Turretin Debate Blog

Affirmative Concluding Essay

2009-04-26T12:00:00.003+01:00

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Christ died for us, the elect, in our place. He is our substitute as this debate has established. And Tertullian understood it the same way:

If He kills me, how will it be His duty to preserve me? Once for all Christ died for us, once for all He was slain that we might not be slain. (Tertullian, Scorpiace, Chapter 1, ANF03)

And we have also seen that Athanasius would agree with us that Christ is our penal substitute:

He it is that was crucified before the sun and all creation as witnesses, and before those who put Him to death: and by His death has salvation come to all, and all creation been ransomed. He is the Life of all, and He it is that as a sheep yielded His body to death as a substitute, for the salvation of all, even though the Jews believe it not. (Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, Chapter 37, Section 7 – NPNF2-4)

Summary

Constructive

We have shown that an atonement is necessary because of sin (this was not disputed by Nick). We have shown that justice demands that sin be punished (again, Nick was not able to dispute this). We have seen that death is the punishment for sin (Nick attempted to argue this, but couldn’t really argue with the fact that, as Scripture says, “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23)). And we have shown that Jesus Christ bore that punishment for his people, as the high priest Caiaphas prophesied:

John 11:49-52
49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. 51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; 52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

For this to be a just punishment for sins, the substitute must have imputed to him the guilt of the sins of those for whom he substitutes. Thus, we affirm the resolution: God imputed the sins of the elect to Christ.

4. What does Faustus find strange in the curse pronounced on sin, on death, and on human mortality, which Christ had on account of man's sin, though He Himself was sinless? Christ's body was derived from Adam, for His mother the Virgin Mary was a child of Adam. But God said in Paradise, "On the day that you eat, you shall surely die." This is the curse which hung on the tree. A man may deny that Christ was cursed who denies that He died. But the man who believes that Christ died, and acknowledges that death is the fruit of sin, and is itself called sin, will understand who it is that is cursed by Moses, when he hears the apostle saying "For our old man is crucified with Him." Romans 6:6 The apostle boldly says of Christ, "He was made a curse for us;" for he could also venture to say, "He died for all." "He died," and "He was cursed," are the same. Death is the effect of the curse; and all sin is cursed, whether it means the action which merits punishment, or the punishment which follows. Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that He might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment. (Augustine, Contra Faustus, Book 14, Section 4, NPNF1-04)

From the above, one can see that Augustine held that it was necessary that Christ take our punishment and his logic is impeccable on this point. We also see essentially the same thing in Cyril of Jerusalem:

33. These things the Saviour endured, and made peace through the Blood of His Cross, for things in heaven, and things in earth Colossians 1:20 . For we were enemies of God through sin, and God had appointed the sinner to die. There must needs therefore have happened one of two things; either that God, in His truth, should destroy all men, or that in His loving-kindness He should cancel the sentence. But behold the wisdom of God; He preserved both the truth of His sentence, and the exercise of His loving-kindness. Christ took our sins in His body on the tree, that we by His death might die to sin, and live unto righteousness 1 Peter 2:24 . Of no small account was He who died for us; He was not a literal sheep; He was not a mere man; He was more than an Angel; He was God made man. The transgression of sinners was not so great as the righteousness of Him who died for them; the sin which we committed was not so great as the righteousness which He wrought who laid down His life for us—who laid it down when He pleased, and took it again when He pleased. And would you know that He laid not down His life by violence, nor yielded up the ghost against His will? He cried to the Father, saying, Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit Luke 23:46; I commend it, that I may take it again. And having said these things, He gave up the ghost Matthew 27:50; but not for any long time, for He quickly rose again from the dead. (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 13, Section 33, NPNF2-07)

Overview of (and General Rebuttal to) Negative

Nick tried to shoot holes in this relatively simple Biblical argument. While he did occasionally make reference to something that he considered “the Catholic position,” he did not provide any real attempt to harmonize the Scriptural evidence to that “Catholic position.”

We discovered that the position Nick was advocating was essentially a purely commercial satisfaction. This position, however, is an inadequate picture of Christ’s work. As we highlighted during the debate, there are commercial aspects to Christ’s work (he is sometimes called a ransom or a redeemer, for example) but that is not the whole or even the most common picture of his work.

Instead, as emphasized from the first essay, the Scriptures are replete with descriptions of Christ’s work in sacrificial terms. These terms are the dominant ones in the Old Testament ceremonial system, with all of the atonements for sin being sacrificial atonements. Cyril of Alexandria noted this multi-faceted view of Christ as follows:

But the Saviour comes in various forms to each man for his profit. For to those who have need of gladness He becomes a Vine; and to those who want to enter in He stands as a Door; and to those who need to offer up their prayers He stands a mediating High Priest. Again, to those who have sins He becomes a Sheep, that He may be sacrificed for them. (Cyril of Alexandria, Catechetical Lecture 10, Section 5 – NPNF2-7)

Nick primarily countered by arguing against individual verses based on sweeping and unsupported assertions. Several of the primary themes in his assertions were that verses don’t specifically state that the guilt of the sins is imputed to Christ, and that the verses don’t specifically state that the wrath of God was upon Christ.

We noted that the principle of guilt of the sins being imputed to Christ can be seen from sacrificial system, in which the sins (i.e. their guilt) are symbolically placed on the head of the sacrificial victim by the act of the priest placing his hands on the animal’s head.

For example:

Leviticus 16:21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:

We likewise noted that the Old Testament prophesies of Jesus include at least some that specifically describe Jesus as having the wrath of God lying against him:

Psalm 88:7 Thy wrath lieth hard upon me, and thou hast afflicted me with all thy waves. Selah.

Lest you think it a uniquely Protestant view to apply these words to Christ, consider what Athanasius wrote:

For man, being in Him, was quickened: for this was why the Word was united to man, namely, that against man the curse might no longer prevail. This is the reason why they record the request made on behalf of mankind in the seventy-first Psalm: 'Give the King Your judgment, O God?' Psalm 72:1: asking that both the judgment of death which hung over us may be delivered to the Son, and that He may then, by dying for us, abolish it for us in Himself. This was what He signified, saying Himself, in the eighty-seventh Psalm: 'Your indignation lies hard upon me' Psalm 88:7. For He bore the indignation which lay upon us, as also He says in the hundred and thirty-seventh: 'Lord, You shall do vengeance for me' Psalm 137:8. (Athanasius, On Luke 10:22 and Matthew 11:27, Section 2, NPNF2-04)

We heard a lot of negative assertions from Nick, and especially an attempt to rely on the idea that I must establish my case from Scripture, whereas (as the Negative) he has no such burden. One of the problems with this approach is that his criticisms tend not to be consistent.

We saw that inconsistency in the cross-examination section, where we noted several important areas of inconsistency. For example, in Question 1, we raised the issue of the wrath of God and the floating definition of “wrath” in Nick’s claim that nothing has been presented to show that God’s wrath was against Christ in the crucifixion. We asked him to clarify what “wrath” entails, so that we could provide proof that agrees with his meaning, but he largely dodged the question giving a wide variety of possible meanings and trying to argue that his position is just that I have not proved that God’s wrath is necessarily shown in the fact that the animals and Christ were killed (even while admitting that physical death is one manifestation of God’s wrath).

We also saw that Nick could not justify his assertion that asserting that the wrath of God was placed against Christ was a Nestorian error. His inconsistency here was especially large, because while he insisted that God could not pour out his wrath on God, he did argue that God could die (and even claimed that it was heretical to say that God cannot die!).

One disappointing aspect of the debate was Nick’s frequent reference to the sayings of other Reformed (or close to Reformed) writers or preachers. Nick seemed to think it was my job to defend the writings of those other men, although he agreed to the rule: “(3) Citing church documents, theologians, and other such references is allowed, though the opponent is not necessarily bound to defend any claims other than his own.”

On the other hand, I think Nick was a bit surprised to see how often I pointed out that the Reformed position is consistent with a significant number of patristic authors, especially some major ones like Augustine, Athanasius, and Anselm. I didn’t expect him to necessarily defend them (since they did not hold to what he views as the “Catholic position” of a purely commercial satisfaction) but I do think that they were valuable to show that the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement is not a new doctrine that was unknown to the early church or even the medieval church.

Response to Negative Conclusion

Nick began his conclusion with some responses to the cross-examination. I’m mostly willing to let the cross-examination to speak for itself. As to his section 1a, I’d simply like to observe that he leaves off any response to Lamentations 3:1 or Psalm 88:7, both of which show that Jesus suffered the wrath of God.

As to his section 1b, Nick argues that there is a “simple fact [that] God can accept ransom and atonement on whatever grounds He chooses.” This argument is essentially a claim that God can ignore justice, accepting even payment (penal or commercial) that is not equivalent to what Justice requires. Such an argument actually undermines the perfection of God’s justice, and suggests that God is arbitrary (contrary to Scripture which describes God as being perfectly just – Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.).

Nick also argues that the ransom is the life of Christ, not his death – referring to the fact that it is the life-blood of Christ that is spilled. While the life of Christ is important (he could not be a suitable sacrifice if he had any sin of his own), it is the fact of his death that is significant, which is why his blood is significant. The role that blood played in the Old Testament sacrificial system was generally as essentially “proof of death.” You will recall that the blood of the Passover lamb was sprinkled on the door posts and lintel (Exodus 12:7 and 22), and that that the blood of the sacrifices was placed on the horns of the altar (Exodus 29:12).

That latter imagery is especially significant because it also shows the idea of satisfied wrath: like the horns of a bull become red with blood when its victim has been gored, so the horns of the altar become red with blood when a sacrifice is made. So, the references to the blood of Christ are not confirmation of an idea of Christ’s life simply being cashed-out, but of Christ’s life being forcibly ended.

As to his section 1c, Nick makes my point when he observes that the Lord’s response rules out the possibility of Penal Substitution in the case of Moses. Nick writes: “Whatever the offer might have been, Penal Substitution was excluded in God’s eyes.” (underline in original) That’s exactly right: Moses was not an acceptable penal substitute, though he was aware that such is what was needed. Thankfully we have a greater than Moses.

Also in this section, I note that Nick seems to want to take a piece from one account and a piece from another account and create an atonement scenario that is actually not described in Scripture – in which somehow Moses atones for the sins of the people through fasting. Contrast Nick's position with the following:

When his Lord wished to destroy them because of their sins, in that they worshipped the calf, Moses prayed and besought of his Lord and said:— Either pardon the people for their sins, or else blot me out from Your book that You have written. Exodus 32:31-32 That is a most diligent pastor, who delivered over himself on behalf of his sheep. That is an excellent leader, who gave himself in behalf of his sheep. And that is a merciful father who cherished his children and reared them up. Moses the great and wise shepherd, who knew how to lead back the flock, taught Joshua the son of Nun, a man full of the spirit, who (afterwards) led the flock, even all the host of Israel. He destroyed kings and subdued the land, and gave them the land as a place of pasturage, and divided the resting-places and the sheepfolds to his sheep. Furthermore, David fed his father's sheep, and was taken from the sheep to tend his people. So he tended them in the integrity of his heart and by the skill of his hands he guided them. And when David numbered the flock of his sheep, wrath came upon them, and they began to be destroyed. Then David delivered himself over on behalf of his sheep, when he prayed, saying:— O Lord God, I have sinned in that I have numbered Israel. Let Your hand be on me and on my father's house. These innocent sheep, in what have they sinned? 2 Samuel 24:17 So also all the diligent pastors used thus to give themselves on behalf of their sheep. (Aphrahat (about A.D. 270 – about A.D. 345) Demonstration 10, Section 2 – NPNF2-Volume 13)

In section 1d, I was a bit disappointed by Nick’s attempted treatment of the fathers. Rather than just acknowledge that the fathers confirm the position I had taken (such as Augustine noting that the single, physical death of Christ was sufficient to satisfy for both the physical and spiritual death of his elect), Nick attempts to find some hooks with which to quibble over whether the fathers disagree with the other Reformed authors that Nick has identified (whether or not Nick correctly understood them, something I’ll leave outside this debate in view of Rule 3, discussed above).

Nick even goes so far as to argue that when John of Damascus speaks of Jesus as being forsaken as our representative i.e. “appropriating, then, our person and ranking Himself with us,” that this cannot be interpreted as being Jesus being forsaken as our substitute, because John of Damascus had said earlier that Jesus was not, either as God or man, forsaken by the Father (although he says the same thing about him becoming sin and becoming a curse – both of which Scripture clearly predicate of Jesus as our substitute). In fact, the only reasonably interpretation of John’s words are that Jesus is not speaking of himself either as God or as man, but as our representative in each of those things: being forsaken, being made sin, and being made a curse (Nick’s explanation about it referring to Christ’s humanity “that means He took on our flesh and lived as one of us” is exactly what John of Damascus denies.

In his second section 1d, Nick complained that saying “To say ‘God is dead’ is heterdox,” is itself heretical and Nestorian. It should be noted, however, that I qualified my statement by noting that – with qualifications – practically anything can be orthodox. Thus we see in Augustine, speaking of the great exchange that is penal substitution, a statement that God died, with qualification that this does not refer to the divine nature:

In a word, He died, because it was so expedient, that by His Death He might kill death. God died, that an exchange might be effected by a kind of heavenly contract, that man might not see death. For Christ is God, but He died not in that Nature in which He is God. For the same Person is God and man; for God and man is one Christ. The human nature was assumed, that we might be changed for the better; He did not degrade the Divine Nature down to the lower. For He assumed that which He was not, He did not lose that which He was. Forasmuch then as He is both God and man, being pleased that we should live by that which was His, He died in that which was ours. For He had nothing Himself, whereby He could die; nor had we anything whereby we could live. For what was He who had nothing whereby He could die? "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." If you seek for anything in God whereby He may die, you will not find it. But we all die, who are flesh; men bearing about sinful flesh. Seek out for that whereby sin may live; it has it not. So then neither could He have death in that which was His own, nor we life in that which was our own; but we have life from that which is His, He death from what is ours. What an exchange! (Augustine, Sermon 30 on the New Testament, Section 5, NPNF1-06)

But properly speaking, immortality is an essential attribute of God. Thus, Aquinas states: “Such is God; and hence in Him principally is life. From this the Philosopher concludes (Metaph. xii, 51), after showing God to be intelligent, that God has life most perfect and eternal, since His intellect is most perfect and always in act.” (Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 1:18:3)

We see this same principle reflected in Eusebius' discussion on Christ's penal substitution:

11. I may allege yet a third cause of the Saviour's death. He was the victim offered to the Supreme Sovereign of the universe for the whole human race: a victim consecrated for the need of the human race, and for the overthrow of the errors of demon worship. For as soon as the one holy and mighty sacrifice, the sacred body of our Saviour, had been slain for man, to be as a ransom for all nations, heretofore involved in the guilt of impious superstition, thenceforward the power of impure and unholy spirits was utterly abolished, and every earth-born and delusive error was at once weakened and destroyed.

12. Thus, then, this salutary victim taken from among themselves, I mean the mortal body of the Word, was offered on behalf of the common race of men. This was that sacrifice delivered up to death, of which the sacred oracles speak: "Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world." John 1:29 And again, as follows: "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is dumb." They declare also the cause, saying: "He bears our sins, and is pained for us: yet we accounted him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and in affliction. But he was wounded on account of our sins, and bruised because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and by his bruises we were healed. All we as sheep have gone astray; every one has gone astray in this way; and the Lord gave him up for our sins."

13. Such were the causes which led to the offering of the human body of the Word of God. But forasmuch as he was the great high priest, consecrated to the Supreme Lord and King, and therefore more than a victim, the Word, the Power, and the Wisdom of God; he soon recalled his body from the grasp of death, presented it to his Father as the first-fruit of our common salvation, and raised this trophy, a proof at once of his victory over death and Satan, and of the abolition of human sacrifices, for the blessing of all mankind. (Eusebius, Oration in Praise of Constantine, Chapter 15, Sections 11-13, NPNF2-01)

While I appreciate that Nick is not so quick to condemn Abrose and Theodoret as Nestorians (and he should not do so), it seems that we see another of Nick’s inconsistencies in that he willingly gives them a charitable interpretation that he refuses to me and to the other Reformed authors that he quotes.

Turning to the second part of what Nick’s conclusion consisted of, I would respectfully submit that his section 2a is way off: not only did my opening constructive demonstrate that the sacrificial system unmistakably sets of a penal substitution framework, but my rebuttal further enhanced that explanation.

Nick’s section 2b is frankly moot in view of Rule 3 discussed above. While I don’t believe that Nick has properly (or charitably – refusing to extend them the same dignity he gives to the church fathers with whom he disagrees) understood those Reformed writers, I leave that for another time.

Nick’s complaint in section 2c is that there was not as much exegesis as he would like. Of course, as noted above, I encourage the reader to review my opening essay and my rebuttal to find such exegesis. Additionally, I note that a certain amount of exegesis was foreclosed by Nick’s apparent concessions (through failure to respond) with respect to the key passage of Isaiah 53 (see my opening statement and rebuttal).

Nick brings up the idea that since verse 5 uses the term “chastisements” it cannot refer to punishments. I note that this lexically fallacious argument is easily refuted in that the Hebrew word for “chastisement” is also found in the following verse (where it is translated “instruction”):

Jeremiah 30:14 All thy lovers have forgotten thee; they seek thee not; for I have wounded thee with the wound of an enemy, with the chastisement of a cruel one, for the multitude of thine iniquity; because thy sins were increased.

This is the sort of chastisement that is being described in Isaiah 53:5 – it is the scourging that our Lord received immediately prior to his crucifixion.

In section 2d, Nick claims that “The Catholic understanding of Satisfaction … was shown to have solid Biblical support.” This is simply not the case. In fact, as noted above, Nick spent most of his time trying to attack (on various grounds) the various scriptural supports of penal substitution, not establishing his own case: no coherent and cogent alternative to penal substitution was presented by Nick, as the careful reader will note.

In sections 2e/2f Nick basically claimed that he hadn’t received a satisfactory answer to his points. I would respectfully submit that, again, the reader may investigate for himself whether these issues were addressed or not.

In section 2g, Nick makes some enormous claims regarding the patristic evidence. At least Nick does not go so far as to deny that some of the quotations are directly on point, in terms of specifically affirming penal substitution. As for whether (as he claims), he showed that the majority of the quotations “advocate nothing close to Penal substitution” or whether that was simply what he claimed, I leave for the careful reader to investigate.

For did not the disciples of Jesus see, when they ventured to prove not only to the Jews from their prophetic Scriptures that this is He who was spoken of by the prophets, but also to the other heathen nations, that He who was crucified yesterday or the day before underwent this death voluntarily on behalf of the human race,— that this was analogous to the case of those who have died for their country in order to remove pestilence, or barrenness, or tempests? (Origen, Contra Celsus, Book I, Chapter 31, ANF04)

Conclusion

I trust that the reader has seen that the sacrificial system of the Old Testament provided the victim as a penal substitute for the sinner. Within this framework, and especially in view of the many New Testament verses speaking of Christ “taking away the sins of the world” or dying “for us” and the like, we can see that the guilt of the sinners were judicially imputed to Christ, he was slain for them, and by his death we are free from the punishment for sin: he died so that we will not. In this we have rejoiced to find many kindred spirits among the early church fathers, though – of course – it is sufficient to show that Scripture teaches the doctrine: the numerous church fathers are just icing on the cake.

Moreover, in no other way was it possible for the Love of God toward us to be manifested than by making mention of our flesh, and that for our sake He descended even to our lower part. For that flesh is less precious than soul, everyone who has a spark of sense will acknowledge. And so the passage, The Word was made Flesh, seems to me to be equivalent to that in which it is said that He was made sin, [2 Corinthians 5:21] or a curse [Galatians 3:13] for us; not that the Lord was transformed into either of these, how could He be? But because by taking them upon Him He took away our sins and bore our iniquities. This, then, is sufficient to say at the present time for the sake of clearness and of being understood by the many. And I write it, not with any desire to compose a treatise, but only to check the progress of deceit; and if it is thought well, I will give a fuller account of these matters at greater length. (Gregory Nazianzen, Letters, Division I, To Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius, Letter 101, NPNF2-07)

Gregory Nazianzen reminds us that the many verses we have cited are all interconnected in the atonement: the taking away of the sin is accomplished by Jesus being made sin. But I think the Venerable Bede puts the matter quite well:

The Lord intercedes for us not by words but by his dying compassion, because he took upon himself the sins which he was unwilling to condemn his elect for. (Bede on 1 John 2:1)

But let us conclude, as we began, with the clear Scriptural statement of the thesis:

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

-TurretinFan

Negative Concluding Essay

2009-04-12T14:38:00.000+01:00

This final essay will first examine the responses my opponent gave to my cross-examination questions, while the remainder of the essay will be a summary of my thoughts of the entire debate.

1a) My first question sought to find out what Scriptural evidence could be offered in support of the notion God poured out His Wrath on Jesus (as described by the various respected Reformed pastors). My opponent's proof texts were as follows:

-Matthew 27:46 (“why have you forsaken me?”)

-John 3:36 (“he that believeth not...the wrath of God abideth on him.”)

-Romans 5:9 (“we shall be saved from wrath through him.”)

-1 Thessalonians 1:10 (“Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.”)

-1 Thessalonians 5:9 (“God hath not appointed us to wrath”)

-Lamentations 3:1 (“I am the man that hath seen affliction by the rod of his wrath.”)

-Psalm 88:7 (“Thy wrath lieth hard upon me”)

My opponent's quotes from John 3:36, Romans 5:9, 1 Thes. 1:10, and 1 Thes. 5:9 are all interpreted with the understanding that, as my opponent put it, “either the wrath of God is against the Son or against us.” This is simply fallacious reasoning and improper exegesis to state that just because a passage states God's wrath is not on the Christian that it must have been re-directed onto Christ. What is also noteworthy is that throughout this debate my opponent seemed to want to shy away from the quotes of those Reformed authors I have quoted (on the grounds that Christ's physical death is sufficient), yet the very New Testament proof texts he offers deal with God's eschatological wrath, which is nothing short of hellfire. The two Old Testament verses given can simply be explained as not being Messianic, especially considering they are not quoted in the New Testament.

Matthew 27:46 appears to be the closest thing my opponent can offer in terms of clear evidence of Christ undergoing the Father's wrath. Having gone over this verse multiple times throughout this debate, it is very telling that this is the best Scriptural evidence the Penal Substitution side has to offer. Simply quoting Psalm 22:1 in full discredits such an interpretation:

1 My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? Why are You so far from helping Me, And from the words of My groaning?

As Catholic theologians have long maintained, the clear and proper interpretation of this is of the Father withdrawing His Divine protection which the Son up to the point of His Passion had enjoyed (cf. Matthew 26:52-54; John 7:30; 8:20; etc). The pains described later in this Psalm clearly alluded to (if not directly cross-referenced as) the physical and emotional pains Christ underwent during His Passion. None of these pains were in the form of God's wrath or a spiritual punishment (cf. Matthew 10:28).

1b) My second question asked whether atonement can be made without the use of Penal Substitution. My opponent responded by saying that while atonement in general “does not require a particular form,” he goes onto state “the case of God, however, is a special case.” There are two serious problems with this answer. First, no Scriptural support is given stating when it comes to God it is a “special case,” much less the specific form of “justice demands bloodshed.” Second, the very text I gave, Exodus 30:11-16, was explicitly dealing with making atonement to God for one's life.

He then errs when he argues that after David disobeyed the atonement instructions, he didn't try to collect the ransom money after all, but instead offered a sacrifice, supposedly proving blood offering was all that was acceptable. But that is fallacious, because atonement is only acceptable in so far as it is done according to God's instructions. If those instructions are not followed, then one is literally at God's mercy to try and appease Him in whatever way they can. With this in mind, the two objections my opponent later gives as to why the ransom system is not “a pure commercial analogy” falls through because of the simple fact God can accept ransom and atonement on whatever grounds He chooses.

Next my opponent discusses the ransom option available in the case of a negligent homicide, though offers no actual rebuttal to my point. He further states the ransom system is not wrong, but simply insufficient, and that “Christ's satisfaction was chiefly penal,” though no actual proof is given for this claim. The New Testament explicitly states Christ gave His life as a “ransom,” without qualification of it being insufficient (quite the contrary), and the fact is making a ransom is distinct from Penal Substitution. The fact the ransom Christ offered was his own life (ie the value of His life, not His death per se) doesn't change anything. I want to repeat, the fact Christ's giving of His life is said to be a ransom contradicts the notion of Penal Substitution, because ransom is specifically distinct as a means of making appeasement/atonement by setting a “buyout price” rather than simply a legal transfer of death penalty. This leads to one very important conclusion of how Christ's sacrifice connects to the Old Testament:

1 Peter 1:18For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, 19but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.

Lev 17:11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.

This proves that the sacrificial value is in the life-blood, not in the death itself, nor in the transfer of punishment. The ransom-atonement value is attached to the value of His life. This passage reveals that OT sacrifices operated on a ransom system rather than on a Penal Substitutionary one. What is just as important is that the Hebrew term for “ransom” (H3724) is derived from the term for “atonement” (H3722). This further solidifies the fact atonement should be seen in terms of ransom (ie “commercial analogy”) rather than transfer of judicial punishment. To further prove that it is not the death itself where the value is, it is important to note that the one who killed the animal and the one who sprinkled the blood were not usually the same person. For example:

Leviticus 4: 27 If a member of the community sins unintentionally... 29 He is to lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and slaughter it at the place of the burnt offering. 30 Then the priest is to take some of the blood with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar. 31 He shall remove all the fat, just as the fat is removed from the fellowship offering, and the priest shall burn it on the altar as an aroma pleasing to the LORD. In this way the priest will make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven.

This method of the sinner slaughtering while the priest is the one who makes atonement is the norm, but it certainly makes no sense in a Penal Substitution framework where the transfer of death penalty is where the true value and atonement rests. The priest needs a slaughtered animal, but it is not the death itself that effects the atonement, rather it is in the offering of the life-blood. The only time the priest slaughters is if the offering is due to his personal sin or if it is for the nation as a whole who cannot all kill the animal at once. Thus the true value of Christ's sacrifice is in the (active) offering up of His life, and not in the death itself.

1c) My third question asked why Moses' form of atonement in Exodus 32:30 (cross referencing Deuteronomy 9:16-21 & Psalm 106:19-23) worked for Moses but could not work for Christ. The biggest shortfall of my opponent's response was he failed to link Exodus 32:30 with Deuteronomy 9, despite the fact it is a clear cross reference to the same event of making intercession for the golden calf scandal.

On top of this, my opponent's commentary on Exodus 32:30ff itself fell short of a consistent and reasonable interpretation. He states: “Moses apparently offered himself as a victim to atone for the sins of the people, but whether that was what Moses was trying to offer or not, God rejected his offer...”

The first questions is where did Moses “apparently offer himself as a victim to atone”? If my opponent interpreted the phrase “blot me out of thy book” as a way of saying “kill me instead,” that is a serious misunderstanding of the passage, which is saying nothing of the sort. Rather, that phrase is akin to the notion of 'the captain goes down with his ship.' If my opponent is saying Moses meant some other offering than killing him in their stead, then this proves Moses understood atonement could be made apart from Penal Substitution (which would undermine his own thesis). What is even more problematic is my opponent says “God rejected his offer,” but the text does not say the “offer” was rejected on the grounds Moses offer was not good enough, but rather on the grounds of the most anti-Penal Substitution response imaginable: “Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.” Whatever the offer might have been, Penal Substitution was excluded in God's eyes.

The rest of his response consisted in recapitulating what I already affirmed: that Christ's offering is infinitely superior to Moses' offering. My only point was: if Moses could atone without Penal Substitution, then why not Christ? This is what was missed by my opponent.

1d) My fourth question asked for “quotes where an Early Church Father teaches concepts such as God pouring His Wrath upon Jesus, being forsaken by God in the sense of divine punishment, suffering more than a physical death, using “descended into hell” in a sense of undergoing damnation, etc.” I will briefly comment on the quotes my opponent provided:

-Augustine – On the Trinity – Book IV, Chapter III: This quote speaks of the “double death” we deserved being satisfied by Christ's “single death.” But he is clear this is physical death only, “clothed in mortal flesh, and in that alone dying,” contradicting the Reformed authors above who stated His physical death was nothing compared to the spiritual one he suffered when God poured out His wrath on Him. Calvin explicitly states, “nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death.” Augustine then quotes the “forsaken” passage, but does not interpret it as God's wrath nor something Christ literally suffered in the sense of divine torments, but rather a symbolic sign displayed outwardly in Christ's flesh of what our own souls suffer inwardly. Christ's outward (physical) sufferings were “wrought a mystery as regards the inner man, and a type as regards the outer,” meaning it signified the spiritual pain a sinner suffers as well as the bodily pain they will suffer in the future.

My opponent quotes St Augustine's comments on Psalm 88, but the passage states God's wrath passes over the Body of Saints and Head which is Christ, and it only rests on sinners.

-Leo the Great – Sermon 68: Here we see St Leo interpret “forsaken me” in the same sense the Church has always interpreted it: “Jesus, therefore, cried with a loud voice, saying, 'Why have You forsaken Me?' in order to notify to all how it behoved Him not to be rescued, not to be defended, but to be given up into the hands of cruel men.” This not only fully supports the Catholic interpretation, it directly contradicts the Reformed authors quoted earlier (as well as my opponent himself).

-John of Damascus - An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Book IV): It should come as no surprise that St John interprets “forsaken me” in the same manner as the rest of the Fathers, stating clearly: “For neither as God nor as man was He ever forsaken by the Father, nor did He become sin or a curse.” This sentence makes it clear St John excludes any such interpretation which would indicate God's wrath or any other such divine punishment ever being on Christ. When he says “appropriating, then, our person and ranking Himself with us,” that means He took on our flesh and lived as one of us, though nothing in that quote indicates this was anything close to a Penal Substitution (quite the contrary).

Given what has been presented above as patristic evidence for what the Reformed tradition teaches regarding Penal Substitution, it is clear that the Fathers had nothing of the sort in mind. None of them came anywhere near saying God's wrath was poured out on Christ, or that Christ underwent the equivalent of damnation, or that Christ's outward/physical sufferings were nothing compared to the spiritual ones inflicted on his soul as divine punishment. What is most astonishing is that most of the patristic quotes my opponent cites actually explicitly contradict his own position.

1d) My fifth and final question addressed the issue of Nestorianism, which I argue is a theological ramification of Penal Substitution. Because I had suspicions on whether my opponent understood these ramifications, I asked this question: “Can the statement 'God died on the cross' be understood in a truly orthodox sense?”

My opponent was first asked to give simply a yes or no answer, his response: No.

He went onto clarify his answer: “Standing alone, the comment that 'God died' is facially heterodox, although it can be qualified to some other meaning. The Orthodox way to describe it is 'Jesus Christ died on the cross.' ”

This answer is material heresy (as opposed to formal heresy) and is embracing a form of Nestorianism. To say “God died” is heterodox, while “Jesus died” is orthodox, is Nestorian in that it makes 'God' and 'Jesus' in this context two separate persons.

There is an orthodox sense which “God died on the cross” can be understood. Death is not a ceasing of existence but rather the separation of body and soul (which the Divine Nature is not composed of, thus cannot experience death). Since God the Son had a human nature, He certainly could die, and did, but that simply means His human body separated from His human soul, not that the Divine Person of the Son or His Divine Nature ceased to exist or was somehow changed.

With the above explanation in mind, the Early Church Father's my opponent cites in support of his position can be properly understood. Ambrose is clearly speaking of the fact the Divine Nature cannot experience pain or death, in contrast to the human nature. Ambrose quotes 1 Corinthians 2:8 where it says they “crucified the Lord of glory,” which is equivalent to saying the Lord God, the Son, was crucified and died. The St Leo quote says this just as clearly: “He Who underwent death is the same as He Who never ceased to be eternal.” The “He” in this sentence is God the Son.
The Theodoret quote states it in the clearest terms in condemning those who believe “the Godhead of the only begotten Son suffered, instead of the manhood which He assumed.” The Godhead is the divine nature, which cannot experience suffering, while the Person of God the Son suffered and died in His assumed human nature.

2) I will now offer a recap of the entire debate, touching on all the points I consider decisive against the Penal Substitution position.

