tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post2564287673579339796..comments2024-03-15T09:07:15.798-07:00Comments on NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Is Imputation taught in 2 Corinthians 5:21?Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-65025531472458669992021-03-03T10:51:05.827-08:002021-03-03T10:51:05.827-08:00Hi Nick,
I am glad you find it useful. Unfortunat...Hi Nick,<br /><br />I am glad you find it useful. Unfortunately, I have seen top New and Old testament scholars missing this point completely. <br /><br />For your reference, I went through all the septuagint looking for instances in which the word poieo was used in the sense of "offering" a sacrifice. These are the references I found:<br /><br />Exo 29:35<br />Exo 29:38<br />Lev 4:20<br />Lev 5:10<br />Lev 9:7<br />Lev 9:16<br />Num 15:3<br />Num 15:24<br />Num 28:24<br />Num 29:2<br /><br />You will notice that some of these chapters are packed with liturgical sacrifices that aren't detailed anywhere else. I am referring mainly to:<br /><br />Exo 29, Lev chapters 1 to 5 and 9 to 10, and Numbers 15 & 28.<br /><br />If you focus your efforts there you will find a lot of interesting things.<br /><br />God bless,<br /><br />Hugo.Hugohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09126873503304144942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-29470253571677074822021-03-01T07:35:46.409-08:002021-03-01T07:35:46.409-08:00Hugo, wow, that's awesome. I will look into th...Hugo, wow, that's awesome. I will look into this more. I'm frequently disappointed with the state of Biblical scholarship on both sides due to the fact there seems to be less interest on getting to the facts and more interest in pushing an agenda. It's sad when internet blogs and comment boxes have to be the place where these kinds of Biblical details are 'discovered' and shared, rather than on more prominent websites and books.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-58930764388875520532021-02-26T10:17:41.603-08:002021-02-26T10:17:41.603-08:00Hi Nick,
Even though I am not a greek expert I ha...Hi Nick,<br /><br />Even though I am not a greek expert I have found it to be very curious the greek word poieo (do, make), is used in the LXX translation of the pentateuch as an equivalent to offer.<br /><br />See for example Num 15:3.<br /><br />"and you shall offer burnt offerings (holocautoma) to the Lord" (καὶ ποιήσεις ὁλοκαυτώματα κυρίῳ). Note the word poieo there in the perfect active indicative tense. This is the same word poieo that Paul uses right next to hamartia (sin offering) in 2 Cor 5:21. The connection is tricky for most people that have some knowledge of the greek because Paul is using the Aorist tense, which makes the word look different. But this is the same greek word in both cases (G4160).<br /><br />why is this relevant? Because it can be shown that sacrifice offerings like the burnt offering, can be "offered" by the use of the word poieo in the LXX, which opens the door to the fact that Paul was thinking in sacrificial terms here similar to those of Rom 8:3 "and God sent Christ...as a sin offering".<br /><br />I think you missed this connection in your references to Leviticus. There you find in 4:20 the greatest example since literally the priest has to "offer (word poieo) the calf...for the sin offering" 4:20.<br /><br /> "καὶ ποιήσει (G4160 poieo) τὸν ... τὸν τῆς ἁμαρτίας (G266 hamartia)"<br /><br />Look at the equivalence in 2 Cor 5:21<br /><br />"ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν (G266 hamartia) ἐποίησεν (G4160 poieo)"<br /><br />I hope you find this useful.<br />Hugohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09126873503304144942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-47580225483729898142020-04-02T11:58:08.756-07:002020-04-02T11:58:08.756-07:00Don't have time to engage on this forum; Calvi...Don't have time to engage on this forum; Calvin, Luther, Warfield, Hodge, Spurgeon, Wycliffe,Tyndale,Wylie,Hus,etc have all answered Rome's heresy over and over again. But will just say I'm glad you're now at least quoting the Bible instead of burning those at the stake for translating and reading it. Thankful for small mercies I suppose. stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07334899118486981929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-8380913806977591422020-04-02T11:33:38.787-07:002020-04-02T11:33:38.787-07:00JW,
