Protestantism: Critique and Debate Thread

[Hermetic Seal]

How do the Orthodox interpret the numerous verses that make reference to God's predestination of the elect? Because you can't just handwave those verses away or give them some transparently inaccurate interpretation. They're very clear in their language and meaning, and the theme is touched upon repeatedly in both the Gospels and the Epistles. Of course we can argue and speculate as to the nature of predestination/determinism vs. free will and how both concepts seem to exist simultaneously in scripture (I believe this is one of the topics that Paul refers to about us seeing through a glass darkly - such things are essentially impossible for us to understand from our human perspective and can only be reconciled in the omniscient mind of God which exists outside of space and time entirely).

One point I'd like to add to this, which I think tends to get overlooked, is that when Scripture talks about predestination, like in Romans 11, it's not talking about God deciding the fate of the individual, but of collective groups - in this case, that of the nation of Israel. This is an important nuance that completely transforms how we think about this topic.

It might also explain why the debate about the particular concepts surrounding the Calvinistic conception of predestination never arose until the 16th century, in a historically novel time and place of post-Renaissance, early modern Western Europe, with an individualistic orientation that really never existed anywhere before that, and an entirely new way of encountering Scripture, the literate man reading his own printed copy of the Bible by himself in his study and thinking about what he was reading in very individualistic terms. Contrast to the communal, liturgical context in which virtually all people encountered Scripture before that.

With that understanding in mind, a lot of the contentious framing of this subject falls apart.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

The problems with the "election of the group" but not election of the individual argument are both Scriptural and logical, and in this case, historical as well.

Scripturally, Romans 9 applies election and reprobation to individuals. Jacob I loved, Esau I hated. I hardened Pharoahs heart, etc.

Logically, if every Jew is reprobate, then why are so many Jews saved and believing in the New Testament? Also, the Church is Elect, but not everyone who is in a church is, which underscores the spiritual reality of the invisible Church, who are the Elect. If the Church as a whole is Elect, that may not be true if every individual in it has the capacity to walk themselves out of the Church, thus no one is actually predestined to be saved. It's a pitting of the general against the particular, it's not both-and. It's also a feature of the less personal, less covenantal understanding of God that underscores such a view.

Historically, Augustine affirmed election of individuals just fine, over a thousand years before the Reformation.

 

[GoodShepherd]

 

[JCSteel]

There are some Protestants(like Nick Needham) who have reverence for the early church fathers but they are probably a minority. It's hard for me to regard anyone who thinks church history stopped with the death of John the Apostle and started again in 1517 with Luther.

https://www.amazon.com/Daily-Readin...cphy=9001656&hvtargid=pla-2281435179098&psc=1

 

[Wutang]

One of the criticisms of Protestantism is how it allows everyone to be their own popes and decide on doctrines on their own without having to justify it with church teaching. I will grant that because of the way Protestantism is set up and particularly with the non-denominational churches that this tendency is more pronounced then with the Catholic and Orthodox. However, with the way the Western world is now with everyone being encouraged to do their own research and the general distrust of any sort of institutional authority both secular and ecclesiastical (which I will also grant was a result of the Protestant Reformation) this mentality has spread to pretty much everyone in the West and I don't think you can claim that Catholics and Orthodox are spared from this phenomena.

I'm sure we all know plenty of liberal Catholics that without shame go against church teachings on LGBT or other issues that offend the modern secular liberal consensus but this happens from the opposite end as well. I'll present as an example this thread that was claiming Western Europeans are the lost tribes of Israel https://christisking.cc/threads/10-lost-tribes-we-wuz-kangs-bruh.825 One of the biggest proponents of this theory on this forum is a self-identified trad Catholic who is against the modernist innovations in the Catholic church but is introducing a theory that is much more of a theological innovation than say performing Mass in a vernacular language instead of Latin

The other people who were jumping in agreement with this theory were Orthodox members of this forum. Keep in mind pretty much every Orthodox member of this forum is going to be of the more "based" type rather than the ones that mostly only identify as Orthodox because of ethnic/cultural considerations. In other words these are the type of Orthodox who are going to refer to ecumenical councils and church father teachings to justify whatever theological position they are taking. However, in arguing for the "Europeans are the true Israelites" theory they are not citing any sort of Church Fathers but instead is citing St. GroyperMaxxing of Bitchute. They are also using their own Biblical interpretations as supporting arguments for their position which strikes me as very Protestant. I asked the Catholic and Orthodox members in that thread the sort of views the were espousing in the thread haven't been taught by the teachers in their churches and the responses they were giving me seemed to be them telling me they as laypeople somehow managed to stumble on some sort of teaching that their bishops and saints had failed to discover despite the huge theological seismic shift that would take place if they were true. If I wanted to be more cheeky I would suggest that they must view themselves as some sort of red-pilled version of Luther or Calvin trying to red pill Catholic or Orthodox church.

