imputed righteousness

[With_Questions]

The problem with the idea of the Father smiting the Son, only in a “passive” sense, is that Jesus was obeying the Father as Jesus went to the Cross. That requirement of willing obedience does not speak of a “passive” role for the Father in smiting the Shepherd.

The type that points to the roles in sacrifice would be Abraham’s willingness to slay his own son. It could then be said that Abraham showed a greater sacrifice by his being willing to do the actual sacrifice of his own son, if the Father was not also willing to do the same.

Maybe I am dense, but I don’t get where the choices are mutually exclusive.

Did Jesus obeyed His father as He went to the cross? Absolutely. It was the Father’s will that Jesus went to the cross. Just as foreshadowed by Abraham.

I do think Catholics concur with the above statement, although I will let them speak for themselves on this matter.

It does not necessarily follow from this that it was the Father who actually was actively slaying His son. Neither does if follow from the Scriptures cited thus far because of parallel logic found in the Old Testament.

Not that I necessarily see anything particularly terrible about that particular interpretation of Scripture (I don’t think I can disprove it). Although it does pose the question on whether God actively pouring out wrath on God is Scripturally possible and makes any sense at all.

It is just that to hold that one interpretation up as the definitive last word while at the same time dismissing alternative interpretations as definitively wrong just seems to be overreaching to me.

 

[brkn1]

I do not believe either that God the Father or man actually killed (slayed) Jesus. Jesus layed down His own life at the proper time. Jesus said that such laying down was His own right.
The High Priest does the offering and Jesus was that High Priest.
I believe that both man and God did smite Jesus before Jesus laid down His life.
The smiting of Jesus by man is described in Scripture.
The smiting of Jesus by the Father is hidden as the transaction between two equals might only be completely known and understood only by the immediate parties involved. The Bible does say that the Father would smite the Shepherd Jesus. “I will smite” is not a passive phrase. The transaction details of that smiting are not any of our business, if the two parties choose not to reveal them.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

When I quoted those verses in Matthew and Mark, I was using the New Testament. Jesus said it. It was prophecy from the Old Testament that was being fulfilled by the New Testament. Did I mention that Jesus (NT) said it? It contradicts your statement that God never did anything “smiteful” (punishing in wrath) against Jesus.

You missed my point: What does the NT say about how this ‘smite’ occurred?
The context where that passage is quoted is when the soldiers were going to come arrest Jesus and the Apostles would flee. The only ‘smite’ we ever see is the arrest, torture, and murder of Jesus

There is much that we do not know about what happened. It is quite an assumption that “we would certainly expect to see ‘real meaning’ depicted” for everything that happened during the Crucifixion.

It is an ASSUMPTION to argue the most important doctrine of all time is not actually depicted in Scripture? The physical murder of Jesus by Romans is totally secondary to the ‘true meaning’ of the cross which was God damning His Son, yet Scripture is silent upon these details.

Sola Scriptura 101 teaches all doctrines important for salvation are clearly laid out in Scripture, yet you have shown no clear Scriptural support for the key notion that God damned Jesus.

There is much that we do not know about what happened. It is quite an assumption that “we would certainly expect to see ‘real meaning’ depicted” for everything that happened during the Crucifixion.

Are you saying that I am “begging the question” by my insistence that “I will smite” means that God the Father is the One smiting Jesus?
You just can’t get around the biblical words: “I will smite”!

I am addressing what that passage means, using the Gospel accounts as my main guide. Begging the question means you assume the very thing you are trying to prove, and in this case you assume the physical murder of Jesus is insufficient and there must be more to the story despite the fact you have no evidence there was “more” that took place at the Cross.

Your argument is no different than a JW saying, "you can’t get around the biblical words: “the Father is greater than I”! and insisting any interpretation other than Jesus being less than God is not good enough.

 

[brkn1]

You missed my point: What does the NT say about how this ‘smite’ occurred?
The context where that passage is quoted is when the soldiers were going to come arrest Jesus and the Apostles would flee. The only ‘smite’ we ever see is the arrest, torture, and murder of Jesus

It is an ASSUMPTION to argue the most important doctrine of all time is not actually depicted in Scripture? The physical murder of Jesus by Romans is totally secondary to the ‘true meaning’ of the cross which was God damning His Son, yet Scripture is silent upon these details.

