How could this be?

TRWord said:

Little over two thousand years ago there came a man from Galilee teaching things like love, brotherhood, avoiding the judgement of each other, compassion and care for the least among us and even love for our enemies. Ideas that today would be considered as being far left; bleeding heart, liberal, socialist and dangerous.
This man was crucified by the far right of His day; the rich, (Herod) the powerful, (Ponticus Pilate) and the then organized religion, (the High Priest) for teaching these ideas. However on the third day this man rose again from the dead to demonstrate he was who he said he was, and to validate the authenticity of what he taught.

Strangely enough now, the far right of our day are presenting themselves as representative of this man and the left of today as not.

How could this be? Obviously there has been a switch.

The followers of this man; his disciples, knew him as their teacher. They understood that he came to show them “the way” to salvation, so they rejected what they believed before and accepted his message, of a God of love.

The followers of today know this man as their saviour. They believe that this man gave his life to a God of wrath and vengeance as payment for their wrong doings. In so doing they have reverted to the beliefs that his disciples rejected and as a result have acquired the same mind of those who crucified him.

Click to expand...

You're violating the rules of the forum by teaching against the substitutionary atonement.

The disciples believed in the subtitutionary atonement:

1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,

And of course, Jesus told us why He was going to the cross:

Matthew 26:27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you,
Matthew 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Yes, God is love, and He is also holy. Christ simultaneously satisfied the demands of His justice and demonstrated the abundance of His mercy. The real question is, why do people twist the scripture to omit Gods holiness, and justice? The moment you do that, you are worshiping a false idol.

TRWord said:

Little over two thousand years ago there came a man from Galilee teaching things like love, brotherhood, avoiding the judgement of each other, compassion and care for the least among us and even love for our enemies. Ideas that today would be considered as being far left; bleeding heart, liberal, socialist and dangerous.
This man was crucified by the far right of His day; the rich, (Herod) the powerful, (Ponticus Pilate) and the then organized religion, (the High Priest) for teaching these ideas. However on the third day this man rose again from the dead to demonstrate he was who he said he was, and to validate the authenticity of what he taught.

Strangely enough now, the far right of our day are presenting themselves as representative of this man and the left of today as not.

How could this be? Obviously there has been a switch.

The followers of this man; his disciples, knew him as their teacher. They understood that he came to show them “the way” to salvation, so they rejected what they believed before and accepted his message, of a God of love.

The followers of today know this man as their saviour. They believe that this man gave his life to a God of wrath and vengeance as payment for their wrong doings. In so doing they have reverted to the beliefs that his disciples rejected and as a result have acquired the same mind of those who crucified him.

Click to expand...

I did some volunteer work in the neighborhood, we were building a homeless shelter, every single one of the workers (600 +) were Christian conservatives, there were ZERO people outside of the faith helping us nor were there liberal Christians. These people also volunteer with Toys for Tots, other homeless shelters, food banks and on and on...

The homeless shelter people volunteer at require the people receiving aid something, be it volunteer in return, help cleaning or setting up. This is a Bibical concept.

2 Thess 3:10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

What I see are the Christian conservatives actually out helping people, helping the poor, going on mission trips, etc. We do not believe it is the gov'ts place to do the job Christ gave us to do - we do exactly what He said to do in our community.

TRWord said:

Notice he specifically differentiated his blood from that of the old testament or the old covenant.

Click to expand...

Right, and the differentiation is that He was making a new covenant with the entire world. The old covenant was with the Jews, and the new covenant is with everyone. Whether you look at the kjv, or not, it is still saying Christ died for sins. The message is still the same; His blood was being shed to cover sins.

TRWord said:

You said the disciples believed in the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. This is false, no one believed in this doctrine before the Nicene creed of 325AD. Since then the scripture has been interpreted through this belief.

Click to expand...

The doctrine came from scriptures like these. The disciples didn't use those words "substitutionary atonement", but they believed in what those words describe, which is that Christ died for our sins. If not, then explain these scriptures:

1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,

TRWord said:

Jesus is saying here that he laid his life down so that he might take it again. Jesus was demonstrating the supremacy of spirit over the flesh.

