BIBLICAL atonement

[JonC]

'God is angry with sinners every day (Psalms 7:11). 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all' (Isaiah 53:6). 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief' (Isaiah 53:10). Surely even you can compare Scripture with Scripture and work that out. God anger against sin and sinners was (willingly) borne by Christ. Christ also suffered the curse of God against sin (Galatians 3:10-13). God also set Him forth as a propitiation, that is a sacrifice that turns away wrath (Romans 3:25-26). .

The word 'appease' is one that I do not care to use regardless of its dictionary meaning because of its unfortunate association with the appeasement of Hitler.. What Christ did was to provide satisfaction for the outraged justice of God, so that He may be 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.'

Isaiah 53:5.

God's wrath is certainly directed at sinners.

And yes, Christ shared in our infirmaty. He bore our sins in His body. And yes, it was God's will that Christ suffer and die by the evil men of this world. And yes, God is Just and the justifier of sinners. And yes, it is an abomination to God to condemn the Righteous and acquit the guilty.

But no, Penal Substitution Theory is not biblical.

 

[JonC]

The understanding of penal subtitiomal atonement is an understanding of the Biblical atonement in Isaiah 53:6, Isaiah 53:12. As a new Christian [in 1962] I understood a penal substitution from Romans 6:23 and Romans 5:8. To deny this understanding is untenable.

I understand that, for you, it may be untenable and unattainable.

But I would have thought the same of myself ten years ago. Don't discount God's work in the lives of His children.

 

[Iconoclast]

"agedman,
[QUOTE]Iconoclast, this just isn't accurate considering the consistent amount of Scriptures these threads have generated. Neither @JonC or I have shied away from proper application and renderings.[/QUOTE]

yes you have.

What HAS been exposed is exactly what you admit. There is no textual support for PSA, rather an agenda driven reading into the text.

No...I do not admit that at all. Every Cal and a few non cals have offered many verses teaching PSA.
You two avoid those verses like the plague.

you repeat, yes, I agree with those verses , but do not explain the verses...You say.....He bore our sins....
Well what does that mean?
How did he bear those sins?
What did He do with them? punish sin
Where did He bear them too?
Did he stack them up and save them in a warehouse?
Did he carry them about on a cart?

Sin is a transgression of the law of God?
Are you claiming that a Holy God is not going to punish sins of believers?
The unbelievers are heading to eternal torment for unpaid sin debt, or do you deny they will be beaten with many stripes? weeping and gnashing of teeth in eternal conscious torment.
Would God be just to only punish the sins of the reprobate?
You completely ignore the law of God.
A brief line saying gal:3;24does not get it done.
These questions were asked over and over, without anything close to a biblical response.

We know there is no condemnation In Christ that being said you ignore all the verses that show why that is.
You ignore why Gal.4:4 is true, How did Jesus get this done?

We all know the answers that you side step.

You totally ignore the active obedience of Jesus as mediator.

You and I have long communicated and agreed on so very much. So, I am not alarmed at your reaction and I do appreciate, as you mentioned in another thread, taking the time to reason through some of the posts. That is good, for a foolish person answers a matter in haste. (isn't that somewhere in proverbs?

)

We have. That is why I am concerned that you are drifting.
I have offered some of my concerns, but you two feel you are okay, so...I will stick with the historic view.
Another issue is the appeal to ECF, and other history.
I put no stock in much of it, because it is because of many of them that we have the corrupt roman church to begin with. I believe most of these people were not even saved.

That is fine. We (at least me) weren't out to change folks minds, but to show that there are other thoughts and even theories that may better present the facts of the Scriptures. Those closest to the times of Christ and had first hand teaching just did not present anything close to a psa theory.

I do not by this line of reasoning over scripture. I am aware of these other ideas...each is defective.

No, Iconoclast, it is a theory. Just as all theories undergo the test of evidence and must be evaluated from time to time, so does this theory.

I know you believe that, but I believe in the Covenant of Redemption, and rules out your ideas quickly.

It just so happens that under the threads presented, the PSA has been shown to be extremely weak at best and unsupportable by the Scriptures.

On the contrary, it has been demonstrated to be the biblical view without a doubt.
It is the only scripturally consistent teaching.

