Problems with Penal Substitution.

[bling]

Introduction

[One Bad Pig]

There is nothing in those two passages that teaches the damned are saved at the end of time. The second judgement is given for all men to see how God judges the entire human race. The particular judgement is given each particular man. Both judgements are given to cover both aspects od human nature as individual and social. There is no evidence in the scriptures that the damned are ever saved at the end of time.

JM

Nearly all of this is missing my point by a country mile. The only part that's even close is your unsupported assertion regarding the intent of the second judgment. Would you like to try again?

[JohnMartin]

Nearly all of this is missing my point by a country mile. The only part that's even close is your unsupported assertion regarding the intent of the second judgment. Would you like to try again?

So present your evidence that the damned are at some point saved after being put into hell. Make an argument rather than posting verses and asking questions.

JM

[37818]

The apostolic authority of the holy scriptures is merely something you believe from you denomination. Sola scriptura is not biblical.

JM

So am I to understand you deny the Apostolic authority of Matthew, John, Paul and Peter, well as the authority of the other New Testament writers?

Christianity stands and falls with the Christian New Testament - being God's word to Christ's church.

The Apostle Paul wrote, ". . . All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: . . ." -- 2 Timothy 3:16.

That all God-breathed writings are for teaching, reproof and correction of error - your error. Which supersedes any other claims to be God's word.

[JohnMartin]

So am I to understand you deny the Apostolic authority of Matthew, John, Paul and Peter, well as the authority of the other New Testament writers?

Christianity stands and falls with the Christian New Testament - being God's word to Christ's church.

The Apostle Paul wrote, ". . . All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: . . ." -- 2 Timothy 3:16.

That all God-breathed writings are for teaching, reproof and correction of error - your error. Which supersedes any other claims to be God's word.

You have no way of knowing which writings are God breathed. The apostolic authorship of the gospels can only be verified by the tradition that comes down from the apostles, along with the canon as determined by the bishops and Popes of the Catholic Church. Anyone can write a document and claim to have been written by an apostle. Christianity is based upon the person and work of Jesus Christ, and not the scriptures alone. In fact the gospel was largely transmitted orally within the first few centuries, which is a strong witness against sola scriptura. Another witness against SS is many in the Roman empire and many throughout history have been illiterate. Such illiteracy means the gospel must be transmitted in another way.

Citing 2 Tim 3:16 does not benefit your case to establish the scriptures as the basis for NT Christianity. 2 Tim 3:16 only refers to the OT canon which was accepted by some and rejected by others.

JM

[JonathanL]

You have no way of knowing which writings are God breathed.

A traditional protestantic understanding has been that the Holy Spirit testifies to the truth of the Scriptures. You might disagree with this notion, but there's nothing inherently problematic with it.

The apostolic authorship of the gospels can only be verified by the tradition that comes down from the apostles, along with the canon as determined by the bishops and Popes of the Catholic Church.

Except that last part about the Catholic church I almost agree with this. I would say that the apostolic authorship of the gospels is verified by tradition, along with the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

Anyone can write a document and claim to have been written by an apostle.

True, but that's not a good argument against sola scriptura.

Christianity is based upon the person and work of Jesus Christ, and not the scriptures alone.

This shows an ignorance on your part about what the protestantic teaching of Sola Scriptura entails.

In fact the gospel was largely transmitted orally within the first few centuries, which is a strong witness against sola scriptura.

No, it really isn't. As long as the orally transmitted gospel and the written gospel is identical in content there really is no problem here. It's not the form in which the gospel is transmitted that's the issue, but the content of it.

Another witness against SS is many in the Roman empire and many throughout history have been illiterate. Such illiteracy means the gospel must be transmitted in another way.

No it doesn't. As long as there literate people around who can preach the content of the gospel from the written Word there's no problem with the majority of people being illiterate.

Citing 2 Tim 3:16 does not benefit your case to establish the scriptures as the basis for NT Christianity. 2 Tim 3:16 only refers to the OT canon which was accepted by some and rejected by others.

