What is Propitiation and is it really the heart of the gospel?

[Martin Marprelate]

No. Τετέλεσται cannot be applied to debts. You have the wrong word.

The word you are speaking of is very close, at least to our eyes, so I understand your mistake.

The word you define is τετελώνηται ("paid in full"). This is the word found on ancient notes.

Τετέλεσται refers to something being completed, acomplished, or finished. But never a debt (something like building a house, completing a college course, finishing a project).

While these may be related words they are different words.

The fact Τετέλεσται cannot mean "paid in full" itself does not disprove your theory. It just does not prove it either.

That is why the proper title for PSA is The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Like The Substitution Theory of Atonement, it cannot be proven using Scripture as the standard.

And same with Christus Victor/ Ransom Theory. With these the facts can be proven BUT what makes them theories is the idea that specific aspects are the main focus (Scripture does not prioritize focusing on Christ's victory over evil against Christ's obedience to God, for example).

Matthew 17:24. 'Does your teacher not PAY the Temple tax?'
Romans 13:6. 'For because of this you also PAY taxes.' The Greek word in both cases is teleo from which we get tetelestai.
The fact that both of these verses mention taxes cannot be taken as proof that it never means anything else but paying taxes. The root meaning of teleo is to finish. When you pay a debt it is finished. The Lord Jesus taught us to pray, 'Forgive us our debts.' God has answered our prayers by sending the Lord Jesus to pay the debt of sin that we owed. We owe it no more; it is finished, paid in full. Penal substitution.

 

[JonC]

Matthew 17:24. 'Does your teacher not PAY the Temple tax?'
Romans 13:6. 'For because of this you also PAY taxes.' The Greek word in both cases is teleo from which we get tetelestai.
The fact that both of these verses mention taxes cannot be taken as proof that it never means anything else but paying taxes. The root meaning of teleo is to finish. When you pay a debt it is finished. The Lord Jesus taught us to pray, 'Forgive us our debts.' God has answered our prayers by sending the Lord Jesus to pay the debt of sin that we owed. We owe it no more; it is finished, paid in full. Penal substitution.

No, Martin. I am not sure where you are getting your information but words (even related words) do not work like that.

For the record, ὀφειλήματα has a broader meaning than "debts". It means "obligations" or "faults". It could be a debt. And in the case of the Lords Prayer I believe it does (Jesus was teaching the Disciples, they were under the Law, and the Law is a certificate of obligations which became a certificate of debts as they failed to merit the blessings of the Law).


In Matthew 17:24 the word used for the Temple tax is δίδραχμα (didrachma). It was a silver coin. The verse does not mention "tax" by name but it was a Roman coin collected as the Temple tax. The word for paying this tax is τελεῖ.


In Romans 13:6 the word translated tax is φόρους. The word for paying the tax is τελεῖτε.


I understand that you want to have absolutely proof that PSA is not a theory. I get it. But you will not find it in the Bible. There are other interpretations - other theories.

That is why all of these theories fall under the category "Theories of the Atonement". They are different ways people throughout history have understood the Atonement. Each sect leans on one or more of these understandings as their doctrine. But they are theories.

What we cannot do is change God's words to meet our expectations or desires. We should never do that.


For an honest discussion to take place we all have to deal honestly with our views and with God's Word.


I explained why my view, Christis Victor, is a theory. Unlike PSA it is not because the doctrine cannot be found in the actual text of Scripture - it obviously can, every word. But Christus Victor holds that the primary focus of the Atonement, the primary way Scripture presents the Atonement, is as Christ's victory over Satan, freeing us from the bonds of sin and death. That is why it is a theory. Men reasoned out that this is the primary way the Atonement should be viewed.

But it could be viewed through Christ's obedience. It could be viewed through the ontological result of the Atonement. It could be viewed through Christ's interactions, how He lived and died. It could be viewed in the negative - the condemnation of the lost under a Christ-centered judgment.

I hold Christis Victor as completely true in content, but as the primary focus? That I hold with a grain of salt as my understanding. I certainly would not lean on it being more of a focus than other passages about the Atonement.

