Blood sacrifice...

[Inkfingers]

According to you OP you have made the claim that the blood of an innocent to protect someone guilty is a strange definition of justice. For man that is true. But man isn't the judge and man doesn't get to make the rules.

God wants us to be just though, so killing an innocent to protect the guilty is an odd way to lead by example.

 

[bling]

I do rejoice knowing that Jesus rose again from the dead.

Anyway, I also want to say, let us make sure to remember to be cautious in the threads here that we may not get trolled by the unbelievers. I notice some of them lurking around like a snake waiting to bite.

Christ rising from the grave is not part of the atonement sacrifice. The atonement process would not include Christ rising. We are talking about what happened with the cross.

 

[miamited]

Hi all,

My most sincere apologies. I did it again. I read under the 'new posts' this thread about 'blood sacrifice...' and clicked on it without realizing that it is in the 'Controversial Theology' threads. My apologies for having wasted so much of everyone's time here.

God wants us to be just though, so killing an innocent to protect the guilty is an odd way to lead by example.

Hi inkfingers,

You're right.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Chinchilla]

God wants us to be just though, so killing an innocent to protect the guilty is an odd way to lead by example.

But you trust your heart which you should not .
Jeremiah 17:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

1 Corinthians 1:27 King James Version (KJV)
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

 

[bling]

You have never gone through confession and repentance of sin obviously. Those of us who have do see the experience as you describe. In a word, it simply isn’t as you say it is looking from the outside. We on the inside know how it is.

But what is clear is that you don’t want to understand but simply accuse God of evil. You’re not the first. Started in the garden.

when I say :the issue is with a judge (God) willing to torture, humiliate and murder an innocent person to allow the guilty to go free. I should have added with your interpretation of what happened, because God did not see to the torturing, humiliation and murder of Christ, but did allow wicked people to do that. God out of empathy for Christ would have personally preferred Christ not go through the cross, but for our benefit God allowed it to happen so we could be lovingly, fairly, justly disciplined by being crucified with Christ. Those that refuse the opportunity to be disciplined will go to hell to be punished.

 

[Chinchilla]

when I say :the issue is with a judge (God) willing to torture, humiliate and murder an innocent person to allow the guilty to go free. I should have added with your interpretation of what happened, because God did not see to the torturing, humiliation and murder of Christ, but did allow wicked people to do that. God out of empathy for Christ would have personally preferred Christ not go through the cross, but for our benefit God allowed it to happen so we could be lovingly, fairly, justly disciplined by being crucified with Christ. Those that refuse the opportunity to be disciplined will go to hell to be punished.

He was not only willing but was pleased .

10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

 

[Inkfingers]

But you trust your heart which you should not .
Jeremiah 17:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

1 Corinthians 1:27 King James Version (KJV)
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

No, I trust my head. If I did not trust it, I would be in a padded room.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

No, I trust my head. If I did not trust it, I would be in a padded room.

Just feed your head the truth and many things will be more satisfying.

 

[Sojourner1]

Rejoicing in the executing of an innocent in the place of the guilty, and excusing that, should be a hint to sit down and seriously consider just how deluded we are...

The rejoicing is not because Christ was executed instead of us (the guilty ones)...you make it sound as though those us of who rejoice in the cross of Christ are blood thirsty savages. We rejoice in the fact that Christ loved us so much that He willingly paid the price that we could never pay. We worship Him because He extended the invitation to us to join Him on the cross and die to ourselves, to lose our own lives so we that we can really live. The rejoicing is in gratitude and thankfulness, submission and humility, it is not an unholy, unjust rejoicing over the death of an innocent person.

Mark 8:31-38
And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. He spoke this word openly. And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. But when He had turned around and looked at His disciples, He rebuked Peter, saying, "Get behind Me, Satan! For you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men."

When He had called the people to Himself, with His disciples also, He said to them, "Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's will save it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels."

1 Corinthians 1:18-24
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

 

[mkgal1]

Penal Substitution IS Calvinism.

Maybe this is too far off topic (let me know, if it is)...but I'm pretty ignorant about specifics of what is/what is NOT Calvinism, because there does seem to be a few (some even contradictory) streams of Calvinism. I wonder if there are other theories that are accepted by Calvinism besides PSA? I recently read about the "already inaugurated eschatology" and thought I'd read it was more of a traditional Calvinism view. Does anyone know for sure? This is what I mean:

Inaugurated who? Inaugurated eschatology. Eschatology is generally understood as the “study of end times,” but when used with reference to inaugurated eschatology, it refers specifically to the kingdom of God and how it relates to Jesus’ first coming. This is the concept that the dawn of the “end of the age” has come in the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus the Jewish Messiah, Lord and Savior.The kingdom of God has been ushered in, though it is not yet consummated. A “bite size” definition is,​

“Inaugurated eschatology sees the first coming of Christ as the beginning of the kingdom in the present, while acknowledging that the consummation or fulfillment of the kingdom of God is yet to come.” (Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, 46)​

http://thinktheology.org/2012/01/02/making-a-case-for-inaugurated-eschatology/​

What seems to go together with this theology is this view of atonement (at-one-ment):

Quoting this page: http://www.dennyburk.com/does-n-t-wright-hold-to-penal-substitution/

​

Lee Irons has an interesting post on N. T. Wright’s view of the atonement. You need to read the whole thing, but here’s the conclusion:

“It looks more like a case of using orthodox labels to refer to a position that is not orthodox. At the end of the day, for Bishop Wright, sin is an impersonal evil force, not personal rebellion against God; sin has bad consequences, but does not elicit God’s punitive wrath against the sinner; and the cross is to be understood as some version of the Christus Victor theory in which Christ defeats evil by letting it do its worst to him, not as a penal satisfaction of divine justice.”​

 

[JojoM]

Christ rising from the grave is not part of the atonement sacrifice. The atonement process would not include Christ rising. We are talking about what happened with the cross.

I don't really agree with you but neither do I want to argue with you. You seem to have a fixed opinion on that already and that's fine with me because I also have my own opinions and understanding about certain topics in the Bible. I'm here in the hope to find fellowship with those who are saved and not to get stressed by debates. And also I'm here hoping that maybe I can help those who are looking for answers on things I think I have knowledge about? It is definitely not where this is heading. so yeah, have a nice day! see you in other threads, maybe!

 

[2tim_215]

The fact of Christ rising from the dead is something that gives believers hope of an afterlife.

 

[hedrick]

I wonder if there are other theories that are accepted by Calvinism besides PSA?

Calvin himself used several different theories. Indeed if you look up his chapter on the atonement in the Institutes, that's not the primary explanation. (He does, however, refer to PSA elsewhere in the Institutes, and you can see signs of it in that chapter as well.) His primary explanation is pretty close to Paul's in Rom 6. According to Calvin, it's not just Christ's death that atones, but his entire life of obedience. (This is one of the distinguishing characteristics of Reformed thought on the atonement.) Through spiritual union with him, we participate in his obedience. Remember that for Calvin, the heart of Christianity is what he calls the "mystical union" with Christ.

 

[hedrick]

Here are some of the things we know about sacrifice from the OT:
* It’s not unique to Israel. It’s so engrained in ancient religion that quite likely Israel never felt a need to justify it. Hence there’s no explicit explanation of how it works.
* It’s not just used for forgiveness. There are covenant sacrifices and fellowship sacrifices, among others.
* It’s not so clear that it’s vicarious punishment, since poor people can offer grain. (It’s hard to see how you can punish grain.)
* It’s not required for forgiveness. See Ps 51:16, and similar statements in the prophets, but is it often associated with repentance and forgiveness.

My reading of it is that when used with sins, it’s essentially a sacrament of repentance. It’s a visible sign of the seriousness of sin, and the seriousness with which the repentance is meant.

Interestingly, in the NT you can reasonably read Jesus’ death as a covenant sacrifice more than a sacrifice for sin. The words of institution say it’s the sacrifice to establish the new covenant (Jer 31:31, presumably). Heb 9 - 10 is an extended comparison of it with Moses’ covenant sacrifice.

[Note: of the 4 occurrences of the Words of Institution, it is always said to be for the new covenant. Only Matthew speaks of it as for the forgiveness of sins, though that's probably a reasonable inference from the nature of the new covenant.]

 

[mkgal1]

According to Calvin, it's not just Christ's death that atones, but his entire life of obedience. (This is one of the distinguishing characteristics of Reformed thought on the atonement.)

Thank you for responding to my question.

 

[mkgal1]

Interestingly, in the NT you can reasonably read Jesus’ death as a covenant sacrifice more than a sacrifice for sin. The words of institution say it’s the sacrifice to establish the new covenant (Jer 31:31, presumably). Heb 9 - 10 is an extended comparison of it with Moses’ covenant sacrifice.

[Note: of the 4 occurrences of the Words of Institution, it is always said to be for the new covenant. Only Matthew speaks of it as for the forgiveness of sins, though that's probably a reasonable inference from the nature of the new covenant.]

I just wanted to pull this out and say I think this is a good point.

 

[bling]

He was not only willing but was pleased .

10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

“Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him”, before leaving Is. 53. Does this mean God is blood thirsty? Was God “testing” Jesus in some way to see if Jesus could handle it? Is Jesus solving some problem God has with forgiving?

