The Penal Substitutionary Satisfaction by Jesus Christ in "The Council of Peace" from Eternity Past.

[JonC]

Martin Marprelate was asked, not me; and he can certainly answer for himself quite adequately, but my thought is that this is:

"Father, I have already paid the penalty for the sins of this person in full. Your justice is fully satisfied", is:



based on:















and as;


...



I don't see "Father, I have already paid the penalty for the sins of this person in full. Your justice is fully satisfied", as 'punishment inflicted on someone as vengeance', like retribution.
...





So, there is no Wrath that was poured out on Jesus?

Jesus being a propitiation reversed Wrath from Him? or God's children?

What happened in the case of Jesus' Passion, where you say,
"something has happened
so that there is no longer a purpose for the wrath."

"Wrath aversion?

What "punishment currently implemented is reversed/alleviated"?, in Jesus' situation?

What "future punishment that is threatened is averted"?

"What actually 'happened' "so that there is no longer a purpose for the wrath."

I agree the idea of forgiveness accomplished being Christ paying the penalty for our sins instead of us is not actually in the Bible but rather an idea men derived from it. They were wrong.

That said, I DO believe that Christ died for our sins, became a curse for us, not knowing sin was made sin for us, and in Him we escape the wrath to come.

 

[Aaron]

No need to read the OP presenting the Trojan horse of Limited Atonement, denying Christ died as a ransom for all.

Show me Egypt's stone on the breastplate of the high priest, and I'll agree with you.

 

[Aaron]

You are operating under the wrong definition of the word "propitiation."

Propitiation means wrath reversal or wrath aversion. It means that a punishment currently implemented is reversed/alleviated, or that a future punishment that is threatened is averted. The reason the wrath is reversed is because something has happened so that there is no longer a purpose for the wrath. For example, if I crash into your car and do $1,000 of damage, you will be angry. Your anger threatens me with punishment unless I do certain things, namely pay you restitution and apologize. So when I tell you my insurance company will pay you $5,000 and tell you that I will drive better in the future, your anger will be gone. You will be propitiated. There is no longer a purpose for the wrath because resources were provided to fix what was broken.

But penalty substitution demands a different definition and different mechanism regarding propitiation. Penalty substitution defines propitiation as “wrath exhaustion via displacement.” This means that the threatened wrath must be exhausted either on the offender or a substitute standing in for the offender. On penalty substitution, it is not enough for the anger to simply be averted. The anger must be vented. It must be carried out, or there is an injustice. Punishment must be carried out for punishment’s sake. It would be as if I came to you with $5,000 to fix your car and you said, “Nope, call up the insurance company and have them instead provide me with a car of equal worth to my own, that I can do $1,000 worth of damage to. I need to exhaust my retributive anger, and justice will not be satisfied until my anger is exhausted. Only then will I be propitiated.” This is ridiculous, and it would do nothing to fix the car, but it is exactly how the penalty substitution advocate understands the cross. God has wrath against humanity because our sin has damaged His infinite worth, and His wrath must be satisfied either on us or on Jesus to an infinite degree. Jesus stands in place of humanity and suffers his wrath, exhausting it via displacement, thus achieving propitiation. But this mechanism of wrath displacement is nowhere in Scripture.

Hogwash.

Propitiation means the appeasement of wrath, not the abatement of wrath.

 

[Aaron]

Good point.

One thing I have noticed over the past decade discussing redemption with Penal Substitution theorists is a tendency to redefine the word "propitiation' as if it were a word invented by biblical writers.

"Propitiation" is a legitimate word, and it does mean (as you point out) wrath reversal or wrath aversion.

God used words that had meaning to a people. He did not invent new meanings for old words (that would not be communication at all). Pagans sought to propitiate gods. Citizens sought to propitiate rulers.

But as long as "doublespeak" is allowed there really can be no meaningful dialogue, or even a mutual understanding of the other's beliefs.

...said the doublespeak poster boy.

 

[JonC]

Hogwash.

Propitiation means the appeasement of wrath, not the abatement of wrath.

Wrath cannot be appeased. It is either experienced or avoided in some way.

Pagans believed gods could be appeased, with the result being that wrath would be avoided. But it is impossible to appease wrath as wrath is not an entity to be appeased (just as it is impossible to punish sins as sins are not things that can be punished).

 

[Aaron]

If Jesus was punished in your place for your sins as your substitute, then why do you still experience all these punishments?

We don't.

 

[JonC]

...said the doublespeak poster boy.

No. I'm just saying that words have meanings. Where you insist that God invented new meanings for existing words, I believe that God communicated to man through existing words using their actual meanings.

 

[Aaron]

Wrath cannot be appeased. It is either experienced or avoided in some way.

Pagans believed gods could be appeased, with the result being that wrath would be avoided. But it is impossible to appease wrath as wrath is not an entity to be appeased (just as it is impossible to punish sins as sins are not things that can be punished).

This is utter nonsense.

 

[Aaron]

No. I'm just saying that words have meanings. Where you insist that God invented new meanings for existing words, I believe that God communicated to man through existing words using their actual meanings.

