Christ set forth as a Propitiation

[Martin Marprelate]

A week or so ago, I promised to set out a text that proved the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. Out of the wide variety available, I selected Romans 3:25-26. Of course, when I did so it proved that simply giving the bare text would not be sufficient to satisfy the opponents of the Doctrine. Therefore I am giving a brief exposition of the text, not imaging for a moment that it will convince everyone, but hoping that it will show to those who have joined the BB in recent times something of the Biblical truth of PSA.
May I ask the usual suspects, PLEASE do not turn this thread into another wretched, barren debate on Calvinism vs Arminianism? I have tried to write it without reference to that subject. Please address what I have written.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Romans 3:24-26. ‘Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.’

In order to understand these verses correctly, I believe it is necessary to understand God’s justice, and also His anger.

Psalm 7:11. ‘God is a just judge. And God is angry with the wicked every day’ (see also Psalm 5:4-6). So not only is God angry with sinners, He is also right and just to be so. And His anger does not subside on its own as ours might when we get in a better mood; it is a settled wrath against sinners. We might define God’s wrath as His righteous anger against sin. We read in Romans 1:18 that, ‘… The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men…’ The present tense is used here to show that this divine wrath was not merely revealed once at some time in the past, but on the contrary is being revealed continuously to this very day.

This wrath of God cannot simply be ended by His unilateral forgiveness; there must be a propitiation. In the Old Testament, we read in Job 42:7-9 that God would not forgive Job’s three friends until they brought a sacrifice and Job prayed for them. Also in Numbers 15:27-28 we read that, ‘If a person sins unintentionally, then he shall bring a female goat in its first year as a sin offering. So the priest shall make atonement for the person who sins unintentionally….. and it shall be forgiven him.’ But what about someone who sins intentionally? In that case, it’s a whole lot worse. ‘But the person who does anything presumptuously, whether he is native-born or a stranger, that one brings reproach on the LORD, and has broken His commandment; that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him’ (Num. 15:30-31). Imagine a human judge who let off guilty criminals without any sentence; what would the newspapers say? “Who does the judge think he is?” The sentence must be carried out, and the sentence is, ‘The soul that sins shall die.’ And of course it gets worse. ‘….It is appointed for men to die once, but after that the judgment’ (Heb. 9:27).

So how can we get ourselves right with God? Ultimately, sacrifices will not help us (Hebrews 10:4) for reasons we will come to presently. Our good deeds are but filthy rags before a holy God (Isaiah 64:6) and trying to keep God’s law will not save us either, because, ‘By the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified, for by the law is the knowledge of sin’ (Romans 3:20). If we are to be saved from God’s righteous anger against sinners, it is God who will have to do the saving.

So we arrive back at our text. ‘Christ Jesus, Whom God set forth…’ First of all, we know this works because it is God Himself who set forth our Lord. ‘… As a propitiation….’ There seems to be some question over the meaning of this word. The Greek word is hilasterion in Romans 3:25 and hilasmos in 1 John 2:2; 4:10. Both words refer to the “mercy seat” (Hebrews 9:5) which was the cover of the ark of the covenant which resided in the Holiest Place in the Tabernacle. It was where the Jewish High Priest went once a year on the Day of Atonement to offer sacrifices, first for himself and then for the people (Heb. 9:7). This was the most solemn of all the Jewish ceremonies. The sacrificial offering was a death in the place of the one who offered it (Leviticus 16:6). A propitiation is a sacrifice that turns away wrath. If a man were to upset his wife in some way, he might buy her a bunch of flowers as a propitiation, to satisfy her outraged sense of wrong and turn away her righteous anger. Of course, the man would not know if these flowers would be sufficient for that. His wife might hold out for a meal in a slap-up restaurant! But we know that God is satisfied by the suffering and death of Christ because it was He who set Him forth. Christ was our substitute. ‘He was pierced for our transgressions; He was crushed for our iniquities. The punishment that brought us peace was upon Him’ (Isaiah 53:5, NIV).