This may cause all the camels in the middle east to have hairy hair lips, but it is never the less true. In all the threads not a single Scripture taken in context has been able to substantiate the PSA thinking.

The hallmark of the PSA is the presentation that God poured His wrath out upon the Son. Didn't happen. Not according to Scriptures.

With all do respect, you are denying the saving efficacy of the cross.
You cannot present a consistent or biblical gospel.


[QUOTE]I have too, but am far to ancient to follow "trusted guides" because most are now dead and lived in a time in which their ideas and thinking were conformed to what is not our times.
[/QUOTE]

The word of God was still the word of God when these men read it. Most Christians cannot even get into the outer portions of the scriptures these men opened up.

Certainly, Sin is still sin, and grace brings salvation, but in our times a great treasury of resources is available. We have access to documents and writings that others did not have.

A telltale sign is quite often I will post extended portions of some of these writings, most do not comment on any portion, because the lack the capacity to enter into the thoughts and texts offered.

[QUOTE]That does not weaken them, but just as I am not a product of the 21st century, though I am here (I think) I reflect the values and agenda of the mid-twentieth.
[/QUOTE]

We are to build upon what they offered, not disparage them.

If my thinking is unbiblical, then show me by Scriptures.
I am not too proud to recant, but must be shown.
In all these threads not a single Scripture in context has been shown that would compel me to change my mind concerning the PSA theory.

However, I have shown over and over the Scriptures, and who then is proud when they have been shown?

That is between you and God. Many have offered the truth.
I would rather help those that want help, not those that are convinced they have it already.

Is it bad to wish the best for someone?
Is it error to ask God to give wisdom?
"excessive hubris?" Why would you consider that a motive?

To tell a Pastor, to consider using scripture, is a bit much.

Look back at your statement.
Puritans - desired to clean up the "church of England" (America's Episcopal church) which is basically an RCC church that allowed the king of England to divorce and murder his wives.

I have long rejected much of the puritan thinking in place of those who clung to the Scriptures even in the face of puritan oppression - the Separatists.

And then you mention the reformers. What was it that the reformers wanted to reform? The RCC!

And you foist them as to be our examples?

You are talking about the political garbage. I am talking about their biblical content and studied materials.

I am not saying that it is wrong to read of them, to even take head at some of what they wrote. However, it is dangerous to just accept everything written, even by my personal hero Jonathan Edwards, perhaps still the premier theologian America ever had.

Be careful, dear friend, to not place status above Scriptures. Just because someone of notoriety hung out some shingle of theological presentation does not oblige us to endorse it without very careful examination and sifting through the Scriptures.

I clearly said they are not infallible, but no one on this board could write better than John Owen on mortification of sin, the grace and duty of being spiritually minded, Thomas Watson on a Body of Divinity,etc...that is what I am alluding to.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

In the Scriptures we have the concept of the mediator, one who might fill up the gap between the outraged holiness of God and rebellious man (Isaiah 59:2). Job complained, “For He is not a man, as I am, that I should answer Him, and that we should go to court together. Nor is there any mediator between us who may lay his hand on us both.” But mediation requires a satisfaction to be made to the offended party. We see this is the book of Philemon. Here we have an offended party, Philemon, whose servant has run away from him, perhaps stealing some goods as he went; an offending party, Onesimus, and Paul who is attempting to mediate between them. Onesimus needs to return to his master, but fears the sanctions that may be imposed upon him if he does so. Paul takes these sanctions upon himself: ‘But if he has wronged you or owes anything, put that on my account. I, Paul, am writing with my own hand. I will repay…..’ (Philemon 18-19). Whatever is wanting to propitiate Philemon’s anger against his servant and to effect reconciliation, Paul the mediator willingly agrees to provide. In the same way, the Lord Jesus has become a Mediator between men and God (1 Timothy 2:5).

In 2 Corinthians 5:19, we learn that God does not impute trespasses against His people; in Christ; He has reconciled the world [believing Jew and Gentile alike] to Himself. How has He done this? Through the Mediator Jesus Christ. ‘For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us….’ (v.21). The Lord Jesus has taken our sins upon Himself and on the cross made full satisfaction to God for them. Therefore the message of reconciliation can be preached to all.

