Protestant view on christ's sacrifice.

[PRmerger]

'zactly, friend, exactly!

And now you can understand how Catholics “view those statements” with regard to Mary.

We understand them **in the same light **as you understand Paul saying that HE saves.

Nothing more and certainly nothing less.

In fact, cloudman, I’ll assist you in seeing our POV:

-]Paul /-] MARY was simply the instrument in the hand of God in the salvation process. -] He /-] SHE was simply the one who watered and planted, but ultimately God sends the messenger and the Holy Spirit indwells the messenger. And most importantly God ordains the good works that the saints walk in according to Ephesians 2:10.

So I understand -]Paul’s/-] [Catholic’s] statements [about MARY] in that light. It is God’s ordaining of -]Paul /-] MARY to do those works and the Holy Spirit living inside of -]Paul/-] MARY generating those works within -]Paul /-] MARY that saves people. So I’ll chalk -]Paul’s/-] the Church’s statements up to relativity. It is a matter of perspective. From -]Paul’s /-] MARY’S perspective -]he/-] SHE actually was winning souls to the Lord. From a larger theological perspective, though -]Paul /-] MARY was simply an instrument in the hand of God. So, I see those statements as a matter of relativity and perspective.

 

[PRmerger]

Theoretical assent to doctrines and trusting in the person of Christ are two different things.

Fair enough.

So we cannot assume that when the Good Thief proclaims that Jesus is sinless that this is NOT an indication of his justification, yes?

 

[cloudman]

Fair enough.

So we cannot assume that when the Good Thief proclaims that Jesus is sinless that this is NOT an indication of his justification, yes?

I believe we can see it as an indication of his justification. Does it prove his justification? No, but I think it is strong evidence that he was justified. If the man had still been in his carnal state his response probably would have been to join the others in mocking Jesus because the carnal man is at enmity with God.

 

[cloudman]

In fact, cloudman, I’ll assist you in seeing our POV:

Got it…so if it is in principle the same thing, then why doesn’t Paul have all the immaculate majestic names that seem to be ascribed to Mary?

 

[PRmerger]

I believe we can see it as an indication of his justification. Does it prove his justification? No, but I think it is strong evidence that he was justified. If the man had still been in his carnal state his response probably would have been to join the others in mocking Jesus because the carnal man is at enmity with God.

So one’s actions indicate he is saved (but *not *Mormon actions), in addition to what he professes (but *not *Muslim professions of the sinlessness of Jesus)…

is this a correct assessment of your paradigm of assurance of salvation, cloudman?

 

[PRmerger]

Got it…so if it is in principle the same thing, then why doesn’t Paul have all the immaculate majestic names that seem to be ascribed to Mary?

Well, he *does *have lots of titles in Catholic circles. In fact, in my particular circle he has an entire church and 480-student body school that does him honor–we attend St. Paul parish and my children attend St. Paul Catholic School. There’s a city in Minnesota named for him with millions (?) of citizens. AND, the Vatican offered an ENTIRE YEAR in his honor!

But I suspect that this is not really your issue–you are really objecting to the** other **titles of Mary, now that we have put to rest your original objection to the Catholic belief that Mary is co-redeemer and mediatrix of all graces ((only in that she is actually winning souls to the Lord. From a Catholic perspective, Mary is simply an instrument in the hand of God, right?)

So what other titles of Mary do you object to?

 

[stewstew03]

In fact, cloudman, I’ll assist you in seeing our POV:

Simply brilliant…

Well done PR.

 

[PRmerger]

Simply brilliant…

Well done PR.

:tiphat:

 

[Izdaari]

I am not a typical Protestant; I’m not at all sure I’m even a Protestant anymore since I’m in the middle of converting to Anglo-Catholicism. But I won’t be the in-communion-with-and-under-the-authority-of-Rome kind of Catholic either, just a “high church” Anglican.

