Thursday, March 25, 2010

Open Forum (1 April 2010)




For all discussions unrelated to current blog topics or any paper on my blog. To locate this forum at any time, go to my sidebar to the icon seen above: near the top, between the audio collections icon (man with headphones) and "Tax-Deductible Donations".

Enjoy, and please be cordial and charitable at all times: especially with our non-Catholic friends. This is a free speech blog. I only delete comments (very rarely) in cases of outright vulgarity or sustained insults with non-substantive content.

229 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 229 of 229
Spoils23m said...

Ken,

I am confused by your reference to Romans 9:3 as it relates to 'huper' and to penal substitutionary atonement.

Which English translations do you know of that use "in place of" or "instead of?" I can't think of any off the top of my head.

I can't see how St. Paul's wish here relates to Our Lord's sacrifice either... I don't see St. Paul making a comparison of his wish here to the Christ's redemptive work on the cross so... I don't know... I feel as though you are really stretching here, but I am willing to take another look.

Blessings,
Cearnaigh

Spoils23m said...

Ken,

I don't think you got what context Adomnan was referring to... at all.

The more you explain penal substitution... the less logical sense it makes to me. I don't know if I am the only person with this problem, but... I sense that I am not.

Blessings,
Cearnaigh

Spoils23m said...

Ken,

I am confused by your reference to Romans 9:3 as it relates to 'huper' and to penal substitutionary atonement.

Which English translations do you know of that use "in place of" or "instead of?" I can't think of any off the top of my head.

I can't see how St. Paul's wish here relates to Our Lord's sacrifice either... I don't see St. Paul making a comparison of his wish here to the Christ's redemptive work on the cross so... I don't know... I feel as though you are really stretching here, but I am willing to take another look.

Blessings,
Cearnaigh

Maroun said...

Ken said.spiritual suffering and death, ie. separation from the Father - But of course His Divine Nature did not "cease to exist" - that is not what "death" means. He was separated for a time from the Father, then "made alive in spirit.

Man with all my respect,this is exactly what i knew you would say,and it`s pur blasphemy. The Son separated from the Father,so according to you at a certain point in timewe didnt have God as atrinity but only Father and Holy Spirit?
If that is not blaspheming,i dont know what is.How could God be always the same,if according to you,for a few time He was not?
I really cant even count in my head how many heresies are and could be included in what you said.I mean i did tell you before that u r a nestorian,but now?wow
You see Ken,this is exactly the problem with your wrong idea of substitution,u must arrive at this evil conclusion,and thank God i knew that you would as soon as i thought i should ask you this specific question.
Ken,you cannot even separate the divinity of Christ from his humanity ( hypostatic union ) because Jesus is one person,and you want to separate the Eternel begotten Son of God from the Father?you want to separate God from God and pretend to be correct?
Man,that does it.
Thank you very much,but no thanks.
Thank God that i made you say it.

Nick said...

Yes Maroun, you've got it!

It is pure blasphemy on the most basic level that nobody cannot read "Jesus was spiritually dead" and not cringe.

Adomnan said...

Ken: "Anti" is never used in these contexts.

Yes it is; in Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28.

Adomnan: You didn't bother to read my argument, did you? No matter. Others read it. I can't stop you from being blind, if that's what you want to be.

To repeat: In Mark 10:45 and Matthrew 20:28, "anti" is referring to "ransom," not penal substitution; and the preposition does not mean "in the place of." It means "in exchange for" in this context.

When have you ever heard it said that someone was given as ransom "in the place of" a hostage? How about: NEVER? It's always so-and-so was ransomed "in exchange for" such-and-such.

And, as Nick explained in detail, the idea of "ransom" not only does not support penal sub, it contradicts it.

Ken: And "huper" also means "in place of, instead of" as a substitute - as in Romans 9:3, where Paul wishes he was accursed in place of his unbelieving Jewish brethren.

Adomnan: Wrong! Paul is saying here that he would be willing to be cursed (anathema) for the benefit of/on behalf of his Jewish brethern, if that would help them, not "in their place." Paul doesn't say his Jewish brethern were "anathema" in the first place, which he would have to have done to suggest that he could hypothetically take their place. Paul says he is wiiling to be anathema; he never says his Jewish brethern were anathema. (And the application of "anathema" in Galatians to those who don't observe the Law is not applied to Jews, but to Judaizing Gentile Galatians. So don't bring that up.)

