civic
Active Member
ditto
PSA in the early Christian church
- Thread starter Dizerner
- Start date
civic
Active Member
Here is the issue in a nutshell. PSA as we know is not part of the gospel message. The same wit hell/gehenna/hades. The Apostles never preached about hell in their preaching in Acts or in their writings connecting hell with the gospel.
He accused me of having a false gospel because I said hell is not part of the gospel then he posted a video of MacArthur , a calvinist to say I'm wrong. Mac is wrong since none of the Apostles taught the gospel and included hell in that message.
So I'm not the one adding to the gospel- they are with PSA and Hell.
Messages and sermons about hell is not the gospel preached or taught by the Apostles. Is there a hell, a lake of fire in the afterlife ? Absolutely its just as real as heaven. But it was not a part of the gospel message preached by Jesus Apostles in Acts or the epistles.
And then all the ad hominems start flying when I ask for Scripture to support their false claims. The biblical silence is deafening.
Most believe what they have been taught not what they have personally studied on most doctrines.
Last edited:
Johann
Active Member
You have the tools to make a study on propitiation and expiation and it is not the WHAT that distinguishes the WHAT, expiation AND propitiation is 2 sides of the same coin.Nobody here is against the Righteousness of God. Nobody here is belittling his Righteousness. Expiation values righteousness because Expiation wants to make everything right and how can it do so if it is against God's righteousness???
With all that in mind, I saw nothing that promotes the wrath of God against His Son that underpins Propitiation. Without that proof then Propitiation evaporates before your very eyes. Please next time focus on what distinguishes Propitiation, if you so choose to continue this debate
Isaiah 53 in the LXX teaches both Expiation and Propitiation
The Servant bears sins (φέρει ἁμαρτίας) and is pierced (ἐτραυματίσθη) because of those sins-- this is penal substitution. This is penal language friend and even the LXX agrees with me here
God delivers him over (παρέδωκεν) to suffering as a judicial act, not merely symbolic or emotional.
The result is expiation (cleansing) and propitiation (God's justice satisfied).
Isaiah 53:10 (LXX)
καὶ κύριος βούλεται καθαρίσαι αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τῆς πληγῆς
“The Lord wills to cleanse him from his wound.”
Though phrased differently from the MT ("crush"), the cleansing (καθαρίσαι) implies ritual expiation.
Yet this follows v.6–7, where the judicial giving over has already occurred – penal first, then expiatory result.
Did you "catch it?"
Opponents who deny the penal nature of Isaiah 53 must explain why the judicial verbs and causal phrases point directly to a substitutionary atonement.
Easy to pluck apples from Google, selectively, but way too lazy to study for himself--not saying you are doing it.
Let me know if you want to continue this dialogue
J.
civic
Active Member
Was the cross a punishment God inflicted on Jesus? One verse that is used to teach that it was is Isaiah 53:10. Isaiah 53 is about the Suffering Servant, who is understood to be Messiah. This passage, then, is understood by the Church to be about the cross and the atonement. Let’s read it, first, in the New International Version, which is in agreement with most other English versions.
Other versions have it similarly: “Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief” (New King James Version). “And Jehovah hath delighted to bruise him, He hath made him sick” (Young’s Literal Translation). “Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief” (English Standard Version).
Was the cross really about God crushing Jesus, bruising him, making him sick? I used to think so, and this was a verse I used to teach that. I taught that Jesus took God’s punishment in our place, that God crushed Jesus, venting his anger on him so he would not have to vent it on us. This is known as the penal substitutionary theory of atonement. In recent years, however, I have had to let that theory go, because what I have seen in Scripture leads me to a different conclusion, a different understanding of the cross.
So what about Isaiah 53:10, then? Are the English versions quoted above the best rendering of Isaiah’s words? They are direct translations of the Hebrew text, at least of the best one that is available today, but do they give us the best sense of what Isaiah prophesied?
The Septuagint renders Isaiah 53:10. I could give you the Greek words themselves, which would be a simple cut and paste, but since many do not read Greek, I will quote the Brenton version, which is a classic English translation of the LXX. Then I will tell you about the Greek verb that is used:
The Greek word for “stroke” is plege and here speaks of a wound that has been inflicted by a blow. The verb for “purge” is katharizo and means to cleanse or purify. It is where we get our English word “catharsis.” The St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint version has Isaiah 53:10 this way: “The Lord wishes to cleanse Him of His wound.”
