Protestants and doctrinal development

[Pax]

Ozzie:

."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 can understand why your list is long on that score. You interpret scripture in ways that you see fit even though they disagree with Christian teaching from the time of the apostles. Your understandings are sometimes unique and not found within accepted Christian teaching.

Ozzie:

.

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. …

It is clear that you have misconstrued my meaning. I never meant to suggest that you take a negative view of Christ’s death on the cross. I think you know this to be true. I used the word in my post for lack of a better term. You denied that atonement has anything to do with the NT and Jesus sacrifice and in this regard you are wrong. This is the negative thing to which I made reference.

All of the research I have done would indicate that the word **hilaskesthai ** as used in Hebrews 2:17 is best understood as atonement. In the OT, atonement was accomplished under Levitical law through the sacrificial actions of a priest. In the book of Hebrews, Jesus is called our “High Priest” and he is also the sacrifice. Jesus’s priestly sacrifice of atonement “hilaskesthai” is in respect to the sins of the people. This is all reinforced by Hebrews 9:14, where we read “how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience…"

Virtually every respected source that I can find appreciates the nuances of languages and appreciates how atonement is to be understood in the NT. Why you do not share this is beyond my comprehension. Some statements in scripture can have more than one meaning. I will not deny the aspect of propitiation, but neither will I deny the obvious aspect of atonement.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie:

…
…
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.”
…
*

Perhaps you do not understand Catholic teaching on mortal and venial sins. I suspect that you have an inadequate understanding of sin and its consequences. Catholic teaching on sin in general, as well as its teachings on mortal sin vs. venial sin are all quite biblical. The reason you cannot appreciate this fact is because you interpret everything based on the unbiblical teaching of “once saved always saved.” If you filter your interpetations through this error you cannot appreciate biblical truths.

 

[Ozzie]

Chesster:

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.

Previously you said, *“Yes. Christ’s suffering and death is the ransom price paid.” *How can you separate His suffering and death from the sacrifice itself? If the ransom price “exacted” by Satan (as you state it) was simply “suffering and death” and had nothing to do with the sacrifice itself, then Jesus could have suffered and died by being kicked in the head by a mule and it would have satisfied the alleged “ransom price” demanded by Satan, right? You’re essentially saying the cross was expedient to God because it killed two birds with one stone.

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.

Your above statement is chocked full of contradictions. You say that you never said that Satan has any rights at all to demand anything from God, but then you state that “suffering and death” is the price “exacted” BY SATAN. You say “suffering and death” was “exacted” by Satan, and then you say that Christ Himself “chose” to defeat Satan by dying. However, based on your logic Christ really had no choice in the matter whatsoever since, according to you, it was Satan who “exacted” the terms from the beginning. Hence, in order to “ransom” God had to acquiesce. You also seem to equate paying Satan his demands to “defeating” him. How so? How does paying a ransom to anyone defeat anyone?

Previously you seem to agree with what you considered the “logical inference” of the ECFs: "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." Then later you fudge by stating: *“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.” *You say “part of the atonement” but then you present a dichotomy between the sacrifice and the ransom price itself (i.e., the suffering and death of Christ on the cross). None of this makes sense, full of contradictions, and is convoluted. And do know why? Because none of it’s Biblical. That’s what happens when you go beyond (exceed) what is written (1 Cor. 4:6).

I never used the word “hostage”, I used the word used by scripture - “captive”

BINGO! “Hostages” are ransomed, “captives” are set free. Remember what I suggested earlier? “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 just means of deliverance for man’s own enslavement to sin, spiritual darkness and death.”

which goes hand-in-hand with the word “ransom.”

