The doctrine of imputation is hypocritical

Ripheus27 · Sep 22, 2018

St_Worm2 said:
Since you believe the Creation narrative to be a "legend" however, which parts of it do you believe are literal/true? Do you, for instance, believe that Adam and Eve were the first human beings and our first parents, and that decay and death entered our realm for the first time because of their sin (and that we, their progeny, all ended up being sinners/sinning personally because of their choice to disobey in the Garden of God)?

If you do not, how do you explain that which is the most universal trait among all human beings? We are ALL sinners, which means that we were made that way somehow, but if our progenitors were not the ones who are responsible for this race-wide defect, then there is only one other Being who could be.

As far as I can tell, the Bible claims that Job did not sin. I think it might even claim this of a few others. When it says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and so on, it is referring to the average person, not absolutely everyone. (I also accept that Mary was without sin, btw, regardless of whether this is outright stated in the Bible, or even implicitly there, or not.)

But even if every human besides Jesus Christ sinned, my explanation would just be that that's what they chose to do. I don't think Adam and Eve were literal people almost at all, anyway.

St_Worm2 said:
What evidence do you have that such a thing might be true? On what basis, for instance, did you decide that Genesis is legendary/allegorical, and that the Gospel of John is fact?

Because the question of literal-allegorical maps directly onto the nature of the Incarnation. The parts of our scriptures describing Christ's human life directly, would be the most literal, whereas out from there things get more and more allegorical. This is clear enough regarding the Book of Revelation, for example. Now the symmetry of the Bible would have it, then, that the appearance of the Eden story, as a possible parable, is confirmed to be so, i.e. it *is* a parable.

St_Worm2 said:
As for your belief that God's commanding and/or personally performing animal sacrifices in the OT is nothing more than ancient allegory out of some Bronze Age exaggeration/superstition, then what do you make of all the statements (both direct and indirect) concerning those same OT animal sacrifices (by Jesus and by His Apostles in the Gospels, in Acts, and in the Epistles) nearly 1,500 years later in the NT (animal sacrifices that, BTW, were still being performed regularly when He walked among us)?

I don't claim to understand everything in the Bible. In fact, until I read the Ethiopian version of the Bible, I would say I won't have read the version of the Bible I would need to read to fully grasp all these matters. God preserved Ethiopia's canon for a reason.

St_Worm2 said:
I agree with you, that Christ's righteousness is necessary for our salvation, but how does that work? IOW, in what way do you believe His righteousness saves us?

Christ, in Heaven, when we ask Him to, then intercedes with the Father, asking Him to forgive us. Because Christ was perfectly righteous, the Father agrees to the Son's request. If Christ had not been perfectly righteous, the Father would not do so.

EDIT:

bling said:
Much more can be said if you want to go further.

If this "more" doesn't bear enough on the OP, this won't be the thread for it, I suspect.

The balance of the thread is this: we can interpret imputation financially, in which case it is not all that weird and unseemly, or we can interpret it legalistically, which leads to abstract, but immense, evil.

redleghunter · Sep 22, 2018

Ripheus27 said:
As far as I can tell, the Bible claims that Job did not sin.

Can you show me this?

Ripheus27 · Sep 22, 2018

redleghunter said:
Can you show me this?

Probably not, because I'm sure there's a convoluted interpretation to the opposite effect, but if I had much hope of doing so, it would be to quote Job 1:1.

Now, the objection to what I'm saying right now, that I thought of, was if Job or Mary (or whoever else) was sinless, why would it not be enough for them to ask God to forgive us? And whence the purpose of the Resurrection, especially from such a terrible death?

However, I think that there is a difference between purity and perfection. So first, although Job might have been pure, he was not perfect in the sense of having achieved all positive value possible for him. He avoided all negative evil, but did not accomplish otherwise infinite positive good. (I've ever been puzzled why sinning against God is infinitely evil because God is an infinite being, but doing right by God is not infinitely good for the same reason---I know the automatic reply would be, "But nothing we do is good," but that reply would have it that God designed the world so that doing infinite evil was easier than doing the slightest good, no?)

Mary is in a different position, though, still, so I believe the RCC is at least quasi-justified in speaking of her as a Co-Redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix. But that aside, I still don't think Mary can save us, even if she's otherwise perfect, since she's not God, or an Incarnate divine Person, or whatever as such.