Sola Scriptura 101 teaches all doctrines important for salvation are clearly laid out in Scripture, yet you have shown no clear Scriptural support for the key notion that God damned Jesus.

I am addressing what that passage means, using the Gospel accounts as my main guide. Begging the question means you assume the very thing you are trying to prove, and in this case you assume the physical murder of Jesus is insufficient and there must be more to the story despite the fact you have no evidence there was “more” that took place at the Cross.

Your argument is no different than a JW saying, "you can’t get around the biblical words: “the Father is greater than I”! and insisting any interpretation other than Jesus being less than God is not good enough.

Let’s cut to the chase. In the first chapter of Matthew 1:21, the angel of the Lord told Mary: “…JESUS: for He shall save his people from their sins.”
You say that Jesus only makes salvation possible by “His example of obedience” and grace that we can get infused with by the merit of Jesus’ obedience.

One of the first questions that comes to mind is: "How did the OT saints get saved by Jesus’ “example of obedience”? That question alone, can not seriously be defended or explained. They did not live to receive Jesus’ “example of obedience”.

Jesus can not be called a Redeemer by your assumptions of what happened at Calvary. He would only qualify to be a “semi- redeemer” by your standards. We have to “fill in the blanks” with our own merits by the “infusion of grace Jesus merited for us” afterwards. That is not a complete redemption by any means. That is a “semi-redemption”, that is not described Scripturally.

You can find no verse that proves we can save ourselves from our own sins. Sin is not remitted by any of our own merit, except in an unsaved person’s delusional mind. You even seem to believe that the merit of saints can be applied to others. Total delusion and absurdity! Jesus did it all (Complete Salvation of His own people) by His Precious Shed Blood on the One Finished Sacrifice at Calvary. There is no remission of sin except by the God-prescribed shedding of blood. No “bloodless sacrifice” qualifies either.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

So I take it that we agree that the good works that an unbeliever performs are as a filthy garment (relatively speaking). They are only naturally good. They are of no use in making the unbeliever righteous in the sight of God.

I don’t like the “filthy rags” terminology because I believe it has been widely misused, but you are right they do not contribute towards being supernaturally pleasing to God and thus don’t have an effect on salvation.

Whoa!! Are you actually saying that eternal life is a reward for good works?? If that is what you are saying, and if that is actually what Catholics believe, then we have big issues here.

I don’t know whether that is in this thread, but this is a biggie for me.

It is clearly taught in Scripture, one of my favorite examples:Gal 6: 7Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction;** the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life**. 9Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.
With the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit, all our works become supernaturally pleasing and God rewards that with Heaven.

Although I might technically understand the difference here, I am having difficulty understanding is the substance of the difference. If Catholics truly believe that there is none righteous, not even one (Romans 3:10) and that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23), it almost sounds like different wording for almost the same concept.

The difference leads to a different ‘solution’ for how salvation occurs. For Catholics, salvation is in its very essence a matter of having that grace infused back into your soul. For Protestants, human nature is helplessly corrupt in this life, so there is no fixing it here, it must be overlooked by imputing an alien righteous status.

In both cases you are left with natural human nature that can not please God.

In Protestantism, human nature is corrupt, like a rotten apple. ANY works man does are sinful because they spring from a rotten source, and even the good works of Christans are tainted by sin. There is no such thing as objectively good natural works.

For Catholics, human nature is left in tact but lacks a super-natural addition (sanctifying grace). It is like a car which lacks gasoline in the tank, the car’s ‘nature’ is fine but it cannot operate without the ‘special’ addition of gasoline.

Given the differences seem fine, I am not sure whether either proposition is more or less provable from Scripture. They seem to be different theories that are out there.

Two significant points can be made here:

1. The Bible is very clear we are temples of the Holy Spirit, this supports the notion we are ‘lacking’ something in our souls which must be replaced (catholicism), rather than a corrupt nature which requires an alien imputation (Protestantism).
2. There is no such thing as an evil substance, everything God created is good. The notion that nature can be corrupt in the sense of a rotten apple and thus evil is the heresy of Manicheanism.

Note this was the response that Catholics do believe that God gave Jesus up to be crucified on the cross.