Again, even if one were to concede that "in their place" were a possible translation of "huper" in Romans 9:3 -- which I don't! -- it would only be a possible translation, thus ambiguous, and you can't use an ambiguous text to establish a definite usage for "huper." You would have to provide a context in which "huper" certainly meant "in the place of" and could only mean that.

The fact remains that the writers of the New Testament had a Greek preposition at their disposal that they could have used to express the idea of substitution in Christ's death/sacrifice, namely "anti." But they never used it. Why? Evidently because they did not wish to express that idea, which was never in their minds.

Adomnan said...

Ken: The theology of this is not hard - you guys are making it too hard.

Adomnan: Maybe nothing is hard if you can leave reason and sanity -- and the Bible -- out of the discussion. Sorry. We can't do that.

Ken: 1. Humans are sinful and deserved to die. (yes, even Isaac in Gen. 22 and the Hebrews firstborn in Exodus 12-14). Or don't you, as a RC believe in original, inherited sin? - Psalm 51:5; Romans 5:12?

Adomnan: So you actually ARE claiming that God wanted Isaac dead because he was a dirty, rotten sinner? Why is that somehow left out of the account in Genesis?

And so God had a ram killed instead because He wanted something dead to ease his anger toward Isaac and a ram would do?

Ken: 2. the wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23. All humans have sinned. Romans 3:23

Adomnan: Notice that it's sin that pays the wages of death, not God. If anything, then, sin is satisfied when someone is killed.

Ken: 3. We deserved to die and suffer the wrath of God. Ephesians 2:1-3; Genesis 2:17

Adomnan: Didn't you just say this in 1 and 2?

Ken: 4. Christ died in our place. Both anti and huper point to this.

Adomnan: Here comes the craziness. If Christ died to pay the Father for our sins, then the Father didn't forgive us. You're just ignoring that.

Of course, sacrifices (guilt-, sin-sacrifices or whatever) are not penal substitutions. Christ is never said to die in anyone's place, but only on their behalf. A ransom is inconsistent with penal substitution. If Christ died in our place, we wouldn't die. But we do, and so he didn't. Etc, etc.

Ken: 5. Therefore, He took the punishment of death for us, the separation from God the Father, which is why He cried out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me? quoting Psalm 22.

Adomnan: His cry was actually optimistic. It was the first verse of a psalm in which God rescues the speaker at the end, just as Jesus rose from the dead. The "forsaken" here doesn't mean "deserted," it means "left to enemies," a very different thing. God cannot be separated from God, and you would need REAMS of Bible texts to prove otherwise, not an ambiguous statement here and there.

Finally, as I said before, God's justice would NOT be satisfied by punishing an innocent. Punishing the innocent is a far greater evil than pardoning the guilty, and God cannot rectify injustice by committing a greater injustice, what Prov 17:15 calls an "abomination."

You never answered my question, by the way. Is condemning the innocent the only abomination that God indulges in, or can He indulge in everything He calls an abomination?

Adomnan said...

Ken: Galatians 3:13 says He became the curse (judgment) of the law for us.

Adomnan: He became a curse under the Law because He was hanged, and anyone hanged is a curse. Notice that such people are curses (to others, to the land); they are not themselves "cursed."

But Jesus Christ was only a curse ACCORDING TO THE JEWISH LAW, which Paul is in the process of repudiating. Jesus was not "a curse" to the Father. For Paul, to say the Law cursed someone is not to say that God cursed them. Otherwise, all Gentiles would be cursed, whether Christian or not, because they are all cursed by the Jewish Law (as not adhering to it).

Ken: And the word for bore in I Peter 2:24 is used in Hebrews 7:27 and 9:28, so yes, Adomnan, Hebrews also teaches substitutionary atonement,

Adomnan: And all this is based just on the use of the word "bore"? Hebrews never mentions anything like penal substitution -- in fact, describes the atonement is a way that contradicts penal sub -- and yet, Hebrews "teaches" penal sub becasue it uses the word "bore"? And you call this an argument?

And, by the way, you're representing the scripture yet again. I just looked up Hebrews 7:27. The word "anaphero" means "offer," not bear." That's it. You've just about lost all credibility with your misquoting of the scriptures.

Your thoughts about "physical" death versus whatever other kind of death you have in mind are not worth refuting. Neither are your confused ramblings on a ransom being paid to "justice" or "holiness" (which of these two and where is this nonsense in the Bible?) -- are you trying to say that the Father wasn't paid, but His "justice" was? (It's a rhetorical question. I don't really need to know your answer. You never answer my real questions, and so you can skip the rhetorical ones as well.)

