Catholics, Protestants, Baptists

[Rebel]

I have seen and been involved in heated battles here on various doctrines, between Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, and others. To be sure, these groups have differences, but these are in the areas of polity, ministry, sacraments, and such. However, it might surprise these groups to know that they all share the same basic views of man, sin, salvation, and the atonement, views which did not come into being until Anselm and after. So, it seems to me that the Reformation didn't go nearly far enough, in reforming these views back to an early church perspective. The Quakers and some of the Anabaptists reformed their Bodies in those areas, but not the Protestants, and not the Baptists.

So, next time, in the middle of those heated battles, remember that Catholics, Protestants, and, yes, even Baptists, are cousins in many central doctrines.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You panted some broad brush strokes here in attempting to site commonality.

Can you be more specific.....IE provide detail. Thanks

 

[Salty]

Th"e one main question is all that counts
"How do you get to Heaven"

If the answer adds anything to repentance and the blood of Christ - then there is nothing in common.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

and the atonement, views which did not come into being until Anselm and after.

This is such awful rubbish. Perhaps people think if they repeat it often enough, somehow it will become true.
Substitutionary atonement is clearly taught in the Bible and also by many of the Church Fathers long before Anselm.

 

[StFrancis]

The Pope, head of the Catholic Church was in Kenya the other. He preached about peace and love among humanity, he never said among catholics only. He talked about climate change, which is affecting the whole world. That means even catholics love people from other denominations. He also talked condemned radicalisation amongst the youth in today's societies.

 

[DHK]

I have seen and been involved in heated battles here on various doctrines, between Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, and others. To be sure, these groups have differences, but these are in the areas of polity, ministry, sacraments, and such. However, it might surprise these groups to know that they all share the same basic views of man, sin, salvation, and the atonement, views which did not come into being until Anselm and after. So, it seems to me that the Reformation didn't go nearly far enough, in reforming these views back to an early church perspective. The Quakers and some of the Anabaptists reformed their Bodies in those areas, but not the Protestants, and not the Baptists.

So, next time, in the middle of those heated battles, remember that Catholics, Protestants, and, yes, even Baptists, are cousins in many central doctrines.

You mean this guy

Anselm was born in or aroundAosta in Upper Burgundy sometime between April 1033 and April 1034.[2] The area now forms part of theRepublic of Italy, but Aosta had been part of the CarolingianKingdom of Arles until the death of the childless Rudolph III in 1032.[3]

From Wikipedia, who also says he was once the Archbishop of Canterbury. Note that he lived in the eleventh century. Do you realize how much heresy passed under the bridge by that time?
The Catholic Church was officially formed in the fourth century in the time of Constantine, a pagan who saw a demonic vision of a sword in the sky, and upon that vision went out and killed thousands. He lived a wicked life. He planned it from the beginning. He was an astute politician using religion for his own political gain. He made "Christianity" a state religion, the real origins of the Catholic Church. That is when paganism was introduced. It was his form of "Christianity" that allowed him to kill his son, his ex-wife, and other members of his family, as well as many nobles and others. When he came to the end of his life in 337, at the age of 64, he came to Eusebius, the Bishop of Nicomedia, and was baptized by him. After living a most wicked life the founder of the Catholic Church thought that he could find remission of sins through baptism just before he died.

What do we have in common? Almost nothing!

 

[Rebel]

This is such awful rubbish. Perhaps people think if they repeat it often enough, somehow it will become true.
Substitutionary atonement is clearly taught in the Bible and also by many of the Church Fathers long before Anselm.

None of the Church Fathers taught penal substitution. To maintain they did is a lie. I have posted mountains of evidence that confirms this. Facts are stubborn things.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

None of the Church Fathers taught penal substitution. To maintain they did is a lie. I have posted mountains of evidence that confirms this. Facts are stubborn things.

They are, aren't they?
I could offer you Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus and quite a few more.
Here is Eusebius of Caesarea, just because his quote is short. From Proof of the Gospel, vol. 2:

And the Lamb of God.......was chastened on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so he became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because he received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults and the dishonour which were due to us, and drew down upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us.

