'Penal Substitution', anyone?

[travelah]

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?

Who died for you?

 

[Clare73]

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

Well, in terms of substitutional penal atonement, the meaning of "expiate" vs. "propitiate" makes no difference.

That the atonement was substitutional and penal is revealed in the regulations and rituals of the OT sacrificial system.

That system is the plumbline for interpreting the nature, meaning and purpose of Jesus' sacrifice.

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.

But you have not reckoned with Ro 3:26, where God presenting Jesus as an atoning sacrifice shows God to be just.

The requirements of justice are involved here, and must be met.

Nor have you reckoned with in a straight-forward simple way of how/why Jesus' death could remove sin.

Nor are you using the OT sacrificial system as the pattern for explaining how/why Jesus death could remove sin.

Nor are you reckoning with the death of the OT sacrifices being the penalty for the sin of the offerer.

To be correct, our understanding must measure square with the OT plumbline of the sacrificial system of substitutional penal atonement.

 

[hedrick]

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.

Right.

Ps 51
16 For you have no delight in sacrifice;
if I were to give a burnt offering, you would not be pleased.
17 The sacrifice acceptable to Godd is a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.

I have yet to be convinced that OT sacrifice is anything other than a way of dramatizing one's repentance. Can you literally transfer your sins to an animal? I don't see any basis for that. Rather, it's like a sacrament, a visible sign of something else that is going on. And that is a death to sin, and God's forgiveness removing guilt.

Jesus adds something new, because of our union with him, Calvin's "fellowship of righteousness." He isn't just a bigger and better animal sacrifice. The element of being "in Christ", and experiencing his victory over sin and death is not paralleled with the animals. That's why Paul in Rom 3:25 contrasts Christ with the OT sacrificial system. Union with Christ deals with sin in a new way.

 

[cygnusx1]

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.

Remission of sins is the forgiveness needed , the only reason any are forgiven prior to Christ dying as. A Propitiation for sin is the fact the atonement of Christ works universally through time , for as much as Peter James and John had to have faith in Christ so did Moses Abraham and Elijah .

It is not enough that men are cleared of sin they have to be made righteous .
Christ paid the price for sin , the price is death , the payment has been made in full , that is the basis of ten Gospel , not cheap grace .

 

[Clare73]

Right.

Ps 51o th
16 For you have no delight in sacrifice;
if I were to give a burnt offering, you would not be pleased.
17 The sacrifice acceptable to Godd is a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.

I have yet to be convinced that OT sacrifice is anything other than a way of dramatizing one's repentance.
Can you literally transfer your sins to an animal? I don't see any basis for that.

How well do you know the Day of Atonement, where the sins of the people were transferred to the scapegoat?

How well do you know the required procedure of animal sacrifice?

Rather, it's like a sacrament, a visible sign of something else that is going on. And that is a death to sin, and God's forgiveness removing guilt.

You are making esoteric what God has made exoteric.

Nor does the NT present Jesus sacrifice as sacramantal.

Jesus adds something new, because of our union with him, Calvin's "fellowship of righteousness." He isn't just a bigger and better animal sacrifice. The element of being "in Christ", and experiencing his victory over sin and death is not paralleled with the animals. That's why Paul in Rom 3:25 contrasts Christ with the OT sacrificial system. Union with Christ deals with sin in a new way.

Paul and Hebrews do not contrast the shedding of Christ's blood with the OT sacrificial system, they parallel them.

And the parallel does not consist of victory over sin and death.
The parallel consists in forgiveness of sin, which reconciles the sinner to God.
The sacrifices were not given to show the nature of being "in Christ."
They were given to show the nature of forgiveness of sin.

Victory over sin and death are then the result of faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice to pay the penalty for their sin.

And likewise, you do not reckon with Paul's statement that God's presenting of Jesus as a sacrifice of atonement was to show that he was just.

You are far afield of the plumbline given by God in the OT for understanding Jesus' sacrifice.

 

[hedrick]

But you have not reckoned with Ro 3:26, where God presenting Jesus as an atoning sacrifice shows God to be just.

The requirements of justice are involved here, and must be met.

Except that all current translations understand 3:26 as "righteous". There is a basic difference in our ideas of justice and righteousness. I think God's righteousness is bringing good out of evil, and forgiving people without precondition and then regenerating then.

As far as I'm concerned, your concept of justice ignores Jesus' teachings about God.

Nor have you reckoned with in a straight-forward simple way of how/why Jesus' death could remove sin.

Yes. See Rom 6. In dying with Christ and rising with him we are transformed: we die to sin and gain his new life.

Nor are you using the OT sacrificial system as the pattern for explaining how/why Jesus death could remove sin.

Nor are you reckoning with the death of the OT sacrifices being the penalty for the sin of the offerer.

