Penal Substitution is False

[dóxatotheó]

The problem with this doctrine is not in the idea of “substitution”. Early church fathers, of course, understood the meaning and redemptive work of the cross as a “substitution” (IE. Christ in place of us). St Athanasius himself writes:
“Thus taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death in place of all, and offered it to the Father (an offering, not a penalty – my emphasis). This He did for sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, when He had fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was therefore voided of its power for men.”[3] Later the Saint writes that His death on the Cross was a “sufficient exchange (my emphasis) for all.”[4] Later yet he writes of His death on the cross as “a debt owing (my emphasis) which must be paid”[5] And finally he writes, “He died to ransom all…”[6]
For Saint Athanasius the words exchange, debt, and ransom are used to explain the expiatory work of Our Lord on the Cross on our behalf.
Propitiation should not be thought of in the classical pagan sense, as if our god were some angry deity who needed appeasing and could only be satisfied through a penal sacrifice. It’s really quite different. Propitiation (Greek hilasterion) is also translated “mercy seat.” The mercy seat covered the ark of the covenant, which contained a copy of the ten commandments—the law. While the law cried out against us and demanded perfection and showed us our shortcomings, the mercy seat covered those demands and our failure to live up to them. Was the mercy seat punished for our sins? of course not. Likewise, Christ’s blood was not the punishment demanded by justice, but rather the ultimate mercy seat, covering and forgiving our sins. This is why “propitiation” is sometimes more accurately translated as “expiation” in some versions of the Bible. (“expiation” implies the removal of our sins, while “propitiation” implies appeasing an angry deity.)
According to penal substitution, God is angry with us because of our sins. But once He expresses His wrath in His Son, He is no longer angry with us. Now He loves us as He loves His own Son. In other words, He changes. First He’s angry with us, then He changes His mind and decides to love us. But how can this be if God is love? How can a God who is infinite, self-giving love ever vary in His degree of love towards us? Besides, not only is God love (1 Jn 4:8, 16), but He’s also unchanging (Mal 3:6) and doesn’t change His mind (Num 23:19).
Going to end this off with a writer quote
“The penal satisfaction theory is entirely legalistic. It assumes that the order of law and justice is absolute; free forgiveness would be a violation of this absolute order; God’s love must be carefully limited lest it infringe on the demands of justice. Sin is a crime against God and the penalty must be paid before forgiveness can become available. According to this view God’s love is conditioned and limited by his justice; that is, God cannot exercise His love to save man until His righteousness (justice) is satisfied. Since God’s justice requires that sin be punished, God’s love cannot save man until the penalty of sin has been paid, satisfying His justice. God’s love is set in opposition to His righteousness, creating a tension and problem in God….According to this legalistic theology, this is why Christ needed to die; he died to pay the penalty of man’s sin and to satisfy the justice of God (my emphasis). The necessity of the atonement is the necessity of satisfying the justice of God; this necessity is in God rather than in man. (my emphasis). And since this necessity is in God, it is an absolute necessity. If God is to save man, God must satisfy His justice before He can in love save man.”
Also question people who believe this how do you reconcile with the trinity if Jesus was appeasing to the angry God
Sources: Saint Athanasius and the ‘Penal Substitutionary’ Atonement Doctrine | Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese
Coptic Orthodox Diocese of the Southern United States - Q&A
Orthodox Christians on Penal Substitutionary Atonement – Orthodox-Reformed Bridge
Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory - A Sad Substitute
Penal Substitution/Transaction (Anselmian views) in Orthodoxy?

 

[Albion]

According to penal substitution, God is angry with us because of our sins. But once He expresses His wrath in His Son, He is no longer angry with us. Now He loves us as He loves His own Son. In other words, He changes. First He’s angry with us, then He changes His mind and decides to love us. But how can this be if God is love? How can a God who is infinite, self-giving love ever vary in His degree of love towards us?

It isn't a matter of love alone. It's a question of our standing with Him. We all are aware that our own children sometimes fail us and we are therefore unable to justify rewarding them with something that had been promised, dependent upon good behavior.

