The Classic View (just a summary)

[taisto]

My old self has been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So I live in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not treat the grace of God as meaningless. For if keeping the law could make us right with God, then there was no need for Christ to die.
(Galatians 2:20-21)

Substitution right there.
This is all that is needed. Scripture alone.

 

[JonC]

My old self has been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So I live in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not treat the grace of God as meaningless. For if keeping the law could make us right with God, then there was no need for Christ to die.
(Galatians 2:20-21)

Substitution right there.
This is all that is needed. Scripture alone.

Except that is not substitution.

The passage states that Christ gave Himself for you.

You change that to read "Christ gave Himself instead of me".

That is what I mean by the ink blot illustration. If told it is a bat it is difficult to recognize the ink blot for what it is (you will see the bat).

I don't believe you even realize you are adding to Scripture when you read it. Otherwise you wouldn't have posted the verse.

That is what I have been telling @DaveXR650 . To understand the Classic View read Scripture for what is written (the text) without adding to it a meaning.


There is a condition worse than blindness, and that is, seeing something that isn't there. - Hardy

 

[DaveXR650]

I disagree that I was wrong about Torrance. You quoted and made assumptions from one book to dispute what he taught in his lectures I posted about Penal Substitution. It's like you are content to squeeze anybody into your theory.

His one book was his book on the atonement! Not a lecture where he was taking to task some specific issue or excess. I'll go with his book. By the way, it is a good book and covers a lot of ground but it did not agree with what you had been saying about his views.

. You could read the early church writings he suggested. You could read Gustaf Aulén's book. You could read Weaver's book. You could read the two Southern Baptist theologians that reject Penal Substitution Theory which I provided earlier. You could read any of the Anabaptist scholars I provided.

I have been reading some of the early church writings and I also, like many others, find the elements of penal substitution. I do not find any of them so far who said anything that would oppose the concept of penal substitution. It was not developed at that time as a confessional decree I admit. I have read a lot of the Baptist theologians you suggest. If you go back through my posts as you seem to like to do you will find that I linked some of the writing where some of the guys seemed a lot more sympathetic to penal substitution than you suggested. That also goes for the Anabaptist site where I found partial agreement with what you say and also some disagreement. I believe I had included a link there too. Also, just in general, I find that when I begin the search and linking on these guys you suggest and see where they go I become quite concerned with what I find. In general, I find theological liberalism and a questioning of almost all basic Christian doctrines which I am familiar with. It is all quite concerning and I am interested in where this is going. This is the only reason I keep engaging with you.

Christ submitted Himself to this death in obedience to God. It was according to God's predetermined plan. He died for our sin, giving Himself as a ransom for us.

I don't think you mentioned "ransom" in the original posts on this thread. And you didn't include in the list of things that are scriptural. Is there a reason you use it now?

 

[JonC]

His one book was his book on the atonement! Not a lecture where he was taking to task some specific issue or excess. I'll go with his book. By the way, it is a good book and covers a lot of ground but it did not agree with what you had been saying about his views.

I have been reading some of the early church writings and I also, like many others, find the elements of penal substitution. I do not find any of them so far who said anything that would oppose the concept of penal substitution. It was not developed at that time as a confessional decree I admit. I have read a lot of the Baptist theologians you suggest. If you go back through my posts as you seem to like to do you will find that I linked some of the writing where some of the guys seemed a lot more sympathetic to penal substitution than you suggested. That also goes for the Anabaptist site where I found partial agreement with what you say and also some disagreement. I believe I had included a link there too. Also, just in general, I find that when I begin the search and linking on these guys you suggest and see where they go I become quite concerned with what I find. In general, I find theological liberalism and a questioning of almost all basic Christian doctrines which I am familiar with. It is all quite concerning and I am interested in where this is going. This is the only reason I keep engaging with you.

I don't think you mentioned "ransom" in the original posts on this thread. And you didn't include in the list of things that are scriptural. Is there a reason you use it now?

You will always find what you start out looking for. That is why you find Penal Substitution in the early church writings.

What you will not find is any writing prior to the 15th Century stating that Christ suffered God's punishment.

The early church writings differed somewhat on their focus, but every one of them presented Christ as dying under the powers of Satan.

That fact alone changes what you read as penal substitution from Penal Substitution.

I can't recall if I used "ransom" in this thread. I used it often. I even described my view as a Random Theory.

Where am I going with my discussion? To Scripture.

