The Effects Of The Atonement (advanced Apologetics

[ICTHUS]

"Christ died for our sins" is a statement Roman Catholics can accepted. "Christ payed [sic] the penalty of our sins" is not. Roman Catholicism rejects the doctrine of substitutionary atonement -- Christ cannot have been on that cross as our substitutes. Perhaps instead He earned an amorphous mass of merit/grace, and this is distributed to human beings through the Sacraments. For, if Christ had been anyone's substitute, Rome would have three problems.

1. Christ could not have died for everyone, because then He would have been everyone's substitute, so everyone would be saved.

2. Justification could not be by infusing us with righteousness through Sacraments. Rather, it would be legal -- Christ would be our legal substitute.

3. Justification could not come slowly over time, as if part of Christ's work is distributed to me now, and part of it later. Rather, it would have to be once-for-all, because the substitution would be complete and instantaneous.

The doctrine of salvation held by the Roman Catholic Church contradicts the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, so she must reject it.

The Catholic Encyclopedia faults Protestants for "the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious punishment. This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins."

How would you all respond to this??

[Theoketos]

How would you all respond to this??

Here is a good book. by a protestant, who is academically honest. It really explains this whole thing about what is righteousness, what is ment by Gospel, Why Christ had to die a death most horrible.

The answer to your question is not simple.

I think that first, some serious clarification of words are in order.

Christ died for our sins" is a statement Roman Catholics can accepted. "Christ payed [sic] the penalty of our sins" is not.

I am not sure what the distinction between paying the penalty for our sins and dieing for our sins. Also and becuase of that I would like to know where the clain that the Catholic Church says anyting, to quote with out referance is a fallacy.

Perhaps instead He earned an amorphous mass of merit/grace, and this is distributed to human beings through the Sacraments.

Fromthis book I have learned that this mass of Grace, is a Protestant way of explaining what in thier view Catholic Works is ment to accomplish. The Catholic Church denied the volume of Grace Idea. It is interesting though to have studied our Seperated Brethen and see what line of thought their beleifs come from...

Christ could not have died for everyone, because then He would have been everyone's substitute, so everyone would be saved.

Well, I would say that there is no Salvation out side the Church, and that people who, by no fault of thier own never heard of Jesus, can, if they choose to lead a virtuous life, make it to Heaven, through the grace of God, through the Church of God, because Jesus did die for all of us. We are all desitined to go to Heaven.

Now that I have spent 30 minutes more later

[phatcatholic]

icthus,

this is one of the more complicated topics, but i will answer it the best i can. probably the best thing to do is respond to ur quote one paragraph at at time:

"Christ died for our sins" is a statement Roman Catholics can accepted. "Christ payed [sic] the penalty of our sins" is not. Roman Catholicism rejects the doctrine of substitutionary atonement -- Christ cannot have been on that cross as our substitutes. Perhaps instead He earned an amorphous mass of merit/grace, and this is distributed to human beings through the Sacraments. For, if Christ had been anyone's substitute, Rome would have three problems.

i honestly think this person has no idea what catholicism really teaches. first off, this first sentence doesn't even makese sense. in this person's mind, there's a difference between "died for our sins" and "payed the penalty for our sins"....but i'm not seeing it. also, catholicism does not deny that christ's salvific work on the cross atones for ALL of our sins and was for ALL men. i think that where protestants and catholics disagree is in how the merits of christ's work on the cross are appropriated to his faithful. his grace IS distributed to human beings through the sacraments. this person just assumes that there's something wrong w/ this, w/o providing any proof. actually, this person doesn't provide proof for any of the claims that he makes about catholicism.

now, for the "three problems":

1. Christ could not have died for everyone, because then He would have been everyone's substitute, so everyone would be saved.

the fact that he's talking about "everyone being saved" tells me that he probably believes in an assurance of salvation, in "once saved, always saved." catholics of course, do not believe in this. i think the real problem here is that protestants look at the catholic rejection of an assurance of salvation, and the fact that we recieve sanctifying grace thru the sacraments, and somehow take that to mean that we don't believe that Christ's work on the cross was good enough. this just isn't true. Christ's work on the cross was potentially efficacious for ALL men. however, b/c of our free will, we can make the decision to reject this saving grace that God provides for us. we reject it when we mortally sin. we accept it when we live our faith, do good, and accept his gifts of grace thru the sacraments. does this guy expect christians to believe that EVERYONE will be saved? certainly, he knows that this is absurd.

