Without Christ's Substitutionary Death, There Could Be No Gospel

[JonC]

"Sin debt" is not an "alternate theory". It is solid Biblical teaching.

No, "sin debt" is an alternative to biblical atonement. It makes too many assumptions (you prove this by the passages you provided... none of them speak of a "sin debt"). You have contextualized the passages through your theory.

This is what I mean by "spiritual knowledge". The work of the Spirit is not discovering what God's words "really" teach but instead it is revealing the words actually given.

By this I mean natural man cannot understand the things of the Spirit. They can understand words and sentences, but to them Scripture lacks meaning. So they invent theories(like "sin debt", "restoring stolen honor").

This is the supernatural work of the Spirit we see. A Christian holds the bible and reads God's words. And those words have life. The atonement is eloquently simple, yet there is a depth to last several lifetimes. The Christian understands spiritual things, understands God's words.

But the natural man, holding the same text, sees incomplete hints at something not fully expressed. He views "spiritual knowledge" as some secret doctrine or code hidden beneath the text. And he is carried away by that philosophy - whether it is the "sin debt" heresy, baptismal regeneration, restoration of divine honor...etc. Those theories are merely what theorists adopt because they are natural men looking at something they cannot understand.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

A better approach, for those wanting to know the gospel of Jesus Christ, is to set adide what various men think is really taught by the Bible and sinoly believe the biblical text itself.

This is true. I have long since set aside what you think and prefer to believe the Biblical text, which is very simple and straightforward if one reads it without pre-suppositions.
'He was pierced for our transgressions; He was crushed for our iniquities. The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.'
'You [God the Father] have brought Me to the dust of death.'

Penal substitution.

 

[KenH]

"restoring stolen honor"

I had not heard of such so I had to google it. From what I saw of it, I want no part of it. Man, a mere creature, does not diminish God, the Creator, in any way. God is the Creator, man is a mere creature. God is the Potter, man is the mere clay. The Creator is not dependent on the creature in any way at all. The Potter is not dependent on the clay in any way at all.

"sin debt"

I had already anticipated that you would object because the exact phrase, "sin debt", is not used in the Bible. Even when something is clearly taught in the Bible, mere creatures try to object to it because the Creator did not use some particular construction of words(which, of course, these mere creatures have decided they must find in the Biblical text in order to believe what the Bible teaches).

If you continue to use such a methodology as that, JonC, I have to wonder if it is only a matter of time before you start objecting to the Biblical teaching of the Trinity of the Godhead, since, after all, you won't find the exact term, "Trinity", used in the Biblical text.

 

[JonC]

This is true. I have long since set aside what you think and prefer to believe the Biblical text, which is very simple and straightforward if one reads it without pre-suppositions.
'He was pierced for our transgressions; He was crushed for our iniquities. The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.'
'You [God the Father] have brought Me to the dust of death.'

Penal substitution.

Absolutely. It does not matter what you or I think is taught by the Bible. It matters what God says.

From Isaiah 53 "we had no regard for Him. However, it was our sicknesses that He Himself bore, And our pains that He carried; Yet we ourselves assumed that He had been afflicted, Struck down by God, and humiliated. But He was pierced for our offenses, He was crushed for our wrongdoings; The punishment for our well-being was laid upon Him, And by His wounds we are healed."

From Psalm 22 - "My strength is dried up like a piece of pottery, And my tongue clings to my jaws; And You lay me in the dust of death. For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me; They divide my garments among them,
And they cast lots for my clothing.

But You, Lord, do not be far away;
You who are my help, hurry to my assistance. Save my soul from the sword, My only life from the power of the dog. Save me from the lion’s mouth; From the horns of the wild oxen You answer me....For He has not despised the suffering of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard.


I absolutely agree with those passages. It may be your understanding of Penal Substitution Theory but it is not the theory itself.

We all agree that Christ was obedient to God even unto death. But PSA takes a liberal approach to Scripture. It affirms the views of the wicked men of Isaiah 53 and places God as the one who punishes Christ.

PSA itself (maybe not your understanding of the theory but the actual theory) is not supported by those passages (this is why PSA theorists will only extract a few verses).

 

[KenH]

God as the one who punishes Christ.

He did.

From Isaiah 53:4 "smitten of God"

From Isaiah 53:6 "the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all"

From Isaiah 53:10 "it pleased the LORD to bruise him"

From Isaiah 53:10 "he hath put him to grief"

From Isaiah 53:10 "thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin"

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But PSA takes a liberal approach to Scripture.

With you I am never quite sure what is a spelling mistake and what isn't, but if you meant to say that PSA takes a literal approach to Scripture, I completely agree with you.
For the rest, I am quite happy to let others read the verses and see what is so very clearly portrayed there.

 

[JonC]

With you I am never quite sure what is a spelling mistake and what isn't, but if you meant to say that PSA takes a literal approach to Scripture, I completely agree with you.
For the rest, I am quite happy to let others read the verses and see what is so very clearly portrayed there.

Lol... I trust my phone (was not wearing my glasses).


I believe the passages you offered (with the inclusion of the surrounding verses). I disagree with what you add to some passages and how you resist allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture.

For example, you seem to think that the language "Jesus bears our sins" dictates the addition of "instead of", but obviously we bearing one anothers sorrows means "with".

Spiritual knowledge is not knowing teachings hidden somewhere beneath God's words. Spiritual knowledge is the work of the Spirit in revealing to us the truth of God's words.

Your theory, just like any of the many theories about what the Bible really teaches, is just human philosophy. It is purely subjective, based on the secular ideas of men who reject "what is written" in favor of what they think is taught.

God's words are true. Therefore your theory is false.

 

[KenH]

For example, you seem to think that the language "Jesus bears our sins" dictates the addition of "instead of", but obviously we bearing one anothers sorrows means "with".

So what do you think, according to your theory, was accomplished at the cross?

 

[KenH]

God's words are true. Therefore your theory is false.

Yes, God's Word is true. Your theory, JonC, is a false teaching, as has been proven in this thread by using God's Word, the Bible.

 

[JonC]

So what do you think, according to your theory, was accomplished at the cross?

Man's reconcilation to God through Christ.

 

[JonC]

Yes, God's Word is true. Your theory, JonC, is a false teaching, as has been proven in this thread by using God's Word, the Bible.

Yet when we look at our posts, my "false view" is God's words and your "correct view" is nowhere in the biblical text.

This is what I mean by the natural man being unable to understand spiritual things. You quickly dismiss God's words and regurgitate man's philosophy in its stead.

 

[KenH]

Man's reconcilation to God through Christ.

How?

 

[KenH]

This is what I mean by the natural man being unable to understand spiritual things. You quickly dismiss God's words and regurgitate man's philosophy in its stead.

I quoted quite a few verses from the Bible. You, are the other hand, just come on here and throw brickbats at the teachings of the Bible on the atonement.

 

[JonC]

How?

Christ entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. The blood of Christ cleanses our consciences from acts that lead to death.

 

[JonC]

I quoted quite a few verses from the Bible. You, are the other hand, just come on here and throw brickbats at the teachings of the Bible on the atonement.

You did offer a few verses. The problem is the verses you offered did not support your theory.

You gave some verses and then ignored the words of those verses to tell us what you think those verses really mean because you are unable to accept what the verses actually state.

The natural man simply cannot comprehend spiritual truths. I cannot make you understand what is beyond your grasp.

 

[KenH]

Christ entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.

And in doing so, He paid the total sin debt of God's elect, which the Old Testament type indicated.

 

[KenH]

You did offer a few verses. The problem is the verses you offered did not support your theory.

I offered no "theory". What I showed you is Biblical truth.

 

[KenH]

You gave some verses and then ignored the words of those verses

I did no such thing. I showed you Biblical truth.

 

[JonC]

And in doing so, He paid the total sin debt of God's elect, which the Old Testament type indicated.

Again, I understand this is your theory about what the Bible really teaches. Others hold different theories.

My point is your theory is not in the Bible. The only reason for a person to accept any of these theories is a spiritual inability to grasp God's own words.

The natural man cannot understand that which is spiritual so they form theories to help them understand reality. Some of these theories are Christian themed. They have a form of godliness. But they are poor substitutes for God's words.

Christians, on the other hand, have spiritual life. The Spirit guides them - NOT to discover new "truths" excluded from the biblical text but to grasp "what is written".

 

[KenH]

Again, I understand this is your theory about what the Bible really teaches.

I hold to no mere "theory". I showed you Biblical truth.