tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post7316698168631997147..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Reply to Ken Temple's Extensive (Anti-Catholic) "Review" of Rod Bennett's Book, "Four Witnesses": Part III Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-17057311859715260702014-05-24T02:25:16.409-04:002014-05-24T02:25:16.409-04:00". . . but the LORD caused the iniquity of us...". . . but the LORD caused the iniquity of us all to fall upon Him" - Isaiah 53:6<br /><br />Ken: You really watered that down and just dismissed the brunt of it away - that the Father caused the guilt/sin/iniquity to encounter/fall upon the suffering servant.<br /><br />Adomnan: No, I didn't. I said it means that God caused the suffering servant to "bear iniquities," which, according to all those passages I quoted from the Bible and you IGNORED, means that the suffering servant made atonement for them by becoming a sin offering. <br /><br />Given that you don't actually exegete the texts you cite, I don't know why exactly you think this verse proves penal sub. I suppose you imagine that "fall on" is somehow a tougher word than "bear" and indicates more aggression from the Father directed at the Son? Well, the Jerusalem Bible translates this verse using the verb "bear:"<br />"and Yahweh brought the acts of rebellion of all us to bear on him." <br /><br />Yes, they were brought to bear on Him, so that He "bore" them; i.e., made atonement for them.<br /><br />Look again at the parallel texts I provided about the High Priest, priests and Levites bearing sin above. And think about them. <br /><br />To conclude: It is astounding to me that someone can insist that a concept (penal substitution) is found in the Bible that is simply, obviously and totally absent from its pages. I can't see how this is even possible. And yet it is. Look at Ken and marvel.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-37576335173793255532014-05-24T02:00:03.627-04:002014-05-24T02:00:03.627-04:00Ken: Your explanation of Galatians 3:13, Isaiah 53...Ken: Your explanation of Galatians 3:13, Isaiah 53:6 and 53:10 were not very convincing at all.<br /><br />Adomnan: That's because you didn't understand it, although I tried to make it as simple as I could. If you understood what I said, you'd agree with me. <br /><br />Ken: "The curse" is God's judgment against sin;<br /><br />Adomnan: No, "the curse" is a hanged man. A hanged corpse is a curse on the land. I don't believe hanging was even a method of punishment in the Old Testament, and so it could hardly be "God's judgment against sin." It apparently wasn't a Torah punishment, because this verse about a hanged man being a curse shows it was prohibited, a taboo, under the Law. <br /><br />Ken: and Jesus took that for us, in our place.<br /><br />Adomnan: Oh, so we're all supposed to be hanged, but Jesus was hanged in our place? That's a new one, and especially odd given that hanging wasn't even a permissible Jewish punishment. <br /><br />Ken: we were guilty and Christ bore our iniquities and carried our sins away.<br /><br />Adomnan: Again, you ignored all those passages of the OT that show that "bear iniquities" just means "make atonement." Jesus certainly bore iniquities in that He made atonement, just as the High Priest in the OT "bore iniquities" by making atonement.<br /><br />Jesus is called "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world," but he's never compared to the scapegoat, who carries sins into the wilderness. I remind you that a lamb isn't a goat. Jesus Christ removes sin, as an expiation does; he doesn't carry it off to some other place. <br /><br />Christ is never compared to the scapegoat in the New Testament. <br /><br />Ken: You really watered down "curse" and "bore".<br /><br />Adomnan: I just used the Bible to interpret the Bible. "Being a curse" equals "being hanged on a tree" equals "being crucified." But I explained this already, and you just jumped over what I wrote by saying I "watered" something down, whatever that means. <br /><br />I also provided the Biblical interpretation of "bear iniquities," which you didn't bother to try to counter. <br /><br />Ken: There is no power there to take away sin,<br /><br />Adomnan: What in the world are you talking about? There is indeed "power in the blood." <br /><br />Ken: since you are saying Christ did not take our guilt and sins on Himself.<br /><br />Adomnan: I am saying this is nowhere taught in the Bible. I'm trying to be biblical here, unlike you. <br /><br />Ken: All He is, in your theology, is an example of love, since it seems you deny all transfer of sin to Christ, and His righteousness to us. 2 Cor. 5:21 <br /><br />Adomnan: The Bible denies all transfer of sin to Christ. Paul speaks of the "righteousness of God," but never of the "righteousness of Christ." Thus, since you evidently mean "Christ's righteousness" by "His righteousness," you are distorting and misrepresenting Paul. Please stick to what the Bible teaches. All you do is gum things up with your empty rhetoric. Try to do some actual exegesis for a change.