On "More Problems with Atonement"December 12, 2007 vs Dumplin' Dumbash
Does Dumplin' ever read a WHOLE article he critiques? Perish the thought. He has video games to play.
In my article on the atonement -- which actually, I am not sure Dumplin' read, since he was too busy confusing me with Glenn Miller -- I have a complete answer to Dumplin's whine about "transferable punishments." Let me sum it up: Ancient people DID believe in such things, but it came at a price. Whoever took the "transfer" basically got something in exchange. You paid for that transfer. In the case of Christianity, you become a slave of Christ and serve him -- forever.
In addition, my article offered a comparison to the purposes of modern penal punishment and atonement: Retribution -- covered.. Deterrence -- I put that under rehabiliation. Protection of the innocent -- yep. Restitution -- yep. Maybe Dumpy did read my article after all -- and doesn't want to admit it because he was plagiarizing it.
As I show, atonement does cover the bases on all of these, so transferable punishment, in this case, is amply just. Dumplin', though, because all he knows of atonement he learned in Bible college, still thinks atonement lets the offender go free. Actually, his error is the same as the person for whom I first wrote my own article.
It's really that simple. If Dumplin' ever does decide to do any homework someday, perhaps he can address the real doctrine of atonement and not the childlike version of it he learned at Wee Wee Bible College.