Adomnan said...

In the first sentence of the penultimate paragraph in my last post, I meant to write "misrepresenting the scripture," not "representing it."

Adomnan said...

Following is yet another example of how Ken misuses the scripture, interpreting a passage completely contrary to its evident meaning:

Ken: Interesting that in Leviticus 16:22, the LXX word for "bear" is lempsetai, from lambano, to receive, grasp, take, seize,

The same word in Matthew 8:17, where Matthew translates the Hebrew of Isaiah 53:4 himself and does not use the LXX, because he wants to allude to the scapegoat imagery. He received, carried, offered our sins in His body.

Adomnan: So Matthew uses "lambano" in 8:17 "because he wants to allude to the scapegoat imagery," eh?

So Matthew is claiming that Jesus "received, carried, offered our sins" in this passage, eh? (By the way, how do you offer "sins"? Does God want "sins"? So then why "offer" them to Him?)

Well, let's take a look at look at Matthew 8:16-17:

"That evening they brought him many who were possessed by devils. He drove out the spirits with a command and cured all who were sick. THIS WAS TO FULFILL what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah:

'He himself took away (elabe, from lambano) our sicknesses and carried our diseases.'"

So -- FAR FROM ANY PENAL SUBSTITUTION! -- Matthew interpreted Isaiah to be simply a prophecy that the Messiah would heal diseases. Matthew clearly doesn't see this verse in Isaiah 53 as having anything to do with the Day of Atonement, much less the scapegoat rite.

If the prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled by the Messiah curing diseases, then it cannot allude to the Messiah being a scapegoat.

Your credibility is very shaky as it is, Ken. Don't make it worse by claiming every other scripture implies penal sub.

Adomnan said...

Nick: I've finished my brief comparison between Isaiah 53 & Job and demonstrate that Job must be the "Suffering Servant" the prophecy was about.

Adomnan: I read it, Nick. It was outstanding (or maybe, for Ken's benefit, I should call it "precious and glorious"). I think you said almost everything that needs to be said about the language of Isaiah 53 and how it was understood in the New Testament.

I like the way you pointed out that Matthew's translation of Isaiah's verb "bear" in Matthew 8:16-17 shows that the NT writers understood this word to mean "take away."

And the fact that "lay" and "make intercession" translate the same word in Isaiah is something I never would have guessed.

Similarly, "chastisement" has no implication of judicial punishment. On the contrary!

Finally, all the parallels between the language of Isaiah 53 and Job show that Isaiah entertained no notion of penal substitution.

One demurrer, though: You demonstrated that the Suffering Servant and Job were the same type of figure, but that doesn't mean that Job and the SS were the same person, which you seem to imply in the title of your article and in your remark here, although not in the article itself.

Maroun said...

Hi Ken.
Look,i am going to give you an example which hopefuly will make you understand.
If i had a virus,or any other kind of desease,or paralysed,or addicted to drugs,and so on...
If the doctor comes to me and tells me,in order for me to kill the virus,i have to take the virus myself,this way you can be cured.Does this makes any sens to you?or if the doctor tells me,in order for me to make you walk,i have to become paralysed myself,this way you can walk again.Or i have to become addicted to druggs instead of you....And so on for any other thing...
Now this is exactly your substitution theology is all about.
The doctor dosent need to become sick himself to heal me from my sickness,but he will give me an antivirus,a medicine to cure me...
G.K. Chesterton said,that many of the saints were hated and even put to death ,even though they were so good and loved everyone.They were considered poison,and they were,because they were medicine,and the medicine is poison for the desease.
Now our Lord Jesus Christ,didnt need to become paralysed himself to cure the paralytic,didnt need to become blind himself to give sight to the blind,and so on...
But his obedience was the cure for our sins .His shedded blood was the poison which killed death ( Heb.2:14 ).
I really think that you should pray and read very very slowly the letter to the Hebrews Ken.To read about our Lord Jesus as victim,as high priest and as a mediator between God and men.
GBU

Grubb said...

Adomnan,

Notice that in Galatians, Paul never writes "works," but always "works of the Law." In Romans, he uses "works of the Law" until the end of chapter 3, when he shortens the phrase to "works" to avoid unnecessary repetition, having established his meaning. But these "works" are always just "works of the Law," nothing broader.