But anyway, I think Substitutionary Atonement, Cristus Victor and the Ransom theory all explain parts of it, but none of them alone explains it all. I think you need all three to get the big picture. Maybe 40/40/20?

 

[Lincoln7]

This is the Catholic view as well!

Christ’s sacrifice was offered once, for all, as the source of our eternal salvation.

The Mass simply makes it present. What is happening once, 2000 years ago, is happening “from the rising of the sun, even to its setting” in eternity.

If it weren’t, then this one-time event 2000 years ago could not atone for your sins today. It would only have been able to atone for the sins of those lucky few who lived 2000 years ago, right?

Hi PRmerger,

Firstly apologies for my late reply, have been away all week!

My debate in this has consistently been that Hebrews 10:14 is inconsistent with the Catholic point of view. “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.” Perfected. For all time. Not just temporarily until they sin and lose the state of grace. If you sin does the Lord count that/impute it to you? According to your theology he does. How does this square with the following for example; “that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.” 2 Corinthians 5:19? Or this; “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” Romans 4:7-8? The Lord does not count their sins against them, they are covered, clothed in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, perfected once for all time…

Perfected for all time; all their sins, not just original sin, were atoned for on the cross: “But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,” Hebrews 10:12. It was for all sins of the elect.

If it weren’t, then this one-time event 2000 years ago could not atone for your sins today. It would only have been able to atone for the sins of those lucky few who lived 2000 years ago, right?

No. For such would be inconsistent with the above from Corinthians and Romans; that their sins are not counted to them, all of them, past present and future. The sins of the elect were imputed to Christ, who satisfied Gods just wrath against them, for upon him “was the chastisement that brought us peace.” Isaiah 53:5. Those whom he calls were crucified with him there; “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” Galatians 2:20. They live in him…" For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." 2 Corinthians 5:21.

Regards

Lincs.

 

[Nita]

My debate in this has consistently been that Hebrews 10:14 is inconsistent with the Catholic point of view. “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.” Perfected. For all time.

The verse says those who ARE sanctified. They are perfected, throughout all time, as long as they ARE sanctified. If in some way they forfeit or lose their sanctification, then one can no longer say they ARE sanctified. Nowhere does this verse, or any other verse in Scripture, say it is impossible for us to lose our sanctification once we receive it; that unrepented serious sin has no effect on our retaining sanctification/justification/salvation.
If there is such a verse, would you please cite it.

 

[nickybr38]

I am not a typical Protestant; I’m not at all sure I’m even a Protestant anymore since I’m in the middle of converting to Anglo-Catholicism. But I won’t be the in-communion-with-and-under-the-authority-of-Rome kind of Catholic either, just a “high church” Anglican.

But anyway, I think Substitutionary Atonement, Cristus Victor and the Ransom theory all explain parts of it, but none of them alone explains it all. I think you need all three to get the big picture. Maybe 40/40/20?

Even if you are high church Anglican you are still Protestant… if I understand correctly.

 

[Lincoln7]

Nita,

The verse says those who ARE sanctified. They are perfected, throughout all time, as long as they ARE sanctified. If in some way they forfeit or lose their sanctification, then one can no longer say they ARE sanctified. Nowhere does this verse, or any other verse in Scripture, say it is impossible for us to lose our sanctification once we receive it; that unrepented serious sin has no effect on our retaining sanctification/justification/salvation.
If there is such a verse, would you please cite it.

The verse states its for all time, not temporary. I provided a few verses that demonstrate the Lord does not count sins against the blessed man as they are covered. Who is this man in your theology: “blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” ?

If you’re asking do I think men can commit sins which hinder their growth; then the answer is yes, of course they can, and do. If you’re asking does this mean the elect whom Christ died for, perfected by his sacrifice and covered with his righteousness can lose their state of justification. I must answer no.

Regards

Lincs

 

[Nita]

… If you sin does the Lord count that/impute it to you? According to your theology he does.