The important thing to notice here is that God does not crush or bruise the Messiah, or make him sick. God does not inflict any wound on him. Quite the opposite, God is shown as cleansing and healing the wound!
The LXX reading seems to me more like what I find in the New Testament concerning the cross. When I think, for example, of how Peter and Stephen preached the gospel in the book of Acts, the cross was not something God did to Christ but something wicked men did. What God did was to raise Christ from the dead.
Isaiah 53 presents a stunning image of what Christ suffered in the atonement. But I do not think it is a picture of God crushing, bruising or punishing Christ. It is a portrait of God delivering Christ — and us through him. J,Doles
kath-ar-id'-zo
Verb
NAS Word Usage - Total: 31
- to make clean, cleanse
- from physical stains and dirt
- utensils, food
- a leper, to cleanse by curing
- to remove by cleansing
- in a moral sense
- to free from defilement of sin and from faults
- to purify from wickedness
- to free from guilt of sin, to purify
- to consecrate by cleansing or purifying
- to consecrate, dedicate
- from physical stains and dirt
- to pronounce clean in a levitical sense
Dictionary:
καθαρίζω
Greek transliteration:
katharizō
Simplified transliteration:
katharizo
Principal Parts:
καθαριῶ, ἐκαθάρισα, -, κεκαθάρισμαι, ἐκαθαρίσθην
Numbers
Strong's number:
2511
GK Number:
2751
Statistics
Frequency in New Testament:
31
Morphology of Biblical Greek Tag:
v-2a(1)
Gloss:
to make clean, cleanse, purify
Definition:
to cleanse, render pure, purify, Mt. 23:25; Lk. 11:39; to cleanse from leprosy, Mt. 8:2, 3, 10:8; met. to cleanse from sin, purify by an expiatory offering, make expiation for, Heb. 9:22, 23; 1 Jn. 1:7; to cleanse from sin, free from the influence of error and sin, Acts 15:9; 2 Cor. 7:1; to pronounce ceremonially clean, Acts 10:15, 11:9
Full article below:
καθαρίζω
to cleanse, render pure, purify, Mt. 23:25; Lk. 11:39; to cleanse from leprosy, Mt. 8:2, 3, 10:8; met. to cleanse from sin, purify by an expiatory offering, make expiation for, Heb. 9:22, 23; 1 Jn. 1:7; to cleanse from sin, free from the influence of error and sin, Acts 15:9; 2 Cor. 7:1; to...
Strongs
katharismos: a cleansing
Original Word: καθαρισμός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: katharismos
Phonetic Spelling: (kath-ar-is-mos')
Definition: a cleansing
Usage: cleansing, purifying, purification, literal, ceremonial, or moral; met: expiation.
HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 2512 katharismós (a masculine noun derived from 2511 /katharízō, "to purge") – purification, which results from God removing undesirable admixtures
Johann
Active Member
@synergy
Edit by Admin
1c. No attacks on another poster's religious beliefs, race, national origin, or gender.
1d. No chats that deteriorate into petty bickering, gossip, backbiting, or argumentative bantering.
2. No Flaming, Goading, Gaslighting or Harassment.
2a. All members should be treated with the utmost respect and courtesy at all times following the rules of civil discourse.
2b. No insults are allowed. Included in this are all forms of flaming, harassment, and trolling/goading as determined at the discretion of the Berean Board Team. Trolling/Goading is defined as repeated attempts through the use of images, cartoons, smileys or text that is designed to be explicitly demeaning, patronizing, embarrassing, or otherwise upsetting to a member or group of members in the community. Do not call anyone a heretic, false teacher, a cultist , satanic or any other such term.
2c. Do not discuss other posters.
J.
Last edited by a moderator:
synergy
Active Member
It's interesting to think about the relationship between the Atonement and Hades. That's an interesting topic that I need to explore more deeply. I'll give you my understanding but I'm always open to correction based on Bible verses.
I believe Christian souls go directly to be with Christ, Paradise in other words, as was promised to the thief on the Cross. That was made possible only because of the Atonement (Christ being our Expiation). Non-believers go to Hades where the Rich Man resides. We all await the Final Judgment wherein all Christian will be gifted with a body that never dies. It will be glorious!
civic
Active Member
you were when you posted a video of Mac on hell and saying I had a false gospel.
