[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ausneets / biz / fur / kpop / leftpol / loomis / sw / wooo ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Email
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Christchan is back up after maintenance! The flood errors should now be resolved. Thank you to everyone who submitted a bug report!

File: c4a391092436e5f⋯.jpg (135.84 KB, 606x900, 101:150, ISACC.jpg)

8785ba No.600463

How was God giving Jesus to die for us a sacrifice to Him? That is, being something hard, difficult, painful to do, being God omnipotent Himself.

Also, are there parallels between the sacrifice of Jesus and the sacrifice of Isaac? Was that God trying to show men what was it like to lose their beloved and only son?

46353b No.600465

>>600463

>Also, are there parallels between the sacrifice of Jesus and the sacrifice of Isaac?

Yes. All throughout the OT, God gave glimpses of the future sacrifice on the cross.


76eb1b No.600468

>>600463

1. It was a sacrifice to God as a substitute for what was needed. God instituted sacrifice in the Noahide law, and he standardized sacrifice in the Levitical law. However, we are so sinful that these sacrifices couldn’t cover all of it, and in many nations the sacrifices stopped being offered to God completely. Jesus is the perfect sacrificial lamb for the whole world, to atone for our sins. Whether it be through plain faith alone or through faith that makes us do works, all denoms believe we are saved by faith in Christ

2. Christ the new Adam, but he is also the new Isaac in fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham. God promised Abraham numerous descendants, ad God told Abraham that his lineage would pass through Isaac. Isaac’s son had 12 sons, and each son had numerous sons. The 12 tribes descend for those 12 sons. However, God no longer counts Abraham’s offspring through Isaac, he counts it through Christ. If you are of Christ, you are of the seed of Abraham. This is why Isaac is a prototype for Christ.


d525e1 No.600502

>>600463

Article 3. Whether Christ's Passion operated by way of sacrifice?

Objection 1. It would seem that Christ's Passion did not operate by way of sacrifice. For the truth should correspond with the figure. But human flesh was never offered up in the sacrifices of the Old Law, which were figures of Christ: nay, such sacrifices were reputed as impious, according to Psalm 105:38: "And they shed innocent blood: the blood of their sons and of their daughters, which they sacrificed to the idols of Chanaan." It seems therefore that Christ's Passion cannot be called a sacrifice.

Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x) that "a visible sacrifice is a sacrament—that is, a sacred sign—of an invisible sacrifice." Now Christ's Passion is not a sign, but rather the thing signified by other signs. Therefore it seems that Christ's Passion is not a sacrifice.

Objection 3. Further, whoever offers sacrifice performs some sacred rite, as the very word "sacrifice" shows. But those men who slew Christ did not perform any sacred act, but rather wrought a great wrong. Therefore Christ's Passion was rather a malefice than a sacrifice.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Ephesians 5:2): "He delivered Himself up for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness."

I answer that, A sacrifice properly so called is something done for that honor which is properly due to God, in order to appease Him: and hence it is that Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x): "A true sacrifice is every good work done in order that we may cling to God in holy fellowship, yet referred to that consummation of happiness wherein we can be truly blessed." But, as is added in the same place, "Christ offered Himself up for us in the Passion": and this voluntary enduring of the Passion was most acceptable to God, as coming from charity. Therefore it is manifest that Christ's Passion was a true sacrifice. Moreover, as Augustine says farther on in the same book, "the primitive sacrifices of the holy Fathers were many and various signs of this true sacrifice, one being prefigured by many, in the same way as a single concept of thought is expressed in many words, in order to commend it without tediousness": and, as Augustine observes, (De Trin. iv), "since there are four things to be noted in every sacrifice—to wit, to whom it is offered, by whom it is offered, what is offered, and for whom it is offered—that the same one true Mediator reconciling us with God through the peace-sacrifice might continue to be one with Him to whom He offered it, might be one with them for whom He offered it, and might Himself be the offerer and what He offered."

