red-faced, foam-flecked screaming about liberals. THAT’s the evangelical Christianity I know and love.

Wow! You really didn’t get this scene did you? You have a shocking ignorance about evangelicals. The guy didn’t have salvation, he was facing his death and he wanted redemption, he wanted atonement and an evangelical(Ur…you may want to look up the word before you use it again)would already realize that he has received atonement. He wouldn’t be asking for a chaplain because his pastor would be there with him.

BTW, it’s even worse than I thought, I just watched the context of the scene and it turns out the guy is holding rosary beads. Bwahahahahahahah! Next time you want to take a cheap shot at us, you might want to check your aim!

Michelle: “BTW, it’s even worse than I thought, I just watched the context of the scene and it turns out the guy is holding rosary beads. Bwahahahahahahah! Next time you want to take a cheap shot at us, you might want to check your aim! ”
Yes, because as we all know, Catholics are not Christians.
http://www.born-again-christian.info/catholics.htm
And neither are Mormons.
http://www.nauvoochristian.org/
You have to get the players right, Jaybird.

Okay, so he’s a red-faced, spittle-flecked Catholic. The fact remains that the only reason you bothered to post this stupid clip is because you thought it made a point about atonement theology, which both Catholics and Evangelicals adhere to, and because it allows you to sneer at liberal Christians. Wah.

When I was dying the hospital some years ago the last thing that I would have wanted to have bothering me would have been a chaplain that believed in certainty because I certainly would have not been going to HER heaven, nor would I very much want to.
As far as the poor slob on ER, no decent heaven would let him in. He would have been slobbering all over the place and ruining the parties.

Ur…jaybird, you didn’t take my suggestion, did you? Too bad because again you don’t know what you’re talking about. Catholics and Protestants have a difference of opinion on atonement.
The reason I posted this was was to note that since liberal theology is missing a resurrection, how can it bring hope, atonement and forgiveness to someone who is looking for it? Do you even understand the issue? It’s very easy to come here and sneer at what I have to say but it’s another to actually engage me on the issue.

I tell you what, Charles. If I were that guy and I wanted to know about forgiveness, atonement and what happens next, I would want certainty. I thank the Lord Jesus Christ that he gave us his word so that we can have that certainty in the promises of God. I thank the Father that he sent his only Son to ensure that we can be certain of our salvation — Christ’s resurrection is our assurance of redemption. I know that Christ’s atonement which was made on the behalf of his people was accepted by the Father because he raised Christ from the dead. That is the only assurance I need and I’m thankful for it.

Ur…jaybird, you didn’t take my suggestion, did you? Too bad because again you don’t know what you’re talking about. Catholics and Protestants have a difference of opinion on atonement.
Not really. I suppose you have a point if you’re talking about Five-Point Calvinism or something, but in general, Catholics and Protestants both believe in Christ’s vicarious atonement for sin though his death on the cross. This isn’t debateable.
The reason I posted this was was to note that since liberal theology is missing a resurrection, how can it bring hope, atonement and forgiveness to someone who is looking for it? Do you even understand the issue? It’s very easy to come here and sneer at what I have to say but it’s another to actually engage me on the issue.
Actually, I think the whole theology of blood atonement for sin is primitive and ignorant, so I guess we are at somewhat of an impasse here.

Yeah it’s debatable because it’s been debated throughout church history from the time of the Reformation to today. Ask a Catholic if they believe in penal substitution and if they know their doctrine, they’ll say no.
Ask a Catholic what happens next and the answer will be different from what a Protestant will tell you.
We’re at an impasse because you won’t admit that you don’t know what the heck you’re talking about and refuse to listen.

