Do Our Beliefs Matter?

[BPPLEE]

God’s child. The evil criminal sinner is holding back a child of God within them, by not accepting the ransom payment.

The Bible is describing a kidnapping scenario.

It is totally unjust and unfair to punish the innocent to allow the guilty to go free.

Yes, God “intended” to allow wicked people to torture, humiliate and murder Christ, but it was not to “punish” Christ, He is totally innocent.

How does PS not make God out to be blood thirsty?

Sin is not part of the atonement process (the solution).

Yes, set only some up for success and not providing for others to be successful is totally not Loving on God’s part.

If man does not have a part to play than it is universal or as you might say limited for no special reason.

Where is our participation found in PS?

Our “participation” is found in our acceptance of the huge ransom payment.

If the debt was paid 100% there is nothing to be forgiven.

Can you be a good parent and not negatively discipline you children if you have the opportunity?
Think about this:

There is a, one of a kind, Ming vase on your parent’s mantel that has been handed down by your great, great, grandmother. You, as a young person, get angry with your parents and smash the vase. You are later sorry about it and repent and your loving parent can easily forgive you. Since this was not your first rebellious action your father, in an act of Love, collects every little piece of the vase and you willingly work together with your father hours each night for a month painstakingly gluing the vase back together. The vase is returned to the mantel to be kept as a show piece, but according to Antique Road Show, it is worthless. Working with your father helped you develop a much stronger relationship, comfort in being around him and appreciation for his Love.

Was your father fair/just and would others see this as being fair discipline? Did this “punishment” help resolve the issue?

Was restitution made or was reconciliation made and would you feel comfortable/ justified standing by your father in the future?

Suppose after smashing the vase, repenting and forgiveness, your older brother says he will work with your father putting the vase together, so you can keep up with your social life. Would this scenario allow you to stand comfortable and justified by your father?

Suppose Jesus the magician waved his hands over the smashed vase and restored it perfectly to the previous condition, so there is really very little for you to be forgiven of or for you to do. Would this scenario allow you to stand comfortable and justified by your father?

What are the benefits of being lovingly disciplined?

Suppose it is not you that breaks the Ming vase but your neighbor breaks into your house because he does not like your family being so nice and smashes the Ming vase, but he is caught on a security camera. Your father goes to your neighbor with the box of pieces and offers to do the same thing with him as he offered to do with you, but the neighbor refuses. Your father explains: everything is caught on camera and he will be fined and go to jail, but the neighbor, although sorry about being caught, still refuses. The neighbor loses all he has and spends 10 years in jail. So was the neighbor fairly disciplined or fairly punished?

How does the neighbor’s punishment equal your discipline and how is it not equal?

Was the neighbor forgiven and if not why not?

Where is PS talked about by Peter in Acts 2?

Lev. 5 describes atonement for minor (unintentional sins) but it does not say the offering was a substitute for the sinner, but was a penalty (“punishment” and that can mean a “disciplining”).

I am more like those in the mob yelling “crucify Him”. Are you like Christ on the cross?

NO!!! God forgives our sin debt; nothing can pay that debt. We are being disciplined for our sins by empathetically being crucified with Christ.

Crucified “for” you or crucified “for” sin.

If there is no kidnapper it is not the ransom being discussed in the NT, so who is the kidnapper with PS?

God has no “problems”, all the problems are man’s problems, God can forgive without the need for Christ going to the cross.

Ro. 3:25 states: “…He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished” that would also mean after the cross sinners are punished (disciplined), while before the cross forgiven sinners were not disciplined.

Right, death is not bad in and of itself (it is the way good people go to heaven and the way bad people quit doing bad stuff. Hell is for those who refuse to humbly accept God’s discipline for their sins, so it is punishment.

The problem is, most people defending PS say: “God does not Love everyone”.

Jesus was 100% innocent but when he took on our sins that sin was punished. Why do you think he said “My God, why hast thou forsaken me “?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I recently posted a survey with the question, “What items of faith do Christians regard as essential to salvation?”

What are the conditions for salvation?

Eighteen members participated in the thread. Not all participated in the survey. Agreement with several statements was as follows:

10 with Belief in Jesus’ resurrection.

8 with Belief in Jesus' crucifixion.

9 with Belief in the divinity of Christ.

6 with Belief in the Trinity.

6 with Belief in the virginal birth of Christ.

1 with Belief in Satisfaction or penal substitution atonement.


If these truths are not essential to salvation, why do we evangelize?