‘…By His blood…’ The blood speaks of the life of the creature. ‘It is the blood that makes atonement for the soul’ (Lev. 17:11). Under the old covenant, almost all things were cleansed by blood (Heb 9:22), ‘and without shedding of blood, there is no remission [of sins].’ ‘…Through faith…’ It is faith which unites us to Christ and makes His death efficacious to us. ‘…To demonstrate His righteousness.’ As we have seen above, God is a just judge, and He cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13) by pardoning guilty sinners. Our Lord’s death magnified the law and made it honourable (Isaiah 42:21). Sin was punished, but, ‘The LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ (Isaiah 53:6). He, the sinless one, has borne our sins in His own body, and now God sees in His people only the spotless righteousness of Christ (2 Cor. 5:21). ‘…Because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed…’ Although we have seen that God required sacrifices, in themselves they could not take away sins (Heb. 10:1). They could only point to the ‘Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.’ However, in His mercy God passed over the sins of those who were looking forward by faith to the coming Messiah: Abraham (John 8:56), David (Acts 2:25ff), Simeon (Luke 2:25ff) and doubtless many more; even a Samaritan woman of doubtful morals (John 4:25f). But, in order for God to be just, they were only forgiven on the basis of our Lord’s death and resurrection.

‘…. to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness…. God cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13). As Judge of all the earth, He must do right, and that means punishing sinners. He cannot simply forgive them. But, praise His name, He has found a way ‘that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.’ God Himself (Acts 20:28), in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ has taken our sins upon Himself, and on the cursed tree (1 Peter 2:24) has paid in full the penalty for them all on our behalf (Rev. 5:9). God’s justice is satisfied; His righteous anger against sinners is propitiated (so long as they trust in Christ), and the curse upon the earth of Genesis 3:17 will be removed at Christ’s return (Rom. 8:21; Rev. 22:3).

 

[JonC]

Bit this does not prove the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement at all.

We all believe that Jesus is the Propitiation for the sins of the World. In Christ we escape the wrath to come.

Penal Substitution Theory holds that God propitiated on our behalf by offering His Son as a penal substitute for us.


You also misuse Romans 3:26. In that passage God being just and the justifier of sinners is addressing why He let the sins committed go unpunished until that present time.

Even if we remove the words, as you do, from context your theory does not present God as just and justifier whike traditional Chriatianity does (traditional Chriatianity presents God as just in that He will punish the wicked and the justifier of sinners be ause He makes them a "new creation in Christ", "conforms them into the image of Christ", "refines" them).

Penal Substitution Theory ultimately has God punishing the sins of the guilty on the Righteous in order to clear the guilty ("both alike are abominations to God").

You are assuming your theory is correct rather than proving it via Scripture.


This is what I was talking about before.

You CANNOT post ANY passages simply stating your faith because your faith does not actually exist in Scripture any more than Mormonism exists in Scripture. You simply post passages and then tell us what the men you worship have told you what those passages "really" means.


You cannot prove your faith using God's Word any more than a Mormon can prove his faith by using God's Word because your faith simply is not in the biblical text.

 

[Zaatar71]

Romans 3:24-26. ‘Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.’

In order to understand these verses correctly, I believe it is necessary to understand God’s justice, and also His anger.

Psalm 7:11. ‘God is a just judge. And God is angry with the wicked every day’ (see also Psalm 5:4-6). So not only is God angry with sinners, He is also right and just to be so. And His anger does not subside on its own as ours might when we get in a better mood; it is a settled wrath against sinners. We might define God’s wrath as His righteous anger against sin. We read in Romans 1:18 that, ‘… The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men…’ The present tense is used here to show that this divine wrath was not merely revealed once at some time in the past, but on the contrary is being revealed continuously to this very day.

