Biblical Atonement (Part 4....but who's counting)

[DaveXR650]

I was exactly where you were first most of my life. I grew up in a Baptist church. I also saw Penal Substitution Theory all over Scripture (and I was unaware of other views...particularly that Christianity condemned aspects of the Theory as heresy before it was ever articulated).

It's just that I see it all over the place just from scripture. I don't know why my seeing it is any less valid than you not seeing it when you read just scripture. That is one reason I'd love to know what denomination or school of thought agrees with your take on it. I don't agree with the Catholics who used to think that reading scripture on your own means you are engaging in private interpretation but when I'm reading scripture I find it very helpful as a layman to be able to take an idea I get on my own and compare it to other people's theological system or a good commentary. I find I need the assistance of others in these areas.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this idea that it isn't in scripture after 4 threads of insisting on this. I don't see how anyone could say that unless your Bible doesn't have Leviticus, Isaiah, Psalms, Romans, 1 John, Hebrews, or Revelation. You dismiss any verse that is given and you dismiss references from church history prior to the reformation. It seems funny to me when you try to make a case that it is not found in any early church writings yet you haven't shown where your theory is found anywhere ever. That should be a cause for concern.

 

[JesusFan]

Then you severely misunderstand my view. The NPP approaches the Cross as an event particularly for the time (in a secular sence) and forces it to place the Roman Empire against Israel.

I suspect you only know of NT Wright and the NPP second hand...much like you deal with Scripture here. That said, at least the man has enough sense to respect Scripture (something Penal Substitution Theorists neglect).

Even when he denies that it was fully Inspired?

 

[JesusFan]

Except it is nowhere in the Bible. None of it is in the Bible.

The Bible nowhere says Christ experienced God's wrath.

Nowhere does it say Jesus died instead of us.

Nowhere does it even say Christ's death appeased God.

Nowhere does it say God punished Jesus.

Nowhere does it say God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.

Nowhere does it say our sins can be transferred to another person (it actually says the opposite).

Nowhere does it say God will substitute the innocent for the guilty (again, it says the opposite).

So how has something so foreign to the biblical text become so foundational to your faith?

It is because you are a Roman Catholic once removed.

Does God have a wrath that must be propitiated? Did He show His wrath in the flood, in Sodom or not?

 

[JesusFan]

It's just that I see it all over the place just from scripture. I don't know why my seeing it is any less valid than you not seeing it when you read just scripture. That is one reason I'd love to know what denomination or school of thought agrees with your take on it. I don't agree with the Catholics who used to think that reading scripture on your own means you are engaging in private interpretation but when I'm reading scripture I find it very helpful as a layman to be able to take an idea I get on my own and compare it to other people's theological system or a good commentary. I find I need the assistance of others in these areas.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this idea that it isn't in scripture after 4 threads of insisting on this. I don't see how anyone could say that unless your Bible doesn't have Leviticus, Isaiah, Psalms, Romans, 1 John, Hebrews, or Revelation. You dismiss any verse that is given and you dismiss references from church history prior to the reformation. It seems funny to me when you try to make a case that it is not found in any early church writings yet you haven't shown where your theory is found anywhere ever. That should be a cause for concern.

He is basically stating that his views trump all of the views of the Cross held by Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Hodge, Berkhof, etc, basically all Reformed and Calvinist Baptists in history!

 

[37818]

The Church was not apostate from the 1st to the 16th Century.

Of course not. There were churches. And only in the time of Apostles was the Apostolic age.

As it stands, you do hold Reformed doctrine, that part is true. But what ypu are blind to is the doctrine which is reformed. You hold a reformed RCC doctrine.

Well, . . . just saying that does not make that so. The fact is, our New Testament is the Apostolic authority on Christ's atonement paying for our sin. Romans 5:8, ". . . Christ died for us. . . ."

 

[agedman]

God’s wrath is ALWAYS focused upon those who are rebellious. Anytime the Scriptures discuss, portray or prophecy concerning God’s wrath it is always toward rebellious people, unrepentant and mocking the Creator.

at what point was the Christ in rebellion? NEVER.

Christ was without sin! Absolutely NO rebellion.

That alone shows how much in error the PSA theory remains.

 

[JonC]

Of course not. There were churches. And only in the time of Apostles was the Apostolic age.

Well, . . . just saying that does not make that so. The fact is, our New Testament is the Apostolic authority on Christ's atonement paying for our sin. Romans 5:8, ". . . Christ died for us. . . ."

