The Classic View (just a summary)

[JonC]

Because if a list of facts about something describes a thing that we have an English word for then is appropriate to use that word without doing any violence to the thing or concept.

But you are "doing violence to that word" and concept.

This is proven if we look at the verse @Martin Marprelate offered.

John 11:49–53 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all,
nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.” Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. So from that day on they planned together to kill Him.

Caiaphas said it was expedient that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.

Is this substitution? Obviously not. The "one man" here was not offered as a substitute for the nation. The fear was “If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”

In other words, if the one man did not die for the nation then the nation would die - but the one man was not a substitute.

Scripture tells us "now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad."


You and @taisto are changing Scripture by changing the meaning of words (by adding your philosophy to the meaning). That is adding to Scripture.


"If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”. They decide it is better that Jesus die. How on earth is that a substitution????

It isn't.

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

I realize you get frustrated because I describe what you view as substitution.

I get frustrated because you see substitution in words that are not actually conveying a substitution.

Such is the nature of debating theology.

If it helps, when I post these verses there is no substitution there.

Try to understand, at least, what those passages can mean other than substitution. That may help. You may still disagree, but perhaps that will make the disagreement legitimate.

 

[DaveXR650]

But you are "doing violence to that word" and concept.

@Martin Marprelate was explaining a Greek word and the use of it. I stay out of those arguments because I frankly don't know enough to get involved but is seemed like a good explanation of the Greek to me.

Get off of that for a second and answer what I actually said. Those statements you listed are used by penal substitution advocates to show - penal substitution. You say you believe the statements. If I acknowledge that you, in my view at least, are not required to use the term "penal substitution", would you be willing at least to acknowledge that the penal substitution advocates are saying the same thing you are, as listed in those statements, except they use a term you don't prefer?

Because if you won't it looks like you are being deliberately obtuse. The Anabaptists, and the Baptist theologians you mentioned have substantive disagreements with the idea of penal substitution. But they do not play around with words like you do, giving non arguments, agreeing with the concept but not the word meaning and so on for page after page.

Like I said. And like you aren't addressing. I am perfectly happy with those statements you put up and the argument is over if you wish. But I am stating two things here. One. It is a simple fact that most of those statements you put up are the very statements proponents of penal substitution do use. Two. The real arguments against penal substitution have a lot more concrete meaning than what you are presenting, which is basically a word dispute. @Arthur King puts up posts that illustrate this.

 

[DaveXR650]

@JonC . I messed up the quote function to have everything in my post as if it is a quote of yours. I don't know how to fix it so I'll just leave it up. I guess it's readable.

 

[taisto]

But you are "doing violence to that word" and concept.

This is proven if we look at the verse @Martin Marprelate offered.

John 11:49–53 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all,
nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.” Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. So from that day on they planned together to kill Him.

Caiaphas said it was expedient that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.

Is this substitution? Obviously not. The "one man" here was not offered as a substitute for the nation. The fear was “If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”

In other words, if the one man did not die for the nation then the nation would die - but the one man was not a substitute.

Scripture tells us "now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad."


You and @taisto are changing Scripture by changing the meaning of words (by adding your philosophy to the meaning). That is adding to Scripture.


"If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”. They decide it is better that Jesus die. How on earth is that a substitution????

It isn't.

No Jon. You are changing scripture by changing the meaning of the word. You are adding your philosophy to the meaning. There have been, at minimum, 3 people show you your error, but you will not listen.

Look in the mirror.

 

[JonC]

@JonC . I messed up the quote function to have everything in my post as if it is a quote of yours. I don't know how to fix it so I'll just leave it up. I guess it's readable.

I'll try to fix it.

It usually happens when one character of "quote" is deleted.

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate was explaining a Greek word and the use of it. I stay out of those arguments because I frankly don't know enough to get involved but is seemed like a good explanation of the Greek to me.

Get off of that for a second and answer what I actually said. Those statements you listed are used by penal substitution advocates to show - penal substitution. You say you believe the statements. If I acknowledge that you, in my view at least, are not required to use the term "penal substitution", would you be willing at least to acknowledge that the penal substitution advocates are saying the same thing you are, as listed in those statements, except they use a term you don't prefer?

Because if you won't it looks like you are being deliberately obtuse. The Anabaptists, and the Baptist theologians you mentioned have substantive disagreements with the idea of penal substitution. But they do not play around with words like you do, giving non arguments, agreeing with the concept but not the word meaning and so on for page after page.