You call Christus Victor, Ransom Theory, the Classic View liberal theology. But it isn't. Augustine held Ransom Theory. He was not liberal. The Amish hold Christus Victor. They are not liberal. Mennonites hold Christus Victor. They are not liberal.

In fact, liberal Christianity is most often found within congregations that affirm the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (at least in the US).

The Methodist denomination, for example, is known for liberal theology and Penal Substitution Theory is a part of their doctrine. The same is true of Presbyterians who hold liberal theology. And even with evangelical Baptists

I don't think that theory leads to liberalism, and I grant that it may simply be that most who hold liberal theology are evangelical or in dying denominations (a larger Protestant voice in the US).

But the fact is the most conservative churches reject Penal Substitution Theory. Unfortunately a bunch of these are conservative to the point of being legalistic. But their theology is not liberal theology at all.

You may want to remove that log, brother.

 

[DaveXR650]

You call Christus Victor, Ransom Theory, the Classic View liberal theology. But it isn't. Augustine held Ransom Theory. He was not liberal. The Amish hold Christus Victor. They are not liberal. Mennonites hold Christus Victor. They are not liberal.

See Jon. You are doing exactly what you accused me of doing. I did not call Christus Victor, Ransom Theory, or the Classic view liberal theology. I said that some of the guys who you suggested, when I look them up, and follow their trail, they are linked to liberal theology. What you did there, if I had done that to you, would be slanderous and false quoting. I look at it as just normal human verbal exchanges. But what you did there was a wrong assumption of what I said at best. Not to mention the general high-handedness of your demeanor with everyone who disagrees with you. People can look at what I said above and judge for themselves.
In fact, you didn't even address the points I did make. That is that some of your suggested sources are not as much against penal substitution as you said. I had in previous posts, posted the links, which I can find again if necessary.

In fact, liberal Christianity is most often found within congregations that affirm the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (at least in the US).

I disagree. And don't accuse me of accusing you of lying. But you are wrong. Liberal theology is usually begun by questioning the need for atonement at all or questioning the qualifications of Christ to effect an atonement or literally rise from the dead.

The early church writings differed somewhat on their focus, but every one of them presented Christ as dying under the powers of Satan.

This makes perfect sense to me given the times but there is also plenty of scripture discussing Jesus as coming to "save his people from their sins". So there was also a consciousness of personal guilt before God and the need to deal with that. Most of the exchanges involved between Jesus and individuals involve personal guilt and sin from the woman at the well to the man who before physical healing was told "your sins are forgiven". Later, in exchanges with Peter and Paul people say "what must I do to be saved". They weren't worried about the fact that the world was under the dominion of Satan as much as that they were in trouble with God as an individual. Sorry, but you will always end up back at penal substitution, which describes best the atonement, or at least some type of satisfaction or ransom. I have said many times before, and keep getting falsely accused of being against them, but the other concepts of what Christ did and does for us are true and good. The Reformers discussed them a lot and Owen in particular lists them in several of his works. But there is still that problem of how a man can be right with God. I think what we are calling penal substitution describes that in more, correct detail than anything else. Like I have said before, the fact that early church fathers didn't say much on it or the fact that some group has an emphasis doesn't bother me. What does bother me is someone who is truly antagonistic toward the concept.

 

[Arthur King]

To make the analogy work it would have to be that for some reason only you could deal with the grocer in order to obtain the groceries. Your wife was unable to do this. When you get home she partakes of the groceries because she is married to you and in unity with you. Her unity with you makes her a participant with you in your act of going to the grocery store.

You ere when you try to act as if a belief in the concept of the necessity of "being crucified with Christ" is some type of opposition or contradiction to penal substitution. Owen discusses being crucified with Christ 47 times in his works. MacArthur lists the concept of being crucified with Christ as central in all his books on importance of the lordship of Christ. The idea of us dying with Christ was not missed by the reformers or for that matter any Bible teacher I know of. What I don't understand is you and @JonC having such an aversion to penal substitution, which is also taught.

Correct - just as I go to the grocery store with my wife, but I have something she does not have, so also Jesus dies with us, but he has something we do not have - innocence and obedience.

it is exactly how Luke lays it out in his gospel with the penitent criminal: “we are under the same sentence of condemnation, but me justly, and Jesus unjustly.” The logic is not “in my place condemned he stood.” It really is right there in the text.

