How can God save us if He does not Substitute Christ for us?

[Adventtruth]

Change does not come from Jesus substitution of Himself for me, it comes from the person's change in attitude toward God and allowing God to influence their lives. There is nothing in the atonement meant to affect God, it is all directed by God at man for the reason of reconciliation with God. Satisfaction and substitutionary theory have directed the atonement at God, completely opposite of reality as God has always been the one reaching out to man.

Now we are getting some place. You have finally tiped your hand RC without your long articles.

...it comes from the person's change in attitude toward God and allowing God to influence their lives.

Weather you believe it or not, this is a form of the "moral influence theory" of atonement. You have a moral change in ones attitude towards God and the love of God influencing their lives.

There is nothing wrong with this as long as you put it in its proper order, and don't denie the other truths as you have done.

You have already called the substitution doctrine "legal fiction" showing your rejection. Sin is guilt as well as pollution. You see sin as merely pollution, therfore you see a moral condition without the legal guilt. This is a matter of justification and sanctification of the believer in that order not a matter of only sanctifcation as your idea of change and influence would suggest.

This is what your understanding rejects.:

1) The reality and truthfulness of a divine holy law, its charge and sentence against sinners, and the wrath of God incurred because of sin.

2) It fails to appreciate that the reconciliation in Christ's act of atonement was something which took place for us and in our interest while we were still God's enemies (Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:20-22).

3) It also reduces the love of God to mere exhibitionism.

There is nothing in the atonement meant to affect God, it is all directed by God at man for the reason of reconciliation with God. Satisfaction and substitutionary theory have directed the atonement at God, completely opposite of reality as God has always been the one reaching out to man.

I can't support that idea, nor does the bible, nor did Luther, that the atonement was directed at God seeing God does not change and never changed...it was sinful man that needed to change, God reconciled us to Himself, not Himself to us. The table is set...all we have to do is come and eat...God set the table.

Blessings


Adventtruth






:

 

[Adventtruth]

Originally Posted by RC_NewProtestants
So we see that God sent Jesus in human form to save the world. How is that accomplished? Through belief. Again not substitution.

It is only a moral belief system that one supposes saves when one denies the truth of forensic justification.

Adventtruth

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Woob wrote:

OK, but how then could we believe that God is "righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus", and thus be saved without Jesus having died in our place to give meaning and purpose to such belief, as it were?

Because the idea that Jesus died in our place is not necessary if you can accept the New Testament's testimony then God can and will freely forgive and wants us to be reconciled with Him. All the substitutionary theory does is say that God has to punish someone so that He can forgive someone else. You don't need to have belief in Substitutionary theory to have faith in Christ. You can witness the first 1500 years of the Christian church to see that. That is why you have to pay attention to history. Because it shows that the Substitutionary suppositions such as you have stated are not necessary in the first place. They may be necessary if you can only hold to the Substitutionary theory but that just places that theory as the assumed correct theory, a form of circular reasoning.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Advent wrote;

Now we are getting some place. You have finally tiped your hand RC without your long articles.

Yes, to say "Just as I can fit them into the moral influence theory" is probably tipping my hand, it does seem straight forward to me however. Now why do I not try to place the Moral Influence theory against the Substitutionary theory? The reason is that every other theory also holds to the Moral Influence theory. It is universally accepted. The other theories however want to add on more, Ransom wants to make it a payment to the Devil. Recapitualation wants to add that mystically we have to go through everything again in Jesus. Satisfaction says that we can't pay the debt owned to an eternal God so Jesus did it. Which of course leads to the penal theory which is another term for what you called "forensic justification" Which simplified of the fancy terminology is legally make right. And this of course is done by practices which no one on earth would think of as legal. Punishing the innocent, and then substitution of the good person for the sinful person and not just one sinful person billions of them. And why do all this? Because God has set up some supposed law that He must conform to. Something by the way you never find anywhere in the Bible.