This wrath of God cannot simply be ended by His unilateral forgiveness; there must be a propitiation. In the Old Testament, we read in Job 42:7-9 that God would not forgive Job’s three friends until they brought a sacrifice and Job prayed for them. Also in Numbers 15:27-28 we read that, ‘If a person sins unintentionally, then he shall bring a female goat in its first year as a sin offering. So the priest shall make atonement for the person who sins unintentionally….. and it shall be forgiven him.’ But what about someone who sins intentionally? In that case, it’s a whole lot worse. ‘But the person who does anything presumptuously, whether he is native-born or a stranger, that one brings reproach on the LORD, and has broken His commandment; that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him’ (Num. 15:30-31). Imagine a human judge who let off guilty criminals without any sentence; what would the newspapers say? “Who does the judge think he is?” The sentence must be carried out, and the sentence is, ‘The soul that sins shall die.’ And of course it gets worse. ‘….It is appointed for men to die once, but after that the judgment’ (Heb. 9:27).

So how can we get ourselves right with God? Ultimately, sacrifices will not help us (Hebrews 10:4) for reasons we will come to presently. Our good deeds are but filthy rags before a holy God (Isaiah 64:6) and trying to keep God’s law will not save us either, because, ‘By the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified, for by the law is the knowledge of sin’ (Romans 3:20). If we are to be saved from God’s righteous anger against sinners, it is God who will have to do the saving.

So we arrive back at our text. ‘Christ Jesus, Whom God set forth…’ First of all, we know this works because it is God Himself who set forth our Lord. ‘… As a propitiation….’ There seems to be some question over the meaning of this word. The Greek word is hilasterion in Romans 3:25 and hilasmos in 1 John 2:2; 4:10. Both words refer to the “mercy seat” (Hebrews 9:5) which was the cover of the ark of the covenant which resided in the Holiest Place in the Tabernacle. It was where the Jewish High Priest went once a year on the Day of Atonement to offer sacrifices, first for himself and then for the people (Heb. 9:7). This was the most solemn of all the Jewish ceremonies. The sacrificial offering was a death in the place of the one who offered it (Leviticus 16:6). A propitiation is a sacrifice that turns away wrath. If a man were to upset his wife in some way, he might buy her a bunch of flowers as a propitiation, to satisfy her outraged sense of wrong and turn away her righteous anger. Of course, the man would not know if these flowers would be sufficient for that. His wife might hold out for a meal in a slap-up restaurant! But we know that God is satisfied by the suffering and death of Christ because it was He who set Him forth. Christ was our substitute. ‘He was pierced for our transgressions; He was crushed for our iniquities. The punishment that brought us peace was upon Him’ (Isaiah 53:5, NIV).

‘…By His blood…’ The blood speaks of the life of the creature. ‘It is the blood that makes atonement for the soul’ (Lev. 17:11). Under the old covenant, almost all things were cleansed by blood (Heb 9:22), ‘and without shedding of blood, there is no remission [of sins].’ ‘…Through faith…’ It is faith which unites us to Christ and makes His death efficacious to us. ‘…To demonstrate His righteousness.’ As we have seen above, God is a just judge, and He cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13) by pardoning guilty sinners. Our Lord’s death magnified the law and made it honourable (Isaiah 42:21). Sin was punished, but, ‘The LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ (Isaiah 53:6). He, the sinless one, has borne our sins in His own body, and now God sees in His people only the spotless righteousness of Christ (2 Cor. 5:21). ‘…Because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed…’ Although we have seen that God required sacrifices, in themselves they could not take away sins (Heb. 10:1). They could only point to the ‘Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.’ However, in His mercy God passed over the sins of those who were looking forward by faith to the coming Messiah: Abraham (John 8:56), David (Acts 2:25ff), Simeon (Luke 2:25ff) and doubtless many more; even a Samaritan woman of doubtful morals (John 4:25f). But, in order for God to be just, they were only forgiven on the basis of our Lord’s death and resurrection.

