5 Points of Calvinism

[Crusador]

If it’s only a person’s identity God foreknows, you would have to say God “foreknew” the elect, but didn’t “foreknow” the reprobate!

What the heck does that mean? :whacky:

That is not a logical deduction at all - -seriously, think about that one a little more.

Ok- Now let’s just cut through the chase:

You say that Jesus died for all so Paul wants prayers made for all? Then you cite 1 Tim. 2:1-6-, interesting.

Funny how you again make the assumption that “all” in this context means “all men without a single exception” - and then read that conclusion back into the death of Christ.

Very interesting.

Let’s unpack this thing.

You make a connection between our intercessory prayers and the death of Christ – implying that since Paul wants us to pray for all- then Christ must have died for all. Though it is a funny thing that even Jesus Christ did not pray for all!

“I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.” (John 17:9)

So Paul would have us pray for those whom Jesus refused to pray for?

But most importantly- you did not establish the true understanding of “all” in this text- you simply assumed. You ignored the self-explanatory, self-exegeting, self-limiting, self-clarifying, self-interpreting nature of the very next clause.

Consider:

“I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, FOR kings and ALL WHO ARE IN high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life.” This “all men” is clearly explained in the clause: “for kings and ‘all’ who are in high positions.”

So again- you have missed the point. Paul is not speaking about all men without a single exception- but rather all men without social distinction. That is- all types of men, all kinds of men, all classes of men- he goes on to explain: “for kings and all who are in high positions.”

What the apostle Paul is doing is unlimiting Christ’s atonement, and loosing it from the boundaries of ethnicity. He is proclaiming that Christ did not just die for Jews- but for Gentiles as well. He is saying that Christ did not just die for the poor, but for kings and dignitaries as well. He is unlimiting the atonement- BUT he is not universalizing it.

Clearly the apostle Paul had a specific targeted group in which he meant to include, but to gather from this that Paul believed that God wanted to save every single person who ever walked the face of this earth- is doing damage to the revelation of Scripture.

And here, Paul is not speaking of God desiring to save all men without exception- but God desiring to save all men without social distinction; that is- kings as well as the poor.

This type of self-explanation is very common in Scripture- just look at how Luke would explain what he meant by “all.”

“And this continued for two years, so that ALL who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, BOTH Jews and Greeks.” (Acts 19:10)

For Luke- “All who dwelt in Asia” simply meant “Not Just Jews who lived in Asia, but Greeks as well.”

Do you understand him to mean that every single person who lived in Asia; every man, woman, and child, heard the word of the Lord Jesus Christ? Of course not!

Certainly we will do much harm to the Scriptures if we assume that it is God’s intentions for all men without exception to be saved (for men cannot save themselves, only God can save them) while millions perish under His wrath. This would ultimately make God into a failure- and would bring contempt upon Christ for not praying for those whom God desires to save!

 

[Crusador]

Those “whom” God foreknew to be elect were those whom God recognized before time as having accepted His grace.

I think you missed my post- for you only quoted a small section that was irrelevant to your response. Please read this post carefully- thanks

ROMANS 8:29

In this passage- it is not an action of the persons (accepting His grace) that is foreknown, but it is persons who are foreknown- plain and simple.

The text says, “For WHOM He did foreknow” and says nothing about “WHAT He did foreknow these people WOULD DO.”

In order for you to extract that from this text, you would first have to implant it into this text. This is not exegesis but eisegesis- a reading into the text something that is not there.

In this passage therefore, the definition of “foreknow” clearly takes on a stronger, more active definition than to merely take in information passively- by looking into the future.

To assert that God’s Predestination is based upon what He already foreknows will happen, is to make the eternal purpose of God subject to that which will eventually take place in time. This is to put the carriage before the horse, and assumes that God derives his purposes from His own creation- rather than having an eternal purpose for His own creation, that will be realized in time.

Clearly, God knowing the future is not the cause of His Predestination.

You cannot support this interpretation with other passages of Scripture, and therefore it must be rejected. However, I will not leave you empty handed- but will provide you with much to consider.

To Fore- know someone is to Fore- love them. (To love them in advance). When using this term with respect to God’s love toward certain persons- this love is clearly an eternal and covenantal love. Please consider the following:

God speaking to Israel, His chosen people, He says, “You only have I known of all the nations of the earth.” (Amos 3:2) Was God ignorant of the other nations of the earth? Of course not. But with no other nation did God enter into a loving covenant with, as He did with Israel.

