• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Deeper Understanding of Atonement

YeshuaFan

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
3,143
1,028
64
Macomb
✟70,204.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Thanks.. I lol disagree with some things like " we all deserve to justly be tortured, humiliated, crucified and go to hell from God.". Not the punishment God meant. "innocent" .... there are none. There are none righteous not one. Adam and Eve.. after they sinned get kicked out.. what ever is born.. no matter just born or older.. its born into a sinful world. ..aka flesh.

Now.. if you were blind you would have no sin.. you say you see your sin remains <--Christ said.. yet still have sin. Born into sin. We/some may be blind to the TRUTH aka CHRIST but unless you are born from above/born again. You are just flesh.

There is only one.. has is will.. Yeshua.
We know thta God has anger and hatred towards all sin, and that someone must appease Him in regards to breaking His Law and commiting sin. Either Jesus bore that Godly wrath for our sakes, or else we must ourselves!
Hell is not God roasting lost sinners over coals, but is the place where His presense is not there, as IN nothing that is seen as good/kind/Holy etc is there, just devoid of all and any "good things"
Whatever for all eternity heaven will be, Hell is it exact opposite!
 
Upvote 0

YeshuaFan

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
3,143
1,028
64
Macomb
✟70,204.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Honestly, I don't even know what Penal substitution is. Since God is one in three sacrificing yourself for a friend is completely biblical. But it gets too tangled in red tape and I have a life so if you can clarify the exact dimensions of the problem I'll go over them with you.
The Atonement view that God has wrath and anger directed towards sins that are committed against Him and His Holy Law, and that the person who does those things deserves to die in judgement for being a sinner, and Jesus on the Cross took in our place our deserved wrath and punishment, so that God can now declare the sinner saved who placed faith unto Jesus to save them!
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,797
1,917
✟983,179.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Exactly. And propitiation wasn't accepted until the cross so the animal offerings were in lue of payment deferred.
There is nothing about "deferring" payment. Yes, Christ's sacrifice was fully acceptable to God, pleasing God for what it can accomplish, but as Ro. 3:25 points out humans must also "accept" what God has sacrificially given by their faith"...to be received by faith...", if they lack faith they will not accept it even though God accepts what was done.

The "payment" is as great as it could be (pleasing God), but the sinful kidnapper (through faith) still has to accept this huge ransom offering made to him.



There is nothing “deferred” since there is a huge contrast between before and after the cross. Paul describes the difference as being “passed over” and “left unpunished”. There is no way for those prior to the cross to be “crucified with Christ”(punished/disciplined) if Christ has not been crucified yet.
 
Upvote 0

YeshuaFan

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
3,143
1,028
64
Macomb
✟70,204.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
There is nothing about "deferring" payment. Yes, Christ's sacrifice was fully acceptable to God, pleasing God for what it can accomplish, but as Ro. 3:25 points out humans must also "accept" what God has sacrificially given by their faith"...to be received by faith...", if they lack faith they will not accept it even though God accepts what was done.

The "payment" is as great as it could be (pleasing God), but the sinful kidnapper (through faith) still has to accept this huge ransom offering made to him.



There is nothing “deferred” since there is a huge contrast between before and after the cross. Paul describes the difference as being “passed over” and “left unpunished”. There is no way for those prior to the cross to be “crucified with Christ”(punished/disciplined) if Christ has not been crucified yet.
All of the OT saints were saved by the basis of the Cross of Christ, as God saw that the death oif jesus was yet to come as payment for their sins!
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Hazelelponi
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,797
1,917
✟983,179.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Isaiah 53 truly does show our sins were placed on the suffering servant and He died for our sins. Was not arguing against you just expanding.

Isaiah 53 clearly shows Christ is the fulfillment of substitution.
I can go over each verse of Is. 53 and there are some verses the translators give us alternatives to, but this will be a book of word to explain all of Is. 53, so one verse at a time would be better.
Is. 53 really never says the "servant" is taking our place, but he is definitely baring the punishment we deserve, but that also does not mean we do not continue to deserve the same punishment.
Everything stated happened to Christ and everything said about the people at the time (Jews at the cross) is truly how they felt and acted.
The "for our sins" is not "instead of our sins" but would mean "because of our sins", which does not mean they automatically go away.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,797
1,917
✟983,179.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
All of the OT saints were saved by the basis of the Cross of Christ, as God saw that the death oif jesus was yet to come as payment for their sins!
Where in the Old testament is this stated?

Do you believe God and Christ did not have the power to forgive sins without Christ first going to the cross?

Do you feel God has to be “paid” something in order to forgive, because we are told to forgive unconditionally?

Where saved people before the cross: “crucified with Christ”?

All Christians today are saved by Christ going to the cross, so does “all” have to also include everyone who ever lived?

Ro. 3:25 says something different;

There is nothing about "deferring" payment. Yes, Christ's sacrifice was fully acceptable to God, pleasing God for what it can accomplish, but as Ro. 3:25 points out humans must also "accept" what God has sacrificially given "...to be received by faith...", if they lack faith they will not accept it even though God accepts what was done.

The "payment" is as great as it could be (pleasing God), but the sinful kidnapper (through faith) still has to accept this huge ransom offering made to him.

There is nothing “deferred” since there is a huge contrast between before and after the cross. Paul describes the difference as being “passed over” and “left unpunished”. There is no way for those prior to the cross to be “crucified with Christ”(punished/disciplined) if Christ has not been crucified yet.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,797
1,917
✟983,179.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It's about justification, as someone may have pointed it out.

If God can forgive at will, it only means that God's realm is not a lawful realm but a lawless realm. You can imagine this by assuming that your city mayor can grant a pardon to any criminals at will. This only means that your city is a lawless city.

"Atonement" on the other hand means God Himself must be harmed in a way order to justify a pardon to be granted to a human, especially when talking about all mankind requires such a pardon of sin (or crime).

"Blood" is just to make the situation understandable to humans. God Himself cannot be harmed by blood shedding. He's harmed so partially when He was fully human. But mostly, God's harmed by swallowing insults from sinners from the day Jesus was crucified till the end of this world. He's also harmed by a prolonged covenant granted to humans such that under this covenant God Himself must bear with human sins till after the Final Judgment. Bearing with human sins till the Second coming is a promise to Noah for the first covenant granted to humans. Bearing with human sins harms God as God is completely sin-incompatible.
Paul talks a lot in Romans about our being, realizing, feeling “justified” as Christians, which I do not see those prior to the cross experiencing even though some were justified. Paul presses this point especially to the Jewish Christians as a contrast to what was available under the old Law where no one was justified by the Law, compared to what they have now. So how can we experience, realize, feel, know we are justified children in God’s presence?

How does a rebellious disobedient child go from feeling cold and uncomfortable around his/her parents to feeling warm and wonderful around his/her parents? (this goes on all the time.)

A wonderful parent can easily forgive a repentant child of virtually anything, but to restore and even improve the relationship the parent needs to participate with the child over time in some fair/just loving discipline activity, which can be very painful for both. If the child correctly accepts the discipline the relationship will be better than even before the child’s disobedience and the child will feel comfortable, wonderful and justified to be around his/her parents. God knows this and provided the Loving, just, fair discipline for our disobedience in our being crucified with Christ.

You define atonement as: "Atonement" on the other hand means God Himself must be harmed in a way order to justify a pardon…”, but that is not found in scripture, so where are you getting that?

The atonement which happened in the OT is not defined that way?

You say: "Blood" is just to make the situation understandable to humans.

From Christ’s pray in the garden we know Christ personally did not want to give up His blood and God out of empathy would not personally want Christ to give up His blood. It is I, who is blood thirsty: John 6: 53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

I must know that Christ’s blood is available to me and able to wash over me and especially feel it in the form of wine flow down my throat and over my heart cleansing me and making me Holy.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,797
1,917
✟983,179.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The PST theory is the best Atonement viewpoint, as that was the view Jesus and Paul expressed to us themselves!
Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and the writer of Hebrews all describe it as a literal ransom scenario with Christ's crucifixion being a ransom payment. It is not the ransom theory of atonement (with a payment being made to satan). I explained in the OP:
When we talk to nonbelievers, we are not trying to get them to believe some book, words, doctrine or philosophy, but we want them to accept through faith Jesus Christ and Him crucified. If that nonbeliever trust (has faith) in Christ and Him crucified a child is released and allowed to enter the kingdom where God the Father is, but if the nonbeliever refuses for lack of faith Jesus Christ and Him crucified, the child is not set free to go to the Father. That nonbeliever is a perfect example of a criminal kidnapper and fully undeserving of Jesus Christ and him Crucified, which is what Christ and others say is the ransom payment.

God is not a criminal undeserving kidnapper holding His own children and satan is not changeable or has the power to hold God’s child back from God, so the unbeliever is the only excellent fit for the kidnapper in the atonement process.

Read the OP and you can see Penal Substitution has huge problems.
 
Upvote 0

Hawkins

Member
Site Supporter
Apr 27, 2005
2,685
416
Canada
✟306,478.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Paul talks a lot in Romans about our being, realizing, feeling “justified” as Christians, which I do not see those prior to the cross experiencing even though some were justified. Paul presses this point especially to the Jewish Christians as a contrast to what was available under the old Law where no one was justified by the Law, compared to what they have now. So how can we experience, realize, feel, know we are justified children in God’s presence?

That rather remains your misunderstanding. What Paul said is about the status at Paul's days, not including all the Jews in history since Moses.

John 5:45 (NIV2011)
But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set.

If no one is justified, first you don't need an accuser and second no hope can be set on such an accuser.

Hebrews 8:8-9 (NIV2011)
But God found fault with the people and said: “The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.
It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.


A new covenant is made because the people of Israel (in Paul's days) cannot be faithful to the older covenant which God granted to the ancestors (in Moses' days , thus the term 'out of Egypt') of people of Israel.


In fact, each and everyone covenant is granted by the blood of Christ, including those before Jesus' crucifixion. Using today's purchasing concept, it's more like a credit card that Jesus' blood is used for even the first covenant granted through Noah. Each and every covenant possesses the power of salvation to a certain scope of humans under such a covenant. There are always the righteous being justified by a covenant. However, no one is justified under God's absolute Law which is applicable to both angels and humans (while Mosaic Law is only applicable to the Jews and converts).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

YeshuaFan

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
3,143
1,028
64
Macomb
✟70,204.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Where in the Old testament is this stated?

Do you believe God and Christ did not have the power to forgive sins without Christ first going to the cross?

Do you feel God has to be “paid” something in order to forgive, because we are told to forgive unconditionally?

Where saved people before the cross: “crucified with Christ”?

All Christians today are saved by Christ going to the cross, so does “all” have to also include everyone who ever lived?

Ro. 3:25 says something different;

There is nothing about "deferring" payment. Yes, Christ's sacrifice was fully acceptable to God, pleasing God for what it can accomplish, but as Ro. 3:25 points out humans must also "accept" what God has sacrificially given "...to be received by faith...", if they lack faith they will not accept it even though God accepts what was done.

The "payment" is as great as it could be (pleasing God), but the sinful kidnapper (through faith) still has to accept this huge ransom offering made to him.

There is nothing “deferred” since there is a huge contrast between before and after the cross. Paul describes the difference as being “passed over” and “left unpunished”. There is no way for those prior to the cross to be “crucified with Christ”(punished/disciplined) if Christ has not been crucified yet.
I do not think God can forgive and save any lost sinner apart from the cross of Christ!
 
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

YeshuaFan

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
3,143
1,028
64
Macomb
✟70,204.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Paul talks a lot in Romans about our being, realizing, feeling “justified” as Christians, which I do not see those prior to the cross experiencing even though some were justified. Paul presses this point especially to the Jewish Christians as a contrast to what was available under the old Law where no one was justified by the Law, compared to what they have now. So how can we experience, realize, feel, know we are justified children in God’s presence?

How does a rebellious disobedient child go from feeling cold and uncomfortable around his/her parents to feeling warm and wonderful around his/her parents? (this goes on all the time.)

A wonderful parent can easily forgive a repentant child of virtually anything, but to restore and even improve the relationship the parent needs to participate with the child over time in some fair/just loving discipline activity, which can be very painful for both. If the child correctly accepts the discipline the relationship will be better than even before the child’s disobedience and the child will feel comfortable, wonderful and justified to be around his/her parents. God knows this and provided the Loving, just, fair discipline for our disobedience in our being crucified with Christ.

You define atonement as: "Atonement" on the other hand means God Himself must be harmed in a way order to justify a pardon…”, but that is not found in scripture, so where are you getting that?

The atonement which happened in the OT is not defined that way?

You say: "Blood" is just to make the situation understandable to humans.

From Christ’s pray in the garden we know Christ personally did not want to give up His blood and God out of empathy would not personally want Christ to give up His blood. It is I, who is blood thirsty: John 6: 53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

I must know that Christ’s blood is available to me and able to wash over me and especially feel it in the form of wine flow down my throat and over my heart cleansing me and making me Holy.
The reason why Jesus was having "trouble" in the Garden was not that it was bloodthirsty, but that for the first and only time ever, God the Son would be separated from God the father for that period of time on the Cross!
 
Upvote 0

YeshuaFan

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
3,143
1,028
64
Macomb
✟70,204.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
That rather remains your misunderstanding. What Paul said is about the status at Paul's days, not including all the Jews in history since Moses.

John 5:45 (NIV2011)
But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set.

If no one is justified, first you don't need an accuser and second no hope can be set on such an accuser.

Hebrews 8:8-9 (NIV2011)
But God found fault with the people and said: “The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.
It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.


A new covenant is made because the people of Israel (in Paul's days) cannot be faithful to the older covenant which God granted to the ancestors (in Moses' days , thus the term 'out of Egypt') of people of Israel.


In fact, each and everyone covenant is granted by the blood of Christ, including those before Jesus' crucifixion. Using today's purchasing concept, it's more like a credit card that Jesus' blood is used for even the first covenant granted through Noah. Each and every covenant possesses the power of salvation to a certain scope of humans under such a covenant. There are always the righteous being justified by a covenant. However, no one is justified under God's absolute Law which is applicable to both angels and humans (while Mosaic Law is only applicable to the Jews and converts).
If Jesus did not die on that Cross, or If He was less than God, we are all still dead in sins, and bound for Hell!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,797
1,917
✟983,179.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
2 Cor 5 "he made him who knew no sin - to become sin for us - that we might become the righteousness of God in Christ".
What does “Christ made to be sin” or “Christ made sin” mean: did Christ become a sinner, did a being become an intangible thing like “sin” and are there other scripture to help us with this?

If you go to the NIV there is an alternative translation for at the bottom where “sin offering” is given as an alternative to “being made sin” and we all know Christ was a “sin offering”, so what support is there for that translation?

Paul being a scholar of the Torah, used a Hebraism. In this case, the Hebrew word for "sin" was also used to mean "sin offering" (see the Hebrew word: chatta'ath), and thus to be "made sin" was a Hebrew way of saying "made a sin offering". the NASB cross-references to Romans 8:3 which uses "sin offering" in a similar text as 2 Corinthians 5:21

There is the analogy in 2 Corinthians 8:9; the cross-reference to the clearer statement in Romans 8:3 that Christ was sent "in the likeness of sinful flesh" to deal with sin; and the allusion to Sacrifice in 2 Corinthians 5:21 where it says Christ "knew no sin" in corresponding to the sacrificial animal being free of blemish (otherwise Paul saying "knew no sin" would be irrelevant here).

The Greek word for "sin" that Paul uses is used in the Greek Old Testament both to mean "sin" and "sin offering," with both usages even in the same verse such as in Leviticus 4:3.
Isaiah 53 "He took the stripes for us - to whom the stroke was due".

He suffers the second death in our place.
I cannot find these two verses you are referring to so could you help me?
It is a punishment for David - and shows the nation - that even the king cannot get by with murder - thus preserving order.
I fully agree and neither can we get by unpunished/undisciplined for being indirectly responsible for murdering Christ.

Indeed - that is the point of it.
Good

No - because Christ paid the exact amount of torment and suffering owed for each sin, for each person, in all of time. You could never do that.
So, if I am sinless and fulfill my earthly objective Christ would not have to die for me, but Christ would die for everyone else?

If Christ paid it all 100% what debt is there for God to forgive?

Christ was born with a sinless nature - you with a sinful nature. Only Christ as God could accommodate the full load of torment and suffering owed by all sinners for all their sins in the lake of fire. His capacity for suffering - much greater than yours. His sinless nature pure - your sinful nature a blemished sacrifice - impure.

How bad is it to be rebelliously disobedient toward God? How could such a blatant offence be “paid” by any means, what wonderful marvelous thing could ever be done to make up for such an offence, yet is God’s Love great enough to forgive such an offence? I understand my personal need for Christ body and blood John 6:53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

God does not need to drink and eat Christ’s flesh and blood but Loves me enough to make it available to me, so what personal “good” would God get from seeing to the torture, humiliation and murder of Christ?

Gal 2:20 - crucified with Christ
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Is what I am saying this is not “Christ taking our place”, but “my suffering with Him, especially since I put Him there”.
Romans 6:1-5 buried with him in baptism - death to sin, death to self.
That is my symbolically taking Christ’s place and not the opposite.
It is God paying the debt that His own Law says is owed for sin - the death sentence -- the suffering-and-death sentence. When the penalty of the law is upheld -- the law is in full force rather than abolished.
Are you saying: “God created a Law”, that would cause the cruel torture, humiliation and murder of the innocent? Did God not think this “Law” out before creating it?

Christ died and came back to life and we die and come back to life, so death does not have to be the end of everything, since Christ provides eternal life even after our death.


people condemned to hell both before and after the cross. The Law of God condemns all mankind as sinners in need of salvation.

Rom 3
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

Justification by Faith
21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;

Instead of zapping each sinner the moment they commit their first sin - He draws them in grace to Himself... both OT and NT.


26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.
31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.


Before the cross - in Matthew 17 - both Moses and Elijah stand in glorified heavenly form - with Christ on the mount of transfiguration - fully forgiven.
OK
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,797
1,917
✟983,179.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Atonement in the OT was a fine levied and paid for in the sacrifice of a costly animal to God. It paid the debt for sin at the owner's expense. (But God also made provision for the less wealthy). Today we use money or time in jail to pay for our sins against the system. But this sacrifice in the OT didn't save, it only curtailed sin at a civil level as money and jail time does today.

But it taught a spiritual principle to the enlightened. That by laying their hands on the animal to be slaughtered, the animal was their costly substitute needed if their sin would be atoned for.

Jesus paid for our sins offering himself in our place to God for sins we could never pay for, even through suffering an eternity in hell. And on this basis God can remain just and good, receiving our due compensation in Christ's payment for sins in our behalf. While being perfectly loving by absorbing our debt in himself.
Do you really feel God wants our money and we can pay God off?
They lad their hands on the animal set free.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,335
11,887
Georgia
✟1,091,317.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I do not think God can forgive and save any lost sinner apart from the cross of Christ!

True - but God is not limited by time -- Christ was "slain from the foundation of the world" and so Enoch not only born-again and saved having the New Covenant, new heart... but also taken directly to heaven without dying. And so also Elijah. To the point that both Moses and Elijah appear with Christ in glorified form - before the cross... in Matt 17 on the mount of transfiguration.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,797
1,917
✟983,179.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Honestly, I don't even know what Penal substitution is. Since God is one in three sacrificing yourself for a friend is completely biblical. But it gets too tangled in red tape and I have a life so if you can clarify the exact dimensions of the problem I'll go over them with you.
Penal Substitution has God seeing to the torture, humiliation and murder (punishment?) of the innocent Christ, so God can allow the guilty (all or a part of humans) to go free and not be punished. This means there is no disciplining benefits for the guilty since they are not disciplined. It makes God out to need to just take His wrath out on somebody even an innocent person. It makes God’s Love out to be to weak to forgive without first being “paid off”, it gives the appearance of God being blood thirsty, and it odes not explain how you can pay anything toward a debt which is 100% forgiven?
 
Upvote 0

Hazelelponi

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2018
11,794
11,206
USA
✟1,034,317.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and the writer of Hebrews all describe it as a literal ransom scenario with Christ's crucifixion being a ransom payment. It is not the ransom theory of atonement (with a payment being made to satan). I explained in the OP:
When we talk to nonbelievers, we are not trying to get them to believe some book, words, doctrine or philosophy, but we want them to accept through faith Jesus Christ and Him crucified. If that nonbeliever trust (has faith) in Christ and Him crucified a child is released and allowed to enter the kingdom where God the Father is, but if the nonbeliever refuses for lack of faith Jesus Christ and Him crucified, the child is not set free to go to the Father. That nonbeliever is a perfect example of a criminal kidnapper and fully undeserving of Jesus Christ and him Crucified, which is what Christ and others say is the ransom payment.

God is not a criminal undeserving kidnapper holding His own children and satan is not changeable or has the power to hold God’s child back from God, so the unbeliever is the only excellent fit for the kidnapper in the atonement process.

Read the OP and you can see Penal Substitution has huge problems.

The manumission of a slave is not necessarily a commercial transaction in God's economy. When God ransomed Israel from Egypt He freed them from slavery - it wasn't transaction where a price was given, God used His power and freed His people. Simple.

Likewise when Jesus said He gave His life as a ransom (aka in redemption or to redeem) for many there is no necessity to see it as a commerical transaction. We say the life of our fallen soldiers is the "price" of our freedom, yet we don't see it as a commerical transaction, we understand the meaning.

Men (as in mankind) are in bondage to sin. God, through His son Jesus Christ, set us free from that bondage - John 8:36 "So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed."

That bondage came into this fallen world due to the sin of Adam. Romans 5:12-16

ROMANS 5:15
"But the gift is not like the trespass for if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!"

Sin came into this world through one and so did justification/propitiation come into this world through the One.

The cost was high, but it wasn't a commercial transaction with a kidnapper.

God is entirely Just.

If we say a judge is just, but when sentencing time comes he let's go the person who raped and killed your wife and children without punishment you would be screaming your head off calling that judge unjust and demanding justice be served.. and rightly so.

If we demand appropriate justice on earth, how much more just is a Just God than we are?

As it is written :

"He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD." Proverbs 17:15

This is why it took God in the flesh to make propitiation for our sins, and why the Pharisees were more than just a little shocked (declared it blasphemous) when Jesus declared Himself with the authority to forgive sin. Mark 2:7

"Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

In other words, there isn't a kidnapper.. only our sin, and our Redeemer; the price was one only He could pay. God is absolutely just, and absolutely merciful - and it's not an oxymoron.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,797
1,917
✟983,179.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The reason why Jesus was having "trouble" in the Garden was not that it was bloodthirsty, but that for the first and only time ever, God the Son would be separated from God the father for that period of time on the Cross!
That is not what is said in:
Psalms 22:24 For he has not despised or scorned

the suffering of the afflicted one;

he has not hidden his face from him

but has listened to his cry for help

Psalms 22 is a Lament in a Diatribe form so you usually start with a quest:
1. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
follow with lots of lamenting support for the wrong conclusion and end with the right answer making it more a dialog and debate.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,335
11,887
Georgia
✟1,091,317.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
2 Cor 5 "he made him who knew no sin - to become sin for us - that we might become the righteousness of God in Christ".

Isaiah 53 "He took the stripes for us - to whom the stroke was due".

He suffers the second death in our place.

The death of the child is a punishment for David - and shows the nation - that even the king cannot get by with murder - thus preserving order.

Christ paid the exact amount of torment and suffering owed for each sin, for each person, in all of time. You could never do that.

Christ was born with a sinless nature - you with a sinful nature. Only Christ as God could accommodate the full load of torment and suffering owed by all sinners for all their sins in the lake of fire. His capacity for suffering - much greater than yours. His sinless nature pure - your sinful nature a blemished sacrifice - impure.

Gal 2:20 - crucified with Christ
Romans 6:1-5 buried with him in baptism - death to sin, death to self.



On the cross - it is God paying the debt that His own Law says is owed for sin - the death sentence -- the suffering-and-death sentence. When the penalty of the law is upheld -- the law is in full force rather than abolished.

One sin problem - One Gospel solution:
people condemned to hell both before and after the cross. The Law of God condemns all mankind as sinners in need of salvation.

Rom 3
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

Justification by Faith
21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;

Instead of zapping each sinner the moment they commit their first sin - He draws them in grace to Himself... both OT and NT.


26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.
31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.


Before the cross - in Matthew 17 - both Moses and Elijah stand in glorified heavenly form - with Christ on the mount of transfiguration - fully forgiven.


What does “Christ made to be sin” or “Christ made sin” mean: did Christ become a sinner, did a being become an intangible thing like “sin” and are there other scripture to help us with this?

Animal sacrifices had to be pure, unblemished. Christ was not a sinner nor made a sinner at the cross. But God directed at Christ all the punishment/wrath of God against sin for all the sins of all mankind in all of time. He "paid the debt owed" -- Col 2 our "certificate of DEBT nailed to the cross" NASB.

If you go to the NIV there is an alternative translation for at the bottom where “sin offering” is given as an alternative to “being made sin” and we all know Christ was a “sin offering”, so what support is there for that translation?

I am fine with that - made a sin offering, that which takes on the full payment of debt owed for my sin.

Paul being a scholar of the Torah, used a Hebraism. In this case, the Hebrew word for "sin" was also used to mean "sin offering" (see the Hebrew word: chatta'ath), and thus to be "made sin" was a Hebrew way of saying "made a sin offering". the NASB cross-references to Romans 8:3 which uses "sin offering" in a similar text as 2 Corinthians 5:21

As I said I am ok with the NIV version in that one case over the KJV/NASB etc.


BobRyan said:
Isaiah 53 "He took the stripes for us - to whom the stroke was due".

He suffers the second death in our place.[/quote]

I cannot find these two verses you are referring to so could you help me?

The first verse -
Isaiah 53:6
All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him
.

Is 53:8 (NASB)
By oppression and judgment He was taken away;
And as for His generation, who considered
That He was cut off out of the land of the living
For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?

10 But the Lord was pleased
To crush Him
, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.
11 As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities.

KJV
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

=====
Fine - Christ paid our debt of sin... what debt would that be?

The second verse

Rom 6:23 - 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Rev 20:
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

The Rev 14:10 "fire and brimstone.. torment and suffering" of that lake of fire - second death is what we owe.

Yet ALL (both saint and sinner) die the first death and Christ did not save us from dying the first death.
Rom 5
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:


So, if I am sinless and fulfill my earthly objective Christ would not have to die for me, but Christ would die for everyone else?

True but you are born in need of a savior - you are not "born a saint". Your sinful nature is from birth - and by definition it is a "bent" toward rebellion. You needed Christ from the start.


If Christ paid it all 100% what debt is there for God to forgive?

Lev 16 "Day of Atonement" requires TWO components. Atonement is a "binary weapon" against sin. It takes BOTH the work of Christ as "Atoning Sacrifice" and the work of Christ "as High Priest" Heb 8:1-6 which He is doing now in heaven for us.

When you buy a house these days - fir you wire the money - then the closing attorney takes the funds and distributes them at closing. No closing... no distribution. No funds... no closing. You must have both.

The payment is full and complete but only Christ can apply those benefits and He does so based on interaction with man. "I STAND at the door and knock, IF anyone hears My voice AND opens the door - I will come in". Rev 3.

"If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins" 1 John 1:9.

He provides the payment... He sets the conditions. God cannot be "gamed".



God does not need to drink and eat Christ’s flesh and blood but Loves me enough to make it available to me, so what personal “good” would God get from seeing to the torture, humiliation and murder of Christ?

God was "in Christ reconciling the World to Himself" -- God is suffering on the cross - He is not getting "personal good" -- rather He is making "personal sacrifice" to rescue us.

Is what I am saying this is not “Christ taking our place”, but “my suffering with Him, especially since I put Him there”.

Which is a mistake.

Romans 5 "while we were yet sinners Christ died for us" there is nothing in it about us suffering with him to get our redemption - He does it alone.

But then the "saved" person fully benefited by the first work of Christ - is "buried with Christ in baptism" Romans 6 - and "chooses" to crucify the sinful nature of self "daily" in the war against sin and rebellion that we face every day.

Are you saying: “God created a Law”, that would cause the cruel torture, humiliation and murder of the innocent? Did God not think this “Law” out before creating it?

God's Law requires the torture and torment of the Rev 20 lake of fire for the sinner. All sinners "owe it". In John 11 Lazarus the friend of Christ suffers a horrible death-by-slow-sickness and when Lazarus' sisters confront Christ about it - He says that "he who believes on Me shall never die". Christ totally discounts the suffering and death of the first death - no matter how horrific that suffering is -- as compared to the second death.

For God's Law to be "established" (Rom 3:31) rather than "abolished" that payment owed - must be met. And Christ fully meets the debt "owed" Col 2:14-15 "our certificate of debt" NASB nailed to the cross.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,335
11,887
Georgia
✟1,091,317.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Penal Substitution has God seeing to the torture, humiliation and murder (punishment?) of the innocent Christ, so God can allow the guilty (all or a part of humans) to go free and not be punished. This means there is no disciplining benefits for the guilty since they are not disciplined.

That is true. The man who foolishly ignores the fire in the forest and keeps walking in to it - and then is engulfed by a fire storm final at the point of death help arrives. The man needs desperate emergency rescue not "discipline".

But once rescued one assumes the horrific nature of the experience is a motive for him "not to repeat the mistake".

It makes God out to need to just take His wrath out on somebody even an innocent person. It makes God’s Love out to be to weak to forgive without first being “paid off”,

God was "IN Christ" on the cross - being tortured Himself. How is that "being paid off".

If a criminal tortures you are you "being paid off".
IF he makes you watch your child being tortured are you "being paid off"??

Why do you refer to God being tormented as "God getting paid"???
 
Upvote 0