The Biblical Propitiation Of God's Wrath, and PSA.

[Zaatar71]

No one is refuting any of this, and they should not desire to-
We may not artificially separate redemption as ransom from the guilt of sin from the other categories in which the work of Christ is to be interpreted. These categories are but aspects from which the work of Christ once for all accomplished must be viewed and therefore they may be said to interpermeate one another. This fact as it applies to redemption appears, for example, in Romans 3:24-26. "Being justified freely," Paul says, "by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth a propitiation through faith in his blood . . . to show forth his righteousness at the present time, in order that he might be just and the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus." Here not only are redemption and propitiation collocated but there is a combination of concepts bearing upon the intent and effect of Christ's work, and this shows how closely interrelated these various concepts are.

This passage exemplifies and confirms what other considerations establish, namely, that redemption from the guilt of sin must be construed in juridical terms analogous to those which must be applied to expiation, propitiation, and reconciliation.

Redemption from the power of sin may be called the triumphal aspect of redemption.

In his finished work Christ did something once for all respecting the power of sin and it is in virtue of this victory which he secured that the power of sin is broken in all those who are united to him. It is in this connection that a strand of New Testament teaching needs to be appreciated but which is frequently overlooked.

It is that not only is Christ regarded as having died for the believer but the believer is represented as having died in Christ and as having been raised up with him to newness of life.

This is the result of union with Christ. For by this union Christ is not only united to those who have been given to him but they are united with him. Hence not only did Christ die for them but they died in him and rose with him (cf. Rom. 6:1-10; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15; Eph. 2:1-7; Col. 3:1-4; I Pet. 4:1, 2).

It is this fact of having died with Christ in the efficacy of his death and of having risen with him in the power of his resurrection that insures for all the people of God deliverance from the dominion of sin. It supplies the ground for the exhortations "Even so reckon ye yourselves to be dead indeed to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 6:11) and gives force to the apodictic assurance, "Sin shall not have dominion over you" (Rom. 6:14). It is this fact of having died and risen with Christ, viewed as an implication of the death and resurrection of Christ once for all accomplished, that provides the basis of the sanctifying process. And it is constantly pleaded as the urge and incentive to sanctification in the practice of the believer.

 

[Brightfame52]

@JonC

The mean of the word "propitiation is to turn aside or avoid something, particularly wrath or anger. I think this is evident in that it is in Christ we "escape the wrath to come". Jesus IS the Propitiation for the sins of the Wirld (the ONLY Propitiation).

The whole world of 1 Jn 2:2 is only comprised of them saved from wrath. It cannot apply to any who are currently under Gods wrath or died under His wrath. Christ cant be the propitiation for anyone under Gods wrath, impossible. These unbelievers are under Gods wrath Jn 3:36

36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

These particular unbelieving will not see life, meaning never be saved unto life everlasting !

 

[Zaatar71]

@JonC



The whole world of 1 Jn 2:2 is only comprised of them saved from wrath. It cannot apply to any who are currently under Gods wrath or died under His wrath. Christ cant be the propitiation for anyone under Gods wrath, impossible. These unbelievers are under Gods wrath Jn 3:36

36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

These particular unbelieving will not see life, meaning never be saved unto life everlasting !

Yes Brightflame, thankful for your clear post and a correct understanding of biblical propitiation. It is actual and not merely potential.

 

[JonC]

Thanks for your response. You have offered your ideas on it!

God does both... he punishes sins either in the sinner, Divine wrath poured out directly resulting in second death,

or the Divine substitute. Penal Substitutionary Atonement, the biblical answer, not an "interpretation, but rather an exposition of the various texts many of which are contained in the PDF. No one here will be able to contest, or refute this PDF, or the sermon transcripts offered.
People who call this a theory in trying to explain away an exposition of the texts, fail big time from what I can see.
Thanks again for your participation on this thread.

Anyone who reads this thread, is welcome to quote any portion of what has been offered, the scriptures used, and then offer your response yo what you quote, and try and show how you think they missed the truth. I have not seen anyone ever do that.

