We are Justified by His Blood

[bling]

It’s more than empathy here but being declared righteous through the atoning work of Christ. This is the major part omitted from your beliefs.

Righteous comes through faith, so has that changed?

Righteousness comes through faith in Jesus Christ and Him crucified. If you do not believe that, you cannot allow what Christ did on the cross lead you to righteousness.

 

[bling]

Part 2:
The "undeserving criminal kidnapper" idea is not a proper analogy for Christ's ransom. In fact, I say that the term "ransom" is not even adequate for what Christ has done. This is why there are other words used to add to the description of what He did. I think your commitment to limit it to the ransom idea only hinders your understanding of the full work.

We have to always remember to take each verse in the context: the person saying or writing the words is doing their best to communicate to the audience being addressed information. Parables were used by Christ because they are entertaining allowing the crowd stay around and listen, they were easy to remember (somewhere poetic), they conveyed a ton of information about the Kingdom, and the parable information about the Kingdom would later be understood when the Kingdom did come on Pentecost and the people were part of the Kingdom. Parables and Revelation are in the context of the day to be understood by Christians of the day. I say all this to explain:

The people in Israel in the first century would have been very familiar with the ransom scenario since it was happening frequently and even Caesar had been kidnapped and held for a ransom at 21 years old.

I did not come up with the ransom scenario, but Christ spells it out, plus Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer. There is more to the atonement process since it is also including disciplining.

The gospel is that Christ died for our sins, and in Him we have forgiveness of sins. There is a lot more to it, of course, but if someone believes this, then he has started down the right path, as Jesus said "I am the door." A person must hear the gospel to believe, so how can they believe before they hear it?

"The one who believes has eternal life. The one who does not believe will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." It then is obvious that Christ's atoning work applies only to the believer.

Then you cannot tell a nonbeliever “Christ died for you” since that could be a lie?


The work Christ did in the atonement process was done perfectly and for all from:


2 Corinthians 5:14 For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. (all humans die)


Romans 5:6 While we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. (this does not say: “Some who are ungodly”).


The “whoever” would mean anyone, so all can, but it is up to them and not up to God to make the free will choice. ​

You have the term "representative" all wrong here. It doesn't mean Jesus' work represents what we would do, that is a wrong idea about it. Jesus is our high priest, which is the office of representation for the people. He presents Himself spotless to the Father in behalf of the people (us). It is like a lawyer/advocate representing a defendant before the judge. Christ is our defender, advocate, and intercessor. This is the kind of representation I am talking about.

“The office of representation for the people” or “a lawyer/advocate representing a defendant before the judge. Christ is our defender, advocate, and intercessor” does not take the place of the criminal since the criminal will still personally pay the price for his crime.

 

[redleghunter]

A bag of flour could be used as an atonement sacrifice and it did not die on the alter.

“The wages of sin is death” comes up frequently, so what “death” in the context of Romans 5,6 and 7 is Paul referring to here?

The animals physically died in the sacrifice, Christ physically died on the cross, and Adam brought physical death.

Paul goes on talking in Ro. 7: 6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

The “second death” is not addressed at all in Ro. 5-7, but physical natural death and a spiritual death seem to both be addressed, but you tell me?

As far as I know Christians still die physically (that pay check is cashed in) unless Christ come again before they die and this death came about because all sin including Adam. Physical death is needed to help humans fulfill their objective, so it is not “bad’ in that respect. So, did Christ death on the cross take away physical death?

Spiritual death seems to happen with sin and/or sinning (separation from God), but all mature adults sin and are thus for some time spiritually dead, so did Christ take away our ever being Spiritually dead?

I haven’t a clue what threads of the NT you are pulling on to come to your conclusions.

 

[tdidymas]

The first and biggest issue with Penal Substitution contradicting scripture is the fact God describes in scripture what justice is and what injustice is and the torturing and murder of the innocent and the releasing (redeeming) of the guilty unpunished or undisciplined is unjust, so Penal Substitution is unjust.

Before I go any further with this, I need to address this statement you made, which must be resolved between us before this discussion can continue, because this is a fundamental statement which I consider is a false premise.

