Death FOR Sin

[Martin Marprelate]

You do not believe Jesus died on a Roman cross?

Do you not believe 1 Peter 2:24?

 

[JonC]

Are you saying that you don't attend any church services and listen to a teacher in a Bible class or to a preacher in a worship service? Are you saying that you do not read from any Bible commentaries?

No. I am saying that pastors, theologians and commentaries are not the standard of my faith. They must all be tested against the biblical text.

What pastors and commentaries to you depend on - those who teach your view or those who teach my view?

Obviously you trust only those who hold your position (based on what you have quoted). This means you are the author of your own faith, you are the criteria of what is correct and what is error. You choose who to listen to based on you agreeing with their words.

 

[KenH]

What pastors and commentaries to you depend on - those who teach your view or those who teach my view?

Those who teach what the Bible says. I trust God to place me under the teaching of faithful gospel preachers and teachers.

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

 

[KenH]

No. I am saying that pastors, theologians and commentaries are not the standard of my faith. They must all be tested against the biblical text.

Does the church you attend preach your view of Christ's atonement?

 

[JonC]

Do you not believe 1 Peter 2:24?

Yes, I do. The word translated into English as "tree" is the Greek word for "wood". I believe it was very appropriate for Peter to link this to the Hebrew word for "wood", "tree", "branch" in Deuteronomy because of the context.

I get that you arguing that the translators were wrong to use "cross" for the same word in Acts 5:30.

But context drives interpretation. In Deuteronomy the executed people were not hung on a wooden boat, or a wooden fence. Circumstances suggest they would be hung on trees (although it technically could have been erected poles or crosses).


More to your point - no, I do not believe the English words were delivered via a second special revelation. I believe the English is a translation of the source text.

Peter's words, like Luke's words, could have been He was hung on a cross. But "wood" is the less presumptive for Peter's words and it makes that connection to the Mosaic Law.

 

[JonC]

Those who teach what the Bible says. I trust God to place me under the teaching of faithful gospel preachers and teachers.

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

You are wrong to do so because you violate another command to test what these men say. Not only that but you horribly misinterpret 2 Tim 2:2 (which is about Timothy teaching others so they can continue the message).

But you are lucky. Since you just follow whoever you wanted believing what they say (thinking them to be teachers given to you by God) you could have every easily ended up a Mormon.

 

[KenH]

ou are wrong to do so because you violate another command to test what these men say. Not only that but you horribly misinterpret 2 Tim 2:2 (which is about Timothy teaching others so they can continue the message).

I do test what anyone says to what the Bible teaches. Why do you think trusting in God means otherwise?

Faithful gospel preachers and teachers have continued on and on since the first century. You don't think that is the case?

 

[KenH]

Are you going to answer my question:

Does the church you attend preach your view of Christ's atonement?

 

[JonC]

I do test what anyone says to what the Bible teaches. Why do you think trusting in God means otherwise?

Faithful gospel preachers and teachers have continued on and on since the first century. You don't think that is the case?

But you do not, otherwise you would be able to explain how you go from "what is written" to what you believe.

If you tested what men have told you against the Word of God you would have had to know what was involved in their framework, tested their presuppositions, and would be able to explain the path you take from Scripture to your faith.

You simply hold a borrowed belief, hoping the men you like were correct, betting everything that they were.


Can I prove that claim? Yes. You will fail to be able to answer for the path taken by those you follow. That is proof.

You cannot define your understanding of divine justice because you have merely adopted somebody else's philosophy. And that is the very basis of your theory.

You cannot explain why you see "substitution" in He bore our sins (words completely absent "substitution") because you have no clue as to why, you simply believe what you have been told.


And you cannot have tested your faith and the men you follow with the text of Svripture snd passed the test because what you claim to believe is not actually in the text itself.

 

[JonC]

Are you going to answer my question:

Does the church you attend preach your view of Christ's atonement?

Sorry, I missed that one.

The church I attend preaches Scripture (proclaims the words of God). So yes, my church preaches my view of Christ's atonement.

Any church that preaches Scripture also preaches my view. Any Christian that has ever lived and will live believes my view of the atonement.

This does not mean some also believe PSA in addition to my view of the atonement. But it means those who do keep, as @Anthony Pritchard put it, these doctrines in seperate rooms.

My pastor believes PSA but explains it as his understanding (he does not lean on or teach PSA lest he fall under Paul's warning to teachers).

 

[JonC]

@Anthony Pritchard

@KenH brought up a good question. He asked if my church preaches my view of the Atonement.

The answer is yes. You and @KenH also believe my position of the atonement (assuming, obviously, that you are Christians). You are just PSA theorists as well, keeping these doctrines isolated in different rooms lest they tough and the walls explode.

You do not, and have not, disagreed with anything of my position. Your objection is that I reject your interpretation.

I simply do not see the need to go back to carrying around PSA theory as it seems to obscure other important doctrines.

 

[KenH]

otherwise you would be able to explain how you go from "what is written" to what you believe.

I have done so.

f you tested what men have told you against the Word of God you would have had to know what was involved in their framework, tested their presuppositions, and would be able to explain the path you take from Scripture to your faith.

I have done so.

You simply hold a borrowed belief

No. I believe the gospel of Christ taught in the Bible.

hoping the men you like were correct, betting everything that they were.

You are wrong. I have committed my whole salvation to Christ Jesus.

You will fail to be able to answer for the path taken by those you follow.

Wrong. I have done so.

You cannot define your understanding of divine justice

I have done so.

You cannot explain why you see "substitution" in He bore our sins

I have done so.

And you cannot have tested your faith and the men you follow with the text of Svripture snd passed the test because what you claim to believe is not actually in the text itself.

Wrong. I have done so. I believe the gospel of Christ taught in the Bible.

I refer you and anyone else to my posts #6 and #28 and #55 earlier in this thread.

 

[KenH]

You and @KenH also believe my position of the atonement

The atonement taught in the Bible is that:

1) All the sins of God's elect were imputed to Christ.
2) Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect.

Now, Jon, if you don't agree with those two points, then I do not believe your position on the atonement, as that would mean that your position on the atonement is not taught in the Bible and that you are in error.

 

[JonC]

The atonement taught in the Bible is that:

1) All the sins of God's elect were imputed to Christ.
2) Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect.

Now, Jon, if you don't agree with those two points, then I do not believe your position on the atonement, as that would mean that your position on the atonement is not taught in the Bible and that you are in error.

You may be right. You may reject my view. I have offered it many times, but once more to see exactly what you claim to reject;

1. God set forth His Son to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.

2. He bore our sins bodily, tasted death once for all, defeating the power of the one who holds the power of death.

3. In Him there is no condemnation, we are cleansed by His blood and escape the wrath to come.

4. In Him God was recomciling the world to Himself, forgiving man's sins. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers.

5. We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.



What you object to is my rejection of your ideas about what the bible really teaches. I do reject your theory because I see where you made mistakes putting that theory together.

But my rejection of your theory is not the position I believe.

I do not believe the men you have chosen to follow are greater than God or have given us elevations superior to the biblical text itself.


The same is true with @Anthony Pritchard .

He has confirmed that he and I both hold the same position, but he believes some interpretations saying what is really taught that I absolutely reject.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Now, Jon, if you don't agree with those two points, then I do not believe your position on the atonement, as that would mean that your position on the atonement is not taught in the Bible and that you are in error.

Jon is doing exactly what he has done in the past: assigning my beliefs to me so he can argue against a version of me that exists only in his head. And you caught him red‑handed.

He made a claim about your beliefs, and mine, that neither of us has ever stated.

He wrote:

“You and KenH also believe my position of the atonement… You are just PSA theorists as well…”

This is a textbook Jon move:

• He asserts that I agree with him.
• He asserts that you agree with him.
• He asserts that everyone agrees with him.
• Then he reframes disagreement as merely “interpretation.”

This is how he protects his system: If everyone secretly agrees with him, then he never has to defend anything.

But neither of us has ever affirmed his NONPSA position. Both of us have explicitly affirmed PSA. And you have explicitly rejected his lexical redefinitions.

He knows this. He just can’t operate unless he pretends otherwise.

 

[JonC]

1) All the sins of God's elect were imputed to Christ.
2) Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect.

I told you that I believe the biblical text is limiting. When we exceed the text we create a doctrine that is different from "the faith once delivered".

My point before was that you have not rejected any part of my position (what I believe). Instead you object to my not believing ideas that are not found in the actual biblical text.

