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

[Adventtruth]

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.

This is pure nonsense and a play on words on your part. To suggest that to die for us is not the same as in place of us is a silly game. Yes there was a revelation of the love of God for us in human form, thisd we do not deny...that revelation was true love for us and inplace of us. That too is imputed to our account aswell as His death. You are correct in the sub doctrine showing the infinite love of Jesus, but it does not stop there...It also shows the infinite love of the Father towards us sinners for punishing His beloved Son on our behalf. The punishment for sin imputed to the Son insted of fallen mankind, (who willingly took our place), is the altimate Substitution of all ages. Its called the great exchange. Without it you have pure legalism as mentioned in the bible. There is a righteousness through the law of God. This is what you are trying to do through your moral influience view of the atonement.

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.

The moral influeunce theory is not denied by the bible. Its there alright, but it rest upon its brother legal guilt. One must first be justified by a substitute who has the righteousness required by the law. Fallen mankind could never provide it seeing they are missing the mark with God. This is what you deny. I afirm your claims of the moral pollution becasue the bible tells me so, but you on the other hand are not dealing with the truths containd through out the bible...you would rather have legalism as your claim before the Judgment bar of God. As the song says..."I'd rather have Jesus"...it is His doing and dying that stands for me, not a moral character change which is mere legalism.

It makes no sense for God to pay the penalty to Himself, again a problem with the Sub theory.

It makes all the sense in the world when you understand a sovereign God. He was the only person who could pay the requirment.

Adventtruth

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Earlier in response to the following quote I said:

Quote:
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.

You reply:

This is pure nonsense and a play on words on your part. To suggest that to die for us is not the same as in place of us is a silly game.

Actually to suppose that the use of the word “for” suggests in the place of is the silly game. Most people realize that the word “for” can have many meanings. To assume that it must mean the idea of substitution is the silly game and the usage in the world around us as well as in the Bible plainly shows us that in fact substitution is rarely meant. For instance the same day I read you post I read the following: Celeste as healthy nurse receives her flu shot for the patients. The idea is not that she is given a flu shot as a substitute for the patients getting flu shots. The concept is that as a community the hospital employees get flu shots to curb the spread of the flu. Thus the meaning is not substitution but for the benefit of the patients. If your knowledge of language can not let you see your error here then I will have to give up on the conversation, as language is vital to communication.

Advent wrote:
You are correct in the sub doctrine showing the infinite love of Jesus, but it does not stop there...It also shows the infinite love of the Father towards us sinners for punishing His beloved Son on our behalf.

Again that is not what I said, I said that it shows no more love then coming for the benefit of mankind.

My quote:
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.

Advent wrote:
The punishment for sin imputed to the Son insted of fallen mankind, (who willingly took our place), is the altimate Substitution of all ages. Its called the great exchange. Without it you have pure legalism as mentioned in the bible. There is a righteousness through the law of God. This is what you are trying to do through your moral influience view of the atonement.

I really think you are confused on what legalism is. You want to accept the theory that our sin is imputed to Christ and His righteousness is imputed to us, and yet you think a theory that denies the accounting terminology is legalism So in effect you accept the idea of transference of sin even though sin is not an object or thing that can be transferred, yet your idea of transference is not legalism and the idea which reflects reality is legalism. What is does is reflect a lot upon just how distorted the idea of substitution is to many areas of theology. It is why my article at: http://newprotestants.com/Subatone.htm
Is as long as it is, it covers topics like sin, blood, death and even the symbology of the Day of Atonement scapegoat.

Advent wrote:
The moral influeunce theory is not denied by the bible. Its there alright, but it rest upon its brother legal guilt. One must first be justified by a substitute who has the righteousness required by the law.

Really, that might come as a surprise to Elijah and Enoch. Isn’t the righteousness required by God, why plead to law? But for your sake why don’t you show us somewhere in the Bible where someone innocent pays the penalty as a substitute for the guilty. Surely if you are focused upon law you can show that in the law. When you mention being Justified, why do you take it out of it’s context. The context is that we are justified by faith. Now where to you get faith from, it is certainly not through substitution. It can’t be from the legal brother guilt either. This leaves us with the influence of God that creates in us the ability to have faith in God.

(Rom 3:22 NIV) This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

What is meant there is not faith in substitution but faith that Jesus Christ is God. This redemption is brought about by the revelation of Jesus Christ in his sacrificial life death and resurrection. Redemption is not dependent upon substitution as you must be aware. It was redemption that brought out the Children of Israel from slavery. Something done without any substitution.
(Exo 15:13 NIV) "In your unfailing love you will lead the people you have redeemed. In your strength you will guide them to your holy dwelling.

