Featured The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

Aged man,
I think it does as Hebrews 2 explains it, and the rest of the epistle explains the work of our Great High Priest.

 

On what basis can a Holy God freely justify a lost sinner if there has been as of they no atonement made for their sins then?

 

As being the same God. They are not the same Persons.

I thought so. Hebrews 1:3, ". . . upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; . . ."

 

Well said!

 

One more quick word.
The fact that an ECF may have taught one thing in one book doesn't mean that he doesn't teach something else in another.
I am no great expert on the ECFs but I do note that they regularly contradict themselves
But if the great John Owen can give one interpretation of Hebrews 10:29 in The Death of Death, and another in his commentary on Hebrews, how much more may the ECFs change their minds? Only God is constant and only the Scriptures are without error.

 

I did mention him, and you said you hadn't read him and declined to discuss him.

 

i agreed with everything you said except the final sentence.

Is Christ as the incarnate of God/man separate able?

What about the trinity, is it also able to be in disunity?

 

John most doctrines we have were not studied out as there was not commentary and study books in large numbers.
Tyndale and the printing press changed.much.
The doctrine is there.
There is not one verse but many verses that make up the teaching much like the teaching of the trinity.

 

Peter quotes psalm 16 on the day of Pentecost showing the unity of the trinity.

 

The Lord Jesus tells us that He and His father mutually indwell each other (John 14:11; c.f. also John 10:38; 14:10, 20). The technical term for this is perichoresis. This implies both union and distinction between Father and Son. One of the many problems with polytheism is the idea that different deities may make different demands of people and compete with one another as we see in the poems of Homer and Hesiod. Within the Trinity this is avoided, not because the Persons fortuitously happen to agree on most things, but because they must agree, for they are one God. The idea therefore that on the cross the Father inflicts a punishment upon the Son that He is unwilling to bear, or that the Son draws from the Father a forgiveness that He is unwilling to bestow is a non-starter.

But there is also a distinction between the Persons. Without it, it would be ridiculous to talk of a distinct Father, Son and Spirit at all, and it would be impossible for them to relate to each other as separate Persons as the Scripture teaches they do. But if Son, Father and Spirit are all fully Divine and equal in their possession of all the Divine attributes (e.g. holiness, wisdom, truth etc.), what distinguishes them? The answer is their asymmetric in their relationship with each other. The Father is in a relationship of Fatherhood to the Son and the Son is in a relationship of Sonship to the Father. The Son is everything the Father is, save that He is not the Father, the Spirit is not the Son and so forth.

It must surely be agreed that God’s actions reflect His nature. He does what is holy because He is holy; what is good because He is good. Therefore God’s nature will be reflected in the actions of each Person of the Trinity and both unity and distinction between the Persons will be reflected in what God does.

So the actions of the Persons reflect their unity. In John 14:10-11, the Lord Jesus teaches that His works are at the same time His Father’s works and this is grounded in the Perichoretic Union. In John 5:19, He testifies that ‘Whatever He [the Father] does, the Son also does in like manner.’ The fundamental unity in their actions mirrors the fundamental union of their Persons.

On the other hand, the actions of the Persons reflect their distinctions. The Bible teaches that the Father sent the Son, and that the Son willingly obeyed the Father (John 10:15-18; Philippians 2:5-9). Father and Son send the Spirit, but the Spirit does not send the Father. The work of the Trinity in salvation is outlined in Ephesians 1:3-14. The Three work in perfect harmony to accomplish their single goal, but their roles are quite different.

In order to represent this unity and distinction between the Persons, Augustine taught that the Father’s actions are not without the Son and the Son’s actions not without the Father. That seems to work rather well. Augustine affirmed that while the Persons of the Trinity do not perform the same action in the same way, nevertheless they do not act independently of one another– their respective contributions to any given activity are inseparable.

So it is not meaningless to say that God the Son propitiated God the Father. The same Person is not the subject and object of the verb. Nor does the fact that the Father exacts a punishment borne by the Son mean that they are divided or act independently. Their relationship is asymmetric, but they are mutually and inseparably engaged upon two aspects of the same action with one purpose– the salvation of guilty sinners while satisfying the justice of the Triune God.

 

Just for the record, I do not believe that God punished Jesus either, and have said so several times. God punished sin in Jesus, who was the sin-bearer.

 

John...
Such a belief teaches our sins were not punished which would be unjust.
I will ask again...on what basis can our sins be forgiven and God maintain His justice?
You repeat a verse without explana

See post 124

 

No...it is found in correctly understanding the verses already offered...and seeing what happens to unsaved people during the second death.
You have not acknowledged our sinfulness and the substitute taking our place from our law breaking.