The Doctrine of Justification defends Penal Substitution (Part eight)

Despite all sinners falling short of God’s glory, the sinner can be “justified” in Romans 3:24 or declared righteous. Justification in Romans means to declared righteous not to make righteous. This legal or forensic meaning is found in Deuteronomy 25:1. In this courtroom scene,[1] the guilty were to be declared guilty and the innocent were justified or declared righteous.

Read more

The Doctrine of the Deity of Christ defends Penal Substitution (Part seven)

The “glory of God” in Romans 3:23 is the manifestation of His presence. In the Old Testament, God’s presence was the outward Shekinah glory. In the New Testament, God’s glory was manifested in Christ about whom John could testify, “we beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father” (John 1:14). Every sinner has fallen short of being Christ like. He is the standard against which every person must measure himself. Every believer is presently being changed into Christ image (Romans 8:28) and one day will perfectly “be changed into the same image from glory to glory even as by the Spirit of the Lord” (2 Corinthian 3:18).

Read more

The Doctrine of Sin defends Penal Substitution (Part six)

Charles Ryrie showed the sinfulness of sinners by explaining the imputation of Adam’s sin directly to sinners and the inheritance of sin indirectly from Adam through the parents of each succeeding generation. Ryrie explained the difference:

Imputed sin is transmitted directly from Adam to each individual in every generation. Since I was in Adam, Adam’s sin was imputed to me directly, not through my parents and their parents. Imputed sin is an immediate imputation (that is, directly, not through mediators between Adam and me). This contrasts with how the inherited sin nature is transmitted. It comes to me from my parents, and theirs from their parents, and so on back to Adam. Inherited sin is a mediate transmission since it comes through all the mediators of generations between Adam and me.[1]

Read more

The Doctrine of Faith defends the Penal Substitution (Part five)

Walter Rauschenbusch, Father of the Social Gospel, casting what he referred to as “old theology” in a bad light stated: “Wherever doctrine becomes rigid and is the pre-eminent thing in religion, ‘faith’ means submission of the mind to the affirmations of dogma and theology, and acceptance of the plan of salvation and trust in the vicarious atonement of Christ.”[1] While Rauschenbusch declared that faith in the atonement was antiquated, Paul affirmed saving faith indispensably necessary for salvation: “Whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness because, in his divine forbearance, he had passed over former sins” (Romans 3:25). Propitiation is appropriated by faith in Christ based on Christ’s shed “blood” in 3:25. It is better to connect “blood” with “propitiation” rather than as the object of faith.[2]

Read more

The Doctrine of Prophets defends Penal Substitution (Part four)

Christ referred to the law and the prophets concerning their witness to his death to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus: “And he said to them, O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory? And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:25-27). What did Jesus mean in Luke 24:27 that he expounded all the Scriptures concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets”? In the follow-up statement in 24:44 Jesus explained that what he previously spoke from the Old Testament “the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms” was only what was “written about me.” Jesus probably preached the prophecies and the types from the Old Testament including Genesis 3:15, Psalm 22, and Isaiah 53 as well as the Passover Lamb in Exodus 12:5, the Rock that Moses struck in Exodus 17:6, and the Brazen serpent in Numbers 21:9. These anti-types are referred to in the New Testament in John 3:14-15, 1 Corinthians 5:7, and 1 Peter 1:19. Paul next in Romans three elaborated on the witness of the law and prophets to Christ’s death in Romans 3:21.

Read more

The Doctrine of Imputation defends Penal Substitution (Part three)

Warren Wiersbe writes about the doctrine of imputation: Our English word ‘imputation’ comes from the Latin word which means ‘to reckon, or credit, to one’s account.’ When you go to the bank or the savings and loan association and deposit money, imputation takes place. They deposit that on your account, and they write it on your record …. Right in the middle of that word ‘impute’ you have p-u-t, righteousness put to our account.”[1] The doctrine of the imputed righteousness of God to believers supports the doctrine of penal substitution in Romans 3.