Why do you think a set of essential beliefs is important for evangelization? We evangelise because we want to tell people about the mercy of God that was made evident in the person of Jesus Christ. And people want to hear that message because they feel the need for somebody to help them with the problems of life and with their own uncertainty about what happens after they die. And people also want to know what happened to their loved ones who have died already. Is there a good reason to believe that there is a heaven, that there is a resurrection, that there is hope of seeing those who are departed once again? The gospel message gives an answer to those questions, an answer that satisfies many people. The brief form of the message is, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved. You and your whole household with you."

 

[enoob57]

Proverbs 23:7 (KJV)
[7] For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee.

 

[bling]

Jesus was 100% innocent but when he took on our sins that sin was punished. Why do you think he said “My God, why hast thou forsaken me “?

Context, context, context, context and context:

Who is Jesus addressing with: “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?”

Why did Jesus say these words?

You do realize if you interpret Matt. 27:46 to mean God forsook Christ while on the cross, you make the author of Psalm 22 out to be a liar?

How do you reconcile 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”, with the beginning of the Psalm 22: 1 “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?...” ?

Who is Jesus addressing and why waste His limited precious breath at this time?

Jesus seems to be talking to God before and after this, so if God forsook Christ, who is Christ talking to?

Does God leave us when we are wrongly being torture, humiliated and murdered or can we count on God being with us through anything and everything?

These and many more questions can be answered with an understanding of the style used in writing most of the individual lament of Psalms, how Jesus addresses questions, how the first century Jews knew and quoted Psalms, and who was really needing help at the cross.

1, How did Jesus address questions from satan or those wicked Jewish religious leaders:

Jesus always answered the questions (often not spoken) of the wicked Jewish religious leaders, include the one time he kept silent, since saying nothing to obvious false accusations everyone knew was false is the best answer.

The question the Jewish religious leaders just asked Christ while on the cross is not best answered with silence, but with Psalm 22.

Jesus is always trying to move the individual or group right near to Him up to their personal next spiritual level and He does not get real philosophical making broad statement for us directly, but is talking to the audience around Himself and we are just listening in.

Jesus will first use what the person already knows, so He is not always teaching something new, but reminding them of what they already know.

Jesus uses scripture heavily and/or their firsthand knowledge.

2. Who needs to be addressed/answered while Jesus is on the cross?

The question asked just before Jesus makes this statement is: Mark 15: 31 In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! 32 Let this Messiah, this king of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

Matt. 27: 41 In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. 42 “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! He’s the king of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”

The questions of the priests and teachers of the Law are spiteful and mocking, but like other questions by evil people, Jesus will address questions with what they already know from scripture. It will be to help them, but it often shuts them up, also and Psalm 22 would shut them up.

3. What literary style is being used in Psalms 22 that might explain an apparent contrast?

All Jews would be trained in the diatribe writing style, since many individual Psalms Laments are written this way. In Biblical diatribes the author will present an idea as almost a debate with an imaginary adversary, so the adversary’s support for the wrong answer goes first and we will have a list of support for the wrong answer to the question. Thus, it is all woes to begin with and the positive is closer to the end, like you have in Psalms 22. Paul uses the diatribe method heavily in Romans, which might help sell his ideas to the Roman Jewish Christians, who are being somewhat chastised in Romans.

4. Why use Hebrews and quoting the first sentence of Psalms 22?

Jesus has to use “Eli” or “Eloi” and say them twice to quote the first verse of Psalms 22. since it is not “Father” in that verse. Jesus would normally use “Father” if he was addressing God, so the change would be due to his quoting Psalms 22.

The Psalms were not numbered in the first century and most learned Jews had all the psalms memorized, so they would recognize the first verse to any Psalm. So, if Jesus wanted the Priests and teachers of the Law to remember what Psalm 22 said, all He had to do is quote the first verse.

Jesus using Hebrew would let the Priests and teachers know He was talking to them and would cause them to stop and listen as has happened before.

Bringing the words of Psalms 22 to mind, would stop their mocking and virtually prove He was the Messiah.

God is literally at the elbow of every sinner and he was with Christ all through this ordeal as support.

5. If Jesus is addressing the Jewish Spiritual leaders to shut them up, He would quote Psalms 22 in Hebrew for them, but normal Jewish boys would have learned Psalms 22 in Aramaic or Greek and not Hebrew, which is the way the Jewish thieves on the cross would have remembered it. The Jewish leaders probably would have shut their mouths and walked away after being reminded of what Psalms 22 said really about them being against God’s child and seeing and hearing the prophecy of Psalms 22 being played out in front of them, but what about those thieves being reminded of Psalms 22, who were seeing and hearing the exact same thing?

