Why the Protestant view of the Cross is wrong.

[Catholic_Dude]

Most people don’t realize that there are different views of the Atonement out there. Most Protestants (not all), especially Calvinists, believe in a form of Atonement called Penal Substitution. This view teaches that Jesus received the punishment the sinner deserved. Well, if the sinner deserves hellfire, then that’s must be what Jesus endured in their place! http://www.christianforums.com/images/smilies/sick.gif

Catholics should be aware of this so as to better be able to share the faith (and defend it) with them. This doctrine of Penal Substitution was invented in order to support the Protestant doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone.

Consider the following quotes from well known Protestant (mostly Calvinist) authors:

• At 3 o’clock that dark Friday afternoon, the Father turned His face away and the ancient, eternal fellowship between Father and Son was broken as divine wrath rained down like a million Soddoms and Gomorrah’s. In the terror and agony of it all, Jesus cried, *“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” *(Thabiti Anyabwile, What does it mean for the Father to Forsake the Son? Part 3)
• We should remember that Christ’s suffering in His human nature, as He hung on the cross those six hours, was not primarily physical, but mental and spiritual. When He cried out, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me,” **He was literally suffering the pangs of hell. For that is essentially what hell is, separation from God, separation from everything that is good and desirable. Such suffering is beyond our comprehension. But since He suffered as a divine-human person, His suffering was a just equivalent for all that His people would have suffered in an eternity in hell. (**Boettner, Loraine. “The Reformed Faith.” Chapter 3.)
• The penalty of the divine law is said to be eternal death. Therefore if Christ suffered the penalty of the law He must have suffered death eternal; or, as others say, He must have endured the same kind of sufferings as those who are cast off from God and die eternally are called upon to suffer. (Hodge, Charles. “Systematic Theology.” Vol. 2, Part 3, Ch 6, Sec 3)
• So then, gaze at the heavenly picture of Christ, who descended into hell for your sake and was forsaken by God as one eternally damned when he spoke the words on the cross, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani!” - “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” In that picture your hell is defeated and your uncertain election is made sure. (Luther, Martin. “Treatise on Preparing to Die.”)
• “What prevents us from seeing God is our heart. Our impurity. But Jesus had no impurity. And Thomas said He was pure in heart. So obviously He had some, some experience of the beauty of the Father. Until that moment that my sin was placed upon Him. And the one who was pure was pure no more. And God cursed Him. It was if there was a cry from Heaven – excuse my language but I can be no more accurate than to say – it was as if Jesus heard the words ‘God damn you’, because that’s what it meant to be cursed, to be damned, to be under the anathema of the Father. As I said I don’t understand that, but I know that it’s true.” (R.C. Sproul. Together for the Gospel. April 17, 2008. Louisville, KY. Session V - The Curse Motif of the Atonement. Minute 55:01)
• “Hell is all about echoing faintly the glory of Calvary. That’s the meaning of hell in this room right now. To help you feel in some emotional measure the magnificence of what Christ did for you when he bore not only your eternal suffering, but millions of people’s eternal suffering when His Father put our curse on Him. What a Saviour is echoed in the flames of hell. So that’s what I mean when I say hell is an echo of the glory of God, and an echo of the Savior’s sufferings, and therefore an echo of the infinite love of God for our souls.” (John Piper. Resolved Conference 2008. Session 8 – The Echo and Insufficiency of Hell. Min 40:00)

There are more quotes like this, but this should be enough to get people to stop and realize what exactly is being said.

**Now the big question is: ****Does the Bible EVER say that Jesus endured the Wrath of the Father? NO! It is unbiblical and even blasphemy to suggest Jesus suffered the Father’s Wrath. Look high, look low, and you’ll NEVER find this taught in Scripture.
**
To understand the heart of salvation, THE CROSS, one must actually study the Bible on the matter and not blindly follow theologians:
NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: "Atonement" according to Scripture - More Problems with Penal Substitution

 

[Catholic_Dude]

When Jesus said “My God, why have you forsaken me,” Jesus was intoning Psalm 22!
Psalm 22 is filled with Messianic references about how Jesus would suffer, NONE OF WHICH had anything to do with the Father’s Wrath!

