'Penal Substitution', anyone?

[cygnusx1]

I don't believe in Calvinist's definition of original sin. My original sin was the first time I actually sinned knowingly and willingly.

Are you one of those who believe babies lust for sex inside their mom's wombs? Or perhaps you believe they lie, hate, and plot murder inside the womb.

do you believe in penal subsitutionary atonement ?

 

[Arcoe]

do you believe in penal subsitutionary atonement ?

I believe when I repent, I am forgiven of my sins. Is there a special penal substitutionary atonement for sins which are forgiven through repentance? Am I still guilty of the sins of which I am forgiven, or do I need a substitute for these forgiven sins?

 

[cygnusx1]

I believe when I repent, I am forgiven of my sins. Is there a special penal substitutionary atonement for sins which are forgiven through repentance? Am I still guilty of the sins of which I am forgiven, or do I need a substitute for these forgiven sins?

Is that a no ?

 

[Ignatius21]

I'm inclined to agree with the OP. Note the penal substitution is not the only idea of how Christ's death worked. Indeed it's not the earliest. See Atonement in Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for a summary of alternatives.

The NT surely says that Christ died for us. However the most explicit treatment I know of is Rom 6. It says that we are spiritually united with Christ. Through that union, he takes our sin and wipes it out. But he wipes it out through his resurrection, which is his victory over sin and death.

The problem is that the NT uses a number of images and metaphors for the atonement. One of them is "ransom." That's a fine metaphor for him dying for us. But when you start taking it so literally that you ask who the ransom was paid to, the results start getting troubling. One of the early answers was the the ransom was paid to Satan, who owned us because of our sin. PS assumes that the ransom is owed to God, because in his great justice, he can't forgive us without punishing someone. But Jesus' teaching seems to say that God both can and does forgive us without precondition.

So I see the atonement not as a way to let God forgive us without violating justice, but as the way that God regenerates us through our union with Christ.

It seems like not many people had a problem with PS between the medieval period and the 20th Cent. Today it's becoming increasingly common for Christians to be bothered by the implications of PS. Thus many people are returning to older concepts of the atonement. Interestingly, John Calvin used the explanation I just gave as his first explanation.

Well said.

I heard a Reformed teacher once say "There is no Calvinism without Penal Substitution." And that the Reformed idea of "imputed righteousness" makes no sense without "imputed guilt" which is punished through penal substitution...thus there is no doctrine of justification without penal substitution. Essentially, then, he seemed to be saying penal substitution IS the gospel.

(This was the theme of a 2 day Ligonier Ministries conference on "The Truth of the Cross several years ago, I believe it was Dr. Al Mohler who made the statements I referenced above.)

I take it you would not agree with this? Would Calvin?

I think you're quite correct in saying that when you push a ransom metaphor too far, you get troubling results in asking to whom the ransom was paid. I think if you take any atonement theory too far, you get into some logical conundrums.

 

[hedrick]

Well said.

I heard a Reformed teacher once say "There is no Calvinism without Penal Substitution." And that the Reformed idea of "imputed righteousness" makes no sense without "imputed guilt" which is punished through penal substitution...thus there is no doctrine of justification without penal substitution. Essentially, then, he seemed to be saying penal substitution IS the gospel.

(This was the theme of a 2 day Ligonier Ministries conference on "The Truth of the Cross several years ago, I believe it was Dr. Al Mohler who made the statements I referenced above.)

I take it you would not agree with this? Would Calvin?

I think you're quite correct in saying that when you push a ransom metaphor too far, you get troubling results in asking to whom the ransom was paid. I think if you take any atonement theory too far, you get into some logical conundrums.

I do not agree. However I've only checked the Institutes. It's possible Calvin said more elsewhere. It's difficult to read people, because we have a natural tendency to read language like "Christ died for us" as supporting whatever theory of atonement we're thinking of, while it's actually neutral. Avoiding this unconscious misinterpretation of both Calvin and Scripture is *very* hard.

However in the major treatment of atonement in the institutes, Calvin emphasizes Romans 6: that through union with Christ we die to sin and are given new life by experiencing his resurrection. He emphasizes that the key is Christ's obedience, which we receive through our union with Christ. And Calvin notes that this is not just his obedience in death, but throughout his life.

