My (JonC) view of the Atonement

[Iconoclast]

No. That is "as a representative". Scripture uses it the same way (Christ as the "Last Adam").

Scripture says "Christ for our sins". You read "Christ died instead of our sins". "Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world". You read "Christ is the Propitiation instead of the sins of the elect".


It is amazing at the lengths you go for your tradition. You refuse to accept Scripture and now you refuse to accept dictionaries. Is your RCC (reformed) tradition really that important to you that you are completely closed to God's Word on this topic?

No need to slander MM..he is correct after all.

 

[agedman]

No need to slander MM..he is correct after all.

The difficulty (imo) is how one translated “huper” (hyper) and, if I recall correctly it is never translated “instead” but generally “for.”

However, what I also do not recall is if the verse(s) in question actually use “huper” or some other word.

In English, we often interchange instead and for, but the Greek is far more intricate in selecting words, and I just don’t trust my ability to be consistent in such work.

 

[Aaron]

In the past FIVE WEEKS only, I have seen about the same number of threads started by JonC, on the meaning of the Atonement. This tells me that he himself does not really understand whether his old view, PSA, or the deception that he now believes, is true! HOW MANY TIMES does it need to keep on banging on about the SAME thing? Jon has been shown from the Bible, time and again, that PSA is taught in the BIble, yet refuses to accept it! He argued that the Greek prepositon ὑπέρ, never means "instead of". Yet I have quoted from Greek authorities, that it DOES, and even shown from Philemon 13, where it is so used, "Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel" (KJV). And he still refuses to accept the FACTS, when he has been proven WRONG!

Chill dude. How many threads have you started on the Trinity?

 

[SavedByGrace]

Chill dude. How many threads have you started on the Trinity?

Because it is THE most difficult Doctrine! The Death of Jesus Christ is NOT!

 

[agedman]

In the past FIVE WEEKS only, I have seen about the same number of threads started by JonC, on the meaning of the Atonement. This tells me that he himself does not really understand whether his old view, PSA, or the deception that he now believes, is true! HOW MANY TIMES does it need to keep on banging on about the SAME thing? Jon has been shown from the Bible, time and again, that PSA is taught in the BIble, yet refuses to accept it! He argued that the Greek prepositon ὑπέρ, never means "instead of". Yet I have quoted from Greek authorities, that it DOES, and even shown from Philemon 13, where it is so used, "Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel" (KJV). And he still refuses to accept the FACTS, when he has been proven WRONG!

I wasn’t going to dignify this rant, but then thought some might misunderstand.

1) The recent threads were on the presentation of PSA theory, the history, and lack of Scripture support. It matters little if you disagree, but that was the theme of the threads.

2) Your opinion about the theme of the PSA does not provide Scripture proof. If you actually have such proof, start a thread and produce it. We have from the first post desired proof. Not opinion, though we don’t mind opinion, but Specific Scripture proof.

3) You are not the sole authority on the BB in languages. Thankfully there are others, so do not become puffed up in your own presentations.


You have every right to correct my mistakes in language work.

But if you start showing attitude about it, that is another matter.

Not everyone desires to color within the lines someone else draws.

State your thinking graciously, with as little offense as you have in you, and do not neglect to display patience, gentleness, kindness, meekness, …

 

[agedman]

Because it is THE most difficult Doctrine! The Death of Jesus Christ is NOT!

You don’t think so?

You have the death of Christ all figured out?

You have the trinity all figured out, too?

ok

 

[JonC]

YES YOU ARE CORRECT YET AGAIN. Word games over and over.

Except THE DICTIONARY states otherwise.

You and @Martin Marprelate are making up meanings for words. You say "for" means "instead of" because "behalf" means "instead of". Where do you get this nonsense?

It is "double-speak". Look up the words. Neither the Greek nor the English means "instead of".

 

[JonC]

No need to slander MM..he is correct after all.

No. @Martin Marprelate says the English word "behalf" or "on one's behalf" means "instead of". Look it up in the dictionary. Guess what it does not mean.

He uses "behalf" correctly in a sentence (speaking on behalf of a group", but even here it dies not mean "instead of", it means....as the dictionary says....as a representative of (the use I have been arguing).

You use double-speak to force your theories and philosophy onto Scripture.

As far as @Martin Marprelate goes, I am unaware of his education. Perhaps he (and you) like me, studied Greek at a graduate level. I suffered through years of Greek as a grad student. It was not enjoyable (but I graduated with honors). But his approaching that topic is on him, not me.