You claim that Penal Substitution in this case is unjust for the reason you cited, but your premise is a straw man because:
1. The nature of substitution is that one is substituted for another in the act of punishing the guilty. It is the whole idea embedded in the typology of animal sacrifice. The animal chosen is guiltless and spotless, apparently the best and most perfect one available. It is sacrificed as a sin or guilt offering. This is what Hebrews explains to us.
2. God is not "punishing the innocent" as you claim, in a common sense of just punishment, since the Innocent One is not being punished for no reason at all, or for an unjust reason. It may appear that way from a human viewpoint, but from a spiritual viewpoint, that is, God's viewpoint, it is a substitutionary punishment to satisfy justice on sin. This is what Rom. 3:25-26 is about.
3. God is not "letting the guilty go free" as you claim, in the common sense of foregoing justice on a criminal and setting him free to commit more crimes. In the case of this substitutionary punishment, God's attribute of justice is satisfied, which enables God to reconcile to Himself those He has chosen to invade their hearts for receiving redemption. Therefore, it is not "letting the guilty go free," since changing their nature makes them no longer guilty.

This is why God's forgiveness is forensic, just as our justification is forensic. According to justice as an attribute of God, sin has to be punished with death, since "the wages of sin is death." According to this law (or principle), in order for God to bring life to some, He had to substitute the death of one who could conquer it (Christ).

Therefore, it is not merely a substitution of punishment. It is also a substitution of death and righteousness. "He who knew no sin became sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him."
TD

 

[redleghunter]

No where in those verses does it say instead of you receiving this.
Yes there is the fact Christ went through all this because of us and for our benefit and we can say this is what should happen to us, but it does happen to us just not physically, but by being crucified with Christ.

Actually it does:

He was crushed for our iniquities;

the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him,

and by His stripes we are healed.

 

[redleghunter]

Righteous comes through faith, so has that changed?

Righteousness comes through faith in Jesus Christ and Him crucified. If you do not believe that, you cannot allow what Christ did on the cross lead you to righteousness.

The righteousness of God is imputed to us through Jesus Christ.

As explained by Paul we are justified by the Grace of God through faith in the work of Christ.

 

[bling]

Before I go any further with this, I need to address this statement you made, which must be resolved between us before this discussion can continue, because this is a fundamental statement which I consider is a false premise.

1. The nature of substitution is that one is substituted for another in the act of punishing the guilty. It is the whole idea embedded in the typology of animal sacrifice. The animal chosen is guiltless and spotless, apparently the best and most perfect one available. It is sacrificed as a sin or guilt offering. This is what Hebrews explains to us.

The Hebrew writer never says the animal used is a substitute for the guilty party (sinner). The animal sacrifice used is a shadow of Christ’s sacrifice and in that way, it is kind of substituting for Christ until He came. The Hebrew writer is limiting the description of the OT sin offerings to just animals but flour could be used (Lev. 5), the blood of animals was used for outward cleansing. The blood of Christ is much greater and can cleanse our hearts.

There are lots of reasons why the Jews would not feel the sacrifice was replacing them:

1. Animals were not always used for sin offerings (lifeless flour could be used).

2. In Lev. 5 it talks about securing and bringing an offering as a penalty for your sin and not as a replacement for the sinner.

3. The Priest is a much better “substitute” for the sinner, since he is doing the killing of the animal.

4. The animals are humanely as possible killed, while a sinner deserves to be tortured to death for intentional sins.

2. God is not "punishing the innocent" as you claim, in a common sense of just punishment, since the Innocent One is not being punished for no reason at all, or for an unjust reason. It may appear that way from a human viewpoint, but from a spiritual viewpoint, that is, God's viewpoint, it is a substitutionary punishment to satisfy justice on sin. This is what Rom. 3:25-26 is about.

It is not “justice on sin” since sin itself can do nothing, but we are needing justice on the guilty sinner (us), God the Father and Judge is to see to the just/fair punishment (or discipline), if at all possible, of the disobedient child, by Biblical rules. Penal substitution says Christ replaced the guilty disobedient child, but that means God is seeing to the punishment/discipline of Christ instead of the guilty child? I am not saying “there is no reason given for God seeing to the punishment of Christ”, I am saying to have Christ punished in our stead is unjust by Biblical standards.

If God must justly see to the punishment (or discipline) of the guilty how is the punishing of Christ not the punishing of the innocent?

Did Christ become a sinner on the cross and thus in need of punishment?

Did God not see to the crucifixion of Christ for our benefit?

3. God is not "letting the guilty go free" as you claim, in the common sense of foregoing justice on a criminal and setting him free to commit more crimes. In the case of this substitutionary punishment, God's attribute of justice is satisfied, which enables God to reconcile to Himself those He has chosen to invade their hearts for receiving redemption. Therefore, it is not "letting the guilty go free," since changing their nature makes them no longer guilty.