 

[BPPLEE]

Context, context, context, context and context:

Who is Jesus addressing with: “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?”

Why did Jesus say these words?

You do realize if you interpret Matt. 27:46 to mean God forsook Christ while on the cross, you make the author of Psalm 22 out to be a liar?

How do you reconcile 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”, with the beginning of the Psalm 22: 1 “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?...” ?

Who is Jesus addressing and why waste His limited precious breath at this time?

Jesus seems to be talking to God before and after this, so if God forsook Christ, who is Christ talking to?

Does God leave us when we are wrongly being torture, humiliated and murdered or can we count on God being with us through anything and everything?

These and many more questions can be answered with an understanding of the style used in writing most of the individual lament of Psalms, how Jesus addresses questions, how the first century Jews knew and quoted Psalms, and who was really needing help at the cross.

1, How did Jesus address questions from satan or those wicked Jewish religious leaders:

Jesus always answered the questions (often not spoken) of the wicked Jewish religious leaders, include the one time he kept silent, since saying nothing to obvious false accusations everyone knew was false is the best answer.

The question the Jewish religious leaders just asked Christ while on the cross is not best answered with silence, but with Psalm 22.

Jesus is always trying to move the individual or group right near to Him up to their personal next spiritual level and He does not get real philosophical making broad statement for us directly, but is talking to the audience around Himself and we are just listening in.

Jesus will first use what the person already knows, so He is not always teaching something new, but reminding them of what they already know.

Jesus uses scripture heavily and/or their firsthand knowledge.

2. Who needs to be addressed/answered while Jesus is on the cross?

The question asked just before Jesus makes this statement is: Mark 15: 31 In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! 32 Let this Messiah, this king of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

Matt. 27: 41 In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. 42 “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! He’s the king of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”

The questions of the priests and teachers of the Law are spiteful and mocking, but like other questions by evil people, Jesus will address questions with what they already know from scripture. It will be to help them, but it often shuts them up, also and Psalm 22 would shut them up.

3. What literary style is being used in Psalms 22 that might explain an apparent contrast?

All Jews would be trained in the diatribe writing style, since many individual Psalms Laments are written this way. In Biblical diatribes the author will present an idea as almost a debate with an imaginary adversary, so the adversary’s support for the wrong answer goes first and we will have a list of support for the wrong answer to the question. Thus, it is all woes to begin with and the positive is closer to the end, like you have in Psalms 22. Paul uses the diatribe method heavily in Romans, which might help sell his ideas to the Roman Jewish Christians, who are being somewhat chastised in Romans.

4. Why use Hebrews and quoting the first sentence of Psalms 22?

Jesus has to use “Eli” or “Eloi” and say them twice to quote the first verse of Psalms 22. since it is not “Father” in that verse. Jesus would normally use “Father” if he was addressing God, so the change would be due to his quoting Psalms 22.

The Psalms were not numbered in the first century and most learned Jews had all the psalms memorized, so they would recognize the first verse to any Psalm. So, if Jesus wanted the Priests and teachers of the Law to remember what Psalm 22 said, all He had to do is quote the first verse.

Jesus using Hebrew would let the Priests and teachers know He was talking to them and would cause them to stop and listen as has happened before.

Bringing the words of Psalms 22 to mind, would stop their mocking and virtually prove He was the Messiah.

God is literally at the elbow of every sinner and he was with Christ all through this ordeal as support.

5. If Jesus is addressing the Jewish Spiritual leaders to shut them up, He would quote Psalms 22 in Hebrew for them, but normal Jewish boys would have learned Psalms 22 in Aramaic or Greek and not Hebrew, which is the way the Jewish thieves on the cross would have remembered it. The Jewish leaders probably would have shut their mouths and walked away after being reminded of what Psalms 22 said really about them being against God’s child and seeing and hearing the prophecy of Psalms 22 being played out in front of them, but what about those thieves being reminded of Psalms 22, who were seeing and hearing the exact same thing?

Are you claiming Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross was not substitutionary?

 

[RandyPNW]

I did not say the Bible is the opposite of the believing Jesus, for it supports everything Jesus said and did. I am also not saying a person cannot read the Bible and make a commitment to Christ, with a good idea of what is in the Bible. If a person believes the Bible, the church, the doctrine and the theology, but is not willing to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified, then he is not saved yet, while believe/accepting Jesus Christ and Him Crucified brings salvation.

