Catholics Take On This Teaching of Justification

11,091 Views | 261 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by FTACo88-FDT24dad
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Vox Clamantis said:

10andBOUNCE said:

Do you believe God has a wrath that must be satisfied?

My understanding of your perception is that there is a bill that has to be paid, and God absolutely has to make sure it's paid, or no one is getting into heaven. Since we cannot pay the Bill, Christ stepped up and God said "sure I'll exact revenge on you that way I'll be made whole".


Yes there was a debt to be paid…and Christ paid it. It wasn't free, but He gave his life as a ransom.

Colossians 2:13-14
And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

I've never said revenge anywhere so that's not how I view it.
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And it literally says "legal" in the ESV and yet I'm way out of bounds for ascribing to a legal substitution type of view.
FIDO95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Vox Clamantis said:

FIDO95 said:

Pierow said:

But after 20 years of study, you do develop a sense of what you believe.

And that is the fundamental problem, is it not?


Your results may vary

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Vox Clamantis
How long do you want to ignore this user?
10andBOUNCE said:

Vox Clamantis said:

10andBOUNCE said:

Do you believe God has a wrath that must be satisfied?

My understanding of your perception is that there is a bill that has to be paid, and God absolutely has to make sure it's paid, or no one is getting into heaven. Since we cannot pay the Bill, Christ stepped up and God said "sure I'll exact revenge on you that way I'll be made whole".


Yes there was a debt to be paid…and Christ paid it. It wasn't free, but He gave his life as a ransom.

Colossians 2:13-14
And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

I've never said revenge anywhere so that's not how I view it.


Legal seems like the opposite of wrath as I have seen it used by the reformed. It might be semantics, but it's the difference between justice needed to be served and someone needed to be tortured
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well you're making up the words then because I have never said God was angry at Jesus, that he was getting revenge, or that the Father tortured his Son.

Now, since I believe the wrath was placed or "abided" on as Augustine said, I am sure torture was an applicable type of description. Jesus was sweating blood in Gethsemane. Wonder why.
Vox Clamantis
How long do you want to ignore this user?
10andBOUNCE said:

Well you're making up the words then because I have never said God was angry at Jesus, that he was getting revenge, or that the Father tortured his Son.

Now, since I believe the wrath was placed or "abided" on as Augustine said, I am sure torture was an applicable type of description. Jesus was sweating blood in Gethsemane. Wonder why.


Isn't wrath a synonym for anger as you used it?
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I would say it most definitely is for God's imperfect creatures, but for a righteous, holy, and perfect God we simply cannot always place our simplistic and human definitions on words that describe the Creator. His wrath and justice are founded upon ways we cannot understand fully.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
10andBOUNCE said:

dermdoc said:

10andBOUNCE said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

10andBOUNCE said:

Howdy, it is me! said:

The difference between yall and us is you think only some will choose death, that though He offers grace to all it's only sufficient for some, and we think everyone will choose death without the Holy Spirit intervening and that His grace is sufficient for all who receive it. He gives some of us mercy when we all choose death, by our choice might I add.

In addition there must be the idea that Christ will ultimately have died in vain for many since not all will choose Him, in that scenario. I don't believe that is an acceptable characterization of the blood spilled by the Messiah. Unless of course you believe in universal reconciliation


Ok, please explain how you arrived at this calculus.

Quote:

In addition there must be the idea that Christ will ultimately have died in vain for many since not all will choose Him, in that scenario.



I don't know why it wouldn't be so. What happens when you go out of your way to sacrifice something and help someone or perhaps offer a gift you saved up for years to buy. You give them the gift and they stare you in the face and throw it away. I'd say all of that toil and sacrifice was done in vain. How would it not be?

Would they be throwing the gift away by their own free will? Or were they predestined to throw away the gift?

Neither of those options alleviates the idea of the gift being given in vain, if it was in fact given to those who would not attain it.

Do they have the free will to refuse the gift?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
10andBOUNCE said:

dermdoc said:

10andBOUNCE said:

dermdoc said:

10andBOUNCE said:

dermdoc said:

10andBOUNCE said:

dermdoc said:

10andBOUNCE said:

God created everything, owns everything, and maintains everything every moment of every day.

Agree. And so does every other Christian I know,

No you don't. Do you believe he maintains the faith he has given you?

Of course. And every Christian I know believes that. His faith can not fail.

Every Christian does not believe in the perseverance of the saints.

Why are you trying to be devisive? Do you believe that if they don't believe that they are damned? And if not, why does it bother you?

No, this is not being divisive. And no, if someone doesn't believe the "P" in TULIP that will not damn them.

But we obviously have radically different views on what God's sovereignty is, because that is ultimately what a reformed person would believe when you boil it all down - God is sovereign over all.

Still waiting for one example of a hero of the faith in the Bible who chose God without God first initiating it.

And edited to add, sure God chose special people. To do special things for Him. Has nothing to do with salvation for ordinary Christians. Was Paul the only Christian saved in the NT? Of course not. But he was chosen by God to be the messenger to the Gentiles.

So the men and women as outlined in the Bible were unique and their "special" path to salvation is an exception to the rule?

Of course not. Their calling was not about their salvation. It was about fulfilling a special purpose God had for them.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc said:

10andBOUNCE said:

dermdoc said:

10andBOUNCE said:

dermdoc said:

10andBOUNCE said:

dermdoc said:

10andBOUNCE said:

dermdoc said:

10andBOUNCE said:

God created everything, owns everything, and maintains everything every moment of every day.

Agree. And so does every other Christian I know,

No you don't. Do you believe he maintains the faith he has given you?

Of course. And every Christian I know believes that. His faith can not fail.

Every Christian does not believe in the perseverance of the saints.

Why are you trying to be devisive? Do you believe that if they don't believe that they are damned? And if not, why does it bother you?

No, this is not being divisive. And no, if someone doesn't believe the "P" in TULIP that will not damn them.

But we obviously have radically different views on what God's sovereignty is, because that is ultimately what a reformed person would believe when you boil it all down - God is sovereign over all.

Still waiting for one example of a hero of the faith in the Bible who chose God without God first initiating it.

And edited to add, sure God chose special people. To do special things for Him. Has nothing to do with salvation for ordinary Christians. Was Paul the only Christian saved in the NT? Of course not. But he was chosen by God to be the messenger to the Gentiles.

So the men and women as outlined in the Bible were unique and their "special" path to salvation is an exception to the rule?

Of course not. Their calling was not about their salvation. It was about fulfilling a special purpose God had for them.

Why not both?

Just a recent example from my daily reading yesterday…

1 Samuel 3:7
Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD, and the word of the LORD had not yet been revealed to him.

