We are Justified by His Blood

redleghunter said:

You are drifting from the text of Romans 5.

Click to expand...

(You have assumed so before proper investigation).

redleghunter said:

In Romans 7 Paul focuses on the relationship of the Law with our members.

Click to expand...

Would you prefer to explain Romans 7:9 differently to the way I have described it in post #54?

redleghunter said:

Romans 5 clearly states:

19For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

The remainder of the chapter indicates the Law when it came in increased sin. We see the effect of Adam's disobedience in that everyone dies.

Click to expand...

It is obvious at this point in the conversation, we are looking at the scriptures with opposing views, to interpret the scriptures as being supportive of the understandings we each have - and yet, although we both agree that the scriptures are true in saying what they say, we do not agree as to what the scriptures are teaching (therefore, the words we use to explain the scriptures, our own words, are not expressing a unity of spirit - 1 Corinthians 14:33).

So it's just like a fight now, a debate, a tug of war, a contention. Neither of us is seeking to understand the other's view, but we are each adamant that the other is wrong.

I don't intend to be contentious on this thread, and I wouldn't have joined it if you had appeared that way to begin with, but I do recognise that you haven't yet seen the scriptures in the way that I have seen them.

So in the case of Romans 5:19, I will offer to paraphrase with my own speech, so that you might get an idea of how I am reading it to mean different than what you are reading. Then you will have an opportunity to decide whether you think I am right or wrong to read it that way:

There was one man who was disobedient in the first place, and through him, many were made/formed/established [into] sinners/depraved/dis-grace-ful/detestable/wrong.

Our difference of reading is in the method of the hamartōloi katestathēsan - the "making of the sinner".

.. where your doctrine teaches that babies are born hamartōloi, I dare not say such a thing, but rather I say that babies are born pure, innocent and holy. I recognise that it is the fallen nature of the fallen world that puts it's corruption into them by the way it makes them think.

Children don't begin life with any sinful behaviours. It is the world that forms them in their own image (children of wrath) rather than the image of God (love) because they themselves are spiritually dead.

Therefore, there is an opposing fundamental premise in the way we are each viewing the world, where you believe babies bring sin into the world while I believe the world brings sin upon the babies.

I don't intend to fight you though, in order to show you how to read the scriptures according to the perspective I do, but I will tell you that I was raised by people who have the basic doctrinal view that you have, and it is common enough to find people who also view the scriptures that way so you don't need to fight me in order to show me the way that you see it, and accordingly, you don't need to prematurely assume that I have made mistakes in my reading of the scriptures.

Serving Zion said:

I do know that .. but, they are only essential doctrine when they are properly understood, else they are false teachings

Click to expand...

I understand Hebrews, Romans and the Upper Room discourse just fine, this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many, for the forgiveness of sin, (Matthew 26:28). Is Jesus teaching something false here? Atonement literally means 'at one moment' it was a reference to the annual Yom Kippur when blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat in the holy of holies, where God literally dwelled. The New Testament has a very different basis for forgiveness if sin, not the blood of bulls and goats but the power of an indestructible life. What's more treating the blood of the covenant as an unholy thing call for divine retribution if the highest order (Hebrews 10:29). You might want to rethink that

mark kennedy said:

I understand Hebrews, Romans and the Upper Room diiscourse just fine, this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poyred out for many, for the forgiveness of sin, (Matthew 26:28). Is Jesus teaching something false here?

Click to expand...

No, it's more that people teach about it when they don't really understand it, and they end up saying things that are misleading. This is my purpose for contributing on this thread.

mark kennedy said:

Atonement literally means 'at one moment'

Click to expand...

I haven't been led to accept that argument yet. Can you please explain your case to show that the writers of the scriptures did in fact mean to say "at one moment" when they used that word?

mark kennedy said:

it was a reference to the annual Yom Kippur when blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat in the holy of holies, where God literalkt dwelled. The New Teatament has a very different basis for forgiveness if sin, not the bloid of bulls and goats but the power of an indestructavle life.

Click to expand...

It does away with the blood of animals, because there is nothing that can compare to the blood of Jesus Christ in value - not even a baby who is undefiled, because it has not even resisted sin in order to prove it's value as being victorious over sin, as we know Jesus Christ has done (consider what Hebrews 12:4 is saying in combination with Hebrews 10:26-27, as a warning to us and an explanation of the mechanism of atonement, toward Hebrews 10:4).

mark kennedy said:

What's nore treating the blood of the covenant as an unholy thing call for divine retrivution if the highest order (Hebrews 10:29).

Click to expand...

mark kennedy said:

You might want to rethink that

Click to expand...

I am worried about what ideas you have in your mind about me that makes you say this. Can you please explain?

redleghunter said:

Sure Paul is explaining how the law actually exposes our sin. In chapter 6 he makes it clear we are either in bondage to sin and death or righteousness.

In chapter 7 Paul speaks of the jurisdiction of the Law but now that we die with Christ we die to that which condemns us which is the Law. That sets up the remainder of the dialogue.

Click to expand...

I have a question for you. It is very important that you answer this question.

When St. Paul says "I was alive once apart from the law, but then the commandment came, sin came to life, and I died as a result of that" .. do you believe that he is saying this or that he is saying something else?

Because it is certainly showing that he believes a doctrine whereby he has been "born again" - "a new spiritual life" - after having "been dead in trespasses" that came after he was once alive: before the law.

redleghunter said:

You are indicating we have the potential to sin when we are born because of Adam,

Click to expand...

Well, no I wouldn't say that at all. I would say that the potential to sin comes later, when we are tempted.. and that is because of what Adam brought into the world that was not part of God's creation. But, the human nature of a newborn before and after Adam's sin is not changed, otherwise, you cannot answer the question "how did Adam sin if he did not have a fallen nature?". The potential for Adam to sin was there just as much as it is in a newborn - only, the ones who sinned after him did not do sin of the same likeness - it was without conviction until the knowledge of law (commandment) came. Then, sin taking advantage of the commandment, puts them to death (so they are no longer simply doing sin without conviction and walking in the light - but they are hiding their nakedness, "walking in the darkness").

redleghunter said:

and at some time we become morally responsible based on actually understanding this and committing sin.