2a) The Old Testament sacrifices were shown to not operate in a Penal Substitution framework. My opponent had virtually no response to this fact. Sacrifices such as the sin offerings, scapegoat, Passover, and pre-Mosaic offerings all pointed away from what one would expect to see in a Penal Substitution framework. Since Christ was prefigured in all these sacrifices, there can be no doubt the serious problems this puts my opponent in as far as Scriptural support is concerned.

2b) While my opponent seemed to shy away from the various descriptions of the Father pouring out His Wrath on Jesus, I have referenced numerous respected Reformed theologians and pastors who openly advocate such a view. They make it clear the importance of this aspect of Christ's suffering was second to none.

On top of the numerous quotes already given, last year two huge Reformed conferences were held with well known Reformed pastors such as R.C. Spoul, C.J. Mahaney, and John Piper. They gave lectures on Christ's atonement, and made comments such as these:

“What prevents us from seeing God is our heart. Our impurity. But Jesus had no impurity. And Thomas said He was pure in heart. So obviously He had some, some experience of the beauty of the Father. Until that moment that my sin was placed upon Him. And the one who was pure was pure no more. And God cursed Him. It was if there was a cry from Heaven – excuse my language but I can be no more accurate than to say – it was as if Jesus heard the words 'God damn you', because that's what it meant to be cursed, to be damned, to be under the anathema of the Father. As I said I don't understand that, but I know that it's true.” (R.C. Sproul. Together for the Gospel. April 17, 2008. Louisville, KY. Session V - The Curse Motif of the Atonement. Minute 55:01)

“Hell is all about echoing faintly the glory of Calvary. That's the meaning of hell in this room right now. To help you feel in some emotional measure the magnificence of what Christ did for you when he bore not only your eternal suffering, but millions of people's eternal suffering when His Father put our curse on Him. What a Saviour is echoed in the flames of hell. So that's what I mean when I say hell is an echo of the glory of God, and an echo of the Savior's sufferings, and therefore an echo of the infinite love of God for our souls.” (John Piper. Resolved Conference 2008. Session 8 – The Echo and Insufficiency of Hell. Min 40:00)

“This moment in Mark chapter 15 [i.e. “My God, my God”], it is this moment, it is what takes place in this moment that delivers us from hell. This agony, this scream, is what delivers all those who turn from their sin and trust in the Savior from hell. On the cross, Jesus experienced hell for us. He experienced hell for us, bearing God's wrath and eternal punishment. And because He did, Heaven awaits all those who turn from their sin and trust in Him. He screamed the 'scream of the damned' [i.e., “forsaken me”] for us. Listen, this scream should be our scream. … This scream should be my eternal scream. He takes upon Himself my sin, the wrath I deserved for and against my sin, He screams the 'scream of the damned' for me.” (C.J. Mahaney. Resolved Conference 2008. Session 11 - The Cry From the Cross. Min 46:35)

“There are four ways that you can measure the love of God in Christ heard in the 'scream of the damned' … and all four of them are infinite, and they all point to the infinite value of the 'scream of the damned'. Now it's bigger than this, and the quote you just heard from 'Spectacular Sins' is my effort to get at it. Hell exists, sin exists, Heaven exists, cross exists, everything exists to magnify the worth of the 'scream of the damned'. Everything. That's the point of the universe.” (John Piper. Resolved Conference 2008. Session 12 - The Triumph of the Gospel in the New Heavens and New Earth. Min 00:15)

It is very clear how they are interpreting “My God, why have you forsaken me,” it is interpreted as the scream which the damned souls in hell scream, and that Jesus screamed it in their place.

These Reformed authors are unequivocally clear as to what Christ had to suffer. The sufferings described have no basis in Scripture and go above and beyond the emotional and physical pains the Gospels and New Testament clearly reveal.

2c) One issue that greatly disappointed me throughout this debate was the overall lack of engagement in any substantial Scriptural exegesis by my opponent. At the outset of this debate, I addressed the major Protestant proof-texts, and I showed they came nowhere near either advocating or demanding Penal Substitution. My opponent not only failed to interact with the exegesis I gave, he failed to offer any new and relevant Scriptural evidence of his own. Given this is a debate, the only way that this can be interpreted is that those popular Penal Substitution proof-texts fall very short of proving what is required of them. This debate was about Scripture more than anything, and my opponent repeatedly acknowledged this, yet the record shows I examined and commented upon far more passages than my opponent did.

After Psalm 22:1, I consider the issue of Christ “drinking of the cup” to be the next most important text that was considered in significant depth this debate. Yet, after careful examination, there is no doubt that since the disciples were to undergo “drinking” and “baptism” after the example of Christ, then not only was Penal Substitution not what was signified, such a notion was precluded.

One text which (unfortunately) received less interaction that I expected was Isaiah 53. Verse 5 is especially significant in that it uses a conspicuous word, “chastise,” rather than an expected term like “punish,” which is the exact opposite of what we would expect for a Penal Substitution text. Proverbs 3:11-12 uses the same Hebrew word for “chastise,” which is a passage quoted in Hebrews 12:6,10 and applied to Christians. There is an important distinction between the concept of chastisement and punishment, and the Reformed tradition has always (rightly) recognized it. The words of John Calvin state it succinctly:

For the sake of distinction, we may call the one kind of judgment punishment, the other chastisement. In judicial punishment, God is to be understood as taking vengeance on his enemies, by displaying his anger against them, confounding, scattering, and annihilating them. By divine punishment, properly so called, let us then understand punishment accompanied with indignation. In judicial chastisement, he is offended, but not in wrath; he does not punish by destroying or striking down as with a thunderbolt. Hence it is not properly punishment or vengeance, but correction and admonition. The one is the act of a judge, the other of a father.

…To have a short and clear view of the whole matter, we must make two distinctions. First, whenever the infliction is designed to avenge, then the curse and wrath of God displays itself. This is never the case with believers. On the contrary, the chastening of God carries his blessing with it, and is an evidence of love, as Scripture teaches [footnote 370: Job 5:17; Prov. 3:11; Heb. 12:5].(Institutes Bk3:Ch4:Sec31,32)

So, rather than Christ receiving divine punishment while Christians receive chastening - which is what Penal Substitution requires - Scripture actually applies the same concept to both. And Scripture brings out this point even more clearly:

Hebrews 5: 7During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him

This is precisely how Isaiah 53:5 is to be understood when it says: “The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.” The Protestant scheme simply cannot do justice (no pun intended) to what Scripture has to teach about the nature of Christ's sufferings.

As far as imputing guilt is concerned, not only did my opponent fail to establish this concept in the Old Testament, the closest New Testament evidence for the guilt of the elect being imputed to Christ was 2 Corinthians 5:19 (which fell well short of proving such a thing, as I previously noted).

2d) The Catholic understanding of Satisfaction (which was shown to be very different from the radically redefined definition of the Reformers) was shown to have solid Biblical support. On top of that, my opponent had no genuine explanation for why this couldn't apply to Christ, especially given the clear foreshadowing in some of the texts. The Catholic understanding of satisfaction is based on the Biblical term “propitiation” which means to turn away (appease) wrath, rather than re-directing that wrath on an innocent party. My opponent, for the great majority of this debate, failed to realize this distinction, and as a result frequently assumed passages relating to the atonement must automatically be advocating Penal Substitution. The Old Testament testimony, especially of Moses and Phinehas, proved beyond a doubt atonement could be made to God without requiring Penal Substitution. Given this, the Catholic understanding is the only correct way of understanding the key notion of “intercession,” as Jeremiah's own testimony makes clear: “Remember that I stood before you and spoke in their behalf to turn your wrath away from them” (18:20; cf. Sirach 34:19; 35:6-7).

2e) I made the argument that since Scripture teaches salvation can be lost, the implication is that Penal Substitution must be false because Penal Substitution when carried out systematically precludes the possibility of losing salvation. My opponent had no response to my passages, and the two texts he did deal with fell well short of a reasonable counter-interpretation.

2f) I also gave a list of philosophical and theological problems with Penal Substitution, but again received not much of a response either from Scripture or logical counter-argument.

2g) From the start of the debate, I planned to steer away from focusing on what the Early Church Fathers said. I approached the debate with this in mind because I realize my opponent's final authority is Scripture, and that's where this debate ultimately comes down to. That said, my opponent quoted the fathers over 20 times. Upon examination of the great majority of those quotes, they were easily shown to advocate nothing close to Penal Substitution, and in most of the cases the Father interpreted Protestant proof-texts the opposite of how a Protestant would interpret them! For the most part the Fathers simply affirmed the fact humanity is subject to the (temporal) punishment of death and decay and Jesus underwent these punishments by virtue of His Incarnation, not by a legal imputation of the sinner's guilt to His account.

Concluding Remarks:

In this debate, the burden of proof in proving Penal Substitution was upon my opponent, not me. The ultimate and final standard for judging this doctrine is Scripture, and my opponent failed to prove his case with Scripture. He failed in this regard on the following grounds: (1) to provide clear evidence of guilt being imputed; (2) to provide clear evidence for Penal Substitution taking place in the OT and the NT; (3) to interact with my very reasonable interpretations countering major Protestant proof texts; (4) to explain my clear Scriptural evidence of atonement being made without the use of Penal Substitution; (5) to show clear evidence for the Father pouring out His wrath on Jesus.

Being that we are in the final round of our essays means my opponent has no more opportunity to introduce any substantially new evidence, he can only clarify what has already been addressed up to now (including my final essay), thus there should be no doubt where the Biblical evidence points. The Biblical testimony points clearly away from Penal Substitution and strongly in the direction of Catholic Satisfaction.

While this point was only implicitly touched up in my previous essays, the doctrine of Penal Substitution is directly linked to the key Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide. If Penal Substitution is false, then Sola Fide is likewise false. This debate wasn't just about a different way of understanding the Atonement, it had much deeper underpinnings, namely holding up the most important doctrine of the Reformation: Sola Fide. If Sola Fide is the doctrine which determines whether the Church stands or falls, as the Reformers have always described it, then I would describe Penal Substitution as the doctrine that determines whether Sola Fide stands or falls. I believe Penal Substitution is not accepted based on solid Biblical exegesis, but rather accepted and presupposed in order to hold up an even more important and presupposed doctrine: Sola Fide. I don't believe any theologian would go down the path of advocating Penal Substitution in the first place, unless something greater was at stake. And the fact is something greater is at stake.

I want to conclude by thanking my opponent for having this debate with me. He showed respect throughout the entire debate and demonstrated his passion for this issue. My hope for this debate was to get my opponent, as well as others, to rethink the doctrine of Penal Substitution, because I as a Catholic honestly feel it does not represent the Truth, and in fact harms it.

Affirmative Answer to Question 5

2009-03-29T21:00:00.000+01:00

Nick insists it is orthodox to say when Jesus slept that “God was asleep” because Jesus is the second person of the Trinity.

Here, Nick appears to part ways with folks like Ambrose.

Ambrose - Exposition of the Christian Faith - Book II, Chapter VII:

56. As being man, therefore, He doubts; as man He is amazed. Neither His power nor His Godhead is amazed, but His soul; He is amazed by consequence of having taken human infirmity upon Him. Seeing, then, that He took upon Himself a soul He also took the affections of a soul, for God could not have been distressed or have died in respect of His being God. Finally, He cried: “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” As being man, therefore, He speaks, bearing with Him my terrors, for when we are in the midst of dangers we think ourself abandoned by God. As man, therefore, He is distressed, as man He weeps, as man He is crucified.

57. For so hath the Apostle Paul likewise said: “Because they have crucified the flesh of Christ.” And again the Apostle Peter saith: “Christ having suffered according to the flesh.” It was the flesh, therefore, that suffered; the Godhead above secure from death; to suffering His body yielded, after the law of human nature; can the Godhead die, then, if the soul cannot? “Fear not them,” said our Lord, “which can kill the body, but cannot kill the soul.” If the soul, then, cannot be killed, how can the Godhead?

58. When we read, then, that the Lord of glory was crucified, let us not suppose that He was crucified as in His glory. It is because He Who is God is also man, God by virtue of His Divinity, and by taking upon Him of the flesh, the man Christ Jesus, that the Lord of glory is said to have been crucified; for, possessing both natures, that is, the human and the divine, He endured the Passion in His humanity, in order that without distinction He Who suffered should be called both Lord of glory and Son of man, even as it is written: “Who descended from heaven.”

When Nick asks, “Can the statement ‘God died on the cross’ be understood in a truly orthodox sense?” the answer seems to be “No.”

The expression "in an orthodox sense" invites trouble, since "God does not exist" could be understood in an orthodox sense if further qualified, such as by "in the thoughts of a fool."

Standing alone, the comment that “God died” is facially heterodox, although it can be qualified to some other meaning. The Orthodox way to describe it is "Jesus Christ died on the cross." The church fathers agree.

Thus, Leo the Great, in Sermon 68, explained:

The last discourse, dearly-beloved, of which we desire now to give the promised portion, had reached that point in the argument where we were speaking of that cry which the crucified Lord uttered to the Father: we bade the simple and unthinking hearer not take the words "My God, &c.," in a sense as if, when Jesus was fixed upon the wood of the cross, the Omnipotence of the Father's Deity had gone away from Him; seeing that God's and Man's Nature were so completely joined in Him that the union could not be destroyed by punishment nor by death. For while each substance retained its own properties, God neither held aloof from the suffering of His body nor was made passible by the flesh, because the Godhead which was in the Sufferer did not actually suffer. And hence, in accordance with the Nature of the Word made Man, He Who was made in the midst of all is the same as He through Whom all things were made. He Who is arrested by the hands of wicked men is the same as He Who is bound by no limits. He Who is pierced with nails is the same as He Whom no wound can affect. Finally, He Who underwent death is the same as He Who never ceased to be eternal, so that both facts are established by indubitable signs, namely, the truth of the humiliation in Christ and the truth of the majesty; because Divine power joined itself to human frailty to this end, that God, while making what was ours His, might at the same time make what was His ours.

Theodoret, in Letter 170, goes a bit further:

For in these very Chapters the author of the noxious productions teaches that the Godhead of the only begotten Son suffered, instead of the manhood which He assumed for the sake of our salvation, the indwelling Godhead manifestly appropriating the sufferings as of Its own body, though suffering nothing in Its own nature; and further that there is made one nature of both Godhead and manhood,— for so he explains "The Word was made flesh," as though the Godhead had undergone some change, and been turned into flesh.
And, further, he anathematizes those who make a distinction between the terms used by apostles and evangelists about the Lord Christ, referring those of humiliation to the manhood, and those of divine glory to the Godhead, of the Lord Christ. It is with these views that Arians and Eunomians, attributing the terms of humiliation to the Godhead, have not shrunk from declaring God the Word to be made and created, of another substance, and unlike the Father.
What blasphemy follows on these statements it is not difficult to perceive. There is introduced a confusion of the natures, and to God the Word are applied the words "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me;" and "Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from me," the hunger, the thirst, and the strengthening by an angel; His saying "Now is my soul troubled," and "my soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death," and all similar passages belonging to the manhood of the Christ.

-TurretinFan

Affirmative Answer to Question 4

2009-03-29T20:00:00.000+01:00

Nick asked for patristic support for the quotations he identified in Question 1. With the word limits it is impossible to identify all the relevant quotations or address every facet, but several quotations should illustrate the same kinds of thoughts:

Augustine – On the Trinity – Book IV, Chapter III:

6. Therefore on this double death of ours our Saviour bestowed His own single death; and to cause both our resurrections, He appointed beforehand and set forth in mystery and type His own one resurrection. For He was not a sinner or ungodly, that, as though dead in spirit, He should need to be renewed in the inner man, and to be recalled as it were to the life of righteousness by repentance; but being clothed in mortal flesh, and in that alone dying, in that alone rising again, in that alone did He answer to both for us; since in it was wrought a mystery as regards the inner man, and a type as regards the outer. For it was in a mystery as regards our inner man, so as to signify the death of our soul, that those words were uttered, not only in the Psalm, but also on the cross: "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?" To which words the apostle agrees, saying, "Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin;" since by the crucifixion of the inner man are understood the pains of repentance, and a certain wholesome agony of self-control, by which death the death of ungodliness is destroyed, and in which death God has left us. And so the body of sin is destroyed through such a cross, that now we should not yield our members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin.
…
The one death therefore of our Saviour brought salvation to our double death, and His one resurrection wrought for us two resurrections; since His body in both cases, that is, both in His death and in His resurrection, was ministered to us by a kind of healing suitableness, both as a mystery of the inner man, and as a type of the outer.

This quotation provides an example of the basic concept behind the “Reformed” quotations Nick provided: Christ’s one death substitutes for our two deaths. I’d love to provide many more quotations from Augustine, who consistently refers these words to Christ speaking on our behalf, as our substitute, and the representative of the old man. These may be found, for example in his Expositions of Psalms 22, 38, 42, 44, 50, 71, and 141. The issue of wrath, in particular, being on this representative head may be found in his exposition on Psalm 88: “Over that Body, which constitutes the unity of the Saints and the faithful, whose Head is Christ, go the wraths of God: yet abide not: since it is of the unbelieving only that it is written, that ‘the wrath of God abides upon him.’”

Leo the Great – Sermon 68:

Jesus, therefore, cried with a loud voice, saying, "Why have You forsaken Me?" in order to notify to all how it behoved Him not to be rescued, not to be defended, but to be given up into the hands of cruel men, that is to become the Saviour of the world and the Redeemer of all men, not by misery but by mercy; and not by the failure of succour but by the determination to die. But what must we feel to be the intercessory power of His life Who died and rose again by His own inherent power. For the blessed Apostle says the Father "spared not His own Son, but gave Him up for us all;" and again, he says, "For Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify it ." And hence the giving up of the Lord to His Passion was as much of the Father's as of His own will, so that not only did the Father "forsake" Him, but He also abandoned Himself in a certain sense, not in hasty flight, but in voluntary withdrawal. For the might of the Crucified restrained itself from those wicked men, and in order to avail Himself of a secret design, He refused to avail Himself of His open power. For how would He who had come to destroy death and the author of death by His Passion have saved sinners, if he had resisted His persecutors?

Leo the Great, unlike some of the other fathers, is willing to acknowledge that there is a sense in which Jesus was forsaken by the Father, though (of course) this was voluntary (as the Reformed acknowledge)

John of Damascus - An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Book IV):

Others again are said in the manner of association and relation , as, My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? and He has made Him to be sin for us, Who knew no sin, and being made a curse for us; also, Then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him. For neither as God nor as man was He ever forsaken by the Father, nor did He become sin or a curse, nor did He require to be made subject to the Father. For as God He is equal to the Father and not opposed to Him nor subjected to Him; and as God, He was never at any time disobedient to His Begetter to make it necessary for Him to make Him subject. Appropriating, then, our person and ranking Himself with us, He used these words. For we are bound in the fetters of sin and the curse as faithless and disobedient, and therefore forsaken.

John of Damascus appears to be recognizing that these words are spoken in Jesus’ appropriated role as our representative: receiving (and expressing) the forsakenness we deserve for our sins.

-TurretinFan

Affirmative Answer to Question 3

2009-03-29T19:00:00.000+01:00

I had pointed out that Deuteronomy 9:16-21 does not make reference to an atonement. Now, Nick has taken the position that “it turns out that the term ‘atonement’ is applied to this event,” citing Exodus 32:30.

The answer here is that Moses overestimated himself. Let’s examine the entire relevant passage:

Exodus 32:30-35

30 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the LORD; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin. 31 And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. 32 Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.

33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. 34 Therefore now go, lead the people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee: behold, mine Angel shall go before thee: nevertheless in the day when I visit I will visit their sin upon them. 35 And the LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made.

Moses apparently offered himself as a victim to atone for the sins of the people, but whether that was what Moses was trying to offer or not, God rejected his offer and plagued the people because they made the calf.

Christ’s offer to substitute himself for the sins of his people is not refused by the Father. That’s one way in which Christ is much better than Moses.

Hebrews 3:3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.

That would seem to answer Nick’s question, but again, Nick’s question also contains some faulty premises that need to be corrected.

Nick states: “Surely Christ’s ‘unjust sufferings’ were of infinitely more value than what Moses could provide.” There are a few things that should be noted:

(1) Yes, Christ’s sufferings were of more value than anything Moses could provide, because Christ did not deserve to suffer, but Moses did deserve to suffer, and because Christ was both God and man in two distinct natures and one person.

(2) Moses, to the extent that he saved the people in Deuteronomy 9, did not save them from hell: he saved them from immediate destruction. Thus, the nature of the salvation provided is quite different.

(3) Nick’s comment, though, seems to view the sufferings of Christ as the primary source of value, whereas it is by Christ’s death (sometimes called his “blood”) that we are saved.

Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

One can also this principle in the discussion, for example, of Tertullian (a discussion I almost included in responses to others of these questions):

Tertullian - Against Praxeas (Chapter 30)

You have Him exclaiming in the midst of His passion: "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?" Either, then, the Son suffered, being "forsaken" by the Father, and the Father consequently suffered nothing, inasmuch as He forsook the Son; or else, if it was the Father who suffered, then to what God was it that He addressed His cry? But this was the voice of flesh and soul, that is to say, of man— not of the Word and Spirit, that is to say, not of God; and it was uttered so as to prove the impassibility of God, who "forsook" His Son, so far as He handed over His human substance to the suffering of death. This verity the apostle also perceived, when he writes to this effect: "If the Father spared not His own Son." This did Isaiah before him likewise perceive, when he declared: "And the Lord has delivered Him up for our offences." In this manner He "forsook" Him, in not sparing Him; "forsook" Him, in delivering Him up. In all other respects the Father did not forsake the Son, for it was into His Father's hands that the Son commended His spirit. Indeed, after so commending it, He instantly died; and as the Spirit remained with the flesh, the flesh cannot undergo the full extent of death, i.e., in corruption and decay. For the Son, therefore, to die, amounted to His being forsaken by the Father. The Son, then, both dies and rises again, according to the Scriptures. It is the Son, too, who ascends to the heights of heaven, and also descends to the inner parts of the earth. "He sits at the Father's right hand" — not the Father at His own.

As you can see, Tertullian rightly focuses on the “suffering of death” (i.e. dying). There is some interesting ways in which Tertullian also addresses the issue of Jesus being “forsaken” (see Answer to Question 4) and of the Trinitarian and Hypostatic relationships (see Answer to Question 5).

Thus, likewise Augustine – On the Creed:

"Patience of Job, end of the Lord." The patience of Job we know, and the end of the Lord we know. What end of the Lord? "My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?" They are the words of the Lord hanging on the cross. He did as it were leave Him for present felicity, not leave Him for eternal immortality. In this is "the end of the Lord." The Jews hold Him, the Jews insult, the Jews bind Him, crown Him with thorns, dishonor Him with spitting, scourge Him, overwhelm Him with revilings, hang Him upon the tree, pierce Him with a spear, last of all bury Him.

So then, this humiliation up to and including Christ’s death was necessary for our atonement, though not for just any atonement.

-TurretinFan

Affirmative Answer to Question 2

2009-03-29T18:00:00.000+01:00

The question, briefly stated, was whether atonement can be made without penal substitution. The answer is that atonement (reconciliation) does not, as such, require any particular form: i.e., two parties can be variously reconciled.

The case of God, however, is a special case. Justice demands bloodshed. God is perfectly just, and consequently cannot simply overlook the demands of justice. Justice must be satisfied through punishment.

Thus, regarding God’s punishment against sin, there are two options: either the sinner himself is punished or someone else is punished in the place of the sinner.

There are, however, a number of premises in the question itself that need to be addressed:

The “atonement” identified by Nick in Exodus 30:11-16 is a special payment to be made when making a census. If it is not made, God becomes angry and sends judgment on the people. In 2 Samuel 24, David accidentally triggered this provision of the law. David performed a census of the people but did not collect the mandatory ½ shekel (a bekah). Accordingly, a plague came upon the people as promised in Exodus 30:11-16. This plague was the result of the omission of the ½ shekel census payments which would have kept the people atoned-for.

The plague was stayed by making burnt offerings and peace offerings as reported at 2 Samuel 24:25:

2 Samuel 24:25 And David built there an altar unto the LORD, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings. So the LORD was intreated for the land, and the plague was stayed from Israel.

Contrary to the seeming presuppositions of Nick’s argument, David didn’t try to buy out God by providing ½ shekel per numbered person. The reason why, is that the sin had already been committed, so there was need to make a blood offering.

After all, this is the general rule, as Scriptures declare:

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

The second case that was mentioned was not the case of negligent homicide (as Nick seems to think) but homicide by a dangerous chattel – homicide by an animal that was a known danger. It’s similar to negligent homicide, but it differs because there is another actor than the person himself who does the killing.

To understand the ransom involved here, it is important to recognize the way that the Jewish civil law worked. In general, the criminal could avoid the law’s penalty by paying off the victim. For example, if you maimed someone, the law declared that you should be maimed (eye for eye etc.). You could avoid this penalty by paying off the victim. The victim, however, could only demand so much from you, because you could always agree to receive the punishment instead of paying (which helped to keep the buyout amount reasonable).

In the case of the notoriously dangerous loose ox that gores someone, the death penalty was the judgment, but the criminal could pay off the victim’s family. This is significant, because there was a notable exception to permitting criminals to ransom themselves:

Numbers 35:31 Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death.

In any event, Nick is right that Jesus’ death is sometimes referred to as a “ransom” or a payment of some sort. The commercial analogy is not wrong, it is just not sufficient. Christ’s satisfaction was chiefly penal: it was not “this much for that many” but the substitution of an innocent victim for the guilty people he represents.

The ½ shekel payment would not be a counter-example in favor of a pure commercial analogy for two reasons: (1) it is a payment not for those who have sinned, but for those who are in the army:

Numbers 1:3 From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies.

(2) it is an individual payment, but it is not proportioned to individual sin. In other words, the payment is exactly the same for everyone, whether rich or poor. Thus, although it has definite “commercial” connotations, in that it is monetary, it is not an example of commercial satisfaction that can serve as a legitimate model for any alternative view for Nick.

Finally, Nick mentions the idea of “giving his life as a ransom” as referring to the life (as such) being of a particular value and quality. The first thing that must be addressed here is that “giving his life” means “dying.” It’s unclear whether Nick realizes this, or views the death itself as an inconsequential aside. The second thing is that the value and quality of life is important. The victim must be spotless, i.e. blameless (Cf. Lev 23:12 And ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf an he lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt offering unto the LORD.), otherwise his death would not be substitutionary: it would be for his own sins.

Christ is that spotless victim:

Hebrews 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

The unique dignity of Christ’s person was important for our atonement too. The blood of bulls and of goats was never actually able to take away sins (Hebrews 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.), but the blood of Christ can take away not just he sins of a single man (as perhaps the death of a righteous mere man might) but of the world (John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.).

So, our atonement from sin and hell is a penal substitution.

- TurretinFan

Affirmative Answer to Question 1

2009-03-29T17:00:00.000+01:00

Nick’s first question was a puzzling question. Rather than cross-examining me on positions I had advocated, he asked me to defend the teachings of Hodge, Boettner, MacArthur, Calvin, Luther, Luther again, and Grudem, not all of which are particularly systematic (while those who are have extensive defenses of their own on this subject).

Nick asserted that these gentlemen claim that Jesus "endure[d] not only a physical death, but a spiritual one as well." That's not quite right. They do say he experienced more than bare death, but specifically the wrath of God. Of course, that expression must be understood within their framework of thought. For them, suffering the punishments due to sinners is suffering God’s wrath: it does not mean that God the Father is displeased with the Son’s sacrifice (on the contrary – it pleases him). But, instead, it means that God’s judgment is on the Son.

Nick asks "Where does Scripture teach Jesus underwent a suffering more painful and serious than physical death?" This itself is trivially answered, since the actual experience of death isn’t something to which we attach any pain. It is the cutting off of soul from body. In Christ's case, however, the way this happened was crucifixion, an enormously painful means to that end.

What was more painful and serious than the physical pain of the crucifixion? It is apples and oranges, but Christ was humiliated in every way: he was condemned and betrayed by the leaders of his people to the gentiles. He was mocked by the gentiles. He was mocked by the thieves on the cross. He was not rescued from death by God. He was abandoned by his disciples. What more could have been done to him that was not done?

But Nick provided further provisos on his question: "Please quote and comment upon at least three distinct passages of Scripture which [sic] state Jesus endured a pain worse than physical death, specifically "the wrath of God" as described above."
I assume Nick's reference to "as described above" is not to anything I had written in this debate, but to other writers with whom it appears Nick would prefer to spar. The first verse in support of their claims is the verse Luther quoted, where Jesus cries out "My God, My God, Why hast Thou forsaken me?"

Nick's request for three distinct passages is a bit odd. I guess it would be nice if this facet of the doctrine of the atonement were brought out by numerous verses, but what if it were just that one that Luther quoted? Isn't the Scriptures saying something one time enough of a reason to believe?

Nevertheless, there are others that convey the same concept, more or less directly. For example, there are verses where salvation through Christ is contrasted with the wrath of God:

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

This is a general verse contrasting eternal life obtained through faith in the Son with the wrath of God that otherwise abides on us. Either the wrath of God is against the Son or against us.

Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

This verse makes it clear that the blood of Christ (that is to say, his death) is significant in our justification. That is to say, either the blood of the Son is spilled for us, or God will require our blood.

1 Thessalonians 1:10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

This is yet another verse that provides the options of either Christ suffering death or us suffering the wrath of God.

1 Thessalonians 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

This is still a further verse in the same vein. (See also Romans 2:2-11)

We can see the same thing another way by looking at Lamentations 3. That chapter begins:

Lamentations 3:1 I am the man that hath seen affliction by the rod of his wrath.

Now, whether we view this as simply referring to the prophet Jeremiah, or whether we view it as a prophecy of Jesus the Messiah, what is interesting is how “wrath” is manifested in that chapter. It is manifested by various physical trials, pains, and humiliations. This demonstrates that the wrath of God can be manifested against someone without the person spending an eternity in hell. And, of course, none of the theologians Nick identified think that Jesus had to spend an eternity in hell.

We could, of course, give other examples. Perhaps it suffices to add to this Psalm 88. Psalm 88 is about Christ, as Augustine recognized: “The Passion of our Lord is here prophesied.” (Exposition on Psalm 88 – And the Roman Catholic “Haydock’s Bible Commentary” agrees: “A prayer of one under grievous affliction: it agrees to Christ in his passion, and allude [sic] to his death and burial.”) When it came to verse 7, this was hard for Augustine to swallow, and he was concerned that there was a mistranslation in the copies available to him. But we have better access to (and better understanding of) the Hebrew originals and know that is says:

Psalm 88:7 Thy wrath lieth hard upon me, and thou hast afflicted me with all thy waves. Selah.

Though Augustine thinks that this just expresses the beliefs of those who crucified Christ, we recognize that on the interpretation of this verse, even the great Augustine was mistaken. That’s the nice thing about Scriptures being our rule of faith, we can read them without requiring that our view of them be precisely as the fathers, among whom (of course) there was disagreement. For example, Theodoret does not appear to recognize this Psalm as Messianic.

-TurretinFan

Question 5 from Negative

2009-03-14T23:40:00.024Z

QUESTION 5 FROM NEGATIVE

As you know, I argue that Penal Substitution entails Nestorianism (even if unintentionally). You asked me about this in your Fourth Question to me. As you were laying out your question to me, you stated the following:

“Obviously Nestorianism (denying that Jesus was one person with two natures) is heretical. It appears, however, that your entire claim that somehow Jesus must be split into two persons two accomplish the penal substitution is just your own assertion, not a logical consequence of the doctrine itself.

There are certainly many things that were true of Jesus as a man (such as that he got tired) that are only applicable to Jesus’ human nature. Take, for instance, this account:[Mark 4:37-39] In this account, Jesus was asleep. But surely it would not be proper to say that the Holy Spirit and the Father were also sleeping. To do this would be to flirt with Sabellianism – a confusion or conflation of the persons of the Trinity, as though they were but one person. In contrast, since Jesus is truly a different person than the Father, although they are both persons of one godhead, nevertheless it is possible for Jesus to stand in the place of sinners as their penal substitute to satisfy divine justice and reconcile the elect to God.”

