The Classic View (just a summary)

[JonC]

Where you are lacking is that with what you say we could identify with Christ in his victory over sin and death without him having to be under any kind of curse or under consequences of sin - because as soon as you make that a necessity you are looking at substitution and a necessity of his actual death, in accomplishing something on our behalf.

I am separating this for clarity.

I am not sure how you make the claim.

I said that Christ suffered and died under the wages of sin - under the powers of darkness authored by Satan - just as we suffer the wages of sin. But that Christ suffered under the wages of our sin. I said He shared our infirmitiy and came under the curse he did not earn.

Then I said that what Christ did earn under God's covenant was the blessings due to obedience (we earned the curse, He earned the blessings).

The purpose of the Cross was that Christ suffer under the "powers of this age", under the product of sin. This is what we will suffer. But we have victory in Christ because He had victory over those powers.

Christ is to the Christian what Adam is to natural man. He is the "Second Adam". We are redeemed in Christ where we were condemned in Adam. Both was solidarity.


I am not sure how you get that I say we could identify with Christ in his victory over sin and death without Him having to be under any kind of curse or under consequences of sin. I actually did not say that. I said the opposite .

I insisted that He shared our infirmitiy, became a curse for us. That He suffered the wages of sin we will suffer, but unlike us they were not earned by Him.

AND I said this repeatedly...and in replies to you.

 

[DaveXR650]

God does judge the wicked. Much of Jesus' words centered on that Day. The wicked will perish, and rightly so.

Then you indeed say that this involves the wrath of God. On that day though, those who are found in Christ will not suffer this wrath because Christ became sin for us and took this on himself.

Why do you believe that Christ needing to become the "Second Adam" is more preposterous than God taking our sinful actions, putting those actions on Jesus, punishing Jesus in order to forgive sins?

Nice try but you know that's not what I said. Everything involved in Christ becoming the "second Adam" is true as far as I know.
This was my issue with what you do with it:

The issues of solidarity may have merit, but they simply cannot sufficiently explain our reconciliation with God. Solidarity by itself won't deal with our sin. It's not the "reason".

It's incomplete because there is an aspect of our sin that as a direct offense to God is not dealt with by these other things. Don't try to change the issue.

That Christ had to become as one of us, share our infirmitiy, is not some elaborate plan.

Do you consider that "sharing our infirmity" is equivalent to "bearing our sins in his own body on the tree"? I believe that there is overlap but that the words are not equivalent. Scripture often lists them together. You absolutely will not acknowledge that Christ's actual work on the cross involves him bearing our sins in his own body on the tree. That is substitution, and the passage in Peter links it also with "by whose stripes ye were healed". This looks like punishment. Since Christ didn't do anything but was bearing our sin in his own body I would say he suffered and what he suffered was "punishment" on our behalf. If God was judging sin here, and it was our sin, and it was in Christ's own body, guess what you call that? Penal substitution.

 

[JonC]

Then you indeed say that this involves the wrath of God. On that day though, those who are found in Christ will not suffer this wrath because Christ became sin for us and took this on himself.

No. That is absolutely NOT what I have said

I said that the Word became flesh.
Jesus became like us in all ways, but He did not sin.
Yet becoming like us means suffering the wages we suffer (sharing our infirmitiy).

I absolutely did not say that Christ took God's wrath in Himself.

The Bible is clear. God's wrath is never on the righteous. Psalm 22 is clear - the "Servant" was experiencing the wrath of "evil" and "evil doers" trusting in God to deliver Him precisely because of God's righteousness (appealing even to how God acted in the past when pagans persecuted Israel's forefathers).

I said that Jesus experienced the wages of sin....not the wages of God. Jesus became a curse for us, was made to be sin for us.

This means Jesus is the Second Adam, in whom there is no condemnation.


Why do we not suffer God's wrath at Judgment?

Because God's Judgment is on the wicked, not on Christ.

If, at Judgment, you are found to be wicked then you will experience the Second death.

If, however, you are found "in Christ", with "a mind set on the Spirit", having "died to sin", having "died to the flesh", having been "made a new creation", having been born of the Spirit", having been "reborn", having been "born from above", God having "given you a new spirit", God having "put His Spirit in you"......however you want to say it....then you will live.

 

[JonC]

Do you consider that "sharing our infirmity" is equivalent to "bearing our sins in his own body on the tree"?

I consider sharing our infirmitiy to be sharing the wages of our sin. Jesus is Immanuel (God with us).