 

[DaveXR650]

Substitutionary Atonement is Central to the Gospel

Current controversy over the nature of Christ's atonement for sin points to a truth many younger evangelicals may not know, i.e., the substitutionary nature of Christ's death on the cross was a major issue in the Conservative Resurgence that took place within the Southern Baptist Convention in...

www.christianity.com

This might be of some help if anyone notices this thread and wants some background info. I am not a Southern Baptist and don't remember a lot of details of the conservative resurgence in the conference in the '80's but this is interesting and I did not know that this was part of the controversy.

 

[JonC]

Substitutionary Atonement is Central to the Gospel

Current controversy over the nature of Christ's atonement for sin points to a truth many younger evangelicals may not know, i.e., the substitutionary nature of Christ's death on the cross was a major issue in the Conservative Resurgence that took place within the Southern Baptist Convention in...

www.christianity.com

This might be of some help if anyone notices this thread and wants some background info. I am not a Southern Baptist and don't remember a lot of details of the conservative resurgence in the conference in the '80's but this is interesting and I did not know that this was part of the controversy.

It always has been. Even a few years ago. The SBC issued a resolution affirming PSA (resolutions are not binding). But what they did was de-PSA the theory (it was PSA in name only). Many of us saw, and see, it the first move in a bad direction at a time when so many Reformed churches are moving away from PSA. It opened the window to give PSA a legitimate definition in the future.


Bit wiithin the SBC (and Baptists in general) the topic of the Atonement was significant at the start.

I can think of two early Baptist leaders who strongly opposed PSA and would go on to contribute greatly to the SBC.

William B Johnson organized the First Baptist Church in Columbia SC in 1809.

In 1814 Johnson helped to found the Triennial Convention (the first Baptist denomination in the US) with Luther Rice. The focus was foreign missions.

Johnson founded the South Carolina Baptist Convention in 1821. He founded Johnson College in 1848, which became Anderson College in 1911 and Anderson University on 2006.

In 1845 Johnson helped to form the SBC. The reason was not about owning slaves, per se, but the eligibility of a skave owner to be sent for missionary work. There was a divide, even within the SBC, about slavery. But those who may have objected personally viewed it as a "soul liberty" issue not directly addressed in the Bible.

Johnson served as the 1st SBC president (from 1845 to 1851).


Jesse Hartwell was president of the Alabama Baptist State Convention for five sessions, professor of theology at Howard College, and president of the Domestic Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.

In 1847, he moved to Arkansas and founded Camden Female Institute.

In 1857, he served as president and professor of theology at Mount Lebanon University until his death on September 16, 1859.

It would be a mistake to assume that all, or even most, Baptists in the US held to PSA.

The first SBC Faith & Message was written in 1925. It was carefully composed so as not to exclude churches based on the theory of Atonement they held.


I can only remember those because of my thesis. There are more, if one cares to look. If anybody is near Nashville they can go to the Archives (just off I-65, downtown) and read the original journals of these guys.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

My point was that this is not so that we would be credited as righteousness but become the righteousness of God in Him. This is supported by the context as well (new creature, old gone, new here)

Abraham believed God and it was credited (or accounted) to him as righteousness (Gen. 15:6; Gal. 3:6). 'And the Scripture, forseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed." So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham' (Gal. 3:8-9, quoting Gen. 12:3). They become the righteousness of God because they place their trust in Christ and their faith is credited to them as righteousness (c.f. Rom. 4:1-12).

 

[Wesley Briggman]

(Rom 3:24 KJV) Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
(Rom 3:25 KJV) 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;

(1Jo 2:2 KJV) And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

(1Jo 4:10 KJV) Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins.

I had no part in being reconciled to God. Jesus Christ did it all for me. Praise be to Him!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No, Martin. I am not sure where you are getting your information but words (even related words) do not work like that.

