Nothing Short Of Perfection

[BilliardsBall]

For example, in the God in Mormonism thread, BilliardsBall, described his theory that individuals could continue in despicable, sinful lives, including rape and oppression of others and they could even denounce and repudiate and defy God himself, but that God would still reward them with heaven if they had simply momentarily believed in Jesus and momentarily accepted him as their savior. This was the early stage of your and his disagreement with Billiardsballs theory of "once one gets on the bus to heaven, they cannot get off….. "

I take exception to what you’ve posted, Clear. This is not what I believe.

I’m wholly unable, for example, to live a life of rape and murder. God is in me, and has granted me His Spirit. I have assurance because I have complete forgiveness, going forward for my future as well as backward in my past, but I have a propensity toward goodness because I’m saved. Indeed, we both know the scripture says if I continue in certain behaviors habitually I’m unsaved, implying that the mark of a truly saved person includes reformed behavior.

The Koine Greek word "Μετανοεω" in its various forms and uses HISTORICALLY meant much more than to simply change one’s mind (like asking for chocolate ice cream and changing ones mind and asking for vanilla instead. It had much more profound religious meaning to the ancient Christian (and others) in their texts. It applied to a change of attitude; a transformation; an actual change in nature from one nature, to another nature (whether towards God or in other ways). Let me give examples from early Milligan papyral examples from Koine Greek by individuals who actually used this term .

Here’s why your stance, in addition to insulting my Greek training, is unwarranted.

Because it can be paraphrased as “Sure, in the Greek it means change of mind, but that’s not how most Christians have taken this idea carried forward.”

Like you, I can’t remember all I’ve ever studied in Greek or Hebrew (and no, I haven’t studied Aramaic formally) so occasionally I hit a concordance up for information. There are concordances with the statement “Metanoia means to change one’s mind” followed by pages and pages of “change one’s lifestyle”.

Repentance is to change one’s mind. See the example of a Hindu person I gave above to Orontes for more. Thanks!

PS. You are getting a little long-winded in your replies. You might convince other people by saying, “Sure it means ‘change mind’ in the Greek, but the historical context is lifestyle”, and then giving 15 examples of what people think outside the scriptures, but I remain with a conscience under scriptural conviction.

Repentance means to change one’s mind in Greek? Yes? No? Please be HONEST in your reply, not self-justifying, self-equivocating.

Here is why repentance means change one’s lifestyle in Greek:

I Clear, have some statement justifying my position, not from commentary, but from the Greek scriptures, as follows: ________________________

 

[Orontes]

Good points all. Your syllogism that an imperfect person cannot comprehend the need for spiritual purity or perfection is invalid. I’ve asked in the form of a question before, but I can rephrase: What change do you think will happen to the believer to make them fit for the eternal kingdom?

Master Billiards,

Sorry for the delayed reply.

You’ve misstated the point and meaning of the syllogism. You also claimed it is invalid. It is not. Here it is again:

1)The Bible is perfect
2) Master Billiards is imperfect
3) What is imperfect cannot understand what is perfect
4) Therefore, Master Billiards cannot understand the Bible

By your own statements you are imperfect and the text is perfect. As such, you cannot understand it. Your position fails.

To your question: ‘What change do you think will happen to the believer to make them fit for the eternal kingdom?’ Nothing can "make" one fit for the eternal kingdom. The Eternal Kingdom, has a moral element. Morality cannot be forced. One must open themselves up to Christ, one cannot be forced to Christ.

As to misunderstanding your position: I don’t misunderstand your position. The problems with your view are from your own statements and these are clear. You admit you believe in the Penal Model of the Atonement. The Penal Model is irrational, unjust and immoral. You choose to believe in Biblical inerrancy. It is an irrational position. Neither of these views are Biblical. They are the stances of poor thinkers from the 16th Century and afterwards.

The problem is rather you are saying tradition or accepted orthopractice (women were not priests until this century) is superior to scripture. Scripture is clear that some, not all, differences between men and women were abolished in the cross. Nor do you have scriptural justification that only LDS men are the true priesthood. The scripture says all believers, even if we go with only male Christian believers! How do you support your stance as a Mormon adherent, please? Repeating, I know numerous believers who think women are priestly in prayer and intercession, but I know zero evangelical Christian men who say, “Scripturally speaking, only Mormon men are the true priesthood.”

Per Women priests: my position is not that tradition is correct, simply because it is a tradition. The argument is if one is going to deviate from the standard beliefs of normative Christianity that have existed for some two thousand years, then some justification is needed. Bowing to the Feminist Movement is not a justification. Making someone a priest, simply because they want to be, is not a justification. The idea of women priests is not Biblical. It was not held by the creators of the New Testament. It was not held to by early Christians. It was not believed by those who crafted Christian theology. The idea has no foundation within Christendom. It is an alien notion.

As to the Mormon position on priesthood: Mormonism is based on prophets and Modern revelation. Mormon doctrine is not restricted to the Bible alone. Mormonism has additional scripture and an open canon. The strictures and provisions on priesthood for Mormons is found in the book: Doctrine and Covenants that contains Modern revelations.

Me: “Because you claim the Bible is perfect and you are not, you are unable to make any final conclusions about its meaning. Your scriptural conclusions can be dismissed by your own assertions.

Because you have granted to the Bible the same kind of perfection as Deity, you have de facto deified the text. You have created a false idol at the very core of your belief system.

You" Why do you not follow your own conclusions then? I’ve stated in other words multiple times, here rephrased:

Because you claim the Bible has errors and later redactions in the text, you cannot claim with any certainty any final conclusions about its meaning. For example, you made a counterclaim to one of my claims, and cited the Peter text under debate. How do you know Peter said what the text says? How do you know the Peter epistles are divinely inspired? If you are uncertain, why debate them with me?

I don’t claim Peter necessarily wrote 2 Peter. I don’t believe in inerrancy. I am aware of errors in the Bible. I accept the Bible as imperfect, but inspired. This means I am always open to new understandings. This does not mean any idea someone comes up with has value. Ordaining women as priests is extra Biblical.


Per the Book of Romans: Paul isn’t arguing the case for Rabbinic Judaism in the Book of Romans. He is arguing one must come to Christ. He is attempting to convince Gentile converts and proselytes to Judaism that it isn’t to the Law of Moses, but Christ they should turn.

Repentance leads to salvation. Therefore, it is not saving it and of itself. The problem is we are both skipping over verses like “He has taken away the list of our offences,” that is, the record of our moral crimes, so that we may not be MADE perfect but are JUDGED innocent, as if we ARE perfect. I find it a bit off-putting in evangelism to tell people I witness to, “You are guilty before God but He will overlook all your moral faults and change you when the time comes so you can be in a perfect Heaven,” so I find it convenient to say, “Nobody’s perfect. Jesus didn’t die because He was imperfect. He died having done nothing wrong for our sake.”

It is off putting to say: “You are guilty before God but He will overlook all your moral faults and change you when the time comes so you can be in a perfect Heaven”. It is also wrong. As long as one is a moral being, one cannot and does not abdicate their moral responsibility at any point.

