Monday, April 7, 2014

Can Protestants drink from Christ's Cup and Carry their Cross in obedience to Jesus? I don't think so.

Today on John Piper's Desiring God Blog a guest writer named Steven Lee wrote a post titled "The Cup Consumed for Us." The post is a brief reflection on Matthew 20:20-28 where the apostles James and John are asked by Jesus "Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?" Lee interprets this verse in the way many Calvinists do, claiming that this cup Jesus is going to drink is "the cup of God's wrath." But is this true? And wouldn't such a claim make nonsense of Our Lord's words? That's what I'll address in this post. 

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Does the Catholic view of Christ's Atonement permit the Reformed view of "Penal Substitution"?

Some Reformed Protestants have commented to me that the Catholic Church doesn't have an official view of the Atonement and that the Catholic Church even permits the Reformed view of "Penal Substitution". The problem with these kinds of claims is that they don't understand what the Catholic Church means when the Church uses terms like "atonement" and "sacrifice" (and similar terms), so these Protestants end up reading foreign ideas into Catholic teaching. The fact of the matter is, the Catholic Church doesn't have to condemn every single error that comes up in history, especially if those errors are already condemned in other forms. So while you won't find any Church teaching that says "Penal Substitution is heresy," you will find the Church teaching things directly contrary to what Penal Substitution espouses. Typically, the Church lays out parameters for orthodoxy, and while one is free to work within those parameters, one is not free to transgress those parameters. For this post I'll be giving some examples of Catholic teaching that go against the concept of Penal Substitution, showing that a Catholic cannot embrace that view of the Cross and be within the parameters of orthodoxy and Catholic thought.

Friday, March 28, 2014

Protestant apologetics site GotQuestions? says Jesus "spiritually died" on the Cross.

Sorry to annoy you dear readers, but I'm going to have to post a third post this week, after finding yet another big name Protestant apologist making it clear that God the Father damned His Son Jesus in place of damning us. This time it's the website GotQuestions?, a popular online source where Protestants can get their theological questions answered from a conservative Protestant viewpoint. I'll try to make this brief since I mostly just want it to be a "for the record" type post.

The following quotes about what kind of suffering Jesus endured come from various Question & Answer posts on the GotQuestions? website, so I'll quote and provide the link to each (quotes are trimmed down for brevity).
  • A physical death is the separation of the soul from the body. Spiritual death, which is of greater significance, is the separation of the soul from God. When Adam and Eve heard the voice of the Lord, they “hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God.” The fellowship had been broken. They were spiritually dead. When Jesus was hanging on the cross, He paid the price for us by dying on our behalf. Even though He is God, He still had to suffer the agony of a temporary separation from the Father due to the sin of the world He was carrying on the cross. After three hours of supernatural darkness, He cried, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” (Mark 15:33-34). This spiritual separation from the Father was the result of the Son’s taking our sins upon Himself. That’s the impact of sin. Sin is the exact opposite of God, and God had to turn away from His own Son at that point in time. (Question: "What is spiritual death?")

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Reformed apologist Joe Mizzi says Jesus was "forgotten" by the Father while on the Cross.

Just last week I wrote about how Calvinist John Piper explicitly said Jesus was "damned in our place," and today another Calvinist apologist named Joe Mizzi wrote on his blog a similar article. The article is titled “Why have you forsaken me?” (3-26-14), which briefly deals with Jesus’ words on the Cross and what these words mean. Included in the reflection was the following claims by Joe Mizzi:
But the next time he opened his mouth, Jesus uttered these mysterious words, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Many centuries before, the Psalmist had declared: “I have been young, and now am old, yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken” (Psalms 37:25). But on the cross the Righteous One was forgotten by God – He who never committed the least sin, who unfailingly obeyed the whole will of God, and in whom the Father was well-pleased. In that dark hour the Father left the Son on his own.

Saturday, March 22, 2014

John Piper says Jesus was "damned in our place" - Do Calvinists realize what they're saying?

A few days ago I was skimming over John Piper's blog (he's a popular Calvinist author, pastor, and writer) and I noticed his post for March 18, 2014 contained an outrageous comment regarding Our Lord's Passion and Death. I didn't read the whole post since it was an odd mixture of thoughts, but his conclusion caught my eye just because it was so outrageous: 
When Jesus cried, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” it was the scream of the damned — damned in our place (Isaiah 53:5–6; Romans 8:3; Galatians 3:14). If we will repent and trust him, no Esau, no lesbian, no president, no pastor, no person will be condemned. Our sight and our reason will return to us.
This isn't the first time Piper has said such things about Jesus being "damned in our place," as I've recorded such comments of his in prior articles, but I wanted to post on this just for the record that he's still saying this stuff even today. And Calvinists really don't mind, because they agree that what he's saying is what the Protestant understanding of the Cross is all about: Jesus enduring the hellfire damnation that we deserved to endure, substituting himself to be punished in our place, also known as Penal Substitution.  

Sunday, March 16, 2014

Isaiah 53 - Does it really say God "crushed" Jesus? (More Problems with Penal Substitution)

Whenever I challenge a Protestant to show where the Bible teaches that God the Father poured out His wrath upon Jesus, one of their go-to verses is Isaiah 53:10 where it says: It was the will of the Lord to crush him. At first appearance, this does come off as suggesting the Father actively inflicted punishment upon Jesus, but it turns out that there are two versions of this text, one of which uses a very different word than "crush".

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

A Reformed exegetical whopper on The Parable of the Good Samaratan (plus a bonus Papacy Proof)

From the What in the world was he thinking? File comes a link that Bryan Cross shared a little over a month ago on his blog, but I didn't have a chance to re-share it until now. The link is to a January 2014 blog post by Tullian Tchividjian, who teaches at Reformed Seminary (and is Billy Graham's grandson). In his post, Tullian "interprets" the parable of the Good Samaritan - that famous parable from Luke 10:29-37 where Jesus teaches us what it means to 'love our neighbor'. This is pretty straightforward stuff, and yet, astonishingly, Tullian ends up turning the simple lesson of Jesus on it's head. 

Here are some key excerpts (see the main article for the full story) from Tullian's article: 
This parable is perhaps the best known story Jesus ever told after the parable of The Prodigal Son. It is, however, also the most misunderstood.

Friday, March 7, 2014

Another Papacy proof from the Early Church - (Pope Hormisdas, AD519)

Here's a relatively brief apologetics argument for the Papacy that I was introduced to which I think is worth sharing. I'll start with a historical background (with lots of assistance from Wikipedia), then present the argument, and then I'll end by examining some potential objections.

Monday, February 3, 2014

Natural Law...OR...New Covenant in Rom. 2:14-15 - What "Law" is written on the heart?

This is somewhat of a Part 2 to my previous post, "Imputed Righteousness in the New Covenant?"

For this post I want to share a fascinating find regarding a fascinating text of Scripture that is often glossed over when reading Romans 2. Embedded within the context of Paul's claim that "the doers of the law will be justified" (2:13) is a curious statement that the Gentiles "who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires" (2:14) and so reveal that "the law is written on their hearts" (2:15). This text can play a key role in Protestant-Catholic discussions because the way it uses the term "law," which is a crucial term to understand when reading Paul. It is my contention, as well as that of a growing number of Protestant scholars, that the term "law" (Greek: nomos) specifically refers to the Mosaic Law, and not to some more generic eternal law of God. Recognizing the serious negative implications of this for Sola Fide, some Protestants are fond of turning to Romans 2:14-15, thinking that this text provides an escape. In this post I will show that this text doesn't help this Protestant objection at all, and in fact opens an avenue to prove the Catholic position. 

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Imputed Righteousness in the New Covenant?

 [Update: Don't miss Part 2 of this series!]

This will be something of a Part 1 of a two-part post. In this post I want to point out something fascinating that I noticed regarding the Protestant heresy known as Imputation, specifically the notion that Christ kept the law perfectly in our place and transferred this perfect obedience to us so we could be members of the New Covenant. This is more formally known as "Imputation of Christ's Active Obedience," but the truth is, the New Testament writers never speak of this, and in fact it contradicts many New Testament passages. One passage I want to point out is a crucial passage for Christians, since it comes from the Old Testament and is one of the clearest prophecies that there would be a New Covenant. 

In Jeremiah 31 we read:
31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
This Prophecy is huge for a couple of reasons. As noted earlier, this Prophecy is one of the clearest and most important prophecies telling us there would be a New Covenant. And this New Covenant will be characterized by two main details: (1) forgiveness of sins, and (2) having the law written upon their hearts so that they may know how to love God and neighbor. 

Wednesday, January 8, 2014

What did Paul mean by "ungodly" in Romans 4:5?

Some Protestants have told me the term "ungodly" in Romans 4:5 refers to moral failing in a general sense, and from here they argue that Paul's point is that Abraham was a rotten sinner when he was declared righteous in God's sight. I don't deny that 'generic ungodliness' is a possible meaning for this term, so the Protestant side isn't helped nor is the Catholic side harmed if this is granted. But I think an even stronger case can be made that "ungodly" in Romans 4:5 refers to being outside the Mosaic Covenant, a much narrower meaning. Here is the article where I show the context itself leads the fair and honest exegete to see "ungodly" best refers to the specific parameter of being outside the Mosaic Covenant. In this article, I want to look at the word itself, especially the way it's used elsewhere in the Bible.

The Greek adjective in Romans 4:5 is asebes and is found in 8 verses: Rom 4:5; 5:6; 1 Tim 1:9; 1 Pet 4:18; 2 Pet 2:5; 2 Pet 3:7; Jud 1:4; Jud 1:15. The noun appears in 6 verses: Rom 1:18; 11:26; 2 Tim 2:16; Titus 2:12; Jude 1:15; 1:18. I don't deny nor have I ever denied that the predominant usage here refers to something along the lines of 'generic ungodliness'. With that said, it is interesting to note that in various verses the term "ungodly" is mentioned along with other terms pertaining to sinful living, suggesting there is a distinction between "ungodly" and moral failing in a generic sense. For example, even though 1 Timothy 1:9 uses the term "ungodly" it also mentions "lawless," "disobedient," and even "sinner," in the same breath. This suggests some distinction. And 1 Peter 4:18 also mentions "ungodly" and "sinner" in the same breath, which again would suggest some distinction. Jude 1:15b speaks of "ungodly sinners," connecting two terms, most likely referring to generic ungodliness, but still suggesting a distinction. Romans 1:18 distinguishes between "ungodliness" and "unrighteousness," which is quite interesting given how these terms relate to justification in the later chapters. So whatever this distinction is, it is clear that asebes does not automatically entail a 'generic ungodliness'.

The Old Testament is harder to deal with because even though the term "ungodly" appears numerous times, almost always referring to sinful living, in the Mosaic dispensation this could especially refer to not living according to the Mosaic standards of law and worship. So while "ungodly" in Genesis 18:23 is long before Moses and circumcision (and thus likely 'generic ungodliness'), a text like Psalm 1:1-2, 4-6 is certainly about David having in mind the Mosaic Law as God's ideal standard. And related to this is Romans 11:26, which speaks of banishing "ungodliness" from Jacob, which is most likely referring to violating the Mosaic Law, especially given the context of Romans 11 is about the Jews versus Gentiles.

There is one more piece of evidence to consult, and that is the fact asebes is the negated form of the Greek word sebo, which basically means "religious" or "devout." This is worth exploring because in understanding the positive meaning of sebo can help give a better understanding of what the 'negated' meaning (asebes) refers to. This word is found in 10 verses in the New Testament, and in nearly every case it refers to the the specific worship of God according to Mosaic standards: Acts 13:43, 13:50, 16:14, 17:4, 17:17, 18:7, 18:13. Two men stand out as being "devout" in reference to the Mosaic standards, in fact being called 'very devout' (the Greek word eusebius, from which the Church Father Eusebius is named), namely Corneilus in Acts 10:2 and Ananias in Acts 22:12. This certainly does not refer to generic devotion to God, but rather it is very concerned with the fact the Jews did make a positive impact on their Gentile neighbors, bringing them knowledge of the true God and the Torah. So to 'negate' this notion would result in the notion of someone 'not devout according to Mosaic standards', and thus in a genuine way supporting the 'outside the Mosaic Law' thesis. 

From this brief look at the term itself, I would say the situation is by no means a simple open-and-shut in favor of what certain Protestants jump to conclude. The best case I could see them make is how Romans 5:6-8 seems to parallel "ungodly" to "sinner" (in an apparently generic sense),  and then say this is in proximity to Romans 4. Regardless, as I said earlier, it ultimately proves nothing against the Catholic position, for the more important Protestant claim that God declares someone righteous whom He knows is unrighteous is flatly unbiblical.

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

How Mary Refutes Protestantism

[Updated 12-30-13: I'm in discussion in the comment box with someone who is suggesting the Lutheran view might have a solution to this. If so, then my original argument obviously no longer should be used. For now I'll just leave this whole thread up.]

I feel bad for not getting a new post up for over a month now because I've been so busy, but in some ways that's a healthy thing. I've always believed that posting too frequently is not a good idea because it drives down the quality of posts, promotes a consumerist mentality, and tends to overwhelm readers. For this post, I want to share a brief argument that overturns the entire Protestant paradigm. 

We know that Mary was the mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but this is a more significant claim than we typically realize and give credit for. Mary gave Jesus His humanity. Without Him receiving humanity from Her, no Incarnation would have taken place. So how does this refute Protestantism? Here's the fun part.

Protestants believe that human nature was "radically corrupted" and made "totally depraved" by Adam's sin. As a result, every person from Adam onward, including Mary, was born with a corrupt/depraved 'sin nature'. The only exception is Jesus, who did not have a 'sin nature' but rather a perfectly upright human nature. But how can this be if Jesus received His humanity from Mary, who Herself was born with a 'sin nature'? As the saying goes, you cannot give what you don’t have. So how can She give Him an upright human nature if She didn't have this already? Really, what we have here is two human natures, a corrupt human nature and an upright human nature. So the Protestant has to decide between two devastating options: Either Jesus took on Mary's 'sin nature' in order to become Incarnate, or Jesus did not take Mary's 'sin nature' and thus Jesus couldn't have truly shared in our humanity, meaning the Incarnation never happened. 

So which of the two difficult choices would you go with: Did Jesus have a 'sin nature' or did the Incarnation never happen? Thanks be to God, Catholics don't have to pick either! Rather, Catholics have always taught that there was nothing wrong with Mary's humanity and thus there's no dilemma. This is why the early Ecumenical Councils had no problem saying: "Consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood." During the Creed when we say Jesus is "consubstantial with the Father," the same Councils said consubstantiality applies also in regards to Mary's humanity! 

To better understand all this, you must recognize that Adam didn't cease to be human the moment he sinned. Rather, he ceased to be in communion with God, forfeiting the Divine Indwelling of the Trinity in his soul, as well as forfeiting other divine gifts such as immorality. These gifts "clothed" humanity, they didn't destroy, nullify, or conflate with humanity. Losing the gifts doesn't mean losing humanity, it just means humanity was no longer 'clothed with grace'. This is why some in the Early Church interpreted the Biblical phrase "man was made in the image and likeness of God" to refer to two realities: the "image" referring to humanity as a rational being, and the "likeness" referring to the gracious gifts that 'clothed' humanity and bestow special super-human powers to man, such as immortality. This distinction is sometimes known as the Nature-Grace Distinction.

Realizing this, it becomes clear that God intended man to cooperate with grace, since grace was to compliment the person's natural human abilities (Lk 24:49; 1 Cor 15:53). Since Protestants reject the idea man can cooperate with grace, this forced Protestants to conflate "image" and "likeness" (i.e. collapse Nature and Grace into one thing rather than keeping them distinguished). And to add insult to injury, Jesus' Divinity became of no real significance since Protestants see Jesus as doing what Adam only as a human was supposed to do (e.g. love God by only human powers, not by grace). As a result of this thinking, we have the original dilemma I mentioned earlier on: Protestants are forced to either say Mary passed on "sin nature" to Jesus or else Jesus wasn't truly Incarnate at all. What a Christmas present for Protestants to wake up to!  

With Christmas coming up next week, I would hope this article helped give readers a better appreciation for just what happened at the Annunciation and on Christmas Day.

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

What you didn't know about Romans 8:29-30 and Predestination.

The purpose of this post will be to look at one badly neglected reading of Romans 8:29-30. Though a lot can be said about Predestination itself, I think this is a good article that summarizes the Catholic view. For now, I just want to look at these two verses, since I think the details given are often get overlooked because people don't know what to do with them. 
29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
This passage is often read as referring to man's whole life being predestined, from their conversion ("called") all the way to Heaven ("glorified"). While there is truth to that concept and a legitimate interpretation of this among some of the Fathers, notably St Augustine, there is also an illegitimate interpretation that the reads it in a way that denies free will and that some are predestined to hellfire. (This illegitimate understanding of predestination has been formally condemned by the Church.) But there are other interpretations that are worth noting that don't really see this as predestination 'from start to finish', but rather the "glorious" predestination to adoption.

Friday, October 18, 2013

Did St Paul really rebuke St Peter? ... Maybe not!

I came across a fascinating article by Catholic apologist James Likoudis which I'd like to discuss on whether or not Peter and Cephas were the same person. There appears to be strong evidence that would lead us to not make the identification of the two men, even if many people throughout Church history have. While this would not affect any dogma of the faith one way or another, it would shed a whole new light on the Incident at Antioch when Paul confronted "Cephas" (Gal 2:11-14) - which is a common text which opponents of the Papacy like to focus on. 

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Pope Francis and the end of Catholicism

I'm starting to get sick to my stomach with the non-stop slew of posts with gloomy-themed comments regarding Pope Francis. Why are so many Catholics, especially among traditionalists, so worried about Pope Francis? Ever since the election of Francis a storm of radically disappointed gloom-filled traditionalists has surged, and it's really soured my experience at certain blogs. Now before I go onto make any further comments, I don't want people fallaciously accusing me of blindly supporting anything and everything the Pope does and treat it as pure gold. I don't do that, but more importantly, that's not the point. The point is that people are blowing things way out of proportion, and I fear it's leading them to the brink of apostasy. That's what's more concerning, and I'm surprised more people aren't alarmed by that eminent danger. 

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

That time when Jesus came into His Kingdom - More Problems with Penal Substitution

I thought I was off the subject of Penal Substitution for a while, but I've come up with yet another serious problem with that heresy. The good thing is, this should be short. 

When the subject of Penal Substitution comes up, our attention is typically focused on the last hours of Jesus' life. But in reality, Jesus suffered for us the entire course of His earthly life. Even Protestants agree with this, though they interpret Christ's sufferings incorrectly. In the erroneous Protestant view of "imputing guilt," this means the guilt of the elect was imputed to Jesus from the moment of His Conception . . . which means the Father viewed His Son Jesus as a sinner from the moment of the Annunciation!

This error is so outrageous that everyone seeing this should automatically realize it's wrong. I shouldn't even have to dig up Scriptural support, but I will.

At Our Lord's Baptism, the Father's spoke from Heaven saying: "You are My Beloved Son, in You I am well pleased." This is impossible if Jesus was under God's displeasure! And yet the same words were spoken at another time in the Gospels, compounding the absurdity and blasphemy of that doctrine. In the Gospels we see Jesus making some cryptic comments: "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Many people take these words of "coming in his kingdom" to be speaking about Jesus' Second Coming at the end of time, but the Early Church Fathers saw this as referring to the Transfiguration. But how? St. Peter himself tells us:
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. (2 Peter 1)
A lot of people don't know about this passage and how it explicitly links Jesus' "coming in glory" comments with the Transfiguration on Mount Tabor - which is also why Jesus' words appear immediately before all three Transfiguration accounts, Mt 16:28; Mk 9:1-2; Lk 9:27-28. What amazing light is shed on that glorious event! As with the Baptism, this was a situation where God the Father was bestowing honor and glory on Jesus, again saying "I am well pleased". 

Penal Substitution makes it impossible for God the Father to view Jesus in a favorable way at any point in all 33 years of Jesus' earthly life. Therefore, Penal Substitution cannot be true.

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Imputation and Jesus' "Be Ye Perfect" (Mt. 5:48)

One very sly argument I have seen many Protestants make over the years is to quote Jesus' words in Matthew 5:48, "You must be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect," and claim that the only way we can be as perfect as God is by having Christ's perfect Righteousness imputed to us. This post will show why this Protestant argument is simply desperate and exegetically bankrupt, being one more proof that the Protestant understanding of Salvation is flatly unbiblical and leaves them grasping at straws.

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Roamin' Catholicism (Roaming - Part 2)

Having established the foundation in Part 1, I'm now going to focus specifically on Catholicism. 

I would argue that one of the most fundamental problems in the Church today is taking place at the parish level, where the problem of "roaming" is rampant. The bishops need to put the breaks on this by setting a good example and by warning the faithful of the negative effects of this mindset. 

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Roaming - Part 1

Moving far away from your extended family isn't a good idea. In fact, I think it's one of the worst problems our nation has succumb to and is a leading cause behind the break down of the family. Issues such as abortion are more symptomatic of deeper problems, and deracination is one of them.

The word deracinate literally means to "de-root" (the term racine is French for 'root', deriving from the Latin term radix). The very concept of 'uprooting' should cause discomfort in our minds, and rightfully so, since the roots are what provide the basis for a healthy and stable life. So it's obvious that a culture that is founded (if you can use that term) upon deracination will ultimately lead to unstable and unhealthy families. Indeed, civilization becomes impossible without roots. 

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Is God the Father or is Jesus the actual High Priest? (More Problems with Penal Substitution)

I know I've written a lot about Penal Substitution lately, but I believe I've come up with yet another devastating proof against the Protestant heresy of Penal Substitution which I must share. Don't worry, this will be brief. 

Basically, my argument is that the doctrine of Penal Substitution makes God the Father the High Priest, which is impossible for two reasons. First, the High Priest offers sacrifice up to God, and yet if God the Father is 'at the top' of the hierarchy of existence already, then there can be nobody left to offer sacrifice to. So philosophically it's nonsense to say God the Father is or could be the High Priest. Second, the Bible plainly says that Jesus is the High Priest (Heb 2:17; 4:14-15; 8:1, etc), and as part of the Incarnation.

According to the error of Penal Substitution, the innocent person or animal receives the full punishment the sinner deserves. In the case of the Levitical Sacrifices, the animal was put to death, and Protestants see this as the Priest inflicting the punishment upon the animal which the sinner deserved. Ignoring the fact that putting the animal to death wasn't even an essential job of the priest for making atonement (since the sinner could put the animal to death, Lev 4:4-5; 4:15-16; 4:24-25), even Protestants agree that as High Priest Jesus was never pouring divine wrath upon Himself. So the Protestant is ultimately in a bind: they cannot say the Father was inflicting the punishment when inflicting the punishment was the job of the High Priest. (Note that "inflicting the punishment" is the Protestant view, not the Catholic one.) This problem is compounded by the fact that on the Day of Atonement, it was the High Priest who 'imputed the sins' (using Protestant terminology) onto the scapegoat, which likewise does not parallel the Protestant idea of God the Father 'imputing our sins' onto Jesus. 

The only 'escape' for the Protestant is to say something to the effect that Jesus and the Father were effectively acting as one person, but that's the heresy of modalism, collapsing the Three Persons of the Trinity into one person. Only Jesus suffered and only Jesus was High Priest. PSub causes Christ's High Priesthood to fall by the wayside into irrelevance, in more ways than one.