Featured The Cross

Jon, you haven't made any point... that's the point. All you do is deny, deny, deny. You have nothing in your comments.

I have said that Jesus is our substitute. His blood paid for us the sacrifice for sin. We died with Christ and our life is now found in Christ.
Just as the wrath of God was satisfied in the blood of the Passover Lamb, so the wrath of God was satisfied in the Lamb that was slain.
Jon, the slaying of the Lamb was by the will of God. (Jesus said "Father, not my will, but your will be done.") The shed blood caused all who believe to be the firstborn of God. We become the "Levites." We are priests because of the Lamb that was slain.

You keep denying, but you have no position except denial.

 

I wasn't punished by God. Jesus Christ suffered the debt of my sins against The Trice-Holy Godhead.

from: http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF Books II/Simmons - A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine.pdf

"5. IT PROVES THE DIVINE AUTHORITY OF OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICES We see in Christ's atonement the beautiful antitype of Old Testament sacrifices. And we see in these sacrifices an effective method of pointing to the necessity of atonement and such a picture of real atonement as would lead the spiritually enlightened to press through the veil of shadow to the true light. The divine authority of Old Testament sacrifices presents no difficulties to him who believes that Christ's death was substitutionary. But those who wish to deny this latter fact deny also that God instituted the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament.

"6. IT FURNISHES THE ACID TEST OF THE THEOLOGICAL SYSTEMS By their attitude toward the atonement, theological systems classify themselves as pagan or Christian. Their position on the atonement also reflects their idea of the nature of God, of His law, and of sin."

...

Looks like I am a proponent of the dreaded, "Penal substitution (sometimes, esp. in older writings, called forensic theory)

I see some, "what's wrong?" type statements that are seemingly fleshly to me.
Trying to say, "God" (does NOT(?) "really need to appease his wrath with a blood sacrifice in order to forgive us?

when they ask, asked, in blue, below: 10 Problems with the Penal Substitution View of the Atonement - Greg Boyd - ReKnew

1. "Does God really need to appease his wrath with a blood sacrifice in order to forgive us?"

That would be a "yes" in my understanding.

2."If God’s holiness requires that a sacrifice be made before he can fellowship with sinners, how did Jesus manage to hang out with sinners without a sacrifice, since he is as fully divine and as holy as God the Father?"

They were saved and indwelt with the Holy Spirit. What would a saved soul be doing asking these questions? The Saving Value of Jesus' Suffering for the sins of His people, in His Death, Burial, and Resurrection, for Salvation was applicable to them, because He was, "as a Lamb Slain before the foundation of the world".

"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him" (vs7 "the beast was permitted to wage war against the saints"), "whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world". Revelation 13:8.

3 "If Jesus’ death allows God the Father to accept us, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that Jesus reconciles God to us than it is to say Jesus reconciles us to God?"

No. B. (pg. 324 of http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF Books II/Simmons - A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine.pdf

"The Truth As To The Nature Of The Law. All of the false views of the atonement to which we have given special treatment represent the law of God as a purely arbitrary appointment that may be relaxed partially or wholly at will instead of a revelation of the nature of God with no more possibility of change in its demands than there is of change in the nature of God.

It demands an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

It demands that every transgression and disobedience shall receive a just recompense of reward. Heb. 2:2. The view of the atonement that is correct must recognize this.

"For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward;" Hebrews 2:2


4. "How are we to understand one member of the Trinity (the Father) being wrathful towards another member of the Trinity (the Son), when they are, along with the Holy Spirit, one and the same God? Can God be truly angry with God? Can God actually punish God?"

Not the most Spiritually insightful question you ever want to see.

Jesus The Godman was Punished for our sins. Is this where the controversy lies? as to God The Son Being Punished and even possibly "DYING", because sin was placed on Him, by God the Father?

Jesus' Divine Spirit Ascended to Heaven, as Jesus the man died.

"46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, (God the Father in The OFFICE of God the Father) "why hast thou forsaken me?" (As The Trice-Holy Godhead Turned their "Back" on the sin that was on Jesus the man, causing Him to eventually die.)

47 "Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.

... 50. "Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."


5. "If God the father needs someone to “pay the price” for sin, does the Father ever really forgive anyone? Think about it."

Yes, God the Father Forgives ON THE BASIS of Jesus Becing sin for us.

Think? Why would God's people go to their "Thinking Ability" which is cursed by the Fall of Adam?