Reply to Objection 1. Although the truth answers to the figure in some respects, yet it does not in all, since the truth must go beyond the figure. Therefore the figure of this sacrifice, in which Christ's flesh is offered, was flesh right fittingly, not the flesh of men, but of animals, as denoting Christ's. And this is a most perfect sacrifice. First of all, since being flesh of human nature, it is fittingly offered for men, and is partaken of by them under the Sacrament. Secondly, because being passible and mortal, it was fit for immolation. Thirdly, because, being sinless, it had virtue to cleanse from sins. Fourthly, because, being the offerer's own flesh, it was acceptable to God on account of His charity in offering up His own flesh. Hence it is that Augustine says (De Trin. iv): "What else could be so fittingly partaken of by men, or offered up for men, as human flesh? What else could be so appropriate for this immolation as mortal flesh? What else is there so clean for cleansing mortals as the flesh born in the womb without fleshly concupiscence, and coming from a virginal womb? What could be so favorably offered and accepted as the flesh of our sacrifice, which was made the body of our Priest?"

Reply to Objection 2. Augustine is speaking there of visible figurative sacrifices: and even Christ's Passion, although denoted by other figurative sacrifices, is yet a sign of something to be observed by us, according to 1 Peter 4:1: "Christ therefore, having suffered in the flesh, be you also armed with the same thought: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sins: that now he may live the rest of his time in the flesh, not after the desires of men, but according to the will of God."

Reply to Objection 3. Christ's Passion was indeed a malefice on His slayers' part; but on His own it was the sacrifice of one suffering out of charity. Hence it is Christ who is said to have offered this sacrifice, and not the executioners.


a770d4 No.600521

File: dd9230d6d5ebadc⋯.jpg (222.22 KB, 857x1134, 857:1134, dd9230d6d5ebadcf06cb262b0f….jpg)

Honestly I'm still convinced that Substitution, Governmental and Penal Substitution theories of Atonement are some form of high grade heresy. All of them have a underlying idea which seems to be more or less the such:

>God wants to love us

>But can't because he NEEDS to punish someone when something wrong is done

>So he punished himself


ffdff6 No.600522

>>600521

Is there any historical reason to believe in ransom, Christus Victor, and/or satisfaction instead? I'm a Papist so I'm on board with satisfaction and substitution. Penal substitution specifically I can see as heretical, and I guess governmental is more or less an elaboration or variant of penal substitution so it's heretical by association.


a770d4 No.600523

>>600522

>Is there any historical reason to believe in ransom, Christus Victor, and/or satisfaction instead

Ransom and Christus Victory are both Patristic, with Ransom being supported St. Augustine and Christus Victor being presented by John Chrysostom, for example.

While we're here I'd like to ask, isn't Recapitulation Theory really a "main theory"? I see it as a side dish to the main course, if you understand what I mean.


f12cef No.600525

>>600521

>>600522

>Substitution, Governmental and Penal Substitution

>ransom, Christus Victor, and/or satisfaction

Wait what? I thought substitution was the only belief. What are these other beliefs

Also, ">So he punished himself" is assuming modalism, which nobody was claiming. The claim was that the Father punished the Son as a loving sacrifice, not that God punished himself


c1d347 No.600548

>>600521

They are heresy

Thank God for Eastern Theologians


f12cef No.600555

>>600548

It's all I know! What is the non-heresy?


c1d347 No.600586

File: a05b35c8a8146d8⋯.jpg (78.83 KB, 700x509, 700:509, harrowing-of-hell-icon.jpg)

>>600555

Fair warning.

It's long, at times dry, a little pretentious but very well researched series dismantling PSA point by point and presenting the Christus victor/restored image model

Damn good podcast well worth the time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9FGYJ65IoE&list=PLp6AKQ36kE_S2eBPZQFsT4b0nA-xJaPt7




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ausneets / biz / fur / kpop / leftpol / loomis / sw / wooo ]