37818
Well-Known Member
No. That is what Scripture teaches.
-
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!
Biblical Atonement (Part 4....but who's counting)
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
- Status
That was why He qualified as The Lamb who was slain to take the punishment for the sins of the elect.
Punishment never forgives sin, for then the lake of fire would not last eternally.
The shed blood forgives sin.
At the Passover the lamb was slain, blood used, and lamb eaten. Did not Christ give that picture in the ordinance of bread and juice? Did He not tell those after feeding the 5000 that if they eat His body and drink His blood, they would never hunger or thirst? We’re these not portrayed in the crucifixion and belief?
Certainly, the lamb was slain, not for wrath, but for both Passover and atonement.
But God forsakes the righteous?
LOL. And the shedding of blood was never a punishment. Oh, wait . . . Genesis 9:6 , Deuteronomy 19:21 .
You believe killing murders forgives sins????
I said it is a punishment. It does mete justice.
Do you hold "forsake" as abandon?
Christ has eternally been the fullness of God, a member of the trinity.
Can a member of the trinity abandon another member?
Is it possible that the words are not translated properly? No, I don't think so.
Though I have listened to a man who is supposedly an expert in aramaic make that claim, saying
that Christ really said, "for this is my destiny" or something like that.
I don't put any stock into that thinking, just bringing it up to show another side of a disagreement.
What I present, is not abandon, but the Father allowing the Son to proceed without His divine intervention that was so evident at other times in the earthly ministry. Places where angles to attend to Him, where He heard from the Father, ...
I just had a blood test. I shed blood. Was I being punished?
Punishment is supposed to fit a crime, and that is what a greater amount of the Law attends.
However, Justice and punishment rarely reform those who are ungodly, but drive the person into a more hardened estate, as was seen with the Pharaoh.
Is there a point here?I just had a blood test. I shed blood. Was I being punished?
Punishment is supposed to fit a crime, and that is what a greater amount of the Law attends.
However, Justice and punishment rarely reform those who are ungodly, but drive the person into a more hardened estate, as was seen with the Pharaoh.
There ya go. Your position can only be supported by a hard-hearted refusal to yield to the texts of Scripture.
Surely you jest. I search the Scriptures daily for truth to apply to my life, mind, heart.
Certainly God cannot abandon God. That is illogical and no place presented in type or statement in the Scriptures.
Psalms 22 expresses that God did not abandon the Son - did you know that?
I suspect that the thinking that "God cannot look upon sin" (which is ripped from the Scriptures and meaning twisted to fit) or some statement that God has to punish sin for justice to be met, is clouding your comprehension.
Looking at Scripture, accepting the text statements as valid, and applying them to my life is not a condition of a hard-hearted refusal, but a submission that God's word is true and every man a liar - even the reformers and puritans.
There ya go. Your position can only be supported by a hard-hearted refusal to yield to the texts of Scripture.
Aaron,
In what Scripture have I not yielded?
Is it not YOUR application of the Scriptures in which I disagree, and not the Scriptures.
Your refusal to read the Scriptures with understanding does not oblige me to agree with your application.
The Pharisees and Sadducees were learned men of the Scripture, and were amazed that the Christ had such a command of the Scriptures without being schooled. They read the Scriptures without understanding that their own applications were error.
You have spent time in disagreement, been shown proper application, and been given proper definitions, even shown Scripture principles and portrayals. "Your position can only be supported by a hard-hearted refusal to yield to the texts of Scripture."
@Aaron
In the now closed thread, in which I was about to reply when the message of closure came, I expressed the reasoning of Satisfaction over Substitution.
In much briefer form, this was the post.
The word Substitute as you use it does not apply to the Scriptures.
The animal gave noting in exchange to the person, had no choice in the matter, and therefore substitution doesn't fit.
When transferring took place, as you admitted, if the sacrifice was not acceptable it was rejected.
The focus of all sacrifice and offerings was upon satisfaction, not substitution.
Christ did not substitute my blood for His, my sufferings for His, nor my life for His.
Christ's sacrifice was pleasing and satisfying to God, therefore, God can, at His pleasure and for His purpose choose those to whom He redeems.
This is the most accurate application considering all that pertains to the tabernacle/temple and the sacrifices and offerings.
It was all about satisfaction, not substitution.
Perhaps I should not have been so temperate in my presentation early in the threads, now understanding how by clinging to the "substitution" thinking you are endorsing a scheme that obliges error.
In the now closed thread, in which I was about to reply when the message of closure came, I expressed the reasoning of Satisfaction over Substitution.
In much briefer form, this was the post.
The word Substitute as you use it does not apply to the Scriptures.
The animal gave noting in exchange to the person, had no choice in the matter, and therefore substitution doesn't fit.
When transferring took place, as you admitted, if the sacrifice was not acceptable it was rejected.
The focus of all sacrifice and offerings was upon satisfaction, not substitution.
Christ did not substitute my blood for His, my sufferings for His, nor my life for His.
Christ's sacrifice was pleasing and satisfying to God, therefore, God can, at His pleasure and for His purpose choose those to whom He redeems.
This is the most accurate application considering all that pertains to the tabernacle/temple and the sacrifices and offerings.
It was all about satisfaction, not substitution.
Perhaps I should not have been so temperate in my presentation early in the threads, now understanding how by clinging to the "substitution" thinking you are endorsing a scheme that obliges error.
Believe that God the father Himself placed the Lord Jesus upon that Cross, and Jesus was willing to bear in Himself the wrath and judgement due to us as sinners!
Read Romans 1:18-30 which begins with;
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
and ends with;
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
How was the wrath of God revealed? Is the result of all of the ungodliness, death?
Was Jesus the Son of the Living God worthy of death? Was Jesus the Son of the Living God made, sin? Because of the death brought about by the sin of Adam and passed on to all, ungodly?
Romans 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for (Because of) the ungodly.
Is the wrath of God inclusive in Christ being made, sin resulting in Christ giving his Life a ransom?
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
and ends with;
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
How was the wrath of God revealed? Is the result of all of the ungodliness, death?
Was Jesus the Son of the Living God worthy of death? Was Jesus the Son of the Living God made, sin? Because of the death brought about by the sin of Adam and passed on to all, ungodly?
Romans 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for (Because of) the ungodly.
Is the wrath of God inclusive in Christ being made, sin resulting in Christ giving his Life a ransom?
How do you know as it is not what Scripture says?
The test of doctrine has to be what is written in Scripture, otherwise the doctrine is subjective - merely theory.
Have you yet realized that the "unbiblical" view @agedman and I have is actually what is written in God's Word, with what we reject being the ideas you believe Scripture teaches?????
So, you disagree with Peter statement to the crowd in Acts 2?
Exactly. Christ was forsaken to suffer and die, never abandoned by God (Psalm 22).
- Status