‘…. to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness…. God cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13). As Judge of all the earth, He must do right, and that means punishing sinners. He cannot simply forgive them. But, praise His name, He has found a way ‘that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.’ God Himself (Acts 20:28), in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ has taken our sins upon Himself, and on the cursed tree (1 Peter 2:24) has paid in full the penalty for them all on our behalf (Rev. 5:9). God’s justice is satisfied; His righteous anger against sinners is propitiated (so long as they trust in Christ), and the curse upon the earth of Genesis 3:17 will be removed at Christ’s return (Rom. 8:21; Rev. 22:3).

This is a very solid presentation among all who believe and Know the truth. You compare scripture with scripture to refine your understanding which is essential. Those who have turned from truth might suggest this is a theory rather than biblical teaching, it could be they do not understand what you have presented, or perhaps they have gotten lost in the theological weeds. This teaching is welcome in every church I have attended or visited, except for one little apostate methodist church. Thanks for this fine post!

 

[Zaatar71]

Bit this does not prove the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement at all.

We all believe that Jesus is the Propitiation for the sins of the World. In Christ we escape the wrath to come.

Penal Substitution Theory holds that God propitiated on our behalf by offering His Son as a penal substitute for us.


You also misuse Romans 3:26. In that passage God being just and the justifier of sinners is addressing why He let the sins committed go unpunished until that present time.

Even if we remove the words, as you do, from context your theory does not present God as just and justifier whike traditional Chriatianity does (traditional Chriatianity presents God as just in that He will punish the wicked and the justifier of sinners be ause He makes them a "new creation in Christ", "conforms them into the image of Christ", "refines" them).

Penal Substitution Theory ultimately has God punishing the sins of the guilty on the Righteous in order to clear the guilty ("both alike are abominations to God").

You are assuming your theory is correct rather than proving it via Scripture.


This is what I was talking about before.

You CANNOT post ANY passages simply stating your faith because your faith does not actually exist in Scripture any more than Mormonism exists in Scripture. You simply post passages and then tell us what the men you worship have told you what those passages "really" means.


You cannot prove your faith using God's Word any more than a Mormon can prove his faith by using God's Word because your faith simply is not in the biblical text.

Again you make an accusation against this man! have you noticed that no one else does this? Who are you to question what is the object of his faith?

 

[Piper 2]

Again you make an accusation against this man! have you noticed that no one else does this? Who are you to question what is the object of his faith?

Exactly. " your faith does not actually exist in Scripture any more than Mormonism exists in Scripture. "


He questions the faith of anyone who does not believe his theory. It is repugnant for a Christian to do that.

 

[atpollard]

This wrath of God cannot simply be ended by His unilateral forgiveness

Romans 3:24-26 does not necessarily say this. That interpretation demands that “propitiation” have the same meaning for God that it has for pagan gods like Zeus. There is no forgiveness without the pound of flesh.

Jesus could also be the “propitiation” as that which restores the relationship (without appeasing wrath).

 

[JonC]

Romans 3:24-26 does not necessarily say this. That interpretation demands that “propitiation” have the same meaning for God that it has for pagan gods like Zeus. There is no forgiveness without the pound of flesh.

Jesus could also be the “propitiation” as that which restores the relationship (without appeasing wrath).

I have been trying to explain that to him for over a decade.

Jesus IS the Propitiation for the sins of the World.
God set Him forth as a Propitiation.
In Him we escape the wrath to come. In Him we are reconciled to God.

God makes us new creations, conforms us into the image of Christ. There is no condemnation.
God forgives sins based on "repentance, "turning from evil", "turning from wicked ways", turning to God", "a new mind", a "new spirit" (all of which is the reconciliation through Christ).

He cannot get the pagan idea of appeasing the wrath of a god out of his mind.