 

[Samseau]

One of the criticisms of Protestantism is how it allows everyone to be their own popes and decide on doctrines on their own without having to justify it with church teaching. I will grant that because of the way Protestantism is set up and particularly with the non-denominational churches that this tendency is more pronounced then with the Catholic and Orthodox. However, with the way the Western world is now with everyone being encouraged to do their own research and the general distrust of any sort of institutional authority both secular and ecclesiastical (which I will also grant was a result of the Protestant Reformation) this mentality has spread to pretty much everyone in the West and I don't think you can claim that Catholics and Orthodox are spared from this phenomena.

I'm sure we all know plenty of liberal Catholics that without shame go against church teachings on LGBT or other issues that offend the modern secular liberal consensus but this happens from the opposite end as well. I'll present as an example this thread that was claiming Western Europeans are the lost tribes of Israel https://christisking.cc/threads/10-lost-tribes-we-wuz-kangs-bruh.825 One of the biggest proponents of this theory on this forum is a self-identified trad Catholic who is against the modernist innovations in the Catholic church but is introducing a theory that is much more of a theological innovation than say performing Mass in a vernacular language instead of Latin

The other people who were jumping in agreement with this theory were Orthodox members of this forum. Keep in mind pretty much every Orthodox member of this forum is going to be of the more "based" type rather than the ones that mostly only identify as Orthodox because of ethnic/cultural considerations. In other words these are the type of Orthodox who are going to refer to ecumenical councils and church father teachings to justify whatever theological position they are taking. However, in arguing for the "Europeans are the true Israelites" theory they are not citing any sort of Church Fathers but instead is citing St. GroyperMaxxing of Bitchute. They are also using their own Biblical interpretations as supporting arguments for their position which strikes me as very Protestant. I asked the Catholic and Orthodox members in that thread the sort of views the were espousing in the thread haven't been taught by the teachers in their churches and the responses they were giving me seemed to be them telling me they as laypeople somehow managed to stumble on some sort of teaching that their bishops and saints had failed to discover despite the huge theological seismic shift that would take place if they were true. If I wanted to be more cheeky I would suggest that they must view themselves as some sort of red-pilled version of Luther or Calvin trying to red pill Catholic or Orthodox church.

These guys are are a fringe and are rightfully called out by the normal members of Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Music in particular who spends an absurd amount of time online reading and writing lies he is either paid to write, or utterly deceived into writing, does not represent anyone except himself.

 

[thinkreadwritecode]

While I owe my Christianity to Protestantism, my current thoughts have me wondering if Christian Zionism would have ever developed had Protestantism never occurred. Because of the JQ as discussed here and all the adjacent rabbit-holes one can go down concerning the Synagogue of Satan, it seems the troubles that have arisen due to Protestantism were ultimately not worth the benefits (like bringing African slaves over). I sense Protestantism led to superstar preachers which led to the powerful surge of Christian Zionism and eschatology preaching we have now. The only way out is to wait for millions of people to die from old age, but it seems the damage is already done.

 

[GoodShepherd]

One of the criticisms of Protestantism is how it allows everyone to be their own popes and decide on doctrines on their own without having to justify it with church teaching. I will grant that because of the way Protestantism is set up and particularly with the non-denominational churches that this tendency is more pronounced then with the Catholic and Orthodox. However, with the way the Western world is now with everyone being encouraged to do their own research and the general distrust of any sort of institutional authority both secular and ecclesiastical (which I will also grant was a result of the Protestant Reformation) this mentality has spread to pretty much everyone in the West and I don't think you can claim that Catholics and Orthodox are spared from this phenomena.

