penal substitution is based on paganism

Author: linate

Posts

Total: 30
Topic's author
#1
linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1

penal substitution says that God needed an infinite method of having his wrath placated. the only method that is possible, the theory goes, is Jesus dying. his death means you don't have to die as your sins are "covered". 

the problem with this idea is that it didn't originate until a thousand years after Jesus and has little basis in the bible. during the early church, the language christians used is called "christus victor". Jesus conquered sin and death on the cross, is the essence of the idea. i like to say love conquers death. anyone belonging to the brotherhood is also saved from death. so, penal substitution isn't orthodox. 

what about old testament sacrifices, were they to appease God's wrath? nope. they were a means of saying "i dedicate what i have to you, and turn myself over to you". here is a good quote that shows the true basis for old testament sacrifices and how it ties to Jesus' sacrifice. 

"In all of the sacrifices, the central theme is not appeasement, but representational consecration. That is, symbolically through the offering the worshiper says “this offering represents my giving to you my life”, or as you might hear in a love song "God I belong to you, here is my heart". It is not a statement of placation (as if God needed to be bribed into loving us), but an act of devotion, entrusting oneself to God, giving your life into God's hands. In the case of the thanksgiving and first fruits offerings it means that all that we have comes from God and so with these first fruits we acknowledge that it all belongs to God. The passover offering was about the birth of the people of Israel and marked the time of the exodus of God's people out of bondage, so the passover offering was about committing and aligning oneself on God's side against oppression. Finally along with all the other sacrifices the sacrifice of atonement for sin was saying “Here is my life, I want to live it for you Lord. I die to the sinful in me and give my life to you”.

In the same way blood was sprinkled to dedicate the temple, and dedicate the law to God. This was the case with the Passover sacrifice which originated as the people marked their house door showing their allegiance with God, consecrating their house as belonging to the Lord. Thus Jesus when he connects his death with the Passover speaks of a “Covenant” being established by his blood “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Lk22:20). It was the sealing of a promise, like signing a contract in blood. We can see here that whether a sin offering, or a thanks offering, or a dedication that in every case there is the common theme of consecration – dedicating to God. This sense of consecration is conveyed in the Latin root of the word “sacrifice” which means “to make sacred” or "to consecrate". We give ourselves, our lives, our need, our thanks, our allegiance to God vicariously through the ritual of sacrifice.

There is here the aspect of identification with the animal – you bring a part of yourself to the altar, in many cases laying a hand on the animal's head before it is slaughtered. Specifically in the case of the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement we can see also an aspect of transference as the scapegoat was sent off bearing the sin away (Lv 16:21-22). And as previously mentioned there is here a clear aspect of vicarious atonement specifically with the sin offerings - that animal that died was you. The consecration here meant that the sinner brought their broken life to the altar Yet in all of this the writers of the Old Testament are emphatic that the main object of sacrifice is not about a mechanical transaction detached from relationship, but the outward ritual effecting inner change, devotion, and repentance. As David says

“Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean wash me, and I will be whiter than snow...Create in me a pure heart, O God..." (Ps 51:7,10)

David's prayer here is that the outward cleansing of the hyssop would go down and cleanse his inmost being. God, David says, is not interested in outward actions, but in the state of his heart. This is a relational exchange not a legal one.

"You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it. You do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit. A broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise” (Ps 51:16-17)."

#2
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
I will show you who you are fucking with when you say Pagans are this or that. You want to come preach your nonsense that the illuminati use to brainwash you? Go ahead, be an honest, hard-working puppet in their scheme. There's no heaven, there is only this life and then the hell (if anything) afterwards. Stop pretending we live for anything other than Hedonism in the end.

Be a rational Hedonist, care for others and their pleasure, don't be a psychopath but then again when they wanna fuck with you, remind them who they are stepping to. You gotta be the best you can be 'cause there's this life and that's it. That's the game God set up, there's not 'afterlife' no cheat codes, nothing.
#3
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Antinomianism seems common these days, and penal substitution seems like it coulld be used as a justification for this.







#4
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
@madman
Wow you're scary, when do you turn 13?
#5
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Absolute tosh.
#6
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@disgusted
It sure is, because it contradicts everything else in scripture.
#7
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac

Antinomianism seems common these days,

Absolute tosh
and penal substitution seems like it coulld be used as a justification for this.
Absolute tosh
No scriptures involved.
#8
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@disgusted
Well that's just kind of like your opinion, dooood.

#9
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7

"Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all; which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; and over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.

Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: the Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first testamentwas dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.


