Did jesus die as our substitute?

[6glargento]

hey, happy easter everyone!

i got a question,

some protestants teach that jesus was our substitue or that “jesus took out place on the cross.”
Here is what one protestant wrote about this issue on another forum

The cross, the pain, the cheering crowd, the flogging the crown of thorns, even death, – all couldn’t be compared to the fact that the Father turned away from Him. That was the hardest part. He said before: “Me and the Father are One…” This unity was broken on the cross.

At that point God didn’t see His Son; God saw us, sinners. (Since Christ was our Substitute).

Is. 59:2 says: " 2But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear."

Sin is like an impassible barricade between God and man; our sins separate us from God. When Christ was on the cross, our sins separated Him from God.

The Bible states, that when we are born into this world, we already belong to Satan, since our nature is of his nature, and through our nature we are united with him. (This is the reason that we are hell-bound without Christ. Hell was prepared for Satan, and for those who belong to him).

God’s nature and Satan’s nature are irreconcilable; they repel each other, and they cannot coexist.

When Christ took our place; when the sins of all the world was on Him, sin separated Him from the Father. He became sin for us, and He repelled the holy God.

It is written that He (Christ) became sin for us. “21For He (God) hath made Him (Christ) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Cor. 5:21)

God turned away from His beloved Son, so that He wouldn’t have to turn away from those who are saved by Christ.

i understand that the catholic church teaches that jesus paid the debt for our sins which we couldn’t pay but doesn’t claim that christ “died in our place,” anyone else here have an opinion on this issue?

 

[MrS]

hey, happy easter everyone!

i got a question,

some protestants teach that jesus was our substitue or that “jesus took out place on the cross.”
Here is what one protestant wrote about this issue on another forum

i understand that the catholic church teaches that jesus paid the debt for our sins which we couldn’t pay but doesn’t claim that christ “died in our place,” anyone else here have an opinion on this issue?

The Catholic Church has the only opinion that matters.

Christ’s death was an atonement for our sins, and it re-opened the gates of heaven for us. Christ assumed our human nature in its fullness without any loss of His Divine Nature in its fullness.

God the Father could not forgive us… faith and reason go hand in hand. It is unreasonable to think that the Father could lower his level of dignity to ours, or raise ours to his so that forgiveness could be ours. That is why He send His Son.

The temportal punishment is quite different from that forgiveness of sins. We still have to pay the price for our sins, forgiven or not.

If the murderer dies, unrepentant, will Christ go to hell for the murderer? Not likely. Chirst bears the pain and the suffering our sins cause God. Christ pays that price to appease His Father.

But in the beautiful cooperative plan He has, we must cooperate with Him. We do in procreation (He could do it all if He chose to), we do it in acts of the will to love Him (He could design us to just be loving Him)…

and we do it in our transgressions… He paid the price to His Father, we pay the temporal price to Him.

What a merciful and loving God.

.

 

[Nicene]

Jesus took the lambs place, not ours. We are supposed to join him on the cross, not avoid it.

Col 1:24: Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,

Bottom line is, if we were supposed to be crucified on the cross and Jesus took our place, then God is a God that wants us to offer human sacrifices. God is pretty adamant about what he thinks of that in the OT.

Basically to say Jesus took our place is a blasphemy on many levels. Gods justice for one, taking a person whom he knows to be innocent and sentencing him to death and eternal damnation for a crime he didn’t commit and letting the guilty party go free.

That’s not what happened on the cross. What did happen is that our big brother, Jesus, offered to pay our father for the damage we had done. He was our bail bondsman in effect. Akin to my younger son broke something, and my oder son seeing he did it, offered to pay me because my younger son couldn’t afford to pay me.

The injustice of the replacement theory is, in the same situation, my younger son breaks something, I know he did it, I wait for my older son to come home, whom I know beyond doubt didn’t do it, and sentence him for the crime. And according to the doctrine of all sins equal in weight and gravity. I sentence him to death for breaking the lamp, expecting him to pay with his life for a crime I know he didn’t do.

