Featured Biblical Atonement (Part 4....but who's counting)

What Scripture did you present?

 

I think @JonC in post 12 for the most part describes penal substitution.
I do not accept the use of "propitiation" and at the same time denying penal substitution. You use the concept of a ministry of reconciliation but it's based on what? Through Christ's death, he became a curse for us, was made sin for us, bore our sins in his body. You are describing penal substitution. Your last paragraph totally contradicts your own preceding statements.

That is just a proof of why Jesus was uniquely qualified for this and taken the way you try to use it it means that we are in a hopeless situation. But it is possible because he became sin who knew no sin. And he didn't just become "sin" as a vague concept floating around. It was our actual sins. Penal substitution.

Of course it means reconciliation but it has to be based on something. We know from scripture that God's law is an expression of his nature. We know from scripture what God's reaction is to sin. We know Christ died for our sins as you posted yourself. Something akin to pagan sacrifices is straight out of the modern theological liberalism and is not what is meant at all. You said yourself " He was pleased to crush him". Now I'm sorry but I call that a clue - that maybe wrath was involved.

It's amazing to me that what has been going on for what, four threads, is a conciliatory response basically agreeing with penal substitution along with a bizarre dismissing of scriptures clearly indicating penal substitution because you have so decreed. A lot of people nowadays don't believe in penal substitution but do any of these go ahead and use "propitiation"? That's a contradiction in itself. At least hire a good philologist and get a good modern translation that does away with it.

 

Pick an item. And give the Scripture reference for it. Then I can compare your statement with said Scripture. What we agree on will not at issue.

 

I don't accept the logic that you can use propitiation for the sins of the whole world then say we can escape the wrath to come and in Him we are justified - then say penal substitution is not in the Bible. There is a disconnect that I don't understand and would not post at this point except for this:

A statement like this needs to be explained as to what exact harm it causes and what your theory would correct.

 

I agree.

I agree.

I agree. [I understand grace under sacrifice system in the Law, before the cross.]

I agree. [I understand grace under sacrifice system in the Law, before the cross.]

Also Ezekiel 18 :32, ". . . For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye. . . ."

 

And men are not God in these matters. What Christ did between being foresaken by His Father, Matthew 27:46 He completed before He received the vinegar, Matthew 27:48, John 19:28-29.

 

As everyone can see, you have already determined that no verse could ever mean penal substitution because you deem them off limits beforehand. Above you describe propitiation and wrath then turn around and say that has nothing to do with penal substitution when every other thing you read - whether it be for or against penal substitution agrees that those are things have everything to do with penal substitution. So the argument becomes absurd and goes on for thread after thread with nothing accomplished. Your theory in post 12 has all the elements of penal substitution even as you try to dance around it and more importantly it does not match any other theory that is anywhere. If I am wrong on this list the reference. Otherwise we have two possibilities, either you have developed a novel theory, or you enjoy pulling people's chains.

 

Dave, the problem is not penal suffering, but the substitution, in which the PSA places the wrath of God had to be poured out upon the Son in order to remove the judgement statements of the decrees of the Law.

As yet, the linking of wrath to the suffering has been lacking any valid Scripture support.

I see two very basic problems that one must resolve with Scripture.

1) Why is there not a single verse in the NT or OT that speaks directly to the issue. Neither is there given even the slightest hint of such in the atonement Passover yearly sacrifice. The only time wrath from God was mentioned was if the blood or priest was unqualified. Christ was not unqualified nor disqualified by sin, for He remained innocent.

2) Christ is God. That is what the Scriptures state. In another place, He is the Fulness of God.
So, the PSA (philosophically) is in direct conflict with the holiness of God not only by Him pouring wrath out upon the innocent (which is also a violation of His own Law), but is actually supposedly pouring divine judgement (wrath) upon Himself. This is not in the slightest Scripturally supported.

It matters very little concerning the philosophy, for when one comes to confront PSA, it is not just the lack of support, but also the gymnastics of misusing scriptures. Either person will cling to the traditions of men or, as @JonC and me, realize WE must conform to the Word of God.

So, throughout these multiple threads with abundant posts, we have urged folks to bring some Scripture to validate PSA. Seems we only get the basic handful that have been soundly shown unusable for such support, and, that those Scriptures offered do actually validate that in which both @JonC and Me have shown as the scriptural presentation.

Now, there is one area that I go further (I think) than @JonC, and that is in the use of the word “substitution.”

I have long expressed the use of the word (substitution), as is currently defined, is inappropriately applied.

In Scripture, the thinking of substitution is not “taking our place.”

In the OT if some “substitute” for the sacrifice was to be used, BOTH the original and substitute were sacrificed. So the “substitution” thinking of “a replacement,” or “the taking the place of,” just does not fit Scripture type. For the believers would still be under the judgement of God.

I much rather prefer “satisfied” for that is exactly what the OT presents in type and what the NT expresses.

You will note the lack of giving Scripture in this post.

That is on purpose.

Dave, you will need to evaluate the Scriptures for yourself. Find what the Scripture supports, and cling to it, despite what others hold.

@JonC nor I are out to convince by our own merits folks to our thinking. Such is foolish when it is the work of the Holy Spirit and Scriptures that should convince. We merely ask folks to seek, find for themself, and be convinced by Scriptures of what they hold.

 

Our personal 'journeys' are irrelevant, but I was not 'taught' what you call PSA. It simply leaps from the page.

 

What was the penalty for?

 

Indeed.

The Biblical Atonement (continued 3)

 

Why do you suppose there was a penalty?

Peter didn’t make such a claim.

23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
​

Actually, I like the Berean Study Bible work on this:

He was delivered up by God’s set plan and foreknowledge, and you, by the hands of the lawless, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross.

​

 

The Biblical Atonement (continued 3)


To say "the sacrifice is sacrificed" is meaningless. What the animal was, was a substitute. Sins were born in the body of the offering. The body is excluded from the altar. It is carried by the priests outside the camp away from the abode of God where the sins are judged with fire.

You keep saying the just did suffer for the unjust (something you explicitly denied in the earlier thread), but what does it mean? What did the Just endure for the unjust?

 

You just said it was penal suffering.