<br /><br />2 Cor 5:21 simply says that Christ was a sin offering, which, of course, I accept. Sins are not transferred to a sin offering. <br /><br />Ken: You have no righteousness. <br /><br />Adomnan: I have the righteousness from God through Christ (Phil. 3). That's the only imparted righteousness that the Bible speaks of. (By the way, this "righteousness from God" is very different from the "righteousness of God." <br /><br />It does not matter, Ken, how loudly you insist that penal substitution is taught in the Bible. It simply isn't, and all your distortion, confusion and conflation of sacred texts won't change that. <br /><br />Why didn't you take up my challenge and prove penal sub from the only book that discusses the atonement exhaustively, namely Hebrews?Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-54202257653294821692014-05-24T01:20:10.836-04:002014-05-24T01:20:10.836-04:00Ken: So, what does the Roman Catholic view of the ...Ken: So, what does the Roman Catholic view of the atonement of the cross (Romans 3:25-26) mean?<br /><br />Adomnan: There is no single Roman Catholic view of the so-called "atonement," which is an ambiguous English word, by the way, not really corresponding to any single word in the Bible. <br /><br />Ken: what is that view called, without all the re-presentation of the Eucharist aspects that RCC theology adds to it.<br /><br />Adomnan: Sorry. I can't leave "all the re-presentation of the Eucharist" stuff out. The Catholic faith is sacramental. <br /><br />Ken: What happened at the historical event of the cross?<br /><br />Adomnan: Christ died for our sins and was raised for our justification. <br /><br />Ken: a. Was justice done against sin to satisfy God's wrath (Anselm)?<br /><br />Adomnan: That's not Anselm's teaching. I don't agree with it, but Anselm taught that Jesus safeguarded the "honor" of the Father, but the Father forgives freely. He's not paid off. It was a feudal concept, reflecting Anselm's time. Its a "quaint" theory, in my opinion. Not at all blasphemous or heretical, like penal sub, but not really biblical either. <br /><br />Ken: B. penal substitutionary atonement. ? ( you say no)<br /><br />Adomnan: The Bible says no: "He who acquits the guilty and condemns the righteous is an abomination to the Lord." Proverbs 17:15<br /><br />Ken: C. Christus Victor view?<br /><br />Adomnan: That's a valid way of looking at it. Christ fought sin, death and the devil on their own terrain and vanquished them. <br /><br />Ken: D. moral example view?<br /><br />Adomnan: Yes, this definitely was an aspect of it. <br /><br />Ken: E. Governmental view?<br /><br />Adomnan: I don't know this one, but it's sounds Protestant, legalistic. <br /><br />Ken: I cannot remember if we actually talked about that several years ago, when we discussed/debated penal substitutionary atonement. <br /><br />Adomnan: No, I don't think you asked me what my view of the "atonement" was. Well, here it is: Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead to provide us with the sacraments, especially baptism and the eucharist, both of which are patterned on His death (and resurrection). So Paul says in Romans 6 that we die with Christ and rise with Him in baptism. And the dependence of the Eucharist on Calvary is too obvious for me to have to detail. <br /><br />Every rite enacts a prototypical story. No story, no rite. The Passion of Christ is the story that the sacraments enact. No death, no baptism and Eucharist. <br /><br />Atonement is "expiation," and expiation is the way that the sacrificial rites of the Old Testament cleansed people of sin: What was made holy by the sacrifice made the partakers of the altar holy. Same with atonement/expiation through Christ. Atonement/expiation is something God gives us, through the sacraments. It is not something that we, or Jesus, give God. <br /><br />The atonement makes no sense without the sacraments. In fact, sacraments ARE the atonement.<br /><br />Fundamentatist Protestantism rejects sacraments, and so it rejects the atonement. Penal substitution is the counterfeit it puts in place of the real atonement.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-27692291669449744492014-05-24T00:47:47.656-04:002014-05-24T00:47:47.656-04:00Ken: He Himself "bore" our sins in His b...Ken: He Himself "bore" our sins in His body on the tree - 1 Peter 2:24 - also Hebrews 9:27-28, the concept of bearing/taking/taking away sins alludes to Leviticus 16:21-22 and Isaiah 53:3-6, and 10. <br /><br />Adomnan: I showed above, using Nick's citations, how "bear sins" simply means "make atonement for sins." It has nothing to do with any imputation of sin to an innocent person and nothing to do with punishment. As usual, you simply ignore this evidence and repeat your opinions without accounting for what others have said to counter them. <br /><br />Notice how I take each one of your points and analyze it carefully. That should be your approach. You don't win an argument by obstinacy and mindless repetition. <br /><br />And, yes, I agree that 1 Peter and Hebrews refer to Isaiah 53, but Isaiah 53 does not refer to the scapegoat. <br /><br />Ken, quoting me: However, if our debt to the Father was paid off, then the Father did not forgive us. A debt cannot be paid off and forgiven at the same time. <br /><br />Ken: Yes it can. Your argument against penal substitutionary atonement is the same argument that Muslims make.