@GratefulDisciple Hillsdale doesn't have teachers who subscribe to CRT. It's very conservative and so it's not a problem here.

@curiousdannii Unfortunately and unbiblically, under Catholic satisfaction theory and its Protestant penal substitution variant, the way Christ solves the impasse between us and God is to change God's mind, not to change human minds.

Under those theories, even though we remain sinners, God no longer condemns us because God has been satisfied by Christ's actions. This is especially so under the Protestant version, in which it is stoutly denied that humans have any part whatsoever in their own salvation, beyond having faith in Jesus. The change that brings about salvation is all in God, not in human beings.

This flatly contradicts what Paul taught: that "in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself." And Paul goes on to say that God was "not counting their trespasses against them." Satisfaction theory also flatly contradicts this by saying that God was counting our trespasses against us until he was satisfied by Christ's righteous life and undeserved death.

The simple fact of the matter is that satisfaction theory is flatly rejected by the Bible in many places. I have already quoted passages in which God says that he will not allow the guilty to go free and the innocent to be punished, and that in fact, he detests this. Yet that is exactly what satisfaction theory says that God does, flatly contradicting what God himself says in the Bible.

It is a false, unbiblical, and horrendous doctrine that contradicts God's own words and attacks God's character by painting God as a murderous tyrant, not a God whose love endures forever.

And no, you can't define your way out of this.

@PeterTurner The only problem with that would be that the Catholic doctrine of purgatory is another doctrine that is false and has no biblical basis. It is also entirely unnecessary. For people who have ceased sinning and begun living a righteous life through the power of Christ dwelling within them, "none of their trespasses will be remembered against them" (Ezekiel 18:21–22).

There is no need for purgatory for the righteous, because God does not hold their sins against them, but leaves them in the past. And for the wicked, purgatory would be fruitless because they would just go on to commit more sins. Purgatory is an unnecessary and useless doctrine. It posits that God requires us to pay for all our sins. That is false.

@PeterTurner God is not fooled by appearances. God does not look at any clothing of righteousness that Christ drapes over our sinful self. God does not look at people as humans do. People look at the outward appearance. God looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7). The entire idea that God would ignore our actual sinful character and see Christ's righteous character instead is, once again, an insult on God's eyesight and God's intelligence.

Without repentance from sin, and living a righteous life instead, there is no salvation. God cannot be satisfied or assuaged so that even though we are still sinners, God will not condemn us. No. God looks at the reality of whether we ourselves are sinners or righteous people. This is taught so many times in the Bible that it simply cannot be denied.

Satisfaction theory denies and short-circuits every teaching of the Bible about how we are redeemed and saved by God.

@GratefulDisciple None of this is any part of satisfaction theory. All of this was taught in Christianity long before satisfaction theory even existed. Satisfaction theory was unnecessarily grafted onto the truth about redemption and salvation that had been known in Christianity for a thousand years, for those who were paying attention.

Unfortunately, fewer and fewer people were paying attention, because the church had become corrupt, and the people were sheep without a shepherd. So Anselm came along and hatched a completely unbiblical new theory of atonement based on human reason and medieval legal theory, not on the Bible. He barely even quotes from the Bible in Cur Deus Homo. It is a legalistic human theory, thus contradicting Paul, who said that we are no longer under the Law.

Really, the incomprehension and ignorance of true biblical teachings in Anselm's theory, and all those that followed in its footsteps, is staggering.

And the simple fact remains: The Bible simply never says that Christ satisfied the Father. It's just not there. That's why no Protestant or Catholic has ever been able to quote me a passage saying this in the thirty years I have been challenging them to do so. It is a completely unbiblical teaching.

But if you want to continue to nullify the Word of God through your human traditions, you are perfectly free to do so. And you fall under the condemnation of Christ's words on that subject just as the ancient Jewish leaders to whom he addressed them fell under the condemnation of those words.

@LukeHill I'm sure the teachers don't subscribe to CRT. I was wondering about your fellow students, though. I'm more concerned how they think when reacting to CRT, which can lead to 2 very different political actions: "Christian" nationalism coupled with separation in churches (not Catholic church, BTW) or embracing other ethnicities/races in Christ promoted by Prof. Feser's book.

@PeterTurner Yeah.... I heard that CRT can be better in terms of color (esp. compared with earlier LCD monitors), but now that good LED IPS monitors becoming affordable (I use Acer R240HY) I have even less reason to go back to CRT. But again, I'm not a gamer nor a graphic artist. I guess the true test is a side by side comparison of both displaying good 'ol Super Mario.