As you can see, it doesn’t! “Hostages” are ransomed, “captives” are set free. The Greek word for “captive” in 2 Tim. 2:26 is “zogreo,” and simply means to “take alive.” In context, 2 Tim. 2:26 is talking about patiently instructing men who have fallen into the snare of false teachings (taken captive , alive,], that they may return to soberness and escape Satan’s trap, and enter instead into the pursuit of God’s will. This verse is not soteriological and has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the payment of a ransom. You’re reading an extrabiblical doctrine into that verse. This goes against all rules of basic hermeneutics.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

I have to throw my two cents in about the Eucharist Jesus said it number one.We believe it,people walked away and Jesus didn’t stop them, if they misunderstood he would be bound to stop them or risk deception which Jesus is incapable of.Paul affirms the real presence as well,so exactly what is the argument over the real presence.It is a hard saying and apparently,still hard,huh?God Bless

 

[Chesster]

Ozzie, how does your understanding of “ransom” tie in with “redemption”?

 

[Ozzie]

Pax:

You denied that atonement has anything to do with the NT and Jesus sacrifice and in this regard you are wrong.

You read, Pax, but what you read you don’t always process correctly. I said the “word” atonement is not used by the N.T. writers. But that they’re far more descriptive when explaining the cross. I then gave you the three words that they use: reconciliation, redemption and propitiation. The Greek supports my argument.

All of the research I have done would indicate that the word hilaskesthai as used in Hebrews 2:17 is best understood as atonement.

Yet every Bible I own translates it “propitiation,” so my argument is not as bizarre as you try to make it.

Perhaps you do not understand Catholic teaching on mortal and venial sins.

Or, perhaps I actually do.

I suspect that you have an inadequate understanding of sin and its consequences.

“*For the wages of sin is death, BUT the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” *(Rom. 6:23). Oh, I understand the consequences of sin, but I also understand *the cross *and actually believe what Christ accomplished there (reconciliation, redemption and propitiation) and is applied IN FULL to the one who believes in Him. Rome’s whole doctrine of sin circumvents the latter half of Rom. 6:23. That’s why I said earlier, Pax, I fear that your faith is in sacraments rather than the sacrifice. You have yet to embrace the cross. That’s the real issue between my faith and your faith, Rome and the New Testament Scriptures.

 

[Ozzie]

Chesster:

Ozzie, how does your understanding of “ransom” tie in with “redemption”?

They’re akin to one another. The Greek word “lutron” is used in both Matt. 20:28 and Mark 10:45 where it is used as Christ’s gift of Himself as a “ransom” for many. The Greek word “lutroo” (akin to lutron) which means to release on receipt of a ransom, is used in Titus 2:14 where it speaks of Jesus Christ who *"gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us *(lutrosetai) from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possesion, zealous for good deeds." See also 1 Pet. 1:18.

I think Vine expresses it well: “Some interpreters have regarded the ransom price as being paid to Satan; others, to an imperson power such as death, or evil, or “that ultimate necessity which has made the whole course of things what it has been.” Such ideas are largely conjectural, the result of an attempt to press the details of certain Old Testament illustrations beyond the actual statements of New Testament doctrines. That Christ gave up His life in expiatory sacrifice under God’s judgment upon sin and thus provided a ransom whereby those who receive Him on this ground obtain deliverance from the penalty due to sin, is what Scripture teaches” (Expository Dictionary of New Testment Words).

Scripture is very clear that Christ gave Himself as a ransom and those who receive Him are delivered.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie:

… Rome’s whole doctrine of sin circumvents the latter half of Rom. 6:23. That’s why I said earlier, Pax, I fear that your faith is in sacraments rather than the sacrifice. You have yet to embrace the cross. That’s the real issue between my faith and your faith, Rome and the New Testament Scriptures.

Ozzie,

Catholic teaching does not circumvent anything in scripture. Instead, it includes everything in scripture. You fail to realize what the Church’s teaching really is, in spite of your claims to the contrary. If you really want to know something about the cross and the deepest meaning of Christ sufferings you must read all that the Church has to say about it. We have entire orders of religious (eg. the Passionist Priests and others) that preach Jesus Christ crucified like no other people on earth.