To be correct, our understanding must measure square with the OT plumbline of the sacrificial system of substitutional penal atonement.

Your view of the OT sacrificial system ignores the prophets' critique of it. I just quoted Ps 51. At best the sacrificial system was simply a symbolic way of making clear repentance and removal of sin. But when you start viewing it as some kind of magic that takes away sin in itself, you get the kind of abuses that led the prophets at times to reject the system as a whole, e.g. Ho 6:6, Jer 7:22-23, Is 1:11-12.

Furthermore, Paul's concept of Jesus' role is something that goes beyond the OT sacrificial system. Obviously that was the background. But Rom 6 is not something an animal could have done. That's why, as in Rom 3:25-26, Jesus deals with sin in a way that the sacrificial system did not.

 

[cygnusx1]

How well do you know the Day of Atonement, where the sins of the people were transferred to the scapegoat?

How well do you know the required procedure of animal sacrifice?


You are making esoteric what God has made exoteric.

Nor does the NT present Jesus sacrifice as sacramantal.


Paul and Hebrews don't contrast the shedding of Christ's blood with the OT sacrificial system, they parallel them.

And the parallel does not consist of victory over sin and death.
The parallel consists in forgiveness of sin, which reconciles the sinner to God.

Victory over sin and death are then the result of faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice to pay the penalty for their sin.

And likewise, you do not reckon with Paul's statement that God's presenting of Jesus as a sacrifice of atonement was to show that he was just.

You are far afield of the plumbline given by God in the OT for understanding Jesus' sacrifice.

Amen Clare !

I was just thinking about the two goats , sin doesn't merely need remitting sending away , it needs covering by a payment .

Suppose a child steals a book from a bookstore , and later admits his theft to his father , his father may forgive him but what of the debt , the book , should it or the value of it not be replaced and made good ?

 

[bottomofsandal]

It is not enough that men are cleared of sin they have to be made righteous .
Christ paid the price for sin , the price is death , the payment has been made in full , that is the basis of ten Gospel , not cheap grace .

Amen brother !


I cringe when people imply "cheap grace"...

I guess some see no need for imputed righteousness since they believe there is no imputed sin or sin nature. People are in hell because they are paying for their own sins. Christ's death paid for our sins. Why do some feel the need to obfuscate the obvious ?

 

[bottomofsandal]

But you have not reckoned with Ro 3:26, where God presenting Jesus as an atoning sacrifice shows God to be just.

The requirements of justice are involved here, and must be met.

Some who argue against PSA cannot see the forest for the trees.

Sin (the wages of) demands death. What is our Criminal Justice system based upon ? Why is there a death penalty ? Even before there was an animal sacrificial system, mankind knew intuitively that justice must be served.

 

[ForceofTime]

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.

Repentance is good! But Repentance is neither payment nor my Savior. I repent from myself to turn to my Savior Christ Jesus, the Lamb that was slain, and receive the baptism of His death, whose blood was the payment of the wages of sin.

There are two kinds of repentance: one to Salvation and one to death. Esau had the latter.

 

[Clare73]

Except that all current translations understand 3:26 as "righteous". There is a basic difference in our ideas of justice and righteousness. I think God's righteousness is bringing good out of evil, and forgiving people without precondition and then regenerating then.

It matters not what "our ideas" are in the 21st century.

What matters is that in NT ancient Greek, "justice" and "righteousness" are the same Greek word.
That was addressed [post=62736930]here[/post], and you are not reckoning with that fact.

As far as I'm concerned, your concept of justice ignores Jesus' teachings about God.

Your objections are not based in exegesis of Scripture,

nor do you reckon with God showing himself to be just in Ro 3:26.

Your view of the OT sacrificial system ignores the prophets' critique of it.

That's really lame.

The prophets did not critique the system, they critiqued the hypocritical hearts of those who used the system.

At best the sacrificial system was simply a symbolic way of making clear repentance and removal of sin. But when you start viewing it as some kind of magic that takes away sin in itself, you get the kind of abuses that led the prophets at times to reject the system as a whole, e.g. Ho 6:6, Jer 7:22-23, Is 1:11-12.

Again, your objection is simply personal, and is not Scripturally based.
And your assertion that the prophets rejected God's laws regarding the sacrifices is preposterous,
and that God's required sacrifices were the cause of their hypocrisy is making evil what God everywhere called holy.
The problem was the hypocrisy of the people, not the sacrificial system, and it's inexcusable to assert that it was.

Furthermore, Paul's concept of Jesus' role is something that goes beyond the OT sacrificial system. Obviously that was the background. But Rom 6 is not something an animal could have done.

You are not paying attention, and you continue to confound "forgiveness of sin" with "life in Christ," which is not related to the sacrificial system.

