PSA, an essential Christian doctrine.

[Jesus is YHWH]

[/B]
The perfect animals without defect that were sacrificed in the OT were likewise not wicked.
But sin was transferred to them by laying on of hands, making the animals sin bearers who bore their sin in their bodies, as did Christ (1 Pe 2:24).

By God's set purpose (Ac 2:23). . .

Not dime's worth of difference.
[/b][/b]

You still have not shown or proved what I’m saying is not true. I’ve provided plenty of scriptures , definitions of words and how the NT interpretation of the OT confirms there is no penal aspect to Christs death inflicted by the Father to the Son.

 

[Clare73]

The animals were punished by being beaten whipped and put to a slow death? That's what PSA is. The sacrificial lamb had sin laid upon it and then it was killed - it wasn't punished.

Death itself is punishment.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Death is punishment.

Can you quote scripture saying is a punishment and not a consequence?

When Stephen in Acts was stoned to death was that a punishment ?

 

[Clare73]

You still have not shown or proved what I’m saying is not true. I’ve provided plenty of scriptures , definitions of words and how the NT interpretation of the OT confirms there is no penal aspect to Christs death inflicted by the Father to the Son.

The death itself alone is penal.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

The death itself alone is penal.

I don’t think so at all. It will be a blessing when I die and like Paul look forward to being absent from this body and present with the Lord. Death just places me in heaven with Christ.

 

[Clare73]

Can you quote scripture saying is a punishment and not a consequence?

Ge 2:17: Dying (spiritually), you shall die (physically)."

When Stephen in Acts was stoned to death was that a punishment ?

Yes, it was the punishment of the Jews for preaching the gospel.

God is not the only one who administers punishment (Mt 25:46).

 

[Clare73]

I don’t think so at all. It will be a blessing when I die.

God didn't view it that way in the Garden.

It would have been more of a blessing if you never died, but were born righteous, as was Adam, and remained righteous, as did Christ, living always in the presence of, and in fellowship with, God.

and like Paul look forward to being absent from this body and present with the Lord. .Death just places me in heaven with Christ.

Paul presents it a little differently. . .you wouldn't have had to wait for death to be with Christ, nor would you be with Christ in the unnatural condition of your spirit being without its body (2 Co 5:1-4), and your spirit groaning now at the thought of being separated from its body by death (1 Co 5:4).

 

[ladodgers6]

If it's essential, it's a late bloomer. That way of seeing the "mechanism that saves" doesn't hit the ground running until Calvin. There are a number of understandings that predate it, i.e., ransom theory, recapitulation, Christus Victor even. Calvin saw punishment of sin as the primary function of the cross, which is an anemic view. The truth probably entails something of each theory but transcends them all.

I beg to differ. Though there were various views, taking from different angles, but when they are examined more closely, you can see the organic seed being planted. Here's for instance,
​

Epistle to Diognetus​

The crown jewel of penal substitution in the early church is found in the second-century apologetic work called the Epistle to Diognetus. Although lengthy, this paragraph is the single best description of penal substitution in the first few centuries, and quite possibly in the history of the church:

In his mercy he took upon himself our sins; he himself gave up his own Son as a ransom for us, the holy one for the lawless, the guiltless for the guilty, the just for the unjust, the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal. For what else but his righteousness could have covered our sins? In whom was it possible for us, the lawless and ungodly, to be justified, except in the Son of God alone? O the sweet exchange, O the incomprehensible work of God, O the unexpected blessings, that the sinfulness of many should be hidden in one righteous person, while the righteousness of one should justify many sinners! (Epistle to Diognetus, 9.2–5).

“O sweet exchange!” Christ for us! Jesus took on our sins because he was holy, guiltless, just, incorruptible, and immortal, whereas we are lawless, guilty, unjust, corruptible, and mortal. We needed to hide our sins in him and to receive his righteousness, a beautiful expression of double imputation (our sins to Jesus; his righteousness to us). But notice, too, that he mentions Christ as our ransom. In this one passage, several hues of the atonement are present.

And as for Calvin, he wrote, in Christian Institutes: Jesus Christ was “made a substitute and a surety in the place of transgressors and even submitted as a criminal, to sustain and suffer all the punishment which would have been inflicted on them” (Institutes 2:16.10).

Know what you believe and why you believe it.

 

[ladodgers6]

It wasn't an opinion. If you don't know and learn from your own history, you might end up making mistakes others have already made, or you might assume your way of seeing things is the only way.

