Rezak

Wahrheit als bloße Erkenntnis, als bloße Idee bleibt ohne Kraft; des Menschen Wahrheit wird sie erst als Weg, der ihn beansprucht, den er betreten kann und muss

[Rezak @berry_1337]

Yes I see, I find it hard to make that distinction. And I have a lot to learn! And of course, God doesn’t feel human anger.

But still, I just find it hard to wrap my head around it. Because in the end, someone punishes and someone receives the punishment. Even though, deep down, I understand that there’s a “must” behind it (Sin must be punished because God is holy and just.) The punishment must be carried out. And it is punishment coming from the father absorbed by the son. There is still real judgment and penalty being carried out. And this makes me curious.

[Rezak @berry_1337]

Yeah I see! And sure this is a totally different thing. But let’s go back to the picture that’s emerging here: Even if the father isn’t angry with his son, he’s still taking it out on him. So that doesn’t make it any better at all. Why would the father want to do that to his son, just to “let off steam” somehow? I find this idea incredibly difficult to grasp, and I don’t really see it happening on the cross either.

Above all, I also have this question: What would it look like if the Father were truly venting His anger? We all know that His wrath is always associated with the lake of fire. Or with the bowls of wrath. These are all global and extreme events that occur when God is angry. I don’t see that happening on the cross. On the cross, I see people venting their anger at God, and the Son, who gives up His spirit to enter the realm of the dead and there defeats sin, death, and the devil. But what do I know?

[Rezak @berry_1337]

@thedoctor1611 Calling this dude a pastor... idk man. These days everybody is a pastor.

[Rezak @berry_1337]

But don't you think that seems kind of strange? I mean, why is the father taking his anger out on his son, and what exactly does that look like? One might think that the father’s anger can’t be vented at all, since both the anger and the father are infinite.

And ultimately, that implies a certain simplicity on the father’s part, as in: “I have to get rid of my anger now,” just as an angry person might have to do. I just find that emotionally difficult.

[Rezak @berry_1337]

I think the German theologian Jürgen Moltmann (a Protestant) put it quite well. He offers a perspective that does not rely on expiatory punishment but takes the pain seriously:

It is not a judge’s “judgment of wrath” against a sinner. Rather, the Father and the Son suffer the cross together, but in different ways.

The Son suffers death in abandonment; the Father suffers the loss of His Son.

Why? To “encircle” death and hell. There is no longer any place where God is not present, even in abandonment by God, God is now present in Christ.

[Rezak @berry_1337]

@SamuelC13877599 @ErickYbarra3 I will also read it! I am happy for every input 😂 judging and deciding I will later! Thanks

[Rezak @berry_1337]

@ErickYbarra3 @SamuelC13877599 Thanks for the recommendation! Do you see a connection between Anselm and Calvin or am I going too far with this connection?

[Rezak @berry_1337]

@SamuelC13877599 I agree. Except that I believe that Anselm set the focus which got miss interpreted. A few hundred years later and we have the father punishing the son. Ratzinger says this as well, he criticised that Anselm focused too much on the cross and less on the incarnation.

[Rezak @berry_1337]

@abracetradicao I think it's great that he's a Christian. At least for me. Wesley Huff and others would say he isn't :)

[Rezak @berry_1337]

It all started with the claim that Catholics believe this. I’ve shown you that this is false. Have fun counting the people who don’t believe it. In any case, their ancestors all believed that Mary had no other children besides Jesus. And above all, the entire Church believed this. Universally and uncontroversially.

Regarding the Lutherans: The Smalcald Articles (written by Luther) are part of the Book of Concord, which is the official doctrinal standard for many Lutherans. It explicitly calls Mary “ever virgin.” So it is even doctrine.

[Rezak @berry_1337]

What do you want from me, Brian? I gave you a list and proved that the Reformers (The founders of protestantism) ALL believed in it. Then I told you that many Protestants still believe in it today. And that’s the truth. Only those without a denominational affiliation and the Baptists reject it completely. But even some Baptist agree that the Bible does not prove it. Which is obviously the case.

Now you’re presenting a list that says: No. I mean, okay… believe what you want this is not my problem.

