Why are So many Accepting the Theology of NT Wright here?

Wesley Briggman · Apr 11, 2025

DaveXR650 said:
Owen's view of saving faith I find to be acceptable:
"For there is a faith whereby we are justified, which he who has shall be assuredly saved; which purifies the heart and works by love. And there is a faith or believing, which does nothing of all this; which who has, and no more, is not justified, nor can be saved." John Owen

Owen also said that it is indeed "faith alone" that concerns our justification. If your problem is with Luther I am sorry he started the Reformation. If your problem is with Luther and his views on Jews, I can't help you. I have read what he said from his own writings and find it unacceptable too.
Regarding the faith alone question, what would there be in the explanation given by Owen above that you with your views would find unacceptable?

"...is not justified, nor can be saved." John Owen

God can and will save His elect although they are now or have been at some time in a state of unbelief, even persecuting His children.

(Act 9:1 KJV) And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
(Act 9:13 KJV) Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:
(Act 9:15 KJV) But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
(Act 9:18 KJV) And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
(Act 9:20 KJV) And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

JD731 · Apr 11, 2025

Here are three important statements of the scriptures regarding sin. I know some here will not agree.

1) Joh 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

2) Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world (age) hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

3) 2Co 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.

The only thing that separates God and man is sin. It is the enmity. Take it away and there is no longer enmity. There is reconciliation. God initiated the reconciliation and Christ received the wages of sin, death, by becoming the personification of it and by receiving the full cup of the wrath of God against sin. The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead and his glorification proves he defeated death and was reconciled to God.

God is reconciled to the whole world by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ else how could he deal with the world of guilty sinners through mercy and grace? But, the whole world is not reconciled to him but are commanded to be. This is why Paul appeals to the world to be reconciled to God through and in Jesus Christ while the door is open to the world and his wrath is stayed. Sin must finally and completely be put away and if not through Christ then it must be by death in the appointed time.

18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

Why would God impute sin to the account of anyone if Jesus Christ has put sin away? The answer is "he hasn't" but this grace of God will not go on forever. He 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many;

Spoken to an audience of gentiles in Athens Greece:
Acts 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day (it is called the day of the Lord and it is the last day), in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

JonC · Apr 11, 2025

DaveXR650 said:
It's a distinction without a difference. We don't reject the union with Christ. When someone is baptized and the pastor says as they are immersed "Buried in baptism, raised to walk in newness of life" we are identifying with Jesus and trying to picture that union with him. We say we are "in Christ". I can't help it, nor do I think it is wrong to insist that if my sins are laid on him so that he took the wrath that I would have experience that that is penal substitution.

No matter how many times you say this it is still false.

Would those scholars say that Jesus bore our sins in his own body on the cross?

It is a distinction with a huge difference. Before we could be united to Christ, Christ united with man.

I find a couple of things wrong with it. For one, it is not in God's Word so we are talking about additions. Another issue is this "distinction without a difference", as you put it, has far reaching implications. It corrupts what is said about Jesus' sacrifice, our redemption, the Judgment, God's ability to forgive sins, and our life as children of God (just to name a few).

I think you will find that even small changes, what would appear to be "distinctions without differences", can be dangerous. We need to stick with God's Word as He delivered it to us.

Did Jesus experienced the consequences of sin that we will experience? Absolutely. But this cannot be substitution because we will still "return to the dust from which we were made".

You are blending together two very distinct things - the consequences of sin under the curse and the judgment given to Christ which is reserved for the day of judgment.

How is it false? God's Word does not say "Jesus died for our sins instead of us". The Early Church did not teach that Jesus died for our sins instead of us. You ARE adding to Scripture. Denying it does not make it less true. Read the Bible for yourself. You are adding to the passage.

Yes. Those scholars do (or did) say that Jesus bore our sins bodily on the cross. They do not, however, add "instead of us" so their theology is more akin to pre-Reformation Christianity on this topic.