There is no doubt that many today assume PSA is essential. Well, it hasn't always been. Centuries of Christians did not think in that framework. That fact alone should cause one to wonder if their assertion about whether PSA is essential should be softened or simply rejected outright. And then, one should explore the ways Christians of repute have thought differently. If the Bible settled this question, it wouldn't be a question.

John Calvin wrote that Jesus Christ was “made a substitute and a surety in the place of transgressors and even submitted as a criminal, to sustain and suffer all the punishment which would have been inflicted on them” (Institutes 2:16.10).

 

[ladodgers6]

No rush. I'm not trying to argue; I just think your claim is too strong.

I did not, it's Biblical teaching. 1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.

Luke 14: 5“Why do you seek the living among the dead? 6He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, 7that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.”

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death

 

[ladodgers6]

The Eastern Orthodox view is summarized in the Paschal Sermon of St. John Chrysostom which is read in every Orthodox church on the morning of Pascha.

Let no one weep for his iniquities, for pardon has shown forth from the grave. Let no one fear death, for the Savior’s death has set us free. He that was held prisoner of it has annihilated it. By descending into Hell, He made Hell captive. He embittered it when it tasted of His flesh. And Isaiah, foretelling this, did cry: Hell, said he, was embittered, when it encountered Thee in the lower regions. It was embittered, for it was abolished. It was embittered, for it was mocked. It was embittered, for it was slain. It was embittered, for it was overthrown. It was embittered, for it was fettered in chains. It took a body, and met God face to face. It took earth, and encountered Heaven. It took that which was seen, and fell upon the unseen.​

​

O Death, where is your sting? O Hell, where is your victory? Christ is risen, and you are overthrown. Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen. Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice. Christ is risen, and life reigns. Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the grave. For Christ, being risen from the dead, is become the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. To Him be glory and dominion unto ages of ages. Amen.​

Thank you for sharing that with us. What your thoughts on Isaiah 53?

 

[ladodgers6]

I wasn't trying to be discourteous, but my apologies for coming across that way. I know John Calvin, and I know he quotes Augustine more than anyone. Without Augustine, there is no John Calvin. Is that rude to say that? I guess it would be if it were untrue, but I don't think it is, which is why I'm saying it. I'm thinking somebody has probably counted.

ETA: Somebody has: Out of 33 ECFs, Calvin quoted Augustine 50%, 1,708 times, according to one source in the link. We don't need those numbers, though, because reading both side-by-side shows the influence. PSA can be justifiably located at Calvin because he solidified (nurtured?) seeds in Augustine.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272331061_An_investigation_into_Calvin's_use_of_Augustine

Yeah I agree, is it wrong to quote someone? Or to study their works? I do not get your premise here, what you are trying to insinuate? Scripture clear and precise that Christ is the Passover Lamb, who propitiates God's wrath away from us to himself as our substitute.

Colossians 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

But my favorite passages are:
​

4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?
9 And they made his grave with the wicked
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors.
​

Know what you believe and why you believe it!​

 

[public hermit]

I beg to differ. Though there were various views, taking from different angles, but when they are examined more closely, you can see the organic seed being planted. Here's for instance,
​

Epistle to Diognetus​

The crown jewel of penal substitution in the early church is found in the second-century apologetic work called the Epistle to Diognetus. Although lengthy, this paragraph is the single best description of penal substitution in the first few centuries, and quite possibly in the history of the church:

In his mercy he took upon himself our sins; he himself gave up his own Son as a ransom for us, the holy one for the lawless, the guiltless for the guilty, the just for the unjust, the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal. For what else but his righteousness could have covered our sins? In whom was it possible for us, the lawless and ungodly, to be justified, except in the Son of God alone? O the sweet exchange, O the incomprehensible work of God, O the unexpected blessings, that the sinfulness of many should be hidden in one righteous person, while the righteousness of one should justify many sinners! (Epistle to Diognetus, 9.2–5).

“O sweet exchange!” Christ for us! Jesus took on our sins because he was holy, guiltless, just, incorruptible, and immortal, whereas we are lawless, guilty, unjust, corruptible, and mortal. We needed to hide our sins in him and to receive his righteousness, a beautiful expression of double imputation (our sins to Jesus; his righteousness to us). But notice, too, that he mentions Christ as our ransom. In this one passage, several hues of the atonement are present.

And as for Calvin, he wrote, in Christian Institutes: Jesus Christ was “made a substitute and a surety in the place of transgressors and even submitted as a criminal, to sustain and suffer all the punishment which would have been inflicted on them” (Institutes 2:16.10).

Know what you believe and why you believe it.

