• 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.

Why the Protestant view of the Cross is wrong.

T

Thekla

Guest
But the Law condemns us to the second death as well as the first, and salvation does not exempt us from the first death. Christ conquered not only death, but hell also, so that by mystically participating in His Passion and Death we might also participate in His Resurrection and Life.

The old and sinful man stands condemned by the Law and must die. He cannot be saved. But by Christ's Harrowing of hell, He generates a new man in place of the old, who might live eternally in His resurrected Life. This is why He says that we must take up our crosses and follow Him--because the death He dies is the death of the old and sinful man, and that death we also must face.

In other words, Christ's Passion and Death is our own death of the old and sinful man, in which we must mystically participate if we are to be saved, but if we do this, His descent into hell and His Harrowing of it become ours as well, so that we might participate in His Resurrection and Life.

Yes, and indeed this is an ontological change/redemption by grace/participation.

So we are to willingly take up our cross, just as Christ did.

In fact, how else would Christ enter Hades, and harrow it if He were not in appearance a mere man ?
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,021
7,471
North Carolina
✟342,231.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The LXX is a viable OT, and is a template used for translating the NT, actually.

I do wonder, if that is your view re: texts, why you would use the Masoretic ?

It is also the understanding evidenced among the native Greek speaking Christians from the earliest centuries of record.
I am not dissing the LXX.
 
Upvote 0
T

Thekla

Guest
The meaning of those who wrote what I quote is: new birth, resurrection from the dead, redemption from eternal death, salvation from wrath (Ro 5:9), not "corrected/set aright."

Are not all these summarized in "set aright" ?

At least this is what I mean.


I prefer the divine Biblical terminology over the human theological terminology:

purchased by his blood

bought at a price

purchased men for God

redeemed not with silver and gold, but with the precious blood of the Lamb

gave himself as a ransom

bore our sin in his body

washed in his blood

Yes, but remember what the Biblical terminology is pointing to (as there is not iirc legal tender in Heavens).

Paul uses terminology that describes the action:

He without death 'paid the wages of sin', which is death, that me might be restored ...
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,021
7,471
North Carolina
✟342,231.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Are not all these summarized in "set aright" ?

At least this is what I mean.
I appreciate that is what you mean, but those are not Biblical words and so one doesn't really know what you mean.

Yes, but remember what the Biblical terminology is pointing to (as there is not iirc legal tender in Heavens).
What is "iirc"?

The language of God's word in the NT is Greek. That will be its legal tender in heaven.
And the Greek meaning is what the Biblical terminology will be pointing to in heaven.

Paul uses terminology that describes the action:

He without death 'paid the wages of sin', which is death, that me might be restored ...
Okay, you're doing it again. . .confounding Scripture.

Scripture does not say that "Christ paid the wages of sin" (eternal death).

Christ ransomed me from the wages of sin (eternal death), by satisfying (propitiating) the justice of God on my sin.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Crandaddy

Classical Theist
Aug 8, 2012
1,315
81
✟28,642.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
I'm not called to participate in Christ's dying for sin.

I receive the benefits of his dying for sin through faith, not participation in his death.?

Or, are you using "participate" to mean the same as "receive"?

By acting on faith, your life becomes connected to His, so that His Life becomes your own. So in a way, you do participate in His death by your faith--it's your dying to sin by receiving His death for sin, along with the resurrection and life that come with it. You must understand that I don't view faith as simply a mental activity, but as a "walk," if you will. It's your taking up your cross and following Him.
 
Upvote 0

MoreCoffee

Repentance works.
Jan 8, 2011
29,860
2,841
Near the flying spaghetti monster
✟65,348.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Odiousness has degrees. There are things that are more and less odious. And, odiousness is a matter of perspective. One person's execration is another person's delight. The Bible says that the meaning of the cross is an "offense." (Galatians 5:11). To some people it is odious and to the believer it is delightful.

The above is somewhat true, scripture does speak of the fragrance of Christ and a smell of death:
To God we are the fragrance of Christ, both among those who are being saved and among those who are on the way to destruction; for these last, the smell of death leading to death, but for the first, the smell of life leading to life. Who is equal to such a task? (2 Corinthians 2:15-16)
Why do you bring up this notion of odiousness to the unbelieving? The Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) theory is not the gospel; PSA is a doctrine that some teach and that many reject.
Imagine the most loathsome account of the meaning of the cross. The most detestable, vile, repugnant, and defiling explanation to the carnal man. That meaning is the true, Biblical, and holy meaning of Christ's work on earth.

I hope you are not seriously contending that the most disgusting imaginations of unbelief are true. That simply because some loathsome idea about the gospel is conceived by those who reject the gospel that this loathsome idea must therefore be the truth. That would be absurd.
We must continue to teach Jesus's wrath-bearing substitution even though it is “foolishness to those who are perishing”, because we know that it is the power of God to those who believe and embrace it, resulting in salvation (1 Cor. 1:21). Praise be to Jesus Christ and his marvellous, merciful and delightfully offensive atonement! :bow:

You might want to believe that God's wrath was poured out on Jesus Christ while he was suffering on the cross and when he died. But that belief implies that God the Father poured his wrath out on God the Son and that means that God was wrathful towards God. I wonder if you believe that God poured out his wrath on God? And that God hid his countenance from God? And since Christ became a curse for us do you believe that God cursed God?
I am not saying that you are an unbeliever, but we all must struggle against our carnal nature that would recoil with horror from the Gospel. The true Gospel that Jesus came to herald was one that was so offensive that He pronounced a special blessing on all those who were able to receive it: “And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me” (Luke 7:23). It takes a special blessing not to be offended in Christ.

It is interesting that, after your words in the previous two paragraphs, it has occurred to you that what you wrote could be construed as calling me (and by implication all who do not teach and believe PSA) non-christian.

You are, as your words so clearly say, calling all who do not share your views on PSA 'carnal', aren't you?
People -- including Christians -- if they hear and understand the true Gospel, and see and hear the true Jesus, will in some measure be offended or will be unable to believe and be saved. Together, we should encourage each other to embrace what would be offensive to the natural man.
The above paragraph is a little muddled, you say that Christians "will be unable to believe and be saved", which appears to be an oxymoron.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,021
7,471
North Carolina
✟342,231.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The above is somewhat true, scripture does speak of the fragrance of Christ and a smell of death:
To God we are the fragrance of Christ, both among those who are being saved and among those who are on the way to destruction; for these last, the smell of death leading to death, but for the first, the smell of life leading to life. Who is equal to such a task? (2 Corinthians 2:15-16)
Why do you bring up this notion of odiousness to the unbelieving? The Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) theory is not the gospel; PSA is a doctrine that some teach and that many reject.
And on that list of "some" is Paul the apostle.

It is the clear teaching of Ro 3:25-26 (as shown by examination of the text, [post=63167342]here[/post]).

You might want to believe that God's wrath was poured out on Jesus Christ while he was suffering on the cross and when he died.

And the word of God in Isa 53:5 could be any clearer that Christ was punished in our place:

"the punishment that brought us peace was upon him."

Why do you wrestle the word of God (2Tim 3:16)?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0