PSA...Found this on X today

[Zaatar71]

I was surprised to find this on the forum X enjoy

Josh Barzon

1. What PSA Means Penal Substitution means that Christ bears the penalty we deserve (penal) in our place (substitution), effecting atonement with God. It doesn’t cancel other atonement motifs (victory, example, ransom); it grounds them. Without Christ taking our sin, we have no salvation. And all of the church echos this loudly as you will see below

2. Roots in the Old Testament (c. 15th–5th c. BC) • Exodus 12: 13 – “When I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you.” • Leviticus 17: 11 – “For the life of the flesh is in the blood… to make atonement for your souls.” • Leviticus 16: 22 – “The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself to a remote area.” • Isaiah 53: 5–6 – “He was pierced for our transgressions… the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” • Also: The Day of Atonement; Isaac’s Substitute; Passover Lamb; Bronze Serpent; and more.

3. Jesus’ Own Words (AD 30–33) • Mark 10: 45 – “The Son of Man came… to give his life as a ransom for many.” • Matthew 26: 28 – “…this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” • John 10: 11 – “The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” • Luke 22: 37 – “…this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’”

4. The Apostles (AD 40s– 90s) • Romans 3: 25–26 – “…whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith… so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” • Romans 4: 25 – “…who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.” • Galatians 3: 13 – “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us…for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.’” • 2 Corinthians 5: 21 – “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” • 1 Peter 2: 24 – “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.” • 1 Peter 3: 18 – “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God…”

5. Early Church Fathers (2nd–5th c.) • Nicene Creed (AD 325) – “…who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven… was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried…” • Epistle to Diognetus (2nd c.) – “O sweet exchange, the righteousness of One justifies many sinners!” • Athanasius – The Word offered His body “in place of all, suffering for all.” • Chrysostom (on Gal 3: 13) – Christ “became a curse… and relieved us of ours.” • Augustine (On the Trinity) – “He took upon Himself our punishment without taking upon Himself our guilt, and by accepting the likeness of sinful flesh, He destroyed sin.”

6. Early Medieval Church (5th–11th c.) • Leo the Great – “The sinless blood was shed to pay the debt of sinners.” • Gregory the Great – Christ “took upon Himself the punishment… not on His own account.” • Ambrose of Milan – “He took our death upon Himself, that He might destroy it in Himself.” • Isidore of Seville – “Christ, innocent, suffered the punishment due to sinners.” • The “Agnus Dei” Prayer – “The Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.”

7. High & Late Medieval Scholasticism (11th–15th c.) • Anselm – Only the God-Man can make satisfaction for us. • Thomas Aquinas – Christ “delivered us… by way of satisfaction,” truly “satisfied for us.” • Bernard of Clairvaux – “What He did not owe, He paid; what we owed, He canceled.” • Peter Lombard – Christ “offered Himself to God for us, paying what we could not.”



8. The Reformation (16th–17th c.) • Luther – Christ “was made a curse for us.” (On Gal 3) • Calvin – “Guilt… was transferred to the Son of God.” (Institutes) • Thirty-Nine Articles XXXI – “…perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction…” • Westminster Confession – By His obedience and sacrifice, Christ “fully satisfied the justice of His Father.” • Heidelberg Catechism Q37 – “That… He bore the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race.” • William Tyndale – “Christ is our righteousness, redemption, satisfaction, … he became sin for us, and we are made the righteousness of God by him.”

9. The Evangelical Age (18th–19th c.) • Jonathan Edwards – Christ “suffered the penalty of the law in the stead of sinners.” • Charles Spurgeon – “If our Lord’s bearing our sin for us is not the gospel, I have no gospel to preach.” • Andrew Fuller – “The death of Christ was vicarious, penal, and satisfactory.” • John Wesley – “The Son of God has bought me with his blood; he has satisfied for my sins; he has borne my punishment, and purchased for me the kingdom of heaven.” • George Whitefield – “The great God… laid on him the iniquity of us all, and Christ by his death made full, perfect, and sufficient satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.” • B. B. Warfield – “He substituted Himself for us under the penalty of sin; He took our place, bore our guilt, and by His atoning death made satisfaction to the justice of God for us.”

10. Modern Witness (20th–21st c.) • Martin Lloyd Jones - “It is therefore, quite fitting to say that no-one really begins to understand the love of God and the love of the Lord Jesus Christ who does not believe the substitutionary and penal doctrine of the Atonement.” • J.I. Packer - “The penalty due to me for my sins, whatever it was, was paid for me by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, in his death on the cross.” • John Piper - “For if God did not punish his Son in my place, I am not saved from my greatest peril, the wrath of God” • John Stott – “The essence of sin is man substituting himself for God; the essence of salvation is God substituting himself for man.” • R. C. Sproul – “Imputation is real. God really laid our sins on Christ, and He, in turn, gave His righteousness to us.” • John MacArthur - “If you don’t understand the doctrine of penal substitution, you don’t know why Christ died. • James White - Consider for a moment how precious it is that the Christian can say, ‘I have been crucified with Christ.’ This is a personal atonement, personal substitution. We revel in the awesome love of our Savior who loved us as individuals and gave Himself up for us. For me! Me, the hate‑filled sinner who spurned Him and His love!”
https://x.com/JoshuaBarzon/status/1955632391097081901/photo/1

Conclusion Even though it may be “cool” right now to downplay or deny Penal Substitutionary Atonement, Scripture and history speak with one voice: Christ bore our penalty in our place to satisfy God’s justice and secure our salvation. From the Law and prophets to the words of Jesus and the apostles, from the early church to the Reformers and modern preachers, PSA has been proclaimed as a core truth of the gospel. To abandon it is to hollow out the cross; to hold it is to stand in the stream of biblical, historic, and saving faith. Sources: The Bible

 

[JonC]

I was surprised to find this on the forum X enjoy

Josh Barzon

1. What PSA Means Penal Substitution means that Christ bears the penalty we deserve (penal) in our place (substitution), effecting atonement with God. It doesn’t cancel other atonement motifs (victory, example, ransom); it grounds them. Without Christ taking our sin, we have no salvation. And all of the church echos this loudly as you will see belowView attachment 11786

The OP is kinda dishonest (not you but Josh Barzon).

The reason is the different views are not motifs. Christis Victor is a motif used to incorporate primarily Athanasius' Ransom Theory along with a few others of the Early Church (Satan punishing Jesus, Jesus obtaining victory on our behalf).

The Early Church views can coexist (with an emphasis on a different aspect) as they hold the same motif.

But Penal Substitution Theory cannot be correct if any of the other views are correct, and no other view can be correct if Penal Substitution Theory is correct.

The reason is every theory under Christus Victor is based on Jesus suffering the punishment of this world on our behalf.

This does not change until Aquinas. But even here Aquinas' theory cannot be correct if Penal Substitution is right.

Recently it has bevome popular among Penal Substitution theorists to claim each of these views can coexist. The reason is Penal Substitution, which was never the majority Christisn position, has been suffering loss from within. This is why Penal Substitution is rarely defined with Jesus suffering a punishment from God. It has become Oenal Substitution lite, a newer version of a relatively new view.

Sure there are penal aspects of the Atonement. Sure Christ is a type of Substitute (a "second Adam", the "Son of Man").

But only Penal Substitution Theiry holds that what Jesus suffered was from God and that He suffered instead of us.


The problem here is not that different theories exist. The problem is some take a very superficial view of Penal Substitution and other views to pretend they simply focus on different aspects.


BUT if you truely believe that Penal means onky that Jesus suffered a punishment (not from God) and He died on our behalf (not instead of us, but representative substitution as the "Son of Man" or "Last Adam"), then I agree it can coexist with traditional Chriatianity.

Conclusion Even though it may be “cool” right now to downplay or deny Penal Substitutionary Atonement, Scripture and history speak with one voice: Christ bore our penalty in our place to satisfy God’s justice and secure our salvation. From the Law and prophets to the words of Jesus and the apostles, from the early church to the Reformers and modern preachers, PSA has been proclaimed as a core truth of the gospel. To abandon it is to hollow out the cross; to hold it is to stand in the stream of biblical, historic, and saving faith. Sources: The Bible

The issue with so many abandoning Penal Substitution Theory is not that it "looks cool". The issue is people have become increasingly aware that the philosophy is flawed and it is not actually in God's Word.

