Why the Protestant view of the Cross is wrong.

[Rev Randy]

Or helpful evasion

Same difference.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Did folk achieve agreement that "Penal substitutionary atonement" is not biblical but rather a theological construct that is one of many possible constructions derived from the data present in scripture but not necessarily fully consistent with scripture's teaching?

 

[Rick Otto]

Did folk achieve agreement that "Penal substitutionary atonement" is not biblical but rather a theological construct that is one of many possible constructions derived from the data present in scripture but not necessarily fully consistent with scripture's teaching?

Not this folk.

 

[Clare73]

Did folk achieve agreement that "Penal substitutionary atonement" is not biblical but rather a theological construct that is one of many possible constructions derived from the data present in scripture but not necessarily fully consistent with scripture's teaching?

You are in no position to declare penal substitutionary atonement a "theological construct" until you present answers to the following questions that are consistent with the text and the rest of Scripture.

"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?

 

[Clare73]

You're repeating yourself.

In the absence ([post=63164645]here[/post]) of an adequate explanation of the meaning of Ro 3:25-26 consistent with the text and the rest of Scripture (as done [post=63167342]here[/post]), your assertion is made in ignorance of the meaning of Ro 3:25-26, which presents penal substitutionary atonement.

So this is not about defending the Scriptures, this is about defending your theology, which you cannot show to be in agreement with the Scriptures.

Ergo: The "Protestant view" of the cross is not wrong, because it is the Scriptural view of Ro 3:25-26.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I never really could guess what shell the peanut was under . it's not a fair game .

 

[Clare73]

I never really could guess what shell the peanut was under . it's not a fair game .

Well, actually it was under all of them.

Penal substitutionary atonement means Jesus died as a ransom (Mt 20:28; 1Ti 2:6; Heb 9:15) for the satisfaction (propitiation) of God's justice.

So the "Protestant view" of the cross is not wrong, it is the Scriptural view of Ro 3:25-26.

 

[Eric Hibbert]

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

Just to clarify, are you stating that Catholics deny penal substitutionary atonement?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Well, actually it was under all of them.
Penal substitutionary atonement includes Jesus dying as a ransom (Mt 20:28; 1Ti 2:6; Heb 9:15) for the satisfaction (propitiation) of God's justice.

So the "Protestant view" of the cross is not wrong, it is the Scriptural view of Ro 3:25-26.

But that contradicts what Jesus said about his Father

the explanation using the roman legal system was actually a parable as well .

 

[Foamhead]

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

Know what else teaches "Sola scripture"? The bible:

Revelation 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll.

Revelation 22:19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Know what else teaches "Sola scripture"? The bible:

Revelation 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll.

Revelation 22:19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

i recall reading of textual variants of revelation . so taking away from or adding since no bible translator knows what the original was of a surety .. that's technically not our responsibility in this time period .

the only thing that preserves the message are the core truths that everything else written clings to as a premise .

 

[Rev Randy]

Know what else teaches "Sola scripture"? The bible:

Revelation 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll.

Revelation 22:19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

Do you really think this pertains to the Bible or to the very Book of Revelation?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Revelation 22:18-19 tell the reader not to tamper with the text of the book. Some think that book is the whole bible as they hold it in their hand. Others think, with better reasons, that the book is the book of Revelation itself. Neither interpretation can sustain the burden of the weight of sola scriptura. The verses do not teach that the bible and the bible alone is the final arbiter of doctrinal disputes. That role - the role of final arbiter - belongs to Jesus Christ. Just as the final arbiter of the meaning of Jesus' passion is Jesus Christ rather than the various theories of the atonement.

 

[Rev Randy]

Revelation 22:18-19 tell the reader not to tamper with the text of the book. Some think that book is the whole bible as they hold it in their hand. Others think, with better reasons, that the book is the book of Revelation itself. Neither interpretation can sustain the burden of the weight of sola scriptura. The verses do not teach that the bible and the bible alone is the final arbiter of doctrinal disputes. That role - the role of final arbiter - belongs to Jesus Christ. Just as the final arbiter of the meaning of Jesus' passion is Jesus Christ rather than the various theories of the atonement.

And we receive this arbitration how? (through?)

 

[MoreCoffee]

And we receive this arbitration how? (through?)

Through people, the church, and in some cases through our own "spirit led" inclinations. I put that in quotes because it can be just us or it might be the Spirit really leading but it is no easy task to tell the difference.

 

[Rev Randy]

Through people, the church, and in some cases through our own "spirit led" inclinations. I put that in quotes because it can be just us or it might be the Spirit really leading but it is no easy task to tell the difference.

This time I got your back

Fiddler on the roof - Tradition ( with subtitles ) - YouTube

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Since Revelation barely made it into the canon in the first place . those curse passages would refer to the book of revelation . because not all bibles had the book of revelation until canonization . and a number of letters seem to be written after the book of revelation from what they refer to .. and other letters do not .

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by MoreCoffee

Revelation 22:18-19 tell the reader not to tamper with the text of the book. Some think that book is the whole bible as they hold it in their hand. Others think, with better reasons, that the book is the book of Revelation itself. Neither interpretation can sustain the burden of the weight of sola scriptura. The verses do not teach that the bible and the bible alone is the final arbiter of doctrinal disputes. That role - the role of final arbiter - belongs to Jesus Christ. Just as the final arbiter of the meaning of Jesus' passion is Jesus Christ rather than the various theories of the atonement.
​

And we receive this arbitration how? (through?)

Through people, the church, and in some cases through our own "spirit led" inclinations. I put that in quotes because it can be just us or it might be the Spirit really leading but it is no easy task to tell the difference.

This time I got your back

Fiddler on the roof - Tradition ( with subtitles ) - YouTube

Would this be the first time?

 

[Clare73]

But that contradicts what Jesus said about his Father

Does it?

Jesus said he came to die. . .as a ransom for the sins of many.

He said his was the blood (death) for a covenant.

He said all those who do not believe in him are condemned already.

He said all those who reject him remain under the wrath of God.

the explanation using the roman legal system was actually a parable as well .

Where is this parable found in the NT?

 

[Rick Otto]

Revelation 22:18-19 tell the reader not to tamper with the text of the book. Some think that book is the whole bible as they hold it in their hand. Others think, with better reasons, that the book is the book of Revelation itself. Neither interpretation can sustain the burden of the weight of sola scriptura. The verses do not teach that the bible and the bible alone is the final arbiter of doctrinal disputes. That role - the role of final arbiter - belongs to Jesus Christ. Just as the final arbiter of the meaning of Jesus' passion is Jesus Christ rather than the various theories of the atonement.

What do you see as "the burden & weight" of sola scriptura? The reason I ask is because I see either interpretation working without destroying the other.

Jesus being the "final arbiter" of the meaning of His passion doesn't disqualify any of us from the ability to legitimately understand it to an appreciable degree..