Romans 5:12-14 … Christus Victor or Penal Substitution?

[atpollard]

Why wouldn't it be just; if that Person volunteered to pay the penalty?

[Ezekiel 18:20 NKJV] 20 "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

... read the context surrounding the verse. It is not about JUSTICE (Payment for the sin ... which was what the people demanded), rather the context is about the innate RIGHT of God to forgive (and His desire to do so).

 

[Mungo]

Forgiveness is provided for in that they were paid for by Christ's sacrifice on the Cross.

Forgiveness costs something to the One who forgives; this is what God is saying when He tells us that we are forgiven in that our sins have been paid for.

Our sins were not paid for. Nowhere does scripture say that our sins were paid for.
You have no scripture that says that.

Intercession can be so that a person might be made holy; also for restoration of fellowship.

Also, if intercession be made for the benefit of forgiveness, it is so that one may appropriate the forgiveness and the fact that our sins have been paid for.

You just give opinions
Where is the scripture to support your opinions?

I don't think you know what "propitiation" means. Better look it up in a Bible dictionary.



Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10.

You are just repeating failed arguments
Those scriptures say propitiation/expiation; not punishment or puring of wratyh.

It is.



Forgiveness is provided for in that Christ paid the penalty for our sins.

And I will say again that if you disagree, you are opposing yourself.

Nowhere does scripture say that our sins were paid for.

I've given you many scriptures that you just ignore.
You seem to not understand the difference between forgiveness and payment.

Follow this teaching of Jesus that you keep ignoring from Mt 18:
23 “Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants.
24 When he began the reckoning, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents;
25 and as he could not pay, his lord ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made.
The servant had a debt he could not pay. So the master him ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made.

26 So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’
27 And out of pity for him the lord of that servant released him and forgave him the debt.
The Master forgave his debt. Forgiven.
The result is the debt was not paid.

But servant did not do likewise with a fellow servant
28 But that same servant, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii;[j] and seizing him by the throat he said, ‘Pay what you owe.’
29 So his fellow servant fell down and besought him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’
30 He refused and went and put him in prison till he should pay the debt.
31 When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their lord all that had taken place.

So the master withdrew his forgiveness and demanded that the debt be paid.
28 But that same servant, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and seizing him by the throat he said, ‘Pay what you owe.’
29 So his fellow servant fell down and besought him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’
30 He refused and went and put him in prison till he should pay the debt.
31 When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their lord all that had taken place.
32 Then his lord summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you besought me;
33 and should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’
34 And in anger his lord delivered him to the jailers, till he should pay all his debt.

It is EITHER forgiveness OR payment.
Jesus shed his blood so that we could obtain forgiveness. That is what scripture says:
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace (Eph 1:7)

 

[Mungo]

Why don't you want to believe that Jesus paid the penalty for your sins?

Because he didn't and you have no scripture to show that he did.

 

[justbyfaith]

[Ezekiel 18:20 NKJV] 20 "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

... read the context surrounding the verse. It is not about JUSTICE (Payment for the sin ... which was what the people demanded), rather the context is about the innate RIGHT of God to forgive (and His desire to do so).

The context of this is completely independent of the doctrine of the Cross.

It is entirely Old Testament.

 

[justbyfaith]

1Co 7:23 (nlt), God paid a high price for you, so don't be enslaved by the world.

Psa 111:9 (nlt), He has paid a full ransom for his people.
He has guaranteed his covenant with them forever.
What a holy, awe-inspiring name he has!

Isa 44:22 (nlt), I have swept away your sins like a cloud.
I have scattered your offenses like the morning mist.
Oh, return to me,
for I have paid the price to set you free.”

 

[justbyfaith]

You just give opinions
Where is the scripture to support your opinions?

What I am saying has been considered to be sound doctrine in the church since the beginning.

Here is my scripture.

Tit 1:9, Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

 

[justbyfaith]

You seem to not understand the difference between forgiveness and payment.

Follow this teaching of Jesus that you keep ignoring from Mt 18:
23 “Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants.
24 When he began the reckoning, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents;
25 and as he could not pay, his lord ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made.
The servant had a debt he could not pay. So the master him ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made.