DaveXR650 · Apr 12, 2025

JonC said:
I find a couple of things wrong with it. For one, it is not in God's Word so we are talking about additions. Another issue is this "distinction without a difference", as you put it, has far reaching implications. It corrupts what is said about Jesus' sacrifice, our redemption, the Judgment, God's ability to forgive sins, and our life as children of God (just to name a few).

The fact that this is being said by a moderator on a Baptist forum a week before Easter says a lot. And the fact that you can't show where anyone else who believes that "Jesus bare our sins in his own body" is also opposed to penal substitution is at least hopeful.

JonC said:
I think you will find that even small changes, what would appear to be "distinctions without differences", can be dangerous. We need to stick with God's Word as He delivered it to us.

You say stuff like both of the quotes above right after taking those to task who are critical of N.T. Wright. I guess it doesn't work both ways.
If there is no school of thought that accepts that "Jesus bare our sins in his own body on the cross" and yet believes penal substitution is false, then I think that says a lot. And if there is, put up the references and the affiliations so we can see where else they have gone doctrinally. Otherwise I'm crying "Bogus gaslighting".

JonC · Apr 12, 2025

DaveXR650 said:
The fact that this is being said by a moderator on a Baptist forum a week before Easter says a lot. And the fact that you can't show where anyone else who believes that "Jesus bare our sins in his own body" is also opposed to penal substitution is at least hopeful.

You say stuff like both of the quotes above right after taking those to task who are critical of N.T. Wright. I guess it doesn't work both ways.
If there is no school of thought that accepts that "Jesus bare our sins in his own body on the cross" and yet believes penal substitution is false, then I think that says a lot. And if there is, put up the references and the affiliations so we can see where else they have gone doctrinally. Otherwise I'm crying "Bogus gaslighting".

The fact is that ALL Christians, regardless of their position in terms of the Atonement believe that Jesus bore our sins bodily on the cross.

One example is CS Lewis, who was opposed to Penal Substitution Theory. Among theologians you have Klassen, Sandets, Boyd, John Yoder, Stuart Murray, Darnell, MacKnight, Hauerwas, Finger, and Mast. In the Early Church you have Tertullian, Origen and Martyr. Hostorically you have all pre-Reformation Christians. You have Augustine. You have Wallis.

Dude, the list goes on. Most Christians have not believed Penal SubstitutionTheory yet all Christians believe that Jesus bore our sins bodily on the Cross.
,
Your insistence that those who reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement also reject 1 Peter 2:24 because they refuse to add "instead of us" to the text of Scripture is bewildering. Claiming "bogus gasslighting" would be a very dishonest claim, and a fallacy. I would recommend against it.

As a moderator I should delete your post because you are claiming that my insistsnce that Christian can reject Penal Substitution Theory and still believe "what is written" in Scripture (here 1Peter 2:24) is bogus. But I won't because I am participating (as a member rather than a moderator).

I believe that God laid our iniquity on Jesus, that Jesus bore our sins bodily on the Cross, that Jesus died for our sins. AND I strongly, on no uncertain terms, reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

I do not need to list others (although I did as a favor to you) because I hold the position you claim does not exist.

37818 · Apr 12, 2025

I believe in a penal substitution. It is not identical what the perishing stuffer in second death. Christ did not suffer the eternal fire of God's wrath.

DaveXR650 · Apr 12, 2025

JonC said:
I do not need to list others (although I did as a favor to you) because I hold the position you claim does not exist.

You didn't even need to list the ones you did. The ones you list that I know something about did not oppose penal substitution. Some of the early ones were not aware it existed as a coherent theory and some of the same ones said things very close to penal substitution, which others have listed for you and you flat out reject what they say.

JonC said:
One example is CS Lewis, who was opposed to Penal Substitution Theory.

Let's look at CS Lewis. In "Mere Christianity" there is a statement where he says he rejects it but did you read on? He goes on to explain how in one sense he rejects it, that of punishment of wrong, but if you look at it as incurring debt, either monetary or as in getting oneself in so deep in a situation that there is no way to get yourself out, then it makes sense. He goes on to give his own take on the atonement, which I don't think is very good, which is fine. You know why it's fine? Because he said himself to read it and if it doesn't help you understand it, feel free to discard it. He doesn't do like you do, dude, and accuse everyone who believes penal substitution as having the gospel wrong.

JonC said:
As a moderator I should delete your post because you are claiming that my insistsnce that Christian can reject Penal Substitution Theory and still believe "what is written" in Scripture (here 1Peter 2:24) is bogus. But I won't because I am participating (as a member rather than a moderator).

That's real nice for you to try to change this up to where my problem with you is that you are just using what is written in scripture when the fact is my problem with you is that you are using scripture that clearly describes penal substitution and then claiming it does not. If we interpret a passage in scripture you have no right to claim it does not show penal substitution if I don't have an equal right to claim it does. Especially if many theologians who like penal substitution use that same scripture. And I keep asking for you to show the reverse and you can't.

It is true, as N.T. Wright said in some of his explanations of his position videos on penal substitution that people explain it differently. His hyper-nuanced, round about way of explaining himself is in fact the closest thing I have found to what you seem to be saying, which is why people who seem to know what they are talking about have different opinions about where he stands on the issue. But the thing is, he doesn't seem to get offended when those who think so, say that he is on board with penal substitution. Your attitude on this is inexplicable.

It's one thing to say like C.S. Lewis, or G. Campbell Morgan, that the atonement is too wonderful or too high for us to fully grasp and that we can simply believe that Christ in some way did something that had to be done for our redemption. But the difference between them and you is that neither one opposed penal substitution. I have a book by Torrance which is 400 pages on the atonement. Every aspect you have ever brought up is covered. You know what else is covered and agreed with - penal substitution.

JonC · Apr 12, 2025

First, my attitude is a result of your statement that my belief is "bogus gasslighting" (that I can't believe 1 Peter as written in God's Word and hold my belief). That is what your last post amounted to. But it is not an attitude in terms of emotion (I enjoy discussing things with you, you ate level headed and typically interested in other views). Your post merely effected the tome of my reply. No hard feelings on my end.

Maybe the issue is simply one of definition. You believe "Jesus bore our sins" is "Penal Substitution". So I can see how you find it difficult to understand why so many hold that passage as true while rejecting Penal Substitution Theory.

Maybe it will be helpful to simply look at what I (and mant of those of us who reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement) reject rather than what we affirm. That way we may find agreement, and if not you can provide passages stating points of disagreement.

A few places where I believe Penal Substitution Theory is wrong:

1. The idea that God cannot, or will not, forgive sins is unbiblical and based on Reformation era judicial philosophy. For Calvin, this was natural (he was educated as a lawyer and the Theory fits into the branch of judicial philosophy he studied and held). Penal Substitution Theory holds that God can divert punishment from a sinner (a reworking of Aquinas' penal justice) but that God cannot forgive sins.

2. The idea that Jesus suffered God's punishment is unbiblical. Isaiah 53 is clear (as a whole) that the Servant suffered unjust oppression by the people under worldly powers, however God would deliver Him through this evil.

3. The idea that Jesus bore our sins instead of us rather than bearing our sins, sharing our infirmity, coming under the curse to deliver us from the bondage of sin and death, is unbiblical.

Those are just three. There are many other points of Penal Substitution Theory that are extra-biblicsl (many carried over from Catholic doctrine), but these three are quick low hanging fruit.

And you are wrong to falsely accused me of saying everybody who disagrees with me has the gospel wrong. I NEVER said that. The gospel is that the Messiah has come. Doctrines of justification are related, but those who consider their position on justification to be the gospel itself are very well likely lost.

I am NOT saying to believe what I believe. I am saying that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is extra-biblical and is a corruption of the Biblical narrative of redemption. Pointing out that Penal Substitution Theory is not biblical is not saying one has to believe my view.

Martin Marprelate · Apr 13, 2025

@kyredneck
One of us is a drama queen, but I think you'll find it's you.
Let's try again:
Don't you understand that all through Rom 2; 3:1-20 Paul is showing that neither Jew nor Gentile can keep the law, and when the Gentiles do keep it, they only show that they have the moral law written on their hearts (though now smudged and defaced by the Fall) so that they are without excuse when they don't keep it, and their conscience accuses them. Rom. 3:9. 'For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.' Rom. 3:19-20. 'Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth [both Jew and Gentile] may be stopped and all the world become guilty before God.' Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight...' Not you, not I, not anyone! '......for by the law is the knowledge of sin.'

Once we are saved, most certainly we do the 'Good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them (Eph. 2:10), but we do them, not in order to be saved, but because we have been saved and it is our delight to do good works (Psalm 40:6-8; Acts 16:15, 32-34).

kyredneck · Apr 13, 2025

Martin Marprelate said:
they have the moral law written on their hearts

Where in the text does it cease from being "the law" and become 'a law'?

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law;
13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);
16 in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ.
17 But if thou bearest the name of a Jew, and restest upon the law, and gloriest in God,
18 and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law,
19 and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them that are in darkness,
20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having in the law the form of knowledge and of the truth;
21 thou therefore that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
22 thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou rob temples?
23 thou who gloriest in the law, through thy transgression of the law dishonorest thou God?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, even as it is written.
25 For circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou be a doer of the law: but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision.
26 If therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision?
27 and shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who with the letter and circumcision art a transgressor of the law?

kyredneck · Apr 13, 2025

Martin Marprelate said:
neither Jew nor Gentile can keep the law

By the letter, true. But this is not about keeping the letter of the law. The letter kills. It's about fulfilling the law; doing 'by nature' the things of the law:.

7 and shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who with the letter and circumcision art a transgressor of the law?

8 Owe no man anything, save to love one another: for he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: love therefore is the fulfilment of the law. Ro 13

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them); Ro 2

Every child of God of circumcised heart with the law written in their heart, Jews inwardly, is by nature a doer/fulfiller of the law.

Martin Marprelate · Tuesday at 1:31 PM

kyredneck said:
Where in the text does it cease from being "the law" and become 'a law'?

What point are you trying to make?

Martin Marprelate · Tuesday at 1:45 PM

kyredneck said:
By the letter, true. But this is not about keeping the letter of the law. The letter kills. It's about fulfilling the law; doing 'by nature' the things of the law:.

7 and shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who with the letter and circumcision art a transgressor of the law?

8 Owe no man anything, save to love one another: for he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: love therefore is the fulfilment of the law. Ro 13

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them); Ro 2

Every child of God of circumcised heart with the law written in their heart, Jews inwardly, is by nature a doer/fulfiller of the law.

It seems that you still don't get it. I haven't got time to go through the whole of Romans 1-3 and explain it to you. Get yourself a decent commentary.
Before someone is saved, his good deeds are like filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6), entirely unacceptable to God because, at their very best, they are still mired in sin. 'So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God' (Romans 8:8).

BUT, when he is converted, saved by grace alone, through faith alone, the good deeds will follow as sure as night follows day (Eph. 2:10 again). If they don't, that is a sign that he was not saved in the first place.

Also, you seem to have taken exception to my phrase, "the moral law." This is in contrast to the ceremonial law and the judicial law. Have a read of Isaiah 1:12-17 and Amos 5:21-24.

kyredneck · Tuesday at 2:04 PM

Martin Marprelate said:
What point are you trying to make?

Where in the text does THE LAW become this imaginary moral code of your's?

kyredneck said:
Where in the text does it cease from being "the law" and become 'a law'?

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law;
13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);
16 in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ.
17 But if thou bearest the name of a Jew, and restest upon the law, and gloriest in God,
18 and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law,
19 and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them that are in darkness,
20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having in the law the form of knowledge and of the truth;
21 thou therefore that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
22 thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou rob temples?
23 thou who gloriest in the law, through thy transgression of the law dishonorest thou God?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, even as it is written.
25 For circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou be a doer of the law: but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision.
26 If therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision?
27 and shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who with the letter and circumcision art a transgressor of the law?

Martin Marprelate said:
It seems that you still don't get it.

No, you don't get it. Those with circumcised hearts with the law written upon it ARE 'saved'. The law written in their hearts is a NEW COVENANT PROMISE.

29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. Ro 2

Two different covenants

Martin Marprelate · Tuesday at 3:53 PM

kyredneck said:
Where in the text does THE LAW become this imaginary moral code of yours?

Isaiah 1:12-17 and Amos 5:21-24. You are calling it a "code." I don't recall that I ever have.

kyredneck said:
No, you don't get it. Those with circumcised hearts with the law written upon it ARE 'saved'.

Yes. That is what I have been saying. The good deeds and so forth are not in order to be saved, but because we have been saved.

kyredneck said:
The law written in their hearts is a NEW COVENANT PROMISE.

God's moral law was written on the hearts of Adam and Eve in the Garden. Just a moment's thought will reveal this to you. Suppose that Adam had set up a temple to the sun, or is he had strangled Eve; do you imagine that God would have said, "Oh, that's alright, Adam! Just so long as you don't eat that apple!" The very idea is ridiculous. But following Adam and Eve's fall into sin, God's law is now smudged and indistinct. We all know unconverted people who have high moral standards, and whose consciences trouble them when they fall short of them. In many ways they show up the Jews, who claim to possess the law but didn't keep it.
These are the people about whom Paul is writing in Rom.2:14-15. They cannot be saved people because Paul's whole purpose in Rom. 1-3 is to show that neither Jew nor Gentile are righteous and therefore, by nature 'children of wrath' (Eph. 2:3; cf. Rom. 3:9).

kyredneck said:
29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. Ro 2

Two different covenants

Don't get all emotional; there's no need to shout. We all know that there are two covenants. Jer. 31:33. 'But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD. I will put My law in their minds and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God and they shall be My people.' To those whom God is pleased to save, He writes His moral law upon their hearts again. This is wonderfully adumbrated by God re-writing the Decalogue after the tablets had been smashed by Moses in his rage at the Israelites' fall into sin (Exodus 32:19; 34:1).

Piper 2 · Tuesday at 6:06 PM

JonC said:
You are very wrong. I have not dismissed Penal Substitution Theory (I held the theory for a long time, even taught it as correct when teaching theology). I said, and will say again, that the readon I reject it is simply the fact it is not in God's Word.

My position is in God's Word. I have repeatedly posted verses stating my position.

Yours is not in God's Word. You believe it is what God's Words teaches, but cannot provide any passage that states even the basic that Jesus suffered God's wrath, or even suffered instead of us suffering. You "prove" that the Bible teaches Penal Substitution Theory by providing what you believe a verse teaches.

You are also wrong about my comment stating that NT Wright rejects Penal Substitution Theory because he can't stand the idea Jesus suffered God's wrath as being a dishonest assumption is inappropriate. It is factually.

NT Wright has explained why he sought a different idea of Jewish justification. He stated this while developing his theory. He said that he realized Jews did not, in fact, believe they were justified by works.

Whether that is a correct observation is irrelevant. The reason Wright changed his position had nothing to do with God's wrath.

@JesusFan posted a dishonest assumption about another believer. That is wrong, lazy, and bearing a false witness. People do that because it is easier than dealing with what other Christians actually believe.

Now.....don't get me wrong....some DO reject Penal Substitution Theory for that reason. But it is a stupid reason (Jesus is God, it isn't some offense to have Jesus experience God's wrath. It's just unbiblical).

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, "I disagree with Penal Subsitutionary Atonement and I will post blast anyone who disagrees with my aberrant theology." Yeah, Jon, we've heard your bloviating for years. You convince absolutely on one.

Piper 2 · Tuesday at 6:10 PM

JonC said:
This is false. And it is evidence that you do not yet understand the Chriatian faith prior to the Reformatiin.

I do not have to prove that Jesus dying for our sins means "instead of" because I believe that is correct as stated (Jesus died for our sins). You are adding to the meaning. The burden of proof is on you.

That said, Scripture rewords this as "He shared in our infirmity".

Here is an illustration.

If you have a sickness to death caused by your sin and Jesus, by God laying that iniquity on Him, somehow become one of you in every way, and die of this sickness, and because it wss unearned be vindicated, and then give you life and save you so that you do not except the wrath to come at Judgment....Either Jesus dud not die of your sins instead of you. He died for your sins alongside you. But it is still your sins for which He died, your sins laid on Him.

You are adding "instead of" because you are reading Scripture in a post-reformation light. Nobody prior to the Reformation believed Jesus suffered our punishment instead of us. That view was impossible until 15th-16th judicial philosophy came into being.

That you read "instead of" into the verse without realizing it kinda demonstrates the problem. Scripture makes sence without adding to it (here we are not even talking about a difference in interpretation....it is an addition).

Why don't you live before the Reformation, then. Go pay your indulgences, Tie your Bible to the pulpit. Burn people who translate the scriptures. The Reforners were right. They came to a better system than pre-reformation.

Piper 2 · Tuesday at 6:12 PM

JonC said:
First, my attitude is a result of your statement that my belief is "bogus gasslighting" (that I can't believe 1 Peter as written in God's Word and hold my belief). That is what your last post amounted to. But it is not an attitude in terms of emotion (I enjoy discussing things with you, you ate level headed and typically interested in other views). Your post merely effected the tome of my reply. No hard feelings on my end.

Maybe the issue is simply one of definition. You believe "Jesus bore our sins" is "Penal Substitution". So I can see how you find it difficult to understand why so many hold that passage as true while rejecting Penal Substitution Theory.

Maybe it will be helpful to simply look at what I (and mant of those of us who reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement) reject rather than what we affirm. That way we may find agreement, and if not you can provide passages stating points of disagreement.

A few places where I believe Penal Substitution Theory is wrong:

1. The idea that God cannot, or will not, forgive sins is unbiblical and based on Reformation era judicial philosophy. For Calvin, this was natural (he was educated as a lawyer and the Theory fits into the branch of judicial philosophy he studied and held). Penal Substitution Theory holds that God can divert punishment from a sinner (a reworking of Aquinas' penal justice) but that God cannot forgive sins.

2. The idea that Jesus suffered God's punishment is unbiblical. Isaiah 53 is clear (as a whole) that the Servant suffered unjust oppression by the people under worldly powers, however God would deliver Him through this evil.

3. The idea that Jesus bore our sins instead of us rather than bearing our sins, sharing our infirmity, coming under the curse to deliver us from the bondage of sin and death, is unbiblical.

Those are just three. There are many other points of Penal Substitution Theory that are extra-biblicsl (many carried over from Catholic doctrine), but these three are quick low hanging fruit.

And you are wrong to falsely accused me of saying everybody who disagrees with me has the gospel wrong. I NEVER said that. The gospel is that the Messiah has come. Doctrines of justification are related, but those who consider their position on justification to be the gospel itself are very well likely lost.

I am NOT saying to believe what I believe. I am saying that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is extra-biblical and is a corruption of the Biblical narrative of redemption. Pointing out that Penal Substitution Theory is not biblical is not saying one has to believe my view.

Your interpretations are extra biblical and aberrant. In Error, Wrong.

kyredneck · Tuesday at 8:32 PM

Martin Marprelate said:
God's moral law was written on the hearts of Adam and Eve in the Garden.

Where can I find this in scripture?

Is this 'moral law' that is written on the heart what motivated these?:

7	to them that by *patience in well-doing* seek for glory and honor and incorruption, *eternal life*:

10	but *glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good*, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek:

Not the hearers of 'the moral law' but the 'doers of the moral law' shall be justified?

13	for *not the hearers* of the law are just before God, *but the doers* of the law shall be justified:

Where can one go to 'hear' this 'moral law'?

Blank · Tuesday at 10:15 PM

TO THE POLL'S QUESTION...