Another problem that I have with the PST view of the atonement is that it effectively eliminates true forgiveness. In other words, true forgiveness does not require payment or punishment. If the penalty for man's sin is extracted from Jesus Christ, then it is not forgiven, its paid for by Christ. If, I owe someone a $20 and my friend pays that debt for me, the debt is not forgiven--its paid. On the other hand, if the person I owe the money to forgives me the debt, then no one has to pay it.
In the book, Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution by Steve Jeffrey, Michael Ovey and Andrew Sach, the authors deal with this objection (pp. 263-265). Their response is as follows: The reason why Penal Substitution does not deny that God forgives sin is precisely because it is God himself , in the person of his Son, who pays the debt we owe. (p. 264).
I fail to see how that explanation resolves the problem. No matter who pays it, it is paid and not forgiven.
A person to whom a debt is owed cannot wipe it out by "repaying" it himself. If you lend me $20 that you have in your wallet and I fail to repay it and then you go get another $20 from the ATM and replenish the cash in your wallet, you have not repaid my debt at all but you have just simply moved the money around and I still owe you $20. You are not forgiving me because you have another $20 in your wallet, you are forgiving me the debt because either I can't pay it or I don't want to pay it.
On the other hand, if my friend pays the $20 back to you on my behalf, there is nothing for you to forgive but I am still in debt—this time to my friend. The only way you could truly forgive my debt is by allowing it to remain unpaid or accepting something less than full payment as sufficient (in that case, you would be forgiving the remainder of the debt).
To use a non-monetary analogy, lets say that I slap your face. You can forgive me without extracting anything from me or you can repay me by slapping my face. If you choose to slap my face, you are not forgiving me, you are extracting justice. You could require some type of “partial payment”, however, and still be able to practice real forgiveness. In other words, you may choose to forgive me IF I say I am sorry or IF I promise not to do it again, etc.
True forgiveness, on the other hand, is seen in Luke 7:36-50, where Jesus forgives the woman who washed his feet with her hair and tears. He illustrates this real forgiveness in verses 41-42 when he says: There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most? (KJV)
The creditor forgave the debt without requiring any payment. Jesus seems to indicate that his forgiveness of the sinner woman in this passage is along the same lines.
In the so-called "Lord's Prayer" in Matthew 6:12-15, we read: And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions. (NASB)
So, when we forgive those who trespass against us, are we doing so without requiring payment in full from them for their trespass? Yes, otherwise its not really forgiveness.
To summarize: My point is that while there can be stipulations on forgiveness, to require full equivalent payment or punishment (which is precisely what PST teaches) is not forgiveness. PST teaches that Jesus bore exactly the amount of punishment on the cross that each individual sinner (or each one of the elect if you are Calvinist) deserved and, therefore, he made a full payment for the sinner. If that is the case, then the sinner is not being forgiven. There is nothing to forgive. The sin has been wiped out (i.e., expiated) by the atonement of Christ.
Ken, you answered your own question. Forgiveness comes through Christ.
ReplyDelete"Jesus forgives the woman who washed his feet with her hair and tears. He illustrates this real forgiveness in verses 41-42 when he says: There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most? (KJV)"
You are correct to point out that God cannot forgive. In the OT, the sacrifices were only a temporal covering of sin. It is the death and resurrection of Christ that resulted in the forgiveness of sins.
I really believe that your problem with PST is an imaginary problem.
We are saved by being in Christ. We cannot participate in the nature of God for eternity without Christ. Whenever God looks at humanity, he always will see the blood of Christ which eternally covers your sin. Your bridge to eternal life through the Son was made possible by Jesus Christ.
I also think your illustration is faulty. If a son has a father who goes to jail, there is nothing immoral about a father paying the debt on behalf of the son and making amends with the injuried party. Jesus paid your debt to God and this is really a simple concept.
I think your doubt is much bigger than PST since your objections appear to be silly. I think your doubt is from reading too much liberal propaganda.
After reading the a ton of the propaganda myself, I came to realize that all of their positions were based on liver quivers. I never saw any evidence for the claims made by liberals. Liberals always went beyond the text to intuition and never used concrete evidence for their positions.
You need to pick up a book and rather than get caught up in the story line, look for the evidence.
You certainly are not providing any evidence that makes sense in this article which tells me your methodology is based on intuition rather than evidence.
Ken,
ReplyDeleteWelcome to the world of freethinking blogs! I came here on The Chaplain's advice. I was about to comment on your first post about forgiveness when I realised that your second post covers it nicely.
ZDENNY,
"You are correct to point out that God cannot forgive."
Er, what? That would mean God is less than omnipotent. The rest of us can forgive. Why did God have to kill a part of himself in order to convince himself to forgive us for something which none of us alive today had any control over?
Why not just say, "I forgive you"? I mean, he is all-powerful, isn't he?
Ironically it was The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe that first made me realise the monstrous injustice of this idea. Thanks C.S. Lewis for nudging me to question my religion!
"I really believe that your problem with PST is an imaginary problem."
Perhaps you have become adept at wishing away problems that might prove disturbing to your beliefs?
"I think your doubt is much bigger than PST since your objections appear to be silly. I think your doubt is from reading too much liberal propaganda."
I think your certainty comes from the unwarranted assumption that Christianity makes sense and that the Bible is the word of God. :-)
Thanks for sharing this. There are many problems with penal substitution, and in addition to those outside of Christianity, there are also many Christians who recognize this. Even some fairly conservative Christians might discover problems with the idea just by examining relevant Biblical passages. One that was particularly influential in changing my mind on this subject is 2 Corinthians 5:14-15. Instead of one dying instead of all so that all could avoid dying, is says one died for all precisely to bring about the death of all! Paul's notion of the effect of Jesus' death seems to be more one of participation/union than substitution.
ReplyDeleteI blogged about what's wrong with penal substitution a while back. Here's the link, in case you are interested:
http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/12/whats-wrong-with-penal-substitution.html
Zdenny--I am sorry I really don't follow what you are saying.
ReplyDeleteEshu--Thanks for the kind words and for the comments about Zdenny's post.
James--Very honored to have you post on my blog. I will definitely read your blog about PST.
I see an entirely different problem. Imagine if you and your brother were playing catch outside and you accidentally broke your neighbor's window. Knowing that your father is a firm believer in physical punishment, your brother, out of love, tells your father it was he who broke the window. Well that's very loving I guess, especially in light of the beating he'll get, but what about the neighbor's window?
ReplyDeleteThe ridiculousness of Christian forgiveness is its complete disregard for the actual victim. Instead, it's this incredibly narcissistic extinguishing of guilt, which is yet another example of its lack of empathy.
Btw, I also am here via the Chaplain's blog.
I'm also here via Chaplain.
ReplyDeleteInteresting how many Christians believe that, if you just hear the same stuff over and over (you know, the stuff you heard at church and read in the bible and eventually concluded was hooey) eventually the grace of god will click in your ever-sinning soul.
Eshu, I was really good at dismissing those things which disturbed my faith, too. I like the way you put that. At one point I realized that the only thing that made my world seem so nonsensical was my belief in Christianity. I finally stopped forcing myself to make everything that I believe about the world fit into Christianity, and it was so freeing.
Awesome point, Philly Chief.