Now it seems to me that an undue amount of bandwidth in this thread is devoted to whether the Father was actively punishing the son as He was dying on the cross.

The Father was not in any way unleashing His wrath on Jesus whether actively or passively. He delivered Him into the hands of the Jews and Romans, but not as a punishment.

Today I was thinking about Scriptures quoted in this thread such as Matthew 26:31 and Isaiah 53:10 (I will smite the Shepherd but the Lord was pleased to crush Him).

My mind went back to the Old Testament Scriptures which are filled with warning about God punishing His people for disobedience. This does not necessarily mean that God rained fire down from heaven against His people. It usually meant that God withdrew His protection from His people and let the Assyrians, Philistines, Amalekites, Caananites and whatever else Israel had for neighbors accomplish His will.

Still, even though God was only operating in a passive sense by allowing human agents to do the punishing, since God is sovereign, he could say “I will punish” ( example Leviticus 26:14-33).

I had the thought that why wouldn’t the same logic be used with these Scriptures. That just by giving Jesus over for crucifixion the father was smiting the Shepherd and the Lord was crushing Him. This possibility at least seems credible.

True, withholding protection is how I would phrase it.

After having read this, I am still having difficulty making the leap from “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf” to “He *did not *become sin on our behalf” and from “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross” to “He *did not *bear our sins in His body on the cross”.

I never said “he did NOT become” or “He did NOT bear,” what I have said is “become sin” and “bear sin” don’t mean a literal transforming into sin nor a physical carrying of sin.

I know in one sense the most literal interpretation is impossible. That is because sin is (depending on context) either an activity or state. It is not a physical entity. Jesus was not physically transformed to an object of the chemical composition “sin”.

Precisely. Just like in the parallel to 2 Cor 5:21, 2 Cor 8:9 says Jesus was “rich” but “became poor” which is not talking about literal cash but rather “emptying himself” and assuming the role of servant (Phil 2:5-9).

(cont 2 of 2)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont 2 of 2)

And I realize that in your posts, you primarily were interested in dealing with the “God was pouring out His wrath on Jesus” issue. Still, the two possibilities are not mutually exclusive. It is still possible for Jesus “to be sin” and “bear our sins on His body” and God not actively pour out His wrath on Jesus. The issue here is in what sense. That must be addressed.

I agree, and with the interpretations I gave there is no contradiction. The Catholic position never involved God dumping His wrath on Jesus and rather took the form of Moses (Deut 9:18-20) and Phinehas (Num 25:5-13). Notice how Moses and Phinehas were heros who turned away God’s wrath and made atonement, without either of them having to receive God’s wrath.

There is no such example or foreshadowing of God punishing an innocent person or dumping His wrath on an OT sacraficial animal.

Still, it says what it says.

Jesus also says things like, “The Father is greater than I.”
A JW looks at that and says, “it says what it says,” despite the fact it is Arianism. Penal Substitution leads to heretical conclusions as well, such as division among the Persons of the Trinity (Father’s wrath against Son).

OK. Good. That is an area of common agreement. It is important in doing such an analysis to highlight the areas of agreement.

It seem’s your in the minority Proetstant position here because the others around here don’t seem to accept that OT sacrifices did not follow a PS model.

We have two, this one and that the good works of an unbeliever do nothing to make him right with God.

There is an additional problem in Protestantism because since nature is corrupt (even in the Christan), all works are tainted by sin and thus sinful. That doesn’t mean man is as evil as possible, but that every act is tainted by sin.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I do not believe either that God the Father or man actually killed (slayed) Jesus. Jesus layed down His own life at the proper time. Jesus said that such laying down was His own right.

Jesus had the last word (had the power to end life), but the loss of blood and such contributed to His death so this should not be mistaken as a sort of suicide (not that you meant this).

The High Priest does the offering and Jesus was that High Priest.

But there is not OT parallel to Penal Sub and High Priest.

I believe that both man and God did smite Jesus before Jesus laid down His life.
The smiting of Jesus by man is described in Scripture.
The smiting of Jesus by the Father is hidden as the transaction between two equals might only be completely known and understood only by the immediate parties involved.
The Bible does say that the Father would smite the Shepherd Jesus. “I will smite” is not a passive phrase. The transaction details of that smiting are not any of our business, if the two parties choose not to reveal them.

