Why the Protestant view of the Cross is wrong.

prov1810 · May 26, 2013

Catholic Dude said:
That's why I go back to the fact I've examined the Scriptural term "atonement" where as most people (including Reformed theologians) have not. This is precisely why you don't see Protestants appealing to examples like Moses, Aaron, and Phinehas, all of whom made atonement (turning away God's wrath), and were clearly types of Christ.

This is just hugely wrong. We see the theology of types of Christ in centuries of Protestant exegesis, Calvinist and Arminian.

The priests were appointed ambassadors to reconcile God to the people; and this in the person of Christ, who is the only sufficient surety of Gods grace and blessing. Inasmuch, therefore, as they then were types of Christ, they were commanded to bless the people. --Harmony of the Law, John Calvin.

The Reformed dilemma comes out the most when we examine the Crucifixion accounts in the Gospels. All those accounts show is Jesus being tortured and physically put to death on a Cross by wicked men. The Reformed must say (and have) that the physical sufferings Jesus endured were nothing compared to the 'invisible' pains that God the Father was inflicting on Jesus in the mean time. So the physical sufferings of Jesus were essentially incidental, since the real suffering was spiritual, invisibly taking place when all eyes were on the nails and blood. And that's why, in sheer desperation, the Reformed scholars cling with all their might to "My God, why have you abandoned me" since they're desperately grasping at whatever straws they can to support a claim that's clearly absent from a plain reading of the crucifixion accounts.

Not sheer desperation (what dramatic language) and it's not absent from the text - it's there, you just interpret it differently.

More drama:

This reveals a serious error of Protestant theology as a whole, because Protestant theology cannot explain human (especially Christian) suffering. The logic is, suffering must mean God is mad at me. And when the Christian believes Jesus took that punishment, then God shouldn't be mad at them, and so they freak out when suffering hits them.

They "freak out"? You mean they sweat blood?

Two huge groups of people (Protestant and Catholic) dispersed over the globe, diverse in age and education and culture and everything else, and one of them is temperamentally inferior? The claim is arrogant and fatuous.

So you have two options here, either abandon you claim that "making someone suffer means treating someone like an enemy," and thus abandon your overall argument that Jesus suffering entails the Father treating Him like an enemy, or else maintain that and leave unexplained the sufferings of Job and Christians.

Jesus became a curse for us (Gal.3:13) and was therefore treated like an enemy. Suffering is a result of Original Sin. Suffering is not always a penalty for personal wrongdoing, but the inherited weakness is the result of sin and it's a symptom of alienation from God. And yet, as the author of Hebrews pointed out, we have a High Priest who understands our weaknesses.

In fact, I'll up the ante here by showing you a plain example how Reformed scholars have failed you when they point to the "cup" that Jesus must drink. Look at Mark 10:
37 And they said to him, Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory. 38 Jesus said to them, You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized? 39 And they said to him, We are able. And Jesus said to them, The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, 40 but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.

If this is the "cup of God's wrath," then this verse becomes unintelligible. It means Jesus will drink the wrath and the apostles will drink the wrath, completely contradicting PSub. Rather, what this "cup" is is simply the cup of persecution and suffering, which God is granting to bring about some good. And just as if was the Father's will that the cup would not pass from Jesus, so to it was the Father's will that the cup would not pass from the Apostles (who were martyred for the Gospel).

Both Jesus and the martyrs were persecuted but Jesus' suffering was obviously unique in its redemptive value. We are not saved by the martyrs. Protestants are perfectly capable of seeing the difference here.

Catholic Dude · May 28, 2013

bornofGod888 said:
I usually expound upon things myself, but in this case I'll just provide you with the commentary of others:

Leviticus 1:4 You are to lay your hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on your behalf to make atonement for you.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 4. - And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering. This putting, or forcibly leaning, the hand on the victim's head, which is the most essential part of the oblation of the victim, was a symbolical act implying "This animal is now for present purposes myself, and its life is my life." It was this act of identification with the offerer which made it be accepted for him to make atonement (literally, covering) for him...

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

... Moreover, this action signified the transferring of his sins from himself to this sacrifice, which was to be offered up to make atonement for them...

