In what sense did Christ die for all sinners?

[JonC]

Another great day, JonC.

It would seem that after readying what you wrote. My OP fits nicely within your concept of "representative substitution".

I'm trying to think of a more clear distinction, for me, between the two (Substitutionary vs Representative). What I see at first blush, is a distinction that takes one in a different direction from the typical Limited Atonement debate.

Substitutionary would seem to revolve around payment for individual sin (debating whether it be more like commercial or criminal law). Substitutionary would seem to focus on "particular" sin (like of each individual).

Would you say that Representative, in contrast, might revolve around a concept of "global" sin instead of "particular" sin? That is, representative substitution might forward the idea that Christ's death was "of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world." (Dort, 2nd Head, Article 3)? This statement from Dort appears to be global in nature.

Peace to your brother.

It is a different type of substitution. It's actually a legal concept (like justification).

Historically Substitution (Satisfaction) was the Catholic view (Aquinas) and Penal Substitution Theory a reform of that view (moving it from merit to divine justice) where Jesus experienced God's wrath as our punishment instead of us not being punished). It is an old position, but also a relatively new position within Christianity. That said, Substitution Theory and Penal Substitution Theory are the most popular views within Western Christianity today (the former being Roman Catholic and the latter the majority of Protestant denominations).

 

[DaveXR650]

The Calvinist views Christ's death as accomplishing forgiveness for the sins of some. In contrast, I believe Christ's death accomplished something much greater - a reconciliation of the human race with God (a "Second Adam") through which individual men may be reconciled to God through Christ.

I agree that man was cursed to work the land (as opposed to the status in Eden), that man' became like God knowing good and evil, and that death entered through Adam and spread to all men because all have sinned.

I'm not sure where you read that other stuff, and I do not hold that belief myself. If you don't mind, provide the book that gave you that belief and I'll take a look. Insofar as what I believe on this topic, that will be the Bible.

I think he probably got that idea from statements like you used above. If Christ's death accomplished something much greater - a reconciliation of the human race with God, and Jesus was acting as a second Adam, it would be assumed that something had to be reconciled. You confuse people when you make a statement like that and then say you don't know where people get notions that the fall of man caused huge problems.

Your first statement needs clarification. Do you mean that man can be held to some guilt as being in Adam? And or, did the Adam's sin and God's curse "do" something so to speak to the rest of humanity to come? Numerous scriptures teach that man is prone to all sorts of sin, and scripture honestly show this, even in the best saints we have record of. I'm willing to question the idea of man being totally unable to comprehend anything re God and I'm willing to agree that some of the passages in scripture describe the general condition of men in general, but don't mean to say that every single individual actually hates God and wants to shed blood and so on.

Not only do we have scripture records, but everyone who has lived for a time on earth knows that something is wrong with us, and even our own kids are observed as being prone to sin.

 

[Silverhair]

Ezekiel appears to say it is all "OUR CHOICE", while John and Ephesians appear to say it is "GOD'S CHOICE" and Romans appears to say that we all "CHOOSE NO". There are an infinite number of verses to support both sides (thus the reason the debate still rages on with 'scripture pong').

Ezekiel is quite clear that it is our choice unless you want to make God responsible for the choices we make.

It is always God's choice to save. But if you include Joh 6:40 For it is My Father’s will that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” and read Eph 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, We see that in both cases God responds to the person making a choice, just as we se in Ezekiel.

When we look at Romans all we have to do is keep reading Rom 3:22-24 And this righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

So again we see that man does have a choice. Yes there are a number of verses that can be read to support a particular view but when you look at the context we see that it is still the responsibility of man oh make a choice.

The goal is to get to [v16] "whoever believes".
Nobody STARTS life at "whoever believes", we all start at sinners in need of a savior.
But [v19-20] state that people that "do wicked things" (sinners like us), "do not come to the light" and "love darkness" ... which implies that we will HIDE rather than CHOOSE to be "whosoever believes".
Furthermore, [v21] tells us that the good works are not carried out IN US, they are carried out "in God".
At first glance, that sort of leaves us stuck on the "condemned already" side of [v18] unless GOD does something.

God has done something, He has provided all the information necessary for a person to trust in Him. Whether it is creation, the conviction of the Holy Spirit, the gospel message etc.
Rom_1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.