What is not simple is what does “endure” mean? What is not simple is what does “end” mean? I await your replies.

Thanks.

Per “But he that endure to the end, the same shall be saved” from Matt. 24: 13

At a base level endure means the subject must resist, withstand, in short: work to keep a stance. It entails effort. “End” means one's death.

 

[Orontes]

I think that is most helpful, your references. You should be aware that we evangelicals have much debate regarding whether Romans 7 is Paul's state as a tormented believer or his past state. If there are early church references to Paul using prosoepoeia as you wrote, that would be a smoking gun and most helpful. I will try to source these online! Thank you.

As for your 1, 2 and 3:

1 is what we're discussing, and I'm open, but I wonder why you've never replied when I mention scriptures like "The Lord has laid on Him all OUR iniquities."

2 is not a popular position, it's true. However, when I began reading Dr. Geisler's book detailing answers to 700-plus questions of inerrancy that skeptics raise, I remember thinking, "I've encountered all these!" meaning that whenever someone raises a contradiction in the text, I read it and research it, and I remain more convinced than ever that there are reasoned answers to the problems inerrancy raises for many.

3 is a misstatement of my position. I don't think you really believe I feel repentance is an afterthought. I just stand on the Greek meaning of the term, which means to change one's mind. It is necessary for salvation. If I meet an Indian woman and share the gospel with her but she is new to hearing about Jesus and the NT, and she trusts Jesus for salvation, she would then tell others, "I used to believe my Hindu beliefs could save me, but I've changed my mind, only Jesus can save." That is biblical repentance. Further, I will debate with you whether repentance regarding behavior or lifestyle can save. Why? Because we agree Paul's statements and that of others are regarding works of the Law of Moses. I can show you in the Pentateuch where you get your notions regarding repentance being salvation, and this is the notion Paul wants to disabuse you of. I say this respectfully.

Per the Book of Romans: as with any type of rhetoric, if one doesn’t know the intended audience, the piece cannot be properly understood. I think you will find as you delve into things that Paul’s use of prosoepoeia is one of the indicators (among others) that Paul was writing specifically to Greco-Romans. These were proselytes and those generally interested in Judaism. Any other understanding ends up turning the Book of Romans into an incoherent mess. The Book of Romans is a fantastic piece of writing. It’s sad so many misjudge and undervalue it, because they tend to apply their own views on top of the piece and end up missing the whole point of the work.


Per 1) the Penal Substitution Model: I think I have in the past replied specifically to Isaiah 53:6. “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Are you assuming that Isaiah’s scapegoat metaphor is a literal reference to a type of commodification of sin: that it can be passed from one to another, like spare change? If you believe that, then you need to explain how that works under any model of justice, since sin is by definition person specific. If you do bad thing X, it is unjust for another to be punished for your action.


Per 2) Inerrancy: the reason Biblical inerrancy isn’t a popular position is because it is incoherent. It can only be held if one abandons reason. Aside from the vast number of textual contradictions, I gave you another simple challenge. How does that which is imperfect understand what is perfect? Your assertion the text is perfect means you are cut off from understanding it. The same type of problem arises when thinking about composition: how does an imperfect thing write what is perfect? The only way to answer such is to assume man becomes a funnel for the Divine to use, but this then means one cannot account for the fact all are written in specific times and places, all governed by the cultural mores, language and understanding of the writers.


Per 3) If your position is based on the meaning of the Greek, then metanoia is not simply to change one’s mind. It involves one’s spirit, their disposition, not simply a cognitive switch. When it included any moral aspect, it involved regret. The key element is it is subject specific. Another cannot make one repent. Therefore, the subject is fundamentally involved in their own salvation. This is the point. No one can achieve salvation alone, but neither can they be drug their against their will. The atonement is at-one-ment. This is a coming together. Christ knocks, but we must open the door.

 

[Crypto2015]

Thanks for asking, Clear:

I'm a Christian but not yet perfected. The Bible sets it up this way:

1. Christ was perfect, without sin, in a human body. God poured into flesh like milk in a milk container.

2. Christ after His death and resurrection returned in a glorified body.

3. The apostles explain that this body of Christ's will be like the ones given other persons as they resurrect unto judgment.

4. Again, being imperfect, I'm not ready to encounter God the Father but will enter His presence, made ready at that time.

5. Jesus came to do what I could not. Jesus did nothing deserving of death, and died, being perfect, as my stand-in. Anyone who of their free will trusts Christ for salvation will likewise be perfected.

You will never be perfect. If you think that you need to be perfect in order to be granted admission to heaven, I am sorry to tell you that you are you are not going to make it. However, if you acknowledge the fact that you are a sinner and accept Jesus' sacrifice for your sins, you are already perfect as far as God is concerned. You are already perfect because, as a result of your faith, when God looks at you, he doesn't see you, he sees Christ. Christ's merits, and not your own merits, is what is going to get you into heaven. All you need is faith in Jesus Christ and a sincere desire to follow him.

"Day after day every priest stands to minister and to offer again and again the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this Priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, He sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time, He waits for His enemies to be made a footstool for His feet, because by a single offering He has made perfect for all time those who are sanctified." (Hebrews 10:11-14)

 

[BilliardsBall]

Master Billiards,

Sorry for the delayed reply.

You’ve misstated the point and meaning of the syllogism. You also claimed it is invalid. It is not. Here it is again:

1)The Bible is perfect
2) Master Billiards is imperfect
3) What is imperfect cannot understand what is perfect
4) Therefore, Master Billiards cannot understand the Bible

By your own statements you are imperfect and the text is perfect. As such, you cannot understand it. Your position fails.

To your question: ‘What change do you think will happen to the believer to make them fit for the eternal kingdom?’ Nothing can "make" one fit for the eternal kingdom. The Eternal Kingdom, has a moral element. Morality cannot be forced. One must open themselves up to Christ, one cannot be forced to Christ.

As to misunderstanding your position: I don’t misunderstand your position. The problems with your view are from your own statements and these are clear. You admit you believe in the Penal Model of the Atonement. The Penal Model is irrational, unjust and immoral. You choose to believe in Biblical inerrancy. It is an irrational position. Neither of these views are Biblical. They are the stances of poor thinkers from the 16th Century and afterwards.

I follow your logic here except where you have redefined perfection.

I have perfection – “the condition, state, or quality of being free or as free as possible from all flaws or defects”

This is a dictionary definition, I would respectfully disagree with you if you said, based on the above definition, that God is imperfect, or Heaven is imperfect.

You seem to have perfection as “the condition, state, or quality of being free or as free as possible from all flaws or defects, which condition no sentient, thinking being with any defects can understand”

Have you ever witnessed your faith to others, inviting them to become reformed, even godlike? Are you not inviting them to perfection? Because I would find it discouraging to have to labor for millions of years under your system to become a defective godlike being. Please tell me more.

