An Alternate View (to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

[Martin Marprelate]

This, @DaveXR650 , is what I was talking about.

Penal Substitution theorists want to be in agreement with other positions. They use multi-faceted diamond as an example. BUT they have to redefine other positions in order to agree with them.

Take Christus Victor that @Martin Marprelate brought up. He redefines the position to simply mean that Christ achieved victory (as opposed to loosing against Satan).

But that is dishonest. Christus Victor contains more than Christ achieved victory (it includes the "how", by Christ suffering thr punishment of Satan as a representative of the human race, suffering the same consequences that we will all suffer, and then being judged righteous by God and glorified).

When we compare views we need to do so in an honest way. Dishonesty may earn cheers from the echo chamber but it ultimately foolishness that accomplishes nothing.

I agree that we must be honest. I included in my comment the fact that Christus Victor supporters believe that Christ defeated Satan.
But if you believe that Christ suffered the punishment of Satan, you are believing something that is not in the Bible. The Bible makes it clear that it was God Himself who 'bruised' or 'crushed' Christ (Isaiah 53:10), and that Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles and the Jews (again, no mention at all of Satan) were doing His will (Acts 4:27-28). I cannot think of anywhere in the Bible where it is said that Satan punished our Lord on the cross. So much for you believing only what the Bible says!

Sorry. When I say "Classic theology" I mean the general views prior to the 11th century AD. Yes, Christius Victor says that.

The difference, from what I can tell, is who's punishment Jesus was suffering (God's ounishment for our sins or Satan's as the wages of our sins) and the overall effect (individual forgiveness or the reconciliation of man).

I do agree that if PSA is true then Limited Atonement has to be true (you pointed this out with mentioning if Chriat died for all then that woukd be universalism under PSA). Those, under this theory, that Christ died for are those who are saved.

Christus Victor as a distinct doctrine died a well-deserved death for almost a thousand years before it was resurrected by a chap named Gustav Aulen between the wars. Aulen's view is refuted by the Bible and a variety of theologians.
Many (most?) Arminians believe the Doctrine of Penal Substitution, some of them on this very board!

I have read Anabaotist theologians. Also Reformed theologians. I have also read Calvin's Institutes of the Christian religion a couple if times. I have read Stott's commentary on Romans several times, and everything from John Owen. I have read most of John Piper's books.

By [sic] I have not been reading those guys I mean within the last eight years. My books are still in the attic. I have not bothered to unpack them.

Well here is your problem. You are trying to work out the Bible all on your own, and your brain is by no means capable of doing so, as we see above. I strongly advise you to get those books out of the attic and read them. Paul asked the Ethiopian eunuch, "Do you understand what you are reading?" "How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" That, it seems to me, is the state you are in, and your pride will not allow you either to accept the help offered on this forum, or to consult better and wiser men who have written books to help you. 'Where there is no counsel, the people fall; but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.'

 

[JonC]

I agree that we must be honest. I included in my comment the fact that Christus Victor supporters believe that Christ defeated Satan.

Well....how "honest" of you

Did you include the part where Christis Victor holds that Jesus did not die fir our sins as individuals but for the sins of mankind as a type of Adam, or that it holds that Christ died with us (not instead of us), or that Christ died under the power of the one who has the power of death (Satan)?

Those are important parts of Christis Victor. It is how Christ was victorious and defeated Satan.

You are confusing Christus Victor with one specific Ransom theory. It is not a theory of the atonement (like Penal Substitution Theory, Satisfaction Theory, or Substitution Theory). It is more of a theme throughout several early positions.

Ransom theory was alive and well before and beyond the Reformation. Aulén used "Christus Victor" as a theme to several views (including Ransom Theory). By the 11th century Ransom Theory had become God paying a ransom to Satan.

But scholars also point out that there were initially two views - Christ ransomed us from Satan (here "Satan" was initially viewed as sin and death because Scripture says Satan holds the power of death), Christian paid a ransom but not to any entity (a ransom paid, referring to the price to free us from bondage).

Read the account of the eunuch again. What was Phillp's explanation? He went through Scripture. He explained that this has been fulfilled in Christ.

You have chosen to follow men who say what you want to believe. So do Mormons. So do Jehovah Witnesses. You test your faith against what the men you have chosen to follow tell you to belueve. So do Mormons. So do Jehovah Witnesses. You cannot find your faith in the Bible. Neither can Mormons. Neither can Jehovah Witnesses.


You look for a multitude of counselors in writers who teach what you believe. Just like Mormons and Jehovah Witnessed.

The difference between you and me when it comes to confirmation of our beliefs is while I also can find a multitude of counselors in books (and Christians) I can also find my faith in God's actual words. You cannot.

You would be better off being a Roman Catholic. You would not be any farther from God's Word and you would have more scholars that tell you that your understanding is what the Bible really teaches.


How do you know that Divine Justice is Legal Humanism? If you (and Calvin) got that wrong your entire faith falls apart. And that is just one assumption anong several you hold that if wrong your faith evaporates.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Did you include the part where Christis Victor holds that Jesus did not die fir our sins as individuals but for the sins of mankind as a type of Adam, or that it holds that Christ died with us (not instead of us), or that Christ died under the power of the one who has the power of death (Satan)?