If “changing their nature” is what is needed to “receive redemption”, than there is no need for Christ to go to the cross, since God is powerful and Loving enough to do that change without Christ going to the cross?

The injustice of having Christ go to the cross will not satisfy justice, justice satisfy justice.

Penal Substitution is the allowing of the guilty to go free unpunished, you are just adding the idea God doing lots of other stuff to this now free person.

Again, we are making the problem out to be God’s problem, which Jesus solves by going to the cross, which now allows God to do stuff He has been wanting to do. God has a problem with justice being satisfied, God has a problem reconciling people, God has a problem invading the hearts of people and God has a problem receiving people.

The prodigal son only needed to turn to the father and all the unbelieving sinner needs to do is mentally turn to the Father, for God the Father is ready and wanting to shower each of us with unbelievable gifts, but God will not force charity on us if we are unwilling to humble accept pure charity.

Did the older brother of the prodigal son step in and take the punishment for the prodigal son’s rebellious disobedience or did the father just forgive the son who turned to him? Do you see the prodigal son story lacking justice and/or being inconsistent with the way God is?

This is why God's forgiveness is forensic, just as our justification is forensic. According to justice as an attribute of God, sin has to be punished with death, since "the wages of sin is death." According to this law (or principle), in order for God to bring life to some, He had to substitute the death of one who could conquer it (Christ).

You say: “He had to substitute the death of one”, but why does it have to be a torturous, humiliating and murderous death?

Again you say: “sin has to be punished”, but it is the sinner who has to be punished since you cannot “punish” an intangible like “sin”?

You quote: “The wages of sin is death” which comes up frequently, so what “death” in the context of Romans 5,6 and 7 is Paul referring to here?


The physically natural death , death (separation from God) brought about by sin or death to sin because that is all Paul is talking about in Ro. 5-7?

Christ did not pay any of those deaths on the cross, since they all still continue on and all mature adults experience them until Jesus comes. Death is still with us even after the cross, because of sin.

What cosmic “Law” is out there controlling God?

This whole scenario is something put together with verses taken from lots of place with other more likely meanings.

Therefore, it is not merely a substitution of punishment. It is also a substitution of death and righteousness. "He who knew no sin became sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him."

WOW, there is a lot to be addressed with the interpretation of this verse:

What does Christ becoming “sin” mean to you? Did Christ become a sinner? Did Christ become an intangible object of “sin”?

If you go to the NIV there is an alternative translation for at the bottom where “sin offering” is given as an alternative to “being made sin” and we all know Christ was a “sin offering”, so what support is there for that translation?

Paul being a scholar of the Torah, used a Hebraism. In this case, the Hebrew word for "sin" was also used to mean "sin offering" (see the Hebrew word: chatta'ath), and thus to be "made sin" was a Hebrew way of saying "made a sin offering". the NASB cross-references to Romans 8:3 which uses "sin offering" in a similar text as 2 Corinthians 5:21

There is the analogy in 2 Corinthians 8:9; the cross-reference to the clearer statement in Romans 8:3 that Christ was sent "in the likeness of sinful flesh" to deal with sin; and the allusion to Sacrifice in 2 Corinthians 5:21 where it says Christ "knew no sin" in corresponding to the sacrificial animal being free of blemish (otherwise Paul saying "knew no sin" would be irrelevant here).

The Greek word for "sin" that Paul uses is used in the Greek Old Testament both to mean "sin" and "sin offering," with both usages even in the same verse such as in Leviticus 4:3.

You can certainly do a deeper study of 2 Cor 5: 21 and we can go into Ro.3-4.

 

[tdidymas]

The Hebrew writer never says the animal used is a substitute for the guilty party (sinner). The animal sacrifice used is a shadow of Christ’s sacrifice and in that way, it is kind of substituting for Christ until He came. The Hebrew writer is limiting the description of the OT sin offerings to just animals but flour could be used (Lev. 5), the blood of animals was used for outward cleansing. The blood of Christ is much greater and can cleanse our hearts.

There are lots of reasons why the Jews would not feel the sacrifice was replacing them:

1. Animals were not always used for sin offerings (lifeless flour could be used).

2. In Lev. 5 it talks about securing and bringing an offering as a penalty for your sin and not as a replacement for the sinner.

