The War Against the Atonement

We are not suprised in the least when we hear liberal theologians attacking the inerrancy of Scripture. Most of us blink not in the slightest when they defame Pauline theology and paint Calvinism a mess with a sopping broad brush. Evidently unsettled that they no longer are capable of surprising us with their apostasy, they must have some novel doctrine to teach. And so it is that we find that the doctrine of atonement in the latest to come under their scorn.

Browsing Chris Tessone's blog, I found his musings on Kathryn Tanner's book Economy of Grace in which she sets forth the following:

If God does not punish in response to sin, it cannot be the case that Christ on the cross is being punished by God in our stead, suffering the loss of what we rightfully should lose because of the way we have misused God's gifts. […] There just aren't any such conditions for God's favor. The cross simply doesn't save us from our debts to God by paying them. If anything, the cross saves us from the consequences of a debt economy in conflict with God's own economy of grace by canceling it. […] In Christ we see the manner of divine action that the Jubilee traditions of the Hebrew Bible aimed to reflect: debts forgiven rather than paid, debtors freed from the enslavement that comes from inability to pay, and the return of goods forfeited because of unpaid debts, received back without proper restitution from the creditors who had seized possession of them.

Contrary to Tanner, the atonement of Christ is a theme that is unequivocally found in Scripture, both in the Old and New Testaments. Isaiah 53, known widely as the Suffering Servant passage shows that the Messiah was to give His life for the sins of His people:

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. Isaiah 53:4-5 ESV

That the sins of men had to be paid for rather than merely cancelled is born out in other passages of the Old Testament:

"While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my plea before the Lord my God for the holy hill of my God, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the first, came to me in swift flight at the time of the evening sacrifice. He made me understand, speaking with me and saying, "O Daniel, I have now come out to give you insight and understanding. At the beginning of your pleas for mercy a word went out, and I have come to tell it to you, for you are greatly loved. Therefore consider the word and understand the vision. "Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator." Daniel 9:20-27

From this passage, one can readily adduce that atonement is a crucial event in the salvic future of Jerusalem. John Gill writes with regard to Daniel 9:24 and 'atone for iniquity':

"to expiate it, and make atonement for it; which was made by the sacrifice of Christ, by his sufferings and death; whereby the law and justice of God were fully satisfied, full reparation being made for the injury done by sin; and this was made for all kind of sin, expressed here by several words; and for all the sins, iniquities, and transgressions of the Lord's people; to do which was the grand end of Christ's coming into the world; see (Hebrews 2:17) : and to bring in everlasting righteousness; which is true only of the righteousness of Christ, by which the law is magnified and made honourable, justice satisfied, and all that believe in him justified from all their sins: this Christ, by his obedience, sufferings, and death, has wrought out, and brought into the world; and which phase designs, not the manifestation of it in the Gospel; nor the act of imputation of it, which is Jehovah the Father's act; nor the application of it, which is by the Spirit of God; but Christ's actual working of it out by obeying the precept and bearing the penalty of the law: and this may be truly called "everlasting", or "the righteousness of ages", of ages past; the righteousness by which the saints in all ages from the beginning of the world are justified; and which endures, and will endure, throughout all ages, to the justification of all that believe; it is a robe of righteousness that will never wear out; its virtue to justify will ever continue, being perfect; it will answer for the justified ones in a time to come, and has eternal life connected with it..."

The New Testament writers also testify that the work of Christ was to be one of atonement for his people. Peter's first letter states, "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed."

John also does not hesitate to relate the atoning work of Christ when he writes, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."

Paul concurs with the other apostolic writers, saying, "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it - the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

In the second chapter of Hebrews, we read, "But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone."

Now there are those who will react to these Scriptures quite violently, demanding God account for punishing his Son in our stead. Bear in mind that Christ came into the world with the sole purpose of doing His Father's will, as the Scripture says, "Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God..."

Obviously, if you believe the Scriptures and what they say of Christ, you will not believe the superstitions and fabrications of those who wish to reinvent soteriology on the basis of personal whimsy and the doggerel of the present age. Not only do they disparrage the testimony of the good and holy men who witnessed the work of Christ and hazarded their lives for it, they do so using the arguments of sentimentality and unregenerate mores.

Theologians such as these would do well to keep their feelings out of the theology books they write if they wish to be taken seriously. Else, they might be better suited to working at the Wild Bean Cafe's at the neighborhood BP station.

NKU Anti-abortion Display Destroyed, Professor Investigated

This article in today's Kentucky Enquirer speaks volumes as to how rabid many pro-choice individuals are. A student body based Right to Life's display of 400 crosses was destroyed Wednesday evening by a group of female students in one of Dr. Sally Jacobsen's graduate level classes.