Simply put, words have meaning. It is wrong of you to change the meanings of words to suit your traditions.

 

[JonC]

The difficulty (imo) is how one translated “huper” (hyper) and, if I recall correctly it is never translated “instead” but generally “for.”

However, what I also do not recall is if the verse(s) in question actually use “huper” or some other word.

In English, we often interchange instead and for, but the Greek is far more intricate in selecting words, and I just don’t trust my ability to be consistent in such work.

The same is true of "so" in John 3:16 (it means "thusly", but some take it to mean "so much"). The word "for" in the passages of this topic ("while we were sinners, Christ died for us", "Christ died for our sins", "He is the Propitiation for our sins") simply does not mean "instead of". The word itself does not mean "instead of".

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No. That is "as a representative". Scripture uses it the same way (Christ as the "Last Adam").

Scripture says "Christ for our sins". You read "Christ died instead of our sins". "Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world". You read "Christ is the Propitiation instead of the sins of the elect".


It is amazing at the lengths you go for your tradition. You refuse to accept Scripture and now you refuse to accept dictionaries. Is your RCC (reformed) tradition really that important to you that you are completely closed to God's Word on this topic?

This is getting wearisome. Let me give you three words that will help you in understanding the meanings of words in any language:
Context, context and context. Within a semantic range, which, in the case of most Greek prepositions is very large, the context will always determine the meaning.

'Christ died for our sins.' Obviously, it does not mean that He died instead of our sins. Nor does it mean that He died on behalf of our sins. Our sins don't need any help from Him! He died; we don't (John 11:25-26); He died in our place because of our sins. He died that we might live forever. He died instead of us. Got it now?

 

[JonC]

This is getting wearisome. Let me give you three words that will help you in understanding the meanings of words in any language:
Context, context and context. Within a semantic range, which, in the case of most Greek prepositions is very large, the context will always determine the meaning.

'Christ died for our sins.' Obviously, it does not mean that He died instead of our sins. Nor does it mean that He died on behalf of our sins. Our sins don't need any help from Him! He died; we don't (John 11:25-26); He died in our place because of our sins. He died that we might live forever. He died instead of us. Got it now?

I got it long ago. You are changing the meaning based in a contest YOU are supplying.

Scripture does not support your tradition so you change God's Word. What makes it worse is there is absolutely no reason (in the context) for you to change the meaning. The passage as it stands does not disprove your additions to Scripture.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No. @Martin Marprelate says the English word "behalf" or "on one's behalf" means "instead of". Look it up in the dictionary. Guess what it does not mean.

I do not, and never have said that that 'one one's behalf' means 'instead of.' 'On behalf of always' has a certain meaning, 'for the benefit of' or possibly 'as a representative of.' But I have shown you multiple examples - real examples of real language - where it must inevitably mean 'in the place of' or 'instead of.' Do you want me to list them all again? I will if it will help you understand. The context will help determine the exact meaning.

You use double-speak to force your theories and philosophy onto Scripture.

One of us does that, but I think you'll find it is not I.

You ask about my education in the Greek language. I answered this once before, in response, I think, to you (I don't know who else would have asked me).
I studied Classical Greek for seven years at school and university as an unsaved youngster. 20+ years later, when I was saved, I worked up my Greek again with the help of a little part-time seminary I attended, and I learned the differences between Classical and koine Greek (not actually that many).

What I will say to you is that if you do not understand that context determines meaning, then however many years you studied Greek or any other language, you wasted your time.

 

[agedman]

I do not, and never have said that that 'one one's behalf' means 'instead of.' 'On behalf of always' has a certain meaning, 'for the benefit of' or possibly 'as a representative of.' But I have shown you multiple examples - real examples of real language - where it must inevitably mean 'in the place of' or 'instead of.' Do you want me to list them all again? I will if it will help you understand. The context will help determine the exact meaning.


One of us does that, but I think you'll find it is not I.

You ask about my education in the Greek language. I answered this once before, in response, I think, to you (I don't know who else would have asked me).
I studied Classical Greek for seven years at school and university as an unsaved youngster. 20+ years later, when I was saved, I worked up my Greek again with the help of a little part-time seminary I attended, and I learned the differences between Classical and koine Greek (not actually that many).

What I will say to you is that if you do not understand that context determines meaning, then however many years you studied Greek or any other language, you wasted your time.

Context determines meaning is true no matter the language. Even in the first language people don’t always pick up the context. Working in Scriptures it is all the more true.

How many times have we all been confronted with a poster who grabs a verse no taking the time to see if it really applies.

