Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"James is not making an absolute claim about works being necessary for salvation."

Neither is the Church. That's the whole point.

---

from the link you seemingly want to ignore:

"Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament."

---

Thank you.

---

Double talk! Thank YOU.

---

No more so than your own.

---

No double talk here. I'm not the one who's saying that water baptism is an absolute requirement for salvation for people with the opportunity, but then say that without it they still can be saved because "God is not bound by his sacraments".

My position, the biblical position, is that salvation is by faith through grace, a gift of God that we don't have to perform anything for, but just receive through faith. According to the Roman Catholic position, one must perform sacraments dispensed by their church in order to receive this grace, in addition to faith.

I also wonder if you recognize the conundrums you put yourself in with your church's view: where is the dividing line between where it's too early be held accountable for not receiving water baptism and where it's considered ample opportunity? In other words, where's the cutoff point where the sacraments become an absolute requirement? You can "ask" for the sacrament on the same day of your conversion, right? So if you die the next day without getting one, are you eternally lost? Or is it a week? A month? Aren't you forcing God to make an arbitrary dividing line from which to base one's eternal destination? Is God's justice arbitrary like that?

And if you decide on an arbitrary dividing line, then your conundrum becomes this: why can God save someone at one point in that line, but must send to Hell someone who is just a smidgeon across it? A person who dies after a week from converting is given a pass on the sacraments.... but a week and one day is too much, and so they go to Hell? Both truly believe, yet one goes to Hell on a technicality. Is that the Gospel?

---

It's neither the Gospel nor is it Catholicism.

You presumably believe works are necessary (see again James 2:26), but not for someone like the thief on the cross.

---

They ("protestants") think that if Jesus or God tells them to do something, commands them to do certain things, and they dont, but they decided if they just believe just for an instant one time long ago and float along in life, that they are good. They base this on one verse.

A verse the church fathers and those that walked with Christ or his next generation almost 100%
Never even reference. But they are their own pope and read it and know they are correct

It's the laziest way to eternal salvation. The least common denominator. I pray for them it works out.

Catholics take the tougher road and work to struggle and endure until the end living in fear of God our Creator knowing our weaknesses and limitations and thankful forHis grace but know he has high expectations and pray to never hear "away with thee, i never knew thee" because so much more is required and commanded than to just say I believe when we were 7 years old.

Keep the faith! Endure! Struggle to the end!!! It is hard. Especially in todays world controlled by leftists dragging humanity to the abyss

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Again, while I appreciate the respectful discourse, we simply disagree that scripture in any way supports the idea that a person is doomed because they didn't confess some sin prior to death. For instance, you were good last night after confessing, but let's say you were involved in a fatal accident on the way to confession? Doomed to hell for an eternity? Or going to spend some time in a place Catholics call purgatory?

---

With respect to dying in an accident on my way to confession, I would be at the mercy of Jesus. Having said that, if I died with a truly repentant heart, the Church teaches that I would receive salvation. I had already repented of my sin and was on my way to confession. We don't see God as a legalist deity that demands a strict adherence to a set of rules or face punishment.

To flesh out your first sentence, the Church views the following passages that we should repent and confess our sins:

Acts 2:38 - "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit"

1 John 1:9 - "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness"

James 5:16 - "Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed.

Of course, this is predicated on the believe that Catholics hold that one can lose salvation.

Lastly (on this), Purgatory is only for those who die in God's friendship (i.e. no mortal sin on their soul), but still have an attachment to sin when they die. This is a topic for another day (or thread.)

Mothra said:

---

Of course not. Scripture doesn't state, much less suggest we are doomed merely because we didn't confess immediately before we passed.

---

One doesn't have to confess their sins immediately before we pass. We simply need to confess and not have a mortal sin on our conscience. Having said that, this is why the Church offers Last Rites (the sacraments and prayers offered to those nearly death. It three sacraments of Penance (confession), Anointing of the Sick, and Viaticum "food for the journey" which is a very small piece of the Eucharist. In addition to this it is prayers and blessing for the dying, the family, and caregivers.

Mothra said:

---

As for reality, I believe he is absolutely saying that we can have no certainty regarding whether we are actually saved.

---

I overstepped my bounds here. I'll, respectively, let him speak to that topic. I can only try my best to present the Catholic Church standpoint on salvation. I hope that I was able to represent the Catholic viewpoint clearly and accurately for you to understand. You may not agree with it, but I trust that I was able to present it properly.

Mothra said:

---

We disagree on the last part. I believe while it might not say it, the Catholic Church does in fact believe that good works are required to be saved.

---

Please provide an example so that we can better discuss your belief.

I'm not sure if we are talking about different but intertwined concepts here. For the sake of clarity (please don't mistake this with condescension), I'll use the terms Justification, Salvation, and Sanctification.

Justification the initial grace by which a person is made righteous in the sight of God. It involves that forgiveness of sins and the imputation of God's righteousness, aligning us with God's will. It occurs when we first come to faith and is often associated with the sacrament of Baptism.

Salvation the ultimate goal of eternal life with God. It is a gift offered by God which we accept through faith and cooperation with grace.

Sanctification the process by which a justified person is made holy through the work of the Holy Spirit. It involves A continual growth in holiness and conformity to the likeness of Christ throughout one's life. This process includes the practice of virtue, reception of the sacraments, prayer, and cooperation with divine grace.

I'm happy to discuss any of these terms or use other terms of your choose with definition.

PS. Let me add Original Sin the Catholic Church teaches that we are born with this. It is not necessarily something that we have but something we lack. Due to the fall of our first parents, we lack - sanctifying grace. We have a God-size hole in our hearts. Baptism washes away original sin through it, God gives us sanctifying grace.

---

So, let's say you've been a true believe your whole life, and committed a sin (as we all do), say, telling a lie. Before you had repented of that specific sin, you die in a car crash. Are you now destined to hell for an eternity, or did the grace you accepted when you received Christ cover that sin?

For the record, I don't disagree with your terminology on justification, salvation and sanctification. I suppose the difference is that I do not believe scripture in any way supports the idea that the guy who doesn't repent of the lie before dying is destined for hell. We will never be fully sanctified and without sin while on this planet.

The works aspect is the idea that we must continually do certain things to attain salvation. I know you don't see it that way, but I don't see any other way to term it. It is a works-based faith, no question, because it continually requires action on the believers part to stay in God's good graces, and I think scripture is quite clear that's not how salvation works.

---

In your framework, that's a fair question and concern.

The assumption behind your question is that salvation is a legal status that must remain intact at the moment of death. It assumes a forensic only model of salvation that we don't hold to. It's built from penal substitutionary atonement which developed way later. Even many mainline Protestants reject PSA.

---

Developed "way later"?? Penal substitutionary atonement is literally in the book of Isaiah.

---

No. Isaiah does not teach that the Father pours out retributive wrath on the Son as punishment in our legal place

Isaiah clearly teaches substitutionary suffering. Jesus didn't die to change God's mind about us.

---

Penal substitutionary atonement does not equal retributive wrath. You are rejecting your straw man instead of what it actually is.

---

The biggest Calvinist voices sure do believe that. What do you believe?

Do you think human nature after the fall is so wrecked that it can't cooperate with God, can't bear anything holy as it exists, and can't say yes to Him in any meaningful way by virtue of its nature?

---

Does the Calvinist view have to be correct, in order for penal substitutionary atonement spoken by Isaiah to be true?

Straight up question - does, or does not Isaiah 53 teach that Jesus bore the penalty for sin that was due us, in our stead (i.e. as a substitute)?

---

No it doesn't teach penalty.

The passage says He was pierced for our transgressions, that our iniquity was laid on Him, and that His suffering brings us peace. That clearly shows substitution.

But it doesn't explicitly say that God punished Him instead of punishing us in a strict judicial transfer sense. That's a theological interpretation drawn later, not language directly stated in the text.

We don't inherit the guilt of Adam's sin. We inherit the consequences. Most prots think we inherent guilt and that's why many think babies and children are damned to hell if they die. It's why you buy into PSA.

When sin is framed primarily as inherited guilt and salvation as legal acquittal, the Christian life centers on assurance of verdict. When sin is framed primarily as corruption and death, salvation centers on transformation and union.

Eastern Christianity didn't adopt Augustine's guilt imputation model in the same way. You've essentially borrowed western Medieval Catholic theology…satisfaction theory.

---

If there was no penalty, then why did Jesus have to suffer and die, and face being forsaken by God, the penalty of our sin? Couldn't this "transformation and union" to God happen through Jesus even if he had a long, happy life?

---

The penalty of sin is death and corruption. Jesus didn't sin but was unjustifiably murdered and that allowed him to defeat death.
The cross was necessary not because the Father needed someone to punish, but because humanity needed death itself to be broken.

Christ bore the penalty, death, and destroyed it through resurrection.

Jesus quotes Psalm 22: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? That's not a metaphysical rupture inside the Trinity. I hope that you're not arguing separate wills within the Trinity or Nestorianism.

The early Fathers ( Athanasius of Alexandria) argue that Christ had to die because that which held humanity captive (death) had to be destroyed from within.

---

Okay, so you're now saying that there was indeed a penalty.

So, you believe there was a penalty of sin that Jesus was our substitute for which atoned for our sin, correct?

---

I do not mean that the Father poured out retributive wrath on the Son in a courtroom exchange, as though God needed to punish someone in order to forgive.

I mean that the consequence of sin (death, corruption, and alienation) is what Christ entered into voluntarily. He bore the full reality of our fallen condition, including death itself, and destroyed it through His resurrection.

The cross is not God punishing Jesus instead of us.
It is God in Christ entering our death to defeat it from within.

We don't have an angry volcano God.
Gold loves us.

---

Without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness (Hebrews 9:22).

Isn't Isaiah 53 clearly speaking of Jesus bearing the penalty that is supposed to be ours? You agree he was a substitute - but what is Jesus being a substitute for?

This isn't about God's "volcano" anger, it's about his holiness and justice. He can not tolerate the debt of sin, therefore it must be paid for, otherwise his holiness and justice are violated. Jesus bore the penalty and paid for it. If Jesus' death did not pay for and atone for all our sin, then there is no way for forgiveness, and no way for reconciliation with a holy God.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"James is not making an absolute claim about works being necessary for salvation."

Neither is the Church. That's the whole point.

---

from the link you seemingly want to ignore:

"Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament."

---

Thank you.

---

Double talk! Thank YOU.

---

No more so than your own.

---

No double talk here. I'm not the one who's saying that water baptism is an absolute requirement for salvation for people with the opportunity, but then say that without it they still can be saved because "God is not bound by his sacraments".

My position, the biblical position, is that salvation is by faith through grace, a gift of God that we don't have to perform anything for, but just receive through faith. According to the Roman Catholic position, one must perform sacraments dispensed by their church in order to receive this grace, in addition to faith.

I also wonder if you recognize the conundrums you put yourself in with your church's view: where is the dividing line between where it's too early be held accountable for not receiving water baptism and where it's considered ample opportunity? In other words, where's the cutoff point where the sacraments become an absolute requirement? You can "ask" for the sacrament on the same day of your conversion, right? So if you die the next day without getting one, are you eternally lost? Or is it a week? A month? Aren't you forcing God to make an arbitrary dividing line from which to base one's eternal destination? Is God's justice arbitrary like that?