Surprisingly, this woman admits to encouraging her students to do this as an act of exercising their right to freedom of speech and compares the crosses to the Nazi swastika. What's ironic is it is these same liberals who protest when conservatives pass legislation to curtail their civil liberties who are now contributing to vandalism of people's property on the grounds that they consider it a "slap in the face."

Whatever. This woman needs to be disciplined. Not fired, because it would probably make her into a martyr. She should be suspended for one year and (along with her nine fellow members of the Thought Police) forced to pay restitution. The nine individuals who did the actual vandalism should be jailed and expelled.

The following is the text of an email I sent to Dr. Jacobsen:

Dear Dr. Jacobsen,

It was with great regret that I read about the incident at Northern Kentucky University regarding the recent destruction of the pro-life display on the university campus. I was however quite disgusted to read of your evident involvement in the incident, if not actually carrying out said vandalism, then encouraging and inciting it among some nine members of one of your graduate level classes.

Perhaps you were indeed offended by the display. Perhaps you have even convinced yourself that you had some calling in inciting members of the student body to destroy it. Perhaps you even took part in the actual vandalism- this is for the police to determine. In any case, you bear the responsibility of having provided the moral support for the commission of a crime. Because of your inflammatory rhetoric, nine students, graduate students nonetheless whose learning ought to have seasoned beyond the capacity for such stupidity, decided to take it upon themselves to deny the rights of certain individuals to express their views with regard to abortion.

Bear in mind that these are the very same rights that you as an evidently pro-abortion individual ask for, nay demand from those of us who believe abortion on demand is, rather than a sign of progress, a sign of the moral failure of human society and government in general.

By what right of law do you suppose your nine students had to do this? Can you find any legal authority that would equate the destruction of property with freedom of speech? Your personal feelings aside, where do you find the precedent? Indeed, your actions find appropriate analogs only among the ranks of terrorists and extremists such as those involved in the Danish comic incident.

For someone who is a tenured professor with 26 years of experience, more ought to be expected of your character. I surmise that your employer probably feels the same way.

In closing, I would like to draw your attention to your comparison of the crosses on the campus to the Nazi swastika. Regardless of the merits, or in this case the lack thereof due your choice of metaphor, we live in a country that allows people to express their views in a public forum regardless of whether we find them in good taste or not. Personally I find the agenda of pro-choice politicians and their flunkies to be amorally repulsive. I also think the majority of feminists in this country need a reality check. But regardless of my stand on these issues, I do not break the law by encouraging the commission of crimes against those with whom I disagree. I would oppose firmly any policy to censor or punish individuals based merely on their beliefs.

Now while what I have written may not set well with you, I have the Constitutional right to hold to my beliefs. At this point, you have three alternatives to how you deal with it. You can send this message to your trash. You can reply with a very nasty attempt at a rebuttal using ad hominem styled attacks without really making an able defense of your actions. Thirdly, you can ponder what it means to live in a free country and that there are those who disagree with you. Furthermore, rather than encouraging those under your authority and influence to destroy displays and violate others' Constitutional rights, you can show due self-discipline that becomes someone in your position of influence and authority by encouraging individuals to not only exercise their rights, but also to respect those of others (and their property.)

Sincerely,

Kenneth C. Vendler
Florence, KY

Please note that I reserve the right to publish any subsequent replies to this email, especially if they are abusive in nature. With this in mind, I ask that you remain professional in any email correspondences.

Yay for reciprocality!

Sorry for the lack of an update for a while. Here's what's new:

- I received my acceptance letter from Ivy Tech last night in the mail. At this juncture, we are merely waiting for my transcript information and my FAFSA to come in. Even though I live in Kentucky, Boone County is considered part of Indiana, so I will be getting the benefit of receiving in-state tuition rates. Yay for reciprocality!

- My wife and I spent a very wet and rainy Saturday moving the last of my grandmother's furniture into our apartment. As some of you may know, my grandmother is now residing in a nursing home and her home is up for sale in order to pay for her stay until Medicaid will take effect. It was hard for the family to have to go through Mama's stuff and figure out what to do with it. There were so many happy memories made in her house and sitting here typing at what used to be her kitchen tabke is very hard. But I am happy that the nursing home that she is in, as far as nursing homes go, is the creme de le creme.

- I think the bank is getting ready to foreclose on my dad. It breaks my heart to think of the blood, sweat, and tears that he, Mom, and the rest of us shed for nought. But all of the things that I so fondly remember, whether it was the smell of the old wood stove in the winter or the irises by the old garden plot that bloomed every May is but the shadow of better things to come, both in this world and the next.

So that is basically the latest news in our lives. Abigail is growing like a weed (and her appetite as well). She now smiles and is starting to learn how to laugh. She also enjoys sleeping, much to the joy of her mother and father.

Lent Part I

As many of you may know, Lent began on Wednesday and as such, the blogosphere is filled with references to it. For Catholics, the forty days of Lent (minus Sundays) are a time of fasting. But is it Scriptural?

The Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on the subject is very telling:

"Some of the Fathers as early as the fifth century supported the view that this forty days' fast was of Apostolic institution. For example, St. Leo (d. 461) exhorts his hearers to abstain that they may "fulfill with their fasts the Apostolic institution of the forty days" — ut apostolica institutio quadraginta dierum jejuniis impleatur (P.L., LIV, 633), and the historian Socrates (d. 433) and St. Jerome (d. 420) use similar language (P.G., LXVII, 633; P.L., XXII, 475).

But the best modern scholars are almost unanimous in rejecting this view, for in the existing remains of the first three centuries we find both considerable diversity of practice regarding the fast before Easter and also a gradual process of development in the matter of its duration. The passage of primary importance is one quoted by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., V, xxiv) from a letter of St. Irenaeus to Pope Victor in connection with the Easter controversy. There Irenaeus says that there is not only a controversy about the time of keeping Easter but also regarding the preliminary fast. For", he continues, "some think they ought to fast for one day, others for two days, and others even for several, while others reckon forty hours both of day and night to their fast". He also urges that this variety of usage is of ancient date, which implies that there could have been no Apostolic tradition on the subject...

Now some people might suspect I am Lent-bashing. I have no qualms with Lent per se, but it brings up the age old question that vexed many of the Reformers. Does the Church have the authority to establish mandatory special days to be observed with any regular interval aside from the Lord's Day?

There is no direct command by Christ or the Apostles in Scripture to observe Lent, and as the Catholic Encyclopedia itself states for the record, the early church did not reach any consensus on how long any such period of fasting should last. The earliest reference to any forty day period (tessarakoste) that can be adduced occures in 325 AD.

Obviously Christ spoke favorably of fasting in the Gospels. With regard to a particularly heinous evil spirit, Christ is recorded as saying, "This kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting." But certainly this is no general call to observe Lent. The ridiculousness of such a speculation would leave said demoniac up the creek without a paddle 325 days out of the year. It is apparent from the passage that Christ is calling for fastings as to be determined within the bounds of Christian liberty. Or as Paul writes elsewhere on such matters:

One person regards one day holier than other days, and another regards them all alike. Each must be fully convinced in his own mind.The one who observes the day does it for the Lord. The one who eats, eats for the Lord because he gives thanks to God, and the one who abstains from eating abstains for the Lord, and he gives thanks to God. For none of us lives for himself and none dies for himself. If we live, we live for the Lord; if we die, we die for the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. For this reason Christ died and returned to life, so that he may be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

But you who eat vegetables only – why do you judge your brother or sister? And you who eat everything – why do you despise your brother or sister? Romans 14:5-10 NET

Now before accusing me of being over-zealous observe two things in this passage:

• The Apostle enjoins the Romans by the principles of Christian liberty to not scorn one another in regard to their personal scruples on diet or holy days. Neither the person who fasts or the person who eats is to look down upon his fellow for not joining in his observance.



• It should be obvious that any Apostolic perscription regarding Lent is lacking. "Each must be fully convinced [Gk plerophoreistho- resolved, having fully considered the matter] in his own mind. i.e. Each must do as conscience dictates- the churches have no global rules or permissions regarding this. why do you judge your brother or sister? Or to put in less elliptically: I, Paul, with the authority of an Apostle of Christ make no decree on the matter- who are you to then judge if I do so abstain?

In summary, if a Christian wishes to observe Lent for his or her personal edification or in a single-minded search for focus on the finished work of Christ, I claim no right to judge this person. Conversely, no man has the authority on Earth to condemn the one who lacks the conviction to observe any such season not ordained by Christ or the Apostles.

Kevin FInisterre Speaks

The man who wrote the three variants of the InqTana Mac wormlet is interviewed by Robert Lemos of Security Focus.

One quote in particular gives a good perspective on the security situation for Cupertino:

“ If Apple is proactive about curbing the behavior that has been recently identified I think they will be taking a step in the right direction. The key will be to identify things like this moving forward and nip them in the bud before they are abused. Macs will continue to attract attention, and by doing so, we are going to see a lot of creative attacks come out. The ultimate outcome is in Apple's hands - how they respond both proactively and reactively will make all the difference. ”

Mac mini redux

Speaking of gewd, the Intel Mac mini doesn't look too bad either. Both integer and floating point calculation benchmarks show major boosts at an estimated 470 and 550% respectively over the first-gen 1.42 Ghz G4 mini.

My only beef- the video in the new mini is integrated, meaning it eats 64 MB of RAM just for the graphics chipset. So instead of 512 MB of memory, you are getting only 448. Plenty for OS X and watching movies and most gaming (not that you would be using a mini as a gaming machine), but would a dedicated graphics solution have been too much to include, besides the fact that it would only ADD to the value of the mini anyway?

The new mini comes with either a 1.5 Ghz Intel Core Solo or a 1.66 Ghz Core Duo and supports up to 2 GB of memory. Noticeably absent is the built-in modem included in the previous iteration of this plucky little Mac- which would indicate its place is in the living room as a media hub, not a desktop computer, although the remaining Ethernet port or a USB external modem would enable anyone who wanted to use it as a web device to do so.

Not bad Apple, but may I make some suggestions for Mac mini 3.0?

- Bring back dedicated video memory, even if it is only 32 MB. Dumping burdens onto the CPU that rightfully belong to the GPU is so trailer park...

- Make the Core Duo available as the processor for the low-end mini. If you really want to market this as a media device, then most home media center-savvy individuals will automatically go for a dual core solution, leaving you with a bunch of $599 minis to use as bookends or whatnot. AOpen sells a single core mini knockoff for $399 with Linspire or $499 with Windows. You do the math.

- Do something novel to promote the mini. Offer a 25% discount to people who buy the mini on a year of .Mac or maybe OS X 10.5. Show your loyal customers how much you appreciate their business.

Windows Vista

Windows Vista (how I wish they had kept the über-cool sounding codename Longhorn) is looking good with a capital G-E-W-D...

I've Won!!!

LOTTO.: CONTACT SMITH FIRM!!!
2391 Beds 152 Koningin Julianaplein 21,
Den Haag, the Netherlands.
(Lotto affiliate with Subscriber Agents).
From: Susan Console
(Lottery Coordinator)


Sir/Madam,

CONGRATULATIONS!!!

We are pleased to inform you of the result of the
Lotto NL Winners International programs held on the 22th of February,
2006, which drew a cash prize of $1,000,000.00, covered with high
insurance policy. Your e-mail address attached to Ticket/Code number
0087411652337 with claim/reference number 085093785/92 drew these lucky
numbers 007-49746-041-764-64-2091, which consequently won in the 1st
category. You have been approved to receive a cash prize of
$1,000,000.00 (One Million USD).


Be informed because of mix up in
cash pay-outs, we ask that you keep your winning information
confidential until your fund ($1,000,000.00) has been fully remitted to
you by our accredited pay-point bank. This measure must be adhere to
avoid loss of your cash prize - winners of our cash prizes are advised
to adhere to these instructions to forestall the abuse of this program
by other participants. It's important to note that this draws were
conducted formally, and winners are selected through an internet ballot
system from 60,000 individual and companies e-mail addresses - the
draws are conducted around the world through our internet based ballot
system. The promotion is sponsored and promoted by Lotto NL.

We
congratulate you once again. We hope you will use part of it in our
next draws; the jackpot winning is $85million. Remember, all winning
must be claimed not later than 20 days. After this date all unclaimed
cash prize will be forfeited and included in the next sweepstake.
Please, in order to avoid unnecessary delays and complications remember
to quote your winning numbers in all correspondence with us.

Congratulations once again from all members of Lotto NL. Thank you for
being part of our promotional program.

For immediate release of your
cash prize, please kindly contact Smith Firm {Imperial Chamber}

SMITH
LAW FIRM NL[IMPERIAL CHAMBER]
Advocate Mr. Van Der Gooi
Advocate Mrs. G.
F Saskia
Dr. Edward Makad
EMAIL: smithlaws5@excite.com
Email:
smithlaw@ny.com
Tel: +31-613-795-051 Fax: +31-847-275-995

Congratulations once again.

Yours Sincerely,
Mrs. Susan Console
(Lottery Coordinator)

Yeah, so here's what I wrote back...



Dear Mrs Console:

I regret to inform you that the intended recipient of your email, announcing his winnings
of a million dollars in a fortuitous lottery he neither heard of or entered has passed away
this morning and cannot collect. However, as executor of his estate, I feel it would be a
shame to let this fortuitous occasion pass by, especially since he has seventeen children,
a wife, and four concubines (identical quadruplets!) that could benefit from this prize.

I have a contact at a bank in Nigeria named Joseph Mobutu Sese-Seko who can help us out...

God Bless South Dakota

Obviously not the end of legalized abortion, but a good start.

You baby-killers in South Dakota may have to find a new line of work. I'm sure McDonalds is always hiring ;-)