The False Doctrine of the Substitutionary Atonement of Jesus Christ

Stephen

Active member
For a quick primer on the theory, see: https://carm.org/substitutionary-atonement-jesus-christ

The article begins with:

There are differing views on the atonement of Christ that have been offered throughout the history of the Christian church. Not all of them are biblical. The correct position is the Substitutionary Atonement position since this means that Christ took our place, which is clearly taught in Isaiah 53:4-6; 2 Cor. 5:21; and 1 Pet. 2:24.

As with all articles like this, read the passages they cite and apply the mind that God gave you to see if the passages actually say rather than what the author wishes they said.

The first passage is:

2 Cor 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

It doesn’t say he took our place, it says he did something for us. He became “sin for us”, not “sin in place of us”. And he did it so that change will be made in us. That change is that “in him we might become the righteousness of God”. The idea that Christ takes our place is absent in Paul’s words.

The other two passages cited are related, 1 Peter 2:24 is a quotation from Isaiah 53:9. So let’s read Isaiah 53. This is a well known passage, the predicted suffering and glory of Jesus:

53:1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

Christ cannot be said to be taking our place in any of these clauses

4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;

He most certainly took up our pain, but we still suffer, therefore Christ cannot be suffering in our place.
He was pierced for our transgressions, but since we weren't supposed to be pierced, he isn't pierced in our place.
He was crushed for our iniquities, but since we weren't supposed to be crushed, he isn't crushed in our place


the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

Here is what the passage teaches. It brings us peace and healing. This directly contradicts the idea that he suffered in our place. If he suffers in our place, we wouldn't need to be healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

Here is a picture of the live goat in the day of atonement sacrifices (Lev 16:21-22). Christ isn't carrying our sin to a far place in our place, as we were never called to do that. Instead it is something he does to bring us peace with God.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.

Christ cannot be said to be taking our place with any of these clauses.

8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,

Since we still die and go to the grave, Christ cannot be said to be taking our place here

though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.

If you hope for eternal life, you cannot claim Christ is taking your place by being given eternal life in your place

12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors

Christ cannot be said to be taking our place with any of these clauses



If you think Christ went to the cross as your substitute, Christ taught the direct opposite:

”Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.”-Matthew 16:24

Christ teaches that we should take up our cross and follow him, not that he should carry it in our place. Christ didn’t die on the cross in your place, or else he would still be in the tomb and the graveyards would be empty. The reverse is true, Christ’s tomb is empty and the graveyards are full. Further, Christ wasn’t sacrificed in our place, he an example sacrifice for us to emulate as we also become a living sacrifice as Paul teaches:

Romans 12:1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. 2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.



If you believe that Christ is your substitute, how is he your substitute:
  • Did he die and go to the grave eternally in your place?
  • Did he get resurrected to eternal life in your place?
  • Other?
 

Sherman

Active member
Okay. This argument is what I would call hair splitting. The concept of Vicarious atonement is biblically rooted. Jesus fulfilled the Law for us because we couldn't do it for ourselves,. He lawfully paid for the penalty for our sin. This doesn't have anything to do with Him taking Eternal Life for us. That logic doesn't follow. Because he took our penalty for us, we can have eternal life. This model you present, I believe comes from a misunderstanding of Vicarious Atonement. The concept isn't that difficult. God didn't make scripture difficult to understand.
 

Bob Carabbio

Active member
If you believe that Christ is your substitute, how is he your substitute:
You're obviously unfamiliar with the Typology covered in the "Day of atonement". which was an inferior "Shadow of what Jesus would do at the end of his life, as the sacrificial Lamb and the "Scapegoat" Lev 16. What was being "covered" in the Old Testament, is CLEansed completely in the NEw Testament by Jesus' SIN OFFERING. What Jesus "took", is MY SIN upon Himself, so that I no longer have to bear it myself (and wind up in the lake of fire because of it).
 

