Protestant view on christ's sacrifice.

  • Thread starter Thread starter sllhouette
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
IggyAntiochus said:
i.e., the Christian knows that Christ has died for his sins based upon the works of the Christian.

And Calvinists criticize Roman Catholicism for stressing works? What Geneva gives with the right hand (justification sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus), it takes away with the left (“you know that Christ has paid for your sins by your works and no other way”). It is no wonder that the Puritans were obsessed with knowing whether they truly believed or not. What happens when you fall into grave sin? How is the believer to know Christ has died for him then?

No comfort, none.
Click to expand...
My contention with Roman Catholicism is not that Roman Catholicism teaches that the saints have works to go along with their faith. This is in fact Biblical. My major contention with Roman Catholicism is the teaching that our faith and works tack onto the finished work of Christ.

The Bible teaches that these things find their ultimate cause in the cross. The Bible does not teach that we add these things in addition to the cross.

Well why don’t we look at a Biblical example? I’d say what David did with Bathsheba and Uriah was quite a grave sin. What is David’s prayer in Psalm 51?

Does the prayer of Psalm 51:9-12 sound like something that a person who had assurance of salvation would pray?
 
IggyAntiochus said:
Justified as in the doctrine of justification. Are the elect justified before God prior to having faith in Christ?
Click to expand...
This is a question I’ve gone back and forth on. Isn’t the typical answer from reformed folks that justification proceeds faith?
 
cloudman said:
This is a question I’ve gone back and forth on. Isn’t the typical answer from reformed folks that justification proceeds faith?
Click to expand...
No the Reformed say that regeneration proceeds faith, not justification.
 
Cloudman…talking about dead men doing nothing…

There is a new article out now…www.calledtocommunion.com…how two American Protestant theologians are now clipping away at the ancient Apostles Creed…and there is rebuke to Calvin’s idea that Christ descended into hell to expiate our sins…plus 8 points from Sacred Scripture that talk about what happens to dead men…

BTW, would you feel comfortable identifying your denomination? The Protestants all claim to follow the Bible over or contrary to how the Church interprets Scripture…just wondering…don’t feel compelled if you don’t want to…
 
OK…scripture obviously teaches that we are justified by faith. So I’d say that they go hand in hand. But then justification is used in another sense by James, but in the case of James…Abraham’s decision was simply an outward demonstration of faith. Then justification is used in another sense when we read that we are justified by the blood. So the question is quite complicated in my opinion.
 
cloudman said:
This is a question I’ve gone back and forth on. Isn’t the typical answer from reformed folks that justification proceeds faith?
Click to expand...
As cajun said, regeneration preceeds faith. That wasn’t the reason I asked the question of you, however. You asked me of what benefit was Christ’s sacrifice for those who are in Hell.

The fact of the matter, however, is that without faith, the atonement avails no one, not even the elect. Christ’s work on the cross and His intercession in the heavenlies does not justify anyone unless that individual trusts, rests and has faith that Christ has redeemed him. The elect are still under God’s judgement until they have fath.

In the case of the universal atonement, those who reject the gospel and do not believe are under God’s condemnation because they refuse to reconcile themselves to God through the cross. Christ’s work on the cross is fully sufficient to forgive all of the sins of those who believe.
 
KathleenGee said:
Cloudman…talking about dead men doing nothing…

There is a new article out now…www.calledtocommunion.com…how two American Protestant theologians are now clipping away at the ancient Apostles Creed…and there is rebuke to Calvin’s idea that Christ descended into hell to expiate our sins…plus 8 points from Sacred Scripture that talk about what happens to dead men…

BTW, would you feel comfortable identifying your denomination? The Protestants all claim to follow the Bible over or contrary to how the Church interprets Scripture…just wondering…don’t feel compelled if you don’t want to…
Click to expand...
I am currently a member of an EFCA church. Yes, you could say that Protestants follow in the footsteps of the Bereans.
 
IggyAntiochus said:
As cajun said, regeneration preceeds faith. That wasn’t the reason I asked the question of you, however. You asked me of what benefit was Christ’s sacrifice for those who are in Hell.

