The Classic View (just a summary)

[taisto]

[ad hominem snipped]

Many here disagree with my view, and that is fine. But if after all of this discussion you still do not understand how my view necessitates not only Christ's incarnation, life, and death but also His death on a Roman cross then you are a fool.

[ad hominem snipped]

But to explain to others, not to change their minds but so that they understand, my view holds that Christ had to suffer the wages of sin. This is death. And this is under the powers and principalities of this world which was represented in the first century Jewish worldview as Rome.

Any member who comprehens yet disagrees, if they are an honest person, would deal with how my view necessitates the Cross rather than pretending it doesn't.

I stand by what I said. What you have stated about Jesus did not require Him to come to earth as a human, teach and speak to Israel, or die on the cross. Your view requires nothing be done to appease God's justice.

In your view all we see is God the Father allowing God the Son to be killed for no reason whatsoever.

Jon, the wages of sin, suffered for us, is Jesus substituting for us. It seems you want penal substitution without calling it by that name.

 

[JonC]

I stand by what I said. What you have stated about Jesus did not require Him to come to earth as a human, teach and speak to Israel, or die on the cross. Your view requires nothing be done to appease God's justice.

In your view all we see is God the Father allowing God the Son to be killed for no reason whatsoever.

Jon, the wages of sin, suffered for us, is Jesus substituting for us. It seems you want penal substitution without calling it by that name.

I know. That is what I mean.

@DaveXR650 disagrees with me, but at least he understands the reason Christ had to die in my view. I understand why in his view. We still disagree about substitution (I am not sure he understands what I am saying on that point, the fault is probably my lack of articulation), but our disagreement is an honest one.

I say that Jesus had to suffer the wages of sin, which is death, and die under the powers and principalities of this world which was personified in the first century Jewish world as Rome - therefore it was necessary for Jesus to die on a Roman cross. I said His incarnation, life as one of us, ministry, and death was necessary to reconcile man and God.

Your reply is my view does not require the Incarnation, Christ's death, or the Cross.

You are either extraordinary challenged as an adult when it comes to comprehension or extraordinary dishonest as a Christian.

Members can decide. I don't care as the result is the same. You are simply wrong. And either way you are disqualified to defend your view.


For those who can understand (even if they disagree....my intent isn't to persuade here) my position holds that Christ reconciled God and man. It was necessary on two parts (God to man, and man to God).

This happened on the Cross. God offered His Son, Who died under the wages of sin. He is the "Second Adam". We are then reconciled to God through Christ.

 

[Salty]

Like Jon, I also enlisted in the Army
But that did not keep someone else from being drafted.

Now - during the War between the States (AKA - War for Southern Independence)
a person who was drafted - could pay someone to take their place.
THAT is considered Substitution!

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning:
This thread will be closed no sooner than:
1030 GMT - 630 AM EDT 330 AM PDT

 

[JonC]

Like Jon, I also enlisted in the Army
But that did not keep someone else from being drafted.

Now - during the War between the States (AKA - War for Southern Independence)
a person who was drafted - could pay someone to take their place.
THAT is considered Substitution!

War of Northern Aggression?

 

[JonC]

@taisto

I apologize for becoming frustrated with your posts. Let’s explore what I said and how you understood what I said.

This is what I said:

I said that on the cross God was reconciling man to Himself, not counting their sins against them.

I said that the reconciliation of God to man (and man to God) necessitates and depends on God becoming man – the Word (this refers to Jesus) became flesh – and be subjected to the wages of sin just as we are (to die). I also said that it was necessary for Christ to die on a Roman cross because Rome was the personification of the worldly powers to the first century Jew.

This is what you say you heard:

My view does not require Jesus to come, does not require Jesus’ ministry, and does not require Jesus to die.



How do you get from my statements to your understanding of my statements?

 

[Arthur King]

This was good discussion from another thread. And it shows a real difference in belief. What @Arthur King said above does the same. I just don't have anything else to add to the discussion over the meaning of "substitution" verses "instead" or "for".

If you believe that the work of Christ on the cross provides the sole basis for our redemption then I would be satisfied whether or not you agree with me on the definition of substitution. But if you believe, as you stated above that simple forgiveness, without some kind of provision provided by Christ on the cross then we have true major differences. @Arthur King seems to believe more is needed, you seem to believe less is needed. At any rate, these differences are what should be discussed, not the meaning of substitution if you are drafted or if you go to the store for your wife.

No offense but I have nothing else to say on the meaning of "substitution". So don't get offended and say you are misunderstood. If satisfaction by Christ for our sin as individuals is not necessary then say so now. If it is then say so. If @Arthur King believes more is needed for justification then he can say so or correct my impression here and now. I freely concede that we will never agree on the meaning of substitution and have nothing else to add.

If you believe that the work of Christ on the cross provides the sole basis for our redemption...

Yes. Of course I agree. But that does not entail substitution. If I am dead, and Jesus dies so that I can rise with him, then Jesus is the sole reason I am saved, but it is simply false to say that he died "in my place." It is just wrong. We should not say wrong things, especially about the precious truths of our salvation.