A similar concept is that of a surety (or 'guarantor'). This is someone who guarantees the debts of a friend and must pay them in full if the friend defaults. In Britain, because the cost of housing is so high, often parents will guarantee the mortgages of their children. But if the child is unable to pay, the bank will proceed against the parents as if they themselves were debtors. Never mind that they may have led a life of entire financial probity all their lives! They will have to pay the very last penny owed. There are several warnings in the Book of Proverbs against becoming a surety (Proverbs 6:1-5; 11:15; 17:18), since one is making the debts of one’s friend effectively one’s own, yet we read in Hebrews 7:22, ‘By so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.’ More on that verse presently.

In the Old Testament, animal sacrifices were made to God for the sins of the people. We read over and over again that creatures to be offered had to be without blemish (Leviticus 1:3 etc., etc.). ‘It must be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no defect in it’ (Leviticus 22:21). Given that He is the fulfilment of the O.T. sacrifices (Hebrews 9:11-15 etc.), the physical perfections of the sacrificed animals speak of the moral and spiritual perfections of Christ. 1 Peter 1:18-19 speaks of ‘….the precious blood of Christ as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.’ So it was necessary for the Lord Jesus to live the life that Adam failed to live– the life of perfect obedience to the Father’s will (Psalm 40:8). And this ‘Active Obedience’ is not a notional thing; it had to be lived out in the most practical way. Hence, ‘immediately’ after His baptism, ‘the Spirit drove Him into the wilderness’ (Mark 1:12-13) for an encounter with Satan. He must succeed where Adam fell.

God’s law makes two inexorable demands: ‘Do this and live’ (Leviticus 18:5; Galatians 3:12), and ‘The soul that sins shall die’ (Ezekiel 18:4). The first demand our Lord has met in His perfect obedience. He was made ‘under the law’ (Galatians 4:4) and fulfilled it (Matthew 5:17). His obedience has been placed to the credit of His people (Romans 5:19) and they are now made ‘the righteousness of God in Him’ (2 Corinthians 5:21).

For the second demand, we need to look again at Hebrews 7:22: ‘By so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.’ Christ is specifically designated in Scripture as ‘the last Adam’ (1 Corinthians 15:45) and we are told that the first Adam was a ‘type [or ‘figure’] of Him who was to come’ (Romans 5:14). ‘For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive’ (1 Corinthians 15:22). All those in Adam perish in their sins; all those in Christ are united to Him in His perfect righteousness.

Who are those ‘in Christ’? Those He came to save; those who were given to Him by the Father before time began. “Christ came not to strangers but to ‘brethren’ (Hebrews 2:11-13). He came here not to procure a people for Himself, but to secure a people already His” (A.W. Pink). There are many supporting texts for this, e.g. Matthew 1:21; John 6:39; 10:27-29; 17:2, 6; Ephesians 1:4. Christ is united federally to His people. They are ‘chosen in Christ’ (Ephesians 1:4), ‘Created in Christ’ (Ephesians 2:10); ‘circumcised in Him’ (Colossians 2:11) and ‘made the righteousness of God in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21). But as Surety, the Lord Jesus must also pay the debt of His people and satisfy the justice of God, and if they are to be freed from their debt, He must pay the very last penny (Matthew 5:26), and that He has done upon the cross at Calvary.

 

[37818]

But no, Penal Substitution Theory is not biblical.

Repeating what is not true is not going to change what is a Biblical fact.

It is a Biblical fundamental Baptist teaching in Romans 6:23 with Romans 5:8. As I said, I have understood this since 1962.

Mere denial proves nothing.

 

[Iconoclast]

In the Scriptures we have the concept of the mediator, one who might fill up the gap between the outraged holiness of God and rebellious man (Isaiah 59:2). Job complained, “For He is not a man, as I am, that I should answer Him, and that we should go to court together. Nor is there any mediator between us who may lay his hand on us both.” But mediation requires a satisfaction to be made to the offended party. We see this is the book of Philemon. Here we have an offended party, Philemon, whose servant has run away from him, perhaps stealing some goods as he went; an offending party, Onesimus, and Paul who is attempting to mediate between them. Onesimus needs to return to his master, but fears the sanctions that may be imposed upon him if he does so. Paul takes these sanctions upon himself: ‘But if he has wronged you or owes anything, put that on my account. I, Paul, am writing with my own hand. I will repay…..’ (Philemon 18-19). Whatever is wanting to propitiate Philemon’s anger against his servant and to effect reconciliation, Paul the mediator willingly agrees to provide. In the same way, the Lord Jesus has become a Mediator between men and God (1 Timothy 2:5).