Like I said. And like you aren't addressing. I am perfectly happy with those statements you put up and the argument is over if you wish. But I am stating two things here. One. It is a simple fact that most of those statements you put up are the very statements proponents of penal substitution do use. Two. The real arguments against penal substitution have a lot more concrete meaning than what you are presenting, which is basically a word dispute. @Arthur King puts up posts that illustrate this.

@Martin Marprelate was wrong about the word in Greek. The Jewish counsel did not decide to kill Jesus as a substitute for the nation but so that Rome would not destroy the nation.

I agree that the statements I have listed are used by penal substitution advocates to show penal substitution. But they don't actually show penal substitution.

A more correct statement would be that Penal Substitution theorists use those statements to support Penal Substitution Theory.

I use those statements not because Penal Substitution theorists use them but because they are Scripture.

I believe those passages without adding "substitution" to those passages.


For example - "Christ died for us".

I believe that Christ died for us but not instead of us.

So why would I not use the passage that Christ died for us?


I do not understand your objection ...that I should not depend on verses Penal Substitution theorists use to support Penal Substitution Theory. That does not make sense to me.

 

[JonC]

No Jon. You are changing scripture by changing the meaning of the word. You are adding your philosophy to the meaning. There have been, at minimum, 3 people show you your error, but you will not listen.

Look in the mirror.

Well...let's look at it.

He gave Himself for us.

I believe Christ gave Himself for us.

How is that changing Scripture?


With you it is easy to say how you add to Scripture.

Scripture says He gave Himself for us.

You read that as Christ gave Himself for us as our Substitute.

That is adding to God's Word (something Christians should not do).

Not only do you change the meaning by adding to Scripture so that you create an unbiblical doctrine but the unbiblical doctrine obscures what God actually said to us.

 

[taisto]

Well...let's look at it.

He gave Himself for us.

I believe Christ gave Himself for us.

How is that changing Scripture?


With you it is easy to say how you add to Scripture.

Scripture says He gave Himself for us.

You read that as Christ gave Himself for us as our Substitute.

That is adding to God's Word (something Christians should not do).

Not only do you change the meaning by adding to Scripture so that you create an unbiblical doctrine but the unbiblical doctrine obscures what God actually said to us.

This has been dealt with and shown to you already. "For" means substituted. You cannot accept this truth so you change what "for" means. Then you wrongly tell everyone else that they are changing scripture while you change the meaning of "for" to not be substitute. You do this because it ruins your pet theory which you have been pushing for more than a handful of threads.

I will say this again. You can believe whatever you want. Just stop lying about what I am doing when I accept the meaning of the word "for" as Paul wrote it in Galatians 2:20.

I do not understand how the admins here at the BB do not discipline you for your condescending bully behavior. You need to take a break.

 

[JonC]

This has been dealt with and shown to you already. "For" means substituted. .

Be baptized for the remission of sins?

Caiaphas' statement that it is better that one die for the nation than the nation perish?

No, you are wrong.

Where did you study theology (undergraduate or graduate)?

You seem to mimic Reformed Roman Catholic doctrine here, but are unable to actually defend your position (you simply pretend it the only one out there).

 

[taisto]

Be baptized for the remission of sins?

Caiaphas' statement that it is better that one die for the nation than the nation perish?

No, you are wrong.

Where did you study theology (undergraduate or graduate)?

You seem to mimic Reformed Roman Catholic doctrine here, but are unable to actually defend your position (you simply pretend it the only one out there).

[ad hominem snipped]

The context tells you that the word "for" in Galatians 2:20 is a substitution. I note that you move to an entirely different context to attempt changing the meaning.

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)

Last week the US government substituted prisoners and 6 billion dollars to Iran for 6 prisoners held by Iran.

You give something to get something, which is synonymous with saying you give something for something.

The text and context is very clear. In Galatians 2:20 there is a substitution taking place.

[ad hominem snipped]

 

[JonC]

[ad hominem snipped]
The context tells you that the word "for" in Galatians 2:20 is a substitution. I note that you move to an entirely different context to attempt changing the meaning.

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)

Last week the US government substituted prisoners and 6 billion dollars to Iran for 6 prisoners held by Iran.

You give something to get something, which is synonymous with saying you give something for something.

The text and context is very clear. In Galatians 2:20 there is a substitution taking place.

No. You are wrong. I am not moving on, just addressing a different passage brought up by a different member.

I agree that there is such a thing as substitution.

If I order a plate and it has salmon I will ask for tuna as a substitute for the salmon.

But here you are adding to the Bible.

The verse says that He gave Himself for me.

John 11 says this was prophesied by Caiaphas' words (one man dying for the nation) which was not as a substitute.

You are wrong.