So let's put it this way. God is the Most High. Humility is a virtue. God is the most virtuous of all beings. So God has performed an act of absolutely ultimate humility: He Incarnated unto the most terrible death of all, in the name of the salvation of sinners. It is this humility, in the Son, that the Father acknowledges as justifying the Son's request for our forgiveness. Since no mere man or woman, even Mary, could achieve this form of humility, they would never be in a position to ask, as such, for our forgiveness.

St_Worm2 · Sep 22, 2018

bling said:
God did forgive people in the past and can forgive us without the need for Christ to go to the cross!

The animal sacrifices of the past are meaningless and a waste if Christ did not go to the cross.

Hi Bling, there's a lot in your last post that I'd like to ask you about, and if it's ok with you, let's start with the two sentences above.

So, in what sense are the OT sacrifices meaningless and a waste if Christ did not go to the Cross?

And second, if Christ did not need to die on the Cross for the forgiveness of sins, what purpose did His death serve?

Thanks!

Yours and His,
David

redleghunter · Sep 22, 2018

Ripheus27 said:
So let's put it this way. God is the Most High. Humility is a virtue. God is the most virtuous of all beings. So God has performed an act of absolutely ultimate humility: He Incarnated unto the most terrible death of all, in the name of the salvation of sinners. It is this humility, in the Son, that the Father acknowledges as justifying the Son's request for our forgiveness. Since no mere man or woman, even Mary, could achieve this form of humility, they would never be in a position to ask, as such, for our forgiveness.

Jesus was humble but we are told it was His obedience to the Father which mattered most.

Yet Mary and Job were not the Divine Logos.

Ripheus27 · Sep 22, 2018

redleghunter said:
Jesus was humble but we are told it was His obedience to the Father which mattered most.

What would express humility better than a being, or person, Who is God, Who owes obedience to none, assuming a position in which it is possible for Him to be obedient, and then being obedient as such, even unto death on a cross?

redleghunter · Sep 22, 2018

Ripheus27 said:
What would express humility better than a being, or person, Who is God, Who owes obedience to none, assuming a position in which it is possible for Him to be obedient, and then being obedient as such, even unto death on a cross?

I think I answered that . What's the question?

St_Worm2 · Sep 22, 2018

Ripheus27 said:
...if Job or Mary (or whoever else) was sinless, why would it not be enough for them to ask God to forgive us?

Hi Ripheus, I don't mean for this to sound as blunt as I know it's probably going to, but how is such a thought anything but meaningless conjecture? The Bible makes it clear that all of us are sinners in need of a Savior, both in the OT and the New .. cf Isaiah 53:6; Romans 3:23.

As for Job and Mary being sinless, we don't need to look any further than Job 1:5 and Luke 1:47 to know that cannot be true, as Job sacrificed animals daily to atone for his and for his family's sins, and Mary knew that she needed to be saved from her sins as well (which she makes plain for us in the Magnificat when she said, "my spirit rejoices in God my Savior").

Yours and His,
David
p.s. - please take special note of the qualifying phrase in v's 10 & 12 below.

Romans 3
9 ..Both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
10 ..as it is written,
THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11 ..THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
12 ..ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.

redleghunter · Sep 22, 2018

Romans 5:

The Triumph of Faith
(John 14:27-31)

1Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we havea peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in the hope of the glory of God.

3Not only that, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance;4perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out His love into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, whom He has given us.

Christ's Sacrifice for the Ungodly
(Genesis 22:1-10; John 3:16-21)

6For at just the right time, while we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7It is rare indeed for anyone to die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8But God proves His love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

9Therefore, since we have now been justified by His blood, how much more shall we be saved from wrath through Him! 10For if, when we were enemies of God, we were reconciled to Him through the death of His Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through His life! 11Not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Death in Adam, Life in Christ
(Genesis 3:1-7; Genesis 7:1-5; 2 Peter 3:1-9)

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned. 13For sin was in the world before the Law was given; but sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the way that Adam transgressed. He is a pattern of the One to come.

15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many! 16Again, the gift is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment that followed one sin brought condemnation, but the gift that followed many trespasses brought justification.17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive an abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

18Therefore, just as one trespass brought condemnation for all men, so also one act of righteousness brought justification and life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

20The Law was given so that the trespass would increase; but where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness, to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Ripheus27 · Sep 23, 2018

St_Worm2 said:
9 ..Both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
10 ..as it is written,
THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11 ..THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
12 ..ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.