In 2 Corinthians 5:19, we learn that God does not impute trespasses against His people; in Christ; He has reconciled the world [believing Jew and Gentile alike] to Himself. How has He done this? Through the Mediator Jesus Christ. ‘For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us….’ (v.21). The Lord Jesus has taken our sins upon Himself and on the cross made full satisfaction to God for them. Therefore the message of reconciliation can be preached to all.

A similar concept is that of a surety (or 'guarantor'). This is someone who guarantees the debts of a friend and must pay them in full if the friend defaults. In Britain, because the cost of housing is so high, often parents will guarantee the mortgages of their children. But if the child is unable to pay, the bank will proceed against the parents as if they themselves were debtors. Never mind that they may have led a life of entire financial probity all their lives! They will have to pay the very last penny owed. There are several warnings in the Book of Proverbs against becoming a surety (Proverbs 6:1-5; 11:15; 17:18), since one is making the debts of one’s friend effectively one’s own, yet we read in Hebrews 7:22, ‘By so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.’ More on that verse presently.

In the Old Testament, animal sacrifices were made to God for the sins of the people. We read over and over again that creatures to be offered had to be without blemish (Leviticus 1:3 etc., etc.). ‘It must be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no defect in it’ (Leviticus 22:21). Given that He is the fulfilment of the O.T. sacrifices (Hebrews 9:11-15 etc.), the physical perfections of the sacrificed animals speak of the moral and spiritual perfections of Christ. 1 Peter 1:18-19 speaks of ‘….the precious blood of Christ as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.’ So it was necessary for the Lord Jesus to live the life that Adam failed to live– the life of perfect obedience to the Father’s will (Psalm 40:8). And this ‘Active Obedience’ is not a notional thing; it had to be lived out in the most practical way. Hence, ‘immediately’ after His baptism, ‘the Spirit drove Him into the wilderness’ (Mark 1:12-13) for an encounter with Satan. He must succeed where Adam fell.

God’s law makes two inexorable demands: ‘Do this and live’ (Leviticus 18:5; Galatians 3:12), and ‘The soul that sins shall die’ (Ezekiel 18:4). The first demand our Lord has met in His perfect obedience. He was made ‘under the law’ (Galatians 4:4) and fulfilled it (Matthew 5:17). His obedience has been placed to the credit of His people (Romans 5:19) and they are now made ‘the righteousness of God in Him’ (2 Corinthians 5:21).

For the second demand, we need to look again at Hebrews 7:22: ‘By so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.’ Christ is specifically designated in Scripture as ‘the last Adam’ (1 Corinthians 15:45) and we are told that the first Adam was a ‘type [or ‘figure’] of Him who was to come’ (Romans 5:14). ‘For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive’ (1 Corinthians 15:22). All those in Adam perish in their sins; all those in Christ are united to Him in His perfect righteousness.

Who are those ‘in Christ’? Those He came to save; those who were given to Him by the Father before time began. “Christ came not to strangers but to ‘brethren’ (Hebrews 2:11-13). He came here not to procure a people for Himself, but to secure a people already His” (A.W. Pink). There are many supporting texts for this, e.g. Matthew 1:21; John 6:39; 10:27-29; 17:2, 6; Ephesians 1:4. Christ is united federally to His people. They are ‘chosen in Christ’ (Ephesians 1:4), ‘Created in Christ’ (Ephesians 2:10); ‘circumcised in Him’ (Colossians 2:11) and ‘made the righteousness of God in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21). But as Surety, the Lord Jesus must also pay the debt of His people and satisfy the justice of God, and if they are to be freed from their debt, He must pay the very last penny (Matthew 5:26), and that He has done upon the cross at Calvary.

See Agedman,
Here is a Pastor offering key teaching through a multitude of verses...
To suggest he use scripture is quite foolish as he has been doing this more than most on here.

 

[JonC]

God's wrath is certainly directed at sinners.

