Featured JonC's view of Substitution in the Atonement

NO Reformed would see Wright as holding to reformed Sotierology, as we would see him and the NPP denying Pauline Justification!

 

afterward the desire having conceived, doth give birth to sin, and the sin having been perfected, doth bring forth death. James 1:15

Stated a little differently.
for the wages of the sin, death, and the gift of God, life age-during in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom 6:23

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isa 53:6
for him who did not know sin, in our behalf He did make sin, from 2 Cor 5:21

who in the days of his flesh both prayers and supplications unto Him who was able to save him from death -- with strong crying and tears -- having offered up, and having been heard in respect to that which he feared, through being a Son, did learn by the things which he suffered -- the obedience, [for him who did not know sin, in our behalf He did make sin, And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?] and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross,


I do not know what it is called but methinks it took place.

Was his death [ dying thou dost die Gen 2:17] brought forth by our sin? Did the wages of the sin need to be paid? Did the promise of God who cannot lie, made before the beginning of time, Titus 1:2 need to be inherited by the Son, the heir of all things Heb 1:2, before there could be hope of eternal life for anyone else Titus 3:7 ???????

Notice even after having the Holy Spirit abundantly V 6 we are still heirs of hope. Hope, spoken of in Romans 8:24,25 ?

Is that hope and Holy Spirit relative to Romans 8:23? Exactly what do you think eternal life is relative to?

The body? ----- Maybe? ------ What kind of body?

 

You continually fail to understand that I am not interested in your 'theory.' I have provided copious evidence for the Doctrine of Penal Substitution, which, for about the 50th time is as follows:
'That God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.
If you agree with that statement, you have never said so. If you disagree, tell me where and we can discuss it. But your 'theory' is no concern of mine as I have told you time without number.

This is a tendentious way of expressing of expressing the Biblical fact that 'the wages of sin is death.' God will 'by no means clear the guilty.' The whole of the Bible bears witness to that. If you read my linked article you would at least be able to comment intelligently on the subject.
I showed you a linked progression from type (Leviticus 16:20-22) to prophecy (Isaiah 53:6) to history (1 Peter 2:24) showing that the sins of God's people are transferred to the Lord Jesus Christ. I have shown you that He is the Surety (Guarantor) of the New Covenant and that He must pay (and willingly has paid) the debt of sin that His people owe.
But the fact is that your mind is closed. It does not matter how many Biblical evidence I show you for Penal Substitution, you will continue to shut your eyes and close your ears to them. I don't know why we carry on this pointless exercise.

However, praise God, I have more important and more pleasant duties over the summer. I have a pile of sermons to prepare and preach so my activities here are going to be severely curtailed. However, one of my sermons will (DV) be on Penal Substitution; I will be sure to post a link to it.

 

None of them would agree with his view on the Atonement though, as he denies Pauline Justification as held by the reformers!

 

Do not those who reject Jesus to save them experience death, judgement, and eternal seperation though?

 

reformers held to the Psa atonement view

 

They experience all listed things, correct?

 

The atonement view of Wright and the NPP denies Pauline Justification articulated by both reformers and majority of baptists!

 

Eternal separation from presence of God, as under divine wrath of God!

 

I am not interested in your theory.. But 'without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness' (Hebrews 9:22, NIV), and '... It is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins' (Hebrews 10:4).

As you know, the definition is not mine.
But I have previously explained why 'for' very frequently has the meaning of 'instead of' or in the place of' both in English and Greek. If you want I can explain it again as soon as I have time.. But in the meantime, why don't you tell us what you think it means for the Lord Jesus Christ to suffer 'for' us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as te penalty for sin.if it does not mean 'instead of'?

 

Can you actually provide any actual evidence for this? Which Reformer actually said, "Anyone believing in Justification as St. Paul believed it shall be burned at the stake"?

 

Absolutely! Benjamin Keach's The Marrow of True Justification upholds the teaching of the Bible as expressed by the Reformers so well that Joel Beeke, despite his Presbyterian beliefs, has written the introduction to it.when it was re-published by Solid Ground Christian Books (ISBN 1-59925-114-0. Well worth reading).
I have never heard Wright descibed as 'Reformed.' He plainly isn't. If he has been, it is a sign of the devaluation of Christian terminology whereby Steve Chalke can be described as evangelical.