Jesus’ death is not unique in that he dies, for we all die, are called to die with Christ, and in fact are already dead in sin. Jesus’ death is not unique in that he is crucified - for we are called to take up our cross and follow him. Jesus’ death is unique in that he alone dies unjustly as a perfectly innocent party, and so justice demands the reversal of his unjust death through the resurrection.

jesus pays our debt of obedience. But he does not obey so that we won’t have to obey. He obeys so we can obey. The Holy Spirit applies his obedience to us such that we become obedient. Salvation cannot happen in us without confession and repentance happening in us, which is the application by the Holy Spirit of Jesus’ death and resurrection to us.

Last night my 5 year old daughter had trouble cleaning her room. I had to go in and literally place my hand on hers and guide her hand to pick up toys and to put them in her toy box. I was not her substitute. I did not pick up her toys instead of her so she wouldn’t have to. And yet I picked up the toys with her in such a manner that I was essentially the sole agent in getting the job done. But she participated in that she did not resist my physical guidance. This is how Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, applies his obedience to us. It is his obedience applied to us and operating through us, not instead of us.

Jesus says “take up your cross and follow me”
Substitution says “lay down your cross and stay put, for I am going to be crucified in your place.”

Paul says “I have been co-crucified with Christ.”
Substitution says “Christ was crucified instead of me.”

Jesus says “you will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with my baptism,”
Substitution says “I will drink the cup in your place so you won’t have to, and undergo baptism in your place so you won’t have to.”

Jesus says “he who loses his life will save it.”
Substitution says “Jesus loses his life so you won’t have to.”

Paul says “we have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world.”
Substitution says “Christ has died instead of you to the elementary principles of the world.”

Paul says, “I carry in my body the dying of Jesus.”
Substitution says “Jesus carried about his dying so I never have to”

Paul says he seeks “fellowship with his sufferings and conformity to Jesus’ death”
Substitution says we seek “avoiding his sufferings because he suffered in our place, and avoidance of his death because he died in our place.”

 

[JonC]

See Jon. You are doing exactly what you accused me of doing. I did not call Christus Victor, Ransom Theory, or the Classic view liberal theology. I said that some of the guys who you suggested, when I look them up, and follow their trail, they are linked to liberal theology. What you did there, if I had done that to you, would be slanderous and false quoting. I look at it as just normal human verbal exchanges. But what you did there was a wrong assumption of what I said at best. Not to mention the general high-handedness of your demeanor with everyone who disagrees with you. People can look at what I said above and judge for themselves.
In fact, you didn't even address the points I did make. That is that some of your suggested sources are not as much against penal substitution as you said. I had in previous posts, posted the links, which I can find again if necessary.

I disagree. And don't accuse me of accusing you of lying. But you are wrong. Liberal theology is usually begun by questioning the need for atonement at all or questioning the qualifications of Christ to effect an atonement or literally rise from the dead.

This makes perfect sense to me given the times but there is also plenty of scripture discussing Jesus as coming to "save his people from their sins". So there was also a consciousness of personal guilt before God and the need to deal with that. Most of the exchanges involved between Jesus and individuals involve personal guilt and sin from the woman at the well to the man who before physical healing was told "your sins are forgiven". Later, in exchanges with Peter and Paul people say "what must I do to be saved". They weren't worried about the fact that the world was under the dominion of Satan as much as that they were in trouble with God as an individual. Sorry, but you will always end up back at penal substitution, which describes best the atonement, or at least some type of satisfaction or ransom. I have said many times before, and keep getting falsely accused of being against them, but the other concepts of what Christ did and does for us are true and good. The Reformers discussed them a lot and Owen in particular lists them in several of his works. But there is still that problem of how a man can be right with God. I think what we are calling penal substitution describes that in more, correct detail than anything else. Like I have said before, the fact that early church fathers didn't say much on it or the fact that some group has an emphasis doesn't bother me. What does bother me is someone who is truly antagonistic toward the concept.

I should have clarified. I was referring to the idea that rejecting Penal Substitution Theory is a common link towards liberal theology.

That's true. Although one of the reasons I get so worked up about rejecting penal substitution is that it seems to me that historically, when this happens, it was preceded by "new", enlightened views of the atonement. That's why I keep hammering at who it is that believes this nowadays and where are the churches.

.

You are missing the point. Nobody here is advocating liberal theology. Nobody here is questioning the qualifications of Christ to effect an atonement or literally rise from the dead.