You are violating the first principle of good exegesis which is giving weight to what is stated rather that what is not, as well as that notion that the more important issues get more “coverage” than side issues.

The idea that you can speak and build theology off of what you admit is “hidden” and “not our business” are totally contrary to the very notion of Divine Revelation. Your comments made the physical suffering of Christ a total facade, with the ‘real gospel message’ taking place in private, invisibly, and not our business…and that is precisely why Protestants don’t like the Crucifix in churches and don’t really have any use for the Passion apart from the hidden legal aspect.

 

[brkn1]

(cont 2 of 2)

IThere is no such example or foreshadowing of God punishing an innocent person or dumping His wrath on an OT sacraficial animal.
.

The OT sacrificial animals were pointing to the real Sacrifice of the Messiah that would provide the necessary shedding of Christ’s Blood for the remission of sin. The bloodiness of the temple sacrifices was meant to show mankind just how awful sin was to God. It was a serious and messy business to be a priest in those days.

 

[brkn1]

You missed my point: What does the NT say about how this ‘smite’ occurred?
The context where that passage is quoted is when the soldiers were going to come arrest Jesus and the Apostles would flee. The only ‘smite’ we ever see is the arrest, torture, and murder of Jesus

I am addressing what that passage means, using the Gospel accounts as my main guide.

Your argument is no different than a JW saying, "you can’t get around the biblical words: “the Father is greater than I”! and insisting any interpretation other than Jesus being less than God is not good enough.

So you are saying that “I will smite the Shepherd…” does not mean that the Father “smited” Jesus? You still are not clear to me about exactly what that verse means. You seem to be avoiding it, because it contradicts your claim that the Father never showed any wrath towards His Son in the Bible.

The JW saying is easy to defeat if one understands that Jesus was speaking about the chosen position Christ took in His incarnation to save His sheep. I don’t waste time with JW stuff.

 

[With_Questions]

I don’t like the “filthy rags” terminology because I believe it has been widely misused, but you are right they do not contribute towards being supernaturally pleasing to God and thus don’t have an effect on salvation.

OK. Then as far as I am concerned we agree on what is really important here. We may or may not disagree on some of the fine points, but I am not going to spend bandwidth bandying these about.

It is clearly taught in Scripture, one of my favorite examples:Gal 6: 7Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction;** the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life**. 9Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.
With the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit, all our works become supernaturally pleasing and God rewards that with Heaven.

But what about John 3:16 and several other verses on the same book where Jesus says to the effect “He who believes on me shall have eternal life”.

This is pretty foundational stuff. The hour I first believed was when eternal life started for me.

It is a separate issue how faith and works work together in the days and years following the hour I first believed. It is a separate issue whether eternal life can be lost (and how it can be lost).

But in my life I can clearly point to the beginning of eternal life. It did not start when I did something fantastically good that got the attention of God almighty.

The difference leads to a different ‘solution’ for how salvation occurs. For Catholics, salvation is in its very essence a matter of having that grace infused back into your soul. For Protestants, human nature is helplessly corrupt in this life, so there is no fixing it here, it must be overlooked by imputing an alien righteous status.

In Protestantism, human nature is corrupt, like a rotten apple.

I believe this. To me this is just there is none righteous, no not one and noone seeks after God. Our natural inclination is to serve ourselves, not God. That is not the way we were designed.

ANY works man does are sinful because they spring from a rotten source, and even the good works of Christans are tainted by sin. There is no such thing as objectively good natural works.

What branch of “Protestantism” believes this (Protestantism is a meaningless word imho). I have never heard this in all the churches I have attended. Neither do I believe it necessarily follows from the premise human nature is corrupt.

In fact it is pure poppycock. There is such a thing as objective evil and Christians can do stuff that is objectively evil. At the same time there is such a thing as objective good, and nonChristians can do stuff that is objectively good. It is just that this stuff does not earn them brownie points with God.

For Catholics, human nature is left in tact but lacks a super-natural addition (sanctifying grace). It is like a car which lacks gasoline in the tank, the car’s ‘nature’ is fine but it cannot operate without the ‘special’ addition of gasoline.

