Featured Why you must understand PSA

Correct, the center is, the death of the soul who did not sin, yet gave his life, died.

The soul that sins it shall die. ----------- For how long? How long will the soul that sins be dead?
What about the soul that did not sin yet pours out his soul unto death?
Why would the soul that did not sin give his life? Did the soul that did not sin have faith in the promise of God, who cannot lie? The promise made before the beginning of time.

The hope of eternal life. The faith of Gal 3:23-25 was the soul that did not sin, pouring out his soul unto death predicated upon the promise of God.

The resurrection of Christ was the fulfillment of that promise.

IMHO

 

The problem is that the penal substitution narrative describes the death of Jesus as salvific in and of itself without the resurrection. Jesus rising from the dead is not necessary for salvation on the penal substitution narrative. That is a serious problem.

 

It is shameful that the Atonement of Jesus Christ could be attempted to be neutered, to render Christianity with no more than any Pagan has.

"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.

 

@JonC . Re post 20. Christ's death and shed blood is what provided the actual means for our salvation. The propitiation for us. I don't want to get into the role of faith, or of things required on our part, here, but at the most basic level it seems God required this.
(I'm sorry but I can't highlight then quote from this device.)

Paul based our ability to know we can rely on Christ for our salvation on the resurrection. He regarded it as proof of the claims of Christ. But if you are asking what actually atones for sin it was not the resurrection. These things cannot be reduced beyond a certain point but you can't explain everything every time you respond. When I was a kid it was popular to say to catholics that their portrayal of crucifixes "Left Jesus on the cross". I assure you that is not what MacArthur or Owen do and I doubt it's what the RC's were doing. With the concept of our union with Christ the resurrection means we can live a new life in God's kingdom. When someone is baptized you will hear the phrase "raised to walk in newness of life".

But if someone is coming up with a doctrine that bases Christianity on an unjust execution that would have been better for us had it not happened and then your faith is a trust in the resurrection I think that's an error.

 

On the contrary, the reason why so many hate the doctrine of Penal Substitution is that it exalts Christ and reduces man to helplessness. This is abominable to pride and self-sufficiency.

 

This is not so, and is just a random stone that you have picked up to throw in the absence of anything substantial to say.. Through the resurrection we understand that Christ was who He said He was (Romans 1:4) and that God has accepted the propitiation wrought by Him so that He can be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.

 

If the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus is the central answer to the human problem, why did He have to spend 33 years on earth, and why did He have to die such a terrible death? More specifically, why did He refuse the wine mixed with myrrh (Mark 15:23)? He could have popped down to earth for the weekend, died instantly from cardiac arrest and been raised. Why would that have been a problem?

 

Who would conclude if Christ died for our sins, referring to those born anew, it means Christ did not die for the sins of others never to be saved? Certainly not an objective seeker of truth.

Who would conclude if Christ died for the church, those already called out, Christ did not also die for those to be saved and those never to be saved? Certainly not an objective seeker of truth.

Who would say God declared those born anew to be righteous, rather than referring to God making individuals righteous with the washing of regeneration.

Was "all sin punished" or did Christ's substitutionary sacrifice purchase the right to forgive and forget the sins of anyone God transfers into Christ's spiritual body?

1 John 2:2 says Christ became the means of salvation for all of humanity.

2 Peter 2:1 says Christ bought those to be saved and those never to be saved with His blood.[/QUOTE]

Romans 5:19 says by the obedience of Christ, the many will be made righteous, rather than declared righreous.

 

You just proved my point. On penal substitution, the resurrection is just a proof of the efficacy of the death. But you have not mentioned any saving power of the resurrection itself. Thank you!

 

I will use the payment analogy frequently used in the New Testament. The life and death of Jesus is the payment made, and the resurrection is the payment applied. If I owe you $10,000 to fix your car, I then have to save up the money (the life of Jesus), I have to pay you the money (the death of Jesus), and then you have to apply the money to actually repair your car (the resurrection of Jesus).

The life of Jesus in that in which he recapitulates the story of Israel and the life of humanity, obeying where we have disobeyed and succeeding where we have failed. This is necessary to make sufficient payment on our behalf.

But it all leads up to you actually fixing your car (the resurrection) as the central solution to your broken car.

 

There is no problem with this if you hold the fact that God saves His elect and gives them the gift of faith upon the moment when He makes them alive (Ephesians 2:1-10).
I see the problem for those who think that man, with his free will, must be the cause of moving God to save them.
Jesus death is absolutely salvific for those whom God the Father has given to the Son to save. The shed blood is particular to those whom Jesus chose to redeem and adopt from before the foundation of the world.

So what you display is a clear rejection of God's causal work in salvation. The problem is not penal substitutionary atonement. The problem is your reliance on man to save himself via human willpower.

Others here have provided overwhelming biblical evidence for Christ as our substitutionary atoner for our sins. Vast scripture reference makes this no "philosophy" but instead "orthodox" theology.

Contrary to this, you and your doppelganger have provided empty chatter with vague philosophy and zero biblical support for a nothing burger of an opinion.

Carry on as I will sign out now.

 

You are bringing up completely different topics, namely the extent of the atonement (limited vs unlimited atonement) and whether or not we have free will. Those are not the topics of this thread.

This thread is about the mechanism of atonement, that is, HOW the death and resurrection of Jesus reconciles sinners to God.