That’s not what happened on the cross. It calls Gods justice evil, and thus a blasphemy.

Happy Easter. Your big brother paid your debt you couldn’t afford to pay. And he rose from the dead. :harp:

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[tabcom]

**One of my favorite verses in all the Bible:

Luke 9:23
And (Jesus) was saying to them all, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me.**

 

[RobNY]

The cross, the pain, the cheering crowd, the flogging the crown of thorns, even death, – all couldn’t be compared to the fact that the Father turned away from Him. That was the hardest part. He said before: “Me and the Father are One…” This unity was broken on the cross.

This is utter nonsense. It not only in unintelligible, when comprehended it seems downright heretical. If we say that the Father and the Son are one by means of their identical divine nature-- the creed says He is consubstantial/of one being (homoousious) with the Father-- then to say that, “this unity was broken” would be to say that the Son ceased to be God. Obviously that is a heresy.

Or, he could mean instead that the Son was forsaken by the Father, to the extent that the filial relation no longer existed. I.e., that the Son was no longer the Son, and the Father no longer the Father. Obviously, this is also a problem, as it destroys the Trinity.

At that point God didn’t see His Son; God saw us, sinners. (Since Christ was our Substitute).

This is too judicial. What happens on the cross is that Christ makes satisfaction for our sins. He does not engage in, ‘penal substitution’ while on the Cross.

Sin is like an impassible barricade between God and man; our sins separate us from God. When Christ was on the cross, our sins separated Him from God.

Again, this is troublesome. It undermines Christ’s divinity, and the Trinity’s nature.

The Bible states, that when we are born into this world, we already belong to Satan, since our nature is of his nature, and through our nature we are united with him. (This is the reason that we are hell-bound without Christ. Hell was prepared for Satan, and for those who belong to him).

He seems to take the worst of the ransom theory and the worst of the penal substitution theory and meld them together. We do not, “belong to Satan” in any real sense. Our nature is not of Satan’s nature. Our nature is a fallen, wounded human nature.

God’s nature and Satan’s nature are irreconcilable; they repel each other, and they cannot coexist.

Nothing can be, by nature, two things at once.

When Christ took our place; when the sins of all the world was on Him, sin separated Him from the Father. He became sin for us, and He repelled the holy God.

If Christ experienced such an alienation, then He ceased to be God and Son.

God turned away from His beloved Son, so that He wouldn’t have to turn away from those who are saved by Christ.

Again, the ‘turn away’ comes from an overly judicial point of view. This presupposes an imputed righteousness where man does not become ontologically just but where he puts on the outward cloak of Christ, and merely looks outwardly just (and on this basis, God passes over him). This is a deeply flawed point of view.

What’s most absurd is looking at this theory from the macro view-- he is claiming that, somehow, by Christ becoming alienated from God that we become reconciled to God. Nuts! If Christ becomes alienated from God, then how can he possibly be our mediator? It is only because He is one with God, and man, that he can save us.

 

[RobNY]

I recommend reading the Catechism from “Christ’s redemptive death in God’s plan of salvation,” paragraphs 599 to 623.

What is so wrongheaded, essentially, about this theological point of view, is that they think Christ becomes the substitute for our punishment. This is why they think He needs to be alienated from His Father and to suffer the torment of hell. If Christ is substituted for our punishment, and our punishment is alienation from the Father and eternal hellfire, then that must be what Christ endured!

The problem with this is that you need what seems to be an, ‘angry God.’ John Calvin is famously derided for this view. He says in his Institutes of the Christian Religion that, “God is armed for vengeance” and that God somehow must punish someone if He is to abate His wrath and not damn us to eternal hellfire. Note how subtle this is-- man has sinned, God is wrathful, God must punish someone so that his Justice may be appeased. Calvin says, “Christ interposed, took the punishment upon himself and bore what by the just judgment of God was impending over sinners.” Calvin says that God, “has his arm raised for our destruction.”

But this is exactly what is essentially wrongheaded about the position. God does not have to hit anybody to appease His wrath. Punishment does not have to be dealt out. It is not the case that Christ must ‘interpose’ and take the hit for us. Not at all.