Only part I disagree with that is that has nothing to to with the sin of Adam but our own sins. The curse of Adam is truly passed to us all.

Click to expand...

Sure, and the only part that we don't agree with, is the method of it's "spreading to all" - that you say "passed" (passively), whereas I say that it is spread by way of spirit, and this is why we are commanded, when we have the authority to do so in the name of Jesus, to "not be conformed to the pattern of the world, but be transformed by the renewing of the mind".

In other words, Christianity teaches that the mind is fine to begin with, but by conforming to the pattern of the world, we become marred, corrupted, beastly rather than godly, and before we know it (not rhetorical), we have been James 1:14-15 - put to death.

There is a spiritual life and spiritual death, this concept of being "born again", having "new life" - it is different from the carnal death which is when the body is unable to continue hosting spirit, and the soul departs from it. The spiritual life and death is that which St. Paul is talking about in Romans 7:9, saying that he was alive until the commandment put him to death. Reading 1 John 3:14 puts an extra spin on it, suggesting that it isn't the transgression of the Torah that put him to death, but the wrongful knowledge of it, such that Torah became an idol of sorts. It was his zeal for the letter of Torah that caused him to become a murderer, transgressing the spirit of Torah to the uttermost: do not kill, and, as he confessed "who are you, Lord?" .. "I am the one whom you are persecuting" .. he was even driven to oppose the God that he loved! (that is, until he received real conviction, and he evidently chose obedience rather than sin, per John 3:20).

redleghunter said:

Sure Paul is explaining how the law actually exposes our sin. In chapter 6 he makes it clear we are either in bondage to sin and death or righteousness.

In chapter 7 Paul speaks of the jurisdiction of the Law but now that we die with Christ we die to that which condemns us which is the Law. That sets up the remainder of the dialogue.

You are indicating we have the potential to sin when we are born because of Adam,

Click to expand...

Well, no I wouldn't say that. I would say that the potential to sin comes later, when we are tempted or made to fall.. and that is only because of the corruption that Adam brought into the world that was not part of God's creation.

But, I don't see any evidence in scripture to suggest that the human nature of a newborn before and after Adam's sin, is somehow changed - otherwise, you cannot answer the question "how did Adam sin if he did not already have a sin nature?".

So, the spiritual potential for Adam to sin was there just as much as it is in a newborn, but the tendency to sin was not there, and that is what Romans 5:14 says is especially unlike the youngies who blamelessly do sin. Adam chose consciously to do sin, whereas children only intend to do good, although being misguided or wrongly acculturated to act in ways that are ungodly (eg: wrath, greed, envy etc - they aren't born with those characteristics, they are born as the image of God).

So, the ones who do sin after him are not doing sin of the same likeness as him - it is without conviction until the knowledge of law (commandment) comes. Then, sin taking advantage of their weakness in light of the commandment ("moral expectation"), puts them to death (1 John 1:6-10) .. so they are no longer simply doing sin without conviction yet walking in the light as a child who knows no better - but they are hiding their nakedness for fear that their deeds will be exposed, and, stitching together the fabric of tough concealment, making for themselves shelter and cover (Genesis 3:7).

redleghunter said:

We all die. Jesus “fixes” this by rising from the dead. More below.

Click to expand...

If you talk like that to anyone who is not Christian, they will not get it, because they don't see that anything has been fixed yet.. and, indeed, this is a time of grace, the end is yet to come..

So, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not yet present as a solution to carnal death, as Romans 8:21 tells us to look for .. but, the present reward of the resurrection of Jesus Christ is precisely in the grace given to us, through faith, on account of His ongoing work through us (eg: Daniel 9:26c, Revelation 17:14c).

redleghunter said:

But the curse of Adam is manifest in all of us. We die.

Click to expand...

I just need to put this to you: do you believe that if Jesus was walking on earth forever, that He would have power to raise the dead forever? .. and then, think further to see what is written in Revelation 2:7 .. is that not the restoration of the Garden of Eden that we hope to see again? .. that Jesus, having access to the tree of life, was able to reach out His hand and we would live forever? .. now, isn't His vision precisely that we each would do the same.. or "greater things than these"?

redleghunter said:

Notice here Paul makes the point that even though the Law was not yet given sin still entered the world and death by this sin (Adam the one man).

Romans 5: NASB
12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.(NASB)

Paul shows even though those who did not sin like Adam death reigned from Adam to Moses when the Law was instituted for the chosen Israel.

Click to expand...

Torah is eternal, so it has always existed, and it has always been known in one form or another, to one extent or another, simply by way of The Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12, James 4:17) - and that is sufficient to convict of sin for the purpose of condemnation! .. But, Torah is written to benefit those who need to learn Torah by way of word, and for those whose knowledge of Torah has passed away with them (Hebrews 7:12).

There is no way Torah can be completely codified, because life is so vast and complex, it is simply impractical. That is why codified laws evolve with time and churches hold councils, make creeds and manifestos.

Rather, there are two commandments upon which all the Torah hangs: and the one who truly knows Torah, in whom Torah abides (Psalms 40:9), knows that all righteous judgement is a manifestation of those two commandments.

redleghunter said:

And we see that even in this timeframe the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation (Romans 5:16). Notice he says one transgression not the fact we have sinful natures.

It is the nature of the transgression resulting in condemnation.

Click to expand...

You have not read verse 12 carefully enough, which states invariably: "death spread to all men, because all sinned" .. that goes to show that death does not come to a person who does not sin. It is the nature of the person that makes them do the thing that is called sin .. and that nature is not present in a newborn baby.

redleghunter said:

Paul makes it clear this is imputed to us.

Click to expand...

St. Paul is not saying that at all, and the fact that he has said in Romans 7:9 that he was alive once, even before knowing Torah, that he did not suffer the condemnation of Torah for sin, which is death. So, the sin of Adam has no effect of condemnation upon us until such time as the commandment of Torah provides for sin to take us captive, per Romans 6:16.

