Challenge from a Baptist

  • Thread starter Thread starter FightingFat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FightingFat

Guest
I’ve got a feeling I’m being set up with this one, but I have been challenged to explain from the NT only, what is the purpose for the shedding of His blood?
 
40.png
FightingFat:
I’ve got a feeling I’m being set up with this one, but I have been challenged to explain from the NT only, what is the purpose for the shedding of His blood?
Click to expand...
Aside from the fact that I don’t know what your challenger is talking about, why would you agree to terms like that? Catholics read and believe the WHOLE Bible. The New Testament doesn’t make any sense unless you have a grip on the Old Testament.
 
Well I haven’t agreed to anything, it’s part of an ongoing debate. I feel it would be bad form to back down on a challenge so thought I would see if I could glean some inspiration here before I answer!

🙂
 
There’s nothing wrong with backing down from a faulty challenge. Jesus taught from the Old Testament. The Apostles taught from the Old Testament. What’s more, they taught from Jewish Tradition that stood apart from Scripture. Your challenger is asking you to breath in space without a suit.

Turn it around on him and say that you’ll gladly rise to his challenge just as soon as he can prove, using his idea of the New Testament only, what books comprise the New Testament you’re to be utilizing.

Peace and God bless!
 
I agree with the above comments. It’s all part of the Blood Covenant that Jesus made on our behalf, and replaces the other Blood Covenants in the OT, particularly that with Abraham. So you need to understand the OT culture as well as the OT itself.

It’s explained in the Letter to The Hebrews. Read chapters 9 & 10.
 
Tell your Baptist friend that scriptural showboating is a sin.
 
40.png
FightingFat:
I’ve got a feeling I’m being set up with this one, but I have been challenged to explain from the NT only, what is the purpose for the shedding of His blood?
Click to expand...
I would ask him why he set up those peramenters. There is nothing wrong with saying that his question is faulty.

I can’t imagine what point that he is making, though. Does anyone know where Fighting Fat’s debate partner is going with this?
 
40.png
Ghosty:
There’s nothing wrong with backing down from a faulty challenge. Jesus taught from the Old Testament. The Apostles taught from the Old Testament. What’s more, they taught from Jewish Tradition that stood apart from Scripture. Your challenger is asking you to breath in space without a suit.

Turn it around on him and say that you’ll gladly rise to his challenge just as soon as he can prove, using his idea of the New Testament only, what books comprise the New Testament you’re to be utilizing.

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
In addition to the points made in this post, I’d “enhance” the post that said showboating is a sin, I’d tell him that he sounds like he is trying to use the law for his own purposes. Kinda sounds like the Pharisees.
 
40.png
FightingFat:
I’ve got a feeling I’m being set up with this one, but I have been challenged to explain from the NT only, what is the purpose for the shedding of His blood?
Click to expand...
Read the book of Hebrews. There is plently of OT in there to explain the atonement. How does the baptist view of the atonement line up with the catholic?
 
40.png
mercygate:
Aside from the fact that I don’t know what your challenger is talking about, why would you agree to terms like that? Catholics read and believe the WHOLE Bible. The New Testament doesn’t make any sense unless you have a grip on the Old Testament.
Click to expand...
I agree also.
 
Sometimes it seems like some of our protestant brothers think that the New Testament replaced or invalidated the Old Testament. What they need to understand is that the New Testament did neither; what it did was fullfill the Old Testament.
 
40.png
Jabronie:
Sometimes it seems like some of our protestant brothers think that the New Testament replaced or invalidated the Old Testament. What they need to understand is that the New Testament did neither; what it did was fullfill the Old Testament.
Click to expand...
Matthew 5:17-20 - (Jesus during the Sermon on the Mount …) "You must not think I have come to abolish the Law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish them but to complete them. Indeed, I assure you that, while Heaven and earth last, the Law will not lose a single dot or comma until its purpose is complete. This means that whoever now relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men to do the same will himself be called least in Heaven.

But whoever teaches and practises them will be called great in the kingdom of Heaven. For I tell you that your goodness must be a far better thing then the goodness of the scribes and Pharisees before you can set foot in the kingdom of Heaven at all!
 
Tell him it’s going against Scripture to ignore the OT:

*2 Timothy 3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is porfitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. *(I even used the KJV for ya!)

Note it says ALL scripture is profitable for instruction (‘training’ in some versions) in righteousness - not just the Old and not just the New.
 
Man does not live on bread alone, but by

every

word that comes from the mouth of God!

👋
 
40.png
Jabronie:
Sometimes it seems like some of our protestant brothers think that the New Testament replaced or invalidated the Old Testament. What they need to understand is that the New Testament did neither; what it did was fullfill the Old Testament.
Click to expand...
Amen, amen, amen. 👍
 
40.png
deb1:
I can’t imagine what point that he is making, though. Does anyone know where Fighting Fat’s debate partner is going with this?
Click to expand...
I think it could be the issue of substitutionary punishment vs. vicarious atonement.

