An Alternate View (to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

[JonC]

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.

Not really. I am both able and willing to accept that Jesus suffered God's wrath. I once did believe that very thing.

The reason I will not is I do not see a need to add that idea to what is written in Scripture.

Suppose you did not hold the presuppositions you hold (you do not hold the philosophy Calvin held for justice).

You probably would not view the Old Testament as you do. When you read of God forgiving sins, of the sacrific system, of Satan crushing the Seed on the woman's heel, etc
you probably would understand it in an entirely different way.

Penal Substitution Theory is based on some passages, and even some of what the Early Church believed. But it is also based on several presuppositions.

Every theory is based on some Scripture, and related to some of what the Early Church believed.

That is why what we need to look at is the actual core of Penal Substitution Theory (what makes it diffetent....not similar...to other positions).


I have asked before - why Legal Humanism as divine justice?

Why do you even believe that Salvation is through the law?

I believe that Christ fulfilled the law, but not through the law. Part of this is I do not hold your philosophy about justice. But God's righteousness is the same whether through the law or via recreation.

Where you put the law I put the righteousness of God. I view God's righteousness as above the law, and therefore not dependent on the law itself (it can be manifested apart from the law).

 

[JonC]

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 bothers me when you do that.

I believe that "the Lord Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures" means that Jesus died according to "what is written" in God's Word.

I do not mean this to be thhat Jesus died according to what any theory (whether Penal Substitution, Recaitulatiion, Substitution Theiry, Satisfaction Theory, Ontological Substitution, etc.) presents the Scriptures to really teach. Instead I mean by what is in the Biblical text.

I believe that the New Testament explains the symbolism and foreshadowing in the Old Testament. So I do not believe that we have to choose from all of those various theories.

 

[JonC]

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.

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

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

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 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.

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.

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!

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.

Come on, now....you have said the same about Christians who stick with "what is written" (that they hold a fakse view).

Do I believe that Penal Substitution Theory teaches that Jesus suffered God's punishment for our sins? Yes. That is what the term "penal substitution" (as opposed to ideas like "satisfactory substitution") means.

By Roman Law I mean Roman Law. This is what Calvin insisted on. It was a 16th century philosophy in France that sought to implement Roman Law as justice. Read Calvin's commentaries on judicial philosophy. Read his Institutes. You do not have to take my word for it. He explains his philosophy. He tells us how he developed the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.


What do you believe is the purpose of punishment?

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate

We cannot discuss our differences by looking only at passages where we agree.
We have to look at our differences.
We have the same Bible, the same passages.
We have different assumptions.

I believe that the Atonement is not a matter of the law but a matter of divine righteousness.
God's righteousness is greater than the law.
God's righteousness can be manifested through thr law.
BUT God's righteousness can also be manifested apart from the law.
This is the sane righteousness.

In other words, I believe that Christ fulfilled the law, not that He saved us through the law.

This affects how I view Scripture. It means I see the spirit of the law a bit differently from the letter of the law. I view God as desiring obedience rather than the actual sacrifice of animals. So I truly believe that God forgives sins, that God's wrath is propitiated.


You view Atonement as a matter of the law. You view sin as a problem of divine justice.

You need to explain why you categorize salvation as being an issue of divine justice.

You need to defend using Legal Humanism as divine justice.

You need to explain the purpose of punishment.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Not really. I am both able and willing to accept that Jesus suffered God's wrath. I once did believe that very thing.

You seem to believe that changing your mind makes you clever. It is not necessarily so (Gal. 3:1).

The reason I will not is I do not see a need to add that idea to what is written in Scripture.

Your smugness does you no credit. You are simply ignoring what is in Scripture

Suppose you did not hold the presuppositions you hold (you do not hold the philosophy Calvin held for justice).

You probably would not view the Old Testament as you do. When you read of God forgiving sins, of the sacrific system, of Satan crushing the Seed on the woman's heel, etc
you probably would understand it in an entirely different way.

FYI, I have read very little indeed of Calvin, and what I have read is mostly his sermons (which are excellent BTW). You seem to think that Calvin held a certain philosophy. So what? I do not know (or care) whether he did or not.

Penal Substitution Theory is based on some passages, and even some of what the Early Church believed. But it is also based on several presuppositions.