The reason that we see an abandonment of the theory in favor of Scripture (of "what is written") is we are seeing God move in a younger generation not bound by tradition. They are studying Scripture and believing what they read while at the same time cautious about religious tradition. They test what people tell then the Bibke teaches against what is actually in God's Word.

Some examples:

No passage in the Bible describes Jesus as suffering God's wrath or punishment.
No passage describes Jesus as dying instead of us.
No passage describes Jesus' death as satisfying divine justice.
No passage states that it is possible to transfer sins from us to Jesus.
No passage describes death as the penalty from God due for our sins
No passage states that God must punish the sins of the repentent.

Scripture does state that the wages of sin are death.
Scripture does state that sin produces death.
Scripture does state that sins cannot be transferred to another.
Scripture does state that God forgives upon repentance.

The philosophy upon which the Penal Substitution Theory is based is increasingly challenged.
The philosophy of Penal Substitution, while once popular, has been proven wrong in the judicial arena.
The philosophy now only exists in religion, and here due to tradition.

 

[Paleouss]

Greetings to you JonC. I hope your night, because that is when my timestamp says you were on, was a good one.

Christis Victor is a motif used to incorporate primarily Athanasius' Ransom Theory along with a few others of the Early Church (Satan punishing Jesus, Jesus obtaining victory on our behalf).

According to the research of Gustaf Aulen (I think late 1800s early 1900s), the theory of Christus Victor (as he defines it) was actually the more representative of the position of the early church fathers (although they didn't formulate a formal expression of the atonement). Only later was the theory of "payment" or "Ransom" added. Thus, possibly making a distinction of the Christus Victor theory as possibly a broad overarching heading with the Ransom theory being a theory under that broad heading.

In other words, saying one holds a Christus Victor theory is not the equivalent of saying one holds the Ransom theory. Although both are very similar since one springs from the other. I only say this because I do think the Penal Substitution theory as strictly applied is in opposition to the Ransom theory as strictly applied. However, I think that the Christus Victor theory (or concept in general) is very compatible with a form of Substitution theory (because I hold one that includes both )

Peace to you brother

No passage in the Bible describes Jesus as suffering God's wrath or punishment.
No passage describes Jesus as dying instead of us.
No passage describes Jesus' death as satisfying divine justice.
No passage states that it is possible to transfer sins from us to Jesus.
No passage describes death as the penalty from God due for our sins
No passage states that God must punish the sins of the repentent.

I would like to challenge some of these to see your response.

No passage describes Jesus' death as satisfying divine justice.

Law Brings Wrath
(Rom 4:15 NKJV) 15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law [there is] no transgression.
(John 3:36 NKJV) 36 "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
(1Th 1:10 NKJV) 10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, [even] Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.
(Rom 5:9 NKJV) 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.


(A) If the Law brings wrath (Rom 4:15)
(B) and we are delivered from the wrath of the Law by Jesus (1Th 1:10, Rom 5:9)

Then is the Law satisfied in some way by Jesus? Is it circumvented? Is it replaced or substituted? What is it for you?

From a different angel....

God showing that He is not only the justifier but also just.
(Rom 3:26 NKJV) 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

(A) If God wants to show that he is "just" then His stratagem in history is to show just that. And if this is one of His stratagems then if follows that God works through and satisfies His own Law in His reconciliation of mankind.

No passage states that it is possible to transfer sins from us to Jesus.

I curious as to how you differentiate between the above quote and the verses below.

Individual Sin
(1Pet 2:24 NKJV) 24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness--by whose stripes you were healed.
(Gal 6:2 NKJV) 2 Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.
(Heb 9:28 NKJV) 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.
(2Co 5:21 NKJV) 21 For He made Him who knew no sin [to be] sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
(1Pet 2:24 NKJV) 24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness--by whose stripes you were healed.

No passage describes death as the penalty from God due for our sins

LAW has Dominion over mankind
(Rom 7:1 NKJV) 1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?

The Law brings death
(Rom 7:5 NKJV) 5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death.

(Rom 7:9 NKJV) 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which [was] to [bring] life, I found to [bring] death.

(Gal 2:19 NKJV) 19 "For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God.

No passage states that God must punish the sins of the repentent.

Although I would concede that it does not explicitly state what you have written above. It does say...

(Rom 7:6 NKJV) 6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not [in] the oldness of the letter.

Paul says that we have "died to what we were held by", which is the law as previously stated by Paul. So clearly something happened to the repentant due to the law, which was due to sins. I'm not sure if you are specifically focused on the word "punishment" in your quote or not.

That's all I have time for today.

Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure (Prov 2)

 

[Zaatar71]

The OP is kinda dishonest (not you but Josh Barzon).

The reason is the different views are not motifs. Christis Victor is a motif used to incorporate primarily Athanasius' Ransom Theory along with a few others of the Early Church (Satan punishing Jesus, Jesus obtaining victory on our behalf).

The Early Church views can coexist (with an emphasis on a different aspect) as they hold the same motif.

But Penal Substitution Theory cannot be correct if any of the other views are correct, and no other view can be correct if Penal Substitution Theory is correct.

The reason is every theory under Christus Victor is based on Jesus suffering the punishment of this world on our behalf.

This does not change until Aquinas. But even here Aquinas' theory cannot be correct if Penal Substitution is right.

Recently it has bevome popular among Penal Substitution theorists to claim each of these views can coexist. The reason is Penal Substitution, which was never the majority Christisn position, has been suffering loss from within. This is why Penal Substitution is rarely defined with Jesus suffering a punishment from God. It has become Oenal Substitution lite, a newer version of a relatively new view.

Sure there are penal aspects of the Atonement. Sure Christ is a type of Substitute (a "second Adam", the "Son of Man").

But only Penal Substitution Theiry holds that what Jesus suffered was from God and that He suffered instead of us.


The problem here is not that different theories exist. The problem is some take a very superficial view of Penal Substitution and other views to pretend they simply focus on different aspects.


BUT if you truely believe that Penal means onky that Jesus suffered a punishment (not from God) and He died on our behalf (not instead of us, but representative substitution as the "Son of Man" or "Last Adam"), then I agree it can coexist with traditional Chriatianity.

Thanks for offering what you can, and stating your view.

 

[JonC]

Thanks for offering what you can, and stating your view.

My pleasure (that's why we post). I may state my view at some time. I like going through different positions (Iron sharpens Iron).

I would like to challenge some of these to see your response.


Law Brings Wrath
(Rom 4:15 NKJV) 15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law [there is] no transgression.
(John 3:36 NKJV) 36 "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
(1Th 1:10 NKJV) 10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, [even] Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.
(Rom 5:9 NKJV) 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.


(A) If the Law brings wrath (Rom 4:15)
(B) and we are delivered from the wrath of the Law by Jesus (1Th 1:10, Rom 5:9)

Then is the Law satisfied in some way by Jesus? Is it circumvented? Is it replaced or substituted? What is it for you?

From a different angel....

God showing that He is not only the justifier but also just.
(Rom 3:26 NKJV) 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

(A) If God wants to show that he is "just" then His stratagem in history is to show just that. And if this is one of His stratagems then if follows that God works through and satisfies His own Law in His reconciliation of mankind.


I curious as to how you differentiate between the above quote and the verses below.

Individual Sin
(1Pet 2:24 NKJV) 24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness--by whose stripes you were healed.
(Gal 6:2 NKJV) 2 Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.
(Heb 9:28 NKJV) 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.
(2Co 5:21 NKJV) 21 For He made Him who knew no sin [to be] sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
(1Pet 2:24 NKJV) 24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness--by whose stripes you were healed.


LAW has Dominion over mankind
(Rom 7:1 NKJV) 1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?

The Law brings death
(Rom 7:5 NKJV) 5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death.

(Rom 7:9 NKJV) 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which [was] to [bring] life, I found to [bring] death.