Now, I am not accusing you of anything, but from what you have said above I'm not sure if you understand the reasoning behind my Nestorian charge. While you are correct to say there were actions Jesus performed which were attributes of only His human nature (eg sleep), it is also orthodox to say things such as “God was asleep,” because Jesus was a divine Person, God the Son. You would seem hesitant to affirm this statement of mine by the way you suddenly transition to “surely it would not be proper to say that the Holy Spirit and the Father were also sleeping.” I believe this comment is out of place because the issue of Nestorianism is not about the other Divine Persons (Father and Holy Spirit), but the Person of the Son and a potential human person. You begin by talking of Nestorianism and yet conclude (“in contrast”) by dealing with Sabellianism. What you appear to be alluding to is that “Jesus as a man” can be forsaken by God and die and undergo God's wrath, but “Jesus as God” cannot because “it would not be proper to say” the Holy Spirit and Father underwent those things. My final question to you is: Can the statement “God died on the cross” be understood in a truly orthodox sense? I'm talking about the statement as it stands, without modification of any words. Please explicitly state either “Yes” or “No” and then explain your reason for doing so, with as much detail as you can, in the span of 2-3 paragraphs.

Question 4 from Negative

2009-03-14T23:40:00.023Z

QUESTION 4 FROM NEGATIVE

For your Fifth Question, you gave me a list quotes from the Early Church Fathers which you claimed were advocating Penal Substitution. From the start of this debate I have argued the doctrine is more or less a invention of the Reformers. Because you seem to be well read in the patristics department, I have a question which I think shouldn't be too hard to answer. Do you know of any Early Church Father writings where they advocate Jesus enduring divine punishments along the lines of what the Reformed theologians in Question One above were advocating? I'm talking about quotes where an Early Church Father teaches concepts such as God pouring His Wrath upon Jesus, being forsaken (via “My God, My God”) by God in the sense of divine punishment, suffering more than a physical death, using “descended into hell” in a sense of undergoing damnation, etc. If you do know of such quotes, please list a quote from at least three different Early Church Fathers. If you do not know of any such quotes, then explain why the Reformers and Reformed theologians speak in that manner and why you think the Early Church Fathers missed “the true meaning of the cross” (to quote MacArthur).

Question 3 from Negative

2009-03-14T23:40:00.022Z

QUESTION 3 FROM NEGATIVE

During your Rebuttal Essay, you made the following comment:

Nick cited Deuteronomy 9:16-21 as another alleged example of a commercial satisfaction, and calls his act an atonement. The Scriptures, however, do not use that description, although they do speak of Moses turning away God’s wrath. How did he do so? He did so by making intercession for them, and begging for mercy.

While it is true Deuteronomy 9 did not use the term “atonement,” it turns out that the term “atonement” is in fact applied to this event:

Exodus 32: 30 The next day Moses said to the people, "You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin."

This chapter is dealing with the golden calf-idol, and these words come immediately after Moses finds out. He explicitly says he will “make atonement for your sin,” so what Moses did in Deuteronomy 9 (describing the same event) was in fact what you denied. My question to you is: Can you explain why Christ would have to atone by means of Penal Substitution when Moses didn't have to? Surely Christ's “unjust sufferings” (1 Pt 2:18ff, esp v20b) were of infinitely more value than what Moses could provide.

Question 2 from Negative

2009-03-14T23:40:00.020Z

QUESTION 2 FROM NEGATIVE

One theme I have constantly emphasized is the notion of “making atonement” without an innocent party having to get punished. I have already mentioned some examples, but now I would like to present one more such example:

Exodus 30: 11 Then the LORD said to Moses, 12 "When you take a census of the Israelites to count them, each one must pay the LORD a ransom for his life at the time he is counted. Then no plague will come on them when you number them. 13 Each one who crosses over to those already counted is to give a half shekel, according to the sanctuary shekel, which weighs twenty gerahs. This half shekel is an offering to the LORD. 14 All who cross over, those twenty years old or more, are to give an offering to the LORD. 15 The rich are not to give more than a half shekel and the poor are not to give less when you make the offering to the LORD to atone for your lives. 16 Receive the atonement money from the Israelites and use it for the service of the Tent of Meeting. It will be a memorial for the Israelites before the LORD, making atonement for your lives."

It turns out that even money can make atonement for lives. In fact, this “atonement” is equated with “ransom” for life. Another significant passage that mentions a ransom for life is Exodus 21:

28"If an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall surely be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall go unpunished. 29"If, however, an ox was previously in the habit of goring and its owner has been warned, yet he does not confine it and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death.30"If a ransom is demanded of him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is demanded of him.

In this case a man, guilty of murder by negligence, instead of receiving the death penalty can offer a sum of money for his life. As most are aware, the term “ransom” appears in the New Testament on a few occasions, specifically connected with salvation. For example,

Matthew 20: 26 Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

The phrase “give his life as a ransom” is undoubtedly a reference to atonement. Also, the passage indicates it is the value and quality of one's life, not a punishment itself, that is what is given as a ransom. Throughout this debate you seem to have been hesitant to accept my Scriptural examples of atonement being made without the use of Penal Substitution. The question I have for you is: Do you believe atonement can be made without the use of Penal Substitution? If yes, then explain why that cannot be the case with Christ, especially when He is said to make a ransom with his life. If no, then explain how Penal Substitution fits in both Exodus 30:11-16 and the text describing Christ's life as a ransom.

Question 1 from Negative

2009-03-14T23:40:00.018Z

QUESTION 1 FROM NEGATIVE

What Scripture teaches about Christ's sufferings directly impacts the validity of Penal Substitution, because if Christ didn't receive the proper type and degree of punishment which the elect deserved then the doctrine is unworkable and thus false. The following quotes from various respected Reformed sources describe the sufferings Jesus deserved and underwent:

The penalty of the divine law is said to be eternal death. Therefore if Christ suffered the penalty of the law He must have suffered death eternal; or, as others say, He must have endured the same kind of sufferings as those who are cast off from God and die eternally are called upon to suffer. (Hodge, Charles. “Systematic Theology.” Vol. 2, Part 3, Ch 6, Sec 3)

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.)

Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death. In order to interpose between us and God's anger, and satisfy his righteous judgment, it was necessary that he should feel the weight of divine vengeance. Whence also it was necessary that he should engage, as it were, at close quarters with the powers of hell and the horrors of eternal death. ... ... Hence there is nothing strange in its being said that he descended to hell, seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God. ... But after explaining what Christ endured in the sight of man, the Creed appropriately adds the invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he endured before God, to teach us that not only was the body of Christ given up as the price of redemption, but that there was a greater and more excellent price—that he bore in his soul the tortures of condemned and ruined man. (Calvin, John. “Institutes of the Christian Religion.” Book 3:Chapter 16:Section 10)

Luther: ‘Christ himself suffered the dread and horror of a distressed conscience that tasted eternal wrath;’ ‘it was not a game, or a joke, or play-acting when he said, “Thou hast forsaken me”; for then he felt himself really forsaken in all things even as a sinner is forsaken” (Werke, 5. 602, 605) (Packer, J.I. “The Logic of Penal Substitution.” footnote 44)

So then, gaze at the heavenly picture of Christ, who descended into hell for your sake and was forsaken by God as one eternally damned when he spoke the words on the cross, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani!” - “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” In that picture your hell is defeated and your uncertain election is made sure. (Luther, Martin. “Treatise on Preparing to Die.”)

The physical pain of the crucifixion and the [psychological] pain of taking on himself the absolute evil of our sins were aggravated by the fact that Jesus faced this pain alone. … Yet more difficult than these three previous aspects of Jesus' pain was the pain of bearing the wrath of God upon himself. As Jesus bore the guilt of our sins alone, God the Father, the mighty Creator, the Lord of the universe, poured out on Jesus the fury of his wrath: Jesus became the object of the intense hatred of sin and vengeance against sin that God had patiently stored up since the beginning of the world.(Grudem, Wayne. “Bible Doctrine.” Page 253-254)

Given this, Penal Substitution demands Jesus endure not only a physical death, but a spiritual one as well. My request to you is: Where does Scripture teach Jesus underwent a suffering more painful and serious than physical death? Please quote and comment upon at least three distinct passages of Scripture which state Jesus endured a pain worse than physical death, specifically “the wrath of God” as described above.

Answer to Affirmative Question 5

2009-03-14T22:54:00.007Z

Response from Negative to Question 5

For the Fifth Question you list various quotes from the Early Church Fathers and conclude by asking:

“In view of all this evidence, will you agree that the concept of penal substitution is not simply a doctrine discovered by the Reformers?”

The short answer: No.

The Reformers and Reformed theologians made claims about Christ's Passion that go above and beyond what the above Early Church Fathers would have ever dreamed about the Passion. Claims such as Jesus undergoing God's wrath and undergoing the equivalent of hell, as well as using texts like “My God, why have you forsaken me?” and “let this cup pass” as proof texts are things the Early Church Fathers would have condemned (in fact some Fathers did condemn such interpretations of “forsaken me”). And notice none of the above quotes come anywhere near affirming those claims.

Due to word limits, I can only briefly comment on the Church Father quotes you presented:

Augustine, Sermon 86:6 - As this single sentence stands, it can be interpreted in a way compatible with Catholic understanding of satisfaction and does not demand Penal Substitution. But there is more here than what this sentence sheds light on. The preceding context is of the story of Elisha raising a dead boy back to life, taken from 2 Kings 4:8-36, here is the passage St Augustine quotes and focuses on:

When Elisha reached the house, there was the boy lying dead on his couch. … Then he got on the bed and lay upon the boy, mouth to mouth, eyes to eyes, hands to hands. As he stretched himself out upon him, the boy's body grew warm. … The boy sneezed seven times and opened his eyes.

What might appear like an odd way to resuscitate someone is seen by Augustine as a foreshadowing of Christ's taking on our human nature which is subject to the punishment of death. Just as Elisha became 'one' with the dead boy to bring him to life, Augustine says Jesus came to take on human nature to remove the illness impeding it (punishment of physical death) and bring human nature back alive. The context here is medicinal, not God's wrath on Christ.

Augustine, Against Faustus, Bk14:4 - This passage sounds very similar to the one just discussed. It turns out I already discussed this very context in my rebuttal essay when you quoted a passage from around this context the first time.

Augustine, Psalm 51 - This is basically a repeat of the previous two quotes, which by the way are about a single sentence long each (which is not enough context for you to draw fair conclusions from). The context is that of human nature subject to death, that is the punishment being discussed and that is what Christ takes upon himself to remove and heal our nature. The very next thing Augustine does is quote 1 Corinthians 15:22 “In Adam all die, but in Christ shall all be made alive.”

Augustine, Tractate 60 on John: There is nothing incompatible with Catholic theology here, and nothing demanding a Penal Substitution interpretation.

Athanasius, Letter 10:5 - As this very short quote stands, it likewise compatible with the Catholic understanding. Later, Athanasius talks more about Christ suffering in our stead:

“Who, being truly the Son of the Father, at last became incarnate for our sakes, that He might offer Himself to the Father in our stead, and redeem us through His oblation and sacrifice. This is He Who once brought the people of old time out of Egypt; but Who afterwards redeemed all of us, or rather the whole race of men, from death, and brought them up from the grave.”

All this fits with the Catholic notion of satisfaction, while showing nothing significantly of the nature of Penal Substitution.

Gregory Thaumaturgus, A Sectional Confession of Faith, Section 17 – This is a basic creedal (orthodox) statement, nothing specifically Penal substitution about it.

Athanasius, Discourse II Against the Arians, Section 55 (Chapter 20) – Here Athanasius is merely quoting Scripture (texts I have already addressed in a way compatible with the Catholic understanding), so the burden is on you to show he meant it as Penal Substitution.

Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit: Book I, Section 109 (Chapter 9) – He is commenting primarily upon 1 Peter 2:24 in in the limited information he gives can be interpreted in the sense I proposed for this verse in my previous essays. The fact he says in the same quote “do you also crucify sin, that you may die to sin” goes against the notion of Penal Substitution.

Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John: Book II, Chapter 21 – As this quote stands, it is no problem for the Catholic view and says nothing demanding a Penal Substitution interpretation.

Ambrose, On the Giving Up of the Basilicas, Section 25 – I would repeat my above answer. As this quote stands, it is no problem for the Catholic view and says nothing demanding a Penal Substitution interpretation. He is commenting upon Galatians 3:13 but does not interpret this “curse” as any form of God's wrath or divine punishments, but instead in a medicinal sense (ie healing human nature): “in his flesh bore our flesh, in His body bore our infirmities and our curses, that He might crucify them; for He was not cursed Himself but was cursed in you.”

Augustine, Letter 169 – You claim Augustine held to Limited Atonement because he said “not one little one perishes for whom He died.” In my previous essay I pointed out a passage where he taught not all the justified would persevere (while being a strong advocate of baptismal regeneration for infants). Thus he either contradicted himself (not to mention 1 Cor. 8:11) or meant something else (which I assume).

Answer to Affirmative Question 4

2009-03-14T22:54:00.006Z

Response from Negative to Question 4

The Fourth Question deals with my accusation that Penal Substitution results in Nestorianism, especially when using the quote “My God, why has thou forsaken me?” as a proof-text. I am asked the question: “how can you truly affirm that every concept of penal substitution necessarily involves Nestorianism?”

Take the following quote as one example (of many) of what respected Protestant theologians have to say about Penal Substitution and that cry of Jesus on the cross:

So then, gaze at the heavenly picture of Christ, who descended into hell for your sake and was forsaken by God as one eternally damned when he spoke the words on the cross, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani!” - “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” In that picture your hell is defeated and your uncertain election is made sure.

(Martin Luther, Treatise on Preparing to Die)

Penal Substitution states that God's wrath due to the sins of the elect was re-directed onto Christ in their place and thus He suffered what they should have suffered (including the deserved eternal punishments). Using the words of Christ “My God, why has thou forsaken me?” as a proof text for this claim has Jesus stating God has forsaken Him as a sinner is forsaken (to use a another phrase of Luther about this event). The epitome of Divine Wrath is when God's presence is removed from the creature (which becomes permanent in hell). Separation from God and being under God's wrath go hand in hand. In order for this to happen theologically, the Second Person, the Son, would have logically had to cast off His human nature (ie God no longer being present with Christ's body and soul), and thus a purely human man named Jesus was speaking those words on the Cross. The Nestorian heresy states a human man named Jesus existed prior to the Incarnation, and at the Incarnation the Word came and settled upon this already existing man (meaning Jesus was two persons, a human and divine). The orthodox teaching is that the Son is an eternal Person who's divine nature became united with human nature at the Incarnation, and thus there never was (nor could be) a 'stand alone' man named Jesus. The heresy resulting in Jesus being forsaken (as described above) is somewhat reverse of the original Nestorian claim, for in your case the Son did not settle upon an already existing man, but rather when the “forsaking” occurred a human man logically would have had to come into being upon the cross. In other words, the Jesus on the cross would have had to been a new and separate person rather than the Second Person, God the Son.

Answer to Affirmative Question 2

2009-03-14T22:53:00.009Z

Response from Negative to Question 2

The Second Question I was asked dealt with the issue of guilt being imputed, and it suggested I spent more time dealing with “wrath” than guilt being imputed. I can understand why this objection was raised, and I assure you I was not deliberately avoiding or diverting attention off of the important issues. My goal in focusing on any given aspect of the debate, including key aspects like wrath, is to get at the heart of the Penal Substitution issue so as to avoid misunderstanding each other during our exchanges. Wrath and guilt are closely connected, so if one is discussed the other is implied. As for addressing the “imputing guilt” specifically, as far as I remember, the closest thing to a proof text you gave from the New Testament was 2 Corinthians 5:19 (see my rebuttal).

For this question, I think it is very necessary that I make some issues clear in order to avoid any fallacious argumentation or misunderstandings: (1) just because guilt is said to be upon someones head does not mean it was transferred off of a guilty party to an innocent one; (2) the mere reference to “upon the head” does not automatically mean guilt or impute; (3) the teaching of any given passage cannot necessarily be imported into another passage; (4) if no such language is used in the New Testament in regards to Christ, I take that as a significant shortfall to your argument.

The following are the Scriptural references you cite, followed by my commentary:

Numbers 8:12 – This merely states hands were laid upon the sacrificial animal's head. It does not demonstrate that guilt was being imputed. The fact sacrifices not dealing with sin (eg peace offerings in Lev 3) give similar “upon the head” instructions mean imputing guilt is not the first thing we should assume, but rather a sort of dedication.

Acts 18:6; Ezekiel 33:4; 1 Kings 2:37; 2 Samuel 1:16; Joshua 2:19 – There is mention of “blood upon your own heads,” which obviously refers to guilt for transgressing, but nothing indicates this was transferred guilt.

Judges 9:57 – The passage clearly states God held the people of Shechem guilty for their wickedness. What does not make sense here is your comment said: “God imputed their sin to them,” yet 'impute' in this debate signifies transferring guilt to another's account. Here the guilty are charged for their own sins and there is no clear foreshadowing of Christ in that situation, so I would say your linking this example to Christ is unwarranted.

Ezekiel 22:31 – Here God's wrath is poured out on sinners, which I don't deny, but that does not mean this was the case for the sacrifices or Christ. Further, as I noted in my rebuttal, fire does not automatically mean wrath.

1 Kings 2:32-33 – The phrase of interest here is “their blood shall therefore return upon the head of Joab, and upon the head of his seed for ever.” This doesn't quite fit the imputation model for the elect having their sin imputed to Christ, because the guilt never left Joab's own head. Here the curse wasn't so much transferred as it was extended to Joab's family, similar to how a king's punishment can extend to sufferings for what matters most to him, his kingdom. In Old Testament times, punishments that were very severe targeted not simply the guilty culprit, but everything dear to him, especially his family. It was not so much that the descendants were just as guilty (or even getting punished in the father's place) as it was hitting the father where it hurts him most. Catholics have been careful to maintain that while descendants can suffer temporal punishments (eg suffering, death) due to the father's sins, when it comes to eternal recompense each soul is judged by God according to what it alone has done (Eze 18:20; Summa I-II:87:8).

Matthew 27:25 – I would agree with you that this passage expresses a similar concept as the above, and I would give roughly the same response.

(Overall, I consider the 10 passages presented in order to make your case extremely weak.)

All this leads up to your Second Question:

“In view of this evidence, how can you deny that the “Lamb of God” (John 1:29 and 36) could take away the sins of the world in the specific sense of taking the punishment due to the guilt of sin, in other words, how is it that in view of the hand-head typology of the Old Testament sacrificial supported by the evidence above, you would attribute some other kind of “taking away” than having the guilt of the beneficiary imputed to the victim, and the victim slain in place of the beneficiary?”

I would say the question you propose does not follow the case you presented above, at least not without engaging in the logically fallacious argumentation I stated above. There is no direct Scriptural connection established between the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the word” (John 1:29) and the “head-hand typology” and “head-guilt” passages you presented. You are assuming a Penal Substitution took place with the Lamb of God, when this is not proven, nor did your above examples demonstrate the imputing of guilt Penal Substitution requires.

The Lamb of God which John is most especially focused on is the Passover Lamb (Jn 19:14; 1 Corinthians 5:7), in which case no mention of laying on of hands is ever instructed in the Torah, nor is “guilt upon head” ever mentioned. Given this, there is no Scriptural warrant for “taking away of sin” to be by means Penal Substitution, it must be by some other way. I believe the way Scripture describes that other way is the Catholic view of satisfaction.

Answer to Affirmative Question 3

2009-03-14T22:53:00.008Z

Response from Negative to Question 3

For the Third Question I am asked why the “cup” Christ mentions to the Apostles cannot be both the “Cup of God's Wrath” as well as the Cup of the Lord's Supper. Here are the reasons why I reject this argument:

1) The cup mentioned before the garden and in the garden are figurative, only the cup of the Lord's Supper is literal.

2) The question proposed would sound something similar to this: Can you [literally] drink of the Cup [of the Lord's Supper] which I am going to [figuratively] drink [by death]? You're introducing two meanings for 'cup' and 'drink' in the same sentence. That's equivocation.

3) In Jesus' challenge He mentions both “cup” and “baptism” which are coming up for him (Lk 12:50) and asks if the Apostles can undergo both. These are obviously both figurative and refer the same thing, suffering, otherwise Jesus would be mixing figurative (baptism) and literal (cup). It would be most unwarranted at that point to say this cup is the Lord's Supper.

4) When Jesus asks if the Apostles can drink of the cup He will drink, His question is a challenge to them. It is not much of a challenge if this amounts to sharing the Cup of His Blood at the Supper.

5) Your proposal amounts to the following equation: Cup in Garden = Cup of Lord's Supper = Cup of God's Wrath. There are obvious absurdities that arise from this, for example Jesus and the Apostles drank the Cup of the Lord's Supper. Or are you suggesting a stretched interpretation such as Jesus exhausting the Wrath making the Cup of the Supper 'safe to drink'?

6) You stated “God’s wrath is often expressed in killing those against whom his wrath burns,” yet nowhere do we see God's wrath upon Christ nor do we see God positively engaged with Jesus' death (i.e. a judicial declaration and execution which is what Penal Substitution demands, as opposed to withholding divine protection, Mt 26:53), which is always described as murder (eg Acts 3:13-15; 7:52; 10:39-40).

Answer to Affirmative Question 1

2009-03-14T22:52:00.003Z

Response from Negative to Question 1

The First Question begins by asking why I don't accept the various proofs put forward by you for penal substitution. I feel it necessary to quote part of the first question:

When I [Turretin Fan] present something that would support penal substitution you claim it’s not talking about God’s wrath being appeased, but something else. I see no consistent standard being applied from your side, so that I could see how to persuade you to accept that the atonement sacrifice (Christ) does turn away God’s wrath through suffering the punishment (death).

There is a critical distinction that must be made clear here which I feel you have not made. Penal Substitution is a specific understanding of the Atonement, but it is not the only understanding. Concepts such as making atonement and turning away wrath are not limited to the Penal Substitution perspective. The problem is that when proofs are put forward by you, you assume Penal Substitution is what is being discussed. My objection is simply that you are assuming Penal Substitution is what a given text says, but that is not enough to be considered proof. If I can take the same text and interpret it in a valid manner other than Penal Substitution, then it fails as a proof text for you. Certain elements must be present for a proof text to fit a Penal Substitution frame work. For example, one of the most critical elements we should see in a proof text is a description of God's wrath being directed onto Jesus rather than the elect. What ends up happening in most of the cases you present is that the proof text is so vague or lacking key elements of Penal Substitution (or even contradicting it) that I am well within my rights to object (and I have explained why for almost every case). The burden of proof is on the side taking the affirmative, in this case yourself, and if reasonable evidence cannot be produced (and I don't believe it has) then you fail to prove your case.

About the Passover, the plain fact is God's wrath was not on Israel but Egypt (Exodus 11). Thus, the only way an Israelite family would be harmed is if they disobeyed God's instructions. A similar example arises with Sodom and Gomorrah, where God's wrath is against the cites but not Lot and his family. Yet Lot and his family can and will be swept away in the process if they don't obey God (Gen 19:15).

The main question I am asked is how do I define and understand “God's wrath”:

So my question to you is to explain your definition of wrath, such that while Scripture seems to explain wrath as being expressed (among other things) by people dying (as seen in the examples the follow), somehow Jesus’ death (and the deaths of the animals sacrificed under the Old Testament administration) cannot be an expression of him bearing the penalty that God’s wrath against sin incurs. Note, this is not a question about whether or not such a view of the atonement would impact other issues of theology, or about anything except the definition of wrath within the context of this debate, from your perspective.

God's wrath, His demand for satisfaction or punishment, is what arises in response to sin. The punishments which result from this wrath – if it is not appeased- come in two forms. The first type are temporal punishments, such as sickness, disasters, misfortunes, and (most especially) physical death. The second and more serious type of punishments are the eternal punishments, which involve God's spiritual presence withdrawn from a soul, and this alienation becomes permanent and reaches its most extreme degree when a soul is cast into Hell.

Now, while Scripture does sometimes speak of God inflicting the punishment of death, the fact is not all death is described in reference to God's wrath against an individual. The most obvious example of death not resulting in relation to God's wrath is in case of murder of the righteous (martyrdom), which occurred as far back as Abel (Mat 23:35). Job is another example of one who underwent the most extreme misfortunes, but this is not described in relation to God's anger burning against Job's sinfulness, but rather more of a testing of Job's faithfulness. Given this, it is wrong for you to assume when death occurs it is due God's wrath, be it in the case of Levitical sacrifices or Jesus Himself. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate God's wrath was on the sacrificial animal and especially Christ Himself. I have not only not seen any good evidence for such a claim, I see the Biblical evidence pointing in the opposite direction (eg Mat 17:5; Acts 3:13-15).

I am not sure why you quote those three passages in conclusion of your question, because while they all describe God's wrath, I never denied such a thing existed. What I have consistently denied is the notion God's wrath must have been on Jesus and the sacrificial animals because they were killed.

Question 5 from Affirmative

2009-03-01T23:00:00.000Z

Ultimately, it is inconsequential whether the church has faithfully taught the doctrine of penal substitution or whether it has not, since we have the infallible authority of Scripture. Nevertheless, the church fathers also provide evidence that we are not the first to recognize this doctrine in Scripture. You didn’t seem to feel that my quotations from the church fathers initially provided were good enough, so I provide the following:

O Lord Jesus, who hast suffered for us, not for Yourself, who had no guilt, and endured its punishment, that you might dissolve at once the guilt and punishment.
- Augustine, Sermon 86 on the New Testament, Section 6

Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that He might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment.
- Augustine, Against Faustus, Section 4

For there is no husband that, because he is an husband, is not subject to death, or that is subject to death for any other reason but because of sin. For even the Lord was subject to death, but not on account of sin: He took upon Him our punishment, and so looses our guilt.
- Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 51, Section 10

He was troubled, then, who had power to lay down His life, and had power to take it again. That mighty power is troubled, the firmness of the rock is disturbed: or is it rather our infirmity that is troubled in Him? Assuredly so: let servants believe nothing unworthy of their Lord, but recognize their own membership in their Head. He who died for us, was also Himself troubled in our place.
- Augustine, Tractate 60 (John 13:21), Section 2

He, the Saviour, suffered for man, but they despised and cast from them life, and light, and grace. All these were theirs through that Saviour Who suffered in our stead.
- Athanasius, Letter 10, Section 5

We believe therefore in one God, that is, in one First Cause, the God of the law and of the Gospel, the just and good; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, true God, that is, Image of the true God, Maker of all things seen and unseen, Son of God and only-begotten Offspring, and Eternal Word, living and self-subsistent and active. always being with the Father; and in one Holy Spirit; and in the glorious advent of the Son of God, who of the Virgin Mary took flesh, and endured sufferings and death in our stead, and came to resurrection on the third day, and was taken up to heaven; and in His glorious appearing yet to come; and in one holy Church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, and life eternal.
- Gregory Thaumaturgus, A Sectional Confession of Faith, Section 17

And thus, the two being created in Him, He may say suitably, 'The Lord created me.' For as by receiving our infirmities, He is said to be infirm Himself, though not Himself infirm, for He is the Power of God, and He became sin for us and a curse, though not having sinned Himself, but because He Himself bare our sins and our curse, so , by creating us in Him, let Him say, 'He created me for the works,' though not Himself a creature.
- Athanasius, Discourse II Against the Arians, Section 55 (Chapter 20)

Therefore do you also crucify sin, that you may die to sin; he who dies to sin lives to God; do you live to Him Who spared not His own Son, that in His body He might crucify our passions. For Christ died for us, that we might live in His revived Body. Therefore not our life but our guilt died in Him, "Who," it is said, "bare our sins in His own Body on the tree; that being set free from our sins we might live in righteousness, by the wound of Whose stripes we are healed." 1 Peter 2:24
- Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit: Book I, Section 109 (Chapter 9)

"Behold, it is said, I have taken away your sins." Because He had taken on Himself the sins of the people of those who believed in Him, he uses many such expressions as these: "Far from my salvation are the words of my transgressions," and "You know my foolishness, and my sins were not hid from You."
- Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John: Book II, Chapter 21

Have they read also today, "that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us"? Galatians 3:13 Was Christ a curse in His Godhead? But why He is called a curse the Apostle tells us, saying that it is written: "Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree," Galatians 3:13 that is, He Who in his flesh bore our flesh, in His body bore our infirmities and our curses, that He might crucify them; for He was not cursed Himself, but was cursed in you. So it is written elsewhere: "Who knew no sin, but was made sin for us, for He bore our sins, 2 Corinthians 5:21 that he might destroy them by the Sacrament of His Passion."
- Ambrose, On the Giving Up of the Basilicas, Section 25

You had mentioned, almost in passing, that a consequence of penal substitution is limited atonement. If you’re right, this too would make sense since Augustine taught limited atonement.

On the other hand, many who glory in the cross of Christ and do not withdraw from that same way, though ignorant of those points which are so subtlely debated, because not one little one perishes for whom He died.
- Augustine, Letter 169 (to Evodius)

In view of all this evidence, will you agree that the concept of penal substitution is not simply a doctrine discovered by the Reformers?

-TurretinFan

Question 4 from Affirmative

2009-03-01T22:00:00.000Z

In your constructive essay, you wrote:
“The Father could never turn His Wrath upon His Son, such a notion should make anyone cringe. The Father could never forsake His Son in a spiritual 'divine punishment' sense, nor could Jesus feel or experience what a condemned sinner before God feels, nor could Jesus experience the equivalent of an eternity in Hell, that is pure blasphemy and a form of Nestoriansim (if not worse).”

In your rebuttal essay, you wrote:
“As I noted in my last essay, to interpret the phrase “My God, why has thou forsaken me” in the sense of divine punishment/wrath is a form of Nestorianism. Despite this, my opponent insists this passage proves “Jesus felt the wrath of God upon the cross.” Jesus is God and thus cannot be “forsaken” by God without causing His Divine Nature to separate from His human nature, leaving a purely human man named Jesus on the cross. That's heretical. Jesus is quoting Psalm 22, in which God's wrath was never on David nor Jesus.”

Obviously Nestorianism (denying that Jesus was one person with two natures) is heretical. It appears, however, that your entire claim that somehow Jesus must be split into two persons two accomplish the penal substitution is just your own assertion, not a logical consequence of the doctrine itself.

There are certainly many things that were true of Jesus as a man (such as that he got tired) that are only applicable to Jesus’ human nature. Take, for instance, this account:

Mark 4:37-39
37 And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full. 38 And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish? 39 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.

In this account, Jesus was asleep. But surely it would not be proper to say that the Holy Spirit and the Father were also sleeping. To do this would be to flirt with Sabellianism – a confusion or conflation of the persons of the Trinity, as though they were but one person. In contrast, since Jesus is truly a different person than the Father, although they are both persons of one godhead, nevertheless it is possible for Jesus to stand in the place of sinners as their penal substitute to satisfy divine justice and reconcile the elect to God.

So then, how can you truly affirm that every concept of penal substitution necessarily involves Nestorianism?

-TurretinFan

Question 3 from Affirmative

2009-03-01T21:00:00.000Z

In your rebuttal essay, you wrote:

“Lastly, my opponent mentions Matthew 26:39 and says it references the cup of God’s wrath, but unfortunately he both ignores and misunderstands (e.g. he claims I treated all cups as one) my own comments on the verse.”

In your constructive essay, you had written: “Jesus asks the Father if the “cup” can be taken from Him (Mat 26:39). Some say this was the “cup of God's Wrath” which Christ must drink. However, earlier on in Mat 20:22-23 and Mark 10:38-39 Jesus asks if the Apostles can drink from this “cup,” and they say yes, and Christ says they will. This is impossible if the cup of God's wrath is in view and the purpose is Penal Substitution. Thus those texts can only mean enduring physical persecutions.”

Here are the Biblical texts that are most immediately relevant:

Matthew 20:22-23 states:
22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. 23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

Mark 10:38-39 states:
38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? 39 And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:

Matthew 26:39 and 42 state:
Matthew 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Matthew 26:42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.

