Death FOR Sin

[JonC]

@JonC,
I will do you the credit of saying that you think you believe the Biblical texts, but you end up butchering them so that you can disregard them, as I showed you in post #32 and present buying cinema tickets as some sort of evidence against substitution.

The thing is, I never "butchered" the actual text.

Hesus bore our sins bodily.

You and @Anthony Pritchard believe that means that Jesus bore our sins bodily instead of us.

I believe that means that Jesus bodily means that Jesus bore our sins bodily.

We agree in what Jesus bore. We even believe how He bore our sins (in His flesh). So we agree on what the biblical text states (the actual words).

But I do not agree with what you and @Anthony Pritchard believe is implied by the verse.

I told you my reason. I believe Jesus bore our sins in the same way we bear His righteousness; that God laid oyr sins on Him in the same way God lays His righteousness on us (the Just for the unjust). I said I view Jesus bearing our sins as Him coming in the likeness of sinful flesh, as bearing our infirmity, as being the Son of Man, sharing our humanity, being made like us but not sinning, being made flesh.

I said that I view Christ's work as going far beyond legal problems by fulfilling the law through God's righteousness apart from the law (I believe the atonement addresses an ontological "problem" ontologically rather than a moral problem addressed through a legal judicial system).


This is why I asked you and @Anthony Pritchard how you arrive at the idea of substitution and how you degine justice (since you both view atonement as addressing a judicial problem).

You and @Anthony Pritchard can say you disagree with my position. That would be fair. But you cannot say I butcher the biblical text without compromising your integrity because I have not altered, added, or subtracted from the text. I have been faithful to the actual text.

I cannot say the same of you at this time because you never addressed the reasons you interpret the biblical text as you do.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

The thing is, I never "butchered" the actual text.

Hesus bore our sins bodily.

You and @Anthony Pritchard believe that means that Jesus bore our sins bodily instead of us.

I believe that means that Jesus bodily means that Jesus bore our sins bodily.

We agree in what Jesus bore. We even believe how He bore our sins (in His flesh). So we agree on what the biblical text states (the actual words).

But I do not agree with what you and @Anthony Pritchard believe is implied by the verse.

I told you my reason. I believe Jesus bore our sins in the same way we bear His righteousness; that God laid oyr sins on Him in the same way God lays His righteousness on us (the Just for the unjust). I said I view Jesus bearing our sins as Him coming in the likeness of sinful flesh, as bearing our infirmity, as being the Son of Man, sharing our humanity, being made like us but not sinning, being made flesh.

I said that I view Christ's work as going far beyond legal problems by fulfilling the law through God's righteousness apart from the law (I believe the atonement addresses an ontological "problem" ontologically rather than a moral problem addressed through a legal judicial system).


This is why I asked you and @Anthony Pritchard how you arrive at the idea of substitution and how you degine justice (since you both view atonement as addressing a judicial problem).

You and @Anthony Pritchard can say you disagree with my position. That would be fair. But you cannot say I butcher the biblical text without compromising your integrity because I have not altered, added, or subtracted from the text. I have been faithful to the actual text.

I cannot say the same of you at this time because you never addressed the reasons you interpret the biblical text as you do.

For anyone following along: the reason this discussion keeps drifting is that Jon consistently moves away from the biblical text and into abstractions and systems. I have not said he “butchers” the text; my concern has been that he avoids the passages themselves and replaces them with philosophical categories. The simplest way to keep the conversation grounded is to stay with the verses. The text is the authority, not our systems and not our rhetoric. I’m content to keep quoting the passages and letting Scripture speak for itself. When the text is handled directly, the issues become clear without detours.