That is not to say that ungodliness is not present in children though they be spiritually alive, but rather that is innocent corruption that they willingly repent of as soon as The Holy Spirit convicts them. This is why the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as them. They are blameless.

redleghunter said:

Now these are legal terms he uses of condemnation and justification. That’s the way we need to treat them.

This is not about babies and how innocent and oblivious they are to sin or even to knowing Adam’s disobedience results in their eventual death. As far as we know a newborn or baby in the womb cannot respond to the Grace of God. Maybe they can. I don’t know and I don’t speculate.

Click to expand...

I do know, but only because I use that word differently than you are doing. Grace is defined as:

1. elegance or beauty of form, manner, motion, or action:We watched her skate with effortless grace across the ice.
2. a pleasing or attractive quality or endowment:He lacked the manly graces.
3. favor or goodwill.

.. and babies absolutely love that!

redleghunter said:

We know from David he opines that he was conceived in sin. So he had a pretty good idea we are not perfect before a Holy God even in what we deem is a innocence.

Click to expand...

But that was his mother who was sinful at his conception. Again, this is a case of reading with prejudice. Where you are interpreting him as saying "I was sinful at birth" I say that you have distorted his words by saying that. He only says "in sin did my mother conceive me" - so, what was she committing adultery or something? .. certainly Ezekiel 18:2-4 must be read in conjunction with that context.

redleghunter said:

We all die.

We need to stop a moment and consider what Paul is telling us in Romans 5. He’s not telling us the descendants of Adam were condemned specifically for the sins they eventually committed but that they suffered the consequences of the one transgression from the one man.

Click to expand...

You are reading the death through Romans 5 to mean carnal death, whereas I read it to be spiritual death.

redleghunter said:

He lays this out clearly to show there is a legal declaration on all of us which is condemnation and the punishment is death. He mentions that even though others sinned unlike Adam they still suffer these consequences. Paul does this because he sets up the God’s redemptive solution. That by the One Man Jesus Christ and the free gift many will be justified. As Adam’s transgression is imputed to us, so by the act or work of the Lord Jesus Christ we have righteousness of God through Him.

Now back to chapter 7...Paul is explaining the relationship of the Law with our fallen natures. We are slaves to sin leading to death (chapter 6) and the Law in chapter 7 exposes us to sin. He then shows we die to the Law in Christ as a spouse is released from the bonds of marriage when their husband or wife dies. This dialogue in Chapter 7 does not negate the one transgression imputed from Adam in chapter 5.

In fact Romans 6:20-23 shifts the dialogue from Justification to Sanctification. Take a look:

Romans 6: NASB
20For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.21Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death. 22But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. 23For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Click to expand...

It's very interesting to read these scriptures with you, to think of what words I should produce in response to you .. I think I have said enough, and I think there's a pretty substantial opportunity to your turn in the conversation, in light of the difference we are reading, between carnal and spiritual context of death as St. Paul writes.

I certainly don't think that St. Paul can be read as speaking of carnal death in Romans 7:9 .. but you'd better tell me what you think of that before I go on.

redleghunter said:

Sure Paul is explaining how the law actually exposes our sin. In chapter 6 he makes it clear we are either in bondage to sin and death or righteousness.

In chapter 7 Paul speaks of the jurisdiction of the Law but now that we die with Christ we die to that which condemns us which is the Law. That sets up the remainder of the dialogue.

You are indicating we have the potential to sin when we are born because of Adam, and at some time we become morally responsible based on actually understanding this and committing sin.

Only part I disagree with that is that has nothing to to with the sin of Adam but our own sins. The curse of Adam is truly passed to us all. We all die. Jesus “fixes” this by rising from the dead. More below.


But the curse of Adam is manifest in all of us. We die.

Notice here Paul makes the point that even though the Law was not yet given sin still entered the world and death by this sin (Adam the one man).

Romans 5: NASB
12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.(NASB)

Paul shows even though those who did not sin like Adam death reigned from Adam to Moses when the Law was instituted for the chosen Israel.

And we see that even in this timeframe the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation (Romans 5:16). Notice he says one transgression not the fact we have sinful natures. It is the nature of the transgression resulting in condemnation. Paul makes it clear this is imputed to us.
Now these are legal terms he uses of condemnation and justification. That’s the way we need to treat them.

This is not about babies and how innocent and oblivious they are to sin or even to knowing Adam’s disobedience results in their eventual death. As far as we know a newborn or baby in the womb cannot respond to the Grace of God. Maybe they can. I don’t know and I don’t speculate.


We know from David he opines that he was conceived in sin. So he had a pretty good idea we are not perfect before a Holy God even in what we deem is a innocence.

We all die.

We need to stop a moment and consider what Paul is telling us in Romans 5. He’s not telling us the descendants of Adam were condemned specifically for the sins they eventually committed but that they suffered the consequences of the one transgression from the one man.

He lays this out clearly to show there is a legal declaration on all of us which is condemnation and the punishment is death. He mentions that even though others sinned unlike Adam they still suffer these consequences. Paul does this because he sets up the God’s redemptive solution. That by the One Man Jesus Christ and the free gift many will be justified. As Adam’s transgression is imputed to us, so by the act or work of the Lord Jesus Christ we have righteousness of God through Him.

Now back to chapter 7...Paul is explaining the relationship of the Law with our fallen natures. We are slaves to sin leading to death (chapter 6) and the Law in chapter 7 exposes us to sin. He then shows we die to the Law in Christ as a spouse is released from the bonds of marriage when their husband or wife dies. This dialogue in Chapter 7 does not negate the one transgression imputed from Adam in chapter 5.

In fact Romans 6:20-23 shifts the dialogue from Justification to Sanctification. Take a look:

Romans 6: NASB
20For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.21Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death. 22But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. 23For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Click to expand...