Read more

The Doctrine of the Wrath of God defends Penal Substitution (Part two)

The wrath of God is really the sticking issue in the doctrine of penal substitution. Just as the wrath of God is denied by nonevangelicals and evangelicals in the eternal conscious suffering of the unsaved in the Lade of Fire, the wrath of God is rejected in the penal substitutionary death of Christ on the cross. We admit that the wrath of God is unpleasant to contemplate. But we mortals have no right to judge a doctrine in God’s Word inscribed there by means of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Read more

Doctrines that Defend Penal Substitutionary Atonement (Part one)

The doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement is the humbling truth that Christ bore our deserved wrath of God on the cross. Charles H. Spurgeon issued a warning in 1888 concerning the penal substitution: “If ever should come a wretched day when all our pulpits shall be full of modern thought, and the old doctrine of a substitutionary sacrifice shall be exploded, then will there remain no word of comfort for the guilty .... The gospel speaks through the propitiation for sin, and if it be denied, it speaketh no more.”[1]

Read more

The Different Views on the Lord’s Supper (Part One)

Have you experienced what baptism pictures, i.e., the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for your salvation? Are you experiencing what the Lord’s Supper symbolizes i.e., confessed sins and fellowship with the Lord? When Christ commanded the church to observe two ordinances He gave us pictures of two important Christian realities. Baptism pictures union with Christ and the Lord’s Supper pictures communion with Christ. Just as the believing sinner is united to Christ in salvation once, so the believer is baptized once. Because fellowship or communion with Christ is repeated by the Christian so does the believer repeat the ordinance of Communion or the Lord’s Supper repeatedly.

Read more

The Hound of Heaven

"The Hound of Heaven" was written by a young man named Francis Thompson over 100 years ago. “The Hound of Heaven” however, is still relevant. It was made into a movie. Songs have been written about the Hound of Heaven. There is a website: thehoundofheaven.com. Prominent Christian leaders and authors refer to the Hound of Heaven.

Read more

Must a Pastor's Devotions be Separate from his Sermon Preparation?

“I had such a sweet time in my devotions this week that I decided not to prepare a sermon and share with you what I learned in my devotions,” one pastor said. [1] I rejoice with this pastor. However, can not the pastor have the same sweet time in his sermon preparation? Let me restate this question: Should not the pastor have the same sweet time in his sermon preparation?

Read more

“You can Fail and not be a Failure.”

“You can Fail and not be a Failure.” This important principle is illustrated by the story of Daniel Ruettiger or “Rudy.” In addition to the information the film provides you can read about Rudy in John Maxwell’s book Failing Forward or Rudy Ruettiger’s book Rudy’s Rules. Here is how Maxwell tells the story: “Rudy” desperately wanted to play football for Notre Dame. You may have seen the film based on his life called Rudy. It was a good movie, but his real story is even more remarkable and compelling.

Read more

Can you love the Lord and not love His Word?

I read this comment by Charles Swindol that made me ask this question: Is it possible to love the Lord and not love His Word? Swindoll wrote: “I’ll never forget a letter I read from a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, where I serve as chancellor. He wrote of his gratitude for his years at our fine institution. What troubled me was that he also lamented that when he arrived, he was deeply in love with Jesus Christ; but when he left, he had fallen more in love with the biblical text. For all the right reasons, our professors did their best to teach him the Scriptures, but he left loving the Bible more than he loved His [sic] Savior” (Charles R. Swindoll, So, You Want to Be Like Christ? p. 40).

I believe it is possible to KNOW the Bible and not love the Lord. The Pharisees were the Bible scholars of the first century, but they rejected the Lord. Jesus challenged these religious leaders: “Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And you will not come to me, that you might have life” (John 5:39-40). Paradoxically, we can not love the Lord without loving His Word. It is God’s Word that tells us about Christ, which according to Colossians 3:16 is His Word. It is God’s Word that feeds our soul so that we might “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18). For 2013, let’s pray with David, the man after God’s own heart these two prayers, “Oh how love I your law! It is my meditation all the day” (Psalm 119:97) and “Open mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law” (Psalm 119:18).

The Immaculate Conception of Jesus

At Christmas, we celebrate the miraculous virgin birth of Christ. We also commemorate the immaculate conception of Christ. The angel spoke to Mary in Luke 1:28 of the supernatural conception: “And the angel said unto her, ‘Fear not, Mary: for you have found favor with God. And, behold, you shall conceive (emphasis added) in your womb, and bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.” Before we discuss what is called in Roman Catholic theology the Immaculate Conception, I want to remind you of what has been called the Immaculate Reception because of one NFL football pass or reception that was also considered immaculate or miraculous.