Advent wrote
Fallen mankind could never provide it seeing they are missing the mark with God. This is what you deny. I afirm your claims of the moral pollution becasue the bible tells me so, but you on the other hand are not dealing with the truths containd through out the bible...you would rather have legalism as your claim before the Judgment bar of God. As the song says..."I'd rather have Jesus"...it is His doing and dying that stands for me, not a moral character change which is mere legalism.

No I never denied that fallen man misses the mark. Why would my focus be forgiveness and reconciliation if I were denying that man misses the mark? In fact I am dealing with the truths in the Bible rather then the 15th century substitutional theory which is foreign to the Bible. It is not legalism that I claim, as you claim in a rather confused way. It is that God is on my side already, I only have to accept that God is for me not against me. I don’t stand behind Jesus as my robe of righteousness because Jesus is God and His righteousness is that He is God and His love for man is freely given to all who are willing to trust Him. For the believing Christian there is no Judgment bar for there is not condemnation for those who believe in God:

(Rom 8:1 NIV) Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus ,(Rom 8:2 NIV) because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. (Rom 8:3 NIV) For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,
(Rom 8:4 NIV) in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.
(Rom 8:5 NIV) Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. (Rom 8:6 NIV) The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace;

Notice what is conveyed here, the change of the mind of the sinful man. This is not what Substitution does, this is what the influence of God does.


Advent wrote
Quote:
It makes no sense for God to pay the penalty to Himself, again a problem with the Sub theory.
It makes all the sense in the world when you understand a sovereign God. He was the only person who could pay the requirment

What, you mean He was the only one who could pay the requirement that He requires. So you want to put forth that God requires that God kills Himself to meet His requirement. This goes back to the misunderstanding of God and the law, the assumption that forgiveness is not possible without punishment. The problem is that this presents God as less then a rational being. It diminishes the love of God as well as the Justice of God, making justice something about fulfilling particular requirements rather then doing the right thing and returning harmony. And on top of all that God performs the inflicting of the penalty at the hands of evil men. Making evil become His agent. It is a theory that is wholly unworthy of continued Christian acceptance.

 

[StormyOne]

RC... I must commend you on your patience.... while this part of the forum is labeled progressive, there are few here that actually exhibit progressive thinking.....

 

[Adventtruth]

Advent wrote
Quote:
It makes no sense for God to pay the penalty to Himself, again a problem with the Sub theory.
It makes all the sense in the world when you understand a sovereign God. He was the only person who could pay the requirment

What, you mean He was the only one who could pay the requirement that He requires. So you want to put forth that God requires that God kills Himself to meet His requirement. This goes back to the misunderstanding of God and the law, the assumption that forgiveness is not possible without punishment. The problem is that this presents God as less then a rational being. It diminishes the love of God as well as the Justice of God, making justice something about fulfilling particular requirements rather then doing the right thing and returning harmony. And on top of all that God performs the inflicting of the penalty at the hands of evil men. Making evil become His agent. It is a theory that is wholly unworthy of continued Christian acceptance.

I will only respond to this portion of your reply, seeing you are not going to believe the bible in context.


God can't die, if He could He would not be God...Jesus has two natures.

John 10:15 As[SIZE=+0] the Father[SIZE=+0] knoweth[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] me[/SIZE][SIZE=+0], even so[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] know[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] I[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] the Father[/SIZE][SIZE=+0]: and[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] I lay down[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] my[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] life[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] for[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] the sheep[/SIZE][SIZE=+0]. [/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
John 10:17 Therefore[SIZE=+0] doth[SIZE=+0] my Father[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] love[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] me[/SIZE][SIZE=+0], because[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] I[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] lay down[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] my[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] life[/SIZE][SIZE=+0], that[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] I might take[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] it[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] again[/SIZE][SIZE=+0].[/SIZE][/SIZE]

John 10:18 [SIZE=+0]No man[SIZE=+0] taketh[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] it[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] from[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] me[/SIZE][SIZE=+0], but[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] I[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] lay[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] it[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] down[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] of[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] myself[/SIZE][SIZE=+0]. I have[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] power[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] to lay[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] it[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] down[/SIZE][SIZE=+0], and[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] I have[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] power[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] to take[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] it[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] again[/SIZE][SIZE=+0]. This[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] commandment[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] have I received[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] of[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] my[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] Father[/SIZE]


1 John 3:16 Hereby[SIZE=+0] perceive we[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] the love[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] of God, because[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] he[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] laid down[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] his[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] life[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] for[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] us[/SIZE][SIZE=+0]: and[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] we[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] ought[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] to lay down[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] our lives[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] for[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] the brethren[/SIZE][SIZE=+0]. [/SIZE]


Its clear that you don't want to believe the bible account about Jesus and his atoning death for us. Its a shame you don't believe in the great exchange. He died as our substitute because of our legal guilt before the law of God. Romans 5 bears this out.

