Free Grace Theology without Penal Substitutionary Atonement, and Free Grace Theology with it.

[Guido]

After reading some of a commentary on Romans by Zane Hodges, I began to have more confidence in the Free Grace Position, but I did not know that GES, which teaches Free Grace Theology, if I am correct, (I may be wrong), does not believe in Penal Substitutionary Atonement. First, I don't want to misrepresent them. I would love to believe and learn more of their teaching, why I bought a number of their books. But after looking a certain article they wrote, I found something, (which I may have misinterpreted), stating that our problem was unbelief, and that Penal Substitutionary Atonement was not accomplished on the cross.

I have long believed that Christ's suffered in our place the full penalty for our sins, and my main concern was Free Grace vs Lordship, Calvinism vs Non-Calvinism. I never believed Arminiasm, nor even considered it.

So now, the real problem has to do with two things.

1) Whether they really don't believe in Penal Substitutionary Atonement. If they do, can someone please correct me?

2) What the precising meaning of the phrase "Propitiation through faith in his blood" means. Since I only read the KJV, I have a serious problem interpreting this phrase the way it is written in the KJV. Zane Hodges renders "a mercyseat in his blood to be received by faith." But I think the KJV has it right.

My question on this point then is, what is the precise meaning of propitiation? Mercyseat, reconciliation, atoning sacrifice? And why does it simply say, "through faith in his blood" instead of something meaning "an propitiation effective through faith in his blood"? Is this a form on metonymy?

Or is it Zeugma, in which it is an atonement, a reconciliation through faith in his blood.

I really don't understand. Please help me with this.

First, the KJV Bible dictionary doesn't get the meaning of repent right, which in many cases means "to change one's mind", so I don't know why I would trust its definition of any other word. Second, I'm not an expert on Greek. I just know a little about verb tenses, nearly nothing about its phonetics, and can look up the meaning of words in a Strong's Concordance.

Also, it would be nice if there were a Greek New Testament with English spelling and phonetics, accompanied by lessons on Greek so that I could fully read the Greek. I have a book on Greek, but I find the most difficult thing to learn to be the Greek Alphabet, which I have repeatedly learned in part, then forgotten, for lack of use.

 

[JonC]

"Propitiation" is an English word. Many (e.g., FF Bruce) argue that the word should read "atonement" meaning "reconciliation" which would include "propitiation" as the believer "escapes the wrath to come". Some prefer expiation.

 

[Guido]

"Propitiation" is an English word. Many (e.g., FF Bruce) argue that the word should read "atonement" meaning "reconciliation" which would include "propitiation" as the believer "escapes the wrath to come". Some prefer expiation.

I never knew that propitiation meant reconciliation, or that atonement meant the same thing. I thought it meant it referred to penal substitution. That's why I didn't understand this verse. But we do find in Hebrews the concept of penal substitutionary atonement, correct? I have a hard time finding it in Romans.

 

[JonC]

I never knew that propitiation meant reconciliation, or that atonement meant the same thing. I thought it meant it referred to penal substitution. That's why I didn't understand this verse. But we do find in Hebrews the concept of penal substitutionary atonement, correct? I have a hard time finding it in Romans.

The word is atonement with a focus on wrath. If I propitiated you I am appeasing your anger.

We do find the concept of penal substitution in the sense that Christ died for our sins and we escape the wrath to come. We do not find in the text itself the idea that God punished our sins in Christ instead of punishing us (the theory of penal substitution).

 

[Guido]

The word is atonement with a focus on wrath. If I propitiated you I am appeasing your anger.

We do find the concept of penal substitution in the sense that Christ died for our sins and we escape the wrath to come. We do not find in the text itself the idea that God punished our sins in Christ instead of punishing us (the theory of penal substitution).

Can you please elaborate? I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

What does "for" mean in the phrase "Christ died for our sins"

 

[Guido]

So God just poured out his anger on Christ for our sins, but he didn't bear the punishment for our sins?