But if they shape up, we are pleased with them and consider them deserving of whatever reward we had planned.

There is nothing about this which is impossible to fathom, but the idea that love means having no standards at all really is peculiar!

 

[dóxatotheó]

It isn't a matter of love alone. It's a question of our standing with Him. We all are aware that our own children sometimes fail us and we are therefore unable to justify rewarding them with something that had been promised, dependent upon good behavior.

But if they shape up, we are pleased with them and consider them deserving of whatever reward we had planned.

There is nothing about this which is impossible to fathom, but the idea that love means having no standards at all really is peculiar!

im trying to figure out if you advocate or dont for the theory

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The problem with this doctrine is not in the idea of “substitution”. Early church fathers, of course, understood the meaning and redemptive work of the cross as a “substitution” (IE. Christ in place of us). St Athanasius himself writes:
“Thus taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death in place of all, and offered it to the Father (an offering, not a penalty – my emphasis). This He did for sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, when He had fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was therefore voided of its power for men.”[3] Later the Saint writes that His death on the Cross was a “sufficient exchange (my emphasis) for all.”[4] Later yet he writes of His death on the cross as “a debt owing (my emphasis) which must be paid”[5] And finally he writes, “He died to ransom all…”[6]
For Saint Athanasius the words exchange, debt, and ransom are used to explain the expiatory work of Our Lord on the Cross on our behalf.
Propitiation should not be thought of in the classical pagan sense, as if our god were some angry deity who needed appeasing and could only be satisfied through a penal sacrifice. It’s really quite different. Propitiation (Greek hilasterion) is also translated “mercy seat.” The mercy seat covered the ark of the covenant, which contained a copy of the ten commandments—the law. While the law cried out against us and demanded perfection and showed us our shortcomings, the mercy seat covered those demands and our failure to live up to them. Was the mercy seat punished for our sins? of course not. Likewise, Christ’s blood was not the punishment demanded by justice, but rather the ultimate mercy seat, covering and forgiving our sins. This is why “propitiation” is sometimes more accurately translated as “expiation” in some versions of the Bible. (“expiation” implies the removal of our sins, while “propitiation” implies appeasing an angry deity.)
According to penal substitution, God is angry with us because of our sins. But once He expresses His wrath in His Son, He is no longer angry with us. Now He loves us as He loves His own Son. In other words, He changes. First He’s angry with us, then He changes His mind and decides to love us. But how can this be if God is love? How can a God who is infinite, self-giving love ever vary in His degree of love towards us? Besides, not only is God love (1 Jn 4:8, 16), but He’s also unchanging (Mal 3:6) and doesn’t change His mind (Num 23:19).
Going to end this off with a writer quote
“The penal satisfaction theory is entirely legalistic. It assumes that the order of law and justice is absolute; free forgiveness would be a violation of this absolute order; God’s love must be carefully limited lest it infringe on the demands of justice. Sin is a crime against God and the penalty must be paid before forgiveness can become available. According to this view God’s love is conditioned and limited by his justice; that is, God cannot exercise His love to save man until His righteousness (justice) is satisfied. Since God’s justice requires that sin be punished, God’s love cannot save man until the penalty of sin has been paid, satisfying His justice. God’s love is set in opposition to His righteousness, creating a tension and problem in God….According to this legalistic theology, this is why Christ needed to die; he died to pay the penalty of man’s sin and to satisfy the justice of God (my emphasis). The necessity of the atonement is the necessity of satisfying the justice of God; this necessity is in God rather than in man. (my emphasis). And since this necessity is in God, it is an absolute necessity. If God is to save man, God must satisfy His justice before He can in love save man.”
Also question people who believe this how do you reconcile with the trinity if Jesus was appeasing to the angry God
Sources: Saint Athanasius and the ‘Penal Substitutionary’ Atonement Doctrine | Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese
Coptic Orthodox Diocese of the Southern United States - Q&A
Orthodox Christians on Penal Substitutionary Atonement – Orthodox-Reformed Bridge
Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory - A Sad Substitute
Penal Substitution/Transaction (Anselmian views) in Orthodoxy?

