What is Propitiation and is it really the heart of the gospel?

[JonC]

I have done it over and over again. You demand one verse, but you ...

Ok....let's look at the passages.


Did the Father lay upon the Lord Jesus the sins of His people?

Yes. ‘And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ (Isaiah 53:6). Did the Lord Jesus bear in His body our sins which God laid on Him? Yes. ‘Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree’ (1 Peter 2:24).

Did He take our sins so as to undergo the punishment due to them?

Yes....depending on your definititiins.

The ‘Chastening or chatisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed’ (Isaiah 53:5); “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45); “For You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and nation and people” (Rev. 5:9).

Christ took upon Himself the "wages of (our) sin", the death that "sin begats".



Did the Lord Jesus do this on our behalf and instead of us?

No, not according to Scripture. He did this on our behalf, for us. But you add "instead of".

“Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29); ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities’ (Isaiah 53:5); “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:38-39); ‘Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree)’ (Gal. 3:13).



So we now need to show is that God punishes sins.

No, you already changed God's words to meet your theory. What is needed is not to show that God punishes sins BUT that God punished Jesus for for sins AND that this punishment is the same power that belongs to Satan.

You need to show that God's justice against the wicked is not reserved for a time after death (that it is NOT appointed man once to die and then the Judgment, that sin itself does NOT produce death which would be followed by judgment).


Exodus 34:7. '...By no means clearing the guilty...'

Yes, all Christians know that God will NOT punish the just OR clear the guilty. God has made this very clear.

And God does neither.

Were God to punish Jesus He would be satan.

Were God to clear the guilty He would be satan.

God has shown us how He redeemed man. How He is just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.


Your "theology" has failed you. You have been brought to the point of decision. I believe this occurred years back. You chose, and have been carried away by your philosophy, by leaning on your own understanding, by turning back to men.

You are a tangible example of leaning on ones understanding, of being carried away by philosophy. I do not know how you can untangle the mess you created for yourself by dismissing God's warnings. I guess you can't. Only God can. Lean on Him and His words while there is still opportunity.

Stop looking for "the word can also mean" to support your theories and take in God's words.

 

[JonC]

Great! You believe in Penal Substitution

Hang on a moment! You wanted a single verse of Scripture just now. When I give you a single verse, you want the whole BIble written out! Make your mind up!

So you are now questioning my salvation. You know what? I really don't care.

You can't even spell 'sense.' I have quoted the Bible to you extensively. If you cannot make sense of it, that is your problem, not mine.

Yeah, tu quoque. What is an answer someone is trying to answer? You don't even make sense.


I have found that when you are losing an argument you usually tend to turn to smarmy and patronizing remarks, as here.
I note that you did not write a single word of Scripture in your post. How about you actually look at the Scripture verses I have written and explain to us all why you think they don't mean what they so evidently do?

No, I am not questioning your salvation.

We struggle with the "old man", with the flesh and Spirit.

I do not question people's salvation on the BB (without an invitation) as that is against the rules.

I have read those passages and your additions. I read "but the word could also mean".

I believe the entire Bible, to include the Old Testament.

That is why I will not post verse after verse after verse with my own understanding to pretend I am "biblical".

I am not loosing an argument. I am not really involved in an argument. That is the great thing about leaning on God's words. I am watching you struggle against God and praying you will start trusting in His words.

 

[JonC]

Oh....and no. "On behalf of" does not mean "instead of". "Instead of" could be on one's behalf but it is a more narrow term.

We should not change God's words to be more inclusive or more restrictive than the words He used.

Example - "vehicle" does not mean "red truck", although a red truck is a vehicle.

We have to show more respect towards God's words than your understanding allows.

 

[DaveXR650]

Oh....and no. "On behalf of" does not mean "instead of". "Instead of" could be on one's behalf but it is a more narrow term.

We should not change God's words to be more inclusive or more restrictive than the words He used.

Example - "vehicle" does not mean "red truck", although a red truck is a vehicle.

I think that is where the substitutionary part is involved in the atonement. Everyone who believes that the atonement of Christ was more than an object lesson or symbol would I think believe that Christ's death was on our behalf. In other words, if you believe that Christs' death provided any type of benefit to us directly, either actual or potential, you would believe that. You could even say that in the case of the atonement viewed as a ransom. But when you look at other scriptures, like in Peter, where Jesus is said to "bear our sins in his own body on the tree", I'm sorry, but you have a clear substitution going on and it is a direct scripture. But yes, it is still definitely on our behalf and if you don't want to think about the substitution part then don't.
This part, and it's almost in every post, baffles me:

We have to show more respect towards God's words than your understanding allows.