If man is unable to respond to the information and promptings that God has provided then man actually does have an excuse and the word of God is wrong.

 

[JonC]

I think he probably got that idea from statements like you used above. If Christ's death accomplished something much greater - a reconciliation of the human race with God, and Jesus was acting as a second Adam, it would be assumed that something had to be reconciled. You confuse people when you make a statement like that and then say you don't know where people get notions that the fall of man caused huge problems.

Your first statement needs clarification. Do you mean that man can be held to some guilt as being in Adam? And or, did the Adam's sin and God's curse "do" something so to speak to the rest of humanity to come? Numerous scriptures teach that man is prone to all sorts of sin, and scripture honestly show this, even in the best saints we have record of. I'm willing to question the idea of man being totally unable to comprehend anything re God and I'm willing to agree that some of the passages in scripture describe the general condition of men in general, but don't mean to say that every single individual actually hates God and wants to shed blood and so on.

Not only do we have scripture records, but everyone who has lived for a time on earth knows that something is wrong with us, and even our own kids are observed as being prone to sin.

These assumptions (all around) are an issue. I am not sure it is one we can overcome, but if we can we will arrive at a clearer understanding of one another's view. I'll answer your questions, and perhaps some I'd have of me were I you.

1. When I say that on the Cross God was reconciling man to Himself, not counting their sins against them, I mean that in the sence of "man" (mankind) which is the basis that men still need to be reconciled to God (and the readon we urge men to be reconciled to God). I do not mean that God was reconciling all men to Himself and forgiving their sins prior to their birth. I mean that as Jesus being the "Second Adam" or second type of man.

2. The guilt man holds is for sin. The readon they sin is that they give in to temptation. This is giving in to the desires of the flesh. We are not considered guilty because we are a son of Adam (a son of man, or human being). But we become guilty because our minds are set on the desires of the flesh and we sin. This is because, like Adam, we were created flesh.

3. Did the Fall do something to man? Yes. Man became like God knowing good and evil. Through Adam death entered the world and spread to all for all have sinned. But if you are asking whether Adam's nature changed and we inherited that changed nature, there is nothing in Scrioture to indicate so. Adam was created flesh. After he sinned he remained flesh.

Instead I believe Paul hit the nail on the head when he compared Adam's disobedience to Jews disobeying the Moasic Law. Adam's sin revealed that flesh (natural man) has desires that fall short of God.

4. I agree that men are prone to sin. We are born flesh and therefore we have desires of the flesh and need to be born of the Spirit and have desires of the Spirit.

I believe this is the readon Scripture constantly emphasizes two natures (and only two, including the nature attributed to Adam). These are "flesh" and "spirit".

You are also right that man knows something is wrong. Even atheists fail to live up to what they consider to be a perfect standard (they fall short of their own idea of the ideal human being).

 

[DaveXR650]

3. Did the Fall do something to man? Yes. Man became like God knowing good and evil. Through Adam death entered the world and spread to all for all have sinned. But if you are asking whether Adam's nature changed and we inherited that changed nature, there is nothing in Scrioture to indicate so. Adam was created flesh. After he sinned he remained flesh.

I guess what I'm not understanding is what then, if anything, happened to Adam that affects us. If what you are saying is true then why don't I have the right, along with everyone else born subsequent to Adam to have the same chance at the same trial as he had. This seems to go against a multitude of scriptures that describe man's propensity to sin and the scriptural fact and observed confirmation we all know - that all men do sin.
Many theologians see in the death of the very young as showing that "death passed upon all men" as having a further meaning than that each of us die because each of us are sinners. So I would ask what your own explanation would be of the meaning of:

. I mean that as Jesus being the "Second Adam" or second type of man.

If Adam's sin gave us knowledge of good and evil but had nothing to do with guilt, either imputed or inherited, then how is that to be understood in relationship to Christ being a second Adam or a second man as a type. This is important because Adam has in some way to be connected to us if Christ is to be connected to us as a second Adam. So I am not satisfied with the connection being only a development of the knowledge of good and evil. I'm not satisfied either with it being extended only to the entrance of physical death upon all of us. Do you agree that it caused an alienation and a separation from access to God and fellowship with God and was that because of the entrance of sin? Because that would lead to my next question:

1. I disagree that Christ's death is a substitutionary sacrifice (instead of us). Instead I believe Christ's death to have been representative substitution.