#10
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offeringfor sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; and having an high priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the profession of ourfaith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) and let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."



#11
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@linate
penal substitution says that God needed an infinite method of having his wrath placated. the only method that is possible, the theory goes, is Jesus dying. his death means you don't have to die as your sins are "covered". 

the problem with this idea is that it didn't originate until a thousand years after Jesus and has little basis in the bible. during the early church, the language christians used is called "christus victor". Jesus conquered sin and death on the cross, is the essence of the idea. i like to say love conquers death. anyone belonging to the brotherhood is also saved from death. so, penal substitution isn't orthodox. 


This is simply not true. Penal substitution is present throughout both testaments. You also have it backward as to who copied who. You have to have an original before you can have a copy or counterfeit.

He shall not replace it or exchange it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good; or if he does exchange animal for animal, then both it and its substitute shall become holy.

He is not to be concerned whether it is good or bad, nor shall he exchange it; or if he does exchange it, then both it and its substitute shall become holy. It shall not be redeemed.’”

Not only this, the concept presented in the OT of the 'scapegoat' on the Day of Atonement each year was a substitutionary act. It represented what SHOULD HAVE BEEN Israel.

But the goat on which the lot for the scapegoat fell shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make atonement upon it, to send it into the wilderness as the scapegoat.


Both the animal sacrifices and the scapegoat always pointed forward to the time of the Messiah when He would represent the people before God as their High Priest and take upon Himself the sins of the people. The concept of payment for sin is met for the believer in Jesus Christ. He pays the penalty for sin on the behalf of the believer. The price for sin is met in Him. 

For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

who gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of ourGod and Father,

and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood—

You see, the blood should have been our blood, not His. If we could receive forgiveness without paying the eternal penalty (separation from God) then His life lived on our behalf and His blood shed in our place would not have been necessary. 


Topic's author
#12
linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1
-->
@PGA2.0
all the quotes you use could be used for 'christus victor' too. we believe Jesus died for our sins. we just don't believe he died to replace us in appeasing God's wrath, penal substitution. 

if your theory is so orthodox, why isn't it ever talked about in the early church? it was invented by st anslem a thousand years after Jesus. 
Topic's author
#13
linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1
here is an illuminating article on the world propitiation... 

"Propitiation is a word that in not in common use today. Proponents of Penal Substitution use it frequently, primarily referring to Romans 3:25

"(Christ Jesus) Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God"

This is the passage that Luther was struggling with in yesterday's post and begins with Paul's statement "Now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known... This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe". We saw that this righteousness "apart from law" was about God setting things right when we trust in him to work for us and in us. It involves a fundamental change in how we understand righteousness and justice, not as performance, but "apart from law" as something God does for sinners. But how does that work? All are "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" but how did it come? In the next verse (3:25) Paul says it was through the cross. And here we find that word (at least in King James) "propitiation".

Propitiation literally means "to make favorable". It is similar to words like appeasement (Lit "to make peace") and Pacify (again to bring peace). However with all of these the context is placed on the idea of turning aside another's wrath usually through a gift or offering. The immediate difficulty with such as idea is that God does not need to be "made favorable" since he is the initiator of reconciliation. God is the one who "first loved us". It is vital to note that virtually no major proponent of Penal Substitution sees the cross as God's favor being purchased through sacrifice (which is what propitiation means) since this represents a pagan idea of sacrifice. John Stott writes that propitiation "does not make God gracious...God does not love us because Christ died for us, Christ died for us because God loves us" (The Cross of Christ p.174) Calvin writes "Our being reconciled by the death of Christ must not be understood as if the Son reconciled us, in order that the Father, then hating, might begin to love us"(Institutes II 16:4)

Secondly, since it is God who makes the propitiation this amounts to "God paying God". You cannot propitiate yourself any more than you can steal from yourself or bribe yourself. What it amounts to is a word being stretched beyond the breaking point until it no longer fits. Propitiation is a concept that comes from a pagan understanding of the sacrifices where the sacrifice purchased the gods favor and humor. That is not the case here since it is God who makes the offering of himself.

So how did the word "propitiation" get into Romans 3:25? The original Greek word is hilasterion. Hilasterion is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew kapporeth which refers to the Mercy Seat of the Arc. Luther in his translation of the Bible renders Hilasterion as "Gnadenstuhl" which is German for Mercy Seat. In context this means that "God has set forth Jesus as the mercy seat (the place where atonement and expiation happen) through faith in his blood". Jesus is thus "the place where we find mercy". Many new translations render Hislateron for this reason as "expiate" because the Temple Sacrifices to not have an element of appeasing of wrath in them and thus this seems to be a more fitting translation if it refers to the Mercy Seat in the Temple. Expiation literally means "to make pious" (similar to sanctify) and implies either the removal or cleansing of sin.

