1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Did Jesus die as payment we owe?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JasonF, Jul 11, 2023.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Our sins are dealt with as "God is faithful to forgive" upon repentance. And those who do not repent and believe "remain in their sins" because they have "rejected the Light". They will perish due to their own actions (God will separate peoples as a shepherd separates sherp and goats, and those not "in Christ" will perish).

    Please copy the part below that says Jesus paid our debt instead of us.

    Hebrews 9 - 10

    Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle prepared, the outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the sacred bread; this is called the holy place. Behind the second veil there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies, having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant; and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat; but of these things we cannot now speak in detail.

    Now when these things have been so prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle performing the divine worship, but into the second, only the high priest enters once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance. The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing, which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation.

    But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

    For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

    For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

    For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives. Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood.

    For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.” And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood.

    And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

    For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

    And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him

    For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

    Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,
    “Sacrifice and offering You have not desired,
    But a body You have prepared for Me;

    In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have taken no pleasure. “Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come
    (In the scroll of the book it is written of Me)
    To do Your will, O God.’ ” After saying above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the Law), then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second.

    By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

    And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying, “This is the covenant that I will make with them After those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws upon their heart,
    And on their mind I will write them,”

    He then says, "And their sins and their lawless deeds
    I will remember no more.” Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.

    Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.

    For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings, partly by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated.

    For you showed sympathy to the prisoners and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and a lasting one.Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised. For yet in a very little while,
    He who is coming will come, and will not delay. But My righteous one shall live by faith; And if he shrinks back, My soul has no pleasure in him. But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.
     
  2. Piper

    Piper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    905
    Likes Received:
    148
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No, your statements are not Orthodox and historical Christianity. They are narrow and difficult to defend.
     
  3. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This is what I mean. My beliefs are within orthodox Christianity and if you really had one degree in theology from a legitimate seminary you would know this.

    The reason is that you would have been required to study that view. You would have read at least Bender, Church Dogmatics, and The Person and Work of Christ.

    You don't have to believe my position - but you would not be completely ignorant of historical Christianity.

    So I ask AGAIN, as you brought it up - in regards to theology you said you have two master degrees. What are they? What field of study? What seminary?
     
  4. JasonF

    JasonF Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2023
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    14
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hold on didnt mean to post
     
  5. Piper

    Piper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    905
    Likes Received:
    148
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The teaching that Christ died as the payment for our sins is Orthodox, normal and taught in most evangelical churches. It is not strange fire, or "new" as Jon says.
     
  6. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Holding on. ;)
     
  7. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am not saying that Penal Substitution Theory is unorthodox. I am saying that it is not the ONLY orthodox position. "Orthodox" does not mean "correct".

    I did not say Penal Substitution Theory is some strange fire, or even that it is new.

    I said it is relatively new in terms of the whole of Christian history. It did not exist for the most part of Christianity and even now it is a minority view.

    It is, however, a majority view among evangelicals (Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian evangelicals...it is not the view among evangelical Lutherans, for example, as the Lutheran Church still holds to Satisfaction Theory).

    That you confuse what I said with what I did not say is telling.
     
  8. JasonF

    JasonF Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2023
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    14
    Faith:
    Baptist
    @JonC sorry, you guys are fighting faster than I can keep up. I do want to understand what you are saying though JonC so please don't get frustrated and give up, but we also don't need to fight do we? I don't want this to turn into a post I dont feel I can be part of because of all the fighting, if its not already there, I have to go through more to get caught up.
     
  9. DaveXR650

    DaveXR650 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2021
    Messages:
    2,896
    Likes Received:
    344
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. His blood did take away sins, unlike the blood of bulls and goats. We can only enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus. What you refuse to look at is the fact that this is about our sins. And Jesus did something about our sins. If he did not do something about our sins, by shedding his blood, then your opening statement about us being forgiven upon repentance would not be true. There is a connection there that you cannot get around. Our sin caused us not to be right with God. These are committed sins that we are guilty of. They are more than a cosmic problem. They indeed can be described as a "debt". If you don't like the terminology then explain how our own sin is dealt with without using any terminology that includes the idea of payment, or debt or guilt.
     
  10. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    @Piper chose ad hominem. That's my weakness. I like to argue because I'm a grumpy old man. Also, I got off work at 4am and couldn't sleep (have to go in at 6am tomorrow). Adds to my grumpiness.

    Tell you what, @Piper is pretty much done. I'll ignore him for awhile and we can discuss the topic.

    I'd much rather discuss the Atonement with somebody willing than continue with Piper. At least for now.

    What's your questions or concerns?
     
  11. Piper

    Piper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    905
    Likes Received:
    148
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yeah, a new convert to your teeny tiny little view.
     
  12. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I agree that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. I believe this points to Jesus Christ (I believe that the Old Covenant pointed to Jesus and redemption rather than being a list of rules for Jesus to follow....a rather significant presupposition, if you think about it).

    The Bible talks about God dealing with sin, but only in one way when it comes to forgiveness. That way is repentance. The Bible specifically states that if one repents God is faithful to forgive sins.

    We have to ask - what is repentance. Scripture tells us. It is obedience to God, turning from the flesh and to the Spirit, dying to the flesh and walking in the Spirit

    The issue, then, is not having our "sin debt" paid but exactly how we come to repent.

    Again, the Bible tells us how. God makes us "a new creation" gives us "a new heart", "puts His Spirit in us", and causes us to obey Him.


    There is nothing in Hebrews 9-10 that speaks of Jesus paying our sin debt.
     
  13. DaveXR650

    DaveXR650 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2021
    Messages:
    2,896
    Likes Received:
    344
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Reread your post above. What makes it so frustrating to talk to you is that you start out by saying that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood, then go on and try to make a case that it's all about repentance. The reason repentance is any use is because blood was shed and reconciliation was made. All the Reformers did was look into this more carefully than had been done previously, at least as far as publishing results.

    I agree with you totally on what WE have to to. But the atonement, which we were totally passive in, makes this possible. For some reason you refuse to acknowledge that the actual shedding of Christ's blood did something. I don't know why that is.

    Yes. This is what we do. That in no way takes away from what Christ did first. Tell me, based on what this quote says, why couldn't we just repent and start following Christ even if he didn't die on the cross? Isn't that what the Socinians taught?
     
  14. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No. There is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. Christ had to die on a Roman cross under the curse in order for man to be forgiven.

    Now, if man could have repented - could have died to the flesh and been made alive in the Spirit - without Christ's death then you may have a point. But man cannot. This is a major focus of Scripture.

    God became man in the Person of Jesus. Jesus was obedient to the Father. He was made sin, became a curse for us. He is sinless, but He suffered the wages of sin for our salvation. And He is the Life. He is the Life giving Spirit. It is only in Him that repentance is possible.

    By "repentance" I don't mean refraining from one sinful actions. I mean repentance biblically - dying to the flesh and being made alive in Christ. It is a rebirth - born from above.

    And for this to happen Jesus had to suffer under our sin, our curse. He had to come under the bondage of sin and death in order to free us from its bonds.
     
  15. JasonF

    JasonF Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2023
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    14
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So I am of course speaking from how things seem to me, so when I say the Bible shows this or that, I mean that this is what I read of it, or how I see it, and so when you see one of those things differently please explain how you see it that differs from what I am saying.

    Was Adam influenced by Satan? I guess I was unaware of this? Do you have a verse on this? I have always been shown that while it was Eve who was deceived by Satan, Adam did it knowingly? Also when you say that sin produced death, you are saying death is not God's sentence of judgment for sin, but that death is a natural occurrence of sin?


    Also I would like you to clarify. You say that penal substitution, which bear in mind, while I assume that is what I am most familiar with, I have not actually studied that so don't know its in and outs, I am not really aware of any formal doctrine or theology teaching or reading on my part. However, you have said that penal substitution is believed by a minority of people, yet at the same time you have mentioned a large number of theories for atonement, and it seems that almost every early Christian you listed you also listed a unique theory for, so what do the majority of people believe, what did the majority of early Christians believe, since it seems there are so many theories, and what do you recommend as the best way for someone to learn about this aspect of doctrine, theology.

    I would like to request that you do answer everything in this message, and anything you choose not to answer to, could you please explain why? As that will hep my understanding, and I may need to go through these posts again and ask more questions, but this will be long enough for now.

    I think we have to look at the Old Testament, or rather can look to the Old Testament sacrifice system to try to help us understand what took place, right? So we see that all the sacrifices in the Old Testament were to God right? So Jesus' sacrifice also has to be to God, he was a sacrifice to God. His perfect blood cleanses us of sin. I think we all agree on this, but we have differences on the specifics.

    In this line of thought, we need to remember that Jesus came to save the Jews as well, and for them they would see that blessing and curse, and would have to realize that the curse, not of sin, but of God abides on them for their failure to keep the law right? So Jesus came to save them from the curse of God upon those who break his law, and it is maybe this for which he became a curse for us and the curse of sin the Bible speaks of?


    The sins were placed on the scapegoat, so I think we have to have the idea of an actual transfer of our sins to Jesus like they were put on the scape goat right?

    I believe @JonC is saying that his blood being perfect and pure cleanses us in itself, are others saying the blood cleanses us because it is payment in our place?

    JonC how can we prove that the early Christians did not view it as a payment? Did they say that? If all they said were things in passing about the solidarity of Christ with man and so on, that does not mean they did not view it as a ransom, it only means that at that time they are expressing that it also shows or provides solidarity to us, etc. Do you know what I mean? I want to understand this correctly so I am trying to see this through and figure it out.

    So JonC I think that part of your line of thought relies on the curse of sin and death not being from God right, but a natural occurrence? In Deut 11:26, 28 we see that God placed a blessing and a curse before Israel, they get a curse if they do not keep the law right? So is that not a curse from God as God's wrath for sin?


    You also said we are not human, where in the Bible does it say we are not human and that all flesh must die? Saying flesh doesn't inherit eternal life doesn't mean the same thing to me as if our body that God made is somehow the evil thing and God has to terminate it? Is this something others believe or something unique to you?

    You are also saying that Jesus having flesh is what made him sin or a curse for us, not his bearing our specific sins on himself? For you a human body = sin?

    So you are saying that Jesus died by the work of Satan, but because he never sinned death couldn't hold him, and he rose again. So how is there a payment in there, I don't understand as you have said you agree he was a ransom, and I think ransom means payment. How was that taking our sins on him if he didn't pay the price for it, not getting it fully i don't think.


    @JonC can you somehow prove that traditional Christianity didn't view it this way, and can you show what they did believe, is there somewhere in there material I can read this? Alan's post seems to show that the early Christians could be understood either way at least?

    Why in the view of atonement you are presenting is sin stronger than God that it requires his Son's death to break its bond? How is God unable to deal with sin outside of the death of his own Son, I mean we view God as all powerful, but you seem to be making it clear that you agree that God did not create sin, yet somehow, it is this force that causes death (apart from God's judgment of death for sins we see in the Old Testament) that the only thing God could figure out to do about was to have his Son die for it, I don't understand how something could be that strong against God. What is sin in this view, how is it this entity so difficult for God to fight against ? You seem to be saying something that has a meaning that is different than sin being against God, a violation of his law that he had pronounced a curse and wrath upon. That even though God curses sin with the death penalty as seen in the stoning and burning of Achan in the book of Joshua, as well as other stonings and the commands to stone people with what we would call the death penalty, you seem to be saying that sin in itself i guess causes people to die of old age or something? I am not understanding. The Old Testament is quite clear that God set a blessing and a cursing before the people and that his sentence for violating his law was death. Why would God have a penal sentence and judgment of death and stoning for sin if sin was going to accomplish the same thing by itself without God's work.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. JasonF

    JasonF Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2023
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    14
    Faith:
    Baptist
    How and why does the view of atonement you are presenting have Jesus death be required for repentance? Because it makes us see how bad we are that God would do this amazing thing?

    I also am confused I guess, I mean maybe it means what you mean by forgiveness. Because Abraham's faith was counted for righteousness not his lack of sin maybe? Also it seems like the way the Bible most frequently and most numerically refers to dealing with forgiveness is by sacrifice, not repentance?



    With the Bible referring to Jesus' chastisement and stripes can we also agree that it is a punishment Jesus suffered that was the ransom? The word chastisement by definition has that right, and stripes of course were a penal punishment?

    You seem to be saying that not only the early Christians but throughout time and today people believe this way, can you again provide material on this? Just as I assume people could post to Calvin's work to see the penal side?

    You say Martin Luther held the view you are talking about? what is this view called? Classical Atonement? In brief, I assume that penal and most people here and modern protestants would be said to follow Calvin? What does Luther and Calvin disagree on in that we have Lutheran churches that I don't know or remember what they believe?

    When talking about the early church Christians you mention Origen, I was under the impression he was not a reliable source and an example was given that in response to reading Jesus talking about, I think, cutting off your hand or eye if it causes you to sin, that Origen made himself a eunuch? That is all I know I have heard, so I am asking, and not stating, because I don't know. It does seem to make sense to read the earliest people and possibly go with their view, but this can be hard to know, because the writings that have survived may not represent the majority or the most sound of all early Christians, I have no idea.

    You mention a lot of different theologies on this, if at least most of us have the Holy Spirit to teach us all things why do we have so many different ideas? I don't know what New Covenant theology is, or really dispensationalism, I just am under the impression, and I do not know why, that I am not dispensationalist, but dont know what it means really, and we dont need to go into that here, so are you saving basically all of Calvinism stuff is wrong?

    So we all agree that Jesus is the propitiation for our sins. Looking up the definition of propitiation it seems to carry the idea of appeasing or gaining the goodwill of, doesn't this speak again to God's wrath and curse on us for sins, and his judgment of death for those who sin?

    I don't know Greek, so in Hebrews 9 and 10 as was recommended reading I also saw it use the word forbearance, I am not sure of the meaning of this word in this context, it could just mean patience it seems, but also it seems in modern terms it means the delaying of a payment?

    "And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance." Hebrews 9:15 KJV

    It says its redemption of the transgressions, which shows it is against God, so again I don't see how the curse would not refer to God's curse against those who break his law that it seems is the death penalty, ah i just saw a connection with the word penal and penalty.

    If I look up the word forgiveness, Jesus spoke of forgiveness, and

    "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:" Colossians 1:14 KJV

    So again the key issue seems to be forgiveness for our sins, forgiveness again speaks to the wrath of God against law breaking acts?

    "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:" Hebrews 9:27 KJV

    The Bible teaches that men are appointed to die, this means God commanded their death right? So again, how is the death from sin not God's command and judgment for evil acts? Then after this the judgment, its all about judgment, and receiving what we have done in this life. I am not sure how to understand a view of sin that has it some other way?


    "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;" Hebrews 10:16 KJV

    So the covenant he will make is to put his laws into our hearts, again everything seems to revolve around the law, transgression, judgment for it from god.

    "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." Hebrews 10:10 KJV
    If the very flesh of Jesus is what is sin and made him sin for us, this verse doesnt make any sense. If Jesus' body was offered, then his body must have been a good thing not sin?


    Hebrews 10:27 - 10:31 talks of judgment and God's vengeance against sin, so its hard to not see it in the light of we broke his laws so there is a penalty for it? It seems too coincidental for what Jesus to have suffered to ransom us to be the same thing that God has declared as the penalty for sin, and with the figure of the Israelites putting their hands on the scapegoat and other things to put their sins on it, how can it not be a transfer of our sins to Jesus and he suffers the penalty?
     
  17. JasonF

    JasonF Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2023
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    14
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I don't know if you can speak to any of the things @DaveXR650 has said either, but I want to thank you @DaveXR650 for being part of this thread as you seem to have stayed calm and seemed to have taken all the evidence offered by everyone and come up with something that seems to make sense.

    Still I want to understand JonC's view, as I do want to believe the truth and not what my mind has been taught to believe.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  18. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    17,825
    Likes Received:
    1,363
    Faith:
    Baptist
    My starting point in 1962.

    Romans 6:23, ". . . For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. . . ."

    Romans 5:8, ". . . But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. . . ."
     
  19. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I would say Adam was influenced by Satan. When we are tempted it is by our own desires, but Satan tempts us (in the case of Adam you could say through Eve). Adam and Eve sinned knowingly. Deception does not negate responsibility. Eve desired to be like God in some way.

    I wouldn't say the curse is a natural occurrence but instead a product of sin. Sin is unnatural.

    Sin is not stronger than God. That isn't the issue. Sin is stronger than we are. This is why Jesus had to save us. And He had victory over sin and death.

    The Old Covenant had a blessing and a curse. We inherit the curse. Jesus inherits the blessing.

    @Arthur King offered a wonderful post explaining what I have been a bit inept at illustrating:

    Restitution, Retribution, and Atonement

    Read the OP. It explains the difference between Penal Substitution and traditional Christianity better than I can.
     
  20. Piper

    Piper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    905
    Likes Received:
    148
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That is called a FALSE DICHOTOMY.

    Penal Substitution vs Traditional Christianity.

    As though it were Traditional Christianity vs Made-up Christianity.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...