God’s Wrath Poured Out on Jesus on the Cross

Dorothy Mae · Mar 21, 2021

MMXX said:
It is something that has been taught in a lot of denominations. At least the ones here in the US and Canada.

I never heard it it until recently and have been involved in many christian groups. So to say all Protestants believe this is simply wrong. We do not all believe that and a Master degree doesn’t make the man an authority on what all christians believe especially if it is wrong. There is no Bible verse that supports that position and some refute it.

"The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" John 1:29

It does not say, “behold the innocent man upon whom God will pour out his wrath.”

"And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin." 1 John 3:5

Same. No wrathful God relieving his pent up wrath on an innocent man.

Make no mistake, all christians believe our sin is forgiven by the blood of Jesus spent on the cross. It isn’t forgiven because God was finally able to release his wrath upon him and now has no anger about sin. That part is in dispute.

Dorothy Mae · Mar 21, 2021

Bible Highlighter said:
Actually in the event in Matthew 13:58 and Mark 6:5, Jesus healed a few but He could do no great miracles there because of their unbelief.

In other places he healed all. Ergo, he couldn’t heal all, but just a few.

It is not that Jesus did not have the power to do so. Jesus is God. It simply was their lack of faith that prevented Him. While Jesus operated miracles at times by the power of God the Father and the Holy Spirit, Jesus also had power of His own during His earthly ministry. So Jesus was more than capable.

All Authority was given to
him AFTER the resurrection. During his life he didn’t operate in his own power as he didn’t have any. He didn’t operate independent of God and said so.

Nowhere did I say we have power. But in the early church the apostles were given gifts as a part of the authentication of the New Covenant and to show the Jews signs that they looked for. Some gifts were tongues, and other gifts was the ability to heal. These gifts were by the power of the Spirit. I believe these gifts were for the early church. This is not praying for a miracle but they were gifts given to the apostles.

They operated UNDER the direction of the Holy Spirit fully submitted to him as does anyone today operating in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. We don’t pray for a miracle (of some kind) though. We ask God to move His hand where we cannot. When he does it’s a miracle.

And if you take the trouble to write a reference, can you write what it actually says, please. You have posted references before that didn’t say what you claimed. Do you hope I won’t look them up?

I don’t hold to Belief Alone-ism for salvation which can potentially easily lead folks to turn God’s grace into a license for immorality.

So are you faith + works or faith + what?

It is written,

5 "Trust ye not in a friend, put ye not confidence in a guide: keep the doors of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom.
6 For the son dishonoureth the father, the daughter riseth up against her mother, the daughter in law against her mother in law; a man's enemies are the men of his own house." (Micah 7:5-6).

Also, the forum rules encourage so as not to cause heated debate that we are not to address the poster or the individual, but we are to stick to the topic with Scripture.

Where do you think we are doing otherwise? If a poster cannot test the validity of another’s words in how they practice it, then we have left the main power of the Bible altogether. The writers of the Bible constantly brought it all back to how one lives. Some christians teach that personally are sinless. If we cannot test that statement it stands unchallenged by truth and lies have the floor.

In addition, would you believe me if I told you about my life? Well, trust needs to be earned. I confide in those who believe the Word of God as I do.

People cannot but tell the truth to the discerning. Let a man talk enough and the truth about how he really thinks comes out. And as a man really thinks, that is how he lives.

Ceallaigh · Mar 21, 2021

Dorothy Mae said:
I never heard it it until recently and have been involved in many christian groups. So to say all Protestants believe this is simply wrong. We do not all believe that and a Master degree doesn’t make the man an authority on what all christians believe especially if it is wrong. There is no Bible verse that supports that position and some refute it.
It does not say, “behold the innocent man upon whom God will pour out his wrath.”

You'll have to take that up with him.

Dorothy Mae said:
Same. No wrathful God relieving his pent up wrath on an innocent man.

Make no mistake, all christians believe our sin is forgiven by the blood of Jesus spent on the cross. It isn’t forgiven because God was finally able to release his wrath upon him and now has no anger about sin. That part is in dispute.

I agree.

