Death FOR Sin

[Anthony Pritchard]

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

Your statement here is simply another diversion from the actual content of the discussion and an attempt to obfuscate the difference between the text and your interpretation of it.

 

[KenH]

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.

It is the fact that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect and satisfied God's justice that makes the four items you listed a reality.

 

[JonC]

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.

What I typed IS what I believe. It is not quoting Scriptute but my actual belief. So yes, it is very close to the biblical text.

Either you agree with it or you do not. But stop complaining that my view is too close to Scripture and offers no explanation. My words were the explanation.


We cannot discuss methodological distinctions because you refuse to explain yours.


But here is my methodology:

1. Identify your presuppositions (what is different between your worldview, ideologies, philosophies and that of the original audience to whom the words were written). Set side your presuppositions. Do not read the passage as a modern Western text.

2. Interpret words, phrases, and sentences in light of their surrounding text, the book's overall theme, and the author's purpose.

3. Texts must be understood within the social, historical, and cultural milieu of the time they were written, factoring in the intended original audience.

4. Interpreters should seek the natural, literal sense of the text unless the language (such as a metaphor, allegory, or hyperbole) clearly demands a figurative interpretation.

5. Words and idioms must be defined consistently with how the original author and their contemporaries used them, examining the original languages if necessary.

6. Passages should be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the rest of the text or document, ensuring that specific parts do not contradict the broader whole.

 

[JonC]

It is the fact that Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect and satisfied God's justice that makes the four items you listed a reality.

Show me the verse that states Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect and satisfied God's justice and I will believe you. Don't and you prove that you have been carried away from "the faith once delivered".

You continue to object that I only believe God's words and do not belueve yours (what you cannot find in the biblical text).

 

[KenH]

Show me the verse that states Christ paid the total sin debt of God's elect and satisfied God's justice

See my posts #6 and #28 and #55 earlier in this thread.

A non-Trinitarian could turn your words back on you and say, "Show me the verse that states that the Godhead is three distinct persons."

 

[JonC]

Your statement here is simply another diversion from the actual content of the discussion and an attempt to obfuscate the difference between the text and your interpretation of it.

Ok..... let's try it this way. You have my methodology. This is my position - the position ypu reject (what I believe in regards to the atonement):

Death entered the world through Adam transgression and spread to all men because all have sinned. Flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God. The problem the atonement assesses is that it is appointed man once to die and then the judgment. All flesh must die, and afterwards all human beings will be judged. God sent His Son to give eternal life in Him to all who believe for 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.

Jesus bore our sins bodily, tasted death once for all, defeating the power of the one who holds the power of death. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh, became ine of us exceot He never sinned. But He shared our infirmity, shared our humanity, was made din for us, a curse for us.

Christ was crucified. He suffered this oppression (expression of unjust power), this unjust judgment, this abuse (revile) for us. He was raised on the third day, glorified, given a name above every names.

This Second (last) Adam became a life giving Spirit. He is our High Priest who entered the Holy of Holies in Heaven through His own blood. And as our High Priest He makes intercession for us. When we sin He is our Advocate, our Mediator.

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

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.

When God judges the world ("Judgment Day") we will have been regined as precious metal is refined, all impurities will be gone. We will be made in Christ's image, a holy people, a glorified people.

 

[JonC]

See my posts #6 and #28 and #55 earlier in this thread.

A non-Trinitarian could turn your words back on you and say, "Show me the verse that states that the Godhead is three distinct persons."

I could show that non-trinitarian that God is One, the Spirit is God's Spirit, that the Father and Son are One and that each are distinct (the Father sent the Son, the Spirit was sent by the Father on behalf of the Son).

IF you cannot find that in the Bible then you are foolish to lean on the doctrine (it would be leaning on your own understanding).

I can find it in the Bible.

 

[KenH]

I could show that non-trinitarian that God is One, the Spirit is God's Spirit, that the Father and Son are One and that each are distinct (the Father sent the Son, the Spirit was sent by the Father on behalf of the Son).

In one verse, as you keep demanding on the atonement?

Let me be clear, the Bible teaches that the Godhead is three distinct Persons.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

What I typed IS what I believe. It is not quoting Scriptute but my actual belief. So yes, it is very close to the biblical text.

Either you agree with it or you do not. But stop complaining that my view is too close to Scripture and offers no explanation. My words were the explanation.


We cannot discuss methodological distinctions because you refuse to explain yours.


But here is my methodology:

1. Identify your presuppositions (what is different between your worldview, ideologies, philosophies and that of the original audience to whom the words were written). Set side your presuppositions. Do not read the passage as a modern Western text.

2. Interpret words, phrases, and sentences in light of their surrounding text, the book's overall theme, and the author's purpose.

3. Texts must be understood within the social, historical, and cultural milieu of the time they were written, factoring in the intended original audience.

4. Interpreters should seek the natural, literal sense of the text unless the language (such as a metaphor, allegory, or hyperbole) clearly demands a figurative interpretation.

5. Words and idioms must be defined consistently with how the original author and their contemporaries used them, examining the original languages if necessary.

6. Passages should be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the rest of the text or document, ensuring that specific parts do not contradict the broader whole.

Jon, your claim that post 49 was agreement is incorrect. In that post 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; it is a methodological distinction.

Your five numbered statements are simply restatements of 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 redefinitions of key atonement terms. Disagreement with your interpretation is not disagreement with the text.

Your response here is another diversion from the actual issue. You are shifting from the propositions under discussion to a claim that I must either “agree or disagree” with your list of verses. That is a category error. The question is not whether Scripture is true; the question is how you are interpreting it.

You also continue to assign beliefs to me and that I do not hold. Correction of that assignment is clarification, not rejection of Scripture.

As for methodology, I have already stated mine: I take the plain sense of the text as written. You may outline your own interpretive process, but it does not change the fact that the disagreement between us is not the biblical text, but the interpretive structure you place upon it.

 

[JonC]

Your statement here is simply another diversion from the actual content of the discussion

Smoke screen.

I posted my position.
I posted biblical text stating my position.
I posted my methodology.
I posted how I define atonement.
I posted how I define judgment.
I posted how I define redemption.
I provided the biblical text.

You posted passages and then what you think those passages mean.

And you have the audacity to say I am providing a diversion?!!!

I have been streight forward. You have my position. The biblical text stating my position. My definitions. The passages supporting my definitions. My methodology.

All we have gotten from you so far is extracted verses and your interpretation of what those verses really teach.

How do you define atonement and where is that stated in the biblical text?

How do you define justice and where is that stated in the biblical text?

How do you define redemption and where is that stated in the biblical text?

What is your methodology?

How do you keep your own worldview and philosophies from influencing your interpretations?

How do you get from the biblical text to your understanding?

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Ok..... let's try it this way. You have my methodology. This is my position - the position ypu reject (what I believe in regards to the atonement):

Death entered the world through Adam transgression and spread to all men because all have sinned. Flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God. The problem the atonement assesses is that it is appointed man once to die and then the judgment. All flesh must die, and afterwards all human beings will be judged. God sent His Son to give eternal life in Him to all who believe for 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.

Jesus bore our sins bodily, tasted death once for all, defeating the power of the one who holds the power of death. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh, became ine of us exceot He never sinned. But He shared our infirmity, shared our humanity, was made din for us, a curse for us.

Christ was crucified. He suffered this oppression (expression of unjust power), this unjust judgment, this abuse (revile) for us. He was raised on the third day, glorified, given a name above every names.

This Second (last) Adam became a life giving Spirit. He is our High Priest who entered the Holy of Holies in Heaven through His own blood. And as our High Priest He makes intercession for us. When we sin He is our Advocate, our Mediator.

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

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.

When God judges the world ("Judgment Day") we will have been regined as precious metal is refined, all impurities will be gone. We will be made in Christ's image, a holy people, a glorified people.

Diversion once again

Let's try to stay on topic Jon.

You are still diverting from the actual point. You asked which part of your position I reject. I answered: I reject your interpretive framework, specifically your denial of penal substitution, your denial of imputation, and your redefinitions of key atonement terms. That is the disagreement.

What you have now posted is not a doctrinal position in the technical sense; it is a narrative summary composed of biblical phrases. I do not reject Scripture. What I reject is the interpretive structure you place on top of those phrases. Disagreement with your interpretation is not disagreement with the text.

Your claim that post 49 was “agreement” is incorrect. In that post I stated that the difference between us is not the biblical text itself, but the interpretive framework you impose on it. That is not agreement; it is a methodological distinction.

You continue to shift the discussion away from the propositions under examination and toward a demand that I either “accept or reject” your list of biblical statements. That is a category error. The issue is not whether Scripture is true; the issue is how you are interpreting it.

I have already stated my methodology: I take the plain sense of the text as written. You may outline your own interpretive process, but it does not change the fact that the disagreement between us is not the biblical text, but the interpretive structure you place upon it

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

What is your methodology?

Diversion and obfuscation.

