The Biblical Basis for Penal Substitution, part 2

[Martin Marprelate]

In the O.P. on a recently-closed thread, I posted the following:

Firstly then, it needs to be shown that our Lord took and bore our sins which God laid on Him. Secondly, that He took them so as to undergo the punishment due to them, and thirdly that He did this on our behalf and instead of us.

Did the Father lay upon the Lord Jesus the sins of His people? Yes. ‘And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ (Isaiah 53:6). Did the Lord Jesus bear in His body our sins which God laid on Him? Yes. ‘Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree’ (1 Peter 2:24).
Did He take our sins so as to undergo the punishment due to them? Yes. ‘The chastisement [ESV, NIV: ‘punishment’] for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed’ (Isaiah 53:5); “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45); “For You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and nation and people” (Rev. 5:9).
Did the Lord Jesus do this on our behalf and instead of us? Yes. “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29); ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities’ (Isaiah 53:5); “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:38-39); ‘Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree)’ (Gal. 3:13).

Nobody seemed to argue with this post. @JonC wrote

'What you need to provide is a verse stating that God must punish sins, it is a acceptable to punish the just to clear the guilty, Christ experienced God's wrath, Jesus died instead of us....the things that are unique to PSA.'

So the first thing we need to show is that God punishes sins. I put it this way because it is not for us to tell God what He must do. Psalm 115:3. 'But our God is in heaven; He does whatever pleases Him.' But God, despite His longsuffering, does indeed punish sins; it is His way. We need only consider the Flood and the destruction of Sodom.
Exodus 34:7. '...By no means clearing the guilty...'
Numbers 15:30-31. 'But the person who does anything presuptuously, whether he is native-born or a stranger, that one brings reproach on the LORD,and he shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him.'
John 3:36. 'He who believes in the Son has [present tense] everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on Him.'
Romans 1:18. 'For the wrath of God is [present tense again] revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness of men.....' Pleanty more where they came from, but I must move on.

Is it acceptable for God to punish the just to clear the guilty? I don't think it is for us to tell God what we think is acceptable for Him to do. But Isaiah 53:10. 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.....' And then, 'When You make His soul an offering for sin...' But in fact, of course, it is God Himself who, in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, has purchased His own Church with His own blood (Acts 20:28).

Did Christ experience God's wrath? Yes indeed, as long as we are clear that our Lord experienced God's wrath against sin, not against Himself personally. The punishment due to sin is the wrath of God (Rom. 1:18; 2:5; Eph. 2:3; John 3:36). Again, 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.' If it is the case (which it is) that 'The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness of Men,' and that 'The LORD has laid of Him the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:6), and that 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree' (1 Peter 2:24), and that 'Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us ...' (Gal. 3:13), there can surely be no doubt that our Lord underwent the wrath and the curse of God, not against Himself, but against sin and sinners.

Did Jesus die instead of us? Yes. John 1:29. '.... Who takes away the sin of the world.' How does He do that, if not on the cross, suffering in our place? Matt. 20:28. "....To give Himself a ransom for [Gk. anti] many.' The word anti has the meaning of 'instead of' as in Matt. 2:22; 1 Tim. 2:6. But if we consider 1 Peter 3:18. 'For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for [Gk. huper] the unjust, that He might bring us to God,' or Romans 8:34, it is clear that although huper has the meaning of 'on behalf of,' it also has the meaning of 'Instead of.' For example:

If I go shopping on your behalf, I go shopping, you don't. It would make no sense for me to do your shopping if you do it anyway. I go shopping in your place; I shop instead of you.
If I write a letter on your behalf, I write it, you don't. I write it in your place; I write it instead of you.
If I go to prison on your behalf, I go to jail, you don't. It would make no sense for us both to go. I go to jail in your place; I go instead of you.
If I die on you behalf, I die, you don't. It would be a total failure for me to die for you and for you to die anyway. I die in your place; I die instead of you.

N.B. If people want to discuss what the ECFs, Augustine, the Roman Catholics, Calvin, the Puritans, the Eastern Orthodox, Uncle Tom Cobley and all, taught about PSA, please start another thread. I am interested in discussing what the Bible says.

