"Penal Substitution Theory"

[Martin Marprelate]

On Nother thread, I asked @JonC some questions about his Penal Substitution Theory.
I asked:

What I would like to know from you is
1. In what way is the Lord Jesus the propitiation for the sins of the world?
2. In what sense did He die for our sins and what did His death achieved. i
3. In what sense did God lay our iniquity upon Him?
4. What does it mean that He became a curse for us? Who cursed Him?
5. How exactly has He borne our sins
6. Precisely how do we escape the coming wrath through Him.

He replied:

The Lord Jesus the Propitiation for the sins of the world because it is in Him that man is reborn (or recreated, born of the Spirit, cleansed) and therefore escape the wrath to come. Christ died for our sins. He is sinless but He "shared in our infirmity". The wages of sin is death. He experienced those wages, however they were earned by us, not Him. The Cross was God reconciling man to Himself, and it is on this basis that we plead with men to be reconciled to God. God lay our iniquity upon Him in the sense that He became like us in every way, to include suffering under sin...but this was OUR sin, not His own. Another way of saying this is that He became a curse for us. Nobody cursed Him, but man considered Him accursed by God (and God vindicated Him against the error).

I not that my questions 5&6 have not been answered, but for now I would like to consider the answers he has given one at a time.

The Lord Jesus the Propitiation for the sins of the world because it is in Him that man is reborn (or recreated, born of the Spirit, cleansed) and therefore escape the wrath to come.

I cannot accept this. There are three places in Scripture where the Lord Jesus is described as a 'propitiation' (NIV 'atoning sacrifice'). These are Romans 3:25-26; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10. I do not see any immediate context to the New Birth in these verses. That is not to decry the vitally important place of the New Birth in our salvation, but it is to say that the teaching does not show up around Propitiation.

What does show up is blood.
In Romans 3:25, we are immediately told that the propitiation was 'by His blood.' In 1 John 1:7, we are told that 'The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all iniquity.' This must surely have reference to 2:2.
This is also in line with the O.T.
Exodus 12:13. 'When I see the blood, I will pass over you.'
Leviticus 17:10. 'For it is the blood that makes atonement for your soul.'
And in other parts of the N.T. eg. Ephesians 1:7; 2:13; Colossians 1:20.

One point I find interesting is that in 1 John 4:10, the sending of Christ as a Propitiation is ascribed to God's love, whilst in Romans 3:25 it is ascribed to His justice.. It puts me in mind of Psalms 85:10.

Thread open for comments.

 

[Van]

PSA is just a Trojan horse for Calvinism's Limited Atonement false doctrine, and nothing more.

Jesus became the means of salvation for the whole of humanity, 1 John 2:2.
He died as a ransom for all, thus by His sacrifice provided the means of salvation for all humanity, both those to be saved and those never to be saved, 2 Peter 2:1.
Christ's sacrifice allows God to justly lay aside the sin burden (what God holds against them) of each and every person God places into Christ's spiritual body.
Scripture says whoever hangs on a tree is cursed. (Galatians 3:13)
Everyone placed into Christ undergoes the washing of regeneration, the circumcision of Christ where our sin burden is removed, and taken (borne) out of the way.
When an individual is spiritually placed into Christ's spiritual body, they enter His propitiatory shelter. Romans 3:24

Thus Christ did not die for the specific sins of specific individuals chosen beforehand, but died for all humanity to provide the means of salvation for everyone placed within His spiritual body.

 

[Revmitchell]

On Nother thread, I asked @JonC some questions about his Penal Substitution Theory.
I asked:

What I would like to know from you is
1. In what way is the Lord Jesus the propitiation for the sins of the world?
2. In what sense did He die for our sins and what did His death achieved. i
3. In what sense did God lay our iniquity upon Him?
4. What does it mean that He became a curse for us? Who cursed Him?
5. How exactly has He borne our sins
6. Precisely how do we escape the coming wrath through Him.

He replied:

I not that my questions 5&6 have not been answered, but for now I would like to consider the answers he has given one at a time.

I cannot accept this. There are three places in Scripture where the Lord Jesus is described as a 'propitiation' (NIV 'atoning sacrifice'). These are Romans 3:25-26; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10. I do not see any immediate context to the New Birth in these verses. That is not to decry the vitally important place of the New Birth in our salvation, but it is to say that the teaching does not show up around Propitiation.