Ceallaigh · Mar 21, 2021

Dorothy Mae said:
And if you take the trouble to write a reference, can you write what it actually says, please. You have posted references before that didn’t say what you claimed. Do you hope I won’t look them up?

When I've pointed out before that his references didn't say what he claimed, he insisted they did.

Dorothy Mae said:
So are you faith + works or faith + what?

From what I've seen, which is a lot, he teaches works based salvation to an extreme.

Dorothy Mae · Mar 21, 2021

MMXX said:
You'll have to take that up with him.
I agree.

Do you mean God or the master student who wrote a paper on how God poured out his wrath on Jesus, the man who did not bother to consult God as to what He was feeling and doing at the time.

If you mean the Lord, I have done that and He wasn't in the least full of wrath. Those were not his feelings at the time. But one needs to check scripture and test one's impressions with the knowledge others have had of the living God and wrote about it, writings God approved of and called inspired.

Dorothy Mae · Mar 21, 2021

MMXX said:
When I've pointed out before that his references didn't say what he claimed, he insisted they did.

Yes, it is his habit to write references, hoping, I guess, that no one will bother to look them up but simply believe him.

From what I've seen, which is a lot, he teaches works based salvation to an extreme.

Seems like it but I want to give him a fair chance to explain it. I do know that some christians who advocate no works say that even loving God as a requirement for salvation from Hell a "work" and unnecessary. No joke. I asked an OSAS believer once if we are required to love God and she said no. That is a work and not necessary. So some people do not understand that love, kindness, meekness, joy, peace and so on are not "works" although they might require some effort on our part. If he is against that sort of teaching I can understand it.

Ceallaigh · Mar 21, 2021

Dorothy Mae said:
Yes, it is his habit to write references, hoping, I guess, that no one will bother to look them up but simply believe him.Seems like it but I want to give him a fair chance to explain it. I do know that some christians who advocate no works say that even loving God as a requirement for salvation from Hell a "work" and unnecessary. No joke. I asked an OSAS believer once if we are required to love God and she said no. That is a work and not necessary. So some people do not understand that love, kindness, meekness, joy, peace and so on are not "works" although they might require some effort on our part. If he is against that sort of teaching I can understand it.

I think when it comes to that, with most, it's more like how much do you need to love God to be saved? What the OSAS and especially free grace folks want to avoid is someone worrying that they don't love God enough. It gets tricky whenever any kind of performance from the believer is associated with salvation, because believers might end up basing their salvation on their performance. They'll wonder if they're I loving enough, obedient enough and how much is enough? etc. It can end up coming down to them trying to appease God's wrath.

Ceallaigh · Mar 21, 2021

Dorothy Mae said:
Do you mean God or the master student who wrote a paper on how God poured out his wrath on Jesus, the man who did not bother to consult God as to what He was feeling and doing at the time.

If you mean the Lord, I have done that and He wasn't in the least full of wrath. Those were not his feelings at the time. But one needs to check scripture and test one's impressions with the knowledge others have had of the living God and wrote about it, writings God approved of and called inspired.

I meant you'll have to ask Brad Jersak about it. I'll send you his email address if you want.

You can also read what he says about it here: Does God Save Us from God? Brad Jersak

Excerpt:

"Penal substitution continues to be the most popular Western answer to the question, “Why did Christ die?” and is the default interpretation for Scripture’s assertion that “Christ died for our sins.” Rather than treating it as one of many atonement theories, major denominations are now doubling down, dogmatizing it as a non-negotiable essential to the gospel and thus, to salvation. If it IS the gospel, then those who don’t affirm it are not even considered “saved.”

But penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) as the uncritical masses understand and proclaim it is neither necessary nor glorious. I’m not referring to the rarefied versions of nuanced academics such as Fleming Rutledge or N.T. Wright. My ongoing critique is of the dominant expression we hear from 10,000 pulpits, public broadcasts and now social media across popular Christianity."