I looked through that whole chapter. I saw lots of different images and metaphors, but nothing that looked like an exclusive emphasis on PS, and in fact I didn't actually see "because of justice God can't forgive us without a death". Maybe I missed it.

The presentation of Calvin you got was a conservative Reformed one. Recent scholars have started to realize that for Calvin the center of the Gospel is not election or PS, but union with Christ, what he calls the "unio mystica," just as for Paul it is being "in Christ." It is through this union that Christ renews us, and of course also accepts our sin. He has a wonderful term for this: we have through union with Christ a "community of righteousness."

Calvin doesn't have the consistent forensic emphasis that some Lutherans do. Of course he never says that grace or righteousness is something we possess on our own. But through our union with Christ we actually do receive regeneration and new life. It is never entirely our own, but because we are in Christ, we experience Christ's righteousness. It's not just imputed to us. I've also noted that he tends to use forgiveness in places where Luther would just justification.

 

[Arcoe]

Is that a no ?

That is a no. Do you need a substitute every time you sin? Can you not just repent and ask for forgiveness every time you sin?

As I have said before, if the punishment of sin is separation from God in hell for eternity, then Jesus did not fully pay for this punishment. You still owe the 'eternity' part, for it was never satisfied.

Now, do you believe repentance and turning to God can rectify the punishment for sin, for eternity?

What do you still owe, on the account of the sin God forgives through repentance?

 

[Clare73]

I don't believe in Calvinist's definition of original sin. My original sin was the first time I actually sinned knowingly and willingly.

Calvin's definition? How did he get into this?

How about the NT's definition?

The NT reveals that unregenerate mankind is morally responsible for Adam's sin.
The NT reveals that we are born spiritually dead (Ge 2:17; Eph 2:1; Col 2:13) in sin and unbelief and, therefore, are condemned to damnation (Jn 3:18b-19, 36).

In Ro 5:12-21, the NT establishes our personal responsibility for this condemnation into which we are born, where two illustrations are used to show that unregenerate man is responsible for the sin of Adam's transgression.

1) In vv. 12-14, the NT reveals that even those from Adam to Moses who were not guilty of the sin of transgression (because there was no law to transgress, Ro 4:15, 5:13) died anyway (v.14)--proof that God held them all guilty ("all sinned," v.12) of sin ("sin was in the world," v.13).
But when there was no law to transgress, the only sin in the world that could cause the guilt of death (Ro 6:23) was Adam's transgression.
And thus the NT establishes that unregenerate mankind since Adam is born guilty of the sin of Adam's transgression.

In vv. 15-16, the NT contrasts, and then

2) in vv. 17-19, the NT parallels the trespass of Adam and the righteousness of Jesus Christ, to show the Biblical principle which is involved.
Note that in v. 18, the NT states that we are all condemned by Adam's trespass, just as we are made righteous by Christ's obedience.

Christ was a second Adam (v.14; 1Co 15:45), meaning that our interest (involvement) in the two of them is of the same nature (1Co 15:22).
In one man we were made sinners, just as in one man we are made righteous.
The NT is drawing clear parallelisms of imputation in vv. 18-19, so that the last half of each verse gives the true meaning of the first half of each verse.
In neither half of the parallel does the outcome (guilt, righteousness) have anything to do with what mankind did, or our involvement would not be of the same nature and the parallelism would be destroyed.

The clear meaning is that Adam's guilt is imputed to us, just as (in the same way) Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, which is the Biblical principle of imputation the NT reveals here.

So the NT reveals that unregenerate mankind is morally responsible for (guilty of) the sentence of condemnation into which he is born because of the guilt of Adam which is imputed to him.

Not that does raise the question, if man did not personally incur the sin of Adam, how can God justly hold man morally responsbile for that sin?

Well, the analogy of the Anthropos family business is helpful here.
As long as the Anthropos sons of future generations, who successively inherit the family business (not a corp, partnership, LLC etc.), keeps up the family business, they are personally responsible for the debts of that business, even though they did not personally incur those debts.
The prinicple here is that personal responsbility for debt does not require that the debt be personally incurred.

