Why the Protestant view of the Cross is wrong.

[bruce3]

carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/substitutionary-atonement-jesus-christ

I think the substitution theory is closest to the original.These are the main theories on the death of Christ.This does not mean Christ went to hell. Both sides of this issue have many theories.I see nowhere He went to hell,etc.

To me it is enough to know He died for our sins and that by fully accepting Him with repentance etc.,we can have forgiveness of our sins.Wonderful news!!! Gods-spell-Gospel!

He was both fully God and fully Man. It was the *man *Jesus that cried out from the cross ‘My God -My God why have You deserted Me and left Me in the lurch.’ Gk.and Aramaic.God can’t suffer physical pain or die, but the Man Jesus did and He died.But,as God made flesh(JN1:1;14)He rose from the dead! All power is His!

In the word laid as '…laid on Him [Messiah-Jesus] the iniquity of us all. 'It is hiphil stem.It can mean in this stem to impinge with violence or to strike. Other meanings are: attack,kill,cut down,etc. Isa.53:6

A Hebrew scholar with about 50 years of experience in Hebrew told me here or Isa.53:6* laid *it means in this stem as mentioned- to come down with attack force or with violence. He said I had correctly related the right meaning.
It is related to a Heb.word meaning target-mark! And interestingly enough to a (dying gasp)with an application of ‘despair and affliction’… ‘giving up the ghost’- just as we have in the Gospel accounts of our Lord in the Garden .
He told the disciples he was at the edge of death Gk,and that He was in *great ‘affliction.*and sorrow.’
Dr.Luke tells us His sweat being in an agony was like great clots (Gk.)of blood falling to the ground.The Greek has it He kept falling to the ground as He prayed. Sad indeed. Also,he says that an ‘angel had to come down from heaven to impart invigoration(Gk.)into Him.’

The Lord had truly LAID on Him the iniquity of all of us or the human race.

 

[bruce3]

quodlibet.net/articles/hall-sacrifice.shtml

My statement that the goat had sin laid (the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all Isa.53:6)on it then was taken to the wilderness; and that he lamb that had it’s throat cut first had the sins of the people laid on it then it was slaughtered- all pictured the coming death of the’…* Lamb* of God that takes away the sin of the world’ according to John the Baptist.Red the gospel accounts of the garden incident.Then He was taken away and ‘bore our sins on the cross’ according to Peter.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Bruce,

What you’ve brought up has been largely addressed on the first page of this thread.

 

[JonNC]

Calvinists for sure hold to PSub. Lutherans technically do, but they don’t have a systematic enough theology to recognize it. Many other Protestants do so unconsciously, but they literally don’t think beyond “Jesus died for me” and what it means. A small number of Protestants don’t believe in PSub, but that’s not historic “true” Protestantism.

Atonement theories perplex me, but this sounds a lot like St. Anselm…

Let us admire the marvelous wisdom of our God, who could devise a scheme for our redemption which neither angels nor men could have devised. Infinite good was offended; an infinite satisfaction was required. Man had offended God, from man the satisfaction for sin must be required. But finite man could not possibly render an infinite satisfaction, nor could divine justice be satisfied but on the payment of an infinite ransom. For this reason God became man that, for man who had sinned, He might render a perfect satisfaction for sin, and as God who was infinite He might pay an infinite price for our redemption. Well may we wonder at this stupendous reconciliation of divine justice and mercy, which no one, before God was manifested in the flesh, could have devised, nor after He was so manifested, could fully comprehend. Let us stand in wonder at this mystery, but let us not too curiously pry into it. Let us desire reverently to study it, although we cannot fully understand it. Rather let us confess our ignorance than deny the power of God. - Johann Gerhard

Gerhard was a Lutheran theologian during the early 1600’s.

Jon

 

[KEP1983]

I find the discussion between Penal Substitition and Satisfaction theory to be very interesting. They’re actually pretty similar on the face of it. Both believe in substitution and Christ “paying the debt” so to speak, the difference is the “penal” part.

But it really does become a big issue. I would agree with the OP that MOST Protestants believe in Penal Substitution, even if they’ve never heard the term. I’ve been to many different Protestant Churches, and nearly all of them taught it.