26 So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’
27 And out of pity for him the lord of that servant released him and forgave him the debt.
The Master forgave his debt. Forgiven.
The result is the debt was not paid.

It seems to me that the servant owed his Master all that money.

In forgiving the servant, the Master was out the money that the servant owed Him.

So, He effectively paid the debt Himself.

It's like when a house owner is renting to someone and owes a mortgage, but the renters don't pay the rent; which would have been used to pay the mortgage.

Who then will pay the mortgage on the house?

Is it not the house owner?

 

[justbyfaith]

Because he didn't and you have no scripture to show that he did.

He did and I have now given scripture to prove it; as I also have given you sound logic and reasoning as to why your primary argument doesn't fly.

 

[justbyfaith]

Jesus shed his blood so that we could obtain forgiveness. That is what scripture says:

I think that we are just arguing semantics, personally.

What matters is that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of His blood.

 

[Mungo]

What I am saying has been considered to be sound doctrine in the church since the beginning.

You have no evidence for that.
I believe Penal Substitution was invented at the Reformation

Here is my scripture.

Tit 1:9, Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

A piece of advice.
Don't abuse scripture to insult people.

 

[Mungo]

1Co 7:23 (nlt), God paid a high price for you, so don't be enslaved by the world.

Psa 111:9 (nlt), He has paid a full ransom for his people.
He has guaranteed his covenant with them forever.
What a holy, awe-inspiring name he has!

Isa 44:22 (nlt), I have swept away your sins like a cloud.
I have scattered your offenses like the morning mist.
Oh, return to me,
for I have paid the price to set you free.”

They say nothing about punishment for the sins of the world.

 

[Mungo]

It seems to me that the servant owed his Master all that money.

In forgiving the servant, the Master was out the money that the servant owed Him.

So, He effectively paid the debt Himself.

No he didn't "effectively paid the debt Himself". That is nonsense. The debt was NOT paid by anyone.

It's like when a house owner is renting to someone and owes a mortgage, but the renters don't pay the rent; which would have been used to pay the mortgage.

Who then will pay the mortgage on the house?

Is it not the house owner?

It's nothing like that.
They are two separate debts
You do come up with inappropriate analogies.

 

[Mungo]

He did and I have now given scripture to prove it; as I also have given you sound logic and reasoning as to why your primary argument doesn't fly.

You have given me no scripture to prove that Jesus paid our penalty for sin.

 

[Mungo]

I think that we are just arguing semantics, personally.

No, it's not semantics. It's important theology.
You seem to not understand forgiveness.

What matters is that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of His blood.

But not that Jesus suffered the penalty for our sins.

 

[Tenchi]

Dr. William Lane Craig published a book on the various views of Atonement called, not surprisingly, "The Atonement." In it, he draws all of the various perspectives around the central view of Penal Substitution, synthesizing various elements of each view with one another and the Penal Substitution view, instead of making them all mutually-exclusive of one another. He writes on other issues concerning the Atonement in the book, particularly examining the doctrine from a philosophical perspective, not merely a purely theological one. It's a short read that I'd highly recommend.

 

[Randy]

No it doesn't It says Christ was a propitiation or expiation for our sins; not that Christ paid our penalty for sin.
What is being ignored here is forgiveness. The gospel is about our sins being forgiven not paid for.
Jesus taught about forgiveness - Mt 6:9-13 & Mt 18:23-32 to give just two examples.



That doesn't say he took the penalty for us.

Some truth can be seen in all. The theories make it hard to know with certainty which is the truth of the matter.
You wrote it doesn't state he took the penalty for us but when looking at "all" that is written such as Isaiah 53 it can be seen.
It wasn't His punishment He was inflicted for but He took our punishment on Himself in our behalf which can also
seen as fulfilling the laws requirement for sin. (death) We were baptized into His death. It can make your head hurt. I just know He purchased me for God by His blood which we know He shed for the forgiveness of sin.