So now you see why I did not deal with your verses earlier but only the one. They don’t show anything about substitution. True if that substitution is your presupposition then you can fit them into your theory. Just as I can fit them into the moral influence theory or as many early Christians could fit them into the Ransom theory. What you have to do is find the foundational texts which created your theory. But you did not want to do that and you don’t want to read an article which goes through the various presuppositions which create the substitutional theory.

This is what your understanding rejects.:

1) The reality and truthfulness of a divine holy law, its charge and sentence against sinners, and the wrath of God incurred because of sin.

2) It fails to appreciate that the reconciliation in Christ's act of atonement was something which took place for us and in our interest while we were still God's enemies (Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:20-22).

3) It also reduces the love of God to mere exhibitionism.

1. Does holy law allow for forgiveness? Can one be forgiven without punishment? Clearly we have examples and stories by Jesus Christ which says that forgiveness is the right thing to do and it can be done without punishment incurred. So you have mistaken God's holy law.

2. is completely wrong because Jesus came and lived died and rose again while we were still sinners. Clearly the people that killed Jesus were not his friends yet he from the cross freely forgave them. That is the evidence of the nature and rightness of God's willingness to love and accept those who would see God for the God of love that He is.

3. And this is life eternal that they know the only true God. Knowing who God is is the central step in having a relationship with God. As a famous Adventist has said of Christ, "God made manifest". What your problem here is that you want to add to the Bible something else, you want to add (not just you, those holding the sub theory) a punishment of God upon Christ so you don't like the actually manifestation of the incarnation. That is not enough

 

[woobadooba]

Woob wrote:


Because the idea that Jesus died in our place is not necessary if you can accept the New Testament's testimony then God can and will freely forgive and wants us to be reconciled with Him. All the substitutionary theory does is say that God has to punish someone so that He can forgive someone else. You don't need to have belief in Substitutionary theory to have faith in Christ. You can witness the first 1500 years of the Christian church to see that. That is why you have to pay attention to history. Because it shows that the Substitutionary suppositions such as you have stated are not necessary in the first place. They may be necessary if you can only hold to the Substitutionary theory but that just places that theory as the assumed correct theory, a form of circular reasoning.

You missed my point...

Faith in Christ would be meaningless had He not died for us. Thus the substitutionary concept of the atonement is vital for the purposefulness of our faith in Christ. Had Christ not died for our sins you wouldn't know what Christ to believe in, since many are claiming to be Christ. It's the substitutionary concept of the atonement that separates Jesus Christ from all of the other so-called christs in the world. Moreover, "the wages of sin is death". Not just physical death, but eternal separation from God via the second death. Jesus paid that price for humankind; but only those who receive Him will benefit from the gift. Where there is a promise, a condition is always linked to it. The condition for this promise is that we accept what Jesus has done for us. John 3:16 makes this very clear.

Furthermore, there is something else about what you had said that I find to be disturbing...

You had said,

All the substitutionary theory does is say that God has to punish someone so that He can forgive someone else.

This is false. The substitutionary theory doesn't merely disclose punishment; rather, it also speaks of the highest order of love. "No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends."(Joh 15:13 NRSV)

"But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us." (Rom 5:8 NRSV)

In fact, this explains why Paul had said, "Whom God hath set 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;To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." (Rom 3:25-26 KJV)

So why then did Jesus die for sinners? He died for sinners because "God is love" (1Jn. 4:8).

Unless a sinner comes to see Jesus' death for him/her from the perspective of God's love, he/she will never really come to understand the gospel well enough to live by genuine faith in Jesus Christ...

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

You missed my point...

Faith in Christ would be meaningless had He not died for us. Thus the substitutionary concept of the atonement is vital for the purposefulness of our faith in Christ.