Click to expand...

Yes, He laid down His own life, but His Father sent Him to the cross. Remember what He prayed in the garden of gethsemane?

Mat 26:38 Then he said to them, "My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me."
Mat 26:39 And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will."

He was to drink the cup the Father gave Him. He asked if it could be taken from Him but the Father answered no.

TRWord said:

Also notice that John the Baptiste described Jesus as the lamb of God. Jesus is God’s lamb. In other words God is the one who is offering the sacrifice not demanding one.

Click to expand...

You're making a distinction without a difference. A sacrifice was required to pay for sins, once and for all, and Jesus was that sacrifice.

TRWord said:

God so loved the world that he offered his own son as a sacrifice so that through him we can be saved.

Click to expand...

Why would He sacrifice Himself if it wasn't for sin? Why would we need Him if we don't need our sins forgiven? It was Gods plan that Jesus suffer and die on the cross, which you think is fine so long as it wasn't for sins. Your viewpoint makes no sense.

TRWord said:

No man can believe in the doctrine of substitutionary atonement and also believe that God is love.

Click to expand...

The substitutionary atonement is a demonstration of Gods love, not a contradiction of it.

Yeah, I don't know what you're trying to say TRword. I'm with thesunisout on this one.

If I didn't have sin in my life I wouldn't need Jesus' sacrifice, it would be inconsequential. I would be perfect and pleasing to God, passing his judgement as is. But, seeing as how I was born into sin and haven't shaken it since, I am in dire need of His sacrifice . . . dead without it.

So.... Why, and how, EXACTLY, did Jesus die for our sins, as the Scriptures make so abundantly clear?

TRWord said:

Jesus died to eradicate the cause of sin not as a payment for sin. God is love and as the scripture says God forgive us of our sin the problem is because we are born in sin we just turn around and sin again and again. So God sacrificed his son as the solution once and for all for this problem.

Matt. 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

When the scripture says that Jesus died for our sins it’s saying that Jesus died to remove the cause of sin. But because most of us cannot accept God as love we misinterpret it as payment to an unrelenting God.

This is why we worship in vain. Jesus is not payment for sin he is the answer to sin. When we begin reading the scripture with “the new understanding” that Jesus is the answer to sin then we can be saved.

Click to expand...

So how does Jesus dying eradicate the cause of sin?

TRWord said:

When the scripture says that Jesus died for our sins it’s saying that Jesus died to remove the cause of sin.

Click to expand...

No, Jesus didn't remove the cause of sin. That's what hell is for.

TRWord said:

But because most of us cannot accept God as love we misinterpret it as payment to an unrelenting God.

Click to expand...

Heck yeah I believe my God is unrelenting in rooting evil out of this world. If he's not, we're all in BIG trouble.

TRWord said:

This is why we worship in vain. Jesus is not payment for sin he is the answer to sin.

Click to expand...

Jesus is exactly the payment for sins. This is how Paul explains it.

When people were crucified there was a piece of parchment nailed to their cross, written on it were the crimes they were convicted of. Then, people could walk by and see that "Yeah, that murder is being paid for," or "that rape is being paid for," "or that theft is being paid for" or whatever the case may be.

When Jesus died they had nothing to put on the parchment to declare the crime he was paying for so they just put "King of the Jews."

Paul tells us in Collosians 2 that it's actually our sins that were nailed to the cross with Jesus. That's what should have been written on that parchment.

A quite literal payment for our sins.

TRWord said:

This is my point exactly. Christianity and conservatism are as opposite as night and day. In fact is, the term Christian conservative should be an oxymoron, yet today no one can recognize this. Notice you have here Christian conservatives and liberal Christians the reason for this is the obvious mixture of politics into your understanding of Christianity. Christianity is the teachings of Jesus Christ which is totally void of politics.

Click to expand...

