Penal Substitution

[Peace]

I came across this video online. Precisely why Evangelicals should not be allowed to represent the Christian faith. . .

 

[Guest]

What did he get wrong? Isn't this basically what Catholics believe? The Muslim makes good points. I just got out of Mass so I'm sticking with Christianity. Although I don't know what answer the protestant guy was supposed to give that makes sense to the objections raised. I remember a Priest many years ago durning a sermon saying the whole thing was insanity. We just have to trust and have faith. Even if it wasn't true I don't think becoming Muslim makes anymore sense. I would probably just be agnostic.

Btw @dUSt Peace should be Church Militant.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Guest

[Peace]

26 minutes ago, Josh said:

What did he get wrong? Isn't this basically what Catholics believe? The Muslim makes good points. I just got out of Mass so I'm sticking with Christianity. Although I don't know what answer the protestant guy was supposed to give that makes sense to the objections raised. I remember a Priest many years ago durning a sermon saying the whole thing was insanity. We just have to trust and have faith. Even if it wasn't true I don't think becoming Muslim makes anymore sense. I would probably just be agnostic.

Btw @dUSt Peace should be Church Militant.

The Christian guy adheres to a "penal substitution" theory of atonement, which is not what the Church teaches.

I don't think that She has an "official" theory of atonement, but for the most part our people tend to go with a "satisfaction" theory. 

They might seem a bit similar at first glance but if you study them I think you will see that they are quite different. 

Penal substitution seems to fit well with the Protestant conception of salvation by faith alone or "imputed righteousness". I doubt that it can be reconciled with what the Church teaches. 

Plenty of stuff online if you want to delve into any of that.

I don't think I have been around here long enough for CM, but thanks.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Peace

[Guest]

I just watched the video I didn't even know what the phrase meant. I just googled and read up on it a little bit. Will continue to read more. What about this verse? Romans 5:9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!

Just now, Peace said:

I don't think I have been around here long enough for CM, but thanks.

Sure you have.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Guest

[Peace]

We are saved from God's wrath through Jesus, but not in the way that penal substitution posits . . .

The Christian guy also seems to think that all sins are equal, which doesn't vibe too well with our idea of mortal and venial sin.

[Guest]

The way I wrap my mind around it is to pretty much see it as God the Father was right there with Jesus. He felt the physical pain. It doesn't make sense to me if God is far off somewhere watching Jesus sweat blood in the garden and remaining silent when Jesus ask for the cup to be removed. It makes sense if Jesus taking on a physical nature is basically the Father taking on a physical nature as well in Jesus. If that's heretical please correct me. I'm thinking it sorta sounds like it but maybe not. It's like the Muslim guy said a loving God would come himself to make things right he wouldn't send his Son while he sat back and watched. A loving Father loves his Son and protects him not send him to be killed while he lays back. I realize the Holy Trinity says Jesus and the Father are separate persons but it's a mystery as well. 

Edited December 9, 2016 by Guest

[Peace]

22 minutes ago, Josh said:

The way I wrap my mind around it is to pretty much see it as God the Father was right there with Jesus. He felt the physical pain. It doesn't make sense to me if God is far off somewhere watching Jesus sweat blood in the garden and remaining silent when Jesus ask for the cup to be removed. It makes sense if Jesus taking on a physical nature is basically the Father taking on a physical nature as well in Jesus. If that's heretical please correct me. I'm thinking it sorta sounds like it but maybe not. It's like the Muslim guy said a loving God would come himself to make things right he wouldn't send his Son while he sat back and watched. A loving Father loves his Son and protects him not send him to be killed while he lays back. I realize the Trinity says Jesus and the Father are separate but it's a mystery as well. 

Well yeah the inner life of the Trinity and the atonement are still mysteries to us to a certain extent. At least here I don't think the Church can tell you what is right, but She can tell you what is wrong.

I'd be willing to bet a few cents that your post above ain't allowed . . . but maybe you might want to ask a guru about that one. Good night.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Peace

[Guest]

So God was separate from Jesus? Isn't God within us if we're in a state of Grace? Aren't we the temple of the Holy Spirit? This wasn't the case for Jesus?

John 14:10-14  Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works

[Nihil Obstat]

[NadaTeTurbe]

3 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Such a good pattern for a tattoo. 

[dairygirl4u2c]

the first thousand years of christianity the idea of atonement was more nebulus, but arguably more similar to the "christus victor" model of atonement. this is also the model the eastern christians use. traditional western models borrow pagan concepts about wrath and appeasement assicated with sacrafices. 

here is a good site that explains too much detail about the differences. 

http://therebelgod.com/CrossPaper.pdf

http://www.therebelgod.com/2006/08/propitiation.html

if i were to explain it in my words, i'd say love conquers death. due to God's love, Jesus defeated sin and death when he died, and his brethren share in that, strapping themselves to his bootstraps. 

Edited December 9, 2016 by dairygirl4u2c

[Jack4]

On 12/9/2016 at 11:09 AM, Josh said:

The way I wrap my mind around it is to pretty much see it as God the Father was right there with Jesus. He felt the physical pain. It doesn't make sense to me if God is far off somewhere watching Jesus sweat blood in the garden and remaining silent when Jesus ask for the cup to be removed. It makes sense if Jesus taking on a physical nature is basically the Father taking on a physical nature as well in Jesus. If that's heretical please correct me. I'm thinking it sorta sounds like it but maybe not. It's like the Muslim guy said a loving God would come himself to make things right he wouldn't send his Son while he sat back and watched. A loving Father loves his Son and protects him not send him to be killed while he lays back. I realize the Holy Trinity says Jesus and the Father are separate persons but it's a mystery as well. 

https://www.ewtn.com/library/SOURCES/ATHANASI.TXT

[Ice_nine]

Christ also said the Father and he are one. 

And I also think about how when parents who have kids who are suffering from cancer or something, the parents would switch places with them if they could. Watching someone you love suffer is worse than suffering yourself

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

Christ also said the Father and he are one. 

And I also think about how when parents who have kids who are suffering from cancer or something, the parents would switch places with them if they could. Watching someone you love suffer is worse than suffering yourself.

I dunno if this works. It would seem that we should then conclude that Mary Magdalene had it worse than Jesus, because she witnessed his crucifixion.

And we would seemingly still be left with the Muslim guy's response in the video. If the Father is loving and all powerful why wouldn't he prevent Jesus from being crucified, and find some other means of saving mankind? Why wouldn't he just forgive mankind for our sins without having someone die, as in the parable of the prodigal son?

If I were on the couch I would probably say something like "The Church does not teach that the Father punishes Jesus instead of punishing us for our sins, in order to satisfy his demand for justice. That theory of the atonement was developed by Protestants during the reformation, and is incorrect."

Edited December 10, 2016 by Peace

[Jack4]

15 minutes ago, Peace said:

 Why wouldn't he just forgive mankind for our sins without having someone die, as in the parable of the prodigal son?

This discussed at another message board:

http://forums.avemariaradio.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=164612

Summary: Jesus didn't have to, He could reconcile us without death. He was showing His love for us. 

 

2 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

Christ also said the Father and he are one. 

One in nature,  yes. One in person, no. 

 

2 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

And I also think about how when parents who have kids who are suffering from cancer or something, the parents would switch places with them if they could. Watching someone you love suffer is worse than suffering yourself. 

The Father knew about the Crucifixion from all eternity. Was He, then,  suffering from all eternity? 

Edited December 10, 2016 by Jack4