In what sense did Christ die for all sinners?

[JesusFan]

Wrong. You interpret (misinterpret) the OT sacrificial system by assuming it to be identical in purpose to the pagan ANE culture. This is wrong (the pagan ANE sacrifices were a perversion).

If you took Isaiah 53 as it is written you woukd not hold the position you currently hold. What you have done, perhaps without knowing, is start with a theory and then go seeking support. Again, wrong method.

You are basically stating that all of the reformers were wrong, almost all Evangelicals and Baptists, and you seem to be equating anything involving there is a Holy God hatred and wrath against sins and sinners has to be appeased as being 'barbaric and Pagan"

We can disagree on this issue, but do not keep on parroting NT Wrong on seeing that your new view is right on, and that the Penal Substitution view has been dead wrong, as if Wright discovered things Calvin/Luther/Packard/Sproul/MacArthur/Spurgeon et all never could see from the scriptures!

 

[JesusFan]

Yes. And nany of those who disagree with Penal Substitution Theory hold what they call "Pauline Justification:.

I know the Reformers that developed Penal Substitution Theory and those influenced by them believe Penal Substitution Theory correct. That is no great insight, brother


The issue here is many, like me, believe that "Pauline Justification" does not exist as a seperate type of Justification. Instead we (those who believe like I believe) hold that Paul was re-describing to the Church redemption, the reconciliation of man to God, and the necessity of individual reconciliation.

I find it concerning that so many believe Paul developed a new system or Theory of Justification called "Pauline Justification". Paul's words are no greater, or less, than the remainder of Scripture. One should strive to be "of Chriat", not "of Paul".

The basic problem though is that the Holy Spirit HIMSELF gave surpassing revelations to Apostle Paul, as none ever before, as in Romans out outlined the greatest theology ever penned by any writer period!

As even another fellow and also inspired Apostle commented that even to him Paul writes things hard to grasp and fully comprehend

 

[JesusFan]

This is not completely accurate. Most Baptists believe at least some Roman Catholic doctrine and adopt some Roman Catholic practices, although these doctrines and practices have been reformed.

Here are a few examples:

1. The way we observe the Lord's Supper (a waifer or bit of bread with a sip of grape juice or wine). This is foreign to the meal observed in remembrance of Christ prior to the Roman Catholic Church.

2. Most Western Baptists believe the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. This was a reform the of Roman Catholic view (Aquinas' Substitution based on merit was shifted to be based on divine justice).

3. The ordered method of worship (program worship) many use originated with the Catholic Church and was continued by the Reformers from the Roman Catholic Church, and passed to Baptists.

4. Most Baptists hold the Catholic view, some reformed Cathilic views, of "Original Sin".

5. What many Baptists view as minister vs laity, with the "overseer" or paster coming from without the congregation can be argued to have had its start from the Catholic Church.

So have you now jettisoned along with penal substituting view the concept of Original Sin also?

 

[JesusFan]

My "testimony" is that I was lied to most of my life by well meaning people until God and the BIBLE told me "straight-up" how things REALLY are, so I now trust the WORD OF GOD (both) as the only "norma normans non normata" (measure of measures that has no higher measure to judge it against). Thus, when people make claims of BIBLICAL TRUTH, I ask where it says that. When the verse presented does not appear to SAY what they claim it says, then I invite them to explain it.

I now offer you the same opportunity as the previous brother. Here is every verse in the OT and NT that says "appeased", so you can show me where scripture teaches what you claim:

1 Kings 13:6 [NASB20] And the king responded and said to the man of God, "Please appease the LORD your God and pray for me, so that my hand may be restored to me." So the man of God appeased the LORD, and the king's hand was restored to him, and it became as it was before.

2 Kings 13:4 [NASB20] Then Jehoahaz appeased the LORD, and the LORD listened to him; for He saw the oppression of Israel, how the king of Aram oppressed them.

2 Chronicles 33:12 [NASB20] When he was in distress, he appeased the LORD his God and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers.