And if you decide on an arbitrary dividing line, then your conundrum becomes this: why can God save someone at one point in that line, but must send to Hell someone who is just a smidgeon across it? A person who dies after a week from converting is given a pass on the sacraments.... but a week and one day is too much, and so they go to Hell? Both truly believe, yet one goes to Hell on a technicality. Is that the Gospel?

---

It's neither the Gospel nor is it Catholicism.

You presumably believe works are necessary (see again James 2:26), but not for someone like the thief on the cross.

---

You keep trying to accuse me of misrepresenting Roman Catholicism, but I'm only giving you the logic that necessarily follows from the beliefs from your very own sources. Clearly, for people who've had enough time to be water baptized, your church teaches that it's an absolute necessity for salvation. If you say there's an "out" to this, or a period of time where it's "too soon" to be held accountable for the requirement, then you're double talking, and it shows that your beliefs are untenable because then you've created a situation where God has to be purely arbitrary in determining justice and a person's eternal fate. This conundrum is inescapable, as your inability/unwillingness to respond to it shows.

And no, I don't believe "works are necessary" for salvation. I believe what the Bible teaches, that only faith saves, and works are the manifestation of that faith which already saves you. Saying works are "necessary" implies that you aren't saved until you perform works. That would inherently mean that one can have true faith, but still go to Hell because of a failure to perform sacraments. And that would completely contradict Jesus' gospel. You can deny that the Roman Catholic church teaches this all day, but to the rational world there just isn't any other way to take the sacraments being "necessary" other than for what it means.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Again, while I appreciate the respectful discourse, we simply disagree that scripture in any way supports the idea that a person is doomed because they didn't confess some sin prior to death. For instance, you were good last night after confessing, but let's say you were involved in a fatal accident on the way to confession? Doomed to hell for an eternity? Or going to spend some time in a place Catholics call purgatory?

---

With respect to dying in an accident on my way to confession, I would be at the mercy of Jesus. Having said that, if I died with a truly repentant heart, the Church teaches that I would receive salvation. I had already repented of my sin and was on my way to confession. We don't see God as a legalist deity that demands a strict adherence to a set of rules or face punishment.

To flesh out your first sentence, the Church views the following passages that we should repent and confess our sins:

Acts 2:38 - "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit"

1 John 1:9 - "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness"

James 5:16 - "Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed.

Of course, this is predicated on the believe that Catholics hold that one can lose salvation.

Lastly (on this), Purgatory is only for those who die in God's friendship (i.e. no mortal sin on their soul), but still have an attachment to sin when they die. This is a topic for another day (or thread.)

Mothra said:

---

Of course not. Scripture doesn't state, much less suggest we are doomed merely because we didn't confess immediately before we passed.

---

One doesn't have to confess their sins immediately before we pass. We simply need to confess and not have a mortal sin on our conscience. Having said that, this is why the Church offers Last Rites (the sacraments and prayers offered to those nearly death. It three sacraments of Penance (confession), Anointing of the Sick, and Viaticum "food for the journey" which is a very small piece of the Eucharist. In addition to this it is prayers and blessing for the dying, the family, and caregivers.

Mothra said:

---

As for reality, I believe he is absolutely saying that we can have no certainty regarding whether we are actually saved.

---

I overstepped my bounds here. I'll, respectively, let him speak to that topic. I can only try my best to present the Catholic Church standpoint on salvation. I hope that I was able to represent the Catholic viewpoint clearly and accurately for you to understand. You may not agree with it, but I trust that I was able to present it properly.

Mothra said:

---

We disagree on the last part. I believe while it might not say it, the Catholic Church does in fact believe that good works are required to be saved.

---

Please provide an example so that we can better discuss your belief.

I'm not sure if we are talking about different but intertwined concepts here. For the sake of clarity (please don't mistake this with condescension), I'll use the terms Justification, Salvation, and Sanctification.

Justification the initial grace by which a person is made righteous in the sight of God. It involves that forgiveness of sins and the imputation of God's righteousness, aligning us with God's will. It occurs when we first come to faith and is often associated with the sacrament of Baptism.

Salvation the ultimate goal of eternal life with God. It is a gift offered by God which we accept through faith and cooperation with grace.

Sanctification the process by which a justified person is made holy through the work of the Holy Spirit. It involves A continual growth in holiness and conformity to the likeness of Christ throughout one's life. This process includes the practice of virtue, reception of the sacraments, prayer, and cooperation with divine grace.

I'm happy to discuss any of these terms or use other terms of your choose with definition.

PS. Let me add Original Sin the Catholic Church teaches that we are born with this. It is not necessarily something that we have but something we lack. Due to the fall of our first parents, we lack - sanctifying grace. We have a God-size hole in our hearts. Baptism washes away original sin through it, God gives us sanctifying grace.

---

So, let's say you've been a true believe your whole life, and committed a sin (as we all do), say, telling a lie. Before you had repented of that specific sin, you die in a car crash. Are you now destined to hell for an eternity, or did the grace you accepted when you received Christ cover that sin?

For the record, I don't disagree with your terminology on justification, salvation and sanctification. I suppose the difference is that I do not believe scripture in any way supports the idea that the guy who doesn't repent of the lie before dying is destined for hell. We will never be fully sanctified and without sin while on this planet.

The works aspect is the idea that we must continually do certain things to attain salvation. I know you don't see it that way, but I don't see any other way to term it. It is a works-based faith, no question, because it continually requires action on the believers part to stay in God's good graces, and I think scripture is quite clear that's not how salvation works.

---

In your framework, that's a fair question and concern.

The assumption behind your question is that salvation is a legal status that must remain intact at the moment of death. It assumes a forensic only model of salvation that we don't hold to. It's built from penal substitutionary atonement which developed way later. Even many mainline Protestants reject PSA.

---

Developed "way later"?? Penal substitutionary atonement is literally in the book of Isaiah.

---

No. Isaiah does not teach that the Father pours out retributive wrath on the Son as punishment in our legal place

Isaiah clearly teaches substitutionary suffering. Jesus didn't die to change God's mind about us.

---

Penal substitutionary atonement does not equal retributive wrath. You are rejecting your straw man instead of what it actually is.

---

The biggest Calvinist voices sure do believe that. What do you believe?

Do you think human nature after the fall is so wrecked that it can't cooperate with God, can't bear anything holy as it exists, and can't say yes to Him in any meaningful way by virtue of its nature?

---

Does the Calvinist view have to be correct, in order for penal substitutionary atonement spoken by Isaiah to be true?

Straight up question - does, or does not Isaiah 53 teach that Jesus bore the penalty for sin that was due us, in our stead (i.e. as a substitute)?

---

No it doesn't teach penalty.

The passage says He was pierced for our transgressions, that our iniquity was laid on Him, and that His suffering brings us peace. That clearly shows substitution.

But it doesn't explicitly say that God punished Him instead of punishing us in a strict judicial transfer sense. That's a theological interpretation drawn later, not language directly stated in the text.

We don't inherit the guilt of Adam's sin. We inherit the consequences. Most prots think we inherent guilt and that's why many think babies and children are damned to hell if they die. It's why you buy into PSA.

When sin is framed primarily as inherited guilt and salvation as legal acquittal, the Christian life centers on assurance of verdict. When sin is framed primarily as corruption and death, salvation centers on transformation and union.

Eastern Christianity didn't adopt Augustine's guilt imputation model in the same way. You've essentially borrowed western Medieval Catholic theology…satisfaction theory.

---

If there was no penalty, then why did Jesus have to suffer and die, and face being forsaken by God, the penalty of our sin? Couldn't this "transformation and union" to God happen through Jesus even if he had a long, happy life?

---

The penalty of sin is death and corruption. Jesus didn't sin but was unjustifiably murdered and that allowed him to defeat death.
The cross was necessary not because the Father needed someone to punish, but because humanity needed death itself to be broken.

Christ bore the penalty, death, and destroyed it through resurrection.

Jesus quotes Psalm 22: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? That's not a metaphysical rupture inside the Trinity. I hope that you're not arguing separate wills within the Trinity or Nestorianism.

The early Fathers ( Athanasius of Alexandria) argue that Christ had to die because that which held humanity captive (death) had to be destroyed from within.

---

Okay, so you're now saying that there was indeed a penalty.

So, you believe there was a penalty of sin that Jesus was our substitute for which atoned for our sin, correct?

---

I do not mean that the Father poured out retributive wrath on the Son in a courtroom exchange, as though God needed to punish someone in order to forgive.

I mean that the consequence of sin (death, corruption, and alienation) is what Christ entered into voluntarily. He bore the full reality of our fallen condition, including death itself, and destroyed it through His resurrection.

The cross is not God punishing Jesus instead of us.
It is God in Christ entering our death to defeat it from within.

We don't have an angry volcano God.
Gold loves us.

---

Without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness (Hebrews 9:22).

Isn't Isaiah 53 clearly speaking of Jesus bearing the penalty that is supposed to be ours? You agree he was a substitute - but what is Jesus being a substitute for?

This isn't about God's "volcano" anger, it's about his holiness and justice. He can not tolerate the debt of sin, therefore it must be paid for, otherwise his holiness and justice are violated. Jesus bore the penalty and paid for it. If Jesus' death did not pay for and atone for all our sin, then there is no way for forgiveness, and no way for reconciliation with a holy God.

---

Hebrews is talking about sacrificial purification, not divine punishment.
The sacrificial animal is not being punished instead of Israel in a courtroom. It's a ritual offering that restores covenant communion…cmon man.

God's justice is not violated by forgiveness. It is fulfilled by defeating sin and restoring communion.

Jesus is our substitute in death.
The penalty of sin is death (Romans 6:23).
Christ dies the death we were enslaved to.
He enters our mortality.
He bears our corruption.
He destroys death by resurrection.

Substitution does not automatically mean:
"God punished Him instead of us."
It means:
"He entered what was ours and overcame it."

Where does Scripture say that God cannot forgive unless punishment is first inflicted on someone?

Christ's life is not a set of points that are to be looked at piecemeal. The whole life of Christ is our salvation.

Annunciation: God becomes incarnate and so mediates the divine and human natures. Restoring the union of the natures allowing for our theosis or deification. God became man so that man might become god (through participation not by natures) St Athanasius

Christmas: Christ fulfills the prophecy of the virgin birth

Circumcision/Temple: Christ joins the covenant and doing so joins the Israelites in their struggle with God.

Miracles and Signs: Proving his ability to forgive sins of his own authority and so declaring himself God.

Passion: Fulfillment of Isaiah, obedience to God, and so becoming New Adam

Death: By his death sin is defeated. Christ desired to join us in death, He is the victorious leader over sin and death, He desired to redeem suffering itself, He taught us to die to ourselves in obedience to God

Resurrection: Christ defeats death. Rescuing humanity from the last hurdle to the theosis of man. He had restored our communion with the divine by his incarnation, restored our image by his perfect life, and restored our immortality by his resurrection allowing us to achieve the goal of the human life: theosis. God created man in his image and likeness so that man could, in love and humility, participate in what God is. That would be impossible without the whole life of Christ.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017Developed "way later"?? Penal substitutionary atonement is literally in the book of Isaiah. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

No. Isaiah does not teach that the Father pours out retributive wrath on the Son as punishment in our legal place

Isaiah clearly teaches substitutionary suffering. Jesus didn't die to change God's mind about us.

---

Penal substitutionary atonement does not equal retributive wrath. You are rejecting your straw man instead of what it actually is.

