Featured The Biblical Atonement (continued 3)

That is the issue. Penal Substitution Theory only came about because of the "irregular churches" as the Reformers sought to reform RCC doctrine.

Have you really never wondered why, in Reformed Theology, the early Christians look so much like Reformers and the Jewish leadership looks like the RCC?

 

Sin and death entered the World through Adam's transgression. Death spread to all men for all have sinned. Men were enslaved, in bondage, to sin and death for the wages of sin is death.

It is appointed man once to die and then the judgment. The Word became flesh. Christ shared in our infirmity, became a curse for us, bore our sin. He is sinless (righteous). Christ died at tge hands the wicked, under the powers of this world, as was the predetermined will of God (this was God offering His Son as a sin offering).

Through Christ's death man (mankind) is reconciled to God (Christ shared our infirmity, died for our sins). He is the "Last Adam".

God vindicated the Son, raised Him on the 3rd day, and exalted Him. He became a "Life Giving Spirit". We are saved by His life.

It is that simple. No addition to Scripture needed.

 

I am right there with you, Brother. The "substitution" in Scripture is representation in the sense Christ is the "Last Adam", not substitution as Penal Substitution Theory suggests.

Penal Substitution Theory was just a reworking of RCC doctrine. They viewed substitution with merit in mind. Calvin just replaced merit with wrath.

It is also vital to remember that the word "atonement" originally meant "at-one-ment" and referred to reconciliation. Penal Substitution Theory uses a pagan view of sacrificing to appease a deity.

 

@agedman and I have stated what Scripture says. You and I disagree, but our disagreement is about what you add to Scripture.

We simply approach Scripture differently. Where you interpret Scripture through the lens of your tradition, I am a biblicist (I believe Scripture is literal....while it certainly uses literary devices, God communicated the truth of essential doctrines in the text of Scripture). Having taken this position, it is impossible for me to believe Penal Substitution Theory as it is not in God's Word.

I understand you believe that is what the Bible means or teaches. And I wish you well in your studies. But I have to stick with what is written.

 

That would not be out of the realm of possibility if it were not for one thing - what I believe is actually in the Word of God and what you believe is not.

I can say Jesus bore our sins in His body, waa made sin for us, and shared in our infirmity while allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture.

You cannot.. Instead you say Jesus bore our sins...and this is what it really means; Jesus was made sin for us....and this is what it really means; shared in our infirmity....and this is what it really means.

Do you not at least find ot odd that the core of your belief is not actually in God's Word....not in the text of Scripture?

Think about your post that God was not punishing Christ's but punishing our sins instead of punishing us by inflicting suffering and death on Christ. That, my friend, is pure humanistic philosophy...and poor philosophy at that.

@agedman and I have (obviously) accepted the full counsel of God. We disagree with you, and I'm sure there are areas we disagree with one another.

But I think he and I stand firm on how we differ from you on this topic - we hold that Scripture is the test of doctrine.....not tradition, not philosophy, and not a set of men, much less the Reformers you seem to include in the "full counsel of God".