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

[Zaatar71]

From John Murray in His Book Redemption, Accomplished, and Applied;
2. Propitiation.
a. Differences in use of “atonement” in Old Testament in connection with ritual of expiation with the use in the NT.
1.) There are passages in which propitiation is expressly applied to the work of Christ.

a.) Romans 3:25- Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

b.) Hebrews 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

c.) 1Jn 2:2]- And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

d.) [1 John 4:10]- Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
2.) Sacrifices and propitiation stand in the closest relations with one another.

b. Propitiation in the Old Testament means to “cover”.
1.) In reference to sin that the covering takes place.
2.) The effect of this covering in cleansing and forgiveness.
3.) It is before the Lord that both the covering and its effect takes place.

a.) [Lev.4:35]- And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.

b.) [Leviticus 10:17]- Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?

c.) [Leviticus 16:30]- For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD.
c. Propitiation in the New Testament means to “placate”, “pacify”, “appease”, and “conciliate”.

1.) Christ propitiated the wrath of God and rendered God propitious to His people.
d. Criticisms of the Doctrine of Propitiation in the Gospel.
1.) To love and to be propitious are not convertible.
a.) Propitiation does not cause or constrain divine love.

2.) Propitiation is not a turning of the wrath of God into love.

a.) Propitiation is the provision of God’s eternal and unchangeable love.

b.) Propitiation is the fruit of the divine love that provided it.

c.) [1 John 4:10]- Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
3.) Propitiation does not detract from the love and mercy of God; it rather enhances the marvel of His love.

a.) Rom.3:25-26- Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

b.) The Atonement meets the exigencies of holiness and power.

1.) [Romans 1:18]- For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

2.) [1 John 2:1-2]- My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only,but also for the sins of the whole world.

From Sermon notes From Albert N. Martin;
c. Propitiation in the New Testament means to “placate”, “pacify”, “appease”, and “conciliate”.

1.) Christ propitiated the wrath of God and rendered God propitious to His people.
d. Criticisms of the Doctrine of Propitiation in the Gospel.
1.) To love and to be propitious are not convertible.
a.) Propitiation does not cause or constrain divine love.

2.) Propitiation is not a turning of the wrath of God into love.

a.) Propitiation is the provision of God’s eternal and unchangeable love.

b.) Propitiation is the fruit of the divine love that provided it.

c.) [1 John 4:10]- Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
3.) Propitiation does not detract from the love and mercy of God; it rather enhances the marvel of His love.

a.) Rom.3:25-26- Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

 

[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).

But it is one thing to speak of propitiation and another entirely to speak of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Penal Substitution Theory does not focus on propitiation but on a way the theory thinks wrath is turned from the wicked (by turning it to God's "Righteous One").

It would be an error to ignore Christ as the Propitiation for our sins, but it would be an equally abhorrent error to twist Scripture to fit the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

 

[Zaatar71]

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).

But it is one thing to speak of propitiation and another entirely to speak of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Penal Substitution Theory does not focus on propitiation but on a way the theory thinks wrath is turned from the wicked (by turning it to God's "Righteous One").

It would be an error to ignore Christ as the Propitiation for our sins, but it would be an equally abhorrent error to twist Scripture to fit the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

Your stated objections will be answered in this thread.

 

[Zaatar71]

ibid
And that's of course the point that Spurgeon asked, Owen asked, did Jesus Christ die as much for the Sodomites as for Noah and It seems to me that, as we drew that out with people, the problem was that I had a different idea of what the atonement to me is. They had some idea that the atonement was some big glob of infinite something, and you just draw upon that glob. It's not that my sins were put there. Strict substitution is not understood. Exactly. Exactly, Paul. That's a vital point.