 

[DaveXR650]

I insisted that He shared our infirmitiy, became a curse for us. That He suffered the wages of sin we will suffer, but unlike us they were not earned by Him.

AND I said this repeatedly...and in replies to you.

Yes. You had me fooled for a while too. What you do is try to affirm the elements of penal substitution. That Christ bore our sins in his own body, that he suffered the curse, that he suffered the just judgment due us and so on. And then you turn around and try to make a claim that what you really mean is that he suffered for us but that's not the same as instead of us. What you are doing is trying to play a deliberate shell game where you come right up to, but then stop right at the edge of the obvious conclusion which is - penal substitution.

Christ becoming the second Adam, Christ defeating the powers of Satan, Christ showing us the way of obedience and discipleship, Christ sharing with our infirmities, hardships, temptations and so on are valid teachings but none of those things explain the laying of our sin on Christ and having it dealt with there. The idea of a ransom is close, so is the idea of an equivalent "satisfaction". But you still have to deal with the scriptural idea of Christ bearing our sin in his own body on the tree, and those ideas fall short still.

 

[DaveXR650]

The Bible is clear. God's wrath is never on the righteous. Psalm 22 is clear - the "Servant" was experiencing the wrath of "evil" and "evil doers" trusting in God to deliver Him precisely because of God's righteousness (appealing even to how God acted in the past when pagans persecuted Israel's forefathers).

Here we're getting at the central issue. We are not righteous. We have a burden of committed sin that cannot be simply overlooked for the very reason you said - we are not righteous. Christ was really doing something on our behalf when he took our sin upon himself at the cross. And now, when he intercedes for us, because of our remaining sin, he is doing more than just declaring that it's OK to forgive us. He has entered the Holy of Holies so to speak with his own blood. You simply cannot get away from this, Jon.

In no way does this take away from or diminish the need for us to die to sin, have a mind set on the Spirit, be in union with Christ. To all that I say Amen but I insist that Christ took on our sin. Otherwise, we would have a chasm between us and God that could not be crossed no matter how much we tried.

 

[JonC]

Yes. You had me fooled for a while too. What you do is try to affirm the elements of penal substitution.

This is a false claim.

You are now making stuff up. That is wrong of you. It is sinful, in fact.

I NEVER posted that Christ suffered the just judgment due us. You are even inventing things I did not say to pretend I changed my view.

I also did not say Christ was showing us the way of obedience and discipleship.

That is extraordinary.....wrong. You and I disagree, but perhaps I misjudged your character. I thought you Christian (not only in terms of salvation but also that you sought to be obedient to Christ in action).



What I affirm is Scripture (what is written in the text of the Bible).

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.

That is not Penal Substitution. You are reading the Theory into my words.

Christ becoming a curse for us, sharing our infirmitiy, putting Himself along side us under sin and death, experiencing the wages of sin we will experience.....this IS God laying our sins on Him.

 

[JonC]

Here we're getting at the central issue. We are not righteous. We have a burden of committed sin that cannot be simply overlooked for the very reason you said - we are not righteous. Christ was really doing something on our behalf when he took our sin upon himself at the cross. And now, when he intercedes for us, because of our remaining sin, he is doing more than just declaring that it's OK to forgive us. He has entered the Holy of Holies so to speak with his own blood. You simply cannot get away from this, Jon.

In no way does this take away from or diminish the need for us to die to sin, have a mind set on the Spirit, be in union with Christ. To all that I say Amen but I insist that Christ took on our sin. Otherwise, we would have a chasm between us and God that could not be crossed no matter how much we tried.

Again....you are not being .... forthright.

I already said that Christ suffered and died on our behalf.

I even pointed out that the sacrificial system, especially when associated with the Temple and the Holy of Holies, focuses on the blood of the sacrifice in cleansing (rather than punishment).

You are faltering. Otherwise you would have dealt with what I have posted rather than make up stuff.

 

[DaveXR650]

You are now making stuff up. That is wrong of you. It is sinful, in fact.

That is extraordinary.....wrong. You and I disagree, but perhaps I misjudged your character. I thought you Christian (not only in terms of salvation but also that you sought to be obedient to Christ in action).

If I said these things to you you would immediately strike the post and issue a warning as a moderator. Everyone on here sees how these posts go and have the same complaints about you dancing around the issues. Now we can add passive aggressiveness to the list I guess.

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.

That is not Penal Substitution. You are reading the Theory into my words.