 

[JonC]

In the O.P. on a recently-closed thread, I posted the following:

...

Since you mentioned me I will make the point of stating an obvious fact those who are literate will already have seen.

The verses you provide do not state what you think they mean.

We have to have more respect for God and His Word than you are allowing.

Post "what is written" then your understanding. Explain how you arrive at your conclusions.

But don't skip that link (explaining how you "get there"). Do not pretend that your understanding is the biblical text because it is not.

We can continue by ignoring your claim and chalk it up to poor wording (you meant - yes, my faith is not actually in the Bible but it is what I believe is taught"). Then we can get to why you think that is what's taught.

BUT we HAVE to maintain a greater respect for God's Word than you just allowed in your post.

If God does not clear the guilty then how are you, as you said you are guilty, see God's kingdom?

@Martin Marprelate

Here is an example (I will use my own understanding of the verses you provided).


Psalm 115:3. 'But our God is in heaven; He does whatever pleases Him.'

I understand this means thar God is in heaven and He does what pleases Him.

I qualify this with God revealing that He will not do something outside of His own righteousness (I believe God is righteous).

For example, God will not punish the innocent (Prov 17); He will not condemn the just (ibid) and He will not clear the guilty (ibid; Ex 34).

I do not view this as limiting God but instead as describing God's own character.


Romans 1:18. 'For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness of men

I believe this means that God's wrath is revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness of men.

I believe this verse is not saying that God will punish the wicked men at the moment they sin (obviously God's wrath is stored until "the day of wrath" and judgment for "the day of judgment"). Instead God's wrath is revealed against "all unrighteousness of men"

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief..

I believe it pleased the Lord (God) to bruise Him (Jesus). I do not believe "pleased" means "take pleasure in" because Scripture states that God does not even take pleasure in the destruction of the wicked.

Instead I believe we have to let Scripture interpret Scripture. It was God's pleasure (His will or predetermined plan as stated in Acts 3).

'When You make His soul an offering for sin...'

Yes, God gave His Son as an offeting for sin. He sent His Son. And Jesus presented Himself as an offeting.


I could go one, but to what end? I believe those verses mean what the actual text states.

Christ did not die instead of us (no passage states this). But yes, He died for us.


I think a lot of the foolishness stated in the OP could be remedied if people would actually read the OT and the sacrifice system.

What did the Istaelites killing bulls, lambs and goats accomplish?

It pleased God as they were obedient. But it did not cover their sins. It did not cleans them of sins.

That was accomplished in the Temple or Tabernacle when the blood was taken in and applied.

Same at the Passover. Death did not pass over because they killed a lamb. They applied the blood and death passed over.

 

[JonC]

Here is a summary of the above post -

It is wrong to declare that God's words are different from the words actually given by God as Hos revelation to us.

What @Martin Marprelate should have done is provide God's Words and then explain how he arrives at hos understanding since his understanding is different from the words that God has provided.


I, for example, admit that my understanding of sacrifice is influenced by the Levitical sacrifice system - not by reading my understanding back into the system but by my opinion that the Jews would have understood NT references of sacrifice in accordance with the Jewish understanding of the Levitical system prescribed by God.

Since the Jews did not view any sacrifice of an animal itself as able to effect forgiveness (they made a distinction between killing the animal and applying the blood) I see no reason to impose a new idea onto ancient beliefs.


Furthermore, John says "Behold the Lamb which takes away the sin of the World".

Lambs were not sacrificed to remove, cover or cleanse from sin. Lambs were offered daily (olat tamid), one in the morning and ine in the afternoon, to symbolize an enduring relationship with God.

Then you have the Passover Lamb. The lamb was killed BUT the killing was mot the significant part. The significant part was the blood applied (so death would pass over) and eating the lambs flesh.


Imagine being a Jew and hearing that God's Lamb would take away the sins of the world had come. All of the significance placed in one event. All the significance of the lamb with the greater significance of the applied blood.

We should rejoice in what God has revealed to us in His words rather than theorizing what else He wanted to tell us but couldn't.

 

[DaveXR650]

What @Martin Marprelate should have done is provide God's Words and then explain how he arrives at hos understanding since his understanding is different from the words that God has provided.

The problem is that those initial verses clearly state substitution of our sin which are clearly being transferred from us to Christ.

I, for example, admit that my understanding of sacrifice is influenced by the Levitical sacrifice system - not by reading my understanding back into the system but by my opinion that the Jews would have understood NT references of sacrifice in accordance with the Jewish understanding of the Levitical system prescribed by God.

Remember, Hebrews says explicitly that that is the case.

Since the Jews did not view any sacrifice of an animal itself as able to effect forgiveness (they made a distinction between killing the animal and applying the blood) I see no reason to impose a new idea onto ancient beliefs.

No, but Hebrews explains that the priests were indeed doing a correct representation of what Jesus was going to do. Don't fall for any idea that this was a holdover from ancient pre Israelite pagan practices. They were showing something real, as directed by God.

Lambs were not sacrificed to remove, cover or cleanse from sin. Lambs were offered daily (olat tamid), one in the morning and ine in the afternoon, to symbolize an enduring relationship with God.

Of course it symbolizes an enduring relationship with God, but to reduce it to that would be a mistake.

Then you have the Passover Lamb. The lamb was killed BUT the killing was mot the significant part. The significant part was the blood applied (so death would pass over) and eating the lambs flesh.

Again, in Hebrews the body as a slain body is significant, and the blood is discussed as being presented also. There is no need that I see to try to create a false and confusing disconnect between a slain body and the shed blood.

Imagine being a Jew and hearing that God's Lamb would take away the sins of the world. All of the significance placed in one event. All the significance of the lamb with the greater significance of the applied blood.

Speaking of the lamb in the passover, I don't know if theologically it is correct but it seems I hear people take the whole deliverance of Israel from bondage to Egypt and then spiritualize it, which I agree with. But also, in a closer sense, remember that what is happening is that the blood is applied in order that the judgement and wrath of God be avoided by the Israelites. This direct lesson makes a powerful case for Christs sacrifice as being able to take away sin, and it illustrates God's direct punishment, judgment and wrath against sin, not just death as a "consequence" of sin. If you want to say that the Israelites didn't anger God but Pharaoh did, and thus it would not apply, I guess you should take that up with John the Baptist.

 

[DaveXR650]

Now, instead of going over the same thing again and again, is it possible that @JonC's objection is that some will take the facts of penal substitution to the point of making that part of our redemption so mechanically functional that the idea of actually coming to Christ by faith, of taking him as Lord, of desiring to live out the rest of your natural life as a follower - becomes moot or even optional? I think some have done that and that is a problem. I just don't think that the problem is that penal substitution did not really happen. We could discuss some of those issues. I don't see any reason to repeat the same stuff again though.

 

[JonC]

Now, instead of going over the same thing again and again, is it possible that @JonC's objection is that some will take the facts of penal substitution to the point of making that part of our redemption so mechanically functional that the idea of actually coming to Christ by faith, of taking him as Lord, of desiring to live out the rest of your natural life as a follower - becomes moot or even optional? I think some have done that and that is a problem. I just don't think that the problem is that penal substitution did not really happen. We could discuss some of those issues. I don't see any reason to repeat the same stuff again though.

Ummm....no.

My position is the same. Christians csn believe PSA. We all have our own understanding. But as believers we know better than to lean on our own understanding. Instead we lean on every word that comes forth from God.

Now, are these types of philosophy dangerous? Only of we lean on them. We are men and cannot but have less than perfect understandings.

What if we do choose to lean on philosophy? Then there is a danger of being carried away from the faith (as I believe some on this forum, sadly, have). There will be many who cry "Lord, Lord" only to hear "I never knew you".

So the danger is real. The only safe measure for our belief is "what is written". Even then those of us who are saved will have disagreements. But He will make us stand.

When one comes to the place where they have to choose between the actual words of God and the understanding of what a sect claims is "really" taught by the Bible "when properly understood" (regardless of that sect) a decision of eternal significance is by necessity made.

