Featured The Classic View (just a summary)

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.