Yes,** until **we confess and ask forgiveness. At which time it is forgiven

How does this square with the following for example; “that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.” 2 Corinthians 5:19? Or this; “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” Romans 4:7-8? The Lord does not count their sins against them, they are covered, clothed in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, perfected once for all time.

It squares perfectly with the above verses. When we confess and repent, we no longer receive the damnation our sins deserve. They are forgiven. They are no longer counted against us.
Nowhere does Jesus say sins are forgiven without us admitting them and seeking forgiveness. That was the attitude of the Pharisees; they refused to admit they were sinners; they did not seek forgiveness because they thought they had no need.

Catholic teaching integrates all that Scripture teaches. In addition to the words of Paul that you cited above, Paul also says (to baptized Christians):
Gal. 5:3-4 I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. 5:4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Gal. 5:19-21 Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, 5:20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, 5:21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

How do you integrate the truth of these passages with a theology that says once someone has been sanctified it is impossible for him to lose that sanctification?

 

[Nita]

Nita,

The verse states its for all time, not temporary. I provided a few verses that demonstrate the Lord does not count sins against the blessed man as they are covered. Who is this man in your theology: “blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” ?

If you’re asking do I think men can commit sins which hinder their growth; then the answer is yes, of course they can, and do. If you’re asking does this mean the elect whom Christ died for, perfected by his sacrifice and covered with his righteousness can lose their state of justification. I must answer no.

Regards

Lincs

*“For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.” *Being “perfected for all time” is conditional on one being in the state of sanctification – “those who are sanctified”.
Catholics, of course, believe it is possible to lose sanctification through unrepented serious sin (such as Paul mentions in the Galatians passages I cited).

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi Nita, thanks for the reply.

Yes, until we confess and ask forgiveness. At which time it is forgiven

To me this seems to be in direct contrast to the clear meaning of the passage, no offence intended. Sins are covered, past present and future, the Lord does not count them.

It squares perfectly with the above verses. When we confess and repent, we no longer receive the damnation our sins deserve. Then are forgiven. They are no longer counted against us.
Nowhere does Jesus say sins are forgiven without us admitting them and seeking forgiveness. That was the attitude of the Pharisees; they refused to admit they were sinners; they did not seek forgiveness because they thought they had no need.

Indeed he does not. My position is that when the sinner is gifted with true faith in Jesus Christ, his perfect righteousness is imputed to them, they are thus perfected once for all. I know very much my need for forgiveness, repentence is a continual part of the Christian life… From the Heidelberg catechism, on repentence:
“A. It is the dying of the old nature and the coming to life of the new.[1]
[1] Rom. 6:1-11; I Cor. 5:7; II Cor. 5:17; Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:5-10.”
I suppose a great difference here will be caused by our differing views on Justification.

Catholic teaching integrates all that Scripture teaches. In addition to the words of Paul that you cited above, Paul also says (to baptized Christians):
Gal. 5:3-4 I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. 5:4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Gal. 5:19-21 Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, 5:20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, 5:21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
How do you integrate the truth of these passages with a theology that says once someone have been sanctified it is impossible for them to lose that sanctification?

“to baptized Christians”: I don’t hold to baptismal regeneration/ justification. For that comes by faith alone.
The verse from Galatians 5:3-4 is directed to those who are trying to earn justification by works of the law, as such yes, they have ‘fallen from grace’, they are abandoning the gospel of the grace of God by embracing falsehood. This as such is a serious sin, but I don’t think the verse indicates they have lost justification, I think Paul seems to indicate in the letter he is rather wondering whether they ever even possessed it; Galatians 3:4, Galatians 4:11…
For example in Romans 8:30: “And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” Justfiication here is shown to always be followed by glorification. You seem to indicate one can receive justification but not the latter.
As for Galatians 5:19-21: of course. The man whom the Lord justifies will go on to be glorified and conformed to the image of Christ, fleeing from sin in their lives. It is Gods will for them. Perseverance of the saints.
Thus I integrate passages such as the above as indicating that it’s more a case of a lack of justification rather than a loss of it. The Canons of Dort treat it well here: spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/dort.htm article 5.

