Protestants and doctrinal development

  • Thread starter Thread starter dennisknapp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
michaelp:
It is all in the way you view development. Protestants find ourselves in the early Church, just like I find myself in a picture of myself when I was 5. I am different now, but still the same.
40.png
michaelp:
Show me a picture of you when you were five? Not really, but show me historical evidence that your belief system existed there. You were essentially you when you were five, so it should be with your beliefs and the early Church.
40.png
michaelp:
Catholics are the same. They are different now, but they claim to be the same because their methodology demands it.
40.png
michaelp:
No, not their methodology–history. Clear historical proof. This is why I don’t buy into Protestantism. It is not a development, its a negation. It did not grow it cut off. It essentially defines itself by how it differs from Catholicism. For what is a “Protest-ant” anyway but he who protests. It is like my 16th floor of a building analogy–reestablishing the foundation on the 16th floor while presuppossing the original was lost in the building process.
40.png
michaelp:
Again, good to talk with you,
40.png
michaelp:
Good talking to you, too.

Thanks!

You are pretty sharp.
 
40.png
dennisknapp:
40.png
michaelp:
It is all in the way you view development. Protestants find ourselves in the early Church, just like I find myself in a picture of myself when I was 5. I am different now, but still the same.
40.png
michaelp:
Show me a picture of you when you were five? Not really, but show me historical evidence that your belief system existed there. You were essentially you when you were five, so it should be with your beliefs and the early Church.
40.png
michaelp:
Catholics are the same. They are different now, but they claim to be the same because their methodology demands it.
40.png
michaelp:
No, not their methodology–history. Clear historical proof. This is why I don’t buy into Protestantism. It is not a development, its a negation. It did not grow it cut off. It essentially defines itself by how it differs from Catholicism. For what is a “Protest-ant” anyway but he who protests. It is like my 16th floor of a building analogy–reestablishing the foundation on the 16th floor while presuppossing the original was lost in the building process.
40.png
michaelp:
Again, good to talk with you,
40.png
michaelp:
Good talking to you, too.

Thanks!

You are pretty sharp.
Amen to this!!
 
:that the atonement was made to Satan rather than God.:

They didn’t believe this. They believed that the ransom was paid to Satan. “Atonement” refers to our reconciliation to God. For this to happen, we have to be redeemed from Satan. Christ ransomed us from the power of Satan, thus satisfying God’s justice, which does not allow Him to take away by force even from Satan those who willingly delivered themselves to him.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
:that the atonement was made to Satan rather than God.:

They didn’t believe this. They believed that the ransom was paid to Satan. “Atonement” refers to our reconciliation to God. For this to happen, we have to be redeemed from Satan. Christ ransomed us from the power of Satan, thus satisfying God’s justice, which does not allow Him to take away by force even from Satan those who willingly delivered themselves to him.

Edwin

Edwin,

Thanks for stepping in on that one. When Michael brought it up I had no idea what he was talking about :o . I plead ignorance, but I’m constantly learning. From your explanation, I understand where the Fathers were being misread.

Yours in Christ,

Robert.
 
Robert,

Michael also insists that the ransom is paid to God, which is incorrect. Ransoms are paid to captors and God did not hold us captive. For some reason he believes that this notion is supported by scripture but this is wrong as well.
 
Contarini said:
:that the atonement was made to Satan rather than God.:

They didn’t believe this. They believed that the ransom was paid to Satan. “Atonement” refers to our reconciliation to God. For this to happen, we have to be redeemed from Satan. Christ ransomed us from the power of Satan, thus satisfying God’s justice, which does not allow Him to take away by force even from Satan those who willingly delivered themselves to him.Edwin

The word “atonement” is not used in the N.T. It’s an Old Testament term used for the sacrifice of animals. Its meaning in Hebrew is *“to cover.” *Christ’s sacrifice was far greater than the sacrifice of animals prescribed in the Mosaic Law. He didn’t just “cover” sins year after year (Heb. 10:1-14), but by His blood sacrifice He took away sins forever (Jn. 1:29), once-for-all, having obtained “eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:11-15). On the cross He accomplished three things: the work of reconciliation, redemption and propitiation. When a man puts his faith in Jesus Christ he is completely and perfectly reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:18-20), perfectly and completely redeemed (purchased form the slave market of sin, never to return) by His blood (Acts 20:28;1 Pet. 1:18-19; 1 Cor. 1:20; 7:23). Propitiation is between God the Son and God the Father. Christ’s blood sacrifice propitiated God, that is, completely and perfectly *satisfied *God’s offended holiness because of man’s sin. Hence, through the cross God was forever and perfectly propitiated.