That is why, when topics concerning foundational or essential doctrine come up, I will always say "do not lean on your own understsnding but on every word that proceeds from God".


I guess a good comparison is the foctrine of the Trinity. A basic doctrine, as is found in Scripture, is essential- NOT that one must believe it to be saved but that once they come to a point of choosing, should they reject it this would bring their salvation into question (e.g., can one who denies Jesus' divinity be saved?).

 

[DaveXR650]

Ummm....no.

Well. I just think those verses do indeed clearly indicate penal substitution. So I will leave you guys to it.

 

[JonC]

Well. I just think those verses do indeed clearly indicate penal substitution. So I will leave you guys to it.

I am glad you use "indicate" rather than "state" as the latter would be blasphemous.

I am not bothered when people explain their understanding. You believe those passages indicate PSA. I believe they do not. But who cares?? Understsndings are a dime a dozen.

We have God's words. At a minimum we can say PSA is not in the Bible (in "what is written"). You believe that is what those words really teach, what they indicate. I believe the Bible teaches what is actually written in the text.

The question is whether you will lean on your understanding (what you believe Scripture indicates or teaches) or will you lean on the words that actually come from God?

 

[JonC]

Here are some things I have come to realize over the years -

Methodists believe Scripture indicates their understanding.

Presbyterians believe Scripture indicates their understanding.

Pentecostals believe Scripture indicates their understanding.

Jehovah Witnesses believe Scripture indicates their understanding.

SDA members believe Scripture indicates their understanding.

Mormons believe Scripture indicates their understanding.

Orthodox Catholics believe Scripture indicates their understanding.

Roman Catholics believe Scripture indicates their understanding.



Each of these groups have "God given teachers" they trust. Each have their own scholars and theologians.

Each of these groups test what they believe the Bible teaches against what they believe is taught by the Bible.

@DaveXR650 has not expressed an uncommon view in holding subjective truth.


BUT how should we test our doctrine? How should we establish our teachings? What should we lean on? Every word that comes from God, what is written.

 

[DaveXR650]

‘Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree’ (1 Peter 2:24).

I am glad you use "indicate" rather than "state" as the latter would be blasphemous.

I am not bothered when people explain their understanding. You believe those passages indicate PSA. I believe they do not. But who cares?? Understsndings are a dime a dozen.

I'll throw this out in case someone other than you might indeed be interested. 1 Peter 2:24 states substitution. It doesn't completely explain penal substitution. But you also have the facts of what is being discussed in the passage. If you are willing to agree that "on the tree" is referring to the crucifixion on the cross, and you think about what that entailed, you start getting an understanding of the penal part.

‘The chastisement [ESV, NIV: ‘punishment’] for our peace was upon Him

That makes it penal. Penal substitution.
I don't know what else to say. The only rebuttal worse than yours is the one in "Catholic Answers". They are slightly more obnoxious, and less subtle.

 

[Ascetic X]

Those who say it is impossible for God to forgive sins — they have a lot of trouble with Psalm 103.

1 Bless the Lord, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless his holy name.

2 Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits:

3 Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases;

4 Who redeemeth thy life from destruction; who crowneth thee with lovingkindness and tender mercies;

5 Who satisfieth thy mouth with good things; so that thy youth is renewed like the eagle's.

6 The Lord executeth righteousness and judgment for all that are oppressed.

7 He made known his ways unto Moses, his acts unto the children of Israel.

8 The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.

9 He will not always chide: neither will he keep his anger for ever.

10 He hath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities.

11 For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him.

12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

13 Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lordpitieth them that fear him.

14 For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust.

15 As for man, his days are as grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth.

16 For the wind passeth over it, and it is gone; and the place thereof shall know it no more.

17 But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children;

18 To such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them.

 

[percho]

Is substitution atonement correct, instead of, penal substitution atonement?

 

[DaveXR650]

Is substitution atonement correct, instead of, penal substitution atonement?

If you are asking if some of the writings of modern day Calvinists go too far in vivid metaphors of God the Father being our of control angry with Jesus then yes, if that is what you are understanding as penal substitution.