Jesus speaking about the false professors said, “And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!” (Matthew 7:23) Was Jesus ignorant of these people? Of course not, Jesus knows everyone! So then why will he say that he never knew them? Simply because this word- to know –carries with it more than mere mental cognition, but often denotes a peculiar love, and covenantal bond.

The Bible said that “Adam knew his wife”- (Genesis 4:1, 4:25) and “Cain knew his wife” (Genesis 4:17). This knowing is far more than a mental and cognitive perception- but clearly means to love; to enter into covenant, to become one with; simply put- it denotes union.

Please get a concordance and search the Scriptures. You will begin to see the truth of what I am saying. Remember this passage: “Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” (Luke 1:34) Hopefully this is becoming clear to you- To know someone is to love that person in a covenantal way, and it denotes union.

So when God says that “Those whom He fore-knew, He predestined” He is basically explaining that He has predestined them that He loved from all eternity; those that He chose in Christ from before the foundation of the world; those that He entered into covenantal union with when He elected them in Christ- unto eternal salvation.

It makes a lot more sense from the Scriptures to see it this way- for then the order of salvation is set right- and it all begins with God’s love. This is exactly what the Scripture teach: “In love, having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.” (Ephesians 1:5, 6)

This is the meaning of Jeremiah 31:3, which reads, “The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore in loving-kindness have I drawn thee.”

PLEASE RESPOND TO THE DEFINITION OF FOREKNOWLEDGE - AND USE THE SCRIPTURES TO SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTIONS. THANKS

 

[Crusador]

Except that is not the Christian model, the debt doesn’t go from one person we owe to another. However, you are heading more towards orthodoxy in that the debt is outright dropped rather than paid off.

Not really, because you have not shown how justice is served when someone is executed in your place.

The only thing “plain” here is how much the Protestant system reads into 2 Cor 5:21 and how much weight they put on this passage. The plain reading of this says nothing about Jesus undergoing divine chastisement. Christ being “made sin” does not equate to punished by God or anything of that nature.

I suggest you read appendix1 of this article:
catholicdefense.googlepages.com/article.htm#appendix1a
It is only about a paragraph long.

False. You are approaching Scripture with preconceived notions and reading them into the text. Nowhere does the Bible say sins were imputed to Christ, yet that dogmatic statement is tossed around left and right. Nowhere does it say God’s wrath was poured out on him, not to mention the blasphemous implications. And nowhere have you shown this senario can rightly be called “justice.”

As for the “demands of the law,” if you think that means Christ fulfilled the Law in our place, and imputed that fulfilled law in our place, you couldnt be more wrong.

You have to look at how this unfolds in the New Testament. For example when it says He carried their griefs and their sickness, what does that mean? Try looking at Mat 8:16f, nothing to do with imputing sins or punishment.

This quote quotes Is 53 more than any other NT passage, so 1 Pt must be used as our main guide. And if you read this 1 Pt 2 passage carefully, and in context, you will see it explicitly denies the idea God poured out his wrath on Jesus.

Cool! At least someone here is interested in talking.

You make a whole lot of denials- but you give no meaningful exegesis. Is that how they train you to respond?

Just give them some denials, and a few insults- and a sny remark here and there with a little smiley face; This way all the new Catholics will feel more secure- like you have it all under control. Even if you do not put forth any legitimate interpretations, just sound like you know what you are talking about- and make them chase you around and around and around. Keep them on the offense- and simply deny everything they say. This is your job.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Certainly we will do much harm to the Scriptures if we assume that it is God’s intentions for all men without exception to be saved (for men cannot save themselves, only God can save them) while millions perish under His wrath. This would ultimately make God into a failure- and would bring contempt upon Christ for not praying for those whom God desires to save!

I would be interested to know if you agree with John Calvin, who said:

All things being at God’s disposal, and the decision of salvation or death belonging to him, he orders all things by his counsel and decree in such a manner, that some men are born devoted from the womb to certain death, that his name may be glorified in their destruction.

• In John Allen, ed., Institutes of the Christian Religion. Ioannis Calvini Institutio Christianae religionis (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1841), p. 169
• This doctrine, that God creates some men in order to damn them, was explicitly rejected by the Council of Orange in A.D. 529. The Bishops wrote:

“We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.”

en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Calvin

And I’d just like to invite comment from all sides on the following by Pope Leo I.

Hence it is that the Lord Jesus Christ, our Head, representing all the members of His body in Himself, and speaking for those whom He was redeeming in the punishment of the cross, uttered that cry which He had once uttered in the psalm,

“O God, My God, look upon Me: why have You forsaken Me ?”

