|
NTRMin Discussion Forum > The Areopagus > re: What you saw is penal substitution |
|
| << Prev Topic | Next Topic >> |
| Subject | Author |
| re: What you saw is penal substitution | Hananiah |
Quote: I see no substantive distinction between my two definitions of penal substitution. The same basic principle: Father punished Son. "That is the essence of penal substitution; the Father punished Christ so that He wouldn't have to punish us." "Penal substitution has God punishing an innocent man for the crimes of others. This, objectively, is an unjust act." Quote: No, all the ECF quotes you provided spoke about Christ's punishment in the passive. They said things like "He bore our punishment," "He was made a curse for us" etc. Why do you think they never phrased it in the active voice, and said that the Father punished the Son? If, out of all those dozens of times they said that Christ was punished, they meant it was the Father who was doing the punishing, why did none of them say so? Most likley they would have been horrified at the idea of God becoming the object of God's wrath.
|
Posts: 155 2/1/04 8:13 pm Reply |
| re: What you saw is penal substitution | DTKing |
|
You wrote: I see no substantive distinction between my two definitions of penal substitution. The same basic principle: Father punished Son. Said the blind man to the seeing. But that's precisely the meaning of penal. How far will you go with such sophistry? How absurd are you willing to present yourself? Now, please exegete for us the meaning of the phrase in Isaiah 53:10, "Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him." You wrote: "That is the essence of penal substitution; the Father punished Christ so that He wouldn't have to punish us." Yes, and those Church Fathers affirmed that Christ suffered that penalty for sinners, so that they might not bear the penalty for their sins. You wrote: "Penal substitution has God punishing an innocent man for the crimes of others. This, objectively, is an unjust act." Tell it to men like the biblical authors, like Peter, as well as Church fathers like Cyprian, Chrysostom. I guess both God the Son and God the Father acted unjustly in your self-defined theological world... 1 Peter 3:18: For Christ also suffered (epascho - aorist active indicative) once for sins, the just for the unjust... Christ's suffering was active and passive on his part, just as the biblical writers attest. Cyprian (c. 200-58) : He suffers Himself to become mortal, so that the guiltless may be put to death for the salvation of the guilty. ANF: Vol. V, Treatise 9 - On the Advantage of Patience, §6. Chrysostom (349-407): It was like an innocent man’s undertaking to die for another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment. For Christ took upon Him not the curse of transgression, but the other curse, in order to remove that of others. For, “He had done no violence neither was any deceit in His mouth.” (Isaiah 53:9; 1 Peter 2:22.) And as by dying He rescued from death those who were dying, so by taking upon Himself the curse, He delivered them from it. NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on Galatians, Chapter 3, v. 13. Yes, and the overwhelming majority of those ECFs demonstrated that. You're simply engaging in sophistry, young man. You're making yourself look sillier with every post. It would be altogether laughable if it weren't so sad. You wrote: No, all the ECF quotes you provided spoke about Christ's punishment in the passive. Baloney, Christ's suffering was voluntary, and was both active and passive. 51 “I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give (dwsw, future, active, indicative of didwmi) for the life of the world.” Christ himself testifies of his future active suffering. Many more examples of NT Greek verbs could be stated here to show that you are utterly clueless in these silly assertions. You wrote: They said things like "He bore our punishment," "He was made a curse for us" etc. Last time I looked, "bore" is active, unless you're a Roman apologist who is so blind that he will redefine words. And whose justice was being satisfied if it wasn't God's? You wrote: If, out of all those dozens of times they said that Christ was punished, they meant it was the Father who was doing the punishing, why did none of them say so? As Augustine put it so eloquently, "The curse is pronounced by divine justice." Again, Whose justice was being satisfied if it wasn't God's? It was divine justice. Anyone reading this can see the sophistry you're attempting to employ. Passive suffering is penal suffering nonetheless. But "bearing our punishment" (as Augustine put it) is an active act. You're engaging in sheer sophistry in an attempt to elude the obvious. And they did affirm the penal substitutionary nature of Christ's atonement. All you have to offer us is your unwillingness to affirm the meaning of their language. You're becoming more ridiculous with every post. You wrote: If, out of all those dozens of times they said that Christ was punished, they meant it was the Father who was doing the punishing, why did none of them say so? Then pray tell what the meaning of "divine justice" is. You wrote: Most likley they would have been horrified at the idea of God becoming the object of God's wrath. Most likely? Thank you for your anachronistic reading of these ECFs. It's always refreshing to watch a Roman apologist stroll down fanatasy lane where wishful thinking is substituted under the guise of substantial argumentation. It's a "Walter Mitty" world in the arena Roman apologetics, in which dreams become reality. Cheers, DTK
Edited by: DTKing at: 2/1/04 11:00 pm |
adelphoi Posts: 203 2/1/04 10:58 pm Reply |
| re: penal substitution | Hananiah |
Quote: And I agree with them. Show me just one sentence where one Church Father said that it was God the Father who was doing the punishing. Quote: Perhaps I should have been clearer when I said that they all spoke of Christ's suffering in the passive. My meaning was that none of them who spoke of Christ's suffering ever said that God the Father was the one inflicting this suffering. Quote: It was God's justice that was being satisfied, not because God was punishing Christ, but because Christ's obedience, suffering, and prayer "Father forgive them" moved the Father to mercy and vicariously merited salvation for the rest of mankind. Christ suffered the penalty for our sins unjustly, at the hands of unjust men, that we would not suffer the just penalty for our sins at the hands of God.