And if you look at sin as bringing about a series of various natural consequences as a result of such actions so that "things" happen to sinful people but it is not the result of God's wrath. Then again, yes.

If you believe from your scripture reading that "wrath" is God's reaction to sin and that it is frequently threatened, foretold, and observed in God's dealings with sinful and especially defiantly sinful men throughout scripture, and that the "consequences" of man's sin like death physical and spiritual, trouble, disease, and so on have a penal aspect to them, then of course any effective substitutionary atonement would also be "penal", even if that aspect is not always in a given passage.

 

[DaveXR650]

Those who say it is impossible for God to forgive sins — they have a lot of trouble with Psalm 103.

This is kind of what I was trying to get into in post #5. Penal substitutionary atonement does not demand that God not forgive sins. But rather, the atonement as revealed to us, is proof to us that God has in his order of things, something additional going on than saying "hey, it's alright".
"Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins" means something that you have to reconcile with Psalm 103. This is exactly why simple biblicism won't do. But, what some of you are forgetting, and getting yourself deep into serious heresy, is that penal substitutionary atonement, though harsh, even brutal on Christ - amounts to what the Godhead came up with so that God could freely and mercifully give outright forgiveness to completely guilty sinners, when they come - as sinners. He always did love us, and always had a plan to save us, while still allowing him to be the judge of the universe as well as a creator with a certain nature, some of which, he has revealed to us in scripture.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Since you mentioned me I will make the point of stating an obvious fact those who are literate will already have seen.

The verses you provide do not state what you think they mean.

We have to have more respect for God and His Word than you are allowing.

Post "what is written" then your understanding. Explain how you arrive at your conclusions.

But don't skip that link (explaining how you "get there"). Do not pretend that your understanding is the biblical text because it is not.

We can continue by ignoring your claim and chalk it up to poor wording (you meant - yes, my faith is not actually in the Bible but it is what I believe is taught"). Then we can get to why you think that is what's taught.

BUT we HAVE to maintain a greater respect for God's Word than you just allowed in your post.

Always good to get the cheap insults out of the way first.

If God does not clear the guilty then how are you, as you said you are guilty, see God's kingdom?

So what are you saying here? That God actually does clear the guilty, contra Exodus 34:7? Or are you saying that we are all going to hell because God does not clear the guilty? Or has God laid our sins upon the Lord Jesus, made Him to be sin for us, made His life a sin offering so that by Hid wounds we are healed andthat therefore there is no condemnation to those that are in Christ Jesus?

@Martin Marprelate

Here is an example (I will use my own understanding of the verses you provided).


Psalm 115:3. 'But our God is in heaven; He does whatever pleases Him.'

I understand this means thar God is in heaven and He does what pleases Him.

I qualify this

So actually you don't believe God's words without qualifying the acoording to your own prejudices.

with God revealing that He will not do something outside of His own righteousness (I believe God is righteous).

For example, God will not punish the innocent (Prov 17); He will not condemn the just (ibid) and He will not clear the guilty (ibid; Ex 34).

I do not view this as limiting God but instead as describing God's own character.

But yet it has pleased God to bruise or crush Christ (I take the word 'pleased' to mean 'pleased'). 'He has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.'

Romans 1:18. 'For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness of men

I believe this means that God's wrath is revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness of men.

I believe this verse is not saying that God will punish the wicked men at the moment they sin (obviously God's wrath is stored until "the day of wrath" and judgment for "the day of judgment"). Instead God's wrath is revealed against "all unrighteousness of men"

If you read my O.P. again and with more attention you will notice that I mentioned God's longsuffering. However, if indeed you did study Greek for several years as you have said, you will know that in Romans 1:18, not only is the word apokaluptetai ('is revealed') is the present tense, but that the Present in Greek denotes continuity - 'is being revealed.' God's wrath is reavealed right now and is continually being revealed against the unrighteousness (Gk. adikia; look it up) of men. We allow for the fact that He 'endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction,' but that longsuffering is not always exhibited in God's dealings with men and nations - witness Er and Onan, Korah and his co-conspirators and Ananias and Sapphira. Look at God's dealings with Israel at various times. God's wrath is not always stored until the day of judgment

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief..

