Coach Cossman

@ScholasticsFan @ReformedCaio 2/ even if later they say Christ was never perusal sinful they use nominal forensic language as if the Father can foremsically account Christ a sinner even tho he's not personally sinful. That should be condemned.

@ScholasticsFan @ReformedCaio 1/ I dont know why its so hard for some of you to say Christ wasn't imputed guilt or sin but that he bore the penal consequences of sin. There are plenty of reformed who do say this and say that when the Father looks at the Son on the cross he sees a sinner who must be punished.

There are three imputations involved in salvation. 1. The imputation of Adam’s first sin. 2. The imputation of sins to Christ such that He bears their guilt and punishment. 3. The imputation of Christ’s full satisfaction and perfect obedience.

@ErickYbarra3 @Texas_Shanesaw_ @daddydugg420 @sincead33 Your doing it again. Just answer the question. No onr needs read my book.

When I have a book, articles, and countless videos , all of which can be accessed by a good search with “Ybarra formal cause justification,” you aren’t holding anyone to fire. On the contrary, I am trying to get you to see that you are claiming your own righteousness pays the debt of your sin. That’s anti Gospel

I hope everyone has a blessed Good Friday and an even more wonderful Easter. On Monday evening, I will be going live with @ErickYbarra3 to discuss his new book.

@ReformedCaio @ScholasticsFan That doesnt change anything I said. Or prove anything for you. I domt disagree with any of that. God cant be imputed sin or guilt. Imputed means to reckon something as after teaming na account of. God doesnt see Christ as a sinner or guilty, therefore he cant be imputed as such.

4 Surely our griefs He Himself abore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our peace fell upon Him, And by His wounds we are healed. 6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But Yahweh has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. (Is 54:4–6) 10 But Yahweh was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If You would place His soul as a guilt offering, He will see His seed, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of Yahweh will succeed in His hand. 11 As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore, I will divide for Him a portion with the many, And He will divide the spoil with the strong; Because He poured out His soul to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors. (Is 53:10–12) Sure seems like Christ bore on Himself the transgressions and sin of many...

@ReformedCaio @ScholasticsFan Laid on him = took responsibility to atonement for Bore there punishment = took tje temporal conseqiences for sin to satisfy Divine justice. Neither of those equals imputed sin or guilt or was punished by the Father.

He did not become guilty as if He committed those sins. But those sins were laid upon Him and He bore their guilt and punishment due to transgressions against God.

@RFreemyer @Will_d_jones @cdmomo24 Id prefer someone not Lebron. He's old and I dont think he'd help us.

@CossmanTodd @Will_d_jones @cdmomo24 That's fair but also there are no good options so you're gonna have to do something you don't want to do no matter what lol

Came to the conclusion that whether or not the Nuggets lose in the first round or the finals there’s really not that many options they have to pivot to change up the roster. It’s always the same types of answers. Only thing that really changes what we do is winning the finals

@Will_d_jones He's not long is issue, and he's not great at screen navigation.

@CossmanTodd I have been loving Cam! And I love AG. Maybe CB plays well but I wonder if he can play well enough to change the perception. And his contract length is so long idk who would want to take that on. He needs to figure out how to defend consistently

@RFreemyer @Will_d_jones @cdmomo24 Really don't want to give the Lakers PWat that would be terrible.

@CossmanTodd @Will_d_jones @cdmomo24 That ESPN article last week floated a sign and trade with him and LeBron and, while I'm pretty sure a lot of people would hate it and I think it's very unlikely, I actually don't think it's that bad given their current situation.

@Will_d_jones On top of fact that Cam might be our best overall defender, more an indictment of team, but still he's been good, not great.

@Will_d_jones Playoffs will be interesting. I'm hoping CB plays well enough to be able to move! I really like Cam after his two games to get adjusted coming back since then he's avg. 14.7/3.7/2.6 54/48/86 splits AG since he's come back: 14.3/5.2/2.3 47/41/73 splits

@Will_d_jones I really think they have to move off of CB or AG, that's my thought. Not sure if they can though.

@CossmanTodd Yeah. No way we’re resigning Val. Probably can’t keep Tim unless he wants to stay and gives a discount. Idk how we move off zeke unless maybe packaging him with Cam or something. It’s like either way Cam is the only flexible piece and that allows us room to sign Pwat.

@RFreemyer @Will_d_jones @cdmomo24 I don't hate signing and trading PWat if we can get something valuable.

@Will_d_jones @cdmomo24 I'm kind of resigned to the fact that any outcome with Watson is going to be bad. They will most likely either overpay him at the expense of another starter or lose him for nothing. Starting to think that some kind of sign and trade is the least bad option with him.

@Will_d_jones @cdmomo24 I agree we suck without him but a big part of that is we have no PF's on the dang roster, moving his salary, and bringing in some useful PF's even if they aren't quite as good as AG wouldn't be a bad move IMO.

@cdmomo24 I agree it probably wouldn’t be enough and we’d also be worse. But he’s the only contract we can do anything with. And I’d hate to lose AG we see how much we suck without him

@Will_d_jones Easily enough to resign Spence, not enough to keep PWat IMO. We could easily trade Cam to keep PWat, but that would severely harm our shooting. Reality is we either move Cam, CB, or AG or we don't keep PWat is what I see.