[Rezak @berry_1337]

•Martin Luther (Lutheran): Ever-virgin in Smalcald Articles and sermons!
•Huldrych Zwingli (Reformed): “Forever remained a pure, intact Virgin”!
•John Calvin (Reformed): Argued Matt 1:25 doesn’t prove other children; defended traditional view!
•Thomas Cranmer (Anglican): Upheld on ancient authority!
•Heinrich Bullinger (Reformed): Affirmed the doctrine!
•Philip Melanchthon (Lutheran): Defended against deniers!
•John Wesley (Methodist): “Continued a pure and unspotted virgin”!
•John Gill (Baptist): Supported via Ezekiel interpretation!
Confessions/Denominations (historical):
•Lutheran (Smalcald Articles, Formula of Concord): Ever-virgin!
•Reformed (Second Helvetic Confession): “Ever virgin Mary”!
•Anglican (many traditional/high-church): Common belief!

You can look this up. Just Google it or check Wikipedia. The reformers all believed this. And still to this they the high church teaches this.

Only modern Christian’s in low church started in bigger groups to reduce Mary to what it is to them today: a simple woman, nothing special.

[Rezak @berry_1337]

The Bible is clear? For centuries, the Church has debated and argued. Schisms … the Reformation … 30,000 denominations emerging from it.

Councils, synods, reforms … endless discussions about Bible passages, online debates back and forth between all kinds of Christians, but then, yes, at last! Here comes Lizzy!! The grand master of exegesis has finally sorted it all out! Thank you, thank you, thank you, Lizzy, without you we’d still be groping in the dark!!

Brilliant work! Where can I download your academic paper? Have you received any theological honours yet, for proving that there’s only one way to interpret the Bible?

[Rezak @berry_1337]

Christians in the first millennium did not have the Protestant theology of legal guilt as we know it today.

In his work *Cur Deus homo* (1098), Anselm of Canterbury replaced ancient myths with the logic of the medieval feudal system:

1. God as a feudal lord: Sin is not slavery to the devil, but a violation of God’s honor.
2. The infinite offense: Since God is infinite, every sin against Him carries infinite weight.
3. Satisfaction: In medieval law, an offense could be atoned for either through punishment or through “satisfaction” (reparation that goes beyond what is owed).
4. The Necessity of the God-Man: Only a human being must pay, but only God can make an infinite payment. Christ on the cross.

This is the foundation of modern Protestant theology. And it goes even further: God the Father unloads His wrath, which He actually directs at us, onto His Son on the cross.

Early Christians never believed this in this form. They believed much more in the Victory Theory (Christ Victor), Recapitulation (Irenaeus of Lyon), or the Ransom Theory. Today’s legal framework was shaped primarily by Calvin, who (how could it be otherwise) was a lawyer himself :)

[Rezak @berry_1337]

@AxorReturn Dünger ist wichtig!

[Rezak @berry_1337]

A Catholic would say, “Yes, we cannot earn our way into heaven. We depend on God’s grace and Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross.”
It is a widespread misconception that Catholics believe one can simply “buy” one’s way into heaven through good deeds.
The Council of Trent (the Catholic response to Luther) clearly defined that the beginning of salvation is always a 100% undeserved gift of God’s grace.

And only now do we come to the theological distinction between Protestants and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches:
Faith is absolutely necessary, but it must be made effective through love (Galatians 5:6) and through deeds (James 2:24). If someone says, “I believe in Jesus,” but leads a cruel, sinful life and does not repent, that faith is of no use to them. Grace requires our active cooperation. Repent is an activity.

It’s another misconception that this cooperation must be perfect, or that there are minimum and maximum requirements. That’s not true. The attitude of the heart is what matters. To help believers in this, the Catholic Church prescribes things one should do (the sacraments).

This always sounds like a standalone or outstanding concept, but Protestants essentially think similarly. They just express it differently. Calvinists would say: If deeds and love are lacking, then you were simply never truly elect (signs). Lutherans and some Baptists say: Faith alone saves, but faith is never alone (love and deeds).

Ultimately, none of these groups claims that people can save themselves in any way. They simply interpret the Christian life and prioritize it differently. I am not a Catholic myself and do not wish to defend anything! perhaps just to clarify a few points.

[Rezak @berry_1337]

Wow, it seems like he really threw you off balance. It was never about whether you should trust Jesus. That’s so hypocritical of you. It was always about the question of soteriology.

Trent and the Catholic Church say, just like you do, that trust in Jesus Christ leads to salvation. Salvation from sin is a gift. The difference is: You believe that what happens after that doesn’t matter and that you’ll always remain saved. Example: Adolf Hitler was, as is well known, a Christian. At one point in his life, he wanted to become a priest, but then decided against it and became, well, whatever he ended up becoming. If, as a 16-year-old, he prayed on his knees for Christ to please forgive his sins, and he truly meant it and “trusted in Jesus,” is Adolf Hitler in heaven? If not, why not?