An Alternate View (to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

JonC said:

Why view Atonement as an issue of the law?

Click to expand...

It looks as if God see's it as front and center in considering the gospel.
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,


5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
Looks as if Jesus was made under the law, to redeem the elect who were under the law.

I was going to respond to a different thread, but for the second time now, I was unable to respond there and it said this....

You have insufficient privileges to reply here.

What does that mean? Do you accumulate points or something? Is it a special members only club, or something?

Zaatar71 said:

It looks as if God see's it as front and center in considering the gospel.
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,


5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
Looks as if Jesus was made under the law, to redeem the elect who were under the law.

I was going to respond to a different thread, but for the second time now, I was unable to respond there and it said this....

You have insufficient privileges to reply here.

What does that mean? Do you accumulate points or something? Is it a special members only club, or something?

Click to expand...

To the first part:

I agree we were redeemed from the law.
In fact, I said that the Atonement fulfilled the law.
The difference is I belueve this is a righteousness apart from the law.
And that is not my question.

My questions were:

1. Why do you believe God had to punish those sins you believe were taken from us and put on Jesus?

2. Why do you believe the Atonement is an issue of the law?

The first question is the one you have been running from, so I included the 2nd.


To the second part:

You do not have the privilege to reply to that thread. The information provided by the site was informing you that you lacked that privilege.

The reason is you troll threads trying to attack those who dare disagree with your camp.

That is fine, but on some threads a more honest discussion is desired. So you are excluded so that an honest discussion may be had.

JonC said:

To the first part:

I agree we were redeemed from the law.
In fact, I said that the Atonement fulfilled the law.
The difference is I belueve this is a righteousness apart from the law.
And that is not my question.

My questions were:

1. Why do you believe God had to punish those sins you believe were taken from us and put on Jesus?

2. Why do you believe the Atonement is an issue of the law?

The first question is the one you have been running from, so I included the 2nd.


To the second part:

You do not have the privilege to reply to that thread. The information provided by the site was informing you that you lacked that privilege.

The reason is you troll threads trying to attack those who dare disagree with your camp.

That is fine, but on some threads a more honest discussion is desired. So you are excluded so that an honest discussion may be had.

Click to expand...

So an Honest discussion can be had?
So Can Martin exclude you for this trolling and dishonest posts you made

Post #92.

JonC said:

Like I said, Calvinism is just another form of Roman Catholicism...different "popes" telling them what to believe.

Click to expand...

Post #101.

JonC said:

I never said Calvinism is just another Romanism. I said that John Calvin held Legal Humanism.

Click to expand...

Don't you think you owe the board just a teensy-weensy apology for misleading it?

Click to expand...

Zaatar71 said:

So an Honest discussion can be had?
So Can Martin exclude you for this trolling and dishonest posts you made

Click to expand...

I was not responding to Martin's thread. He was responding to mine.

My posts to him stand. He needs to explain how he goes from the biblical text to his conclusions.

Martin Marprelate said:

Post #92.
Post #101.
Don't you think you owe the board just a teensy-weensy apology for misleading it?

Click to expand...

@JonC,
Don't you think you owe the board an explanation, if not an apology?
Do you think that Calvinism is another form of Roman Catholicism or don't you?
Why should we believe anything you say when you contradict yourself in less than a day?

JonC said:

@Martin Marprelate.

We all hold the same standard with Scrioture.

We do not all believe the same sect of men teach the truth.
We do not all share the sane philosophy.
We do not all share the same presuppositions.

What I have been asking you, for almost two decades, is to explain and defend your philosophy.

Click to expand...

The simple answer here is that I don't have a "philosophy." I just seek to understand and apply the Scriptures.

JonC said:

The reason I ask is because we all have the sane Scriptures.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that your understanding of the Scriptures is sane.

JonC said:

I understand that you read "Jesus bore our sins" to mean "Jesus suffered God's wrath".
I am not questioning that is your understanding.

Click to expand...

Well you should be, because that is NOT my understanding.

JonC said:

I am asking how you get from God's words to your conclusions about what those words teach.

Click to expand...

Because I look at a whole variety of Scriptures and not just one. When I see that the chastisement or punishment that brought us peace was upon Christ, I ask myself who was it who chastised or punished our Lord, and when I see that there is no Scripture that says it was Satan, and several that say it was God, the whole thing makes sense. Add to that the Lord laying our sins upon Christ, and Him bearing them in His own body, then there doesn't seem to be any alternative to the Lord Jesus paying the penalty for our sins

JonC said:

Why put the Atonement and Salvation under the law?