I am no great fan of the Church Fathers, and would not normally use them were it not for this myth going about that Penal Substitution was invented by Anselm.

There is an excellent book on the subject, Pierced for our Trangressions: Recovering the Glory of Penal Substitution by Steve Jeffrey, Mike Ovey and Andrew Sach (ISBN: 978-1-84474-178-6). It has a foreword by John Piper and is endorsed by many other well-known evangelicals. I think anyone who reads it will find it utterly convincing.

 

[Revmitchell]

None of the Church Fathers taught penal substitution. To maintain they did is a lie. I have posted mountains of evidence that confirms this. Facts are stubborn things.

Let's see if that is true:

Isaiah 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Uh, nope not true at all.

 

[Rebel]

They are, aren't they?
I could offer you Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus and quite a few more.
Here is Eusebius of Caesarea, just because his quote is short. From Proof of the Gospel, vol. 2:

I am no great fan of the Church Fathers, and would not normally use them were it not for this myth going about that Penal Substitution was invented by Anselm.

There is an excellent book on the subject, Pierced for our Trangressions: Recovering the Glory of Penal Substitution by Steve Jeffrey, Mike Ovey and Andrew Sach (ISBN: 978-1-84474-178-6). It has a foreword by John Piper and is endorsed by many other well-known evangelicals. I think anyone who reads it will find it utterly convincing.

And the refutation of that by Derek Flood has been posted here, several times. I'll post it again, and another article, because the truth/facts about this are of the utmost importance. There is ample other evidence also which can be found by simply searching. It is an irrefutable fact that Ransom/Christus Victor was universally held for the first thousand years of Christian history. And let me correct you on something; I didn't say that PSA was invented by Anselm. Anselm invented the Satisfaction Theory, and the Magisterial Protestant Reformers were influenced by that theory in their inventing PSA.

Here are the Derek Flood articles; the second is quite long, but very good and informative:

http://therebelgod.com/AtonementFathersEQ.pdf

http://therebelgod.com/CrossPaper.pdf

 

[Rebel]

Satisfaction and PSA are based on the concept of scapegoating. Rene Girard finds this scapegoating concept in all cultures. Thus, these two atonement theories are born out of pagan concepts. Girard believes that the Judeo-Christian scriptures support an end to the scapegoating mechanism. He thus does not believe the scriptures support PSA; he rather holds that they support the Christus Victor view of the atonement, which was the view held for the first 1000 years of church history.

 

[Revmitchell]

None of the Church Fathers taught penal substitution. To maintain they did is a lie. I have posted mountains of evidence that confirms this. Facts are stubborn things.

You have posted little to nothing. I have seen what you have posted and you always ignore scripture when it is posted.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Here is one example. While many Protestants believe (perhaps rightly so) that elements of the Reformation view of atonement were present throughout history, it is undeniable that the Protestant view is also dependent upon a preexisting framework of thought. The framework developed within RCC doctrine and was ultimately reformed to become the Protestant view. Much of this view is dependent upon RCC doctrine as late as the 12th century. So Protestant atonement depends greatly upon RCC doctrine, carrying some elements and rejecting others. This is just one example, but I think it unlikely that this is the only doctrine dependent upon RCC doctrine. J.I. Packer noted the influence that we have carried into Protestant theology (N.T. Wright is a bit more forward with his accusations of holding on to these influences). And certainly the charge of the radical reformation was one of clinging too tightly to the "doctrine of Rome."

Give me a few examples then.

 

[JonC]

Give me a few examples then.

One good example is the development of Penal Substitution Theory as a complete theory of Atonement. I think that perhaps the reason theories of atonement are often used to explain historical theology is that we know so much about their development. And the Reformers carried with them that framework of atonement that had been developed (at least to Satisfaction theory). That said, and while elements of substitution and even penal issues were present throughout history, Protestant theology is indebted to the Reformers and their scholarship for much of our understanding today.

