Featured The Classic View (just a summary)

I am separating this for clarity.

I am not sure how you make the claim.

I said that Christ suffered and died under the wages of sin - under the powers of darkness authored by Satan - just as we suffer the wages of sin. But that Christ suffered under the wages of our sin. I said He shared our infirmitiy and came under the curse he did not earn.

Then I said that what Christ did earn under God's covenant was the blessings due to obedience (we earned the curse, He earned the blessings).

The purpose of the Cross was that Christ suffer under the "powers of this age", under the product of sin. This is what we will suffer. But we have victory in Christ because He had victory over those powers.

Christ is to the Christian what Adam is to natural man. He is the "Second Adam". We are redeemed in Christ where we were condemned in Adam. Both was solidarity.


I am not sure how you get that I say we could identify with Christ in his victory over sin and death without Him having to be under any kind of curse or under consequences of sin. I actually did not say that. I said the opposite .

I insisted that He shared our infirmitiy, became a curse for us. That He suffered the wages of sin we will suffer, but unlike us they were not earned by Him.

AND I said this repeatedly...and in replies to you.

 

No. That is absolutely NOT what I have said

I said that the Word became flesh.
Jesus became like us in all ways, but He did not sin.
Yet becoming like us means suffering the wages we suffer (sharing our infirmitiy).

I absolutely did not say that Christ took God's wrath in Himself.

The Bible is clear. God's wrath is never on the righteous. Psalm 22 is clear - the "Servant" was experiencing the wrath of "evil" and "evil doers" trusting in God to deliver Him precisely because of God's righteousness (appealing even to how God acted in the past when pagans persecuted Israel's forefathers).

I said that Jesus experienced the wages of sin....not the wages of God. Jesus became a curse for us, was made to be sin for us.

This means Jesus is the Second Adam, in whom there is no condemnation.


Why do we not suffer God's wrath at Judgment?

Because God's Judgment is on the wicked, not on Christ.

If, at Judgment, you are found to be wicked then you will experience the Second death.

If, however, you are found "in Christ", with "a mind set on the Spirit", having "died to sin", having "died to the flesh", having been "made a new creation", having been born of the Spirit", having been "reborn", having been "born from above", God having "given you a new spirit", God having "put His Spirit in you"......however you want to say it....then you will live.

 

I consider sharing our infirmitiy to be sharing the wages of our sin. Jesus is Immanuel (God with us).

 

This is a false claim.

You are now making stuff up. That is wrong of you. It is sinful, in fact.

I NEVER posted that Christ suffered the just judgment due us. You are even inventing things I did not say to pretend I changed my view.

I also did not say Christ was showing us the way of obedience and discipleship.

That is extraordinary.....wrong. You and I disagree, but perhaps I misjudged your character. I thought you Christian (not only in terms of salvation but also that you sought to be obedient to Christ in action).



What I affirm is Scripture (what is written in the text of the Bible).

Christ died for our sins.
He shared our infirmitiy.
He bore our sins bodily on the cross.
He became a curse for us.
He was made to be sin for us
He suffered at the "hands of wicked men"
He suffered under "evil"
His suffering was by "evildoers"
He suffered under the "wicked"
The Lord was pleased to crush Him
He gave Himself as a guilt offering
He suffered the stroke we were due
And by His stripes we are healed.

That is not Penal Substitution. You are reading the Theory into my words.

Christ becoming a curse for us, sharing our infirmitiy, putting Himself along side us under sin and death, experiencing the wages of sin we will experience.....this IS God laying our sins on Him.

 

Again....you are not being .... forthright.

I already said that Christ suffered and died on our behalf.

I even pointed out that the sacrificial system, especially when associated with the Temple and the Holy of Holies, focuses on the blood of the sacrifice in cleansing (rather than punishment).

You are faltering. Otherwise you would have dealt with what I have posted rather than make up stuff.

 

No. If I posted that you said something and you said I was making stuff up, and that is sinful, you would receive no points.

There would not be an issue unless I came up with a quote of you saying it.

NOW.....had you posted like this against Martin M or any other member then as a moderator I would have deleted it and given you one point expiring in 6 months for attributing to a member a belief they denied.

BUT as a moderator I am not doing that but giving you the chance to police your own behavior.

This is not the first time you appealed to the Reformation.

I believe Calvin was wrong on his view of the Atonement.

I do not know Pastor Jones.

I know a few Baptist pastors who agree with me, a lot of Anabaptist pastors who agree with me. I know Baptist pastors who disagree with me. I do not know of a Pastor Jones. What church?

If we are a curse (natural man....and we are) then becoming a curse for us is exactly Emmanuel.

 

OK....this is an easy one.

One of us is right and the other wrong. Rather than digging in one of us owes the other an apology.

For my part, if you can support your claim then as a Christian will certainly apologize for my mistake.

"That Christ bore our sins in his own body, that he suffered the curse, that he suffered the just judgment due us and so on."