3. The Priest is a much better “substitute” for the sinner, since he is doing the killing of the animal.

4. The animals are humanely as possible killed, while a sinner deserves to be tortured to death for intentional sins.

It is not “justice on sin” since sin itself can do nothing, but we are needing justice on the guilty sinner (us), God the Father and Judge is to see to the just/fair punishment (or discipline), if at all possible, of the disobedient child, by Biblical rules. Penal substitution says Christ replaced the guilty disobedient child, but that means God is seeing to the punishment/discipline of Christ instead of the guilty child? I am not saying “there is no reason given for God seeing to the punishment of Christ”, I am saying to have Christ punished in our stead is unjust by Biblical standards.

If God must justly see to the punishment (or discipline) of the guilty how is the punishing of Christ not the punishing of the innocent?

Did Christ become a sinner on the cross and thus in need of punishment?

Did God not see to the crucifixion of Christ for our benefit?

If “changing their nature” is what is needed to “receive redemption”, than there is no need for Christ to go to the cross, since God is powerful and Loving enough to do that change without Christ going to the cross?

The injustice of having Christ go to the cross will not satisfy justice, justice satisfy justice.

Penal Substitution is the allowing of the guilty to go free unpunished, you are just adding the idea God doing lots of other stuff to this now free person.

Again, we are making the problem out to be God’s problem, which Jesus solves by going to the cross, which now allows God to do stuff He has been wanting to do. God has a problem with justice being satisfied, God has a problem reconciling people, God has a problem invading the hearts of people and God has a problem receiving people.

The prodigal son only needed to turn to the father and all the unbelieving sinner needs to do is mentally turn to the Father, for God the Father is ready and wanting to shower each of us with unbelievable gifts, but God will not force charity on us if we are unwilling to humble accept pure charity.

Did the older brother of the prodigal son step in and take the punishment for the prodigal son’s rebellious disobedience or did the father just forgive the son who turned to him? Do you see the prodigal son story lacking justice and/or being inconsistent with the way God is?

You say: “He had to substitute the death of one”, but why does it have to be a torturous, humiliating and murderous death?

Again you say: “sin has to be punished”, but it is the sinner who has to be punished since you cannot “punish” an intangible like “sin”?

You quote: “The wages of sin is death” which comes up frequently, so what “death” in the context of Romans 5,6 and 7 is Paul referring to here?


The physically natural death , death (separation from God) brought about by sin or death to sin because that is all Paul is talking about in Ro. 5-7?

Christ did not pay any of those deaths on the cross, since they all still continue on and all mature adults experience them until Jesus comes. Death is still with us even after the cross, because of sin.

What cosmic “Law” is out there controlling God?

This whole scenario is something put together with verses taken from lots of place with other more likely meanings.

WOW, there is a lot to be addressed with the interpretation of this verse:

What does Christ becoming “sin” mean to you? Did Christ become a sinner? Did Christ become an intangible object of “sin”?

If you go to the NIV there is an alternative translation for at the bottom where “sin offering” is given as an alternative to “being made sin” and we all know Christ was a “sin offering”, so what support is there for that translation?

Paul being a scholar of the Torah, used a Hebraism. In this case, the Hebrew word for "sin" was also used to mean "sin offering" (see the Hebrew word: chatta'ath), and thus to be "made sin" was a Hebrew way of saying "made a sin offering". the NASB cross-references to Romans 8:3 which uses "sin offering" in a similar text as 2 Corinthians 5:21

There is the analogy in 2 Corinthians 8:9; the cross-reference to the clearer statement in Romans 8:3 that Christ was sent "in the likeness of sinful flesh" to deal with sin; and the allusion to Sacrifice in 2 Corinthians 5:21 where it says Christ "knew no sin" in corresponding to the sacrificial animal being free of blemish (otherwise Paul saying "knew no sin" would be irrelevant here).

The Greek word for "sin" that Paul uses is used in the Greek Old Testament both to mean "sin" and "sin offering," with both usages even in the same verse such as in Leviticus 4:3.

You can certainly do a deeper study of 2 Cor 5: 21 and we can go into Ro.3-4.

I'm only going to address the first error:

The Hebrew writer never says the animal used is a substitute for the guilty party (sinner).

When an animal is sacrificed for a sin or guilt offering, just who do you think committed the sin being atoned for? The animal is a substitute for the sinner! If you study the typology of the OT taught in Hebrews, then you'll be able to see that Jesus' death is a substitute for us.

Now I'm done, seeing that your attitude renders you unteachable.
TD

 

[bling]

I'm only going to address the first error:

When an animal is sacrificed for a sin or guilt offering, just who do you think committed the sin being atoned for? The animal is a substitute for the sinner! If you study the typology of the OT taught in Hebrews, then you'll be able to see that Jesus' death is a substitute for us.

Now I'm done, seeing that your attitude renders you unteachable.
TD

I am a stickler for finding the truth and/or the most likely alternative interpretation?

In Lev. 5 is the bag of flour sin offering any less acceptable to God than the animal offering?

Lev. 5: 5 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. 6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin.

The sin offering in Lev. 5 was to produce a hardship on the sinner and not be a replacement for the sinner?

Hebrews is a lengthy book, so I need chapter and verse and not just some general statement possible proved by some unknown place in scripture?

Again, the sin sacrifices on the Day of Atonement do correspond somewhat to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, but that does not mean they substituted for man.

Man needs to experience the very worst possible torturous experience he could have and remember that experience repeatedly through out man’s life for his sinning against God as disciplining, but the Hebrew writer does not show the animal sacrifices going through this torturous experience (one Goat is set free and the other is humanly killed).

Christ is taking the place of the High Priest and to some degree the High Priest was standing in for Jews under the OT. The sacrifices were representing Christ sacrifice and all his sacrifice was to do, but how were the animal sacrifices standing in for the sinners?


Heb. 11:18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

God’s forgiveness is what the sinner needs, but does God “need” sacrifices in order to forgive?

Forgiveness for minor (unintentional sins) did come after the correct completion of the atonement process under the Old Law, but those sacrifices (like a bag od flour) did not pay God to forgive, but it was a disciplining activity.

Sin the Jews did not know they committed could be atoned for on the Day of Atonement and forgiven, but the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement just brought to memory the sins the Jew knew he committed and were not forgive with sacrifices and in that way would experience a hardship on that day.

I am sorry: you are not going to address my questions.

 

[tdidymas]

I am a stickler for finding the truth and/or the most likely alternative interpretation?

In Lev. 5 is the bag of flour sin offering any less acceptable to God than the animal offering?

Lev. 5: 5 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. 6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin.

The sin offering in Lev. 5 was to produce a hardship on the sinner and not be a replacement for the sinner?

Hebrews is a lengthy book, so I need chapter and verse and not just some general statement possible proved by some unknown place in scripture?

Again, the sin sacrifices on the Day of Atonement do correspond somewhat to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, but that does not mean they substituted for man.

Man needs to experience the very worst possible torturous experience he could have and remember that experience repeatedly through out man’s life for his sinning against God as disciplining, but the Hebrew writer does not show the animal sacrifices going through this torturous experience (one Goat is set free and the other is humanly killed).

Christ is taking the place of the High Priest and to some degree the High Priest was standing in for Jews under the OT. The sacrifices were representing Christ sacrifice and all his sacrifice was to do, but how were the animal sacrifices standing in for the sinners?


Heb. 11:18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

God’s forgiveness is what the sinner needs, but does God “need” sacrifices in order to forgive?

Forgiveness for minor (unintentional sins) did come after the correct completion of the atonement process under the Old Law, but those sacrifices (like a bag od flour) did not pay God to forgive, but it was a disciplining activity.

Sin the Jews did not know they committed could be atoned for on the Day of Atonement and forgiven, but the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement just brought to memory the sins the Jew knew he committed and were not forgive with sacrifices and in that way would experience a hardship on that day.

I am sorry: you are not going to address my questions.

Your alternative explanation doesn't cut the mustard. You don't seem to be very familiar with Hebrews, if you can't quickly find what I'm talking about. But here are a few verses:
Heb 9:7 "but into the second, only the high priest enters once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance."
Heb 9:12 "and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption."
Heb 9:14 "how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"
Heb 9:22 "And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."

And: Heb 8:5 "who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things..." is his teaching on typology, along with Paul in Col 2:17 "things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ."

If we cannot get past agreement on this matter, anything else debated is an exercise in futility.
TD

 

[bling]

I haven’t a clue what threads of the NT you are pulling on to come to your conclusions.

The question is: “The wages of sin is death” comes up frequently, so what “death” in the context of Romans 5,6 and 7 is Paul referring to here?

 

[redleghunter]

The question is: “The wages of sin is death” comes up frequently, so what “death” in the context of Romans 5,6 and 7 is Paul referring to here?

All of it.