Can I ask a very basic Christianity question?

[Jyniffrec]

It's vestigial. lol

 

:lol:

[JenniferB]

 

This article, titled "Why I Cannot In Good Conscience Be A Protestant," was posted by one of my FB friends today. It's very relevant to this conversation both to the original poster's question and to the many tough questions asked by Bill and some others, IMO. Whether or not the answers will satisfy the OP I do not know. However, I found the article very helpful to understand the direction I'm going in personally.

[obsidian]

This article, titled "Why I Cannot In Good Conscience Be A Protestant," was posted by one of my FB friends today. It's very relevant to this conversation both to the original poster's question and to the many tough questions asked by Bill and some others, IMO. Whether or not the answers will satisfy the OP I do not know. However, I found the article very helpful to understand the direction I'm going in personally.

 

Thank you for the article. A lot of food for thought.:001_smile:

[ElizaG]

This article, titled "Why I Cannot In Good Conscience Be A Protestant," was posted by one of my FB friends today.

Wow, this guy is rather polemical. Calling Anselm "the papist archbishop of Canterbury?" :001_huh: FWIW, the secular Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy calls him "the outstanding Christian philosopher and theologian of the 11th century." Whether or not you agree with him on the subject of the atonement, he wasn't some random rosary-waving nutbar. (Not to put too fine a point on it, but without Anselm, Aquinas, and those other hair-splitting Latin scholastics, I'm not sure there would be any Western heritage of classical education for us to discuss. ;) )

 

Beyond that, he misrepresents the original formulation; it wasn't about "God's wrath," but about His honor. It's my understanding that Calvin was the one who taught the wrath aspect. Not even all Protestants believe that. Here's a page from a Mennonite site on the difference between Calvin and Anselm.

 

Beyond that, Anselm's "satisfaction theory" is hardly the only explanation used by Catholics. We're open to giving a range of explanations, many of them coming straight from Patristic sources. Speaking of which, evidently the Church Fathers couldn't agree on this either, so I guess we're all in good company. :)

[Lovedtodeath]

This article, titled "Why I Cannot In Good Conscience Be A Protestant," was posted by one of my FB friends today. It's very relevant to this conversation both to the original poster's question and to the many tough questions asked by Bill and some others, IMO. Whether or not the answers will satisfy the OP I do not know. However, I found the article very helpful to understand the direction I'm going in personally.

How very gracious of you to provide the article knowing that it might help the OP or others and that it might also cause some matters of debate. Thank you.

 

Beyond that, Anselm's "satisfaction theory" is hardly the only explanation used by Catholics. We're open to giving a range of explanations, many of them coming straight from Patristic sources. Speaking of which, evidently the Church Fathers couldn't agree on this either, so I guess we're all in good company. :)

I understand. Edited September 14, 2011 by Lovedtodeath

[ElizaG]

Yes, thank you for posting the article. It's interesting to know where people are coming from on this issue. Sorry if my head blew off there for a minute. ;)

[Guest Anesti]

Was tipped off that there was some dispute going on over this way, so I thought I might pop in and say hello.

 

This article, titled "Why I Cannot In Good Conscience Be A Protestant," was posted by one of my FB friends today. It's very relevant to this conversation both to the original poster's question and to the many tough questions asked by Bill and some others, IMO. Whether or not the answers will satisfy the OP I do not know. However, I found the article very helpful to understand the direction I'm going in personally.

 

Hi Jennifer,

 

I'm the author of that article, and I'm very glad that you got some benefit out of it. I'm just curious though, when you say it was posted by one of your FB friends today, was it tagged on somebody's wall that we might both know (because I originally posted it as a Facebook note and then Fr John Peck posted it on the JTO website) or did someone post it having seen it on the JTO website?

 

Wow, this guy is rather polemical. Calling Anselm "the papist archbishop of Canterbury?" :001_huh: FWIW, the secular Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy calls him "the outstanding Christian philosopher and theologian of the 11th century." Whether or not you agree with him on the subject of the atonement, he wasn't some random rosary-waving nutbar.

 

It is, in part, a polemical work, yes. Even if we were to concede that Anselm was a great philosopher and theologian (which, when working within his own particular cultural and theological/philosophical framework, he probably was quite competent at), I'm not sure how that stops him from being characterised as a papist Archbishop of Canterbury. While I am aware that Roman Catholics are not particularly fond of the term "papist", I gave the qualifier to ensure that it was clear that Anselm's works came after the increased Latinisation of British theology following the Norman invasion in 1066.

 

Beyond that, he misrepresents the original formulation; it wasn't about "God's wrath," but about His honor. It's my understanding that Calvin was the one who taught the wrath aspect.

