Protestants and doctrinal development

[Ozzie]

Pax:

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.

I don’t have a problem with the word “atonement,” per se. Not even that it has a general definition of reconciliation. The issue and the point being made is the Greek word “katallage” in Rom. 5:11. We don’t receive the “atonement,” but the “reconciliation” with God wrought by the Atonement, i.e., sacrifice of Christ. As I stated before, the N.T. doesn’t use the general word “atonement,” but instead three different words to describe three different works Christ accomplished on the cross. One is “reconciliation” (katallage). At the time of personal faith in Christ the believer receives this infinite work of “reconciliation” (Rom. 5:11) and he is forever reconciled to God. I think it’s this N.T. truth that you don’t like. It goes against the grain of your sacramental system and your belief that one reconciled to God can lose that reconciliation, which is anti-Scriptural.

 

[dennisknapp]

Ozzie:

I don’t have a problem with the word “atonement,” per se. Not even that it has a general definition of reconciliation. The issue and the point being made is the Greek word “katallage” in Rom. 5:11. We don’t receive the “atonement,” but the “reconciliation” with God wrought by the Atonement, i.e., sacrifice of Christ. As I stated before, the N.T. doesn’t use the general word “atonement,” but instead three different words to describe three different works Christ accomplished on the cross. One is “reconciliation” (katallage). At the time of personal faith in Christ the believer receives this infinite work of “reconciliation” (Rom. 5:11) and he is forever reconciled to God. I think it’s this N.T. truth that you don’t like. It goes against the grain of your sacramental system and your belief that one reconciled to God can lose that reconciliation, which is anti-Scriptural.

It maybe against your interpretation of Scripture, but we don’t have to buy into your interpretation, do we? Plus, there are Protestants who believe one can lose their salvation. I remember a Calvary Chapel pastor, Louis Pulauo (sp?) who taught this. So, it is not just us Catholics who are “anti-Scriptural.”

And we are not 'anti-Scriptural," we are anit-your-interpretation-of-Scriptural.

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp:

Sure. But it must look like your sacramental system today. It can’t be just references to people taking the body and blood of Christ. It has to be that if you miss one Sunday of Mass, you go to hell. Baptism removes the effects of original sin alone. Holy orders give you the ability to dispense the merits of Christ.

Michael

The Church does not say that if you miss Mass you go to hell. There are many factors that make a sin grave.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie:

I don’t have a problem with the word “atonement,” per se. Not even that it has a general definition of reconciliation. The issue and the point being made is the Greek word “katallage” in Rom. 5:11. We don’t receive the “atonement,” but the “reconciliation” with God wrought by the Atonement, i.e., sacrifice of Christ. As I stated before, the N.T. doesn’t use the general word “atonement,” but instead three different words to describe three different works Christ accomplished on the cross. One is “reconciliation” (katallage). At the time of personal faith in Christ the believer receives this infinite work of “reconciliation” (Rom. 5:11) and he is forever reconciled to God. I think it’s this N.T. truth that you don’t like. It goes against the grain of your sacramental system and your belief that one reconciled to God can lose that reconciliation, which is anti-Scriptural.

Ozzie,

You don’t know what you are talking about. Reconciliation in no way goes against the grain of Catholic teaching. Your understandings, however, clash with much that is both Catholic and Protestant. The teaching of “Once saved always saved” has been totally refuted on this set of forums several times over and has been refuted by most protestants as well.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie:

I don’t have a problem with the word “atonement,” per se. Not even that it has a general definition of reconciliation. The issue and the point being made is the Greek word “katallage” in Rom. 5:11. We don’t receive the “atonement,” but the “reconciliation” with God wrought by the Atonement, i.e., sacrifice of Christ. As I stated before, the N.T. doesn’t use the general word “atonement,” but instead three different words to describe three different works Christ accomplished on the cross. One is “reconciliation” (katallage). At the time of personal faith in Christ the believer receives this infinite work of “reconciliation” (Rom. 5:11) and he is forever reconciled to God. I think it’s this N.T. truth that you don’t like. It goes against the grain of your sacramental system and your belief that one reconciled to God can lose that reconciliation, which is anti-Scriptural.

Ozzie,

In your earlier post you said the word atonement was not used in the NT and that it was only an OT term. You made other negative remarks about the term as well. Moreover, you have not addressed the fact that it is used in the book of Hebrews. The contention that the word does not mean “at-one-ment” is totally erroneous but it is a position you supported. These are the real points of contention between us. I agree that the translation in Romans is better when the word reconciliation is used, but the use of “atonement” in the KJV [Romans 5:11] does not create a genuine point of doctrinal dispute. I think you are making too big a deal out of this.