The whole work of Christ on the cross is applied to the sinner at the time he puts His faith in Jesus Christ, and for this reason, at the time of personal belief, he receives eternal life (Jn. 3:14-18).

Satan had nothing to do with the cross of Christ and no “ransom” was ever paid to him. This teaching is/was totally erroneous and nowhere found in Scripture. All creation belongs to God and He owed nothing to Satan who himself is a creature.
 
rig94086:
How is finding roots of Catholic Doctine anachronistic but finding roots of Sola Scriptura by evidence of Church Fathers quoting Scripture okay?.
Your logic is flawed. Concluding from their writings that their authoritative souce was the written Word of God (Scripture) is far different than reading into their writings doctrines developed centuries later and then declaring that this was the writer’s intent, or what the writer believed.
 
:Satan had nothing to do with the cross of Christ:

So who are the principalities and powers over whom Christ triumphed on the Cross?

: and no “ransom” was ever paid to him. This teaching is/was totally erroneous:

You bely this by your own account. You speak of being “ransomed from the slave market of sin.” But a slave market implies a slave dealer.

: and nowhere found in Scripture. All creation belongs to God and He owed nothing to Satan who himself is a creature.:

God owes nothing to anyone but Himself. His justice forbids him to overcome Satan by sheer might.

The “ransom” theory is not perfect, but it’s far superior to the views of the Atonement that took its place in the West in second millenium. We have to get back to something like the ransom theory if we’re ever to get ourselves out of the hole we’ve dug ourselves into, Catholics nad Protestants alike.

In Christ,

Edwin
 
40.png
Ozzie:
The word “atonement” is not used in the N.T. It’s an Old Testament term used for the sacrifice of animals.
Ozzie,

You are mistaken. The word atonement is found in Romans 5:11 in the KJV. Other translations will frequently use the word “reconciliation” which is a synonym for atonement in the NT.
 
Ozzie,

The following is from Easton’s Bible dictionary(a non-Catholic source):

In the Old Testament it[atonement] is of frequent occurrence. The meaning of the word is simply at-one-ment, i.e., the state of being at one or being reconciled, so that atonement is reconciliation. Thus it is used to denote the effect which flows from the death of Christ. But the word is also used to denote that by which this reconciliation is brought about, viz., the death of Christ itself; and when so used it means satisfaction, and in this sense to make an atonement for one is to make satisfaction for his offences (Ex. 32:30; Lev. 4:26; 5:16; Num. 6:11), and, as regards the person, to reconcile, to propitiate God in his behalf.

By the atonement of Christ we generally mean his work by which he expiated our sins. But in Scripture usage the word denotes the reconciliation itself, and not the means by which it is effected.

When speaking of Christ’s saving work, the word “satisfaction,” the word used by the theologians of the Reformation, is to be preferred to the word “atonement.” Christ’s satisfaction is all he did in the room and in behalf of sinners to satisfy the demands of the law and justice of God.

Christ’s work consisted of suffering and obedience, and these were vicarious, i.e., were not merely for our benefit, but were in our stead, as the suffering and obedience of our vicar, or substitute. Our guilt is expiated by the punishment which our vicar bore, and thus God is rendered propitious, i.e., it is now consistent with his justice to manifest his love to transgressors.

Expiation has been made for sin, i.e., it is covered. The means by which it is covered is vicarious satisfaction, and the result of its being covered is atonement or reconciliation. To make atonement is to do that by virtue of which alienation ceases and reconciliation is brought about.