No once again I did not miss your point. Your point is based upon the assumption that the death of Christ was meant to pay a penalty and be a substitute. If that were the case then Paul would not have said we would be the most miserable of people if Christ had not been raised. The death obviously showed the love of God in coming to earth and showing the character of God even when tortured and killed by his own creation. But the death does not save us, it is used as a symbol for the entirety of Christ, which is the life before, the death and the resurrection and the continual life that is God, all made available through God's gift. Thus blood which is the symbol of life becomes even more important because it is the symbol of life and the symbol of the death which proves the love and the power of God. God conqures even death. None of this needs substitution or penalty. So the quotes you use all work better within the moral influence theory then the substitutionary theory. In fact if you use the verse you quoted:
"No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends."(Joh 15:13 NRSV)
If you use the substitution theory then Jesus lays down His life because God wants to kill man. The moral influence theory sees the sacrifice of laying your life down as a way of showing the love and power and the promise of God's willingness and ability to save mankind from a course that was away from God and away from life and which has only the consequence of death.

Of course this is all found in the article I linked to with the addition of numerous scriptural references, at least for those with attention spans capable of understanding.

 

[woobadooba]

]If you use the substitution theory then Jesus lays down His life because God wants to kill man.[/size]

I honestly don't see how you could even arrive at such a conclusion.

When God said "surely you will die" to Adam, He said this because "the wages of sin is death". When Jesus died for man he paid man's debt to sin, not his debt to a vindictive God.

Truth is, substitution speaks of infinite love, not a will that seeks to kill. Your conclusion that substitution speaks of a God that wants to kill makes no sense at all.

 

[Adventtruth]

You can witness the first 1500 years of the Christian church to see that. That is why you have to pay attention to history. Because it shows that the Substitutionary suppositions such as you have stated are not necessary in the first place.

God never rejects anyone based upon wrong theology if faith is placed in Christ as savior. Many did reject the Pauline doctrine of the eatonement, do to a fact many did not understand it.

Adventtruth

 

[Adventtruth]

1. Does holy law allow for forgiveness? Can one be forgiven without punishment? Clearly we have examples and stories by Jesus Christ which says that forgiveness is the right thing to do and it can be done without punishment incurred. So you have mistaken God's holy law.

The Law forgives no one it can only show you your sin. The law said that all where guilty before God...none are righteous and that no one could be justified by law. Forgiveness is based upon the one who was manifiested with out the guilt of the law because He died for you and I R.C. becasue in Gods eyes the law pointed to you and I as law breakers. This is the witness of Rom 3. You my friend have not understood Gods law.

All the stories of Jesus forgiving in the NT falls up under the forbearance of God:

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set 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;

2. is completely wrong because Jesus came and lived died and rose again while we were still sinners. Clearly the people that killed Jesus were not his friends yet he from the cross freely forgave them. That is the evidence of the nature and rightness of God's willingness to love and accept those who would see God for the God of love that He is.

Yes He did die while we where all sinners. You where not His friend either until you decided to trust Him for your sins. The evidence shows that you have rejected Him as your substitute while understanding the concept of substitution. You are in danger my friend...this is legalism at its best. Reject the one who satisfied the claims of the law on your behalf as being guilty before God, then what do you have??? Just the love of God who sanctifies you with out justifing you??? AS Paul would say...NO!!! May it never be!!!!

Sanctification rest upon the bases of Justification...Without it my friend you have legalism becasue it is you own Good Works through a infused righteousness that stands before a holy law that can never reconcile you before God. You're left necked to fend for your self and found wanting....Pure legalism.

3. And this is life eternal that they know the only true God. Knowing who God is is the central step in having a relationship with God. As a famous Adventist has said of Christ, "God made manifest". What your problem here is that you want to add to the Bible something else, you want to add (not just you, those holding the sub theory) a punishment of God upon Christ so you don't like the actually manifestation of the incarnation. That is not enough

I'm reminded that years ago we had a discussion on one of the old Adventist official forums that is now closed. It seems that I remember your name upon those boards. I remember Bill Diehl as being part of that conversation aswell among others. Bill and others aswell as my self where against those who pushed this idea. I do remember the Adventist theologian "Graham Maxwell' and his false theology came up because at that time he was a fore runner teaching these things.

I have to go now...we will talk later.

Adventtruth

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Woob wrote:

When God said "surely you will die" to Adam, He said this because "the wages of sin is death". When Jesus died for man he paid man's debt to sin, not his debt to a vindictive God.

