Which sins did the Day of Atonement atone for? - More Problems with Penal Substitution

Protestants are fond of quoting Hebrews 9:22 against Catholicism, since they think the phrase "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins" means that Penal Substitution is required for sins to be forgiven. But the first half of this verse shows the shedding of blood served a different function, a cleansing one, saying: "under the law almost everything is purified with blood," and why the very next verse (9:23) says, "Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these." Aside from the fact 9:23b uses the plural "sacrifices" when speaking of the New Testament, and thus supporting the notion the Mass is a sacrifice, I came across a very interesting verse in this same chapter a while back that I think further strengthens the Catholic case against Penal Substitution. 

The verse is Hebrews 9:6-7, which says: "6 These preparations having thus been made, the priests go regularly into the first section, performing their ritual duties, 7 but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people." Verse 7 is talking about the Day of Atonement, the one day each year when the High Priest goes into the Holy-of-Holies and stands before the Ark of the Covenant to perform the sacred duty of making atonement. What is interesting about verse 7b is that it says the High Priest makes atonement for the "unintentional sins" of the people. The Greek word for "unintentional sins" used in 9:7 is agnoema, meaning literally sins done without knowledge (negated-knowledge, where the word "agnostic" comes from). Those who have read other posts of my "Problems with Penal Substitution" series will see why this is significant, but I'll do a quick recap here.

If the Levitical Sacrifices were intended to model Penal Substitution, then we'd expect to see something akin to a person deserving of the death penalty transferring this punishment to an animal, and this animal ends up getting the death penalty in place of the sinner. But if the person did not do something worthy of the death penalty, then it hardly makes sense to say the death penalty was transferred to an animal. In the case of "unintentional sins," it hardly makes sense to say God demands someone die. This is important to keep in mind as one seeks to understand not only the Levitical Sacrifices, but especially the book of Hebrews. This is not to say that the Cross only deals with unintentional sins, since the Cross has the power to forgive any and all sins, but only to show that the Old Testament framework was not that of Penal Substitution. 

Recognizing the 'danger' to the doctrine of Penal Substitution this poses, one Reformed apologist countered my claim by saying six other verses use this same Greek word but they uses it synonymously with sin in general. Here are the verses: 

• Genesis 43:13, Take double the money with you. Carry back with you the money that was returned in the top of your sacks; perhaps it was an oversight.

• Judith 5:20, So now, my master and lord, if there is any oversight in this people and they sin against their God and we find out their offense, then we can go up and defeat them.

• Tobit 3:3, And now, O Lord, remember me and look favorably upon me. Do not punish me for my sins and for my unwitting offenses and those that my ancestors committed before you.

• Sirach 23:2, Who will set whips over my thoughts, and the discipline of wisdom over my mind,
  so as not to spare me in my errors, and not overlook my sins?

• Sirach 51:19, My soul grappled with wisdom, and in my conduct I was strict; I spread out my hands to the heavens, and lamented my ignorance of her.

• 1 Maccabees 13:39, We pardon any errors and offenses committed to this day, and cancel the crown tax that you owe; and whatever other tax has been collected in Jerusalem shall be collected no longer.

Looking over these verses, there is no indication that this term means sin in general. Genesis 43:13 and Sirach 51:19 don't even mention sin, clearly referring to ignorance or oversight in general. The other passages plainly distinguish 'unintentional sins' from sin in general (esp Tobit 3:3), strongly suggesting they are not the same. The only alternative is to argue they are to be taken in parallel or tautologically, but I think that's assuming too much.

What is interesting to note is that none of these verses are from Leviticus, leaving us having to make an educated guess as to what Hebrews 9:7 was speaking of. I believe the answer rests in texts like Numbers 15:27-31, since they explicitly say unintentional/minor sins can be atoned for, but deliberate/grave sins cannot (and that these cut one off from the covenant). This is confirmed in texts like Leviticus 4:2; 22; 27; 5:15; 18, which use the same Hebrew term "unintentional" as Numbers 15:27. And from here, looking up Leviticus 5:18 in the Greek OT (the LXX) shows it uses the Greek word agnoia, which is a nearly identical word as that used in Hebrews 9:7. Also, the LXX word for "unintentional" in Leviticus 4:2, 22, etc, is akousios, which is a negated form of "voluntarily" (kousios, hekousios), literally meaning involuntarily, and thus confirming the unintentional sin interpretation. Further, the term hekousios is used in Hebrews 10:26, referring to no sacrifice being available for voluntary/deliberate sins, which confirms the this argument but from the opposite perspective.

1 Corinthians 11:27 - A King James Version quickie and a Transubstantiation teaser

The King James Version is one of the most respected and admired translations of the Bible in all of history and is still very popular today. While it actually has a lot of beautiful English in it, it should not be thought of the perfect and only true translation the way many Protestants (even today) think. These Protestants are known as King James Onlyists. One very good, quick, and easy traditional argument for discrediting the "flawlessness" of this translation is to point to 1 Corinthians 11:27, where Paul speaks about the sin of abusing the Eucharist:

KJV: Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread AND [Greek:ἤ] drink this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body AND [Greek:καί] blood of the Lord.

The KJV has botched a key word here by using the Greek word "AND" in both places when in fact the Greek word "AND" (kai) only appears in the second instance. In the first instance, the Greek word is actually "OR". How it should read is: Abusing EITHER the consecrated bread OR the consecrated cup makes one guilty of BOTH the body AND blood of Jesus. You might think, what's the big deal? The big deal is, this text is powerful for demonstrating the Catholic teaching that Jesus is fully present under either bread alone or cup alone, something Protestants repudiate since this only makes sense with transubstantiation. The KJV wants to get around this by tampering with the text and adding "AND" so that the text denies Jesus is fully present under each, and that each must be abused to be guilty of both. 

Conclusion: This is not to say the KJV is a horrible translation, but only that it is not flawless and has biases that affect key doctrine that cannot be swept under the rug. This should be simple enough to memorize that any Catholic should be able to pull this out when needed, even to Protestants who are not KJV Onlyists. Lastly, not only does the Greek totally refute the KJV here, but no respected Protestant translation uses "AND" here, they all use "OR" (see the list HERE), confirming that this isn't a Catholic invention but being true to the Greek.

BIG NEWS: Watchtower admits they were wrong in January 2013 Watchtower magazine.

I am shocked that this isn't getting more publicity, but I would strongly encourage people to spread this news. In the January 1, 2013 edition of the Watchtower Magazine, the official publication of the Jehovah's Witnesses, they said this in one of their lead articles:

HAVE JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES GIVEN INCORRECT DATES FOR THE END?

Jehovah’s Witnesses have had wrong expectations about when the end would come. Like Jesus’ first-century disciples, we have sometimes looked forward to the fulfillment of prophecy ahead of God’s timetable. (Luke 19:11; Acts 1:6; 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) We agree with the sentiment of longtime Witness A. H. Macmillan, who said: “I learned that we should admit our mistakes and continue searching God’s Word for more enlightenment.”

Why, then, do we continue to highlight the nearness of the end? Because we take seriously Jesus’ words: “Keep looking, keep awake.” The alternative, to be found “sleeping” by Jesus, would prevent us from gaining his favor. (Mark 13:33, 36) Why?

Consider this example: A lookout in a fire tower might see what he thinks is a wisp of smoke on the horizon and sound what proves to be a false alarm. Later, though, his alertness could save lives.

Likewise, we have had some wrong expectations about the end. But we are more concerned with obeying Jesus and saving lives than with avoiding criticism. Jesus’ command to “give a thorough witness” compels us to warn others about the end.—Acts 10:42.

We believe that even more important than focusing on when the end will come, we must be confident that it will come, and we must act accordingly. We take seriously the words of Habakkuk 2:3, which says: “Even if [the end] should delay [compared to what you thought], keep in expectation of it; for it will without fail come true. It will not be late.”

The question everyone must stop and ask is: WHY would they say this?

Why would they admit they got predictions wrong?

If this is Jehovah's Organization, they cannot get things wrong. If they are not Jehovah's Organization, then they should not be admitting this. So something is up.

They said Jesus returned invisibly in 1914 to judge the world and that the end would come any time, now that the year 2014 is just around the corner, it means Jesus has not "immediately" returned 100 years. This could mark some sort of easing transition the Watchtower is trying to make in maybe abandoning 1914 (see the link) or something similar.

This whole admission is fishy, because the JWs were founded on predicting dates and founded on the idea they are the only ones preaching the truth that the end is coming any time now. They made themselves by saying Jesus would return within a "generation," which first was 30 years, then 70, and now we're at 99 years. SOMETHING is fishy.

How to punish a Calvinist (1 Corinthians 11:32)

I was recently reminded of a punishing passage from St Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians that led me to write a quick apologetics article about it. The verse is 1 Corinthians 11:32, 

But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

Paul is speaking of those Christians in Corinth who were abusing the Eucharist (1 Cor. 11:17-34) and as a result God was inflicting punishments on them, such as illnesses and even death (1 Cor. 11:29-30). What is noteworthy about verse 32 is that Paul says God is chastising these Christians precisely to get them to change their ways so that they will "not be condemned along with the world." This teaching poses a serious problem for Protestant theology, particularly Calvinism, because Justification by Faith Alone teaches that the Christian cannot ever be condemned because they say Jesus was already condemned in their place. 

The only two objections I can foresee is for a Protestant to either argue (1) this condemnation somehow does not pertain to Justification, or (b) that this passage is not speaking of true Christians. But these are mere assertions and they do violence to the plain language of the text. For example, Paul uses terms like "judged" and "condemned," which would have to apply to the forensic categories of Justification. In fact, the phrase "condemned along with the world" can only refer to the damning to hell sentence that the unrepentant world will end up receiving. And if Paul is not talking about genuine Christians, then he cannot be using collective terms like "we" and speaking of chastisement, since chastisement pertains only to adopted children of God. So this verse solidly proves that not only are Christians not justified by faith alone, but that God chastises them when they turn to sin for a very grave reason: so that they will correct their ways and not end up getting damned in the end. (cf 1 Tim. 1:19-20; Rev. 3:19)

Why Protestants do not worship God.

I have come to a startling conclusion after reading two articles that I recently saw online, and that conclusion is that Protestants do not really worship God. I obviously have to qualify and clarify this statement, since it is a most serious charge, but it centers around the fact Protestants must admit that formal worship is a non-essential Christian teaching. If you stop and think about it, the fact is Protestants cannot agree on how or when Christians should worship, and unless a Protestant denomination wants to take a dogmatic stance, they're forced to take on the repugnant position that it doesn't really matter how or when (if ever!) a Christian should worship.

The first article I want to point you to is called "10 Reasons to be Involved in a Church." Before clicking on the link, just let the title of that article sink in. The impression given off is that while it is a good idea to be involved in a church, it is not something absolutely necessary. In fact, it comes off as seeking a church that suits your preferences, not some objective criteria by which all Christians should approach the issue. The article was written because the author claims only 8% of Protestants in Britain and only 40% of Protestants in America attend a church on Sunday. In other words, attending church is now seen as something purely optional to the Christian life. And this makes perfect sense with the "don't tell me how to be a Christian" mentality that Sola Scriptura causes. Not unsurprisingly, all 10 of his reasons are nothing more than suggestions, and none of his reasons include because Christians must worship God a certain way, such as a formal Liturgy. The closest he gets is saying "corporate" worship provides a "unique joy" that private worship does not. This is precisely why the whole idea of denominations are disappearing and collapsing into to go-it-alone 'house churches'. 

This leads me to the second article, "In Praise of Denominations," in which a popular Reformed blogger is trying to validate the idea that bitter doctrinal divisions within Christianity is a good thing! (1 Cor. 1:10-11) For example, he says Denominations are critical because they provide members with "theological precision," the ability to have Church discipline, intervene in controversy, and provide unity. The irony of his arguments in favor of Denominationalism is that these qualities he seeks to "safeguard" are the very things Denominationalism undermines! He doesn't realize that if a Protestant doesn't like what they see in a denomination, they can move on to one that will preach what they want to hear. (2 Timothy 4:3) He doesn't realize that only the Catholic system can truly safeguard these things. It's also important to note that none of the things he sought to "safeguard" included worshiping God a specific way, which one would think should be the most important thing to safeguard. But we can easily see why, and that's because he unwittingly holds that one denomination can be just as good as another, which ultimately means formal worship is a non-essential.

The Church explains that even common sense shows us that it's absurd to suggest one can and should worship God as they please, as if one form of worship was as good as another. And realizing that God should be worshiped in certain ways compels us to seek out that Worship which is in fact the True one. This obviously requires one to find the True Church, which is impossible if Denominationalism is the norm. This practically makes the case for Catholicism in itself! 

One of the best documents the Church has issued in recent years is Dominus Iesus, in which the Church explained that while Protestants are Christians in virtue of having valid Baptism, it is wrong and offensive to speak of Protestant "churches" in any objective or formal sense. Rather, the more accurate term Rome says to use is "communities," and this is because Protestants lack Holy Orders, which is what defines the visible parameters of the Church. Included in this important fact is that Holy Orders are required for a valid Eucharist, which in turn means the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the formal worship God instituted and how God desires to be worshiped. Thus, to lack the Priesthood makes it impossible to truly worship God. And thus, in a very real (though not all extensive) sense, Protestants do not worship God.