Present doctrine of atonement fallacies

[pnattmbtc]

At least I'm assuming that's his question. My answer to this question is that the Bible contains the answer. It's also in the Spirit of prophecy.

[pnattmbtc]

SivartM: If I forgive someone, I don't have to kill myself to do it. Why would God have to?

i got your point sivartm and it was a good one....i believe the issue is confusing forgiveness with pardon....and i do know the bible tends to use "forgive" in place of "pardon"...adam and eve were immediately forgiven, but not pardoned as in allowed to continue as if nothing had happened...

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc:It comes to me that a key question in this discuss is what is it that caused Jesus' death?

A similar question is, what was the reason Joseph was sent as a slave to Egypt?

Compare Gen. 37: 28 with 45: 7,8.

It looked like men forced Joseph into Egypt, but the Bible shows us that it was God's plan.

Then compare Matt. 26 with Matt. 20: 28; Acts 2: 23; 3: 18; Is. 53.

The book of Matt makes it appear that men were the ultimate cause of Christ's death, but the rest of the Scriptures show us that it was all according to God's pre-determined plan. Luke 24: 46 tells us straightforwardly that "it was NECESSARY for the Messiah to suffer" and die. See also Matt. 26: 24; 1 Cor. 15: 3; Romans 3: 21-26; 1 John 2: 2; Rev. 5: 9.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq

SivartM: If I forgive someone, I don't have to kill myself to do it. Why would God have to?

t:i got your point sivartm and it was a good one....i believe the issue is confusing forgiveness with pardon....and i do know the bible tends to use "forgive" in place of "pardon"...adam and eve were immediately forgiven, but not pardoned as in allowed to continue as if nothing had happened...

What difference do you see between "forgiveness" and "pardon"?

thanks for cleaning the post up...

tentatively,

forgiveness for me is not holding a grudge...

pardon, in this case-and perhaps i need a better word--would be allowing man to continue without some kind of remedy for the natural consequences "man" had brought on "him"self...

to use an example ive seen....i can forgive my child for getting into the poison when i told him/her not to touch...

but that doesnt help much if i cant find a remedy for the poison ingested...

hope that made some kind of sense...

[teresaq]

Quote:

pnattmbtc:It comes to me that a key question in this discuss is what is it that caused Jesus' death?

A similar question is, what was the reason Joseph was sent as a slave to Egypt?

Compare Gen. 37: 28 with 45: 7,8.

It looked like men forced Joseph into Egypt, but the Bible shows us that it was God's plan.

Then compare Matt. 26 with Acts 2: 23; 3: 18; Is. 53.

The book of Matt makes it appear that men were the ultimate cause of Christ's death, but the rest of the Scriptures show us that it was all according to God's pre-determined plan.

as you see it, so God "made them do it"?

or He used the circumstances, overrode if you will, to bring about a result He wished?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

pnattmbtc:It comes to me that a key question in this discuss is what is it that caused Jesus' death?

J:A similar question is, what was the reason Joseph was sent as a slave to Egypt?

Compare Gen. 37: 28 with 45: 7,8.

It looked like men forced Joseph into Egypt, but the Bible shows us that it was God's plan.

Then compare Matt. 26 with Acts 2: 23; 3: 18; Is. 53.

The book of Matt makes it appear that men were the ultimate cause of Christ's death, but the rest of the Scriptures show us that it was all according to God's pre-determined plan.

I don't see how this answers my question. I asked what caused Jesus' death. Is the following your idea?

a.Jesus' death was according to God's plan.

b.Therefore God caused Jesus' death.

[fccool]

I can see what John is trying to say, yet it still does not speak for or against the nature of atonement.

Let's dive into Greek a bit. There are two words that are translated as "for" in OT. The problem is that the word "for" in Greek can be two different words.

1) Anti - which means "instead of"...carries the meaning of replacement or substitute

2) Huper - which means in behalf of, for the sake of, for the benefit of ... carries the meaning of benefit.

Generally, both words are translated as "For", sometimes correctly or incorrectly. Yet the word Huper does not carry the context of Anti as we will see later on.

Here's every single occurrence of Anti in both NT and and OT Septuagint. Forgive me for the long list, but I think it's very important to grasp the idea of the two words. The ideas that carry atonement context are in bold. I might have missed some, so perhaps help me out.