What does show up is blood.
In Romans 3:25, we are immediately told that the propitiation was 'by His blood.' In 1 John 1:7, we are told that 'The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all iniquity.' This must surely have reference to 2:2.
This is also in line with the O.T.
Exodus 12:13. 'When I see the blood, I will pass over you.'
Leviticus 17:10. 'For it is the blood that makes atonement for your soul.'
And in other parts of the N.T. eg. Ephesians 1:7; 2:13; Colossians 1:20.

One point I find interesting is that in 1 John 4:10, the sending of Christ as a Propitiation is ascribed to God's love, whilst in Romans 3:25 it is ascribed to His justice.. It puts me in mind of Psalms 85:10.

Thread open for comments.

The problem is the definition given The Lord Jesus the Propitiation for the sins of the world because it is in Him that man is reborn (or recreated, born of the Spirit, cleansed) and therefore escape the wrath to come." is not what propitiation means. Once the actual biblical definition is applied then one cannot escape penal substitution.

 

[kyredneck]

PSA is just a Trojan horse for Calvinism

CALVINISTS! THEY'RE EVERYWHERE! THEY'RE EVERYWHERE!

...Van and his boogeyman, lol...

 

[atpollard]

Thread open for comments.

"Mark my words: nothing good will come of this!"

 

[JonC]

The problem is the definition given The Lord Jesus the Propitiation for the sins of the world because it is in Him that man is reborn (or recreated, born of the Spirit, cleansed) and therefore escape the wrath to come." is not what propitiation means. Once the actual biblical definition is applied then one cannot escape penal substitution.

You misunderstand.

I was answering a few questions that @Martin Marprelate asked me.

I was not explaining my view of the Atonement.

Propitiation means "to gain or regain the favor or goodwill of". This is accomplished through Christ alone, in Whom we escape the wrath to come and are reconciled to God.

 

[Revmitchell]

You misunderstand.

I was answering a few questions that @Martin Marprelate asked me.

I was not explaining my view of the Atonement.

Propitiation means "to gain or regain the favor or goodwill of". This is accomplished through Christ alone, in Whom we escape the wrath to come and are reconciled to God.

I don't misunderstand. And propitiation means to appease God. You cannot have atonement unless there is a sacrifice and the shedding of blood. The shedding of blood and the beating Christ took the crucifixion alone shows PSA. There is no room for it not too. The intentional twisting of that definition lacks integrity. We all know it.

 

[Van]

CALVINISTS! THEY'RE EVERYWHERE! THEY'RE EVERYWHERE!

...Van and his boogeyman, lol...

Yet another off topic post of troll like obfuscation.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Propitiation means "to gain or regain the favor or goodwill of"

As @Revmitchell says, this is absolutely not what Propitiation means.

 

[Van]

As @Revmitchell says, this is absolutely not what Propitiation means.

LOL, if I had a nickel for every poster saying taint so, but lacking the capacity to say what is so, I would be rich in worldly treasure!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

LOL, if I had a nickel for every poster saying taint so, but lacking the capacity to say what is so, I would be rich in worldly treasure!

I was agreeing with @Revmitchell But a Propitiation means an appeasement, a sacrifice to turn away righteous anger, which is pretty much what he said.

 

[Aaron]

I don't misunderstand. And propitiation means to appease God. You cannot have atonement unless there is a sacrifice and the shedding of blood. The shedding of blood and the beating Christ took the crucifixion alone shows PSA. There is no room for it not too. The intentional twisting of that definition lacks integrity. We all know it.

Yup.

 

[Aaron]

You misunderstand.

I was answering a few questions that @Martin Marprelate asked me.

I was not explaining my view of the Atonement.

Propitiation means "to gain or regain the favor or goodwill of". This is accomplished through Christ alone, in Whom we escape the wrath to come and are reconciled to God.

Quit lying Jon. You're changing the definitions. Everybody sees it, except perhaps the administration, who gave me 3 points for pointing out the implications of their inaction on their faith.