I'm not Greek knowledgeable; does Paul use the exact same word for "works" in Rom 1-3 as he does after Rom 3? I'm curious. If not, maybe the meaning did change, and he was no longer referring to works of the law.

And Rom 2:6-9 says, "He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury." Is Paul talking about works of the law here? Not at all.

Adomnan: No, they aren't. "My yoke is light," Jesus said, in contrast to the yoke of the Law.

True enough. Jesus' yoke is light; it's the yoke of the RCC I'm questioning.

Grubb: But Paul told us "not to go beyond what is written,"

Adomnan: Paul was quoting an obscure Greek proverb. This has nothing to do with the Scriptures.


Proverb or not, what is he referring to if not the God inspired words he was writing or had already written? Surely he wasn't referring to the OT (aka the works of the Jewish Law), but he had to be referring to something.

(regarding my understanding of Eph 2:8-10) Adomnan: Please try to put on your thinking cap and read what I have written. This last remark suggests that you haven't.

Can't find it. ☺ Actually, my comments didn't suggest that. I do understand the difference you're pointing out between "works" and "good works"; I won't agree to it completely until I verify it from a source other than Adomnan, but I understand it. You said Paul stopped using the full term "works of the law" and shortened it to "works" after Romans 3. But there's nothing in Ephesians prior to 2:9 that would lead them to understand that "works" is referring to "works of the law" rather than simply working their way to heaven. Oh wait, I've had that thinking cap on the whole time. ☺

Whether Eph 2 is referring to works of the law or just works, why does he say we're not saved by works? So we can't boast. But if you're saved (even in part) due to your good works, you can boast, because you had something to do with your salvation. And Paul said, "What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?" (I Cor 4:7b) Christians have received salvation; we haven't earned it. If we earned it, we have a right to boast; but since we know it's God's unmerited favor (and not our works) that granted salvation to us, we can not boast.
.

Ken said...

Unfortunately, ( I would like to continue, but I cannot spend any more time on this) I just don't have time to debate and dialogue on this anymore for now; so I will provide you with three more articles that cover the issue of substitutionary atonement. no. 2 addresses Proverbs 17:15.

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/04/substitutionary-atonement-and-proverbs.html

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/05/substitutionary-atonement-and-proverbs.html

http://www.sbts.edu/media/publications/sbjt/SBJT_2007Summer5.pdf

Adomnan said...

Grubb: And Rom 2:6-9 says, "He will render to each one according to his works."

Adomnan: Actually, you're right. This is an instance where Paul uses "works" (erga), but is not referring to "works of the Law."

However, Paul consistently used the full expression "works of the Law" in Rom 1-3 and in Galatians. It isn't until Rom 4:2 that he shortens the expression to "works." These "works," though, clearly refer to the "works of the Law" mentioned in the previous paragraph. After Rom 4:2, Paul consistently uses "works" as shorthand for "works of the Law." Since in Rom 2, Paul has not yet switched to the shorter expression, "works" there is an exception and does not refer to works of the Law.

It is more characteristic of Paul to use the singular "good work" when he wants to refer to good actions. He does this, for example, in Rom 2:7. He probably used the plural erga in Rom 2:6 because he is about to contrast "good work" with bad work (the latter described in Rom 2:8). So, "according to his works" in Rom 2:6 means according to his works (good or bad); thus the plural.

In any case, you are right. I will have to modify my assertion that Paul always uses "works" to refer to "works of the Law" to take into account this one exception in Rom 2:6. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Fr. Joseph A. Fitzgerald, perhaps the leading Catholic Pauline scholar, speaks of the equivalence of works and works of the Law in his "Paul and His Theology":

"Paul often uses the expression erga nomou, 'deeds/works of the law,' that is, deeds prescribed by the Mosaic Law....At times Paul shortens the phrase and uses merely erga, 'deeds' (Rom 4:2,6; 9:11,32; 11:6). From this shortening stems the difficulty that his slogan later encountered, when his teaching about justification by grace through faith, apart from works, was being heard in a different Christian context. Recall the correction (not of his teaching, but of a caricature of it) that is found in Jas 2:14-26."

Adomnan said...

Grubb: True enough. Jesus' yoke is light; it's the yoke of the RCC I'm questioning.

Adomnan: The yoke of Jesus and of the RCC are the same, because the RCC is the church Jesus founded on the rock of Peter and is His body.

Adomnan: Paul was quoting an obscure Greek proverb. This has nothing to do with the Scriptures.