Again, you ate welcome.


The problem with defining Penal Substitution Theory as "biblical" is the fact that it is foreign to the Bible (foreign to the text of Scripture). It was a reform of Aquinas' theory, but neither theory were derived from Scripture (it is secular philosophy where the theorist went to Scripture looking for support).

I just do not understand why penal substitution theorists find Scripture so inadequate.

The readon it is a theory has nothing to do with interpreting or explaining Scripture. Penal Substitution Theory adds to Scripture. Adding is not explaining.

For example, Jesus died for our sins. That is biblical. Penal Substitution Theory adds "instead of us'" and "experiencing God's wrath". That is not explanation but addition.

Scripture states that God will forgive sins upon repentance ("turning" to Him). Penal Substitution Theory holds that God is unable to forgive sins because doing so would be unjust per 16th century judicial philosophy, so God must punish sins in order to allow the wicked to escape punishment.

The word "biblical" should never be paired with Penal Substitution Theory. This is why most Christians reject Penal Substitution Theory. It is why many within reformed circles are rethinking the philosophy (it was a 16th century philosophy that is no longer considered valid, except as a holdover in a few religious cults).

 

[JonC]

@JonC



The whole world of 1 Jn 2:2 is only comprised of them saved from wrath. It cannot apply to any who are currently under Gods wrath or died under His wrath. Christ cant be the propitiation for anyone under Gods wrath, impossible. These unbelievers are under Gods wrath Jn 3:36

36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

These particular unbelieving will not see life, meaning never be saved unto life everlasting !

I agree. My point was thar Penal Substitution Theory is foreign to the biblical text (foreign to "what is written"). Penal Substitution theorists rely on what other penal substitution theorists tell them (Note how much support is on this thread from men and how little from God). They test what they think the Bible teaches by what they think is taught in the Bible (as silly as that sounds).

The problem, of course, is the teachings of Penal Substitution Theory stands in opposition to what is actually written in the Bible (if you take God's Word as complete and accurate).

 

[5 point Gillinist]

that God cannot forgive sins based solely on man setting his mind on the Spirit rather than the flesh (repentance),

Can you elaborate on this point a little bit?

 

[Zaatar71]

I agree. My point was thar Penal Substitution Theory is foreign to the biblical text (foreign to "what is written"). Penal Substitution theorists rely on what other penal substitution theorists tell them (Note how much support is on this thread from men and how little from God). They test what they think the Bible teaches by what they think is taught in the Bible (as silly as that sounds).

The problem, of course, is the teachings of Penal Substitution Theory stands in opposition to what is actually written in the Bible (if you take God's Word as complete and accurate).

These God called "men" understand the scriptures and have listed scriptures that teach this biblical truth.
Your 5 responses you have offered no scripture, which is strange as you suggest you are about "what is written"???
These"men"have offered more than 54 scriptures to zero you have offered.
You have not attempted to quote any of the material and offer on it.
Calling the teaching a theory, saying these men offering scripture is not bible teaching is a bit shallow, as it is God who has given these scriptures that these men understand a believe. trying to explain away the verses is not getting it done.
PSA has been the faith once delivered to the saints. Your inability to quote these "men" and demonstrate where they are off, is lacking and unless and until you can do that.....no one is following your ideas as far as we can see.
Your opinion stated here ...[This is why most Christians reject Penal Substitution Theory] is just your opinion, nothing more.
All Christians I know understand Jesus taking the penalty of the sins of His Covenant Children. Your idea of denying this and suggesting most Christians deny this...is far fetched.

 

[Brightfame52]

I agree. My point was thar Penal Substitution Theory is foreign to the biblical text (foreign to "what is written"). Penal Substitution theorists rely on what other penal substitution theorists tell them (Note how much support is on this thread from men and how little from God). They test what they think the Bible teaches by what they think is taught in the Bible (as silly as that sounds).

