Why the Protestant view of the Cross is wrong.

[MoreCoffee]

i disagree.

Obviously.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
i disagree.

Obviously.

That's no surprize, is it?

What statements in R.C. Sproul's video did you find repugnant?

 

[MoreCoffee]

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​

That's no surprize, is it?

What statements in R.C. Sproul's video did you find repugnant?

See my post above.

 

[Thekla]

Then His Word needs to be spoken more.

Yes, they do.

But that does not mean we understand them in the same way, as this thread shows.

 

[brinny]

See my post above.

Did you watch the video you posted? What statements that RC Sproul said, did you find repugnant?

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
Then His Word needs to be spoken more.

Yes, they do.

But that does not mean we understand them in the same way, as this thread shows.

His Word speaks for itself. It needs no help from man. The Holy Spirit works it into our hearts, minds, and spirits.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Did you watch the video you posted? What statements that RC Sproul said, did you find repugnant?

Yes.

I do not intend to watch it again so that I can transcribe his comments.

 

[prov1810]

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.
​

The Father and the Son are not at odds. They have the same concept of justice, and the same love for the people they saved. The Father did not hate the Son: "The Father loves Me because I lay down my life" (Jn 10:17). I want to add that the cross did not make God loving. Love is the reason for the cross: "For God so loved the world." There are about a half dozen places in the NT where love is given as the reason for the atonement.

It was the Father's will that the cup of suffering would not pass from Jesus (Matt. 26:39) and Jesus said, "as You will." Think about that. The Father willed the Son to suffer. This isn't kindness. Making someone suffer, this is treating someone like an enemy. Obviously, Jesus wasn't being hurt by the Father for His own sins. It was for ours.

 

[Thekla]

His Word speaks for itself. It needs no help from man. The Holy Spirit works it into our hearts, minds, and spirits.

He does, I agree.

There are different understandings of these verses.

So either there are different hearings, and different ways of expressing, or different translations, or different steps on the path of understanding.

None of us can understand perfectly, of course, as Paul points out. And because it is a journey, and steps on the journey (again, Paul's "running the race", and Peter's teaching on adding virtue to virtue)) then maybe this is what happens...

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
Did you watch the video you posted? What statements that RC Sproul said, did you find repugnant?

Yes.

I do not intend to watch it again so that I can transcribe his comments.

you mentioned several of his statements as repugnant to you. No need to watch it again if you watched it already. What RC Sproul's statements were you referring to? If they were that repugnant you'd remember them.

 

[MoreCoffee]

you mentioned several of his statements as repugnant to you. No need to watch it again if you watched it already. What RC Sproul's statements were you referring to? If they were that repugnant you'd remember them.

See the posts where I explained the matter - twice so far.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Father and the Son are not at odds. They have the same concept of justice, and the same love for the people they saved. The Father did not hate the Son: "The Father loves Me because I lay down my life" (Jn 10:17). I want to add that the cross did not make God loving. Love is the reason for the cross: "For God so loved the world." There are about a half dozen places in the NT where love is given as the reason for the atonement.

It was the Father's will that the cup of suffering would not pass from Jesus (Matt. 26:39) and Jesus said, "as You will." Think about that. The Father willed the Son to suffer. This isn't kindness. Making someone suffer, this is treating someone like an enemy. Obviously, Jesus wasn't being hurt by the Father for His own sins. It was for ours.

A am able to agree with your first paragraph and unable to agree with the second for the reasons stated in the post that you quoted.

 

[ChristianLife08]

Well, it isn't THE biblical teaching. It is ONE way that biblical data is interpreted.

No my friend. Scripture interprets itself. Either way, I referenced. I encourage you to openly study the verses.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by MoreCoffee
Well, it isn't THE biblical teaching. It is ONE way that biblical data is interpreted.

No my friend. Scripture interprets itself. Either way, I referenced. I encourage you to openly study the verses.

i concur.

 

[ChristianLife08]

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

besides your very last sentence. there's no difference between reformed and the catholic. it's sad how you are purposefully attempting to point a division. when even before the reformers/the RCC, the ECF taught on PSA.

 

[MoreCoffee]

besides your very last sentence. there's no difference between reformed and the catholic. it's sad how you are purposefully attempting to point a division. when even before the reformers/the RCC, the ECF taught on PSA.

Click the link in my post. The one you quoted.

 

[ChristianLife08]

Yes, and most - if not all - Christians on CF say (and believe) the same.

So, the water that Christians "swim in" will also influence the way they understand things.

This idea, the one that CatholicDude is discussing, is a relatively recent but widespread understanding (in the west, really).

Those who have not understood the Holy Scriptures in this way also we adhering to God's word, and His Word (Jesus Christ).

no my friend. not recent at all. only revived.

 

[ChristianLife08]

Click the link in my post. The one you quoted.

ok. My point stands. and the concept of "the elect" is not in universal agreement my friend. lets stay on topic with just PSA. I have referenced scripture

 

[Clare73]

It's not about a google search of theories.

It's about Ro 3:25-26:

Provide answers to the questions below on Ro 3:25-26 which are consistent with the text and the rest of Scripture,
then we'll go from there.

"God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of propitiation (atonement) (4,5) through faith in his blood (6).

He did this to demonstrate his justice (3), because in his forbearance he had passed over (1,2)

(left unpunished) the sins committed beforehand (OT)--he did it to demonstrate his justice (3)

at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies (7)." (Ro 3:25-26)

1) What did God "pass over" the sins committed beforehand (OT)?

2) The "what passed over" consisted precisely of?

3) How did the "what passed over" demonstrate God's justice?

4) For what did Jesus' sacrificial death atone?

5) How does Jesus' sacrificial death atone (make reparation, amends) for it?

6) What is the connection between his atonement and my faith in it (his blood)?

7) How is God both just and the one who justifies?

I think his point was not about "google search" per se, but that the Scriptures can be read/understood differently.

Historically, "penal substitutionary atonement" is a relatively "recent read" (being about 400-500 years old).

Ro 3:25-26 has been in Scripture for 2,000 years.

Perhaps you would like to answer the questions on it above.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Ro 3:25-26 has been in Scripture for 2,000 years.

Perhaps you would like to answer the questions on it.

... For there is no distinction, since 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. (Romans 3:22-26)

Exactly how does that passage teach penal substitutionary atonement?

I do not see it.

Jesus' death is described as a sacrifice for atonement but not as receiving divine punishment for sins nor as receiving God's wrath.

Since Jesus willingly went to the cross out of love for humanity there seems to be no support for PSA in the passage.