2. Justification could not be by infusing us with righteousness through Sacraments. Rather, it would be legal -- Christ would be our legal substitute.

i'm not really sure what he's even trying to say here. hehe, i think that what this guy is thinking probably all makes sense in his head, but as he tries to type it out it gets muddled. anyway, i can make a guess as to the point that is trying to be made here.

some believe that justification is an actual cleansing, in which our sins are completely wiped away and we are truly justified, truly righteous, truly sanctified. others believe that Jesus' justification is like a coat that he puts over us, that we are "snow covered dung hills" as Luther would say. this latter idea of justification may be the "legal substitute" that this guy is referring to. if he is furthermore saying that it is the "legal substitute" that catholics believe in, then he is wrong.

3. Justification could not come slowly over time, as if part of Christ's work is distributed to me now, and part of it later. Rather, it would have to be once-for-all, because the substitution would be complete and instantaneous.

this problem does not exist like he thinks it does. a catholic can believe that christ's work on the cross was complete, once-for-all, and perfect --AND STILL-- believe that it is appropriated over time, as we live a life of accepting and rejecting Christ.

look at it this way. when we recieve baptism, we are perfectly cleanses. BOOM! it is perfect, complete, once for all. if we never sinned again, then we would go to heaven. however, God requires that we keep his grace, or that we stay w/ him. God's grace is saving grace. however, we can decide to throw it away or put it down for a moment so we can do what we want. no one or no thing plucks us from the had of God. but, we can decide to leave his hand on our own. this does not somehow discredit the power of God's grace and his work on the cross. what it does do is acknowledge the power of free will and of sin. the fact that we can "put it down", "walk away from it", or "reject it" does not diminish it. instead it emphasizes the importance of constantly choosing Christ, of running the race until the end, of working out our salvation w/ fear and trembling.

and finally:

The Catholic Encyclopedia faults Protestants for "the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious punishment. This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins."

first off, i'm not sure what point he is trying to make here. this guy thinks that his "three points" and this cut and paste job from the catholic encyclopedia just speak for themselves, when much explanation is still needed. also, he doesn't even show where in the encyclopedia that this came from, so there would be no way to check this and find the context of the phrase to figure out the point that is trying to be made.

all in all, this guy's defense seems weak. i hope i have adequately addressed it. looking up some articles that refute an assurance of salvation may also help u. here is one that i have right off hand:

--Salvation is a Life-Long Process

if u need anymore help, just let me know...........pax christi,

phatcatholic

Edited February 4, 2004 by phatcatholic

[ICTHUS]

"died for our sins" and "payed the penalty for our sins"....

There is a big difference. The former is a general statement, the latter is a specific statement.

the fact that he's talking about "everyone being saved" tells me that he probably believes in an assurance of salvation, in "once saved, always saved."

He's a Calvinist, so he believes that those whose souls Christ's blood atoned for, will infallibly be saved.

we reject it when we mortally sin.

Substantiate this using the Bible. I'm not denying it, I'm asking you to tell me where the Scripture talks about how certain sins merit hell and certain other ones don't.

this problem does not exist like he thinks it does. a catholic can believe that christ's work on the cross was complete, once-for-all, and perfect --AND STILL-- believe that it is appropriated over time, as we live a life of accepting and rejecting Christ.

In Calvinist thought, when a person is truly justified in Christ and believes, they will, through the grace of God, persevere unto salvation. If they do not, they were never really justified.

[phatcatholic]

There is a big difference. The former is a general statement, the latter is a specific statement.

He's a Calvinist, so he believes that those whose souls Christ's blood atoned for, will infallibly be saved.

Substantiate this using the Bible. I'm not denying it, I'm asking you to tell me where the Scripture talks about how certain sins merit hell and certain other ones don't.