In legal contexts, "representative substitution" refers to replacing a party in a lawsuit or legal proceeding with their legal representative. The representative does not suffer instead of the party being represented. Insofar as Jesus goes, this would be presented as Jesus being another type of Adam (a "Second Adam").

The idea of representative substitution is fine. Edwards used it, as well as the legal language you use above. I don't understand why the representative cannot represent the guilty party in suffering - if as in the case of Jesus, he was uniquely qualified by being the Divine and human, by being personally sinless, and as you said above, the second Adam. Not only is all this supported by scripture, but scripture supports, or at least gives glimpses, of the Godhead planning this before the foundation of the world.

While the idea of representative substitution is fine, when you follow it with "the representative does not suffer instead of the party being represented" is where this becomes obscure. Edwards was careful to point out like I mentioned above that in this case, the one we are interested in, the representative certainly did suffer, and necessarily so. And being our representative was more than acting as a lawyer, important as this is. He purchased the church with his own blood. And all judgement will be committed to him. In this case our iniquities were laid on him. Whether that is always the definition of a legal representative is not important because this case is unique.

 

[JonC]

I guess what I'm not understanding is what then, if anything, happened to Adam that affects us. If what you are saying is true then why don't I have the right, along with everyone else born subsequent to Adam to have the same chance at the same trial as he had. This seems to go against a multitude of scriptures that describe man's propensity to sin and the scriptural fact and observed confirmation we all know - that all men do sin.
Many theologians see in the death of the very young as showing that "death passed upon all men" as having a further meaning than that each of us die because each of us are sinners. So I would ask what your own explanation would be of the meaning of:

If Adam's sin gave us knowledge of good and evil but had nothing to do with guilt, either imputed or inherited, then how is that to be understood in relationship to Christ being a second Adam or a second man as a type. This is important because Adam has in some way to be connected to us if Christ is to be connected to us as a second Adam. So I am not satisfied with the connection being only a development of the knowledge of good and evil. I'm not satisfied either with it being extended only to the entrance of physical death upon all of us. Do you agree that it caused an alienation and a separation from access to God and fellowship with God and was that because of the entrance of sin? Because that would lead to my next question:

The idea of representative substitution is fine. Edwards used it, as well as the legal language you use above. I don't understand why the representative cannot represent the guilty party in suffering - if as in the case of Jesus, he was uniquely qualified by being the Divine and human, by being personally sinless, and as you said above, the second Adam. Not only is all this supported by scripture, but scripture supports, or at least gives glimpses, of the Godhead planning this before the foundation of the world.

While the idea of representative substitution is fine, when you follow it with "the representative does not suffer instead of the party being represented" is where this becomes obscure. Edwards was careful to point out like I mentioned above that in this case, the one we are interested in, the representative certainly did suffer, and necessarily so. And being our representative was more than acting as a lawyer, important as this is. He purchased the church with his own blood. And all judgement will be committed to him. In this case our iniquities were laid on him. Whether that is always the definition of a legal representative is not important because this case is unique.

Ah...sorry if I misunderstood your question.

I take it you are asking if any of the consequences that happened to Adam was passed on to us.

Yes. We live in the world from which Adam was created. We do not enjoy the fellowship that Adam enjoyed when God took him from where he was created and placed him in Eden.

We also become like God knowing good and evil. We also sin. So what happened to Adam also happens to usiwe are, prior to being born of the Spirit) a child of Adam.

Jesus DID represent man (the guilty party). The difference is that a representative substitute cannot legally suffer the punishment for the crimes of those he represents. He represented us, the guilty party, and suffered under the curse, the bandage of sin and death, that held us captive. He suffered and died under the powers of darkness, by the hands of wicked men. And this was God's will, for He became a life giving Spirit. It is only by men being born of the Spirit, with a mind set on the Spirit rather than the flesh, that men will be saved.

 

[DaveXR650]

I take it you are asking if any of the consequences that happened to Adam was passed on to us.

Yes. We live in the world from which Adam was created. We do not enjoy the fellowship that Adam enjoyed when God took him from where he was created and placed him in Eden.