The problem, of course, is the teachings of Penal Substitution Theory stands in opposition to what is actually written in the Bible (if you take God's Word as complete and accurate).

Im speaking of propitiation in 1 Jn 2:2 and why it excludes them under wrath !

 

[Zaatar71]

Greg Bahnsen sees the truth clearly;
The doctrine of penal substitution could be expunged from the Biblical witness only by a perverse and criminal mistreatment of the sacred text or a tendentious distortion of its meaning.

What else could Peter have meant by writing to believers in the church that “Christ suffered for you”? The Greek preposition (“for”) has the sense of “in your behalf” or “for your sake.” Was it simply for the sake of a moral example, so that those who “suffer unjustly” (v. 19) might “follow His steps” (v. 21)? Is that the end of the matter (exemplary suffering) or is that not rather the moral application of the fundamental saving significance of Christ’s suffering?

Surely the manner in which Christ died can be a model and even a motivator without at all securing forgiveness or securing ethical integrity; history is full of paradigmatic and pathos-engendering martyrs, while men familiar with them nevertheless continue under the bondage of sin and subject to God’s wrath. Peter’s explanation of the sense in which Christ, the innocent one, suffered “for” us extends to this precious truth: “who bore our sins in His body upon the tree” (v. 24).

he substituting of the innocent in the place of the guilty, for the sake of rescuing the guilty from condemnation, comes out just a few verses later when Peter declares: “Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order that He might bring us to God” (3:18).

The theological perspective of the Biblical writers, prophets and apostles both being witness, is that one who was perfectly righteous stood in the place of those who are unrighteous in God’s sight, bearing the curse or penalty of their sin by dying in their place, in order to set them free from condemnation and secure their eternal benefit.

 

[Zaatar71]

In his Reformed Dogmatics, Herman Bavinck explains the significance of the old covenant sacrificial system for seeking to understand the sacrifice of Christ:

The New Testament views Christ’s death as a sacrifice and the fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrificial cult. He is the true covenant sacrifice; just as the old covenant was confirmed by the covenant sacrifice (Ex. 24:3–11), so the blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant (Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Heb. 9:13f.).

Christ is a sacrifice (θυσια, זֶבַח), the sacrificial victim for our sins (Eph. 5:2; Heb. 9:26; 10:12), an offering (προσφορα, δωρον; מִנְחָה קָרְבָּן; Eph. 5:2; Heb. 10:10, 14, 18); a ransom (λυτρον, ἀντιλυτρον; Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Tim. 2:6) and therefore denoting the price of release, a ransom to purchase someone’s freedom from prison, and hence a means of atonement, a sacrifice by which to cover other people’s sin and so to save them from death.

He is a payment (τιμη, 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; 1 Peter 1:18–19), the price paid for the purchase of someone’s freedom; a sin offering that was made to be sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 John 2:2; 4:10); the paschal lamb that was slain for us (John 19:36; 1 Cor. 5:7), the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world and is slain to that end (John 1:29, 36; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19; Rev. 5:6; etc.). He is an expiation (ἱλαστηριον, Rom. 3:25), a sacrifice of atonement (θυμα), a curse (καταρα, Gal. 3:13) who took over from us the curse of the law, like the serpent in the wilderness lifted high on the cross (John 3:14; 8:28; 12:33) and like a grain of wheat dying in the earth in order thus to bear much fruit (John 12:24).1

 

[Zaatar71]

Nick Batzig;
What’s in a Preposition?
When I was in seminary, I had a professor who would tell the students that the most important parts of speech when studying the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek are the pronouns, conjunctions, and prepositions. The doctrine of the substitutionary atonement is seen most clearly in the Scriptural use of the prepositions associated with the death of Christ. For instance, in Galatians 2:20, the Apostle Paul says, “The Son of God . . . loved me and gave Himself for me.”

