1 Timothy 5:21

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality.

 

[Contarini]

Please help me understand… kind of like a Free Will Baptist? What’s an Augustinian Methodist.

I was using the term rather vaguely to replace what I found your much less satisfactory “staunch Calvinist.”

However, if you want a technical definition, I’d say that an Augustinian Methodist (I prefer the term “Augustinian Wesleyan” since it covers folks like myself who are not members of the United Methodist Church or some similar denomination but stand in the Wesleyan theoloigical tradition) believes that human beings have lost libertarian free will with regards to moral and spiritual good, and that this freedom is only restored by prevenient grace. Furthermore, while all Wesleyans believe that God offers prevenient grace to all, Augustinian Wesleyans agree with the Augustinian tradition that prevenient grace is a gracious and sovereign act of God and not something automatically present to all human beings at all times. We can count on God to offer it to everyone, but we cannot presume on it as a basic part of our humanity.

Edwin

 

[Zooey]

I was using the term rather vaguely to replace what I found your much less satisfactory “staunch Calvinist.”

However, if you want a technical definition, I’d say that an Augustinian Methodist (I prefer the term “Augustinian Wesleyan” since it covers folks like myself who are not members of the United Methodist Church or some similar denomination but stand in the Wesleyan theoloigical tradition) believes that human beings have lost libertarian free will with regards to moral and spiritual good, and that this freedom is only restored by prevenient grace. Furthermore, while all Wesleyans believe that God offers prevenient grace to all, Augustinian Wesleyans agree with the Augustinian tradition that prevenient grace is a gracious and sovereign act of God and not something automatically present to all human beings at all times. We can count on God to offer it to everyone, but we cannot presume on it as a basic part of our humanity.

Edwin

Ah, Edwin! I do enjoy your posts.

 

[2nd_Adam]

I was using the term rather vaguely to replace what I found your much less satisfactory “staunch Calvinist.”

However, if you want a technical definition, I’d say that an Augustinian Methodist (I prefer the term “Augustinian Wesleyan” since it covers folks like myself who are not members of the United Methodist Church or some similar denomination but stand in the Wesleyan theoloigical tradition) believes that human beings have lost libertarian free will with regards to moral and spiritual good, and that this freedom is only restored by prevenient grace. Furthermore, while all Wesleyans believe that God offers prevenient grace to all, Augustinian Wesleyans agree with the Augustinian tradition that prevenient grace is a gracious and sovereign act of God and not something automatically present to all human beings at all times. We can count on God to offer it to everyone, but we cannot presume on it as a basic part of our humanity.

Edwin

How is that different than historic Arminianism? Would you agree that John Wesley believed very similar to Jacob Ariminus? The debates between John Wesley and George Whitfield seem like a common debate between an Arminian Christian and a Calvinist Christian. Prevenient grace is the opposite from sovereign grace on these issues. Are you saying that there are degrees of prevenient grace that is given unequally between sinners?

 

[2nd_Adam]

Ah, Edwin! I do enjoy your posts.

I’m not sure if Edwin tried to respond to John Owen’s riddle of “For who did Christ die?”. I would love to see him respond to that Puritian theologian.

 

[Contarini]

How is that different than historic Arminianism? Would you agree that John Wesley believed very similar to Jacob Ariminus?

As I understand it, Arminius believed that humans have natural free will even in a state of sin apart from grace, while Wesley believed that it takes prevenient grace to restore free will. However, Wesley can be interpreted in a more strictly Arminian manner, and as you note that is the path many modern Methodists have taken. But in the 1830s and 40s at least Methodists were still commonly distinguishing their position from that of someone like Finney.

Wesley and Fletcher chose to call themselves “Arminians,” and those of us on the more Augustinian side of the Wesleyan tradition regret this. I sometimes say that I’m an “Arminian by default.” In other words, I reject certain Calvinist claims, but I do not see “Arminian” as the best way to describe my theology.

John Wesley was not the most profound or nuanced theologian in the history of the Church. He had a good dose of 18th-century breeziness and practicality, which often led him to skate over some very difficult issues without defining them clearly. And there’s no denying the fact that he didn’t like Augustine and thought that Augustine had probably slandered Pelagius badly. His theology became more “Arminian” later in life–earlier on he made more common cause with Calvinist evangelicals.

I don’t regard Wesley as infallible, but I do think that the basic concept of universal prevenient grace is the best way I’ve found so far to preserve the key Augustinian claims about human sinfulness and the sovereignty of grace while not blaspheming against God by putting limits on His mercy.

Are you saying that there are degrees of prevenient grace that is given unequally between sinners?

