JonC's view of Substitution in the Atonement

[JonC]

The Atonement is a multifaceted event. I have said that there are penal aspects (we escape the wrath to come, we have been freed from the bondage of sin and death - death being the wage of sin) and there are substitutionary aspects (Christ died for our sins, His flesh for ours, His life for ours, we are purchased by His blood).

But I do not mean penal and substitution in the form of Penal Substitution Theory. I mean it in the aspect held by Christianity for over two millennia.

In terms of Substitution the early church held a view called Ontological Substitution (Total Substitution or Medical Substitution).

This is the foundation of the Chrisus
Victor theme (to include the Ransom theory, the Moral Influence Theory, and Recapitulation, among other views).

Ontological Substitution (Torrance used the term "Total Substitution") is the view that Jesus had to physically assume human nature, unite it to his divine nature, overcome temptation throughout his life in reliance on the Holy Spirit, and defeat the flesh in at his death, bear our sins bodily on the cross, ascend to the Father as humanity’s representative and share the Spirit of new humanity with all who believe.

This is the view expressed by men like Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, and others: ‘That which is not assumed is not healed.’ God must reconcile to Himself what He intends to heal. And this healing, at the individual level, is reconciliation. This is salvation.

 

[SavedByGrace]

not yet ANOTHER one??? Surely by now you must know what you believe, and that those who oppose your view on PSA, which is AGAINST the Bible, will NEVER change from TRUTH!

 

[JonC]

not yet ANOTHER one??? Surely by now you must know what you believe, and that those who oppose your view on PSA, which is AGAINST the Bible, will NEVER change from TRUTH!

I know what I believe. Another member, wrongly, decided to speak for me. I have posted this several times, but for some reason it never takes with a few here.

I believe God's Word (what is written, that is the text of Scripture). I do not believe what you refer to as "the Bible" (those things you believe Scripture teaches but is actually foreign to and in opposition to the text of God's Word).

We disagree because I am a biblicist. I believe every word of Scripture is important and true, but I reject your additions to Scripture. Insofar as actual Scripture goes, you cannot provide even one verse I reject. What you do is say "the Bible says such and such...but it really means such and such". That is wrong.

You seem to think God is incompetent and unable to preserve His Word in the form of Scripture. You are wrong.

If you believe that I have rejected actual Scripture (NOT your philosophy about the supremacy of retributive justice or what you believe the Bible teaches, but actual Scripture) then provide the passage.

The difference between you and I is you put your faith in the philosophy of the Reformers as what Scripture teaches while I believe Scripture teaches what is written in the text of Scripture.

Why do you believe that God must punish sins in order to forgive sinners?

 

[SavedByGrace]

Why do you believe that God must punish sins in order to forgive sinners?

Jon, more to the point, why do you ignore clear passages, like Isaiah 53:4-5?

Surely He has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions; He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was on Him; and with His stripes we ourselves are healed

Notice here

Jesus Christ "carried OUR griefs and carried OUR sorrows"

Jesus Christ was "stricken and smitten by God and afflicted", was this for Jesus' own sins, or OURS?

Jesus Christ was "wounded for OUR transgressions; He was bruised for OUR iniquities"

By the suffering of Jesus Christ, on OUR BEHALF, as the Hebrew says, we are healed

THIS is what the Bible says, Jesus Christ was punished for OUR sins, which is what is known as "substitution", Jesus on OUR BEHALF.

Jesus says in the Gospels, "For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many" The Greek preposition used here is "ἀντὶ", which is "INSTEAD OF", "IN THE PLACE OF"

Now respond to this, from the Bible

 

[JonC]

Jon, more to the point, why do you ignore clear passages, like Isaiah 53:4-5?

Surely He has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions; He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was on Him; and with His stripes we ourselves are healed

Notice here

Jesus Christ "carried OUR griefs and carried OUR sorrows"

Jesus Christ was "stricken and smitten by God and afflicted", was this for Jesus' own sins, or OURS?

Jesus Christ was "wounded for OUR transgressions; He was bruised for OUR iniquities"

By the suffering of Jesus Christ, on OUR BEHALF, as the Hebrew says, we are healed

THIS is what the Bible says, Jesus Christ was punished for OUR sins, which is what is known as "substitution", Jesus on OUR BEHALF.

Jesus says in the Gospels, "For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many" The Greek preposition used here is "ἀντὶ", which is "INSTEAD OF", "IN THE PLACE OF"

Now respond to this, from the Bible

What are you talking about???

