JESUS SUFFERED THE WRATH OF GOD EQUIVALENT OF OUR ETERNAL HELL.

[Charlie24]

I would say that men earn the wages of sin.

My point is that Christ bearing our sin does not imply that this sin was removed from us and put on Him just as us bearing His righteousness does not imply that righteousness was removed from Christ.

I view us coming under Jesus righteousness along the same lines as Christ coming under our sin. He became like us so that we woukd be ome like Him.

I don't see it that way, Jon.

Peter said that Christ bore our sins on the Tree. So I see Christ taking my sin upon Himself.

Paul said that Christ was made to be sin who knew no sin. I see Him as taking my place to make my salvation possible.

We can't help but read between the lines, and I see Him taking the punishment I deserved for my sin.

That's not written in Scripture but that is what I see between the lines whether right or wrong.

 

[JonC]

I don't see it that way, Jon.

Peter said that Christ bore our sins on the Tree. So I see Christ taking my sin upon Himself.

Paul said that Christ was made to be sin who knew no sin. I see Him as taking my place to make my salvation possible.

We can't help but read between the lines, and I see Him taking the punishment I deserved for my sin.

That's not written in Scripture but that is what I see between the lines whether right or wrong.

I am simply trying to understand the reason for why we read it differently.

I understand your position because I once held it, but I am not sure even the reason I did.

Yes, Scripture says Christ bore our sins.
God laid our sins on Him.

But Scripture also says we bear His righteousness.
God clothes us in His righteousness.
We put on His righteousness.

I think the highest potential for disagreements and even errors is in that space "between the lines"

There has to be various ways people read between the lines because there have been so many different understandings (and Jesus taking our punishment instead of us is one relatively new way). Do we can't chalk it up to an obvious reading of Scripture.

I will say that Jesus did suffer and die the death we deserve for our sins. On that we agree.


I asked others this, and maybe your answer will help me understand your thought process.

When God judges at Judgment Day we will have been perfected, made new creations, conformed into the image if Christ, died to sin, etc. God will rightly judge us as righteous because we will be made in Christ's image, the "old man" will not be present (we will have been "refined"). Why would God need to have also punished the sins of this "old man" on Christ?

 

[Charlie24]

I am simply trying to understand the reason for why we read it differently.

I understand your position because I once held it, but I am not sure even the reason I did.

Yes, Scripture says Christ bore our sins.
God laid our sins on Him.

But Scripture also says we bear His righteousness.
God clothes us in His righteousness.
We put on His righteousness.

I think the highest potential for disagreements and even errors is in that space "between the lines"

There has to be various ways people read between the lines because there have been so many different understandings (and Jesus taking our punishment instead of us is one relatively new way). Do we can't chalk it up to an obvious reading of Scripture.

I will say that Jesus did suffer and die the death we deserve for our sins. On that we agree.


I asked others this, and maybe your answer will help me understand your thought process.

When God judges at Judgment Day we will have been perfected, made new creations, conformed into the image if Christ, died to sin, etc. God will rightly judge us as righteous because we will be made in Christ's image, the "old man" will not be present (we will have been "refined"). Why would God need to have also punished the sins of this "old man" on Christ?

The way I see it, no sin goes without punishment. God's hatred for sin and having declared "the wages of sin is death" cannot let sin go unpunished being the Righteous Judge.

I see the sins of the redeemed being laid on Christ in God's mercy and Grace toward believing man. But the wrath of God abides on those who have not accepted His mercy and grace to escape the judgement.

Can God be the Righteous Judge of all men by letting one single sin pass without accountability? I don't think so!

According to their deeds/works they will be judged. I believe in degrees of sin by the unbelieving individual and therefore degrees of punishment based on every single sin they have committed, not a single one will go unrecognized. They are all recorded in the books that are opened in Rev. 20:12.

 

[JonC]

The way I see it, no sin goes without punishment.

This is the part I do not understand.

Why would God have to punish sins except it mean He punish the one who actually committed the sin?

 

[Charlie24]

This is the part I do not understand.

