'Penal Substitution', anyone?

[Clare73]

Here is something I thought you might enjoy !
Keep up the labor of love !


'They (liberal preachers) speak with disgust of those who believe ‘that the blood of our Lord, shed in substitutionary death, placates an alienated deity and makes possible welcome for the returning sinner. Against the doctrine of the cross they use every weapon of caricature and vilification. Thus they pour out their scorn upon a thing so holy and so precious that in the presence of it the Christian heart melts in gratitude too deep for words. It never seems to occur to modern liberals that in deriding the Christian doctrine of the cross, they are trampling on human hearts.”

(J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1923, p.120.)

Thanks!

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

The reason we still have several “theories” that do not pass peer review is because none are correct.

The reason I said "so called "theories"" is because I do not believe them all to be theory, the ones I listed, I believe are biblical truth, God's truth. To even ascribe the word "theory" to atonement, nearly makes me cringe, to be honest.

Do you believe and have you experienced the Holy Spirit’s guidance to the truth?

What do you mean by "the truth", as in the THE truth concerning salvation, a truth, truth concerning the doctrine of atonement, what exactly do you mean?

I believe God the Holy Spirit has guided me into much truth, whilst my flesh ever leads me into error. The spiritual guidance and illumination from the Holy Spirit, only comes by faith, and I am not talking about a human ability to read a text and come to an understanding of it, or that a reprobate cannot read a biblical passage and come to a correct interpretation, they surely can, but they do not believe it, and it has no significance to them, and has no impact on them personally, except perhaps further judgement for what they know.

In short, a simple answer is yes, I believe so, into many truths I would not have embraced without that guidance, because they do nothing to sooth the flesh, or comfort the flesh, they're not the kind of truths we would come up with without the Holy Spirit (by nature autonmously), they be truths the carnal mind rejects.

 

[Clare73]

As I said, that's your interpretation. I've pointed out before that Hilasterion is translated "mercy seat" much more than propitiation. I've also pointed out the Mercy Seat fits just fine in Romans 3:25.

Thanks, Butch,

Okay, that's a good start.

In the Greek OT Septuagint (LXX), translated ~300 years before Christ, Mercy Seat is hilasterion epithema.
It refers to the lid or cover of the Ark of the Covenant, called kapporeth in the Hebrew, meaning the covering of or the removal of sin (Ps 32:1) by means of expiatory (animal) sacrifice, and was translated epithema in the Greek.
The Jewish translators of the Greek OT LXX added hilasterion to epithema which is an adjective signifying the propiatory.
Eventually, hilasterion stood for both hilasterion and epithema.

So the OT Hebrew kapporeth = Greek OT hilasterion epithema since ~300 years before the birth of Christ, which = English NT expiatory propitiation.
It's been the NT meaning of "atonement" since the Greek NT was written, which was ~300 years after the Greek OT (LXX) was translated.

The Mercy Seat, along with with Ark, is referred to as the footstool of God (1Chr 28:2; Ps 99:5, 132:7).
God promised to be present upon it and to commune with Moses "from above the mercy-seat, from between the two cherubim" (Ex 25:22; Lev 1:1).

So, now can you present a consistent (logically sensible) and Biblical explanation of Ro 3:25-26 using "mercy seat" (which actually does not change the import of Ro 3:25-26), which agrees with the whole text?

I've presented questions which must be answered in order to address the whole text.
I've also presented my answers to those questions from the text.

Now it's your turn.

"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)

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 that forgiveness is salvation, from the wrath of God at the final judgment.

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

 

[Clare73]

I have without a responce from Clare, but if you feel she is doing what you agree with than please address the questions I asked her:

All answered here:

"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)

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 that forgiveness is salvation, from the wrath of God at the final judgment.

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

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

One of the most glaring inconsistencies of non-Reformed interpretation of the atonement is the idea that Christ died for the sins of everyone and that he died substitutionally (they often will say "Christ died for me". If that is true, then everyone will be saved, or the efficiency of the atonement is reduced to self-works (in which we could boast), and adding our works to the atonement (as though we could improve the atonement), as though it's up to us to maintain the atonement.

 

[bottomofsandal]

How much do you empathize with Jesus and God over their having to do this for you?

In what possible way could I even begin to show empathy for the suffering, degradation, and humiliation of Jesus ? I have absolutely no comprehension of what He endured for us on the cross. You don't; it is impossible to anyone to do so.


