Value and Necessity of Truth

[CCWoody]

Yeah, I would hope that you don't believe a gnostic underground gospel. I know you don't. I'm getting more at what a person is actually knowledgeable of in order to positively reject.

God has revealed himself in his creation. All men are responsible for their positive rejection of that whether they ever get a chance to hear the gospel. In fact, in as far as the Lord has not purposed to save all men, he has not even designed a gospel that will reach all men. It is irrevelant whether or not a man hears the gospel. He already has enough information given him by the witness of nature that he is without any excuse.

Rom 1:18-20 GB
(18) For the wrath of God is reueiled from heauen against all vngodlinesse, and vnrighteousnesse of men, which withhold the trueth in vnrighteousnesse.
(19) Forasmuch as that, which may be knowe of God, is manifest in them: for God hath shewed it vnto them.
(20) For the inuisible things of him, that is, his eternal power and Godhead, are seene by ye creation of the worlde, being considered in his workes, to the intent that they should be without excuse:

 

[Salesian]

For starters, I am NOT a "Calvinist". The gospel is God's promise to save His people conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone. All who do not believe this gospel are LOST (i.e. unregenerate), AS IT IS WRITTEN,

“3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” – 2Cor 4:3-4

This would include ALL Catholics, and Arminians. Every single one of them is UNREGENERATE. Why? Because they both believe that Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception thereby conditioning their salvation upon themselves and not on the finished work of Christ alone. Furthermore, all who say that all Catholics and Arminians are NOT lost actually show themselves to be unregenerate as well (this would include most Calvinist). Why? Because they must believe then that the Catholic/Arminian belief in universal atonement doesn't show them to not be of the Christian faith; thereby, making the claim that one can believe in universal atonement and still be of the Christian faith, which is a blasphemy against the true Jesus Christ of the Bible.


Please read: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/gospatone.htm

-jonas

Please, I do not wish for this thread to be closed. I'm surprised it hasn't already. Jonas, you have agreed to follow the same rules regarding posting in these forums as I have, and everyone else here. That which I was bringing up for hypothetical discussion, you blew the doors off and came right out and said it. I'm not going to report you, but do remember the agreement you yourself agreed to, which was, in part:

1.5You will not directly state or otherwise imply that another member is not a Christian if he or she falls under Rule 6.5 and 6.6 and he or she does not have a hidden faith icon without providing substantiation from scripture or doctrine or historic church writtings.

My faith is completely in line with the Nicene and Niceno/Constantinoplian Creeds.

Yes, I am interested in continuing this discussion. But, I think my question has been answered, and I'm not sure how it can beneficially be continued.

Stay tuned, though, for a post regarding the atonement. Later tonight.

 

[Salesian]

God has revealed himself in his creation. All men are responsible for their positive rejection of that whether they ever get a chance to hear the gospel. In fact, in as far as the Lord has not purposed to save all men, he has not even designed a gospel that will reach all men. It is irrevelant whether or not a man hears the gospel. He already has enough information given him by the witness of nature that he is without any excuse.

Rom 1:18-20 GB
(18) For the wrath of God is reueiled from heauen against all vngodlinesse, and vnrighteousnesse of men, which withhold the trueth in vnrighteousnesse.
(19) Forasmuch as that, which may be knowe of God, is manifest in them: for God hath shewed it vnto them.
(20) For the inuisible things of him, that is, his eternal power and Godhead, are seene by ye creation of the worlde, being considered in his workes, to the intent that they should be without excuse:

Yes. Thanks for putting that forward, Woody.

My intention was to center on people who have been presented with, not just the Gospel, but particularly Christian people who disagree with the 5-point Reformed system of the doctrines of grace. And the underlying assumption is that to him who knows much, much will be required, and to him who knows little, less will be required (Luke 12:47-49). Also, the parable of the talents, more is required of the person who was given more, but less from the person who was given little. However, there was an expected requirement even from those who are given little to nothing.

Several posts ago, I cited some Church teachings regarding how supernatural faith is required for justification, in terms of people with use of reason. I know you'll disagree with that distinction, but remember, we have a totally different view of baptism and "actual" sin. We have the early Church's Nicene view of baptism!! Sorry, I couldn't resist No offense intended.