That cry, dearly-beloved, is a lesson, not a complaint. For since in Christ there is one person of God and man, and He could not have been forsaken by Him, from Whom He could not be separated, it is on behalf of us, trembling and weak ones, that He asks why the flesh that is afraid to suffer has not been heard. For when the Passion was beginning, to cure and correct our weak fear He had said,

“Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me: nevertheless not as I will but as You;” and again,

"Father, if this cup cannot pass except I drink it, Your will be done Matthew 26:39, 42.”

Pope St. Leo the Great, sermon 67:7

newadvent.org/fathers/360367.htm

---

“This is a fact; we know it, we remember it, we acknowledge it. The whole earth is reddened with the blood of martyrs; heaven is flowering with martyrs’ garlands; our churches are adorned by the memorials of martyrs; our calendars are studded with martyr’s festivals; CURES OBTAINED THROUGH MARTYR’S MERITS GROW EVER MORE FREQUENT."

St. Augustine, Exposition 30 of Psalm 118, 5. Source: The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, Expositions of the Psalms (Enarrationes in Psalmos, 99-120), 2003, vol. 19, part, 3, ISBN 1565481976, p.486

 

[sandusky]

You make a whole lot of denials- but you give no meaningful exegesis. Is that how they train you to respond?

Just give them some denials, and a few insults- and a sny remark here and there with a little smiley face; This way all the new Catholics will feel more secure- like you have it all under control. Even if you do not put forth any legitimate interpretations, just sound like you know what you are talking about- and make them chase you around and around and around. Keep them on the offense- and simply deny everything they say. This is your job.

It’s obvious to all but him.

 

[Reformed]

“…‘the gospel’ is not just a way to be saved from the penalty of sin, but is the fundamental dynamic for living the whole Christian life–individually and corporately, privately and publicly. In other words, the gospel is not just for non-Christians, but also for Christians. This means the gospel is not just the A-B-C’s but the A to Z of the Christian life. It is not accurate to think ‘the gospel’ is what saves non-Christians, and then, what matures Christians is trying hard to live according to Biblical principles. It is more accurate to say that we are saved by believing the gospel, and then we are transformed in every part of our mind, heart, and life by believing the gospel more and more deeply as our life goes on.” - Tim Keller

 

[Crusador]

“…‘the gospel’ is not just a way to be saved from the penalty of sin, but is the fundamental dynamic for living the whole Christian life–individually and corporately, privately and publicly. In other words, the gospel is not just for non-Christians, but also for Christians. This means the gospel is not just the A-B-C’s but the A to Z of the Christian life. It is not accurate to think ‘the gospel’ is what saves non-Christians, and then, what matures Christians is trying hard to live according to Biblical principles. It is more accurate to say that we are saved by believing the gospel, and then we are transformed in every part of our mind, heart, and life by believing the gospel more and more deeply as our life goes on.” - Tim Keller

AMEN!

 

[Crusador]

I would be interested to know if you agree with John Calvin, who said:

Yes I do- however it needs to be said that “devoted to destruction” is clearly not meant to mean that God is the cause of their sin and destruction- or that God chooses to judge them apart from a consideration of the personal guilt that sinners inevitably incur.

We are all formed from the same lump of clay- and I am of the opinion that his lump of clay- is - what we call- FALLEN HUMANITY- therefore- if God chooses not to elect a person, and chooses not to intervene into that life in saving power to rescue that person- then that person is as good as damned.

However, I will also say this: In the goodness of God- He does not leave this man without the light of his own conscience- and in most cases these days- a clear testimony of the wrath to come upon him if he will not repent.

That being said- let me quote a passage: “This is the condemnation, that light has come into the world- but men love darkness rather than light- because their deeds are evil.” (John 1)

When men go to hell it is because of their own sin-
When men go to heaven it is because of God’s grace-

Hope this helps you understand me a little better-

 

[Crusador]

I suggest you read appendix1 of this article:
catholicdefense.googlepages.com/article.htm#appendix1a It is only about a paragraph long.

MY RESPONSE TO YOUR LINK- (APPENDIX 1) –ALL BOLD IS MINE

One of the most famous passages which Protestants turn to for their understanding of the atonement is 2 Cor 5:21, “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

What a beautiful passage! Yes- we Protestants love this one.

Protestants interpret this to mean that Christ took the punishment we deserved though He wasn’t actually a sinner (sin was imputed to him) while Christ’s Righteousness is imputed to us (though we are not actually righteous).