 

[Ozzie]

Contarini:

. I’m not claiming to be able to prove this from Scripture.

Thank you!

But it’s a very reasonable inference, and is far more in keeping with Scripture than any alternative I know of.

Doctrine is to be developed FROM SCRIPTURE, i.e., divine revelation, not “inferences,” which can not be proved by Scripture. What separates true Christianity from all the other “religions” in the world is that true Christianity is based on Divine Revelation, not theories or unverifiable stories (things like Mary’s immaculate conception and bodily Assumption)

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.

Where is this doctrine taught in Scriputue? Where does it teach the grotesque idea that God, the Creator of the whole universe, had to provide a ransom payment to one of His own creatures only to, in the end, incarcerate that unholy, rebellious creature in a fiery prison for all eternity. Think about it. Since the word is not elaboated on in Scripture it is more likely being used metaphorically.

 

[Ozzie]

Chesster:

Scripture does not specifically identify to whom the ransom is paid.

Thank you!

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.

It says, “that they may come to their senses,” by God granting them the power to repent. That verse says nothing about coming to their senses through the payment of a ransom price paid to Satan. Don’t read into Scripture something that is not there!

 

[Chesster]

Ozzie,

I know it says nothing about a ransom. What I’m saying is that the EGF’s saw humanity as being held captive by the forces of evil (sin, death, & the Devil) and as a logical conclusion, the “ransom” was paid to the captors of humanity. These are the forces we need to be redeemed from. This verse specifically states that sinners are held captive by the Devil, that’s why I pointed to it, that’s all. I don’t insist in some dogmatic way that the Devil was paid a ransom I’m only saying that its a logical way to understand part of the atonement. Personally, I don’t think its necessary to identify a payee at all. What I reject as absurd however, is the notion that Jesus paid a ransom to the Father as if He held us captive and we needed to be redeemed from Him.

 

[Ozzie]

Chesster:

Ozzie,

I know it says nothing about a ransom. What I’m saying is that the EGF’s saw humanity as being held captive by the forces of evil (sin, death, & the Devil) and as a logical conclusion, the “ransom” was paid to the captors of humanity. These are the forces we need to be redeemed from. This verse specifically states that sinners are held captive by the Devil, that’s why I pointed to it, that’s all. I don’t insist in some dogmatic way that the Devil was paid a ransom I’m only saying that its a logical way to understand part of the atonement. Personally, I don’t think its necessary to identify a payee at all. What I reject as absurd however, is the notion that Jesus paid a ransom to the Father as if He held us captive and we needed to be redeemed from Him.

Yes, I understood fully what you meant. Please read my post #85. Because Scripture does not go into naming any payee whatsoever, and “ransom” can simply mean “the act of freeing from captivity or punishment,” couldn’t it just mean that Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice serves as the means by which God justly frees (delivers) the sinner from *his own enslavement *to sin and darkness (through faith)? This would line up nicely with the doctrine of redemption. It seems anything else would require having to read something into Scripture which is not there.

 

[Chesster]

Ozzie:

Yes, I understood fully what you meant. Please read my post #85. Because Scripture does not go into naming any payee whatsoever, and “ransom” can simply mean “the act of freeing from captivity or punishment,” couldn’t it just mean that Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice serves as the means by which God justly frees (delivers) the sinner from *his own enslavement *to sin and darkness (through faith)? This would line up nicely with the doctrine of redemption. It seems anything else would require having to read something into Scripture which is not there.

Wait a minute. Are you telling me that the ransom and the sacrifice are the same thing?

 

[Ozzie]

Pax:

In your earlier post you said the word atonement was not used in the NT and that it was only an OT term. You made other negative remarks about the term as well.

“Negative” remarks? “Negative” meaning that the word “atonement” is not used by the N.T. writers, yes. But I said nothing in a derogatory sense. I know you have ill feelings toward me, Pax, but try not to be malicious.

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.