A other isdie is @Martin Marprelate cannot accept a righteousness of God manifested infested apart from the law. To him it boils down to the law and a need to punish all crimes. Making man a new creation (making them i to the image of Christ, making them a man different from the guilty man) does not fit into his buef system.

I was there before. You will not get him to question what he has been taught. In a way, I can't blame him. It was hard leaving that philosophy and I was a younger man then.

 

[atpollard]

I have been trying to explain that to him for over a decade.

Jesus IS the Propitiation for the sins of the World.
God set Him forth as a Propitiation.
In Him we escape the wrath to come. In Him we are reconciled to God.

God makes us new creations, conforms us into the image of Christ. There is no condemnation.
God forgives sins based on "repentance, "turning from evil", "turning from wicked ways", turning to God", "a new mind", a "new spirit" (all of which is the reconciliation through Christ).

He cannot get the pagan idea of appeasing the wrath of a god out of his mind.

To be fair, it hinges on the word “propitiation” which has two common meanings, (regain favor or turn aside wrath) so it is equally valid to think (in English) that Jesus turns aside God’s wrath (like the propitiation to Zeus) as it is to think that Jesus restores God’s favor and eliminates the need for wrath (as you and I believe).

 

[Charlie24]

To be fair, it hinges on the word “propitiation” which has two common meanings, (regain favor or turn aside wrath) so it is equally valid to think (in English) that Jesus turns aside God’s wrath (like the propitiation to Zeus) as it is to think that Jesus restores God’s favor and eliminates the need for wrath (as you and I believe).

Just to throw in my 2 cents worth, I believe that from the 6th hour (12 noon) to the 9th hour there was darkness over all the land.

During these 3 hours our Lord was imputed the sin of the world, past, present, and future, bearing the sin penalty for mankind.

I believe the Father hid His face from Christ, with having delivered Him at every turn, He did not deliver Christ this time as He took the full punishment of man's sin.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Romans 3:24-26 does not necessarily say this. That interpretation demands that “propitiation” have the same meaning for God that it has for pagan gods like Zeus. There is no forgiveness without the pound of flesh.

Hebrews 9:22.

Jesus could also be the “propitiation” as that which restores the relationship (without appeasing wrath).

In which case God cannot be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus. If our Lord has not satisfied the justice and the righteous anger of God, you may be quite certain that you and I will have to do so ourselves.

 

[JonC]

To be fair, it hinges on the word “propitiation” which has two common meanings, (regain favor or turn aside wrath) so it is equally valid to think (in English) that Jesus turns aside God’s wrath (like the propitiation to Zeus) as it is to think that Jesus restores God’s favor and eliminates the need for wrath (as you and I believe).

This is true, if using the English word. But also this does not mean that Jesus appeasement God.

Jesus being the Propitiation for our sins (our Propitiation) would have wrath in mind but He woukd be the means by which we escape that wrath (it carries a meaning of wrath "turned aside").

The pagans believed they could appease a god's anger or gain favor from a god (like a good crop) be sacrificing a propitiation. But the sacrifice itself did not propitiate (the pagans act of sacrificing what they held as value propitiated).

If we apply this concept to Scripture then Christ is the Propitiation and the act of men in relation to the Propitiation turns aside wrath.


So I can see it both ways, but at the same time I think both ways are saying the same thing differently.

In Christ we escape the wrath to come because He is the Propitiation, in Him we are reconciled to God.

 

[JonC]

In which case God cannot be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus. If our Lord has not satisfied the justice and the righteous anger of God, you may be quite certain that you and I will have to do so ourselves.

The "just and justifier" passage explained why God did not punish sins before that "present time".

Think about it. Punishing the righteous for the sins of the unrighteous is an abomination to God. So is clearing the guilty. Sins will not transfer from the sinner to another.

Knowing that (that is Scripture), God would not be just clearing the guilty or punishing the righteous. He will not transfer the sins of one to another person (the sins remain on the sinner). Why? Because God would not be just if He did.