Those are important parts of Christis Victor. It is how Christ was victorious and defeated Satan.

I think you'll find that the doctrine is Christus Victor, not Christis Victor. I did point out that the claim that Christ died "under the power of Satan" is spurious and cannot be found anywhere in the Bible. It seems to be part of the tradition that you hold. The fact is that you are self-deceived. You have persuaded yourself that you follow only the words of God, when in fact you follow your own mind which, as I have said, is sadly unequal to the task.

Now that we have insulted each other again, shall we discuss the matter like Christians? This is the third time I have made this offer to you, with, as yet, no reply.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Psalm 89

New thread: JESUS SUFFERED THE WRATH OF GOD EQUIVALENT OF OUR ETERNAL HELL.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

You are right, they will quote parts of passages like Psalm 89 but ignore important pasts before (like the reason God's wrath was against the nation of Israel).

Psalm 89 is "maschil", an Instructive Psalm, a Psalm causing to understand; it treats concerning the Covenant of Grace, and the Promises of it; and concerning the Mercy and Faithfulness of God, in Making and Keeping the same; and concerning the Messiah and His seed, His church and people; and the Stability and Duration of all these: many passages in it are applied to the Messiah by Jewish writers, ancient and modern; and Psalm 89:20 is manifestly referred to in Acts 13:22.

Psalm 89:38;
"But Thou hast Cast Off and Abhorred,
Thou hast been Wroth with Thine Anointed."

But thou hast cast off,.... Here begin objections to what is before said, and swore to; even to the Everlasting Love of God, to Christ, and to His seed, to the Unchangeableness and Unalterableness of the Covenant, and to the continuance and Perpetuity of the Kingdom and church of Christ, taken from the dealings of the Lord with the Messiah and His people; which were made either by the Psalmist, under a Spirit of Prophecy, Foreseeing what would come to pass; or by the Apostles and church of Christ, about the time of His Sufferings and Death, and after; when He seemed to be "Cast Off", and Rejected by the Lord, particularly when He Forsook Him, and Hid His Face from Him, Matthew 27:46, as when He Hides His Face from His people, it is interpreted by them as Casting them Off; see Psalm 44:22,

"and Abhorred"; not that He Abhorred the Person of Christ, Who was His Own Son, His Beloved Son; nor His Afflictions and Sufferings, which were a Sacrifice of a Sweet Smelling Savour to Him; see Psalm 22:24, though these might be interpreted by others as if the Lord Abhorred or Rejected Him; because He Suffered Him to be used in the manner He was, and particularly to be abhorred by the Jews, even by the Nation in general, Isaiah 49:7, though the sins of His people are meant, which He had upon Him, and for which He Suffered, were an Abhorring to the Lord; and when He was Made sin, He was Made a Curse:

"Thou hast been Wroth with Thine Anointed"; with Thy Messiah;
not Rehoboam, from whom the ten tribes were rent;
nor Josiah, who was killed by Pharaohnecho;
nor Zedekiah, carried captive into Babylon;

"but the True Messiah, the Son of David, before said to be found by the Lord, and Anointed with His Holy Oil, Psalm 89:20; "I have found David My Servant; with My Holy Oil have I Anointed Him", which is to be understood of Him, not as His Own Son, Who was always the Object of His Love, but as the sinner's Surety, Bearing the sins of his people, and all the Wrath and Punishment due unto them; and so is Reconcilable to the Promise, that Lovingkindness should not be taken from Him, Psalm 89:33 and is no objection to it, though made one."

Psalm 89 Gill's Exposition

They have chosen to abandon the faith once delivered. And it is sad.

What would you say if someone asked you what 'a sinner' was?

 

[DaveXR650]

For the past decade I have been amazed at the depth of God's Word as it is written. Scripture interprets Scripture, and while I have not "discovered" the Bible teaching things other than God's own words I have no want for such things. I have grown to know how the Spirit illuminates and teaches what is actually written (that "faith once delivered"). I can accept that Jesus died "according to the Scriptures" rather than according to what any of the many sects say that Scripture teaches.

Jesus died for our sins according to the scriptures and that is the issue that your understanding does not seem to even attempt to address. What you do is attempt to attack what amounts to the whole core of Christianity. What I mean is that if you are right then when I read a guy like Horatius Bonar, a beloved man who although a Calvinist is respected by all for his preaching of free grace, all his chapters on the blood of Christ are heresy and anti-Christian as you have said in previous posts. And what is proposed as a replacement? Nothing. Except for the vague modern ethical theology of following Jesus which I believe is purposely left vague so that those leaders can fill in what we are truly to do. I see this and can provide concrete examples. And often this comes unfortunately from modern Mennonite sources I am truly sorry to say. (I was raised in a Missionary Church which is an offshoot of Mennonites).

