Why the Protestant view of the Cross is wrong.

[def]

Don't you really think that means sin (not sins) which is the condition of men everywhere, i.e. worldwide? Everyone else does.

Sinful is a condition - sinful nature. Sin is an offense against God.

 

[MoreCoffee]

John used sin and sins in his book. He could have used sins of the world and remove any ambiquity. Paul describes the sin of the world. Romans 5:12 Therefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Saint Paul is not attributing sin TO the world in that passage, he is saying sin ENTERED the world. There's a significant difference between those two things, right?

Jesus death removes (takes away) the sin of the world. Since then the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; (Heb 2:14).

I am not sure why you quoted Hebrews 2:14 because it does not say Jesus "took away the sin of the world" as you assert. Of course, when you use the phrase "sin of the world" you seem to mean some specific sin, and I guess you have in mind the sin of Adam & Eve in eating the forbidden fruit. But none of these passages make any reference to Adam & Eve do they?

Jesus also has the ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor 5:18). This is the propitiation for sins (Romans 3:25).

Jesus' ministry of reconciliation brings together (reconciles) God and humanity. The dispute is healed by the reconciliation. Adam & Even are not in view here, are they?

 

[def]

Maybe so, but it was also serving as a contrast to "only the sins of Israel" at the time.

Sounds good. Sins of his chosen people (Israel), and distinguished from Adam's sin.

 

[def]

Saint Paul is not attributing sin TO the world in that passage, he is saying sin ENTERED the world. There's a significant difference between those two things, right?


I am not sure why you quoted Hebrews 2:14 because it does not say Jesus "took away the sin of the world" as you assert. Of course, when you use the phrase "sin of the world" you seem to mean some specific sin, and I guess you have in mind the sin of Adam & Eve in eating the forbidden fruit. But none of these passages make any reference to Adam & Eve do they?


Jesus' ministry of reconciliation brings together (reconciles) God and humanity. The dispute is healed by the reconciliation. Adam & Even are not in view here, are they?

Yes, I agree with you. Adam's sin is not specifically stated.

I am trying to reconcile the promise in the New Covenant regarding forgiveness of sins.

In Jer 31:31-34; God declared, I am your God and you are my people. Following that he said, "I will forgive your iniquity and remember your sins no more." I see this promise as arising out of the Covenant relationship. In other words. Jesus death allows one to enter into the relationship; but does not take away indivdual sins; which God the Father simply choose not to remember. This is supported by Rom 3:25; in his forbearance he chose to forgive sins of the past.

So this leaves a question. What sin did Jesus died for? For the sin of the world. Hence I quoted Heb 2:14; the purpose of his death.

Hope it makes sense.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, I agree with you. Adam's sin is not specifically stated.

I am trying to reconcile the promise in the New Covenant regarding forgiveness of sins.

In Jer 31:31-34; God declared, I am your God and you are my people. Following that he said, "I will forgive your iniquity and remember your sins no more." I see this promise as arising out of the Covenant relationship. In other words. Jesus death allows one to enter into the relationship; but does not take away indivdual sins; which God the Father simply choose not to remember. This is supported by Rom 3:25; in his forbearance he chose to forgive sins of the past.

So this leaves a question. What sin did Jesus died for? For the sin of the world. Hence I quoted Heb 2:14; the purpose of his death.

Hope it makes sense.

It makes sense as in it is comprehensible but it is not biblical nor is it the teaching of the Church.

Jesus' work of reconciliation involves all aspects of sin, individual acts of sin and original sin are covered in it.

Consider these verses:

• “Father,... this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” (1 Jn 17:3)
• “God our Savior desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim 2:3-4)
• “There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12) than the name of Jesus.

 

[Clare73]

Ro 3:25-26 has been in Scripture for 2,000 years.

Perhaps you would like to answer the questions on it.