---

The biggest Calvinist voices sure do believe that. What do you believe?

Do you think human nature after the fall is so wrecked that it can't cooperate with God, can't bear anything holy as it exists, and can't say yes to Him in any meaningful way by virtue of its nature?

---

Does the Calvinist view have to be correct, in order for penal substitutionary atonement spoken by Isaiah to be true?

Straight up question - does, or does not Isaiah 53 teach that Jesus bore the penalty for sin that was due us, in our stead (i.e. as a substitute)?

---

No it doesn't teach penalty.

The passage says He was pierced for our transgressions, that our iniquity was laid on Him, and that His suffering brings us peace. That clearly shows substitution.

But it doesn't explicitly say that God punished Him instead of punishing us in a strict judicial transfer sense. That's a theological interpretation drawn later, not language directly stated in the text.

We don't inherit the guilt of Adam's sin. We inherit the consequences. Most prots think we inherent guilt and that's why many think babies and children are damned to hell if they die. It's why you buy into PSA.

When sin is framed primarily as inherited guilt and salvation as legal acquittal, the Christian life centers on assurance of verdict. When sin is framed primarily as corruption and death, salvation centers on transformation and union.

Eastern Christianity didn't adopt Augustine's guilt imputation model in the same way. You've essentially borrowed western Medieval Catholic theology…satisfaction theory.

---

If there was no penalty, then why did Jesus have to suffer and die, and face being forsaken by God, the penalty of our sin? Couldn't this "transformation and union" to God happen through Jesus even if he had a long, happy life?

---

The penalty of sin is death and corruption. Jesus didn't sin but was unjustifiably murdered and that allowed him to defeat death.
The cross was necessary not because the Father needed someone to punish, but because humanity needed death itself to be broken.

Christ bore the penalty, death, and destroyed it through resurrection.

Jesus quotes Psalm 22: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? That's not a metaphysical rupture inside the Trinity. I hope that you're not arguing separate wills within the Trinity or Nestorianism.

The early Fathers ( Athanasius of Alexandria) argue that Christ had to die because that which held humanity captive (death) had to be destroyed from within.

---

Okay, so you're now saying that there was indeed a penalty.

So, you believe there was a penalty of sin that Jesus was our substitute for which atoned for our sin, correct?

---

I do not mean that the Father poured out retributive wrath on the Son in a courtroom exchange, as though God needed to punish someone in order to forgive.

I mean that the consequence of sin (death, corruption, and alienation) is what Christ entered into voluntarily. He bore the full reality of our fallen condition, including death itself, and destroyed it through His resurrection.

The cross is not God punishing Jesus instead of us.
It is God in Christ entering our death to defeat it from within.

We don't have an angry volcano God.
Gold loves us.

---

Without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness (Hebrews 9:22).

Isn't Isaiah 53 clearly speaking of Jesus bearing the penalty that is supposed to be ours? You agree he was a substitute - but what is Jesus being a substitute for?

This isn't about God's "volcano" anger, it's about his holiness and justice. He can not tolerate the debt of sin, therefore it must be paid for, otherwise his holiness and justice are violated. Jesus bore the penalty and paid for it. If Jesus' death did not pay for and atone for all our sin, then there is no way for forgiveness, and no way for reconciliation with a holy God.

---

Hebrews is talking about sacrificial purification, not divine punishment.
The sacrificial animal is not being punished instead of Israel in a courtroom. It's a ritual offering that restores covenant communion…cmon man.

God's justice is not violated by forgiveness. It is fulfilled by defeating sin and restoring communion.

Jesus is our substitute in death.
The penalty of sin is death (Romans 6:23).
Christ dies the death we were enslaved to.
He enters our mortality.
He bears our corruption.
He destroys death by resurrection.

Substitution does not automatically mean:
"God punished Him instead of us."
It means:
"He entered what was ours and overcame it."

Where does Scripture say that God cannot forgive unless punishment is first inflicted on someone?

---

But isn't the animal bearing the penalty for the sin of the Israelites?

Isn't Isaiah 53 clearly saying that Jesus bore the penalty that was due to us? Did he not receive the chastisement that was supposed to be ours?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Christ's life is not a set of points that are to be looked at piecemeal. The whole life of Christ is our salvation.

Annunciation: God becomes incarnate and so mediates the divine and human natures. Restoring the union of the natures allowing for our theosis or deification. God became man so that man might become god (through participation not by natures) St Athanasius

Christmas: Christ fulfills the prophecy of the virgin birth

Circumcision/Temple: Christ joins the covenant and doing so joins the Israelites in their struggle with God.

Miracles and Signs: Proving his ability to forgive sins of his own authority and so declaring himself God.

Passion: Fulfillment of Isaiah, obedience to God, and so becoming New Adam

Death: By his death sin is defeated. Christ desired to join us in death, He is the victorious leader over sin and death, He desired to redeem suffering itself, He taught us to die to ourselves in obedience to God

Resurrection: Christ defeats death. Rescuing humanity from the last hurdle to the theosis of man. He had restored our communion with the divine by his incarnation, restored our image by his perfect life, and restored our immortality by his resurrection allowing us to achieve the goal of the human life: theosis. God created man in his image and likeness so that man could, in love and humility, participate in what God is. That would be impossible without the whole life of Christ.

---

Then why are okay with crediting Mary for your salvation in your liturgy?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Christ's life is not a set of points that are to be looked at piecemeal. The whole life of Christ is our salvation.

Annunciation: God becomes incarnate and so mediates the divine and human natures. Restoring the union of the natures allowing for our theosis or deification. God became man so that man might become god (through participation not by natures) St Athanasius

Christmas: Christ fulfills the prophecy of the virgin birth

Circumcision/Temple: Christ joins the covenant and doing so joins the Israelites in their struggle with God.

Miracles and Signs: Proving his ability to forgive sins of his own authority and so declaring himself God.

Passion: Fulfillment of Isaiah, obedience to God, and so becoming New Adam

Death: By his death sin is defeated. Christ desired to join us in death, He is the victorious leader over sin and death, He desired to redeem suffering itself, He taught us to die to ourselves in obedience to God

Resurrection: Christ defeats death. Rescuing humanity from the last hurdle to the theosis of man. He had restored our communion with the divine by his incarnation, restored our image by his perfect life, and restored our immortality by his resurrection allowing us to achieve the goal of the human life: theosis. God created man in his image and likeness so that man could, in love and humility, participate in what God is. That would be impossible without the whole life of Christ.

---

Then why are okay with crediting Mary for your salvation in your liturgy?

---

Mary is not a co-redeemer.
She is not the source of grace.
She does not replace Christ.

"Save us, Lord, we are perishing!" (Matthew 8:25)
"You will save both yourself and your hearers" (1 Timothy 4:16)
"Save" can obviously mean: deliver, preserve, intercede, help etc.

"Most Holy Theotokos, save us" means "Intercede for us, Protect us. Help us by your prayers."

Asking Mary to pray for us is no different in principle than asking another Christian to pray for us. Christ remains the only Savior in the ultimate sense.

"The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" James 5:16

Do you really think Orthodox Christians believe that Mary replaces Christ?

I'm not gonna say Protestants bowing down before a band with their hands up is worshiping the band. Your assertion is about as offensive as that.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Christ's life is not a set of points that are to be looked at piecemeal. The whole life of Christ is our salvation.

Annunciation: God becomes incarnate and so mediates the divine and human natures. Restoring the union of the natures allowing for our theosis or deification. God became man so that man might become god (through participation not by natures) St Athanasius

Christmas: Christ fulfills the prophecy of the virgin birth

Circumcision/Temple: Christ joins the covenant and doing so joins the Israelites in their struggle with God.

Miracles and Signs: Proving his ability to forgive sins of his own authority and so declaring himself God.

Passion: Fulfillment of Isaiah, obedience to God, and so becoming New Adam

Death: By his death sin is defeated. Christ desired to join us in death, He is the victorious leader over sin and death, He desired to redeem suffering itself, He taught us to die to ourselves in obedience to God

Resurrection: Christ defeats death. Rescuing humanity from the last hurdle to the theosis of man. He had restored our communion with the divine by his incarnation, restored our image by his perfect life, and restored our immortality by his resurrection allowing us to achieve the goal of the human life: theosis. God created man in his image and likeness so that man could, in love and humility, participate in what God is. That would be impossible without the whole life of Christ.

---

Then why are okay with crediting Mary for your salvation in your liturgy?

---

Mary is not a co-redeemer.
She is not the source of grace.
She does not replace Christ.

"Save us, Lord, we are perishing!" (Matthew 8:25)
"You will save both yourself and your hearers" (1 Timothy 4:16)
"Save" can obviously mean: deliver, preserve, intercede, help etc.

"Most Holy Theotokos, save us" means "Intercede for us, Protect us. Help us by your prayers."

Asking Mary to pray for us is no different in principle than asking another Christian to pray for us. Christ remains the only Savior in the ultimate sense.

"The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" James 5:16

Do you really think Orthodox Christians believe that Mary replaces Christ?

I'm not gonna say Protestants bowing down before a band with their hands up is worshiping the band. Your assertion is about as offensive as that.

---

Protestants don't say these things about the church band in their hymns:

"She is the propitiation of the whole world"
"She is the restoration of men."
"She is the forgiveness for many who have stumbled."
"Through thee (Mary) our sin is remitted."
"She is the ship of all who would be saved."
"She is the gate of salvation."
"She is the provider of God's mercy."
"Through thou hast given new birth to those conceived in shame."
"She is the beginning of the new and spiritual creation."
"She joinest in union the faithful to the Lord."
"She taketh away the filth of sin."
"She is the salvation of my soul."
"She is the acceptable sacrifice."
"She is the emblem of God without spot."


Don't all those phrases sure seem like they're replacing Jesus?

You are in so much denial. Wake up. If you truly don't see the problem here, then simply stated, you are NOT a Christian who has the Holy Spirit.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Christ's life is not a set of points that are to be looked at piecemeal. The whole life of Christ is our salvation.

Annunciation: God becomes incarnate and so mediates the divine and human natures. Restoring the union of the natures allowing for our theosis or deification. God became man so that man might become god (through participation not by natures) St Athanasius

Christmas: Christ fulfills the prophecy of the virgin birth

Circumcision/Temple: Christ joins the covenant and doing so joins the Israelites in their struggle with God.

Miracles and Signs: Proving his ability to forgive sins of his own authority and so declaring himself God.

Passion: Fulfillment of Isaiah, obedience to God, and so becoming New Adam

Death: By his death sin is defeated. Christ desired to join us in death, He is the victorious leader over sin and death, He desired to redeem suffering itself, He taught us to die to ourselves in obedience to God

Resurrection: Christ defeats death. Rescuing humanity from the last hurdle to the theosis of man. He had restored our communion with the divine by his incarnation, restored our image by his perfect life, and restored our immortality by his resurrection allowing us to achieve the goal of the human life: theosis. God created man in his image and likeness so that man could, in love and humility, participate in what God is. That would be impossible without the whole life of Christ.

---

Then why are okay with crediting Mary for your salvation in your liturgy?

---

Mary is not a co-redeemer.
She is not the source of grace.
She does not replace Christ.

"Save us, Lord, we are perishing!" (Matthew 8:25)
"You will save both yourself and your hearers" (1 Timothy 4:16)
"Save" can obviously mean: deliver, preserve, intercede, help etc.

"Most Holy Theotokos, save us" means "Intercede for us, Protect us. Help us by your prayers."