Grubb: Proverb or not, what is he referring to if not the God inspired words he was writing or had already written? Surely he wasn't referring to the OT (aka the works of the Jewish Law), but he had to be referring to something.

Adomnan: 1 Cor 4:6 says: "I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that you can learn how the saying, 'Nothing beyond what is written' is true of us: no individual among you must become filled with his own importance and make comparisons, to another's detriment."

The New Jerusalem Bible has a note on this: "Obscure. Perhaps a citation of a proverb familiar to the Corinthian Jews, perhaps a gloss deprecating some insertion by a copyist."

Whatever the case, the "saying" has nothing to do with the Scripture, but refers rather to making oneself important to the detriment of others.

There is no point in disputing this further, Grubb. I see it as an obscure proverb or literary reference that has nothing to do with the Scriptures. If you insist on imposing a different interpretation on this difficult text, I can't stop you; but I will never, of course, agree with you.

Adomnan said...

Grubb: But there's nothing in Ephesians prior to 2:9 that would lead them to understand that "works" is referring to "works of the law" rather than simply working their way to heaven. Oh wait, I've had that thinking cap on the whole time. ☺

Adomnan: I can see that now, but maybe you'll grant it wasn't obvious before.

The problem with Ephesians is that most scholars don't think it was actually written by Paul, but by a disciple who ascribed it to Paul because he thought he was just passing on Paul's thoughts; and it was the literary convention at the time to ascribe a writing to the person whose ideas it reflected rather than to a disciple who was simply passing them on.

Given this, the writer of the epistle uses the actual words of Paul, but he might not use them in the same logical sequence that Paul would. For example, Paul only speaks of works/works of the Law in connection with justification. Ephesians uses the Pauline term "works" in connection with salvation, something not at all characteristic of Paul's style.

In Eph 2:9, the writer has inserted a Pauline term ("works"). He is either using the term in a peculiar sense or he is using it as Paul would. I opt for the likelihood that he is faithfully reflecting Paul's use of the word and that it thus refers to "works of the Law." As I said, the interplay betweeen Jews and Gentiles in this whole passage reinforces my interpretation, because "works (of the Law)" mark the Jews.

Furthermore, the author of the epistle no doubt assumed that his audience was familiar with Paul's polemic against Jewish "works." Therefore, particularly in a passage that speaks of Jews and Gentiles and what divides them, he felt that this nod to "works" as something specifically Jewish was clear enough to his readers.

I hasten to add that, even if you were to give the term the broader -- illegimate, I think -- sense that you do ("working your way to heaven"), this wouldn't support the Reformed position. The passage discusses salvation, not justification. And the Reformed have always maintained that "works," as they understand them, have nothing to do with justification. They have never maintained that works are not a part of the larger process of redemption called "salvation."

Adomnan said...

Grubb: Whether Eph 2 is referring to works of the law or just works, why does he say we're not saved by works? So we can't boast. But if you're saved (even in part) due to your good works, you can boast, because you had something to do with your salvation.

Adomnan: Ah, but the theme of boasting actually supports my interpretation; namely, that works in Eph 2:9 refer to works of the Jewish Law.

When Paul speaks of boasting, he is never referring to boasting of one's own accomplishments. He only has in mind boasting of being Jewish. Thus, (Rom 2:17-18) "Behold, thou art a Jew, and restest in the Law and makest thy boast of God, and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law." And Rom 2:23: "Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?"

So, for Paul, boasting is boasting of God and of the Law; that is, boasting of being Jewish. In the same way, if the "works" of Eph 2:9 conduce to "boasting," it can only be -- if one is faithful to Paul's usage -- to boasting of the works of the Law and of being Jewish, the only "boasting" that Paul considers (well, aside from boasting of Jesus Christ).

Nick said...

Ken,

The links you posted cannot be taken seriously. Not only do they project many assumptions onto the texts of Proverbs (and elsewhere), they don't examine where Proverbs EXPLICITLY mentions atonement! Prov 16:6,14 say "through love and faithfulness, sin is ATONED for" (using the standard Hebrew word for atone).

Adomnan said...

Ken: Unfortunately, ( I would like to continue, but I cannot spend any more time on this) I just don't have time to debate and dialogue on this anymore for now; so I will provide you with three more articles that cover the issue of substitutionary atonement. no. 2 addresses Proverbs 17:15.

Adomnan: Your links are a load of nonsense. If you think they make a case, then why don't you bring the case over here? It's because you know we'd tear this nonsense apart. Let's face it. You don't even believe this drivel anymore.