I agree, Ken. I don't think it's true forgiveness either. Of course, I think a lot of what the bible claims we need forgiveness for is absurd, but that's another comment for another day. I like the blog and plan to continue reading it. I'm not very good at rhetoric, so please forgive that.
Maybe you are already aware of this, but I thought it's worth bringing it to your (and your readers') attention.
ReplyDeleteI am pretty sure this site is run by an atheist rather than a former apologist. :) Busted! I suspected that something was afoot by the incompetence of the article itself.
ReplyDeleteAn apologist would have recognized my argument; however, an atheist would not since the vast majority of atheists don't understand theology.
I also noted that James McGrath very quickly was willing to throw the gospel. This site may have been set up for Dr. McGrath since atheist recognize the irrationality of his arguments.
In any event, God can do anything that is logically possible; however, it is not logically possible to make a square circle or for something to be metal and wood at the same time and in the same context.
God also cannot forgive either since this is a logical contradiction. The contradiction is that God who is infinitely holy cannot allow unholy beings to participate in his nature. If He did, God would be a holy and unholy God at the same time which is a direct contradiction.
God is not like us in that he can simply wave off sin and say, "That's ok." If He did, he would no longer be God. By waving the hand God would be saying that something unholy could participate in His nature which in fact would make God unholy also. God cannot be unholy as the Scripture says, "it is impossible for God to lie."
If you wish to understand Christianity, you have to understand who God is. God cannot change who He is as He is eternal; however, humanity could be changed and this change takes place once you are in Christ.
Christ who is perfectly holy is able to participate in the nature of God. It is not contradictory for Christ in his humanity to participate in the nature of God. God is Holy and Christ in His humanity is also Holy being the Son of God.
In order for man to be saved, you have to be in Christ. When you are in Christ, you are then able to participate in the nature of God but only through Christ.
When Christ died on the cross, His blood was shed which acts as a covering for man's sin. The covering is eternal meaning that man can participate in the love of God through Jesus Christ and only through Christ alone.
If Christ did not died on the cross, there would be no covering for man's sin. The blood of Christ hides man's sin for eternity from the presense of God. This allows a Christian to live within the love of God through Christ for eternity. This is in effect forgiveness; however, it is a type of forgiveness that does not affect God; rather, it only affects us and our future.
As the Scriptures says, "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures..."
In fact, in the final judgement, if you are not in Christ, you will be the object of the wrath of God since you have rejected the love of God. When you reject the love of God, you have rejected love itself meaning that you will live without love for the rest of eternity.
Don't reject love especially when it is so freely offered! The whole Creation was made so that you could have a relationship with God. God has made it possible for a relationship to exist between an infinite and finite being.
The plan is awesome in scope and is solely based on God's desire to share His love with us.
No mystificator, I never read that ridiculous article before. Thanks for the laugh link.
ReplyDelete"If you wish to understand Christianity, you have to understand who God is."
LOL! I think you mean accept a bunch of naked assertions about who and what he is, which of course all pale in comparison to the biggest, most naked assertion of all, that it even exists.
Wow, two laugh sources in two consecutive comments! I think I may stop by here more often. :)
@ Ken
ReplyDeleteSo, you left evangelical Christianity. Are their any forms of Christianity that are luring? Are their some of those you plan to study more?
Thanks
-- Sabio
Sabio, I am not excited about any of the "forms of Christianity" that I see in the world today. Neither am I interested in any of the other world religions in their various forms.
ReplyDeleteI tend to loathe all organized, institutional religion. Having said that, however, I do find many of the teachings of Jesus (as reported in the Bible) to be worthy of emulation as I also do the teachings of other wise men throughout history.
ZDENNY said:
ReplyDelete"God is not like us in that he can simply wave off sin and say, 'That's ok.' If He did, he would no longer be God."
Straw man alert!
No one is saying that God should look upon evil with utter indifference and say, "That's OK." (And you know it, too.)
Even when I (an erring, morally defective human being) forgive someone, I'm NOT thereby saying everything's OK. It's not OK, it's a wrong against me, but I'm letting it go anyway for a higher good.
Now if I can do that -- and I'm supposed to, according to Jesus -- then why can't God do it? Am I actually held to a higher standard than God? Am I required to forgive others free and clear, while God reserves the right to withhold it and demand payment instead?
"God also cannot forgive either since this is a logical contradiction."
What of all the texts, especially in the OT, that assert God's tendency to forgive? Some texts speak of the divine willingness to forgive upon repentance alone, without any kind of sacrifice. Some of the prophets go so far as to say that YHWH never even told people to offer sacrifices in the first place.
"In fact, in the final judgement, if you are not in Christ, you will be the object of the wrath of God since you have rejected the love of God."
That's lovely. God is brimming over with the most profound love in the universe. But if I reject it, I'm an object of divine wrath. Isn't that brand of love awfully conditional? Imagine that I were to show kindness and mercy to a stranger, pulling him from the gutter, feeding him and getting him medical attention ... but the stranger didn't love me back. Would I then have a moral leave to visit my wrath upon him? Would people consider me a loving person if I did that? Would you?
SteveJ: Forced love is called rape. God is not a divine rapist and won't force you to accept Him. He already knows your decision from eternity.
ReplyDeleteIf you reject love, then your eternity will be without love. The choice is yours. God can't change who He is; however, you can change your destiny by accepting the love of God made possible through Jesus Christ.
In addition, you might want to read the story of Cain and Able and you will see that sacrifice goes all the way back to the beginning. Genesis 3 also predicts the coming of the Messiah that was realized in the New Testament which says that head of the serpent would be crushed.
The Bible has to be the most amazing book I have ever read. I was overwhelmed by the love of God as I read through it. You should read through it and get the bigger picture.
ZDenny: Rape is where you have something precious from you taken by force. Coercion is where you have a choice, but someone or something will severely punish you for making the "wrong" choice, much like your god character coerces worship by threat of eternal torture. Furthermore, according to your god story, he knows all so he created everyone knowing full well in advance which choice you'd make, so he basically made countless beings solely to later torture for eternity. What a prick! How can you get into such a character?
ReplyDeleteIf you reject a good character, then your fictions will forever be without good characters. The choice is yours. Bad fiction can't change what it is; however, you can change your destiny by accepting the love of good character design made possible through good fiction.
In addition, you might want to look at the early wing designs of Leonardo and see the allure of the bat goes all the way back to the beginning. The Mark of Zorro also predicts the coming of a masked crusader, a Dark Knight, that was later realized by Bob Kane in Detective Comics #27.
Batman comic books have to be the most amazing books I have ever read. I was overwhelmed by the love of Batman as I read through them. You should read through them and get the bigger picture.
ZDENNY, I have read the Bible through. When placed alongside other ancient books, it is lofty. But from a modern perspective, it's largely alien to our sensibilities. It's an admixture of beautiful ideas and anything-but-beautiful ideas.
ReplyDelete"Forced love is called rape. God is not a divine rapist and won't force you to accept Him."
Still, you're saying that if I don't accept the divine love, I get the wrath of God instead. What kind of choice is that? And what kind of love morphs into wrath the minute it isn't accepted? Very conditional love, I think. That's the kind of love we're not allowed to exercise ourselves, if 1 Corinthians 13 is any guide. And note the Sermon on the Mount -- if you love those who love you, what good is it? Are you saying that's the way the love of God is?
