'Penal Substitution', anyone?

[bling]

The word of God already presents one in Ro 3:25-26 ([post=62647466]here[/post]).

It's not our job to come up with one we think "works" better.

The problems and inconsistencies are only in your erroneous personal notions.

OK I will address the issues with your explanation and give you my explanation:

However, since you choose not to reckon with Ro 3:25-26, because you are unable to present a consistent and Bilblical explanation of it which can be reconciled to your theory of atonement, I will do so.

"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)

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

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 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.




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

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

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) For what did Jesus' sacrificial death atone?

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

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

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.

 

[Clare73]

Scripture is not a matter of "suggestions."
It is a matter of grammar and what is stated or correctly inferred.

And you are not reckoning with two things in the text:

1) Sin is transgression of the law (1Jn 3:4), and is the cause of all death (Ro 6:23; Ge 2:17), but no sin was taken into account when there was no law to transgress between Adam and Moses, so no one was guillty of sin during that time, yet all died anyway, proving they were guilty of someone's sin.
That is the specific argument of the text.

This text is a difficult one. Commentators have varying suggestions. Yours, however is not one of them. If normal human sins have no effect before the Law, how could Adam's? He was before the Law as well.

It makes more sense to say that the Law changes the way God treats sin, but sin always resulted in death. Paul's view of Law is complex. It makes our situation both better and worse. It's better in the sense that it's the start of God's plan to deal with sin. But it's worse because once God set up rules to help deal with sin, we found ourselves afoul of them. But sin was alway there, and it always caused death.

You keep treating the text as if it said that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. The problem is that it doesn't. You keep talking about the plain words but nothing you've ever pointed to has said anything like imputation. I just looked through the text of Romans, and it doesn't refer to Christ's righteousness at all. It says that faith is reckoned as righteousness, but nothing about Christ's righteousness being imputed to us.

Your interpretation is the result of a fairly complex theological analysis, resulting in the doctrine of imputed righteousness. This conclusion is not directly present in the text, but is the result of many years of grappling with a wide variety of texts, trying to make sense of them. Until you realize that, it's hopeless to talk with you, because you look at the Paul's words but see Protestant tradition, and don't seem to be able to distinguish them.

And in fact you see only a specific kind of Protestant tradition. The reason I cited Calvin is that he is normally considered the originator of the Protestant version of penal satisfaction. The fact that the originator of your own view rejects the idea of imputed guilt should at least give you cause for careful examination.

Rom 6 makes it clear how it is that Christ deals with our sin. Through union with Christ we experience death to sin and new life.

Paul certainly sets up a parallel, or more properly an antithesis, between Adam and Christ. But I'm not convinced that he was thinking of the specific way in which sin and salvation got to us. Rather, the thought that's clearest in the text is that just as Adam originates sin and death, Christ originates justification. Christ is the source of the new man, as Adam is the source of the old one.

I don't see anything in the text that demands that death and salvation are transmitted in the same way. After all, we are natural children of Adam, and adopted children of God. We get our heritage from the two in different ways: in one case through birth and in the other through faith.

I don't think you're distinguishing your own reasoning and Scripture.

Actually, I find the text of Ro 5:12-21 to be pretty plain.

God gave Adam a law that applied to him and Eve only: "Thou shalt not eat of it."
When they were cut off from the Garden of Eden after they sinned by transgressing it,
the law no longer applied.
There was no other law of God to transgress until Moses.
Therefore, sin was not taken into account during that time.

Imputation in Ro 5:12-21 has been addressed [post=62769653]here[/post].

So then is Christ's righteousness imputed to us?

Christ's righteousness and its imputation to us, which you do not see in Ro, is in Ro 5:19.

The Greek reads: "For as through the disobedience of one man, the many were constituted sinners, so also through the obedience of the One, the many shall be constituted riighteous."

NB: "shall be" is not just a future tense, but is expressive of authority or compulsion.

Nor can you you mask Paul's plain words regarding God's gift of righteousness (Ro 5:17, 3:21-22), which is simply given to us, with a smoke screen of "many years of grappling."

And may I suggest that it's hopeless to talk with me because you do not understand and, therefore, cannot address, the plain words of Paul's texts to show another meaning more suitable to you, which is in agreement with the text.

Likewise, Calvin is not the originator of penal substitution.
Paul is, in Ro 3:25-26.

Nor is Calvin the originator of my view on imputed guilt and righteousness.
Paul is, in Ro 5:12-21.

