37818
Well-Known Member
How does denial Jesus bears another's sins not allow us to receive Christ's righteousness?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Atonement (Not PSA)
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
That is NOT what I said. I said if I applied your method that would be the logical conclusion.
I DO NOT believe you deny Jesus nore our sins or that we bear His righteousness. I believe we understand "to bear" differently sp we disagree.
I believe it means the same in both instances. We bear His righteousness now (and in a fuller sence in the future) just as He bore our sins.
You believe Christ bore our sins instead of us but we bear His righteousness in solidarity with Him.
Applying your logic that the traditional Christian view that "Jesus bears our sins" is bearing in solidarity equates to a "denial of bearing anothers iniquity" necessitates that conclusion.
IF my belef that Jesus bears our sins (not "instead of us" is a denial that one can bear another's sin THEN my believe that we bear His righteousness (not "instead of") is a denial that one can bear Another's righteousness.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say "to bear" includes "instead of" when it suits your theory but insist otherwise when it does not support your belief.
But where you went wrong (morally) was in your declaration that not to add "instead of" is to deny that one can bear another's sin. That put your integrity at stake.
It would have been better to simply acknowledge that you and I believe Jesus bore our sins differently and then we could have discussed our differences.
Anthony Pritchard
Member
John, I understand what you are saying, but the issue is not whether we “bear” righteousness in the same way Christ bore sin. Scripture never says we bear Christ’s righteousness for Him. It says His righteousness is imputed to us. That is a gift, not a burden. Christ bearing our sins is substitution. We receiving His righteousness is imputation. These are not parallel actions, and Scripture does not treat them as such.
So the question 37818 raised still stands. Denying that Christ bore our sins in the penal sense does not protect imputation. It undermines it. If the debt of sin was not actually paid, then there is no basis for God to credit righteousness to the sinner. The wages of sin is death. A debt was owed, and a debt was paid. That is why the atonement cannot be merely representative.
Tony,
I am not sure that you are aware of the change you made in the post when you equated a wage we earn to a debt we owe.
But that subtle change does speak to a stark difference (a very important difference, although the underlying philosophy is also important) from pre-16th century Christian faith.
It has become almost a given in modern Western Protestant thought (even among atheists looking at our faith due to evangelistic efforts) to think of sin as a debt. The language, I think obviously, comes from the Mosaic Law as being a certificate of debt consisting of decrees against the Jews under the Old Testament. What is ignored is the use of "debt" in reference to transgressing the Mosaic Law, and the fact that our redemption was accomplished - justice demonstrated - apart from the law.
So we have the myth of a "sin debt". This is problematic in several ways, to include the idea of man's influence over God. I do not think Calvin did any better with his revision of Anselm's doctrine than Anselm's focus on honor. Both equally miss the mark.
This is a difference between how you and I understand sin (and between how PSA theorists and pre-16th century Christians understood sin).
I view our sin as less superficial than a debt that can be satisfied.
Brother,
You misunderstood my point.
I was not saying that the post of @37818 denies imputation. I was saying that Christians who view Christ as bearing our sins without adding "instead of us" are not denying Christ bore our sins.
His accusation was that I (and by association millions of Christians throughout history) deny Jesus bore our sins because they reject his understanding of how He bore their sins (they and I view this as solidarity- an exchange via reconciliation).
It is wrong to declare one must hold your understand or deny the passages you are trying to understand.
I probably should not have provided an example of how I could make that same type of false statement against his view as it threatens to hijack the conversation.
To clarify-
I absolutely accept that you and @37818 believe that Jesus bore our sins and we bear His righteousness.
I also believe that Jesus bore our sins and we bear His righteousness.
It would be wrong for either of us to accuse the other of denying that truth
BUT we believe that Jesus bore our righteousness differently. That is worth discussing. Using the discussion as an opportunity to mistepresent the other is not worth the effort. It is wrong and disrespectful.
Anyway - I do believe Jesus bore our sins. God laid our iniquity on Him. We bear His righteousness. God lays Hos righteousness on us.
Our sins were imputed to Him and Hos righteousness is imputed to us.
We disagree in the "how" and the implications.
Luther's "Great Exchange".
