MoreCoffee
Repentance works.
- Jan 8, 2011
- 29,860
- 2,841
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
i disagree.
Originally Posted by brinny
i disagree.
Obviously.
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 Christs 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?
Then His Word needs to be spoken more.
See my post above.
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.
Did you watch the video you posted? What statements that RC Sproul said, did you find repugnant?
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 Christs 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.
His Word speaks for itself. It needs no help from man. The Holy Spirit works it into our hearts, minds, and spirits.
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.
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.
Well, it isn't THE biblical teaching. It is ONE way that biblical data is interpreted.
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.
Here's an illustration that gives some insight into the difference between Catholic and Calvinistic views of the atonement
"The Catholic conception of Christs 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.
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).
Click the link in my post. The one you quoted.
Ro 3:25-26 has been in Scripture for 2,000 years.I think his point was not about "google search" per se, but that the Scriptures can be read/understood differently.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?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?