Asking Mary to pray for us is no different in principle than asking another Christian to pray for us. Christ remains the only Savior in the ultimate sense.

"The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" James 5:16

Do you really think Orthodox Christians believe that Mary replaces Christ?

I'm not gonna say Protestants bowing down before a band with their hands up is worshiping the band. Your assertion is about as offensive as that.

---

Protestants don't say these things about the church band in their hymns:

"She is the propitiation of the whole world"
"She is the restoration of men."
"She is the forgiveness for many who have stumbled."
"Through thee (Mary) our sin is remitted."
"She is the ship of all who would be saved."
"She is the gate of salvation."
"She is the provider of God's mercy."
"Through thou hast given new birth to those conceived in shame."
"She is the beginning of the new and spiritual creation."
"She joinest in union the faithful to the Lord."
"She taketh away the filth of sin."
"She is the salvation of my soul."
"She is the acceptable sacrifice."
"She is the emblem of God without spot."


Don't all those phrases sure seem like they're replacing Jesus?

You are in so much denial. Wake up. If you truly don't see the problem here, then simply stated, you are NOT a Christian who has the Holy Spirit.

---

Why do you continuously resort to personal attacks?

Paul says he "saves" some (1 Cor 9:22).
James says a believer can "save a soul from death" (James 5:20).
Paul calls himself a "co-worker with God" (1 Cor 3:9).

I affirm without hesitation that Jesus Christ alone is Savior, Redeemer, Propitiation, and Lord.
If any hymn were interpreted as making Mary equal to Christ, I would reject that interpretation.
Orthodox hymnography uses exalted poetic language to describe her role in the Incarnation, not to replace Christ.

Calling me "not a Christian" does not prove your point, it just avoids engaging the distinction I'm making.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Christ's life is not a set of points that are to be looked at piecemeal. The whole life of Christ is our salvation.

Annunciation: God becomes incarnate and so mediates the divine and human natures. Restoring the union of the natures allowing for our theosis or deification. God became man so that man might become god (through participation not by natures) St Athanasius

Christmas: Christ fulfills the prophecy of the virgin birth

Circumcision/Temple: Christ joins the covenant and doing so joins the Israelites in their struggle with God.

Miracles and Signs: Proving his ability to forgive sins of his own authority and so declaring himself God.

Passion: Fulfillment of Isaiah, obedience to God, and so becoming New Adam

Death: By his death sin is defeated. Christ desired to join us in death, He is the victorious leader over sin and death, He desired to redeem suffering itself, He taught us to die to ourselves in obedience to God

Resurrection: Christ defeats death. Rescuing humanity from the last hurdle to the theosis of man. He had restored our communion with the divine by his incarnation, restored our image by his perfect life, and restored our immortality by his resurrection allowing us to achieve the goal of the human life: theosis. God created man in his image and likeness so that man could, in love and humility, participate in what God is. That would be impossible without the whole life of Christ.

---

Then why are okay with crediting Mary for your salvation in your liturgy?

---

Mary is not a co-redeemer.
She is not the source of grace.
She does not replace Christ.

"Save us, Lord, we are perishing!" (Matthew 8:25)
"You will save both yourself and your hearers" (1 Timothy 4:16)
"Save" can obviously mean: deliver, preserve, intercede, help etc.

"Most Holy Theotokos, save us" means "Intercede for us, Protect us. Help us by your prayers."

Asking Mary to pray for us is no different in principle than asking another Christian to pray for us. Christ remains the only Savior in the ultimate sense.

"The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" James 5:16

Do you really think Orthodox Christians believe that Mary replaces Christ?

I'm not gonna say Protestants bowing down before a band with their hands up is worshiping the band. Your assertion is about as offensive as that.

---

Protestants don't say these things about the church band in their hymns:

"She is the propitiation of the whole world"
"She is the restoration of men."
"She is the forgiveness for many who have stumbled."
"Through thee (Mary) our sin is remitted."
"She is the ship of all who would be saved."
"She is the gate of salvation."
"She is the provider of God's mercy."
"Through thou hast given new birth to those conceived in shame."
"She is the beginning of the new and spiritual creation."
"She joinest in union the faithful to the Lord."
"She taketh away the filth of sin."
"She is the salvation of my soul."
"She is the acceptable sacrifice."
"She is the emblem of God without spot."


Don't all those phrases sure seem like they're replacing Jesus?

You are in so much denial. Wake up. If you truly don't see the problem here, then simply stated, you are NOT a Christian who has the Holy Spirit.

---

Why do you continuously resort to personal attacks?

Paul says he "saves" some (1 Cor 9:22).
James says a believer can "save a soul from death" (James 5:20).
Paul calls himself a "co-worker with God" (1 Cor 3:9).

I affirm without hesitation that Jesus Christ alone is Savior, Redeemer, Propitiation, and Lord.
If any hymn were interpreted as making Mary equal to Christ, I would reject that interpretation.
Orthodox hymnography uses exalted poetic language to describe her role in the Incarnation, not to replace Christ.

Calling me "not a Christian" does not prove your point, it just avoids engaging the distinction I'm making.

---

Where did I "attack" you? Where did I say that you were not a Christian?

And how do you say that I "continuously" attack you? Isn't that false witness?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"James is not making an absolute claim about works being necessary for salvation."

Neither is the Church. That's the whole point.

---

from the link you seemingly want to ignore:

"Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament."

---

Thank you.

---

Double talk! Thank YOU.

---

No more so than your own.

---

No double talk here. I'm not the one who's saying that water baptism is an absolute requirement for salvation for people with the opportunity, but then say that without it they still can be saved because "God is not bound by his sacraments".

My position, the biblical position, is that salvation is by faith through grace, a gift of God that we don't have to perform anything for, but just receive through faith. According to the Roman Catholic position, one must perform sacraments dispensed by their church in order to receive this grace, in addition to faith.

I also wonder if you recognize the conundrums you put yourself in with your church's view: where is the dividing line between where it's too early be held accountable for not receiving water baptism and where it's considered ample opportunity? In other words, where's the cutoff point where the sacraments become an absolute requirement? You can "ask" for the sacrament on the same day of your conversion, right? So if you die the next day without getting one, are you eternally lost? Or is it a week? A month? Aren't you forcing God to make an arbitrary dividing line from which to base one's eternal destination? Is God's justice arbitrary like that?

And if you decide on an arbitrary dividing line, then your conundrum becomes this: why can God save someone at one point in that line, but must send to Hell someone who is just a smidgeon across it? A person who dies after a week from converting is given a pass on the sacraments.... but a week and one day is too much, and so they go to Hell? Both truly believe, yet one goes to Hell on a technicality. Is that the Gospel?

---

It's neither the Gospel nor is it Catholicism.

You presumably believe works are necessary (see again James 2:26), but not for someone like the thief on the cross.

---

You keep trying to accuse me of misrepresenting Roman Catholicism, but I'm only giving you the logic that necessarily follows from the beliefs from your very own sources. Clearly, for people who've had enough time to be water baptized, your church teaches that it's an absolute necessity for salvation. If you say there's an "out" to this, or a period of time where it's "too soon" to be held accountable for the requirement, then you're double talking, and it shows that your beliefs are untenable because then you've created a situation where God has to be purely arbitrary in determining justice and a person's eternal fate. This conundrum is inescapable, as your inability/unwillingness to respond to it shows.

And no, I don't believe "works are necessary" for salvation. I believe what the Bible teaches, that only faith saves, and works are the manifestation of that faith which already saves you. Saying works are "necessary" implies that you aren't saved until you perform works. That would inherently mean that one can have true faith, but still go to Hell because of a failure to perform sacraments. And that would completely contradict Jesus' gospel. You can deny that the Roman Catholic church teaches this all day, but to the rational world there just isn't any other way to take the sacraments being "necessary" other than for what it means.

---

Your objections to works and your objections to sacraments are somewhat different issues. And again, you really just need to investigate what the Church teaches before trying to comment on it. I'm out for now.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"James is not making an absolute claim about works being necessary for salvation."

Neither is the Church. That's the whole point.

---

from the link you seemingly want to ignore:

"Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament."

---

Thank you.

---

Double talk! Thank YOU.

---

No more so than your own.

---

No double talk here. I'm not the one who's saying that water baptism is an absolute requirement for salvation for people with the opportunity, but then say that without it they still can be saved because "God is not bound by his sacraments".

My position, the biblical position, is that salvation is by faith through grace, a gift of God that we don't have to perform anything for, but just receive through faith. According to the Roman Catholic position, one must perform sacraments dispensed by their church in order to receive this grace, in addition to faith.

I also wonder if you recognize the conundrums you put yourself in with your church's view: where is the dividing line between where it's too early be held accountable for not receiving water baptism and where it's considered ample opportunity? In other words, where's the cutoff point where the sacraments become an absolute requirement? You can "ask" for the sacrament on the same day of your conversion, right? So if you die the next day without getting one, are you eternally lost? Or is it a week? A month? Aren't you forcing God to make an arbitrary dividing line from which to base one's eternal destination? Is God's justice arbitrary like that?

And if you decide on an arbitrary dividing line, then your conundrum becomes this: why can God save someone at one point in that line, but must send to Hell someone who is just a smidgeon across it? A person who dies after a week from converting is given a pass on the sacraments.... but a week and one day is too much, and so they go to Hell? Both truly believe, yet one goes to Hell on a technicality. Is that the Gospel?

---

It's neither the Gospel nor is it Catholicism.

You presumably believe works are necessary (see again James 2:26), but not for someone like the thief on the cross.

---

You keep trying to accuse me of misrepresenting Roman Catholicism, but I'm only giving you the logic that necessarily follows from the beliefs from your very own sources. Clearly, for people who've had enough time to be water baptized, your church teaches that it's an absolute necessity for salvation. If you say there's an "out" to this, or a period of time where it's "too soon" to be held accountable for the requirement, then you're double talking, and it shows that your beliefs are untenable because then you've created a situation where God has to be purely arbitrary in determining justice and a person's eternal fate. This conundrum is inescapable, as your inability/unwillingness to respond to it shows.

And no, I don't believe "works are necessary" for salvation. I believe what the Bible teaches, that only faith saves, and works are the manifestation of that faith which already saves you. Saying works are "necessary" implies that you aren't saved until you perform works. That would inherently mean that one can have true faith, but still go to Hell because of a failure to perform sacraments. And that would completely contradict Jesus' gospel. You can deny that the Roman Catholic church teaches this all day, but to the rational world there just isn't any other way to take the sacraments being "necessary" other than for what it means.

---

Your objections to works and your objections to sacraments are somewhat different issues. And again, you really just need to investigate what the Church teaches before trying to comment on it. I'm out for now.

---

You're constant assertion that I've gotten Roman Catholicism wrong apparently is just a tactic to get out of a corner that your church's views put you in.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"James is not making an absolute claim about works being necessary for salvation."

Neither is the Church. That's the whole point.

---

from the link you seemingly want to ignore:

"Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament."

---

Thank you.

---

Double talk! Thank YOU.

---

No more so than your own.

---

No double talk here. I'm not the one who's saying that water baptism is an absolute requirement for salvation for people with the opportunity, but then say that without it they still can be saved because "God is not bound by his sacraments".

My position, the biblical position, is that salvation is by faith through grace, a gift of God that we don't have to perform anything for, but just receive through faith. According to the Roman Catholic position, one must perform sacraments dispensed by their church in order to receive this grace, in addition to faith.

