It is still His, and, moreover, it is only to be found "in Him." "Surely shall one say, In the Lord have I righteousness," and "In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory" (Isa. 45:24, 25). "We are made the righteousness of God," but only "in Him" (2 Cor. 5:21); and if we would have "the righteousness which is of God by faith," we "must win Christ, and be found in Him" (Phil. 3:9); for this righteousness is part of that "fulness which dwells in Him" (Col. 1:19), and which is "treasured up for us in Him."
The whole merit is His –
the gracious imputation of it only is ours.
Christ fulfilled the law of God in perfect obedience in His earthly life; He perfectly fulfilled its penalty in His death on the cross; He fully satisfied God’s holiness, justice and wrath in His once for all propitiatory sacrifice on the cross and in resurrection secured for us our justification.
Therefore, sinful man may have peace with God by grace through faith in Jesus Christ the Lord by being justified by His blood (Roms. 5:9); and that His righteousness, by virtue of His sinless life lived and His atoning death, is now imputed to us by faith (2 Cor. 5:21) so that we are no longer under the curse of the Law; the demands of the Law; or under the justice and wrath of God. But we are clothed with the perfect righteousness of Christ, being regenerated and sealed by His Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13-14).
It is as the Apostle Paul so wonderfully states:
“He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." -Titus 3:5-7
35 comments:
Interesting, I'm having a debate on Penal Substitution right now and I consider it thoroughly unbiblical.
http://catholicdefense.googlepages.com/psdebate
Steve,
Grace alone indeed. Beautiful words from Isaiah also.
Nick,
Yikes. I wonder what is biblical then. You are denying not just a crucial doctrine of Protestantism, but of Christianity itself.
Darrin,
What if I told you great minds like St Anselm and St Thomas Aquinas (among others) did not hold to Penal Substitution?
Also, how do you reconcile the notion Jesus underwent divine wrath with standard orthodox Christology?
Take this quote for example from a respected Reformed theologian:
"We should remember that Christ's suffering in His human nature, as He hung on the cross those six hours, was not primarily physical, but mental and spiritual. When He cried out, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me," He was literally suffering the pangs of hell. For that is essentially what hell is, separation from God, separation from everything that is good and desirable. Such suffering is beyond our comprehension. But since He suffered as a divine-human person, His suffering was a just equivalent for all that His people would have suffered in an eternity in hell.
(Boettner, Loraine. “The Reformed Faith.” Chapter 3.)"
There are more where this came from. How Jesus can undergo the "equivalent of hell" and being "forsaken" spiritually by God and being under God's wrath are concepts which are incompatible with standard orthodox Christology (ie how to properly understand Christ as fully God and fully man in light of the Ecumenical Councils).
All that said, I suggest you read my opening essay of the debate where I show the popular proof texts are not actually saying what most Protestants think they say.
Nick,
You asked, "What if I told you great minds like St Anselm and St Thomas Aquinas (among others) did not hold to Penal Substitution?"
I would say "Sorry to hear that", though I wouldn't be surprised, at least in Aquinas' case. Surely you're aware of the scores of great minds who held it firmly. But most notable would be the mind of God and Christ, who apparently agreed to Christ's atonement from eternity past.
"Also, how do you reconcile the notion Jesus underwent divine wrath with standard orthodox Christology?"
I don't see the inconsistency. Christ willingly shed His blood for His people, while remaining fully divine, fully human, fully sinless. I agree that it is important to consider attributes such as His immutability as we ask whether He was truly separated from the Father. I had a discussion of this with another believer a few years ago, and hope to give that more thought again.
But at what point do the arguments cease to be "proof texts" and show that His substitutionary death is in the whole biblical narrative of salvation? Or how do you suppose we are justified?
I haven't had time to read much of your essays yet.
I would point readers to resources such as:
http://www.monergism.com/directory/search.php?action=search_links_simple&search_kind=and&phrase=penal
Grace,
Darrin
Sorry if that link didn't show up. My suggestion to all was just that if you go to a good site like monergism.com and do a search for "penal" or "substitution", you'll find some articles that may be helpful.
Aw, shucks, Nick, I thought you were going to attempt to contend for your heresy from the contextual, accumulative evidences of the whole counsel of Scripture.
Waiting...