But we’re not talking about penal substitution – we’re talking about atonement:
The word atonement, which is almost the only theological term of English origin, has a curious history. The verb “atone”, from the adverbial phrase “at one” (M.E. at oon), at first meant to reconcile, or make “at one”; from this it came to denote the action by which such reconciliation was effected, e.g. satisfaction for all offense or an injury. Hence, in Catholic theology, the Atonement is the Satisfaction of Christ, whereby God and the world are reconciled or made to be at one. “For God indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19). The Catholic doctrine on this subject is set forth in the sixth Session of the Council of Trent, chapter ii. Having shown the insufficiency of Nature, and of Mosaic Law the Council continues:
“Whence it came to pass, that the Heavenly Father, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort (2 Corinthians 1, 3), when that blessed fullness of the time was come (Galatians 4:4) sent unto men Jesus Christ, His own Son who had been, both before the Law and during the time of the Law, to many of the holy fathers announced and promised, that He might both redeem the Jews, who were under the Law and that the Gentiles who followed not after justice might attain to justice and that all men might receive the adoption of sons. Him God had proposed as a propitiator, through faith in His blood (Romans 3:25), for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm
So on top of atonement being a primitive and ignorant idea to begin with, we’re also at an impasse because you keep shifting the goal posts and refuse to admit it.

P.S.:
All branches of the Christian faith embrace substitutionary atonement as the central meaning of Jesus’ death on the cross, while some differ in their larger atonement theories. The Eastern Orthodox Church incorporates substitutionary atonement as one (relatively minor) element of a single doctrine of the Cross and Resurrection, the Catholic church incorporates it into Aquinas’ Satisfaction doctrine rooted in the idea of penance, and Evangelical Protestants interpret it largely in terms of penal substitution.[2]
In your face, Reformed Chick Blabbing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement#Belief_in_the_Doctrine

You’re in our face with wikipedia? OK, I give up. I can’t get you to see what the guy was asking, all you’re doing is looking up words like it’s a dictionary and getting a definition. I’m trying to explain concepts.

Here’s something nice on atonement, that I’ve carried around with me for some time:
In 1870 the First Vatican Council had been ready to define satisfaction as a dogma of the Church when political events in Italy caused the council to be suspended indefinitely. In thesis sixteen [Bernard] Lonergan clarifies the meaning of this traditional doctrine. Negatively it does not mean that Jesus’ death saves us as payment of the penalty for sin in our place. Neither Anselm nor Thomas, nor the Catholic tradition in general understands satisfaction in terms of penal substitution. Nor does the doctrine of satisfaction mean that Jesus’ death was a sacrifice that appeased God’s wrath. God does not take pleasure in innocent suffering. Rather, a correct understanding of the theory of satisfaction finds its key in an analogy with the sacrament of reconciliation. Through this analogy Jesus’ death comes into focus as an expression of his revulsion at sin and love for God – not as an instance of divine child abuse! Loewe’s intro Christology, 166.
Any chaplain worth her weight in humility would have gotten the patient someone who could help him immediately, without hesitation. It’s a baloney scene.

all you’re doing is looking up words like it’s a dictionary and getting a definition
Yes, defining your terms is a necessary pre-condition in any debate.
I’m trying to explain concepts.
You’re pretty terrible at it.

I watched the larger clip, spotted the rosary, a gratuitous prop for network TV, an amulet. It’s pretty ineffective in his hands. Maybe his character is really too upset to use it properly.
The bait-n-switch of the scene is that he presents as a “good Samaritan.” A doctor, no less. Who worked in prisons, no less. Oh, but he executed people, something a doctor isn’t supposed to do. Like abortion doctors and euthanasia doctors.
But he’s forgotten the cardinal rule about executioners: they are immune to any culpability. That’s the civil heresy in this clip, to suggest he bears guilt for his job. (‘Though we expect more from doctors, morally, don’t we?)
Regardless, this man still needs to be lead in a prayer of confession and be assured of God’s forgiveness. 1 John 1:9. This female chaplain is trying to justify the man in himself, soothe his conscience in human terms, without bringing in the supernatural. For his sake, the man knows enough to know that he needs more than that. He knows he needs God’s forgiveness … that’s a very good start, isn’t it, michele?

It is Moonshadow, I was quite impressed with that. Not too many people realize that they do.

Him God had proposed as a propitiator, through faith in His blood (Romans 3:25), for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world
It’s interesting, but not surprising, that the Rheims renders ?????????? as “propitiator”. “Expiation” was preferred to “propitiation” in the NAB, as this footnote explains.
I know James White has a problem with the NAB’s translation of Rom. 3:25… anyone else?