Christus Victor holds that:

Christ died for our sins.
He shared our infirmitiy.
He bore our sins bodily on the cross.
He became a curse for us.
He was made to be sin for us
He suffered at the "hands of wicked men"
He suffered under "evil"
His suffering was by "evildoers"
He suffered under the "wicked"
The Lord was pleased to crush Him
He gave Himself as a guilt offering
He suffered the stroke we were due
And by His stripes we are healed.

What it does not do is change Scripture to indicate Christ died instead of us.

 

[DaveXR650]

@Arthur King. What you are doing is mixing up discipleship with becoming a Christian. Jesus told Nicodemus that the Son of Man would be lifted up like the serpent in the wilderness so that everyone that believed would be saved. Our initial encounter with Jesus is as a savior, not as Lord. If you are not careful, you will end up like those guys in Pilgrim's Progress who climbed over the wall instead of entering through the narrow gate. You can't do that. There is a work that Jesus does for us, not with us, that involves a reconciliation with the Father. This occurred at the cross and it is a great blasphemy for us to try to horn in on that precious work.

Paul says “I have been co-crucified with Christ.”
Substitution says “Christ was crucified instead of me.”

Once again, you mix up the means of our actual ground for forgiveness with our identification with Christ as a believer. In Philippians Chapter 3 Paul says "but I press on to make it my own because Christ Jesus has made me his own". There was a work he did and he alone did. So yes, Christ was crucified for you. I would not use the word "instead" because someone might think we all, individually had to die in that way which is not scriptural.

But he does not obey so that we won’t have to obey.

There is nothing in the doctrine of penal substitution that suggests that for a moment. Have you never looked at Owen's "On the Mortification of Sin" or listened to a Paul Washer video?

Jesus says “he who loses his life will save it.”
Substitution says “Jesus loses his life so you won’t have to.”

Paul says “we have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world.”
Substitution says “Christ has died instead of you to the elementary principles of the world.”

Paul says, “I carry in my body the dying of Jesus.”
Substitution says “Jesus carried about his dying so I never have to”

Paul says he seeks “fellowship with his sufferings and conformity to Jesus’ death”
Substitution says we seek “avoiding his sufferings because he suffered in our place, and avoidance of his death because he died in our place.”

I told you before and got a post deleted and a warning for it so this may be my last post but this is important. These statements show a deep misunderstanding of the Christian faith. Whatever church you are currently in, get out and try to figure these things out. If you find a church that teaches penal substitution but neglects discipleship get out of that one too. You don't seem to understand the work of Christ on the cross.

Substitution says we seek “avoiding his sufferings because he suffered in our place, and avoidance of his death because he died in our place.”

Do you think that was Bunyan's philosophy when he spent 12 years in prison for preaching without a license? This is beyond ridiculous.

 

[DaveXR650]

Christus Victor holds that:

Christ died for our sins.
He shared our infirmitiy.
He bore our sins bodily on the cross.
He became a curse for us.
He was made to be sin for us
He suffered at the "hands of wicked men"
He suffered under "evil"
His suffering was by "evildoers"
He suffered under the "wicked"
The Lord was pleased to crush Him
He gave Himself as a guilt offering
He suffered the stroke we were due
And by His stripes we are healed.

What it does not do is change Scripture to indicate Christ died instead of us.

Everyone on here who reads the above should look carefully if you believe in penal substitution. Do you see anything in those scriptural statements that indicate penal substitution? Of course there are. I found at least 8. Who gave one person the authority to declare that those scriptural statement do not indicate penal substitution when every advocate of penal substitution uses them? It's no wonder Owen and Bunyan don't post on here any more.

 

[JonC]

Everyone on here who reads the above should look carefully if you believe in penal substitution. Do you see anything in those scriptural statements that indicate penal substitution? Of course there are. I found at least 8. Who gave one person the authority to declare that those scriptural statement do not indicate penal substitution when every advocate of penal substitution uses them? It's no wonder Owen and Bunyan don't post on here any more.

Who gave us the authority to say that those biblical statements do not indicate Penal Substitution? God.

The reason is that God is our authority. We have no right to add to His Word.

What everybody should do is take each of those points and examine them carefully.

Do they actually say that Christ died instead of us?
Do they say God punished Jesus?
Do they say Christ experienced death so that we would not?

No, of course not (that is easy enough).

Penal Substitution Theory says those verses teach that.

BUT what if those verses instead teach exactly what is written in God's Word?

Then Penal Substitution Theory is wrong.