Darrin:I would say "Sorry to hear that", though I wouldn't be surprised, at least in Aquinas' case. Surely you're aware of the scores of great minds who held it firmly.
Nick: Who would these "great minds" be which compare to Aquinas? I'm not saying he is impeccable, but his overall caliber is hard to match. Who do you have in mind? Luther? Calvin?
Darrin:I don't see the inconsistency. Christ willingly shed His blood for His people, while remaining fully divine, fully human, fully sinless. I agree that it is important to consider attributes such as His immutability as we ask whether He was truly separated from the Father. I had a discussion of this with another believer a few years ago, and hope to give that more thought again.
Nick: I would hope you give it more thought sooner than later. Suggesting Christ was damned in your place is not a doctrine to take lightly.
Darrin: But at what point do the arguments cease to be "proof texts" and show that His substitutionary death is in the whole biblical narrative of salvation? Or how do you suppose we are justified?
Nick: I'm not sure what you are saying. Christ did die for us, but wasnt in the form of a penal substitution. Sin wasn't imputed to him and God's wrath was never on him, things like that are flatly unScriptural.
Darrin: I haven't had time to read much of your essays yet.
I would point readers to resources such as:
http://www.monergism.com
Nick: You're in for a treat then. I've been through monergism's library on the issue as well as other protestant pages. Time and again they base their conclusions on a handful of texts which are not properly interpreted and a lot of assumptions read into them. One of the most popular texts is 2 Cor 5:21 which doesn't come anywhere close to penal sub yet is put forward as one of the key proof-texts.
If you read my Opening Essay I go through those texts showing they fall very short.
Deb B: Aw, shucks, Nick, I thought you were going to attempt to contend for your heresy from the contextual, accumulative evidences of the whole counsel of Scripture.
Nick: Deb, I really encourage you to read the opening Essay of my debate. I would consider myself to have drawn my conclusions from Scripture as a whole. I consider penal substitution to be the opposite, in which a few isolated texts have concepts read into them that simply are not there. If you believe the Scripture is more or less a clear guide for the average believer, you are in for a surprise when you really take a look at the serious lack of Scriptural support for Penal Substitution.
Nick: "Deb, I really encourage you to read the opening Essay of my debate.
Sorry, Nick, but my time online is stewarded pretty tightly. Hence, there are a limited number of Blogs/sites on my RSS feed that I read (and occasionally participate in) on a regular basis. Campi's is on my feed cause I just love his hard-hitting and oft convicting regular clips as much as I do his, let's see, how did CCM put it once?, "preachy, finger wagging lyrics".
Besides which, you came over here and called a critical foundational tenet of orthodox Christianity unBiblical. Here's where I'm engaged.
I'm waiting for you to attempt to contend for that heresy, not from a bunch of quotes from fallible humans, but with the contextual, accumulative evidences of the whole counsel of Scripture ... HERE!
As to debates, I've listened to and/or observed more than I can recall off-hand; debates by Godly men such as Dr. White, the late Dr. Bahnsen, to name but two of the so very many capable men it has pleased the Lord to bless us with in my generation.
Speaking of which, Nick, why don't we refer readers to some of Dr. James White's [of Alpha and Omega Ministries] more recent debates with Romanists? Is this because the outcome is less than favorable for your heresies?
I am truly not trying to be unkind or caustic here, but it is no small matter to rip up yet another of the planks upon which you must stand before a holy God when it is given to man to die once and then face the judgment. But, then, you and I do not even agree on that point Scripturally, do we, Nick?
Moreover, Nick, you made your heretical allegation here and, unlike you, I'm looking to only one plumb line against which to measure your heretical allegations: the canon of Scripture.
Thank you.
“Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls."
ONLY what Jesus did at the cross, in obedience to the Father, can turn away the wrath of God that was my just penalty for being a rebel. You bore the whipping, beating, public ridicule, crucifix and DEATH that should have been mine, but now I have peace with God and will not perish. Thank you Jesus.
Nick, what you espouse is grossly heretical and unBiblical. To reject the penal substitution of Jesus Christ, God the Son, upon Calvary's cross is to reject Christ Himself.
Nick, given your blatant rejection of the penal substitution of Jesus Christ, if you were - may God forbid! - to die this very day, you would be yet dead spiritually in your sins and trespasses against the most high, holy God. Worse yet, you would face Him in all of His righteous wrath without the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.