This is why it is so important for people to actually think about what their doctrine says. Here Woob tells us that Jesus paid man's debt to sin! What does he mean by that? Does sin demand that someone has to die, is sin more powerful then the creator of everything? What is sin that it can demand anything or be offered anything? Sin is not some power out there in the universe. It is the attitude of rebellion, it does not even exist without the use of an intelligent beings will.

The only way your statement can make any sense is if you did believe in the moral influence of Christ's life death and resurrection was directed at sinners to bring them back to God.

The wages of sin is death because that is the natural result from seperating from the source of life which is God. Clearly that is the meaning of the story in Genesis. "In that day" is idiomatic for "when", so God was talking about the natural results of rebellion and mistrust of God. They did not die on that day nor did God ever threaten them with the concept of obey or I will kill you, even though that is the general understanding of the penal/substitutionary atonement theory. ( although you have departed from the Penal theory when you say Jesus paid a penalty to sin, as the penal theory is that Jesus paid the penalty to God's law and thus to God.)

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Advent wrote:

The Law forgives no one it can only show you your sin. The law said that all where guilty before God...none are righteous and that no one could be justified by law. Forgiveness is based upon the one who was manifiested with out the guilt of the law because He died for you and I R.C. becasue in Gods eyes the law pointed to you and I as law breakers.

So your position is that in the entire spectrum of God's prinicples forgiveness was never allowed? That is really absurd, in fact it is absurd even if one limited themselves to the Old Testament. Which actually says quite a bit about forgiveness. And not all just pretty words from the Psalms. Laws are given to set standards for conduct. Forgiveness is clearly included in those standards. Every heard of the Old testament instruction to love your neighbor, can you actually love without freely forgiving? A set of standards can never save anyone that is true. Those are just words and life is far more then words.

All the stories of Jesus forgiving in the NT falls up under the forbearance of God:

Yes it is forbearance, it is mercy, it is love, that is what forgiveness is about.

The evidence shows that you have rejected Him as your substitute while understanding the concept of substitution. You are in danger my friend...this is legalism at its best. Reject the one who satisfied the claims of the law on your behalf as being guilty before God, then what do you have??? Just the love of God who sanctifies you with out justifing you??? AS Paul would say...NO!!! May it never be!!!!

Oh please. That is just circular reasoning, accept my version of atonement or you will be lost. Do you even know the words you are using? Sanctify means to be set apart for God, Justify means to be right. Can you be one without the other?

Am I guilty before God? Definately! Can God freely forgive and heal me? Definately! Do I have to hide before God and ask Him don't look at me look at Jesus my Substitute? Of course not. God sees all there is there is no hiding from God, and who is Jesus? He is God. Why the need to play all these games?

Many did reject the Pauline doctrine of the eatonement, do to a fact many did not understand it.

Paul uses various methods of explaining the atonement most have nothing to do with substitution though people often act as if he were the author of the substitution/penal idea. It is simply not true.

 

[woobadooba]

Woob wrote:
This is why it is so important for people to actually think about what their doctrine says. Here Woob tells us that Jesus paid man's debt to sin! What does he mean by that? Does sin demand that someone has to die, is sin more powerful then the creator of everything? What is sin that it can demand anything or be offered anything? Sin is not some power out there in the universe. It is the attitude of rebellion, it does not even exist without the use of an intelligent beings will.

The only way your statement can make any sense is if you did believe in the moral influence of Christ's life death and resurrection was directed at sinners to bring them back to God.

The wages of sin is death because that is the natural result from seperating from the source of life which is God. Clearly that is the meaning of the story in Genesis. "In that day" is idiomatic for "when", so God was talking about the natural results of rebellion and mistrust of God. They did not die on that day nor did God ever threaten them with the concept of obey or I will kill you, even though that is the general understanding of the penal/substitutionary atonement theory. ( although you have departed from the Penal theory when you say Jesus paid a penalty to sin, as the penal theory is that Jesus paid the penalty to God's law and thus to God.)

You misunderstood my point (once again--though you won't admit to this).