QUOTE me saying that Christ suffered the just judgment due us.

This is what I did say:

Now, I do believe that Christ is our example.....but provide a quote of me saying that Christ was showing us the way of obedience and discipleship.



Once we identify exactly where those ideas came from ,(me, or you falsely attributed to me) then we can discuss how my view is not substitution or satisfaction when it comes to Christ's death.

As a Christian I'm sure you agree we have to pause and address this issue rather than ignoring it.

 

Yes. I agree with what I said

He was suffering for our sins (not His own). He was surrounded by evildoers, taken away by oppression and judgment. He was sharing our infirmity, being made a curse for us, sin for us.

That in no way means that His death was just....quite the opposite. Evil judgment is unjust.

I grant that you were not quoting verbatim. My problem was that you went with something I do not believe in order to call what I do believe a "shell game".

You misunderstood. I get it. But you should be more careful if making an accusation or evaluation.

I will not insist on an apology (I don't believe you would offer one anyway). But I will continue so that perhaps you may understand what the Classic View holds and why it is neither substitution or satisfaction.

Christus Victor views Jesus as suffering under the domination system (the powers of darkness) rather than under God. We still suffer under this system, so it obviously is not substitution. And since this suffering was Satan "crushing His heel" rather than to satisfy anything it is also not satisfaction.

 

I am not one who brought up me being a moderator (I answered your claim about what you said I would do). That is something I hate on this board. When a member disagrees or misspeaks they hide behind me being a moderator as some racist or justification.

If I was responding to you and I said you are wrong. God did not punish Jesus, God was not wrathful to Jesus, and Jesus was not tortured by the demons in Hell.....what would you say? You would rightly challenge me. Then I could point out that I was speaking in general because some Penal Substitution theorists believe Christ spent three days in Hell being tortured by Satan and his demons. That is nonsense.


There are a lot of things, by your reply, that you do not understand about the Classic View of Atonement. But whether to ask questions is up to you. Stay or leave the conversation.

 

Uh no.....every one of those points have been used by those who hold the Classic View as opposed to Penal Substitution as well.

It is not a shell game because I am not saying that I add penal substitution to those things.

For example, Anabaptist have been very opposed to Penal Substitution Theory since the Reformation. But they affirmed all of those things you view as Penal Substitution.


The Classic View believes that Jesus is God. You believe Jesus is God. Are you playing some "shell game"?

Penal Substitution Theory does include a lot of Scripture. But it cannot rob that Scripture from opposing views.

Point out one of those things I posted that I believe that is unique to Penal Substitution Theory. You can't. Ransom Theory, Recapitulation, Moral Exemplar, Government Theory, Satisfaction Theory, Substitution Theory, Penal Substitution Theory, Moral Influence Theory......they all hold common beliefs.

You need to look at where we differ to evaluate our positions, not what we have in common.

 

I disagree that I was wrong about Torrance. You quoted and made assumptions from one book to dispute what he taught in his lectures I posted about Penal Substitution. It's like you are content to squeeze anybody into your theory.

I think @Arthur King put it very well. You could read the early church writings he suggested. You could read Gustaf Aulén's book. You could read Weaver's book. You could read the two Southern Baptist theologians that reject Penal Substitution Theory which I provided earlier. You could read any of the Anabaptist scholars I provided.


It is actually very simple. I think that is why you wrestle with grasping it so much.

Satan deceived Eve and Adam was tempted. Adam sinned. Death entered the world through this sin. Adam represents man. The wages of sin is death. Man is in bondage to sin and death.

God becomes man, under this bondage, and suffers under the powers of darkness (suffers the wages of sin). The Serpent has crushed His heel.

Christ submitted Himself to this death in obedience to God. It was according to God's predetermined plan. He died for our sin, giving Himself as a ransom for us.

Christ inherited the blessings of the Covenant rather than the curse (He is righteous). God raised Him on the third day. He is a "Life giving Spirit". He is the representative of a new kind of man, the Firstborn of many brethren.

We must die to sin, die to the flesh, repent from a mind set on the flesh (which is death) and set our minds on the Spirit (which is life).

It is that simple.

 

@DaveXR650

I can tell you what helped me.

I told you how I came to reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. I realized it was not in the text of Scripture.

That did not mean what Penal Substitution Theory uses to support the theory is not in the Bible. But all views use those same passages.

The difficult part was reading God's Word without reading into God's Word. But that is the best way to understand what I am saying. It will look less like jello when you are able not to read into the Bible.

For example - Christ died for our sins.

What does that mean?

It has been said here it means that Christ experienced punishment for our sins.

But try to read it as meaning that Christ died for our sins.


If you can do that then all you need to understand the Classic View is the Bible.

For an overview read Genesis, Exodus, Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, Matthew, John and Romans. Do this without reading into the Bible (take it for just what is written).

Then you have a decent summary.


The problem is once somebody tells you the ink blot is a bat it is very difficult not to see the bat.