Why would God have to punish sins except it mean He punish the one who actually committed the sin?

We don't take sin nearly as seriously as God takes it. He is Holy and perfect beyond my comprehension.

We all die physically because of sin, and we will all be separated from God for eternity if our sins are not forgiven according to His instructions.

I suppose one day we will understand, but not in this life we now live. We can only read between the lines where the Scripture is basically silent of facts.

 

[JonC]

@Charlie24

I had to rush off without finishing my reply (sorry....at work)

Can God be the Righteous Judge of all men by letting one single sin pass without accountability? I don't think so!

Now without accountability. We must die to sin, repent, and be born again or remain in our sins.
But without punishment? Yes. That is called forgiving sins.
The law is fulfilled by making the wicked person a righteous person (the "old man" must die, we must die to din znd be made a new creation in Christ).

I believe we may differ on the purpose of punishment.

I only know of two purposes that God punishes in Scripture.

One is corrective action (as they called it in the Army). God punished us for wrong behavior so that we will correct that behavior. This is discipline (it is love for us). A father corrects a child for that child's benefit.

The second is to cast out an element that does not belong. God will punish the wicked at Judgment by casting them out. The wicked have no part of His kingdom, they do not belong (this would be wrath against the wicked). A nation will remove from that society a person who is a danger to that society.


What do you view the purpose of God punishing Jesus for the sins of the wicked (what would this accomplish)?

 

[JonC]

We don't take sin nearly as seriously as God takes it. He is Holy and perfect beyond my comprehension.

We all die physically because of sin, and we will all be separated from God for eternity if our sins are not forgiven according to His instructions.

I suppose one day we will understand, but not in this life we now live. We can only read between the lines where the Scripture is basically silent of facts.

That is why I do not believe God punished our sins laid on Jesus. God takes sin seriously. It is not sinful actions but literally falling "short of the glory of God". Sinful actions are just manifestations of us falling short of His glory.
I agree that sin produces physical death. I disagree that Scripture teaches men will be eternally separated from God because of their sins. The reason men will be eternally separated from God ("cast out") is because "they Light has come into the world and men rejected the Light". The reason they reject the Light is that they refuse to repent, they cling to their sins. "Their deeds are evil".

I believe it a mistake to simply look at the problem of sin as wrongful actions. The Atonemeny reaches much farther. The problem is men have "a mind set on the flesh". That is why they commit sins. The person, not the actions, is judged by God.

 

[Charlie24]

@Charlie24

I had to rush off without finishing my reply (sorry....at work)


Now without accountability. We must die to sin, repent, and be born again or remain in our sins.
But without punishment? Yes. That is called forgiving sins.
The law is fulfilled by making the wicked person a righteous person (the "old man" must die, we must die to din znd be made a new creation in Christ).

I believe we may differ on the purpose of punishment.

I only know of two purposes that God punishes in Scripture.

One is corrective action (as they called it in the Army). God punished us for wrong behavior so that we will correct that behavior. This is discipline (it is love for us). A father corrects a child for that child's benefit.

The second is to cast out an element that does not belong. God will punish the wicked at Judgment by casting them out. The wicked have no part of His kingdom, they do not belong (this would be wrath against the wicked). A nation will remove from that society a person who is a danger to that society.


What do you view the purpose of God punishing Jesus for the sins of the wicked (what would this accomplish)?

I believe Christ was a willing subject, but God did place the sins of the whole world on Christ.

There is a condition to be met in order to benefit from that atonement, we must accept and believe in what God has done for us through Christ.

So in the big picture it was done that man might be saved, even the most wicked of the wicked.

I suppose their could have been an easier way, but God chose this way, I think to show us how Holy He really is. If it's possible for us to understand how Holy He really is.

 

[JonC]

I believe Christ was a willing subject, but God did place the sins of the whole world on Christ.

There is a condition to be met in order to benefit from that atonement, we must accept and believe in what God has done for us through Christ.

So in the big picture it was done that man might be saved, even the most wicked of the wicked.