Adventtruth [/SIZE]

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I will only respond to this portion of your reply, seeing you are not going to believe the bible in context.


Its clear that you don't want to believe the bible account about Jesus and his atoning death for us. Its a shame you don't believe in the great exchange. He died as our substitute because of our legal guilt before the law of God. Romans 5 bears this out.

Adventtruth

This is why I wanted you to know the history of Atonement theories. The Bible in context does not nor ever has taught substitutionary atonement. It was a tradition based upon the middle age tradition of satisfaction. If a person does not let the bible verses speak for themselves they are forcing their opinions into the bible verses. This is what you have been doing. Though your version does not make contextual sense you cling to your tradition that the Substitutionary Atonement is what the Bible teaches. You have a great exchange yet you have no Bible evidence for a great exchange. You have Jesus death yet you claim Jesus can't die. But that is what they Bible says very clearly. I am not trying to say that God died. God can not die as you say. But God existed before Jesus was born, that there is an incarnation of God as Jesus does not mean that God would die when the body of Jesus died any more then there was no God until Jesus was born. I don't even know why you have chosen this tangent. Possibly somehne related to the weak thesis that is the substitutionary theory.

Apparently you think those verses you quoted say that Jesus killed Himself rather then allowed human beings to kill Him. If you are going to deal with context then you really have to look at the context. Jesus had the power to avoid being killed, in fact there were times when He did use that power, such as when the angry crowd went for him and he rather miraculously walked through the crowd. Jesus laid down His life by allowing the actions of humanity to carry forward their selfish desires. Going so far as to kill their own Creator

[SIZE=+1] Matthew 26:2 [/SIZE] [SIZE=+1] "You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man is to be [SIZE=+1]handed[/SIZE] over for crucifixion."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1] Luke 18:32-33 [/SIZE] [SIZE=+1] "For He will be [SIZE=+1]handed[/SIZE] over to the Gentiles, and will be mocked and mistreated and spit upon,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1] 33 "They will scourge [Him] and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again."

[/SIZE][/SIZE]Act 3:15You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.

 

[Adventtruth]

This is why I wanted you to know the history of Atonement theories. The Bible in context does not nor ever has taught substitutionary atonement. It was a tradition based upon the middle age tradition of satisfaction. If a person does not let the bible verses speak for themselves they are forcing their opinions into the bible verses. This is what you have been doing. Though your version does not make contextual sense you cling to your tradition that the Substitutionary Atonement is what the Bible teaches. You have a great exchange yet you have no Bible evidence for a great exchange. You have Jesus death yet you claim Jesus can't die. But that is what they Bible says very clearly. I am not trying to say that God died. God can not die as you say. But God existed before Jesus was born, that there is an incarnation of God as Jesus does not mean that God would die when the body of Jesus died any more then there was no God until Jesus was born. I don't even know why you have chosen this tangent. Possibly somehne related to the weak thesis that is the substitutionary theory.

Apparently you think those verses you quoted say that Jesus killed Himself rather then allowed human beings to kill Him. If you are going to deal with context then you really have to look at the context. Jesus had the power to avoid being killed, in fact there were times when He did use that power, such as when the angry crowd went for him and he rather miraculously walked through the crowd. Jesus laid down His life by allowing the actions of humanity to carry forward their selfish desires. Going so far as to kill their own Creator

[SIZE=+1]Matthew 26:2 [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]"You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man is to be [SIZE=+1]handed[/SIZE] over for crucifixion."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Luke 18:32-33 [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]"For He will be [SIZE=+1]handed[/SIZE] over to the Gentiles, and will be mocked and mistreated and spit upon,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1] 33 "They will scourge [Him] and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again."[/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=+1]

[/SIZE]Act 3:15You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.

What youhave written above is a testimony that you have a faulty understanding of scripture. from your point of view it is obvious that you wont see substitution.