You have the temerity to question my repeatedly stated methodology yet again. I take the plain sense of the text as written. That has been stated multiple times.

Nothing in your reply addresses the point I made. You are still diverting from the actual issue.

You asked which part of your position I reject. I answered that I reject your interpretive framework, including your denial of penal substitution, your denial of imputation, and your redefinitions of key atonement terms. That is the disagreement.

What you have now posted is a narrative composed of biblical phrases. I do not reject Scripture. I reject the interpretive structure you place on those phrases. Disagreement with your interpretation is not disagreement with the text.

Your claim that post 49 was agreement remains incorrect. In that post I stated that the difference between us is not the biblical text itself but the interpretive framework you impose on it. That is not agreement. It is a methodological distinction.

You continue to shift the discussion away from the propositions under examination and toward demands that I either accept or reject your narrative summary. That is a category error. The issue is not whether Scripture is true. The issue is how you are interpreting it.

I have already stated my methodology, but just for you: I take the plain sense of the text as written. You may outline your own process, but it does not change the fact that the disagreement between us is not the biblical text but the interpretive structure you place upon it.

 

[JonC]

Diversion once again

Let's try to stay on topic Jon.

You are still diverting from the actual point. You asked which part of your position I reject. I answered: I reject your interpretive framework, specifically your denial of penal substitution, your denial of imputation, and your redefinitions of key atonement terms. That is the disagreement.

What you have now posted is not a doctrinal position in the technical sense; it is a narrative summary composed of biblical phrases. I do not reject Scripture. What I reject is the interpretive structure you place on top of those phrases. Disagreement with your interpretation is not disagreement with the text.

Your claim that post 49 was “agreement” is incorrect. In that post I stated that the difference between us is not the biblical text itself, but the interpretive framework you impose on it. That is not agreement; it is a methodological distinction.

You continue to shift the discussion away from the propositions under examination and toward a demand that I either “accept or reject” your list of biblical statements. That is a category error. The issue is not whether Scripture is true; the issue is how you are interpreting it.

I have already stated my methodology: I take the plain sense of the text as written. You may outline your own interpretive process, but it does not change the fact that the disagreement between us is not the biblical text, but the interpretive structure you place upon it

What the methodology you use to determine the "plain meaning" of the biblical text?

How do you know you are grasping the "plain meaning" of the biblical text as opposed to leaning on your own understanding of the text?

How do you keep your worldview from influencing your understanding the "plain meaning" of the text?

How do you get from the actual biblical text to your interpretation of what the text actually teaches?

How do you arrive at your definition of justice (what text)?

How do you arrive at your definition of the Hebrew concept of redemption?


On one hand you state a passage. Then you offer an unsubstantiated opinion of what the text really teaches. You need to connect the biblical text to what you see as the "plain meaning" of the text.

You deny that at the Supper we literally eat human flesh and drink human blood (I hope you deny that anyway). But for many that is the "plain meaning" of that text.

Unless you can explain how you arrive at what you subjectively see as the "plain meaning" it will only be a flawed understanding or a borrowed belief. We are not saved by borrowed beliefs.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Substitution IS redemption.

Redemption in Scripture is never an abstract transaction. It is always accomplished by a substitute bearing what the guilty cannot bear.

There is no biblical redemption without biblical substitution.

Here is the plain, textual pattern:

1. Redemption requires the substitute to bear our sins “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree.” (1 Peter 2:24)

If Christ does not bear our sins, we are not redeemed.

2. Redemption requires the substitute to bear our curse. “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.”
(Galatians 3:13)

If Christ does not bear the curse, we are not redeemed.

3. Redemption requires the substitute to bear our chastisement. “The chastisement of our peace was upon him.” (Isaiah 53:5)

If Christ does not bear our chastisement, we are not redeemed.

4. Redemption requires the substitute to be smitten for our transgressions. “He was smitten for the transgression of my people.” (Isaiah 53:8)

If Christ is not smitten for our transgressions, we are not redeemed.

5. Redemption requires the substitute to be wounded for our iniquities. “He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities.” (Isaiah 53:5)

If Christ is not wounded for our iniquities, we are not redeemed.

6. Redemption requires the substitute to suffer “the just for the unjust” “For Christ also hath once suffered, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.” (1 Peter 3:18)

If Christ does not suffer the just for the unjust, we are not redeemed.

This is the biblical mechanism of redemption. Substitution is not an assumption, it is the text.

Redemption is not God ignoring guilt.
Redemption is not God clearing the guilty without satisfaction.
Redemption is not God bypassing justice.

Redemption is the guilty being cleared because the righteous One bore their penalty.

That is the entire sacrificial system:

the spotless lamb dies for the sinner
the scapegoat bears sins on itself
the sin offering dies for the offender
the guilt offering dies for the transgressor

This is how God remains just and the justifier (Romans 3:26).

Your axioms destroy redemption because they destroy substitution.

If:

God will not punish the righteous
God will not clear the guilty

then:

Christ cannot bear sins
Christ cannot bear the curse
Christ cannot bear chastisement
Christ cannot be smitten
Christ cannot be wounded
Christ cannot suffer the just for the unjust

And therefore:

we cannot be forgiven
we cannot be justified
we cannot be redeemed
we cannot be saved

Non-PSA eliminates the gospel.

Substitution is redemption.
Redemption is substitution.
Scripture makes no separation.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

What the methodology you use to determine the "plain meaning" of the biblical text?

How do you know you are grasping the "plain meaning" of the biblical text as opposed to leaning on your own understanding of the text?

How do you keep your worldview from influencing your understanding the "plain meaning" of the text?

How do you get from the actual biblical text to your interpretation of what the text actually teaches?

How do you arrive at your definition of justice (what text)?

How do you arrive at your definition of the Hebrew concept of redemption?


On one hand you state a passage. Then you offer an unsubstantiated opinion of what the text really teaches. You need to connect the biblical text to what you see as the "plain meaning" of the text.

You deny that at the Supper we literally eat human flesh and drink human blood (I hope you deny that anyway). But for many that is the "plain meaning" of that text.

Unless you can explain how you arrive at what you subjectively see as the "plain meaning" it will only be a flawed understanding or a borrowed belief. We are not saved by borrowed beliefs.

Diversion and obfuscation. Please try to stay on topic.

 

[JonC]

Diversion and obfuscation.

You have the temerity to question my repeatedly stated methodology yet again. I take the plain sense of the text as written. That has been stated multiple times.

Nothing in your reply addresses the point I made. You are still diverting from the actual issue.

You asked which part of your position I reject. I answered that I reject your interpretive framework, including your denial of penal substitution, your denial of imputation, and your redefinitions of key atonement terms. That is the disagreement.

What you have now posted is a narrative composed of biblical phrases. I do not reject Scripture. I reject the interpretive structure you place on those phrases. Disagreement with your interpretation is not disagreement with the text.

Your claim that post 49 was agreement remains incorrect. In that post I stated that the difference between us is not the biblical text itself but the interpretive framework you impose on it. That is not agreement. It is a methodological distinction.

You continue to shift the discussion away from the propositions under examination and toward demands that I either accept or reject your narrative summary. That is a category error. The issue is not whether Scripture is true. The issue is how you are interpreting it.

I have already stated my methodology, but just for you: I take the plain sense of the text as written. You may outline your own process, but it does not change the fact that the disagreement between us is not the biblical text but the interpretive structure you place upon it.

Deflection.

I told you my position. Regardless of how I arrived at it, that is my position.

But I also told you my methodology. I gave my definitions. I gave the supporting text. You have not yet said where you disagree.

Regardless of my methodology you have my position. You cannot both agree with it and reject it.

 

[JonC]

Substitution IS redemption.

I agree that redemption is not abstract (it is very much not abstract).

I gave you my definition of redemption (a purchase in the context of the OT kinsman redeemer as highlighted in Ruth, the redemption in Scripture).

What biblical text defines "redemption" as "substitution"?

 

[JonC]

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.

Oh... I absolutely agree that Christ suffered once for our sins - the just for the unjust - to bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but quickened by the Spirit.

Jesus is just. We are unjust but will be conformed into His image, made new creations in Christ.

I was talking abour redemption. We all agree the Just redeemed the unjust.

 

[JonC]

In ancient Israelite culture, a "kinsman redeemer" ("goel") was a relative responsible for rescuing family members who fell into difficult circumstances, such as poverty or slavery.

The redeemer redeemed their relatives.

This is the model of redemption in the biblical text. The Son of Man rescued me from the bondage of sin and death.

In the biblical text redemption is not substitution.

 

[KenH]

Oh... I absolutely agree that Christ suffered once for our sins - the just for the unjust - to bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but quickened by the Spirit.

Jesus is just. We are unjust but will be conformed into His image, made new creations in Christ.

I was talking abour redemption. We all agree the Just redeemed the unjust.

Christ(The Just One) suffered for the sins of God's elect(the unjust) to redeem God's elect.