When the Bible says "the wages of sin is death" it means just that. Death results as a consequence of sin, because sin separates the one who yields to it from the source of life--God. Therefore, to say that man is indebted to sin as a result of sinning is to say that that man must pay the penalty for his sin in death. For, sin represents death, not the sustenance of life, but rather the death of virtue or intrinsic goodness.

Hence, one doesn't have to give life to sin in order to support the idea that a man could be indebted to it. For, sin is a concept, not a thing. Yet, one could still be indebted to a concept, as it were. For example, I could foster the idea that it is a virtue to freely devote oneself to the service of another who has paid his debt. That doesn't mean the concept then becomes a thing; rather, it just simply continues to be what it is--a concept which I adhere to by virtue of its own merit.

In the case with sin, the concept is that the wages of it is death. Thus those who yield to it become indebted to its nature in that the effect of it (death) must take its toll on the life of the one who is subjected to its course. In fact, Paul even referred to it as a 'master' (Rom. 6:7). Does that then mean sin must become a person or thing to the one who obeys it? No. It remains a concept to which one has become enslaved by adhering to its nature (death) via the rebellion against that which is good (Eternal Life). So in essence I am basically saying the same thing that Paul had said about sin, but in different words.

So don't try to use my words as a scapegoat to avoid addressing the issue here. You can accuse me of having not put much thought into what I had said, but the truth here is that you have to demonstrate that the concept of substitution discloses the idea that God wants to kill the sinner. That's the issue. And you haven't done that, nor will you be able to for the simple fact that such a conclusion is not logically sound.

 

[Adventtruth]

So your position is that in the entire spectrum of God's prinicples forgiveness was never allowed?

Hi R.C.

I did not say that. Infact this is what I said:

"The Law forgives no one it can only show you your sin. The law said that all where guilty before God...none are righteous and that no one could be justified by law. Forgiveness is based upon the one who was manifiested with out the guilt of the law because He died for you and I R.C. becasue in Gods eyes the law pointed to you and I as law breakers."

It was you who infered that statement not I. Now where in the bible does it say the law forgives.


R.C. wrote

That is really absurd, in fact it is absurd even if one limited themselves to the Old Testament. Which actually says quite a bit about forgiveness. And not all just pretty words from the Psalms. Laws are given to set standards for conduct. Forgiveness is clearly included in those standards. Every heard of the Old testament instruction to love your neighbor, can you actually love without freely forgiving? A set of standards can never save anyone that is true. Those are just words and life is far more then words.

The above are wasted words about nothing.

Oh please. That is just circular reasoning, accept my version of atonement or you will be lost. Do you even know the words you are using? Sanctify means to be set apart for God, Justify means to be right. Can you be one without the other?

Am I guilty before God? Definately! Can God freely forgive and heal me? Definately! Do I have to hide before God and ask Him don't look at me look at Jesus my Substitute? Of course not. God sees all there is there is no hiding from God, and who is Jesus? He is God. Why the need to play all these games?

Why do you reject the plan teachings of scripture R.C.???
Its more than "circular reasoning" its bible truth!!!

Rom 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

What is sin???


1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the


Can the law forgive???

la
Rom 3:20 ... for by the law is the knowledge of sin.


Did Jesus died becasue of a broken law?? Yes


Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions (sins) that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. w


God only forgives on the basis of what Jesus did in the SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT for mankind

Paul uses various methods of explaining the atonement most have nothing to do with substitution though people often act as if he were the author of the substitution/penal idea. It is simply not true.

You seem to want forgivness and sanctification apart from Justifiction R.C. Aint gonna happen!!!

Look I do not reject the moral influence of the atonement...the bible does tell us this is true.

2Co 5:14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
2Co 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.


It just that it (sanctification) falls upon the foundation of Justification.

Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Col 1:21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled

Col 1:22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:


This was therefore something that took place objective to us and was not a subjective process R.C.

You continue to reduce the love of God to a mere exhibition.