THEOLOGICALLY PERILOUS
The prevalent expression of PSA can be distinguished by its insistence on “wrath appeasement,”"

Dorothy Mae · Mar 21, 2021

MMXX said:
I think when it comes to that, with most, it's more like how much do you need to love God to be saved? What the OSAS and especially free grace folks want to avoid is someone worrying that they don't love God enough. It gets tricky whenever any kind of performance from the believer is associated with salvation, because believers might end up basing their salvation on their performance. They'll wonder if they're I loving enough, obedient enough and how much is enough? etc. It can end up coming down to them trying to appease God's wrath.

I suppose that can be true for those who don't have much of a relationship with God. That itself is a problem as Jesus rejected some solely because they never had a relationship with him. A better question is how much of a relationship with God does one need?

I don't know if you are married as I haven't looked, but can one ask, how much do you need to love your spouse to be truly married? Is there a minimum level? How does one measure this?

Now maybe this is the problem. How does one measure if one loves God at all? If one loves God even the least bit, I cannot see how one even considers appeasing his wrath. No one who walks with him in relationship thinks like this. Only those who do not know him and that is the main problem.

Now if I were to be asked how one knows if one loves God, I would answer that one ought to ask God what He thinks since this is in the end the only opinion that matters and it is better to find out today than when it is too late to rectify the situtation.

Dorothy Mae · Mar 21, 2021

MMXX said:
I meant you'll have to ask Brad Jersak about it. I'll send you his email address if you want.

You can also read what he says about it here: Does God Save Us from God? Brad Jersak

Excerpt:

"Penal substitution continues to be the most popular Western answer to the question, “Why did Christ die?” and is the default interpretation for Scripture’s assertion that “Christ died for our sins.” Rather than treating it as one of many atonement theories, major denominations are now doubling down, dogmatizing it as a non-negotiable essential to the gospel and thus, to salvation. If it IS the gospel, then those who don’t affirm it are not even considered “saved.”

But penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) as the uncritical masses understand and proclaim it is neither necessary nor glorious. I’m not referring to the rarefied versions of nuanced academics such as Fleming Rutledge or N.T. Wright. My ongoing critique is of the dominant expression we hear from 10,000 pulpits, public broadcasts and now social media across popular Christianity."

THEOLOGICALLY PERILOUS
The prevalent expression of PSA can be distinguished by its insistence on “wrath appeasement,”"

Well it seems like he is dealing with matters in theological circles among theologians. If one is really concerned with what is being sold to the uncritical masses is to teach believers to actually search the scriptures to see if the things be taught are true. This is something no one does that I am aware of.

Ceallaigh · Mar 21, 2021

Dorothy Mae said:
I suppose that can be true for those who don't have much of a relationship with God. That itself is a problem as Jesus rejected some solely because they never had a relationship with him. A better question is how much of a relationship with God does one need?

I don't know if you are married as I haven't looked, but can one ask, how much do you need to love your spouse to be truly married? Is there a minimum level? How does one measure this?

Now maybe this is the problem. How does one measure if one loves God at all? If one loves God even the least bit, I cannot see how one even considers appeasing his wrath. No one who walks with him in relationship thinks like this. Only those who do not know him and that is the main problem.

Now if I were to be asked how one knows if one loves God, I would answer that one ought to ask God what He thinks since this is in the end the only opinion that matters and it is better to find out today than when it is too late to rectify the situtation.

I'm quite glad that I was born into a Christian household, because my relationship with the Lord formed way before I really learned anything. With that little child-like love Jesus said he desires. Which still exists to this day, and is the foundation of my faith. But I know others haven't had that opportunity. So I have to guess as to what their perspective is or might be. And or go by what they have to say about it.

Someone who's taught that they better get things right or else, and then reads/hears Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, strength and mind might feel they have to live up to that or make it happen somehow.

But really the key is opening oneself up to His love, and then it's that vast unconditional love that one loves Him back with.

Ceallaigh · Mar 21, 2021

Dorothy Mae said:
Well it seems like he is dealing with matters in theological circles among theologians. If one is really concerned with what is being sold to the uncritical masses is to teach believers to actually search the scriptures to see if the things be taught are true. This is something no one does that I am aware of.

