The problem with that response is that the author is wholly ignorant of the real distinction between Satisfaction and Penal Substitution. Those are not synonyms.
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.
This failure to have the right precision in their work is precisely why the guys who wrote Pierced for Our Transgressions had such sloppy exegesis, particularly in translating Isaiah 53:5b as "punishment" rather than "chastisement". This is also why the authors totally botched the fact the Biblical term for "Atonement" never involves transferring punishment. Most people have never really studied Scripture on this matter, so they wrongly project incorrect notions onto the text that aren't really there.
It certainly does matter what the Biblical term for Atonement means. 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.
"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.
From the preview I was able to see of Morris' book, he botches many of the key examples. For example, on page 119 he says Moses in Ex 32:30, Phinehas in Numbers 25:13, and David in 2 Sam 21:3 are clear examples where it is the death of something that atones. That's not the case at all when you consider the texts. Moses made atonement without killing anything, Phinehas made atonement by doing a good work, and David offered to make atonement by gold. None of those examples support anything suggesting atonement for life is only to be made by transferring death upon an innocent substitute. Further, it looks like he ignores other relevant texts like Leviticus 5:11-13 (which isn't listed on the glossary), where a sin offering atonement is made with a sack of flour.
From what I've seen, he lacks the precision and carefulness when examining how the term is used.
You asked: "Given the modern Catholic theory of development, why is it necessary to find a fully-articulated theory of penal substitution in the church fathers?"
It isn't necessary to find a fully articulated theory - but that's very different from suggesting one plausible theory is PSub, particularly using language of the Father venting His wrath on Jesus.
"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. On the contrary, I showed where Leon Morris did just that.
2) The burden is on you to prove the Bible doesn't have to use atonement terminology to teach Psub. Your Leviticus 16 text explicitly uses atonement terminology. 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.
3) Assertion, not proven. For example, how is Isaiah 53:4 teaching Psub?
4) Where does it say he assumes the role of a transgressor? It says He makes intercession for the transgressors. Big difference.
5) It is true that 53:10 uses the term "sin offering" but that's not a Psub type offering! That's a common occurrence of the word-concept fallacy when studying this subject. In the Levitical sacrifices, guilt is not transferred nor does an innocent party take the death penalty in another's place. This is why the sin offering in Leviticus 5:11 can be done with a sack of flour and why such offerings are only done for unintentional sins (not deserving of the death penalty).
"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.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with that response is that the author is wholly ignorant of the real distinction between Satisfaction and Penal Substitution. Those are not synonyms.
ReplyDeleteFlood 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.
This failure to have the right precision in their work is precisely why the guys who wrote Pierced for Our Transgressions had such sloppy exegesis, particularly in translating Isaiah 53:5b as "punishment" rather than "chastisement". This is also why the authors totally botched the fact the Biblical term for "Atonement" never involves transferring punishment. Most people have never really studied Scripture on this matter, so they wrongly project incorrect notions onto the text that aren't really there.
It wouldn't matter what the Biblical "term" for atonement means. The issue at hand is the meaning of concepts, not isolated words.
ReplyDeleteIt certainly does matter what the Biblical term for Atonement means. 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.
ReplyDeleteNICK 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?
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.
ReplyDeleteFrom the preview I was able to see of Morris' book, he botches many of the key examples. For example, on page 119 he says Moses in Ex 32:30, Phinehas in Numbers 25:13, and David in 2 Sam 21:3 are clear examples where it is the death of something that atones. That's not the case at all when you consider the texts. Moses made atonement without killing anything, Phinehas made atonement by doing a good work, and David offered to make atonement by gold. None of those examples support anything suggesting atonement for life is only to be made by transferring death upon an innocent substitute. Further, it looks like he ignores other relevant texts like Leviticus 5:11-13 (which isn't listed on the glossary), where a sin offering atonement is made with a sack of flour.
From what I've seen, he lacks the precision and carefulness when examining how the term is used.
You asked:
"Given the modern Catholic theory of development, why is it necessary to find a fully-articulated theory of penal substitution in the church fathers?"
It isn't necessary to find a fully articulated theory - but that's very different from suggesting one plausible theory is PSub, particularly using language of the Father venting His wrath on Jesus.
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.
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. On the contrary, I showed where Leon Morris did just that.
ReplyDelete2) The burden is on you to prove the Bible doesn't have to use atonement terminology to teach Psub. Your Leviticus 16 text explicitly uses atonement terminology. 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.
3) Assertion, not proven. For example, how is Isaiah 53:4 teaching Psub?
4) Where does it say he assumes the role of a transgressor? It says He makes intercession for the transgressors. Big difference.
5) It is true that 53:10 uses the term "sin offering" but that's not a Psub type offering! That's a common occurrence of the word-concept fallacy when studying this subject. In the Levitical sacrifices, guilt is not transferred nor does an innocent party take the death penalty in another's place. This is why the sin offering in Leviticus 5:11 can be done with a sack of flour and why such offerings are only done for unintentional sins (not deserving of the death penalty).
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.