Besides, people who don't buy into the Christian gospel (for any number of reasons) aren't necessarily rejecting the love of God on a conscious level. Are they?
The choice is a very easy choice. You can either accept love or reject it.
ReplyDeleteYour 1 Corinthians 13 comment shows how misinformed you are. The fact is that God is showing His love to you in the person of Jesus Christ. You don't deserve the opportunity to enjoy the love of God; however, God has given you a path anyway. Jesus even said that you are evil and God is still providing a way for you to be saved.
Why keep on fighting it? Jump at the chance to enjoy the love of God forever.
If you reject the gospel, you are rejecting the love of God because Christ is the only way for a God who is holy to allow you to participate in His love and holiness forever.
I can't see any other way on a rational level. The logic is impeccable based on our knowledge of who God is. God is love; whereas, we only have love by participation in the life of God.
For a further discussion you can visit my site at zdenny.com
ReplyDeleteZdenny, You miss my point. My point is that if the sin is paid for, there is nothing left to forgive. The word "forgive" means to "let go" or "dismiss". If its already been paid, how can it be forgiven?
ReplyDeleteZDENNY,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "If you reject the gospel, you are rejecting the love of God because Christ is the only way for a God who is holy to allow you to participate in His love and holiness forever."
All I see in this is cheap grace. You accept the Gospel so you won't get punished. That is sadomashochism. It isn't love.
Your worldview celebrates narcissistic idealization of personal safety. I should be Christian to make certain I won't go to Hell. Wow, that is a mature ethic.
You have only argued for your own status. You haven't told me the benefits of your worldview beyond its gurantee of personal safey. That is an immature ethic if you ask me.
I honestly feel very sorry for people like ZDENNY. They're a mixture of those abused spouses who defend their abusers and junkies who constantly require a fix. These are the people always preyed upon by religions, cults, and other con artists, like predators scouting a pack for the weak or injured.
ReplyDeleteThey're unhappy in their lives and feel helpless to do anything about it so they look for something to cling to, some hope or distraction from the awfulness. Drugs, alcohol, gambling, groups, an individual, a religion or something else is what they irrationally cling to, even when it's blatantly obvious that it's unwarranted. Addicts ignoring the damage to their health, gamblers ignoring the reality of their debt and the unlikely odds against them, the abused ignoring the abuse they're suffering from someone, and of course the lack of evidence to support accepting things like the power of crystals, the honesty of those emailing them that they're NIgerian princes in need, and of course that some being ing the sky made everything along with rules too hard for people to follow so he sacrificed himself to himself to fix that.
Sadly, you often can't reason someone out of something reason played no part in getting them into.
Amen, Philly Chief. Too bad "faith" is held so highly above reason.
ReplyDeleteChuck has an excellent post on his blog which I think helps explain people like ZDenny.
ReplyDeletehttp://chuckoconnor.blogspot.com/
He links to a Newsweek article which is very enlightening:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/216551
Ken said, "there is nothing left to forgive. The word "forgive" means to "let go" or "dismiss". If its already been paid, how can it be forgiven?"
ReplyDeleteGod is not able to forgive you as this is a logical contradiction. The blood of Christ covers you for eternity. The effect of the blood of Christ in the sight of God is forgiveness in terms of how it affects you and me; however, it is also a debt that has been paid by Christ and this payment goes on for eternity.
The fact is that Christ in His humanity forgave you by paying the debt. Christ in His humanity can forgive you just like I can forgive you; however, our debt to God was also paid for in the death of Christ because His blood covers you for eternity.
This is how the bridge was created that results in our salvation. The debt is paid and Christ has forgiven you.
The real question is, what if Christ in His humanity had decided not to forgiven you?
ZDENNY.com
Philly: I appreciate the fact that you read my argument; however, you beef is not with me, it is with God.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that Christianity is supported by overwhelming evidence and you have nothing but dogmatism.
You believe that Nature created itself and that it also designed itself which is a logical contradiction.
All atheist are really Theist because Nature has the power to create and design which is merely a category mistake on your part.
In addition, you believe that life came from non-life and we have no evidence for this.
I think you cling to your atheism out of moral rebellion against God. Why do you believe in stuff that has no evidence? The only reason is morality.
Christians have the empirically confirmed fact that Christ rose from the dead. We have multiple witnesses using all fives senses in multiple context. We also have testimonies that are similar but not exact. This is how the courts determine if something is true or false in a testimony.
The evidence for the resurrection when considered honestly results in a person becoming a Christian. This happened to C.S. Lewis, Strobel as well as Josh McDowell.
Christians have more evidence than you do. At least Christianity is an informed faith. Your beliefs are based purely on a dogmatic belief in irrational concepts.
My prayers are with you.
ZDENNY, I'm guessing you "know" what I think or believe the same way you "know" all the naked assertions you spout are true. For the record, I don't believe any of what you allege I believe, and I have no idea what dogmatism you're referring to that you're alleging I adhere to.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I'll play along. Let's start with what's the empirical evidence that your Jesus rose from the dead? No points awarded if you offer:
a) The Christian bible (circular reasoning)
b) Josephus (long accepted to be a forgery, likely by Christian church father Eusebius, plus he wasn't a contemporary)
c) Tacitus, Seutonius, or Pliny the Younger (mentioned Christians, not Jesus, and again, not contemporaries)
because accepting those would obviously not be considering the alleged resurrection honesty.
"Christians have more evidence than you do."
What do you think I'm claiming which I'd need evidence for? Your statement is meaningless without that clarification.
Philly:
ReplyDeleteThe Bible is not circular reasoning.
1. When you go to court, eyewitness testimonies are always accepted. The prosecution would have to provide real evidence that discredits the witnesses which I am certain you don't have. Circumstantial evidence is throw out.
2. Luke, Mark and Paul also acting as historian have recorded the accounts for antiquity.
3. It is strange that you would want third party evidence when we have first party witnesses and third party evidence of those who spoke with the eyewitnesses.
As I stated, even your standard of evidence is irrational. You are completely inconsistent on how you handle evidence.
When you become honest about the handling of evidence such as Lewis, McDowell and Strobel, you too will decide to become a Christian.
If you reject Theism, you immediately have to believe that Nature created itself and designed itself by default. There is no logical third option other than just plain ignorance.
May Christ love surround you forever!
I always enjoy talking with atheist! I have never met an atheist who had a good reason to reject Christianity. Christianity is the only rational belief system that exist. Christianity is supported by more evidence than any other worldview in existence.
ReplyDeleteChristianity is very easy to defend because it is rationally consistent and supported with a ton of evidence.
Take for example, Genesis 1. All of the predictions made by Genesis are coming true.
The first thing created were the heavens. We know that dark energy which is a canopy in space fills what we call the heavens. Therefore, the heavens were a creation and they were created before everything else because this is the stuff out of which God formed everything else.
The second prediction was the formation of planets. We now know that planets most likely form first because they are much smaller than stars. Planets form in the same way as stars; however, due to a forming star draining the pond, planets never reached the size in which cold fusion was able to take place.