I kind of agree, in general penal substitution theory fails to recognize that the Roman legal system is actually a parable, "it is like" but not the way it actually is.

In a way it's like peanut substitution, the peanut is rarely under any of the shells ...

 

[BobRyan]

NIV has propitiation replaced with the much more biblically accurate term "atoning sacrifice" in 1 John 2:2 and in Romans 3.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Good OP! This is something I've talked about a lot, especially in regards to Anselm and his affect on the Christian West. Much of the view is very reductionistic to the point of being in many ways I believe dysfunctional.

And this is a topic where our separated brethren the EO have written lots of great stuff and had some nice videos. Actually I would recommend the new book, Religion of the Apostles, and some of his video interviews on YouTube. One important point the author makes in a video and the book is that their are indeed passages in the bible that use legal terms etc. This however does not mean that God himself thinks this way! Their is a big difference in God using metaphors to help describe or explain things for us vs. how he actually thinks.

In many ways, making God into a Jurist sort of turns Him into being almost like the Demiurge that the ancient Gnostics tried to escape. That was a deity that was hardly worth worshipping (much more petty than your average earthly father or authority figure.) Anyway that last bit of the Demi-urge is my 2 cents, and not something the author mentions.

 

[Saint Steven]

The problem with this doctrine is not in the idea of “substitution”. Early church fathers, of course, understood the meaning and redemptive work of the cross as a “substitution” (IE. Christ in place of us). St Athanasius himself writes:
“Thus taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death in place of all, and offered it to the Father (an offering, not a penalty – my emphasis). This He did for sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, when He had fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was therefore voided of its power for men.”[3] Later the Saint writes that His death on the Cross was a “sufficient exchange (my emphasis) for all.”[4] Later yet he writes of His death on the cross as “a debt owing (my emphasis) which must be paid”[5] And finally he writes, “He died to ransom all…”[6]
For Saint Athanasius the words exchange, debt, and ransom are used to explain the expiatory work of Our Lord on the Cross on our behalf.

Great topic, thanks.

Penal substitution boils down to Jesus dying to save us from God. Which makes no sense.

 

[Clare73]

The problem with this doctrine is not in the idea of “substitution”. Early church fathers, of course, understood the meaning and redemptive work of the cross as a “substitution” (IE. Christ in place of us). St Athanasius himself writes:
“Thus taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death in place of all, and offered it to the Father (an offering, not a penalty – my emphasis). This He did for sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, when He had fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was therefore voided of its power for men.”[3] Later the Saint writes that His death on the Cross was a “sufficient exchange (my emphasis) for all.”[4] Later yet he writes of His death on the cross as “a debt owing (my emphasis) which must be paid”[5] And finally he writes, “He died to ransom all…”[6]
For Saint Athanasius the words exchange, debt, and ransom are used to explain the expiatory work of Our Lord on the Cross on our behalf.

"Propitiation" should not be thought of in the classical pagan sense, as if our god were some angry deity
who needed appeasing and could only be satisfied through a penal sacrifice. It’s really quite different.

Actually, that is Scriptural, correctly understood, apart from the prejorative association of God's wrath with paganism. Where do you think paganism got its idea of God's wrath?. . .from their observance of God's dealings with Israel, as well as with its enemies.

Propitiation (Greek hilasterion) is also translated “mercy seat.” The mercy seat covered the ark of the covenant, which contained a copy of the ten commandments—the law. While the law cried out against us and demanded perfection and showed us our shortcomings, the mercy seat covered those demands and our failure to live up to them. Was the mercy seat punished for our sins? of course not.

Actually, the "atonement cover" (hilasterion) covered their sin until the Day of Atonement when the blood of atonement was
sprinkled on the atonement cover to cleanse the Most Holy Place of its defilement by being in the midst of the people, in
propitiation (hilasterion) of God's wrath (Romans 5:9, Romans 1:18; John 3:36;Ephesians 5:6; Colossians 3:6;
1 Thessalonians 1:10, 1 Thessalonians 2:16) on their sin, thereby rendering the cover as the "mercy seat" (hilasterion).

