I know this horse is dead as dead can be....

[Martin Marprelate]

What verse is this "Christ on the cross was fulfilling the Law and establishing its righteousness by paying in full the penalty that it demanded"????

John 20:30 will do for starters. 'It is paid.'

 

[JonC]

John 20:30 will do for starters. 'It is paid.'

John 20:30, that Jesus "did many other signs" is not a "fill in the blank" verse. Mormons can say this means He went to America and gave the natives a different way.

As far as the "debt" to the Law, yes...this was canceled (not "paid by Jesus instead of us paying it"). You are again adding to Scripture. Jesus fulfilled the Law...nailed it to the cross. No condemnation.

 

[Aaron]

John 20:30, that Jesus "did many other signs" is not a "fill in the blank" verse. Mormons can say this means He went to America and gave the natives a different way.

As far as the "debt" to the Law, yes...this was canceled (not "paid by Jesus instead of us paying it"). You are again adding to Scripture. Jesus fulfilled the Law...nailed it to the cross. No condemnation.

Again, we are shown by the law of the trespass offering, that the debts incurred by sin are paid.

That's what trespass is...debt. And Jesus is our trespass offering.

 

[JonC]

Jon, why do you resist the vast amount of scripture showing the substitutionary atonement of Christ.
Vast amounts of scripture have been shown and you consistently find ways to deflect and argue against scripture. You then make a statement with really no actual scripture to support your statement, yet you still imagine you have scripture on your side.
The resistance is because you are wrong and you can't imagine that to be true so you keep pushing a view that little to no one holds. It's similar to sbg pushing his multiple requirements that a man must do before God can save. He's obviously wrong. Everyone can see it, yet he keeps pushing it anyway. It's like Van who has this weird communal election after God has evaluated faith theory. Everyone knows he's wrong, yet he keeps pushing it. Now you hold a weird theory that you can't even clearly articulate on atonement that everyone knows is wrong, yet you keep pushing it anyway.

I have not dismissed the passages you have provided. I dismissed what you have added to those passages.

I once held your theory (actually, for most of my Christian life). I am not sure why you believe my position is "weird", but I suppose I woukd have when I held your view as well.

You are wrong that I am pushing doctrine few hold. The vast majority of Christians throughout history held-holds my view insofar as we have discussed. The only exceptions are RCC doctrine and the Reformed RCC doctrine.

Within my view there are disagreements in interpretations and focus. Certainly there are differences in application (traditional Anabaptist doctrine, for example). BUT it is the majority Christian view. That it sounds so odd to you is a bit telling.

Just set aside your tradition and read Scripture, ar least once, for what is actually writen.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

John 20:30, that Jesus "did many other signs" is not a "fill in the blank" verse.

Sorry! I meant to write John 19:30.

 

[AustinC]

I have not dismissed the passages you have provided. I dismissed what you have added to those passages.

I once held your theory (actually, for most of my Christian life). I am not sure why you believe my position is "weird", but I suppose I woukd have when I held your view as well.

You are wrong that I am pushing doctrine few hold. The vast majority of Christians throughout history held-holds my view insofar as we have discussed. The only exceptions are RCC doctrine and the Reformed RCC doctrine.

Within my view there are disagreements in interpretations and focus. Certainly there are differences in application (traditional Anabaptist doctrine, for example). BUT it is the majority Christian view. That it sounds so odd to you is a bit telling.

Just set aside your tradition and read Scripture, ar least once, for what is actually writen.

Jon, you present a view that you cannot even explain or share in a succinct way. There have been multiple threads and all you have done is muddy the waters without and clear argument. Instead you present a negative, mainly that you don't believe Jesus substituted for anyone, but somehow, just by people proclaiming they have faith, that means people are clean. Jon, I am not sure, in your view, that Jesus even had to die. I think not. I think that, according to your view, the cross was not necessary. Now, I could be wrong, but after weeks of these threads, I still have no clue what you actually believe. I only know that you are very condescending on anyone who believes Jesus is their substitute, telling them that you once were ignorant, but now am enlightened to a position you can't actually explain, but is the only true view.
So, while whatever it is you believe, you have not actually taught anything, but you have managed to tell everyone that they are unenlightened and ignorant. If that's what you were going for...well done.