Two significant points can be made here:

1. The Bible is very clear we are temples of the Holy Spirit, this supports the notion we are ‘lacking’ something in our souls which must be replaced (catholicism), rather than a corrupt nature which requires an alien imputation (Protestantism).

This gets to chapter 3 and beyond in your treatise there.

We call the change that God makes in the believer regeneration. The believer is regenerated the instant the Holy Spirit enters the believer to take up regeneration.

Now, you can have an interesting discussion on how regeneration and justification work together. But, the bottom line however is that you can not have one without the other. When you are regenerated you are justified and vice-versa.

(2) There is no such thing as an evil substance, everything God created is good. The notion that nature can be corrupt in the sense of a rotten apple and thus evil is the heresy of Manicheanism.

The Father was not in any way unleashing His wrath on Jesus whether actively or passively. He delivered Him into the hands of the Jews and Romans, but not as a punishment.

True, withholding protection is how I would phrase it.

I never said “he did NOT become” or “He did NOT bear,” what I have said is “become sin” and “bear sin” don’t mean a literal transforming into sin nor a physical carrying of sin.

Precisely. Just like in the parallel to 2 Cor 5:21, 2 Cor 8:9 says Jesus was “rich” but “became poor” which is not talking about literal cash but rather “emptying himself” and assuming the role of servant (Phil 2:5-9).

(cont 2 of 2)
I’ll comment on this stuff next post.

 

[With_Questions]

(cont 2 of 2)
It seem’s your in the minority Proetstant position here because the others around here don’t seem to accept that OT sacrifices did not follow a PS model.
.

Actually I meant to say we agree only on the statement “Jesus was our sin and guilt offering”.

It does not necessarily follow that I agree that the sin and guilt offerings to not broadly conform to the penal sub model, although I will concede that they do not conform to the model as some would put it forth.

To me what is of foremost importance here is:

Jesus died on the cross so that I can have eternal life.

Jesus bore my sins (in some sense) so that my sins can be forgiven.

Everything else is details on how this all works out. I can confess to being quite unsure on the details, but I am not unsure of what is really important. (Actually I for one do not believe that God has revealed to us all the details and I for one believe that much of what we think we know when we try to put it all together with our own reading comprehension skills is really speculation.)

Now I am not totally familiar with the term “penal sub”, but I have heard the terms like “substitutionary death of Jesus Christ on the Cross”. I assume that is about the same thing (although as I think about it, the second phrase does not have the word “penal” in it).

Now when I examine the above two sentences, boy they sure seem to have substitution in them. Jesus bearing my sins and dying on the cross instead of me bearing my sins and being condemned to hell and all that. So I don’t understand where the beef is.

But if you don’t like the title, then call it what you will.

There is an additional problem in Protestantism because since nature is corrupt (even in the Christan), all works are tainted by sin and thus sinful. That doesn’t mean man is as evil as possible, but that every act is tainted by sin.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The OT sacrificial animals were pointing to the real Sacrifice of the Messiah that would provide the necessary shedding of Christ’s Blood for the remission of sin. The bloodiness of the temple sacrifices was meant to show mankind just how awful sin was to God. It was a serious and messy business to be a priest in those days.

This is irrelevant to my main point: The OT Sacrifices never took the model of Pen-Sub.

So you are saying that “I will smite the Shepherd…” does not mean that the Father “smited” Jesus? You still are not clear to me about exactly what that verse means. You seem to be avoiding it, because it contradicts your claim that the Father never showed any wrath towards His Son in the Bible.

The JW saying is easy to defeat if one understands that Jesus was speaking about the chosen position Christ took in His incarnation to save His sheep. I don’t waste time with JW stuff.

I won’t keep repeating myself. I go by the Bible while you continue to insist it must mean Penal-Sub all the while admitting the NT is silent upon this (esp in the Gospels).

 

[Catholic_Dude]

OK. Then as far as I am concerned we agree on what is really important here. We may or may not disagree on some of the fine points, but I am not going to spend bandwidth bandying these about.

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘fine points’, but if that includes the differences in how we view Original Sin, I would say that is not a fine point but a major difference.

But what about John 3:16 and several other verses on the same book where Jesus says to the effect “He who believes on me shall have eternal life”.

