The sufficiency of Christ

[crazzeto]

2nd Adam,

When you get a chance, could you please give us a thorough description of your understanding of “free will”? Or atleast point us to a link which adequately defines your view of it.

I believe it’s quite relevant to your thread here, as it will allow us to explore what man’s role in salvation is (or is not), and hence clarify more about what the all-sufficiency of Christ means.

Thanks.

Oh, but that’s all off topic

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Ok well, if the whole point of your thread is “the grace of god is what saves you” then I don’t see why you bothered posting it. Catholics don’t disagree.

He could be posting about:

1. How one receives grace–Christ’s sacrifice alone vs. sacraments
2. How Catholics and Protestants view that grace
3. Sola gratis vs sola eccelesia (forgive my spelling)
4. Trying to find some commonalities

Adam could be going anywhere with this. Unfortunately, he’s been too vague IMO.

 

[crazzeto]

He could be posting about:

1. How one receives grace–Christ’s sacrifice alone vs. sacraments

This is exactly what I’m talking about. But it’s OT apparently

1. How Catholics and Protestants view that grace

We don’t new it differently, with in the confines of what Adam will discuss. The one difference worth discussing is the Free Will aspect which has been declared out of bounds.

1. Sola gratis vs sola eccelesia (forgive my spelling)

Declared out of bounds

1. Trying to find some commonalities

Adam could be going anywhere with this. Unfortunately, he’s been too vague IMO.

You see the problem? He’s trying to engineer a discussion where one can’t argue a point at all.

 

[tweetymom]

I hope everyone understands that I will be ignoring Zerinus and wish him well. This passage applies to all who knows Jesus as Lord.

Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will. - Apostle Paul

Thanks for that. Wonder how often that happens?

 

[rtconstant]

The sufficiency of Christ

I believe the essential difference between Protestants and Catholics is the work of Christ for sinners. It really has to do with the sufficiency of Christ. A Catholic brother posted on another thread that Christ is all sufficient. However, I believe the Protestant position is really about the sufficiency of Christ, and the Catholic view of the work of Christ is not the same. The Catholic position has a lower view of the work of Christ than Protestants in the disucssion of sufficiency.

Well, which Protestant view of soterology are you speaking of? There are several, and some, possibly most of them line up pretty well with the apostolic view.

If you’re referring to the newer Calvinist view, which is what it looks like from reading your follow up posts, then I would personally say that it is the exact opposite. The Calvinist view suggests that since God is solely responsible for the actions of the elect and the non-elect then the sacrifice of His Son is insufficient to abate His wrath upon those who follow His will. Of course that assumes that you’re a true double predestination Calvinist.

If you’re referring to the more lose single predestination school of Calvinism, then Christ’s sacrifice is insufficient in that it is only offered to the elect. So again Grace can seemingly only go so far.

Now if you’re meaning for us to ignore general sufficiency for the moment, and just focus on particular sufficiency, then it is rather difficult to gauge. If the person in question really didn’t do anything to warrant wrath to begin with, then there is really nothing to forgive, and so not much sufficiency or efficiency is required. If the person is only getting Grace because they are being forced to accept it then how much Grace is actually being given there? Its hard to quantify that. Now if the person in question is receiving Grace according to how much they’re willing to accept then the sky is the limit. Remember Christ’s life, death and resurrection isn’t just about not being punished (that’s really a side benefit), its about a relationship with God, and a deeper communion with Him. So then Grace can only really be maximized by an interactive relationship between God and His creation. If the level of Grace given to an individual has a pre-determined ceiling then Christ’s sufficiency can really only be determined on a case by case basis. Which again seems rather limited.

 

[zerinus]

I hope everyone understands that I will be ignoring Zerinus and wish him well. This passage applies to all who knows Jesus as Lord.

Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will. - Apostle Paul

You can ignore me as much as you want; but I will not be ignoring you. I will watch your posts carefully, and reply to them as appropriate. That is for the benefit of others, not necessarily you.