Ezekiel 5:13 NASB20] 'Then My anger will be spent and I will satisfy My wrath on them, and I will be appeased; then they will know that I, the LORD, have spoken in My zeal, when I have spent My wrath upon them.

Zechariah 6:8 [NASB20] Then He called out to me and spoke to me, saying, "See, those who are going to the land of the north have appeased My wrath in the land of the north."


... and here is every verse in the OT and NT that says "appease", in case it was translated in the present tense:

Genesis 32:20 [NASB20] and you shall say, 'Behold, your servant Jacob also is behind us.'" For he said, "I will appease him with the gift that goes ahead of me. Then afterward I will see his face; perhaps he will accept me."

1 Kings 13:6 [NASB20] And the king responded and said to the man of God, "Please appease the LORD your God and pray for me, so that my hand may be restored to me." So the man of God appeased the LORD, and the king's hand was restored to him, and it became as it was before.

Proverbs 16:14 [NASB20] The fury of a king is [like] messengers of death; But a wise person will appease it.

Matthew 28:14 [NASB20] "And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will appease him and keep you out of trouble."


* Note: I used NASB20 because it had the most instances of "appeased" and "appease", feel free to select any translation/verse you wish that teaches what you affirm ("All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," - 2 Timothy 3:16)

So you now do hold concept of God having to be appeased for wrath as Pagan?

 

[JesusFan]

Your friend says something hateful to you and you are wrathful. But he catches this and sincerely apologizes and you two are on good terms. Where does your wrath go?

You have adopted a flawed philosophy of justice and divine wrath (one given to you as reformed Roman Catholic doctrine). You do not remotely understand the Cross and cannot until you start trusting in God's Word.

It is difficult (I was once on your shoes) but it is possible to take Scripture for what is written as true and complete.

God cannot just wish/excuse away that stored up wrath and righteous condemnation I was owed by God, so where did that all go then?

Much better same to same would be I hurt my close friend by trying to murder him, so it be ok to just have Him say I forgive you, but suffer no punishemnt as its now Ok since he forgave me?

 

[atpollard]

If you are suggesting that all those verses show is that the wrath is averted for "saints" or believers and implying that God forgives in a way unconnected to Christ's shedding of blood

To avoid any possibility of talking past one another:

I AFFIRM that God has wrath towards sinners (including us before we were 'in Christ').
I AFFIRM that it was the blood of Christ that "averted" that wrath from us.

I DENY that WRATH was TRANSFERRED from US to CHRIST [I am willing to change my mind if scripture supporting such a claim can be produced, but so far no scripture appears to say this].
I DENY that God is incapable of forgiving sin without first APPEASING HIS WRATH without violating God's Justice [I am willing to change my mind if scripture supporting such a claim can be produced, but so far no scripture appears to say this].

So do YOU believe that either of these verses ...

[Jhn 3:36 ESV] 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

[Rom 5:9 ESV] 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

... prove either of the things that I deny? "God transferred wrath" or "God cannot forgive until wrath has been appeased".

 

[JesusFan]

Greetings Dave. Back from the in-law weekend. Making my way through all the posts I missed.

My camp

Not my camp

Key

Agreed. And I do believe that when we see "wrath" in the Bible it is the 'word picture' that represents judgement within the stratagem of God. We don't see God just going around having wrath. God brings wrath within a picture story after mankind has violated some covenant or law. Like the example of bringing the Jewish people out of Egypt. The sequence of events within the picture story is (1) God first gave the Ten Commandments, then and only then (2) God had wrath on those that did not choose God (Exo 32:28).

God showing us through picture stories the deep workings of God's stratagem. Amen.

Keep seeking God's truth

Jesus upon that Cross expressed utter forsaken by the father, experienced for that time eternal separation as all lost will from God, and that was literally experience our hell upon Himself during those 3 hours.

 

[JesusFan]

Greetings to you as well, brother. Thank you for providing your insight into some of what I have written.

Do you agree that one purpose of the Incarnation, death and resurrection was to put all things under His foot (1Cor 15:24-28, Heb 2:8, 1John 3:8, Phil 2:10, 1Pet 3:22)?