I know these threads get off track and it's hard to answer several people posting from different directions at once but this is your thread and you started it out with what is an incomplete alternative to penal substitution. In post 23 you criticize the SBC for not fully explaining PSA when they affirm it yet you never fully explain an alternate view either. And you called a full explanation "satanic" in the same post. Do you not see how some might object?

 

[JesusFan]

I agree that we must be honest. I included in my comment the fact that Christus Victor supporters believe that Christ defeated Satan.
But if you believe that Christ suffered the punishment of Satan, you are believing something that is not in the Bible. The Bible makes it clear that it was God Himself who 'bruised' or 'crushed' Christ (Isaiah 53:10), and that Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles and the Jews (again, no mention at all of Satan) were doing His will (Acts 4:27-28). I cannot think of anywhere in the Bible where it is said that Satan punished our Lord on the cross. So much for you believing only what the Bible says!

Christus Victor as a distinct doctrine died a well-deserved death for almost a thousand years before it was resurrected by a chap named Gustav Aulen between the wars. Aulen's view is refuted by the Bible and a variety of theologians.
Many (most?) Arminians believe the Doctrine of Penal Substitution, some of them on this very board!


Well here is your problem. You are trying to work out the Bible all on your own, and your brain is by no means capable of doing so, as we see above. I strongly advise you to get those books out of the attic and read them. Paul asked the Ethiopian eunuch, "Do you understand what you are reading?" "How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" That, it seems to me, is the state you are in, and your pride will not allow you either to accept the help offered on this forum, or to consult better and wiser men who have written books to help you. 'Where there is no counsel, the people fall; but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.'

IF JonC really has indeed read all of those listed authors, he would have been clearly shown via each on of them that the Psa view of the atonement would be the most biblical correct viewpoint to hold

 

[JesusFan]

Well....how "honest" of you

Did you include the part where Christis Victor holds that Jesus did not die fir our sins as individuals but for the sins of mankind as a type of Adam, or that it holds that Christ died with us (not instead of us), or that Christ died under the power of the one who has the power of death (Satan)?

Those are important parts of Christis Victor. It is how Christ was victorious and defeated Satan.

You are confusing Christus Victor with one specific Ransom theory. It is not a theory of the atonement (like Penal Substitution Theory, Satisfaction Theory, or Substitution Theory). It is more of a theme throughout several early positions.

Ransom theory was alive and well before and beyond the Reformation. Aulén used "Christus Victor" as a theme to several views (including Ransom Theory). By the 11th century Ransom Theory had become God paying a ransom to Satan.

But scholars also point out that there were initially two views - Christ ransomed us from Satan (here "Satan" was initially viewed as sin and death because Scripture says Satan holds the power of death), Christian paid a ransom but not to any entity (a ransom paid, referring to the price to free us from bondage).

Read the account of the eunuch again. What was Phillp's explanation? He went through Scripture. He explained that this has been fulfilled in Christ.

You have chosen to follow men who say what you want to believe. So do Mormons. So do Jehovah Witnesses. You test your faith against what the men you have chosen to follow tell you to belueve. So do Mormons. So do Jehovah Witnesses. You cannot find your faith in the Bible. Neither can Mormons. Neither can Jehovah Witnesses.


You look for a multitude of counselors in writers who teach what you believe. Just like Mormons and Jehovah Witnessed.

The difference between you and me when it comes to confirmation of our beliefs is while I also can find a multitude of counselors in books (and Christians) I can also find my faith in God's actual words. You cannot.

You would be better off being a Roman Catholic. You would not be any farther from God's Word and you would have more scholars that tell you that your understanding is what the Bible really teaches.


How do you know that Divine Justice is Legal Humanism? If you (and Calvin) got that wrong your entire faith falls apart. And that is just one assumption anong several you hold that if wrong your faith evaporates.

Satan had NOTHING to between in our salvation, as all he did was to be used by Sovereign God to help in the plot of wicked sinners to get the Lord Jesus upon that Cross, but all of salvation transpired between the transaction between God the Father and God the Son , as Jesus paid not any ransom to satan, but to God the Father

 

[JesusFan]

Jesus died for our sins according to the scriptures and that is the issue that your understanding does not seem to even attempt to address. What you do is attempt to attack what amounts to the whole core of Christianity. What I mean is that if you are right then when I read a guy like Horatius Bonar, a beloved man who although a Calvinist is respected by all for his preaching of free grace, all his chapters on the blood of Christ are heresy and anti-Christian as you have said in previous posts. And what is proposed as a replacement? Nothing. Except for the vague modern ethical theology of following Jesus which I believe is purposely left vague so that those leaders can fill in what we are truly to do. I see this and can provide concrete examples. And often this comes unfortunately from modern Mennonite sources I am truly sorry to say. (I was raised in a Missionary Church which is an offshoot of Mennonites).

I know these threads get off track and it's hard to answer several people posting from different directions at once but this is your thread and you started it out with what is an incomplete alternative to penal substitution. In post 23 you criticize the SBC for not fully explaining PSA when they affirm it yet you never fully explain an alternate view either. And you called a full explanation "satanic" in the same post. Do you not see how some might object?

