'Penal Substitution', anyone?

[Butch5]

Church history does not constitute a valid Biblical basis.

But Clare's opinion does?

 

[Butch5]

So, if man's spirit returns to God, why do you maintain that man's spirit,
which Scripture presents as his life principle and location of his emotions,
is not immortal or deathless, but dies?


You should understand your theology in the light of the words of Jesus in Mt 6:25, 10:28, 26:38; Lk 12:20.

You can review the "study of the topic" [post=62798383]here[/post] for the answer to your question.
Hint: in their scriptural usage, "soul" and "spirit" are alike in their nature and activities,
which is why Heb 4:12 mirrors the difficulty in distinguishing one from the other.


No, it's because he did not have the benefit of Jesus' usage of "soul" and "spirit" to enlighten him, as we have.

Ah, am I to understand then that Jesus contradicted the OT?

 

[Butch5]

Clare,

If you could simply supply a text showing where a man receives this spirit we could end this discussion. Inferences are not statements.

 

[Butch5]

That's one down, and five to go (#1, 3, 4, 5, 6) [post=62792540]here[/post].

I've already shown they can be understood differently. I'm not going to spend my time refuting every passage you "think" implies an immortal spirit. From the beginning I've asked you to present Scripture showing where man receives this spirit, you've not done that. Until you can do that there is nothing for me to respond to.

 

[bling]

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.

If the concept is not specifically stated in scripture (keeping the context of the verses being restated in complete consideration) then the concept is a “theoretical” explanation of what the truth is.

If you do not like “theory” you can go with interpretation of scripture. To be a good interpretation it needs to address all the potential exceptions and be consistent with other known concepts.

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.

I agree there are tons of truths out there we personally do not need to know and have not been guided to. If there is something a desire to understand since it would have a personal impact on my spiritual growth and change me positively than I feel the Spirit guiding me in my quest to find the truth, prays over the topic, my fasting, my meditation, my discussions with other sincere Christians and do not look to commentaries until after I have spent ample time on the topic and only to see what others believe.

 

[Butch5]

So, if man's spirit returns to God, why do you maintain that man's spirit,
which Scripture presents as his life principle and location of his emotions,
is not immortal or deathless, but dies?

It's not man's spirit, it's God's spirit in man.

 

[bling]

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)

Does the “sin” need to be punished or does the sinner need to be punished?


Where all sinners not punished or just some sinners where not punished and if only some who where they?


Yes! in the past before Christ went to the cross: punishment of the sinner for intentional sins that he/she repented of and God forgave were did not receive just punishment.

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

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

Did Christ suffer for eternity?


How can the punishment be “due on their sins” and not due them?


In the OT Lev. 5 there was atonement and forgiveness for unintentional sins, so why did these sins not have eternal punishment?


People that go to hell do not have “eternal life” and will be burned up (annihilated) eventually. “Forever” does not always mean eternal, but can mean unquenchable or for an age.

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

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

Does “justice” require just any penalty to anything or person, or does just require the punishment of the guilty party for their transgressions?

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)

Clare asks “for what” when it is not “for what” but “for whom”?


Christ is not going to the cross for some intangible like “the breaking of the law”, but is going for all those that will put their trust in what he has done.

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

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

Here Clare is introducing the idea of “substitution” which is not stayed as such in scripture. Just because Christ did it for sinners does not mean Christ did it instead of sinners. Parents do a lot for their children but it is not done as substitute for the children themselves doing it.



This is the real heart of the matter: Christ and God are painfully sacrificially allowing “wicked people” to torture, humiliate and murder Christ, so those that believe what He did can experience Acts 2:37, the worst possible thing on earth they could experience without being physically damaged or destroyed (a death blow to their heart). This is the believer’s fair/just punishment for their transgressions equivalent to the punishment those that refuse to accept what Christ did for them will experience with hell.

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.

Clare is suggesting our most wonderful Father had to be “paid off” with Christ’s torturous death in order to forgive His children?


Where is forgiveness mentioned in this passage and why is it not the prominent theism of the passage if as is being suggested is reason for the atonement?