Mark 14:36 states:
Mark 14:36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

Luke 22:42 states:
Luke 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

John 18:11 states:
John 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

Let us assume, for the sake of the question, that my rebuttal both misunderstood and did not give proper attention to the argument in your constructive essay. Especially in view of John 18:11, the cup that Jesus is referencing would fairly clearly seem to be his death. After all, Jesus in the institution of the Lord’s Supper included a “cup” that he described this way:

1 Corinthians 11:25-28
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

(which quotes from Luke’s gospel)

Matthew 26:27-28
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark 14:23-24
23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. 24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Notice how the description of the “cup” is one of his “blood” and that this is his “shed” blood. Most specifically, it is a cup that shows his “death.” So, then it would seem that it would be consistent for the disciples to drink of the Lord’s cup through communing in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, whereas Christ himself personally drank of this cup by dying. Furthermore, the cup in question is the cup of his death. Why cannot this be the cup of God’s wrath, where that wrath is expressed by the death of the one who bears the wrath, especially when throughout Scripture God’s wrath is often expressed in killing those against whom his wrath burns?

-TurretinFan

Question 2 from Affirmative

2009-03-01T20:00:00.000Z

The resolution is this: “God imputed the guilt of the sins of the elect to Christ.” For much of the time, it seems you focus on the issue of “wrath” even seemingly diverting the issue from guilt when it seems that the evidence points to guilt being imputed.

Leaving aside then the issue of wrath, I provide the following evidence for you regarding the interrelationship between the “upon the head” symbology and the concept of imputed guilt:

1) Numbers 8:12 And the Levites shall lay their hands upon the heads of the bullocks: and thou shalt offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering, unto the LORD, to make an atonement for the Levites. (This is one of the many examples of the animals having hands laid upon their head prior to the animals being sacrificed.)

2) Acts 18:6 And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles. (Paul is saying that their guilt cannot be imputed to him, but only to themselves.)

3) Ezekiel 33:4 Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. (This is a similar concept to the one Paul mentioned.)

4) 1 Kings 2:37 For it shall be, that on the day thou goest out, and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die: thy blood shall be upon thine own head. (This warning has a slightly different twist, but the similar concept here – the king is pointing fingers, saying that it won’t be his fault if the guy is executed, it will be the guy’s own fault for violating the conditions of his probation.)

5) Judges 9:57 And all the evil of the men of Shechem did God render upon their heads: and upon them came the curse of Jotham the son of Jerubbaal. (God imputed their sin to them, which resulted in the curse, which incidentally connects with the concept of Christ being “made a curse” for us, which implies the same concept of imputed guilt.)

6) 2 Samuel 1:16 And David said unto him, Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the LORD'S anointed. (Notice the same judicial concept here. Their guilt is imputed to them, in the sense of their being judged guilty, and the evidence is their own testimony.)

7) Ezekiel 22:31 Therefore have I poured out mine indignation upon them; I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath: their own way have I recompensed upon their heads, saith the Lord GOD. (Here God explains that he poured out his indignation/wrath “upon their heads” showing that they were condemned. Incidentally the “fire” metaphor used here is further evidence for the fire/wrath symbolism I noted elsewhere)

8) 1 Kings 2:32-33
32 And the LORD shall return his blood upon his own head, who fell upon two men more righteous and better than he, and slew them with the sword, my father David not knowing thereof, to wit, Abner the son of Ner, captain of the host of Israel, and Amasa the son of Jether, captain of the host of Judah. 33 Their blood shall therefore return upon the head of Joab, and upon the head of his seed for ever: but upon David, and upon his seed, and upon his house, and upon his throne, shall there be peace for ever from the LORD. (In this case, the imputation of guilt extends not only to person himself who did the evil deed, but to his children as well. This is similar to the general federal principle particularly illustrated in Adam, whose guilt is imputed to all his natural children.)

9) Matthew 27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. (Although this doesn’t specifically use the word “head,” it expresses the same concept as the immediately preceding one.)

10) Joshua 2:19 And it shall be, that whosoever shall go out of the doors of thy house into the street, his blood shall be upon his head, and we will be guiltless: and whosoever shall be with thee in the house, his blood shall be on our head, if any hand be upon him. (This example provides a good balancing example: if the person goes out of the house and dies, it’s not the spies’ fault, but if they stay in the house and get killed, the spies will be held guilty.)

In view of this evidence, how can you deny that the “Lamb of God” (John 1:29 and 36) could take away the sins of the world in the specific sense of taking the punishment due to the guilt of sin, in other words, how is it that in view of the hand-head typology of the Old Testament sacrificial supported by the evidence above, you would attribute some other kind of “taking away” than having the guilt of the beneficiary imputed to the victim, and the victim slain in place of the beneficiary?

-TurretinFan

Question 1 from Affirmative

2009-03-01T19:00:00.001Z

In your opening statement, you described the penal substitution position as: “God's Wrath (due to sin) must be legally satisfied (i.e. sin cannot go unpunished) in order for sinful man to be forgiven and justified.”

Then, in your rebuttal, you repeatedly denied that various things were expressions of God’s wrath, e.g.:

“First, Turtullian says nothing specific in terms the atonement, much less anything of Jesus undergoing the Father's wrath in place of the elect.”

Your labels seem to be just ad hoc. When I present something that would support penal substitution you claim it’s not talking about God’s wrath being appeased, but something else. I see no consistent standard being applied from your side, so that I could see how to persuade you to accept that the atonement sacrifice (Christ) does turn away God’s wrath through suffering the punishment (death).

The “positive” examples where you seemed to acknowledge wrath being implicated was regarding the Passover event, and in three places where you were asserting your own point regarding how wrath was stayed.

Regarding the Passover, your comments were inconsistent: “At the time of the Passover, God's wrath was not even on the Jews, but rather on the Egyptians:” and a bit later, “The Israelites were only actually subject to that wrath in a indirect/secondary sense, that is if they had they disobeyed the Passover requirements.” These seem to be a bit contradictory in themselves, since you first say that God’s wrath wasn’t on the Jews and then admit that it was/would be if they “disobeyed the Passover requirements.”

The other three times you seemed to positively identify wrath were these:

“The Israelites in large numbers turned to idolatry and God wrath was against them (v.3), not just the people in the tent. God sent a plague killing thousands, but because of Phinehas' zeal God's wrath against the whole Israelites was appeased and the plague stopped (i.e. not all the guilty were killed).”
“In the case of Moses making atonement in Deut 9, my opponent objects that the word “atonement” doesn't appear, only the turning away of wrath. This, to me, is weak, especially considering how much turning away God's wrath plays into atonement. In Num 25:10-13, turning away wrath is clearly equivalent to atonement.”
“In the case of Moses and Num 16:42-49, atonement and turning away wrath – by good works - is clearly stated. My opponent says this was simply God showing mercy, with no satisfaction, but that is contradicted by the plain reading of the text (eg “atonement”).”

So my question to you is to explain your definition of wrath, such that while Scripture seems to explain wrath as being expressed (among other things) by people dying (as seen in the examples the follow), somehow Jesus’ death (and the deaths of the animals sacrificed under the Old Testament administration) cannot be an expression of him bearing the penalty that God’s wrath against sin incurs. Note, this is not a question about whether or not such a view of the atonement would impact other issues of theology, or about anything except the definition of wrath within the context of this debate, from your perspective.

The Scriptural examples are these:

Isaiah 13:9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.

Deuteronomy 1:34-36
34 And the LORD heard the voice of your words, and was wroth, and sware, saying, 35 Surely there shall not one of these men of this evil generation see that good land, which I sware to give unto your fathers, 36 Save Caleb the son of Jephunneh; he shall see it, and to him will I give the land that he hath trodden upon, and to his children, because he hath wholly followed the LORD.

Romans 1:18-32
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

-TurretinFan

Negative Rebuttal Essay

2009-02-12T21:21:00.000Z

Penal Substitution Debate – Negative Rebuttal Essay

By Nick

1) I will first deal with the Affirmative Constructive Essay. It seems to me that in that essay my opponent (this term I use in the context of a formal debate, not in the pejorative sense) was more focused on proving the Biblical truth that atonement was necessary, rather than the specific doctrine of Penal Substitution. Because of this, most of the essay was written broadly enough that I as a Catholic would find little to object to. Given this, I will now call attention to the few parts I feel do require some commentary.

1a) There is no argument that in God's plan of salvation Christ's sacrifice was necessary for the forgiveness of sins. Also, there is no doubt that Is 53 is a Messianic prophesy. However, what is not proven, nor much commented on, from any of this is that this is within a Penal Substitutionary framework. Because I already deal with texts like Is 53 in my opening essay, no further commentary is required at this point.

1b) The term “satisfaction” frequently appears in my opponent's essay, but what is not made clear is that this term was radically redefined by the Reformers. Reformed scholar J.I. Packer, in a popular lecture (inscribed), makes this distinction clear:

What the Reformers did was to redefine satisfactio (satisfaction), the main mediaeval category for thought about the cross. Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo?, which largely determined the mediaeval development, saw Christ’s satisfactio for our sins as the offering of compensation or damages for dishonour done, but the Reformers saw it as the undergoing of vicarious punishment (poena) to meet the claims on us of God’s holy law and wrath (i.e. his punitive justice).

(“The Logic of Penal Substitution.” Delivered at Tyndale House, Cambridge, on July 17th, 1973. [freely available on-line])

Given this information, it would be a serious mistake to look to men like St. Anselm in support of Penal Substitution. What Catholics have historically understood by “satisfaction” is not what Protestants understand by that same term.

1c) My opponent spends a considerable amount of space quoting the Church Fathers, but upon close examination these quotes do not actually support Penal Substitution.

First, Turtullian says nothing specific in terms the atonement, much less anything of Jesus undergoing the Father's wrath in place of the elect. Next comes Hilary of Poitiers, this quote is significant in that Hilary directly references Isaiah 53 and 2 Corinthians 5:21. Upon careful reading of the whole quote, St Hilary is saying that by the incarnation, Jesus underwent the same physical sufferings human nature (due to the fall) became subject to. The theme is medicinal, not penal or legal. St Hilary interprets 2 Corinthians 5:21 as meaning He who was not capable of feeling the effects (penalties) of our sins was made capable by assuming our nature. The theme is not talking about a substitutionary punishment nor God's wrath, but rather that in sharing our human nature Christ could experience pain and in doing so strip pain and death of its power. What a very different picture than Penal Substitution has emerged (and using some of the key Protestant proof-texts)!

The next quote came from St Augustine, but, again, the picture he paints is not that of Penal Substitution. The key to proper interpretation here is to realize St Augustine is responding to a Manichean heretic. Notice how St Augustine describes it:

when Moses said, “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,” he said in fact, To hang on a tree is to be mortal, or actually to die. He might have said, “Cursed is every one that is mortal,” or “Cursed is every one dying;” but the prophet knew that Christ would suffer on the cross, and that heretics would say that He hung on the tree only in appearance, without really dying. So he exclaims, Cursed; meaning that He really died.

St Augustine's opponent here denies Christ had a mortal body, so did not undergo a real death, that's his point. What is especially noteworthy here is that the issue of “cursed” in Gal 3:13 (and Deut. 21) is explicitly referenced, but it is in regards to the “curse” on human nature – now subjected to physical pain and death - not God's wrath. And as with St Hilary, this isn't about the sin of the elect being imputed to Him, but rather the fact that Jesus in assuming human nature was made capable of a real human death.

My opponent next goes onto quote Theodoret, but with the same result as with the previous Fathers. Nothing is said about Jesus undergoing of God's wrath or the imputation of sin, despite the fact Isaiah 53 is also explicitly mentioned, instead Theodoret makes it clear that Jesus “suffered death unjustly.” This is not the conclusion we would expect in the context of Isaiah 53, if Penal Substitution was what this Father had in mind.

The quote from St John Chrysostom carries its own problems as far as supporting Penal Substitution goes. For starters, St John states Christ died for all men, but His merits were only efficacious for those who “believed” and were “willing.” This is the Catholic view. The Reformed view states Christ died specifically and only for a select number. What is even more significant about what St John said comes in the second half of the quote. St John defines “He bare the sins” as follows:

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.

Nothing about imputing guilt of the elect to Christ who then takes the Father's Wrath in their place. Quite the opposite. Jesus' perfect obedience and love give Him the status of Mediator who's requests to the Father are never denied. He took it upon himself the duty of getting those sins forgiven, not punished by substitution! This is the very Catholic view I've made reference to in 1 Peter 2:18ff, where “bore their sins” is likewise mentioned.

Lastly, St Bede is quoted, in a very short one-sentence quote, but nothing in that demands PS. Of the limited information given, it says the grounds for this forgiveness was Christ's “dying compassion,” which is equivalent to “obedience unto death” I made mention of in my opening essay.

At this point, serious attention should be called to the fact not a singe one of these proof-texts from the Fathers came anywhere near advocating Penal Substitution. In fact, the quotes suggested the exact opposite. And the biggest blow of all against my opponent's position is that key Scriptural proof-texts like Isaiah 53, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Galatians 3:13 and 1 Pt 2:24 are all quoted, yet never in a manner relating to Penal Substitution.

1d) The next section my opponent focuses on is the views held by St Anselm in his major work: Cur Deus Homo. But attention must be called to what Reformed scholar J. I. Packer stated above (1b), that the Scholastic view of “satisfaction” (esp by St Anselm in CDH) was radically redefined by the Reformers. In other words, the citations of CDH by my opponent don't mean what they think they mean. CDH is not advocating Penal Substitution.

In reading the quotes of CDH, and keeping in mind the Catholic (Scholastic) understanding of “satisfaction,” it is easily seen that Penal Substitution is not what St Anselm is trying to convey.

1e) I am grateful that St Thomas Aquinas was mentioned, and I am glad that my opponent made it clear that St Thomas did not teach Penal Substitution. And as with St Anselm, St Thomas uses the term “satisfaction” in a very different way than the Reformers. St Thomas taught concepts regarding the Catholic view of the Atonement that are totally incompatible with Penal Substitution, namely that the Passion was not absolutely required for God to forgive sin (God could have directly forgiven), and that the meritorious value of the Incarnation itself was sufficient to make full satisfaction (cf ST 3:46:1; 3:48:1)

1f) The A.A Hodge quote didn't really get into the details of Penal Substitution. It cannot be considered proof, because it was more of a general formulation of the atonement than anything.

All in all, my opponent's opening essay not only did not provide a solid case for Penal Substitution, it in fact contradicted it, especially by means of the historical understanding (ie Church Fathers) of key Scriptural proof-texts commonly cited in support of Penal Substitution.

2) The focus of this essay will now shift towards responding to my opponent's Rebuttal.

2a) My opponent begins with a one sentence quote from St Jerome, commenting on Matthew 20:28. Unfortunately, no further commentary (nor source) are given, but as it stands it is still perfectly orthodox Catholic teaching (properly interpreted).

3) In his rebuttal, my opponent argues that the Mosaic sacrifices did indeed operate in a Penal Substitution framework. I will now address his claims.

3a) The Passover is the first sacrifice my opponent deals with. What he does not demonstrate is that the lamb was an object of wrath, and the fact is Scripture nowhere says it is. At the time of the Passover, God's wrath was not even on the Jews, but rather on the Egyptians:

Exodus 11: 4 So Moses said, "This is what the LORD says: 'About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. 5 Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. 6 There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again. 7 But among the Israelites not a dog will bark at any man or animal.' Then you will know that the LORD makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel.

Given this information, there is no reason to think God's wrath was poured out on the lamb rather than the Israelites. God was not mad at the Israelites, thus a sacrifice in this case could not have been that of Penal Substitution. The Israelites were only actually subject to that wrath in a indirect/secondary sense, that is if they had they disobeyed the Passover requirements. In the next chapter, Exodus 12, further details are given that go against Penal Substitution. First, in verses 3f it states each household must kill a lamb, but says if a household is too small for one lamb they are to share a lamb with their neighbor. This would be illogical if a life-for-life penal substitution exchange was taking place. Second, killing the lamb but not following the other instructions (eg applying blood to the doorframe or eating it properly) would be of no benefit to that household, this realization is incompatible with Penal Substitution which puts the true value of the sacrifice on the life/death itself (ie the inflicted punishment). This data goes against the case my opponent tried to make.

I'm not sure why my opponent connected fire with God's wrath in this situation. Sure there are various metaphors for God's attributes, but to say fire must mean wrath in this case is unsubstantiated by the passage. The two Exodus quotes he gives don't even mention fire. On top of that, certain sacrifices not dealing with atoning for sin (eg grain offerings, Lev 2:1f and fellowship/peace offerings, Lev 3) were to be burned with fire, which would be totally illogical if fire signified wrath and penal substitution.

3b) While my opponent brings up the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16), he does not seem to realize that the scapegoat (used for making atonement, 16:10) is not killed nor described as an object of wrath. The only place in the Bible an animal is explicitly said to have hands placed on it and sins confessed over it is the scapegoat; and yet this animal is kept alive, not slain. This situation is flatly incompatible in a Penal Substitution framework.

3c) This leads into the next claim of my opponent: the hand-to-head sacrificial instructions in the Mosaic sacrificial system prove a transfer of guilt from the guilty onto the animal. As noted above, only for the scapegoat is the hand-to-head instruction ever explicitly said to “confess sins” and put them on the goats head. But that is not all, my opponent actually quotes texts referencing hand-to-head instructions which actually undermine his own claim. The most striking is that of the fellowship and peace offerings described in Leviticus 3. A typical example of the fellowship-peace offering is described in the first few verses of Leviticus 3:

1'If someone's offering is a fellowship offering [also called “peace offering”], and he offers an animal from the herd, whether male or female, he is to present before the LORD an animal without defect. 2 He is to lay his hand on the head of his offering and slaughter it at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. Then Aaron's sons the priests shall sprinkle the blood against the altar on all sides. 3 From the fellowship offering he is to bring a sacrifice made to the LORD by fire

This passage has all the components of what my opponent would consider the perfect example of penal substitution. But there is one significant problem. The above description is for peace offerings, not sin offerings. The peace offerings are voluntary and for giving thanks and not about atoning for sin; there are other sacrifices specifically instituted for sin and guilt. Thus, within the sacrificial system, this can only mean hand-to-head instructions do not entail a transfer of guilt, slaughtering does not entail taking of punishment, and burning does not entail God's wrath. The laying on of hands can simply signify dedication, the slaughter as a freely given offering, and the fire as God's 'consuming' approval.

3d) As I noted in my opening essay, a sin offering could be given in the form of a bag of flour, which is impossible if penal substitution was the system in place. Despite this, my opponent said the following in response to my claim:

Even in the case of the grain offering of fine flower, one can see the penal substitution taking place. There is no head upon which to lay hands, and there is no blood to spill, but a tenth is consumed with fire, just a similar proportion of an ordinary offering would have been. The idea of bread standing for flesh should come as a surprise to no New Testament reader (see, especially, John 6:51).

To me, this response is unsatisfactory. Nothing was killed, and there was no head to impute guilt to, so how can penal substitution be present? It cannot. If my opponent wants to argue that something was still burned up, that doesn't help at all. Leviticus 2 deals with grain offerings, which are likewise burned, but they don't deal with sin/guilt. Finally, my opponent links flour to bread, but that is quite a stretch here.

3e) Lastly, my opponent deals with the concept of “sweet savor” (also called “pleasing aroma”) which I originally mentioned. He argues in the following manner:

The smell of the burnt offering (Genesis 8:21, Exodus 29:18, and many more) is described as a “sweet savour” to God, but this should be understood to be because the smoke shows the consumption, the punishment of fire being executed.

This conclusion is unproven, and, moreover, incompatible with how and when the phrase is used in the Bible. In the very passages my opponent quotes, nothing of the nature of “punishment of fire” is shown, quite the contrary. In Genesis 8, Noah had just got out of the ark after the flood, God's wrath was most certainly not on him. Noah cannot be offering any sort of sin/guilt type offering at that point, only that of thanksgiving and supplication. And that is precisely what 8:21 describes, God smells the aroma and promises never to flood the earth in the future. As with the various sacrifices described in Leviticus, the phrase “aroma pleasing to the Lord” appears in sacrifices not concerning sin, further going against my opponent's claims. Instead, it is a sign of acceptance and God being pleased.

4) I will assume that due to space constraints, my opponent has chose to pass over the quotes of famous and respected Reformed theologians for the time being. Hopefully these will be addressed in upcoming essays.

4a) In the brief comments he does give, he argues that even if Christ only suffered physical death (he incorrectly assumes Rom 6:23 is primarily physical death), he still suffered the punishment of death. There are still a problems with this. First, if this was the legal transfer of punishment, which is what penal substitution is, then no Christian should have to die, nor could they, legally. But that is obviously false. Second, the physical death of Jesus is undeniably described as a premeditated murder in the Bible, nothing about God's wrath being unleashed. In fact, whenever the issue comes up regarding what would happen to Jesus, the answer is always the same: He would be handed over to the Pharisees and Gentiles, who would mock and murder Him (eg Mt 16:21; Lk 18:31-33). To say God's wrath was being poured out upon Jesus, even if just in physical death, has no basis in Scripture. It was a murder, with no indication of a penal substitution or God's wrath. To argue unconditionally that “the punishment of death is one expression of God's wrath” leads to embarrassing ramifications regarding martyrdom.

4b) As I noted in my last essay, to interpret the phrase “My God, why has thou forsaken me” in the sense of divine punishment/wrath is a form of Nestorianism. Despite this, my opponent insists this passage proves “Jesus felt the wrath of God upon the cross.” Jesus is God and thus cannot be “forsaken” by God without causing His Divine Nature to separate from His human nature, leaving a purely human man named Jesus on the cross. That's heretical. Jesus is quoting Psalm 22, in which God's wrath was never on David nor Jesus.

5) The debate now shifts to the popular Penal Substitution proof-texts which I originally refuted.

5a) My opponent says Isaiah 53:4 clearly teaches Penal Substitution, yet (as I originally said) this exact verse is quoted in Matthew 8:16-17 and has nothing to do with Penal Substitution! He goes onto give his own commentary of Isaiah 53, but unfortunately virtually ignores almost all I had to say on this passage. In short, he is reading Penal Substitution into Isaiah 53, but without interacting with my original comments he will be unsuccessful at proving his case.

5b) The next passage my opponent comments upon is Galatians 3:13, but, sadly, as with Isaiah 53, he seems to have completely missed my original comments on this passage. I show that reading penal substitution into this passage (and others) is unwarranted, yet my opponent does just that.

5c) When it comes to 1 Peter 2, there is some interaction with my original comments, but also misunderstanding as well. First of all, he does not begin the quote from verse 2:18, but rather at 2:21, which results in loss of critical information (context) when it comes to interpreting this passage. Second, he greatly ignores the main points I already made, including how Isaiah 53 ties into it. He does not realize the theme of 2:18ff is enduring unjust suffering, which is what Peter says is meritorious in God's sight, and thus the focus of Jesus' work was not in the punishment itself but rather the patient endurance. Third, he says the Greek term for “bore” also meaning offering a sacrifice is not applicable to the context, but that is not only a presumption, and that sense is in fact used in verse 5 of that same chapter (discussing sacrifice and priesthood).

5d) It was surprising to see 2 Corinthians 5:21 did not get much attention from my opponent, and even less attention was given to my original comments on this verse. My opponent basically introduces one new idea, which he describes as follows:

He has not imputed our trespasses to us, but to Christ instead. That demonstrates a vicarious atonement. Although Nick asserts that imputation (the word, at least) is not in the verse (in verse 21), the word is in the immediately preceding verse

Here he argues that because verse 19 says sin is “not imputed” to us that that means it is imputed to Christ. This is a logical fallacy; just because sin is “not imputed” to X does not automatically mean it is imputed to Y. If this is the closest my opponent has to proving the thesis of this debate - that the elects' guilt was imputed to Christ - we can safely say the Bible nowhere clearly teaches this very critical doctrine.

5e) Lastly, my opponent mentions Matthew 26:39 and says it references the cup of God’s wrath, but unfortunately he both ignores and misunderstands (e.g. he claims I treated all cups as one) my own comments on the verse.

In conclusion to this section on Penal Substitution proof texts, it should go without saying that Penal Substitution was merely assumed by my opponent in nearly every case, without any reasonable exegesis or rebuttal to my original claims.

6) Now for the Catholic proof-texts for Satisfaction (contra Penal Substitution).

6a) In the case of Phinehas, my opponent states that because someone died (the sinners in the tent) that means God's justice was satisfied by punishment. But that is an improper view of the whole situation. The Israelites in large numbers turned to idolatry and God wrath was against them (v.3), not just the people in the tent. God sent a plague killing thousands, but because of Phinehas' zeal God's wrath against the whole Israelites was appeased and the plague stopped (i.e. not all the guilty were killed). So Phinehas killing a guilty man, on its own, certainly holds no weight as far as strict justice being served. Rather, it was his zeal for God's honor that held such great merit to make atonement for all, and thus the Catholic view is solidly demonstrated.

6b) In the case of Moses making atonement in Deut 9, my opponent objects that the word “atonement” doesn't appear, only the turning away of wrath. This, to me, is weak, especially considering how much turning away God's wrath plays into atonement. In Num 25:10-13, turning away wrath is clearly equivalent to atonement.

6c) In the case of Moses and Num 16:42-49, atonement and turning away wrath – by good works - is clearly stated. My opponent says this was simply God showing mercy, with no satisfaction, but that is contradicted by the plain reading of the text (eg “atonement”).

6d) In the case of Job, my opponent seems to argue that Job's prayer and sacrifices are acceptable because the priest must be pure, not that the priest's goodness carries any merit. But this realization goes against Penal Substitution, for it makes the efficacy of the death/punishment dependent on the priest's holiness. In other words, it was more than life-for-life in this exchange (not to mention 14 animals sacrificed for 3 men).

6e) I quoted Proverbs 16:6 because it uses the Hebrew word for 'atonement', and specifically that it can come by means of good works. The same word appears in 16:14 and says this comes by means of wise council. My opponent misses the fact penal substitution is not required to atone, and he even quotes Proverbs 15:1 which further supports my argument!

7) The issue to now be discussed is whether or not salvation can be lost, which directly relates to whether penal substitution is true or not.

7a) The first thing my opponent does is claim that Scripture does teach that salvation is secure, and uses John 6:38-40 as his primary proof. I deny that passage teaches eternal security because it is dependent upon perseverance in “seeing” and “believing,” and elsewhere it is clear that belief in Christ is not enough and can be abused (John 12:42f; 15:5f). I'm not sure why my opponent quotes St Augustine, considering Augustine explicitly taught not all the justified would persevere to the end (eg On Perseverance Ch 1 and esp 21 ).

7b) While on the face of it, my opponent fails to address all but two of my loss-of-salvation texts, I can grant some slack here given the space limitations he is under compared to the amount of material he had to cover. That said, I cannot just accept his very brief (under one sentence) reasons for why my passages don't teach salvation can be lost.

One brief comment on his claim regarding warnings merely for sake of encouragement to persevere rather than resulting in an actual loss of salvation: Under Penal Substitution, the punishment of damnation for the Christian, whether 'actual' or 'theoretical' (ie a warning), cannot exist, it is precluded (the punishment was already taken by Christ).

7c) The first passage my opponent comments on is 1 Corinthians 8:11 and says the context suggest something less severe than hell. The “context” is idolatry, and idolatry is most certainly a grave sin which excludes men from entering the Kingdom (cf 1 Cor. 6:9f). Further, the immediate context is a brother “for whom Christ died,” and Christ's death is certainly in the context of salvation. And my opponent gets the object of the “perishing” incorrect, it is the brother which is said to “perish,” not his “conscience” (plus the notion of a conscience “perishing” makes little sense.) St Paul's teaching is that a weak brother (a convert who was accustomed to idols) sees a 'strong' brother eating with idols, and this sight wounds the 'weak' brother's conscience, letting his guard down to the dangers of idolatry, and ends up falling into the grave sin of idolatry which he perishes for as a result. A similar example is if someone were a recovering alcoholic, by drinking around them you wound their delicate conscience and entice them back into alcoholism.

7d) Next my opponent discusses why Hebrews 10:26-29 is not about losing salvation because it mentions “sin willfully” (rather than “keep on sinning”), and is not talking about those with 'real' faith, and that the sinner will only be “worthy” of punishment but will not receive it, and that this verse is a hypothetical. I fail to see what is so significant about “keep on sinning” or “sin willfully,” my claim does not stand on this point. Next, the idea that the passage and context is not dealing with true believers (ie a 'fake faith') is presumptuous, to say the least (the author is encouraging believers). The use of “we” in this passage indicates the author includes himself. As for this being merely 'theoretical' (ie hypothetical), I will again point out that penal substitution precludes even hypothetical threats.

All in all, my opponent has not adequately defended himself against the fact Scripture teaches salvation can be lost (directly undermining penal substitution).

8) The last subject dealt with was the philosophical and theological problems with penal substitution.

8a) My first argument was that no genuine justice system allows someone to take the death penalty for another. My opponent misread this and thought I meant any given substitution was problematic.

8b) In my next argument, my opponent objects to my claim that it is illogical for God to both forgive and punish. My opponent didn't really respond to this. The Bible is clear we must forgive without retaliation, so it would be a double standard for God to “forgive” us while turning around and punishing Jesus.

8c) Next is the issue of what I called “pre-paying” for sin, to which my opponents objections were slightly confusing to me. Penal substitution deals specifically with the sins of the elect and thus the punishment is specifically restricted to what all of those specific sins deserved. If this is not the case, then Christ didn't die specifically for the elect. The notion of imputing the guilt of the elect alone is precisely why the Atonement was limited. If the punishment due to the elect alone is equal to the punishment due to all, then it is illogical to say the Atonement was limited. But even if I grant my opponent's objection (as I understand it), the fact remains the sinner's future sins are already punished in Christ.

8d) Lastly, my opponent objects to my argument of “eternal forgiveness,” stating I'm not properly applying the application of redemption in time. But this is not what I was getting at. At the point of justification (redemption applied in time), all past and future sins are officially forgiven. Reformed apologists James White explicitly affirms this in his book “The God Who Justifies,” page 98f.

9) In conclusion, I believe my opponent fell very short in terms of addressing the specific Scriptural, philosophical, and theological arguments I originally made against Penal Substitution in my opening essay.

Affirmative Rebuttal Essay

2009-02-01T23:14:00.001Z

Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Jerome (circa A.D. 347-420) writing about Matthew 20:28 stated: “He does not say that he gave his life for all, but for many, that is, for all those who would believe.” Because he has given his life as a penal substitute for the elect (an equivalent group to those who will believe), all the elect will live. This concept of particular redemption ties into the doctrine of penal substitution rather than the alternative of pure undirected commercial payment.

Nick has provided a very thoughtful and well-organized constructive essay. One advantage to the reader from this organization is that I have attempted to provide parenthetical indications back to the appropriate section of the constructive essay, to show how each section is addressed. While it was well organized, it appears to have a large number of unsupported assertions. In the case of many verses that are referenced, it seems that the attempt has been to find verses to deny penal substitution, without a thought to the consequences of what those verses would mean if they denied penal substitution. Where the verses seem important to the debate, I have tried to address them as thoroughly as possible, so that it should be clear what the relevant Scriptural teachings are.

The Mosaic sacrifices did operate in a penal substitution framework (cf. NC1).

This can be seen in the very first sacrifice appointed by Moses, the Passover (cf. NC1d). In the Passover, the lamb was slain so that the firstborn son would not be slain. The lamb was killed and its blood drained. The blood was then sprinkled (using a hyssop branch) onto the side posts and top of the door way of the house. The point of this should be clear. The angel of God was coming, if there was no blood on the door, there would be blood on the floor: the firstborn would be killed. If there was blood on the door (which showed, thereby, that the lamb had been killed, for the life of the flesh is in the blood, Leviticus 17:11), the LORD would pass over that door, and not permit the destroyer to kill the firstborn. The lamb was not just killed, though, it had to be roasted specifically with fire (fire is the usual metaphor for God’s wrath, see, for example, Exodus 22:24 and 32:10, and especially Psalm 21:9), and eaten completely, with anything uneaten being burnt up. Thus, the wrath of God came upon the Egyptians, but not on the Israelites. The lamb was a penal substitute. The lamb died so that the firstborn would not die. It took the place and bore the penalty of the firstborn (in that it bore the penalty, not in a matter of exact correspondence: after all, we are not told precisely how God killed the firstborn of the Egyptians).

This can also be seen in the annual “day of the atonement” sacrifices (cf. NC1c), which were a focal point and a high holy day in the Old Testament administration, and are especially relied upon as showing Christ to be the better high priest, in Hebrews. The ceremony involved is quite elaborate and is set forth in Leviticus 16. In the first place, the high priest (Aaron initially) had to make atonement for himself, through the burnt offering of a ram, and a sin offering of a young bullock. Once Aaron had removed his own sins, he then took two goats. Randomly, one goat was selected to be a burnt offering, and one goat was selected to be a scapegoat. The first goat was killed, and then Aaron laid his hands on the head of the live goat, confessed all of the sins of Israel, putting them on the head of the goat (Cf. Leviticus 16:21 and NC1a), and then that goat was taken outside the camp of the Israelites into a desolate place and abandoned. The sacrificed goat, whose blood had been placed on the horns of the altar, was likewise taken outside the camp and the entire remaining animals (the skins, the flesh, and even the dung – the fat having been burnt on the altar) were completely burnt up. God’s wrath against sin is graphically portrayed as being satisfied in these two goats, the one being separated from the presence of God, the other being killed, its blood spilled and finally its body consumed by fire. Again, we see the punishments for sin being exercised upon the sacrificial victims in the place of the beneficiaries.

The same penal substitution can be seen in the hand/head mode of transference used in the Mosaic sacrificial system (cf. NC1a). As noted above, this mode was used on the live goat in the day of atonement sacrifices. It was also used in the sacrifices to hallow the priests (Exodus 29:10, 15, and 19), the voluntary individual atonement sacrifices (Leviticus 1:4), the individual peace offerings (Leviticus 3:2 (cow), 8 (sheep), and 13 (goat)), the congregational sin offerings (Leviticus 4:15), the king’s sin offerings (Leviticus 4:24), the individual sin of ignorance offerings (Leviticus 4:29 (goat), and 33 (lamb)), and we could continue on with further examples, if space permitted.

In case, it is not clear that “upon the head” symbolism related to punishment of sins, this may be confirmed from 1 Kings 2:33, which employs the same symbolism, clearly showing the penal sanction/guilt relationship especially contrasted with peace: “Their blood shall therefore return upon the head of Joab, and upon the head of his seed for ever: but upon David, and upon his seed, and upon his house, and upon his throne, shall there be peace for ever from the LORD.”

Even in the case of the grain offering of fine flower (cf. NC1b), one can see the penal substitution taking place. There is no head upon which to lay hands, and there is no blood to spill, but a tenth is consumed with fire, just a similar proportion of an ordinary offering would have been. The idea of bread standing for flesh should come as a surprise to no New Testament reader (see, especially, John 6:51).

Nick makes reference to the fact that sometimes the sacrifices are described as having a “sweet savour” (KJV) or “pleasing aroma” in a more modern phrasing (cf. NC1e). Nick, however, does not seem to understand why this would be something that would please God. The smell of the burnt offering (Genesis 8:21, Exodus 29:18, and many more) is described as a “sweet savour” to God, but this should be understood to be because the smoke shows the consumption, the punishment of fire being executed.

The New Testament likewise connects Christ to this burnt offering, showing that believers are accepted on behalf of the savour (pleasing aroma) of Christ’s sacrifice (2 Corinthians 2:14-16 and Ephesians 5:2). Christ’s love for us is exhibited in his death that was pleasing to God as a propitiation for the guilt of our sins.

Without passing sentence on the quotations from the various authors cited by Nick (Cf. NC2), I would address very briefly the issues raised. Even if, as Nick suggests (Cf. NC2a), Christ only suffered physical pain and death (and not any spiritual agony), still the wages of sin are death (Romans 6:23) and Christ suffer the punishment of death. The punishment of death is one expression of God’s wrath, as expressed at Psalm 78:31, “The wrath of God came upon them, and slew the fattest of them, and smote down the chosen men of Israel.” This also addresses the false dichotomy Nick raises between physical death and hell (NC2b): physical death is also an expression of the wrath of God. Furthermore, Jesus statement “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mat 27:46), is reasonably understood to show for us that Jesus felt the wrath of God upon him on the cross (Cf. NC3f). Jesus’ own words, therefore, also contradict Nick’s argument that the Father turning his wrath on His Son is unthinkable (NC2c).

I appreciate that Nick has done some of my work in identifying some of the relevant passages that demonstrate penal substitution (NC3).

Isaiah 53 is one of the clearest passages in this regard (Cf. NC3a). That this passage refers to Christ is confirmed by the New Testament and admitted by Nick. One should read the chapter to see how it flows and fits together. There are several places where the fact of penal substitution can be seen. First, in verse 4, it is stated that he has “borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.” These things are punishments given to men on account of sin. Jesus did not have sin, and therefore when Jesus suffered griefs and sorrows during his life, he was doing so on our behalf, on account of our sins. He was being punished for us.

Verse 5 continues this theme more explicitly saying states that Jesus was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities. It is hard to imagine how the concept of penal substitution could be expressed more clearly than that. Verse 6 likewise states that the LORD has laid on Christ the iniquity of all of us. This is explained, in context, by Christ being oppressed, afflicted, and led like a lamb to the slaughter (vs. 7) and into prison and ultimately to death like the wicked, although he hadn’t done anything wrong (vss. 8-9).

Verse 10 continues by pointing out that it pleased the LORD to bruise and grieve him (recall verses 4-5), thereby making him an “offering for sin.” This will be a successful offering. God saw (as prophesied) the travail (the suffering) of Christ and was satisfied with that. By knowledge of him, Christ will justify many (the elect), because he bears their iniquities (because he suffers in their place).

Finally, verse 12 is the capstone, sealing the discussion, pointing out that Christ achieves victory through his death, bears the sins of many, and makes (and will make) intercession for them. This ties into the discussion of Christ in Romans 8:34 and Hebrews 7:25.

Galatians 3:13 is another great verse that demonstrates the reality of penal substitution (Cf. NC3b).

Galatians 3:10-14
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

The curse of the law is the punishment that comes from the law, namely death. This “curse” as can be seen from verse 10 is the punishment for failing to keep the law. Christ kept the law perfect, but was cursed for us – he received the curse of the law in our place. It is true that this was role of Christ was obedience on his part. We (Reformed theologians) generally use the two categories of active and passive obedience. The labels aren’t the best, but “active” obedience is obeying the moral law of God, whereas passive obedience is obeying the will of God with respect to suffering humiliation, suffering, pain, agony, and death. Those sufferings are the punishment for sin. Christ had no sin of his own, however. Thus, those sufferings are for our sins. They are Christ serving as our penal substitute. He is punished so that we are not punished.

Another verse that clearly demonstrates the fact that Jesus is the penal substitute of the elect is 1 Peter 2:24 (Cf. NC3c).

1 Peter 2:21-25
21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: 24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. 25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

While 1 Peter 2:21 might seem to sound like Christ’s suffering and death were merely exemplary (it is an example to us – see also 1 John 3:16), verse 24 makes clear that he bore our sins (that is to say, the punishment for their guilt) in his own body on the cross. He died for sin, and thus we are dead to sin. He was whipped, and by his blood we are healed. Notice how Peter makes reference to Isaiah 53:5 here (which we’ve already discussed above).

Nick seems to argue that Peter is speaking about the value of us enduring unjust suffering. Nick seems to suppose that because this is the case with us, that it cannot be different for Christ. In fact, however, Christ’s death (which is set forth as an example to us in our suffering) is distinguishable in that it is vicarious. When we suffer for doing what is right, we are not bearing the sins of others.

Nick also notes that the term “bore” doesn’t necessarily automatically mean imputed guilt. The only other senses that Nick identifies, however, physically carrying and offering a sacrifice, are not applicable to the context. The sins are not being physically carried or offered as a sacrifice. Instead, the punishment of the sins was endured by Christ.

A fourth passage that demonstrates penal substitution is 2 Corinthians 5:21 (Cf. NC3d), which states:

2 Corinthians 5:18-21
18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

God reconciled us to himself by Christ on the cross. He has not imputed our trespasses to us, but to Christ instead. That demonstrates a vicarious atonement. Although Nick asserts that imputation (the word, at least) is not in the verse (in verse 21), the word is in the immediately preceding verse, which is a better context than Romans 8:3 and 2 Corinthians 8:9. It is important to note that Christ’s work is not exhausted by the concept of penal substitution. That is to say, the sacrifice of Christ is also an example of love (as noted above) and it is a sin offering and satisfaction for sin (as Nick has admitted).

Matthew 26:39 references the cup of God’s wrath (Cf. NC3e), but this doesn’t necessarily establish penal substitution by itself. It should be noted that there is more than one “cup” mentioned in the New Testament, although Nick seems to want to treat them all as one.

Nick presents (NC4) what he believes is the Roman position (he calls it “Catholic” but I respectfully disagree with using that label for Rome). The concept of satisfaction is not necessarily by good works – in fact the Biblical view of satisfaction is not that of good works. Satisfaction is justice being satisfied. Justice is satisfied when a debt is paid – when a crime is punished. The view of satisfaction is merely a debt to be paid by good works is a view of satisfaction that might be characterized as a “purely commercial” view. This is in contrast to the Reformed view, which embraces both the commercial and the penal analogies. The primary analogy, however, as can be seen from the weight of the Mosaic ceremonies, is the penal analogy.

Nick cited Numbers 25:1-13 as allegedly an example of this commercial satisfaction view (NC4a). In Numbers 25:1-13, however, the only “good deed” done was for Phinehas to exercise justice against one of the couples of those who had been involved in the Moabitish fornication/idolatry. It seems more reasonable to suppose that God’s justice was satisfied by the execution of the death penalty rather than the execution being an otherwise counter-balancing good work.

Nick cited Deuteronomy 9:16-21 as another alleged example of a commercial satisfaction (NC4b), and calls his act an atonement. The Scriptures, however, do not use that description, although they do speak of Moses turning away God’s wrath. How did he do so? He did so by making intercession for them, and begging for mercy. Psalm 106, which Nick references for this verse and the previously considered verse, explains that the examples provided in the Psalm are examples of God showing his mercy and power (Psalm 106:8 Nevertheless he saved them for his name's sake, that he might make his mighty power to be known.)

The same may be said of Nick’s argument from Numbers 16:42-49 (NC4d). In that case, God showed mercy, but there was no commercial satisfaction. It seems better, indeed, to view the incense mentioned in the text as serving to God as a reminder of the sacrificial system. In any event, as already noted:

Psalm 106:43-45
43 Many times did he deliver them; but they provoked him with their counsel, and were brought low for their iniquity. 44 Nevertheless he regarded their affliction, when he heard their cry: 45 And he remembered for them his covenant, and repented according to the multitude of his mercies.

Nick references Job’s intercession for his friends (NC4c), but of course, these were sacrifices being offered. The idea that God would only accept the sacrifice at Job’s hand relates to the fact that the priest himself must first be pure in God’s sight before he can offer a sacrifice that God will accept for others. God’s insistence that Job offer the sacrifice is God’s vindication of Job against the revilings of his friends, not an issue of the righteousness of the person being considered a merit.

Nick’s translation of Proverbs 16:6 is rather odd (NC4e). A better translation is:

Proverbs 16:6 By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.

This verse is one of numerous verses in Proverbs that form couplets: that is to say, the same thought is expressed in slightly different ways, twice. Thus, we can see that the “purging” going on here relates to a person’s character – how his life is improved. It relates to sanctification rather than justification.

Proverbs 16:14 is in a little different context:

Proverbs 16:12-15
12 It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness: for the throne is established by righteousness. 13 Righteous lips are the delight of kings; and they love him that speaketh right. 14 The wrath of a king is as messengers of death: but a wise man will pacify it. 15 In the light of the king's countenance is life; and his favour is as a cloud of the latter rain.

The point of the proverb relates to speaking what is right in the ears of the king, to gain his favor. How is this done?

Proverbs 15:1 A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.

Nick’s penultimate argument is that the idea that salvation can be lost is inconsistent with Penal Substitution (NC5). While this is a little bit of a rabbit trail, Nick argues that if Penal Substitution is correct, then salvation cannot be lost. The problem with Nick’s argument is that there are some verses that make clear that Christ will raise up all those that Father have given to him, for example:

John 6:38-40
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Augustine (circa A.D. 354-430) expressed it well: “Surely his mercy must be unlimited and his good will must know no bounds if he redeemed us with the blood of his Son, when our sins had reduced us to nothing. He certainly made something great, when he created man to his own image and likeness. But we wanted to become nothing by sinning, and we derived mortality from our first parents, and became a lump of sin, a lump of wrath, and yet he decided in his mercy to redeem us at such a great price. For us he gave the blood of his only Son, who was born in innocence, lived in innocence, died in innocence. After redeeming us at such a price, he will scarcely wish those he has bought to perish. He did not buy us to destroy us; he bought us to give us life. If our sins are too much for us, God does not disregard the price he paid. It was a very great price he paid.”

What Augustine is expressing could frankly be applied as well to the commercial view or simply the commercial aspect of the Reformed view (since redemption is a commercial analogy). This demonstrates that the issue of perseverance of the saints is mostly a moot point. Whether the atonement is a penal substitution or a merely commercial accumulation, it should be intuitively obvious that God would not waste such a great price that was paid.

When we combine that fact with the truth expressed by Jude, at verse 24 of his catholic epistle, “Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy … .” God is able to keep his elect from falling, and his very sending his Son was on account of his love for them (see John 3:16). Therefore, we have good reason to believe that the elect will preserve, because God both loves the elect, seeks their salvation, and is able to assure it.

Nick’s attempted texts to the contrary can variously classified. Some are mistaken interpretations of proverbs or analogies (5a, d, i, and f), some are based on false assumptions about the range of meaning of Greek words (5b, j, and k), some are based on an assumption that what is taught is works righteousness (5c and perhaps 5l), 5e seems irrelevant to the matter, some infer that salvation was lost in an historical situation when the text does not say so (5g, 5h, and 5p), and the remainder are based on warnings (5l, 5m, 5n, 5o, 5q, and 5r) that Nick seems to believe have (1) true believers as the ones warned and (2) eternal damnation as the consequence, with the assumption that if God uses these warnings to preserve the elect from doing the warned-against thing, that somehow the warning is pointless.

If this debate were on the perseverance of the saints, it would be worthwhile exploring each of these verses separately. As this is not on that topic, it should suffice to note the general responses above, and a brief discussion of

Nick claims that 5j is something than which “I cannot think of a stronger thing Paul could have said against Penal Substitution.” Nick notes that in 1 Corinthians 8:11 it is stated “And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?” Nick assumes that this is a reference to perishing in hell for all eternity, but the context suggests something a lot less severe. The next verse says: “But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.” The perishing involved with someone’s conscience being wounded doesn’t seem to be exactly the same as someone burning in hell. Thus, if this is the strongest passage Nick has, we may rightly conclude that the others are even less conclusive.

Nick further claims that 5o “is one of the strongest passages against Penal Substitution.” He claims that it says that if “Christians keep on sinning ‘no sacrifice for sin remains’ and that they can expect damnation,” in Hebrews 10:26-29. There are several problems with Nick’s claim. First, the passage does not simply say “keep on sinning” it says “sin willfully.” Second, the passage refers to those with a “profession of faith” (vs. 23) not “faith” per se – a profession of faith is a broader category. Third, the verses say that the people involved in this heinous sin will be “worthy” of worse punishment, but it does not say they will receive it. Fourth, the verses are phrased as a hypothetical, but it is not said that this hypothetical will be fulfilled rather than serving as an effective warning. Finally, a commercial satisfaction cannot handle an understanding of the passage that would be problematic for the penal substitution view.

Finally, Nick presents a collection of miscellaneous objections (NC6). The first objection (NC6a) is that vicarious substitution is not in any genuine justice system. This could be disputed historically, but the Scriptural response is to note the existence of the concept of a “surety.” A surety is someone who makes good for another. This category is recognized in Scripture.

Second (NC6b), Nick objects that the idea that God cannot forgive without punishing someone is illogical. Nick, however, has failed to consider that Justice requires punishment and God is just. Nick has also overlooked that it can be (and is) forgiveness to the sinner, even while it is payment by Christ.

Nick next objects that is blasphemous for Christ to pre-pay for sins that haven’t been committed yet (NC6c), and further claiming that the sin would have to be carried out to balance the books. The death of Christ, however, is a penal substitution. It would have to be endured to save one sinner, or more sinners than there are atoms in the universe. It is not a pure commercial satisfaction (this much for that many). If it were (and isn’t that Nick’s claim), then perhaps Nick’s objections would apply, although how Nick arrives at “blasphemy” from the idea of pre-payment of sin is hard to follow, since he doesn’t explain.

Finally, Nick objects that a logical result of Penal Substitution is eternal forgiveness (NC6d). Nick, however, has failed to distinguish between what the redemption accomplished within the Trinity (especially as between the Father and the Son) and the application of that redemption in time. Although all the elect were redeemed on the cross (then was its accomplishment), that redemption was applied in time.

In conclusion we can see that there is no Biblical reason to deny Penal Substitution. It is the clear message of the sacrificial system that Christ fulfilled. It is the clear message of the apostles as well. Finally, it can be harmoniously understood with the rest of the Scriptures. That it seems to have been the view of at least many of the fathers is just icing on the cake, as they are not our rule of faith.

Nevertheless, I’ll let Ambrose (circa A.D. 339-97) have the last word : “Great, therefore, is the mystery of Christ, before which even angels stood amazed and bewildered. For this cause, then, it is thy duty to worship Him, and, being a servant, thou oughtest not to detract from thy Lord. Ignorance thou mayest not plead, for to this end He came down, that thou mayest believe; if thou believest not, He has not come down for thee, has not suffered for thee. “If I had not come,” saith the Scripture, “and spoken with them, they would have no sin: but now have they no excuse for their sin. He that hateth Me, hateth My Father also.” Who, then, hates Christ, if not he who speaks to His dishonor? — for as it is love’s part to render, so it is hate’s to withdraw honor. He who hates, calls in question; he who loves, pays reverence.”

-TurretinFan

Negative Constructive Essay

2009-01-18T23:46:00.002Z

Penal Substitution Debate

Negative Constructive Essay

By Nick

Penal Substitution is grounded on the Protestant notion that justification is a legal event. As such, God must deal with sin in a legal manner, which (to Protestants) means sin cannot go unpunished without violating the very integrity of God's Holiness and Justice. God's Wrath (due to sin) must be legally satisfied (i.e. sin cannot go unpunished) in order for sinful man to be forgiven and justified. The “penal” aspect consists of both the temporal and eternal punishments due to sin which are to be punished in the guilty party, while the “substitution” aspect consists in the sinner's guilt being imputed (transferred) to the account of another, a substitute, in this case Jesus Christ, who then receives the punishment the sinner deserved. The Resolution of this debate sums up this concept: God imputed the guilt of the sins of the elect to Christ. In other words, the Wrath the elect deserved for their sins was instead poured out by the Father onto Jesus.

The following arguments I will present will show that Penal Substitution is unreasonable and un-Biblical.

1) Contrary to popular belief, the Mosaic sacrifices did not operate in a Penal Substitution framework.

1a) Nowhere does the Mosaic Law indicate the punishment for sin was transferred to an animal or God's Wrath being poured out upon it.

1b) Places like Leviticus 5:5-13 talk about what the guilty must bring for a sacrificial sin offering. In this description, the Law teaches that if the sinner cannot afford a lamb he must bring two pigeons. However, it continues, if he cannot afford two pigeons he must bring a bag of fine flour. If Penal Substitution were in mind here, allowing a bag of flour instead of a animal is illogical.

1c) The “scapegoat” was part of one of the most important ceremonies for the Israelites, the Day of Atonement, described in Lev. 16. The term “scapegoat” often conjures up images of an innocent party taking the blame and suffering the consequences for the sins of a guilty party. Yet, the description of the scapegoat in Lev. 16 (vv7-10 & 20-22) shows that this goat is never the object of wrath but instead released out into the wilderness. This is quite contrary to the notion of Penal Substitution.

1d) The Passover was a very important event in Jewish history, and St Paul tells us that Jesus is the Passover Lamb (1 Cor. 5:7). Moses gives the instructions for the Passover to the Israelites in Exodus 12 (esp. vv1-13). Rather than being an object of wrath, the eating of the lamb and applying its blood to the door fame of the house is what turned away God's wrath. This directly corresponds to us partaking in the Eucharist and having Christ Blood applied to our souls, making them pure and pleasing in God's sight (Heb 9:14). It was the blood (merits) of the Lamb, not the death itself, which turned away God's wrath. This also does not fit a Penal Substitution framework.

1e) All through Leviticus (which deals heavily with sacrifices) there are numerous references to sacrifices being described as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord” (e.g. Lev. 1:9, 13, 17; 2:2). These sacrifices are pleasing to God because they are prepared 'the way He likes it,' He is pleased when such things are done in obedience to His teachings. It is no mistake that the sacrifice of Jesus is also described as a “fragrant aroma,” because He acted in love and obedience (Eph 5:1f). This is obviously not Penal Substitution, for this appeasing and pleasing God is not done by unleashing wrath but on account of obedience. Also, Eph. 5:1f calls Christians to imitate Christ's sacrifice, yet Penal Substitution is specifically intended so Christians wont have to imitate Christ's example of sacrifice.

2) The following quotes are from various Calvinist authors describing Penal Substitution as it unfolded at the Cross (emphasis mine):

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.)

To [Jesus] was imputed the guilt of their sins, and He was suffering the punishment for those sins on their behalf. And the very essence of that punishment was the outpouring of God's wrath against sinners. In some mysterious way during those awful hours on the cross, the Father poured out the full measure of His wrath against sin, and the recipient of that wrath was God's own beloved Son.
In this lies the true meaning of the cross.
(MacArthur, John. “The Murder of Jesus.” Page 219.)

Christ died in our place and in our stead - and He received the very same outpouring of divine wrath in all its fury that we deserved for our sin. It was a punishment so severe that a mortal could spend all eternity in the torments of hell, and still he would not have begun to exhaust the divine wrath that was heaped on Christ at the cross.
This was the true measure of Christ's sufferings on the cross. The physical pains of crucifixion - dreadful as they were - were nothing compared to the wrath of the Father against Him. The anticipation of this was what had caused Him to sweat blood in the garden. This is why He looked ahead to the cross with such horror. We cannot begin to fathom all that was involved in paying the price of our sin. It's sufficient to understand that all our worst fears about the horrors of hell - and more - were realized by Him as He received the due penalty of others' wrongdoing.
And in that awful, sacred hour, it was as if the Father abandoned Him. Though there was surely no interruption in the Father's love for Him as a Son, God nonetheless turned away from Him and forsook Him as our substitute.
( Ibid., Page 220-221)

Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death. In order to interpose between us and God's anger, and satisfy his righteous judgment, it was necessary that he should feel the weight of divine vengeance. Whence also it was necessary that he should engage, as it were, at close quarters with the powers of hell and the horrors of eternal death. ... ... Hence there is nothing strange in its being said that he descended to hell, seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God. It is frivolous and ridiculous to object that in this way the order is perverted, it being absurd that an event which preceded burial should be placed after it. But after explaining what Christ endured in the sight of man, the Creed appropriately adds the invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he endured before God, to teach us that not only was the body of Christ given up as the price of redemption, but that there was a greater and more excellent price—that he bore in his soul the tortures of condemned and ruined man. (Calvin, John. “Institutes of the Christian Religion.” Book 3:Chapter 16:Section 10)

There are significant theological and Biblical problems with these descriptions, explained below.

2a) According to adherents of Penal Substitution, Christ suffered more than just a bodily death and physical tortures at the hands of men. The Gospel accounts are very clear what Christ endured was physical and emotional, no mention of spiritual punishment. It is very odd that the quotes say the physical death was nothing compared to experiencing the Father's wrath, yet the Gospel accounts say nothing of this 'more important' and 'invisible' issue.

2b) Theologically speaking, only God has the power to inflict divine punishments; men can only kill the body, while God can kill the soul in hell (Mat 10:28). This is very problematic for Penal Substitution because the Bible never talks of God the Father unleashing His Wrath on Jesus and corporal death alone is not enough.

2c) The Father could never turn His Wrath upon His Son, such a notion should make anyone cringe. The Father could never forsake His Son in a spiritual 'divine punishment' sense, nor could Jesus feel or experience what a condemned sinner before God feels, nor could Jesus experience the equivalent of an eternity in Hell, that is pure blasphemy and a form of Nestoriansim (if not worse).

3) Now to some popular Protestant proof texts for Penal Substitution. I will show that these passages, when read in context and without presumptions, don't unequivocally support the Protestant side, and in some cases actually contradict it.

3a) Isaiah 53 is one of the most popular OT passage Protestants turn to as support for the doctrine of Penal Substitution. I believe we should let the New Testament be our main guide, to see how OT revelation unfolds. When we see how the NT interprets Isaiah 53, it will be clear it is not teaching Penal Substitution. I will do a summarized verse by verse commentary on this chapter:

Verse 4a is directly quoted in Mat 8:16-17, and has nothing to do with Penal Substitution.

Verse 4b is when the Jews considered Jesus to be under God's displeasure because God would not save Him (Mat 27:40-43).

Verse 5a is talking about the crucifixion where Christ was physically pierced and beaten.

Verse 5b does not use the Hebrew term “punishment” but rather “chastisement” (H4148) and is in reference to suffering that will correct a wrong (eg Job 5:17), which is not the same as a Penal Substitution which is concerned with the death penalty and eternal punishments.

Verses 6 and 7 are alluded to in 1 Pt 2, which I address later.

Versea 8 and 9 are talking about the way Jesus was treated like a criminal, unjustly tried, and murdered.

Verse 10 when it says it was the “Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer” it is interpreted by Catholics (eg St Thomas Aquinas, ST 3:47:3) as God Providentially planning the Passion. For example, God delivered Jesus into the hands of wicked men (eg Acts 2:23; Rom 8:32), though the Father never dumped His Wrath on Jesus, it was the wicked men who did the actual torture. A good example of God foreordaining a 'bad situation' but without any intent of punishing the individual is Joseph in Gen 50:20. Next verse 10 mentions that Christ's Passion was a “guilt offering” (or “offering for sin”) which is “asham” (H817) in Hebrew (and occurs frequently in Leviticus). Yet this is the same type of offering mentioned in Section 1b earlier in this essay, where if someone couldn't afford an animal then a bag of flour would work, yet Penal Substitution with a bag of flour doesn't make much sense, indicating the sacrifice was not of that nature. The same type of offering is made in 1 Sam 6, but the offering is obedience and gold, not something to kill.

Verses 11 and 12 talk of “bearing sin” which 1 Pt 2 alludes to, which I address later. The phrase “numbered with the transgressors” is in reference to the humiliation of being crucified among thieves (Mk 15:28KJV). Lastly, the verse says Christ will “make intercession” for the sinners, yet making intercession is not the same as Penal Substitution. Making intercession involves turning away the wrath, not diverting it.

3b) Galatians 3:13 talks about Jesus being made a “curse” for us and quotes Deuteronomy 21:22-23. This might sound like God the Father spiritually cursed His Son Jesus, but taken in that sense is quite blasphemous and not what Deut 21 was saying. Deuteronomy 21 is talking about the most humiliating form of death, crucifixion, and is described as a curse because the Jewish understanding was that someone had to be really bad to deserve that kind of death. The OT actually sheds valuable light on this understanding, two specific passages demonstrate this clearly:

Joshua 8: 28 So Joshua burned Ai and made it a permanent heap of ruins, a desolate place to this day. 29 He hung the king of Ai on a tree and left him there until evening. At sunset, Joshua ordered them to take his body from the tree and throw it down at the entrance of the city gate. And they raised a large pile of rocks over it, which remains to this day.

Joshua 10: 26 Then Joshua struck and killed the kings and hung them on five trees, and they were left hanging on the trees until evening. 27 At sunset Joshua gave the order and they took them down from the trees and threw them into the cave where they had been hiding. At the mouth of the cave they placed large rocks, which are there to this day.

These passages show clearly that hanging someone on a tree is a form of grave humiliation, especially for a king. Notice how the passages indicate the bodies were taken down before sunset, this is according to the command in Deut 21 when this form of execution is carried out. Also, the bodies were thrown into a cave and covered with rocks. The parallels here to Christ's crucifixion are very clear, but this is not Penal Substitution because with this in mind passages like Phil 2:8 say Christ “became obedient unto death even death on a cross,” and thus the message is that Christ's perfect obedience (willing to undergo the worst humiliation) is what is carries the true value (towards making satisfaction), not the torture itself.

3c) 1 Peter 2:24 says Jesus “bore our sins in his body on the tree.” Protestants look to this as clear evidence that the guilt of the elect was imputed to Jesus and punished in Him. However, the context paints quite a different picture:

18Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. 20But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
22"He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth."23When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. 24He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. 25For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

The context clearly indicates the theme of Peter's teaching is enduring unjust suffering, and that suffering unjustly at the hands of others for doing God's will is what is meritorious in God's sight. This context is definitely not Penal Substitution. This is in fact Peter's theme throughout most of this Epistle (eg 3:3-4; 3:9-14; 3:17-18; 4:12-16). What is even more significant here is that 1 Pt 2:22-25 quotes and alludes to Isaiah 53 (esp verses 5, 6, 7, 9, 12) more than anywhere else in the NT, thus it should be the main guide for interpreting Isaiah 53. Because 1 Peter 2 is not teaching Penal Substitution then Isaiah 53 cannot be teaching it either.

As for the term “bore” in “bore our sins,” that word in Greek (G399) means to 'take up' or 'offer up' either physically (Mat 17:1; Mk 9:2; Lk 24:51) or as a sacrifice (Heb 7:27; 9:28; 13:15; 1 Pt 2:5; James 2:21). In 1 Pt 2:5 it says “offer up spiritual sacrifices.” Given this, this phrase does not automatically mean imputed guilt, rather it can mean taking the burden of making satisfaction for the sins upon His shoulders, similar to how a father takes the burden of raising a family upon his shoulders.

3d) 2 Corinthians 5:21 is a very important NT passage in Protestant soteriology, especially Penal Substitution.

“God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

Protestants see the “Great Exchange” encompassed in this passage. The classic interpretation is that though Jesus was not actually a sinner, the sin of the elect was imputed to Him and He received the Wrath they deserved, while the Christian (who lacks righteousness before God) has God's righteousness imputed to them. The main problem is a lot must be read into that one verse. This interpretation is gratuitous at best, not to mention nowhere is the term “impute” used. Using the principle of having Scripture interpret Scripture, it is best to consult similar passages when trying to interpret this one.

Rom 8: 3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh

2 Cor 8: 9For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich.

Regarding Romans 8:3, Jesus being sent “in the likeness of sinful flesh” means Jesus took on human nature, and thus “made sin” could easily be taken as sent “in the likeness of sinful flesh.” The phrase “for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” I interpret as being made a sin offering and made satisfaction for sin. Next, in 2 Cor 8:9 there is a clear parallel with 2 Cor 5:21. Christ doesn't become poor by infusion or imputation, rather He becomes poor in the sense of Phil 2:5-9 where Jesus humbled Himself to take on human flesh and become obedient unto death, and through His merits heal us and raise us up.

Also, the word “sin” in “made sin” can mean “made a sin offering,” and this is because Paul knew that in the OT some Hebrew words could mean both “sin” and “sin offering,” even in the same context. The Hebrew word Chattaah (H2403) is translated, in the KJV, 182 times as “sin” and 116 times as “sin offering.” Places like Leviticus 4 translate the word both ways in the same context:

Lev 4: 28Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. 29And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.

The highlighted words are the same word in Hebrew. This is a very similar situation to 2 Cor 5:21 in which the first occurrence of “sin” refers to actual sins, while the second occurrence refers to a “sin offering.” There is simply too much read into the text (without support) when Protestants interpret “made sin” as having guilt imputed to Christ and punished in Christ.

3e) Jesus asks the Father if the “cup” can be taken from Him (Mat 26:39). Some say this was the “cup of God's Wrath” which Christ must drink. However, earlier on in Mat 20:22-23 and Mark 10:38-39 Jesus asks if the Apostles can drink from this “cup,” and they say yes, and Christ says they will. This is impossible if the cup of God's wrath is in view and the purpose is Penal Substitution. Thus those texts can only mean enduring physical persecutions.