I cannot do other at the outset, Nick, but to clarify that.
As difficult as it is for me to type those words - and I can do so because I know they are true - such words are fully substantiated by the very word of God, the canon of Scripture.
God being with me, I will do for my contention what you cannot viably accomplish, Nick. I will support my words with the whole counsel of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation. I need not proof-text, nor would I deign to do so before God. I need no such deceptive devices to support any of the foundational tenets of orthodox Christianity, Nick.
Campi, I know no other way to refute such heresies but through the contextual, accumulative evidences of the whole counsel of Scripture ... systematically, from Genesis forward.
Is not my word like fire, declares the Lord, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces? [Jeremiah 23:29]
At the outset, Nick, let us contextually consider the following in Hebrews:
Part 1 of 3, Quoting from the Book of Hebrews:
11But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. 13For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, 14how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
15Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. 18Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.
19For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” 21And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship.
Continued in Post 2 of 3, quoting the book of Hebrews...
Part 2 of 3, Quoting from the Book of Hebrews:
22Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. 23Thus 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.
24For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. 1For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near.
2Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; 6in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. 7Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’ ”
Conclusion in Post 3 of 3, quoting the book of Hebrews...
Conclusion, Part 3 of 3, Quoting from the Book of Hebrews:
8When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), 9then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. 10And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.
14For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
15And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying, 16“This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,” 17then he adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.” 18Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
19Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
23Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. 24And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.
[Hebrews 9:11-10:25]
Nick, let us now look from Genesis forward at this penal substitution of Christ which you wrongfully allege to be unBiblical.
The Scriptures, in their entirety refute your heresy, Nick.
I ask your forbearance in the time-line of my series of posts today - they won't all go up one after the other, but, Lord willing, I'll get my posts concluded sometime today here. I am not wedded to either my computer or the internet. Thus, I'll have to return to this intermittently today.
If the Lord Jesus did not die on the cross for sinners, in their place, bearing their sin, enduring the wrath of God that they themselves deserve, the why in the world did he even go to the cross? What's the point?
This is the heart of the gospel, brothers and sisters!
Brian, excellent point.
Deb, great arguments. Grace, though.
Nick,
Regarding your claims about great minds of the past, please check Saint Aurelius Augustine’s “Reply to Faustus the Manichean – Book 14 –section 4”.
Many of the Church Fathers, including Justin Martyr, Athanasius and Augustine incorporate a theory of substitutionary atonement into their writings:
Justin Martyr (about 150-165AD)
'If, then, the Father of all wished his Christ for the whole human family to take upon him the curses of all, knowing that, after he had been crucified and was dead, he would raise him up, why do you argue about him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will, as if he were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves?'
Ambrose of Milan (mid 4th century)
Jesus 'took up death that the sentence might be fulfilled and satisfaction might be given for the judgment, the curse placed on sinful flesh even to death. Therefore, nothing was done contrary to God's sentence when
the terms of that sentence were fulfilled, for the curse was unto death but grace is after death'.
Augustine (around 379AD)
'As Christ endured death as man, and for man; so also, Son of God as he was, ever living in his own
righteousness, but dying for our offenses, he submitted as man, and for man, to bear the curse which
accompanies death. And as he died in the flesh which he took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in his own righteousness, he was cursed for our offenses, in the death which he suffered in bearing our punishment.'
'Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that he might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment'.
Gregory the Great (6th Century)
'For the sake of sinners [God] condemns him who is without sin, that all the elect might rise up to the height of righteousness, in proportion as he who is above all underwent the penalties of our unrighteousness'.
Though the specific interpretation as to what this suffering for sinners meant differed to some extent, it is widely held that the early Church Fathers, including Athanasius and Augustine, taught that through Christ's vicarious suffering in humanity's place, He overcame and liberated humanity from sin, death, and the devil.
You'd really have to do some gymnastics to get around verses like "the Lord has laid upon him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:6), 2 Cor 5:21 (which you consider a 'proof text'), and so many other clear scriptures.
And I would have to ask, what then do you and other modern Romanists put in place of Christ's substitutionary atonement?