I believe it pleased the Lord (God) to bruise Him (Jesus). I do not believe "pleased" means "take pleasure in" because Scripture states that God does not even take pleasure in the destruction of the wicked.

Instead I believe we have to let Scripture interpret Scripture. It was God's pleasure (His will or predetermined plan as stated in Acts 3).

So we agree that it was God's pleasure to bruise the Son and to put Him to grief. Why? Because by that bruising, by that putting to grief, countless sinners were saved from hell.

'When You make His soul an offering for sin...'

Yes, God gave His Son as an offeting for sin. He sent His Son. And Jesus presented Himself as an offeting.

Well, it appears we agree on something.

I could go one, but to what end?

What indeed?

I believe those verses mean what the actual text states.

No you don't. You believe what you have accused me of believing. You believe what your presuppositions and prejudices dictate.

Christ did not die instead of us (no passage states this). But yes, He died for us.

Both of those things. Most certainly He died on our behalf, but he also died as the propitiation for our sins; He was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed. He died that we might live; He died in our place; He died instead of us (Matthew 20:28 etc.).

I think a lot of the foolishness stated in the OP could be remedied if people would actually read the OT and the sacrifice system.

What did the Istaelites killing bulls, lambs and goats accomplish?

It pleased God as they were obedient. But it did not cover their sins. It did not cleanse them of sins.

That was accomplished in the Temple or Tabernacle when the blood was taken in and applied.

Same at the Passover. Death did not pass over because they killed a lamb. They applied the blood and death passed over.

It was their faith which made the sacrifices effectual. 'For without faith it is impossible to please God.' But there is a difference between the O.T. sacrifices and that of the Lord Jesus. 'And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God........ For by one offering [of Himself] He has perfected thise who are being sanctified.' He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

 

[DaveXR650]

Is substitution atonement correct, instead of, penal substitution atonement?

And I almost forgot to add. The discussion of things like trouble, death, and so on as being consequences vs penal is important. And if you are brought up with Reformed theology at all, and I don't mean Calvinism in particular but just what we consider regular Baptist, or Protestant, those things are generally taught as having a penal aspect. But be careful, because there is also truth that they are consequential and it is unfairly charged that is has to be one or the other. We don't view every time someone dies that it is a direct punishment on them, but rather a consequence of being a sinner in general, and a member of the fallen human race. But you do have the penal aspect also in play at all times. That's why someone who is good at obscure argumentation, nuanced dissection of meaning, selective applications of scriptures, can have an almost demonic ability to sew confusion to one not well read. Fortunately, most of us, if you have access to a good sound church, will be fine. God help anyone relying on an internet forum.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Those who say it is impossible for God to forgive sins — they have a lot of trouble with Psalm 103.

Have a look at Numbers 15:22-31. God forgave sins committed unintentionally, but only through the shedding of blood (vs. 24, 27). But for the one who sinned presumpuously, there was no forgiveness (vs. 31-32). 'That person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him.'

Praise God for the Lord Jesus Christ! '.... And by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses' (Acts 13:39).

 

[JonC]

Have a look at Numbers 15:22-31. God forgave sins committed unintentionally, but only through the shedding of blood (vs. 24, 27). But for the one who sinned presumpuously, there was no forgiveness (vs. 31-32). 'That person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him.'

Praise God for the Lord Jesus Christ! '.... And by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses' (Acts 13:39).

The passages are correct but your conclusion is partially true.

Leviticus provides more detail.

Unconditional sins were forgiven by the people taking the goat and killing it. The priest makes atonement on behalf of those people by applying the blood.

The atonement was not the shedding of blood.

The korbanot is the sacrifice of the animal. This was not viewed as sn appeasement to God but as a gift of obedience.

The priest made atonement on behalf of the people. The atonement was the blood applied to the altar.


By omitting the details of the OT sacrifice you are making it appear that atonement itself was the shedding of blood or the killing of sn animal.