The minute we begin to understand that the atonement was a work of vicarious penal satisfaction rendered to God, you're going to end up with one of two things. If you're going to hold to that, you're going to end up with full-blown universalism or true biblical particularism. Because if it was real substitution, then real payment was made for real sin of real sinners that secures real release. Absolutely.

ibid;
Objections to the doctrine of definite atonement, textual objections A, B, C, and then we'll look at practical objections and then emotional objections. Under the first category, textual objections, the first category is text in which the word world is used to describe the objects of the death of Christ. John 1.29, Behold the Lamb of God, who beareth away the sins, or the sin of the world.

1 John 2.2, He is propitiation, not for ours only, but also for the whole world.
Then the second category of textual objection are the texts in which the word all or every are used to describe the objects of Christ's death.
2 Cor. 5:15, and that he died for all. Romans 8.32, delivered him up for us all. 1 Timothy 4.6, who gave himself a ransom for all. Hebrews 2.9, who tasted death for every man. And that just about exhausts the texts.

Ibid;
Strict substitution is not understood. That's a vital point. The minute we begin to understand that the atonement was a work of vicarious penal satisfaction rendered to God, you're going to end up with one of two things. If you're going to hold to that, you're going to end up with full-blown universalism or true biblical particularism. Because if it was real substitution, then real payment was made for real sin of real sinners that secures real release. Absolutely.
First of all, the Bible makes it plain that the role of God's elect is not a small role, that the idea of scripture is not that a few are to be saved, but that a great multitude shall be saved. Our second answer is that in constricting or restricting the atonement to those who are only saved, this alone gives full credit to the efficacy and the glory of that atonement. As has been often said, every man limits the atonement, either in its efficacy or in its extent, but limit it he must.
Man's emotions have been tainted by sin and that's why there is an emotional affinity for the doctrine of universal redemption. But when you see what you give up, to follow the dictates of emotion. Give up all the glorious truth concerning the eternal covenant. Give up the whole doctrine of union with Christ. Give up the whole doctrine of the unity of his priestly function. Give up the whole doctrine of strict penal substitution and satisfaction. When you've given up all that to satisfy your emotions, that's a terrible price to pay.

The first great error concerning the propitiation is that which I'm calling paganizing the propitiation. paganizing the propitiation. That is, taking the biblical concept of propitiation and allowing it to be shaped and molded by the concepts of pagan religion, which are nothing but the expression of depraved man when he touches religious thought and religious activity. That's what paganism is.
Now, there are two strands of paganizing the propitiation. One is a strand of paganizing found in the thinking and writing and speaking of the avowed enemies of the gospel. Now, they don't call themselves that, but that's what they are. And therefore, I shall call it the heresy of the enemies of the gospel who paganize the propitiation.
The paganizing of the propitiation has two basic strands. The paganizing found in the heresy of the enemies of the gospel, and the error in the thinking of the friends of the gospel. Alright, first of all then, the heresy of the enemies of the gospel.

Well, you see, the enemies of truth, instead of looking at the truth in its beautiful symmetry as found in the scripture, they take a facet of a truth and they stretch it out of all due proportion until it becomes ugly. And they say to people, look at that ugly thing. You don't worship a God like that, do you? Now that's precisely what the enemies of the gospel have done with the doctrine of propitiation. They have presented it as a pagan notion that is utterly repulsive to anyone who has any sympathy for the Christian gospel.

Well, you see, the enemies of truth, instead of looking at the truth in its beautiful symmetry as found in the scripture, they take a facet of a truth and they stretch it out of all due proportion until it becomes ugly. And they say to people, look at that ugly thing. You don't worship a God like that, do you? Now that's precisely what the enemies of the gospel have done with the doctrine of propitiation. They have presented it as a pagan notion that is utterly repulsive to anyone who has any sympathy for the Christian gospel.

In a Second message on this vital topic, Pastor Martin offered this;
Now, what is the essential pagan concept of propitiation? I have found no clearer simple statement of that issue than is found in J.I. Packer's book, Knowing God, Chapter 18, The Heart of the Gospel, in which he says this, The idea of pagan propitiation is as follows.

