Why the Protestant view of the Cross is wrong.

[Clare73]

You're just repeating yourself now, Clare73.

As you are repeating your non-responses.

Non-responsive. . .again.

In the absence ([post=63164645]here[/post]) of an adequate explanation of the meaning of Ro 3:25-26 consistent with the text and the rest of Scripture (as done [post=63167342]here[/post]), you are in no position to assert that the Scriptures do not present penal substitutionary atonement.

That assertion is made in ignorance of the meaning of Ro 3:25-26, which presents penal substitutionary atonement.

So this is not about defending the Scriptures, this is about defending your theology, which you cannot show to be in agreement with the Scriptures.

Ergo: The "Protestant view" of the cross is not wrong, because it is the Scriptural view.

Q.E.D. . .again.

 

[pizza steak]

I am newly baptized and have just began my journey with and to God.

I have a question regarding this penal substitutionary atonement theology. Please take it as an innocent inquire, not an attempted undermining.

From what I've come to understand, PSA theology diverts from classic Catholic theology of atonement in that it depicts the death of Christ as a form of diverting the anger of God for our sin from us to Jesus. And so, rather than seeing the Cross as an offering of love by Jesus/God, it is seen as an offering that paid the price to divert justifable punishment from men to Jesus. Please correct me if I misunderstand.

So my question is about the implications of PSA. If Jesus and God are the same substance, and God directed his wrath at Jesus for bearing our sins, does that mean Jesus is not part of the Trinity? Is he "lesser" than God? Or does PSA not see the idea that God directed anger at himself as paradoxical?

Again, I'm asking innocently, because in reading this thread, there seems to be a lot of anger.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

*Subscribing

 

[Catholic Dude]

As you are repeating your non-responses.

Non-responsive. . .again.

In the absence (here) of an adequate explanation of the meaning of Ro 3:25-26 consistent with the text and the rest of Scripture (as done here), you are in no position to assert that the Scriptures do not present penal substitutionary atonement.

That assertion is made in ignorance of the meaning of Ro 3:25-26, which presents penal substitutionary atonement.

So this is not about defending the Scriptures, this is about defending your theology, which you cannot show to be in agreement with the Scriptures.

Ergo: The "Protestant view" of the cross is not wrong, because it is the Scriptural view.

Q.E.D. . .again.

Ridiculous. You just repeat yourself and that's why after trying to get through to you twice I stopped. You're projecting way too much on Rom 3:25, all based on a faulty pre-existing misunderstanding of the Biblical term "Atonement".

Your view cannot explain texts like Leviticus 12:6-7 where a woman has to sacrifice two animals after giving birth, making atonement, which makes no sense if this is about Penal Substitution since giving birth isn't a sin and certainly not deserving of the death penalty.

 

[bling]

Your view cannot explain texts like Leviticus 12:6-7 where a woman has to sacrifice two animals after giving birth, making atonement, which makes no sense if this is about Penal Substitution since giving birth isn't a sin and certainly not deserving of the death penalty.

This is all very good, but I asked earlier:


The “link” given in the OP is only against the idea of Penal Substitution and said: “…popularly called "Satisfaction," which will hopefully be covered in a future post.”


So can you explain your understanding of the: “Satisfaction theory of Atonement”?


I have no problem with what all you see as the problems with Penal Substitution, which is not exclusive to any one group.


Why is the satisfaction theory not also a substitution?

 

[Rev Randy]

This is all very good, but I asked earlier:


The “link” given in the OP is only against the idea of Penal Substitution and said: “…popularly called "Satisfaction," which will hopefully be covered in a future post.”


So can you explain your understanding of the: “Satisfaction theory of Atonement”?


I have no problem with what all you see as the problems with Penal Substitution, which is not exclusive to any one group.


Why is the satisfaction theory not also a substitution?

One is takiing our punishment. The other is payment in full.

 

[bling]

One is takiing our punishment. The other is payment in full.

Not seeing how this works, please just address the satisfaction idea?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Folk can believe the Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) theory but to do so does raise questions about what sort of being God is and what kind of justice God represents.

In an earlier post I included some issues raised by PSA that have not really been answered by those who support this theory.

Here's an illustration that gives some insight into the difference between Catholic and Calvinistic views of the atonement

"The Catholic conception of Christ’s Passion and Atonement is that Christ offered Himself up in self-sacrificial love to the Father, obedient even unto death, for the sins of all men. In His human will He offered to God a sacrifice of love that was more pleasing to the Father than the combined sins of all men of all time are displeasing to Him, and thus made satisfaction for our sins. The Father was never angry with Christ. Nor did the Father pour out His wrath on the Son." -- Catholic and Reformed Conceptions of the Atonement

Here are two problems with the view that R C Sproul expressed. I have taken them from the source I previously cited.

One problem with the Reformed conception is that it would either make the Father guilty of the greatest evil of all time (pouring out the punishment for all sin on an innocent man, knowing that he is innocent), or if Christ were truly guilty and deserved all that punishment, then His suffering would be of no benefit to us.

A second problem with the Reformed conception is the following dilemma. If God the Father was pouring out His wrath on the Second Person of the Trinity, then God was divided against Himself, God the Father hating His own Word. God could hate the Son only if the Son were another being, that is, if polytheism or Arianism were true. But if God loved the Son, then it must be another person (besides the Son) whom God was hating during Christ’s Passion. And hence that entails Nestorianism, i.e. that Christ was two persons, one divine and the other human. He loved the divine Son but hated the human Jesus. Hence the Reformed conception conflicts with the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. The Father and the Son cannot be at odds. If Christ loves men, then so does the Father. Or, if the Father has wrath for men, then so does Christ. And, if the Father has wrath for the Son, then the Son must have no less wrath for Himself. -- Catholic and Reformed Conceptions of the Atonement​

 

[Metal Minister]

Folk can believe the Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) theory but to do so does raise questions about what sort of being God is and what kind of justice God represents.

In an earlier post I included some issues raised by PSA that have not really been answered by those who support this theory.

*blind post*
Why are they mutually exclusive?

 

[MoreCoffee]

*blind post*
Why are they mutually exclusive?

Precisely what do you mean by "they"?

 

[Metal Minister]

Precisely what do you mean by "they"?

Both ideas. Why does the fact that God the Father poured His wrath (placed our sins) on Jesus (God the Son), exclude the idea that Jesus's(God the Son) love was so great that He took that punishment for us? I'd say they work together perfectly. God cannot tolerate sin, and yet loved us with unfathomable love. He cannot, not punish sin, so who better to accept the punishment and be able to forgive us fully than God?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Both ideas. Why does the fact that God the Father poured His wrath (placed our sins) on Jesus (God the Son)

Is that a fact?

I am not convinced that it is.

, exclude the idea that Jesus's(God the Son) love was so great that He took that punishment for us?

I am not so sure that "took the punishment for us" is exactly how it works. Especially if by that phrase you mean substituted for us.

I'd say they work together perfectly. God cannot tolerate sin, and yet loved us with unfathomable love. He cannot, not punish sin, so who better to accept the punishment and be able to forgive us fully than God?

It looks to me that your account of salvation is more about punishing sins and substituting the one to receive punishment than it is about opening the way for unrighteous people to be forgiven and empowering them to become righteous.

 

[Metal Minister]

Is that a fact?

I am not convinced that it is.

I am not so sure that "took the punishment for us" is exactly how it works. Especially if by that phrase you mean substituted for us.

It looks to me that your account of salvation is more about punishing sins and substituting the one to receive punishment than it is about opening the way for unrighteous people to be forgiven and empowering them to become righteous.

A good deal of supposition, but nothing to refute what I said. However, in His sacrifice, Jesus tore the veil. (Mark 15:38) and we see in John 3:36 that whoever rejects Christ is still under God's wrath. So as you can see both are accomplished. I think anything else limits God. It either limits His righteousness, and His holiness, or it limits His love and grace.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Both ideas. Why does the fact that God the Father poured His wrath (placed our sins) on Jesus (God the Son)

Is that a fact?

I am not convinced that it is.

, exclude the idea that Jesus's(God the Son) love was so great that He took that punishment for us?

I am not so sure that "took the punishment for us" is exactly how it works. Especially if by that phrase you mean substituted for us.

I'd say they work together perfectly. God cannot tolerate sin, and yet loved us with unfathomable love. He cannot, not punish sin, so who better to accept the punishment and be able to forgive us fully than God?

It looks to me that your account of salvation is more about punishing sins and substituting the one to receive punishment than it is about opening the way for unrighteous people to be forgiven and empowering them to become righteous.

A good deal of supposition, but nothing to refute what I said. However, in His sacrifice, Jesus tore the veil. (Mark 15:38) and we see in John 3:36 that whoever rejects Christ is still under God's wrath. So as you can see both are accomplished. I think anything else limits God. It either limits His righteousness, and His holiness, or it limits His love and grace.

Well, debate works this way.

The party arguing in favour of a claim has to prove it to be credible and, if possible, true.

The party arguing against the claim need only establish that no proof has been offered.

You're making some claims, specifically:

1. God poured out his wrath against sin onto Jesus Christ on the cross.
2. Jesus Christ took onto himself all the sins of all the people of the world.
3. The punishment for all those sins was poured out onto Jesus Christ because he had really and truly become the guilty party fully deserving of the punishment for all the sins ever sinned in the world.

My reply is, show where scripture says these things.

Not where scripture says something that can be construed as possibly meaning it. You need to show scripture unambiguously teaching it.

If you can't then you have failed to prove your claims to be true.

I reckon you will not be able to do it.

I also reckon that alternative perspectives about the nature of the atonement have much to recommend them.

My earlier posts point to some alternatives and to some of the problems inherent in the perspective you are advocating.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by MoreCoffee

Is that a fact?

I am not convinced that it is.

I am not so sure that "took the punishment for us" is exactly how it works. Especially if by that phrase you mean substituted for us.

It looks to me that your account of salvation is more about punishing sins and substituting the one to receive punishment than it is about opening the way for unrighteous people to be forgiven and empowering them to become righteous.
​

A good deal of supposition, but nothing to refute what I said. However, in His sacrifice, Jesus tore the veil. (Mark 15:38) and we see in John 3:36 that whoever rejects Christ is still under God's wrath. So as you can see both are accomplished. I think anything else limits God. It either limits His righteousness, and His holiness, or it limits His love and grace.

Weren't there 2 of them in the Sanctuary of the Temple?

Studies In The Scriptures - Tabernacle Shadows - Chapter 1

TABERNACLE SHADOWS
OF
THE BETTER SACRIFICES

The Camp--The Court--The Tabernacle--The Brazen Altar--The Laver-- The Table--The Lampstand--The Golden Altar--The Mercy Seat and Ark--The Gate--The First Veil--The Second Veil--The Significance of These and Their Antitypes.



.

 

[Clare73]

Ridiculous. . .You're projecting way too much on Rom 3:25, all based on a faulty pre-existing misunderstanding of the Biblical term "Atonement".

Your view cannot explain texts like Leviticus 12:6-7, where a woman has to sacrifice two animals after giving birth, making atonement, which makes no sense if this is about Penal Substitution since giving birth isn't a sin and certainly not deserving of the death penalty.

We're not talking about the use of "atonement" in Lev 12:6-7.

We're talking about its use in Ro 3:25-26, where the NT writers used the Greek hilasterion, the word used for "Mercy Seat" in the Greek translation of the OT (Septuagint, LXX).

That is the meaning of Christ's sacrifice of atonement in Ro 3:25-26, perhaps to whose origin and meaning
from my post, following, you would like to respond.

Never ever is atonement in Scripture described in terms of transferring punishment.

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 Isa 53:4-5, showing transference of our punishment onto Christ:

"Surely he took up our infirmities (sins),
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace (with God) was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed."

God made Christ the equivalent of the "mercy seat" that by faith in His blood, God's wrath might be held back.

Mercy Seat has meant "removal of sin by expiatory sacrifice" since the OT was translated into Greek 300 years before the birth of Christ.

The Jewish translators of the OT into the Greek (Septuagint, LXX) stated a propitiatory sacrifice in their translation of "Mercy Seat" into the Greek words hilasterion epithema.

Hilasterion epithema refers to the lid or cover of the Ark of the Covenant, called kapporeth in the Hebrew.

In the Hebrew it meant the covering of, or the removal of sin (Ps 32:1) by means of expiatory (animal) sacrifice, which they translated as epithema (cover) in the Greek.

They added hilasterion, which is an adjective signifying the propitiatory, translating Mercy Seat as hilasterion epithema.

Eventually, the Greek word hilasterion stood for both Greek words hilasterion and epithema (sacrificial propitiatory cover).

So the OT Hebrew kapporeth = Greek OT hilasterion epithema since ~300 years before the birth of Christ = Eng- lish NT sacrificial expiatory propitiation of Christ's atonement in Ro 3:25-26.

The meaning of "Mercy Seat" as "sacrificial expiatory propitiation" in Christ's atonement of Ro 3:25-26 is neither faulty nor new to the Greek Scriptures, having been its meaning since they originated.

It is faulty or new only to those who do not know the history of its translation, relying instead on the history of theology.

The NT has always presented Christ's atonement as a propitiatory sacrifice (Ro 3:25-26).

So "sacrificial expiatory propitiation" has been the NT meaning of Christ's "atonement" in Ro 3:25-26 since the Greek NT was written, being taken from the Greek OT (LXX), which was translated from the Hebrew ~300 years before the birth of Christ.

You are the one using a human definition of Christ's "atonement," instead of going back to its Jewish translators' meaning in kapporeth and hilasterion, which is "sacrificial expiatory (kapporeth) propitiation (hilasterion)."

You are the one desperately equating Christ's atonement of Ro 3:25-26 with Moses, Aaron and Phinehas, which equating is nowhere found in Scripture.

And finally, for a plain example in Scripture of punishment being transferred, Isa 53:5 is a good place to start.

"the punishment that brought us peace (with God) was upon him."

 

[Metal Minister]

Well, debate works this way.

The party arguing in favour of a claim has to prove it to be credible and, if possible, true.

The party arguing against the claim need only establish that no proof has been offered.

You're making some claims, specifically:

[*]God poured out his wrath against sin onto Jesus Christ on the cross.
[*]Jesus Christ took onto himself all the sins of all the people of the world.
[*]The punishment for all those sins was poured out onto Jesus Christ because he had really and truly become the guilty party fully deserving of the punishment for all the sins ever sinned in the world.


My reply is, show where scripture says these things.

Not where scripture says something that can be construed as possibly meaning it. You need to show scripture unambiguously teaching it.

If you can't then you have failed to prove your claims to be true.

I reckon you will not be able to do it.

I also reckon that alternative perspectives about the nature of the atonement have much to recommend them.

My earlier posts point to some alternatives and to some of the problems inherent in the perspective you are advocating.

Ok, then by extension, show me the scriptures that say mass, that say lent, and that say pope. Simply because you do not like a point of view (with scripture basis and backing) doesn't mean you get to dismiss it out of hand. You see when one makes a claim, the other side must show proof that claim is incorrect, not simply say it is because they don't like it.

 

[Clare73]

Folk can believe the Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) theory but to do so does raise questions about what sort of being God is and what kind of justice God represents.

That is simply human reason at work, measuring God by ourselves and expecting him to be like us, instead of taking him at the plain words of Ro 3:25-26, for which passage you have no explanation consistent with the text and the rest of Scripture (as shown [post=63164645]here[/post]).

 

[OpenDoor]

He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
Romans 4:25

 

[MoreCoffee]

Ok, then by extension, show me the scriptures that say mass, that say lent, and that say pope. Simply because you do not like a point of view (with scripture basis and backing) doesn't mean you get to dismiss it out of hand. You see when one makes a claim, the other side must show proof that claim is incorrect, not simply say it is because they don't like it.

Okay, you have conceded that the Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory is not explicitly taught in scripture.

That sums up the matter between us.

QED.

As for the new matters you have raised.

Start a new thread for them and see how it goes.