That legal priniple is also a Biblical principle.
Because man is the son of Adam, who continues in the family businss of Adam, which is rebellion and disobedience of God's enemies (Ro 5:10, 3:10-12, 18), he is, therefore, responsible for the debt of Adam (penalty for sin), even though he did not personally incur that debt.

We have an example of that principle in Lk 11:48-51, where Jesus holds the present generation of Jewish doctors of (experts in) the law responsible for all the blood of the prophets shed by their forefathers from the beginning of the world;
because in rejecting and murdering Christ (Ac 7:51-52), the Prophet whom Moses said was to come (Dt 18:18; Jn 1:21, 6:14, 12:49; Ac 3:22-23),
they were keeping up their forefathers' business of rejecting and murdering God's prophets and were, therefore, liable for all the debts (penalty for sins) of their forefathers' business of murdering the prophets (v.51).

So, in the same way as Jesus held the Jewish doctors of the law responsible/guilty of the sin of their forefathers, even though they did not personally incur their sin,
unregenerate man is likewise responsible/guilty of the sin of Adam, even though he did not personally incur Adam's sin (Ro 1:32), because he continues in the sin of Adam's rebellion and disobedience.

So Biblically, as well as in our legal system, there is no injustice in God holding unregenerate mankind morally responsbile for the sin of Adam's rebellion and disobedience which he did not personally incur, because personal responsibility for debt does not require that it be personally incurred.

The NT is quite clear that we are born in Adam's sin, which is the meaning of original sin.

So, no Arcoe, the NT reveals that your original sin was not the first sin of which you are personally guilty.

Are you one of those who believe babies lust for sex inside their mom's wombs? Or perhaps you believe they lie, hate, and plot murder inside the womb.

Only if you are.

 

[cygnusx1]

That is a no. Do you need a substitute every time you sin? Can you not just repent and ask for forgiveness every time you sin?

As I have said before, if the punishment of sin is separation from God in hell for eternity, then Jesus did not fully pay for this punishment. You still owe the 'eternity' part, for it was never satisfied.

Now, do you believe repentance and turning to God can rectify the punishment for sin, for eternity?

What do you still owe, on the account of the sin God forgives through repentance?

No wonder we are worlds apart on just about every doctrine, I expect you don't even think scripture is infallible , and salvation can be lost and. Original sin is wrong etc Etc etc

 

[Arcoe]

Calvin's definition? How did he get into this?

How about the NT's definition?

The NT reveals that unregenerate mankind is morally responsible for Adam's sin.
The NT reveals that we are born spiritually dead (Ge 2:17; Eph 2:1; Col 2:13) in sin and unbelief and, therefore, are condemned to damnation (Jn 3:18b-19, 36).

In Ro 5:12-21, the NT establishes our personal responsibility for this condemnation into which we are born, where two illustrations are used to show that unregenerate man is responsible for the sin of Adam's transgression.

1) In vv. 12-14, the NT reveals that even those from Adam to Moses who were not guilty of the sin of transgression (because there was no law to transgress, Ro 4:15, 5:13) died anyway (v.14)--proof that God held them all guilty ("all sinned," v.12) of sin ("sin was in the world," v.13).
But when there was no law to transgress, the only sin in the world that could cause the guilt of death (Ro 6:23) was Adam's transgression.
And thus the NT establishes that unregenerate mankind since Adam is born guilty of the sin of Adam's transgression.

In vv. 15-16, the NT contrasts, and then

2) in vv. 17-19, the NT parallels the trespass of Adam and the righteousness of Jesus Christ, to show the Biblical principle which is involved.
Note that in v. 18, the NT states that we are all condemned by Adam's trespass, just as we are made righteous by Christ's obedience.

Christ was a second Adam (v.14; 1Co 15:45), meaning that our interest (involvement) in the two of them is of the same nature (1Co 15:22).
In one man we were made sinners, just as in one man we are made righteous.
The NT is drawing clear parallelisms of imputation in vv. 18-19, so that the last half of each verse gives the true meaning of the first half of each verse.
In neither half of the parallel does the outcome (guilt, righteousness) have anything to do with what mankind did, or our involvement would not be of the same nature and the parallelism would be destroyed.