There are various gods, none enjoying absolute dominion, but each one with some power to make life easier or harder for you. The temper of these gods is uniformly uncertain. They take offense at the smallest things, or they get jealous because they feel you're paying too much attention to the other gods and other people, and not enough to them. And then they take it out on you by manipulating circumstances to your harm. Why, the only course at that point is to humor and mollify that god by an offering. The rule with offerings is, the bigger, the better. For the gods are inclined to hold out for something sizable. In this they are cruel and heartless. But they have the advantage, so what can you do? They can make it rough on you, so you don't like the terms, you've got to live with it. It's sort of like every tax increase. Whether you like it or not, somebody else is making it, you've got to live with it. Well, there's the concept you see you've got these many gods very capricious You can never predict whether they're going to smile in the morning or frown or be angry and if they get angry They can begin to make things rough for you So you've got to placate them by offering a gift and of course the bigger the gift the more power you'll have with the deity human sacrifice in particular is expensive but effective and Thus pagan religion appears as a callous commercialism, a matter of managing and manipulating your gods by cunning bribery, and within paganism, propitiation, the appeasing of celestial bad tempers, takes its place as a regular part of life, one of the many irksome necessities that one cannot get on without.

Now that is the most clear, simple layman's definition of the pagan concept of propitiation I've found anywhere. In all the hundreds of pages I've read on propitiation, that says it beautifully. You got the idea now.

He continues here;
The pagan with his idea of many gods, all of them different, all of them vying for control, capricious. If things go bad with you in their sickness and calamity, why, one of the gods is irked by something you're doing, so you present him sacrifices, and if the circumstances don't change, give him a bigger one. He may be up there on the bargaining table saying, I don't like the terms yet. Give me more. Give me more. until the ultimate sacrifice, human sacrifice, is made to appease the gods. Now, the enemies of the gospel come along and they say, These evangelical Christians, these Reformed Christians, these people that tote their Bible and quote their Bible, they tell you that there's an angry God in heaven. And that angry God must look down and see the blood of his own son. And seeing the blood of his own son, rings his hands with delight and says, isn't that wonderful? My son is shedding his blood. Oh, that's lovely. Now I'll be merciful. They say, is that the God you worship? Ridiculous. You see, they present a caricature of this mean, capricious, angry God, who somehow has an almost sadistic delight in seeing His Son suffer, and beholding Him suffer, then will be merciful to sinners. And they say, that's ridiculous. That is so far into the concept of the God of the Bible.

Now follow me closely. Oh yes, God sees sin and moral evil and it breaks his loving heart. He is disappointed that men destroy themselves by their sin. He is frustrated that his love does not conquer. Do you know what he did? He allowed his son to die, the supreme example of good, suffering at the hands of evil, with the hope that his men behold this example of the triumph of selfless love. It will break their hearts. show them their selfishness, and they will no longer seek to be tight-fisted rebels, but will seek to be loving servants of God. And that's their doctrine of the cross. And they say it's abominable to think that God would be like the pagan gods who are angry and capricious. Well, what is our answer to that heresy of the enemies of the gospel? And it is nothing but blatant, damnable heresy.

 

[Zaatar71]

The God of Gethsemane and Golgotha is the God who placed the burning sword at the entrance to Eden. is the God who sent the flood upon the world of the ungodly. The God of Golgotha and Gethsemane is the God who turned the cities of the plain into burning ashes. The God who opened up the earth so that it swallowed up Nadab and Abihu and they went down alive into hell. He is the God of infinite and eternal and burning light and therefore the God of infinite and holy wrath. Romans 1:18 has never been scrubbed from the record of God's will and mind. The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. There is wrath as an active, positive expression of God's antipathy to sin.
We see wickedness is great after the flood. Why no flood? We see wickedness right here. We are living Main Street Sodom in the New York metropolitan area.
When men flaunt their homosexuality and their perversion and their deviant behavior, why no fire and brimstone?
Is God less righteous now?
Is God less angry with sin and sinners?
What about the generations whose sins cried up to heaven for a flood, for fire and brimstone?
It appeared as though God was not righteous. What was He doing?