... For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:22-26)

Exactly how does that passage teach penal substitutionary atonement?
I do not see it.
Jesus' death is described as a sacrifice for atonement but not as receiving divine punishment for sins nor as receiving God's wrath.
Since Jesus willingly went to the cross out of love for humanity there seems to be no support for PSA in the passage.

Willingly going to the cross has no bearing on "PSA."

Provide answers to the questions below on Ro 3:25-26 which are consistent with the text and the rest of Scripture, then we'll go from there.

"God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of propitiation (atonement) (4,5) through faith in his blood (6).

He did this to demonstrate his justice (3), because in his forbearance he had passed over (1,2)

(left unpunished) the sins committed beforehand (OT)--he did it to demonstrate his justice (3)

at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies (7)." (Ro 3:25-26)

The words that you put in brackets are insertions not present in the text of sacred scripture. If you intend them to be alternative translation you need not bother. If you prefer "propitiation" from the ESV to "sacrifice of atonement" from the NRSV that's okay.

The words in brackets are the Greek meanings of the text, which is the language of the text.

1) What did God "pass over" the sins committed beforehand (OT)?

This is not easy to decipher - what do you intend it to mean?

It means what the text you presented means in

"in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed;"

Did God pass over (withhold) his blessings, grace, provision, punishment, penalty, wrath, etc?
Exactly what did he withhold on the sins of the OT until the sacrifice of Jesus?

2) The "what passed over" consisted precisely of?

"the sins previously committed" is what the passage says. Was your question rhetorical?

The answer to this question is the same as the answer to the question above it.

3) How did the "what passed over" demonstrate God's justice?

It demonstrated that God is righteous. This is also rhetorical is it not?

You did not answer the question: How did it demonstrate God's justice?

4) For what did Jesus' sacrificial death atone?

Atonement is not 'for something' it is 'to heal a breach'.

You do understand that, don't you?

Posturing is a poor substitute for substantive response.

The Greek meaning of atonement (hilasterion) is propitiation, reparation, amends for.

The passage is about Jesus expiatory death as atonement to heal the broken relationship between humankind and God.

You are not reckoning with the text.

That is such vacuous human thinking, with no basis in Scripture.

Where do you find any mention of "healing a broken relationship"?

If by "broken relationship," you mean that we are born as (Eph 2:3) and remain God's enemies (Ro 5:10)
until our sin is forgiven by faith in the blood of Jesus (Ro 3:25), that is not a "broken relationship,"
that is God laying down his arms against us and declaring us no longer his enemies.

There was no relationship with God prior to God laying down his arms against us, for we were born his enemies, by our very nature objects of his wrath (Eph 2:3). That's not relationship, that's war.

5) How does Jesus' sacrificial death atone (make reparation, amends) for it?

It doesn't make reparation. Jesus' sacrificial death is an offering of love and praise offered to God to wipe away sins and the offence that sins give to God.

Again, you do not reckon with the text, presenting an answer even more vacuous than the answer before.

Just how does Christ's brutal death on the cross wipe away sin and its offence to God?

Why would God regard his brutal death as wiping sin away?

Why not regard healing all the lepers in Israel, or some other miracles as an offering of love and praise to God to wipe away sin?

6) What is the connection between his atonement and my faith in it (his blood)?

The atonement is made effective through faith. Each of the faithful who is united to Christ in baptism and faith within the body (which is the church) is promised cleansing from sins and eternal life in union with Jesus Christ.

Agreed.

7) How is God both just and the one who justifies?

Another rhetorical question? God is righteous by nature and by definition.

You betray your lack of understanding of the text with all your "rhetorical question" responses.

You did not answer the question how Jesus sacrifice shows God to be both just and the one who justifies.

You did not answer questions 1), 2), 3), 4), 5), 7).

You've got more homework to do.

You do not see penal substitutionary atonement in Ro 3:25-26 because you do not realty understand Ro 3:25-26.

< BUMP >

 

[MoreCoffee]

... very long post ...