 

[JonC]

Sorry! I meant to write John 19:30.

I absolutely agree with that passage.

 

[JonC]

Jon, you present a view that you cannot even explain or share in a succinct way. There have been multiple threads and all you have done is muddy the waters without and clear argument. Instead you present a negative, mainly that you don't believe Jesus substituted for anyone, but somehow, just by people proclaiming they have faith, that means people are clean. Jon, I am not sure, in your view, that Jesus even had to die. I think not. I think that, according to your view, the cross was not necessary. Now, I could be wrong, but after weeks of these threads, I still have no clue what you actually believe. I only know that you are very condescending on anyone who believes Jesus is their substitute, telling them that you once were ignorant, but now am enlightened to a position you can't actually explain, but is the only true view.
So, while whatever it is you believe, you have not actually taught anything, but you have managed to tell everyone that they are unenlightened and ignorant. If that's what you were going for...well done.

I do not understand what is so difficult for you to understand (even if you disagree with) my position.

I never once said a proclamation of faith makes people clean. That is about as silly as saying having another person suffer your punishment makes you clean.

The law is clear. People cannot be "made clean". Scripture is clear. The unrighteous dies and is re-created. Those born of the Spirit are clean because they are reborn (new creations, born again, born from above).


Here it is....again:

1. Mankind was in bondage to (slaves to) sin and death.

2. God sent His Son, the Word became flesh, shared our infirmity, bore our sins, became a curse for us.

3. The wicked caused Christ to suffer and die. This was in accordance with God's will (He was pleased to crush Him, God's predetermined plan).

4. God vindicated His Son (raised Him, gave Him a name above every name).

5. The flesh cannot please God. Man must be born again, made new creations.

6. God is just (man must die to the flesh, the "old man" must die, and be re-created) and the justifier of sinners (men ate born of the Spirit, they dhare in Christ's death and resurrection).

7. This is God's righteousness manifested apart from the law.

What you find confusing is the simplicity of Scripture (God does not conform to the wisdom of this world).

You are working off of Renaissance moral philosophy (arguments), ascribing to God a need to punish in order to be just. But God chose another way - rebirth. All flesh still dies, but we have a spiritual life in Christ Jesus.

 

[AustinC]

I do not understand what is so difficult for you to understand (even if you disagree with) my position.

Here it is....again:

1. Mankind was in bondage to (slaves to) sin and death.

2. God sent His Son, the Word became flesh, shared our infirmity, bore our sins, became a curse for us.

3. The wicked caused Christ to suffer and die. This was in accordance with God's will (He was pleased to crush Him, God's predetermined plan).

4. God vindicated His Son (raised Him, gave Him a name above every name).

5. The flesh cannot please God. Man must be born again, made new creations.

6. God is just (man must die to the flesh, the "old man" must die, and be re-created) and the justifier of sinners (men ate born of the Spirit, they dhare in Christ's death and resurrection).

7. This is God's righteousness manifested apart from the law.

What you find confusing is the simplicity of Scripture (God does not conform to the wisdom of this world).

You are earning off Renaissance moral philosophy, ascribing to God a need to punish in order to be just. But Hod chose another way - rebirth. All flesh still dies, but we have a spiritual life in Christ Jesus.

First, stop projecting some Renaissance garbage.
Second, you completely ignore God and His covenants. You ignore the Exodus and the wandering in the wilderness and the foreshadowing that all the Old Covenant provides about Jesus. It's as if all that either doesn't exist or is irrelevant to you.
Third, your seven points are not coherent with scripture. No doubt you have these seven points and then look around the Bible to try make the Bible fit your seven points, but you will be completely disjointed.
Jesus and all the New Covenant writers fully connect the Old Covenant foreshadowing to Christ. You completely ignore it and create something you feel good about, but provide empty scripture to support.

So, I suggest your view is biblically incomplete, not held by the New Covenant writers, not held by the early church fathers and is in fact empty of any spiritual value to the Christian life.