|
Posts: 163 2/3/04 9:10 am Reply |
| This is silly | Hilasterion |
Quote: Re-read the Chrysostom quote DTK provided. It mentions specifically "the curse". Who gave the curse? Then there is the Isaiah quote. Quote: That still isn't true. 1John 4:10 says it clearly enough. The Father sent the Son to be the propitiation of our sins. Propitiation, by definition, means to bear the wrath that we deserve. So the Father sent the Son to bear the Father's wrath in our place. Ther are other verses one could cite as well, but that is among the clearest. YOu might also beenfiot from reading Hebrews Quote: You are very confused. YOu assert that Jeus did not bear the wrath of God on our behalf yet you say he vicariously merited salvation. Salvation from what Hananiah? Among other things, the wrath of God. See Romans 5:9. That is what the blood of Christ does. Again, very obvious and clear. Christ's death was certainly unjust in that the punishment went on someone who didn;t deserve it. But the punishment was God's wrath, and the punishment was just. That is what ungodliness gets. See Romans 1:18. And here is what you really need to think about. What you call injustice, God calls mercy and grace. "My food is to do the will of Him who sent me..." John 4:34a
|
Moderator Posts: 523 2/3/04 10:27 am Reply 
|
| re: penal substitution | DTKing |
|
You wrote: And I agree with them. Show me just one sentence where one Church Father said that it was God the Father who was doing the punishing. I already have, People with eyes to see have seen those sentences. Someone had to bear the penality of divine justice against sin, and that's precisely what Christ did. You wrote: Perhaps I should have been clearer when I said that they all spoke of Christ's suffering in the passive. My meaning was that none of them who spoke of Christ's suffering ever said that God the Father was the one inflicting this suffering. There is no division of purpose in the Triune God for those ECFs. And Isaiah said very clearly, of which you've ignored: Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. Isaiah 53:10. All you have to hold on to here is your own stubbornness. You wrote: It was God's justice that was being satisfied, not because God was punishing Christ, but because Christ's obedience, suffering, and prayer "Father forgive them" moved the Father to mercy and vicariously merited salvation for the rest of mankind. It is not either/or, but both. Christ obeyed the Father will, whom it pleased to bruised him (Isaiah 53:10). It's patently obvious that you don't have a clue what you're rambling about. You wrote: Christ suffered the penalty for our sins unjustly, at the hands of unjust men, that we would not suffer the just penalty for our sins at the hands of God. Well, then pray tell why Peter brings both the facet of Human responsibility and that of divine justice together in the suffering of Christ? Peter: “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— “Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; Acts 2:22-23. Moreover, the gathered church in Jerusalem expressed the same in their collective prayer: “For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done. Acts 4:27-28 Romans 8:32 is against you: He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? As Augustine (354-430) commented on this text: He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all; how has He not with Him also freely given us all things?” Pray, unless the Father had been already appeased, would He have delivered up His own Son, not sparing Him for us? Does not this opinion seem to be as it were contrary to that? In the one, the Son dies for us, and the Father is reconciled to us by His death; in the other, as though the Father first loved us, He Himself on our account does not spare the Son, He Himself for us delivers Him up to death. But I see that the Father loved us also before, not only before the Son died for us, but before He created the world; the apostle himself being witness, who says, “According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world.” Nor was the Son delivered up for us as it were unwillingly, the Father Himself not sparing Him; for it is said also concerning Him, “Who loved me, and delivered up Himself for me.” Therefore together both the Father and the Son, and the Spirit of both, work all things equally and harmoniously; yet we are justified in the blood of Christ, and we are reconciled to God by the death of His Son. NPNF1: Vol. III, On The Trinity, Book 13, Chapter 11, §15. And as Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220) affirmed: The Son of man must be delivered up, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.” “Must be delivered up;” and why, except that it was so written by God the Creator? ANF: Vol. III, The Five Books Against Marcion, Book IV, Chapter 43. Origen (c. 185–c. 254): Let it be granted, then, that, as in the case of Job, the Father first delivered up the Son to the opposing powers, and that then they delivered Him up into the hands of men, among which men Judas also was, into whom after the sop Satan entered, who delivered Him up in a more authoritative manner than Judas. But take care lest on comparing together the delivering up of the Son by the Father to the opposing powers, with the delivering up of the Savior by them into the hands of men, you should think that what is called the delivering up is the same in the case of both. For understand that the Father in His love of men delivered Him up for us all; but the opposing powers, when they delivered up the Savior into the hands of men, did not intend to deliver Him up for the salvation of some, but, as far as in them lay, since none of them knew “the wisdom of God which was hidden in a mystery,” they gave Him up to be put to death, that His enemy death might receive Him under its subjection, like those who die in Adam; and also the men who slew