 

[zerinus]

I’m trying real hard to guide this thread back to the OP of “The sufficiency of Christ”. This is not about TULIP or Predestination. Therefore, I think your questions are not related to the thread topic so it makes sense not to answer them at this point. I hope you understand.

You are the one who has been ignoring the OP. Throughout the thread people have been asking you to explain what you meant by it, and you will not answer. I think people have figured out by now why.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

This is exactly what I’m talking about. But it’s OT apparently

We don’t new it differently, with in the confines of what Adam will discuss. The one difference worth discussing is the Free Will aspect which has been declared out of bounds.

Declared out of bounds

You see the problem? He’s trying to engineer a discussion where one can’t argue a point at all.

I agree with you. A pet peeve of mine is thread hijacking but I feel the points the Catholics have raised are relevant—how one views Christ’s sufficiency is dependent on your theological view whether it be Mormonism, Catholicism or Calvinism.

A “discussion where one can’t argue a point of at all” isn’t a discussion but preaching IMO.

2nd Adam still hasn’t answered why he views Catholicism as a “lower” or explained his view of sufficiency at all.

 

[Carlan]

The righteousness of Christ alone is the only righteousness that is needed to be eternally forgiven and adopted into the family of God since His righteousness becomes our righteousness through faith. So, **Christ’s righteousness alone is completely sufficient for us for forgiveness of past, present and future sins, .and eternal reconciliation and peace with God, and is the sole basis for our permanent eternal **adoption into the family of God. Through Christ alone, God is our eternal Heavenly Father in which we can always call upon God as Abba Father.

In my understanding of the Catholic Faith, it is not by the righteousness of Christ alone which is your basis of forgiveness and eternal adoption into the family of God. To a Catholic, he or she must be made righteous to enter the kingdom of God, and have God as your eternal Heavenly Father. Therefore, the righteousness of Christ alone is not sufficient for you. If my understanding of the Catholic Faith is wrong, please forgive me and correct my understanding.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

The following is how I understand the propitiation from the link Adam gave me:

God the Father punishes God the Son and, in doing so, He no longer sees Jesus but humanity’s sin (past present future) and puts His wrath upon His Son. Then He sends His Son to Hell (or at least in some sense). Hence all our sins are forgiven and the believer, compelled by the grace of God, need not to do anything but make an act of faith. By doing so, God no longer sees the believers as a child of wrath but a child of God after he has legally adopted the believer as His own. The believer is now saved for all eternity because Christ’s sacrifice (whom already took the believer’s punishment and thus the believer can no longer go to Hell) is legally imputed to the believer. Essentially, Christ’s sacrifice is the only way to adopted the believer into His own because the unsaved believer will forever be prone to sin and lead himself to Hell. It can only take God’s grace to save humanity because man’s works are rubbish and sinful. Hence God’s grace is sufficient and His sacrifice perfect. By declaring the believer righteous, the believer can approach the throne of grace and with confidence say he has been saved by God’s grace alone. Post-salvation experience, the believer is God’s son and any sins (that have already been punished) don’t lead to Hell but a loss of fellowship.

Before I move on to my critique I’d like a Reformed or someone whom believes the same to correct my theological understanding…

 

[zerinus]

The following is how I understand the propitiation from the link Adam gave me:

God the Father punishes God the Son and, in doing so, He no longer sees Jesus but humanity’s sin (past present future) and puts His wrath upon His Son. Then He sends His Son to Hell (or at least in some sense). Hence all our sins are forgiven and the believer, compelled by the grace of God, need not to do anything but make an act of faith. By doing so, God no longer sees the believers as a child of wrath but a child of God after he has legally adopted the believer as His own. The believer is now saved for all eternity because Christ’s sacrifice (whom already took the believer’s punishment and thus the believer can no longer go to Hell) is legally imputed to the believer. Essentially, Christ’s sacrifice is the only way to adopted the believer into His own because the unsaved believer will forever be prone to sin and lead himself to Hell. It can only take God’s grace to save humanity because man’s works are rubbish and sinful. Hence God’s grace is sufficient and His sacrifice perfect. By declaring the believer righteous, the believer can approach the throne of grace and with confidence say he has been saved by God’s grace alone. Post-salvation experience, the believer is God’s son and any sins (that have already been punished) don’t lead to Hell but a loss of fellowship.