Consider: 1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning?
The Father only “forsook” Jesus in the sense that the Father didn’t send help from the wicked men persecuting Jesus, even though He could have (Mt 26:53).

And in fact, Psalm 22 ends in a VICTORY, by stating how God does not abandon His servants, even if He permits them to suffer: 24 For he did not despise or abhor
the affliction of the afflicted;
he did not hide his face from me,
but heard when I cried to him.
Do you see the desperation those Protestant theologians go to in appealing to “My God, My God” and coming to the rash and ugly conclusion that it means Jesus suffered His Father’s Wrath? Astonishing.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Wait, these are things that some Protestants actually believe… seriously?

… I have no words to express what I’m feeling…

 

[SecretaryMonday]

This should be an interesting discussion, one that I likely won’t contribute to, except to say that, when I read the title of your post, it reminded me of a difference that I see between (most?) Protestant and Catholic views of the cross of Christ. As a Protestant (Reformed-ish), I grew up with a sterile cross and no real concept of sacrifice. There was one debt, it was legally done away with about 2000 years ago, and there is no need for sacrifical offerings any longer, the cross is now an empty reminder. It was very meaningful as a Christian symbol, of course, but as I look back, the heart of it seems to be missing. In Catholicism, Christ is inseperable from His cross. He bears the wounds of crucifixion eternally; He is always the lamb that is slain - He is not like the dragon in Revelation who received a mortal wound, but then recovered.

 

[bruce3]

Isaiah predicted that the sins or iniquity of us all would fall upon Christ:Isa.53-read entire chapter for the details in this remarkable prophecy of the death burial of our Lord.

Studied Hebrew (and Greek) since 1963 so love the language and own a great many dictionaries of this wonderful language to check on each word and that grammar with careful consideration of context,etc.
*
'He[God] has laid upon Him [the Christ or Messiah] the iniquity* of us all."Isa.53:6b
Laid in Hebrew etymology as well as the grammar here means 'to come down with powerful striking or crushing force.’. The word* iniquity in Hebrew *literally means crooked (this is what we call a criminal a crook!)or sins.

Jesus told the disciples in the Garden He was at the *precipice of death.*Gk.See Gethsemane (oil press)accounts in the blessed Gospels. An angel [Michael?] had to come down says St.Luke 22:43 and impart invigoration to Him’ Gk. He suddenly was at the point of death and was filled with great sorrow. Mk.14:33;Matt.26:37
He prayed three times for the coming “Cup” of the cross and all that it contained to pass from Him.Luke says He was in an agony or contest.Gk.A very heated or agonizing contest!!!

The sacrificial lamb in the OT had the sins of the people placed on it first THEN was led away to have it’s throat slit to present a picture of the future Messiah’s death for our sins.
Did Isaiah’s prediction refer to the sins of us all come crashing down (Heb.) on the blessed Messiah in the garden Adam sinned in the garden of Eden FYI) and later like the lamb in the OT he was led away and sealed this with His death on the cross?

He bore our sins on the cross says Peter.* Paul says He died in our place.Rom.5:1-21
Either way Peter says He bore our sins.We must fully accept Him and His great eternal sacrifice for our sins.
To me He suffered for our sins not His- He was spotless and sinless and He took our place to satisfy the Father.Isa.53:11
Again,we all need to read very carefully Isaiah’s great inspired treatise on the death of Christ,and what it was and means to us personally.
The resurrection sealed His divine work for us. l Peter 1:3;18-22:21-25*

I think all agree He gave His life for us to be saved by His death on the cross and by His Resurrection from among the dead! We need not trouble ourselves with controversies about Jesus going to hell- it is His death on the cross we are concerned with and what it means to each of us in regards to our sins.Praise Him!

