Why the Protestant view of the Cross is wrong.

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
Post God's Word to support your view. Thank you for sharing your opinion, as everyone has, however it is His Word that speaks for God, and just as Jesus quoted it in the desert with satan, so are we to quote it, for it IS powerful, and speaks for itself, cutting through even the soul and the spirit, and it accomplishes all that God sends it out to do.
Let His Word speak for itself. It surely will.

I did. Re-read the opening post. Re-read the second post. Re-read my various comments.

Please. Continue with His Word. It is His Word that is used powerfully by God, not opinions of man.

 

[Albion]

Any view of the Atonement can be compatible with *A* form of Salvation by Faith Alone....BUT the historic Lutheran-Calvinist version of Salvation by Faith Alone is based upon the PSub view.

It will work, too.

 

[Catholic Dude]

Please. Continue with His Word. It is His Word that is used powerfully by God, not opinions of man.

Thank you. I will do that.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by brinny

Please. Continue with His Word. It is His Word that is used powerfully by God, not opinions of man.
​

Thank you. I will do that.

God asked for nothing less from us



.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
Please. Continue with His Word. It is His Word that is used powerfully by God, not opinions of man.

Thank you. I will do that.

Thank you for your gracious response. I got all tangled up in GT today...again...i'm exhausted LOL

Your response is refreshing to me soul. Speaking of His Word, any words of encouragement to share?

 

[brinny]

O

riginally Posted by brinny
Please. Continue with His Word. It is His Word that is used powerfully by God, not opinions of man.

Originally Posted by Catholic Dude
Thank you. I will do that.

God asked for nothing less from us



.

Amen amigo

 

[Standing Up]

Originally Posted by Standing Up

Wrong. It was the same.

Deut. 21:23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged [is] accursed of God that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance.

So, Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree:

Cursed (verb). By God. Made a curse (noun). By God.

We were cursed (separated from God) by the Law. The penalty was death and being dead, hanging on the tree. Christ was made the curse and thus redeemed (paid the penalty of death, cursed, separated from God) us.
​

Catholic Dude: Curse here refers to a humiliating death. It does not refer to God's Wrath in the sense of a sinner suffering hellfire. In other words, he that is hanged is suffering a humiliating death.

SU: from blueletterbible 1) accursed, execrable, exposed to divine vengeance, lying under God's curse

It's not a humiliating death only. Curse is divine vengeance, hellfire if you will.

The sense of the Deut passage is this: `And when there is in a man a sin -- a cause of death, and he hath been put to death, and thou hast hanged him on a tree,"

IOW, the person is dead. And hung upon a tree already dead. He is cursed. Christ on the cross is already dead in a sense; why hast thou forsaken me?

 

[OpenDoor]

Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.
Isaiah 53:4-5

Question One- Is this a prophecy about Jesus?
Question Two- If yes, what was the punishment that brought us peace which was on him?

 

[OpenDoor]

Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.
Isaiah 53:10

1. Who did it please the LORD to bruise?
2. Did He put Him to grief?
3. Was His soul made an offering for sin?

 

[Hammster]

What's pretty much the Bible's teaching? Penal Substitution? If so, then kindly show a few texts plainly showing the Father poured His Wrath out on Jesus.

I'm curious to see if Protestants really are faithful to that Sola Scriptura thing

Blind post.

1 John 2:2.

God's wrath was satisfied.

Three things to remember.

1. Sin is an offense against God and is punishable.
2. Not everyone is punished for their sin.
3. The reason is the cross.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Any view of the Atonement can be compatible with *A* form of Salvation by Faith Alone....BUT the historic Lutheran-Calvinist version of Salvation by Faith Alone is based upon the PSub view. Though most Protestants don't know it, there are true versions and false versions of "Salvation by Faith Alone".

Penal Substitution arose within the Reformed tradition.

It's probably debatable to what extent the Lutheran Confessions espouse Penal Substitution, it would seem there are arguments on both sides. That said, it's safe to say that it is primarily, and historically, from the Reformed camp.

The Confessions do espouse Satisfaction, but again, whether or not that Satisfaction is placed within the context of Penal Substitution seems to be something that is debated.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Musky Hunter]

I believe both Catholics and Protestants will go to Heaven so no need to drag each other down!

God bless

 

[Catholic Dude]

SU: from blueletterbible 1) accursed, execrable, exposed to divine vengeance, lying under God's curse

It's not a humiliating death only. Curse is divine vengeance, hellfire if you will.

The term curse is not used to refer to hellfire, but rather human afflictions. You have to go back to the Old Testament texts to see this: "if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death" This refers to public execution and exposure.

IOW, the person is dead. And hung upon a tree already dead. He is cursed. Christ on the cross is already dead in a sense; why hast thou forsaken me?