Peace to you brother.

Ultimate reason was to bring back to Himself his own peculiar people, as what hey could not do apart from the Cross of Christ, ie, to have a scapegoat to atonement for their own sins.

 

[JesusFan]

I would just suggest you so the same search with "wrath". It occurs 199 times, sometimes referring to the wrath of God and sometimes to man. @Alan Dale Gross is right in that statement. There are times in scripture where the scenario is that God's wrath has broken out on the people of Israel and Moses tells Aaron to go immediately out to atone and intercede for the people. To find those instances you can plug in "wrath" because the word "appease" wasn't used but the concept Alan was suggesting is. So is "atone".

Also you will notice that the use of "wrath" means something like "anger to the point of being acted upon". That's just my own definition so take it for what it's worth. That is important because in that sense yes, wrath can build up so to speak, be a mounting emotion so to speak, yet be withheld without being actually manifested. So a saint, before he was saved may indeed have been accumulating "wrath" (potentially) but if in due time he repents, based on Christ's propitiating work, this wrath will never be executed upon him. And God being a judge and this being an important enough concept that it is said that God is just and a justifier (so indeed that matters), it is proper to say God loved us even while we were in our sins and in fact we all were timewise when Christ died for us.

Lastly, in the search of the word "wrath" in scripture, it is often used referring to human wrath. And it is explained that usually, our wrath is sinful for several reasons. One, it can occur for unjust reason in us. Two, it can result in doing things we are forbidden to engage in. Three, as creatures, we have fewer rights, have been forgiven much ourselves, and are not in a real position to administer judgement and act on our wrath.

But God is in such a position, and it is part of his nature and how he reacts to sin. I would suggest that if you look up all instances of "wrath" in scripture and read in context, without aid of commentaries, you will begin to understand the role of wrath in penal substitution. If you don't think it fits at that point then nothing else need be said.

Those against Penal substitution seem to see that wrath of God needing to get appeased as pagan, and that once saved, God just ignores and forgets what we had done and what we were until saved period...

 

[JesusFan]

I guess I'm at a loss because this verse below from you quotes explains what I thought you were asking.

The wrath of God remains on those who don't believe. That must mean that it was on those who believe, before they believed.

If you are suggesting that all those verses show is that the wrath is averted for "saints" or believers and implying that God forgives in a way unconnected to Christ's shedding of blood then how do you account for the above and all the passages like it? Somehow we are justified by his blood and Hebrews for example connects this directly with the parallels in with the Old Testament priesthood.

Saints are those who were sinners before they were saints. It is true that there is a branch of Calvinism that seems to deny a conversion from sinner to saint "in time" and have an idea of eternal justification. If that's where you are then I understand your position.

But the bottom line is, if someone believes that you can be forgiven by God simply doing so then there was no real reason for Christ to die. There are denominations and churches that are of that school of thought but I have the same question you have but with this difference. If Christ's death was not in some way involved with the removal of the wrath of God that truly was hanging over all of us then please tell me some reason why he had to die on the cross.

And in the ultimate sense, who caused Jesus to die upon that Cross? Not Rome, not Israel, not even the World but due to the Trinity Themselves agreeing this had to be done, as only then can Holy God freely save unholy lost sinners without violating His Holiness

 

[DaveXR650]

So do YOU believe that either of these verses ...

[Jhn 3:36 ESV] 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

[Rom 5:9 ESV] 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

... prove either of the things that I deny? "God transferred wrath" or "God cannot forgive until wrath has been appeased".

John 3:36 shows that if you believe on the Son the wrath of God will not remain on you as it does if you don't believe.

Romans 5:9 Says that we are saved from the wrath of God because we have been justified by his blood. I don't think those verses contradict each other so I would say those that believe are saved (faith links us to this) and we are saved by his blood, which is the effectual cause.