The clear meaning is that Adam's guilt is imputed to us, just as (in the same way) Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, which is the Biblical principle of imputation the NT reveals here.

So the NT reveals that unregenerate mankind is morally responsible for (guilty of) the sentence of condemnation into which he is born because of the guilt of Adam which is imputed to him.

Not that does raise the question, if man did not personally incur the sin of Adam, how can God justly hold man morally responsbile for that sin?

Well, the analogy of the Anthropos family business is helpful here.
As long as the Anthropos sons of future generations, who successively inherit the family business (not a corp, partnership, LLC etc.), keeps up the family business, they are personally responsible for the debts of that business, even though they did not personally incur those debts.
The prinicple here is that personal responsbility for debt does not require that the debt be personally incurred.

That legal priniple is also a Biblical principle.
Because man is the son of Adam, who continues in the family businss of Adam, which is rebellion and disobedience of God's enemies (Ro 5:10, 3:10-12, 18), he is, therefore, responsible for the debt of Adam (penalty for sin), even though he did not personally incur that debt.

We have an example of that principle in Lk 11:48-51, where Jesus holds the present generation of Jewish doctors of (experts in) the law responsible for all the blood of the prophets shed by their forefathers from the beginning of the world;
because in rejecting and murdering Christ (Ac 7:51-52), the Prophet whom Moses said was to come (Dt 18:18; Jn 1:21, 6:14, 12:49; Ac 3:22-23),
they were keeping up their forefathers' business of rejecting and murdering God's prophets and were, therefore, liable for all the debts (penalty for sins) of their forefathers' business of murdering the prophets (v.51).

So, in the same way as Jesus held the Jewish doctors of the law responsible/guilty of the sin of their forefathers, even though they did not personally incur their sin,
unregenerate man is likewise responsible/guilty of the sin of Adam, even though he did not personally incur Adam's sin (Ro 1:32), because he continues in the sin of Adam's rebellion and disobedience.

So Biblically, as well as in our legal system, there is no injustice in God holding unregenerate mankind morally responsbile for the sin of Adam's rebellion and disobedience which he did not personally incur, because personal responsibility for debt does not require that it be personally incurred.

The NT is quite clear that we are born in Adam's sin, which is the meaning of original sin.

So, no Arcoe, the NT reveals that your original sin was not the first sin of which you are personally guilty.


Only if you are.

What took you umpteen words to say, I am able to say in a few -

"Repent and turn to God for the forgiveness of sins."

This takes care of any alleged sins of Adam, any penal punishment, any sins of our forefathers, or anything else you brought up.

And no, I do not believe babies in the womb are sinners; what a pathetic belief of a Holy God in creating each and every person. Talk about taking away the glory of God, this pretty much defines it all.

So, do you believe babies are sinners and able to sin in the womb?

 

[Clare73]

Clare - You quoted "propitiation" in Rom.3:24. Let's look at this more precisely:

He was set forth as the ‘propitiation’ (Rom.3:25, Greek: hilasterion

Thanks again, jerusalem,

The meaning of "propitiation" is satisfaction, appeasement, reparation, amends.

"God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of propitiation through faith in his blood."

Apart from faith in Jesus' sacrifice to propitiate (make reparation, amends for) your sin, there is no forgiveness of your sin.

Forgiveness of sin is the meaning of salvation, for salvation is from the wrath of God's just condemnation on your sin at the final judgment (Ro 2:5).

 

[Arcoe]

No wonder we are worlds apart on just about every doctrine, I expect you don't even think scripture is infallible , and salvation can be lost and. Original sin is wrong etc Etc etc

So, I take you don't believe in repenting for the forgiveness of sins?

Are you surprised there are those who don't believe the way you do through their freedom of choice, or, their ability to will from themselves?

 

[cygnusx1]

So, I take you don't believe in repenting for the forgiveness of sins?

Are you surprised there are those who don't believe the way you do through their freedom of choice, or, their ability to will from themselves?

I believe in the scriptures , repenting is a duty and a gift , I am not sure you even accept the infallibility of the scriptures you say you are free to agree with or disagree with , you see unless right at the outset there is a common mind then everything subsequent will just digress more until nothing is left to agree upon.