And yes, Christ shared in our infirmaty. He bore our sins in His body. And yes, it was God's will that Christ suffer and die by the evil men of this world. And yes, God is Just and the justifier of sinners. And yes, it is an abomination to God to condemn the Righteous and acquit the guilty.

But no, Penal Substitution Theory is not biblical.

@Iconoclast ,

I do not know why you believe my post to be funny. When we discuss Hod's Word and our redemption - even when we disagree - there is nothing funny or humorous about it.

Christ suffered for us. He was beaten. He was hung on a cross. He died. And He did this for us, bearing our sins. He is God.

This is not a topic to make light of. I suspect ypu just mean an insult, which is fine, but wanted to put that out before others follow suit.

@agedman and I have provided Scripture supporting our views. It is fair to disagree, but not to make fun of those with whom you disagree.

 

[JonC]

Repeating what is not true is not going to change what is a Biblical fact.

It is a Biblical fundamental Baptist teaching in Romans 6:23 with Romans 5:8. As I said, I have understood this since 1962.

Mere denial proves nothing.

But you have not provided any passage that teaches Penal Substitution Theory. You have provided passages and claimed you see that as the theory, but what you see is less important than what is actually there.

Men can say Scripture teaches just about anything. They can see just about any teaching in Scripture. History has shown this true.

That is why Scripture itself has to be our test for doctrine and Penal Substitution Theory simply fails the test.

 

[Iconoclast]

@Iconoclast ,

I do not know why you believe my post to be funny. When we discuss Hod's Word and our redemption - even when we disagree - there is nothing funny or humorous about it.

Christ suffered for us. He was beaten. He was hung on a cross. He died. And He did this for us, bearing our sins. He is God.

This is not a topic to make light of. I suspect ypu just mean an insult, which is fine, but wanted to put that out before others follow suit.

@agedman and I have provided Scripture supporting our views. It is fair to disagree, but not to make fun of those with whom you disagree.

I find it quite funny that you list the scriptures that teach the very thing you say does not exist, say you agree with the verses when you do not.
There used to be a red x emoji to suggest you disapprove or strongly disagree.
But the politically correct snowflakes could not handle it and they removed such emojis.
When you are in my opinion removing truth from the discussion do you think I am going to post a thumbs up, or winner ?
It is not an insult but you have removed any thumbs down or red x.

 

[JonC]

I find it quite funny that you list the scriptures that teach the very thing you say does not exist, say you agree with the verses when you do not.
There used to be a red x emoji to suggest you disapprove or strongly disagree.
But the politically correct snowflakes could not handle it and they removed such emojis.
When you are in my opinion removing truth from the discussion do you think I am going to post a thumbs up, or winner ?
It is not an insult but you have removed any thumbs down or red x.

I just wondered. I think the negative emojis are childish (as adults we use words to express our thoughts), so I don't mind the x's and thumbs down ratings being taken down.

I do believe that we need to stick closer to the text of Scripture when developing doctrine than you will allow.

But let me ask you - you say Scripture teaches Penal Substitution Theory. But since the actual text of Scripture does not contain Penal Substitution Theory, what criteria do you use to test that doctrine?

I have given multiple passages that state exactly my understanding. So has @agedman .

But you cannot point to the text of Scripture, to "what is written". Instead you can only say - yea...but it teaches such and such.

 

[JonC]

See Agedman,
Here is a Pastor offering key teaching through a multitude of verses...
To suggest he use scripture is quite foolish as he has been doing this more than most on here.

But none of @Martin Marprelate 's passages actually support the Theory.

It is like saying "Jesus wept" so you shouldn't eat meat. Then when challenged just saying that's what the verse teaches. The logic is absent.

We have to test doctrine against Scripture - NOT start with theory and then go to the Bible for support.

 

[canadyjd]

But none of @Martin Marprelate 's passages actually support the Theory.

It is like saying "Jesus wept" so you shouldn't eat meat. Then when challenged just saying that's what the verse teaches. The logic is absent.

We have to test doctrine against Scripture - NOT start with theory and then go to the Bible for support.

JonC, I have really tried to understand your position. I’ve read the posts and the views of others, including agedman.

Bottom line, it seems you are making distinctions within passages when there really is no difference.

You rightly claim Jesus died for our sins. You then claim He was not our substitute.

You rightly claim God the Father gave Jesus as an offering. You then claim He was not our substitute.