I explained why the Protestant interpretatio...JW, <br /><br />I explained why the Protestant interpretation is clearly ruled out: (a) the terminology Paul chose to use, (b) the logic structure of the verse, and (c) the context. <br /><br />In fact, the very fact you and others cannot even address my exegesis head-on actually supports my claim. Searching high and low for some scrap of something a Church Father said is hardly direct interaction with the strong case I built above. The problem is that in your mind Imputation would remain true even if you didn't have Chrysostom, and to prove that, you cannot afford to allow Chrysostom any other reading. In other words, you're not even open to the fact I'm pointing out that Chrysostom doesn't share your Protestant categories. He knows nothing of Christ's Imputed Righteousness, particularly Active Obedience. Same for Hilary, you cannot afford to have them read other than what you need them to be saying. <br /><br />Even if I were to grant that Chrysostom taught Imputation as Protestants teach it, that would at most mean there is a mixed bag in terms of Patristic testimony. It would mean the Biblical text doesn't clearly come down on one side or the other, and that instead the Fathers saw various ways it could be read. Ok, perhaps, but that ultimately means that Scripture is not perspicuous on this verse, which ultimately means 2Cor521 cannot be used as a super-proof-text. Of course, the Protestant side cannot tolerate such honesty and fair treatment of the Scriptures.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-81758479732790608372020-04-02T06:27:51.538-07:002020-04-02T06:27:51.538-07:00You wrote: "The Church Fathers whom I was abl...You wrote: "The Church Fathers whom I was able to find..." That sounds like every comment you found was in agreement. <br /><br />You also wrote: "The 'consensus' among the Fathers on the meaning of "made sin" in 2 Corinthians 5:21 is that it refers to "the Word was made flesh." This is, at least, not the unanimous consent.<br /><br />You also wrote: "we see that the Protestant interpretation is clearly ruled out" and "the Protestant side has to desperately cling to this verse and pile upon it all sorts of bogus assumptions."<br /><br />Chrysostom's commentary, which is in complete accord with the Protestant view, shows that it is not Protestant desperation and bogus assumptions, but a completely permissible reading.<br /><br />Hilary's mention of Christ bearing our sins in the immediate context of your quotation shows that the incarnational aspect need not be read to exclude the imputation reading. Ambrosiaster's commentary on this verse actually identifies all three aspects (incarnation, sacrifice, and Christ suffering as though he were a sinner) and he apparently sees no conflict. JWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-12427690432540934842020-04-01T14:05:26.287-07:002020-04-01T14:05:26.287-07:00JW,
I was aware of Chrysostom's commentary o...JW, <br /><br />I was aware of Chrysostom's commentary on this verse. That's why when I listed off the multiple Church fathers, I said these fathers form "a general consensus". The intent of my presenting the Church Fathers was to show that we shouldn't just presume Imputation is going on in 2Cor521, nor is that even a preferred reading, nor is it even the plain reading. This should act as a warning against Protestants trying to use 2Cor521 as some super proof text, when it isn't. The problem that needs to be exposed is that only when clear evidence is hard to come by do people have to become desperate about texts like this. In my experience, the Protestant cannot actually stop and be honest with the evidence though, because the issue for Protestants never was "What does the Bible actually, clearly teach?" <br /><br />As for your quotes, nothing about them demands, much less suggests, an Imputation reading. In fact, he only mentions the taking away of sin, not some Imputation of Christ's Active Obedience. <br /><br />As for Hilary, you're also presuming Imputation in what you're quoting. What you need to do is first step away from thinking Imputation is the ONLY WAY to read the Bible. That's equivalent to a Jehovah's Witness who reads the Bible always assuming there is no way Jesus can be God. <br /><br />Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-29481920382504359562020-03-29T19:09:58.443-07:002020-03-29T19:09:58.443-07:00Were you not able to find Chrysostom's comment...Were you not able to find Chrysostom's commentary on this verse? I will just quote a little bit, but here's the link if anyone wants to read the whole thing: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220211.htm .<br /><br />He understands Paul to be teaching here that Christ died in our place: "'He made sin,' that is suffered as a sinner to be condemned, as one cursed to die..." and "For a great thing indeed it were for even a sinner to die for any one whatever; but when He who undergoes this both is righteous and dies for sinners;" Then he interprets the righteousness of God: "For this is [the righteousness] of God when we are justified not by works, (in which case it were necessary that not a spot even should be found,) but by grace, in which case all sin is done away. And this at the same time that it suffers us not to be lifted up, (seeing the whole is the free gift of God,) teaches us also the greatness of that which is given."<br /><br />So, we have Christ crucified on our behalf as though he were a sinner and we receive as a gift, by grace, the righteousness of God. <br /><br />Also, in the same section from which you quoted Hilary he also writes: "He was sent in the likeness of the flesh of sin, bearing sin indeed in His flesh but our sin." He sees no conflict between bearing our flesh and bearing our sin. Hilary here is teaching the imputation of our sin to Christ.JWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-81631365301462266522014-09-27T09:47:54.249-07:002014-09-27T09:47:54.249-07:00Amen to that! Should anyone actually feel the nee...Amen to that! Should anyone actually feel the need to have a food fight with Kevin, they can find him on that other blog. Keep him away from here.James Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14111037364653005571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-33798773657901347222014-09-12T12:14:08.979-07:002014-09-12T12:14:08.979-07:00Note that I'm deleting any comments which I su...Note that I'm deleting any comments which I suspect are from Kevin. He is a troll following me on many blogs who isn't interested in dialog but instead is posting random irrelevant garbage. He has a mental disorder and shouldn't be encouraged to waste other people's time and post where he isn't welcome. Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-75923571285765906352014-09-11T17:51:33.635-07:002014-09-11T17:51:33.635-07:00De Maria -
You can only do so much with progressi...De Maria -<br /><br />You can only do so much with progressive, liberals. They refuse and reject God's word and history. They all want to create a new form of Christianity their own way while ignoring history. This one guy who said baptism doesn't wash away sin is clueless about scripture and history. Might as well throw the words away.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-43729444937823290532014-09-11T09:22:58.748-07:002014-09-11T09:22:58.748-07:00Blogger stephen said...
Baptism does not wash away...<b>Blogger stephen said...<br />Baptism does not wash away one's sins or save us.</b><br /><br />You are contradicting Scripture. Scripture says that Baptism washes away sins:<br /><br />Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.<br /><br />And that Baptism saves us:<br /><br />1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us ….<br /><br /><b> If it did Paul would not have said 'I came not to baptise but to preach the gospel' (1 Cor.1:17). </b><br /><br />That's a non sequitur. St. Paul did baptize, although his primary mission was to evangelize. Here he preaches about Baptism:<br /><br />Romans 6:2-4King James Version (KJV)<br /><br />2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?<br /><br />3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?<br /><br />4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.<br /><br />Notice that those baptized die with Christ and then rise to new life with Christ.<br /><br />And he did Baptize many:<br /><br />1 Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;<br /><br />1 Corinthians 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.<br /><br /><b>Works are the evidence of true faith </b><br /><br />True. And they make faith perfect:<br /><br />James 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?<br /><br />Faith without works is not a saving faith:<br /><br />James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?<br /><br />This is why God only justifies those who do His works:<br /><br />Romans 2:13King James Version (KJV)<br /><br />13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.<br /><br /><b>but never the basis of it. See Eph.2:8; Gal.2:16; Tit.3:5&7. Etc</b><br /><br />But works are the basis of the Judgment:<br /><br />2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.<br /><br />If you have no faith, you will not do good works and you will be cast into fiery gehenna.De Mariahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00997195004868253348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-36768891433419689502014-09-11T02:30:13.475-07:002014-09-11T02:30:13.475-07:00Baptism does not wash away one's sins or save ...Baptism does not wash away one's sins or save us. If it did Paul would not have said 'I came not to baptise but to preach the gospel' (1 Cor.1:17). <br />Works are the evidence of true faith but never the basis of it. See Eph.2:8; Gal.2:16; Tit.3:5&7. Etcstephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07334899118486981929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-12864784536739440342014-09-10T17:27:53.941-07:002014-09-10T17:27:53.941-07:00Anonymous said...
DeMaria, if your sins washed awy...<b>Anonymous said...<br />DeMaria, if your sins washed awy in baptim, </b><br /><br />Don't you believe Scripture?<br /><br />Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.<br /><br /><b>then why are your works necessary for further justice?</b><br /><br />Because Christ commanded us to strive for perfection.<br /><br />Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.<br /><br />Therefore, we add to our faith many virtues:<br /><br />2 Peter 1:5And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; 6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; 7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. 8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. 10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:<br /><br />And work out our salvation:<br /><br />2 Corinthians 7:10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.<br /><br /><b>Abraham simply be lo ieved the promise and God counted him righteous.</b><br /><br />On the contrary, Abram left Ur when God called him:<br />Hebrews 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.<br /><br />25 years of faithful obedience later, God counted him righteous. This is why the Word of God says:<br /><br />Romans 2:13King James Version (KJV)<br /><br />13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.<br /><br /><b>John Bunyan said I know my rigeouness is in heave. Rom 4:11 simply says " that righteouness might be credited to them" can it be clearer.</b><br /><br />No. But you keep missing it anyway. Righteousness is credited to faithful Catholics in Baptism. Catholics present themselves at the altar of grace and believing the promises of Christ, submit to Baptism. And God, seeing our faith, credits it to us as righteousness. It couldn't be clearer. But you keep misunderstanding.<br /><br />De Mariahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00997195004868253348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-85588667952996420582014-09-10T11:41:15.154-07:002014-09-10T11:41:15.154-07:00Blogger stephen said...
September 10, 2014 at 2:0...<b>Blogger stephen said...<br /><br />September 10, 2014 at 2:07 AM<br /><br />Mmm? Not convinced, as a Protestant, by your points. But am interested that you never made note of Philemon v18 'put that on mine account.'</b><br /><br />That doesn't mean that St. Paul is admitting to any personal sin. It merely means that he is making himself the surety for Onesimus. If Onesimus has done anything wrong to Philemon, St. Paul will pay for it in his stead. The same way that Jesus paid for our sins.<br /><br />Philemon 1:18King James Version (KJV)<br /><br />18 If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account;<br /><br /><b> How else are my sins got rid of?</b><br /><br />Christ washes them away in Baptism:<br /><br />Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.<br /><br /><br />De Mariahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00997195004868253348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-45399227806878385172014-09-10T11:33:08.934-07:002014-09-10T11:33:08.934-07:00
The verse means that Christ came in the likeness...<br /><br />The verse means that Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh. <br />De Mariahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00997195004868253348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-86982913546505740462014-09-10T02:07:08.389-07:002014-09-10T02:07:08.389-07:00Mmm? Not convinced, as a Protestant, by your point...Mmm? Not convinced, as a Protestant, by your points. But am interested that you never made note of Philemon v18 'put that on mine account.' How else are my sins got rid of? stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07334899118486981929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-74031986626222492732014-09-09T15:18:09.574-07:002014-09-09T15:18:09.574-07:00Greetings Nick,
Wouldn't Philippians 2:7 &quo...Greetings Nick,<br /><br />Wouldn't Philippians 2:7 "He emptied Himself taking the likeness of a slave..." fit here too?<br />Of course, our Lord was anything but a slave.James Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14111037364653005571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-86958959814104521302014-09-04T15:04:09.420-07:002014-09-04T15:04:09.420-07:00Hello Jack,
I don't know how much clearer I ...Hello Jack, <br /><br />I don't know how much clearer I can be with my article. If you understand what Protestants are saying when they quote it, then you should be able to follow my critique of the article. <br /><br />For example, when it says we become the Righteousness of God, what does this SPECIFICALLY refer to? Are we allowed to just make up whatever we want and say that's the true meaning? Obviously, No! So we must look to context and other pieces of data. In the context, it shows that Paul is talking about Forgiveness and Reconciliation, so that's what I say us becoming the Righteousness of God is referring to here. <br /><br />Now if a Protestant wants to say us becoming the Righteousness of God refers to something else, namely Christ's righteousness imputed, then they'll have to show where they came to that conclusion. Otherwise, it's without Biblical warrant and thus a Tradition of Men. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-25821526341644721252014-09-04T15:01:14.587-07:002014-09-04T15:01:14.587-07:00For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin...<b>For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.</b><br /><br />The verse addresses Christians in the plural and thus speaks to a community rather than to isolated individuals. What makes the community righteous is their union (communion) with Christ and that is not an individual's personal attribute because it belongs to the whole community. Thus the passage is not a proof of imputed individual righteousness it's about communal participation in Christ's righteousness through the Church as ambassador of Christ and dispenser of the sacraments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-22294439972769007012014-09-04T07:30:56.033-07:002014-09-04T07:30:56.033-07:00I have no clue what you are trying to say with you...I have no clue what you are trying to say with your analysis of the Greek. The verse clearly states that Christ became sin for us and we become the righteousness of God. We have no righteousness apart from this act by Christ. What is your point? Where are the people who interpret the verse for what it says wrong? What are you saying the verse means?jack millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12858606153699140512noreply@blogger.com