Death FOR Sin

[Martin Marprelate]

Not really. We have shown that redemption is not substitution. But we have not discussed why PSA theorists see substitution in redemption.

Just showing how PSA departs from the biblical text does not address how PSA theorists arrive at their theory.

I suppose that 'we' here is the 'royal we' since you are the only person who keep up your nonsense. But you have not begun to show that redemption is not substitution. If you think that the buying of cinema tickets is either of those things, you are away with the fairies.
Nor have you begun to show that PSA departs from the Biblical text. On the contrary, I and others have patiently shown you from the Bible that the Doctrine of Penal Substitution is at the very heart of the word of God.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

1. Rule of Context: The most critical principle is to interpret words, phrases, and sentences in light of their surrounding text, the book's overall theme, and the author's purpose.

2. Rule of Historical and Cultural Background: Texts must be understood within the social, historical, and cultural milieu of the time they were written, factoring in the intended original audience.

3. Rule of Literal or Plain Meaning: Interpreters should seek the natural, literal sense of the text unless the language clearly demands a figurative interpretation.

4. Rule of Usage and Definition: Words and idioms must be defined consistently with how the original author and their contemporaries used them, examining the original languages if necessary.

5. Rule of Harmony: Passages should be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the rest of the text or document, ensuring that specific parts do not contradict the broader whole.


Rule #3 (the "plain meaning") is dependent on the other rules.

Don't forget the rule of cinema tickets.

 

[JonC]

Don't forget the rule of cinema tickets.

Lol... that was an illustration just to show that "redemption" does not demand "substitution". Same with Boaz and Ruth. The "rule" it applies to is #1.

You confusion was getting caught up on an illustration.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I quoted and engaged 1 Peter 2 verse by verse. I am not interested in deconstructing verses and placing them in a theoretical context.

We have to be faithful to the actual text and examine the verses you use within the context from which you removed them.

So back to Peter.

OK, I stand corrected, you did mention a verse.

 

[JonC]

I suppose that 'we' here is the 'royal we' since you are the only person who keep up your nonsense. But you have not begun to show that redemption is not substitution. If you think that the buying of cinema tickets is either of those things, you are away with the fairies.
Nor have you begun to show that PSA departs from the Biblical text. On the contrary, I and others have patiently shown you from the Bible that the Doctrine of Penal Substitution is at the very heart of the word of God.

No. The "we" here are Christisns who believe that what the Bible teaches is the biblical text. It excludes many sects (JW, SDA, PSA theorists, RCC).

I know you believe your theory is the heart of the gospel. Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Roman Catholics, etc all believe their theories are the heart of the gospel. PSA theorists are not the only ones who extract verses and phrases to "Christianize" their theories.

BUT there are no passages that actually support PSA. If there are you would have provided them.

Instead you extract verses like "He bore our sins" and pretend that can only mean substitution. That is why you will never grasp God's Word. The natural man cannot understand that which is spiritual. You see the text but to you it is foolishness.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Just showing how PSA departs from the biblical text does not address how PSA theorists arrive at their theory.

2 Peter 3:16 is the only verse in Scripture that directly names the act of wresting the Word , twisting it, forcing it, distorting it, bending it to one’s own system:

“…which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:16)

The three passages you cite , Proverbs 17:26, Exodus 23:7, and Proverbs 17:15 , speak exclusively of human conduct and human judgment. They address the conduct of earthly courts, magistrates, princes, civil authority and interpersonal dealings. They do not speak of God’s judicial acts, God’s righteousness, or God’s appointed means of atonement. To apply these human‑court texts to divine judgment is to remove them from their context and to force a meaning the Spirit did not place there.

“Also to punish the just is not good, nor to strike princes for equity.” (Prov 17:26)

“Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty.” (Exodus 23:7)

“He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.” (Prov 17:15)

These verses address human justice. They do not govern the atoning work of Christ. When they are lifted out of their civil‑law context and made into universal axioms about divine action, they no longer function as Scripture but as propositions imposed upon Scripture, they become axioms.

The difficulty is that the two axioms you repeat, “He will not punish the just” and “He will not clear the guilty” , cannot stand together without eliminating salvation. If God cannot punish the innocent, then Christ cannot bear sins, cannot bear the curse, cannot bear chastisement, cannot be smitten for transgressions, cannot be wounded for iniquities. And if Christ cannot bear these things, then no one can be saved.

 

[JonC]

OK, I stand corrected, you did mention a verse.

Lol... the reason I only mentioned one passage (several verses) is we have to respect God's words and see what each verse you use actually means within its context.

We can only discuss the verses you have used as a collective after they have been understood within the context of the entire passage.

This is the 1st hermenutical rule. You cant jump to the 3rd rule and expect to correctly grasp the text.

 

[KenH]

BUT there are no passages that actually support PSA.

Penal Substitutionary Atonement, or "sin debt", is solid Biblical teaching. Even we humans use the term debt for those who break law administered by man. Ever heard of paying one's debt to society in describing enduring the punishment for breaking law administered by man?

Furthermore,

Mark 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

A ransom is a payment.

Furthermore,

Isaiah 53:4-6 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Furthermore,

From Isaiah 53:8 For the transgression of my people was he stricken.

Furthermore,

From Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin.

Furthermore,

From Isaiah 53:11 He shall bear their iniquities.

Furthermore,

From Isaiah 53:12 He bare the sin of many.

Furthermore,

1 Peter 1:18-19 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.

To redeem something is to buy it back.

The verses that I have quoted prove that the Bible teaches that it was God the Father who placed the punishment for the sin debt of His elect upon God the Son to redeem them, or buy them back, from the justice that they were deserving of, and God's justice being satisfied in God the Son's perfect life lived and willing sacrifice offered in the stead of God's elect.

God the Son had the power to do ALL of this.
God the Son was willing to do ALL of this.
God the Son accomplished ALL of this.

God does not just overlook sin, He does not just wave His hand and clear the guilty(Exodus 34:7). The sins of God's elect and their guilt was imputed to Christ, He satisfied God's justice, and His perfect righteousness was imputed to God's elect.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

(emphasis mine)

 

[JonC]

The three passages you cite , Proverbs 17:26, Exodus 23:7, and Proverbs 17:15 , speak exclusively of human conduct and human judgment.

It addresses righteous judgment, but yes, in how we should judge. But this goes back to our understanding of justice.

I told you that I believe justice is righteousness (God as the moral and just Standard). So justice is justice.

You also have Peter, Isaiah, David, and Luke describing the Cross as unjust because it was punishment inflicted on the Righteous.

There is no getting around the fact that punishing the Righteous to clear the guilty is evil.

BUT the point was that Peter did not use "He bore our sins" to mean a substitution. Instead he used this as Christ sharing in our humanity as our forerunner.


And this is true in all of Scripture. Christ shares in our humanity, bearing what it is to be flesh, bearing in our sin. This is do we may share in His Life, bear His righteousness.

 

[JonC]

Penal Substitutionary Atonement, or "sin debt", is solid Biblical teaching.

Lol... you are just repeating yourself, like a child you put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes tight, and shout over and over your error.

In Scripture Christ pays for us, redeems us, ransoms us, purchases us from the bondage of sin and death and through His own death destroys the one who held us in bondage.

But none of that is penal substitution.

 

[KenH]

In Scripture Christ pays for us, redeems us, ransoms us, purchases us from the bondage of sin and death and through His own death destroys the one who held us in bondage.

So, JonC., in your system how does a dirty, filthy, wretched sinner come to be seen as perfectly righteous in the eyes of God, as we know that only those with a perfect righteousness can stand before God without being punished for sin?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No. The "we" here are Christisns who believe that what the Bible teaches is the biblical text. It excludes many sects (JW, SDA, PSA theorists, RCC).

You don't believe the Biblical texts. You should stop saying you do becaise it simply isn't true. And no one else on this board appears to believe what you are pushing is the Biblical text. If there is someone, he keeping very quiet about it.

I know you believe your theory is the heart of the gospel. Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Roman Catholics, etc all believe their theories are the heart of the gospel. PSA theorists are not the only ones who extract verses and phrases to "Christianize" their theories.

BUT there are no passages that actually support PSA. If there are you would have provided them.

I have provided them over and over again in almost every post I make. It is you who has no answer to them as we see below.

Instead you extract verses like "He bore our sins" and pretend that can only mean substitution. That is why you will never grasp God's Word. The natural man cannot understand that which is spiritual. You see the text but to you it is foolishness.

You can only avoid the force of the texts when you eviscerate them. What does 1 Peter 2:24 say? It does NOT say, 'He bore our sins,' as if he carried them for half a mile down to the pub and left them there for us to pick up later.
It says, 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness - by whose stripes [or 'wounds'] you were healed.' Our sins were laid upon Him (Isaiah 53:6) and He bore them on the tree, that is, He bore the curse of them as well. And by that bearing, by that appalling suffering and by His dying on the cross, we, who are united to Him by faith, have died with Him to sin and can live to righteousness (Romans 6:1-14). But His were the wounds; ours is the healing. Penal Substitution.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

You don't believe the Biblical texts. You should stop saying you do becaise it simply isn't true.

When a person becomes committed to a system rather than to the text, the system eventually requires them to wrest Scripture, ignore passages that contradict it, and redefine those that do not fit. That is the danger of system‑loyalty over Scripture‑loyalty.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I have provided them over and over again in almost every post I make. It is you who has no answer to them as we see below.

As have I, but system‑loyalty produces predictable behaviors. Jon is engaging in a system‑required erasure of everything that contradicts his framework. This is the predictable behavior of someone who is defending a theological system rather than doctrine.

 

[JonC]

You don't believe the Biblical texts.

This is a lie (it is dishonest and a sin against God).

Calninists, Arminians, PSA theorists, Substitution Atonement theorists, Christus Victor advocates, Moral Influence theorists, Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians... they all believe the biblical text.

You, @Anthony Pritchard , and @KenH staye otherwise but that is because you are dishonest people.

The difference is NOT the text each of these sects believe but HOW they interpret and view those text and their philosophical meanings.

Where you sin is that you declare I, and others who share my position, do not believe the biblical text when we do. You also define the biblical text as your understanding of what the biblical text teaches.

That was what I was telling @Anthony Pritchard . If you read the Bible as plainly teaching "x" but another reads the Bible as plainly teaching "y" then you cannot say the bible plainly teaches "x" (the "plainly teachings" idea alone speaks to our understanding of the text rather than the biblical text itself.


The bottom line is you, @ken , and @Anthony Pritchard disqualify yourselves by claiming (or supporting) the idea that I (and those who share my view) do not believe the biblical text when the truth is we all hold the same biblical text but different understandings.

You just create a smoke screen to hide the fact you are unable to defend your faith. You want the biblical text to state your faith so any other positions are not believing Scripture.

Ultimately this shows you three lack even a basic comprehension of hermemutics.

 

[JonC]

As have I, but system‑loyalty produces predictable behaviors. Jon is engaging in a system‑required erasure of everything that contradicts his framework. This is the predictable behavior of someone who is defending a theological system rather than doctrine.

No, you simply do not understand hermemutics.

We believe the same biblical text (although you think we do not) but we understand that text differently.

What we have to look at is why you (and those who share your view) see one thing as the "plain meaning" of a passage and I (and those who share my view) see another.

You are unwilling to do this (to explore the distinctions in our understanding and the actual biblical text).


I have explained what PSA theorists have to prove for their theory to be correct (their understanding of justice and centering the atonement on this system of justice).

The reason this is important is PSA depends on that judicial philosophy being correct. If it is correct then your theory is correct. If it is not correct then PSA cannot be correct.


But rather than going down that route, you and I defining the concepts we use, you instead comdemn Christ by condemning millions of Christians who disagree with your understanding as not believing the biblical text. What is more damning is you equate your understanding with the biblical text itself.

But the truth you are unable to grasp is that Christians have different understandings while believing the same biblical text.

You cannot understand that truth because you have determined that proper exegesis is understanding the biblical text according to what YOU believe to be the plain meaning of the text.

 

[JonC]

When a person becomes committed to a system rather than to the text, the system eventually requires them to wrest Scripture, ignore passages that contradict it, and redefine those that do not fit. That is the danger of system‑loyalty over Scripture‑loyalty.

EXACTLY!!!!

That is why I have been encouraging you to read the verses you provided in context of the passages from which you removed them.


This also means each of is must identify the system we are using. Here it wouod be the "problem" that the atonement "solves" and then how Jesus accomplished it.

Every person holds such a system. Most PSA theorists hold a neo Greco-Roman judicial philosophy (Calvin's philosophy) as the system ("every crime must be punished; punishment satisfies the law" transformed into "every sin must be punished; punishment satisfies divine justice").

I told you my system several times (I believe divine justice is divine righteousness itself, our salvation is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law, the Levitival system purity laws point to atonement resulting in sins being forgiven).

But instead of discusding you system you merely condemn those who do not see the plain meaning of Scripture as your understanding as not believing the biblical text itself. That is a sin.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Every person holds such a system. Most PSA theorists hold a neo Greco-Roman judicial philosophy (Calvin's philosophy) as the system

Smokescreen.

PSA comes from:

• Leviticus
• Isaiah 53
• the sacrificial system
• the Day of Atonement
• the sin‑bearing substitute
• the curse‑bearing substitute
• the Lamb of God who takes away sin

There is nothing “Greco‑Roman” about:

He bore our sins in His body on the tree. (1 Pet 2:24)

or

The LORD laid on Him the iniquity of us all. (Isa 53:6)

or

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. (Gal 3:13)

These are Hebrew categories, not Greek ones.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

For anyone following along: the reason this discussion keeps drifting is that Jon consistently moves away from the biblical text and into abstractions, and philosophical systems. The simplest way to keep the conversation grounded is to stay with the passages themselves. The text is the authority, not our systems and not our rhetoric. I’m content to keep quoting the verses and letting Scripture speak for itself. When the text is handled directly, the issues become clear without the need for detours.

Key passages that speak plainly and repeatedly to the issue:

Isaiah 53:4–6 - He bore our griefs… the LORD laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
Isaiah 53:10–12 - His soul makes an offering for sin… He bore the sin of many.
1 Peter 2:24 - He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree.
1 Peter 3:18 - The just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God.
2 Corinthians 5:21 - He was made sin for us.
Galatians 3:13 - Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.
Hebrews 9:28 - Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many.
Leviticus 16:21–22 - The sins are placed on the substitute, and it bears them away.
John 1:29 - The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

These passages do not require philosophical systems, redefinitions, or abstractions.

They simply need to be read

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@JonC,
I will do you the credit of saying that you think you believe the Biblical texts, but you end up butchering them so that you can disregard them, as I showed you in post #32 and present buying cinema tickets as some sort of evidence against substitution.