The Biblical Propitiation Of God's Wrath, and PSA.

[Zaatar71]

From John Murray in His Book Redemption, Accomplished, and Applied;
2. Propitiation.
a. Differences in use of “atonement” in Old Testament in connection with ritual of expiation with the use in the NT.
1.) There are passages in which propitiation is expressly applied to the work of Christ.

a.) Romans 3:25- Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

b.) Hebrews 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

c.) 1Jn 2:2]- And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

d.) [1 John 4:10]- Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
2.) Sacrifices and propitiation stand in the closest relations with one another.

b. Propitiation in the Old Testament means to “cover”.
1.) In reference to sin that the covering takes place.
2.) The effect of this covering in cleansing and forgiveness.
3.) It is before the Lord that both the covering and its effect takes place.

a.) [Lev.4:35]- And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.

b.) [Leviticus 10:17]- Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?

c.) [Leviticus 16:30]- For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD.
c. Propitiation in the New Testament means to “placate”, “pacify”, “appease”, and “conciliate”.

1.) Christ propitiated the wrath of God and rendered God propitious to His people.
d. Criticisms of the Doctrine of Propitiation in the Gospel.
1.) To love and to be propitious are not convertible.
a.) Propitiation does not cause or constrain divine love.

2.) Propitiation is not a turning of the wrath of God into love.

a.) Propitiation is the provision of God’s eternal and unchangeable love.

b.) Propitiation is the fruit of the divine love that provided it.

c.) [1 John 4:10]- Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
3.) Propitiation does not detract from the love and mercy of God; it rather enhances the marvel of His love.

a.) Rom.3:25-26- Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

b.) The Atonement meets the exigencies of holiness and power.

1.) [Romans 1:18]- For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

2.) [1 John 2:1-2]- My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only,but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

[JonC]

The mean of the word "propitiation is to turn aside or avoid something, particularly wrath or anger. I think this is evident in that it is in Christ we "escape the wrath to come". Jesus IS the Propitiation for the sins of the Wirld (the ONLY Propitiation).

But it is one thing to speak of propitiation and another entirely to speak of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Penal Substitution Theory does not focus on propitiation but on a way the theory thinks wrath is turned from the wicked (by turning it to God's "Righteous One").

It would be an error to ignore Christ as the Propitiation for our sins, but it would be an equally abhorrent error to twist Scripture to fit the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

 

[Zaatar71]

From Sermon notes From Albert N. Martin;
c. Propitiation in the New Testament means to “placate”, “pacify”, “appease”, and “conciliate”.

1.) Christ propitiated the wrath of God and rendered God propitious to His people.
d. Criticisms of the Doctrine of Propitiation in the Gospel.
1.) To love and to be propitious are not convertible.
a.) Propitiation does not cause or constrain divine love.

2.) Propitiation is not a turning of the wrath of God into love.

a.) Propitiation is the provision of God’s eternal and unchangeable love.

b.) Propitiation is the fruit of the divine love that provided it.

c.) [1 John 4:10]- Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
3.) Propitiation does not detract from the love and mercy of God; it rather enhances the marvel of His love.

a.) Rom.3:25-26- Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

 

[Zaatar71]

The mean of the word "propitiation is to turn aside or avoid something, particularly wrath or anger. I think this is evident in that it is in Christ we "escape the wrath to come". Jesus IS the Propitiation for the sins of the Wirld (the ONLY Propitiation).

But it is one thing to speak of propitiation and another entirely to speak of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Penal Substitution Theory does not focus on propitiation but on a way the theory thinks wrath is turned from the wicked (by turning it to God's "Righteous One").

It would be an error to ignore Christ as the Propitiation for our sins, but it would be an equally abhorrent error to twist Scripture to fit the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

Your stated objections will be answered in this thread.

 

[Zaatar71]

ibid
And that's of course the point that Spurgeon asked, Owen asked, did Jesus Christ die as much for the Sodomites as for Noah and It seems to me that, as we drew that out with people, the problem was that I had a different idea of what the atonement to me is. They had some idea that the atonement was some big glob of infinite something, and you just draw upon that glob. It's not that my sins were put there. Strict substitution is not understood. Exactly. Exactly, Paul. That's a vital point.