The idea of propitiation includes that of expiation as its means. We are "made favorable" (propitiation) when our sin is removed (expiation). The problem is not that God is unwilling or unloving (propitiation), but that our sin causes a real break in relationship. As with any relationship, that break must be mended. This is what expiation refers to. Expiation is about cleaning or removing of sin and has no reference to quenching God's righteous anger. The difference is that the object of expiation is sin, not God. Grammatically, one propitiates a person, and one expiates a problem. You cannot expiate (remove) a person or God, nor can one propitiate (make favorable) sin. Christ's death was therefore both an expiation and a propitiation. By expiating (removing the problem of) sin God was made propitious (favorable) to us. Again not because God then suddenly loved us, but because the break in the relationship was mended.

Theologians stress the idea of propitiation because it specifically addresses the aspect of the atonement dealing with God's wrath. Leon Morris for instance argued for the translation of "propitiation" in Romans 3:25 because he said the thrust of Paul in Romans up til then had been on God's wrath. This is true. However the way that that wrath was dealt with was not though the anger of God being pacified through a gift (propitiation) but rather though God actually solving the problem by removing our sin as a doctor remove3s a cancer (expiation) thus making us "right".

Given then that virtually no proponent of Penal Substitution uses the word propitiation (or appeasement) as it is actually defined in English, it seems a bad word to use that leads to a false understanding of God as one who demands to be paid before he will love us rather than a God who pays what he does not owe because he loves us so much and gives his own life for us. God is not "made favorable" to us through a gift, rather God makes us favorable by giving his life."

#14
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@linate

all the quotes you use could be used for ' christus victor' too. we believe Jesus died for our sins. we just don't believe he died to replace us in appeasing God's wrath, penal substitution. 
That is a biblical teaching. Do you really think that you can stand before God on your own merit - a perfectly just, holy, pure God?

Why did Jesus die on the cross? What was the need of His sacrifice if we could stand before God on our own merit. 

Read the NT again with fresh eyes, paying attention to who is the subject (the receiver of the action) and who is the object (the doer of the action).

She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”

Who is doing the saving, you or Him?

Is it your sacrifice that is presented to God for your salvation? If so then you are in big trouble. You are not relying on His grace but by earning your salvation.

Ephesians 2:8-10 (NASB)
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Are you going to boast before God on all your good works? Are you going to pay the price for your sins, which is your death?

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

It is not in anything you can do. It is in what He (Jesus) has done.

If you are a Christian then you have been bought with a price:

For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.

You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.

The price is Jesus' human life which He sacrificed instead of yours (SUBSTITUTION).

Romans 8:1-3 (NASB)
Deliverance from Bondage
8 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

You are not condemned if you are included in Christ's life, His death, and His resurrections, for He is the firstfruits from the dead. How are you included? You are included through faith. The death He died He died for YOU if you believe. He was a righteous Man, and as John the Baptist identified Him He is the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world (for those who believe).

By faith in Him (Jesus) God regenerates our minds and HEARTS/spirits to God through the Spirit of rebirth. 



if your theory is so orthodox, why isn't it ever talked about in the early church? it was invented by st anslem a thousand years after Jesus.
I wasn't aware of that, and I might check into it because I think they did. I have read some of the early church fathers and I think they did. If they didn't there is an explanation I can think of from the top of my head. That is, they were ironing out what the Bible said, but we have the word of God, not tradition, or others points of view. We can go to the Scriptures to see if their teachings are true. That is the great thing about God's word. There is no higher authority - sola scriptura! 

#15
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@linate
I'll try and address your other post (# 13) tomorrow, the Lord willing!
#16
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@linate
Who blood cleansed the temples, yours or Jesus'? It is not yours, so I wouldn't want to stand before God with my own blood as an offering. It is not a perfect sacrifice. So if it is not mine then it must be His that subs for mine. 

Hebrews 10, along with God giving the believer a new spirit that is friendly to Him, says: 

“This is the covenant that I will make with them
After those days, says the Lord:
I will put My laws upon their heart,
And on their mind I will write them,”
He then says,
17 “And their sins and their lawless deeds
I will remember no more.”
18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.

What offerings are you going to offer God? He has accepted one (His Son's) that He is satisfied with. It propitiates/appeases His justice with that penalty offering. 

Which sins did Jesus not die for in saving His people? He died for all of them. This His offering is perfect.