I remember one expository Bible teacher named Arnold Murray who would tell his listeners to search the scriptures for themselves rather than just accept his teaching.

This also regarding the topic is well worth listening to:

This is a much shorter version:

bling · Mar 21, 2021

~Cassia~ said:
4. All these fit perfectly a ransom scenario?

I’d take it further and apply it to OT history. The ransom was a product from Lot’s day, not when Abraham rescued him, whilst meeting Melchezedec, but when the angels rescued him from Sodom. Fast forward thru the book of Ruth and the kinsman redeemer appeared.

That’s as far as I got in reading the list.

Jesus and the others are trying to best communicate with the people in their audu=ience at that time. They would have been formiliar with Ceasar's kidnapping and ransom. There is no small ransom like a tax being discussed, but an unbelievable huge payment. A child being set free. A family recieving the child into the Kingdom.

Citizen of the Kingdom · Mar 21, 2021

bling said:
Jesus and the others are trying to best communicate with the people in their audu=ience at that time. They would have been formiliar with Ceasar's kidnapping and ransom. There is no small ransom like a tax being discussed, but an unbelievable huge payment. A child being set free. A family recieving the child into the Kingdom.

I’m not familiar with Caesars kidnap and ransoming, but do remember something about a king’s ransom somewhere. Since they are both unscriptural they haven’t much argument to convince me of anything.

bling · Mar 21, 2021

Dorothy Mae said:
The atonement is difficult to explain.

I very much agree with that comment!!!!
I was just trying to get you and others to think outside the box you put yourself in. I could and might need to write a book on the topic.
To many times we get catch up in the idea: "Jesus sacrifice is the complete atonement proress and not just the atonement sacrifice. The Jews of the first century would have had more personal experience with atonement individually through going through the process of atonement for minor (unintentional) sins, which were then forgiven by God. We do not come with that expeirinece, but can try to put ourselves through that expeirence mentally:
Lev.4 starts atonement off giving details of what the priest must do, which you should read and understand, but Lev.5 gets into more detail about the individual, so please read Lev. 5 with much thought. I find people with pet theories of atonement skip Lev. 5 all together and might go to Lev. 16, but the day of atonement has some lite symbolic references to Christ, Lev 5 is a closer representation. I will discuss Lev. 16 if you want to take the time, but it takes some explaining of what and why it was needed by itself. Please read Lev. 5 before going further.

Atonement is much more than the sacrifice itself; it is a process which we can see from the Old Testament examples of the atonement process.

We can start with Lev. 5: 3 or if they touch human uncleanness (anything that would make them unclean) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt; 4 or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— 5 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. 6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin. … 10 The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.

Lev. 5 is talking about some really minor sins almost accidental sins and very much unintentional sins, there is no atonement process at this time for major sins, intentional direct disobedience toward God (these require banishment or death of the sinner).

The atonement process includes confessing, securing a good offering, personally bringing the offering to the priests at the temple altar, the priest has to offer it correctly and after the atonement process is correctly completed the sinner’s sins will be forgiven.

Note also the relationship between the sinner and the offering, the offering is “as a penalty for the sin” and not a replacement for the sinner. The idea of “penalty” is a “punishment” for the sinner, yet punishment of your child is better translated “disciplining”.

Reading all of Lev. 5: we have a lamb, two doves and a bag of flour all being an atoning sacrifice for the exact same sin, but vary with the wealth of the sinner, yet God does not consider the wealthy person of great value then the poor person, so what is happening? We can only conclude there is an attempt to equalize the hardship on the sinner (penalty/punishment/discipline). In fact, this might be the main factor in the atonement process at least Lev. 5. God is not only forgiving the sins, but seeing to the discipling of the sinner (like any Loving parent tries to do if possible). The problem is it can only be done for minor sins at this time.

Please notice there is an “and” just before “they will be forgiven”, suggesting a separate action, so the forgiveness is not part of the atonement process, but comes afterwards (this will be discussed more later).