The word and the concept of "substitution" distracts from key truths of Scripture and leads to very damaging, soul risking ideas. Cheap grace, the prosperity gospel, easy believism, abstract intellectualism, people putting their hope in this life rather than the resurrection. I have seen it all.

When Jesus says "take up your cross and follow me" and "he who would save his life will lose it" those are central commands and teachings from our Lord and Savior. I am not going to use words like "substitute" that distract from those central commands just because they are popularly used by my favorite tribe or teachers. A substitute would not say those things.

A substitute would say "Lay down your cross and stay put, for I go to be crucified in your place." I have heard sermons preached to that exact effect. "You can hang on to your life because I will lose mine" is what a substitute would say.

Here is a rule: if your theology leads you to expect the words of Scripture to be different than what they are, then your theology is wrong. "Substitution" leads us to expect drastically different words from Scripture out of the mouths of Jesus and Paul than what we actually get. Therefore, substitution language is wrong.

 

[DaveXR650]

If I am dead, and Jesus dies so that I can rise with him, then Jesus is the sole reason I am saved,

Why are you dead? And how is your own sin dealt with? For a true understanding you have to look at that. It's not that you aren't saved if you don't look into it. But if you are purposefully and actively seeking to downplay that it could indicate that you are not saved. That's why I do not put early church fathers into the same camp as the modernists who are deliberately trying to lead people away from confronting their own sinfulness in the message of the gospel. If you are not in that group please don't think I doubt your salvation no matter how you express those truths. But if you are then you are an enemy of the gospel. If you don't want to use the word substitution then stay with "ransom" or "satisfaction". But what we are calling "penal substitution" as explained by the Reformers and the post reformed preachers is the most accurate description we have come up with for Christ's work on our behalf.

 

[DaveXR650]

Now - during the War between the States (AKA - War for Southern Independence)
a person who was drafted - could pay someone to take their place.
THAT is considered Substitution!

That is a perfect example. I didn't think anyone else had ever heard of that.

 

[JonC]

That is a perfect example. I didn't think anyone else had ever heard of that.

Oh....I have. Only because I saw it in a movie and looked it up. It wasn't a draft (in the movie). The guy volunteered and then sent a servant.


Edit .... probably a Yankee.

 

[JonC]

Reading through your posts, @DaveXR650 , I come to the same conclusion I arrived at before.

The Latin View (Satisfaction Theory, Substitution Theory, Penal Substitution Theory) has to have Christ as our substitute for forgiveness in some form for it to work.

The Classic View (Ransom Theory, Recapitulation, ...even Moral Influence Theory and Moral Exemplar) cannot work with Christ as our substitute for forgiveness.


So there is more to the division than substitution.

It is an interesting topic.

 

[DaveXR650]

So there is more to the division than substitution.

Oh yes! Which is why I get so frustrated with the page after page of word meaning discussion. This goes much deeper. I think "ransom" is very close but you would get into another discussion of what does it mean and to whom was it paid. All the other things, recapitulation, Christ as Victor, even moral influence are taught by the same Reformers who insist on penal substitution. And we are entering very holy ground when we start talking about the actual meaning of Jesus shedding his own blood. We dare not risk speaking irreverently or flippantly in a debate. For example, and I can use this because as far as I know everyone on here had repudiated it, but calling this "cosmic child abuse" may be the highest form of blasphemy one could do.

 

[kyredneck]

my view holds that Christ had to suffer the wages of sin. This is death. And this is under the powers and principalities of this world which was represented in the first century Jewish worldview as Rome.

...don't you think it odd that it was Jews and not Romans that were convicted of the crime? The Romans were tools, used.

 

[JonC]

Oh yes! Which is why I get so frustrated with the page after page of word meaning discussion. This goes much deeper. I think "ransom" is very close but you would get into another discussion of what does it mean and to whom was it paid. All the other things, recapitulation, Christ as Victor, even moral influence are taught by the same Reformers who insist on penal substitution. And we are entering very holy ground when we start talking about the actual meaning of Jesus shedding his own blood. We dare not risk speaking irreverently or flippantly in a debate. For example, and I can use this because as far as I know everyone on here had repudiated it, but calling this "cosmic child abuse" may be the highest form of blasphemy one could do.

It does go much deeper. I get frustrated as well when we get stuck in words. Not so much with "substitution" because it is worth recognizing before we move on that the text does not dictate substitution (the text itself....the words used.... does not necessarily restrict substitution but it does not prescribe it either).

I agree that calling Penal Substitution Theory "cosmic child abuse" is incorrect. And I know you would get frustrated if members made that accusation.

I am not aware of that occurring here, but I have heard it in the past.

So you know why I get frustrated with @taisto repeatedly claiming I hold the exact opposite of what I post.

There simply is not room, IMHO, for such childish replies (from either side). As Christians we should discuss these things because there is disagreement and it is a very important topic. But the discussion needs to be honest.

 

[JonC]

...don't you think it odd that it was Jews and not Romans that were convicted of the crime? The Romans were tools, used.

