Why the Protestant view of the Cross is wrong.

[MoreCoffee]

I can't say that the source for the jpeg and the descriptions is particularly inspiring, but the broad categories it gives are valid. The descriptions seem a little jaundiced.

 

[brinny]

I can't say that the source for the jpeg and the descriptions is particularly inspiring, but the broad categories it gives are valid. The descriptions seem a little jaundiced.

Perhaps it is best to focus on the Bible, rather than opinions of man then. God says that His thoughts are higher than man's thoughts. He is God. Man is not.

You are, however entitled to give your opinion, regardless of whether anyone agrees with it. no offense intended. It's merely disagreement.

 

[Crandaddy]

This is something of a blind post, as I've not followed this thread for a few days, but I'd like to stress that a forensic understanding of the attonement, as satisfaction for Divine justice, is of vital importance to the Gospel. As I suggested back in my post #44, it is clear that there is a natural (moral) law that we violate when we sin, and that must be satisfied by Christ if we are to be saved. What must be done away with is the literalist understanding of penal substitutionary atonement--as Christ's literally being extrinsically punished in our stead. The atonement is ontological--it repairs the damage wrought to our personal ontology by sin--but this by no means does away with its forensic character--that it forgives sins for which we would otherwise justly incur Divine wrath. If we do away with Divine justice, then we do away with any rational basis for why one might experience hell. God becomes a cruel tyrant who deals out punishment and mercy without any rhyme or reason.

 

[Metal Minister]

I can't say that the source for the jpeg and the descriptions is particularly inspiring, but the broad categories it gives are valid. The descriptions seem a little jaundiced.

Which is why I said, what I posted encompasses both ideas. It satisfies God's divine justice, while reopening the way to God for man. God's wrath is not poured on His own, but only on those who reject His Son. Jesus died on the cross because He so loved the world that He wished none to perish but for all to have eternal life. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself well enough, but I think to say its an either/or prospect is to limit God's love and His righteousness.

 

[brinny]

This is something of a blind post, as I've not followed this thread for a few days, but I'd like to stress that a forensic understanding of the attonement, as satisfaction for Divine justice, is of vital importance to the Gospel. As I suggested back in my post #44, it is clear that there is a natural (moral) law that we violate when we sin, and that must be satisfied by Christ if we are to be saved. What must be done away with is the literalist understanding of penal substitutionary atonement--as Christ's literally being extrinsically punished in our stead. The atonement is ontological--it repairs the damage wrought to our personal ontology by sin--but this by no means does away with its forensic character--that it forgives sins for which we would otherwise justly incur Divine wrath. If we do away with Divine justice, then we do away with any rational basis for why one might experience hell. God becomes a cruel tyrant who deals out punishment and mercy without any rhyme or reason.

In reading the entire Word of God it becomes clear Who our God is, and that He is inexplicably merciful and that is why Jesus Christ took our place in absorbing our sins and God's wrath on the cross. God IS righteous and just and holy, as indicated by this verse, which highlights the fierce-ness of the holy-ness of God and His to-be-avoided wrath. For it is surely what we face without being covered by Jesus Christ's righteousness.

"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." ~Hebrews 10:31

 

[pathfinder777]

Catholic and Reformed Conceptions of the Atonement | Called to Communion

 

[Fireinfolding]

Well, God is obviously wrong.

These are always my "favorite" kind of answers. . .so absurd!

They reveal so much about those who use them.

She has a point

 

[Rev Randy]

It was a moot saver.

 

[Metal Minister]

It was a moot saver.

 

[Crandaddy]

In reading the entire Word of God it becomes clear Who our God is, and that He is inexplicably merciful and that is why Jesus Christ took our place in absorbing our sins and God's wrath on the cross. God IS righteous and just and holy, as indicated by this verse, which highlights the fierce-ness of the holy-ness of God and His to-be-avoided wrath. For it is surely what we face without being covered by Jesus Christ's righteousness.