Do you see the benefit for the Jewish people (nothing really to help God out here) going through this atonement process? That rich person had to water, feed, hang on to a lamb, he is not the lamb’s shepherd, so for hours waiting in line to get to the priest he fighting this lamb and the poor person may have skipped meals to get that bag of flour, so he has an equal hardship also. They are going to be more careful in the future and those around them will not want to go through the same thing. Yes, they can experience worship, forgiveness, and fellowship in the process.

We should be able to extrapolate up from extremely minor sins to rebellious disobedience directly against God, but that is a huge leap, so the hardship on the sinner will have to be horrendous, the sacrifice of much greater value (penalty for the sinner), and this will take a much greater Priest.

Please think up some questions to ask me.

bling · Mar 21, 2021

~Cassia~ said:
Kinsman means He came in the flesh to redeem. The first occurrence is found in
Exodus 6:6 (edit to correct scripture reference)
Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments:

Every mention of ransom is that of firstlings being redeemed by a lamb.
Ransom in the Bible (46 instances)

If we put a lamb given for the first fruits associated with atonement by one who was a human then I think we can get a picture of the elementary process by which a more mature way of putting it would be , the wave offering accepted, applied by the blood, to the effect of cleaning the conscience of dead works to liberate one to follow closely that which leads directly to the Father.

Ransom in scripture is used to mean just a small reasonable tax paid by the ransomed person themselves, but the ransom being talked about by Jesus, Paul, Peter, john and the hebrew writer is huge, not paid by the person themseles, sets a child free to go to the parent, and the child is being held back, by someone or something. Read my post 415 to get further into it.

bling · Mar 21, 2021

~Cassia~ said:
I’m not familiar with Caesars kidnap and ransoming, but do remember something about a king’s ransom somewhere. Since they are both unscriptural they haven’t much argument to convince me of anything.

Scripture includes when it was said and to whom it was said. The authors are trying to best communicate to the specific audience and we are reading their mail. If we could get into their minds, we could best understand with the Spirit's help what is being said.

Ransom in scripture is can be used to mean just a small reasonable tax paid by the ransomed person themselves, but the ransom being talked about by Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and the hebrew writer is huge, not paid by the person themseles, sets a child free to go to the parent, and the child is being held back, by someone or something. Read my post 415 to get further into it.

Citizen of the Kingdom · Mar 21, 2021

My thoughts remain on the pattern of scripture not with speculation. God’s Wrath Poured Out on Jesus on the Cross post 389

Dorothy Mae · Mar 21, 2021

bling said:
I very much agree with that comment!!!!
I was just trying to get you and others to think outside the box you put yourself in.

I don’t see me putting myself in a box. Could you describe the box so I recognize it?

To many times we get catch up in the idea: "Jesus sacrifice is the complete atonement proress and not just the atonement sacrifice. The Jews of the first century would have had more personal experience with atonement individually through going through the process of atonement for minor (unintentional) sins, which were then forgiven by God. We do not come with that expeirinece, but can try to put ourselves through that expeirence mentally:
Lev.4 starts atonement off giving details of what the priest must do, which you should read and understand, but Lev.5 gets into more detail about the individual, so please read Lev. 5 with much thought. I find people with pet theories of atonement skip Lev. 5 all together and might go to Lev. 16, but the day of atonement has some lite symbolic references to Christ, Lev 5 is a closer representation. I will discuss Lev. 16 if you want to take the time, but it takes some explaining of what and why it was needed by itself. Please read Lev. 5 before going further.

Well, since I’ve personally tasted of the forgiveness of sin and overwhelming cleansing I felt, I’m not sure Leviticus will tell me more. Isn’t it rather theoretical?

Atonement is much more than the sacrifice itself; it is a process which we can see from the Old Testament examples of the atonement process.

We can start with Lev. 5: 3 or if they touch human uncleanness (anything that would make them unclean) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt; 4 or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— 5 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. 6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin. … 10 The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.

Lev. 5 is talking about some really minor sins almost accidental sins and very much unintentional sins, there is no atonement process at this time for major sins, intentional direct disobedience toward God (these require banishment or death of the sinner).