PSA theorists often refer to the "Great Exchange" of Luther. Luther did not use those words, but he often spoke of this solidarity (most often as a marriage where all that is the husband's is the wife's and all that is the wife's is the husband's).
But Luther was not a PSA theorist. He has been superficially penned as one (his atonement theory was a non-specific blend of Aquunas and Christis Victor).
Luther viewed this "exchange" as solidarity. Here is his words (perhaps they better explain this better than I):
"Thou, Lord Jesus, art my righteousness, but I am thy sin. Thou hast taken upon thyself what is mine and hast given to me what is thine. Thou has taken upon thyself what thou wast not and hast given to me what I was not."
“If I have sinned, my Christ, in whom I believe, has not sinned; all mine is His, and all His is mine;”
"It is impossible now that her sins should destroy her, since they have been laid upon Christ and swallowed up in Him, and since she has in her husband Christ a righteousness which she may claim as her own, and which she can set up with confidence against all her sins, against death and hell, saying: “If I have sinned, my Christ, in whom I believe, has not sinned; all mine is His, and all His is mine;” as it is written..."
"Christ by His birthright has obtained these two dignities, so He imparts and communicates them to every believer in Him, under that law of matrimony of which we have spoken above, by which all that is the husband’s is also the wife’s."
The first to use a great exchange was Calvin's "Wondrous Exchange". This was PSA.
PSA theorists often refer to the "Great Exchange" of Luther. Luther did not use those words, but he often spoke of this solidarity (most often as a marriage where all that is the husband's is the wife's and all that is the wife's is the husband's).
But Luther was not a PSA theorist. He has been superficially penned as one (his atonement theory was a non-specific blend of Aquunas and Christis Victor).
Luther viewed this "exchange" as solidarity. Here is his words (perhaps they better explain this better than I):
"Thou, Lord Jesus, art my righteousness, but I am thy sin. Thou hast taken upon thyself what is mine and hast given to me what is thine. Thou has taken upon thyself what thou wast not and hast given to me what I was not."
“If I have sinned, my Christ, in whom I believe, has not sinned; all mine is His, and all His is mine;”
"It is impossible now that her sins should destroy her, since they have been laid upon Christ and swallowed up in Him, and since she has in her husband Christ a righteousness which she may claim as her own, and which she can set up with confidence against all her sins, against death and hell, saying: “If I have sinned, my Christ, in whom I believe, has not sinned; all mine is His, and all His is mine;” as it is written..."
"Christ by His birthright has obtained these two dignities, so He imparts and communicates them to every believer in Him, under that law of matrimony of which we have spoken above, by which all that is the husband’s is also the wife’s."
The first to use a great exchange was Calvin's "Wondrous Exchange". This was PSA.
Anthony Pritchard
Member
Brother, I understand what you are saying, but I am not building my view on post‑Reformation categories. I am using the language Scripture itself uses. Scripture speaks of sin as a wage in Romans 6:23. Scripture speaks of sin as a debt in Matthew 6:12. Scripture speaks of ordinances against us being blotted out in Colossians 2:14. These are not later theological inventions. They are the words God chose.
My point is simple. A wage is something earned. A debt is something owed. Scripture uses both ideas to describe sin. If the wages of sin is death, then the wage must be paid. If sin is a debt, then the debt must be removed. That is why Christ bearing our sins cannot be reduced to solidarity. Solidarity does not pay a wage and it does not satisfy a debt.
You say we agree that our sins were imputed to Christ and His righteousness is imputed to us. I am glad for that. But the question is what imputation accomplishes. If sin is not a liability with a real consequence, then imputation becomes a figure of speech. Scripture does not treat it that way. It treats sin as something with a wage and a penalty, and it treats Christ as the One who bore that penalty for us.
I am not questioning your sincerity. I am only trying to keep the categories where Scripture puts them. When the Bible speaks of sorrow, it is solidarity. When it speaks of iniquity in the sacrificial system, it is the bearing of guilt with atoning effect. When it speaks of righteousness, it is imputation. My concern is to let the text define the terms.