I don't take everything Paul said at face value, or as perfectly scriptural (he himself admits that he's voicing his own opinion at times). So his quotation of the Old Testament lament isn't proof, I think, that every single human being besides Jesus Christ has been, is, or will be a sinner. The Old Testament lament seems directed at a specific audience, even if it is a whole generation, not at all of humanity forever and ever. Also it's false if unrestricted, as plenty of people have sought righteousness, understanding, and God, who were not useless and who did good. (It would apply more directly to the question if it said, "There is none righteous on his own," or suchlike.)

redleghunter · Sep 23, 2018

Ripheus27 said:
I don't take everything Paul said at face value, or as perfectly scriptural (he himself admits that he's voicing his own opinion at times). So his quotation of the Old Testament lament isn't proof, I think, that every single human being besides Jesus Christ has been, is, or will be a sinner. The Old Testament lament seems directed at a specific audience, even if it is a whole generation, not at all of humanity forever and ever. Also it's false if unrestricted, as plenty of people have sought righteousness, understanding, and God, who were not useless and who did good. (It would apply more directly to the question if it said, "There is none righteous on his own," or suchlike.)

Was this a case where Paul was offering an opinion? No it is not.

St_Worm2 · Sep 23, 2018

Ripheus27 said:
I don't take everything Paul said at face value, or as perfectly scriptural (he himself admits that he's voicing his own opinion at times). So his quotation of the Old Testament lament isn't proof, I think, that every single human being besides Jesus Christ has been, is, or will be a sinner. The Old Testament lament seems directed at a specific audience, even if it is a whole generation, not at all of humanity forever and ever. Also it's false if unrestricted, as plenty of people have sought righteousness, understanding, and God, who were not useless and who did good. (It would apply more directly to the question if it said, "There is none righteous on his own," or suchlike.)

Hi Ripheus, you actually summed up Rom 1:18-3:23 quite well in that closing comment of yours, the very point, in fact, that St. Paul labored both to make and to demonstrate to us there, that "there is none righteous on his own".

BTW, v9 makes it clear who the "none" he refers to in v10-12 are. "Jews ~and~ Greeks", includes every nation, people, tribe, tongue, etc. in the world, and v9's "all" refers to every individual within those various nations, peoples, tribes. St. Paul, in a very exacting way in this case, wanted to make sure that we understood that "all" literally means "all", and that "none" literally means "none" (IOW, as you said above, "none" .. "no even one" .. are good or righteous on their own/apart from Christ).

As for the passage, it's not saying that people don't seek righteousness and/or understanding, it says that none, not even one, have understanding or are righteous. If there was someone who actually did "good" (in the sense that Jesus does "good") all the time, then we would have someone who is righteous apart from the righteousness of Christ, but we don't.

As for not seeking God, that's still true of most today. It was true of me until the day I became a Christian. Seeking the "benefits" that God has to offer (like wanting a get out of Hell for free pass from Him) is not the same thing as seeking 'Him'. People want all of His wonderful benefits, the problem is, they don't want Him!

Finally, the fact that you have no standard, no truth that we can both look to and agree upon, makes talking to you about any of this extremely difficult. The fact is, when you decide willy-nilly what seems right to you in the Bible and what does not, when you chose to move the goalposts (so to speak) in an attempt to make what it says more comfortable or acceptable to you, then the Bible stops being the word of God and immediately becomes the "word of Ripheus" instead

Knowing who God is and what He is capable of doing, and knowing ALL that He has already done/is continuing to do for us to love us and to save us from ourselves, do you honestly believe Him unwilling or somehow incapable of getting His breathed word down to us in the form that He wanted us to have it in? General revelation only takes us so far brother, we need His special revelation (that's only found in the Bible) to have any hope of truly knowing Him or anything about Him or His Kingdom (not to mention knowing who we truly are to Him, what His intentions for us are, and what the way of eternal life is).

--David

St_Worm2 · Sep 23, 2018

redleghunter said:
Was this a case where Paul was offering an opinion? No it is not.

I agree. St. Paul has chosen to be very precise in that short passage (Romans 3:9-12) so that his point(s) cannot be missed. Some have tried to justify what he says in various ways to soften/change the message to a degree, but that doesn't work well with this particular passage because of the way that it's written. So it seems to me that our choices really boil down to these two 1. believe what it says or 2. dismiss/ignore what it says and just move on somehow.