Darrin, my brother, Nick, if he is truly a good Catholic and well aware of the texts of Council of Trent, et.al., would of necessity have to reject the writings of Augustine of Hippo, considering him a heretic.
For it was Augustine's well-reasoned, Scriptural contentions for the faith, that is, for salvation by grace alone - Sola Gratia - which Rome rejected when it embraced, in part, the salvation by works arguments of Pelagius.
All of that notwithstanding, I could cite and quote the most excellent writing by William G. T. Shedd, in his Dogmatic Theology, entitled Christ’s Sufferings as Penal Substitution.
However, he, too, would likely be viewed by any well-informed Catholic - most especially Nick - as outside the bounds of the "holy mother church" and, thus, a heretic.
As to the hard words I wrote regarding death and the righteous wrath and judgment of God, I recall a professing atheist, of all people, passionately inquiring of Christians as to whether they hated him so much that they kept from him the reality of the coming wrath and judgment of the very God we profess to serve and believe in.
He went on to give an example, as best he could, as to what he would do if he perceived someone in mortal danger here on earth. Now all the while he is speaking, he is sprinkling in the fact, repeatedly, that he doesn't believe in God. Yet he is still perplexed why only one Christian man has sought him out to warn him of God's righteous judgment on those who die without Jesus Christ.
His haunting commentary has turned about in my mind on numerous occasions since first I heard him.
Nick came over here and without contending from the whole of Scripture - which he cannot viably do of course, leading to his citations of men and allusion to we who hold to orthodox Christianity "proof-texting" Scripture (yet he provides nothing here to under-gird that either) - apparently, to leave a link away from the hard-hitting, Biblically substantiated commentary at this blog.
It is hard to speak and/or write hard words - the failure on the whole to do so is precisely why articles are now being written alleging the demise of Western Evangelicalism - because men have failed, far too often, to preach and teach the whole Gospel truth.
I have an analogy, one which I'm rather loathe to input and post, but it occurs to me most emphatically that it is a sublime example of the point I wish to make.
I shall compose it momentarily and run it past my beloved spouse, who is thankfully home today and able to discuss these posts with me prior to making them public.
Darrin,
Forgive me, I neglected to thank you for your gracious reminder. As I ponder prayerfully over these posts, I must always do so in this grace in which I stand with bold humility, as unto our Lord, for His glory.
I do indeed grapple with a sinful carnally-minded sarcastic, acerbic bent.
Thank you.
Sister Deb,
(This is not refuting any points you made - just sharing my thoughts.)
I don't have any issue with strong warnings regarding false doctrine, and I realize it can be tough to convey our motives via the internet. But we can still graciously address those who are incorrect, as we appreciate that we are/were just as much in need of God's grace as they. I am not advocating compromise of the truth one bit.
I know of the harsh words of our Lord and His apostles, and yet I am constrained by words such as,
"The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses {and escape} from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will." -1 Tim 2:24-26
God can work however He wants, but would He rather us run them off or attempt to cordially engage and potentially persuade? For me the line is tough to draw, but of late I'm trying to lean toward grace.
Greetings to your spouse as well.
Deb,
I wouldn't have added that last commment if I had seen your last one. (Posting almost same time!) I think you understand, and I appreciate your confession and your insights.
I certainly know what it is to struggle with the flesh even as we try to do the will of God.
All the more glory to Him alone!
Brian@VOS
If the Lord Jesus did not die on the cross for sinners, in their place, bearing their sin, enduring the wrath of God that they themselves deserve, the why in the world did he even go to the cross? What's the point?This is the heart of the gospel..."
BINGO!
Darrin,
Methinks our most recent posts may have crossed. Point taken, thank you - it is a reminder I am ever in need of!
LOL! Yet again the lag of the 'net. I am never (I best never be) offended in any way by such a gracious reminder of Biblical constraints as yours!
Deb B:Sorry, Nick, but my time online is stewarded pretty tightly.
Besides which, you came over here and called a critical foundational tenet of orthodox Christianity unBiblical.
I'm waiting for you to attempt to contend for that heresy, not from a bunch of quotes from fallible humans, but with the contextual, accumulative evidences of the whole counsel of Scripture ... HERE!
Nick: I understand if your time is limited. But if that is the case, you have no grounds to accuse me of being unBiblical. My cards are on the table, I'm not hiding anything. I'm in a debate with a Protestant right now, and I'm pointing you to the Opening Essay where I use SCRIPTURE to make my case.
