Featured The Classic View (just a summary)

@Martin Marprelate @taisto @DaveXR650

Again: "I went to the store FOR my wife" can certainly mean that I went to the store INSTEAD OF my wife. But it does not necessarily mean that - as you guys are demanding. And then if I also say that "I went to the store WITH my wife," then we know for certain that I did not go to the store instead of my wife - because I explicitly said I went with her. This is exactly how the words are used in Scripture. It says that Jesus dies with us and for us, which excludes "instead of."

If I am dead, and Jesus dies so that I can rise with him, then of course Jesus died for me. He gave his life for me. He gave his life so that I could live. But that is not substitution - because I was already dead. The mechanism of my salvation involved my death.

And again, Jesus says that he who would save his life would lose it. That we need to take up our cross and follow him. I still need to physically die, so my sin can die with my flesh. I need to be set free from the body of this death (Romans 7), because "he who has died is freed from sin (Romans 6). Physical death is a punishment for sin (Genesis 3) and that punishment does not go away. Jesus does not suffer it in my place instead of me as my substitute so I wont have to face it.

Jesus' death is different from ours in that he alone dies unjustly as a perfectly innocent and divine party, and so benefits of his death apply to us who die with him by the Holy Spirit. But that is not substitution. That is redemption and application. Jesus is not innocent and does not pay our debt of obedience so that we wont have to obey or be innocent, but so that we CAN BE AND DO those things.

That the mechanism of Jesus dying for us also involves our death is so explicit in Scripture, and I have listed the verses already so thoroughly, that I am surprised this debate continues.

 

So am I.
"For instance, some have said that "what Christ did and suffered is so imputed unto us, as that we are judged and esteemed in the sight of God to have done or suffered ourselves in him". This I shall not concern myself in; for although it may have a sound sense given unto it, and is used by some of the ancients, yet because offense is taken at it, and the substance of the truth we plead for is better otherwise expressed, it ought not to be contended about." John Owen "The Doctrine of Justification by Faith" Chapter 9 The Formal Cause of Justification.

What is important here is that the next sentence says this:
"For we do not say that God judges or esteems that we did and suffered in our own persons what Christ did and suffered; but only that he did it and suffered it in our stead".
So label it as you will. Why can't we get into what is really going on here. It is not a dispute of union with Christ or the use of the Greek word for substitute. You are at least more honest than Jon in this.

This is what you think is going on here with penal substitution. It's what some of the Anabaptists say too. What we are saying that you really oppose is that we say the total grounds of our being righteous before God and of having our sins pardoned is the imputed righteousness of Christ and not what we do. And we deny, and it becomes ludicrous to charge that to a penal substitution advocate like Owen, that this is "so we won't have to obey or be innocent". At least you are willing to get into the meat of the dispute.

 

The doctrine of the Union of the Believer with Christ is vital and fundamental to the doctrine of Penal Substitution. I think you said that you possessed the book Pierced for our Transgressions.. Go and have a read of pages 146-147 and 242-247. It's all there. If that doesn't satisfy, go and read Calvin or John Owen's The Glory of Christ. If I had time and energy I would summarize their writings, but today, at least, I don't.

 

This was good discussion from another thread. And it shows a real difference in belief. What @Arthur King said above does the same. I just don't have anything else to add to the discussion over the meaning of "substitution" verses "instead" or "for".

If you believe that the work of Christ on the cross provides the sole basis for our redemption then I would be satisfied whether or not you agree with me on the definition of substitution. But if you believe, as you stated above that simple forgiveness, without some kind of provision provided by Christ on the cross then we have true major differences. @Arthur King seems to believe more is needed, you seem to believe less is needed. At any rate, these differences are what should be discussed, not the meaning of substitution if you are drafted or if you go to the store for your wife.

No offense but I have nothing else to say on the meaning of "substitution". So don't get offended and say you are misunderstood. If satisfaction by Christ for our sin as individuals is not necessary then say so now. If it is then say so. If @Arthur King believes more is needed for justification then he can say so or correct my impression here and now. I freely concede that we will never agree on the meaning of substitution and have nothing else to add.

 

This gets into an actual issue worth talking about. In the post I quoted you said that under penal substitution God can't really forgive sins and asked "why is it impossible for God to forgive actual sins". That I know is a standard answer used by some who are against a penal substitution or a satisfaction concept of atonement.
Then you say this:

This gets confusing because there are two concepts going on here. When you say "forgiveness is obtained in the present based on the work of Christ with Christ as our active Mediator", I agree with that even though I know there will be differences in how different groups would explain this happening.

But the problem will arise in the details of what this work of Christ is and what it does. Some who oppose penal substitution do not believe God should need any work of Christ in order for him to forgive. Others, like me, believe that God being also with a sense of justice, knowing that many of men's sins involve injustice and wrong to other men, and knowing that God's reaction to sin by his own nature is wrath, believe that scripture teaches that simple forgiveness out of the blue would go against God's nature.

We believe that the work of Christ in the atonement is that which somehow does what is necessary for God to forgive us without violating his own nature or sense of justice. So the question is "What exactly is that work?".

We agree on that statement but I need to point out that many of the opponents of penal substitution do not believe that that is what Christ did on the cross. You do, and I'm glad. My question is what exactly did happen. All I ask is that you not go back to the word meaning exercise where you say Christ died for us but not instead of us so penal substitution is wrong. If you do, I want you to know that I am willing to let your statement Christ died "for us" stand, but there is no need for further discussion on this subject. If the difference is deeper, then explain what happened at the cross in the matter of our individual sins against God.

 

Yes. Now we are getting somewhere. There is truth in those statements. You can reject penal substitution of you want but what I am asking is what explanation do you give for the effect of Christs death on our sins. You say this:

I agree with the statement in that Christ did die under the powers of evil. How did that have an effect on our standing before God as an individual sinner? And, as for Christ dying on our behalf, I say that means Christ suffered and died under our judgment and penalty for sin that we incurred. Is that wording alright with you and if not, how would you describe what happened?

 

Could Christ Jesus not forgive sins before he died?

Then Jesus said to the woman, “Your sins are forgiven.” The men at the table said among themselves, “Who is this man, that he goes around forgiving sins?”
(Luke 7:48-49)

This text tells me Jesus didn't have to die in order to forgive sins.

Before Jesus died, he reconciled a man to him.

Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your Kingdom.” And Jesus replied, “I assure you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
(Luke 23:42-43)

Jon, you have a shallow view of what Jesus did for you on the cross as you explain your view above. In fact, in your view you show us that Jesus didn't have to die in order to do what you claim he did.

 

Well Jon, I thought you might say that. I don't accept the idea of "solidarity or unity" with man as being a sufficient explanation of the scriptures dealing with man as a sinner and standing guilty before God. There is nothing else to say on this subject with you. Those statements you list showing what Christ did show way more than solidarity and unity. I find your view of the atonement inadequate and I don't think there is any sense in continuing this discussion, but thanks for the time you put into it anyway.

 

Yes, it is all Christ. And he bore our sins in his own body on the tree. No explanation of Christ's work on the cross is adequate without addressing that.

 

Jon, your theory needs no cross. It needs no Bible and no Savior.

 

I already said that it's OK with me if you choose not to use the word "substitution", as long as you believe those things. But Jon, I have read a lot of the guys you point to and when they do actually object to penal substitution they have concrete, theological objections. You keep this play on words up and won't even listen to @Martin Marprelate when he tries to explain it. Call it what you want but a thing is what it is. The important point is that you are the only one who asserts those points above and because of a word game still refuse the concept. It looks ludicrous. I know at this point you won't be able to address the issues here.