I'm sure we all know plenty of liberal Catholics that without shame go against church teachings on LGBT or other issues that offend the modern secular liberal consensus but this happens from the opposite end as well. I'll present as an example this thread that was claiming Western Europeans are the lost tribes of Israel https://christisking.cc/threads/10-lost-tribes-we-wuz-kangs-bruh.825 One of the biggest proponents of this theory on this forum is a self-identified trad Catholic who is against the modernist innovations in the Catholic church but is introducing a theory that is much more of a theological innovation than say performing Mass in a vernacular language instead of Latin

The other people who were jumping in agreement with this theory were Orthodox members of this forum. Keep in mind pretty much every Orthodox member of this forum is going to be of the more "based" type rather than the ones that mostly only identify as Orthodox because of ethnic/cultural considerations. In other words these are the type of Orthodox who are going to refer to ecumenical councils and church father teachings to justify whatever theological position they are taking. However, in arguing for the "Europeans are the true Israelites" theory they are not citing any sort of Church Fathers but instead is citing St. GroyperMaxxing of Bitchute. They are also using their own Biblical interpretations as supporting arguments for their position which strikes me as very Protestant. I asked the Catholic and Orthodox members in that thread the sort of views the were espousing in the thread haven't been taught by the teachers in their churches and the responses they were giving me seemed to be them telling me they as laypeople somehow managed to stumble on some sort of teaching that their bishops and saints had failed to discover despite the huge theological seismic shift that would take place if they were true. If I wanted to be more cheeky I would suggest that they must view themselves as some sort of red-pilled version of Luther or Calvin trying to red pill Catholic or Orthodox church.

God is not dealing with us and the world based on who is the race of the Israelites, the Jews rejected Christ and were cut off from God according to the teachings of the church and also the bible, an example is Romans 11, Gods people is the church which is all nations, whoever gets baptised and receives Christ, this also applies to the jews if they also get baptised then they will become Gods people.

 

[GoodShepherd]

While I owe my Christianity to Protestantism, my current thoughts have me wondering if Christian Zionism would have ever developed had Protestantism never occurred. Because of the JQ as discussed here and all the adjacent rabbit-holes one can go down concerning the Synagogue of Satan, it seems the troubles that have arisen due to Protestantism were ultimately not worth the benefits (like bringing African slaves over). I sense Protestantism led to superstar preachers which led to the powerful surge of Christian Zionism and eschatology preaching we have now. The only way out is to wait for millions of people to die from old age, but it seems the damage is already done.

The early Christians never believed that the jews were the choosen people of God the way modern protestants do and actually regarded them as enemies of Christianity, there were even laws in Christian lands forbidding Jews from holding positions of authority like government or teachers.

 

[GoodShepherd]

Im not personally attacking any protestants on the forum by sharing this.

 

[Iakobos]

Not sure where to post this but I thought this Orthodox critique of Penal Substitutionary Atonement made good food for thought: https://dandy-trollius-a01.notion.s...ment-29e0f063f7b78148b054f7fd95350be1?pvs=143

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Any denial of PSA is not only refuted by Hebrews, but amounts to a Lawless Atonement.

 

[Northumber]

What is meant by lawless atonement? Isn't the whole point to get us to the point where the law isn't needed because our heart is changed?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

What is meant by lawless atonement? Isn't the whole point to get us to the point where the law isn't needed because our heart is changed?

Arguments contrary to PSA usually fall into a false dichotomy between God's Law and God's Grace. To them, the cross is either an expression of one or the other. PSA maintains that it's both/and. Sin is punished and we are forgiven.

If you throw out the Penal/Lawful category, then you are left with a Lawless Atonement; there would be no conquering of God's righteousness over sin, it's just God shrugging at sin and saying all is forgiven. Not only is this unbiblical, it's not even patristic. The Church Fathers described Christ's death as a (Penal) penalty and Colossians is explicit that Christ's death blotted out our debt to the Law. In fact, the earlier you go into the patristic history, the more Biblical it actually sounds. The Epistle to Diognetus describes Christ's death as an "exchange": our sin for His righteousness.

The point of the "exchange" is that you would "become the righteousness of God in Him" as Paul says.

 

[Iakobos]

Arguments contrary to PSA usually fall into a false dichotomy between God's Law and God's Grace. To them, the cross is either an expression of one or the other. PSA maintains that it's both/and. Sin is punished and we are forgiven.