For the record, ὀφειλήματα has a broader meaning than "debts". It means "obligations" or "faults". It could be a debt. And in the case of the Lords Prayer I believe it does (Jesus was teaching the Disciples, they were under the Law, and the Law is a certificate of obligations which became a certificate of debts as they failed to merit the blessings of the Law).

I don't know what you are trying to do here. The KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, and NIV all translate ὀφειλήματα as 'debts.' So as a Bible-believer, I rendered it as 'Debts.'

In Matthew 17:24 the word used for the Temple tax is δίδραχμα (didrachma). It was a silver coin. The verse does not mention "tax" by name but it was a Roman coin collected as the Temple tax. The word for paying this tax is τελεῖ.


In Romans 13:6 the word translated tax is φόρους. The word for paying the tax is τελεῖτε.

Again, what are you trying to prove here? Both telei and teleite come from teleo from which also comes tetelestai. Why are you wasting my time bringing this stuff up when it doesn't help your argument at all?

I understand that you want to have absolutely proof that PSA is not a theory. I get it. But you will not find it in the Bible. There are other interpretations - other theories.

Well, you can stick to your 'other interpretations' and 'other theories.' I'll just stick with the Bible, thanks.

 

[JonC]

Abraham believed God and it was credited (or accounted) to him as righteousness (Gen. 15:6; Gal. 3:6). 'And the Scripture, forseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed." So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham' (Gal. 3:8-9, quoting Gen. 12:3). They become the righteousness of God because they place their trust in Christ and their faith is credited to them as righteousness (c.f. Rom. 4:1-12).

Abraham's faith was indeed credited to him as righteousness. And the promise comes by faith.

But Jesus has now obtained a superior ministry, and to that degree he is the mediator of a better covenant, which has been established on better promises.

If anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here. He was made sin for us that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.

 

[JonC]

I don't know what you are trying to do here. The KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, and NIV all translate ὀφειλήματα as 'debts.' So as a Bible-believer, I rendered it as 'Debts.'

I am perfectly fine with "debts". The Law was a certificate of debt to Jesus' audience (this is prior to Christ fulfilling the Law and He was speaking to Jewish people, the "people of the Law").

Again, what are you trying to prove here? Both telei and teleite come from teleo from which also comes tetelestai. Why are you wasting my time bringing this stuff up when it doesn't help your argument at all?

I am not trying to prove anything. I am simply stating a fairly well known fact. Within some sects there was a type of liberalism (with Scripture) that sought to make connections to lock verses into "proving" their positions.

One of these was the assumption that the meaning of Τετέλεσται (finished, completed, accomplished) could be exchanged for τετελώνηται ("paid in full"). This was complicated by a a myth that ancient notes contained the word Τετέλεσται to mean "paid in full".

But history proved this short lived myth wrong. In Grerk literature, on ancient writings, and on notes the word Τετέλεσται never appears to mean "paid in full". Not even once.

What does appear on notes is the word τετελώνηται, and sometimes Τετελ.
And on these notes it indicates that the debt has been "paid in full".

But τετέλεσται does appear often to describe the completion of things like construction projects.

You have mixed up two words, or probably more accurately, you have believed a bit of fiction that supports your position (which is easy to do - most people have not formally studied Greek, and most would not take the time to fact check). Plus this myth started in the 20th century and took off rather quickly among some sects. Like the candy cane myth.

I'll just stick with the Bible, thanks.

I typically use the NASB, NKJV and NIV. But it is the same with the KJV and HCSB. And it is with the Hebrew and Greek as well.

PSA - what makes it PSA as opposed to Ransom Atonement, Substitution Atonement, etc. - is not in the biblical text. That is why you have been unable to find the verses you were looking for. And that is why it is a theory, one of the main Atonement Theories in Christianity.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

PSA - what makes it PSA as opposed to Ransom Atonement, Substitution Atonement, etc. - is not in the biblical text.

You saying it does not make it so. You are waffling, and I don't have time to keep replying to this stuff.

 

[JonC]

You saying it does not make it so. You are waffling, and I don't have time to keep replying to this stuff.