So if you disagree with my view given on Ro 5:12-21 [post=62766163]here[/post], please present another view which is consistent with the text, that I may examine it.
And likewise, if you disagree with the view given [post=62647466]here[/post] on penal atonement, then please present a consistent (logically sensible) and Biblical explanation of Ro 3:25-26 more suitable to you, that I may examine it.

And if Calvin disagrees with Paul in Ro 5:12-21, then Calvin is wrong.

Ro 6 is not about atonement, it is about dying to sin, as Christ died for sin,
so you can live in conformity with the new eternal life within you.

Nor do we get our heritage from Adam and God in two different ways.
Ro 5:18-19 states that we get one just as we get the other, which means in the same way, not in different ways.

And finally if you don't think I am distinguishing my own reasoning and Scripture,
then all you have to do is demonstrate how that is true.
And, of course, in the absence of a demonstration, your statement would have no standing.

 

[Arcoe]

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

The NT does not establish our personal responsibility for the sin into which we are BORN. You have yet to produce even ONE passage which states man is born in Adam's sin. I've asked you over and over to show me, but you and others can't. You are inserting this assumption to confirm your beliefs.

The passage is based on the Biblical principles that death is the result of sin (Ro 6:3), and sin is transgression of the law (1Jn 3:4).

Sin is also disobedience, that is, not obeying God's commands, of which Adam and Eve were guilty. Therefore God gave a command, or a law to follow. Here is God's law to Adam and Eve, and the consequence of disobeying it - God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die (Gen 3:2).

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.

You first say, those from Adam to Moses were not guilty of sin (because there was no law to transgress), but then you contradict yourself and say they are guilty of Adam's transgressions. Did you not say from ADAM to Moses? How is Adam guilty of transgressions, when you say from ADAM to Moses, everyone was not guilty of sin? Does 'from Adam to Moses' not include Adam himself?

You say there was no law to transgress from Adam to Moses. Then may I ask how is Adam guilty if no law existed at the time of Adam? And if Adam was not guilty, how is any of his guilt passed down to other generations?

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.

Again, how is Adam guilty when there is no law to trespass? Remember, you said from ADAM to Moses, there was no guilt of sin. What guilt did Adam pass down?

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.

How many times are you going to say man is 'born' into Adam's sins? I appeal to you to provide at least one passage from the entire Bible which states this. You are building your belief upon an assumption. This is tantamount to building upon sand.

Besides, you say from ADAM to Moses, no one was guilty of the sin of transgression. So you must choose someone after Moses to spread the guilt.

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?

What man is held guilty of 'that' sin? I am going to ask you to show a passage which states God holds any man morally responsible for Adam's sin. Since Adam was not guilty of his sin of transgression, how is it you want to put this on others?

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

QUITE CLEAR? Clare, I've asked you to provide passages which CLEARLY state this, but you have fallen short. How is it CLEAR when you can't show me even one passage which CLEARLY states this?

 

[Clare73]

Yes, they did.

And yet they had children after they died. . .hmmmmmm.

 

[Clare73]

You're kidding, right?

Jesus disagreed with the Sadducees [post=62758685]here[/post].

And penal substitution is his revelation (Heb 1:1-2) which is the NT, given [post=62647466]here[/post] in Ro 3:25-26.

So in Jesus revelation (Heb 10:1-2) which is the NT, what the apostles record Jesus saying is irrelevant?
Thanks for making clear your view of the word of God written.

However, you are wrong again.
The book of Hebrews reveals those in the New Covenant have come to God, the judge of all men,
and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and
to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel." (Heb 12:23-24)

Spirits of righteous men - pre-Christian believers, such as Abel (Heb 11:4) and Noah (Heb 11:7).
Spirits - because they are waiting for the resurrection, as Jesus said Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were.
Righteous - because God credited their faith to them as righteousness, as he did to Abraham (Ro 4:3).

Actual justification was not accomplished, however, until Christ made it complete by his death on the cross (Heb 11:40; Ro 3:24-26, 4:23-25).

Do you expect this Sadducee foolishness to be taken seriously?

If you can't trace the doctrine back to the apostles then it's not Biblical.

Done [post=62772408]here[/post].

So we're agreed that it is Biblical.

It really is a simple matter. We don't even need to look at the Scriptures.

And therein is your problem.

The word of God (2Ti 3:16) is not your authority for God's truth.
That's regrettable.

it is a new doctrine.

Nevertheless, it's been in the church since Paul the apostle, in Ro 3:25-26, presented [post=62647466]here[/post].

So again we are agreed, this is also Biblical.

 

[Arcoe]

Not just transgression of the Mosaic Law, but transgression of any divine law is sin.