The atonement process includes confessing, securing a good offering, personally bringing the offering to the priests at the temple altar, the priest has to offer it correctly and after the atonement process is correctly completed the sinner’s sins will be forgiven.

Note also the relationship between the sinner and the offering, the offering is “as a penalty for the sin” and not a replacement for the sinner. The idea of “penalty” is a “punishment” for the sinner, yet punishment of your child is better translated “disciplining”.

Reading all of Lev. 5: we have a lamb, two doves and a bag of flour all being an atoning sacrifice for the exact same sin, but vary with the wealth of the sinner, yet God does not consider the wealthy person of great value then the poor person, so what is happening? We can only conclude there is an attempt to equalize the hardship on the sinner (penalty/punishment/discipline). In fact, this might be the main factor in the atonement process at least Lev. 5. God is not only forgiving the sins, but seeing to the discipling of the sinner (like any Loving parent tries to do if possible). The problem is it can only be done for minor sins at this time.

Please notice there is an “and” just before “they will be forgiven”, suggesting a separate action, so the forgiveness is not part of the atonement process, but comes afterwards (this will be discussed more later).

Do you see the benefit for the Jewish people (nothing really to help God out here) going through this atonement process? That rich person had to water, feed, hang on to a lamb, he is not the lamb’s shepherd, so for hours waiting in line to get to the priest he fighting this lamb and the poor person may have skipped meals to get that bag of flour, so he has an equal hardship also. They are going to be more careful in the future and those around them will not want to go through the same thing. Yes, they can experience worship, forgiveness, and fellowship in the process.

We should be able to extrapolate up from extremely minor sins to rebellious disobedience directly against God, but that is a huge leap, so the hardship on the sinner will have to be horrendous, the sacrifice of much greater value (penalty for the sinner), and this will take a much greater Priest.

Please think up some questions to ask me.

That’s a lot to digest and at one reading it’s sounds really good.

Bible Highlighter · Mar 21, 2021

Dorothy Mae said:
In other places he healed all. Ergo, he couldn’t heal all, but just a few.

What actual verse or passage are you referring to?
Matthew 13:58 and Mark 6:5 is not a case where He was not able to heal but it was a case whereby He was not able to do mighty works (or mighty miracles) because of their unbelief. Sure, this may have included healing, but this event in Scripture does not specifically say. So what references in Scripture are you referring to?

You said:
All Authority was given to
him AFTER the resurrection.

The apostle Paul explains a little more in detail what this was about.

“Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.” (Ephesians 1:20-23).

Yet, there is nothing here about how Jesus was receiving His powers back as God.

You said:
During his life he didn’t operate in his own power as he didn’t have any.

This is false and unbiblical. While Jesus suppressed His Omnscience (i.e. the power to have all knowledge) during His earthly ministry, He clearly had power of His own according to the Scriptures.

Jesus had power as God:
(During His earthly ministry):

#1. Jesus said He has power to raise the dead to life just as the Father had power to raise the dead (John 5:21).
#2. Hebrews 1:3 talks about how Christ held all things together by the word of His power when He purged us of our sins.
#3. Jesus said, He would raise up this Temple (His body) three days later (John 2:19).
#4. Jesus had the power to forgive sins and give eternal life (Mark 2:7) (Luke 7:44-50) (John 14:6).
#5 Jesus had power to take away the sins of the entire world (John 1:29).
#6. Jesus Christ said wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am among them (Matthew 18:20). This was said to the people he was around and not to just us today.
#7. Jesus knew men's thoughts (Matthew 9:4) (Matthew 12:25) (Mark 2:8) (Luke 5:22) (Luke 6:8) (Luke 9:47) (Luke 24:38).
#8. Jesus knew about the lives of others (John 2:24) (John 4:17-18) (John 4:29) (John 6:64).

You said:
He didn’t operate independent of God and said so.

This would be in reference to authority and not power. Jesus always did what the Father told Him to do.

Jesus is God. He is the second person of the Trinity or the Godhead.

“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Colossians 2:9).

You said:
They operated UNDER the direction of the Holy Spirit fully submitted to him as does anyone today operating in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. We don’t pray for a miracle (of some kind) though. We ask God to move His hand where we cannot. When he does it’s a miracle.