If you throw out the Penal/Lawful category, then you are left with a Lawless Atonement; there would be no conquering of God's righteousness over sin, it's just God shrugging at sin and saying all is forgiven. Not only is this unbiblical, it's not even patristic. The Church Fathers described Christ's death as a (Penal) penalty and Colossians is explicit that Christ's death blotted out our debt to the Law. In fact, the earlier you go into the patristic history, the more Biblical it actually sounds. The Epistle to Diognetus describes Christ's death as an "exchange": our sin for His righteousness.

The point of the "exchange" is that you would "become the righteousness of God in Him" as Paul says.

>2025
>Doesn't engage with the posted critique
>Immediately reframes the discussion in his own terms and framework using opaque keywords
>Creates and addresses a strawman
>Faux appeals to the Church Fathers, to whom he doesn't ascribe any teaching authority
>ISHYGDDT

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

>Doesn't engage with the posted critique

Ok, I'll humor you.

The appeal of PSA often rests on a commendable desire to uphold the gravity of sin and the holiness of God. But by framing this gravity in legal and retributive terms, the doctrine misunderstands the nature of both God's justice and sin's remedy—which is transformation, not retribution.

If, according to this writer, we shouldn't understand sin in legal terms, then why does the Apostle John explicitly define sin in legal terms?

1 John 3:4: "Everyone who does sin also does lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness."

If sin is not the breaking of God's Law then what is it? This a priori assumption of the writer that sin should not be understood in this Biblical way is why his critique doesn't even get out the gate.

The biblical witness presents forgiveness as God's free prerogative, requiring no prerequisite punishment.

Again, the writer pits God's Grace against God's Law. He wants the forgiveness part but he doesn't want the shedding of blood part, a bloodless sacrifice. Biblically, mercy and justice "kiss each other." They are not opposed to each other as in this writer's false dichotomy.

Hebrews 9:22 And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Instead, the difference is whether sin is let go of—released so that it can be borne away (placed onto the scapegoat) and thus forgiven. Sin that is held onto cannot be forgiven without God engaging in a legal fiction, declaring the guilty party clean while their sin remains.

Here, the writer shows his true colors. He thinks God is a liar by justifying us. Ergo, in his system, you have to become totally sinless before God can justify you, meaning no one is actually forgiven. By placing forgiveness at the end of a life well-lived, the writer effectively removes the need for it in the first place. Romans 7 shows that even the Apostle Paul still struggled with sin during his life, and Romans 5 shows that God has indeed already justified us. Forgiveness is the beginning of the Christian life.

25He who was delivered over on account of our transgressions, and was raised on account of our justification. 1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ

By definition, retributive justice demands that the guilty deserve punishment.
Yet according to Craig, Christ was "personally virtuous" (p. 75). And Scripture is emphatic: "He committed no sin" (1 Peter 2:22).
Thus, prima facie, it makes no sense to suggest that the punishment of an innocent person somehow satisfied the requirements of retributive justice.

This would be a problem if the Scripture did not explicitly state this:

1 Corinthians 5:21: "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

Even if imputation worked in theory, we should not apply it to the Cross, because Scripture consistently presents the Cross not as justice satisfied, but as injustice perpetrated.

It's not even a question if imputation works in theory. The Bible explicitly describes our righteousness as imputed, and unlike this writer, Paul applies it to the Cross:

Romans 4:24 It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.

The writer again assumes his false dichotomy when it comes to justice. It was unjust for the Jews and Pilate to crucify Jesus, but it was Just that Jesus should give Himself as a ransom for many.

 

[Iakobos]

If, according to this writer, we shouldn't understand sin in legal terms, then why does the Apostle John explicitly define sin in legal terms?

1 John 3:4: "Everyone who does sin also does lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness."

If sin is not the breaking of God's Law then what is it? This a priori assumption of the writer that sin should not be understood in this Biblical way is why his critique doesn't even get out the gate.

Strawman. He isn't saying we shouldn't describe sin in legal terms at all, he's saying that PSA's overemphasis of a purely legalistic concept of retributive justice causes an incorrect understanding of God's actual justice, mercy and healing of mankind's sin. Of course sin is the breaking of God's law and this is acknowledged several times in that article.