 

[hedrick]

Thanks again, jerusalem,

The meaning of "propitiation" is satisfaction, appeasement, reparation, amends.

"God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of propitiation through faith in his blood."

Apart from faith in Jesus' sacrifice to propitiate (make reparation, amends for) your sin, there is no forgiveness of your sin.

Forgiveness of sin is the meaning of salvation, for salvation is from the wrath of God's just condemnation on your sin at the final judgment (Ro 2:5).

As far as I can tell from lexicons, the Greek word refers to the OT sacrificial system as a way for expiating sins, but does not imply any particular theory of how or why that system works.

Note that the question with penal satisfaction isn't whether or not Jesus' death was for us, whether our sin is transferred to him, and his death got rid of it. All of that is pretty clear in Paul. Rather, most people's concern is the medieval development claiming that because of God's justice, he needed to punish someone before he could be reconciled. I would claim, in contrast, that God was already committed to being reconciled, and in fact that he was perfectly capable of forgiving us without Jesus' death, but that he chose Jesus death as the way to remove our sins.

I see this as the distinction between propitiation and expiation. Expiation removes sin. Propitiation appeases God. God doesn't need appeasement, but sin does need to be dealt with. Indeed I think that's precisely the point that this passage is trying to make. God was perfectly capable of forgiving sin. What Jesus' death did was deal with the sin by removing it.

 

[Clare73]

Is this all you know what to write?

You don't like what the word of God reveals?

Evidently not, because you have not presented a consistent (logically sensible) and Biblical exegesis of Ro 3:25-26 which answers the questions presented.
So I will answer them for you, having already explained the four foundational errors on which [post=62736930]this[/post] presentation was based.

"God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of propitiation (atonement) through faith in his blood.

He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had passed over

(left unpunished) the sins committed beforehand (OT)--he did it to demonstrate his justice

at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies." (Ro 3:25-26)

You need only to present consistent (logically sensible) and Biblical answers to the following questions on Ro 3:25-26 to see God's revelation of penal atonement.

1) What did God "pass over" the sins committed beforehand (OT)?

-----Penalty on their sin was "passed over," their sin was left unpunished. (penal)

2) The "what passed over" (penalty) consisted precisely of?

-----Eternal punishment due on their sin.

3) How did the "what passed over" (penalty) demonstrate God's justice?

-----Justice requires a penalty for law breaking.

4) For what did Jesus' sacrificial death atone?

-----The law-breaking of all those who believe in his propitiation for their sin (of breaking God's laws). (atonement)

5) How does Jesus' sacrificial death atone (make reparation, amends) for it?

-----He paid the penalty due for their law-breaking. (subsitution)

6) What is the connection between his atonement and my faith in it (his blood)?

-----The forgiveness of sin, purchased by Jesus' sacrifice of propitiation paying my penalty, is applied to me only by faith

in his propitiation, and this forgiveness is salvation, from the just wrath of God on my sin at the final judgment.

The word of God in Ro 3:25-26 clearly presents substitutional penal atonement.

 

[bottomofsandal]

What took you umpteen words to say, I am able to say in a few -

"Repent and turn to God for the forgiveness of sins."

This takes care of any alleged sins of Adam, any penal punishment, any sins of our forefathers, or anything else you brought up.

Does it ? Yes, we are to repent and turn...then what happens ?

Even the worldly and the ungodly understand justice and punishment. Is there not people who have escaped the arm of the law and remain free, yet have a guilty conscience ? Furthermore, you really must elucidate the problem of guilt and conscience to the newly converted. Is a man saved by grace to believe a Holy and Just God performed some abra-ca-dabra and <POOF> the sin, guilt, and consequences magically vanished ?

 

[Clare73]

What took you umpteen words to say, I am able to say in a few -

"Repent and turn to God for the forgiveness of sins."

This takes care of any alleged sins of Adam, any penal punishment, any sins of our forefathers,
or anything else you brought up.

Nice gloss. . .

No wonder you miss so much of what Ro 3:25-26 reveals regarding substitutional penal atonement.