Here are a few resources you may find interesting: Everett Ferguson, Church History: Vol 1: From Christ to Pre-Reformation; Jonathan Hill, History of Christianity; Justo Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity. These are all a bit general, but they do offer a good look at several doctrines and how they developed (to include theories of atonement).

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

One good example is the development of Penal Substitution Theory as a complete theory of Atonement. If it was there before the reformation, it was in no way expressed as a complete theory until the RCC doctrine was reformed (changing Aquinas' theory of divine penance and merit to what we know as Penal Substitution...but otherwise retaining the RCC doctrine which had been developed only two centuries before Aquinas).

Anything else?

 

[JonC]

Anything else?

I haven't given it much thought. For Protestant in general you have holy days and the nature of the Church. A Catholic view inherent in many people's theology here is the idea that salvation has as it's primary goal getting us to heaven. The emphasis on the "salvation of the soul" instead of reconciliation of man (renewed body and soul) could also perhaps apply. Our view of righteousness being a moral righteousness (whether right or wrong) is a RCC development. The forensic and legal view of accounting for sin is one that is shared by many Protestants.

I'm sure we could come up with many. We just need to look at the development of theology and examine the circumstances through which several doctrines came about.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I haven't given it much thought. For Protestant in general you have holy days and the nature of the Church. A Catholic view inherent in many people's theology here is the idea that salvation has as it's primary goal getting us to heaven. The emphasis on the "salvation of the soul" instead of reconciliation of man (renewed body and soul) could also perhaps apply. Our view of righteousness being a moral righteousness (whether right or wrong) is a RCC development. The forensic and legal view of accounting for sin is one that is shared by many Protestants.

I'm sure we could come up with many. We just need to look at the development of theology and examine the circumstances through which several doctrines came about.

Jon......as an fyi, the RCC taught me about the renewing of both body & soul years ago. As a suggestion, the book "HISTORICAL THEOLOGY" by Gregory Allison could help you. A superb resource for understanding the development of Christian theology over the last 2000 years. Its in my library.

 

[JonC]

Jon......as an fyi, the RCC taught me about the renewing of both body & soul years ago. As a suggestion, the book "HISTORICAL THEOLOGY" by Gregory Allison could help you. A superb resource for understanding the development of Christian theology over the last 2000 years. Its in my library.

I mean our focus on the soul getting to Heaven, an emphasis. I agree that we both also believe in the renewed body and soul. But I believe our emphasis on our spiritual renewal over the physical is shared. I believe this not by experience but through conversation with RCC friends.

That said, thanks for the reference. That is a book I will look for.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Satisfaction and PSA are based on the concept of scapegoating. Rene Girard finds this scapegoating concept in all cultures. Thus, these two atonement theories are born out of pagan concepts. Girard believes that the Judeo-Christian scriptures support an end to the scapegoating mechanism. He thus does not believe the scriptures support PSA; he rather holds that they support the Christus Victor view of the atonement, which was the view held for the first 1000 years of church history.

PSA is found in the Bible very clearly as Iconoclast has pointed out, though the evidence is by no means limited to Isaiah 53.
It is also found very clearly in the Church Fathers.
How many quotations from them would you like me to post?

 

[JonC]

PSA is found in the Bible very clearly as Iconoclast has pointed out, though the evidence is by no means limited to Isaiah 53.
It is also found very clearly in the Church Fathers.
How many quotations from them would you like me to post?

I think that we have to be more clear here, brother. As J.I. Packer noted, the "elements" of PSA may have been there but Penal Substitution Theory itself was not put together until the Reformation.
(An example would be Justin Martyrs position which was shy of PST, although some hold it to be an early and less developed form). The penal substitution elements of the early church fathers did not carry the same individualistic implications (e.g., Christ suffered for man the consequence of human sin vs Christ was punished with the punishment reserved for the sins of the elect - those who are saved. The first is a restatement of Martyr, which some believe to be a statement of PSA. The second is PSA itself. I, and many, agree with the first but not the second).