You will notice that I did in fact refer to sin being an affront to God's honour in the article itself, and the intention was to characterise God's wrath (i.e. retribution for that offence) to be an outworking of that if God's honour was not restituted by Christ's obedience in being shamed. However, I slightly amended the original article regarding Anselm a few days ago (I only published it on Monday) with a few edits and additions about the applicatons of the infinite merits generated by Christ, etc, and will be submitting the revised version to JTO soon.

 

Not even all Protestants believe that. Here's a page from a Mennonite site on the difference between Calvin and Anselm.

I'm aware that not all Protestants hold to the doctrines of penal substitution and imputed righteousness. When a Protestant pointed out to me on the original version of this article on Facebook that the foremost popular proponent of Christus Victor is a Protestant, I replied:

 

"I'm aware that Greg Boyd is a proponent of Christus Victor, but he, along with other proponents of CV, is not typical of classical Protestantism. There are a couple of things you need to keep in mind here. Firstly, there will be a number of individual Protestants who would disagree with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but that does not stop Sola Scriptura from being a staple doctrine of Protestantism. Secondly, while I'm aware that it is possible for one to reject penal substitution and still remain a Protestant, this is not the end of the story. This is only Part 1, and it is a whole package of things, one of them being the overwhelming belief in penal substitution and imputed righteousness in Protestant circles, that stops me from being a Protestant. Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) in an interview once said that he could have allowably been "Orthodox" within an Anglo-Catholic setting, but he believed that in doing so, he would have been within the pale of Anglicanism but not in step with its general direction."

 

Beyond that, Anselm's "satisfaction theory" is hardly the only explanation used by Catholics. We're open to giving a range of explanations, many of them coming straight from Patristic sources.

You should keep in mind that this is an article written responding to the implications of penal substitution, forensic justification and imputed righteousness, which are staple Protestant doctrines (though they are not, as you said, absolutely 100% universal among Protestants). It's not meant to be a treatise on the soteriological strands of both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. The reason the theology of Anselm was brought up was not because I'm trying to assert that it is the only Roman Catholic model of salvation, but because Reformed theology regarding salvation is a development of it.

 

Forgive me, a sinner,

Tom.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Anesti

[JenniferB]

Hi Jennifer,

 

I'm the author of that article, and I'm very glad that you got some benefit out of it. I'm just curious though, when you say it was posted by one of your FB friends today, was it tagged on somebody's wall that we might both know (because I originally posted it as a Facebook note and then Fr John Peck posted it on the JTO website) or did someone post it having seen it on the JTO website?

 

Forgive me, a sinner,

Tom.

 

Hi Tom, The article was a link posted by Holy Cross Monastery, on their Facebook page, which linked to the JTO website. Holy Cross Monastery is one of my FB friends. They post many excellent articles.

[ElizaG]

While I am aware that Roman Catholics are not particularly fond of the term "papist", I gave the qualifier to ensure that it was clear that Anselm's works came after the increased Latinisation of British theology following the Norman invasion in 1066.

More to the point, it's widely considered a pejorative term. Surely there are many other ways to give a sense of the historical context.

 

Secondly, while I'm aware that it is possible for one to reject penal substitution and still remain a Protestant, this is not the end of the story. This is only Part 1, and it is a whole package of things (...)

Fair enough. :) Thank you for stopping by to clarify these points.

[TerriMI]

I'm sorry to intrude, but fyi, this is a Xtian reading/interpretation of the text. The traditional Jewish understanding is *very* different.

 

 

 

Again, I understand this is a Xtian discussion, but since my texts have been referenced, I wanted to make sure it is clear that under no circumstances could a human sacrifice be acceptable under Torah Law.

 

...slipping away again.

 

:leaving:

 

Hi Eliana,

 

I hope to be respectful as I comment (as a Christian) on your sincere response. While it is true that Torah Law, the Law of God given through Moses, does not demand a human sacrifice, it is true that God did demand one in your scriptures. In Genesis God did ask Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Of course in the end, God provided a Ram for an offering instead, and Isaac was not sacrificed. Nevertheless, God did demand and Abraham did comply, believing that they would both return alive down the mountain, somehow. Abraham's implicit belief in the goodness and power of God is the basis for his faith and our our faith also. Abraham believed God could even raise the dead in order to keep His promise. (strongly implied)

Edited October 9, 2011 by TerriKY

[TerriMI]

I think this is probably Christianity 101 but I wasn't raised in a church of any kind and my bible study has been sketchy.

 

I just watched the pilot video and it raised a question that I've always had and never understood.

