JonC's view of Substitution in the Atonement

[JonC]

You wrote:

This is a false statement. The first Calvinists would not have burned anyone at the stake for citing Pauline Justification. I accept that you may have meant it jocularly, but there is nothing jocular about people being burned at the stake and the statement is still false.

The problem is constantly referring to "Pauline Justification" as it is different from the Justification of Christ.

Paul was not authoring a new theology but explaining what had been delivered.

There is an error of believing Paul's epistles are less than the rest of Scripture (we have seen this a few years ago on this board).

But there is also an error of viewing Paul's writings as greater than the rest of Scripture (this is where I believe you live).

 

[JonC]

What is dishonest is your failure to set out what you understand about Christus Victor. And yes, I absolutely believe that Chrsit was victorious over Satan, but I think we shall find that I believe it for very different reasons than you appear to. I say appear, becaue you seem unable to articulate the very doctrine that you say you hold to. My knowledge of Christus Vicor centres on the writings of Gustav Aulen, but you say you don't want to discuss him, so come on, 'brace yourself like a man,' and lay out your doctrine.

My view has already been laid out. You actually repeated it (or extracts) when you quoted the ECF's.

Anyway, I believe Jesus had to physically assume human nature, unite it to his divine nature, overcome temptation throughout his life in reliance on the Holy Spirit, bearing our sins bodily on the cross suffer and die under the powers of the World (under the powers of Satan....i.e., the Serpent striking the heel), conquer the grave (victory over sin and death...crushing the Serpent's head), ascend to the Father as humanity’s representative and share the Spirit of new humanity with all who believe.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

My view has already been laid out. You actually repeated it (or extracts) when you quoted the ECF's.

Anyway, I believe Jesus had to physically assume human nature, unite it to his divine nature, overcome temptation throughout his life in reliance on the Holy Spirit, bearing our sins bodily on the cross suffer and die under the powers of the World (under the powers of Satan....i.e., the Serpent striking the heel), conquer the grave (victory over sin and death...crushing the Serpent's head), ascend to the Father as humanity’s representative and share the Spirit of new humanity with all who believe.

The problem is that you don't explain how all of that helps us. Why did He have to overcome temptation in reliance on the Spirit? What does it mean to you that He 'bore our sins bodily on the cross? How does that help us? How exactly did He 'crush the serpent's head'? How does that help us? And don't say He did it by rising from the dead unless you tell us exactly how that crushed the serpent's head.

I'm not being disingenuous here. I actually want to understand what it is that you believe, but you seem mighty reluctant to tell us.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The problem is constantly referring to "Pauline Justification" as it is different from the Justification of Christ.

Obviously no Christian believes that 'Pauline Justification' is different from that which our Lord taught. George Smeaton, a 19th Century Scottish theologian wrote Christ's Doctrine of the Atonement and The Apostles' Doctrine of the Atonement )both published by Banner of Truth). He showed that they were both the same doctrine (Penal Substitution).
The term, as I said, is a modern one, and @JesusFan used it. It seems to refer to the Reformers' understanding of Justification as expounded by the Apostle Paul, in answer to the writings of NPP.

 

[JonC]

The problem is that you don't explain how all of that helps us. Why did He have to overcome temptation in reliance on the Spirit? What does it mean to you that He 'bore our sins bodily on the cross? How does that help us? How exactly did He 'crush the serpent's head'? How does that help us? And don't say He did it by rising from the dead unless you tell us exactly how that crushed the serpent's head.

I'm not being disingenuous here. I actually want to understand what it is that you believe, but you seem mighty reluctant to tell us.

I have explained how all of this helps us. The problem is I have not articulated it well enough. That is why I'm reached out to use the words of other people.

Christ is, essentially, the "last Adam". Think of it this way - we were of the first Adam. What did this mean for us? It means death and bondage. Through faith we are now of the Last Adam. What does this mean? It means life.

I apologize that I cannot articulate this so as to explain better. To be fair, when I held to Penal Substitution I am not sure that I would understand as I would have a framework that only Penal Substitution could fill.