(Gal 2:19 NKJV) 19 "For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God.


Although I would concede that it does not explicitly state what you have written above. It does say...

(Rom 7:6 NKJV) 6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not [in] the oldness of the letter.

Paul says that we have "died to what we were held by", which is the law as previously stated by Paul. So clearly something happened to the repentant due to the law, which was due to sins. I'm not sure if you are specifically focused on the word "punishment" in your quote or not.

That's all I have time for today.

Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure (Prov 2)

I differentiate the view (the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement) from the passages you listed by taking the passages for what they state (not what some may think they teach). I believe the Atonement is a doctrine that is foundational to our faith, and I believe with these doctrines we have to stick with "what is written" in God's Word (that here the Bibke is teaching what is in the text).

So I believe that Jesus bore our sins and died for our sins. But rather than adding "instead of us" I believe this was as the "last Adam" or "Son of Man" (representative substitution).

We were in nondage to sin and death. The Law was a testimony against the Hews. Jesus was not condemned under the Law but fulfilled the Law. Although the world "esteemed Him stricken by God" and "numbered Him aming the transgressors" the Father's judgment was ti raise Him to His right hand, give Him a name above every names.

But to answer your question, I believe thise passages teach exactly what they state (without additions or changes). I also believe God's Word is eternal (sin produces death, and the wagesof sin is death, sin cannot be transferred, God forgives upon reoentance ....I do not belueve this changed with the Cross).

 

[Paleouss]

Greetings JonC

I differentiate the view (the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement) from the passages you listed by taking the passages for what they state (not what some may think they teach). I believe the Atonement is a doctrine that is foundational to our faith, and I believe with these doctrines we have to stick with "what is written" in God's Word (that here the Bibke is teaching what is in the text).

I understand that you (1) differentiate the view of Penal Substitution with what the exact words of the Bible state. I also understand that you (2) believe the Atonement is a foundational doctrine. What I don't know is "how" you differentiate between the two, i.e., between P.S. and what is written. If you would rather communicate with me in private, then this would be fine.

I do have some complaints about the Penal Substitution theory. Not its general overarching concept of Christ being our substitute and taking on our sins, but regarding two concepts: (A) Its deficiencies and inadequacies in addressing the Son of God's Cosmic Triumph on the cross. This deficiency is a huge inadequacy of what I know to be the traditional P.S.; (B) Its mudding of the waters between a distinction between God's wrath and His justice (i.e., the Law). There are a couple other complaints. But I'll leave it at that.

So I believe that Jesus bore our sins and died for our sins. But rather than adding "instead of us" I believe this was as the "last Adam" or "Son of Man" (representative substitution).

I would first like to emphasize that I am seeking insight. Not trying to bludgeon you with debate. I really want to know how you rationalize with spiritual wisdom, your position.

You state that you believe...(1) Jesus bore our sins. I can only assume that this is in response to these verse that I offered as a challenge.

Individual Sin
(1Pet 2:24 NKJV) 24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness--by whose stripes you were healed.
(Gal 6:2 NKJV) 2 Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.
(Heb 9:28 NKJV) 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.
(2Co 5:21 NKJV) 21 For He made Him who knew no sin [to be] sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
(1Pet 2:24 NKJV) 24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness--by whose stripes you were healed.

For me, looking at these verses. I see some key words that need addressing: (A) bore (as in took on), (B) our sins (which is plural), and (C) fulfill the law of Christ.

So I hear you saying, when you say "I believe that Jesus bore our sins and died for our sins". To mean that you think the Scripture tells us that Christ 'took-on' sin. What is not clear to me is what you think of the verse using the word "sin" in the plural (meaning "sins"). In other words, Christ took on our "sins" (plural).

The nexus of the this particular dilemma I'm trying to drill down on is the topic of... (a) Did Jesus just take on Sin? (notice I think Jesus at least took on Sin itself...also notice the capital "S"). Or did Jesus also (b) take on sins? (plural, and small "s"). In other words, does the plural "sins" suggest some sort of 'counting' method. As in, I had 235 sins, you had 156 sins. Thus, Jesus took on 391 sins from the two of us. OR... did Jesus just take on Sin (capital "S", which encompassed and incorporated all individual sins (small "s")?

But rather than adding "instead of us" I believe this was as the "last Adam" or "Son of Man" (representative substitution).

I'm thinking that my above questions would answer this. But if it doesn't, could you explain how Christ being a 'type' is counter to adding the words "instead of us".

We were in nondage to sin and death.

We agree, in bondage to sin and death.

The Law was a testimony against the Hews

I do not disagree with this, however, wasn't the Law also given “because of transgressions” (Gal 3:19), which was the works of the devil (1John 3:8). These transgressions ran rampant, causing alienation and bringing death (Rom 5:14) and were left unchecked because “sin is the transgression of the law” (1John 3:4) but “where no law is, [there is] no transgression” (Rom 5:14 KJV), and “sin is not imputed when there is no law” (Rom 5:13)

Wasn't the decree of the written law the first representation of God the Father’s stratagem to bring the Law to lawlessness, for sin is lawlessness (1John 3:4), and to put all things under His foot (1Cor 15:24-28, Heb 2:8, 1John 3:8) thereby “destroy the works of the devil” (1John 3:8). The salvo of God’s laws to declare the battle lines and to put all things under His feet, starts with the law that confines and defines transgression, through the “knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20, Rom 7:7); it spotlights sin, so in the light the “offense might abound”(Rom 5:20); therefore, the Law is a “tutor” (Gal 3:24), a guide toward the object of this world’s purposeful end, that which is the beginning and the end, i.e., the Son of God (Rev 22:13, John 1:1, Rev 1:8, Rev 21:6).

Jesus was not condemned under the Law but fulfilled the Law.

Yes, Jesus fulfilled the Law (Matt 5:17) and He was "born under the law" (Gal 4:4).

Although the world "esteemed Him stricken by God" and "numbered Him aming the transgressors" the Father's judgment was ti raise Him to His right hand, give Him a name above every names.

Agreed (Isa 53:4, Isa 53:12)

But to answer your question, I believe thise passages teach exactly what they state (without additions or changes). I also believe God's Word is eternal

Ok

sin produces death

I agree, sin brings death. Gut the law also brings death, does it not? Thus, God countered lawless death with lawful death.

The Law brings death
(Rom 7:5 NKJV) 5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death.

(Rom 7:9 NKJV) 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which [was] to [bring] life, I found to [bring] death.

(Gal 2:19 NKJV) 19 "For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God.

and the wagesof sin is death

Wages as in payment, yes, death is the payment for sin. Under lawless sin, the unlawful payment for sin is death. Under the Law, the lawful payment for sin is death.

sin cannot be transferred

It seems to me this is a crucial point in what I'm trying to explore, i.e., the concept that sin cannot be transferred. This statement of yours equates to me trying to make a distinction previously between Sin (big "S") and sin (small "s"). The big "S" is most certainly the conquering of the "power of Sin". Jesus Christ takes on the power of Sin and conquers it for all mankind. This is the Son of God's Cosmic Triumph.

Howerver,

what about the verses that say Christ bore our "sins" (small "s" and plural)? This seems to suggest some understanding of particular and individual sins. Does it not? Is there an understanding of these particular verses that use the plural to mean more of a Cosmic triumph in your view?

It is my current position that the Bible gives us multiple accomplishments of Christ on the cross. We to often lump all of them into the same binary bag. When they should in fact be divided and applied to the various accomplishments the Scripture is trying to describe. For example, I suggest that the Scripture refers to different overarching accomplishments in various verses. That of the (1) Cosmic Triumph and the (2) Satisfaction from the Law.

God forgives upon reoentance ....I do not belueve this changed with the Cross).

I agree that God forgives upon repentance. I'm not sure what all your statement may intend to include however. For example, it may be a counter for such doctrines of Eternal Justification (primarily springing from the Supralapsarian logic). In which I am also apposed.

Your last statement, I think I am seeing more clearly what you are trying to do. Correct me if I'm wrong here...