3f) When Jesus is on the Cross, He says “My God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mat 27:46). Some Protestants mistakenly think this refers to some divine (spiritual) punishment being inflicted on Jesus (see the quotes in section 2), but that is blasphemous. Rather, Jesus was quoting Psalm 22 and applying that Psalm to Himself. The “forsaken” is clearly explained as God not providing rescue from Christ's attackers, not about a divine punishment being inflicted on Christ's soul. Reading the entire Psalm, it has nothing to do with Divine Wrath.

4) The Catholic position, popularly called “satisfaction” in Catholic documents (or even a “satisfactory punishment” in older works), basically consists in appeasing God's Wrath by good works rather than redirecting it onto someone else to endure. The next important issue is whether there are clear examples in Scripture of men turning away God's wrath by intercession and appeasement, without the hero having to undergo God's wrath in place of the guilty.

4a) Numbers 25:1-13, also quoted in Psalm 106:30-31, describes a situation in which the Israelites turned to immorality and God struck them with a plague. During that time, Phinehas – being zealous for maintaining God's honor - stepped in and turned away God's Wrath which stopped a plague and was said to “turn away God's anger” and “make atonement for the Israelites.” Phinehas undeniably foreshadowed Jesus, yet Phinehas did not have to bear God's Wrath in place of others.

4b) Deuteronomy 9:16-21 (Ex 32:30), also quoted in Psalm 106:19-23, recalls the situation where the Israelites made a golden calf idol, which greatly angered God. In this situation, Moses interceded for them, making atonement by laying on his face for 40 days and ate no food, and because of this God's wrath was turned away and listened to Moses to spare the people.

4c) Job 42:7-9 deals with the fact God was angry at the attitudes and actions of some of Job's friends. God said He required a sacrifice for their folly, but that He would only accept it if Job His Servant offered the sacrifices. Job's actions carried weight and were meritorious in God's sight because Job pleased God.

4d) Numbers 16:42-49 describes a rebellion in which God sent a plague to wipe out many Israelites. Moses and Aaron make atonement and turn away God's Wrath by appeasing Him with incense, but neither of the heroes are forced to endure God's Wrath instead.

4e) Proverbs 16:6 says: “Through love and faithfulness sin is atoned for,” and 16:14 says, “A king's wrath is a messenger of death, but a wise man will appease it.” Both passages use the same Hebrew term for “atone” used in some of the previous passages. In both cases, Penal Substitution is not required to atone.

5) One of the most devastating truths against Penal Substitution is that the Scriptures are clear that salvation can be lost. Calvinists are the most logically consistent in this regard, recognizing that Penal Substitution and losing salvation are mutually exclusive concepts. The following passages will demonstrate that salvation can be lost, and thus Penal Substitution must be false.

5a) Mat 18:23-35 is of the unmerciful servant who is forgiven but wont forgive others and as a result is forced to suffer what is in effect eternal torments. Jesus concludes this parable by telling His Apostles the same thing will happen to them if they don't forgive.

5b) Mat 24:12-13 teaches that as the world becomes more wicked “the love of most will grow cold,” while those who persevere will be saved. The “love” here is agape love, the highest form and only available to Christians by God's saving grace. Yet here it states it will grow cold for many of them, and thus they will fall away and not be saved.

5c) Mark 9:43-47 has Jesus teaching us that it is better to remove temptations in your life and enter into Heaven having “missed out” on those things rather than indulging in them and being damned.

5d) Luke 8:13 is the parable of the sower, and in this case the individual “believes for a while” but later falls away due to temptation. The person was a believer, and thus saved, and yet fell away.

5e) John 12:42-43 informs us that there were Pharisees who did believe in Jesus, but because they feared persecution they would not publicly affirm their faith.

5f) John 13:8 is when Jesus washes the disciples' feet and it is Peter's turn. Jesus tells Peter that if He doesn't wash him, Peter will have no part with Jesus. Jesus put Peter's salvation on the line, proving that salvation can be lost, otherwise it was a false threat (a lie in fact).

5g) Acts 8:9-24 describes the story of Simon Magnus. In verse 12-13 it says he “believed and was baptized” (cf Mk 16:16), and yet later on in the story Simon tried to bribe Peter and Peter told him he had lost his salvation.

5h) Romans 4:6-8 talks about David repenting of sin in Psalm 32, and Paul says this was a moment of justification. The only logical answer here is that David lost his salvation earlier on (and only recovered it upon repenting).

5i) Romans 11:19-22 describes the Vine of salvation, yet Paul says, in the past tense, that “branches were broken off” because they stopped believing (though they can be grafted back in if they turn and believe again). Paul also applies this warning to Christians, which would all be illogical if salvation could not be lost.

5j) 1 Cor 8:11 describes a situation in which we should not lead our Christian brothers into temptation. In this example, the Gentile Christian struggles with idolatry, and yet being tempted back into idolatry will cause that brother to fall away. Paul says this brother is someone “for whom Christ died” and yet he “perishes.” I cannot think of a stronger thing Paul could have said against Penal Substitution, in the same breath he says Christ died for him and yet he parishes.

5k) Galatians 5:4 talks about a person “falling from grace” and becoming “alienated from Christ,” which is impossible if the person was never saved.

5l) Galatians 5:19-21 shows Paul specifically warning the Christians if they engage in grave sins they will be damned.

5m) 1 Timothy 3:6 talks about the risk of a Christian becoming prideful and falling “into the same condemnation as the devil,” which is clearly losing salvation.

5n) 1 Timothy 5:8 says if a Christian father abandons his family he has “denied the faith” and is “worse than an unbeliever.” Both notions are impossible with Penal Substitution.

5o) Hebrews 10:26-29 is one of the strongest passages against Penal Substitution. It says if Christians keep on sinning “no sacrifice for sin remains” and that they can expect damnation. There is no way Hebrews could have advocated Penal Substitution and yet said something like that.

5p) 2 Peter 2:1 mirrors Jude 1:4 and says men whom Jesus ransomed will deny Him. Being ransomed obviously means salvation, yet these men will fall away.

5q) Revelation 2:19-22 has Jesus warning that if a group of Christians don't change their ways they will be damned. It makes no sense for Jesus to be talking to and warning people who are not even saved.

5r) Revelation 22:19 warns against having one's “share in the tree of life” and “holy city” removed, this can only be talking about salvation.

6) Other Philosophical and Theological problems with Penal Substitution.

6a) The notion that someone can receive the death penalty in place of another does not fit into any genuine justice system. It makes no sense from a justice standpoint for someone other than the actual offender to receive the death penalty.

6b) The notion that God cannot forgive without punishing someone is illogical. It cannot be “forgiveness” if God still inflicts the punishment. The Bible teaches we must forgive without retaliating, so it makes no sense for God to dump His wrath on someone else and call that forgiveness of another.

6c) Another significant problem is that Penal Substitution, in a sense, teaches that Christ pre-paid for sin. For a sin that has not actually occurred yet, for Christ to take the punishment for it is blasphemy. Worse yet, the sin would actually have to be carried out to 'balance the books' so to speak.

6d) The notion that a Christian is “eternally forgiven” (doesn't need to repent in the future) is a logical result of Penal Substitution, but that contradicts the passages in Scripture which call for regular repentance (eg the Lord's Prayer), and never says anything but past sins are forgiven (eg 1 Jn 1:9; 2 Pt 1:9)

After all is said and done, it should be very clear that the doctrine of Penal Substitution has no place in any justice system, nor is it a doctrine clearly and honestly derived from Scripture.

END.

Affirmative Constructive Essay

2009-01-18T23:43:00.001Z

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Resolved: God imputed the guilt of the sins of the elect to Christ.

This is a debate over substitutionary atonement, the idea that Christ served as a substitute for his people. I will be advocating the Reformed position on the atonement, which teaches that Christ was the federal head of the elect, just as Adam was the federal head of the natural human race. (1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.) Christ is the new Adam and greater than Adam. (1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.)

This federal relationship is a familial relationship. We are of Adam’s family by nature – and consequently the children of his disobedience (Ephesians 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.) and children of the just wrath of God upon that disobedience (Ephesian 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.)

Nevertheless, without any merit of our own to commend us, we are adopted into Christ’s family – the family of which he is the federal head. (Romans 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.) Adam merited death for us, but Christ has merited life for us (Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.). This adoption of us as sons of God was the reason for Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection (Galatians 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.). It was part of God’s eternal plan for the elect, who were predestined to become the sons of God via adoption through the work of Christ (Ephesians 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,).

The atonement was variously represented in the Old Testament, but the primary way it was represented was by sacrifice (for example, Exodus 29:33 And they shall eat those things wherewith the atonement was made, to consecrate and to sanctify them: but a stranger shall not eat thereof, because they are holy.) The sacrificial system provides us with a framework within which Christ, the sacrifice to which those sacrifices pointed, can be understood (Hebrews 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;).

Within the sacrificial framework, there were generally four involved parties: the beneficiary, the victim, the priest, and God (see, for example, Leviticus 9:7 And Moses said unto Aaron, Go unto the altar, and offer thy sin offering, and thy burnt offering, and make an atonement for thyself, and for the people: and offer the offering of the people, and make an atonement for them; as the LORD commanded.). The beneficiary is the particular person or group of people for whom the sacrifice was to be offered. The victim is the person, animal, or other thing being offered. The priest is the person who performs the ritual of offering the victim. God is the one to whom the offering is made.

The role of priest was a special role, because the priests had to come before the Lord with the sacrifice (Exodus 28:35 And it shall be upon Aaron to minister: and his sound shall be heard when he goeth in unto the holy place before the LORD, and when he cometh out, that he die not.). The priests themselves had to be pure in order to stand before the Lord, therefore, the priests would first offer for themselves and then for the people (Hebrews 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.).

In Christ’s sacrifice, the person of the Father is God to receive the offering (Ephesians 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.). Christ is both the high priest (Hebrews 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;) and the victim (Hebrews 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.). The elect of God are the beneficiary (John 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.).

The basic concept of the sacrifice is one of putting away sin (2Sa 12:13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.). Indeed, this is the express purpose why Christ came (Hebrews 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.).

Similarly, in English, this concept is expressed as “taking away” sins (1 John 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.). In fact, the act of taking away sins and purging them roughly synonymous (Isaiah 27:9 By this therefore shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged; and this is all the fruit to take away his sin; when he maketh all the stones of the altar as chalkstones that are beaten in sunder, the groves and images shall not stand up.).

This expression of sins being “purged” is also frequently used to describe the result of sacrifice (Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.). It is even used specifically with respect to the sprinkled blood of the Paschal lamb (Psalm 51:7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.)

Certainly, more could be said about the sacrifice of Christ, but in order to keep this from becoming excessively long, perhaps it would suffice to focus on the reasons to view the atonement as being a penal substitution, that is to say, that Christ was punished in place of the elect.

Simply put, the argument may be presented as follows:

1) As demonstrated above, Christ came as a sacrifice for sin.

2) Christ’s sacrifice was necessary for the forgiveness of sins, because blood must be shed for remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.).

3) Christ himself taught that he laid down his life in substitution for his people, his sheep (John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. John 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.).

4) The Scriptures, especially in Isaiah 53, teach that the Messiah would receive punishment for the sins of his people.

5) The plain result of the work of Christ is the salvation of his people from their sins, which is the very reasons he is called “Jesus” (Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.).

More discussion will follow, to show not only that this is a matter of logical necessity, but it is the teaching of the Reformed churches and the historic Christian church, although it should be acknowledged that the doctrine is more systematically and clearly laid out in the Reformers than in the earlier writings.

The first argument used by the Reformers was drawn from those scriptural texts in which Christ is said to have redeemed us by his blood, by a perfectly sufficient price; and which assert that a satisfaction has been made. The next argument was drawn from those passages of scripture, in which Christ is said to have died, not only for the promotion of our interests, but also in our stead, as a substitute. A third argument, in favor of Christ’s having made such a satisfaction as that for which the Reformers contended, was derived from those portions of the Bible in which Christ is said to have borne our sins, and on account of them to have been afflicted, to have been wounded, and to have died. A further confirmation of the reformed doctrine of the atonement is confirmed by those scriptures that assert that Christ was made sin and a curse for us. (“A Historical Sketch of the Opinions on the Atonement” by James Renwick Willson)

Of course, we do not accept the Reformers arguments simply because they were made by such great luminaries as Francis Turretin, but because they are (as demonstrated briefly above) the teachings of Holy Scripture.

While the church fathers certainly present a wide variety of opinions with respect to the death of Christ, we see at least some of the fathers had some similar conceptions of Christ’s works as those discussed above.

For example, Turtullian (circa A.D. 160-220) wrote:

Now, since hatred was predicted against that Son of man who has His mission from the Creator, whilst the Gospel testifies that the name of Christians, as derived from Christ, was to be hated for the Son of man’s sake, because He is Christ, it determines the point that that was the Son of man in the matter of hatred who came according to the Creator’s purpose, and against whom the hatred was predicted. And even if He had not yet come, the hatred of His name which exists at the present day could not in any case have possibly preceded Him who was to bear the name. But He has both suffered the penalty in our presence, and surrendered His life, laying it down for our sakes, and is held in contempt by the Gentiles. And He who was born (into the world) will be that very Son of man on whose account our name also is rejected.

(The Five Books Against Marcion, Book IV, Chapter 14)

Similarly, Hilary of Poitiers (circa A.D. 315-67) wrote:

The Only-begotten God, then, suffered in His person the attacks of all the infirmities to which we are subject; but He suffered them in the power of His own nature, just as He was born in the power of His own nature, for at His birth He did not lose His omnipotent nature by being born. Though born under human conditions, He was not so conceived: His birth was surrounded by human circumstances, but His origin went beyond them. He suffered then in His body alter the manner of our infirm body, yet bore the sufferings of our body in the power of His own body. To this article of our faith the prophet bears witness when he says, He beareth our sins and grieveth for us: and we esteemed Him stricken, smitten, and afflicted: He was wounded for our transgressions and made weak for our sins. It is then a mistaken opinion of human judgment, which thinks He felt pain because He suffered. He bore our sins, that is, He assumed our body of sin, but was Himself sinless. He was sent in the likeness of the flesh of sin, bearing sin indeed in His flesh but our sin. So too He felt pain for us, but not with our senses; He was found in fashion as a man, with a body which could feel pain, but His nature could not feel pain; for, though His fashion was that of a man, His origin was not human, but He was born by conception of the Holy Ghost. For the reasons mentioned, He was esteemed ‘stricken, smitten and afflicted.’ He took the form of a servant: and ‘man born of a Virgin’ conveys to us the idea of One Whose nature felt pain when He suffered. But though He was wounded it was ‘for our transgressions.’ The wound was not the wound of His own transgressions: the suffering not a suffering for Himself. He was not born man for His own sake, nor did He transgress in His own action. The Apostle explains the principle of the Divine Plan when he says, We beseech you through Christ to be reconciled to God. Him, Who knew no sin, He made to be sin on our behalf. To condemn sin through sin in the flesh, He Who knew no sin was Himself made sin; that is, by means of the flesh to condemn sin in the flesh, He became flesh on our behalf but knew not flesh: and therefore was wounded because of our transgressions.

(On the Trinity, Book 10, §47)

The same thing is taught by Augustine (circa A.D. 354-430), who wrote:

The believer in the true doctrine of the gospel will understand that Christ is not reproached by Moses when he speaks of Him as cursed, not in His divine majesty, but as hanging on the tree as our substitute, bearing our punishment, any more than He is praised by the Manicheans when they deny that He had a mortal body, so as to suffer real death. In the curse of the prophet there is praise of Christ’s humility, while in the pretended regard of the heretics there is a charge of falsehood. If, then, you deny that Christ was cursed, you must deny that He died; and then you have to meet, not Moses, but the apostles. Confess that He died, and you may also confess that He, without taking our sin, took its punishment. Now the punishment of sin cannot be blessed, or else it would be a thing to be desired. The curse is pronounced by divine justice, and it will be well for us if we are redeemed from it. Confess then that Christ died, and you may confess that He bore the curse for us; and that when Moses said, “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,” he said in fact, To hang on a tree is to be mortal, or actually to die. He might have said, “Cursed is every one that is mortal,” or “Cursed is every one dying;” but the prophet knew that Christ would suffer on the cross, and that heretics would say that He hung on the tree only in appearance, without really dying. So he exclaims, Cursed; meaning that He really died. He knew that the death of sinful man, which Christ though sinless bore, came from that curse, “If ye touch it, ye shall surely die.” Thus also, the serpent hung on the pole was intended to show that Christ did not feign death, but that the real death into which the serpent by his fatal counsel cast mankind was hung on the cross of Christ’s passion. The manicheans turn away from the view of this real death, and so they are not healed of the poison of the serpent, as we read that in the wilderness as many as looked were healed.

(Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Book XIV, §7)

And there is no need to stay with fathers of the Western church. Theodoret of Cyrrhus (circa A.D. 393-466) commenting on Numbers 5:6, wrote:

“Only Christ the Lord, both as God and as man, is blameless. The prophet Isaiah foresaw this and said, “He commited no transgression, nor was deceit found in his mouth.” For this reason he took upon himself the sins of others, for he had none of his own. For Isaiah says, “He bears our sins, and he is afflicted for us.” And the great John says, “Behold the Lamb of God who bears the sins of the world.” For this reason he is also called “free among the dead,” since he suffered death unjustly.”

Likewise, Chrysostom (circa A.D. 349-407) commenting on Hebrews 9:28, said:

“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.”

(Epistle to the Hebrews, Homly 17)

This understanding of the atonement was not limited to the early fathers, but carried through into the middle ages. For example, Bede (circa A.D. 672-735) commenting on 1 John 2:1, stated:

“The Lord intercedes for us not by words but by his dying compassion, because he took upon himself the sins which he was unwilling to condemn his elect for.”

This view of the atonement continued through the middle ages (not as the only view, to be sure, but as one of the views), eventually finding powerful expression in Anselm’s classic work Cur Deus Homo.

In book 1 of CDH, Anselm explains that man is unable to pay for his own sins, those sins must be paid for if man is to be set free, and consequently someone must pay for them - and that someone is Christ. Thus, Chapter 25 poses the question:

B. How, then, will man be saved if he does not pay what he owes and if he ought not to be saved unless he pays it? Or how can we impudently maintain that God, who is rich in mercy beyond human understanding, cannot bestow this mercy?

Anselm goes on to provide as the central answer that,

A. From what I have already said, do you not realize that it is necessary for some men to attain happiness? For if it is unfitting for God to bring a man having any stain to that end for which He created him free of every stain—lest [by so doing] He should seem either to regret the good work He had begun or to be unable to fulfill His purpose—then, much more, because of this same unfittingness, it is impossible that no man whatsoever be elevated to the end for which he was created. Therefore, either the kind of satisfaction-for-sin which I earlier showed to be required must occur outside the context of the Christian faith—something which no sound reasoning can demonstrate—or else satisfaction-for-sin must assuredly be believed to occur within the context of the Christian faith. For that which on the basis of rational necessity is inferred really to be the case ought not to be called into any doubt, even if the reason why it is true is not discerned.

It is this satisfaction-for-sin by another than the actual sinner that we call “imputation” of their sin to him. Thus, Christ’s sacrifice was the way in which Christ obtained mercy for us, by fulfilling justice. In chapter 12 of Book 1, we see the following exchange:

A. Also consider the following point: Everyone knows that human justice is subject to law, so that God deals out the measure of recompense according to the degree of justice.
B. This is what we believe.
A. But if sin were neither paid for nor punished, it would be subject to no law.
B. I cannot think differently.
A. Therefore, if injustice is forgiven out of mercy alone, then injustice is more at liberty than is justice—something which seems especially unfitting. Moreover, this unfittingness is so extensive that it makes injustice resemble God, for as God is subject to no one's law, neither would injustice be.
B. I cannot oppose your reasoning.

As noted above, this view of the atonement was not the only or exclusive view of the atonement in the middle ages. For example, Aquinas did not share this view of the atonement. Instead, while Aquinas sometimes seemed to hint at a view of penal substitution (“It was not necessary, then, for Christ to suffer from necessity of compulsion, either on God's part, who ruled that Christ should suffer, or on Christ's own part, who suffered voluntarily. Yet it was necessary from necessity of the end proposed; and this can be accepted in three ways. First of all, on our part, who have been delivered by His Passion, according to John (3:14): "The Son of man must be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting." Secondly, on Christ's part, who merited the glory of being exalted, through the lowliness of His Passion: and to this must be referred Luke 24:26: "Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into His glory?" Thirdly, on God's part, whose determination regarding the Passion of Christ, foretold in the Scriptures and prefigured in the observances of the Old Testament, had to be fulfilled. And this is what St. Luke says (22:22): "The Son of man indeed goeth, according to that which is determined"; and (Luke 24:44-46): "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning Me: for it is thus written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead."” Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 46, Article 1; “That man should be delivered by Christ's Passion was in keeping with both His mercy and His justice. With His justice, because by His Passion Christ made satisfaction for the sin of the human race; and so man was set free by Christ's justice: and with His mercy, for since man of himself could not satisfy for the sin of all human nature, as was said above (Question 1, Article 2), God gave him His Son to satisfy for him, according to Romans 3:24-25: "Being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood." And this came of more copious mercy than if He had forgiven sins without satisfaction. Hence it is said (Ephesians 2:4): "God, who is rich in mercy, for His exceeding charity wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ."” Id. and “Through Christ's Passion we have been delivered from the debt of punishment in two ways. First of all, directly--namely, inasmuch as Christ's Passion was sufficient and superabundant satisfaction for the sins of the whole human race: but when sufficient satisfaction has been paid, then the debt of punishment is abolished. In another way--indirectly, that is to say--in so far as Christ's Passion is the cause of the forgiveness of sin, upon which the debt of punishment rests.” Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 49, Article 3), nevertheless Aquinas elsewhere seemed to suggest a different view, one that he viewed in medicinal terms (“Christ by His Passion delivered us from our sins causally--that is, by setting up the cause of our deliverance, from which cause all sins whatsoever, past, present, or to come, could be forgiven: just as if a doctor were to prepare a medicine by which all sicknesses can be cured even in future.” Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 49, Article 1).

We would generally criticize Aquinas’ apparent view for one major reason, divided into several parts. The major reason is that the view Aquinas seemingly proposed is not scripturally supported. This major reason may be divided into several parts, as follows: (1) Aquinas would seem to make Christ’s deliverance of his people merely potential, but Scripture declares proper (i.e. actual) deliverance, (2) Aquinas would seem to fail to underappreciate the perfection of the work of Christ, in that Christ’s death fully expiates for all the sins and with respect to every punishment for those sins according to Scriptures, and (3) Aquinas seems to focus on merit as though sins were merely debt to be canceled out through payment of righteousness, whereas Scripture teaches the sins incur the penalty of death.

From all that has gone before, therefore, it is respectfully submitted for the reader’s consideration, that Christ has come as a sacrifice, specifically to suffer the punishment for sins, namely death. To conclude, I provide a brief summary from another great theologian on the atonement, A.A. Hodge:

There are several forms of expression which essentially present the same great principles, but with variations. His sufferings are said to be vicarious. He himself is said to have been the Substitute of his people, and a Ransom for them, that is, in their stead. He is also said to have been their Representative before God, and the one Mediator between God and man. We have before seen that Christ was accurately prefigured by the bleeding sacrifice upon the altar, and by the high priest who brought the blood near to God within the veil. He was in like manner prefigured, at the same time, by the slain goat upon the altar, and by the living goat carrying away the expiated sins of the people into the wilderness. His office as Mediator included the functions at once of Prophet, Priest and King, and yet not one of his personal types embraced, in one person, more than two of these, as David and Ezra. The reason for this, of course, lay in the fact that the type was finite and transient, while the antetype was infinite and eternal. He was at once God, and priest, and bleeding sacrifice, dead and alive again for evermore, offerer and offering. When we say, therefore, that our blessed Lord is, in the strict sense of the word, our Substitute or our Ransom, we do not mean that for any single moment these relations exhaust all the relations borne or functions discharged by his infinite person. At the very same moment he is God, whose justice demands propitiation; and Priest, offering himself a sacrifice; and the sacrifice, offered to satisfy that justice. Let it be distinctly understood, then, that when we say that Christ was the Substitute of his people, and his sufferings, in the strict sense of the word, vicarious, we affirm this to be true of him viewed in his function as a sacrifice. When we say that he is the Representative, we affirm this to be true of him as the second Adam or federal Head, undertaking and discharging all the obligations of the broken law in our stead. When we say he is our Mediator, we affirm that to be true of him as our High Priest, as he is ordained for man in the things pertaining to God (τὰ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν).

(A.A. Hodge, "The Atonement," pp. 163-43)

To the glory of God,

TurretinFan

Atonement Debate to Begin Shortly

2009-01-18T23:37:00.003Z

A new debate is about to start. The following are the details.

Resolved: God imputed the guilt of the sins of the elect to Christ.
Affirmed: Turretin Fan
Denied: Nicholas E.

Debate Start: Jan 4.
1. Aff. Constructive and Neg. Constructive - Due Jan 18.
2. Aff. Rebuttal - Due Feb 1.
3. Neg. Rebuttal - Due Feb 15.
4. Aff. Cross-Ex. Questions to the Neg. - Due Mar 1.
5. Neg. Cross-Ex. Answers and Neg. Cross-Ex. Questions to the Affirmative - Due Mar 15.
6. Aff. Cross-Ex. Answers to the Neg. - Due Mar 29.
7. Negative Conclusion - Due April 12.
8. Affirmative Conclusion - Due April 26.
Debate End: April 26.

All Essays are 5k words maximum, while each of the 5 Questions are 1k words maximum. The word limits include any citations and quotes.

Rules:
(1) Each person will post their own essays on their own blog. The opponent can then go and cut & paste the opposing response.
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/

(2) Comment boxes for our Essays will be closed.

(3) Citing church documents, theologians, and other such references is allowed, though the opponent is not necessarily bound to defend any claims other than his own.

(4) Formatting essay text (ie size, bold, underline, italics, etc) is allowed.

-TurretinFan

Affirmative Concluding Essay

2008-12-01T21:00:00.001Z

“To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”

This is the Scriptural mandate of Sola Scriptura. The prophet Isaiah explained:

Isaiah 8:16-20
16Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. 17And I will wait upon the LORD, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him. 18Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion. 19And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 20To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

And the Psalmist declares:

Psalm 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
As mentioned in my opening essay, there are two main questions to be considered. The first question is whether the Scriptures are an authority – a source to which Christians can turn to settle disputes. The second question is whether there is any other authority of equal or greater dignity in our possession.
We have seen in this debate that it is undisputed that the Bible is God’s Word and that the Bible is a rule of faith. That is to say, the first question has been answered in the affirmative. The only real question that is raised is whether the negative, MB, has identified any other rule of faith besides the Bible. It would be unreasonable to ask the affirmative to prove a universal negative. MB seems, at least implicitly, to have acknowledged this burden to identify at least one additional rule of faith, and has attempted to provide such an alternative rule: the teachings of his church. In other words, the only question left to be decided is whether there is any other authority of equal or greater dignity in our possession.

In the Bible, only the Bible is described as being inspired. Even if MB had claimed inspiration for his church, the Bible only describes Scripture as inspired. That is why Jerome, in his comments on Haggai, wrote: “The sword of God smites whatever they draw and forge from a pretended (quasi) apostolic tradition, without the authority and testimony of the Scriptures.” The sword of God, is (of course) as described by Augustine, in the City of God, “And Scripture says that the word of God is a doubly sharp sword, on account of the two edges, the two Testaments.”

Although MB makes a claim that the extra-Scriptural Traditions of his church (both Hand-Me-Down-Tradition HMDT and Interpretative-Authority-Tradition IAT) are the Word of God, on this point he disagrees with his own pope, who stated (in “The Transmission of Divine Revelation,” written before Ratzinger had been made pope): “It is important to note that only Scripture is defined in terms of what it is: it is stated that Scripture is the Word of God consigned to writing. Tradition, however, is described only functionally, in terms of what it does: it hands on the word of God, but is not the Word of God.”

And in this matter Ambrose (in Cain and Abel) agrees, identifying Scripture and the Word of God: “What is the mark of a Christian? Faith working by charity. What is the mark of faith? A sure conviction of the truth of the inspired words, not to be shaken by any process of reasoning, nor by the alleging of natural requirements, nor by the pretences of false piety. What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words [of the Scripture], not venturing to reject anything - nor making additions. For, if 'all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and 'faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.” And recall that Augustine made the same identification in the quotation provided above. But MB boldly but wrongly claims “Sacred Tradition is not an addition to Sacred Scripture in as much [sic] as they are both the Word of God.” (Negative Answer to Question 2)

There were ten sections of the Westminster Confession of Father, chapter 1, that were under consideration, as laid out in my opening essay. Section 1 related to the fact that revelation today comes to us through Scripture.

It is similar to what John of Damascus declared when he wrote (in An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith): “Nevertheless, God has not gone so far as to leave us in complete ignorance, for through nature the knowledge of the existence of God has been revealed by Him to all men. The very creation of its harmony and ordering proclaims the majesty of the divine nature. Indeed, He has given us knowledge of Himself in accordance with our capacity, at first through the Law and the Prophets and then afterwards through His only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Accordingly, we accept all those things that have been handed down by the Law and the Prophets and the Apostles and the Evangelists, and we know and revere them, and over and above these things we seek nothing else.” Notice that he ends by stating that over and above the Apostles, Evangelists, Law, and the Prophets he states that he seeks nothing else.

Sections 2 and 3 related to the 66 book canon and the rejection of the apocryphal so-called “deuterocanonical” books. MB cannot reasonably dispute the NT portion of that canon, and Jesus’ own testimony in the NT establishes the shorter Jewish canon over the expanded canons held by various churches. It is interesting to note that the “ancient churches” that MB refers to hold to various expanded canons, but the Greek Orthodox have a different canon from the Ethiopian Orthodox who have a different canon from the papists themselves. Furthermore, of course, MB is well aware that notable early Christian writers such as Jerome rejected the deuterocanonicals, and that even up to the council of Trent, there was division at the highest levels of the church of Rome over whether the deuterocanonicals should be considered of binding authority or merely as useful ancient writings, with Cardinal Cajetan taking the latter position.

Section 4 states that the authority of Scripture comes solely from its divine authorship, and not from the testimony of the church. This view is reflected in Augustine’s comment in Of the Unity of the Church, “Let us not hear, You say this, I say that; but let us hear Thus saith the Lord. There are the Dominical books, whose authority we both acknowledge, we both yield to, we both obey; there let us seek the Church, there let us discuss the question between us.” The church gets its authority by following Scripture, not the other way around.

Section 5 relates to the fact that although the Church testifies to the inspiration of Scripture, the final authority and basis for our acceptance of their testimony is not their own word for it, or the inherent beauty of Scripture, but the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit. Augustine’s letter to Paulina reflects this same concept when it declares, “I do not want you to depend on my authority, so as to think that you must believe something because it is said by me; you should rest your belief either on the canonical Scriptures, if you do not yet see how true something is, or on the truth made manifest to you interiorly, so that you may see clearly.”

Section 6 relates to the sufficiency of Scripture. As Athanasius expressed it, “the holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of saving truth.” Indeed, as pointed out in my opening essay, this is the same point that the earliest fathers had to raise against the heretics who tried to claim apostolic unwritten tradition in order to substantiate their views, accusing the Scriptures of deficiency rather than sufficiency. From what I gather, MB has only attacked this point implicitly, hinting that without HMDT and IAT the Reformed believer has an incomplete picture of the Word of God. In contrast, however, Scripture itself declares that the Scriptures are able to thoroughly furnish the man of God.

Section 7 relates to the perspicuity of Scripture. As William Whitaker in the 16th century noted, even the papists recognize the truth of this principle: “Indeed all the papists in their books, when they seek to prove any thing, boast everywhere that they can bring arguments against us from the most luminous, plain, clear and manifest testimonies of Scripture . . . For in every dispute their common phrases are,—This is clear,—This is plain,—This is manifest in the scriptures, and such like. Surely when they speak thus, they ignorantly and unawares confess the perspicuity of the scriptures even in the greatest questions and controversies.”

