Greetings JonC
I differentiate the view (the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement) from the passages you listed by taking the passages for what they state (not what some may think they teach). I believe the Atonement is a doctrine that is foundational to our faith, and I believe with these doctrines we have to stick with "what is written" in God's Word (that here the Bibke is teaching what is in the text).
I understand that you (1) differentiate the view of Penal Substitution with what the exact words of the Bible state. I also understand that you (2) believe the Atonement is a foundational doctrine. What I don't know is "
how" you differentiate between the two, i.e., between P.S. and what is written. If you would rather communicate with me in private, then this would be fine.
I do have some complaints about the Penal Substitution theory. Not its general overarching concept of Christ being our substitute and taking on our sins, but regarding two concepts: (A) Its deficiencies and inadequacies in addressing the Son of God's Cosmic Triumph on the cross. This deficiency is a huge inadequacy of what I know to be the traditional P.S.; (B) Its mudding of the waters between a distinction between God's wrath and His justice (i.e., the Law). There are a couple other complaints. But I'll leave it at that.
So I believe that Jesus bore our sins and died for our sins. But rather than adding "instead of us" I believe this was as the "last Adam" or "Son of Man" (representative substitution).
I would first like to emphasize that I am seeking insight. Not trying to bludgeon you with debate. I really want to know how you rationalize with spiritual wisdom, your position.
You state that you believe...(1) Jesus bore our sins. I can only assume that this is in response to these verse that I offered as a challenge.
Individual Sin
(1Pet 2:24 NKJV) 24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness--by whose stripes you were healed.
(Gal 6:2 NKJV) 2 Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.
(Heb 9:28 NKJV) 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.
(2Co 5:21 NKJV) 21 For He made Him who knew no sin [to be] sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
(1Pet 2:24 NKJV) 24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness--by whose stripes you were healed.
For me, looking at these verses. I see some key words that need addressing: (A) bore (as in took on), (B) our sins (which is plural), and (C) fulfill the law of Christ.
So I hear you saying, when you say "I believe that Jesus bore our sins and died for our sins". To mean that you think the Scripture tells us that Christ 'took-on' sin. What is not clear to me is what you think of the verse using the word "sin" in the plural (meaning "sins"). In other words, Christ took on our "sins" (plural).
The nexus of the this particular dilemma I'm trying to drill down on is the topic of... (a) Did Jesus just take on Sin? (notice I think Jesus at least took on Sin itself...also notice the capital "S"). Or did Jesus also (b) take on sins? (plural, and small "s"). In other words, does the plural "sins" suggest some sort of 'counting' method. As in, I had 235 sins, you had 156 sins. Thus, Jesus took on 391 sins from the two of us. OR... did Jesus just take on Sin (capital "S", which encompassed and incorporated all individual sins (small "s")?
But rather than adding "instead of us" I believe this was as the "last Adam" or "Son of Man" (representative substitution).
I'm thinking that my above questions would answer this. But if it doesn't, could you explain how Christ being a 'type' is counter to adding the words "instead of us".
We were in nondage to sin and death.
We agree, in bondage to sin and death.
The Law was a testimony against the Hews
I do not disagree with this, however, wasn't the Law also given “because of transgressions” (Gal 3:19), which was the works of the devil (1John 3:8). These transgressions ran rampant, causing alienation and bringing death (Rom 5:14) and were left unchecked because “sin is the transgression of the law” (1John 3:4) but “where no law is, [there is] no transgression” (Rom 5:14 KJV), and “sin is not imputed when there is no law” (Rom 5:13)
Wasn't the decree of the written law the first representation of God the Father’s stratagem to bring the Law to lawlessness, for sin is lawlessness (1John 3:4), and to put all things under His foot (1Cor 15:24-28, Heb 2:8, 1John 3:8) thereby “destroy the works of the devil” (1John 3:8). The salvo of God’s laws to declare the battle lines and to put all things under His feet, starts with the law that confines and defines transgression, through the “knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20, Rom 7:7); it spotlights sin, so in the light the “offense might abound”(Rom 5:20); therefore, the Law is a “tutor” (Gal 3:24), a guide toward the object of this world’s purposeful end, that which is the beginning and the end, i.e., the Son of God (Rev 22:13, John 1:1, Rev 1:8, Rev 21:6).
Jesus was not condemned under the Law but fulfilled the Law.
Yes, Jesus fulfilled the Law (Matt 5:17) and He was "born under the law" (Gal 4:4).
Although the world "esteemed Him stricken by God" and "numbered Him aming the transgressors" the Father's judgment was ti raise Him to His right hand, give Him a name above every names.
Agreed (Isa 53:4, Isa 53:12)
But to answer your question, I believe thise passages teach exactly what they state (without additions or changes). I also believe God's Word is eternal
Ok
I agree, sin brings death. Gut the law also brings death, does it not? Thus, God countered lawless death with lawful death.
The Law brings death
(Rom 7:5 NKJV) 5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death.
(Rom 7:9 NKJV) 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which [was] to [bring] life,
I found to [bring] death.
(Gal 2:19 NKJV) 19 "For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God.
and the wagesof sin is death
Wages as in payment, yes, death is the payment for sin. Under lawless sin, the unlawful payment for sin is death. Under the Law, the lawful payment for sin is death.
sin cannot be transferred
It seems to me this is a crucial point in what I'm trying to explore, i.e., the concept that sin cannot be transferred. This statement of yours equates to me trying to make a distinction previously between Sin (big "S") and sin (small "s"). The big "S" is most certainly the conquering of the "power of Sin". Jesus Christ takes on the power of Sin and conquers it for all mankind. This is the Son of God's Cosmic Triumph.
Howerver,
what about the verses that say Christ bore our "sins" (small "s" and plural)? This seems to suggest some understanding of particular and individual sins. Does it not? Is there an understanding of these particular verses that use the plural to mean more of a Cosmic triumph in your view?
It is my current position that the Bible gives us multiple accomplishments of Christ on the cross. We to often lump all of them into the same binary bag. When they should in fact be divided and applied to the various accomplishments the Scripture is trying to describe. For example, I suggest that the Scripture refers to different overarching accomplishments in various verses. That of the (1) Cosmic Triumph and the (2) Satisfaction from the Law.
God forgives upon reoentance ....I do not belueve this changed with the Cross).
I agree that God forgives upon repentance. I'm not sure what all your statement may intend to include however. For example, it may be a counter for such doctrines of Eternal Justification (primarily springing from the Supralapsarian logic). In which I am also apposed.
Your last statement, I think I am seeing more clearly what you are trying to do. Correct me if I'm wrong here...
(1) If Christ work on the cross forgives individual sins.
(2) Then there need not be forgiveness of sins at the point of belief because forgiveness has already happened on the cross.
Thanks for the thought provoking conversation.
Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure.
)