-Rob

 

[Salesian]

What makes you think that?

Salvation/ redemption is spoken of in several senses (and tenses) in the Scriptures. To which do you refer?

Understood.

I refer not to the tenses of Scripture, but rather to the statement in the WMCOF.

Chapter 11, Justification, article 4:

God did, from all eternity, decree to justify the elect, and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.

One passage cited is Titus 3:3-7

 

[Salesian]

Ahh, yes, Catholics believe in universal atonement.

"The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: "There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer." - CCC Paragraph 605
-jonas

Jonas, and others on this thread.

I was hasty, I apologize. Perhaps my reason for saying that Catholics don't believe in "Universal Atonement" was a carryover of how I understood the term from my former Calvinist days. From my previous follow-up posts, it's probably obvious that I was relating it to "universal salvation."

But, after thinking on it some, it was obvious to me that was not at all what you were getting at. The article you linked being indicative of what you meant, made it clear to me that you meant what I should also understand as "universal atonement."

With that said, let me back up and say what should be obvious now.

Catholics believe that God is the savior of all men, especially of believers. You may recognize that, I quoted I Timothy 4:10.

There have been different "theories" of the atonement through history. You can read up on them at the online Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.org if you wish. I don't think I have enough blessings to post links, but you can find it. It's under "A."

We have, no matter what valid Catholic theory is referenced, a high view of the Incarnation in relation to the Atonement, and the all encompassing nature of the Atonement. See for example, Colossians 1:19,20, and Romans 8:18-22. We also believe, like most Reformed type believers, that in Christ, the reversal of the effects Fall of man was substantially initiated, like from Isaiah 65:17-23 for instance.

Hmmm, not wanting to get off on a side topic, but it's proposed that the one perfect application of the atonement was to Christ's mother, Mary. She was redeemed perfectly at the moment of her conception. She could call God her "savior" in a way that's more profound than that which we can dream of!

 

[AndOne]

Hmmm, not wanting to get off on a side topic, but it's proposed that the one perfect application of the atonement was to Christ's mother, Mary. She was redeemed perfectly at the moment of her conception. She could call God her "savior" in a way that's more profound than that which we can dream of!

...and a proposition is all it is. What you are in essesence saying here is that Christ didn't have to die to redeem Mary. Wrong - there is nothing in SCRIPTURE to support that rediculous idea. You want to believe that proposition - that is your perrogative - but scripture is not in your corner on this.

 

[AndOne]

1.5You will not directly state or otherwise imply that another member is not a Christian if he or she falls under Rule 6.5 and 6.6 and he or she does not have a hidden faith icon without providing substantiation from scripture or doctrine or historic church writtings.

My faith is completely in line with the Nicene and Niceno/Constantinoplian Creeds.

Scripture was provided to substantiate the claim. The Nicene Creed does not address universal atonement. Take note: "For US and for OUR salvation he came down from heaven:"

Look - do you want to discuss/debate or not. It simply is not going to work out too well if you threaten us with the rules every time someone posts something contrary to your faith that you disagree with.

 

[Salesian]

Scripture was provided to substantiate the claim. The Nicene Creed does not address universal atonement. Take note: "For US and for OUR salvation he came down from heaven:"

Look - do you want to discuss/debate or not. It simply is not going to work out too well if you threaten us with the rules every time someone posts something contrary to your faith that you disagree with.

Sorry, I thought that perhaps everyone else here, not just me, was being called "unregenerate" by Jonas3's couple statements.

I wasn't griping about his/her saying I'm wrong. As far as your comment goes, she provided scripture, in that link, for saying that most everybody, maybe everybody else, contributing here, was unregenerate. Like, if you believe a Calvinist Baptist can be saved if the Calvinist Baptist believes that Armenians can be saved, then you're not saved, ie. unregenerate.

If you're content with Jonas' private interpretation of Scripture on that, hey, then I guess you should believe it.

Anyways, that was the only thing that bothered me. I took great care to not break the rules in my questioning, and then somebody just, it appears, blows the doors off the "rule barn" and I was concerned a moderator would shut us down for sure.