In Calvinist thought, when a person is truly justified in Christ and believes, they will, through the grace of God, persevere unto salvation. If they do not, they were never really justified.

icthus,

i will get to ur recent post soon, hopefully tomorrow. however, no time to reply now. more coming soon. until then, i leave u w/ this:

STAY AWAY FROM THOSE CRAZY CALVINISTS! hehe, j/k

pax christi,

phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

icthus,

ok, now to give ur post a more appropriate reply.

There is a big difference. The former is a general statement, the latter is a specific statement.

regarding the "big difference" between "died for our sins" and "payed the penalty for our sins", i see these two phrases as essentially synonymous. it is my understanding that in dying for our sins, he payed the penalty for them. i'm not sure how "dying for our sins" could mean anything else. is there a debate here regarding these two phrases that i am missing? this could just be an issue of semantics, which is often what Calvinist-Catholic debate falls into.

He's a Calvinist, so he believes that those whose souls Christ's blood atoned for, will infallibly be saved.

does this statement then imply that Christ's blood did not atone for ALL men? my understanding is this:

--Christ's blood "atoned" for all men, in the sense that he made heaven available to all who cooperate w/ his grace.

--this makes Christ's work on the cross potentially efficacious for all men, but only ultimately efficacious for those who cooperate w/ his grace.

if he is saying that Christ's blood only atoned (as i have defined it above) for those that he predestined, then this is contrary to Catholic belief.

we reject it when we mortally sin.

the claim i am making here can be substantiated w/ the following verses:

--there is one sin worse then another, and a greater punishment for the greater sin:

Jer 7:23-26 But this command I gave them, 'Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people; and walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.' 24 But they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and the stubbornness of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward. 25 From the day that your fathers came out of the land of Egypt to this day, I have persistently sent all my servants the prophets to them, day after day; 26 yet they did not listen to me, or incline their ear, but stiffened their neck. They did worse than their fathers.

Lam 4:6 The punishment of the daughter of my people is greater than the penalty of Sodom, Which was overthrown in an instant without the turning of a hand.

Ezek. 16:44-58 (too long to provide here)

1 John 5:16-17 If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.

Mat 11:21-22 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would long ago have repented in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you.

John 19:11 Jesus answered (him), "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above. For this reason the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin."

--Some sins are so great that they exclude the sinner from God's Kingdom:

1 Cor 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Gal 5:19-21 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, 21 occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God

-- others are less serious, deserving temporal but not eternal fire:

1 Cor 3:11,15 for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ.... But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.

--Daily small faults are found even in holy people:

Eccl 7:20-22 yet there is no man on earth so just as to do good and never sin. 21 Do not give heed to every word that is spoken lest you hear your servant speaking ill of you, 22 for you know in your heart that you have many times spoken ill of others.

James 3:2 for we all fall short in many respects. If anyone does not fall short in speech, he is a perfect man, able to bridle his whole body also.

1 John 1:8 If we say, "We are without sin," we deceive ourselves, 3 and the truth is not in us.

hopefully, u see here that the belief in venial and mortal sin is at least implicit in scripture. in order to refute this, one would have to prove that it is anti-biblical, of which it is not. now, on to ur final statement:

In Calvinist thought, when a person is truly justified in Christ and believes, they will, through the grace of God, persevere unto salvation. If they do not, they were never really justified.

first off, can u define "justification"? i have never been able to understand the difference between "justification" and "sanctification." i use the words interchangeably, which may be incorrect of me. at any rate, a catholic would have to disagree with this quote. afterall, are we not justified everytime we recieve absolution thru the sacrament of confession? also, do we not lose this justification whenever we mortally sin? where i will agree is in stating that the one who dies in a state of justification has done so only b/c of the grace of God, and in doing so has proven himself to be a member of the elect, or the predestined. of course, where catholics and calvinists disagree yet again is in whether or not a man can know in this life if he is a member of this elect. catholics say he can not.

i hope this adequately addresses ur comments. i look foward to ur response, and let me know if u need more info.

pax christi,

phatcatholic

Edited February 16, 2004 by phatcatholic