Do Catholics Deny Imputation?

thecolorsblend said:

I'm really not sure why people do this. They'll randomly post bits of scripture, add no commentary of their own and then click "Post Reply" as though they're dropping the mic. I guess maybe they think they're proving something... even though someone invariably replies asking what exactly they meant by that.

So.

What exactly did you mean by that?

Click to expand...

Sometimes a significant point can be made by quoting a Scripture verse without comment. Perhaps he thinks that those verses teach penal substitution, but they do not.

redleghunter said:

Actually the previous assertions were refuted and not responded to in kind.

Click to expand...

I will not discuss this issue further with you unless you answer my questions with a "yes," "no", "true" or "false" as previously requested.

Of course, I understand if you do not want to do that. Have a nice day.

Afra said:

Sometimes a significant point can be made by quoting a Scripture verse without comment. He probably thinks that those verses teach penal substitution, but they do not.

Click to expand...

I agree, I don't think they do either. Satisfaction Theory can be adduced from those passages and so can other interpretive models.

I find it telling that those who hold to PSA don't seem to recognize how much they project onto the scriptures when having these discussions. In their minds, they seem to think that a given passage harmonizing with their preferred interpretation is somehow evidence that their interpretation is explicitly taught in scripture.

As a general remark, I believe that the degree to which sacred scripture is open to interpretation points to a need for an infallible authority to depend upon for interpretation.

thecolorsblend said:

I'm really not sure why people do this. They'll randomly post bits of scripture, add no commentary of their own and then click "Post Reply" as though they're dropping the mic. I guess maybe they think they're proving something... even though someone invariably replies asking what exactly they meant by that.

So.

What exactly did you mean by that?

Click to expand...

The same thing as when I posted it 4 times. I provided commentary as well.

Afra said:

I will not discuss this issue further with you unless you answer my questions with a "yes," "no", "true" or "false" as previously requested.

Of course, I understand if you do not want to do that. Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

Perhaps fix your false premise and we have a deal.

redleghunter said:

Perhaps fix your false premise and we have a deal.

Click to expand...

No, my questions do not contain any false premises. That is false.

PeaceByJesus said:

Yes, it is indeed unjust to punish an innocent man.

It is also unjust to place the sins of guilty man on an innocent man.

Unless the innocent man agrees to take the blame and be punished for the guilty.

Do you disagree?

Click to expand...

Yes, I disagree. The situation below corresponds exactly to the situation that you describe above:

John rapes Susan and then murders her. Steven is totally innocent of rape and murder, but loves John greatly. John is put on a criminal trial for murder and rape, and is found to be guilty of murder and rape. Because Steven loves John, he agrees to go to jail for 30 years instead of John. The judge agrees to let John go free without any punishment, and puts Steven in jail for 30 years.

Is that justice?

Lets say that Susan is your daughter. How would you feel about the judge letting the man who raped and murdered your daughter go free, while putting an innocent man in jail for it instead?

Do you think that it was just for the judge to put Steven in jail for 30 years, and allow the man who raped your daughter to go free? Would you or anyone call that judge a just judge? Or would you call him a terrible judge?

I think he would be a terrible judge, personally. And I would say that the judge has not acted justly. I would say that the judge has done a horrendous thing by punishing the innocent man and allowing the guilty man to go free, even if the innocent man agreed to it.

I will try to respond to the rest of your post when I have a chance.

Afra said:

No, my questions do not contain any false premises. That is false.

Click to expand...

The problem with your questions is that no one knows if it is based on human natural law, ex Lex or sub lego.

I would even throw in there theodicy must be discussed. Meaning if all or most are not established first your actual line of questioning could create a false dichotomy. Why because there is a paradox to identify first as was debated for hundreds of years after Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo.

If we were to stick to human jurisprudence in accordance with what YHWH gave in Torah and before it (Genesis 9) it would be unjust for a righteous man to suffer for the offense(s) of the wicked offender.

Now you can ask the actual question you really want to discuss...How can Jesus pay the penalty for the unjust as that would be unjust and it would be unjust for a Holy Father in Heaven to be associated in any decision involving the just to take upon the sins of the unjust.

Yet that is exactly what happened.

Afra said:

I think he would be a terrible judge, personally. And I would say that the judge has not acted justly. I would say that the judge has done a horrendous thing by punishing the innocent man and allowing the guilty man to go free, even if the innocent man agreed to it.

Click to expand...

Within human jurisprudence you would be correct.

Now you should consider why a righteous and just sinless Jesus Christ did indeed suffer and die for the unjust.