Christ’s mediatorial work and sufferings are the ground or efficient cause of reconciliation with God. They rectify the disturbed relations between God and man, taking away the obstacles interposed by sin to their fellowship and concord. The reconciliation is mutual, i.e., it is not only that of sinners toward God, but also and pre-eminently that of God toward sinners, effected by the sin-offering he himself provided, so that consistently with the other attributes of his character his love might flow forth in all its fulness of blessing to men.

The primary idea presented to us in different forms throughout the Scripture is that the death of Christ is a satisfaction of infinite worth rendered to the law and justice of God (q.v.), and accepted by him in room of the very penalty man had incurred. It must also be constantly kept in mind that the atonement is not the cause but the consequence of God’s love to guilty men (John 3:16; Rom. 3:24, 25; Eph. 1:7; 1 John 1:9; 4:9).

The atonement may also be regarded as necessary, not in an absolute but in a relative sense, i.e., if man is to be saved, there is no other way than this which God has devised and carried out (Ex. 34:7; Josh. 24:19; Ps. 5:4; 7:11; Nahum 1:2, 6; Rom. 3:5). This is God’s plan, clearly revealed; and f that is enough for us to know.
 
Ozzie,

Propitiation can also be used alternately with reconciliation. Again, Easton’s may be of some help here.

Text: that by which God is rendered propitious, i.e., by which it becomes consistent with his character and government to pardon and bless the sinner. The propitiation does not procure his love or make him loving; it only renders it consistent for him to execise his love towards sinners. In Rom. 3:25 and Heb. 9:5 (A.V., “mercy-seat”) the Greek word hilasterion is used. It is the word employed by the LXX. translators in Ex. 25:17 and elsewhere as the equivalent for the Hebrew kapporeth, which means “covering,” and is used of the lid of the ark of the covenant (Ex. 25:21; 30:6).

This Greek word (hilasterion) came to denote not only the mercy-seat or lid of the ark, but also propitation or reconciliation by blood. On the great day of atonement the high priest carried the blood of the sacrifice he offered for all the people within the veil and sprinkled with it the “mercy-seat,” and so made propitiation.

In 1 John 2:2; 4:10, Christ is called the “propitiation for our sins.” Here a different Greek word is used (hilasmos). Christ is “the propitiation,” because by his becoming our substitute and assuming our obligations he expiated our guilt, covered it, by the vicarious punishment which he endured. (Comp. Heb. 2:17, where the expression “make reconciliation” of the A.V. is more correctly in the R.V. “make propitiation.”)

Ozzie, check out Heb. 2:17. In the KJV it uses “reconciliation,” The Amer. Standard uses “propitiation”, Rev. Standard uses “expiation”, New Jerusalem uses “expiate”, Young’s uses “propitiation”, Darby’s says “propitiation”, Weymouth’s says “atone”, and Webster’s says “reconciliation.”
 
40.png
Ozzie:
Your logic is flawed. Concluding from their writings that their authoritative souce was the written Word of God (Scripture) is far different than reading into their writings doctrines developed centuries later and then declaring that this was the writer’s intent, or what the writer believed.
Ozzie,

Both your definitions and your logic are flawed. You read more into scripture and the fathers than any Catholic on this board. You have claimed that both “faith” and “grace” are not gifts. I have never heard anyone else ever make such a claim, and I am amazed at how you tried to use scripture to prove your statement. You read much more into scripture and the fathers than we do, and you claim to know exactly what the writer’s intent and beliefs are in the process. Please cut everyone else some slack and be a bit more circumspect in your criticisms.
 
40.png
Pax:
You are mistaken. The word atonement is found in Romans 5:11 in the KJV. Other translations will frequently use the word “reconciliation” which is a synonym for atonement in the NT.
Sorry, but you’re sadly mistaken. “Atonement” in the KJV is an unfortunate translation and should be translated, according the Greek, as “reconciliation.” It is the Greek word katallage (noun form) and corresponds, in context, to the previous verse where this same word (in verb form) is translated by the KJV translators as “reconciled” (Gr. katallasso). The Greek word did not change so the English word should not have changed either. This same exact Greek word is translated in the KJV as “the reconciling” in Rom. 11:15.