When Jesus teaches His disciples about His forthcoming death, He says, “The Son of Man did come not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). Geerhardus Vos explains the importance of understanding these prepositions:

Besides ὑπέρ, ἀντί also appears, which always means “in the place of” (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45). Obviously, ἀντί in no way excludes ὑπέρ. That Christ gave Himself as a substitute for His own is not only well understandable along with the fact that He gave Himself for their benefit but also directly includes the latter consideration . . . in more than one place ὑπέρ itself has the full force of ἀντί (cf. 2 Cor. 5:20–21; Philem. 13; 2 Cor. 5:14).

Here, too, we again have the same result: What Christ did as priest, He did as the substitutionary Surety of believers and, precisely for that reason, did before God and not toward man.
A Willing Sacrifice
On one occasion, Jesus explained the nature of His death under the figure of the shepherd laying down his life for the sheep. In that discourse, Jesus taught that His forthcoming death was voluntary. He said: “I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again” (John 10:17–18). He went on to say that He had received the command to lay down His life for the sheep from His Father. However, the perfect harmony that He had with His Father was manifested in His laying down His life for His people of His own accord. It is for this reason that any insistence of divine child abuse must be rejected wholesale. The Son of God eternally loved His own and willingly laid down His life for His people in order to save them from the eternal wrath of God.

 

[Zaatar71]

Dabney;
There can be none but He who is above law, because He is the supreme Law-maker. “This” (Christ) “is the true God and eternal life.” 1 John v.20. But in order to become our Substitute, “He took on Him the seed of Abraham.” Heb. ii.16. And thus His services may avail in our room.
“Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.” Gal. iii.13.

Brian Schwertley:Christ’s death is the very heart of the Christian faith. It is the central theme of Scripture. “The New Testament writers ascribe the saving efficacy of Christ’s work specifically to His death, or His blood, or His cross (Rom. iii. 25; v. 9; I Cor. x. 16; Eph. i.7; ii.13; Col. i. 20; Heb. ix.12, 14; I Pet. i. 2, 19; 1 John i. 7; v. 6-8; Rev. i. 5).”
“O My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will” (Mt. 26:39). “And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again” (Mk. 8:31; cf. Lk. 9:22; 24:7). “But first, He must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation” (Lk. 17:25). “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up” (Jn. 3:14; cf. Jn. 12:34; 20:9).
“...Demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead” (Ac. 17:3). If God has decreed that something take place in history, then it must take place.
God’s nature demands that sin be punished. If God refused to give sin its full measure of punishment then He could not claim to be perfectly just. God’s infinite holiness, justice and righteousness of necessity demand the infliction of punishment on the sinner himself or on an appropriate substitute. The Bible contains many passages that declare that God has to punish sin. Jehovah said, “I will not justify [i.e. declare righteous] the wicked” (Ex. 23:7).
“We are told repeatedly that He will by no means clear the guilty, Ex. 34:7; Num. 14:18; Nah. 1:3. He hates sin with a divine hatred; His whole being reacts against it, Ps. 5:4-6; Nah. 1:2; Rom. 1:18. Paul argues in Romans 3:25-26, that it was necessary that Christ should be offered as an atoning sacrifice for sin, in order that God might be just while justifying the. sinner. The important thing was that the justice of God should be maintained.
The author of Hebrews speaking under divine inspiration not only says that blood is necessary but only one type of blood will do—the blood of Christ. “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins” (Heb. 10:4). “And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever sat down at the right hand of God... For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.” (Heb. 10:11-12, 14). If God could simply by divine fiat pardon sin then the central message of Hebrews 9 and 10 would be totally untrue.
The author of
Hebrews speaking under divine inspiration not only says that blood is necessary but only one type of blood will do—the blood of Christ. “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins” (Heb. 10:4). “And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever sat down at the right hand of God... For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.” (Heb. 10:11-12, 14). If God could simply by divine fiat pardon sin then the central message of Hebrews 9 and 10 would be totally untrue.

 

[JonC]

Can you elaborate on this point a little bit?