I don't have a problem if someone says they don't like the idea of wrath being transferred. We have a mental picture of what words mean and I understand that someone may view a transfer of wrath as if I come home from work, angry at the boss, and kick my dog. And then, we get an improper picture of God's wrath.

However; others have a right to have words give them a mental picture too. If God's wrath was on me, and Jesus, by suffering the death he did, and by shedding his blood, averted wrath that was rightfully mine, because of sin that I chose to do, then I have just as much right to view that as a transferring of God's wrath to Jesus. What I mean is that have whatever picture in your mind you want but wrath that was on you can be averted and the shedding of Christ's blood was a stated, direct cause of this. That is indeed scriptural.

 

[atpollard]

Jesus upon that Cross expressed utter forsaken by the father, experienced for that time eternal separation as all lost will from God, and that was literally experience our hell upon Himself during those 3 hours.

If you mean THIS ...

Matthew 27:45-50 [ESV]
Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" And some of the bystanders, hearing it, said, "This man is calling Elijah." And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink. But the others said, "Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him." And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.

Mark 15:33-39 [ESV] And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" And some of the bystanders hearing it said, "Behold, he is calling Elijah." And someone ran and filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink, saying, "Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take him down." And Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, "Truly this man was the Son of God!"

Then you missed Jesus final lesson ...

Psalm 22:1-31 [ESV]
To the choirmaster: according to The Doe of the Dawn. A Psalm of David.
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer, and by night, but I find no rest.

Yet you are holy, enthroned on the praises of Israel. In you our fathers trusted; they trusted, and you delivered them. To you they cried and were rescued; in you they trusted and were not put to shame.

But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by mankind and despised by the people. All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads; "He trusts in the LORD; let him deliver him; let him rescue him, for he delights in him!"

Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts. On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother's womb you have been my God. Be not far from me, for trouble is near, and there is none to help.

Many bulls encompass me; strong bulls of Bashan surround me; they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion.

I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted within my breast; my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws; you lay me in the dust of death.

For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet-- I can count all my bones-- they stare and gloat over me; they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.

But you, O LORD, do not be far off! O you my help, come quickly to my aid! Deliver my soul from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dog! Save me from the mouth of the lion! You have rescued me from the horns of the wild oxen!

I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will praise you: You who fear the LORD, praise him! All you offspring of Jacob, glorify him, and stand in awe of him, all you offspring of Israel! For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him.

From you comes my praise in the great congregation; my vows I will perform before those who fear him. The afflicted shall eat and be satisfied; those who seek him shall praise the LORD! May your hearts live forever!

All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the LORD, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you. For kingship belongs to the LORD, and he rules over the nations.

All the prosperous of the earth eat and worship; before him shall bow all who go down to the dust, even the one who could not keep himself alive. Posterity shall serve him; it shall be told of the Lord to the coming generation; they shall come and proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn, that he has done it.

 

[DaveXR650]

Those against Penal substitution seem to see that wrath of God needing to get appeased as pagan, and that once saved, God just ignores and forgets what we had done and what we were until saved period...

Exactly. And if that's the case, then it was not necessary truly, that Jesus go to the cross. It is not essential that he be divine or born of a virgin. Christianity can be reduced to a set of ethical teachings and the only requirement is that you sincerely attempt to follow them.

 

[atpollard]

Those against Penal substitution seem to see that wrath of God needing to get appeased as pagan,

Not pagan, just un-Biblical (as evidenced by the dearth of quoted verses about CHRIST as the APPEASEMENT of the WRATH of GOD against the ELECT).

and that once saved, God just ignores and forgets what we had done and what we were until saved period...

You mean like THESE verses say ...

[2 Chronicles 7:14 ESV] if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

[Jeremiah 31:34 ESV] And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

[Matthew 6:14-15 ESV] For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

[John 3:17-18 ESV] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

[Hebrews 8:12 ESV] For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more."

[Hebrews 10:17 ESV] then he adds, "I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more."

[1 John 1:9 ESV] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Exactly.

Not "exactly".

And if that's the case, then it was not necessary truly, that Jesus go to the cross.