Likewise, Christ’s blood was not the punishment demanded by justice,

That is not Scriptural. The whole millennial-old sacrificial system was about penalty for sin.

but rather the ultimate mercy seat, covering and forgiving our sins. This is why “propitiation” is sometimes more accurately translated as “expiation” in some versions of the Bible. (“expiation” implies the removal of our sins, while “propitiation” implies appeasing an angry deity.)

Puh-leeze. . .do not use such flawed human reasoning to "improve" on the word of God written.
Propitiation means exactly what it means in the Greek and in Scripture, hilasterion--removal of our sin by propitiating
the wrath of God (Romans 5:9, Romans 1:18; John 3:36; Ephesians 5:6; Colossians 3:6; 1Thessalonians 1:10,
1 Thessalonians 2:16) on sin. It is not for us to "improve" Scripture by altering it to our own meaning.
Just because the demonic influence in paganism (1 Corinthians 10:20) gave the pagans to misunderstood propitiation to be
about anger rather than justice does not negate the propitiation of the Scriptural sacrificial system.

According to penal substitution, God is angry with us because of our sins. But once He expresses His wrath in His Son, He is no longer angry with us. Now He loves us as He loves His own Son. In other words, He changes. First He’s angry with us, then He changes His mind and decides to love us. But how can this be if God is love? How can a God who is infinite, self-giving love ever vary in His degree of love towards us? Besides, not only is God love (1 Jn 4:8, 16), but He’s also unchanging (Mal 3:6) and doesn’t change His mind (Num 23:19).
Going to end this off with a writer quote
“The penal satisfaction theory is entirely legalistic. It assumes that the order of law and justice is absolute; free forgiveness would be a violation of this absolute order; God’s love must be carefully limited lest it infringe on the demands of justice. Sin is a crime against God and the penalty must be paid before forgiveness can become available. According to this view God’s love is conditioned and limited by his justice; that is, God cannot exercise His love to save man until His righteousness (justice) is satisfied. Since God’s justice requires that sin be punished, God’s love cannot save man until the penalty of sin has been paid, satisfying His justice. God’s love is set in opposition to His righteousness, creating a tension and problem in God….According to this legalistic theology, this is why Christ needed to die; he died to pay the penalty of man’s sin and to satisfy the justice of God (my emphasis).

The necessity of the atonement is the necessity of satisfying the justice of God; this necessity is in God rather than in man. (my emphasis). And since this necessity is in God, it is an absolute necessity. If God is to save man, God must satisfy His justice before He can in love save man.”
Also question people who believe this how do you reconcile with the trinity if Jesus was appeasing to the angry God

God's justice required it, and God himself, the second person of the Trinity, satisfied his own justice. (Who does that!)

God silenced all theological debate, objection, speculation, etc. long before he presented Jesus as a sacrifice of atonement
(Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; Hebrews 9:28; 1 John 4:10)--in the penal substitutional sacrificial system given in
Leviticus over 1,000 years before Jesus was born, where their sin was forgiven only through animal blood (death) sacrifice,
offered by the High Priest, as a subsitute for their own death in penalty (Romans 6:23) for their sin ("without the shedding
of blood there is no forgiveness of sin"--Hebrews 9:22).

One can disparage, deny, object, speculate, pontificate, reject, etc. regarding God's own provision for the forgiveness of
man's sin in the bloody sacrifice of his own Son, but he does so to his own undoing.
There is no confusion or doubt of God's meaning in the death of Jesus, it having been made more than abundantly clear in
the OT penal substitutional sacrificial system offered by the High Priest for the forgiveness of sin, and well as in the
language of the Greek--hilasterion (propitiation) regarding the Day of Atonement.

 

[Clare73]

Great topic, thanks.

Penal substitution boils down to Jesus dying to save us from God. Which makes no sense.

Only to the initiates.

