tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post2790347044094689033..comments2024-03-15T09:07:15.798-07:00Comments on NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: "Atonement" according to Scripture - More Problems with Penal SubstitutionNickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comBlogger126125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-45451015560428433942017-02-08T22:12:35.935-08:002017-02-08T22:12:35.935-08:00Well, I see I am 4 years late, but it seems like a...Well, I see I am 4 years late, but it seems like a good place to ask the question:<br /><br />After investigating very closely and from many different sources the definition of Psub and the Catholic notion of Vicarious Atonement I am left with a few questions:<br /><br />1. Is there a general particular distinction occurring here? It seems to me as a Catholic that the atonement was aimed at Paying for sin as a WHOLE, that is for every class of sin everyone will ever commit, making Sufficient grace universally available to all.<br /><br />But Psub seems aimed at Jesus suffering the just penalty for each and every sin the elect will ever commit, so that those who feel they can use faith to place themselves in the category of the elect are eternally secure.<br /><br />So, I guess the question is, in an authentic Catholic understanding, is Jesus xpiating the Penalty for every sin everyone will ever commit, or is he Paying the one common penalty for every genre of sin in existence?Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17705827160869385187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-768302793286853242013-02-17T16:15:34.363-08:002013-02-17T16:15:34.363-08:00This blog looks abandoned. In case it's not, t...This blog looks abandoned. In case it's not, the earlier comment using Kreeft to support Psub makes an unlikely assumption. It assumes that Kreeft sees Christ being forsaken by God -- "the very punishment of hell itself" -- as the eternal separation from God that unrepentant humanity will otherwise experience at the Second Death. There is simply no Scripture to suggest that God the Son experienced that kind of separation with the God the Father on Calvary. Did God separate from God? To believe so wrecks havoc on Trinitarian theology and opens the door to Feminist re-imaginings of what occurred on Calvary to eliminate the idea of divine child abuse. <br /><br />There is Scriptural evidence, however, that Jesus was experiencing spiritual desolation -- undergoing God the Father's apparent absence in historical time -- a form of profound spiritual suffering, that along with physical death, is due to the Fall. This is what Kreeft should have meant in referencing "my God, why have you for forsaken me?" It is the persistent question of the People of God from Genesis to Revelation: "Why doesn't God hear us? -- How long, oh Lord, before you save us?"<br /><br />Kreeft needs to clarify. This lengthy post on the shows the difficulty of arguing with texts used in equivocal ways, and the particular difficulty that Protestants have in absorbing meaning outside their grid -- and the difficulty Catholics have of communicating to Protestants insights from Tradition and the Saints, such as Saint John of the Cross on the dark night of the soul.SwissWisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11709470571671356278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-60813019104363414612012-12-13T16:23:20.957-08:002012-12-13T16:23:20.957-08:00Nick,
Not sure if this quite sticks to the main s...Nick,<br /><br />Not sure if this quite sticks to the main subject, but why, in Catholic theology, does blood atone for sin?Christienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-45109932071058032952012-07-09T16:22:24.438-07:002012-07-09T16:22:24.438-07:00Hello Keith,
I'm glad you liked the article,...Hello Keith, <br /><br />I'm glad you liked the article, and I'm even more glad that you are rejecting Penal Substitution as unbiblical and blasphemous. <br /><br />One very good example of "huper" is how it appears in 1 John 3:16, where it uses it twice: <br /><br />"This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life FOR us. And we ought to lay down our lives FOR our brothers and sisters."<br /><br />It is impossible that hyper/FOR here mean "in place of," since this would mean Christians need to lay down their life in place of other Christians.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-2389244384287426042012-07-07T22:31:48.389-07:002012-07-07T22:31:48.389-07:00Here is a bit more information about the word &quo...Here is a bit more information about the word "huper" (G5228) mentioned in previous comments. In 2010, Matt said, 'But the meaning of "in the place of' or "on behalf of" seems to be clearly implied from the context of Gal. 3.' That statement is in error. While the definition of "huper" really is "in place of; on behalf of", the first phrase means substitution, the second does not. The word means one or the other but not both at the same time. A friend of mine who believes in penal substitution makes this same mistake and is unable to distinguish between the two. Personally, I think Gal 3:13, taken by itself without the rest of the Bible, could go either way so it is inconclusive of which definition of huper should be used there.<br /><br />From <i>Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words</i>, "In some passages huper may be used in the substitutionary sense, e.g., Jhn 10:11, 15; Rom 8:32; <b>but it cannot be so taken in the majority of instances</b>. Cf. 2Cr 5:15, in regard to which, while it might be said that Christ died in place of us, it cannot be said that Christ rose again in the place of us."<br /><br />I find this example really interesting. 2 Cor 5:15 <i>And [that] he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for [G5228] them, and rose again.</i> Jesus, for them, died and rose again. <br /><br />1) Jesus, in-place-of them, died and rose again? <br />2) Jesus, on-behalf-of them, died and rose again?<br /><br />If 1, then Jesus rose again in our place and we will not rise again.Keith Watsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15263386340312448924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-90120294882369412442012-07-07T22:29:47.505-07:002012-07-07T22:29:47.505-07:00Nick,
Thank you for the original article. Those ...Nick,<br /><br />Thank you for the original article. Those Scriptures are useful to me. <br /><br />I am a Protestant and am a member of a Reformed church. A few years ago I started taking things I was reading and hearing about what Christ did and started looking for them in the Bible. I learned those things were called penal substitution and every idea I checked was not supported by the Bible.<br /><br />I will post next one of the things I learned.<br /><br />Regards,<br />KeithKeith Watsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15263386340312448924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-45308049436954050952012-04-13T21:32:05.337-07:002012-04-13T21:32:05.337-07:00Nick,
I'm not begging the question. I'm ...Nick, <br /><br />I'm not begging the question. I'm simply pointing out that you made a mistake in your first sentence.<br /><br />You said that the word "atone" "goes against" the doctrine of Psub. You should have said that the word "atone" does not necessarily imply the doctrine of Psub.Chris Wettsteinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-4475223437524933802012-04-13T16:35:55.728-07:002012-04-13T16:35:55.728-07:00Hi Chris,
The (man-made) definition you cite fro...Hi Chris, <br /><br />The (man-made) definition you cite from the link there is not something demonstrable from any of the 9 verses the term appears in the NT. The term is principally about 'offering up' a Sacrifice; none of the Scriptural examples demonstrate "to sustain i.e. their punishment". <br /><br />As for your second paragraph, how can you say I'm asserting my own belief when literally all I am doing is laying out the verses where "atone" appears and analyzing the evidence? Not one verse using the term "atone" involves transferring a punishment. That's not an opinion, it's a lexical-exegetical fact. To make matters worse, there's not a single text stating Jesus endured God's wrath. How am I being the unfair person to point this out? The fallacy of begging the question would consist in assuming Christ endured wrath and assuming atonement allows for that - I don't assume either of those: either they're in Scripture or they're not. <br /><br />Let's say I went around saying Jesus endured the wrath of Mary and John on the Cross and that you cannot prove 'atonement' goes against that. What's wrong with this picture? The problem is Scripture says nothing about Jesus enduring wrath, be it from Mary, from John, or His Father.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-66249176063281975452012-04-13T09:55:52.120-07:002012-04-13T09:55:52.120-07:00Nick,
Your own reference page to the Greek term f...Nick,<br /><br />Your own reference page to the Greek term for "bore" does list “to sustain (i.e. their punishment)” as one specific example of the biblical usage of the term.<br /><br /><br />Regarding your refusal to acknowledge our common understanding of the word “atone”… you must see that you are simply asserting your own belief that “atonement” cannot take place by Psub. You have not done anything to prove that Psub is inconsistent with the concept of atonement. You have not done anything to prove that “bearing wrath” cannot be an action that would “turn away the wrath” of another.<br /><br />You should change your argument, in the opening sentence of this article. You should simly say this: “The word ‘atonement’ does not require the doctrine of penal-substitution.” You cannot prove that the word ‘atonement’ goes directly against the doctrine of Psub! [Yet that is what you are asserting in the opening line of this article.]Chris Wettsteinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-82181152155423086572012-04-12T15:04:00.062-07:002012-04-12T15:04:00.062-07:00Hi Chris,
The Greek term for "bore" is...Hi Chris, <br /><br />The <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G399&t=KJV" rel="nofollow">Greek term for "bore"</a> is a sacrificial term, referring "to offer up". When viewed from this light, it's not about receiving a punishment. It is about taking it upon oneself to atone for the sin, not 'becoming' the sin and object of wrath. <br /><br />When you say: "I do not see the problem in affirming that Christ also "bore the curse/condemnation/wrath" that our sins deserve," you need to realize you're projecting your own terms and meanings here. Nowhere does it say Christ endured condemnation/wrath, especially from the Father. I realize it is hard to make such distinctions when major doctrines like Sola Fide hang in the balance, but sound exegesis requires it. <br /><br />As for you saying "Protestants and Catholics fully agree on the definition of the term atonement," I don't think that is accurate. There needs to be more precision. Atonement is when someone does CERTAIN THINGS with the effect that the offended person is not longer seeking to act in retribution towards the guilty. These "certain things" do not include transferring the punishment, since that's not how the Bible uses the term. <br /><br />We have to be careful not to be playing word games here.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-72962415693738081782012-04-12T12:46:46.069-07:002012-04-12T12:46:46.069-07:00Nick, your opening statement in this article is fa...Nick, your opening statement in this article is false.<br /><br />You say: <br />"the Old Testament usage and understanding of this term [atonement] actually goes directly against [the Protestant] claims of what "atonement" means. <br /><br />As I have shown, above, Protestants and Catholics fully agree on the definition of the term "atonement":<br /><br />"Atonement is when someone does something...<br />With the effect that the offended person is no longer seeking to act with wrath against the person who had previously offended him/her."<br /><br />As I have shown, this definition does not [by logic] "go directly against" the doctrine of penal substitution. It is logical to affirm that Christ's death satisfied the righteous requirements of the Law (perfect obedience, and also bearing the curse/wrath/condemnation), with the effect that God no longer seeks to act with wrath against those who are in Christ.<br /><br />What you have shown, in this article, is that the word "atonement" does not "require" the doctrine of penal substitution. But that is very different than proving that the word "atonement" goes "directly against" Psub.Chris Wettsteinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-2480262998986232792012-04-10T15:48:01.118-07:002012-04-10T15:48:01.118-07:00Hi Anonymous,
I mentioned Christ bearing (1) the ...Hi Anonymous,<br /><br />I mentioned Christ bearing (1) the sins of His people; and (2) "the curse" / "the condemnation" that our sins deserve.<br /><br />Whether or not 2 Cor 5:21 refers to "sin offering" or "sin" - clearly Heb 9.28 and 1 Pet 2.24 teach that Christ "bore the sins" of His people. If we affirm that Christ vicariously "bore the sins" of His people, then I do not see the problem in affirming that Christ also "bore the curse/condemnation/wrath" that our sins deserve.<br /><br />I'm wondering, can you explain how "bearing the punishment for their sins is a bit different than receiving God's curse and wrath as if Christ himself were the sinner"?<br /><br />Thanks again,Chris Wettsteinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-43908140716673152022012-04-07T13:34:14.141-07:002012-04-07T13:34:14.141-07:00Chris, you believe in expiation, but you did not m...Chris, you believe in expiation, but you did not mention the full wrath of God himself being taken by Christ. You mention instead Christ's paying the penalty to remove the sins of the people. Christ's atonement is vicarious to you, as to Catholics. Traditional Reformed psub goes farther, and I think that Matt goes farther than you. Affiliating with God's people and bearing the punishment for their sins is a bit different than receiving God's curse and wrath as if Christ himself were the sinner. R.C. Sproul, Calvin and others use language of Christ being damned rather than being a sin offering. As for 2nd Cor. 5:21, Protestant Adam Clark noted that in the Septuagint, sin and sin offering were the same Greek word used in two different ways in multiple sacrificial contexts. This is how Augustine and others exegete 2nd Cor. 5:21.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-11578622855942425672012-04-04T12:25:28.215-07:002012-04-04T12:25:28.215-07:00Hi Nick,
Good, so we agree:
"Atonement is w...Hi Nick,<br /><br />Good, so we agree:<br /><br />"Atonement is when someone does something...<br />With the effect that the offended person is no longer seeking to act with wrath against the person who had previously offended him/her."<br /><br />This is what I believe:<br /><br />Christ gave Himself to die, on the cross, in such a way that fulfilled God's Law regarding "perfect love & obedience to God" - and, at the same time, in such a way that fulfilled God's Law regarding "condemnation"/"curse" upon the sins of His people, which He bore in His flesh.<br /><br />By offering Himself as an act of perfect love and righteousness, and also bearing the sins & condemnation of His people, Christ did something, once and for all, that forever serves as the basis for God not condemning His people.<br /><br />Christ did something... in respect to the justice and Law of God... with the effect that "there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom 8:1).Chris Wettsteinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-77637516469422578072012-04-02T15:11:10.723-07:002012-04-02T15:11:10.723-07:00Hi Chris,
I agree with the definition of Atoneme...Hi Chris, <br /><br />I agree with the definition of Atonement you stated. <br /><br />I don't see how this definition cannot affect your question "What was the nature of what Jesus did?," since the definition of what Christ did (make atonement) precludes taking a punishment of another.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-15612933347181645232012-03-31T15:00:21.608-07:002012-03-31T15:00:21.608-07:00Hi Nick,
As you suggest, it is always important ...Hi Nick, <br /><br />As you suggest, it is always important to check if we are using the same words in the same ways.<br /><br />Here’s the definition of atonement that I’m using (in my own words):<br /><br />Atonement is when someone does something<br />[Whether give a sacrifice, or do good deeds, or whatever]<br /> With the effect that the offended person is no longer seeking to act with wrath against the person who had previously offended him/her.<br /><br />Does that definition work for you?<br /><br />If that definition works for you, then you can see that the debate about Psub is NOT regarding the definition of “atonement.” But rather, the debate about Psub is this: “What was the nature of what Jesus did, when He died on the cross?”<br /><br />I think that we can agree that Jesus did something that has the effect of God no longer seeking to act with wrath against those who are “in Christ.” But we are debating about “What was the nature of that action of Jesus?” Did Jesus objectively bear the curse and condemnation that His people deserved, in His death? Or did Jesus not do that?Chris Wettsteinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-468736450222543742012-03-31T12:54:16.024-07:002012-03-31T12:54:16.024-07:00But you've got to realize that having the wron...But you've got to realize that having the wrong definition of "atone" affects how you *interpret* what it means for Christ to die for your sins. The issue is not about terms like "substitute" or "die for" or "curse for", etc, etc, if one is interpreting those incorrectly. <br /><br />One simple argument that I can point to you to show why this is critical is your mention that "death is a penalty". Well, if Jesus took the physical death penalty in your place, then neither you nor any other Christian should undergo physical death. See the problem now?Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-25704549273172110052012-03-31T12:04:19.530-07:002012-03-31T12:04:19.530-07:00I don't need to prove that the word "aton...I don't need to prove that the word "atoned" means "atoned by penal substitution," anymore than you need to prove that the word "atone" means "atoned by moral influence" or "atoned by victory over Satan/death," etc.<br /><br />The historical debate regarding the doctrine of penal substitution has very little to do with the definition of the word "atone." We all agree (except for some very extreme liberals) that the biblical concept of "atonement" involves the wrath of God being appeased. The question of "penal substitution" is a deeper matter.<br /><br />The question of penal substitution comes down to these questions:<br /><br />1. Does the Bible teach that Jesus "bore a penalty" in His death?<br />2. Did Jesus serve as a substitute - bearing a penalty "instead of" His people, so that we will not bear that exact same kind of penalty in the sight of God?<br /><br />As far as I can honestly see, #1 is "Yes."<br /><br />Death itself is a "penalty" - it was not part of God's original creation. Death entered the world as a consequence, given by God, in response to the sin of Adam (Gen 3). Death is regarded as a curse. Death is the opposite of life, just as a curse is the opposite of a blessing.<br /><br />Galatians 3:13 says:<br />"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”).<br /><br />I've seen (above) how you try to argue about this verse. But I cannot see how you can deny this concept: <br />The "curse" is a penalty, and thus Christ bore a penalty on the cross.<br /><br /><br />Now, #2 - Did Jesus serve as a substitute - bearing a penalty "instead of" His people, so that we will not bear that exact same kind of penalty in the sight of God?<br /><br />Again, Gal 3:13 says:<br />"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us."<br /><br />The effect of Christ "becoming a curse for us" is that we (believers) are now "redeemed from the curse of the law."<br /><br />This surely means that "we will not bear that exact same kind of penalty [i.e.: the curse] in the sight of God." <br /><br />Christ has "become a curse" for us so that we are "set free from the curse" (which curse we otherwise would need to bear). I call that concept "substitution" - Christ becoming a curse instead of me bearing that curse.Chris Wettsteinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-30911109342132433692012-03-31T10:58:47.494-07:002012-03-31T10:58:47.494-07:00Hi Chris,
I'm not sure what you mean by find...Hi Chris, <br /><br />I'm not sure what you mean by finding "Catholic" theologians on your side, supporting Psub. Unless they are drawing from Official Church documents or some great Saint, they'll not hold much weight. <br /><br />When you say: <br />"I trust in Christ alone, and I know that my sins have been fully atoned for by His death, once and for all."<br /><br />The problem is that you've not shown "atoned" means Psub. My original article shows what the Bible means by "atone". That's why definitions have to be established *first*, because otherwise people will be assuming Psub is true by default.<br /><br />I know having sins forgiven "once and for all" is comforting, but if something is not Biblical, then it's not true - and something not true can't be comforting.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-62493292865772191792012-03-31T10:48:12.395-07:002012-03-31T10:48:12.395-07:00Oh, I can see how some confusion can arise here. C...Oh, I can see how some confusion can arise here. Christ certainly DID make atonement for EVERY sin, intentional major and "minor". What I'm saying is the Levitical Sacrifices did not atone for major sins. <br /><br />The only reason why I brought that up was to show the Levitical Sacrifices could not have been about transferring the death penalty to an animal, because the Hebrew sinner could only offer a Sacrifice for minor sins. With that information, we can see that Psub wasn't the framework of Levitical Sacrifices, and thus it's quite a stretch to say these *foreshadowed* Christ.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-55619227339097121392012-03-30T21:50:41.908-07:002012-03-30T21:50:41.908-07:00What about repentant Intentional major sins?What about repentant Intentional major sins?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-19518455896174764092012-03-30T21:01:05.589-07:002012-03-30T21:01:05.589-07:00Nick,
Just to clarify: Are you then suggesting th...Nick,<br /><br />Just to clarify: Are you then suggesting that Christ's sacrifice did not atone for intentional sins? Or not for "major" sins?Chris Wettsteinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-26322009094791839382012-03-30T20:56:51.663-07:002012-03-30T20:56:51.663-07:00Nick,
My point is simply that I can find "Ca...Nick,<br /><br />My point is simply that I can find "Catholic" theologians who appear to be on my side, and I can surely find "Protestant" theologians who appear to be on your side of the "penal-substitution" debate.<br /><br />No doubt, you and I see the cross very differently - and this has huge implications. I have no doubt about that. I trust in Christ alone, and I know that my sins have been fully atoned for by His death, once and for all. I do not trust in my own works or efforts, as the basis of God accepting me. That has huge implications for my soul and for my way of life.<br /><br />I'm really not sure what you mean by suggesting that Christ's "Passion" is baffling. Passion = suffering. Why do you think that I would be "baffled" by affirming that Christ suffered?Chris Wettsteinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-83998133960338992952012-03-30T16:46:32.602-07:002012-03-30T16:46:32.602-07:00As the Hebrews 9:7 and Numbers 15:27-30 texts stat...As the Hebrews 9:7 and Numbers 15:27-30 texts state, Sacrifices are done for "unintentional" sins. Now this could include intentional "minor" sins, but I've see no evidence that Sacrifices atone for 'major' grave/intentional sins, particularly ones requiring the death penalty for the sinner. <br /><br />If you think about it, to have Sacrifices for intentional sins would be open to serious abuses, particularly with the rich committing serious sins and being able to get out of the severe punishment (e.g. death).Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-11942464245167605822012-03-30T16:39:02.370-07:002012-03-30T16:39:02.370-07:00Chris,
The topic very much is Catholic "vs&...Chris, <br /><br />The topic very much is Catholic "vs" Protestant because how we view the Cross determines a lot, including whether Sola Fide is true or not. The quote you gave of Kreeft contains apparent theological errors and is a bit sloppy. Protestants object to Crucifixes and especially the Mass precisely because they see The Cross very differently. <br /><br />This is also why Catholics call it Chris's "Passion", where as such terminology is baffling to the Protestant mind precisely because they see the Cross as a terrifying display of God's Wrath being dumped upon His Beloved Son.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.com