 

[bzkoss236]

Isaiah predicted that the sins or iniquity of us all would fall upon Christ:Isa.53-read entire chapter for the details in this remarkable prophecy of the death burial of our Lord.

Studied Hebrew (and Greek) since 1963 so love the language and own a great many dictionaries of this wonderful language to check on each word and that grammar with careful consideration of context,etc.
*
'He[God] has laid upon Him [the Christ or Messiah] the iniquity* of us all."Isa.53:6b
Laid in Hebrew etymology as well as the grammar here means 'to come down with powerful striking or crushing force.’. The word* iniquity in Hebrew *literally means crooked (this is what we call a criminal a crook!)or sins.

Jesus told the disciples in the Garden He was at the *precipice of death.*Gk.See Gethsemane (oil press)accounts in the blessed Gospels. An angel [Michael?] had to come down says St.Luke 22:43 and impart invigoration to Him’ Gk. He suddenly was at the point of death and was filled with great sorrow. Mk.14:33;Matt.26:37
He prayed three times for the coming “Cup” of the cross and all that it contained to pass from Him.Luke says He was in an agony or contest.Gk.A very heated or agonizing contest!!!

The sacrificial lamb in the OT had the sins of the people placed on it first THEN was led away to have it’s throat slit to present a picture of the future Messiah’s death for our sins.
Did Isaiah’s prediction refer to the sins of us all come crashing down (Heb.) on the blessed Messiah in the garden Adam sinned in the garden of Eden FYI) and later like the lamb in the OT he was led away and sealed this with His death on the cross?

He bore our sins on the cross says Peter.* Paul says He died in our place.Rom.5:1-21
Either way Peter says He bore our sins.We must fully accept Him and His great eternal sacrifice for our sins.
To me He suffered for our sins not His- He was spotless and sinless and He took our place to satisfy the Father.Isa.53:11
Again,we all need to read very carefully Isaiah’s great inspired treatise on the death of Christ,and what it was and means to us personally.
The resurrection sealed His divine work for us. l Peter 1:3;18-22:21-25*

I think all agree He gave His life for us to be saved by His death on the cross and by His Resurrection from among the dead! We need not trouble ourselves with controversies about Jesus going to hell- it is His death on the cross we are concerned with and what it means to each of us in regards to our sins.Praise Him!

We should be concerned with all Truth, even the seemingly meaningless ones. For Christ is Truth, and if we seek all that is Truth, not just the minimum, we further seek out Christ and grow into a deeper relationship with Him. And Truth is universal, not personal. Truth is not subjective. We do need a personal relationship with God, but we need to consider what Christ did for us all, not just ourselves.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Wait, these are things that some Protestants actually believe… seriously?
… I have no words to express what I’m feeling…

Unfortunately, yes. Most Protestants are unaware of this, and those who are aware of this don’t talk about the gory details. But this was taught by Luther, Calvin, and almost every big name Protestant theologian up to today. It’s taught because it’s the heart of Justification by Faith Alone, which is why Protestants will cling to it. From the Catholic perspective, Penal Substitution (i.e. the Protestant view of the Cross), is one more proof why Justification by Faith Alone is wrong and dangerous.

 

[SyCarl]

This doctrine of Penal Substitution was invented in order to support the Protestant doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone.

It is unbiblical and even blasphemy to suggest Jesus suffered the Father’s Wrath.

Well I guess that these church fathers must have been blasphemous Protestants.

If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God

**Justin Martyr **(Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 95)
newadvent.org/fathers/01283.htm

Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that He might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment.

Augustine (Contra Faustum Book 14, Chapter 4)
newadvent.org/fathers/140614.htm

The believer in the true doctrine of the gospel will understand that Christ is not reproached by Moses when he speaks of Him as cursed, not in His divine majesty, but as hanging on the tree as our substitute, bearing our punishment, any more than He is praised by the Manichæans when they deny that He had a mortal body, so as to suffer real death. … If, then, you deny that Christ was cursed, you must deny that He died; and then you have to meet, not Moses, but the apostles. Confess that He died, and you may also confess that He, without taking our sin, took its punishment.