You have eternal life when grace is in your soul due to you being attached to the Vine. Commit grave sin and lose eternal life (1 Jn 3:15; Jn 15:6).

This is pretty foundational stuff. The hour I first believed was when eternal life started for me.

The phrase “eternal life” means you have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, it does not mean guaranteed heaven in the future.

It is a separate issue how faith and works work together in the days and years following the hour I first believed. It is a separate issue whether eternal life can be lost (and how it can be lost).

It is very close to the issue of if salvation can be lost because under the Sola Fide system justification is a once and for all judgment that says you are guaranteed Heaven (eternal life) when you die…that is a very different understanding than “eternal life” consisting in a branch being ingrafted to the life-giving Vine and supernaturally alive and later on being cut off from that Vine by grave sin (Gal 5:19-21).

But in my life I can clearly point to the beginning of eternal life. It did not start when I did something fantastically good that got the attention of God almighty.

A Catholic can agree with this so long as “eternal life” is not seen as meaning a guarantee of Heaven when you die.

For Catholics, salvation is in its very essence a matter of having that grace infused back into your soul. For Protestants, human nature is helplessly corrupt in this life, so there is no fixing it here, it must be overlooked by imputing an alien righteous status.

In Protestantism, human nature is corrupt, like a rotten apple.

I believe this. To me this is just there is none righteous, no not one and noone seeks after God. Our natural inclination is to serve ourselves, not God. That is not the way we were designed.

The notion that human nature is evil is heretical (Manicheanism).

What branch of “Protestantism” believes this (Protestantism is a meaningless word imho). I have never heard this in all the churches I have attended. Neither do I believe it necessarily follows from the premise human nature is corrupt.

When I say “Protestantism” I almost always mean the original Protestant groups (eg Lutherans and Calvinists). From my justification article (linked in my signature) this quote is from the Calvinist Belgic Confession:
We believe that by the disobedience of Adam original sin has been spread through the whole human race.
It is a corruption of all nature-- an inherited depravity which even infects small infants in their mother’s womb, and the root which produces in man every sort of sin. It is therefore so vile and enormous in God’s sight that it is enough to condemn the human race, and it is not abolished or wholly uprooted even by baptism, seeing that sin constantly boils forth as though from a contaminated spring.
It is very much a premise following the belief that human nature is corrupt, a contaminated spring can only produce tainted water.
(cont 2 of 2)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont 2 of 2)

In fact it is pure poppycock. There is such a thing as objective evil and Christians can do stuff that is objectively evil. At the same time there is such a thing as objective good, and nonChristians can do stuff that is objectively good. It is just that this stuff does not earn them brownie points with God.

That is true as far as Catholicism goes, but not at all true for classical Protestantism. In fact, that is precisely what Protestants interpret when they constantly quote Isaiah 64:6, 'all our righteous deeds are as filthy rags." Also, from the Calvinist Westminster Confession:V. We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin, or eternal life at the hand of God, by reason of the great disproportion that is between them and the glory to come; and the infinite distance that is between us and God, whom, by them, we can neither profit, nor satisfy for the debt of our former sins, but when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants: and because, as they [works] are good, they proceed from His Spirit, and as they [works] are wrought by us, they are defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God’s judgment.

VII. Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands; and of good use both to themselves and others: yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God, they are therefore sinful and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God: and yet, their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God.
Westminster Confession: Ch 16
This totally contradicts the notion there is ‘objectively’ good or evil in classical Protestantism. Works by Christians are never objectively good but “defiled, weak and imperfect.”
Good works by unbelievers are “sinful” and yet neglecting them is “more sinful.”

This is VERY different from the Catholic notion that works are objectively good or evil in God’s sight, but only super-naturally good/pleasing if done with the Indwelling of the Spirit.

This gets to chapter 3 and beyond in your treatise there.

We call the change that God makes in the believer regeneration. The believer is regenerated the instant the Holy Spirit enters the believer to take up regeneration.

Now, you can have an interesting discussion on how regeneration and justification work together. But, the bottom line however is that you can not have one without the other. When you are regenerated you are justified and vice-versa.

This is apples to oranges. Regeneration in Protestantism is not comparable to the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They are two different things. Catholics believe this Indwelling defines and is the foundation of righteousness and justification. Protestants believe the Indwelling comes AFTER justification and plays no role in justification.