Yes. Throughout Scripture we read that God forgives sins, but this forgiveness is not arbitrary. Per Scripture God forgives sins when the sinner repents ("turns from sin", turns from "a mind set on the flesh", "turns to God", "sets [their] mind on the Spirit").

Penal Substitution Theory was a reform of Aquinas' theory based on the 16th century judicial philosophy that justice demands a penalty be imposed for a crime (otherwise justice is not accomplished). The role of a judge is ensure the balance of justice is satisfied (a criminal cannot be pardoned for a crime without the penalty being satisgied as this would create a judicial deficit).

That judicial philosophy was common even up to a couple of centuries ago, however it has declined significantly in modern thought.

BUT this judicial philosophy lives on in the Penal Substitution Theory as its foundation. The idea is that God cannot forgive sins (crimes in the secular sence). Aquinas' philosophy allowed for one person to take satisfactory punishment as a substitute for another (not punishment for sin but a punishment that satisfies God) as long as both parties were willing. But this would not satisfy the 16th century philosophy (it would leave a judicial deficit).

Penal Substitution Theory reformed Aquinas' theory by moving the "problem" from merit to justice and changing satisfactory punishment to simple punishment.

God cannot forgive sins but He can punish the innocent instead of the wicked so that the wicked escape punishment.

 

[JonC]

These God called "men" understand the scriptures and have listed scriptures that teach this biblical truth.
Your 5 responses you have offered no scripture, which is strange as you suggest you are about "what is written"???
These"men"have offered more than 54 scriptures to zero you have offered.
You have not attempted to quote any of the material and offer on it.
Calling the teaching a theory, saying these men offering scripture is not bible teaching is a bit shallow, as it is God who has given these scriptures that these men understand a believe. trying to explain away the verses is not getting it done.
PSA has been the faith once delivered to the saints. Your inability to quote these "men" and demonstrate where they are off, is lacking and unless and until you can do that.....no one is following your ideas as far as we can see.
Your opinion stated here ...[This is why most Christians reject Penal Substitution Theory] is just your opinion, nothing more.
All Christians I know understand Jesus taking the penalty of the sins of His Covenant Children. Your idea of denying this and suggesting most Christians deny this...is far fetched.

A few facts -

1. Every cult believes the men they follow were given by God. Mormons believe Joseph Smith received Hod's teachings. SDA's believe Ellen White's visions were God given.

2. It is a fact that Penal Substitution Theory is a minority view within Chriatianity. It is limited to some - not all - Christians influenced by the teachings of a couple of Reformers.

We can know that the Apostalic Church did not believe Penal Substitution Theory because its teachings are not recorded in the Bible. We know the Early Church did not believe Penal Substitution Theory because we have their writings as well. We even know how Penal Substitution Theory came to be (and why it contains Augustine's error regarding sin from the mistranslation of Romans 5:12 in the Vulgate).

I do, however, understand that disagreeing with men, even Christian men, to follow God can be uncomfortable. People put their eggs in a traditional basket and hope for the best. My counter point is that we have God's Word. Why not follow it instead?

I mean, we have Reformed theologians, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh Day Advebtusts, etc. telling us what God's Wird "really" means....but what if God was realky in control and His Word means what was actually written?

 

[JonC]

Im speaking of propitiation in 1 Jn 2:2 and why it excludes them under wrath !

1 John 2:2 is about Christ (He is the Propitiation). It neither includes or excludes anybody. He is the Propitiation for the sins of the World.

 

[Zaatar71]

Yes. Throughout Scripture we read that God forgives sins, but this forgiveness is not arbitrary. Per Scripture God forgives sins when the sinner repents ("turns from sin", turns from "a mind set on the flesh", "turns to God", "sets [their] mind on the Spirit").

Penal Substitution Theory was a reform of Aquinas' theory based on the 16th century judicial philosophy that justice demands a penalty be imposed for a crime (otherwise justice is not accomplished). The role of a judge is ensure the balance of justice is satisfied (a criminal cannot be pardoned for a crime without the penalty being satisgied as this would create a judicial deficit).