In the KJV “atonement” is used only once and that is in the Rom. 5:11 passage. And this as I pointed out was mistranslated from the Greek word katallage, consistently translated “reconciliation” everywhere else. Like I said previously, we don’t receive the “atonement,” but the “reconciliation” wrought by the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

I also pointed out that instead of the general term “atonement,” the N.T. writers were far more exacting and used three Greek words to communicate and describe the infinite work Christ accomplished by His substitutionary sin-sacrifice on our behalf, and which are applied IN FULL to the believer at the time of personal belief in Christ: Katallage (redemption), agorazo/exagorazo (redemption) and hilasterion (propitiation). Heb. 2:17 is the latter and is correctly translated “propitiation.” Propitiation is the "Godward" aspect of the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. It is between the Father and the Son. It is the offering of a gift of sufficient value in order that the wrath of another might be fully satisfied. There are three principles involved in the act of propitiation:

1. The person who brings the gift designed to turn away the wrath of another declares himself (at least in appearance) to be the inferior of the one offended. Phillippians 2:6-8 tells us that Jesus Christ, God the Son, emptied Himself, took on the form of a bondservant, being made in the likeness of men (took on humanity), humbled Himself and became obedient (to the Father) even to the point of dying on a cross (His propitiatory death).

2. The propitiatory gift, designed to turn away the wrath of the offended one, must precede the offender. Christ Jesus is Himself the priceless GIFT of PROPITIATION, so therefore, it was necessary for Him to precede us sinners into the presence of God. If we were to go before the Gift had been accepted, we would have been slain (Heb. 10:19-20).

3. The giver must be wealthy enough to present a gift of sufficient value to bring about the intended results. Christ Jesus offered Himself, without blemish, to God, and then entered the heavenly, holy place (through His own blood) for us, once for all having obtained eternal redemption (Heb. 9:11-22).

Sinful mankind was utterly without resources to provide a propitiatory gift valuable enough to satisfy the wrath of a infinitely holy God caused by our sins. So God, according to His own infinite mercy, provided the only Gift worthy enough in the Person of His Son. God, through the Son’s propitiatory sacrifice is forever propitiated. He never looks to me or you to satisfy His offended holiness because of personal sins. Only God the Son could qualify for this, and we (true believers) eternally benefit by His propitiatory work on our behalf. You can not undo what Christ historically accomplished 2000 years ago. No even your own personal sins, Pax.

 

[Ozzie]

Chesster:

Wait a minute. Are you telling me that the ransom and the sacrifice are the same thing?

What, according to your “ransom theory” is the ransom price payed?

 

[Chesster]

Ozzie:

What, according to your “ransom theory” is the ransom price payed?

Yes. Christ’s suffering and death is the ransom price paid.

Don’t forget to answer my question please.

 

[Pax]

“Negative” remarks? “Negative” meaning that the word “atonement” is not used by the N.T. writers, yes. But I said nothing in a derogatory sense. I know you have ill feelings toward me, Pax, but try not to be malicious.

Ozzie,

You claimed that atonement does not mean “at-one-ment” and you have continued to assert your own interpretations against the use of the word in the NT inspite of the fact that well respected bible translations use it in Hebrews 2:17. Moreover, most bible commentaries I have looked at discuss atonement as it applies in the NT. Additionally, bible dictionaries show how the term is used and applied in the NT contrary to your thinking.

I believe that my use of the term “negative” was Okay, and I think you are over reacting. I do not have ill feelings toward you in any personal sense. I respect your intelligence and tenacity. You are a gifted person. I take exception to your unjustified prejudice against all that is Catholic. If I have in any way been malicious I apologize. I recognize that I have never cut you any slack in matters of scripture or interpretation, but it is not out of malicious intent.

I’m sure you realize that in the thick of an exchange sentiments can get a little charged. We are all guilty of some insensitivity. I will make an effort to be more circumspect and will attempt to be more courteous and charitable. Again, I apologize for having offended you.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie:

Sinful mankind was utterly without resources to provide a propitiatory gift valuable enough to satisfy the wrath of a infinitely holy God caused by our sins. So God, according to His own infinite mercy, provided the only Gift worthy enough in the Person of His Son. God, through the Son’s propitiatory sacrifice is forever propitiated. He never looks to me or you to satisfy His offended holiness because of personal sins. Only God the Son could qualify for this, and we (true believers) eternally benefit by His propitiatory work on our behalf. You can not undo what Christ historically accomplished 2000 years ago. No even your own personal sins, Pax.

Ozzie,

I cannot fathom why you wrote this. I have explained several times to you and exrc that Catholics recognize that Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross is the only source of atonement, reconciliation, propitiation and expiation for the sins of men. Now you have condescendingly suggested that Catholics are not “true believers” and you are suggesting that I think I can undo what Christ historically accomplished 2000 years ago. This makes no sense at all and there is no justification for this kind of statement. Am I missing something?