Quote:

appointed me another seed instead of Abel

a burnt offering in the stead of his son

Am I in God’s stead

gave them bread in exchange for horses

priest in his stead

other stones, and put them in the place of those stones

the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn

instead of all the firstborn

the cattle of the Levites instead of all the firstlings

Take the Levites instead of all the firstborn

the cattle of the Levites instead of their cattle

instead of such as open every womb, even instead of the firstborn

ye are risen up in your fathers’ stead

whom he raised up in their stead

take her, I pray thee, instead of her.

Amasa captain of the host instead of Joab

thou hast made thy servant king instead of David

Made him king instead of his father

His son reigned in his stead

Instead of the children of Israel

Made him king in his father’s stead

Made him king in his father’s stead

Queen instead of Vashti

Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children

If your soul were in my soul’s stead

Let thistles grow instead of wheat and cockle instead of barley

Instead of sweet smell, there shall be stink

Instead of a girdle a rent

Instead of well-set hair baldness

Instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth

Burning instead of beauty

Instead of the thorn shall come up the fir tree

Instead of the briar shall come up the myrtle

Which reigned instead of Josiah

The Lord hath made thee priest in the stead of Johoiada

Josiah reigned instead of Coniah

if thou be not captain of the host before me continually in the room of Joab.

anointed him king in the room of his father

Thy son, whom I will set upon thy throne in thy room

I am risen up in the room of David

Shalt thou anoint to be prophet in thy room

Eliakim, son of Josiah, king in the room of Josiah

I am risen up in the room of David

Made him king in the room of his father Amaziah

Did reign in the room of his father Herod

In the instances below it's translated as "for", meaning "as exchange or substitute for"

Quote:

he will give thee this also for the service which thou shalt serve

he shall lie with thee to night for thy son’s mandrakes.

have hired thee for my son’s mandrakes

I will give you for your cattle, if money fail.

Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for the flocks, and for the cattle of the herds, and for the asses: and he fed them with bread for all their cattle for that year.

buy us and our land for bread

thou shalt give life for life

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot

Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake.

he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.

ox for ox;

five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.

he shall be sold for his theft

blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

beast for beast.

Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth

will punish you yet seven times for your sins.

I have taken the Levites for all the firstborn

I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance

it is your reward for your service

but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes.

The LORD give thee seed of this woman for the loan

for the life of his brother whom he slew

the LORD will requite me good for his cursing this day.

my son Absalom! would God I had died for thee

put to death for this

a chariot came up and went out of Egypt for six hundred shekels

an horse for an hundred and fifty

then shall thy life be for his life

therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people

Rewarded me evil for good

Render evil for good

For my love they are my adversaries

Rewarded me evil for good and hatred for my love

Rewardeth evil for good

Buy the poor for silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes

Have given a boy for a harlot and sold a girl for wine

This they shall have for their pride

For brass I will bring gold

For iron I will bring silver, and for wood brass, and for tone iron

Beauty for ashes

Garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness

Shall evil be recompensed for good?

Cow’s dung for man’s dung

I have given him the land of Egypt for his labours

I will give the wicked for His burial, and the rich for his death .

For one day of thy captivity, I will recompense thee double.

I will recompense to you the years that the locusts hath eaten .

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth

thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee

To give His life a ransom for many

To give his life a ransom for many

Will he for a fish give him a serpent?

And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace

Recompense to no man evil for evil

Her hair is given her for a covering

None render evil for evil

Who, for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross

Who, for one morsel of meat sold his birthright

Not rendering evil for evil or railing for railing

Now, let's take some of the Hupers that deal with atonement:

Quote:

And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it, and gave it to them, saying "This is My body which is given for (in behalf of, for the sake of, for the benefit of) you; do this in remembrance of Me." And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for (in behalf of, for the sake of, for the benefit of) you is the new covenant in My blood." Luke 22:19, 20

"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread also which I shall give for (in behalf of, for the sake of) the life of the world is My flesh." John 6:51

"I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for (in behalf of, for the sake of, for the benefit of) the sheep. John 10:11 (see John 10:15 also)

"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for (in behalf of, for the sake of, for the benefit of) his friends. John 15:13

For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for (in behalf of, for the sake of, for the benefit of) the ungodly. Romans 5:6

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for (in behalf of, for the sake of, for the benefit of) us. Romans 5:8

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for (in behalf of, for the sake of, for the benefit of) our sins according to the Scriptures. 1 Cor. 15:3

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. 2 Cor. 5:21

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for (in behalf of, for the sake of, for the benefit of) us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree." Gal. 3:13

And walk in love, just as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for (in behalf of, for the sake of, for the benefit of) us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma. Eph. 5:2

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for (in behalf of, for the sake of, for the benefit of) her. Eph. 5:25

But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for (in behalf of, for the sake of, for the benefit of) everyone. Heb. 2:9

Now, I could keep going, but based on the language alone... the idea of substitution is virtually missing. What we have is a "for our benefit", which carries a completely different meaning than substitution (anti).