But if God's righteousness can really be manifested apart from the law then He could make man a new creation (no longer guilty), conform man into the image of Christ (no condemnation), refine man (the "old man" ceases to exist completely). "On that day", at Judgment. we are righteous as we are conformed into the image of Christ.

 

[Zaatar71]

Hebrews 9:22.

In which case God cannot be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus. If our Lord has not satisfied the justice and the righteous anger of God, you may be quite certain that you and I will have to do so ourselves.

Stand firm as you are doing. We know this is the biblical position, and it will stand against unbelief every time.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But this does not prove the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement at all.

I think you'll find it does.

We all believe that Jesus is the Propitiation for the sins of the World. In Christ we escape the wrath to come.

That is super! Why don't you tell us how you think it is done?

Penal Substitution Theory holds that God propitiated on our behalf by offering His Son as a penal substitute for us.

This is gobbledegook. It may be your theory, but it is not the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. I have given a definition probably 20 times before on this board, but here we go again: The Doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. [From 'Pierced for our Transgressions' by Jeffery, Ovey and Sach. IVP. ISBN 978-1-84474-178-6]

You also misuse Romans 3:26. In that passage God being just and the justifier of sinners is addressing why He let the sins committed go unpunished until that present time.

Even if we remove the words, as you do, from context your theory does not present God as just and justifier

Your theory may not, but the text and the true doctrine do. Verse 26 clearly refers both to the past and the present. '...That He might be just...' Not, 'that He might show Himself as having been just.' In the Greek, both einai and dikaiounta are in the Present Tense.

whike traditional Chriatianity does (traditional Chriatianity presents God as just in that He will punish the wicked and the justifier of sinners be ause He makes them a "new creation in Christ", "conforms them into the image of Christ", "refines" them).

This is more gobbledegook. Why don't you translate this sentence into English and post it again?

Penal Substitution Theory ultimately has God punishing the sins of the guilty on the Righteous in order to clear the guilty ("both alike are abominations to God").

You are thinking of Proverbs 17:15, which is a great proof-text for the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. God will not justify the wicked; He cannot overlook sin. He also regards those who condemn the righteous as an abomination. That is why, rather than crucifying some random bloke, He Himself, in the Person of the Lord Jesus, came to magnify His law and make it honourable (Isaiah 42:21). Also, of course, He raised the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead and highly exalted Him (Phil. 2:9-11).

You are assuming your theory is correct rather than proving it via Scripture.

I just counted 27 Scripture references in my O.P. How many have you actually attempted to deal with? None! Not even any!

This is what I was talking about before.

You CANNOT post ANY passages simply stating your faith because your faith does not actually exist in Scripture any more than Mormonism exists in Scripture. You simply post passages and then tell us what the men you worship have told you what those passages "really" means.

As I said, I posted 27 passages of Scripture, so don't tell lies. If I post Scripture, you say (falsely) that I only post passages,; if I don't post Scripture, you will tell me that I am quoting the 'men I worship. The men you worship are either liberals like C.H. Dodd or Mennonite authors, who, if they agree with their founder, have a faulty view of the Trinity; or, of course, Roman Catholics..

You cannot prove your faith using God's Word any more than a Mormon can prove his faith by using God's Word because your faith simply is not in the biblical text.

Penal Substitution is all over the Biblical text. Just to take the letter to the Hebrews, we learn that Christ, 'provided purification for sins (1:3 NIV); 'obtained eternal redemption' (9:12); 'put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself' (9:26), and, 'was offered once to bear the sins of many' (9:28). Or we can look at Isaiah 53: 'smitten by God and afflicted' (v.4); 'Wounded for our transgression... crushed for our iniquities... the chastisement for our sins was upon Him' (v.5); 'Yet it was the LORD's will to crush Him; He has put Him to grief' (v.10).
I know you hate that last verse, but there it is, large as life, like a dirty great pork pie at your Bar Mitsvah!