Divine reconciliation, through the finished work of Christ on the cross, finds its greatest unfolding in 2 Cor. 5:19-21, where Paul states that God reconciled (past tense) us (true believers) to Himself through Christ (i.e., through His blood sacrifice); and the ministry, or "word of reconciliation," committed to the Apostles and subsequent generations after them consists of this, “that God was in Christ reconciling (katallasson] the world to Himself.” And the matter of this reconciliation is based on the fact that “He (God) made* Him *(Jesus) who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf (His substitutionary sacrifice), *so that we might become *(through personal faith in Him) *the righteousness of God IN HIM” *(2 Cor. 5:21).

The Greek words katallasso, apokatallasso and katallage are translated “reconciliation,” “reconcile” and “reconciling” everywhere in the KJV except that ONE TIME in Rom. 5:11. All other translations that I have read translate it “reconciliation” : NASB, NIV, RSV, Williams, Amplified, and others. And some Protestant commentaries make note of the mistranslation in the KJV.

William Beck, the Greek scholar, actually translates it "friendship" because the Greek word “katallage” properly “denotes a change on the part of one party, induced by an action on the part of another” (Vine). Through Christ’s work of reconciliation on the cross all true believers, at the time of personal belief in Him, are reconciled (forever) to God, i.e., changed from an once enemy of God (because of sin and rebellion) to a “friend” of God.

For this reason Paul confidently states in Rom. 5:10: “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, HAVING BEEN RECONCILED, we shall be saved by His life.”

The word has gone out into the world that all sinners who put their faith in Christ, because of the cross, are completely, perfectly and forever reconciled (changed) in their relationship status with God. This “word of reconciliation” was committed to the Apostles (2 Cor. 5:18), and through their ministry announced to the world: *“we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” *(i.e., through faith in Christ). In Rom. 5:11 it is not the “atonement” we receive but the “reconciliation” wrought in Christ.

The world (secular and religious) has been trying to silence this message from its onset. Where are you in respect to this glorious message of divine reconciliation, Pax? A friend or an enemy?
 
40.png
Pax:
The following is from Easton’s Bible dictionary(a non-Catholic source)
Much of what Easton writes I agree with. But I do disagree with him on certain points. However, did you not read him carefully, Pax? He did correctly point out that the way he was using “atonement” was defined as “reconciliation.” Easton writes:
“In the Old Testament it [atonement] is of frequent occurrence. The meaning of the word is simply at-one-ment, i.e., the state of being at one or being reconciled, so that atonement is reconciliation.”
However, I do take issue with one thing, “atonement” in the O.T. NEVER meant “at-one-ment,” as Easton states. The linguistic scholar, W. E. Vine, unequivocally calls this English explanation “entirely fanciful” (Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words).

The “Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament” defines “kapar” as reconciliation." Easton seems to agree:
“By the atonement of Christ we generally mean his work by which he expiated our sins. But in Scripture usage the word denotes the reconciliation itself, and not the means by which it is effected.”
Hence, the reason Paul employed the Greek word “katallage,” which supports my case that it should be translated “reconciliation” and not atonement in Rom. 5:11. Obviously most Bible translators seem to agree!!
Propitiation can also be used alternately with reconciliation. Again, Easton’s may be of some help here…"This Greek word (hilasterion) came to denote not only the mercy-seat or lid of the ark, but also propitation or reconciliation by blood.
The Hebrew word for “Atonement” (kapar) is a broad term. Greek, however, is far more exacting and the writers of the N.T. employed specific words for “reconciliation” (katallage) and “propitiation” (hilasterion). Together these Greek words describe two different works of Christ on the cross: “Propitiation” is Godward and means to appease or satisfy. Christ’s work of propitiation on the cross is the perfect, divine solution for the offended holiness of God because of man’s sin. “Reconciliation” is manward and changes the relationship of the estranged sinner to that of friendship with an infinitely holy God through the death of His Son.