Yes. Christ died for us. @agedman and I have wholeheartedly proclaimed that message

But you have not. You have changed that truth to a lie - that Christ died instead of us.

False doctrine contains mostly truth. The truth is the sugar that disguises the poison. Just changing that one little word, "for", to "instead of" makes Penal Substitution Theory a false doctrine. And it is a cancer that infects other doctrines as well.

But the Apostolic Church had it right. Scripture has it right. Christ died for us.

 

[Iconoclast]

You're nuts. Try to follow along. It really is easy. Capitalizing 'Just,' when it is in reference to Christ, is not changing, adding or subtracting from the Scripture. I think you know that, you're just really desperate to win.

Also, ones offering being 'accepted for him,' and not merely 'accepted', or 'accepted from him', both of which would be mistranslations, absolutely means 'on his behalf.'

Also, you're confusing aspects of the Incarnation. Being touched with the feeling of our weaknesses has nothing to do with sin. It has to do with being flesh and bone. He didn't even stub a toe. Never had a broken bone, but He felt hunger and thirst, and had need of rest. That has nothing to do whatever with suffering for sin.

The translators beg to differ with you.


It's not new. Peter preached it. The Just for the unjust, meaning in our place.

Anyway, you have yet to explain what it means to suffer for sins.

What does it mean He bare in His own body our sins on the Tree?

The dynamic duo somehow avoids answering that. When you cannot answer...you just say anything...like this-
I believe Jesus once entered a boat.
I believe Jesus wept.
Jesus prayed.

These are true statements, but have nothing to do with answering questions on the topic.

 

[JonC]

The dynamic duo somehow avoids answering that. When you cannot answer...you just say anything...like this-
I believe Jesus once entered a boat.
I believe Jesus wept.
Jesus prayed.

These are true statements, but have nothing to do with answering questions on the topic.

No. It has been answered.

You do believe some truth. And you believe the gospel message.

The issue is your additions to Scripture. This is a cancer that spreads to other doctrines.

I notice you have avoided answering the call to provide even one verse that supports the belief that Christ suffered God's wrath....or that Jesus died instead of us.....or that Jesus' death appeased God.

I guess I knew you would. There are no such passages and you are heavily indebted to the post-Reformation men you have chosen to follow above Scripture. You really had no choice....except perhaps to consider what is written in God's Word.

 

[agedman]

The dynamic duo somehow avoids answering that. When you cannot answer...you just say anything...like this-
I believe Jesus once entered a boat.
I believe Jesus wept.
Jesus prayed.

These are true statements, but have nothing to do with answering questions on the topic.

Really, iconoclast?

I thought if anyone would se through the error of PSA it would have been you.

Neither @JonC nor I have “avoided”, “denied” or “misapplied” Scriptures.

Certainly, what we have presented is dramatically and sharply in contrast to that of the PSA, but it is nevertheless based totally upon Scripture without modification of ANY passage.

We do not impose wrath we’re wrath is not mentioned, or even implied by the Scriptures.

Did you see post #56?

Is THAT post consistent with the presentation of Scriptures? If not, where is it in error?

 

[37818]

But you have not.

Read my signature!
And what was?

Well, . . . just saying that does not make that so. The fact is, our New Testament is the Apostolic authority on Christ's atonement paying for our sin. Romans 5:8, ". . . Christ died for us. . . ."

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

The issue is your additions to Scripture. This is a cancer that spreads to other doctrines.

No....The issue is your lack of understanding, that is the cancer.

I notice you have avoided answering the call to provide even one verse that supports the belief that Christ suffered God's wrath....or that Jesus died instead of us.....or that Jesus' death appeased God.

I noticed you are not interested in the truth. I noticed you evade truth. I like to help those who want truth. RM.directly identified what you are doing when he started his own thread.
He asked you for one verse that teaches the Trinity as several others have, and you did not supply that.

I guess I knew you would. There are no such passages and you are heavily indebted to the post-Reformation men you have chosen to follow above Scripture. You really had no choice....except perhaps to consider what is written in God's Word.

I am avoiding your error as it is the consequence of bad theology.
Your inability to grasp the doctrines of grace properly leaves a void that you seek to fill with this defective idea.

 

[Aaron]

Christ did become a curse for us, He did die for our sins, He bore our sins bodily,

Stop right there.