Again, the writer pits God's Grace against God's Law. He wants the forgiveness part but he doesn't want the shedding of blood part, a bloodless sacrifice. Biblically, mercy and justice "kiss each other." They are not opposed to each other as in this writer's false dichotomy.

Hebrews 9:22 And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Strawman again. The writer directly addresses the role of blood in the article extensively and in no way 'doesn't want the shedding of blood.' The precious blood is not of death but is of life.

It isn't "pitting God's Grace against God's Law" to show examples from Scripture where God freely forgives. What these examples support is the reading that what Christ provides is not foremost a retributive punishment that God requires to be satisfied, but an ontological purification of human sin, corruption and death.

Instead, the difference is whether sin is let go of—released so that it can be borne away (placed onto the scapegoat) and thus forgiven. Sin that is held onto cannot be forgiven without God engaging in a legal fiction, declaring the guilty party clean while their sin remains.

Here, the writer shows his true colors. He thinks God is a liar by justifying us. Ergo, in his system, you have to become totally sinless before God can justify you, meaning no one is actually forgiven. By placing forgiveness at the end of a life well-lived, the writer effectively removes the need for it in the first place. Romans 7 shows that even the Apostle Paul still struggled with sin during his life, and Romans 5 shows that God has indeed already justified us. Forgiveness is the beginning of the Christian life.

25He who was delivered over on account of our transgressions, and was raised on account of our justification. 1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ

I don't know where you got this quote from in the article? I've CTRL+F'd it and no results, not sure what I'm missing.

This would be a problem if the Scripture did not explicitly state this:

1 Corinthians 5:21: "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

You presuppose that this verse means Christ was 'imputed our guilt of sins and punished' and ignore the writer's entire argument of how Christ is the fulfillment of the sin offering to God in the Levitical model, which is not about punishing the animal being sacrificed but is about making atonement, restoring right relations with God (justice) via purifying blood. Christ was made harmatia - harmatia is the Greek word used for sin offering in the LXX Old Testament.

It's not even a question if imputation works in theory. The Bible explicitly describes our righteousness as imputed, and unlike this writer, Paul applies it to the Cross:

Romans 4:24 It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.

The writer again assumes his false dichotomy when it comes to justice. It was unjust for the Jews and Pilate to crucify Jesus, but it was Just that Jesus should give Himself as a ransom for many.

Romans 4:24 does not describe the imputation of our guilt and sins to Christ to make Him legally guilty, and does not say that he was punished in our place. Him being handed over to death because of our sins, which is what the verse says, does not equate to him being punished for our sins. Imputation of His righteousness to us does not necessitate imputation of our guilt to Him.

Your last sentence again doesn't actually address the substance of the critique, it's unclear what false dichotomy you're talking about here but the only one you mentioned earlier was invented. Ironically the actual false dichotomy is your starting assertion that it's either "PSA or lawless atonement."

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Strawman. He isn't saying we shouldn't describe sin in legal terms at all, he's saying that PSA's overemphasis of a purely legalistic concept of retributive justice causes an incorrect understanding of God's actual justice, mercy and healing of mankind's sin. Of course sin is the breaking of God's law and this is acknowledged several times in that article.

No it's not a strawman. The writer explicitly says "don't think of sin in legal terms." He never says "You can think of sin in legal terms but PSA does it too much."

It isn't "pitting God's Grace against God's Law" to show examples from Scripture where God freely forgives. What these examples support is the reading that what Christ provides is not foremost a retributive punishment that God requires to be satisfied, but an ontological purification of human sin, corruption and death.

If by "God freely forgives" you mean "God forgives without an atoning sacrifice" then there is no such thing in Scripture. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

I don't know where you got this quote from in the article? I've CTRL+F'd it and no results, not sure what I'm missing.

He is saying that if God justified us while we still have sin then God is engaging in a legal fiction. He is plainly refuted by Romans 5:1.

You presuppose that this verse means Christ was 'imputed our guilt of sins and punished'

If "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf" is not referring to the imputation of our sin to Christ, then what is it referring to? I hope you're not saying that God made Jesus become sin ontologically because that would be absurd.

