Featured The Classic View (just a summary)

My old self has been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So I live in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not treat the grace of God as meaningless. For if keeping the law could make us right with God, then there was no need for Christ to die.
(Galatians 2:20-21)

Substitution right there.
This is all that is needed. Scripture alone.

 

His one book was his book on the atonement! Not a lecture where he was taking to task some specific issue or excess. I'll go with his book. By the way, it is a good book and covers a lot of ground but it did not agree with what you had been saying about his views.

I have been reading some of the early church writings and I also, like many others, find the elements of penal substitution. I do not find any of them so far who said anything that would oppose the concept of penal substitution. It was not developed at that time as a confessional decree I admit. I have read a lot of the Baptist theologians you suggest. If you go back through my posts as you seem to like to do you will find that I linked some of the writing where some of the guys seemed a lot more sympathetic to penal substitution than you suggested. That also goes for the Anabaptist site where I found partial agreement with what you say and also some disagreement. I believe I had included a link there too. Also, just in general, I find that when I begin the search and linking on these guys you suggest and see where they go I become quite concerned with what I find. In general, I find theological liberalism and a questioning of almost all basic Christian doctrines which I am familiar with. It is all quite concerning and I am interested in where this is going. This is the only reason I keep engaging with you.

I don't think you mentioned "ransom" in the original posts on this thread. And you didn't include in the list of things that are scriptural. Is there a reason you use it now?

 

See Jon. You are doing exactly what you accused me of doing. I did not call Christus Victor, Ransom Theory, or the Classic view liberal theology. I said that some of the guys who you suggested, when I look them up, and follow their trail, they are linked to liberal theology. What you did there, if I had done that to you, would be slanderous and false quoting. I look at it as just normal human verbal exchanges. But what you did there was a wrong assumption of what I said at best. Not to mention the general high-handedness of your demeanor with everyone who disagrees with you. People can look at what I said above and judge for themselves.
In fact, you didn't even address the points I did make. That is that some of your suggested sources are not as much against penal substitution as you said. I had in previous posts, posted the links, which I can find again if necessary.

I disagree. And don't accuse me of accusing you of lying. But you are wrong. Liberal theology is usually begun by questioning the need for atonement at all or questioning the qualifications of Christ to effect an atonement or literally rise from the dead.

This makes perfect sense to me given the times but there is also plenty of scripture discussing Jesus as coming to "save his people from their sins". So there was also a consciousness of personal guilt before God and the need to deal with that. Most of the exchanges involved between Jesus and individuals involve personal guilt and sin from the woman at the well to the man who before physical healing was told "your sins are forgiven". Later, in exchanges with Peter and Paul people say "what must I do to be saved". They weren't worried about the fact that the world was under the dominion of Satan as much as that they were in trouble with God as an individual. Sorry, but you will always end up back at penal substitution, which describes best the atonement, or at least some type of satisfaction or ransom. I have said many times before, and keep getting falsely accused of being against them, but the other concepts of what Christ did and does for us are true and good. The Reformers discussed them a lot and Owen in particular lists them in several of his works. But there is still that problem of how a man can be right with God. I think what we are calling penal substitution describes that in more, correct detail than anything else. Like I have said before, the fact that early church fathers didn't say much on it or the fact that some group has an emphasis doesn't bother me. What does bother me is someone who is truly antagonistic toward the concept.

 

Correct - just as I go to the grocery store with my wife, but I have something she does not have, so also Jesus dies with us, but he has something we do not have - innocence and obedience.

it is exactly how Luke lays it out in his gospel with the penitent criminal: “we are under the same sentence of condemnation, but me justly, and Jesus unjustly.” The logic is not “in my place condemned he stood.” It really is right there in the text.

Jesus’ death is not unique in that he dies, for we all die, are called to die with Christ, and in fact are already dead in sin. Jesus’ death is not unique in that he is crucified - for we are called to take up our cross and follow him. Jesus’ death is unique in that he alone dies unjustly as a perfectly innocent party, and so justice demands the reversal of his unjust death through the resurrection.

jesus pays our debt of obedience. But he does not obey so that we won’t have to obey. He obeys so we can obey. The Holy Spirit applies his obedience to us such that we become obedient. Salvation cannot happen in us without confession and repentance happening in us, which is the application by the Holy Spirit of Jesus’ death and resurrection to us.

Last night my 5 year old daughter had trouble cleaning her room. I had to go in and literally place my hand on hers and guide her hand to pick up toys and to put them in her toy box. I was not her substitute. I did not pick up her toys instead of her so she wouldn’t have to. And yet I picked up the toys with her in such a manner that I was essentially the sole agent in getting the job done. But she participated in that she did not resist my physical guidance. This is how Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, applies his obedience to us. It is his obedience applied to us and operating through us, not instead of us.

Jesus says “take up your cross and follow me”
Substitution says “lay down your cross and stay put, for I am going to be crucified in your place.”

Paul says “I have been co-crucified with Christ.”
Substitution says “Christ was crucified instead of me.”

Jesus says “you will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with my baptism,”
Substitution says “I will drink the cup in your place so you won’t have to, and undergo baptism in your place so you won’t have to.”

Jesus says “he who loses his life will save it.”
Substitution says “Jesus loses his life so you won’t have to.”

Paul says “we have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world.”
Substitution says “Christ has died instead of you to the elementary principles of the world.”

Paul says, “I carry in my body the dying of Jesus.”
Substitution says “Jesus carried about his dying so I never have to”

Paul says he seeks “fellowship with his sufferings and conformity to Jesus’ death”
Substitution says we seek “avoiding his sufferings because he suffered in our place, and avoidance of his death because he died in our place.”

 

@Arthur King. What you are doing is mixing up discipleship with becoming a Christian. Jesus told Nicodemus that the Son of Man would be lifted up like the serpent in the wilderness so that everyone that believed would be saved. Our initial encounter with Jesus is as a savior, not as Lord. If you are not careful, you will end up like those guys in Pilgrim's Progress who climbed over the wall instead of entering through the narrow gate. You can't do that. There is a work that Jesus does for us, not with us, that involves a reconciliation with the Father. This occurred at the cross and it is a great blasphemy for us to try to horn in on that precious work.

Once again, you mix up the means of our actual ground for forgiveness with our identification with Christ as a believer. In Philippians Chapter 3 Paul says "but I press on to make it my own because Christ Jesus has made me his own". There was a work he did and he alone did. So yes, Christ was crucified for you. I would not use the word "instead" because someone might think we all, individually had to die in that way which is not scriptural.

There is nothing in the doctrine of penal substitution that suggests that for a moment. Have you never looked at Owen's "On the Mortification of Sin" or listened to a Paul Washer video?

I told you before and got a post deleted and a warning for it so this may be my last post but this is important. These statements show a deep misunderstanding of the Christian faith. Whatever church you are currently in, get out and try to figure these things out. If you find a church that teaches penal substitution but neglects discipleship get out of that one too. You don't seem to understand the work of Christ on the cross.

Do you think that was Bunyan's philosophy when he spent 12 years in prison for preaching without a license? This is beyond ridiculous.

 

Everyone on here who reads the above should look carefully if you believe in penal substitution. Do you see anything in those scriptural statements that indicate penal substitution? Of course there are. I found at least 8. Who gave one person the authority to declare that those scriptural statement do not indicate penal substitution when every advocate of penal substitution uses them? It's no wonder Owen and Bunyan don't post on here any more.

 

That's your opinion but you don't get to decide what the verses say. I think they do say those things, and there are other verses that explain penal substitution even more. You may think you are the arbitrator of truth but you are not. You are sharing an interpretation like anyone else, with the same flaws in logic and recall that everyone else has. The verses are there, and the scripture is there and people can evaluate them for themselves.

What would be of some help is a reference from an actual published work explaining "Classic Theory" of substitution, and maybe a reference of Piper's comments on this as you referenced above. A thread on a Baptist Board that is mainstream and is about what you say is the majority view of Christianity should have a reference from somewhere that we can look up.

 

This is going to come as a shock but my view is the common way one would look at that phraseology. I'm not going over this with you again. Other threads have done this. This isn't just "my view". You're the one who doesn't reference your views.

 

Direction: The Atonement in Anabaptist Theology
Here is a concrete article on the Anabaptist view of atonement. It is referenced, and in written form so there are specific statements that can be discussed. Can you comment on any of this or is that too concrete?

 

Nothing was changed, Jon. Let me quote the Bible to you once again.

My old self has been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So I live in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not treat the grace of God as meaningless. For if keeping the law could make us right with God, then there was no need for Christ to die.
(Galatians 2:20-21)

"Gave Himself for me."

It doesn't say "gave Himself with me." There is a substitution that has taken place. "For me" is very important.

So, Jon, I take the text as it is. Don't tell me that I change the phrase. I don't. So take your own quote and point it right at yourself!
"There is a condition worse than blindness, and that is, seeing something that isn't there. - Hardy"

 

The bronze serpent being lifted up is a perfect example of what I am talking about. If the bronze serpent was a penal substitute, then the people would have sinned, and then the bronze serpent would draw the fiery serpents to itself so that the people would not be bitten. The serpent would suffer the punishment in place of the people so they would not suffer it. That is precisely not how the serpent functions in the Bible. Rather, the people are already bitten and suffering. Then they look to the serpent to be healed. Just as we who are dead look to Christ on the cross to be raised from death. By his wounds we are healed from our wounds. But it is not that by his wound we avoid being wounded. You are straight up arguing my point.

And I have fantastic theological company. Augustine, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Boethius, John of Damascus, Caesarius of Arles, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther (on his good days), John Macleod Campbell, CS Lewis. If you want me to send you my big long list of quotations again, I will. But the heresy/blasphemy card won’t work. Forget about it.

And I am hitting you with verse after verse after verse that directly contradicts the substitution view. These are the words of Jesus, our lord and master, and the words of Paul, in God’s Holy Word. The language, the logic, and the scenarios are so clearly and so obviously not substitution, as I just demonstrated. I could list more verses if you want. Could seriously do it all day.

Truth over tribe. And I say this as someone who has attended conservative Baptist churches my entire life, and went to a conservative Bible college.

I am not pushing liberalism. I am anti prosperity gospel and anti moral relativism, which is why I am anti penal substitution.

 

Yes, Jesus gave himself for us - so that dead people can be raised from death. Not so that living people can be saved from dying.

Resurrection from death is your salvation hope. Not avoiding death or avoiding dying with Christ. Jesus your not-substitute says take up your cross and follow him.