We also become like God knowing good and evil. We also sin. So what happened to Adam also happens to usiwe are, prior to being born of the Spirit) a child of Adam.

I would agree that we do not enjoy the fellowship that Adam enjoyed but I would go further in the explanation of it. And I think scripture supports this. The natural state of men involves God no longer fellowshipping because sin has now entered the world. Our sinful state offends God's holiness to the point where to even look directly at God is dangerous. God would only speak to us through hand picked intermediaries. Later we were given the Law and a system of sacrifice. This sacrificial system meant something directly related to our relationship with God. These things allowed us to approach God in a limited way but there was still a gulf/ curtain so to speak separating us from the inner chamber. My point is this. All these things are in scripture and point to and validate the need for an actual atonement and they point to the method by which this was to be accomplished. I do agree that it is due to being born again or united to Christ that we realize the actual benefit of the atonement or in a sense, participate in the atonement in the sense that we look at the word as the "at one ment" with Christ. But a thing was done by Christ to get us to be able to unite with Christ.

Jesus DID represent man (the guilty party). The difference is that a representative substitute cannot legally suffer the punishment for the crimes of those he represents. He represented us, the guilty party, and suffered under the curse, the bandage of sin and death, that held us captive. He suffered and died under the powers of darkness, by the hands of wicked men. And this was God's will, for He became a life giving Spirit. It is only by men being born of the Spirit, with a mind set on the Spirit rather than the flesh, that men will be saved.

This does not seem to be connected and this is where your description falls short in my opinion. You refer, correctly I think, to us as being the guilty party, Christ suffering under the curse, and the bondage of sin and death that held us captive - yet you for some reason have a real problem actually connecting the suffering of Christ to us. To say that Christ became a life giving Spirit is fine of course, but if you refuse to connect in some way his death with our being made fit so to speak for this connection then I think you fall way short.

Without this connection you have a system where Christ was an unfortunate victim of evil men, died, and rose because he was God and now can unite with us. There could be an assumption that he could have done this anyway, without the cross. I'm not saying you believe that but what I would like to understand is how your system can make the actual death of Christ essential for our salvation. That is all I ask.

 

[37818]

What mankind acquired as a result of eating of that tree is explicitly stated by our Creator.

Genesis 3:22, And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: . . .

God is infinitely good. God created man to be very good. That knowledge of good and evil causes mankind to have a sin nature.

 

[JonC]

I would agree that we do not enjoy the fellowship that Adam enjoyed but I would go further in the explanation of it. And I think scripture supports this. The natural state of men involves God no longer fellowshipping because sin has now entered the world. Our sinful state offends God's holiness to the point where to even look directly at God is dangerous. God would only speak to us through hand picked intermediaries. Later we were given the Law and a system of sacrifice. This sacrificial system meant something directly related to our relationship with God. These things allowed us to approach God in a limited way but there was still a gulf/ curtain so to speak separating us from the inner chamber. My point is this. All these things are in scripture and point to and validate the need for an actual atonement and they point to the method by which this was to be accomplished. I do agree that it is due to being born again or united to Christ that we realize the actual benefit of the atonement or in a sense, participate in the atonement in the sense that we look at the word as the "at one ment" with Christ. But a thing was done by Christ to get us to be able to unite with Christ.

This does not seem to be connected and this is where your description falls short in my opinion. You refer, correctly I think, to us as being the guilty party, Christ suffering under the curse, and the bondage of sin and death that held us captive - yet you for some reason have a real problem actually connecting the suffering of Christ to us. To say that Christ became a life giving Spirit is fine of course, but if you refuse to connect in some way his death with our being made fit so to speak for this connection then I think you fall way short.

Without this connection you have a system where Christ was an unfortunate victim of evil men, died, and rose because he was God and now can unite with us. There could be an assumption that he could have done this anyway, without the cross. I'm not saying you believe that but what I would like to understand is how your system can make the actual death of Christ essential for our salvation. That is all I ask.

Have you considered that Adam did not initially enjoy the fellowship with God that he enjoyed in the Garden? I believe there is a reason Scripture makes the point Adam was created outside of Eden and exiled to the land from which he was created.

I believe you are missing an important aspect of Scripture when it comes to Christ's death. Christ suffering and dying under the powers of this world doesn't make Christ an unfortunate victim. Christ laid down His own life. This was God's predetermined plan. The Serpent striking ("crushing") His heel was followed by Him crushing the Serpent's head.

Christ's death was essential for many reasons. I just mentioned one. But to truely be "the Son of Man" (Son of Adam) Jesus would have to suffer the wages man has earned (death) and be made sin while never sinning. He would have to be obedient where Adam was not (obedient to death). He would need to put together death in the flesh (Peter explained this well). And God the Father would need to declare His suffering and death unjust (which Scripture repeatedly declares), vindicated by raising Him to life, and giving Him a name that is above every name.

We cannot look at Jesus' death in isolation from God's redemptive plan. His birth, life, death, and resurrection is one act of redemption. The issue I have with some presentations is that by extracting Jesus' death and focusing on that one aspect of obedience as if it were the entire redemptive plan it becomes impossible to grasp biblical redemption.

 

[atpollard]

He would need to put together death in the flesh (Peter explained this well).

Could you elaborate on this point (it seems a bit vague).

What does "put together death in the flesh" actually mean?
Where does Peter explain this cryptic phrase?

 

[Paleouss]

It is a different type of substitution. It's actually a legal concept (like justification).

JonC, thank you for your time and insight. Peace to you brother.

So what I am interested in is your insight on my perspective on what you are presenting. My thoughts, I understand may be new and not traditional, on what you are saying is that Substitutionary substitution tends to focus more on 'particular individual sin' (of each person) while Representative substitution, being more legal, focuses on 'global sin' (maybe similar to my OP).

In other words, in one, Jesus is said to take on individual sin (hence the debate on whether Jesus takes on the sins of the unbelieving). In the other, Jesus takes on sin itself everywhere (globally), which is sufficient for all mankind.

My insight is..
Substitutionary = focus on particular individual sin.
Representative = focus on global sin affecting everyone.

Thoughts?

Thank you for your time
keep seeking God's truth

 

[Paleouss]

2. I disagree that this sacrifice satisfies the demands of justice regarding sin. Instead I believe that Jesus became a curse, was made sin for us, shared in our infirmity, and died for our sins. I believe that Jesus died under the curse, under the powers of sin and death, the powers of darkness, that held mankind in bandage.


The reason I disagree is that there are no passages that states Jesus died in our stead or that Jesus' death satisfied God's demands of justice. This idea came about by reforming Aquinas' view and shifting from divine merit to divine justice.

Greetings again JonC.

In your quote above, you write "I disagree that this sacrifice satisfies the demands of justice regarding sin."

For reconciliation to be properly grounded and not create divine dissonance within the characteristics of God. It seems to me that the theologian must properly distinguish the countermeasures God decrees in response to the power of sin and also the holy and righteous power of His own law (which is a reflection of His own nature).

The stratagem of God:
(a) the sinner is conquered, put under foot, through justice (Rom 3:19-20), which springs forth from the giving of the law of Moses (see also post #17). So that “all the world may become guilty before God” (Rom 3:19, Gal 3:11).

So the law says, guilty. This law is reflection of the divine nature of God. It seems to me that Christ must address this 'guilty' in some way so as not to create divine dissonance. Now, trying to take it from your fame of reference. For your Representative substitution to work, for me, the Son of God would need to address...

1. The power of sin and its dominion (which I think you've done).
and
2. The 'guilty' of the law.

Both would seem to be bound up in the other because "the power of sin is the law" (1Cor 15:56).

Now, some incorrectly formulate a claim of 'God's good pleasure'. Simply asserting that God does what he pleases. They do this without considering the logical divine dissonance they have created in their claim. Of course God does what He pleases, however, that which He pleases to do is not contradictory (logically for us) within characteristics of His own nature.

So, how do you think God, in the steps of the stratagem of God, has addressed the 'guilty' of the law? If you think it needs addressing at all.


Peace to you brother

 

[JesusFan]

Are you quoting Scripture or a theological opinion?

If Scripture:

1. What passage speaks of Jesus as experiencing God's wrath?

2. What passage states that Jesus experienced what the lost will experience in Hell?

3. What passage states that Jesus experienced any, much less an eternal, separation from God the Father?


If not Scripture:

Why post it as if it were Scripture itself?