12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

That is Good News!

Hebrews 7:26-28
26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 28 For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever.

I lost half this post somewhere in cyberspace. Time to go to bed.


#17
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@linate
here is an illuminating article on the world propitiation... 

"Propitiation is a word that in not in common use today. Proponents of Penal Substitution use it frequently, primarily referring to Romans 3:25

"(Christ Jesus) Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God"

This is the passage that Luther was struggling with in yesterday's post and begins with Paul's statement "Now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known... This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe". We saw that this righteousness "apart from law" was about God setting things right when we trust in him to work for us and in us. It involves a fundamental change in how we understand righteousness and justice, not as performance, but "apart from law" as something God does for sinners. But how does that work? All are "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" but how did it come? In the next verse (3:25) Paul says it was through the cross. And here we find that word (at least in King James) "propitiation".

Propitiation literally means "to make favorable". It is similar to words like appeasement (Lit "to make peace") and Pacify (again to bring peace). However with all of these the context is placed on the idea of turning aside another's wrath usually through a gift or offering. The immediate difficulty with such as idea is that God does not need to be "made favorable" since he is the initiator of reconciliation. God is the one who "first loved us". It is vital to note that virtually no major proponent of Penal Substitution sees the cross as God's favor being purchased through sacrifice (which is what propitiation means) since this represents a pagan idea of sacrifice. John Stott writes that propitiation "does not make God gracious...God does not love us because Christ died for us, Christ died for us because God loves us" (The Cross of Christ p.174) Calvin writes "Our being reconciled by the death of Christ must not be understood as if the Son reconciled us, in order that the Father, then hating, might begin to love us"(Institutes II 16:4)

Secondly, since it is God who makes the propitiation this amounts to "God paying God". You cannot propitiate yourself any more than you can steal from yourself or bribe yourself. What it amounts to is a word being stretched beyond the breaking point until it no longer fits. Propitiation is a concept that comes from a pagan understanding of the sacrifices where the sacrifice purchased the gods favor and humor. That is not the case here since it is God who makes the offering of himself.

So how did the word "propitiation" get into Romans 3:25? The original Greek word is hilasterion. Hilasterion is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew kapporeth which refers to the Mercy Seat of the Arc. Luther in his translation of the Bible renders Hilasterion as "Gnadenstuhl" which is German for Mercy Seat. In context this means that "God has set forth Jesus as the mercy seat (the place where atonement and expiation happen) through faith in his blood". Jesus is thus "the place where we find mercy". Many new translations render Hislateron for this reason as "expiate" because the Temple Sacrifices to not have an element of appeasing of wrath in them and thus this seems to be a more fitting translation if it refers to the Mercy Seat in the Temple. Expiation literally means "to make pious" (similar to sanctify) and implies either the removal or cleansing of sin.

The idea of propitiation includes that of expiation as its means. We are "made favorable" (propitiation) when our sin is removed (expiation). The problem is not that God is unwilling or unloving (propitiation), but that our sin causes a real break in relationship. As with any relationship, that break must be mended. This is what expiation refers to. Expiation is about cleaning or removing of sin and has no reference to quenching God's righteous anger. The difference is that the object of expiation is sin, not God. Grammatically, one propitiates a person, and one expiates a problem. You cannot expiate (remove) a person or God, nor can one propitiate (make favorable) sin. Christ's death was therefore both an expiation and a propitiation. By expiating (removing the problem of) sin God was made propitious (favorable) to us. Again not because God then suddenly loved us, but because the break in the relationship was mended.

Theologians stress the idea of propitiation because it specifically addresses the aspect of the atonement dealing with God's wrath. Leon Morris for instance argued for the translation of "propitiation" in Romans 3:25 because he said the thrust of Paul in Romans up til then had been on God's wrath. This is true. However the way that that wrath was dealt with was not though the anger of God being pacified through a gift (propitiation) but rather though God actually solving the problem by removing our sin as a doctor remove3s a cancer (expiation) thus making us "right".

Given then that virtually no proponent of Penal Substitution uses the word propitiation (or appeasement) as it is actually defined in English, it seems a bad word to use that leads to a false understanding of God as one who demands to be paid before he will love us rather than a God who pays what he does not owe because he loves us so much and gives his own life for us. God is not "made favorable" to us through a gift, rather God makes us favorable by giving his life."

I agree with everything said in this article yet I still see Jesus' sacrifice as a substitute on our behalf. I will get into it more in my next post. As I mentioned in my previous posts, God demands a penalty for sin. He ALSO demands a righteous life to remove sin because of the first Adam, and a righteous life to stand in His presence. 