(1) If Christ work on the cross forgives individual sins.
(2) Then there need not be forgiveness of sins at the point of belief because forgiveness has already happened on the cross.


Thanks for the thought provoking conversation.


Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure.

 

[Zaatar71]

Penal substitution and atonement is a reformed doctrine. The Arminians, the original Arminians, did not believe in PSA.
There's plenty of Arminians who believe it today, they just don't realize that that's a reformed doctrine,
Arminius was much more reformed, but couldn't stay that way His movement could not stay that way it's swung away from that stuff really fast historically speaking and They recognized that penal substitutionary atonement, where the wrath of God against a sinner is borne by His substitute, Christ, in His place. The only way for that to be the case is if there's a specific people. A specific people who are united with Christ in His death.

The idea, which has become so popular since then, of some kind of hypothetical, non-propitiatory sacrifice.
Because that's what modern Arminian synergists believe. They will say on the one hand, Christ dies in behalf of all of humanity, and all we have to do is accept the free gift. But that changes the nature of Christ's death. It's no longer propitiatory in itself.
It can only become propitiatory with the addition of the act of the human will to enable it. James White

A propitiatory sacrifice removes the wrath of God. So the Arminian who tries to hold a PSA is saying it doesn't remove the wrath of God until man does X, Y, or Z. Now you say, oh, but you're doing the same thing because you think that we're under the wrath of God until regeneration. But the point is, from the Reformed understanding, and I believe the biblical understanding, The elect are united with Christ in his death. Now, God regenerates them at a point in time in their lives in accordance with his will and his purpose, but the certainty of their regeneration and salvation is right there in front of us. It's certain. But the Arminian is saying, no, it's not certain. It's provisional. It's put out there, but it's up to us.
Modern evangelicals who are Arminians just don't know their history and so they don't know that by holding to PSA they're literally holding to a belief that, and I said to some people they didn't understand why I was saying this, when you combine penal substitution atonement with synergistic, non-election-based concept.

James White

What about, can man's actions determine what's the nature of God's knowledge of future events, and Molinism, and all the rest of that kind of wacky stuff comes in. But the point is, PSA requires atonement to be propitiatory, and propitiation means it has to be personal, which means the object of the propitiation has to be known to God. So if I'm to be united with Christ in the effect of his sacrifice, then there's a theology that has to exist behind that. God can't be running around just trying to react to man and make things work out in the end. That doesn't work.
There is a massive, the law was just back then, it's irrelevant now, Old Testament's sort of only semi-canonical, so, the penal aspect, where the holiness of God is in view, just isn't a part of much of that. So, Arminians don't have, they came up with the governmental theory of atonement, moral influence theory, Christus Victor stuff, there's all these other quote-unquote theories, which in most instances have an element of truth to them. Christus Victor, Christ is victorious over his enemies That's just a part. And moral influence?

James White

 

[JonC]

Greetings JonC


I understand that you (1) differentiate the view of Penal Substitution with what the exact words of the Bible state. I also understand that you (2) believe the Atonement is a foundational doctrine. What I don't know is "how" you differentiate between the two, i.e., between P.S. and what is written.

I preached a sermon on the atonement. It went well. I woke up the next morning convicted I has traded God's Word for man's philosophy. I was a Calvinist at the time. I bought a couple dry erase boards, wrote out the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement along with supporting passage (took quite awhike). Then I erased every passage that did not actually support the theory. I was left with no passages.

"Jesus died for our sins, Jesus died for us." Penal Substitution theorists add to that "instead of us".

But the reason is what they assume.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is a reformed version of Thomas Aquinas' theory (of Roman Catholic doctrine). It replaces merit with justice and Aquinas' satisfactory punishment with simple punishment. It applies a 16th century judicial philosophy to divine justice.

Does God have to punish each sin? Not according to the Bible, but He does in order to be just according to a secular philosophy that has been dismissed and only survives in religious theories.

Penal Substitution Theory holds that it is actually impossible for God to forgive sins. God can allow the sinner to escape punishment but only if somebody else is punished for the sins. Forgiveness in Scripture is very different.

 

[Zaatar71]

Yeah, Christians used to believe that, but we've grown up, we've had the Enlightenment, so we don't believe things like that anymore.

But Steve Chalke in a pseudo-evangelical pastor in the UK identified penal substitutionary atonement as cosmic child abuse. Cosmic child abuse. So what they'll do is they will present PSA as if Jesus is the unwilling victim of a tyrannical God the Father, who grabs his innocent child and throws the sins of the world on his back and then curses him and beats him and kills him on the cross and then after all that raises him from the dead. It is necessary that the Son of Man go to Jerusalem, be betrayed into the hands of men, crucified, buried, rise again the third day. It's necessary. I have to do it. This is the Father's will for me. This is why I have come. And so the Son is not some unwilling participant.........James White.

For the Muslims, they don't understand why Jesus was afraid to die. But Jesus wasn't afraid to die. The great burden that Jesus could see coming and understood was bearing the wrath of the Father in the place of his people. Or as Paul put it, He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. He was made to be sin. He was treated It was imputed to him. Just as Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, though we did not perform those righteous deeds, it is imputed to us. Our evil deeds were imputed to him.

James White

All right, back to Isaiah 53. He was pierced for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The chasing for our peace fell upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. So there is suffering on the part of the suffering servant. that results due to our transgressions, our iniquities, chastening that is needed for our peace, and by his wounds we are healed. All of us, like sheep, have gone astray. Each of us has turned to his own way, that is, apart from the purposes and ways of God. But Yahweh has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him. What is that? What is that? I mean, how much more obvious does it have to be? Yahweh has caused the iniquity of us all to fall. All right, back to Isaiah 53. He was pierced for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The chasing for our peace fell upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. So there is suffering on the part of the suffering servant. that results due to our transgressions, our iniquities, chastening that is needed for our peace, and by his wounds we are healed. All of us, like sheep, have gone astray. Each of us has turned to his own way, that is, apart from the purposes and ways of God. But Yahweh has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him. What is that? What is that? I mean, how much more obvious does it have to be?

Yahweh has caused the iniquity of us all to fall. That's not fair. No, that's called mercy. That's the whole point. That's what the gospel is about. Congratulations, welcome to Christianity. Christianity isn't fair. It's grace. It's mercy. He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth like a lamb that is led to slaughter, like a sheep that is slain before its shearers, so he did not open his mouth. What? What is this? Even before that, surely our griefs he himself bore, our sorrows he carried. Whose? Ours, not his. Yet we ourselves esteemed him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. This is as clear a statement of one taking the punishment of others resulting in their forgiveness that you can possibly have.
James White

And it's in the Old Testament. He made him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteous of God in Him. In our place, hupere. The Greek term hupere is PSA. You can't get rid of it. Hupere means in the place of, in behalf of. And it's used over and over and over again of the death of Christ in behalf of sinners.
How can you say the Father condemned the Son? Because the Son voluntarily takes the place of God's people! And the triune God chose to do this in eternity past!
James White

Have you listened to the Garden of Gethsemane discussions? Have you listened to the prayers of Jesus? Have you read John 17 recently? This is not acting against the Son. And that's one of the... Hey, I've tried to be consistent on this one for a long time, and a lot of people have criticized me for it. Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? And what do you hear people do with that? That the Father has turned His back on the Son. That He's acting against the Son. And I go, no! That's a quotation from Psalm 22. Jesus wants us to finish the psalm, the justification, the vindication of that suffering servant in Psalm 22. This is the point of Jesus' ultimate obedience to the Father.
James White

There is a scriptural truth being enunciated when we sing, my name was graven on his hands. It wasn't impersonal. It was personal. See, there are certain sins that need to be forgiven, not just peanut butter sins. Just spread them around, just sort of generic sin type thing. It's specific. It's personal. And yes, all of those that were elected in eternity past, before they came into existence, this is why Paul can say in Ephesians chapter 2, you're seated with him in heavenly places. What do you mean we're seated with him in heavenly places? How can that be the case? We're here on earth. We're in a fallen state.
We're trudging through ignorance and tradition and sin every day. How can you say we're seated it with him in heavenly places? Because the God of the Bible is going to accomplish what the God of the Bible says he's going to accomplish. If you've got a God who's just trying to, you know, respond and do this, that, and the other thing, and I'll do the best I can with this stuff, if you're a Molinist or, you know, whatever mess you're in, okay, you go deal with your stuff over there someplace.
You can't deal with it biblically because you jumped that ship for some philosophical foolishness. But the God of Scripture can say you already see the heavenly places in Christ Jesus because that is a certainty. It is not. It is not a we hope for. And it's not a, well, all election is is God chooses that those who choose him, he's going to do these things for them. That kind of impersonal, upside-down, backwards, man-centered stuff is a mess. So when it says, not punishment inflicted by one person of the Trinity on another ignores the reason why One of the divine persons took on flesh, and one did not. And the voluntariness of that action.
Penal Substitutionary Atonement is the beating heart of the gospel.....James White

So penal, law, holiness of God, substitution, incarnation, voluntary coming of Christ, atonement, true propitiation, removing the wrath of God against sin. This is how we have peace with God. This is how we can be justified.

 

[JonC]

A propitiatory sacrifice removes the wrath of God. So the Arminian who tries to hold a PSA is saying it doesn't remove the wrath of God until man does X, Y, or Z. Now you say, oh, but you're doing the same thing because you think that we're under the wrath of God until regeneration. But the point is, from the Reformed understanding, and I believe the biblical understanding, The elect are united with Christ in his death. Now, God regenerates them at a point in time in their lives in accordance with his will and his purpose, but the certainty of their regeneration and salvation is right there in front of us. It's certain. But the Arminian is saying, no, it's not certain. It's provisional. It's put out there, but it's up to us.
Modern evangelicals who are Arminians just don't know their history and so they don't know that by holding to PSA they're literally holding to a belief that, and I said to some people they didn't understand why I was saying this, when you combine penal substitution atonement with synergistic, non-election-based concept.

James White

Where on earth did anybody get the idea that a "propitiatory sacrifice removes the wrath of God"?

Propropitiation is an appeasement. Wrath is turned aside, but Scripture does not speak of Jesus' death as a propitiatory sacrifice.

Jesus IS the propitiation for our sins. In Him we escape the wrath to come.
God put Him forth as a Propitiation to be received by faith.

When it comes to the Atonement I believe we need to stay closer to Scripture.

 

[Zaatar71]

Propitiation Vines nt.dictionary

[ A-1,Verb,G2433, hilaskomai ]
was used amongst the Greeks with the significance to make the gods propitious, to appease, propitiate," inasmuch as their good will was not conceived as their natural attitude, but something to be earned first. This use of the word is foreign to the Greek Bible, with respect to God, whether in the Sept. or in the NT. It is never used of any act whereby man brings God into a favorable attude or gracious disposition. It is God who is "propitiated" by the vindication of His holy and righteous character, whereby, through the provision He has made in the vicarious and expiatory sacrifice of Christ, He has so dealt with sin that He can show mercy to the believing sinner in the removal of his guilt and the remission of his sins.

Thus in Luke 18:13 it signifies "to be propitious" or "merciful to" (with the person as the object of the verb), and in Hebrews 2:17 "to expiate, to make propitiation for" (the object of the verb being sins); here the RV, "to make propitiation" is an important correction of the AV, "to make reconciliation."

Through the "propitiation" sacrifice of Christ, he who believes upon Him is by God's own act delivered from justly deserved wrath, and comes under the covenant of grace.

Never is God said to be reconciled, a fact itself indicative that the enmity exists on man's part alone, and that it is man who needs to be reconciled to God, and not God to man. God is always the same and, since He is Himself immutable, His relative attitude does change towards those who change. He can act differently towards those who come to Him by faith, and solely on the ground of the "propitiatory" sacrifice of Christ, not because He has changed, but because He ever acts according to His unchanging righteousness.

Jesus was sent "to satisfy justice, to meet the demands of a broken Law, to pay the full debt, to satisfy the penalty. It all must be met; it cannot be ignored. God's love is also just -- love must be just -- and therefore, the only love that is worth talking about is a love that satisfies (ED: totally, fully placates or appeases) justice." (Stedman) Our (in for our sins) is genitive indicating a personal possessive pronoun, those sins we possessed! Jesus personally died for our personal sins, each and every one we personally committed! ....Matheson

The propitiation ("Satisfaction") (2434) (hilasmos akin to hileōs = merciful, propitious) in the NT (only here and 1Jn 2:2+) refers to a sacrifice that turns away the wrath of God and thereby makes God propitious (favorably inclined or disposed, disposed to be gracious and/or merciful, ready to forgive) toward us. Hilasmos means ‘propitiation’ and refers to the effect that Christ’s atonement had on the anger of God, fulfilling the requirements of His justice It is important to make the distinction that propitiation does not mean we must do something to appease God or to placate His anger, but that it refers to something He does to make it possible for men to be forgiven! Glory, Hallelujah!

Steven Cole on propitiation for our sins - So that we don’t get our focus on ourselves, or get puffed up with pride over how loving we are (ED: It is also possible that those with the spirit of anti-Christ were making the claim with their "lips" that they love God, but their "life" proved their words to be a lie), John directs us back to God’s love as seen in His sending His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. ....“Propitiation” means to satisfy God’s justice and wrath toward our sin. His love didn’t just brush aside our sin, because His holiness and justice would have been compromised. Rather, His love moved God to send His own Son, who bore the penalty that we rightly deserved.

John MacArthur - Hebrews 9:5+ translates a form (hilasterion or hilasterios) of this word (hilasmos) as “the mercy seat.” Christ literally became our mercy seat like the one in the Most Holy Place, where the high priest splattered the blood of the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:15+). Christ did this when His blood, spilled on behalf of others, satisfied the demands of God’s holy justice and wrath against sin. (See The MacArthur Bible Commentary - Page 1964)

Wuest - The English word “propitiate” means “to appease and render favorable.” That was the pagan meaning of the Greek word. The pagan worshipper brought gifts to his god to appease the god’s wrath and make him favorable in his attitude towards him. But the God of Christianity needs no gifts to appease His wrath and make Him favorable towards the human race. Divine love springs spontaneously from His heart. His wrath against sin cannot be placated by good works. Only the infliction of the penalty of sin, death, will satisfy the just demands of His holy law which the human race violated, maintain His government, and provide the proper basis for His bestowal of mercy, namely, divine justice satisfied. Hilasmos is that sacrifice which fully satisfies the demands of the broken law. It was our Lord’s death on Calvary’s Cross. Thus does this pagan word accrue to itself a new meaning as it enters the doctrinal atmosphere of the New Testament. (Wuest Word Studies- used by permission)

NET Note on hilasmos says "inherent in the meaning of the word translated atoning sacrifice ( hilasmos) is the idea of turning away the divine wrath, so that “propitiation” is the closest English equivalent. God’s love for us is expressed in his sending his Son to be the propitiation (the propitiatory sacrifice) for our sins on the cross… The contemporary English “atoning sacrifice” communicates this idea more effectively."

ESV Study Bible (borrow) says Hilasmos "means 'a sacrifice that bears God's wrath and turns it to favor" which is "also the meaning of the English word propitiation."

 

[JonC]

Yeah, Christians used to believe that, but we've grown up, we've had the Enlightenment, so we don't believe things like that anymore.

But Steve Chalke in a pseudo-evangelical pastor in the UK identified penal substitutionary atonement as cosmic child abuse. Cosmic child abuse. So what they'll do is they will present PSA as if Jesus is the unwilling victim of a tyrannical God the Father, who grabs his innocent child and throws the sins of the world on his back and then curses him and beats him and kills him on the cross and then after all that raises him from the dead. It is necessary that the Son of Man go to Jerusalem, be betrayed into the hands of men, crucified, buried, rise again the third day. It's necessary. I have to do it. This is the Father's will for me. This is why I have come. And so the Son is not some unwilling participant.........James White.

I agree. The Enlightenment is a reason many have turned from Scripture to various philosophies making sence of what they find simplistic. The wisdom of this world will always view God's Word as foolishness.

You are correct that the complaint that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement amounts to "cosmic child abuse" is an argument out of ignorance. It takes the punishment out of context and focuses on one aspect.

The reason most, however, disagree with the theory is it is foreign to Scripture. It is an "easy-beliveism" that rests completely aoart from Scripture (it looks to the Bible for support, not for what to believe).

 

[kyredneck]

I was surprised to find this on the forum X enjoy

There's good AND filth on X.

 

[Zaatar71]

There's good AND filth on X.

I block several on there
I was surprised to find these posts

 

[Ben1445]

@JonC I would be interested in your explanation of this verse.

I don’t care so much for what people call them, motifs, or anything else. It’s pretty clear to me that God has the victory, he substituted for us, etc.
I would also appreciate anyone who would show me why these “opposing views” are opposing. I don’t really see it but I has a lot to do with how people think that they are using the words.

Anyway, @JonC, your thoughts please.

2 Corinthians 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Jesus, who knew no sin, was made to be sin for us.

Obviously no Christian believes that Jesus was literally made to be sin (made to oppose God, to be evil).

There has been three primary interpretations:

1. Jesus was made to be a sin offering

Pictured as the sacrificial Lamb.

2. God, laying our sins on Christ, saw (for a short time) Jesus as if He were sin.

Is. 53

3. Jesus was made to be sin in the sence that He was made man, sharing our sin.

The third option is the one that I have a problem with as stated.
He was made flesh. Yet, He was without sin. It is not the sharing of the flesh that made Him to be sin for us. “…the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Jesus could have continued to be a man without sharing our sin. The cup “could have” passed from Jesus, but for our salvation, it could not have.

I lean towards #3. The reason I view this interpretation is the context of the passage (reconciling mankind to God) and that sin became the mark of mankind (death spread to all, for all have sinned). I view this as representative substitution (Jesus identified Himself as "the Son of Adam" or The Son of Man").

I think representation is also necessary but doesn’t erase the need for the penalty to be removed. It is not enough to say Jesus is in the same boat with you. If that boat is judgment, I want to be out of that boat. I don’t want to be judged for the sins of the whole world with Christ. But I am not just represented with Christ. We exchanged places. But Jesus is God. Death cannot hold Him. Sin has no power over Him. He conquered death, something men could never do. In that He conquered death, He is not in the same boat He took us out of.

I am curious as well.

We both believe that Jesus died for our sins, that He bore our sins.

But why do you think He did so instead of us (that our sins were transferred from us)?

If they are not transferred, where would that leave us? We would still be sinners. Our sin was imputed to Him as His righteousness is imputed to us. I cannot be reconciled to God if my sins are viewed as my own.

I am not sure why what Jesus has done for us must be defined as an either or question. I am happy to throw out the misrepresentations that are ever set forth. I don’t mean that Jesus can just mean whatever anyone wants Him to mean. I just haven’t figured out why some of the topics are forbidden to be agreeable by some teachers.

I think that redemption itself has many aspects. But in the verse I believe it is "either or".

What #3 is saying is simply that Jesus bore our sins.

We need our sis to be forgiven, not transferred to another person. The problem is not the sinful actions but that we sinned.

Given that Ezekiel 18 explains that sins cannot be transfered from a person, and that God forgives when the sinner repents, I do not think that #2 is a possibility.

But we are talking about two different things. It is appointed man once to die ("sin produces death", "the wages of sin is death") and then the judgment.

We cannot combine these two (the wages of sin and God's judgment) because Scrioture deals with them as different things that occur at different times.

We suffer the wages of sin, the death produced by sin (to dust we shall return), but though we die yet shall we live.
Our sins do not leave us (these are not material things but deeds we have done). We die to sin. We are made new creations in Christ.

The Judgment has been given to Christ ("all Judgment has been given to the Son"). It is Christ-Centered (there is no condemnation in Christ, the condemnation is Light has come into the world and men rejected the Light because their deeds are evil - and the judgment will be the Second Death when Sheol and death are cast into the Lake of Fire prepared for Satan and his demons).

Jesus experienced what all men will experience- death and then Judgment. He died because sin (our sin) produces death. And the judgment - He was raised to the Fathers right hand, given a name above every name. He "became a life giving Spirit".

What are you including in and excluding from the word death?

I think Scripture is fairly clear when it gives us two types of death.
It is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment.

In Genesis God describes the death that became certain for Adam as a physical death (death of the body, "returning to dust"). This is "the wages of sin" for "sin produces death".

BUT there is the second death:

"The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire."

This second death, however, is not the wages of sin (the death that sin produces) but God's judgment against the wicked.

These are inseparable things to me. The physical world is cursed because of sin, and death by sin. There wouldn’t be physical death or God’s judgment without sin.
Why do we die then even after Jesus conquered death? We won’t. We shall not all sleep, but we shall be changed. Christ removes the permanence of both the first and second death. Both are the result of sin. Keeping the garden didn’t become easy after salvation. It is still a cursed earth.

Apart from this we are born flesh, as "Adam was created flesh", "the flesh comes first and then the spiritual". This is to be spiritually dead and in need of spiritual life. But this is not a death (it is a state of needing a type of life, spiritually dead). I would exclude "spiritually dead" from death in this discussion because Scripture does not support being spiritually alive and then dying.

A study into the word death can yield different results. We know that if the body is dead, it has no life in it. Where did that life go? Does the mind cease activity? Some think so. I believe that the story of the rich man and Lazarus is not an old wives tale to scare people into being good. (I have been told as much before.) the dead are conscious, not in their bodies, but in their souls. They have been separated from their bodies. They have departed their bodies. If their souls remained, they would still be living. When the unrighteous are separated from life again at the judgment, they will experience the second death. I don’t think that there is any reason worth separating them. The only difference I see is a matter of timing.

We cannot combine these two (the wages of sin and God's judgment) because Scrioture deals with them as different things that occur at different times.

Micah 7:19
He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us;
he will subdue our iniquities;
and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.
We can be separated from our sins. I won’t be cast away with my sins.

The wages of sin is death. The judgment of God on sin is death. The only difference between them is timing. They are both for the sinner and not for those who have been made righteous by the redemption in Christ.

 

[JonC]

@JonC I would be interested in your explanation of this verse.
. . .

Jesus, who knew no sin, was made to be sin for us.

Obviously no Christian believes that Jesus was literally made to be sin (made to oppose God, to be evil).

There has been three primary interpretations:

1. Jesus was made to be a sin offering
2. God, laying our sins on Christ, saw Jesus as if He were sin.
3. Jesus bore our sins, our sins were laid upon Him.

I lean towards #3. The reason I view this interpretation is the context of the passage (reconciling mankind to God) and that sin became the mark of mankind (death spread to all, for all have sinned). I view this as representative substitution (Jesus identified Himself as "the Son of Adam" or The Son of Man").

I am curious as well.

We both believe that Jesus died for our sins, that He bore our sins.

But why do you think He did so instead of us (that our sins were transferred from us)?

Pictured as the sacrificial Lamb. . . .

I think that redemption itself has many aspects. But in the verse I believe it is "either or".

What #3 is saying is simply that Jesus bore our sins.

We need our sis to be forgiven, not transferred to another person. The problem is not the sinful actions but that we sinned.

Given that Ezekiel 18 explains that sins cannot be transfered from a person, and that God forgives when the sinner repents, I do not think that #2 is a possibility.

But we are talking about two different things. It is appointed man once to die ("sin produces death", "the wages of sin is death") and then the judgment.

We cannot combine these two (the wages of sin and God's judgment) because Scrioture deals with them as different things that occur at different times.

We suffer the wages of sin, the death produced by sin (to dust we shall return), but though we die yet shall we live.
Our sins do not leave us (these are not material things but deeds we have done). We die to sin. We are made new creations in Christ.

The Judgment has been given to Christ ("all Judgment has been given to the Son"). It is Christ-Centered (there is no condemnation in Christ, the condemnation is Light has come into the world and men rejected the Light because their deeds are evil - and the judgment will be the Second Death when Sheol and death are cast into the Lake of Fire prepared for Satan and his demons).

Jesus experienced what all men will experience- death and then Judgment. He died because sin (our sin) produces death. And the judgment - He was raised to the Fathers right hand, given a name above every name. He "became a life giving Spirit".

What are you including in and excluding from the word death?

I think Scripture is fairly clear when it gives us two types of death.
It is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment.

In Genesis God describes the death that became certain for Adam as a physical death (death of the body, "returning to dust"). This is "the wages of sin" for "sin produces death".

BUT there is the second death:

"The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire."

This second death, however, is not the wages of sin (the death that sin produces) but God's judgment against the wicked.

Apart from this we are born flesh, as "Adam was created flesh", "the flesh comes first and then the spiritual". This is to be spiritually dead and in need of spiritual life. But this is not a death (it is a state of needing a type of life, spiritually dead). I would exclude "spiritually dead" from death in this discussion because Scripture does not support being spiritually alive and then dying.

These are inseparable things to me. The physical world is cursed because of sin, and death by sin. There wouldn’t be physical death or God’s judgment without sin. . . .

I cannot agree that both would exist, technically, without sin.

Sin produces death, and we collect these wages because we sin. So I agree on that part. But we sin because our mind is set on the flesh ("flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God). I believe that God judges men, not their sin. The lost, who remain in their sins, are condemned because "they have rejected the Light, for their deeds are evil". The reason they reject the Light is that they "set their minds on the flesh", they do not repent, they do not "die to the flesh". The flesh craves what is contrary to the spirit, and the spirit craves what is contrary to the flesh (Galatians 5).

Remember, we do not escape death because we have all sinned (it is appointed to us to die once), but in Christ we escape the wratg to come.

Yes, God forgives sins. But we still suffer the wages because sin produces death. But there is the Judgment.

Yes, Jesus conquered death (the resurrection). We still die because the wages of sin is death (sin still produces death). But although we die yet shall we live. Death has lost its "sting".

I believe it is important to separate death (the first death) and Judgment (the second death) because so much of Scripture does exactly this. If we combine them then we can make the error of viewing Chriat's death as God's judgment on sin and completely miss Christ's judgment.

Also, throughout Scripture (from Genesis to Revelation) we see these two deaths dealt with differently. Sin produces death as a wage we earn. The Judgment is much more substantially an act of God based on more than man's actions.

Think about it.

It is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment.
Although we die yet shall we live.
The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life.
The gift is not like the trespass.
Death entered through the First Adam, Life through the Last Adam.

We cannot combine the two.


Jesus bore our sin, was made sin for us. We earned the wages He suffered. This is the first death. Jesus died for our sins. BUT not instead of us. We still die, yet so shall we live.

Then Jesus was judged righteous, raised to God's right hand, given a name that is above every name.

It is appointed man to die once and then the Judgment.

@Ben1445

We also need to keep in mind how the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement came about. It was a reform of Aquinas' theory (a reform of Roman Catholic doctrine). As such, it maintains a lot of doctrines that were developed over the 1st thousand years of the Catholic Church (assumptions that went unchallenged).

Anselm developed a theory of Atonement where Adam's sin robbed God of His honor. Jesus died to restore this honor on behalf of mankind.

Aquinas reformed Anselm's theory when honor ceased being the focal point of culture. Instead Aquinas theorized that an innocent man could justly be punished instead of a guilty man if both parties were willing if the punishment was satisfactory punishment. He changed Anselm's basis of honor to merit.

During the Reformation Luther focused on justification by faith. Calvin was trained in secular law (humanistic legal philosophy that sought to reintegrate older philosophical ideas into their contemporary judicial system). Calvin reformed Anselm's theory by changing satisfactory punishment to simple punishment and merit to justice. Calvin (quite famously) relied on a mistranslation of Romans 5 in the Latin Vulgate to determine his view of sin.

The problem is Anselm's theory, which changed to Anselm's theory, which changed to Penal Substitution Theory, was never derived from Scripture. Anselm wanted a view of Atonement better than what had become of Ransom theory (by the 10th century it had become understood as God paying a ransom to Satan).

But error grew to tradition. And tradition is difficult to shake.

 

[Ben1445]

I cannot agree that both would exist, technically, without sin.

Sin produces death, and we collect these wages because we sin. So I agree on that part. But we sin because our mind is set on the flesh ("flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God). I believe that God judges men, not their sin. The lost, who remain in their sins, are condemned because "they have rejected the Light, for their deeds are evil". The reason they reject the Light is that they "set their minds on the flesh", they do not repent, they do not "die to the flesh". The flesh craves what is contrary to the spirit, and the spirit craves what is contrary to the flesh (Galatians 5).

Remember, we do not escape death because we have all sinned (it is appointed to us to die once), but in Christ we escape the wratg to come.

Yes, God forgives sins. But we still suffer the wages because sin produces death. But there is the Judgment.

Yes, Jesus conquered death (the resurrection). We still die because the wages of sin is death (sin still produces death). But although we die yet shall we live. Death has lost its "sting".

I believe it is important to separate death (the first death) and Judgment (the second death) because so much of Scripture does exactly this. If we combine them then we can make the error of viewing Chriat's death as God's judgment on sin and completely miss Christ's judgment.

Also, throughout Scripture (from Genesis to Revelation) we see these two deaths dealt with differently. Sin produces death as a wage we earn. The Judgment is much more substantially an act of God based on more than man's actions.

Think about it.

It is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment.
Although we die yet shall we live.
The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life.
The gift is not like the trespass.
Death entered through the First Adam, Life through the Last Adam.

We cannot combine the two.


Jesus bore our sin, was made sin for us. We earned the wages He suffered. This is the first death. Jesus died for our sins. BUT not instead of us. We still die, yet so shall we live.

Then Jesus was judged righteous, raised to God's right hand, given a name that is above every name.

It is appointed man to die once and then the Judgment.

I think you are splitting hairs here to make a wig. The sin doesn’t feel the punishment. It is man who earns the punishment by the sins he commits. The tolerance in the day of judgement that is received by sodom and Gomorrah is in the judgment of sin but because of less information of the Savior and the Law. It is still the sin that is judged. It is the man who receives the judgment for his own sin. Sin is not a being and doesn’t receive judgment or wages. What you have said sounds like saying I don’t get paid but the work I did does.

 

[JonC]

I think you are splitting hairs here to make a wig. The sin doesn’t feel the punishment. It is man who earns the punishment by the sins he commits. The tolerance in the day of judgement that is received by sodom and Gomorrah is in the judgment of sin but because of less information of the Savior and the Law. It is still the sin that is judged. It is the man who receives the judgment for his own sin. Sin is not a being and doesn’t receive judgment or wages. What you have said sounds like saying I don’t get paid but the work I did does.

Exactly. Sin is not only a being but it is also not a material thing. Sins we have committed cannot be transferred (not only because we read in Ezekiel that guilt cannot be transferred but also because sins are not things. Some have the same issue with wrath (if God forgives me of a sin then the wrath has to go somewhere, so God punished Jesus). It is not coherent.

No, I am saying the wages OF sin is death (you earn death, recieve death by sinning). It is like poison. If you drink the poison you will die.

I think you may want to re-examine Matthew 10. Jesus said that the judgment on those who reject the gospel bring preached by those Disciples would be worse than the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah. Why is that city bring judged? For sins? No. For rejecting the message carried by the Disciples.

Another important point Scripture makes is that we were not under the Law (we would be among those who sinned apart from the Law, death reigning even to those apart from the Law).

The Law is important to understanding the Resurrection (it is vital), but sin transcends the Law.

These distinctions are not minor, just to be glossed over. They are important. Scrioture makes these distinctions many times (what I posted, these differences, were passages and not my own words).

Greetings to you JonC. I hope your night, because that is when my timestamp says you were on, was a good one.

According to the research of Gustaf Aulen (I think late 1800s early 1900s), the theory of Christus Victor (as he defines it) was actually the more representative of the position of the early church fathers (although they didn't formulate a formal expression of the atonement). Only later was the theory of "payment" or "Ransom" added. Thus, possibly making a distinction of the Christus Victor theory as possibly a broad overarching heading with the Ransom theory being a theory under that broad heading.

In other words, saying one holds a Christus Victor theory is not the equivalent of saying one holds the Ransom theory. Although both are very similar since one springs from the other. I only say this because I do think the Penal Substitution theory as strictly applied is in opposition to the Ransom theory as strictly applied. However, I think that the Christus Victor theory (or concept in general) is very compatible with a form of Substitution theory (because I hold one that includes both )

Peace to you brother

I disagree to an extent. Aulen used "Christus Victor" as a name for Ransom Theory. That said, it is more of a motif but perhaps the same is true of "Ransom Theory" (it became "God paying Satan", but this was not the original intent with every ECF).

There are a few reasons that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is at odds with every "Classic" view.

1. Penal Substitution Theory presents Jesus as suffering God's punishment or wrath.
2. Penal Substitution Theory combines the death sin "begats" and God's Judgment
3. Penal Substitution Theory relies on a philosophy of justice that is incompatible
4. Penal Substitution Theory bases divine forgiveness on punishment

Penal Substitution Theory is also incompatible with the theories from which it was developed (Anselm' theory and Aquinas' theory) as each holds a different purpose of Atonement.

The only way Penal Substitution Theory can co-exist with any other view is that the other view be stripped of its doctrine.

 

[Paleouss]

I preached a sermon on the atonement. It went well. I woke up the next morning convicted I has traded God's Word for man's philosophy. I was a Calvinist at the time. I bought a couple dry erase boards, wrote out the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement along with supporting passage (took quite awhike). Then I erased every passage that did not actually support the theory. I was left with no passages.

Greetings JonC. I apologize for the late response. Life things interrupted my typical study routine. Just getting to all the posts you have put in this thread.

In response to your witness in the above quote. This is why, for me, I am a life long learner of God and His wisdom. I often get in my own way, as I believe we all do, regarding God's wisdom. It is the very reason I often sign off with Prov 2. Once we think we are all correct in all our theology... is when the prideful heart has veiled the light from shinning through.

Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure (Prov 2).

Greetings again JonC

Does God have to punish each sin?

It would appear that one of your main concerns is the concept that God has to "punish each sin". I take this as a response to one of my questions ....

In other words, does the plural "sins" suggest some sort of 'counting' method. As in, I had 235 sins, you had 156 sins. Thus, Jesus took on 391 sins from the two of us. OR... did Jesus just take on Sin (capital "S", which encompassed and incorporated all individual sins (small "s")?

To this, I'm taking your answer to be, no, God does not "punish" each individual sin BUT takes on "Sin" (big "S") itself. Which is sufficient for all. Is that right?

I would like to make a distinction, however. The distinction is this...

(a) The punishment of God upon Jesus Christ was equal to and in magnitude of the number of sins taken on. (the more the sins the more the punishment).

(b) The punishment of God upon Jesus Christ was equal to and in magnitude of what it took for the full destruction of the power of sin, everywhere. (the number of sins doesn't matter, for Jesus takes on the power of sin itself).

Penal Substitution Theory holds that it is actually impossible for God to forgive sins. God can allow the sinner to escape punishment but only if somebody else is punished for the sins. Forgiveness in Scripture is very different.

I have read you saying this a few times, but I'm not sure of the complete logic or theology behind it. What you say being, "PST holds that it is actually impossible for God to forgive sins".

Now, if I take this just as written, it would surely be in error. From what I know the PST most certainly thinks God can forgive sins. But you actually mean something more than this. What you mean is that...

(1) If God is said to be bound to doing justice
(2) then God cannot simply do what he pleases and forgive sins (God must punish sins before He forgives sins).
(3) God can do what He pleases and just forgive sins.
(4) therefore God is not bound to justice and doesn't need to punish sins before sins are forgiven.

Do you think I am close to what you are saying?


Peace to you brother

I disagree to an extent. Aulen used "Christus Victor" as a name for Ransom Theory. That said, it is more of a motif but perhaps the same is true of "Ransom Theory" (it became "God paying Satan", but this was not the original intent with every ECF).

Greetings JonC. Hope and gace to you, brother.

Just some nice outline notes I found.

Aulén’s account – And so Aulén advances an alternative account, one in which the Christus Victor view will be seen to be the classic, original, and true atonement doctrine of Christianity.

• The Christus Victor view dominated the first 1,000 years of the church (143). It is the true Christian view, emerging with Christianity itself (143). It is the view held by the New Testament (ch. 4). And the Patristics, such as Irenaeus, are in direct continuity with the New Testament (143). Rather than have nothing substantial to say about the atonement, they articulate and develop this classic position (chs. 2-3).
• In the 3rd century, Cyprian brought the Latin view into being by taking Tertullian’s theology of penance and merit and applying them to the atonement (81-82).
• But it took as long Anselm for the Latin theory to be given its fullest expression (84). From then on, except for a few outliers like Abelard (95-97), it becomes the dominant view in the moralistic world of Medieval scholasticism (95), although occasional glimpses of the classic view still persist (6, 95, 98-100).
• Although Martin Luther is often depicted as a champion of the Latin view, Aulén argues that this is a misunderstanding which stems back from Luther’s immediate successors, such as Melanchthon (123-128). Luther was actually a champion, recoverer, and developer of the classic view (xxii; 15, ch. 6, 143). In fact, it is inconceivable that Luther, with his doctrine of grace, would succumb to an atonement theory structured by legalism (14, 107, 112-113, 120-121, 123, 126 144). Nonetheless, his successors—Protestant Orthodoxy—did not get the memo, and drifted back to the Latin view (xxii, 123-133).

 

[JonC]

Greetings JonC. Hope and gace to you, brother.

Just some nice outline notes I found.

Thanks. I have the book as well.

Reading the book Aulen seems to use Christus Victor to mean the theme of the early church views (the "Classic" views as opposed to the "Latin".

I really don't care what it is called. I prefer "biblical Atonement" because it is what is found in the text of Scripture. The "Latin" views (Satisfaction theory, Substitution Theory, and Penal Substitution Theory) are based on reasoning out a theory via whatever philosophy was dominant at the time.

I simply believe that we are more fairhful to Scripture when we trust in the text of Scripture for such important doctrines.

Greetings again JonC


It would appear that one of your main concerns is the concept that God has to "punish each sin". I take this as a response to one of my questions ....

To this, I'm taking your answer to be, no, God does not "punish" each individual sin BUT takes on "Sin" (big "S") itself. Which is sufficient for all. Is that right?

I would like to make a distinction, however. The distinction is this...

(a) The punishment of God upon Jesus Christ was equal to and in magnitude of the number of sins taken on. (the more the sins the more the punishment).

(b) The punishment of God upon Jesus Christ was equal to and in magnitude of what it took for the full destruction of the power of sin, everywhere. (the number of sins doesn't matter, for Jesus takes on the power of sin itself).


I have read you saying this a few times, but I'm not sure of the complete logic or theology behind it. What you say being, "PST holds that it is actually impossible for God to forgive sins".

Now, if I take this just as written, it would surely be in error. From what I know the PST most certainly thinks God can forgive sins. But you actually mean something more than this. What you mean is that...

(1) If God is said to be bound to doing justice
(2) then God cannot simply do what he pleases and forgive sins (God must punish sins before He forgives sins).
(3) God can do what He pleases and just forgive sins.
(4) therefore God is not bound to justice and doesn't need to punish sins before sins are forgiven.

Do you think I am close to what you are saying?


Peace to you brother

What I mean is Penal Substitution Theory holds that God can allow me to escape punishment but sins themselves have to be punished (either Jesus suffered that punishment or the guilty will suffer that punishment).

The word "forgiveness" means not seeking retribution or imposing a penalty for an offense.

The philosophy that Penal Substitution Theory is founded upon (a 16th century judicial philosophy) insists that justice demands crimes be punished. Yes, I am saying that God forgives sins, BUT not simply willy nilly (biblically repentance is required, which he is turning from oneself to God).