Augustine (Contra Faustum Book 14, Chapter 7)
newadvent.org/fathers/140614.htm

For even the Lord was subject to death, but not on account of sin: He took upon Him our punishment, and so looseth our guilt.

Augustine (Expositions of the Book of Psalms, Psalm 51)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LI.html

It was like an innocent man’s undertaking to die for another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment. For Christ took upon Him not the curse of transgression, but the other curse, in order to remove that of others.

John Chrysostom (Commentary on Galatians, Chapter 3
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iii.iii.iii.html

And what has He done? “Him that knew no sin He made to be sin, for you.” For had He achieved nothing but done only this, think how great a thing it were to give His Son for those that had outraged Him. But now He has both well achieved mighty things, and besides, has suffered Him that did no wrong to be punished for those who had done wrong. But he did not say this: but mentioned that which is far greater than this. What then is this? “Him that knew no sin,” he says, Him that was righteousness itself, “He made sin,” that is suffered as a sinner to be condemned, as one cursed to die.

John Chrysostom, (Homilies on 2 Corinthians, Homily 11, verse 21)
newadvent.org/fathers/220211.htm

**Jesus took on himself even death, that the sentence of condemnation might be carried out, that he might satisfy the judgment **that sinful flesh should be cursed even unto death. Nothing therefore was done contrary to the sentence of God, since the condition of God’s sentence was fulfilled.

Ambrose (De Fuga, 44)
angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.ambrose.html

And the Lamb of God not only did this, but **was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed **because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down on Himself the apportioned curse, being made a curse for us. ."

**Eusebius of Caesarea **(Demonstratio Envangelica, Book 10, Chapter 1)
tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_12_book10.htm

He then that was alone of those who ever existed, the Word of God, before all worlds, and High Priest of every creature that has mind and reason, separated One of like passions with us, as a sheep or lamb from the human flock, branded on Him all our sins, and fastened on Him as well the curse that was adjudged by Moses’ law, as Moses foretells: “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” This He suffered "being made a curse for us; and making himself sin for our sakes."And then "He made him sin for our sakes who knew no sin,"and laid on Him all the punishments due to us for our sins, bonds, insults, contumelies, scourging, and shameful blows, and the crowning trophy of the Cross

Eusebius of Caesarea (Demonstratio Envangelica, Book 1, Chapter 10)
tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_03_book1.htm

(to be continued)

 

[SyCarl]

(continued0

But beyond all this, there was a debt owing which must needs be paid; for, as I said before, all men were due to die. Here, then, is the second reason why the Word dwelt among us, namely that having proved His Godhead by His works, He might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering His own temple to death in place of all, to settle man’s account with death and free him from the primal transgression….Thus it happened that two opposite marvels took place at once: the death of all was consummated in the Lord’s body; yet, because the Word was in it, death and corruption were in the same act utterly abolished. Death there had to be, and death for all, so that the due of all might be paid

Athanasius (On the Incarnation, Chapter 4, Paragraph 20)
ccel.org/ccel/athanasius/incarnation.v.html

But we must consider how He is righteous and ordereth all things righteously, if He condemns Him that deserveth not to be punished. For our Mediator deserved not to be punished for Himself, because He never was guilty of any defilement of sin. But if He had not Himself undertaken a death not due to Him, He would never have freed us from one that was justly due to us. And so whereas ‘The Father is righteous,’ in punishing a righteous man, ‘He ordereth all things righteously,’ in that by these means He justifies all things, viz. that for the sake of sinners He condemns Him Who is without sin; that all the Elect might rise up to the height of righteousness, in proportion as He Who is above all underwent the penalties of our unrighteousness. What then is in that place called ‘being condemned without deserving,’ is here spoken of as being ‘afflicted without cause.’ Yet though in respect of Himself He was ‘afflicted without cause,’ in respect of our deeds it was not ‘without cause.’ ** For the rust of sin could not be cleared away, but by the fire of torment, He then came without sin, Who should submit Himself voluntarily to torment, that the chastisements due to our wickedness **might justly loose the parties thereto obnoxious, in that they had unjustly kept Him, Who was free of them.