"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." ~Hebrews 10:31

Well, I'd say that our sins aren't so much covered as they're actually removed from us by their being "filled up," as it were, by Christ's righteousness. But otherwise, I do agree.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
In reading the entire Word of God it becomes clear Who our God is, and that He is inexplicably merciful and that is why Jesus Christ took our place in absorbing our sins and God's wrath on the cross. God IS righteous and just and holy, as indicated by this verse, which highlights the fierce-ness of the holy-ness of God and His to-be-avoided wrath. For it is surely what we face without being covered by Jesus Christ's righteousness.

"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." ~Hebrews 10:31

Well, I'd say that our sins aren't so much covered as they're actually removed from us by their being "filled up," as it were, by Christ's righteousness. But otherwise, I do agree.

i think i'm followin' ya, except for "filled up" by Christ's righteousness... i got lost there

 

[Crandaddy]

i think i'm followin' ya, except for "filled up" by Christ's righteousness... i got lost there

What I mean is that sin actually causes damage to us in a way, and that in the atonement, Christ repairs that damage. It's not that He just covers up our sin; He actually removes it from us, thereby actually making us righteous before God.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Which is why I said, what I posted encompasses both ideas. It satisfies God's divine justice, while reopening the way to God for man. God's wrath is not poured on His own, but only on those who reject His Son. Jesus died on the cross because He so loved the world that He wished none to perish but for all to have eternal life. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself well enough, but I think to say its an either/or prospect is to limit God's love and His righteousness.

Penal substitutionary atonement does not encompass both sides.

 

[Metal Minister]

Penal substitutionary atonement does not encompass both sides.

Smh....please reread what I posted originally. THAT encompasses both sides.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by MoreCoffee

I can't say that the source for the jpeg and the descriptions is particularly inspiring, but the broad categories it gives are valid. The descriptions seem a little jaundiced.
​

Originally Posted by Metal Minister

Which is why I said, what I posted encompasses both ideas. It satisfies God's divine justice, while reopening the way to God for man. God's wrath is not poured on His own, but only on those who reject His Son. Jesus died on the cross because He so loved the world that He wished none to perish but for all to have eternal life. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself well enough, but I think to say its an either/or prospect is to limit God's love and His righteousness.
​

Penal substitutionary atonement does not encompass both sides.

Smh....please reread what I posted originally. THAT encompasses both sides.

He perhaps forgot his reading glasses?



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Penal substitutionary atonement does not encompass both sides.

Smh....please reread what I posted originally. THAT encompasses both sides.

You might try reading what I wrote. You would, probably, notice that it does not say "what you wrote ..." but rather "Penal substitutionary atonement does not encompass both sides."

 

[Metal Minister]

You might try reading what I wrote. You would, probably, notice that it does not say "what you wrote ..." but rather "Penal substitutionary atonement does not encompass both sides."

I did read what you wrote, and you seem to think or be implying that I said it did. I did not. I said before, its about 1/2 of it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I did read what you wrote, and you seem to think or be implying that I said it did. I did not. I said before, its about 1/2 of it.

Well, since I did not say any of that your conclusion cannot be coming from anything that I did write in the post that you replied to.

Penal substitutionary atonement does not encompass both sides.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Well, since I did not say any of that your conclusion cannot be coming from anything that I did write in the post that you replied to.

Penal substitutionary atonement does not encompass both sides.

Smh....please reread what I posted originally. THAT encompasses both sides.

You might try reading what I wrote. You would, probably, notice that it does not say "what you wrote ..." but rather "Penal substitutionary atonement does not encompass both sides."

Now y'all got me confused




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Now y'all got me confused

It is not confusing. If Metal Minister is teaching something that differs from PSA - and he appears to be doing just that - then my comment is not directed at his particular teaching but if he is teaching PSA then my comment is intended to remind everybody that

Penal substitutionary atonement does not encompass both sides.​