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.
No they have to redefine everlasting.There are solid Biblical defences for annihilationism. Not least the fact we annihilationists don’t need to redefine “death” as “everlasting life in torment” when it come ls to “the wages of sin is death”.
And Who exactly carried the penalty?If God was really “punishing” Jesus on the cross, why does Romans 8:3 tell us that is SIN, not Jesus, that is the target of God’s wrath?
Hi Expos4ever, if "sin" itself was the sole target of God's wrath, surely there must have been a way to insure that His Son was not pierced by that 'arrow' too. But He was the One who suffered for it and for us all.If God was really “punishing” Jesus on the cross, why does Romans 8:3 tell us that is SIN, not Jesus, that is the target of God’s wrath?
Hi TCB, that's possible I suppose, but then how do you account for the VAST majority of the Christian faith (85-90% of it, in fact), where the beliefs of conservative Catholics and the beliefs of conservative Protestants (or "Evangelicals") stand in perfect harmony with one another?I've read critiques of Satisfaction Theory, most of which were written by evangelicals, and I can't shake the suspicion that a big proportion of the evangelicals' opposition to Satisfaction Theory comes down a sly interjection of anti-Catholicism. "Well, that's what the Catholics believe so we have to be different."
This appears to be less of an issue with mainstream Protestantism but with this strain of evangelicalism it's hard to miss the assumption that because Catholics believe something, it must be wrong ipso facto. Or at least highly suspect.
A bizarre hermeneutic, to say the least.
Oh? Show me in the Bible (because I know Protestants love that expression) where it says God poured His wrath upon Christ and Christ was considered juridically guilty by God of mankind's sins.Rather than some degree of anti-Catholic bias, I think this has far more to do with what evangelicals believe the Bible teaches about this subject (just like it does in the other places that we find differences in the two faiths).
Hi again TCB, the "correctness" of the evangelical exegesis is not what's in view here (though we can certainly debate that in another thread if you'd like to), rather, this is all about what WE believe the Bible says/teaches.Oh? Show me in the Bible (because I know Protestants love that expression) where it says God poured His wrath upon Christ and Christ was considered juridically guilty by God of mankind's sins.
Pro-Tip- Nobody else in this thread has managed to do it.
...Hi again TCB, the "correctness" of the evangelical exegesis is not what's in view here (though we can certainly debate that in another thread if you'd like to), rather, this is all about what we BELIEVE the Bible says/teaches.
The fact of the matter is this, what the RCC believes is not what's important to us ... what we believe the Bible teaches is ... so we would never choose to intentionally misinterpret what we believe the Bible teaches just to take a poke at the RCC(or for any other reason, quite frankly)
Have at it.Show me in the Bible (because I know Protestants love that expression) where it says God poured His wrath upon Christ and Christ was considered juridically guilty by God of mankind's sins.
No, no, let me try again *(concerning your claim of an anti-Catholic bias, which is specifically what my last couple of posts have been addressing .. alone)*,...
Okay, let's try again.
Have at it.
It's okay, nobody else could find those passages in the Bible either. Your efforts at dodging that point are as creative as they are transparent.No, no, let me try again *(concerning your claim of an anti-Catholic bias, which is specifically what my last couple of posts have been addressing .. alone)*,
...the "correctness" of the evangelical exegesis is not what's in view here (though we can certainly debate that in another thread if you'd like to), rather, this is all about what we BELIEVE the Bible says/teaches.
The fact of the matter is this, what the RCC believes is not what's important to us ... what we believe the Bible teaches is ... so we would never choose to intentionally misinterpret what we believe the Bible teaches just to take a poke at the RCC(or for any other reason, quite frankly)
Now I don't want to burst you bubble, cause what you guys have to say is important to us .. but you are no where close to being 'that' important to us
Don't think that is the case as this Evangelical actually quoted both East and West church fathers understanding of penal substitution.I've read critiques of Satisfaction Theory, most of which were written by evangelicals, and I can't shake the suspicion that a big proportion of the evangelicals' opposition to Satisfaction Theory comes down a sly interjection of anti-Catholicism. "Well, that's what the Catholics believe so we have to be different."
This appears to be less of an issue with mainstream Protestantism but with this strain of evangelicalism it's hard to miss the assumption that because Catholics believe something, it must be wrong ipso facto. Or at least highly suspect.
A bizarre hermeneutic, to say the least.
You miss this:Oh? Show me in the Bible (because I know Protestants love that expression) where it says God poured His wrath upon Christ and Christ was considered juridically guilty by God of mankind's sins.
Pro-Tip- Nobody else in this thread has managed to do it.
It's been demonstrated. Several times.It's okay, nobody else could find those passages in the Bible either. Your efforts at dodging that point are as creative as they are transparent.
I should begin by saying that a great many commentators see this section of Isaiah as a dual commentary on both Israel and the then coming Messiah, as you know. A lot of flowery, poetic language is used which might not be intended as strictly literal in its aims. Applicability to Christ should, their thinking goes, not be assumed to be necessarily intentional. Or even wholly appropriate.4 Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
For your convenience I've bolded the more important set of words. Isaiah is saying that people will consider Christ to have been punished by God... implying that they will be mistaken in that assumption.Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
This does not disagree with Satisfaction Theory.5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
This does not disagree with Satisfaction Theory.6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
This idiomatic language describes Christ's suffering. Does it follow then that He is being judged literally guilty of our sins and punished by God the Father? I don't think so.And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
I'm not seeing anything in there which hasn't already been addressed or else which disagrees with Satisfaction Theory.7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.