Him did so, as they were molded after the will of those who wished indeed that Jesus should become subject to death. I have deemed it necessary also to examine into these things, because that when Jesus was delivered up into the hands of men, He was not delivered up by men into the hands of men, but by powers to whom the Father delivered up His Son for us all, and in the very act of His being delivered up, and coming under the power of those to whom He was delivered up, destroying him that has the power of death; for “through death He brought to nought him that hath the power of death, that is, the devil, and delivered all them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” ANF: Vol. IV, Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Book II - The Unity and Harmony of Scripture, Chapter V, §1. Cyprian (c. 200-58): Let no one cheat himself, let no one deceive himself. The Lord alone can have mercy. He alone can bestow pardon for sins which have been committed against Himself, who bare our sins, who sorrowed for us, whom God delivered up for our sins. ANF: Vol. V, Treatise 3 - On the Lapsed, §17. And, as I've shown already, Eusebius of Caesarea (260/263-340): And then “He [i.e. God] made him sin for our sakes who knew no sins,” and laid on Him all the punishments due to us for our sins, bonds, insults, contumelies, scourging, and shameful blows, and the crowning trophy of the Cross. And after all this when He had offered such a wondrous offering and choice victim to the Father, and sacrificed for the salvation of us all, He delivered a memorial to us to offer to God continually instead of a sacrifice. Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel, Vols 1 and II, ed. and trans. W. J. Ferrar (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001), Book 1, Chapter 10, p. 59. Augustine (354-430): For had not God hated sin and our death, He would not have sent His Son to bear and to abolish it. NPNF1: Vol. IV, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Book XIV, §4. Augustine (354-430): So too, they say, “When the fullness of time came, scripture says, God sent his Son born of a woman (Gal 4:4). He, who by the will of the Father assumed flesh, lived in the body at the will and command of the Father. As he said, I came down from heaven, not to do my will, but to do the will of him who sent me (Jn 6:38). At the will of the Father he was baptized at thirty years of age and was revealed by the voice and testimony of the Father. At the will and command of the Father he preached the good news of the kingdom of heaven. As he said, I must preach the good news to other cities, since I was sent for this purpose (Lk 4:43), and He gave me a command as to what I should say or what I should speak (Jn 12:49). Thus, at the will and command of the Father he hurried toward his suffering and death. As he said, Father, let this chalice pass from me, but not what I want, but what you want (Mt 26:39). And as the apostle states, He became obedient to the Father even to death, death upon the cross” (Phil 2:8). Of what else are they trying to convince us by these testimonies of the sacred scriptures but that the Father and the Son have different natures, because the Son is shown to be obedient to the Father? John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Arianism and Other Heresies, Answer to the Arian Sermon, VI, 6, Part 1, Vol. 18, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1995), pp. 144-145. Unless God's holy and righteousness justice is being served in the death of Christ, then you're attempting to make the satisfaction of justice some abstract notion foreign to the Godhead. But your latest posturing aside, you have already been refuted with respect to your original protestation against the penal substitutionary nature of the atonement in that I have shown repeatedly from Scripture and the ECFs that Christ was the substitute for sinners, undergoing their penalty in His passion on the cross. It was the Father's will for Christ to undergo the penalty of sinners as their substitute. This is the very essence of "penal substitution" against which you originally claimed and which I have shown to be the position of holy Scripture as well as the testimonia patrum. All we have for "proof" from you is your ramblings, which have changed from one definition to another, of what penal substitution means; and each contention has been answered, both from Scripture and the witness of the early church exposing your own bias, and the ignorance behind it. Cheers, DTK
|
adelphoi Posts: 204 2/3/04 12:48 pm Reply |
| re: penal substitution | Hananiah |
Quote: My definition has not changed. Penal substitution = Father punished Son. That has been my definition from the beginning of this debate, and I see no basis for your claim that my definition has changed. Quote: Ok, I found one Church Father in your mass of quotes who said that the Father was the one punishing. Thank you. You have answered my challenge to produce one Church Father who said this. Quote: I agree with Peter. God used unjust men to orchestrate the redemption of the world. It was God's purpose that Christ would be put to death; not that He might become the object of the Father's wrath and suffer divine punishment, but that He might move the Father to mercy with a payment of merit. Quote: God's wrath can be turned away without Him punishing anyone. His wrath can be turned away simply by prayer, and this is, in essence, what the atonement is. Quote: In the sense that God orchestrated the redemtion, and that it pleased Him to see Christ sacrificed, this is true. However, you have a long way to go before you establish that God credited Christ with the guilt of sin and became the object of divine wrath. Quote: And my belief in the justice of God, and my belief that God is not anathema to Himself: "He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD" (Proverb 17:15).
