Featured The Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution

Actually we are repeating the primary issue between the Reformers and Rome. Rome demanded that TRADITION was the final determiner of sound doctrine while the Reformers rejected TRADITION as final authority and claimed "sola scriptura."

You taking Rome's position of TRADITION joined with scripture while I am taking the Reformer's positon "SOLA scriptura" or else "sola" is redundant!

 

Absolutely!

Don't pervert my words! I said the reasoning must be a direct and inseparable consequence of God's Word! Of course, claiming it does not make it so. However, reasoning that IS a direct and inseparable consequence of God's Word is truth.

 

Well,thank you for the clarification. Your wording was misleading as it made it appear that you actually believed PST was a Biblical doctrine. Now, I can clearly see you don't believe it is any more Biblical than Arminianism or Arianism. So the words "based on Scripture" does not mean agree with scripture but merely related to scripture interpretations.

There are no "couple" of texts that present all facets of PST (although the sacrificial system presents a complete type of it). In order to do this we will have to take one aspect at a time and then see if scripture confirms that aspect.

Since you are the one challenging it, pick the aspect you think is unbiblical.

 

That depends on how you are defining "based on"? If you are defining it merely somewhat related to scripture than that proves nothing as your reasonings may be false. However, if you mean "based on" as I understood and used it to mean IN AGREEMENT WITH scripture than yes.

You have been perverting what I have said and maybe innocently as you are defining 'based on" to mean merely related while I meant by it "in agreement with."

 

You are still perverting what I said and defining my words by your definitions. The words "based on" I used to mean "in agreement with" not merely "related to."

 

Beleive it or not I interpret a word, a text by its immediate context and let that shape my ideologies - at least that is my honest goal.

Le 4:20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall beforgiven them.

Le 4:26 And he shall burn all his fat on the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.

Le 4:31 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it on the altar for a sweet smell to the LORD; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall beforgiven him.

Le 5:18 And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with your estimation, for a trespass offering, to the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and knew it not, and it shall beforgiven him.

Le 6:7 And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD: and it shall beforgiven him for any thing of all that he has done in trespassing therein.

Le 19:22 And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he has done: and the sin which he has done shall beforgiven him.

In each case the sin was committed first by a human. Second, atonement followed for that sin using an animal "FOR" the atonement instead of the sinner. Third, the future tense "shall be" follows in regard to forgiveness. So remission of sins is the consequence of previous sin based upon a substitutionary victim. Fourth, the words "for a sin offering" and "for an atonement" are synonymous.

The sacrificial system is set up to picture the atonement of Christ for sin. Every aspect had to be exact to the pattern given to Moses on the Mount, and then later to David. This included the brass altar and fire, both of which are common Biblical symbols for the wrath of God demonstrating that Christ represented by the lamb without spot or blemish must suffer the wrath of God against sin in the place of the sinner. The law required a penalty and that penalty equals God's wrath.

Moreover, on the day of atonement the High Priest would lay his hands upon the head of the sacrifice symbolizing the transfer of sins from the people to the sacrifice.

On judgement day the standard is to judge and reward them "according to their works" which demands exact equivilancy for their sin debts. In response, this required more than a human substitute but the God/man who can supply an infinite worth and infinite suffering (eternal) due to his Deity in order to redeem more than one person but all the elect.

 

What I said and what I meant by what I said is correct. When are reasonings are in agreement with Scripture then we have the mind of Christ with regard to a given text. So reasonings that are a direct and inseparable product of scripture, that is,reasonings that are in agreement with scripture are embracing truth.

 

Nu 16:46 And Moses said to Aaron, Take a censer, and put fire therein from off the altar, and put on incense, and go quickly to the congregation, and make an atonement for them: for there is wrath gone out from the LORD; the plague is begun.

This is but one example of many others just like this one that could be cited. Sin, violation of God's law occurs first. The consequence is God's wrath. The sacrifice on the altar satisfies God's wrath against his people by turning that wrath symbolically upon a sinless substitute. The brass altar, the fire all represent God's wrath against sin taken out upon a sinless substitute. The phrase "make an atonement for them" is synonmous with "make a sin offering for them."

So does God pour out His wrath upon an innocent person? YES, since according to the everlasting covenant the Second Person voluntarily obligated himself to be the LEGAL object of God's wrath in the LEGAL position of His covenant people. That commitment demonstrates his great love for his people.