 

[Ozzie]

Chesster:

Wait a minute. Are you telling me that the ransom and the sacrifice are the same thing?.. Christ’s suffering and death is the ransom price paid.

Are you not telling me here that the “ransom” and the “sacrifice” are the same thing? How do you separate His “suffering and death” from His sacrifice, anyway? We know, based on Scripture, that we are not redeemed simply by His suffering and death, but with “precious blood,” that of the unblemished, spotless “Lamb of God” (1 Pet. 1:18-19; cf. 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23).

Can you show me in Scripture where it is taught that a fallen, utterly, uholy creature has the right to demand from the infinitely pure and holy God the “ransom” price of the suffering and death of His Son? Where is that concept even hinted to in Scripture? Where does Scripture teach that the Creator is ever subordinate to the creature (a fallen, wicked one at that)?

MAR 10:45 "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

Since Scripture never builds upon this basic doctrine (i.e., revealing a payee), it is safe to conclude that “ransom” here is used metaphorically for a means of deliverance for man’s own enslavement to sin, spiritual darkness and death.

It is taught from the beginning that Adam (the federal head of all humanity, Rom. 5:12) wilfully sinned in the Garden (Gen. 3:6). Eve was deceived, yes, but Adam was not (2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:13). Hence, humanity was not taken “hostage” by Satan into a life of sin and death, subsequently requireing a “ransom price” to be paid by God to Satan for man’s release. Adam sinned wilfully against God, and God alone! And it is through God’s infinite love and mercy toward us, based on His GRACE, that He sent the Son into this world to be “a ransom,” i.e., a just means of deliverance, for all the descendants of Adam from their own enslavement (through Adam) to sin and death.

 

[Ozzie]

Pax:

You claimed that atonement does not mean “at-one-ment” and you have continued to assert your own interpretations against the use of the word in the NT inspite of the fact that well respected bible translations use it in Hebrews 2:17. Moreover, most bible commentaries I have looked at discuss atonement as it applies in the NT. Additionally, bible dictionaries show how the term is used and applied in the NT contrary to your thinking.

Do they also tell you the difference between the Greek words? Point is, the Holy Spirit inspired the writer of Hebrews to use the the Greek word “hilasterion,” and the correct English translation of “propitiation” communicates something far more definite and grand than the general term “atonement.” *“At-one-ment” *is a “play on words” for the English word “atonement,” but “propitiation” (Gr. hilasterion) in no way shape or form means “at-one-ment” in the Greek. “Propitiation” is between the Father and the Son, and the “atonement” (sacrifice of Christ) is not what makes them “one.”

I take exception to your unjustified prejudice against all that is Catholic.

I am not against “all” that is “Catholic.” Only those things that can not be Scripturally supported (extrabiblical or misinterpreted), and granted, there’s quite a bit on that list.

I’m sure you realize that in the thick of an exchange sentiments can get a little charged. We are all guilty of some insensitivity. I will make an effort to be more circumspect and will attempt to be more courteous and charitable. Again, I apologize for having offended you.

No problema, senior Pax. I’m really not that thin skinned. I just read you as claiming that I have negative views on the sacrificial death of Christ (i.e., the atonement). I might be sensitive there because the cross is the core of my belief - so, far be it for me to ever speak negatively, or have negative views of it, since because of it I bow before the Father with fear and marvel greatly that such amazing grace should be demonstrated toward me, now and forever. I know that for all eternity (and yes, I can say that with full certainty) I will be learning of this unfathomable grace and will never exhaust the depth of it. This I’m sure is what makes eternal life, eternal LIFE.

 

[Ozzie]

Pax:

I cannot fathom why you wrote this. I have explained several times to you and exrc that Catholics recognize that Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross is the only source of atonement, reconciliation, propitiation and expiation for the sins of men. Now you have condescendingly suggested that Catholics are not “true believers” and you are suggesting that I think I can undo what Christ historically accomplished 2000 years ago. This makes no sense at all and there is no justification for this kind of statement. Am I missing something?

I said only “true believers” benefit from His propitiatory sacrifice. I said nothing about “Catholics” or “Protestants.” Are you suggesting that ALL Catholics are true believers?