Then ask for what purpose or according to Whose will. The Incarnation is a valid starting point. However, before the foundations of the earth is the better “starting point.”

Afra said:

Sometimes a significant point can be made by quoting a Scripture verse without comment. Perhaps he thinks that those verses teach penal substitution, but they do not.

Click to expand...

In fact Isaiah 53 is ample evidence alone for both satisfaction and penal substitution.

redleghunter said:

The problem with your questions is that no one knows if it is based on human natural law, ex Lex or sub lego.

I would even throw in there theodicy must be discussed. Meaning if all or most are not established first your actual line of questioning could create a false dichotomy. Why because there is a paradox to identify first as was debated for hundreds of years after Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo.

If we were to stick to human jurisprudence in accordance with what YHWH gave in Torah and before it (Genesis 9) it would be unjust for a righteous man to suffer for the offense(s) of the wicked offender.

Now you can ask the actual question you really want to discuss...How can Jesus pay the penalty for the unjust as that would be unjust and it would be unjust for a Holy Father in Heaven to be associated in any decision involving the just to take upon the sins of the unjust.

Yet that is exactly what happened.

Click to expand...

redleghunter said:

Within human jurisprudence you would be correct.

Now you should consider why a righteous and just sinless Jesus Christ did indeed suffer and die for the unjust.

Then ask for what purpose or according to Whose will. The Incarnation is a valid starting point. However, before the foundations of the earth is the better “starting point.”

Click to expand...

redleghunter said:

In fact Isaiah 53 is ample evidence alone for both satisfaction and penal substitution.

Click to expand...

I will not discuss this issue further with you unless you answer my questions with a "yes," "no", "true" or "false" as previously requested.

Afra said:

Sometimes a significant point can be made by quoting a Scripture verse without comment. Perhaps he thinks that those verses teach penal substitution, but they do not.

Click to expand...

Yes but! that does not necessarily mean that anyone other than the person posting the scripture verse knows what the poster was thinking when they posted it.

The three c's of Bible study context, context and context.....

thecolorsblend said:

I agree, I don't think they do either. Satisfaction Theory can be adduced from those passages and so can other interpretive models.

I find it telling that those who hold to PSA don't seem to recognize how much they project onto the scriptures when having these discussions. In their minds, they seem to think that a given passage harmonizing with their preferred interpretation is somehow evidence that their interpretation is explicitly taught in scripture.

As a general remark, I believe that the degree to which sacred scripture is open to interpretation points to a need for an infallible authority to depend upon for interpretation.

Click to expand...

The problem being who decides what the infallible authority is?

...

Afra said:

I will not discuss this issue further with you unless you answer my questions with a "yes," "no", "true" or "false" as previously requested.

Click to expand...

I just did answer your question. See the portion where I speak of human jurisprudence.

What you are nipping is at the periphery of a much larger theological debate.

thecolorsblend said:

I agree, I don't think they do either. Satisfaction Theory can be adduced from those passages and so can other interpretive models.

I find it telling that those who hold to PSA don't seem to recognize how much they project onto the scriptures when having these discussions. In their minds, they seem to think that a given passage harmonizing with their preferred interpretation is somehow evidence that their interpretation is explicitly taught in scripture.

As a general remark, I believe that the degree to which sacred scripture is open to interpretation points to a need for an infallible authority to depend upon for interpretation.

Click to expand...

We can examine this simply by asking the question:

Are the wages of sin death?

gordonhooker said:

Yes but! that does not necessarily mean that anyone other than the person posting the scripture verse knows what the poster was thinking when they posted it.

The three c's of Bible study context, context and context.....

Click to expand...

I agree and the context most theologians and churches including the Roman Catholic Church calls this chapter the Suffering Servant.

redleghunter said:

I just did answer your question. See the portion where I speak of human jurisprudence.

What you are nipping is at the periphery of a much larger theological debate.

Click to expand...

redleghunter said:

We can examine this simply by asking the question:

Are the wages of sin death?

Click to expand...

I will not discuss this issue further with you unless you answer my questions with a "yes," "no", "true" or "false" as previously requested.

Afra said:

I will not discuss this issue further with you unless you answer my questions with a "yes," "no", "true" or "false" as previously requested.

Click to expand...

I answered your inquiry theologically. Yet you want everyone to address your false dilemma using non theological situations and terms.

redleghunter said:

I answered your inquiry theologically. Yet you want everyone to address your false dilemma using non theological situations and terms.

Click to expand...

I will not discuss this issue further with you unless you answer my questions with a "yes," "no", "true" or "false" as previously requested.