1 Pet 2: “For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

**Amen to this passage- I certainly see the connection between us following in the footsteps of Christ- and him baring our sins in his body on the cross. But are you implying that we need to follow in Christ’s footsteps by baring our own sins or perhaps other people’s sin in our bodies on a cross? No- actually the beauty of this passage is clear. We as Redeemed sinners are called to live selfless lives, and bear each others BURDENS- even suffering for righteousness’ sake if needs be. WHY? Because Christ did it- so we should be willing to follow in his foot-steps. But the beauty is that Christ did it to the highest degree! He did so much more! He not only suffered unjustly- and he not only suffered for our “burdens”- but “He himself bore our SINS in His body on the cross!” So then if Christ did all this for us, ought not we to be willing to do what we can for others? Amen! **

2 Cor 8: 9

For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich.

Amen- this spells SUBSTITUTION! He took our place and position, and we take his. You know- you are right- Protestants love these passages- don’t Catholics?

Starting with Rom 8:3 above it is shown God the Father sent His Son in the likeness of “sinful flesh” that is in a body like ours to combat sin (by living a life of perfect obedience) and meriting for us the grace of the Spirit SO THAT WE CAN DO GOD’S RIGHTEOUS WORKS.

**No not really, it was in order that we might received a fulfilled law- The law is fulfilled in us when Christ is in us. Christ in us is our hope of glory! Amen. **

In 1 Peter 2 above it is pretty clear, Jesus suffered unjust torture but humbly offered up his sufferings to God so that “we might die to sin and live for righteousness, by his wounds we have been healed.” Jesus was not punished by the Father and nothing was imputed to us but rather a real death to sin and healing occurred in our souls (cf Rom 6:3-7).

Sorry buddy- but the cross reference to this passage is clearly Isaiah 53. You should read this passage prayerfully- and learn to distinguish among things which differ.
**10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. **

Lastly, in 2 Cor 8:9 we see an undeniable parallel to 5:21, from this it is clear the “rich” and “poor” of Jesus is not an imputation but rather an “emptying of himself” as the above and other passages like Philippians 2:5-11 show.

**OK- I see what you are doing. You are confusing the incarnation with the crucifixion.

You have an agenda- and are against the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and you wish to make it into the substitutionary example of Christ. This is dangerous!

You wish to disprove the truth of substitutionary atonement by using portions of passages that speak of the incarnation, and calling them one in the same- they are not.

The incarnation was necessary for subtituionary atonement. But you are confusing the incarnation with the crucifixion. Let’s straighten this out- In the incarnation Christ took upon flesh, IN ORDER THAT he might condemn sin in the flesh by the crucifixion. The former was necessary unto the latter.**

**He bore- NOT JUST OUR FLESH- but Christ hath born OUR SINS in his body ON THE CROSS. Don’t confuse the two- for although they are inseparably related- and the one is necessary to the other- they are nevertheless quite distinct. Incarnation, and Crucifixion- do not mingle the two into one- and blur a whole bunch of passages together.

Get this right- and you will be ok. Good luck and God help you!**

 

[Crusador]

HEY CATHOLIC DUDE:

You say that if Christ paid our debt then God did not forgive us?

You make a fundamental mistake in this assertion.

Let me show you logically that you are wrong.

We are sinners.

We have accumulated a debt with God.

God forgives- US - (not our debt)

Sin will always be brought to punishment.

So the way God did this- is He sent forth Christ to be the propitiation for our sins. Christ took our sins upon himself and our iniquity was laid upon him. He suffered the punishment that these sins and these iniquities had deserved.

So the DEBT was not simply cancelled- it was paid.

But it was paid by Christ ON THE CROSS- and not by us.

“And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven YOU all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.” (Colossians 2:13-15)

We were relieved of having to pay this debt of ours- thus it becomes irrefutably logical to say that . . .God forgave US - (not our debt) - Our debt was paid on the cross by the blood of Jesus Christ. "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.” (Ephesians 1:7)

May God help you see His glory!

 

[SyCarl]

The only thing “plain” here is how much the Protestant system reads into 2 Cor 5:21 and how much weight they put on this passage. The plain reading of this says nothing about Jesus undergoing divine chastisement. Christ being “made sin” does not equate to punished by God or anything of that nature.

Christ’s atonement for our sins can have various aspects to it, one of which is penal substitution. This does not mean that it cannot also be satisfaction, a perfect example, or one of various other possibilities.

I have cited Church Fathers before on this and I do so again. These Fathers may speak of other grounds for atonement as well but they also viewed Christ being punished for us.