Yes, I was hoping to discuss this, which is why I'm still here on this page. It appears that I've got my answer, all I'm going to get though.


-Thanks for keeping it going!

 

[Salesian]

Scripture was provided to substantiate the claim. The Nicene Creed does not address universal atonement. Take note: "For US and for OUR salvation he came down from heaven:"

Do you take that to mean that everyone that recites that Creed knows, with certainty of faith, that they are among the elect?

Would you even chance to say that all of Bishops at the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople 2, among other councils, who affirmed that statement, even though it was based upon the "Apostle's Creed" were sure that they were among those whom Christ's Limited Atonement would be applied? If they werent' sure, then it would be equivalent to tempting God, wouldn't it? For a statement like that to be carried authoratatively through history, affirmed as doctrinally sound for all the faithful to recite. Yet, surely not all the members in the, if you will, the "visible church", are among the fruits of Christ's Limited Atonement, are they?

You see, that's why there's different Reformed views on this. Just like there are different accepted Catholic views on the Atonement and it's cause, nature, etc. But we have an authority system, in which Scripture is a part, to interpret Scripture and tradition with Christ's authority, and then the whole Church has reasonable, solid guidelines regarding the limits.

Another common version has "for us men and for our salvation..." which is pretty much the same.

Regarding a view of the Atonement that is not limited in it's application of grace, I did cite Scripture, but I didn't propose that anyone else here was unregenerate. I just try to respect where I'm at. I'm in the "Ask a Calvinist" not the "Condemn a Calvinist" forum.

I'll try to think of some way to tie this in to the original topic, so it won't be quiet so off the path I'm trying to stick to....

 

[Salesian]

You see, that's why there's different Reformed views on this. Just like there are different accepted Catholic views on the Atonement and it's cause, nature, etc. But we have an authority system, in which Scripture is a part, to interpret Scripture and tradition with Christ's authority, and then the whole Church has reasonable, solid guidelines regarding the limits.

I'll try to think of some way to tie this in to the original topic, so it won't be quiet so off the path I'm trying to stick to....

Ok, I think a decent tie in is this...

You think it's proposterous for us Catholics to have volumes of Church Father writings, Council documents, canon law, papal encyclicals, treatises by church doctors, etc. Actually, it's probably more correct to say that you think it's wrong for us to give them the combined weight of authority that we do. But, we Catholics think it's odd for you Protestants, generally speaking, to have so many commentaries on Scripture, denominational confessions, etc. because we know that you know that you don't have a view that any definite ruling can be made as to the correctness of many of the doctrines that are proposed, explained, or defended in such works.

That's not to say that you can't be fairly certain that at least some of them are wrong. But you certaintly cannot say for certain that any doctrinal formulation on, for instance, the effect of infant baptism, the nature of what original sin is, understanding the Trinity (without using the philosophical constructs that it's packaged in), what the celebration of the Lord's Supper, etc. is dogmatically binding as true.

And here, I see that, despite all the preciseness of your Calvinist system, you can't agree on such a basic foundational element as to whether or not someone who believes your "5 points," particularly the one about Limited Atonement, can be saved. One of you, Jonas3, had the valor to stridently propose that the Limited Atonement view was essential to the gospel and salvation. Others said that it was not. Rather, you view it as true and essential to correctly understand the Gospel, but don't see "knowing" that Limited Atonement view as being necessary to one's salvation. I hope I worded that properly, please clarify if I didn't. I'm trying to be fairly precise and not misrepresent any who contributed. Anyways, I respect Jonas' view, in that I see that he/she is attempting to be consistent and take truth and it's role in salvation seriously. I was not expecting it though.

So, do you remain in perpetual disagreement, or is there some hope of there being resolution on this matter? If not, then what good is the Bible if you can't know for sure what it teaches are essential parts of the Gospel? If you're left to your own personal reasoning from the arguments of theologians, well, then you're still relying upon reasoning from people that you don't know are elect, therefore they may still be completely without saving grace, in the depths of their natural, depraved state. Even if you were to somehow know that they were elect, then you trust that the Holy Spirit is leading them. That's what we Catholics believe in regards to the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magesterium. If you believed that, then you could perhaps know for sure that some extra-Biblical formulated doctrinal statement were true with the certainty of faith. But then you would have forsaken one pillar of the Reformed Protestant faith - that no person, council, confession, etc. of man is led by the Holy Spirit to the degree where their/it's ruling could be considered "binding upon one's faith," "dogmatic" or "infallible."