This is one reason I do much enjoy reading from you, your patience is remarkable.

Classical Greek! I don’t know of any schools in the US that teach that anymore.

 

[JonC]

I do not, and never have said that that 'one one's behalf' means 'instead of.' 'On behalf of always' has a certain meaning, 'for the benefit of' or possibly 'as a representative of.' But I have shown you multiple examples - real examples of real language - where it must inevitably mean 'in the place of' or 'instead of.' Do you want me to list them all again? I will if it will help you understand. The context will help determine the exact meaning.

One of us does that, but I think you'll find it is not I.

You ask about my education in the Greek language. I answered this once before, in response, I think, to you (I don't know who else would have asked me).
I studied Classical Greek for seven years at school and university as an unsaved youngster. 20+ years later, when I was saved, I worked up my Greek again with the help of a little part-time seminary I attended, and I learned the differences between Classical and koine Greek (not actually that many).

What I will say to you is that if you do not understand that context determines meaning, then however many years you studied Greek or any other language, you wasted your time.

The problem is the context does not warrant changing the meaning of the Greek word. Christ died for us. This does not, and cannot, mean Christ died "instead of us". Even of Christ did die instead of us (which is a false doctrine) the idea is not supported in that passage. The odd thing is....we still die, we share in Christ's death and resurrection.

You are reading into the passage, period. This is strange here because even with your corruption of God's Word it would not prove Penal Substitution Theory correct.

I studied koine Greek. I don't know what you studied, but if you believe the verse "Christ died for us" means "Christ died instead of us" then I question your retention.

 

[JonC]

This is getting wearisome. Let me give you three words that will help you in understanding the meanings of words in any language:
Context, context and context. Within a semantic range, which, in the case of most Greek prepositions is very large, the context will always determine the meaning.

'Christ died for our sins.' Obviously, it does not mean that He died instead of our sins. Nor does it mean that He died on behalf of our sins. Our sins don't need any help from Him! He died; we don't (John 11:25-26); He died in our place because of our sins. He died that we might live forever. He died instead of us. Got it now?

Context is important. But context does not change the meanings of words. If I say "Let's eat lamb" this does not mean "let's eat pizza" just because you may prefer pizza.

There is no reason to assume "for" means anything other than its meaning as used through the passages. It means "for", "on one's behalf" or "as one's representative".

You are simply confronted with the fact nowhere is your tradition supported in Scrioture soyou narrow down to redefine this one word. You provide the context.

But this one word is the least of the problems with your theory. It is a false doctrine, a myth, that has done damage to Christianity. It is a theory relatively new to Christianity. It is reformed Roman Catholic doctrine. It is anti-biblical because not only is it extra-biblical (adds to Scripture) but it also corrupts what is there. As a "gospel" it is "another gospel" than given in Scripture. It is pure philosophy with a Christian theme.

 

[JonC]

This is getting wearisome. Let me give you three words that will help you in understanding the meanings of words in any language:
Context, context and context. Within a semantic range, which, in the case of most Greek prepositions is very large, the context will always determine the meaning.

'Christ died for our sins.' Obviously, it does not mean that He died instead of our sins. Nor does it mean that He died on behalf of our sins. Our sins don't need any help from Him! He died; we don't (John 11:25-26); He died in our place because of our sins. He died that we might live forever. He died instead of us. Got it now?

Context is important. But context does not change the meanings of words. If I say "Let's eat lamb" this does not mean "let's eat pizza" just because you may prefer pizza.

There is no reason to assume "for" means anything other than its meaning as used through the passages. It means "for", "on one's behalf" or "as one's representative".

You are simply confronted with the fact nowhere is your tradition supported in Scrioture soyou narrow down to redefine this one word. You provide the context.

But this one word is the least of the problems with your theory. It is a false doctrine, a myth, that has done damage to Christianity. It is a theory relatively new to Christianity. It is reformed Roman Catholic doctrine. It is anti-biblical because not only is it extra-bibkical (adds to Scripture) but it also corrupts what is there. As a "gospel" it is "another gospel" than given in Scripture. It is pure philosophy with a Chrustian theme.

 

[agedman]

No. @Martin Marprelate says the English word "behalf" or "on one's behalf" means "instead of". Look it up in the dictionary. Guess what it does not mean.

He uses "behalf" correctly in a sentence (speaking on behalf of a group", but even here it dies not mean "instead of", it means....as the dictionary says....as a representative of (the use I have been arguing).

You use double-speak to force your theories and philosophy onto Scripture.