I don't think you understand what I am talking about. I am talking about the gifts of the Holy Spirit. I was referring to this passage.

“Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.” (1 Corinthians 12:4-11).

You said:
So are you faith + works or faith + what?

“Faith” and “the work of faith” are two sides of the same coin that accesses the saving grace of God. Faith starts out as primarily a belief without any major efforts because we are throwing ourselves down upon the mercy of the Lord Jesus Christ. But when faith continues, it manifests itself as the work of faith (as we continue to trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior and what He has done for us). But make no mistake, faith without works is dead (James 2:17); And...

James 2:24 says,
“Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

Yes, I am aware of Ephesians 2:8-9. But Paul was referring to Initial Salvation, and Foundational Salvation (See: for Ephesians 2:1 refers to how we have been quickened - which is a one time event; And Ephesians 2:8 says we are saved by God's grace and it is like a gift. We know we receive gifts one time indicating that this is referring to Initial Salvation).

In addition:

Verse 9 is referring to “Man Directed Works ALONE Salvationism” (without God's grace) because they are the kind of works that a man would boast in himself by doing them.

Verse 10 is referring to “God Directed Works Done Through the Believer” (After a person is saved by God's grace) because they are the kind of works that we are created unto Christ Jesus to do. Verse 10 type works happens after a person is saved by God's grace through faith in Christ as their Savior, and faith in the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (Which also many times includes calling upon the name of the Lord for salvation, i.e. seeking forgiveness with the Lord Jesus - See: Romans 8:13).

Side Note:

We know that faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God (i.e. obeying the Bible) (See: Romans 10:17). So if we obey the New Testament commands that Lord Jesus Christ, and His followers, we will be in line with the faith. This would include putting away serious sins (mortal sin) that the Bible condemns with warnings of hellfire and or condemnation, and it will include good works (i.e. the work of faith), and living holy (and not justifying sin like so many do today).

You said:
Where do you think we are doing otherwise? If a poster cannot test the validity of another’s words in how they practice it, then we have left the main power of the Bible altogether. The writers of the Bible constantly brought it all back to how one lives. Some christians teach that personally are sinless. If we cannot test that statement it stands unchallenged by truth and lies have the floor.
People cannot but tell the truth to the discerning. Let a man talk enough and the truth about how he really thinks comes out. And as a man really thinks, that is how he lives.

I mentioned nothing about Sinless Perfection. We are not allowed to discuss this topic in this section of the Christian forums. As for sharing my personal life: Simply put, I do not share precious truths of my personal life involving the Bible with those with whom I feel will reject and or mock such truths. It will simply do no good. I have nothing to prove. God knows my heart and life and He is my witness. Also, those fellow believers in whom I have close personal fellowship with are my witnesses, as well.

Important Note:

I don't believe all sin is the same. I believe there are sins not unto death, and sins unto death (1 John 5:16-17). Jesus described to us the difference between mortal sins vs. non-mortal sins in Matthew 5:22.

“But I say to you that everyone who continues to be angry with his brother or harbors malice against him shall be guilty before the court; and whoever speaks [contemptuously and insultingly] to his brother, ‘Raca (You empty-headed idiot)!’ shall be guilty before the supreme court (Sanhedrin); and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of the fiery hell.” (Matthew 5:22) (AMP).

The words in blue above are non-mortal sins because they are punishment in earthly courts. The words in red above is a mortal sin because it is punishment in hellfire in the afterlife. So when I reference about overcoming sin, I am referring to overcoming “mortal sins” in this section of the forums (and I am not referring to overcoming non-mortal sin or all sin, i.e. Sinless Perfection). For overcoming mortal sin deals with our salvation. Not overcoming non-mortal sin does not deal with our salvation.

God’s Wrath Poured Out on Jesus on the Cross

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

May God be with you and bless you.

May God be with you and bless you.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

May God be with you and bless you.

May God be with you and bless you.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

May God be with you and bless you.

May God be with you and bless you.

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Similar threads