Regeneration in Protestantism is pretty close to the Catholic notion of ‘prevenient grace’ which is the grace that first comes to the unbeliever an ‘wakes him up’ to his spiritual needs and God’s promises and leads the unbeliever to faith.

Actually I meant to say we agree only on the statement “Jesus was our sin and guilt offering”.

It does not necessarily follow that I agree that the sin and guilt offerings to not broadly conform to the penal sub model, although I will concede that they do not conform to the model as some would put it forth.

If God was not dumping His Wrath on Jesus then Penal-Sub collapses, the classical Protestant position fails. The sinner deserved hellfire and Jesus had to endure that as a substitute. If you deny that then you reject Penal Sub and thus undermine Sola Fide as the Reformers taught.

To me what is of foremost importance here is:

Jesus died on the cross so that I can have eternal life.

Jesus bore my sins (in some sense) so that my sins can be forgiven.

Everything else is details on how this all works out.

I understand what you are saying, but these “details” determine a lot.** These “details” led Luther and others to rip apart the Body of Christ **(a very grave sin). If those “details” are true the Reformation was a rescue, if those “details” are false then the Reformation was led by the Devil himself.

I can confess to being quite unsure on the details, but I am not unsure of what is really important. (Actually I for one do not believe that God has revealed to us all the details and I for one believe that much of what we think we know when we try to put it all together with our own reading comprehension skills is really speculation.)

It leaves the realm of speculation when someone like Luther stands up and starts demanding his views are followed.

Now I am not totally familiar with the term “penal sub”, but I have heard the terms like “substitutionary death of Jesus Christ on the Cross”. I assume that is about the same thing (although as I think about it, the second phrase does not have the word “penal” in it).

Penal (punishment) Substitution, Penal Sub, Vicarious (substitutionary) Atonement, etc, etc are all equivalent terms.

Now when I examine the above two sentences, boy they sure seem to have substitution in them. Jesus bearing my sins and dying on the cross instead of me bearing my sins and being condemned to hell and all that. So I don’t understand where the beef is.

For Protestants there are various terms that have essentially the same meaning.

 

[With_Questions]

I was going to let this thread go to thread heaven, but whatever. One more post before I leave for Thanksgiving.

A few things bother me.

First of all, this undefined entity called “Protestantism” seems to be defined, while the fact of the matter is that there is no theological entity called “Protestantism”. There are Protestant denominations. There are Protestants who belong to Protestant denominations. However these Protestant denominations do not agree. Furthermore there is no organization out there that claims to speak for Protestants.

Second of all, certain beliefs based on certain documents are put forth as being the beliefs for this nonexistent entity called “Protestantism” based on certain historical documents and certain beliefs that some of the Reformers may or may not have.

So if you are a Protestant, you therefore agree with “Protestantism”. Protestantism upholds a theological proposition called imputed righteousness. If you believe in imputed righteousness you must believe in all of these points.

The fact is that some points proposed in this thread are very debatable and are not agreed upon by Protestants. I have listed a few under this header that I have never heard of. Furthermore, if these points are as described in this thread, my inclination is to disagree. These specific points are:

• There is no such thing as objective good that nonbelievers can perform. Balderdash. There is such a thing as objective evil, there is such a thing as objective good.
• God the father actively poured out his wrath on God the son as He died on the cross. Umm. Jesus most definitely was my sin offering on the cross. This does not mean that God the father was raining lightning or doing some other indeterminate activity from his wrath on God the son.
• Nothing happens on the inside when you are justified. Umm. Justification and regeneration happen at the same time. You can not have one without the other.

However, just because I may disagree on these points does not necessarily mean I disagree with imputed righteousness.

Finally the implication seems to exist in this thread that because these points may not be true, therefore imputed righteousness is not true. And if imputed rightousness is not true, then whatever is put forth by Catholics must be true.

The reality is that just because theological proposition ‘A’ in its entirety is not true, it does not necessarily follow that theological proposition ‘B’ is true. Maybe the truth has parts of ‘A’ but not all of ‘A’. Maybe the truth has parts of ‘A’ and parts of ‘B’.

Anyway, Thanksgiving break. I am sure that when I get back this thread will be in thread heaven, and I will let it stay there.