Stephen

Active member
Okay. This argument is what I would call hair splitting. The concept of Vicarious atonement is biblically rooted. Jesus fulfilled the Law for us because we couldn't do it for ourselves,. He lawfully paid for the penalty for our sin. This doesn't have anything to do with Him taking Eternal Life for us. That logic doesn't follow. Because he took our penalty for us, we can have eternal life. This model you present, I believe comes from a misunderstanding of Vicarious Atonement. The concept isn't that difficult. God didn't make scripture difficult to understand.

If you claim that it is "biblically rooted", then please show it.
  • Where does Christ take your place?
  • Where does it say that "Jesus fulfilled the law for us because we couldn't do it for ourselves?". Romans 13:8 would disagree.
  • Where does it say he "paid for the penalty of our sin"? The wages of sin is death, and if Jesus paid that penalty then there would be no more death.

I understand the vicarious atonement just fine. God didn't make the scriptures difficult to understand, however men like to make stuff up and pretend it is scripture.

The question is simple, in what way is Jesus a substitute? What did he do in our place so that we don't have to do it?
 

Stephen

Active member
You're obviously unfamiliar with the Typology covered in the "Day of atonement". which was an inferior "Shadow of what Jesus would do at the end of his life, as the sacrificial Lamb and the "Scapegoat" Lev 16. What was being "covered" in the Old Testament, is CLEansed completely in the NEw Testament by Jesus' SIN OFFERING. What Jesus "took", is MY SIN upon Himself, so that I no longer have to bear it myself (and wind up in the lake of fire because of it).

In contradiction to the Vicarious substitutionary atonement model, sins were not paid for on the day of atonement. Sin was placed on the live goat and the goat was sent away into the wilderness by the man at the ready. Payment was never made, nor was the live goat a substitute for the children of Israel.

Getting to the meat of your claim regarding the substitutionary atonement, you claim that Jesus bears your sins and ended up in the lake of fire for all eternity as your substitute. Correct? If not, then in what way is Jesus your substitute?
 

Bob Carabbio

Active member
In contradiction to the Vicarious substitutionary atonement model, sins were not paid for on the day of atonement. Sin was placed on the live goat and the goat was sent away into the wilderness by the man at the ready. Payment was never made, nor was the live goat a substitute for the children of Israel.
Hebrews makes that clear, the the blood of livestock COULD NEVER cleanse Israel from their SIN, - but it COULD hide it for a year to temporarily make Israel acceptable to God. It Took a PERFECT HUMAN sacrifice to get the cleansing done.
Getting to the meat of your claim regarding the substitutionary atonement, you claim that Jesus bears your sins and ended up in the lake of fire for all eternity as your substitute. Correct? If not, then in what way is Jesus your substitute?
Don't be ridiculous!!! Jesus definitely BORE MY SIN (yours too if you're "Born again"), but since it wasn't HIS Sin, HE didn't end up in hell and was quickly Exhonerated, and glorified. Our "Old Man" the body of SIN was crucified WITH CHrist and died on the cross with him (Gal 2:20).

2Co 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
 

Stephen

Active member
Hebrews makes that clear, the the blood of livestock COULD NEVER cleanse Israel from their SIN, - but it COULD hide it for a year to temporarily make Israel acceptable to God. It Took a PERFECT HUMAN sacrifice to get the cleansing done.

I know they were cleansed. Which is the moral influence view (my view).

This however is directly contradictory to the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. Substitutionary atonement says sin was paid for, not cleansed.


Don't be ridiculous!!! Jesus definitely BORE MY SIN (yours too if you're "Born again"), but since it wasn't HIS Sin, HE didn't end up in hell and was quickly Exhonerated, and glorified. Our "Old Man" the body of SIN was crucified WITH CHrist and died on the cross with him (Gal 2:20).

2Co 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Once again, this is the moral influence view (my view). Christ wasn't crucified in our place, but rather we are to be crucified with him. We are baptized into his death so that we will to be raised like him. Christ doesn't do these things as a substitute for us, but rather he shows us the way. We are to take up our cross and follow him.

This is directly contradictory to the substitutionary atonement view which says Christ was crucified in our place.


Do you have any other passages you may wish to post that confirm that the substitutionary atonement view is a false doctrine.



I'll post a few more:

Matthew 18. The parable of the unforgiving servant

21 Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” 22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times.

23 “Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. 24 When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25 And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. 26 So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ 27 And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. 28 But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii, and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay what you owe.’ 29 So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’ 30 He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt. 31 When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place. 32 Then his master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ 34 And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt.
35 So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.”


And once more:

Colossians 2
13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you[d] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

The debt was cancelled, it was never paid. The bible in many places and many ways directly contradicts the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement where sin was paid for by our substitute.
 

rod.ney

Member
For a quick primer on the theory, see: https://carm.org/substitutionary-atonement-jesus-christ

The article begins with:



As with all articles like this, read the passages they cite and apply the mind that God gave you to see if the passages actually say rather than what the author wishes they said.

The first passage is:

2 Cor 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

It doesn’t say he took our place, it says he did something for us. He became “sin for us”, not “sin in place of us”. And he did it so that change will be made in us. That change is that “in him we might become the righteousness of God”. The idea that Christ takes our place is absent in Paul’s words.

The other two passages cited are related, 1 Peter 2:24 is a quotation from Isaiah 53:9. So let’s read Isaiah 53. This is a well known passage, the predicted suffering and glory of Jesus:

53:1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

Christ cannot be said to be taking our place in any of these clauses

4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;

He most certainly took up our pain, but we still suffer, therefore Christ cannot be suffering in our place.
He was pierced for our transgressions, but since we weren't supposed to be pierced, he isn't pierced in our place.
He was crushed for our iniquities, but since we weren't supposed to be crushed, he isn't crushed in our place


the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

Here is what the passage teaches. It brings us peace and healing. This directly contradicts the idea that he suffered in our place. If he suffers in our place, we wouldn't need to be healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

Here is a picture of the live goat in the day of atonement sacrifices (Lev 16:21-22). Christ isn't carrying our sin to a far place in our place, as we were never called to do that. Instead it is something he does to bring us peace with God.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.

Christ cannot be said to be taking our place with any of these clauses.

8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,

Since we still die and go to the grave, Christ cannot be said to be taking our place here

though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.

If you hope for eternal life, you cannot claim Christ is taking your place by being given eternal life in your place

12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors

Christ cannot be said to be taking our place with any of these clauses



If you think Christ went to the cross as your substitute, Christ taught the direct opposite:

”Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.”-Matthew 16:24

Christ teaches that we should take up our cross and follow him, not that he should carry it in our place. Christ didn’t die on the cross in your place, or else he would still be in the tomb and the graveyards would be empty. The reverse is true, Christ’s tomb is empty and the graveyards are full. Further, Christ wasn’t sacrificed in our place, he an example sacrifice for us to emulate as we also become a living sacrifice as Paul teaches:

Romans 12:1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. 2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.



If you believe that Christ is your substitute, how is he your substitute:
  • Did he die and go to the grave eternally in your place?
  • Did he get resurrected to eternal life in your place?
  • Other?
Christ does NOT take our place! He takes on all our Sins ( Past, Present & Future ) ONLY if we accept ( Not Reject ) Him ( the Free Gift from GOD ) as your Lord & Savior ( then you are Saved or Born again )! He did that when He shed His human blood on the cross on April ( Nisan ) of 33 AD!
 

mica

Well-known member
For a quick primer on the theory, see: https://carm.org/substitutionary-atonement-jesus-christ

The article begins with:



As with all articles like this, read the passages they cite and apply the mind that God gave you to see if the passages actually say rather than what the author wishes they said.

The first passage is:

2 Cor 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

It doesn’t say he took our place, it says he did something for us. He became “sin for us”, not “sin in place of us”. And he did it so that change will be made in us. That change is that “in him we might become the righteousness of God”. The idea that Christ takes our place is absent in Paul’s words.

The other two passages cited are related, 1 Peter 2:24 is a quotation from Isaiah 53:9. So let’s read Isaiah 53. This is a well known passage, the predicted suffering and glory of Jesus:

53:1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

Christ cannot be said to be taking our place in any of these clauses

4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;

He most certainly took up our pain, but we still suffer, therefore Christ cannot be suffering in our place.
He was pierced for our transgressions, but since we weren't supposed to be pierced, he isn't pierced in our place.
He was crushed for our iniquities, but since we weren't supposed to be crushed, he isn't crushed in our place


the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

Here is what the passage teaches. It brings us peace and healing. This directly contradicts the idea that he suffered in our place. If he suffers in our place, we wouldn't need to be healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

Here is a picture of the live goat in the day of atonement sacrifices (Lev 16:21-22). Christ isn't carrying our sin to a far place in our place, as we were never called to do that. Instead it is something he does to bring us peace with God.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.

Christ cannot be said to be taking our place with any of these clauses.

8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,

Since we still die and go to the grave, Christ cannot be said to be taking our place here

though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.

If you hope for eternal life, you cannot claim Christ is taking your place by being given eternal life in your place

12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors

Christ cannot be said to be taking our place with any of these clauses



If you think Christ went to the cross as your substitute, Christ taught the direct opposite:

”Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.”-Matthew 16:24

Christ teaches that we should take up our cross and follow him, not that he should carry it in our place. Christ didn’t die on the cross in your place, or else he would still be in the tomb and the graveyards would be empty. The reverse is true, Christ’s tomb is empty and the graveyards are full. Further, Christ wasn’t sacrificed in our place, he an example sacrifice for us to emulate as we also become a living sacrifice as Paul teaches:

Romans 12:1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. 2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.



If you believe that Christ is your substitute, how is he your substitute:
  • Did he die and go to the grave eternally in your place?
  • Did he get resurrected to eternal life in your place?
  • Other?
what religion are you?
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
2 Cor 5:21

21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

The word for here is the prep ὑπέρ hypér:

primary preposition; "over", i.e. (with the genitive case) of place, above, beyond, across, or causal, for the sake of, instead, regarding; with the accusative case superior to, more than:—(+ exceeding, abundantly) above, in (on) behalf of, beyond, by, + very chiefest, concerning, exceeding (above, -ly), for, + very highly, more (than), of, over, on the part of, for sake of, in stead, than, to(-ward), very.

The word is used as to denote " instead of"

Here Philemon 1:13

Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel:

That in my opinion speaks to substitution.

So also Christ for our sins according to scripture. He died for our sins instead of us!
 

Bonnie

Well-known member
What is the difference in dying FOR us and the Substitutionary atonement? Seems to me, it is a distinction without any difference.

Sorry, but Isaiah 53 clearly demonstrates that the Messiah would suffer in our place.

4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;

He took OUR pain, OUR suffering. He was pierced for OUR transgressions. THAT is the substitutionary atonement right there. BYW--the substitutionary atonement doesn't mean that we would have been punished the exact same way Jesus was, on the cross, being pierced, etc. if Jesus had not done so, in our place. That is a foolish notion. It just means that God punished Him instead of us. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice for our sins, since He never sinned. And, being God in the flesh, His atonement for our sins on the cross if for all people, for all time.

the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
You are wrong. This does teach the substitutionary atonement. For Isaiah writes "the punishment that brought us peace WAS ON HIM, and by His wounds, we are healed."​
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.

He was punished for our transgressions. He was punished FOR us. The NASB and KJV are a bit clearer about this, in this verse:

By oppression and judgment He was taken away;
And as for His generation, who considered
That He was cut off out of the land of the living
For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?

"For whom the stroke was due"....the Messiah was cut off from the land of the living, for OUR transgressions, even though the punishment--stroke--was due US!

Again, that is the substitutionary atonement.

10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.

The bolded parts are all about the Messiah being our substitute, since He suffered in our place.

For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

Sorry, but Is. 53 is all about how the Messiah would suffer in our place, bear our sins, be crushed for our iniquities and how our punishment was LAID ON HIM. He bore OUR INIQUITIES.

That is the substitutionary atonement all over the place, in Isaiah 53. I am sorry you cannot seem to see it.

  • Did he die and go to the grave eternally in your place?
  • Did he get resurrected to eternal life in your place?
  • Other?
1. No, of course not. He rose from the dead after three days, in a glorified body that would never see decay. By rising from the dead, He conquered sin, death, and the devil. By rising from the dead, He also shows us that we too will be resurrected from the dead at His Second coming. He said that "I go to prepare a place for you, so that where I am, you may be, also." That place is eternal life in heaven.

2. You are comparing apples to kumquats. Isaiah 53 is about the suffering servant suffering in our place FOR OUR SINS. So we CAN have eternal life in heaven with Him, after we die. He rose from the dead to show us that He conquered death and the devil and sin!
3. Other? I have no idea what you mean by that.
 

Bonnie

Well-known member
In contradiction to the Vicarious substitutionary atonement model, sins were not paid for on the day of atonement. Sin was placed on the live goat and the goat was sent away into the wilderness by the man at the ready. Payment was never made, nor was the live goat a substitute for the children of Israel.

Getting to the meat of your claim regarding the substitutionary atonement, you claim that Jesus bears your sins and ended up in the lake of fire for all eternity as your substitute. Correct? If not, then in what way is Jesus your substitute?
But the sacrifice of the goat had to be done over and over again, because the blood of bulls and goats can never take away our sins or cleanse our consciences permanently. The OT animal sacrifices PREFIGURED the more perfect and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross for our sins. He paid for our sins completely on the cross, hence His "It is finished!"

Only the blood of Jesus Christ shed on our behalf can cleanse us of all sins, by grace through faith in HIM.
 

Bob Carabbio

Active member
I know they were cleansed. Which is the moral influence view (my view).

The "Moral Imperative" theory has nothing to do with "Cleansing" - it's more a "He did this, and so should you" salvation by works theory. Roman Catholics tend to roll that way.

BUT HEY!!! I knew you'd have a "Work around" theology that lights your fire. And since it doesn't matter (As long as you're Born Again) i'll just leave it there.
 

Stephen

Active member
2 Cor 5:21

21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

The word for here is the prep ὑπέρ hypér:

primary preposition; "over", i.e. (with the genitive case) of place, above, beyond, across, or causal, for the sake of, instead, regarding; with the accusative case superior to, more than:—(+ exceeding, abundantly) above, in (on) behalf of, beyond, by, + very chiefest, concerning, exceeding (above, -ly), for, + very highly, more (than), of, over, on the part of, for sake of, in stead, than, to(-ward), very.

The word is used as to denote " instead of"

Here Philemon 1:13

Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel:

That in my opinion speaks to substitution.

So also Christ for our sins according to scripture. He died for our sins instead of us!

https://biblehub.com/greek/5228.htm

So your argument is that that of 13+ definitions, the one almost at the end of the list is the correct one, and that the translators completely whiffed the translation and should have put "instead of", and therefore the "instead of" doctrine is true.

Let's look at your post:

  1. superior to,
  2. more than:—(+ exceeding, abundantly) above,
  3. in (on) behalf of,
  4. beyond,
  5. by,
  6. + very chiefest,
  7. concerning, exceeding (above, -ly),
  8. for, + very highly,
  9. more (than),
  10. of,
  11. over,
  12. on the part of,
  13. for sake of,
  14. in stead


If I look at how the word is used in the NAS, about (5), above (4), behalf (22), beyond (4), concerning (3), exceed (1), more so (1), more than (5), over (2), regard (1), sake (9), sakes (1), than (3). The translation "Instead of" doesn't even make the list for the NAS. The only verses I could see where "instead of" is commonly used as the way to translate the word is Philemon 1:13, and the translations are mixed at best in that singular instance. https://biblehub.com/philemon/1-13.htm

If you are going to have a doctrine as important of the reconciliation of man to God, a surer footing than that is recommended. I would suggest investigating the direct teaching of Jesus.
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
https://biblehub.com/greek/5228.htm

So your argument is that that of 13+ definitions, the one almost at the end of the list is the correct one, and that the translators completely whiffed the translation and should have put "instead of", and therefore the "instead of" doctrine is true.

Let's look at your post:

  1. superior to,
  2. more than:—(+ exceeding, abundantly) above,
  3. in (on) behalf of,
  4. beyond,
  5. by,
  6. + very chiefest,
  7. concerning, exceeding (above, -ly),
  8. for, + very highly,
  9. more (than),
  10. of,
  11. over,
  12. on the part of,
  13. for sake of,
  14. in stead


If I look at how the word is used in the NAS, about (5), above (4), behalf (22), beyond (4), concerning (3), exceed (1), more so (1), more than (5), over (2), regard (1), sake (9), sakes (1), than (3). The translation "Instead of" doesn't even make the list for the NAS. The only verses I could see where "instead of" is commonly used as the way to translate the word is Philemon 1:13, and the translations are mixed at best in that singular instance. https://biblehub.com/philemon/1-13.htm

If you are going to have a doctrine as important of the reconciliation of man to God, a surer footing than that is recommended. I would suggest investigating the direct teaching of Jesus.
You saw my reason.
 

Stephen

Active member
What is the difference in dying FOR us and the Substitutionary atonement? Seems to me, it is a distinction without any difference.

A Heart surgeon performs heart surgery on you and for you, not as your substitute. The fact that you can't see the obvious difference is a compelling argument that you haven't thought through the doctrine.


Sorry, but Isaiah 53 clearly demonstrates that the Messiah would suffer in our place.

He took OUR pain, OUR suffering. He was pierced for OUR transgressions. THAT is the substitutionary atonement right there. BYW--the substitutionary atonement doesn't mean that we would have been punished the exact same way Jesus was, on the cross, being pierced, etc. if Jesus had not done so, in our place. That is a foolish notion. It just means that God punished Him instead of us. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice for our sins, since He never sinned. And, being God in the flesh, His atonement for our sins on the cross if for all people, for all time.

Yes, I understand the claims of your doctrine are that
  1. God punished an innocent man
  2. The guilty go unpunished
  3. Since the punishment Christ received was death, you believe that you will not die.
The belief that you will not die is the lie of the serpent.

You are wrong. This does teach the substitutionary atonement. For Isaiah writes "the punishment that brought us peace WAS ON HIM, and by His wounds, we are healed."

What it doesn't say is that "the punishment that we should have taken, but he took for us was on him". There is no indication of Christ taking your place in that verse.


He was punished for our transgressions. He was punished FOR us. The NASB and KJV are a bit clearer about this, in this verse:​

Yes, he was. The issue is not what he did "for us", but what he did "as our substitute".


3. Other? I have no idea what you mean by that.

It was a question for you to tell me what you mean by "substitution".
  • Did he die and go to the grave eternally in your place?
  • Did he get resurrected to eternal life in your place?
  • Other?
 

Stephen

Active member
But the sacrifice of the goat had to be done over and over again, because the blood of bulls and goats can never take away our sins or cleanse our consciences permanently. The OT animal sacrifices PREFIGURED the more perfect and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross for our sins. He paid for our sins completely on the cross, hence His "It is finished!"

The goat that carried away sin wasn't sacrificed.

Only the blood of Jesus Christ shed on our behalf can cleanse us of all sins, by grace through faith in HIM.

Yes. Which means he didn't shed it in our place, because our blood cannot.
 

Stephen

Active member
I read through some of his posts - he posts like a Christadelphian. They do not believe in the vicarious atonement.

Correct.
Correct.

I reject the doctrine of the vicarious atonement and hence a thread arguing against it.
 

Stephen

Active member
The "Moral Imperative" theory has nothing to do with "Cleansing" - it's more a "He did this, and so should you" salvation by works theory.

13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

Yes, the bible teaches that the blood of Christ cleanses our consciences so that we may serve. This is the moral influence theory directly taught in scripture.

The bible doesn't teach that Christ is our substitute and that the blood of Christ releases us from service with Christ serving in our place.
 
Last edited:
Top