Adventtruth

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Woob wrote:

When the Bible says "the wages of sin is death" it means just that. Death results as a consequence of sin, because sin separates the one who yields to it from the source of life--God. Therefore, to say that man is indebted to sin as a result of sinning is to say that that man must pay the penalty for his sin in death. For, sin represents death, not the sustenance of life, but rather the death of virtue or intrinsic goodness.

You would have a point if the verse only said the wages of sin is death, but it has a huge exception, the gift of life. The rest about being indebted to sin does not make sense. Sin can only result in death it is the gift of God that brings life. As the story of Jesus points out sin and death have no hold on God. That is itself a anthropomorphic statement. What it in effect means is that God has the power over the natural laws that we all experience. It is His gift.

 

[woobadooba]

Woob wrote:



You would have a point if the verse only said the wages of sin is death, but it has a huge exception, the gift of life. The rest about being indebted to sin does not make sense. Sin can only result in death it is the gift of God that brings life. As the story of Jesus points out sin and death have no hold on God. That is itself a anthropomorphic statement. What it in effect means is that God has the power over the natural laws that we all experience. It is His gift.

Had Jesus not given His life in exchange for ours (as a gift), sin would not have lost its hold on the sinner, and all humankind would perish as a consequence of the power thereof. Hence remaining indebted to sin. Thus my point stands.

Now then, when are you going to prove that substitution denotes the idea that God wants to kill the sinner?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Advent wrote:

Can the law forgive???

We went over this the law does nothing. It is how people use the standards of the law that relates to action. Now I have no idea how you are defining the law, you seem to think that forgiveness is not found in the Torah or the old testament but of course it is. God Himself is the author of the laws so we can feel confident that the standards of a law are related to the standards which make up His own standards or His own character. Thus we see God as one who forgives as we see many times in the Old Testament like:
[SIZE=+1] Numbers 14:19 [/SIZE] [SIZE=+1] "Pardon the iniquity of this people, I pray, according to the greatness of Your mercy, just as You have [SIZE=+1]forgive[/SIZE]n this people, from Egypt even until now."[/SIZE]Now there are loads of examples of forgiveness as it reflects the activity of people. There is not one example of the law, any law doing anything. It is only words. So you have taken a simple statement which was factual and taken it on an absurd journey for no reason other then you have a confused view about what the law can and cannot do. Laws, again any laws are worthless unless there is some force behind the law, some authority that created the law some value placed upon the law by people. So my point still stands. From page 3:

1. Does holy law allow for forgiveness? Can one be forgiven without punishment? Clearly we have examples and stories by Jesus Christ which says that forgiveness is the right thing to do and it can be done without punishment incurred. So you have mistaken God's holy law.

Now it seems there is no doubt that you have mistaken God's holy law.
Advent wrote:

You seem to want forgivness and sanctification apart from Justifiction R.C. Aint gonna happen!!!

Again you have brought your traditions into the discussion without even hearing what I said. Sanctification and Justification are not separate ever. They are intrinsically connected. I thought I was pretty clear on that when I said:
"Sanctify means to be set apart for God, Justify means to be right. Can you be one without the other? "

I guess I wasn't clear the answer is no. You cannot be right and against God and you can't be set apart for God and be wrong. Because that is what all this is about have a right relationship with God. That is sanctification and justification. It is right because that reconciliation is what God wants for you and that reconciliation has set you apart for God no longer His enemies but his friends.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Woob wrote:

Had Jesus not given His life in exchange for ours (as a gift), sin would not have lost its hold on the sinner, and all humankind would perish as a consequence of the power thereof. Hence remaining indebted to sin. Thus my point stands.

But the texts says nothing about a substitution. You have to at least try and read the texts without the insertion of the presupposition of your atonment theory. Ask yourself can God give a gift to someone without substitution. You say He exchanged His life for ours...who did He exchange with? Sin is a concept you can't exchange anything with a concept. The law is a concept but it is placed by and authorized by a personal being. So either the exhange was with God or there was no exchange. He could not be exchanging with us because as you have said we were in bondage already.