That's a pretty good exposition for Romans 5, with regards to original sin, you won't find a clearer identification with original sin in the Apostolic doctrine. Adam is mentioned some 8 times in the New Testament and always as the first parent of humanity. The Early Church fathers were nearly unanimous on this point, at least as much as they are on just about anything. That point aside, Romans puts special emphasis on out Adamic nature that resulted from original sin:

According to Paul:

This is how it reflects against the backdrop of the larger context of the doctrinal discussion in Romans. The book of Romans tells us that God's invisible attributes and eternal nature have been clearly seen but we exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:21,22). As a result the Law of Moses and the law of our own conscience bears witness against us, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending (Rom 2:15). We all sinned but now the righteousness of God has been revealed to be by faith through Christ (Rom 3:21). Abraham became the father of many nations by faith and the supernatural work of God (Rom 4:17). Through one man sin entered the world and through one man righteousness was revealed (Rom 5:12), it looks something like this:

Romans by chapter, chapters 1-8

1. Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, the creature for the Creator.
2. Both the Law and our conscience make our sin evident and obvious.
3. All sinned, but now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ.
4. Abraham's lineage produced by a promise and a miracle through faith.
5. Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.
6. Just as Christ was raised from the dead we walk in newness of life.
7. The law could not save but instead empowered sin to convict.
8. Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved.

The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not important but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast. This is affirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms by Luke in his genealogy, in Paul's exposition of justification by grace through faith in Romans.

I would have posted sooner but I didn't see the post until I was at work, couldn't wait to get home and toss my exposition into the works, such as it is.

Grace and peace,
Mark

redleghunter said:

I think we can continue down your response. I already posted the Romans 6-7 notes and now that evokes with the above a return to Romans 5 with the bolded above and your comments.

Romans 5:

10For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. 11And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

We are enemies and through Christ we are reconciled. A general statement covering us all "we are enemies." Which evokes 'children of wrath' in Ephesians chapter 2:

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. (Ephesians 2:1-3)

By nature children of wrath even as the rest. This too as in Romans 5:10 the all inclusive "we."

Those in Christ no longer enemies because through Him we have now received the reconciliation.

So far this is everyone no exceptions.

Continuing in Romans 5:

12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Through the one man Adam sin entered into the world and the penalty is death. This death spread to all men because all men sinned, sin and continue to do so. Verse 13 begins a parenthetical or digression which lasts to verse 17 about sin not being imputed where there is no law. Yet people still died and we know there was some laws from Adam to Moses. To Noah comes to mind in Genesis 9. This is confirmed when Paul says "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses." The penalty for Adam's transgression is death. And we can confirm everyone from Adam to Moses at some point reached room temperature aka died. And yes even those who did not sin as Adam did or the likeness of it died. Death reigned and everyone dies, even in an innocent or oblivious state we die.

On a side note, you did ask me if this death was physical or spiritual. Both and we have confirmation of the physical as everyone from Adam until now and until Kingdom come died, dies will die. I say both because our total person is the outer man which is decaying each day and our inner man which is being renewed day by day (2 Corinthians 4). And to confirm Paul is actually speaking of physical death as well he opines on this 1 Corinthians 15:

But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:20-22)

Therefore, Adam is the type which Paul will compare to Christ as redeemer the Justifier.

Continuing in Romans 5:

15But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.

Paul noting that making a direct comparison to the imputation of sin lead to death to the imputation of righteousness leading all to righteousness would not work, makes his purpose and distinction clear by saying the free gift is not like the transgression. Again, we are dealing with all the children of Adam here, he makes no distinction and already mentioned we too sin, but the sin leading to condemnation was Adam's. So the free gift is not like the transgression. Again notice he uses 'transgression' which is attributed to Adam and does not call it a 'nature' or 'ability' to sin. He already handled that distinction.

16The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.

And here we have it. Wow notice another distinction within a distinction. The judgment arose from one transgression--Adam's, which resulted in condemnation. We see the penalty for this transgression is death. Notice the bolded above. We are all condemned by the one transgression of Adam and death is that penalty. But notice the free gift not only covers this transgression of Adam but the many transgressions which means our own sins as well.

17For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

Verse 17 pretty much sums us what was stated in verse 16 but links the gift of righteousness through Jesus Christ. This is the imputed righteousness. Paul already linked this righteousness of God through Jesus Christ with eternal life. Therefore, your question of is the sin of Adam both a physical death and spiritual death, again the answer is yes as the solution God provides in Christ renews us in spirit--born again the inner man, and as quoted in from 1 Corinthians 15:20-22 He will raise us up incorruptible one glorious day.

Continuing with Romans 5 and the "transgression of the one, death reigned through the one":

18So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

Paul once again hammering in this nail of comparison. Adam's sin is still front and center and this transgression of Adam resulted in the condemnation to all men.

20The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

And here we see him mention the Law again but that it would increase transgression, and where sin increased grace abounded more. And note, with Paul mentioning eternal life through Jesus Christ this addresses the physical and immaterial, the outer man and inner man.

We cannot escape such a clear teaching here. The transgression of Adam is imputed to us just as in redemption the righteousness of God is imputed to us through Jesus Christ.

As having the sin of Adam imputed to us, we suffer death as the penalty for sin is death. That is the condemnation. We too sin as the sin of Adam was gaining the knowledge of good and evil. Therefore, as Paul says in Romans chapter 1 we have no excuse.

Click to expand...

Nicely done, always enjoy a sound exposition of a solid proof text.

Grace and peace,
Mark

tdidymas said:

Sorry for me butting in.. I just want to say that it appears to me that the false premise is that anyone has the idea that God is bloodthirsty, as the question implies. The implication is that the atonement theory makes God bloodthirsty. But since it doesn't, the question is completely irrelevant, and therefore is a straw man question. The question is exaggerative by nature. No one in this thread has implied that God is bloodthirsty in adhering to the atonement theory.
TD

Click to expand...

Why does God want the blood of Christ outside of his body, is there some personal desire on His part or is it to allow Him to do something? (Him and not us to do something?)

Penal Substitution would say: “Christ’s blood ‘satisfies’ some form of unique “justice” or “God’s needs blood to forgive”. Doing a wrong like to torture, humiliation and murder of the innocent, would not be used to right the wrong of our sinning.

I go on to show it is not some personal desire on God’s part and His personal desire would be to have the blood remain flowing through Christ’s veins. It is our desire for Christ’s blood, which causes, out of Love for us, God to allows wick people to cause Christ to blead.

bling said:

Why does God want the blood of Christ outside of his body, is there some personal desire on His part or is it to allow Him to do something? (Him and not us to do something?)