He did indeed save us from the wrath of God (Romans 5:9, Romans 1:18; John 3:36; Ephesians 5:6; Colossians 3:6;
1 Thessalonians 1:10, 1 Thessalonians 2:16).

Makes a lotta' sense if you agree with God in his word written.

 

[Andrewn]

He did indeed save us from the wrath of God (Romans 5:9, Romans 1:18; John 3:36; Ephesians 5:6; Colossians 3:6; 1 Thessalonians 1:10, 1 Thessalonians 2:16). Makes a lotta' sense if you agree with God in his word written.

The famous Puritan Jonathan Edwards, said:

"The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours."

Do you agree with this?

 

[Clare73]

The famous Puritan Jonathan Edwards, said:
"The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours."
Do you agree with this?

I agree that is a good human description of how the infinite holiness of God regards sin.

Sin is to the presence of God. . .as. . .contagious deadly bacteria is to the OR (operating room).

To study Leviticus in detail is to know the truth of this.

 

[bling]

The famous Puritan Jonathan Edwards, said:

"The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours."

Do you agree with this?

NO!

 

[bling]

The problem with this doctrine is not in the idea of “substitution”. Early church fathers, of course, understood the meaning and redemptive work of the cross as a “substitution” (IE. Christ in place of us). St Athanasius himself writes:
“Thus taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death in place of all, and offered it to the Father (an offering, not a penalty – my emphasis). This He did for sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, when He had fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was therefore voided of its power for men.”[3] Later the Saint writes that His death on the Cross was a “sufficient exchange (my emphasis) for all.”[4] Later yet he writes of His death on the cross as “a debt owing (my emphasis) which must be paid”[5] And finally he writes, “He died to ransom all…”[6]
For Saint Athanasius the words exchange, debt, and ransom are used to explain the expiatory work of Our Lord on the Cross on our behalf.
Propitiation should not be thought of in the classical pagan sense, as if our god were some angry deity who needed appeasing and could only be satisfied through a penal sacrifice. It’s really quite different. Propitiation (Greek hilasterion) is also translated “mercy seat.” The mercy seat covered the ark of the covenant, which contained a copy of the ten commandments—the law. While the law cried out against us and demanded perfection and showed us our shortcomings, the mercy seat covered those demands and our failure to live up to them. Was the mercy seat punished for our sins? of course not. Likewise, Christ’s blood was not the punishment demanded by justice, but rather the ultimate mercy seat, covering and forgiving our sins. This is why “propitiation” is sometimes more accurately translated as “expiation” in some versions of the Bible. (“expiation” implies the removal of our sins, while “propitiation” implies appeasing an angry deity.)
According to penal substitution, God is angry with us because of our sins. But once He expresses His wrath in His Son, He is no longer angry with us. Now He loves us as He loves His own Son. In other words, He changes. First He’s angry with us, then He changes His mind and decides to love us. But how can this be if God is love? How can a God who is infinite, self-giving love ever vary in His degree of love towards us? Besides, not only is God love (1 Jn 4:8, 16), but He’s also unchanging (Mal 3:6) and doesn’t change His mind (Num 23:19).
Going to end this off with a writer quote
“The penal satisfaction theory is entirely legalistic. It assumes that the order of law and justice is absolute; free forgiveness would be a violation of this absolute order; God’s love must be carefully limited lest it infringe on the demands of justice. Sin is a crime against God and the penalty must be paid before forgiveness can become available. According to this view God’s love is conditioned and limited by his justice; that is, God cannot exercise His love to save man until His righteousness (justice) is satisfied. Since God’s justice requires that sin be punished, God’s love cannot save man until the penalty of sin has been paid, satisfying His justice. God’s love is set in opposition to His righteousness, creating a tension and problem in God….According to this legalistic theology, this is why Christ needed to die; he died to pay the penalty of man’s sin and to satisfy the justice of God (my emphasis). The necessity of the atonement is the necessity of satisfying the justice of God; this necessity is in God rather than in man. (my emphasis). And since this necessity is in God, it is an absolute necessity. If God is to save man, God must satisfy His justice before He can in love save man.”
Also question people who believe this how do you reconcile with the trinity if Jesus was appeasing to the angry God
Sources: Saint Athanasius and the ‘Penal Substitutionary’ Atonement Doctrine | Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese
Coptic Orthodox Diocese of the Southern United States - Q&A
Orthodox Christians on Penal Substitutionary Atonement – Orthodox-Reformed Bridge
Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory - A Sad Substitute
Penal Substitution/Transaction (Anselmian views) in Orthodoxy?