Gregory the Great (An Exposition on the Book of the Blessed Job, Volume 1, Part 1, Book 3, Paragraph 27
lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoralia/Book03.html

But how incomprehensible and unimaginable that Greatness wherewith He shall come in His Second Manifesting, in some degree we estimate aright, if we consider with heedful reflection the weighty particulars of His first Advent. Surely that He might redeem us from death, the Lord came to die, and the impoverishment and punishments of our flesh He underwent in His own Body; Who before He came to the stock of the Cross, suffered Himself to be bound, to be spit on, to be mocked and to be beaten with blows on His cheek.

Gregory the Great (An Exposition on the Book of the Blessed Job, Volume 2, Part 4, Book 17, Paragraph 54
lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoralia/Book17.html

He says that “he bore the sins of many” on the cross, in order that he might quell them, paying the penalty that they deserved. Now the Father sent him, “having made him sin.”** For also Christ became as if a sinner, inasmuch as he took on the sins of the whole world and claimed them as his own. But then he paid the penalty that was owed, the punishment belonging to sinners. **At last he will come with his Father’s glory, no longer as a sinner, no longer “reckoned among the lawless.”

Oecumenius (Fragments on the Epistle to the Hebrews 9.28 Erik M. Heen & Philip D. W. Krey ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament X Hebrews, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005), p. 148.)

He bore the sum of human evils and every form of transgression, as well as their recompense and punishment. And as if he were our debtor, the only-begotten Word of God, coming into the world alongside us, fulfilled every law and all righteousness and did not stumble over sin but received it willingly so as to change our punishment into peace and harmony. For undergoing temptation he carried our rebukes and punishment, and by faith we make our own his sufferings, and dying together with him we are saved by grace. He was not delivered by force but as an act of obedience.

Theodore of Heraclea (Fragments on Isaiah, Mark W. Elliott ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Old Testament XI, Isaiah 40-66, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007), p. 164)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Isaiah predicted that the sins or iniquity of us all would fall upon Christ:Isa.53-read entire chapter for the details in this remarkable prophecy of the death burial of our Lord.

Studied Hebrew (and Greek) since 1963 so love the language and own a great many dictionaries of this wonderful language to check on each word and that grammar with careful consideration of context,etc.

'He[God] has laid upon Him [the Christ or Messiah] the* iniquity* of us all."Isa.53:6b
Laid in Hebrew etymology as well as the grammar here means 'to come down with powerful striking or crushing force.’. The word* iniquity in Hebrew *literally means crooked (this is what we call a criminal a crook!)or sins.

Bruce, I’m glad you’ve studied Hebrew and Greek. Unfortunately, most of the time when Protestants are trained in those languages, they’re not trained to actually study the Bible’s words but rather accept definitions of Protestant theologians. Let me show you what I mean as I comment on your post.

HERE is the Hebrew term “laid,” and here is the definition the Protestant dictionary gives:
to encounter, meet, reach, entreat, make intercession a) (Qal)
1) to meet, light upon, join
2) to meet (of kindness)
3) to encounter, fall upon (of hostility)
4) to encounter, entreat (of request)
5) to strike, touch (of boundary)
b) (Hiphil)
1) to cause to light upon
2) to cause to entreat
3) to make entreaty, interpose
4) to make attack
5) to reach the mark
None of these say the term means “to come down upon with powerful or crushing striking force”. And I don’t see any verses where the term is used like that. So this is what I mean about Protestants being instructed in Hebrew and Greek without actually knowing how the Bible uses terms and instead following what Protestant scholars basically made up.