How does this show: “faith is needed for forgiveness”? (Faith is needed but this explanation is not showing “why”).



Anyone can see if you do not believe Christ went to the cross as the result of your sins, you will not feel a death blow to your heart (experience punishment for your transgression), so believing is required for the punishment of the sinner (atonement) to take place.

 

[Clare73]

Church history does not constitute a valid Biblical basis.

But Clare's opinion does?

No more than Butch claims his does.

 

[Clare73]

Not sure how you determined that soul and spirit cannot be separated when Scripture expressly states that when man dies his body returns to dust and the spirit returns to God.

So, if man's spirit returns to God, why do you maintain that man's spirit,
which Scripture presents as his life principle and location of his emotions,
is not immortal or deathless, but dies?

-----

They are the two components. soul is not a component of man. Soul is the product of the body and God's breath. Those two came together to form a living soul. If you take notice to Solomon's words you'll notice he says nothing about the soul.

You should understand your theology in the light of the words of Jesus in Mt 6:25, 10:28, 26:38; Lk 12:20.

You can review the "study of the topic" [post=62798383]here[/post] for the answer to your question.
Hint: in their scriptural usage, "soul" and "spirit" are alike in their nature and activities,
which is why Heb 4:12 mirrors the difficulty in distinguishing one from the other.

-----

He said, the body returns to the dust and the spirit returns to God. He says nothing of a soul.
That's probably because when the body and the spirit separate there no long is a soul.

No, it's because he did not have the benefit of Jesus' usage of "soul" and "spirit" to enlighten him, as we have.

Ah, am I to understand then that Jesus contradicted the OT?

Well, that would certainly be consistent with the way you understand the rest of Scripture, setting it against itself.

But I recommend a better hermeneutic which understands the OT in the light of the NT, and reconciles them.

Are you able to do that?

 

[bling]

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.

Wiki said: Empathy is the capacity to recognize emotions that are being experienced by another sentient or fictional being. One may need to have a certain amount of empathy before being able to experience accurate sympathy or compassion.

So can we conclude you do not empathize in the slightest over Christ’s torturous murder on the cross?


If you do not like the word “empathy” can you tell us about the extent of you compassion or sympathy for what Jesus did for you?

Did it bother you like a mosquito bite would or like the worst thing in the world that could happen to you?

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 ?

You are the one that said: “repulsive to the sensitive folks” suggesting it was not really “repulsive” to you while it is extremely repulsive to me. I was wondering; how repulsive it was really to you and why it was so much less repulsive to you?

I am trying to get to the reality of the situation and what our personal reaction to the cross should be. Are emotions real things?

 

[Clare73]

Clare,

If you could simply supply a text showing where a man receives this spirit (Heb 12:22-24).

And if you could simply supply a text showing where a man receives this emotion ((Lk 1:37; Jn 13:21).

Nice try. . .with distraction by irrelevant diversion.

However, [post=62790320]these[/post] texts are still on the table, and have not been addressed. . .

The topic was thoroughly explained and text provided [post=62798383]here[/post].

Review them again.

Q.E.D.

 

[Clare73]

I've already shown they can be understood differently.

Nice try. . .

You've attempted to address one of those texts presented [post=62790320]here[/post], with an explanation which fails to address the others.

You've moved the goal post and now want to know when God gave man his spirit.
God is spirit. He gave man a spirit when he created man in his image.

And in response to the texts, you presented two texts to set the word of God against itself,
addressed by me [post=62787427]here[/post], and [post=62790320]here[/post], at #8.

I'm not going to spend my time refuting every passage you "think" implies an immortal spirit.

Why am I not surprised?

Q.E.D.

 

[Clare73]

It's not man's spirit, it's God's spirit in man.

So the Holy Spirit indwells all men?

Does the NT agree with that?

 

[Clare73]

"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.

Does the “sin” need to be punished or does the sinner need to be punished?

You neither answered the questions presented above,
nor did you provide a consistent (logically sensible) and Biblical explanation of the entire text of Ro 3:25-26 above.