He was passing over sin in His forbearance. Why? Because he was waiting for the fullness of the times when he would send his son, now get the text, when he set him forth, he set him forth to be what? Propitiation. To declare His righteousness, what is God saying? God is saying, I have not ceased to be a God of light simply because I have not dealt with men's sins as severely after the flood as I did before the flood. And you want to know how I still feel about sin?
Behold my Son upon the cross.
Behold Him turning away my wrath by becoming the object of my wrath. Do you want to know how I feel about sin?
Behold my Son, the sinless One.
Behold Him in all of His spotless innocence.
Behold Him in the purity of His character, so that His worst enemies cannot find a just accusation against Him.
Behold Him in His perfect innocence.
Behold Him in His spotless moral purity. And now behold Him, falling upon the ground, sweating as it were great drops of blood, somehow confronted with what He calls a cup, and turning away in revulsion from it, and yet in holy obedience embracing it
Behold Him under the shrouded heavens.
Behold His riding form.
Behold His cry.
Behold His agony. Do you want to know if I'm still the God of light?
Behold my Son! I set Him forth, a propitiation. Am I righteous? Look at my Son!
Behold the rod of righteousness coming down upon Him, demanding death of the sinner, who, as He substitutes for those whom the Father has given Him, He has constituted the sinner as much as though He Himself had sinned.

God has set him forth a propitiation to show what? To show that in passing over the sins of generations, he was not lenient towards sin. He had not evolved from the God of love and anger, light and love into a God of pure love. No, no. He is immutably, eternally, unchangeably light and love. Now verse 26, For the showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season, that he himself might be just, and yet the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus. Do you see the argument of the Apostle Paul?

Propitiation is the answer to the great dilemma within the nature of God. How can he in love forgive? and in light punish sin. Christ is set forth of propitiation, and the anger of God falls upon the appointed substitute, so that all that is demanded of God's character as a God of light, all of His justice and holiness find full expression. And all of His love finds full expression in the providing of such a Savior. and in the giving of Him on behalf of needy sinners. So when the enemies of the gospel make a caricature of propitiation, may we understand that that is precisely what it is, nothing but a caricature And I quote further from Mr. Packer who says, so far from calling in question the morality of God's way of dealing with sin, Paul says, based on this passage we've just expounded, Paul says the truth of propitiation establishes the morality of God. and was explicitly intended to establish it. Paul's point is that the public spectacle of propitiation at the cross was a public manifestation, not merely of justifying mercy on God's part, but of righteousness and justice as the basis of justifying mercy.

So the paganizing of the propitiation by the enemies of the gospel is laid to rest.

 

[Zaatar71]