Every point doesn't have to be followed by some insult. It is simply a fact that "substitution" and the direct concept of "instead of" when it comes to bearing our sin, is explicitly in scripture. And this does not mean, as is frequently charged, that other motifs or concepts of the atonement are thus opposed by those of us who believe in PSA.

 

[JonC]

I should point out that one very distinct difference between @Martin Marprelate and me is that I believe the Old Covenant sacrifice system was a model foreshadowing what was to come (the New Covenant).

So it is impossible for me to read the Old Testsment and conclude the his theory is correct.

Then I turn to the New Covenant and what I read is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant, a new and better covenant. I see the exact model only in fullness.

In the Old Testament Israel offered a sacrifice for atonement. They killed the sacrifice. In the Hebrew religion this was a "gift" of obedience. The priest then took the blood and applied it, this "making atonement for the sins of the people". The blood cleansed and purified.

In the New Testament I see Christ coming as High Priest, entering the Most Holy Place once for all by His own blood, obtaining eternal redemption. I see God presenting Christ as a sacrifice of atonement - Christ being obedient unto death - Christ giving Himself as a sacrifice - through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. I see the blood of Christ cleansing from all unrighteousness.


At one time I was like @Martin Marprelate . I was at the point of decision. I chose God. It is impossible for me to turn back to that theory I once loved when God's words speak an eternally greater atonement.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Ok....let's look at the passages.


Did the Father lay upon the Lord Jesus the sins of His people?

Yes. ‘And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ (Isaiah 53:6). Did the Lord Jesus bear in His body our sins which God laid on Him? Yes. ‘Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree’ (1 Peter 2:24).

I think it might be as well to pause there for a moment. 1 Peter 2:24. 'Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' Peter uses the word xulon, 'tree' instead of stauron, 'cross.' In the light of Deut. 21:22-23 and Gal. 3:13, our Lord not only bore our sins in His own body, but the curse of them also. He was made a curse for us, and suffered the punishment attached to it. I think we need to let that sink in. Psalm 7:11. 'God is a just Judge. And God is angry with sinners every day.' The curse is the outworking of God's anger against sin, and our Lord bore it for us, so that we would not have to. Penal Substitution.

Did He take our sins so as to undergo the punishment due to them?

Yes....depending on your definititiins.

The ‘Chastening or chatisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed’ (Isaiah 53:5); “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45); “For You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and nation and people” (Rev. 5:9).

Christ took upon Himself the "wages of (our) sin", the death that "sin begats".

You are adding your own philosophy here. We have just agreed that 'He Himself bore our sins [not the wages of them] in His own body etc. The wages of sin is certainly death, but He was actually bearing our sins and the curse attached to them during His time on the cross, if not before. Part of that curse would have been the separation from the Father (Hab. 1:13a).

Did the Lord Jesus do this on our behalf and instead of us?

No, not according to Scripture. He did this on our behalf, for us. But you add "instead of".

I didn't 'add' 'instead of.' I inserted it because it belongs there.
Mark 10:45. "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for [Gk. anti, 'instead of,' 'in the place of'] many.' Yes, to be sure the Lord Jesus gave His life on behalf of many, but He also did so in their place. Penal Substitution.

“Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).

Christ takes away the sin of the world. From whom does He take it? From us. How does He take it away? By being the sacrificial Lamb. By His wounds we are healed. Penal Substitution.

He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities’ (Isaiah 53:5); “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:38-39); ‘Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree)’ (Gal. 3:13).



So we now need to show is that God punishes sins.

No, you already changed God's words to meet your theory.

No I didn't.

What is needed is not to show that God punishes sins BUT that God punished Jesus for for sins AND that this punishment is the same power that belongs to Satan.

It has nothing to do with Satan. God punished sin in Jesus. Our sins were laid upon Him and He bore them. We've already established that.

You need to show that God's justice against the wicked is not reserved for a time after death

God's justice and wrath against the wicked are not restricted until after death (Psalm 7:11 again). For example Acts 5:1-11; 12:20-24.

(that it is NOT appointed man once to die and then the Judgment, that sin itself does NOT produce death which would be followed by judgment).

I don't have to show that at all. I'm in full agreement with Hebrews 9:27.

Exodus 34:7. '...By no means clearing the guilty...'

Yes, all Christians know that God will NOT punish the just OR clear the guilty. God has made this very clear.

And God does neither.

Were God to punish Jesus He would be satan.

Were God to clear the guilty He would be satan.