I agree! I only brought the terms into the conversation because you differentiated them. It's the way America describes the people living here.

There is no such thing as a liberal Christian nor a conservative Christian - if you follow Christ, then you're a Christian. But if we read the same Bible and claim to follow the same God, is there such a vast difference in beliefs?

We ALL want to help the poor, it's just that some think the gov't should do it while others are trying to do what God called ALL Christians to do themselves. The Church was called to help the poor, the orphans and the widows - not the gov't. We're pushing off our duty onto a secular gov't.

The Church should be known for her power, for her generosity, for her love - but we're not.

TRWord said:

There is no such thing as a distinction without a difference. A distinction is a difference between to similar things. You are unable to see the difference be cause you are blinded by doctrine and Jesus warned you of this.

Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

We are warned that if we exchange Christ teachings for doctrine or if we pay more attention to human tradition than to what he taught we’ll end up worshipping him in vain.

What is blinding you is the belief that a sacrifice was required to pay for sins. You cannot believe that God can forgive sin without a payment because you cannot believe that God is love, which goes totally against what Jesus said.

Matt. 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

When you accept that God is love then you’ll be able to put aside the idea that God required a payment for sin and then and only then will you be able to see why God sacrificed his son. And until you do, you’ll be worshipping in vain as written.

Click to expand...

Excuse me brother, but you cherry picked one sentence out of my post and did not address my points or the scripture I posted. If you refuse to reason and just declare things without evidence, then you make it clear who is actually teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. You need to address the scripture that I gave, and I will list them again:

1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,

If what you're saying is true, you should be able to address these scriptures very easily, because in truth they should support your case. We have the apostles here directly declaring that Jesus died *for* sins. Again, Jesus declared the same thing..you bring out the KJV translation, which is fine, because it is still saying the same thing. His blood is being shed for sins. If you cannot answer to these points you have no argument.

You keep saying because God is love, He wouldn't require payment for sin. I wonder what bible you've been reading? The entire OT details in great detail that God set up a system of sacrifice for sins, which required the death of animals. A loving God did that. Jesus, the lamb of God, did away with this system by becoming the ultimate sacrifice, paying for all sins, for all time. A loving God did that too, and it is clear from scripture.

As far as it not being a distinction without a difference; you said that Jesus was Gods sacrifice. That means He is still a sacrifice! That means a sacrifice was required. Therefore, whether God offered Him or not, it is still a sacrifice. Therefore, it is a distinction without a difference.

TRWord said:

Again there is no such thing as a distinction without a difference. Jesus was a sacrifice for sin but the differences is: God is the one doing the sacrifice so obviously he was not sacrificed as a payment to God for sin.

Click to expand...

That isn't what scripture says:

Ephesians 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

Christ sacrificed Himself *to* God, as a fragrant offering for us. There it is, in black and white. The sacrifice was to God. What was the purpose of the sacrifice?

Romans 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

The purpose of the sacrifice was a propitiation by His blood. What does the word propitiation mean? In the greek the word is hilasmos. Here is the definition of hilasmos:

1) an appeasing, propitiating

2) the means of appeasing, a propitiation

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

There it is, again in black and white. The reason Jesus went to the cross was as a sacrifice of appeasement for sin, just as the Jews had sacrificed animals for the same purpose. Indeed, this is the comparison scripture makes:

1 Corinthians 5:7 Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

Jesus is our passover lamb, shedding His blood for the forgiveness of sins. This is again just what scripture says:

Hebrews 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

A loving God requires a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. Read that again. A loving God requires a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. It is only God whom we have offended by our sin, and it is only to God that payment for sin can be made to take away that offense. That is clear in the OT, and it is clear in the NT. The system of sacrifice was set up to provide propitiation for sins, and Jesus, as our passover lamb, made the final payment for all sins, for all time, and did away with the system entirely.

His sacrifice turned away Gods wrath from us:

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

He took our punishment for us:

Isaiah 53:5,10

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Yet the LORD was willing to crush him, and he made him suffer. Although you make his soul an offering for sin, he will see his offspring, and he will prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will triumph in his hand.