The minute we begin to understand that the atonement was a work of vicarious penal satisfaction rendered to God, you're going to end up with one of two things. If you're going to hold to that, you're going to end up with full-blown universalism or true biblical particularism. Because if it was real substitution, then real payment was made for real sin of real sinners that secures real release. Absolutely.

 

[Zaatar71]

ibid;
Objections to the doctrine of definite atonement, textual objections A, B, C, and then we'll look at practical objections and then emotional objections. Under the first category, textual objections, the first category is text in which the word world is used to describe the objects of the death of Christ. John 1.29, Behold the Lamb of God, who beareth away the sins, or the sin of the world.

1 John 2.2, He is propitiation, not for ours only, but also for the whole world.
Then the second category of textual objection are the texts in which the word all or every are used to describe the objects of Christ's death.
2 Cor. 5:15, and that he died for all. Romans 8.32, delivered him up for us all. 1 Timothy 4.6, who gave himself a ransom for all. Hebrews 2.9, who tasted death for every man. And that just about exhausts the texts.

 

[Zaatar71]

Ibid;
Strict substitution is not understood. That's a vital point. The minute we begin to understand that the atonement was a work of vicarious penal satisfaction rendered to God, you're going to end up with one of two things. If you're going to hold to that, you're going to end up with full-blown universalism or true biblical particularism. Because if it was real substitution, then real payment was made for real sin of real sinners that secures real release. Absolutely.
First of all, the Bible makes it plain that the role of God's elect is not a small role, that the idea of scripture is not that a few are to be saved, but that a great multitude shall be saved. Our second answer is that in constricting or restricting the atonement to those who are only saved, this alone gives full credit to the efficacy and the glory of that atonement. As has been often said, every man limits the atonement, either in its efficacy or in its extent, but limit it he must.
Man's emotions have been tainted by sin and that's why there is an emotional affinity for the doctrine of universal redemption. But when you see what you give up, to follow the dictates of emotion. Give up all the glorious truth concerning the eternal covenant. Give up the whole doctrine of union with Christ. Give up the whole doctrine of the unity of his priestly function. Give up the whole doctrine of strict penal substitution and satisfaction. When you've given up all that to satisfy your emotions, that's a terrible price to pay.

 

[Zaatar71]

The first great error concerning the propitiation is that which I'm calling paganizing the propitiation. paganizing the propitiation. That is, taking the biblical concept of propitiation and allowing it to be shaped and molded by the concepts of pagan religion, which are nothing but the expression of depraved man when he touches religious thought and religious activity. That's what paganism is.
Now, there are two strands of paganizing the propitiation. One is a strand of paganizing found in the thinking and writing and speaking of the avowed enemies of the gospel. Now, they don't call themselves that, but that's what they are. And therefore, I shall call it the heresy of the enemies of the gospel who paganize the propitiation.
The paganizing of the propitiation has two basic strands. The paganizing found in the heresy of the enemies of the gospel, and the error in the thinking of the friends of the gospel. Alright, first of all then, the heresy of the enemies of the gospel.

Well, you see, the enemies of truth, instead of looking at the truth in its beautiful symmetry as found in the scripture, they take a facet of a truth and they stretch it out of all due proportion until it becomes ugly. And they say to people, look at that ugly thing. You don't worship a God like that, do you? Now that's precisely what the enemies of the gospel have done with the doctrine of propitiation. They have presented it as a pagan notion that is utterly repulsive to anyone who has any sympathy for the Christian gospel.

Well, you see, the enemies of truth, instead of looking at the truth in its beautiful symmetry as found in the scripture, they take a facet of a truth and they stretch it out of all due proportion until it becomes ugly. And they say to people, look at that ugly thing. You don't worship a God like that, do you? Now that's precisely what the enemies of the gospel have done with the doctrine of propitiation. They have presented it as a pagan notion that is utterly repulsive to anyone who has any sympathy for the Christian gospel.

 

[Zaatar71]

In a Second message on this vital topic, Pastor Martin offered this;
Now, what is the essential pagan concept of propitiation? I have found no clearer simple statement of that issue than is found in J.I. Packer's book, Knowing God, Chapter 18, The Heart of the Gospel, in which he says this, The idea of pagan propitiation is as follows.