When I abandon Penal Substitution Theory it was not because I was persuaded by another view. I was convicted that I held a view that was not biblical. It was some time before I could read Scripture (like Christ died for our sins) without automatically reading into the text.

Working through Scripture I arrived at an understanding. Then I started studying to make sure I had not come up with a unique position (new for me is OK, new for Christianity is not). And I discovered the understanding at which I arrived was the "classic view" I had previously glossed over and dismissed as incomplete.

I say this to say that I wish I knew how to explain it to you so as the answer your questions. I am also being sincere. But I do not believe anything would have helped me to understand how the "classic view" is complete while I held to Penal Substitution. It does s a completely different framework (the "problem" of sin is different, the meaning of the Cross is different, what Christ achieved on our behalf is different).

 

[JonC]

Obviously no Christian believes that 'Pauline Justification' is different from that which our Lord taught. George Smeaton, a 19th Century Scottish theologian wrote Christ's Doctrine of the Atonement and The Apostles' Doctrine of the Atonement )both published by Banner of Truth). He showed that they were both the same doctrine (Penal Substitution).
The term, as I said, is a modern one, and @JesusFan used it. It seems to refer to the Reformers' understanding of Justification as expounded by the Apostle Paul, in answer to the writings of NPP.

That is my point. Why not just say "Justification"?

In the past I have quoted from the gospels and JesusFan responded that was not "Pauline Justification".

My point is there is one justification (Paul explained what was already given, his was not a different justification).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

That is my point. Why not just say "Justification"?

In the past I have quoted from the gospels and JesusFan responded that was not "Pauline Justification".

My point is there is one justification (Paul explained what was already given, his was not a different justification).

I am perfectly happy to abandon the term.

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate

I will say I do appreciate your sincerity. Our responces have been colored by insincerity for far too long.

When I was convicted that Penal Substitution Theory was not supported by Scripture I brought that to this board. The reason was not to confront what I saw as error but to seek out the reasons for interpreting passages within a specific context.

I was more than willing to be shown the error was mine. I actually wanted that. So I asked questions.

Some would give me passages but we're unable to defend their interpretation (e.g., "God must punish sins to forgive sins, therefore Christ bearing our sins means Christ bearing our punishment"). But this ignored the basis of interpretation (and my questions...I know what Scripture means IF Penal Substitution Theory is right).

Others would say it is the only way the Cross makes sense (they should have added to them).

For the most part my questions were met with hostility. To my discredit I often responded in kind. I fear I have allowed that bleed over in our dialogue.

Anyway, every interaction I have had on this board, every instance where Penal Substitution Theory was "proven", has solidified my conclusion that it is wrong.

If divine justice (the supreme expression or form of justice...true righteousness) is that sins must be punished in order for sins to be forgiven then I grant that Penal Substitution Theory is absolutely correct. But if divine justice is something else, then Penal Substitution Theory is an error.

That is the reasoning behind my questions and persistence on this topic. For over a decade I have asked the same questions without receiving an adequate (for me) answer.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I have explained how all of this helps us.

I have to say that I don't think you have.

The problem is I have not articulated it well enough. That is why I'm reached out to use the words of other people.

Christ is, essentially, the "last Adam". Think of it this way - we were of the first Adam. What did this mean for us? It means death and bondage. Through faith we are now of the Last Adam. What does this mean? It means life.

But why did Christ have to die then? As the last Adam He succeeded where the first Adam failed, but that was in Matthew 4:1-11. On that basis, what was the cross about?

I apologize that I cannot articulate this so as to explain better. To be fair, when I held to Penal Substitution I am not sure that I would understand as I would have a framework that only Penal Substitution could fill.

When I abandon Penal Substitution Theory it was not because I was persuaded by another view. I was convicted that I held a view that was not biblical. It was some time before I could read Scripture (like Christ died for our sins) without automatically reading into the text.