The reason the penal theory says God wants to kill us is because of their confusion over the law. They think the law of God requires punishment before forgiveness can be given. So it is either God kills all of mankind or He kills Jesus and substitutes Jesus for all mankind or at least those who will accept Jesus. You have used the same logic. with the wages of sin comments. You say you sin then you have to die, the way you get to the gift is by saying that the gift has to come through Jesus having to die in our place.

The Bibles answer if allowed to speak for itself is that God is above all and can do what He wants and give a gift to whom He wants. He wants to give it to everyone, but only those who trust Him will end up accepting the gift.

There is a reason I put the following quote in my article listed earlier is that it is true of modern Christianity, I am not making it up:

"In many of the popular sermons and hymns of the last two centuries Christ is set forth as mediator between an angry God and the condemned sinner, pleading with God for mercy, at the same time receiving the divine wrath into his own bosom and thus averting from the sinner the consequences of his sin." (The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, vol. 7 page 270)

 

[woobadooba]

Woob wrote:
But the texts says nothing about a substitution. You have to at least try and read the texts without the insertion of the presupposition of your atonment theory. Ask yourself can God give a gift to someone without substitution. You say He exchanged His life for ours...who did He exchange with? Sin is a concept you can't exchange anything with a concept. The law is a concept but it is placed by and authorized by a personal being. So either the exhange was with God or there was no exchange. He could not be exchanging with us because as you have said we were in bondage already.

The reason the penal theory says God wants to kill us is because of their confusion over the law. They think the law of God requires punishment before forgiveness can be given. So it is either God kills all of mankind or He kills Jesus and substitutes Jesus for all mankind or at least those who will accept Jesus. You have used the same logic. with the wages of sin comments. You say you sin then you have to die, the way you get to the gift is by saying that the gift has to come through Jesus having to die in our place.

The Bibles answer if allowed to speak for itself is that God is above all and can do what He wants and give a gift to whom He wants. He wants to give it to everyone, but only those who trust Him will end up accepting the gift.

There is a reason I put the following quote in my article listed earlier is that it is true of modern Christianity, I am not making it up:

"In many of the popular sermons and hymns of the last two centuries Christ is set forth as mediator between an angry God and the condemned sinner, pleading with God for mercy, at the same time receiving the divine wrath into his own bosom and thus averting from the sinner the consequences of his sin." (The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, vol. 7 page 270)

But the gift that was given is God Himself. Hence Eternal Life.

Your theory reduces what Christ did to a mere exhibit; but the substitutionary theory speaks of infinite Love.

"While we were yet sinners Christ died for us".

Within this context the act of dying 'for' denotes the idea of dying 'in the place of'. You won't find the words substitution or substitutionary theory within the Bible as such. Yet, you won't find many terms spelled out in black and white in the Bible that are applied to certain truths, even those that you espouse. Does the absence of such terms then mean that the concepts that they represent are equally absent? No. For example, you won't find the word "trinity" in the Bible; yet, the Bible makes it very clear that God is triune. So though it is true that you won't find the word 'substitution' within the Bible as such, if you take a closer look at the text you will find that the concept of substitution is present. Of course, you could always disagree with this on the same grounds of your argument. However, if you choose to do this, then you must also apply the absence rule to your own theory, which would mean you would have to disagree with your own view, since the Bible does not say anything in black and white about a moral influence theory.

By the way, your explanation for the idea that substitution denotes the idea that God wanted man to die does not suffice. It makes no sense because God Himself is the one who gave His life for man. You see, what makes this concept so profound is that it speaks not only of a God of infinite love, but of One who can't lie. The idea that the wages of sin is death goes all the way back to what God had said to Adam in the garden. Had it not been for Christ dying in the place of man, mankind surely would have died as a result of sin. Had God not died in man's place, but allowed mankind to sin with impunity, He would have had to go back on His word by allowing this to take place. So if we take your theory to its final conclusion in light of this, it makes God out to be a liar--One who does not keep His word. I marvel that you can't see this!

The substitutionary theory does not foster such a conclusion, however. For, not only does it speak of love, but it also discloses the truth.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Woob wrote:

While we were yet sinners Christ died for us".