How about you cut to the quick and say what's on your mind.

If you avoid interlacing posts it helps too.

I know it is sometimes convenient to do so, and I do it myself, but replying to the ...very long post... as it stands would be too onerous for me to undertake this morning.

 

[def]

It makes sense as in it is comprehensible but it is not biblical nor is it the teaching of the Church.

I agree it is not the teaching of your Church. The interpretation is based on the Bible, so it is biblical. So say all the denominations.

Jesus' work of reconciliation involves all aspects of sin, individual acts of sin and original sin are covered in it.

Yes, agree. But they are done through different means and events.

Jesus death and resurrection removed the power and bondage of death.

I agree Jesus is at the heart and in every aspect of our salvation. A person repents and believe in the gospel message and Jesus' death and resurrection (John 11:25-26). By this he enters into the Covenant with God and receives all the promises of the Covenant (Ezekiel 36:26-29). He receives the Holy Spirit, and is born again, and the spirit enters the kingdom of God (Heb 12:23). In the kingdom, Jesus is the King. By faith in him, we follow his decrees and his laws.

 

[Cribstyl]

Like it or not MC, we can find scores of scriptures teaching what can be catagorized as "penal substitution". It's not a principle doctrine but the declaration has merit.


1Pe 2:24Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

1Pe 3:18For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

 

[MoreCoffee]

Like it or not MC, we can find scores of scriptures teaching what can be catagorized as "penal substitution". It's not a principle doctrine but the declaration has merit.


1Pe 2:24Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

1Pe 3:18For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

I do not say it has no merit in your tradition.

I say it is not what the bible says.

It is what your tradition teaches.

 

[Clare73]

How about you cut to the quick and say what's on your mind.

If you avoid interlacing posts it helps too.

I know it is sometimes convenient to do so, and I do it myself, but replying to the ...very long post... as it stands would be too onerous for me to undertake this morning.

Ro 3:25-26 and penal substitutionary atonement are on my mind,
with questions 1), 2), 3), 4), 5), 7) presented to you [post=63164645]here[/post] still unaddressed.

 

[Clare73]

I do not say it has no merit in your tradition.

I say it is not what the bible says.

It is what your tradition teaches.

You are not in a position to say that until you have explained the meaning of Ro 3:25-26 consistent with the text
and the rest of Scripture, by adequately answering the questions regarding it [post=63164645]here[/post].

You make that statement in ignorance of Ro 3:25-26.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Ro 3:25-26 and penal substitutionary atonement are on my mind,
with questions 1), 2), 3), 4), 5), 7) presented to you [post=63164645]here[/post] still unaddressed.

I do not see any numbered questions in that post.

 

[Clare73]

I do not see any numbered questions in that post.

That explains a lot.

Try again.

They are in the red text in the bottom half of the post, [post=63164645]here[/post], regarding the meaning of Ro 3:25-26 and penal substitutionary atonement.

You have yet to adequately explain the meaning of Ro 3:25-26, which leaves you in no position to claim that substitutionary penal atonement is not taught in the Scriptures.

Still waiting. . .

 

[MoreCoffee]

That explains a lot.

Try again.

They are in the red text in the bottom half of the post, [post=63164645]here[/post], regarding the meaning of Ro 3:25-26 and penal substitutionary atonement.

You have yet to adequately explain its meaning, which leaves you in no position to claim that it is not taught in the Scriptures.

They are all answered in post #149

 

[Clare73]

I do not see any numbered questions in that post.

That explains a lot.

Try again.

They are in the red text in the bottom half of the post, [post=63164645]here[/post], regarding the meaning of Ro 3:25-26 and penal substitutionary atonement.

You have yet to adequately explain the meaning of Ro 3:25-26, consistent with the text and the rest of Scripture which, therefore, leaves you in no position to claim that substitutionary penal atonement is not taught in the Scriptures.