Working through Scripture I arrived at an understanding. Then I started studying to make sure I had not come up with a unique position (new for me is OK, new for Christianity is not). And I discovered the understanding at which I arrived was the "classic view" I had previously glossed over and dismissed as incomplete.

I say this to say that I wish I knew how to explain it to you so as the answer your questions. I am also being sincere. But I do not believe anything would have helped me to understand how the "classic view" is complete while I held to Penal Substitution. It does s a completely different framework (the "problem" of sin is different, the meaning of the Cross is different, what Christ achieved on our behalf is different).

When I read this, I felt a smidgeon of sympathy for you; but it was only a smidgeon and it quickly passed. You have not hesitated to pour scorn on others who have struggled to articulate their understandings, and I spent 3 weeks at your request putting together my understanding of Penal Substitution, and you have scarcely so much as mentioned it. Yet all the time you are unable to articulate your own position when asked fairly straightforward questions. I appreciate your honesty, but beyond that, words fail me!

What I will say is this: if I could not defend the doctrines that I have advanced I would have ti ask myself whether I understood them and whether they were correct.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@Martin Marprelate

I will say I do appreciate your sincerity. Our responses have been colored by insincerity for far too long.

When I was convicted that Penal Substitution Theory was not supported by Scripture I brought that to this board. The reason was not to confront what I saw as error but to seek out the reasons for interpreting passages within a specific context.

I was more than willing to be shown the error was mine. I actually wanted that. So I asked questions.

I have to say that this is not my recollection of our early exchanges AT ALL.

Some would give me passages but we're unable to defend their interpretation (e.g., "God must punish sins to forgive sins, therefore Christ bearing our sins means Christ bearing our punishment"). But this ignored the basis of interpretation (and my questions...I know what Scripture means IF Penal Substitution Theory is right).

I defy you to show where I have ever written "God must punish sins in order to forgive sins." In fact the only person on this board whom I can recall ever using the words is you. But also, how can you blame anyone for being unable to defend his interpretation when you are unable to defend yours?

Others would say it is the only way the Cross makes sense (they should have added to them).

For the most part my questions were met with hostility. To my discredit I often responded in kind. I fear I have allowed that bleed over in our dialogue.

We have both fallen short in this respect.

Anyway, every interaction I have had on this board, every instance where Penal Substitution Theory was "proven", has solidified my conclusion that it is wrong.

Well there we go! Every interaction I have had on this board, every instance where Penal Substitution Theory was "proven wrong", has solidified my conclusion that it is right. From my earliest time studying Scripture, Penal Substitution has seemed perfectly clear. So when, at a conference of the FIEC, I learned that P.S. was under attack and the Pierced for our Transgressions book was made available at a very low price, I bought the book but didn't read it because I felt I didn't need to. It was when this discussion started that I realised that I needed to look at the doctrine more seriously, but everything I've learned and every Scripture I've studied has only served to strengthen my belief in PSA.

If divine justice (the supreme expression or form of justice...true righteousness) is that sins must be punished in order for sins to be forgiven then I grant that Penal Substitution Theory is absolutely correct. But if divine justice is something else, then Penal Substitution Theory is an error.

That is the reasoning behind my questions and persistence on this topic. For over a decade I have asked the same questions without receiving an adequate (for me) answer.

If your theory that you have invented says that sins must be punished in order for sins to be forgiven, then that is obviously a nonsense. No one could possibly believe any such stuff. But God cannot and will not overlook sin 'The soul that sins shall die,' .and after that, of course, the judgment. If sins can just be forgiven, there is no reason for Christ to die at all. There needs to be a way for God to be 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.' And praise God there is! It's called Penal Substitution.

One thing you have never done is to comment on our Lord as Mediator and as Surety. Can you not articulate that either?

 

[JonC]

I have to say that I don't think you have.

But why did Christ have to die then? As the last Adam He succeeded where the first Adam failed, but that was in Matthew 4:1-11. On that basis, what was the cross about?

