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

[JesusFan]

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.

He propitiated our due wrath and judgement!

 

[JesusFan]

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.

Our Psa view is held by Reformed and Majority of Baptists throughout the ages!

 

[JesusFan]

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.

Jesus death was Ordained by the Trinity, as he would be the sin bearer for His own people from eternity past!

 

[AustinC]

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

Jon, you are incorrect. Scripture is fine, but your interpretation is incorrect. You abandon the covenants and thus miss the point of scripture.

 

[AustinC]

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?

Jon, you have told yourself a lie. I am not sure from which book you have picked up this lie and appropriated it for yourself, but your view is not supported by the whole of scripture. You are free to believe what you will, but none of the New Covenant writers, nor the early church fathers taught what you hold to.
Know that we are at a standstill. At this point you have been relegated to prideful denigration of others who recognize your error. Your belittling behavior is not enough to change what the Bible clearly teaches regarding Jesus covenant fulfilling substitutionary atonement for my sins.
This argument is over. You have failed to convince anyone of your theory and certainly you have no historical support. Hold whatever personal view you wish, but no more sanctimonious snobbery from you is necessary.
Walk by faith. We disagree and our King can correct us both. Until then, we disagree.

 

[JesusFan]

Jon, you have told yourself a lie. I am not sure from which book you have picked up this lie and appropriated it for yourself, but your view is not supported by the whole of scripture. You are free to believe what you will, but none of the New Covenant writers, nor the early church fathers taught what you hold to.
Know that we are at a standstill. At this point you have been relegated to prideful denigration of others who recognize your error. Your belittling behavior is not enough to change what the Bible clearly teaches regarding Jesus covenant fulfilling substitutionary atonement for my sins.
This argument is over. You have failed to convince anyone of your theory and certainly you have no historical support. Hold whatever personal view you wish, but no more sanctimonious snobbery from you is necessary.
Walk by faith. We disagree and our King can correct us both. Until then, we disagree.

Unless he can accept the Covenant theology of the scriptures, he will remain stuck in error on this issue!

 

[JonC]

Jon, you are incorrect. Scripture is fine, but your interpretation is incorrect. You abandon the covenants and thus miss the point of scripture.

I didn't abandon God's covenants. I also offered very little in terms of interpretation. I offered Scripture. That is why @agedman and I agreed so much. I suspect we have some disagreements in interpretation but we never get ast posting Scripture and pleading with others here to seek out God's Word.

I posted that our redemption is God's righteousness manifested apart from the law. You called that false, that it was manifested through tge law - never apart from it. But those were God's words, not mine.

Had you relied on Scripture rather than theory you eoukd have avoided that error.

 

[JonC]

Jon, you have told yourself a lie. I am not sure from which book you have picked up this lie and appropriated it for yourself, but your view is not supported by the whole of scripture. You are free to believe what you will, but none of the New Covenant writers, nor the early church fathers taught what you hold to.
Know that we are at a standstill. At this point you have been relegated to prideful denigration of others who recognize your error. Your belittling behavior is not enough to change what the Bible clearly teaches regarding Jesus covenant fulfilling substitutionary atonement for my sins.
This argument is over. You have failed to convince anyone of your theory and certainly you have no historical support. Hold whatever personal view you wish, but no more sanctimonious snobbery from you is necessary.
Walk by faith. We disagree and our King can correct us both. Until then, we disagree.

The book I picked up is the Bible. Here is what happened:

For years I taught, believed and defended Penal Substitution Theory. This influenced my preaching as well (of course). I preached a sermon on the cross, which was well recieved. I went to bed that evening content that I had delivered an accurate account of the cross.

I woke up convicted by God that I had adulterated Scripture with Theory (specifically, with Penal Substitution Theory). It was strange as I was a Calvinust but even before that I believed the Theory. I never questioned it. I "saw" it from Genesis to Revelation. This did not make sence.

I de used to prove the Theory to myself. I expected to reinforce Penal Substitution Theory. I purchased a couple of dry erase boards and wrote every passage I could think of dealing dpecifically with Penal Substitution. Then I erased every passage that did not actually confirm the Theory.

In tge end there were no passages on the board. I realized Oenal Substitution Theory was not in the Bible and could not pass the test of Scripture (the only way it "passes" is by comparing what we think the Bible teaches to what we think the Bible teaches, which is meaningless and dubjective).

I posted this on the BB in hopes others would provide passages I had missed. I was only insulted. But between the slander and insults I realized nobody else knew of any passages that actually teach the Theory.

I believe it is important first and foremost to be biblical - to make sure our doctrines (especially doctrines that form foundations to other doctrines) pass the test of Scripture.

Penal Substitution Theory does not. Unlink other disagreements concerning interpretation, there are no actual passages that can legitimately be interpreted to support Penal Substitution Theory (you have to add and change to force Scripture to prop up the Theory).

From then on I have encouraged others to trust in God's Word, lay aside tradition and philosophy, and simply believe "what is written".