As far as @Martin Marprelate goes, I am unaware of his education. Perhaps he (and you) like me, studied Greek at a graduate level. I suffered through years of Greek as a grad student. It was not enjoyable (but I graduated with honors). But his approaching that topic is on him, not me.


Simply put, words have meaning. It is wrong of you to change the meanings of words to suit your traditions.

There are those who have the gift of languages.

In the verse from 1 Corinthians 15:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
​

The two “for” are two different Greek words.

I wonder if it would be good to find a translation that when faced with using the same English word twice in the same area would consider replacing one so the context was better discerned by the less skilled reader.

In this case, the above might read,

“Accordingly” I delivered to you as of primary importance what I also received: that Christ died “in behalf of” our sins in accordance to the Scriptures.
​

The “for” word (hyper) is a stand alone can not always be discerned from another “for” word - (peri), or for “gar” which is a conjunction. “Peri” is often used concerning people matters.

Anyway, I think I am rambling.

 

[JesusFan]

This illustrates my view of the Atonement (it does not prove it):

God put enmity between the seed of the Serpent and the Seed of the woman, that He shall bruise (or crush) the Serpent on the head while the Serpent will bruise (or crush) the Seed of the woman on the heel. I do believe that this foretells Christ, and points to our redemption (I believe the Serpent here refers to Satan and the powers of “this world”, while the Seed of the woman refers to Christ as the “Last Adam”). But I also admit that this could be talking about snakes biting people and people smashing their heads.

If this is talking about snakes and people, then it does not mean that much. But if it is a prophesy about Christ then it means a great deal. The Serpent (or the works of the Serpent) will crush or bruise the Seed without destroying the Seed, while the Seed will destroy the Serpent.

My view of the Atonement:

God created man as a living person, as flesh, when He created Adam. Adam transgressed God’s command and sin entered into the world, and through sin death entered. Death spread to all mankind because we have all sinned and it is appointed to man once to die and then the Judgment.

God gave Israel the Law but man is condemned under the Law (all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory) and the Law serves to show man his sin and to point to a future manifestation of God’s righteousness that is apart from the Law. The Law shows us a need “for another way”.

God, the Son, became “flesh”. He became man, submitted Himself to the same bondage that held man captive. He was tempted in all points as are we, however without sin. Where we did not meet the righteousness of the Law, He did. He did not transgress the Law.

Man did not esteem Christ, they did not look to Him as Righteous but instead despised and forsook Him. He bore our griefs (our “infirmity”, our “sickness”), BUT man considered Him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted. Man viewed Christ as a transgressor, as a criminal. And man oppressed Christ. But through this He was bearing their sins, suffering the wages of sin (death) on their behalf. It was God’s will to crush Him, to put Him to grief (see Genesis 3). The Jewish leaders handed Christ over to the Romans. Christ suffered and died under the evil of this world (the Serpent “crushed” or “bruised” “his heel”) but this was the predetermined plan of God, it was God’s will, He was “pleased” to crush Him.

On the third day Christ arose. God vindicated Christ against the evil that had counted Him as a transgressor, as a criminal, that had esteemed Him stricken of God, and He gave Him a name that is above every name. Christ became a life giving Spirit. God is just and the justifier of sinners.

The Cross was God reconciling man to Himself, forgiving man, therefore we now plea that men be reconciled to God. Man was reconciled to God through Christ’s death, and men are saved through His life.

On what basis and how was the wrath and judgement of God due to us propitiated then?

 

[JesusFan]

A few points that need clarification before going any further:

The bondage that holds mankind captive is sin (Romans 6:16) but you say )rightly, of course) that Christ was without sin. Would you please explain exactly what you mean by this comment?

I am glad that you now accept the plain meaning of Isaiah 53:10, but do you not see that this means that "man" was correct in considering stricken , smitten by God and afflicted? Where "man" was wrong was in not realising that the wounding by God was for our transgressions, and the bruising, also by God, was for our iniquities; also that the chastisement that brought us peace was upon Him. He got the chastisement; we got the peace, when it should have been the other way about. Penal Substitution.

If Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, why do you think that Christ was not a life-giving Spirit before the resurrection.

Finally, you say nothing of Christ becoming a curse for us (Galatians 3:10-14. This is a major point with the ECFs when they uphold Penal Substitution. Perhaps you would like to tell us what you think that means.

.

What does it mean to JonC when He who knew no sin became sin for and on our behalf?

 

[agedman]

What does it mean to JonC when He who knew no sin became sin for and on our behalf?

Christ was never a sinner, therefore no need for wrath.