@LeeWoofenden I hope you don't include me in that "you", because I don't think you interpret Paul's understanding of "Law" correctly. I think you're still under the influence of Lutheran "law vs. gospel" concept. That understanding of the Bible is anachronistic (Anselm is full 500 years before Luther), as the New Perspective on Paul makes clear.

Also, Anselm talks about debt of conscience, not OT Law, debt to honoring God and loving God as Creator by doing what He commands to love our neighbors. The cry of the victims of injustice rise up to God, according to the Bible. I'm sure you agree that we need to love others, especially the weak? Jesus was very explicit in this. Surely, you agree that we humans have failings in this department? Which we label as "sin"?

Therefore, although I also don't agree with Anselm, by committing the above 2 errors I think you have constructed a caricature of Anselm, which much lessens the force of your argument. One can be persuasive in criticizing an opponent if the opponent sees that his position is represented fairly. That's why I really like Gavin Ortlund's Truth Unites videos, as he has demonstrated fairness in representing historical positions.

I agree with much of your position in your article Did Jesus Really Die to Pay the Penalty for our Sins? because the goal of Jesus's work on the cross is to enable us to love and to lessen our propensity to sin. But then, the article is short on specifics: how exactly does Jesus's death takes away our propensity to sin?

Basically you ask people to simply believe Jesus takes away sin, which Catholics recite ever week in chanting "Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us .... grant us peace". But what exactly is the connection between Jesus's death and removing propensity of sinning in us? Maybe you have other articles explaining this?

The Catholic answer is embedded in the Liturgy: through eating the bread of life, the eternal Lamb provided by God Himself for our spiritual nourishment every day ("give us this day our daily bread", also recited in the Liturgy) that we physically eat. The Eucharist is God feeding us from His realm outside our universe, 100% gift, a means of grace, providing we repent FIRST, which in the Liturgy precedes communion. Then at the end of the Liturgy, the priest exhorts us in the Dismissal:

> Go forth, the Mass is ended. Go and announce the Gospel of the Lord. Go in peace, glorifying the Lord by your life. Go in peace.

So within the weekly (even daily) Liturgy, if the faithful is paying close attention to the words, having received Jesus Himself, he/she would be empowered to combat sin by increased ability to do the commandment to love. He/she also has peace knowing that he/she whatever debts of honor / justice toward God has been "paid" / "satisfied" by the Lamb that God provided, not to appease God, but as clear token of forgiveness coming from God to clear away blockage of fear / distance.

In this understanding, the "payment" / "satisfaction" notion is for our side to internalize, in case we fear that we need to do that. God himself doesn't need it, and he made clear by providing us the so called "payment" / "satisfaction", in case we feel we need to provide Him, to relieve our conscience and to motivate us to love others out of filial obedience and gratitude as opposed to fear. I think you make too much hash out of this "payment" / "satisfaction" language.

I'm sure a good many evangelical churches focus on shepherding the congregation on how to act on the consequence of having received this "payment", including emphasizing developing filial relationship with God in Christ (Evangelicals are known for their "relationship" exhortation). In the sermons I heard, "payment" language (if it is even mentioned) is merely a prelude that in my opinion could have been replaced by a better prelude based on Thomistic understanding.

Yes, we are facing deconversion of many and the young generation staying away from churches, but instead of attributing it to the unhelpful "prelude" couched in the language of Anselm family of atonement theories, in many scholars opinion it is more scientifically accurate to attribute it to 1) wrong doctrine of inerrancy & its application, 2) tying church to politics, 3) ignorance of church history, 4) scandals, 5) divorcing reason from faith, 6) etc.

This Truth Unites video discussing a recent book Set adrift: Deconstructing What You Believe Without Sinking Your Faith co-authored by Biola University apologetics professor Sean McDowell, the son of apologist Josh McDowell, is a much better indicator of the challenge that Evangelicalism face today.

@GratefulDisciple Students generally don't care. Most probably implicitly reject CRT but since the idea is not publicly held by anyone vocal on campus it isn't talked about all that much. I haven't seen many people advocate for nationalism with the separation of race, though "Christian nationalism" (Whatever that means) has definitely gained some level of popularity. Most people here are just daily wire fans or some breed of Neo con.