I don’t have an opinion on that subject. God is sovereign, and God is merciful. I don’t need to call Him to account for how He chooses to offer grace, but I am confident that He desires the salvation of all. I do not believe in “irresistible grace” in any sense. So I’m an Arminian in the sense that the difference between a person who is saved and one who is lost is going to come down to the fact that one of them closed himself off from God’s grace in a persistent and resolute manner and the other opened himself to it.

Edwin

P.S. I responded to your OP in my post #43.

 

[2nd_Adam]

As I understand it, Arminius believed that humans have natural free will even in a state of sin apart from grace, while Wesley believed that it takes prevenient grace to restore free will. However, Wesley can be interpreted in a more strictly Arminian manner, and as you note that is the path many modern Methodists have taken. But in the 1830s and 40s at least Methodists were still commonly distinguishing their position from that of someone like Finney.

Wesley and Fletcher chose to call themselves “Arminians,” and those of us on the more Augustinian side of the Wesleyan tradition regret this. I sometimes say that I’m an “Arminian by default.” In other words, I reject certain Calvinist claims, but I do not see “Arminian” as the best way to describe my theology.

John Wesley was not the most profound or nuanced theologian in the history of the Church. He had a good dose of 18th-century breeziness and practicality, which often led him to skate over some very difficult issues without defining them clearly. And there’s no denying the fact that he didn’t like Augustine and thought that Augustine had probably slandered Pelagius badly. His theology became more “Arminian” later in life–earlier on he made more common cause with Calvinist evangelicals.

I don’t regard Wesley as infallible, but I do think that the basic concept of universal prevenient grace is the best way I’ve found so far to preserve the key Augustinian claims about human sinfulness and the sovereignty of grace while not blaspheming against God by putting limits on His mercy.

I don’t have an opinion on that subject. God is sovereign, and God is merciful. I don’t need to call Him to account for how He chooses to offer grace, but I am confident that He desires the salvation of all. I do not believe in “irresistible grace” in any sense. So I’m an Arminian in the sense that the difference between a person who is saved and one who is lost is going to come down to the fact that one of them closed himself off from God’s grace in a persistent and resolute manner and the other opened himself to it.

Edwin

P.S. I responded to your OP in my post #43.

That was very helpful and clearly written. I think Finney went way beyond John Wesley. I like John Wesley, and I don’t like Finney’s theology which has had such a negative affect on modern day Christianity. I’m not sure how you wrestle with the tougher Scriptures which seem to support the Calvinistic position on the issues. It seems that if God did not determine to save a specific remnant based on grace alone, then we would have to almost conclude that man limits God in saving sinners… based on something that ultimately each man determines for himself. I cannot see how man can be sovereign in something as important as redemption of sinners to the praise of His glorious grace.

 

[2nd_Adam]

I deny the premise that Christ’s saving act can be adequately described by saying that He suffered the legal penalty of our sins. I believe that He *did *suffer death as the penalty of our sins, and I am willing to say further that this death involved in some sense separation from the Father as expressed in His cry on the Cross. But I do not believe that His salvation can be reduced the metaphors of paying a debt or suffering a penalty, particularly given the monstrous implications of this for God’s nature if we do not (as the early Christians did) posit Satan as the one “holding our bond” or insisting on the exaction of the penalty. And of course if we do reintroduce Satan (who in my opinion ought never to have been banished from atonement theology by Anselm and Abelard), then the picture looks very different. Christ paid our debt and suffered our penalty, so that Satan no longer has any claim on us. But we can all choose to *remain *in Satan’s power by our free will. The chains are broken, the dungeon door is open, but we may still choose to remain inside.

Note that this doesn’t address the difficult question of efficacious grace, etc., or the still more difficult philosophical questions bound up in providence, predestination, and free will. I’m simply saying that with regard to the Atonement we have free will to accept the freedom it offers us or to reject it. Owen’s “dilemma” is only a problem if we assume the Calvinist interpretation of Anselm’s reformation of Atonement theology in the first place. (Do we need to get into the major differences between Calvin and Anselm here?)

Edwin

Sure, I read a book a year ago on Calvin’s writing on the atonement. I really enjoyed that book and agreed with it in general. Please tell me what Anselm believed.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Well Thomas Aquinas would disagree:

newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm

I know when they discover that, Aquinas usually becomes a Catholic’s least favorite saint, for the same reason that Calvin is a Protestant’s least favourite saint. For both of them, Augustine usually goes down the pan soon after. Nevertheless, predestination to eternal life has always been a Catholic doctrine.

Are there any reasons for predestination? None that we are made aware of. That may be scandalous, but who says God has got to justify himself to us?