You are free to hold a biblically weak theory that ignores the whole of God's word and has no connection to the New Covenant writers, but stop telling me and others that my view is somehow a Renaissance view not expressed in scripture. That claim of yours is pure bullocks and poppy cock. It is more empty than your theory of atonement.

 

[JonC]

Again, we are shown by the law of the trespass offering, that the debts incurred by sin are paid.

That's what trespass is...debt. And Jesus is our trespass offering.

Or Scripture is correct and it is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law.

 

[JonC]

First, stop projecting some Renaissance garbage.
Second, you completely ignore God and His covenants. You ignore the Exodus and the wandering in the wilderness and the foreshadowing that all the Old Covenant provides about Jesus. It's as if all that either doesn't exist or is irrelevant to you.
Third, your seven points are not coherent with scripture. No doubt you have these seven points and then look around the Bible to try make the Bible fit your seven points, but you will be completely disjointed.
Jesus and all the New Covenant writers fully connect the Old Covenant foreshadowing to Christ. You completely ignore it and create something you feel good about, but provide empty scripture to support.

So, I suggest your view is biblically incomplete, not held by the New Covenant writers, not held by the early church fathers and is in fact empty of any spiritual value to the Christian life.

You are free to hold a biblically weak theory that ignores the whole of God's word and has no connection to the New Covenant writers, but stop telling me and others that my view is somehow a Renaissance view not expressed in scripture. That claim of yours is pure bullocks and poppy cock. It is more empty than your theory of atonement.

It is not Renaissance garbage. Were John Calvin not a student of humanistic moral philosophy (law) then you would not have the faith you mow have.

Your view is not expressed in Scripture. It is based on a judicial moral philosophy. You do not have to accept that fact, but your denial does not change it.

This is evidenced in the fact that your faith is not actually found in Scripture.

You think it is taught by the Biblw, but you can only compare it to what you choose to believe is taught (you cannot test it against God's Word).

There is a reason that the test of Scripture, God's Word without adding your philosophy and theories of how your philosophy is fulfilled, appears to you as nonsense. To you it is pure bullocks and poppy cock simply because Scripture does not meet the requirements of worldly wisdom.

God tells you how Christ fulfilled the law, how the debt of the law was canceled how man must be born anew. But like Nicodemus you stand bewildered, insisting God must acquiessce to your moral philosophy. So you allow yourself to be carried away by vain philosophy while the text of Scripture lay out right before your eyes. Seeing you do not see. Hearing you do not hear.

Just lay aside your traditions and philosophy. Just for a day. And read God's Word as if God were teaching you what is actually written in its text.

As far as my view, it is the Christian view that persevered throughout history. It is the overarching view of the Early Church up to this day. It is the majority view among believers. But you seem content to settle for reformed Roman Catholicism. Twice now you outright rejected Scripture in favor of philosophy. Why is that?

 

[JesusFan]

Are you serious????

Man must be born again, born of the Spirit, made a new creation.

By what basis can God the father justify a lost sinner and yet still remain Holy?

 

[JesusFan]

Sure I did.

What do the Scriptures state?

"...We have been justified by HIS BLOOD, much more, we shall be saved by Him from the wrath of God" (Romans 5:9)​

Here are some other passages from Hebrews that I mentioned in the above post:

26Such a high priest truly befits us—One who is holy, innocent, undefiled, set apart from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. 27Unlike the other high priests, He does not need to offer daily sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people; He sacrificed for sin once for all when He offered up Himself.
​

Reading a bit further in the Hebrews one can see that all Moses did was make a copy a forgery of what was the archetype in heaven:

4Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are already priests who offer gifts according to the law. 5The place where they serve is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”
​

So then - understanding this principle - it is applied to these verses from Hebrews 9:

11But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come, He went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made by hands and is not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by the blood of goats and calves, but He entered the Most Holy Place once for all by His own blood, thus securing eternal redemption.

15Therefore, Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, now that He has died to redeem them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.​

The redeemer did not need nor did He suffer the wrath of God.

The wrath of God is appointed to the ungodly, not the godly.

If PSA is correct, then Christ became a sinner, ungodly, and rebellious toward God. None of that is accurate, and therefore PSA is error.