They are all answered in post #149

The non-responsiveness of your answers there is addressed in the above referenced post ([post=63164645]here[/post]),
which non-responsiveness you have yet to address.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If you have something on your mind spell it out.

The passage says what it says.

You appear to want something that is not there.

For the record, the passage in paraphrase says:

The God-setting-things-right that we read about has become Jesus-setting-things-right for us. And not only for us, but for everyone who believes in him. For there is no difference between us and them in this. Since we've compiled this long and sorry record as sinners (both us and them) and proved that we are utterly incapable of living the glorious lives God wills for us, God did it for us. Out of sheer generosity he put us in right standing with himself. A pure gift. He got us out of the mess we're in and restored us to where he always wanted us to be. And he did it by means of Jesus Christ. God sacrificed Jesus on the altar of the world to clear that world of sin. Having faith in him sets us in the clear. God decided on this course of action in full view of the public--to set the world in the clear with himself through the sacrifice of Jesus, finally taking care of the sins he had so patiently endured. This is not only clear, but it's now--this is current history! God sets things right. He also makes it possible for us to live in his rightness. (Romans 3:22-26)
​

Of course Eugene Peterson's paraphrase is not perfect but it gets basic ideas across; albeit in a Calvinist sort of way.

My preferred translation says

God's saving justice was witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, but now it has been revealed altogether apart from law: God's saving justice given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. No distinction is made: all have sinned and lack God's glory, and all are justified by the free gift of his grace through being set free in Christ Jesus. God appointed him as a sacrifice for reconciliation, through faith, by the shedding of his blood, and so showed his justness; first for the past, when sins went unpunished because he held his hand; and now again for the present age, to show how he is just and justifies everyone who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:21-26)
​

 

[Clare73]

If you have something on your mind spell it out.

The passage says what it says.

You appear to want something that is not there.

Well, regarding the questions on the meaning of Ro 3:25-26, below, I have presented answers consistent with the text and the rest of Scripture.

The meaning which is consistent with the text and the rest of Scripture shows penal substitutionary atonement.

If you think these answers are not consistent with the text and the rest of Scripture, you must demonstrate such with responsive answers to all the questions, answers which are consistent with the text and the rest of Scripture.

Please use the Scriptures themselves in your responses.

Your answers ([post=63164645]here[/post], bottom half) in post 149 were not responsive (did not answer the question asked).

"God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of propitiation (atonement) through faith in his blood.

He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had passed over

(left unpunished) the sins committed beforehand (OT)--he did it to demonstrate his justice

at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies." (Ro 3:25-26)

1) What did God "pass over" the sins committed beforehand (OT)?

-----Penalty on their sin was "passed over," their sin was left unpunished. (punishment is penal)

2) The "what passed over" (penalty) consisted precisely of?

-----Eternal punishment due on their sin.

3) How did the "what passed over" (penalty) demonstrate God's justice?

-----Justice requires a penalty for law breaking.

4) For what did Jesus' sacrificial death atone?

-----The law-breaking of all those who believe in his propitiation for their sin (of breaking God's laws). (his sacrifice was atonement)

5) How does Jesus' sacrificial death atone (make reparation, amends) for it?

-----He paid the penalty due for their law-breaking. (the atonement was subsitutionary)

6) What is the connection between his atonement and my faith in it (his blood)?

-----The forgiveness of sin, purchased by Jesus' sacrifice of propitiation paying my penalty, is applied to me only by faith
in his propitiation, and that forgiveness is salvation, from the wrath of God (Ro 5:9) at the final judgment.

7) How is God both just and the one who justifies?

-----He is just in requiring a penalty for law breaking, and he is the one who justifies by providing payment of the penalty in presenting his own Son as a sacrifice of propitiation.


The word of God in Ro 3:25-26 clearly presents penal substitutionary atonement.

 

[MoreCoffee]

You're just repeating yourself now, Clare73.

 

[Clare73]

duplicate post