I agree. My saying that there are no passages that state in the actual text "Jesus suffered God's wrath", "Jesus died instead of us" (or similar wording) absolutely does not make it so.

But thus far nobody has posted such verses, and ai have not seen one either. Instead people who hold PSA will post verses abd say PSA is what they understand those verses to teach.

People who hold Satisfactory Substitution Theory believe their understanding is what the verses you provide teach.

People who hold Recapitulation believe their understanding is what the verses you provide teach.

People who hold Ontological Substitution believe their understanding is what the verses you provide teach.

They are theories of the Atonement.

And that is why PSA is the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. It cannot be objectively proven with the biblical text as a standard. It is based on the understanding of the one who holds the theory.


Take judicial philosophy. I do not believe the judicial philosophy PSA is founded on (how it views justice) is actually just. And that philosophy is not in Scripture itself. So if the philosophy is wrong then PSA is wrong.

I believe that the point of atonement is the application of the blood shed for us. I can prove this with OT and NT passages. But if one leans on PSA they will probably reason it away because it undercuts the theory.


That said, it is simple to prove PSA, like other views, is a theory. One cannot provide a verse stating what makes PSA distinct from the beliefs of non-PSA Christians. It is not in the biblical text.

BUT there is the assumption that we both hold God's Word itself as the standard for doctrine. If somebody holds their understanding, or the teachings of men who hold the same understanding, as the authority then they can "prove" the theory to like-minded people. But that would be a subjective faith and a move away from God.

@Martin Marprelate

You are right in one way. I said what makes PSA different from other orthodox views is not the biblical text. You rejected that.

You are correct in that PSA holds a summary type view of the OT, often excluding parts that call into question the theory.

What I meant was you can provide no passages that I do not also accept. I may reject what you think is taught "when properly understood", but I do not reject what is written.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I agree. My saying that there are no passages that state in the actual text "Jesus suffered God's wrath", "Jesus died instead of us" (or similar wording) absolutely does not make it so.

But thus far nobody has posted such verses, and ai have not seen one either. Instead people who hold PSA will post verses abd say PSA is what they understand those verses to teach.

People who hold Satisfactory Substitution Theory believe their understanding is what the verses you provide teach.

People who hold Recapitulation believe their understanding is what the verses you provide teach.

People who hold Ontological Substitution believe their understanding is what the verses you provide teach.

They are theories of the Atonement.

And that is why PSA is the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. It cannot be objectively proven with the biblical text as a standard. It is based on the understanding of the one who holds the theory.


Take judicial philosophy. I do not believe the judicial philosophy PSA is founded on (how it views justice) is actually just. And that philosophy is not in Scripture itself. So if the philosophy is wrong then PSA is wrong.

I believe that the point of atonement is the application of the blood shed for us. I can prove this with OT and NT passages. But if one leans on PSA they will probably reason it away because it undercuts the theory.


That said, it is simple to prove PSA, like other views, is a theory. One cannot provide a verse stating what makes PSA distinct from the beliefs of non-PSA Christians. It is not in the biblical text.

BUT there is the assumption that we both hold God's Word itself as the standard for doctrine. If somebody holds their understanding, or the teachings of men who hold the same understanding, as the authority then they can "prove" the theory to like-minded people. But that would be a subjective faith and a move away from God.

@Martin Marprelate

You are right in one way. I said what makes PSA different from other orthodox views is not the biblical text. You rejected that.

You are correct in that PSA holds a summary type view of the OT, often excluding parts that call into question the theory.

What I meant was you can provide no passages that I do not also accept. I may reject what you think is taught "when properly understood", but I do not reject what is written.

Why don't you go on to talk about the "theory" of the Trinity? No Bible text explicitly states "God is a Trinity," or even mentions the word. Why aren't you talking about the Trinity as a "philosophy"?
The fact is that I have shown you time and time again Biblical proofs of PSA, but you are so heavily invested in your own philosphical approach that you refuse to see them. I really can't do any more to help you.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You saying it does not make it so. You are waffling, and I don't have time to keep replying to this stuff.

I agree.

There! It's good to know that we agree on something.