God the Father justifies under the same principle that He justified the folks at the atoning sacrifice. By the Blood taken to the tabernacle not made with hands and reconciling God to the believer(s).

Colossians 2:

God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our trespasses, 14having canceled the debt ascribed to us in the decrees that stood against us. He took it away, nailing it to the cross! 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
​

The vicarious victorious Christ cannot be diminished, and the wrath of God was never a part of the plan.

Jesus remained Holy and sinless, and yet our sins were imputed to Him, and thus our due wrath and judgement for those sins!

 

[JesusFan]

JonC

,JonC.....your posting shows a clear lack of understanding of the relationship of God's Holy law...to mankind.
I do not think you can come to truth holding these ideas.
Now you are suggesting we do not believe in rebirth?
You are becoming unglued.
Such extreme posts are "unnecessary "...and should be removed.

Again he fails to address just on what basis God is provided the means to justify and save us, and still remain Holy!

 

[JesusFan]

Jesus did fulfill the Law. I never said otherwise. This is a very important truth. Otherwise Hod would have been unjust in vindication Him - in raising and glorifying Him. We would have no Life.

But no more important than our redemption being the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law (being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets).

Scripture is not a smorgasbord where you just pull out verses you Luke while leaving the ones that don't prop up your theories.

Still not address where the due wrath and judgement of God towards us as sinners went!

 

[JesusFan]

Or Scripture is correct and it is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law.

God the Father justifies us on what basis?

 

[JesusFan]

God's law does not change. There is no redemption....no actual forgiveness....under the Law.

Natural man (the flesh) must die. Man must be born again, born of the Spirit.

Th ironic thing is this was the Christian faith until the Reformation and the introduction of Renaissance moral philosophy into Scripture in order to reword RCC doctrine.

This is the view men like Justin Martyr expressed. This is what Scripture actually states (in the text of God's Word).

Penal Substitution Theorists do not belueve in a literal spiritual birth (a rebirth) that results in a new creation, the old creation having died. Otherwise they woukd realize the reborn man is under no condemnation (a just God woukd have no charge to bring....not because he punished somebody else but because He recreated the sinner).

God CANNOT grant us a new birth unless His demands for sin and his wrath and judgement against us are accounted for though!

 

[JesusFan]

Isaiah 42:21. 'The LORD is well pleased for His righteousness' sake; He will exalt the law and make it honourable.'
Matthew 5:17. "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."
Romans 3:31. 'Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.'

Christ on the cross was fulfilling the Law and establishing its righteousness by paying in full the penalty that it demanded.

THAT is the basis for justification that those critics of Psa refuse to accept!

 

[JesusFan]

You correctly understand law and grace, and the holy law of God being upheld.

He gave to us true Pauline Justification!

 

[JesusFan]

JonC,


No you do not...it is teaching not theory. You never were where I am, I think not even close



Under the guise of trying to help, you offer insults, thinly veiled.
You can stop now. They are not working. We all see what you are doing.



No..another insult, that I do not welcome


No one asked you JonC...How can I say it....you are dismissed. I do not need your sage advice .Not sure the others like MM, and Aaron, and Sg, and all the others have asked for your assessment.

[QUOTE]But there is so much of our faith that you cannot see because you are looking outside of Scripture.

Another insult, no thanks JonC



No..not buying that. Do not worry about me...I am right where God wants me to be.



Another sanctimonious insult. No thanks JonC, I have both ,thanks...if I need your input I will ask for it, thanks, but no thanks.



Another sanctimonious insult. No thanks JonC, I have both ,thanks...if I need your input I will ask for it, thanks, but no thanks.



It is, that is why some of us actually work at understanding it.



Another sanctimonious insult. No thanks JonC, I have both ,thanks...if I need your input I will ask for it, thanks, but no thanks.



Another sanctimonious insult. No thanks JonC, I have both ,thanks...if I need your input I will ask for it, thanks, but no thanks.



Another sanctimonious insult. No thanks JonC, I have both ,thanks...if I need your input I will ask for it, thanks, but no thanks.[/QUOTE]
He is really parroting NT Wright and hnis ilk here on the Atonement, and we prefer to stay with thnose such as a Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Gill, Berkhof, Hodge, etc then them!