Why? Because Christ is not substituing Himself as a, ‘penal substitution’-- as if He is bearing the judicial punishment for our crime (which would be unjust and cruel of God to do to an innocent person!), as Calvin says, “we may infer how dire and dreadful were the tortures which he endured when he felt himself standing at the bar of God as a criminal in our stead.”

Instead Christ is substituting His life of obedience for our disobedience. Paul says that, “just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous” (Rom 5:19). His substitution is not of Himself for our punishment, but His substitution of His love and obedience for our disobedience.

The Catechism explains:

Jesus substitutes his obedience for our disobedience

**615 **"For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous."443 By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who “makes himself an offering for sin”, when “he bore the sin of many”, and who “shall make many to be accounted righteous”, for “he shall bear their iniquities”.444 Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.445

Jesus consummates his sacrifice on the cross

**616 **It is love "to the end"446 that confers on Christ’s sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction. He knew and loved us all when he offered his life.447 Now "the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died."448 No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all. The existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons, and constitutes himself as the Head of all mankind, makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all.

What Christ has to do is not substitute Himself in our place and take our punishment, but make satisfaction to the Father for our sins. He makes satisfaction by giving a gift of infinite value-- His life of obedience poured out in love on the cross. It was because He became, “obedient even unto death, death on a cross” that He saved us.

As in Anselm’s dilemma, the case was that man had sinned, and somehow then had to make infinite reparations for this sin. (Note: man did not have to endure punishment, but to ‘pay God back’ for his sin!) But, man was unable to do so of himself. It was unfitting that God should let His creation come to nothing. Only God could pay that infinite debt. Only man could rightfully pay that debt-- one descended from Adam must necessarily repay that debt, for only a descendant of Adam would owe it. Because God loved us, He sent His only Son, who alone, as God, could repay the infinite debt we owed, and and man could rightfully repay it, and suffer in the flesh. Thus God in a supreme act reconciles both His justice and mercy-- in the Incarnation, the God-Man!

-Rob

 

[RobNY]

Recommended reading-- Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo, Why God Became Man. If you don’t get caught up in his funny argument about the number of the elect making up for the number of fallen angels (I love the scholastics, but I have to admit, I wonder sometimes what was going on in their heads!), you’ll have the chance of reading a truly brilliant argument by this saint. I’ve been told that Thomas Aquinas also took a look at this, and refined it, but I haven’t read the text. Although less on subject to the issue, Athanasius’ On the Incarnation is simply brilliant.

-Rob

 

[Atemi]

some protestants teach that jesus was our substitue or that “jesus took out place on the cross.”

Yes.

i understand that the catholic church teaches that jesus paid the debt for our sins which we couldn’t pay but doesn’t claim that christ “died in our place,” anyone else here have an opinion on this issue?

It is the Great Switcheroo:

2Cr 5:21 “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

Here is a great sermon on the subject.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I made a thread about the dangerous/heretical conclusions of the Protestant understanding of the atonement, here are some key passages from John Calvin himself:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2063202&postcount=10
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2063203&postcount=11
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=143144

 

[Atemi]

I made a thread about the dangerous/heretical conclusions of the Protestant understanding of the atonement, here are some key passages from John Calvin himself:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2063202&postcount=10
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2063203&postcount=11
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=143144

The Protestant understanding? Do you know how many historical Catholic understandings there are to the atonement?

Did John Calvin die for me?

No.

I follow Jesus Christ.

What do I care about the purported errors of a man?

We all got the Word of God on these matters. The personal theological musings of other men should mean little to us.

That is the blessing of liberty in Christ.

Alleluia!

…

 

[jemfinch]

The Protestant understanding? Do you know how many historical Catholic understandings there are to the atonement?

Out of all the actual arguments made in this thread, you chose to respond to the wording of one short post, only made to refer the original poster to some other posts?

Jeremy

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The Protestant understanding? Do you know how many historical Catholic understandings there are to the atonement?