You wont see why God is just.

You wont see why Jesus truly had to die.

You wont see legal guilt.

You and I can go back over this forever it wont do any good.

Your veiws leave you with legalism if Christ was not your substitution. A moral righteousness will never save what the law has already found guilty.

You can say I don't understand all you want, you can talk about the history of the atonement all you want but the bottom line is with out being Justified by the one who traded places with the human race, with out His imputation of righteousness through His blood for you...you have nothing,

- AT

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

You can say I don't understand all you want, you can talk about the history of the atonement all you want but the bottom line is with out being Justified by the one who traded places with the human race, with out His imputation of righteousness through His blood for you...you have nothing,

All right I understand that it is hard for someone to leave behind their traditions. So history is of no importance to you. I do think it is a shame to say of so many Christians throughout history and currently such as the entire Greek Orthodox Church, that they have nothing. I on the other hand have a broader view which allows for God to save people without the need for them to believe in a specific atonement theory. Their belief in God is what brings them to salvation not the specifics about how they believe in the atonement. They may be wrong about their atonement theory but they are not left with nothing. This is why the moral influence theory works so much better then such views as substitution which wants to condemn people unless they accept substitution, and if they don't accept substitution too bad for them.

So if I believe that God can and does save people who may even have the wrong ideas about God, why do I care about correcting wrong beliefs? The reason is that we are actually in a post Christian world, this has been the case for Europe for quite a while and it is rapidly happening in America. Of course in countries that were never heavily influenced by Christianity they have always been in the position of having to explain Christianity.

So the point of all this is that we need to have a well defined and easily explainable doctrine of why Jesus came and lived and died and rose again. The Penal theory can't do that. I already asked to give the best Substitutionary texts from the Bible but that is ignored. Instead the current Evangelical Christian retreats to their tradition. They can't explain why Substitution is Biblical. They can't explain how substitution is just in any kind of penal system. They can't even explain how Jesus suffered the penalty of a law He did not break. All of this while denying that forgiveness is a possibility without punishment. Something that everyone knows is possible and something that the Bible tells people to do.

So the Penal theorists have only one answer. Accept what we say that Jesus paid the penalty and there was a great exchange. Don't bother your little mind with how this could be, just accept it or you are a legalist (well that is on this thread, I have never heard that charge before normally it is the antinomian charge). But all this tells people something about your religion and your concept of God. And it is that concept of God which destroys peoples confidence in the Christian message.

We watch across the world as Christianity fades from once Christian nations yet we don't seem to ask why. Why is the God of Christianity so easily abandoned. The answer is to the modern mind that that Christian God does not make sense, He may say He is love but look at how He can't even forgive but must punish, is that love. If the God is not attractive, the whole religion falls apart.

 

[Adventtruth]

All right I understand that it is hard for someone to leave behind their traditions. So history is of no importance to you. I do think it is a shame to say of so many Christians throughout history and currently such as the entire Greek Orthodox Church, that they have nothing. I on the other hand have a broader view which allows for God to save people without the need for them to believe in a specific atonement theory. Their belief in God is what brings them to salvation not the specifics about how they believe in the atonement. They may be wrong about their atonement theory but they are not left with nothing. This is why the moral influence theory works so much better then such views as substitution which wants to condemn people unless they accept substitution, and if they don't accept substitution too bad for them.

So if I believe that God can and does save people who may even have the wrong ideas about God, why do I care about correcting wrong beliefs? The reason is that we are actually in a post Christian world, this has been the case for Europe for quite a while and it is rapidly happening in America. Of course in countries that were never heavily influenced by Christianity they have always been in the position of having to explain Christianity.

So the point of all this is that we need to have a well defined and easily explainable doctrine of why Jesus came and lived and died and rose again. The Penal theory can't do that. I already asked to give the best Substitutionary texts from the Bible but that is ignored. Instead the current Evangelical Christian retreats to their tradition. They can't explain why Substitution is Biblical. They can't explain how substitution is just in any kind of penal system. They can't even explain how Jesus suffered the penalty of a law He did not break. All of this while denying that forgiveness is a possibility without punishment. Something that everyone knows is possible and something that the Bible tells people to do.

So the Penal theorists have only one answer. Accept what we say that Jesus paid the penalty and there was a great exchange. Don't bother your little mind with how this could be, just accept it or you are a legalist (well that is on this thread, I have never heard that charge before normally it is the antinomian charge). But all this tells people something about your religion and your concept of God. And it is that concept of God which destroys peoples confidence in the Christian message.