Anthony Pritchard
Member
Brother, I appreciate the historical notes, but my concern is not to place Luther or Calvin into a system. My concern is to let Scripture define the categories. Scripture says our sins were laid on Christ. Scripture says He bore our iniquities. Scripture says the chastisement of our peace was upon Him. Scripture says the wages of sin is death. Scripture says He was made sin for us. These are not later theological constructions. They are the words God chose.
Luther’s language about our sins being laid on Christ and swallowed up in Him is simply his way of repeating what Isaiah 53 says. Whether we call that substitution or something else, the point is that Christ bore what was ours so that we might receive what is His. That is the exchange Scripture itself describes.
I am not trying to force a system onto the text. I am trying to keep the text in front of us. When the Bible speaks of sorrow, it is solidarity. When it speaks of iniquity in the sacrificial system, it is the bearing of guilt with atoning effect. When it speaks of righteousness, it is imputation. My concern is to let those categories stand where Scripture puts them.
Tony,
Please understand, I am not accusing you of intentionally building your understanding on post-Reformation categories. But that is exactly what you are doing. These categories are engraved in the stone of Western Protestant thought.
I agree you are using words that are found in the Bible but you are using them differently, extracted from the very Scriptures you desire to follow. It is those small changes in Scripture that make a huge difference - even if the changes sound biblical.
Let's look at the examples in your post above.
Does it?
"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life i] Christ Jesus our Lord."
No. Death is the wage. James tells us that din itself produces death. We earn death by sinning.
Does it?
"And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors."
No, not percisisely. If we read in a strict manner what is being called "debts" are two things. The first is transgressions of the Law (the "certificate of debt"). The second is transgressions against one another. Applying this to mean "sins" apart from the law (apart from that "certificate of debt" is too broad. Paul tells us that sins existed apart from this "certificate of debt".
But even transgressions of the law can be forgiven - just not through the law.
What was blotted out? The Old Covenant (the Law consisting of decrees snd ordinances). This "certificate of debt" is a covenant. Steal, eat pork, any violation is a transgression and a moral transgregation for those under the covenant
A wage is received. A debt (we will use your word and expand it to "sin" for to facilitate conversation) is paid.
Here the wage is the sin death produces. It is earned (sin produces death.
But the "debt" is our unrighteousness, how we "miss the mark" of God's righteousness (His justness...same word).
Solidarity absolutely overcomes the wage of sin and satisfies the requirement of righteousness. It just does so in a less superficial way. It goes beyond sins as acts to address actual guilt and wickedness.
I disagree a lot with Luther (we have that in common) BUT on the Atonement being solidarity - he used a marriage as an example - I believe he was correct.
But that is not what you are describing (Luther did not hold PSA).
Luther's language was one of a marriage. What is the husband's is also the wife's. What is the wife's is also the husband's. Jesus bore our sins (our sin is also His) and we bear His righteousness (His righteousness is also ours).
If you doubt this, revisit Luther. The type of exchange you are speaking of originated with Calvin.
I also am not questioning yours. I gave my testimony so it is no secret that I once was a PSA theorist (and for a long time a Calvinist). I held that sincerely as well.
You are missing the definitions that the biblical text gives. Killing the animal (shedding blood) was not defined as transferring sin or guilt. It was defined as obedience. Applying the blood ("making atonement for the sins of thr people") was not defined as "paying a debt" or even a substitution. It was defined as "purifying" and "cleansing".
Let the actual biblical text define these terms. God was very specific in describing the sacrifice system and the cross.
Anthony Pritchard
Member
If you do not mind, I am going to answer you simply, from the text itself, and let the Scripture stand where it stands.
First, on Romans 6:23. You are correct that the verse says, “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Death is the wage. But that does not remove sin from the wage language. A wage is something earned. Death is not floating in the air. It is “the wages of sin.” Sin is the employer, death is the paycheck. To say “we earn death by sinning” is exactly what I mean when I say Scripture speaks of sin as a wage. I am not inventing a category. I am simply taking the verse at face value. Sin pays out death.
Second, on Matthew 6:12. “And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” You are right that the word is debts. You are also right that in the parallel in Luke 11:4 the Lord says, “And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us.” Scripture itself equates the two. Matthew says debts. Luke says sins. The Lord Himself uses the language of debt for sin. I am not broadening beyond the text. I am following the way the Gospels interpret each other.