I'm sorry Jon, that everyone from John Owen to Pastor Jones down the street thinks most of those statements do show penal substitution.

Christ becoming a curse for us, sharing our infirmitiy, putting Himself along side us under sin and death, experiencing the wages of sin we will experience.....this IS God laying our sins on Him.

A neophyte could see that "becoming a curse for us" is a far cry from "putting himself along side us". Jon,Jon,Jon.

 

[JonC]

If I said these things to you you would immediately strike the post and issue a warning as a moderator. Everyone on here sees how these posts go and have the same complaints about you dancing around the issues. Now we can add passive aggressiveness to the list I guess.

I'm sorry Jon, that everyone from John Owen to Pastor Jones down the street thinks most of those statements do show penal substitution.

A neophyte could see that "becoming a curse for us" is a far cry from "putting himself along side us". Jon,Jon,Jon.

No. If I posted that you said something and you said I was making stuff up, and that is sinful, you would receive no points.

There would not be an issue unless I came up with a quote of you saying it.

NOW.....had you posted like this against Martin M or any other member then as a moderator I would have deleted it and given you one point expiring in 6 months for attributing to a member a belief they denied.

BUT as a moderator I am not doing that but giving you the chance to police your own behavior.

This is not the first time you appealed to the Reformation.

I believe Calvin was wrong on his view of the Atonement.

I do not know Pastor Jones.

I know a few Baptist pastors who agree with me, a lot of Anabaptist pastors who agree with me. I know Baptist pastors who disagree with me. I do not know of a Pastor Jones. What church?

If we are a curse (natural man....and we are) then becoming a curse for us is exactly Emmanuel.

 

[JonC]

Now we can add passive aggressiveness to the list I guess.

OK....this is an easy one.

One of us is right and the other wrong. Rather than digging in one of us owes the other an apology.

For my part, if you can support your claim then as a Christian will certainly apologize for my mistake.

"That Christ bore our sins in his own body, that he suffered the curse, that he suffered the just judgment due us and so on."

QUOTE me saying that Christ suffered the just judgment due us.

This is what I did say:

the Cross was not Jesus standing before God's court in our place but God standing in the world's court and being found unjustly guilty.

God offered His Christ to die unjustly looking towards vindication in the Resurrection

Now, I do believe that Christ is our example.....but provide a quote of me saying that Christ was showing us the way of obedience and discipleship.



Once we identify exactly where those ideas came from ,(me, or you falsely attributed to me) then we can discuss how my view is not substitution or satisfaction when it comes to Christ's death.

As a Christian I'm sure you agree we have to pause and address this issue rather than ignoring it.

 

[DaveXR650]

I NEVER posted that Christ suffered the just judgment due us. You are even inventing things I did not say to pretend I changed my view.

QUOTE me saying that Christ suffered the just judgment due us.

Here is one of your quotes.

He was suffering for their sins (not His own). He was surrounded by evildoers, taken away by oppression and judgment. He was sharing our infirmity, being made a curse for us, sin for us.

Christ suffered under the wages of sin, which is death. These were our wages, wages He did not earn.

This is an important thing that you do that needs to be brought out in the open. We are having a discussion and I am replying to you off the top of my head. For you to turn around a statement like I made and turn it into some kind of slanderous deliberate lie about what you said is weird. It's what I myself believe and it's what my impression is of what you said. It is completely pertinent to the issues we are discussing. To PM me with warnings when all I am doing is trying to answer your claims is bizarre.

Nevertheless, I put your actual quote above. And my question to you is this. If Christ suffered for our sins (not his own). If he was made a curse for us, who wanted to punish our sins and who pronounced the curse? If it was God then you have a problem. Would it be just, in your mind, if God were to punish us for our sin? Now I don't want to misquote you but I thought you said earlier that God is going to show his wrath on the sinners so I am assuming that it would be just for God to punish sinners.
Jesus took those sins of ours upon himself. My reasoning is that somehow there was justice in the Father's eyes being served then at the atonement. I am saying that you have to have justice being pronounced on Christ, in our stead. I took it when you said above that "He was suffering for their sins, not his own" that you meant that in that sense this was just. That is the whole point of the cross. I am allowed to make such a conclusion.

You don't have to agree with that. And it wasn't an exact quote or intended to be, nor am I obligated to limit myself to exact quotes. For heavens sake, it's what I believe to be the correct understanding of it. It is standard Reformation era thinking. Why should that be a problem with you when you say that this whole idea came from the reformation. You have tried to turn around the fact that you have several issues here you can't answer with your incomplete "Classical" theory and make it about some kind of imagined slander. Why don't you try to answer the above questions instead of turning this into a thing of someone offending you by not quoting you exactly

 

[JonC]

Here is one of your quotes.

This is an important thing that you do that needs to be brought out in the open. We are having a discussion and I am replying to you off the top of my head. For you to turn around a statement like I made and turn it into some kind of slanderous deliberate lie about what you said is weird. It's what I myself believe and it's what my impression is of what you said. It is completely pertinent to the issues we are discussing. To PM me with warnings when all I am doing is trying to answer your claims is bizarre.

Nevertheless, I put your actual quote above. And my question to you is this. If Christ suffered for our sins (not his own). If he was made a curse for us, who wanted to punish our sins and who pronounced the curse? If it was God then you have a problem. Would it be just, in your mind, if God were to punish us for our sin? Now I don't want to misquote you but I thought you said earlier that God is going to show his wrath on the sinners so I am assuming that it would be just for God to punish sinners.
Jesus took those sins of ours upon himself. My reasoning is that somehow there was justice in the Father's eyes being served then at the atonement. I am saying that you have to have justice being pronounced on Christ, in our stead. I took it when you said above that "He was suffering for their sins, not his own" that you meant that in that sense this was just. That is the whole point of the cross. I am allowed to make such a conclusion.

You don't have to agree with that. And it wasn't an exact quote or intended to be, nor am I obligated to limit myself to exact quotes. For heavens sake, it's what I believe to be the correct understanding of it. It is standard Reformation era thinking. Why should that be a problem with you when you say that this whole idea came from the reformation. You have tried to turn around the fact that you have several issues here you can't answer with your incomplete "Classical" theory and make it about some kind of imagined slander. Why don't you try to answer the above questions instead of turning this into a thing of someone offending you by not quoting you exactly

Yes. I agree with what I said

He was suffering for our sins (not His own). He was surrounded by evildoers, taken away by oppression and judgment. He was sharing our infirmity, being made a curse for us, sin for us.

That in no way means that His death was just....quite the opposite. Evil judgment is unjust.

I grant that you were not quoting verbatim. My problem was that you went with something I do not believe in order to call what I do believe a "shell game".

You misunderstood. I get it. But you should be more careful if making an accusation or evaluation.

I will not insist on an apology (I don't believe you would offer one anyway). But I will continue so that perhaps you may understand what the Classic View holds and why it is neither substitution or satisfaction.

Christus Victor views Jesus as suffering under the domination system (the powers of darkness) rather than under God. We still suffer under this system, so it obviously is not substitution. And since this suffering was Satan "crushing His heel" rather than to satisfy anything it is also not satisfaction.

 

[DaveXR650]

Christ becoming the second Adam, Christ defeating the powers of Satan, Christ showing us the way of obedience and discipleship, Christ sharing with our infirmities, hardships, temptations and so on are valid teachings but none of those things explain the laying of our sin on Christ and having it dealt with there. The idea of a ransom is close, so is the idea of an equivalent "satisfaction". But you still have to deal with the scriptural idea of Christ bearing our sin in his own body on the tree, and those ideas fall short still.

Once we identify exactly where those ideas came from ,(me, or you falsely attributed to me) then we can discuss how my view is not substitution or satisfaction when it comes to Christ's death.

Now, I do believe that Christ is our example.....but provide a quote of me saying that Christ was showing us the way of obedience and discipleship.

We do need to take a look at this. My quote above listed what I knew to be popular penal substitution alternatives that are in current discussion and literature today. Some are yours, some may or may not be yours, but all are incomplete without somehow Christ directly dealing with our sin on the cross. For you to demand that I show quotes for each thing is weird. For one thing I didn't say I was quoting you. For another thing I said they were valid teachings. So how does that become the main issue. I think really you are getting stumped so you have to retreat into moderator mode. Perhaps we are done here. At least everyone can read what went on if you leave it up, that is.

 

[JonC]

We do need to take a look at this. My quote above listed what I knew to be popular penal substitution alternatives that are in current discussion and literature today. Some are yours, some may or may not be yours, but all are incomplete without somehow Christ directly dealing with our sin on the cross. For you to demand that I show quotes for each thing is weird. For one thing I didn't say I was quoting you. For another thing I said they were valid teachings. So how does that become the main issue. I think really you are getting stumped so you have to retreat into moderator mode. Perhaps we are done here. At least everyone can read what went on if you leave it up, that is.

I am not one who brought up me being a moderator (I answered your claim about what you said I would do). That is something I hate on this board. When a member disagrees or misspeaks they hide behind me being a moderator as some racist or justification.

If I was responding to you and I said you are wrong. God did not punish Jesus, God was not wrathful to Jesus, and Jesus was not tortured by the demons in Hell.....what would you say? You would rightly challenge me. Then I could point out that I was speaking in general because some Penal Substitution theorists believe Christ spent three days in Hell being tortured by Satan and his demons. That is nonsense.


There are a lot of things, by your reply, that you do not understand about the Classic View of Atonement. But whether to ask questions is up to you. Stay or leave the conversation.

 

[DaveXR650]

I grant that you were not quoting verbatim. My problem was that you went with something I do not believe in order to call what I do believe a "shell game".

No, this is the shell game:

What I affirm is Scripture (what is written in the text of the Bible).

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.

Eight of those things are used by all advocates of penal substitution to show penal substitution. When you post that, and that IS a quote and then begin to try to explain away penal substitution I am calling that a shell game.

 

[DaveXR650]

There are a lot of things, by your reply, that you do not understand about the Classic View of Atonement. But whether to ask questions is up to you. Stay or leave the conversation.

This is true. It is like nailing jello to the wall. It seems incoherent based on your original posts. Do you have an actual reference for this that I could look up in a book? If you remember right, I thought Torrance was against penal substitution but then I read the book for myself and found that you were wrong. There are a lot of things you don't understand either, apparently.

 

[JonC]

No, this is the shell game:

Eight of those things are used by all advocates of penal substitution to show penal substitution. When you post that, and that IS a quote and then begin to try to explain away penal substitution I am calling that a shell game.

Uh no.....every one of those points have been used by those who hold the Classic View as opposed to Penal Substitution as well.

It is not a shell game because I am not saying that I add penal substitution to those things.

For example, Anabaptist have been very opposed to Penal Substitution Theory since the Reformation. But they affirmed all of those things you view as Penal Substitution.


The Classic View believes that Jesus is God. You believe Jesus is God. Are you playing some "shell game"?

Penal Substitution Theory does include a lot of Scripture. But it cannot rob that Scripture from opposing views.

Point out one of those things I posted that I believe that is unique to Penal Substitution Theory. You can't. Ransom Theory, Recapitulation, Moral Exemplar, Government Theory, Satisfaction Theory, Substitution Theory, Penal Substitution Theory, Moral Influence Theory......they all hold common beliefs.

You need to look at where we differ to evaluate our positions, not what we have in common.

 

[JonC]

This is true. It is like nailing jello to the wall. It seems incoherent based on your original posts. Do you have an actual reference for this that I could look up in a book? If you remember right, I thought Torrance was against penal substitution but then I read the book for myself and found that you were wrong. There are a lot of things you don't understand either, apparently.

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.

I think @Arthur King put it very well. 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.


It is actually very simple. I think that is why you wrestle with grasping it so much.

Satan deceived Eve and Adam was tempted. Adam sinned. Death entered the world through this sin. Adam represents man. The wages of sin is death. Man is in bondage to sin and death.

God becomes man, under this bondage, and suffers under the powers of darkness (suffers the wages of sin). The Serpent has crushed His heel.

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.

Christ inherited the blessings of the Covenant rather than the curse (He is righteous). God raised Him on the third day. He is a "Life giving Spirit". He is the representative of a new kind of man, the Firstborn of many brethren.

We must die to sin, die to the flesh, repent from a mind set on the flesh (which is death) and set our minds on the Spirit (which is life).

It is that simple.

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

I can tell you what helped me.

I told you how I came to reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. I realized it was not in the text of Scripture.

That did not mean what Penal Substitution Theory uses to support the theory is not in the Bible. But all views use those same passages.

The difficult part was reading God's Word without reading into God's Word. But that is the best way to understand what I am saying. It will look less like jello when you are able not to read into the Bible.

For example - Christ died for our sins.

What does that mean?

It has been said here it means that Christ experienced punishment for our sins.

But try to read it as meaning that Christ died for our sins.


If you can do that then all you need to understand the Classic View is the Bible.

For an overview read Genesis, Exodus, Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, Matthew, John and Romans. Do this without reading into the Bible (take it for just what is written).

Then you have a decent summary.


The problem is once somebody tells you the ink blot is a bat it is very difficult not to see the bat.