Justin Martyr

If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God.-Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 95)
newadvent.org/fathers/01283.htm

Gregory of Nazianzus

As for my sake He was called a curse, Who destroyed my curse; and sin, who taketh away the sin of the world; and became a new Adam to take the place of the old, just so He makes my disobedience His own as Head of the whole body. As long then as I am disobedient and rebellious, both by denial of God and by my passions, so long Christ also is called disobedient on my account.-Gregory of Nazianzus
wordsfromtheway.com/between-the-trees/?p=226

Augustine

Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that He might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment.

The believer in the true doctrine of the gospel will understand that Christ is not reproached by Moses when he speaks of Him as cursed, not in His divine majesty, but as hanging on the tree as our substitute, bearing our punishment, any more than He is praised by the Manichæans when they deny that He had a mortal body, so as to suffer real death. In the curse of the prophet there is praise of Christ’s humility, while in the pretended regard of the heretics there is a charge of falsehood. If, then, you deny that Christ was cursed, you must deny that He died; and then you have to meet, not Moses, but the apostles. Confess that He died, and you may also confess that He, without taking our sin, took its punishment. .-Augustine (Contra Faustum Book 14, Chapters 4 & 7)
newadvent.org/fathers/140614.htm

For even the Lord was subject to death, but not on account of sin: He took upon Him our punishment, and so looseth our guilt.-Augustine (Expositions of the Book of Psalms, Psalm 51)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LI.html

John Chrysostom

And what has He done? “Him that knew no sin He made to be sin, for you.” For had He achieved nothing but done only this, think how great a thing it were to give His Son for those that had outraged Him. But now He has both well achieved mighty things, and besides, has suffered Him that did no wrong to be punished for those who had done wrong. But he did not say this: but mentioned that which is far greater than this. What then is this? “Him that knew no sin,” he says, Him that was righteousness itself, “He made sin,” that is suffered as a sinner to be condemned, as one cursed to die. .-John Chrysostom, Homilies on 2 Corinthians, Homily 11, verse 21)
newadvent.org/fathers/220211.htm

to be continued

 

[SyCarl]

continued

Ambrose

Jesus took on himself even death, that the sentence of condemnation might be carried out, that he might satisfy the judgment that sinful flesh should be cursed even unto death. Nothing therefore was done contrary to the sentence of God, since the condition of God’s sentence was fulfilled.-Ambrose (De Fuga, 44)
angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.ambrose.html

Eusebius of Caesarea

And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, (d) and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down on Himself the apportioned curse, being made a curse for us. ."-Eusebius of Caesarea (Demonstratio Envangelica, Book 10, Chapter 1)
tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_12_book10.htm

He then that was alone of those who ever existed, the Word of God, before all worlds, and High Priest of every creature that has mind and reason, separated One of like passions with us, as a sheep or lamb from the human flock, branded on Him all our sins, and fastened on Him as well the curse that was adjudged by Moses’ law, as Moses foretells: “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” This He suffered "being made a curse for us; and making himself sin for our sakes."And then "He made him sin for our sakes who knew no sin,“and laid on Him all the punishments due to us for our sins, bonds, insults, contumelies, scourging, and shameful blows, and the crowning trophy of the Cross. And after all this when He had offered such a wondrous offering and choice victim to the Father, and sacrificed for the salvation of us all, He delivered a memorial to us to offer to God continually instead of a sacrifice. .”-Eusebius of Caesarea (Demonstratio Envangelica, Book 1, Chapter 10)
tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_03_book1.htm

Athanasius

But beyond all this, there was a debt owing which must needs be paid; for, as I said before, all men were due to die. Here, then, is the second reason why the Word dwelt among us, namely that having proved His Godhead by His works, He might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering His own temple to death in place of all, to settle man’s account with death and free him from the primal transgression….Thus it happened that two opposite marvels took place at once: the death of all was consummated in the Lord’s body; yet, because the Word was in it, death and corruption were in the same act utterly abolished. Death there had to be, and death for all, so that the due of all might be paid.-Athanasius (On the Incarnation, Chapter 4, Paragraph 20)
ccel.org/ccel/athanasius/incarnation.v.html

Formerly the world, as guilty, was under judgment from the Law; but now the Word has taken on Himself the judgment, and having suffered in the body for all, has bestowed salvation to all.-Athanasius
wordsfromtheway.com/between-the-trees/?p=226

