Back by popular demand - An often unpopular view of the Atonement

In order to have God forgive a sinner and grant eternal life, they must not just repent from sinning, but must have never sinned! and how is their sin guilt from fall of Adam get dealt with then?

 

Brother,

I noticed you did not quote Isaiah 53 from my quote.

Saying Christ became 'sin' is quite the statement. Sin is an entity?

When understanding written communication, we can apply a method of understanding called "intent"...what was the author's intent? Paul said that Christ, who knew know sin, became sin for us. It is obvious, especially because of Paul's previous two chapters, that he was speaking on the realities of the Law. So, when he said Christ, who has never sinned, became a sin offering...intent is easily identifiable.

Let's try this exercise--Read: man let's play some ball, i can ball you up.

My intent is for you to understand, Let's play some BASKET-ball, I can play a game better than you. I used One word that can have two different effects/meaning.

 

@Martin Marprelate

Why ignore Isaiah 53:10...When You make His soul an offering for sin...?

 

Well, why ignore God pleased to crush Jesus fir our own iniquities?

 

It does indeed mean that though!

 

"Word studies" can have problems, especially if they put too much emphasis on the etymology. Remember that "word studies" are not lexicons.

With a word in the original languages that only occurs once (hapax legomenon), the etymology can be important in determining the meaning. However, with a word that occurs multiple times like this one, the etymology can even be irrelevant. Not one single usage of the 12 occurrences in the OT can be translated "foam at the mouth," so I'm mystified as to why it was even in the entry in your book. The word does not "literally mean 'foam at the mouth." (I realize the entry says "root," but it's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.) To think of the meaning as "foam at the mouth" is misleading, IMO.

In most of the 12 usages of the word in the OT, it looks to me like "fury" would be a good rendering. However, that rendering is impossible in Prov. 22:14 (abhorred) and Mic. 6:10 (abominable).

 

Thanks again, John. Actually, I read about 'foam at the mouth in an article (can't remember where now ) and looked it up to be sure. I take your points, but can we maybe agree that za'am doesn't mean 'a little bit cross,' which is all I'm really trying to say? I realise that God does not literally foam at the mouth!

 

Absolutely and obviously correct!

 

I remembered the other place where I saw za'am described as 'foam at the mouth. It is in Spurgeon's Treasury of David in a quotation from a chap called Richard Mant. 'The original expression here is very forcible. The true idea of it appears to be to 'froth' or 'foam at the mouth' with indignation.'

But you continue to misunderstand my position. I believe that God is furious with sin, and must punish it if He is to be righteous. But He does not 'punish Jesus to pay our sin debt.' He punishes sin in Jesus, which is not the same thing. Christ was made sin for us, and bore our sins in His body on the tree.

Who does not believe that 'unless one is born again ['re-created'] he cannot enter the kingdom of God'? I certainly do. But if that is what is needed for God to forgive guilty sinners, then there was no need for Christ to die.

 

Perhaps you did. I haven't seen it though.

That Christ died on our behalf is unquestionably true, but what does it mean? Let's look at 1 Peter 2:24. 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.....' Now for sure He bore our sins on our behalf, but do we still have to bear them? Yes or no? No! Therefore He bore them instead of us. It's not rocket science.

So what does it mean that, as Irenaeus says, 'The Lord redeemed us by His blood'? What does it mean that the redemption was 'His life for our life, His flesh for our flesh'? It means that He gave His life in exchange for our life; He died instead of us. He suffered in His flesh so that we should not suffer in ours. that is the meaning of 'redemption.' A price is paid in exchange for something. As for the rest of Irenaeus' explanation, you are still thinking 'either....or' when you should be thinking 'both....and.' Until you get that right you will never understand.

BTW, I found a very similar quote in Clement of Rome.'Because of the love He had towards us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God, His flesh for our flesh, His life for our life' (Epistle to the Corinthians, xlix). It looks as if Irenaeus was quoting him!

 

I'm not sure if you were dumber, but you were certainly dumb. The Scriptures are very clear that God forsook Christ on the cross until the ninth hour.

No one says anyone can. The new birth is absolutely essential, but again it's 'both....and' rather than 'either.....or.'
BTW, you may look all through my posts and you will never find me referring to a 'sin debt.'

 

So you keep telling me, but as I read your posts, I rather doubt it.