Penal Substitution Theology and the faith of those without it

[Van]

As I said before, we are at the end of the road. You continue to assert what cannot be supported biblically, such as God "reconciled" past tense humanity when Christ died. Scripture on the other hand tells us God is reconciling (present tense) the world (humanity) to himself. My understanding adds, one sinner at a time when they are placed in Christ. Huge difference.

Second, since Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all, to claim that means the elect, is simply again in my opinion unbiblical.

I could go on but it is pointless. There was no purchase of an offer, the purchase provided the opportunity for anyone to be reconciled to God. Christ is the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world, all of sinful humanity.

When God transfers an individual from the realm of darkness, into the kingdom of His Son, they are reconciled, and not before.

 

[TCassidy]

Second, since Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all, to claim that means the elect, is simply again in my opinion unbiblical.

Compare Scripture with Scripture.

Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Mark 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Does the bible contradict itself or do we understand that the word "all" is an adjective modifying an understood noun? It begs the question, "all of what?"

Christ's sacrifice can properly be viewed in two senses. In fact, if we continue reading Paul's letter to Timothy we find in chapter 4 and verse 10 "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe."

Paul is telling Timothy there are two aspects to Christ's sacrifice. The general sense which applies to all men in that the Atonement is sufficient for the sins of all men everywhere without exception, thus allowing a truthful presentation of the Gospel to "all the world" (of mankind).

But in the second sense it is "specially" applicable to believers. The application of the Atonement is limited to believers.

Christ's Sacrifice is unlimited in its sufficiency, but limited in its application. Because Christ's expiation of sin is inexhaustible and sufficient to cover all the sins of all of mankind, God can offer it to all. But only some (the elect) will respond and be saved, according to His eternal purpose and immutable will.

 

[Van]

Many equals all. The figure of speech compares the many with the one. Thus the many refers to every else. The one is Jesus.

Christ is the savior for all mankind, there is no other. However only those who believe are saved.

Again, the word is reconciliation and any and all individuals transferred into Christ are reconciled.

Christ's sacrifice bought all people, the lost and those saved. (2 Peter 2:1)

I wanted to discuss what the bible says, and it says Christ is the propitiation for the whole world, all the sinful humanity. He laid down His life as a ransom for all, the just for the unjust. And everybody else (the many) is unjust.

Reconciliation occurs when God places the person into Christ and not before. No need to conflate the purchase with the redemption.

 

[JonC]

As I said before, we are at the end of the road. You continue to assert what cannot be supported biblically, such as God "reconciled" past tense humanity when Christ died. Scripture on the other hand tells us God is reconciling (present tense) the world (humanity) to himself. My understanding adds, one sinner at a time when they are placed in Christ. Huge difference.

Second, since Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all, to claim that means the elect, is simply again in my opinion unbiblical.

I could go on but it is pointless. There was no purchase of an offer, the purchase provided the opportunity for anyone to be reconciled to God. Christ is the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world, all of sinful humanity.

When God transfers an individual from the realm of darkness, into the kingdom of His Son, they are reconciled, and not before.

I am saying, brother, that we are at the “end of the road” not because the conversation is exhausted but because you have erected a road block. Humanity, the state of being human, has been reconciled (past tense). I do not understand how you do not see this in Scripture as it is apparent in "the Logos became flesh", it is clear in the words that God was through Christ reconciling the world to Himself, and that He bore our sins in His flesh. If God did not reconcile humanity (mankind) then we have no hope of individual reconciliation (men cannot be reconciled to God through Christ if through Christ humanity is not reconciled to God).

When I say that God has “reconciled” (past tense humanity), I am saying that God has offered His Son as a guilt offering and Christ bore our sins in his body on the cross (1 Peter 2:24). Man (humanity) is reconciled in Christ (because He became flesh and bore our sins on the cross). You are confusing the reconciliation of humanity with the reconciliation of individual men. Jesus was offered as an atoning sacrifice on the cross. We are reconciled through faith.

Insofar as “there was no purchase of an offer”, I’m not sure what you mean but we were bought at a price (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23), we were purchased with the blood of Christ (1 Peter 1:19). Christ is the propitiation for the sins of mankind (1 Jn 2:2); He is the savior of all, especially those who believe (1 Tim. 4:10). Mankind IS reconciled through Christ, and men have been (past tense) and continue to be (present tense) and will be (future tense) reconciled to God through Christ as the guilt offering (atoning sacrifice, offered in the past) because He is the propitiation not only for our sins but for the sins of the world (the only way, the sufficient sacrifice for man).

I never said that Christ being a "ransom" for all means "the elect" on the cross. I said that the Father offered Christ as an atoning sacrifice (a guilt offering) - that is, by the Incarnation, ministry, and obedience to the point of death, even death on a cross (Phil. 2:7-8). That said, I also claimed that God sent His Son into the world that those who believe would be saved (Jn 3:16). Christ's death on the cross was sufficient for all men, it was the "price" to save all men, it was a reconciliation of humanity to God. But the atoning sacrifice is also an atonement (a reconciliation) for only those who believe. In this manner, Christ's death is universal to all humanity but it is also limited as an atonement for "true Israel", for those who believe.

 

[HankD]

We each choose and put whatever spin on the scripture that suits our fancy.

When we see Him coming in glory then all spin will stop at His first Sunday School lesson.


HankD

 

[SovereignGrace]

Not to mention amusive, collusive, effusive, exclusive, extrusive, illusive and inclusive.

Not to mention, obtusive, obtrusive, erosive, tussive(if he's a smoker), argumentative, apprehensive, nonadaptive, and those are his good traits. Cautious

 

[HankD]

Not to mention, obtusive, obtrusive, erosive, tussive(if he's a smoker), argumentative, apprehensive, nonadaptive, and those are his good traits. Cautious

Actually, I quit smoking while in the service shortly after I was saved about 54 years ago.

HankD

 

[SovereignGrace]

Not to mention, obtusive, obtrusive, erosive, tussive(if he's a smoker), argumentative, apprehensive, nonadaptive, and those are his good traits. Cautious

And JonC 'disagreeing' with a joke further cements my idea of who he really is. Sad. Really sad.

 

[JonC]

And JonC 'disagreeing' with a joke further cements my idea of who he really is. Sad. Really sad.

Brother, I do not know why you continue in this way. I am trying to believe that you have not carried here some agenda against me (I don't know why, as we agree for the most part in terms of doctrine and I cannot think of a time when I've wronged you). But please stop the agenda. Please stop the insults, and the accusations. Please stop playing the victim and trying to make me something that I am not. In other words, SG, please give me the respect that I am giving you.

The reason that I "disagreed" with your "joke" was not the content. Had TCassidy made the reply then I would not have "disagreed". I disagreed because that "joke" was the only substantial interaction you've had on this thread, and I did not think it the appropriate way to enter the dialogue.

I rated it "disagree" instead of responding because I did not think that it was worth an argument, or an explanation. I simply subjectively disagree.

Please stop returning to your false accusations of the past (I've warned you about that, brother). You've been at it so long I doubt that you can even remember the "agenda" you claimed I was advancing anyway. Your agenda is clear...exactly why it exists is beyond me.

 

[HankD]

And JonC 'disagreeing' with a joke further cements my idea of who he really is. Sad. Really sad.

Hey, not so sad to me! --- Thanks JonC!!

I don't mind a joke.

HankD

 

[SovereignGrace]

Hey, not so sad to me! --- Thanks JonC!!

I don't mind a joke.

HankD

Good. I never meant any harm.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Brother, I do not know why you continue in this way. I am trying to believe that you have not carried here some agenda against me (I don't know why, as we agree for the most part in terms of doctrine and I cannot think of a time when I've wronged you). But please stop the agenda. Please stop the insults, and the accusations. Please stop playing the victim and trying to make me something that I am not. In other words, SG, please give me the respect that I am giving you.

The reason that I "disagreed" with your "joke" was not the content. Had TCassidy made the reply then I would not have "disagreed". I disagreed because that "joke" was the only substantial interaction you've had on this thread, and I did not think it the appropriate way to enter the dialogue.

I rated it "disagree" instead of responding because I did not think that it was worth an argument, or an explanation. I simply subjectively disagree.

Please stop returning to your false accusations of the past (I've warned you about that, brother). You've been at it so long I doubt that you can even remember the "agenda" you claimed I was advancing anyway. Your agenda is clear...exactly why it exists is beyond me.

It was a joke, no malice in it. Lighten up Francis.

 

[JonC]

Hey, not so sad to me! --- Thanks JonC!!

I don't mind a joke.

HankD

You're welcome Hank. If you could, please help me hold this bag of frozen peas over my black eye....that was some sucker punch SG threw my way. Laugh

(I didn't think you minded a joke, but I didn't agree that it was the best response either).

 

[JonC]

Good. I never meant any harm.

To whom??? Laugh

I rated your post, I didn't kick your DoG.

I also did not mean any harm, or that you would take it so severely as to respond as you did. I didn't think that you held any malice either (I just thought it a poor way to enter the dialogue at that point). I am sorry that you took my rating to heart and I didn't mean you to take it that way. As you said, lighten up a bit here. We are not at war with each other. For my part, and regardless of my opinion, I've removed the rating.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Read my sig now JonC. You can toss all your innuendos out the passenger side window now.

 

[JonC]

Read my sig now JonC. You can toss all your innuendos out the passenger side window now.

You thought that I was implying that you were Convicted1? Brother, I don't think that there is anyone here that does not know you are Convicted1. I thought you had that username retired because you couldn't log on (like me with JonC).

Now I see the reason for your conduct towards me was you thought I had some agenda to expose your identity, and I am so sorry that we did not discuss this months ago. I've been wondering why the hostility and the accusations. But Brother, this is so very far from the truth. It never crossed my mind that you thought I was "tossing innuendos" at you and I apologize if something I said led you to that misunderstanding, but please know that it is far from the truth. I do not now, nor have I ever, advanced an agenda on this or any board. You have horribly mistaken an intent I never carried.

Please understand and realize that far too much has already been said on the grounds of misunderstanding. If you ever have a question about anything I say, about why I say it or my purpose, then please ask me. I hate that so much ill feelings and disruptive words have resulted from that one misunderstanding, but I am hopeful as the error is in the open. I am sorry you felt slighted, and that was never my intention.

The other issue is now people know I was JonC (and I was so creative in making a new username).....they'll put things together and find out we were once on good terms and I counted you as a "friend" - which is why I've reached out to you several times to discuss and reconcile whatever is between us, and the invitation is still open (the "ball" has never left your court).

Our secretes are exposed, we emperors have no clothes...Frown

“ And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.”

 

[Van]

Hi JonC, one of us has erected a road block. No scripture supports your assertion that God has reconciled sinful humanity. None, zip nada. Sinful humanity was purchased with the blood of Christ. Two different things.

Lets consider 1 Peter 2:24, Note those in view have been healed (reconciled). He bore those sins in His body on the cross, as part of the sin of humanity. The reconciliation occurred when God transferred those individual into Christ and they underwent the washing of regeneration. To repeat the reconciliation of humanity occurs one sinner at a time when they are placed in Christ.

What I mean is no scripture says or suggests Christ's death purchased a "bonafide offer." Again you have no support in scripture or logic.

Scripture says God is reconciling the world (mankind) to Himself, and it says individuals have been reconciled, and IMHO that refers to those who have been put into Christ.

Only those whose faith God credits as righteousness are then set apart (sanctified) in Christ, and made perfect (faultless), and united with God.

What was accomplished on the cross? Christ became the propitiation for the whole world, all of sinful humanity purchased with the blood of the Lamb of God.

 

[JonC]

Hi JonC, one of us has erected a road block. No scripture supports your assertion that God has reconciled sinful humanity. None, zip nada. Sinful humanity was purchased with the blood of Christ. Two different things.

Lets consider 1 Peter 2:24, Note those in view have been healed (reconciled). He bore those sins in His body on the cross, as part of the sin of humanity. The reconciliation occurred when God transferred those individual into Christ and they underwent the washing of regeneration. To repeat the reconciliation of humanity occurs one sinner at a time when they are placed in Christ.

What I mean is no scripture says or suggests Christ's death purchased a "bonafide offer." Again you have no support in scripture or logic.

Scripture says God is reconciling the world (mankind) to Himself, and it says individuals have been reconciled, and IMHO that refers to those who have been put into Christ.

Only those whose faith God credits as righteousness are then set apart (sanctified) in Christ, and made perfect (faultless), and united with God.

What was accomplished on the cross? Christ became the propitiation for the whole world, all of sinful humanity purchased with the blood of the Lamb of God.

I don't see it a "roadblock", Van, but I do believe the passages I have provided show that in Christ humanity (mankind) is reconciled to God. I believe this evident in the scriptures I provided as support. There is an old quote, but I cannot remember where it originated (or where I picked it up..I think Paul Washer...). By way of explanation it said that God could not redeem what He did not take upon Himself. In reconciling man God first reconciled humanity.

And again, I am saying mankind/humanity was reconciled in Christ on the cross, not men. In other words, Christ is the propitiatiation for the sin of mankind. We were not reconciled two thousand years ago, but in Christ man and God are reconciled. It is a disagreement, not a barrier.



Sent from my SM-T357T using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

JonC, you can pick your words, and I will pick mine. You are defining the purchase as the reconciliation. Not what the word means. No scripture you have provided support the reconciliation of humanity on the cross. Purchase yes, ransom yes, reconciliation no.

Christ, through the shedding of His blood, ransomed humanity, becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world. The purchase provided the propitiationary opportunity for anyone to be reconciled to God. Now when someone is placed in Christ, their individual sin burden is removed, carried away (bore) in His body. Behold the circumcision of Christ.

I have provided a clear simple explanation of what Christ accomplished on the cross, and what Christ accomplishes when God puts people into His body. Two separate actions as described in scripture.

Your view, IMHO, redefines the meaning of words and alters the tense of words to conflate the two actions.

 

[JonC]

JonC, you can pick your words, and I will pick mine. You are defining the purchase as the reconciliation. Not what the word means. No scripture you have provided support the reconciliation of humanity on the cross. Purchase yes, ransom yes, reconciliation no.

Christ, through the shedding of His blood, ransomed humanity, becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world. Now when someone is placed in Christ, their individual sin burden is removed, carried away (bore) in His body. Behold the circumcision of Christ.

I have provided a clear simple explanation of what Christ accomplished on the cross, and what Christ accomplishes when God puts people into His body. Two separate actions as described in scripture.

Your view, IMHO, redefines the meaning of words and alters the tense of words to conflate the two actions.

That's fine, Brother. We do pick our own words and wrestle with these things in such a way that disagreements arise. I want to make sure that we understand those differences, and sometimes that is all that we can do.

One reason that I strongly believe that humanity itself (mankind) was at the cross reconciled to God is that this is the basis for individual reconciliation. I do not think this anything but a reconciliation based on Christ's being (completely man, completely God). Prior to the Logos being made flesh, humanity was not reconciled to God. Now there is a "man" in the glory in the person of Christ.

This was how many of the ECF's held Christ's purpose on the Cross (Eusebius and Justin Martyr, for example). Though the Cross God was reconciling the world to Himself and that ministry of reconciliation continues through us. Without the initial reconciliation of humanity, man cannot be reconciled.

Yes, we disagree on the term "reconciliation" as I am using in speaking of humanity. In my defense, reconciliation does mean that type of restoration. In Christ humanity is reconciled to God. I simply do not understand how that can be denied yet we believe that man can be saved.

To put it another way which may be clearer: Humanity was once unreconciled with God. In Christ, humanity is no longer at odds with God but is reconciled in such a way that men can on the ground of the Cross be saved.