When I read this, I felt a smidgeon of sympathy for you; but it was only a smidgeon and it quickly passed. You have not hesitated to pour scorn on others who have struggled to articulate their understandings, and I spent 3 weeks at your request putting together my understanding of Penal Substitution, and you have scarcely so much as mentioned it. Yet all the time you are unable to articulate your own position when asked fairly straightforward questions. I appreciate your honesty, but beyond that, words fail me!

What I will say is this: if I could not defend the doctrines that I have advanced I would have ti ask myself whether I understood them and whether they were correct.

Christ could not have succeeded where Adam fails without suffering and dying under the powers of this World. As the ECF's pointed out, He had to take in all that it is to be human (including the curse).

It is not about defending doctrines. All a defence needs is a good argument. It is about testing doctrines against what is written in Scripture.

Simply put, the only place we find divine justice demanding sins be punished for them to be forgiven is in 16th century philosophy.

This should be evident to all, as I have been asking this board (including you) for passages stating that God must punish to forgive. For over a decade all that has been offered are passages interpreted using the assumption divine justice means punishing sins therefore God must punish either Christ (our sins in Him) or us. But the very foundation of Penal Substitution Theory is not in the Bible.

 

[JonC]

I have to say that this is not my recollection of our early exchanges AT ALL.

I defy you to show where I have ever written "God must punish sins in order to forgive sins." In fact the only person on this board whom I can recall ever using the words is you. But also, how can you blame anyone for being unable to defend his interpretation when you are unable to defend yours?

We have both fallen short in this respect.

Well there we go! Every interaction I have had on this board, every instance where Penal Substitution Theory was "proven wrong", has solidified my conclusion that it is right. From my earliest time studying Scripture, Penal Substitution has seemed perfectly clear. So when, at a conference of the FIEC, I learned that P.S. was under attack and the Pierced for our Transgressions book was made available at a very low price, I bought the book but didn't read it because I felt I didn't need to. It was when this discussion started that I realised that I needed to look at the doctrine more seriously, but everything I've learned and every Scripture I've studied has only served to strengthen my belief in PSA.

If your theory that you have invented says that sins must be punished in order for sins to be forgiven, then that is obviously a nonsense. No one could possibly believe any such stuff. But God cannot and will not overlook sin 'The soul that sins shall die,' .and after that, of course, the judgment. If sins can just be forgiven, there is no reason for Christ to die at all. There needs to be a way for God to be 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.' And praise God there is! It's called Penal Substitution.

One thing you have never done is to comment on our Lord as Mediator and as Surety. Can you not articulate that either?

As far as I recall you have mostly ignored the question. But you have alluded to the affirmative (your comments that this is what it means for God to be just and the justifier of sinners).

Do you believe that God must punish our sins laid upon Christ in order to forgive us our sins?

If so, in what passage is that found? If not, why the Cross?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Christ could not have succeeded where Adam fails without suffering and dying under the powers of this World. As the ECF's pointed out, He had to take in all that it is to be human (including the curse).

That may be what some of the ECFs say, but where does the Bible say it? Where does the Bible say that the 'powers of the world' caused the Lord Jesus to suffer? I can tell you where it says that God caused Him to suffer.

It is not about defending doctrines. All a defence needs is a good argument. It is about testing doctrines against what is written in Scripture.

Simply put, the only place we find divine justice demanding sins be punished for them to be forgiven is in 16th century philosophy.

And in your imagination. But the Bible in multiple places testifies that God will by no means clear the guilty..

This should be evident to all, as I have been asking this board (including you) for passages stating that God must punish to forgive. For over a decade all that has been offered are passages interpreted using the assumption divine justice means punishing sins therefore God must punish either Christ (our sins in Him) or us. But the very foundation of Penal Substitution Theory is not in the Bible.

Your theory may not be in the Bible but Penal Substitution is all over it. I have given you multiple texts, but you simply ignore them and trot out the same old mantra, but when I ask you to articulate your own theory, you can't do it.

Why don't you address the implications of Christ being Mediator and Surety of the New Covenant?.

 

[JonC]

That may be what some of the ECFs say, but where does the Bible say it? Where does the Bible say that the 'powers of the world' caused the Lord Jesus to suffer? I can tell you where it says that God caused Him to suffer.


