tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post3424068598301767495..comments2024-03-15T09:07:15.798-07:00Comments on NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: What does it mean to say Jesus "died for" us? - More problems with Penal SubstitutionNickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-20275195082073813092013-04-08T18:08:36.525-07:002013-04-08T18:08:36.525-07:00The one post off the top of my head is this:
htt...The one post off the top of my head is this: <br /><br />http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-job-suffering-servant-of-isaiah-53.htmlNickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-91901349515441592412013-04-08T17:33:13.039-07:002013-04-08T17:33:13.039-07:00Nick,
I am aware you have done a lot of writing o...Nick,<br /><br />I am aware you have done a lot of writing on Isaiah 53. I would not want to pontificate about it without first reading your stuff, so when I have the chance in the near future I will read and digest it.<br /><br />Can you pick a top 1 or 2 posts with the best Isaiah 53 material in your opinion?<br /><br />Thanks,<br />JohnDJohnDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-6671137720628665652013-04-08T14:44:26.172-07:002013-04-08T14:44:26.172-07:00Hello John,
Yes, I was basically saying that &qu...Hello John, <br /><br />Yes, I was basically saying that "for" does not prove nor demand Penal Substitution, and that in fact there is good reason not to read it that way (e.g. Rom 5:7 & 1 Jn 3:16). <br /><br />You asked about the "strike the shepherd" OT reference in Mark 14: <br />"27 And Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away, for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’ 28 But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.” 29 Peter said to him, “Even though they all fall away, I will not.” 30 And Jesus said to him, “Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.” 31 But he said emphatically, “If I must die with you, I will not deny you.” And they all said the same."<br /><br />Clearly, the "sheep being scattered" refers to the Apostle's abandoning Jesus. When and How did this happen? When the Jews came to arrest Jesus. So the "strike" that "scattered" was not God's wrath redirected onto Christ, but rather the Father permitting the Jews to arrest, humiliate, and beat Jesus. This is confirmed a few verses later, esp 14:50. Anything else is reading/projecting foreign ideas onto the text. <br /><br />As for Isaiah 53, if you think that's "the clearest presentation of PSA," I'd like to get your thoughts on the Isaiah 53 posts I've done. For example, Isaiah 53:4 is quoted in Matthew 8:16-17, without any PSA connotations whatsoever. <br /><br /><br />Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-40485521533470766912013-04-07T18:33:31.933-07:002013-04-07T18:33:31.933-07:00If all you are saying is that "Christ died fo...If all you are saying is that "Christ died for us" does not prove penal substitution, then you are correct. It sounded like you were making much stronger claims. And I apologize if I misrepresented you, that was not my intention.<br /><br />As far as the 5-10 top verses, there is no doubt that Isaiah 53 is the clearest presentation of PSA.<br /> <br />Also, I'd be interested to how you would respond to Jesus quoting the Zechariah 13 in Mark 14 with "I will strike the shepherd..." and applying the text to Himself as the shepherd. In Zechariah, it is the LORD who strikes the shepherd. JohnDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-30155731103156245762013-04-07T13:20:21.377-07:002013-04-07T13:20:21.377-07:00Hello John,
I did not have any specific Reformed...Hello John, <br /><br />I did not have any specific Reformed theologians in mind, but I have encountered many Reformed people online who make the "for" argument. A favorite verse they like is 1 Pt 3:18 where is says "Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous FOR the unrighteous," and take the "for" as meaning Penal Substitution. <br /><br />In regards to your laying out of my argument, I don't think you represented me accurately, especially with #3. <br /><br />My point of the article was basically that one has no good reason to think "for" means "in place of" in the first place. So simply pointing to a passage saying "for" does not constitute proof since it begs the question. I then went and showed that Scripture doesn't really use "for" to mean "in place of," and that many texts are clearly using "for" to mean "on behalf of," which means the Protestant approach is very dubious. <br /><br />I don't understand your next-to-last paragraph, as it seems you're engaging in equivocation and question begging. You certainly cannot say "for" in a given verse means BOTH "in their place" and "on behalf of," and you cannot even argue "in their place" at all unless this can be plainly shown to be a valid Biblical usage/construct. <br /><br />So if I were to ask you to point to some Biblical texts that prove Penal Substitution, it is not enough for you to point to verses that say "Jesus died for you" and think the "in their place" matter is settled. I'll bet you that as soon as you list your 5-10 top verses, you'll see that the 'best' Biblical evidence for PSub is severely lacking. Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-27871863848474102152013-04-06T16:02:20.773-07:002013-04-06T16:02:20.773-07:00Nick,
Your entire critique above is smells a lot ...Nick,<br /><br />Your entire critique above is smells a lot like a straw man attack.<br /><br />You begin with quite the strong claim:<b> Calvinists insist that Penal Substitution is proven by the fact the Bible often says that Jesus "died for" us </b><br /><br />However, you do not quote any Reformed theologians to that end. <br /><br />Also, your main argument seems to be the following:<br /><br />(1) Christ died "for" us does not necessarily mean Christ took our place. <br /><br />(2)There are many places in the bible when "for" means "on behalf of" rather than "in place of." Particularly, there are places when "in place of" makes no logical sense.<br /><br />(3) Calvinists substantiate PSub by insisting "for" must mean "in place of" in many cases. <br /><br />(4) Belief in PSub and (2) are incompatible. <br /><br />In reply, I will simply state that (4) is a non-sequitur. Reformed Christians can affirm that Christ died "on behalf of" the elect in one sense (e.g. He mediated in a way that they could not) and that he died "in their place" in another sense (e.g. He took the punishment they justly deserved). <br /><br />Again, it is not a problem with the Reformed view to say that Christ died for the elect, on their behalf, or that his death would be applied to them.JohnDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-56670779784586581272013-04-05T17:39:37.042-07:002013-04-05T17:39:37.042-07:00Christ will always protect His Church.
But that i...Christ will always protect His Church.<br /><br />But that is not to say that certain elements won't attempt to put 'man' in the center...and move Christ to the periphery.<br /><br />That's is why the Church always need to reform. It is in our nature to make a great project out of what God has already handled, on the Cross.Steve Martinhttp://theoldadam.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-25172187144262804552013-04-05T14:13:34.274-07:002013-04-05T14:13:34.274-07:00What's worse is that Calvinism is Pelangian to...What's worse is that Calvinism is Pelangian to the core, and this fact has only been starting to receive public attention in the last year or so.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-27929136920934235682013-04-05T13:05:30.476-07:002013-04-05T13:05:30.476-07:00Nick -
He also makes up a new definition of semi-...Nick -<br /><br />He also makes up a new definition of semi-pelagianism knowing full well that Catholics do not believe and have condemned semi-pelagianism because man needs grace to come to God. Every month I get his Tabletalk magazine and there is a massive error in each issue. This month he talks about how Rome is correct on abortion and then he cries out for the church (small c) to become the church and stand up to abortion. There's a reason planned parenthood went after Protestantism. Why? Because it's theological relativism.cwdlaw223https://www.blogger.com/profile/02451813257438815066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-85185562544526417942013-04-05T13:02:23.590-07:002013-04-05T13:02:23.590-07:00Steve -
If Christ is unable to protect his Church...Steve -<br /><br />If Christ is unable to protect his Church from man (and there isn't any other historical Church other than Rome) then he was a liar and fraud and why believe him at all?cwdlaw223https://www.blogger.com/profile/02451813257438815066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-69108580341170044442013-04-05T09:37:21.760-07:002013-04-05T09:37:21.760-07:00I don't understand Sproul at all since he seem...I don't understand Sproul at all since he seems to talk out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to Catholicism. He has made public remarks (including in his books) that Thomas Aquinas taught the correct Biblical/Protestant view of salvation, which is either gross ignorance or gross deception. I just don't get why he'd say that.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-4952006003636392862013-04-05T08:32:01.639-07:002013-04-05T08:32:01.639-07:00Christ hasn't failed with Rome.
Rome has fail...Christ hasn't failed with Rome.<br /><br />Rome has failed with Christ.<br /><br />Rome has turned the whole thing into a religious ascendancy protect.<br /><br />Galatians 5L:1 says that "For freedom, Christ has set us free."<br /><br />I saw precious little of that in my 35 years in the Roman Church.Steve Martinhttp://theoldadam.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-49595787585641525922013-04-05T07:54:46.838-07:002013-04-05T07:54:46.838-07:00Nick -
The weird thing is that RC Sproul helped m...Nick -<br /><br />The weird thing is that RC Sproul helped me convert to Catholicism! His series on Catholicism was pro Catholic to a thought provoking mind. His only real objection to Catholicism in that course was with penance which is ridiculous. Sprould didn't want to admit there is a present consequence for our sins. Everything else was pro Catholic.<br /><br />I keep saying to my Protestant friends that if Christ failed with Rome he was a liar or fraud. They don't want to hear that hard truth. They want to create their own church out of thin air. cwdlaw223https://www.blogger.com/profile/02451813257438815066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-53307991842282344092013-04-04T15:20:18.041-07:002013-04-04T15:20:18.041-07:00They wont question it because most are completely ...They wont question it because most are completely oblivious to the issue, they don't realize what they are saying. Those who do realize what is being said, namely that Jesus was damned in our place, they know that to question or doubt that would force them to abandon Justification By Faith Alone, and they'd rather keep that. <br /><br />The Bible does say that Jesus "satisfied" the Father's wrath in places like 1 Jn 2:2, but this means something very different than the Father re-directing His wrath onto Jesus in our place. To 'satisfy' in the Biblical sense means to make atonement, such as in Numbers 16:41-50.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-23740524364674982802013-04-04T13:01:29.193-07:002013-04-04T13:01:29.193-07:00It amazes me how many Ps will never, ever question...It amazes me how many Ps will never, ever question such a pillar of their faith. Penal substitution is another legal fiction created by Ps to make their theology fit. Nowhere in the Bible does it specifically state that Jesus died to satisfy the wrath of the Father for us. Those words just aren't there and yet for someone tied to sola scriptura you would think that would cause them to reject such teaching. (But sola scripture isn't in the Bible nor is it rejected so maybe that is consistent).cwdlaw223https://www.blogger.com/profile/02451813257438815066noreply@blogger.com