TULIP Was Never Alive to Begin With

[JesusFan]

My "Theory of Atonement" is that Christ suffered and died at the hands of wicked men. But this was the predetermined plan of God. God sent His Son as an offering. It was His will that Christ suffer and die to redeem mankind from the bondage of sin and death. Man was purchased with His blood - not purchased from anyone but bought with a price. Men esteemed Christ stricken, afflicted by God when infact He was bearing our sins, sharing our infirmity. He became a curse for us, became sin for us, suffered and died under the bondage that held us captive. And God vindicated Christ by raising Him on the third day, glorifying Him, giving Him a name that is above every name. He is a life giving Spirit, the Propitiation for the sins of the world through which we escape the wrath to come. In Him we are reborn, recreated. In Him there is no condemnation and we are freed from the bonds of sin and death.

By the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement I mean the theory articulated during the Protestant Reformation by reworking Aquinas' theory by replacing merit with wrath as the focus of the cross.

I define the Theory, in short, as the doctrine that Christ suffered and died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God transfered our sins (or our guilt) from us and imputed them to Christ. Christ stood in our place and suffered the punishment instead of us. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising divine justice.

The reason I moved from Penal Substitution Theory is that there is no biblical support (insofar as the text of Scripture) for its presuppositions. The understanding of divine justice expressed in the Theory appears to be closer to John Calvin's commentary on De Clementia than Scripture as it reflects Calvin's training in Humanistic law (Renaissance Humanism, not secular humanism as we use today).

One issue is adherents of Penal Substitution Theory (including my self, in the past) are very reluctant to examine, much less defend, these presuppositions. It is taken for granted the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is correct and therefore above examination.

The Father and Son agreed from all eternity that he would come and died as the sin bearer, so God the father really nailed Jesus to that Cross, and Jesus agreed!

 

[JonC]

The Father and Son agreed from all eternity that he would come and died as the sin bearer, so God the father really nailed Jesus to that Cross, and Jesus agreed!

That is the problem when we learn on our own understanding.

God knew Hitler would kill millions of Jews, therefore God killed those Jews. God knew the Jews would stone Stephen, therefore God stoned Stephen. God knew man would sin, therefore God sinned.

Scripture paints a different story. The Bible states that wicked men nailed Jesus to a cross. This was in accordance with God's plan, but Scripture still presents the killing of Christ as a sin.

 

[Mathetes66]

Thank you Jon, for sharing your changed belief in your present view of the atonement. In your present belief system, let me try to summarize it, based on its presuppositions & let me know if I am accurately articulating what you believe & make any corrections.

Presupposition#1: Jesus Christ suffered & died at the hands of wicked men by God's pre-determined plan/will.
Presupposition#2: Jesus Christ suffered & died to redeem mankind from the bondage of sin & death.
Presupposition#3: God sent His Son as an offering?
Presupposition#4: Man was purchased with His blood - not purchased from anyone but bought with a price.
Presupposition#5: Men esteemed Christ stricken, afflicted by God when in fact He was bearing our sins, sharing our infirmity.
Presupposition#6: He became a curse & sin for us, suffered & died under the bondage that held us captive.
Presupposition#7: God vindicated Christ by raising Him on the 3rd day, glorifying Him, giving Him a name that is above every name.
Presupposition#8: He is a life giving Spirit, the Propitiation for the sins of the world through which we escape the wrath to come.
Presupposition#9: In Him we are reborn, recreated.
Presupposition10: In Him there is no condemnation & we are freed from the bonds of sin & death.

I have also summarized your understanding of the Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory as you wrote on here and the presuppositions you think this theory is based upon. Please check them out for accuracy as well and make any corrections.

Presuppostion#1: Jesus Christ suffered & died on the cross as a substitute for sinners.
Presupposition#2: God transfered our sins (&/or our guilt) from us & imputed them to Christ.
Presupposition#3: Christ stood in our place and suffered the punishment instead of us.
Presupposition#4: This was a full payment for sins.
Presupposition#5: This full payment of sins satisfied both the wrath & the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising Divine justice.

Once these can be establlished and agreed upon, then we can move forward in the discussion as to which presuppositions are biblical & which are not. Thank you.

 

[JonC]

Thank you Jon, for sharing your changed belief in your present view of the atonement. In your present belief system, let me try to summarize it, based on its presuppositions & let me know if I am accurately articulating what you believe & make any corrections.

Presupposition#1: Jesus Christ suffered & died at the hands of wicked men by God's pre-determined plan/will.
Presupposition#2: Jesus Christ suffered & died to redeem mankind from the bondage of sin & death.
Presupposition#3: God sent His Son as an offering?
Presupposition#4: Man was purchased with His blood - not purchased from anyone but bought with a price.
Presupposition#5: Men esteemed Christ stricken, afflicted by God when in fact He was bearing our sins, sharing our infirmity.
Presupposition#6: He became a curse & sin for us, suffered & died under the bondage that held us captive.
Presupposition#7: God vindicated Christ by raising Him on the 3rd day, glorifying Him, giving Him a name that is above every name.
Presupposition#8: He is a life giving Spirit, the Propitiation for the sins of the world through which we escape the wrath to come.
Presupposition#9: In Him we are reborn, recreated.
Presupposition10: In Him there is no condemnation & we are freed from the bonds of sin & death.

I have also summarized your understanding of the Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory as you wrote on here and the presuppositions you think this theory is based upon. Please check them out for accuracy as well and make any corrections.

Presuppostion#1: Jesus Christ suffered & died on the cross as a substitute for sinners.
Presupposition#2: God transfered our sins (&/or our guilt) from us & imputed them to Christ.
Presupposition#3: Christ stood in our place and suffered the punishment instead of us.
Presupposition#4: This was a full payment for sins.
Presupposition#5: This full payment of sins satisfied both the wrath & the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising Divine justice.

Once these can be establlished and agreed upon, then we can move forward in the discussion as to which presuppositions are biblical & which are not. Thank you.

Looks good to me. #4 under Penal Substitution Theory may need more clarification (Christ did die for our sins, and we were not purchased with partial payment. I probably did not articulate that well.

But I agree with your summery. Hopefully that will provide a place to start.

 

[Mathetes66]

Thanks for your response Jon. Feel free to re-work #4 to be more accurate to how you understand it. Thanks.

 

[JonC]

Thanks for your response Jon. Feel free to re-work #4 to be more accurate to how you understand it. Thanks.

For #4, I would say it has to be linked to Calvin's understanding of justice.

So the presupposition would be that Jesus had to suffer the full punishment we deserved for our second and so that we would not (a type of "sin debt").

 

[Mathetes66]

#4: Jesus had to suffer the full punishment we deserved for our (second)??? and so that we would not [suffer the full punishment] (a type of sin debt) Would it sound better (as it is difficult what you mean here): Jesus had to suffer the full punishment for our sin debt that we deserved, so that we would not have to suffer the consequences of this sin debt. Let me know.

Also, you keep talking about John Calvin's errors concerning PSA theory. Could you quote John Calvin to show his error on this. Thanks.

 

[JesusFan]

#4: Jesus had to suffer the full punishment we deserved for our (second)??? and so that we would not [suffer the full punishment] (a type of sin debt) Would it sound better (as it is difficult what you mean here): Jesus had to suffer the full punishment for our sin debt that we deserved, so that we would not have to suffer the consequences of this sin debt. Let me know.

Also, you keep talking about John Calvin's errors concerning PSA theory. Could you quote John Calvin to show his error on this. Thanks.

He thinks Calvin formed and got his theology of Psa from legal means and philosophy, and not from the Bible itself!

 

[Aaron]

View attachment 6337

LOL. Now we're getting somewhere. At least you can't tell a lie with a fart.

 

[Mathetes66]

 

[Aaron]

In the beginning of this debate (not this thread, but this debate) @JonC denied that Christ was any kind of substitute. He denied that Christ took our place on the Cross. But here he said that Jesus was a substitute and He did take our place, but beware of the subtlety. He redefines substitution as representation. More on that later. And when Jon says our sins were laid on Him, he means not what Peter plainly says, that He bore our own sins in His body on the Cross, but that throughout His life He was suffering the effects that sin has on our existence here.

But when pressed, Jon let it slip, that Jesus took our place in wrath.

He said:

I have asked quite a few SBC members if they believe Penal Substitution. They say they do. Then I ask if they believe God poured His wrath on Christ, or that God punished Christ instead of punishing us. They respond that is not Christian, and they do not.

I asked:

What if you had phrased the question, Did Christ die in our place?

We all know Christ died in our place just as Adam sinned in our place. Scripture is clear on this.

I am talking about the false doctrine Penal Substitution Theory.

More on his misunderstanding concerning Adam later.

So I asked:

What does that mean [He died in our place?] What is it we were spared from by Christ being in that place instead of us?

We were spared the wrath to come.

So the Cross is a place of wrath.

And then he defined the suffering of Cross as part of the general malaise under which we all labor, in essence saying He didn't take our place.

 

[JonC]

In the beginning of this debate (not this thread, but this debate) @JonC denied that Christ was any kind of substitute. He denied that Christ took our place on the Cross. But here he said that Jesus was a substitute and He did take our place, but beware of the subtlety. He redefines substitution as representation. More on that later. And when Jon says our sins were laid on Him, he means not what Peter plainly says, that He bore our own sins in His body on the Cross, but that throughout His life He was suffering the effects that sin has on our existence here.

But when pressed, Jon let it slip, that Jesus took our place in wrath.

He said:


I asked:




More on his misunderstanding concerning Adam later.

So I asked:




So the Cross is a place of wrath.

And then he defined the suffering of Cross as the general malaise under which we all labor, in essence saying He didn't take our place.

There is nothing subtile change of meanings. I am outright proclaiming that Christ is our substitute only in terms of representation, exactly in the manner that Adam is the representative of natural man (which is the biblical understanding of "in Adam" as we are by nature Adam's progeny).

I just do not want people thinking I am trying to be quite or to minimalize our disagreements.

Why do you believe God must punish sinful actions even if this does not mean punishing the transgressor?

 

[JonC]

LOL. Now we're getting somewhere. At least you can't tell a lie with a fart.

Where two or more are gathered together you can.

 

[Aaron]

I am outright proclaiming that Christ is our substitute only in terms of representation

Which is to say that Christ is not our substitute.

A substitute is a replacement. A representative is an emissary. Christ replaced us on the Cross. That Cross and it's curse, meaning the guilt of transgression and the just penalty thereof, was ours. But we have been spared that Cross in Him.

We have been saved from wrath.

That is what it means to say He was made a curse for us.

We do not have to bear the Cross that Christ bore for us. The crosses we bear are the suffering for righteousness' sake, which you so egregiously conflate with what it means to suffer for sins. Yes, Christ suffered long His entire life, but that was a patience with sheep with no shepherd, and a suffering for the sake of righteousness. His suffering for sin was on the Cross, where He bore our own sins in His own body on the Tree. He was not bearing our sins at His birth, nor as a refugee in Egypt, neither when chided by His mother in Cana, nor when slandered by the Pharisees, or tempted by Satan.

He didn't suffer often for sins; He suffered once for sins. 1 Peter 3:18 The Rock was stricken once. It followed them in the Wilderness, and they were 40 years in the Wilderness because of unbelief, but it was stricken justly one time. To strike it a second time is to be left to die in the Wilderness. The veil was torn once, and it wasn't a gradual thing.

So where is it that we are told that He bore our sins? Where was it that He was stricken? Where was His body broken? (His flesh is what is represented by the veil Hebrews 10:20 ) I will repeat the question for those who think that God cannot in truth take another's sins upon Himself.

Where did He bear OUR sins? Not His. He had none. But our OWN sins?

Ah--yes. It was on the tree.

But @JonC asserts that Christ must have suffered often for sins. Jon would have been playing whack-a-mole on that Rock. He'd have had that veil cut to ribbons.

exactly in the manner that Adam is the representative of natural man (which is the biblical understanding of "in Adam" as we are by nature Adam's progeny).

The biblical understanding is that we were really there, so death passed upon all. That's where the human race was corrupted. We were all in Adam. Not just potentially, or figuratively, or legally, but really there.

And we were really in Christ.

 

[Aaron]

Why do you believe God must punish sinful actions even if this does not mean punishing the transgressor

The better question is, why must divine justice be served?

We're told over and over in the Scriptures that that is what the Cross is about, your inability to comprehend that fact notwithstanding.

Anything less would be a perversion of justice.

 

[tyndale1946]

The better question is, why must divine justice be served?

We're told over and over in the Scriptures that that is what the Cross is about, your inability to comprehend that fact notwithstanding.

Anything less would be a perversion of justice.

Don't mean to interrupted you brethren but on the same note as the cross I thought I would post lyrics to a song I led in church for many years called... Must Jesus Bear The Cross Alone?... By Thomas Shepherd originally written in 1693... Brother Glen

1. Must Jesus bear the cross alone,
   And all the world go free?
   No, there’s a cross for everyone,
   And there’s a cross for me.
2. How happy are the saints above,
   Who once went sorr’wing here!
   But now they taste unmingled love,
   And joy without a tear.
3. The consecrated cross I’ll bear
   Till death shall set me free;
   And then go home my crown to wear,
   For there’s a crown for me.
4. Upon the crystal pavement down
   At Jesus’ pierced feet,
   Joyful I’ll cast my golden crown
   And His dear Name repeat.
5. O precious cross! O glorious crown!
   O resurrection day!
   When Christ the Lord from heav’n comes down
   And bears my soul away.

 

[JonC]

But @JonC asserts that Christ must have suffered often for sins. Jon would have been playing whack-a-mole on that Rock. He'd have had that veil cut to ribbons.

This is a false statement.

Christ died once for all.

Your statement here demonstrates that you have absolutely no grasp on what others who disagree with you believe.

 

[JonC]

The better question is, why must divine justice be served?

We're told over and over in the Scriptures that that is what the Cross is about, your inability to comprehend that fact notwithstanding.

Anything less would be a perversion of justice.

Divine justice will be served because what we call "divine justice" is just a way of describing an aspect of God's nature.

Why do you believe God must punish sinful actions even if this does not mean punishing the transgressor?

 

[Aaron]

Why do you believe God must punish sinful actions even if this does not mean punishing the transgressor?

You're asking why must the justice of God be served?

 

[Aaron]

This is a false statement.

Christ died once for all.

Correction, suffered once, for sins. 1 Peter 3:18 . All that suffering prior to the Cross, was not for sins.

Your statement here demonstrates that you have absolutely no grasp on what others who disagree with you believe.

LOL. Actually it shows you have no grasp on the Gospel.