I believe that Jesus was despised and forsaken of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. He was despised, and men did not esteem Him. He bore our grief and carried our sorrows. Men esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions and H was crushed for our iniquities. The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.

Jesus bore OUR sins. He was made a curse for US.
As the ECF's put it, His flesh for our flesh, His life for our life.
He bore our sins bodily on the cross.

I believe that Jesus came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. We could not ransom ourselves (Jesus did not give His life as a ransom instead of many). This is a purchase (we are purchased with a price). Ransom does mean "in place of", and obviously He died as a substitute.

John 11:49–52 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.” Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

This is the problem - you are false in presenting my view. Obviously you did not even bother to read what I believe.

Why do YOU believe that God must punish sins in order to forgive sinners?

 

[SavedByGrace]

Why do YOU believe that God must punish sins in order to forgive sinners?

I have already shown this in my response.

God the Father "punished" Jesus Christ for OUR sins when He died on the cross. This is clear. I don't understand your problem, because there is not one!

The Bible says this. I believe it.

It is you who is clearly confused in what you believe, because you fail to grasp what the Bible says!

 

[JonC]

I have already shown this in my response.

God the Father "punished" Jesus Christ for OUR sins when He died on the cross. This is clear. I don't understand your problem, because there is not one!

The Bible says this. I believe it.

It is you who is clearly confused in what you believe, because you fail to grasp what the Bible says!

No. You are telling me what you believe happened based on your presupposition that God punished sin in order to forgive sinners.

If you ditch the assumption (the philosophy you seem unable to defend) Scripture still remains but it becomes literal instead of theory.

Scripture does not state that God must punish sins in order to forgive sinners of those sins. That is not how Scripture presents forgiveness.

So why do you believe that God must punish sins in order to forgive sinners of sin?

 

[SavedByGrace]

No. You are telling me what you believe happened based on your presupposition that God punished sin in order to forgive sinners.

If you ditch the assumption (the philosophy you seem unable to defend) Scripture still remains but it becomes literal instead of theory.

Scripture does not state that God must punish sins in order to forgive sinners of those sins. That is not how Scripture presents forgiveness.

So why do you believe that God must punish sins in order to forgive sinners of sin?

do you have some spirtual block?

it is VERY CLEAR from Isaiah 53, that God the Father DID punish Jesus Christ for OUR sins, which Jesus Himself says in the Gospels. Who are you to ask, WHY did God have to do it this way? The Bible says that He did, and that should be enough!

 

[JonC]

do you have some spirtual block?

it is VERY CLEAR from Isaiah 53, that God the Father DID punish Jesus Christ for OUR sins, which Jesus Himself says in the Gospels. Who are you to ask, WHY did God have to do it this way? The Bible says that He did, and that should be enough!

No, I do not. I just have decided the philosophy at the foundation of your faith is an error.

If you remove your presupposition (what you are apparently unable to defend) Scripture still stands. Christ still bears our sins, it is still the will of the Father to crush Him, and He still is made a curse for us.

The Bible, however, does not say that God punished sins in order to forgive sins. That is your philosophy, and that alone forms the basis of your understanding of Scripture. So you need to defend it.

 

[SavedByGrace]

No, I do not. I just have decided the philosophy at the foundation of your faith is an error.

If you remove your presupposition (what you are apparently unable to defend) Scripture still stands. Christ still bears our sins, it is still the will of the Father to crush Him, and He still is made a curse for us.

The Bible, however, does not say that God punished sins in order to forgive sins. That is your philosophy, and that alone forms the basis of your understanding of Scripture. So you need to defend it.

dude, it is very clear from your ongoing arguments on BB, that you do NOT even understand what PSA is! Nor do you grasp that the Bible DOES say that God "punished" Jesus Christ "FOR OUR SINS". This is not "philosophy", but 100% BIBLICAL!

May the Holy Spirit open your eyes to the Great Truth of PSA!

 

[JonC]

dude, it is very clear from your ongoing arguments on BB, that you do NOT even understand what PSA is! Nor do you grasp that the Bible DOES say that God "punished" Jesus Christ "FOR OUR SINS". This is not "philosophy", but 100% BIBLICAL!

May the Holy Spirit open your eyes to the Great Truth of PSA!

I understand the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. I shared your view for most of my life, studied the Atonement in college and seminary. Taught Penal Substitution Theory when teaching theology.

But I came to realize that I, like you, could not defend the philosophy Penal Substitution Theory assumes.

