Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
[
Maybe that's because in the Judgment we won't be able to say "but so and so said'.
What was the legal penalty?As I understand it, the difference hinges on the definition of "justice". In Western thought, justice carries a legalistic definition, i.e., for every crime a punishment is due. Eastern thought defines justice as "the ordering of the universe". In the West, Christ's death paid the penalty for Adam's sin, in the East, Christ's death reestablished the order of the universe disordered by Adam's sin.
I personally maintain both ideas at once with "not only" and "but also" i.e., not only did Christ's death pay the legal penalty for Adam's sin, but also reestablished the order of the universe.
But that is merely my opinion and my opinion means nothing.
Interesting. Father @ArmyMatt, what's the meaning of that verse?Galatians 3:13 (KJV) Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
What about the part where Jesus became a curse, especially the curse of the Law?He took on death willingly, and the worst death for a first century Jew.
What about the part where Jesus became a curse, especially the curse of the Law?
What was the legal penalty?
Our Apostle Paul says,the Father didn't pour out His wrath on His Son and He didn't abandon His Son on the Cross. Christ actually says the opposite in I believe John's Gospel.
Our Apostle Paul says,
"And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma." (Ephesians 5:2)
As a guest, here, I say it seems to me that if Jesus on the cross was "a sweet-smelling aroma", then He was pleasing our Father sweetly, on the cross; and so there is no way our Father was forsaking Him and pouring wrath on Him, but Jesus was sweetly satisfying our Father to forgive us and reconcile with us.
How does this compare with the accepted Eastern satisfaction doctrine? I do not mean to teach or debate, but to offer something for comparison . . . if I may.
I don't know if it differs from what you understand; so I am offering a rough sketch, for comparison, so you can tell us if you hold to something different.how do you think what you pointed out differs?
God's Word being fully inspired by God (regardless of the penman) is obviously excepted.Since the Bible itself is full of "So and So said", and in many cases that "So and So" is our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I'm not so sure it's wise to make such a statement.
I don't know if it differs from what you understand; so I am offering a rough sketch, for comparison, so you can tell us if you hold to something different.
It does make sin God's problem.Father Matt or any other Orthodox please correct me if I'm going wrong with what I am trying to express. It seems to me that satisfaction theory puts a deficit or need on God, (in saying that God the Son suffered and died on the cross to satisfy God the Fathers justice and/or wrath, so that He could forgive us or look favorably on us) and that God is the one that changes toward us, rather than us changing toward God. God does not change and has no lack.
Father Matt or any other Orthodox please correct me if I'm going wrong with what I am trying to express. It seems to me that satisfaction theory puts a deficit or need on God, (in saying that God the Son suffered and died on the cross to satisfy God the Fathers justice and/or wrath, so that He could forgive us or look favorably on us) and that God is the one that changes toward us, rather than us changing toward God. God does not change and has no lack.
Even so, He did say, "why have You forsaken Me?" So, what's your understanding about this? I personally understand He could have just meant that legally and circumstantially He was forsaken while He was on Calvary; but Jesus was not forsaken spiritually because He was "a sweet-smelling aroma" to our Father, plus I now think of how our Father said He is well pleased with Jesus.Christ Himself says that when He is forsaken by all, the Father will be with Him.
Even so, He did say, "why have You forsaken Me?" So, what's your understanding about this? I personally understand He could have just meant that legally and circumstantially He was forsaken while He was on Calvary; but Jesus was not forsaken spiritually because He was "a sweet-smelling aroma" to our Father, plus I now think of how our Father said He is well pleased with Jesus.
I have personally communicated with people who insist that Jesus was totally rejected and subjected to God's wrath, while He was on the cross. Ones also claim He did all the suffering in hell, which all of us combined would have to do for all eternity, in hell, in order to pay for our sins. But I understand Jesus on the cross did an interception to prevent all that, so it was "finished", right there, and all that did not have to happen, because He so pleased our Father. Otherwise, what do people do with Ephesians 5:2 which says for us also to love like Jesus on the cross was loving? In order to follow Jesus, they would have to suffer in hell for other people and be rejected by God's wrath for other people, in order to follow Jesus . . . I suppose their idea would mean, then.
It sounds like you have a better understanding. What do you believe Jesus meant by being forsaken, please ?
Ezekiel 18:4What was the legal penalty?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?