Featured Thinking about the Atonement or Reconciliation

What particular question do you think I have not answered? Is it this?

It seems to me that |I answered it very fully in my post #59, but if there is an aspect on which you would like clarification, just let me know and I will try to give it.

 

Have a super time, enjoy, and take things easy. Is this 'Veterans' Day'? I was in the USA three years ago at Lake Havasu at this time, and the shore was choc-a-bloc full of families relaxing. I saw the old London Bridge there! London Bridge - Lake Havasu City

On your return, I shall be grateful if you will reply to some questions that I asked earlier in my post #59.
1. You wrote:

Gustav Aulen saw no need for the satisfaction of God's justice. Do you see a difference between God's justice and His righteousness? If so, will you please define it?
2. You wrote:

Will you please quote to me the verses you are using to substantiate this statement concerning the powers of this world falling upon Christ?
3. Why exactly did Christ HAVE to suffer the wages of sin at the hands of sinners if not to satisfy God's justice?
4. If Christ suffered unjustly, and it 'pleased the LORD to bruise Him' (Isaiah 53:10), then how is God not punishing the innocent?

No hurry! Take your time.

 

We would come back with that the Pst is biblical, as that agrees with the prophets, paul, and Jesus Himself on what the Cross did!

 

Lost sinners taste physical death due to the fall, and for atonement must have shed blood and physical death, so jesus died in our stead to fulfill scripture!

 

Think that thiose against Pst still have no answer to how the wrath of God is averted towards lost sinners, and that Jesus fully agreed to be the sin bearer, and when he became 'sin", in the sight of the Father was no longer innocent at that time in the sense was bearing the sins of all of His people, as per Isaiah!

 

I believe the cross was necessary for it was the cross that was the suffering unto death. It was through the sufferings of the cross that, the obedience, was learned by Jesus born of woman [Heb 5:7,8. Through sufferings, becoming obedient unto death [Phil 2:8], even the death of the cross (sufferings).

I believe, what ever death is, whatever dying, thou shall surly die is, relative to man and God, Jesus experienced it [death] for three days and three nights.

because also Christ once for sin did suffer -- righteous for unrighteous -- that he might lead us to God, having been put to death indeed, in the flesh, and having been made alive in the spirit,

having been put to death indeed, in the flesh, Being he actually gave is life rather than being put to death a better understanding to me would be:--- Being caused to die indeed to flesh. Relative to, atonement, reconciliation, propitiatory shelter Jesus died, when he commended his spirit. that which is in the blood that makes the flesh, soul <see Lev 17:11] into the hands of his Father is when Jesus died and made atonement, reconciliation, propitiatory shelter. And IMHO Jesus was dead for three days and three nights the spirit of him was in the hands of the Father. BTW the spirit of him was in the hands of the Father Jesus was not on the right hand of the Father at this time.

 

But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able A. to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and B. to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.

BTW I believe those to be two different things not the same thing. A and B

 

It gets almost incredibly wearisome to write the same things out over and over again.
'The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.' If this does not explain sufficiently, perhaps you will tell me why it doesn't.
If you want more detail, try this. The Theological and Biblical Basis of Penal Substitution I originally composed and posted it on this forum at your request about four years ago, and again a couple of times since, yet you have never interacted with it. So now is your opportunity.

 

I do not believe men are spiritually dead in the sense of inanimate. The term spiritually dead means separated from God not unable to respond to the gospel as in Calvinism

I disagree. Adam was a living soul and walking and talking with God would be a spiritual experience.. I do not believe Adam ever seen God because God is Spirit. Not to mention He still spoke with God even after he sinned. Calvinism says men cannot speak to God before Salvation because they are unable to do so. If true how was it Adam spoke with God after He sinned? Was he not totally depraved as Calvinism claims?. Totally unable to do anything spiritual?

I agree with scripture I have confessed my sins and I asked Christ to save me and He did

 

Oh! I see. 'The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and CURSE due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.'
Galatians 3:13. 'Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree." 1 Peter 2:24. 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree......'

Christ on the cross was visibly under the curse of God against sin. Had He been stoned, that would not have been the case. That is why Peter uses xulon, 'tree' when one would expect him to use stauron, 'cross.'

 

I think you'll find I have. Read my post #76 again.

And where exactly have I talked about 'the wrath to come'?
It really would help if you read my linked article. The answers are all in there.

AND NOW
I shall be grateful if you will reply to some questions that I asked earlier in my post #59.
1. You wrote: 'Satan's power does not consist of an appeal to justice but includes an appeal to God's own righteousness. This is a major point in the Christus Victor position.'
Gustav Aulen saw no need for the satisfaction of God's justice. Do you see a difference between God's justice and His righteousness? If so, will you please define it?
2. You wrote: 'With the Christus Victor view Christ HAD to suffer the wages of sin at the hands of sinners for a crime He did not commit. The cross is absolutely necessary because it is the point where the principles of this world, the powers of this world, fell upon Christ as He unjustly but willingly submitted to the bondage of sin and death to liberate mankind.'
Will you please quote to me the verses you are using to substantiate this statement concerning the powers of this world falling upon Christ?
3. Why exactly did Christ HAVE to suffer the wages of sin at the hands of sinners if not to satisfy God's justice?
4. If Christ suffered unjustly, and it 'pleased the LORD to bruise Him' (Isaiah 53:10), then how is God not punishing the innocent?

Super. The weekend is nearly over.

 

That is exactly what I have done. I can understand that you don't like the answer, but there it is. It was absolutely necessary that the Christ should die upon the cross, partly because it fulfilled the prophecies of Psalms 22:14-16 and Psalms 34:20, but mostly because our Lord had to be seen to be suffering the curse of God against sin.

I have accounted for the cross, and have now repeated myself. However, you show a curious lack of understanding of what was going on at the cross and just before. Who was it that was clamouring for Christ to be crucified? Was it the Romans or the Jews? Who was trying desperately not to have Him crucified? Have a little think about that and ask yourself why the chief priests especially wanted the Lord Jesus to die by crucifixion which, as you rightly say, was not part of their law.. I'm not going to tell you, not yet anyway; work it out for yourself.

No, the cross is absolutely vital. You just haven't worked out why.

Now. The weekend's almost gone. Surely you don't want to be seen to be breaking your word?