The third prediction is that of light. A planet near a nebular cloud or on the edge of a cloud would have experienced the light of the birth of the universe first. The gas in a nebular cloud diffuses the light making it appear as one light
The fourth prediction is that of an atmosphere. We now know for a fact that atmospheres follow planet formation. No one questions this.
The fifth prediction is that of a organic life. Science believes that organic life preceded the life of fish.
The sixth prediction is that of fish and then birds. Science once again believes that fish followed organic life in the seas followed by insects and then birds.
The seventh prediction is that of the sun, moon and stars which would have taken place after our star had completely formed and left the nebular cloud. The moon which has a very different composition appears to have been added at this time. The stars would have appeared as stars as they the nebular cloud and began to diffuse.
The eight prediction is that of land animals. Science believes that land animals followed sea animals.
Lastly, the ninth prediction is that of man. Science has confirmed that man is the climax of the Creation having existed only 6,000 - 20,000 years based on their own numbers.
As I stated, the evidence for Christianity is overwhelming. The only way Moses could have know this stuff is if God had inspired the writting themselves.
I urge you to not reject the love of God. All the predictions of the Bible are true and are coming true. Don't live eternity without love!!
• Saul was not a contemporary.
ReplyDelete• The authors of the Christian Gospels can't be verified, therefore alleged testimony contained within those books is inadmissible (ie - hearsay)
• There's nothing strange about requiring corroboration of evidence. That's a standard warrant requirement.
"If you reject Theism, you immediately have to believe that Nature created itself and designed itself by default."
Incorrect. Your false dichotomy results from some presuppositions which are not facts. First, that matter was created. Second, if it was, that the only "creators" would be either your god or the matter itself. There's a plethora of other possibilities, not the least of which involve theories concerning multiverses.
May reason dispel your willful ignorance forever!
ZDENNY,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, "1. When you go to court, eyewitness testimonies are always accepted. The prosecution would have to provide real evidence that discredits the witnesses which I am certain you don't have. Circumstantial evidence is throw out."
But, collusive eyewitness testimony before the fact would not be considered valid and inherently would offer reasonable doubt. The gospel accounts use the same source material to assert their testimony and amount to witnesses corroborating stories prior to investigation. Any good prosecutor would cast doubt on the veracity of this "eyewitness testimony". Collusion is a moral hazard in any investigation and that is why subjects for investigation claiming to be eyewitnesses are isolated prior to testimonial documentation. The gospels don't pass this test.
2. Luke, Mark and Paul also acting as historian have recorded the accounts for antiquity.
"Luke" and "Mark" are not conclusively known to be the authors of the gospels claimed as their products. Iraneus attributed them as authors but, biblical scholarship calls this assertion in question. One cannot trust this corroboration. Expert testimony (historical and biblical scholarship) in a court case would rule out your claim to authority on this issue. Reasonable doubt (the only standard for aqquittal) holds.
3. It is strange that you would want third party evidence when we have first party witnesses and third party evidence of those who spoke with the eyewitnesses.
I've debunked your assertion to first and third party evidence. The gospel texts do not hold to a reasonable standard of data hygiene.
Jesus Christ, I see you've spouted even more nonsense!
ReplyDeleteAll of your "predictions" exhibit an incredible ignorance of science.
I urge YOU to try and educate yourself.
ZDENNY,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "I always enjoy talking with atheist! I have never met an atheist who had a good reason to reject Christianity. Christianity is the only rational belief system that exist."
I offer:
The Inquisition
Luther's Anti-semitism
Hitler's appeal to Christian Authority as a means to securing political power
The Crusades
Calvin's Geneva
Salem, Massachusetts
George Bush's appeal to a "higher father" in his mismanaged foreign policy based on military pre-emption
Ummm . . . the practice of Christians does not lead one to believe it is rational at all.
Phil
ReplyDeleteFirst, Paul was a contemporary who met with the eyewitness as discussed in Corinthians
Second, you would have to prove that the testimonies were alleged which I am sure you don't have.
Third, corroboration is already contained in the historical works of Mark, Luke and Paul so your standard has already been met.
Once again, you are inconsistent in how you handle evidence and it shows.
In regard to multiverses, you would need to provide evidence. At this time, it is dogma. The evidence only shows that the universe had a beginning so there are only two logical options based on the evidence at this time.
As I stated, Christianity is rational! Your beliefs are inconsistent, irrational and based on dogmatic faith in things like multiverses or matter creating itself which is irrational. We have no evidence for your beliefs.
ZDENNY,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "The first thing created were the heavens. We know that dark energy which is a canopy in space fills what we call the heavens. Therefore, the heavens were a creation and they were created before everything else because this is the stuff out of which God formed everything else."
Stars are necessary for the Triple Alpha Process to occur and without the Triple Alpha Process carbon can't exist. Without carbon we have no carbon life-forms. Genesis is scientifically wrong in its order of creation.
Phil;
ReplyDeleteOnce again you are showing how unknowledege you are. Christianity is rational. Your short list proves that man is a sinner.
Christians can act irrationally just like you can in that they are fallen, finite creatures capable of making mistakes. Christians can sin just like you can. Christians are not perfect and that is why we need Christ. Christians at least are honest, you are being dishonest with the evidence. The Bible predicts that man will do evil things.
Why do you think that we need Christ in order to be saved. You have proven that man is a sinner in need of salvation so I thank you for pointing this out!
Don't turn your back on love because it is your only hope!
Chuck: We already know that dark energy came first. Dark Energy contains 75-85% of the matter in space. Stars had to have formed from something and we now know what that something is. You might need to pick up a book on cosmology. The Bible prediction is correct based on the evidence.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, we have empirically confirmed evidence called the great gallaxy seed. Do a google search and get educated.
Chuck said: Stars are necessary for the Triple Alpha Process to occur and without the Triple Alpha Process carbon can't exist.
ReplyDeleteOnce again chuck, planets formed in the same way that stars formed. Carbon would have been produced by the forming planet. Planets use to be forming stars. That is why we have gold, silter and a whole host of different metals that formed after the earth cooled down. We know that the earth got pretty hot before it cooled.
Ken, I have been waiting for someone like you to write this type of things for some time. If we closely study the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament (and else where if you like), the normal understanding of PST turns God into a wrathful, angry, vengeful beast who wants blood. Many of my dear friends could not stand it any longer and are now Orthodox Christians (they don't even focus on atonement language). I am blessed to know Dallas Willard. He has said in talks at evangelical events, "Jesus didn't die so that I (you) don't have to." And, "You never want to work yourself into a position [with a theory of atonement] where you have a God who never really forgives, but just gets paid off." I'm convinced God is real because if people there really understood what he is saying, he would have been killed or publicly condemned by now!
ReplyDeletePST is false.
It's simply not biblical. The self-sacrifice of God in Christ is the demonstration (Romans 3 - NRSV) of God's forgiveness [primarily for the Jews because of their religious culture] - it was not required for God to forgive anyone!
I hope you don't take this as an attempt to convince you of anything. God bless!
" you would have to prove that the testimonies were alleged"
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid that's not how it works. Testimony has to be verified before admission, or else it's hearsay. Saul's retelling of others' testimony is essentially hearsay. For example, say my neighbor claimed to be abducted by aliens last night. Can you surmise that that is true because I'm telling you it is and I've met the eyewitness?