I also wonder if you recognize the conundrums you put yourself in with your church's view: where is the dividing line between where it's too early be held accountable for not receiving water baptism and where it's considered ample opportunity? In other words, where's the cutoff point where the sacraments become an absolute requirement? You can "ask" for the sacrament on the same day of your conversion, right? So if you die the next day without getting one, are you eternally lost? Or is it a week? A month? Aren't you forcing God to make an arbitrary dividing line from which to base one's eternal destination? Is God's justice arbitrary like that?

And if you decide on an arbitrary dividing line, then your conundrum becomes this: why can God save someone at one point in that line, but must send to Hell someone who is just a smidgeon across it? A person who dies after a week from converting is given a pass on the sacraments.... but a week and one day is too much, and so they go to Hell? Both truly believe, yet one goes to Hell on a technicality. Is that the Gospel?

---

It's neither the Gospel nor is it Catholicism.

You presumably believe works are necessary (see again James 2:26), but not for someone like the thief on the cross.

---

You keep trying to accuse me of misrepresenting Roman Catholicism, but I'm only giving you the logic that necessarily follows from the beliefs from your very own sources. Clearly, for people who've had enough time to be water baptized, your church teaches that it's an absolute necessity for salvation. If you say there's an "out" to this, or a period of time where it's "too soon" to be held accountable for the requirement, then you're double talking, and it shows that your beliefs are untenable because then you've created a situation where God has to be purely arbitrary in determining justice and a person's eternal fate. This conundrum is inescapable, as your inability/unwillingness to respond to it shows.

And no, I don't believe "works are necessary" for salvation. I believe what the Bible teaches, that only faith saves, and works are the manifestation of that faith which already saves you. Saying works are "necessary" implies that you aren't saved until you perform works. That would inherently mean that one can have true faith, but still go to Hell because of a failure to perform sacraments. And that would completely contradict Jesus' gospel. You can deny that the Roman Catholic church teaches this all day, but to the rational world there just isn't any other way to take the sacraments being "necessary" other than for what it means.

---

Your objections to works and your objections to sacraments are somewhat different issues. And again, you really just need to investigate what the Church teaches before trying to comment on it. I'm out for now.

---

You're constant assertion that I've gotten Roman Catholicism wrong apparently is just a tactic to get out of a corner that your church's views put you in.

---

Have fun with that.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"James is not making an absolute claim about works being necessary for salvation."

Neither is the Church. That's the whole point.

---

from the link you seemingly want to ignore:

"Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament."

---

Thank you.

---

Double talk! Thank YOU.

---

No more so than your own.

---

No double talk here. I'm not the one who's saying that water baptism is an absolute requirement for salvation for people with the opportunity, but then say that without it they still can be saved because "God is not bound by his sacraments".

My position, the biblical position, is that salvation is by faith through grace, a gift of God that we don't have to perform anything for, but just receive through faith. According to the Roman Catholic position, one must perform sacraments dispensed by their church in order to receive this grace, in addition to faith.

I also wonder if you recognize the conundrums you put yourself in with your church's view: where is the dividing line between where it's too early be held accountable for not receiving water baptism and where it's considered ample opportunity? In other words, where's the cutoff point where the sacraments become an absolute requirement? You can "ask" for the sacrament on the same day of your conversion, right? So if you die the next day without getting one, are you eternally lost? Or is it a week? A month? Aren't you forcing God to make an arbitrary dividing line from which to base one's eternal destination? Is God's justice arbitrary like that?

And if you decide on an arbitrary dividing line, then your conundrum becomes this: why can God save someone at one point in that line, but must send to Hell someone who is just a smidgeon across it? A person who dies after a week from converting is given a pass on the sacraments.... but a week and one day is too much, and so they go to Hell? Both truly believe, yet one goes to Hell on a technicality. Is that the Gospel?

---

It's neither the Gospel nor is it Catholicism.

You presumably believe works are necessary (see again James 2:26), but not for someone like the thief on the cross.

---

You keep trying to accuse me of misrepresenting Roman Catholicism, but I'm only giving you the logic that necessarily follows from the beliefs from your very own sources. Clearly, for people who've had enough time to be water baptized, your church teaches that it's an absolute necessity for salvation. If you say there's an "out" to this, or a period of time where it's "too soon" to be held accountable for the requirement, then you're double talking, and it shows that your beliefs are untenable because then you've created a situation where God has to be purely arbitrary in determining justice and a person's eternal fate. This conundrum is inescapable, as your inability/unwillingness to respond to it shows.

And no, I don't believe "works are necessary" for salvation. I believe what the Bible teaches, that only faith saves, and works are the manifestation of that faith which already saves you. Saying works are "necessary" implies that you aren't saved until you perform works. That would inherently mean that one can have true faith, but still go to Hell because of a failure to perform sacraments. And that would completely contradict Jesus' gospel. You can deny that the Roman Catholic church teaches this all day, but to the rational world there just isn't any other way to take the sacraments being "necessary" other than for what it means.

---

Your objections to works and your objections to sacraments are somewhat different issues. And again, you really just need to investigate what the Church teaches before trying to comment on it. I'm out for now.

---

You're constant assertion that I've gotten Roman Catholicism wrong apparently is just a tactic to get out of a corner that your church's views put you in.

---

Have fun with that.

---

The posts above display it. You had no answer.

I hope you all had a great weekend

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Again, while I appreciate the respectful discourse, we simply disagree that scripture in any way supports the idea that a person is doomed because they didn't confess some sin prior to death. For instance, you were good last night after confessing, but let's say you were involved in a fatal accident on the way to confession? Doomed to hell for an eternity? Or going to spend some time in a place Catholics call purgatory?

---

With respect to dying in an accident on my way to confession, I would be at the mercy of Jesus. Having said that, if I died with a truly repentant heart, the Church teaches that I would receive salvation. I had already repented of my sin and was on my way to confession. We don't see God as a legalist deity that demands a strict adherence to a set of rules or face punishment.

To flesh out your first sentence, the Church views the following passages that we should repent and confess our sins:

Acts 2:38 - "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit"

1 John 1:9 - "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness"

James 5:16 - "Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed.

Of course, this is predicated on the believe that Catholics hold that one can lose salvation.

Lastly (on this), Purgatory is only for those who die in God's friendship (i.e. no mortal sin on their soul), but still have an attachment to sin when they die. This is a topic for another day (or thread.)

Mothra said:

---

Of course not. Scripture doesn't state, much less suggest we are doomed merely because we didn't confess immediately before we passed.

---

One doesn't have to confess their sins immediately before we pass. We simply need to confess and not have a mortal sin on our conscience. Having said that, this is why the Church offers Last Rites (the sacraments and prayers offered to those nearly death. It three sacraments of Penance (confession), Anointing of the Sick, and Viaticum "food for the journey" which is a very small piece of the Eucharist. In addition to this it is prayers and blessing for the dying, the family, and caregivers.

Mothra said:

---

As for reality, I believe he is absolutely saying that we can have no certainty regarding whether we are actually saved.

---

I overstepped my bounds here. I'll, respectively, let him speak to that topic. I can only try my best to present the Catholic Church standpoint on salvation. I hope that I was able to represent the Catholic viewpoint clearly and accurately for you to understand. You may not agree with it, but I trust that I was able to present it properly.

Mothra said:

---

We disagree on the last part. I believe while it might not say it, the Catholic Church does in fact believe that good works are required to be saved.

---

Please provide an example so that we can better discuss your belief.

I'm not sure if we are talking about different but intertwined concepts here. For the sake of clarity (please don't mistake this with condescension), I'll use the terms Justification, Salvation, and Sanctification.

Justification the initial grace by which a person is made righteous in the sight of God. It involves that forgiveness of sins and the imputation of God's righteousness, aligning us with God's will. It occurs when we first come to faith and is often associated with the sacrament of Baptism.

Salvation the ultimate goal of eternal life with God. It is a gift offered by God which we accept through faith and cooperation with grace.

Sanctification the process by which a justified person is made holy through the work of the Holy Spirit. It involves A continual growth in holiness and conformity to the likeness of Christ throughout one's life. This process includes the practice of virtue, reception of the sacraments, prayer, and cooperation with divine grace.

I'm happy to discuss any of these terms or use other terms of your choose with definition.

PS. Let me add Original Sin the Catholic Church teaches that we are born with this. It is not necessarily something that we have but something we lack. Due to the fall of our first parents, we lack - sanctifying grace. We have a God-size hole in our hearts. Baptism washes away original sin through it, God gives us sanctifying grace.

---

So, let's say you've been a true believe your whole life, and committed a sin (as we all do), say, telling a lie. Before you had repented of that specific sin, you die in a car crash. Are you now destined to hell for an eternity, or did the grace you accepted when you received Christ cover that sin?

For the record, I don't disagree with your terminology on justification, salvation and sanctification. I suppose the difference is that I do not believe scripture in any way supports the idea that the guy who doesn't repent of the lie before dying is destined for hell. We will never be fully sanctified and without sin while on this planet.

The works aspect is the idea that we must continually do certain things to attain salvation. I know you don't see it that way, but I don't see any other way to term it. It is a works-based faith, no question, because it continually requires action on the believers part to stay in God's good graces, and I think scripture is quite clear that's not how salvation works.

---

In your framework, that's a fair question and concern.

The assumption behind your question is that salvation is a legal status that must remain intact at the moment of death. It assumes a forensic only model of salvation that we don't hold to. It's built from penal substitutionary atonement which developed way later. Even many mainline Protestants reject PSA.

---

Developed "way later"?? Penal substitutionary atonement is literally in the book of Isaiah.

---

No. Isaiah does not teach that the Father pours out retributive wrath on the Son as punishment in our legal place

Isaiah clearly teaches substitutionary suffering. Jesus didn't die to change God's mind about us.

---

Penal substitutionary atonement does not equal retributive wrath. You are rejecting your straw man instead of what it actually is.

---

The biggest Calvinist voices sure do believe that. What do you believe?

Do you think human nature after the fall is so wrecked that it can't cooperate with God, can't bear anything holy as it exists, and can't say yes to Him in any meaningful way by virtue of its nature?

---

Does the Calvinist view have to be correct, in order for penal substitutionary atonement spoken by Isaiah to be true?

Straight up question - does, or does not Isaiah 53 teach that Jesus bore the penalty for sin that was due us, in our stead (i.e. as a substitute)?

---

No it doesn't teach penalty.

The passage says He was pierced for our transgressions, that our iniquity was laid on Him, and that His suffering brings us peace. That clearly shows substitution.

But it doesn't explicitly say that God punished Him instead of punishing us in a strict judicial transfer sense. That's a theological interpretation drawn later, not language directly stated in the text.

We don't inherit the guilt of Adam's sin. We inherit the consequences. Most prots think we inherent guilt and that's why many think babies and children are damned to hell if they die. It's why you buy into PSA.

When sin is framed primarily as inherited guilt and salvation as legal acquittal, the Christian life centers on assurance of verdict. When sin is framed primarily as corruption and death, salvation centers on transformation and union.

Eastern Christianity didn't adopt Augustine's guilt imputation model in the same way. You've essentially borrowed western Medieval Catholic theology…satisfaction theory.

---

If there was no penalty, then why did Jesus have to suffer and die, and face being forsaken by God, the penalty of our sin? Couldn't this "transformation and union" to God happen through Jesus even if he had a long, happy life?