Why it was necessary (according to scripture) ...

[Galatians 4:4-5 ESV] But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

[Titus 2:11-14 ESV] For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

no "transfer of wrath" and no "appeasement of Justice" mentioned. Just REDEMPTION of a people.

It is not essential that he be divine or born of a virgin.

Yes, it was, but not because of WRATH ...

[Hebrews 2:10-11, 14-18 ESV]
For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers,
... Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

Christianity can be reduced to a set of ethical teachings and the only requirement is that you sincerely attempt to follow them.

Ephesians 2:1-10 says otherwise (even without TRANSFERRED WRATH).

 

[JonC]

You are basically stating that all of the reformers were wrong, almost all Evangelicals and Baptists, and you seem to be equating anything involving there is a Holy God hatred and wrath against sins and sinners has to be appeased as being 'barbaric and Pagan"

We can disagree on this issue, but do not keep on parroting NT Wrong on seeing that your new view is right on, and that the Penal Substitution view has been dead wrong, as if Wright discovered things Calvin/Luther/Packard/Sproul/MacArthur/Spurgeon et all never could see from the scriptures!

Yes, I am stating that the Reformers (with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, specifically Calvin and Beza) were wrong about the Atonement. Like the baptistic believers who existed apart from the Roman Catholic Church, I do not believe the Reformers went far enough (they reformed existing Roman Catholic doctrine instead of returning to God's Word as the source for their doctrine).

I have not references NT Wright at all. You are the one who seems to have a man-crush on the guy.

I only referenced Scripture and, when appropriate, the writings of early Christians.

We do disagree. You hold what I view as a distinctly Roman Catholic faith, only reformed in places (primarily eschatolological places). I believe we should trust God's Word in developing doctrine.

So you now do hold concept of God having to be appeased for wrath as Pagan?

I hold your philosophy of atonement (and the Roman Catholic philosophy of atonement) as distinctly pagan.

God cannot just wish/excuse away that stored up wrath and righteous condemnation I was owed by God, so where did that all go then?

Much better same to same would be I hurt my close friend by trying to murder him, so it be ok to just have Him say I forgive you, but suffer no punishemnt as its now Ok since he forgave me?

Your concept of "stored up wrath", as if wrath were a physical thing, is pagan.

Wrath being stored up for the day of wrath speaks of a time prior to "that day" (it speaks to a singular and future day of judgment to come). And God never owes man.


Yes, if a friend strikes you it is OK to forgive the offense. If a friend tries to kill you it is OK to forgive the offense (although I'd think that friend would be an enemy.....but yes, it is OK to forgive your enemies. Those who say bad things about you, those who persecuted you, and those who try to do you harm...it is OK to forgive them.

I know that does not make sence to you, especially with the "eye for an eye" thing, and given that you hold a 16th century philosophy of justice. But it is really ok to forgive your enemies.

Paul, believe it or not, was actually forgiven by Christians. They did not demand Paul face justice for his involvement in Stephen's murder, or for persecutions against other believers. They did not demand justice, at least after realizing he had repented, for turning over Christians to Jewish leaders.

Strange, isn't it. Paul just does not quite fit in with your reformed Catholic faith. So you have to simoly extract verses to support your theories. You would do much better to simply trust what God has given us in His Word.

 

[DaveXR650]

@atpollard. You are making a good case for the fact of God's love for men and his desire to forgive. And this is important because you don't want to portray God as wrathful like we can tend to be. Still, the verses we have discussed show God's wrath as being on men who refuse to repent and they show the idea that belief is that which God wants on our part - while the blood of Christ is an actual cause of the removal of wrath. The blood does something which is never addressed by you.

Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

Being like his brothers to become a merciful an faithful high priest is absolutely true and I agree. But the next phrase has him making propitiation for the sins of the people. That is alleviating or removing wrath, and it is because of the sins of the people. I honestly don't understand why this is a problem.

and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

When you see things like this, clearly there is something else to happen rather than God just forgiving. Why do we need to be "redeemed" from lawlessness. Or "purified"? How can we do that and why does it matter if God can simply forgive. There are those who try to make this the same as how you deal with someone who slaps you. It's not the same at all.