You do not need to get mad, or frustrated, at me for your inability to defend (or recognize) what you assume.

But Penal Substitution Theory depends on divine justice demanding that sins be punished rather than forgiven so that sinners can be forgiven. As you demonstrate, this cannot be biblically defended.

 

[JonC]

I'm posting this here (I posted it on another thread) so that others can co.pare various theories of Atonement. This is not a complete list, but it is the main theories presented.

• The Ransom Theory: The earliest of all, originating with the Early Church Fathers, this theory claims that Christ offered himself as a ransom (Mark 10:45). Where it was not clear was in its understanding of exactly to whom the ransom was paid. Many early church fathers viewed the ransom as paid to Satan.
• The Recapitulation Theory: Originated with Irenaeus (125-202 AD). He sees Christ as the new Adam, who systematically undoes what Adam did. Thus, where Adam was disobedient concerning God's edict concerning the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, Christ was obedient even to death on the wood of a tree. Irenaeus is the first to draw comparisons between Eve and Mary, contrasting the faithlessness of the former with the faithfulness of the latter. In addition to reversing the wrongs done by Adam, Irenaeus thinks of Christ as "recapitulating" or "summing up" human life.
• The Satisfaction (or Commercial) Theory: The formulator of this theory was the medieval theologian Anselm of Canterbury (1034-1109), in his book, Cur Deus Homo (lit. Why the God Man). In his view, God's offended honor and dignity could only be satisfied by the sacrifice of the God-man, Jesus Christ. "Anselm offered compelling biblical evidence that the atonement was not a ransom paid by God to the devil but rather a debt paid to God on behalf of sinners."^ [1]^ Anselm's work established a foundation for the Protestant Reformation, specifically the understanding of justification by faith.
• The Penal-Substitution Theory: This view was formulated by the 16th century Reformers as an extension of Anselm's Satisfaction theory. Anselm's theory was correct in introducing the satisfaction aspect of Christ's work and its necessity, however the Reformers saw it as insufficient because it was referenced to God's honor rather than his justice and holiness and was couched more in terms of a commercial transaction than a penal substitution. This Reformed view says simply that Christ died for man, in man's place, taking his sins and bearing them for him. The bearing of man's sins takes the punishment for them and sets the believer free from the penal demands of the law: The righteousness of the law and the holiness of God are satisfied by this substitution.
• The Moral-Example Theory (or Moral-Influence Theory): Christ died to influence mankind toward moral improvement. This theory denies that Christ died to satisfy any principle of divine justice, but teaches instead that His death was designed to greatly impress mankind with a sense of God's love, resulting in softening their hearts and leading them to repentance. Thus, the Atonement is not directed towards God with the purpose of maintaining His justice, but towards man with the purpose of persuading him to right action. Formulated by Peter Abelard (1079-1142) partially in reaction against Anselm's Satisfaction theory, this view was held by the 16th century Socinians. Versions of it can be found later in F. D. E. Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and Horace Bushnell (1802-1876).
• The Governmental Theory: God made Christ an example of suffering to exhibit to erring man that sin is displeasing to him. God's moral government of the world made it necessary for him to evince his wrath against sin in Christ. Christ died as a token of God's displeasure toward sin and it was accepted by God as sufficient; but actually God does not exact strict justice. This view was formulated by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) and is subsequently found in Arminianism, Charles Finney, the New England Theology of Jonathan Edwards (the younger), and Methodism.
• The Declaratory Theory: A version of the Moral Influence theory, wherein Christ died to show men how greatly God loves them. This view held by Albrecht Ritschl (1822-89).
• The Guaranty Theory: Reconciliation is based not on Christ's expiation of sin, but on His guaranty to win followers and thus conquer human sinfulness. This view held by J. C. K. von Hofmann (1810-77).
• The Vicarious Repentance Theory: by John McLeod Campbell (d. 1872). It assumes that a perfect repentance is sufficient to atone for sin. In his death, Christ entered into the Father's condemnation of sin, condemned sin, and by this, confessed it.
• The 'Christus Victor' or Dramatic Theory: by G. E. H. Aulén (1879-1977). The atonement is viewed as divine conflict and victory over the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection. This is a modified form of the classic Ransom theory with the emphasis on Christ's victory over evil.
• The Accident Theory: Christ's death was an accident, as unforeseen and unexpected as that of any other victim of man's hatred. This view is usually found outside of mainstream Christianity.
• The Martyr Theory: Christ gave up His life for a principle of truth that was opposed to the spirit of His day. This view is usually found outside of mainstream Christianity.