I challenged you to show me in the NT where hell is presented with the gospel message by the Apostles and you came up empty handed.
Not even AI could bail you out of that blunder. Its nowhere in the N.T. by the Apostles which is how I know I'm 100% right. Its the same with PSA- its not taught anywhere in the N.T. by Jesus or the Apostles. It comes from one passage in Isaiah and one in Psalm 22. Thats the full extent of what the HERESY of PSA is based upon- 2 isolated verses RIPPED away from their context and the rest of the Bible.
next
hope this helps !!!
civic
Active Member
Agree my point was the gospel message preached by the Apostles in Acts and in their epistles never included hell/hades/gehenna in their gospel message/teaching. That was my point.
I was accused of a false gospel because I do not include hell in the gospel. That was 100% projecting since its not found in the Apostles teachings.
Johann
Active Member
Was the cross a punishment God inflicted on Jesus? One verse that is used to teach that it was is Isaiah 53:10. Isaiah 53 is about the Suffering Servant, who is understood to be Messiah. This passage, then, is understood by the Church to be about the cross and the atonement. Let’s read it, first, in the New International Version, which is in agreement with most other English versions.
Other versions have it similarly: “Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief” (New King James Version). “And Jehovah hath delighted to bruise him, He hath made him sick” (Young’s Literal Translation). “Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief” (English Standard Version).
Was the cross really about God crushing Jesus, bruising him, making him sick? I used to think so, and this was a verse I used to teach that. I taught that Jesus took God’s punishment in our place, that God crushed Jesus, venting his anger on him so he would not have to vent it on us. This is known as the penal substitutionary theory of atonement. In recent years, however, I have had to let that theory go, because what I have seen in Scripture leads me to a different conclusion, a different understanding of the cross.
So what about Isaiah 53:10, then? Are the English versions quoted above the best rendering of Isaiah’s words? They are direct translations of the Hebrew text, at least of the best one that is available today, but do they give us the best sense of what Isaiah prophesied?
The Septuagint renders Isaiah 53:10. I could give you the Greek words themselves, which would be a simple cut and paste, but since many do not read Greek, I will quote the Brenton version, which is a classic English translation of the LXX. Then I will tell you about the Greek verb that is used:
The Greek word for “stroke” is plege and here speaks of a wound that has been inflicted by a blow. The verb for “purge” is katharizo and means to cleanse or purify. It is where we get our English word “catharsis.” The St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint version has Isaiah 53:10 this way: “The Lord wishes to cleanse Him of His wound.”
The important thing to notice here is that God does not crush or bruise the Messiah, or make him sick. God does not inflict any wound on him. Quite the opposite, God is shown as cleansing and healing the wound!
The LXX reading seems to me more like what I find in the New Testament concerning the cross. When I think, for example, of how Peter and Stephen preached the gospel in the book of Acts, the cross was not something God did to Christ but something wicked men did. What God did was to raise Christ from the dead.
Isaiah 53 presents a stunning image of what Christ suffered in the atonement. But I do not think it is a picture of God crushing, bruising or punishing Christ. It is a portrait of God delivering Christ — and us through him. J,Doles
kath-ar-id'-zo
Verb
NAS Word Usage - Total: 31
Bill Mounce Greek
- to make clean, cleanse
- from physical stains and dirt
- utensils, food
- a leper, to cleanse by curing
- to remove by cleansing
- in a moral sense
- to free from defilement of sin and from faults
- to purify from wickedness
- to free from guilt of sin, to purify
- to consecrate by cleansing or purifying
- to consecrate, dedicate
- to pronounce clean in a levitical sense
Dictionary:
καθαρίζω
Greek transliteration:
katharizō
Simplified transliteration:
katharizo
Principal Parts:
καθαριῶ, ἐκαθάρισα, -, κεκαθάρισμαι, ἐκαθαρίσθην
Numbers
Strong's number:
2511
GK Number:
2751
Statistics
Frequency in New Testament:
31
Morphology of Biblical Greek Tag:
v-2a(1)
Gloss:
to make clean, cleanse, purify
Definition:
to cleanse, render pure, purify, Mt. 23:25; Lk. 11:39; to cleanse from leprosy, Mt. 8:2, 3, 10:8; met. to cleanse from sin, purify by an expiatory offering, make expiation for, Heb. 9:22, 23; 1 Jn. 1:7; to cleanse from sin, free from the influence of error and sin, Acts 15:9; 2 Cor. 7:1; to pronounce ceremonially clean, Acts 10:15, 11:9
Full article below:
καθαρίζω
to cleanse, render pure, purify, Mt. 23:25; Lk. 11:39; to cleanse from leprosy, Mt. 8:2, 3, 10:8; met. to cleanse from sin, purify by an expiatory offering, make expiation for, Heb. 9:22, 23; 1 Jn. 1:7; to cleanse from sin, free from the influence of error and sin, Acts 15:9; 2 Cor. 7:1; to...