I disagree with Aquinas on this point. I think Molina got it right.

Predestination is Catholic doctrine.

However, it is a conditional predestination.

God knows who will endure, but we don’t.

Catholics deny that God chooses anyone for Hell. Catholics deny that God’s grace is insufficient for any individual.

 

[mathematician]

:nope: Au contraire. They have both run afoul of an inadequate view of the nature of grace, they both have an inadequate Christology, and they are both equally enraptured with a sense that they, personally, (as opposed to the rest of us) are just no end of really Nice People Who Are God’s Own Chosen.(Think about it).

If Augustinians (whether Calvinist or any other flavour) have any sin, it is that read the Bible and find what is written there, instead of what Arminians/Molinists do, which is to read the Bible and find what they would like to find there.

As for thinking they can peer into God’s mind, and discover there that they are amongst the elect, it is quite true that Calvinists are guilty of that sin.

 

[Contarini]

Sure, I read a book a year ago on Calvin’s writing on the atonement.

What book was it?

I really enjoyed that book and agreed with it in general. Please tell me what Anselm believed.

1. We all owe God perfect obedience and honor
2. We failed to pay this debt, and the human race as a whole is obligated to pay back the debt incurred by Adam while *also *continuing to give God perfect obedience and honor on our own behalf. This would be impossible even for sinless human beings–since we can do no more than obey God perfectly, which is our *personal *obligation anyway, and thus could do nothing to pay back the debt incurred by Adam. But furthermore, each of us is sinful and thus fails to pay the debt on our own behalf, so that the debt just got greater with every generation.
3. If the debt is not paid, then the guilty debtor must be punished in a manner proportionate to the dignity of the one against whom he offended (i.e., eternally).
4. Because God is just, He cannot simply let us off the debt or refrain from punishing us if we do not pay it. But because He is merciful, He does not want to punish us.
5. Therefore, God became incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth. As a human being, Jesus was qualified to pay the debt on our behalf. But we still have a problem. Simply by living a sinless human life, Jesus does what He is obligated to do as a human being. He is still not paying off *our *debt.
6. However, Jesus did more than simply live a sinless life. In the course of His perfect obedience to God, He was killed by sinful human beings. Since He was sinless, He did not deserve to die. And since He was God, the life that He offered up to the Father was of infinite value and hence capable of paying the infinite debt owed by the human race as a whole.
7. Because Jesus paid the debt on our behalf, *no one has to be punished. *

Some obvious differences with the more familiar “penal substitution” doctrine which is falsely attributed to Anselm:

1. Jesus does not pay the debt by being punished on our behalf. The whole concept of “satisfying God’s justice” is an alternative to punishment. Punishment is the way God maintains His honor if human beings do *not *make satisfaction.
2. Indeed, Anselm’s theory is legalistic and rationalistic throughout. The traditional Christian teaching that Jesus offered Himself as an atoning sacrifice to redeem us from sin and death is explained away in terms of Jesus’ perfect obedience paying the debt we owed God. His main concern is to eliminate Satan from atonement theology. He paid a heavy price for doing so.
3. Owen’s dilemma does not apply to Anselm’s theory (or to the early Christian atonement theologies which I much prefer either to Anselm’s theory or to penal substitution). Anselm teaches that Jesus chose to give us the “reward” owed Him by God for His perfect obedience. But Anselm also says that Scripture shows us what we must do to share in this reward. In other words, our participation in Christ’s merit is conditional on our behavior.

The theory of penal substitution distorts Anselm’s teaching by putting it back in the context of more traditional Christian ideas about Jesus paying the penalty for our sins. And at the same time it distorts those ideas by linking them to Anselm’s legal theory and by eliminating the role of Satan as the one from whom we need to be ransomed. By doing this, it creates a monstrous theory in which God takes on the role played by Satan in traditional Christian theology. And so when liberal Christians eventually rebelled against penal substitution, they rejected not only Anselm (who didn’t deserve it) but the basic orthodox Christian teaching that Jesus paid the penalty of our sins (which is a much bigger deal, since in my opinion Anselm’s theory had plenty of problems in the first place). It’s very hard to get a hearing for the traditional theory. It has won some acceptance under the name “Christus Victor,” but only at the price of distinguishing itself from penal substitution so clearly that it loses some of the depth and fullness of genuine patristic atonement theology. (If you mention God’s justice being involved in any way people assume that you are talking Anselm, and they assume that Anselm taught penal substitution!)

Edwin

 

[2nd_Adam]

What book was it?

