Featured The Classic View (just a summary)

But you are "doing violence to that word" and concept.

This is proven if we look at the verse @Martin Marprelate offered.

John 11:49–53 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. So from that day on they planned together to kill Him.

Caiaphas said it was expedient that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.

Is this substitution? Obviously not. The "one man" here was not offered as a substitute for the nation. The fear was “If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”

In other words, if the one man did not die for the nation then the nation would die - but the one man was not a substitute.

Scripture tells us "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."


You and @taisto are changing Scripture by changing the meaning of words (by adding your philosophy to the meaning). That is adding to Scripture.


"If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”. They decide it is better that Jesus die. How on earth is that a substitution????

It isn't.

 

@DaveXR650

I realize you get frustrated because I describe what you view as substitution.

I get frustrated because you see substitution in words that are not actually conveying a substitution.

Such is the nature of debating theology.

If it helps, when I post these verses there is no substitution there.

Try to understand, at least, what those passages can mean other than substitution. That may help. You may still disagree, but perhaps that will make the disagreement legitimate.

 

I'll try to fix it.

It usually happens when one character of "quote" is deleted.

 

@Martin Marprelate was wrong about the word in Greek. The Jewish counsel did not decide to kill Jesus as a substitute for the nation but so that Rome would not destroy the nation.

I agree that the statements I have listed are used by penal substitution advocates to show penal substitution. But they don't actually show penal substitution.

A more correct statement would be that Penal Substitution theorists use those statements to support Penal Substitution Theory.

I use those statements not because Penal Substitution theorists use them but because they are Scripture.

I believe those passages without adding "substitution" to those passages.


For example - "Christ died for us".

I believe that Christ died for us but not instead of us.

So why would I not use the passage that Christ died for us?


I do not understand your objection ...that I should not depend on verses Penal Substitution theorists use to support Penal Substitution Theory. That does not make sense to me.

 

Well...let's look at it.

He gave Himself for us.

I believe Christ gave Himself for us.

How is that changing Scripture?


With you it is easy to say how you add to Scripture.

Scripture says He gave Himself for us.

You read that as Christ gave Himself for us as our Substitute.

That is adding to God's Word (something Christians should not do).

Not only do you change the meaning by adding to Scripture so that you create an unbiblical doctrine but the unbiblical doctrine obscures what God actually said to us.

 

Be baptized for the remission of sins?

Caiaphas' statement that it is better that one die for the nation than the nation perish?

No, you are wrong.

Where did you study theology (undergraduate or graduate)?

You seem to mimic Reformed Roman Catholic doctrine here, but are unable to actually defend your position (you simply pretend it the only one out there).

 

No. You are wrong. I am not moving on, just addressing a different passage brought up by a different member.

I agree that there is such a thing as substitution.

If I order a plate and it has salmon I will ask for tuna as a substitute for the salmon.

But here you are adding to the Bible.

The verse says that He gave Himself for me.

John 11 says this was prophesied by Caiaphas' words (one man dying for the nation) which was not as a substitute.

You are wrong.

A better example would be the military. Soldiers fought for you. They didn't fight instead of you.

 

No, it isn't both.

I served in the Army. I was not the substitute for those who didn't join the military.

You are really trying hard to force substitution.


In the passage that it is better for one man to die for the nation than the nation to perish, you force Substitution.

The problem was that if Christ continued then Rome would destroy the nation. Caiaphas said it would be better to kill Jesus for the nation than to allow the nation to be destroyed.

Christ would die for the nation, so that Rome would not destroy the nation......but it is not substitution.

 

No. You are adding to Scripture.

The problem was that if Christ continued then Rome would destroy the nation. Caiaphas said it would be better to kill Jesus for the nation than to allow the nation to be destroyed.

Yes, it was better for one man to die for the nation than the nation to be destroyed.

Yes, the idea is one man dies or the nation is destroyed.

But it is NOT substitution.


If you cut off a patients arm for the patient, to save the patients life, that arm is not a substitute for the patient.

You are allowing Roman Catholic doctrine (reformed RCC) to blind you to Scripture.

This is, I believe, what Scripture warns us about with the caution not to be carried away by vain philosophy.

There are places you could legitimately argue substitution. But this is simply not one. Yet you force your philosophy into the passage.


And I am sure many who read your claim realize at least here that you are adding to Scripture. To them I ask - if Martin is adding Substitution here (obviously he is simply be definition) then isn't it likely he adds Substitution elsewhere???

 

No. That is still not substitution.

You are trying to force substitution.

If I win the lottery I am not a substitute for all who bought a ticket and didn't win.

If I am drafted I am not a substitute for those not drafted.

If the Jews decide it is better to kill Jesus for the nation rather than Rome destroy the nation it is still not substitution.

 

Uh....no.

You are simply reading substitution into Scripture. I did the same for a long time. The Roman Catholic Church and it's influence in Reformed theology was huge.

You are its product.

You automatically add substitution to what you read, and you use Scripture to try to support your theory.

I would be better if you would simply allow Scripture to dictate your faith, but you cannot.

Somebody told you the ink blot was a bat and now you have no concept of the real thing.


You take "it is expedient for one man to die for the nation than the nation perish" as substitution because you extract it from Scripture as a stand alone support for substitution.

The fact, however, is it does not support your theory.

The argument was that it would be better to kill a problematic Jewish Rabbi rather than allow Him to continue as Rome would address the resulting unrest by destroying the nation.

That is simply not Substitution. And Scripture tells us that that was a prophecy.

The Jews would hand over Christ to die for the nation so that the nation would not be destroyed.