 

[JesusFan]

Bit this does not prove the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement at all.

We all believe that Jesus is the Propitiation for the sins of the World. In Christ we escape the wrath to come.

Penal Substitution Theory holds that God propitiated on our behalf by offering His Son as a penal substitute for us.


You also misuse Romans 3:26. In that passage God being just and the justifier of sinners is addressing why He let the sins committed go unpunished until that present time.

Even if we remove the words, as you do, from context your theory does not present God as just and justifier whike traditional Chriatianity does (traditional Chriatianity presents God as just in that He will punish the wicked and the justifier of sinners be ause He makes them a "new creation in Christ", "conforms them into the image of Christ", "refines" them).

Penal Substitution Theory ultimately has God punishing the sins of the guilty on the Righteous in order to clear the guilty ("both alike are abominations to God").

You are assuming your theory is correct rather than proving it via Scripture.


This is what I was talking about before.

You CANNOT post ANY passages simply stating your faith because your faith does not actually exist in Scripture any more than Mormonism exists in Scripture. You simply post passages and then tell us what the men you worship have told you what those passages "really" means.


You cannot prove your faith using God's Word any more than a Mormon can prove his faith by using God's Word because your faith simply is not in the biblical text.

God wrath against sin must be satisfied, for he cannot just say a sinner is now in his sight sinless because God wants to forgive them, or that they repented and asked God to do that, as MUST have a provided basis for Him to now be able to do that and still remain the Holy Judge

 

[JesusFan]

I have been trying to explain that to him for over a decade.

Jesus IS the Propitiation for the sins of the World.
God set Him forth as a Propitiation.
In Him we escape the wrath to come. In Him we are reconciled to God.

God makes us new creations, conforms us into the image of Christ. There is no condemnation.
God forgives sins based on "repentance, "turning from evil", "turning from wicked ways", turning to God", "a new mind", a "new spirit" (all of which is the reconciliation through Christ).

He cannot get the pagan idea of appeasing the wrath of a god out of his mind.

A other isdie is @Martin Marprelate cannot accept a righteousness of God manifested infested apart from the law. To him it boils down to the law and a need to punish all crimes. Making man a new creation (making them i to the image of Christ, making them a man different from the guilty man) does not fit into his buef system.

I was there before. You will not get him to question what he has been taught. In a way, I can't blame him. It was hard leaving that philosophy and I was a younger man then.

A Holy god Must have someone die and atone for their sins have committed, as thesoul that sins must die, no way around that truth

 

[JonC]

I think you'll find it does.

That is super! Why don't you tell us how you think it is done?

This is gobbledegook. It may be your theory, but it is not the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. I have given a definition probably 20 times before on this board, but here we go again: The Doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. [From 'Pierced for our Transgressions' by Jeffery, Ovey and Sach. IVP. ISBN 978-1-84474-178-6]

Your theory may not, but the text and the true doctrine do. Verse 26 clearly refers both to the past and the present. '...That He might be just...' Not, 'that He might show Himself as having been just.' In the Greek, both einai and dikaiounta are in the Present Tense.

This is more gobbledegook. Why don't you translate this sentence into English and post it again?

You are thinking of Proverbs 17:15, which is a great proof-text for the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. God will not justify the wicked; He cannot overlook sin. He also regards those who condemn the righteous as an abomination. That is why, rather than crucifying some random bloke, He Himself, in the Person of the Lord Jesus, came to magnify His law and make it honourable (Isaiah 42:21). Also, of course, He raised the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead and highly exalted Him (Phil. 2:9-11).

I just counted 27 Scripture references in my O.P. How many have you actually attempted to deal with? None! Not even any!


As I said, I posted 27 passages of Scripture, so don't tell lies. If I post Scripture, you say (falsely) that I only post passages,; if I don't post Scripture, you will tell me that I am quoting the 'men I worship. The men you worship are either liberals like C.H. Dodd or Mennonite authors, who, if they agree with their founder, have a faulty view of the Trinity; or, of course, Roman Catholics..