 

How did Christ dying on the cross SAVE a person? Or me, specifically? I don't understand the nature of the sacrifice... Jesus giving eternal life, giving His life for us... I just do not get it. He gave His life for us.. how?

 

Sorry I hope I don't offend with my ignorance and I'm aware that I could ask the question in a church... but right now tonight I'm asking here.

 

I wonder if the OP's question has gotten buried. I urge you, OP, to read the Bible for yourself with that question in mind. Perhaps you could start with one of the Gospels, say the Gospel of John. Then you might read Paul's letter to the Romans which is a theological writing about salvation. I think it addresses your question. Of course, I urge making the first reading of these with the attitude of just seeing what they say. Make sure that you understand what they are saying first. The next step is to seek answers to questions about the specific parts that you didn't understand. This is the step where you ask people who claim to really know how to answer, perhaps a pastor or a believing theology professor, or a Christian apologist.

Edited October 9, 2011 by TerriKY

[Jay3fer]

...it is true that God did demand one in your scriptures.

 

(it's my understanding that these are YOUR scriptures, too... :-))

 

...Abraham did comply, believing that they would both return alive down the mountain, somehow.

 

Not exactly. Abraham's faith in the God who keeps promises (the overarching theme of the Torah) was sufficient that even though he did not know exactly HOW God could build a great nation if Isaac died on the mountain, he was willing to sacrifice him anyway. His words and actions don't suggest any faith in resurrection - just the idea that somehow, God would come through.

 

(if God could give him a child in his old age, presumably, he could give him ANOTHER child - perhaps a "third time's the charm" idea after Ishmael and Isaac) (of course, he didn't know yet that Sara had died)

 

The bigger question is, "is this a general call for human sacrifice?" I don't think it is, any more than the story of Noah's ark is a general call for boat-building. :lol:

 

It IS an example of how God holds His holy ones to a MUCH higher standard. We know this also from how strict he was with Moses.

 

For the rest of us, however, the broader lesson is only - though it may seem impossible, God WILL keep His promises. That's why there are still Jews in the world today - against all odds and through every type of adversity.

[TerriMI]

(it's my understanding that these are YOUR scriptures, too... :-))

 

Of course

 

 

 

Not exactly. Abraham's faith in the God who keeps promises (the overarching theme of the Torah) was sufficient that even though he did not know exactly HOW God could build a great nation if Isaac died on the mountain, he was willing to sacrifice him anyway. His words and actions don't suggest any faith in resurrection - just the idea that somehow, God would come through.

 

Abraham had told those who were waiting for them at the bottom of the mountain, that THEY would return.

 

(if God could give him a child in his old age, presumably, he could give him ANOTHER child - perhaps a "third time's the charm" idea after Ishmael and Isaac) (of course, he didn't know yet that Sara had died)

 

But it was Isaac who was the son of the promise. God had said earlier that it was through Isaac that God would fulfill his promise to Abraham. If Isaac died for good, a third son would not fully fill that promise. If Isaac died, he would have to come back alive again somehow in order for that promise to be fulfilled through Isaac.

 

The bigger question is, "is this a general call for human sacrifice?" I don't think it is, any more than the story of Noah's ark is a general call for boat-building. :lol:

 

Agreed.

 

It IS an example of how God holds His holy ones to a MUCH higher standard.

 

I think we would agree that it is a much higher standard of FAITH that we are called to.

 

We know this also from how strict he was with Moses.

 

And here, it is a much higher standard of MORALITY or righteousness that we are called to.

 

For the rest of us, however, the broader lesson is only - though it may seem impossible, God WILL keep His promises. That's why there are still Jews in the world today - against all odds and through every type of adversity.

 

Yay!! I am sure we agree and rejoice together over that! Well.....then again, it may not be the ONLY lesson! <g>

Edited October 10, 2011 by TerriKY

[livingnlearning]

I wonder if the OP's question has gotten buried. I urge you, OP, to read the Bible for yourself with that question in mind. Perhaps you could start with one of the Gospels, say the Gospel of John. Then you might read Paul's letter to the Romans which is a theological writing about salvation. I think it addresses your question. Of course, I urge making the first reading of these with the attitude of just seeing what they say. Make sure that you understand what they are saying first. The next step is to seek answers to questions about the specific parts that you didn't understand. This is the step where you ask people who claim to really know how to answer, perhaps a pastor or a believing theology professor, or a Christian apologist.

 

Thank you-the OP's head has been spinning in this thread for a long time now. LOL I read the entire thread and most of the links and am still looking for my answers. I appreciate all the information and advice that I got on here and it taught me a lot!

 

Thank you everyone and carry on!