Topic's author
#18
linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1
-->
@PGA2.0

i'll wait for you to show me where penal substitution exists in the early church. i know you can find some substutionary language, but it's not necessarily wrong to say christus victor has substitutionary elements in it. that is, he defeated death so that we can live. we can never defeat death as we are mere sinners. unlike you argue my point is, i dont think we can stand before god on our own merits. 

this link distinguishes statisfaction theory with penal substituion. 


i'm not sure i'm being accurate to say christus victor includes substitution. i think the way it's formulated, i don't see why not. the only thing i would insist upon, is that it's not a penal substittue. that idea is pagan in origin and has no basis in the early church. 

the bible does say to hold fast to the early church teachings both in what is passed down and not just what is written
#19
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@linate

If it was not our blood that appeases His anger or our 'righteous life' that satisfies His justice and righteousness then another must have paid that price on our behalf (if we believe/have faith in Jesus Christ). Otherwise, we would have to pay the penalty by receiving that wrath for our sins.

Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

It is not your blood that justifies you. If you present your life before God in heaven, not that of the Saviors merit by trusting in Him then your life with its merit before the Father, and the Son and the Spirit will be separated from God's presence, forever.


If we do not have faith in Christ then our life is required instead of His. Blood is also symbolic of life for if you remove our blood our physical life on earth ends. Leon Morris, The Atonement, p. 54 said:

"The men of the Old Testament certainly saw life as specifically linked to blood. Obviously, when the blood was taken from the body of an animal or man, so was the life." (Leon Morris, The Atonement, p. 54)So, the animal was offered in the place of the person as a covering. Once a year, on the Day of Atonement, a SCAPEGOAT was also released into the wilderness. There were TWO goats selected, one atoning for sin, one for exile or punishment/separation from the community of believers. This scapegoat represented the sins of the people. Notice how the High Priest lays his hand on the animal in identifying that it took the place of their sins. 


First goat:

 15 “Then he shall slaughter the goat of the sin offering which is for the people, and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat. 16 He shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the impurities of the sons of Israel and because of their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and thus he shall do for the tent of meeting which abides with them in the midst of their impurities.

So the goat's blood is representational of Israel's sin. INSTEAD of all of Israel being held accountable the animal is substituted in their place and is representational of them. 

Second goat, the Scapegoat:

21 Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness.
22 The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land
; and
he shall release the goat in the wilderness.



So, instead of Israel paying the penalty of separation from God the scapegoat bears the penalty (until Christ can offer the perfect sacrifice that does not need to be sacrificed every year. By placing his hand on the head of the animal Aaron confesses all the sins of Israel to it, then sends it out from the presence of God into the wilderness (where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth for those who are not in Christ). God does not send Israel out into the wilderness and thus separate them from His presence. The goats are the SUBSTITUTE for them. The goats that knew no sin (plus they had to be a perfect animal, without blemish or defect showing the cost of sin and pointing to the price Jesus paid for our salvation) were sent out ON THEIR BEHALF. Israel did not go, except in their association with the goats. Israel's life-blood was not shed for sin. The animal was shed. Israel did not separate from God by being exiled into the wilderness. The animal was exiled.

The same can be said of the NT believer. Our blood is not offered. We are not separated from God. 

Romans 8:1-4 (NASB)
Deliverance from Bondage
8 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Leon Morris says, p. 71, "We read specifically that the high priest shall 'put them [i.e., the sins] on the goats head.' Thus, what should have been Israel's sin and Israel's punishment by being separated from God is TRANSFERRED to another. The sins are no longer laid to the charge of the people, but to these animals. They have been dealt with until the next Day of Atonement by these animals. It could not remove sin, but it dealt with sin for another year when the same ritual would have to be done again. 

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf,  so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.



#20
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
@ linate

***

The article mentions Leon Morris and John Stott. I have both their books in my library. Here is what Leon Morris said on the atonement in his book titled, The Atonement, p. 

Morris mentions, p. 62, "When a sacrifice was offered we should see it as a killing of the animal in place of the worshiper and the manipulation of the blood as the ritual presentation to God of the evidence that a death has taken place to atone for sin."

Morris deals with the propitiation issue in chapter 7 where he dedicates a whole chapter to the issue. In Christ, both God's anger is dealt with/appeased/turned away/propitiated (His lifeblood paying the penalty/making the sacrifice acceptable) and wrong is dealt with/made amends for/expiated, to nullify sin (Christ's righteous life/perfect obedience).