It is as if you are attempting to somehow romanticize the death of Jesus on the cross by over emphasizing pity and sympathy. Why the visceral response to a Spiritual event ? Is Jesus seeking an emotional reaction ?



em·pa·thy (

m

p

-th

)
n. 1. Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives.
2. The attribution of one's own feelings to an object.

 

[Butch5]

You've done no such thing.
You have presented no consistent (logically sensible) and Biblical explanation of the questions below.

However, you could clear up the controversy by presenting one here and now, in lieu of the one below.

You won't, because you can't present an explanation that can stand up to scrutiny in light of Ro 3:25-26.

Q.E.D.

"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)

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 that forgiveness is salvation, from the wrath of God at the final judgment.

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

As I said, that's your interpretation. I've pointed out before that Hilasterion is translated "mercy seat" much more than propitiation. I've also pointed out the Mercy Seat fits just fine in Romans 3:25. Just because the Reformers chose to use the word propitiation doesn't mean that's what the passage means. We can see that prior to the Reformation it was not translated propitiation.

Here is Wycliffe's translation.

25 Whom God ordeynede foryyuer, bi feith in his blood, to the schewyng of his riytwisnesse, for remyssioun of biforgoynge synnes,

Wycliffe translated "hilasterion" forgiver, which is basically the same as mercy seat.

Tyndale didn't translate it propitiation either.

TNT Romans 3:25 whom God hath made a seate of mercy thorow faith in his bloud to shewe the rightewesnes which before him is of valoure in that he forgeveth the synnes that are passed which God dyd suffre (Rom 3:25 TNT)

It's not until we get to the Reformation that it suddenly becomes propitiation. Hmmmm, that wouldn't be to fit their newly formed doctrine of Penal Atonement would it?

Likewise we see several modern translation have addressed this issue also.

YLT Romans 3:25 whom God did set forth a mercy seat, through the faith in his blood, for the shewing forth of His righteousness, because of the passing over of the bygone sins in the forbearance of God -- (Rom 3:25 YLT)

NET Romans 3:25 God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed. (Rom 3:25 NET)

This aligns nicely with the Mercy Seat in the OT.

 

[Butch5]

One of the most glaring inconsistencies of non-Reformed interpretation of the atonement is the idea that Christ died for the sins of everyone and that he died substitutionally (they often will say "Christ died for me". If that is true, then everyone will be saved, or the efficiency of the atonement is reduced to self-works (in which we could boast), and adding our works to the atonement (as though we could improve the atonement), as though it's up to us to maintain the atonement.

I don't believe it's inconsistencies in the non reformed interpretation but rather preconceptions that you may have. I have no problem reconciling the evidence. However, I also don't approach the Scripture from your perspective.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I don't believe it's inconsistencies in the non reformed interpretation but rather preconceptions that you may have. I have no problem reconciling the evidence. However, I also don't approach the Scripture from your perspective.

If you think the almighty "free will" reconciles it, you're wrong, but we'll still sing "Jesus Paid It All" together...

 

[Butch5]

Sorry about your perception and understanding of Scripture.

Note the grammatical usage of "as."

Those Scriptures are statements of timelessness, not statements giving the nature of time in timelessness.
They are showing there is no comparison between time and timelessness.

The Father does not live in time.
Therefore, there is no measurement into days or years of the timelessness in which he dwells.
That is the purport of those texts.

However, creation took place in time.
The creation account is given in the terms of earthly time, six days.

Not to mention those texts have nothing to do with the creation account.

There is no basis for the fanciful notion that "day" in Ge 2:17 is actually 1,000 years.
Timelessness cannot be stated in terms of time.

There's a whole lot more basis for it than claiming Adam died spiritually because he lived longer than 24 hours. There is absolutely nothing to support that claim.

It has a basis, however, I doubt you'll accept it.

 

[Butch5]

If you think the almighty "free will" reconciles it, you're wrong, but we'll still sing "Jesus Paid It All" together...

I wasn't even thinking of free will. It's the presuppositions that cause the issue. You assume that man can do nothing towards salvation so it's only natural that you'll see inconsistencies.

 

[Butch5]

Ezekiel isn't the only prophet in scripture , try not to be ruled by the simple selective approach , try the holistic approach to doctrine , the systematic approach .