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

4. shall put his hand upon the headThis was a significant act which implied not only that the offerer devoted the animal to God, but that he confessed his consciousness of sin and prayed that his guilt and its punishment might be transferred to the victim.and it shall berather, "that it may be an acceptable atonement."

This is very wrong because it assumes what it's trying to prove. The "laying hands on head and slaughter" language is about dedicating the offering to God, but has nothing to do with transferring sin/guilt/punishment. This can be shown a few ways. First, the Peace Offering of Leviticus 3:1-2 had nothing to do with sin/guilt/atonement, and yet the same instructions were given to lay-hands-on-head-and-kill.
And look at Leviticus 12:

6 And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering, 7 and he shall offer it before the Lord and make atonement for her. Then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female.

So when a woman bore a child, this was such a monstrous sin in God's sight, that God demanded two animals suffer the death penalty? That cannot be! There was no sin/guilt to transfer to the animal here.

Clare73 said:
Your grand sweeping statements regarding Scripture betray your unfamiliarity with them.
It's hard to imagine that you do not understand the plain meaning of Is 53:4-5:

"Surely he took up our infirmities (sins),
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.

What does this have to do with Penal Substitution?
Where is God's wrath being poured out on Jesus here?

Isa 53:5 is a good place to start.
"the punishment that brought us peace (with God) was upon him."

The Hebrew word here isn't "punishment," but rather "chastisement." You're quoting an bad translation.

prov1810 said:
This is just hugely wrong. We see the theology of types of Christ in centuries of Protestant exegesis, Calvinist and Arminian.

But they don't apply it properly/consistently. They don't answer how were Moses, Aaron, and Phinehas able to make atonement without having the punishment/wrath re-directed onto a substitute.

Not sheer desperation (what dramatic language) and it's not absent from the text - it's there, you just interpret it differently.

The problem is, when you say "it's there," the truth is it really isn't. The best example of this is how Jesus' quoting of Psalm 22 is completely misunderstood.

They "freak out"? You mean they sweat blood?

No, they just go into a panic and have inner turmoil since they cannot understand why God would have them suffer.

Two huge groups of people (Protestant and Catholic) dispersed over the globe, diverse in age and education and culture and everything else, and one of them is temperamentally inferior? The claim is arrogant and fatuous.

I'm not talking of people specifically, but rather ideologies/theologies.

Jesus became a curse for us (Gal.3:13) and was therefore treated like an enemy.

But does being treated badly automatically entail God's wrath? If you say yes, then you cannot explain Job and Christians.

Suffering is not always a penalty for personal wrongdoing, but the inherited weakness is the result of sin and it's a symptom of alienation from God. And yet, as the author of Hebrews pointed out, we have a High Priest who understands our weaknesses.

Agreed. And that's why the whole idea that just because Jesus suffered then we should/could assume God's wrath is fallacious.

Both Jesus and the martyrs were persecuted but Jesus' suffering was obviously unique in its redemptive value. We are not saved by the martyrs.

Again, agreed. I'm not trying to say the redemptive value is the same, only that persecution doesn't in any way prove or demand God's wrath.

prov1810 · May 28, 2013

Catholic Dude said:
I'm not talking of people specifically, but rather ideologies/theologies.

So, you meant to say that ideas freak out when they suffer? Well, that's an interesting defense, in a Platonist-reification-of-ideas kind of way [/sarcasm].

And that's why the whole idea that just because Jesus suffered then we should/could assume God's wrath is fallacious.

(1 Pet. 3:18) For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit.

The fact that Jesus suffered for the unjust was obviously God-intended. When Jesus accepted the cup of suffering at Gethsemane, that suffering was not meant for Jesus' benefit, to make Him grow in the virtue of patience or courage. That suffering was for our benefit. And that suffering was from the Father: "As You will".

CatholicDude, do you believe that Jesus accomplished our salvation? If so, how?

MoreCoffee · May 28, 2013

LST 1154 said:
I will help Brinny out.

Isa 53:4-6, 10, 11"Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all ... It was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin ... By his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities."

Romans 3:23-26 "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus."

2 Cor 5:21 "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

Gal 3:10, 13 "All who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, 'Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them.' ... Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us - for it is written, 'Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree.'"

1 Peter 2:24 "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness."

1 Peter 3:18 "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God."

LST

Lovely verses.

True and comforting.

Not one of them says what brinny said.

When folk, such as brinny, make claims but fail to back them up after being asked to many times we ought to just move on.

Knowing that the claims made were false.

It is simple.

Catholic Dude · May 28, 2013

prov1810 said:
(1 Pet. 3:18) For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit.

The fact that Jesus suffered for the unjust was obviously God-intended.

Agreed. Jesus' suffering for the unjust was neither unforeseen nor unintended. The key here is that "for" doesn't mean "in place of," but rather "on behalf of." Look at Romans 5 to bring out this distinction:

6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous personthough perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Notice the often forgotten about verse 7, which speaks of how at times in history a person has "died for a righteous person" and "died for a good person". This makes no sense if someone was taking the punishment due to a righteous man, since the righteous/good man isn't deserving of punishment in the first place. Thus, to "die for" does not mean the judge transfers the electric chair from the righteous man and places you in the electric chair instead. Rather, it means a person puts their life on the line, even dies, on behalf of another. This "die for" is similar to what Firemen, Policemen, and Soldiers do for their country.

The whole point that Paul and Peter are making that Jesus "died for" the ungodly was that it goes completely against human wisdom to lay down your life for someone who is unworthy.

When Jesus accepted the cup of suffering at Gethsemane, that suffering was not meant for Jesus' benefit, to make Him grow in the virtue of patience or courage. That suffering was for our benefit. And that suffering was from the Father: "As You will".

It was both for His benefit and for our benefit:

Hebrews 5: 7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. 9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him

CatholicDude, do you believe that Jesus accomplished our salvation? If so, how?

Yes, Jesus died for our sins, He made atonement for them, propitiated the Father's wrath. The only hang-up which isn't being understood was that this had nothing to do with Jesus undergoing the Father's wrath. It was about Jesus offering UP (not wrath showering DOWN) his prayers, love, and obedience, which was of infinite meritorious value in God's sight. That's what made atonement, and that's why Moses, Aaaron, and Phinehas were all types of Christ, for they turned away God's wrath in analogous fashion.

def · May 29, 2013

Catholic Dude said:
Yes, Jesus died for our sins, He made atonement for them, propitiated the Father's wrath. The only hang-up which isn't being understood was that this had nothing to do with Jesus undergoing the Father's wrath. It was about Jesus offering UP (not wrath showering DOWN) his prayers, love, and obedience, which was of infinite meritorious value in God's sight. That's what made atonement, and that's why Moses, Aaaron, and Phinehas were all types of Christ, for they turned away God's wrath in analogous fashion.

"Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29).
Individual sins cannot be sin of the world. This is Adam's sin. By his death and resurrection, Jesus took away the sin of the world.

Individual sins are forgiven when one enters into the New Covenant with God (Jer 31:34) - for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Albion · May 29, 2013

def said:
"Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29).
Individual sins cannot be sin of the world.

Don't you really think that means sin (not sins) which is the condition of men everywhere, i.e. worldwide? Everyone else does.

Cribstyl · May 29, 2013

MoreCoffee said:
Lovely verses.

True and comforting.

Not one of them says what brinny said.

When folk, such as brinny, make claims but fail to back them up after being asked to many times we ought to just move on.

Knowing that the claims made were false.

It is simple.

On the contrary Brinny never claimed that her statement was direct quotes of scripture. After reading it...I understand and agree with her statement. Why dont you identify what she said was false? She said;

Jesus was sent to be the lamb of God, to be sacrificed for our sins.

Our sins were put on the sinless Jesus.

He paid the price once and for all for our sins.

God DID turn His face from Him. Jesus cried out asking why God had forsaken Him.

It happened.
It is written.
It's written in His Word.
God's wrath was on Jesus.
Jesus absorbed it so that we wouldn't.
Seriously. God wouldn't lie.

These appears to be biblical truths, they might not be catholic truths.
Highlight what you claim are false and (post scriptures if you have it) we will post scriptures that gives the understanding.

LittleLambofJesus · May 29, 2013

Cribstyl said:
On the contrary Brinny never claimed that her statement was direct quotes of scripture. After reading it...I understand and agree with her statement. Why dont you identify what she said was false? She said;

Jesus was sent to be the lamb of God, to be sacrificed for our sins.

Our sins were put on the sinless Jesus.

He paid the price once and for all for our sins.

God DID turn His face from Him. Jesus cried out asking why God had forsaken Him.

It happened.
It is written.
It's written in His Word.
God's wrath was on Jesus.
Jesus absorbed it so that we wouldn't.
Seriously. God wouldn't lie.

Click to expand...

These appears to be biblical truths, they might not be catholic truths.
Highlight what you claim are false and (post scriptures if you have it) we will post scriptures that gives the understanding.

Didn't His wrath come upon the Jewish people, Jerusalem and it's temple later in AD 70?

Luke 21:23
"But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days!
For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people.

The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD

The Destruction Of
JERUSALEM
An Absolute and Irresistible
PROOF OF THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF
CHRISTIANITY:

Cribstyl · May 29, 2013

LittleLambofJesus said:
Didn't His wrath come upon the Jewish people, Jerusalem and it's temple later in AD 70?

Rom 1:18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Rom 2:5But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

Rom 5:9Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

1Th 1:10And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, [even] Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

Rev 6:17For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

The wrath to worry about is the day of judgment. Salvation is from the great day of wrath to come at the end of time.
I'm sure you know this stuff LLOJ.

MoreCoffee · May 29, 2013

LittleLambofJesus said:
Didn't His wrath come upon the Jewish people, Jerusalem and it's temple later in AD 70?

That's one aspect of the error in brinny's claims.

brinny · May 29, 2013

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus
Didn't His wrath come upon the Jewish people, Jerusalem and it's temple later in AD 70?

MoreCoffee said:
That's one aspect of the error in brinny's claims.

You talkin' 'bout me Coffee? i feel flattered

but i never claimed any such thing.

MoreCoffee · May 29, 2013

def said:
"Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29).
Individual sins cannot be sin of the world. This is Adam's sin. By his death and resurrection, Jesus took away the sin of the world.

Individual sins are forgiven when one enters into the New Covenant with God (Jer 31:34) - for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

The world cannot sin. The world is an abstract concept and concepts do not sin. "The sin of the world" is a circumlocution for 'everybody's sins'.

The next day, he saw Jesus coming towards him and said, 'Look, there is the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. It was of him that I said, "Behind me comes one who has passed ahead of me because he existed before me." I did not know him myself, and yet my purpose in coming to baptise with water was so that he might be revealed to Israel.' And John declared, 'I saw the Spirit come down on him like a dove from heaven and rest on him. I did not know him myself, but he who sent me to baptise with water had said to me, "The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and rest is the one who is to baptise with the Holy Spirit." I have seen and I testify that he is the Chosen One of God.' (John 1:29-34)

brinny · May 29, 2013

Originally Posted by def
"Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29).
Individual sins cannot be sin of the world. This is Adam's sin. By his death and resurrection, Jesus took away the sin of the world.

Individual sins are forgiven when one enters into the New Covenant with God (Jer 31:34) - for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

MoreCoffee said:
The world cannot sin. The world is an abstract concept and concepts do not sin. "The sin of the world" is a circumlocution for 'everybody's sins'.

The next day, he saw Jesus coming towards him and said, 'Look, there is the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. It was of him that I said, "Behind me comes one who has passed ahead of me because he existed before me." I did not know him myself, and yet my purpose in coming to baptise with water was so that he might be revealed to Israel.' And John declared, 'I saw the Spirit come down on him like a dove from heaven and rest on him. I did not know him myself, but he who sent me to baptise with water had said to me, "The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and rest is the one who is to baptise with the Holy Spirit." I have seen and I testify that he is the Chosen One of God.' (John 1:29-34)

You're entitled to disagree. You have a right to express your own opinion, regardless if anyone agrees with you, cuz i don't but we still wuv's ya Coffee.

Cribstyl · May 29, 2013

MoreCoffee said:
The world cannot sin. The world is an abstract concept and concepts do not sin. "The sin of the world" is a circumlocution for 'everybody's sins'.

The next day, he saw Jesus coming towards him and said, 'Look, there is the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. It was of him that I said, "Behind me comes one who has passed ahead of me because he existed before me." I did not know him myself, and yet my purpose in coming to baptise with water was so that he might be revealed to Israel.' And John declared, 'I saw the Spirit come down on him like a dove from heaven and rest on him. I did not know him myself, but he who sent me to baptise with water had said to me, "The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and rest is the one who is to baptise with the Holy Spirit." I have seen and I testify that he is the Chosen One of God.' (John 1:29-34)

Correct the bible then............
ESV - 1Jo 2:2 -He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

MoreCoffee · May 29, 2013

Cribstyl said:
MoreCoffee said:

The world cannot sin. The world is an abstract concept and concepts do not sin. "The sin of the world" is a circumlocution for 'everybody's sins'.

The next day, he saw Jesus coming towards him and said, 'Look, there is the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. It was of him that I said, "Behind me comes one who has passed ahead of me because he existed before me." I did not know him myself, and yet my purpose in coming to baptise with water was so that he might be revealed to Israel.' And John declared, 'I saw the Spirit come down on him like a dove from heaven and rest on him. I did not know him myself, but he who sent me to baptise with water had said to me, "The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and rest is the one who is to baptise with the Holy Spirit." I have seen and I testify that he is the Chosen One of God.' (John 1:29-34)

Click to expand...

Correct the bible then............
ESV - 1Jo 2:2 -He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Correct?

The sins of the whole world is a circumlocution for "everybody's sins".

Why do you want it to be corrected?

brinny · May 29, 2013

MoreCoffee said:
Correct?

The sins of the whole world is a circumlocution for "everybody's sins".

Why do you want it to be corrected?

Ummm...it appears you are "correcting" the Bible in your post. But we still wuv's you Coffee even if it appears you are contradicting the Bible or challenging God on His Word. Huggggz!

def · May 29, 2013

Cribstyl said:
Correct the bible then............
ESV - 1Jo 2:2 -He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 2:1 is addressed to children of God, the New Covenant people. This chapter encourages believers not to sin. However, if we do sin, Jesus is the advocate, i.e. deals favourably on our behalf. As a High Priest he makes reconciliation for our sins (Hebrews 2:17); which is v2.2 - propitiation for our sins.

Reconciliation (propitiation) for sins is for Covenant people. It is a Covenant promise (Jer 31:34).

Rick Otto · May 29, 2013

MoreCoffee said:
Correct?

The sins of the whole world is a circumlocution for "everybody's sins".

Why do you want it to be corrected?

Maybe so, but it was also serving as a contrast to "only the sins of Israel" at the time.

def · May 29, 2013

MoreCoffee said:
The world cannot sin. The world is an abstract concept and concepts do not sin. "The sin of the world" is a circumlocution for 'everybody's sins'.

The next day, he saw Jesus coming towards him and said, 'Look, there is the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. It was of him that I said, "Behind me comes one who has passed ahead of me because he existed before me." I did not know him myself, and yet my purpose in coming to baptise with water was so that he might be revealed to Israel.' And John declared, 'I saw the Spirit come down on him like a dove from heaven and rest on him. I did not know him myself, but he who sent me to baptise with water had said to me, "The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and rest is the one who is to baptise with the Holy Spirit." I have seen and I testify that he is the Chosen One of God.' (John 1:29-34)

John used sin and sins in his book. He could have used sins of the world and remove any ambiquity. Paul describes the sin of the world. Romans 5:12 Therefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Jesus death remove (take away) the sin of the world. Since then the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; (Heb 2:14).

Jesus also has the ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor 5:18). This is the propitiation for sins (Romans 3:25).

Why the Protestant view of the Cross is wrong.

prov1810

Guest

.

prov1810

Guest

Repentance works.

.

Member

Facilitator

Veteran

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Veteran

Repentance works.

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places

Repentance works.

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places

Veteran

Repentance works.

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places

Member

The Dude Abides

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency