Spending less time online during Lent

I plan to minimize my time online during Lent, so I won't be posting for at least a few months. Take care!

Which sins of the Israelites was the Passover Lamb being punished for? - More Problems with Penal Substitution

I was having a talk recently with a Protestant and it occurred to me that the Passover had nothing to do with the Israelites being sinners. If this is the case, then it makes no sense at all to think that there was Israelite sin being imputed to the Passover Lamb, and thus the Passover Sacrifice had nothing to do with Penal Substitution. And if Jesus is our Passover Sacrifice, as Paul says in 1 Cor 5:7, this is yet another clear blow to this man-made doctrine of Protestantism. 

Recall that the Passover was about the Angel of Death "passing over" the Israelite homes, while striking down the first born sons of Egypt. This was the "tenth plague" and it was specifically a punishment for Pharaoh not letting the Israelites go free. The whole story is about Egypt's sinfulness, not Israel's sinfulness. To think of the situation as if Israel was guilty of sin is ridiculous. It would undermine the whole story of their liberation, a story that the Israelites were to pass on to their children in every generation and celebrate as a perpetual Feast. What is the point if the Israelites were just as sinful as the Egyptians, but God somehow was willing to let the Israelites get off the hook while not giving the Egyptians an equal chance to have a Passover Lamb? Clearly, Penal Substitution makes no sense when projected upon the Passover situation.

Did Jesus die as a martyr? - More problems with Penal Substitution

Martyrdom refers to being persecuted unto death for the sake of serving and witnessing to God. It is one of the highest honors precisely because it involves sacrificing your very life for a higher cause. This concept is important when thinking about the Atonement of Jesus, because it establishes the principle that God is pleased by faithful obedience, not by death itself. Nor does martyrdom in any way suggest God is upset with you or punishing you. Here are some verses to consider:

Brothers, became imitators of the churches that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets. (1 Thess 2:14-15)

Paul is saying that Jesus was persecuted unto death, as were the prophets. And Christians are not to be shocked if they experience the same. This makes little sense within the Protestant view of the cross (Penal Substitution), since in that view Jesus was judicially punished, not persecuted unto death Penal Substitution is contrary to the character of persecuted/martyr, and it also makes no sense if Christians are expected to face a similar form of death. 

Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints. (Psalm 116:15)
From oppression and violence he redeems their life, and precious is their blood in his sight. (Psalm 72:14) 

Why is the death of saints a "precious" thing to God? This makes no sense within a Penal Substitution framework, since nobody aside from Jesus would be capable of this. But within the Catholic-Biblical understanding of atonement and sacrifice, the lesson here is plain: precious in God's sight is the act of offering up their life for his sake, particularly due to martyrdom.

and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. (Heb 12:24) 

Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. (Matthew 23:34-35)

Why does the blood of Abel "speak" so eloquently to God? Because Abel gave up his life in service to God. Abel was not acting as a Penal Substitute, but rather as a witness (which is precisely what the term "martyr" means in Greek, and used in that way in places like Acts 22:20; Rev 2:13; 17:6). And since Jesus is being compared to Abel here, the comparison only works if their death/offerings were of the same kind. The term "righteous blood" can only refer to their deaths being unjust, and thus their merit before God comes from their martyrdom. One other interesting note is that in the Matthew 23:34 reference above, Jesus says that the Jews will end up killing and "crucifying" some of the prophets and apostles. This is strange if the whole point of Penal Substitution was that Jesus was crucified in our place, taking the punishment we deserved. You'd think this is the last thing Jesus would say, or that the Father would allow. 

For another great example, consider my recent post on how this martyr theme factors into Romans 3:25 and Isaiah 53. In these verses and other posts I've done on Penal Substitution, I don't think Protestantism is honest enough with itself to see that their view of the Cross is quite simply wrong, and even twisted. But hopefully if we can get the word out we can change minds.

Did Paul really think his Jewish opponents saw themselves as being sinless?

Standard Protestant teaching says that the reason why works cannot justify us is "because we are sinners," which is another way of saying that if we were not sinners, then works could indeed save us. As I have noted elsewhere on this blog (e.g. here), Paul never suggests works could save even if we were sinless. In this post, I want to add another detail which goes against this Protestant idea, namely looking at whether the Jews ever considered themselves sinless. I will now turn to the Scriptures to show that the Jews clearly did consider themselves sinners, which thus totally undermines the Protestant Perspective on Paul.

As I was looking around for some Protestant quotes on this matter, I came across this gem from R.C. Sproul's ministry: 

God’s people were justified by faith alone under the Mosaic covenant even though some verses in the Law say the doing of its precepts brings righteousness and life. One of these is Leviticus 18:5, which Paul quotes in Galatians 3:12. We might conclude from a superficial reading of the Mosaic law that old covenant people were saved by works, not faith. Some Christians have held this position. However, the Torah shows us that while it reveals God’s righteous standard, our Creator knew that sinners could never save themselves by doing the Law. For example, the inclusion of sacrifices to atone for sin presupposes that the people will fail and have to look for another way to be justified.

The first sentence here says that under the Law people were justified by faith alone "even though" the Law says you are justified by works. How could the Bible say justification is by faith alone if it teaches justification by works? This claim is a blatant contradiction in thought, which is sadly so characteristic of the PPP. But that's not all! The quote also goes on to say that the Law included instructions on performing sacrifices to atone for sins, since it was obvious that nobody could be sinless. What Jew would go around considering themselves sinless when they were fully aware of the long chapters in Leviticus dedicated to instructions on atoning for sin? Why would God issue a Law that simultaneously demanded sinlessness and a means to atone for sin? Did a single Jew on the annual Day of Atonement, dedicated to atoning for all the sins of the Israelite nation, seriously think they were without sin?

The implicit Filioque?

As I was reading up on the first two Ecumenical Councils, I came across a fascinating tidbit of information from Protestant historian Philip Schaff's famous Nicene Fathers series. For those who don't know, the Nicene Creed we recite each Sunday actually came to us from two Ecumenical Councils. Basically, the First Ecumenical Council held in Nicaea in AD325 gave us the 'first half' of the Creed, up to the words "and we believe in the Holy Spirit," but stopped there. Later on at the Second Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople in AD381, we got the 'second half' of the Nicene Creed, which added everything including and after the words "and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father". What is fascinating is that it turns out these Creeds were not just invented on the spot at these Councils, but rather they existed in a few different 'versions' and were basically used as a 'statement of faith' for one's Baptism. This is an important historical detail because it means that the Filioque - the part where the Creed says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "and the Son" - despite not being part of the Nicene Creed of either the Council of 325 nor 381, should not be automatically taken as a rejection of the idea itself. Nor should having the Filioque clause within the Creed be taken as 'tampering' with the Creed. (I wrote about the Filioque taught in Scripture in an older post, if you're interested.)

The best testimony for this comes from a significant Early Church Father, St Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis (Cyprus). He lived from AD310-403 and is held in high regard by both East and West. He lived during both Councils but he did not attend either, making his testimony even more significant. The passage from Schaff's series says that Epiphanius used a creed as early as AD374 (i.e. a decade prior to the Second Ecumenical Council), which none the less was nearly identical to the Nicene Creed as we know it. Epiphanius tells us that this was handed on from ancient times, even from the Apostles themselves, and that it is required knowledge to get Baptized. This means that prior to the Second Ecumenical Council in AD381, certain regions were already using a longer Creed than the one from AD325. Yet we would not say these regions were 'tampering' with the Creed, since they were expounding on it without changing its meaning.