Penal Substitution would say: “Christ’s blood ‘satisfies’ some form of unique “justice” or “God’s needs blood to forgive”. Doing a wrong like to torture, humiliation and murder of the innocent, would not be used to right the wrong of our sinning.

I go on to show it is not some personal desire on God’s part and His personal desire would be to have the blood remain flowing through Christ’s veins. It is our desire for Christ’s blood, which causes, out of Love for us, God to allows wick people to cause Christ to blead.

Click to expand...

I am sorry that to me your conversation is cryptic and not easy to understand. Perhaps it is the exaggerative nature of the words you are using, or perhaps the grammatical errors are obstructing the meaning. I'm not sure.

What I know is what the scripture states, in Isa. 53: God the Father looked on the suffering of Christ, and was satisfied. If God had no personal desire for justice, then how could the suffering satisfy Him? We know by what scripture says that:
1. The life is in the blood
2. Christ's blood was shed for our sins
3. The cross of Christ is the atoning sacrifice for us
4. Faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross reconciles us to God
and other such ideas that are the core ideas of the gospel. If Christ's blood shed on the cross is not the act that satisfies God's wrath toward sin, then how can the writer of Hebrews say "He entered the holy place through the veil, that is His flesh"?

If you don't think I am properly responding to your post, then please give your point in different words that make it more clear as to what you are saying.
TD

redleghunter said:

The Blood of Christ. See the OP.

Click to expand...

I was talking about an earthly child parent relationship and a civil or criminal earthly court situation.

Just because Christ’s blood was spilt does not mean everyone on earth should feel comfortable before God.

What rebellious disobedient child need and the criminal need is very similar to what we need and can find with the suffering torturing, humiliation, and murder experienced with Christ’s blood.

redleghunter said:

Are your parents God and is your older brother truly God and truly man? Perhaps we should review your views on the Person of Jesus Christ as truly God and truly human.

Click to expand...

Yes! My Father (Parent) is also God and since God is also the Father of Christ, Christ is my older brother?

Christ is 100% Deity and 100% human while on earth.

That should not impact your answering the question, so would you answer the question?

redleghunter said:

Yes it is a substitution as the OP points out:

See Romans 5:9 again.

Click to expand...

To be substitution in one way does not mean it has to be penal substitution is the point. Agree?

redleghunter said:

Again, are your parents a Holy God Who is Just? Don't think so. So the human perspective analogies fail as does this one from earlier:

Click to expand...

I did not come up with this truism Heb. 12: 5… “My son, do not make light of the Lord’s disciplines and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, 6 because the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.” And Prov. 3:11,12 (see Septuagint)

The Hebrew writer in Heb. 12 shows the parental discipline is very much like the Lord’s disciplining.

9 Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live! 10 They disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness.

redleghunter said:

This immediately puts your entire post "behind the 8 ball" as you are trying to form an argument from a fallen human perspective. Note to the galley...God does not think like we do.

Click to expand...

Penal Substitution puts the “blame” for Christ having to go to the cross on God’s lacking something which makes it impossible for God to forgive without innocent blood being spilled (even if it is His own innocent blood). The blame” for Christ going to the cross solely lays on me the individual sinner. God has the Love and power to easily forgive us, but that does not solve the problem of my need and desire for Loving fair/just discipline.

redleghunter said:

See: Isaiah 55:8-11


8“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD.

9“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways
And My thoughts than your thoughts.

10“For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
And do not return there without watering the earth
And making it bear and sprout,
And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater;

11So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth;
It will not return to Me empty,
Without accomplishing what I desire,
And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.

Click to expand...

Isaiah is taking man’s wisdom and knowledge and contrasting it to God’s wisdom and knowledge, but we can take God’s wisdom and knowledge presented to us in scripture and use what God has explained about Himself, justice, mercy, Love, forgiveness, hate, vengeance, man’s nature and what we know about Christ while on earth and use it to explain God’s actions, motives, and attitude. We do know God does not lie, God does not contradict Himself, God is consistent, and God is not hypocritical (asking of us what He would not do).

These verses do not get us around the issue, so we cannot throw up our hands and say: “I don’t know why God appears to be blood thirsty”?

redleghunter said:

This is Border line if not outright blasphemy. The Scriptures say Christ died for our sins. Christ gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works. (Titus 2:14)

Click to expand...

Do you agree with the following:

1. Christ was crucified because we sinned and because of our sins?
   
   
2. Christ crucifixion benefited us?
   
   
3. God’s Love and power is great enough to forgive any sinner, with the exception of the unforgivable sin?
   
   
4. We can be crucified with Christ?
   
   
5. When we try to teach the nonbeliever we are trying to get the nonbeliever to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified and not just some message?
   
   
6. We as children of God need to be fairly/justly and Lovingly disciplined for our rebellious disobedience if at all possible?
   
   
7. Discipline has lots of excellent benefits while not disciplining a child suggest a negligent parent (if there is a parent available)?
   
   
8. Faith is somehow involved in the atonement process?
   

Where does it say: “Christ paid our debt of punishment the punishment being the result of our sins against God”?

Yes very much so: “Christ died (was crucified) for our sins! And Christ was crucified for you!

BUT, what does the English word “for” mean when used in the teaching of atonement? There are lots of Greek words translated into the English word “for”, so which Greek words are used in both the New Testamant and the Old Testament (Septuagint) concerning atonement?

The definition to prepositional words can change linguistically in short periods of time so we cannot be “certain” how the first century writers were using the Greek word at the time, but it is a dead language which helps and finding no examples for the way we are trying to define the Greek word does not help us to use a unique definition.

That being said all but one the Greek words translate “for” in the context of atonement would have the most likely definition of: “because of” or “as a benefit to”. There is one exception recorded twice where Christ uses the Greek word “anti” which is translated “for” which can mean “instead of” and should be the Greek word used if the Biblical writer is trying to convey the meaning of “instead of” yet they do not. I will explain further: “Anti” if Strong is correct is use 22 times in the NT can mean “instead of”, but does not always mean “instead of” for Jesus used it when in coins found in the fish “for” Peter and Himself to pay the temple tax (but that would not mean instead of and is “payment for”) and several times it is used “eye for an eye” , “tooth for a tooth” or “evil for evil”, but that is not meaning “instead of” but better translated “because of”.

This brings us to the time Jesus did use “anti” in connection with atonement: “…to give his life as a ransom for many” in Mark and Matt. the “for” in “ransom for many” would seem to have the same meaning as the coins “for” Peter and Christ’s (temple tax), but let’s consider “for” meaning “instead of” which means the ransom is given and accepted by the kidnapper instead of keeping the child from freely going into the Kingdom to be with God.

Who is the ransom being offered to, which will free the child to go to God (in the kingdom) since only as children can anyone enters the Kingdom?

Is God the criminal undeserving kidnapper holding His own children away from Himself?

Is God allowing satan to hold His children away from Himself and is paying satan an undeserved ransom when God does not need to do it?

What are we asking of the nonbeliever which can be accepted or refused depending on the nonbelievers “faith” if it is not Jesus Christ and Him crucified (the ransom payment)?

The ransom is being offered to the nonbeliever and if accepted allows the child, within that nonbeliever, to go to the kingdom. So no matter what definition of “anti” you want to use in the ransom verses of Mark and Matt. it does not mean penal substitution.

redleghunter said:

As prophesied His atoning sacrifice was for our transgressions:

But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5)

Click to expand...

First off: that does not say: He was punished “by God” instead of God punishing us.

It does describe what Christ went through to benefit us and because of our sins.

There is no issue with Christ doing all this because of our sinning and thus to benefit us in some way but what way are we benefited?

Peter gives us part of the interpretation to this verse with:

1 Peter 2:24 “He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.”

The benefit Peter talks about is “our dying to sin and living righteous” as “healing”, but Peter does not say: “took the punishment instead of us”, so we could be forgiven?

Did Christ become a “sinner” while on the cross?

“bore” conveys the meaning of carrying away (removing)

redleghunter said:

I will note the above is not even the Christian historic Ransom theory view.

Click to expand...

Right! I strongly disagree with the Ransom Theory of Atonement”!!

redleghunter said:

That is evident on how you use the term "ransom." It was used to explain that Christ provided the necessary substitute, He is the payment, for sin and death. And he carried our sins and suffered the penalty of sin which is death. So there does not have to be a "who" in ransom but a "what." However, substitution explains "WHO" is satisfied. :

Click to expand...

Look: Jesus, Peter, Paul, John and the Hebrew writer all describe it as a literal ransom payment to set the child free and not just “like” a kidnap scenario.

To be a ransom scenario you have to have an undeserving kidnapper or it is a payment scenario. In the first century Roman Empire kidnapping was common and even Caesar at age 21 was kidnapped and a ransom payment was made to free him, so the audience of the first century Israel would know what was being talked about.

Christ torture, humiliation and murder are referred to as a ransom payment and never suggested as being a “substitution” replacing the child, but is a payment for the child. Ro. 3:25 tells us this ransom payment “Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood” is “to be received by faith” so if you have faith you accept the ransom payment and if you lack faith you refuse the ransom payment?

God does not need “faith” to receive the ransom payment and if we lack faith what does that have to do with what God did?

Yes, Christ experienced the torture, humiliation and cruel death we all deserve, but that does not mean He did it so we do not have to (a non-perceptive experience), but went through all this so we also could go through all this (participating with Christ).

This also brings up the death which Adam introduced into the world, so what was it?

redleghunter said:

Unrighteousness holds back the child of wrath from becoming a child of God. The only remedy is found in the Blood of Christ:

Click to expand...

Unrighteousness is just an intangible concept, while an unrighteous person can do stuff. Unrighteousness alone does not do anything, but unrighteousness in a person can do lots of bad stuff, so when we say “unrighteousness” holds a child back, are you really not saying the unrighteousness in a person holds a child back? You cannot change “unrighteousness” to get it to do anything (like release a child to go to the Kingdom), but you can convince a willing unrighteous person to accept Christ and Him Crucified.

redleghunter said:

Colossians 1:20

Acts of the Apostles 20:28

Ephesians 1:7

Hebrews 9:14

Hebrews 9:22

1 John 1:7

Hebrews 10:19

Hebrews 13:12

Leviticus 17:11

Luke 22:20

Matthew 26:28

Revelation 1:5

Revelation 7:14

Revelation 12:11

Romans 5:9

Romans 3:24-25

1 Peter 1:18-19

1 Corinthians 11:24-30

Click to expand...

All good verses I use to support my conclusion.

redleghunter said:

The ransom payment to satan is untenable Biblically. This is why Christ as the substitute satisfying the wrath of God by His shed blood is what Christ and His apostles teach and was the fulfillment of prophecy (Isaiah 53).

Click to expand...

I never suggested the payment was made to satan??

redleghunter said:

I understand you want to find a gospel which is more palatable to the unbeliever, but such is no gospel as the apostle calls such as cursed.

Click to expand...

I teach from scripture by asking questions of the nonbeliever and let him find the truth for himself, I do not want him accepting my conclusions.

Look at Peter’s very strong Christ Crucified sermon in Acts 2. Peter never mentions or suggests “Christ was crucified “instead of” you. (you can also look in Acts other sermons to nonbelievers and will not find “Christ was crucified instead of you”). While the emphasis is on that fact “you” crucified the Messiah allow the Jewish audience (those who knew who the Messiah was) to experience a death blow to their hearts (Acts 2:37) if they believed (really weighing on them the experience of them sharing in Christ crucifixion out of empathy). This is the very worst experience a devout Jew could have and still live.

Today we can get to the point of being crucified with Christ, but it is not a pleasant experience or one easy to accept, so I do not do not see your suggestion of: “you want to find a gospel which is more palatable to the unbeliever”?

Have you experienced while taking the Lord’s Super or other times being crucified with Christ?

tdidymas said:

I am sorry that to me your conversation is cryptic and not easy to understand. Perhaps it is the exaggerative nature of the words you are using, or perhaps the grammatical errors are obstructing the meaning. I'm not sure.