I suppose their could have been an easier way, but God chose this way, I think to show us how Holy He really is. If it's possible for us to understand how Holy He really is.

I agree Christ willingly laid down His life, suffered and died under the wages of sin we earn.

I apologize for asking so many questions, but I am trying to understand what you mean by "God must punish sins" even when applied to the sins He forgives.

At one time I would have simply agreed with you. But it seems to me like you are leaning towards Calvin's philosophy of justice (which I held but see now as an error).

What I mean is Calvin viewed the Atonement under a popular judicial philosophy for his time and place (he was educated in law, not theology). He viewed the role of a judge to be avenging the law. His idea of justice was very much like an accounting process (when this philosophy was used they even placed a monetary value on years of life to make sure the demands of justice was satisfied).


I know you are not a Calvinist, but that is the only reference I have to try to understand what you mean.


To me it sounds like you are saying (and I apologize if I misunderstand you) that if God made us new creations - no longer wicked, no longer guilty - He would still have to punish sinful actions that we committed
because this is what justice would require.

If that is what you mean it is the philosophy that Calvin held, or very close (others in the 16th century did as well, but Calvin carried it into his Atonement theory).

If that is your position then I disagree on two points.

First, the Atonement is not an issue of justice or the law. It fulfills the law, but is a manifestation of righteousness apart from the law (same righteousness, different and more significant manifestation). The law shows us our sin. But sin is a manifestation of a greater problem - we fall short of the glory of God. If we are made into new creations, conformed into the image of Christ, then the law is addressed from outside the law itself. Ultimately we are actually glorified. At Judgment there is nothing in us that will produce sin.

So while the law sought to acvount for behavior (sins) this righteousness aoart from the law addresses the source of sin by addressing that we fall short of God's glory.

Second, I disagree with that judicial philosophy. It came about in 16th century France (parts extended to Germany) and while it influenced the Western judicial system it never worked as a system itself. It was severely flawed. So I, personally, woukd not apply it to God.

 

[Charlie24]

I agree Christ willingly laid down His life, suffered and died under the wages of sin we earn.

I apologize for asking so many questions, but I am trying to understand what you mean by "God must punish sins" even when applied to the sins He forgives.

At one time I would have simply agreed with you. But it seems to me like you are leaning towards Calvin's philosophy of justice (which I held but see now as an error).

What I mean is Calvin viewed the Atonement under his judicial philosophy (he was educated in law, not theology). He viewed the role of a judge to be avenging the law. His idea of justice was very much like an accounting process (when this philosophy was used they even placed a monetary value on years of life to make sure their idea of justice was satisfied).


I know you are not a Calvinist, but that is the only reference I have to try to understand what you mean


To me it sounds like you are saying (and I apologize if I misunderstand you) that if God made us new creations - no longer wicked, no longer guilty - He would still have to punish sinful actions that we committed in the past (past from the time He judges) because this is what justice would require.

If that is what you mean it is the philosophy that Calvin held (others in the 16th century did as well).

And I woukd disagree on two points.

First, the Atonement is not an issue of justice or the law. It fulfills the law, but is a righteousness apart from the law. The law shows us our sin. But sin is a manifestation of a greater problem - we fall short of the glory of God. If we are made into new creations, conformed into the image of Christ, then the law is addressed from outside the law itself. Ultimately we are actually glorified. At Judgment there is nothing in us that will produce sin.

Second, I disagree with that judicial philosophy. It came about in 16th century France (parts extended to Germany) and while it influenced the Western judicial system it never worked as a system itself. It was severely flawed. So I, personally, woukd not apply it to God.

No, I don't mind the questions at all, Jon.

I look at the atonement as a means for fallen man to be reconciled to God. Paul said we are bought with a price. That price was the shed Blood of Christ. Why would God require such a thing, and that of His own Son?

I believe God had no choice but to deal with mans problem, sin! Given free will to choose as was given Adam and Eve all of us would have done the same thing when approached by Satan.

So now man has fallen from an innocent nature to a sinful fallen nature. (I know we disagree on this also.) Man now has no concern for God and see's no need for God. So what can God do being that He doesn't want to destroy His greatest creation?