10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc said:

10andBOUNCE said:

dermdoc said:

10andBOUNCE said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

10andBOUNCE said:

Howdy, it is me! said:

The difference between yall and us is you think only some will choose death, that though He offers grace to all it's only sufficient for some, and we think everyone will choose death without the Holy Spirit intervening and that His grace is sufficient for all who receive it. He gives some of us mercy when we all choose death, by our choice might I add.

In addition there must be the idea that Christ will ultimately have died in vain for many since not all will choose Him, in that scenario. I don't believe that is an acceptable characterization of the blood spilled by the Messiah. Unless of course you believe in universal reconciliation


Ok, please explain how you arrived at this calculus.

Quote:

In addition there must be the idea that Christ will ultimately have died in vain for many since not all will choose Him, in that scenario.



I don't know why it wouldn't be so. What happens when you go out of your way to sacrifice something and help someone or perhaps offer a gift you saved up for years to buy. You give them the gift and they stare you in the face and throw it away. I'd say all of that toil and sacrifice was done in vain. How would it not be?

Would they be throwing the gift away by their own free will? Or were they predestined to throw away the gift?

Neither of those options alleviates the idea of the gift being given in vain, if it was in fact given to those who would not attain it.

Do they have the free will to refuse the gift?

Sure
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
10andBOUNCE said:

dermdoc said:

10andBOUNCE said:

dermdoc said:

10andBOUNCE said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

10andBOUNCE said:

Howdy, it is me! said:

The difference between yall and us is you think only some will choose death, that though He offers grace to all it's only sufficient for some, and we think everyone will choose death without the Holy Spirit intervening and that His grace is sufficient for all who receive it. He gives some of us mercy when we all choose death, by our choice might I add.

In addition there must be the idea that Christ will ultimately have died in vain for many since not all will choose Him, in that scenario. I don't believe that is an acceptable characterization of the blood spilled by the Messiah. Unless of course you believe in universal reconciliation


Ok, please explain how you arrived at this calculus.

Quote:

In addition there must be the idea that Christ will ultimately have died in vain for many since not all will choose Him, in that scenario.



I don't know why it wouldn't be so. What happens when you go out of your way to sacrifice something and help someone or perhaps offer a gift you saved up for years to buy. You give them the gift and they stare you in the face and throw it away. I'd say all of that toil and sacrifice was done in vain. How would it not be?

Would they be throwing the gift away by their own free will? Or were they predestined to throw away the gift?

Neither of those options alleviates the idea of the gift being given in vain, if it was in fact given to those who would not attain it.

Do they have the free will to refuse the gift?

Sure

So if they refuse it, they were not of the "elect", correct? So they really had no choice as they had no ability to accept it?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
10andBOUNCE said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

10andBOUNCE said:

Christ obviously was perfect and innocent displayed by his life as the God man. But as Peter says, "Christ bore our sins in his body." He is the perfect sacrifice and suffered our punishment for our sins. God was not punishing Him for any of His own transgressions. This is the great exchange of our sin bore on Christ and His righteousness (which is alien to us naturally) given to us. This does nothing but bring us to our knees in complete and utter gratitude.


It brings me to tears in frustration over how you can't see how the idea of God the Father punishing God the Son, who is begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, and God from God and light from light, true God from true God, for something he not only didn't do but could never do, is simply wrong.

What exactly happened on the cross then?



Ok, you asked so here goes:

Most basic theological terms have a Greek or Latin origin with perhaps some Hebrew in there too, but atonement sprang from English. The suffix "-ment" refers to the result of an action. Atonement, therefore, is the result of an action that "atones", which is a contraction of "at one." By making atonement for mankind, Jesus made it so that God and man are no longer separated. They are now "at one" and reconciled with each other.

That is the destination or the end game. Now let's walk through the how.

The story doesn't begin at Calvary. It begins at Eden, when man's willful rejection of God did not merely break a rule. It shattered a relationship, caused human nature to become disordered, and introduced death into a world made by God for life. No creature could repair what had been broken, because the offense was directed against an infinite God. Something, or better said "Someone" of infinite worth was required to restore the order of justice and love. We were lost in our sins.

Then came the so-called Reformation. This is where we begin to run down atonement rabbit trails. The novel Protestant idea of forensic justification and sola fide flatten the cross into a single legal transaction. The atonement is not a single thing. It is an event of numerous different parts and features. It is manifold in its nature. The notions of redemption, ransom, victory, sacrifice, satisfaction, example, and substitute are all used to describe and explain it. All of those aspects are present in what Christ did.

Let's look at some.

1. The Sacrifice of the Perfect Offering of Christ.

The cross is the fulfillment of the entire Old Testament sacrificial system. Every lamb offered in the Temple was pointing forward to the Lamb of God. Jesus, as both priest and victim, offered Himself once and for all (Hebrews 9:12). This sacrifice is not repeated but re-presented in every Mass, the same sacrifice, made present across time, although we are not re-crucifying the Lamb of God. We are re-presenting the once for all sacrifice of the Lamb that stands "as though being slain" RIGHT NOW in heaven.

2. Satisfaction or Restoring the Order of Justice

St. Anselm of Canterbury theorized that Christ satisfied God's justice by restoring the honor of God, which man had offended by sin. Since Christ satisfied God on our behalf vicariously, theories of this nature are called vicarious satisfaction theories. The Council of Trent affirmed that the Cross made satisfaction for sin, not because God needed to be appeased like a pagan deity, but because justice and love are not in opposition. True love cannot simply ignore the gravity of evil. Humanity owes a debt to God, not to the devil. Our injustices have stolen from the justice of God and therefore must be paid back.

3. Substitution. Jesus Did What We Could Never Do

The concept of substitution is central to understanding the cross. By dying, Jesus in some sense substituted for us. He did something we otherwise would have had to do for ourselves, and were incapable of doing. He stood in our place, not because the Father is wrathful toward the Son, but because the Trinity, in an act of perfect love, chose to absorb the consequences of sin from within human nature.

4. Victory (Christus Victor) or The Defeat of Death and the Devil

This is the most ancient strand of atonement theology, beloved by the Church Fathers. Christ descended into death and destroyed it from the inside. By dying without sin, He robbed death of its power. The Resurrection is not an epilogue to the atonement; it is the atonement completed. Calvary without Easter is only half the story.

5. Moral Exemplar as the Pattern of Self-Gift

The cross also reveals the shape of love itself. Christ's death shows what it looks like to love without limit, to lay down one's life for another (John 15:13). This is not the whole of the atonement, but it is a real dimension of it and one with radical practical implications for Christian discipleship.