He continues here;
So much for the heresy of the enemies of the gospel who paganize the propitiation. Now, very briefly, the error of paganizing the propitiation manifested in the friends of the gospel. And again, I emphasize, I choose a different word. Some of you need a little more grace in the way you handle the truth. and in the way you expose error. You're ready to call every deflection heresy. No, you shouldn't do that. Heresy is a tenet which, if held, is inconsistent with a state of grace, at least the way I use it and the way it's generally used in Christian literature. An error is a deviation which, though serious, particularly in its fruits, and contrary to the Word, may not be inconsistent with being in a state of grace. So I'm speaking not about the heresy of paganizing the propitiation by the Friends of the Gospel, but the error. Now what is the error? Well, it's this idea, well yes, God is a God of light, and He ought to be angry with sin and sinners, and He must and will punish sin. Christ is the embodiment of love who intervenes between the wrath-deserving sinner and the angry holy God. The result is that Christ has turned the wrathful God into a loving God by His sacrifice. Now you see the error? The error is not in denying that God is a God of wrath. The error is found in denying that He is at the same time both wrathful and loving. And you have then the loving Jesus placating the angry father so that sinners might be accepted. Now, the answer to this error falls into two fundamental categories. Number one, it is anti-Trinitarian, and secondly, it fails to do justice to the love of God as the starting point in providing the propitiation. You see, God is one in essence, will, and purpose. There is a unity of desire and attribute and will within the Godhead. What the Father wills, the Son and the Spirit wills. What the Father, may I say it reverently, feels in the motions of infinite and sovereign love, the Son and the Spirit feel in the motions of infinite, sovereign, and eternal love. So then all of the holiness and justice of God are present and active in all three persons of the Godhead. Is the Father angry with sin? The Son is angry with sin. You read it in the Gospels. Jesus looking round about him being angered for their hardness of heart. When you see Him going through the temple, turning over the tables of the money changers, and driving out the oxen with a scourge, what is that? That's divine anger in human manifestation. The Spirit is angry. You see what happened when people lied to Him in Acts chapter 5, He killed them. Why hast thou lied to the Holy Ghost? So you see, we must never conceive of the propitiation as though the Father is in the posture of wrath alone and the Son is in the posture of love to his people, and by the work of the Son, the Father's wrath is satisfied so that he is now free to love us. That would be anti-Trinitarian. As one man has said, the idea that the Son changed the mind of his unkind father by offering himself in the place of sinful men is no part of the gospel message. It is sub-Christian. Indeed, it is anti-Christian, for it denies the unity of will in the Father and the Son, and in reality falls back into polytheism, asking us to believe in two different gods. So that error must be forever purged from our thinking. All of our thinking of God the Father, Son, and Spirit must be Trinitarian.

Once more He quotes from Professor Murray;
The supreme manifestation of the love of God, is in the sending of His Son to be propitiation. So the whole concept of propitiation, the whole enactment of everything leading to propitiation, the incarnation, the supporting of our Lord in all of His trials and temptations so that He would be the sinless, divine, human Savior. And then all of these strange and mysterious interactions of the triune Godhead upon the cross in propitiation. These, John says, are the supreme manifestation of the love not only of the Son, Ephesians 5, Christ loved the church, gave himself, but it's the supreme manifestation of the love of God the Father. He hath sent him to be propitiation. So we do not say that the wrathful God is made loving by the propitiation. Rather, we say the wrathful God is loving in the provision of propitiation.

See the difference? He is both light and love, eternally, essentially, immutably. And therefore, the God of wrath, who does have a positive aversion to sin, even the sin in his elect, who does have this positive attitude of anger to the sinner, even the elect sinner in his sin, and who wills to punish sin in the person of the sinner. The wrathful God is wonder of wonders, the loving God. who in eternity conceives a way in which there can be the fullest expression of all that He is as the God of light, and all that He is as the God of love, and the only way that could be expressed was in the incarnation and then the agony and sufferings of the incarnate God Himself until we stand back amazed and say that only the mind of God could conceive such a plan that causes God to be manifestly just and yet the justifier of sinners. Only love as deep and powerful as divine love could submit to all of the self-sacrifice within the triune Godhead so that a propitiation might be made for sinners. I quote now from Professor Murray who says the doctrine of the propitiation is precisely this, that God loved the objects of his wrath so much that he gave his own son to the end that he by his blood should make provision for the removal of this wrath. It was Christ's soul to deal with the wrath that the loved ones would no longer be the objects of wrath, and love would achieve its aim of making the children of wrath the children of God's good pleasure.

Oh, dear people, that's the propitiation. And we must be done with the error found even among the friends of the gospel with any thought that Christ is the great loving object of the Trinity in securing our salvation. The Father is the great anger object in the accomplishment of our salvation. No, it is the Father so loving the objects of His wrath that He goes to the extremes of propitiation to turn away the wrath. that the objects of His love might be accepted on a just and a righteous grounds.