You know the Russelites ? They deny the trinity and they even use scripture , they only quote texts that support their view that Jesus is not God , they ignore or refuse to play fair with texts that prove Jesus is Divine in scripture , if you debate them they will have a scripture for every scripture you use , and guess what , you will get nowhere , you will just give up because they never appreciate the contrary view found in scripture , they have their view and nothing will change it .

Are you SDA ?

Russelites? It seems to me you've just described most Christians.

No, I'm not SDA.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I wasn't even thinking of free will. It's the presuppositions that cause the issue. You assume that man can do nothing towards salvation so it's only natural that you'll see inconsistencies.

I realize that everyone has presuppositions, and the benefit of acknowledging one's own presuppositions when approaching Scripture, and with that I stand by my presuppositions and what I said in post: #225. Because you see, I believe my presuppositions are in line with the biblical worldview expressed throughout Scripture. Of course you think the same, except you've mentioned nothing to undo post 225, only made a claim, which anyone can do.

 

[Clare73]

4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. (Psa 90:4 KJV)

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (2Pe 3:8 KJV)

Sorry about your perception and understanding of Scripture.

Note the grammatical usage of "as," rather than "is."

Those Scriptures are statements of timelessness, not statements giving the nature of time in timelessness.
They are showing there is no comparison between time and timelessness.

The Father does not live in time.
Therefore, there is no measurement into days or years of the timelessness in which he dwells.
That is the purport of those texts.

However, creation took place in time.
The creation account is given in the terms of earthly time, six days.

Not to mention those texts have nothing to do with the creation account.

There is no basis for the fanciful notion that "day" in Ge 2:17 is actually 1,000 years.
Timelessness cannot be stated in terms of time.

There's a whole lot more basis for it than claiming Adam died spiritually because he lived longer than 24 hours. There is absolutely nothing to support that claim.

It has a basis, however, I doubt you'll accept it.

You misunderstand spiritual death.

It is loss of Holy Spirit life, loss of eternal life.

It is not death of one's spirit.

Adam and Eve were the only ones to experience spiritual death, loss of Holy Spirit life, loss of eternal life.

Everyone else is now born without Holy Spirit life, without eternal life, in spiritual death.

But their human spirits are not dead, they just do not possess Holy Spirit life, eternal life.

 

[gmm4j]

You misunderstand spiritual death.

It is loss of Holy Spirit life, loss of eternal life.

It is not death of one's spirit.

Adam and Eve were the only ones to experience spiritual death, loss of Holy Spirit life, loss of eternal life.

Everyone else is now born without Holy Spirit life, without eternal life, in spiritual death.

But their human spirits are not dead, they just do not possess Holy Spirit life, eternal life.

Can someone have Holy Spirit life before receiving the Spirit?

 

[Clare73]

Can someone have Holy Spirit life before receiving the Spirit?

Someone can exercise the gifts of the Holy Spirit without ever having Holy Spirit life. (Mt 7:21-23)

 

[gmm4j]

Someone can exercise the gifts of the Holy Spirit without ever having Holy Spirit life. (Mt 7:21-23)

Can someone have Holy Spirit life before receiving the Spirit?

Can you have Holy Spirit life without receiving the Spirit?

 

[Butch5]

You misunderstand spiritual death.

It is loss of Holy Spirit life, loss of eternal life.

It is not death of one's spirit.

Adam and Eve were the only ones to experience spiritual death, loss of Holy Spirit life, loss of eternal life.

Everyone else is now born without Holy Spirit life, without eternal life, in spiritual death.

But their human spirits are not dead, they just do not possess Holy Spirit life, eternal life.

There is no such thing as spiritual death in the Scriptures.

Humans don't have spirits, other than the breath of life from God.

 

[Butch5]

I realize that everyone has presuppositions, and the benefit of acknowledging one's own presuppositions when approaching Scripture, and with that I stand by my presuppositions and what I said in post: #225. Because you see, I believe my presuppositions are in line with the biblical worldview expressed throughout Scripture. Of course you think the same, except you've mentioned nothing to undo post 225, only made a claim, which anyone can do.

I was merely pointing out the reason why you see glaring inconsistencies. My point was they seem to exist because of you presuppositions.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

There is no such thing as spiritual death in the Scriptures.

Obviously neither Adam nor Eve died a physical death that day, nevertheless God told them, in that day they would surely die. So, in what way do you propose that they died?

Humans don't have spirits, other than the breath of life from God.

What did Jesus drive out of legion into the swine then? The breath of life? How does the Holy Spirit indwell in a believer?