Without the Psa view of the atonement of Christ, there is NO basis for how and when the wrath of God was ever satisfied, nor any basis given with out that view as to how Holy God can stay as such and declare as now righteous in Christ

 

[JonC]

Jesus died for our sins according to the scriptures and that is the issue that your understanding does not seem to even attempt to address. What you do is attempt to attack what amounts to the whole core of Christianity. What I mean is that if you are right then when I read a guy like Horatius Bonar, a beloved man who although a Calvinist is respected by all for his preaching of free grace, all his chapters on the blood of Christ are heresy and anti-Christian as you have said in previous posts. And what is proposed as a replacement? Nothing. Except for the vague modern ethical theology of following Jesus which I believe is purposely left vague so that those leaders can fill in what we are truly to do. I see this and can provide concrete examples. And often this comes unfortunately from modern Mennonite sources I am truly sorry to say. (I was raised in a Missionary Church which is an offshoot of Mennonites).

I know these threads get off track and it's hard to answer several people posting from different directions at once but this is your thread and you started it out with what is an incomplete alternative to penal substitution. In post 23 you criticize the SBC for not fully explaining PSA when they affirm it yet you never fully explain an alternate view either. And you called a full explanation "satanic" in the same post. Do you not see how some might object?

Jesus died for our sins according to the scriptures.

That is EXACTLY what I have e been shouting at the top of my lungs.

Take away Penal Substitution Theory. Jesus did not die for our sins according to what men think the Bible really teaches.

Look....you do not need to replace Penal Substitution Theory with anything.
Just take it away and trust in every word that comes from God.

Take away that Legal Humanism. It is nit divine justice...it is not even just.
Take away the idea that the focus of the cross, whuke fulfilling the law, was focused on the law.
Take away the idea that Jesus suffered God's punishment.

Take away all of those things men say the Bible teaches and acceot that Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures.

Lean not on your own understanding but on every word that comes forth from God.
Test doctrine with "what is written" and get rif of what is not.

That is it. It is that simple (not easy, but simple).

Just trust God.

 

[JonC]

I think you'll find that the doctrine is Christus Victor, not Christis Victor. I did point out that the claim that Christ died "under the power of Satan" is spurious and cannot be found anywhere in the Bible. It seems to be part of the tradition that you hold. The fact is that you are self-deceived. You have persuaded yourself that you follow only the words of God, when in fact you follow your own mind which, as I have said, is sadly unequal to the task.

Now that we have insulted each other again, shall we discuss the matter like Christians? This is the third time I have made this offer to you, with, as yet, no reply.

You did not insult me. You insulted my phone. I do not feel sorry for my phone. Apparently it worships somebody called "Hod".

Those you are speaking of (those multitudes of counselors) did indeed believe that Christ shared in our humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil.

And I do believe that is true. But you missed the point. It was that Satan holds the power of death, that Christ died for our sins.


You are wrong. I do not trust in my understanding at all. I am sure I do not have a perfect understanding and I do not expect but to see as through a glass, dimly at this time. The point is I am not leaning on my understanding. I am not telling peoole the Bible means anything other than "what is written".


Look at it this way - we have a couple of options.

We can believe that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.

OR

We can believe that Christ died for our sins according to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (what one sect if men say the Bible "really" teaches).

We cannot do both.

So yes. If you want go go slowly and give God's Word the respect God deserves, to refrain from posting a bunch of passages or commentaries and then telling us what the Bible really means, I'm game.

Let's discuss Christ dying for our sins according to the Scriptures.

 

[JonC]

Psalm 89 is "maschil", an Instructive Psalm, a Psalm causing to understand; it treats concerning the Covenant of Grace, and the Promises of it; and concerning the Mercy and Faithfulness of God, in Making and Keeping the same; and concerning the Messiah and His seed, His church and people; and the Stability and Duration of all these: many passages in it are applied to the Messiah by Jewish writers, ancient and modern; and Psalm 89:20 is manifestly referred to in Acts 13:22.

Psalm 89:38;
"But Thou hast Cast Off and Abhorred,
Thou hast been Wroth with Thine Anointed."

But thou hast cast off,.... Here begin objections to what is before said, and swore to; even to the Everlasting Love of God, to Christ, and to His seed, to the Unchangeableness and Unalterableness of the Covenant, and to the continuance and Perpetuity of the Kingdom and church of Christ, taken from the dealings of the Lord with the Messiah and His people; which were made either by the Psalmist, under a Spirit of Prophecy, Foreseeing what would come to pass; or by the Apostles and church of Christ, about the time of His Sufferings and Death, and after; when He seemed to be "Cast Off", and Rejected by the Lord, particularly when He Forsook Him, and Hid His Face from Him, Matthew 27:46, as when He Hides His Face from His people, it is interpreted by them as Casting them Off; see Psalm 44:22,