Gregory the Great

…if he had not himself undertaken a death not due to him, he would never have freed us from one that was justly due to us… for the sake of sinners he condemns him who is without sin, that all the elect might rise up to the height of righteousness, in proportion as he who is above all underwent the penalties of our unrighteousness’.-Gregory the Great (Moralia in Job, iii. 14; LF, 18:149)
beginningwithmoses.org/bigger/punishedinourplace.htm

Oecumenius

He says that “he bore the sins of many” on the cross, in order that he might quell them, paying the penalty that they deserved. Now the Father sent him, “having made him sin.” For also Christ became as if a sinner, inasmuch as he took on the sins of the whole world and claimed them as his own. But then he paid the penalty that was owed, the punishment belonging to sinners. At last he will come with his Father’s glory, no longer as a sinner, no longer “reckoned among the lawless.”-Oecumenius (Fragments on the Epistle to the Hebrews 9.28 Erik M. Heen & Philip D. W. Krey ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament X Hebrews, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005), p. 149.)

Did all these Father blaspheme and teach heresy?

 

[Contarini]

SyCarl,

And yet none–note one–of these Fathers says “God punished Jesus.” Not one of them says “God poured out His wrath on Jesus.” You’re absolutely right that they teach that Jesus bore our punishment. This is undeniably the true doctrine. So why is it that not one of them takes that apparently tiny step of saying–as many more recent Christians have no problem saying–that God poured out His wrath on Jesus? Did they just never happen to use those words? Or is it that, as so often in Christian theology, apparently small steps have great significance?

Jesus was punished for our sins by the will of God and according to the just judgment of God. But God was not actively doing anything to Jesus on the Cross. God did not hate Jesus, even in some weird legal-fiction way. God did not pour out wrath on Jesus. Jesus’ sufferings resulted not from God’s direct action, but from God’s choice to hand Jesus over for our sake to the powers of death and hell.

Part of the problem with Calvinism here is Calvin’s failure (though later Calvinists were more nuanced in this respect) to distinguish adequately between God’s action and God’s permission.

Edwin

 

[Reformed]

Part of the problem with Calvinism here is Calvin’s failure (though later Calvinists were more nuanced in this respect) to distinguish adequately between God’s action and God’s permission.

Edwin

How do you understand Isaiah 53?

53:1 Who has believed what he has heard from us? [1]
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected [2] by men;
a man of sorrows, [3] and acquainted with [4] grief; [5]
and as one from whom men hide their faces [6]
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?
9 And they made his grave with the wicked
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief; [7]
when his soul makes [8] an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see [9] and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, [10]
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, [11]
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors.

 

[Crusador]

You’re absolutely right that they teach that Jesus bore our punishment. This is undeniably the true doctrine. So why is it that not one of them takes that apparently tiny step of saying–as many more recent Christians have no problem saying–that God poured out His wrath on Jesus? Jesus was punished for our sins by the will of God and according to the just judgment of God. But God was not actively doing anything to Jesus on the Cross. God did not pour out wrath on Jesus. Jesus’ sufferings resulted not from God’s direct action, but from God’s choice to hand Jesus over for our sake to the powers of death and hell.

Hey Edwin- ever read Zehcariah 13?

Who do you think is speaking in verses 7?

“Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.” :knight2:

IT PLEASED THE LORD TO CRUSH HIM- (Isaiah 53:10)

NOT

IT PLEASED THE LORD TO HAVE HIM CRUSHED :tsktsk:

 

[Catholic_Dude]

You make a whole lot of denials- but you give no meaningful exegesis. Is that how they train you to respond?

Just give them some denials, and a few insults- and a sny remark here and there with a little smiley face; This way all the new Catholics will feel more secure- like you have it all under control. Even if you do not put forth any legitimate interpretations, just sound like you know what you are talking about- and make them chase you around and around and around. Keep them on the offense- and simply deny everything they say. This is your job.

You are starting to sound like Sandusky. You make bold assertions, and when I OBJECT on solid grounds then you come back and claim the problem is with me without even interacting with what I said. I broke your comments into parts and commented.

My so called “denials” are valid objections, but the Protestant side has been so trained to read things into Scripture and put so much weight on passages like 2 Cor 5:21 that they start tripping over themself when some real objections are presented.

You, Triune Unity and Sandusky keep trumpeting things like:

1. “Justice” which you explain as having an innocent party get punished.
2. “Forgiveness” which entails a debt being paid off rather than dropped.
3. “sin imputed to Christ” which is something the Bible never says, yet that phrase is parroted like Gospel Truth.
4. Quoting Is 53 without seeing where Is 53 is quoted and unfolds in the NT.
   5)Talking about OT sacrifices which I point out never teach Penal Substitution.

I don’t need a counter exegesis to show your claims are illogical and/or unbibilcal. That being said, I have been providing exegesis throughout this thread, especially in links to articles which I MYSELF wrote so I wouldn’t have to repeat myself so often. I’m the one responding point by point to your comments, Sandusky’s comments and Triune Unity’s comments, yet you guys have not done the same to me.

I’ve been in these types of Lutheran-Calvinist discussions enough times to know what to say and what to expect. It is nothing about you personally, but your theology has a stranglehold on your exegesis that causes other Scripture to be misread trying to fit or salvage Sola Fide.

 

[SyCarl]

SyCarl,

And yet none–note one–of these Fathers says “God punished Jesus.” Not one of them says “God poured out His wrath on Jesus.” You’re absolutely right that they teach that Jesus bore our punishment. This is undeniably the true doctrine. So why is it that not one of them takes that apparently tiny step of saying–as many more recent Christians have no problem saying–that God poured out His wrath on Jesus? Did they just never happen to use those words? Or is it that, as so often in Christian theology, apparently small steps have great significance?

Jesus was punished for our sins by the will of God and according to the just judgment of God. But God was not actively doing anything to Jesus on the Cross. God did not hate Jesus, even in some weird legal-fiction way. God did not pour out wrath on Jesus. Jesus’ sufferings resulted not from God’s direct action, but from God’s choice to hand Jesus over for our sake to the powers of death and hell.

Part of the problem with Calvinism here is Calvin’s failure (though later Calvinists were more nuanced in this respect) to distinguish adequately between God’s action and God’s permission.

Edwin

I am not a Calvinist and understand what you are saying. I do think that Justin Martyr suggests somewhat more than permission when he says “For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family,”.

While God did not directly punish Jesus, I do think it is important that many places in the Old Testament have the prophets speak of God inflicting His wrath on Israel by means of people like the Philistines, Assyrians and the Babylonians. So I think it can be said that permission allows someone else to be the instrument used for God’s punishment.

 

[SyCarl]

I’ve been in these types of Lutheran-Calvinist discussions enough times to know what to say and what to expect. It is nothing about you personally, but your theology has a stranglehold on your exegesis that causes other Scripture to be misread trying to fit or salvage Sola Fide.

I don’t think that penal substiution is crucial to Faith Alone. Faith Alone does not require that atonement be accomplished by any particular means. What it does it does say is that the benefit of that atonement, in whatever form that atonement took, is received by us solely through faith.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Catholic Dude:

Protestants interpret this to mean that Christ took the punishment we deserved though He wasn’t actually a sinner (sin was imputed to him) while Christ’s Righteousness is imputed to us (though we are not actually righteous).

1 Pet 2: “For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

Amen to this passage- I certainly see the connection between us following in the footsteps of Christ- and him baring our sins in his body on the cross. But are you implying that we need to follow in Christ’s footsteps by baring our own sins or perhaps other people’s sin in our bodies on a cross? No- actually the beauty of this passage is clear. We as Redeemed sinners are called to live selfless lives, and bear each others BURDENS- even suffering for righteousness’ sake if needs be. WHY? Because Christ did it- so we should be willing to follow in his foot-steps. But the beauty is that Christ did it to the highest degree! He did so much more! He not only suffered unjustly- and he not only suffered for our “burdens”- but “He himself bore our SINS in His body on the cross!” So then if Christ did all this for us, ought not we to be willing to do what we can for others? Amen!

I would fully agree with this, but it does not teach penal substitution. Christ did not undergo divine chastisement.

2 Cor 8: 9

For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich.

Amen- this spells SUBSTITUTION! He took our place and position, and we take his. You know- you are right- Protestants love these passages- don’t Catholics?

Not penal substitution, THAT is my point. You are quoting from my article, but you are missing my point. Sin was not imputed to Christ here, nor was he punished by God. I am using Scripture to interpret Scripture, and 2 Cor 8:9 should be used to interpret 2 Cor 5:21.

Starting with Rom 8:3 above it is shown God the Father sent His Son in the likeness of “sinful flesh” that is in a body like ours to combat sin (by living a life of perfect obedience) and meriting for us the grace of the Spirit SO THAT WE CAN DO GOD’S RIGHTEOUS WORKS.

No not really, it was in order that we might received a fulfilled law- The law is fulfilled in us when Christ is in us. Christ in us is our hope of glory! Amen.

