Sin and Substitutionary Atonement salvation

[The Biblicist]

It really is ridiculous and quite offensive, is it not -- and unjust besides.

The reason nobody believed this until Calvin is precisely because it is not taught in scripture. It is the invention of a "lawyer".

Your responses advertise quite loudly that both of you are quite ignorant of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Sin is a violation of Divine Law and God is a Just and Holy God whereas your concept of a God of "love" is simply sloppy agape.

Even the simple principle of "reaping what you sow" demonstrates the error of your thinking. Neither of you have any concept of what is real "justice" but are like the modern American family that believes corporeal punishment of children is evil, harmful and unjust and not the act of real loving parents.

Neither of you have any clue about legal representation. There is nothing "fictious" or "unjust" in the appointment of a legal representative to act in our behalf.

 

[The Biblicist]

Do you believe Jesus Christ was "killed" by Satan or do you believe that Christ came for the very purpose to give his life willingly as a sacrificial offering to atone for sin?

In that sacrifical offering for sin do you believe the Father forsook Christ on the cross or do you believe the Father was not pleased with the death of His Son?

Mt 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Mr 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things,

Heb. 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Isa. 53:10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Now, don't come back at me asking do "I" think God was "pleased" to bruise his Son as "I" never said that - Isaiah said that by inspiration! So your beef is with Isaiah and the Holy Spirit who chose his words.

Isaiah says that it is God that put Christ to grief and it is God that bruised him and it is God that sent Christ for that very purpose in order to bear their inquities on the cross and to make satisfaction for their sins.

1 Pet. 2:24 Who 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.

1Jo 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

The term "propitiation" is used of Christ as a "sacrifice" and is vividly illustrated several times in the Old Testament when God's wrath came upon the Israelites, it was the sacrifice that typified the sacrifice of Christ that APPEASED/SATISFIED His wrath against sin and in each instance He stopped killing Israelites.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Your responses advertise quite loudly that both of you are quite ignorant of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Sin is a violation of Divine Law and God is a Just and Holy God whereas your concept of a God of "love" is simply sloppy agape.

Even the simple principle of "reaping what you sow" demonstrates the error of your thinking. Neither of you have any concept of what is real "justice" but are like the modern American family that believes corporeal punishment of children is evil, harmful and unjust and not the act of real loving parents.

Neither of you have any clue about legal representation. There is nothing "fictious" or "unjust" in the appointment of a legal representative to act in our behalf.

I am quite knowledgeable about the Gospel of Jesus Christ; that's how I can debunk the unscriptural doctrine of penal substitution.

But I just knew my posts would bring out the nasty in you. I wasn't disappointed.

But I'm not going to rehash this; I've proved my point in other places.

Have fun!

 

[The Biblicist]

I am quite knowledgeable about the Gospel of Jesus Christ; that's how I can debunk the unscriptural doctrine of penal substitution.

But I just knew my posts would bring out the nasty in you. I wasn't disappointed.

But I'm not going to rehash this; I've proved my point in other places.

Have fun!

No, you have not proved your points anywhere on this forum. Each time you tried they have been completely debunked and rightly so.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

No, you have not proved your points anywhere on this forum. Each time you tried they have been completely debunked and rightly so.

Haha, that's funny. I have conclusively shown, historically and theologically by many sources, that penal substitution is unscriptural and was unknown until Calvin.

But you go ahead and think and say what you want about me; it won't change my standing with Jesus.

 

[Yeshua1]

I was trying to tell you that the two main early views of the atonement were Christus Victor and Moral Influence. I believe there is some truth in the Moral Influence view, but Christus Victor is the earliest view universally held for the first millenium and the view that does full justice to the complete work of Jesus -- from His Incarnation to His life, death, and Resurrection.

Have you really studied the Christus Victor view? I don't believe you know what all it encompasses, and I don't say that as an insult.

Moral influence theory would hold that by showing us the very Love of god, sinners would repent and believe in God?

problem here is that sinners cannot repent on their own, and there is still a sin debt/obligation due and owed to god!

Do you hold maybe to jesus paying the sin debt to Satan, the ole "ransom theory?"

 

[Yeshua1]

Haha, that's funny. I have conclusively shown, historically and theologically by many sources, that penal substitution is unscriptural and was unknown until Calvin.

But you go ahead and think and say what you want about me; it won't change my standing with Jesus.

God first hinted at it in the garden with slain animal and the promise of the coming messiah, and Abraham knew that God would dend forth the lamb, as did isaiah the prophet...

John the baptist identified jesus as being the Lamb of God, whose DEATH would take away sins of the world...

hebrews/peter/John ALL also testifiy to His shedding of blood and His death itself paying for sins to the father...

Arguement is with God on this!

 

[The Biblicist]

Haha, that's funny. I have conclusively shown, historically and theologically by many sources, that penal substitution is unscriptural and was unknown until Calvin.

But you go ahead and think and say what you want about me; it won't change my standing with Jesus.

Conclusively to who? Every single solitary point you have every made on this subject has been thoroughly repudiated and exposed by Scriptures. What is laughable is that you would even raise the subject again!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Conclusively to who? Every single solitary point you have every made on this subject has been thoroughly repudiated and exposed by Scriptures. What is laughable is that you would even raise the subject again!

That is quite wrong.

Further, as I have also previously stated, the earliest churches had those same scriptures, and yet they did not hold to or teach penal substitution because they did not find same in the scriptures. It took Calvin, the supreme legalist, to do that.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Moral influence theory would hold that by showing us the very Love of god, sinners would repent and believe in God?

problem here is that sinners cannot repent on their own, and there is still a sin debt/obligation due and owed to god!

Do you hold maybe to jesus paying the sin debt to Satan, the ole "ransom theory?"

I hold to the Christus Victor view. It is the only wholistic view of the atonement.

 

[The Biblicist]

I hold to the Christus Victor view. It is the only wholistic view of the atonement.

It is a thoroughly unbiblical irrational and unwarranted scheme to undermine the gospel of Jesus Christ and repudiate the cross of Christ.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

It is a thoroughly unbiblical irrational and unwarranted scheme to undermine the gospel of Jesus Christ and repudiate the cross of Christ.

No it is not. It simply does not isolate the cross of Christ from His Incarnation, life, ministry, and Resurrection.

 

[The Biblicist]

No it is not. It simply does not isolate the cross of Christ from His Incarnation, life, ministry, and Resurrection.

It repudiates it completely as that theory does not regard the cross or the death of Christ as absolutely necessary for the salvation of sinners.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

It repudiates it completely as that theory does not regard the cross or the death of Christ as absolutely necessary for the salvation of sinners.

Well, you believe as you do, and I'll do the same, although you misstate the view. The death of Christ was necessary if Jesus was to be completely human. It's just as I said: Christus Victor connects the Incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus in a wholistic view of Jesus's purpose for being born. It does not isolate the Atonement from other aspects of Jesus's life and work.

 

[The Biblicist]

The death of Christ was necessary if Jesus was to be completely human.

Here is admission of your abominational Christus Defeator. Your atonement is no atonement at all as your view is the death of Christ served no purpose for our salvation at all. Instead, it only served to demonstrate one of many other characteristics of his humanity. There is NO SALVATION at all from sin in this abominable view. This is another Jesus and a completely another gospel.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Here is admission of your abominational Christus Defeator. Your atonement is no atonement at all as your view is the death of Christ served no purpose for our salvation at all. Instead, it only served to demonstrate one of many other characteristics of his humanity. There is NO SALVATION at all from sin in this abominable view. This is another Jesus and a completely another gospel.

That is not what I believe and not what Christus Victor states.

 

[The Biblicist]

Here is admission of your abominational Christus Defeator. Your atonement is no atonement at all as your view is the death of Christ served no purpose for our salvation at all. Instead, it only served to demonstrate one of many other characteristics of his humanity. There is NO SALVATION at all from sin in this abominable view. This is another Jesus and a completely another gospel.

1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

Mt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Ro 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Ga 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

Ga 3:13 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:

Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

1Pe 2:24 Who 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 3:18 ¶ For 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:

Re 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Isa 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

Isa 53:10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Biblicist, if you and others want to believe I am not a Christian because I hold to Christus Victor and other beliefs, go right ahead. I'm tired of defending myself.

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist, if you and others want to believe I am not a Christian because I hold to Christus Victor and other beliefs, go right ahead. I'm tired of defending myself.

Your salvation only depends upon whether this is the view you held when you professed salvation. If it is, and that is the basis of your salvation then there is no doubt you are merely a religious lost person.

However, I have better hopes for you. I think you were simply led astray after you were saved and need to return to the truth of your actual salvation.

 

[The Biblicist]

That is not what I believe and not what Christus Victor states.

Any view that regulates the death of Christ (=shedding of blood) to be merely proof of humanity and but denies it is absolutely necessary without which there could be no other way for our salvation is a reproach to God.