The real difference between your faith and mine is not in the sacrifice of Christ. I think we actually agree on this. I believe the difference comes in terms of what flows from the sacrifice of Jesus. Grace comes to us because of Jesus sacrificial death and His resurrection. You see one dimension of grace and do not have, from my perspective, an appreciation of all that grace is and all that it does. Catholics recognize the forensic dimension of justification imparted by God’s grace, but there is much more. God’s grace brings regeneration and the impartation of the Holy Spirit. We are not simply declared righteous, but we are made righteous because God’s word goes out in power.

God’s grace doesn’t simply impute righteousness. Everything is as Paul says, “a new creation” and we put off the old sinful self and “put on Christ.” This is all accomplished by grace and this is how we live accordingly. Revelation 22:11-15 says, “Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.“Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood.”

The Christian, by God’s grace, lives out the righteousness that God gives as the free gift. This is the other dimension of grace that your position (not necessarily you) denies. The evil doer and the filthy remain outside the city gates. Outside are the fornicators, murderers, etc. Jesus says, let the righteous continue to do right, and the holy still be holy. This is where sin comes in. If you do not continue to do right or continue to be holy, Jesus is saying that you will be outside the gates. This is only one of many places in scripture that talks about this kind of thing. Catholic teaching embraces the concept that God’s grace enables us to continue to be righteous and to still be holy. Your position says that it is simply “once saved always saved” no matter what. This simply doesn’t fit with scripture.

As Catholics we see the power of God’s grace in all of its dimensions. We embrace the wisdom of Ephesians 3:20-21 where it says, “Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, for ever and ever. Amen.” Think about what is being said here. We can by God’s grace avoid sin. We can by God’s grace conquer the enemy. We can by God’s grace continue to be righteous. By God’s grace more can be accomplished in greater abundance than we can ask or think.

2 Timothy 3:1-5 points out that "BUT UNDERSTAND this, that in the last days there will come times of stress. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people. Notice how this passage from Timothy points out what the evil doers are up to. At the same time they deny the power of God’s grace. They hold the form of religion; but look at their actions. Their actions are what they are because they deny the power of God’s grace and do not allow God’s grace to work in their lives. They turn from God because they prefer sin over God. Sin is a form of idolatry.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie:

You read, Pax, but what you read you don’t always process correctly. I said the “word” atonement is not used by the N.T. writers. But that they’re far more descriptive when explaining the cross. I then gave you the three words that they use: reconciliation, redemption and propitiation.font]

I processed it correctly and I responded accordingly. I have shown you that words in both English and Greek as well as all languages have a range of meaning. I have demonstrated that reconciliation and atonement can be used interchangeably. I don’t think we have any real disagreement on the descriptive relevance of reconciliation, redemption, and propitiation. I simply take exception to your original statement, especially since I found the word atone/atonement in several NT translations. I probably made too big a deal out of this, but I found your statement that none of the NT authors ever used the word atonement and that it is only an OT concept to be erroneous. I believe that a correction was in order.

I am certainly willing to drop this one if you are. I have no argument per se with your use of reconciliation, redemption, and propitiation.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie:

That’s why I said earlier, Pax, I fear that your faith is in sacraments rather than the sacrifice. You have yet to embrace the cross. That’s the real issue between my faith and your faith, Rome and the New Testament Scriptures.

Ozzie,

Everything about the sacraments flow from Jesus Christ and the merits he gained for us on the cross.

 

[Ozzie]

Pax:

Catholic teaching does not circumvent anything in scripture. Instead, it includes everything in scripture.

Rome’s doctrine regarding mortal/venial sins circumvents the cross:

“And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us ALL our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross” (Col. 2:13-14).

Rome turns a blind eye and a deaf ear to this fundamental message. Pax, according to Rome, what will happen to you if you should die with an unconfessed, so-called “mortal” sin on your soul?

I probably made too big a deal out of this, but I found your statement that none of the NT authors ever used the word atonement and that it is only an OT concept to be erroneous. I believe that a correction was in order.