Section 8 relates to the fact that the authentic version of Scriptures are the Hebrew and Greek originals. Jerome, Origen, and other church fathers likewise agree to this fact, and MB has not challenged this truth, despite Trent’s seeming view that the authentic version of the Scripture is the “Old Latin Vulgate” version. Possibly this is simply a reflection of the de-latinization of Post-Vatican-2 popery.

Section 9 relates to the fact that Scripture is Scripture’s interpreter. Contrary to the claims of IAT proposed by MB, a consequence of Scripture’s sufficiency is that Scripture is not in need of the interpretation of the church in order to be understood properly. Thus, Jerome could write in a homily on the Psalms, “Some may say: ‘You are forcing the Scripture, that is not what it means.’ Let Holy Writ be its own interpreter … .”

Section 10 relates to the fact that the supreme arbiter among men is not the church but the Word of God in Scripture. Gregory of Nyssa recognized the need for this doctrine, when he wrote, “We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.”

This summary of doctrines was defended not only on the basis of its footnoted prooftexts from Scripture, but also from the testimony of the writers of the early church. In addition, a positive presentation from Holy Scripture itself was presented, and was addressed by MB not with a contrary exegesis, but simply with handwaving, asserting that “TF then quotes the Scriptures out of context …” without substantiating this claim.

MB’s own positive presentation is rather lacking. Although MB attempts to set forth his church’s position on the issue of Scripture, we discovered that MB has made some errors in his presentation, not following the teachings of his church fully. Part of the problem is that even now, MB’s church is internally divided over the issue of whether the correct view is “partim partim” or rather a view of material sufficiency should be adopted. While MB wants to claim that his position is the correct one, we have seen his position contradicted by the statements of his own popes. Either way, however, we have seen MB try to claim that the rule of faith is not Scriptures alone but Scriptures Plus, despite his attempted denial of this logical consequence of asserting that HMDT and IAT are also a rule of faith, in addition to Scripture.

MB makes an argument from what he thinks are the teachings of “the Church,” but as Augustine put it, in his essay on Church Unity: “Whoever dissents from the sacred Scriptures, even if they are found in all places in which the church is designated, are not the church.”

MB’s attempt to appeal to the Jews fell short. As MB himself admitted in his opening statement, the Rabbis did not have the guidance of the Holy Spirit that MB believes that “Jesus guaranteed we would have” (MB has failed to recognize that this guarantee is met in Scripture).

Likewise, MB’s attempt to attack the authority of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) was lacking. The WCF does not claim to be self-authoritative, but derives its authority from its agreement with Scripture. Unfortunately, MB seems to have interpreted the WCF through the lenses of his own church’s method of asserting authority for itself. MB fails to recognize that the WCF is more like Augustine who wrote, in his treatise on the Trinity: “So to the latter I say, Do not correct my writings according to the standard of your own opinion or argument, but according to that of the divine Scriptures or irrefutable reason, But if you find anything in them that is true, this is not mine by the mere fact that it is there, and by understanding and loving it, it will become yours as well as mine; but if you find anything false, then the error was mine, but if we avoid it, it will be neither yours nor mine.”

Or, as Jerome put it, “For all questions, let us seek for suitable beams from the testimonies of the Scriptures, and cut them down, and build the house of wisdom within us,” in his comments on Haggai. And again, in his commentary on Matthew, “That which does not have authority from the Scriptures, we may as readily despise (contemn), as well approve.” Jerome clearly saw the unique position of Scripture in establishing doctrines.

MB claims that “we can find ample evidence proving that the Deuterocanonical books were considered Scripture by most Christians for the first 300-400 years,” but MB’s claim is based on focusing on those Christians unfamiliar with the difference between the Jewish canon and the canon of the so-called Septuagint. MB argues from the most ignorant against the most educated of the early church fathers.

MB also presents the issue of contraception. However, as already noted, MB does not and cannot provide a Scriptural case for his position in this regard, leaning instead on the traditions of the men of his church. Meanwhile, during the debate MB complains about the cursory treatment I give to contraception while he provides no treatment at all of the much more relevant innovation of papal infallibility. MB is simply either unwilling or (as seems more probably) unable to provide any defense for this innovation of his church in creating a new rule of faith unknown to even the medieval period.

Throughout the debate, MB is unable to substantiate either HMDT or IAT. IAT is particularly troubling for MB, because not only Scripture but also the early Christian writers are completely silent on this category. HMDT is not so bad, but MB overlooks that all the patristic references to HMDT are either to Scripture (which was handed down from the apostles. For example, in Basil’s Morals, he states: “What is the mark of a Christian? That his justice abound in all things more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, according to the rule of the doctrine which has been handed down in the Lord's Gospel.”) or to customs, such as infant baptism, the celebration of Easter, and the like.

MB seems to fail to appreciate that the only doctrines we can definitively say were handed by the Apostles are those found in Scripture. If one could establish that, for example, that the blanket prohibition on contraception or the view of papal infallibility were the teachings of the apostles, who would refuse to accept them? However, one cannot establish those things as a matter of historical fact. In fact, history does not support such claims, with history only evidencing (and powerfully evidencing) the apostolicity of the New Testament.

As noted above, MB appeals to the “unanimous clear witness of every ancient church before the Reformation” as allegedly denying Sola Scriptura. Unfortunately for MB’s claim, however, MB is not referring to the ancient statements of these “ancient churches” but modern statements of these churches. Furthermore, even if these “ancient churches” are united against Sola Scriptura, they are also (excepting MB’s own church) united against the unscriptural and unhistorical claim of papal infallibility. MB does not listen to them on the latter issue, so why does he expect us to listen to them on the former issue?

We see this same inconsistency in MB’s presentation over and over again. No source that MB relies upon fully agrees with him – even his own pope (in writings from his pre-papal days) denies that Tradition is the Word of God, contrary to MB’s dogmatic assertions. MB appeals to the Jews for the concept of an “Oral Torah” (the very “traditions of men” rejected by Jesus) but then refuses to accept their canon of the Old Testament. Most of all, though history and the fathers are referenced by MB, it is history and the fathers that demonstrate the fact that the general consensus among the educated church fathers was Sola Scriptura.

MB asks whether “we [are] to assume that the Church that Jesus Christ is the head of gives us false doctrine?” Let us simply ask him who gave the church fathers their doctrine? Was it from “the Church” or from Scripture or from where? Since their agreement with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura has been shown, let MB blush to call them all heretics for asserting the same doctrines as we do.

In this debate, MB’s five answers to the five questions really demonstrate why Sola Scriptura has prevailed.

To the many quotations demonstrating that it was common for the ECFs to define the church in terms of believers (rather than defining the church in terms of communion with Rome), Mr. Bellisario asserted “selected emphasis” on my part and claimed he reads the fathers “in their complete context” but couldn’t even produce a single quotation to suggest that anyone defined the church in terms of communion with Rome. Instead, MB provides a quotation from Irenaeus allegedly demonstrating apostolic succession through bishops and the idea that people can appeal to the ancient churches, a questionable quotation from Cyprian of Carthage that Cyprian that he either did not write or later repudiated on the primacy of Peter, and a quotation from Ephraim of Syria on the primacy of Peter.

To the demonstration of the “two sources” position in official Catholicism demonstrating that “Scripture Plus” is an accurate characterization, MB appealed to mystery to solve the contradiction between his explanation and the explanation in the official sources. Furthermore, he went on to insist that Tradition (specifically IAT, if he was answering the question asked) is a form of Divine Revelation, despite the fact that Catholicism teaches that public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle. “. The term “public Revelation” refers to the revealing action of God directed to humanity as a whole and which finds its literary expression in the two parts of the Bible: the Old and New Testaments.” (theological commentary on Fatima by Ratzinger) Furthermore, MB claimed that Tradition like Scripture is “the Word of God,” contrary to the teachings of Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) (quotation provided earlier in this essay). He provided some quotations regarding how in Catholicism it is believed that Tradition and Scripture cannot stand without each other, but this – of course – in no way denies that Catholicism teaches that Tradition is an authority that is additional to Scripture.

To the request that MB identify patristic teachings of infallible IAT, MB provided five quotations from three early Christian writers, but none of them made mention of infallible IAT. Instead, the first mentioned the idea that Orthopraxy accompanies Scripture, its orthodox interpretation, and “the truth … of all the Christian traditions,” the second and third identify the practice (i.e. custom) of infant baptism as allegedly an apostolic tradition (its unclear whether MB acknowledges that infant baptism is taught in Scripture or whether this is supposed to be HMDT), the fourth and fifth were presented to allegedly show that Athanasius thought that the Church’s interpretation was an infallible one. Athanasius, of course, explicitly affirmed Sola Scripture even in the face of a corrupt church that was promulgating heresy (“For if ever God shall give back the churches (for we think He will) yet without such restoration of the churches the Faith is sufficient for us. And lest, speaking without the Scriptures, I should [seem to] speak too strongly, it is well to bring you to the testimony of Scriptures, for recollect that the Temple indeed was at Jerusalem; the Temple was not deserted, aliens had invaded it, whence also the Temple being at Jerusalem, those exiles went down to Babylon by the judgment of God, who was proving, or rather correcting them; while manifesting to them in their ignorance punishment [by means] of blood-thirsty enemies. And aliens indeed had held the Place, but knew not the Lord of the Place, while in that He neither gave answer nor spoke, they were deserted by the truth.”)

Furthermore, MB’s misuse of the quotations is an example of the very “selected emphasis” error he attempts to assert against others. In the quotation from Athanasius, the “they do not rightly know them nor their power” is a reference to Scriptures (i.e. the opinions handed down) not to the “traditions of men” from which Athanasius distinguishes them. MB even goes so far as to falsely claim that Athanasius “does not appeal to Sacred Scripture outside of this understanding,” which we have already shown is false with explicit quotations affirming Sola Scriptura in Athanasius. Thus, Athanasius wrote to Alexander of Constantinople saying of the Arians, “They are not ashamed to oppose the godly clearness of the ancient scriptures.”

To the question of how believers can judge whether their teachers are false (as commanded in Scripture, such as in 1 John 4:1), MB was unable to answer. Instead, MB presented arguments that, just because believers must judge their teachers, doesn’t mean that they can only refer to Scripture. Furthermore, MB is unable to explain why he argues the opposite of Augustine. The reader can see that the reason is that unlike Augustine, MB must rely on the self-proclaimed authority of his church, rather than on the authority of Scriptures alone.

Where do you see the Sola Scriptura humility of Augustine in Catholicism? Augustine wrote, “I do not want you to depend on my authority, so as to think that you must believe something because it is said by me; you should rest your belief either on the canonical Scriptures, if you do not yet see how true something is, or on the truth made manifest to you interiorly, so that you may see clearly,” but one does not see MB’s church making that claim.

Chrysostom, commenting on John’s gospel, explained the answer that MB should have realized was true: “With good reason did He call Scripture a 'door.' For it leads us to God and opens to us the knowledge of God; it makes us His sheep; it guards us; and it does not permit the wolves to enter. Indeed, just as a door provides security, so Scripture prevents the entrance of heretics, places us in safety with regard to all our desires, and does not permit us to go astray. If we do not remove it, we shall not easily be overcome by our enemies. By means of it we shall be able to discriminate between all men: both the true shepherds and those who are not.”

MB was also unable to answer the question of the canon of IAT and HMDT. This naturally takes away all the force of his canon argument against Sola Scriptura since he is unable to provide a canon for his counter-plan of Scripture Plus. Amazingly, MB further concedes that “Tradition does not produce any new content in regards [sic] to the Word of God.” Of course, if that is true, then Scriptures, which are without doubt the Word of God, already have all the content of the Word of God including the canon of Scripture (if that is indeed a part of the Word of God). Of course, on this, MB disagrees with Cardinal Ratzinger as already quoted in Question 2.

In the second phase of cross-examination, MB provided several questions. His first question related to the alleged disuse of sola scriptura by the Jews. It was an odd question, since it was premised on facts that MB himself rejected as untrue in his opening statement. The Jewish traditions were fallible, not infallible. So, whether Jewish writers (“scholars”) today think otherwise is really a moot point.

Besides, there is a limit to what trust one must place in Jewish traditions. As Chrysostom wrote against Judaizing Christians, “Finally, if the ceremonies of the Jews move you to admiration, what do you have in common with us? If the Jewish ceremonies are venerable and great, ours are lies. But if ours are true, as they are true, theirs are filled with deceit. I am not speaking of the Scriptures. Heaven forbid! It was the Scriptures which took me by the hand and led me to Christ.”

MB’s second question related to the perspicuity of Scripture. Here MB (apparently for the first time) attempted to challenge the doctrine taught by the Early Church Fathers and the WCF that the necessary things for salvation are clearly taught in Scripture.

As Lactantius declared in the Divine Institutes, however, “For, being accustomed to sweet and polished speeches or poems, they despise the simple and common language of the sacred writings as mean. For they seek that which may soothe the senses. But whatever is pleasant to the ear effects persuasion, and while it delights fixes itself deeply within the breast. Is God, therefore, the contriver both of the mind, and of the voice, and of the tongue, unable to speak eloquently? Yea, rather, with the greatest foresight, He wished those things which are divine to be without adornment, that all might understand the things which He Himself spoke to all.”

MB’s third question demonstrated his apparent lack of historical knowledge of the church. Apparently imagining that Christendom 1000 years ago looked something like Christendom today, he asked for evidence of something like the Westminster Confession and some group of Christians before the 16th century who believed what we do. Then, he insisted that I not cite the Early Church Fathers in my defense. There’s an obvious reason why he asked for that: because all that the WCF has to say on Sola Scriptura can be found in the ECFs, and MB knows that. This is adequately evidenced above.

MB’s fourth question regarding the Nicene Creed has already been thoroughly addressed in the cross-examination portion. One might simply add to that discussion the testimony of Niceta of Remesiana, who wrote: “These things beings so, beloved, persevere in the tradition which you have learned. Be true to the pact you made with the Lord, to the profession of faith which you made in the presence of angels and of men. The words of the Creed are few—but all the mysteries are in them. Selected from the whole of Scripture and put together for the sake of brevity, they are like precious gems making a single crown. Thus, all the faithful have sufficient knowledge of salvation, even though many are unable, or too busy with their worldly affairs, to read the Scriptures.”

MB’s fifth question largely repeated earlier themes, and has been adequately and thoroughly rebutted in the answer portion of the cross-examination section.

Thankfully, MB did not appeal to the so-called “unanimous consent of the fathers.” As Fitzmyer explains: “No one can ever tell us where such a ‘unanimous consent of the Fathers’ is to be found, and Pius XII finally thought it pertinent to call attention to the fact that there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, ‘nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous.’” (Scripture, the Soul of Theology, p. 70)

Has the burden been met? It has been demonstrated that Scripture speaks only of itself as inspired, that Scripture thoroughly (completely) furnishes the man of God, and that the bulk of the educated church fathers held to Scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith.

What is left? There is nothing but the sole rule of faith – even that commended by Jesus who commanded us to Search the Scriptures.

Basil, in his treatise on Baptism, wrote: “You could find many passages of this sort in the writings of the evangelists and the Apostle. Now, then, if a command be given and the manner of carrying it out is not added, let us obey the Lord, who says: 'Search the Scriptures.' Let us follow the example of the Apostles who questioned the Lord Himself as to the interpretation of His words, and learn the true and salutary course from His words in another place.”

Or to put it otherwise, as Basil of Caesarea declared (in Of Virtue and Life), “All the commands of the Savior are written.”

-TurretinFan

(written without the benefit of MB’s conclusion)

Negative Closing Essay

2008-12-01T20:00:00.001Z

Sola Scriptura Closing Essay Negative
By Matthew James Bellisario 2008

Summary

I will close by summing up the failure of Turretin Fan to prove his position of Sola Scriptura beyond a reasonable doubt. Turretin Fan agreed to the task of proving the affirmative position of the doctrine Sola Scriptura. That means he must provide a solid case to prove his premise. I propose that not only did he not do this, he did not even come within a stones throw of doing so. It is clear that there is more clear evidence for Scripture in Tradition than for Scripture Alone.

Point 1. Scripture does not provide any substance for the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura

Turretin Fan started off by using passages of Scripture to try and prove his position. In my opening rebuttal I went through almost every Biblical verse he provided and proved that they did not address Scripture as being the only rule of faith. In fact every verse he cited never proposed such a teaching. Turretin fell into the logical fallacy of Petitio Principii. He wants us to believe that every Biblical reference to the profitability and importance of Sacred Scripture means that it proves his position of Scripture Alone, when in fact none of the passages do so. As I pointed out in my opening rebuttal, just because the Scriptures are spoken of as being profitable, and should be held in high regard does not mean it is the sole substance of the Gospel separated from Sacred Tradition. He has to prove this first before he can use any of the Scripture verses he provided, for none of them say anything even close to substantiating Scripture alone.

Point 2. Sacred Scripture and the early Church writings substantiate Scripture in Tradition as well as the authority of the Church.

The Sacred Scriptures do give testimony to both written and unwritten forms of Divine Revelation and testify to the authority of the Church. The Sacred Scriptures tell us in I Tim 3:15, “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” Ephesians 3:10-13 tells us, “That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church, According to the eternal purpose, which he made, in Christ Jesus our Lord: In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him. Wherefore I pray you not to faint at my tribulations for you, which is your glory.”

I provided a source from Saint John Chrysostom which was never refuted which proves a Catholic interpretation of 2nd Thessalonians proving that not all Christian teaching was given to us in written form. Saint Chrysostom in his homily on the Second Letter to the Thessalonians speaks on the 2nd Chapter and 15th verse, “So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours. ”Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken.” We can see Saint John interpreted this verse as Catholics do, and not as Tf does. This is also a clear example of Tradition in action regarding proper interpretation of Scripture.

I quoted Saint Irenaeus proving that he also perceived the Church as being the primary authority. Saint Irenaeus (c202AD) also tells us in Against Heresies, the 3rd book, 4th Chapter that the Church gives us all things pertaining to the truth, “1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. 17. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question Latin, “modica quæstione.” among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?”

I also quoted Saint Epiphanius of Salamis who wrote in his Panacea against all heresies, “It is needful also to make use of Tradition; for not everything can be gotten from Sacred Scripture. The holy Apostles handed down some things in the Scriptures, other things in Tradition.” Thus I provided a substantial argument for my position from both Sacred Scripture and early Church sources that Turretin Fan could provide not in his affirmative position.

Point 3. All Ancient churches profess Scripture in Tradition.

I provided several sources from other ancient churches other than the Catholic church regarding Sacred Tradition. I provided several sources including the Coptic Church. When I asked Turretin Fan to give me a profession of a “church” before the “Reformation” the best he could offer was the Waldensian confession, which was not from a “church” at all. In fact the Church's bishops rejected their errors. Secondly it appears that Turretin Fan did a quick search on the internet for his date of this “confession” because he provided an incorrect date of 1120. All real scholars and historian agree that the movement didn't even begin until 1170. I did a little research and found that only a couple of websites gives a date of 1120. They are questionable sources at best. It so happens that if you go to Google and type in Waldensian confession, the first website that comes up says the confession is from 1120. Upon real research however I discovered that real scholars from Cambridge, Oxford and the like put a date of 1170 for the earliest beginning of the movement. Secondly this tiny schismatic group is far from “reformed” since they too believed in doctrines such as Transubstantiation as well as most of the Catholic teachings. The fact is their first confession written in 1180 and was seeking the establishment and approval from the Catholic Church for his group called the Poor of Lyons, and it spoke nothing of Scripture Alone in it. It wasn't until much later that the group would start rejecting Church teachings. If this is the best Turretin has to offer for a church document proving Sola Scriptura then we have nothing to worry about. This group during the early period 1180-1200s) never established their own “church”. They were in fact excommunicated as schismatics in 1184 by the bishops of the Church, and were not formally anathematized until 1215. This is clearly a poor example given by TF in a desperate attempt to find a church profession like his existing before the “Reformation.” It obviously was not.

Point 4 Proper Interpretation of Scripture abandoned in favor fallible tools?

I asked TF why we should believe that his interpretation of Sacred Scripture is the correct one. He gave us a circular answer by stating, “ compare my interpretation to the infallible rule of faith (Scripture), pray to God for wisdom, use the fallible tools that you have (whether that be lexicons, church teachings, etc.), and see whether my interpretations are correct.” So now TF wants us to incorporate fallible rules of faith to establish what the real interpretation of Scripture is? I find this reasoning quite off balance, since we can obviously never obtain a proper interpretation with fallible tools . This is precisely why you need the Church which is infallible, and not fallible man made confessions to arrive at proper exegesis. Every single “Protestant” denomination uses this faulty method, and that is why they all believe something different.

Point 5 Necessary teaching, is not necessary to know?

I am completely amazed by this statement to my question on defining what and what is not necessary regarding doctrine. This is the answer Tf gave me. “First, knowing what is necessary (or not) to salvation is not itself necessary to salvation.” Tf is completely lost at this point. He is using faulty logic and cryptic reasoning to give you the impression he has an argument. For example, “We are not claiming that Scripture clearly delineates each of the necessary from all the unnecessary, but that Scripture clearly teaches those things that are themselves necessary (such as, for example, theism).” Does any rational person use reasoning like this? We as Catholics know, what is necessary for salvation, and what is necessary as Church doctrine period. We don't have to dance around the issue like he does. It is clear that he must moves clam shells around to avoid answering the question.

Point 6 The Church: When you cant win, use selective emphasis.

I pointed out the characteristics of the true Church, and TF decided to selectively quote church fathers to back up his deficient definition of Church. I then took the same Church fathers he quoted and demonstrated how his view of the Church was an incomplete one by quoting other writings which gave us a more complete picture of what they believed. This is important because we can see that the Church itself is infallible, contrary to the statements of TF.

Point 7 The Jews and Scripture Alone

I pulled from two Jewish scholars and proved that the ancient Jewish faith did not believe in Scripture Alone. Tf never refuted with any substantial evidence from any source other than his own opinion. He thinks his own opinion and expertise on the Jewish religion is superior to the two scholars I provided. I find that amusing, and quite absurd. Secondly he confuses divine revelation before and after Christ by trying to pin me down to the Jewish Canon of Scripture. We all know that there was not a real Jewish canon until after Christ came. This is not even rational argumentation. We know the Church would decide what would be the final biblical canon, not the Jews, nor TF. This is just poor argumentation. He is not even equating apples to apples here. He then continued to show his ignorance by equating Jewish practices with Jewish oral Tradition, which are two different matters. He quoted Chrysostom out of context. Chrysostom was talking about incorporating Jewish practices into Christian worship and the like, which I never even addressed. I clearly compared oral Torah to written Torah. It is clear that the Jews did not hold to Scripture Alone. That is my point. I don't care about incorporating Jewish practices into Christianity. Why Tf feels the need to bring something into the argument that isn't even being addressed is obvious. He needs to deflect the obvious fact the the Jews never held to Scripture Alone. This is a fact. They believed that there was oral and written divine revelation, just as the Church now does. Sacred Tradition was never condemned by Christ as Tf declares. He rejected traditions of men.

Closing remarks.

Even though I have a 5000 word limit in this closing essay, I don't feel the need to use them. Turretin was defeated because he could not provide one Scripture passage that tells us that Scripture Alone is the sole rule of faith. He failed because the constant universal testimony of the Church testifies to Scripture in Tradition. This includes every ancient church in the world including those not in communion with Rome. Tf resorted to the fallacy of selective emphasis on many occasions rather than presenting the full story, whether it be from the Church Fathers or the Sacred Scriptures.

I demonstrated the fact that Sacred Tradition indeed is a testimony of the Church. The witness of the living Church in her Liturgies, her writings, and Scripture attest to this fact. In my essays I provided a detailed source list for further reading as well as providing a basis for my arguments. It is clear that Turretin Fan has not won the affirmative position of this debate.

Sources from all of my essays.

Ariel, David S. What Do Jews Believe. New York: Schocken Books, 1995.

Ratzinger, Joseph. God's Word. San Francisco: Ignatius P, 2008.

Hahn, Scott. Letter and Spirit. New York: Doubleday, 2005

Fagerberg, David. The Liturgical Mystery and the Mystery of God (Letter and Spirit Journal Vol2) Steubenville, Saint Paul Center for Biblical Theology 2006

Provan, Charles D. The Bible and Birth Control. Monongahela PA: Zimmer Printing 1989

Steinsaltz, Adin. The Essential Talmud. New York: Basic Books, 2006.

Lossky, Vladimir. In the Image and Likeness of God. Crestwood NY: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2005

Fortescue, Adrain. The Early Papacy. San Francisco: Ignatius Press 2008

Metzger, Bruce M., and May, Herbert G., New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha Expanded Edition RSV. New York: Oxford UP, 1977.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Libreria Editrice Vatican 1997

Holy See, ed. "Catechism of the Catholic Church." Vatican.Va. Vatican/Holy See. .

Dei Verbum, Second Vatican Council

Fr. George Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, pp. 48-49

http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/church3-3.html)

Gordon-Conwell Seminary

Answer 5 from Affirmative

2008-11-01T16:00:00.002Z

MB: “God has always put forth His authority in a living entity.”

This claim is vacuous. God wrote the Ten Commandments in stone.

MB: “In the Old Covenant He gave the Jews the living Levitical priesthood to interpret the Living Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures put forth by God as Divine Revelation. There was a visible authority for the Jews to follow. Judaism was never a Scripture alone faith.”

See Answer 1. Additionally, the Levitical priesthood’s primarily purpose was carrying out the sacrificial system, not serving as lawyers.

MB: “We see a continuation of this with Jesus, the Word of God coming in the flesh to become the high priest who gave us a Church as "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).”

The church can have the purpose of being “the pillar and foundation of truth” without always achieving that objective to the highest degree. Recall that the Sanhedrin had the Mosaic legislative role, but poorly executed it.

MB: “He also gave us a living Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures within this structure (2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2).”

The prooftexts don’t support MB’s claim.

MB: “The Church structure is visible ("I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" Matt. 16:18), it is passed down through apostolic succession.”

The comment about building His church doesn’t imply a “visible structure.” Jesus was a carpenter, but the church He built didn’t come from a lumberyard. Likewise, the gates of hell are metaphorical, not literal.

MB: “Christ told the disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16)”

That proves the authority of the Scriptures those disciples passed down.

MB: “and the Church maintains a character of authority (Matt. 18:18),”

We agree that the church has authority, derivative authority.

MB: “just as the Nicene Creed also professes.”

Not true, see Answer 4.

MB: “By this Church entity given to us by Christ we can know the correct interpretations of Sacred Scripture and what the full deposit of Divine Revelation is.”

Even prooftexting fails MB, since Scriptures are unaware of the theology of Vatican II.

MB: “The chair of Saint Peter (John 21:15–17 "Feed my sheep . . . ", Luke 22:32 "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail", and Matthew 16:18 "You are Peter . . . ") was given to us just as the Jews had the chair of Moses (Matt. 23:2) as the uniting visible head of the Church, although Jesus Christ remains the true head of the Church (Hebrews 2:17) , he also gave us the Holy Spirit to guide it infallibly as well (John 16:13).”

The Bible doesn’t mention a “chair of Peter.” The passages cited don’t stand for the idea of Petrine primacy. Interestingly, MB decided to make a presentation for Petrine primacy in the fathers.

MB provided a quotation from Ambrose that Peter was the rock and foundation of the church. Despite insistence that Sola Scriptura advocates must find “alone” in their texts, Ambrose doesn’t say that Peter “alone” is the foundation. Furthermore, Ambrose himself goes on to say in book 5 that “the Person of Christ” “is the foundation of all and is the head of the Church,” having already said in book 2, “Nor was Paul inferior to Peter though the latter was the foundation of the Church.”

MB provided a quotation from Augustine that actually undermines his “Peter alone” theory, since Augustine states, “Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure ….”

MB provided a quotation allegedly from the Council of Ephesus, but in fact the simply the statement of Philip, a presbyter from Rome, at that council.

MB: “You said in your rebuttal, ‘Our interpretations are fallible, but Scripture is infallible.’”

Yes, because it is the Word of God: the only infallible Being.

Isaiah 40:6-8

6The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, … surely the people is grass. 8The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

1 Peter 1:24-25

24For all flesh is as grass … The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

MB asked, “If all interpretations of the Sacred Scriptures are fallible as you claim, then how can anyone know for sure what the correct interpretation is without an authority higher than the Scriptures themselves?”

Man can wish otherwise, but it is intrinsic to mankind in this life to fallibly interpret. There’s no way around it. The appropriate mechanism for understanding Scripture is comparing Scripture to Scripture, asking the Holy Spirit for assistance, and utilizing the subservient tools God has given us.

MB secondly asked, “Should we believe you just because you say so, or some confession says so?”

No. See Answer 4.

MB: “Of course one would answer with “the Holy Spirit tells us”, but every one of the 9000 denominations all tell us this as well.”

With respect to the counterplan – one is in the same boat: “my church tells me,” is the same thing that all the denominations that reject Sola Scriptura likewise say.

MB thirdly asked, “My question is, who can interpret the Sacred Scriptures infallibly, and how can we know for sure without a visible God breathed Church entity as the one I have pointed out above?”

God alone is infallible. The only God-breathed entity described in Scripture is Scripture itself. If MB wishes to claim that his church is inspired, he steps not only beyond Scripture and the early church, but even beyond the teaching authority of his own church.

-TurretinFan

Answer 4 from Affirmative

2008-11-01T15:00:00.001Z

MB’s next questions relate to the Nicene Creed, which he thinks is: “professed by every ancient Christian church in existence as containing a sound foundation to Christianity.”

The two Councils (respectively composing and revising it) provided a creed: a short recital of important Scriptural doctrines not the foundation itself.

As Augustine, in sermon 212, explained:

“We call it Creed or symbolum, transferring the term by a kind of simile, because merchants draw up for themselves a syrnbolum by which their alliance is held bound as by a pact of fidelity. Your union, moreover, is a spiritual fellowship, so that you are like traders seeking a valuable pearl, that is, the charity which will be poured forth in your hearts by the Holy Spirit who will be given to you. One makes progress toward this charity by faith in what is contained in the Creed: that you believe in God the Father Almighty, the invisible, immortal King of ages, the Creator of things visible and invisible; and in whatever else either sound reason or the authority of holy Scripture worthily tells us about Him.”

John Cassian, in Book VI, Chapter III, explained:

“For as you know a Creed (Symbolum) gets its name from being a collection. For what is called in Greek σίμβολο is termed in Latin “Collatio.” But it is therefore a collection (collation) because when the faith of the whole Catholic law was collected together by the apostles of the Lord all those matters which are spread over the whole body of the sacred writings with immense fulness of detail were collected together in sum in the matchless brevity of the Creed according to the Apostle's words: “Completing His word and cutting it short in righteousness because a short word shall the Lord make upon the earth.” This then is the short word which the Lord made collecting together in few words the faith of both of His Testaments and including in a few brief clauses the drift of all the Scriptures building up His own out of His own and giving the force of the whole law in a most compendious and brief formula. Providing in this, like a most tender father, for the carelessness and ignorance of some of his children that no mind however simple and ignorant might have any trouble over what could so easily be retained in the memory.”

Cassian described the Creed of Antioch, and Augustine apparently the so-called Apostle’s creed, but both explain that creeds were derived from the foundation of Scripture, Cassian more explicitly and Augustine less explicitly.

MB asked (first question), “Why does this Creed not profess Scripture Alone, and instead focuses on the Church?”

Only once does the creed mention why the miraculous is believed: the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The one reason for believing: Scripture. Furthermore, discussing how the Holy Spirit speaks, the creed mentions only that the Holy Spirit is he “Who spake by the prophets.” The word “spake” (λαλησαν) is aorist (perfect in Latin: “locútus est”), indicating something already completed, as opposed to an ongoing process. This too is refers to Scripture, the prophets metonymically representing the inspired writings (cf. Matthew 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.). The creed does not “focus on the Church.”