*** 

John Stott, who you also mentioned had this to say, "Evangelical Christian believe that is in and through Christ crucified God substituted himself for us and bore our sins, dying in our place the death we deserved to die, in order that we might be restored to his favor," and also "Because of the vital importance of the atonement, and of an understanding of it which reclaims from misrepresentation the great concepts of 'substitution', 'satisfaction' and 'propitiation, two things have greatly surprised me how unpopular the doctrine remains..." Stott then goes on to describe a theologian (Vincent Taylor) who has written on the atonement leaving out the words 'substitutionary.' Stott goes on to say, "What, however, I shall try to show in this book, is that the biblical doctrine of atonement is substitutionary from beginning to end." John Stott, The Cross of Christ, p.7, 10.

Now if you are a Christian and want to read an exceptional couple of books online about the atonement I recommend, The Everlasting Righteousness; or, How shall Man be Just with God? by Horatius Bonar and, Justification, the Law, and the Righteousness of Christ by Charles Hodges, not to be confused with A.A. Hodge.


#21
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@linate
i'll wait for you to show me where penal substitution exists in the early church. i know you can find some substutionary language, but it's not necessarily wrong to say christus victor has substitutionary elements in it. that is, he defeated death so that we can live. we can never defeat death as we are mere sinners. unlike you argue my point is, i dont think we can stand before god on our own merits. 

this link distinguishes statisfaction theory with penal substituion. 


i'm not sure i'm being accurate to say christus victor includes substitution. i think the way it's formulated, i don't see why not. the only thing i would insist upon, is that it's not a penal substittue. that idea is pagan in origin and has no basis in the early church. 

the bible does say to hold fast to the early church teachings both in what is passed down and not just what is written


May I ask if you are a Christian because in your earlier post you used some fairly conservative and sound biblical scholars? Usually, an unbeliever just picks whatever they come across online. 

Okay, I see the distinction you are making now, from the article:

"Another distinction must be made between penal substitution (Christ punished instead of us) and substitutionary atonement (Christ suffers for us). Both affirm the substitutionary and vicarious nature of the atonement, but penal substitution offers a specific explanation as to what the suffering is for: punishment."

"Penal substitution is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, developed with the Reformed tradition. It argues that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalised) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive the sins. It is thus a specific understanding of substitutionary atonement, where the substitutionary nature of Jesus' death is understood in the sense of a substitutionary punishment."



I think Christ did both. Did He not pay our penalty by becoming the penalty, or do we have to pay the penalty ourselves? The penalty was separation from the fellowship of God. Did He not suffer for us, or do we have to suffer ourselves? Did He not live the righteous life that we cannot? Did He not take our condemnation? These concepts/doctrines are found in the biblical teachings.

Romans 8:1-4 NASB)
Deliverance from Bondage
8 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

When Christ uttered on the cross, “Eli, Eli, lama
sabachthani
?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”  was He not paying the penalty of separation that should have been the sinners, and that punishment of separation is for those who do not have faith in God through Jesus Christ? Why else would He feel God was abandoning Him, if He was completely righteous, as He was?

[ Unbelief and Its Consequences ] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience,

Jesus was not disobedient, you God forsook Him.

What unrighteousness did Christ have? The answer is none. He was/is perfectly righteous. So why would God punish a RIGHTEOUS Man? He would not. There are no grounds for Him to do that, and God is a just Judge. What some have said, and I think it is with merit, is that our unrighteousness was imputed to Christ and His righteousness was imputed to us. 

The animal sacrifice in the OT was without spot or blemish, yet Israel was not or they would have no need of the offering. Thus, the punishment for sin was imputed to the animal for it died.

When I ask myself what did Christ do so that we are not condemned, He lived the righteous life we could not. That satisfied God's righteous requirements to restore fellowship or intimate relationship with Him (along with the change of nature the Spirit gives the believer in that we are no longer hostile to God). 


#22
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@linate
Also, Isaiah 53 says that He bore our iniquities, He took the punishment that we deserved.

6 All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.

10 But the Lord was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,

11 As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, Will justify the many,


As He will bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore, I will allot  
Him a portion with the great,

And He will divide the booty with the strong;
Because He poured out Himself to death,
And was numbered with the transgressors;
Yet He Himself bore the sin of many,
And interceded for the transgressors.

Isaiah 9:6 The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,


It sure looks as though He received our punishment for He was numbered with the transgressions and bore their sins (the consequence, since He was without sin).