--David

bling · Sep 24, 2018

St_Worm2 said:
Hi Bling, there's a lot in your last post that I'd like to ask you about, and if it's ok with you, let's start with the two sentences above.

So, in what sense are the OT sacrifices meaningless and a waste if Christ did not go to the Cross?

And second, if Christ did not need to die on the Cross for the forgiveness of sins, what purpose did His death serve?

Thanks!

Yours and His,
David

Sorry this got lost over the weekend.

The sin sacrifices in the OT where for (minor) unintentional sins or with The Day of Atonement it was for sins you might have committed, but where not sure you even did commit. The big problem for all mature adults (even Jews back before Christ) is knowingly sinning direct rebellious disobedience against God, this can be “picking up sticks on the Sabbath to make a fire”. These sins required the sinner to be killed or banished and everyone was responsible for at least one of them.

What good is it to have a system for taking care of really minor unintentional sins with sacrifices if everyone is a big bad sinner and needs to die?

These sacrifices might help you rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, but it will not keep you afloat.

The sacrifices have the benefit of helping us understand sin, God’s Love, the need for a savior and the atonement sacrifice of Christ, but without a savior to go to the cross there is no explanation to the sacrifices.

You ask: “if Christ did not need to die on the Cross for the forgiveness of sins, what purpose did His death serve”?

The answer is in the understanding of atonement which is a huge topic and takes lots of words to explain, since I have to address your existing understanding, but briefly:

If God is Love, how could God have a problem forgiving people? The reason given for “penal substitution” is God cannot forgive us without Jesus being our substitute, but that makes God out to having a problem, lacking in Love someway, and being almost blood thirsty.

It also does not explain how something 100% forgiven has to also be 100% paid for since that is not the way things work. If the debt were paid in full there would be no need for forgiveness and if the debt is forgiven payment is not needed.

Also, if Penal substitution is what happened with the cross why did Peter not mention it in his excellent “Christ Crucified” sermon on Pentecost (Acts 2).

What is the relationship between “forgiveness” and punishment of the individual for a transgression? (most theories of atonement like to talk about “sin” needing punishment yet sin cannot be “punished”, only people can be punished.)

Would the perfect parent (the one you would like to be and be like God) see to the punishment or discipline of his/her children in order to have the Love to forgive those children?

The best parent does not “punish” (discipline) their children in order for the parent to have the love to forgive, they punish (discipline with time out or something) their children for the benefit that discipline provides?

God does not have a “problem” forgiving us, but we need to be disciplined somehow in order to obtain the benefits from being disciplined. So God somehow need to see to our discipline for our transgressions without killing us and yet be fair, just and show us His concern/Love.

What are the “benefits” to being fairly (disciplined) for our transgressions?

We know wonderful parent see to the discipline of the children they Love if at all possible, so if our parents do not discipline us, we should rightfully question their love/concern for us.

God the Father is doing everything God can do to help willing individuals to fulfill their earthly objective which includes (at great personal cost to God) the allowing a willing Christ to go to the cross.

Christ is not trying to “pay off the debt created by our sins” since our sins created an impossible debt to pay. That “debt” cannot be paid (it is totally irreconcilable) but it can be “forgiven”. God’s Love can allow Him to forgive our huge debt without Christ going to the cross. Christ is not trying to make “restitution” for us (that is not possible), but is providing a way for us as children to be disciplined (disciplining is not bringing about restitution) so the disciplining does not have to equal the “restitution” or hell for those that refuse the disciplining in this life. Discipline is not punishment although in scripture negative discipline is often translated punishment.

The analogy of a ransoming is an excellent fit to what is happening Christ uses it, , Paul, John, Peter and the author of Hebrews all use it, but that does not mean the Ransom theory of atonement is correct for many reasons including God not owing satan anything and God not needing to pay satan to get His children back. We, as sinners, are holding captive in sin ourselves; we are the kidnappers of our own self. When we appeal to an unbeliever to become free, the person holding him back is himself. We do not pray to God to release the individual and we do not perform an exorcism on the individual. The prodigal son was not stolen away and chained to the pigsty, but the prodigal son held himself in the pigsty until he came to his senses.

The payment of Christ’s tortured, humiliated and murdered experience is to the individual sinner and it is up to him/her to accept or reject the payment.

The “value/ benefit” is only realized by the believer in that this is what the unbeliever has caused Christ to go through and it is purely his individual responsibility that Christ went through this torture and murder. He the individual could have provided “another way” if he had just not sinned and fulfilled his objective without sinning (God could have known a person way in the future fulfilled the objective without sinning (mean there was another way).

Realize what I cause cuts to the heart (is the worst feeling I could have and I am reminded of that feeling and almost repeated at every Lord’s Support, like those in Acts 2:27). The only think that keeps me from collapsing every time I think about what I caused is the fact there is also being shown the greatest Love possible at this same time. I have been forgiven of causing Christ to be crucified, which has to be the greatest offence I could do.

Realizing how much I have personally been forgiven of compels me to Love much.

For me to Love much, I have to be forgiven much and like those on Pentecost, being forgiven of crucifying the Messiah is an unbelievable much to be forgiven of.

Paul seems to convey this idea with Galatians 2:20 “I have been crucified with Christ…”, Paul is not saying Christ took my place in His crucifixion, but says he has been crucified with Christ. While Christ was being crucified I would think out of a strong empathy for Christ God the Father was being crucified with Christ and would have experienced even great pain and sorrow. As our Love for Christ grows will we not experience a greater empathy for what Christ went through?

If a child correctly experiences Loving discipline than that child will have a much closer stronger relationship with the Loving disciplining father afterwards.

Ripheus27 · Sep 24, 2018

St_Worm2 said:
Knowing who God is and what He is capable of doing, and knowing ALL that He has already done/is continuing to do for us to love us and to save us from ourselves, do you honestly believe Him unwilling or somehow incapable of getting His breathed word down to us in the form that He wanted us to have it in?

The Bible didn't fall out of the sky. Besides that, I think God could well provide people with special revelation all the time, and not in a book. You might object, "But then people wouldn't be able to agree, because what one person said the Spirit said would be contradicted by what another person said the Spirit said," &c., but really now, even with this book (which the Reformation unjustly reduced, and which appears in more than the Catholic and Protestant forms besides), people don't agree so well. I daresay when God truly inspires individuals with special revelation, there is a lot of agreement in the end. And yes, He uses the Bible for this purpose, but not as a standard of all reality. (I do have a consistent method of reading the book, incidentally.)

Finally, the fact that you have no standard, no truth that we can both look to and agree upon, makes talking to you about any of this extremely difficult. The fact is, when you decide willy-nilly what seems right to you in the Bible and what does not, when you chose to move the goalposts (so to speak) in an attempt to make what it says more comfortable or acceptable to you, then the Bible stops being the word of God and immediately becomes the "word of Ripheus" instead

Well in all reality, this thread is not about whether everyone is a sinner or not, it's about whether the doctrine of imputation is true or good or wrong or evil. I pointed out that it's entirely within Biblical reason for Christ's sacrifice to be necessary for our salvation even if the doctrine of imputation is not the correct explanation for this necessity. You can jump from topic to topic if you please, and I have been of good cheer as you have done so (though often this style of debate disturbs me), but I do wonder to where you might jump next?

redleghunter said:
Was this a case where Paul was offering an opinion? No it is not.

No, interestingly enough, it's a case where Paul is offering an interpretation of an already-existent scripture. On top of this, we have an interpretation of his interpretation, which is also interesting.

FredVB · Oct 16, 2018

Ripheus27 said:
As far as I can tell, the Bible claims that Job did not sin. I think it might even claim this of a few others. When it says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and so on, it is referring to the average person, not absolutely everyone.

Job, along with a number of others in the Bible, not ever being said to be actually sinless, are called blameless. This is a characteristic among fellow human beings. We can be blameless. We can live in ways with integrity, that others don't do, and remain blameless in that. Job was doing such. But God who sees all sees all sin. All sin is dealt with, in those who have committed those, and for those in Christ, with those dealt with through Christ. We all have such sin, none were without sin.

bling said:
The big problem for all mature adults (even Jews back before Christ) is knowingly sinning direct rebellious disobedience against God, this can be “picking up sticks on the Sabbath to make a fire”. These sins required the sinner to be killed or banished and everyone was responsible for at least one of them.

What good is it to have a system for taking care of really minor unintentional sins with sacrifices if everyone is a big bad sinner and needs to die?

