Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well if you want to employ that logic our blessed Lord need not have died on the cross. A small slap on the wrist would by the same logic have eternal value, because our Lord is an eternally valuable being.An eternally valuable being suffered in our place. His suffering has eternal value.
At least to me, this view seems to lead to a conclusion that a man is not culpable for his own sins. He is punished regardless of his own choices. That is, he is punished merely for being born a certain way, even though he had no control over that whatsoever.
In your view, is there any moral distinction between a man who has a homosexual desire but resolutely chooses a celibate life, and a homosexual man who acts out on those desires and sleeps with other men regularly?
Well if you want to employ that logic our blessed Lord need not have died on the cross. A small slap on the wrist would by the same logic have eternal value, because our Lord is an eternally valuable being.
Why would the Father cause our Lord to suffer such an excruciating death, if much less would have sufficed? I don’t think your logic makes any sense, honestly.
Thanks. In your view, in what ways can a human being avoid punishment for his concupiscence? I am wondering in particular about the hope of salvation for infants who die, in particular.Man is punished because of the imputed sin of Adam but also because of his own sins. And, of course, because of original sin (concupiscence) which he inherits from Adam.
Yes there is a moral distinction. Some sins are more grievous than others. But both people stand condemned before God and are in need of the mediation of Christ.
Yes, but that refers to eternal death in hell, which our Lord did not suffer. You are trying to have it both ways.The wages of sin is death. Not a slap on the wrist.
That question gets asked by the Universalists often. Care to qualify it?The punishment that we are due for our sins is an eternity in hell. If our Lord received the punishment that was due us, why did he not spend an eternity in hell, in your opinion?
Romans 2:5 makes it clear 'we' are storing up wrath, meaning we are responsible.At least to me, this view seems to lead to a conclusion that a man is not culpable for his own sins. He is punished regardless of his own choices. That is, he is punished merely for being born a certain way, even though he had no control over that whatsoever.
But God did not do that way. The Scriptures are quite clear on that. We have the type/shadows of how God would do it in Leviticus 16 and a very detailed explanation in Isaiah 53.Well if you want to employ that logic our blessed Lord need not have died on the cross. A small slap on the wrist would by the same logic have eternal value, because our Lord is an eternally valuable being.
Jesus did suffer no?Why would the Father cause our Lord to suffer such an excruciating death, if much less would have sufficed? I don’t think your logic makes any sense, honestly.
I would say you are throwing out Roman Catholic theology as well with the above statement. Not to mention, what is your view of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ?Yes, but that refers to eternal death in hell, which our Lord did not suffer. You are trying to have it both ways.
Thanks. In your view, in what ways can a human being avoid punishment for his concupiscence? I am wondering in particular about the hope of salvation for infants who die, in particular.
I think that concupiscence is a result of original sin, while the concept goes beyond that, by the way.
Not sure how that relates to imputed righteousness.The people were liable to punishment since they had not fulfilled the whole Law.
Ditto.Just as, when someone is condemned to death, another innocent person who chooses to die for him releases him from that punishment, so Christ also did.
Why are you separating the two?As a general thing, this thread seems to be strangely alternating between discussing the supposed imputed righteousness of Christ and penal substitutionary atonement apologetics.
Not at all.That question gets asked by the Universalists often. Care to qualify it?
I don’t think that matters when it comes to concupiscence. That is something you are born with. You did not do anything to store it up or have it otherwise.Romans 2:5 makes it clear 'we' are storing up wrath, meaning we are responsible.
Of course our blessed Lord suffered, but you guys are asserting that he received the punishment that was due us. The punishment we are due is eternal death in hell, which our Lord did not suffer.But God did not do that way. The Scriptures are quite clear on that. We have the type/shadows of how God would do it in Leviticus 16 and a very detailed explanation in Isaiah 53.
Jesus did suffer no?
Because they're different things. That's why they're spelled differently from each other.Why are you separating the two?
I believe in the Resurrection. In what way have I thrown out Catholic theology?I would say you are throwing out Roman Catholic theology as well with the above statement. Not to mention, what is your view of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ?
Specifically how are those infants saved?Christ is our only hope to escape punishment. There are such things as elect infants who die in infancy and yet are saved because of Christ.
Yes this is the Catholic view but I don't believe it is warranted by Scripture.
Most Roman Catholics do adhere to substitution do they not?I believe in the Resurrection. In what way have I thrown out Catholic theology?
Wrath is wrath.I don’t think that matters when it comes to concupiscence. That is something you are born with. You did not do anything to store it up or have it otherwise.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?