Search results

I'll try to catch up on responses later. Busy today.

LOL, either you're Trolling me or you really don't know what you're talking about. How do you equate humanity with sin? Sin isn't a 'thing', it's a defect or absence, like darkness being an absence of light or cold being an absence of heat. I also don't see why it's bizarre exegesis when (a)...

That really shouldn't be your concern, unless you're going to be guilty of the Ad Hominem fallacy. A website dedicated to a cause does not mean the author is automatically not going to be honest with the facts or is going to present a lop-sided argument. The only concern is, are the claims...

Agreed, it's not part of this discussion, because this discussion was about showing Catholics how to respond when a Protestant quotes 2 Corinthians 5:21 as proof of Imputed Righteousness of Christ. If that's not a doctrine you agree with (or even care about), then this thread obviously doesn't...

Not really. To be Protestant in any meaningful sense means you embrace historic Protestantism, otherwise being Protestant is meaningless. It's no different than going around calling oneself a Mormon but believing your own things and having no care for what historical Mormonism taught. What is...

What was wrong with the Greek and what is the obvious Old Testament parallel? I'm surprised so many people are not bothering to read the article simply because it was written by a Catholic.

I'm not actually sure what you said, but it's not exegesis. Exegesis asks and answers questions about a text such as "What does it mean to be 'made sin'"? and "What does it mean to 'become the righteousness of God'"? The article shows that 'made sin' means the Son of God took on our human nature...

The article focuses on the Reformed & Lutheran view because these were the 'original Protestants'. Any Protestant who rejects Lutheranism or Calvinism is not embracing 'historic' Protestantism, but rather a 'new' Protestant view. The doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone has a specific...

I don't really see any exegesis going on here. You quoted a bunch of passages and made some claims about them, but that's not the same as exegesis. For example, you simply posted 2 Corinthians 5:21 and said this refers to imputation, which is simply an unwarranted assumption, despite the fact my...

I totally understand what you're saying, but as I've pondered over the issue for many years, I've come to see the flaw with that approach. Protestants are under the impression that Catholic teaching, especially on salvation, is completely contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture. So from the...

I often see Protestants (typically Calvinists / Reformed) quoting 2 Corinthians 5:21 to prove "the Imputed Righteousness of Christ," and yet when you take a careful look at the verse, it doesn't say anything of the sort. THIS ARTICLE covers 2 Corinthians 5:21 and why it shouldn't be read as...

I often see Protestants (typically Calvinists / Reformed) quoting 2 Corinthians 5:21 to prove "the Imputed Righteousness of Christ," and yet there appears to be no Catholic apologetics out there opposing this. Given that this is one of their absolute favorite verses, Catholics should be...

If I'm reading you correctly, what you're saying is the traditional reading by the Church Fathers and Catholics: in this context, divorce is understood as separation, but any remarriage by either results in adultery.

This link walks you through how THE BIBLE DEFINES ATONEMENT: NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: "Atonement" according to Scripture - More Problems with Penal Substitution That's something that most people studying the atonement don't look at, how the Bible uses the term "atonement". It never involves...

The rational is because the other accounts don't have the 'except' clause and so Our Lord's words have been traditionally understood to mean divorce is never allowed. There is a tendency to read it as "if one spouse cheats, committing adultery, then you're free to divorce and remarry," but...

No, it isn't. Atonement properly belongs to the role of an Intercessor. There's really no such thing as 'substitution'. Someone makes atonement on behalf of another; or in the case of a high priest he makes atonement for himself since he's at the top of the intercessory ladder. It depends on...

Where is the "imputed righteousness of Christ" in all this?

Great list. I'd add: -Matthew 12:31-32, the unpardonable sin cannot be synonymous with being born into original sin (otherwise everyone would have committed it), and thus it's a real sin a believer can fall into. -Romans 4:6-8, David is described as getting justified in Psalm 32, and since...

Clare, I agree with Deacon, the terms righteous and justify in Greek have the same root word. So I'm not sure you're making the right case, nor do I see how it goes against what I'm saying. I don't see any room for imputing Christ's righteousness in what you just said.

Equivalency and "one always implies the other" are two different concepts. Having faith implies also having hope, but faith and hope are not equivalent/synonymous. Having a quarter is equivalent in cost to having two dimes and nickel, but one doesn't imply the other. In the Romans 4:6-8 case...