How can we test doctrine? We test doctrine against what is written.

Penal Substitution theorists test what they believe Scripture teaches by what they believe is taught by Scripture.

That is wrong. We have to have a much higher view of Scripture than Penal Substitution theorists will allow.

 

[DaveXR650]

Then Penal Substitution Theory is wrong.

That's your opinion but you don't get to decide what the verses say. I think they do say those things, and there are other verses that explain penal substitution even more. You may think you are the arbitrator of truth but you are not. You are sharing an interpretation like anyone else, with the same flaws in logic and recall that everyone else has. The verses are there, and the scripture is there and people can evaluate them for themselves.

What would be of some help is a reference from an actual published work explaining "Classic Theory" of substitution, and maybe a reference of Piper's comments on this as you referenced above. A thread on a Baptist Board that is mainstream and is about what you say is the majority view of Christianity should have a reference from somewhere that we can look up.

 

[JonC]

That's your opinion but you don't get to decide what the verses say.

No, it is not my opinion.

Your mistake here is thinking that we get the decide what those verses say.

We have God's Word. Why add to it? Why reject what is actually written in Scripture to adopt what one believes supports their theory?

For example:

Scripture says Christ died for our sin.

You believe that means that Christ died for our sin instead of us.

I believe it means Christ died for our sin.

I am not deciding what Scripture says but taking Scripture for what it says.

You are denying what the text of Scripture says by adding to it


Now, test each of our views on that passage

The passage - Christ died for our sins.

My view - Christ died for our sins.
Your view - Christ died for our sins instead of us

Your view fails the biblical test. It does not correspond with what is written in God's Word. You are testing what you believe the Bible teaches against what you believe is taught by the Bible. I am testing what I believe the Bible teaches by what is written in God's Word.

 

[JonC]

That's your opinion but you don't get to decide what the verses say. I think they do say those things, and there are other verses that explain penal substitution even more. You may think you are the arbitrator of truth but you are not. You are sharing an interpretation like anyone else, with the same flaws in logic and recall that everyone else has. The verses are there, and the scripture is there and people can evaluate them for themselves.

What would be of some help is a reference from an actual published work explaining "Classic Theory" of substitution, and maybe a reference of Piper's comments on this as you referenced above. A thread on a Baptist Board that is mainstream and is about what you say is the majority view of Christianity should have a reference from somewhere that we can look up.

Scripture is the arbitrator of truth. That is my point. God's Word matters. God's Word prescribes proper doctrine. You have that backwards. You are using God to support your theory rather than allowing God to dictate what you will believe. That is wrong.

I have repeatedly provided the references. You keep asking. I provided them to you three times. They have not changed.

 

[JonC]

This whole issue can be solved easily by going to Scripture.

Open your Bible.

Did Christ die for our sins OR did Christ die for our sins instead of us?

If the first is true then Penal Substitution Theory is wrong
If the second is true then the Classic View is wrong.

 

[DaveXR650]

My view - Christ died for our sins.
Your view - Christ died for our sins instead of us

Your view fails the biblical test. It does not correspond with what is written in God's Word. You are testing what you believe the Bible teaches against what you believe is taught by the Bible. I am testing what I believe the Bible teaches by what is written in God's Word.

This is going to come as a shock but my view is the common way one would look at that phraseology. I'm not going over this with you again. Other threads have done this. This isn't just "my view". You're the one who doesn't reference your views.

 

[DaveXR650]

Direction: The Atonement in Anabaptist Theology
Here is a concrete article on the Anabaptist view of atonement. It is referenced, and in written form so there are specific statements that can be discussed. Can you comment on any of this or is that too concrete?

 

[taisto]

Except that is not substitution.

The passage states that Christ gave Himself for you.


That is what I mean by the ink blot illustration. If told it is a bat it is difficult to recognize the ink blot for what it is (you will see the bat).

I don't believe you even realize you are adding to Scripture when you read it. Otherwise you wouldn't have posted the verse.

That is what I have been telling @DaveXR650 . To understand the Classic View read Scripture for what is written (the text) without adding to it a meaning.


There is a condition worse than blindness, and that is, seeing something that isn't there. - Hardy

Nothing was changed, Jon. Let me quote the Bible to you once again.

My old self has been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So I live in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not treat the grace of God as meaningless. For if keeping the law could make us right with God, then there was no need for Christ to die.
(Galatians 2:20-21)

"Gave Himself for me."