The propitiation is the ground upon which divine love operates and the channel in which it flows in attaining its end. Oh, may I state it as bluntly as I know how. The love of God expressed in any other way than providing propitiation could not secure your salvation. But it was the love of God that planned it and secured it. Therefore, we do not worship God only in the purity of His infinite wrath and holiness manifested in the actual circumstances of the sacrifice, but we worship Him as the God of infinite love, whose love would ever design so mysterious a scheme as to secure the righteous release of guilty sinners. Now, having described and expounded the error of paganizing the propitiation, let me attempt to bring all of this home, as the old writers would say, to your bosom, to your conscience, to bring it all home to the point where you live and where you have dealings with God. Let me ask you a couple of very simple questions. Every boy, every girl, man, woman, I'm asking you this question sitting in this place this morning. Have you ever taken seriously the reality of divine wrath against human sin? Have you ever given five minutes serious thought to what it means that God is angry with the wicked every day?

These lengthy sections of sermon transcripts, and quotes from the book, while a bit lengthy, work to give a more complete understanding of what is at issue. A correct and biblical view of biblical propitiation, and PSA. are abundantly clear.

 

[JonC]

These lengthy sections of sermon transcripts, and quotes from the book, while a bit lengthy, work to give a more complete understanding of what is at issue. A correct and biblical view of biblical propitiation, and PSA. are abundantly clear.

But what about truth?

Here you offer Albert Maryin and John Murray vs God's Word. Some will offer the Book of Mormon vs God's Word. Others Elken White vs God's Word.

We are Christians. Why the distain for Scripture? If Penal Substitution Theory were important and correct would it not be in "what is written???

 

[Zaatar71]

But what about truth?

Here you offer Albert Maryin and John Murray vs God's Word. Some will offer the Book of Mormon vs God's Word. Others Elken White vs God's Word.

We are Christians. Why the distain for Scripture? If Penal Substitution Theory were important and correct would it not be in "what is written???

These men carefully examine "what is written" and understand what is written in scripture itself. They are totally concerned with truth.
In the words of Neh.8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.
So we see that both Albert N. Martin, and Professor John Murray do just this very thing. The read "what is written" and gave the sense and cause us to understand the reading.... it is not as you say...them vs. scripture. Rather it is them understanding and expounding scriptures.

Sometimes you seem to use this phrase..."what is written" as if you only understand what is written and these men in your mind oppose what is written , but we see they are commenting directly on the scripture. Are you sure it is not you vs. scripture??
feel free to express your views as you do. I have not seen where you take any of these teachings these men offer, quote them, and offer your refutation. If you feel you can do that scripturally go for it...but we have not seen any indication of that so far.

 

[JonC]

These men carefully examine "what is written" and understand what is written in scripture itself. They are totally concerned with truth.
In the words of Neh.8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.
So we see that both Albert N. Martin, and Professor John Murray do just this very thing. The read "what is written" and gave the sense and cause us to understand the reading.... it is not as you say...them vs. scripture. Rather it is them understanding and expounding scriptures.

Sometimes you seem to use this phrase..."what is written" as if you only understand what is written and these men in your mind oppose what is written , but we see they are commenting directly on the scripture. Are you sure it is not you vs. scripture??
feel free to express your views as you do. I have not seen where you take any of these teachings these men offer, quote them, and offer your refutation. If you feel you can do that scripturally go for it...but we have not seen any indication of that so far.

I use "what is written" to mean "what is written in God's Word" (God's revelation to man). There are different interpretations of what is written in the Bible. But this is not what you are talking about (the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement uses the Bible but it is not an interpretation of the biblical text).

Here is my refutation:

There are no passages in the Bible that states the teachings of Penal Substitution Theory. No passage telks us that Jesus experienced God's wrath, that Jesus died instead of us, that God cannot forgive sins based solely on man setting his mind on the Spirit rather than the flesh (repentance), that what Jesus experienced was divine punishment, etc.

We are not talking about interpretation. We are talking about a 16th century philosophy a minority of Chriatians have used Scripture to support.


Do you believe that God can forgive sins or must God punish sins?