My comment that you can not undo what Christ accomplished 2000 years ago was in respect to the RC doctrine regarding “venial” and “mortal” sins. A doctrine in direct opposition to the Biblical revelation that *“He Himself is the propitiation for our sins.” *Not just “venial” sins, Pax, but ALL our sins. And not just ours, “but those of the whole world” (1 Jn. 2:2). 1 Jn. 5:17 is an extremely obscure verse which men have perverted to the detriment of the true believer’s understanding of his secuity and position in Christ and the glory of Christ’s finished work on the cross (propitiation, reconciliation and redemption). No sin can undo what the Son accomplished on the cross 2000 years ago. It’s not sin that prohibits a man from being in the presence of God for all eternity, it’s unbelief. There are many Catholics and Protestants who trust in their own worthiness rather than Christ alone. Thinking they can enter the gates of Heaven clothed in their own righteousness rather than the “righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith” (Phil. 3:9; 2 Cor. 5:21). I don’t know you, Pax, I only know what we’ve discussed together on this forum. But with all honesty and with most due respect, I must admit, after all the dialogue we’ve had together, I do fear that you ultimately, personally, trust in “sacraments” rather than the Sacrifice. I don’t know if it’s true, I only fear that it might be. And if it is true, it saddens me deeply.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie,

We are going in circles. Once saved always saved is a serious doctrinal error, and has been refuted on many occassions. There is little point in our revisiting that issue. You fail to understand Catholic Church teachings and you fail to comprehend what the sacraments are if you in anyway believe that they undo or diminish Christ’s work on the cross.

Nothing diminishes the work of Jesus. Catholic teaching fully embraces and more deeply explores the meaning and implications of scripture and Jesus sacrifice than any other Christian system of belief. There is power in grace and the promises of Jesus. Catholic Christianity embraces the full understanding of the power of grace and the power of Jesus’s sacrifice. Catholic teaching takes in the fullness of God’s plan which enhances rather than diminishes our understandings of the implications of Jesus sacrifice.

 

[Chesster]

Are you not telling me here that the “ransom” and the “sacrifice” are the same thing?

No.

How do you separate His “suffering and death” from His sacrifice, anyway?

A ransom is not a sacrifice and the sacrifice is not to be understood as a ransom because God is not paid to forgive sin. The sacrifice is a gift given to God, the ransom is not. The ransom was the price exacted by Satan whereas the sacrifice was Christ’s life (blood) coupled with His love and obedience in His suffering and death.

Can you show me in Scripture where it is taught that a fallen, utterly, uholy creature has the right to demand from the infinitely pure and holy God the “ransom” price of the suffering and death of His Son? Where is that concept even hinted to in Scripture?

I never said that Satan has any rights at all. I’m saying that since Satan held the power of death, then Christ’s suffering and death is the price exacted by Satan. Jesus chose to defeat him by dying. It doesn’t mean that Satan has any right to demand anything from God.

Where does Scripture teach that the Creator is ever subordinate to the creature (a fallen, wicked one at that)?

He’s not and I never said He was.

Since Scripture never builds upon this basic doctrine (i.e., revealing a payee), it is safe to conclude that “ransom” here is used metaphorically for a means of deliverance for man’s own enslavement to sin, spiritual darkness and death.

“Ransom” in this context is a metaphor for Christ’s suffering and death. It signifies the price exacted by “him who held the power of death,” and is not to be confused with the sacrifice, which is a gift not a payment. You seem to be of the mind that the ransom and sacrifice are one and the same which means that the ransom was paid to God. This is exactly what we cannot say. Ransoms are paid to redeem (buy back) people. If the ransom was paid to God, then we were redeemed from God. We were, in fact, redeemed from the enemy, not from God.

It is taught from the beginning that Adam (the federal head of all humanity, Rom. 5:12) wilfully sinned in the Garden (Gen. 3:6). Eve was deceived, yes, but Adam was not (2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:13). Hence, humanity was not taken “hostage” by Satan into a life of sin and death, subsequently requireing a “ransom price” to be paid by God to Satan for man’s release. Adam sinned wilfully against God, and God alone ! And it is through God’s infinite love and mercy toward us, based on His GRACE, that He sent the Son into this world to be “a ransom,” i.e., a just means of deliverance, for all the descendants of Adam from their own enslavement (through Adam) to sin and death.

I never used the word “hostage”, I used the word used by scripture - “captive” which goes hand-in-hand with the word “ransom.” We were ransomed from the forces of evil (sin, death & the Devil) we were not ransomed from God. The fact that God chose to free us from our “enslavement” as you say, by suffering and dying does not mean that Satan had a right to demand from God a payment for man’s release.