Per Women priests: my position is not that tradition is correct, simply because it is a tradition. The argument is if one is going to deviate from the standard beliefs of normative Christianity that have existed for some two thousand years, then some justification is needed. Bowing to the Feminist Movement is not a justification. Making someone a priest, simply because they want to be, is not a justification. The idea of women priests is not Biblical. It was not held by the creators of the New Testament. It was not held to by early Christians. It was not believed by those who crafted Christian theology. The idea has no foundation within Christendom. It is an alien notion.

As to the Mormon position on priesthood: Mormonism is based on prophets and Modern revelation. Mormon doctrine is not restricted to the Bible alone. Mormonism has additional scripture and an open canon. The strictures and provisions on priesthood for Mormons is found in the book: Doctrine and Covenants that contains Modern revelations.

Taken together, your two paragraphs inform us that:

“We need strong justification to reject standard beliefs of normative Christianity that have existed for two thousand years, unless they are Mormon revelations given since the 1800s.”

I find your stance untenable unless you’d can justify Mormon revelations—primary revelatory confirmations would include 100% accuracy in prophecy per the Tanakh, for example…

Per the Book of Romans: Paul isn’t arguing the case for Rabbinic Judaism in the Book of Romans. He is arguing one must come to Christ. He is attempting to convince Gentile converts and proselytes to Judaism that it isn’t to the Law of Moses, but Christ they should turn.

I certainly agree with you—but I understand that you don’t advocate turning to Christ for regeneration but also to our repentance, our reformed lifestyle, and also to our labors for ages to come in the next life. Is that correct? I think Jesus can change me, but I think you think you will change you to make you ready for the life to come…

It is off putting to say: “You are guilty before God but He will overlook all your moral faults and change you when the time comes so you can be in a perfect Heaven”. It is also wrong. As long as one is a moral being, one cannot and does not abdicate their moral responsibility at any point.

I appreciate your concern here but:

*don’t confuse salvation, a free gift, with sanctification, which is won through hard effort

*no one is advocating abdicating moral responsibility – a murderer who trusts Jesus in prison continues to serve a prison sentence but in the Heaven that comes is released from having committed crimes

Per “But he that endure to the end, the same shall be saved” from Matt. 24: 13

At a base level endure means the subject must resist, withstand, in short: work to keep a stance. It entails effort. “End” means one's death.

And this is a problem, since Jesus in the same passage is emphasizing the end of the age, which means He will come to STOP people from enduring unto death. That is one reason I reject your premise.

Per the Book of Romans: as with any type of rhetoric, if one doesn’t know the intended audience, the piece cannot be properly understood. I think you will find as you delve into things that Paul’s use of prosoepoeia is one of the indicators (among others) that Paul was writing specifically to Greco-Romans. These were proselytes and those generally interested in Judaism. Any other understanding ends up turning the Book of Romans into an incoherent mess. The Book of Romans is a fantastic piece of writing. It’s sad so many misjudge and undervalue it, because they tend to apply their own views on top of the piece and end up missing the whole point of the work.

I’m comfortable with this stance. However, you are still not recognizing that Paul sometimes speaks of Jewish people as “they” and sometimes as “we”… for example:

“Not only that, but Rebekah's children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac.”

Gentiles may appropriate the blessings of Abraham and indeed, Romans discusses the fatherhood of Abraham to the uncircumcised believers. However, I would be hard-pressed to think of any Bible scholar who would take “our father Issac” as indicating that Issac fathered all the Greco-Roman Gentiles, rather than Esau’s and Jacob’s descendants.

Per 1) the Penal Substitution Model: I think I have in the past replied specifically to Isaiah 53:6. “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Are you assuming that Isaiah’s scapegoat metaphor is a literal reference to a type of commodification of sin: that it can be passed from one to another, like spare change? If you believe that, then you need to explain how that works under any model of justice, since sin is by definition person specific. If you do bad thing X, it is unjust for another to be punished for your action.

First, I can accept that it is unjust for another to be punished for our actions.

Second, the scriptures remind us that God hates for the innocent to be punished.

Third, Christ was innocent. Could it be that God has higher ways or levels of ways? For example, God hates for the innocent to be punished but in the name of love of neighbor He allowed Christ to be punished?

Fourth, I leave it to you—since you recognize that if literal, this is commodification of human sin, and you will have to make it poetic to redefine this verse’s meaning.

Unfortunately this last, “It looks like a duck, but isn’t a duck,” is always available to you as long as the scriptures are errant.

Per 3) If your position is based on the meaning of the Greek, then metanoia is not simply to change one’s mind. It involves one’s spirit, their disposition, not simply a cognitive switch. When it included any moral aspect, it involved regret. The key element is it is subject specific. Another cannot make one repent. Therefore, the subject is fundamentally involved in their own salvation. This is the point. No one can achieve salvation alone, but neither can they be drug their against their will. The atonement is at-one-ment. This is a coming together. Christ knocks, but we must open the door.

“The meaning of the Greek” is to change one’s mind. Would you like me to post some Greek authorities here on this? Will that be of use to you?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You will never be perfect. If you think that you need to be perfect in order to be granted admission to heaven, I am sorry to tell you that you are you are not going to make it. However, if you acknowledge the fact that you are a sinner and accept Jesus' sacrifice for your sins, you are already perfect as far as God is concerned. You are already perfect because, as a result of your faith, when God looks at you, he doesn't see you, he sees Christ. Christ's merits, and not your own merits, is what is going to get you into heaven. All you need is faith in Jesus Christ and a sincere desire to follow him.

"Day after day every priest stands to minister and to offer again and again the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this Priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, He sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time, He waits for His enemies to be made a footstool for His feet, because by a single offering He has made perfect for all time those who are sanctified." (Hebrews 10:11-14)

Thanks for sharing this, Crypto.

In a similar vein, I would say I'm not perfect, but that at the Rapture I will get a new body and be perfected in that way. The difference is that (if I understand it right) there is a large burden in Mormon theology upon the sinner to change himself, where evangelicals tend to say Christ is all about the business of making changes we cannot make via sheer willpower.

In addition to your Hebrews quote, of course, we have the writer's statement that others were waiting for the NT era to be made perfect, together!

 

[Crypto2015]

Thanks for sharing this, Crypto.

In a similar vein, I would say I'm not perfect, but that at the Rapture I will get a new body and be perfected in that way. The difference is that (if I understand it right) there is a large burden in Mormon theology upon the sinner to change himself, where evangelicals tend to say Christ is all about the business of making changes we cannot make via sheer willpower.

In addition to your Hebrews quote, of course, we have the writer's statement that others were waiting for the NT era to be made perfect, together!

You are welcome, my friend. Are you a Mormon?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Is there compelling evidence for penal substitution being an early church doctrine?

https://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj20i.pdf

 

[BilliardsBall]

You are welcome, my friend. Are you a Mormon?

I'm not an LDS member, I'm a nondenominational Christian.

Thank you.

 

[Clear]

1) Orontes and Billiardsball : Your posts both contain responses to so many separate issues that it becoming difficult to understand what your separate comments refer to. The comments may be good comments but it's difficult to even remember why a specific point might be important.

It may help to consider picking just one or two of your most important issues and focus on them for a while just to increase understanding of points you are making on each side of the issues. It’s not length or depth of a post that is difficult, but the multiple different issues responded to in a single post that is becoming harder to follow. You don't need to abandon any issues, but it would help if you can narrow the issues, settle a couple and then return later to other issues that are important to you.


2) Billiardsball, regarding the ancient use and meaning of words. The problem with your suggestion of using the bible as a lexicon to define language is that language is not created by the bible (with rare exception), nor does the bible itself define or determine how individuals used common language anciently. Historically, one MUST look at the historical usage of words to determine what a word meant at a time and place and to a specific people in a specific context.

For example, you cannot look at a modern dictionary at the word “perfection” which you and Orontes are discussing and apply it to an ancient context. Nor can you assume the word means the same thing in different contexts and different time periods. Sometimes you and Orontes refer to the modern concept of “perfection” while the ancient “be ye therefore “perfect” (τελιος grk) of Matthew 5:48 is a different concept.

The same point is true of Μετανοεω (grk) or “repent”. You will not find a more accurate description of it’s ancient common usage than to look at it’s ancient common usage in texts of the era in which a word is used. This is the reason why the many ancient greek papyri showing us how the word is used is more helpful than a simple modern lexicon referring to a single ancient word, but having no other context.


3) REGARDING THE PENAL MODEL WHERE GOD PUNISHES INNOCENT JESUS AND REWARDS EVIL DOERS

Billiardsball (post 388) asks : “Is there compelling evidence for penal substitution being an early church doctrine? https://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj20i.pdf “

I think readers should read this Pdf by Michael Vlach. If they read carefully and look at the illogic, they will probably conclude that this paper doesn’t have any conclusive evidence for God punishing an innocent Jesus for sins Jesus did not commit (i.e. the penal model). I think those who do NOT believe in the penal model can use this same paper as further evidence that it did not exist.

The paper is a good example of how one can offer a series of small quotes and then attempt to apply the penal label to quote without reference to what the quote actually says (or doesn’t say). Read closely. For examples :

1) The very first quote from early literature Mr. Vlach offers us, is a 33 word quote from Clement of Rome (d.96) : “Because of the love he felt for us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave his blood for us by the will of God, his body for our bodies, and his soul for our souls. “ (underline is mine). This is the ENTIRE quote.

Out of Clements entire genre of writing, Mr. Vlach give us these words which indicate a "willing sacrifice", but do not describe a punishment for sins the innocent Jesus did not commit (the penal model). Can one assume this was the quote that Mr. Vlach thought best supported the penal model? If this is the best he can do, then it doesn’t support the penal model at all.

2) The very next example Mr Vlach gives is 14 words (ONLY fourteen words) from Ignatius (d. 107) : “Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved.” That’s it. That is the entire quote and obviously, nothing in this quote supports the premise that God punishes an innocent Jesus for sins Jesus did not commit (ie the penal model). Jesus suffered for us? Yes? Punished for sins he did not commit? No.

The quote clearly favors other models of self-sacrifice more than an unjust punishment of the innocent.

3) The very next quote Mr. Vlach offers is 32 words of commentary from the book of Barnabas (after which Barnabas refers to a quote from Isaiah). The quote is : “”For to this end the Lord endured to deliver up His flesh to corruption, that we might be sanctified through the remission of sins, which is effected by His blood of sprinkling.”…..”For it is written – here he quotes Isaiah…)

While this quote tell us that the “Lord endured to deliver up his flesh”, and this to “sanctify us”, this applies more to the other models of atonement and does not tell us God “punished the innocent Jesus for sins Jesus did not commit” (ie the penal model). This is simply silly to assume this somehow supports the penal model. Why bother quoting the scripture if it doesn't support one's position?

4) The very next example from Mr. Vlach is a quote from Diognetus (2nd Century apostolic Father) : “when our wickedness had reached its height…He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, he gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the Unrighteous.”

Again, we run into the same confusion as to why this quote even applies to a strict “penal” model rather than the "ransom model".

How does giving a “ransom” support the penal model more than the ransom model?

Where in this sentence does it say that God punishes an innocent Jesus for sins Jesus did not commit? This is illogical thinking.

Vlach goes on to quote Diognetus : “O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation, O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors.”

Mr. Vlach explains this means Jesus “paid the price” for unjust sinners but as usual, he never makes the connection with the innocent Jesus being punished for the sins of others. It is an appropriate accountants model of atonement, or another model, but it is not a description of a true penal model nor does it support the penal model as well as it supports other models.

Read this paper for yourselves. See if, when placing these various quotes in context, you can find support for a strict penal model in this paper. Even the reference to Jesus and the Curse of death that comes to all mankind is better suited to other redemptive models.

• So, while the paper uses some wonderful quotes and some wonderful sources and is a good support to the base concept that all mankind depends upon Jesus for their redemption and their ultimate spiritual blessings, it does nothing to support the specific "penal model" of atonement where God the Father punishes someone who is innocent (Jesus) while allowing the evil doers go free. This does not mean someone, somewhere did not believe in a strictly penal model, just that these references he offers us do not demonstrate a strict penal model.

Clear
σιφυακσε / שפאש / sitzakse

 

[BilliardsBall]

Billiardsball, regarding the ancient use and meaning of words. The problem with your suggestion of using the bible as a lexicon to define language is that language is not created by the bible (with rare exception), nor does the bible itself define or determine how individuals used common language anciently. Historically, one MUST look at the historical usage of words to determine what a word meant at a time and place and to a specific people in a specific context.

For example, you cannot look at a modern dictionary at the word “perfection” which you and Orontes are discussing and apply it to an ancient context. Nor can you assume the word means the same thing in different contexts and different time periods. Sometimes you and Orontes refer to the modern concept of “perfection” while the ancient “be ye therefore “perfect” (τελιος grk) of Matthew 5:48 is a different concept.

The same point is true of Μετανοεω (grk) or “repent”. You will not find a more accurate description of it’s ancient common usage than to look at it’s ancient common usage in texts of the era in which a word is used. This is the reason why the many ancient greek papyri showing us how the word is used is more helpful than a simple modern lexicon referring to a single ancient word, but having no other context.

Put another way from your quote above, Clear, if I understand what you wrote, you are affirming the following:

1 Μετανοεω or “repent” means literally in Greek, “change of mind”

2 We need a good lexicon to better interpret “change of mind” to mean “change of behavior”

3 There are good ancient sources that give us a lexicon for Greek words and phrases

4 The Bible is not a good ancient source to use as a lexicon

I agree with your #s 1 and 3 only, Clear. Be consistent. No reasonable scholar will tell us we can only study word etymology and usage without a Bible in hand.

Note carefully, please, the scriptures also say:

“repentance [change of mind]” leads to godly sorrow”

However, this is illogical:

“repentance [change of behavior] leads to godly sorrow”

Regarding penal substitution you skipped a few choice quotes from the ancients, okay, a LOT of choice quotes in the paper. There’s this gem, for one fine example:

The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus is a second-century work that some believe is one of the earliest examples of Christian apologetics. It also reveals early thinking in regard to Christ’s atonement. This epistle declared that “when our wickedness had reached its height. . . . He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, he gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous.”19 It then goes on to say, “O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation, O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors.”20 This epistle stands as a clear example of early belief that Jesus paid the price for unjust sinners so that they could be forgiven of their sins.

Note carefully, Clear, O SWEET EXCHANGE [SUBSTITUTION] and not O SWEET RANSOM PAID or O SWEET DEMONSTRATION, etc.

As for this quote, I’m kind of surprised you wrote:

…does nothing to support the specific "penal model" of atonement where God the Father punishes someone who is innocent (Jesus) while allowing the evil doers go free

I’m pretty sure Barabbas was a murderer who went scot free while Jesus when ordered to crucifixion and scourging was innocent of any wrongdoing, ever. Are you saying you have knowledge that Barabbas was a good man or Jesus Christ an evil man? Do you disagree? Did I miss something again?

Thanks.

 

[Orontes]

I follow your logic here except where you have redefined perfection.

I have perfection – “the condition, state, or quality of being free or as free as possible from all flaws or defects”

This is a dictionary definition...

Per Perfection and the flaw of adopting an Inerrancy position: I didn’t offer a definition of perfection. I can’t thereby have redefined it. What I argued is: you assert the Bible is perfect. You have also admitted you are imperfect. Imperfection is always already less than perfection, therefore you are never in a state to understand perfection. Your adoption of inerrancy therefore cuts you off from the text


1)The Bible is perfect
2) Master Billiards is imperfect
3) What is imperfect cannot understand what is perfect
4) Therefore, Master Billiards cannot understand the Bible


As an aside: using a dictionary as a touch stone for defining abstract concepts is not the path to take. It is problematic. In a theological discussion, defining Deity’s perfection as simply an absence of flaw will create issues. This is what one would do when talking about a table for example. Deity is not a table and not measured by simple lack of defect. Deity’s perfection is better encapsulated as the maximal possession of all positive qualities.



Per women priests: You did not respond to the problem(s) with your advocacy. I take it you cede the point. There is no justification for women priests: it is un-Biblical.

As to what you typed: you misunderstand, I’ll explain using different verbiage.

1. Religion as a system involves making truth claims
   
2. If there is religious assertion X, alteration of religious assertion X by co-religionists requires justification
   
3. Justification for change is not reducible to simply desire alone i.e. “I want to” or “it’s more fashionable to” are not sufficient.

Now, a justification for a change would be an appeal to revelation. Christendom has at its very roots the notion of revelation. Christianity is a revealed religion. The Mormon stance on priesthood is based on revelation. You may not accept the revelation (given you’re not Mormon), but epistemologically it is a coherent explanation for the Mormon stance. Per Women priests: its advocates do not claim any revelation from God on the subject. Rather, they support the notion because of fealty to Feminist positions etc. These are not viable justifications as the tenets of a faith are not determined by fashion. This is why your position is untenable.

Me: Per the Book of Romans: Paul isn’t arguing the case for Rabbinic Judaism in the Book of Romans. He is arguing one must come to Christ. He is attempting to convince Gentile converts and proselytes to Judaism that it isn’t to the Law of Moses, but Christ they should turn.

You: I certainly agree with you—but I understand that you don’t advocate turning to Christ for regeneration but also to our repentance, our reformed lifestyle, and also to our labors for ages to come in the next life. Is that correct? I think Jesus can change me, but I think you think you will change you to make you ready for the life to come…

Your comment doesn’t actually relate to the Book of Romans discussion. The central issue with the Book of Romans aside was: the text is Greco-Roman and Greco-Romans were Paul’s intended audience. This has been demonstrated.

As to what you did type: Christ can’t change a person. It is irrational. A person cannot on their own overcome their separation from God. Rather, one must turn to God. This is the core of the metaphor I used earlier that Christ knocks at the door, but we must open it.

*don’t confuse salvation, a free gift, with sanctification, which is won through hard effort

I need you to define salvation and sanctification.



Per Matt 24:13: you focus on an eschatological understanding, but such is irrelevant. Whether you believe “end” means the end of an age has no bearing on the point. The key turns on and surrounds the verb. The verb is endure. This means the subject must do something. This simple verse is a contradiction to your belief man is a passive object.

Gentiles may appropriate the blessings of Abraham and indeed, Romans discusses the fatherhood of Abraham to the uncircumcised believers. However, I would be hard-pressed to think of any Bible scholar who would take “our father Issac” as indicating that Issac fathered all the Greco-Roman Gentiles, rather than Esau’s and Jacob’s descendants.

Per the Book of Romans: if a Greco-Romans converts to Judaism, they are thereby a Jew. They are, from said point, part of the covenant and thus a ‘son of Abraham’. As I mentioned earlier, Paul’s audience are Greco-Romans: converts and proselytes to Judaism.



Per the Penal Model: if you assert that God’s ways are higher and this mean: He is not bound by logic, then you are claiming belief in an irrational God. This places Deity on the same level of the absurd as the moon is made of blue cheese. I don’t think you want to go that direction. Insofar as you recognize reason, then the Penal Model fails because it is irrational, immoral and unjust.


On Metanoia: you are confusing etymology with meaning. This is an error.* For example, the etymology of logos is bind or gather or collect. This is not the meaning of the word logos.


*Even if one went with a pure etymological reading to determine meaning, there are problems: Meta means after or beyond. Nous refers to mind or disposition or perception. Change isn’t technically found in the roots of the prefix or suffix.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Orontes]

Is there compelling evidence for penal substitution being an early church doctrine?

https://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj20i.pdf

I looked through the piece. I have to agree with Clear. This is an embarrassing display of scholarship. It demonstrates a lack of rigor and a desire to push a thesis independent of the historical record. Several of his citations actually work against his position. This piece would not stand up to any level of scrutiny from those who are not similarly ideologically driven. This is what can happen when one has a group that only talks to itself. This is comic book scholarship for a comic book position.

 

[Orontes]

1) Orontes and Billiardsball : Your posts both contain responses to so many separate issues that it becoming difficult to understand what your separate comments refer to. The comments may be good comments but it's difficult to even remember why a specific point might be important.

It may help to consider picking just one or two of your most important issues and focus on them...

I agree. The posts are far too long and disjointed. I asked Master Billiards to pick a single topic, but he persists in the argumentative vein. Per topics, basically there is:

A) The absurdity of the Penal Substitution Model of the Atonement
B) The absurdity of Inerrancy

Then there are subtopics. Each of these demonstrate Master Billiards is loyal to an ideology over the Bible, reason or any other factor. They are:

1. The Book of Romans where I have argued it is a Greco-Roman text, intended for a Greco-Roman audience.
   
2. Matt 24:13: this verse is a simple counter to the notion man is a passive object
   
3. Women Priests: Master Billiards' support for this idea demonstrates a willingness to abandon the Bible for fashion

I would prefer he pick one thing he is keen on.

 

[Clear]

1) REGARDING THE CONCEPT OF USING THE BIBLE AS A LEXICON

Billiardsball said : “…Clear, if I understand what you wrote, you are affirming the following 1 Μετανοεω or “repent” means literally in Greek, “change of mind”.

Yes, Μετανοεω it is a compound word, “Μετα” meaning change and “νοεω” meaning mind. But in early religious use, it was more than a change of mind (like changing from wanting one flavor ice cream to another).

Νοεω was not just a choice made, but it was the most common word used in wills in Ptolemaic and Roman periods. “Νοων και φρονων” Papyri Petr I 16(1) 12 (of 237 b.c.) was a testator witnessing to his “sound mind and saneness”. This is not a simple choice implied here, but a quality of thought. When one testator to a will says “ …ταδε δειθετο νοων φρονων μενιππος..” he is certifying that he is “sane and in his right mind..” Papyri Oxy I 104.4 (of 96.a.d).

νοεω also referred to “perception” and “understanding”. The Christian that came to a different perception of life and a different understanding used “Μετανοεω” to describe these changes in his thoughts and heart. Thus, Νοεω also referred to the heart and it’s emotions and feelings. Thus Μετανοεω also means a change of heart or attitude. Νοεω in it’s meaning as “perception” is used in Romans 1:20 (νοουμενα) in referring to perception, rather than “choice” in it’s use of one’s outlook or way of thinking, etc. Thus, for early Christians, the concept of repentance was not a simple, superficial flipping of one belief for another belief, but a change of life and lifestyle and perceptions and thought. It was part of the process of regeneration and commitment to a new life.

Thus, in ancient texts, when reference is made to words, one must take ancient meanings and usage into account. Jewish Haggadah speaks of repentance : “In the beginning, Two thousand years before the Heaven and the earth, seven things were created: The Torah...the Celestial Sanctuary directly in front of God, having a jewel on its altar graven with the Name of the Messiah, and a Voice that cries aloud, “Return, you children of men.” When God resolved upon the creation of the world, he took counsel with the Torah. .. The advice of the Torah was given with some reservations. She was skeptical about the value of an earthly world, on account of the sinfulness of men, who would be sure to disregard her precepts. But God dispelled her doubts. He told her that repentance had been created long before, and sinners would have the opportunity of mending their ways.” The Haggadah (the first things created) In these ancient contexts repentance is not merely a “changing ones mind” but a “mending of ways” that is implied. If you remember back, the context of our initial discussion was the place of repentance in early Christian thought versus the theory of “belief in Jesus” without repentance as a "mending of the ways" being necessary.

Billiardsball said 2 We need a good lexicon to better interpret “change of mind” to mean “change of behavior”
Not necessarily, some lexicons include commentary that make historical nuances clear.

Billiardsball said 3 There are good ancient sources that give us a lexicon for Greek words and phrases
Probably, but the best source of what common, ordinary language mean is to look at the common, ordinary usage of historical period and place of interest. For example, the great historian Lightfoot suggested that “if we could only recover letters that ordinary people wrote to each other without any thought of being literary, we should have the greatest possible help for the understanding of the language of the NT generally.”

Once the great papyri of Christian enclaves such as onychyrynchus, Cairo, Elephantine, the Fayum , towns, Alexandria, Media and perhaps a hundred or more other groups of early papyri gradually came to light, Lightfoots' claim became almost prophetic, since, this was exactly what happened. Such discoveries led to a habitual re-writing of Greek Lexicons and Grammars of the New Testament. Lexicons record meanings and uses, they do not create meanings and uses.

While historians live and breathe in the world of such principles, awareness of such principles trickles down only slowly into the awareness of most “Sunday School” believers.

Billiardsball said : 4 The Bible is not a good ancient source to use as a lexicon
No, an actual ancient lexicon is a good source of a lexicon just as the bible does not function as well as a good map to reveal biblical geography. These are different types of texts having different purposes.

Billiardsball said : I agree with your #s 1 and 3 only, Clear. Be consistent. No reasonable scholar will tell us we can only study word etymology and usage without a Bible in hand.
Yes, this is what I agree with as well. There is a place for both. Your prior attempt to apply ONLY the lexicon use of “Μετανοεω” as a simple “change of mind” is NOT enough. You will have to refer to biblical references as well. If you want to know what early Christians thought the word meant and how they used it, then you will also have to refer to their texts and descriptions as well.

Billiardsball said " Note carefully, please, the scriptures also say: “repentance [change of mind]” leads to godly sorrow” However, this is illogical: “repentance [change of behavior] leads to godly sorrow”
I very much agree that your second statement IS illogical. Since no one is suggesting a simple change of behavior creates sorrow, it is both illogical AND irrelevant.


2) REGARDING WHETHER GOD PUNISHES THE INNOCENT AND REWARDS EVIL DOERS OR NOT

Billiardsball said " Regarding penal substitution you skipped a few choice quotes from the ancients, okay, a LOT of choice quotes in the paper. There’s this gem, for one fine example:

The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus is a second-century work that some believe is one of the earliest examples of Christian apologetics. It also reveals early thinking in regard to Christ’s atonement. This epistle declared that “when our wickedness had reached its height. . . . He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, he gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous.”19 It then goes on to say, “O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation, O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors.”20 This epistle stands as a clear example of early belief that Jesus paid the price for unjust sinners so that they could be forgiven of their sins.

Note carefully, Clear, O SWEET EXCHANGE [SUBSTITUTION] and not O SWEET RANSOM PAID or O SWEET DEMONSTRATION, etc.

As for this quote, I’m kind of surprised you wrote: …does nothing to support the specific "penal model" of atonement where God the Father punishes someone who is innocent (Jesus) while allowing the evil doers go free I’m pretty sure Barabbas was a murderer who went scot free while Jesus when ordered to crucifixion and scourging was innocent of any wrongdoing, ever. Are you saying you have knowledge that Barabbas was a good man or Jesus Christ an evil man? Do you disagree? Did I miss something again?

Yes, you missed the historical point and your example is not an example of Gods just judgment.

Though Pontius may exchange Barabbas for Jesus in an unjust switch, God himself is eminently able to judge righteous judgment. If Bill robs a store, God does not punish Tom and then reward Bill. Mankind may engage in unjust and immoral and unrighteous judgment and reward, but God, who knows the hearts of mankind does not punish the innocent and reward the evildoers. Your failing to understand the context of the sweet exchange is yet another example of the importance of considering language and historical context. Look up the greek of Diognetus and see what the “sweet exchange” is referring to. Get back to us with what you find and see if you think it means God punishes the innocent and rewards evil doers.

Billiardsball, honestly I hope your spiritual journey is good. I'm going on vacation again this weekend and may not have internet for a day or two. We'll see.

Clear
σισεφινεω

 

[BilliardsBall]

Orontes,

What is imperfect cannot understand what is perfect

You haven’t proven the above is a true statement. You are incorrect. I can give you examples and analogies, for example, imperfect persons routinely score 10s (no mistakes, no flaws) in Olympic competition. By your syllogism, you are saying that no imperfect human can ever understand and judge any perfect achievement of man or God?

Is God’s plan of redemption for man perfect or imperfect?

There is no justification for women priests: it is un-Biblical.

There is no justification for only Mormon priests: it is un-Biblical.

I need you to define salvation and sanctification.

Salvation: A person enters the Heavenly Kingdom, not Hell, upon their death

Sanctification: A believer’s life is refined, their deeds becoming more Christ-like overall

Per the Book of Romans: if a Greco-Romans converts to Judaism, they are thereby a Jew. They are, from said point, part of the covenant and thus a ‘son of Abraham’. As I mentioned earlier, Paul’s audience are Greco-Romans: converts and proselytes to Judaism.

A Gentile cannot become a Jew any more than a born Jew can become a Gentile. Romans is describing Jews who are not faithful inwardly. This is an anti-Semitic concept you are borrowing from Catholicism, and from Romans which was written to thwart just this sort of abhorrent replacement theology.

Per the Book of Romans: if a Greco-Romans converts to Judaism, they are thereby a Jew. They are, from said point, part of the covenant and thus a ‘son of Abraham’. As I mentioned earlier, Paul’s audience are Greco-Romans: converts and proselytes to Judaism.

Stop misrepresenting my positions. I didn’t say “God’s mysterious ways are higher,” I said God parsed the greater good of love of mankind above rigid adherence to merely hating the innocent being punished. Jesus was an innocent person. God said He hates when the innocent are punished. God says He does what He pleases, not what He hates to do. Therefore, God went through a difficulty in punishing the innocent Jesus for our sakes.

On Metanoia: you are confusing etymology with meaning. This is an error.* For example, the etymology of logos is bind or gather or collect. This is not the meaning of the word logos.


*Even if one went with a pure etymological reading to determine meaning, there are problems: Meta means after or beyond. Nous refers to mind or disposition or perception. Change isn’t technically found in the roots of the prefix or suffix.

No, you are confusing etymology with literal meaning. The Greek says “Change mind.” Your “roots of the suffix” have nothing to do with the fact that there are only concordances stating “change of mind”.

I looked through the piece. I have to agree with Clear. This is an embarrassing display of scholarship. It demonstrates a lack of rigor and a desire to push a thesis independent of the historical record. Several of his citations actually work against his position. This piece would not stand up to any level of scrutiny from those who are not similarly ideologically driven. This is what can happen when one has a group that only talks to itself. This is comic book scholarship for a comic book position.

Orontes, are you in academia currently or no? If so, you are insulting a writer in the same profession. I can hardly believe you would dare say something so agenda-driven as “…push a thesis independent of the historical record.” Do you not understand that in academia, scholars are allowed to present theses that call to question the historical record? Not only do you sound like an inquisitor here, not a seeker of truth, but I noticed you ignored direct statements in the paper—did you read it or skim it?

“O SWEET EXCHANGE!” not O Sweet Ransom or O Sweet Victor.

I’m surprised at you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, Μετανοεω it is a compound word, “Μετα” meaning change and “νοεω” meaning mind. But in early religious use, it was more than a change of mind (like changing from wanting one flavor ice cream to another).

The problem, Clear, is that you are cherry-picking. You are on record that if you pick certain historical texts, their context sheds light on the meaning of Μετανοεω. However, you are further on record that Bible contains errors and may not be safely used as a lexicon. That is cherry picking.

No, an actual ancient lexicon is a good source of a lexicon just as the bible does not function as well as a good map to reveal biblical geography. These are different types of texts having different purposes.

I await your thus presenting such a lexicon to prove your point. Certainly, each concordance I’ve seen presents Μετανοεω as “change mind”.

You will have to refer to biblical references as well. If you want to know what early Christians thought the word meant and how they used it, then you will also have to refer to their texts and descriptions as well.

Why would I waste my time doing so? You’re on record that the Bible is not trustworthy, a position I find precarious for someone claiming to be a Christian brother.

" Note carefully, please, the scriptures also say: “repentance [change of mind]” leads to godly sorrow” However, this is illogical: “repentance [change of behavior] leads to godly sorrow”


I very much agree that your second statement IS illogical. Since no one is suggesting a simple change of behavior creates sorrow, it is both illogical AND irrelevant.

You are by saying repentance is change of behavior. I’m saying to have a rethink causes grief. Mine is the logical stance in this instance.

Yes, you missed the historical point and your example is not an example of Gods just judgment.

Though Pontius may exchange Barabbas for Jesus in an unjust switch, God himself is eminently able to judge righteous judgment. If Bill robs a store, God does not punish Tom and then reward Bill. Mankind may engage in unjust and immoral and unrighteous judgment and reward, but God, who knows the hearts of mankind does not punish the innocent and reward the evildoers. Your failing to understand the context of the sweet exchange is yet another example of the importance of considering language and historical context. Look up the greek of Diognetus and see what the “sweet exchange” is referring to. Get back to us with what you find and see if you think it means God punishes the innocent and rewards evil doers.

Billiardsball, honestly I hope your spiritual journey is good. I'm going on vacation again this weekend and may not have internet for a day or two. We'll see.

1. You ignored my statement regarding the quotation, O SWEET EXCHANGE.
   
   
   
2. Do you need me to help you remember other verses demonstrating that God allowed this “unjust switch”?
   
   
   
3. Are you that unaware that one could continually at the Temple services make “switches for sin”?
   
   
   
4. Are you ever going to address the mockery denying penal substitution makes of the scriptures, e.g. “All we like sheep have gone astray… and the Lord has NOT laid on Him all our sin…”?
   

 

[BilliardsBall]

Orontes and Clear,

Please take note of what I hope you will find my reasoned exception to the "but it's tradition" argument. Now, we Jews love tradition, but...

...Much of what has passed for orthodoxy was not biblical but the Roman church's orthodoxy. For example, when groups came along practicing adult, not infant baptism, and/or salvation by faith and repentance, apart from "deeds", the Roman church put them to death! Their word was law for Christians for more than 1,000 years, and poorly so.

If it's in the Bible, I'll adhere to it, and do my level best to do so. Thanks for understanding.

 

[Orontes]

Orontes,
You haven’t proven the above is a true statement. You are incorrect. I can give you examples and analogies, for example, imperfect persons routinely score 10s (no mistakes, no flaws) in Olympic competition. By your syllogism, you are saying that no imperfect human can ever understand and judge any perfect achievement of man or God?

Is God’s plan of redemption for man perfect or imperfect?

Master Billiards,

You have a pattern of repeating statements and positions that have already been refuted. You truly are like the frog in the well that doesn’t believe there is an Ocean. I’m going to go through your recent post and after again replying, bracket off points that have been dealt with and consider those topics complete unless and until you can bring a new and original argument.


Two problems: One, logic isn’t about proving statements are true. Logic is about validity. Two, your point is a reiteration of something already dealt with previously. You need to recall what has been addressed. Below is my earlier response:

As to claims about perfection:
If one states God is perfect or the Bible is perfect, this is not the same as saying Johnny got a perfect score on a test. In the former cases, it is an assertion about Deity and the Bible being pure and commensurate with truth. They are one and the same. With the latter example, a perfect test score means the student answers match what the teacher presented. This does not mean those answers are the truth. The test answers may be wrong, or prove to be wrong as time passes and the understanding of men changes. You have equivocated.​

Your fallacy of equivocation also applies to Olympic competitions, naturally. Given your matrix: no imperfect man can understand or judge perfection, insofar as perfection is tied to a truth claim, by definition.


Conclusion on Biblical Inerrancy:

As previously demonstrated, your belief in Biblical Inerrancy is an absurdity due to contradictions within the text.

Because of your belief in Inerrancy, per the syllogism previously provided, you are cut off from understanding the text.

There is no justification for only Mormon priests: it is un-Biblical.

As previously stated, Mormon beliefs derive from prophets and revelation. Mormonism does not have a closed canon. Mormonism does not believe in sola scriptura. The Mormon stance on priesthood derives from Modern Revelation, not the Bible.


You did not reply to my last post on Women priests.


Conclusion on the belief in women priests: As previously demonstrated, it is unbiblical.

Salvation: A person enters the Heavenly Kingdom, not Hell, upon their death

Sanctification: A believer’s life is refined, their deeds becoming more Christ-like overall

If salvation and sanctification are distinct and salvation is not dependent on sanctification, then under your theology, sanctification is irrelevant.


Conclusion on Matt 24:13 and works:

You gave no reply to Matt 24:13. Per the text,man must endure to be saved, therefore man is not a passive object. As previously demonstrated, your belief is unbiblical

A Gentile cannot become a Jew any more than a born Jew can become a Gentile. Romans is describing Jews who are not faithful inwardly. This is an anti-Semitic concept you are borrowing from Catholicism, and from Romans which was written to thwart just this sort of abhorrent replacement theology.

Judaism recognizes conversion. Converts to Judaism are Jews. This was the case during the time of Christ as well:

“ Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves” Matt 23:15​

Per the Book of Romans: your reply is bald assertion and an incoherent anti-Catholic charge. Neither have substance.


Conclusion on The Book of Romans: As previously demonstrated, it is a Greco-Roman text for a Greco-Roman audience. You do not understand the text (and of course cannot given your inerrancy position that cuts you off from understanding it)


.

Stop misrepresenting my positions. I didn’t say “God’s mysterious ways are higher,” I said God parsed the greater good of love of mankind above rigid adherence to merely hating the innocent being punished. Jesus was an innocent person. God said He hates when the innocent are punished. God says He does what He pleases, not what He hates to do. Therefore, God went through a difficulty in punishing the innocent Jesus for our sakes.

If you believe God punished an innocent Jesus, then you have demonstrated the point: you believe in an evil God


Conclusion on the Penal Substitution Atonement Theory: as previously demonstrated, Penal Model is an irrational, immoral and unjust system

No, you are confusing etymology with literal meaning. The Greek says “Change mind.” Your “roots of the suffix” have nothing to do with the fact that there are only concordances stating “change of mind”.

You do not have even a remedial understanding of Ancient Greek. You shouldn’t make comment on languages you are ignorant of. The prefix of Metanoia does not literally mean change. It means 'after' or 'beyond'. For example: ta meta ta physika (from where the word metaphysics derives, is literally “after the physics ( physics meaning:natural things)”. The etymology does not mean: 'change of natural things'. If we take for example metamorphosis, the standard breakdown on the etymology would be “change form”. However, the meta does not literally mean change, but beyond or after. We commonly use change for ‘meta’ because it is often implied, which is fine. The point however is: an implication is not the same as literal meaning. This is all an aside.

The base issue is that the meaning of a term i.e. metanoia is not determined by etymology, but by the cultural use. It is more than obvious that metanoia never meant for Greek speakers a simple change of mind or opinion. It involved a larger shift of one's disposition, understanding, orientation and in the moral sphere indicated, regret. This is not controversial, but recognized by all who’ve studied ancient and Koine Greek.

Orontes, are you in academia currently or no? If so, you are insulting a writer in the same profession. I can hardly believe you would dare say something so agenda-driven as “…push a thesis independent of the historical record.” Do you not understand that in academia, scholars are allowed to present theses that call to question the historical record? Not only do you sound like an inquisitor here, not a seeker of truth, but I noticed you ignored direct statements in the paper—did you read it or skim it?

“O SWEET EXCHANGE!” not O Sweet Ransom or O Sweet Victor.

I’m surprised at you.

I have no issue with one presenting a new idea. I do have issue with sloppy scholarship. The piece you present is comically bad. I didn’t respond to any of the particulars as Clear already did so. I can certainly do so as well if it’s important to you. Let’s take one reference you seem keen on:

The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus is a second-century work that some believe is one of the earliest examples of Christian apologetics. It also reveals early thinking in regard to Christ’s atonement. This epistle declared that “when our wickedness had reached its height. . . . He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, he gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous.”19 It then goes on to say, “O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation, O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors.”20 This epistle stands as a clear example of early belief that Jesus paid the price for unjust sinners so that they could be forgiven of their sins.​

This is a perfect example of the shallow work being done. This quote does nothing for the fellow's thesis, but actually undercuts it. Mathates was a believer in the Ransom Theory of the Atonement. It was the common position of early Christian theologians and would be up into the Medieval Period. This is why he uses the word 'ransom'. It is also why he uses the word ‘exchange’ as that is fundamental to the Ransom Theory. There is nothing here about total depravity, there is nothing about God punishing the innocent and allowing the guilty to go free. As I stated before, this paper would not stand up to any real academic peer review. It is the kind of shoddy work that happens when one has a closed group talking to each other and thereby reinforcing their already established biases. This is comic book theology, which is sad.

 

[Orontes]

s

Orontes and Clear,

Please take note of what I hope you will find my reasoned exception to the "but it's tradition" argument. Now, we Jews love tradition, but...

...Much of what has passed for orthodoxy was not biblical but the Roman church's orthodoxy. For example, when groups came along practicing adult, not infant baptism, and/or salvation by faith and repentance, apart from "deeds", the Roman church put them to death! Their word was law for Christians for more than 1,000 years, and poorly so.

If it's in the Bible, I'll adhere to it, and do my level best to do so. Thanks for understanding.

Master Billiards,

As has been demonstrated, several of your views are unbiblical. You are loyal to an ideology, not the Bible.

Your belief in the Penal Substitution Model is unbiblical
Your belief in inerrancy is unbiblical
Your belief in women priests is unbiblical.

As has been explained before, it is not that tradition X exists that is relevant. Rather, it is the explanation for why that tradition X is wrong that must be looked to. Fashion is not a justification to move against tradition. Personal taste is not a rationale. Being anti-Catholic is not sufficient either. It only demonstrates one's personal hostilities.