And I think it is pretty plain in Ge 2:17 that Adam was given a law, "Thou shalt not eat of it," as well as the consequences of disobedience to that law, "for when you eat of it, dying you shall die."

Now you have a law Adam transgressed. Earlier you said this -

"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)."

From your statement I've quoted, there was no law to transgress from Adam to Moses. But you told Hedrick, there was a law from Adam to Moses. Which is it? To which one will you adhere? You can't have it both ways. James says a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Build your belief on sand, and it will fall.

Actually, I am more interested in the words of Scripture than in what humans think makes sense.

Very good Clare. Since the scriptures you provided say no one from ADAM to Moses were guilty of sin, will you not also believe ADAM had no guilt to pass down to anyone? Or, will you kind of hide this little portion of scripture, so you can still build your sand castle?

 

[steve_bakr]

While sin is an element in the plan of salvation, it would be a shame for our relationship with Christ to be sin-driven. Instead, it ought to be driven by grace and love.

 

[Butch5]

And yet they had children after they died. . .hmmmmmm.

A day with the Lord is as a thousand year and a thousand years as a day. Adam lived to be 930 years old, just short of a day.

 

[Butch5]

Done [post=62772408]here[/post].

So we're agreed that it is Biblical.

Wrong doctrine. That statement was about Penal substitution. It cannot be traced back to the apostles, thus it is not Biblical

And therein is your problem.

The word of God (2Ti 3:16) is not your authority for God's truth.
That's regrettable.

More nonsense. We don't look at the Scriptures to see what was historically taught.

Nevertheless, it's been in the church since Paul the apostle, in Ro 3:25-26, presented [post=62647466]here[/post].

So again we are agreed, this is also Biblical.

No, it hasn't. If it had been we would see it in history and we don't. It doesn't appear until the Reformation thus it is not a Biblical doctrine.

 

[Clare73]

Now you have a law Adam transgressed. Earlier you said this -

"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)."

From your statement I've quoted, there was no law to transgress from Adam to Moses.
But you told Hedrick, there was a law from Adam to Moses. Which is it?

No wonder you don't understand Scripture.
You not only handle the texts loosely, you also read loosely.

So. . .exactly what law did I tell Hedrick was in effect for the 2,400 years from Adam to Moses?

To which one will you adhere? You can't have it both ways. James says
a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Build your belief on sand, and it will fall.

I think this is the part I enjoy most of all, your sanctimonious false moralizing.
But I must admit that your kicking up any kind of dirt you can come up with
just to see if any of it will stick runs a close second.

Very good Clare. Since the scriptures you provided say no one from ADAM to Moses were guilty of sin, will you not also believe ADAM had no guilt to pass down to anyone? Or, will you kind of hide this little portion of scripture, so you can still build your sand castle?

Is there a rational thought in there somewhere?
This would all be funny if it weren't so sad.

Where in Scripture do you find the guilt of another being passed down?

We find the guilt of one being imputed to another (Ro 5:18-19).
We find the guilt of one being attributed to another who continues in the same law breaking.
But where do we find the guilt of one passed down to another?

 

[Butch5]

The apostles were not guilty of rejecting Christ , it was the rest , and yes the blood of Abel and the prophets was required of them , you simply have no answer how The Lord can impute this blame when obviously Abel was long since gone from the scene even before the Nation of Israel was formed .

Imputed guilt is the only answer

Imputed guilt? The Scriptures refute that idea.

 

[Clare73]

A day with the Lord is as a thousand year and a thousand years as a day. Adam lived to be 930 years old, just short of a day.

So to make your false theology work, a day does not mean 24 hours in Ge 2:17?

But that's what it means in Ge 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31, 2:3.

 

[Clare73]

Wrong doctrine. That statement was about Penal substitution. It cannot be traced back to the apostles, thus it is not Biblical,

Paul, the apostle (Ro 1:1; 1Co 1:1; 2Co 1:1; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 1Ti 1:1; Titus 1:1) would strongly disagree that he is not an apostle,
and that he did not present substitutional penal atonement in Ro 3:25-26, as shown [post=62647466]here[/post].

We don't look at the Scriptures to see what was historically taught.

And that explains why your theology is so unBiblical.

It matters not "what was historically taught."
All that matters is what Scripture states.

And this is the chasm between us.

Your authority for God's truth is historical theology.
My authority for God's truth is the word of God in Scripture.

And you are unable to show from Scripture another meaning which is in agreement with the Scriptural texts.

 

[Arcoe]

No wonder you don't understand Scripture.
You not only handle the texts loosely, you also read loosely.