And in your imagination. But the Bible in multiple places testifies that God will by no means clear the guilty..

Your theory may not be in the Bible but Penal Substitution is all over it. I have given you multiple texts, but you simply ignore them and trot out the same old mantra, but when I ask you to articulate your own theory, you can't do it.

Why don't you address the implications of Christ being Mediator and Surety of the New Covenant?.

The Bible tells us in Genesis 3, Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, and Acts exactly who is responsible for Christs death. The Bible tells us that it pleased God to crush Him, to put Him to grief, that this was God's will, His predetermined plan (Scripture interprets Scripture). But nowhere does it say that God caused His suffering (other than His obedience to the Father's will).

I agree that God does not acquit the guilty. This does not mean that God must punish sins for them to be forgiven. God makes the guilty innocent. He "washes" them, "sprinkles clean water on them", "recreates them".


Christ IS Mediator and Surety of the New Covenant. I do not understand where you think we differ here.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Do you believe that God must punish our sins laid upon Christ in order to forgive us our sins?

Of course I do.

If so, in what passage is that found? If not, why the Cross?

Isaiah 53:5-12; 2 Corinthians 5:21 will do for starters.
I also gave you Leviticus 16:21; Isaiah 53:6 and 1 Peter 2:24 as somewhere you see the transferance of our sins to Christ first in type, then in prophesy and finally in history. You have never made any effort to refute this.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The Bible tells us in Genesis 3, Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, and Acts exactly who is responsible for Christs death. The Bible tells us that it pleased God to crush Him, to put Him to grief, that this was God's will, His predetermined plan (Scripture interprets Scripture). But nowhere does it say that God caused His suffering (other than His obedience to the Father's will).

I agree that God does not acquit the guilty. This does not mean that God must punish sins for them to be forgiven. God makes the guilty innocent. He "washes" them, "sprinkles clean water on them", "recreates them".


Christ IS Mediator and Surety of the New Covenant. I do not understand where you think we differ here.

1. Isaiah 53:10. 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.' How much clearer do you need it?
2. But what does it mean to you that Christ is Mediator and Surety of the New Covenant? What do you think the terms mean?
3. If God can wash, sprinkle clean water and recreate sinner and that is all He needs to do to reconcile them to Himself, then there is no need for Christ to have died.

 

[JonC]

Of course I do.

Isaiah 53:5-12; 2 Corinthians 5:21 will do for starters.
I also gave you Leviticus 16:21; Isaiah 53:6 and 1 Peter 2:24 as somewhere you see the transferance of our sins to Christ first in type, then in prophesy and finally in history. You have never made any effort to refute this.

I know the passages you gave me. I agree with those passages. Our sins were laid upon Christ.

The problem is your interpretation of those passages depends on you believing that God must punish sins to forgive.

Why do you believe that justice (true justice) requires punishment of the crime in order to acquit the criminal.

I understood why John Calvin believed it (based on Calvin being a pupil of 16th century humanistic law...much of which has since been demonstrated as imperfect and problematic). But why do you believe it?

 

[37818]

The false views of God. Either being just and without mercy. Or mercy without justice. The true God is both just with mercy. If a person receives deserved justice, offer of mercy was justly lost. Justice is deserved and the mercy cannot be deserved but can only be received as an unmerited gift.

 

[JonC]

The false views of God. Either being just and without mercy. Or mercy without justice. The true God is both just with mercy. If a person receives deserved justice, offer of mercy was justly lost. Justice is deserved and the mercy cannot be deserved but can only be received as an unmerited gift.

I absolutely agree that either being just and without mercy or mercy without justice is false.

I also agree that God will never punish the Righteous or acquit the guilty.

My argument is that God is just and the justifier of sinners, and that this is God's righteousness manifested apart from the law.

The wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God. Period. No "if, ands, or buts".

 

[37818]

The wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God. Period. No "if, ands, or buts".

Romans 3:23, ". . . For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; . . ."