He creates a plan to bring man back into good terms with Him while dealing with man's sin problem.

Out of pure love for His creation He takes the sin out of the way by a legal means we understand as the atonement. Nailing the curse of the Law which condemns us to the Cross. Now we have a way to come back into fellowship with God, but with a condition.

I said all of that to say this.

Christ didn't just die for man's sin, He suffered and died for the vilest and most horrible sin that man could commit. The Grace is much broader than the sin. I believe Christ suffered the wrath of God for no man to say his sin is above and beyond the suffering and death of Christ to forgive our sin.

 

[JesusFan]

He lived His life as a man just as we do, He laid aside His power as God, but could not lay aside the fact He is and was God.

So to you Jesus limited Himself to not use any of His God powers and abilities, but was still fully God ?

 

[JesusFan]

I would say that men earn the wages of sin.

My point is that Christ bearing our sin does not imply that this sin was removed from us and put on Him just as us bearing His righteousness does not imply that righteousness was removed from Christ.

I view us coming under Jesus righteousness along the same lines as Christ coming under our sin. He became like us so that we woukd be ome like Him.

The wrath and judgement of that sin debt we have to the Father was placed upon him at the cross

 

[JonC]

No, I don't mind the questions at all, Jon.

Good, because I'm full of them.

I look at the atonement as a means for fallen man to be reconciled to God. Paul said we are bought with a price. That price was the shed Blood of Christ. Why would God require such a thing, and that of His own Son?

I agree. The atonement is the means for fallen man to be recomciled to God.
And we are bought with a price, not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from our futile way of life, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.

I believe that we were purchased from our futile way of life, not that our sins were paid for.

My answer to why God sent His own Son to become man and die was that he too shared in our humanity so that by his death he might break the power of Satan (who holds the power of death). On the Criss God was reconciling mankind to Himself. He shared in our humanity and death so that we could share in His glory.

I believe God had no choice but to deal with mans problem, sin! Given free will to choose as was given Adam and Eve all of us would have done the same thing when approached by Satan.

I agree we would have committed the same transgression as Adam if in his place.

But I believe that, not our sins, is the problem of man. Sins are manifestations of that problem. I believe God deals with our sins not by punishing them on Jesus but by meeting the requirement in Christ that Scripture states is necessary for forgiveness.

Throughout Scripture we read that God will forgive us if we "repent", make "a new heart", "set our minds on the Spirit", "die to sin", "turn from wickedness", "flee evil", "turns to God".

In other words, God reconciled man to Himself in Christ.

He offers by faith this requirement for forgiveness. God "makes us new creations in Christ", "conforms us to the image of Christ", "takes out our old heart and our old spirit", "gives us a new heart and a new spirit", "puts His Spirit in us", we "die to sin and are made alive in Christ".

So now man has fallen from an innocent nature to a sinful fallen nature. (I know we disagree on this also.) Man now has no concern for God and see's no need for God. So what can God do being that He doesn't want to destroy His greatest creation?

He creates a plan to bring man back into good terms with Him while dealing with man's sin problem.

Out of pure love for His creation He takes the sin out of the way by a legal means we understand as the atonement. Nailing the curse of the Law which condemns us to the Cross. Now we have a way to come back into fellowship with God, but with a condition.

I said all of that to say this.

Christ didn't just die for man's sin, He suffered and died for the vilest and most horrible sin that man could commit. The Grace is much broader than the sin. I believe Christ suffered the wrath of God for no man to say his sin is above and beyond the suffering and death of Christ to forgive our sin.

I agree that man fell from an innocent nature (if you mean knowing good and evil). Adam was innocent.

I do disagree that the atonement was a legal means for reconciliation. I believe the atonement fulfilled the law, but that it was apart from the law and addressed not sins but the cause of our sins (our nature itself).


One issue I have as I cannot see how God taking our sins from Jesus and punishing Him would accomplish anything. It certainly would not meet the requirements of the law (sins were not punished, people were punished). It also would not accomplish anything in terms of divine justice (God's wrath is against the wicked, moving sins they committed to Jesus and punishing them there would not make a difference. Men would still be wicked.

You would still need these forgiven wicked men to be recreated, made not guilty. They would still have to die to sin and be made into Christ's image. If this happens then at judgment they would be righteous regardless of the sins of the "old man".

In other words, there is no legal (divine justice) means by which man can be saved. Forgiven wicked men would still be wicked and experience the second death.

BUT if the atonement was instead focused on man's problem as falling short of the glory of God (the law testifying to this as that state manifests sins) then man will be reconciled apart from the law and their sins forgiven without God having to punish those sins.

The only reason God would need to punish our sins on Christ is if Calvinism is correct and God's justice is in accordance with a French16th century judicial philosophy. If so, then the law would demand of God, as Judge, that He avenge the law by collecting a payment regardless of who pays it.

 

[JesusFan]

I agree Christ willingly laid down His life, suffered and died under the wages of sin we earn.

I apologize for asking so many questions, but I am trying to understand what you mean by "God must punish sins" even when applied to the sins He forgives.

At one time I would have simply agreed with you. But it seems to me like you are leaning towards Calvin's philosophy of justice (which I held but see now as an error).

What I mean is Calvin viewed the Atonement under a popular judicial philosophy for his time and place (he was educated in law, not theology). He viewed the role of a judge to be avenging the law. His idea of justice was very much like an accounting process (when this philosophy was used they even placed a monetary value on years of life to make sure the demands of justice was satisfied).


I know you are not a Calvinist, but that is the only reference I have to try to understand what you mean.


To me it sounds like you are saying (and I apologize if I misunderstand you) that if God made us new creations - no longer wicked, no longer guilty - He would still have to punish sinful actions that we committed
because this is what justice would require.

If that is what you mean it is the philosophy that Calvin held, or very close (others in the 16th century did as well, but Calvin carried it into his Atonement theory).

If that is your position then I disagree on two points.

First, the Atonement is not an issue of justice or the law. It fulfills the law, but is a manifestation of righteousness apart from the law (same righteousness, different and more significant manifestation). The law shows us our sin. But sin is a manifestation of a greater problem - we fall short of the glory of God. If we are made into new creations, conformed into the image of Christ, then the law is addressed from outside the law itself. Ultimately we are actually glorified. At Judgment there is nothing in us that will produce sin.

So while the law sought to acvount for behavior (sins) this righteousness aoart from the law addresses the source of sin by addressing that we fall short of God's glory.

Second, I disagree with that judicial philosophy. It came about in 16th century France (parts extended to Germany) and while it influenced the Western judicial system it never worked as a system itself. It was severely flawed. So I, personally, woukd not apply it to God.

You have to address though by what basis was the Father able to make us new creations in Christ then, for even if he saw up repenting, still must have that righteous anger and wrath towards us satisfied and appeased

 

[JesusFan]

Good, because I'm full of them.


I agree. The atonement is the means for fallen man to be recomciled to God.
And we are bought with a price, not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from our futile way of life, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.

I believe that we were purchased from our futile way of life, not that our sins were paid for.

My answer to why God sent His own Son to become man and die was that he too shared in our humanity so that by his death he might break the power of Satan (who holds the power of death). On the Criss God was reconciling mankind to Himself. He shared in our humanity and death so that we could share in His glory.

I agree we would have committed the same transgression as Adam if in his place.

But I believe that, not our sins, is the problem of man. Sins are manifestations of that problem. I believe God deals with our sins not by punishing them on Jesus but by meeting the requirement in Christ that Scripture states is necessary for forgiveness.

Throughout Scripture we read that God will forgive us if we "repent", make "a new heart", "set our minds on the Spirit", "die to sin", "turn from wickedness", "flee evil", "turns to God".

In other words, God reconciled man to Himself in Christ.

He offers by faith this requirement for forgiveness. God "makes us new creations in Christ", "conforms us to the image of Christ", "takes out our old heart and our old spirit", "gives us a new heart and a new spirit", "puts His Spirit in us", we "die to sin and are made alive in Christ".


