Atonement (what is written)

[JonC]

This is an absolute denial of the Gospel.

Yet it is not a denial of God's words.

What you call "the gospel" is not the gospel of Jesus Christ (the gospel that one can read in the Bible) but instead a your own philosophy ("another gospel").

We can know this several ways.

1. One is by your favorite, logic. If a Jew sinned by eating pork God cpuld not punish "eating pork". He could punish the sinner.

If you sin by stealing money God cannot punish "stealing money". God could punish you.

2. But the other is by Scripture, my favorite. God punishes the wicked.


Sin itself cannot be punished. Punishment is towards people because of sin.

You have been carried away by carnal philosophy.


"Instead of" is NOT the natural meaning of "bearing". You .ade this up to suit your theory.

We bear one another's sorrows. This is NOT "instead of". We will bear Christ's righteousness (not "instead of"). We bear one anothers burdens.

IN FACT - Nobody views "bearing" something to br "instead of" another EXCEPT the PSA cult when it comes to Jesus bearing sins.

The "natural meaning" of the word is not "instead of". The verse is saying Jesus bears our sins.

 

[JonC]

You don't give God the room to be God.

God tells us what is good and what is evil.

You say my belief that God will not be unrighteous is me not allowing God to be wicked. That is foolishness.

Righteousness is not a set of rules God follows. Righteousness is descriptive of God.


We know Muslims worship a different god because their description of God's nature is different from God's words.

A god that does not meet the standard of righteousness defined by God is not the God of the Bible.

Your view of God (one who is unrighteous and unjust based on His own standards) is not descriptive the God of Scripture.

 

[JonC]

To clarify - one cannot say "He bore our sins" means "substitution" because of the text (the language demands such a meaning) yet deny "bear one another's sorrow" means "substitution".

@Aaron (and @Anthony Pritchard ) are deriving their understanding from their philosophy, NOT the actual text.

They conclude Jesus bearing sin has to be "instead of us" because their philosophy demands it.

 

[37818]

The "natural meaning" of the word is not "instead of". The verse is saying Jesus bears our sins.

There is an "instead of" passage. MLV, Mark 10:45, For* the Son of Man also came, not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life[soul] as a redemption in exchange-for many.
That being, the "in exchange- for," reading. Creek αντι

Also Matthew 20;28.

 

[JonC]

There is an "instead of" passage. MLV, Mark 10:45, For* the Son of Man also came, not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life[soul] as a redemption in exchange-for many.
That being, the "in exchange- for," reading. Creek αντι

Also Matthew 20;28.

No, the passages say "as a ransom" but not "instead of". λύτρον literally means "loosen" (as in a ransom, or a price paid to redeem).

Jesus redeemed us with a price - His blood. This is not "instead of us" (we could not redeem ourselves). This is the price Jesus had to pay to free us from the bondage of sin and death.

No passage states that Jesus bore our sins instead of us (as a substitution). No person who believes doctrine should be limited by the Biblical text, or that we should use God's Word as our doctrine believes that those passages are substitutionary.

The only way to see "instead of" in those passages is to bring it there as it is not in the biblical text. PSA theorists read Scripture through the lens of their philosophy - they read the "problem" atonement solved is God punishing actions without punishing thd ones who did the actions. Therefore they see substitution. But it is foreign to the biblical text.

And that is fine. Roman Catholics acknowledge that the Bible is to be interpreted through their Church.

What is not fine is people, like @Anthony Pritchard , insisting we should base doctrine on the biblical text while not basing their doctrine on the biblicsl text. Tony is a Calvinist (a historical Calvinist, not "TULIP). That influences what he "sees" (what he has to add to those verses).

That is why we have to examine ourselves, identify where our philosophy influences our understanding, and know where God's words end and human wisdom begins.

 

[JonC]

There is an "instead of" passage. MLV, Mark 10:45, For* the Son of Man also came, not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life[soul] as a redemption in exchange-for many.
That being, the "in exchange- for," reading. Creek αντι

Also Matthew 20;28.

I think my reply was not as clear as I intended (we examined different words).

Yes, Christ gave His life as a ransom in exchange for many

But this is not "instead of". We were purchased (1 Cor 6:20; 7:23; 1 Peter 18; Acts 20; Rev 5).

When we purchase a service the money is not offered instead of the service. An elderly woman unable to walk may pay you to mow her lawn. The money is not given instead of you mowing the lawn. It is not given instead of her doing the work (she cannot do the work). It is a purchase.

I purchased tickets to Universal (last day today). I gave money in exchange for the tickets. This was not "instead of" but instead a purchase. The money without the purchase would not gain me entrance into the park.

We were bought with a price - the precious blood of Christ. He gave His life as a ransom, as an exchange, for us.