LOL, here we go again. One only needs to cite your definition of "substitute."

 

[JonC]

This is utter nonsense.

No. It is a fact. Words actually have meaning.

ANE paganism held that people could manipulate gods by offering sacrifices in hopes that they would perform for men (by giving a good crop, by withholding wrath, whatever).

Wrath itself is not a thing to be appeased. It is an emotion (it means intense anger).

Likewise, sins cannot be punished because they are not things upon which one can chastise. Sinners, on the other hand, can experience the consequences of sin and the wicked can be punished.

You need to learn English more better.

 

[Aaron]

Was the blood sprinkled on the Mercy Seat sprinkled there to purify or satisfy?

 

[Aaron]

No. It is a fact. Words actually have meaning.

ANE paganism held that people could manipulate gods by offering sacrifices in hopes that they would perform for men (by giving a good crop, by withholding wrath, whatever).

Wrath itself is not a thing to be appeased. It is an emotion (it means intense anger).

Likewise, sins cannot be punished because they are not things upon which one can chastise. Sinners, on the other hand, can experience the consequences of sin and the wicked can be punished.

You need to learn English more better.

LOL. The amazing thing is you think this an educated post.

 

[Aaron]

Was the blood sprinkled on the Mercy Seat sprinkled there to purify or satisfy?

I repeat the question...

 

[JonC]

LOL, here we go again. One only needs to cite your definition of "substitute."

My definition? No, I offered Athanasius' definition (medical substitution) and Aquinas' definition (satisfaction as substitution). Your argument is with those men. I said I prefer "representation", although it is more than representation because it includes substitution in terms of One under the curse for the benefit of humanity.

I'm sure you are aware that even in today's legal arena it is used this way (one representing many in proxy is called "representative substitution").

Oh wait... Never mind. I'm sure you are not aware because you wear blinders.

 

[JonC]

LOL. The amazing thing is you think this an educated post.

No. It is a legitimate and factual post. It is educational, but not educated (just like one does not graduate high school but is graduated).

Your command of the English language is, like always,....eh.... enlightening.

 

[Arthur King]

Hogwash.

Propitiation means the appeasement of wrath, not the abatement of wrath.

You haven't really said anything. Why is the wrath appeased?

In my example, when the payment is made to fix the car, the owner of the car may say his wrath is appeased. But he never exercised any wrath.

By "appeased" do you specifically mean that the wrath is exhausted? Is your definition of propitiation "wrath exhaustion"?

 

[Arthur King]

We don't.

You are not in any way exiled from paradise and the presence of God?

You won't experience physical death?

You never experience toil at work?

You never experience strife in your marriage?

These are all punishments for sin. And we experience them. Jesus' death on the cross does not take them away. Because the function of Jesus' death is not so that we avoid death, but so that we participate in his death and resurrection.

 

[Arthur King]

Was the blood sprinkled on the Mercy Seat sprinkled there to purify or satisfy?

Completely depends on what you mean by "satisfy." Again, if someone does $1,000 to my car, and then pays me $5,000 in compensation, I have no problem saying my wrath was satisfied. I am angry until I have means to fix what was broken in the offense.

At no point am I exhausting anger on someone or something. The problem is, when penal substitution says "wrath was satisfied" they mean exhausted, vented. They mean displaced aggression / displaced punishment.

Jesus pays our debt of obedience. Our disobedience is a lack (debt) of obedience. Jesus pays it.

All of us, by our disobedience, put Jesus to death on the cross. Jesus willingly suffered our disobedience against him out of obedience to the Father. He obediently suffered all our disobedient acts. On the cross, all of our disobedience only serves to testify his obedience to the Father. His obedience pays our debt of disobedience.

 

[Aaron]

Completely depends on what you mean by "satisfy."

You're right in two ways. First, this is tantamount to an admission that the Mercy Seat needs no purification. That is correct. God's glory was there between the cherubim. It was pure.

Second, you halt at the definition, because only by skewing the words can you make your case.

The Mercy Seat, aka, the seat of propitiation, is sprinkled with the blood of the sin sacrifice on the Day of Atonement.

It was not for purification, but for satisfaction. The satisfaction of justice. Penalty.

 

[Aaron]

You are not in any way exiled from paradise and the presence of God?

I am raised up and seated in heavenly places in Him. Ephesians 2:6

You won't experience physical death?

As I told you before, that has yet to be seen. Some saints won't. And for saints, it's not death, but sleep.

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, - 1 Corinthians 15:51

He said unto them, Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. - Matthew 9:24

And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. - John 11:26 KJV
​

Believest thou this? You obviously do not.

These are all punishments for sin. And we experience them. Jesus' death on the cross does not take them away. Because the function of Jesus' death is not so that we avoid death, but so that we participate in his death and resurrection.

No, these are not punishments of sin, but the dust and ashes thereof.

Death is the wages of sin. And whosoever liveth and believeth in Christ shall never die. Believest thou this? Again, you obviously do not.

Since it's not the death of the body, which is merely sleep in the case of the saints, from which we're spared, what death is it?