The sacrifices have the benefit of helping us understand sin, God’s Love, the need for a savior and the atonement sacrifice of Christ, but without a savior to go to the cross there is no explanation to the sacrifices.

You ask: “if Christ did not need to die on the Cross for the forgiveness of sins, what purpose did His death serve”?

If God is Love, how could God have a problem forgiving people? The reason given for “penal substitution” is God cannot forgive us without Jesus being our substitute, but that makes God out to having a problem, lacking in Love someway, and being almost blood thirsty.

It also does not explain how something 100% forgiven has to also be 100% paid for since that is not the way things work. If the debt were paid in full there would be no need for forgiveness and if the debt is forgiven payment is not needed.

Actually it is a mistaken idea that Christ's crucifixion and brutal death was payment for forgiveness. God already wanted to forgive us and sent Jesus into our world. Payment was for the justice called for. Forgiveness does not eliminate what justice must come. But with being in Christ with justice already accomplished through him, we are freely forgiven, while justice was given through Christ, that we don't bear it on our own, like others outside of Christ, who will on their own.

bling · Oct 17, 2018

FredVB said:
Actually it is a mistaken idea that Christ's crucifixion and brutal death was payment for forgiveness. God already wanted to forgive us and sent Jesus into our world. Payment was for the justice called for. Forgiveness does not eliminate what justice must come. But with being in Christ with justice already accomplished through him, we are freely forgiven, while justice was given through Christ, that we don't bear it on our own, like others outside of Christ, who will on their own.

God and Christ had the power to forgive before the cross and did forgive some (it seem from the prophets all who sought God’s forgiveness and repented, so “yes” Christ did not go to the cross, but not so God could Love us to the extent of forgiving us. Christ went to the cross so we could now be fairly/justly Lovingly punished/disciplined and not be like those previous to the cross passed over and left unpunished. We can now be crucified with Christ.

Ro. 3:25 (NIV) 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—

How is there any payment needed for forgiven sins?

The “just” requirement of a Parent is to see to the fair/just loving disciplining of their children if at all possible. The parent forgives them, but discipline is still needed.

St_Worm2 · Oct 17, 2018

Ripheus27 said:
I think God could well provide people with special revelation all the time, and not in a book.

Hi Ripheus, of course He could, and yet, He's never done that.

Jesus (while He walked among us) often chose to make/substantiate His points to the people He was teaching (and thereby to us as well) by referencing the Bible saying, "it is written" (and by saying other, similar statements), again and again and again. Of all of the people who have ever lived, surely the Word of God Himself could have simply provided us with "special revelation all the time", but He didn't choose to do that.

Why do you think that might be?

Ripheus27 said:
You might object, "But then people wouldn't be able to agree, because what one person said the Spirit said would be contradicted by what another person said the Spirit said," &c., but really now, even with this book (which the Reformation unjustly reduced, and which appears in more than the Catholic and Protestant forms besides), people don't agree so well.

It's true that there are some great disagreements within the church (particularly concerning soteriological beliefs), but they amount to only 10% or so of the faith. The other 90% of the Christian faith is held in unity among all Christian churches and denominations within the pale of Christian orthodoxy (though all the infighting we do about the 10% would leave many to think that those percentages have been reversed

).

You might be interested to know that there is a modern movement (it began in 2002), I believe it's called Word of Faith (or perhaps it's a group within that group), that has thrown the Bible, the Apostles, and the Early Church Fathers out because they believe that they get their revelation directly from God the Holy Spirit now. Of course, like you just said above, fights ensue because what one person claims as revelation (that they received directly from God) another person contradicts, for the very same reason. I have been in a couple of threads right here at CF and witnessed this very thing first hand.

Finally, as far as the Bible is concerned, the OT and NT combined amount to 66 Books. No one disputes that fact. There were a number of other books/letters that were written between the end of the OT and the writing of NT which are referred to as the Apocryphal or Deuterocanonical writings. The King James used to always include some of them, and even Luther's German Bible includes 7 of them in the back. The Hebrew Bible never included them (OT only), nor do most modern Protestant Bibles (which include the OT & NT only). As far as the Apocrypha goes, I'm not sure why you believe that the Jew's and the Protestant's choices to simply include the OT or OT/NT in their Bibles is somehow "unjust"? After all, the RCC includes only 7 of Apocryphal letters/books in their Bible, while the EOC includes 13 .. I believe, but no one includes them all. The RCC and the EOC believe that some of these writings are a kind of secondary Canon, so they include the ones that they hold as such in their respective Bibles, but the Jews and the Protestants do not, so they normally do not include them for that reason.