You have not addressed the word of God in Ro 3:25-26.
You've simply given your personal notions.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Was that Stott or Wenham bro ^ ?

A poster on Theologyweb forum by the handle of "Theonomy", if I remember right his name is Glen. He has a British/Aussie accent.

 

[Clare73]

Clare,

If you could simply supply a text showing where a man receives this spirit we could end this discussion. Inferences are not statements.

Agreed.

This discussion on immortality ended at post #255, with your repeated failures to address the texts presented [post=62790320]here[/post].

Since then, it's just been dodging accountability for the failures.

So I'm done.

 

[bling]

You neither answered the questions presented above,
nor did you provide a consistent (logically sensible) and Biblical explanation of the entire text of Ro 3:25-26 above.

You have not addressed the word of God in Ro 3:25-26.
You've simply given your personal notions.

Clare unless you at least address the questions I asked (most are just rhetorical) that show the issues with your “explanation” it is very difficult to move on.

I am not adding non-addressed concepts to the scripture being discussed, yet Clare add the concept of: forgiveness, substitution, make sin out to be what is being “punished” and not the sinner, and add eternal punishment.

Where are my explanations not Biblical and logical?

Yes, this is my understanding and some areas agree with your understanding, but it is all drawn directly from the verses and other verses.
For 1.

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

Does the “sin” need to be punished or does the sinner need to be punished?

Where all sinners not punished or just some sinners where not punished and if only some who were then who were they?

Yes! in the past before Christ went to the cross: punishment of the sinner for intentional sins that he/she repented of and God forgave were did not receive just punishment.
For 2

Clare said: -----Eternal punishment due on their sin.

Did Christ suffer for eternity?

How can the punishment be “due on their sins” and not due them?

In the OT Lev. 5 there was atonement and forgiveness for unintentional sins, so why did these sins not have eternal punishment?

People that go to hell do not have “eternal life” and will be burned up (annihilated) eventually. “Forever” does not always mean eternal, but can mean unquenchable or for an age.

For 3

Clare said: -----Justice requires a penalty for law breaking.

Does “justice” require just any penalty to anything or person, or does just require the punishment of the guilty party for their transgressions?
For 4

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

Clare asks “for what” when it is not “for what” but “for whom”?

Christ is not going to the cross for some intangible like “the breaking of the law”, but is going for all those that will put their trust in what he has done.

For 5

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

Here Clare is introducing the idea of “substitution” which is not stayed as such in scripture. Just because Christ did it for sinners does not mean Christ did it instead of sinners. Parents do a lot for their children but it is not done as substitute for the children themselves doing it.


This is the real heart of the matter: Christ and God are painfully sacrificially allowing “wicked people” to torture, humiliate and murder Christ, so those that believe what He did can experience Acts 2:37, the worst possible thing on earth they could experience without being physically damaged or destroyed (a death blow to their heart). This is the believer’s fair/just punishment for their transgressions equivalent to the punishment those that refuse to accept what Christ did for them will experience with hell.
For 6

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

Clare is suggesting our most wonderful Father had to be “paid off” with Christ’s torturous death in order to forgive His children?

Where is forgiveness mentioned in this passage and why is it not the prominent theism of the passage if as is being suggested is reason for the atonement?

How does this show: “faith is needed for forgiveness”? (Faith is needed but this explanation is not showing “why”).


Anyone can see if you do not believe Christ went to the cross as the result of your sins, you will not feel a death blow to your heart (experience punishment for your transgression), so believing is required for the punishment of the sinner (atonement) to take place.