A better example would be the military. Soldiers fought for you. They didn't fight instead of you.

 

[DaveXR650]

A better example would be the military. Soldiers fought for you. They didn't fight instead of you.

It could be both. And that's the problem with you insisting on keeping up this word play argument. Soldiers often fight "instead" of you. And, at the same time they can be fighting "for" you. At my age, no soldier will fight instead of me, but they might fight for me. But in the late sixties, if you were 18 and had a higher draft number than they needed to fill their manpower requirements, those with a low number certainly did fight instead of you. It's completely proper to look at what the high priests were doing as an attempt at making Jesus a "substitute" for a large number of people should the wrath of the Romans be unleashed. But no one is denying that it was also an evil plot and also a political strategy. Martin can speak for himself but I took it that he was showing that the Greek word in question could be used as "in place of" or "instead of" which could be called substitution.

Once again, I think the word meaning argument has been beat to death and it keeps us from discussing the real issues here. Which is that the groups that are against penal substitution have specific theological problems with it and they list those reasons. Yet they are never brought up. Your first 2 posts on this thread give a good narrative of the events of Jesus' ministry and crucifixion and resurrection. The accomplishments you described there are not in dispute. I can show you the same statements as to what Jesus death accomplished in Owen's larger catechism. But exactly how the actual removal of our sin occurs and the grounds for the actual redemption and reconciliation with the Father is not explained in those two posts. For that, what is your view if not penal substitution? If you go back to saying Jesus died for us but that is not substitution then I put you in our camp doctrinally but that you are just being argumentative over nothing.

If I have sinned against a holy God and now seek forgiveness and want to be in a good relationship with God is there anything that Jesus Christ did in relation to that situation. I'm not talking cosmically, but me personally and my own sin against God. To be clear, I'm not talking about repentance or faith or endeavoring to follow God's teaching or purposing to new obedience from here on in. I mean that outside of those things which I freely concede as essential, what did Jesus do, if anything, to make it possible for my reconciliation, given that I am willing to do all the things I just mentioned?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I was referring to the verse we were talking about on this thread (Gal) and John 11 (that you brought up).

Let's be quite clear here. You quoted something that does not appear in Scripture, and accused me of denying it. At the same time you are accusing others of adding to Scripture. Now anyone can make a mistake, but you now double down on it and try to pretend you didn't say it.

Caiaphas said "You know nothing at all, nor do you consider it expedient for us that one man die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish."

This was in reference to the Jews and Rome, but it also pointed to the fact that Christ was dying for the world.

Caiaphas clarifies his "for" in that it is so that the whole nation would not perish. This was not a substitution. It was to prevent the whole nation from which perishing.

Exactly. He dies; the nation doesn't. He suffers in the place of the nation; instead of them.

And Jesus indeed died for us so that we would not perish.

You're getting it! He died for us so that we woulfd not perish. If He had not died, we would have perished. He died in our place; instead of us. It's simple!

You still add substitution to the passage.

Of course I do,.

You cannot supply any passage stating that Christ was punished instead of us because none exists. You add that to Scripture.

Nonsense! Scripture is full of them. Isaiah 53:4-8 is absolutely clear. But if you have convinced yourself that no suc passage exists, you won't find one. As the saying goes, 'none so blind as those who won't see' (cf. John 9:41).

 

[JonC]

It could be both. And that's the problem with you insisting on keeping up this word play argument. Soldiers often fight "instead" of you. And, at the same time they can be fighting "for" you. At my age, no soldier will fight instead of me, but they might fight for me. But in the late sixties, if you were 18 and had a higher draft number than they needed to fill their manpower requirements, those with a low number certainly did fight instead of you. It's completely proper to look at what the high priests were doing as an attempt at making Jesus a "substitute" for a large number of people should the wrath of the Romans be unleashed. But no one is denying that it was also an evil plot and also a political strategy. Martin can speak for himself but I took it that he was showing that the Greek word in question could be used as "in place of" or "instead of" which could be called substitution.

Once again, I think the word meaning argument has been beat to death and it keeps us from discussing the real issues here. Which is that the groups that are against penal substitution have specific theological problems with it and they list those reasons. Yet they are never brought up. Your first 2 posts on this thread give a good narrative of the events of Jesus' ministry and crucifixion and resurrection. The accomplishments you described there are not in dispute. I can show you the same statements as to what Jesus death accomplished in Owen's larger catechism. But exactly how the actual removal of our sin occurs and the grounds for the actual redemption and reconciliation with the Father is not explained in those two posts. For that, what is your view if not penal substitution? If you go back to saying Jesus died for us but that is not substitution then I put you in our camp doctrinally but that you are just being argumentative over nothing.

If I have sinned against a holy God and now seek forgiveness and want to be in a good relationship with God is there anything that Jesus Christ did in relation to that situation. I'm not talking cosmically, but me personally and my own sin against God. To be clear, I'm not talking about repentance or faith or endeavoring to follow God's teaching or purposing to new obedience from here on in. I mean that outside of those things which I freely concede as essential, what did Jesus do, if anything, to make it possible for my reconciliation, given that I am willing to do all the things I just mentioned?

No, it isn't both.

I served in the Army. I was not the substitute for those who didn't join the military.

You are really trying hard to force substitution.


In the passage that it is better for one man to die for the nation than the nation to perish, you force Substitution.

The problem was that if Christ continued then Rome would destroy the nation. Caiaphas said it would be better to kill Jesus for the nation than to allow the nation to be destroyed.

Christ would die for the nation, so that Rome would not destroy the nation......but it is not substitution.

 

[JonC]

...

No. You are adding to Scripture.

The problem was that if Christ continued then Rome would destroy the nation. Caiaphas said it would be better to kill Jesus for the nation than to allow the nation to be destroyed.

Yes, it was better for one man to die for the nation than the nation to be destroyed.

Yes, the idea is one man dies or the nation is destroyed.

But it is NOT substitution.


If you cut off a patients arm for the patient, to save the patients life, that arm is not a substitute for the patient.

You are allowing Roman Catholic doctrine (reformed RCC) to blind you to Scripture.

This is, I believe, what Scripture warns us about with the caution not to be carried away by vain philosophy.

There are places you could legitimately argue substitution. But this is simply not one. Yet you force your philosophy into the passage.


And I am sure many who read your claim realize at least here that you are adding to Scripture. To them I ask - if Martin is adding Substitution here (obviously he is simply be definition) then isn't it likely he adds Substitution elsewhere???

 

[DaveXR650]

No, it isn't both.

I served in the Army. I was not the substitute for those who didn't join the military.

You are really trying hard to force substitution.

If you served while there was a draft, and if you joining, meant that another draftee was not called, then yes, as far as the usage of the word goes you acted as a substitute, even if you joined voluntarily. No, that does not mean that the draft shows the work of Christ in the atonement. It just means the same word substitute could be used to show "instead of" or "for". When Jesus said the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep you would not have wanted to correct him by saying well, all shepherds don't die as a substitute for their sheep. You are trying really hard to avoid the fact that at the most basic level you must have penal substitution. The Reformers may not have been right on everything but they were right on that.

 

[taisto]

You are adding to Scripture.

You are allowing Roman Catholic doctrine (reformed RCC) to blind you to Scripture.

Yet you force your philosophy into the passage.

And I am sure many who read your claim realize at least here that you are adding to Scripture.

[Ad hominem snipped], I highlight the false accusations you level against those who oppose your theory of atonement.

Jon, you have been opposed by many people and only one person has agreed with you.

At this point you are talking to the wall as you have proved yourself to have an illegitimate argument.

 

[JonC]

If you served while there was a draft, and if you joining, meant that another draftee was not called

No. That is still not substitution.

You are trying to force substitution.

If I win the lottery I am not a substitute for all who bought a ticket and didn't win.

If I am drafted I am not a substitute for those not drafted.

If the Jews decide it is better to kill Jesus for the nation rather than Rome destroy the nation it is still not substitution.

 

[JonC]

[Ad hominem snipped], I highlight the false accusations you level against those who oppose your theory of atonement.

Jon, you have been opposed by many people and only one person has agreed with you.

At this point you are talking to the wall as you have proved yourself to have an illegitimate argument.

Uh....no.

You are simply reading substitution into Scripture. I did the same for a long time. The Roman Catholic Church and it's influence in Reformed theology was huge.

You are its product.

You automatically add substitution to what you read, and you use Scripture to try to support your theory.

I would be better if you would simply allow Scripture to dictate your faith, but you cannot.

Somebody told you the ink blot was a bat and now you have no concept of the real thing.


You take "it is expedient for one man to die for the nation than the nation perish" as substitution because you extract it from Scripture as a stand alone support for substitution.

The fact, however, is it does not support your theory.

The argument was that it would be better to kill a problematic Jewish Rabbi rather than allow Him to continue as Rome would address the resulting unrest by destroying the nation.

That is simply not Substitution. And Scripture tells us that that was a prophecy.

The Jews would hand over Christ to die for the nation so that the nation would not be destroyed.