Ripheus27 said:
Well in all reality, this thread is not about whether everyone is a sinner or not, it's about whether the doctrine of imputation is true or good or wrong or evil. I pointed out that it's entirely within Biblical reason for Christ's sacrifice to be necessary for our salvation even if the doctrine of imputation is not the correct explanation for this necessity. You can jump from topic to topic if you please, and I have been of good cheer as you have done so (though often this style of debate disturbs me), but I do wonder to where you might jump next?

I'll try to be more careful about my replies to you, but generally speaking, I try to stay away from thread drift unless I feel it's necessary (or because I'm following a rabbit trail that someone else has already established). In any case, it is not my intention to "disturb" you with my replies, so please let me know if I am doing that in the future so I can see what you are talking about. Thanks!).

As far as imputation goes (just to get back on track), it's just a word that we use (like Trinity) to describe/define/encapsulate a Biblical (not a man-made) doctrine .. e.g. 2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 5:9, so I'm thinking that you you'll really need to take your complaint about it up with the Bible's Author

Yours and His,
David

FredVB · Oct 19, 2018

FredVB said:
Job, along with a number of others in the Bible, not ever being said to be actually sinless, are called blameless. This is a characteristic among fellow human beings. We can be blameless. We can live in ways with integrity, that others don't do, and remain blameless in that. Job was doing such. But God who sees all sees all sin. All sin is dealt with, in those who have committed those, and for those in Christ, with those dealt with through Christ. We all have such sin, none were without sin.

Actually it is a mistaken idea that Christ's crucifixion and brutal death was payment for forgiveness. God already wanted to forgive us and sent Jesus into our world. Payment was for the justice called for. Forgiveness does not eliminate what justice must come. But with being in Christ with justice already accomplished through him, we are freely forgiven, while justice was given through Christ, that we don't bear it on our own, like others outside of Christ, who will on their own.

bling said:
God and Christ had the power to forgive before the cross and did forgive some (it seem from the prophets all who sought God’s forgiveness and repented, so “yes” Christ did not go to the cross, but not so God could Love us to the extent of forgiving us. Christ went to the cross so we could now be fairly/justly Lovingly punished/disciplined and not be like those previous to the cross passed over and left unpunished. We can now be crucified with Christ.

Romans 3:25 (NIV) 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—

How is there any payment needed for forgiven sins?

The “just” requirement of a Parent is to see to the fair/just loving disciplining of their children if at all possible. The parent forgives them, but discipline is still needed.

No, payment is not needed for forgiveness, forgiveness is freely given. Those forgiven before were also with the essential faith with which they are covered in Christ. But those without such faith did not have the forgiveness, and would yet suffer without having the faith in which they would be covered in Christ. Yahweh does not forgive all, just the children of Yahweh. Those are the ones redeemed in Christ. In Christ there is the righteousness in payment, not for forgiveness, but in justice for sin, with being in Christ, it has been born by him for us. Yahweh wants this for all, and it is available, but the forgiveness Yahweh would freely give will be for those who submit to the way of salvation, which is provided through Christ.

JIMINZ · Oct 19, 2018

FredVB said:
Those forgiven before were also with the essential faith with which they are covered in Christ.

Are you able to demonstrate this particular belief with a Scripture which says as much?

Rom. 10:14
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

FredVB said:
Yahweh wants this for all, and it is available, but the forgiveness Yahweh would freely give will be for those who submit to the way of salvation, which is provided through Christ.

When a Freely Given Forgiveness has a requirement of Submission residing within it, it is therefore no more Freely Given but a Required Submission before the receiving.

A demonstration of Freely Given.
Eph. 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

What is "The Way of Salvation"?

The doctrine of imputation is hypocritical

Holeless fox

Thank You Jesus!

Holeless fox

Simul Justus et Peccator

Thank You Jesus!

Holeless fox

Thank You Jesus!

Simul Justus et Peccator

Thank You Jesus!

Holeless fox

Thank You Jesus!

Simul Justus et Peccator

Simul Justus et Peccator

Regular Member

Holeless fox

Regular Member

Regular Member

Simul Justus et Peccator

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads