Did Christ Jesus REALLY pay for the wages of sin?

[Tavita]

Someone led me to the FAQ's of CF and the thread "How do I become a christian?"

I personally find it hypocritical. On the one hand 'Sin Has A Penalty' says that if I die in my sins then I will pay for my crimes against God (I take it they mean sin), and go to a place called hell. That sinners must pay the penalty for their crimes.

Yet on the other hand, we have the section 'Christ Has Paid Our Penalty'.... well, has He? Or has He not? If Christ has paid the penalty for sin as the second Adam, then how can anyone pay for them... AGAIN? Do we believe God when He says that His Son has ALREADY paid the penalty for sin (which is death, not hell as some would try to sell), or are we in unbelief?


Sin Has a Penalty

"For the wages of sin is death." --Romans 6:23 (NIV)

Just as criminals must pay the penalty for their crimes, sinners must pay the penalty for their sins. If you continue to sin, you will pay the penalty of spiritual death: You will not only die physically; you will also be separated from our holy God for all eternity. The Bible teaches that those who choose to remain separated from God will spend eternity in a place called hell.

Christ Has Paid Our Penalty!

"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." --Romans 5:8 (NIV)

The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ, the sinless Son of God, has paid the penalty for all your sins. You may think you have to lead a good life and do good deeds before God will love you. But the Bible says that Christ loved you enough to die for you, even when you were rebelling against Him. (bolding mine)

 

[Evergreen48]

Someone led me to the FAQ's of CF and the thread "How do I become a christian?"

I personally find it hypocritical. On the one hand 'Sin Has A Penalty' says that if I die in my sins then I will pay for my crimes against God (I take it they mean sin), and go to a place called hell. That sinners must pay the penalty for their crimes.

Yet on the other hand, we have the section 'Christ Has Paid Our Penalty'.... well, has He? Or has He not? If Christ has paid the penalty for sin as the second Adam, then how can anyone pay for them... AGAIN? Do we believe God when He says that His Son has ALREADY paid the penalty for sin (which is death, not hell as some would try to sell), or are we in unbelief?


Sin Has a Penalty

"For the wages of sin is death." --Romans 6:23 (NIV)

Just as criminals must pay the penalty for their crimes, sinners must pay the penalty for their sins. If you continue to sin, you will pay the penalty of spiritual death: You will not only die physically; you will also be separated from our holy God for all eternity. The Bible teaches that those who choose to remain separated from God will spend eternity in a place called hell.

Christ Has Paid Our Penalty!

"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." --Romans 5:8 (NIV)

The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ, the sinless Son of God, has paid the penalty for all your sins. You may think you have to lead a good life and do good deeds before God will love you. But the Bible says that Christ loved you enough to die for you, even when you were rebelling against Him. (bolding mine)

Hi Tavita.

I know where it is said that, . . . God hath set [Christ Jesus] forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God . . . (Rom. 3:25)

But where is it said that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. I am not necessarily saying that it is not there in the scriptures somewhere, but I would like to know exactly where it is found. Can you tell me where?

 

[Martinius]

Could it be that this is how the early church "sold" the idea of Jesus' death and resurrection? What purpose did it have? The answer was: Through it Christ saved us from our sins. And the early church fathers explained it through interpretation of scripture.

One passage that is often used to "defend" this doctrine is from 1 Corinthians 15. In it Paul says:

"For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead came also through a human being.
For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life."

I suppose this could be interpreted as "saving us from our sins", since many Christian faiths believe all would be doomed because of our innate sinfulness if not for the resurrection of Christ.

Two interesting notes in the above passage. Note that Paul says "all" will be brought to life, which seems contradictory to the teachings of most Christian faiths. And before that Paul says this change will occur due to the death of a "human being". Does he mean that Jesus was executed as a human person but was resurrected as Christ? How does that fit with the concept of Jesus as the eternal second person of the trinity?

I would agree that there still seems to be a conundrum here. However, the answer I have heard over the years is that by his death and resurrection Jesus opened the way for us. We still must "earn" the right to attain heaven. And how we go about doing that varies depending on which denomination is talking.