The problem with penal substitution is the amplification of the notion that the Father is punishing the Son because the only recompense is divine punishment/wrath. Calvin is a lawyer and reads the cross through that lens, which distorts the reality. In a court, you commit a crime and you get punished- which for Calvin entailed beatings and even mangling a person. It's a limited view and falls short.

Through the lens of ransom, God is not punishing the Son like beating and torturing a criminal; the Son is stepping into our place as we, enslaved to the destructive nature of sin and death, cannot free ourselves, enduring their wrath as slave masters. It's basically manumission, enfranchisement. That may seem a simple matter of emphasis, but it makes all the difference. In a slave situation, the one who frees the slave does not beat the slave; the slave owner-sin and death- beat the slave.

The more general problem here is that all atonement theories are based in images, metaphors that help us make sense of a divine act that transcends time and space, and has cosmic implications. The idea that we would make one image essential is to make the image essential and not the reality.

 

[ladodgers6]

To the contrary, I love Augustine even though I disagree with him on some things. I also think Calvin had some wonderful insights. He opens the Institutes by saying, basically, we can't know God unless we know ourselves, and we can't know ourselves unless we know God. Brilliant! I think those opening chapters are fantastic. When he recounts all the precarious ways we can die, classic! I just disagree with their overall approach, specifically as it culminated in PSA.

Thanks for being candor, thanks for being cordial with us. I on the other hand hold to and believe in PSA. It's one of the two aspects of Redemption. Some views disagree that a righteous person can be punished for the sins of the wicked. But Scripture is clear and precise.

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.

Now this passage clearly puts that argument to rest.

Some views argue that it's not God who punished Christ, is was men. Well, let's look at Scripture.
​

Luke 24:6 “Why do you seek the living among the dead? 6He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, 7that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.”

Why must the Son of Man be delivered into the hands of sinful men? Well, let's look at more Scripture.

Acts 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

How God decides to carry out his Plan is his Sovereign Will. Scripture is clear why it happened, and how it happened.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Scripture clear and precise that Christ is the Passover Lamb, who propitiates God's wrath away from us to himself as our substitute.

I have proven two things already that refute your “ propitiation of Gods wrath “ that is going nowhere in Scripture. Propitiation is not a biblical word it’s a Latin word that originated in the 1550’s.

Propitiation- the turning away of God's anger/wrath
Expiation- the covering for our sins

Through expiation—the work of Christ on the cross for us—the sin of all those who would ever believe in Christ was canceled. That cancellation is eternal in its consequence, even though sin is still present in the temporal sense. In other words, believers are delivered from the penalty and power of sin, but not the presence of it. Justification is the term for being delivered from the penalty of sin. This is a one-time act wherein the sinner is justified and made holy and righteous in the eyes of God, who exchanged our sinful natures for the righteousness of Christ at the cross (2 Corinthians 5:21). Sanctification is the ongoing process whereby believers are delivered from the power of sin in their lives and are enabled by the new nature to resist and turn away from it. Glorification is when we are removed from the very presence of sin, which will only occur once we leave this world and are in heaven. All these processes—justification, sanctification, and glorification—are made possible through the expiation or cancellation of sin. (gotquestions.org)

Propitiation vs. Expiation- The New Testament usage of hilaskomai and hilasmos, consistent with its precedent usage in the Greek Old Testament, speaks consistently of God’s atoning action in Christ directed toward sin on behalf of sinners, not human action directed toward God to satisfy God. The criterion for interpretation, Stott has said, “is whether the object of the atoning action is God or man.” “Propitiation” indicates an action by humans directed toward God, and “expiation” indicates an action by God toward sin and sinners. According to Stott's criterion, these texts favor "expiation" over “propitiation.” Given the choice of translating hilastērion either “propitiation” or “expiation,” therefore, “expiation” is preferable based on the textual evidence of both the New Testament and the Greek Old Testament. James Dunn summarizes well the case for preferring “expiation” to “propitiation” as a translation for hilastērion: Darrin W. Snyder Belousek, Atonement, Justice, and Peace: The Message of the Cross and the Mission of the Church (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012), 247–252.

hope this helps !!!

 

[public hermit]

Thanks for being candor, thanks for being cordial with us. I on the other hand hold to and believe in PSA. It's one of the two aspects of Redemption. Some views disagree that a righteous person can be punished for the sins of the wicked. But Scripture is clear and precise.

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.

Now this passage clearly puts that argument to rest.

Some views argue that it's not God who punished Christ, is was men. Well, let's look at Scripture.
​

Luke 24:6 “Why do you seek the living among the dead? 6He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, 7that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.”

