An Alternate View (to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

[Zaatar71]

Why view Atonement as an issue of the law?

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?

 

[JonC]

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?

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.

 

[Zaatar71]

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.

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

Post #92.

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

Post #101.

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

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

 

[JonC]

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

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]

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

@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?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why put the Atonement and Salvation under the law?

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

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?

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

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.

 

[JonC]

@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?

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".

 

[JonC]

@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?