"and Abhorred"; not that He Abhorred the Person of Christ, Who was His Own Son, His Beloved Son; nor His Afflictions and Sufferings, which were a Sacrifice of a Sweet Smelling Savour to Him; see Psalm 22:24, though these might be interpreted by others as if the Lord Abhorred or Rejected Him; because He Suffered Him to be used in the manner He was, and particularly to be abhorred by the Jews, even by the Nation in general, Isaiah 49:7, though the sins of His people are meant, which He had upon Him, and for which He Suffered, were an Abhorring to the Lord; and when He was Made sin, He was Made a Curse:

"Thou hast been Wroth with Thine Anointed"; with Thy Messiah;
not Rehoboam, from whom the ten tribes were rent;
nor Josiah, who was killed by Pharaohnecho;
nor Zedekiah, carried captive into Babylon;

"but the True Messiah, the Son of David, before said to be found by the Lord, and Anointed with His Holy Oil, Psalm 89:20; "I have found David My Servant; with My Holy Oil have I Anointed Him", which is to be understood of Him, not as His Own Son, Who was always the Object of His Love, but as the sinner's Surety, Bearing the sins of his people, and all the Wrath and Punishment due unto them; and so is Reconcilable to the Promise, that Lovingkindness should not be taken from Him, Psalm 89:33 and is no objection to it, though made one."

Psalm 89 Gill's Exposition

What would you say if someone asked you what 'a sinner' was?

I would say a "sinner" is one who has sinned. But I would also say that sins are not the problem. Scrioture tells us why we sin. That is the problem.

We must "repent", "turns from wickedness", "set our minds on the Spirit", "turn to God", obtain a "new heart", "die to sin", "die to the flesh", be "confirmed into the image of Christ", be "made new creations in Christ", "be born if the Spirit", get "a new heart", have our "old hearts removed", God "puts His Spirit in us", have "renewed mind".

 

[DaveXR650]

Jesus died for our sins according to the scriptures.

That is EXACTLY what I have e been shouting at the top of my lungs.

Take away Penal Substitution Theory. Jesus did not die for our sins according to what men think the Bible really teaches.

Look....you do not need to replace Penal Substitution Theory with anything.
Just take it away and trust in every word that comes from God.

Take away that Legal Humanism. It is nit divine justice...it is not even just.
Take away the idea that the focus of the cross, whuke fulfilling the law, was focused on the law.
Take away the idea that Jesus suffered God's punishment.

Take away all of those things men say the Bible teaches and acceot that Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures.

Lean not on your own understanding but on every word that comes forth from God.
Test doctrine with "what is written" and get rif of what is not.

That is it. It is that simple (not easy, but simple).

Just trust God.

If it really bothers you that much that teachings can be discovered and then described by a name then by all means do away with the name. But you have shown a desire to avoid, or explain away a whole bunch of scriptures. And don't bring in legal humanism without an explanation of how those scriptures are being misinterpreted. The discussions of law in scriptures we are looking at don't come from Roman law or medieval law so if you want to throw in legal humanism you need to explain in more detail. Throwing in a term that is not commonly used in this debate only obscures, not clarifies.

When you say Jesus died for our sins according to the scriptures that is a clue that there are scriptures about this. Ignoring all those scriptures because the you don't like the name coined to describe what those scripture mean won't do. "Lean not on your own understanding but on every word that comes forth from God" is not a call to ignore every word that comes from other saints regarding what they read in God's word and shared. We need them and their work simply because in any given area we look at we may not be aware of all the scriptures pertaining to that subject matter. We need each other. Protestant Sola Scriptura means that scripture alone is the final authority on all matters of faith and practice. It does not mean that we are required to disregard all we find written before us and and go it totally alone. This is exactly how much of the bizarre theology we find on this site is discovered - and proudly acknowledged. It does mean that I am not required to accept your version of what you have discovered even though you might claim special revelation in the matter. That in fact is precisely what the Protestant divines were trying to prevent with sola scriptura, not set us all to coming up with private interpretations on our own.

I repeat again that you are vague, deliberately I think, in giving references and when you do they are suspect in other areas, or like with Torrance, they indeed don't say what you claim they said. If I use something Aquinas said, if you know that you can make a whole bunch of assumptions about the information based on knowing that. If I say it was just me, even with special revelation or guidance, that also says a lot. It doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong but it does say something. If I would do like you do and instantly blow off whole groups of theologians and serious pastors and then ascribe a lesser known cause like legal humanism then don't be surprised if some of us think it's bogus.

 

[JonC]

If it really bothers you that much that teachings can be discovered and then described by a name then by all means do away with the name. But you have shown a desire to avoid, or explain away a whole bunch of scriptures. And don't bring in legal humanism without an explanation of how those scriptures are being misinterpreted. The discussions of law in scriptures we are looking at don't come from Roman law or medieval law so if you want to throw in legal humanism you need to explain in more detail. Throwing in a term that is not commonly used in this debate only obscures, not clarifies.