The OT sacrificial system is based on PSA, even if those exact words aren’t used. Pauline doctrine is saturated with PSA language, even if that phrase isn’t used. It simply isn’t true that PSA is a modern doctrine since it is taught by Paul.

As others pointed out, we accept the doctrine of the Trinity, even though that word is never used in scripture.

I understand you believe it. I understand you believe God has given you that understanding

I am just as firmly convinced that PSA is biblical and that God has led me to that conclusion.

Peace to you

 

[agedman]

Two points l have mentioned may actually help some understand.

I have shown that a better word to use when Christ took upon Himself our sins is the the word “satisfaction.”

Had God not approved and been satisfied by BOTH the presentation of the high priest and the blood, none of the rest of the atonement system for that year would matter.

Second, there can be no wrath from God at the crucifixion.
The reasons are:

1) there is no eye witness testimony from either the perspective of earth or that of the throne room of God.
2) the arguments for wrath has no foundation in the OT portrayal of the whole atonement.
3) there can never occur disunity or disharmony in the trinity.
4) there is no presentation by the writings of the NT in which a declaration of God’s wrath poured out upon the Son occurs.
5) wrath remains and is seen poured out upon the whole earth in the final hours of this age.
​

What the Scriptures clearly teach is both the Father and Son in complete unity of purpose with no animosity between the trinity acquiring victory in which we believers may also be victorious.

We have eternal life because death, sin and the grave have no authority over God’s joint heirs.

We, the redeemed, justified, and reconciled, no longer have to be concerned about the decrees of the Law, they have been satisfied by the Christ.

My prayer isn’t that you agree with me, but that these threads and posts have been edifying and God glorifying.

I am reminded how Paul came to the first Baptist Church of Jerusalem concerning the mission work to the Gentiles.

They spent considerable time over the matter.

 

[canadyjd]

Two points l have mentioned may actually help some understand.

I have shown that a better word to use when Christ took upon Himself our sins is the the word “satisfaction.”

Had God not approved and been satisfied by BOTH the presentation of the high priest and the blood, none of the rest of the atonement system for that year would matter.

Second, there can be no wrath from God at the crucifixion.
The reasons are:

1) there is no eye witness testimony from either the perspective of earth or that of the throne room of God.
2) the arguments for wrath has no foundation in the OT portrayal of the whole atonement.
3) there can never occur disunity or disharmony in the trinity.
4) there is no presentation by the writings of the NT in which a declaration of God’s wrath poured out upon the Son occurs.
5) wrath remains and is seen poured out upon the whole earth in the final hours of this age.
​

What the Scriptures clearly teach is both the Father and Son in complete unity of purpose with no animosity between the trinity acquiring victory in which we believers may also be victorious.

We have eternal life because death, sin and the grave have no authority over God’s joint heirs.

We, the redeemed, justified, and reconciled, no longer have to be concerned about the decrees of the Law, they have been satisfied by the Christ.

My prayer isn’t that you agree with me, but that these threads and posts have been edifying and God glorifying.

I am reminded how Paul came to the first Baptist Church of Jerusalem concerning the mission work to the Gentiles.

They spent considerable time over the matter.

Set aside the idea of God’s wrath upon Christ for a moment.

Are the ideas of wrath and substitute inseparable?

Can Christ be our substitute without the wrath of God being upon Him?

peace to you

 

[agedman]

Set aside the idea of God’s wrath upon Christ for a moment.

Are the ideas of wrath and substitute inseparable?

Can Christ be our substitute without the wrath of God being upon Him?

peace to you

What exactly did Christ substitute?

Our death for His, nope.
Our sin for His righteousness, nope.

There was no need for wrath for there was no substitution, but satisfaction.


Christ satisfied the decrees of the law held against believers. As I posted earlier showing Scripture.

He did not exchange (substitute) anything, but in the satisfaction pleasing of The Father by the crucifixion elements brought reconciliation and with in that reconciliation the grace of salvation is given so we have peace with God.

The payment was not debt owed as we might consider owing one money, but a debt of sin in violation of the decrees of the Law. Christ satisfied the demands of the decrees thereby the Romans 8 may state, “There is no condemnation…”

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 1 am (Wed) EST / 10 pm (Tue) PST

This thread is closed
Feel free to start a new one