When it says the Lord “laid up” Jesus the sins, it means God put responsibility of making atonement upon the shoulders of Jesus, just as a parent has the responsibility of caring for their children on their shoulders. This is confirmed by the fact this same Chapter, Isaiah 53, uses this same word in verse 12,

12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors.
See the phrase “makes intercession”? It’s the SAME Hebrew word as “laid”.

I can talk more about Isaiah 53 if you’d like. I’ve studied it.

Jesus told the disciples in the Garden He was at the *precipice of death.*Gk.See Gethsemane (oil press)accounts in the blessed Gospels. An angel [Michael?] had to come down says St.Luke 22:43 and impart invigoration to Him’ Gk. He suddenly was at the point of death and was filled with great sorrow. Mk.14:33;Matt.26:37
He prayed three times for the coming “Cup” of the cross and all that it contained to pass from Him.Luke says He was in an agony or contest.Gk.A very heated or agonizing contest!!!

This says nothing about the Father pouring His wrath on Jesus.

The sacrificial lamb in the OT had the sins of the people placed on it first THEN was led away to have it’s throat slit to present a picture of the future Messiah’s death for our sins.

Where does the Bible say this? I think you’re confusing things. I’ve studied the OT Levitical sacrifices and I’ve never seen this.

He bore our sins on the cross says Peter.*

Have you studied what the Bible means by this? Peter is speaking about how the OT High Priest “bore the sins” of the people, not by taking the punishment they deserved, but by being in charge of making atonement for them.

Paul says He died in our place.Rom.5:1-21

Be more specific. Where does it say he died in our place in the sense that He endured the Father’s wrath due to our sins?

To me He suffered for our sins not His- He was spotless and sinless and He took our place to satisfy the Father.Isa.53:11

Catholics believe that Jesus suffered for us, that’s not the issue. The issue is that this suffering had nothing to do with enduring God’s wrath.

Again,we all need to read very carefully Isaiah’s great inspired treatise on the death of Christ,and what it was and means to us personally.

Yes, we do. That’s why it’s wrong, dangerous, and blasphemous for Protestants to say Jesus suffered the equivalent of hellfire damnation and that Jesus was a whipping boy of the Father.

 

[Tony_the_mad]

This constant haggling about trivial exact wording is getting under my skin lately. I agree that many of the Protestant quotes and even some but not all of the founding father quotes are coming very close to crossing the line of both the Bible (which is a subset of tradition) and tradition. I suspect that a good portion of the latter and probably even of the former is due to difficulties in translation and ‘cherry picking’ only the lines that seem to agree with a given position.

This is muddied by the fact that the Catholic teaching isn’t truly given. In this position, as in most dogma, the Church’s position is reflected by scriptures:

“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”

“so also Christ died once for all time as a sacrifice to take away the sins of many people.”

(I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to chase down where in the Bible these are . They are from two different translations, but that is ok.)

Therefore the Catholic’s position is that ‘Christ died to save us from our sins.’ To go further is to leave the safety of the Bible and tradition into the realm of speculation. We are free to speculate how Jesus freed us from our sins and we may find some strength from it, but we still have to be careful to recognize it for speculation and we do need to take care that it does not stray into heresy.

Another example of pious speculation is how we interpret heaven and purgatory. Tradition is very limited about what it says about both, and the Church through private interpretation have extended both. For example the only official teaching about purgatory is that it exists; it is pure speculation to assume that it exists either physically or for a specific time. Many Church Fathers (and Mothers ) speculated about purgatory and quite possibly are wrong about it. Their wrongness about that issue does not make them heretics anymore than their misunderstanding of the age of the Universe.

The only things we can be certain of about the Cross is that ‘Jesus died to save us from our sins’ and that ‘he did so once and for all’. The exact mechanism for that salvation (whether or not he bore our sins directly) is pure speculation and should not be taught as absolute truth. That speculation can be comforting and is generally not a problem unless it either 1) takes the main focus away from the two known facts about this salvation or 2) crosses over the line to heresy in some other way.

With regard to 2) a few of those quotes come close to heresy and depending on the translation, context, etc. may cross it. The one that comes most readily to me is the idea that the Father forsook the Son, literally. The Father and the Son are one; it is not possible for the Father to forsake the Son or to be separated from Him. The heresy here is Arianism and/or its many children.

On the other hand, I just cannot see how this argument can be productive. It seems to me to be ‘straining out gnats’ when the real problem is ‘swallowing camels’. It should be sufficient for us Catholics to say: “Jesus died once and for all to save us from our sins.” Arguing about the details is pointless.

 

[Arizona_Samson]

Bruce, I’m glad you’ve studied Hebrew and Greek. Unfortunately,** most of the time when Protestants are trained in those languages, they’re not trained to actually study the Bible’s words but rather accept definitions of Protestant theologians**

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Tony the mad:

On the other hand, I just cannot see how this argument can be productive. It seems to me to be ‘straining out gnats’ when the real problem is ‘swallowing camels’. It should be sufficient for us Catholics to say: “Jesus died once and for all to save us from our sins.” Arguing about the details is pointless.

I think it is very productive. It is important for Christians to have the right perspective on the Cross. If it puts too much emphasis on one point (the usual origin of heresies) it strays from the Truth. At first glance penal substitution seems orthodox. But when we examine what Protestants actually mean by penal substitution we recoil in horror. The Father and the Son are always one. The Father doesn’t smite Jesus with the wrath he has stored up from all the transgressions of man. Jesus says he willingly lays down his life for His sheep, and that HE has the power to do so. IOW, Jesus is the High Priest, and he is also the Sacrificial Victim. His loving and holy Sacrifice atones for our sins. But the whole secondary doctrine of Justification by Faith alone falls away with the correct understanding.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

This constant haggling about trivial exact wording is getting under my skin lately.

This isn’t trivial wording. Saying Jesus was damned to hellfire isn’t a trivial claim.

Therefore the Catholic’s position is that ‘Christ died to save us from our sins.’ To go further is to leave the safety of the Bible and tradition into the realm of speculation. We are free to speculate how Jesus freed us from our sins and we may find some strength from it, but we still have to be careful to recognize it for speculation and we do need to take care that it does not stray into heresy.

Yes, and this shows why the issue isn’t trivializing anything. It’s heresy to say the communion between Son and Father was broken and that the Son endured the Father’s wrath. And to further highlight the problem the Penal Substitution view does away with many Catholic teachings, such as the Sacrifice of the Mass, because now the Mass would be a re-presentation of Jesus’ damnation, which is why Protestants have always saw the Mass as a horrific and blasphemous sight: it recalls the most odious of events. It also eradicates the doctrine of Purgatory and forces one to espouse Once Saved Always Saved among other things.

With regard to 2) a few of those quotes come close to heresy and depending on the translation, context, etc. may cross it. The one that comes most readily to me is the idea that the Father forsook the Son, literally. The Father and the Son are one; it is not possible for the Father to forsake the Son or to be separated from Him. The heresy here is Arianism and/or its many children.

Sure, which is why PSub cannot be embraced. This isn’t trivial at all.

I think it is very productive. It is important for Christians to have the right perspective on the Cross. If it puts too much emphasis on one point (the usual origin of heresies) it strays from the Truth. At first glance penal substitution seems orthodox. But when we examine what Protestants actually mean by penal substitution we recoil in horror. The Father and the Son are always one. The Father doesn’t smite Jesus with the wrath he has stored up from all the transgressions of man. Jesus says he willingly lays down his life for His sheep, and that HE has the power to do so. IOW, Jesus is the High Priest, and he is also the Sacrificial Victim. His loving and holy Sacrifice atones for our sins. But the whole secondary doctrine of Justification by Faith alone falls away with the correct understanding.

 

[Semangelof]

Therefore the Catholic’s position is that ‘Christ died to save us from our sins.’ To go further is to leave the safety of the Bible and tradition into the realm of speculation.

I get what your saying. I’m curious to see where this debate will go, and it interests me, however at the end of the thread the only thing I’m going to put inside my heart is what you just said there.

I believe my heart is like the Temple with an outer court yard. I’ll take what you just said ‘Christ died to save us from our sins.’ into the Temple, and I’ll leave the finer details of this thread in the outer courtyard.

Each have their place and remain surrounded by walls of inclusion, but I want the inner temple sacred and free from all error. For that reason I only take the necessary and pure things into that place. When the earthquakes come, the outer courtyard may lie in ruins but the temple and it’s treasure will remain untouched.

I will only put diamonds in the temple, so only when theology beats itself into a perfect diamond will I take it into the Temple. Until then it will remain in outer purgatory, going through several gates to reach the Temple.

 

[CarolNoel]

Don’t have anything to add, but wanted to say this has been a very informative thread.
Keep up the good work everyone.

 

[bsroufek]

My view on how some Protestants are wrong about the Cross is that they believe that if you suffer, you must be a sinner or wrong or faithless. We suffer as The Body of Christ, while Jesus suffered as the Head, just as St. Paul said, but some Protestants preach a prosperity Gospel, which is directly contrary to what Jesus said we should expect as His disciples.

It’s very sad to be told that you are (like Job) a sinner and wrong if you suffer, WHILE you are in the midst of suffering.

 

[bsroufek]

Also, regarding Jesus’ going to Hell as in the Apostles’ Creed, I believe He was shown Hell at the time so that He would just justly in the future, as the Judge of the living and the dead.

For it says that “it was impossible to hold Him” in death, so he wasn’t condemned as a sinner himself.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

My view on how some Protestants are wrong about the Cross is that they believe that if you suffer, you must be a sinner or wrong or faithless. We suffer as The Body of Christ, while Jesus suffered as the Head, just as St. Paul said, but some Protestants preach a prosperity Gospel, which is directly contrary to what Jesus said we should expect as His disciples.

It’s very sad to be told that you are (like Job) a sinner and wrong if you suffer, WHILE you are in the midst of suffering.

Agreed. And that stems from the fact they see the Cross as an act of divine punishment, and they rightly want to be spared any such punishment, so they will have a wrong view of suffering.

Also, regarding Jesus’ going to Hell as in the Apostles’ Creed, I believe He was shown Hell at the time so that He would just justly in the future, as the Judge of the living and the dead.

Here is a post explaining that a bit more:
catholicnick.blogspot.com/2013/03/christ-did-not-descend-into-hell-on.html

For it says that “it was impossible to hold Him” in death, so he wasn’t condemned as a sinner himself.

Good catch.

 

[Nicea325]

Well I guess that these church fathers must have been blasphemous Protestants.

**Justin Martyr **(Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 95)
newadvent.org/fathers/01283.htm

Augustine (Contra Faustum Book 14, Chapter 4)
newadvent.org/fathers/140614.htm

Augustine (Contra Faustum Book 14, Chapter 7)
newadvent.org/fathers/140614.htm

Augustine (Expositions of the Book of Psalms, Psalm 51)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LI.html

John Chrysostom (Commentary on Galatians, Chapter 3
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iii.iii.iii.html

John Chrysostom, (Homilies on 2 Corinthians, Homily 11, verse 21)
newadvent.org/fathers/220211.htm

Ambrose (De Fuga, 44)
angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.ambrose.html

**Eusebius of Caesarea **(Demonstratio Envangelica, Book 10, Chapter 1)
tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_12_book10.htm

Eusebius of Caesarea (Demonstratio Envangelica, Book 1, Chapter 10)
tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_03_book1.htm

(to be continued)

So in other words, the ECF were Protestants? :whacky: