The Meanings of 'For'

[Yeshua1]

Guess that it just boils down to we see the Cross in the motiff of it being PST, and others see it as mainly Christ is Victor mode.

I think I have been clear where I believe you and @Martin Marprelate are wrong. If you wish to challenge my view, it is on another thread.

But I do agree that people often focus on different aspects of Scripture - sometimes at the expense of others.[/QUOTE]
I do agree that there can be different ways to view the atonement, but there has to be some elemet of PST in it to be biblical.

 

[JonC]

I do agree that there can be different ways to view the atonement, but there has to be some elemet of PST in it to be biblical.

All theories have a common element of Scripture (all theories within orthodox Christianity, that is). All believe that while were sinners Christ died for us, that He bore our sins, that He lay down His life as an atonement. Typically what differs is what people add to Scripture (Scripture itself being objective truth). The larger issue is when people cannot identify the things they carry into God's Word to from theory.

 

[Yeshua1]

All theories have a common element of Scripture (all theories within orthodox Christianity, that is). All believe that while were sinners Christ died for us, that He bore our sins, that He lay down His life as an atonement. Typically what differs is what people add to Scripture (Scripture itself being objective truth). The larger issue is when people cannot identify the things they carry into God's Word to from theory.

I hope that you are not slamming Pst here, as those of us who hold to it do see the scriptures themselves explaining the nature of the atonement that way, as we have to account for the wrath of God in the atonement.

 

[JonC]

I hope that you are not slamming Pst here, as those of us who hold to it do see the scriptures themselves explaining the nature of the atonement that way, as we have to account for the wrath of God in the atonement.

I am not "slamming" PSA, but I am pointing out that what separates these theories (to include PSA) is not Scripture but what each brings into Scripture. I am, perhaps, "slamming" those who cannot see the human element (what is brought in, what makes it "theory") within PSA itself but instead believe it is the same as Scripture as this shows a lack of discernment. I wouldn't use the word "slamming", but I am identifying the error.

 

[Yeshua1]

I am not "slamming" PSA, but I am pointing out that what separates these theories (to include PSA) is not Scripture but what each brings into Scripture. I am, perhaps, "slamming" those who cannot see the human element (what is brought in, what makes it "theory") within PSA itself but instead believe it is the same as Scripture as this shows a lack of discernment. I wouldn't use the word "slamming", but I am identifying the error.

Except the what you call tradition is actually found within the scriptures themselves, as both Martin and Bliblist have brought out!

 

[JonC]

Except the what you call tradition is actually found within the scriptures themselves, as both Martin and Bliblist have brought out!

No one has been able to provide a passage proving this. They believe it "implied" (not "it is written" but it fits their understanding).

 

[Yeshua1]

No one has been able to provide a passage proving this. They believe it "implied" (not "it is written" but it fits their understanding).

To me, it just seems that you are having a hard time reconciling the wrath of God directed towards Jesus in our stead, as somehow not fair to Jesus?

 

[JonC]

To me, it just seems that you are having a hard time reconciling the wrath of God directed towards Jesus in our stead, as somehow not fair to Jesus?

No. I am not having difficulty at all with the concept. I held your view for over three decades. I taught and preached your view. I know it very well.

You and I seem to have the exact same difficulty - that of reconciling the contextual framework your theory presupposes with Scripture.

 

[Yeshua1]

No. I am not having difficulty at all with the concept. I held your view for over three decades. I taught and preached your view. I know it very well.

You and I seem to have the exact same difficulty - that of reconciling the contextual framework your theory presupposes with Scripture.

Maybe that would be due to you no longer seeing that there was the very wrath of God directed towards jesus in our stead!

 

[JonC]

Maybe that would be due to you no longer seeing that there was the very wrath of God directed towards jesus in our stead!

God opened by eyes to a truth that I cannot now un-see. So yes, at one time I held close to the assumptions you are making now. But just like you I found it impossible to prove via Scripture. The difference is what we do with that truth.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Your illustration proves your error. If I died while fighting for my wife she would not have to fight in my stead. I fought for her, not instead of her but on her behalf.

Sorry not to have come back a little sooner. I have been catching up on the work I need to do for my church and for the Gideons. I still have more to do so my participation on the board may be sporadic for a while.

All analogies break down if pressed too far. If one (best not to personalize this) dies fighting in the armed forces, one is not usually fighting for one's wife and/or family, one is fighting to defend one's country or, more likely, to promote its interests and/or influence.

If one was actually fighting for one's wife and died doing it, it would be because there was a mortal threat to her. Therefore one would be dying on her behalf, and, if successful, be dying instead of her. Of course, one might die fighting unsuccessfully and one's wife still die. This is not the case with Christ. With His blood He has purchased men and women for God (Revelation 5:9). How has He done that? By paying the penalty for their sins in full and drinking the cup of the Lord's wrath. Penal Substitution.

 

[JonC]

Sorry not to have come back a little sooner. I have been catching up on the work I need to do for my church and for the Gideons. I still have more to do so my participation on the board may be sporadic for a while.

All analogies break down if pressed too far. If one (best not to personalize this) dies fighting in the armed forces, one is not usually fighting for one's wife and/or family, one is fighting to defend one's country or, more likely, to promote its interests and/or influence.

If one was actually fighting for one's wife and died doing it, it would be because there was a mortal threat to her. Therefore one would be dying on her behalf, and, if successful, be dying instead of her. Of course, one might die fighting unsuccessfully and one's wife still die. This is not the case with Christ. With His blood He has purchased men and women for God (Revelation 5:9). How has He done that? By paying the penalty for their sins in full and drinking the cup of the Lord's wrath. Penal Substitution.

Christ has indeed ransomed us from the law of sin and death and made us alive to the law of God. While this has nothing to do with the theory God poured out His wrath on Christ, I think we can at least agree Christ died for us.

 

[The Biblicist]

For those who are interested in a proper defense and proper view of penal substitutionary atonement see the following link where Dr. William Lane Craig provides about 50 short 5 minute lessons on this subject.

Dr. Craig Lewis in my study Part 1 Penal Substitutionary atonement - Saferbrowser Yahoo Video Search Results

The righteousness of Christ does not satisfy God's holiness against sin, if it did, then the cross could have been avoided altogether. Wrath against sin is Biblically defined as death as death is the wages of sin. Punishment against sin is defined as death. So Christ suffered the WRATH of God toward us due to our sin and Christ was PUNISHED by God for our sins. Those who deny this simply do not understand the Biblical view of atonement.

 

[JonC]

The righteousness of Christ does not satisfy God's holiness against sin

I disagree with the idea that we can pit God's righteousness against His holiness in such a manner. What you are doing is elevating the idea of a righteousness through the Law above God's own nature. Christ had to become flesh and die so that through death He would defeat the power of evil and free us from the slavery of sin and death. The reason He came, after all, was to destroy the works of the devil. The Cross was not something to be avoided, but rather God's predetermined plan. It was God's will that Christ die at the hands of men.

I understand PSA, and reject its base assumption. Based on your arguments, it does not seem that you fully understand the arguments against your view.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Christ has indeed ransomed us from the law of sin and death and made us alive to the law of God.

How?

While this has nothing to do with the theory God poured out His wrath on Christ, I think we can at least agree Christ died for us.

That is not a great deal of agreement. Even Unitarians agree on that.

 

[JonC]

That is not a great deal of agreement. Even Unitarians agree on that.

Then move closer to Scripture.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Then move closer to Scripture.

I know why Christ died for us. It begins to look as if you don't. Answer my question in post #95, please.

 

[JonC]

I know why Christ died for us.

Then why are you so puzzled that you complain my view look too much like Scripture?

Answer my question in post #95, please.

I will when we get there.

 

[JonC]

Answer my question in post #95, please.

It just dawned on me...you are talking about post # 35.

You asked how God ransomed us from the law of sin and death and made us alive to the law of God.

See, brother, that you are not taken captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men. God delivered us by forgiving our transgressions, having canceled out the debt of the law which was against us, having taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.

Is this so foreign to you? God gives us new hearts, new spirits. He puts His Spirit in us. We die to our old selves, to sin. We live in Him. We die to the law of sin and death and are made alive in Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

What you are doing is elevating the idea of a righteousness through the Law above God's own nature.

I have addressed this false dichotomy a number of times but most fully in a previous post. Your response as usual was just ignore the data simply because you had no answers to give. The law of God is grounded in the moral nature of God and is summarized in the principle of love. Romans 3:21-22 l makes it clear that God's righteousness, His own personal moral righteousness is revealed in the Law and prophets but most clearly reveal in the incarnate Son as defined by the principle of love.

[Edited]

Christ had to become flesh and die so that through death He would defeat the power of evil and free us from the slavery of sin and death. The reason He came, after all, was to destroy the works of the devil. The Cross was not something to be avoided, but rather God's predetermined plan. It was God's will that Christ die at the hands of men.

This is absurd simply because it is a half truth and a half truth is perversion of the truth. The cross was necessary to satisfy the just and holy demands of God against sin.

I understand PSA, and reject its base assumption. Based on your arguments, it does not seem that you fully understand the arguments against your view.

No, I understand the half truths against my view perfectly. I posted a website by Dr. William Lane Craig that systematically repudiates your view. If you are not too fearful and if you can be objective, go take a look and listen to these short videos (about 5 min per video).