We watch across the world as Christianity fades from once Christian nations yet we don't seem to ask why. Why is the God of Christianity so easily abandoned. The answer is to the modern mind that that Christian God does not make sense, He may say He is love but look at how He can't even forgive but must punish, is that love. If the God is not attractive, the whole religion falls apart.

Hey RC.

First let me say I thank you for helping to keep our conversation civil.

Now I don't want you to think I believe chirsitians have to have all the correct doctrines in place in order for salvation...as long as believers trust Jesus for salvation and are sanctified I believe they are saved.

Now I have presented scripture for you show the penal view. But now I am in the learning mold. Maybe I have the wrong Idea about the Moral theory. So kindly give me a brief out line of this doctrine so that I can learn. I am outside looking in, you are on the inside of this doctrine. So lay it out for me but make it brief please...not a long web page or letter.


-AT

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

The essence of the Moral Influence theory of the Atonement is that the atonement is God directed at human beings for the purpose of ending man’s hostility towards God. Man is thus influenced by the moral nature and behavior of God to repent.


(Rom 3:25-26 NIV) God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Atonement as is used in our English language is a term that represents reconciliation, at-one-ment.

(Eph 2:16-16 NIV) and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near.

(Col 1:20-22 NIV) and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation—

The central concept in atonement is that man has through sin become enemies of God, it is our minds which keep us away from God, just as the story of Eden tells how man doubted God, man’s questions about God caused them to distrust God and question the character of God. The way back to God depends upon man seeing the character of God as that of a loving friend.

Paul presents this idea when he asks the rhetorical question:
(Rom 2:4 NIV) Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

(Rom 8:31-32 NIV) What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all--how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?

As Jesus called His followers His friends so God is our friend. Jesus came and lived and died and rose again to reveal the character of God. The character of love, someone who even when rejected and abused by man even while being tortured and killed offered forgiveness to the people who rejected Him. The death of Christ is the ultimate proof of the love and forgiveness that God offers. The love of God is a higher love which does not keep records of wrong, always wants the best for others etc. This love is summed up in the life of Christ, and Paul sums it up in 1 Corinthians 13.

The Moral Influence theory describes how our minds are moved toward God through the manifestation of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Once reconciled to God man allows God to effect his life, trusting the promises of God and the allowing the presence of God to fill the believers life.

(Rom 5:10 NIV) For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Another way of stating the Moral Influence theory is found on my website but since Advent did not want a website I wrote the above. Here is another way of expressing it. http://newprotestants.com/atonement1.htm

The Atonement​

By Ron Corson​

Remember when you were a child, how the good news of the Bible was so simple. You can probably still remember the first real complete Bible verse you learned. It went like this For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 (NIV). We grew up knowing that the gospel was simple, even a child could understand it. But as a child did we really understand it, and now as adults can we really say we understand it. That is, how could Jesus come and give His life and through that process somehow save us.

How many explanations of this process have you heard, doubtless at least two or three. Some think Christ was a sacrifice to appease God who says that somebody has to die since the law was broken. Others feel that God mystically placed all the sins of the entire world on Christ who then paid the death penalty for sin. This is similar to the first reason mentioned in that someone is dying because a sin was committed. If these reasons were correct than God’s justice would certainly be questioned. An as we must remember God is a just God.
Now if the above is not the method by which God grants us salvation how then are we saved. First let us look at a verse that is frequently used by those who promulgate the aforementioned methods, namely Christ died because the law was broken. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23 (NIV). All who sin should die but and this is a very large exception, God is willing to give us a gift, the gift of eternal life. So now we see that God is willing to save us for no other reason than that he loves us. Remember John 3:16 that favorite from long ago. Now we know that God loves us and wants to save us but what about God sending His Son to live and die. If he did not come to die to pay the price for sin, why did he have to die?

Remember those who told us that the gospel was so simple, well they were completely right. Somehow we have strayed from the truth's simplicity. It only takes one sentence to explain why Jesus Christ came to earth to live and die and live again. He came to show us what God is like, what the devil is like and what happens when humans rebel against God. Okay so there are several different items in the one sentence and yes more could be added but that is the gist of it.

Let’s takes a more in depth look at why Jesus came to earth. Hebrews 2:17 explains; Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. (KJV) Jesus came to reconcile us to God. "That God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation." 2 Corinthians 5:19 (NIV) Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines reconcile as: to restore to friendship or harmony. Now that’s an important mission for we were once God’s enemies. Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation-- Colossians 1:22(NIV)

Now that we understand that Christ came to reconcile us to God, we must determine how this is done. Before we can answer how we are reconciled we must first review how we became estranged from God. Back in the Garden of Eden we find man making his tragic mistake. In this beautiful garden that God had made for man we find that man questioned whether God really had mans best interests at heart. With the help of Satan in the guise of a serpent, man disregards Gods warnings. Satan blatantly called God a liar and he made several charges against God:
1. God is not a God of love and he does not have mans best interest in mind.
2. God is vindictive and to disagree with Him will bring His wrath upon one’s self.
3. God is not the only source of life. Every being has the potential to become a god and to be as God is. God is selfishly withholding knowledge from us. Choosing to believe Satan man separated himself from God.

The best way for God to reconcile us to Himself was for Him to answer our questions and misunderstandings about Him. This is the work of reconciliation that Jesus came to earth to perform.

1. God proved His love by sending His son John 3:16
2. God proved he is not vindictive by providing a way of escape from our sins, Romans 6:23. Romans 5:10 For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! (NIV)
3. God shows that he is the source of life by the resurrection of Christ. Romans 1:4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. (NIV)

You may be saying to yourself did not Jesus die a Substitutionary death for us. Did not he have to die because God’s law says the wage of sin is death. Think about what this is saying...it says that one innocent man’s death can substitute for billions of sinner's deaths. This could in no way be considered justice. Justice would have the one innocent man freed from any penalties while the guilty pay for their crimes. Perhaps we are missing something, maybe there is an exception in this law on the wages of sin. let us take another look at Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (NIV)
Yes, there is an exception, there is a gift that can be given to those who desire to receive it. The result of remaining in sin is that you will die, but if you want the gift of God he will freely give it to you. Christ’s life, death, and resurrection is the method God used to bring us to the point where we would desire to receive God’s free gift of grace. Romans 3:23-25 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- (NIV)

Did not Jesus taste death for everyone, therefore is not he our substitute according to Hebrews 2:9? But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. (NIV) Here we see that Christ did die for everyone, however it is not a Substitutionary death. Christ’s death was a means of drawing us back to God. Remember what Ephesians 2:16 says: and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. (NIV)

Finally, does not Hebrews 9:28 tell us that Christ bore our sins on the cross? So Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. Hebrews 9:28 (NIV) To understand this text we must understand what sin is. How could all the murders, violence, and pain of sins be placed on Christ. In fact they cannot, but the attitude that is where all sin begins could be placed on Christ at the cross. Our desire to do our own thing is the entire reason why Christ had to come and die. To show us that our desires bring us only disaster, but submitting to God’s will, brings us the life that we desire. Sin is often correctly defined as being separated from God. This is what Christ demonstrated by submitting to people in rebellion against God. Separation from God leads to the cruelty that was poured out upon the one who never sinned. So much hate and cruelty that people were willing to kill their own creator. Acts 3:15 You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. (NIV) This is the result of sin, and this is the sin that Christ bore on the cross. This is Christ’s sacrifice, he gave up the joys of heaven to come to earth and share in mans suffering and then upon the cross he died, yet even as he died he offered the forgiveness that love offers all.. Then on the third day he arose, proving what he had told us was true and commissioning us to help Him in spreading the message of reconciliation.

All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Corinthians 5:18-21 (NIV)

​

 

[Adventtruth]

Another way of stating the Moral Influence theory is found on my website but since Advent did not want a website I wrote the above. Here is another way of expressing it. http://newprotestants.com/atonement1.htm

The Atonement​

By Ron Corson​

​

Remember when you were a child, how the good news of the Bible was so simple. You can probably still remember the first real complete Bible verse you learned. It went like this For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 (NIV). We grew up knowing that the gospel was simple, even a child could understand it. But as a child did we really understand it, and now as adults can we really say we understand it. That is, how could Jesus come and give His life and through that process somehow save us.