[pnattmbtc]

There is a sense that the substitution idea is valid. That sense is that if Jesus Christ had not died, we would have.

For example, suppose there's a fire in a building, and a firefighter give his life to save some residents. Did the firefighter sacrifice his life for the residents saved? Was he their substitute? Yes on both accounts.

The concept of substitution is not objectionable. It's the concept of penal substitution that's problematic.

[fccool]

The problem with this arguments is "could have, should have" questions. If Christ did not die, then the alternate scenario is that He would live. Do you really think that if for some reason the Jews and Romans repent and followed God (we of course would have to suspend OT prophecy to follow such idea)... then they and the rest of the world would be condemned? That's preposterous ! God wants us to repent. If that happened 2000 years ago, all of us would be better off!

So saying that without Christ's death we stood no chance is a hypothetical assumption that we have to likewise interject with other hypothetical assumptions. These are not valid questions that reveal the nature of God's atonement, and nature of God's sacrifice.

We could certainly speculate what would have happened if Christ did not come... we would be in a lot more trouble, that's for sure... but likewise... "What if?" does it really help us to reveal the nature of the reality, which is "IS"?

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

We need to stop dwelling on blood and death, and start dwelling on life and repentance.

"without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." Heb 9:22 ESV.

"he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption." Heb 9:12 ESV.

"how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God." Heb 9:14 ESV.

"... we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus." Heb 10:19 ESV.

"Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal ." Heb 13:20 ESV.

" God sent him to die in our place to take away our sins. We receive forgiveness through faith in the blood of Jesus’ death. This showed that God always does what is right and fair, as in the past when he was patient and did not punish people for their sins." Rom 3:25 NCV

"Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God." Rom 5:9 ESV.

"In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace." Eph 1:7 ESV.

"But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ." Eph 2:13 ESV.

"and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross." col 1:20 ESV.

" I said to him, “Sir, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." Rev 7:14 ESV.

[pnattmbtc]

The problem with this arguments is "could have, should have" questions. If Christ did not die, then the alternate scenario is that He would live. Do you really think that if for some reason the Jews and Romans repent and followed God (we of course would have to suspend OT prophecy to follow such idea)... then they and the rest of the world would be condemned? That's preposterous ! God wants us to repent. If that happened 2000 years ago, all of us would be better off!

So saying that without Christ's death we stood no chance is a hypothetical assumption that we have to likewise interject with other hypothetical assumptions. These are not valid questions that reveal the nature of God's atonement, and nature of God's sacrifice.

We could certainly speculate what would have happened if Christ did not come... we would be in a lot more trouble, that's for sure... but likewise... "What if?" does it really help us to reveal the nature of the reality, which is "IS"?

What post are comment are you responding to? I'm not understanding your response in the context of something I've written.

[fccool]

Quote:

You evidently don't believe that Ellen White was given visions by God and that she wrote the truth about these things in Patriachs and Prophets, etc.

There are many Christian scholars who've never read anything by Ellen White, yet on the basis of the Bible alone, they are in fundamental agreement with what Ellen White wrote concerning the Fall and the institution of the sacrificial system. See, for instance, the commentaries by Adam Clarke and Matthew Henry.

Many Bible scholars and students see a hint in Gen. 3: 15 of God's promise of a Savior to Adam and Eve.

Do you believe God never gave Adam and Eve any hope of ever returning to their Eden home? What about Enoch? What was Enoch inspired to say in Jude 14, 15? Do you believe it's apocryphal?

John,

Forgive me for not making myself clear, or perhaps you did not fully understand what I was saying.

My point was not "God did not reveal Salvation plan to humans". My point was "God did not reveal the specifics of the salvation plan in a way that was clearly understood by all, or even some".