You do good to see just some of the issues with most people’s ideas on Atonement.

The Greek word used for redemption carries with it the idea of no small act and usually refers to being set free from a kidnapper after a huge ransom payment.


Atonement is a huge misunderstood topic which all the theories do a poor job explaining, look at just one aspect they do not address:

The Bible refers to Jesus’ sacrifice as a literal ransom payment:

Mark 10:45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

1 Timothy 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time

Heb. 9: 15…now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

We do have the blood specifically mentioned in Revelation 5:9 They sing a new song: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for God saints from every tribe and language and people and nation;

We should agree on:

1. Jesus life and death is the unbelievable huge ransom payment?

2. The ransom payment was made to set children free to go to the Kingdom and be with the Father?

3. Deity (Jesus and God both) made this unbelievable huge payment?

4. All these fit perfectly a ransom scenario?

5. The scripture is not describing Jesus’ cruel torturous death on the cross as being like a ransom payment, but as being a ransom payment?


Now think about this:

If it is not a kidnapping then it is no “ransoming”, but the Bible tells us there is a ransom payment at least being offered and definitely made for “many” and “God’s saints” and there is a redemption redemption (setting free).

Peter even helps us out more by contrasting the unbelievable huge payment of Christ to just a payment of silver and gold. Who might take silver and gold, so it can be a good analogy for Peter? 1 Peter 1:18 You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your ancestors, not with perishable things like silver or gold,

A kidnapper, in general, holds back the parent’s children awaiting an acceptable ransom payment, so who do you blame for keeping children out of the Kingdom?

The Kidnapper cannot be God since He is not an undeserving criminal kidnapper holding His own children back.

Also the Kidnapper would not be satan, since God has the power to take from sayan, without paying anything to satan. There is no cosmic Law saying you got to pay the kidnapper and it would be wrong to do so, if you could get around it and satan is fully undeserving.

We know death, sin and evil were concurred with Christ’s death and resurrection, but those are not tangible things needing to be paid anything.

So who is the kidnapper?

When you go up to a nonbelieving sinner, what are you trying to get him/her to accept: A doctrine, a denomination, a book, a theology, or something else. NO, you want the nonbeliever to accept “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified” and if he does a child of God is released to enter the Kingdom and be with God, but if the sinner rejects “Jesus Christ and Him crucifies” a child is kept out of the Kingdom.

Does this not sound very much like a kidnapping scenario with a ransom being offered?

“Jesus Christ and Him crucified” is described in scripture as the ransom payment?

Would the sinner holding a child of God out of the Kingdom of God describe a kidnapper?

“Jesus Christ and Him crucified” is a huge sacrificial payment, like you find with children being ransomed?

Parents will make huge sacrificial payments to have their children released.

 

[bling]

I agree that is a good human description of how the infinite holiness of God regards sin.

Sin is to the presence of God as contagious deadly bacteria is to the OR (operating room).

To study Leviticus in detail is to know the truth of it.

I am glad you bring up Leviticus! And we can certianly look at it together:
First off: If you are forgiven 100% then there is nothing to pay and if Christ paid 100% there is nothing to forgive.

Penal Substitution is not fair/just where you have the innocent being punished (even if the innocent is willing to be punished) so the guilty can go free. The “payment” would not be just any innocent life, but the life of the person who sinned.

The “Satisfaction Theory of Atonement” put the problem of forgiveness in God’s lap needing Christ to be cruelly, tortured, humiliated and murdered (sounding very blood thirsty) in order to be personally satisfied to forgive.