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the atonement no orthodox Catholic has ever held to the ‘penal substitution’ view. In contrast, the protestant position does accept that view and the theological consequences are both heretical and abominable.

Did John Calvin die for me?

No.

I never said he did…so I have no idea why you ask this.

I follow Jesus Christ.

Thats what they ALL say…

What do I care about the purported errors of a man?

You should care considering the “purported errors” from a few “reformers” is what your protestant theology is founded upon.
If im not mistaking you mentioned in the past you dont even believe in the classical Protestant understanding of Original Sin which puts you in a new class of your own regarding just what the atonement accomplished.

We all got the Word of God on these matters. The personal theological musings of other men should mean little to us.

Again, that is what they ALL say…“I have the Bible and those who dont agree with me are wrong”…at which point everyone has just as much claim to the Truth as everyone else.

 

[Atemi]

Out of all the actual arguments made in this thread, you chose to respond to the wording of one short post, only made to refer the original poster to some other posts?

No.

I chose to respond to a post that responded to me.

Please check your thread viewing options.

 

[jemfinch]

No.

I chose to respond to a post that responded to me.

Please check your thread viewing options.

Please check your own; Catholic Dude’s post didn’t quote yours, and it didn’t say anything about yours, and it only happened to be posted after yours. As far as I can tell, there’s no evidence whatsoever that he was in any way responding to you.

That’s a very Atemi-centric worldview you’ve got there, though

Jeremy

 

[Nicene]

Yes.

Nope.

It is the Great Switcheroo:

2Cr 5:21 “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

Here is a great sermon on the subject.

There was no switcheroo except for maybe for the truth of the gospel

From the sermon:

*“eloi eloi lamach sabachtani. My god My God, why hast though forsaken me…he knows what its like to feel estranged, distanced from the father, for he who knew no sin was made sin and the Father turned his back on the son for the first and only time in eternity.”
*
Ugh. There goes the hypostatic union and the trinity. Christ loses his godhead at the most important and crucial moment in history and is just a man, which means there was no expiation for our sins. If he doesn’t lose his Godhead, then for the first time in history, according to this teaching, there are two complete and separate Gods, pantheism. The truth is that Jesus is referring to Psalm 22, the Psalm of the innocent man:

Psa 22:1: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Why art thou so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning?
2: O my God, I cry by day, but thou dost not answer; and by night, but find no rest.
3: Yet thou art holy, enthroned on the praises of Israel.
4: In thee our fathers trusted; they trusted, and thou didst deliver them.
5: To thee they cried, and were saved; in thee they trusted, and were not disappointed.
6: But I am a worm, and no man; scorned by men, and despised by the people.
7: All who see me mock at me, they make mouths at me, they wag their heads;
8: “He committed his cause to the LORD; let him deliver him, let him rescue him, for he delights in him!”
9: Yet thou art he who took me from the womb; thou didst keep me safe upon my mother’s breasts.
10: Upon thee was I cast from my birth, and since my mother bore me thou hast been my God.
11: Be not far from me, for trouble is near and there is none to help.
12: Many bulls encompass me, strong bulls of Bashan surround me;
13: they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion.
14: I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax, it is melted within my breast;
15: my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue cleaves to my jaws; thou dost lay me in the dust of death.
16: Yea, dogs are round about me; a company of evildoers encircle me; they have pierced my hands and feet –
17: I can count all my bones – they stare and gloat over me;
18: they divide my garments among them, and for my raiment they cast lots.
19: But thou, O LORD, be not far off! O thou my help, hasten to my aid!
20: Deliver my soul from the sword, my life from the power of the dog!
21: Save me from the mouth of the lion, my afflicted soul from the horns of the wild oxen!
22: I will tell of thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the congregation I will praise thee:
23: You who fear the LORD, praise him! all you sons of Jacob, glorify him, and stand in awe of him, all you sons of Israel!
24: For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; and he has not hid his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him.
25: From thee comes my praise in the great congregation; my vows I will pay before those who fear him.
26: The afflicted shall eat and be satisfied; those who seek him shall praise the LORD! May your hearts live for ever!
27: All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the LORD; and all the families of the nations shall worship before him.
28: For dominion belongs to the LORD, and he rules over the nations.
29: Yea, to him shall all the proud of the earth bow down; before him shall bow all who go down to the dust, and he who cannot keep himself alive.
30: Posterity shall serve him; men shall tell of the Lord to the coming generation,
31: and proclaim his deliverance to a people yet unborn, that he has wrought it.