Eve, for example thought that God was speaking about her firstborn when he said "He will strike His head"... as evidenced by:

She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man."

That's why from then on, everyone expected the male child because "That one could be THE ONE". God gradually, through some prophets revealed the specifics, although these were misunderstood by majority once again.

So, I don't believe that Eve was specifically looking to Christ's death.

As far as E.G. White goes, I would prefer you not to use her material if it is extra-Biblical... I.E. is not clearly portrayed in the Bible. I don't believe that this concept is.

[fccool]

What post are comment are you responding to? I'm not understanding your response in the context of something I've written.

[pnattmbtc]

But let's say Christ did not die. Pilate simply refused to give Jews what they wanted. Do you really believe that God would not find other way to reconcile?

1.I don't think there was any other way. Only the cross could reveal the height and length and depth and breath of God's love.

2.I don't think the cross was a way which God "found" to reconcile man. I think the cross was inevitable, given the nature of man and of sin. Given God's character, and the character of the world and evil beings, it was inevitable that the cross should happen.

3.I don't think it can be argued that Christ gave Himself up for the terrible death that He experienced. Christ did so for our justification, according to Romans 4:15 IIRC. There are other verses which indicate that Christ died for our salvation. (Even John 3:16 brings out this idea). Given this is the case, there is an element of substitution involved, as in the firefighter illustration.

[fccool]

That's exactly why I don't want to ponder "what ifs"

What if Adam and Eve did not sin? Would Satan still exist? Would God's plan fail? It's a futile exercise.

Although I would like to point out that... let's say that Christ was stoned to death... would that change any variables? Would He demonstrated less love?

You make it sound that the severity of punishment is what determines the amount of demonstrated love! I hardly think so. There are much more horrific ways to die than on the cross IMO. It's not the degree of suffering and death that outlines the amount of God's forgiveness and love.

The substitutional atonement proponents have to concentrate on suffering because it has to be as horrific as possible to pay for sins of the billions of people. I don't think this is a correct way of looking at it.

The suffering was not in the mode of execution. The real suffering was rejection by the people who you love. If you ever been dumped, then you'd know what I'm talking about ... only times million.

[pnattmbtc]

There's no "what if" in anything I wrote that I see. What are you referring to?

[John317]

Quote:

fccool: To give His life a ransom for many

To give his life a ransom for many

... Now, I could keep going, but based on the language alone... the idea of substitution is virtually missing. What we have is a "for our benefit", which carries a completely different meaning than substitution (anti).

Anti and huper as substitution:

A. Anti occurs about 20 times in the New Testament.

In two of those instances, anti has to do with the "ramsom":

Matt. 20: 28 and Mark 10: 45:

"The Son of man came... to give His life a ransom for [anti] many."

In these verses, anti means either "instead of" or "in exchange for."

Also see Hebrews 12: 2: "... Jesus... who instead of [anti] the joy that was set before him endured the cross."

Carefully compare the use of anti in the Septuagint (LXX):

Gen. 22: 13: "... and offered him up for a burnt offering instead of [anti] his son..."

Gen. 44: 33: "Let thy servant, I pray thee, abide instead of [anti] the lad a bondman to my lord."

Numbers 3: 12: "I have the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of [anti] all the first-born."

For discussion of the preposition, anti, in the above verses, see A Manual of the Greek New Testament, Dana & Mantey, pp. 99, 100.

B. Huper as Substitution:

Huper with the ablative case also sometimes means the same thing, that is, substitution.

For instance, in John 11: 50 it carries the meaning of "instead of." "One man should die instead of the people [huper tou laou]."

Also Gal. 3: 13: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse instead of us, [huper hemon]."

2 Cor. 5: 14, 15--

"... that if One died for [huper] all, then all died; and He died for [huper] all... Him who died for [huper] them..."

(See a discussion of this prepostion in A Manual of the Greek New Testament, Dana & Mantey, pp. 111, 112.)

Also see The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, BAG, page 846, Section c.

This lexicon cites examples from literature and papyrus outside the Bible where huper is often used to explain that the writer of a letter is writing as "as the representative of" an illiterate person.

It shows evidence that the preposition huper [in behalf of] sometimes merges with the meaning of "in place of, instead of."

