<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Propitiation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.hornes.org/mark/2009/11/21/propitiation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.hornes.org/mark/2009/11/21/propitiation/</link>
	<description>The cyberstalkable freelance writer making retractions on the web since 2000.... Oops, 1993?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:24:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: mark</title>
		<link>http://www.hornes.org/mark/2009/11/21/propitiation/comment-page-1/#comment-443436</link>
		<dc:creator>mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 05:17:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hornes.org/mark/?p=4637#comment-443436</guid>
		<description>Nick, maybe I wasn&#039;t clear.  It seems to me that you took an explanation for one phrase in the Romans 8.3 and took that as the meaning of the whole.  The clause &quot;condemned sin in the flesh&quot; is the challenge I felt you avoided.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nick, maybe I wasn&#8217;t clear.  It seems to me that you took an explanation for one phrase in the Romans 8.3 and took that as the meaning of the whole.  The clause &#8220;condemned sin in the flesh&#8221; is the challenge I felt you avoided.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick</title>
		<link>http://www.hornes.org/mark/2009/11/21/propitiation/comment-page-1/#comment-443435</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:17:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hornes.org/mark/?p=4637#comment-443435</guid>
		<description>Hi Mark, 

It&#039;s me, Nick! Glad to have found your page. 

Thank you for your comments. Many of the comments you give are fair, but you&#039;ve also go to realize this was a debate, so much could have been said better had the circumstances been in more relaxed context. And while I did my best given the time and size constraints, I look back and still notice things I could have done better. 

I don&#039;t really see how you &#039;refuted&#039; my case on Romans 8:3, especially considering &quot;sin offering&quot; is given in the NASB. Further, given that you didn&#039;t really interact with the main points leads me to wonder if you&#039;re giving my case as a whole a fair look. Rom 8:3 was a tiny piece of the story. My opponent should have gone to Rom 8:3 himself if he thought it supported Psub, then I would have been happy to spend more time there. I showed very conclusively that atonement is done in terms of turning away of wrath, appeasing it, not redirecting it so that an innocent person receives it. My opponent danced around the clear Biblical texts I gave. Propitiation is a close NT term for atonement, and it means the same thing. So to build Psub off of such a term is actually self-refuting.

As for Romans 3:24-25, you are correct that I didn&#039;t discuss it. I wish I had. That is the single biggest regret I had in that debate shortly after the debate ended. It seems like the obvious stuff has a tendency to be overlooked, and I simply didn&#039;t remember to get to it. Again, it would have been something my opponent hopefully would have brought up, but he didn&#039;t. I consider Rom 3:24f to be one of the biggest anti-Psub passages out there, for it uses two terms incompatible with Psub: &#039;atonement&#039; and &#039;redemption&#039;. The terms were discussed elsewhere in my debate, relating to turning away wrath (as opposed to diverting it) and to buying back at a price (not punishing). Also, the use of the term &#039;forbearance&#039; also contradicts Psub, for that term means to hold off punishing so that the dispute can be resolved in an alternative manner. 

I don&#039;t see an option on your blog to &quot;email me of follow up comments,&quot; so I&#039;m not sure I&#039;ll get your response if you decide to talk more.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Mark, </p>
<p>It&#8217;s me, Nick! Glad to have found your page. </p>
<p>Thank you for your comments. Many of the comments you give are fair, but you&#8217;ve also go to realize this was a debate, so much could have been said better had the circumstances been in more relaxed context. And while I did my best given the time and size constraints, I look back and still notice things I could have done better. </p>
<p>I don&#8217;t really see how you &#8216;refuted&#8217; my case on Romans 8:3, especially considering &#8220;sin offering&#8221; is given in the NASB. Further, given that you didn&#8217;t really interact with the main points leads me to wonder if you&#8217;re giving my case as a whole a fair look. Rom 8:3 was a tiny piece of the story. My opponent should have gone to Rom 8:3 himself if he thought it supported Psub, then I would have been happy to spend more time there. I showed very conclusively that atonement is done in terms of turning away of wrath, appeasing it, not redirecting it so that an innocent person receives it. My opponent danced around the clear Biblical texts I gave. Propitiation is a close NT term for atonement, and it means the same thing. So to build Psub off of such a term is actually self-refuting.</p>
<p>As for Romans 3:24-25, you are correct that I didn&#8217;t discuss it. I wish I had. That is the single biggest regret I had in that debate shortly after the debate ended. It seems like the obvious stuff has a tendency to be overlooked, and I simply didn&#8217;t remember to get to it. Again, it would have been something my opponent hopefully would have brought up, but he didn&#8217;t. I consider Rom 3:24f to be one of the biggest anti-Psub passages out there, for it uses two terms incompatible with Psub: &#8216;atonement&#8217; and &#8216;redemption&#8217;. The terms were discussed elsewhere in my debate, relating to turning away wrath (as opposed to diverting it) and to buying back at a price (not punishing). Also, the use of the term &#8216;forbearance&#8217; also contradicts Psub, for that term means to hold off punishing so that the dispute can be resolved in an alternative manner. </p>
<p>I don&#8217;t see an option on your blog to &#8220;email me of follow up comments,&#8221; so I&#8217;m not sure I&#8217;ll get your response if you decide to talk more.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Horne &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Penal substitution is everywhere!</title>
		<link>http://www.hornes.org/mark/2009/11/21/propitiation/comment-page-1/#comment-443424</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Horne &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Penal substitution is everywhere!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:48:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hornes.org/mark/?p=4637#comment-443424</guid>
		<description>[...] I had noticed this back when I was writing about propitiation!   Share and [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I had noticed this back when I was writing about propitiation!   Share and [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Horne &#187; Blog Archive &#187; So is the Bible inaccurate about the Gospel? Horton Takes Manhattan I</title>
		<link>http://www.hornes.org/mark/2009/11/21/propitiation/comment-page-1/#comment-443408</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Horne &#187; Blog Archive &#187; So is the Bible inaccurate about the Gospel? Horton Takes Manhattan I</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 04:53:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hornes.org/mark/?p=4637#comment-443408</guid>
		<description>[...] theory and a claim that that transaction was about to be/had been fulfilled in Jesus.  It is about propitiation and anything more compromises the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] theory and a claim that that transaction was about to be/had been fulfilled in Jesus.  It is about propitiation and anything more compromises the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Baxter</title>
		<link>http://www.hornes.org/mark/2009/11/21/propitiation/comment-page-1/#comment-443353</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Baxter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:58:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hornes.org/mark/?p=4637#comment-443353</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve been happy to be multi-valent on this. I am happy to explore a variety of interpretations of atonement, but I haven&#039;t seen any reason to jettison penal substitution. It looks to me that the main reason people reject it is because they just don&#039;t like it, not because of a thorough study of relevant texts. 

I&#039;m sure there are exceptions to that. Not trying to throw stones at anyone in particular.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been happy to be multi-valent on this. I am happy to explore a variety of interpretations of atonement, but I haven&#8217;t seen any reason to jettison penal substitution. It looks to me that the main reason people reject it is because they just don&#8217;t like it, not because of a thorough study of relevant texts. </p>
<p>I&#8217;m sure there are exceptions to that. Not trying to throw stones at anyone in particular.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