I know that's a lot. But do you see why I ask my question, and why I think it's important? Mainly, I came here to maybe get someone to think about that, if you haven't before. That's my "Ask a Calvinist" question, or maybe volume of questions. Sorry so much.

-Rob

 

[AndOne]

Do you take that to mean that everyone that recites that Creed knows, with certainty of faith, that they are among the elect?

No - I think you missed my point. You were trying to use the creed to support your view of universal atonement. I was simply pointing out that when you really get down to the actual wording of the creed - it doesn't support universal atonement.

I really don't feel it is necessary to re-state my views on the five points. As I stated earlier - I will not part ways with a brother who disagrees on three of the points - but that does not mean I will not defend them or try to persuade a believer of them.

 

[Salesian]

No - I think you missed my point. You were trying to use the creed to support your view of universal atonement. I was simply pointing out that when you really get down to the actual wording of the creed - it doesn't support universal atonement.

Ok, maybe I did miss your point, I apologize.

Since the Creed doesn't mention universal atonement, or limited atonement, then it doesn't really support either of our views, does it? I disagree that the creed is "anti-universal atonement" in the wording, as I tried to get at in that one post. I was just saying that what the Creed addresses, that's what I believe. I'm sure you'd agree with that, and say that you agree with what the Creed addresses.

Considering that at that time in history, there was not, as far as I'm aware, any predominance of, or even much talk of, a "limited atonement" view anything similar to the "L" in TULIP, then I think it's reasonable to say that the men did not mean at all anything like the calvinist Limited Atonement.

Ok, so any thoughts on the last post of mine on page 3? It won't bother me at all if you conclude that the Nicene Creed is pro-Limited Atonement, honestly, I won't lose any sleep over it and probably won't mention it again, unless you want to pursue the topic. I'm more interested in the central issue for this thread, in post 30.

-Rob

 

[AndOne]

Considering that at that time in history, there was not, as far as I'm aware, any predominance of, or even much talk of, a "limited atonement" view anything similar to the "L" in TULIP, then I think it's reasonable to say that the men did not mean at all anything like the calvinist Limited Atonement.

Does Augustine go far enough back for you?

 

[Salesian]

Does Augustine go far enough back for you?

Ok, what work is on your mind? Or statement? Is it from Schaaf's set, online at ccel.org? Link it up for the context please.

Thanks
_____________________________________________________
But Nicea I was well before Augustine's time, but that doesn't matter as far as what we're discussing. Go on and bring your quote, that's great.

How about St. Ambrose of Milan and/or St. Athanasius (since he was actually there). Tell you what, by Friday, I'll have some related quotes.

Or better yet, can I start a new thread for this particular topic? .... I don't want it to get long and drawn out, so let's try to limit it to 5 posts each, something like that. Fair enough? Behe, you can start the thread if you want to. Word it however you want to. But reference what you quote, preferably with a dependable web address, at least a book.

This is kind of off the topic. Please don't abandon the topic of this thread, I mean, you can abandon it, but at least somebody reply briefly. Well, I can't make you, but please do.

 

[seekingpurity047]

Is Paul far back enough for you... concerning limited atonement?

 

[AndOne]

Is Paul far back enough for you... concerning limited atonement?

Ouch - I wish I would have said that - thanks for setting me straight....

 

[Salesian]

Is Paul far back enough for you... concerning limited atonement?

Ok, let me quote the Apostle Paul, and John Calvin in support of something closer to the Catholic view!!

But before we go there quoting everybody between here and Moses, maybe we should see exactly what it is we believe.

Ok, from some review tonight, 2 Reformed sources that I'll quote in a moment, I'm not sure if our wrangling is over something that we think we're wrangling over. Maybe so, but maybe not.