But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

 

[Mungo]

Dr. William Lane Craig published a book on the various views of Atonement called, not surprisingly, "The Atonement." In it, he draws all of the various perspectives around the central view of Penal Substitution, synthesizing various elements of each view with one another and the Penal Substitution view, instead of making them all mutually-exclusive of one another. He writes on other issues concerning the Atonement in the book, particularly examining the doctrine from a philosophical perspective, not merely a purely theological one. It's a short read that I'd highly recommend.

I have a book called Problems with Atonement by Stephen Finlan that goes through various theories. On thing he points out is that Paul used several different metaphors to try and explain it. We have to be careful to recognise they are metaphors and not take them literally.

 

[Mungo]

Some truth can be seen in all. The theories make it hard to know with certainty which is the truth of the matter.
You wrote it doesn't state he took the penalty for us but when looking at "all" that is written such as Isaiah 53 it can be seen.
It wasn't His punishment He was inflicted for but He took our punishment on Himself in our behalf which can also
seen as fulfilling the laws requirement for sin. (death) We were baptized into His death. It can make your head hurt. I just know He purchased me for God by His blood which we know He shed for the forgiveness of sin.

But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

The punishment for sin is eternal damnation.
Is Jesus eternally damned?

Yes, he suffered for us but he was not punished in our place by the Father.
In his passion and death Christ gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. (Eph 5:2)
Heb chap 8&9 are about Jesus offering his sacrifice as atonement.

I think this explains it well
In his mediatorial role, Christ, living a sinless life and dying a selfless death, obtains favour from God so that he can approach and beseech Him for mercy and forgiveness on behalf of sinful man. God is not required to offer forgiveness, yet Christ’s sacrifice appeals to the intrinsic love and longsuffering of God. Christ as the obedient son who sacrifices himself, intercedes to obtain the mercy of the Father for those who are to be adopted in God’s family. From his paternal qualities of pity and love, the Father grants an avenue of forgiveness for mankind. (How Can I get To Heaven by Robert Sungenis)

 

[justbyfaith]

You have no evidence for that.
I believe Penal Substitution was invented at the Reformation

It has always been the true gospel of Jesus by which only we are saved.

A piece of advice.
Don't abuse scripture to insult people.

I don't think that I was insulting you, friend.

They say nothing about punishment for the sins of the world.

Try 1 John 2:2 and / or 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.

That is nonsense.

See 1 Corinthians 1:18,21. Because nonsense = foolishness.

It's nothing like that.
They are two separate debts
You do come up with inappropriate analogies.

And you seem intent on disagreeing.

You have given me no scripture to prove that Jesus paid our penalty for sin.

Why don't you pray to the Lord that if such a scripture exists, He will show it to you and open your eyes to its meaning?
Because I can think of a few, but I think that your eyes might be blinded to being able to discern the meaning of them and you might not be able to see that they truly teach it; because you are starting with the intention of denying it as a doctrine.

But not that Jesus suffered the penalty for our sins.

But that there is no forgiveness apart from Jesus' suffering on the Cross.

I have a book called Problems with Atonement by Stephen Finlan that goes through various theories. On thing he points out is that Paul used several different metaphors to try and explain it. We have to be careful to recognise they are metaphors and not take them literally.

I fear that the man is a false teacher and that reading his book may have cost you your soul.

The punishment for sin is eternal damnation.
Is Jesus eternally damned?

The punishment for sin is eternal damnation for finite human beings.

Jesus, being the infinite God, can suffer and die for all of us and come out unscathed on the other side of death.

Yes, he suffered for us but he was not punished in our place by the Father.

Simply incorrect; and a belief that will cost you your soul if you persist in it.

In his mediatorial role, Christ, living a sinless life and dying a selfless death, obtains favour from God

Christ always had favour from God.

 

[justbyfaith]

Mungo, I don't mean to insult you, but I don't think that your heart is presently open to the truth.

So, I think it is expedient for me to obey Matthew 7:6 at this juncture and to try not to speak to you any further.

I will pray for you, though; you can count on that!

Let me just say that I believe Matthew 7:6 to be saying that we ought not to present treasures of scripture knowledge to people who aren't open to the truth; because they will not see those treasures as being treasure and may even try to kill the messenger.