Oct 29 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him —2 Corinthians 5:21

The modern view of the death of Jesus is that He died for our sins out of sympathy for us.

I can't say as I ever had that view, or maybe only as a young child.  I think that if one pays attention in church or Sunday school they should clearly learn that Christ's sacrifice wasn't about sympathy, it was about substitution. But, since Chambers says "the modern view," maybe that was in fact the case in Scotland of his day.

Our sins are removed because of the death of Jesus, and the only explanation for His death is His obedience to His Father, not His sympathy for us. We are acceptable to God not because we have obeyed, . . . 

Jesus' obedience is easy to overlook, I think, for someone who doesn't pay much attention in church or never developed faith beyond what children's Bible stories teach.  Because we are so hardwired to do everything in our own strength, it is easy to think that it's our obedience that pleases God.  And there is truth in this, but it's not the full picture.  The Israelites tried for centuries to obey God, but the Mosaic Law was too heavy a yoke to bear (Acts 15:10).  The agony in the garden, as reported by Luke, is probably the best illustration of Jesus' obedience to the Father: obedience that required death on a cross (Philippians 2:8). 

That Christ died for me, and therefore I am completely free from penalty, is never taught in the New Testament. What is taught in the New Testament is that “He died for all” (2 Corinthians 5:15)— not, “He died my death”— and that through identification with His death I can be freed from sin, . . . 

Hmm, I don't know that I'd say that that was never taught in the New Testament.  See Ephesians 2: 1-10, where Paul tells believers that they have died and risen with Christ. It's not the exact wording that Chambers uses, but it expresses the same concept.

Chambers frequently annoys me with his use of "always" and "never."  There are certainly lots of "always" and "never" taught in scripture, but Chambers--when making his point--seems to like to shoot down the antithesis of his thesis.  Soteriology wears man faces in the New Testament and develops over time.  Consider as a quick example Peter's declaration at Pentacost (Acts 2:22-24).  Peter implies that Christ was not immortal until after God raise him from the dead; this is a very different soteriology than John teaches at the beginning of his gospel (John 1:1-5). 

As much as I'd like to stay and discuss this further, I have a history paper to write!!  :)