Why the Protestant view of the Cross is wrong.

[Thekla]

"Mocking Spiritual things" ... guess that just sounds grumpy to me, then.

(As mocking the things of God is indeed a serious accusation.)

 

[MoreCoffee]

You plead ignorance but she had explained herself in the very next sentence & when she presented scripture that answered your question, you weren't up to the challenge of articulating their relevance or lack thereof.
Now feigning ignorance deflects the allegation of anger away from you.
Clever.
I didn't see any anger anywhere, anyway...

So that just looks like piling on.

When I relied in Post #86 to post #85 the quote in my post contained every thing that was in hers at the time.

The 'next sentence' that you mention wasn't there when I wrote my reply.

 

[Rick Otto]

oh, thanks, sorry.

 

[ChristianLife08]

Penal Substitution is the historical Protestant view. It's the view that Justification by Faith Alone (as historically defined by them) is based upon.

first, lets clarify. Penal substitution is the biblical teaching that Christ our Lord paid OUR penalty of sin on the cross so that we may be justified IN Him, by FAITH IN Him. So first answer this, do you know this to be true from scripture? (Rom.3:21-26; 5:1-11;5:15-17; 1 John 2:2; Eph. 2:5; 2:8-9; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:5 and so on)

If so, what's your argument then?

 

[MoreCoffee]

first, lets clarify. Penal substitution is the biblical teaching that Christ our Lord paid OUR penalty of sin on the cross so that we may be justified IN Him, by FAITH IN Him. So first answer this, do you know this to be true from scripture? (Rom.3:21-26; 5:1-11;5:15-17; 1 John 2:2; Eph. 2:5; 2:8-9; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:5 and so on)

If so, what's your argument then?

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

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by ChristianLife08
first, lets clarify. Penal substitution is the biblical teaching that Christ our Lord paid OUR penalty of sin on the cross so that we may be justified IN Him, by FAITH IN Him. So first answer this, do you know this to be true from scripture? (Rom.3:21-26; 5:1-11;5:15-17; 1 John 2:2; Eph. 2:5; 2:8-9; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:5 and so on)

If so, what's your argument then?

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

God's Word speaks for itself. What does it say?

 

[Thekla]

God's Word speaks for itself. What does it say?

Romans 3:25 (previously cited in the thread) says that God makes Christ the "mercy seat/ilastirion/propiatiation" so that by faith in His blood God's anger is held back.

So likewise, Moses "stood in the gap", and God did not destroy the Israelites.
Sodom and Gommorah would not have been destroyed if there were even 10 righteous people there ...

Here is a bit on the idea of Penal Subsitutionary Atonement and disagreements ...
Orthodox Problems with Penal Substitution (Substitutionary Atonement)

So only to point out that this teaching (PSA) is a particular view of the Holy Scriptures.

 

[brinny]

Romans 3:25 (previously cited in the thread) says that God makes Christ the "mercy seat/ilastirion/propiatiation" so that by faith in His blood God's anger is held back.

So likewise, Moses "stood in the gap", and God did not destroy the Israelites.
Sodom and Gommorah would not have been destroyed if there were even 10 righteous people there ...

Here is a bit on the idea of Penal Subsitutionary Atonement and disagreements ...
Orthodox Problems with Penal Substitution (Substitutionary Atonement)

So only to point out that this teaching (PSA) is a particular view of the Holy Scriptures.

What is PSA? Never mind figured it out. And thanks for the link, however what was your point in posting it?

 

[MoreCoffee]

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

 

[brinny]

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

Where is this stated in God's Word?

 

[Thekla]

What is PSA? Never mind figured it out. And thanks for the link, however what was your point in posting it?

It is in response to the view, and list of Scriptures which are purported to support the view, of an earlier post.

I started with the first cited Scripture (Romans 3:25), which uses a particular translation that may contribute to such an understanding.

PSA (penal substitutionary atonement) is sometimes the title given or used to describe the idea ...

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
What is PSA? Never mind figured it out. And thanks for the link, however what was your point in posting it?

It is in response to the view, and list of Scriptures which are purported to support the view, of an earlier post.

I started with the first cited Scripture (Romans 3:25), which uses a particular translation that may contribute to such an understanding.

PSA (penal substitutionary atonement) is sometimes the title given or used to describe the idea ...

I adhere to what God's Word says, and not the opinions or reasoning of man. Always have. Always will. Never said otherwise here on CF. There has always been a mutual respect amongst members regardless of the icon beside their user name. God has ALREADY secured my salvation. His Word speaks for itself and it never returns to Him void but completes what He sends it out to do. His Word is a Lamp unto my feet and a Light unto my path. His Word is spiritual manna that "feeds" our spirit. His Word is my guide. Through it, the Holy Spirit ministers and teaches. I'll stay with His Word, thank you. If there are problems with that, take it up with Him.

 

[MoreCoffee]

A well known and very respected Reformed teacher is R C Sproul. His views on atonement are expressed in this video clip.

Curse Motif of the Atonement, RC Sproul - YouTube

I do not agree with his stated views.

Some of his statements are repugnant.

 

[Thekla]

I adhere to what God's Word says, and not the opinions or reasoning of man. Always have. Always will. Never said otherwise here on CF.

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).

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
I adhere to what God's Word says, and not the opinions or reasoning of man. Always have. Always will. Never said otherwise here on CF.

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).

Then His Word needs to be spoken more.

 

[brinny]

A well known and very respected Reformed teacher is R C Sproul. His views on atonement are expressed in this video clip.

Curse Motif of the Atonement, RC Sproul - YouTube

I do not agree with his stated views.

Some of his statements are repugnant.

I agree with him. What statements 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​

 

[brinny]

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 an opinion. What Bible verses back up the opinion of the person you posted? R.C. Sproul was speaking what the Word of God says. What statements in R.C. Sproul's video did you find repugnant?

 

[MoreCoffee]

That's an opinion. What Bible verses back up the opinion of the person you posted? R.C. Sproul was speaking what the Word of God says. What statements in R.C. Sproul's video did you find repugnant?

Opinion is what R C Sproul and yourself offer.

 

[brinny]

Opinion is what R C Sproul and yourself offer.

i disagree.

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