Featured My (JonC) view of the Atonement

You keep claiming this. I would like to see a quotation, please.
But tell me; who caused Christ to become a curse? Who laid that curse on Him?

Christ, being God, is infinitely righteous; He has righteousness to spare!. We become the righteousness of God in Him.

You are still trying to wriggle off the hook. Isaiah says that it pleased God to bruise or crush Christ. 'They rightly thought that was the case, but wrongly did not appreciate that He was wounded for their transgressions etc.

Christ was stricken by God. You have conceded as much. The dichotomy is not in the striking but in the purpose of it.

Yeah, yeah. I can do pathetic insults just as well as you can. You are still a little too indebted to liberal doctrine. You need to lay all that philosophy aside and simply believe God's word. There; touche! Now can we stop all that nonsense, please?

 

That is very different from what you are claiming in your other posts.

That's the claim I would like to see evidence for, please.

 

I agree. But Christ's death did a specific thing in order to reconcile man to God. What you are doing is agreeing with everything except you can't bring yourself to say that Jesus acted as a substitute for those he reconciles and took their sins on himself.

And that is what makes God "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus". Romans 3:25 explicitly says it.

By the way, I don't agree with you but thanks for taking the time to patiently respond to all these posts. And thanks for doing this thread on how you view the atonement.

 

@JonC, congratulations in completely muddying up whatever it is that you claim to believe. I have gone through each post in this thread and for the life of me I cannot figure out what you believe. It's like you've just created a pot of jambalaya and you have no idea how to write down the recipe, but it tastes good to you so you tell everyone else they are wrong.
At this point I honestly don't think you are capable of explaining your view so that others could ever understand it.

 

In the past FIVE WEEKS only, I have seen about the same number of threads started by JonC, on the meaning of the Atonement. This tells me that he himself does not really understand whether his old view, PSA, or the deception that he now believes, is true! HOW MANY TIMES does it need to keep on banging on about the SAME thing? Jon has been shown from the Bible, time and again, that PSA is taught in the BIble, yet refuses to accept it! He argued that the Greek prepositon ὑπέρ, never means "instead of". Yet I have quoted from Greek authorities, that it DOES, and even shown from Philemon 13, where it is so used, "Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel" (KJV). And he still refuses to accept the FACTS, when he has been proven WRONG!

 

Good so far. Except that the Law shows us a need for Christ, not merely another way.

This is where you begin to err. He became a man 'under the law,' yes, but not under bondage, having no sin, for the strength of sin is the law.

Where the law pronounces upon us a curse, it pronounces Him blessed.

And the Law brought forth blessing upon Him, not bondage. It couldn't bind Him. 1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane.

Accuracy is critical here. He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, meaning those weaknesses that are native to humanity as created, but not sickness and disease. He was acquainted with grief, in other words, sorrow and loss. A man of sorrows, but not sorrows, as in regret for any sin of His own, but compassion for the needs of others and the sorrow for the cause of the needs.

One must be very careful here NOT to think that in His life and ministry, he was bearing the sins and the costs of those sins of others.

No. The Spirit expressly says he bore our sins n the Cross. Where you say He was bearing our sins, He was not. He was suffering for righteousness. Not sin.

And more important is the identity of 'we.' It is the elect, those whose sins He did bear in truth, as figured in the breastplate of the High Priest. Twelve stones, for the twelve tribes of Israel, the Elect. It is the Elect who esteemed Him smitten of God and afflicted. He was bruised for 'our' iniquities.

And also important is the place of where that estimation is made. It wasn't His Triumphal Entry where we all sang Hosanna! There we esteemed Him blessed, and coming in the name of the LORD. And in His life and ministry, He attracted multitudes.

He wasn't esteemed as smitten of God and afflicted then. He was seen as a great rabbi.

So the place where that estimation is made is the Cross. It's where His closest friends forsook Him. (But not the women.)

You're skipping the central theme of Christ's work here, and that is the Cross. You're mistaking the cost of discipleship, or service, for the suffering for sins. The cost of discipleship is OUR cross, but the suffering for sin is HIS Cross. Sin is not in view until He is raised on the Cross. That is where He took on our sins, and bore them in His body, and was accursed of God; where we are healed by His stripes.

God raised Him. The Romans were simply His instruments. And as you are apt to point out in your Faucism, God uses men to accomplish His will.

More accurately, Christ, by the power of an endless life, overcame the righteous judgment of God, that is, the Pains of Death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.

O strong Ram, which hast batter'd heaven for me !
Mild Lamb, which with Thy Blood hast mark'd the path !
Bright Torch, which shinest, that I the way may see !
O, with Thy own Blood quench Thy own just wrath ;
John Donne​

This is true. You only need to understand what that means.

 

In all fairness to @JonC , I had actually asked him to start this last thread. And he had expressed reluctance to get into this at the beginning.

 

Your problem is that not only do you not know much Greek, but you don't know much English either.
Do you have any conception of the semantic range of the English word 'for?
"I am going out for a walk." Is that 'on behalf of' a walk? 'Instead' of a walk? No, it means 'for the purpose' of a walk.
'For the wrath of God is poured out......' Is that 'on behalf of the wrath? 'Instead of' the wrath'? No, it means 'because' the wrath of God is poured out.'
"I sold my car to this man for $5,000." Is that 'on behalf of' £5,000? No. Is it 'instead of' $5,000? Well sort of. Once I had a car; now I have $5,000 instead. 'In exchange for' would be a good rendering. There is an element of substitution here. Once I had a car and this man had £5,000. Now I have $5,000 and the man has a car.
Let's come a bit nearer home. 'How sweet and fitting it is to die for one's country' (Roman poet Horace). Here the meaning is definitely 'on behalf of' one's country. Could it be 'instead of' one's country? No. It is very unlikely that one's man's death could save a country, and in any case, a country cannot really die.
'For ['because'] when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for [Gk. huper] the ungodly.' Is this 'on behalf of' the ungodly'? Yes, absolutely. Is it 'instead of'? Yes, that as well. If Christ died for the ungodly, and the ungodly die anyway (in the sense of John 11:25-26), then Christ did not die on their behalf. QED.

Now try this one, to see if you understand yet. '.....While we were still sinners, Christ died for [Gk. huper] us.' Explain to us all how Christ died on our behalf if He did not die instead of us.

 

How does Christ dying a horrible death reconcile us to God?

 

@Martin Marprelate
You may have addressed this before, but does not the KJV choose to use the word "Bruised" rather then "Crushed" in Isaiah.

Does not the actual wording consider the crushing to be contrite, humbled, oppressed, ...

I think sometimes folks get the idea of crushing is to grind into powder, when it is more like crushing a can after its contents are consumed. The can is still a can.

 

The whole group wishes you well; I say it on their behalf. I say it, they don't. I say it instead of them.

As I showed in my post above, the word does not always mean "instead of" but very often it does. You are redefining words to suit your theory. Here you are again: '.....While we were still sinners, Christ died for [Gk. huper] us.' Explain to us all how Christ died on our behalf if He did not die instead of us.

 

YES YOU ARE CORRECT YET AGAIN. Word games over and over.