<br /><br />Adomnan: Well, if it is, then good for the Muslims. They are right about this. <br /><br />You cannot forgive a sin and be paid off for it at the same time. That is a contradiction in terms. Forgiveness means forgoing payment. <br /><br />This is so obvious, I dislike having to reiterate it. But I guess I must. If Ken owes me 1000 dollars, and Bill pays it off for him, then I did not forgive Ken's debt. I was paid off. Similarly, if we owe the Father "punishment" for our sins, and Jesus pays it off for us by being punished in our stead, then the Father did not forgive our sins. He was paid off. <br /><br />This whole notion of paying the Father for forgiveness is blasphemous and is based on the fable of penal substitution, which is NEVER TAUGHT ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE. <br /><br />Ken: Obviously,<br /><br />Adomnan: Oh, please! "Obviously..."<br /><br />Ken: bearing the sins away and bearing the punishment for sin and shedding blood did procure forgiveness,<br /><br />Adomnan: You're using the ambiguity of language to confuse. Yes, Jesus was "punished," but not by the Father. You assumed that because a Hebrew word in Isaiah 53 is translated as "punish" sometimes, that implies the Father punished the Son. But isn't it possible that the Son (the Suffering Servant) of Isaiah 53 was punished by men, not by the Father? -- especially given that Isaiah 53 says quite explicitly that the idea that God judged and punished him was wrong: Isaiah 53:8: "Forcibly, after sentence (i.e., an unjust condemnation by men), he was taken." <br /><br />Nothing Jesus did "procured" forgiveness, like some sort of <br />deal or exchange where the Father had to be given something to forgive. "I give you this, and you give me that" is not forgiveness. It's "Let's make a deal." <br /><br />I mean, how do you "procure forgiveness" anyway? "Forgive us our sins" means "if we 'procure' forgiveness from You the way we 'procure' a good or service, then forgive us"? No, we "procure forgiveness" from God just by asking for it, as Jesus teaches us to do in the prayer He gave us. <br /><br />Jesus's blood cleanses us not because it pleased the Father to make Him bleed, but because the blood of the Victim is holy, and we are made holy by partaking in it. It's the same way sacrifices worked in the Old Testament: no punishment of a victim, no buying off the Father, no "deals" within the Trinity. <br /><br />Ken: since the NT says that all over the place - "In Him, we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our sins" (Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; 20; Galatians 1:4; Revelation 1:5-6; Acts 13:38-39; Luke 24:46-47)<br /><br />Adomnan: Yes, redemption through His blood is the way that God forgives sins. It's something God gives us. Its not something Jesus gives the Father. We are not "redeemed" from the Father, but from sin, death and the devil.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-16831569152189439742014-05-24T00:05:57.007-04:002014-05-24T00:05:57.007-04:00Ken: Leviticus 4-5, and 6:1-7, both the sin offeri...Ken: Leviticus 4-5, and 6:1-7, both the sin offering חטאת and the guilt offering אשם are slaughtered. <br /><br />Adomnan: And chickens. lambs and cows are slaughtered for people's dinner. Are they being punished?<br /><br />Ken: This is important background to Isaiah 53:10. (along with Lev. 16 - both actions on both animals are combined in Isaiah 53:4-6 and verse 10)<br /><br />Adomnan: Sacrificial victims are killed. Yes. That is not a punishment. After all, they were going to be killed anyway, for food, if they weren't sacrificed. That's why people raise these animals, you know. <br /><br />The killing isn't the point of the sacrifice anyway. It's just done to obtain the blood, which, being made holy by being given to God, can cleanse like the altar, the sanctuary and the people from the "dirt" of sin. <br /><br />When the sacrificed victim is eaten, people also benefit from eating something sanctified. <br /><br />None of this has anything to do with "punishment."<br /><br />Isaiah 53:4-6 does not mention either the sin offering or the scapegoat of the Day of Atonement. Isaiah 53:10 mentions only the sin offering, not the scapegoat. References to "punishing" don't allude to the scapegoat, because the scapegoat wasn't punished. It was merely sent out to the wilderness to carry sin away. It was probably just as happy out there as it would have been in some pen, if not happier, because it wouldn't end up as someone's dinner. It would have become a wild goat. <br /><br />By the way, Isaiah 53:4 explicitly denies that the Suffering Servant was punished by God: "...we thought he was punished by God, BUT..." we were wrong.