Featured The Classic View (just a summary)

See attached chart. The Bible does not teach substitution.

 

Except for all the scripture where the Bible does teach substitution.
Substitutionary Atonement - The Gospel Coalition

 

I have responded to all his points in various posts:

5 Biblical Corrections to Penal Substitution

 

Except for all the scripture that teaches substitution.

You and Jon can hold whatever theory you wish (It's not Traditional and it's not Classic), but the scriptures bleeds substituionary atonement from Genesis 3 to Revelation. The attempts to talk around scripture and explain it away are, in my perspective, silly attempts at being contentious for no reason.

 

A substitute does not say "take up your cross and follow me."

 

The King of Kings was not talking about atonement when he said those words. Context is important.
Do you think Jesus was telling you that by carrying your own cross, you were supposed to atone for your own sins by your own merit?

 

It is true that I don't atone for my sins by my own merit. But that does not entail substitution.

I am drowning in a river (the river represents death). Jesus jumps in the river, grabs me, and pulls me out. Jesus is 100% the agent of my salvation. Jesus was not my "substitute" in this scenario. Jesus does not go into the river in my place.

 

Our Lord Jesus did not jump in with you, he jumped in for you. The penalty of sin is eternal separation from God in the lake of fire called the second death where soul and body is cast at the great white throne judgement. God says the life of the flesh is in the blood, and the embalmer got that, and the life of God is the Spirit of Christ and of God.
Here is what God says about the man who does not have his Spirit indwelling their bodies, provided through the crucified Christ who was resurrected from the dead. Ro 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

But if the Spirit of him (God the Father - see Ga 1:1) that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he (God the Father) that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his (Christ's) Spirit that dwelleth in you.(Rom 8:11)

Jesus described the eternal abode of the damned who are paying the penalty of their own sin in the lake of fire by being bound hand and foot, having no foundation under their feet, loneliness, wandering stars, thirst, darkness, pain, hopelessness, fear, sameness, fire that symbolized the wrath of God, and forgotten of him. No one is in that place yet but this is the sentence of sinners and that is exactly what our wonderful savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, suffered for us on the cross as the substitute for all sinful mankind who had transgressed God's law, which he, Jesus our substitute, had not done.

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem 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 upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
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.

I am not sure how substitution can be missed.

 

Why does the river represent death. Why doesn't it represent Sin?
However, in your story, Jesus should die since that is what He did. What did He die for? He died for your sins. He substituted Himself in the river of your sins so that you would be saved from your sins. Jesus 100% goes into the river in your place.

I am reminded of a story a teacher told about what teachers do. She said, "We see children drowning and we jump in the river to save them. Meanwhile there are others on the riverbank who do nothing but tell us how we ought to be saving the kids."

Your theory sounds like the person's on the bank who are making up all types of theories about how to save people while Jesus is jumping in the river and saving people by taking their sins upon himself.

 

No, you are not taking sin seriously enough. We were already dead in our trespasses and sins (see Ephesians 2). Jesus cannot die in place of people who are already dead.

Furthermore, see the attached verses. Those do not at all fit with substitution.

See the logic of the penitent criminal on the cross in Luke 23:40. His logic is not “in my place condemned he stands.” His logic is “we are under the same sentence of condemnation, me justly, him unjustly.”

Jesus dies with us, only he alone dies unjustly as a perfectly innocent party.

 

To be in sin is to be dead in trespasses and sins. See Ephesians 2:1. See the parable of the prodigal son, in which Jesus refers to the rebellious son, while he is in sin, as "dead." In my story, Jesus jumping into the river of death represents his death.

Jesus doesn't die so we will avoid death. Jesus dies so we will be resurrected from death with him.

 

Paul says that we all were dead in our trespasses and sins. "But God" made us alive with Christ." Paul also tells us that we were crucified with Christ. Our lives exchanged for Christ's. That's substitution.

As for the prodigal son. The key to understanding is that both the children are already sons of the Father. They both receive their inheritance. They aren't outside of the family. So, neither child represents the unredeemed. They represent Christians and how we relate to the Father.

So your analogy has the river (sin) as death. You would have both the sinner and Jesus die, without either of them being redeemed or saved. Both die in your scenario. Your analogy is terribly flawed and empty of any substance. I suggest you look for another analogy because yours is not in alignment with scripture.

You are free to hold whatever unconventional theory of atonement you wish to hold, but your theory is not convincing in the least.

 

I do need a chart. Scripture is sufficient and scripture very clearly teaches PSA.

However, the OP is not about PSA so let’s not get off topic.

peace to you

 

I searched through the first few posts for a definition of "the classic view" of Penal Substitution Atonement (PSA).
Here is perhaps the view:

Christ suffered under the wages of sin, which is death. These were our wages, wages He did not earn. And suffering under the bondage of sin, the power of evil, of Satan, Christ died the death that we will die. The Serpent indeed crushed Him, crushed His heel.​

So, if this is close to the view being explained, once again the "us" in "He won for us," is not defined. Did He win for humanity victory in that He provided the means of salvation from the wages of sin, or did He win for previously chosen elect individuals, victory in that He paid for their specific sins only?

 

If we are crucified with Christ then that is not substitution. Substitution is Christ being crucified instead of us, in our place, so we won't be.

If I go to the grocery store WITH my wife, then I cannot go to the grocery store instead of my wife at the same time.

Your comment on the prodigal son is irrelevant to the argument. The point is that Jesus calls him "dead" while he is in his sin.

"You would have both the sinner and Jesus die, without either of them being redeemed or saved." Jesus pulls the sinner out of the river of death. That is analogous to his resurrection. We are raised with Christ.

The problem is that we are dead in sin. Jesus dies with us, so that by his resurrection, we can rise with him. That is exactly what Ephesians 2:1-10 outlines. No substitution there.

 

Being crucified with Christ is talking about the union with Christ which we all desire. The idea that if we be dead with Christ, in other words our union with Christ is such that his death secures our deliverance from the penalty and power of sin, we believe we shall also live with him. So while it's true that this unity with Christ is the great prize for us, as symbolized when it is said at a believers baptism "buried with him in baptism, raised to walk in newness of life"; that does not say anything about how that occurs. It occurs by the transfer of our sin and guilt and punishment to Christ as he died in our stead and as other verses clearly show. To claim that being crucified with Christ disproves the concept of substitution, when so many other verses indicate otherwise is incorrect. Read some Charles Hodge on Romans 6 for further explanation.