I will let you and @Anthony Pritchard provide verses, without your explanation of what you or other men think is really taught, stating all the sins of God's elect were imputed to Christ and Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect.

If you find such a verse - the actual biblical text - then I will be persuaded. But you and I know that you and @Anthony Pritchard do not care about the biblical text itself. You two care about your own systems, the framework you metely use God's words for filling in the blanks.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

He has confirmed that he and I both hold the same position, but he believes some interpretations saying what is really taught that I absolutely reject.

This is a textbook Jon move, you assigning my beliefs to me so you can argue against a version of me that exists only in your head. You have done this before.

But I nave never affirmed your NONPSA position, this is how you protect your system, you know this but you cannot operate unless you pretend otherwise.

 

[JonC]

Jon is doing exactly what he has done in the past: assigning my beliefs to me so he can argue against a version of me that exists only in his head. And you caught him red‑handed.

He made a claim about your beliefs, and mine, that neither of us has ever stated.

He wrote:



This is a textbook Jon move:

• He asserts that I agree with him.
• He asserts that you agree with him.
• He asserts that everyone agrees with him.
• Then he reframes disagreement as merely “interpretation.”

This is how he protects his system: If everyone secretly agrees with him, then he never has to defend anything.

But neither of us has ever affirmed his NONPSA position. Both of us have explicitly affirmed PSA. And you have explicitly rejected his lexical redefinitions.

He knows this. He just can’t operate unless he pretends otherwise.

In post #49 you agreed with my position on the atonement.

One more time... hete is my position:

1. God set forth His Son to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.

2. He bore our sins bodily, tasted death once for all, defeating the power of the one who holds the power of death.

3. In Him there is no condemnation, we are cleansed by His blood and escape the wrath to come.

4. In Him God was recomciling the world to Himself, forgiving man's sins. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers.

5. We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

@Anthony Pritchard , prove me wrong. Which number do you reject.


For all your theorizing you have not yet disagreed with any part of my position. You have objected to what I reject (what I do not believe) but that has never been the biblical text.

So which number do you reject?
What of my belief do you reject?

Start there and give me a chance to see if it is the biblical text or something else.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I told you that I believe the biblical text is limiting. When we exceed the text we create a doctrine that is different from "the faith once delivered".

My point before was that you have not rejected any part of my position (what I believe). Instead you object to my not believing ideas that are not found in the actual biblical text.

I will let you and @Anthony Pritchard provide verses, without your explanation of what you or other men think is really taught, stating all the sins of God's elect were imputed to Christ and Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect.

If you find such a verse - the actual biblical text - then I will be persuaded. But you and I know that you and @Anthony Pritchard do not care about the biblical text itself. You two care about your own systems, the framework you metely use God's words for filling in the blanks.

Jon, you are once again assigning beliefs to me and to Ken that neither of us hold. Correction of that assignment is simply clarification.

Ken’s two propositions are doctrinal conclusions drawn from multiple texts. Your demand for “a single verse without explanation” is a category error. Doctrines such as the Trinity, the incarnation, and justification are not expressed in single‑sentence formulations; they are synthesized from the whole counsel of Scripture.

Your repeated claim that we “have not rejected your position” is factually incorrect. Both of us have explicitly affirmed penal substitution and explicitly rejected your lexical redefinitions. Disagreement is not dishonesty.

If you wish to discuss the doctrine itself, address the propositions as stated. If you wish to discuss the biblical texts, engage them directly; I and others have posted them plainly. But you do not get to define personal theology for me or for anyone else.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

In post #49 you agreed with my position on the atonement.

Textbook Jon.

In post 49 I did not agree with your position. I stated that the difference between us is not the biblical text itself, but the interpretive framework you place on top of the text. That is not agreement in any sense. It is a methodological distinction.

The five items you listed are biblical passages. I do not reject Scripture. What I reject is your interpretive framework, specifically your denial of penal substitution, your denial of imputation, and your lexical redefinitions of key atonement terms. Disagreement with your interpretation is not disagreement with the text.

You are once again assigning beliefs to me and to Ken that neither of us hold. Correction of that assignment is clarification, not rejection of Scripture.

If you wish to discuss doctrine, address the propositions as stated. If you wish to discuss the biblical texts, engage them directly. But you do not get to define personal theology for me or for anyone else.