Romans 4:24 does not describe the imputation of our guilt and sins to Christ to make Him legally guilty, and does not say that he was punished in our place. Him being handed over to death because of our sins, which is what the verse says, does not equate to him being punished for our sins. Imputation of His righteousness to us does not necessitate imputation of our guilt to Him.

It describes the imputation of His righteousness to us, which is what I was addressing. Other verses say the rest, ones I've brought and other ones I could still bring up. Peter says "He bore our sins in His body on the tree." How much more clear does it need to be?

 

[Iakobos]

No it's not a strawman. The writer explicitly says "don't think of sin in legal terms." He never says "You can think of sin in legal terms but PSA does it too much."

He literally doesn't explicitly say that.

If by "God freely forgives" you mean "God forgives without an atoning sacrifice" then there is no such thing in Scripture. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Completely rewriting my words and then addressing the rewrite. Textbook strawman.

He is saying that if God justified us while we still have sin then God is engaging in a legal fiction. He is plainly refuted by Romans 5:1.

I don't even know what part of the article you are addressing because as I said, you are working with some kind of ghost quote that wasn't in the text. Legal fiction is referring to the idea that justice is satisfied by punishing an innocent and is an argument put forward by William Lane Craig. By all means attack Craig's assertion if you disagree with that.

If "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf" is not referring to the imputation of our sin to Christ, then what is it referring to? I hope you're not saying that God made Jesus become sin ontologically because that would be absurd.

False dichotomy of saying the only explanations are those two when you still haven't addressed the reading of Christ as sin offering that I explicitly drew attention to in my last post, which incidentally St. Augustine supports as cited in the article.

It describes the imputation of His righteousness to us, which is what I was addressing.

Okay but then that's irrelevant because that's not what the quote you cited from the article was addressing in terms of imputation.

Peter says "He bore our sins in His body on the tree." How much more clear does it need to be?

Addressed in the article:

The verb *nasa'* (to bear, to carry) in this context means "to carry away" or "to remove"—what the scapegoat does.

When priests are commanded to "bear the iniquity" of the people by eating parts of the purification offering (Leviticus 10:17), they are not being punished to satisfy the requirements of retributive justice. Rather, "Israel's impurity is removed by eating the purification offering" (p. 97).

2. 1 Peter 2:24: 'Bearing Sins' as Carrying Away​

The Text: "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."

The PSA Reading: "Bearing sin" means that our sins were imputed to Christ, and he punished for them. Craig cites this verse (p. 23) as a key "sin-bearing" text, arguing that in the OT, "to bear sin" typically means "to endure punishment" (p. 23).

The Reality: This verse connects sin-bearing to healing ("By his wounds you have been healed"). Imputation doesn’t make sense of this. As shown in III.A.5, "bearing sin" (nasa' 'avon) is the language of the Scapegoat (removal). If bear means only imputation, then the sins would remain where they were. Imputation only treats them as if they had been carried. But Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, not just the punishment for those sins.

---

It's cool if you don't want to read the critique and engage with it, but miss me with the rhetorical tricks, misrepresentations and fallacies, I'm done with those thanks.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

False dichotomy of saying the only explanations are those two when you still haven't addressed the reading of Christ as sin offering that I explicitly drew attention to in my last post, which incidentally St. Augustine supports as cited in the article.

Not really. Understanding it as a sin offering doesn't negate one or the other. Protestants have no problem understanding Christ's death as a sin offering, this doesn't mean that there is no Lawful or Penal aspect to the sacrifices, which is obviously not the case.

Since you brought up Augustine, how do you feel about him calling Christ's death a punishment?:

"Death is the effect of the curse; and all sin is cursed, whether it means the action which merits punishment, or the punishment which follows. Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that He might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment." (Contra Faustum)

Okay but then that's irrelevant because that's not what the quote you cited from the article was addressing in terms of imputation.

It's not irrelevant because the writer was castigating the category of imputation altogether. He's demonstrably wrong. Imputation is a biblical category.

Addressed in the article:

"Addressed" is a strong word. Nothing about "by His wounds you are healed" is incompatible with "Christ died the penalty for our sins." That's the writer asserting his own false dichotomy between the two yet again.

It's cool if you don't want to read the critique and engage with it, but miss me with the rhetorical tricks, misrepresentations and fallacies, I'm done with those thanks.

You're the one who replied to me sir. Spare me the cope.