- Oct 13, 2010
- 584
- 62
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Sinful is a condition - sinful nature. Sin is an offense against God.
Upvote
0
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.
Don't you really think that means sin (not sins) which is the condition of men everywhere, i.e. worldwide? Everyone else does.
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:
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).
Jesus also has the ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor 5:18). This is the propitiation for sins (Romans 3:25).
Maybe so, but it was also serving as a contrast to "only the sins of Israel" at the time.
Yes, I agree with you. Adam's sin is not specifically stated.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.
Willingly going to the cross has no bearing on "PSA."... 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)Ro 3:25-26 has been in Scripture for 2,000 years.
Perhaps you would like to answer the questions on it.
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.
The words in brackets are the Greek meanings of the text, which is the language of the text.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.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)
1) What did God "pass over" the sins committed beforehand (OT)?
It means what the text you presented means inThis is not easy to decipher - what do you intend it to mean?
2) The "what passed over" consisted precisely of?
The answer to this question is the same as the answer to the question above it."the sins previously committed" is what the passage says. Was your question rhetorical?
3) How did the "what passed over" demonstrate God's justice?
You did not answer the question: How did it demonstrate God's justice?It demonstrated that God is righteous. This is also rhetorical is it not?
Posturing is a poor substitute for substantive response.Atonement is not 'for something' it is 'to heal a breach'.4) For what did Jesus' sacrificial death atone?
You do understand that, don't you?
You are not reckoning with the text.The passage is about Jesus expiatory death as atonement to heal the broken relationship between humankind and God.
Again, you do not reckon with the text, presenting an answer even more vacuous than the answer before.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.5) How does Jesus' sacrificial death atone (make reparation, amends) for it?
6) What is the connection between his atonement and my faith in it (his blood)?
Agreed.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.
You betray your lack of understanding of the text with all your "rhetorical question" responses.Another rhetorical question? God is righteous by nature and by definition.7) How is God both just and the one who justifies?
... very long post ...
It makes sense as in it is comprehensible but it is not biblical nor is it the teaching of the Church.
Yes, agree. But they are done through different means and events.Jesus' work of reconciliation involves all aspects of sin, individual acts of sin and original sin are covered in it.
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:
Ro 3:25-26 and penal substitutionary atonement are on my mind,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.
You are not in a position to say that until you have explained the meaning of Ro 3:25-26 consistent with the textI 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.
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.
That explains a lot.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 its meaning, which leaves you in no position to claim that it is not taught in the Scriptures.
The non-responsiveness of your answers there is addressed in the above referenced post ([post=63164645]here[/post]),They are all answered in post #149That explains a lot.I do not see any numbered questions in that post.
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.
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.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.
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?