Read more

What if God wrote your Obituary?

Scot McKnight wrote “I have always been intrigued by obituaries. One man’s, who passed away in 2016, says this, ‘he died to avoid having to make a decision in the pending presidential election (click to open).’” Obituaries are like eulogies at funerals. Steven Cole in a sermon “If God Wrote Your Obituary (click to open)” referred to a funeral in which three daughters “got up and read a eulogy about ‘we remember dad.’ They recalled, ‘We remember dad going to the bar and buying a round of drinks for all his buddies. He loved going to the bar! We remember dad going to the market and flirting with all the cute young checkers.’ Basically, they fondly remembered dad as a dirty-minded old drunk!”

Read more

Review of Paul Scott Wilson's Law-Gospel Hermeneutic

In Scott M. Gibson’s and Matthew D. Kim’s Homiletics and Hermeneutics (Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition, 2018) Paul Scott Wilson presents his view of interpreting and preaching called the Law-Gospel view. Wilson’s one text, one theme, one doctrine, one need, one image, and one mission is just another way of saying what many homileticians describe as one preaching unit or the text (one text), one MPS (one theme), Argumentation (one doctrine), Interest Step in the Introduction (one need), Illustration (one image), and Application (one mission).

Read more

God bore away our sins in the atonement of Christ

R. Kent Hughes has the following story regarding the conversion of the great 19th-century preacher Charles Simeon - Charles Simeon, one of the greatest preachers of the Church of England, explained his coming to Christ like this: "As I was reading Bishop Wilson on the Lord’s supper, I met with an expression to this effect—“That the Jews knew what they did, when they transferred their sin to the head of their offering.” The thought came into my mind, “What, may I transfer all my guilt to another? Has God provided an Offering for me, that I may lay my sins on His head? Then, God willing, I will not bear them on my own soul one moment longer.” Accordingly I sought to lay my sins upon the sacred head of Jesus". (From Hebrews: an anchor for the soul).

Charles Simeon appropriated what took place on the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16.

Atonement” in Leviticus 16:6 meant to cover Israel’s sins from God’s wrath on the Day of Atonement for one year. The context of Leviticus 16 is the wrath of God poured out on Nadab and Abihu in 10:1-2 for their disobedience to God. 

This wrath could be avoided through the substitution of two animals on the Day of Atonement (16:5). The first animal’s blood was shed typifying Christ shedding his blood for the sins of the world. The second animal, the scapegoat bore away God’s wrath showing how Christ bore our deserved punishment.

The first animal sacrifice

Atonement took place when the blood of the first goat was sprinkled on the “mercy seat” (Leviticus 16:14-15). The mercy seat is used in Hebrews 9:5 as the place of atonement in the Old Testament tabernacle. This exact word for propitiation (ἱλαστήριον [hilasterion]) is used only one other time in Romans 3:25 and is translated as “propitiation.” Paul gives the theological significance of the sprinkled on the mercy seat in Romans 3:25: “Whom [Christ] God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood.” Christ propitiated or satisfied the wrath and justice of God for our sins with his “blood.”. Wayne Grudem wrote: “Propitiation is a sacrifice that bears the wrath of God against sin and thereby turns God’s wrath into favor.”[1]

The second animal sacrifice

The scapegoat in Leviticus 16:22 bore away [נשׂא nasa] the punishment of sins. In Leviticus 7:18, for a guilty Israelite to “bear [נשׂא nasa], his iniquity” meant to be “cut off” or put to death (7:21). But on the Day of Atonement, the scapegoat bore away the wrath of God on the people’s sins for one year. In Isaiah 53:4, 12 Christ bore away [נשׂא nasa], our sins forever in his penal substitutionary death on the cross: “He has poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors: and he bore [נשׂא nasa], the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” The Psalmist rejoiced that our sins have been separated from us as far as the east is from the south (Psalm 103: 12). John the Baptist referred to this great truth when he declared, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). With the songwriter we give praise: “To God be the glory, great things he has done, so loved he the world that he gave us his son, who yielded his life an atonement for sin, and opened the life gate that all may go in.”


[1] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 575.