9 And they made His grave with the wicked—
But with the rich at His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was any deceit in His mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.
11 He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.
I said words to the effect that I was feeling too lazy to review Church Fathers' writings for alternate points of view. I implicitly conceded the point to you so as to move on to the bigger issue of asserting doctrinal development. The ultimate goal for doing so was to rise above the weeds and explain how my Church came about accepting Satisfaction Theory, directing the conversation to more productive areas.When you were shown Biblical and church father support for PSA, you shifted to the Cardinal Newman doctrinal development and ignored the ancient attestation.
See above.Then put the false qualifier that Protestants don't hold to PSA which shows some lack of historical knowledge.
I have seen Protestants affirm Satisfaction Theory. If they do so at variance with the official teachings of their own ecclesial communities, my respect for them will have gone up.That refutes your notion old line Prots don't hold to the doctrine.
I was right about that, incidentally.And you started this all by calling PSA a heresy
As above, I'm not prepared to sign my name to that school of thought. I am familiar with those arguments but, again as above, I have a great many reservations about them. I'm not prepared to say that they're right or that they're wrong at this time.The only move you have left with me is to either tell me Isaiah 53 is not about Jesus as Bishop Spong
Having said all of that, I'm undecided, personally, on whether I subscribe to that school of thought. The reasons for that are too lengthy to go into here. It's sufficient, however, to say that if the above passage is assumed to refer to Our Lord, this does not disagree with Satisfaction Theory.
Meaning people would know this to be true. Again, God's words do not return to Him empty. However, the following verses confirm the prophecy that the Suffering Servant would be the sacrifice for our sins.Isaiah is saying that people will consider Christ to have been punished by God... implying that they will be mistaken in that assumption.
Fitting in your case, yes?
Did not indicate such but you should address this:This does not disagree with Satisfaction Theory.
More than that if one studies Torah.This idiomatic language describes Christ's suffering. Does it follow then that He is being judged literally guilty of our sins and punished by God the Father.
Bearing iniquity and bearing guilt are not the same thing.
I'm not seeing anything in there which hasn't already been addressed or else which doesn't disagree with Satisfaction Theory
Both are orthodox but incomplete as the following fathers point out:So allow me to say that the dominant view among the Church Fathers which I reviewed is something akin to Ransom Theory, which is already closely related to Substitution Theory.
Don't doubt it. Show me where they condemn PSA as heresy.Other names are Athanasius, John Chrysostom, John of Damascus, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus and probably others too.
Again if you want to call the following ECFs heretics have at it. Just don't say it out loud at a Knights of Columbus meeting.I was right about that, incidentall
I'm glad you are not on board with that school of thought. Most of them deny the Deity of Christ and His Bodily resurrection.As above, I'm not prepared to sign my name to that school of thought. I am familiar with those arguments but, again as above, I have a great many reservations about them. I'm not prepared to say that they're right or that they're wrong at this time.
Are you actually saying that Is. 53 need not be referring to the Lord Jesus, but may refer to Israel instead? If so, how (even if RCs may be so liberal) can you do so even as a RC?I should begin by saying that a great many commentators see this section of Isaiah as a dual commentary on both Israel and the then coming Messiah, as you know. A lot of flowery, poetic language is used which might not be intended as strictly literal in its aims. Applicability to Christ should, their thinking goes, not be assumed to be necessarily intentional. Or even wholly appropriate.
Having said all of that, I'm undecided, personally, on whether I subscribe to that school of thought. The reasons for that are too lengthy to go into here. It's sufficient, however, to say that if the above passage is assumed to refer to Our Lord,
No, not as the OP describes it, but as also described, the objective question is why the Lord would be inclined/pleased to bruise/break the Lord, and make His souls an offering for sin, as per penal, versus merely a substitution (though it was that as well)?this does not disagree with Satisfaction Theory.
I do not think the argument was that it did.This does not disagree with Satisfaction Theory.
...This does not disagree with Satisfaction Theory.
So this is merely describing Christ's suffering? And He is not being punished for sins? No, for rather than describing Christ's suffering, as some other parts do, it is describing the why of Christ's suffering. And surely the Lord was fulfilling the role of the scapegoat of Leviticus 16 as well as being the unblemished atonement in Is. 53. And thus Christ,This idiomatic language describes Christ's suffering. Does it follow then that He is being judged literally guilty of our sins and punished by God the Father? I don't think so.
Bearing iniquity and bearing guilt are not the same thing.
I have seen Protestants affirm Satisfaction Theory. If they do so at variance with the official teachings of their own ecclesial communities, my respect for them will have gone up.
Nonsense. The church who decrees so is heretical.I was right about that, incidentally.
Forgiving= is when the offended foregoes what's justly due from the offender- Somehow that definition of substitution doesn't square with forgiveness.Whereas in penal substitution Christ is punished instead of us, satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive the sins.
Who are you modifying above? Us as the fallen or Christ.Forgiving= is when the offended foregoes what's justly due from the offender- Somehow that definition of substitution doesn't square with forgiveness.
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?