The second link claims that the Father honors Proverbs 17:15 ("he who condemns the innocent is an abomination") by making Jesus guilty (by "imputation" of guilt to him, a procedure never mentioned in the Bible). So Jesus IS actually guilty, according to these people; and God can condemn him without making himself an abomination. How convenient.

We're back to the fundamentally insane notion that you can justly shift the blame from the guilty party to an innocent patsy.

I really don't see how evangelicals/fundamentalists can be judges or lawyers or serve on juries if they think this worst of injustices is justice! If I ever a commit a crime, though, I'll hold out for a fundie jury, because they might shift the guilt to the guy sitting next to me.

Romans 4:5 has a phrase sometimes translated as "him who justifies the ungodly (or wicked)." This does not contradict Prov 17:15 ("He who acquits the guilty is an abomination") because the word translated 'ungodly" (a very poor English rendering of the Greek "asebes") actually just means "Gentile" in this context and refers specifically to the very godly Abraham when he was still a Gentile. Abraham was, however, "ungodly" (again, imprecise word) ACCORDING TO THE LAW, because he was not circumcised at the time. All uncircumcised men were "ungodly," by definition, according to the Jewish Law. Abraham was not, however, "ungodly" in God's eyes.

In any event, "asebes" does not mean "guilty," which is a judicial expression.

Adomnan said...

Grubb, to show that my take on "works" in Eph 2:9 is something like the scholarly consensus, here is a quote from the Abingdon New Testament Commentary on Ephesians (1997) by Pheme Perkins (Professor of New Testament at Boston College):

"The shorthand 'works' in verse 9 alludes to the Pauline 'works of the Law' (Gal 2:16; 3:2-5,9,10; Rom 3:27-28; 4:2-5; 9:32; Rom 11:6 contrasts works and grace)."

Notice that, starting from Rom 4:2, all of the references to "works of the Law" in Prof. Perkins list are actually designated simply "works." And Prof. Perkins isn't bothered by the fact that Eph doesn't use the whole phrase "works of the Law." She thinks the meaning is clear as is and would have been understood by the epistle's audience.

Ken said...

Adomnan wrote:
If you think they make a case, then why don't you bring the case over here?"

I already told you up front that I don't have time to spend on this right now; even though I would like to. Maybe I can pick it up in July. It just takes too much time; and I thought those articles explained things very well.

It's because you know we'd tear this nonsense apart.

No; I don't think you have torn it apart either.

Let's face it. You don't even believe this drivel anymore.

How did you get that impression?

On Romans 4:5 - you are wrong on restricting the word that much, neglecting the context of the whole argument from chapters 1-3, that "both Jews and Greeks are under sin" (Romans 3:9) and in chapter 5, "ungodly" in Romans 5:6(or wicked, impious) is parallel with

"helpless" (Romans 5:6)
"sinners" (Romans 5:8)
those under "the wrath of God" (5:9)
"enemies" (Romans 5:10)

the point is that Abraham was justified by faith, before circumcision, before any works (Romans 4:1-16), "apart from works" means "alone" - no works, no moral good works or obeying the Jewish law.

But good works and holiness are the results and fruits of true saving faith, true justification, true cleansing of the heart by faith and not by works (Acts 15:9) - Ephesians 2:10; Hebrews 12:14; James 2:14-26 means that good works should be evident in a person's life who claims to have faith in Christ. Same for I John 2:4 and many other passages.

Anyway, I could type this answer up off the top of my head; but going deeper into penal substitutionary atonement requires too much time for me; (also because I really want to look up the Greek and Hebrew words and context and syntax and that takes time to do that and that to construct an good argument; and I just don't have the time. Another thing is that we have already pretty much covered all these areas, both in this session and in a long session some time ago; most everything is repeated.

I keep having to repeat that the cross was not an injustice done to Christ by God, as if He is doing something to a third party; in the way that the Jewish leaders and Romans, Pontius Pilate, and Judas were guilty of - they definitely fall under the condemnation of Proverbs 17:15 by condemning an innocent man.

