"It certainly does matter what the Biblical term for Atonement means."
There is no one word for the concept of atonement in Scripture. Rather, there are several words.
" The problem is Protestants don't know what it means. And this isn't about isolating words, it's about studying the context of how such terms are used."
Like Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross,
"Flood was right to point out there was too much being read into the texts, while Williams was right to object to Flood trying to neutralize any talk of punishment and such. But the straw man here is that refuting Christus Victor doesn't leave Penal Substitution as the only option."
Given the modern Catholic theory of development, why is it necessary to find a fully-articulated theory of penal substitution in the church fathers?
"There is a principle term for Atonement in Scripture, it's the Hebrew word "kaphar" and it's used all over the place, particularly in Leviticus."
i) You continue to commit the word=concept fallacy.
ii) The Bible doesn't even have to use "atonement" terminology to teach vicarious atonement or penal substitution. For instance, the ritual of the scapegoat (Lev 16:7-10,20-22) is designed to vividly illustrate the transference of guilt from one party to another.
iii) Isa 53 is repeatedly vicarious.
iv) The passage is also punitive, where the Suffering Servant assumes the role of a transgressor.
v) And in 53:10, he functions as a vicarious guilt-offering for sinners (cf. Lev 5:14-6:7).
But like a thankless infidel, you despise God's redemptive provision for sinners.
"1) The Word-Concept Fallacy is when you project a definition on a word whenever it's found irregardless of context. You've not shown a single example where I've done this. In every case I examine context first."
i) Wrong. The word-concept fallacy is when you pair off words and concepts as if there's a one-to-one correspondence between words and concepts. That's fallacious because (a) the same word can denote different concepts; (b) different words can denote the same concept; (c) a concept can be present apart from a specific word to denote said concept.
ii) You've been committing the word-concept fallacy by reducing the issue to a single Hebrew word.
"2) The burden is on you to prove the Bible doesn't have to use atonement terminology to teach Psub."
In which case you're commiting the word-concept fallacy. Thanks for proving my point.
"The only time guilt is ever said to be transferred is with the Scapegoat, not the sacrifices, and the Scapegoat isn't even put to death, it's set free in the wilderness. That's not the picture of Psub that you thought it was."
You lack the ability to reason:
i) Penal substitution is a theological construct, like the Trinity. It isn't based on a single instance.
ii) There's a reason that Lev 16 contains a number of different rituals. That's because atonement is complex, multifaceted. Thus, you have a variety of rituals which in combination illustrate the nature of atonement. Blood sacrifice, sin/guilt offerings, burnt offerings, and the scapegoat. The point is how these individual elements contribute to the overall picture.
"3) Assertion, not proven. For example, how is Isaiah 53:4 teaching Psub?"
Not just v4, but the entire chapter, where the innocent suffering servant absorbs divine judgment on behalf of and in place of others.
"4) Where does it say he assumes the role of a transgressor? It says He makes intercession for the transgressors. Big difference."
Explicitly in v12, where he's "numbered" or grouped among the transgressors. He's identified with transgressors. And that's implicit throughout the chapter. His vicarious identification with sinners.
"In the Levitical sacrifices, guilt is not transferred nor does an innocent party take the death penalty in another's place."
i) You're playing a shell game by using the word "sacrifice" and "death" rather than ritual. But there is a ritual which illustrates the transference of guilt. That's the scapegoat. And that underlie passage like Isa 53:6.
ii) There is no one Levitical ritual that illustrates penal substitution. So what? The argument for penal substitution was never based on atomistic prooftexting. So your objection is a straw man.
Rather, Leviticus contains a number of distinct rituals to illustrate different aspects of penal substitution.
This is interesting and useful, thanks.
ReplyDeleteComment has been blocked.
It wouldn't matter what the Biblical "term" for atonement means. The issue at hand is the meaning of concepts, not isolated words.
ReplyDeleteComment has been blocked.
NICK SAID:
ReplyDelete"It certainly does matter what the Biblical term for Atonement means."
There is no one word for the concept of atonement in Scripture. Rather, there are several words.
" The problem is Protestants don't know what it means. And this isn't about isolating words, it's about studying the context of how such terms are used."
Like Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross,
NICK SAID:
ReplyDelete"Flood was right to point out there was too much being read into the texts, while Williams was right to object to Flood trying to neutralize any talk of punishment and such. But the straw man here is that refuting Christus Victor doesn't leave Penal Substitution as the only option."
Given the modern Catholic theory of development, why is it necessary to find a fully-articulated theory of penal substitution in the church fathers?
Comment has been blocked.
NICK SAID:
ReplyDelete"There is a principle term for Atonement in Scripture, it's the Hebrew word "kaphar" and it's used all over the place, particularly in Leviticus."
i) You continue to commit the word=concept fallacy.
ii) The Bible doesn't even have to use "atonement" terminology to teach vicarious atonement or penal substitution. For instance, the ritual of the scapegoat (Lev 16:7-10,20-22) is designed to vividly illustrate the transference of guilt from one party to another.
iii) Isa 53 is repeatedly vicarious.
iv) The passage is also punitive, where the Suffering Servant assumes the role of a transgressor.
v) And in 53:10, he functions as a vicarious guilt-offering for sinners (cf. Lev 5:14-6:7).
But like a thankless infidel, you despise God's redemptive provision for sinners.
Comment has been blocked.
NICK SAID:
ReplyDelete"1) The Word-Concept Fallacy is when you project a definition on a word whenever it's found irregardless of context. You've not shown a single example where I've done this. In every case I examine context first."
i) Wrong. The word-concept fallacy is when you pair off words and concepts as if there's a one-to-one correspondence between words and concepts. That's fallacious because (a) the same word can denote different concepts; (b) different words can denote the same concept; (c) a concept can be present apart from a specific word to denote said concept.
ii) You've been committing the word-concept fallacy by reducing the issue to a single Hebrew word.
"2) The burden is on you to prove the Bible doesn't have to use atonement terminology to teach Psub."
In which case you're commiting the word-concept fallacy. Thanks for proving my point.
"The only time guilt is ever said to be transferred is with the Scapegoat, not the sacrifices, and the Scapegoat isn't even put to death, it's set free in the wilderness. That's not the picture of Psub that you thought it was."
You lack the ability to reason:
i) Penal substitution is a theological construct, like the Trinity. It isn't based on a single instance.
ii) There's a reason that Lev 16 contains a number of different rituals. That's because atonement is complex, multifaceted. Thus, you have a variety of rituals which in combination illustrate the nature of atonement. Blood sacrifice, sin/guilt offerings, burnt offerings, and the scapegoat. The point is how these individual elements contribute to the overall picture.
"3) Assertion, not proven. For example, how is Isaiah 53:4 teaching Psub?"
Not just v4, but the entire chapter, where the innocent suffering servant absorbs divine judgment on behalf of and in place of others.
"4) Where does it say he assumes the role of a transgressor? It says He makes intercession for the transgressors. Big difference."
Explicitly in v12, where he's "numbered" or grouped among the transgressors. He's identified with transgressors. And that's implicit throughout the chapter. His vicarious identification with sinners.
"In the Levitical sacrifices, guilt is not transferred nor does an innocent party take the death penalty in another's place."
i) You're playing a shell game by using the word "sacrifice" and "death" rather than ritual. But there is a ritual which illustrates the transference of guilt. That's the scapegoat. And that underlie passage like Isa 53:6.
ii) There is no one Levitical ritual that illustrates penal substitution. So what? The argument for penal substitution was never based on atomistic prooftexting. So your objection is a straw man.
Rather, Leviticus contains a number of distinct rituals to illustrate different aspects of penal substitution.
Try to learn how to reason.