Regards

Lincs.

 

[Izdaari]

Even if you are high church Anglican you are still Protestant… if I understand correctly.

Right, that would be the normal classification, but many Anglicans see it differently saying either that they are neither Catholic nor Protestant but the Via Media (middle way), or that they are “Catholic in the English style”. And some claim the Protestant label, but that’s most commonly Calvinist Anglicans and/or “low church” Anglicans.

 

[PRmerger]

My debate in this has consistently been that Hebrews 10:14 is inconsistent with the Catholic point of view. “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.” Perfected. For all time. Not just temporarily until they sin and lose the state of grace.

The Catholic position, Lincoln, is that we are perfected “for all time” when we are saved. And that happens when we are in heaven.

So, naturally, that does not conflict with Hebrews 10:14. Heaven is, of course, “for all time.”

If you sin does the Lord count that/impute it to you?

Of course it is imputed to you! This is a most peculiar paradigm indeed that claims that one can sin and still be “perfect.”

According to your theology he does. How does this square with the following for example; “that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.” 2 Corinthians 5:19? Or this; “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” Romans 4:7-8? The Lord does not count their sins against them, they are covered, clothed in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, perfected once for all time…

We square it by considering all the other verses that tell us that we can indeed lose our salvation!

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi Prmerger,

The Catholic position, Lincoln, is that we are perfected “for all time” when we are saved. And that happens when we are in heaven.

So, naturally, that does not conflict with Hebrews 10:14. Heaven is, of course, “for all time.”

“And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” Hebrews 10:12. The context of vs 14 and indeed the whole passage indicates this perfection spoken of is in this life.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating this passage means the elect do not therefore sin. What I’m advocating is that it means “that it was of such a nature as entirely to remove the penalty due to sin”(1). That it “secured the complete and final salvation of those who availed themselves of it.”(2). It has completely removed all penalty for all their sins from them, they have been perfected once for all.

Of course it is imputed to you! This is a most peculiar paradigm indeed that claims that one can sin and still be “perfect.”

Following on from my above, as they have been freed from all penalty due to sin, there is no longer any imputation of sin to them, as the verses I quoted previously indicate. It has already been dealt with thanks to the offering of Jesus Christ once for all. It is quite the reason why Paul describes this man the following way; “blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” Romans 4:7-8

Regards

Lincs.
1 & 2 - Barnes’ notes on the Bible, bible.cc/hebrews/10-14.htm

 

[peace2u2]

My debate in this has consistently been that Hebrews 10:14 is inconsistent with the Catholic point of view. “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.” Perfected. For all time. Not just temporarily until they sin and lose the state of grace. If you sin does the Lord count that/impute it to you? According to your theology he does. How does this square with the following for example; “that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.” 2 Corinthians 5:19? Or this; “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” Romans 4:7-8? The Lord does not count their sins against them, they are covered, clothed in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, perfected once for all time…

Perfected for all time; all their sins, not just original sin, were atoned for on the cross: “But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,” Hebrews 10:12. It was for all sins of the elect.

No. For such would be inconsistent with the above from Corinthians and Romans; that their sins are not counted to them, all of them, past present and future. The sins of the elect were imputed to Christ, who satisfied Gods just wrath against them, for upon him “was the chastisement that brought us peace.” Isaiah 53:5. Those whom he calls were crucified with him there; “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” Galatians 2:20. They live in him…" For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." 2 Corinthians 5:21.

Regards

Lincs.

Catechism References for Hebrews chapter 10 * indicates Scripture quoted in reference]

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a6.htm#1544

agapebiblestudy.com/Hebrews/Hebrews_Lesson_11.htm