And no, I do not believe babies in the womb are sinners;

Then you don't believe the word of God in Eph 2:3 about the sinful nature with which we are born being an object of God's wrath.

But somehow, that is not surprising.

 

[Arcoe]

You don't like what the word of God reveals?

Evidently not, because you have not presented a consistent (logically sensible) and Biblical exegesis of Ro 3:25-26 which answers the questions presented.
So I will answer them for you, having already explained the four foundational errors on which [post=62736930]this[/post] presentation was based.

"God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of propitiation (atonement) through faith in his blood.

He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had passed over

(left unpunished) the sins committed beforehand (OT)--he did it to demonstrate his justice

at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies." (Ro 3:25-26)

You need only to present consistent (logically sensible) and Biblical answers to the following questions on Ro 3:25-26 to see God's revelation of penal atonement.

1) What did God "pass over" the sins committed beforehand (OT)?

-----Penalty on their sin was "passed over," their sin was left unpunished. (penal)

2) The "what passed over" (penalty) consisted precisely of?

-----Eternal punishment due on their sin.

3) How did the "what passed over" (penalty) demonstrate God's justice?

-----Justice requires a penalty for law breaking.

4) For what did Jesus' sacrificial death atone?

-----The law-breaking of all those who believe in his propitiation for their sin (of breaking God's laws). (atonement)

5) How does Jesus' sacrificial death atone (make reparation, amends) for it?

-----He paid the penalty due for their law-breaking. (subsitution)

6) What is the connection between his atonement and my faith in it (his blood)?

-----The forgiveness of sin, purchased by Jesus' sacrifice of propitiation paying my penalty, is applied to me only by faith

in his propitiation, and this forgiveness is salvation, from the just wrath of God on my sin at the final judgment.

The word of God in Ro 3:25-26 clearly presents substitutional penal atonement.

Yes, I have read this before, but I wonder if you believe repenting and turning to God forgives sin. If so, then everything you have written is satisfied in repenting and turning to God. EVERYTHING!

You keep wanting to put legality on everyone, when all one has to do is repent and turn to God for the forgiveness, or remission, of sins. I don't even think you mentioned repentance once above.

Do you know remittance is a payment, to refrain from inflicting or reinforcing a punishment or sentence, a pardon and release from imprisonment. To satisfy one's sentence of death is to just repent, turn to God, and ask for forgiveness. REPENTANCE IS THE SATISFACTION!

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission (or payment of satisfaction) of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

REPENTANCE IS THE PAYMENT AND, THUS PARDON OF OUR SIN; THIS IS THE SATISFACTION GOD DESIRES.

Therefore, every man, woman, and child throughout history is able to make payment, or remittance on their sin by repenting. Read the OT, repenting is not foreign to it.

 

[cygnusx1]

No amount of sorrow over sin or turning away from sin actually deals with sin, repentance only deals with the appeal for forgiveness , sin can only be dealt with a perfect blood sacrifice.

Christ paid that price , in order that sinners could repent and be saved.

 

[Arcoe]

Nice gloss. . .

No wonder you miss so much of what Ro 3:25-26 reveals regarding substitutional penal atonement.

So, I take you don't believe repenting for the remittance of our sins is valid, contrary to what the Bible teaches.

Then you don't believe the word of God in Eph 2:3 about the sinful nature with which we are born being an object of God's wrath.

Sorry, I don't see the word 'born' at all in those passages. Are you adding this to confirm your beliefs?

But somehow, that is not surprising.

Since you put so much emphasis on blood, do you happen to drink His blood to have eternal life, as He states in John 6:54? Or do you think His blood means something else than literal blood?

 

[Arcoe]

No amount of sorrow over sin or turning away from sin actually deals with sin, repentance only deals with the appeal for forgiveness , sin can only be dealt with a perfect blood sacrifice.

Christ paid that price , in order that sinners could repent and be saved.

So, you also do not believe repenting for the forgiveness of sin is remittance. Let me give this to you again. Contrary to your personal belief that repenting does not deal with sin, I would have to side with the Bible on this one.

Many people repented before Jesus 'paid the price' so to become able to repent. Many people were also saved before Jesus 'paid the price'.

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission (or payment of satisfaction) of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.