There are various gods, none enjoying absolute dominion, but each one with some power to make life easier or harder for you. The temper of these gods is uniformly uncertain. They take offense at the smallest things, or they get jealous because they feel you're paying too much attention to the other gods and other people, and not enough to them. And then they take it out on you by manipulating circumstances to your harm. Why, the only course at that point is to humor and mollify that god by an offering. The rule with offerings is, the bigger, the better. For the gods are inclined to hold out for something sizable. In this they are cruel and heartless. But they have the advantage, so what can you do? They can make it rough on you, so you don't like the terms, you've got to live with it. It's sort of like every tax increase. Whether you like it or not, somebody else is making it, you've got to live with it. Well, there's the concept you see you've got these many gods very capricious You can never predict whether they're going to smile in the morning or frown or be angry and if they get angry They can begin to make things rough for you So you've got to placate them by offering a gift and of course the bigger the gift the more power you'll have with the deity human sacrifice in particular is expensive but effective and Thus pagan religion appears as a callous commercialism, a matter of managing and manipulating your gods by cunning bribery, and within paganism, propitiation, the appeasing of celestial bad tempers, takes its place as a regular part of life, one of the many irksome necessities that one cannot get on without.

Now that is the most clear, simple layman's definition of the pagan concept of propitiation I've found anywhere. In all the hundreds of pages I've read on propitiation, that says it beautifully. You got the idea now.

 

[Zaatar71]

He continues here;
The pagan with his idea of many gods, all of them different, all of them vying for control, capricious. If things go bad with you in their sickness and calamity, why, one of the gods is irked by something you're doing, so you present him sacrifices, and if the circumstances don't change, give him a bigger one. He may be up there on the bargaining table saying, I don't like the terms yet. Give me more. Give me more. until the ultimate sacrifice, human sacrifice, is made to appease the gods. Now, the enemies of the gospel come along and they say, These evangelical Christians, these Reformed Christians, these people that tote their Bible and quote their Bible, they tell you that there's an angry God in heaven. And that angry God must look down and see the blood of his own son. And seeing the blood of his own son, rings his hands with delight and says, isn't that wonderful? My son is shedding his blood. Oh, that's lovely. Now I'll be merciful. They say, is that the God you worship? Ridiculous. You see, they present a caricature of this mean, capricious, angry God, who somehow has an almost sadistic delight in seeing His Son suffer, and beholding Him suffer, then will be merciful to sinners. And they say, that's ridiculous. That is so far into the concept of the God of the Bible.

Now follow me closely. Oh yes, God sees sin and moral evil and it breaks his loving heart. He is disappointed that men destroy themselves by their sin. He is frustrated that his love does not conquer. Do you know what he did? He allowed his son to die, the supreme example of good, suffering at the hands of evil, with the hope that his men behold this example of the triumph of selfless love. It will break their hearts. show them their selfishness, and they will no longer seek to be tight-fisted rebels, but will seek to be loving servants of God. And that's their doctrine of the cross. And they say it's abominable to think that God would be like the pagan gods who are angry and capricious. Well, what is our answer to that heresy of the enemies of the gospel? And it is nothing but blatant, damnable heresy.

 

[Zaatar71]

The God of Gethsemane and Golgotha is the God who placed the burning sword at the entrance to Eden. is the God who sent the flood upon the world of the ungodly. The God of Golgotha and Gethsemane is the God who turned the cities of the plain into burning ashes. The God who opened up the earth so that it swallowed up Nadab and Abihu and they went down alive into hell. He is the God of infinite and eternal and burning light and therefore the God of infinite and holy wrath. Romans 1:18 has never been scrubbed from the record of God's will and mind. The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. There is wrath as an active, positive expression of God's antipathy to sin.
We see wickedness is great after the flood. Why no flood? We see wickedness right here. We are living Main Street Sodom in the New York metropolitan area.
When men flaunt their homosexuality and their perversion and their deviant behavior, why no fire and brimstone?
Is God less righteous now?
Is God less angry with sin and sinners?
What about the generations whose sins cried up to heaven for a flood, for fire and brimstone?
It appeared as though God was not righteous. What was He doing?