He shared our infirmity.

Sharing our human nature has nothing to do with suffering for sin. I think you're being disingenuous on purpose. But granting you the benefit of the doubt, it means that you don't know your own sin, and the only way that could be possible is that you have a very dim view of the righteousness of God. To know God, is to know one's self.
[/QUOTE]

 

[JonC]

Read my signature!
And what was?

I can't see your signature. Don't know why.

Chrust did die for us. @agedman and I never denied that.

But you change Scripture to read that Christ died instead of us.

 

[JonC]

Stop right there.

Sharing our human nature has nothing to do with suffering for sin. I think you're being disingenuous on purpose. But granting you the benefit of the doubt, it means that you don't know your own sin, and the only way that could be possible is that you have a very dim view of the righteousness of God. To know God, is to know one's self.

[/QUOTE]
Stop right there.....you are missing the whole point of redemption!!

I actually have a higher view of God. I believe redemption to be the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law (something you deny). But I also hold that Hod is Holy and is the Standard of Righteousness (something you deny). Where Scripture says it is an abomination to substitute the Just for the unjust - to transfer sins to another person - to condemn the Just and acquit the unjust.....YOU claim that is exactly what God did. You reduce God to an evil man, His justice to man's secular sence of justice.

How can you possibly hold such a low view of God that you would have Him violating His own Standard of righteousness???

 

[Iconoclast]

Really, iconoclast?

I thought if anyone would se through the error of PSA it would have been you.

Neither @JonC nor I have “avoided”, “denied” or “misapplied” Scriptures.

Certainly, what we have presented is dramatically and sharply in contrast to that of the PSA, but it is nevertheless based totally upon Scripture without modification of ANY passage.

We do not impose wrath we’re wrath is not mentioned, or even implied by the Scriptures.

Did you see post #56?

Is THAT post consistent with the presentation of Scriptures? If not, where is it in error?

My friend... I saw that both of you have failed to answer direct questions, from MM. rm, and Aaron.
You have responded like how Roman Catholics respond.
You use the same words but offer different meanings.

 

[JonC]

My friend... I saw that both of you have failed to answer direct questions, from MM. rm, and Aaron.
You have responded like how Roman Catholics respond.
You use the same words but offer different meanings.

I think if you look you will find otherwise.

But if you misunderstood my replies them please specify the question again and I'll try to answer. Knowing @agedman from this board, I'm sure he will be inclined to do the same.

Did MM even post a verse stating that Christ suffered God's wrath, or that Jesus suffered and died instead of us? I really didn't see it.

 

[JonC]

JonC,



No....The issue is your lack of understanding, that is the cancer.



I noticed you are not interested in the truth. I noticed you evade truth. I like to help those who want truth. RM.directly identified what you are doing when he started his own thread.
He asked you for one verse that teaches the Trinity as several others have, and you did not supply that.



I am avoiding your error as it is the consequence of bad theology.
Your inability to grasp the doctrines of grace properly leaves a void that you seek to fill with this defective idea.

Do you believe that it is an abomination to condemn the just and acquit the unjust?

Do you believe sins are never transfered to another, but the guilty will be judged for his own sins?

Do you believe that Christ died for us - the Just for the unjust by dying physically and be owing a Life-giving Spirit?

 

[Aaron]

My friend... I saw that both of you have failed to answer direct questions, from MM. rm, and Aaron.
You have responded like how Roman Catholics respond.
You use the same words but offer different meanings.

I think if you look you will find otherwise.

No, he is correct. I would say you respond like JW's and Mormons. You use the biblical jargon, but the concepts you use them to describe are completely foreign to the Scriptures, and even diametrically opposed.

You even violate the use of plain language, betraying an irrationality that belies ignorance. It's a blindness. And that's giving you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Aaron]

Stop right there.....you are missing the whole point of redemption!!

I actually have a higher view of God. I believe redemption to be the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law (something you deny). But I also hold that Hod is Holy and is the Standard of Righteousness (something you deny). Where Scripture says it is an abomination to substitute the Just for the unjust - to transfer sins to another person - to condemn the Just and acquit the unjust.....YOU claim that is exactly what God did. You reduce God to an evil man, His justice to man's secular sence of justice.

How can you possibly hold such a low view of God that you would have Him violating His own Standard of righteousness???

I have read that God will not justify the wicked, but guess what you say He did in your case.

How about citing that standard for us.