What I know is what the scripture states, in Isa. 53: God the Father looked on the suffering of Christ, and was satisfied. If God had no personal desire for justice, then how could the suffering satisfy Him? We know by what scripture says that:
1. The life is in the blood
2. Christ's blood was shed for our sins
3. The cross of Christ is the atoning sacrifice for us
4. Faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross reconciles us to God
and other such ideas that are the core ideas of the gospel. If Christ's blood shed on the cross is not the act that satisfies God's wrath toward sin, then how can the writer of Hebrews say "He entered the holy place through the veil, that is His flesh"?

If you don't think I am properly responding to your post, then please give your point in different words that make it more clear as to what you are saying.
TD

Click to expand...

First you might want to read my post 73 and comment and answer the questions there.

Yes, God is very “satisfied” with what Christ did, but is God satisfied because Christ really went to the sacrificial extreme to help humans or was God satisfied to solve a personal problem God was have?

When humans talk about being “satisfied”, it usually refers to satisfying some personal need, but what personal “needs”, would God need to have others satisfy?

God is always “just” and righteous, but Ro. 3:25 does say it is only after the cross and with the cross: “He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished”

What was not seen (demonstrated) prior to the cross was God’s righteousness in the fairly/justly lovingly “punishing” (disciplining) the repentant and forgiven sinner. You can see some of the punishment and know hell awaits the unrepentant sinner, but those forgiven prior to the cross did not experience being crucified with Christ (fair/just loving discipline). Christ satisfy this need for God to demonstrate His righteousness with the cross.

bling said:

First you might want to read my post 73 and comment and answer the questions there.

Yes, God is very “satisfied” with what Christ did, but is God satisfied because Christ really went to the sacrificial extreme to help humans or was God satisfied to solve a personal problem God was have?

When humans talk about being “satisfied”, it usually refers to satisfying some personal need, but what personal “needs”, would God need to have others satisfy?

God is always “just” and righteous, but Ro. 3:25 does say it is only after the cross and with the cross: “He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished”

What was not seen (demonstrated) prior to the cross was God’s righteousness in the fairly/justly lovingly “punishing” (disciplining) the repentant and forgiven sinner. You can see some of the punishment and know hell awaits the unrepentant sinner, but those forgiven prior to the cross did not experience being crucified with Christ (fair/just loving discipline). Christ satisfy this need for God to demonstrate His righteousness with the cross.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I get your point, as what you say here doesn't seem to conflict with what I said earlier.

I'll respond to a certain point in your prev. post #73:

Penal Substitution puts the “blame” for Christ having to go to the cross on God’s lacking something which makes it impossible for God to forgive without innocent blood being spilled (even if it is His own innocent blood). The blame” for Christ going to the cross solely lays on me the individual sinner. God has the Love and power to easily forgive us, but that does not solve the problem of my need and desire for Loving fair/just discipline.

Click to expand...

So are you arguing against penal substitution then? And is your argument against it: "Penal Substitution puts the “blame” for Christ having to go to the cross on God’s lacking something which makes it impossible for God to forgive without innocent blood being spilled"?

If so, then I'm having serious trouble with your premise, since Heb. 9:22-24 says, "Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf."

Note the bold "there is no forgiveness without the blood" statement. The "better sacrifice" was the life of Christ. This passage tells me that the just demand for punishment of sins fell on Christ at the cross, because "the wages of sin is death." So in this substitutionary sacrifice, the just wrath of God on sin was satisfied, and God was able then to mercifully provide the grace to save those who believe. It was not a need in God, as you suggest, but rather a need in the fulfillment of His purpose of mankind. Thus, Rom. 3:26 says "God is just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

So then, I think you might be approaching a straw man, if you think that if Christ taking the blame for sins necessitates God lacking something. That premise is a straw man, because I don't see anyone suggesting it. God doesn't lack anything, but His purpose for grace certainly would lack something if His justice was not fulfilled in Christ's representative suffering for sin.

If you think I am not on point, please explain.
TD

tdidymas said:

I'm not sure I get your point, as what you say here doesn't seem to conflict with what I said earlier.

I'll respond to a certain point in your prev. post #73:



So are you arguing against penal substitution then? And is your argument against it: "Penal Substitution puts the “blame” for Christ having to go to the cross on God’s lacking something which makes it impossible for God to forgive without innocent blood being spilled"?

If so, then I'm having serious trouble with your premise, since Heb. 9:22-24 says, "Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf."

Note the bold "there is no forgiveness without the blood" statement. The "better sacrifice" was the life of Christ. This passage tells me that the just demand for punishment of sins fell on Christ at the cross, because "the wages of sin is death." So in this substitutionary sacrifice, the just wrath of God on sin was satisfied, and God was able then to mercifully provide the grace to save those who believe. It was not a need in God, as you suggest, but rather a need in the fulfillment of His purpose of mankind. Thus, Rom. 3:26 says "God is just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

So then, I think you might be approaching a straw man, if you think that if Christ taking the blame for sins necessitates God lacking something. That premise is a straw man, because I don't see anyone suggesting it. God doesn't lack anything, but His purpose for grace certainly would lack something if His justice was not fulfilled in Christ's representative suffering for sin.

If you think I am not on point, please explain.
TD

Click to expand...

It is not just one issue with Penal Substitution (PS) but a long list of issues:

1. Unjust and unfair by the standard God describes in scripture of just.

2. Has God seeing to the torture humiliation and murder of Christ (punishes Christ).

3. Makes God out to be blood thirsty.

4. There is no logical part for man to play.

5. It is not participative but passive “Christ was crucified so I do not have to be” vs. “Christ was crucified so I must be crucified”.

6. If Christ is paying it all than there is nothing to forgive. (paying 100% and forgiving 100% the same crime is not just).

7. All the benefits from being lovingly fairly justly disciplined are not there with PS.

8. PS mean’s universal atonement was completed for everyone (all were atoned for, so all should be saved).

9. Peter does not mention it in his wonderful Christ Crucified sermon on Pentecost, nor do we hear of this any time before the stoning of Steve or later.