Before I move on to my critique I’d like a Reformed or someone whom believes the same to correct my theological understanding…

The word propitiation occurs in three places in the KJV Bible, as follows:

Romans 3:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God

1 John 2:

2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:

10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

And in case the meaning is not sufficiently clear from the above verses, here are some online definitions of propitiation I found with Google:

placation: the act of placating and overcoming distrust and animosity

expiation: the act of atoning for sin or wrongdoing (especially appeasing a deity)

propitiate - make peace with

The appeasing of the wrath of the Deity by prayer or sacrifice when a sin or offence has bbeen committed against him…In Christian thought the death of Christ has usually been regarded as a propitiatory sacrifice to the Father for the sins of the world.

That which turns aside the wrath of God from the sinner. The atonement of Jesus satisfies the just demands of the righteousness and wrath of God against sin (Rom 3:25; Heb 2:17; 1ohn 2:2; 4:10).

The satisfaction of God’s wrath by means of a sacrifice.

propitiate - To conciliate (an offended power); appease.

Thus propitiation basically has the same meaning as atonement. Now Adam had made this comment in another post:

It is because of Christ’s perfect and sufficient righteousness, that God’s love in manifested in two ways, through propitiation and adoption. In Protestant theology, adoption through propitiation is based on the sufficiency of Christ’s righteousness alone. In Catholic theology, I don’t believe that is true.

And I will tell you what he is trying to say with that (in his deliberately obscurantist language). What he is saying is that in Calvinism and Protestant in general, the Atonement of Christ is sufficient to save you without any voluntary action on your part. In Catholicism, Christ’s Atonement is still sufficient to save; but it requires something on your part as well. God offers you the free gift of the Atonement; but you still have to reach out with your hand and grasp it. God isn’t going to shove it down your throat if you don’t want it. The way you reach out with your hand and grasp it is by willingly submitting to the requirements of the gospel: you willingly repent; you are baptized; you are confirmed and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; you take communion; and you strive to keep the commandments of God in your life. That is how you voluntarily accept the free gift of the Atonement that Christ offers. But in his theology you don’t! God arbitrarily decides whether you will be saved or damned. If God decides that you will be saved, He will make you accept the offer of the Atonement (by the mere expression of faith alone); and if He wants you to be damned, He will simply make you reject His gospel, and turn into an unbeliever! So the question you want to ask him, in relation to the above quote, is to explain how “In Catholic theology, [he] doesn’t believe that is true”. What is the difference between Catholic theology and Protestant theology that causes that distinction to arise? That is the question that he should have answered in the first place—but he doesn’t want to! And It shouldn’t be hard for you to figure out why!

 

[2nd_Adam]

To understand Adoption through Propitiation, we need a meeting of the minds of the word Propitiation. Here is another article on Propitiation.

angelfire.com/nt/theology/propitiation.html

PROPITIATION

The Work that Satisfies

I don’t like big words. There is something to be said about brevity and simplicity. I think it odd that abbreviation is such a long word. But there are times when long words are both good and necessary and when we need to add such a word to our vocabulary. This is such a case with the term we will be examining today.

Our word is “propitiation.” It isn’t a term that we regularly use. I dare say that it is possible to go through high school and college and never to learn the meaning of this word.

If we have to learn a big word, then let’s do it by giving to it a short definition. We can do that here. Propitiation refers to that which satisfies anger; that which appeases. The Greeks had a word for it. Their term was ‘ilastarioV.

IlastarioV - Satisfactory
Ilaskomai - To satisfy; to appease.
IlasmoV - Satisfaction; appeasement
These three related words are used several times in the New Testament. An examination of these uses will be instructive…

see link above for complete article and author.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Originally Posted by Dancelittleewok
The following is how I understand the propitiation from the link Adam gave me:

God the Father punishes God the Son and, in doing so, He no longer sees Jesus but humanity’s sin (past present future) and puts His wrath upon His Son. Then He sends His Son to Hell (or at least in some sense). Hence all our sins are forgiven and the believer, compelled by the grace of God, need not to do anything but make an act of faith. By doing so, God no longer sees the believers as a child of wrath but a child of God after he has legally adopted the believer as His own. The believer is now saved for all eternity because Christ’s sacrifice (whom already took the believer’s punishment and thus the believer can no longer go to Hell) is legally imputed to the believer. Essentially, Christ’s sacrifice is the only way to adopted the believer into His own because the unsaved believer will forever be prone to sin and lead himself to Hell. It can only take God’s grace to save humanity because man’s works are rubbish and sinful. Hence God’s grace is sufficient and His sacrifice perfect. By declaring the believer righteous, the believer can approach the throne of grace and with confidence say he has been saved by God’s grace alone. Post-salvation experience, the believer is God’s son and any sins (that have already been punished) don’t lead to Hell but a loss of fellowship.

Before I move on to my critique I’d like a Reformed or someone whom believes the same to correct my theological understanding…

Dancelittleewok, you are wise to request for confirmation of your understanding from someone who believes what we are discussing. I will try to read the posts closer and respond when I have some free time.

Zerinus is not even close with his explaination about what we are discussing. He continues to misrepresent Protestantism, either intentionally or unintentionally. It’s quite strange he wants to speak for Protestants and Catholics alike, telling us what we believe. Yet, the Mormon Faith teaches that we (Catholics and Protestants) are apostate! If you have spent time discussing Christianity with Mormon missionaries and local Mormon Elders, then you should not be surprised by Zerinus’ behavior. IMO… it is an intentional strategetic tactic that is taught to Mormon missionary kids.

And I will tell you what he is trying to say with that (in his deliberately obscurantist language). What he is saying is that in Calvinism and Protestant in general, the Atonement of Christ is sufficient to save you without any voluntary action on your part. !

Zerinus, if you want to continue to represent what Reformed Christians believe, it would be wise and Christ-like to first learn what we believe before trying to post what we believe. Pelase study this site, because you continue to break Forum rules by misrepresenting what Protestant and Reformed Christians believe.

monergism.com/

:knight1::knight2::knight1:

 

[2nd_Adam]

Sufficiency of Christ

“The [Roman Catholic] Council of Trent anathematizes anyone who says you can be saved without the grace of God. The Reformers, however, never claimed Rome believed you can be saved apart from grace. That wasn’t the debate. The debate of the Reformation was never, ever about the necessity of grace, it was always about the sufficiency of grace. That remains the issue today in so many contexts.” - James White

Grace is not like a box of candy that you can send back if you don’t want it. Grace is divine favor, an attitude of God’s own heart. We cannot stop him from loving us, if he chooses to do so. Nor can we stop him from giving us blessings of salvation: regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification. His purpose in us will certainly be fulfilled, Phil. 1:6, Eph. 1:11. - John Frame

“Remember, sinner, it is not thy hold of Christ that saves thee - it is Christ; it is not thy joy in Christ that saves thee - it is Christ; it is not even faith in Christ, though that is the instrument it is Christ’s blood and merits; therefore, look not to thy hope, but to Christ, the source of thy hope; look not to thy faith, but to Christ, the author and finisher of thy faith; and if thou doest that, ten thousand devils cannot throw thee down.” (The Forgotten Spugeon, Iain Murray, 42.)

Two good articles on the Sufficiency of Christ below:

wscal.edu/faculty/wscwritings/07.06.php

desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2007/2170_The_Sufficiency_of_Christs_Obedience_in_His_Life_and_Death/

:harp:

 

[crazzeto]

Sufficiency of Christ

“The [Roman Catholic] Council of Trent anathematizes anyone who says you can be saved without the grace of God. The Reformers, however, never claimed Rome believed you can be saved apart from grace. That wasn’t the debate. The debate of the Reformation was never, ever about the necessity of grace, it was always about the sufficiency of grace. That remains the issue today in so many contexts.” - James White

This is utterly paradoxacle. On the one had they admit that Rome has always taught salvation through grace alone (and still does), thus grace is in fact totally sufficient for salvation. If it weren’t, salvation through grace alone wouldn’t be possible. I repeate, the teaching has always been salvation through grace alone.

Where we differ with you, is exactly in the area that you don’t want to discuss. In order to receive free grace, there is a necessary human response. That is faith working through love, the difference is protestants don’t want to admit faith needs to work through anything. But opps. I’m derailing the thread now

Grace is not like a box of candy that you can send back if you don’t want it. Grace is divine favor, an attitude of God’s own heart. We cannot stop him from loving us, if he chooses to do so. Nor can we stop him from giving us blessings of salvation: regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification. His purpose in us will certainly be fulfilled, Phil. 1:6, Eph. 1:11. - John Frame

Are you now derailing your own thread? I thought you weren’t discussing tulip. Well if you’re bringing this up, then submit to you that you can lose your salvation. I redirect your attention, yet again, to Romans 11, where Paul tells Christians what will happen if they do not maintain faith + obediance. You will be cut from the olive tree. And no Adam, you can’t say “oh but he was talking to the Gentiles”. I’m sorry, no… That anology doesn’t work. For that to work he would have been suggesting that all Jews were cut from the tree, but that’s not what he says. He says those who reject Christ, are cut from the tree.

“Remember, sinner, it is not thy hold of Christ that saves thee - it is Christ; it is not thy joy in Christ that saves thee - it is Christ; it is not even faith in Christ, though that is the instrument it is Christ’s blood and merits; therefore, look not to thy hope, but to Christ, the source of thy hope; look not to thy faith, but to Christ, the author and finisher of thy faith; and if thou doest that, ten thousand devils cannot throw thee down.” (The Forgotten Spugeon, Iain Murray, 42.)

Two good articles on the Sufficiency of Christ below:

wscal.edu/faculty/wscwritings/07.06.php

desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2007/2170_The_Sufficiency_of_Christs_Obedience_in_His_Life_and_Death/

:harp:

 

[guanophore]

Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.

This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. For it is witnessed of him,

“You are a priest forever,
after the order of Melchizedek.”

For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.

And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him:

“The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind,
‘You are a priest forever.’”

This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.

The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever. - Hebrews

2nd. there is nothing in these passages that supports the assertion you have made:

Good night all, and our God is sufficient for me and you, even though you don't believe that He is.  Just because you think you can apostate, does not make it true. ;)

God, in His sovereignty, has ordained that mankind should choose eternity with Him, or not. Man’s ability to choose does not 'subtract" from his sufficiency. It is a reflection of His omnipotence.

The retrobates

Sounds like a good name for a band.

are invited and commanded to come to Christ for live, but they have no desire to come to Christ.

So you believe that God waste’s His love and attention calling people to do things that He has not enabled them to do?

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

Where do you find that they cannot leave of their own accord?

and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” - Sacred Scripture

Do you believe it is possible for humans to reject God’s purpose for themselves?

So what? I have no problem with that. How is that I don’t believe in the suffficiency of Jesus or that I apostate?

I think what he is saying is that, if someone can fall away, it means Christ is not sufficient.
2nd Adam:

The Catholic position has a lower view of the work of Christ than Protestants in the disucssion of sufficiency.

You have yet to back up this insult with some evidence, 2nd.

 

[Carlan]

Sufficiency of Christ

“The [Roman Catholic] Council of Trent anathematizes anyone who says you can be saved without the grace of God. The Reformers, however, never claimed Rome believed you can be saved apart from grace. That wasn’t the debate. The debate of the Reformation was never, ever about the necessity of grace, it was always about the sufficiency of grace. That remains the issue today in so many contexts.” - James White

Grace is not like a box of candy that you can send back if you don’t want it. Grace is divine favor, an attitude of God’s own heart. We cannot stop him from loving us, if he chooses to do so. Nor can we stop him from giving us blessings of salvation: regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification. His purpose in us will certainly be fulfilled, Phil. 1:6, Eph. 1:11. - John Frame

“Remember, sinner, it is not thy hold of Christ that saves thee - it is Christ; it is not thy joy in Christ that saves thee - it is Christ; it is not even faith in Christ, though that is the instrument it is Christ’s blood and merits; therefore, look not to thy hope, but to Christ, the source of thy hope; look not to thy faith, but to Christ, the author and finisher of thy faith; and if thou doest that, ten thousand devils cannot throw thee down.” (The Forgotten Spugeon, Iain Murray, 42.)

Two good articles on the Sufficiency of Christ below:

wscal.edu/faculty/wscwritings/07.06.php

desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2007/2170_The_Sufficiency_of_Christs_Obedience_in_His_Life_and_Death/

:harp:

All the man 2nd does in** his **threads is beat around the bush,
His religion does nothing more than teach the false doctrine of once saved always saved. Declare our Lord Jesus with your mouth and your ticket to heaven is punched.’
He belongs to the crowd who are looking for the comfortable way to heaven on a feather mattress. And to justify it they forever bark the lie that Catholics believe in a salvation of works.

 

[benidict]

The sufficiency of Christ

I believe the essential difference between Protestants and Catholics is the work of Christ for sinners. It really has to do with the sufficiency of Christ. A Catholic brother posted on another thread that Christ is all sufficient. However, I believe the Protestant position is really about the sufficiency of Christ, and the Catholic view of the work of Christ is not the same. The Catholic position has a lower view of the work of Christ than Protestants in the disucssion of sufficiency.

ok 2nd, i would have to say the HOW the work of Christ is applied, is the main difference between the two camps. let me know if im getting warmer. but you cannot effectively discuss your point without bringing in limited attonement, since you are a calvinist. you believe that you are already saved. whereas the Catholic believes that we are redeemed and are in the process of being saved.(please correct me if im wrong fellow Catholics, since ive not been a Catholic that long.) you believe it is a once and for all cleansing based on your decision to follow Christ. even that is different in differing protestant denominations. but yes we do believe that Christ work is all sufficient, but we must make use of the means of Grace. is this what you are trying to get at? if so it would help move this thread along. God bless you and yours my seperated brother. lol!

 

[benidict]

oh, and my big brother has shown up to spank you once again! lol! time for me to sit back and enjoy the show. and be edified by guaniphores post. i will humbly bow out to the master. God Bless you guaniphore. glad you showed up. you understand our friend better than any of us.

 

[guanophore]

Here is a summary of the New Testament wonderful amazing great good news of God:

Adoption through Propitiation

Actually, what you have posted here is a falsehood, 2nd. Christ was the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Not all become adopted. Adoption happens when we are united to Him in His death and resurrection (baptism).

 It is because of Christ's perfect and sufficient righteousness, that God's love in manifested in two ways, through propitiation and adoption.  In Protestant theology, adoption through propitiation is based on the sufficiency of Christ’s righteousness alone.  In Catholic theology, I don’t believe that is true.

It is true that God’s love is manifested in propitiation and adoption. However, neither of these necessarily results in salvation. Those who are adopted can leave their father’s house, and though He gave His life for the world, not all consider themselves worthy of eternal life.

Of course our adoption is based upon the sufficiency of Christ’s propitiation. However, we don’t consider that the righteous is imputed only, but also infused. We are taught by the Apsotles that we are MADE rigtheous, as well as declared so.

I’ll play:

It’s about the interpostion of the Catholic church between man and God?

This seems like an absurd notion. How is Christ’s Body an “interposition”? THat is like saying Christ “interpositioned” His body on the cross for our sins. It is He Himself!