TRWord said:

As a believer in the doctrine of substitutionary atonement to you there is absolutely only one understanding of the verses above.

Click to expand...

My teacher is the Holy Spirit. The reason I believe in the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement is the same reason I believe in the doctrine of the Trinity; because it is clearly revealed in scripture. I don't believe it because a man told me, I believe it because it is in the bible. There is no doubt at all that this is what the scripture reveals, which I have shown you point by point. You have no leg to stand on unless you have a counter argument to what I have written. Your argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy which proves nothing.

TRWord said:

Because you have ignored what Jesus taught, and it’s as if he just came here to die. Jesus came to reveal the true nature of God as spirit.

Click to expand...

I never said Jesus just came here to die. Jesus did come to reveal the true nature of God, and to defeat death and Satan on the cross, and to fulfill prophecy, and to glorify God, and many other things. He didn't come to do just *one* thing. You are creating a strawman argument by saying if you believe in the substitutionary atonement you are denying that Jesus came here to do these other things. No one ever said that or believes that.

TRWord said:

It’s by the knowledge of the spirit that we are freed from the limitations of the flesh which includes sin.

Click to expand...

We are freed from slavery to sin, and the judicial consequences of our sin through our faith in Jesus Christ. It's also not just knowledge of the spirit, it is that we receive the Holy Spirit and are born again. The Holy Spirit guides us into all truth.

TRWord said:

Jesus did not die as payment for sin but to show us the way to everlasting life.

Click to expand...

This is a false dichotomy because there is a third option: He died as a payment for sin and to show us the way to everlasting life.

I also would like to ask: are you a Universalist? Do you believe in eternal punishment?

Jesus died to eradicate the cause of sin not as a payment for sin.

Click to expand...

I have two pennies worth to say about this sentence.
First, Adam sinned, therefore his nature changed, and the sin nature was passed down to all of us. Now, God had told him that if he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he would surely die. Death was the penalty for his disobedience. Satan demanded that God exact the penalty from man. So death reigned until Moses gave the Law. Then Jesus came and died to make the guilt and penalty of the Law toothless. Yes I agree that Jesus' shedding His blood took away the cause of sin, which is the sin nature in unregenerate man. But, I would also propose that God's sacrifice of His Son satisfied the debt incurred by sin. Jesus is called the second Adam in the scriptures. By His death, because He was totally sinless, He made believers sinless through grace accessed through faith in Him. Romans puts it this way:

Romans 5:8But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

My understanding comes from a careful study of scripture, and the leading of the Holy Spirit. I would debate further but I notice that you're throwing out an increasing number of accusations:

TRWord said:

In so doing they have reverted to the beliefs that his disciples rejected and as a result have acquired the same mind of those who crucified him

Click to expand...

TRWord said:

Because you have ignored what Jesus taught

Click to expand...

TRWord said:

because you cannot believe that God is love

Click to expand...

TRWord said:

until you do, you’ll be worshipping in vain

Click to expand...

TRWord said:

you are blinded by doctrine and Jesus warned you of this

Click to expand...

TRWord said:

No man can believe in the doctrine of substitutionary atonement and also believe that God is love

Click to expand...

Who is the accuser of the brethern?

Revelation 12:10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, "Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.

I am worshiping God in vain? I don't believe in a God of love? I have the same mind as those who crucified Christ? The slander that is pouring forth from your mouth is evidence of the spirit your teaching is in. You should remove the beam that is in your eye before you try to judge my walk with Christ.

You began this post on the topic slandering conservatives, which immediately showed a divisive spirit; I should have run far away from it, but I erred in engaging this fruitless discussion and then continuing it. I have tried to reason with you, but there is no reasoning where there is no fellowship or brotherly love. There is nothing to be gained in this discussion because this thread is a pitfall filled with argument and slander and it would be a sin to continue in it.

Titus 3:9

But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.

I pray God will bless you richly which all knowledge and all discernment. God bless.