Good question.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

You could always look at through the Eastern Orthodox way, which is pretty much the better and more complete way of going about it and avoids the misstep of turning into a strictly legal transaction.

"Where Orthodoxy sees chiefly Christ the Victor, the late medieval and post-medieval west sees chiefly Christ the Victim. While Orthodoxy interprets the Crucifixion primarily as an act of triumphant victory over the powers of evil, the west particularly since the time of Anselm of Canterbury (?1033-1109) — has tended rather to think of the Cross in penal and juridical terms, as an act of satisfaction or substitution designed to propitiate the wrath of an angry Father.Yet these contrasts must not be pressed too far. Eastern writers, as well as western, have applied juridical and penal language to the Crucifixion; western writers, as well as eastern, have never ceased to think of Good Friday as a moment of victory. In the west during recent years there has been a revival of the Patristic idea of Christus Victor, alike in theology, in spirituality, and in art; and Orthodox are naturally very happy that this should be so" (Kallistos Ware (PhD, Oxford), The Orthodox Way), Ch 2, "Faith and Worship").

 

[TasteForTruth]

Someone led me to the FAQ's of CF and the thread "How do I become a christian?"

I personally find it hypocritical. On the one hand 'Sin Has A Penalty' says that if I die in my sins then I will pay for my crimes against God (I take it they mean sin), and go to a place called hell. That sinners must pay the penalty for their crimes.

Yet on the other hand, we have the section 'Christ Has Paid Our Penalty'.... well, has He? Or has He not? If Christ has paid the penalty for sin as the second Adam, then how can anyone pay for them... AGAIN? Do we believe God when He says that His Son has ALREADY paid the penalty for sin (which is death, not hell as some would try to sell), or are we in unbelief?


Sin Has a Penalty

"For the wages of sin is death." --Romans 6:23 (NIV)

Just as criminals must pay the penalty for their crimes, sinners must pay the penalty for their sins. If you continue to sin, you will pay the penalty of spiritual death: You will not only die physically; you will also be separated from our holy God for all eternity. The Bible teaches that those who choose to remain separated from God will spend eternity in a place called hell.

Christ Has Paid Our Penalty!

"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." --Romans 5:8 (NIV)

The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ, the sinless Son of God, has paid the penalty for all your sins. You may think you have to lead a good life and do good deeds before God will love you. But the Bible says that Christ loved you enough to die for you, even when you were rebelling against Him. (bolding mine)

My response would be that Christ did suffer the very penalty of our sins, and thereby and thereafter freed us from suffering that same penalty, upon conditions that we exercise faith in him, repent of our sins, and obey his commandments, which obedience is made visible through our unreserved love for, and service toward, God and fellow man. We only have to suffer the penalty already suffered by him if we reject his intercession. But even then our suffering would end because of Christ's mercy, except for a very select few, who will have removed themselves from all mercy by figuratively crucifying the Lord anew unto themselves.

That's my understanding.

 

[Tavita]

Hi Tavita.

I know where it is said that, . . . God hath set [Christ Jesus] forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God . . . (Rom. 3:25)

But where is it said that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. I am not necessarily saying that it is not there in the scriptures somewhere, but I would like to know exactly where it is found. Can you tell me where?

Hi Evergreen

Good point. It doesn't declare anywhere in those words 'Jesus paid the penalty for our sins'. The terminology used is a little confusing as most statements by the orthodox church these days tends to be...

In that same verse you posted it says that Christ was the propitiation for our sins, which means "That which turns aside the wrath of God from the sinner. The atonement of Jesus satisfies the just demands of the righteousness and wrath of God against sin (Rom 3:25; Heb 2:17; 1ohn 2:2; 4:10)

However, the point to the thread is how can a statement be made that says on one hand He did (turn the wrath of God aside), and on the other hand if you don't recognize this fact then you are going to pay for the sins yourself. How much power does a worm called man have???? Either Christ redeemed, made atonement, was the propitiation, etc, so that the wrath of God was averted from all mankind..... once for all..... Christ said on the cross 'It is finished!'... or He didn't complete it.

 

[Tavita]

Could it be that this is how the early church "sold" the idea of Jesus' death and resurrection? What purpose did it have? The answer was: Through it Christ saved us from our sins. And the early church fathers explained it through interpretation of scripture.

Hi Martinius.

Not sure what you mean here.

One passage that is often used to "defend" this doctrine is from 1 Corinthians 15. In it Paul says:

"For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead came also through a human being.
For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life."

I suppose this could be interpreted as "saving us from our sins", since many Christian faiths believe all would be doomed because of our innate sinfulness if not for the resurrection of Christ.

Two interesting notes in the above passage. Note that Paul says "all" will be brought to life, which seems contradictory to the teachings of most Christian faiths. And before that Paul says this change will occur due to the death of a "human being". Does he mean that Jesus was executed as a human person but was resurrected as Christ? How does that fit with the concept of Jesus as the eternal second person of the trinity?

Yes, to me, ALL means ALL, but that's really another subject.

I believe Jesus as a man was also 'Christ', while He lived. And I don't believe in three separate persons of the Godhead.

I would agree that there still seems to be a conundrum here. However, the answer I have heard over the years is that by his death and resurrection Jesus opened the way for us. We still must "earn" the right to attain heaven. And how we go about doing that varies depending on which denomination is talking.

I'm still perplexed as to why a Christian site would have two opposing statements...

Christ paid the penalty for our sin (for all mankind).

But unless we believe in it we end up paying for our sin.

 

[Tavita]

You could always look at through the Eastern Orthodox way, which is pretty much the better and more complete way of going about it and avoids the misstep of turning into a strictly legal transaction.

"Where Orthodoxy sees chiefly Christ the Victor, the late medieval and post-medieval west sees chiefly Christ the Victim. While Orthodoxy interprets the Crucifixion primarily as an act of triumphant victory over the powers of evil, the west particularly since the time of Anselm of Canterbury (?1033-1109) — has tended rather to think of the Cross in penal and juridical terms, as an act of satisfaction or substitution designed to propitiate the wrath of an angry Father.Yet these contrasts must not be pressed too far. Eastern writers, as well as western, have applied juridical and penal language to the Crucifixion; western writers, as well as eastern, have never ceased to think of Good Friday as a moment of victory. In the west during recent years there has been a revival of the Patristic idea of Christus Victor, alike in theology, in spirituality, and in art; and Orthodox are naturally very happy that this should be so" (Kallistos Ware (PhD, Oxford), The Orthodox Way), Ch 2, "Faith and Worship").

Thanks for posting Walter, but I'm a little confused by your post.

The point to the thread was.... did Jesus fully pay for our sin... which is another way of saying... did He redeem all mankind, did He make propitiation, did He save us from the wrath of God, etc... or did He not?

If we still believe that a person can die and pay for those sins himself then what does that belief say of Christ's sacrifice?

 

[Tavita]

My response would be that Christ did suffer the very penalty of our sins, and thereby and thereafter freed us from suffering that same penalty, upon conditions that we exercise faith in him, repent of our sins, and obey his commandments, which obedience is made visible through our unreserved love for, and service toward, God and fellow man. We only have to suffer the penalty already suffered by him if we reject his intercession. But even then our suffering would end because of Christ's mercy, except for a very select few, who will have removed themselves from all mercy by figuratively crucifying the Lord anew unto themselves.

That's my understanding.

I guess terminology is getting mixed up. I'm sure there is a difference between salvation, redemption, propitiation, etc.

Jesus did redeem, etc, ALL mankind, but one must appropriate it to receive salvation. Is that what you mean?

It says in the FAQ's...

"Just as criminals must pay the penalty for their crimes, sinners must pay the penalty for their sins. If you continue to sin, you will pay the penalty of spiritual death: You will not only die physically; you will also be separated from our holy God for all eternity. The Bible teaches that those who choose to remain separated from God will spend eternity in a place called hell. "

And then they add that Christ died for you even while you were rebelling??

So, if you don't accept His sacrifice you CHOOSE to spend eternity separated from Him?

I don't understand how you can say on one hand Christ has already paid the penalty for all mankind, but then justify the teachings received from orthodoxy which say if you don't believe, you will pay. It does not make sense. It makes Christ's sacrifice out to be less than it is and was and will be. To think that He is not powerful enough to make sure everyone of His lambs makes it. Is man that powerful.. that he can stand against God?

I believe ALL mankind will receive salvation eventually and that if you die in your sins you will still receive mercy through judgment.. but not endless torment in a literal 'place' called hell.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

There's some ideas that I think Western Christianity has sort of just added to the Gospel; firstly, the idea that it is only the death on the cross that atoned for us:

"In Romans 4.25 Paul writes that Christ "was delivered up [to death] for our trespasses and raised for our justification." Clearly Paul connects justification not just to the single moment of the crucifixion, but to the resurrection of Christ on the third day afterward. Any view of the atonement which speaks exclusively of Christ’s death as dealing with sin doesn’t do justice to Paul’s understanding of the role our Lord's resurrection played in effecting our justification. 1 Cor 15 not only says "Christ died for our sins..." (1 Cor 15:3) but also, "if Christ has not been raised your faith is futile and you are still in your sins" (1 Cor 15:17). It would seem that for Paul a dead savior is not enough to take away our sins. Restricting the atonement to the single moment of the crucifixion fails to explain why Paul holds the resurrection as integral to justification and essential to the atonement. According to Orthodox theology not only does our salvation reach forward from crucifixion to resurrection and glorification; it extends backward to the sufferings of Christ. Not just by His crucifixion, but by His stripes we are also healed."

And secondly, for Christ to somehow be unable to tolerate sinners in His presence:

"As Anglican scholar Michael Green observes, "Calvin, Luther and the English Reformers... were sometimes incautious in the language they employed. For example, though the New Testament... [uses the Gk. word hilasterion] it never says that Christ propitiated God the father" (Michael Green, The Empty Cross of Christ). In the NT the direct object of hilasterion is sin, not God (cf. 1 Jn 2:2; 4:10).[1] For this reason I see no pressing need for adopting an extra-biblical model of "propitiating the father" or least of all positing a "need in God," "change in the God" or "inability in God" (e.g. the "inability" of an omnipresent God to be in the presence of sin etc. -was not Christ portrayed in the presence of satan and his demons, and in hades itself? Was he not the friend of sinners who dined with them? There is no inability in God to be present with anyone saint or sinner: in Him we live and move and have our being)."

And again, that ONLY the death of Christ is what matters:

"I do strongly disagree with any suggestion that penal substitution "is what the Gospel is" in totality, or that it "is key" in a manner that suggests there is nothing else to be said whatsoever. As I see it that is a bit like taking a molehill for a mountain, or having the tail wag the dog. As was mentioned previously, Anglican scholar N. T. Wright, who does not deny a penal metaphor, but does deny it is the main focus of NT atonement narratives, insists that the major thrust of the NT --by far-- is (as Orthodox have always held) Christus Victor. Anyone whose theology suggests that the whole doctrine of the atonement is found in the cross has a theology which is tragically too small -and explicitly unbiblical (see below). I cannot say strongly enough that atonement includes the resurrection, and that our HEALING (the Gk. word for "salvation" means to heal) involves the defeat of death and of the fallen angelic hosts in addition to the crucifixion-event. If this is so penal substitution -even if it is granted- is not at all the Gospel in its fullness. It might seem like a small point for those unfamiliar with its full implications, but to Orthodox it is a huge point; if this sliver is taken for the whole when in fact it is not the whole, a distortion of the Gospel of Christ is the inevitable result."

Just something to chew on.

 

[Rescued One]

Someone led me to the FAQ's of CF and the thread "How do I become a christian?"

I personally find it hypocritical. On the one hand 'Sin Has A Penalty' says that if I die in my sins then I will pay for my crimes against God (I take it they mean sin), and go to a place called hell. That sinners must pay the penalty for their crimes.

Yet on the other hand, we have the section 'Christ Has Paid Our Penalty'.... well, has He? Or has He not? If Christ has paid the penalty for sin as the second Adam, then how can anyone pay for them... AGAIN? Do we believe God when He says that His Son has ALREADY paid the penalty for sin (which is death, not hell as some would try to sell), or are we in unbelief?


Sin Has a Penalty

"For the wages of sin is death." --Romans 6:23 (NIV)

Just as criminals must pay the penalty for their crimes, sinners must pay the penalty for their sins. If you continue to sin, you will pay the penalty of spiritual death: You will not only die physically; you will also be separated from our holy God for all eternity. The Bible teaches that those who choose to remain separated from God will spend eternity in a place called hell.

Christ Has Paid Our Penalty!

"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." --Romans 5:8 (NIV)

The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ, the sinless Son of God, has paid the penalty for all your sins. You may think you have to lead a good life and do good deeds before God will love you. But the Bible says that Christ loved you enough to die for you, even when you were rebelling against Him. (bolding mine)

If you owe someone a hundred dollars and your brother pays the bill, do you still owe that one hundred dollars. No, the debt has been paid. If you have been bought by the blood of the Lamb, will His Spirit in you not produce a change in your heart?

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Romans 8:9

 

[TheGMan]

If you owe someone a hundred dollars and your brother pays the bill, do you still owe that one hundred dollars. No, the debt has been paid.

If you steal from a store and they prosecute and convict your brother, has justice been done? No, an injustice has been done.

 

[Martinius]

I wrote:

Could it be that this is how the early church "sold" the idea of Jesus' death and resurrection? What purpose did it have? The answer was: Through it Christ saved us from our sins. And the early church fathers explained it through interpretation of scripture.

To which Tavita replied:

Not sure what you mean here.

One big question in the early church, and today as well, is WHY Christ had to die on the cross. One explanation or "theory" which became the most accepted one is that Christ died for the remission of sin, to undo what Adam had done. Exactly what the faith statements you quote from are saying. If there is no good explanation or reason, then the crucifixion of Jesus stamps him as being the lowest of Jews, a criminal and heretic despised by all. The resurrection changes all that, and because of it the disciples could claim (and we still do claim) that the manner of Jesus' death was God's will, was our redemption and the atonement for the "original sin" imparted to all of us by the action of Adam.

I'm still perplexed as to why a Christian site would have two opposing statements...

Christ paid the penalty for our sin (for all mankind).

But unless we believe in it we end up paying for our sin.

One problem with the first part of this is that if our sins are washed away thanks to Jesus, what more would we have to do? Why would we need to do anything? There would be no compulsion on us to live as Christians or to follow the commandments; we are all saved! So while telling us that Christ saved us from the effects of our sins (and/or our inherited sins) the church is also telling us "well, not exactly"; you still must "behave" and be a "follower" of Jesus (however the various denominations define that).

The result of that is what you are pointing out. Is attaining the Kingdom of God up to us, or has it been accomplished for us by Jesus, or is it a combination of both? You are correct, it is not logical and really makes no sense.

As the Wizard said to Dorothy and her friends in Oz, "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." In other words, don't question, just believe.

I prefer to question.

 

[A New Dawn]

Hi Evergreen

Good point. It doesn't declare anywhere in those words 'Jesus paid the penalty for our sins'. The terminology used is a little confusing as most statements by the orthodox church these days tends to be...

In that same verse you posted it says that Christ was the propitiation for our sins, which means "That which turns aside the wrath of God from the sinner. The atonement of Jesus satisfies the just demands of the righteousness and wrath of God against sin (Rom 3:25; Heb 2:17; 1ohn 2:2; 4:10)

However, the point to the thread is how can a statement be made that says on one hand He did (turn the wrath of God aside), and on the other hand if you don't recognize this fact then you are going to pay for the sins yourself. How much power does a worm called man have???? Either Christ redeemed, made atonement, was the propitiation, etc, so that the wrath of God was averted from all mankind..... once for all..... Christ said on the cross 'It is finished!'... or He didn't complete it.

Maybe you missed the part of the Roman's scripture that he quoted that said "through faith in His blood". Those that do not have faith in Christ do not have salvation. Your assertion is that Christ either averted God's wrath from all mankind, or He didn't. Your assertion isn't true. He averted God's wrath from those who have faith in His blood. Salvation is by grace, through faith. What did Christ say to the woman? He said, "Your faith hath make you whole".

 

[TasteForTruth]

I guess terminology is getting mixed up. I'm sure there is a difference between salvation, redemption, propitiation, etc.

Jesus did redeem, etc, ALL mankind, but one must appropriate it to receive salvation. Is that what you mean?

It says in the FAQ's...

"Just as criminals must pay the penalty for their crimes, sinners must pay the penalty for their sins. If you continue to sin, you will pay the penalty of spiritual death: You will not only die physically; you will also be separated from our holy God for all eternity. The Bible teaches that those who choose to remain separated from God will spend eternity in a place called hell. "

And then they add that Christ died for you even while you were rebelling??

So, if you don't accept His sacrifice you CHOOSE to spend eternity separated from Him?

I don't understand how you can say on one hand Christ has already paid the penalty for all mankind, but then justify the teachings received from orthodoxy which say if you don't believe, you will pay. It does not make sense. It makes Christ's sacrifice out to be less than it is and was and will be. To think that He is not powerful enough to make sure everyone of His lambs makes it. Is man that powerful.. that he can stand against God?

I believe ALL mankind will receive salvation eventually and that if you die in your sins you will still receive mercy through judgment.. but not endless torment in a literal 'place' called hell.

I guess I'd add—by way of clarification—that while I believe Christ's atonement verily pays the full debt of our sins, I also believe that Christ placed conditions upon receipt of the fullest measure of his sacrifice. That is why some will have to suffer a portion of what he already suffered. It is upon Christ's own word that they will, not mine.

TFT

 

[Tavita]

Maybe you missed the part of the Roman's scripture that he quoted that said "through faith in His blood". Those that do not have faith in Christ do not have salvation. Your assertion is that Christ either averted God's wrath from all mankind, or He didn't. Your assertion isn't true. He averted God's wrath from those who have faith in His blood. Salvation is by grace, through faith. What did Christ say to the woman? He said, "Your faith hath make you whole".

"Those that do not have faith in Christ do not have salvation"

Yes, that's true... they don't have salvation.... yet.

Do you believe it is our own faith that saves us or is it the faith OF Jesus Christ given us?

If it is the faith given us, then obviously God has not given faith in Christ to every person that has ever lived.

But that gets away from the OP...

If Christ has already paid the penalty for sin for all, then how can anyone else pay for it?

It is as Phoebe Ann said "If you owe someone a hundred dollars and your brother pays the bill, do you still owe that one hundred dollars. No, the debt has been paid."

 

[Tavita]

"In Romans 4.25 Paul writes that Christ "was delivered up [to death] for our trespasses and raised for our justification." Clearly Paul connects justification not just to the single moment of the crucifixion, but to the resurrection of Christ on the third day afterward. Any view of the atonement which speaks exclusively of Christ’s death as dealing with sin doesn’t do justice to Paul’s understanding of the role our Lord's resurrection played in effecting our justification. 1 Cor 15 not only says "Christ died for our sins..." (1 Cor 15:3) but also, "if Christ has not been raised your faith is futile and you are still in your sins" (1 Cor 15:17). It would seem that for Paul a dead savior is not enough to take away our sins. Restricting the atonement to the single moment of the crucifixion fails to explain why Paul holds the resurrection as integral to justification and essential to the atonement. According to Orthodox theology not only does our salvation reach forward from crucifixion to resurrection and glorification; it extends backward to the sufferings of Christ. Not just by His crucifixion, but by His stripes we are also healed."

And secondly, for Christ to somehow be unable to tolerate sinners in His presence:

"As Anglican scholar Michael Green observes, "Calvin, Luther and the English Reformers... were sometimes incautious in the language they employed. For example, though the New Testament... [uses the Gk. word hilasterion] it never says that Christ propitiated God the father" (Michael Green, The Empty Cross of Christ). In the NT the direct object of hilasterion is sin, not God (cf. 1 Jn 2:2; 4:10).[1] For this reason I see no pressing need for adopting an extra-biblical model of "propitiating the father" or least of all positing a "need in God," "change in the God" or "inability in God" (e.g. the "inability" of an omnipresent God to be in the presence of sin etc. -was not Christ portrayed in the presence of satan and his demons, and in hades itself? Was he not the friend of sinners who dined with them? There is no inability in God to be present with anyone saint or sinner: in Him we live and move and have our being)."

