Penal Substitution.

[JonC]

Uh....no.
It seems to me that it was God who inaugurated the OT sacrificial system.

God did inaugurate the OT sacrificial system. But you are not talking about the Hebrew religion. You are speaking about the pagan ANE practices from which God called His people (transferring sins to animals, appeasing God's by animal sacrifices, etc).

 

[JonC]

Well what I object to is not so much your additions as your faulty interpretations. Is that OK?
You have BTW, accused me of paganism on this thread. Just saying.

That is OK. I understand you believe I misinterpret Scripture and that is a fair accusation.

I am not accusing you of paganism (I believe you are a Christian), but you have adopted a view that equates the OT sacrifice system to ANE pagan thought.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Does Christ justify the ungodly?

That was what I asked you. You seem to be tying yourself up in knots. I am trying to find out what you believe. You have said that you have abandoned the beliefs you were taught at college. I think it's legitimate to try and find out what you have retained.

 

[JonC]

That was what I asked you. You seem to be tying yourself up in knots. I am trying to find out what you believe. You have said that you have abandoned the beliefs you were taught at college. I think it's legitimate to try and find out what you have retained.

You misunderstood.

I abandoned Penal Substitution Theory.

I held Penal Substitution Theory long before college, and even in seminary (where we learned of other theories) I held the view (it was a conservative Baptist seminary so reading of other views of the Atonement was more of a Christian history issue rather than a theological one....Penal Substitution Theory was never questioned).

But yes, God is just and the justifier of sinners.

Do you believe that Jesus physically rose from the dead?

 

[unprofitable]

God did inaugurate the OT sacrificial system. But you are not talking about the Hebrew religion. You are speaking about the pagan ANE practices from which God called His people (transferring sins to animals, appeasing God's by animal sacrifices, etc).

No, the doctrine of transfer of sins and animal sacrifices is talking about the old covenant being the fore runner of the New covenant. It taught the righteousness of Christ and his kingdom when spiritually discerned. The spiritual seedline/remnant saw this and could therefore prophesy of the New covenant, by the spirit of Christ in them. Luke 3:23-38.

The old covenant was righteous in its context and purpose.

2 Cor 3:7. But if the ministration of death, written and engraved in stones was GLORIOUS, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance, which glory was to be done away with.
3:8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
3:9. For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
3:10 For even that which is made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
3:11 For if that which is done away with (transferring sins to animals, appeasing God by animal sacrifices that represented in types and shadows the righteous work of Christ) WAS GLORIOUS much more that which remaineth is glorious.

When David sinned and brought the wrath of God upon Israel, he bought Ornan's threshing floor, built and altar and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings and called upon the name of the Lord. This appeased the wrath of God. Who do you think the burnt offerings and peace offering represented?

It was the perverting of what the sacrifices meant, by the influence of the nations, that the Lord was calling Israel out from.

The old covenant has been fulfulled and done away with. What is meant has not been.

 

[JonC]

No, the doctrine of transfer of sins and animal sacrifices is talking about the old covenant being the fore runner of the New covenant. It taught the righteousness of Christ and his kingdom when spiritually discerned. The spiritual seedline/remnant saw this and could therefore prophesy of the New covenant, by the spirit of Christ in them. Luke 3:23-38.

The old covenant was righteous in its context and purpose.

2 Cor 3:7. But if the ministration of death, written and engraved in stones was GLORIOUS, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance, which glory was to be done away with.
3:8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
3:9. For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
3:10 For even that which is made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
3:11 For if that which is done away with (transferring sins to animals, appeasing God by animal sacrifices that represented in types and shadows the righteous work of Christ) WAS GLORIOUS much more that which remaineth is glorious.

When David sinned and brought the wrath of God upon Israel, he bought Ornan's threshing floor, built and altar and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings and called upon the name of the Lord. This appeased the wrath of God. Who do you think the burnt offerings and peace offering represented?

It was the perverting of what the sacrifices meant, by the influence of the nations, that the Lord was calling Israel out from.

The old covenant has been fulfulled and done away with. What is meant has not been.

There are no passages that present an animal as bearing man's sins.

The Old Covenant is fulfilled in Christ. The Law and the prophets testified to the New Covenant. I think we agree on that, anyway.

 

[JonC]

Well.....I guess that's one way to shut down a Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement thread. Just ask why God has to punish sinful actions rather than punishing the one who committed the transgressions.

Works every time.... unfortunately.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You misunderstood.

I abandoned Penal Substitution Theory.

I held Penal Substitution Theory long before college, and even in seminary (where we learned of other theories) I held the view (it was a conservative Baptist seminary so reading of other views of the Atonement was more of a Christian history issue rather than a theological one....Penal Substitution Theory was never questioned).

I don't see this as something to be proud of. Clark Pinnock abandoned Calvinism and ended up as an Open Theist. Even more sad is the case of A,B. (Alexander) Bruce who was Professor of theology at the Free Church College in Glasgow, Scotland in the 19th Century. He abandoned one belief after another and when he died, a friend said of him, "Sandy Bruce died without a thread of Christian assurance." Once the theological anchor starts to drift, there is a huge danger of ending up on the rocks.

But yes, God is just and the justifier of sinners

How is God just and the justifier of sinners? Which sinners?.

There are no passages that present an animal as bearing man's sins.

Oh dear! Is this the ninth or tenth time?
'Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man.'
Now we know that this passage is typological, but nonetheless it presents an animal bearing the sins of the people.

The Old Covenant is fulfilled in Christ. The Law and the prophets testified to the New Covenant. I think we agree on that, anyway.

Yes, we know these things, and it is precisely my point. but we do not therefore abolish the O.T.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

God did inaugurate the OT sacrificial system. But you are not talking about the Hebrew religion. You are speaking about the pagan ANE practices from which God called His people (transferring sins to animals, appeasing God's by animal sacrifices, etc).

No. You are talking about ANE Paganism; I am talking about the Bible and its teaching.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

What are you trying to prove with this verse?
It will be helpful if you will address my posts #43 and #105 concerning Christ's roles as Mediator and Surety.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

The burning of the sin offering would also represent Christ going into hell to suffer for our sins and pay our sin debt so that we might not suffer that wrath.

Wrong - the wrath was suffered on the cross, which was why Christ said "it is finished!" If He went to hell afterward then His sacrifice would have been insufficient due to having lied. Aside from the fact that he also told the thief that he would be with Him in paradise that very day. If Christ atoned for our sin in hell then the cross is pointless.

 

[37818]

. . . Christ going into hell to suffer for our sins . . . .

That is a denial of what Christ finished on the cross. And had no Biblical basis.

 

[JonC]

I don't see this as something to be proud of.

I do not understand your assumption here. "Proud of"???

God led me away from Calvinism. That is not something to be proud of, or ashamed of. It is a simple fact, nothing to do with me. I liked being a Calvinist.

I had preached a sermon on the cross. The sermon was well reviewed (you would have liked it, I suspect).

The next morning I awoke with the conviction that I had preached an understanding of the cross rather than Scripture.

I purchased two white boards and hung them in my study. On them I wrote out every passage I could think of that directly taught Penal Substitution.

Then I erased the passages that did not actually present Penal Substitution. There were no passages left.

So I knew Penal Substitution Theory was not in the text of Scripture and could not stand the test of comparing it to what is written in God's Word.

The best we can do is compare Penal Substitution Theory, as what we believe is taught by Scripture, with what we believe the Bible teaches. So it fails the criteria God has instructed us to use for doctrine.

But is Penal Substitution Theory contrary to Scripture? The answer is yes, in two ways.

First, Penal Substitution theorists have to deny some passages that would contradict their theory (e.g., it being an abomination to punish the Righteous, to acquit the wicked, sins not being transferred to others, etc.).

Second, Penal Substitution theorists miss out on what Scripture is actually teaching (what is actually written). They believe a myth over the truth of God's Word.

 

[JonC]

What are you trying to prove with this verse?
It will be helpful if you will address my posts #43 and #105 concerning Christ's roles as Mediator and Surety.

I am not trying to prove anything.

As I posted before, our conversations on this topic over the past decade has helped at least three people move from Penal Substitution Theory to a more biblical understanding of the cross. That is not many people, but it is at least a few.

I post the verses for others, not to change your mind. You are indoctrinated and steeped in your traditions. I was as well. And then I would not have been able to change my mind. It took God to change my mind.

So I post this passage here for others to examine along side your posts.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

 

[JonC]

No. You are talking about ANE Paganism; I am talking about the Bible and its teaching.

I am not the one who believes God is appeased by the blood of bulls, or that animals can bear man's sin.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am not the one who believes God is appeased by the blood of bulls, or that animals can bear man's sin.

Nor am I, as you know very well. If you don't understand typology, just ask and I'll explain it to you.

 

[JonC]

Nor am I, as you know very well. If you don't understand typology, just ask and I'll explain it to you.

I am glad to see you do not believe the OT sins were transfered to animals.

As I have said (and I take it you now agree), sins cannot be transferred.

If Aaron puts the sins of the people (in figure) on the head of the goat, they are no longer on the people. If I put a dollar in your hand, I don't have it any more; it has gone from me to you.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I do not understand your assumption here. "Proud of"???

God led me away from Calvinism. That is not something to be proud of, or ashamed of. It is a simple fact, nothing to do with me. I liked being a Calvinist.

I had preached a sermon on the cross. The sermon was well reviewed (you would have liked it, I suspect).

The next morning I awoke with the conviction that I had preached an understanding of the cross rather than Scripture.

I purchased two white boards and hung them in my study. On them I wrote out every passage I could think of that directly taught Penal Substitution.

Then I erased the passages that did not actually present Penal Substitution. There were no passages left.

So I knew Penal Substitution Theory was not in the text of Scripture and could not stand the test of comparing it to what is written in God's Word.

The best we can do is compare Penal Substitution Theory, as what we believe is taught by Scripture, with what we believe the Bible teaches. So it fails the criteria God has instructed us to use for doctrine.

But is Penal Substitution Theory contrary to Scripture? The answer is yes, in two ways.

First, Penal Substitution theorists have to deny some passages that would contradict their theory (e.g., it being an abomination to punish the Righteous, to acquit the wicked, sins not being transferred to others, etc.).

Second, Penal Substitution theorists miss out on what Scripture is actually teaching (what is actually written). They believe a myth over the truth of God's Word.

I have seen this nonsense any number of times from you. Either you missed out large numbers of texts or you misinterpreted them dreadfully.
'Penal Substitution Theory' is your own invention to enable you to escape the clear Biblical teaching of Penal Substitution proper. I will cover this in my next post.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am glad to see you do not believe the OT sins were transferred to animals.

As I have said (and I take it you now agree), sins cannot be transferred.

Try not to be silly. Learn about types and then come back with something sensible..
And It will be helpful if you will address my posts #43 and #105 concerning Christ's roles as Mediator and Surety.

 

[JonC]

I have seen this nonsense any number of times from you. Either you missed out large numbers of texts or you misinterpreted them dreadfully.
'Penal Substitution Theory' is your own invention to enable you to escape the clear Biblical teaching of Penal Substitution proper. I will cover this in my next post.

I think we both know the cry "it's the clear teaching" the "plain teaching" and "the obvious meaning" is a fallacy most often put forward by those who cannot support their views.

Either you believe Aaron transfered sins to animals or you do not. You cannot have it both ways.

We all know what you are going to do. You will post passage after passage that does not state your position and then tell us what those passages "really mean".

It does not work that way.

The main question here is why you believe God must punish sinful actions even if not punishing the person who committed the action.