It gives Romans 9: 3 as an example: "For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for [huper, in the place of] my brethren... "

Another possible example is 1 Cor. 15: 29, although the meaning of huper is debatable here: "...what will they do who are baptized for [huper] the dead... why then are they baptized for [huper] the dead?"

One possible (even likely) translation is "with reference to."

[pnattmbtc]

You make it sound that the severity of punishment is what determines the amount of demonstrated love!

Where are you getting this from? Please quote what you're responding to. You seem to reading things into what I'm writing. I'm having trouble following your thought. What do you have in mind by "severity of punishment"? Did I mention the word "punishment" anywhere? (No, I didn't) Where are you getting the idea of punishment from?

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc:There is a sense that the substitution idea is valid. That sense is that if Jesus Christ had not died, we would have.

For example, suppose there's a fire in a building, and a firefighter give his life to save some residents. Did the firefighter sacrifice his life for the residents saved? Was he their substitute? Yes on both accounts.

The concept of substitution is not objectionable. It's the concept of penal substitution that's problematic.

I don't have any doubt that without Christ's death and resurrection, no human being would have been saved.

Had Christ not volunteered to die for us, and had the Father rejected the offer, the world would have been utterly and eternally lost. It seems to me that John 3: 16 makes that unquestionable. Without His coming and dying, we all would have perished forever. This is also the message of 1 Cor. 15: 17, 18.

I think one thing that we sometime do not really grasp or believe in our hearts is that we all deserve eternal death. God would have been just if He had allowed the entire human race to reap the consequences of the Fall.

God did not have to save us. He didn't save us because He was compelled to by some law or out of fear of what would happen in the universe if He didn't. He saved us only because of his mercy and love and for no other reason.

[fccool]

This lexicon cites examples from literature and papyrus outside the Bible where huper is often used to explain that the writer of a letter is writing as "as the representative of" an illiterate person.

It shows evidence that the preposition huper [in behalf of] sometimes merges with the meaning of "in place of, instead of."

It gives Romans 9: 3 as an example: "For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for [huper, in the place of] my brethren... "

Another possible example is 1 Cor. 15: 29, although the meaning of huper is debatable here: "...what will they do who are baptized for [huper] the dead... why then are they baptized for [huper] the dead?"

John, look up the semantic range of these words in any reputable Lexicons. You will see a general agreement that the meaning of the word is very specific.

The writers in the Greek wrote "anti" for a very SPECIFIC refference to the "instead of" idea.

If would be like saying well, because we do use the word hot for meaning of "beautiful", the "hot shower" means "beautiful shower". You have to be able to have some faith in specific words for specific meaning based on semantic range of these words as MOST USED. Huper is NOT most used as "instead". Sure, perhaps it MAY BE used as that a couple of times, but to ascribe it that quality because of the exception would be violation of any interpreting rules.

[fccool]

I don't have any doubt that without Christ's death and resurrection, no human being would have been saved.

Had Christ not volunteered to die for us, and had the Father rejected the offer, the world would have been utterly and eternally lost. It seems to me that John 3: 16 makes that unquestionable. Without His coming and dying, we all would have perished forever. This is also the message of 1 Cor. 15: 17, 18.

I think one thing that we sometime do not really grasp or believe in our hearts is that we all deserve eternal death. God would have been just if He had allowed the entire human race to reap the consequences of the Fall.

God did not have to save us. He didn't save us because He was compelled to by some law or out of fear of what would happen in the universe if He didn't. He saved us only because of his mercy and love and for no other reason.

John... it's not this fact that's under question here!

What's questionable is the mode of the sacrifice. Was it substitutional, or was it a "death by rescue in the fire". Either way, Bible is clear on the point your are making.

Let me clarify it more for you.

Did Christ die instead of us, or did He die for us?

Hence I bring out lexicon, which agrees with the concept of FOR.

[fccool]

Quote:

Where are you getting this from? Please quote what you're responding to. You seem to reading things into what I'm writing. I'm having trouble following your thought. What do you have in mind by "severity of punishment"? Did I mention the word "punishment" anywhere? (No, I didn't) Where are you getting the idea of punishment from?

Perhaps I was reading into what you were saying too much. My apologies.

Quote:

1.I don't think there was any other way. Only the cross could reveal the height and length and depth and breath of God's love.

2.I don't think the cross was a way which God "found" to reconcile man. I think the cross was inevitable, given the nature of man and of sin. Given God's character, and the character of the world and evil beings, it was inevitable that the cross should happen.