And again, we have no idea who authored the Christian Gospels, so their tales which seem to corroborate each other are as inadmissible as the tales which actually contradict each other.
"Your beliefs are inconsistent, irrational and based on dogmatic faith..."
Please list these beliefs I allegedly have because again, your claims are meaningless without clarification.
Btw, dark matter is merely theoretical. It hasn't been proven yet and I don't know what the hell dark energy is, let alone "the great gallaxy (sic) seed." Seriously pal, you could really use further education on the topics you're talking about. I'd suggest internet sources or your public library, but I'm getting the sense that you'd need a more structured, supervised learning environment. Perhaps check your local high schools, community college or a local university for any night classes or special presentations and symposiums which you could attend. Another great resource, although you'd be on your own, would be to order one of the great courses available from The Teaching Company. It's the next best thing to actually taking a college course.
ZDENNY,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "In regard to multiverses, you would need to provide evidence. At this time, it is dogma. The evidence only shows that the universe had a beginning so there are only two logical options based on the evidence at this time."
Yet Stephen Hawking, the man who proposed "singularity", later reveresed himself on this cosmological assertion due to quantum mechanics. There is no concensus between him and those who claim agreement to his assertion of beginnings. In fact, he is now doing all he can to counter the cosmology of beginnings and has referenced Victor Stenger's "quantum tunneling" hypothesis as a contradictory claim.
This of course does not refute the inaccuracy of the order of genesis and the need for stars to initiate the triple alpha process to substantiate carbon. Your appeal to the authority of genesis as a self-evident text is de-bunked by the laws of physics and proves it to be a logical fallacy.
You also said, "First, Paul was a contemporary who met with the eyewitness as discussed in Corinthians
Second, you would have to prove that the testimonies were alleged which I am sure you don't have.
Third, corroboration is already contained in the historical works of Mark, Luke and Paul so your standard has already been met."
Which is only evidence to your inability to understand the meaning of collusion. My cross-examination of your eye-witness testimony still provides "reasonable doubt" to its veracity.
Lastly, I am not an athetist. What dogma do I hold?
ZDENNY,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "Once again chuck, planets formed in the same way that stars formed. Carbon would have been produced by the forming planet. Planets use to be forming stars. That is why we have gold, silter and a whole host of different metals that formed after the earth cooled down. We know that the earth got pretty hot before it cooled."
I don't know what this argument admits. Are you simply giving us objective evidence to your ignorance? Did you read my post? Stars need to exist before carbon. The genesis account gets that sequence wrong. Either the laws of physics are wrong or genesis is wrong. Which one? And no special pleading that god changed the laws of physics to suit the genesis sequence.
ZDENNY you said,
ReplyDelete"Christians can act irrationally just like you can in that they are fallen, finite creatures capable of making mistakes. Christians can sin just like you can. Christians are not perfect and that is why we need Christ. Christians at least are honest, you are being dishonest with the evidence. The Bible predicts that man will do evil things."
So do you mean there is an immunogenicity to the "in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit". If so, do you have a bio-marker test for that.
The fact that Christians, in the name of Christ, contradict the heaven they point to is evidence there "truth" is an unsubstantiated fallacy.
Sam--thanks for your kind words.
ReplyDeleteZDenny--you have way too much time on your hands.
Sam said: "Jesus didn't die so that I (you) don't have to." And, "You never want to work yourself into a position [with a theory of atonement] where you have a God who never really forgives, but just gets paid off." I'm convinced God is real because if people there really understood what he is saying, he would have been killed or publicly condemned by now!"
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that God cannot forgive you without the work of Christ because God is Holy and cannot allow an unholy being to participate in His nature for eternity. God can forgive you through Christ. Your eternal punishment has been forgiven by the work of Christ who satisfied the Holiness of God...The blood of Christ covers your sin when you participate in the life of Christ through faith in Christ.
It really is a simple concept. Holiness and unholiness are logical opposites. In order to participate in the nature of God, you have to participate in the righteousness (holiness)of Christ. This is the only way to salvation.
It appears to me that Ken simply believes that Christ did not need to die at all. God should just be able to say, "Your forgiven" and allow you to participate in His love for eternity; however, this would destroy the nature of God because we are evil and results in a logical contradiction which is something impossible for God to do.
You have to have the righteousness of Christ in order to participate in the nature of God for eternity. There is only one path and it really is a simple concept to follow.
Chuck said, 'Stars need to exist before carbon." I am in agreement since planets form as stars. All planets are smaller than stars! Carbon was created by the forming earth itself.
ReplyDeletePhilly said, "" you would have to prove that the testimonies were alleged"
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid that's not how it works. Testimony has to be verified before admission, or else it's hearsay."
Phil, I work with the courts all the time because I have to decide what cases go to court.
If I take a statement, all I need for the person to do is verify who they are and then proceed with the testimony.
The documents tells us internally who wrote them for instance John claims to have written the gospel himself in John 20. The testimony has to be accepted by the courts as a result.
The only way that my statement can be chanllenged in court is if evidence is brought forward that demonstrates something else. I am certain you don't have any evidence to the contrary.
ZDENNY,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "Chuck said, 'Stars need to exist before carbon." I am in agreement since planets form as stars. All planets are smaller than stars! Carbon was created by the forming earth itself."
What came first in genesis, the stars or the earth? Third day, earth and fourth day, stars.
Your argument is moot.
Also I doubt you decide what goes to court. What is your job? Are you a judge? Attorney? What? Collusive eyewitness testimony is in effect illegitimate. The gospels collude with each other to bring forth their narrative.
Chuck said, "The gospel accounts use the same source material to assert their testimony and amount to witnesses corroborating stories prior to investigation. Any good prosecutor would cast doubt on the veracity of this "eyewitness testimony".
ReplyDeleteOnce again this is not true. Everyone knows that John is independent and Matthew also contains independent thought not found in Luke and Mark. Luke and Mark are the only two that actually relied on other documents or the eyewitnesses themselves.
In addition, everyone believes that Luke wrote Luke except for the irrational fringe who make irrational statements anyway.
It has been conclusively demonstrated by scholarship that all of the writtings were written prior to 90 AD which means they were all written by contemporaries of the eyewitnesses. In fact, Mark considered the earliest gospel being written around 50 AD relied on a earlier document that would place it within 7-10 years after the resurrection.
There is no reason to believe otherwise. Read the New Testament yourself and you will see that the language used like Paul's claim in I Corinthinas 15 demonstrates that the eyewitnesses were known and alive at the time of its writting.
The evidence for Christianity is overwhelming. You have to be anti-scientific to deny the evidence.
Chuck: The first thing that was created was the heavens themselves which we now know is comprised of dark energy. The second thing created was the planets. We know that planets always form first in any system.
ReplyDeleteThe Biblical predictions are accurate and predict exactly what we see going on in the universe.
Just keeping fighting the facts! :) I find Darwinians do this alot
"If I take a statement, all I need for the person to do is verify who they are and then proceed with the testimony."
ReplyDeleteCorrect, but we don't have any such verification for the alleged resurrection witnesses. Furthermore, getting back to my alien abduction example, what you're essentially saying is we'd have to believe my neighbor was in fact abducted by aliens unless it could be proven that he wasn't.