How many explanations of this process have you heard, doubtless at least two or three. Some think Christ was a sacrifice to appease God who says that somebody has to die since the law was broken. Others feel that God mystically placed all the sins of the entire world on Christ who then paid the death penalty for sin. This is similar to the first reason mentioned in that someone is dying because a sin was committed. If these reasons were correct than God’s justice would certainly be questioned. An as we must remember God is a just God.
Now if the above is not the method by which God grants us salvation how then are we saved. First let us look at a verse that is frequently used by those who promulgate the aforementioned methods, namely Christ died because the law was broken. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23 (NIV). All who sin should die but and this is a very large exception, God is willing to give us a gift, the gift of eternal life. So now we see that God is willing to save us for no other reason than that he loves us. Remember John 3:16 that favorite from long ago. Now we know that God loves us and wants to save us but what about God sending His Son to live and die. If he did not come to die to pay the price for sin, why did he have to die?

Remember those who told us that the gospel was so simple, well they were completely right. Somehow we have strayed from the truth's simplicity. It only takes one sentence to explain why Jesus Christ came to earth to live and die and live again. He came to show us what God is like, what the devil is like and what happens when humans rebel against God. Okay so there are several different items in the one sentence and yes more could be added but that is the gist of it.

Let’s takes a more in depth look at why Jesus came to earth. Hebrews 2:17 explains; Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. (KJV) Jesus came to reconcile us to God. "That God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation." 2 Corinthians 5:19 (NIV) Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines reconcile as: to restore to friendship or harmony. Now that’s an important mission for we were once God’s enemies. Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation-- Colossians 1:22(NIV)

Now that we understand that Christ came to reconcile us to God, we must determine how this is done. Before we can answer how we are reconciled we must first review how we became estranged from God. Back in the Garden of Eden we find man making his tragic mistake. In this beautiful garden that God had made for man we find that man questioned whether God really had mans best interests at heart. With the help of Satan in the guise of a serpent, man disregards Gods warnings. Satan blatantly called God a liar and he made several charges against God:
1. God is not a God of love and he does not have mans best interest in mind.
2. God is vindictive and to disagree with Him will bring His wrath upon one’s self.
3. God is not the only source of life. Every being has the potential to become a god and to be as God is. God is selfishly withholding knowledge from us. Choosing to believe Satan man separated himself from God.

The best way for God to reconcile us to Himself was for Him to answer our questions and misunderstandings about Him. This is the work of reconciliation that Jesus came to earth to perform.

1. God proved His love by sending His son John 3:16
2. God proved he is not vindictive by providing a way of escape from our sins, Romans 6:23. Romans 5:10 For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! (NIV)
3. God shows that he is the source of life by the resurrection of Christ. Romans 1:4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. (NIV)

You may be saying to yourself did not Jesus die a Substitutionary death for us. Did not he have to die because God’s law says the wage of sin is death. Think about what this is saying...it says that one innocent man’s death can substitute for billions of sinner's deaths. This could in no way be considered justice. Justice would have the one innocent man freed from any penalties while the guilty pay for their crimes. Perhaps we are missing something, maybe there is an exception in this law on the wages of sin. let us take another look at Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (NIV)
Yes, there is an exception, there is a gift that can be given to those who desire to receive it. The result of remaining in sin is that you will die, but if you want the gift of God he will freely give it to you. Christ’s life, death, and resurrection is the method God used to bring us to the point where we would desire to receive God’s free gift of grace. Romans 3:23-25 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- (NIV)

Did not Jesus taste death for everyone, therefore is not he our substitute according to Hebrews 2:9? But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. (NIV) Here we see that Christ did die for everyone, however it is not a Substitutionary death. Christ’s death was a means of drawing us back to God. Remember what Ephesians 2:16 says: and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. (NIV)

Finally, does not Hebrews 9:28 tell us that Christ bore our sins on the cross? So Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. Hebrews 9:28 (NIV) To understand this text we must understand what sin is. How could all the murders, violence, and pain of sins be placed on Christ. In fact they cannot, but the attitude that is where all sin begins could be placed on Christ at the cross. Our desire to do our own thing is the entire reason why Christ had to come and die. To show us that our desires bring us only disaster, but submitting to God’s will, brings us the life that we desire. Sin is often correctly defined as being separated from God. This is what Christ demonstrated by submitting to people in rebellion against God. Separation from God leads to the cruelty that was poured out upon the one who never sinned. So much hate and cruelty that people were willing to kill their own creator. Acts 3:15 You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. (NIV) This is the result of sin, and this is the sin that Christ bore on the cross. This is Christ’s sacrifice, he gave up the joys of heaven to come to earth and share in mans suffering and then upon the cross he died, yet even as he died he offered the forgiveness that love offers all.. Then on the third day he arose, proving what he had told us was true and commissioning us to help Him in spreading the message of reconciliation.