I don't know where I got the idea I had from.

 

[Guido]

So God just poured out his anger on Christ for our sins, but he didn't bear the punishment for our sins?

I don't know where I got the idea I had from.

What does it mean that "He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him"? I really don't understand that verse.

Once I took it literally, so basically I blasphemed. I didn't do it on purpose. That's what the verse seems to say.

 

[JonC]

Can you please elaborate? I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

What does "for" mean in the phrase "Christ died for our sins"

I believe "for" literally means "for". It was because of our sins that Christ died.

Some add "instead of" (Christ died instead of us for our sins).

How you understand "for" depends on your interpretation of the Atonement.

 

[JonC]

So God just poured out his anger on Christ for our sins, but he didn't bear the punishment for our sins?

I don't know where I got the idea I had from.

If God poured out His anger on Christ for our sins then it would be God punishing Christ (or our sins in/ on Christ) instead of punishing us.

I do not believe that God poured out His anger on Christ, so I do not come to that conclusion.

But that is the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, and it is the most popular view among Reformed churches and evangelical Baptists.

 

[JesusFan]

The word is atonement with a focus on wrath. If I propitiated you I am appeasing your anger.

We do find the concept of penal substitution in the sense that Christ died for our sins and we escape the wrath to come. We do not find in the text itself the idea that God punished our sins in Christ instead of punishing us (the theory of penal substitution).

Where and how was our deserved wrath propitiated then?

 

[JesusFan]

If God poured out His anger on Christ for our sins then it would be God punishing Christ (or our sins in/ on Christ) instead of punishing us.

I do not believe that God poured out His anger on Christ, so I do not come to that conclusion.

But that is the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, and it is the most popular view among Reformed churches and evangelical Baptists.

You have to deny that jesus then was our sin bearer, and misunderstand how he who knew no sin became sin for us!

 

[JonC]

You have to deny that jesus then was our sin bearer, and misunderstand how he who knew no sin became sin for us!

No. You do not have to deny that Christ bore our sin. That is a misunderstanding on your part of other views.

 

[JonC]

Where and how was our deserved wrath propitiated then?

Our deserved wrath was not propitiated. This is not what the word "propitiation" means.

The focus on wrath is the "judgment to come", as God's wrath is poured out on the wicked, for "the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God". God will "separate the nations as a shepherd separates goats from sheep". The wicked will be "cast into the Lake of Fire", for the "wicked shall perish".

 

[JesusFan]

No. You do not have to deny that Christ bore our sin. That is a misunderstanding on your part of other views.

He bore our sins in order to propitiate the wrath of God towards us, correct?

 

[JesusFan]

Our deserved wrath was not propitiated. This is not what the word "propitiation" means.

The focus on wrath is the "judgment to come", as God's wrath is poured out on the wicked, for "the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God". God will "separate the nations as a shepherd separates goats from sheep". The wicked will be "cast into the Lake of Fire", for the "wicked shall perish".

Propitiation means to pay for, to appease the due wrath of God towards us!

 

[JonC]

He bore our sins in order to propitiate the wrath of God towards us, correct?

He is the Propitiation for our sins, not only ours but for the sins of the whole world.

I agree with FF Bruce that the correct word is "atonement" or "reconciliation" in that passage. The subject is Christ, not wrath or sins. Christ IS the Propitiation or Atonement.

That is why Calvin could insist that the passage refers to all men, indiscriminately, while not compromising his Calvinistic view.

 

[Aaron]

I found something, (which I may have misinterpreted), stating that our problem was unbelief

This has to do with the fallacious notion that all sin everywhere and for all time is forgiven, and that all one has to do to enter heaven is believe.

Naturally they would deny the central work of the Cross.

 

[Van]

After reading some of a commentary on Romans by Zane Hodges, I began to have more confidence in the Free Grace Position, but I did not know that GES, which teaches Free Grace Theology, if I am correct, (I may be wrong), does not believe in Penal Substitutionary Atonement. First, I don't want to misrepresent them. I would love to believe and learn more of their teaching, why I bought a number of their books. But after looking a certain article they wrote, I found something, (which I may have misinterpreted), stating that our problem was unbelief, and that Penal Substitutionary Atonement was not accomplished on the cross.