The issue there, I believe, is that the Jews were already considered God's people and under the Law. There is a provision for forgiveness only if the sin was done in ignorance (Peter's arguments). The Romans were considered condemned pagans.

When the gospel was opened to Gentiles this changed. We (Christians) are the true Jews (some branches cut, others grafted in). So we have to keep in mind that the first church was comprised entirely of Jews and it spread from there.

 

[kyredneck]

The issue there, I believe, is that the Jews were already considered God's people and under the Law.

'That generation' of Jews was NOT God's chosen people.

 

[Arthur King]

Why are you dead? And how is your own sin dealt with? For a true understanding you have to look at that. It's not that you aren't saved if you don't look into it. But if you are purposefully and actively seeking to downplay that it could indicate that you are not saved. That's why I do not put early church fathers into the same camp as the modernists who are deliberately trying to lead people away from confronting their own sinfulness in the message of the gospel. If you are not in that group please don't think I doubt your salvation no matter how you express those truths. But if you are then you are an enemy of the gospel. If you don't want to use the word substitution then stay with "ransom" or "satisfaction". But what we are calling "penal substitution" as explained by the Reformers and the post reformed preachers is the most accurate description we have come up with for Christ's work on our behalf.

Why are you dead? And how is your own sin dealt with?

I am dead because of my own sin. My sin will be finally destroyed in my flesh at my physical death (which is a punishment for my sin, see Genesis 3). This is when sin will be "condemned in the flesh" (Romans 8:3), and I will be "set free from the body of this death" (Romans 7:24), for "he who has died is freed from sin" (Romans 6:7). The mechanism of my salvation involves my death; it must, or I will be trapped in my sinful flesh forever, which would be hell.

But this physical death is also a death I die with Christ. I am "co-crucified with Christ." I am "buried with him through baptism into death." I drink the cup that Jesus drinks and I am baptized with his baptism (Mark 10:39). I am under the same sentence of condemnation, but whereas I am under it justly, Jesus is under it unjustly (Luke 23). Jesus' death therefore merits that justice reverse his unjust death, hence his resurrection. Divine justice is satisfied in the resurrection as the reversal of Jesus' unjust death. And because I die with him, I also will rise with him as a new creation.

In his death, Jesus also pays my debt of obedience. My sins (disobedience) are a lack (debt) of obedience, and they contributed to putting Jesus to death. But Jesus voluntarily suffered my sins against himself out of obedience to the Father.

If you don't want to use the word substitution then stay with "ransom" or "satisfaction". But what we are calling "penal substitution" as explained by the Reformers and the post reformed preachers is the most accurate description we have come up with for Christ's work on our behalf.

Why do you and the reformers think that the words of Scripture are insufficient? Why are "redemption" and "ransom" and "restitution" and "resurrection" not good enough? Redemption means payment of a price to free someone from bondage.

Maybe you are adding words to Scripture because you are also adding concepts to Scripture that are not there, and in fact distract from the central truths that are there.

"Substitution" does nothing to add to the words "redemption" "ransom" "restitution" "mediation" "resurrection" "justification" "propitiation" and in fact distracts, eliminates, or contradicts central truths regarding the mechanism of our salvation, ie "he who will save his life will lose it."

 

[JonC]

'That generation' of Jews was NOT God's chosen people.

Yes, all of them were not what Paul called true Jews. I think this has applied throughout the history of the Jews.

 

[kyredneck]

Yes, all of them were not what Paul called true Jews.

'That generation' of Jews was the 'seed of the Serpent' that bruised the 'seed of the Woman'. John 8:44

 

[DaveXR650]

In his death, Jesus also pays my debt of obedience. My sins (disobedience) are a lack (debt) of obedience, and they contributed to putting Jesus to death. But Jesus voluntarily suffered my sins against himself out of obedience to the Father.

He did and he also bore our sins in his own body on the cross. It was out of obedience to the Father, but it was also accomplishing our redemption. This aspect is just as "scriptural" as the idea of a reversal of an unjust death. Penal substitution deals with the scriptures that show God's wrath against sin as well as the cosmic aspects of our redemption. And if you are going to insist on a cosmic justice that demands things happen for it's sake then why would it be difficult to accept the fact that the same cosmic justice demands that God be just as well as the justifier of sinners.

Why do you and the reformers think that the words of Scripture are insufficient? Why are "redemption" and "ransom" and "restitution" and "resurrection" not good enough? Redemption means payment of a price to free someone from bondage.

Maybe you are adding words to Scripture because you are also adding concepts to Scripture that are not there, and in fact distract from the central truths that are there.

Yes, adding concepts to scripture would be wrong. But all the words we have in our native languages are going to be our attempts a expressing concepts. If Christ bore my sin in his own body on the cross, and it was necessary because of God's will that that be done for my redemption, and the same event is describes as the just for the unjust, then I have done no wrong by using the English word "substitution". By the way, I notice that you use the word "propitiation". I am glad because most of those who oppose penal substitution attack that word first. In fact, as a side note, does anyone know of any theologian who is actually against penal substitution who allows propitiation to stand without wanting to change it to "expiation"?