Easton does make an egregious error, however, when he writes:
The reconciliation is mutual, i.e., it is not only that of sinners toward God, but also and pre-eminently that of God toward sinners, effected by the sin-offering he himself provided
The N.T. never describes reconciliation through the cross as "mutual." It is man who needs to be reconciled to God, never God to man. It is sinful men who need to be “changed” to be in harmony with an infinitely holy and immutable God. As Paul writes in 2 Cor. 5:20, *“Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” *(cf. Rom. 5:10).

Also where Easton states:
Expiation has been made for sin, i.e., it is covered. The means by which it is covered is vicarious satisfaction, and the result of its being covered is atonement or reconciliation.
Scripture is VERY clear that the believer’s sins are not simply “covered” but totally removed through Christ: “Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself” (Heb. 9:26); *“And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God…” *(Heb. 10:11-12; cf. 1:3).

However, there is much that Easton wrote that I agree with. You might want to contemplate what he wrote, Pax. You might learn something.
 
40.png
Contarini:
Satan had nothing to do with the cross of Christ: So who are the principalities and powers over whom Christ triumphed on the Cross?
Satan and his fallen angels. But nothing is said about paying them a “ransom.”
You bely this by your own account. You speak of being “ransomed from the slave market of sin.” But a slave market implies a slave dealer.
Not necessarily, just being enslaved to sin.
God owes nothing to anyone but Himself. His justice forbids him to overcome Satan by sheer might.
Oh please, He would be perfectly just to utterly destroy him right now by “sheer might.” Are you kidding? Just as He would have been perfectly just to destroy both Adam and Eve at the time of their rebellion. Just as He was totally just to destroy all but eight people through the deluge.
The “ransom” theory is not perfect, but it’s far superior to the views of the Atonement that took its place in the West in second millenium. We have to get back to something like the ransom theory if we’re ever to get ourselves out of the hole we’ve dug ourselves into, Catholics nad Protestants alike.
Not sure what you mean by “the hole we dug.” Mind explaining yourself?

But Scripture nowhere describes God as paying any ransom price to Satan. However, it does say that we are redeemed with the precious blood of Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 1:18-19). And that Christ as a High Priest offered Himself without blemish *“to God” *(Heb. 9:14); and after obtaining eternal redemption through His blood He entered the heavenly “holy place” through His blood, now to appear in the presence of God for us (Heb. 9:10-11, 14).

Nope, no ransom paid to Satan there. Can you show me in Scripture where it is taught that God paid a ransom price to Satan?
 
40.png
Ozzie:
Satan and his fallen angels. But nothing is said about paying them a “ransom.”
You initially said that Satan had nothing to do with the atonement. Clearly that is not true.
Not necessarily, just being enslaved to sin.
The early Christians saw such references to “sin” and “death” as references to Satan. That seems to make sense in terms of how Scripture speaks. I’m not claiming to be able to prove this from Scripture. But it’s a very reasonable inference, and is far more in keeping with Scripture than any alternative I know of.
Oh please, He would be perfectly just to utterly destroy him right now by “sheer might.”
Well, the early Christians thought otherwise. They may be wrong–but then again, they may be right. I tend to think they are. And I’m not talking about “destroying” Satan (what does that mean? Do you believe that Satan will be annihilated?). I’m talking about taking his lawful prey away. This is not hugely different from what you presumably believe–that we are doomed to damnation by God’s justice. The difference is that in the traditional Christian view God’s “wrath” is expressed by abandoning us to the power of Satan–a just judgment, since we chose to follow Satan rather than God. This is a Scriptural way of speaking, and avoids the conclusion that God hates us, or that God pours out his wrath directly on Christ (rather, in this view, the Father allows Christ to experience abandonment and to enter into the realm of Satan, which is death–Christ however defeats Satan, overcoming him both by justice and by power). God does good, but God permits evil. That maxim is key to a right interpretation of the Atonement, I think.
Just as He would have been perfectly just to destroy both Adam and Eve at the time of their rebellion.
I don’t see how one can pronounce so confidently about the justice of that which God, in His infinite and perfect justice, chose not to do. That’s not to say that more than one possibility can’t be perfectly just. Only that I’m not willing to say that annihilating the human race would have been. God’s choice not to do it may have been an indication that it was incompatible with God’s justice (which is not other than His mercy).
Not sure what you mean by “the hole we dug.” Mind explaining yourself?
I mean that Western Christian theology of the Atonement is in a grand mess. Protestants, Catholics, conservatives, liberals–we all tend to put the problem in the wrong way, and the key is the abandonment by Anselm and Abelard of the historic ransom theory in favor of a view that (in Anselm’s case at least–Abelard’s has other problems) makes God rather than Satan the primary obstacle to our redemption.
But Scripture nowhere describes God as paying any ransom price to Satan.
It speaks of Christ as ransoming us with His own blood.
However, it does say that we are redeemed with the precious blood of Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 1:18-19).
And “redemption” has connotations of ransom. From whom were we ransomed?
And that Christ as a High Priest offered Himself without blemish *“to God” *(Heb. 9:14);
You keep confusing the sacrifice with the ransom. That’s one of the fundamental aspects of the muddle I was speaking of earlier. No one thinks that a sacrifice is offered to Satan–that would be monstrous and blasphemous. If that’s what you think the “ransom theory” is, no wonder you reject it. The marvel is that you speak so moderately about it. The sacrifice is offered to God. The ransom is paid to the powers of sin and death, which claim their due from every fallen human being.
and after obtaining eternal redemption through His blood He entered the heavenly “holy place” through His blood, now to appear in the presence of God for us (Heb. 9:10-11, 14).