1. We all owe God perfect obedience and honor
2. We failed to pay this debt, and the human race as a whole is obligated to pay back the debt incurred by Adam while *also *continuing to give God perfect obedience and honor on our own behalf. This would be impossible even for sinless human beings–since we can do no more than obey God perfectly, which is our *personal *obligation anyway, and thus could do nothing to pay back the debt incurred by Adam. But furthermore, each of us is sinful and thus fails to pay the debt on our own behalf, so that the debt just got greater with every generation.
3. If the debt is not paid, then the guilty debtor must be punished in a manner proportionate to the dignity of the one against whom he offended (i.e., eternally).
4. Because God is just, He cannot simply let us off the debt or refrain from punishing us if we do not pay it. But because He is merciful, He does not want to punish us.
5. Therefore, God became incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth. As a human being, Jesus was qualified to pay the debt on our behalf. But we still have a problem. Simply by living a sinless human life, Jesus does what He is obligated to do as a human being. He is still not paying off *our *debt.
6. However, Jesus did more than simply live a sinless life. In the course of His perfect obedience to God, He was killed by sinful human beings. Since He was sinless, He did not deserve to die. And since He was God, the life that He offered up to the Father was of infinite value and hence capable of paying the infinite debt owed by the human race as a whole.
7. Because Jesus paid the debt on our behalf, *no one has to be punished. *

Some obvious differences with the more familiar “penal substitution” doctrine which is falsely attributed to Anselm:

1. Jesus does not pay the debt by being punished on our behalf. The whole concept of “satisfying God’s justice” is an alternative to punishment. Punishment is the way God maintains His honor if human beings do *not *make satisfaction.
2. Indeed, Anselm’s theory is legalistic and rationalistic throughout. The traditional Christian teaching that Jesus offered Himself as an atoning sacrifice to redeem us from sin and death is explained away in terms of Jesus’ perfect obedience paying the debt we owed God. His main concern is to eliminate Satan from atonement theology. He paid a heavy price for doing so.
3. Owen’s dilemma does not apply to Anselm’s theory (or to the early Christian atonement theologies which I much prefer either to Anselm’s theory or to penal substitution). Anselm teaches that Jesus chose to give us the “reward” owed Him by God for His perfect obedience. But Anselm also says that Scripture shows us what we must do to share in this reward. In other words, our participation in Christ’s merit is conditional on our behavior.

The theory of penal substitution distorts Anselm’s teaching by putting it back in the context of more traditional Christian ideas about Jesus paying the penalty for our sins. And at the same time it distorts those ideas by linking them to Anselm’s legal theory and by eliminating the role of Satan as the one from whom we need to be ransomed. By doing this, it creates a monstrous theory in which God takes on the role played by Satan in traditional Christian theology. And so when liberal Christians eventually rebelled against penal substitution, they rejected not only Anselm (who didn’t deserve it) but the basic orthodox Christian teaching that Jesus paid the penalty of our sins (which is a much bigger deal, since in my opinion Anselm’s theory had plenty of problems in the first place). It’s very hard to get a hearing for the traditional theory. It has won some acceptance under the name “Christus Victor,” but only at the price of distinguishing itself from penal substitution so clearly that it loses some of the depth and fullness of genuine patristic atonement theology. (If you mention God’s justice being involved in any way people assume that you are talking Anselm, and they assume that Anselm taught penal substitution!)

Edwin

Thanks again for the education. Christianity is defintely historical. The book I read was Calvin and the Atomement by Rober Peterson Sr. ISBN 185792377-4. It was actually an easy read and recommended to all who are interested.

Here is how I see the work of Christ. I see an active and passive work of Christ which merited eternal blessings and full forgiveness. His perfect obedience to the Father’s will earned infinite blessings which we receive as overflowing grace because of the perfect obedience of Christ to the Father’s will. In the OT, God said obedience earns blessing, and disobedience earns the curse of the law. Since we are under the curse of the law, God poured out His wrath on Jesus who bore the penality for us (2 Cor 5:21). So, through imputation we receive what Christ merited in His life (infinite blessing), and the cross is the payment of our sin (subsitutional and actual), satsifying the wrath of God… paying the penalty for sins of all that would believe. I cannot see the cross paying the penalty for sin for unbelievers, because God in His justice would notl punish the sins of umbelievers twice. I would see God to be unjust if payment was paid twice, once on the cross, and later in eternity for the unbeliever (double payment for sin). Therefore, since I see the sacrifical death of Christ to be an actual payment in full, Christ could only pay for the sins for those who would believe. God pours out His overflowing and infinte grace on believers, because they are united to Christ; therefore, God is actually rewarding Christ for His obedience… and since we are in Christ… we receive all that He merited.