I have long believed that Christ's suffered in our place the full penalty for our sins, and my main concern was Free Grace vs Lordship, Calvinism vs Non-Calvinism. I never believed Arminiasm, nor even considered it.

So now, the real problem has to do with two things.

1) Whether they really don't believe in Penal Substitutionary Atonement. If they do, can someone please correct me?

2) What the precising meaning of the phrase "Propitiation through faith in his blood" means. Since I only read the KJV, I have a serious problem interpreting this phrase the way it is written in the KJV. Zane Hodges renders "a mercyseat in his blood to be received by faith." But I think the KJV has it right.

My question on this point then is, what is the precise meaning of propitiation? Mercyseat, reconciliation, atoning sacrifice? And why does it simply say, "through faith in his blood" instead of something meaning "an propitiation effective through faith in his blood"? Is this a form on metonymy?

Or is it Zeugma, in which it is an atonement, a reconciliation through faith in his blood.

I really don't understand. Please help me with this.

First, the KJV Bible dictionary doesn't get the meaning of repent right, which in many cases means "to change one's mind", so I don't know why I would trust its definition of any other word. Second, I'm not an expert on Greek. I just know a little about verb tenses, nearly nothing about its phonetics, and can look up the meaning of words in a Strong's Concordance.

Also, it would be nice if there were a Greek New Testament with English spelling and phonetics, accompanied by lessons on Greek so that I could fully read the Greek. I have a book on Greek, but I find the most difficult thing to learn to be the Greek Alphabet, which I have repeatedly learned in part, then forgotten, for lack of use.

Excellent thread open, asking good questions! Thanks.

First I think "GES" refers to "Grace Evangelical Society."

Here is a quote concerning their "gospel:"

No act of obedience, preceding or following faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, such as commitment to obey, sorrow for sin, turning from one’s sin, baptism or submission to the Lordship of Christ, may be added to, or considered part of, faith as a condition for receiving everlasting life (Rom 4:5; Gal 2:16; Titus 3:5). This saving transaction between God and the sinner is simply the giving and receiving of a free gift (Eph 2:8-9; John 4:10 ; Rev 22:17 ).​

Thus they are advocates of "Easy Believism" and should be avoided.

I could not find the answer to your question concerning PSA.

The Greek words translated "propitiation" are 'hilasmos" (G2434) found in 1 John 2:2 and 4:10, which is a noun describing the means of appeasing God and turning aside His wrath. The other Greek word translated "propitiation" is "hilasterion" (G2435) is found in Romans 3:25 and Hebrews 9:5 (translated as mercy seat, the cover of the Ark of the Covenant). In this form the word points to the place where God's wrath is turned aside, thus Christ is the means of reconciliation or more directly salvation.

Related Greek words are "hileos" found in Matthew 16:22 and Hebrews 8:12, which is an adjective describing God being merciful, and "hilaskomai" (G2433) found in Luke 18:13 and Hebrews 2:17, which is a verb describing God action of being merciful by turning aside His wrath due to the sins of the people.

In summary the idea is that Christ provides the means of salvation, and those God places within Christ spiritually enter His propitiatory shelter, thus turning aside His wrath and being mercifully forgiven. He is the means of Salvation, but to obtain the benefit of His sacrifice, God must credit your faith as righteousness and place you individually within Christ.

 

[Guido]

I may have misinterpreted the article I read, so it may not deny Penal Substitution, or it may. I really didn't understand it. But I read another article from faithalone.org that talks about Christ being the mercyseat.

 

[Guido]

I just found an article from faithalone/GES saying they consider penal substitution a fundamental free grace doctrine. So I made a mistake.

But I don't think you have to be aware of that to be saved. I think that's what GES says.