It sure looks to me like He was numbered with the transgressors, even though He did not have personal sin. Neither did the animals sacrificed in the OT. That is why they were a holy offering to God. If Jesus bore our sins would He not also have to take our punishment? What is the penalty for sin? It is death (and spiritual death is separation from God's holy presence). The death the first Adam died in Eden was a spiritual death for God said that in the day he ate of the fruit he would die. Adam did not die physically on that day, but He was separated from God's close presence on that day and barred from the Garden in which he used to walk with God. If Adam had eaten from the Tree of Life he and Eve, and their offspring would have lived forever. Because he was barred from the Garden he never got to live physically forever. Yet Christ restores our relationship with God.

Since God is a Spirit, when we are separated from Him we are separated in this spiritual relationship. That is why unbelievers do not know God, only know about Him. They mock Him with their unbelief. The reject Him and WILL NOT come to Him. That is why they need a spiritual renewal, which the NT calls being born again, or regenerated that we can come into His presence. 

and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.




Topic's author
#23
linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1
i am a christian. i believe Jesus is the Messiah and the son of the living God as Peter said. Jesus is god and was raised from the dead. i believe in him and rely on him. i believe all the essentials that define 'christian'. except i'm a contrarian to mainstream western christianity on the atonement. i dont view the requirements of faith to be saved to be clear, but i think i meet the basics well enough. if you think the requirements are clear, i could debate you on that point.
i argue though that my atonement views are more orthodox though, and note that you have not shown much proof from the early church that the penal part of penal substitution is true.

i do respect the information you gave about goats. that to me says substitution might be true, or satisfaction, generally. not so sure about extending it to the penal substitution aspects though.

you are doing a fine job arguing overall, as i haven't met anyone as knowledgable as you on this. you made me realize that i may actually believe Anslem and general satisfaction... just not the later developed penal satisfaction.

i think you read too much into the verses you quote. even folks like me say it's accurate to say Jesus bore our sins, or that we are justified by his blood, or death... or that we are saved from God's wrath. we just don't say Jesus was penalized on our behalf to appease God's wrath. 

my bottom line is that love conquers death. Jesus was perfect love, and thus merited death to be defeated, for him and his brotherhood. i usually call that christus victor, but it might be more like anslem after i think about it, as long as the penal stuff is removed. 

Topic's author
#24
linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1
-->
@PGA2.0
...
#25
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@linate
i am a christian. i believe Jesus is the Messiah and the son of the living God as Peter said. Jesus is god and was raised from the dead. i believe in him and rely on him. i believe all the essentials that define 'christian'. except i'm a contrarian to mainstream western christianity on the atonement. i dont view the requirements of faith to be saved to be clear, but i think i meet the basics well enough. if you think the requirements are clear, i could debate you on that point.
Good, we both identify with Jesus as Lord and Savior and whether one of us is weaker or stronger in our faith is not the issue since we share so much and are unified in Christ Jesus! We are to test all things so that we have the mind of Christ on the issues. Yes, the Son is God! Yes, He rose from the dead! I too believe in the essentials with one possible exception, the Second Coming. I believe Jesus did come again in AD 70. I believe I can reconcile that with biblical teaching, so like you, I am contrary to the popular view. The question for both of us is whether it is Scriptural for that is what counts. 

If you would like to debate on either of these two issues, I'm game for an 'in-house' debate. I would first like to start and finish a debate on abortion, which I am currently working on. 


i argue though that my atonement views are more orthodox though, and note that you have not shown much proof from the early church that the penal part of penal substitution is true.
Here is something for your perusal (the Internet is handy for finding the work is partly done. The facts still have to be checked out against the church fathers though for I have not done that yet):


Did you answer those questions in my posts to you (at least in your mind)? Sometimes a question will open up whether what you believe is consistent with biblical teaching. God is not a God of confusion. If what you believe does not line up with Scripture think it through. 

i do respect the information you gave about goats. that to me says substitution might be true, or satisfaction, generally. not so sure about extending it to the penal substitution aspects though.
I don't know how young you are in your faith. I haven't read your profile like I usually do when someone drops me a post. What I am learning more and more is that what Jesus said is so true:

Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

They said to one another, “Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?”

Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,

Since I adopted the Preterist view around 5-10 years ago I am making more and more sense of how the OT, the testament they used during Jesus earthly ministry, relates to His message here and what 1 Corinthians 2:14 says about spiritual truths. 

1 Corinthians 2:12-16 (NASB)
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

The whole OT economy, the worship system, unfulfilled prophecy, animal sacrifice, atonement, the priesthood, the feast days, the warnings and fulfillment, they all point to Jesus Christ. Not only this but the imagery, the figurative language, the types, and shadows also are a spiritual picture of Jesus Christ. Another thing I have learned and am learning is that the physical history of the OT people, places, events is a picture of a greater reality, a spiritual reality.