Key passages that speak plainly to the matter:

Isaiah 53:4–6 - He bore our griefs… the LORD laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
Isaiah 53:10–12 - His soul makes an offering for sin… He bore the sin of many.
1 Peter 2:24 - He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree.
1 Peter 3:18 - The just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God.
2 Corinthians 5:21 - He was made sin for us.
Galatians 3:13 - Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.
Hebrews 9:28 - Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many.
Leviticus 16:21–22 - The sins are placed on the substitute, and it bears them away.
John 1:29 - The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

These passages do not require philosophical systems or reinterpretive frameworks.

They simply need to be read.

 

[JonC]

For anyone following along: the reason this discussion keeps drifting is that Jon consistently moves away from the biblical text and into abstractions, systems, and personal accusations.

I am not drifting from the biblical text. I said @Martin Marprelate accused me of butchering the text. I am not making any personal accusations (that would be you, even in the above quote).

I am saying that you and I view the same biblical text but view it as plainly meaning different things.

The difference between your view and my view IS NOT the biblical text but our presuppositions.

Same with the Calvinism vs Arminianism debate. Both sides affirm the exact same biblical text but they understand the text to mean different things.

I explained my presuppositions.

I view redemption and ransom along the lines of the Old Testament kinsman redeemer (go'el) exemplified in the book of Ruth. This means that my understanding, while a legitimate understanding of "ransom" and "redemption", may differ from yours.

I understand justice as God's righteousness, which is ontological rather than jurisprudence. This means I understand the atonement to address an ontological problem which in doing so addresses any legal, social, or anthropological problems.

If you read the biblical text with those presuppositions then you arrive at my position of the atonement. It is not the biblical text that changes.

You also have presuppositions (we all do). Your philosophy of justice drives your understanding of the biblical text (as you view the atonement within the context of jurisprudence). If I afopted your presuppositions them I would still hold your view. The biblical text itself does not change.


The only way to honestly discuss our differences is to deal with the readon we see different doctrines as the plain meaning of the same text. To do otherwise would be merely tossing up passages we both hold as true but believe teaches different doctrines.


We do need that 3rd rule of hermenutics, but we need all of those rules and we need to deal with our own assumptions as well.

 

[JonC]

These passages do not require philosophical systems or reinterpretive frameworks.

They simply need to be read.

But this is not hermenutics. This is not exegesis. Just reading the passages and taking them to mean what you think is the plain reading always leads to eisegesis.

The reason is your philosophy, your worldview, your assumptions will always affect your understanding.

I can prove it. I read the verses you posted and saw they plainly do not teach substitution. But you read those verses abd think they do.

It does not matter what the biblical text means to us. What matters is what the biblical text actually means.


You made several truth claims that are not in the bible but that form your understanding of the biblical text.

You did this when you said "atonement means life for life" when the word we translate "atonement" is an OT word meaning "to cleanse", "to cover" and a NT word meaning "to reconcile". You did this when you said that bearing sin means "substitution".

We have to remember that the biblical text is an ancient text written long before our worldview even existed.


So we believe the exact same biblical text but understand that text differently.

I have addressed my own presuppositions. You simply say you have no presuppositions. I think we all (exceot maybe you) know this is false. We are Western people. We are modern people. We see things very differently than those who lived centuries before Christ and during the 1st century saw things.


If we do not identify and isolate our philosophical assumptions, our worldviews and ideologies, our expectations then we will read those into the Biblical text.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

The reason is your philosophy, your worldview, your assumptions will always affect your understanding.

I will simply stand on the text, calmly, without embellishment, without system language, without scaffolding, and the Word itself accomplishes the will of God.

Not me.
Not my tone.
Not my argument.
The text.

And the text reveals Non-PSA as incompatible with Scripture.

I am content to stand with the Text, the whole Text, and nothing but the Text.

Not me.
Not my tone.
Not my argument.
The text.

And the text reveals that Non‑PSA cannot be reconciled with Scripture. The sacrificial system, the language of bearing sin, the curse, the chastisement, the “for us,” the “in our place,” the “on behalf of,” the spotless substitute, all of it stands plainly in the written Word.

That is my position.
That is my method.
That is my confidence.