Should I come to you for understanding then?

So. . .exactly what law did I tell Hedrick was in effect for the 2,400 years from Adam to Moses?

The Divine Law, but you will have to prove that with scripture. First you tell us there was no law from Adam to Moses, and then do a 180 and tell us there was a law.

I think this is the part I enjoy most of all, your sanctimonious false moralizing.
But I must admit that your kicking up any kind of dirt you can come up with
just to see if any of it will stick runs a close second.

Are you an angry person if you don't get your way?

Is there a rational thought in there somewhere?
This would all be funny if it weren't so sad.

The thought is for the rational person.

Where

in Scripture do you find the guilt of another being passed down?

Thank you Clare. We don't, but you want to put the guilt of Adam upon us through birth, without any support of the Bible.

We find the guilt of one being imputed to another (Ro 5:18-19).
We find the guilt of one being attributed to another who continues in the same law breaking.
But where do we find the guilt of one passed down to another?

You are asking the same question that those who believe as you do asked in Ezekiel 18.

"Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?" (verse 19)

Here is God's answer.

The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. (verse 20)

Who am I to believe, you or God? You are wanting me to believe 'your' truth, instead of God's truth. I think I'll pass. But thanks for offering.

 

[Butch5]

Paul, the apostle (Ro 1:1; 1Co 1:1; 2Co 1:1; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 1Ti 1:1; Titus 1:1) would strongly disagree that he is not an apostle,
and that he did not present substitutional penal atonement in Ro 3:25-26, as shown [post=62647466]here[/post].


And that explains why your theology is so unBiblical.

It matters not "what was historically taught."
All that matters is what Scripture states.

And this is the chasm between us.

Your authority for God's truth is historical theology.
My authority for God's truth is the word of God in Scripture.

And you are unable to show from Scripture another meaning which is in agreement with the Scriptural texts.

Your authority is your own interpretation of the texts. You may believe that is what Paul meant but that doesn't carry any weight. The fact that Penal Substitution "CAN'T" be traced back any further than the Reformation shows us that it had it's origins in the Reformation. No matter what you believe about what Paul said, it doesn't change the fact that you doctrine only goes back to the Reformation.

 

[Butch5]

So to make your false theology work, a day does not mean 24 hours in Ge 2:17?

But that's what it means in Ge 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31, 2:3.

The days of creation were both literal and prophetic. However, what I gave you was the earliest understanding of the text, both Jewish and Christian. So, it's not mine.

Book of Jubilees chapter 4

29 And at the close of the nineteenth jubilee, in the seventh week in the sixth year [930 A.M.] thereof, Adam died, and all his sons buried him in the land of his creation, and he was the first to be buried in the earth.
30 And he lacked seventy years of one thousand years; for one thousand years are as one day in the testimony of the heavens and therefore was it written concerning the tree of knowledge: 'On the day that you eat thereof you shall die.' For this reason he did not complete the years of this day; for he died during it.

 

[Butch5]

There have always been people of error in the Church, even during the apostles time, shoot all we have to do is read Paul's letters and learn about what Christians in the Church were saying and doing even then! I do not subscribe to the notion of inerrant people, whether leaders of not, and people make up the "Church" body, over which Christ is the head.

This has no bearing on the fact that the doctrine cannot be found in the church before the 1500's

I could argue your point, but instead, rather point out that whatever is first, is not necessary final, there are 66 books in the Protestant canon afterall.

What is first is true.

You said it, so I guess that settles it, by the authority vested in Butch.

Are you admitting that it contradicts Scripture?

 

[Clare73]

Should I come to you for understanding then?

Actually, just more careful reading would solve a lot of your problems.

The Divine Law,

Which divine law?

And still not addressing the texts presented.

 

[Clare73]

Your authority is your own interpretation of the texts. You may believe that is what Paul meant but
that doesn't carry any weight.

Until you demonstrate otherwise from the text, it carries more weight than your non-demonstration.

The fact that Penal Substitution "CAN'T" be traced back

And what is Paul in Ro 3:25-26, [post=62647466]here[/post], chopped liver?

Again, this is our unbridgeable chasm.
Historical theology is your authority.
The word of God (2Ti 3:1) is my authority.

According to you, penal substitution does not appear in historical theology until 1600 AD.

According to the NT, penal substitution appears in Scripture in the first century AD.

 

[Clare73]

The days of creation were both literal and prophetic. However, what I gave you was the earliest understanding of the text, both Jewish and Christian. So, it's not mine.

I am interested in what Scripture purports.

I'm not interested in allegorical interpretation of it, which was common at one point in the church.