Penal Substitution is all over the Biblical text. Just to take the letter to the Hebrews, we learn that Christ, 'provided purification for sins (1:3 NIV); 'obtained eternal redemption' (9:12); 'put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself' (9:26), and, 'was offered once to bear the sins of many' (9:28). Or we can look at Isaiah 53: 'smitten by God and afflicted' (v.4); 'Wounded for our transgression... crushed for our iniquities... the chastisement for our sins was upon Him' (v.5); 'Yet it was the LORD's will to crush Him; He has put Him to grief' (v.10).
I know you hate that last verse, but there it is, large as life, like a dirty great pork pie at your Bar Mitsvah!

First, the "He might be just" in the present is not what I am arguing against.
What I am saying is you are ignoring the reason (the sins that were not punished before that present time).

None of the passages you have posted so far support the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. You have to extract bits and pieces of passages, put them together, and then provide what they "really mean" to come up with your theory.

"Propitiate" means "to gain favor or good will".
from Latin propitiat- ‘made favorable’. It is from the verb propitiare (which is from propitius ‘favorable, gracious’).

Christ IS the propitiation (the One through whom we gain favor from God).
God set Him forth as a Propitiation (as the One in whom we gain favor from God).


In Christ we escape the wrath to come, are joint heirs, are called "children of God".

Yes, Jesus put away sin through His sacrifice, He died for our sins, God lain our sins on Him, God was pleased to crush Him, it was by God's predetermined plan He die by the means of evil, by His stripes we are healed.

I agree with what the passages you provide state.

I disagree with the philosophy and theories you add to God's Word.

The reason I disagree is that it creates a theory not only foreign to Scripture but also in opposition to the actual words of God.


When, in your "Christian" life, did you decide that God's words were nit enough snd that you needed to lean on your own understanding and the theories of the men you choose to worship be ause their understanding "tickled your ears"?

Do you believe that you would ever be content to move back (if you were ever there) to a faith that is expressed solely in the text of Scripture (do you think you will ever hold a faith that you can highlight verbatim in your Bible)?

 

[JesusFan]

To be fair, it hinges on the word “propitiation” which has two common meanings, (regain favor or turn aside wrath) so it is equally valid to think (in English) that Jesus turns aside God’s wrath (like the propitiation to Zeus) as it is to think that Jesus restores God’s favor and eliminates the need for wrath (as you and I believe).

truth is that the greek term as used by paul would take the sin of bearing and taking wrath as the way to appease that righteous anger against sin. WSe saw even decades ago some like CH Dodd of NEB fame could not stand that term, so used watered down expiate
C. H. Dodd argued that God's wrath is not a personal attribute but rather the inevitable cause-and-effect process of a moral universe. He viewed it as a depersonalized, impersonal force rather than an angry, hateful attitude of God. In this view, "wrath" describes the natural consequences of sin, not a personal emotion of God.

• Depersonalization of wrath:
  Dodd proposed that attributing wrath as an emotional attribute to God is too anthropomorphic, or human-like.
  
  
• Cause and effect:
  He interpreted the concept of "wrath" in the Bible as a way to describe the inevitable consequences that occur when people rebel against God's will.
  
  
• Contrast to traditional view:
  This perspective directly contrasts with traditional interpretations that view wrath as a settled disposition or attribute of God's character, as well as with the view that God's wrath must be appeased.
  
  
• Impact:
  Scholars like Dodd argued this interpretation was a more dignified view of God, while others have countered that this view can weaken the gospel message by diminishing the seriousness of sin and God's justice.

 

[JesusFan]

Again you make an accusation against this man! have you noticed that no one else does this? Who are you to question what is the object of his faith?

How can one know for sure that is not biblical is wrong?