|
Posts: 169 2/3/04 9:10 pm Reply |
| Re: re: penal substitution | Hilasterion |
Quote: No, what you describe is not atonement. If you want to see atonement, look tot he OT. What did the Day of Atonement ritual look lke? A big prayer meeting? No. Hebrews refers to the necesity of death. Paul calls Jesus our mercy seat, that which th eatoning blood is sprinkled on. No, what you described is INTERCESSION, not atonemt. You realy have no idea what you're talking about. I suggest you go and get some schooling before you speak further. All you do is reveal ignorqnce at this stage. Quote: God's justice encompases what you reject. God is called just and the justifier, and that based on laying His wrath on the Son. As for your proveb yo compare apples and oranges. A False conviction is not the same as voluntarily bearing the judgment for another who is justly condemned. What God did was mercy and grace, not an abomination. Once you understand the meaning of those two words then you will really understand what God did in Christ. "My food is to do the will of Him who sent me..." John 4:34a
|
Moderator Posts: 531 2/4/04 6:35 am Reply
|
| re: penal substitution | DTKing |
|
You wrote: My definition has not changed. Penal substitution = Father punished Son. That has been my definition from the beginning of this debate, and I see no basis for your claim that my definition has changed. You originally defined penal substitution as.. Quote: Now, you've tried to back off of that nuance of charging God with injustice by permitting Christ, the riighteous one, to suffer in the place of the guilty. You wrote: Ok, I found one Church Father in your mass of quotes who said that the Father was the one punishing. Thank you. You have answered my challenge to produce one Church Father who said this. More than one have affirmed it. All I had to show to prove penal substitution was that Christ was the substitute for sinners, who bore the penalty for their sins in their place, thus satisfying divine justice. Bearing the penalty is equivalent to bearing the punishment. That is the essence of penal substitution. You're engagaing in more sophistry. But then, that's what Roman apologists are eventually forced to resort to in their stubbornness. You wrote: I agree with Peter. God used unjust men to orchestrate the redemption of the world. It was God's purpose that Christ would be put to death; not that He might become the object of the Father's wrath and suffer divine punishment, but that He might move the Father to mercy with a payment of merit. That's not what Peter said, and that's not what those ECFs said. God was responsible because He decreed it, and so were men who acted sinfully. Christ was the object who bore the penalty of sinners to satisfy the demands of divine justice. You're avoiding the obvious, and doing a bad job of it. Again, as Augustine (354-430) put it: Christ, however, paid a tax he did not owe. In the same way, he paid the price of death; he didn't owe it, and he paid it. If he hadn't paid what he didn't owe, he would never have delivered us from the debt we did. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 5, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 155.7 (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1992), p. 88. You wrote: God's wrath can be turned away without Him punishing anyone. His wrath can be turned away simply by prayer, and this is, in essence, what the atonement is. Well, now, this is a rather interesting private theory on your part. You just explained away the necessity of the atonement. Christ himself refutes you, Luke 24:46: Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day..." The atonement of Christ isn't, in essence, a prayer. You wrote as your private commentary on Isaiah 53:10: In the sense that God orchestrated the redemtion, and that it pleased Him to see Christ sacrificed, this is true. However, you have a long way to go before you establish that God credited Christ with the guilt of sin and became the object of divine wrath. I have gone the long way, and I have already established it, both from Scripture and the ECFs. Again, all we have from you is a collection of private objections, denials, all of which are no evidence for your contention. All you have to offer here is the zeal of your bias and ignorance. Isaiah said, "It pleased the LORD to bruise him." You wrote: And my belief in the justice of God, and my belief that God is not anathema to Himself: "He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD" (Proverb 17:15). Yes, your emphasis on my is duly noted. That passage does not address the atonement. And if it were true in the sense you are attempting to use