Nope, no ransom paid to Satan there. Can you show me in Scripture where it is taught that God paid a ransom price to Satan?
You yourself admit that Scripture speaks of ransom. I don’t need to prove this. The difference between us is that you think a ransom can be paid to a purely abstract entity–sin. I’m saying, in common with the early Church, that when you find “sin” or “death” being personified that way in Scripture, then Satan is meant. There is no real distinction among Satan, sin, and death. They’re all the same thing at root.

In Christ,

Edwin
 
40.png
michaelp:
Edwin, I would have to agree with this entire post (except the stuff about Reformed soteriology contradicting earlier tradition–I think that that there are many seeds of Reformed soteriology in Augustine and Aquinas!!). Very well though out. I recognize this double-standard often.

My Church history professor at seminary has a great quote that become more true all the time:

“We all walk through the gardens of church history and pick the flowers that we like the best.” --John Hannah.

Thanks for the imput (BTW: I respect Wesley very much).

Michael

I can agree with all of this - especially as regards Reformed doctrine. IMO, the Church of England should be Calvinist in some respects, not less.​

 
(PARAPHRASE) “You can question everything that comes down the pike but in the end the one thing left standing will be the Catholic Church”

G.K.Chesterton

Peace and Love
 
40.png
Ozzie:
Nope, no ransom paid to Satan there. Can you show me in Scripture where it is taught that God paid a ransom price to Satan?
Scripture does not specifically identify to whom the ransom is paid. The ECF’s identified the Devil as the payee because its the logical inference from scriptures like 2 Tim 2:26, “and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.”

Since ransoms are paid to captors and scripture says that sinners are held captive by the Devil, therefore, the ransom is paid to the Devil.
 
40.png
Ozzie:
However, there is much that Easton wrote that I agree with. You might want to contemplate what he wrote, Pax. You might learn something.
Ozzie,

I have contemplated Easton and a few others on atonement, and many disagree with you. I used Easton as a typical example. I think we will simply have to disagree on atonement. You may not like the use of this word in the NT, but that is your problem. Hebrews 2:17 shows how many respected translations show the interchangeable nature of the terms under discussion. There are additional translations that I could have cited to make my point as well. Another Bible dictionary example on atonement is Bamford’s Bible dictionary which defines atonement as follows:
  1. The covering over of sin, the reconciliation between God and man, accomplished by Jesus Christ. 2. The Day of Atonement was proclaimed by the Jews as a day of humiliation for sins.
I may be wrong, but I think you fail to appreciate the full range of meanings that words carry in languages, whether they be Greek or English.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top