@Will_d_jones So I was looking at next year's roster. We're at 215 million and the 2nd apron is 222 million. We have 9 guys we have under contract. We can pass on team option for Val and let him go to Europe, and that puts us at 205 million. If we can move off of Zeke we can get to 198 Mill.

@sincead33 @swamthetiber25 Did the Father "punish" the Son, and was sin or guilt imputed to Christ I think would be the dividing lines, it's also to me the biggest difference between what is typically called Vicarious Satisfaction and what is termed as PSA.

There isn’t a fixed definition but the notorious idea of the Father being displeased with the Son during His passion, Jesus losing the state of grace, etc. that is found among some confused evangelicals isn’t found in classical Protestantism. I just think it’s best to qualify or specify that you only intend to critique a specific definition, rather than the whole term.

Did God the Father pour out His wrath on His Son? Problems with the Penal Substitution Atonement theory (PSA): PSA implies opposition between Father and Son, contradicting Trinitarian doctrine: the three Persons share one undivided essence, will, and love, acting in perfect harmony. The idea of the Father turning against the Son in wrath fractures the seamless unity of the Triune God. God cannot simply forgive out of love but instead requires a violent sacrifice to satisfy His anger or justice. This makes forgiveness conditional on punishment rather than a free, merciful act. PSA can suggest God is constrained by a higher principle of retributive justice that even He must satisfy, limiting divine freedom and portraying Him as less sovereign or merciful than Scripture depicts. If the just penalty for sin is eternal separation from God, as some suggest, how could Jesus’ finite suffering, hours on the cross, followed by death and resurrection after three days, possibly pay that full, infinite/eternal penalty? PSA portrays God as punishing the innocent. Justice requires that only the guilty face punishment, and guilt cannot be transferred. Yet in PSA, Christ— perfectly innocent—is punished for humanity’s sins, making God appear unjust. Old Testament sacrifices weren’t about transferring punishment from the guilty to an innocent victim. They were mainly about purification and restoring the relationship with God. The Passover lamb, for example, wasn’t punished for sin; it was eaten as a sacred meal. The New Testament wouldn't break from the Old Testament typology of what sacrifices accomplished. Penal substitutionary atonement was largely absent from the early Church and only became prominent after the Reformation. Even medieval theologians like Anselm, who spoke of Christ satisfying what was owed for sin, did not promote the idea that Christ received punishment from the Father. That idea developed very late in Christian history. Scripture shows death as the result of turning from God, not a punishment he imposes. If death is a consequence, not a penalty, there is nothing for Christ to “take” in our place. He enters death to defeat it, freeing humanity from sin and restoring our life with God, not simply satisfying a legal sentence. objections: Propitiation: The New Testament word hilasterion, often translated “propitiation,” can mean cleansing or the mercy seat rather than appeasing God’s wrath. Romans 3:25 emphasizes Christ removing sin and restoring fellowship with God, not satisfying a legal penalty. The Bible never says Christ was punished by the Father to satisfy divine wrath, so PSA reads ideas into the text that were never there. Isaiah 53 Isaiah 53 is a central prophecy for defenders of penal substitutionary atonement, yet it is often taken out of context. Nowhere in Isaiah does it say that the Father is punishing Christ. Verse 4 tells us that although he “bore our griefs and carried our sorrows, yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.” Reworded, this reflects humanity’s perception that he is afflicted by God, not that God has actively punished him. Verse 5 says, “by his stripes we are healed,” not “by his stripes the Father is appeased.” A literal translation from the Septuagint makes this even clearer: “The one our sins bore and on account of us he was grieved. And we considered him to be a misery, and for calamity by God, and for ill-treatment. But he was wounded because of our sins and was made infirm on account of our lawless deeds.” Isaiah 53, properly read, is a prophecy of Christ’s healing and restorative work, emphasizing his solidarity with human suffering and the redemption he brings, rather than a narrow focus on satisfying divine wrath.

@Will_d_jones They've really become the worst!

OKC fans….not surprised one bit by this

@Texas_Shanesaw_ @DoorDashThomist 2/ is more then enough to satisfy divine justice. Hence Vicarious Satisfaction.

@Texas_Shanesaw_ @DoorDashThomist 1/Christ isn't punished in a true sense but he endures our punishment vicarioulsy to make satisfaction for our sins. It is important to note that he doesn't take a 1:1 punishment, he doesn't experience separation from God, but what he does experience & what he offers out of love,