 

[Zaatar71]

I use "what is written" to mean "what is written in God's Word" (God's revelation to man). There are different interpretations of what is written in the Bible. But this is not what you are talking about (the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement uses the Bible but it is not an interpretation of the biblical text).

Here is my refutation:

There are no passages in the Bible that states the teachings of Penal Substitution Theory. No passage telks us that Jesus experienced God's wrath, that Jesus died instead of us, that God cannot forgive sins based solely on man setting his mind on the Spirit rather than the flesh (repentance), that what Jesus experienced was divine punishment, etc.

We are not talking about interpretation. We are talking about a 16th century philosophy a minority of Chriatians have used Scripture to support.


Do you believe that God can forgive sins or must God punish sins?

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.

 

[Zaatar71]

here is another clear part of this PDF;
This redemption has significance not only for Jews but also for Gentiles. In the gospel economy not even Gentiles are required to undergo the tutelary discipline to which Israel was subjected. "But now that faith is come we are no longer under a tutor. For we are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:25, 26). This great grace, that all without distinction or discrimination are sons of God by faith of Christ Jesus, is the fruit of a redemption secured by the fact that Christ was made under the Mosaic law and fulfilled its terms and purpose.

(c) The law of works. Christ has redeemed us from the necessity of keeping the law as the condition of our justification and acceptance with God. Without such redemption there could be no justification and no salvation. It is the obedience of Christ himself that has secured this release. For it is by his obedience that many will be constituted righteous (Rom. 5:19).

In other words, it is the active and passive 16 obedience of Christ that is the price of this redemption, active and passive obedience because he was made under law, fulfilled all the requirements of righteousness and met all the sanctions of justice.

(ii) Sin. That Christ redeemed his people from sin follows from what has been said respecting law. The strength of sin is the law and where no law is there is no transgression (1Cor. 15:56; Rom. 4:15). But the Scripture also brings redemption into direct relation to sin. It is in this connection that the blood of Christ is clearly indicated to be the means whereby such redemption is secured. Redemption from sin embraces the several aspects from which sin may be viewed. It is redemption from sin in all its aspects and consequences. This is particularly apparent in such passages as Hebrews 9:12; Revelation 5:9.

The inclusive character of redemption as it affects sin and its accompanying evils is shown perhaps most clearly by the fact that the eschatological consummation of the whole redemptive process is referred to as the redemption (cf. Luke 21:28; Rom. 8:23; Eph. 1:14; 4:30; and possibly 1 Cor. 1:30).

That the concept of redemption should be used to designate the complete and final deliverance from all evil and the realization of the goal to which the whole process of redemptive grace moves advertises very conspicuously how closely bound up with redemption as wrought by Christ is the attainment of the liberty of the glory of the children of God. And it also shows that redemption is constitutive of the very notion of consummated bliss for the people of God.

No wonder then that Old Testament prophecy should be in these terms (cf. Hosea 13:14) and that the song of the glorified should be the song of redemption (cf. Rev. 1:5, 6; 5:9).

(1) justification and forgiveness of sin and

(2) deliverance from the enslaving defilement and power of sin. Redemption as it affects guilt and issues in justification and remission is in view in such passages as Romans 3:24; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; Hebrews 9:15. And redemption as it affects the enslaving power and defilement of sin is in view in Titus 2:14; I Peter 1:18, though in these latter we cannot exclude all forensic import.

In connection with redemption from the guilt of sin the blood of Christ as substitutionary ransom and as the ransom price of our release is brought distinctly into view. The ransom utterances of our Lord (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45) show beyond question that he interpreted the purpose of his coming into the world in terms of substitutionary ransom and that this ransom was nothing less than the giving of his life.

And, in the usage of the New Testament, the giving of his life is the same as the shedding of his blood.

Redemption, therefore, in our Lord's view consisted in substitutionary blood shedding or blood-shedding in the room and stead of many with the end in view of thereby purchasing to himself the many on whose behalf he gave his life a ransom.