First off: the RSV might give a better translation; Is. 53: 10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to bruise him…”

God had a plan from the beginning of time to help humans fulfill their earthly human objective. That plan to be fulfilled correctly required a willing Christ to go to the cross, so Christ going to the cross is part of God’s will which is always in the best interest of man to help humans.

God was satisfied (pleased) with Christ’s crucifixion which provided the best atonement system , but we need to understand how God was dissatisfied with the atonement system prior to Christ. Paul in Romans 3:25 tells us what was wrong and what was made better:

Ro. 3: 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—

The problem prior to the cross was “…he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished” but what does this mean from the context of Paul writing to the divided Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome he was trying to unite by showing they were equal. Both the Jewish and Gentile Christians could read this and see the flaw with the Old Atonement system, because God had to pass over the sins committed by forgiven repented of former sinners without punishing them (lovingly fairly justly disciplining them [the same Greek word]) with Christ’s crucifixion the repentant sinner can be disciplined by being crucified with Christ. Paul is saying God’s satisfaction came with our ability to be disciplined (punished) by being crucified with Christ.

 

[bling]

I don't really agree with you but neither do I want to argue with you. You seem to have a fixed opinion on that already and that's fine with me because I also have my own opinions and understanding about certain topics in the Bible. I'm here in the hope to find fellowship with those who are saved and not to get stressed by debates. And also I'm here hoping that maybe I can help those who are looking for answers on things I think I have knowledge about? It is definitely not where this is heading. so yeah, have a nice day! see you in other threads, maybe!

fine, but being challenged can help you grow.

 

[hedrick]

Paul is saying God’s satisfaction came with our ability to be disciplined (punished) by being crucified with Christ.

I agree with much of this posting. But I would point out that Paul doesn't actually say that with Christ God punished the sin. Nor does he specifically say that before Christ he didn't punish sin (though that would be one implication). Rather his point is that before Christ came, God didn't fully deal with sin. He simply forgave it. ("Passed over" represents a Greek word that means released, but in the context of sin often means forgave.) With Christ he can deal with it fully.

"He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; 26 it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus."

What he actually says is that with the coming of Christ he can justify the sinner by faith. Note by the way that it was one of Luther's major insights that God's righteousness isn't his commitment to punish sin, but his commitment to fix it by justifying the sinner. Righteousness when used of God refers to God's commitment to honor his covenant with his people by saving them even when they don't deserve it.

--------

"left sin unpunished" seems to be a NIVism. More and more I understand why N T Wright said that anyone who reads Paul in the NIV won't understand him. If you want a conservative translation I'd use the ESV.

 

[Inkfingers]

Maybe this is too far off topic (let me know, if it is)...but I'm pretty ignorant about specifics of what is/what is NOT Calvinism, because there does seem to be a few (some even contradictory) streams of Calvinism. I wonder if there are other theories that are accepted by Calvinism besides PSA? I recently read about the "already inaugurated eschatology" and thought I'd read it was more of a traditional Calvinism view. Does anyone know for sure? This is what I mean:

Inaugurated who? Inaugurated eschatology. Eschatology is generally understood as the “study of end times,” but when used with reference to inaugurated eschatology, it refers specifically to the kingdom of God and how it relates to Jesus’ first coming. This is the concept that the dawn of the “end of the age” has come in the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus the Jewish Messiah, Lord and Savior.The kingdom of God has been ushered in, though it is not yet consummated. A “bite size” definition is,​

“Inaugurated eschatology sees the first coming of Christ as the beginning of the kingdom in the present, while acknowledging that the consummation or fulfillment of the kingdom of God is yet to come.” (Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, 46)​

http://thinktheology.org/2012/01/02/making-a-case-for-inaugurated-eschatology/​

What seems to go together with this theology is this view of atonement (at-one-ment):

Quoting this page: http://www.dennyburk.com/does-n-t-wright-hold-to-penal-substitution/

​

Lee Irons has an interesting post on N. T. Wright’s view of the atonement. You need to read the whole thing, but here’s the conclusion:

“It looks more like a case of using orthodox labels to refer to a position that is not orthodox. At the end of the day, for Bishop Wright, sin is an impersonal evil force, not personal rebellion against God; sin has bad consequences, but does not elicit God’s punitive wrath against the sinner; and the cross is to be understood as some version of the Christus Victor theory in which Christ defeats evil by letting it do its worst to him, not as a penal satisfaction of divine justice.”​

Yup there are some disagreements amongst Calvinists, but Calvinism itself is solidly tied to Penal Substitution.

Personally I find myself drawn more to Christ being a martyr who went all the way for God and never backed off.