www.billmounce.com
Strongs
katharismos: a cleansing
Original Word: καθαρισμός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: katharismos
Phonetic Spelling: (kath-ar-is-mos')
Definition: a cleansing
Usage: cleansing, purifying, purification, literal, ceremonial, or moral; met: expiation.
HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 2512 katharismós (a masculine noun derived from 2511 /katharízō, "to purge") – purification, which results from God removing undesirable admixtures
What presupposes the "cleanse" of His wound?
Really?
Isaiah 53:6 (LXX) explicitly states: “The Lord delivered Him over for our sins” (κύριος παρέδωκεν αὐτὸν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἡμῶν), using the verb παραδίδωμι (paredidōmi)-the same judicial term used in Romans 4:25 (“delivered up for our transgressions”). This denotes a divine judicial act, not passive cleansing.
Isaiah 53:4–5 (LXX) also says: “He bears our sins” (φέρει τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν) and “was wounded because of our sins” (ἐτραυματίσθη διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν). The verb ἐτραυματίσθη (wounded) and the preposition διὰ + accusative indicates causal penal suffering.
The word πληγή (plēgē) in v.10 does indeed mean blow, stroke, or wound, and is the standard LXX term for divine punishment (cf. Exod. 11:1, Rev. 15:1). It frequently implies judicial affliction, not mere illness.
While καθαρίσαι (to cleanse) in Isaiah 53:10 may suggest expiation, the verb is not negating penal elements--it follows the judicial giving over in v.6–7. It reflects the result of the servant’s substitutionary suffering, not its denial.
The St. Athanasius Academy’s rendering is paraphrastic and not lexically precise; it downplays the stronger causal and judicial language found in the original Greek text.
Isaiah 53 in the LXX affirms that the Servant suffers by God’s initiative, because of our sins, bearing their guilt and judicial consequences. The cleansing in v.10 is the result of penal suffering--not a denial of it.
Wrong.
Acts 2:23 and Isaiah 53:6 (LXX) both affirm divine agency: “This man was delivered up by the predetermined plan of God” (Acts 2:23) and “The Lord delivered Him over for our sins” (Isa. 53:6 LXX). Human guilt and divine intention coexist. The LXX clearly teaches substitution: “He was wounded because of our sins” (v.5), and “The Lord wills to cleanse Him from the blow” (v.10)-but only after God delivers Him over to suffer for sin. Denying divine action misrepresents both the LXX and apostolic preaching.
Right in front of your eyes, but don't have the ability to connect this with Isaiah 53-would you like to know how the rabbi's wrote about Messiah?
J.
civic
Active Member
No thanks since I know PSA is heresy. I believed it and taught it long before you ever studied the topic. Remember I was a calvinist for over 4 decades. I know their doctrines inside out, where they came from and it which century they became a doctrine.
The fact is no NT writer ever quotes Is 53:10 which is what the false doctrine is based upon. Without that 1 isolated verse PSA has nothing.
And to think if it was part of the gospel as you falsely claim why did Jesus and the Apostles forget to mention Isaiah 53:10 in their teachings about the gospel and the atonement ?
An argument from silence is what PSA is all about.
next fallacy
hope this helps !!!
civic
Active Member
personal attack duly noted. you seem to be projecting once again.
I'm practicing what Paul taught
2 Corinthians 10:4-5
The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ
PSA is a stronghold. Its an attack on the knowledge of God, His Good nature and character. Its an assault on our Holy Tri-Unity of the Godhead dividing Them against each other.
hope this helps !!!
synergy
Active Member
Again, Expiation values righteousness so I'm not sure what you're complaining about?