When you say Jesus died for our sins according to the scriptures that is a clue that there are scriptures about this. Ignoring all those scriptures because the you don't like the name coined to describe what those scripture mean won't do. "Lean not on your own understanding but on every word that comes forth from God" is not a call to ignore every word that comes from other saints regarding what they read in God's word and shared. We need them and their work simply because in any given area we look at we may not be aware of all the scriptures pertaining to that subject matter. We need each other. Protestant Sola Scriptura means that scripture alone is the final authority on all matters of faith and practice. It does not mean that we are required to disregard all we find written before us and and go it totally alone. This is exactly how much of the bizarre theology we find on this site is discovered - and proudly acknowledged. It does mean that I am not required to accept your version of what you have discovered even though you might claim special revelation in the matter. That in fact is precisely what the Protestant divines were trying to prevent with sola scriptura, not set us all to coming up with private interpretations on our own.

I repeat again that you are vague, deliberately I think, in giving references and when you do they are suspect in other areas, or like with Torrance, they indeed don't say what you claim they said. If I use something Aquinas said, if you know that you can make a whole bunch of assumptions about the information based on knowing that. If I say it was just me, even with special revelation or guidance, that also says a lot. It doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong but it does say something. If I would do like you do and instantly blow off whole groups of theologians and serious pastors and then ascribe a lesser known cause like legal humanism then don't be surprised if some of us think it's bogus.

I have not tried to avoid or not explain passages. I was only asked to explain how God laid our iniquity on Jesus.

I said it is like how God lays Jesus' righteousness on us.

Scricriptire gives us examples like being clothed, or putting on a garment, or a brest plate, or a robe of righteousness. But this dies not mean God takes Jesus righteousness from Him to lay on us.

So my explanation was a blanket (because there are a bunch of us). God lays our blanket of sin on Jesus.

How is that not explaining what God laying our sins of Jesus means??? It means the same thing as when God lays Jesus righteousness on us but without sin instead of righteousness.

It does bother me that "Christians" discover teachings that are not God's teachings but what men think is taught by the Bible.

One reason is we are commanded not to lean on our understanding but on the words that come from God.

Another is that these "discoveries" cannot pass the test of Sctiptire (the "faith once delivered", "what is written") but can only be "tested" by comparing what one thinks the Bible teaches against what they think the Bible teaches.

Another reason is that these theorists actually believe that Christoans who reject their opinions are rejecting God's Words, even though their opinions are not in God's Words. They put themselves in place of God.

It bothers me because it moves from an objective faith based on God's Word to a subjective faith. Penal Substitution Theory is far from the only theory out there. And all these theorists can do is point to whatever men they follow as their authority.


Probably the main thing that bothers me is these theories (whether Substitution Theory, Recapitulation, Satisfaction Theory, Ontological Substitutiin, Penal Substitutiin....whatever theory) actually replace the words God gave us to believe. It replaces what the Bibke actually teaches (God's words).

The danger, of course, is when a member actually reads his or Bible and discovers that what those men they trusted have been teaching them is not actually in God's Word. I have encountered more than I would have thought who abandoned Christianity for this very reason. They characterize all of these sects that claim the Bible teaches different things as Christianity itself.

 

[DaveXR650]

I have not tried to avoid or not explain passages. I was only asked to explain how God laid our iniquity on Jesus.

So it's perfectly OK to reject known theologians and then below come up with another explanation using a blanket and expect people to accept that? This is what I was referring to in the previous post about private interpretation. Regarding the blanket, if it helps you understand it is fine, but as an alternative explanation to penal substitution it is not. A blanket of our sin includes our individual sin, not only thought of as mankind's in general, and if it was indeed "our sin" representing the blanket then it indeed was taken from us and put on Christ - and this is your own illustration.

You indicate further error when you see what to you is a problem in that if we can be clothed in righteousness then it means that Jesus must somehow lose some of his righteousness for this to happen. For one thing, when our sins are transferred to Jesus he does not become actually sinful, even though he suffers the guilt and punishment and the wrath of God. While we view him as stricken by God as a criminal we do not say he was actually and personally guilty, even though he suffered our guilt and punishment. That is the whole problem you are refusing to grasp. Our righteousness is given to us or we are declared righteous or it is described as a garment given to us - for the purpose I think of helping us to understand that unlike the Roman Catholics, we don't believe this righteousness is infused, as it were. The question once again is is this true. If it is then you must face the fact that if God now calls you righteous you really are, even if you are wearing a robe of righteousness given to you. Who is going to challenge that if the judge gave you the robe and your advocate has already ransomed you.

One other thing, asking how God laid our iniquity on Jesus has become a stumbling block to you that is needless. You don't have to (and neither do I) explain "how" this is done as if it's truth is based on our ability to explain it. We just need to see if it is truly taught and a lot of us are satisfied that it is.

It does bother me that "Christians" discover teachings that are not God's teachings but what men think is taught by the Bible.

Except that people reading this must remember that this is your opinion. In fact the legal framework that bothers you so much is really there, in scripture, and the argument that this is organic or ontological while true in addition to the legal matters, is not true as it must be one or the other. If you look at the Youtube debate with Craig and Boyd they also discuss this. Murder was wrong, biblically, long before the law was given - but at some point the law was given. We all should be concerned about men's teachings that are not Biblical.

