I understand that you believe the word "propitiation" means "to bear wrath", but that does not change the fact it doesn't. Where are you getting these definitions?
Is the Penal Substitution Theory the most common theory throughout history?
Page 3 of 9
If you don’t have Jesus bearing the wrath of God in our place you don’t have penal substitution and you don’t have atonement.
Paul’s understanding and use in Romans 3 is quite clear.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
RE: Penal substitution
Some say its a young doctrine others an old, some say it matters,some say it doesn't
Just to clear the air - here is a partial list of those who supported said doctrine with excerpts at the URL provided. :
Clement of Rome [c. 30–100.]: 1st Epistle to the Corinthians
Justin Martyr (c. 100-165), Dialogue with Trypho
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 275-339), Proof of the Gospel
Hilary of Poitiers (c. 300-368), Homily on Psalm 53 (54)
Athanasius (c. 300-373), On the Incarnation
Gregory Nazianzus (c. 330-390), The Fourth Theological Oration
Ambrose of Milan (339-397), Flight from the World
John Chrysostom (c. 350-407), Homilies on Second Corinthians
Augustine of Hippo (354-430), Against Faustus
Gelasius of Cyzicus (fifth century), Church History
Gregory the Great (540-604), Church History
Penal Substitution In The Writings Of The Church Fathers
To me the very FACT of the cruel and agonizing death of Roman Crucifixion along with the Roman method of scourging is undeniable proof of penal substitution. How much plainer can it be?
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Bruise - Daka דָּכָא BDB Lexicon 02136 - To be crushed, broken in pieces
22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
While we can see elements of penial consequences and substitution throughour Scripture and Church history, the fact remains that Penal Substitution Theory as articulated in the 16th century with God being punitive to Christ instead of us for our sins as individuals was never expressed until the Reformation.
Here are a few that define propitiation as I've offered (Webster's Dictionary,A Concise Dictionary of the Holy Bible, Vocabulary.com, and Google Dictionary, Albert Barnes notes on the Bible).
To appease, to atone, to turn away wrath
win or regain the favor of (a god, spirit, or person) by doing something that pleases them.
to gain or regain the favor or goodwill of
Propitiation is an action meant to regain someone's favor or make up for something you did wrong. You might offer your mom a plate of chocolate chip cookies in propitiation for killing all her houseplants while she was away.
The proper meaning of the word is that of reconciling, appeasing, turning away anger, rendering propitious or favorable.
So again, what are the many resources you are citing that define "propitiation" as "bearing wrath"?
Propitiation is appeasing. It does not necessarily mean bearing of responsibility or punishment; although, it could mean that.
A glass of Bordeaux has appeased me, more than once. ;)
What I am getting at is that there are elements throughout Scripture and history that are common with Penal Substitution Theory. But at the same time the theory itself did not exist until the 16th century.
We can look at Origen's theory that God paid a Ransom to Satan (which we agree is wrong) but he believed that this meant Christ bore our sins, suffered in our place, and by his stripes we are healed. But this does not mean Origen taught Penal Substitution Theory.
Your argument assumes that you will not die a physical death, but you will. This is the wages of sin. It is appointed to man once to die and then the Judgment, and this judgment is given to Christ.
What your position does is spiritualize Scripture. But if you look, Scripture itself never states that God punished Christ in our place for our sins. Scripture tells us that the wages of sin is a physical death, but it does not say it is a spiritual death as well (which is the focus of Penal Substitution Theory). Scripture does not say that God out wrath on Jesus (instead Scripture teaches that God's wrath never abides on the Righteous). Scripture does not teach that God cannot forgive a person without exercising punishment for a sin (Penal Substitution assumes retributive justice is correct). Scripture does not teach that just wrath can be directed at sin itself, but instead that God's anger is kindled against those who do unrighteous.
There are many assumptions that Penal Substitution Theory assumes. If you haven't identified these, then perhaps you have not worked through the theory enough. It took me a year of looking at each verse (I really did buy a dry erase board for the task). I suspect you'll be surprised when you try to match up verses with points in the theory.
But you do bring up a good point. I believe that Penal Substitution Theory makes the error you are trying to attribute to my position as it assumes too high a view of men and too low a view of God.
The Satisfaction Theory of Atonement considered Christ's death as sufficient to satisfy the demands against us because Christ is God. It was based on merit. God did not need to pour out his wrath on Christ because Christ's death (apart from being punished with our punishment in our place) outweighs anything against mankind. Penal Substitution Theory, on the other hand, views Christ's death as insufficient except the punishment men would have endured be inflicted upon Christ.
That "something else"....like a Twix Bar (a right twix) .... was the death of Jesus Christ. And yes, my suggestion is that Christ - by His own merit - outweighed anything that could possibly be held against man because Jesus is God.
Page 3 of 9