Featured My (JonC) view of the Atonement

Sigh...
God's revealed justification is what Paul wrote down. If you believe God's word, you believe Paul's explanation of justification by faith as outlined in Romans.

I get tired of these silly word games...

 

Imputation "is used to designate any action or word or thing as reckoned to a person. Thus in doctrinal language (1) the sin of Adam is imputed to all his descendants, i.e., it is reckoned as theirs, and they are dealt with therefore as guilty; (2) the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them that believe in him, or so attributed to them as to be considered their own; and (3) our sins are imputed to Christ, i.e., he assumed our 'law-place,' undertook to answer the demands of justice for our sins. In all these cases the nature of imputation is the same (Rom. 5:12-19; comp. Philemon 1:18, 19)." [1]

Imputation is distinct from impartation and infusion. The Greek verb for imputation, logizomai is used more than 40 times in the New Testament. It used ten times in Romans chapter 4—sometimes called the "imputation chapter." In the King James Version, logizomai is translated 'counted' (Rom 4:3, 5), 'reckoned' (Rom 4:4, 10), and 'imputed' (Rom 4:6, 8, 11, 22, 23, 24).
Per Theopedia

 

Do you agree?
Imputation "is used to designate any action or word or thing as reckoned to a person. Thus in doctrinal language (1) the sin of Adam is imputed to all his descendants, i.e., it is reckoned as theirs, and they are dealt with therefore as guilty; (2) the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them that believe in him, or so attributed to them as to be considered their own; and (3) our sins are imputed to Christ, i.e., he assumed our 'law-place,' undertook to answer the demands of justice for our sins. In all these cases the nature of imputation is the same (Rom. 5:12-19; comp. Philemon 1:18, 19)." [1]

Imputation is distinct from impartation and infusion. The Greek verb for imputation, logizomai is used more than 40 times in the New Testament. It used ten times in Romans chapter 4—sometimes called the "imputation chapter." In the King James Version, logizomai is translated 'counted' (Rom 4:3, 5), 'reckoned' (Rom 4:4, 10), and 'imputed' (Rom 4:6, 8, 11, 22, 23, 24).
Per Theopedia

 

Both of them seem to deny Imputation, and if true, would deny Pauline Justification, at least as held by the Reformers , and more in line with NT Wright and the NPP viewpoint!

 

You cannot claim that Psa is just error and not taught in the scriptures, as at best you can just hold to you disagree with Paul on this issue!

 

We deny your understanding of what is biblical meant by Pauline Justification!

 

The part that you want taken out is the very heart of Pauline Justification!

 

I am reading through @SavedByGrace OP (On The Use of The Greek ὑπέρ and ἀντί) in another thread and in that post he mentions that:

According to Colin Brown, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology,

"hyper" (Der Zweite Brief an Die Korinther, 1976, 152f.) is shown to bear a substutionary sense by inference.
​

He goes on for two posts from there, and you all can read for your own enjoyment.

The actual definition does not fit Substitution, but can only be applicable through adding or modification of the "hyper - hooper" definition.

The word is a placement word, one who is over, under, above, beyond, and signifies something of benefit for the sake of betterment.

It does NOT function as one who substitutes for another.

Substitute uses the Greek word "anti" and is used primarily as offsetting, in place of, substitution, ...

The two word in Scriptures are NOT similar, are not interchangeable, and cannot be interchanged.

Indeed, the BAGD (as @SavedByGrace posted) lists on ONE single verse that may have a "substitutionary sense" that bears on atonement - 1 Corinthians 5:14.

Christ did not "SUBSTITUE" anything. He is not our substitute, but our redeemer.

He took the sin, yet we still sin. What He took then was the condemnation of which believers now have none.

What was the condemnation? Death, and after death the judgement.

Because Christ was without sin, He was never judged a sinner, and therefore death had no power over Him (the same as the first Adam was not to die until sin enter him). Therefore the Scriptures teach that it is by the unmerited favor of God that believers have been saved, heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Ephesians and Titus).
Hebrews 10:

19Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20by the new and living way opened for us through the curtain of His body, 21and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.​

Christ did not substitute my blood for His blood, my body for His body, my life for His life, my Spirit for His Spirit. He gave, He redeemed, He bought with a price, He cancelled, He nailed to the cross, ... He NEVER was a "substitute" nor conformed to substitutionary atonement.

Now I realize that @JonC and I will not be in total agreement on this, for, like I have posted before, I typically present a harder line then He does. He, like some of my good friends now long dead, would contend for a softer more temperate view caused by the "inference" and suggest it as if it were doctrine.

But doctrine should never be supported on something only held by "inference" but that which is clearly taught by both statement and portrayal.

Inference has the properties of water. Apply enough outside force and it changes states.

Doctrine never changes states, and holds firm upon Scripture fact.

 

I totally agree.

However, I do not see this as substitution, but transferring. But John, do not forget that I do take a harder line then you in the matter of substitution. I just do not find it in the NT, and not in the OT atonement sacrifice.

Romans 3 states God will "justify the circumcised through faith and the uncircumcised through the same faith."

God transferring faith to us.

Christ certainly died for (died on the cross) us so that whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with Him. (1 Thessalonians 5:10) ("for" - peri - with respect to a place, a cause, a time.)

Christ died for (to extend benefit to) us. (Romans 5:8) ("for" - hyper - on behalf of, in the interest of, to extend benefit, )

Christ also suffered for (peri - see above) sins once for all, the righteous for (hyper - see above) the unrighteous, to bring you to God. (1 Peter 3:18)

Christ died for (hyper - see above) our sins according to the Scriptures. (1 Corinthians 15:3)

Note: "anti" is not used.

@JonC, I have revised this a couple times to make it a bit more readable. Sorry that I don't make it that way the first time.

 

this Greek preposition, is also used for "against", so not limited to "instead of"

 

Did Israel find life in the sacrifice of a lamb?
Jon, it seems you just ignore the entire old testament covenant and claim something you want, but is not expressed in the Bible.
The more I read your proof texts, the more I see they have no context.

 

God didn't pass over their sins. Their sins were paid for by their Redeemer at the cross. Their justification was by faith (Read Hebrews 11).

The New Covenant comes because Jesus fulfilled the requirement of the Old Covenant. The New Covenant is affirmed at the last supper and implemented at the cross.

As to what Paul wrote in Romans, I wonder if you misunderstand Paul completely.