JM

It is not a long stretch at all to also apply this passage to the writings of the apostles. While Paul might have had the OT in mind when he wrote this it's surely valid to conclude that it also holds for the writings of the apostles and their associates.

[37818]

You have no way of knowing which writings are God breathed. The apostolic authorship of the gospels can only be verified by the tradition that comes down from the apostles, along with the canon as determined by the bishops and Popes of the Catholic Church. Anyone can write a document and claim to have been written by an apostle. Christianity is based upon the person and work of Jesus Christ, and not the scriptures alone. In fact the gospel was largely transmitted orally within the first few centuries, which is a strong witness against sola scriptura. Another witness against SS is many in the Roman empire and many throughout history have been illiterate. Such illiteracy means the gospel must be transmitted in another way.

Citing 2 Tim 3:16 does not benefit your case to establish the scriptures as the basis for NT Christianity. 2 Tim 3:16 only refers to the OT canon which was accepted by some and rejected by others.

JM

Oh, so according to you none of the New Testment writings are God-breathed.

". . . For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. . . ." -- 1 Timothy 5:18.
". . . for the labourer is worthy of his hire. . . ." -- Luke 10:7.

[One Bad Pig]

So present your evidence that the damned are at some point saved after being put into hell. Make an argument rather than posting verses and asking questions.

JM

IOW, you'd rather not try again.

God does not desire the death of the sinner, but that all would come to repentance. I prefer to leave open the question of when God cuts off the possibility of repentance until the last moment possible. Therefore, I refuse to dogmatically cut it off at the moment of death, when God's final disposition is demonstrably not until later.

[JohnMartin]

You have no way of knowing which writings are God breathed.
A traditional protestantic understanding has been that the Holy Spirit testifies to the truth of the Scriptures. You might disagree with this notion, but there's nothing inherently problematic with it.

The problems with this method are as follows -

1. The method is not in the NT text, hence the method is not apostolic, nor part of revelation itself. Consequently the method is a human invention. As such, there is no divine mandate behind the method, which means the method can only arrive at a subjective conclusion regarding the extent of the canon.
2. The method assumes a canon exists. As there is not need for a canon, the method is based upon an unfounded premise.
3. The method is unhistorical, as it assumes a means to determine the canon not used historically in the liturgy and church councils.
4. The method assumes the existence of the Holy Spirit, which is only known in the texts, which are thought to be inspired. Hence the method begs the question regarding the existence of a divine person, who is supposedly telling the Christian what is and is not inspired.
5. The method does not tell the believer what to rely upon to determine the extent of the canon. Does the Holy Spirit make you feel warm and fuzzy, or sad, or happy, or bored when reading the text? If so, how can the believer be sure it really is the Holy Spirit working and not just another, natural, ordinary, life experience? The method does not tell you how to discern what is and what is not from the Holy Spirit.
6. The method does not require any text to be apostolic. Hence any text from any religion can be inspired. Such as Mormonism's so called inspired books, whereby the Mormons use a similar method to determine their canon.
7. The method allows Christians to remove books from the canon, such as James and Revelation, from the NT as Luther removed those books. Hence the method is unstable.
8. The method ignores the teaching authority of the Church, which means the method must ignore what has been revealed by God to arrive at a conclusion concerning what has been revealed by God. Evidently the method is false.
9. The method ignores the NT witness to the gospel as being preached through oral tradition. Hence the method seeks to remove the gospel as orally transmitted and reduce revelation down to that which is written.

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
The apostolic authorship of the gospels can only be verified by the tradition that comes down from the apostles, along with the canon as determined by the bishops and Popes of the Catholic Church.

Except that last part about the Catholic church I almost agree with this. I would say that the apostolic authorship of the gospels is verified by tradition, along with the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

The apostolic authority alone is not enough to establish the canon. The teaching authority of the church is also required. Authorship with apostolic authority is a required, but such authority does not conclude to the inspiration of the text. Anyone can write an eye witness account of Jesus life, but such account does not conclude to the text being written by God.