If the person is dead when they're hung, then how does it even make sense to say an already dead person is suffering God's wrath? How is Christ "already dead"?

Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.
Isaiah 53:4-5

Question One- Is this a prophecy about Jesus?
Question Two- If yes, what was the punishment that brought us peace which was on him?

Question One, yes, it's a prophecy of Jesus:

Matthew 8: 16 That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick. 17 This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: “He took our illnesses and bore our diseases.”
​

So this had nothing to do with Jesus suffering the Father's wrath.

Question two, the term translated "punishment" in v5 is a bad translation by the NIV. All good translations properly translate the Hebrew word here as "Chastise." The notion of Chastisement is something that all Christians undergo as a form of Fatherly correction, it's not something that a judge imposes the death penalty on. (See how the Hebrew term Chastise is used throughout the OT and NT).

Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.
Isaiah 53:10

1. Who did it please the LORD to bruise?
2. Did He put Him to grief?
3. Was His soul made an offering for sin?

I addressed this earlier. The meaning is that the Father sent Jesus to suffer and die, and this suffering and death would act as an offering for sin.

Blind post.

1 John 2:2.

God's wrath was satisfied.

Three things to remember.

1. Sin is an offense against God and is punishable.
2. Not everyone is punished for their sin.
3. The reason is the cross.

The term propitiation in 1 Jn 2:2 refers to appeasing or turning away wrath. If a dad's wrath on his children is appeased or turned away, it does not mean the dad went and beat his wife with the punishment the children deserved. Rather, it means something was done so the wrath subsided and nobody was punished. If you go back to the first post there is a link explaining how the Biblical term Atonement is used in Scripture. It refers to someone doing a good work that offsets the damage that sin caused (e.g. Proverbs 16:6 says "through love and faithfulness sin is atoned for.")

Penal Substitution arose within the Reformed tradition.

It's probably debatable to what extent the Lutheran Confessions espouse Penal Substitution, it would seem there are arguments on both sides. That said, it's safe to say that it is primarily, and historically, from the Reformed camp.

The Confessions do espouse Satisfaction, but again, whether or not that Satisfaction is placed within the context of Penal Substitution seems to be something that is debated.

-CryptoLutheran

True, but that's because the Reformed tradition has been historically more systematic in their theology, where as Lutherans have tended to shy away from this and prefer to keep everything a mystery. Luther was the first to make PSub type comments, and the Lutheran understanding of salvation strongly suggests PSub.

 

[ViaCrucis]

True, but that's because the Reformed tradition has been historically more systematic in their theology, where as Lutherans have tended to shy away from this and prefer to keep everything a mystery. Luther was the first to make PSub type comments, and the Lutheran understanding of salvation strongly suggests PSub.

There are many, many Lutherans who embrace the Lutheran view of salvation without subscribing to Penal Substitution. I'm one of them.

The Lutheran doctrine of Justification does not require Penal Substitution. One doesn't need to subscribe to Satisfaction Theory broadly to uphold the Doctrine of Justification. I subscribe to the Lutheran doctrine of Justification as well as Christus Victor theory. I don't see a conflict.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[brinny]

Most people don't realize that there are different views of the Atonement out there. Most Protestants (not all), especially Calvinists, believe in a form of Atonement called Penal Substitution. This view teaches that Jesus received the punishment the sinner deserved. Well, if the sinner deserves hellfire, then that's must be what Jesus endured in their place!

Consider the following quotes from well known Protestant (mostly Calvinist) authors:

• At 3 o’clock that dark Friday afternoon, the Father turned His face away and the ancient, eternal fellowship between Father and Son was broken as divine wrath rained down like a million Soddoms and Gomorrah’s. In the terror and agony of it all, Jesus cried, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Thabiti Anyabwile, What does it mean for the Father to Forsake the Son? Part 3)

• We should remember that Christ's suffering in His human nature, as He hung on the cross those six hours, was not primarily physical, but mental and spiritual. When He cried out, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me," He was literally suffering the pangs of hell. For that is essentially what hell is, separation from God, separation from everything that is good and desirable. Such suffering is beyond our comprehension. But since He suffered as a divine-human person, His suffering was a just equivalent for all that His people would have suffered in an eternity in hell. (Boettner, Loraine. “The Reformed Faith.” Chapter 3.)

• The penalty of the divine law is said to be eternal death. Therefore if Christ suffered the penalty of the law He must have suffered death eternal; or, as others say, He must have endured the same kind of sufferings as those who are cast off from God and die eternally are called upon to suffer. (Hodge, Charles. “Systematic Theology.” Vol. 2, Part 3, Ch 6, Sec 3)

• So then, gaze at the heavenly picture of Christ, who descended into hell for your sake and was forsaken by God as one eternally damned when he spoke the words on the cross, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani!” - “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” In that picture your hell is defeated and your uncertain election is made sure. (Luther, Martin. “Treatise on Preparing to Die.”)