All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Corinthians 5:18-21 (NIV)

​

Thanks RC for presenting your side as clear as possible. The Moral Influence Theroy is just what I thought it was. I was starting to think I misunderstood, but after you wrote what you did, I know that I was correct on your ideas.

However I still disagree with you. You see sin as only moral pollution and not legal guilt. I see sin, and the bible teaches sin to be legal guilt aswell as moral pollution. I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Blessings

-AT

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

However I still disagree with you. You see sin as only moral pollution and not legal guilt. I see sin, and the bible teaches sin to be legal guilt aswell as moral pollution. I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree on this issue.

That is why the Penal/substitutionary theory is often referred to as the Forensic theory. Meaning sin is a legal problem, which assumes that God is subservient to a law, God wants to save people but He has a law that says somebody has got to die. So Jesus comes and dies and God is cleared to save people.

What is interesting about this theory aside from how it makes God look far less then God is how it portrays legal fulfillment in ways that are totally foreign to the bible. The Bible does not teach substitution of innocent for the guilty nor does it teach that to be forgiven someone must be punished first. Thus creating a legal model of the atonement that violates all rules known of justice.

 

[Jimlarmore]

That is why the Penal/substitutionary theory is often referred to as the Forensic theory. Meaning sin is a legal problem, which assumes that God is subservient to a law, God wants to save people but He has a law that says somebody has got to die. So Jesus comes and dies and God is cleared to save people.

What is interesting about this theory aside from how it makes God look far less then God is how it portrays legal fulfillment in ways that are totally foreign to the bible. The Bible does not teach substitution of innocent for the guilty nor does it teach that to be forgiven someone must be punished first. Thus creating a legal model of the atonement that violates all rules known of justice.

Pardon me for butting in here but the Bible does indeed teach that Christ the righteous was a propitiation for our sins. A "propitiation" is someone who takes our place and receives the just reward for our sins. I would call that a substitution of innocent since He never sinned for the guilty i.e. all of us who have sinned.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Propitiation is not the only way the Greek can be translated. That is why practically no modern Bible translates the word as Propititation. In general the meaning of propitiation is a pagan term used as a method of appeasing the wrath of a god. Most modern versions use sacrifice of atonement, atoning sacrifice etc.

That the word was chosen because of the penal theory is very likely but the word is the same as that used of the mercy seat and thus the concept is totally different then the predominant meaning of propitiation as we know it.

 

[djconklin]

You see sin as only moral pollution and not legal guilt. I see sin, and the bible teaches sin to be legal guilt aswell as moral pollution.

Sin is far more than a legal guilt or a moral pollution. It is more like a wrongness of being. See Sin by Berkouwer and Sin, Redemption and Sacrifice by Lyonnet and Sabourin.

If these reasons were correct than God’s justice would certainly be questioned.

This needs to be explained in detail.

Propitiation is not the only way the Greek can be translated.

For details see TDNT, 3:301-18

 

[pheeki]

Thanks woob. I would like to see his arguments. I have known about the other veiws for a while. I do believe Jack Sequeira and Weliand and Short refute a form of the substitutionary atonement aswel.

Adventtruth

Hello my friend...long time no talk. Hello to DConklin too...and Eversearching. Glad to find you familiar faces!

 

[freeindeed2]

Hello my friend...long time no talk. Hello to DConklin too...and Eversearching. Glad to find you familiar faces!

Hello Pheeki and AT. Nice to see you David Conklin and Jim Larmore too! Wow!

God bless you all!

 

[Adventtruth]

Hello Pheeki and AT. Nice to see you David Conklin and Jim Larmore too! Wow!

God bless you all!

Hey Freeindeed and Pheeki. I am happy to see you here. Hope you stay for a while.

AT

 

[freeindeed2]

Hey Freeindeed and Pheeki. I am happy to see you here. Hope you stay for a while.

AT

As a former SDA pastor who recently resigned, but was an SDA for 35 years and still have my name on the official books, what exactly can I do on the boards here? I couldn't in good conscience sign up as an SDA, but in the rules it sounds like my hands are tied for making any contributions to the boards.

How much discussion is allowed between SDA's and non-SDA's or formers? Can we talk about SDA points of doctrine at all? Is there no debate allowed? What if a current poster is promulgating lies? No refutation allowed?

Just asking so I don't get into too much trouble.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Technically, if your name is still on the books then you are still a member of the SDA church are you not? If that is true then there should be no restriction for contributing here.

God Bless
Jim Larmore