Yes Christ died for us not in place of us. All the theories acknowledge Christ died for us. They are all about explaining how His death was for us. There is absolutely nothing "mere" about the revelation of God in human form. It is as infinite in love as anything else. What the Sub theory does is set Jesus as the one with infinite love and God the Father as the stern disciplinarian who has to be bought off. If God is one you can't have that.

Within this context the act of dying 'for' denotes the idea of dying 'in the place of'

No it does not it carries the connotation of dying for the benefit of. Clearly if that verse was understood as substitutionary then that would have been the main theory from the early days of the Christian church. It is not, and it does not carry that meaning either in Greek or in English translations.

Yet, you won't find many terms spelled out in black and white in the Bible that are applied to certain truths, even those that you espouse.

Wrong. The moral influence view is held by every Christian, they just want to add more to it. so it is a view clearly present and it is the view that was first expressed by those trying to explain the meaning of Christ's death.

Moral influence theory, penal substitution theory, Ransom theory are all commonly understood Theological terms. They are headings used for discussion of topics. No one claims that the words have to be found in the Bible. The same goes for Trinity or modalism they are concept terms which label ideas.

By the way, your explanation for the idea that substitution denotes the idea that God wanted man to die does not suffice.

Of course it does not suffice that is why it is a problem. It would not be called the penal theory if the idea of punishment as paying a penalty was not present in the theory. It makes no sense for God to pay the penalty to Himself, again a problem with the Sub theory.

The idea that the wages of sin is death goes all the way back to what God had said to Adam in the garden. Had it not been for Christ dying in the place of man, mankind surely would have died as a result of sin.

What are you talking about man has been dying ever since Adam. So the result was very accurate, and would have remained accurate if God did not offer the gift of life. But such things would never be revealed in the creation story. It is only meant to tell of the fall into sin not at all about the way out of the condition that we all found around us.

So if we take your theory to its final conclusion in light of this, it makes God out to be a liar--One who does not keep His word. I marvel that you can't see this!

How? I don't see that at all, it makes no sense either. From your reasoning it would seem that you would call God a liar because He in the creation story mentions nothing about life after death, or a way of escape from death. You are really stretching here.

The substitutionary theory does not foster such a conclusion, however. For, not only does it speak of love, but it also discloses the truth.

So to you the truth is that God cannot freely forgive but must inflict a punishment (penalty) upon himself in order to forgive people. That is strange truth.

 

[Adventtruth]

RC...your integrity seem to be lacking.

We went over this the law does nothing.

You are not an honest reader RC. I said the law can only point out sin. (Rom 3:20) It can not forgive. The bible bears out that God only really passed over the sins of those who sinned under the Old Covanant until the New Covanant (Rom 3:25, Heb 10:4) I never said that forgiveness is not found in the Old Testament. This is something you infered. You fail to see Christ as the foundation of Gods righteousness. Gods grace of forgivness is based upon what Jesus did on our behalf. (Rom 5:21)

You have a reconciliation with out Jesus dieing in your place RC. This is an faulty view of atonement. You want justification before God without Jesus paying the price for you. How are you then justified R.C. if you have only a moral change? Are you then justified because God said so without Jesus dieing in your place??? The death of Christ would then be silly if He only died for an exhibiton only. Once again, you see sin only as pollution.(moral) Its more than that...Its also guilt.(legal) All are guilty before the law of God (Rom 3:19) before we even commit one ounce of sin. This is the truth which you deny.

Jesus boar our judicial punishment or substitutionary death upon the cross. This you refuse to bear...so how can you be rightfully Justified??? You are still in your sins because of the guilt you deny! You are correct...God is the law giver and we see the righteous Character of God through it. But God will not allow those whom He created for His glory to trample that same law that points to the law giver as righteous. He said He would punish those who do such. The punishment was poured out on Christ for us.

Your faulty views of moralism (The Moral influence Theory) is nothing more than another name for legalism seeing that you say you are just before God because you have an inward change in character (moral)and not a legal change in standing. (guilt)

Adventtruth