Featured God clothing of Adam and Eve

What? No, this is wrong. The first death was Adam and Eve when they sinned. The death sacrifice only occurred after that.

Evolution is not in view here and this has now been debunked.

 

I do not get your position. Do you deny Jesus bled and died on the cross for our sin?

 

Of course I don't deny that Jesus bled and died on the cross. I just hold to an early church interpretation of the meaning of His death, not one invented by the RCC a thousand years later or the Magisterial Reformers 1500 years later.

 

Uh, what? The father of Jesus Christ "wouldn't forgive" unless his son let himself be nailed up to a cross, is not the God who requires blood to be shed?

 

Wait a minute. YECers say there was no death before the fall, so therefore evolution didn't happen (since according to abiogenesis and evolution animals appeared before humans), therefore the earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

Furthermore, you are conflating physical death of the sacrificed animal with the spiritual death of Adam and Eve. They are not comparable. For that matter, Abel was the first person to die.

I brought it into view. If people want to claim there was no animal death before the Fall because it wouldn't be "good" in God's eyes, then they can't say that God was responsible for the first animal killed.

 

There was no physical death until there was the first spiritual death. Physical death is a result of the curse.

I am not responsible for all the arguments others make nor have I made that so called "good" argument. In fact, you are the first person I have seen to make such a statement. You will have to pose that question to whomever you have heard that from. It was not me.

 

Animals do not sin, therefore they do not suffer a spiritual death. Therefore, there could have been animal death before the Fall.

Thank goodness my memory is in excellent shape. This argument is made continually on BB.

Basically, my point is there is nothing to preclude animal death from happening before the Fall. Now, I'm pretty sure you would argue against that. Am I correct?

 

You did not directly answer my question. Do you deny that Jesus bled and died to pay the wage for our sin?

 

Again more question-begging

I do not care what other people say and I have never seen it nor am I responsible to answer for others poor arguments.

I would argue against that but :

1. That is not the topic of this thread.
2. You have not made any kind of case to prove your point.
3. Question-begging is not an argument

 

Yes, you may "win" this argument by deflection and distraction. You may have the last word. I'm bowing out.

 

Well unless you can now prove your false accusation of me it appears you are engaging in what you falsely accuse me of.

 

1Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
(Geneva) And he is the reconciliation for our sinnes: and not for ours onely, but also for the sinnes of the whole world.
(WNT) and He is an atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
(GW) He is the payment for our sins, and not only for our sins, but also for the sins of the whole world.
--The Bible seems to disagree with you.
This scripture plainly contradicts what you believe.
He is the payment for our sins. He paid for them. That is the meaning of propitiation. He satisfied the legal demands of God in paying the penalty that God demanded. He paid the penalty for our sins. There is no other meaning of this verse.

 

Feelin' like a Cal vs nonCal debate. Any takers?

 

The scriptures correctly rendered do not disagree with me. The correct translation is "expiation". The early church understood and thus did not hold to views of the atonement which were invented 1000-1500 years later.

You and Protestantism are caught up in "legal-ism", in a courtroom analogy. The early church did not understand Jesus's death this way.

I am not attacking you, just analyzing the way you come at this doctrine.

 

I have no doubt that if Romanism and Protestantism were the only way to be Christian, if their atonement doctrines were the only ones, I could not be a "Christian" in that way. The early church, including the EOC views of atonement, and the Anabaptists saved Christianity for me.

 

I believe you are just giving me an opinion. What do you base it on? I quoted to you a number of translations that use various synonyms. I have looked at about a dozen different translations and none of them use the word "expiation." Why, therefore, should I believe your opinion? On what basis?

 

Yes, you are right. It is one of the few I didn't check.

and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

But the majority that I have seen do not translate it that way.

From Thayers:
hilasmos
Thayer Definition:
1) an appeasing, propitiating
2) the means of appeasing, a propitiation
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: a root word
Citing in TDNT: 3:301, 362

 

Mr Rebel has been pushing his nonsense on the open forums recently.
Firstly, the correct translation of hilasterion and hilasmos is 'Propitiation' as per all reputable sources.
Secondly, the early church knew about Penal Substitution and many of the Church fathers wrote about it. I have previously given examples of this on other threads. Here is something I wrote on the 'Other Christian Denominations' forum earlier today:

Here are a few extracts from the Church fathers. Let me say that I do not regard the Fathers as being authorities on doctrine. In my reading of them I find that they contradict themselves and each other pretty regularly. Paul, John and Jude all warn against false teachers coming into the church and leading others astray (Acts 20:30; Gal. 1:6-9; 1 John 4:1; Jude 4). The Bible is our only authority. I give these extracts purely to refute these false claims that PSA was unknown until the Reformers.

First John Chrysostom. In his Homilies on 2 Corinthians, he illustrates his point with the analogy of a king who takes pity on a miserable, condemned criminal. The king gives his only son to receive the guilt and punishment of the criminal, and then exalts the criminal to a place of dignity. Chrysostom argues that the criminal would be overwhelmed with gratitude and would do anything rather than upset the king who had treated him so badly. The he comes to application:

'If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under punishment, gave his well-beloved son, his only-begotten and true, to be slain, and transferred the death and guilt as well, from him to his son (who was himself of no such character), that he might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation; and if then, having subsequently promoted him to great dignity, he had yet, after thus saving him and advancing him to that glory unspeakable, been outraged by the person that had received such treatment: would not that man, if he had any sense, have chosen 10.000 deaths rather than appear guilty of so great an ingratitude? Then let us also now consider with ourselves, and groan bitterly for the provisions we have offered our Benefactor; nor let us presume, because though outraged He bears it with longsuffering; but rather for that reason be full of remorse.'

Note that Chrysostom is not trying to expound the doctrine of Penal Substitution; he assumes it as part of his illustration of another point. Therefore PSA must have been familiar to his readers or they would not have understood his meaning.

Now Augustine of Hippo. This is from Against Faustus, Bk. 14, sect. 3.

'But as Christ endured death as man and for man; so also, Son of God as He was, ever living in His own righteousness, but dying for our offences, He submitted as man, and for man, to bear that curse which accompanies death. And as He died in the flesh which He took in taking our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offences, in the death that He suffered in bearing our punishment.'

That should be clear enough for anyone.

Now Pope Gregory the 'Great,' Morals on the Book of Job, Vol. 1, speaking on Job 2:3:

'And of him is it rightly added, 'without cause.' For He was destroyed without cause who was at once weighed to the earth by the avenging of sin, and not defiled by the pollution of sin. He was 'destroyed without a cause,' who, being made incarnate, had no sins of His own, and yet being without offense took upon Himself the punishment of the carnal.'

Gregory emphasizes our Lord's innocence, and explains His suffering on the grounds that He 'took upon Himself the punishment of the carnal.' This is obviously Penal Substitution.

 

Do tell . . . .

and in your telling, define the penalty for sin and "sin debt."