And again, that ONLY the death of Christ is what matters:

"I do strongly disagree with any suggestion that penal substitution "is what the Gospel is" in totality, or that it "is key" in a manner that suggests there is nothing else to be said whatsoever. As I see it that is a bit like taking a molehill for a mountain, or having the tail wag the dog. As was mentioned previously, Anglican scholar N. T. Wright, who does not deny a penal metaphor, but does deny it is the main focus of NT atonement narratives, insists that the major thrust of the NT --by far-- is (as Orthodox have always held) Christus Victor. Anyone whose theology suggests that the whole doctrine of the atonement is found in the cross has a theology which is tragically too small -and explicitly unbiblical (see below). I cannot say strongly enough that atonement includes the resurrection, and that our HEALING (the Gk. word for "salvation" means to heal) involves the defeat of death and of the fallen angelic hosts in addition to the crucifixion-event. If this is so penal substitution -even if it is granted- is not at all the Gospel in its fullness. It might seem like a small point for those unfamiliar with its full implications, but to Orthodox it is a huge point; if this sliver is taken for the whole when in fact it is not the whole, a distortion of the Gospel of Christ is the inevitable result."

Just something to chew on.

Thanks Walter for bringing this perspective to me tonight. I very much liked the first and second paragraph where it says it was not just the cross but His resurrection that brings the whole of Jesus' finished work and that God can and does 'hang around' in the presence of sin and sinners. I cannot believe that God is so totally offended by sin that He can't be in it's presence. So, yes, it's something to chew on.

 

[Tavita]

If you owe someone a hundred dollars and your brother pays the bill, do you still owe that one hundred dollars. No, the debt has been paid. If you have been bought by the blood of the Lamb, will His Spirit in you not produce a change in your heart?

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Romans 8:9

Thanks Phoebe, I agree with you.

 

[Tavita]

I guess I'd add—by way of clarification—that while I believe Christ's atonement verily pays the full debt of our sins, I also believe that Christ placed conditions upon receipt of the fullest measure of his sacrifice. That is why some will have to suffer a portion of what he already suffered. It is upon Christ's own word that they will, not mine.

TFT

I agree with you TFT and I also believe that it is ALL His work... none of ours.

A quote from an early Church Father, St Clement..

"1 John 2:2. 'And not only for our sins,'--that is for those of the faithful, - is the Lord the propitiator, does he say, “but also for the whole world.” He, indeed, saves all; but some [He saves], converting them by punishments; others, however, who follow voluntarily [He saves] with dignity of honour; so “that every knee should bow to Him, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth;” that is, angels, men, and souls that before His advent have departed from this temporal life. " --Clement of Alexandria, Commentary on 1 John 2.2, Fragments from the Latin Translation of Cassiodorus, ANF, Vol 2

 

[A New Dawn]

"Those that do not have faith in Christ do not have salvation"

Yes, that's true... they don't have salvation.... yet.

Do you believe it is our own faith that saves us or is it the faith OF Jesus Christ given us?

If it is the faith given us, then obviously God has not given faith in Christ to every person that has ever lived.

But that gets away from the OP...

If Christ has already paid the penalty for sin for all, then how can anyone else pay for it?

It is as Phoebe Ann said "If you owe someone a hundred dollars and your brother pays the bill, do you still owe that one hundred dollars. No, the debt has been paid."

Where do you get your belief that Christ paid the penalty for everyone? In the scripture you quoted in the OP, Paul was speaking to other believers. The "us" in that verse is those who were already believers. It does not indicate that Christ died and paid the penalty for anyone but believers. And I'm not sure I understand your claim about us paying the penalty. No one can pay the penalty but Christ. Can you clarify what you mean?

And to answer your question, I believe that God gives us faith. That we do not have the desire to believe till God steps in and gifts it to us.