 

[SavedByGrace]

You do not need to get mad, or frustrated, at me for your inability to defend (or recognize) what you assume

obviously your theology got the better of you, and deceived you into rejecting what you once believed which is what the Bible actually teaches.

Judging from your MANY threads on BB on this subject, where you continue to push your false views, it is clear that you really do NOT understand what the Bible says on the Death of Jesus Christ!

 

[JonC]

If you look at the above theories there is a distinction that stands out.

Anselm first theorized that the Atonement is to address some attribute of God (honor). The RCC alters this later (Aquinas) to merit. And later (in the 16th century) this is changed to justice.

But for most of Christian history the Atonement was about reconciliation and freeing men from bondage (not addressing divine attributes).

What is important to realize is that none of these Christians ignore Scripture.

 

[SavedByGrace]

If you look at the above theories there is a distinction that stands out.

Anselm first theorized that the Atonement is to address some attribute of God (honor). The RCC alters this later (Aquinas) to merit. And later (in the 16th century) this is changed to justice.

But for most of Christian history the Atonement was about reconciliation and freeing men from bondage (not addressing divine attributes).

What is important to realize is that none of these Christians ignore Scripture.

never mind what these theologians might have said. I challange you and anyone else, to show from Isaiah 53

1. That God did not punish Jesus Christ for OUR sins

2. that Jesus Christ did not die "IN THE PLACE OF" sinners

THIS is what the Bible teaches. This is what true PSA is.

 

[JonC]

obviously your theology got the better of you, and deceived you into rejecting what you once believed which is what the Bible actually teaches.

Judging from your MANY threads on BB on this subject, where you continue to push your false views, it is clear that you really do NOT understand what the Bible says on the Death of Jesus Christ!

No, it was not my theory that got the better of me. I liked Penal Substitution Theory.

I had preached a sermon on the cross. It was a good sermon, delivered well. But the next morning I awoke with a conviction that I had not preached God's Word but instead my understanding.

I wrote down Penal Substitution Theory with the corresponding passages and quickly realized that the philosophy behind the theory is not found in Scripture.

I was reluctant but God led me away from the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

The difficult part was reading Scripture without reading into Scripture.

It starts with relying on God's Word rather than our own understanding. You are unable to defend your presuppositions. So you have to decide - Scripture or philosophy.

 

[JonC]

never mind what these theologians might have said. I challange you and anyone else, to show from Isaiah 53

1. That God did not punish Jesus Christ for OUR sins

2. that Jesus Christ did not die "IN THE PLACE OF" sinners

THIS is what the Bible teaches. This is what true PSA is.

That is a fallacy. You can't prove from Scripture something that is not in Scripture.

I do believe Christ died in our place. He is the "Last Adam".

God is sovereign and it was His will to put Christ to grief, to "crush" Him.

But it is up to you to prove that God must punish sins in order to forgive sins.

That is where your theology becomes philosophy. It corrupts your understanding.

Show me where God punished sins in order to forgive sins.

 

[SavedByGrace]

That is a fallacy. You can't prove from Scripture something that is not in Scripture.

I do believe Christ died in our place. He is the "Last Adam".

God is sovereign and it was His will to put Christ to grief, to "crush" Him.

But it is up to you to prove that God must punish sins in order to forgive sins.

That is where your theology becomes philosophy. It corrupts your understanding.

Show me where God punished sins in order to forgive sins.

Jon, I am really SORRY for your misguided understanding on this very important Bible Doctrine. Your arguments are clearly THEORIES, as you have FAILED to disprove what I have said from Isaiah 53, which is AGAINST what you believe.

 

[JonC]

Jon, I am really SORRY for your misguided understanding on this very important Bible Doctrine. Your arguments are clearly THEORIES, as you have FAILED to disprove what I have said from Isaiah 53, which is AGAINST what you believe.

Unless you can defend your view via Scripture your words are meaningless.

I am very sorry that you are blinded by the philosophy of men, but I understand it. While your salvation is not at stake, there is so much truth in God's Word that you miss out on by replacing it with a philosophy you cannot defend.

When did you first decide that God must punish sins in order to forgive sins (do you even know)?

If you cannot defend that idea via Scripture then why cling to it, why out it at the very foundation of your understanding of Christ's work?

 

[JonC]

Well...almost time to go home.

If you ever come up with a passage stating that God must punish sin to forgive sin please post it and I'll read it later.

But if you can't, then I will stick with Scripture.