God would have no problem forgiving, God is totally fair and just, but any rebellious disobedient child needs more then just forgiveness, since if at all possible, a wonderful parent would see to the fair/just Loving discipline of His children for all the benefits discipline provides. Atonement thus is a disciplining process we go through with God and Christ as we are crucified “with Christ”.

The Jews under the Law would have a good understanding of atonement by experiencing atonement for very minor sins which took little disciplining:


Lev.4 starts atonement off giving details of what the priest must do, which you should read and understand, but Lev.5 gets into more detail about the individual, so please read Lev. 5 with much thought. I find people with pet theories of atonement skip Lev. 5 all together and might go to Lev. 16, but the day of atonement has some lite symbolic references to Christ, Lev 5 is a closer representation. I will discuss Lev. 16 if you want to take the time, but it takes some explaining of what and why it was needed by itself. Please read Lev. 5 before going further.

Atonement is much more than the sacrifice itself; it is a process which we can see from the Old Testament examples of the atonement process.

We can start with Lev. 5: 3 or if they touch human uncleanness (anything that would make them unclean) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt; 4 or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— 5 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. 6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin. … 10 The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.

Lev. 5 is talking about some really minor sins almost accidental sins and very much unintentional sins, there is no atonement process at this time for major sins, intentional direct disobedience toward God (these require banishment or death of the sinner).

The atonement process includes confessing, securing a good offering, personally bringing the offering to the priests at the temple altar, the priest has to offer it correctly and after the atonement process is correctly completed the sinner’s sins will be forgiven.

Note also the relationship between the sinner and the offering, the offering is “as a penalty for the sin” and not a replacement for the sinner. The idea of “penalty” is a “punishment” for the sinner, yet punishment of your child is better translated “disciplining”.

Reading all of Lev. 5: we have a lamb, two doves and a bag of flour all being an atoning sacrifice for the exact same sin, but vary with the wealth of the sinner, yet God does not consider the wealthy person of great value then the poor person, so what is happening? We can only conclude there is an attempt to equalize the hardship on the sinner (penalty/punishment/discipline). In fact, this might be the main factor in the atonement process at least Lev. 5. God is not only forgiving the sins, but seeing to the discipling of the sinner (like any Loving parent tries to do if possible). The problem is it can only be done for minor sins at this time.

Please notice there is an “and” just before “they will be forgiven”, suggesting a separate action, so the forgiveness is not part of the atonement process, but comes afterwards (this will be discussed more later).

Do you see the benefit for the Jewish people (nothing really to help God out here) going through this atonement process? That rich person had to water, feed, hang on to a lamb, he is not the lamb’s shepherd, so for hours waiting in line to get to the priest he fighting this lamb and the poor person may have skipped meals to get that bag of flour, so he has an equal hardship also. They are going to be more careful in the future and those around them will not want to go through the same thing. Yes, they can experience worship, forgiveness, and fellowship in the process.

We should be able to extrapolate up from extremely minor sins to rebellious disobedience directly against God, but that is a huge leap, so the hardship on the sinner will have to be horrendous, the sacrifice of much greater value (penalty for the sinner), and this will take a much greater Priest.

Please think up some questions to ask me.

 

[Clare73]

I am glad you bring up Leviticus! And we can certianly look at it together:
First off: If you are forgiven 100% then there is nothing to pay and if Christ paid 100% there is nothing to forgive.

Your argument is against Scripture, not me, against the propitiation (hilasterion) of the Atonement Cover (hilasterion) and
the Mercy Seat (hilasterion), as well as Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10.

You will have to take it up with the writers of Scripture--Moses and the apostles, Paul and John.

Please think up some questions to ask me.

I have no question to ask you because Scripture is very clear on the subject.

The only issue is belief. . .of the Scriptures, or you.
I'm goin' with the word of God written rather than bling's "theology."

 

[bling]

Your argument is against Scripture, not me, against the propitiation (hilasterion) of the Atonement Cover (hilasterion) and
the Mercy Seat (hilasterion), as well as Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10.