I didn’t say “atonement” was only an O.T. concept, I said the N.T. writers did not use the word “atonement,” but three, distinctly, different Greek words to explain what Christ’s atoning work accomplished there on the cross. Each one describing a different accomplishment, but corporately revealing the power of Christ’s vicarious, substitutionary death on our behalf. Reconciliation is not propitiation, and propitiation is not reconciliation. One is manward (reconciliation) while the other is Godward (propitiation).

Now, through the Epistles we come to understand that Christ’s “atoning” work on the cross, prefigured by the Mosaic “Day of Atonement,” incorporated reconciliation, redemption and propitiation. But this could not be understood except that the cross was explained in these three distinct, Greek words by the writers of the N.T. Epistles. And it is this glorious, compound work of Christ, accomplished on the cross 2000 years ago, that is applied IN FULL to every sinner that turns from unbelief to belief in Christ Jesus. Who, by faith, come to the cross empty handed, dead in their trespasses and sins, and leave alive in Christ (a new creation), clothed in His righteousness and possessors of ETERNAL LIFE. This made possible because Christ’s atoning work included the work of reconciliation, redemption and propitiation.

I fear, Pax, that you have yet to come to the cross in this light (Jn. 14:6). You trust sacraments rather than the sacrifice, Rome rather than Christ. You “work” to justify Rome, while rejecting the “Work” that has the power to forever justify you before an infinitely Holy God.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie,

I am still willing to drop the issue of “atonement” in the NT if you are. However, you seem to be unwilling to let it go. You said the following in your post #65.

Ozzie:

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.

In your latest post on this issue you have tried to make it sound as if you didn’t say what you said in post #65. I have disagreed with you and I still do. You claimed that the word atonement is not used in the NT and I demonstrated that it was. You said that is was an OT term. I have explained that the word in the NT is interchangeable with the word reconciliation and that it is an NT term. I have demonstrated this using well respected bible translations, bible dictionaries, and bible commentaries. You are simply wrong in trying to be so exclusive in your terminology. As far as I am concerned the case is closed. You cannot undo the interchangeable use of the term in the NT translations and understandings. No one denies the use of the term reconciliation. You have a hang up on not recognizing the interchangeability of the two terms as legitimate. This is a problem of your own making.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie:

Rome’s doctrine regarding mortal/venial sins circumvents the cross:

…
Rome turns a blind eye and a deaf ear to this fundamental message. Pax, according to Rome, what will happen to you if you should die with an unconfessed, so-called “mortal” sin on your soul?]

Ozzie,

I would tell you to read 1 John 5:16 and a lot of other verses to educate you on sin and its ramifications. I would also resubmit my offer to you of the abundance of verses that I have personally researched that refute “once saved always saved.” Unfortunately, you have you own unique and creative way of reading and interpreting scripture and I would be wasting my time. We are covering ground that we have convered before and I am satisfied that your position is untenable. I am not going to go through it all again. you have been given much but you accept nothing. There is much more that could be given to you, but you would simply reject that too. You flippantly reject and criticize two thousand years of Christian wisdom found in the Church Jesus established, and you place your judgments over those of Christ’s Church. Your arguments are wrong and are in no way convincing.

…

Ozzie:

I fear, Pax, that you have yet to come to the cross in this light (Jn. 14:6). You trust sacraments rather than the sacrifice, Rome rather than Christ. You “work” to justify Rome, while rejecting the “Work” that has the power to forever justify you before an infinitely Holy God.

Ozzie,

I will always trust the Church Jesus established[as you put it, “Rome”] over your interpretations and errant understandings. I trust scripture and the Church but I do not trust you.

I have already explained to you that everything about the sacraments flows from Jesus Christ by way of the cross. You insist, however, on trumpeting the same tired statements that have been refuted before. You and I are apparently not going to agree on atonement, justification, sin, the sacraments, faith and love as supernatural gifts, and many other things. Until we get to a new issue for us to argue about, I suggest that we simply agree to disagree.