If you don't cant read the evidence I'm publicly putting forward, fine I understand time is limited, but don't act like I'm ignoring Scripture if your not going to have a look.
Deb: Moreover, Nick, you made your heretical allegation here and, unlike you, I'm looking to only one plumb line against which to measure your heretical allegations: the canon of Scripture.
Nick: My cards are on the table. I got nothing to hide. The problem here is you keep trumpeting that the only thing you trust is Scripture but wont look at the Scriptural case I present.
Deb: Nick, given your blatant rejection of the penal substitution of Jesus Christ, if you were - may God forbid! - to die this very day, you would be yet dead spiritually in your sins and trespasses against the most high, holy God. Worse yet, you would face Him in all of His righteous wrath without the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.
I cannot do other at the outset, Nick, but to clarify that.
Nick: I understand your concern, but I can honestly tell you the notion of "imputing Christ's righteousness" has no basis in Scripture (nor does Penal Sub). Nowhere does Paul say anything of (or even to the effect of) "Christ righteousness imputed."
Deb: I will support my words with the whole counsel of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation. I need not proof-text, nor would I deign to do so before God. I need no such deceptive devices to support any of the foundational tenets of orthodox Christianity, Nick.
Nick: Fine, but I can save you a lot of running in circles if you would realize my essay deals with the major Protestant Scriptural quotes for P-Sub. So if you are thinking you're going to reveal some passage to me on P-Sub, I suggest you see if I've already dealt with it.
Deb: At the outset, Nick, let us contextually consider the following in Hebrews:
[Hebrews 9:11-10:25]
Nick: If all you are going to do is past long passages from Scripture there isn't much discussion we can do.
On top of that you cut off your quote right before some critical text: Heb 10:26-29 which totally contradicts Penal-Sub.
Deb: The Scriptures, in their entirety refute your heresy, Nick.
Nick: With the amount of times you've repeated yourself that "Scripture refutes me" you could have read my article.
Brian:If the Lord Jesus did not die on the cross for sinners, in their place, bearing their sin, enduring the wrath of God that they themselves deserve, the why in the world did he even go to the cross? What's the point?
Nick: Brian, you are in for a big surprise. Please read at least my few page Opening Essay of my Penal Substitution debate:
http://catholicdefense.googlepages.com/psdebate
Darrin: Nick,
Regarding your claims about great minds of the past, please check Saint Aurelius Augustine’s
Nick: Please note I have already been presented with many of the same quotes you just pasted already in my debate. So there is no need to go over them a second time here.
Plus, you guys only ultimately accept Scripture, so what a Father taught is ultimately irrelevant in this discussion.
Darrin: You'd really have to do some gymnastics to get around verses like "the Lord has laid upon him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:6), 2 Cor 5:21 (which you consider a 'proof text'), and so many other clear scriptures.
Nick: I don't know how much more clear I can be. I've already taken on those very kinds of passages in my debate, if you don't look at what I said then it's like I'm talking to myself.
Darrin: And I would have to ask, what then do you and other modern Romanists put in place of Christ's substitutionary atonement?
Nick: Again, my Opening essay is only a few pages long and deals with these very basic issues.
Deb: Darrin, my brother, Nick, if he is truly a good Catholic and well aware of the texts of Council of Trent, et.al., would of necessity have to reject the writings of Augustine of Hippo, considering him a heretic. For it was Augustine's well-reasoned, Scriptural contentions for the faith, that is, for salvation by grace alone - Sola Gratia - which Rome rejected when it embraced, in part, the salvation by works arguments of Pelagius.
Nick: Deb, please, what you said is one of the biggest myths in Protestant history. While Protestants have historically held Augustine in high regard the fact is he wasn't Protestant and contradicted it on many points. He never taught Sola Fide for example.
Here is a link which gives many teachings of St Augustine that are flatly incompatible with Protestantism:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/11/st-augustine-was-catholic-not-proto.html
p.s. I don't want to get side-tracked on a discussion of Augustine so I'll give you the last word on that.
All I can say is that the amount of time you've spent here posting is enough to have read my few page opening essay. So from this point on I'd say you should have enough time before repeating that I'm avoiding Scripture.