He was passing over sin in His forbearance. Why? Because he was waiting for the fullness of the times when he would send his son, now get the text, when he set him forth, he set him forth to be what? Propitiation. To declare His righteousness, what is God saying? God is saying, I have not ceased to be a God of light simply because I have not dealt with men's sins as severely after the flood as I did before the flood. And you want to know how I still feel about sin?
Behold my Son upon the cross.
Behold Him turning away my wrath by becoming the object of my wrath. Do you want to know how I feel about sin?
Behold my Son, the sinless One.
Behold Him in all of His spotless innocence.
Behold Him in the purity of His character, so that His worst enemies cannot find a just accusation against Him.
Behold Him in His perfect innocence.
Behold Him in His spotless moral purity. And now behold Him, falling upon the ground, sweating as it were great drops of blood, somehow confronted with what He calls a cup, and turning away in revulsion from it, and yet in holy obedience embracing it
Behold Him under the shrouded heavens.
Behold His riding form.
Behold His cry.
Behold His agony. Do you want to know if I'm still the God of light?
Behold my Son! I set Him forth, a propitiation. Am I righteous? Look at my Son!
Behold the rod of righteousness coming down upon Him, demanding death of the sinner, who, as He substitutes for those whom the Father has given Him, He has constituted the sinner as much as though He Himself had sinned.

God has set him forth a propitiation to show what? To show that in passing over the sins of generations, he was not lenient towards sin. He had not evolved from the God of love and anger, light and love into a God of pure love. No, no. He is immutably, eternally, unchangeably light and love. Now verse 26, For the showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season, that he himself might be just, and yet the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus. Do you see the argument of the Apostle Paul?

Propitiation is the answer to the great dilemma within the nature of God. How can he in love forgive? and in light punish sin. Christ is set forth of propitiation, and the anger of God falls upon the appointed substitute, so that all that is demanded of God's character as a God of light, all of His justice and holiness find full expression. And all of His love finds full expression in the providing of such a Savior. and in the giving of Him on behalf of needy sinners. So when the enemies of the gospel make a caricature of propitiation, may we understand that that is precisely what it is, nothing but a caricature And I quote further from Mr. Packer who says, so far from calling in question the morality of God's way of dealing with sin, Paul says, based on this passage we've just expounded, Paul says the truth of propitiation establishes the morality of God. and was explicitly intended to establish it. Paul's point is that the public spectacle of propitiation at the cross was a public manifestation, not merely of justifying mercy on God's part, but of righteousness and justice as the basis of justifying mercy.

So the paganizing of the propitiation by the enemies of the gospel is laid to rest.

 

[Zaatar71]

He continues here;
So much for the heresy of the enemies of the gospel who paganize the propitiation. Now, very briefly, the error of paganizing the propitiation manifested in the friends of the gospel. And again, I emphasize, I choose a different word. Some of you need a little more grace in the way you handle the truth. and in the way you expose error. You're ready to call every deflection heresy. No, you shouldn't do that. Heresy is a tenet which, if held, is inconsistent with a state of grace, at least the way I use it and the way it's generally used in Christian literature. An error is a deviation which, though serious, particularly in its fruits, and contrary to the Word, may not be inconsistent with being in a state of grace. So I'm speaking not about the heresy of paganizing the propitiation by the Friends of the Gospel, but the error. Now what is the error? Well, it's this idea, well yes, God is a God of light, and He ought to be angry with sin and sinners, and He must and will punish sin. Christ is the embodiment of love who intervenes between the wrath-deserving sinner and the angry holy God. The result is that Christ has turned the wrathful God into a loving God by His sacrifice. Now you see the error? The error is not in denying that God is a God of wrath. The error is found in denying that He is at the same time both wrathful and loving. And you have then the loving Jesus placating the angry father so that sinners might be accepted. Now, the answer to this error falls into two fundamental categories. Number one, it is anti-Trinitarian, and secondly, it fails to do justice to the love of God as the starting point in providing the propitiation. You see, God is one in essence, will, and purpose. There is a unity of desire and attribute and will within the Godhead. What the Father wills, the Son and the Spirit wills. What the Father, may I say it reverently, feels in the motions of infinite and sovereign love, the Son and the Spirit feel in the motions of infinite, sovereign, and eternal love. So then all of the holiness and justice of God are present and active in all three persons of the Godhead. Is the Father angry with sin? The Son is angry with sin. You read it in the Gospels. Jesus looking round about him being angered for their hardness of heart. When you see Him going through the temple, turning over the tables of the money changers, and driving out the oxen with a scourge, what is that? That's divine anger in human manifestation. The Spirit is angry. You see what happened when people lied to Him in Acts chapter 5, He killed them. Why hast thou lied to the Holy Ghost? So you see, we must never conceive of the propitiation as though the Father is in the posture of wrath alone and the Son is in the posture of love to his people, and by the work of the Son, the Father's wrath is satisfied so that he is now free to love us. That would be anti-Trinitarian. As one man has said, the idea that the Son changed the mind of his unkind father by offering himself in the place of sinful men is no part of the gospel message. It is sub-Christian. Indeed, it is anti-Christian, for it denies the unity of will in the Father and the Son, and in reality falls back into polytheism, asking us to believe in two different gods. So that error must be forever purged from our thinking. All of our thinking of God the Father, Son, and Spirit must be Trinitarian.