 

[Zaatar71]

If it really bothers you that much that teachings can be discovered and then described by a name then by all means do away with the name. But you have shown a desire to avoid, or explain away a whole bunch of scriptures.

Yes Davex, this is a large part of his difficulty. He wants to claim the high ground saying , scripture, scripture, what is written, but his attempts to clarify anything fall way flat, His snuggling under the blanket idea, with sin, and Satan, rather than dealing with the actual teaching of the scriptures he mentions often.

And don't bring in legal humanism without an explanation of how those scriptures are being misinterpreted.

yes, another diversion

The discussions of law in scriptures we are looking at don't come from Roman law or medieval law so if you want to throw in legal humanism you need to explain in more detail. Throwing in a term that is not commonly used in this debate only obscures, not clarifies.

he does obscure often as if he is answering, but he never quite gets it done.

When you say Jesus died for our sins according to the scriptures that is a clue that there are scriptures about this.

yes, not fragmented isolated scriptures, but the scriptures as a unified Revelation from God. Special revelation.

Ignoring all those scriptures because the you don't like the name coined to describe what those scripture mean won't do.

No it will not, even though he repeats his mantra over and over, it obscures and does not instruct.

"Lean not on your own understanding but on every word that comes forth from God" is not a call to ignore every word that comes from other saints regarding what they read in God's word and shared.

This is a well thought out post, similar to what Martin offers. he snaps at martin, because he zeros in on what is being offered, and step by step dismantles these false ideas. He most likely will snap at you also! It is not as much a personal thing, but an ego thing.

We need them and their work simply because in any given area we look at we may not be aware of all the scriptures pertaining to that subject matter.

yes, iron sharpens iron

We need each other. Protestant Sola Scriptura means that scripture alone is the final authority on all matters of faith and practice. It does not mean that we are required to disregard all we find written before us and and go it totally alone.

Yes, the lone ranger idea!

This is exactly how much of the bizarre theology we find on this site is discovered - and proudly acknowledged.

Bingo!

It does mean that I am not required to accept your version of what you have discovered even though you might claim special revelation in the matter. That in fact is precisely what the Protestant divines were trying to prevent with sola scriptura, not set us all to coming up with private interpretations on our own.

Yes,He listens to s "different drummer"...good point!

I repeat again that you are vague, deliberately I think, in giving references and when you do they are suspect in other areas, or like with Torrance, they indeed don't say what you claim they said.

Yes exactly, over and over,

If I use something Aquinas said, if you know that you can make a whole bunch of assumptions about the information based on knowing that.

Not only assumptions, but rather proclamations that he believes are infallible...

If I say it was just me, even with special revelation or guidance, that also says a lot. It doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong but it does say something.

yes it does...

If I would do like you do and instantly blow off whole groups of theologians and serious pastors and then ascribe a lesser known cause like legal humanism then don't be surprised if some of us think it's bogus.

Bogus indeed...This post has been rated a 9.8...by the observers who know scripture, lol. Hopefully it will have a positive result and cause a re-evaluation of his ideas that will be helpful to bring him back into the mainstream!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I agree that the doctrine is a stumbling block to many. That is why we get these theories, to include yours.

I disagree the reason is they could not believe their Messiah would suffer. Instead I believe it more likely that they could not understand God's righteousness apart from the Law, that one must be born of the Spirit.

I believe this for two reasons.

One is history. We have their writings explaining that this is what they believed. This is why various sects existed.

The other is John 3.

I was thinking of Trypho the Jew in his debate with Justin Martyr. He said, " Be assured that all our nation waits for Christ; and we admit that all the Scriptures which you have quoted refer to him. Moreover, I do also admit that the name of Jesus, by which the son of [Nun] was called, has inclined me very strongly to adopt this view. But whether Christ should be so shamefully crucified, this we are in doubt about. For whosoever is crucified is said by the law to be accursed, so that I am exceedingly incredulous on this point. It is quite clear, indeed, that the Scriptures announce tht Christ had to suffer, but we wish to learn if you can prove to us whether it was by the suffering cursed in the law' [Justin Martyr, 'Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew']

It seems to me that you are somewhat in the position of Trypho, and are unable or unwilling to accept that our Lord suffered the punishment cursed by the law on our behalf. This is how Justin replied:
'...For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written, "Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all the things that are written in the law to do them" (Deut. 27:26). And no one has accurately done all, nor will you venture to deny this; but some more and some less than others have observed the ordinances enjoined. But if those who are under the law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to be under acurse who practice idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes.
If then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take on Him the curses of all, knowing that after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves?' [Ibid]

So the Lord Jesus took upon Himself the curse of God that had rested on the 'whole human family,' and was crucified even though He had committed no sin. Although He was innocent, he bore the curse due to us, enduring in His death, the punishment due to us. This is the Doctrine of Penal Substitution, based here upon Gal. 3:13; Deut. 21:23; 27:26. Other ante-Nicean fathers, such as Eusebius of Caesarea and Hilary of Poitiers take a simlar position.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Jesus died for our sins according to the scriptures.