SJCamp:BINGO!
Nick: The problem here is you're assuming the Cross involved Penal Substitution, it didn't, and that is the point of my original objection.
If you're willing to take an honest look at Scripture as presented from a Catholic, I guarantee you'll not look at the Atonement the same way.
Nick: "I understand your concern, but I can honestly tell you the notion of "imputing Christ's righteousness" has no basis in Scripture (nor does Penal Sub). Nowhere does Paul say anything of (or even to the effect of) 'Christ righteousness imputed.'"
Nick, you have not responded to Hebrews, let alone what will come systematically from Genesis forward.
You simply dismiss the canon of Scripture and have yet to contend from the canon of Scripture to support your heresy.
You keep disputing what I, and others, have written, and alleging we have no basis in the canon of Scripture which substantiates our contentions, yet you offer no Biblical response.
You have casually alluded to proof-texting single verses (which I haven't done) and then bemoan, without Biblical refutation to substantiate your own allegation, the fact that I have cited, extensively, the very section of Hebrews which lays waste your heresy (although, of a truth, it is laid waste by contextual passages from Genesis systematically throughout the canon of Scripture as well).
I am certainly prepared to discuss these matters with you, but from the canon of Scripture.
If I cite writings of Augustine, or Shedd or any of a legion of dear saints which have preceded me in Christ, your own Councils dictate you dismiss them as heretics outside the "holy mother church".
Refute penal substitution from the contextual, accumulative evidences of the whole council of Scripture, Nick.
Albeit not recently, I have numerous apologetic oriented published journal articles. However, if I wish to utilize my contentions therefrom, I quote from those articles, where applicable, in the thread in which I am debating/discussing a matter so related.
Why can you do so here as well, Nick?
Darrin,
That natural example (from my own life, which explains why I am "loathe" to lay it out [::bemused smile emerges::]), is taking me a while longer to write than I thought it might (which doesn't surprise my beloved spouse one whit, since being in our 35th year of marriage, he knows me better than I sometimes know myself).
Lord willing, it'll get finalized and posted here shortly.
Errata:
"council of Scripture" ... should read "counsel of Scripture"...
Deb: Nick, you have not responded to Hebrews, let alone what will come systematically from Genesis forward.
Nick: You've got to be kidding me. There is no way you could be serious here. You tossed out a whole chapter of Hebrews with no interaction, not to mention cut it off before the troublesome 10:26-29, and you're telling me you've proven yourself?
And then you demand we go "systematically FROM Genesis FORWARD" when you dont have time to read my Opening Essay a few pages long.
Deb: You simply dismiss the canon of Scripture and have yet to contend from the canon of Scripture to support your heresy.You keep disputing what I, and others, have written, and alleging we have no basis in the canon of Scripture which substantiates our contentions, yet you offer no Biblical response.
You have casually alluded to proof-texting single verses (which I haven't done) and then bemoan, without Biblical refutation to substantiate your own allegation, the fact that I have cited, extensively, the very section of Hebrews which lays waste your heresy (although, of a truth, it is laid waste by contextual passages from Genesis systematically throughout the canon of Scripture as well).
I am certainly prepared to discuss these matters with you, but from the canon of Scripture. If I cite writings of Augustine, or Shedd or any of a legion of dear saints which have preceded me in Christ, your own Councils dictate you dismiss them as heretics outside the "holy mother church".Refute penal substitution from the contextual, accumulative evidences of the whole council of Scripture, Nick. Albeit not recently, I have numerous apologetic oriented published journal articles. However, if I wish to utilize my contentions therefrom, I quote from those articles, where applicable, in the thread in which I am debating/discussing a matter so related. Why can you do so here as well, Nick?
Nick: I don't have time for this nonsense. You're not interested in serious dialogue because while you claim you can't spare 15 min to read my Scriptural exegesis in my Essay, you've spent easily a hour (if not more) checking in on this comment box and making all these posts and repeating the same false claims about me.
Nick: "...and you're telling me you've proven yourself?
Nick, that's the point. I don't have to prove what God has quite plainly already revealed in, here it comes again, the contextual, accumulative evidences of the whole counsel of Scripture. Scripture reveals the infallible truth of Christ's penal substution much better than the words of mere mortals ever could.