"The documents tells us internally who wrote them for instance John claims to have written the gospel himself..."
LOL! It's written by John because it says it is? So I guess we can say Moby Dick was written by Ishmael.
"In addition, everyone believes that Luke wrote Luke except for the irrational fringe who make irrational statements anyway"
Everyone agrees with me except for those who don't, but they're crazy. Uh huh.
This is like talking with the crazies outside 30th street station, only without the smell of urine.
Philly stated: "Correct, but we don't have any such verification for the alleged resurrection witnesses. Furthermore, getting back to my alien abduction example, what you're essentially saying is we'd have to believe my neighbor was in fact abducted by aliens unless it could be proven that he wasn't."
ReplyDeleteI hope you realize that Darwinians are currently looking for aliens. They set up SETI and it was started by Sagan. Dawkins even believes that aliens are a possibility. They argued that if even one sentence in code is obtained, they will have proof of alien life.
They say that while at the same time denying that DNA is merely a program that demonstrates intelligence!
In a court situation, the testimony regarding an alien would be accepted. The more witnesses the stronger the evidence. The prosecution then has to present evidence that can discredit the testimony of the witnesses.
So start giving me some evidence if you have any.
The evidence of the resurrection is overwhelming!!
Philly stated" "The documents tells us internally who wrote them for instance John claims to have written the gospel himself..."
ReplyDeleteLOL! It's written by John because it says it is? So I guess we can say Moby Dick was written by Ishmael."
This is correct. When I take a statement for court, I only need for the person to identify themselves. Your laughter is based on ignorance.
ZDENNY,
ReplyDeleteI love how Dominionists contradict themselves when they try to coerce others to their illogical beliefs.
You said, "Chuck: The first thing that was created was the heavens themselves which we now know is comprised of dark energy. The second thing created was the planets. We know that planets always form first in any system."
You also said, " I am in agreement since planets form as stars."
How did the planet earth form before the stars and still be consistent with what we observe in the natural world?
ZDENNY,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "The prosecution then has to present evidence that can discredit the testimony of the witnesses."
Ummm . . . like collusion. Yep that would be good and since most biblical scholars corroborate a source text for Mark and, we don't have the original authographs we can only assume copies of copies of copies are the overwheliming evidence.
ZDENNY,
ReplyDeleteAlso, your saying John is independent denies the basis of your argument which is corroboration. How can John be independent AND corroborative WITHOUT collusion? The dating of the texts does not imply simultaneous authorship does it? Face it, you have taken your faith as fact which is a common logical fallacy in the face of randomness known as the availability heuristic but, it does not make it true.
"In a court situation, the testimony regarding an alien would be accepted."
ReplyDeleteIF it was my neighbor presenting it. If it was me presenting it, it would be dismissed as hearsay (hint: in the analogy, I'm Saul).
"When I take a statement for court, I only need for the person to identify themselves."
Imagine if my friend was on trial for murder, and I brought in a document that I claimed was written by a witness who states they saw someone else commit the murder. When asked to verify that this document was from a witness, I pointed to where in the document it says, "My name is John and I witnessed the murder." Would you admit that document into evidence as eyewitness testimony?
As I stated, you would have to demonstrate collusion. John is clearly independent of Matthew. Matthew is clearly independent. Mark and Luke do not claim to be independent. James is clearly independent as well as Peter. If there was collusion, they would all be identical; however, they are not identical and vary only based on perspective.
ReplyDeleteThe eyewitnesses all died for their belief that Christ rose from the dead. A person that is willing to go to their death while being beaten all along the way is pretty strong evidence that the empirically confirmed events are true.
The fact is that we have more evidence than you. You have zero evidence!
All atheists are Theists because they believe that Nature created and designed itself; however, Nature would have to exist prior to its existence which is a logical contradiction.
On top of that we have no evidence that life comes from non-life.
All of the evidence is for Christianity because the Bible predicts all this stuff.
Christianity is supported by more evidence than any other worldview in existence.
Christianity is very easy to defend because it is rationally consistent and supported with a ton of evidence.
Take for example, Genesis 1. All of the predictions made by Genesis are coming true.
The first thing created were the heavens. We know that dark energy which is a canopy in space fills what we call the heavens. Therefore, the heavens were a creation and they were created before everything else because this is the stuff out of which God formed everything else.
The second prediction was the formation of planets. We now know that planets most likely form first because they are much smaller than stars. Planets form in the same way as stars; however, due to a forming star draining the pond, planets never reached the size in which cold fusion was able to take place.
The third prediction is that of light. A planet near a nebular cloud or on the edge of a cloud would have experienced the light of the birth of the universe first. The gas in a nebular cloud diffuses the light making it appear as one light
The fourth prediction is that of an atmosphere. We now know for a fact that atmospheres follow planet formation. No one questions this.
The fifth prediction is that of an organic life. Science believes that organic life preceded the life of fish.
The sixth prediction is that of fish and then birds. Science once again believes that fish followed organic life in the seas followed by insects and then birds.
The seventh prediction is that of the sun, moon and stars which would have taken place after our star had completely formed and left the nebular cloud. The moon which has a very different composition appears to have been added at this time. The stars would have appeared as stars as they the nebular cloud and began to diffuse.
The eight prediction is that of land animals. Science believes that land animals followed sea animals.
Lastly, the ninth prediction is that of man. Science has confirmed that man is the climax of the Creation having existed only 6,000 - 20,000 years based on their own numbers.
As I stated, the evidence for Christianity is overwhelming. The only way Moses could have known this stuff is if God had inspired the writing themselves.
I urge you to not reject the love of God. All the predictions of the Bible are true and are coming true. Don't live eternity without love!!
"The eyewitnesses all died for their belief that Christ rose from the dead. A person that is willing to go to their death while being beaten all along the way is pretty strong evidence that the empirically confirmed events are true."
ReplyDeleteMuhammad Atta died because he believed he would dwell with 77 virgins. Martyrdom is a poor litmus for the veracity of one's beliefs.
ZDENNY,
ReplyDelete"The second prediction was the formation of planets. We now know that planets most likely form first because they are much smaller than stars. Planets form in the same way as stars; however, due to a forming star draining the pond, planets never reached the size in which cold fusion was able to take place."
Cold fusion? Really now Z. Come on.
ZDENNY,
ReplyDelete"I urge you to not reject the love of God. All the predictions of the Bible are true and are coming true. Don't live eternity without love!!"
Have you ever been treated for an OCD condition known as "Scrupulosity"? Look it up. You exhibit many of the symptoms. I wish you well and hope you find peace. I don't need to believe myself a depraved and worthless creature unworthy of god's love to feel love. Nor do I need to believe my being alive caused another person to die a capital punishment. Nor do I believe anything I am capable of doing would ever neccesistate such punishment. You however do believe these things about yourself and others so I wonder how you can not hate yourself and the rest of humaniyt.
Chuck: You simply don't see yourself as a sinner. You think you are God and that is the problem.
ReplyDeleteI can also deny my need for food; however, this would be foolish and result in my death. I guess you are on the same path since you deny reality itself.
You are a fallen creature. We are surrounded by death, disease and sickness and you think everything is o.k. and that everyone just dies as a part of life should be normal.