Catholics believe that Christ took on human nature, and that he died in order to make possible the salvation of all humans. "we have our hope set on the living God, Who is the savior of all men, especially of those who believe" - I Timothy 4:10, RSV.

Ok, so in brief, let me set forth from Trent, what may be enough for you to see where we may, perhaps, disagree:

Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 2:
Whence it came to pass, that the heavenly Father, the father of mercies and the God of all comfort, when that blessed fulness of the time was come, sent unto men, Jesus Christ, His own Son-who had been, both before the Law, and during the time of the Law, to many of the holy fathers announced and promised-that He might both redeem the Jews who were under the Law, and that the Gentiles, who followed not after justice, might attain to justice, and that all men might receive the adoption of sons. Him God hath proposed as a propitiator, through faith in his blood, for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world.

Also, Session 6, Chapter 3:
But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam, would not be born unjust,-seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own,-so, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just.

You can read that on-line at the site www.dailycatholic.org/credo.htm and then click on "Trent" and then follow it to the 6th session. It's all there. All 21 Ecumenical Councils!

Now, from the Catechism of the Council of Trent (sorry, no link, I've just got the book), on p. 60 in my edition, we read "The pastor should teach that all these inestimable and divine blessings flow to us from the Passion of Christ. First, indeed, because the satisfaction which Jesus Christ has in an admirable manner made to God the Father for our sins is full and complete. The price which He paid for our ransom was not only adequate and equal to our debts, but far exceeded them."

Please note, that's not a "condemned proposition." That's what the Church teaches, the Roman Catholic Church. Please consider that for at least 2 minutes.

Ok, now we come to a finer point where I suppose the disagreement would be clearly evident. Trent Session 6, Canon 17:

CANON XVII.-If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.

Behe, I can give some quotes by St. Augustine to reinforce that, if you'd like. Also, I can quote the author of Hebrews and St. Paul in the book of Colossians, to support that.

In the next post I'll set forth what I'm understanding as the Reformed view, and where we may or may not disagree as to the extent of the atonement.

 

[Salesian]

Oh my, I must make this short, it's kind of late. I probably won't post tomorrow.

Anyways, can I use the book "The Five Points of Calvinism; Defined, Defended, Documented" by Steele and Thomas as a common source of the Calvinist view? No link, but it's a fairly popular book isn't it? You've probably got it.

Part 2, Chapter 3, on the "Particular Redemption Or Limited Atonement" it's on p. 38-40, before all the Scripture verses, a brief discussion. I understand this is all related, and you can't just separate one aspect. The 5 Points are a system. Maybe it's closest related to Unconditional Election and Perseverance of the Saints. Each person Christ died for will be saved, because of God's electing them to that end. Ok... with that said, a few quotes from Steele and Thomas:

"... election itself saved no one; it only marked out particular sinners for salvation. Those chosen by the Father and given to the Son had to be redeemed if they were to be saved." ....
... "Historical or main line Calvinism has consistently maintained that Christ's redeeming work was definite in design and accomplishment..... it actually secured salvation for those individuals and for no one else.".... "Christ did not die simply to make it possible for God to pardon sinners."

"All Calvinists agree that Christ's obedience and suffering were of infinite value, and that if God had so willed, the satisfaction rendered by Christ would have saved every member of the human race." ... "Thus Christ's saving work was limited in that it was designed to save some and not others, but it was not limited in value for it was of infinite worth and would have secured salvation for everyone if this had been God's intention."

"Since all men will not be saved as the result of Christ's redeeming work, a limitation must be admitted..... One must limit its design either in extent (it was not intended for all) or effectiveness (it did not secure salvation for any)."

There's a Thomistic, Augustinian view that would lean towards a more Calvinistic view on that, but still be Catholic, but not Arminian. That would be more along the way I'd probably lean, since I was a Calvinist a couple years ago for about 5 years. But I don't know that particular Catholic view very well, so I can't really argue for that. Sorry, so if you want I'll do my best to defend the general Catholic view, in line with and not contrary to any Church teachings. That is, if we can agree on what we disagree on.

Ok, Finally, the WMCOF. Chapter 3, God's Eternal Decree, article 6:
"..... Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, efectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only."