He is telling them they have just fulfilled prophesy. He is also still showing us the way; in the midst of suffering and loneliness he turns to the Father for deliverance and places his trust fully in God. Despair, according to the gospel, is sin. If Jesus is despairing he is sinning in his own right. The gospel teaches Jesus was without sin. He is giving us an example. “Into thy hands I commit my Spirit”. At no time was he not God, or conversely two Gods. Error begets error. If you appeal to:

Cont…

 

[Nicene]

Phil 2:5: Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
6: who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7: but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

It is speaking of his incarnation, at which point one confesses that Jesus Christ was never God while in human form, or a limited God when referring to “emptied himself” which would again mean he wasn’t fully God and fully man:

Col 1:15: He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation;
16: for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities – all things were created through him and for him.
17: He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
18: He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent.
19: For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell,
20: and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

but rather fully man and partially God, which is false. Jesus is and was fully God and fully man in one person, not partial, not completely human devoid of godhood, and not pantheistic.

2Cr 5:21 “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

2 Cor 2:21: For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Christ took on our sins. Life isn’t a sin, death isn’t a sin, it is the wages of sin. We are sinners, not sin itself. In making mankind a sin, one states that God created sin, again attributing evil to God.

Another blasphemy IMHO. Bad sermon and exegesis.

Jesus took the place of the lamb, not ours. He took our sins, men aren’t a sin, life isn’t a sin. How we abuse Gods gift is a sin.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Ghosty]

Christ died for us, certainly, but as others have strongly insisted He didn’t die to sate the wrath of the Father.

There IS an element of Justice being served, however, but it’s not at all what your friend is indicating. It is Just that humans die for sin, not because of the wrath of God but because of the nature of sin and the decree concerning sin and death from Genesis.

Insofar as our human nature was subject to death and corruption for sin, Christ DID die for us, but He did so to “exhaust” death and corruption, to infinitely fill up its measure by the weight of His Divinity, so to speak.

St. Athanasius discusses this in On the Incarnation to a great extent. Here’s a relevant passage:

It was impossible, therefore, that God should leave man to be carried off by corruption, because it would be unfitting and unworthy of Himself.

Yet, true though this is, it is not the whole matter. As we have already noted, it was unthinkable that God, the Father of Truth, should go back upon His word regarding death in order to ensure our continued existence. He could not falsify Himself; what, then, was God to do? Was He to demand repentance from men for their transgression? You might say that that was worthy of God, and argue further that, as through the Transgression they became subject to corruption, so through repentance they might return to incorruption again. But repentance would not guard the Divine consistency, for, if death did not hold dominion over men, God would still remain untrue. Nor does repentance recall men from what is according to their nature; all that it does is to make them cease from sinning. Had it been a case of a trespass only, and not of a subsequent corruption, repentance would have been well enough; but when once transgression had begun men came under the power of the corruption proper to their nature and were bereft of the grace which belonged to them as creatures in the Image of God. No, repentance could not meet the case. What—or rather Who

was it that was needed for such grace and such recall as we required? Who, save the Word of God Himself, Who also in the beginning had made all things out of nothing?

…

The Word perceived that corruption could not be got rid of otherwise than through death; yet He Himself, as the Word, being immortal and the Father’s Son, was such as could not die. For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection. It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for His human brethren by the offering of the equivalent. For naturally, since the Word of God was above all, when He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled in death all that was required. Naturally also, through this union of the immortal Son of God with our human nature, all men were clothed with incorruption in the promise of the resurrection.