Third, on Colossians 2:14. “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.” You say this is only the covenant, the law as a set of decrees. I agree that Paul has the law in view. But he does not say the law was neutral. He says it was “against us” and “contrary to us.” It stood as a written record of our failure. That is why he can call it “the handwriting of ordinances that was against us.” The picture is not merely of a covenant document, but of a record of liability. That is why the language of “blotting out” fits both covenant and debt. A bond is cancelled by blotting out the writing. Again, I am not importing a system. I am letting the words do their work.
On solidarity and substitution, I think we are closer than you think, and also farther apart than you want. I gladly affirm that Christ’s union with His people is like a marriage. What is His becomes ours. What is ours becomes His. That is beautiful and true. But that very union is what makes substitution possible. “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6). “He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Corinthians 5:21). Those are not merely statements of sympathy. They are statements of bearing and exchange. He is made to be sin for us. We are made the righteousness of God in Him. You can call that solidarity if you like, but the text itself uses the language of bearing iniquity and being made sin.
You say the sacrifices were defined only as obedience and cleansing, not as transfer or payment. Yet Leviticus repeatedly speaks of the animal “bearing” iniquity and the priest “bearing” the iniquity of the holy things (for example, Leviticus 10:17, “God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord”). The blood is said to “make atonement for the soul” (Leviticus 17:11). Atonement is not bare symbolism. It is effectual in the type. The writer of Hebrews then tells us that these things were “patterns of things in the heavens” and that Christ by His own blood has obtained “eternal redemption for us” (Hebrews 9:12, 23). The language of bearing, atonement, and redemption is not thin.
On Luther and Calvin, I am not trying to hang anything on either man. You are the one pressing the distinction. My concern is simpler. Isaiah 53 says, “He shall bear their iniquities” (verse 11). Peter says, “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree” (1 Peter 2:24). Paul says, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13). Whether you call that penal substitution, or marital solidarity, or covenantal bearing, the fact remains that Scripture speaks of Christ taking what is ours and giving what is His, in a way that actually removes guilt and satisfies justice. That is all I am trying to preserve.
You say I am missing the definitions the biblical text gives. I would gently say the same back to you. When the Bible uses the language of wage, debt, blotting out, bearing iniquity, curse, redemption, and atonement, I do not feel free to thin those words down to mere cleansing of a space or mere demonstration of love. I agree that the sacrifices purified and cleansed. Hebrews says so. But it also says they pointed to a better sacrifice that actually “put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Hebrews 9:26).
We may well go in circles from here, because at bottom this is about whether the words God chose are allowed to carry the full weight they naturally carry, or whether they must be trimmed to fit a prior model. I am content to let “wage,” “debt,” “blotting out,” “bearing iniquity,” and “made a curse for us” stand as they are written.
If we part, I would rather part at the text than at the systems.
That is all I have to say on this point my brother. I will leave the Scripture to speak for itself.
@Anthony Pritchard
Maybe the ultimate question to answer is whether the New Covenant in Christ's blood is God's righteousness made manifest through the law or apart from the law.
I believe the Atonement fulfills the law but does so apart from the law. You believe it fulfills the law through the law.
Both of us view justice (righteousness) as being accomplished - you by God punishing sins and me by God recreating man.
Part of our difference is the judicial philosophy we believe to be correct. Part is in the depth of depravity which is sin (I do not believe, if we view sin as a "debt", that it is a debt that can be paid).
I am sure there are other differences to explore as well.
I do understand your view. I gave my testimony several times. I also desire to be faithful to Scripture. I hope you will come to understand my position even if you never hold it.
Maybe the ultimate question to answer is whether the New Covenant in Christ's blood is God's righteousness made manifest through the law or apart from the law.
I believe the Atonement fulfills the law but does so apart from the law. You believe it fulfills the law through the law.
Both of us view justice (righteousness) as being accomplished - you by God punishing sins and me by God recreating man.
Part of our difference is the judicial philosophy we believe to be correct. Part is in the depth of depravity which is sin (I do not believe, if we view sin as a "debt", that it is a debt that can be paid).