Every theory is based on some Scripture, and related to some of what the Early Church believed.

That is why what we need to look at is the actual core of Penal Substitution Theory (what makes it diffetent....not similar...to other positions).

If you believe this, you need to prove it, and I have not seen you do so yet.

I have asked before - why Legal Humanism as divine justice?

Define Legal humanism. I have never mentioned it. Why do you bring it up now after nearly 20 years of discussion?

Why do you even believe that Salvation is through the law?

I do not believe that salvation is through the law; it is through Christ. Why do you not believe that?

I believe that Christ fulfilled the law, but not through the law. Part of this is I do not hold your philosophy about justice. But God's righteousness is the same whether through the law or via recreation.

Where you put the law I put the righteousness of God. I view God's righteousness as above the law, and therefore not dependent on the law itself (it can be manifested apart from the law).

Well, this is just woffle on your part. I prefer to believe the Bible. 'The LORD is well pleased for His righteousness' sake. He will magnify the law and make it honourable.' 'Do we then make the law void through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.'
The difference between you and me is that you keep talking about Scripture and I keep quoting it.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Come on, now....you have said the same about Christians who stick with "what is written" (that they hold a fakse view).

I have certainly criticized people who quote large portions of Scripture without saying what they think the portions mean, as well as those who keep talking about Scripture without ever quoting it.

Do I believe that Penal Substitution Theory teaches that Jesus suffered God's punishment for our sins? Yes. That is what the term "penal substitution" (as opposed to ideas like "satisfactory substitution") means.

If you stick to that, you will not go far wrong.

By Roman Law I mean Roman Law.

Great. Do you mean pagan Roman law or the Justinian law codes?

This is what Calvin insisted on. It was a 16th century philosophy in France that sought to implement Roman Law as justice. Read Calvin's commentaries on judicial philosophy. Read his Institutes. You do not have to take my word for it. He explains his philosophy. He tells us how he developed the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

As I have just written,I have read very little of Calvin and almost none of his Institutes. Penal Substitution predates Calvin, and from a Protestant point of view can be seen in Wycliffe and Tyndale along with Peter Martyr and others on the Continent. My beliefs have nothing to do with French law, although most countries in 16th Century Europe based their laws on the Justinian codes.

What do you believe is the purpose of punishment?

What do you think the Bible says?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@Martin Marprelate

We cannot discuss our differences by looking only at passages where we agree.
We have to look at our differences.
We have the same Bible, the same passages.
We have different assumptions.

I believe that the Atonement is not a matter of the law but a matter of divine righteousness.
God's righteousness is greater than the law.
God's righteousness can be manifested through thr law.
BUT God's righteousness can also be manifested apart from the law.
This is the sane righteousness.

In other words, I believe that Christ fulfilled the law, not that He saved us through the law.

This affects how I view Scripture. It means I see the spirit of the law a bit differently from the letter of the law. I view God as desiring obedience rather than the actual sacrifice of animals. So I truly believe that God forgives sins, that God's wrath is propitiated.


You view Atonement as a matter of the law. You view sin as a problem of divine justice.

You need to explain why you categorize salvation as being an issue of divine justice.

You need to defend using Legal Humanism as divine justice.

You need to explain the purpose of punishment.

All this is a question of philosophy. Thank you for laying out yours. But since you have told me what I believe , without ever quoting anything I have posted, why do you need me to comment further?
You need to defend your position from Scripture, but that seems to be very difficult for you. Why not start with Isaiah 42:21 and Romans 3:31?

 

[JonC]

All this is a question of philosophy. Thank you for laying out yours. But since you have told me what I believe , without ever quoting anything I have posted, why do you need me to comment further?
You need to defend your position from Scripture, but that seems to be very difficult for you. Why not start with Isaiah 42:21 and Romans 3:31?

You are welcome.

I do believe thar Scripture dictates the way we should view justice and redemotion.

I am not asking you to lay out your philosophy. I know your philosophy (and where it originated, perhaos something you do not realize).

John Calvin (the lawyer) held a philosophy that was common in 16th century France. It was Legal Humanism. The goal was to revive Roman Law. The reason is this is objective. Scholars point out that the reason it could not work was it divorced Roman Law from the Roman cukture, ethics, and society as a whole. Then it sought to implant this judicial philosophy in France. It was influential, however, in Western civilization law.

One issue is this philosophy is not concerned with preventing crime. If crime is prevented that is merely a byproduct of the system. It was not concerned with the criminal, the victim, or society in general.

It was concerned with avenging justice. The judge was a servant of justice and was bound by the letter of the law to collect whatever debt a crime created.

John Calvin studied this philosophy the University of Orléans and the University of Bourges. When he became a reformer this philosophy served as how he understood divine justice.

Today we would obviously see issues with the philosophy. The only place it has remained is in the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.


My question was not about WHAT you believe.

My question is why you believe that the Atonement was purposed to satisfy the law?

Why do you, not being a 16th century French law student, choose that paticular philosophy to be divine justice?

 

[JonC]

I have certainly criticized people who quote large portions of Scripture without saying what they think the portions mean, as well as those who keep talking about Scripture without ever quoting it.

If you stick to that, you will not go far wrong.

Great. Do you mean pagan Roman law or the Justinian law codes?

As I have just written,I have read very little of Calvin and almost none of his Institutes. Penal Substitution predates Calvin, and from a Protestant point of view can be seen in Wycliffe and Tyndale along with Peter Martyr and others on the Continent. My beliefs have nothing to do with French law, although most countries in 16th Century Europe based their laws on the Justinian codes.

What do you think the Bible says?

I mean Roman Law, from sources including Corpus Iuris Civilis. The intent was to reconstruct classical Roman jurisprudence in 16th century France. (Remember the period of time we are talking about. It influenced more than philosophy but for Calvin its importance was justice as this was his study).

I know what the Bible says. I also know what Legal Humanism says

I am asking you.

What is the purpose of punishment, in your opinion?

 

[Zaatar71]

We must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it.

We see Christ, who was made for a little while lower than the angels, because of His suffering death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. It was fitting for Him, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the originator of their salvation through sufferings. Both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father; for this reason He is not ashamed to call them brothers , saying, “I will proclaim Your name to My brothers, in the midst of the assembly I will sing Your praise.” ;“I will put My trust in Him.” ;“Behold, I and the children whom God has given Me.”

Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, so that through death He might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.

Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brothers so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.

here JohnC quotes hebrews2 but mysteriously skips over 2:16...lol wonder why?
here Is AWPink on this section teaching PSA.
"To make propitiation for the sins of the people." In the light of all that has gone before in the Epistle, this statement is luminous indeed. The whole context shows us His qualifications for this stupendous work, a work which none but He could have performed. First, He was Himself "the Hebrews 1:9), thus fulfilled every requirement of the law. Third, His union with His people which caused him "made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him."

The "propitiation" (which is the New Testament filling out of the Old Testament "to make an atonement") which Christ made, was the perfect satisfaction that He offered to the holiness and justice of God on behalf of His people's sins, so that they could be righteously blotted out, removed for ever from before the face of God, "as far as the east is from the west." This sacrificial work of the Savior's was a priestly Matthew 1:21; John 10:11. They plainly teach that atonement has been made for the sins of God's elect only. "The people" are manifestly parallel with the "heirs of salvation" ( Hebrews 1:14), the "many sons" ( Hebrews 2:10), the "brethren" ( Hebrews 2:12), the "seed of Abraham" ( Hebrews 2:16). It is with them alone Christ identified Himself. The "all of one" of Hebrews 2:11 is expressly defined as being only between "He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified." He laid hold of "the seed of Abraham," and not "the seed of Adam." He is the "Head" not of mankind, but of "the church which is His body" ( Ephesians 1:21-23). A universal atonement, which largely fails of its purpose, is an invention of Satan, with the design of casting dishonor upon Christ, who would thus be a defeated Savior. A general atonement, abstractedly offered to Divine justice, which is theoretically sufficient for everybody, yet in itself efficient for nobody, is a fictitious imagination, which finds lodgment only in those who are vainly puffed up by a fleshly mind. A particular atonement, made for a definite people, all of whom shall enjoy the eternal benefits of it, is what is uniformly taught in the Word of God.
JohnC might have "missed" this-

 

[Zaatar71]

All this is a question of philosophy. Thank you for laying out yours. But since you have told me what I believe , without ever quoting anything I have posted, why do you need me to comment further?
You need to defend your position from Scripture, but that seems to be very difficult for you. Why not start with Isaiah 42:21 and Romans 3:31?

He must have a mind reading ability that he has not revealed. He often tell you what you mean even when he has nothing to quote from you, lol. It is hard to take such posters seriously.

 

[JonC]

here JohnC quotes hebrews2 but mysteriously skips over 2:16...lol wonder why?
here Is AWPink on this section teaching PSA.
"To make propitiation for the sins of the people." In the light of all that has gone before in the Epistle, this statement is luminous indeed. The whole context shows us His qualifications for this stupendous work, a work which none but He could have performed. First, He was Himself "the Hebrews 1:9), thus fulfilled every requirement of the law. Third, His union with His people which caused him "made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him."

The "propitiation" (which is the New Testament filling out of the Old Testament "to make an atonement") which Christ made, was the perfect satisfaction that He offered to the holiness and justice of God on behalf of His people's sins, so that they could be righteously blotted out, removed for ever from before the face of God, "as far as the east is from the west." This sacrificial work of the Savior's was a priestly Matthew 1:21; John 10:11. They plainly teach that atonement has been made for the sins of God's elect only. "The people" are manifestly parallel with the "heirs of salvation" ( Hebrews 1:14), the "many sons" ( Hebrews 2:10), the "brethren" ( Hebrews 2:12), the "seed of Abraham" ( Hebrews 2:16). It is with them alone Christ identified Himself. The "all of one" of Hebrews 2:11 is expressly defined as being only between "He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified." He laid hold of "the seed of Abraham," and not "the seed of Adam." He is the "Head" not of mankind, but of "the church which is His body" ( Ephesians 1:21-23). A universal atonement, which largely fails of its purpose, is an invention of Satan, with the design of casting dishonor upon Christ, who would thus be a defeated Savior. A general atonement, abstractedly offered to Divine justice, which is theoretically sufficient for everybody, yet in itself efficient for nobody, is a fictitious imagination, which finds lodgment only in those who are vainly puffed up by a fleshly mind. A particular atonement, made for a definite people, all of whom shall enjoy the eternal benefits of it, is what is uniformly taught in the Word of God.
JohnC might have "missed" this-

"Propitiation" dies make atonement per the meaning of atonement. It reconciled two parties (from the direction of the propitiating to the propitiated).

But you, by your own posts, do not believe God's wratg is propitiated in Christ. You believe Jesus suffered God's wrath and therefore was not an acceptable Propiation.

You have failed to discern the difference between substitution and propitiation. A propitiation for wrath never e oeriemces the wrath (the wrath ceases....it is propitiated). But a substitute for an object of wrath experiences the wrath due the object (penal substitution) or a compensatory resolution as a satisfaction.

I did not miss your passages. Your theory is wrong. He is this "second" or "last" Adam. And because of the Criss all will be raised (some to life, others to condemnation).

 

[Zaatar71]

"Propitiation" dies make atonement per the meaning of atonement. It reconciled two parties (from the direction of the propitiating to the propitiated).

But you, by your own posts, do not believe God's wratg is propitiated in Christ. You believe Jesus suffered God's wrath and therefore was not an acceptable Propiation.

You have failed to discern the difference between substitution and propitiation. A propitiation for wrath never e oeriemces the wrath (the wrath ceases....it is propitiated). But a substitute for an object of wrath experiences the wrath due the object (penal substitution) or a compensatory resolution as a satisfaction.

I did not miss your passages. Your theory is wrong. He is this "second" or "last" Adam. And because of the Criss all will be raised (some to life, others to condemnation).

No, I did not fail at all. All of us that know the truth know both things happen at the same time. Sorry you have abandoned this aspect of that faith that all professed Christians who understand the bible cherish. You do not have to believe it! You can continue to create your own terminology like the poster Van. We believe the biblical truth on these matters and would be welcomed into membership in all churches. You on the other hand would raise red flags, with your own ideas that deny PSA. In America, we are free to hold whatever we want to. We are also free to reject novelties.
My suggestion is for you to let Martin ,and DaveX, Atpollard, Canady continue to instruct you and fill in the parts that you obviously never had a grasp on. They will help you.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You are welcome.

I do believe thar Scripture dictates the way we should view justice and redemotion.

I am not asking you to lay out your philosophy. I know your philosophy (and where it originated, perhaos something you do not realize).

John Calvin (the lawyer) held a philosophy that was common in 16th century France. It was Legal Humanism. The goal was to revive Roman Law. The reason is this is objective. Scholars point out that the reason it could not work was it divorced Roman Law from the Roman cukture, ethics, and society as a whole. Then it sought to implant this judicial philosophy in France. It was influential, however, in Western civilization law.

One issue is this philosophy is not concerned with preventing crime. If crime is prevented that is merely a byproduct of the system. It was not concerned with the criminal, the victim, or society in general.

It was concerned with avenging justice. The judge was a servant of justice and was bound by the letter of the law to collect whatever debt a crime created.

John Calvin studied this philosophy the University of Orléans and the University of Bourges. When he became a reformer this philosophy served as how he understood divine justice.

Today we would obviously see issues with the philosophy. The only place it has remained is in the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

First of all you need to understand that the Justinian Law Codes were the basis for all legal codes for most, if not all, nation states as they developed over the years. The Emperor Justinian was some sort of Christian and the law codes developed the older Augustinian codes in what Justinian would have seen as a more Christian fashion. I am neither a lawyer nor the son of a lawyer, but I think you will find traces of the Justinian codes in many current-day legal codes.
When Calvin returned to Geneva in 1541(?) he had to deal with the Genevan city magistrates who were determined to stick their noses into the church. For example, until 1555, he had to accept that elders would be appointed by the magistrates. Separation of Church and State did not exist, and so varying degrees of Erastianism had to be accepted, by the magisterial reformers, but did not necessarily mean they did so voluntarily

My question was not about WHAT you believe.

My question is why you believe that the Atonement was purposed to satisfy the law?

Why do you, not being a 16th century French law student, choose that paticular philosophy to be divine justice?

 

[JonC]

First of all you need to understand that the Justinian Law Codes were the basis for all legal codes for most, if not all, nation states as they developed over the years. The Emperor Justinian was some sort of Christian and the law codes developed the older Augustinian codes in what Justinian would have seen as a more Christian fashion. I am neither a lawyer nor the son of a lawyer, but I think you will find traces of the Justinian codes in many current-day legal codes.
When Calvin returned to Geneva in 1541(?) he had to deal with the Genevan city magistrates who were determined to stick their noses into the church. For example, until 1555, he had to accept that elders would be appointed by the magistrates. Separation of Church and State did not exist, and so varying degrees of Erastianism had to be accepted, by the magisterial reformers, but did not necessarily mean they did so voluntarily

I am not talking about law codes or the separation of church and state. I am talking about Calvin's philosophy of justice (Legal Humanism).

There are many philosophies of justice.

I understand why Calvin used it (it was the philosophy he studied, that he held...before becoming a Reformer he was a part of this movement (Renaissance Humanism) and he believed legal humanism to be perfect justice. But we have hindsight and know it failed as a system of justice in 16th century France (yes, it still influenced law, but as a system of justice it proved deficient).

Why that paricular philosophy as divine justice?

It isn't a "gotcha" question or a trick. Since it is the basis of Penal Substitution Theory it is something I believe important to ask.

 

[JesusFan]

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.

Again, did not the entire sacrificial system points towards the Messiah death as being Psa, as did the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53?

 

[JesusFan]

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.

The Psa view of the Atonement is the one held by Jesus peter and John and Paul, and they were inspired in that theology

 

[JesusFan]

I would say a "sinner" is one who falls short of the glory of God.

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".

The Holy Spirit Himself does all of that in Us, but the Father cannot send Him to us to do all of that unless someone has paid in full and satisfied our sin debt owed to God

 

[JesusFan]

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.

Those who would deny Psa as being the primary atonement view though are really starting to following their own made up Theology, and they also have their own authors they follow, such as a NT Wright and others?

 

[JesusFan]

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 bothers me when you do that.

It CANNOT be just that Jesus suffered a physical death, as in His death something happened that allowed for the Father to justify the ungodly and yet still remain perfect and Holy Himself, and Jesus just having a physical death accomplished none of that