There is great danger in your friend’s assertion that Christ 1 ) fulfilled some wrathful inclination on the part of God, and 2 ) was seperated from God. If the former is true, how could such a wrathful God have prepared an exchange for us in the first place? If God couldn’t forgive us until He smacked something, how could He send His Son while still full of wrath against humanity? Justice needed to be served, of course, but God’s Mercy was operative from the very beginning, preparing in Love to fulfill His own decree.

The second problem not only destroys the Trinity and the Incarnation, but destroys the very element of the Incarnation that makes the Sacrifice effective at all! If Christ was not God when He died, then His death could not infinitely fulfill our own punishment even in your friends system. It is only because it was God that suffered and died, and not a mere human, that there is any atonement at all!

Peace and God bless!

 

[Atemi]

Please check your own; Catholic Dude’s post didn’t quote yours, and it didn’t say anything about yours, and it only happened to be posted after yours. As far as I can tell, there’s no evidence whatsoever that he was in any way responding to you.

That’s a very Atemi-centric worldview you’ve got there, though

Jeremy

You are not paying attention and you are speaking out of turn.

One need not quote a poster to reply to them. This is basic.

You never checked your thread settings at all. Change your settings to hybrid or threaded and see who he replied to.

But if it makes you feel better to hijack this thread…

…

 

[Nicene]

What do I care about the purported errors of a man?

We all got the Word of God on these matters. The personal theological musings of other men should mean little to us.

In a way amusing, because this is exactly what “Jesus took my place on the cross” is, a musing of men in critical error of the gospel. As well as the sermon presented earlier.

But if we all have the word of God, how did you get this so very very wrong? Jesus not God on the cross when the only person who could have taken on the sins of the whole world throughout time was God. Or pantheism, multiple Gods. I would certainly call this a huge error of men because it certainly isn’t found in the sacred scripture nor tradition.

FYI, Jesus is the Word of God:

Jn 1:1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Rev 19:13: He is clad in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.

Sacred scripture is the word of God in as much as it has the presence of Christ and he speaks to us through his word in the liturgy.

Rom 10:13: For, “every one who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.”
14: But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?
15: And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!”
16: But they have not all obeyed the gospel; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?”
17: So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ.

From what we have seen (the sermon above being the example) fundamentalists don’t preach the natural flow of the gospel in Jesus own words, rejecting liturgy, but rather exegete sermons from the pulpit using varied proof texts for pet doctrines.

Only those who were “sent” (a.k.a. αποσταλωσιν; apostles) preach the liturgy for those to hear and believe. Apostolic succession. The rest try to teach their brother:

Heb 8:10: This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
11: And they shall not teach every one his fellow or every one his brother, saying, `Know the Lord,’ for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest.

The big giveaway is that catholics “know” the Lord. The rest try to teach their brother by saying you need a “personal relationship”. The difference is as catholics we have an intimate relationship with Christ (look up “know”, biblically) instead of buddy Jesus. It is the difference between being the “bride of Christ” and being an acquaintance of his.

The bride knows her bridegroom, and knows never to utter blasphemies such as Jesus took my place on the cross, or Jesus was separated from God our Father on the cross.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Catholic_Dude]

You are not paying attention and you are speaking out of turn.

One need not quote a poster to reply to them. This is basic.

You never checked your thread settings at all. Change your settings to hybrid or threaded and see who he replied to.

But if it makes you feel better to hijack this thread…

…

Ok, this was a mistake on my part. I was responding to the OP but it appears it looks like it was a response to you.

The mass majority of people around here dont use the hybrid mode in these forums (including myself) so we see everything as it is posted in regards to time (ie linear mode). I agree hybrid is better, but these forums are so used to linear that you will very often have people unintentionally responding to other posts thinking they are just continuing down the linear chain of posts.

Further with the new option to quote multiple different posts in one response, that will lead to further confusion for those using hybrid.

Hybrid doesnt work around here because even if your not quoting someone in linear mode just hitting the “post reply” button makes your response continue off of the last person’s post (when seen in hybrid mode).