it, then you've implicated God himself whom Paul declared "justifies the ungodly" (Rom 4:5). This way of handling Scripture only betrays your ignorance of biblical Christianity. But being a member of the Roman communion, I'm not surprised. Now, show us some consistency, how does God escape your pronouncement of anathema in the face of Paul's declaration Rom 4:5 that God justifies the ungodly? Proverbs 17:15 is addressing the matter of human justice, not divine justice. I answer your belief in the justice of God with Augustine... Quote: The fact is that Christ, not merely an innocent man, but positively righteous, underwent the curse of God (Gal 3:13), and bore the sins of those for whom He was crucified... Again, as Augustine affirmed... Quote: Augustine (354-430) concludes one of his sermons with the following words: O Lord Jesus, suffering for us, not for yourself, being without fault and bearing the punishment, in order to undo both fault and punishment! John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 4, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 136.6 (Brooklyn: New City Press, 1992), p. 357. Again, Augustine (354-430): So not only should we not be ashamed of the death of the Lord our God, we should even have maximum trust in it, and maximum pride in it; because in fact, by catching from us and undergoing the death he found in us, he most faithfully engaged himself to give us life in himself, which we are quite unable to get from ourselves. I mean, seeing that he loved us so much, that without sin himself he suffered for us sinners what we deserved for our sins, how can he, who thereby justifies us, possibly not give us what we have earned by that justice? How can he not pay the saints their reward, which he promised in truth, seeing that without wickedness himself he endured their punishment for the wicked? John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 6, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 218C.2 (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), p. 195. Isaiah 53:6-5; 10-12: 5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. 10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. 11 He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great, And He shall divide the spoil with the strong, Because He poured out His soul unto death, And He was numbered with the transgressors, And He bore the sin of many, And made intercession for the transgressors. Chrysostom (349-407) on Hebrews 9:28. “So Christ was once offered.”: By whom offered? evidently by Himself. Here he says that He is not Priest only, but Victim also, and what is sacrificed. On this account are [the words] “was offered.” “Was once offered” (he says) “to bear the sins of many.” Why “of many,” and not “of all”? Because not all believed, For He died indeed for all, that is His part: for that death was a counterbalance against the destruction of all men. But He did not bear the sins of all men, because they were not willing. And what is [the meaning of] “He bare the sins”? Just as in the Oblation we bear up our sins and say, “Whether we have sinned voluntarily or involuntarily, do Thou forgive,” that is, we make mention of them first, and then ask for their forgiveness. So also was it done here. Where has Christ done this? Hear Himself saying, “And for their sakes I sanctify Myself.” (John 17:19) Lo! He bore the sins. He took them from men, and bore them to the Father; not that He might determine anything against them [mankind], but that He might forgive them. NPNF1: Vol. XIV, Epistle to the Hebrews, Homly 17. You ought to be warned, young man, that you have rejected the biblical doctrine of Christ's penal substitutionary atonement against the express testimony of Holy Scripture. You are young, ignorant, and untaught in these matters, and you ought to refrain from exegeting yourself on these matters of which you are so painfully ignorant. Cheers, DTK
|
adelphoi Posts: 206 2/4/04 9:13 am Reply |
| David | Hilasterion |
|
Just wanted to let you know that I am of the opinion that you are making truly superior and outstanding posts in this thread. Thanks very much.
"My food is to do the will of Him who sent me..." John 4:34a
|
Moderator Posts: 532 2/4/04 10:42 am Reply
|
| Thanks Brent | DTKing |
|
(This message was left blank)
|
adelphoi Posts: 208 2/4/04 9:39 pm Reply |
|
<< Prev Topic |
Next Topic >>
|
Replies
 Email This To a Friend Topic Commands Click to receive email notification of replies  Click to stop receiving email notification of replies |
|
- NTRMin Discussion Forum - The Areopagus - New Testament Research Ministries -
Powered By ezboard® Ver. 7.3v
Copyright ©1999-2003 ezboard, Inc.