But since both the Father and the Son are God; there is a sense in which "God Himself takes His own punishment" - out of love for us. that is not the same as what Proverbs 17:15 is talking about. I don't get why you can't see that; and why you cannot see that it is beautiful and glorious and precious that
1. God at the cross answers the issue of suffering - He came and entering into it to the fullest outpouring at the cross;
2. and He satisfied justice of God, His wrath against sin;
3. and demonstrated His love for sinners;
4. and rose from the dead in power proving that His sacrifice was indeed effective in saving sinners from all the nations, languages, peoples, cultures and tribes. Revelation 5:5; 5:9-10; 7:9.

continued

Ken said...

Part 2

5. It was not an injustice because the Son was willing to do it and voluntarily, lovingly, did the work for us; and by His victory of atonement and resurrection, it was ultimately not an injustice. It was unjust from the sinful humans Judas, Pilate, the Jewish leaders, and Romans doing the unjust deed (since they are also also human and sinners); but it was unjust from God in planning it and willing Himself to take on the punishment of the wrath of God against sin. Acts 2:22-24; 4:27-28 - these verses show the cross from God's eternal plan.

Nick,
Proverbs 16:4 - Jesus is the ultimate example of that; no other human could actually do that - atone for hell; that is the point of Romans 2-3 also. All have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, so that no one can do good works to earn God's favor or merit or salvation.

Proverbs 16:4 does not mean by an act of love and truth a person can atone for his or her sins and save themselves from hell; it is wisdom principle of by a good and truthful act, they can bring reconciliation and restoration with a person who they sinned against -so there is "atonement" with each other (repair of relationship) when the offender confesses his wrong, and does something to satisfy the damage he did. I Peter 4:8 is probably alluding to that.

No time for more. Sorry.

Ken said...

oops; left out a crucial word - see? . . . the time it takes to be careful and review and slow down it just too much right now. Maybe, Lord willing in July or August.

but it was NOT unjust from God in planning it and willing Himself to take on the punishment of the wrath of God against sin. Acts 2:22-24; 4:27-28 - these verses show the cross from God's eternal plan.

Adomnan said...

Ken: How did you get that impression?

Adomnan: I have that impression because the "argument" for penal substitution in the articles you linked contradicts the argument you made. You said that God can ignore Prov 17:15 because it only applies to humans, whereas the people you linked say that God adheres to Prov 17:15 by making Jesus guilty.

This is a direct contradiction, which suggests that you don't take your own arguments seriously anymore. You appear to be grasping for straws.

At any rate, that's how I got that impression.

Ken: On Romans 4:5 - you are wrong on restricting the word that much,

Adomnan: No, I'm not. It's clear that Abraham could only be called "asebes" (non-observant of the Law) according to the Law (and so by the Judaizers). The Law labeled him "asebes;" God didn't, which is why He could justify him (i.e., credit righteousness to him even though he wasn't circumcised). This is the only reading that makes sense and fits in excellently with the whole context of the passage, which is about how Abraham was righteous even though he was not yet circumcised.

Ken: neglecting the context of the whole argument from chapters 1-3, that "both Jews and Greeks are under sin" (Romans 3:9) and in chapter 5, "ungodly" in Romans 5:6(or wicked, impious) is parallel with

Adomnan: Ha! This doesn't fit Abraham in chapter 4, who was neither a Jew (at the time) nor a Greek.

The point of Romans 1-3 is to show that the Law didn't make Jews righteous. Paul does not extend his criticism of Jewish unrighteousness to Abraham, who wss not even under the Law (circumcised) at the time of his justification.

Ken: "helpless" (Romans 5:6)
"sinners" (Romans 5:8)
those under "the wrath of God" (5:9)
"enemies" (Romans 5:10)

Adomnan: Of course, none of these adjectives apply to Abraham, who in Gen 15 was not helpless, a sinner, under the wrath of God or an enemy.

Are you saying that Abraham, who is known as the "friend of God," was actually His enemy before Gen 15?

Adomnan said...

Ken: the point is that Abraham was justified by faith, before circumcision, before any works (Romans 4:1-16), "apart from works" means "alone" - no works, no moral good works or obeying the Jewish law.

Adomnan: Wrong! "Apart from works" means "apart from works of the Jewish Law." In the context, it obviously means "apart from circumcision" first and foremost, as Paul makes abundantly clear. It does NOT mean "apart from good works."

Besides, Abraham was already just before God credited his faith as justice (righteousness). This was just one instance where Abraham was credited with righteousness. Paul cites it because this particular crediting took place before Abraham's circumcision, thus before he was a Jew -- thereby proving that Gentiles (like Abraham) could be regarded as righteous by God.

Moreover, Abraham's act of faith WAS a good work, which is precisely why God could credit it to him as righteousness.

