Featured The Atonement: Which is The Bible's Teaching?

I know that Jesus was quoting the scripture on God forsaking Him, but also see Him as actual feeling/experiencing that break from the father in a way that we will not be able top fully understand, as he as God cannot forsake Himself, but in His Humanity, the father did in some sense while upon the Cross!

 

My viewpoint actually support the trintarian view, as Jesus exoerienced in his humanity what he could not in His deity, IE< temp separation from the father due to becoming our sin offering!

Do ypou believe that the wrath of God was actually poured out for sins on Jesus at the Cross then, or as something else?

 

Do you see Jesus as the sin beaer, would have experience the wrath of God for those sins?

 

This is why it is impossible to fully get what was going on at the cross, as the father did indeed see Jesus as becoming sin on our behalf, as the sin bearer, and yet he still stayed sinless... He was loving His own Son, and yet at the same time hating the Sin that he now represented while on the Cross...

God anger towards sin poured upon that messiah of God in full...

 

Was the wrath of God upon him?

 

What's funny when I see these debates are the questions. When you say "Do you see Jesus as the sin bearer", you may was well ask "Do you believe I Peter where it says "He bore our sins....", or Isaiah 53 where it says the same".

You do what you like, but it's SUCH A WASTE OF TIME debating anyone but orthodox, yes they did it in the old days, but they didn't have the information we have today. It's clear Jesus died only for His sheep, for the elect, I don't see Hitler sinless do you, not Hitlers sins judged twice, it's insanity.

Was watching on YouTube "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" (We need some better English versions), not a verse goes by without showing God's full sovereignty over all affairs of man "I prevented Abimilech from sinning against you", "The Lord put into her heart to get the servant water", "She was barren, but the Lord blessed her and she was with child", I think we have to look at it this way;

Atheists, who have not the Spirit read it, and see nothing. Arminians read it and see nothing. I think we must be most charitable to the new Christian, or the Arminian who is new to the "debate, there is no debate", so how can they miss it? "The natural man cannot understand the things of God". Abraham wasn't a good man, he was a pagan, it's God that called him and made him into what he was, same with Isaac and Jacob. Each and every action ordered by the Lord, JUST AS HE'S SAID.

Really you're wasting your time, these people have their own philosophy, maybe they were raised that way, maybe they won't exercise Faith and believe what God says about Himself, and maybe they are one of the "Lord Lord didn't we do this and that in your name", "I never knew you", but it's ridiculous, read Job, read Isaiah, well if you believe in free will don't for you can't trust scripture if man has free will, God DIDN'T put the words in their mouths. It's just a joke, a decade, over a decade is long enough, I've done my duty, you'll find some really don't know the Lord, but again ALWAYS give the charity that they do, and are just very confused.

 

This is the orthodox view. Remember Jesus had the Spirit "Without Measure", he can as "Son of Man", though God He didn't show His entire self, He did transfigure, but He lived as a man. He was "Led by the Spirit TO BE TESTED". So yes, on the cross His Father not only abandoned Him "My God, My God why have you forsaken me", but God's wrath was poured out into His Soul in a way we'll never know this side of Heaven.

But yeah you're right, the other fellow wrong.

 

Jon, please clarify this for me.

"When we get to the point that we deny Jesus as the savior of all mankind, especially those who believe,"

What do you mean? You seem to promote universal atonement, but then include "especially for those who believe."
Why would belief matter if the atonement is universal? There is no need to qualify your statement.
If Jesus is the Savior of all mankind, then he's the Savior of all mankind. There is no other qualification needed. Unless...mankind ultimately saves themselves by their choice believe or disbelieve the atonement. That would be salvation by works, not by grace through faith.
Please clarify.

 

Again, I do not understand the last phrase.

"God who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers."

If God is the Savior of all men, then your qualifier "especially of believers" is redundant and unnecessary.

It comes across that you don't really believe God is the Savior of all men. That would be good, because the Bible is very clear that not all men are saved. Many, the majority of mankind, are not saved. In fact, if it were not for God's grace, all fall short of the mark.

We engage in the work of the Kingdom because God has commissioned us to be His ambassadors, preaching the message of reconciliation. That message of reconciliation would be unneeded if Christ's atonement were unlimited. All would be automatically reconciled by Christ's unlimited atonement. This means that Christ's atonement must be limited to those whom God has predestined to believe. Our obedience in engaging the lost with the gospel is a blessing God has given to us. He uses His children to call to those children who do not yet know they are chosen for adoption. God could have just done it Himself, but in His perfect plan He gives me a purpose. It's wonderful and so amazing that God would enlist me for such a meaningful task.

I truly cannot fathom your final statement and need for qualification.

 

I will simply state that I think you misunderstand Paul and John in your use of scripture.

 

Jon, the discussion regarding 1 Timothy and John 3 has gone round and round since I have been here. The counter is what does Paul mean by the multiple verses where he calls believers chosen, elect and predestined.
Which view is more consistent with all of scripture? There is no doubt that not all men are saved. This alone shows that the atonement is not unlimited.

Jon, I hear your arguments. I made the same arguments 15-20 years ago. The more I read the Bible, the more I could not reconcile the view you presently hold. Like you, I earnestly loved God and passionately sought to walk with God. Nothing has changed in that regard. What has changed is my understanding of the atonement based upon more reading of the Bible.
I hold no ill will toward you or your earnest desire to understand God's word. I simply don't hold your position anymore.