 

No, there is no breach of faith but violation of law. In fact, most israelites in the wilderness were individually lost unregenerates who continually rebelled against God and so to say "breach of faith" is not true (See Hebrews 4:2 to confirm their rejection of faith in the gospel). His law was broken and that is what called for the atonement as the lost Jews were nevertheless TYPES of the elect.

 

Again, the atonement was for violation of MORAL Law.

I am not sure I agree with your clarifications of my words. The animal acted as the substitute for the SINNER who committed the sin. It is the animal instead of the sinner who is being killed, put to fire, upon a brazen altar, which are indisputable clear biblical symbols of God's wrath against sinners due to sin.The sinner cannot be separated from his sin, as it is because of the sinner's sin that the atonement is required. So the animal symbolizes the sinner while the treatment of the animal symbolizes God's wrath against the sinner due to sin (death, fire, brazen altar).

I am referring to the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16 and its application in Hebrews 10. You are confusing the sacrifices that symbolize the DAILY WALK of the Christian with the day of atonement which symbolizes the once and for all sacrifice for our sins. On the day of atonement the individual did not bring an individual sacrifice.

There is no faith in the covenant by Israel in the wilderness as the writer of Hebrews plainly states in Hebrews 3:10-4:2. The sacrifice was for VIOLATION OF GOD'S LAW in order to satisfy God's wrath against sin.

The sacrifice was regarded as strictly substitutionary in nature as you have already previously conceded. The sin originated from the sinner, that demanded a sacrifice that entailed death, fire and judgement against the sinner as it is the sinner that sinned and the animal took the place of that sinner. Remember the wages of sin is DEATH and the animal must die as mere shedding of a thimble of blood was not sufficient but it must shed blood unto death because that is the penalty against the sinner that was taken out on the substitute - the sacrifice. Your reasoning is not only illogical here, but clearly ignores the symbolism.

 

That is not my point! The wrath of God was against the sinners due to their sin and the sacrifice bore the wrath of God in the place of the sinner and that is abundantly clear for the following reasons:

1. Death is the wages of sin against the sinner and the animal must suffer death (sin does not die, but only the sinner dies, thus the animal represents not sin, but the sinner dying).

2. Death is finalized in the lake of fire and the animal was put to the flames upon a brazen altar symbolizing the judgement of God against sin.

3. Wrath is not against abstract "sin" but against the sinner wherein the sin exists and originates.

See above.

Sure it does not actually state these truths but the symbolism clearly does. You are simply ignoring the symbolisms inherent in the sacrifice.

Again, you are confusing the repetitious daily offering for fellowship with the day of atonement for once and for all remission of sins. Although the basic symbolisms are the same they differ at the very point you are making about the individual bringing his own individual sacrifice. No, on the day of atonement there was no individualized action, but the High Priest offered up sacrifices for the elect nation.

1. Death is the penalty taken out on the sinner not on sin as sin has no existence apart from the sinner - the anmial must suffer death - thus depicting the death of the sinner - thus substitution.

2. The animal is subject to FIRE which is the ultimate penalty of death.

3. The animal is offered up on a brazen altar (temple) which signifies the judgement of God's wrath against the sinner due to sin.

4. You are ignoring clear undeniable symbolism.

 

Yes it did. You are ignoring the clear symbolism. Death is the condemnation for sin and the animal must die. Therefore the animal represents the sinner because death does not die!

Second, the ultimate penalty of sin is death in FIRE (Gehenna) and so the animal must be offered up in FIRE. Thus again clearly the animal is symbolic of the sinner suffering the ultimate wrath of God.

Third, the altar was brazen in the temple depicting the JUDGEMENT of God against sin, and the animal was sacrifice on that altar.

False! There was no "faith" as they were without faith (Heb. 4:2). The atonement is about satisfying God's wrath for violating God's law. No violation of God's law no atonement necessary. The animal is PASSIVE in the atonement. The offerer represents Christ and his faith, obedience to God and the atonement represents his passive obedience in suffering the wrath of God in the place of the sinner.

Rom. 6:23 death is the CONDEMNATION for sin and death is finalized in the Lake of fire and that is the eternal wrath of God. It is symbolized in the death of the animal IN FIRE and on a BRAZEN altar.