We are to fulfill the law now that we have the Spirit, that is what it says. But that isnt even the issue here, the issue here is interpreting 2 Cor 5:21 with other Scripture.

In 1 Peter 2 above it is pretty clear, Jesus suffered unjust torture but humbly offered up his sufferings to God so that “we might die to sin and live for righteousness, by his wounds we have been healed.” Jesus was not punished by the Father and nothing was imputed to us but rather a real death to sin and healing occurred in our souls (cf Rom 6:3-7).

Sorry buddy- but the cross reference to this passage is clearly Isaiah 53. You should read this passage prayerfully- and learn to distinguish among things which differ.
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

You are ignoring the clear teachings of 1 Pt 2, it is explicitly clear God was not the one inflicting the pain, it was “unjust torture” at the hands of men. Is 53 must be interpreted as it UNFOLDS in the NT, 1 pt 2 quotes it and shows this is not a penal substitution situation. You are brushing off and missing the whole point of my comments in Appendix 1.

Lastly, in 2 Cor 8:9 we see an undeniable parallel to 5:21, from this it is clear the “rich” and “poor” of Jesus is not an imputation but rather an “emptying of himself” as the above and other passages like Philippians 2:5-11 show.

OK- I see what you are doing. You are confusing the incarnation with the crucifixion.

LOL, prove it. I am confusing nothing. I am using Scripture to interpret Scripture, and you have either totally missed that or are deliberately brushing off my comments.

You have an agenda- and are against the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and you wish to make it into the substitutionary example of Christ. This is dangerous!

Quite the contrary, it is you who has an agenda trying to read penal substitution into the Bible. Funny that the most important aspect of the Atonement, Christ taking God’s Wrath, Scripture is silent upon, especially the Gospel accounts at the foot of the cross.
(cont 1 of 2)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont 2 of 2)

You wish to disprove the truth of substitutionary atonement by using portions of passages that speak of the incarnation, and calling them one in the same- they are not.

You are brushing off all my claims offhand and without proof.

The incarnation was necessary for subtituionary atonement. But you are confusing the incarnation with the crucifixion. Let’s straighten this out- In the incarnation Christ took upon flesh, IN ORDER THAT he might condemn sin in the flesh by the crucifixion. The former was necessary unto the latter.

I’m not confusing anything here, my claim is that “made sin” cannot be interpreted “imputed with sin and punished,” instead it corresponds to Jesus taking on flesh and living a life of humility even unto death. Is Paul confusing incarnation and atonement in Rom 8:3 "sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin", according to you he is.

He bore- NOT JUST OUR FLESH- but Christ hath born OUR SINS in his body ON THE CROSS. Don’t confuse the two- for although they are inseparably related- and the one is necessary to the other- they are nevertheless quite distinct. Incarnation, and Crucifixion- do not mingle the two into one- and blur a whole bunch of passages together.

You are quoting 1 Pt 2, where it explicitly excludes the idea of receiving divine wrath, so your imputing sin doesn’t work. Further, the “bore sins in his body” is obviously figurative as sin is not an object that can be placed into something.

In the end, your interpretation of 2 Cor 5:21 is not supported by Scripture, while I am using similar passages to interpret it.

HEY CATHOLIC DUDE:

You say that if Christ paid our debt then God did not forgive us?
You make a fundamental mistake in this assertion.
Let me show you logically that you are wrong.
We are sinners.
We have accumulated a debt with God.
God forgives- US - (not our debt)

He forgave us but not our debt? That doesn’t make sense.

Sin will always be brought to punishment.

If so, then we must be punished, and there is no forgiveness. Further, if you think this punishment can be transfered then the problem is with your logic and definition of “justice.”

So the way God did this- is He sent forth Christ to be the propitiation for our sins. Christ took our sins upon himself and our iniquity was laid upon him. He suffered the punishment that these sins and these iniquities had deserved.

The Bible says nothing about Christ undergoing God’s Divine Wrath towards sin, nor does this fit any definition of “justice” out there.

So the DEBT was not simply cancelled- it was paid.
But it was paid by Christ ON THE CROSS- and not by us.

This is contradictory, it cant be cancelled and paid, one or the other.

“And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven YOU all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.” (Colossians 2:13-15)

We were relieved of having to pay this debt of ours- thus it becomes irrefutably logical to say that . . .God forgave US - (not our debt) - Our debt was paid on the cross by the blood of Jesus Christ. "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.” (Ephesians 1:7)

You still havnt explained yourself, what is this “God forgave us but not our debt”…as if us and our debt can be separated.