Considering that Jesus said those who worship God must worship Him in spirit and in truth this revelation is all very fascinating to me.


#26
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@linate


you are doing a fine job arguing overall, as i haven't met anyone as knowledgable as you on this. you made me realize that i may actually believe Anslem and general satisfaction... just not the later developed penal satisfaction.
I have spent many years testing biblical doctrines to understand what is true for I have professed Jesus Christ is/as Lord and Savior since 1980. There is still a lot to learn, just like you probably think too. Everyone who builds on the foundation of Jesus Christ and the apostles should be careful how they build, for the spiritual house of worship is already built and God has sealed up the words of Scripture. The Monergism site has over 440 books, some of which are top notch and useful for greater understanding.  


i think you read too much into the verses you quote. even folks like me say it's accurate to say Jesus bore our sins, or that we are justified by his
blood,
or death... or that we are saved from God's wrath. we just don't say Jesus was penalized on our behalf to appease God's wrath. 

I also take into consideration many other verses as well as the greater context. Anyone can take a verse out of context. You should only believe me when what I say lines up with Scripture since it is the highest authority. That said, God is not illogical but sometimes there is a greater spiritual message to be gleaned. When I type a reply biblical verses come to mind in response to the subject matter. I don't usually include them because by-and-large this form is secular atheist/agnostic. They are not interested in these, just tearing down our worldview, and sometimes with the most outrageous statements and ad hominems. Yet I know that God's word when properly used tears down strongholds and every pretension that sets itself up against God. 

 
my bottom line is that love conquers death. Jesus was perfect love, and thus merited death to be defeated, for him and his brotherhood. i usually call that christus victor, but it might be more like anslem after i think about it, as long as the penal stuff is removed. 
Do you believe death has already been defeated, and what death are you speaking of - spiritual death or physical death, or both?

#27
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
I say lines up with Scripture since it is the highest authority.
Who says?
I have spent many years testing biblical doctrines
EXACTLY what tests have you conducted?
spiritual death or physical death,
There is only one life and therefore one death, it's called DEATH.
Prove me wrong.
#28
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@disgusted
I'd say this was a purely internal spat between theists intent on spliting the finest of hairs, like Star Trek fans arguing about how "warp drive" works.  I'd leave them to it.  
Topic's author
#29
linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1
-->
@PGA2.0

i would say your link did a pretty good job arguing penal substitution with the fathers. i would say a lot of those you have to be careful in whether they are talking about whether Jesus was taking the consequences of our sin, or taking the penalty of our sin. but there are a few that strongly seem to say he's taking the penalty. i suppose all that conventional wisdom that christus victor was only theory might not be true for the early days. i'm not sure which theory is prevalent but i'd still suppose it's not penal substitution. and, we see great figures throughout history who couldn't come to agreement on it. at any rate you've done a great job giving me something to think about, so thanks for that. 
#30
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@linate
i would say your link did a pretty good job arguing penal substitution with the fathers. i would say a lot of those you have to be careful in whether they are talking about whether Jesus was taking the consequences of our sin, or taking the penalty of our sin. but there are a few that strongly seem to say he's taking the penalty. i suppose all that conventional wisdom that christus victor was only theory might not be true for the early days. i'm not sure which theory is prevalent but i'd still suppose it's not penal substitution. and, we see great figures throughout history who couldn't come to agreement on it. at any rate you've done a great job giving me something to think about, so thanks for that. 
Think of it this way; the penalty/punishment/wages of sin is death. If Jesus took our punishment upon Himself so we would not have to die, then He died too. If God imputed our sins to Him then He had to take our punishment or else God's wrath for sin would not have been satisfied. Neither would His justice have been met.

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law;

yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach—


For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;


Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.

For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.


John 11:50
50 nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.”


Matthew 20:28
28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

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




Some great theologians also believe in the penal substitutionary death of Christ:

J. i. Packer - 
‘I am so thankful for the active obedience (righteousness) of Christ. No hope without it.’ As I grow old, I want to tell everyone who will listen: ‘I am so thankful for the penal substitutionary death of Christ. No hope without it.’ That is where I come from now as I attempt this brief vindication of the best part of the best news that the world has ever heard.
THE heart of the Gospel is redemption, and the essence of redemption is the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ. They who preach this truth preach the Gospel in whatever else they may be mistaken; but they who preach not the atonement, whatever else they declare, have missed the soul and substance of the divine message. In these days, I feel bound to go over and over again the elementary truths of the Gospel.