That's why, as in Rom 3:25-26, Jesus deals with sin in a way that the sacrificial system did not.

Jesus deals with sin in a way that the sacrificial system did not because the animal sacrifices only covered sin, they did not remit sin, which is what Jesus' sacrifice does through faith in his blood.

Your merely personal objections are without merit because you do not present any consistent (logically sensible) and sound exegesis of Scripture to support them.

 

[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.

Then I presume you don't believe Peter's words in 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 of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

It is our repenting which remits or pardons, or pays our sins.

 

[bottomofsandal]

Then I presume you don't believe Peter's words in 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 of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

It is our repenting which remits or pardons, or pays our sins.

WOW...so you are saying repenting equals pardon for sin ?!

The Bible says without the shedding of Blood there is no remittance of sin.
What happened to The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world ? Or The Blood of The New Covenant ?

Matthew 26:28

New King James Version (NKJV)

28 For this is My blood of the new[a] covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

 

[bottomofsandal]

It is our repenting which remits or pardons, or pays our sins.

Do you want us to believe God cannot act until man repents on his own ?

And somehow, man's awareness of his sin removes the need for justice ?

Additionally, we pay for our own sins by repenting ? But, that is hell !



The knowledge that God has forgiven sinful man causes the sorrow that leads to repentance. Man on his own, apart from God does not conjure up within himself sorrow for his sins, he is not even aware that he is a sinner !



Colossians 1:14

New King James Version (NKJV)

14 in whom we have redemption through His blood,[a] the forgiveness of sins.



Ephesians 1:7

New King James Version (NKJV)

7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace

 

[hedrick]

Again, your objection is simply personal, and is not Scripturally based.
And your assertion that the prophets rejected God's laws regarding the sacrifices is preposterous,
and that God's required sacrifices were the cause of their hypocrisy is making evil what God everywhere called holy.
The problem was the hypocrisy of the people, not the sacrificial system, and it's inexcusable to assert that it was.

Ho 6:6
For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice,
the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

Jer 7:22:

For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.

This is not just a criticism of people for being hypocritical. The prophets also did refer to the sacrificial system positively at times. That's why my wording was qualified. I don't think they rejected it if it was used with repentance. But passages like this seem to show that several of the prophets didn't see sacrifices as necessary.

 

[ForceofTime]

Ho 6:6
For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice,
the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

Jer 7:22:

For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.

This is not just a criticism of people for being hypocritical. The prophets also did refer to the sacrificial system positively at times. That's why my wording was qualified. I don't think they rejected it if it was used with repentance. But passages like this seem to show that several of the prophets didn't see sacrifices as necessary.

Not just unnecessary, but useless. How so? Because it was by their own hands, not God's. Psalm 50 addresses this, e.g.: Psa 50:8 KJV I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices or thy burnt offerings, to have been continually before me.

But note, before this He says, Psa 50:5 KJV Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice.

Jesus drank the cup that the Father gave Him, He was made a curse, and He was slain. As you have already said, the Spirit that raised Him up is the same Spirit that dwells in us.

Rev 5:6 KJV And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
Rev 5:9-10 KJV And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; (10) And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

 

[jerusalem]

Clare: “Let me begin by addressing your application of Ac 8:33, above.

It was not God who was deprived of justice in Ac 8:33, it was Jesus who was deprived of justice, by Pilate and the Jews who had him murdered (Ac 7:52).

So Ac 8:33 does not support your interpretation.”


Jesus (Emmanuel – “God with us&#8221 was deprived of justice at the cross.

That is very clear from the above verse in Acts. So, you can’t reasonably gloss over this passage and say it has no relevance to Romans 3:25 and the interpretation that suggests that Jesus was JUSTLY punished by God in our place – even as one made guilty for our sins.

Yes, you are right to acknowledge that Jesus was murdered – that is biblical. The apostles presented the crucifixion as an act of murder against God’s Son. The resurrection overturned the verdict. – That was God’s justice.

In this verse from Romans, Jesus is presented as “the seat of mercy” for all who have faith in His blood. Just as Leon Morris, the late well-known author and theologian, commenting on the phrase: ‘life is in the blood’ (Lev.17:11), remarked: ‘life yielded up in death’ was the sacrificial meaning of ‘blood’ (The Cross in the New Testament, p.219). We need to have faith in the life that Jesus offered up in sacrifice on our behalf.