---

The penalty of sin is death and corruption. Jesus didn't sin but was unjustifiably murdered and that allowed him to defeat death.
The cross was necessary not because the Father needed someone to punish, but because humanity needed death itself to be broken.

Christ bore the penalty, death, and destroyed it through resurrection.

Jesus quotes Psalm 22: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? That's not a metaphysical rupture inside the Trinity. I hope that you're not arguing separate wills within the Trinity or Nestorianism.

The early Fathers ( Athanasius of Alexandria) argue that Christ had to die because that which held humanity captive (death) had to be destroyed from within.

---

Okay, so you're now saying that there was indeed a penalty.

So, you believe there was a penalty of sin that Jesus was our substitute for which atoned for our sin, correct?

---

I do not mean that the Father poured out retributive wrath on the Son in a courtroom exchange, as though God needed to punish someone in order to forgive.

I mean that the consequence of sin (death, corruption, and alienation) is what Christ entered into voluntarily. He bore the full reality of our fallen condition, including death itself, and destroyed it through His resurrection.

The cross is not God punishing Jesus instead of us.
It is God in Christ entering our death to defeat it from within.

We don't have an angry volcano God.
Gold loves us.

---

Without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness (Hebrews 9:22).

Isn't Isaiah 53 clearly speaking of Jesus bearing the penalty that is supposed to be ours? You agree he was a substitute - but what is Jesus being a substitute for?

This isn't about God's "volcano" anger, it's about his holiness and justice. He can not tolerate the debt of sin, therefore it must be paid for, otherwise his holiness and justice are violated. Jesus bore the penalty and paid for it. If Jesus' death did not pay for and atone for all our sin, then there is no way for forgiveness, and no way for reconciliation with a holy God.

---

You nailed it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Christ's life is not a set of points that are to be looked at piecemeal. The whole life of Christ is our salvation.

Annunciation: God becomes incarnate and so mediates the divine and human natures. Restoring the union of the natures allowing for our theosis or deification. God became man so that man might become god (through participation not by natures) St Athanasius

Christmas: Christ fulfills the prophecy of the virgin birth

Circumcision/Temple: Christ joins the covenant and doing so joins the Israelites in their struggle with God.

Miracles and Signs: Proving his ability to forgive sins of his own authority and so declaring himself God.

Passion: Fulfillment of Isaiah, obedience to God, and so becoming New Adam

Death: By his death sin is defeated. Christ desired to join us in death, He is the victorious leader over sin and death, He desired to redeem suffering itself, He taught us to die to ourselves in obedience to God

Resurrection: Christ defeats death. Rescuing humanity from the last hurdle to the theosis of man. He had restored our communion with the divine by his incarnation, restored our image by his perfect life, and restored our immortality by his resurrection allowing us to achieve the goal of the human life: theosis. God created man in his image and likeness so that man could, in love and humility, participate in what God is. That would be impossible without the whole life of Christ.

---

Then why are okay with crediting Mary for your salvation in your liturgy?

---

Mary is not a co-redeemer.
She is not the source of grace.
She does not replace Christ.

"Save us, Lord, we are perishing!" (Matthew 8:25)
"You will save both yourself and your hearers" (1 Timothy 4:16)
"Save" can obviously mean: deliver, preserve, intercede, help etc.

"Most Holy Theotokos, save us" means "Intercede for us, Protect us. Help us by your prayers."

Asking Mary to pray for us is no different in principle than asking another Christian to pray for us. Christ remains the only Savior in the ultimate sense.

"The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" James 5:16

Do you really think Orthodox Christians believe that Mary replaces Christ?

I'm not gonna say Protestants bowing down before a band with their hands up is worshiping the band. Your assertion is about as offensive as that.

---

Protestants don't say these things about the church band in their hymns:

"She is the propitiation of the whole world"
"She is the restoration of men."
"She is the forgiveness for many who have stumbled."
"Through thee (Mary) our sin is remitted."
"She is the ship of all who would be saved."
"She is the gate of salvation."
"She is the provider of God's mercy."
"Through thou hast given new birth to those conceived in shame."
"She is the beginning of the new and spiritual creation."
"She joinest in union the faithful to the Lord."
"She taketh away the filth of sin."
"She is the salvation of my soul."
"She is the acceptable sacrifice."
"She is the emblem of God without spot."


Don't all those phrases sure seem like they're replacing Jesus?

You are in so much denial. Wake up. If you truly don't see the problem here, then simply stated, you are NOT a Christian who has the Holy Spirit.

---

Why do you continuously resort to personal attacks?

Paul says he "saves" some (1 Cor 9:22).
James says a believer can "save a soul from death" (James 5:20).
Paul calls himself a "co-worker with God" (1 Cor 3:9).

I affirm without hesitation that Jesus Christ alone is Savior, Redeemer, Propitiation, and Lord.
If any hymn were interpreted as making Mary equal to Christ, I would reject that interpretation.
Orthodox hymnography uses exalted poetic language to describe her role in the Incarnation, not to replace Christ.

Calling me "not a Christian" does not prove your point, it just avoids engaging the distinction I'm making.

---

Where did I "attack" you? Where did I say that you were not a Christian?

And how do you say that I "continuously" attack you? Isn't that false witness?

---

You said I'm in denial and I need to wake up and that if I don't see the problem then I'm "not a Christian who has the Holy Spirit" aka, I will not be saved.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Christ's life is not a set of points that are to be looked at piecemeal. The whole life of Christ is our salvation.

Annunciation: God becomes incarnate and so mediates the divine and human natures. Restoring the union of the natures allowing for our theosis or deification. God became man so that man might become god (through participation not by natures) St Athanasius

Christmas: Christ fulfills the prophecy of the virgin birth

Circumcision/Temple: Christ joins the covenant and doing so joins the Israelites in their struggle with God.

Miracles and Signs: Proving his ability to forgive sins of his own authority and so declaring himself God.

Passion: Fulfillment of Isaiah, obedience to God, and so becoming New Adam

Death: By his death sin is defeated. Christ desired to join us in death, He is the victorious leader over sin and death, He desired to redeem suffering itself, He taught us to die to ourselves in obedience to God

Resurrection: Christ defeats death. Rescuing humanity from the last hurdle to the theosis of man. He had restored our communion with the divine by his incarnation, restored our image by his perfect life, and restored our immortality by his resurrection allowing us to achieve the goal of the human life: theosis. God created man in his image and likeness so that man could, in love and humility, participate in what God is. That would be impossible without the whole life of Christ.

---

Then why are okay with crediting Mary for your salvation in your liturgy?

---

Mary is not a co-redeemer.
She is not the source of grace.
She does not replace Christ.

"Save us, Lord, we are perishing!" (Matthew 8:25)
"You will save both yourself and your hearers" (1 Timothy 4:16)
"Save" can obviously mean: deliver, preserve, intercede, help etc.

"Most Holy Theotokos, save us" means "Intercede for us, Protect us. Help us by your prayers."

Asking Mary to pray for us is no different in principle than asking another Christian to pray for us. Christ remains the only Savior in the ultimate sense.

"The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" James 5:16

Do you really think Orthodox Christians believe that Mary replaces Christ?

I'm not gonna say Protestants bowing down before a band with their hands up is worshiping the band. Your assertion is about as offensive as that.

---

Protestants don't say these things about the church band in their hymns:

"She is the propitiation of the whole world"
"She is the restoration of men."
"She is the forgiveness for many who have stumbled."
"Through thee (Mary) our sin is remitted."
"She is the ship of all who would be saved."
"She is the gate of salvation."
"She is the provider of God's mercy."
"Through thou hast given new birth to those conceived in shame."
"She is the beginning of the new and spiritual creation."
"She joinest in union the faithful to the Lord."
"She taketh away the filth of sin."
"She is the salvation of my soul."
"She is the acceptable sacrifice."
"She is the emblem of God without spot."


Don't all those phrases sure seem like they're replacing Jesus?

You are in so much denial. Wake up. If you truly don't see the problem here, then simply stated, you are NOT a Christian who has the Holy Spirit.

---

Why do you continuously resort to personal attacks?

Paul says he "saves" some (1 Cor 9:22).
James says a believer can "save a soul from death" (James 5:20).
Paul calls himself a "co-worker with God" (1 Cor 3:9).

I affirm without hesitation that Jesus Christ alone is Savior, Redeemer, Propitiation, and Lord.
If any hymn were interpreted as making Mary equal to Christ, I would reject that interpretation.
Orthodox hymnography uses exalted poetic language to describe her role in the Incarnation, not to replace Christ.

Calling me "not a Christian" does not prove your point, it just avoids engaging the distinction I'm making.

---

Where did I "attack" you? Where did I say that you were not a Christian?

And how do you say that I "continuously" attack you? Isn't that false witness?

---

You said I'm in denial and I need to wake up and that if I don't see the problem then I'm "not a Christian who has the Holy Spirit" aka, I will not be saved.

---

Stating a fact is not an attack. I've shown you Orthodox hymns that CLEARLY credit Mary for salvation multiple times already, and yet you completely ignore them when trying to defend Orthodoxy. The incontrovertible fact is that IF you truly don't see any problem with those statements in those hymns, then you are NOT a Christian. This isn't controversial at all. It should be obvious to anyone with at least half a brain that Christians would and should NEVER say or even come close to hinting that:

"She (Mary) is the propitiation of the whole world"
"She is the restoration of men."
"She is the forgiveness for many who have stumbled."
"Through thee (Mary) our sin is remitted."
"She is the ship of all who would be saved."
"She is the gate of salvation."
"She is the provider of God's mercy."
"Through thou hast given new birth to those conceived in shame."
"She is the beginning of the new and spiritual creation."
"She joinest in union the faithful to the Lord."
"She taketh away the filth of sin."
"She is the salvation of my soul."
"She is the acceptable sacrifice."
"She is the emblem of God without spot."

For God's sake, man. READ what's right in front of you, and stop denying the obvious and egregious heresy and idolatry that's right before you. I state again, with absolutely NO reservation or hesitancy, that anyone who does not recognize this, who does not see how evil this is, is NOT a Christian. I just can't understand how ridiculously simple this is, yet so many here who call themselves "Christians" are so unwilling to acknowledge the incredibly obvious. It shows just how deep in deception and how completely devoid of the Holy Spirit they are. This unequivocally would mean that they are not Christians. Period.

So I ask you - in all truth, do YOU see the problem in those phrases? Stop trying to defend your tribe, and speak from your heart, and answer.

What Bible verses are you basing these assertions on?

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

What Bible verses are you basing these assertions on?

---

Who are you asking?

Eusebius (260 - 339 AD), the "father of church history", on Isaiah 53:

"In this he shows that Christ, being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on himself. And therefore he will suffer the penalty of sinners, and will be pained on their behalf; and not on his own" (Proof of the Gospel, 3.2).

Penal substitutionary atonement was a view held by the early church, because it's directly from the book of Isaiah. The idea that it is a "new invention" is an outright lie.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Eusebius (260 - 339 AD), the "father of church history", on Isaiah 53:

"In this he shows that Christ, being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on himself. And therefore he will suffer the penalty of sinners, and will be pained on their behalf; and not on his own" (Proof of the Gospel, 3.2).

Penal substitutionary atonement was a view held by the early church, because it's directly from the book of Isaiah. The idea that it is a "new invention" is an outright lie.