You are wrong to do that. We HAVE to stick to God's words rather than trying to use them to prop up theories.

 

[JonC]

Always good to get the cheap insults out of the way first.

So what are you saying here? That God actually does clear the guilty, contra Exodus 34:7? Or are you saying that we are all going to hell because God does not clear the guilty? Or has God laid our sins upon the Lord Jesus, made Him to be sin for us, made His life a sin offering so that by Hid wounds we are healed andthat therefore there is no condemnation to those that are in Christ Jesus?

So actually you don't believe God's words without qualifying the acoording to your own prejudices.

But yet it has pleased God to bruise or crush Christ (I take the word 'pleased' to mean 'pleased'). 'He has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.'

If you read my O.P. again and with more attention you will notice that I mentioned God's longsuffering. However, if indeed you did study Greek for several years as you have said, you will know that in Romans 1:18, not only is the word apokaluptetai ('is revealed') is the present tense, but that the Present in Greek denotes continuity - 'is being revealed.' God's wrath is reavealed right now and is continually being revealed against the unrighteousness (Gk. adikia; look it up) of men. We allow for the fact that He 'endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction,' but that longsuffering is not always exhibited in God's dealings with men and nations - witness Er and Onan, Korah and his co-conspirators and Ananias and Sapphira. Look at God's dealings with Israel at various times. God's wrath is not always stored until the day of judgment

So we agree that it was God's pleasure to bruise the Son and to put Him to grief. Why? Because by that bruising, by that putting to grief, countless sinners were saved from hell.

Well, it appears we agree on something.

What indeed?

No you don't. You believe what you have accused me of believing. You believe what your presuppositions and prejudices dictate.

Both of those things. Most certainly He died on our behalf, but he also died as the propitiation for our sins; He was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed. He died that we might live; He died in our place; He died instead of us (Matthew 20:28 etc.).

It was their faith which made the sacrifices effectual. 'For without faith it is impossible to please God.' But there is a difference between the O.T. sacrifices and that of the Lord Jesus. 'And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God........ For by one offering [of Himself] He has perfected thise who are being sanctified.' He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

I am saying several things.

1. The passages you provide do not staye your theory. You believe your throry is correct, which os fine...nobody believes the theories they hold is incorrect. BUT it is a throry because it is not "what is written". It is an understanding.

2. Yes. I am saying that God does not clear the guilty.

It is right there in God's own words. He will not punish the just and he will not clear the guilty. His words are objective and absolute. His words WILL stand.

3. I agree that God's wrath is revealed against all unrighteousness.

4. I agree that God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction.

5. I have been pointing out that you are changing God's words to fit into your theory. OT atonement was not the shedding of blood. It was not the killing of the animal.

In the OT scriptures people killed the goat. This was a sacrifice but not one to appease God's. It was a sacrifice of obedience, and this (in Hebrew thought) was what pleased God).

Then the priest MADE ATONEMENT by applying the blood to the altar. The life is in the blood.

The shedding of blood was necessary, BUT it was not the atonement itself per Scripture.

 

[JonC]

Is substitution atonement correct, instead of, penal substitution atonement?

I do not think so.

I do believe it is more correct than Penal Substitution (minus the focus on honor).

But we have to keep in mind that PSA today is a bit different from PSA centuries ago.

Until fairly recently (relatively speaking) PSA held that Jesus experiemced the punishment we would have if we were not saved. Christ descended into Hell and was tormented as we would have been eternally.

The punishment was our punishment.

This neo-PSA that exists today altered the theory. Instead of Christ suffering our punishment He is viewed to have suffered a punishment God accepted as satisfaction.

Today's PSA is closer to Luther's theory in that it is a mixture of Aquinas' theory and Calvin's theory.

It should be called satisfactory penal substitution theory.

It is not as old as Calvin's theory (which is the newest of the formal theories of atonement). Calvin despised Aquinas' view here.

I am not sure, however, that PSA is held today. Most have blended it with satisfaction theory as debates have continued.

The only contemporary figure I have seen advocating PSA as it was centuries ago is Joyce Myers. Most today seem to view atonement as being accomplished on the cross.