I am sure there are other differences to explore as well.
I do understand your view. I gave my testimony several times. I also desire to be faithful to Scripture. I hope you will come to understand my position even if you never hold it.
I think we are close on many points. I agree with most of your comments in your first, second and third points. I conceded to use "debt" to speak of the judgment that will come, although I believe it technically imcorrect. But I am not sure it matters that much as one can indebted in many ways where the "debt" cannot be repaid but only forgiven. So we can leave that for now (put a pin in it if needed).
That union is what makes penal substitution unnecessary. It goes far deeper than penal substitution will acknowledge.
But this gets closer to Calvin's philosophy (not that you get it directly from Calvin's writings but that it has influenced your view).
If God could make the guilty to be "not guilty", refine man like metal is refined, then God would not need to punish sins for those who believe.
UNLESS one holds the 16th century judicial philosophy that Calvin used as divine justice. Then justice is not accomplished because "every crime must be punished" and the role of the judge is "to avenge the law".
That is the basis if penal substitution. That is how PSA theorists see the Levitical system and the Atonement.
And that is really where the discussion has to go to move forward. If the philosophy John Calvin studied and adopted as a law student, used to define divine justice and the "sin problem" is wrong then the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement cannot be correct
We enjoy beating around the bush, but since we both hold the same Scriptures we have to look at what influences our understanding.
Since I mentioned our judicial philosophies determining what we bring into Scripture I will offer mine. At one time I assumed the philosophy behind PSA was correct. But I never really looked at it. Now my judicial philosophy is different.
Here is what I believe divine justice to be:
God is just (righteous). Towards the Just He offers deliverance, towards the wicked condemnation. He will not punish the Just, but will avenge the Righteous when unjustly oppressed. He will not clear the guilty. He will condemn the wicked. The end state of justice (righteousness) is holiness. It is a state where no unrighteousness exists. This is the kingdom of God. The wicked will not enter.
I can give you my past philosophy (the philosophy that Calvin used in developing PSA). I held it inconsistently back then as I still believed God could forgive sins. I guess I hadn't thought it through as it was a part of the Christian worldview around me (I did not even know of Calvin when indoctrinated).
John Calvin studied civil law (not theology) at the Universities of Orléans and Bourges in France between 1528 and 1533. This was during the Renaissance (1400-1600; a movement focused on revitalizing ancient Greek and Roman ideals). This included judicial philosophy.
Calvin belonged to the school of thought that believed ancient the Roman judicial philosophy was true, unadulterated justice. It was strictly forensic and objective (the criminal and the victim were obsolete, what mattered was law as a code).
Attempts to implement this type of "justice" in France failed (it was ultimately unjust). But it did work in contractual agreements and influences this today.
This philosophy holds that every crime must be punished. The role of the judge is to avenge the law. When applied to divine justice this means God must (or will) punish every sin because that is what justice demands. Justice is defending the law.
So, you have my philosophy and my old philosophy.
What is yours (what colors your understanding)?
Here is what I believe divine justice to be:
God is just (righteous). Towards the Just He offers deliverance, towards the wicked condemnation. He will not punish the Just, but will avenge the Righteous when unjustly oppressed. He will not clear the guilty. He will condemn the wicked. The end state of justice (righteousness) is holiness. It is a state where no unrighteousness exists. This is the kingdom of God. The wicked will not enter.
I can give you my past philosophy (the philosophy that Calvin used in developing PSA). I held it inconsistently back then as I still believed God could forgive sins. I guess I hadn't thought it through as it was a part of the Christian worldview around me (I did not even know of Calvin when indoctrinated).
John Calvin studied civil law (not theology) at the Universities of Orléans and Bourges in France between 1528 and 1533. This was during the Renaissance (1400-1600; a movement focused on revitalizing ancient Greek and Roman ideals). This included judicial philosophy.
Calvin belonged to the school of thought that believed ancient the Roman judicial philosophy was true, unadulterated justice. It was strictly forensic and objective (the criminal and the victim were obsolete, what mattered was law as a code).
Attempts to implement this type of "justice" in France failed (it was ultimately unjust). But it did work in contractual agreements and influences this today.