What's missing entirely from all that is any hint of some sort of divine punishment. There is no hint that God the Father poured wrath upon an innocent Son as a legal penalty, as though the Father and Son were in opposition. That contradicts literally everything about Christianity. Such a model gives an image of a monstrous God, destroys the coherence of Christian doctrine on the goodness of God, His Triune nature, and the consubstantiality of the Father and Son. The Father did not punish the Son. The Son, in union with the Father, freely chose to enter into the depths of human suffering and sin to transform them from within. And the Father looked upon the Son's act as an act infinite love, worthy of paying the debt we owed.

In summary:

The Second Person of the Trinity, fully God and fully man, offered Himself as the perfect sacrifice, priest, victim, and altar, restoring what sin had broken, defeating what sin had unleashed, and revealing the love that had always been driving the entire story from the moment of creation. The cross is not a transaction between an angry Father and a suffering Son. It is the Trinity's own love poured out into a broken world, meeting humanity at its lowest point and lifting it to union with God. If you wonder what the love of the Trinity is all about, look at a crucifix.

St. Paul captures it well in 2 Corinthians 5:19: "God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting our trespasses against us."

That is atonement. That is the cross.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

10andBOUNCE said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

10andBOUNCE said:

Christ obviously was perfect and innocent displayed by his life as the God man. But as Peter says, "Christ bore our sins in his body." He is the perfect sacrifice and suffered our punishment for our sins. God was not punishing Him for any of His own transgressions. This is the great exchange of our sin bore on Christ and His righteousness (which is alien to us naturally) given to us. This does nothing but bring us to our knees in complete and utter gratitude.


It brings me to tears in frustration over how you can't see how the idea of God the Father punishing God the Son, who is begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, and God from God and light from light, true God from true God, for something he not only didn't do but could never do, is simply wrong.

What exactly happened on the cross then?



Ok, you asked so here goes:

Most basic theological terms have a Greek or Latin origin with perhaps some Hebrew in there too, but atonement sprang from English. The suffix "-ment" refers to the result of an action. Atonement, therefore, is the result of an action that "atones", which is a contraction of "at one." By making atonement for mankind, Jesus made it so that God and man are no longer separated. They are now "at one" and reconciled with each other.

That is the destination or the end game. Now let's walk through the how.

The story doesn't begin at Calvary. It begins at Eden, when man's willful rejection of God did not merely break a rule. It shattered a relationship, caused human nature to become disordered, and introduced death into a world made by God for life. No creature could repair what had been broken, because the offense was directed against an infinite God. Something, or better said "Someone" of infinite worth was required to restore the order of justice and love. We were lost in our sins.

Then came the so-called Reformation. This is where we begin to run down atonement rabbit trails. The novel Protestant idea of forensic justification and sola fide flatten the cross into a single legal transaction. The atonement is not a single thing. It is an event of numerous different parts and features. It is manifold in its nature. The notions of redemption, ransom, victory, sacrifice, satisfaction, example, and substitute are all used to describe and explain it. All of those aspects are present in what Christ did.

Let's look at some.

1. The Sacrifice of the Perfect Offering of Christ.

The cross is the fulfillment of the entire Old Testament sacrificial system. Every lamb offered in the Temple was pointing forward to the Lamb of God. Jesus, as both priest and victim, offered Himself once and for all (Hebrews 9:12). This sacrifice is not repeated but re-presented in every Mass, the same sacrifice, made present across time, although we are not re-crucifying the Lamb of God. We are re-presenting the once for all sacrifice of the Lamb that stands "as though being slain" RIGHT NOW in heaven.

2. Satisfaction or Restoring the Order of Justice

St. Anselm of Canterbury theorized that Christ satisfied God's justice by restoring the honor of God, which man had offended by sin. Since Christ satisfied God on our behalf vicariously, theories of this nature are called vicarious satisfaction theories. The Council of Trent affirmed that the Cross made satisfaction for sin, not because God needed to be appeased like a pagan deity, but because justice and love are not in opposition. True love cannot simply ignore the gravity of evil. Humanity owes a debt to God, not to the devil. Our injustices have stolen from the justice of God and therefore must be paid back.

3. Substitution. Jesus Did What We Could Never Do

The concept of substitution is central to understanding the cross. By dying, Jesus in some sense substituted for us. He did something we otherwise would have had to do for ourselves, and were incapable of doing. He stood in our place, not because the Father is wrathful toward the Son, but because the Trinity, in an act of perfect love, chose to absorb the consequences of sin from within human nature.

4. Victory (Christus Victor) or The Defeat of Death and the Devil

This is the most ancient strand of atonement theology, beloved by the Church Fathers. Christ descended into death and destroyed it from the inside. By dying without sin, He robbed death of its power. The Resurrection is not an epilogue to the atonement; it is the atonement completed. Calvary without Easter is only half the story.

5. Moral Exemplar as the Pattern of Self-Gift

The cross also reveals the shape of love itself. Christ's death shows what it looks like to love without limit, to lay down one's life for another (John 15:13). This is not the whole of the atonement, but it is a real dimension of it and one with radical practical implications for Christian discipleship.

What's missing entirely from all that is any hint of some sort of divine punishment. There is no hint that God the Father poured wrath upon an innocent Son as a legal penalty, as though the Father and Son were in opposition. That contradicts literally everything about Christianity. Such a model gives an image of a monstrous God, destroys the coherence of Christian doctrine on the goodness of God, His Triune nature, and the consubstantiality of the Father and Son. The Father did not punish the Son. The Son, in union with the Father, freely chose to enter into the depths of human suffering and sin to transform them from within. And the Father looked upon the Son's act as an act infinite love, worthy of paying the debt we owed.

In summary:

The Second Person of the Trinity, fully God and fully man, offered Himself as the perfect sacrifice, priest, victim, and altar, restoring what sin had broken, defeating what sin had unleashed, and revealing the love that had always been driving the entire story from the moment of creation. The cross is not a transaction between an angry Father and a suffering Son. It is the Trinity's own love poured out into a broken world, meeting humanity at its lowest point and lifting it to union with God. If you wonder what the love of the Trinity is all about, look at a crucifix.

St. Paul captures it well in 2 Corinthians 5:19: "God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting our trespasses against us."

That is atonement. That is the cross.

Wish I had more blue starts to give!
Christus Victor proponent here.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

10andBOUNCE said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

10andBOUNCE said:

Christ obviously was perfect and innocent displayed by his life as the God man. But as Peter says, "Christ bore our sins in his body." He is the perfect sacrifice and suffered our punishment for our sins. God was not punishing Him for any of His own transgressions. This is the great exchange of our sin bore on Christ and His righteousness (which is alien to us naturally) given to us. This does nothing but bring us to our knees in complete and utter gratitude.


It brings me to tears in frustration over how you can't see how the idea of God the Father punishing God the Son, who is begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, and God from God and light from light, true God from true God, for something he not only didn't do but could never do, is simply wrong.

What exactly happened on the cross then?



Ok, you asked so here goes:

Most basic theological terms have a Greek or Latin origin with perhaps some Hebrew in there too, but atonement sprang from English. The suffix "-ment" refers to the result of an action. Atonement, therefore, is the result of an action that "atones", which is a contraction of "at one." By making atonement for mankind, Jesus made it so that God and man are no longer separated. They are now "at one" and reconciled with each other.

That is the destination or the end game. Now let's walk through the how.

The story doesn't begin at Calvary. It begins at Eden, when man's willful rejection of God did not merely break a rule. It shattered a relationship, caused human nature to become disordered, and introduced death into a world made by God for life. No creature could repair what had been broken, because the offense was directed against an infinite God. Something, or better said "Someone" of infinite worth was required to restore the order of justice and love. We were lost in our sins.

Then came the so-called Reformation. This is where we begin to run down atonement rabbit trails. The novel Protestant idea of forensic justification and sola fide flatten the cross into a single legal transaction. The atonement is not a single thing. It is an event of numerous different parts and features. It is manifold in its nature. The notions of redemption, ransom, victory, sacrifice, satisfaction, example, and substitute are all used to describe and explain it. All of those aspects are present in what Christ did.

Let's look at some.

1. The Sacrifice of the Perfect Offering of Christ.

The cross is the fulfillment of the entire Old Testament sacrificial system. Every lamb offered in the Temple was pointing forward to the Lamb of God. Jesus, as both priest and victim, offered Himself once and for all (Hebrews 9:12). This sacrifice is not repeated but re-presented in every Mass, the same sacrifice, made present across time, although we are not re-crucifying the Lamb of God. We are re-presenting the once for all sacrifice of the Lamb that stands "as though being slain" RIGHT NOW in heaven.

2. Satisfaction or Restoring the Order of Justice

St. Anselm of Canterbury theorized that Christ satisfied God's justice by restoring the honor of God, which man had offended by sin. Since Christ satisfied God on our behalf vicariously, theories of this nature are called vicarious satisfaction theories. The Council of Trent affirmed that the Cross made satisfaction for sin, not because God needed to be appeased like a pagan deity, but because justice and love are not in opposition. True love cannot simply ignore the gravity of evil. Humanity owes a debt to God, not to the devil. Our injustices have stolen from the justice of God and therefore must be paid back.

3. Substitution. Jesus Did What We Could Never Do

The concept of substitution is central to understanding the cross. By dying, Jesus in some sense substituted for us. He did something we otherwise would have had to do for ourselves, and were incapable of doing. He stood in our place, not because the Father is wrathful toward the Son, but because the Trinity, in an act of perfect love, chose to absorb the consequences of sin from within human nature.

4. Victory (Christus Victor) or The Defeat of Death and the Devil

This is the most ancient strand of atonement theology, beloved by the Church Fathers. Christ descended into death and destroyed it from the inside. By dying without sin, He robbed death of its power. The Resurrection is not an epilogue to the atonement; it is the atonement completed. Calvary without Easter is only half the story.

5. Moral Exemplar as the Pattern of Self-Gift

The cross also reveals the shape of love itself. Christ's death shows what it looks like to love without limit, to lay down one's life for another (John 15:13). This is not the whole of the atonement, but it is a real dimension of it and one with radical practical implications for Christian discipleship.

What's missing entirely from all that is any hint of some sort of divine punishment. There is no hint that God the Father poured wrath upon an innocent Son as a legal penalty, as though the Father and Son were in opposition. That contradicts literally everything about Christianity. Such a model gives an image of a monstrous God, destroys the coherence of Christian doctrine on the goodness of God, His Triune nature, and the consubstantiality of the Father and Son. The Father did not punish the Son. The Son, in union with the Father, freely chose to enter into the depths of human suffering and sin to transform them from within. And the Father looked upon the Son's act as an act infinite love, worthy of paying the debt we owed.

In summary:

The Second Person of the Trinity, fully God and fully man, offered Himself as the perfect sacrifice, priest, victim, and altar, restoring what sin had broken, defeating what sin had unleashed, and revealing the love that had always been driving the entire story from the moment of creation. The cross is not a transaction between an angry Father and a suffering Son. It is the Trinity's own love poured out into a broken world, meeting humanity at its lowest point and lifting it to union with God. If you wonder what the love of the Trinity is all about, look at a crucifix.

St. Paul captures it well in 2 Corinthians 5:19: "God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting our trespasses against us."

That is atonement. That is the cross.

Wish I had more blue starts to give!
Christus Victor proponent here.


Derm, I am also very inclined to the Christus Victor school, especially in combination with the substitution school. I didn't take the time to bold any specific terms or phrases, but if I had, I would have emphasized the following words:

Re Substitution- He stood in our place, not because the Father is wrathful toward the Son, but because the Trinity, in an act of perfect love, chose to absorb the consequences of sin from within human nature.

Re Christus Victor - Christ descended into death and destroyed it from the inside.

And I don't want to derail this discussion, but this also shines a light on the counter factual of whether the Incarnation would still have happened if there was no original sin. It's a very interesting and thought-provoking thought experiment, even if in the end it doesn't matter.
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Always appreciate the time you detail out your position.
Quote:

The cross is not a transaction between an angry Father and a suffering Son.

Not sure if this was a generic antithesis, but I am again having to chime in this is not what a PSA view would think of it either. There was nothing cheap about what happened on the cross.

We agree on a lot of what you posted, and I think I've put out enough to hopefully describe my understanding.

I'd still love to hear how the passage in Isaiah 53 is treated. Furthermore, the two church fathers I posted snippets from lean heavily towards a more legal-ish understanding.
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
10andBOUNCE said:

Always appreciate the time you detail out your position.
Quote:

The cross is not a transaction between an angry Father and a suffering Son.

Not sure if this was a generic antithesis, but I am again having to chime in this is not what a PSA view would think of it either. There was nothing cheap about what happened on the cross.

We agree on a lot of what you posted, and I think I've put out enough to hopefully describe my understanding.

I'd still love to hear how the passage in Isaiah 53 is treated. Furthermore, the two church fathers I posted snippets from lean heavily towards a more legal-ish understanding.


The Church Fathers are certainly worthy of our respect and appreciation but they are not infallible. The Ekklesia is THE pillar and bulwark of the truth (1Timothy 3:15). Not a Church Father, not a Luther or Calvin or "the Bible." The Ekklsia. That is precisely what the Bible tells us.

Re Isaiah 53, the language is explicit: "He was pierced for our transgressions" and "the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:56). That is atonement language. The servant's death functions as a guilt offering (Isaiah 53:10). In the Old Testament system, a guilt offering is a sacrifice dealing with sin before God. The servant, therefore, is a singular figure who fulfills what the sacrificial system pointed toward: a true sin-bearer provided by the LORD. God didn't "pour out his wrath" on the offering. He looked upon it as giving up something of value as a gesture intended to repair a rupture.

Sin is not merely a mistake or a social infraction. Sin is a rupture in the right order between the creature and the Creator. It is an offense against infinite goodness, a disorder so deep that no merely human act can repair it. Catholic theology understands justice as the restoration of right order, not the infliction of wrath. Sin disrupted the harmony between God and humanity, and Christ's sacrifice repairs it.

This is why a sacrifice is necessary. It is not to appease an angry deity who needs to be bought off, but because disorder demands reordering, and an offense against an infinite God carries infinite weight. The OT sacrificial system could never fully repair the rupture.

In the OT system, the sin offering (Hebrew: chattath) was not merely symbolic ritual. It was a divinely instituted mechanism that prefigured a deeper reality: a substitute bearing guilt so the offender could stand before God clean. The blood of bulls and goats could not ultimately accomplish this, as Hebrews 10:4 makes plain, but they pointed forward to the One who could.

The entire sacrificial system was a schoolmaster, training Israel to understand that sin has a cost, that blood is required, and that God Himself would one day provide the offering.

Remember King David's statement about sacrifice having to cost him?

2 Samuel 24:24 "No," replied the king, "I insist on paying a price, for I will not offer to the LORD my God burnt offerings that cost me nothing."

1 Chronicles 21:24 "No," replied King David, "I insist on paying the full price, for I will not take for the LORD what belongs to you, nor will I offer burnt offerings that cost me nothing."

The sin offering satisfies God not because God needed to vent anger, but because right order had to be restored, and only an act of infinite worth could restore what an offense against an infinite God had disordered. Christ, fully God and fully man, is the only One whose act of loving obedience carries infinite weight. The Cross does not change God's attitude toward humanity. It changes humanity's standing before God: from guilty to justified, from estranged to adopted, from dead to alive.

Christ's work does not merely cover sin but uproots it, offering humanity a share in divine life. That is not a transaction - that is a transformation.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

dermdoc said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

10andBOUNCE said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

10andBOUNCE said:

Christ obviously was perfect and innocent displayed by his life as the God man. But as Peter says, "Christ bore our sins in his body." He is the perfect sacrifice and suffered our punishment for our sins. God was not punishing Him for any of His own transgressions. This is the great exchange of our sin bore on Christ and His righteousness (which is alien to us naturally) given to us. This does nothing but bring us to our knees in complete and utter gratitude.


It brings me to tears in frustration over how you can't see how the idea of God the Father punishing God the Son, who is begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, and God from God and light from light, true God from true God, for something he not only didn't do but could never do, is simply wrong.

What exactly happened on the cross then?



Ok, you asked so here goes:

Most basic theological terms have a Greek or Latin origin with perhaps some Hebrew in there too, but atonement sprang from English. The suffix "-ment" refers to the result of an action. Atonement, therefore, is the result of an action that "atones", which is a contraction of "at one." By making atonement for mankind, Jesus made it so that God and man are no longer separated. They are now "at one" and reconciled with each other.

That is the destination or the end game. Now let's walk through the how.

The story doesn't begin at Calvary. It begins at Eden, when man's willful rejection of God did not merely break a rule. It shattered a relationship, caused human nature to become disordered, and introduced death into a world made by God for life. No creature could repair what had been broken, because the offense was directed against an infinite God. Something, or better said "Someone" of infinite worth was required to restore the order of justice and love. We were lost in our sins.

Then came the so-called Reformation. This is where we begin to run down atonement rabbit trails. The novel Protestant idea of forensic justification and sola fide flatten the cross into a single legal transaction. The atonement is not a single thing. It is an event of numerous different parts and features. It is manifold in its nature. The notions of redemption, ransom, victory, sacrifice, satisfaction, example, and substitute are all used to describe and explain it. All of those aspects are present in what Christ did.

Let's look at some.

1. The Sacrifice of the Perfect Offering of Christ.

The cross is the fulfillment of the entire Old Testament sacrificial system. Every lamb offered in the Temple was pointing forward to the Lamb of God. Jesus, as both priest and victim, offered Himself once and for all (Hebrews 9:12). This sacrifice is not repeated but re-presented in every Mass, the same sacrifice, made present across time, although we are not re-crucifying the Lamb of God. We are re-presenting the once for all sacrifice of the Lamb that stands "as though being slain" RIGHT NOW in heaven.

2. Satisfaction or Restoring the Order of Justice

St. Anselm of Canterbury theorized that Christ satisfied God's justice by restoring the honor of God, which man had offended by sin. Since Christ satisfied God on our behalf vicariously, theories of this nature are called vicarious satisfaction theories. The Council of Trent affirmed that the Cross made satisfaction for sin, not because God needed to be appeased like a pagan deity, but because justice and love are not in opposition. True love cannot simply ignore the gravity of evil. Humanity owes a debt to God, not to the devil. Our injustices have stolen from the justice of God and therefore must be paid back.

3. Substitution. Jesus Did What We Could Never Do

The concept of substitution is central to understanding the cross. By dying, Jesus in some sense substituted for us. He did something we otherwise would have had to do for ourselves, and were incapable of doing. He stood in our place, not because the Father is wrathful toward the Son, but because the Trinity, in an act of perfect love, chose to absorb the consequences of sin from within human nature.

4. Victory (Christus Victor) or The Defeat of Death and the Devil

This is the most ancient strand of atonement theology, beloved by the Church Fathers. Christ descended into death and destroyed it from the inside. By dying without sin, He robbed death of its power. The Resurrection is not an epilogue to the atonement; it is the atonement completed. Calvary without Easter is only half the story.

5. Moral Exemplar as the Pattern of Self-Gift

The cross also reveals the shape of love itself. Christ's death shows what it looks like to love without limit, to lay down one's life for another (John 15:13). This is not the whole of the atonement, but it is a real dimension of it and one with radical practical implications for Christian discipleship.

What's missing entirely from all that is any hint of some sort of divine punishment. There is no hint that God the Father poured wrath upon an innocent Son as a legal penalty, as though the Father and Son were in opposition. That contradicts literally everything about Christianity. Such a model gives an image of a monstrous God, destroys the coherence of Christian doctrine on the goodness of God, His Triune nature, and the consubstantiality of the Father and Son. The Father did not punish the Son. The Son, in union with the Father, freely chose to enter into the depths of human suffering and sin to transform them from within. And the Father looked upon the Son's act as an act infinite love, worthy of paying the debt we owed.

In summary:

The Second Person of the Trinity, fully God and fully man, offered Himself as the perfect sacrifice, priest, victim, and altar, restoring what sin had broken, defeating what sin had unleashed, and revealing the love that had always been driving the entire story from the moment of creation. The cross is not a transaction between an angry Father and a suffering Son. It is the Trinity's own love poured out into a broken world, meeting humanity at its lowest point and lifting it to union with God. If you wonder what the love of the Trinity is all about, look at a crucifix.

St. Paul captures it well in 2 Corinthians 5:19: "God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting our trespasses against us."

That is atonement. That is the cross.

Wish I had more blue starts to give!
Christus Victor proponent here.


Derm, I am also very inclined to the Christus Victor school, especially in combination with the substitution school. I didn't take the time to bold any specific terms or phrases, but if I had, I would have emphasized the following words:

Re Substitution- He stood in our place, not because the Father is wrathful toward the Son, but because the Trinity, in an act of perfect love, chose to absorb the consequences of sin from within human nature.

Re Christus Victor - Christ descended into death and destroyed it from the inside.

And I don't want to derail this discussion, but this also shines a light on the counter factual of whether the Incarnation would still have happened if there was no original sin. It's a very interesting and thought-provoking thought experiment, even if in the end it doesn't matter.

I really like the thought of Christus Victor along with substitution as an atonement view. Thanks.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

10andBOUNCE said:

Always appreciate the time you detail out your position.
Quote:

The cross is not a transaction between an angry Father and a suffering Son.

Not sure if this was a generic antithesis, but I am again having to chime in this is not what a PSA view would think of it either. There was nothing cheap about what happened on the cross.

We agree on a lot of what you posted, and I think I've put out enough to hopefully describe my understanding.

I'd still love to hear how the passage in Isaiah 53 is treated. Furthermore, the two church fathers I posted snippets from lean heavily towards a more legal-ish understanding.


The Church Fathers are certainly worthy of our respect and appreciation but they are not infallible. The Ekklesia is THE pillar and bulwark the truth. Not a Church Father, not a Luther or Calvin or "the Bible." The Ekklsia. That is precisely what the Bible tells .

Re Isaiah 53, the language is explicit: "He was pierced for our transgressions" and "the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:56). That is atonement language. The servant's death functions as a guilt offering (Isaiah 53:10). In the Old Testament system, a guilt offering is a sacrifice dealing with sin before God. The servant, therefore, is a singular figure who fulfills what the sacrificial system pointed toward: a true sin-bearer provided by the LORD. God didn't "pour out his wrath" on the offering. He looked upon it as giving up something of value as a gesture intended to repair a rupture.

Sin is not merely a mistake or a social infraction. Sin is a rupture in the right order between the creature and the Creator. It is an offense against infinite goodness, a disorder so deep that no merely human act can repair it. Catholic theology understands justice as the restoration of right order, not the infliction of wrath. Sin disrupted the harmony between God and humanity, and Christ's sacrifice repairs it.
This is why a sacrifice is necessary. It is not to appease an angry deity who needs to be bought off, but because disorder demands reordering, and an offense against an infinite God carries infinite weight. The OT sacrificial system could never fully repair the rupture.

In the OT system, the sin offering (Hebrew: chattath) was not merely symbolic ritual. It was a divinely instituted mechanism that prefigured a deeper reality: a substitute bearing guilt so the offender could stand before God clean. The blood of bulls and goats could not ultimately accomplish this, as Hebrews 10:4 makes plain, but they pointed forward to the One who could.
The entire sacrificial system was a schoolmaster, training Israel to understand that sin has a cost, that blood is required, and that God Himself would one day provide the offering.

Remember King David's statement about sacrifice having to cost him?

2 Samuel 24:24 "No," replied the king, "I insist on paying a price, for I will not offer to the LORD my God burnt offerings that cost me nothing."

1 Chronicles 21:24 "No," replied King David, "I insist on paying the full price, for I will not take for the LORD what belongs to you, nor will I offer burnt offerings that cost me nothing."

The sin offering satisfies God not because God needed to vent anger, but because right order had to be restored, and only an act of infinite worth could restore what an offense against an infinite God had disordered. Christ, fully God and fully man, is the only One whose act of loving obedience carries infinite weight. The Cross does not change God's attitude toward humanity. It changes humanity's standing before God: from guilty to justified, from estranged to adopted, from dead to alive.

Christ's work does not merely cover sin but uproots it, offering humanity a share in divine life. That is not a transaction that is a transformation.


Beautifully written. And the transformation is ongoing. I think the key factor is the theology that Jesus emphasized the Kingdom Of God being here, now. Rather than a post mortem destination.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Pierow
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

10andBOUNCE said:

Always appreciate the time you detail out your position.
Quote:

The cross is not a transaction between an angry Father and a suffering Son.

Not sure if this was a generic antithesis, but I am again having to chime in this is not what a PSA view would think of it either. There was nothing cheap about what happened on the cross.

We agree on a lot of what you posted, and I think I've put out enough to hopefully describe my understanding.

I'd still love to hear how the passage in Isaiah 53 is treated. Furthermore, the two church fathers I posted snippets from lean heavily towards a more legal-ish understanding.


The Church Fathers are certainly worthy of our respect and appreciation but they are not infallible. The Ekklesia is THE pillar and bulwark of the truth (1Timothy 3:15). Not a Church Father, not a Luther or Calvin or "the Bible." The Ekklsia. That is precisely what the Bible tells us.

Re Isaiah 53, the language is explicit: "He was pierced for our transgressions" and "the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:56). That is atonement language. The servant's death functions as a guilt offering (Isaiah 53:10). In the Old Testament system, a guilt offering is a sacrifice dealing with sin before God. The servant, therefore, is a singular figure who fulfills what the sacrificial system pointed toward: a true sin-bearer provided by the LORD. God didn't "pour out his wrath" on the offering. He looked upon it as giving up something of value as a gesture intended to repair a rupture.

Sin is not merely a mistake or a social infraction. Sin is a rupture in the right order between the creature and the Creator. It is an offense against infinite goodness, a disorder so deep that no merely human act can repair it. Catholic theology understands justice as the restoration of right order, not the infliction of wrath. Sin disrupted the harmony between God and humanity, and Christ's sacrifice repairs it.

This is why a sacrifice is necessary. It is not to appease an angry deity who needs to be bought off, but because disorder demands reordering, and an offense against an infinite God carries infinite weight. The OT sacrificial system could never fully repair the rupture.

In the OT system, the sin offering (Hebrew: chattath) was not merely symbolic ritual. It was a divinely instituted mechanism that prefigured a deeper reality: a substitute bearing guilt so the offender could stand before God clean. The blood of bulls and goats could not ultimately accomplish this, as Hebrews 10:4 makes plain, but they pointed forward to the One who could.

The entire sacrificial system was a schoolmaster, training Israel to understand that sin has a cost, that blood is required, and that God Himself would one day provide the offering.

Remember King David's statement about sacrifice having to cost him?

2 Samuel 24:24 "No," replied the king, "I insist on paying a price, for I will not offer to the LORD my God burnt offerings that cost me nothing."

1 Chronicles 21:24 "No," replied King David, "I insist on paying the full price, for I will not take for the LORD what belongs to you, nor will I offer burnt offerings that cost me nothing."

The sin offering satisfies God not because God needed to vent anger, but because right order had to be restored, and only an act of infinite worth could restore what an offense against an infinite God had disordered. Christ, fully God and fully man, is the only One whose act of loving obedience carries infinite weight. The Cross does not change God's attitude toward humanity. It changes humanity's standing before God: from guilty to justified, from estranged to adopted, from dead to alive.

Christ's work does not merely cover sin but uproots it, offering humanity a share in divine life. That is not a transaction - that is a transformation.



Are you a universalist? Is it efficacious for all?
Acts 2:38
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Pierow said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

10andBOUNCE said:

Always appreciate the time you detail out your position.
Quote:

The cross is not a transaction between an angry Father and a suffering Son.

Not sure if this was a generic antithesis, but I am again having to chime in this is not what a PSA view would think of it either. There was nothing cheap about what happened on the cross.

We agree on a lot of what you posted, and I think I've put out enough to hopefully describe my understanding.

I'd still love to hear how the passage in Isaiah 53 is treated. Furthermore, the two church fathers I posted snippets from lean heavily towards a more legal-ish understanding.


The Church Fathers are certainly worthy of our respect and appreciation but they are not infallible. The Ekklesia is THE pillar and bulwark of the truth (1Timothy 3:15). Not a Church Father, not a Luther or Calvin or "the Bible." The Ekklsia. That is precisely what the Bible tells us.

Re Isaiah 53, the language is explicit: "He was pierced for our transgressions" and "the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:56). That is atonement language. The servant's death functions as a guilt offering (Isaiah 53:10). In the Old Testament system, a guilt offering is a sacrifice dealing with sin before God. The servant, therefore, is a singular figure who fulfills what the sacrificial system pointed toward: a true sin-bearer provided by the LORD. God didn't "pour out his wrath" on the offering. He looked upon it as giving up something of value as a gesture intended to repair a rupture.

Sin is not merely a mistake or a social infraction. Sin is a rupture in the right order between the creature and the Creator. It is an offense against infinite goodness, a disorder so deep that no merely human act can repair it. Catholic theology understands justice as the restoration of right order, not the infliction of wrath. Sin disrupted the harmony between God and humanity, and Christ's sacrifice repairs it.

This is why a sacrifice is necessary. It is not to appease an angry deity who needs to be bought off, but because disorder demands reordering, and an offense against an infinite God carries infinite weight. The OT sacrificial system could never fully repair the rupture.

In the OT system, the sin offering (Hebrew: chattath) was not merely symbolic ritual. It was a divinely instituted mechanism that prefigured a deeper reality: a substitute bearing guilt so the offender could stand before God clean. The blood of bulls and goats could not ultimately accomplish this, as Hebrews 10:4 makes plain, but they pointed forward to the One who could.

The entire sacrificial system was a schoolmaster, training Israel to understand that sin has a cost, that blood is required, and that God Himself would one day provide the offering.

Remember King David's statement about sacrifice having to cost him?

2 Samuel 24:24 "No," replied the king, "I insist on paying a price, for I will not offer to the LORD my God burnt offerings that cost me nothing."

1 Chronicles 21:24 "No," replied King David, "I insist on paying the full price, for I will not take for the LORD what belongs to you, nor will I offer burnt offerings that cost me nothing."

The sin offering satisfies God not because God needed to vent anger, but because right order had to be restored, and only an act of infinite worth could restore what an offense against an infinite God had disordered. Christ, fully God and fully man, is the only One whose act of loving obedience carries infinite weight. The Cross does not change God's attitude toward humanity. It changes humanity's standing before God: from guilty to justified, from estranged to adopted, from dead to alive.

Christ's work does not merely cover sin but uproots it, offering humanity a share in divine life. That is not a transaction - that is a transformation.



Are you a universalist? Is it efficacious for all?


No.

God offers sufficient grace for salvation to everyone but not everyone accepts it and perseveres in it.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not to derail- but how do you square invincible ignorance with your previous statement?
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PabloSerna said:

Not to derail- but how do you square invincible ignorance with your previous statement?


Which statement?

I will assume you are referring to the statement that God offers sufficient grace everyone for salvation but not everyone accepts it.

Based on that assumption, I think the answer to your question is that God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, though the Church still has the obligation and sacred right to evangelize all men.

The answer lies in the principle that all salvation is still through Christ and His Church, even when a person does not know it explicitly. The necessity of the Church is not an absolute necessity but a hypothetical one. In special circumstances, namely, in the case of invincible ignorance, actual membership in the Church can be replaced by the desire (votum) for the same.

In other words, if a person genuinely seeks God, lives according to the natural law written on their heart, and would embrace the fullness of truth if they encountered it, they are in some real sense oriented toward the Church even without formal membership. Grace reaches them through Christ, who is the sole Mediator, even if they do not yet know His name.

Grace by another name is still grace.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"The answer lies in the principle that all salvation is still through Christ and His church, even when a person does not know it explicitly".
Wish I had written that. Music to this old sinner's ears.
We are not "Sinners in the hands of an angry God".
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc said:

"The answer lies in the principle that all salvation is still through Christ and His church, even when a person does not know it explicitly".
Wish Ai had written that. Music to this old sinner's ears.


God's mercy is infinite but it comes with "conditions." Invincible ignorance speaks only to those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience. Those people may achieve eternal salvation. That's straight out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 847.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

dermdoc said:

"The answer lies in the principle that all salvation is still through Christ and His church, even when a person does not know it explicitly".
Wish Ai had written that. Music to this old sinner's ears.


God's mercy is infinite but it comes with "conditions." Invincible ignorance speaks only to those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience. Those people may achieve eternal salvation. That's straight out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 847.

I agree with that.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Pierow
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

dermdoc said:

"The answer lies in the principle that all salvation is still through Christ and His church, even when a person does not know it explicitly".
Wish Ai had written that. Music to this old sinner's ears.


God's mercy is infinite but it comes with "conditions." Invincible ignorance speaks only to those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience. Those people may achieve eternal salvation. That's straight out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 847.


"for "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!" However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have; "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, And their words to the ends of the world.""
Romans 10:13-18 NASB1995
Acts 2:38
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Pierow said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

dermdoc said:

"The answer lies in the principle that all salvation is still through Christ and His church, even when a person does not know it explicitly".
Wish Ai had written that. Music to this old sinner's ears.