 

[Zaatar71]

Once more He quotes from Professor Murray;
The supreme manifestation of the love of God, is in the sending of His Son to be propitiation. So the whole concept of propitiation, the whole enactment of everything leading to propitiation, the incarnation, the supporting of our Lord in all of His trials and temptations so that He would be the sinless, divine, human Savior. And then all of these strange and mysterious interactions of the triune Godhead upon the cross in propitiation. These, John says, are the supreme manifestation of the love not only of the Son, Ephesians 5, Christ loved the church, gave himself, but it's the supreme manifestation of the love of God the Father. He hath sent him to be propitiation. So we do not say that the wrathful God is made loving by the propitiation. Rather, we say the wrathful God is loving in the provision of propitiation.

See the difference? He is both light and love, eternally, essentially, immutably. And therefore, the God of wrath, who does have a positive aversion to sin, even the sin in his elect, who does have this positive attitude of anger to the sinner, even the elect sinner in his sin, and who wills to punish sin in the person of the sinner. The wrathful God is wonder of wonders, the loving God. who in eternity conceives a way in which there can be the fullest expression of all that He is as the God of light, and all that He is as the God of love, and the only way that could be expressed was in the incarnation and then the agony and sufferings of the incarnate God Himself until we stand back amazed and say that only the mind of God could conceive such a plan that causes God to be manifestly just and yet the justifier of sinners. Only love as deep and powerful as divine love could submit to all of the self-sacrifice within the triune Godhead so that a propitiation might be made for sinners. I quote now from Professor Murray who says the doctrine of the propitiation is precisely this, that God loved the objects of his wrath so much that he gave his own son to the end that he by his blood should make provision for the removal of this wrath. It was Christ's soul to deal with the wrath that the loved ones would no longer be the objects of wrath, and love would achieve its aim of making the children of wrath the children of God's good pleasure.

Oh, dear people, that's the propitiation. And we must be done with the error found even among the friends of the gospel with any thought that Christ is the great loving object of the Trinity in securing our salvation. The Father is the great anger object in the accomplishment of our salvation. No, it is the Father so loving the objects of His wrath that He goes to the extremes of propitiation to turn away the wrath. that the objects of His love might be accepted on a just and a righteous grounds.

The propitiation is the ground upon which divine love operates and the channel in which it flows in attaining its end. Oh, may I state it as bluntly as I know how. The love of God expressed in any other way than providing propitiation could not secure your salvation. But it was the love of God that planned it and secured it. Therefore, we do not worship God only in the purity of His infinite wrath and holiness manifested in the actual circumstances of the sacrifice, but we worship Him as the God of infinite love, whose love would ever design so mysterious a scheme as to secure the righteous release of guilty sinners. Now, having described and expounded the error of paganizing the propitiation, let me attempt to bring all of this home, as the old writers would say, to your bosom, to your conscience, to bring it all home to the point where you live and where you have dealings with God. Let me ask you a couple of very simple questions. Every boy, every girl, man, woman, I'm asking you this question sitting in this place this morning. Have you ever taken seriously the reality of divine wrath against human sin? Have you ever given five minutes serious thought to what it means that God is angry with the wicked every day?

 

[Zaatar71]

These lengthy sections of sermon transcripts, and quotes from the book, while a bit lengthy, work to give a more complete understanding of what is at issue. A correct and biblical view of biblical propitiation, and PSA. are abundantly clear.