This philosophy holds that every crime must be punished. The role of the judge is to avenge the law. When applied to divine justice this means God must (or will) punish every sin because that is what justice demands. Justice is defending the law.
So, you have my philosophy and my old philosophy.
What is yours (what colors your understanding)?
Anthony Pritchard
Member
John, I do understand your position. I simply do not find it in Scripture. Scripture speaks of sin as a debt, of Christ as a Substitute, of His death as satisfaction, of the law as fulfilled in Him, and of justice accomplished through His bearing of iniquity.
When the Lord taught us to pray, He said, “And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors” in Matthew 6:12. Paul says that God has “blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” in Colossians 2:14. Scripture does not hesitate to call sin a debt, and it does not hesitate to say that Christ paid it.
Isaiah says, “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed” in Isaiah 53:5. That is not recreation. That is substitution. That is chastisement. That is the punishment that brought us peace. Isaiah continues, “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” in Isaiah 53:6. That is not God acting apart from law. That is God placing the guilt of sinners upon the Substitute.
Paul says, “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures” in First Corinthians 15:3. He says, “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” in Second Corinthians 5:21. That is not God recreating man instead of satisfying justice. That is God satisfying justice in Christ so that righteousness may be given to the guilty.
You said you believe the atonement fulfills the law apart from the law. But Scripture says, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us” in Galatians 3:13. That is fulfillment through the law’s own demands, not apart from them. The curse of the law is not set aside. It is borne.
You said you do not believe sin, if viewed as a debt, can be paid. But Jesus said it is a debt. Paul said it was nailed to the cross. Isaiah said the chastisement that brought us peace fell on Him. Peter says, “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree” in First Peter 2:24. If sin cannot be paid, then Christ did not bear it. If Christ did not bear it, then He did not remove it. If He did not remove it, then we are still in our sins.
I respect you as a man and as a brother. But the position you hold removes the very heart of the gospel, which is Christ crucified for our sins. The New Covenant is not God working around the law. It is God satisfying the law in the death of His Son so that grace may be righteous and mercy may be just. As Romans 3:26 says, God is “just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.”
I understand your view. I simply cannot find it in the Scriptures that speak so plainly of substitution, satisfaction, and the debt of sin paid in full by the blood of Christ.
Anthony Pritchard
Member
John, I appreciate the time you have taken to explain your background and the way you have come to your present view. But I want to stay with the Scriptures themselves, because that is where the apostles grounded the atonement, and that is where I must ground it as well.
You have now shifted the discussion from the text to Calvin’s legal training, Roman judicial philosophy, and the history of Renaissance thought. I understand why you are doing that, but I cannot follow you there. My understanding of the atonement does not come from Calvin, Roman law, or any philosophy. It comes from the words God has given us.
Isaiah says, “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” in Isaiah 53:6. That is not a philosophical construct. That is the plain statement of the prophet.
Isaiah also says, “He shall bear their iniquities” in Isaiah 53:11. Peter echoes this when he writes, “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree” in First Peter 2:24. That is not a Renaissance legal theory. That is the apostolic interpretation of the cross.
Paul says, “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures” in First Corinthians 15:3. He says, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us” in Galatians 3:13. That is not Calvin’s philosophy. That is the Spirit’s own language.
You say that union makes penal substitution unnecessary. Scripture says union is what makes substitution possible. “What is His becomes ours, and what is ours becomes His” is not my idea. It is the heart of the gospel. But the very texts that teach union also teach bearing, curse, redemption, and the removal of guilt by the death of the Substitute.
You say that if God can refine the guilty, then He does not need to punish sins. But Scripture says, “Without shedding of blood is no remission” in Hebrews 9:22. Scripture says, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die” in Ezekiel 18:4. Scripture says, “The wages of sin is death” in Romans 6:23. Scripture says, “He was wounded for our transgressions” in Isaiah 53:5. These are not philosophical deductions. These are divine declarations.
You say your judicial philosophy has changed. Mine has not, because I have not built it on any philosophy. I have built it on the words God has spoken. When Scripture uses the language of wage, debt, curse, bearing iniquity, redemption, and atonement, I do not feel free to thin those words down or reinterpret them through a lens of historical legal theory. I take them as they stand.
If we differ, I would rather differ at the text than at the level of philosophical reconstruction. I am content to let the Scripture speak for itself. “Christ died for our sins.” “He bare our sins.” “He was made a curse for us.” “He was wounded for our transgressions.” “The chastisement of our peace was upon him.” These are the words God chose, and I am content to rest my understanding of the atonement on them.
That is all I have to say on this point, my brother. I will leave the Scripture where God has placed it.
Anthony Pritchard
Member
John, I honor you as a brother, as a man, and as a moderator. I cannot honor your interpretation. I say that with respect, not hostility. You have explained your judicial philosophy and the influences that shaped it. I understand what you are saying. But my understanding of the atonement does not come from Calvin, Roman law, Renaissance thought, or any judicial model. It comes from the words God has given us.
Isaiah says, “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” in Isaiah 53:6. Peter says, “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree” in First Peter 2:24. Paul says, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us” in Galatians 3:13. The writer of Hebrews says, “Without shedding of blood is no remission” in Hebrews 9:22. These are not philosophical deductions. These are the plain statements of Scripture.
You have your judicial philosophy. I understand that. But I cannot build my doctrine of the cross on any philosophy, ancient or modern. I can only build it on the text. When Scripture speaks of wage, debt, curse, bearing iniquity, redemption, and atonement, I take those words as they stand. I do not feel free to thin them down or reinterpret them through a historical lens.
If we differ, I would rather differ at the text than at the level of philosophical reconstruction. I am content to let the Scripture speak for itself. “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures” in First Corinthians 15:3. That is where I stand.
I appreciate the conversation, my brother. For my part, I have said what I can say. I will leave the Scripture where God has placed it.
Isaiah says, “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” in Isaiah 53:6. Peter says, “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree” in First Peter 2:24. Paul says, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us” in Galatians 3:13. The writer of Hebrews says, “Without shedding of blood is no remission” in Hebrews 9:22. These are not philosophical deductions. These are the plain statements of Scripture.
You have your judicial philosophy. I understand that. But I cannot build my doctrine of the cross on any philosophy, ancient or modern. I can only build it on the text. When Scripture speaks of wage, debt, curse, bearing iniquity, redemption, and atonement, I take those words as they stand. I do not feel free to thin them down or reinterpret them through a historical lens.
If we differ, I would rather differ at the text than at the level of philosophical reconstruction. I am content to let the Scripture speak for itself. “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures” in First Corinthians 15:3. That is where I stand.
I appreciate the conversation, my brother. For my part, I have said what I can say. I will leave the Scripture where God has placed it.
The problem is you are not actually staying with Scriptures themselves.
I told you my philosophy of justice. This is in the Bible. That is Scripture (that is what I posted). And that is how I have come to view the Atonement.
But you depart from the text Scripture in several areas when it comes to the Atonement. Your view presents God as punishing our sins laid on Jesus (while the biblical text states this to be an abomination, evil, and unjust). You present God as clearing the guilty by paying our debt of sin (again, the actual biblical text states this is evil). You present our redemption as being accomplished through the law itself (contrary to the biblical text). You view the sacrifice system as a substitution (not in the actual biblical text). You view Christ's death as a substitution for us (again, not in the biblical text). There are more places where your belief departs from the biblical text itself.
What I am asking is your philosophy, your presuppositions - what makes you understand the biblical text to teach what you believe it teaches.
Just saying you have no philosophy (no understanding of reality), no understanding, no theology, no presuppositions, no worldview that shapes your understanding is not an honest assessment of yourself.
I did not build my philosophy. Like you, my old understanding of divine justice came from my "Christian" worldview. Now I have adopted it from Scripture (specifically passages defining God's justice and righteousness).
Examine yourself by looking at the biblical text and your understanding of that text. The path from the text to your understanding is your philosophy (it is your lens). When you are able to identify that then let's discuss it.
Until then all we will do is go back and forth stating the exact same passages we both accept, never addressing why our understanding is different.
I do not ask anybody to honor my interpretation. I also believe your understanding is anti-Christian. But I respect you as a brother in Christ. I do not take offense to you holding the sane view of me.
You made a very severe mistake when speaking of my judicial philosophy. What I told you that shapes my view of the Atonement - my philosophy (my understanding of reality) - was several passages concerning God's justice and righteousness to include Psalm 22, Ezekiel 18, Isaiah 53, and Proverbs 17.
I realized that I was holding a philosophy (the one you appear now to hold) to define divine justice which is not found in the Bible. What I did was go through God's words explaining His righteousness and justice, list them and adopt them to explain divine justice (and justice in general).
The philosophy (understanding of reality) you are speaking against are biblical passages ("what is written"; the actual text). You need to explain why those verses do not apply.
You are saying that Scripture teaches something different from "what is written". We all do to some extent And perhaps it does.
But we have to look at how you get from the actual text to what you think it teaches and evaluate that path.
We have to bridge the gap between Scripture and our understanding of Scripture. Since we all hold the Bible as true the discussion has to go to what makes our understanding different.
Anthony Pritchard
Member
John, thank you for the time and effort you have put into this discussion. I say this with respect and without any hostility. At this point, though, we are no longer discussing the text of Scripture. We are now discussing me, my motives, my honesty, my “philosophy,” and my supposed presuppositions. That is not a path I am willing to walk.
My replies have been from the passages themselves. Your replies have now shifted to analyzing my worldview, my internal process, and the way you believe I arrive at my conclusions. That is no longer a theological conversation. That is a personal one. I do not think it is profitable for either of us to continue in that direction.
I am content to let the Scripture stand as it is written. You have explained your view. I have explained mine. I do not believe further examination of my “lens” or my “philosophy” will bring us any closer together, because the disagreement is not about method. It is about what the text says.
For my part, I have said what I can say. I will leave the Scripture where God has placed it and step out of the discussion here.
Thank you for the conversation, Brother.
My replies have been from the passages themselves. Your replies have now shifted to analyzing my worldview, my internal process, and the way you believe I arrive at my conclusions. That is no longer a theological conversation. That is a personal one. I do not think it is profitable for either of us to continue in that direction.
I am content to let the Scripture stand as it is written. You have explained your view. I have explained mine. I do not believe further examination of my “lens” or my “philosophy” will bring us any closer together, because the disagreement is not about method. It is about what the text says.
For my part, I have said what I can say. I will leave the Scripture where God has placed it and step out of the discussion here.
Thank you for the conversation, Brother.
@Anthony Pritchard
Maybe this will help clarify -
We do differ but we do not differ at the biblical text. Scripture is objective. Our understanding of Scripture is subjective.
My philosophy (my understanding of divine justice and justice in general) is not a philosophical reconstruction (my view is nothing needs to be reconstructed but it is revealed in the text of Scripture).
I gave you my understanding which was passages offered in a paragraph. I did not realize you would take it as ancient or modern philosophy reconstructed. Here it is again in a different format (I am just listing a few of the verses):
1. It is evil to punish the Just or treat the Righteous as a guilty. (Exodus 23:7; Proverbs 17:15, 17:26; Ezekiel 33)
2. It is wrong to clear the guilty (Proverbs 24:24; Exodus 34:7)
3. God will never abandon the Righteous but will deliver Him (Psalm 37:25; Psalm 37:28; Psalm 22; Psalm 33:18-22)
4. God will forgive sins (Isaiah 1:18; Psalm 103:12)
5. The Kingdom of God will be a holy, righteous kingdom that the wicked will not inherit (Romans 14:17; 1 Cor 6:9-10).
So much of the Old Testament is dedicated to God exhibiting His righteousness, Israel crying out for justice, and God explaining true justice. That is where my understanding, my philosophy, of justice originates.
That is how I built my philosophy of divine justice (a few more points and many other passages, but that's the gist of it). That is how I view God's justice in the Atonement. That is how I view justice in general as well.
Which passages do you believe are philosophical reconstruction? Let's look at which you believe should be excluded or that teach something other than the text itself.
Then, if you don't mind, please do the same. How do you define justice?
Lets go to God's Word and explore the topic. Toss out both of our understandings about what we believe is taught and look at His actual words.