Why must the Son of Man be delivered into the hands of sinful men? Well, let's look at more Scripture.

Acts 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

How God decides to carry out his Plan is his Sovereign Will. Scripture is clear why it happened, and how it happened.

If PSA is your favorite, that's fine with me because I think there are options.

I'm more interested in the claim that it's essential. I think that's too strong. But I also realize a lot of folks would agree it's essential, and not just Reformed folks.

Those passages can be read without the wrath being God's. He was delivered up to sinful humans. God didn't kill Jesus, we did.

Still, I know there are passages that can be used to support PSA. Passage tossing goes nowhere because, at least for me, it comes to interpretation and getting a whole picture. The same was true for Calvin and Augustine and Nyssa, probably most want not only to understand passages but to have a picture or whole view of this faith. It's just that there is no single big picture. Our view is limited and the evidence are all these different theories and systems. No one just believes passages. What is believed is a whole picture. And that picture is an image. It can't be identical, in the strict sense, with the reality of God and all God is doing. That's how I see it, but I could be wrong.

 

[ladodgers6]

The problem with penal substitution is the amplification of the notion that the Father is punishing the Son because the only recompense is divine punishment/wrath.

All sinners Hermit are under the legal curse of the Law. Because the Law has been breached by One Man's obedience, which brought sanctions upon all progeny; sin, condemnation, and death is the result. The notion people assume and the Father and the Son pitting against each other, as is the Father is abusing the Son, against his will, is incorrect. This is conjecture, and an emotional argument with no Biblical data to back it up.

The Son willingly signed his own death warranty for God and his people. In the Covenant of Redemption the Son came to fulfill his Father's will and works. Which is to redeem are those whom the Father gave to the Son. The Son also came to not the abolish the Law, but to fulfill, in the flesh. The Son also became a curse for us, to spare God's people from it.

Isaiah 53 is clear, that it was the Father will to crush for the sake of his people. God is not angered that Christ, but that sin. Sin comes with a price of punishment, no matter how wants to slice it. There's blood for it, period. Which is why there were a sacrifice system in the OT, where only the High Priest was allow in the Holies of Holies, and each slaughter a bloody sacrifice to transfer the sins of the people onto it. Which it was also a type and shadow pointing forward to the ultimate and final sacrifice for God's people!​

Calvin is a lawyer and reads the cross through that lens, which distorts the reality. In a court, you commit a crime and you get punished- which for Calvin entailed beatings and even mangling a person. It's a limited view and falls short.

Doesn't Scripture have legal terminology? Justification, Condemnation, Righteous, UnRighteous, Law, Punishment. So, I see your comment don't hold water, here, sorry.

Through the lens of ransom, God is not punishing the Son like beating and torturing a criminal; the Son is stepping into our place as we, enslaved to the destructive nature of sin and death, cannot free ourselves, enduring their wrath as slave masters. It's basically manumission, enfranchisement. That may seem a simple matter of emphasis, but it makes all the difference. In a slave situation, the one who frees the slave does not beat the slave; the slave owner-sin and death- beat the slave.

Why is Blood spilled for sin, then? If all that was need was Christ to die, and nothing else. Why the suffering, the pain, the torture, the humiliation, why did he need to be pierced, wiped, afflicted, stricken, crushed, grieved, have sorrow, crown of thorns; why was he beaten so hard that he was disfigured? If all that was needed was death?

And if death is the only result, for our sins. How is this not good news for Ted Bundy, Richard Remirez, Unabomber, Mass Shooters, Pedophiles, serial rapists, Murderers. Why would anyone want to repent, if they can be as sinful as possible, and only place death; go to sleep that's it. I know I am being dramatic, but illustrating it, drawing a nice picture.​

The more general problem here is that all atonement theories are based in images, metaphors that help us make sense of a divine act that transcends time and space, and has cosmic implications. The idea that we would make one image essential is to make the image essential and not the reality.

Well you are entitles to your opinion, I'll stick to Scripture. Thanks for being civil and cordial once again. I prefer to have these types of discussions, where we can share views.

Know what you believe and why you believe it.​

 

[Troll Monster]

Excellent post and very crucial topic for our understanding what God accomplished in his Son for his people. The key passages in understanding this precious and glorious doctrine of Grace and Mercy is found in Isaiah 53.
​

1 Who has believed what he has heard from us?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.


4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?
9 And they made his grave with the wicked
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors.
​

This is the most Gracious Act of Love on display for the whole Cosmos to witness! Christ taking our place under God's wrath for our iniquities, that are imputed to Christ, and his righteousness imputed to the transgressors! The marvelous exchange! This how God can be the just and the justifier. How God can justify the ungodly through Faith Alone; they receive and rest upon this announcement of good news, in what Christ accomplished on that Cross that afternoon! ​

Wow, I am new here, and still learning. This post is very informative, and very lucid. I will dig in more to it, and try to learn more, thanks.

 

[Clare73]

I have proven two things already that refute your “ propitiation of Gods wrath “ that is going nowhere in Scripture.
Propitiation is not a biblical word it’s a Latin word that originated in the 1550’s.

Both "propitiate" and "expiate" are French as well as Latin words.

Propitiation- the turning away of God's anger/wrath
Expiation- the covering for our sins

Through expiation—the work of Christ on the cross for us—the sin of all those who would ever believe in Christ was canceled. That cancellation is eternal in its consequence, even though sin is still present in the temporal sense. In other words, believers are delivered from the penalty and power of sin, but not the presence of it. Justification is the term for being delivered from the penalty of sin. This is a one-time act wherein the sinner is justified and made holy and righteous in the eyes of God, who exchanged our sinful natures for the righteousness of Christ at the cross (2 Corinthians 5:21). Sanctification is the ongoing process whereby believers are delivered from the power of sin in their lives and are enabled by the new nature to resist and turn away from it. Glorification is when we are removed from the very presence of sin, which will only occur once we leave this world and are in heaven. All these processes—justification, sanctification, and glorification—are made possible through the expiation or cancellation of sin. (gotquestions.org)

Propitiation vs. Expiation - The New Testament usage of hilaskomai and hilasmos, consistent with its precedent usage in the Greek Old Testament, speaks consistently of God’s atoning action in Christ directed toward sin on behalf of sinners, not human action directed toward God to satisfy God. The criterion for interpretation, Stott has said, “is whether the object of the atoning action is God or man.”
“Propitiation” indicates an action by humans directed toward God,, and
“expiation” indicates an action by God toward sin and sinners..

Actually, both "propitiate and "expiate" in the French and English are acts toward God, the difference being
expiate is to pay the debt for, to satisfy justice, while
propitiate also renders the offended favorable and conciliatory toward the offender.

God is propitiated (hilaskomai) by the vindication of his holy and righteous character,
whereby, through the provision he has made in setting forth Christ to be a propitiation (hilasterion) in his vicarious and expiatory sacrifice,
he who believes upon him is by God's own act delivered from justly deserved wrath (Ro 5:9) and comes under the covenant of grace.

According to Stott's criterion, these texts favor "expiation" over “propitiation.” Given the choice of translating hilastērion either “propitiation” or “expiation,” therefore, “expiation” is preferable based on the textual evidence of both the New Testament and the Greek Old Testament.[/B]

This conclusion is based on a wrong definition of "expiation" as an action by God toward man.
Actually, the texts favor propitiation; i.e., rendering God appeased, favorable and conciliatory toward the sinner.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I beg to differ. Though there were various views, taking from different angles, but when they are examined more closely, you can see the organic seed being planted. Here's for instance,
​

Epistle to Diognetus​

The crown jewel of penal substitution in the early church is found in the second-century apologetic work called the Epistle to Diognetus. Although lengthy, this paragraph is the single best description of penal substitution in the first few centuries, and quite possibly in the history of the church:

In his mercy he took upon himself our sins; he himself gave up his own Son as a ransom for us, the holy one for the lawless, the guiltless for the guilty, the just for the unjust, the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal. For what else but his righteousness could have covered our sins? In whom was it possible for us, the lawless and ungodly, to be justified, except in the Son of God alone? O the sweet exchange, O the incomprehensible work of God, O the unexpected blessings, that the sinfulness of many should be hidden in one righteous person, while the righteousness of one should justify many sinners! (Epistle to Diognetus, 9.2–5).

“O sweet exchange!” Christ for us! Jesus took on our sins because he was holy, guiltless, just, incorruptible, and immortal, whereas we are lawless, guilty, unjust, corruptible, and mortal. We needed to hide our sins in him and to receive his righteousness, a beautiful expression of double imputation (our sins to Jesus; his righteousness to us). But notice, too, that he mentions Christ as our ransom. In this one passage, several hues of the atonement are present.

And as for Calvin, he wrote, in Christian Institutes: Jesus Christ was “made a substitute and a surety in the place of transgressors and even submitted as a criminal, to sustain and suffer all the punishment which would have been inflicted on them” (Institutes 2:16.10).

Know what you believe and why you believe it.

I'm sorry but that's very poor evidence. Especially for what's supposed to be the "crown jewel".