God's mercy is infinite but it comes with "conditions." Invincible ignorance speaks only to those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience. Those people may achieve eternal salvation. That's straight out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 847.


"for "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!" However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have; "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, And their words to the ends of the world.""
Romans 10:13-18 NASB1995


Great! So we agree it's important that we evangelize and spread the Gospel!

You know what's not in any of that? The word "only."
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

Pierow said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

dermdoc said:

"The answer lies in the principle that all salvation is still through Christ and His church, even when a person does not know it explicitly".
Wish Ai had written that. Music to this old sinner's ears.


God's mercy is infinite but it comes with "conditions." Invincible ignorance speaks only to those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience. Those people may achieve eternal salvation. That's straight out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 847.


"for "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!" However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have; "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, And their words to the ends of the world.""
Romans 10:13-18 NASB1995


Great! So we agree it's important that we evangelize and spread the Gospel!

You know what's not in any of that? The word "only."

Or elect.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Pierow
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

Pierow said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

dermdoc said:

"The answer lies in the principle that all salvation is still through Christ and His church, even when a person does not know it explicitly".
Wish Ai had written that. Music to this old sinner's ears.


God's mercy is infinite but it comes with "conditions." Invincible ignorance speaks only to those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience. Those people may achieve eternal salvation. That's straight out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 847.


"for "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!" However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have; "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, And their words to the ends of the world.""
Romans 10:13-18 NASB1995


Great! So we agree it's important that we evangelize and spread the Gospel!

You know what's not in any of that? The word "only."


Good grief. Yes, let's just deny clear scripture because it doesn't have the words "elect", or "only". We know how God loves legalistic loopholes.

"First, an individual contemplating his spiritual life must understand that the reason there is even something for him to do is because he has sinned. Everyone who has reached the level of mental maturity (sometimes referred to as "the age of accountability") so that he or she understands what sin is (cf. 1 John 3:4; 5:17), has sinned (Romans 3:10,23; 1 John 1:8). [The one exception, of course, was Jesus1 Peter 2:22.] Sin is that which separates man from God (Isaiah 59:1-2). For a person to be saved, he first must have knowledge that he is a sinner, and as such stands in a lost condition. One of the reasons Jesus condemned certain Jewish priests, elders, and sects was because they did not admit their sinfulness after hearing the preaching of John the baptizer (Matthew 21:31-32)though the tax collectors and harlots (i.e., sinners) did acknowledge their sin, and believed.
Second, the one who aspires to become a Christian must know something about Jesusthe One Who came to save us from our sins (Luke 19:10; John 3:16; Romans 5:6-8). A person does not have to know every one of Jesus' parables, or be able to quote the Sermon on the Mount, but he must know that Jesus is the Son of God Who died and was raised so that all men might have their sins forgiven and live eternally with Him in heaven (Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 2:9). In other words, before becoming a Christian, a person must have heard the Gospel (Good News) of Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4).
Finally, the individual who aspires to become a child of God must realize there is something for him to do (cf. Acts 2:38; 16:30; 8:36). If one understands that the Bible says he must believe that Jesus is the Son of God (John 8:24), repent of his sins (Luke 13:3,5), confess that Jesus is God's Son (Romans 10:10), and be baptized for the remission of his sins (Acts 2:38), he or she then possesses enough knowledge to put on Christ in baptism (Galatians 3:27) and become a Christian, being added by God to the church that Christ established (Acts 2:47; Matthew 16:18; Romans 16:16).
Contrary to the belief of some, a person who desires to become a Christian does not have to know the whole Bible thoroughly before he takes action. Nor is there a need to have every question imaginable answered. The Ethiopian eunuch heard one Christ-centered lesson from Philip before asking, "What hinders me from being baptized" (Acts 8:35-36)? The three thousand on Pentecost heard only one Gospel sermon before accepting the grace of God and obeying the plan of salvation (Acts 2:41). They did not wait around for years, thinking they were not knowledgeable enough to be followers of Christ. Rather, they were convinced of their sins (Acts 2:37), heard the Gospel, believed it, and obeyed it. It is after one becomes a Christian that God commands us a person to "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 3:18), and to continue to study the Word in order to teach others (Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 3:15)."

Can you back up any of your postulating with actual scripture? Not church tradition?
Acts 2:38
Pierow
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

Pierow said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

dermdoc said:

"The answer lies in the principle that all salvation is still through Christ and His church, even when a person does not know it explicitly".
Wish Ai had written that. Music to this old sinner's ears.


God's mercy is infinite but it comes with "conditions." Invincible ignorance speaks only to those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience. Those people may achieve eternal salvation. That's straight out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 847.


"for "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!" However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have; "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, And their words to the ends of the world.""
Romans 10:13-18 NASB1995


Great! So we agree it's important that we evangelize and spread the Gospel!

You know what's not in any of that? The word "only."

Or elect.


Hey Doc, do you believe in the Trinity? How about the rapture? Guess what, neither of those words are mentioned in scripture. You know what is? The word elect.
Acts 2:38
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Pierow said:

dermdoc said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

Pierow said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

dermdoc said:

"The answer lies in the principle that all salvation is still through Christ and His church, even when a person does not know it explicitly".
Wish Ai had written that. Music to this old sinner's ears.


God's mercy is infinite but it comes with "conditions." Invincible ignorance speaks only to those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience. Those people may achieve eternal salvation. That's straight out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 847.


"for "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!" However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have; "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, And their words to the ends of the world.""
Romans 10:13-18 NASB1995


Great! So we agree it's important that we evangelize and spread the Gospel!

You know what's not in any of that? The word "only."

Or elect.


Hey Doc, do you believe in the Trinity? How about the rapture? Guess what, neither of those words are mentioned in scripture. You know what is? The word elect.

Agree completely. Basing one's whole theology on your interpretation of election is not what I believe.God is sovereign. That does not mean He has to pre ordain people He created to eternal damnation. We will agree to disagree.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
In your view there still would be the idea that a sovereign God who knows everything allows certain individuals to be born and exist, knowing that they will never choose him, as he looks down the corridor of time, at least that is the semi-Pelagian view.

Is it more palpable that God knows the outcome and does nothing even though he could?
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
10andBOUNCE said:

In your view there still would be the idea that a sovereign God who knows everything allows certain individuals to be born and exist, knowing that they will never choose him, as he looks down the corridor of time, at least that is the semi-Pelagian view.

Is it more palpable that God knows the outcome and does nothing even though he could?

That is a very Calvinistic way of looking at it. Scripture says God wants to save all men. If that is true, the only thing that makes sense is God, in His sovereignty, allows men free will to reject Him. Unless you are an Universalist like myself.
And as always, it comes down to what you believe the character of God is. And how you define sovereignty.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.