Toward the end, the Creed lists “[and] (in) one holy, catholic, and apostolic church … ” (Greek version using square brackets, Latin in parentheses). Only such a church’s existence is mentioned. In contrast, the creed refers twice to Scripture, and the creed itself simply summarizes Scriptural doctrine. When it refers to Scripture explicitly, it for establishing the matter, and when it refers to Scripture indirectly (as “the prophets”) it for explaining their authority, namely that God spoke by them. In contrast, the church is not identified in the Nicene Creed as the foundation for anything.

MB continues, “Notice the Creed also does not mention Tradition either, since it is obvious that it resides in the structure of the Church.” “Either”? It seems MB has gone from missing one of the two references to Scripture in the creed to imagining that Scripture is not mentioned at all. In fact, “tradition” is not mentioned at all – but to suggest that this is because “it resides in the structure of the Church,” doesn’t explain the silence. The Scripture, being itself within Tradition (according to MB) would likewise “reside in the structure of the Church,” but it is explicitly mentioned. So, MB’s explanation of the silence isn’t and shouldn’t be persuasive.

Secondly, MB asks, “My question is, why when this Creed was written was the emphasis put on believing in the Catholic Church, rather than a profession of following the Sacred Scriptures alone?”

a) False dichotomy. We too believe in the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

b) Fallacy of selected emphasis. MB’s emphasis is on that clause, but that clause was not the emphasis of the drafters of the creed. It was only added in the revision to the creed at Constantinople. In any event, that clause is not the emphasis of the creed – the emphasis of the creed is on Christ’s divinity.

c) Fallacy of Non Sequitur. Although MB may wish that the creed suggested that men should believe what the “Catholic Church” says, that’s not what the creed says. Instead, the emphasis in the creed is on the unity, universality, and historicity of the church.

Thirdly, MB asked: “After all, if this (Sola Scriptura) is the bedrock of Christianity as you have been trying to prove, then why did this ancient council in the midst of heavy controversy neglect to include this in its Creed?”

Even the Arians were not so foolish as to deny that Scripture is the sole rule of faith; the issue that was being addressed was not the rule of faith, but the divinity of Christ; and they already addressed it as discussed above.

MB finally asked, “An inadvertent omission or error perhaps?” Already answered above.

-TurretinFan

Answer 3 from Affirmative

2008-11-01T14:00:00.000Z

Question 3 Where is your church and its confession in the world before the 16th century?

Answer: My church is not defined by walls. Instead, my church is defined by faith in the Christ of the Scriptures (as the ECFs taught as already pointed out to you in my first question). As Jesus said:

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

The confession is simply a summary of Scriptural teachings. It does not replace or substitute the Scriptures.

MB claimed, “Your beliefs and opinions regarding Sacred Scripture are found in no church in existence before the … 16th century.” That assertion is not true. Even if it were true, however, it is irrelevant to this debate. That’s not a standard that MB’s counter-plan can stand up to. Trent’s position on Scripture – or better yet Vatican II’s position on Scripture – may find partial support in some early conciliar documents – but nothing that was written with the object of reflecting the views of an entire church.

MB then identified the statements from my opening post on the canon, the sufficiency of Scripture, and the perspicuity of Scripture. MB acknowledged that, “There are more teachings that I can list, but I will use these for my question.” Picking and choosing teachings is an interesting way to evaluate the matter. Nevertheless, these are what he picked.

MB continued, “In fact whether the church be Syrian, Maronite, Syro-Malankara, Coptic, Ethiopic, Byzantine, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar or Armenian, they all reject your 66 book Canon and they all reject Sola Scriptura.”

It’s interesting that MB tries to use them as a guide. They cannot agree among themselves on the canon or on whether the pope’s ex cathedra statements are part of the rule of faith. They may all wish to add to the Bible in one way or another (as also others do), but their testimony is at odds, one with another. Even within Romanism, there are some who argue that the number of the books in the canon has not been definitively fixed by Trent, there are divisions on material sufficiency, and there seem to be disagreements over perspicuity.

MB acknowledged that, “Everyone of these different churches claim and can historically trace their existence back to the apostles themselves.” So can, in the same sense, every church (including the many Reformed churches). The Jews (whether Pharisee, Sadducee, or modern Kabbalist) historically trace themselves back to Moses. But unless MB wants to say that the apostles were divided over papal infallibility and the canon of Scripture, the ability to trace one’s genealogy is simply a Jewish genetic fallacy.

MB claimed, “They all attest to Sacred Scripture within Sacred Tradition.” They themselves cannot agree what the bounds of either Scripture or Tradition are. This actually undermines the counter-plan. One cannot use this genetic fallacy that because these churches can somehow trace themselves back to ancient times, consequently they are right – because they disagree with one another on the very issues that MB tries to make important. Likewise, the exact relationship between Scripture and Tradition is not defined outside of Romanism by the equivalent of Trent and Vatican II. And, of course, before the 16^th century there was not even an equivalent to Trent in Romanism. Thus, the implication that because there was no pre-Tridentine Reformation council that produced a document like the Westminster Confession of Faith, is not an argument that can be made consistently by MB.

MB claimed, “All of these Rites exist within the Catholic Church and in the Eastern Orthodox, and hail from all over the world, established by different apostles, yet they all hold to the Catholic teaching of Sacred Tradition.” In fact, however, it’s hard enough for members only of Romanism (whether of the Latin or other rite) to agree on what the teaching of “Sacred Tradition” is. It is the height of naiveté to suppose that all of the listed churches hold to “the Catholic teaching” of the matter.

MB asserted, “If your claim of Sola Scriptura is true, we should see these claims made somewhere among the ancient churches as well.” MB anachronistically calls these modern churches ancient, and ignores the fact that in ancient times these churches did not resort to anything but Scripture as a rule of faith. We have shown that from the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

MB asked, “My question is, where is your Westminster confession equivalent, proving Sola Scriptura among any ancient church group before the 16th century, and where is the your [sic] equivalent Liturgy of the Eucharist proving these beliefs in practice.”

That, again, is two questions (and the third of this round). The answer to the former would include, for example, the Waldensian Confession of 1120. The answer to the latter question may be answered by the simple liturgy of the Waldensians as well. Certainly there have been some questions raised about the historicity of these Waldensian documents, but even those who claim that the Waldensian materials are fake, admit that the Waldensians existed as a group before the 16^th century. Ultimately, the problem with the question can be seen from MB’s own caveat:

MB insisted, “Please do not quote Church Fathers individually, since all of the Church Fathers belonged to one of the above groups and all celebrated one of their ancient Liturgies.” It is interesting how quick MB is to try to silence the testimony of the Fathers, and to make unsupported assertions regarding their beliefs/worship. There is no reason for MB to ask that they not be quoted “individually,” except that MB already knows what their testimony would be. For example, MB surely knows that Cardinal Cajetan (writing before Trent’s decree) admitted that Jerome rejected the Apocrypha as being canonical scriptures in the strict sense. Furthermore, their individual testimonies demonstrate that the churches who claim to trace their lineage back to the apostles do not follow the teachings of the apostles.

-TurretinFan

Answer 2 from Affirmative

2008-11-01T13:00:00.002Z

I had written: “(VII) Not all of the teachings of Scripture are equally clear, but the things necessary to be known for salvation are clearly taught, so that even uneducated people can understand them.”

MB asked: “My question is, why should anyone believe that your interpretation of Sacred Scripture or any other Protestant group's interpretation is the correct one, and why should anyone believe that you or they can determine what is necessary and what is not?”

That’s (at least) two questions already (more below). The answer to the first should be obvious: compare my interpretation to the infallible rule of faith (Scripture), pray to God for wisdom, use the fallible tools that you have (whether that be lexicons, church teachings, etc.), and see whether my interpretations are correct. As Augustine put it, in his letter (147) to Paulina: “I do not want you to depend on my authority, so as to think that you must believe something because it is said by me; you should rest your belief either on the canonical Scriptures, if you do not yet see how true something is, or on the truth made manifest to you interiorly, so that you may see clearly.”

The answer to the second is two-fold. First, knowing what is necessary (or not) to salvation is not itself necessary to salvation. Second, one must believe that the Scripture is able to make us wise unto salvation. I don’t insist that people have to delineate precisely what is necessary (versus unnecessary) to know to be saved for themselves to be saved. I wonder whether MB simply has misunderstood the WCF and me. We are not claiming that Scripture clearly delineates each of the necessary from all the unnecessary, but that Scripture clearly teaches those things that are themselves necessary (such as, for example, theism).

MB also asked (third question, for those counting): “Why do so many “necessary” teachings regarding salvation differ from each other, when all of these “denominations” are using the same method that you are using, all claiming that these “necessary” doctrines are so easy to arrive at from Sacred Scripture?”

MB cited a seminary web site that identified 9000 denominations. Although MB thinks “they all profess a belief that everything we need to know about salvation is clear in Sacred Scripture,” MB is mistaken. That 9000 number includes plenty of denominations that don’t profess such a belief. I wish that they all did. I’ll further answer this question with the next.

MB asked (fourthly): “If they are so easy to understand then why isn't something such as salvation and justification agreed upon?”

In broad terms there is wide agreement on things like salvation and justification. The more detail you introduce, the less agreement you see. A simple explanation is that a very detailed understanding is not something necessary for a person to know to be saved. That’s something even most of Rome’s own apologists would admit.

a) There are many things that prevent people from seeing clear truths. Sometimes it is hardness of heart – sometimes it is blind guides. (See, for example, Matthew 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.)

b) More importantly, there is a difference between knowing the things that are necessary for salvation and knowing which things are necessary for salvation. A simple faith may be unable to explain theology well, but it does not mean that the necessary things are unknown to that person. In other words, one can know the necessary things for salvation without being able clearly to distinguish the necessary things from the remaining things.

c) In broad terms there is wide agreement on things like salvation and justification. The more detail you introduce, the less agreement you see. A simple explanation is that a high level of detail is not something necessary for a person to know in order to be saved. That’s something that would even be admitted by your own church. It is not necessary fully to understand Trent’s doctrine of justification in order to be saved according to most of Catholicism’s spokesmen.

MB brought up the issue of perseverance; I don’t know very many Christians who would consider that knowing whether people can lose their salvation is something that is necessary for salvation. In fact, we also not saved by knowing how we are saved – we are saved by trusting in the finished work of Christ alone for our salvation. MB also brings up predestination, but Catholicism itself permits differences of opinion between Molinists and Thomists on that issue. MB mentions baptism too, but interestingly virtually all the 9000 denominations he identified would practice baptism in some form.

MB claimed, “… among these denominations that hold to Sola Scriptura, many disagree with each other as to what is and what is not, "necessary".” They may indeed disagree about that. I cannot think of any, however, who would say one has to know which things are necessary, in order to be saved.

For the purposes of this debate, though, one wonders why MB does not direct this criticism toward Chrysostom, who (making the same point the WCF and I make) declared, “All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; all things that are necessary are plain.” Meanwhile, dear reader, keep in mind, as Augustine said (same letter as above): “My reason for inserting these opinions of such great men on such a great subject was not to make you think that anyone's interpretation should be accepted with the authority due to the canonical Scripture, but that those who are otherwise minded may try to see with their mind what is true, and to seek God in the simplicity of their heart, and cease to find fault so rashly with the learned expounders of the divine words.”

- TurretinFan

Answer 1 from Affirmative

2008-11-01T12:00:00.000Z

MB asked: “My question is, why do you reject the ancient Jewish position of Scripture and Tradition as one living source of Divine Revelation, when I have presented two scholars who attest to it?

My reason for rejecting MB’s scholars is Scripture, as will be explained below.

MB also asked: “I have now provided an additional example presented from Sacred Scripture itself with Jesus Himself clearly referring to an oral Tradition of the Jews. Please explain.”

As best understood, this is supposed to be part of one question, since the rules limit the number of questions for MB to ask. Thus, the explanation is interlaced within the detailed response below. Furthermore, it should be noted that there is an important shift in MB’s claim between saying that Jesus referred to an oral tradition and claiming that oral traditions were infallible. That Jews had oral traditions is undisputed and even if MB’s scholars disagree, one would think that MB would admit that the Jewish traditions were fallible.

For the more detailed reply:

A) As Cyril of Alexandria (5^th Century) wrote regarding Isaiah 9:14-16: There were some among the Jews, in fact, who interpreted the Law given through the all-wise Moses, but acted corruptly by unjustly applying to the laws of Moses unwritten traditions, human requirements, and teachings. They led the mass of Jews astray, and caused them to rear their neck proudly against Christ; so since they followed the views of the priests, who acted in the role of a head, he called then the tail, since, as I said, the tail follows the head when we think in terms of a single body. When he refers to them as prophets, however, we shall not take them to be holy and true prophets, since he went on to say that they teach iniquity.”

B) Jesus was able to “make use of an Oral tradition,” but in Scripture He did so only in a critical way (for example he bashes the Jews’ oral tradition in Matthew 15:2-6, Mark 7:3-13, and Luke 6:1-5).

C) Jesus’ comment in Matthew 23:1-3 about the “seat of Moses” and “do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you,” does not support MB’s contention that the “ancient Jewish position” was that “Scripture and Tradition [are] one living source of Divine Revelation.” This can be seen as follows:

i) Jesus’ disciples recognized that Jesus did no mean that the Sanhedrin’s authority was on a par with the Word of God, for when that body of authority contradicted the word of God the disciples violated the teaching that body:

Acts 5:27-29

27And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, 28Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.

29Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

ii) The concept of the “chair of Moses” is simply a metonym, like the “seat of the scorner” or the “path of the righteous.” There is no good reason to suppose that the reference to the “seat of Moses” is a reference to anything other than to the role of leadership over Israel.

iii) As noted above, no one doubts that the Jews had oral teachings. 1 Corinthians 10:4 (cited by MB) doesn’t prove that, but it is a moot point.

iv) MB seems to fall into the trap of conflating oral (or simply extra-scriptural) tradition with respect to history with oral tradition of the kind needed for his counter-plan.

D) MB states, “I presented evidence from two Jewish scholars in my opening statement, who readily admit that the Jewish faith was not a faith of Scripture alone, yet you never even made an attempt to refute them in your rebuttal.” Jesus himself condemned Jewish scholars who made Scriptures of none effect through their tradition. I don’t have a better answer than His.

E) MB repeats the two modern Jewish sources from his opening essay. I certainly agree that like Catholicism, Judaism cannot justify itself from Scripture alone, and consequently must deny Sola Scriptura. I also agree that consequently the claims of modern Judaism are very similar to the claims of Rome: and just as false in Jesus’ day when he condemned the Jews, as in our day, when we condemn Roman traditions.

F) MB argues that according to his Jewish sources, the ancient Jewish Oral Tradition held the same weight as the written.

i) Yes – they said so, but MB claimed that the Oral Traditions were fallible. MB contradicted his own evidence. MB was right in saying that they were fallible, for Jesus condemned them. I have a standard to determine whether MB or the Jews are right, the infallible standard of Scripture.

ii) But now it seems to be the case that MB wants to adopt the position of his Jewish sources. MB states, “This means that they are Divine Revelation from God Himself.” If that is so, why does MB not obey them? In particular, on the issue of the canon, why does MB reject their testimony? Furthermore, why does MB accept Jesus’ claim to be divine, since Jesus contradicted the oral traditions of the Jews?

G) As Chrysostom (4^th to 5^th centuries) declared against Judaizing Christians, “Finally, if the ceremonies of the Jews move you to admiration, what do you have in common with us? If the Jewish ceremonies are venerable and great, ours are lies. But if ours are true, as they are true, theirs are filled with deceit. I am not speaking of the Scriptures. Heaven forbid! It was the Scriptures which took me by the hand and led me to Christ.

-TurretinFan

To which we answer,

Scripture is the alone rule of faith.

To which we answer,

Scripture is the alone rule of faith.

To which we answer,

Question 5 from Negative

2008-10-06T02:09:00.000+01:00

Question 5 Fallible and Infallible Interpretations

by Matthew Bellisario

God has always put forth His authority in a living entity. In the Old Covenant He gave the Jews the living Levitical priesthood to interpret the Living Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures put forth by God as Divine Revelation. There was a visible authority for the Jews to follow. Judaism was never a Scripture alone faith. (1995 Ariel)

We see a continuation of this with Jesus, the Word of God coming in the flesh to become the high priest who gave us a Church as "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). He also gave us a living Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures within this structure (2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2). The Church structure is visible ("I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" Matt. 16:18), it is passed down through apostolic succession. Christ told the disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16), , and the Church maintains a character of authority (Matt. 18:18), just as the Nicene Creed also professes. By this Church entity given to us by Christ we can know the correct interpretations of Sacred Scripture and what the full deposit of Divine Revelation is. The chair of Saint Peter (John 21:15–17 "Feed my sheep . . . ", Luke 22:32 "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail", and Matthew 16:18 "You are Peter . . . ") was given to us just as the Jews had the chair of Moses (Matt. 23:2) as the uniting visible head of the Church, although Jesus Christ remains the true head of the Church (Hebrews 2:17) , he also gave us the Holy Spirit to guide it infallibly as well (John 16:13).

Saint Ambrose of Milan rightly wrote, "[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Saint Augustine also correctly wrote, "Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

Finally the Council of Ephesus in 431 stated, "Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (ibid., session 3).

You said in your rebuttal, “Our interpretations are fallible, but Scripture is infallible.” If all interpretations of the Sacred Scriptures are fallible as you claim, then how can anyone know for sure what the correct interpretation is without an authority higher than the Scriptures themselves? Should we believe you just because you say so, or some confession says so? Of course one would answer with “the Holy Spirit tells us”, but every one of the 9000 denominations all tell us this as well. My question is, who can interpret the Sacred Scriptures infallibly, and how can we know for sure without a visible God breathed Church entity as the one I have pointed out above?

Ariel, David S. What Do Jews Believe. New York: Schocken Books, 1995

Question 4 from Negative

2008-10-06T02:08:00.000+01:00

Question 4 The Nicene Creed Omission.

by Matthew Bellisario

The Nicene Creed is professed by every ancient Christian church in existence as containing a sound foundation to Christianity. It was composed in the 4th century (381) and is generally referred to as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Why does this Creed not profess Scripture Alone, and instead focuses on the Church? The Creed specifically says , “I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church” and never refers to Scripture alone. In fact it refers only once to Sacred Scripture regarding the resurrection and never implies a Scripture alone position. The reason to me is obvious in that if one rested on the foundation of the Church, then they would be taught correct doctrine, and would also have the fullness of Divine revelation which includes Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Notice the Creed also does not mention Tradition either, since it is obvious that it resides in the structure of the Church. The Creed also professes the Catholic doctrine on Baptism as well, but that is for another time and place. My question is, why when this Creed was written was the emphasis put on believing in the Catholic Church, rather than a profession of following the Sacred Scriptures alone? After all, if this (Sola Scriptura) is the bedrock of Christianity as you have been trying to prove, then why did this ancient council in the midst of heavy controversy neglect to include this in its Creed? An inadvertent omission or error perhaps?

Question 3 from Negative

2008-10-06T02:07:00.000+01:00

Question 3 Where is your church and its confession in the world before the 16th century?

by Matthew Bellisario

There is a glaring reality staring you in the face which you fail to acknowledge. Your beliefs and opinions regarding Sacred Scripture are found in no church in existence before the the 16th century. Let me be more specific. You made these claims among others in your opening statement,

“We have sixty-six books of Scripture.

We reject as authoritative the Apocrypha – those additional books and parts that are not inspired, but which have sometimes been called Deuterocanonical. They are of historical interest – and they are of grammatical interest, since they are ancient books written in Greek. Nevertheless, since they are not inspired, they do not have any more authority than any other human writings.

The Bible is a complete document. It is sufficient. It contains everything that we need to know for faith and life in general, in order to glorify God and in order to be saved. Nevertheless, the illumination of the Holy Spirit – who persuades us of the truth of inspiration of Scripture – is necessary for anyone to obtain a saving knowledge of God, even from Scripture. It is complete – but it is not exhaustive.

Not all of the teachings of Scripture are equally clear, but the things necessary to be known for salvation are clearly taught, so that even uneducated people can understand them.”

There are more teachings that I can list, but I will use these for my question. There is no church in existence before the 16th century that ever made these false claims. In fact whether the church be Syrian, Maronite, Syro-Malankara, Coptic, Ethiopic, Byzantine, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar or Armenian, they all reject your 66 book Canon and they all reject Sola Scriptura. Everyone of these different churches claim and can historically trace their existence back to the apostles themselves. They all attest to Sacred Scripture within Sacred Tradition. All of these Rites exist within the Catholic Church and in the Eastern Orthodox, and hail from all over the world, established by different apostles, yet they all hold to the Catholic teaching of Sacred Tradition.

We have all of these ancient churches which attest to Sacred Tradition in their Liturgies, as well as in their church writings and councils. If your claim of Sola Scriptura is true, we should see these claims made somewhere among the ancient churches as well. My question is, where is your Westminster confession equivalent, proving Sola Scriptura among any ancient church group before the 16th century, and where is the your equivalent Liturgy of the Eucharist proving these beliefs in practice. Please do not quote Church Fathers individually, since all of the Church Fathers belonged to one of the above groups and all celebrated one of their ancient Liturgies. Show us where there is a whole church group professing your Westminster faith in some documented form in some ancient church before the 16th century.

Question 2 from Negative

2008-10-06T02:05:00.001+01:00

Question 2 Sacred Scripture and the “necessary” teachings are clear?

by Matthew Bellisario

In your opening statement you posted the following, “(VII) Not all of the teachings of Scripture are equally clear, but the things necessary to be known for salvation are clearly taught, so that even uneducated people can understand them.”

According to the Protestant seminary Gordon-Conwell , they list over 9000 "denominations" on their university website. (World Christian Database 2004) These many denominations differ in doctrines that range from but are not limited to, liturgical worship, the operations of baptism, Holy Communion, justification, salvation, marriage and divorce, moral issues like abortion, and birth control and the list goes on and on. Yet they all profess a belief that everything we need to know about salvation is clear in Sacred Scripture. They all use the same premise to arrive at their doctrines as you do. One of these 9000 denominations is referring to yours, which also attests to this. Why do so many “necessary” teachings regarding salvation differ from each other, when all of these “denominations” are using the same method that you are using, all claiming that these “necessary” doctrines are so easy to arrive at from Sacred Scripture? If they are so easy to understand then why isn't something such as salvation and justification agreed upon?

Something every Christian would consider necessary is how we are saved and whether or not we can lose our salvation. Yet there are several variations of this teaching in which some believe you are predestined, some believe that you choose God by God's grace but can never lose your salvation and another would say you can choose and then lose your salvation later, etc. All of these professions claim that they see the teaching clearly in Sacred Scripture, and they are all using the same Scriptures to arrive at their conclusion. They all have educated Scripture scholars who study Greek etc, and ordinary laymen who teach and study the Scriptures like the Bereans did, and all claim the Holy Spirit is guiding them, yet they all disagree with one another on something as simple and necessary as how we are saved. The same can be said for baptism and many other "necessary" teachings. In fact among these denominations that hold to Sola Scriptura, many disagree with each other as to what is and what is not, "necessary". My question is, why should anyone believe that your interpretation of Sacred Scripture or any other Protestant group's interpretation is the correct one, and why should anyone believe that you or they can determine what is necessary and what is not?

Question 1 from Negative

2008-10-06T02:04:00.000+01:00

Question 1 The Oral Tradition of the Jews and the Old Covenant

by Matthew Bellisario

In my opening statement I demonstrated how the Jews did not hold the Scriptures to be their only authority in regards to Divine Revelation. You responded by one small paragraph questioning their infallible character. How then do you regard Jesus Christ Himself who makes use of an Oral tradition in regards to the Old Covenant when referring to an oral teaching of the Rabbis, which is found no place in the Old Testament Sacred Scriptures? Jesus Himself in Matthew 23: 1-3: refers to an Oral Tradition and teaching to be followed by His own command, yet the Old Testament Scriptures make no reference to this. Jesus is quoted in the Gospel of Matthew, "Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all the things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example.’ " There are other New Testament Scripture passages as well that prove an oral teaching of the Jews. For example 1 Cor 10:4 which is found only in Jewish Oral Tradition.

The chair of Moses was the oral teaching authority of the Jews. Yet Sacred Scripture is silent on this. How do you explain away this clear contradiction to Scripture alone in reference to the Jewish Oral tradition? I presented evidence from two Jewish scholars in my opening statement, who readily admit that the Jewish faith was not a faith of Scripture alone, yet you never even made an attempt to refute them in your rebuttal.

In case you need refreshing these were my sources that I provided this in my opening essay.

“In reading many sources on Judaism one point is crystal clear. They did not hold to a Scripture alone position regarding God's Divine Revelation to them. In regards to the Torah, they believed that there was the written Torah and the Oral Torah (Torah she-be-al peh) that coincided with it. They believed that this oral tradition held the same weight and antiquity that the written text did. (1995 Ariel)”

“It is understood by the Jewish people that every written law must be accompanied by an oral one to preserve proper interpretation of the written. (2006 Steinsaltz)”

You replied with, “No good reason has been given for this distinct source of revelation. MB provides an analogy to the Rabbinical traditions, but acknowledges that the Rabbis were not inspired, but were fallible men. Thus, the Rabbinical traditions fail MB. If fallible traditions were ok for the Jews, the analogy would suggest that they would also be ok for the nations. “

Yet my two Jewish scholars say that the Oral Tradition held the same weight as the written. This means that they are Divine Revelation from God Himself. My question is, why do you reject the ancient Jewish position of Scripture and Tradition as one living source of Divine Revelation, when I have presented two scholars who attest to it? I have now provided an additional example presented from Sacred Scripture itself with Jesus Himself clearly referring to an oral Tradition of the Jews. Please explain.

Sources

Ariel, David S. What Do Jews Believe. New York: Schocken Books, 1995.

Steinsaltz, Adin. The Essential Talmud. New York: Basic Books, 2006.

Affirmative Rebuttal

2008-09-30T14:05:00.002+01:00

by J.C. Thibodaux

TF hurls a few elephants in claiming that I contradict scriptural principles, yet can cite no clear evidence as to how specifically. Apostasy wouldn't require that God be less-than-omnipotent, merely that He allow its occurrence. His 'reasonable explanations' of the passages cited collide with problems I've already presented:

His interpetation of Matthew 5 explains nothing of how avoiding sin helps one enter into life (Matthew 18, Mark 9).

His suggestion that I'm confused concerning Hebrews 4 is confuted by his admission that conditions for Christian and heavenly life aren't mutually exclusive (second response). He also grossly misrepresents my view as, '[by] works,' which was nowhere suggested.

His view of Revelation 22 is self-contradictory: The unsaved aren't being told what awaits them, since he denies that anyone's part in New Jerusalem will ever really be taken.

His calls them 'pastoral warnings,' given to move believers to perseverance; but his case upon examination falls apart, answering nothing as to why God threatens consequences of damnation to those who can supposedly never suffer them. When finally asked how the consequences specifically would spur one on if they are not real-world possibilities, he appeals to a 'logical connection' between warnings and consequences, with no explanation as to how such a connection with what (in his view) amounts to an absurdity could spur on anyone.

His answer to the last question (which follows through with his 'hypothetical' interpretation), destroys his argument's credibility entirely when he states, Hypothetical questions are dangerous, especially when they contradict reality. A 'logical connection' to a consequence that 'contradicts reality' won't spur anyone on to anything. People aren't motivated by what they're told are hypothetical bluffs, they don't strive to serve God for the sake of what they think is a hollow myth, and they aren't driven to persevere by 'logical connections' to fairy-tales with no connection to reality --which is exactly what Calvinism makes the consequences of the warnings out to be.

Negative Answer to Question 5

2008-09-24T14:01:00.001+01:00

by Matthew Bellisario

Fist of all Tradition does not produce any new content in regards to the Word of God. So there is no need to even entertain that part of your question. I don't know how you have determined that from my writings up to this point. The Church faithfully gives us the complete Word of God in the means and methods that God chose to use, which includes Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Church. As far as the Council of Trent goes, it merely represented the universal teaching of the Church on the Biblical Canon up to that point, but declaring it infallibly. You bring up the Latin translation which has nothing to do with Biblical Canon, so I do not understand your attempt to besmirch it here in your argument. Trent infallibly defined the Canon and agreed with the Church, her writings and her councils up to that point. The Councils of Hippo 393, and Carthage 397 and 419 for example justified and authorized the Deuterocanonicals for use as Sacred Scripture. Even the Protestant scholar Bruce Metzger admits that the early Christians regarded the Deuterocanonicals as being Scripture.

Metzger (2001) points out in his notes from the RSV the following:

“By the end of the first century of the Christian era, more and more Jews ceased using the Septuagint because the early Christians had adopted it as their own translation.”

"During the early Christian centuries most Greek and Latin Church Fathers, such as Irenaeus, Tertulian, Clement of Alexandria, Clement of Alexandria, and Cyprian (none of whom knew any Hebrew), quoted passages from the Apocrypha as "Scripture," "divine Scripture," "inspired," and the like. In this period only an occasional Father made an effort to learn the limits of the Palestinian Jewish canon (as Melito of Sardis), or to distinguish between the Hebrew text of Daniel and the addition of the story of Susanna in the Greek version (as Africanus)."

As far as the “Reformers” being consistent in their view of how they determine Sacred Scripture, I find that statement amusing. I find it amusing because you are in opposition to every Church in existence before the “Reformation.” In fact none of them agree with your faulty position. The churches from Egypt, Syria, Greece, Rome, Armenia, and the list goes on, all disagree with you. None of them have the same Biblical Canon as you do. All of these churches can prove they existed 1500 years before yours, and they all reject your position. In fact all of the ancient churches are unanimous with the acceptance of the Deuterocanonical books, which you haphazardly reject.

Metzger, Bruce M., and May, Herbert G., New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha Expanded Edition RSV. New York: Oxford UP, 1977.

Negative Answer to Question 4

2008-09-24T14:00:00.000+01:00

by Matthew J Bellisario

You said in this question regarding 1 John 4:1, “But what is inescapable is that the verse is commanding believers to pass judgments on teachers. And, in fact, this particular epistle is commanding them (implicitly) to use Scripture (since this epistle is Scripture) in the process.” How can you deduce that this is implicitly speaking of Sacred Scripture alone? Just because the epistle is Scripture in the process? This is the most absurd assumption I have ever heard of. What is important is what this passage of Sacred Scripture says. It says to test the spirits whether they are of God. It says no place in Sacred Scripture, let alone this passage that Sacred Scripture is the only authority we have to go by. In fact the whole point here is that at this point and time when this passage was written, the Christians then would have thought no such thing. In fact the only “Scriptures” the people who were referring to was the Old Testament. What is inescapable for anyone reading this is that it never tells us the means to determine how to test the spirits, let alone telling us that it is Sacred Scripture alone.

Secondly the Bereans that you made reference to once again do not prove anything regarding Sola Scriptura. You have made yourself a hole here that you cant climb out of. You cannot assume that just because the Bereans searched the Scriptures, that they regarded this to be the only source of Divine Revelation. Thats like me writing and telling everyone that I searched the Webster dictionary today, and someone reading that and assuming that I never used any other source other than that in my life. The fact is you cannot prove that position from that statement. The same goes for your Berean argument. You are asking something from the text that just isn't there. The Catholic Church and her theologians today search the Scriptures as well, yet we all know very well that the Catholic Church and her theologians do not deny the full Divine Revelation of Tradition as well.

Yes Scripture tells us to test teachers to see whether they are false prophets. Unfortunately for you and your position, which you have thus far been unable to prove, this passage does not tell us that Sacred Scriptures are the only rule of faith to be used in doing this as you keep falsely suggesting.

As far as you citing St. Augustine and St Ambrose we can see once again how you cannot quote them in context as I have already indicated several times so far in this debate. Saint Ambrose never tells us that Sacred Scripture alone must be used. Once again you have to tell us that it is implicit, which is not true. The fact is Saint Ambrose never said that. Saint Augustine also never said in your quote that the Sacred Scriptures were the only source, he merely said, as the Catholic Church does, that no one is to contradict them. So what? How does this prove anything in regards to your argument for Scripture alone? The fact is it doesn't. 1 John, as I pointed out earlier in my debate does not give us any support for the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura either, because it also never even mentions once in its text anything of the sort. So far none of these arguments has even come close to being convincing.