 

[JonC]

These lengthy sections of sermon transcripts, and quotes from the book, while a bit lengthy, work to give a more complete understanding of what is at issue. A correct and biblical view of biblical propitiation, and PSA. are abundantly clear.

But what about truth?

Here you offer Albert Maryin and John Murray vs God's Word. Some will offer the Book of Mormon vs God's Word. Others Elken White vs God's Word.

We are Christians. Why the distain for Scripture? If Penal Substitution Theory were important and correct would it not be in "what is written???

 

[Zaatar71]

But what about truth?

Here you offer Albert Maryin and John Murray vs God's Word. Some will offer the Book of Mormon vs God's Word. Others Elken White vs God's Word.

We are Christians. Why the distain for Scripture? If Penal Substitution Theory were important and correct would it not be in "what is written???

These men carefully examine "what is written" and understand what is written in scripture itself. They are totally concerned with truth.
In the words of Neh.8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.
So we see that both Albert N. Martin, and Professor John Murray do just this very thing. The read "what is written" and gave the sense and cause us to understand the reading.... it is not as you say...them vs. scripture. Rather it is them understanding and expounding scriptures.

Sometimes you seem to use this phrase..."what is written" as if you only understand what is written and these men in your mind oppose what is written , but we see they are commenting directly on the scripture. Are you sure it is not you vs. scripture??
feel free to express your views as you do. I have not seen where you take any of these teachings these men offer, quote them, and offer your refutation. If you feel you can do that scripturally go for it...but we have not seen any indication of that so far.

 

[JonC]

These men carefully examine "what is written" and understand what is written in scripture itself. They are totally concerned with truth.
In the words of Neh.8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.
So we see that both Albert N. Martin, and Professor John Murray do just this very thing. The read "what is written" and gave the sense and cause us to understand the reading.... it is not as you say...them vs. scripture. Rather it is them understanding and expounding scriptures.

Sometimes you seem to use this phrase..."what is written" as if you only understand what is written and these men in your mind oppose what is written , but we see they are commenting directly on the scripture. Are you sure it is not you vs. scripture??
feel free to express your views as you do. I have not seen where you take any of these teachings these men offer, quote them, and offer your refutation. If you feel you can do that scripturally go for it...but we have not seen any indication of that so far.

I use "what is written" to mean "what is written in God's Word" (God's revelation to man). There are different interpretations of what is written in the Bible. But this is not what you are talking about (the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement uses the Bible but it is not an interpretation of the biblical text).

Here is my refutation:

There are no passages in the Bible that states the teachings of Penal Substitution Theory. No passage telks us that Jesus experienced God's wrath, that Jesus died instead of us, that God cannot forgive sins based solely on man setting his mind on the Spirit rather than the flesh (repentance), that what Jesus experienced was divine punishment, etc.

We are not talking about interpretation. We are talking about a 16th century philosophy a minority of Chriatians have used Scripture to support.


Do you believe that God can forgive sins or must God punish sins?

 

[Zaatar71]

I use "what is written" to mean "what is written in God's Word" (God's revelation to man). There are different interpretations of what is written in the Bible. But this is not what you are talking about (the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement uses the Bible but it is not an interpretation of the biblical text).

Here is my refutation:

There are no passages in the Bible that states the teachings of Penal Substitution Theory. No passage telks us that Jesus experienced God's wrath, that Jesus died instead of us, that God cannot forgive sins based solely on man setting his mind on the Spirit rather than the flesh (repentance), that what Jesus experienced was divine punishment, etc.

We are not talking about interpretation. We are talking about a 16th century philosophy a minority of Chriatians have used Scripture to support.


Do you believe that God can forgive sins or must God punish sins?

Thanks for your response. You have offered your ideas on it!

God does both... he punishes sins either in the sinner, Divine wrath poured out directly resulting in second death,

or the Divine substitute. Penal Substitutionary Atonement, the biblical answer, not an "interpretation, but rather an exposition of the various texts many of which are contained in the PDF. No one here will be able to contest, or refute this PDF, or the sermon transcripts offered.
People who call this a theory in trying to explain away an exposition of the texts, fail big time from what I can see.
Thanks again for your participation on this thread.

Anyone who reads this thread, is welcome to quote any portion of what has been offered, the scriptures used, and then offer your response yo what you quote, and try and show how you think they missed the truth. I have not seen anyone ever do that.