You will have to take it up with the writers of Scripture, Moses and the apostles, Paul and John.

I have no question to ask you because Scripture is very clear on the subject.

The only issue is belief, of the Scriptures, or you.
I'm goin' with the word of God written rather than bling's theology.

You are making this a personal attack "Bling's theology" instead of addressing my comments and questions.
Atonement is a huge topic and for now we have only "theoies" of atonement, so if "Scripture is very clear on the subject" there would not be all these theories, but one explanation. All these theories have big issues, including PS.
I cannot go over it all so one of your verses for now "Ro. 3:25":
Before we leave Lev. 5 realize God is not being satisfied with a bag of flour and the relationship between the sinner and his sacrifice is not one of replacing him.

Another verse which is often ignored by supports of the popular theories is Ro. 3:25

Romans 3:25 New International Version (NIV) 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.

I use the NIV though I do not like any translation, NIV does what I consider to be the best translation of the Greek word πάρεσις (paresis) which most just translate with “past over”, since the NIV translates it “left the sins committed beforehand unpunished”. The Greek word Πάρεσις is only found here in the Greek New Testament and not used at all in the Greek Old Testament, so it is difficult to translate, but really not that hard, since secular koine Greek manuscripts can be found using πάρεσις. It is used to describe when a lender, on rare occasions, does not put a debtor in prison to try and get some of his money back from friends and relatives of the debtor, before releasing him. So, I the context of Ro. 3:25 the forgiven sinners prior to the cross were not disciplined/punished for their sins but were just forgiven and let go. Since Paul is making his argument showing a huge contrast between Jews before and after the cross, those after the cross would have to go through some “punishment” or better expressed as some disciplining to be a contrast.

There are lots of excellent benefits from being disciplined, but prior to Christ’s crucifixion, there was no way to fairly/justly discipline a rebellious disobedient repentant child seeking forgiveness and allow the child to live. The disciplines were just to hard being banishment or physical death. By Christ going to the cross we can now be “crucified with Christ”, empathetically. How severe of a disciplining is this for Christians and how would it compare to the pain and sorrow God went through while Christ was crucified?

Notice there is no language suggesting the sins are put on hold, rolled forward or dealt with later, but are “passed over”/left unpunished.

Lets look at the rest of the passage:

From Romans 3: 25 Paul tells us: God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. …

Another way of saying this would be “God offers the ransom payment (Christ Crucified and the blood that flowed from Him) to those that have the faith to receive/accept that ransom. A lack of faith results in the refusal of the ransom payment (Christ crucified).

Have you ever stopped to think about what Christ went through while on the cross because of your actions personally?

 

[Clare73]

You are making this a personal attack "Bling's theology" instead of addressing my comments and questions.

Your comments and questions are addressed in Scripture, the relevant Scriptures being presented in post #8.
Whatever Scriptures you do not agree with there would be your own error.

Nor does unbelief in Biblical teaching demonstrate lack of clarity on the part of Scripture.

 

[bling]

Your comments and questions are addressed in Scripture, the relevant Scriptures being presented in post #8.
Whatever Scriptures you do not agree with there would be your own error.

Nor does unbelief in Biblical teaching demonstrate lack of clarity on the part of Scripture.

I am using the scripture you quote and showing an alternative explanation supported by the Greek and the context. It is not scripture, but the interpretation of the scripture we are in disagreeement with, so please show the issues with my interpretation?

 

[Clare73]

Your comments and questions are addressed in Scripture, the relevant Scriptures being presented in post #8.
Whatever Scriptures you do not agree with there would be your own error.

Nor does unbelief in Biblical teaching demonstrate lack of clarity on the part of Scripture.

I am using the scripture you quote and showing an alternative explanation supported by the Greek and the context. It is not scripture, but the interpretation of the scripture we are in disagreeement with, so please show the issues with my interpretation?

The issues will be anything that disagrees with what I have presented.
You can discover the issues for yourself, you don't need me to show them to you.
My responses to your alternative interpretation are the exegeses I have presented.