I guess I am just not as closed minded as yourself. In fact, I have to be rational and based my life on evidence rather than a dogmatic faith that you apparently have.
Some people are just too selfish to see beyond the bubble of selfishness! I guess your bubble is pretty thick!
You clearly need Christ so that you can learn how to love someone besides yourself. You see, only those who desire love will find it; however, you don't desire anything but the fulfillment of your selfish desires and that really is the bottom line.
My prayers are with you.
Chuck said, "Martyrdom is a poor litmus for the veracity of one's beliefs."
ReplyDeleteI would agree unless you were an eyewitness and you knew your story was a lie. The fact is that it couldn't be a lie because we have too many witnesses which make it possible to compare the stories. We know the stories are true because none of them are exactly the same and yet none of them contradict each other also.
The gospels are an amazing historical accounts that only speak to those who are capable of loving someone besides themselves.
ZDENNY,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "You think you are God and that is the problem."
Hmmmm . . . did I say that? No, I said I find your worldview detestable and historically proven to be immoral. Now, if you feel disagreeing with you is an assumption of competing godship then one must wonder how you view yourself. Are you god Z?
"I guess you are on the same path since you deny reality itself."
No, I find your worldview to be primitive, self-hating and historically destructive.
"You are a fallen creature. We are surrounded by death, disease and sickness and you think everything is o.k. and that everyone just dies as a part of life should be normal."
Yes, I accept death as part of life and that is why I attempt to practice charity, honesty, love and compassion to those I can. I've practice much charity with you. You are arrogant and self-deluded and believe that your "feelings" extrapolate some sort of goodness. They don't.
"Some people are just too selfish to see beyond the bubble of selfishness! I guess your bubble is pretty thick!"
Can you please provide evidence to my selfishness. It seems pretty self-centered to me to make a judgement to a person's selfishness based on the disagreement they have with your "facts".
"You clearly need Christ so that you can learn how to love someone besides yourself. You see, only those who desire love will find it; however, you don't desire anything but the fulfillment of your selfish desires and that really is the bottom line."
Z, I volunteer and work with families that have been ravaged by the effects of alcoholism; I contribute to two International Christian NGOs that offer food, education and shelter to orphans; I am working on a new targeted theraphy to help extend life to those who have been diagnosed with brain cancer. How exactly am I selfish? If the only evidence is that I think your worldview is self-hating, primitive and arrogant then you should condemn yourself.
Chuck, I meant thermonuclear fusion. Thanks for the correction.
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is that you need Jesus. Without Jesus you are without hope and separated from God for eternity.
The fact is that you have a choice and your choice to choose self over love will result in your eternal existence without love.
Faith is a gift of God so I don't expect you to become a Christian; however, I do expect that God will use this over your lifetime to bring you to your senses.
Z,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "I do expect that God will use this over your lifetime to bring you to your senses."
Z, I hope the same for you.
Z,
ReplyDelete"The gospels are an amazing historical accounts that only speak to those who are capable of loving someone besides themselves."
Just because you say it doesn't make it so Z but, it is an interesting version of self-love.
Chuck: The reason you engage in these debates is because you doubt your own worldview. I understand your insecurity. I am acting in love and showing you the path to the life of love. Your only respond to is offer me death and eternal death at that.
ReplyDeleteA world without hope is what you offer the world. A blind belief in a design that doesn't have a designer is a strange belief to offer the world.
"A world without hope is what you offer the world."
ReplyDeleteIrrational hope can cause more harm than good. For instance, hoping a magical being in the sky will heal your daughter if you pray to it rather than taking her to a doctor. Then there's hoping your daughter won't have sex instead of educating her about it and contraceptives. How about hoping you can afford a house when clearly you don't make enough money, especially when that hope involves hoping that ARM won't adjust too drastically? Then there's hope that a big enough hurricane won't come so why spend more money on proper levees, or hope that you'll make tenfold what you loaned that nice exiled Nigerian prince who emailed you for help, hope that you won't get sick so you don't bother to get health insurance, hoping you'll score a big win at Atlantic City to pay off your debt rather than looking for a second job, and so on.
Hope can make you feel great, like drugs or alcohol, but just as there are good and bad forms of those, and good and bad times to rely on them to feel good, the same is true about hope.
Phil: The only person offering irrational hopelessness is atheist. You believe that nature magically created and designed itself. In other words, you believe that nature existed prior to its own existence.
ReplyDeleteThe evidence for Christianity is overwhelming and only a person with a closed mind who claims ignorance can avoid the evidence.
The ultimate proof for a Christian moves beyond the probable external evidence to absolute proof. A Christian who knows the love of God personally has evidence that goes beyond that of any external evidence.
If you want absolute certainty, you have to know the love of God.
I am certain that Ken never knew the love of God and that is why he jumped ship. If He knew the love of God, He would never have left because the love of God provides the absolute proof that goes beyond the arguments from probability.
In fact, all external evidence no matter what it is is based on probability because reliance on our senses and mind to know reality are dependent on faith. No knowledge that exists outside of us can be absolutely certain as absolute knowledge belongs to God and God alone.
Z,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "Chuck: The reason you engage in these debates is because you doubt your own worldview. I understand your insecurity. I am acting in love and showing you the path to the life of love. Your only respond to is offer me death and eternal death at that."
Which I take as more of your hypocritical claims to god-head. Are you omniscient? Do you know my worldview?
I egnage in this debate to train my mind when I encounter bigots like you in person. I also do it to find a way to practice charity towards people whose worldview I find destructive and hateful.
I don't know you Z but your tone and your worldview convey someone who needs to be right no matter what and believes his righteousness is sanctioned by a god he imagines. History is littered with the skulls of innocent people who had to deal with people like you and I find that offensive. Therefore I speak up and challenge bigotry and ignorance when I see it masquerading as righteous morality.
Chuck said, "debate to train my mind when I encounter bigots like you in person"
ReplyDeleteI understand why you call people bigots. You are a lot like PZ Meyers who doesn't treat his opposition with respect. When you don't believe in God, no one has any value especially those who disagree with you.
PZ Meyers instructs his followers to mock people of faith and he is planning to urinate on the grave of Clarence Thomas. The reason is that PZ is not able to love people just like you are not able to love anyone else except yourself or people who are like you.
You need to know the love of God which is eternal and unchanging. In the atheistic bubble, you love a cookie in the same way you love your kids. I hate being so brutely honest about this fact; however, your love is connected to your feelings which are driven by chemicals.
We all know that chemicals are not able to love other chemicals. It is irrational to even think that chemicals can love other chemicals. The fact is that your desires paramount and there is no reason to die to your selfish desires on behalf of others.
I would suggest that we ignore the rantings of people like ZDenny. There will always be people like him who show up here. Its best to ignore them. Let them claim victory or that they have refuted us or whatever they desire to say.
ReplyDeleteI would prefer to keep the discussion at a higher level.
Ken,
ReplyDeleteGreat blog post. Personally I don't buy penal substitution either, at least as it is traditionally presented. But I have a couple of questions regarding your argument.
1) I was wondering why you believe payment and forgiveness must be mutually exclusive? Why if there is payment does that cancel out forgiveness? If you steal money from me and then eventually you pay me back, that does not make my forgiving you unnecessary or irrational. I might respond, "Thank you for paying me back. I forgive you." And that would not be nonsense. We say things like that all the time.