<br /><br />Jesus Christ was "punished" (executed) unjustly by evil men, not justly by the Father. You make the Father responsible for the miscarriage of justice perpetrated on Jesus. <br /><br />Ken: Isaiah 53 includes the background of all of Leviticus 4-5 and 6:1-7 and 16 - the day of atonement.<br /><br />Adomnan: I agree that the sin offering of Isaiah 53 refers to the sin offering of the Day of Atonement, as well as other sin offerings. <br /><br />Ken: It is true that the scapegoat is not slaughtered, but sent away to bear the iniquities away.<br /><br />Adomnan: Yes, it can't be "slaughtered" and offered to God, because it's befouled with sin. God doesn't want it. <br /><br />Ken: Isaiah 53 is a developed theology of the work of the suffering Messiah/Servant that includes both the atonement of slaughter and the atonement of bearing/taking away/sending away.<br /><br />Adomnan: No. I see the "atonement of slaughter" in Isaiah 53, but no reference to the scapegoat. <br /><br />When the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews describes the Day of Atonement and compares it to Christ's sacrifice, he only speaks of the sin offering, not the scapegoat. He doesn't confuse the two things. Why do you?<br /><br />I'll get my theology of the atonement from Hebrews, not from Ken or Calvin.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-28038814483437869012014-05-23T16:17:04.521-04:002014-05-23T16:17:04.521-04:00". . . but the LORD caused the iniquity of us...". . . but the LORD caused the iniquity of us all to fall upon Him" - Isaiah 53:6<br /><br />You really watered that down and just dismissed the brunt of it away - that the Father caused the guilt/sin/iniquity to encounter/fall upon the suffering servant.<br /><br /><br /><br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-90699618577406275772014-05-23T16:14:52.188-04:002014-05-23T16:14:52.188-04:00Your explanation of Galatians 3:13, Isaiah 53:6 an...Your explanation of Galatians 3:13, Isaiah 53:6 and 53:10 were not very convincing at all. "The curse" is God's judgment against sin; and Jesus took that for us, in our place. we were guilty and Christ bore our iniquities and carried our sins away. You really watered down "curse" and "bore". There is no power there to take away sin, since you are saying Christ did not take our guilt and sins on Himself. All He is, in your theology, is an example of love, since it seems you deny all transfer of sin to Christ, and His righteousness to us. 2 Cor. 5:21 <br /><br />You have no righteousness. Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-37289389591513812732014-05-23T16:08:49.991-04:002014-05-23T16:08:49.991-04:00So, what does the Roman Catholic view of the atone...So, what does the Roman Catholic view of the atonement of the cross (Romans 3:25-26) mean?<br /><br />what is that view called, without all the re-presentation of the Eucharist aspects that RCC theology adds to it. <br /><br />What happened at the historical event of the cross?<br /><br />a. Was justice done against sin to satisfy God's wrath (Anselm) ?<br />B. penal substitutionary atonement. ? ( you say no)<br />C. Christus Victor view?<br />D. moral example view?<br />E. Governmental view?<br /><br />I cannot remember if we actually talked about that several years ago, when we discussed/debated penal substitutionary atonement. <br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-49594502128473040642014-05-23T15:58:35.736-04:002014-05-23T15:58:35.736-04:00In Leviticus 4-5, and 6:1-7, both the sin offering...In Leviticus 4-5, and 6:1-7, both the sin offering חטאת and the guilt offering אשם are slaughtered. <br /><br />This is important background to Isaiah 53:10. (along with Lev. 16 - both actions on both animals are combined in Isaiah 53:4-6 and verse 10)<br /><br />Isaiah 53 includes the background of all of Leviticus 4-5 and 6:1-7 and 16 - the day of atonement.<br /><br />It is true that the scapegoat is not slaughtered, but sent away to bear the iniquities away.<br /><br />Isaiah 53 is a developed theology of the work of the suffering Messiah/Servant that includes both the atonement of slaughter and the atonement of bearing/taking away/sending away. <br /><br />He Himself "bore" our sins in His body on the tree - 1 Peter 2:24 - also Hebrews 9:27-28, the concept of bearing/taking/taking away sins alludes to Leviticus 16:21-22 and Isaiah 53:3-6, and 10. <br /><br /><i>However, if our debt to the Father was paid off, then the Father did not forgive us. A debt cannot be paid off and forgiven at the same time. </i><br /><br />Yes it can. Your argument against penal substitutionary atonement is the same argument that Muslims make. <br /><br />Obviously, bearing the sins away and bearing the punishment for sin and shedding blood did procure forgiveness, since the NT says that all over the place - "In Him, we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our sins" (Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; 20; Galatians 1:4; Revelation 1:5-6; Acts 13:38-39; Luke 24:46-47)Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-458845010012712102014-05-20T17:07:33.592-04:002014-05-20T17:07:33.592-04:00Thanks, Mark Alan. It's heartening to hear tha...Thanks, Mark Alan. It's heartening to hear that my efforts to clear up the murk around some of these issues are helpful. The Gospel is profound, but simple. There are no strained, oddball theories or specious legal gimmickry involved. <br /><br />By the way, I wrote "to chew one" for "to chew on," an easily discernible typo.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-86682412834004902532014-05-20T11:36:25.107-04:002014-05-20T11:36:25.107-04:00Adomnan,
That last paragraph is excellent; so sim...Adomnan,<br /><br />That last paragraph is excellent; so simple yet, I would never have thought of His Passion in that way, despite what I know and have learned. I sure have learned a lot from this debate and it seems as if Mr. Armstrong could make another book of apologetics just from this debate across his three postings. This is all very excellent. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02071553585020176487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-92130068016906897862014-05-19T18:33:38.440-04:002014-05-19T18:33:38.440-04:00Ken, quoting Isaiah 53:6 - "All of us like sh...Ken, quoting Isaiah 53:6 - "All of us like sheep have gone astray, each one has turned to his own way, but the LORD has caused the iniquity of us to fall on Him."<br /><br />Adomnan: Jesus Christ bears our iniquity in the sense that He is the sin offering who takes it away. He is our High Priest, and the High Priest is said to "bear iniquity" not because sin is transferred to him and he is considered guilty of it, but because he makes atonement for it; that is, expiates or removes/cleanses it with sanctified blood. <br /><br />Thus, Lev 10:17:“Why have you not eaten the sin offering in the place of the sanctuary, since it is a thing most holy and has been given to you that you may bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord?"<br /> <br />And Exodus 28:38: "It shall be on Aaron's forehead, and Aaron shall bear any guilt from the holy things that the people of Israel consecrate as their holy gifts. It shall regularly be on his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord." <br /><br />And Numbers 18:1: "So the Lord said to Aaron, 'You and your sons and your father's house with you shall bear iniquity connected with the sanctuary, and you and your sons with you shall bear iniquity connected with your priesthood.'"<br /><br />And Numbers 18:23: "The Levites shall do the service of the tent of meeting, and they shall bear their iniquity." <br />"<br />(Thanks, Nick of "Nick's Catholic Blog," for these references.) <br /> <br />Ken, quoting Isaiah 53:10 - "if He would render Himself a guilt offering"<br /><br />Adomnan: This verse actually proves penal substitution is false, because it depicts the Messiah as a guilt/sin offering. Sins are not transferred to the sin offering, but to the scapegoat. Only the sin offering is sacrificed to God; the scapegoat is not sacrificed at all but sent out to the desert. The guilt/sin offering takes away sin through expiation (cleansing). The sin offering is not punished. <br /><br />Challenge to Ken: There is a whole book of the Bible devoted to the subject of the atonement. It is called the Epistle to the Hebrews. It explains precisely how the atonement "works," and it has not a hint of penal substitution. How do you account for the fact that the scripture that explains in the fullest detail how Christ's sacrifice atoned for sin never states that sins were transferred to Christ or that the Father punished Him? It also never compares Christ to the scapegoat, although it discusses the Day of Atonement, when the scapegoat ritual occurred (along with the sacrifice of the sin offering). Oversights?<br /><br />No, the contradictions and incoherence of penal substitution are insuperable. Here is just one more to chew one: Believers in penal substitution claim that Jesus Christ paid our debt to the Father. However, if our debt to the Father was paid off, then the Father did not forgive us. A debt cannot be paid off and forgiven at the same time. To forgive a debt means to forgo payment. So, which was it? Did the Father "forgive us our debts," or was He paid off? I'll go with Jesus: "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors."Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-47709661499386171422014-05-19T18:01:47.931-04:002014-05-19T18:01:47.931-04:00Ken, to me: "You wrote: 'Nobody who belie...Ken, to me: "You wrote: 'Nobody who believes that God punished an innocent man for the crimes of others can possibly be a Christian.'" <br /><br />Adomnan: Right. A "god" who has to discharge his anger on someone innocent to satisfy himself is not the God of the Bible.<br /><br />I would make an exception, however, for Catholics who mistakenly believe that the Church teaches penal substitution. It is lamentable that they believe this, but all Catholics have an implicit faith in the Church's teachings that makes up for unintentional errors in belief. They probably casually picked up penal sub from surrounding Protestantism and mistook it for true or uncontroversial teaching. (Obviously, they didn't think very deeply about it, but such is life.)<br /><br />Ken: "Just one point, which bears repeating. the way we understand penal substitution is that God the Son voluntarily wanted to come and take the punishment for us, out of love for sinners. (Romans 5:8 - 'God demonstrates His own love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.')"<br /><br />Adomnan: Jesus was not "voluntarily" punished by the Father, because the Father didn't punish Him at all. Jesus would not have gone along with something so stupid, voluntarily or not. Nor would the Father have proposed such an absurdity. <br /><br />No one disputes that God loves man and that Jesus incarnated, suffered and died out of love for man. That in no way implies that the Father punished the Son, as you must know.<br /><br />Ken: "There was unity of purpose between the Father and the Son and the Spirit in redemption's plan of saving people from all nations. Both the Father and the Son did it out of love."<br /><br />Adomnan: "You always hurt the one you love?" "This hurts me more than it hurts you?" Yes, I'm familiar with the sentiments. <br /><br />Whose side was the Holy Spirit on when the Father and Son split? He couldn't have stayed with the Son, because how could the Son be damned and separated from the Father if He still had the Holy Spirit? Does that mean that the Holy Spirit also poured His wrath out on Jesus, as the Father did? Or was He neutral and refused to take part? Does the Spirit have wrath, or just the Father? Maybe the Spirit was more like the mother in a dysfunctional family with an abusive father: in denial and trying to ignore Dad beating Junior. That would make the Holy Trinity the perfect model for the dysfunctional child-abusive family, wouldn't it? <br /><br />Ken, quoting scripture: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree” " Galatians 3:13<br /><br />Adomnan: The Father did not curse the Son. The Son became "a curse," but only according to the Jewish Law, not in the eyes of the Father. Whether sin was imputed to Him or not -- and it wasn't -- He would still be "a curse" as defined by the Law, simply because He was "hanged on a tree." In short, in "Law parlance," "became a curse for us" equals "was crucified for us." It does not imply that sin was imputed to Christ or that the Father punished Him. Innocent or guilty, a hanged man under the Law would be a curse on the land and for those who hanged him. The fact of being "a curse" (for others, not himself!) has nothing to do with the hanged man's guilt.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-71029874227963314082014-05-19T14:39:21.705-04:002014-05-19T14:39:21.705-04:00Mark Alan,
Thanks for the kind remarks. I'm h...Mark Alan,<br /><br />Thanks for the kind remarks. I'm happy that you found my exchange with Ken informative. Like Dave, I engage in these exchanges for the benefit of third parties, because I believe Ken himself is so immersed in his way of thinking that he's unreachable.<br /><br />The exchanges can be useful to me, too, by inducing me to consider an interesting topic in greater depth. <br /><br />Ken sometimes raises good questions, and he's usually polite (politer than I am). The problem with him, though, from my point of view, is that he doesn't follow up. He largely ignores the points his opponents make and merely doubles down on what he has said before, with no new arguments. He also likes to cite unexegeted prooftexts that don't say what he thinks they say. That's typical of Fundamentalist argumentation: Fundamentalists assume that others read into scriptural passages what they read into them, when they have merely brought their prejudices and traditions of men to bear on the passages. They take away from the Bible only what they bring to it. They miss what is actually there. <br /><br />I'll illustrate these points when I respond to Ken's latest posting.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-34244612141352824902014-05-18T23:27:07.419-04:002014-05-18T23:27:07.419-04:00Mark Alan,
Thanks for your encouraging words!
Ad...Mark Alan,<br />Thanks for your encouraging words! <br /><br />Adoman,<br />Maybe later when I have more time, I may make some more comments on more of what you wrote.<br /><br />You wrote: <i>Nobody who believes that God punished an innocent man for the crimes of others can possibly be a Christian.</i> <br /><br /><br />Just one point, which bears repeating. the way we understand penal substitution is that God the Son voluntarily wanted to come and take the punishment for us, out of love for sinners. (Romans 5:8 - God demonstrates His own love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.") <br /><br /> There was unity of purpose between the Father and the Son and the Spirit in redemption's plan of saving people from all nations. Both the Father and the Son did it out of love. <br /><br />" Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree” " Galatians 3:13<br /><br />Isaiah 53:6 - "All of us like sheep have gone astray, each one has turned to his own way, but the LORD has caused the iniquity of us to fall on Him."<br /><br />Isaiah 53:10 - "if He would render Himself a guilt offering"<br /><br />I know we discussed that before years ago, but it bears repeating here, in my opinion. Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-36452308036128257892014-05-16T21:25:55.023-04:002014-05-16T21:25:55.023-04:00Okay, thanks. I was just wondering since it seems ...Okay, thanks. I was just wondering since it seems as though David is saying something to the effect that God's ways are immaculate. So I thought maybe that it could be supportive of making the BVM "immaculate" since she was His way, His plan to enter into the world. Oh well....read too much into that one LOL! <br /><br />Thanks Mr. ArmstrongAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02071553585020176487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-57498879987317650862014-05-16T21:18:28.596-04:002014-05-16T21:18:28.596-04:00I don't see any connection myself.I don't see any connection myself.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-22856242491053275482014-05-16T20:59:52.377-04:002014-05-16T20:59:52.377-04:00Wow! After reading that link, I would say that you...Wow! After reading that link, I would say that you must have spoken with my neighbor up the street. <br /><br />Question: Could (2)Samuel 22:31 be used to support the Immaculate Conception? I'm using the Douay-Rheims version but the RSVCE uses "perfect" in place of "immaculate". <br />Thanks Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02071553585020176487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-13390138107390853862014-05-16T20:07:00.035-04:002014-05-16T20:07:00.035-04:00Thanks! You might also be interested in my exchang...Thanks! You might also be interested in my exchange with an extremely acrimonious, insulting anti-Catholic (most unlike the polite and gentlemanly Ken in that regard), about Mary's Assumption and 75 unrelated things (he's a rabbit trail type):<br /><br />http://www.setonmagazine.com/latest-articles/bible-assumption-blessed-virgin-maryDave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-21250043942337080662014-05-16T20:02:46.935-04:002014-05-16T20:02:46.935-04:00Dave, Adomnan and Ken
I would really like to than...Dave, Adomnan and Ken<br /><br />I would really like to thank you guys for posting an extremely interesting, informative and stimulating debate! Seriously. I learned a lot from reading these posts and I have to admit, being able to read the words versus hearing them allows one to focus on what is truly being said, or even misrepresented. It makes me realize how effective an anti-Catholic can be against an uninformed Catholic, or lax Catholic who doesn't recognize the sophistry and "double speak" that is being used against them, in order to pull the Catholic away from their Faith. It sure has inspired me to study my Catholic Faith that much more!<br /><br />I appreciate Ken's politeness in his responses. It's actually pleasant to read from someone who disagrees while maintaining a charitable stance.<br /><br />Adomnan and Mr. Armstrong, you two make one heck of a team! Keep up the great work! I'll try to put some more money in the kitty when the paycheck comes in because debates like this are what Catholics truly need to see.<br /><br />God Bless all of you!<br /> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02071553585020176487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-70864218128878584422014-05-16T17:25:30.356-04:002014-05-16T17:25:30.356-04:00Absolutely; these exchanges -- usually fruitless a...Absolutely; these exchanges -- usually fruitless and futile in their immediate aim of persuading our anti-Catholic opponents -- are always of value for onlookers; those on the fence, those with more open minds who seek to follow evidence and truth wherever it leads; also Catholics who may be wavering or lacking confidence in some respects.<br /><br />So it's not in vain at all. This is all preserved and can be accessed by a link on my blog. But it does require extreme patience to DO. We all tire of reinventing the wheel and doing basic spade work over and OVER again. Kudos for all your great work and the time put into it! <br /><br />Ken is not absolutely without hope. At one time he wasn't anti-Catholic. By God's grace we can possibly get him at least back to that position, if not into the Catholic Church itself.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-84314874794135131822014-05-16T15:20:42.920-04:002014-05-16T15:20:42.920-04:00Dave: You have the patience of Job, Adomnan.
Adom...Dave: You have the patience of Job, Adomnan.<br /><br />Adomnan: I may be running out of patience, Dave, as evinced by the fulminations at the end of my last posting. Unless Ken brings something new to this discussion, it may be best to try to drive him off, like the scapegoat. Bringing up penal substitution has proven apotropaic in the past, although sometimes only after a few more rounds of useless exchange. <br /><br />I think that engaging him served a purpose, because it helped us illuminate some points that may be of interest to third parties. But that purpose having been served, it's time to move on.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-41328857481197616212014-05-16T15:08:23.104-04:002014-05-16T15:08:23.104-04:00Not to go too far afield, but the reason that some...Not to go too far afield, but the reason that some Protestants reject the idea of the Eucharist as sacrifice is that they have a false understanding of what a sacrifice is. <br /><br />A sacrifice is an offering of something to God, which is sanctified by God accepting it. In a communion sacrifice, God shares the gift, now made holy, with His worshippers, making them holy. <br /><br />Thus, the Eucharist is a communion sacrifice: The bread and wine are offered to God. They are then accepted by God and made holy, transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. The offering thus becomes the Body and Blood of Christ (and is still, of course, being offered). God then shares this holy offering with us in communion, making us holy. <br /><br />That's how sacrifice really works. No one could have any objection to the Eucharistic sacrifice correctly understood. <br /><br />The Protestants got the notion of sacrifice wrong. For some reason that I can't fathom, they decided that a sacrifice was not an offering that made the victim and the worshippers who partook of it holy, but rather a punishment by God of an innocent victim to which others' sins had been transferred. The purpose of this punishment was supposedly to satisfy God's anger or justice. <br /><br />This Protestant notion of sacrifice is an utter fabrication. No sacrifice in the history of the world was ever thought of as the punishment of a victim. In particular, Old Testament sacrifices were not punishments. (Driving off the scapegoat is not a sacrifice; the scapegoat is not offered to God.) Just because the victim is killed does not mean that it was punished. If a lamb is killed for dinner, is the lamb being punished? If a lamb is killed for sacrificial communion, how is it being punished? And why would anyone want to eat something that was made unclean and laden with sin anyway?<br /><br />Well, given that the Protestants had this false notion of sacrifice, they rejected the sacrifice of the Mass, imagining that it entailed the repeated punishment ("sacrifice" in their understanding) of Jesus Christ by the Father, just as they mistakenly thought the Father had punished Jesus on the Cross. That is why the heresiarch Calvin wrote, as Dave cited, “the cross of Christ is overthrown the moment an altar is erected." Calvin fantasized that the cross was the place where the Father poured out His wrath on the Son. This was a blasphemous, and fatal, error; but it accounts for the absurdly exaggerated Protestant abhorrence of the Eucharistic sacrifice. They were willing to entertain the "damnation" of the Son by the Father, but only as a one-time event. <br /><br />It was Calvin who overthrew the cross of Christ by elaborating (or handing on from Luther) a blasphemous fable that perverted the meaning of the cross. Nobody before them had ever toyed with this notion, so destructive of the entire Christian faith including belief in the God of the Bible, until the "Reformers" invented it, seemingly under the inspiration of the devil.<br /><br />Nobody who believes that God punished an innocent man for the crimes of others can possibly be a Christian.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-48519948368888624832014-05-16T14:32:53.237-04:002014-05-16T14:32:53.237-04:00You have the patience of Job, Adomnan.You have the patience of Job, Adomnan.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-88956894318510282582014-05-16T14:21:39.852-04:002014-05-16T14:21:39.852-04:00The Perseus online Greek English dictionary define...The Perseus online Greek English dictionary defines "anamnesis" as "memorial sacrifice" in the Eucharist passage in Luke, based on the word's meaning of memorial sacrifice in the Septuagint:<br /><br />ἀνάμνη-σις ,<br /><br />2. memorial sacrifice, LXX Nu.10.10, cf. Ev.Luc.22.19.<br /><br />The Perseus definition is taken from "A Greek-English Lexicon," Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott. This is the standard Greek lexicon. <br /><br />Therefore, Luke says Jesus commanded the Apostles, "Do this as my memorial sacrifice." <br /><br />Case closed. The Eucharist is a sacrifice according to Jesus Himself, who constituted the Apostles as sacrificing priests.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.com