The fact of the matter, however, is that without faith, the atonement avails no one, not even the elect. Christ’s work on the cross and His intercession in the heavenlies does not justify anyone unless that individual trusts, rests and has faith that Christ has redeemed him. The elect are still under God’s judgement until they have fath.

In the case of the universal atonement, those who reject the gospel and do not believe are under God’s condemnation because they refuse to reconcile themselves to God through the cross. Christ’s work on the cross is fully sufficient to forgive all of the sins of those who believe.
Click to expand...
I used to be of this persuasion. I departed from that persuasion when I became convinced that whatever a person in hell lacks that the person in heaven does not lack…whatever that thing is…that thing is ultimately what saves us.

So if the atonement is universal…then it is a logical impossibility that the atonement is the thing that saves. So your theology teaches that belief is what the elect possess and the reprobate do not possess. Therefore your theology teaches that belief is what ultimately snatches us out of the fires of hell.

When I read the Bible I find “salvation by belief” to be conspicuously absent from the text.
 
Thanks, Cloudman, I am just not able to provide more time to posts…
 
cloudman said:
I used to be of this persuasion. I departed from that persuasion when I became convinced that whatever a person in hell lacks that the person in heaven does not lack…whatever that thing is…that thing is ultimately what saves us.
Click to expand...
You’re right…to a point. Those who are in Hell lacked faith. They did not lack an atonement sufficient to save them. They refused to believe in it. You are right that it is Christ and Christ alone who saves us. Our union to His death and resurrection for us is effected through faith.

If this were not so, it would not be necessary for the elect to have faith. The atonement does not benefit the elect until and unless they believe.
 
cloudman said:
I don’t believe that everyone has assurance of salvation. I believe that a person can have assurance as they see God change their inner person.
Click to expand...
Can a person be fooled into thinking that God has changed his inner person?
 
cloudman said:
Yes, you could say that Protestants follow in the footsteps of the Bereans.
Click to expand...
As the Bereans did not have the benefit of the NT–they were privileged to only be able to search the OT writings–it does not seem to be beneficial to follow in their footsteps, no?
 
PRmerger said:
Can a person be fooled into thinking that God has changed his inner person?
Click to expand...
Indeed. As Perry Miller once famously said, "Protestantism liberated men from the treadmill of indulgences and penances, but cast them on the iron couch of introspection.”
 
PRmerger said:
As the Bereans did not have the benefit of the NT–they were privileged to only be able to search the OT writings–it does not seem to be beneficial to follow in their footsteps, no?
Click to expand...
It actually would seem beneficial. If the Bereans had been verifying divine truth by the same method that the Roman Catholic Church teaches we should, then the Bereans would have just accepted everything Paul said hook, line, and sinker without even approaching the Old Testament texts.
 
cloudman said:
It actually would seem beneficial. If the Bereans had been verifying divine truth by the same method that the Roman Catholic Church teaches we should, then the Bereans would have just accepted everything Paul said hook, line, and sinker without even approaching the Old Testament texts.
Click to expand...
This, sadly, shows an impoverished understanding of Catholic theology, cloudman.

Now, of course, since you’re not Catholic your ignorance is not a mark against you in one sense.

However, you ought to be more informed about our faith if you wish to dialogue here with Catholics.

Just to be clear: Catholics are not bound to accept everything “hook, line and sinker without even approaching the Old Testament texts.”

If you wish to persist in claiming this is part of Catholic ideology, please cite your source. Otherwise, I must ask you to rescind this comment or be cited for contempt for Catholicism.
 
PRmerger said:
This, sadly, shows an impoverished understanding of Catholic theology, cloudman.

Now, of course, since you’re not Catholic your ignorance is not a mark against you in one sense.

However, you ought to be more informed about our faith if you wish to dialogue here with Catholics.

Just to be clear: Catholics are not bound to accept everything “hook, line and sinker without even approaching the Old Testament texts.”

If you wish to persist in claiming this is part of Catholic ideology, please cite your source. Otherwise, I must ask you to rescind this comment or be cited for contempt for Catholicism.
Click to expand...
I will admit the possibility that I don’t quite understand Roman Catholicism. If I misrepresent Roman Catholicism, then I apologize. Is it not a belief of Roman Catholicism that it is the church and not the individual that interprets scripture?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top