What God has already plainly said through His written word, the canon of Scripture, most especially in that section of Hebrews, refutes your heretical allegation.
I am partly amazed and partly not (go figure) that you dismiss Scripture so handily. Partly not, because you must flippantly dismiss the Scriptures to cling to your heretical denial of penal substitution.
Penal substitution is most specifically and cogently revealed in the section of Hebrews I cited in its entirety. You have yet to refute it because you cannot. So you resort to dismissal. That's not much of a debate tactic either, Nick.
I find it best to let Scripture interpret Scripture, which is to say, to allow God to interpret God. Why ought I mess with the cogency of what God has plainly revealed in His written word, that is, the canon of Scripture?
So, nope, I'm not kidding. If you read the contextual (you were, after all, the one lamenting single verse proof-texting, were you not?) evidences of simply the section of Hebrews I cited, you must deny numerous passages therein to uphold your heresy wherein you allege that penal substitution is not Biblical. Which is why the lengthy section of Hebrews I cited utterly and completely lays waste your heretical contention, Nick.
See, Nick, if you would like to debate this point, we must begin first with "what sayeth the Lord" in Scripture.
I'll comment further on the balance of your text shortly, Lord willing.
Nick: "I don't have time for this nonsense."
You can't refute penal substitution from Scripture, Nick.
Nick: "You're not interested in serious dialogue because while you claim you can't spare 15 min to read my Scriptural exegesis..."
You came here to this blog and alleged a foundational tenet of orthodox Christianity - penal substitution - is not Biblical.
Defend your heresy Scriptrally here where you made the allegation, Nick, if you can.
I'm responding to what you post here. I'm not referring you to my writings in various journals, nor elsewhere on the web.
What's ridiculous is self-evident, Nick, unfortunately.
You are being asked to defend what you alleged here. Either you won't or you can't, at least not Scripturally. Period.
Nick
Just read your debate notes. Thank you for the link so that I could get a more full orbed view of your beliefs.
A few basic things to consider:
1. Christ's death was substitutionary and forensic.
In Adam we sin, in the last Adam we have eternal life. As Adam was our federal head in the garden; so Christ was our federal head on the cross. Consider Heb. 2:9; 2 Cor. 5:21.
2. One issue that you incorrectly stated near the end of your affirmation, was that penal substitutionary atonement denies the need for daily repentance.
That is categorically untrue. Though forgiveness of all our sins (past, present and future) was completely dealt with on the cross; we still must daily repent of sin as a sign of God's grace in regeneration our lives as His children (Roms. 6:1; Titus 2:12). We are not sinless; but every sin has been fully atoned for already.
This was Jesus' teaching to Peter in John 13. That if you already clean you only need to have your feet washed each day.
3. The argument you make is not new - it has to do with the Roman understanding of the relationship between justification and sanctification. You as a Roman Catholic believe that justification is progressive and not forensic and that the perfect righteousness of Christ is not imputed to us; but that another righteousness derived from the saints past by Papal decree can be extracted from the Treasury of Merit and imputed to a believer to diminish ones time in Purgatory. Purgatory representing a further purging (or suffering) for our sins is necessary to cleanse us from the stain of our sin. This is works righteousness; foreign to the biblical record; and denies Christ's suffering on the cross for His own as being full and complete in justification.
This is reminiscent of the Galatian heresy. It is "Christ plus" theology. But my friend, if you add anything to His finished work, then you add to Christ and He will be of no advantage to you. You have fallen from grace and make the cross of Christ of no effect (Gal. 5:1-6).
Trust in Christ alone; and His Word alone.
Lastly, how would you define propitiate? The common definition is to assuage wrath and satisfy. IOW, Jesus Christ through His sinless life and perfect obedience, His once for all sacrifice for our sins and His bodily resurrection from the dead justified the ungodly - the just for the unjust - in our place. It was a bloody sacrifice; it was substitutionary; it was vicarious; and it was penal.
Let me know your thoughts; and thank you again for your kind engagement here. I enjoyed reading your blog as well.
Steve
SJC: Just read your debate notes. Thank you for the link so that I could get a more full orbed view of your beliefs.
Nick: Thank you for giving an opposing view a fair look.
SJC: 1. Christ's death was substitutionary and forensic.