 

[Van]

I was agreeing with @Revmitchell But a Propitiation means an appeasement, a sacrifice to turn away righteous anger, which is pretty much what he said.

Does it mean to appease God, such that His wrath is turned away from the person sheltered by the Propitiation, i.e. Christ? Sounds like the means of salvation to me. Why not cut to the chase?

Thus Christ became the Propitiation, or means of salvation for the whole of humanity, 1 John 2:2.

 

[JonC]

I don't misunderstand. And propitiation means to appease God. You cannot have atonement unless there is a sacrifice and the shedding of blood. The shedding of blood and the beating Christ took the crucifixion alone shows PSA. There is no room for it not too. The intentional twisting of that definition lacks integrity. We all know it.

Propitiation literally means " to gain or regain the favor or goodwill of". This is a type of appeasement, but not the type as you indicate. God is eternal and immutable, not like the gods worshipped by pagans who could be appeased by sacrifices and gifts.

I agree that there cannot be atonement (the biblical word is "reconciliation") without the shedding of blood.

You think the suffering of Christ means Penal Substitution. That is fine. I am not stuck on labels.

I am NOT speaking against Christ shedding His blood, becoming a curse for us, His flesh for our flesh, His life for our life. That is where you misunderstand.

I am speaking against the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (that God had to punish sins in order to forgive sinners, that God punished Christ for our sins instead of punishing us, that Christ experienced divine wrath instead of us, that the Father separated from the Son, etc.

 

[JonC]

Quit lying Jon. You're changing the definitions. Everybody sees it, except perhaps the administration, who gave me 3 points for pointing out the implications of their inaction on their faith.

No. Words have meanings. You change definitions, but Propitiation literally means "to gain or regain the favor or goodwill of".

 

[Revmitchell]

2: something that propitiates or appeasesspecifically : an atoning sacrifice

simply saying it just means gaining favor is watering it down in light of the fact of the dreadful sacrifice outs the gaining of favor in the PSA category. Its intentional and dishonest.


Definition of PROPITIATION

 

[JonC]

2: something that propitiates or appeasesspecifically : an atoning sacrifice

simply saying it just means gaining favor is watering it down in light of the fact of the dreadful sacrifice outs the gaining of favor in the PSA category. Its intentional and dishonest.


Definition of PROPITIATION

I was not saying it. Webster's dictionary was saying it. Read your link (I cut and pasted from the link you provided.

God gave Christ as a guilt from offering.

I know the Atonement has penal and substitutionary aspects.

But that does not make the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement correct.

You are playing a shell game.

Why do you believe God must punish sins to forgive sinners?

 

[JonC]

Just for comparison:

Here are a few of the major theories of Atonement:

• The Ransom Theory: The earliest of all, originating with the Early Church Fathers, this theory claims that Christ offered himself as a ransom (Mark 10:45). Where it was not clear was in its understanding of exactly to whom the ransom was paid. Many early church fathers viewed the ransom as paid to Satan.
• The Recapitulation Theory: Originated with Irenaeus (125-202 AD). He sees Christ as the new Adam, who systematically undoes what Adam did. Thus, where Adam was disobedient concerning God's edict concerning the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, Christ was obedient even to death on the wood of a tree. Irenaeus is the first to draw comparisons between Eve and Mary, contrasting the faithlessness of the former with the faithfulness of the latter. In addition to reversing the wrongs done by Adam, Irenaeus thinks of Christ as "recapitulating" or "summing up" human life.
• The Satisfaction (or Commercial) Theory: The formulator of this theory was the medieval theologian Anselm of Canterbury (1034-1109), in his book, Cur Deus Homo (lit. Why the God Man). In his view, God's offended honor and dignity could only be satisfied by the sacrifice of the God-man, Jesus Christ. "Anselm offered compelling biblical evidence that the atonement was not a ransom paid by God to the devil but rather a debt paid to God on behalf of sinners."^ [1]^ Anselm's work established a foundation for the Protestant Reformation, specifically the understanding of justification by faith.
• The Penal-Substitution Theory: This view was formulated by the 16th century Reformers as an extension of Anselm's Satisfaction theory. Anselm's theory was correct in introducing the satisfaction aspect of Christ's work and its necessity, however the Reformers saw it as insufficient because it was referenced to God's honor rather than his justice and holiness and was couched more in terms of a commercial transaction than a penal substitution. This Reformed view says simply that Christ died for man, in man's place, taking his sins and bearing them for him. The bearing of man's sins takes the punishment for them and sets the believer free from the penal demands of the law: The righteousness of the law and the holiness of God are satisfied by this substitution.
• The Moral-Example Theory (or Moral-Influence Theory): Christ died to influence mankind toward moral improvement. This theory denies that Christ died to satisfy any principle of divine justice, but teaches instead that His death was designed to greatly impress mankind with a sense of God's love, resulting in softening their hearts and leading them to repentance. Thus, the Atonement is not directed towards God with the purpose of maintaining His justice, but towards man with the purpose of persuading him to right action. Formulated by Peter Abelard (1079-1142) partially in reaction against Anselm's Satisfaction theory, this view was held by the 16th century Socinians. Versions of it can be found later in F. D. E. Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and Horace Bushnell (1802-1876).
• The Governmental Theory: God made Christ an example of suffering to exhibit to erring man that sin is displeasing to him. God's moral government of the world made it necessary for him to evince his wrath against sin in Christ. Christ died as a token of God's displeasure toward sin and it was accepted by God as sufficient; but actually God does not exact strict justice. This view was formulated by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) and is subsequently found in Arminianism, Charles Finney, the New England Theology of Jonathan Edwards (the younger), and Methodism.
• The Declaratory Theory: A version of the Moral Influence theory, wherein Christ died to show men how greatly God loves them. This view held by Albrecht Ritschl (1822-89).
• The Guaranty Theory: Reconciliation is based not on Christ's expiation of sin, but on His guaranty to win followers and thus conquer human sinfulness. This view held by J. C. K. von Hofmann (1810-77).
• The Vicarious Repentance Theory: by John McLeod Campbell (d. 1872). It assumes that a perfect repentance is sufficient to atone for sin. In his death, Christ entered into the Father's condemnation of sin, condemned sin, and by this, confessed it.
• The 'Christus Victor' or Dramatic Theory: by G. E. H. Aulén (1879-1977). The atonement is viewed as divine conflict and victory over the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection. This is a modified form of the classic Ransom theory with the emphasis on Christ's victory over evil.
• The Accident Theory: Christ's death was an accident, as unforeseen and unexpected as that of any other victim of man's hatred. This view is usually found outside of mainstream Christianity.
• The Martyr Theory: Christ gave up His life for a principle of truth that was opposed to the spirit of His day. This view is usually found outside of mainstream Christianity.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I was not saying it. Webster's dictionary was saying it. Read your link (I cut and pasted from the link you provided.

God gave Christ as a guilt from offering.

I know the Atonement has penal and substitutionary aspects.

But that does not make the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement correct.

You are playing a shell game.

Why do you believe God must punish sins to forgive sinners?

We can open a new thread on what Propitiation means if people want. I would like to get back to the O.P.
@JonC wrote:

The Lord Jesus the Propitiation for the sins of the world because it is in Him that man is reborn (or recreated, born of the Spirit, cleansed) and therefore escape the wrath to come.

Do you still hold to this? If so, please note my response to it.

I cannot accept this. There are three places in Scripture where the Lord Jesus is described as a 'propitiation' (NIV 'atoning sacrifice'). These are Romans 3:25-26; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10. I do not see any immediate context to the New Birth in these verses. That is not to decry the vitally important place of the New Birth in our salvation, but it is to say that the teaching does not show up around Propitiation.

What does show up is blood.
In Romans 3:25, we are immediately told that the propitiation was 'by His blood.' In 1 John 1:7, we are told that 'The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all iniquity.' This must surely have reference to 2:2.
This is also in line with the O.T.
Exodus 12:13. 'When I see the blood, I will pass over you.'
Leviticus 17:10. 'For it is the blood that makes atonement for your soul.'
And in other parts of the N.T. eg. Ephesians 1:7; 2:13; Colossians 1:20.

One point I find interesting is that in 1 John 4:10, the sending of Christ as a Propitiation is ascribed to God's love, whilst in Romans 3:25 it is ascribed to His justice.. It puts me in mind of Psalms 85:10.