Again, I see nothing that promotes the wrath of God against His Son that underpins Propitiation. Without that proof then Propitiation evaporates before your very eyes.
Johann
Active Member
Wrong-challenge accepted. And no, not in Isaiah 53, PS. 22 ONLY, replete in Scripture starting from Genesis 1. I don't think you can bail yourself out of a paper bag-an honest observation.
1. Matthew 10:28 “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell [γέεννα].”
Christ’s missionary discourse to the Apostles includes a direct reference to Gehenna as part of their message-this forms their earliest gospel training.
2. Acts 2:40 “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.”
Peter calls for salvation from judgment, in a sermon where he explicitly speaks of God's eschatological wrath (cf. Joel 2:31, quoted earlier). Implicit warning of damnation is present through apocalyptic language.
3. Acts 17:30–31 “God now commands all people everywhere to repent because He has fixed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness...”
Paul includes final judgment as an essential part of his gospel preaching to Gentiles, proving that future wrath is part of apostolic gospel content.
4. Romans 2:5–8 “You are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath... He will render to each one according to his works.”
Paul lays out the eternal consequence of rejecting God's kindness—eternal wrath—right in the opening of his gospel exposition.
5. 2 Thessalonians 1:7–9 “The Lord Jesus... inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God... They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction...”
Paul explicitly ties the return of Christ to eternal punishment for those who reject the gospel. This was part of his teaching to a young church.
6. Acts 24:25 “And as he reasoned about righteousness and self-control and the coming judgment...”
Paul includes judgment in his gospel explanation to Felix. The governor was so convicted, he trembled.
7. Hebrews 10:26–31 “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God... raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.”
Apostolic exhortation framed with terrifying language about God's vengeance and consuming judgment—clearly evangelistic and pastoral in tone.
8. Jude 7, 23 “Sodom and Gomorrah... serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire... save others by snatching them from the fire.”
The warning of hell (eternal fire) motivates evangelism and repentance.
9. Revelation 14:9–11 “He will drink the wine of God's wrath... tormented with fire and sulfur... the smoke of their torment goes up forever.”
The gospel warning to those who follow the beast—declared as part of the “eternal gospel” (v.6–7)—includes eternal conscious torment.
10. Matthew 25:46 — “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Jesus’ final gospel discourse connects belief, judgment, and eternal punishment—paralleled directly with eternal life.
The Apostolic preaching and gospel exposition regularly include judgment, wrath, and eternal punishment as part of the call to repentance and salvation. Your [civic's] idea that hell was excluded from the gospel is unbiblical and ignores the full counsel of Scripture.
Your assertion debunked--next? Not the first time I had to correct you errors, what do you have to say? That I'm using AI?
Your gospel is not the Apostolic gospel--do you want proof?
J.
Johann
Active Member
Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a thoroughly biblical doctrine--I don’t require Bill Mounce to explain the difference between propitiation and expiation. What’s more, you’ve yet to engage or answer any of my counter-rebuttals meaningfully.
J.
civic
Active Member
MY OP debunks your entire post. The readers know it, I know it, the Apostles did not teach what you say and neither did Jesus.
You are on sinking sand with PSA while I'm standing on Christs teaching on the atonement- upon Christ the solid Rock I stand all other ground ( PSA ) is sinking sand.
Like I said your AI failed you since The Apostles in Acts and their epistles never included hell in the gospel. You are grasping at straws in Revelations.
hope this helps !!!
civic
Active Member
its from the pit an assault on Gods nature and character- a divided God-head separating the Father and the Son- pitting them against each other. A gross doctrine which is unbiblical invented by depraved men.
Its not the gospel as you and others claim and in fact I'll go on record saying what Paul would say below- its a false gospel, another gospel, another jesus- accursed- anathema.
Galatians 1:6-9
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7;not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8;But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
synergy
Active Member
It presupposes the sacrificial portion of Christ being our Expiation.
I noticed that you stopped defending your translation of Isa 53:10. Are you tossing in the towel there?
Again, I see nothing that promotes the wrath of God against His Son that underpins Propitiation. Without that proof then Propitiation evaporates before your very eyes.
Rabbis can go their merry way, totally oblivious to the fact that Jesus is their long awaited Messiah.
civic
Active Member
Yes they have no spiritual truth when it comes to the scriptures as an unregenerate group of unbelievers.