That is EXACTLY what I have e been shouting at the top of my lungs.

I do not think you will find anyone here who will disagree that the Lord Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures. The issue is, what does this statement actually mean? It will be really helpful if you will tell us what you think it means.

It does bother me that "Christians" discover teachings that are not God's teachings but what men think is taught by the Bible.

It bothers me when you do that.

 

[Zaatar71]

I was thinking of Trypho the Jew in his debate with Justin Martyr. He said, " Be assured that all our nation waits for Christ; and we admit that all the Scriptures which you have quoted refer to him. Moreover, I do also admit that the name of Jesus, by which the son of [Nun] was called, has inclined me very strongly to adopt this view. But whether Christ should be so shamefully crucified, this we are in doubt about. For whosoever is crucified is said by the law to be accursed, so that I am exceedingly incredulous on this point. It is quite clear, indeed, that the Scriptures announce tht Christ had to suffer, but we wish to learn if you can prove to us whether it was by the suffering cursed in the law' [Justin Martyr, 'Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew']

It seems to me that you are somewhat in the position of Trypho, and are unable or unwilling to accept that our Lord suffered the punishment cursed by the law on our behalf. This is how Justin replied:
'...For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written, "Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all the things that are written in the law to do them" (Deut. 27:26). And no one has accurately done all, nor will you venture to deny this; but some more and some less than others have observed the ordinances enjoined. But if those who are under the law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to be under acurse who practice idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes.
If then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take on Him the curses of all, knowing that after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves?' [Ibid]

So the Lord Jesus took upon Himself the curse of God that had rested on the 'whole human family,' and was crucified even though He had committed no sin. Although He was innocent, he bore the curse due to us, enduring in His death, the punishment due to us. This is the Doctrine of Penal Substitution, based here upon Gal. 3:13; Deut. 21:23; 27:26. Other ante-Nicean fathers, such as Eusebius of Caesarea and Hilary of Poitiers take a simlar position.

You are attempting to help the poster JohnC, but keep in mind, this help only benefits those who are open to help and willing to study and search it out. Thankfully more read the posts than those whop comment on it. You have continually schooled JohnC, who cannot quite seem to grasp it. but nevertheless we see the truth despite the detractors. Others see the horrible errors of JohnC, but see that it is the calvinists offering correction, show they are reluctant to side with us, so they put up with this to avoid giving the appearance of agreeing with the dreaded Calvinists!
DaveX had a really good summary of the issues here.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

What do they believe the cross accomplished? They believe the Cross was God punishing our sins laid in Jesus. But sins bring laid on Jesus is, in their theory, an allegory.

I only just saw this post. What Christians believe is that 'by His wounds we are healed.' I seem to recall reading that in the Bible somewhere.

You stole a ball. Over 2,000 years ago God punished "you stealing a ball" on Jesus. This is allegory as sins cannot literally be transferred (they are not things). Instead God puts that theft on Jesus' account.

Our sins can be laid upon the Lord Jesus; they can be taken away. Why can they not be transferred?

The cross does not, per PSA, actually accomplish anything.

Nonsense! It accomplishes everything. You are just writing the first thing that comes into your head.

It is a16th century French legal philosophy (the one Calvin held). It was an attempt to take Roman law as Divine Justice.

Roman law, if you mean by that the Justinian law codes, was an attempt to make law as close as possible to Divine justice. How well they succeeded is open to debate, but the intention is not.

The ONLY thing the cross does in PSA is clear the ledger. God obeyed what that judicial philosophy requires. It clears God, not man. Men would have been cleared when the debts in their column were erased and written in Jesus' column.

The cross satisfies the justice of God, That is the first and most important thing. 'For I delivered to you first of all [or 'as of first importance'] that which I also received; that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.' That, and the resurrection are the things of first importance. The new birth, sanctification, filling with the Spirit and everything else are not unimportant, but they flow from the death and resurrection of Christ.

And even this change in the ledger has no effect on man. They cannot be punished, but they are still (in reality) guilty and wicked.

Praise God! For God demonstrates His own love towards us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. MUch more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.' Wonderful news! Christ justifies the ungodly. But then, with His justice satisfied, God pours out His Holy Spirit upon His people.

It is hogwash. In truth, it is satanic.

What is deeply concerning is that you are allowed, on this forum, to tell your brothers is Christ that they are teaching doctrines of demons! Shame on you! Perhaps even worse is that your fellow moderators will not take you aside and tell you that you behaviour is unacceptable; shame on them too!

But most who hold PSA do so lightly. They simoly accept what they were told without seriously considering the theory (it is not significant to their belief). The SBC is like this. They gave a resolution affirming PSA but what they affirmed was not PSA (it affirmed that Jesus died for our dins...a truth we all believe).

The danger is discussions like this one. It forces people into making a choice between Scripture and theory. Without this it is just an error lightly held and never tested.

Your problem is that you have your own 'theory of penal substitution' and when you find that it is not the same as the actual Doctrine, you have a hissy fit like the one we see here.