2) You say that the argument, "It is God himself who pays the debt we owe," does not change things for you. But there is here, objectively speaking, an entirely different phenomenon that should at least be acknowledged: God is not simply getting paid, but he's actually bearing the debt. And bearing the debt is what we call "forgiveness". That's the whole point of using the "debt" metaphor. Because in the act of forgiveness, injustice must be born by someone. If a person chooses not to retaliate but to forgive, they are certainly bearing that debt or perhaps even paying the debt to themselves if you want to put it that way. Would you agree? It would be very offensive to say to any victim of injustice that their act of forgiveness is not essentially costly.
3) Let's say I grant your point that in penal substitution there is no forgiveness. It is after all a very insightful point. But I guess what I would most like to know is, what of it? Why point this out? Why is forgiveness intrinsically good? Forgiveness is a word that has no meaning without some concept of justice/injustice underlying it. So I imagine your Christian opponent would respond, "Well then, it is not forgiveness. It is justice. The debt has been paid."
"Yeah," you (or some of the other commenters here) might say, "perhaps you think a debt has been paid to God, but sex slaves and victims of genocide have not been paid back."
I think their response would be, "Well, yes. But what are you proposing instead? How could they be paid back in this world? You cannot give someone back their virginity. You cannot give someone back their life. But by this man's suffering, they may know that they are not alone in their own suffering, and by this man's death the wrongs done unto them have been vicariously dealt with and justice has been done and by his resurrection they have become heirs of a kingdom that is free from torture, sorrow, and death."
The human situation is complicated. Most of us (perhaps all of us) have been sometimes victims and sometimes offenders. A lot of wrong has been done in this world and, empirically, I think we can agree on the fact that WE cannot put it all to rights (even just logically, it is impossible to hope conceive of justice in regard to the sins of past generations).
But if there is a God, and God himself has laid on himself the iniquity of us all, so that he can be both just in regards to evil and merciful in regards to the human beings he made, that sounds wonderful and rational to me. It seems then, that the point of the cross for Christians is that God condemns evil once for all without destroying human beings. He puts the world to rights and spares us in the process. How else in this complicated and messed up world could we ever rationally justify the desire in our hearts for both justice and love to reign?
Ross,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments. On point 1, My contention is that if sin is expiated on the cross, then its gone. Its wiped away, its taken off the books, so if one comes along later and asks to be forgiven of that sin, the response is "what sin"? I don't see any sin on your account.
Point 2--Yes forgiveness is in a sense costly in the human sphere. We swallow our self-pride and forgive the person even though they have wronged us. That is not the same thing though as PST holds. PST holds that the penalty the guilty party deserved must be paid, it transfers that guilt to an innocent party who happens to be the God-man and has him pay it a substitute. So its more than just absorbing a loss.
Point 3--What does it matter after all is forgiveness is eliminated by PST. It matters because it flies in the face of many Scriptures which use the word not to mention the preaching and teaching of many evangelicals. My point for bringing it up is that these evangelicals are not being true to the Bible and yet most don't even realize it. Its an internal contradiction in their theology.
Gosh, thank you for responding so quickly!
ReplyDeleteOn point 2, well said. I think I agree this is a weakness of the theory. As is represented in your most recent blog post, the arbitrary transference of penalty could be seen as unjust in and of itself.
On point 1, expiation is not properly the basis for PST, but rather propitiation (satisfying wrath). Many people who believe in PST believe that Jesus died to satisfy the wrath of God against sin (to free us from the profound penalty of sin that we deserve) but also, separately, they believe that he died to free us from sin itself (not intrinsically a part of PST's logic, but one can hold more than one belief about what the cross achieved for humanity). So in the logic of PST itself, the sin is not cancelled, but rather paid for. Punishment and sin are not the same. Thus the response is not "what sin?" but "what ultimate consequence?". Because he has taken what we deserve on himself, and as we have said, that is the very essence of forgiveness. "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world." -1 Jn 2:2
On point 3, I think this may be an oversimplification about what Christians have traditionally believed about the Bible. I know you used to be a Christian, so you probably know what I mean. Just because some form of the word "forgiveness" is used to describe what God does in relation to us and our sins, does not mean that is the only, final, ultimate thing that he does. This is why Paul uses the word "righteousness" so often in his letters. As Paul was aware, the OT sacrificial system was worthy to deal with "the forgiveness of sins", but it was another thing altogether to deal with the righteousness of God, which was called into question by that fact that he had passed over sins in the past (Rom. 3:21-26). Paul believes in forgiveness but clearly he believes the atonement through the death/resurrection of Jesus is about something bigger than just forgiveness.
I grant your overarching point that PST has been logically and theologically (with regard to Scripture) presented in problematic ways by Christians. But that does not necessarily mean that the idea of substitutionary atonement, or even some form of penal substitution is not a helpful/logical/biblical way (among others) to conceive of the Christian atonement. I'm willing to be convinced the penal substitution is not helpful, but I'm not there yet. (The discussion on deontic sin was perhaps most convincing in this regard.)
Finally, I want to thank you again for your discussion on this recently. In my view it is perhaps much more fruitful for Christians to be reading these critiques than for non-Christians! We need to realize where we're not making sense and where we're not being true to our own Scriptures. So thanks for arguing on Scriptural grounds as well as logical grounds.
Ross,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thoughtful comments. On point #2, you are right that propitiation is the main emphasis of PST. You are probably aware of the debate over the Greek word, "hilasterion," which C.H. Dodd maintained should be translated "expiation" and Leon Morris forcefully argued against him that "propitiation" is a better rendering. Even granting Morris' point, though, there are plenty of Scriptures that teach expiation even without using the specific word. For example, Col. 2:14 and Isa. 43:25.
On point 3, I agree that the Bible indicates that many things are accomplished through the death of Christ. I also agree that preachers are not a good source for precise theology.
I will admit that this particular criticism of PST (that it eliminates true forgiveness), while I think its valid, is my weakest argument against PST.
Wow. You are well-read on this stuff for a dude who doesn't believe it! I am impressed with your care to detail on this topic and I appreciate it. Very right about hilasterion. Sorry, I didn't mean to quote that verse in order to prove that propitiation is the correct way to view the atonement, but rather to show that many Christians understand PST to be founded in Scripture, and not in a way that is illogical or contradictory.
ReplyDeleteGod's wrath against (our) sin is clearly manifest in the Bible, OT and NT (e.g. Deut. 32, Rom. 1 and obviously countless others), and the question of the ultimate nature of his wrath and its purpose as it relates to the atonement is a very profound and difficult one, worth wrestling with for a lifetime in my view. I for one hope that "expiation" is the better word choice, believing that God's wrath is for the sake of his love and not for the sake of itself.
Any thoughts on why Romans 5:9 and verses like it in Paul should not be used to defend propitiation / PST?
Ross,
ReplyDeleteI believe that Leon Morris conclusively shows that "hilasterion" is best translated "propitation." (The Cross in the NT)
Rom. 5:9 does teach propitiation, I think even though the word "hilasterion" is not used.
Agreed.
ReplyDelete