I ask those questions because I believe that foundational doctrines (I believe the topic here is foundational as doctrines are built upon our understanding of the Cross) should be biblical ("what is written") rather than biblical opinion (what various people or sects believe is taught).

was Jesus experiencing being forsaken by the father? Yes
Does God anger and wrath get stored up to be unloaded upon all those who have rejected Jesus as Savior and Lord? yes great Bowl of wrath Jesus drank for us
Are we now going into NT Wrong theory of atonement?

 

[JesusFan]

I agree that man was cursed to work the land (as opposed to the status in Eden), that man' became like God knowing good and evil, and that death entered through Adam and spread to all men because all have sinned.

I'm not sure where you read that other stuff, and I do not hold that belief myself. If you don't mind, provide the book that gave you that belief and I'll take a look. Insofar as what I believe on this topic, that will be the Bible.

Adam cursed by God to have the penalty of now would taste physical death, and now spiritual dead in sin, receiving a sinner nature, hence the need for the coming Messiah

 

[JesusFan]

It is a different type of substitution. It's actually a legal concept (like justification).

Historically Substitution (Satisfaction) was the Catholic view (Aquinas) and Penal Substitution Theory a reform of that view (moving it from merit to divine justice) where Jesus experienced God's wrath as our punishment instead of us not being punished). It is an old position, but also a relatively new position within Christianity. That said, Substitution Theory and Penal Substitution Theory are the most popular views within Western Christianity today (the former being Roman Catholic and the latter the majority of Protestant denominations).

Does God deciare a sinner justified by what Jesus experienced upon the Cross then?

If Jesus did not receive our due wrath and condemnation for being sinners, who did then?

 

[JesusFan]

Greetings again JonC.

In your quote above, you write "I disagree that this sacrifice satisfies the demands of justice regarding sin."

For reconciliation to be properly grounded and not create divine dissonance within the characteristics of God. It seems to me that the theologian must properly distinguish the countermeasures God decrees in response to the power of sin and also the holy and righteous power of His own law (which is a reflection of His own nature).

The stratagem of God:
(a) the sinner is conquered, put under foot, through justice (Rom 3:19-20), which springs forth from the giving of the law of Moses (see also post #17). So that “all the world may become guilty before God” (Rom 3:19, Gal 3:11).

So the law says, guilty. This law is reflection of the divine nature of God. It seems to me that Christ must address this 'guilty' in some way so as not to create divine dissonance. Now, trying to take it from your fame of reference. For your Representative substitution to work, for me, the Son of God would need to address...

1. The power of sin and its dominion (which I think you've done).
and
2. The 'guilty' of the law.

Both would seem to be bound up in the other because "the power of sin is the law" (1Cor 15:56).

Now, some incorrectly formulate a claim of 'God's good pleasure'. Simply asserting that God does what he pleases. They do this without considering the logical divine dissonance they have created in their claim. Of course God does what He pleases, however, that which He pleases to do is not contradictory (logically for us) within characteristics of His own nature.

So, how do you think God, in the steps of the stratagem of God, has addressed the 'guilty' of the law? If you think it needs addressing at all.


Peace to you brother

The person who sins must die, so God being true to Himself cannot just wish away the sin debt, as someone must bear it before a Holy God , and though many seem to see this as being barbaric now, God still has anger stored up to unload against all who have broken His Law, see where Paul address second coming of Jesus with his Holy Ones, as very bad news for lost sinners, as they now face a certain judgment

 

[JonC]

Could you elaborate on this point (it seems a bit vague).

What does "put together death in the flesh" actually mean?
Where does Peter explain this cryptic phrase?

Sorry.....mistype on my phone. I was in the Bojangels drive-thru and tried a quick response. Ignore it....it doesn't make sence to me either.

Christ died for sins, and having been put to death in the flesh was made alive in the spirit. This is important to understand as the flesh and its desires are against the spirit. On the Cross, and through the resurrection, Jesus destroyed the powers of this world (the powers under which He suffered and died). He disarmed these powers by experiencing and conquering the consequences that held us prisoner. We are saved through the resurrection of Christ.

 

[DaveXR650]

Have you considered that Adam did not initially enjoy the fellowship with God that he enjoyed in the Garden? I believe there is a reason Scripture makes the point Adam was created outside of Eden and exiled to the land from which he was created.