---

The Church holds more closely to substitutional atonement focusing on the concept of Jesus's sacrificial and his voluntary offering of himself for the redemption of humanity.

The Church rejects penal substitution as Jesus taking on the punishment deserved by sinners satisfying the demands for justice and experiencing the divine wrath. This view seems to make God an unjust judge. We know that God can't be unjust.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Eusebius (260 - 339 AD), the "father of church history", on Isaiah 53:

"In this he shows that Christ, being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on himself. And therefore he will suffer the penalty of sinners, and will be pained on their behalf; and not on his own" (Proof of the Gospel, 3.2).

Penal substitutionary atonement was a view held by the early church, because it's directly from the book of Isaiah. The idea that it is a "new invention" is an outright lie.

---

The Church holds more closely to substitutional atonement focusing on the concept of Jesus's sacrificial and his voluntary offering of himself for the redemption of humanity.

The Church rejects penal substitution as Jesus taking on the punishment deserved by sinners satisfying the demands for justice and experiencing the divine wrath. This view seems to make God an unjust judge. We know that God can't be unjust.

---

Then your assumption, that this makes God unjust, must be wrong. Otherwise Isaiah is wrong. Jesus taking on the penalty in the place of sinners not only fulfills God's justice, but also his love. This is THE heart of the Gospel.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Eusebius (260 - 339 AD), the "father of church history", on Isaiah 53:

"In this he shows that Christ, being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on himself. And therefore he will suffer the penalty of sinners, and will be pained on their behalf; and not on his own" (Proof of the Gospel, 3.2).

Penal substitutionary atonement was a view held by the early church, because it's directly from the book of Isaiah. The idea that it is a "new invention" is an outright lie.

---

The Church holds more closely to substitutional atonement focusing on the concept of Jesus's sacrificial and his voluntary offering of himself for the redemption of humanity.

The Church rejects penal substitution as Jesus taking on the punishment deserved by sinners satisfying the demands for justice and experiencing the divine wrath. This view seems to make God an unjust judge. We know that God can't be unjust.

---

They think the main problem in the Bible is individual sin needing forgiveness.
Our sin problem is not the main problem.

The main problem is a PRESENCE problem. We have lost access to the presence of God and as a result have lost perspective on the purposes of God. We have become slaves to sin.

We were already dead in sin (Ephesians 2). Jesus did not die instead of us, He is dying with us. And He calls us to die with Him and die in Him.

The only reason to know God or follow Jesus is not to be saved.
While we do need forgiveness of sin...we need to try to escape the slavery of sin. The Bible speaks abundantly about this.

Biblically, Jesus' death is unjust, and we die with Christ and in Christ, not "Christ instead of us."

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Eusebius (260 - 339 AD), the "father of church history", on Isaiah 53:

"In this he shows that Christ, being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on himself. And therefore he will suffer the penalty of sinners, and will be pained on their behalf; and not on his own" (Proof of the Gospel, 3.2).

Penal substitutionary atonement was a view held by the early church, because it's directly from the book of Isaiah. The idea that it is a "new invention" is an outright lie.

---

The Church holds more closely to substitutional atonement focusing on the concept of Jesus's sacrificial and his voluntary offering of himself for the redemption of humanity.

The Church rejects penal substitution as Jesus taking on the punishment deserved by sinners satisfying the demands for justice and experiencing the divine wrath. This view seems to make God an unjust judge. We know that God can't be unjust.

---

They think the main problem in the Bible as individual sin needing forgiveness.
Our sin problem is not the main problem.

The main problem is a PRESENCE problem. We have lost access to the presence of God and as a result have lost perspective on the purposes of God. We have become slaves to sin.

We were already dead in sin (Ephesians 2). Jesus not dying instead of us, He is dying with us. And He calls us to die with Him and die in Him.

The only reason to know God or follow Jesus is not to be saved.
While we do need forgiveness of sin...we need to try to escape the slavery of sin. The Bible speaks abundantly about this.

Biblically, Jesus' death is unjust, and we die with Christ and in Christ, not "Christ instead of us."

---

Jesus died for us so that we don't have to eternally die. It most certainly IS "Jesus instead of us", i.e. substitutionary. You're flatly denying what Isaiah makes clear.

Can you trust a church that lied to you about penal substitutionary atonement?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Eusebius (260 - 339 AD), the "father of church history", on Isaiah 53:

"In this he shows that Christ, being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on himself. And therefore he will suffer the penalty of sinners, and will be pained on their behalf; and not on his own" (Proof of the Gospel, 3.2).

Penal substitutionary atonement was a view held by the early church, because it's directly from the book of Isaiah. The idea that it is a "new invention" is an outright lie.

---

The Church holds more closely to substitutional atonement focusing on the concept of Jesus's sacrificial and his voluntary offering of himself for the redemption of humanity.

The Church rejects penal substitution as Jesus taking on the punishment deserved by sinners satisfying the demands for justice and experiencing the divine wrath. This view seems to make God an unjust judge. We know that God can't be unjust.

---

They think the main problem in the Bible as individual sin needing forgiveness.
Our sin problem is not the main problem.

The main problem is a PRESENCE problem. We have lost access to the presence of God and as a result have lost perspective on the purposes of God. We have become slaves to sin.

We were already dead in sin (Ephesians 2). Jesus not dying instead of us, He is dying with us. And He calls us to die with Him and die in Him.

The only reason to know God or follow Jesus is not to be saved.
While we do need forgiveness of sin...we need to try to escape the slavery of sin. The Bible speaks abundantly about this.

Biblically, Jesus' death is unjust, and we die with Christ and in Christ, not "Christ instead of us."

---

Jesus died for us so that we don't have to eternally die. It most certainly IS "Jesus instead of us", i.e. substitutionary. You're flatly denying what Isaiah makes clear.

Can you trust a church that lied to you about penal substitutionary atonement?

---

You're denying that we're already dead in sin.

Can you trust your own judgment? How do you know your interpretation is true?

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Eusebius (260 - 339 AD), the "father of church history", on Isaiah 53:

"In this he shows that Christ, being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on himself. And therefore he will suffer the penalty of sinners, and will be pained on their behalf; and not on his own" (Proof of the Gospel, 3.2).

Penal substitutionary atonement was a view held by the early church, because it's directly from the book of Isaiah. The idea that it is a "new invention" is an outright lie.

---

The Church holds more closely to substitutional atonement focusing on the concept of Jesus's sacrificial and his voluntary offering of himself for the redemption of humanity.

The Church rejects penal substitution as Jesus taking on the punishment deserved by sinners satisfying the demands for justice and experiencing the divine wrath. This view seems to make God an unjust judge. We know that God can't be unjust.

---

They think the main problem in the Bible as individual sin needing forgiveness.
Our sin problem is not the main problem.

The main problem is a PRESENCE problem. We have lost access to the presence of God and as a result have lost perspective on the purposes of God. We have become slaves to sin.

We were already dead in sin (Ephesians 2). Jesus not dying instead of us, He is dying with us. And He calls us to die with Him and die in Him.

The only reason to know God or follow Jesus is not to be saved.
While we do need forgiveness of sin...we need to try to escape the slavery of sin. The Bible speaks abundantly about this.

Biblically, Jesus' death is unjust, and we die with Christ and in Christ, not "Christ instead of us."

---

Jesus died for us so that we don't have to eternally die. It most certainly IS "Jesus instead of us", i.e. substitutionary. You're flatly denying what Isaiah makes clear.

Can you trust a church that lied to you about penal substitutionary atonement?

---

You're denying that we're already dead in sin.

Can you trust your own judgment? How do you know your interpretation is true?

---

I'm denying that we're already "dead in sin"?

So you're saying that Isaiah is NOT speaking of penal substitutionary atonement? What do you say about Eusebius saying exactly what I'm saying, what your church calls a "new invention"?

Can you trust a church that tells you to credit Mary for your salvation?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Eusebius (260 - 339 AD), the "father of church history", on Isaiah 53:

"In this he shows that Christ, being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on himself. And therefore he will suffer the penalty of sinners, and will be pained on their behalf; and not on his own" (Proof of the Gospel, 3.2).

Penal substitutionary atonement was a view held by the early church, because it's directly from the book of Isaiah. The idea that it is a "new invention" is an outright lie.

---

The Church holds more closely to substitutional atonement focusing on the concept of Jesus's sacrificial and his voluntary offering of himself for the redemption of humanity.

The Church rejects penal substitution as Jesus taking on the punishment deserved by sinners satisfying the demands for justice and experiencing the divine wrath. This view seems to make God an unjust judge. We know that God can't be unjust.

---

They think the main problem in the Bible as individual sin needing forgiveness.
Our sin problem is not the main problem.

The main problem is a PRESENCE problem. We have lost access to the presence of God and as a result have lost perspective on the purposes of God. We have become slaves to sin.

We were already dead in sin (Ephesians 2). Jesus not dying instead of us, He is dying with us. And He calls us to die with Him and die in Him.

The only reason to know God or follow Jesus is not to be saved.
While we do need forgiveness of sin...we need to try to escape the slavery of sin. The Bible speaks abundantly about this.

Biblically, Jesus' death is unjust, and we die with Christ and in Christ, not "Christ instead of us."

---

Jesus died for us so that we don't have to eternally die. It most certainly IS "Jesus instead of us", i.e. substitutionary. You're flatly denying what Isaiah makes clear.

Can you trust a church that lied to you about penal substitutionary atonement?

---

You're denying that we're already dead in sin.

Can you trust your own judgment? How do you know your interpretation is true?

---

I'm denying that we're already "dead in sin"?

So you're saying that Isaiah is NOT speaking of penal substitutionary atonement? What do you say about Eusebius saying exactly what I'm saying, what your church calls a "new invention"?

Can you trust a church that tells you to credit Mary for your salvation?

---

This is your logic:

God's justice requires punishment. The punishment is death. Christ takes our punishment in our place. God's wrath is satisfied. We are declared righteous.

You CANNOT argue for PSA without committing to Nestorianism and Arianism. It's impossible.

Penal substitution only works if humanity's punishment is still awaiting execution. But Scripture says we are already dead in sin. You can't substitute someone into a penalty that's already fully operative.

Dead people don't need a substitute execution, they need resurrection.

Hebrews 2:14

Christ destroys "the one who has the power of death."

1 Corinthians 15:26

"The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

Colossians 2:15 He disarmed rulers and authorities.

God is not the obstacle. The disagreement is more about how the terms in "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" are disambiguated.

I reject that the atonement is penal insofar as you take this to mean that the debt paid to God was paid in the currency of punishment or torment. In my view, the debt is paid in the "currency" of righteousness, not the currency of punishment or torment points.

I reject that the atonement is a substitution in the sense of "Jesus did this so we don't have to, as a disconnected proxy". In my view, Jesus did what he did so that, in with and through Him, we could do likewise. Without this understanding, it is impossible to make sense out of Paul's letters.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Eusebius (260 - 339 AD), the "father of church history", on Isaiah 53:

"In this he shows that Christ, being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on himself. And therefore he will suffer the penalty of sinners, and will be pained on their behalf; and not on his own" (Proof of the Gospel, 3.2).

Penal substitutionary atonement was a view held by the early church, because it's directly from the book of Isaiah. The idea that it is a "new invention" is an outright lie.

---

The Church holds more closely to substitutional atonement focusing on the concept of Jesus's sacrificial and his voluntary offering of himself for the redemption of humanity.

