Jonathan wrote something about repentance removing sin. So you think our human repentance can actually remove sin? Amazing.
Our repentance means something because God Himself paid the price. We are sorrowful over sin because our sin killed Christ on the cross. We turn from sin only because He gives us, grants us power to do it -- "if perhaps God may grant repentance" 2 Timothy 2:24, Acts 5:31, 11:18. The kindness and patience of God in Romans 2:4 that leads us to repentance is so effective and great because the person understands sin and the law and the holiness and wrath of God first. The law came through Moses, but grace and truth through Christ. John 1:16-17
The Demonstration of God's Righteousness, Part 2
John Piper
. . .
"By His Grace"
Now this is underlined in the third phrase, "by his grace." "Being justified is a gift by his grace . . ." This is one of the most important words in the letters of Paul. He uses it 95 times. What does he mean here that God's act of justifying is "by his grace"?
The easiest way to see it is to look a few verses later in Romans 4:4, which we will come back to again and again on this matter of grace, because here is a fundamental insight. I am going to translate it literally so that you can see that the very same word "grace" is here in this verse. Romans 4:4, "Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited [or counted] according to grace, but according to debt." In other words, if you work for somebody, you don't get grace, you get wages. If you relate to somebody as one who works for them, what you bring about is not grace, but debt. They owe you wages. This is why it's an abomination to try to work for God. God cannot be put in anyone's debt. As Romans 11:35 says, "Who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?" The answer is "no one," and the reason given is that "from him and through him and too him are all things" (Romans 11:36).
So if you are going to get something by grace, you can't work for it. Grace is the good that you get from someone when he owes you nothing. So what Paul means when he says that we are "justified as a gift by his grace" is that we can't work for justification. So the phrase "as a gift" means you can't pay for it. And the phrase "by his grace" means you can't work for it.
Well, then how can this be? How can God declare a sinner to be righteous? If we don't pay for it, and we don't work for it, then what's the basis of it? How can it be just to justify the ungodly?
Romans 4:4
Now to the one who works, his is not reckoned as grace, but as what is due. (debt)
Here is the word that is used in the Lord's model prayer, "forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors". Here is probably where Anselm saw the connection that justice was paid for at the cross.
And also, Hebrews does teach substitutionary atonement, propitiation (the satisfaction of the wrath of God) all over the place. Hebrews 2:17, he uses the same word for propitiation as in Romans 3:25-26 and I John 2:2 and 4:10. Hebrews 9:12-14 -- the blood of Christ cleanses the conscience; 9:22-28, chapter 10. That is why after all that discussion on the completed once for all work of Christ on the cross, those that go back and begin to reject Christ and His sacrifice (going back to the temple sacrifices, pulling away and stop going to church(v. 25), falling away (chapter 3-4) are given such a stern warning in 10:26-31 -- about wrath and vengeance and judgment. To reject Christ and His atonement is to bring the wrath of God upon themselves; because Christ paid the price and extinguished the wrath of God. Those who reject Him are still under the wrath.
Repentance so that there is no sin to annihilate?
there is the exact line from Jonathan on the previous forum line towards the end.
Dave, was that the longest thread you every had or was there another one with more than 274 ( exactly? ) comments?
Jonathan wrote something about repentance removing sin. So you think our human repentance can actually remove sin? Amazing.
Of course it can. That's what repentance is. What it can't remove is the consequence of sin, i.e., death. Even if you repent, you still face the consequence of sin. Look at David.
2 Sam. 12:13-23
David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the LORD, the child that is born to you shall die." Then Nathan went to his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uri'ah's wife bore to David, and it became sick. David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in and lay all night upon the ground. And the elders of his house stood beside him, to raise him from the ground; but he would not, nor did he eat food with them. On the seventh day the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead; for they said, "Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spoke to him, and he did not listen to us; how then can we say to him the child is dead? He may do himself some harm." But when David saw that his servants were whispering together, David perceived that the child was dead; and David said to his servants, "Is the child dead?" They said, "He is dead." Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his clothes; and he went into the house of the LORD, and worshiped; he then went to his own house; and when he asked, they set food before him, and he ate. Then his servants said to him, "What is this thing that you have done? You fasted and wept for the child while it was alive; but when the child died, you arose and ate food." He said, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, `Who knows whether the LORD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?' But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me."
To remove the consequence of sin is solely a matter of God's mercy. Even if someone has repented, and his sin is forgiven, the consequence is a separate matter, which man is solely dependent on God's grace and mercy to permit or to take away.
Don't listen to me; listen to St. Peter:
Acts 2:22-36
"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know -- this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. But God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. For David says concerning him, `I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken; therefore my h
(cont.)
Acts 2:22-36
"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know -- this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. But God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. For David says concerning him, `I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken; therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; moreover my flesh will dwell in hope. For thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, nor let thy Holy One see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou wilt make me full of gladness with thy presence.'
"Brethren, I may say to you confidently of the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne, he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and ear. For David did not ascend into the heavens; but he himself says, `The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet.' Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."
Cf. St. Paul in 1 Cor. 15, who says the same thing. Christ suffered the consequences of sin so as to remove them, which even repentance could not remove before.
italics closed
You've also confused two distinct aspects of salvation and righteousness: remission of sins and being made holy.
With respect to our nature, once our nature is damaged by sin, we have no power to heal the consequences. We can repent, but our repentance is ineffectual in terms of saving us from the consequences. That is what is taught by the moral Law, as explained by both nature and the Jewish Law. The soul who sins shall die.
There is also the question of holiness to approach God. That deals with our creaturely limitations, our inability to stand the holiness of God. This part was foreshadowed by the ceremonial law and people being struck dead for its violation, even unintentionally. The point was that we need grace to be able to withstand the holy presence of God, and any attempt to bypass the path that God must open for us through grace will result in our destruction.
Exodus 33:18-23
Moses said, "I pray thee, show me thy glory." And he said, "I will make all my goodness pass before you, and will proclaim before you my name `The LORD'; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. But," he said, "you cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live." And the LORD said, "Behold, there is a place by me where you shall stand upon the rock; and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by; then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back; but my face shall not be seen."
You don't get what the Pharisee had in mind by imposing the ceremonial laws for the priests on everybody. They made the same mistake that you did; they thought that the human nature was capable of attaining holiness through the Law. They didn't understand that holiness, being actually made righteous to serve in God's presence, always requires grace (this is the subject of the Epistle to the Hebrews).
And St. Paul quotes the same verse I quoted in response to the Pharisees who view the Law as a promise to be justified to the Jews exclusive of the Gentiles. His point is that even people who are not under the Law can be made holy by God's grace. Likewise, he chastises the Pharisees for not even complying with the moral Law, which even Gentiles like Abraham did. He's basically mocking them for their claim to attain holiness before God through the law when they can't even keep themselves from sinning or save themselves from the consequence of sin (death). Instead, God justifies the un-godly (asebes) through His grace.
There is an excellent book by Father J. Patrick Mullen called Dining with Pharisees on who the Pharisees were and what they were about. (N.B., I also attended one of his lectures on sharing Scripture with Evangelicals that was simply brilliant, centering on using what Biblical scholarship tells us to better understand the Apostles and their message). And he is a
(cont.)
There is an excellent book by Father J. Patrick Mullen called Dining with Pharisees on who the Pharisees were and what they were about. (N.B., I also attended one of his lectures on sharing Scripture with Evangelicals that was simply brilliant, centering on using what Biblical scholarship tells us to better understand the Apostles and their message). And he is a legitimate Biblical scholar and exegete, not just someone who went through basic seminary training. Moreover, his position on the Pharisees is only a more detailed expansion on John Cardinal McKenzie's basic thesis on the Pharisees advanced in his books on the theology of the Old Testament, and McKenzie was no slouch himself. Reading Fr. Pat's book could turn your entire reading of the whole New Testament around, because once you realize that the Pharisees were confusing holiness under the Law with righteousness before God, everything in the New Testament said against them makes perfect sense.
I should also mention that attmepting to bypass the channels of God's grace and reach up to God directly and individually (rather than corporately as mediated by a covenantal relationship) was the core of the Gnostic heresy. This notion of a special knowledge delivered straight to the heart of the Gnostic that the unenlightened could not perceive was an attempt to bypass the forms and channels of God's grace in the Church. Clement of Alexandria and Ireneaus both excoriated their Gnostic opponents for this view.
OK, one more NT footnote, and then I'm really done.
With regard to Gnosticism, there is also New Testament evidence to what I mentioned before. For in asserting that they had privileged access to God, they asserted themselves also to be perfect and to deny they had sin. Thus, 1 John 1:6-10 summmarized everything I have said perfectly:
If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth; but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
Ken,
That passage you quoted from Piper is irrelevant to the discussion of penal substitution. Even if we can't work for grace, it hardly follows from this that there's such a thing as penal substitution.
In fact, Piper's point here contradicts penal substitution. If grace is a gift, then it is something that is not paid for. As Piper wrote, " So the phrase 'as a gift' means you can't pay for it," and "it" here is justification. Therefore, no one paid for it -- or at least didn't pay the Father for it -- and that includes Jesus. If Jesus paid for grace or our justification, then it wouldn't be a gift because, quoth Piper, "a gift means you can't pay for it."
Ken: Jonathan wrote something about repentance removing sin. So you think our human repentance can actually remove sin? Amazing.
Adomnan: You never cease to be amazed.
Ken: Here is the word that is used in the Lord's model prayer, "forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors". Here is probably where Anselm saw the connection that justice was paid for at the cross.
Adomnan: But didn't you just cite Piper as saying that justification (same as justice in this instance) is a gift and so can't be paid for? Or are you saying that grace can't be paid for, but justice and justification can be? Well, that would mean that justification isn't a grace, or that justice isn't justification even though Paul calls God "just and the justifier."
Ken: And also, Hebrews does teach substitutionary atonement, propitiation (the satisfaction of the wrath of God) all over the place. Hebrews 2:17, he uses the same word for propitiation as in Romans 3:25-26 and I John 2:2 and 4:10. Hebrews 9:12-14 -- the blood of Christ cleanses the conscience; 9:22-28, chapter 10.
Adomnan: You're assuming two false things. One is that the word used in Hebrew 2:17 ("hilaskesthai") means "propiate." It doesn't. It means "expiate." This is shown by the fact that the object of this verb is "hamartias," i.e., "sins." If it meant propitiate, the object would be "theon" (God) because one propitiates God, but expiates sins. Since sins are the object, it must mean expiate. But you admit this essentially when you quote Hebrews 9 as teaching that Christ cleanses the conscience; you just don't realize it. To expiate sin is to cleanse it.
The second is that propiation implies penal substitution. I do agree that Christ's sacrifice can be said to propitiate God, because once sins are expiated, the motive for God's wrath is removed. However, that is not the focus in Hebrews; expiation is. Besides, propitiation does not imply penal substitution. The Catholic Church teaches propitiation, but rejects penal substitution.
The easiest way to see it is to look a few verses later in Romans 4:4, which we will come back to again and again on this matter of grace, because here is a fundamental insight. I am going to translate it literally so that you can see that the very same word "grace" is here in this verse. Romans 4:4, "Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited [or counted] according to grace, but according to debt." In other words, if you work for somebody, you don't get grace, you get wages. If you relate to somebody as one who works for them, what you bring about is not grace, but debt. They owe you wages. This is why it's an abomination to try to work for God. God cannot be put in anyone's debt. As Romans 11:35 says, "Who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?" The answer is "no one," and the reason given is that "from him and through him and too him are all things" (Romans 11:36).
So if you are going to get something by grace, you can't work for it. Grace is the good that you get from someone when he owes you nothing. So what Paul means when he says that we are "justified as a gift by his grace" is that we can't work for justification. So the phrase "as a gift" means you can't pay for it. And the phrase "by his grace" means you can't work for it.
I don't understand why protestants keep coming back to this. Catholics do not say we are working for God's grace. We say we are cooperating with God's grace. So there is not issue with Rom 4:4. Protestants seem to have some sort of mental block that prevents them from understanding this. No matter how many times you tell them that Catholics don't believe this and have never taught this they keep repeating it. It is hard to comprehend
Ken,
Leo the Great wrote to Julian (letter 35, June 13, 449, my emphasis):
For [Christ] is at once both eternal from His Father and temporal from His mother, inviolable in His strength, passible in our weakness: in the Triune Godhead, of one and the same substance with the Father and the Holy Spirit, but in taking Manhood on Himself, not of one substance but of one and the same person [so that He was at once rich in poverty, almighty in submission, impassible in punishment, immortal in death ]. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...ers/
3604035.htm
The same passage, worded differently:
“The same Christ is eternal from the Father and temporal from the Mother. In His power He is unchangeable; in our weakness He is capable of suffering; of one and the same nature as the Father and the Holy Spirit as part of the triune Godhead, but not of the same nature as the divinity in the taking on of humanity, even though He is of one and the same Person. In that way the same Christ might be rich in poverty, omnipotent in subjection, incapable of suffering while enduring the passion, dying yet immortal.”
http://thumbsnap.com/v/s6Y3R5JH.jpg
The Fathers of the Church; A New Translation, St. Leo the Great, Letters, tr. Edmund Hunt, C.S.C, Catholic University, 1957, vol. 34, p. 112.
Now I'm just wondering how you would reconcile penal substitution with this passage? In other words, how does PS relate to Christ’s suffering which continue in His Mystical body, the Church?
Btw, just an aside, you may want to note what Leo says in this passage about Blessed Mary.
“He alone was conceived and born without concupiscence from a stainless Virgin; for another, became He proceeded from His Mother’s womb in such a way that her fecundity gave birth wild her virginity remained. – ibid, p. 114.
Randy,
Catholics do not say we are working for God's grace. We say we are cooperating with God's grace.
Yes!
Again, the Holy Father:
“And assuredly to this form the Saviour's grace is daily restoring us, so long as that which, in the first Adam fell, is raised up again in the second.” - Leo the Great, sermon 12.
“Thus it is that God, by loving us, restores us to His image, and, in order that He may find in us the form of His goodness, He gives us that whereby we ourselves too may do the work [i.e. co-operate] that He does…” - ibid.
“For by prayer we seek to propitiate God, by fasting we extinguish the lusts of the flesh, by alms we redeem our sins: and at the same time God's image is throughout renewed in us, if we are always ready to praise Him, unfailingly intent on our purification and unceasingly active in cherishing our neighbour.” - Ibid.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...hers/
360312.htm
Ken,
In the previous forum you said:
Jesus cried out, "My God, My God why have You forsaken Me? on the cross. Why? Two reasons, 1. He was quoting Ps. 22:1 proving prophecies of His death and agony ( Psalm 22:16-17); and 2. God the Father laid all the punishment, justice, wrath against sin on Him and He bore it; causing the Father to turn away -- He who knew no sin became sin for us -- all of our sin was transfered to Him -- 2 Cor. 5:21, Mark 10:45, Galatians 1:4 "who gave Himself for (huper= in place of) our sins".
I think Leo, to whom I again appeal, offers some helpful insights here. On the notion that the Father “turned away,” as it were, from Christ during his passion, Leo, in sermon 68, says:
“[W]e bade the simple and unthinking hearer not take the words "My God, &c.," in a sense as if, when Jesus was fixed upon the wood of the cross, the Omnipotence of the Father's Deity had gone away from Him; seeing that God's and Man's Nature were so completely joined in Him that the union could not be destroyed by punishment nor by death.”
And again, a little further on, he says:
“Jesus, therefore, cried with a loud voice, saying, "Why have You forsaken Me?" in order to notify to all how it behoved Him not to be rescued, not to be defended, but to be given up into the hands of cruel men, that is to become the Saviour of the world and the Redeemer of all men, not by misery but by mercy; and not by the failure of succour but by the determination to die. But what must we feel to be theintercessory power of His life Who died and rose again by His own inherent power. For the blessed Apostle says the Father "spared not His own Son, but gave Him up for us all Romans 8:32;" and again, he says, "For Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify it ." And hence the giving up of the Lord to His Passion was as much of the Father's as of His own will, so that not only did the Father "forsake" Him, but He also abandoned Himself in a certain sense, not in hasty flight, but in voluntary withdrawal. For the might of the Crucified restrained itself from those wicked men, and in order to avail Himself of a secret design, He refused to avail Himself of His open power. For how would He who had come to destroy death and the author of death by His Passion have saved sinners, if he had resisted His persecutors? This, then, had been the Jews' belief, that Jesus had been forsaken by God, against Whom they had been able to commit such unholy cruelty; for not understanding the mystery of His wondrous endurance, they said in blasphemous mockery: "He saved others, Himself He cannot save. If He be the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we believe Him Matthew 27:42 .”
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...hers/
360368.htm
I hope Leo’s words shed more light than heat in this discussion.
Peace.
I don't understand why protestants keep coming back to this. Catholics do not say we are working for God's grace.
Because generally Roman Catholics do seem to say and act that way; even though, as you say, you do not.
Lugwig Ott: “The reason for the uncertainty of the state of grace lies in this, that without special revelation nobody can with certainty of faith know whether or not he has fulfilled all the conditions which are necessary for achieving justification.”
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 262.
Catechism: 2010 “. . . Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.”
Ludwig Ott:
“By his good works the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God.” Ibid, p. 264
Karl Keating:
“The Catholic Church, not surprisingly, understands justification differently. It sees it as a true eradication of sin and a true sanctification and renewal. The soul becomes objectively pleasing to God and so merits heaven. It merits heaven because now it is actually good.”
Ben M,
I'm not sure your quote about impassibility is necessarily directly relevant. It seems to be a statement about the Chalcedonian doctrine on the hypostatic union, namely, that the person of Jesus has the attributes of either nature predicated of him. Hence, He is passible according to his human nature and impassible according to His divine nature. It doesn't directly speak to whether the Father punished Him or not (which would be the central question of penal substitution).
The second set of Leo quotes, I think, is quite excellent.
Ken,
Do you think that Catholics teach that man can merit from God according to strict merit? (That is, according to commutative justice.)
Do you understand our distinctions between strict merit and congruent merit? The difference between commutative justice and grace?
-Rob
I don't understand why protestants keep coming back to this. Catholics do not say we are working for God's grace.
Because generally Roman Catholics do seem to say and act that way; even though, as you say, you do not.
Yes but there are temporal and eternal consequences. Protestants don't talk about the temporal so assume Catholics don't either. Still when you read these entire documents it is clear they don't teach about earning salvation. So somebody reads these things and intentionally quotes them in a way that makes them sound like they do.
For example look at the entire CCC 2010:
Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.
Ken,
I see you're trying again to switch the discussion from penal substitution to works righteousness. And I guess that's fine, if people want to discuss this with you. It is, after all, an open forum.
However, can I take it that you concede my point that Hebrews 2:17 is talking about expiating or cleansing sins and not propitiating God, because the object of the verb (hilaskesthai) is "sins" and not "God?"
I might add that there was a typo in the following sentence of my post: "One is that the word used in Hebrew 2:17 ("hilaskesthai") means 'propiate.'" The last word should of course be "propitiate."
And to my fellow Catholics: I we often go too far in denying that Chtistians "earn salvation" in discussions with evangelicals. While it's true that salvation can't be earned or merited by our own unaided efforts, it can be earned and merited with God's grace.
St. Paul says this explicitly: Phil. 2:12-13: "Earn your salvation in fear and trembling. It is God who, for his own generous purpose, gives you the intention and powers to act." The word translated "earn" here is often translated "work out." However, that makes no sense. Whatever "work out" meant in King James's time, when people came up with this translation, it means something different today. The original Greek word ("katergazesthe") should be translated "earn, achieve or acquire with effort." No other meaning makes sense in this context.
Therefore, the inspired Paul says we "earn salvation." I'm sticking with him on this.
Here are some passages that prove we can "merit grace" in the sense of paragraph 2010 (eg prayer):
26The spirit shrieked, convulsed him violently and came out. The boy looked so much like a corpse that many said, "He's dead." 27But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him to his feet, and he stood up. 28After Jesus had gone indoors, his disciples asked him privately, "Why couldn't we drive it out?"
29He replied, "This kind can come out only by prayer."
- Mk 9
30Cornelius answered: "Four days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me 31and said, 'Cornelius, God has heard your prayer and remembered your gifts to the poor. 32Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He is a guest in the home of Simon the tanner, who lives by the sea.' 33So I sent for you immediately, and it was good of you to come. Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us."
- Acts 10
24Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. 25I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness— 26the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. 27To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. 28We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ. 29To this end I labor, struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works in me.
- Col 1
16Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.
- 1 Tim 4
19My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, 20remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins.
- James 5
and one of my favorites:
6But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:
"God opposes the proud
but gives grace to the humble."
7Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. 8Come near to God and he will come near to you.
-James 4
"Come near to God and he will come near to you"? Wow, are you sure James isnt a semi-Pelagian or something?
Combox for:
Open Forum
[30 April 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...n-
forum_30.html
Adomnan proved my point even more!
Thanks.
The Roman Catholic Church emphasizes a works-righteousness salvation and earning merit in order to finally be accepted by God; and one can never know for sure if God loves them and accepts them or not.
This is the opposite of grace and salvation and the good news.
katergazomai does not mean "earn" or "work for" -- it does not give indication, by grammar or by context that it is "earn" or "Work for".
Rather, it is "work out" -- work it out practically, because ( gar - verse 13) it is God who is in you to will and to work for His good pleasure.
The Christian life is not passive. We must choose and strive and be disciplined and obey; and we can because we have God in us and He gives us grace and power to choose the right way and crucify the flesh. He both wills and works in us. But we must do the moving and choosing; and give glory to Him for doing the work.
You are wrong on that one.
katerga,zomai verb part pres mid or pass dep gen masc
sing , from katerga,zomai do, accomplish; produce,
bring about, work out; prepare, make ready; overcome,
conquer (Eph 6.13)
Rom. 1:27
Rom. 2:9
Rom. 4:15
Rom. 5:3
Rom. 7:8
Rom. 7:13
Rom. 7:15
Rom. 7:17
Rom. 7:18
Rom. 7:20
Rom. 15:18
1 Co. 5:3
2 Co. 4:17
2 Co. 5:5
2 Co. 7:10
2 Co. 7:11
2 Co. 9:11
2 Co. 12:12
Eph. 6:13
Phil. 2:12
Jas. 1:3
1 Pet. 4:3
The distinctions between congruent merit and condign merit seems like a tricky way to say "we don't teach works salvation",( but really we do, because one can never be sure if he did enough works, etc.); which the comments show and point to. Merit is the opposite of grace. You can boast. It is the opposite of the gospel.
Ken,
Romans 4:4 lays out a basic principle: we cannot enter into a relationship of commutative justice with God. That is, we cannot obligate Him on the basis of strict merit, like a worker obligates his employer. This you surely agree with.
This is also common sense. God, being who He is, cannot be obligated to do anything. We have the testimony of Scripture and reason against this.
But condign merit is not on the order of commutative justice. We are not obligating God to pay us according to strict merit when we do good works.
When we approach God from the perspective of a worker, and treat Him as an employer, it is then that we come under Paul's condemnation.
But Paul-- and the entire NT, with the entire Christian tradition-- recognizes another type of relationship with God. A filial relationship, where we become sons crying, "Abba! Father!" When we are adopted as sons we try to please our Father in the way that sons try to please their fathers. And our Father is happy to reward us for what we do-- in the kind, benevolent way that the greatest Father would.
It is this distinction which baffles Protestants. Nowhere do the Scriptures condemn condign merit. Paul condemns the idea that we can enter into a relationship of strict justice with God, but not that we can't please Him when we do good in accord with grace.
That's why the Bible constantly says that God will reward people according to their works. In Matthew 25 the very basis of our judgment is on our works-- good or bad. The same thing is repeated by Jesus at the end of the book of Revelation. He says, "Behold, I am coming soon. I bring with me the recompense I will give to each according to his deeds." (Rev 22:12)
And of course, James says that we are justified by our works in this same sense (Jm 2:24).
And so it should be no surprise that Paul also agrees. He talks about " God, who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works" (Rom 2:5-7).
And so it's quite clear that God does reward us for our good works. Paul says it undeniably: God will reward with immortality those who persevere in good works. And this is not strange, for Jesus says the same thing about those who perform the corporal works of mercy (Matthew 25).
What it comes down to is that our good works are always done in cooperation with grace, and that we never merit apart from grace. That's why Augustine said that in crowning our merits, God is actually crowning His own gifts.
As you can see, what I've presented is pure Gospel.
-Rob
Rob,
I'm not sure your quote about impassibility is necessarily directly relevant. It seems to be a statement about the Chalcedonian doctrine on the hypostatic union, namely, that the person of Jesus has the attributes of either nature predicated of him. Hence, He is passible according to his human nature and impassible according to His divine nature. It doesn't directly speak to whether the Father punished Him or not (which would be the central question of penal substitution).
I understand. And I didn’t mean to stray (like I’ve ever done that before 
). I was just trying to better understand (from the Calvinist perspective) the meaning and ramifications of substitutionay atonement SA or penal substitution PS with regard to Christ’s continued sufferings.
What I was driving at was basically this:
If the Father punished Christ (in the PS sense), and yet Christ indeed continues to suffer in His Mystical body, the Church, where exactly then is this so-called substitution, since Christ not only suffers in his own person and nature, but also in, with and through us as well? (keep in mind that Christ is in agony until the end of the world (in his Mystical body, the Church) and that many (if not all) of the Fathers, taught explicitly that we are Christ, that is, “we too are Himself” (Augustine, Sermon 263A:2:2).
Put another way, are the sufferings of Christ’s Mystical body, which are the continuation of His passion until the end of time, also to be considered a result of the Father’s “wrath” which was PS teaches was poured out on Him during His passion? And if so, then where is the so-called “substitution,” since we too, as well as Christ, are all suffering together?
Ken: katergazomai does not mean "earn" or "work for" -- it does not give indication, by grammar or by context that it is "earn" or "Work for".
Rather, it is "work out" -- work it out practically, because ( gar - verse 13) it is God who is in you to will and to work for His good pleasure.
Adomnan: That's not true, Ken. This verb never means "work out practically" in Greek. It can only mean "earn" in this context. That's just the way it is.
The first three synonyms you provide subsequently in your post mean the same thing as earn: accomplish, produce, bring about. Of "prepare, make ready, overcome and conquer," "conquer" has the same significance. If you "conquer" salvation, you earn it. Same if we "prepare" or "make ready" our salvation. "Work out" may have meant "earn" in the 16-17th century. If so, it no longer does. "Overcome" clearly isn't relevant in this context.
You cited "apanta katergasamenoi" in Eph 6:13. This literally means "having gained all by effort." The KJV translates it as "having done all."
In Rom 1:27, "katergazomenoi ten antimisthian" clearly means "earning the reward (or payback). "
In Rom 2:9, "katergazomenou to kakon" means "accomplishing evil" or "producing evil." If you want to translate Phil 2:12 as "accomplishing salvation" or "producing salvation," I have no problem with that.
Rom 4:15: The Law accomplishes or earns wrath. The NJB translates "produces."
And the same with the rest. None of these verses uses katergazomai to mean "work out practically." The object is always something that is acquired or accomplished or produced by effort or doing. With an object like "reward" or "salvation," it can only mean "earn."
In sum, Paul writes "earn salvation," and so "earn salvation" it is.
"work out" your salvation; not "work for" your salvation
given the context of verse 13, Philippians 2
Of course "practically" is my interpretation, which is necessary. Paul is saying, "demonstrate that your Salvation is real, work it out, let it come out in your life by obedience and love and discipline, and not complaining and being shining lights in a dark world; because God has already worked it in and is in you in a relationship to will and motivate you and move you and act. Give Him the glory.
"earn salvation" it is not -- as Romans 4, Galatians 3, Ephesians 2:8-9 prove; along with the rest of NT.
You really prove what I was saying; that RCC emphasizes "earning your salvation" and that is against the gospel. That is at least Semi-Pelagian in practice; and your emphasis even pushes more toward outright Pelagianism.
on propitiation
No time to give a full explanation. I remember in Seminary studying the issue. Romans 3:25-26; I john 2:2, 4:10; Hebrews 2:17; 9:5
Leon Morris proved in his book, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, what the hilasmos word group meant. Propitiation
http://www.amazon.com/exec/
obido...process=default
Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross
Hi Ken (and everyone else),
Augustine’s letter 186 has some important things to say about grace, merit, and our friend, Pelagius. I don’t have the letter handy, but I’ll try to get over to St. Thomas later this week and get some specific quotes from it.
In the meantime, here’s part of the introduction to letter 186 (which I scanned) and which presents the various chapters in outline. This will give you a good idea of the overall idea of the letter which has 41 paragraphs. I should’ve scanned the whole thing last time I had the book checked out.
I suspect the sub-text to this whole penal substitution business is the faith vs works debate. And I suspect that the sub-text to both of those is this business of “eternal security.”
Anyway, here’s the editors into.
“Toward the middle of 416, Alypius, the bishop of Thagaste, and Augustine wrote
to Paulinus, the bishop of Nola in Italy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Pau...aulinus_of_Nola
Augustine and Alypius explain to Paulinus that, after having read a work of Pelagius, namely, Nature, they have come to realize that the Briton is an enemy of the grace of God (paragraph 1).
They tell Paulinus that Pelagius' errors were reported to the Apostolic See by those who attended the Councils of Carthage and Milevis and that Pope Innocent had confirmed the condemnation of Pelagius (paragraph 2).
The true grace of God not only wipes away sins but also helps us to avoid sin and to live rightly (paragraph 3).
It is not our faith, good will, and good works that have saved us from the mass of perdition but the grace of God from which good works come (paragraph 4).
Even our good thoughts do not come from ourselves but from God (paragraph 5).
Before receiving grace no one has any good but only evil merits, even if his life has lasted only a single day on earth (paragraph 6).The love that faith obtains is itself a gift of God (paragraph 7). The righteousness that makes us righteous comes from faith as a gift of God (paragraph 8 ). But the righteousness that comes from the law does not come from God (paragraph 9).
Though faith merits righteousness, faith itself is a gift, so that no human merit precedes grace (paragraph 10).
They quote a passage from a letter of Paulinus that reveals the desperate need on the part of human beings for God’s grace as we await the redemption of our body (paragraph 40).
As long as we are in this life, we need to pray that we may not be brought into temptation (paragraph 41).”
I do have a couple of quotes from letter 186.
“Though faith, then, obtains justification, as God has also granted to each the measure of faith itself, no human merit precedes the grace of God, but grace itself merits an increase in order that, once increased, it may also merit to be made perfect with the will accompanying, not leading, following along, not preceding.” (186:10)
And this, along with some notes, which concludes Augustine’s letter:
cont...
Augustine writes:
‘For what could be richer or more filled with a most true profession than that passage in a letter of yours where you humbly deplored that our nature did not remain as it was created, but was damaged by the father of the human race. You [ Bishop Paulinus] said,
"I am poor and sorrowing (Ps 69:30), since I am still fashioned from the squalor of the earthly image and still carry more of the first than of the second Adam in the senses of my flesh and in my earthly actions. 44 How shall I dare to make a portrait of myself for you when I am shown to reject the image of the heavenly man by my earthly corruption? 45 Shame encloses me from both sides. I am ashamed to portray what I am; I do not dare to portray what I am not. I hate what I am; I am not what I love. But what good will it do wretched me to hate iniquity and to love virtue, 46 since I do rather what I hate and I do not in my laziness strive to do what I love? In my discord I am tom apart by inner warfare, while the spirit has desires opposed to the flesh and the flesh has desires opposed to the spirit (Gal 5: 17) and the law of the body attacks the law of the mind with the law of sin. 47 Unhappy man that I am, who have not eliminated the poisoned taste of the hostile tree even by the wood of the cross!48 For there remains in me that paternal poison by which through his transgression our father infected the whole of his race," 49 and the many other things that you put together concerning this misery, while groaning in expectation of the redemption of your body, IN THE KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU ARE NOT YET SAVED IN FACT BUT IN HOPE.’ 50 (186:40)
We "ARE NOT YET SAVED IN FACT BUT IN HOPE.”
In other words, penal substitution or not, there’s still no such thing as “guaranteed salvation.” Luther, Calvin, are you listening?
Notes:
44. See I Cor 15:47-49.
45. Paulinus wrote this letter to Bishop Severus who had asked him to have a painting of him and
his wife sent to him.
46. See Ps 45:8; Heb 1:9.
47. See Rom 7:23.
48. See Gn 3:6.
49. Paulinus of Nola. Letter 30, 2.
50. See Rom 8:23-24.
Source: Works of Saint Augustine, Letters (Epistulae) 156-210, New City Press, 2004. http://books.google.com/books?id...=156548200x&
lr=
Ken: Of course "practically" is my interpretation, which is necessary. Paul is saying, "demonstrate that your Salvation is real, work it out, let it come out in your life by obedience and love and discipline, and not complaining and being shining lights in a dark world; because God has already worked it in and is in you in a relationship to will and motivate you and move you and act. Give Him the glory.
Adomnan: I know what you'd like the word to mean, Ken. But, unlke Humpty Dumpty in "Through the Looking Glass," you can't make a word mean whatever you want:
"But `glory' doesn't mean `a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."
"Katergazomai," when followed by something sought after, like victory, or a reward or salvation, always means "gain by effort; earn."
The word cannot mean "work out practically." It never meant this in any context. This is simply a matter of definition.
Ken: "earn salvation" it is not -- as Romans 4, Galatians 3, Ephesians 2:8-9 prove; along with the rest of NT.
Adomnan: "Earn salvation" it is. None of those texts you refer to imply that salvation is not earned. Paul does not contradict himself. In Romans 4 and Gal 3, he is simply saying that one is not justified by works of the Jewish Law (primarily circumcision). He does not expand his meaning beyond that. Besides, these chapters speak of justification, not salvation.
Paul probably did not author Ephesians, but even the one passing reference to "works" in this epistle refers to works of the Jewish Law, not good works in general; that is, "works" has the same import in Ephesians as in Romans. (In Gal, Paul only employs the phrase "works of the Law," as far as I can see, never the shorthand "works," which he adopts in Romans starting in chapter 4.)
Ken: on propitiation No time to give a full explanation. I remember in Seminary studying the issue. Romans 3:25-26; I john 2:2, 4:10; Hebrews 2:17; 9:5
Adomnan: All of these passages refer to "expiation," not propitiation. I proved this with Hebrews 2:17 -- which YOU wrongly cited to prove your point -- and you have nothing to say to contest that.
Ken: Leon Morris proved in his book, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, what the hilasmos word group meant. Propitiation
Adomnan: I don't have to read his book; I can see he's wrong. I know it's impossible that he proved that hilaskesthai in Hebrew 2:17 means "propitiation" because it can only mean propitiation when the object of the verb is God. When the object is sins, as in Heb 2:17, it must mean expiation. It's simple, Ken. You can't propitiate sins; you can only expiate them.
From my notes.
Here is the only comment I wrote down from Augustine's sermon 131 regarding grace.
“There are people, you see, who are ungrateful for grace, who attribute too much to a helpless and wounded nature.” Sermon 131:6:1, p. 319
And here's the translators note ( no. 20 ) to the same sermon. I'll look up the passage to which it refers next chance I get.
"It is worth noting that Augustine’s doctrine of grace does not exclude the possibility of merit, of in some sense earning a reward, as I rather think Luther and Calvin supposed. There is a place for the concept of merit- but it is firmly within a total context of grace. God’s gift, his grace, comes first, and last; human merit only comes in the middle, as an effect of grace, entirely dependent on it."
SERMONS ON THE NEW TESTAMENT (94A-147A), 1992. VOLUME 4, PART 3.
http://books.google.com/books?
id...FHYm6zASt2Ki8Ag
Now back to bed! Later gators.
Ben,
You seem to have a very good grasp on the Fathers. I've been trying to read the Fathers myself, in bits and pieces. Any advice on reading the Fathers which you can give?
As for what you said about the suffering of the Church and Christ's body, it's very interesting. The puzzle pieces might not fit together under penal substitution, as you can see.
-Rob
This has been a very informative thread for me to read, but at the end of the day, Ken, what is the peasant to do regarding the translation and understanding of the scriptures? I don't have to go to school to learn how to read Greek and Hebrew, nor do I have to try to decide whether you or Adomnan has the correct understanding of Sacred Scripture. How do I settle this argument, Ken?
For us unlearned simpletons, we simply have to listen to the Church about this particular issue. THAT is how Christ intended it to be. Christ instituted a living, teaching Church to innocultate us illiterate peasants from erroneous understandings of scripture. You have no such protection, you rely on your own intellect.
Rev. Temple:
Morris isn't going to help you. He says the same thing Admonan says, albeit not quite in the same way. Here's a nice word study that summarizes Morris's position.
And after examining all the words in the "hilaskomai" word group in the Septuagint, Morris says,
"we accept the verdict of such scholars as Westcott and Dodd in their demonstration that in the Old Testament there is not the usual pagan sense of a crude propitiation of an angry deity, and that this is shown in the LXX use of hilaskomai, etc. The usage with God as the subject of the verb, the paucity of examples of its use with Him as the object, the study of the Hebrew words translated by hilaskomai and it cognates all alike draw us to this conclusion.... It is of the utmost importance that we should understand that propitiation in the crude sense is not possible with the God of Israel, and that the Greek words used reflect this view of the deity. We cannot be too grateful to Dodd and others for their convincing demonstration of this truth.
However, it is the present writer's conviction that, in stating this great truth, most who have treated it have tended to go too far. When we reach the stage where we must say 'When the LXX translators used "propitiation" they did not mean "propitiation"', it is surely time to call a halt. No sensible man uses one word when he means another, and in view of the otherwise invariable Greek use it would seem impossible for anyone in the first century to have used one of the hilaskomai group without conveying to the readers some idea of propitiation.
It is contended that while care is taken to avoid the crude use natural to pagans, yet the words of the hilaskomai group as used in the LXX were not eviscerated of their meaning, nor were they given an entirely new meaning. Rather there is a definite continuity, and in particular the removal of wrath seems to be definitely in view when the word group is used."
It is also clear from this study by Leon Morris that propitiation does not mean a satisfaction of the justice of God for the transgressions of the law.
With this expanded secondary meaning, which Admonan rightly says is better captured by the term "expiate" anyway, "propitiate" simply doesn't mean what you want it to mean. Rather, Morris is simply saying that there is an associated meaning of appeasing the wrath of God through the cleansing of sin.
David Petersen says the same thing about Hebr. 2:17 in the NBC (21st c. ed.):
However, the climax of his earthly struggle was his deal, by which he was able to make atonement for the sins of the people (17). This expression is the first indication that Jesus fulfilled the role of the high priest onf the annual Day of Atonement (cf. Lv. 16), offering a sacrifice to cleanse his people from the defilement of sin and placate the anger of God."
It's that cleansing part that A
David Petersen says the same thing about Hebr. 2:17 in the NBC (21st c. ed.):
However, the climax of his earthly struggle was his deal, by which he was able to make atonement for the sins of the people (17). This expression is the first indication that Jesus fulfilled the role of the high priest onf the annual Day of Atonement (cf. Lv. 16), offering a sacrifice to cleanse his people from the defilement of sin and placate the anger of God."
It's that cleansing part that Admonan is repeatedly emphasizing by the use of the word "expiate." Because some people take this to mean that God's wrath is not implicated at all, Morris argues that "propitiate" should be used, but that is based on a secondary sense of appeasing the divine wrath through expiation that Adomnan is not even denying.
Bottom line: As Morris uses the term "propitiate," he does NOT support your position that this means satisfaction of divine justice.
typo: "his deal" -> "his death"
evidently, this pagan notion of bargaining with a deity that I was trying to answer was too much on my mind. 
Peter,
Of course he'll say that the Bible is the "final court of appeals" or some such thing, but... he has yet to show the Bible teaches such a thing...
It seems more a more clear to me that the God Ken is painting a picture of is a glory-mongering despot who arbitrarily nabs, from the mass of damned sentient beings, a few wicked folks to save... and that only these souls can respond to His call to repentance... the rest, while called, are damned... the lucky elect get the alien righteousness of Christ who is murdered/crushed by a blood-thirsty Deity in to exact a payment for the sins of the lucky/arbitrarily selected elect - and this is called free grace, this is called 'good news' - this is a horror story, and it's not what the Bible teaches, as Adomnan and Mr. Prejean are showing us.
This sounds more like Allah than Yahweh to me...
Of course he'll say that the Bible is the "final court of appeals" or some such thing
I know he will, but it doesn't answer the question I ask of him:
What is the peasant to do when he is faced with two opposed, learned men parsing the grammar of the scriputres in an attempt to give said peasant the correct understanding of Scripture?
I maintain that Christ provided for the peasant's authentic Christian education by instituting a Church to teach such things correctly. He gave this Church a visible leader so that our humble, illiterate, peasant who is busy trying to scratch out a meagre sustainence on his farm can see where this Church is in times of doctrinal confusion.
I have brought this to Ken's attention before, but he skirts the issue with a comment similar to what you posted above and then returns to his scripture parsing with his participles, definite articles and future perfect tenses to try to impress upon the ignoramous out in the field that he has the correct understanding of scripture.
All that being said, I do immensely value your, Johnathan's, etal learning and how you employ it to confirm those in the faith.
The big thing that Ken and most protestants can't comprehend is the difference between objective truth and their own opinion. When Ken says the bible teaches x he thinks that is objective truth. Anyone who disagrees can see it is just his opinion but Ken cannot. It requires some abstract thinking to step outside yourself and see your opinion as possible tainted by things you are not aware of. That is to stop trusting your own mind. It is a hard thing to swallow for a protestant because they have no other way to approach objective truth except to declare their own subjective interpretation to be objective.
Paul probably did not author Ephesians,
Wow. That is just, unorthodox and liberal.
Who, pray tell, then wrote Ephesians?
I could comment on lots of things; but I am still trying to read it all and comprehend it all!
Thanks for all your interactions from all of you; you are all very zealous and diligent in your answers; except for the liberal view that Paul didn't write Ephesians.
Adomnan: Paul probably did not author Ephesians,
Ken: Wow. That is just, unorthodox and liberal.
Adomnan: It's the view of the preeminent Catholic Pauline scholar (in English at least), Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer, and the consensus of the overwhelming majority of other distinguished scholars who write on this subject.
But I have no problem with your asserting that Paul wrote Ephesians. It doesn't have any impact on our discussion whether he was the author or not. I just couldn't in good conscience ascribe the epistle directly to Paul once it came up.
Ken: Who, pray tell, then wrote Ephesians?
Adomnan: Some disciple of Paul's, name unknown.
Ephesians is inspired and canonical, even if not penned by Paul.
Randy's back !
on objective truth vs. opinion --
Your assumption basically guts us all of any certainty of our own understanding at all. How do you know anything? You have to also use your mind to come to the conclusion that the RCC is right; or it is just blind faith in a human institution. (But you would say it is God's institution on earth.)
Peter,
Koine Greek was the common Greek for the man on the street; so at that time it was very peasant/ farmer/ shoe- cobbler friendly.
We have to constantly translate the Scriptures into languages and help people understand, yes.
Yes, we all have to depend to some degree on others, teachers, scholars, books, pastors, teachers in the church, etc.
Even Fitzmeyer, has written things that are against RC Dogma; it seems (others lump him in with Raymond Brown and other liberal scholars. ( I don't have the backup for that, I just did a quick search and Dave A. said it in an earlier debate that Dave and I had on Mary in 2006. When Svendsen quoted Brown and Fitzmeyer in favor of the protestant undersanding of the Greek; they were discounted as liberals.
"Nearly all Roman Catholic NT scholars in recent years, including Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmeyer, agree that the older Roman Catholic interpretations of the this word [kexaritwmevn, Luke 1:28] "clearly go beyond the meaning of Luke's text." ( p. 130, Who is My Mother?, Eric Svendsen)
Learning languages and cultures is just part of the Great commission to disciple all nations. Matthew 28:18-20 (nations, from Greek "ethna" where we get "ethnic" from; and I Cor. 9:19-23, "I have become all things to all men."
Anyway, I understand your point and you guys win the argument as far as which view seems more humble, because you are not depending on your own self and mind to figure things out, it seems. But ultimately you are also leaning on your own mind to decide that RCC makes more sense to you.
The authority of the RCC would have more credibility if it would repent of false doctrines and practices on Mary, admit they are not infallible; see that justification by faith alone is true because it depends on salvation by grace alone (Romans 4:16 -- For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace . . . Yes, I know the word "alone" is not there in Romans 4:16
by faith alone, does not mean, "faith remains alone". No, true faith produces good works, change, fruit, etc.
And Paul's argument in Romans 3:21-28 shows that substitution and God's wrath being propitiated does go with the issue of justification by faith alone, apart from any merit of works.
Jonathan,
You did a very clever job of turning Leon Morris against me! Since I don't have his whole book, [ I was too poor in seminary to buy lots of books and I remember reading him; but cannot regurgitate it.]
No protestant agrees with the pagan/angry deity emphasis; and so I don't think what Leon Morris wrote goes against anything I have written; I just don't know enough; or have forgotten the details to go any further.
but you have stimulated me to do some further study and go to the library and try to go over these things again.
Peter,
Koine Greek was the common Greek for the man on the street; so at that time it was very peasant/ farmer/ shoe- cobbler friendly.
Ken, are you saying that the peasant in a field in Germany around 1540 knew Koine Greek well enough to parse the sacred Scriptures for himself?
no, read the rest of what I wrote about translating, matthew 28:19, reaching the nations, cultures, etc. That is one reason Luther wanted a fresh new translation of the Bible into German.
That is also why the Latin Vulgate eventually faded as useful; it became a dead language after all the barbarian invasions and the fall of Roman Empire.
Don't hold me to when exactly Latin became a "dead language" --I did not mean "immediately after barbarian invasions", mind you -- 1600s ? 1700s ? When did Italian replace Latin? How is Romanian so close to Latin? it seems still used into 19th and 20 th century and the society of St. Pius XII (Traditionalists, Ultra-traditionalists) want to go back to Latin Mass, etc.
Ken,
Why would Catholics repent of 'false doctrines' if you've yet to show us that they are false? We've given you many reasons to reject 'sola fide' taken in the wrong sense. Why not address the types of arguments we've made, like mine here,
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...9110374/
#162025
rather than just tell us that our doctrine is false.
-Rob
Jonathan,
Thanks for going to the trouble of looking up that reference to Leon Morris. His nuanced opinion, as it turns out, hardly supports the Rev. Temple's concept of propitiation.
I do think, though, that the following statement by Mr. Morris is overreaching: "it would seem impossible for anyone in the first century to have used one of the hilaskomai group without conveying to the readers some idea of propitiation. "
Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer makes reference to Leon Morris's view in his discussion of propitiation/expiation in "Paul and His Theology: A Brief Sketch," writing about the word hilasterion (sometimes translated "mercy seat") that occurs in Rom 3:25:
"Some commentators have tried to relate hilasterion to the Greek verb hilaskesthai, which was often used in the Hellenistic period with a god or hero as its object and meant 'to propitiate, placate, appease' such an angry being. This might suggest that Paul was saying that Christ was so displayed with his blood in order to placate the Father's wrath (see L. Morris, "The Meaning"). This is, however, far from certain. In the LXX, God is at times the object of hilaskesthai (Mal 1:9; Zech 7:2; 8:22); but in these three places there is no question of an appeasement of his wrath (see the RSV). More frequently hilaskesthai is used either of expiating sins (i.e., removing them or their guilt, Ps 65:4; Sir 5:6; 28:5) or of expiating some object, person, or place (i.e., purifying from defilement, Lev 16:16, 20, 33; Ezek 43:20, 26; etc.)."
Consistent with this, Fr. Fitzmyer understands "hilasterion" in Rom 3:25 as an adjective describing Christ and meaning "expiating."
Thus, we see that expiation is the most likely meaning of the "hilas-" word in Paul, and it certainly has that meaning in Hebrews, as I explained earlier, because, when used as a verb in Heb 2:17, it takes "sins" as an object.
The other occurence of a word of this group is "hilasmos" in I John 2:2: "and he is a 'hilasmos' (i.e., expiation) for our sins, not for ours only but also for those of the whole world." Here the word clearly means "cleansing, expiation" because John has just finished saying "the blood of Jesus Christ, His son, cleanses us from all sin (I John 1:7) and "He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all iniquity" (I John 1:9)
Dear Anon --
It seems more a more clear to me that the God Ken is painting a picture of is a glory-mongering despot
[not at all -- God knows His glory is best for us. He is good and pure and holy and pure love and mercy. You mis-understand Reformed theology. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons . . . Ephesians 1:4-6]
who arbitrarily
Islam, yes; is arbitrary; but not the God of the Bible; God so loved the world that He gave . . . He is motivated by love
nabs, from the mass of damned sentient beings, Islam does not believe in original sin nor a fall; rather it teaches that all humans are born good; and in fact, "Muslims". Quran, Surah 30:30 "Allah created man with an upright nature (fitrah) . . . "
a few wicked folks to save... and that only these souls can respond to His call to repentance
"if perhaps God should grant repentance" 2 Timothy 2:24 ; Acts 5:31; 8:22; 11:18]
... the rest, while called, are damned
see Romans 9:19-23
... the lucky I would not use the word "lucky", it comes from the same roots as "Lucifer"
elect get the alien righteousness of Christ who is murdered/crushed by a blood-thirsty Deity
those are your gross words to describe the holiness of God and His just wrath against sin -- so why did He require lambs and goats and bulls to be slaughtered and sacrificed? "Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness" Heb. 9:22, Leviticus 17:11
in to exact a payment for the sins of the lucky/arbitrarily selected elect
already defeated your use of the words "lucky" and "arbitrary" -
and this is called free grace, this is called 'good news' - this is a horror story, Original horror/ghost stories such as Dicken's A Christmas Carol and Frankenstein had moral lessons pointing towards repentance
and it's not what the Bible teaches, that's your view and opinion
as Adomnan and Mr. Prejean are showing us. their views and opinions, all human
This sounds more like Allah than Yahweh to me...
No, God is holy and love and cannot sin (I John 1:5; Titus 1:2 "God cannot lie"). In Islam, Allah can sin if He wants to; His will is paramount. In Biblical Christianity, God is Love ( I John 4:8-16) and humbles Himself, becomes flesh, and dies on the cross in order to save His people from their sins. He rose from the dead to prove His sacrifice was a powerful, atoning, all propitiating sacrifice. The god of Islam is power and aloof and far off; and is not a person and cannot be known. In Biblical Christianity, God is Tri-une, personal, and available to us. I reject your characterization, for it is just wrong.
Ken: And Paul's argument in Romans 3:21-28 shows that substitution and God's wrath being propitiated does go with the issue of justification by faith alone, apart from any merit of works.
Adomnan: There's no "substitution" in Romans 3:21-28, no wrath being propitiated (in fact, no propitiation, just expiation), no justification by faith alone (as Protestants understand it) and no discussion of works other than the works of the Jewish Law (i.e., circumcision, food laws, etc.).
Ken citing the Quran: Surah 30:30 "Allah created man with an upright nature (fitrah) . . . "
Adomnan: Actually, this is true. Man was created with an upright nature. It was only after man's creation that he fell.
Ken: I would not use the word "lucky", it comes from the same roots as "Lucifer"
Adomnan: Actually, this isn't so. The "luci" of Lucifier comes from the Latin lux, lucis meaning "light." So, lightbearer. "Lucky" is from Middle English and is akin to the modern German word Glueck ("e" represents an umlaut), which means happiness. This isn't from the Latin. So the two words appear unrelated.
Rob,
You are right, I was just asserting without arguing. Your post below is pretty good.
Romans 4:4 lays out a basic principle: we cannot enter into a relationship of commutative justice with God. That is, we cannot obligate Him on the basis of strict merit, like a worker obligates his employer. This you surely agree with.
yes, very good.
This is also common sense. God, being who He is, cannot be obligated to do anything. We have the testimony of Scripture and reason against this.
But condign merit is not on the order of commutative justice. We are not obligating God to pay us according to strict merit when we do good works.
When we approach God from the perspective of a worker, and treat Him as an employer, it is then that we come under Paul's condemnation.
But Paul-- and the entire NT, with the entire Christian tradition-- recognizes another type of relationship with God. A filial relationship, where we become sons crying, "Abba! Father!" When we are adopted as sons we try to please our Father in the way that sons try to please their fathers. And our Father is happy to reward us for what we do-- in the kind, benevolent way that the greatest Father would.
No problems at all here; as far as I can see. Yes, there will be rewards in heaven and degrees of rewards and degrees of punishment in hell. Several parables and I Cor. 3:9-15 seem to indicate this.
It is this distinction which baffles Protestants. Nowhere do the Scriptures condemn condign merit.
What does "condign" mean? Jimmy Akin said it means "reward" (he also said "meritos" or "Meritus" just means "reward" in Latin. Debate with James White on the Bible Answer Man Show.
Paul condemns the idea that we can enter into a relationship of strict justice with God, but not that we can't please Him when we do good in accord with grace.
Yes, all believers who are truly regenerate operate in God's grace when obeying Him and doing good works out of love and for His glory. no problem.
That's why the Bible constantly says that God will reward people according to their works. In Matthew 25 the very basis of our judgment is on our works-- good or bad.
Yes, but the good works flow out of a changed nature first. One must become a new creature, a sheep first. Those that are "goats" (have not had nature changed; are the ones who don't do good works, or do them with wrong motives, etc. or do evil works.
The same thing is repeated by Jesus at the end of the book of Revelation. He says, "Behold, I am coming soon. I bring with me the recompense I will give to each according to his deeds." (Rev 22:12)
no problem with Protestant doctrine. We also believe in rewards and that good works prove one has first been saved or born again or changed into a new creature. If anyone is in Christ, behold, he is a new creature, the old has passed away; behold; new things have come." 2 Cor. 5:17
And of course, James says that we are justified by our works in this same sense (Jm 2:24).
James indicates that those good works prove and vindicate that they were true believers, not in order to make them into believers. The order of the quotes from Genesis is very important. Faith comes first (Genesis 15:6) and that is what justifies ( Gal. 3:6-8; Romans 4:1-
; then good works (Genesis 22). that was the work that "justified" Abraham. The word justified there is used like it is used in Luke 7:35 "But wisdom is proved right by all her children". also Matthew 11:19
And so it should be no surprise that Paul also agrees. He talks about " God, who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works" (Rom 2:5-7).
Yes, if they are changed first into new creatures; otherwise you have a contradiction here with Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:19-20; 3:28; 4:1-8; 5:1-11; Galatians chapter 3, etc.
And so it's quite clear that God does reward us for our good works. Paul says it undeniably: God will reward with immortality those who persevere in good works. And this is not strange, for Jesus says the same thing about those who perform the corporal works of mercy (Matthew 25).
Yes works done by the power of the spirit presumes t
Ken: those are your gross words to describe the holiness of God and His just wrath against sin -- so why did He require lambs and goats and bulls to be slaughtered and sacrificed? "Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness" Heb. 9:22, Leviticus 17:11
Adomnan: They were going to be slain to be eaten anyway. In fact, as sacrifices they were eaten in communion.
I hope this isn't your attempt to resurrect the penal substitution business, after we've shown how unbiblical it is. Do we have to rerun that whole thread?
Ken: as Adomnan and Mr. Prejean are showing us. their views and opinions, all human
Adomnan: And so I take it your views are divinely inspired?
Yes works done by the power of the spirit presumes that they have been regenerated first.
What it comes down to is that our good works are always done in cooperation with grace, and that we never merit apart from grace. That's why Augustine said that in crowning our merits, God is actually crowning His own gifts.
As you can see, what I've presented is pure Gospel.
Yes, and no contradiction to justification by faith alone, given my stipulations to your bare statements.
-Rob
Adomnan: They were going to be slain to be eaten anyway. In fact, as sacrifices they were eaten in communion.
Then why the worship, spiritual aspects; tabernacle, temple, ceremonies, sprinkling blood on the horns of the altar and other places, the holy of holies, on the mercy seat? What does it mean that "God smelled the soothing aroma" ? It was much more than just eating meat for food.
I hope this isn't your attempt to resurrect the penal substitution business, after we've shown how unbiblical it is. Do we have to rerun that whole thread?
Adomnan
You did not prove it unbiblical, but you just spin it to look "mean and nasty" like pagan gods and cruel despots, "Allah", etc.
A merit is a deed or a virtue that receives or should receive a reward. All rewards presuppose merits. Since the Bible says Christians receive rewards, then Christians must have merits. QED
What does QED mean?
Ken: Then why the worship, spiritual aspects; tabernacle, temple, ceremonies, sprinkling blood on the horns of the altar and other places, the holy of holies, on the mercy seat?
Adomnan: Because the victim's body, and particularly its blood, was made holy by being offered to God and brought into contact with the presence of God at the mercy seat, temple, etc. Once it was made holy, the victim provided not only the boon of food for the body, but of cleansing for the soul. The holy blood in particular was seen to expiate or cleanse sin and pollution, sometimes from people, sometimes from objects and places.
Ken: What does it mean that "God smelled the soothing aroma" ? It was much more than just eating meat for food.
Adomnan: This is an anthropomorphic image, and it simply means that God was pleased with the sacrifice.
Ken: You did not prove it unbiblical, but you just spin it to look "mean and nasty" like pagan gods and cruel despots, "Allah", etc.
Adomnan: Well, people can read these exchanges for themselves. If you think penal substitution is biblical, then where do you find it in the Bible?
Ken: What does QED mean?
Adomnan: Latin, "quod erat demonstrandum." It means "which was to be demonstrated or proven" and is put after a final statement that has been proven.
I thought most people knew this abbreviation because it's used a lot in math classes.
I was terrible at math.
At one time in Algebra in the 9th grade, I made an 11, a 0 and a 22; on three big tests in a row; for an average of an 11.
I finally pulled out with a "c"; but never enjoyed math or algebra or calculus in college. Never saw that QED either; but thanks for the Latin education!
This is an anthropomorphic image, and it simply means that God was pleased with the sacrifice.
Yes, I agree, but why? Because it satisfied His justice against sin. The wages of sin is death; execution. The execution of the animal was a substitutionary sacrifice. The innocent for the guilty. I Peter 3:18 "the just for the unjust" or "the righteous for the unrighteous, that He may bring us to God." Not hard to see. it is all over the place all the way through the Bible
Ken,
Thanks for your response. You're much closer to us Catholics than you might think!
You said:
"No problems at all here; as far as I can see. Yes, there will be rewards in heaven and degrees of rewards and degrees of punishment in hell. Several parables and I Cor. 3:9-15 seem to indicate this."
This is true, but Matthew 25 and Romans 2 indicate that whether or not we enter into eternal life is also based on this, so both eternal life and the degree of glory is determined by this. Hence, in Matthew 25 those who do good works enter into glory, and those who do evil works are damned. It's also true that our degree of cooperation with grace determines our degree of glory.
"Yes, all believers who are truly regenerate operate in God's grace when obeying Him and doing good works out of love and for His glory. no problem."
In fact, the Catholic Church solemly dogmatized, at the Council of Trent, that:
"If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema."
Which I think you'd agree with. No one may merit anything, or do any work which justifies/sanctifies apart from God's grace. Anyone who says otherwise is 'anathema.' You and the Church agree here.
" Yes, but the good works flow out of a changed nature first. One must become a new creature, a sheep first. Those that are "goats" (have not had nature changed; are the ones who don't do good works, or do them with wrong motives, etc. or do evil works. "
That the works are truly meritorious is only possible because God indwells in us and moves us by His grace.
"no problem with Protestant doctrine. We also believe in rewards and that good works prove one has first been saved or born again or changed into a new creature. If anyone is in Christ, behold, he is a new creature, the old has passed away; behold; new things have come." 2 Cor. 5:17"
Great quote Ken. Beautiful Scripture.
But we must be more precise. Good works come out of faith and grace, but they also lead to greater justification/sanctification. They not only 'prove' our stuff, but also advance us in favor with God. And, as Matthew 25 and Romans 2 show, in absence of good works we are liable to damnation-- people can have faith, which is true, and yet if they don't pair it with love it is hopeless. Hence Paul saying that, if we have faith so as to move mountains, but have not love, we are nothing.
"James indicates that those good works prove and vindicate that they were true believers, not in order to make them into believers. The order of the quotes from Genesis is very important. Faith comes first (Genesis 15:6) and that is what justifies ( Gal. 3:6-8; Romans 4:1-; then good works (Genesis 22). that was the work that "justified" Abraham. The word justified there is used like it is used in Luke 7:35 "But
...But wisdom is proved right by all her children". also Matthew 11:19 "
Quite frankly, the vindication thesis is not credible (that is, that works only vindicate, and don't also justify). Faith is always a necessary condition for justification. However, it is still true that works justify, as James says. I don't have time to argue it now, but I think Robert Sungenis tackles it pretty extensively in his book, 'Not by Faith Alone.'
I think part of your conceptual roadblock is that you think of justification as a one-time event. Catholics-- and the Bible-- don't look at it that way. Justification is very intimately connected with sanctification (because Catholics always think that justification involves the interior renewal of man). Hence Abraham was actually recorded as being justified multiple times by the various NT authors. Once this conceptual problem is pointed out, it becomes clear that there is no problem with saying that Abraham was justified by his works.
"Yes, and no contradiction to justification by faith alone, given my stipulations to your bare statements. "
But if by "faith alone" you mean, faith, informed by the virtues of hope and love, which is doing good works, then don't we agree in the end, regardless of the name we give?
Quite honestly, when we get past verbal differences, we substantially agree on the issue. You said before that if the Church repented of false doctrine, it would have more credibility. But if what I've presented is substantially true doctrine, then on what grounds need the Church repent? Can't we rejoice in truth instead? God bless.
-Rob
Ken: thanks for the Latin education
Adomnan: You're welcome. Happy to oblige.
Adomnan: This is an anthropomorphic image, and it simply means that God was pleased with the sacrifice.
Ken: Yes, I agree, but why? Because it satisfied His justice against sin
Adomnan: God was pleased with the sacrifice, and therefore there's penal substitution? That's quite a stretch, Ken, and it's NOT QED!
Ken: The wages of sin is death; execution.
Adomnan: Everyone dies. Few are executed.
Ken: The execution of the animal was a substitutionary sacrifice.
Adomnan: The animal was not "executed." Only criminals are executed. Besides, you're confusing the sacrificial offering with the scapegoat again. Sins were put on the scapegoat, not on the offering. A sin-laden offering would be unclean and could not be sacrificed to God.
The animal was killed so that it could be offered. How could its life (which was "in the blood") be given to God and thus sanctified if it weren't killed? It was killed to rise to a higher life in that its blood, where the life was, became holy. In the same way, we die to rise to a higher, holy life. That's why Paul calls us "living sacrifices." According to you, if we've living sacrifices, that must mean we're criminals constantly being executed.
Ken:The innocent for the guilty.
Adomnan: Yes, and the innocent stays innocent. He does not become guilty. His blood makes the guilty innocent, because it's holy.
Ken: Not hard to see. it is all over the place all the way through the Bible
Adomnan: Only if you have the special decoder glasses. Because in ordinary ink, the Bible doesn't say anything about penal substitution.
http://www.sourceflix.com/
vid_sa...d_sacrifice.htm
A graphic illustration of the passover sacrifice. Watch it and see Leviticus and John 1:29 come alive in your heart with fear and trembling!
at Justin Taylor's blog
A Lamb That Was Slain
7 comments | Permalink
Todd Bolen links to a Passover Sacrifice video and explains:
Recently I noted an article about a planned animal sacrifice in Jerusalem. This event was controversial because 1) there is no temple or altar in Jerusalem today; 2) killing an animal makes some people mad.
Friends in Jerusalem went to the Old City that day and saw a guy they suspected of carrying a ritual knife in his briefcase and followed the guy through a wild maze of streets in pursuit. It turned out they followed the right guy. They filmed the service.
We talked about the appropriateness of putting this online. The 5-minute video is as graphic as it gets. More and more people today don't realize that meat doesn't originate at a grocery store. They have little concept of an animal being raised and then slaughtered. Furthermore, almost no one in the Western world has ever sacrificed an animal for religious purposes.
I think, however, that is precisely why this *graphic* video should be shown. We read about sacrifice in the Bible but we don't really understand what that means. We read passages that talk about the "life being in the blood," but those are just words that we don't really consider. We "know" that the wages of sin are high, but we don't get the life lesson that the ancient Israelites received every year.
The point of sacrifice was simply this: you deserve to die because of your sin. This animal is dying in your place. Watching the priest slice his throat and watching the blood drain out drove the point home much better than reading a chapter of Leviticus.
Today New Testament believers know that the blood of bulls and goats is not enough to take away sin. But I think that we can often just take for granted Jesus' death in our place. We don't think about his innocent blood draining away because we can't conceptualize it. We don't always appropriate the idea of substitute because we've never seen a living object die in our place. But our loss can be this: sin is easy because forgiveness (we think) is cheap.
The video was made by SourceFlix Productions. Instead of dubbing over the scene with English commentary, they chose to include some explanatory text below. Don't watch this video while eating, and if you're thinking about showing your children, watch it yourself first.
You can watch the video here.
http://theologica.blogspot.com/
Justin Taylor's blog -- scroll down about the re-enactment of the sacrifice.
A picture of how bad sin is. Sin brings and causes the violence and blood shedding.
Adomnan: God was pleased with the sacrifice, and therefore there's penal substitution? That's quite a stretch, Ken, and it's NOT QED!
It is so obvious that it is not a stretch at all. Amazing that you don't see the connection.
Ken: The wages of sin is death; execution.
Adomnan: Everyone dies. Few are executed.
Genesis 2:17 "for in the day you eat of it, you shall surely die." Death came because of sin. Romans 5:12
Yes, death is an enemy and the result of sin, a curse, a judgment of God.
That's all for tonight. Going to bed. I am tired. Got to brush my teeth and floss.
Ken's video person: The point of sacrifice was simply this: you deserve to die because of your sin. This animal is dying in your place. Watching the priest slice his throat and watching the blood drain out drove the point home much better than reading a chapter of Leviticus.
Adomnan: Citing other fundamentalists who believe this stuff doesn't strengthen your case, Ken. Prove that the animals were "dying in the place" of people who deserved to die directly from the sacrificial rites in the Bible or hang it up.
Ken:You can watch the video here.
Adomnan: No thanks. I don't waste my time watching propaganda, especially not tasteless, low-brow Fundamentalist garbage like this. A video of someone killing an animal with a knife proves nothing.
Ken: Genesis 2:17 "for in the day you eat of it, you shall surely die." Death came because of sin. Romans 5:12
Yes, death is an enemy and the result of sin, a curse, a judgment of God.
Adomnan: Gen 2:17 s is a warning, not a sentence. Rom 5:12 proves that: Paul pins death on sin, not God.
Besides, it's already been pointed out that if Christ "died in our place," then we wouldn't die. But we do; so He didn't. QED
Dear Ken,
If the Father punished His Son wouldn't He be punishing Himself? He was his BELOVED Son. I have a BELOVED daughter. If I was to beat my daughter to a pulp, I would feel I was punishing myself.
Was God the Father punishing Himself?
in Christ
Hi All, I have been rather busy lately so I have not been able to contribute to this discussion, but after reading this I thought it might be a good idea. Earlier in the thread, Ben M. referenced something that Rev. Temple had said before about Psalm 22:
"Jesus cried out, "My God, My God why have You forsaken Me? on the cross. Why? Two reasons, 1. He was quoting Ps. 22:1 proving prophecies of His death and agony ( Psalm 22:16-17); and 2. God the Father laid all the punishment, justice, wrath against sin on Him and He bore it; causing the Father to turn away -- He who knew no sin became sin for us -- all of our sin was transfered to Him -- 2 Cor. 5:21, Mark 10:45, Galatians 1:4 "who gave Himself for (huper= in place of) our sins".
While Scripture does record that Jesus recited the first line from Psalm 22, it does not state the reasons that He did so. And the two reasons that you gave are most certainly not the reasons that Jesus recited the first line.
Observant Jews at that time would recite the Psalms at the beginning of the day, at the end of the day, and at significant events of their lives-much in the same manner of those who recite them observing the Liturgy of the Hours in the present day. Jesus was merely following that Tradition on the Cross. Jesus was not despairing; Jesus was still teaching us even on the Cross-to have hope like that demonstrated in Psalm 22, for the Psalm ends like this:
"I will tell of your name to my brothers and sisters;
in the midst of the congregation I will praise you:
You who fear the Lord, praise him!
All you offspring of Jacob, glorify him;
stand in awe of him, all you offspring of Israel!
For he did not despise or abhor the affliction of the afflicted;
he did not hide his face from me,
but heard when I cried to him.
From you comes my praise in the great congregation;
my vows I will pay before those who fear him.
The poor shall eat and be satisfied;
those who seek him shall praise the Lord.
May your hearts live forever!
All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord;
and all the families of the nations shall worship before him.
For dominion belongs to the Lord,
and he rules over the nations.
To him, indeed, shall all who sleep in the earth bow down;
before him shall bow all who go down to the dust,
and I shall live for him.
Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord,
and proclaim his deliverance to a people yet unborn,
saying that he has done it."
Cont.
Where in that does it say that God forsook anyone? Where does it say that God would turn His face away from His Son because of all the sin that was laid on Jesus? Jesus was telling us that no matter how grim things are, how hopeless it may seem, to have faith that God will rescue us. After all, what is faith? It is that which gives substance to our hopes. Heb. 11:1.
Jesus’ crying out of the first line of Psalm 22 is not the cry of a man forsaken by God. Rather, it is the cry of the Messiah telling His people of the hope that a loving God will rescue them, whether in this life or the life to come. It is this hope that was fulfilled by Christ's resurrection from the grave.
Sorry, I still do not see Christ's atonement for our sins as a substitionary punitive action.
Your assumption basically guts us all of any certainty of our own understanding at all. How do you know anything? You have to also use your mind to come to the conclusion that the RCC is right; or it is just blind faith in a human institution. (But you would say it is God's institution on earth.)
At a basic level you need to make some steps of faith. How do you know Jesus is God? How do you know the bible is true? There are basic foundational principles that we accept or reasoning could not get started.
But that is not what we are talking about here. Your system requires confusing objective truth and subjective opinion on every question. You have to say the bible is on my side or the bible declares this matter unimportant. Whatever it is you have declared that you have discerned the mind of God better than the people on the other side of the question. But you still have that pesky, fallible discernment process. You are capable of error even on the questions where you are very, very sure in your own mind. We all are.
So how do we get certainty on these questions? If there is a way to get an infallible answer we go there. If we don't believe in one then we are snookered. We can make very strong statements declaring the matter to be clear. But that usually is just met with similar statements on the other side. You know how seldom these debates settle anything. Often they lead people to anger and sin. There has got to be a better way.
Besides, it's already been pointed out that if Christ "died in our place," then we wouldn't die. But we do; so He didn't. QED
Adomnan
John 11:25 -- The gospel never promises restoration to Adam's pre-sin state. Only in the eternal state after the resurrection of all flesh.
We still die physically, yes; but the gospel promises eternal life spiritually after death, and then at the resurrection of all flesh, believers receive a glorified body, like Jesus' glorified body.
I Cor. 15; Phil. 3:20-21
John 11:25 - 26 "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies . . . Contra QED of yours
Rather, it is the cry of the Messiah telling His people of the hope that a loving God will rescue them, whether in this life or the life to come. It is this hope that was fulfilled by Christ's resurrection from the grave.
Since we agree that the Father loved and loves the Son and we believe in the resurrection, the we also can believe in both the satisfaction of God's justice by the love and willingness of Jesus to take it on Himself; and the Father's proof of His love by the resurrection. Both justice and love were accomplished. Beautiful.
Ken: we also can believe in both the satisfaction of God's justice
Adomnan: It is not just to punish an innocent person for someone else's sins. Exacting retribution from the wrong person does not "satisfy justice," it is another injustice.
Ken: We still die physically, yes; but the gospel promises eternal life spiritually after death
Adomnan: So then how did Jesus "die in our place?" He died physically, and you admit he didn't die in our place physically because we die. So are you saying that Jesus died "spiritually" in our place so that we don't die spiritually?
Is that what you're claiming, that Jesus was spiritually dead on the Cross (or in the 3 days thereafter or whatever your theory stipulates as to the timing of his spiritual death)?
What is the peasant to do when he is faced with two opposed, learned men parsing the grammar of the scriputres in an attempt to give said peasant the correct understanding of Scripture?
I maintain that Christ provided for the peasant's authentic Christian education by instituting a Church to teach such things correctly. He gave this Church a visible leader so that our humble, illiterate, peasant who is busy trying to scratch out a meagre sustainence on his farm can see where this Church is in times of doctrinal confusion.
I've been mulling over this comment for some time, and I think it might show the exact opposite of what you want it to show. I think you have actually explained here why there are *Protestants*, because those same humble, illiterate peasants did NOT get the message.
The description that you gave applies more to the Roman and Hellenic culture of the time, where there was a small proportion of literate people on whom others depended for services but the average person was fairly well-informed, so that theological debates in the East would be discussed in the streets much like we might discuss the Lakers versus the Celtics today. In that respect, I think you are exactly right that even in the pinnacle of Christian culture, most people were highly dependent on others educated both in languages and philosophy.
On the other hand, medieval peasants in a feudal system were not treated as intelligent and rational human beings in this way, and their lives were so deprived of individual dignity that they were given meaning only by a kind of folk religion that defined them solely in terms of their obligation to the society upon which they depended. And in fact, the Church failed these people to a great degree by making compromises with, among others, the Frankish kings. The peasants under such people were not like the citizens of the Roman or Greek empire; they did not receive the sort of respect for their basic human dignity that they deserved.
It is little wonder that they were starving for some sort of hope beyond the bleak and essentially pagan hierarchy that left them in such a miserable position. They didn't understand the Mass; for them, it was the same old ritual they had done under Ulfila's Arianism and under their pagan gods before that. And it is little wonder that the movements that treated them with some dignity caught fire among them in a way that the Mass never did. Had they been treated like human beings, they probably would have not felt such desperate hope from movements that emphasized humility, poverty, Scriptures in the vernacular, and mystical access to God as individuals through the Holy Spirit without the dependence on the upper priestly and monarchial classes of their barbaric societies.
I agree that these desires are completely impractical when taken to their logical conclusion. Indeed, absent the sort of rational and objective guidelines you mention, they just devol
(cont.)
I agree that these desires are completely impractical when taken to their logical conclusion. Indeed, absent the sort of rational and objective guidelines you mention, they just devolve to the same sort of tribalism from which they originated. It's the same blind adherence to the normative standard of the culture (in this case, the creedal interpretation of Scripture, and note the emphasis on Scripture as rule or law). Religious denomination just becomes the new tribal clan, a welcoming family in place of the hierarchial suppression that existed before. But that doesn't mean that the desire for a clan affiliation in the face of a cold society that seems indifferent to you is a bad thing. In fact, that is where Christianity is most easily accepted.
Certainly, I would think that any American would share some sense of spiritual kinship with this idea of self-determination as against a monarch who doesn't respect your dignity. Perhaps it has been taken too far in American Catholicism, but as a member of the Fourth Degree of the Knights of Columbus, I certainly think that there is something legitimate to the notion that human dignity and freedom must be respected by sovereign or even Pope. We are only bound to authorities that respect our dignity as rational persons, so if we want people to respect the authority of the Pope, we should make an effort not to show simply that there must be some sort of authority in order for there to be objective dogma (which is true) but that the objective dogma in question is not being shoved down their throats but presented for consideration and acceptance by their rational minds.
Given the cultural origins of Protestantism and the rhetorical dynamic involved, I can't help but think that it is a bad thing to try to persuade Protestants by authority. That will no doubt provoke hostility given the historical circumstances in which Protestantism originated and the cultural conditioning that has been passed down since. They don't want to be told that they are dependent on human authority, because that sounds too much like the lie that was told to the feudal peasants of old.
I don't claim to have any good way around this problem, though. For most Protestants, I'm sure that their denominational affiliation provides exactly the kind of social security and clannish us-against-the-world mentality that causes most human groups not to feel the need to poke and prod into whether what they believe is true in an ultimate and universal sense.
I suspect there may be some clue in this notion that some anti-Catholics say they would respect us more if we said that they were going to Hell. Certainly, I think that if we were more insistent on the point that they are denying Christ, effectively cursing His generosity and abusing His Scriptures even worse than the Pharisees did, this might be more effective.
There's something to be said for smashing pagan idols, and I think that Protestant
There's something to be said for smashing pagan idols, and I think that Protestant scholars like D.A. Carson, John Frame, and Paul Helm are effectively the idols of conservative evangelicalism. Their scholarly conclusions are presented as if they were themselves the Scriptures, no matter how dubiously grounded. Perhaps if we were more emphatic at showing where they screwed up or talked out of turn with regard to what the evidence shows, they would lose a little bit of this brash confidence in their clan. That's not to say that we should accept this reductionist view of Scriptural exegesis but rather show that even if we accepted this method, the conclusions would be wrong on matters like penal substitution, for example. That seems like an acceptable method of meeting Protestants where they are, while still trying to upset the certainty their sect gives them. But I have seen the authority debate go round and round, and given how unsuccessful it has been, I think that it would be more profitable to go after them on their home ground to show that the security it gives them is an illusion.
Sorry for the length. I've just been musing about this subject for some time, and I wanted to see what other people thought.
Jonathan: But I have seen the authority debate go round and round, and given how unsuccessful it has been, I think that it would be more profitable to go after them on their home ground to show that the security it gives them is an illusion.
Adomnan: I tend to agree with you, Jonathan. While I think the arguments for the necessity of a binding teaching authority in the Church are valid, trying to convince an evangelical of this usually involves a level of abstraction where opinion reigns and argument unfolds endlessly with no resolution. Besides, sectarians have no use for such an authority and will always find ways to reject it. "Sola scriptura" is a slogan I understand to mean: "I reject the authority of the Catholic Church."
Yet, to have useful discussion, some degree of common ground is necessary. Aside from common sense, which almost all people share, the only common ground Catholics have with evangelicals/fundamentalists (that I can see) is acceptance of the scriptures as normative, a touchstone.
Fundamentalist beliefs contradict the scripture, starkly. If one is not shy in pointing this out, some of them, if they really value the scriptures as they say do, may eventually come to accept what the Bible actually teaches. It is a question of intellectual honesty. Or, even if irreformable fundamentalists can stop up their ears, at least more open-minded people who are torn between Catholic and fundamentalist views will see where the truth lies.
The Bible is on the side of the Catholic faith, as the headline of Dave Armstrong's blog declares. That is the fact that undermines fundamentalism. Let's use it.
Rob,
You seem to have a very good grasp on the Fathers. I've been trying to read the Fathers myself, in bits and pieces. Any advice on reading the Fathers which you can give?
Well, I wouldn’t go so far as to say I have solid grasp on the Fathers. I’d call it more a modest acquaintance with some of them.
As for advice, I would simply suggest reading whatever you find interesting and / or helpful to your own spiritual and intellectual development. And doing this nowadays is a heck of a lot easier than it used to be, thanks to so many of Fathers being online (note that some of these online works are starting to appear at Wikisource):
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An...lume_I/
IGNATIUS
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/
Au...ustine_of_Hippo
Also, consider sharing whatever you find interesting with others! Make copies; leave’m around. Post’m in comboxes. Give’m to friends, Catholic and Protestant. And encourage others to do the same. That’s basically what I try to do.
Now of late, I’ve been looking over a number of Augustine’s works. And most recently, I’ve discovered several of the other Fathers whose writings appear to be perfect compliments to certain of Augustine’s writings. These are:
Pacian of Barcelona.
Orosius of Praga (Portugal).
Prosper of Aquitaine.
I highly recommend checking them all out (although this probably means a trip to the library or bookstore since their works are not online yet, at least as far as I can tell). Orosius and Prosper are particularly helpful with regard to the whole Pelagian / semi-Pelagian controversy.
I’m currently perusing this work by Pacian and Orosius (the Iberian Fathers).
http://books.google.com/books?as..._maxy=&
as_isbn=
And this book, The Call of All Nations (De Vocatione Omnium Gentium) by St. Prosper, eds. Johannes Quasten, Joseph Plumpe, tr. Prudentius de Letter, 1952.
http://books.google.com/books?
id...w2xcaPJjkskgBcc
Cont…
Now I haven’t yet read anything other that a few bits and pieces the works proper. However, I did copy and read the introduction. Looks like a very interesting stuff indeed! So interesting and important in fact, that I though it appropriate to post some excerpts from the intro.
“…Augustine… established the fact man’s free will remains untouched, and is rather perfected by grace; and he proved the reality of both free will and grace from the Scriptures.” P. 4
“…Augustine’s teaching developed into a heterodox position which their opponents were to style the reliquiae Pelagianorum and which was to be known a Semi-Pelagianism only many centuries later.” Ibid.
“…St. Prosper at the time of writing the treatise lived in Rome, at the papal court, as secretary to St. Leo [the Great].” P. 9
“The question in disputer is this; did St. Prosper who was a loyal disciple of St. Augustine and a staunch defender of his doctrine, remain faithful to all the ideas of his master on grace and predestination, or is there a real difference between the works of his youth, where, in fact, he faithfully echoes St. Augustine, and those of latter years?” p. 10
“All seem to think there has been an evolution in his rigidly formulated Augustinianism, particularly in the question predestination, where he toned down some of his master’s exaggerated expressions.” Ibid.
God does not predestine any one to evil, He only foreknows it…. The progressive element in his doctrinal position is the conscious distinction he makes between the authentic teaching of the Church and the private opinions of the Doctors, and even of St. Augustine.” P. 11
“The elect, however, are certainly saved, and their good works and prayers being a factor in the work of their salvation. The fact of their election remains unknown during their stay on earth.” P. 15
“…[God’s] special grace that leads to actual salvation He freely and gratuitously bestows only on the elect who remain free to collaborate with grace and who alone are actually saved. As to the reason of this discrimination in God’s gifts to men, this is a mystery not known to men.” Ibid.
“We may notice how St. Prosper in proposing his theory is struggling to break away from the influence of the Augustinian predestination or election. Owing to his inability to free himself fully from it, his idea of the genera grace, universally given to all, fails to solve the problem.” P. 17.
“Yet from another point of view the De vocatione holds an important place in the history of Augustinism and of St. Augustine’s influence on Catholic theology. It is an evident desire and an effective attempt to tone down Augustine’s rigid expressions and view on predestination….God’s universal salvific will is stressed incomparably more that it had ever been by St. Augustine….Human freedom which remains intact under the action of grace is brought into greater relief here than it was in Augustines works. The gratuitousness of grace
The gratuitousness of grace is no less stressed than it had been by Augustine, but here it is explained without explicit connection with predestination.” P. 18
“Perhaps this change of viewpoint, with its consequent shifting of the stress laid now on ideas which St. Augustine may have known, but left in the background of his general outlook, constitutes St. Prosper’s chief emancipation from rigid Augustinism….We must not overstress this and similar elements of progress in a direction which would lead to our present-day unquestioned view that all men receive sufficient graces to be saved if the wish to be saved. All the same, the De vocatione constituted at the time when it was written a definite attempt to get loose from Augustinian particularism in the doctrine of the salvation mankind. It was certainly partially successful, and due to the influence it was to exert in the early Middle Ages, it prepared the way for further progress in the same direction.” Pp. 18-19.
“No other more recent translation of the work seems to have been made. To our knowledge none is found in the English, German, Italian, or other collections of the works of the Fathers. At all events, the present translation appears to be the first English version of St. Prosper’s treatise on The Call of All Nations.” p. 20.
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/inde...php?
itemid=2628
A good article on the Church Fathers, especially Basil, by James Swan, one of Dave's dear friends.
Is that what you're claiming, that Jesus was spiritually dead on the Cross (or in the 3 days thereafter or whatever your theory stipulates as to the timing of his spiritual death)?
Adomnan
What do you mean by "Jesus died spiritually"?
It cannot mean that His divine nature died, right?; (He has authority to raise Himself up from the dead, John 10:18; so He did not die spiritually; because God cannot die. )
So it must mean that He died physically, right?
Yet we still die physically, but have eternal life spiritually, if we trust Christ.
John 11:25-26
So the effects of Adam's fall are not completely reversed until the second coming of Christ and the resurrection of flesh and the judgment and eternal state. I Cor. 15, 2 Peter 3, Rev. 19-22
So what does it mean,"He was put to death in flesh, but made alive in the spirit " in I Peter 3:19 ?
In what sense was "He made alive in the Spirit" ?
I don't think Jesus died spiritually, but I have always wondered what exactly that means.
Ken,
He was made alive in the Spirit when He was raised from the dead physically, IMHO.
I hope you are well.
I still don't like the sound of your theory of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, but I am glad you are still here discussing it.
I have to admit that I don't think that Adomnan has is making points that he is not substantiating biblically... Where is His theory coming up short (in your opinion) as far as what Scripture has to say on the subject of the Atonement?
Just thought I would ask.
Cearnaigh
Ken,
I am sorry to post again without waiting for a response, but there are some things about certain incarnations of Reformed theology that just don't make any sense at all to me...
I was speaking with a Reformed chap the other day in James White's IRC channel (#prosapologian - they have almost always been civil to me there), but I was speaking about reprobation and human responsibility... they seem to love the fact that the reprobate are at once completely unable to answer God's "general call" to repentance, but, at the same time are completely morally responsible for their non-repentant, sinful lives - their sinful state. I don't get that... there are (as my Reformed friends admit) wholly unable to repent to act righteously, but they are condemned for that unrighteousness. If the judge (since you all seem to favor legal/courtroom analogies) and a person with a mental deficiency was on trial for something... said deficiency would be taken into account by the judge, no? Else he would be deemed merciless... yet you seem to love the fact that does doesn't take the state of the reprobate into account... indeed it's His will that each and every one of them be damned to eternal hellfire even though only He can grace them with the ability to respond to His general call...
If that is indeed the way God did it... fine... just explain to me logically how there is any actual responsibility on the part of a reprobate individual for his inability to respond to God's "general call" to repentance... because I don't get it.
Cearnaigh
p.s.
Please take my question seriously without simply brushing me off by quoting Romans 9:19,20 to me. I am not "answering back to God," but asking you to explain the moral responsibility of the reprobate in the face of (as you all would admit) their insurmountable estate (lacking the grace to repent stemming from an eternal decree by God Almighty).
Now that I had time to really read the long article on propitiation and the quotes from Leon Morris that Jonathan P. linked to in an article by a guy named Ray Shelton, I noticed that the last statement was Mr. Shelton's statement (his deduction; but not really a proof); and the rest was from Leon Morris. Dr. Morris is only getting rid of the crude and strict aspect of the anger of the pagan gods which is the arbitrary and capricious and cruel aspect that you guys are objecting to, and that is why you couch the penal substitution view in crude and strict and emotionally charged terms. But Morris clearly showed the balance of maintaining the love of God and the justice of God in propitiation in the sacrificial substitutionary atonement of Christ.
"However, it is the present writer's conviction that, in stating this great truth, most who have treated it have tended to go too far. When we reach the stage where we must say 'When the LXX translators used "propitiation" they did not mean "propitiation"', it is surely time to call a halt. No sensible man uses one word when he means another, and in view of the otherwise invariable Greek use it would seem impossible for anyone in the first century to have used one of the hilaskomai group without conveying to the readers some idea of propitiation.
It is contended that while care is taken to avoid the crude use natural to pagans, yet the words of the hilaskomai group as used in the LXX were not eviscerated of their meaning, nor were they given an entirely new meaning. Rather there is a definite continuity, and in particular the removal of wrath seems to be definitely in view when the word group is used."
[Here is where Leon Morris' words end.]
It is also clear from this study by Leon Morris that propitiation does not mean a satisfaction of the justice of God for the transgressions of the law.
This is Ray Shelton's opinion and he did not prove this at all.
Adomnan: It is not just to punish an innocent person for someone else's sins.
You are right in one sense, the evil men, the Jewish leaders, Caiaphas, Annas, the chief priests, Pharissees, scribes, Herod, Pilate, Judas, all committed the greatest evil in history by crucifying Jesus . Acts 2:22-23; Acts 4:10 ("whom you crucified");4: 27-28.
However,
If it is God Himself who is the one who pays the price for His own justice and does it in a loving, voluntary way; then that is not unjust. God Himself came and humbled Himself and took His own punishment. That is the great unity in the Trinity that you guys are not seeing. Jesus is God, so in taking on flesh voluntarily (no force or coercion; John 10:18; John 3:16 -- the Father and the Son work in perfect love and unity to preserve justice and also to demonstrate God's love for sinners.) Why is that so hard to grasp?
Exacting retribution from the wrong person does not "satisfy justice," it is another injustice.
Adomnan
Here you sound like a Muslim and that is the Muslim's chief objection to the cross; they dont see the need for redemption; "Allah just forgives because He wills to." That makes it arbitrary and capricious. It is both love and justice and God both holding to His standard of righteousness, holiness, and justice and also His pure love that together is what makes the cross so amazing and beautiful and awesome. God cannot do anything against His nature, like sin or lie. The cross preserves both. Wording it the way you do with words like "exacting" sounds like forcing something on someone who does not want to do it. And "retribution" is not the right word either; neither is it "the wrong person" in the sense that He was the right person because He Himself decided in the counsel of the happiness and fellowship of the Trinity from all eternity to become incarnate and take on the likeness of sinful flesh (but never actually sinning) and to die in order to be the just one and the justifier of those that have faith in Jesus. Romans 3:25-26.
Ken: I don't think Jesus died spiritually
Adomnan: Fine. Then that means you think he only died physically. Therefore, he didn't die in our place, because we die physically. If X dies in the place of Y, then Y doesn't die. We die and so Jesus didn't die in our place.
Ken,
Re Leon Morris: I think Mr. Morris is just trying to "save the appearances" of the Calvinist doctrine of penal substitution with strained argument and doubletalk, relying on ambiguity and suggesting that even if the "hilas-" group refers to expiation, these words imply propitiation in a secondary sense. In fact, some idea of propiiation (making God propitious, removing wrath) is present in the NT, but not the "hilas-" words.
But let's leave Morris aside for the moment. I pointed out that "hilaskesthai" in Hebrews 2:17, which you claimed meant propitiate, can actually only mean expiate. The reason, for the third or fourth time, is that the object of the word is "sins," and one can only expiate sins, not propitiate them. You have never commented on this. So I have two (or three) questions:
1) Do you understand the point I'm making about hilaskesthai?
2) If you do, do you now admit that you were wrong given that hilaskesthai in Heb 2:17 means expiate and not propitiate?
3) If your answer to 2 is no, then why? Are you saying that "hilaskesthai tas hamartias" means "propitiate the sins" as if sins are made propitious?
Ken: If it is God Himself who is the one who pays the price for His own justice and does it in a loving, voluntary way; then that is not unjust.
Adomnan: Ken, it doesn't matter how "loving" the Father was when (in your view) He poured his wrath out on Jesus, even if He was saying, "this hurts Me more than it does You, Son."
Regardless of how the Father "felt" about it, one simply cannot right an injustice by punishing the wrong person for it. This is absurd on the face of it.
If you had two sons, and you punished one son for something the other did, then no one, not you, not your sons, no one at all, would say this is just. It's insane to think otherwise.
And, when you add to the evident irrationality of the belief in penal substitution the fact that the Bible NOWHERE teaches it, how could saying this about God be anything other than blasphemy?
Ken: God Himself came and humbled Himself and took His own punishment.
Adomnan: God Himself came and humbled Himself even unto death, yes. But He didn't "punish" Himself. Again, how does one right the balance of justice by punishing oneself for what others did? If that is the case, then every victim of a crime should blame and punish him or herself -- and that would be their justice!
Ken: That is the great unity in the Trinity that you guys are not seeing.
Adomnan: Unity? You pit the Trinity against itself. You posit a warfare within the Godhead, with the Father forsaking and punishing and pouring His wrath out on the Son. This is the very opposite of unity; it is dissension, self-division; and it is deeply, deeply heretical.
Ken: Jesus is God, so in taking on flesh voluntarily
Adomnan: He took on flesh, yes. The Father didn't punish Him. How can you conflate the two ideas? Are you thinking at all?
Ken: (no force or coercion; John 10:18; John 3:16 -- the Father and the Son work in perfect love and unity to preserve justice and also to demonstrate God's love for sinners.)
Adomnan: Of course, none of these verses prove or even hint anything like "the Father punished the Son." Please stop citing irrelevant passages as if they prove your point.
Ken: Why is that so hard to grasp?
Adomnan: Penal substitution is hard to "grasp" because it is absurd, blasphemous and has no biblical support whatsoever.
Ken: Here you sound like a Muslim and that is the Muslim's chief objection to the cross; they dont see the need for redemption; "Allah just forgives because He wills to."
Adomnan: Well, good for the Muslims! They are absolutely correct in asserting that God just forgives because He wills to. And redemption is from sin and death, not from God. God redeems because He wills to.
NO PAYMENT TO GOD IS MADE FOR FORGIVENESS
Ken: It is both love and justice.
Adomnan: There is no justice in punishing the wrong person for another's sin.
Ken: God cannot do anything against His nature, like sin or lie.
Adomnan: True. And it would be a lie to say that an innocent man was guilty or to treat an innocent man as guilty; and it would be a sin, an abomination, to condemn an innocent person: "He who condemns the innocent is an abomination." (Prov 17:15) Therefore, God didn't do either of these things.
Ken: Wording it the way you do with words like "exacting" sounds like forcing something on someone who does not want to do it.
Adomnan: Once again, it would not matter if an innocent person who was punished wanted to be punished. Punishing him would still be "an abomination."
But of course Jesus didn't want this, because it didn't happen.
Ken: He was the right person because He Himself decided in the counsel of the happiness and fellowship of the Trinity from all eternity
Adomnan: Oh, I see. Were you a fly on the wall when they had this counseling session?
Ken: to become incarnate and take on the likeness of sinful flesh (but never actually sinning) and to die in order to be the just one and the justifier of those that have faith in Jesus. Romans 3:25-26.
Adomnan: "Just and the Justifier" refers to the Father. You're mixing up the Father and the Son. And Romans 3 never mentions anything about penal substitution. In fact, it doesn't mention propitiation (even though propitiation does not in any event imply penal sub). Paul's "hilasterion," as I showed from Fr. Fitzmyer above, refers to expiation.
I was speaking with a Reformed chap the other day in James White's IRC channel (#prosapologian - they have almost always been civil to me there), but I was speaking about reprobation and human responsibility... they seem to love the fact that the reprobate are at once completely unable to answer God's "general call" to repentance, but, at the same time are completely morally responsible for their non-repentant, sinful lives - their sinful state. I don't get that...
Cearnaigh --
I don’t know if Reformed folks “love” that fact; in the sense of enjoying it like a sadist, (which is the implication of lots of accusation against Reformed theology and the implication of the objections to propitiation and substitutionary atonement);
we admit it is a great mystery; but we have accepted the truth of what Paul is saying in Romans 9:19-24; -- but I also I think we all should admit your dilemma and treat it seriously and “feel” the tension that you are feeling. – the tension is real and it is why many people reject Reformed theology -- as to how God can be Sovereign over sin in ordaining that sin would enter the world (God decided that He would allow it to happen.); but at the same time be totally separate from sin and holy and just and pure; (I John 1:5, Hab. 1:13; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 7:26; 4:15, 2 Cor. 5:21; I Peter 2:20-25; Isaiah 6:3; Leviticus 11:44-45; 19:1-2); and yet all at the same time, hold human beings responsible for their own sin; -- this is the great mystery of all. This is why I like John Piper
www.desiringGod.org
This is why I like John Piper
so much as a warm and godly Reformed theologian and pastor who feels the tension and communicates Reformed theology with a godly passion and acknowledges emotions and does not come across like a robot or “dour, dry, Scottish Presbyterian”; which is what we get accused of being. (Dave A. accused JW and others of this)
You can listen to Piper and read his sermons for free at his website. Please read one of his articles slowly with meditation and prayer, along with Romans 9:19-24 and look up all the verses at
http://www.desiringgod.org/Resou...se_It_for_Good/
“How God governs all events in the universe without sinning, and without removing responsibility from man, and with compassionate outcomes is mysterious indeed! But that is what the Bible teaches. God "works all things after the counsel of his will" (Ephesians 1:11).” John Piper in the above article.
I don’t want to be flippant or unfeeling; so I am not trying to just glibly throw out Romans 9:19-20 at you and say, “repent!”, “submit!” – no. I feel for you and the tension and I have struggled for years with that question also.
It took me 20+ years to finally see Reformed theology as the most Biblical and surrender to God’s sovereignty.
Notice, I include more that just Romans 9:19-20; -- I think it only makes sense with verses 22 and 23 (and every thing else in Scripture) – and these verses (22-23) are the key to me. The vessels of wrath are justly condemned as “prepared for destruction”; that is they were prepared (or they prepared themselves in their own sin); and God allowed it passively, but decreed it, that it would happen, but God is not the cause or ontological source of sin.
Reprobation is God passing over them justly in their sin; reprobation is not predestination to hell; rather it is passing over them (for salvation) and their sin justly takes them to hell. Election and Predestination are always used positively with the motive of love of saving people from all nations out of the sinful mass of humanity. (Ephesians 1:4-7; Romans 8:28-39)
God is passive towards those that are reprobate, permitting or allowing them to go to hell, justly. The reprobate are suffering under the just presence of the lamb of God. (Revelation 14:10) It is holy justice.
Notice that the vessels of mercy are those that “He prepared beforehand for glory”. Notice the word “beforehand” (Greek: pro) is only there for the vessels of mercy, not the vessels of wrath. In this sense, infralapsarianism makes more sense to me, that is, God elects some from all nations to be saved after the decree to allow the fall of man into sin, but before the foundation of the world.
God holds them responsible because “they were prepared” (passive) or “they prepared themselves in their own sin”(Middle). The verb can be Middle (they prepared themselves”) or ‘passive, “being prepared” and just not specified (Romans 9:23). Reformed folks disagree among themselves which is it, passive or middle, and this is one of the differences between supralapsarianism (election for salvation was before the decree of God to allow the fall/sin of man) and infralapsarianism. (the decree of election was after the decree to allow the sin/fall of man)
Out of mercy and love, God purposed to save some (But it is a great multitude which no one can count, Rev. 7:9) from all nations (Rev. 5:9, I John 2:2); but leave the rest justly in their sin.
So Predestination is always positive and in love – Ephesians 1:4-5; Romans 8:28-39. Reprobation is God’s justice in passing over some of the sinners.
Beyond that, it is a deep mystery. Francis Schaeffer said, “If you can talk about hell without moist eyes, you don’t understand.” I appreciate and feel that. That is the kind of attitude Reformed folks need to have, with a humble, broken heart over sin and the lost people of the world; that it would propel us to love, holiness, and evangelism and missions, as it has done for many passionate Reformed folks, like William Carey(missionary to India), David Brainard (missionary to American Indians), Samuel Zwemer (Missionary to Arab Muslims), Jonathan Edwards (pastor and theologian), George Whitfield (evangelist), Charles Spurgeon (pastor and evangelist), John Newton, (pastor and former slave-trader), Henry Martyn and William Miller (missionaries to Iran), John Patton(missionary to cannibal tribal peoples), and D. James Kennedy (pastor and author of “Evangelism Explosion”. All of these men were convinced Biblical Calvinists.
John Piper wrote a 245 page book on Romans 9, called “The Justification of God”, and it would take up too much more space to answer the question much further. I recommend that book for your study.
Piper takes the view that the participle for “prepare” in Romans 9:22 is passive and not middle. He writes, “. . . though God does accomplish all things by the counsel of His will, He does not bring about all things in the same way. In the accomplishment of some things he employs intermediary agents perhaps. Or to put it another way, His heart is engaged differently in different acts, loving some deeds in themselves and inclining to others only as they are preferable in relation to greater ends. (cf. Lam. 3:33). If this is the case, Paul would be implying that not wrath but mercy is the greater, overarching goal for which God does all things.” (p. 213-214, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23. Baker Books, 1993.
We don’t know who the elect are, so it is not up to us to let that question hinder us from obeying God, praying (Matthew 9:37-38.), living holy (Colossians 3:12) and evangelizing ( 2 Timothy 2:10, 2 Peter 3:8-15). God’s sovereignty does not hinder choices (to holiness or prayer or evangelism), but rather motivates and propels us.
Sorry that was so long; but I think that Cearnaigh asked a sincere question and wanted an answer and it is also the deepest mystery of the whole Bible; and a normal question that we all have lingering in our minds when we read all the Scriptures, especially Romans 9.
Ken: He was the right person because He Himself decided in the counsel of the happiness and fellowship of the Trinity from all eternity
Adomnan: Oh, I see. Were you a fly on the wall when they had this counseling session?
No, but Scripture indicates this all through, when we hold God's sovereignty, holiness, justice, and love and the Trinity all together at the same time and see it all in Scripture; God has revealed that to us in His word.
"Ask of Me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance" Psalm 2:8
The Father tells the Son to ask Him for the nations as His inheritance. Those that repent and kiss the son are His inheritance for eternal life;(v. 10-12) and those that do not are condemned to hell and broken like clay pots.(verse 9, 12)
It was an eternal decree of the Lord, between the Father and the Son (Psalm 2:4-8.) in responding to the problem of sin and the rebellion of the nations (verses 1-3) and seeing the NT interpretation of this in the Trinity. (Hebrews 1:5ff; Acts 2, 13)
Not trying to avoid anything; just because of time and space and the depth of these issues, it is too hard to keep up;
As for propitiation in Hebrews 2:17; sin is also the object in I John 2:2 -- "And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of whole world."
The atonement includes expiation (removal and cleansing) and forgiveness and reconciliation and redemption and propitiation. There is absolutely no contradiction. Sin is dealt with by judging it and condemning it and "zapping it" (to put it in a down to earth way).
"The Lord caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him" Isaiah 53:6
God was propitiated, that is His wrath was appeased and satisfied because sin was dealt with fully in a decisive way. Hebrews 9:22; 9:26; 10:10-18
Ken,
I appreciate your attempt to deal with my problem, but, maybe I should try another biblical metaphor since my judge metaphor seemed to have failed...
Since the Lord is "the Great Physician" - could I make human nature (without saving grace) akin to a disease and God's saving grace the cure?
If the only cure, the only way to life for the sick is the saving grace of God Almighty... it seems the reprobate are born (created) doomed. Is there anyway to see it?
Let's say the disease prevents one from choosing life... that the only way to choose life, to be cured of the disease is God's gift of saving grace, but God commands ALL to chose life knowing that only the one's He's personally and individually cured can... how (if indeed it's impossible for the reprobate to cure themselves, as you seem to be saying) can they be at once responsible (morally) for not choosing life when, by their very nature, they are, quite literally, unable to do so? I cannot see how this is "just" or "healthy" or anything coming close to "glorious."
I am not sure Piper's exegesis would help me see this... anyway... I thought I would ask.
Cearnaigh
Ken,
I am not getting the PSA either... as if my problems with how reprobation is understood by some Reformed wasn't distracting enough...
"The Lord caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him" Isaiah 53:6
What does this Scripture mean? Does it necessitate PSA?
You wrote:
"God was propitiated, that is His wrath was appeased and satisfied because sin was dealt with fully in a decisive way. Hebrews 9:22; 9:26; 10:10-18"
Ok... God was propitiated... sin was dealt with in a decisive way, etc... I think everyone here agrees with that... what does that have to do with PSA is still the question nagging me.
Cearnaigh
Cearnaigh--
At this point, you have to see Romans 9:22-23 as God's purpose in allowing sin and judging the vessels of wrath,
was in order to ( hina = purpose)
to make known the riches of His glory on vessels of mercy . . .
There is just no other alternative, unless you want to just ignore Romans 9 and cut out all the other hard texts in the Bible ( all those that Piper listed and more).
There is nothing wrong with asking God, "why?"; but there is something wrong with demanding that He must answer us according to our understanding; and that is what happened to Job and that is the point of verses 19-20 of Romans 9. They are harsh; but you cannot escape the truth or implication of them. God is sovereign and love and holy and has the right to do this because He is God and we are not.
And all that material takes longer to digest; you would have to print it out, look up all the verses, re-read and pray and meditate on them. Meditation is "thought focused on one thing at a time". Too often we run away from Romans 9 after we lightly read it; because it is harsh and rebuking to our human sinful minds. But if you stay there and meditate on it, with everything else, keeping in mind; love, Trinity, etc. God can open the mind and heart to understand. Luke 24:45; Acts 16:14
Read all of Isaiah 52 and 53 again, slowly. There is not much else I can do.
Also, Psalm 2, with all the NT interpretation of it. The Trinity is the key to everything.
Ken: (John Piper) does not come across like a robot or “dour, dry, Scottish Presbyterian”; :
Adomnan: Actually, I prefer the dour ones. At least they're characters.
The problem with people who believe in penal substitutiion is not that they're dour, but that they're irrational.
Ken: It took me 20+ years to finally see Reformed theology as the most Biblical and surrender to God’s sovereignty.
Adomnan: Well, if you put your thinking cap on, you can "unsee" Reformed theology in about five minutes.
Ken:No, but Scripture indicates this all through, when we hold God's sovereignty, holiness, justice, and love and the Trinity all together at the same time and see it all in Scripture; God has revealed that to us in His word.
Adomnan: Really? Give me chapter and verse where the scripture describes the Holy Trinity as hashing out penal substitution in heaven.
Ken: "Ask of Me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance" Psalm 2:8
The Father tells the Son to ask Him for the nations as His inheritance. Those that repent and kiss the son are His inheritance for eternal life;(v. 10-12) and those that do not are condemned to hell and broken like clay pots.(verse 9, 12)
Adomnan: You are not seriously suggesting that this verse teaches penal substitution, are you?
Ken: As for propitiation in Hebrews 2:17; sin is also the object in I John 2:2 -- "And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of whole world."
Adomnan: In I John 2:2, hilasmos is better translated "expiation," because only a few verses earlier John writes that Jesus's blood cleanses (i.e., expiates) sin. Clearly, he thinks of hilasmos as expiation, cleansing, not propitiation. So, it is " He Himself is the expiation for our sins, etc."
It's interesting that in I John, it is Jesus himself who is the expiation, not his death. That may be because John puts the stress on the incarnation rather than the cross.
In any event, it remains the case that in Hebrews 2:17, the verb hilaskesthai can only mean expiation, because it has sins as a direct object. A priest can only expiate sins; he can't propitiate them. Do you deny this?
Ken,
Rom 9 does deal with some hard issues. We often wonder why some people are given much more powerful revelation of God than others are. Even when you believe in free will it does not seem fair. How many pharisees would have repented if they had been met on the road to Damascus like Pauls was? Why were they not all given that blessing? Why didn't Jesus just go to the temple after the resurrection and show everyone he was a live? There are a ton of questions like this. Rom 9 deals with some of them.
It does not require us to get rid of free will. God pours out grace on Isreal at some points and gives them less grace at others knowing most Isrealites will reject Jesus. That does not mean each individual Isrealite did not have free will. There were some who believed.
It gets quite complex but we are talking about the mind of God. There is no contradiction between man's freedom and God's predestination. So when you scale it up to nations the same problems arise. What God is capable of doing for individuals he is capable of doing for nations.
The trouble is that using Rom 9 as a key interpretive text and making other texts fit it is wrong. We know that from tradition. The bible does not need to be read that way. Calvin really arrived at predestination by adopting an extreme notion of total depravity and following the logic. It isn't taught directly in scripture. It came out of his mind and he found it in scripture. Then he figured out a way around the texts that contradict it.
Ken: The atonement includes expiation (removal and cleansing) and forgiveness and reconciliation and redemption and propitiation.
Adomnan: Yes, the atonement includes propitiation because once sins are expiated God has no more motive for wrath. However, 1) the "hilas-" words don't refer to propitiation, but only to expiation and 2) propitiation does not at all imply penal substitution. God becomes propitious without having to "satisfy His wrath."
Ken: There is absolutely no contradiction. Sin is dealt with by judging it and condemning it and "zapping it" (to put it in a down to earth way).
Adomnan: God and Christ condemn sin by making it powerless, but the Father does not condemn Christ and He does not condemn any sin in Christ, actual or "imputed." When Paul writes that God condemns sin in the flesh in Romans 8:3, he's not speaking of Christ's flesh, which was sinless, but our flesh (what Paul calls, the "flesh of sin" earlier in the same verse Rom 8:3). Christ does not have the flesh of sin; we do.
From Ken: "The Lord caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him" Isaiah 53:6
Adomnan: Yes, in the sense that Christ took on the burden of our sin and dealt with it by expiating sin, not in the sense that the Father punished Him, which is false.
Ken: God was propitiated, that is His wrath was appeased and satisfied because sin was dealt with fully in a decisive way. Hebrews 9:22; 9:26; 10:10-18
Adomnan: As I've shown, Hebrews speaks of expiation, not propitiation.
Ken: Read all of Isaiah 52 and 53 again, slowly. There is not much else I can do.
Adomnan: Was this for me or Ken? Either way, you're sounding very patronizing. I have read Isaiah 52, 53 slowly, fast and with commentaries. Isaiah doesn't teach penal substitution. In fact, Isaiah 53 denies it straight up: Is 53:4-5: "We did ESTEEM him smitten, stricken by God, ...BUT he was wounded for our transgression."
Well, this is saying that what they thought ("esteemed") was false, which means he wasn't "smitten, stricken by God." Ergo, no punishment.
True, Isaiah later says the Lord "bruised" the Suffering Servant, but this is a milder word and does not imply punishment. Job was bruised by the Lord, but not punished.
Further, the Servant is called a sin offering in Isaiah 53. If he was a sin offering, then he could not be the scapegoat. Hence, no transfer of sins.
But the bottom line is that Isaiah never teaches that God punishes the Servant, nor does he ever say that the Servant is a substitute for others. He expiates sin as a sin offering (just as in Hebrews), not as a scapegoat. Thus, no penal substitution.
Cearnaigh,
I don't want to get involved wiith Ken in a big discussion over predestination. Besides, I think I'm coming to the end of my current foray into blogdom.
Still, I'd like to make a few remarks about Romans 9 and Paul's ideas of election and predestination, which I hope are useful to you. Ignore all of Ken's "Reformed" sophistry. It's all beside the point, and you only need to know a few basics to understand this subject.
First, Paul understands election as a Jew would. He does not think of individuals as being elect or chosen (with an exception that I'll mention in a moment). Rather, he thinks in terms of chosen communities. Just as Israel was the Chosen People of the Old Covenant, so the Church is the Chosen People of the New Covenant. John shows a similar understanding when he refers (II John 1:1) to a local church as the "elect lady with her children."
It's because he thinks of election in these communal terms that Paul characteristically uses the plural "you" when talking about election and predestination. This means "you Christians, you chosen of the new covenant." It does not mean "you, as isolated individuals." In other words, for Paul, to be elect or chosen is simply to be a member of the Church, just as any Israelite (who wasn't excommunicated) was a member of the Chosen People.
Well, you might say, what of Jacob and Esau in Rom 9? They're individuals and they're spoken of as "chosen" (in Jacob's case) or not, and they are individuals. Here is the key thing to keep in mind: Jacob is chosen, and Esau rejected, not for heaven, but to be the carrier of the promise given to Abraham to redeem the Gentiles through his seed. PAUL NEVER WRITES OF THE ELECTION OF ANY INDIVIDUAL TO GLORY OR TO DAMNATION. Esau is not treated as a reprobate (in the sense of someone destined for hell) by either Paul or Genesis. In fact, Esau is a reasonably righteous individual who reconciles with Jacob in the end. It's just that God chose Jacob to be the ancestor of Christ (so the bearer of the promise), not Esau. Paul's purpose in using this example is to show that, just as God can choose the younger over the elder, so He can choose the Gentiles even though one might expect the promise to remain with the "elder" (the Jews).
Now, we've discussed what election is (membership in the Chosen People of the NT). Predestination simply means "planning." It is quite an ordinary word in Greek. When Paul speaks of God predestinating "you" (plural), it means "you in the Church" and he is saying that God planned the Church, that it wasn't just an accident. That's all.
Nothing in Romans 9 suggests that God chooses or predestines individuals to glory or damnation and nothing in this chapter has any bearing on free will. Paul explains that God planned a community among the Gentiles and we are chosen/elect if we are members of it.
Adomnan: Was this for me or Ken?
Typo: I meant "for me or Cearnaigh."
By the way, Cearnaigh, do you speak Irish? I'd very much like to learn that language. If so, can you recommend any lessons?
Hi Johnathan,
(I leave the computer for a day or two and I see that there are many other posts between this reply to your last post which was a response to something I wrote)
I read a book by Father Philip Hughes a long while back entitled A Popular History of the Reformation. Among other things, he points out that for many saddening reasons, the laity was pitifully uncatechized. I understand what you are getting at when you say that my post might get the exact opposite reaction from what I was hoping from someone like Ken. I was taking for granted that the laity (peasant) would be at least reasonably well instructed in the faith. I figure that even though the overwhelming majority of the peasant laity would be quite incapable of following upper level theological discourse and scripture translation, they should still be able to look at a so called reformer- with their exaltations to leave the church- as if such a person had two heads and dismiss them as the heretics they are, and do so with peace of mind. I feel that they could do this because they are “knowing from whom they learn these things.”
A Adomnan a chara,
Funny you should ask about Irish...
I do speak a little, yes... as far as learning Iris h Rosetta Stone has just relased 3 levels of Irish (software) - over all I would say their approach to the language is excellent. I think it's standard Irish... I suppose of the 3 main dialects, I prefer Connemara, but... as there are a lot of Irish progrmas out there, I think it would be worth a look.
You seem to have an aptitude for languages, however... I would recommend "Learning Irish"
by Micheal O'Siadhail. It is simply excellent... especially if you want to learn a bit more than cupla focal.
I wish you luck! Thanks for the tips about Romans 9!
Slan,
Cearnaigh
Ken,
God was propitiated, that is His wrath was appeased and satisfied because sin was dealt with fully in a decisive way.
If God’s wrath “was dealt with fully and in decisive way,” why then does Christ remain a priest? Shouldn’t His mediatorial duties cease at some point, according to the penal substitution theory?
Remember, a priest is a mediator between God and man. But now if the reason for a priestly mediator ceases to exists, should not the office of priestly mediator also cease to exist?
I figure that even though the overwhelming majority of the peasant laity would be quite incapable of following upper level theological discourse and scripture translation, they should still be able to look at a so called reformer- with their exaltations to leave the church- as if such a person had two heads and dismiss them as the heretics they are, and do so with peace of mind.
That was true, and when someone like St. Francis de Sales made the effort to reach them, that was the overwhelming reaction. Unfortunately, there weren't so many Saints like him who took such an interest.
Romans 9 does teach about election of individuals to salvation.
Remember the context, Paul is struggling and wondering why more fellow Jews don't come to know Christ and he is praying for them and even wishing himself accursed for the sake of his countrymen.
God says that the word of God has not failed, because "not all Israel is Israel, and neither are all the children true children just because they are Abraham's descendents.
yes, God chose Israel nationally to be His missionary people who were supposed to be a model nation of holiness "in the midst of the nations" (Exodus 19:5-6) and to bring the Messiah into the world (Genesis 12:3, 18:18; 15:1-6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; 49:10; Matthew 1:1-4; Romans 9:5
But here in Romans 9 God explains why every individual does not turn to Christ and trust Him. The Jews are the chosen nation, why don't they all act like they are chosen? Because it never meant "every single individual".
I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy , etc. is about individuals.
So, it does not depend on the man (not nations) who will or the man (the nations) who runs but on God who has mercy. 9:16 -- that is individuals
Esau and Jacob are individuals.
The reason why not all the chosen nation Israel actually followed God is because not every individual is chosen for salvation; only some are.
Paul clearly taught that election was for individuals for salvation. 2 Thess. 2:13
Psalm 2 - if you read it - that was answering the question about in the eternal counsel of the fellowship of the Trinity. You asked me if I was a fly on the wall, etc. God's word through and through reveals this love and justice of God as planned in the eternal fellowship of the happiness of the Trinity. Beautiful !
I will tell of the decree of the Lord: Today you have become My son; today I have begotten You.
Notice the NT interpretation of this Psalm-- Acts 4, Hebrews 1:5-12; Acts 13; Hebrews 5, Psalm 110, etc.
Ask of Me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance.
Since those that don't repent will get wrath and get smashed like clay pots, Jesus purchases His inheritance at the cross by His blood and satisfies the wrath and justice that would have been against them if they had not repented.
The Lord sits in the heavens and laughs -- I have installed My King, My Messiah, on My holy Mountain. The Messiah is God's Strategy for dealing with the rebellion and sin of the nations. 2:1-8
All of this shows that the Father was not forcing Jesus to be punished like a pagan god or a despot or something monstrous or child abuse, etc.. The Son willingly rendered Himself a guilt offering. The Lord was pleased to crush Him.
Obviously, we Christians still believe Jesus was totally innocent. When it says, "We considered Him smitten of God . . . " 53:4 It is talking about the people of Israel thinking that He was paying for His own sins and that God was punishing Him for His own sins; NO !
verse 5 -- But, He was pierced for our transgressions, rebellion, and iniquity.
So, yes, it does teach this, but it is love and willingness and voluntary (John 10:18; Isaiah 53:10; Luke 22:42-45)
together with Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12 --
Paul's purpose in using this example is to show that, just as God can choose the younger over the elder, so He can choose the Gentiles even though one might expect the promise to remain with the "elder" (the Jews).
And that is, of course, blindingly obvious when you realize that the original passage is about God being able to freely choose who is allowed to approach His holiness. But when I point out to Protestants that Romans is actually about God's freedom to enter into relationships with people who are not Jews and conversely to condemn even Jews who are sinful, you'd swear I had just told them that down was up or that black was white.
I suppose the real anachronism is in putting themselves into the position of the interlocutor and to pretend that Paul is answering the questions they would raise in the same position. But the right way to do exegesis is not to ask how Paul would answer me if I were asking the question, but to figure out what question the Jews of his time would actually be asking him. Once you realize that, Romans makes sense.
For some reason, people can't get past the fact that Paul was addressing a concern that has nothing to do with their own "tension" or "struggle" or whatever. The real irony is that people think they found peace with a "hard teaching" when they submitted to Paul's instruction, when in fact Paul wasn't actually even talking about the subject. Because they couldn't accept their clan's teaching based on reason (because it doesn't make any sense), they convinced themselves that it was actually Paul who was telling them to accept something that doesn't make sense. Actually, it's more or less glorified peer pressure among Calvinists. Granted, any high school will show you that peer pressure can cause people to abandon their reason and good sense, but teenagers don't generally say that St. Paul told them to do it.
Remember the context, Paul is struggling and wondering why more fellow Jews don't come to know Christ and he is praying for them and even wishing himself accursed for the sake of his countrymen.
He's not wondering why they aren't saved. He knows exactly why they aren't saved: they are stubborn and resistant, so God has deprived them of His presence, leaving them hardened in their sins. Paul is simply wishing it were different, just as anyone might wish that the people beloved to them who make evil choices would not have done it.
But here in Romans 9 God explains why every individual does not turn to Christ and trust Him. The Jews are the chosen nation, why don't they all act like they are chosen? Because it never meant "every single individual".
No, it doesn't explain why. What it explains is why God is not unrighteous to accept those among the Gentiles, even though they are not His children under the Old Covenant, and to turn away from His hardened children, even though they are. The Jews had taken His promise as saying that God could never turn away from anyone born Jewish, no matter how sinful they became or how resistant they were to God's will. Paul is simply pointing out their mistake in Romans 9.
So, it does not depend on the man (not nations) who will or the man (the nations) who runs but on God who has mercy. 9:16 -- that is individuals
Yes, with regard to fellowship with God, it doesn't matter whether an individual is a Jew performing the rituals under the Law or not. God can have fellowship even with people who do not practice the Law.
The reason why not all the chosen nation Israel actually followed God is because not every individual is chosen for salvation; only some are.
Paul is not providing any causal explanation there anymore than he is in 2 Thes. 2:13. He is simply remarking that because these people were actually saved, it must have been the case that God knew this even before the foundation of the world.
You asked me if I was a fly on the wall, etc. God's word through and through reveals this love and justice of God as planned in the eternal fellowship of the happiness of the Trinity.
This passage is a temporal reference to the Incarnation (hence, "today, I have begotten you" ). Only Arians would take this as applying to the begetting of the Son in Heaven. Indeed, they interpreted this passage to mean that the Son was created by the Father rather than being eternally begotten.
Notice the NT interpretation of this Psalm-- Acts 4, Hebrews 1:5-12; Acts 13; Hebrews 5, Psalm 110, etc.
Acts 4 and 13 -- the Incarnation, ultimate victory over the powers of the world as 1 Cor. 15:24-28.
Hebrews 1:5-12, ditto.
Psalm 110 -- same thing
How on earth do you get some sort of punishment of Jesus out of this?
This just gets sillier...
Since those that don't repent will get wrath and get smashed like clay pots, Jesus purchases His inheritance at the cross by His blood and satisfies the wrath and justice that would have been against them if they had not repented.
His inheritance, which is the entire creation, is given by the Father's will; Jesus doesn't need to purchase it. This is all over the Gospel of John, espec. John 6:39 and John 10:27-30. Who ever heard of buying an inheritance?
The Bible uses words like redeem (to buy back to be freed) - purchased, price was paid, etc.
"You have been bought with a price, therefore glorify God with your body" I Cor. 6:19-20
"The lamb who was slain has purchased with His blood out of every people, tribe, nation, and tongue." Rev. 5:9
Many other verses
I Peter 1:18-19
You were redeemed, . . . with precious blood, as of a lamb, unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.
Ephesians 1:7
In Him we have redemption through His blood . . .
Surely you don't believe in the ransom to the devil theory of the atonement ??
The price, wages was paid to justice, the debt was paid out of love for us.
Death, Satan, and sin were defeated at the cross.
Colossians 2:15-16
I John 3:8
Hebrews 2:14
John 12:31-33
John 16:11
Only Arians would take this as applying to the begetting of the Son in Heaven. Indeed, they interpreted this passage to mean that the Son was created by the Father rather than being eternally begotten.
Jonathan Prejean
Since I am fully Trinitarian, that is a bad argument.
Yes, but of course I am referring to His eternal Sonship from all eternity past. If you believe in the Trinity, then it logically follows that the Father and the Son (and the Spirit) decided in perfect unity before the foundation of the world that the Son would become flesh and give His life a ransom for many. "I will tell of the decree of the Lord, " I have installed My King , My Messiah . . ."
The whole Psalm points back to eternity past and the relationship of the Father and the Son and the purpose in redemption of saving some from all nations out of those rebellious nations who plot against the Lord and His Messiah.
Acts 13:33 makes Psalm 2 referring to the resurrection.
yes, "today" can be taken as
1. His incarnation
2. His resurrection
But since Jesus was the Son from all eternity, John 1:1, John 17:8
there must be something more to these verses about the "Son of God"
3. An eternal "today" back into the past (?)
Otherwise, there is not much OT Scripture on the eternal sonship of Jesus
Jesus was the Son of God from all eternity. He did not only become the Son of God by the incarnation - Luke 1:34-35
His inheritance, which is the entire creation, is given by the Father's will; Jesus doesn't need to purchase it. This is all over the Gospel of John, espec. John 6:39 and John 10:27-30. Who ever heard of buying an inheritance?
Jonathan Prejean
That's a pretty good point -- then what is meaning of all the "redemption" words??
Why did He pay the price at all? Why even have the atonement?
Why not just say, like the Muslims, "God can just say, "I forgive you", like He said, "let there be light" and they are forgiven with no need of the cross.??
Yes, but of course I am referring to His eternal Sonship from all eternity past. If you believe in the Trinity, then it logically follows that the Father and the Son (and the Spirit) decided in perfect unity before the foundation of the world that the Son would become flesh and give His life a ransom for many. "I will tell of the decree of the Lord, " I have installed My King , My Messiah . . ."
'decided'? God doesn't 'decide'.
Esau and Jacob are individuals.
Actually, in this context, I don't think so. Paul is quoting Malachi 1 in that instance. Malachi was referring to the nations descended from Jacob and Easu. So the focus here is on nations and not on individual salvation. That is why Rom 9 is not the best starting point for a discussion on predestiantion and free will. It is not directly on point.
Ken,
Did Esau go to hell?
Cearnaigh
The Bible uses words like redeem (to buy back to be freed) - purchased, price was paid, etc.
Yes, but we weren't redeemed from the Father. We were redeemed from slavery to sin and death, which is somewhat like the literal analogue of being bought from slavery. But if the Son is thought of as redeeming us, the Father is the one who gave Him the money, not the slaveholder. We were not redeemed from the Father's justice.
Since I am fully Trinitarian, that is a bad argument.
I agree: since you are a Trinitarian, you should not have made that bad argument. That was the point. See below on the Arian use of the passage.
Yes, but of course I am referring to His eternal Sonship from all eternity past.
But that passage is not about His eternal sonship.
If you believe in the Trinity, then it logically follows that the Father and the Son (and the Spirit) decided in perfect unity before the foundation of the world that the Son would become flesh and give His life a ransom for many. "I will tell of the decree of the Lord, " I have installed My King , My Messiah . . ."
Of course, but that passage has nothing to do with that. It is about the revelation of this plan in the economy of salvation, not an eternal conversation within the Trinity. And I share James's concern about introducing deliberation and decision into the Trinity.
The whole Psalm points back to eternity past and the relationship of the Father and the Son and the purpose in redemption of saving some from all nations out of those rebellious nations who plot against the Lord and His Messiah.
No, it points FORWARD to the end of time. Unless you're arguing that God takes the Father's wrath at the end of time rather than on the Cross, it doesn't help you.
Acts 13:33 makes Psalm 2 referring to the resurrection.
Absolutely. So does 1 Cor. 15 refer to the Resurrection and describe how it will eventually place all creation under subjection to Christ. Again, this has nothing to do with Christ being punished. It has nothing to do with Christ somehow acting as a dam against the flood of the Father's wrath at the end of time.
But since Jesus was the Son from all eternity, John 1:1, John 17:8
there must be something more to these verses about the "Son of God"
3. An eternal "today" back into the past (?)
That's what the Arians of the fourth century thought, reading the temporal begetting in this passage "before all ages," and they were rightly condemned by the Fathers for it. The third moment contemplated in these passages is the end of time. This passage simply is not about the eternal sonship; otherwise, it wouldn't say "today," which implies a temporal begetting, not an eternal begetting.
Otherwise, there is not much OT Scripture on the eternal sonship of Jesus
...which is exactly what you'd expect given that God had not been explicitly revealed to be Trinity through
(cont.)
Otherwise, there is not much OT Scripture on the eternal sonship of Jesus
...which is exactly what you'd expect given that God had not been explicitly revealed to be Trinity through the Incarnation. The divinity of the Holy Spirit isn't clear from the OT either. The OT testimony about Jesus and the Holy Spirit is economic (about what They would accomplish) not theological (about the doctrine of the Trinity). It wasn't until the Incarnation (and most emphatically with the Gospel of John) that the theological understanding behind these passages was revealed. Trying to read the eternal sonship into the OT is typically anachronistic and often leads to theological error.
Jesus was the Son of God from all eternity. He did not only become the Son of God by the incarnation - Luke 1:34-35
Of course, but that doesn't mean that every time you see the word "son" or "begotten" you can assume that it refers to the eternal sonship. He was also begotten by the Holy Spirit (with the cooperation of the Father and the divine Word Himself) as a man.
I've blocked this point off separately:
That's a pretty good point -- then what is meaning of all the "redemption" words??
Why did He pay the price at all? Why even have the atonement?
Why not just say, like the Muslims, "God can just say, "I forgive you", like He said, "let there be light" and they are forgiven with no need of the cross.??
I'm glad that you picked up on this, because this is the single most important point about the whole thing. What we've said before establishes that there is some sort of "need" for us to be saved, but we also know that it is not the Father from Whom we need to be redeemed. So what is this need?
If the need is not in the Father, then it is in US. Because our nature was not made for sin, it is damaged. It wouldn't suffice for the Father to simply overlook sin, because there has been damage to objective nature. He has to take steps to restore it. The way He CHOSE to do this was the most loving way possible. Rather than healing by miraculous fiat, He works within the integrity of the nature that He created. The Son of God Himself takes on human nature and all of its consequences to heal them. If God wanted to do it some other way, He could have simply annulled the past and made it as if it never were or started over. But instead, He restores the creation that He lovingly made in the first place.
THAT'S why we're different than Muslims. Muslims don't believe in the integrity of nature; they are voluntarists who believe that everything is God's absolute will. So they completely lack this concept of the integrity of the nature that God has created and tries to preserves. For a Muslim, if God wants to forgive sin, He simply does it. For a Christian, God has to act in a certain way to preserve the integrity of the natures and past that He previously created. And because God is Love, he would not have created in the first place if He did not already know He was going to do this.
“The wise man will seek out the wisdom of all the ancients, and will be occupied in the prophets.” Sirach 39:1 http://www.newadvent.org/bible/s...ible/
sir039.htm
Ken,
The Father tells the Son to ask Him for the nations as His inheritance. Those that repent and kiss the son are His inheritance for eternal life;(v. 10-12) and those that do not are condemned to hell and broken like clay pots.(verse 9, 12)
But what is this inheritance? Well, just listen to Augustine.
I will give you nations for your inheritance, and the limits of the earth for your possession.' and other innumerable testimonies which set forth the Catholic Church.
Sermon 96:2
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...hers/
160396.htm
But let it not be imagined that we have gone out from them. For we have the testament of the Lord's inheritance, we recite it, and there we find, "I will give You the nations for Your inheritance, and for Your possessions the ends of the earth." We hold fast Christ's inheritance; they hold it not, for they do not communicate with the whole earth, do not communicate with the universal body redeemed by the blood of the Lord.
Homily 3 on the First Epistle of John http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...hers/
170203.htm
2. "Hearken, O God, to my supplication, give heed to my prayer" (ver. 1). Who says? He, as if One. See whether one: "From the ends of the earth to You I have cried, while my heart was being vexed" (ver. 2). Now therefore not one: but for this reason one, because Christ is One, of whom all we are the members. For what one man cries from the ends of the earth? There cries not from the ends of the earth any but that inheritance, of which has been said to the Son Himself, "Demand of Me, and I will give to You the nations for Your inheritance, and for Your possession the boundaries of the earth." This therefore Christ's possession, this Christ's inheritance, this Christ's Body, this Christ's one Church, this the Unity which we are, is crying from the ends of the earth.... Exposition of Psalm 61
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...ers/
1801061.htm
"Today have I begotten You," whereby the uncorrupt and Catholic faith proclaims the eternal generation of the power and Wisdom of God, who is the Only-begotten Son.
Exposition of Psalm 2 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...ers/
1801002.htm
"As we have heard, so have we seen" (ver. 7). Blessed Church! at one time you have heard, at another time you have seen….For all things which are now fulfilled were before prophesied. Lift up your eyes then, and stretch them over the world; see now His "inheritance even to the uttermost parts of the earth:" see now is fulfilled what was said, "All kings shall fall down before Him: all nations shall serve Him:" see fulfilled what was said, "Be Thou exalted, O God, above the heavens, and Your glory above all the earth." …. see thus fulfilled
…. see thus fulfilled, "All the ends of the earth shall remember, and turn to the Lord, and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before Him." Seeing all this, exclaim with joy, "As we have heard, so have we seen." Justly the Church herself is so called out of the Gentiles .... Let not heretics insult, divided into parties, let them not exalt themselves who say, "Lo, here is Christ, or lo, there." Matthew 24:23 Whoso says, "Lo, here is Christ, or lo, there," invites to parties. Unity God promised. The kings are gathered together in one, not dissipated through schisms. But haply that city which has held the world, shall sometime be overthrown? Far be the thought! "God has founded it for ever." If then God has founded it for ever, why fearest thou lest the firmament should fall? --- Exposition of Ps. 48
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...ers/
1801048.htm
It is beyond absurd to even imagine the Lord should inherit dis-unity and division!
No, the ”unity of all nations” i.e. the One Church, bound together in mercy, peace, and love, that is the Lord's true inheritance.
You are trying to understand the mystery of the atonement apart from the unity of "the Love."
You are trying to understand the mystery of the atonement apart from the unity of "the Love."
And I ask how can one love as Christ did if we can not love of our own free will?
Anon,
I'm not sure I understand your question. "The Love" referred to above was an early name for the Church - the one Church.
"One of the early names for the Church was 'the love'".
Love is for Life: Pastoral Letter of the Irish Bishops, #46.
http://www.catholicculture.org/l...cfm?
recnum=5276
In any event, we do love of our own free will. For how can love be truly love, if it is not truly free?
Jonathan: But when I point out to Protestants that Romans is actually about God's freedom to enter into relationships with people who are not Jews and conversely to condemn even Jews who are sinful, you'd swear I had just told them that down was up or that black was white.
Adomnan: You summed it up, Jonathan. Once you read Romans 9 with even a smidgen of insight and context and objectivity, it is clear that Paul is talking not about the election of individuals to glory or damnation, but about God's freedom to treat the Gentiles graciously.
That is why Paul quotes Exodus: "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," that is, even if the "who" are Gentiles. (The "who" in the quoted passage from Exodus is Moses, and here it's not a question of Moses's "salvation" but about his role in revealing God's nature to the Chosen People.)
The same is true with the reference to Pharaoh. How absurd to think that Paul is commenting here on Pharaoh's reprobation! The context isn't Pharaoh's "salvation" but his resistence to God's demand that the Israelites be set free. And, in the story, this resistence gives God an opportunity to demonstrate His power.
Meanwhile Ken, completing ignoring what I wrote in my post about Jacob and Esau, informs us:
" Esau and Jacob are individuals."
Adomnan: Yes, precisely what I wrote. Glad we agree on this. But this passage isn't saying that Jacob was elected to glory and Esau to damnation. It says that Jacob was chosen to be the bearer of the promise to redeem all nations, rather than Esau. Esau was not a reprobate.
In sum, Romans 9 never discusses the election of individuals to glory (or damnation). It describes only the election of certain individuals to specific roles in salvation history (Jacob, Moses) and asserts God's freedom to call Gentiles to salvation. The reference to Pharaoh underscores that God can use even resistence to His will to His purpose.
Randy citing Ken:
Esau and Jacob are individuals.
Randy: Actually, in this context, I don't think so. Paul is quoting Malachi 1 in that instance. Malachi was referring to the nations descended from Jacob and Easu. So the focus here is on nations and not on individual salvation. That is why Rom 9 is not the best starting point for a discussion on predestiantion and free will. It is not directly on point.
Adomnan: Thanks, Randy, that's a better interpretation than the one I gave. I wanted to show that, even if Jacob and Esau are regarded as individuals, it is not true to say that the passage shows Jacob was predestined to glory and Esau to damnation.
Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer agrees with you. Commenting on Rom 9:13, he writes (after noting the citation of Malachi): "There is no hint here of predestination to 'grace' or 'glory' of an individual; it is an expression of the choice of corporate Israel over corporate Edom."
While we're still on the topic of Romans 9, I'd like to share my thoughts about how to understand Rom 9:22-23, verses that are often abused by Calvinists to promote their unbiblical theories about predestination:
Rom 9:22-23: "Yet what if God, although wishing to manifest His wrath and make known His power, has endured with much long-suffering those vessels of wrath, fit for destruction? This He did to make known the riches of His glory for the vessels of mercy, which He prepared for glory."
Calvinists assume that the "vessels of wrath" and the the "vessels of mercy" are two exclusive groups and they then jump to the conclusion that the former are predestined to damnation while the latter are predestined to glory. What they overlook is that the "vessels of wrath" and the "vessels of mercy" in these verses can be the same people.
You see, Paul's aim in this chapter is to demonstrate, against the Judaizers who believed only followers of the Law could be justified, that God could also show mercy to Gentiles. To the Judaizers, Gentiles were "vessels of wrath," and Paul adopts their language here. He is describing them from the point of view of the Jewish Law. We know this is the case because Paul notes God's "long-sufference" in tolerating them, in not visiting wrath on them. This long-suffering or patience is the same "forbearance" toward Gentiles that Paul speaks of in Rom 3:25-26: "This was to be a manifestation of God's righteousness in passing over past sins committed in the time of His forbearance."
It is these very same Gentiles (together with those sinful Jews who were also in need of salvation) that Paul says have now become, thanks to the justification they have in Christ, "vessels of mercy."
This becomes crystal clear when we read the next verses:
Rom 9:24-26: "Even for us, whom He has called, not only from among the Jews, but also from among the Gentiles, as indeed He says in Hosea,
'Those who were not my people I shall call "my people"; and her who was not loved I shall call "my beloved"';
and 'In the very place where it was said to them, " you are not my people," there they shall be called "children of the living God."'
So, the vessels of wrath become the vessels of mercy. One could even insert these words into the prophecy of Hosea and preserve the sense: "In the very place where it was said to them, 'You are vessels of wrath', there they shall be called 'vessels of mercy.'"
Thus the Calvinist assumption that the vessels of wrath and mercy represent two utterly separate and exclusive groups, each absolutely predestined, has no support from this passage. In fact, the opposite is true: Some, at least, of the vessels of wrath will be fashioned into vessels of mercy. That is Paul's whole point.
But that passage is not about His eternal sonship.
So, what passages are about His eternal Sonship in eternity past and with the words, "son" and "begotten" ??
Reason I am asking for more than just John 1:1 - because the words, "Son" and "Begotten" or "unique" (Mono-gevns) are not used there -- what verses are meaning the eternal sonship and not the "entering into humanity/incarnation aspect" ??
Esau probably did go to hell, based on Hebrews 12:17 -- he desired to inherit the blessing, but He found no place for repentance, though he sought for it (blessing, but not repentance) with tears."
also, "Esau I hated, and Jacob I loved"
Romans 9 is about individuals, otherwise there would no point to Paul's struggle and no point to the objection "Why does He still find fault with us?", etc.
and no point to
"I will have compassion on whom I have compassion, etc.
and also
no meaning to
vessels of wrath
vs.
vessels of mercy
says at the end, "we are the vessels of mercy, both Jews and Gentiles."
In sum, Romans 9 never discusses the election of individuals to glory (or damnation). It describes only the election of certain individuals to specific roles in salvation history (Jacob, Moses) and asserts God's freedom to call Gentiles to salvation. The reference to Pharaoh underscores that God can use even resistence to His will to His purpose.
Ridiculous! At beginning of the passage, Paul is talking about salvation and wishing the Jews would find salvation and even says that he could wish he would be "anathema" (eternally cursed) for their sake . . . 9:1 ff
then at the end, he is talking about vessels of wrath prepared for destruction (hell)
and vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory (heaven, eternal life) verses 22-24
Chapter 10
My heart's desire and prayer for them is for their salvation
10:9-10 all about salvation
10: 13-15 -- how shall they hear? (in order to believe and then be saved)
etc. etc.
I'm glad that you picked up on this, because this is the single most important point about the whole thing. What we've said before establishes that there is some sort of "need" for us to be saved, but we also know that it is not the Father from Whom we need to be redeemed. So what is this need?
Your answer was OK, and certainly includes that (need in us to be restored from a corrupt nature), but it is not enough. Justice needed to be done and accomplished also. Romans 3:25-26
Ken: Esau probably did go to hell, based on Hebrews 12:17 -- he desired to inherit the blessing, but He found no place for repentance, though he sought for it (blessing, but not repentance) with tears."
Adomnan: This is a tendentious translation. The passage is not talking about Esau's "repentance" but Isaac's; that is, Esau plead with his father that he (Isaac) repent -- reverse his decision -- and give the inheritance to Esau. That's how the New Jerusalem Bible translates Heb 12:17:
" As you know, when (Esau) wanted to obtain the blessing afterwards, he was rejected and, though he pleaded for it with tears, he could find no way of reversing the decision."
So, there's no suggestion that Esau didn't repent of the "sin" of selling his birthright. Obviously, he did as shown by his pleading.
Moreover, Hebrews states that Esau did in fact get a blessing, like Jacob: Heb 11:20: "It was by faith that this same Isaac gave his blessing to Jacob and Esau for the still distant future."
But the best proof that Esau was basically a good and righteous man is his reconciliation with Jacob and what Jacob said about him in Gen 33:9-11:
"Brother, I have plenty," Esau answered, "keep what is yours." Jacob protested, "No, if I have won your favor, please accept the gift I offer, for in fact I have come into your presence AS INTO THE PRESENCE OF GOD, since you have received me kindly."
In short, Esau did repent of selling his birthright, received a blessing, reconciled with his brother Jacob and received him kindly. Hardly the picture of a reprobate!
Ken: also, "Esau I hated, and Jacob I loved"
Adomnan: Calvinist heretics so abuse this Semiticism! "Esau I hated and Jacob I loved" means "I preferred Jacob to Esau (to be the bearer of the promise)."
That "I love X and hate Y" is a Semitic way of saying "I prefer X to Y" is PROVEN by fact that Luke 14:26 translates the same statement by Jesus as "hate" while in Matthew 10:37 it's "prefer." Thus:
Luke: "Anyone who comes to me without hating father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, yes and his own own life too, cannot be my disciple."
Same saying in Matthew: "No one who prefers father or mother to me is worthy of me. No one who prefers son or daughtber to me is worthy of me."
So, then, if God really HATED Esau, then I guess Jesus is telling us to hate our parents, children, brothers and sisters? I don't think so.
As Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer writes: "Esau I hated, i.e., 'loved less,' according to an ancient Near Eastern hyperbole. It expresses the lack of gratuitous election of Esau and the Edomites (Idumaeans). See Gen 29:30-31: 'he loved Rachel more than Leah.....; when the Lord saw that Leah was hated....:"
Adomnan: In sum, Romans 9 never discusses the election of individuals to glory (or damnation). It describes only the election of certain individuals to specific roles in salvation history (Jacob, Moses) and asserts God's freedom to call Gentiles to salvation. The reference to Pharaoh underscores that God can use even resistence to His will to His purpose.
Ken: Ridiculous!
Adomnan: No one's laughing but you, Ken.
Ken: At beginning of the passage, Paul is talking about salvation and wishing the Jews would find salvation and even says that he could wish he would be "anathema" (eternally cursed) for their sake . . . 9:1 ff
Adomnan: So what? The fact that Paul is talking about salvation does not in any way imply that he's discoursing on the predestinaltion of individuals to glory or damnation. You really have to put your mind to work a little here, Ken, and pay attention to the points people are making. Reread what you just copied from me: "...asserts God's freedom to call Gentiles to SALVATION." And later I added that Jews were included in this salvation.
Ken: Chapter 10
My heart's desire and prayer for them is for their salvation
Adomnan: Great quote! Now tell me, if Paul just said these people were predestined to damnation in chapter 9, as you assert, then why would he be praying for their salvation in chapter 10?
I hate to point out the obvious, but I guess it's necessary with you: There's no point in Paul praying for people that he just revealed under divine inspiration to be predestined to damnation.
As for the vessels, I already explained the vessels of wrath and the vessels of mercy were in many cases the same people. They were once vessels of wrath, but became vessels or mercy through Christ. Do you deny this? Why?
Ken: Justice needed to be done and accomplished also. Romans 3:25-26
Adomnan: It is unjust to punish the wrong person for someone else's sins. Please see Proverbs 17:15.
Hey, Dave and everybody, if I may interject for a moment:
I think I figured out how to match combox comments with their respective blog posts.
First, note the following:
Address for this combox thread ( open forum for Wednesday, April 30, 2008 ):
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
src=hsr#162311
Haloscan no. for this combox thread = 5738395850319110374
Blog Post ID for the above = 5738395850319110374
(same as combox #)
Now here's to get back to original blog posts from a combox:
1. Mouse over either the sidebar comment or the “comments” link at the bottom of a Post.
2. Right click the comment link and scroll to “properties” (right clicking on any link will get you its "element properties," btw).
3. Copy thread number.
4. Paste thread no. here (after the " = " sign) to get the full address:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g...6422857&
postID=
(The above link without the thread no. leads to an error message)
5. Copy and paste the full address
https://www.blogger.com/
comment.g...395850319110374
into your search / address bar. And that’s it!
If all goes well, you’ll be taken to the Blogger combox. Once there, just click on the post title (in red) and - again if all goes well - you should wind-up back the original blog post!
As far as I can tell, this method seems to work with any haloscan thread #. Give this one a try!
PostID and combox thread nos for: Clerical Celibacy: The Biblical Rationale: Monday, February 06, 2006 is:
113926355210579452
Now open another browser and paste this link in the address bar:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g...6422857&
postID=
Then add the thread no. above (after the = sign).
You should wind up here:
https://www.blogger.com/
comment.g...926355210579452
Reason I am asking for more than just John 1:1 - because the words, "Son" and "Begotten" or "unique" (Mono-gevns) are not used there -- what verses are meaning the eternal sonship and not the "entering into humanity/incarnation aspect" ??
With reference to Jesus's divine nature and sonship, see especially John 1:14, 1:18, 5:17-30 and 37-40, 6:46, 10:30, and 14:9-11. These all pertain to Jesus's eternal sonship according to His divine nature.
then at the end, he is talking about vessels of wrath prepared for destruction (hell) and vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory (heaven, eternal life) verses 22-24
And what prepared them? Not their obedience to the Jewish law, but faith in Jesus. That's the point; God isn't obligated to save those who do not have faith in Jesus. That in no way renders "vessels of mercy" and "vessels of wrath" meaningless.
There's also nothing causal here; there is no assertion that it is God who fitted them to destruction. Indeed, the passage says the opposite: God tolerated them. Paul is praying that instead of resisting Jesus and attempting to claim righteousness before God based on obedience to the Jewish Law, they will becomes Christians and accept what God has given in His mercy. As Adomnan points out, there is no reason to pray for them otherwise.
Your answer was OK, and certainly includes that (need in us to be restored from a corrupt nature), but it is not enough. Justice needed to be done and accomplished also. Romans 3:25-26
Well, we've already been through the fact that Romans 3:25-26 doesn't add any sort of "justice" other than what I have already described, so this doesn't actually help your case. In point of fact, it is enough to have the nature restored and cleansed (expiation, Rom. 3:25), and this cleansing demonstrates God's faithfulness, restoring human nature in Christ. It shows His faithfulness to His people and vindicates His power over sin, which had previously been allowed at least the appearance of dominance that was actually due to God's forbearance (Rom. 3:25).
This assertion that "justice needs to be done" is simply your own invention; it just isn't true for any Biblical or philosophical reason. What you're basically saying here is that the Gospel promise isn't enough, but God needs to also meet your bizarre concept of justice. Suffice it to say that I don't think God has anything to prove to you or John Piper; I think His Son's restoration of human nature is vindication enough.
You're starting to get it though. The need that Christ answers is the need to restore the human nature from sin.
Dear friends,
I see clearly enough and acknowledge most certainly how difficult are theological indifferences to reconcile. And I know that very intense debate (which is not necessarily bad, mind you) will continue even after what I have said.
Nevertheless, I'd like to share something I found which, hopefully, will help explain far better that I ever could, what I’ve been thinking all along as I listened to this whole discussion of atonement viz, Christ, the Eternal Victim, the Eternal Lamb, the Eternal Priest, even now, “carry on the mystery of propitiation!”
My dear friends, whether we be Catholic or Protestant, if we love Him, if we really love Him, then we are His. And if we are His, we are indeed , Christ! And, as Christ, we, as it were, carry on mystically (though I, feeble and sinful as I am, certainly do not pretend to understand) the atonement in ourselves (in some sense), yes, even in our very selves, in our daily sufferings! Yes, Christ, as it were, continues His passion, His the cross, even in us! And who will dare to deny that Christ suffers in us, because we are his body? For Christ indeed, even dies in us, not of course as He did at the cross (consummatum est, It is Finished), but, as Augustine says, “not in the Head, but in His Body?”
“Unless haply ye think, brethren, that those Pagans, when they raged against Christians, said not this among themselves, to blot out the Name of Christ from the earth. That Christ might die again not in the Head, , but in His Body [the Church, the “Unity of all Nations”], were slain also the Martyrs. To the multiplying of the Church availed the Holy Blood poured forth, to help Its seminating came also the death of the Martyrs. Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His Saints.” – Exposition of Ps. 41. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...ers/
1801041.htm
Thus Christ, even as the very saintly Bishop Sheen informs us, “is in agony until the end of the world.” http://books.google.com/books?id...eKzAzL7DQ&
hl=en
So to Ken (and to my dear Catholic brothers), and all my other dear Protestant friends who might read this; I beseech you: hear this holy father, hear St. Leo; hear this Saintly Bishop of Rome [oh yes, dear friends, believe it or not, there have been not a few!]. I can only ask that you please, please consider most carefully these simple but profound words of his.
And you, most blessed St. Leo, Bishop of Rome, lover of peace, champion of UNITY, guardian of the faith, successor to the apostles; I beseech you, speak! Speak to our separated brethren. Speak to those outside the One Church. Speak even to those within the Lord’s One Church who, perhaps, may have lost their way. Speak also to those who of all faiths and of no faith would nevertheless seek truth. Speak to all us, Catholic or no, of the Lord’s atonement, of His, p
Speak to all us, Catholic or no, of the Lord’s atonement, of His, perpetual atonement.
“For otherwise in the Church of God, which is Christ's Body, there are neither valid priesthoods nor true sacrifices, unless in the reality of our nature the true High Priest makes atonement for us, and the true Blood of the spotless Lamb makes us clean. For although He be set on the Father's right hand, yet in the same flesh which He took from the Virgin, he carries on the mystery of propitiation, as says the Apostle, "Christ Jesus Who died, yea, Who also rose, Who is on the right hand of God, Who also makes [not just made] intercession for us Romans 8:34 .” Leo, letter 80. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...ers/
3604080.htm
You see, even now, our High Priest intercedes for us. Let us then, with His help, begin to repair the broken bonds of Unity.
Dear friends, let us strive to mend the torn and bleeding Body of Christ. Let us minister to Him who loved us first. Indeed, let us console and minister to Divine Physician!
He suffered and died for us. Can we can do nothing for Him?
“A new commandment [A COMMMANMENT!] I give unto you, That you love one another, as I have love you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples if you have love one to another.” (John 13:33-35).
Adomnan: This is a tendentious translation. The passage is not talking about Esau's "repentance" but Isaac's; that is, Esau plead with his father that he (Isaac) repent -- reverse his decision -- and give the inheritance to Esau. That's how the New Jerusalem Bible translates Heb 12:17:
" As you know, when (Esau) wanted to obtain the blessing afterwards, he was rejected and, though he pleaded for it with tears, he could find no way of reversing the decision."
This makes no sense according to the context, because the writer of Hebrews is warning people not to be like Esau, who was godless and immoral and sold his birthright for a bowl of stew, for the people to not let a root of bitterness grow in them and defile others -- that no one should come short of the grace of God.
Midnight, too tired to make any more comments.
Thomas Schreiner, an apostate from the Church who became Baptist, probably gives the best argument a Protestant could give for the Reformed interpretation of Romans 9:
http://www.monergism.com/Schrein...ual%
20Elect.pdf
You will presumably note that he never actually proves what he wants to prove from the text. He simply imports a number of anthropomorphic analogies and unrelated texts that hardly mount a convincing argument. Schreiner's sort of a classic example of the Protestant mentality. He converted because of his sentiment toward his wife, and then he spends his entire career trying to rationalize what was essentially an emotional reason for apostasy. He's probably the saddest case I've encountered, because he is so intelligent and such a good scholar, but on the whole, he wastes his talent on account of his frippery. It's like watching a gifted athlete fail for lack of effort.
Ken: This makes no sense according to the context, because the writer of Hebrews is warning people not to be like Esau, who was godless and immoral and sold his birthright for a bowl of stew, for the people to not let a root of bitterness grow in them and defile others -- that no one should come short of the grace of God.
Adomnan: I've got to go with the scholars who translated the Jerusalem Bible on this one, Rev. Temple. The word your source translates as "godless" ("pornos" in Greek) does not refer to Esau. The author of Hebrews is writing about EITHER those who are "pornos" OR those who are "worldly minded like Esau." And for Esau, he uses the word "bebehlos" (I use "eh" for the Greek letter eta because that's what it sounded like). Well, bebehlos does not mean "immoral." It means "profane" in the sense of "common." The JB translates it as "worldly minded."
At any rate, whatever he was like as a young man when he sold his birthright, he improved later on, as the passage I supplied from Genesis showed. After all, even Jacob was a trickster, who cheated his father and his brother, which was worse than what Esau did, and yet you don't consider him a reprobate.
The author of Hebrews is telling people not to be like Esau at the moment he sold his birthright. He could just have easily have told them not to be like Jacob when he was using trickery to deceive. The patriarchs are often depicted with moral failings, which is one of the things that makes the biblical narrative so realistic and compelling.
Moreover, the repentance spoken of in Heb 12:17 is clearly Isaac's sought-after repentance and does not refer to Esau's attitude. Later on, as I pointed out, Esau gets his own blessing, and everybody's happy.
Jonathan re Thomas Schreiner: He converted because of his sentiment toward his wife, and then he spends his entire career trying to rationalize what was essentially an emotional reason for apostasy.
Adomnan: Dr. Schreiner lacks the virtue of faith. Isaiah wrote, "Without a vision, the people perish." The "Reformers" lost the vision of true Christianity, and the result was rationalism and sentimentalism, the two sides of the Protestant coin: Calvinistic sophistry and mindless emotionalism (as exemplied by revivalism and Pentecostalism).
Dear Dave (Armstrong),
I have a problem with Dt 25:5-10 which seems to command levirate intercourse:
"5 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.
7 However, if a man does not want to marry his brother's wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, "My husband's brother refuses to carry on his brother's name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me." 8 Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, "I do not want to marry her," 9 his brother's widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, "This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother's family line." 10 That man's line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled."
It is often said that God permitted, but never commanded, those activities in OT which are in conflict with Christian (or, Catholic) concept of marriage and sex, but the dictum of the passage seems to suggest otherwise: it seems that God commands *every* man in the specific circumstances to have intercourse with a wife of his dead brother, and that God thinks that every such man who refuses acts sinfully. (Though the punishment is not death, but "only" a somewhat unpleasant ceremony.) Could you help? Thanks!
Dear Jonathan,
I'd be interested in your opinion, too.
(Do you remember? We "met" at Bill Vallicella's blog.)
This is basically the same as Abraham and the servant girl, in cases where no children had been conceived. It had to do with the continuation of the family name. The brother represented his dead brother.
This would have to do with certain aspects of Mosaic Law that no longer apply to us as Christians. I don't have all the details figured out of how that works, and so I'll have to take a pass and recommend that you do a search on Google to find some more information that might help you work through the issue.
Or someone on this blog like Jordan, who knows a lot about the OT period, might want to comment.
Howdy, Vlastimil. I still read your comments with interest at Maverick Philosopher, although I haven't commented there because I haven't found myself able to add much of value over and above the guys there, including yourself.
Regarding the levirate law, I think of this as one of the genuine examples of the exigencies of the historical situation being different. It was geared to a relatively specific historical situation, and the command was purely instrumental for protection of the community, just as many of the commands intended to make Israel stand out as a separated and cohesive community were. The preservation of the names of the people helped to foster a sense of historical continuity, so there was a real loss when a family went missing from the community.
The fact that it wasn't punished as a sin but rather by a ceremony of societal disdain suggests to me that it was more about what someone should do for the good of the community. That doesn't conflict with the Christian ideal of marriage, since one can certainly choose one's spouse for the good of one's children, family, or society at large, as many monarchs over the ages have done. Indeed, it might be more noble to choose one's spouse for such reasons than for the romantic ideals that tend to dominate modern discussion on the subject. I think the levirate law in question was little different than the social disdain one suffers for marrying foolishly, and in the case of the Israelites, in a way that failed to advance God's symbolic goals for the community. It was an unwise choice, even if not a sinful one.
JP and Adomnan,
I found a piece on Romans 9 by Douglas Moo and wondered if you all might give it a read and offer your thoughts on it...
Here's the link: http://www.djmoophoto.com/articl.../romans9-
11.pdf
I hope you both are doing ever so well...
Cearnaigh
I glanced through the article. Fabulous scholarship . . . It would take a TON of work to interact with all that.
I havnt been keeping up with the discussion, but here is a pretty nice Catholic view on Romans 9:
http://www.lumengentleman.com/co...ntent.asp?
id=63
I agree with the main thoughts, though I might not agree with every detail.
Cearnaigh: I found a piece on Romans 9 by Douglas Moo and wondered if you all might give it a read and offer your thoughts on it...
Adomnan: I read over Douglas Moo's piece and disagree with it thoroughly . Wherever he differs from Elizabeth Johnsnon, I believe Dr. Johnson has the better case.
In particular, Romans 9-11 IS about the inclusion of the Gentiles and not the exclusion of the Jews, as Elizabeth Johnson maintains. Moreover, I certainly concur with her that the vessels of dishonor/wrath do not refer primarily to unbelieving Jews, but first of all to Gentiles and in an ancillary way to sinful Jews.
For a while Dr. Moo appears to be hewing to the now virtually universal view among the best Bible scholars that Paul is talking about corporate calling and election, not individual calling and election. Then at the end of his article, he pulls individual election out of a hat and claims that, while the corporate perspective is valid, it has been overstressed recently and Paul is also speaking of individual election.
This is not true. Paul writes solely of corporate election. As I explained before, he never speaks of the election of individuals to glory or damnation, although individuals can be chosen to fulfill a role within salvation history (and in fact the "individuals" he cites in this regard actually represent peoples).
Dr. Moo is typical of a certain kind of scholarly, but conservative, Protestant. He is insightful and honest enough to recognized the validity of approaches that do not support his views (in this case, Calvinist individual election), and so he concedes that Paul is in fact talking about corporate election. But then he tries to have his cake and eat it too -- if you'll forgive the trite metaphor -- and "save the appearances" by claiming an untenable view (i.e., that Paul writes of individual election to glory or damnation) is also present in the text. In fact, it isn't.
Dr. Moo does not demonstrate that Paul teaches individual election (along with corporate election); he merely asserts it based on his presuppositions. Or, if he made any argument from the biblical text concerning individual election, it was so flimsy that I missed it.
The article by Jacob Michael that Nick cites is excellent in my view. It has a lot of good insights and situates Paul's thinking about election where it belongs, in reflection on the corporate election of Israel in the OT.
I concur with Admonan's assessment of Dr. Moo's position. From the beginning of Part II, Theological Tensions in Romans 9-11, he's just engaged in an extended exercise of assuming what he is ostensibly attempting to prove. It's more or less a statement of opinion, not any kind of rigorous argument from Paul's own words. It's the same argument Schreiner gives, and it's about as convincing.
I give him credit for Herculean effort in trying to pull together a case for the position. But when it comes down to it, it's not an exegetical, theological, or even logical argument. It's just a statement of opinion.
I quoted Pope Leo earlier as saying,
“For although He be set on the Father's right hand, yet in the same flesh which He took from the Virgin, he carries on the mystery of propitiation, as says the Apostle.” - Letter 80.
But another translation has “sacrament of atonement” rather than of “mystery of propitiation.”
“Although He is seated at the right hand of the Father, He performs the sacrament of atonement in the same flesh which He assumed from the Virgin.”
Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Saint Leo the Great : Letters, Roy Deferrari, trs. Edmond Hunt, C.S.C., 1957, ISBN 0813200342, vol. 34, p.149
http://www.amazon.com/Fathers-Ch...s/dp/
0813200342
http://thumbsnap.com/v/qb8aRLat.jpg
The Latin text has “sacramentum propitiationis.”
See Leo’s letters in Vol. 54 of Migne’s Patrologia Latina. Sancti Leonis Magni Romanis Pontificas Epistolae (Letters of the Roman Pontiff St. Leo the Great) click on Epistolae (PDF) and scroll to “ 1038 Epistola LXXX,” cap. II.
http://
www.documentacatholicaomn...e__MLT.pdf.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Pat...trologia_Latina
Ken,
The Roman Catholic Church emphasizes a works-righteousness salvation and earning merit in order to finally be accepted by God; and one can never know for sure if God loves them and accepts them or not..
1.That is simply not true! You are just repeating the lies of those arch-enemies of honor and truth - Luther and Calvin (how else to put it?).
2.This self-absorbed unholy obsession with, and fixation on, one’s own salvation is nothing but narcissism, pure and simple. It is the very antithesis of the gospel message i. e. forgetfulness of self.
“Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it.” Matt. 16:24-25.
I would simply suggest you try not to obsess so much about whether or not you are saved. How much happier you would be if you just concerned yourself with helping others to lead sinless lives. By doing that, this burden, this obsession with your own salvation will undoubtedly begin to be lifted from you.
So please, enough of Calvin this and Luther that, and Zwingli something else; Listen to Christ! He it is who, if you let Him, will really teach you what the “pure gospel” message is. Read and meditate on Christ, at least as much as you clearly do on Paul.
3. I’ve always understood the meaning of the cross to be, in part, that of the Father showing us, teaching us - in a most frightfully graphic way - the radical injustice of injuring the innocent.
There are many passages in Scripture where God condemns such wickedness. Indeed, I think it’s safe to say that the whole tenor of Scripture is one of complete abhorrence for those who do such t
such things.
So I don’t see how anyone could actually believe that God would perpetrate against His Christ (who is innocence par excellence), the very kind of radical injustice He himself abhors!
Isn’t the meaning of the cross rather that the Father’s is showing us the radical injustice of punishing the innocent?
Doesn’t the lesson of the cross have more to do with the suffering of innocence rather than the punishment of wickedness?
Dave et al.
Saw this report about the possible upcoming beatification of Cardinal Newman. Thought you would want to see it if you haven't.
http://www.cwnews.com/news/views...fm?
recnum=58001
Enjoy.
Yeah, I heard about that, but thanks for the notice. I believe he'll also be canonized one day and declared a Doctor of the Church as well.
Jonathan,
Thanks for the answer.
"... it was more about what someone should do for the good of the community. That doesn't conflict with the Christian ideal of marriage, since one can certainly choose one's spouse for the good of one's children, family, or society at large, as many monarchs over the ages have done."
D. von Hildebrand, in his book Marriage, which strongly influenced 2nd Vatican Council and modern formulation of Catholic teaching on marriage, disagrees. He wrote in the book, contra you or, e.g., C. S. Lewis, that such behavior - when one marries someone without loving him/her in a specific and deep way which is described in the book - *is* in conflict with the Christian concept of marriage. This position is consistent with what you wrote next: "it might be more noble to choose one's spouse for such reasons than for the romantic ideals that tend to dominate modern discussion".
As for polygamy, John Paul II (Theology of the Body, ch. XXXVff) says polygamy was wrong even in OT times, though (in ch. XXXV) he suggests OT Jews did not realize the wrongness in their conscience. It seems JPII also thinks extramarital sex was wrong even in OT times.
Cf. e.g. this: In OT, "adultery was opposed only within special limits and within the sphere of definitive premises which make up the essential form of the Old Testament ethos. Adultery is understood above all (and perhaps exclusively) as the violation of man's right of possession regarding each woman who may be his own legal wife (usually, one among many). On the contrary, adultery is not understood as it appears from the point of view of monogamy as established by the Creator. We know now that Christ referred to the "beginning" precisely in regard to this argument (Mt 19: ."
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ PAPALDOC/jp2tb34.htm
Now there's a problem, at least for biblical inerrancy. You, like me, believe that "everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit" (Dei Verbum, §11). But did not the human author(s) of the mentioned biblical passages assert that it is permissible to promote by way of institutionalization or legalization something wrong? It seems he (they) did. Polygamy or extramarital sex was wrong even in OT times, at least according to JPII. If they did assert, then also the Holy Spirit asserts (by Dei Verbum). But it is NOT permissible to promote something wrong that way; this is a premise which, I suppose, is plausible even for you (similarly, it is not permissible to promote abortion or euthanasia by way of its institutionalization).
So my problem with the levirate law remains.
Maybe the solution could be that Dt 25:5-10 only regulates the levirate institution which was common in the given region and time, but does not approve it. But why, then, the ritual of disdain for refusing fulfilling the levirate custom?
(It seems that most of Jewish tradition, with time, began to p
Cont.
(It seems that most of Jewish tradition, with time, began to prefer the refusing as better option, though the ritual of disdain after refusing remained - which is even stranger. See Wikipedia on levirate.)
Maybe one could say that God approved the ritual of disdain because he knew, like the people in Jewish community, that most of the refusers have wrong, egoistic motives for refusing. Still, presumably, there were at least few with right motives (or without wrong motives) which were, nevertheless, disdained by the given ritual and the OT passage. But maybe one can counter this objection by saying that even divine laws in OT need not to be perfectly just.
I don't know.
(There should be "8" above, not the smile.)
But why, then, the ritual of disdain for refusing fulfilling the levirate custom?
...
Maybe one could say that God approved the ritual of disdain because he knew, like the people in Jewish community, that most of the refusers have wrong, egoistic motives for refusing. Still, presumably, there were at least few with right motives (or without wrong motives) which were, nevertheless, disdained by the given ritual and the OT passage. But maybe one can counter this objection by saying that even divine laws in OT need not to be perfectly just.
I think it simply forces someone to choose between consequences. In other words, precisely because there are a number of frivolous reasons for which people might make this choice, those in this situation must make a choice between their social prestige and their conscience. I'm not suggesting that someone should marry for such reasons as I mentioned above against one's conscience, but they are surely grave reasons that must be given consideration before one frivolously dismisses them. Presumably, in the case of the levirate law, only real belief in one's heart that it simply would not be right to marry this person would convince someone to pay that sort of social price. It is essentially a cross of social disdain that one must bear for following conscience, which is in a way a type of Christ's own path.
With respect to polygamy and divorce, it seems relatively clear that the same rationale is provided: it was intended for hardness of heart. Recognizing that men who disdain their wives might simply kill the spouses if they could not legally be divorced or marry additional women, God permitted legal divorce and polygamy, even though it remains gravely sinful for anyone to remarry or marry a second time under such laws.
In some sense, it is provided as an occasion for someone with a sinful desire to exercise that desire, which is analogous to the circumstances of God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart. God is not approving these circumstances in the least, since they are purely legal constructs and not so gravely unnatural (as in the case of same-sex unions) that laws permitting them are intrinsically unjust, like abortion and euthanasia. See Evangelium Vitae 73 quoting the CDF Declaration on Procured Abortion, "In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it".' See also CDF, CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
Most laws that allow wrongdoing (e.g., not punishing prostitution, to use St. Thomas's example) are nonetheless permissible as a matter of prudential judgment, provided that the law in question is not intrinsically unjust, like the case of laws permitting same-sex marriage, abortion, or euthanasia. God's, in His wisdom, recognized that p
(cont.)
Most laws that allow wrongdoing (e.g., not punishing prostitution, to use St. Thomas's example) are nonetheless permissible as a matter of prudential judgment, provided that the law in question is not intrinsically unjust, like the case of laws permitting same-sex marriage, abortion, or euthanasia. God's, in His wisdom, recognized that permitting the disordered action under law would be justified by the good of protecting the lives of the innocent spouses, so He permitted it without any endorsement or positive judgment.
I think the distinction one must make here is between the general notion of permitting immoral activity under the law, which can be allowed based on prudential judgment, and the specific classes of seriously disordered behavior (abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage) that the state has a grave obligation to forbid, to the point that laws permitting them are intrinsically unjust.
Jonathan,
I am aware of the distinction "between the general notion of permitting immoral activity under the law, which can be allowed based on prudential judgment, and the specific classes of seriously disordered behavior (abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage) that the state has a grave obligation to forbid, to the point that laws permitting them are intrinsically unjust."
The reason why I raise the problem is the fact that the law in Dt 25:5-10 not only permits levirate intercourse, but also TREATS EVERY Jew refusing this intercourse AS a wrong-doer (by means of the ritual of disdain). So we have here, it seems, something more than mere permitting.
Interview on Iron Sharpens Iron Radio Show with Jerry Matatics on his position that the modern Popes are all heretics. (Traditionalism or closely related to "Seda-vecantism")
I finally understand his position better.
Very interesting and seems consistent with Trent and Council of Florence and the pre-Vatican 2 stance of RCC, but inconsistent with the Infallibility dogma. Exposes the inconsistency of the RCC within itself.
http://sharpens.blogspot.com/200...inger-
true.html
Very interesting and seems consistent with Trent and Council of Florence and the pre-Vatican 2 stance of RCC, but inconsistent with the Infallibility dogma. Exposes the inconsistency of the RCC within itself.
It is sad but not to surprising that such folks exist. Even as a protestant you ran into people who reasoned their way into Christianity and later found some problems with it. They ended up either atheist or in some highly unorthodox version of christianity.
Matatics seems to have done the same with the church. He thought his way into it but then found problems. He agreed with the church but he never learned to think with the church. Agreement is just a coincidental lining up of opinions. That will likely break down at some point. Thinking with the church requires a willful submission to the leadership the church provides. That means surrendering your right to say you know it better than the church does.
So Jerry Matatics becomes like Martin Luther. A great man who could have done the church much good except for the fact that he chose the path of schism. He will still likely do the church some good but it will offset by the harm of his schism.
Ken,
Never mind the fact that you wish us to adopt Sola Scriptura (an inconsistent teaching of Protestantism) which we see as inherently self-contradictory... over and against the system which we currently hold... surely you don't understand Catholic ecclesiology any better than Matatics does... have I gotten SS wrong?
Take care,
Cearnaigh
Ken,
Anything on "Iron Sharpens Iron" is junk religion, no better than Scientology. Don't waste your time on it. Just one look at those slick empty suits on that program mass marketing the latest in American evangelical fast food for the soul should convince you of that. No doubt there's money to be made in it, though.
By the way, I take it you have given up trying to convince us that there is such a thing as penal substitution and so are trying to change the subject.
If you still believe in PS, although it's an absurd belief that insults God, then could you please explain how it is just for God to punish the wrong man for other people's sins? Isn't this the very antithesis of justice?
If we've convinced you it is a false doctrine, then would you be forthright enough to admit that? Or perhaps you're still mulling it over?
And briefly, concerning whether it is heretical for current popes to say that non-Catholics can be saved: The sedevacantists say that either John XXIII or Paul VI was the first "heretical" pope. They all acknowledge the orthodoxy of Pius XII. Well, Pius XII excommunicated the Feeneyites who claimed that non-Catholics could never be saved. So why is Pius orthodox according to the sedevacantists while his successors aren't? No answer.
Turn the channel. You'll never make any headway with this, Ken.
Yeah, I think we about beat the subject of penal Substitutionary atonement to death.
I will need to read more books on the subject before I can say anything new. I have already showed you all lots of Scripture, but you are unconvinced; as I am unconvinced of your position.
This is open forum, so nothing wrong with changing the subject when we have done over 180 posts on this one and 150+/- on the earlier one. (with some different issues now and then, but maybe 300 posts on the subject, if I am recalling correctly.
http://piercedforourtransgressions.com/
One of the books I want to read on the subject.
I also want to read a bunch of these books
especially,
The nature of the atonement: 4 views
The cross of Christ, by John Stott
and a few others
http://www.monergismbooks.com/Th...-p-1-c-
666.html
Vlastimil notes:
The reason why I raise the problem is the fact that the law in Dt 25:5-10 not only permits levirate intercourse, but also TREATS EVERY Jew refusing this intercourse AS a wrong-doer (by means of the ritual of disdain).
I guess that it isn't clear to me that they are being punished, since disdain and loss of reputation is not necessarily punishment. It might be a consequence, but frequently doing right carries such a consequence. It's really just forcing people to make a choice.
Also, I am suggesting that levirate intercourse is really intended for the brother to marry the late brother's wife. If one isn't willing to do what one ought to do to make the act moral, then one will have to pay the price for social disdain, but that is simply a morally neutral statement of fact. Social disdain, in and of itself, is not necessarily evil.
Ken: Yeah, I think we about beat the subject of penal Substitutionary atonement to death.
Adomnan: The allegation that the Catholic Church changed its position on "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" has also been beaten to death. I've seen numerous discussions of it that didn't convince anyone on either side. So why bring that up again?
Penal substitution is the foundation of the Protestant Fundamentalist pseudo-gospel. If PS goes, the whole thing goes. It's not discussed enough.
Ken: I will need to read more books on the subject before I can say anything new. I have already showed you all lots of Scripture, but you are unconvinced; as I am unconvinced of your position.
Adomnan: Save your money. We all have Bibles and common sense. This is something we can figure out on our own.
And you did not produce one single scripture that supports penal substitution. God does not punish the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53. 2 Cor 5:21 teaches that Jesus became a "sin offering," not that the Father transferred guilt or sin to Him. The Epistle to the Hebrews has the most detailed description of how the atonement works, and there is no hint of penal substitution. On the contrary!
So where is this penal substitution you speak of?
By the way, do you now agree that there's no cogent Biblical evidence that Esau went to hell?
Ken: This is open forum, so nothing wrong with changing the subject when we have done over 180 posts on this one and 150+/- on the earlier one. (with some different issues now and then, but maybe 300 posts on the subject, if I am recalling correctly.
Adomnan: As I said, I've seen this claim that the Catholic Church has changed its view on whether non-Catholics can be saved discussed many times, and to no end. If someone wants to take another ride on that merry-go-round with you, by all means let him do so.
However, I have to think that the substance of the gospel (i.e., whether the Father punished Jesus or not) is a far more vital question. Why should people on this forum want to dissect statements issued by a 15th century council (Florence) with someone who doesn't even believe in the same basic Christian message we do? What would be the point?
Adomnan,
However, I have to think that the substance of the gospel (i.e., whether the Father punished Jesus or not) is a far more vital question.
Ah, the “substance of the gospel;” let us find that, and we shall find unity! We shall have no more division! We shall, have only good things, only friendship.
So I say, go for it! Carry on. You and Jonathan and Ken have gotten me to really put on the o’ l thinking cap. And I have thoroughly enjoyed the give and take, the back and forth of this discussion. I’ve certainly discovered what a theological ignoramus I am. But you guys are definitely getting me edumacated!
Now a quick question to all:
Did Christ (strictly speaking, mind you) have to suffer crucifixion? Or could we have been redeemed without the cross?
You did not prove your interpretation of Isaiah 53 or 2 Cor. 5:21 or Hebrews. Your church cannot even understand that the cross was "once for all" -- so you have this "re-presentation" of the sacrifice of Christ in the mass, -- goofy, no matter how you try to justify it; along with transubstantiation and genuflecting and worshiping the bread, and generally most of the time (historically) not even being allowed to drink the wine.
The Son willingly took the punishment for sin. The key is in how we communicate it. You are saying, "The Father punished Jesus", as many Reformed folks also say, for shock value and emphasis.
Personally, I think it is better to say that God the Son Himself willingly took the punishment/penalty for sin; the Son as God in the eternal fellowship of the Trinity together with the Father and the Spirit planned it all in their plan of redemption to communicate and accomplish pure love for sinners and pure justice against sin.
Ben: Did Christ (strictly speaking, mind you) have to suffer crucifixion? Or could we have been redeemed without the cross?
Adomnan: In my view, Christ suffered crucifixion to give us the sacraments, particularly the two chief sacraments: baptism and the eucharist, both of which cause us to participate in his archetypal sacrifice, death and resurrection.
These sacraments derive their meaning and efficacy from his passion. Note for instance how Paul writes in Rom 6 that in baptism we die with Christ and rise with him.
Now, if Christ hadn't died in this way or hadn't died at all, there would have been sacraments of another sort and we would have identified with him in some other way. You see, the only way one can be redeemed by a savior/hero is by doing what he did, in a rite or mystery.
However, the sacraments that Christ gave us are "just-so stories" and it's somewhat idle to speculate on whether or not the story could have unfolded in some other way.
Protestantism only became possible when people somehow ceased to believe what was universally believed by the ancients and medievals; namely, that rites were efficacious in themselves (ex opere operato) because Christ was the Agent. That is why the Reformers attempted to replace the sacramental understanding of the atonement with their legalistic theory of penal substitution.
When Paul speaks of faith justifying, he is referring to that faith which leads to baptism and which is affirmed in baptism ("with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Rom 10:10), at the time of baptism of course). Belief as a mere mental assent to some proposition but not directly linked to baptism has no effect whatsoever. It is the identification with Christ in the rite that saves us. Faith only saves in the context of baptism.
And I don't think that Christ's suffering and death affected the Father. They occurred to affect us. The Father "set him forth as an expiation."(Rom 3:25) Even when one speaks of the Father as "propitiated" by Christ's death, He is only said to be so in the sense that sin, the occasion for what is anthropomorphically called God's wrath, is removed. It's not God who changes. We do.
And please don't miminize your own contribution to these discussions. I've often learned from your comments and from the apt quotations from the Fathers you've posted.
please explain how it is just for God to punish the wrong man for other people's sins? Isn't this the very antithesis of justice?
That would be true if God forced a mere human to do that; or a human sinner to do that; (even if not guilty of the charges, but still a sinner; like Job's case.) but
1. It is not force; God Himself willingly took the punishment; the Son of God, God the Son. Not my will, but Thine be done. also John 10:18 I lay My life down on My own authority.
2. He is not a sinner, He is a perfect man and God; the God-man.
That is the beauty of the incarnation; the Trinity and atonement; pure love and pure justice.
Thirdly, the evil was done by evil men, who crucified Him; not God. God cannot sin. Like in Genesis 50:20 "You meant it for evil; but God means it for good."
(Judas, the chief priests, Herod, Annas, Ciaphas, Pilate, scribes, Pharisees)
Ken: You did not prove your interpretation of Isaiah 53 or 2 Cor. 5:21 or Hebrews. Your church cannot even understand that the cross was "once for all" -- so you have this "re-presentation" of the sacrifice of Christ in the mass
Adomnan: I certainly did prove my interpretation of Isaiah 53 and 2 Cor 5:21. Neither one says that the Father punished Jesus or anything like that. And a "sin offering," which Christ is called in both passages, is not and cannot be punished. Sin offerings cannot be contaminated with sin at all. If they were they'd be unacceptable to God.
And while it is true that a bloody offering was made of Christ "once," you forget that it was "for all," that is, the offering is eternally made and presented. Is Christ not a High Priest now? And as Hebrews says, if He is a Priest, then He must have a sacrifice to offer.
Maybe lots of people have discussed the change from "no salvation outside the church" to the Vatican 2 stance; but I have never really understood it until I listened to Gerry Mattitics; with someone like Chris Arnzen posing tough questions.
Dave A's and Jimmy Akin's answers that, "Nothing has changed; rather Vatican 2 has undated the language" just doesn't fly with logic.
Also, "Trent was an over-reaction to the Reformers" is sometimes said.
How does one "infallibly over-react?" (That was a great line I heard by James White recently on the Dividing Line -- exactly!)
Ken: The Son willingly took the punishment for sin. The key is in how we communicate it. You are saying, "The Father punished Jesus", as many Reformed folks also say, for shock value and emphasis.
Adomnan: I'm not looking for shock value. I'm just stating the belief accurately, as you concede. If it is "shocking," that's inherent in the belief, not my statement of it.
Moreover, it does not matter whether Jesus "took the punishment" willingly or not. (Of course, he didn't because there was no punishment.) Punishing the wrong person does not balance the scales of justice, whether the innocent person being punished wants to be or not.
Ken: (The Trinity planned penal substitution) "to communicate and accomplish pure love for sinners and pure justice against sin."
Adomnan: No justice is served when an innocent person is punished for the crimes of guilty people. And true love is forgiveness without demanding any payment or penalty. Besides, forgiving and demanding payment are a contradiction in terms.
Ke1. It is not force; God Himself willingly took the punishment; the Son of God, God the Son. Not my will, but Thine be done. also John 10:18 I lay My life down on My own authority.
Adomnan: These verses merely say that Christ willed to die for us, and that the Father willed this too. They do not say that the Father punished him or that Christ died to satisfy the Father's justice or wrath.
Ken: 2. He is not a sinner,
Adomnan: Right, and this is why it would be an abomination for the Father to treat him as if he were a sinner: Proverbs 17:15: "He who condemns the righteous is an abomination to the Lord." You maintain that the Lord condemned the Righteous One.
Ken: Thirdly, the evil was done by evil men, who crucified Him; not God. God cannot sin. Like in Genesis 50:20 "You meant it for evil; but God means it for good."
(Judas, the chief priests, Herod, Annas, Ciaphas, Pilate, scribes, Pharisees)
Adomnan: Now this I agree with! Christ was punished unjustly by evil men as if he were a criminal, and thus they committed the abomination described in Prov 17:15. But he was not justly condemned or punished by the Father, which is what penal substitution teaches. So you are right to affirm this, but should reject penal substitution.
Maybe lots of people have discussed the change from "no salvation outside the church" to the Vatican 2 stance; but I have never really understood it until I listened to Gerry Mattitics; with someone like Chris Arnzen posing tough questions.
I don't know what you mean by tough questions. Both guys are looking to trash Vatican II. No surprise that they could make their points with nobody opposing them.
Dave A's and Jimmy Akin's answers that, "Nothing has changed; rather Vatican 2 has undated the language" just doesn't fly with logic.
Why not? I will admit it is a difficulty. Is it more difficult than Jesus saying, "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." The truth is the language is more compatible with salvation outside the church being a rare exception. That is a difficulty for me mostly because I have many protestant friends who are not likely to convert. You like to believe God would allow such people into heaven. But I can't claim to understand God fully.
Also, "Trent was an over-reaction to the Reformers" is sometimes said.
How does one "infallibly over-react?" (That was a great line I heard by James White recently on the Dividing Line -- exactly!)
Very easily. Infallibility just means you cannot make false statements. That does not mean you cannot make unloving, unwise, or confusing statements. You can overreact in those areas.
BenM: Did Christ (strictly speaking, mind you) have to suffer crucifixion? Or could we have been redeemed without the cross?
++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++
Nick: It was not strictly necessary in the sense God was forced to save us by the Cross. He could have saved us without the Cross. However, the Church teaches the Cross was the best option, and God always goes with the best option. St Thomas Aquinas teaches:
++++++++++++
Among means to an end that one is the more suitable whereby the various concurring means employed are themselves helpful to such end. But in this that man was delivered by Christ's Passion, many other things besides deliverance from sin concurred for man's salvation.
In the first place, man knows thereby how much God loves him, and is thereby stirred to love Him in return, and herein lies the perfection of human salvation; hence the Apostle says (Romans 5:: "God commendeth His charity towards us; for when as yet we were sinners . . . Christ died for us."
Secondly, because thereby He set us an example of obedience, humility, constancy, justice, and the other virtues displayed in the Passion, which are requisite for man's salvation. Hence it is written (1 Peter 2:21): "Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow in His steps."
Thirdly, because Christ by His Passion not only delivered man from sin, but also merited justifying grace for him and the glory of bliss, as shall be shown later (48, 1; 49, 1, 5).
Fourthly, because by this man is all the more bound to refrain from sin, according to 1 Corinthians 6:20: "You are bought with a great price: glorify and bear God in your body."
Fifthly, because it redounded to man's greater dignity, that as man was overcome and deceived by the devil, so also it should be a man that should overthrow the devil; and as man deserved death, so a man by dying should vanquish death. Hence it is written (1 Corinthians 15:57): "Thanks be to God who hath given us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ."
It was accordingly more fitting that we should be delivered by Christ's Passion than simply by God's good-will.
(ST 3:46:3)
++++++++++++
The Cross brought with it so many other benefits and "teachable moments" that it was the best option.
See my homepage link, the Penal Substitution Article, Appendix 1 for more info.
Jonathan,
You wrote, "levirate intercourse is really intended for the brother to marry the late brother's wife. If one isn't willing to do what one ought to do to make the act moral, then one will have to pay the price for social disdain".
You seem to imply that polygamy was good in OT times.
But as I wrote, John Paul II (Theology of the Body, chs. XXXVff) says polygamy was wrong even in OT times, though (in ch. XXXV) he suggests OT Jews did not realize the wrongness in their conscience. See http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPA...OC/
JP2TBIND.HTM
Jonathan,
Polygamy was never encouraged by God (in the OT or the NT), and it never went well when it was practiced.
.
You seem to imply that polygamy was good in OT times.
I was not clear then. I only mean that if the brother is in a position to marry, then he should do it. If he is not free to marry, then he will be forced to bear the social shame.
For an analogous situation, consider Mary. Her completely virtuous fiat was certain to subject her to social shame, and Joseph clearly recognized this when he resolved to put her away quietly and also chose to accept it himself when he realized what was happening. The people who knew better recognized God's will, but Mary and Joseph still had to deal with those who wouldn't.
It seems to me that the ritual of disdain simply formalizes the fact that someone is choosing against social standing in favor of something more important. It acknowledges the fact that there is a harm to society in the loss of a family's name, but it is neutral as to whether doing that harm is warranted or not from a moral perspective. It is simply a reminder of the real consequences even of a moral choice and forcing someone to account for those harms in his moral decisions.
Randy wrote, about the change from Tent/Vatican 1 era to the Vatican 2 era:
Why not? I will admit it is a difficulty.
no one has shown that historically "let him be anathema" is something different that what Paul meant in Galatians 1:8-9 -- "eternally cursed", "under the ban for destruction", etc.
Historically, to be excommunicated or separated always meant that if the person does not repent, they are in mortal sin, and so they are in danger of eternal hell fire. Since RCC salvation is much more than just faith (and accepting Protestant baptism), it includes the whole process of staying right and doing penance and the mass and confession to the priest and good works; it seems like a desire to want to "look nice" to the Protestants and others, but holding on to "no salvation outside the church" as an escape valve if questioned deeply.
So, Vatican 2 and the spirit of the documents and actions of everything since that time -- "light of Gentiles" (Luminem Gentintium) (forgive my mistakes in Latin -- I am not taking the time to go and get the exact spelling; I am guessing) -- (praying with Buddhists, kissing the Koran, saying Muslims worship and adore the same God as we do and that others without Christ are saved, etc.) seems like a real change from what Trent meant and what the Counsel of Florence meant about other religions also.
How does one "infallibly over-react?" (That was a great line I heard by James White recently on the Dividing Line -- exactly!)
Very easily. Infallibility just means you cannot make false statements. That does not mean you cannot make unloving, unwise, or confusing statements. You can overreact in those areas.
Randy
So, which statements are unloving, unwise, or confusing? (in both Trent and Vatican 1 and counsel of Florence?)
Infallibility is supposed to guard against confusion and lack of clarity and it it supposed to help us all clear up our differences and interpretations -- if the infallible interpreter is unclear and it took 400 more years to clear up that uncertainty; what kind of certainty did that give those millions of people living then in all those years; and what kind of certainty does that give us today?
It is clear as mud and contradictory; the whole complicated nature of all of RCC theology and canon law and mounds and mounds of books and papers and encyclicals; when the average Catholic in the pew just needs to read and meditate in the Scriptures.
The Son willingly took the punishment for sin. The key is in how we communicate it.
...
Personally, I think it is better to say that God the Son Himself willingly took the punishment/penalty for sin
You don't seem to understand the problem. The Son did NOT "take the punishment" for sin, and that idea should never be communicated, because it is false. He paid the ransom for sin and made restitution for sin, but that isn't the same thing. Nobody was punished.
You seem to think that the problem is that there is some emotional resistance to the notion that the Father is punishing sin, so you are trying to emphasize that the Son put Himself in this position voluntarily, and the Father is not a tyrant. But it's not a question of the Father forcing punishment on the Son or whether the Son took it voluntarily; the problem in your statement is that there was never any punishment or penalty.
Sin forgiven through Christ simply wasn't ever punished and never will be, which is fine. Justice does not require sin to be punished; it only requires sin that is not cleansed to be punished. Christ washes away (expiates) sins so they don't need to be punished. The spiritual damage done by sin is actually removed, so no additional punishment is needed. Just as a judge can rightly show mercy and forego punishment for someone who has made restitution and reformed, so the divine Judge does not punish past sins for those who have been cleansed of those sins in Christ. The decree (the threat of judgment) is taken away and nailed to the Cross; no punishment is ever enforced; the sentence is commuted.
Human judges commute sentences and remove punishment all the time, and this is not unjust. You seem to be suggesting that perfect (divine) justice is perfect because it never fails to punish sin, but there is no reason to think that commuting sentences is unjust in any case. It is that bizarre idea that taints Schreiner, Piper, and Moo when they exegete Rom. 3:25, as if the mere failure to judge sins rendered God unjust.
So, Vatican 2 and the spirit of the documents and actions of everything since that time -- "light of Gentiles" (Luminem Gentintium) (forgive my mistakes in Latin -- I am not taking the time to go and get the exact spelling; I am guessing) -- (praying with Buddhists, kissing the Koran, saying Muslims worship and adore the same God as we do and that others without Christ are saved, etc.) seems like a real change from what Trent meant and what the Counsel of Florence meant about other religions also.
The key word is "seems." Lots of things "seem" contradictory when they aren't examined.
Infallibility is supposed to guard against confusion and lack of clarity and it it supposed to help us all clear up our differences and interpretations
Actually, it is intended to provide certainty so that when something "seems" unclear, we can be confident that it will be resolved satisfactorily without each person needing to work it out for himself in every instance. Of course, that doesn't mean that it can't be worked out in detail, but the point is that one doesn't need to do it every time. Apparent contradictions work themselves out under closer scrutiny, but you don't have to worry about that in the meantime. Since most Catholics have had the repeated experience of something confusing or unclear being amenable to solution, we are reasonable in having faith that any future confusion can be resolved in the same manner. And that sort of certainty is what infallibility provides.
Historically, to be excommunicated or separated always meant that if the person does not repent, they are in mortal sin, and so they are in danger of eternal hell fire.
No. It means they are in grave sin. Mortal sin must be grave, absent invincible ignorance, and freely chosen. The council can only judge the gravity of sin. The others are specific to an individual and can only be judged by God.
Infallibility is supposed to guard against confusion and lack of clarity and it it supposed to help us all clear up our differences and interpretations -- if the infallible interpreter is unclear and it took 400 more years to clear up that uncertainty; what kind of certainty did that give those millions of people living then in all those years; and what kind of certainty does that give us today?
It is called development of doctrine. We have clarity about some things. Other things can become more clear as time goes on. It is not that all the teaching on this was wrong. People had to make do with less light than we have today but so did people before the Arian controversy was settled. The point is that once the Holy Spirit has revealed something we can trust it. If He has not made a question clear then we have to go with fallible inferences. In the case, I believe we were just not ready to accept this truth any sooner.
We can say the main things are plain things. The difference is we know what the main things are and we know what the plain answers are. Protestants say the main things are plain things but there is no agreement what is important or even what criteria should be used to determine importance.
So you are complaining about the Catholic answer because sin can make things difficult. In the protestant world things are not difficult they are impossible. It is not like protestants don't produce mounds of documents about theological contoversies. The trouble is all you can do is figure out which one you like better. You cannot know which one God likes better. Not in 400 years or 4000 years. All that ever develops is more possible ways to interpret scripture. That leads to more choices that you don't know how to make.
Adomnan,
I hope you don't mind me joining in the conversation.
Adomnan: No justice is served when an innocent person is punished for the crimes of guilty people. And true love is forgiveness without demanding any payment or penalty.
First of all, where do you find that "true love is forgiveness without demanding any payment or penalty?" Is that Biblical or your own idea?
Ken makes many excellent points (in my opinion). Not only did Jesus willingly fulfill God's plan; but the Trinity is fully one yet distinctly 3...that's the great Mystery. With that in mind, God Himself accepted the punishment that He deemed necessary. So it's not wrong or unjust for God to set the penalty for sin and then pay the price Himself. Right?
Besides, forgiving and demanding payment are a contradiction in terms.
If your son breaks your living room window in the middle of winter in North Dakota, what happens? Probably the first thing your son will do is to sincerely apologize. Assuming he does, you can sincerely forgive. But that still leaves a broken window that must be paid for. Who's going to pay for it? You or him? If you truly forgive him, you'd pay for the window, because you know he can't. But if he could pay for it, you may truly forgive AND allow/require him to pay for it. Anyone with children should understand this.
You may say nothing is physically broken when an infraction occurs in a relationship, but that doesn't mean nothing has to be done to repair the relationship. If I lie about my brother and damage our relationship, part of his forgiveness may be based on me telling the truth...that's repentance. Repentance isn't just saying "sorry", it's trying to "pay" for the mistake or to make it right as best we can. Don't you agree?
And if that's true, wouldn't you agree that God would have to step in and make the payment (just as a father would for a broken window) if the child couldn't. None of us can pay for our own sins (they're too numerous), so God paid for it Himself. He forgave us AND paid the price to repair the relationship we broke. If we COULD have paid for our own sins, He might have required us to. Is that unjust? It seems very just and very forgiving to me. What do you think?
.
Jonathan,
Sin forgiven through Christ simply wasn't ever punished and never will be, which is fine.
Then why do you need purgatory? Your reply might be
Justice does not require sin to be punished; it only requires sin that is not cleansed to be punished.
But then you say,
Christ washes away (expiates) sins so they don't need to be punished. The spiritual damage done by sin is actually removed, so no additional punishment is needed.
So which sins does Christ wash away? And if he washes them away, why would we need to be cleansed in purgatory? Washing cleanses us, and His blood covers ALL our sins. Since that's true, there should be no need for purgatory to cleans what Christ has already washed away.
.
So which sins does Christ wash away?
Well, He washes some away in the Sacraments of Baptism and Confession and some in Purgatory. Eventually, He washes them all away for everyone who is in Heaven.
And if he washes them away, why would we need to be cleansed in purgatory? Washing cleanses us, and His blood covers ALL our sins. Since that's true, there should be no need for purgatory to cleans what Christ has already washed away.
There are some sins that haven't already been washed away, so they are washed away with the blood of Christ in Purgatory. Then there is the question of the damage wrought by sin that also has to be healed, and this is also healed either by penance or purgatorial cleansing. The blood of Christ needs to be applied to wash away any specific person's sins; the finished work on the Cross simply makes this available to the world through the Sacraments, etc. (John 19:34, and note that the shedding of blood took place *after* Christ died).
With that in mind, God Himself accepted the punishment that He deemed necessary. So it's not wrong or unjust for God to set the penalty for sin and then pay the price Himself. Right?
You're equivocating. God is just and true; He can't punish as guilty someone who is innocent. Of course He can pay the price, but that is not punishing someone.
If your son breaks your living room window in the middle of winter in North Dakota, what happens? Probably the first thing your son will do is to sincerely apologize. Assuming he does, you can sincerely forgive. But that still leaves a broken window that must be paid for. Who's going to pay for it? You or him? If you truly forgive him, you'd pay for the window, because you know he can't. But if he could pay for it, you may truly forgive AND allow/require him to pay for it. Anyone with children should understand this.
I completely agree. That's precisely why people do penance and suffer in Purgatory; it is not strictly necessary, but it is done for their own good. But the cold air coming in is not the punishment for breaking the windows. It's simply a result of the broken window not functioning because it is broken. Same deal with human nature.
Repentance isn't just saying "sorry", it's trying to "pay" for the mistake or to make it right as best we can. Don't you agree?
(1) That isn't punishment, and
(2) you presumably aren't attempting to buy forgiveness but to fix what was broken. It's not as if the person in question wants to forgive you but is bound by justice not to do it unless he is paid.
And if that's true, wouldn't you agree that God would have to step in and make the payment (just as a father would for a broken window) if the child couldn't. None of us can pay for our own sins (they're too numerous), so God paid for it Himself. He forgave us AND paid the price to repair the relationship we broke. If we COULD have paid for our own sins, He might have required us to. Is that unjust? It seems very just and very forgiving to me. What do you think?
What you're saying is that He paid to undo the damage that we had done and that we were incapable of repairing, which is exactly right. What's squirrely about it is that simultaneously have the payment as being demanded by God, which doesn't make any sense. That's not perfect justice and perfect mercy in harmony; it's just a split personality.
Jonathan,
Well, He washes some away in the Sacraments of Baptism and Confession and some in Purgatory. Eventually, He washes them all away for everyone who is in Heaven.
What you say seems to be inconsistent with scripture. I Pet 3:18 says, "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit," and I John 1:9, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." The implication here is that we're cleansed and forgiven immediately, not in purgatory.
There are some sins that haven't already been washed away, so they are washed away with the blood of Christ in Purgatory.
If one is a genuine follower of Jesus, the only sins that could possibly be left unwashed are those that occur between one's last repentance/confession and the time he dies. If I ask God regularly to forgive me of ALL my sins and increasingly show them to me that I might avoid them in the future, wouldn't I have very few unconfessed and unrepented sins when I die? According to I John 1:9, our sins would then be forgiven.
There are some sins that haven't already been washed away, so they are washed away with the blood of Christ in Purgatory.
But that occurs on earth when we confess. There's no need for purgatory.
Of course He can pay the price, but that is not punishing someone.
Can't part of my child's punishment be that he has to pay the price for the broken window? In that respect, payment is part of punishment.
I completely agree. That's precisely why people do penance and suffer in Purgatory; it is not strictly necessary, but it is done for their own good.
If it's not punishment, what's the purpose of purgatory? I punish my children to help deter them from repeating their "sin". But once we die there's no need to punish us. If sins can be forgiven simply by confessing and repenting on earth (without any pain necessarily involved), why must there be pain and suffering after we die to pay for our unrepented sins?
(2) you presumably aren't attempting to buy forgiveness but to fix what was broken. It's not as if the person in question wants to forgive you but is bound by justice not to do it unless he is paid.
Now it sounds as if you're arguing for the Reformed side. If God's forgiveness isn't bound by one's ability to repent or fix what's been broken, then we can be forgiven for all our sins without purgatory. And since purgatory isn't mentioned once in scripture, it's an unnecessary and possibly false doctrine.
That's not perfect justice and perfect mercy in harmony; it's just a split personality.
No. It's God showing that a price and punishment must be paid and satisfied, and man can do neither adequately on his own. God alone can do both.
.
The implication here is that we're cleansed and forgiven immediately, not in purgatory.
I see no implication of immediacy, but regardless, it affirms the point that we are not forgiven until we confess our sins. Likewise, there is a difference between forgiveness and repairing the harm caused by sins, which is accomplished by penance. Purgatory is not punishment, after all. It's therapy.
If one is a genuine follower of Jesus, the only sins that could possibly be left unwashed are those that occur between one's last repentance/confession and the time he dies. If I ask God regularly to forgive me of ALL my sins and increasingly show them to me that I might avoid them in the future, wouldn't I have very few unconfessed and unrepented sins when I die? According to I John 1:9, our sins would then be forgiven.
Indeed. Venial sins, even unconfessed ones, are forgiven in Purgatory after death, and if one is faithful in the practice of confession, one would presumably not have many of them.
But that occurs on earth when we confess. There's no need for purgatory.
As to forgiveness of sins, that is true except for the case you just mentioned: sins between one's last confession and one's death.
Can't part of my child's punishment be that he has to pay the price for the broken window? In that respect, payment is part of punishment.
Yes, but how is it punishing him if someone else pays it for him? As I said, the Son of God didn't break any windows; He is not being punished. Nor is the cold air coming through the broken window a punishment of your son. It's simply a result of his actions.
If it's not punishment, what's the purpose of purgatory?
Same reason one undergoes physical therapy. It's painful, but only experiencing the pain that one's sins caused can train the will to be perfectly opposed to sin.
I punish my children to help deter them from repeating their "sin". But once we die there's no need to punish us. If sins can be forgiven simply by confessing and repenting on earth (without any pain necessarily involved), why must there be pain and suffering after we die to pay for our unrepented sins?
Again, you're confusing forgiveness with recovery. It's one thing not to be punished for one's sins, but it's another thing getting past the effects of one's sins. Even if a drunk driver is forgiven for causing a wreck, he still has to recover from his injuries. Being forgiven isn't the whole story, and neither is punishment.
Now it sounds as if you're arguing for the Reformed side.
? I thought I had said just the opposite.
If God's forgiveness isn't bound by one's ability to repent or fix what's been broken, then we can be forgiven for all our sins without purgatory.
Yes, but that's not the end of the story. Being forgiven of sin is one thing; being healed of the damage is another.
And since purgatory isn't menti
And since purgatory isn't mentioned once in scripture, it's an unnecessary and possibly false doctrine.
Neither is the notion that sin must be punished Scriptural. Are you prepared to make the same assertion about that doctrine being unnecessary and possibly false? Unconfessed sins are a real situation, so it is necessary to address them and the rationale for their forgiveness. That is all Purgatory does.
No. It's God showing that a price and punishment must be paid and satisfied, and man can do neither adequately on his own. God alone can do both.
Then God has a funny way of showing it, because He never says that "a price and punishment must be paid." I concur with St. Anselm that man cannot satisfy the divine justice, since he has nothing to give, but he never said anything about punishment.
Grubb: I hope you don't mind me joining in the conversation.
Adomnan: Not at all. Maybe your participation and fresh perspective will help to clarify the issue. However, I can't promise that I'll stay involved. I have a visitor this week and am rather preoccupied.
Grubb citing Adomnan: No justice is served when an innocent person is punished for the crimes of guilty people. And true love is forgiveness without demanding any payment or penalty.
Grubb: First of all, where do you find that "true love is forgiveness without demanding any payment or penalty?" Is that Biblical or your own idea?
Adomnan: I picked up on the theme of love because Rev. Temple wrote that penal substitution showed "pure love for sinners."
My point is really about forgiveness. You ask where I get the idea that forgiveness does not demand payment and whether this is biblical. First of all, I am pointing to the meaning of forgiveness, which is "aphesis" in Greek, a word that can also be translated as "remission" and that is used with debts as well as sins. The idea is this: When one uses the word "forgiveness" or "remission" in reference to a sin, as in reference to a debt, the word itself implies that the sin or debt is not paid for. I am simply referring to the meaning of the word. To say that X forgives a sin, just as to say X forgives a debt, necessarily implies that no payment is made to X. If I owe you ten dollars, and Jim pays you for me, you cannot say that you forgave my debt. Do you understand that?
In the same sense, we cannot say that God the Father forgave our sins (treating sins as a sort of debt) if Jesus paid Him for them."Paid forgiveness" would simply be a contradiction in terms, like a "true lie" or "cold heat."
This is a matter of the simplest logic and the use of language. But the point is underscored biblically when Christ tells us to forgive others seventy times seven and to pray to the Father, asking Him to "forgive us our debts as we forgvie our debtors." Clearly, Christ is not commanding us to demand payment for debts (or sins) in order to forgive them, which would be a contradiction in terms anyway.
This is all so crystal clear, as I see it, that I can't understand how anyone can maintain so stark a contradiction as that forgiveness of sins is paid for; that is, that the forgiver (the Father) is paid to forgive.
Grubb,
Now that I've clarified my position in my last post, let's look at the rest of your comment, which appears to be an attempt to show how a sin or debt or misbehavior can be forgiven and yet paid for.
Grubb: If your son breaks your living room window in the middle of winter in North Dakota, what happens? Probably the first thing your son will do is to sincerely apologize. Assuming he does, you can sincerely forgive.
Adomnan: Okay, and of course this forgiveness is not paid for.
Grubb: But that still leaves a broken window that must be paid for. Who's going to pay for it? You or him?
Adomnan: He would if he had the funds; you would if he didn't. But in neither case would there be an issue of forgiveness. The forgiveness, as you pointed out, would have already occurred. This would be a matter of reparation, which is something different.
Grubb: If you truly forgive him, you'd pay for the window, because you know he can't. But if he could pay for it, you may truly forgive AND allow/require him to pay for it. Anyone with children should understand this.
Adomnan: Certainly. But you're trying to make an analogy here between a broken window and something that is "broken" in creation as a result of sin. Well, certainly, God or Christ would seek to repair the damage or disorder in creation as a result of sin, but that has nothing to do with paying for forgiveness. Neither, by your own admission, is payment even required for forgiveness in the case of the broken window.
I've got to run now. I may comment some more on your post tomorrow or later in the week.
And I might add that I agree with Jonathan's remarks about this.
And BTW, note the Biblical definition of perfect love:
"Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, and patience, forbearing one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful."
Col. 3:12-15
Jonathan,
Thanks for the clarification.
Take care!
Jonathan,
Neither is the notion that sin must be punished Scriptural. Are you prepared to make the same assertion about that doctrine being unnecessary and possibly false?
Lev 26:18, "'If after all this you will not listen to me, I will punish you for your sins seven times over.'"
Lev 26:28, "then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over."
Isa 13:11, "I will punish the world for its evil, the wicked for their sins. I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty and will humble the pride of the ruthless."
Isa 26:21, "See, the LORD is coming out of his dwelling to punish the people of the earth for their sins."
Amos 3:14, "On the day I punish Israel for her sins, I will destroy the altars of Bethel; the horns of the altar will be cut off and fall to the ground."
I Thes 4:6, "and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you."
Do you still think I need to abandon the idea that sin will be punished? Do you still think it's unscriptural? I don't. Now, where are all the passages about purgatory?
I concur with St. Anselm that man cannot satisfy the divine justice, since he has nothing to give, but he never said anything about punishment.
Doesn't justice usually involve punishment? If I steal and am caught, I have to pay it back AND go to jail (maybe not in today's justice system) If I get caught speeding, I must pay a fine. And why is there punishment? Deuteronomy gives us a clue, "If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime, the two men involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the LORD before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you. The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." (Deut 19:16-21)
Punishment isn't only a deterrent to help prevent the offender from repeating his offense, it's also used to help others avoid that offense.
Yes, but how is it punishing him if someone else pays it for him? As I said, the Son of God didn't break any windows; He is not being punished.
If we believe he bore our sins and was punished for them, then the more I sin now, the more it hurt Him then. Isn't that an added deterrent to sinning? If I truly love Jesus, wouldn't I want to minimize His suffering on my behalf? If you knew one of your family members was going to be beaten badly every time you got caught speeding, how much would you speed?
.
Adomnan,
Maybe your participation and fresh perspective will help to clarify the issue
Now the pressure is on.
However, I can't promise that I'll stay involved.
I understand completely.
The idea is this: When one uses the word "forgiveness" or "remission" in reference to a sin, as in reference to a debt, the word itself implies that the sin or debt is not paid for. I am simply referring to the meaning of the word.
I understand that, but someone still has to absorb the loss of debt. If I owe you $10 but can't pay it, you may forgive the debt. That would absolve me, but you still have to absorb the $10 loss. So essentially YOU paid the debt for me.
No justice is served when an innocent person is punished for the crimes of guilty people.
If you read my comment to Jonathan, justice isn't only about righting a wrong and preventing that person from repeating his offense. According to Deut 19, it's also a deterrent to help prevent others from committing that offense. So Jesus, who bore our sins also bore our punishment. Knowing my sin caused Him to suffer should help deter me from sinning. Don't you agree?
."Paid forgiveness" would simply be a contradiction in terms, like a "true lie" or "cold heat." ... This is all so crystal clear, as I see it, that I can't understand how anyone can maintain so stark a contradiction as that forgiveness of sins is paid for; that is, that the forgiver (the Father) is paid to forgive.
I see your point. If we could simplify it to "paid forgiveness", then I'd agree with you that it doesn't make any sense. But as with the monetary debt analogy, SOMEONE has to absorb the loss. In this instance, God Himself has bore our sins and accepted the punishment that justice requires. That is true mercy.
.
Do you still think I need to abandon the idea that sin will be punished? Do you still think it's unscriptural? I don't.
At the last judgment, there are certainly sinners who will be punished. But where does it say that ALL sin will be punished? Where does it say that Jesus will be punished instead of those whose sins are forgiven, and what sense would that make? So yes, I still think that it is not Scriptural, because Scripture is equally clear that if people repent and turn away from sin, they will not be punished. And it never says that Jesus was punished so that other people didn't have to be.
Doesn't justice usually involve punishment? If I steal and am caught, I have to pay it back AND go to jail (maybe not in today's justice system)
Maybe not in ANY justice system. It has always been a prerogative of the judge to commute a sentence for those who don't need it. Are you suggesting that God is less free than a human judge? He certainly can choose to forbear or to impose probation on someone rather than judging them immediately.
Punishment isn't only a deterrent to help prevent the offender from repeating his offense, it's also used to help others avoid that offense.
Certainly, and the threat of damnation is no doubt a deterrent. But this has nothing to do with whether God can damn some and save others from punishment.
If we believe he bore our sins and was punished for them, then the more I sin now, the more it hurt Him then. Isn't that an added deterrent to sinning? If I truly love Jesus, wouldn't I want to minimize His suffering on my behalf? If you knew one of your family members was going to be beaten badly every time you got caught speeding, how much would you speed?
If I knew one of my family members were going to be beaten badly, then I would consider the person doing the beating a torturer, a tyrant and a despot. Only the most cruel monster would inflict pain on an innocent to coerce compliance from another, so the very fact that I would NEED to behave in that way would be grossly evil. If there were a god who did such a thing, then having faith in such a god would be just as reprehensible as having faith in pagan gods.
What is an added deterrent to sinning is the harm that MY sin does to others, and because Jesus assumed the entirety of human nature, anything harm our sin does to any human being is harm done to Jesus. Matt 25:44-45 "Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.'"
You don't need any idiotic imputation of sins that makes the Father into a monster in order to make it the case that our sin harms Jesus. You simply have to know the Incarnation and believe it, to know what it means for Jesus to have assumed the entirety of hum
(cont.)
human nature.
Ken, Grubb etc...,
I wish to join this fine discussion from a different angle. With the honest disagreements that we see here over these essential issues as they relate to the Gospel; what method is there in Protestantism to resolve disputes such as this? How did the Church we see operating in Scripture resolve disputes over essential christian doctrine?
Good question Pat --
Do you mean between Protestants and RCs or within Protestant denominations?
There is no way to solve the issue with RCC because they claim to be infallible; therefore, there is nothing we can ever say that would ever have any affect on the larger official doctrines, dogmas, and stances. (unless God changes hearts and minds) When the RCC apologists have submitted to that ultimate authority, there is really nothing Protestants can do about that that can change their minds without them having to give up the whole thing.
There are ecclesiastical courts/trials that some Protestants still do follow (conservative Presbyterians, to name some, that seem to have those kinds of trials) to investigate and solve problems within its own denomination; but when the organization itself has gone heretical (the Anglican church has brought ecclesiastical judgment against J. I. Packer, but it is he who is right, and they are wrong.
-- but to be honest, it seems that historically, this problem, when taken to its ultimate bottom line, goes to the heart of the church/state separation issues and results of the Reformation and state churches in Europe; and goes all the way back to the era of the Inquisition and the power of the state being used by the church; Protestant witch trials came from the same ideas.
The USA and European tradition separated the sins of "religion" (idolatry, blasphemy, heresy, etc.) and retained only crimes that relate to the 6th, 8th, and 9th commands. (Murder, stealing, bearing false witness in court) When did adultery stop being a crime? In Islam, they have no separation between the words "sin", "guilt" and "crime".
I don't have all the answers on this problem. It encompasses things "too high for me". Psalm 131
Only the most cruel monster would inflict pain on an innocent to coerce compliance from another, so the very fact that I would NEED to behave in that way would be grossly evil.
But there is no coersion, and you are using emotional words to bolster your case. (monster, cruel, tyrant, etc.)
"not My will, but Thine be done" Luke 22:42-44
"no one takes My life from Me; I lay it down on My own authority" John 10:18
no coercion, pure love; pure justice.
"God demonstrates His own love for us; in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for the ungodly." Romans 5:8
"You have loved Me before the foundation of the world" John 17:24
". . . the love which You did love Me. . . " John 17:26
". . . one, even as we are one. . ." John 17:22-23
The Trinity is unified and happy and eternally in fellowship with one another.
God Himself willingly paid the price.
And the God also "caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him." Isaiah 53:6
"the Lord was pleased to crush Him, if He would render Himself a guilt offering" Isaiah 53:10
No one has even acknowledged at all what these things mean.
I Cor. 6:19-20
"you were bought with a price" -- Who was the price paid to? Certainly not Satan. Do you believe in the ransom to Satan theory?
And, as I said, we are repeating things again here.
Ken: no coercion, pure love; pure justice.
Adomnan: There is no justice in condemning an innocent man. Proverbs 17:15 calls this "an abomination." God cannot "satisfy" His justice by doing something that, according to the Bible, is the very definition of injustice.
It does not matter whether the condemned innocent is coerced or willing. No justice can be achieved by punishing or condemning the righteous
Ken: "God demonstrates His own love for us; in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for the ungodly." Romans 5:8
Adomnan: Christ died for the ungodly, but the Father did not punish Him.
Ken: God Himself willingly paid the price.
Adomnan: But he didn't pay it to Himself.
Ken: And the God also "caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him." Isaiah 53:6
Adomnan: Yes, in the sense that He suffered and died to remove iniquity, but He was not punished or condemned by God.
Ken: the Lord was pleased to crush Him, if He would render Himself a guilt offering" Isaiah 53:10
Adomnan: The Lord was pleased to crush Job, too; but this was not a punishment of Job. God can cause or allow people to suffer without in any way punishing or condemning them. This verse cannot be used as evidence that the Father punished or condemned Jesus Christ because it doesn't say this. Did God crush Job? Yes. Did God punish Job as if he guilty? No. Did God crush Christ? Yes. Did God punish Christ as if he were guilty? NO!
Ken: No one has even acknowledged at all what these things mean.
Adomnan: That's not true, Ken. Jonathan, Nick and I have given the correct meaning of all these verses. Don't misrepresent us. If you want to prove that the Father punished or condemned Jesus, you must show us a Bible passage saying that He punished or condemned Jesus. Your misinterpretation of verses that say nothing of the sort won't do.
And, if penal substitution is how the atonement worked, why does the Letter to the Hebrews never mention it?
Ken: I Cor. 6:19-20
"you were bought with a price" -- Who was the price paid to? Certainly not Satan. Do you believe in the ransom to Satan theory?
Adomnan: Obviously the price wasn't paid to the Father. The price is called a "ransom" and ransoms are only paid to captors. God did not hold sinners captive.
I do believe in the ransom to Satan theory. It was Satan who held sinners captive and so the ransom was paid to him. The ransom was the suffering and death of Jesus Christ. The earliest Fathers taught the ransom to Satan theory, a fact which gives it great credibiltiy. Besides, it makes sense.
However, I wouldn't insist on it. The Bible may just be making the point that Jesus Christ "paid a price" without being specific about who received the price. Perhaps insisting that it was Satan is to stretch what is just a metaphor.
Grubb: I understand that, but someone still has to absorb the loss of debt. If I owe you $10 but can't pay it, you may forgive the debt. That would absolve me, but you still have to absorb the $10 loss. So essentially YOU paid the debt for me.
Adomnan: You're taking the analogy with indebtedness too far, something the Bible never does. But let's go with this. You maintain, I am sure, that the debt is owed to God, and you say that God paid the debt to Himself. But no one can pay himself off. That is the same as the debt not being paid at all.
Well, you might say, someone has to fix the window. In this analogy, the window would presumably be the disorder or injustice that sin brings into the world. But the only way to fix that is through reinstituting order and justice. Exacting a punishment from an innocent man cannot do that, because this would be just another injustice, as the Bible says in a number of places, for example, in Proverbs 17:15.
Grubb: If you read my comment to Jonathan, justice isn't only about righting a wrong and preventing that person from repeating his offense. According to Deut 19, it's also a deterrent to help prevent others from committing that offense. So Jesus, who bore our sins also bore our punishment. Knowing my sin caused Him to suffer should help deter me from sinning. Don't you agree?
Adomnan: No. This is a new sort of rationale for penal substitution; i.e., that it occurs not (or not only) to satisfy the Father's justice or wrath, but to deter sinners from sin. Well, as Jonathan points out, it certainly would be a monstrous evil for a tyrant to punish an innocent person to deter others from wrongdoing.
Besides, your citation from Deuteronomy establishes that punishing the guilty deters sin, not that punishing the innocent deters sin.
Grubb: I see your point. If we could simplify it to "paid forgiveness", then I'd agree with you that it doesn't make any sense. But as with the monetary debt analogy, SOMEONE has to absorb the loss. In this instance, God Himself has bore our sins and accepted the punishment that justice requires. That is true mercy.
Adomnan: If you conceive of the "loss" as being a reduction of order or justice in God's universe, then this is repaired by restoring order and justice.
However, if you think that the Father is losing something because He needs or wants to punish someone, then I disagree. There is no such loss. And even if they were, the Father could not make it up by punishing Jesus, who was innocent. That would only compound the injustice.
More generally, I don't agree that justice "requires" punishment. And, in any event, justice is not served by punishing the innocent.
I had considered writing a lengthy response, but frankly, Adomnan has said everything that I would have said in practically the same way I would have said it. I take exception only to one point.
But there is no coersion, and you are using emotional words to bolster your case. (monster, cruel, tyrant, etc.)
With all due respect, the substance of your charge isn't supported by the facts. Grubb was suggesting that Jesus being punished for our sins was the reason that we should feel remorse for them. That would be necessity be a coercive appeal, an attempt to move someone to behavior by compassion for unjustly inflicted pain. Even if the innocent person were sick and masochistic enough to want to suffer such pain for this sake, it would still be a coercive appeal to basic human compassion for the suffering of the innocent. That is (obviously) not why Christ died for us. On the contrary, Christ died for us for a perfectly good metaphysical reason: to assume the effects of sin on human nature and to defeat them by His divinity, thus defeating death and establishing the path to union with God for all humanity. He could have saved us through some lesser union or miraculous action, of course, but this demonstrated the greatest love of all by allowing us to share in the love of God with Him.
I havnt been keeping up with this thread, but the Catholics still going need to realize something very important:
If Penal Substitution is wrong then Faith Alone, Christ Alone, and Grace Alone collapse.
That is the reason why Protestants around here are so hesitant, for one they have read punishment into the NT for so long they dont realize anything else, and second of all they know that the Reformation is at stake if Penal Substitution is wrong.
For Catholics the reasoning is plain as day, God the Father loved God the Son and this love was so profound that it is actually the Third Person, the Holy Spirit. The idea that the Father could punish His Beloved Son is blasphemous and heretical because it introduces disunity in the Trinity.
The Father could never be angry at the Son, this isnt about the Son freely accepting the punishment, the problem is the Father's Wrath unleashed on the Son, the Father PUNISHING the Son.
.
Ransom: Money or goods paid to a criminal to re-gain what is rightly yours. Christ's "ransom" cannot be a payment to God.
Commenting by HaloScan