Honestly I have not.

I believe you are missing an important aspect of Scripture when it comes to Christ's death. Christ suffering and dying under the powers of this world doesn't make Christ an unfortunate victim. Christ laid down His own life. This was God's predetermined plan. The Serpent striking ("crushing") His heel was followed by Him crushing the Serpent's head.

I didn't mean that I make him an unfortunate victim. But there is a popular take on the atonement that does. I wanted to make sure you weren't going there as many who reject penal substitution do and have. I am glad that you don't.

Christ's death was essential for many reasons. I just mentioned one. But to truely be "the Son of Man" (Son of Adam) Jesus would have to suffer the wages man has earned (death) and be made sin while never sinning. He would have to be obedient where Adam was not (obedient to death). He would need to put together death in the flesh (Peter explained this well). And God the Father would need to declare His suffering and death unjust (which Scripture repeatedly declares), vindicated by raising Him to life, and giving Him a name that is above every name.

Yes. I would just say that when Jesus suffers the wages man has earned and was made sin while never sinning - since he was made sin and it was in relation to our sin then he is our substitute and penal substitution is a very plain and proper interpretation of this. Every penal substitution advocate that I have carefully read so far includes every one of the things you have mentioned above in their explanation of the atonement. I am referring specifically to Edwards and Owen, but even Baxter, who is accused of having a modified governmental theory or a hypothetical universalism clearly has the shed blood of Jesus being applied to us for the forgiveness of sins. Edwards also was accused of teaching a governmental theory but if you read him he tied it directly to penal substitution.

We cannot look at Jesus' death in isolation from God's redemptive plan. His birth, life, death, and resurrection is one act of redemption. The issue I have with some presentations is that by extracting Jesus' death and focusing on that one aspect of obedience as if it were the entire redemptive plan it becomes impossible to grasp biblical redemption.

Like I said. If you can show this in the case of any Reformed theologian let me know, and for this subject I include Wesley, and Edwards. I mean really, Calvinism is most often accused of making everything part of God's redemptive plan, down to every minute detail of every action of every creature. I don't think it is wrong to focus on what the scriptures focus on which would be the shedding of blood by Christ and what this means to us who have found ourselves desiring redemption. How can a man be right with God, upon realizing, probably because of supernatural enlightenment, that he is a sinner and alienated from a God who is holy by nature and has a reaction to sin that involves wrath.

What you said above is good enough for me as I'm no theologian. But if Jesus suffers the wages I have earned, and was made sin (while himself never sinning) I would take as then that was my sin. If propitiation is involved then wrath of God is involved and it was due to what I did then I am looking at penal substitution plain as day.

 

[JonC]

JonC, thank you for your time and insight. Peace to you brother.

So what I am interested in is your insight on my perspective on what you are presenting. My thoughts, I understand may be new and not traditional, on what you are saying is that Substitutionary substitution tends to focus more on 'particular individual sin' (of each person) while Representative substitution, being more legal, focuses on 'global sin' (maybe similar to my OP).

In other words, in one, Jesus is said to take on individual sin (hence the debate on whether Jesus takes on the sins of the unbelieving). In the other, Jesus takes on sin itself everywhere (globally), which is sufficient for all mankind.

My insight is..
Substitutionary = focus on particular individual sin.
Representative = focus on global sin affecting everyone.

Thoughts?

Thank you for your time
keep seeking God's truth

"Substitution" in Penal Substitution Theory refers to individuals and their sins under the theme of divine justice.

This was a reworking of the Roman Catholic theory which refers to original sin under the theme of divine merit.

Representative is the idea that Jesus is an Adam type (the Second Adam). I think you have it. It is a different type of man, or a different race (not based on ethnicity but on being born of the Spirit).

 

[JesusFan]

Sorry.....mistype on my phone. I was in the Bojangels drive-thru and tried a quick response. Ignore it....it doesn't make sence to me either.

Christ died for sins, and having been put to death in the flesh was made alive in the spirit. This is important to understand as the flesh and its desires are against the spirit. On the Cross, and through the resurrection, Jesus destroyed the powers of this world (the powers under which He suffered and died). He disarmed these powers by experiencing and conquering the consequences that held us prisoner. We are saved through the resurrection of Christ.

NT Wrong Theology here then?