And since the WMCOF means by the elect..... let me string together some quotes for ease.... From Chapter 10 art. 1, Ch. 11 art. 1, Ch. 13 art. 1, and Ch. 17 art 1:

All those whom God hath predestined unto life, and those only, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time effectually to call.... Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth..... They who are effectually called and regenerated , having a new heart and spirit created in them, are further sanctified... They whom God hath accepted in His beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally, nor finally, fall away from the state of grace; but shall certaintly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.

Ok, that sounds great, right? Well yeah. So why would I leave that.... good question. Because I don't think it's true! Hence the topic of the thread.

So, where do you think we disagree? I think it's either:

1) Right there in whether or not the effects of Christ's atonement can apply to anyone that will not be in heaven (ie. to anyone who isn't elect for what we call "final perseverance.") Like, can anyone not "elect" receive grace, justification, regeneration?

or

2) Whether or not Christ's atonement was of infinite value to save all people, but only efficacious for the elect. That may be more broad than #1, but I'm expecting we won't disagree here. I don't think.... Jonas3..? I believe, like Steele and Thomas, to the extent that it was of infinite value for all people. Kind of like the early "mystical incarnation" view of the atonement. But maybe we disagree on something as basic as that. I'd be surprised though.

Well, where do you think we disagree, if not #1 or 2 there? Maybe something about the invisible/visible Church distinction, I can use that terminology for ease of use. Do people in the visible church, but not in the invisible, receive grace? Maybe that's just the same as #1.


You tell me, where do you think we disagree?

Ok, have a good couple days..

Rob

 

[Salesian]

How about St. Ambrose of Milan and/or St. Athanasius (since he was actually there). Tell you what, by Friday, I'll have some related quotes.

It's Friday, here's some related quotes:

St. Athatasius, from his "On the Incarnation of the Word"

Section 8:
And thus taking from our bodies one of like nature, because all were under penalty of the corruption of death He gave it over to death in the stead of all, and offered it to the Father—doing this, moreover, of His loving-kindness, to the end that, firstly, all being held to have died in Him, the law involving the ruin of men might be undone (inasmuch as its power was fully spent in the Lord’s body, and had no longer holding-ground against men, his peers), and that, secondly, whereas men had turned toward corruption, He might turn them again toward incorruption, and quicken them from death by the appropriation31 of His body and by the grace of the Resurrection, banishing death from them like straw from the fire32 .









Section 13
Once again, a merely human king does not let the lands he has colonized pass to others to serve them, nor go over to other men; but he warns them by letters, and often sends to them by friends, or, if need be, he comes in person, to put them to rebuke in the last resort by his presence, only that they may not serve others and his own work be spent for naught. 6. Shall not God much more spare His own creatures, that they be not led astray from Him and serve things of nought? especially since such going astray proves the cause of their ruin and undoing, and since it was unfitting that they should perish which had once been partakers of God’s image. 7. What then was God to do? or what was to be done save the renewing of that which was in God’s image, so that by it men might once more be able to know Him? But how could this have come to pass save by the presence of the very Image of God, our Lord Jesus Christ?...
. Whence the Word of God came in His own person, that, as He was the Image of the Father, He might be able to create afresh the man after the image.

Section 14 ​

. in the same way also the most holy Son of the Father, being the Image of the Father, came to our region to renew man once made in His likeness, and find him, as one lost, by the remission of sins; as He says Himself in the Gospels: “I came47 to find and to save the lost.” Whence He said to the Jews also: “Except48 a man be born again,” not meaning, as they thought, birth front woman, but speaking of the soul born and created anew in the likeness of God’s image.