Click to expand...

Because the Lord does not change. The law must be magnified and made honourable; it cannot simply be dismissed.

JonC said:

Why would justice demands that God punish sins even apart from punishing the one who actually committed those sins?

What does God punishing our sins laid on Jesus acvomplsh?

Click to expand...

I think you need to take this up with God when you meet Him and explain to Him where He's gone wrong.

I'm off to bed now, and tomorrow morning I'm off with my fellow-elders to a Church Leaders' meeting 300 miles up the road. As soon as I get back Mrs M and I are driving down to Cornwall to see one of my daughters. Therefore I may have very little time to post here until next Saturday.

Martin Marprelate said:

The simple answer here is that I don't have a "philosophy." I just seek to understand and apply the Scriptures.

I'm not sure that your understanding of the Scriptures is sane.

Click to expand...

My simple rebuttal is that we ALL have a philosophy. Philosophy is how we understand reality.

I find it troubling that not only are you unable to explain your philosophy when it comes to going from a written text to staying what that text teaches but you also do not even recognize that you have a philosophy...that you are a cognizant living being.


You should be more than not sure that our understanding of what Scripture is differs. I have insisted that Scripture is God's Word (the words of God recorded as Scripture, "what is written", "every word coming forth from God"). You insist that your understanding of what Scripture teaches IS Scrioture itself.


I hold a philosophy when it comes to Scripture. It includes that the Bible teaches the text of Scripture itself, the Spirit illuminates the Biblical text, that foundational doctrines have to be in the text of Scripture, that God's words outweighs our understanding, etc.

But what you are saying the Bible teaches is not the actual Biblical text.

I am only asking you how you get from the text to what you belueve the textvteaches. That is all.

We have to examine our philosophies and presuppositions because they are different.

Why do I reject that Jesus suffered God's wrath? Because of my own philosophy- Jesus suffering God's wrath is not in the biblical text.

Now, if I found the biblical text did not make sence without Jesus experiencing God's wrath then I may be tempted to look into theories that exceed God's Word. The winning theory (if I choose that route) would be the one that had what I would determine to be the best philosophy and presuppositions to get from God's Word to what is claimed the Bible to teach.

That is why it is so important for you to be able to articulate your philosophy of justice, of the law, of punishment, and of forgiveness.

OR....I could just acceot God's words and patiently continue studying those words waiting for rhe Spirot to illuminate this "faith once delivered" (I may believe thar any lapse in understanding what is actually written is a deficiency in my understanding rather than God's words).

But as it is, I do not see "what is written" to need additional teachings.

Martin Marprelate said:

@JonC,
Don't you think you owe the board an explanation, if not an apology?
Do you think that Calvinism is another form of Roman Catholicism or don't you?
Why should we believe anything you say when you contradict yourself in less than a day?

Click to expand...

Nope. I don't.

Calvinism carried over too much Roman Catholic theology (either their doctrine or in a re-formed version).

Look at threads here. Calvinists quote Gill, Owen, Knox, etc. as if those men were an authority of their faith. @Zaatar71 even said he relies on those men because they were smatter than him.

Calvinists do not text doctrine against "what is written" but against Reformed theologians and Reformed Confessions (something else @Zaatar71 pointed out).

If you paid attention to my post you would see that I made the distinction of "mode" in terms of "little popes".

@Martin Marprelate

I will clarify. By "the biblical text" I literally mean the text of the Bible.

What I am asking is how you get from the actual text of the Bible (words abd sentences that one can highlight in their Bibles) to what you believe is taught by that actual text.

You offered many passages as proof of your belief. But none of the passages you have offered actually say that Jesus suffered God's wrath, that God took our sins from us and placed on Jesus, that Jesus punished our sins laid on Jesus, etc.

In other words, there is a difference between what God's words say abd what you believe they actually teach.

So just providing Scripture and what you believe that text teaches is meaningless without connecting the two.

I am asking about your philosophy (about how you view justice, about how you view punishment, about how you view forgiveness) because this will allow others to evaluate your conclusions.

As it stands I have no choice but believe your faith is wrong because what you think the Bible teaches is so different from the actual Biblical text. Without knowing how you get from Scripture to what you think Scripture really teaches the only responsible thing to do is dismiss your faith as a false teaching.

That is why I asked those questions.

If God removed our sins from us and put them on Jesus then why would God even have to punish those sins at all?

JonC said:

Why do I reject that Jesus suffered God's wrath? Because of my own philosophy- Jesus suffering God's wrath is not in the biblical text.

Click to expand...

Well then, again I ask you why you are not a Roman Catholic. 'This is My body.' It's in the Biblical text, more than once. Why don't you believe it?

I do not believe that Jesus suffered God's wrath if you mean by that that God was angry with Him.. Once again, it was God Himself, in the Person of Jesus Christ, who willingly took our sins upon Himself and paid the penalty for them in full. Like all responsible Bible students I examine Scripture with Scripture to ensure that I am understanding it correctly. I explained that to you in post #126.
You may call that a philosophy if you wish. It is not the word I would use. It is my practice.

Martin Marprelate said:

Well then, again I ask you why you are not a Roman Catholic. 'This is My body.' It's in the Biblical text, more than once. Why don't you believe it?

I do not believe that Jesus suffered God's wrath if you mean by that that God was angry with Him.. Once again, it was God Himself, in the Person of Jesus Christ, who willingly took our sins upon Himself and paid the penalty for them in full. Like all responsible Bible students I examine Scripture with Scripture to ensure that I am understanding it correctly. I explained that to you in post #126.
You may call that a philosophy if you wish. It is not the word I would use. It is my practice.

Click to expand...

Why am I not Catholic because Scripture says "this is my body"? Because Scrioture indicates that it is a remembrance (not actually Christ). I believe the Bible, but unlike you I do not believe it is right to extract passages out of their context (in this case, a part of a verse). I actually believe the Early Church view here (as opposed to both the Supper as merely symbolic and the Catholic view)


I have never said you believe God was angry with Jesus. I asked using your words in the past (you said God punished our sins on Him).

But you are getting close to my question.

And no, you did not get it from Scripture because it is not there. I am trying to see how you arrived at those conclusions.


Why did God have to punish sins apart from punishing the ones who actually committed the sins?

Why would there exist a penalty for sins (sins transferred from the actual sinner)?

How do you arrive at the conclusion that there is a penalty that must be paid (apart from God punishing the wicked at Judgment)?

JonC said:

Why am I not Catholic because Scripture says "this is my body"? Because Scrioture indicates that it is a remembrance (not actually Christ). I believe the Bible, but unlike you I do not believe it is right to extract passages out of their context (in this case, a part of a verse). I actually believe the Early Church view here (as opposed to both the Supper as merely symbolic and the Catholic view)

Click to expand...

Exactly! You may say,
I will clarify. By "the biblical text" I literally mean the text of the Bible.'
but in fact you rightly compare Scripture with Scripture and realise that the text cannot be taken at face value, even though vast numbers of Roman Catholics disagree with you. I do the same thing.

JonC said:

Jesus suffering God's wrath is not in the biblical text.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. So why do you then post

JonC said:

I have never said you believe God was angry with Jesus. I asked using your words in the past (you said God punished our sins on Him).

Click to expand...

You need to decide what you think I think. God laid our sins on the Lord Jesus, and punished them. How do I know? Because the Bible tells me so. 'He bore our sins in His own body on the tree.'

JonC said:

But you are getting close to my question.

And no, you did not get it from Scripture because it is not there. I am trying to see how you arrived at those conclusions.

Click to expand...

I did get it from Scripture and it is there.

JonC said:

Why did God have to punish sins apart from punishing the ones who actually committed the sins?

Click to expand...

Because God loves His people and chose, in the Person of Jesus, to bear our sins instead of laying them on us as we deserve.

JonC said:

Why would there exist a penalty for sins (sins transferred from the actual sinner)?

Click to expand...

Because if there were no penalty for sins, God would not be a just Judge.

JonC said:

How do you arrive at the conclusion that there is a penalty that must be paid (apart from God punishing the wicked at Judgment)?

Click to expand...

You just asked me that! But read again what I wrote in post #126. When I see that the chastisement or punishment that brought us peace was upon Christ, I ask myself who was it who chastised or punished our Lord, and when I see that there is no Scripture that says it was Satan, and several that say it was God, the whole thing makes sense. Add to that the Lord laying our sins upon Christ, and Him bearing them in His own body, then there doesn't seem to be any alternative to the Lord Jesus paying the penalty for our sins.

Which is, of course, what He has done! Praise God for Jesus!

Martin Marprelate said:

Exactly! You may say,
I will clarify. By "the biblical text" I literally mean the text of the Bible.'

Click to expand...

What passage are you translating as "Jesus suffered God's wrath"?

Maybe it is that we are simply translating the words differently.

I asked: Why would there exist a penalty for sins (sins transferred from the actual sinner)?

Your answer: Because if there were no penalty for sins, God would not be a just Judge.

This is what I mean by adopting Calvin's 16th century French philosophy.

You assume that God has to punish sins even if the sinner is not punished.

Scripture offers a different view. God is just because He literally makes us righteous, recreates us in the image of Christ, glorifies us.

When God judges (the Judgment) the wicked will be punished and the righteous will inherit life. The "old man" who was guilty is not at judgment. If God did not punish our dins on Christ He would still be just to declare us righteous.

Your philosophy (legal humanism) is flawed.

The Atonement is about reconciling man in addressing us falling short of the glory of God (which is why we sin). Sin evidences a wicked heart. Sins are its fruit.

The law addresses sins. The law shows us our sins. Seeing our sins we kniw we have fallen short of the glory of God.

God forgives based on repentance - a "new heart" (Ezekiel 18). This wicked heart is removed and a new one given. The law is fulfilled. Justice is accomplished. It is the righteousness of God, the same righteousness of God, but manifested apart from the law.

If you commit adultery you break the law. If you lust you sin, you fall short of God's glory, but you do not break the law. God addresses us, which addresses what we have done.

If you punish Zaatar71 instead of a murderer you can say the murders debt was paid by your philosophy BUT you cannot say the guy is not a murderer. If you make the murdering "old man" die and recreate him then no punishment is due.

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 0830 GMT 230 am EST (Wed)

Martin Marprelate said:

Exactly! You may say,
I will clarify. By "the biblical text" I literally mean the text of the Bible.'
but in fact you rightly compare Scripture with Scripture and realise that the text cannot be taken at face value, even though vast numbers of Roman Catholics disagree with you. I do the same thing.

No, it isn't. So why do you then post

You need to decide what you think I think. God laid our sins on the Lord Jesus, and punished them. How do I know? Because the Bible tells me so. 'He bore our sins in His own body on the tree.'

I did get it from Scripture and it is there.

Because God loves His people and chose, in the Person of Jesus, to bear our sins instead of laying them on us as we deserve.

Because if there were no penalty for sins, God would not be a just Judge.

You just asked me that! But read again what I wrote in post #126. When I see that the chastisement or punishment that brought us peace was upon Christ, I ask myself who was it who chastised or punished our Lord, and when I see that there is no Scripture that says it was Satan, and several that say it was God, the whole thing makes sense. Add to that the Lord laying our sins upon Christ, and Him bearing them in His own body, then there doesn't seem to be any alternative to the Lord Jesus paying the penalty for our sins.

Which is, of course, what He has done! Praise God for Jesus!

Click to expand...

Yes. The literal biblical text. The words in the Bible.

Like I said, interpretations will differ but they have to be interpretations of the actual text (not some myth created around a subject).

“This is My body, which is being given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
Catholic doctrine is not that the eucharist is something done in remembrance (ἀνάμνησιν, calling to mind).

You assume that if there were no penalty for sins, divorced from the actual person who committed the sins, God would not be a just Judge. Scripture, however, presents punishment as falling on the wicked (not the sins) and the problem resolved by the Atonement as being man falling short of God's glory rather than man's actions.

But yes, that was what I was getting at.

If your philosophy of justice is wrong then you are wrong about what the Bible "really" teaches.

You cannot prove your philosophy correct (it is not in the Bible, although having an influence it is not practiced today as justice, it proved unjust when attempted in 16th century France).

That is why your faith is called a "theory". It depends on your philosophy being correct and correctly attributed to the mind of God (as opposed to what the biblical text actually states).

This is also why you are leaning on your own understanding. Your understanding depends on the philosophy being correct.

Salty said:

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 0830 GMT 230 am EST (Wed)

Click to expand...

This thread is closed
Feel free to start a new thread.