Well congratulations! You have just called Almighty God satan. 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him: He has put Him to grief.'
The reason that God is just to bruise Christ and to put Him to grief is that Jesus Christ is God. He has come, in the Person of the Lord Jesus to satisfy His own righteousness and to purchase His Church (Acts 20:28).

God has shown us how He redeemed man. How He is just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Indeed He has and is. He is just to for give sinners like us because our sins have already been punished. 'But He was wounded for our transgressions; He was bruised for our iniquities.'
'Payment God will not twice demand:
Once at my bleeding Surety's hand,
And then again from me.' [Augustus Toplady]

Your "theology" has failed you. You have been brought to the point of decision. I believe this occurred years back. You chose, and have been carried away by your philosophy, by leaning on your own understanding, by turning back to men.

You are a tangible example of leaning on ones understanding, of being carried away by philosophy. I do not know how you can untangle the mess you created for yourself by dismissing God's warnings. I guess you can't. Only God can. Lean on Him and His words while there is still opportunity.

Stop looking for "the word can also mean" to support your theories and take in God's words.

Well, if I were going to follow philosophy, you may be sure I wouldn't follow yours. I throw in my lot with Owen, Bunyan, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones - yes, and J.I. Packer also - and a great company of other saints who have rejoiced in the Lamb of God who [really] takes away the sin of the world, by taking me sins upon Himself and satisfying the justice of God by paying the price of them in full.

 

[JonC]

Everyone who believes that the atonement of Christ was more than an object lesson or symbol would I think believe that Christ's death was on our behalf.

I agree.

I think we can see this in Scripture (both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant).

In the Old Testament Israel offered a sacrifice for atonement. They killed the sacrifice. In the Hebrew religion this was a "gift" of obedience. The priest then took the blood and applied it, this was called (in the Bible) "making atonement for the sins of the people". The blood cleansed and purified.

In the New Testament I see Christ coming as High Priest, entering the Most Holy Place once for all by His own blood, obtaining eternal redemption. I see God presenting Christ as a sacrifice of atonement - Christ being obedient unto death - Christ giving Himself as a sacrifice - through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. I see the blood of Christ cleansing from all unrighteousness.


The problem is that PSA is nowhere in the text of Scripture ("what is written", God's actual words) but what I presented as my belief of the Atonement is the actual words of God.

The question then is, when faced with two options - one is God's words and the other is what a sect understands to be really taught by God when properly understood - which do you choose?


I can and have, over the past 15 years, posted verse after verse stating my belief - NOT what I think is taught, NOT my understanding, but God's actual words about the Atonement.

At the same time PSA theorists have posted verses that do not state their understanding and then they go on to declare what they understand to really be taught by the Bible when properly understood.

Set aside your belief for a second. If you were me and God's words made sense (and were complete), would you choose to believe God's words or your understanding about what your sect believes is really taught by the Bible?

I hope at least you, by answering that, can at least appreciate my situation. I cannot exchange God's actual words for your understanding. It is impossible for me to move backwards.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

At one time I was like @Martin Marprelate . I was at the point of decision. I chose God.

Questioning my salvation again. But it's OK; I couldn't care less (Proverbs 26:2).

 

[JonC]

I think it might be as well to pause there for a moment. 1 Peter 2:24. 'Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' Peter uses the word xulon, 'tree' instead of stauron, 'cross.' In the light of Deut. 21:22-23 and Gal. 3:13, our Lord not only bore our sins in His own body, but the curse of them also. He was made a curse for us, and suffered the punishment attached to it. I think we need to let that sink in. Psalm 7:11. 'God is a just Judge. And God is angry with sinners every day.' The curse is the outworking of God's anger against sin, and our Lord bore it for us, so that we would not have to. Penal Substitution.

You are adding your own philosophy here. We have just agreed that 'He Himself bore our sins [not the wages of them] in His own body etc. The wages of sin is certainly death, but He was actually bearing our sins and the curse attached to them during His time on the cross, if not before. Part of that curse would have been the separation from the Father (Hab. 1:13a).

I didn't 'add' 'instead of.' I inserted it because it belongs there.
Mark 10:45. "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for [Gk. anti, 'instead of,' 'in the place of'] many.' Yes, to be sure the Lord Jesus gave His life on behalf of many, but He also did so in their place. Penal Substitution.

Christ takes away the sin of the world. From whom does He take it? From us. How does He take it away? By being the sacrificial Lamb. By His wounds we are healed. Penal Substitution.

No I didn't.

It has nothing to do with Satan. God punished sin in Jesus. Our sins were laid upon Him and He bore them. We've already established that.

God's justice and wrath against the wicked are not restricted until after death (Psalm 7:11 again). For example Acts 5:1-11; 12:20-24.

I don't have to show that at all. I'm in full agreement with Hebrews 9:27.

Well congratulations! You have just called Almighty God satan. 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him: He has put Him to grief.'
The reason that God is just to bruise Christ and to put Him to grief is that Jesus Christ is God. He has come, in the Person of the Lord Jesus to satisfy His own righteousness and to purchase His Church (Acts 20:28).

Indeed He has and is. He is just to for give sinners like us because our sins have already been punished. 'But He was wounded for our transgressions; He was bruised for our iniquities.'
'Payment God will not twice demand:
Once at my bleeding Surety's hand,
And then again from me.' [Augustus Toplady]

Well, if I were going to follow philosophy, you may be sure I wouldn't follow yours. I throw in my lot with Owen, Bunyan, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones - yes, and J.I. Packer also - and a great company of other saints who have rejoiced in the Lamb of God who [really] takes away the sin of the world, by taking me sins upon Himself and satisfying the justice of God by paying the price of them in full.

I completely agree with those passages. I do not need for you (or your "teachers") to tell me what God meant to say.

And...
λύτρον does NOT mean "in the place of".

You are rewriting Scripture to match your understanding.

λύτρον literally means "something to loosen with". A redemption price, consequence, etc.

 

[JonC]

Questioning my salvation again. But it's OK; I couldn't care less (Proverbs 26:2).

Again, making assumptions.

I have an inclination based on your posts, but no belief. I do not know either way.

 

[DaveXR650]

Set aside your belief for a second. If you were me and God's words made sense (and were complete), would you choose to believe God's words or your understanding about what your sect believes is really taught by the Bible?

The reality of that statement is this. You are asking that we set aside our beliefs and listen to your beliefs. There is no actual choice of our understanding versus God's word. That is a fantasy of your own mind. You and me both always, will apply our understanding to any verse we read - or else we don't, by definition, understand it. Stop pretending that you are the only one who has discovered how to read God's word.

 

[JonC]

The reality of that statement is this. You are asking that we set aside our beliefs and listen to your beliefs. There is no actual choice of our understanding versus God's word. That is a fantasy of your own mind. You and me both always, will apply our understanding to any verse we read - or else we don't, by definition, understand it. Stop pretending that you are the only one who has discovered how to read God's word.

Ummm... no. I an suggesting that you set aside your understanding and read the text of Scripture as if PSA is wrong.

That way you will have two views and you can test both with Scripture and see which passes the test.



We do have different understandings, but the difference is more than our understanding (the difference is the standard, the thing, that we are understanding).

I completely understand PSA. But I rejected PSA in favor of God's words (the biblical text, "what is written" as opposed to what a sect says is really taught when the Bible is properly understood).

Part of this is I reject the presuppositions and pholosophies PSA assumes. BUT the biggest reason is that the foundational parts of PSA (what makes PSA different, unique...what makes it PSA) is not in the Bible. So our standards for accepting such an important doctrine is very different.


If you accepted God's Word as teaching the actual biblical text we may (probably would) still have disagreements BUT we would have the same standard ("what is written") so the disagreements would matters of conscious (Christ would make us both stand).

My question was (to put it another way) if God's words are "ABC" and I believe "ABC" why should I abandon that to accept your understanding that it really teaches "XYZ"?

What if it is really teaching "ABC" (God's actual words)?

Would you, if God's words made sense to you as recorded in the text of Scripture, consciously choose to view God words as insignificant (like explaining how a doorframe is built) and lean on your own understanding or would you see the significance in His words and adopt that as your belief?

I do not think you would exchange God's words for the understanding of a sect, unless "what is written" does not make sense to you except through that lens.

The problem is when you start leaning on your understanding, or the understanding of men who agree with you, that crutch prevents real understanding. You have used that crutch far too long. They are like training wheels on a bicycle, keeping you upright while you learn, until you grow into a more mature faith.

You and I should have never used them for support. Perhaps we needed to lean a bit on our understanding. But the time to remove the training wheels has long past.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You did. You use the word "propitiation" but change the meaning to a "theological" meaning divorced from the actual word.

You use "double speak".

No I didn't, and no I don't.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Oh....and no. "On behalf of" does not mean "instead of". "Instead of" could be on one's behalf but it is a more narrow term.

We should not change God's words to be more inclusive or more restrictive than the words He used.

Example - "vehicle" does not mean "red truck", although a red truck is a vehicle.

We have to show more respect towards God's words than your understanding allows.

'On behalf of' does not have to mean 'instead of,' but very often it does, as I have shown elsewhere.
For example in Galatians 3:13. Entirely aside of the meaning of huper, the verse very clearly teaches that
1. We were under the curse of the law.
2. We are now no longer under the curse of the law.
3. The reason for this changed situation is that Christ took the curse upon Himself.
The only logical conclusion is that Christ took the curse of the law not only on our behalf, but in our place.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I completely agree with those passages. I do not need for you (or your "teachers") to tell me what God meant to say.

And...
λύτρον does NOT mean "in the place of".

You are rewriting Scripture to match your understanding.

λύτρον literally means "something to loosen with". A redemption price, consequence, etc.

Did you really study Greek? I find it increasingly hard to believe.
No, lutron does not mean 'in the place of,' but anti does, as I very clearly indicated to you in post #46.

 

[JonC]

No I didn't, and no I don't.

You did, although I do not know if you realize it. Either way, it does not change the fact.

Question - How could Christ propitiate God's wrath and God still express that wrath on Jesus (or, as you like saying, on our sins laid on Jesus)?

Answer - He could not as God's wrath being propitiated means it is not expressed by definition (by the definition of the word "propitiate").

You redefine "propitiate" to incorporate expiation (the act of making amends for a wrong; paying a debt).

Propitiation has wrath or anger in view, but that wrath or anger is dismissed or turned aside (it ceases to exist).

What you have done is Christian liberalism (the liberalism of several decades ago). It is "double-speak". You use a word but you give it a "theological" meaning that demands your view be correct.

 

[JonC]

'On behalf of' does not have to mean 'instead of,' but very often it does, as I have shown elsewhere.
For example in Galatians 3:13. Entirely aside of the meaning of huper, the verse very clearly teaches that
1. We were under the curse of the law.
2. We are now no longer under the curse of the law.
3. The reason for this changed situation is that Christ took the curse upon Himself.
The only logical conclusion is that Christ took the curse of the law not only on our behalf, but in our place.

"On behalf of" does not mean "instead of", period.

If you do something instead of another, this can be on that person's behalf.

A vehicle is not a red pickup truck. But the red pickup truck can be a vehicle.

We were not under the curse of the law. Abraham was not under the curse of the law

That verse speaks of the Mosaic Law which applied to the generation to which it was given and their descendents until it was fulfilled.

Here is the passage you misuse:

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” But that no one is [a]justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them. Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.


This is the problem with your faith. You start with a theory and then flip through God's words picking and choosing verses you think can be misused to support that philosophy.


That said, Christ did take the curse of the Law upon Himself. But it was not "instead of us", or even "instead of them".

It was so "that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith."


I wish you could understand God's words. I know it is impossible for you. You have set your mind, here, on the flesh. You put your hand to the plow and looked back to philosophers who caught your eye. The flesh cannot grasp that which is spiritual.

Stop leaning on your understanding and lean on God's words. Read the bible, not for snippets you can extract to properly up your theories but for what is actually written.


Your post above proves you lack understanding. It proves you are willing to rip apart Scripture hunting for verses you can misuse.

 

[JonC]

Did you really study Greek? I find it increasingly hard to believe.
No, lutron does not mean 'in the place of,' but anti does, as I very clearly indicated to you in post #46.

Yes, I did in graduate school.

Did you?

ἀντί ("for", "because of") It is used as a preposition in the passage. Figuratively it could mean "this for that" (in place of"), but not in the verse you are trying to misrepresent.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You did, although I do not know if you realize it. Either way, it does not change the fact.

Question - How could Christ propitiate God's wrath and God still express that wrath on Jesus (or, as you like saying, on our sins laid on Jesus)?

Answer - He could not as God's wrath being propitiated means it is not expressed by definition (by the definition of the word "propitiate").

You redefine "propitiate" to incorporate expiation (the act of making amends for a wrong; paying a debt).

Propitiation has wrath or anger in view, but that wrath or anger is dismissed or turned aside (it ceases to exist).

What you have done is Christian liberalism (the liberalism of several decades ago). It is "double-speak". You use a word but you give it a "theological" meaning that demands your view be correct.

You do not quote anything that I have written. I don't recognize any of this. Quotation, please.

 

[JonC]

You do not quote anything that I have written. I don't recognize any of this. Quotation, please.

No quotations needed. If you do not believe Jesus experienced the punishment of God for our sins all I have to say is "praise God!"

If you do believe that then you do not believe Christ propitiated that wrath.