In Adam we sin, in the last Adam we have eternal life. As Adam was our federal head in the garden; so Christ was our federal head on the cross. Consider Heb. 2:9; 2 Cor. 5:21.
Nick: There is a true way to believe Christ's death was substitutionary, but there is also a false way. A man adopting a family and taking the burden of raising them rather than having them work is a valid form of substitution. The Penal Substitution form is not the same and has Christ swapping places with a sinner in God's electric chair, that is wrong.
I don't quite agree with the Federal Head as Protestants describe it in the sense guilt was IMPUTED, rather it is as if Adam put himself in a massive debt and the children inherited the debt. I discussed 2 Cor 5:21 in my Essay and why I believe it falls short of any sort of imputing sin to Christ and him taking the legal punishment.
SJC: 2. One issue that you incorrectly stated near the end of your affirmation, was that penal substitutionary atonement denies the need for daily repentance.
That is categorically untrue. Though forgiveness of all our sins (past, present and future) was completely dealt with on the cross; we still must daily repent of sin as a sign of God's grace in regeneration our lives as His children (Roms. 6:1; Titus 2:12). We are not sinless; but every sin has been fully atoned for already.
This was Jesus' teaching to Peter in John 13. That if you already clean you only need to have your feet washed each day.
Nick: I stated in my second essay that James White teaches this in his book on Justification, and it makes logical sense. You don't actually disagree in substance with what I said. What you are saying is "repenting" is only a sign of gratitude by God's children, that is not the ordinary sense where you are guilty unless and until you repent.
Under forensic justification, all sins are forgiven so the believer during his life is never in a position of needing sin forgiven (if he were it would contradict your view of justification).
SJC: 3. The argument you make is not new - it has to do with the Roman understanding of the relationship between justification and sanctification.
Nick: We have very different views on justification, you are correct there.
SJC: You as a Roman Catholic believe that justification is progressive and not forensic and that the perfect righteousness of Christ is not imputed to us; but that another righteousness derived from the saints past by Papal decree can be extracted from the Treasury of Merit and imputed to a believer to diminish ones time in Purgatory.
Nick: I've never heard of this. Where did you read treasury of merit is what is "Imputed" to us? I deny Christ's righteousness is imputed because Scripture doesn't teach such a thing. For Catholics justification is only progressive in the sense we go from dead branches to those engrafted (initially justified) and from there we grow as branches in the Vine (progressive). There is no need to "impute" anything, it's all infused.
SJC: Purgatory representing a further purging (or suffering) for our sins is necessary to cleanse us from the stain of our sin. This is works righteousness; foreign to the biblical record; and denies Christ's suffering on the cross for His own as being full and complete in justification.
Nick: The issue of purgatory is going off the main topic of Penal Substitution. If PSub is true, then purgatory is false. If PSub is false, then you cannot attack purgatory. Arguing purgatory without establishing a correct view of the atonement wont get us to the heart of the matter.
SJC: This is reminiscent of the Galatian heresy. It is "Christ plus" theology. But my friend, if you add anything to His finished work, then you add to Christ and He will be of no advantage to you. You have fallen from grace and make the cross of Christ of no effect (Gal. 5:1-6).
Nick: I don't believe that was the Galatian heresy. The Galatian heresy was the Judaizer heresy in which they taught justification came through the Mosaic Law. But Paul argues and proves the Mosaic Law never justified in the first place, only the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (infused grace) is what matters for justification. Since the Mosaic Law never saved, whether we kept it perfectly or Christ kept it perfectly for us wouldn't matter because it never was intended to justify (Gal 3:21).
SJC: Lastly, how would you define propitiate? The common definition is to assuage wrath and satisfy.
Nick: I gave a few examples in my essay. Propitiate means to turn away wrath, it does not mean to re-direct it on another. If a child sins, the parent would be angry and want to spank them. If the father was propitiated (say by a intercessory loving act by the wife) he would end up not spanking the child. PSub says the angry father beats the wife instead of the child.
There are clear examples in Scripture where atonement is made, God's wrath is propitiated, by good works and not by redirecting his wrath on another. See Phinehas in Num 25 and Moses in Deut 9.
If Phinehas and Moses can turn away God's wrath through good works and not have to take the punishment instead, surely PSub is not required for Christ.
Post a Comment