• “What prevents us from seeing God is our heart. Our impurity. But Jesus had no impurity. And Thomas said He was pure in heart. So obviously He had some, some experience of the beauty of the Father. Until that moment that my sin was placed upon Him. And the one who was pure was pure no more. And God cursed Him. It was if there was a cry from Heaven – excuse my language but I can be no more accurate than to say – it was as if Jesus heard the words 'God damn you', because that's what it meant to be cursed, to be damned, to be under the anathema of the Father. As I said I don't understand that, but I know that it's true.” (R.C. Sproul. Together for the Gospel. April 17, 2008. Louisville, KY. Session V - The Curse Motif of the Atonement. Minute 55:01)

• “Hell is all about echoing faintly the glory of Calvary. That's the meaning of hell in this room right now. To help you feel in some emotional measure the magnificence of what Christ did for you when he bore not only your eternal suffering, but millions of people's eternal suffering when His Father put our curse on Him. What a Saviour is echoed in the flames of hell. So that's what I mean when I say hell is an echo of the glory of God, and an echo of the Savior's sufferings, and therefore an echo of the infinite love of God for our souls.” (John Piper. Resolved Conference 2008. Session 8 – The Echo and Insufficiency of Hell. Min 40:00)

There are more quotes like this, but this should be enough to get people to stop and realize what exactly is being said.


Now the big question is: Does the Bible EVER say that Jesus endured the Wrath of the Father? NO! It is unbiblical and even blasphemy to suggest Jesus suffered the Father's Wrath. Look high, look low, and you'll NEVER find this taught in Scripture.

To understand the heart of salvation, THE CROSS, one must actually study the Bible on the matter and not blindly follow theologians:

http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/07/atonement-according-to-scripture-more.html

i respectfully disagree with you. Then again, i'm not Catholic

 

[prov1810]

Rather, it means something was done so the wrath subsided and nobody was punished.

This would seem to mean that God was angry and then His disposition was changed.

Or that His wrath was separate from Himself and then destroyed like a missile before it found its target.

Or that "Lamb of God" does not mean that Jesus' death saved us; rather, His lamby gentleness and sweetness was found winsome with God. Salvation by lolcat cartoon.

We have tried to point out that someone was indeed punished, and for us ("It pleased the LORD to bruise Him" and "He was bruised for our iniquities") but you want to believe that this is neither punishment nor vicarious. I think we're stuck here.

 

[Clare73]

Most people don't realize that there are different views of the Atonement out there. Most Protestants (not all), especially Calvinists, believe in a form of Atonement called Penal Substitution. This view teaches that Jesus received the punishment the sinner deserved. Well, if the sinner deserves hellfire, then that's must be what Jesus endured in their place!

Applying human logic to divine revelation. . .is the key to limited apprehension of God's truth.

It's not complicated.

Christ's atonement paid the penalty that is due at the Final Judgment on the sin of those who believe in him.

That is penal substitutionary atonement.

Paul reveals that the penalty was punishment (Ro 3:25).

Scripture reveals that Jesus saves us from the God's wrath on our sin (Ro 5:9).

Jesus reveals that those who reject him spend eternity in hell. (Jn 3:18, 36; Mk 9:42-48)

Stack it up any way that suits you, Jesus paid the penalty due on my sin at the Final Judgment.

You are not in a position to say that the penalty did not include the things which Scripture reveals are due on sin.

You mock the spiritual wisdom which transcends human reasoning.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think Catholic Dude's statements relate to the theological superstructure that Calvinist Christians use as their explanation of Christ's sacrifice.

It isn't mockery to disagree.

A theory is just a theory until it is proven to be true.

The penal substitutionary theory of the atonement is not God's revealed truth, it is just a theory.

 

[brinny]

I think Catholic Dude's statements relate to the theological superstructure that Calvinist Christians use as their explanation of Christ's sacrifice.

It isn't mockery to disagree.

A theory is just a theory until it is proven to be true.

The penal substitutionary theory of the atonement is not God's revealed truth, it is just a theory.

You're entitled to your opinion. I prefer the Word of God, but thank you for sharing.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You're entitled to your opinion. I prefer the Word of God, but thank you for sharing.

Scripture uses an abundance of language to describe the Mystery of the Atonement.

The different theories of Atonement are after-the-fact approaches to that Mystery, it's how we attempt to condense the language of Scripture into a concise summary and narrative.

Penal Substitution is one such approach. Proponents of it can find plenty of biblical language to support that approach.

Likewise Christus Victor is one such approach. Proponents of it can find just as much biblical language to support that approach.

At the end of the day the event of the Atonement itself remains a grand and transcendent Mystery, and we're all trying to put that Mystery into words that we can take hold of.

-CryptoLutheran