I guess, my concern was your issue of the inevitability of specifically death on the cross. I believe it would be important point to make.

Would death by stoning be enough to demonstrate God's love?

[fccool]

I think that another important point to think about when considering all of this would be the example of forgiveness that God asks us to emulate.

Let's consider for a second what it would mean to emulate the same forgiveness that God extends to us through "substitutional atonement".

It would mean that we are not to forgive unless the debt to us is paid in some way. Either by the offender, or by an innocent volunteer. This is not the type of forgiveness that is asked of us... we are to forgive without expecting anything back.

God would not ask us to do something He would not do.

[karl]

God did not have to save us. He didn't save us because He was compelled to by some law or out of fear of what would happen in the universe if He didn't. He saved us only because of his mercy and love and for no other reason.

Amen. There was no cosmic mandate. No debt God owed to any being or group of beings, even though that language is often used. God determined in His own mind that He would make the entire universe safe from sin forever. And He knew that the sacrifice of Himself is what it would take to accomplish that and yet still preserve the free-will of His creatures.

But there IS a transaction in salvation. Not between God and Satan or between God and some Intergalactic Senate or between God the Father and God the Son. The transaction is between God and each sinner. God trades us His abundant, obedient, giving, eternal life for our trashed, selfish, rebellious, and temporary lives.

It's the ultimate deal. I recommend it.

The transactional teaching that Christ died so that we don't have to die is a bit misleading and makes for some bad theology. Everybody dies. Sinners die for sure. And the saved must die to have our lives replaced with His. It is the new creature that lives.

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me

[John317]

Quote:

fccool: look up the semantic range of these words in any reputable Lexicons. You will see a general agreement that the meaning of the word is very specific.

The writers in the Greek wrote "anti" for a very SPECIFIC refference to the "instead of" idea.

.... Huper is NOT most used as "instead". Sure, perhaps it MAY BE used as that a couple of times, but to ascribe it that quality because of the exception would be violation of any interpreting rules.

Huper makes a transition into a substitutionary sense in Galatians 3: 13 and Philemon 13. Gal. 3: 13: "Christ has redeemed us... by becoming cursed in our place"(The New Translation). (The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, Moulton, Milligan, page 651.)

In Philemon 13, the preposition huper clearly has the meaning of "instead of." It is often translated as "on your behalf," but it's an example of where it could be used interchangeably with anti. ".... that he might serve me in your stead [huper sou] during my imprisonment on behalf of the gospel" (Cassirer's God's New Covenant). The NIV has "so that he could take your place."

See note #3 in the definition given in Thayer's Lexicon below.

Here is part of the definition of huper in Gingrich's Shorter Lexicon of the NT (University of Chicago Press) p. 223:

huper prep. w. gen. and acc.-- a. for, in behalf of, for the sake of Matt. 5: 44... b. w. gen. of the thing in behalf of, but variously translated: with hamartion in order to remove the sins Gal 1: 4; Heb 7: 27 10: 12; with zoees to bring life J 6: 51...--c. in place of, instead of, in the name of Ro 9:3; 2 Cor 5: 14f, 21; Philm 13-- d. because of, for the sake of , for Ac 5: 41; 21: 13; Ro 15: 9...

A highly regarded Greek grammar, Ray Summer's Essentials Of New Testament Greek, has the following:

anti, with gen., against, instead of

huper, with abl., in behalf of, instead of

with acc., over, above, beyond

Joseph H. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon (p. 639):

huper, 1. prop. of place, i.e. of position, situation, extension: over, above, beyond, across. In this sense it does not occur in the New Testament; but there it always, though joined to other classes of words, has a tropical signification derived from its original meaning. 2. for, i.e., for one's safety, for one's advantage or benefit (one who does a thing for another, is conceived of as standing or bending 'over' the one whom he would shield or defend.... 3. in the place of, instead of, (which is more precisely expressed by anti; hence the two prepositions are interchanged by Irenaeus....).... Since anything whether of an active or passive character which is undertaken on behalf of a person or thing is undertaken 'on account of' that person or thing, huper is used. 4. of the impelling or moving cause; on account of, for the sake of, any person or thing; huper tees tou kosmou zoees, to procure (true) life for mankind, Jn 6: 51; to do or suffer anything huper tou anomatos theou, Iesou, tou kuriou: Acts 5: 41...."