The best way I know is for the nonbeliever to see/experience Christ living in and through you. He should witness and experience the living Christ: listening to him, teaching him, Loving on him, spending time with him, and correcting him.

Yes, we need to get away from blaming: satan, Adam and Eve, sin, evil, God or anyone else for our sinful state and realize we are the sinner, criminal, evil kidnapper of God’s child.

The Greek word translated “redemption” is no small releasing of a person for a small crime, but very much equal to the release from a tragic situation to real freedom like you find in a kidnapping situation.

You are good to say: "kidnapped" or "enslaved" by our own sinful nature…, since we are to blame for holding the child back. Is it “words” which frees us or accepting God’s Love, seen in His forgiveness and the sacrifice of Christ.

If God forgave us 100%, then there is nothing left to pay.

It is never just/fair to punish the innocent, to allow the guilty to go free. Justice is described in scripture by God and this is not “just”.

Think about this:

There is a, one of a kind, Ming vase on your parent’s mantel that has been handed down by your great, great, grandmother. You, as a young person, get angry with your parents and smash the vase. You are later sorry about it and repent and your loving parent can easily forgive you. Since this was not your first rebellious action your father, in an act of Love, collects every little piece of the vase and you willingly work together with your father hours each night for a month painstakingly gluing the vase back together. The vase is returned to the mantel to be kept as a show piece, but according to Antique Road Show, it is worthless. Working with your father helped you develop a much stronger relationship, comfort in being around him and appreciation for his Love.

Was your father fair/just and would others see this as being fair discipline? Did this “punishment” help resolve the issue?

Was restitution made or was reconciliation made and would you feel comfortable/ justified standing by your father in the future?

Suppose after smashing the vase, repenting and forgiveness, your older brother says he will work with your father putting the vase together, so you can keep up with your social life. Would this scenario allow you to stand comfortable and justified by your father?

Suppose Jesus the magician waved his hands over the smashed vase and restored it perfectly to the previous condition, so there is really very little for you to be forgiven of or for you to do. Would this scenario allow you to stand comfortable and justified by your father?

What are the benefits of being lovingly disciplined?

Suppose it is not you that breaks the Ming vase but your neighbor breaks into your house because he does not like your family being so nice and smashes the Ming vase, but he is caught on a security camera. Your father goes to your neighbor with the box of pieces and offers to do the same thing with him as he offered to do with you, but the neighbor refuses. Your father explains: everything is caught on camera and he will be fined and go to jail, but the neighbor, although sorry about being caught, still refuses. The neighbor loses all he has and spends 10 years in jail. So was the neighbor fairly disciplined or fairly punished?

How does the neighbor’s punishment equal your discipline and how is it not equal?

Was the neighbor forgiven and if not why not?

Again, I'm a bit mystified by your example. I don't really have any issues with "unfairness" in the example. I can only give you my own example in response.

If I deliberately break an antique vase, my punishment will surely follow. And what is "fair" is determined by any mitigating factors, including my state of mind, extenuating external circumstances, and how repentant I really am. So in your example it is difficult to talk about "fairness."

So I will talk about the Law. Under the Law, if someone stole something from a neighbor he could be forgiven before God, but this required that the stolen property be returned or paid for, along with an extra amount to acknowledge the crime.

This is not actual "self-atonement," but I compare it with the Law of Sacrifice in which the priest offered sin sacrifices that were a sincere effort at presenting repentance before God on behalf of the people. These sacrifices could not fully "atone," but God accepted them as temporary payment until Christ could make full payment for Eternal Life and final payment, ie "paid in full.

I liked what you said in the early part of your post. Good stuff!

 

[food4thought]

Penal substitution and ransom theory are not either or, but both and in my opinion.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Penal substitution and ransom theory are not either or, but both and in my opinion.

Penal substitution and ransom are both atonement theories. Neither one of them has a very sound basis in scripture. Neither one of them is clearly taught by sacred tradition. They are theories that nobody has any obligation to accept.

 

[food4thought]

Penal substitution and ransom are both atonement theories. Neither one of them has a very sound basis in scripture. Neither one of them is clearly taught by sacred tradition. They are theories that nobody has any obligation to accept.

I've never read much on either, I just know that Penal Substitution says Christ paid the penalty for our sins so we can be forgiven, which the Scripture definitely teaches. Ransom theory I am even less well read on, but my understanding is that God paid a ransom to set us free from slavery to sin. We have been redeemed by the blood of Christ. Call me simplistic, but both of those things are scriptural.

 

[bling]

Are you claiming Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross was not substitutionary?

Yes.

 

[enoob57]

• Hebrews 9:28
  so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.
  
• Isaiah 53:6
  All we like sheep have gone astray;
  We have turned, every one, to his own way;
  And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
  
  
• 1 Peter 2:24
  who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed.

Ignoring plain Scripture is a bust sure and certain...

 

[food4thought]

Yes.

being justifiedG1344 as a giftG1432 by His graceG5485 throughG1223 the redemptionG629 which is in ChristG5547 JesusG2424, whomG3739 GodG2316 displayedG4388 publiclyG4388 as a propitiationG2435 in His bloodG129 throughG1223 faithG4102. This was to demonstrateG1731 His righteousnessG1343, becauseG1223 in God’sG2316 merciful restraintG463 He letG3929 the sinsG265 previouslyG4266 committedG4266 goG3929 unpunishedG3929;​

(Romans 3:24-25)​

and

and He HimselfG846 is the propitiationG2434 for our sinsG266; and not for oursG2251 onlyG3440, but alsoG2532 for the sins of the wholeG3650 worldG2889. (1 John 2:2)​

and Thayer's Greek

G2435​

ἱλαστήριον​

hilastērion​

Thayer Definition:​

1) relating to an appeasing or expiating, having placating or expiating force, expiatory; a means of appeasing or expiating, a propitiation​

1a) used of the cover of the ark of the covenant in the Holy of Holies, which was sprinkled with the blood of the expiatory victim on the annual day of atonement (this rite signifying that the life of the people, the loss of which they had merited by their sins, was offered to God in the blood as the life of the victim, and that God by this ceremony was appeased and their sins expiated); hence the lid of expiation, the propitiatory​

1b) an expiatory sacrifice​

1c) a expiatory victim​

and

G2434​

ἱλασμός​

hilasmos​

Thayer Definition:​

1) an appeasing, propitiating​

2) the means of appeasing, a propitiation​

and Webster's dictionary

Propitiation​

PROPITIATION, n. propisia'shon.​

1. The act of appeasing wrath and conciliating the favor of an offended person; the act of making propitious.​

2. In theology, the atonement or atoning sacrifice offered to God to assuage his wrath and render him propitious to sinners. Christ is the propitiation for the sins of men.​

Regardless of the specific wording of the substitutionary atonement theory, the idea of substitutionary atonement is clearly taught in the above verses.

 

[Andrewn]

"believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved. You and your whole household with you."

Who is the Lord Jesus Christ, and why does believing in him save you? The answer depends on your essential beliefs.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Who is the Lord Jesus Christ, and why does believing in him save you? The answer depends on your essential beliefs.

Surely you know who Jesus Christ is.

 

[Andrewn]

Surely you know who Jesus Christ is.

Of course, I know. I'm asking about your beliefs that you tell non-Christians. They will ask you and you will have to reveal your essential beliefs or adopt their religion.

 

[Andrewn]

steve ray islam - Google Search

 

[bling]

being justifiedG1344 as a giftG1432 by His graceG5485 throughG1223 the redemptionG629 which is in ChristG5547 JesusG2424, whomG3739 GodG2316 displayedG4388 publiclyG4388 as a propitiationG2435 in His bloodG129 throughG1223 faithG4102. This was to demonstrateG1731 His righteousnessG1343, becauseG1223 in God’sG2316 merciful restraintG463 He letG3929 the sinsG265 previouslyG4266 committedG4266 goG3929 unpunishedG3929;​

(Romans 3:24-25)​

and

and He HimselfG846 is the propitiationG2434 for our sinsG266; and not for oursG2251 onlyG3440, but alsoG2532 for the sins of the wholeG3650 worldG2889. (1 John 2:2)​

and Thayer's Greek

G2435​

ἱλαστήριον​

hilastērion​

Thayer Definition:​

1) relating to an appeasing or expiating, having placating or expiating force, expiatory; a means of appeasing or expiating, a propitiation​

1a) used of the cover of the ark of the covenant in the Holy of Holies, which was sprinkled with the blood of the expiatory victim on the annual day of atonement (this rite signifying that the life of the people, the loss of which they had merited by their sins, was offered to God in the blood as the life of the victim, and that God by this ceremony was appeased and their sins expiated); hence the lid of expiation, the propitiatory​

1b) an expiatory sacrifice​

1c) a expiatory victim​

and

G2434​

ἱλασμός​

hilasmos​

Thayer Definition:​

1) an appeasing, propitiating​

2) the means of appeasing, a propitiation​

and Webster's dictionary

Propitiation​

PROPITIATION, n. propisia'shon.​

1. The act of appeasing wrath and conciliating the favor of an offended person; the act of making propitious.​

2. In theology, the atonement or atoning sacrifice offered to God to assuage his wrath and render him propitious to sinners. Christ is the propitiation for the sins of men.​

Regardless of the specific wording of the substitutionary atonement theory, the idea of substitutionary atonement is clearly taught in the above verses.

Romans 3:25 New International Version (NIV) 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.

I use the NIV though I do not like any translation, NIV does what I consider to be the best translation of the Greek word πάρεσις (paresis) which is translate “past over” by most translators, yet the NIV translates it “left the sins committed beforehand unpunished”. The Greek word Πάρεσις is only found here in the Greek New Testament and not used at all in the Greek Old Testament, so it is difficult to translate, but really not that hard, since secular koine Greek manuscripts can be found using πάρεσις. It is used to describe when a lender, on rare occasions, does not put a debtor in prison to try and get some of his money back from friends and relatives of the debtor, before releasing him. So, in the context of Ro. 3:25 the forgiven sinners prior to the cross were not disciplined/punished for their sins but were just forgiven and let go. Since Paul is making his argument showing a huge contrast between Jews before and after the cross, those after the cross would have to go through some “punishment” or better expressed as some disciplining to be a contrast.

There are lots of excellent benefits from being disciplined, but prior to Christ’s crucifixion, there was no way to fairly/justly discipline a rebellious disobedient repentant child seeking forgiveness and allow the child to live. The disciplines were just too hard, being banishment or physical death. By Christ going to the cross we can now be “crucified with Christ”, empathetically. How severe of a disciplining is this for Christians and how would it compare to the pain and sorrow God went through while Christ was crucified?

Notice there is no language suggesting the sins are put on hold, rolled forward or dealt with later, but are “passed over”/left unpunished.

Lets look at the rest of the passage:

From Romans 3: 25 Paul tells us: God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. …

Another way of saying this would be “God offers the ransom payment (Christ Crucified and the blood that flowed from Him) to those that have the faith to receive/accept that ransom. A lack of faith results in the refusal of the ransom payment (Christ crucified).
So prior to the cross repentant forgiven people (saved individuals) could not be fairly and justly disciplined for their rebellious disobedience, but after the cross if we repent (come to our senses and turn to God) we can be fairly and justly disciplined and yet survive.

If you think about the crucifixion, you would realize, at the time Christ was on the cross, God in heaven out of empathy/Love for Christ would be experience an even greater pain than Christ. We as our Love grows and our realization of what we personally caused Christ to go through will feel a death blow to our hearts (Acts 2:37). We will experience the greatest pain we could experience and still live, which is the way God is disciplining us today and for all the right reasons because Loving discipline correctly accepted results in a wondrous relationship with our parent. (We can now comfortably feel justified before God.)

God and Christ would have personally preferred Christ’s blood to remain flowing through his veins, but it is I, who needs that blood outside of Christ to flowing over me and in me cleansing my heart. I need to feel that blood and know it is cleansing me.

 

[fhansen]

I recently posted a survey with the question, “What items of faith do Christians regard as essential to salvation?”

What are the conditions for salvation?

Eighteen members participated in the thread. Not all participated in the survey. Agreement with several statements was as follows:

10 with Belief in Jesus’ resurrection.

8 with Belief in Jesus' crucifixion.

9 with Belief in the divinity of Christ.

6 with Belief in the Trinity.

6 with Belief in the virginal birth of Christ.

1 with Belief in Satisfaction or penal substitution atonement.


If these truths are not essential to salvation, why do we evangelize?

We evangelize because we know the love and goodness of God-and that this love is foundational to this universe. If life may seem meaningless and mundane and temporary and often filled with sin, evil, falsehoods, hopelessness, and chaos, that's not how the world was created, and that's not the nature of the Creator who covets nothing less than our fellowship with Him and the eternal, uncompromised, ineffable happiness for us that results. That knowledge already makes this world a better place-and the next life with Him incomparably superior and worth striving for.