Part of the reason I couldn’t understand purgatory was because I believed in Penal Substitution and imputed righteousness. I believed that Jesus literally took all of my sin upon him and that God PUNISHED Him in my place. Afterwards the righteousness of Christ was imputed to me-- so when God “looked” at me he saw me as righteous as Jesus. As Luther said, I was “simul justus et peccator”-- simultaneously justified and a sinner. So If all my sins were already punished, and God viewed me as though I were perfect, then purgatory made absolutely no sense.

On the other hand, if you understand satisfaction theory and infused righteousness, then purgatory makes perfect sense.

This is the analogy I like to use between the Protestant and Catholic theories on the atonement:

A father left his child alone for the day. While he was gone the child burned down the entire house, destroyed his vehicles, and even burned the entire property. The total damage cost $30 million. Unfortunately the child had no money-- not even a penny in his piggybank.

When the father returned he saw all the damage that was done and was furious. He knew that the child needed severe chastisement, and even still the child could never repay the debt. Suddenly the child’s older brother steps forward and says “Father, I will pay the debt of my younger brother, whom I love.”

Penal substutionary theory:
So the Father pours out his wrath upon the older brother. The older brother is beaten to the point of death. The fathers wrath has been satisfied, so now the father and son are brought back to peace.

Satisfaction theory:
The older brother tells his father that he understands the debt for the house is $30 million and that his little brother could never repay it. So the older brother notifies the father that he has a life insurance policy worth $30 million. He willingly lays down his life to repay the debt owed by the younger brother. The father doesn’t pour out his wrath upon the older brother, rather he agrees to and accepts the sacrifice of the older brother because it was done out of love and truly repays the debt owed.

 

[joe371]

I find the discussion between Penal Substitition and Satisfaction theory to be very interesting. They’re actually pretty similar on the face of it. Both believe in substitution and Christ “paying the debt” so to speak, the difference is the “penal” part.

But it really does become a big issue. I would agree with the OP that MOST Protestants believe in Penal Substitution, even if they’ve never heard the term. I’ve been to many different Protestant Churches, and nearly all of them taught it.

Part of the reason I couldn’t understand purgatory was because I believed in Penal Substitution and imputed righteousness. I believed that Jesus literally took all of my sin upon him and that God PUNISHED Him in my place. Afterwards the righteousness of Christ was imputed to me-- so when God “looked” at me he saw me as righteous as Jesus. As Luther said, I was “simul justus et peccator”-- simultaneously justified and a sinner. So If all my sins were already punished, and God viewed me as though I were perfect, then purgatory made absolutely no sense.

On the other hand, if you understand satisfaction theory and infused righteousness, then purgatory makes perfect sense.

This is the analogy I like to use between the Protestant and Catholic theories on the atonement:

A father left his child alone for the day. While he was gone the child burned down the entire house, destroyed his vehicles, and even burned the entire property. The total damage cost $30 million. Unfortunately the child had no money-- not even a penny in his piggybank.

When the father returned he saw all the damage that was done and was furious. He knew that the child needed severe chastisement, and even still the child could never repay the debt. Suddenly the child’s older brother steps forward and says “Father, I will pay the debt of my younger brother, whom I love.”

Penal substutionary theory:
So the Father pours out his wrath upon the older brother. The older brother is beaten to the point of death. The fathers wrath has been satisfied, so now the father and son are brought back to peace.

Satisfaction theory:
The older brother tells his father that he understands the debt for the house is $30 million and that his little brother could never repay it. So the older brother notifies the father that he has a life insurance policy worth $30 million. He willingly lays down his life to repay the debt owed by the younger brother. The father doesn’t pour out his wrath upon the older brother, rather he agrees to and accepts the sacrifice of the older brother because it was done out of love and truly repays the debt owed.

:yup::clapping:

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I find the discussion between Penal Substitition and Satisfaction theory to be very interesting. They’re actually pretty similar on the face of it. Both believe in substitution and Christ “paying the debt” so to speak, the difference is the “penal” part.

But it really does become a big issue. I would agree with the OP that MOST Protestants believe in Penal Substitution, even if they’ve never heard the term. I’ve been to many different Protestant Churches, and nearly all of them taught it.

Part of the reason I couldn’t understand purgatory was because I believed in Penal Substitution and imputed righteousness. I believed that Jesus literally took all of my sin upon him and that God PUNISHED Him in my place. Afterwards the righteousness of Christ was imputed to me-- so when God “looked” at me he saw me as righteous as Jesus. As Luther said, I was “simul justus et peccator”-- simultaneously justified and a sinner. So If all my sins were already punished, and God viewed me as though I were perfect, then purgatory made absolutely no sense.

On the other hand, if you understand satisfaction theory and infused righteousness, then purgatory makes perfect sense.

This is the analogy I like to use between the Protestant and Catholic theories on the atonement:

A father left his child alone for the day. While he was gone the child burned down the entire house, destroyed his vehicles, and even burned the entire property. The total damage cost $30 million. Unfortunately the child had no money-- not even a penny in his piggybank.

When the father returned he saw all the damage that was done and was furious. He knew that the child needed severe chastisement, and even still the child could never repay the debt. Suddenly the child’s older brother steps forward and says “Father, I will pay the debt of my younger brother, whom I love.”

Penal substutionary theory:
So the Father pours out his wrath upon the older brother. The older brother is beaten to the point of death. The fathers wrath has been satisfied, so now the father and son are brought back to peace.

Satisfaction theory:
The older brother tells his father that he understands the debt for the house is $30 million and that his little brother could never repay it. So the older brother notifies the father that he has a life insurance policy worth $30 million. He willingly lays down his life to repay the debt owed by the younger brother. The father doesn’t pour out his wrath upon the older brother, rather he agrees to and accepts the sacrifice of the older brother because it was done out of love and truly repays the debt owed.

You clearly ‘see the light’ on this issue!
And once you ‘get it’, there’s no turning back.

 

[AbideWithMe]

You clearly ‘see the light’ on this issue!
And once you ‘get it’, there’s no turning back.

Am I the only person who finds the scenario of a father who would rather have money (the 30 million dollars from the life insurance policy) instead of having his older son alive, extremely disturbing?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Am I the only person who finds the scenario of a father who would rather have money (the 30 million dollars from the life insurance policy) instead of having his older son alive, extremely disturbing?

I understand what you’re saying, but you’re reading into the analogy too much. The analogy could have said that the innocent son sold off all he owned and was reduced to poverty, and used that money to repay the father. The point was that the father doesn’t have to beat up his innocent son.

 

[KEP1983]

I understand what you’re saying, but you’re reading into the analogy too much. The analogy could have said that the innocent son sold off all he owned and was reduced to poverty, and used that money to repay the father. The point was that the father doesn’t have to beat up his innocent son.

Exactly.

 

[mek42]

Why was this thread posted in NCR and not the evangelism forum?

 

[Tylim]

Just saying, as being raised a baptist and being methodist for sometime, I have never heard of that God abandoned Jesus like a sinner condemned to hell (forgive me if I summed that up wrong). Mostly what we were taught was that Jesus was sacrificed for our sins and that God watched in sadness, but knew it must be done.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Why was this thread posted in NCR and not the evangelism forum?

Not sure. The mods moved it to Non-Catholic Religions. It makes sense in so far as it’s about Protestantism though.

Just saying, as being raised a baptist and being methodist for sometime, I have never heard of that God abandoned Jesus like a sinner condemned to hell (forgive me if I summed that up wrong). Mostly what we were taught was that Jesus was sacrificed for our sins and that God watched in sadness, but knew it must be done.

This is what the great majority of Protestants think and teach. They say Jesus died for them, but they don’t really know what that means beyond a surface level understanding. They’ve never been told about the real Lutheran-Calvinist view. In some ways this is intentional (because it would horrify the common Protestant) while in other ways it’s out of ignorance (because most don’t know any better and simply repeat what they’re told).

 

[Tylim]

I do totally agree that your average person that did not know that would be horrified by that teaching.

 

[mek42]

Not sure. The mods moved it to Non-Catholic Religions. It makes sense in so far as it’s about Protestantism though.

Thank you for pointing this out. Frankly your OP seemed kind of incendiary to be here in NCR and now I know it was not your decision for it to be here.

Is there some way I should have known the post had been moved from elsewhere?