 

[samcarternx]

Peace I will attempt to settle this with the way things are. Adam started the whole human race on a "free from God's will" course that was separated from God and doomed to death. His eternal life and union with God was separated from him and he no longer had a living spirit connected with God. "The day you eat... is the day you die." He did have a self healing self replicating machine called the body, and a set of instructions called will. The awareness and conciousness is a result of brain chemistry. All the senses are integrated into a mind which is the soul. The soul is the software that makes the organic machine a lifeform. Doomed to die and knows it. This lifeform has no access to eternal life so it is stuck in the physical universe that is made from energy(see einstein) and if it remains in the physical when it becomes energy again it will forever be stuck. It is not God's will that any man die, but all come to repentance. The spiritual universe has laws too just like the physical does such as gravity and thermodynamics etc. One of the rules of the spiritual universe is "the wages of sin is death." Whoever sins dies. We have to die. If I die in my original condition, thats it, and how can I enter into eternal life if I am dead. God set up a way for my death to be substituted for by a sacrifice that would be acceptable to sin for my death. He became my sacrifice since death would have to hand Him His life back, and I in Him would be free from deaths pursuit. That same spirit that was in Him when He died has now been sent to me to bring in to being a new creature in union with Himself and able to participate in the will and doing of God. How am I doing?

 

[Clare73]

dupicate post

 

[Clare73]

"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.

Does the “sin” need to be punished or does the sinner need to be punished?

How can the punishment be “due on their sins” and not due them?

Irrelevant. . .and addressed before.

Is theft, or the thief, punished by the law?
Both are. They are used interchangeably.

Did Christ suffer for eternity?

In the OT Lev. 5 there was atonement and forgiveness for unintentional sins,
so why did these sins not have eternal punishment

Eternal punishment is the penalty for sin which is stated in Mt 25:40-41; Mk 9:43, 48; Lk 3:17; Jude 7 .

Jesus paid the penalty due on the sin of those who believe in him (Ro 3:25-26).

Take it up with Jesus, John the Baptist, Paul and Jude.

People that go to hell do not have “eternal life” and will be burned up (annihilated) eventually.

“Forever” does not always mean eternal, but can mean unquenchable or for an age.

Well, following that hermeneutic, if "forever" does not mean forever,
then "fire" does not mean consumption, and those in hell will not be annihilated.

Here Clare is introducing the idea of “substitution” which is not stated as such in scripture.

Just because Christ did it for sinners does not mean Christ did it instead of sinners.

There is nothing in the text above about "for."

And you obviously know nothing of the substitutional sacrificial system in Leviticus, which foreshadows and patterns the sacrifice of Christ.

This is the real heart of the matter: Christ and God are painfully sacrificially allowing “wicked people” to torture, humiliate and murder Christ, so those that believe what He did can experience Acts 2:37. . .a death blow to their heart

WHERE did this ridiculously foolish notion come from?

This makes sense to you?
You can actually subscribe to this nonsense?

It struggles just to reach the level of peurile.

a death blow to the heart, the worst possible thing on earth they could experience without being physically damaged or destroyed. . .

This is the believer’s fair/just punishment] for their transgressions equivalent to the punishment those that refuse to accept what Christ did for them will experience with hell.

Are you serious?
Do you really believe this stuff?

You believe the experience of Ac 2:37 is equivalent to hell?

Your notions become more unrealistic with each sentence.

Anyone can see if you do not believe Christ went to the cross as the result of your sins,

Even your own wording acknowledges the caustive connection between our sin and Christ's death.

you will not feel a death blow to your heart (experience punishment for your transgression), so believing is required for the punishment of the sinner (atonement) to take place.

So the sinner saved by grace (Eph 2:8), whose righteousness is a gift from God (Ro 5:17) makes his own atonement for his sin. . .

You cannot be taken seriously.

You approach to God's word is upside down.
You use your reasoning to shape and form God's word,
rather than letting God's word shape and form your reasoning.

And the results of your reasoning are just as upside down from the word of God as is the method you used to arrive at them.

Clare unless you at least address the questions I asked (most are just rhetorical) that show the issues with your “explanation” it is very difficult to move on.

I have no intention of "moving on" with this contradiction of the gospel.

I will not be engaging in denying Christ's atoning sacrifice as payment for my sin (Ro 3:25-26), and requiring that I pay for my own sin with a "death" blow to my heart.

Christ justified me by (Ro 5:9) and bought me with (Mt 20:28) his blood.

I am saved by grace (Eph 2:8-9), and not by experiencing my own "death" blow,
equivalent to the eternal fire of hell, no less.

ANATHEMA!

To what other religion are you prostituting Christianity to bring it into agreement with it?