It is this same notion that is reproduced in the apostolic teaching. Although the terminology is not precisely that of redemption, we cannot mistake the redemptive import of Paul's statement in his charge to the elders of Ephesus when he refers "to the church of God, which he 17 bath purchased through his own blood" (Acts 20:28).

Elsewhere the thought of Paul here is expressed overtly in the language of redemption or ransom when of Christ Jesus he says that "he gave himself on our behalf in order that he might ransom us from all iniquity and purify to himself a people for his own possession, zealous of good works" (Titus 2:14).

Or again, when Paul says that in the beloved "we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of trespasses" (Eph. 1:7; cf. Col. 1:14),

it is quite plain that he conceives of the forgiveness of sins as the blessing accrued from blood redemption. And though Hebrews 9:15 is difficult to exegete yet it is clear that the death of Christ is the means of redemption in reference to sins committed under the old covenant: the death of Christ is redemptively efficacious in reference to sin.

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 are 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



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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

WGT,Shedd
In the majority of the passages, however, which speak of Christ's sufferings and death, the preposition "ὑπέρ" (hyper) is employed: "This cup is the new covenant in my blood which is shed for (ὑπέρ) you" (Luke 22:19–20); "the bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world" (John 6:51); "greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for (ὑπέρ) his friends" (John 15:13); "Christ died for (ὑπέρ) the ungodly; while we were yet sinners Christ died for (ὑπέρ) us" (Rom. 5:6–8); "he delivered him up for (ὑπέρ) us all" (Rom. 8:32); "if one died for (ὑπέρ) all then all died" (2 Cor. 5:14–15); "he made him to be sin for (ὑπέρ) us" (2 Cor. 5:21); "being made a curse for (ὑπέρ) us" (Gal. 3:13); "Christ gave himself for (ὑπέρ) us an offering and a sacrifice to God" (Eph. 5:2, 25); "the man Christ Jesus gave himself a ransom for (ὑπέρ) all" (1 Tim. 2:5–6); Christ "tasted death for (ὑπέρ) every man" (Heb. 2:9); Christ "suffered the just for (ὑπέρ) the unjust" (1 Pet. 3:18).

The preposition ὑπέρ, like the English preposition for, has two significations. It may denote advantage or benefit, or it may mean substitution

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.

You have failed to interact with what has been offered, You seek to dismiss it. You do not really grasp the gospel evidently. I have no choice but dismiss your non responsive entries. Thanks for trying.

No, you are confused. The Apostolic Church is the church that existed during the time of the Apostles. They taught what was written in Scripture. The theories you are talking about came much later.

Anselm developed Substitution Theory which was focused on Jedus restoring the honor man robbed of God. Aquinas reformed Anselm's theory, replacing honor with merit.

Aquinas want a bit more in detail. Until Aquinas nobody entertained the idea that Jesus could be punished instead of sinners. Aquinas developed a system where (he believed) an innocent person could justly be punished insteadbof a guilty person provided both parties were willing and the punishment was not the punishment due the crime committed.

Calvin (a lawyer by education) reformed Aquinas' theory by replacing merit with justice, and satisfactory punishment with simple punishment.

All three were based on Augustines error. Augustine developed what became the Catholic doctrine of sin. But this was based on the Vulgate which mistranslated "eph hō" as "in quo".


History is important. As you demonstrate with your ignorance of history (which is strange as we have the documdnts) is that by ignoring history it repeats itself.

This is why you can only rely on writings of mem who write what you believe rather than God's Word.


I may interpret some passages incorrectly, but at least I am sticking to Scripture.

The apostles were used by God to write the NT, which contains PSA in that which was written. You have failed once again to interact to the many posts showing what scripture teaches. If you want to give your revised version, start a thread on your own. Professor John Murray is known worldwide. I am not sure if you are known anywhere??? Have you written or published anything, anywhere? I think not.
So again, try your ideas on a new thread. No one seems interested in what you are saying, all off topic. Thanks again