Protestants tend to think that what Jesus did on the cross was to be a substitute for the punishment of our sins, and that we thus are saved passively since Christ already did everything needed. Anything else we do is symbolic of our faith in what He did for us.

Catholic theology views it as sacrifice and atonement done for us, wherein we are purchased out of the slavery of sin and God is satisfied for the offense of our sins. As a propitiation or atonement, our punishment was not taken on, but rather, something really good was done to make up for our sins. This redemption must still be applied to us by faith and we must begin to live our new life in obedience (works). Thus we are saved by our efforts in faith to take hold of the redemption Christ purchased for us, and we must persevere in this is order to reach salvation.

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

We too must run the course to Christ, and if we don’t finish, then we can’t be saved, just as if Christ did not finish, no one would be redeemed.

1 Corinthians 9:24 Know you not that they that run in the race, all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize? So run that you may obtain.

It is the vicarious atonement that protestants will dispute, for it is only implicitly in scripture. Vatican I meant to raise it to a dogma, but that council was shortened. (Ott, p.187)

So on this basis, I think that when a Protestant and Catholic both say “Jesus died for us”, they mean two totally different things, and that is why we have a discrepancy in what it means to be “saved”.

It makes sense that Baptists want to dispute this, because they generally believe “once saved always saved” (based on the notion that Christ already suffered our punishment for us).

hurst
 
40.png
hurst:
I think it could be the issue of substitutionary punishment vs. vicarious atonement.

Protestants tend to think that what Jesus did on the cross was to be a substitute for the punishment of our sins, and that we thus are saved passively since Christ already did everything needed. Anything else we do is symbolic of our faith in what He did for us.

Catholic theology views it as sacrifice and atonement done for us, wherein we are purchased out of the slavery of sin and God is satisfied for the offense of our sins. As a propitiation or atonement, our punishment was not taken on, but rather, something really good was done to make up for our sins. This redemption must still be applied to us by faith and we must begin to live our new life in obedience (works). Thus we are saved by our efforts in faith to take hold of the redemption Christ purchased for us, and we must persevere in this is order to reach salvation.

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

We too must run the course to Christ, and if we don’t finish, then we can’t be saved, just as if Christ did not finish, no one would be redeemed.

1 Corinthians 9:24 Know you not that they that run in the race, all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize? So run that you may obtain.

It is the vicarious atonement that protestants will dispute, for it is only implicitly in scripture. Vatican I meant to raise it to a dogma, but that council was shortened. (Ott, p.187)

So on this basis, I think that when a Protestant and Catholic both say “Jesus died for us”, they mean two totally different things, and that is why we have a discrepancy in what it means to be “saved”.

It makes sense that Baptists want to dispute this, because they generally believe “once saved always saved” (based on the notion that Christ already suffered our punishment for us).

hurst
Click to expand...
What a great post! :tiphat:
 
40.png
hurst:
I think it could be the issue of substitutionary punishment vs. vicarious atonement.

Protestants tend to think that what Jesus did on the cross was to be a substitute for the punishment of our sins, and that we thus are saved passively since Christ already did everything needed. Anything else we do is symbolic of our faith in what He did for us.

Catholic theology views it as sacrifice and atonement done for us, wherein we are purchased out of the slavery of sin and God is satisfied for the offense of our sins. As a propitiation or atonement, our punishment was not taken on, but rather, something really good was done to make up for our sins. This redemption must still be applied to us by faith and we must begin to live our new life in obedience (works). Thus we are saved by our efforts in faith to take hold of the redemption Christ purchased for us, and we must persevere in this is order to reach salvation.

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

We too must run the course to Christ, and if we don’t finish, then we can’t be saved, just as if Christ did not finish, no one would be redeemed.

1 Corinthians 9:24 Know you not that they that run in the race, all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize? So run that you may obtain.

It is the vicarious atonement that protestants will dispute, for it is only implicitly in scripture. Vatican I meant to raise it to a dogma, but that council was shortened. (Ott, p.187)

So on this basis, I think that when a Protestant and Catholic both say “Jesus died for us”, they mean two totally different things, and that is why we have a discrepancy in what it means to be “saved”.

It makes sense that Baptists want to dispute this, because they generally believe “once saved always saved” (based on the notion that Christ already suffered our punishment for us).

hurst
Click to expand...
Thank you. I am in RCIA and I didn’t know this. Could you post some links inwhich I could read more about this? Is this why my former Baptist minister always said that Christ became sin? Catholics don’t believe that, correct or do they?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top