It doesn't say "gave Himself with me." There is a substitution that has taken place. "For me" is very important.

So, Jon, I take the text as it is. Don't tell me that I change the phrase. I don't. So take your own quote and point it right at yourself!
"There is a condition worse than blindness, and that is, seeing something that isn't there. - Hardy"

 

[Arthur King]

@Arthur King. What you are doing is mixing up discipleship with becoming a Christian. Jesus told Nicodemus that the Son of Man would be lifted up like the serpent in the wilderness so that everyone that believed would be saved. Our initial encounter with Jesus is as a savior, not as Lord. If you are not careful, you will end up like those guys in Pilgrim's Progress who climbed over the wall instead of entering through the narrow gate. You can't do that. There is a work that Jesus does for us, not with us, that involves a reconciliation with the Father. This occurred at the cross and it is a great blasphemy for us to try to horn in on that precious work.


Once again, you mix up the means of our actual ground for forgiveness with our identification with Christ as a believer. In Philippians Chapter 3 Paul says "but I press on to make it my own because Christ Jesus has made me his own". There was a work he did and he alone did. So yes, Christ was crucified for you. I would not use the word "instead" because someone might think we all, individually had to die in that way which is not scriptural.

There is nothing in the doctrine of penal substitution that suggests that for a moment. Have you never looked at Owen's "On the Mortification of Sin" or listened to a Paul Washer video?

I told you before and got a post deleted and a warning for it so this may be my last post but this is important. These statements show a deep misunderstanding of the Christian faith. Whatever church you are currently in, get out and try to figure these things out. If you find a church that teaches penal substitution but neglects discipleship get out of that one too. You don't seem to understand the work of Christ on the cross.
Do you think that was Bunyan's philosophy when he spent 12 years in prison for preaching without a license? This is beyond ridiculous.

The bronze serpent being lifted up is a perfect example of what I am talking about. If the bronze serpent was a penal substitute, then the people would have sinned, and then the bronze serpent would draw the fiery serpents to itself so that the people would not be bitten. The serpent would suffer the punishment in place of the people so they would not suffer it. That is precisely not how the serpent functions in the Bible. Rather, the people are already bitten and suffering. Then they look to the serpent to be healed. Just as we who are dead look to Christ on the cross to be raised from death. By his wounds we are healed from our wounds. But it is not that by his wound we avoid being wounded. You are straight up arguing my point.

And I have fantastic theological company. Augustine, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Boethius, John of Damascus, Caesarius of Arles, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther (on his good days), John Macleod Campbell, CS Lewis. If you want me to send you my big long list of quotations again, I will. But the heresy/blasphemy card won’t work. Forget about it.

And I am hitting you with verse after verse after verse that directly contradicts the substitution view. These are the words of Jesus, our lord and master, and the words of Paul, in God’s Holy Word. The language, the logic, and the scenarios are so clearly and so obviously not substitution, as I just demonstrated. I could list more verses if you want. Could seriously do it all day.

Truth over tribe. And I say this as someone who has attended conservative Baptist churches my entire life, and went to a conservative Bible college.

I am not pushing liberalism. I am anti prosperity gospel and anti moral relativism, which is why I am anti penal substitution.

 

[JonC]

This is going to come as a shock but my view is the common way one would look at that phraseology. I'm not going over this with you again. Other threads have done this. This isn't just "my view". You're the one who doesn't reference your views.

I disagree it is the common way. But it is popular.

I have CoC friends (and RCC friends) who believe that being baptized for the forgiveness of sins means baptized to cause the forgiveness of sins.

Thankfully no matter how common your view is, it's still a minority view among Christians as a whole.

 

[Arthur King]

Nothing was changed, Jon. Let me quote the Bible to you once again.

My old self has been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So I live in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not treat the grace of God as meaningless. For if keeping the law could make us right with God, then there was no need for Christ to die.
(Galatians 2:20-21)

"Gave Himself for me."

It doesn't say "gave Himself with me." There is a substitution that has taken place. "For me" is very important.

So, Jon, I take the text as it is. Don't tell me that I change the phrase. I don't. So take your own quote and point it right at yourself!
"There is a condition worse than blindness, and that is, seeing something that isn't there. - Hardy"

Yes, Jesus gave himself for us - so that dead people can be raised from death. Not so that living people can be saved from dying.

Resurrection from death is your salvation hope. Not avoiding death or avoiding dying with Christ. Jesus your not-substitute says take up your cross and follow him.