6. "Are sin and guilt the sorts of things that can be literally transferred from one party to another?" (of course/ Imputed) "Related to this, how are we to conceive of the Father being angry towards Jesus and justly punishing him when he of course knew Jesus never did anything wrong?" (He was Made to be sin, He Who Knew no sin".

7. "If the just punishment for sin is eternal hell (as most Christians have traditionally believed), how does Jesus’ several hours of suffering and his short time in the grave pay for it?"

(pg. 329) "III. THE ATONEMENT AND THE DEITY OF CHRIST.

"It is sometimes objected that Christ could not have suffered in a few hours the equivalent of the eternal suffering of the sinner in Hell. But this objection fails to take into consideration the fact that Christ was divine and, therefore, infinite in the ability to suffer.

"He said that no man could take his life from him; that he would lay it down of himself. Having the power, therefore, of retaining His life at will, He did retain it through such intensity of suffering that He drank the last dregs of Hell's poison for all those to be saved through Him. What believing sinners would have suffered extensively, being finite, Christ suffered intensively, because infinite.

"A man with a constitution ten times as strong as that of the average man can suffer in one second the equivalent of all that the average man can suffer in ten.

"Correspondingly an infinite being can undergo any amount of suffering in as brief time as it may please him to do it."

(pg. 327) "The penalty paid by Christ is strictly and literally equivalent to that which the sinner would have borne, although it is not identical. The vicarious bearing of it excludes the latter" (Shedd, Discourses and Essays, p. 307). "Substitution excludes identity of suffering; it does not exclude equivalence" (Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 420).

"We adopt, therefore, as the true view of the nature of the atonement, a view that combines the commercial theory and the ethical theory as they are described by Strong. From the commercial theory, we accept the idea expressed in 1 Tim. 2:6--the paying of a corresponding or equivalent price. And from the ethical theory we accept the fact that it was not divine honor and majesty that demanded the atonement, as the commercial view asserts, but the ethical principles of holiness and justice in God.

"Between the most orthodox creed of atonement by proper, real, and full satisfaction of justice, and the frank and utter denial of atonement that offers any satisfaction to law, there is absolutely no logical standing ground."

"Scripture without hesitation and without explanation represents salvation by Christ as a transaction analogous to the payment of debt, the ransom of a captive, the redemption of a forfeited inheritance.

"From the beginning to the end of the Bible there is no note of warning, no intimation that these comparisons may be misleading. It is always assumed that they do plainly set forth Christ's work of redemption.

"The outcry against the theology that compares Christ's work to the payment of debt, the redemption of a forfeited inheritance, the outcry against the use of any one of the abounding scriptural allusions to financial transactions, is an outcry that betrays at once disregard for Scripture and a misconception of Christ's perfect work of redemption" (Armour, Atonement and Law, pp. 128,137).

con't

 

8. "If the main thing Jesus came to do was to appease the Father’s wrath by being slain by him for our sin, couldn’t this have been accomplished just as easily when (say) Jesus was a one-year-old boy as when he was a thirty-three year old man? Were Jesus’ life, teachings, healing and deliverance ministry merely a prelude to the one really important thing he did – namely, die?

"It doesn’t seem to me that the Gospels divide up and prioritize the various aspects of Jesus’ life in this way. (I maintain that everything Jesus did was about one thing – overcoming evil with love. Hence, every aspect of Jesus was centered on atonement — that is, reconciling us to God and freeing us from the devil’s oppression." (God's Wrath)

There it is, "overcoming evil with love". How about "love" within the bounds of God's Revealed TRUTH, of His Justice, Nature, Law, and "Love" as He defines it and The Deity and Humanity of Jesus Christ?

(pg. 347 of http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF Books II/Simmons - A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine.pdf "

(a) "A love that would cause God to give Christ to die for each individual man of Adam's race would also cause Him to save all.* Why should God discriminate between men in saving them if He loved all of them with the greatest of all love? See Rom 8:32."

(b) "There would be no real expression of love in sending a Saviour to die vainly for men. What kind of love is it that performs an act that cannot really benefit? Would there be any real love shown by a father in buying a beautiful picture for a son that is totally blind?"

(c) "That God does not love all men without exception is proved, as already stated, by the declaration: "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" (Rom. 9:13).

"Did God love Pharaoh? (Rom. 10:17).

"Did He love the Amalekites? (Ex. 17:14).

"Did He love the Canaanites, whom He commanded to be extirpated without mercy? (Deut. 18:3).

"Does He love the workers of iniquity? (Psa. 5:5).

"Does He love the vessels or wrath fitted for destruction, whom He endures with much long-suffering? (Rom. 9:22)" (Haldane, Atonement, p. 113).

*Bear in mind that we are writing in this chapter, as already remarked, for the benefit of those who already believe in unconditional election.

(pg. 342 ) "Since the atonement was demanded as a satisfaction of God's justice, its efficiency must equal its sufficiency.

"The same justice that demands that the penalty of sin be paid, just as emphatically demands that the sinner be liberated when the payment has been made.

"There is absolutely no ground either in Scripture or reason for making a distinction between the atonement and the application of it, or between atonement and redemption or reconciliation, as to their extent or value.

"Atonement, redemption, and reconciliation all apply to the objective basis of pardon, and they all alike apply to actual pardon."

9. "To raise a more controversial question, if it’s true that God’s wrath must be appeased by sacrificing his own Son, then don’t we have to conclude that pagans who have throughout history sacrificed their children to appease the gods’ wrath had the right intuition, even if they expressed it in the wrong way?"

If you're going to reason in the flesh, might as well be drop-dead blasphemous.

10. What is the intrinsic connection between what Jesus did on the cross and how we actually live? (that we might be made the Righteousness of God, in Him;
2 Corinthians 5:21
"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me". Galation 2:20)

"The Penal Substitution view makes it seem like the real issue in need of resolution is a legal matter in the heavenly realms between God’s holy wrath and our sin." ( Correct)

"Christ’s death changes how God sees us, ( the Saved, yes, Justified.) but this theory says nothing about how Christ’s death changes us." ("I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me". Galation 2:20)

"This is particularly concerning to me because every study done on the subject has demonstrated that for the majority of Americans who believe in Jesus, their belief makes little or no impact on their life." (if they "believed" without God, or the Conviction of The Holy Spirit through the Word, which can have Granted Repentance and Faith, which is The New Birth, they would be behaving the way they do because they have made a "profession of faith", but are unsaved. "Unchurched" explains most others.)

"I wonder if the dominance of this legal-transaction view of the atonement might be partly responsible for this tragic state of affairs."

God's Plan is for folks to be Saved to affect their behavior, as well as, to be baptized into the membership of one of His churches and TAUGHT.

Acts 2:23 "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

24 "Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it."


...

again from: http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF Books II/Simmons - A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine.pdf

"1. IT IS THE DISTINGUISHING FEATURE OF CHRISTIANITY.

Christianity is the only religion with an atonement. It is related that some years ago when there was held a Parliament of Religion at the World's Fair in Chicago, Joseph Cook, of Boston, the chosen spokesman for Christianity, arose, after other religions had been presented, and said:

"Here is Lady Macbeth's hands, stained with the foul murder of King Duncan. See her as she perambulates through the halls and corridors of her palatial home, stopping to cry, 'Out damned spot! Out, I say! Will these hands ne'er be clean?"

"The representative of Christianity turned to the advocates of other religions and triumphantly challenged: "Can any of you who are so anxious to propagate your religious systems offer any cleansing efficacy for the sin and guilt of Lady Macbeth's crime?" They were speechless; for none of them had an atonement to offer."

Otherwise, we have, "pagans who have throughout history sacrificed their children to appease the gods’ wrath had the right intuition, even if they expressed it in the wrong way?"

"All those for whom Christ gave His life a ransom are either ransomed by it, or they are not, that all are not ransomed or redeemed from sin, the law, Satan, and the second death is evident . . .

Now, if some for whom Christ gave His life a ransom, are not ransomed then that shocking absurdity . . . follows . . . namely, that Christ is dead in vain, or that so far He gave His life a ransom in vain; wherefore it will be rightly concluded that He did not give His life a ransom for every individual man" (John Gill, The Cause of God and Truth, p. 98).

"Whenever the Holy Scriptures speak of the sufficiency of redemption, they always place in it the certain efficacy of redemption.

The atonement of Christ is sufficient because it is absolutely efficacious, and because it affects the salvation of all for whom it was made. Its sufficiency lies not in affording men a possibility of salvation, but in accomplishing their salvation with invincible power.

Hence the Word of God never represents the sufficiency of the atonement as wider than the design of the atonement" (Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John, 1945 edition, Vol. 3, p. 76).

Would that this last sentence could be emblazoned across the sky LET IT BE EMPHASIZED AGAIN, IN THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST
SUFFICIENCY EQUALS EFFICIENCY.