Section 20
. But since it was necessary also that the debt owing from all should be paid again: for, as I have already said63 , it was owing that all should die, for which especial cause, indeed, He came among us: to this intent, after the proofs of His Godhead from His works, He next offered up His sacrifice also on behalf of all, yielding His Temple to death in the stead of all, in order firstly to make men quit and free of their old trespass, and further to shew Himself more powerful even than death, displaying His own body incorruptible, as first-fruits of the resurrection of all. .... The body, then, as sharing the same nature with all, for it was a human body, though by an unparalleled miracle it was formed of a virgin only, yet being mortal, was to die also, conformably to its peers. But by virtue of the union of the Word with it, it was no longer subject to corruption according to its own nature, but by reason of the Word that was come to dwell65 in it it was placed out of the reach of corruption. 5. And so it was that two marvels came to pass at once, that the death of all was accomplished in the Lord’s body, and that death and corruption were wholly done away by reason of the Word that was united with it. For there was need of death, and death must needs be suffered on behalf of all, that the debt owing from all might be paid.




Section 22
But this did not shew weakness on the Word’s part, but, on the contrary, shewed Him to be Saviour and Life; in that He both awaited death to destroy it, and hasted to accomplish the death offered Him for the salvation of all

 

[Salesian]

How about St. Ambrose of Milan and/or St. Athanasius (since he was actually there). Tell you what, by Friday, I'll have some related quotes.

QUOTE]

St. Ambrose of Milan, Letter 72 to Constantius

9. Until, therefore, this price should have been paid for all men which by the shedding of the Lords Blood had to be so paid for the absolution of all, the blood of every man, who, by the Law and solemn custom were to follow the precepts of holy religion, was required. But, since one Lord Christ suffered, seeing that the ransom is now paid for all, there is now no longer any need that the blood of every man one by one should be shed by circumcision, for in the Blood of Christ the circumcision of all has been solemnized, and in His Cross we are all crucified together with Him, and buried in His sepulchre, and planted together in the likeness of His death, that henceforth we should not serve sin: for he that is dead, is free from sin.
____________________________________________________
Would you not agree, what's in bold, is pretty clearly a reference to Romans 6....

Note how St. Ambrose speaks of Holy Baptism in just one quote I'm picking out of many, from "Concerning the Mysteries" Chapter 3, following paragraphs:
____________________________________________________
8. What did you see? Water, certainly, but not water alone; you saw the deacons ministering there, and the bishop asking questions and hallowing. First of all, the Apostle taught you that those things are not to be considered "which we see, but the things which are not seen, for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal."6 For you read elsewhere: "That the invisible things of God, since the creation of the world, are understood through those things which have been made; His eternal power also and Godhead are estimated by His works."7 Wherefore also the Lord Himself says: "If ye believe not Me, believe at least the works."8 Believe, then, that the presence of the Godhead is there. Do you believe the working, and not believe the presence? Whence should the working proceed unless the presence went before?

9. Consider, however, how ancient is the mystery prefigured even in the origin of the world itself. In the very beginning, when God made the heaven and the earth, "the Spirit," it is said, "moved upon the waters."9 He Who was moving upon the waters, was He not working upon the waters? But why should I say, "working"? As regards His presence He was moving. Was He not working Who was moving? Recognize that He was working in that making of the world, when the prophet says: "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all their strength by the spirit of His mouth."10 Each statement rests upon the testimony of the prophet, both that He was moving and that He was working. Moses says that He was moving, David testifies that he was working.

10. Take another testimony. All flesh was corrupt by its iniquities. "My Spirit," says God, "shall not remain among men, because they are flesh."11 Whereby God shows that the grace of the Spirit is turned away by carnal impurity and the pollution of grave sin. Upon which, God, willing to restore what was lacking, sent the flood and bade just Noah go up into the ark. And he, after having, as the flood was passing off, sent forth first a raven which did not return, sent forth a dove which is said to have returned with an olive twig.12 You see the water, you see the wood [of the ark], you see the dove, and do you hesitate as to the mystery?

11. The water, then, is that in which the flesh is dipped, that all carnal sin may be washed away. All wickedness is there buried. The wood is that on which the Lord Jesus was fastened when He suffered for us. The dove is that in the form of which the Holy Spirit descended, as you have read in the New Testament, Who inspires in you peace of soul and tranquillity of mind. The raven is the figure of sin, which goes forth and does not return, if, in you, too, inwardly and outwardly righteousness be preserved.

__________________________________________________________
Is that not awesome!!! I mean, wow, when I first read that in the University Library basement 3 or so years ago, I was captivated by the Church Father's insight into Scripture. But that's just me.....