10. The sin sacrifices of the OT seem not to be substitutional, like a bag of flour being a human substitute.

11. There are others at the cross which can be seen as our substitutes (they are very much like I was as a sinner).

12. The idea is we are crucified “with” Christ and not instead of.

13. The Greek words translate “for” do not support the interpretation of ‘instead of” in the atonement passages without some unique usage.

14. It does not explain how atonement is a ransom scenario, which is what the scripture writers use.

15. The emphasis is on a problem God is having and not man’s problem being solved.

16. It does not fit lots of scripture especially Ro. 3:25

17. PS emphasizes God’s wrath as the problem and not man’s need for discipline.

Heb. 9:22-24 "Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins”.

OK, let’s discuss this verse because it does come up:

In these verses it says: “everything is purified with blood” so it is not addressing the sin sacrifice itself needing to have blood and we know it does not have to since a bag of flour could be used as a sin sacrifice (Lev. 5).

It is talking about cleansing, making holy and/or purifying somethings with blood.

Also a better translation might be “And without shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins.”

Is this saying: “God needs blood to forgive” than would seem to make God out to be blood thirsty?

Blood was not burned on the alter as a gift to God, but the blood of animals was used to cleanse everything outwardly and make them holy (even the people) and that is what the Hebrew writer is talking about in Heb. 9:22

“…the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood…”

Does God need the blood to see us as clean or do we need the blood to be and feel, experience and know we are clean?

Does God have the problem or do we have a problem?

From Christ pray in the garden and God’s Love/empathy for Christ we know They personally would have preferred Christ’s blood remain flowing through His veins, but it is I who need Christ’s blood. I need to know Christ’s blood is out of His body available to cleans me as the new temple of God, I need to physically feel that blood in the form of wine going down my throat flowing over my heart and cleansing my heart to make it holy. I am not just being cleansed outwardly, but my heart is being cleansed and made holy.

All that cleansing with nasty smelly animal blood in the OT was a shadow of the reality, thus the OT supports my believe in the cleansing blood of Christ. I would not go to God’s Banquet without knowing my garments were washed and cleaned in the blood of Christ even if I felt invited by God and God wants us to be comfortable around Him and has provided a way for me to be cleansed.

In Whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of His grace.

The OT which is just a shadow of the reality found with Christ, makes an extremely strong point for the blood cleansing and making Holy objects (the temple, the alter, the people and the house of those on Passover). The Jews had a very strong appreciation and respect for blood and would never drink the blood of animals, the blood can do stuff, but the blood of animals in the OT are symbolic of Christ’s blood, for the blood of animals personally could not “do” anything significant.

As a Christian we come along hopefully with this OT knowledge of the significance and importance placed on the blood of animals which is just a shadow of the significance and importance of Christ’s blood. Christ blood can really do something, so the wine symbolic of Christ’s blood is not swallowed and flows over our hearts cleansing our heart (making it Holy).

Again, the God has made the blood of Christ a huge priority, very significant, and a requirement, so we can experience that cleansing with his blood.

If the Blood of Christ goes with Him to the grave, remains in his body at the resurrection and goes on to heaven in his new body, how would that impact God personally? Would God be unable to forgive us? It would have a huge impact on me because I would not feel my heart was cleansed by His blood, made holy, and able to stand before God. God allowed Christ’s bleeding for me.

What “justice” is there in requiring the debt to be fully paid in order to be fully forgiven?

redleghunter said:

What is the penalty for sin? It’s death.
.

Click to expand...

I assume your referring to: Romans 6:2 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

If you are referring to some other verse let me know?

Paul in Romans makes an excellent argument using the very best logical building blocks and diatribes in teaching (Romans is used in secular philosophy classes to show the best use of logic and the diatribe teaching method). Paul does not jump around, so when we interpret his use of words that is a lot of consistency, so what “death” or being “dead” is Paul talking about in Ro. 6:2, which would be the same death or dead Paul is talking about in Ro. 4-8?

redleghunter said:

Jesus took upon our sins and suffered the penalty. He was a substitute.
.

Click to expand...

Scripture does not say: “Took our penalty instead of our being penalized”, but scripture does say: He took the penalty of sin” and we can be “crucified with Christ” so is that not saying: we also take the penalty of crucifixion (for our sins)?

Christ is being physically crucified and we are not physically being crucified, but are we to be crucified with Christ empathetically?

Would God in heaven also empathetically been severely crucified with Christ, out of Love for Christ?

redleghunter said:

No you fail to understand what substitute means. Plus you are adding in once again what you think is justice according to human standards. We should just thank God a substitute was provided in Christ Jesus for the just condemnation due all of us. .

Click to expand...

God in scripture defines “just” so we should know what is just and unjust by god’s standard and the torture and murder of the innocent is never considered “just”, neither is the allowing of the guilty to go free.

redleghunter said:

And that is why Christ died for our sins and shed His royal Blood. To reconcile us to God so that through Him we become the righteousness of God. This is the very definition of Justification.

Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with God allowing a willing Christ to be torture, humiliated and murdered by wicked people in order to help/benefit humans in fulfilling their earthly objective, but that is not what Penal Substitution (PS) is say all that happened nor is that where the injustice come in.

The injustice with PS is having God seeing to the torture, humiliation and murder of Christ (an innocent party) and allowing the guilty party to go on unpunished (or undisciplined).

Does the Bible tell us those who believe in what Christ did and Love Christ will be crucified with Christ (disciplined in that way for their sins)? (So, there is our being “punished” and not avoid punishment through substitution?)

redleghunter said:

We hear a lot about we are justified through or by faith. And we hear we are saved by Grace through faith. But what we don't hear a lot these days is we are Justified by the Blood of Christ and by His Blood we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. (Romans 5:9)

Click to expand...

Maybe you should start reading what Jesus said.
But there again you would have to believe it.

Matthew 12:37
For by thy words thou shalt be justified,
and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

yaacotd said:

Maybe you should start reading what Jesus said.
But there again you would have to believe it.

Matthew 12:37
For by thy words thou shalt be justified,
and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Click to expand...

Those words were spoken to the Pharisees. The bible says as Christians we escape the judgement or condemnation so if you apply this to Christians, we have an obvious contradiction in scripture, folks.