 

[Zaatar71]

here is another clear part of this PDF;
This redemption has significance not only for Jews but also for Gentiles. In the gospel economy not even Gentiles are required to undergo the tutelary discipline to which Israel was subjected. "But now that faith is come we are no longer under a tutor. For we are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:25, 26). This great grace, that all without distinction or discrimination are sons of God by faith of Christ Jesus, is the fruit of a redemption secured by the fact that Christ was made under the Mosaic law and fulfilled its terms and purpose.

(c) The law of works. Christ has redeemed us from the necessity of keeping the law as the condition of our justification and acceptance with God. Without such redemption there could be no justification and no salvation. It is the obedience of Christ himself that has secured this release. For it is by his obedience that many will be constituted righteous (Rom. 5:19).

In other words, it is the active and passive 16 obedience of Christ that is the price of this redemption, active and passive obedience because he was made under law, fulfilled all the requirements of righteousness and met all the sanctions of justice.

(ii) Sin. That Christ redeemed his people from sin follows from what has been said respecting law. The strength of sin is the law and where no law is there is no transgression (1Cor. 15:56; Rom. 4:15). But the Scripture also brings redemption into direct relation to sin. It is in this connection that the blood of Christ is clearly indicated to be the means whereby such redemption is secured. Redemption from sin embraces the several aspects from which sin may be viewed. It is redemption from sin in all its aspects and consequences. This is particularly apparent in such passages as Hebrews 9:12; Revelation 5:9.

The inclusive character of redemption as it affects sin and its accompanying evils is shown perhaps most clearly by the fact that the eschatological consummation of the whole redemptive process is referred to as the redemption (cf. Luke 21:28; Rom. 8:23; Eph. 1:14; 4:30; and possibly 1 Cor. 1:30).

That the concept of redemption should be used to designate the complete and final deliverance from all evil and the realization of the goal to which the whole process of redemptive grace moves advertises very conspicuously how closely bound up with redemption as wrought by Christ is the attainment of the liberty of the glory of the children of God. And it also shows that redemption is constitutive of the very notion of consummated bliss for the people of God.

No wonder then that Old Testament prophecy should be in these terms (cf. Hosea 13:14) and that the song of the glorified should be the song of redemption (cf. Rev. 1:5, 6; 5:9).

 

[Zaatar71]

(1) justification and forgiveness of sin and

(2) deliverance from the enslaving defilement and power of sin. Redemption as it affects guilt and issues in justification and remission is in view in such passages as Romans 3:24; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; Hebrews 9:15. And redemption as it affects the enslaving power and defilement of sin is in view in Titus 2:14; I Peter 1:18, though in these latter we cannot exclude all forensic import.

In connection with redemption from the guilt of sin the blood of Christ as substitutionary ransom and as the ransom price of our release is brought distinctly into view. The ransom utterances of our Lord (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45) show beyond question that he interpreted the purpose of his coming into the world in terms of substitutionary ransom and that this ransom was nothing less than the giving of his life.

And, in the usage of the New Testament, the giving of his life is the same as the shedding of his blood.

Redemption, therefore, in our Lord's view consisted in substitutionary blood shedding or blood-shedding in the room and stead of many with the end in view of thereby purchasing to himself the many on whose behalf he gave his life a ransom.

It is this same notion that is reproduced in the apostolic teaching. Although the terminology is not precisely that of redemption, we cannot mistake the redemptive import of Paul's statement in his charge to the elders of Ephesus when he refers "to the church of God, which he 17 bath purchased through his own blood" (Acts 20:28).

Elsewhere the thought of Paul here is expressed overtly in the language of redemption or ransom when of Christ Jesus he says that "he gave himself on our behalf in order that he might ransom us from all iniquity and purify to himself a people for his own possession, zealous of good works" (Titus 2:14).

Or again, when Paul says that in the beloved "we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of trespasses" (Eph. 1:7; cf. Col. 1:14),

it is quite plain that he conceives of the forgiveness of sins as the blessing accrued from blood redemption. And though Hebrews 9:15 is difficult to exegete yet it is clear that the death of Christ is the means of redemption in reference to sins committed under the old covenant: the death of Christ is redemptively efficacious in reference to sin.