Is the Penal Substitution Theory the most common theory throughout history?

[The Archangel]

Yes, context dictates interpretation. But what you are doing is interpreting through a theological lens.

These two sentences are logically incompatible. Context dictates interpretation, but that particular context is the one in which the author uses the word or words, not our "theological lens." In other words, our lens does not fundamentally change the author's usage or intended meaning.

Your sentences above seem to suggest that my "lens" can change the authors meaning. It certainly cannot.

Where did you study hermeneutics?

I have indeed studied hermeneutics in great depth, but why should the "where" matter?

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

These two sentences are logically incompatible. Context dictates interpretation, but that particular context is the one in which the author uses the word or words, not our "theological lens." In other words, our lens does not fundamentally change the author's usage or intended meaning.

Your sentences above seem to suggest that my "lens" can change the authors meaning. It certainly cannot.



I have indeed studied hermeneutics in great depth, but why should the "where" matter?

The Archangel

The reason I asked is what you have offered is not the definition of "propitiation", not an interpretation of the verse, but a general commentary about how the verse fits into one theory. It just seemed odd.

I know theories and interpretations differ, but you should be able to look at Scripture without automatically applying to it your chosen theory. You have not thus far proved able to accomplish this basic step.

Read the text. Read what is written. Here we should agree but we dont. Scripture itself is objective. From there we develop doctrine, application, and theories (which is where disagreements should arise). But you have to start by allowing the text to speak.

 

[Yeshua1]

And. . . the covenants, and. . . redemptive history. . . and. . . we all know it makes sense.

The basic problem in rejecting the Pst is that you have a bad viewpoint regarding the Fall, and how it affected us all!

 

[Yeshua1]

The problem is not Christ as the sin offering. Scripture teaches that He bore our griefs and was wounded for our transgressions – the chastisement of our peace was upon Him and by His stripes we are healed.

The problem is when we turn that around to teach that on the Cross God satisfying the demands of justice by punishing Jesus with the punishment due those who are saved. Another issue is that Old Testament sacrifices were not punishments (they represented appeasement, not punishment).

The reason that it is a problem is twofold. First, Scripture does not present God as punishing Jesus (as another put it, God was not being wrathful towards Jesus when He experienced what would have been wrath towards us). Second, it is contrary to what Scripture does teach in regards to God’s faithfulness and His Righteous One.
Exactly. I do not know of anyone who holds that Satan was paid a ransom. My point was that it was the theory at one time (long before Penal Substitution Theory) and spurred Anselm to develop another.

God was owned by us a sin debt, that required the due chastisement and punishment that was due on us to now be placed upon Him...

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm not sure what you mean. God's wrath is against all unrighteousness.

God forsake the Messiah during that time that he was paying for the sin debt, as the sin bearer!

 

[The Archangel]

The reason I asked is what you have offered is not the definition of "propitiation", not an interpretation of the verse, but a general commentary about how the verse fits into one theory. It just seemed odd.

I know theories and interpretations differ, but you should be able to look at Scripture without automatically applying to it your chosen theory. You have not thus far proved able to accomplish this basic step.

Read the text. Read what is written. Here we should agree but we dont. Scripture itself is objective. From there we develop doctrine, application, and theories (which is where disagreements should arise). But you have to start by allowing the text to speak.

That's all well and good... but I have given the definition. You seem not to be able to get beyond the lexicon. Further, the word itself is not "interpreted" according to a "theory." The usage of Paul (and John) tells us shows us what the word means, which is in agreement with the lexical definition. My holding to the penal substitutionary "theory" is based in the text itself, and, as such, the theory is not the lens by which I read the text.

I have read the text, what is written. You, if you are denying penal substitution or propitiation, have to redefine what is there. Many have taken it upon themselves to do so by trying to understand propitiation as "expiation," which simply does no justice to the word ἱλαστήριον.

The Archangel

 

[Yeshua1]

I understand that you believe the word "propitiation" means "to bear wrath", but that does not change the fact it doesn't. Where are you getting these definitions?

So did someone as learned as Dr Sproul!
https://www.ligonier.org/.../two-important-words-good-friday-expiation-and-propitiati..

 

[Yeshua1]

Here are a representative few:

The Greek terms (the verb hilaskomai, “to make propitiation” and the noun hilasmos, “a sacrifice of propitiation”) used in these passages have the sense of “a sacrifice that turns away the wrath of God — and thereby makes God propitious (or favorable) toward us.” This is the consistent meaning of these words outside the Bible where they were well understood in reference to pagan Greek religions. These verses simply mean that Jesus bore the wrath of God against sin.

Wayne A.; Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Making Sense of Series) (p. 575). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.​

The following portion is from the notes of the ESV Study Bible. Normally I wouldn't quote a simple study Bible, but these notes were written by Dr. Tom Schreiner who is one of the foremost New Testament scholars in the world. His epic commentary on Romans goes into greater detail, but this sample from the ESV Study Bible is a worthy condensing of his larger work.

Rom. 3:25 Jesus’ blood “propitiated” or satisfied God’s wrath (1:18), so that his holiness was not compromised in forgiving sinners. Some scholars have argued that the word propitiation should be translated expiation(the wiping away of sin), but the word cannot be restricted to the wiping away of sins as it also refers to the satisfaction or appeasement of God’s wrath, turning it to favor (cf. note on John 18:11). God’s righteous anger needed to be appeased before sin could be forgiven, and God in his love sent his Son (who offered himself willingly) to satisfy God’s holy anger against sin. In this way God demonstrated his righteousness, which here refers particularly to his holiness and justice. God’s justice was called into question because in his patience he had overlooked former sins. In other words, how could God as the utterly Holy One tolerate human sin without inflicting full punishment on human beings immediately? Paul’s answer is that God looked forward to the cross of Christ where the full payment for the guilt of sin would be made, where Christ would die in the place of sinners. In the OT, propitiation (or the complete satisfaction of the wrath of God) is symbolically foreshadowed in several incidents: e.g., Ex. 32:11–14; Num. 25:8, 11; Josh. 7:25–26.​

Notice, also, Jesus' own words in John 18:

So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?” (John 18:11 ESV)
​

The imagery is unmistakable--it is a cup of wrath. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and, later, Revelation all have this imagery. Jesus Himself attests that what His is going to do on the cross is precisely to bear the Father's wrath. Paul's use of "Propitiation" in Romans and John's use of it in his epistles are in perfect harmony with Jesus' own thoughts.

The Archangel

Calvin and the other reformers did not invent this doctrine out of thin air, as they find it right in the scriptures themselves! They just articulated and fleshed it out in more precise terminology.

 

[JonC]

So did someone as learned as Dr Sproul!
https://www.ligonier.org/.../two-important-words-good-friday-expiation-and-propitiati..

Sproul believed the Penal Substitution Theory (He was a Presbyterian).And he did believe that Jesus propitiated God by bearing our sin and experiencing His wrath. But don't insult the man by assuming he believed the word meant "bearing wrath". Sproul was not a fool.

 

[Yeshua1]

So all those who believe that Jesus suffered the very wrath of God in our stead are all fools? And Sproul did believe in Pst....

 

[JonC]

So all those who believe that Jesus suffered the very wrath of God in our stead are all fools? And Sproul did believe in Pst....

The theory of atonement that people believe do not make them foolish. Calvin was not foolish for holding to Penal Substitution Theory. Luther was not foolish for assuming Satisfaction Theory. Aquinas wasn't foolish for looking to Christ's merit. Anselm wasn't foolish for looking to God's honor. Origen was not foolish for his Ransom Theory. Irenaeus wasn't foolish for Recapulation Theory. Tertullian wasn't foolish for his view of Christus Victor. NONE of these men were foolish. All of them believed that Christ suffered for us, as our representative, to purchase us from sin and death, to propitiate the wrath to come, and by his stripes we are healed. ALL of them. But NONE of them were foolish.

R.C. Sproul was not the "fool" you pretend him to be. He was a godly man and a scholar. He, along with many who disagreed with him on this topic, tried to remain faithful to Scripture. I personally disagree with him on several issues (to include infant baptism, ecclesiology, and his theory of atonement). But this does not mean Sproul was a fool. As I stated before, while Sproul would never have defined "propitiation" to mean "bearing wrath" he did believe this was the way Christ appeased God's wrath. You should be ashamed of yourself, @Yeshua1 , for dragging such a godly man through the dirt.The fact he passed away not so long ago makes your comments that much more disgraceful.

 

[TCassidy]

So again, what are the many resources you are citing that define "propitiation" as "bearing wrath"?

. . . "averting the anger" . . . ISBE,

 

[JonC]

. . . "averting the anger" . . . ISBE,

I like that one. My favorite is still appeasing God's wrath (or anger).

But the claim was not that "propitiation" means "averting the anger" or "appeasing God's wrath". I believe that this is true. This is exactly what Christ did. He appeased God's wrath towards us (I still need to read why F.F. Bruce objected to "propitiation").

The claim was that the word "propitiation" is not defined as "appeasing God's wrath" but "bearing God's wrath". I believe it remains that those who believe in Penal Substitution Theory believe that Jesus propitiated God's wrath by bearing it, but the word "propitiate" itself does not necessitate that definition.

 

[The Archangel]

...the word "propitiate" itself does not necessitate that definition.

But the word never appears by itself, does it? Get off the lexical fallacy.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

But the word never appears by itself, does it? Get off the lexical fallacy.

The Archangel

The word never appears with Jesus bearing God's wrath either. The subject of the verse is not wrath, man, or sin. The subject is Christ who is the Atonement that adverts God's wrath.

Set aside your presuppositions and deal honestly with the biblical text. Even if your theory were correct it would not excuse such eisegesis.

 

[The Archangel]

The word never appears with Jesus bearing God's wrath either. The subject of the verse is not wrath, man, or sin. The subject is Christ who is the Atonement that adverts God's wrath.

Set aside your presuppositions and deal honestly with the biblical text. Even if your theory were correct it would not excuse such eisegesis.

Lol! Perhaps it is your presuppositions and eisegesis that are blinding you. I’m just fine with Dr. Schreiner and RC Sproul.

If you don’t have penal substitution, you don’t have atonement.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JonC]

Lol! Perhaps it is your presuppositions and eisegesis that are blinding you. I’m just fine with Dr. Schreiner and RC Sproul.

If you don’t have penal substitution, you don’t have atonement.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let’s just call you to the task - interact with the CONTEXT of the passages (if you are able) and show us where John is speaking of Jesus bearing God's wrath in 1 John :

ἱλασμός appears twice in Scripture – both in 1 John (1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10)

1 John 2:1-14 1 John 1:5-2:6 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us. My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.

What is the context? Is it God’s wrath, or bearing God’s wrath? No. The context of propitiation in 1 John 2 is the advocacy of Christ as the propitiation (the One who propitiates). Does the context demand this mean Christ propitiates by bearing God’s wrath? No, it does not. God’s wrath is not even mentioned in the passage except perhaps as assumed by the word choice “propitiation” (and here only as a propitiation, or an atonement which appeases God’s wrath – which is implied in that the Advocacy is linked to the forgiveness of sins mentioned in the previous verses).

1 John 4:7-12 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us.

What is the context? Is it God’s wrath, or bearing God’s wrath? No. The context of propitiation in 1 John 4:10 is actually God’s love manifested in sending His only begotten Son that we might live. The only reason to use the word “propitiation” is that it is what was used in chapter 2 (the only other time the word appears in Scripture). But no mention of Jesus bearing God’s wrath.

'Come on....we're waiting....I don't want to hear your theories or how Christ bore God's wrath - show us where ἱλασμός means "bearing wrath" because of the context it is used in the passages.

 

[JonC]

Here is F.F. Bruce’s comments (the one I couldn’t recall before):

We need not stay to enquire whether ‘expiation’ or ‘remedy for defilement’ would be a preferable rendering of hilasmos; ‘propitiation’ or ‘atonement’ will do well enough, if we use either word in its biblical sense – not as something which men must do to placate God but something which God as provided in His grace to bring men into His presence with the assurance that they are accepted by Him, since He has removed the barrier that kept them at a distance – guilt, with its attendant retribution, the ‘punishment’ which is banished by ‘perfect love’. (The Epistles of John)

 

[thatbrian]

If you don’t have penal substitution, you don’t have atonement.

Yup.

 

[TCassidy]

The claim was that the word "propitiation" is not defined as "appeasing God's wrath" but "bearing God's wrath".

Yes, but my quote is the ISBE definition of Propitiation and seems closer to "appeasing God's wrath" than "bearing God's wrath." "Averting the anger" seems to mean "turning away" or "warding off" (meaning of "avert") God's wrath, not "bearing."