How is the blood of Christ described in Scripture? – Impure? Contaminated with our sins? – Not at all! - “You were not redeemed with corruptible things …but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Pet.1:18-19, NKJ). – Now, the phrase: ‘without blemish and without spot’ is not a reference to the Lord’s human appearance at the time He died, for His body had been severely beaten, scourged and crucified. Indeed, according to the prophecy in Isaiah: ‘His visage was marred more than any man, and His form more than the sons of men’ (Isa.52:14, NKJ). Rather, this phrase referred to the Lord’s own perfect righteousness and sinlessness. To the Ephesians, the Apostle Paul wrote that Christ’s offering and sacrifice was received by the Father as ‘a sweet-smelling aroma’ (Eph.5:2); that is, symbolically, an offering without any stench of the corruption of sin. The Lord Jesus Christ, in both life and death, was both spiritually pure and untainted by any transgression.

The Lord God has been merciful towards us – not treating us as we deserve because of our former sins, but has provided the means for us to be justified before Him through faith in the offering Jesus made of His life (symbolized by the blood).

J

 

[jerusalem]

Clare (addressed to Hedrick): "How well do you know the Day of Atonement, where the sins of the people were transferred to the scapegoat?"

May I answer this? Thanks.

In verse 8 of Leviticus 16, the Hebrew uses the preposition ‘for’ (‘lamed&#8217: lots were cast ‘for the Lord’ on the one hand, and ‘for Azazel’ on the other. Notice: ‘And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for Jehovah, and the other lot for Azazel’ (as translated by Darby; also translated as a proper name in the following works: cf. RSV; ASV; Jewish Bible,1917; New American Bible, 1986; New English Translation, 1996). It was God’s decision that His Son deliver up His life and Spirit in death as the Sin Offering (‘for the Lord&#8217 and that His body be delivered up to the ‘prince of this world’, to suffer and die—bearing sins—for the purpose of our deliverance from sin. The price He paid was His life— offered not to Satan, but to God. Notice, only the goat ‘for the Lord’ was a blood sacrifice—His life (‘…the life is in the blood,’ Lev.17:11, ‘…it is the blood that makes atonement.&#8217 was yielded up to God. The crucifixion of Christ sealed God’s condemnation of this world and its prince. That sins are symbolically carried away to the wilderness (considered the realm of evil spirits) may be seen as a metaphor showing God’s indictment for all sin of the one from whom sin came into the world (‘…the devil has sinned from the beginning,’ 1 Jn.3:8, NKJ). Here, sins are returned to the source. The removal of sins indicated spiritual cleansing—the casting away of sin and Satan’s rule from God’s people, effected by Christ.

Just one after thought: When one carries away the garbage, doing so does not make one garbage! The idea of carrying away sin is presented in metaphor. We are not only forgiven, but also delivered from Satan's rule - if we are Christ's.

J

 

[hedrick]

I'll give my own answer. First, my understanding is that the use of animals is symbolic. A goat can't actually be morally guilty of human sin, and can't literally take it away. Thus, Heb 10:4 points out that the blood of animals can't actually cleanse from sin. In the context of Heb I believe the point is that the animals point to Jesus, who actually can.

There are two goats involved in the day of atonement. One is a normal sacrifice. The language of Lev 16 suggests that the blood of the dead goat is actually purifying the altar, not the people. vs 19 says it cleanses the altar from the sin of the people.

It is the goat that is sent to the wilderness on which the priest lays hands, symbolically identifying the people's sins with it. It is then driven out. If you assume that this is all symbolic, the obvious symbolism is the removal of sin from the people. Interestingly enough, that one isn't killed.

A better OT parallel is Is 53. That actually does say that our punishment was laid on him.

Again, my problem with PS isn't the concept of substitution. That is clearly present. It is the larger explanation that God can't forgive without punishing someone, i.e. that his justice (in the sense of Plato -- justice is giving every man his due) demands punishment. I believe the Bible, OT and NT, sees the blood of both animals and Jesus as cleansing us from sin. God, having already forgiven us, uses Jesus' death to cleanse us. The primary theme of PS, that God can't forgive without punishment, contradicts Jesus at a basic level.

 

[Clare73]

Ho 6:6
For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice,
the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

Sacrifice apart from faithfulness to God's will is wholly unacceptable to him.

Jer 7:22:

For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.

Relevance?

Right, God didn't give them the sacrifices until after the tabernacle was built at the end of the book of Exodus.

Your point?

This is not just a criticism of people for being hypocritical. The prophets also did refer to the sacrificial system positively at times. That's why my wording was qualified. I don't think they rejected it if it was used with repentance. But passages like this seem to show that several of the prophets didn't see sacrifices as necessary.

The sacrifices prescribed by God were never questionable.

And we know your understanding of the prophets is incorrect because God does not contradict himself, and God is the one who prescribed every detail of the sacrifices and commanded that they be offered for sin.

The prophets who spoke God's word never ever rejected the sacrifices, because God is the one who required them.

This is man's thinking, it is not Biblical thinking.