That judicial philosophy was common even up to a couple of centuries ago, however it has declined significantly in modern thought.

BUT this judicial philosophy lives on in the Penal Substitution Theory as its foundation. The idea is that God cannot forgive sins (crimes in the secular sence). Aquinas' philosophy allowed for one person to take satisfactory punishment as a substitute for another (not punishment for sin but a punishment that satisfies God) as long as both parties were willing. But this would not satisfy the 16th century philosophy (it would leave a judicial deficit).

Penal Substitution Theory reformed Aquinas' theory by moving the "problem" from merit to justice and changing satisfactory punishment to simple punishment.

God cannot forgive sins but He can punish the innocent instead of the wicked so that the wicked escape punishment.

Not interested in your ideas of church history. You have offered no scripture at all

 

[Zaatar71]

A few facts -

1. Every cult believes the men they follow were given by God. Mormons believe Joseph Smith received Hod's teachings. SDA's believe Ellen White's visions were God given.

2. It is a fact that Penal Substitution Theory is a minority view within Chriatianity. It is limited to some - not all - Christians influenced by the teachings of a couple of Reformers.

We can know that the Apostalic Church did not believe Penal Substitution Theory because its teachings are not recorded in the Bible. We know the Early Church did not believe Penal Substitution Theory because we have their writings as well. We even know how Penal Substitution Theory came to be (and why it contains Augustine's error regarding sin from the mistranslation of Romans 5:12 in the Vulgate).

I do, however, understand that disagreeing with men, even Christian men, to follow God can be uncomfortable. People put their eggs in a traditional basket and hope for the best. My counter point is that we have God's Word. Why not follow it instead?

John Murray, and Al martin are not cult leaders. You cannot deal with what they have offered. More of your false history

 

[Zaatar71]

1 John 2:2 is about Christ (He is the Propitiation). It neither includes or excludes anybody. He is the Propitiation for the sins of the World.

This is a complete falsehood/, It shows you do not understand the word. Thanks for trying.
The Apostolic church taught psa as they taught scripture as given by God. You do not understand the language of substitution as is written.

 

[JonC]

Not interested in your ideas of church history. You have offered no scripture at all

I have offered Scripture. You simply did not recognize it as Scripture (I just used quotation marks).

That said, I have not stated my view.....all I stated of my belief was that God is faithful to forgive those who repent (Ezekiel 18, Acts 3, 1 John 1, 2 Peter 3, . . .).

You have without any Scripture supporting your philosophy. You provided verses but then went on to state your theory which is unrelated to the verses you provided.

Bit I will give you a chance -

Provide a verse stating Jesus died instead of us.
Provide a verse stating Jesus experienced God's wrath.
Provide a verse stating that God cannot forgive sins based on repentance and belief.


I know you can find those things in the writings of the men you follow, but I do not recognize those men as the authority for my faith. Use the Bible.

 

[JonC]

This is a complete falsehood/, It shows you do not understand the word. Thanks for trying.
The Apostolic church taught psa as they taught scripture as given by God. You do not understand the language of substitution as is written.

Yes, I know both English and Greek. In both cases, both speak of Chriat.

While I studied Greek at the graduate level, I am mot sure you have. So let's just look at the English.

Here is the passage in question:

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have 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 the sins of the whole world.

Now, in the English language (and the Grerk) the topic is Christ as the Propitiation, not those who benefit from the propitiation. You should have picked up on this with the first verse (we have an Advocate, who IS the Propitiation for sins).

I get that English may be your second language. If so, I encourage you to get a transkation in your own language.

What you did was read into the passage by making assumptions. You want it to say something ir dies not say, so you pretend it does.

If English is your first language, and you simply struggle with the fundamental parts of the language (nouns, verbs, etc) then take the time to diagram sentences. Identify the subject, the adverbs, etc. It may help you to write them out (we had to in school).

If you the your time, diagram the sentences, identify the subject, etc. it may help you keep from making such elementary mistakes.