I typically don’t waste my time responding to foids who are clearly illiterate in Catholic theology, but profoundly ignorant posts such as these expose the Church to calumny. I will be drawing my response from the thought of the Angelic Doctor. First, concerning the necessity of the Our Lord’s Passion it is based on a hypothetical necessity (based on extrinsic factors, namely the ordinance of God), not an absolute necessity (based on the intrinsic nature of the thing). However, St. Thomas is clear that the Passion of Christ is the more fitting means by which man is delivered from eternal damnation, as opposed to deliverance simply by divine decree. “A thing may be said to be possible or impossible in two ways: first of all, simply and absolutely; or second, from supposition. Therefore, speaking simply and absolutely, it was possible for God to deliver mankind otherwise than by the Passion of Christ, because no word shall be impossible with God (Luke 1:37). Yet it was impossible if some supposition be made. For since it is impossible for God’s foreknowledge to be deceived and His will or ordinance to be frustrated, then, supposing God’s foreknowledge and ordinance regarding Christ’s Passion, it was not possible at the same time for Christ not to suffer, and for mankind to be delivered otherwise than by Christ’s Passion. And the same holds good of all things foreknown and preordained by God.” (ST.III.Q46.A2.C) “Among means to an end that one is the more suitable whereby the various concurring means employed are themselves helpful to such end. But in this that man was delivered by Christ’s Passion, many other things besides deliverance from sin concurred for man’s salvation…It was accordingly more fitting that we should be delivered by Christ’s Passion than simply by God’s good-will.” (ST.III.Q46.A3.C) In order to have a proper understanding of vindictive justice (restoration of the order of justice), we must examine its relationship to sin. From the act of sin follows the reatus culpae (guilt of sin), and the reatus poenae (punishment of sin). The former is denied to Christ qua man in His Most Holy Passion simpliciter, but the latter is affirmed secundum quid. The reatus poenae can be understood in the strict sense or in the broad sense. Christ is only said to experience the reatus poenae in the broad sense, because He voluntarily assumed the punishments owed to us. The reatus poenae in the strict sense is only applicable to involuntary punishments. “Punishment can be considered in two ways—simply, and as being satisfactory. A satisfactory punishment is, in a way, voluntary. And since those who differ as to the debt of punishment, may be one in will by the union of love, it happens that one who has not sinned, bears willingly the punishment for another: thus even in human affairs we see men take the debts of another upon themselves. If, however, we speak of punishment simply, in respect of its being something penal, it has always a relation to a sin in the one punished. Sometimes this is a relation to actual sin, as when a man is punished by God or man for a sin committed by him.” (ST.I-II.Q87.A7.C) Furthermore, all sin merits punishment that requires some form of satisfaction because it is a disturbance of the moral order established by God’s divine providence. Sin is repugnant to God because it is contrary to His absolute goodness, as sin consists in a privation of the good. Anger and wrath are not predicated of God in the literal sense as God does not experience emotions, but only as an anthropopathism insofar as these emotions signify one who punishes, and restores the moral order by His justice. “Sin incurs a debt of punishment through disturbing an order. But the effect remains so long as the cause remains. Wherefore so long as the disturbance of the order remains the debt of punishment must needs remain also. Now disturbance of an order is sometimes reparable, sometimes irreparable: because a defect which destroys the principle is irreparable, whereas if the principle be saved, defects can be repaired by virtue of that principle. For instance, if the principle of sight be destroyed, sight cannot be restored except by Divine power; whereas, if the principle of sight be preserved, while there arise certain impediments to the use of sight, these can be remedied by nature or by art. Now in every order there is a principle whereby one takes part in that order. Consequently if a sin destroys the principle of the order whereby man’s will is subject to God, the disorder will be such as to be considered in itself, irreparable, although it is possible to repair it by the power of God. Now the principle of this order is the last end, to which man adheres by charity.” (ST.I-II.Q87.A3.C) Now Christ alone as the God-Man by His voluntary theandric act could make satisfaction for the infinite debt owed to sin. The debt owed to sin is said to be infinite with respect to the dignity of God who is offended by sin, as all sin is a disturbance of His moral order established by divine decree. For example, a man who slaps a king receives a far harsher punishment than a man who slaps a slave, not with respect to the act itself, but due to the dignity of the one wronged by the act. Christ alone could make for us de condigno in the strict sense because the dignity of Christ’s flesh is not measured from flesh, but it is measured insofar as it is God’s flesh. This dignity is infinite because the divine suppositum of the Word subsists in Christ’s sacred humanity. Even man in a state of justice can only merit de condigno in the broad sense because Christ alone qua man has an equal dignity to the rewarder, as it is the divine suppositum who subsists in Christ’s sacred humanity. “The dignity of Christ’s flesh is not to be estimated solely from the nature of flesh, but also from the Person assuming it—namely, inasmuch as it was God’s flesh, the result of which was that it was of infinite worth.” (ST.III.Q48.A2.Rep3) Lastly, it should be noted that it is Catholic doctrine that Christ possessed the beatific vision His entire earthly life. How does one reconcile this with the intense sorrow Christ experienced that is clearly recorded in Holy Writ? While Catholic theologians have many proposed solutions to reconcile these two truths, I would say the best synthesis is to simply say that Christ did not allow His upper faculties to provide comfort to His lower faculties in His Passion. The rest of this post consists of assertions and utter falsehoods that are repugnant to Catholic theology and Holy Writ. As Good Friday is tomorrow, it is of utmost importance that the Catholic theory of atonement is properly presented, and its overall relationship to orthodox Christology.