The Classic View (just a summary)

taisto said:

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"

Click to expand...

Yes, something was changed.
And nobody is saying God gave Himself with us.


You changed "Gave Himself for me" to "God Himself instead of me".

You have added to Scripture.

Christ giving Himself for us is not substitution.

Christ giving Himself instead of us would be.


Being baptized for the forgiveness of sins is not baptism as the cause of forgiveness.

Being baptized to being about the forgiving sins is.

JonC said:

Yes, something was changed.
And nobody is saying God gave Himself with us.


You changed "Gave Himself for me" to "God Himself instead of me".

You have added to Scripture.

Christ giving Himself for us is not substitution.

Christ giving Himself instead of us would be.


Being baptized for the forgiveness of sins is not baptism as the cause of forgiveness.

Being baptized to being about the forgiving sins is.

Click to expand...

JonC said:

Yes, something was changed.
And nobody is saying God gave Himself with us.


You changed "Gave Himself for me" to "God Himself instead of me".

You have added to Scripture.

Christ giving Himself for us is not substitution.

Christ giving Himself instead of us would be.


Being baptized for the forgiveness of sins is not baptism as the cause of forgiveness.

Being baptized to being about the forgiving sins is.

Click to expand...

Jon, I have quoted the scripture. I have not changed one word.

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)

You owe me an open apology on this board, right here.

You may not be able to accept what is written, but do not ever tell me I did something that I never did.

Here, read the verses for yourself.
Galatians 2:20-21

taisto said:

Jon, I have quoted the scripture. I have not changed one word.

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)

You owe me an open apology on this board, right here.

You may not be able to accept what is written, but do not ever tell me I did something that I never did.

Here, read the verses for yourself.
Galatians 2:20-21

Click to expand...

Then we agree. The verse is not substitution (it is NOT Christ giving Himself instead of you (substitute) but God giving Himself for you (Classic View).

If you did not mean that verse spoke of a substitution but instead meant what it says (that Christ gave Himself for us) then you certainly have my apology.

You quoting the passage and then saying it was substitution threw me off. I thought you meant that the passage itself was speaking of substitution.

My response was that you were adding to the verse what wasn't there (adding substitution). I guess I misunderstood. My bad.

JonC said:

Then we agree. The verse is not substitution (it is NOT Christ giving Himself instead of you (substitute) but God giving Himself for you (Classic View).

If you did not mean that verse spoke of a substitution but instead meant what it says (that Christ gave Himself for us) then you certainly have my apology.

You quoting the passage and then saying it was substitution threw me off. I thought you meant that the passage itself was speaking of substitution.

My response was that you were adding to the verse what wasn't there (adding substitution). I guess I misunderstood. My bad.

Click to expand...

Jon, stop it.
The verse says:
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," with no change of any words, means substituted Himself for me.

No change in anything. That is what Paul tells us.
When a person is in death row and another person "gives himself for" that person, the person giving himself for the other is in fact substituting himself in the place of the other person.

John, you can refuse to believe that, but stop lying, twisting, and manipulating my words to force your view upon myself or anyone else in this board. I have reported you to the administration here at the Baptist Board. You have stepped over the line and you need to stop immediately.

Some of the stuff here is like Alice in Wonderland. '"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."'

Humpty Dumpty thinks that 'for' can never mean 'in the place of' or 'instead of.' I've trotted all this out before, but here it is again.

If I write a letter for you, I write it; you don't. I write it instead of you. If you still write the letter, it renders my writing it for you a complete waste of time.
If I post a letter for you, I post it instead of you and it is impossible for you to post it because I have already done so.
If I pay a debt for you, I pay it, you don't. I pay it instead of you. If we both pay it, that is pointless and ridiculous.
If I die for you, I die and you don't. I die in your place or instead of you. If I die and you die anyway, my death is pointless. If Humpty Dumpty objects that Christians still die even though Christ died for them, I offer John 11:26. "And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?"

Humpty Dumpty also thinks that the Greek preposition huper can only mean 'for' and never mean 'instead of' or 'in the place of.' But consider.
John 11:49-51. '...And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, nor do you consider it expedient for us that one man die for [Gk. huper] the people, and not that the whole nation should perish." Now he did not say this on his own authority, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for [Gk. huper] the nation.'
Do you see Caiaphas' idea? Jesus dies for the people; the nation does not perish. Jesus dies; the nation doesn't. He dies in the place of, or instead of, the people/nation. Whether that was how it worked out in the light of AD 70 is neither here nor there. Huper here means 'in the place of' or 'instead of.

taisto said:

Jon, stop it.
The verse says:
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," with no change of any words, means substituted Himself for me.

Click to expand...

You are adding to the text (the verse says that Christ gave Himself for you, nothing about a substitute.... i.e., instead of you).

Why not just take Scripture for what is written? Why add some type of substitution?

Christ died for our sins. Christ gave Himself for us.

No need to add substitution to the actual text. God's Word is sufficient as it stands without any additions.


Note: I am not saying you are adding words to the text. I am saying when you deal with the text you are adding substitution. That is adding to God's Word what is not there.

Martin Marprelate said:

Some of the stuff here is like Alice in Wonderland. '"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."'

Humpty Dumpty thinks that 'for' can never mean 'in the place of' or 'instead of.' I've trotted all this out before, but here it is again.

If I write a letter for you, I write it; you don't. I write it instead of you. If you still write the letter, it renders my writing it for you a complete waste of time.
If I post a letter for you, I post it instead of you and it is impossible for you to post it because I have already done so.
If I pay a debt for you, I pay it, you don't. I pay it instead of you. If we both pay it, that is pointless and ridiculous.
If I die for you, I die and you don't. I die in your place or instead of you. If I die and you die anyway, my death is pointless. If Humpty Dumpty objects that Christians still die even though Christ died for them, I offer John 11:26. "And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?"

Humpty Dumpty also thinks that the Greek preposition huper can only mean 'for' and never mean 'instead of' or 'in the place of.' But consider.
John 11:49-51. '...And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, nor do you consider it expedient for us that one man die for [Gk. huper] the people, and not that the whole nation should perish." Now he did not say this on his own authority, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for [Gk. huper] the nation.'
Do you see Caiaphas' idea? Jesus dies for the people; the nation does not perish. Jesus dies; the nation doesn't. He dies in the place of, or instead of, the people/nation. Whether that was how it worked out in the light of AD 70 is neither here nor there. Huper here means 'in the place of' or 'instead of.

Click to expand...

Now you are jumping through hoops to defend your theory.


Let's look at the passage.

John 11:24–30 Martha said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.”
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?” She *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world.” When she had said this, she went away and called Mary her sister, saying secretly, “The Teacher is here and is calling for you.” And when she heard it, she *got up quickly and was coming to Him. Now Jesus had not yet come into the village, but was still in the place where Martha met Him.

What are we talking about here? Are we talking about Jesus dying for us as a substitute?

No. We are talking about life in Christ Jesus (Jesus is speaking to Martha, who believed the resurrection...that her brother would live again....and Jesus tells her that we can have this life now).

But no, @Martin Marprelate , this verse does not negate that even though we die yet shall we live, or that it is appointed man once to die and then the judgment.

And it does not justify adding to Scripture.

Does Jesus giving Himself for us mean instead of us or another kind of substitution? No. Of course not. It means He gave Himself for us.

Likewise we are baptized for the forgiveness of sin, NOT that forgiveness comes from baptism.


When you take liberties with God's Word you never walk away with a theory superior to Scripture.

JonC said:

When you take liberties with God's Word you never walk away with a theory superior to Scripture.

Click to expand...

One of us is taking liberties with God's word, but I think you'll find it's you.
But well done for avoiding the whole thrust of my post. Well up to your usual standard.

My point in quoting John 11:26 was to show that the Christian has passed from death to life, and that is not something in the future, it is right now (John 10:28, and more particularly 1 John 3:14), so that by dying in our stead Christ has given us eternal life.

Martin Marprelate said:

One of us is taking liberties with God's word, but I think you'll find it's you.
But well done for avoiding the whole thrust of my post. Well up to your usual standard.

Click to expand...

Me?

No. I say that "God gave Himself for us" means God gave Himself for us. I am not adding substitution to that but allowing God's Word to stand.

You, however, have insisted that the verse teaches what it does not actually say.

That is a very liberal approach to Scripture.

I skipped over the Humpty Dumpty part. I'm not into childish things.

JonC said:

Me?

No. I say that "God gave Himself for us" means God gave Himself for us. I am not adding substitution to that but allowing God's Word to stand.

You, however, have insisted that the verse teaches what it does not actually say.

Click to expand...

What exact verse of Scripture are you referring to? Can you give me chapter and verse, please? I don't recall commenting on it. Perhaps you will show me where I did.

That is a very liberal approach to Scripture.

Click to expand...

What exactly are you saying is a liberal approach to Scripture? Inventing a verse that doesn't exist? That certainly would be a liberal approach to Scripture, if not a downright deceitful one.
What I do say is that when we read, 'He was wounded for our transgressions,' it does not mean that he was wounded on behalf of our transgressions. Our transgressions don't need Him to do anything on their behalf. It means that the transgressions were ours and the wounding was His. He took the punishment instead of us.

I skipped over the Humpty Dumpty part. I'm not into childish things.

Click to expand...

How very convenient for you.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Martin Marprelate said:

What exact verse of Scripture are you referring to? Can you give me chapter and verse, please? I don't recall commenting on it. Perhaps you will show me where I did.

What exactly are you saying is a liberal approach to Scripture? Inventing a verse that doesn't exist? That certainly would be a liberal approach to Scripture, if not a downright deceitful one.
What I do say is that when we read, 'He was wounded for our transgressions,' it does not mean that he was wounded on behalf of our transgressions. Our transgressions don't need Him to do anything on their behalf. It means that the transgressions were ours and the wounding was His. He took the punishment instead of us.

How very convenient for you.

Click to expand...

I was referring to the verse we were talking about on this thread (Gal) and John 11 (that you brought up).

Caiaphas said "You know nothing at all, nor do you consider it expedient for us that one man die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish."

This was in reference to the Jews and Rome, but it also pointed to the fact that Christ was dying for the world.

Caiaphas clarifies his "for" in that it is so that the whole nation would not perish. This was not a substitution. It was to prevent the whole nation from which perishing.

And Jesus indeed died for us so that we would not perish.

You still add substitution to the passage.

You cannot supply any passage stating that Christ was punished instead of us because none exists. You add that to Scripture.

Let's look at the passage @Martin Marprelate introduced.

John 11:47–53 Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, “What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs. “If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account .that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. So from that day on they planned together to kill Him.

It is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.


Is this saying that one man will be a substitute for the whole nation?

Of course not.

Caiaphas conclusion is that it is expedient for one man to die than the whole nation perish.

It is sacrifice. It is giving up one your own. But it is not substitution (the reasoning is that the man is not dying in place of the nation but so that the nation will not perish).

If your brother is an escaped convict and you hide him, but the police take notice, you could say "give him up! It is better for one person to go to jail than the whole family be incarcerated'.

That is not substitution. And Caiaphas words did not indicate substitution.

Caiaphas is giving a prophecy (one he most likely did not understand) that Christ would die for the nation. Not a substitution (not instead of the nation) but a salvation.



People are adding substitution to the Bible. Martin's claim about this passage is proof of that. We should never add to God's Word.

JonC said:

You are adding to the text (the verse says that Christ gave Himself for you, nothing about a substitute.... i.e., instead of you).

Why not just take Scripture for what is written? Why add some type of substitution?

Christ died for our sins. Christ gave Himself for us.

No need to add substitution to the actual text. God's Word is sufficient as it stands without any additions.


Note: I am not saying you are adding words to the text. I am saying when you deal with the text you are adding substitution. That is adding to God's Word what is not there.

Click to expand...

No I am not "adding" to the text. That is what you do, not me.
The phrase in question is: "gave himself for me"

The word "for" is connoting a substitution.
If you take a test for me, I am not taking the test, you are. When Jesus gave himself for me, Jesus substituted himself by giving himself instead of me giving myself. This is what the word "for" is saying.

That is not adding to the text. That is reading the text exactly as Paul wrote it and means it to be understood.

So, Jon, stop trying to tell me what I am doing and trying to demean me because you imagine yourself superior to everyone else, me especially, on this board. With all honesty, I think you need a vacation from this board to get your head straight and get your priorities back in order. You're being a theological bully.

taisto said:

No I am not "adding" to the text. That is what you do, not me.
The phrase in question is: "gave himself for me"

The word "for" is connoting a substitution.
If you take a test for me, I am not taking the test, you are. When Jesus gave himself for me, Jesus substituted himself by giving himself instead of me giving myself. This is what the word "for" is saying.

That is not adding to the text. That is reading the text exactly as Paul wrote it and means it to be understood.

So, Jon, stop trying to tell me what I am doing and trying to demean me because you imagine yourself superior to everyone else, me especially, on this board. With all honesty, I think you need a vacation from this board to get your head straight and get your priorities back in order. You're being a theological bully.

Click to expand...

You are adding substitution to the text. You don't realize it, but that is exactly what you are doing.

The verse says that Christ gave Himself for us. That is true.

But you add to Scripture the idea of substitution.

Try to read the passage for exactly what is written in God's Word.

JonC said:

You are adding substitution to the text. You don't realize it, but that is exactly what you are doing.

The verse says that Christ gave Himself for us. That is true.

But you add to Scripture the idea of substitution.

Try to read the passage for exactly what is written in God's Word.

Click to expand...

No. The text is very clearly showing you substitution when it reads "gave himself for me."
You refuse to acknowledge that the word "for" is a substitutionary word just like "he took the penalty for me "

You are free to interpret the verse as you want, but don't tell me I am adding to the text when I am not. You have been openly accusing me of doing something I have never done. You are wrong. Suck up your pride and admit it.

The word "for" is speaking of substitution in the context of this passage. This is demonstratable and you need to accept this as a very legitimate understanding of what Paul is stating.

taisto said:

No. The text is very clearly showing you substitution when it reads "gave himself for me."
You refuse to acknowledge that the word "for" is a substitutionary word just like "he took the penalty for me "

You are free to interpret the verse as you want, but don't tell me I am adding to the text when I am not. You have been openly accusing me of doing something I have never done. You are wrong. Suck up your pride and admit it.

The word "for" is speaking of substitution in the context of this passage. This is demonstratable and you need to accept this as a very legitimate understanding of what Paul is stating.

Click to expand...

Not at all. Christ did experience the wages of sin for us.

The problem is this does not mean substitution. You are adding that to God's Word.

If you have cardiac arrest and I do CPR for you it is not substitution.

Caiaphas said it is expedient that one man die for the nation rather than the whole nation perish. This is obviously not substitution and this was, per Scripture, a prophecy of Christ dying for the nation.

Christ gave Himself for us.

Why do you believe it is appropriate to add the idea of substitution to the text of Scripture?

JonC said:

Not at all. Christ did experience the wages of sin for us.

The problem is this does not mean substitution. You are adding that to God's Word.

If you have cardiac arrest and I do CPR for you it is not substitution.

Caiaphas said it is expedient that one man die for the nation rather than the whole nation perish. This is obviously not substitution and this was, per Scripture, a prophecy of Christ dying for the nation.

Christ gave Himself for us.

Why do you believe it is appropriate to add the idea of substitution to the text of Scripture?

Click to expand...

The text does not say "experienced the wages of sin for us." It says the Son of God "gave himself for me" Why do you feel it is appropriate for you to deny that Christ gave himself for you?
Clearly the text, in context, is stating that you deserved to be crucified, but Jesus gave himself for you instead.

It is also clear that you deny the context of the scripture. The problem is that you hate substitution so badly that you put blinders on your eyes and tell us that since you cannot see it, it is therefore not there. Then you repeat your false mantra that I am adding to the text when the fact is you are removing from the text by virtue of your self imposed blinders.

At this point I will be the bigger man and walk away from you and your self created theory. I am done here. But, no doubt you will create more threads for us so you can keep beating your dead horse.

taisto said:

The text does not say "experienced the wages of sin for us." It says the Son of God "gave himself for me" Why do you feel it is appropriate for you to deny that Christ gave himself for you?
Clearly the text, in context, is stating that you deserved to be crucified, but Jesus gave himself for you instead.

It is also clear that you deny the context of the scripture. The problem is that you hate substitution so badly that you put blinders on your eyes and tell us that since you cannot see it, it is therefore not there. Then you repeat your false mantra that I am adding to the text when the fact is you are removing from the text by virtue of your self imposed blinders.

At this point I will be the bigger man and walk away from you and your self created theory. I am done here. But, no doubt you will create more threads for us so you can keep beating your dead horse.

Click to expand...

I know that passage says that He gave Himself for us.

My point is that you are ADDING to God's Word (you are adding substitution to the passage).

I am taking nothing away - He did give Himself for us.

The difference is that I believe God's Word ("what is written") is sufficient. I do not believe Scripture is made better by changing it (whether through addition or substraction).

You hold a reformed Roman Catholic view. I get it. You cannot even bring yourself to challenge your tradition by relying solely on God's Word. And you don't even see it.

Christ died for our sins. He gave Himself for us.

That is sufficient without adding substitution.


Will I continue to post Scripture and insist that adding to God's Word (whether adding words or philosophies) is wrong?

Yes. I will.

For you? No. You would benefit by holding a higher view of Scripture, but I post simply because it is the right thing to do.




The verse says He gave Himself for us.

I say He gave Himself for us.

You say that is taking away from Scripture.
What is taken away?

You say He gave Himself for us as substitution.
What is added? Substitution.

@taisto

Here is what I believe:

Christ died for our sins.
He shared our infirmitiy.
He bore our sins bodily on the cross.
He became a curse for us.
For our sake He was made to be sin
He suffered at the "hands of wicked men"
He suffered under "evil"
His suffering was by "evildoers"
He suffered under the "wicked"
The Lord laid on Christ the iniquity of us all
The Lord was pleased to crush Him
He gave Himself as a guilt offering
He suffered the stroke we were due
He is the Propitiation for the sins of the World
He was pierced for our transgression
He was crushed for our iniquities
upon him was the chastening that brought us peace
Christ suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous
He gave His life as a ransom for many
He gave Himself for us
He bore our sins bodily on the cross
And by His stripes we are healed
Christ died for us.


I understand that you also believe those things provided we add "substitution" to those passages.

Why? Why add substitution?

If you believe Penal Substitution Theory is correct, then you need to justify the addition.

JonC said:

Why? Why add substitution?

If you believe Penal Substitution Theory is correct, then you need to justify the addition.

Click to expand...

Because if a list of facts about something describes a thing that we have an English word for then is appropriate to use that word without doing any violence to the thing or concept.

If I say I went into the woods, temporarily, and set up shelter and prepared food, for recreational purposes, and you said "you went camping", it would be silly for me to insist that nowhere did I mention the word "camping". You have a right to do that without me mentioning the word "camping". But it is true that what I did is what I did. Therefore that list above, if you believe all that, then I, as a person who believes that penal substitutionary atonement is the essential core of the gospel, do also believe that you are an orthodox Christian, even if you bristle at the word "substitution". While it is not your right to be offended at the use of a word that legitimately describes a thing without your authorization, it is equally not my right to insist that you must use my descriptive word in order for me to accept you as doctrinally sound. Is is simply an objective fact that many of those statements above are used to describe penal substitution by the advocates of it. You can disagree with that but you cannot dismiss that out of hand, even as a moderator. It is your opinion, alone, no matter how convinced you are of your correctness.

The reason I get so frustrated with you is that you describe penal substitution but then are seemingly offended by the label. If you notice, the Anabaptist piece I linked gives some reasons their group is opposed (at least to the extent they are) to penal substitution but they do not do it like you are doing here. Neither do the Baptist theologians you mentioned. They have other reasons which they express. Now Arthur is I think, blazing off in another direction. He has a completely different view of scripture and almost all Christian doctrines, but that is another story.