I agree that man fell from an innocent nature (if you mean knowing good and evil). Adam was innocent.

I do disagree that the atonement was a legal means for reconciliation. I believe the atonement fulfilled the law, but that it was apart from the law and addressed not sins but the cause of our sins (our nature itself).


One issue I have as I cannot see how God taking our sins from Jesus and punishing Him would accomplish anything. It certainly would not meet the requirements of the law (sins were not punished, people were punished). It also would not accomplish anything in terms of divine justice (God's wrath is against the wicked, moving sins they committed to Jesus and punishing them there would not make a difference. Men would still be wicked.

You would still need these forgiven wicked men to be recreated, made not guilty. They would still have to die to sin and be made into Christ's image. If this happens then at judgment they would be righteous regardless of the sins of the "old man".

In other words, there is no legal (divine justice) means by which man can be saved. Forgiven wicked men would still be wicked and experience the second death.

BUT if the atonement was instead focused on man's problem as falling short of the glory of God (the law testifying to this as that state manifests sins) then man will be reconciled apart from the law and their sins forgiven without God having to punish those sins.

The only reason God would need to punish our sins on Christ is if Calvinism is correct and God's justice is in accordance with a French16th century judicial philosophy. If so, then the law would demand of God, as Judge, that He avenge the law by collecting a payment regardless of who pays it.

You keep not stating just on what basis how and why our sins were fully forgiven

 

[Charlie24]

So to you Jesus limited Himself to not use any of His God powers and abilities, but was still fully God ?

All of the miracles were by the Power of the Holy Spirit. Christ didn't know who touched Him when He felt healing power go through Him to heal the Gentile woman with an issue of blood. He only knew what the Holy Spirit revealed to Him,

He didn't know when He would return, "no man knows" included Him, only the Father knew.

He is the perfect example of what God wants from us. He always sought to do the will of the Father in all things.

 

[Charlie24]

Good, because I'm full of them.


I agree. The atonement is the means for fallen man to be recomciled to God.
And we are bought with a price, not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from our futile way of life, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.

I believe that we were purchased from our futile way of life, not that our sins were paid for.

My answer to why God sent His own Son to become man and die was that he too shared in our humanity so that by his death he might break the power of Satan (who holds the power of death). On the Criss God was reconciling mankind to Himself. He shared in our humanity and death so that we could share in His glory.

I agree we would have committed the same transgression as Adam if in his place.

But I believe that, not our sins, is the problem of man. Sins are manifestations of that problem. I believe God deals with our sins not by punishing them on Jesus but by meeting the requirement in Christ that Scripture states is necessary for forgiveness.

Throughout Scripture we read that God will forgive us if we "repent", make "a new heart", "set our minds on the Spirit", "die to sin", "turn from wickedness", "flee evil", "turns to God".

In other words, God reconciled man to Himself in Christ.

He offers by faith this requirement for forgiveness. God "makes us new creations in Christ", "conforms us to the image of Christ", "takes out our old heart and our old spirit", "gives us a new heart and a new spirit", "puts His Spirit in us", we "die to sin and are made alive in Christ".


I agree that man fell from an innocent nature (if you mean knowing good and evil). Adam was innocent.

I do disagree that the atonement was a legal means for reconciliation. I believe the atonement fulfilled the law, but that it was apart from the law and addressed not sins but the cause of our sins (our nature itself).


One issue I have as I cannot see how God taking our sins from Jesus and punishing Him would accomplish anything. It certainly would not meet the requirements of the law (sins were not punished, people were punished). It also would not accomplish anything in terms of divine justice (God's wrath is against the wicked, moving sins they committed to Jesus and punishing them there would not make a difference. Men would still be wicked.

You would still need these forgiven wicked men to be recreated, made not guilty. They would still have to die to sin and be made into Christ's image. If this happens then at judgment they would be righteous regardless of the sins of the "old man".

In other words, there is no legal (divine justice) means by which man can be saved. Forgiven wicked men would still be wicked and experience the second death.

BUT if the atonement was instead focused on man's problem as falling short of the glory of God (the law testifying to this as that state manifests sins) then man will be reconciled apart from the law and their sins forgiven without God having to punish those sins.

The only reason God would need to punish our sins on Christ is if Calvinism is correct and God's justice is in accordance with a French16th century judicial philosophy. If so, then the law would demand of God, as Judge, that He avenge the law by collecting a payment regardless of who pays it.

Everything God does is by the legal means of His 2 Laws.

The Law of Sin and Death.

The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.

Whether man or angel, including Satan, must obey these Laws, even God Himself is bound to these Laws.

These are called the most powerful Laws in the universe, everything stems from them.

 

[JesusFan]

Everything God does is by the legal means of His 2 Laws.

The Law of Sin and Death.

The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.

Whether man or angel, including Satan, must obey these Laws, even God Himself is bound to these Laws.

These are called the most powerful Laws in the universe, everything stems from them.

God cannot be bound by anything, as He is by very definition Supreme Being

 

[JesusFan]

All of the miracles were by the Power of the Holy Spirit. Christ didn't know who touched Him when He felt healing power go through Him to heal the Gentile woman with an issue of blood. He only knew what the Holy Spirit revealed to Him,

He didn't know when He would return, "no man knows" included Him, only the Father knew.

He is the perfect example of what God wants from us. He always sought to do the will of the Father in all things.

Yet He multipled loaves and walked upon sea by His own power

 

[JonC]

Everything God does is by the legal means of His 2 Laws.

The Law of Sin and Death.

The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.

Whether man or angel, including Satan, must obey these Laws, even God Himself is bound to these Laws.

These are called the most powerful Laws in the universe, everything stems from them.

I disagree.....maybe? God manifested His righteousness apart ftom the law. Not only was God not bound by the law to create but He was also not bound by the law to re-create man. We know that God's righteousness is not a legal issue but above the law. We know this because God manifested it through and apart from the law.

But that is kinda off topic because God's righteousness manifested apart from the law fulfills the law.

I will give an example of what I mean.

The law says that murder is a sin. To murder is to transgress the law.

Adultery is a sin. It is a violation of the law.
Lusting after a woman is committing adultery in one's heart.
But it is not a violation of the law.

Yet it is still a sin, not because of the law but because it falls short of the glory of God.

Sins are manifestations of a heart set on the flesh rather than the Spirit.

You take ten murderers and put their sins on Jesus, punish them on Jesus, and you still have ten murders.

But you take one murderer and he dies to sin, is made a new creation in Christ, is vonformed into the image of Christ then you have a righteous man who will hear "well done my good and faithful servant" at judgment even if Jesus was not punished for the murder his "old man" committed.


The atonement is accomplishing righteousness apart from the law. It does not nullify the law but fulfills it.

Why? At judgment those who are saved will actually be righteous, they will be glorified. Christ is the Firstborn of many brothers. God as Judge will declare them righteous as they have been conformed into Christ's image.


The only reason for God to punish our sins on Jesus is if John Calvin was correct and justice means avenging the law. But then God forgiving sins is impossible. The best He could do is to provide a substitute. This is a philosophy that did not exist until Calvin developed a theory relying on 16th century French philosophy.


Now, I grant that the relative newness of this theory does not make it wrong. It makes it suspect, but not wrong.

We live in a culture that has adopted this theory, but I do not know that it has been accurately vetted. Cal in assumed it was correct because it is what he studied at the University of Orléans and the University of Bourges in France. It was a popular movement within the law.

I think, perhaps, in a century or so Christians will equate it to the 10th century when scholars were convinced the Atonement was about reconciling man to God by restoring the honor man, through Adam, cost God (honor was an important focus during that age).

But I believe we, now, have enough time between us and 16th century France that we can objectively characterize Calvin's theory as dependent on a judicial philosophy that is no longer held apart from traditional beliefs. We know it is not justice because we look back and see it in history, but we over look this it when applied to divine justice because we have held onto it for so long.