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
Anyone can write a document and claim to have been written by an apostle.

True, but that's not a good argument against sola scriptura.

Historically many have claimed to be authoritative, but were rejected by the Church. The subjective method does not tell us how such counter gospel can be rejected.

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
Christianity is based upon the person and work of Jesus Christ, and not the scriptures alone.

This shows an ignorance on your part about what the protestantic teaching of Sola Scriptura entails.

Nobody knows what SS is, because SS is merely an invention of the reformers, made apart from history, reason and revelation.

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
In fact the gospel was largely transmitted orally within the first few centuries, which is a strong witness against sola scriptura.

No, it really isn't. As long as the orally transmitted gospel and the written gospel is identical in content there really is no problem here. It's not the form in which the gospel is transmitted that's the issue, but the content of it.

The NT texts assume the oral tradition and lived tradition of the liturgy and the Christian covenant before the texts were written. Such practice indicates the written texts will always be incomplete. For example, the theology of baptism and the Eucharist are assumed before the texts were written. The texts do not develop an extensive theology of those sacraments, hence anyone approaching the texts can easily make an error about what those texts mean in practice. This is what we see with the reformation theology, which largely ignored the witness of the early church practice.

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
Another witness against SS is many in the Roman empire and many throughout history have been illiterate. Such illiteracy means the gospel must be transmitted in another way.

No it doesn't. As long as there literate people around who can preach the content of the gospel from the written Word there's no problem with the majority of people being illiterate.

Without authority within the church from the apostles to decide on matters of faith and morals, the written text quickly becomes the play toy of any believer. This is what we see in Lutheranism, and Protestantism in general, which contains many doctrinal differences and contradictions. The power of the written word is diluted when the text is read apart from the authority of the Church and tradition.

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
Citing 2 Tim 3:16 does not benefit your case to establish the scriptures as the basis for NT Christianity. 2 Tim 3:16 only refers to the OT canon which was accepted by some and rejected by others.

It is not a long stretch at all to also apply this passage to the writings of the apostles. While Paul might have had the OT in mind when he wrote this it's surely valid to conclude that it also holds for the writings of the apostles and their associates.

The original context is referring to the OT, hence that is the primary meaning of the text. The OT is enough to form up the man of God. We could also refer to other NT texts which refer to the oral preaching as binding and extend those texts to Church history. There s nothing in the NT that says once the canon is settled, then oral tradition ceases and only the scriptures carry any revealed truths. SS has no basis in scripture, or Church history.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Oh, so according to you none of the New Testment writings are God-breathed.

". . . For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. . . ." -- 1 Timothy 5:18.
". . . for the labourer is worthy of his hire. . . ." -- Luke 10:7.

According to me, none of the NT books can be established as being written by God, apart from the authority of the Catholic Church.

JM

[JohnMartin]

IOW, you'd rather not try again.

God does not desire the death of the sinner, but that all would come to repentance. I prefer to leave open the question of when God cuts off the possibility of repentance until the last moment possible. Therefore, I refuse to dogmatically cut it off at the moment of death, when God's final disposition is demonstrably not until later.

It's your doctrine, so you have to defend it. You don't defend a doctrine by asking questions about some texts.

JM

[JohnMartin]

http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...cs/ap0124.html

[JohnMartin]

The Catholic Alternative to the Reformed Doctrines of the Atonement and Justification.

[37818]

Catholic- Christ does not have the sins of men imputed to him by the Father
Reformed - Christ does have the sins of men imputed to him by the Father

TSA

". . . the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." -- Isaiah 53:6.

[JohnMartin]

TSA

". . . the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." -- Isaiah 53:6.

Laid on Him does not mean impute iniquity. It does mean the suffering servant suffered to redeem men. But the suffering does not mean the Father saw the Son as a sinner.

JM