Adomnan said...

Ken: But since both the Father and the Son are God; there is a sense in which "God Himself takes His own punishment" - out of love for us. that is not the same as what Proverbs 17:15 is talking about.

Adomnan: But this is ridiculous. If you were wronged, how would punishing yourself give you justice? No one can set things right by punishing himself for a wrong done to him. It's completely bonkers.

"God Himself takes His own punishment"? Why should God need to be punished? What did God do that deserves punishment?

This is crazy talk, Ken.

Ken: I don't get why you can't see that;

Adomnan: Something called "sanity" prevents me.

Ken: 1. God at the cross answers the issue of suffering - He came and entering into it to the fullest outpouring at the cross;

Adomnan: If you're saying that Jesus Christ identifies with us by suffering, then that makes some sense. If you say that He was punished by the Father justly for sins He didn't commit, then that doesn't.

When we Catholics speak of an outpouring at the cross, we mean outpouring of love and grace. When you heretics speak of an outpouring at the cross, you mean an outpouring of God's misdirected anger on an innocent victim.

Ken: 2. and He satisfied justice of God, His wrath against sin;

Adomnan: Condeming an innocent person is the worst injustice that a juddge can do, which is why Prov 17:15 calls it an abomination. God cannot satisfy justice by condemning the innocent. And God's wrath is not like some build-up of force or brutal emotion that has to be discharged on someone, such as an abusive parent might inflict on an innocent child.

Ken: 5. It was not an injustice because the Son was willing to do it and voluntarily, lovingly, did the work for us;

Adomnan: It doesn't matter that you fantasize that Jesus wanted it. He didn't want it, but that has no bearing on the fact that punishing the innocent is an abomination, whether the person punished wants it or not.

Ken: Acts 2:22-24; 4:27-28 - these verses show the cross from God's eternal plan.

Adomnan: Once and for all, please stop citing verses that have nothing to do with penal substitution as if they did.

Maroun said...

Ken said.
But since both the Father and the Son are God; there is a sense in which "God Himself takes His own punishment" - out of love for us. that is not the same as what Proverbs 17:15 is talking about. I don't get why you can't see that; and why you cannot see that it is beautiful and glorious and precious .

Amazing that you keep insisting that Jesus which is God takes his own punishement,which is according to you separation from God,spiritual death.Really amazing that the more you write,the more noncense you make,because How could you separate God from God?how could God die spiritualy?how which is impossible,could you separate the divinity of Christ from his humanity,especialy that Jesus is one person and not two?
So plz Ken,enough is enough,plz wake up,open your eyes,pray and stop insisting.It`s becoming pure blasphemy and noncense...

Adomnan said...

Grubb: And Paul said, "What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?" (I Cor 4:7b) Christians have received salvation; we haven't earned it. If we earned it, we have a right to boast; but since we know it's God's unmerited favor (and not our works) that granted salvation to us, we can not boast.

Adomnan: I overlooked this comment previously. The point in this passage is not that the Corinthian Gentiles are boasting about their own accomplishments or about "earning salvation." It is that they are boasting of having the truth, of coming into the Kingdom (as the Judaizers did in their own way) -- without acknowledging that they received this truth from Paul, Apollos and others. Thus Paul writes in the next sentence: "You already have everything -- you are rich already -- you have come into your kingdom, without any help from us!"

Thus, the context is clearly the refusal of some Corinthians to credit Paul and other missionaries with their new-found faith, not they are are boasting of "earning" anything. Paul doesn't write that they fail to credit God, but that they fail to credit those who evangelized them.

Paul goes on to ironize: "Here we are, fools for Christ's sake, while you are the clever ones in Christ; we are weak, while you are strong; you are honored, while we are disgraced, etc." (1 Cor 4:10-11)

The issue of "earning" or "not earning" is not raised at all in this passage.

In point of fact, these same Corinthians who boast of the gospel "as if they had not received it" are not especially interested in earning anything by means of good works or a moral life. As Paul says following this passage, "It is widely reported that there is sexual immorality among you, immorality of a kind that is not found even among gentiles." (1 Cor 5:1).

And this immorality is characteristic precisely of those Corinthians who "are filled with your own self-importance (1 Cor 5:2);" i.e., the very same whom Paul just denounced as forgetting that they had nothing they hadn't received.

This is hardly the picture of people who were trying to "earn their way into heaven" by good works!

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 229 of 229   Newer› Newest»