The Church rejects penal substitution as Jesus taking on the punishment deserved by sinners satisfying the demands for justice and experiencing the divine wrath. This view seems to make God an unjust judge. We know that God can't be unjust.

---

They think the main problem in the Bible as individual sin needing forgiveness.
Our sin problem is not the main problem.

The main problem is a PRESENCE problem. We have lost access to the presence of God and as a result have lost perspective on the purposes of God. We have become slaves to sin.

We were already dead in sin (Ephesians 2). Jesus not dying instead of us, He is dying with us. And He calls us to die with Him and die in Him.

The only reason to know God or follow Jesus is not to be saved.
While we do need forgiveness of sin...we need to try to escape the slavery of sin. The Bible speaks abundantly about this.

Biblically, Jesus' death is unjust, and we die with Christ and in Christ, not "Christ instead of us."

---

Jesus died for us so that we don't have to eternally die. It most certainly IS "Jesus instead of us", i.e. substitutionary. You're flatly denying what Isaiah makes clear.

Can you trust a church that lied to you about penal substitutionary atonement?

---

You're denying that we're already dead in sin.

Can you trust your own judgment? How do you know your interpretation is true?

---

I'm denying that we're already "dead in sin"?

So you're saying that Isaiah is NOT speaking of penal substitutionary atonement? What do you say about Eusebius saying exactly what I'm saying, what your church calls a "new invention"?

Can you trust a church that tells you to credit Mary for your salvation?

---

This is your logic:

God's justice requires punishment. The punishment is death. Christ takes our punishment in our place. God's wrath is satisfied. We are declared righteous.

You CANNOT argue for PSA without committing to Nestorianism and Arianism. It's impossible.

Penal substitution only works if humanity's punishment is still awaiting execution. But Scripture says we are already dead in sin. You can't substitute someone into a penalty that's already fully operative.

Dead people don't need a substitute execution, they need resurrection.

Hebrews 2:14

Christ destroys "the one who has the power of death."

1 Corinthians 15:26

"The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

Colossians 2:15 He disarmed rulers and authorities.

God is not the obstacle. The disagreement is more about how the terms in "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" are disambiguated.

I reject that the atonement is penal insofar as you take this to mean that the debt paid to God was paid in the currency of punishment or torment. In my view, the debt is paid in the "currency" of righteousness, not the currency of punishment or torment points.

I reject that the atonement is a substitution in the sense of "Jesus did this so we don't have to, as a disconnected proxy". In my view, Jesus did what he did so that, in with and through Him, we could do likewise. Without this understanding, it is impossible to make sense out of Paul's letters.

---

If you think PSA is Nestorianism and Arianism, then you either don't understand PSA or you don't understand Nestorianism and Arianism, or both.

Scripture clearly tells us that Jesus paid the penalty of sin that was deservedly ours (substitutionary) and that this payment atoned for our sin. No matter how you slice it, that's penal substitutionary atonement defined. You're just not making any case that Scripture says any different. It most certainly is something that "Jesus did so that we don't have to". You are denying the clear teaching of Scripture that Jesus' suffering and death was substitutionary.

I think your problem is that you assume PSA automatically precludes Jesus' death being a defeat of death with his resurrection, and the opening of a pathway for believers to follow. For some reason, you think they are not able to both be true. Your thinking is limited. Jesus' death can BOTH be a payment for sin in our stead, AND a defeat of death. Scripture supports both. Instead of accepting what Scripture teaches, your church rejects one for the other, which you don't have to do. Your belief system is being built on the non sequitur that God subjecting his Son to the penalty of sin means that God is being "unjust". This belief stems from the fact that you don't truly understand and appreciate God's holiness. For us to be reconciled to a holy God, the debt of sin MUST be paid for - if not by Jesus, then it'd have to be paid by us. If we are to pay for it, then the price is eternal death (Romans 6:23). But because Jesus paid the debt with his sacrifice, that eternal price is no longer necessary for those who believe in him and trust in him that he has paid for it in full. Penal substitutionary atonement is the HEART of the Gospel. That's the danger of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy - both are rejecting the true nature of what Jesus has done for us.

Gnight

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Eusebius (260 - 339 AD), the "father of church history", on Isaiah 53:

"In this he shows that Christ, being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on himself. And therefore he will suffer the penalty of sinners, and will be pained on their behalf; and not on his own" (Proof of the Gospel, 3.2).

Penal substitutionary atonement was a view held by the early church, because it's directly from the book of Isaiah. The idea that it is a "new invention" is an outright lie.

---

The Church holds more closely to substitutional atonement focusing on the concept of Jesus's sacrificial and his voluntary offering of himself for the redemption of humanity.

The Church rejects penal substitution as Jesus taking on the punishment deserved by sinners satisfying the demands for justice and experiencing the divine wrath. This view seems to make God an unjust judge. We know that God can't be unjust.

---

Then your assumption, that this makes God unjust, must be wrong. Otherwise Isaiah is wrong. Jesus taking on the penalty in the place of sinners not only fulfills God's justice, but also his love. This is THE heart of the Gospel.

---

Are you saying the God punished Jesus and poured out his wrath on him?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Eusebius (260 - 339 AD), the "father of church history", on Isaiah 53:

"In this he shows that Christ, being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on himself. And therefore he will suffer the penalty of sinners, and will be pained on their behalf; and not on his own" (Proof of the Gospel, 3.2).

Penal substitutionary atonement was a view held by the early church, because it's directly from the book of Isaiah. The idea that it is a "new invention" is an outright lie.

---

The Church holds more closely to substitutional atonement focusing on the concept of Jesus's sacrificial and his voluntary offering of himself for the redemption of humanity.

The Church rejects penal substitution as Jesus taking on the punishment deserved by sinners satisfying the demands for justice and experiencing the divine wrath. This view seems to make God an unjust judge. We know that God can't be unjust.

---

Then your assumption, that this makes God unjust, must be wrong. Otherwise Isaiah is wrong. Jesus taking on the penalty in the place of sinners not only fulfills God's justice, but also his love. This is THE heart of the Gospel.

---

Are you saying the God punished Jesus and poured out his wrath on him?

---

I'm saying Jesus voluntarily took the due punishment, i.e. penalty for sin for us.

When you think of God's "wrath", what are you thinking of?

No matter how you want to put it, Isaiah clearly is speaking of penal substitutionary atonement. This can't be denied.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Eusebius (260 - 339 AD), the "father of church history", on Isaiah 53:

"In this he shows that Christ, being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on himself. And therefore he will suffer the penalty of sinners, and will be pained on their behalf; and not on his own" (Proof of the Gospel, 3.2).

Penal substitutionary atonement was a view held by the early church, because it's directly from the book of Isaiah. The idea that it is a "new invention" is an outright lie.

---

The Church holds more closely to substitutional atonement focusing on the concept of Jesus's sacrificial and his voluntary offering of himself for the redemption of humanity.

The Church rejects penal substitution as Jesus taking on the punishment deserved by sinners satisfying the demands for justice and experiencing the divine wrath. This view seems to make God an unjust judge. We know that God can't be unjust.

---

They think the main problem in the Bible as individual sin needing forgiveness.
Our sin problem is not the main problem.

The main problem is a PRESENCE problem. We have lost access to the presence of God and as a result have lost perspective on the purposes of God. We have become slaves to sin.

We were already dead in sin (Ephesians 2). Jesus not dying instead of us, He is dying with us. And He calls us to die with Him and die in Him.

The only reason to know God or follow Jesus is not to be saved.
While we do need forgiveness of sin...we need to try to escape the slavery of sin. The Bible speaks abundantly about this.

Biblically, Jesus' death is unjust, and we die with Christ and in Christ, not "Christ instead of us."

---

Jesus died for us so that we don't have to eternally die. It most certainly IS "Jesus instead of us", i.e. substitutionary. You're flatly denying what Isaiah makes clear.

Can you trust a church that lied to you about penal substitutionary atonement?

---

You're denying that we're already dead in sin.

Can you trust your own judgment? How do you know your interpretation is true?

---

I'm denying that we're already "dead in sin"?

So you're saying that Isaiah is NOT speaking of penal substitutionary atonement? What do you say about Eusebius saying exactly what I'm saying, what your church calls a "new invention"?

Can you trust a church that tells you to credit Mary for your salvation?

---

This is your logic:

God's justice requires punishment. The punishment is death. Christ takes our punishment in our place. God's wrath is satisfied. We are declared righteous.

You CANNOT argue for PSA without committing to Nestorianism and Arianism. It's impossible.

Penal substitution only works if humanity's punishment is still awaiting execution. But Scripture says we are already dead in sin. You can't substitute someone into a penalty that's already fully operative.

Dead people don't need a substitute execution, they need resurrection.

Hebrews 2:14

Christ destroys "the one who has the power of death."

1 Corinthians 15:26

"The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

Colossians 2:15 He disarmed rulers and authorities.

God is not the obstacle. The disagreement is more about how the terms in "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" are disambiguated.

I reject that the atonement is penal insofar as you take this to mean that the debt paid to God was paid in the currency of punishment or torment. In my view, the debt is paid in the "currency" of righteousness, not the currency of punishment or torment points.

I reject that the atonement is a substitution in the sense of "Jesus did this so we don't have to, as a disconnected proxy". In my view, Jesus did what he did so that, in with and through Him, we could do likewise. Without this understanding, it is impossible to make sense out of Paul's letters.

---

If you think PSA is Nestorianism and Arianism, then you either don't understand PSA or you don't understand Nestorianism and Arianism, or both.

Scripture clearly tells us that Jesus paid the penalty of sin that was deservedly ours (substitutionary) and that this payment atoned for our sin. No matter how you slice it, that's penal substitutionary atonement defined. You're just not making any case that Scripture says any different. It most certainly is something that "Jesus did so that we don't have to". You are denying the clear teaching of Scripture that Jesus' suffering and death was substitutionary.

I think your problem is that you assume PSA automatically precludes Jesus' death being a defeat of death with his resurrection, and the opening of a pathway for believers to follow. For some reason, you think they are not able to both be true. Your thinking is limited. Jesus' death can BOTH be a payment for sin in our stead, AND a defeat of death. Scripture supports both. Instead of accepting what Scripture teaches, your church rejects one for the other, which you don't have to do. Your belief system is being built on the non sequitur that God subjecting his Son to the penalty of sin means that God is being "unjust". This belief stems from the fact that you don't truly understand and appreciate God's holiness. For us to be reconciled to a holy God, the debt of sin MUST be paid for - if not by Jesus, then it'd have to be paid by us. If we are to pay for it, then the price is eternal death (Romans 6:23). But because Jesus paid the debt with his sacrifice, that eternal price is no longer necessary for those who believe in him and trust in him that he has paid for it in full. Penal substitutionary atonement is the HEART of the Gospel. That's the danger of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy - both are rejecting the true nature of what Jesus has done for us.

---

The issue isn't whether Jesus died "for us." The issue is whether the Father needed to punish the Son before He could forgive. That assumption is precisely what's being questioned.

You haven't provided logic behind your claims. All you've done is come to conclusions. You've asserted that Jesus died for us, which I affirm. But that does not logically entail that the Father poured retributive wrath onto the Son as a legal substitute. That's a theological system layered onto the text. If you want to defend PSA, you need to show the logical bridge from "Christ died for us" to "the Father had to punish Him instead of us." Simply claiming Scripture is clear isn't an argument.