The only reason you find Scripture itself insufficient without adding what you belueve it "teaches" is the lens through which you view God and His Word. If you lay that aside you will find Scripture complete, sufficient, and perfect. It will make sence.

 

[37818]

Penal substitution, Matthew 20:28, ". . . Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life{ψυχην} a ransom for{αντι} many. . . ."

 

[Aaron]

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

You're just trying to remove Christ from the law of the offerings, because your entire theory crumbles in its light. But the Scripture is correct. You are incorrect. The righteousness of God witnessed by the law is made manifest.

Jesus was our debt offering. Repayment of the principal debt and of punitive damages was commanded in the trespass offering.

 

[Van]

Penal substitution, Matthew 20:28, ". . . Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life{ψυχην} a ransom for{αντι} many. . . ."

Ransom does mean to receive the specific punishment for the sins of the Elect. That is a redefinition to pour false doctrine into the text. Those to be saved and those never to be saved (2 Peter 2:1) were "bought" thus Christ bought the right to redeem whoever God chooses. It is a lock...

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I absolutely agree with that passage.

I rather think you don't.

 

[JonC]

Penal substitution, Matthew 20:28, ". . . Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life{ψυχην} a ransom for{αντι} many. . . ."

I agree with the passage. I do see Vhrist dying rot the many here. Not really Penal Substitution, per se.

 

[AustinC]

I didn't abandon God's covenants. I also offered very little in terms of interpretation. I offered Scripture. That is why @agedman and I agreed so much. I suspect we have some disagreements in interpretation but we never get ast posting Scripture and pleading with others here to seek out God's Word.

I posted that our redemption is God's righteousness manifested apart from the law. You called that false, that it was manifested through tge law - never apart from it. But those were God's words, not mine.

Had you relied on Scripture rather than theory you eoukd have avoided that error.

You're correct in one thing. You offer very little.

 

[37818]

I agree with the passage. I do see Vhrist dying rot the many here. Not really Penal Substitution, per se.

Ok. Then what is it then? Matthew 20:28, ". . . Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life{ψυχην} a ransom for{αντι} many. . . ."

 

[JesusFan]

The book I picked up is the Bible. Here is what happened:

For years I taught, believed and defended Penal Substitution Theory. This influenced my preaching as well (of course). I preached a sermon on the cross, which was well recieved. I went to bed that evening content that I had delivered an accurate account of the cross.

I woke up convicted by God that I had adulterated Scripture with Theory (specifically, with Penal Substitution Theory). It was strange as I was a Calvinust but even before that I believed the Theory. I never questioned it. I "saw" it from Genesis to Revelation. This did not make sence.

I de used to prove the Theory to myself. I expected to reinforce Penal Substitution Theory. I purchased a couple of dry erase boards and wrote every passage I could think of dealing dpecifically with Penal Substitution. Then I erased every passage that did not actually confirm the Theory.

In tge end there were no passages on the board. I realized Oenal Substitution Theory was not in the Bible and could not pass the test of Scripture (the only way it "passes" is by comparing what we think the Bible teaches to what we think the Bible teaches, which is meaningless and dubjective).

I posted this on the BB in hopes others would provide passages I had missed. I was only insulted. But between the slander and insults I realized nobody else knew of any passages that actually teach the Theory.

I believe it is important first and foremost to be biblical - to make sure our doctrines (especially doctrines that form foundations to other doctrines) pass the test of Scripture.

Penal Substitution Theory does not. Unlink other disagreements concerning interpretation, there are no actual passages that can legitimately be interpreted to support Penal Substitution Theory (you have to add and change to force Scripture to prop up the Theory).

From then on I have encouraged others to trust in God's Word, lay aside tradition and philosophy, and simply believe "what is written".

The only reason you find Scripture itself insufficient without adding what you belueve it "teaches" is the lens through which you view God and His Word. If you lay that aside you will find Scripture complete, sufficient, and perfect. It will make sence.

Does your view agree with his then?
Where does N. T. Wright stand on the Atonement?

 

[JonC]

I rather think you don't.

You think wrong.

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

This means that when Jesus had revieved the vinegar (Jesus was on the cross) He said "it is finished", bowed His head and gave up the ghost (or spirit).

It does not mean that He suffered God's wrath. It does not mean that He died instead of us.

It means what it says.

To get a good picture, read Psalm 22 (in its entirety....not just pieces and parts).

 

[JonC]

Ok. Then what is it then? Matthew 20:28, ". . . Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life{ψυχην} a ransom for{αντι} many. . . ."

It means exactly what it says. Christ came not to be served but to serve (or minister) He came to give His life as a ransom for many.

That is not Penal Substitution.

 

[JonC]

You're correct in one thing. You offer very little.

And you offer too much.

Why do you believe Scripture itself insufficient?

 

[37818]

It means exactly what it says. Christ came not to be served but to serve (or minister) He came to give His life as a ransom for many.

That is not Penal Substitution.

Why not? Literally "to give His soul as a ransom instead of many."