It is not the Reformers fault that scripture chose the sacrificial system in the Old Testament and the cross in the New. And that clearly in the book of Hebrews Jesus is acting as a high priest who brings his own sacrifice consisting of his own blood. And it's not their fault that "ransomed" and "redeemed" and "washed" are used in relation to Christ blood. Clearly, this cannot be portrayed seriously as God just forgiving us with no thought needing to be made of these other things.

 

[JonC]

deal with someone who slaps you. It's not the same at all.

It is not the Reformers fault that scripture chose the sacrificial system in the Old Testament and the cross in the New. And that clearly in the book of Hebrews Jesus is acting as a high priest who brings his own sacrifice consisting of his own blood. And it's not their fault that "ransomed" and "redeemed" and "washed" are used in relation to Christ blood. Clearly, this cannot be portrayed seriously as God just forgiving us with no thought needing to be made of these other things.

Have you ever considered that your interpretation of the OT sacrificial system may be wrong?

What I mean is it seems on this board many make assumptions that the Jews represent God in terms of sacrifice. But what if the OT sacrificial system was instead pointing to what would occur in the future, the reason these things would occur, and perhaps even setting the stage for our redemption.

Just a thought, and trying to root out asdumptiin and going to a system looking to support a view.

 

[JonC]

Exactly. And if that's the case, then it was not necessary truly, that Jesus go to the cross. It is not essential that he be divine or born of a virgin. Christianity can be reduced to a set of ethical teachings and the only requirement is that you sincerely attempt to follow them.

This is not true. Historical Christianity actually necessitates the cross, the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement does not.

With the Penal Substitution Theory Christ needed to suffer the wrath of God against the lost. This would be the "Second death". But this is not a Roman cross. It is when Hell and death is cast into the Lake of Fire. Most Penal Substitution theorists consider Jesus to have experienced something equivalent to what the lost will suffer at Judgment (most seem to link this to a temporary separation of Jesus from God).

BUT the Penal Substitution Theory does NOT need the cross. Jesus could have suffrred and died in many various ways and the theory would remain unchanged. The cross is there only because it is in the OT (of course, it is in the OT as a foreshadowing of the cross).


On the other hand, Classic Chriatianity not only requires that Jesus be handed over by the Jewish leaders, die for our sins but also that this be done publicly, by the secular powers of the world, and on a Roman cross.

The reason is it was necessary that Jesus suffer and die under the powers of Satan - the powers of the World (powers of darkness that held mankind in bandage because of sin). The secular power at this time was Rome. The Jews esteemed Him as stricken by God. They gave Him over to the World, to suffer and die as a criminal. It HAD to be a Roman cross.

But Penal Substitution theorists have no use for the cross.

 

[DaveXR650]

Have you ever considered that your interpretation of the OT sacrificial system may be wrong?

Yes. And as a layman with no theological training of any kind I try to look for sources that back up any views I develop. That is why I am always quoting someone and can produce references for anything I say on here. But yes. I could be wrong and so could all of them. And, I might add that I have tried to find recourses that back up your views and it's more difficult. I'm not satisfied with a grad student on Patheos who fancies himself a modern anabaptist as being a good source. But I did find that one.

 

[DaveXR650]

This is not true. Historical Christianity actually necessitates the cross, the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement does not.

For that to be the case would require the advocate of penal substitution to claim that the cross was not the method used. I have never heard of anyone claiming that and still claiming penal substitution. That's a bogus claim.

BUT the Penal Substitution Theory does NOT need the cross. Jesus could have suffrred and died in many various ways and the theory would remain unchanged. The cross is there only because it is in the OT (of course, it is in the OT as a foreshadowing of the cross).

The cross is there because it's the way chosen by the Godhead as claimed in scripture. To say that God could have done something else has no meaning at all because not only would such speculation be bordering on blasphemous, but it just is a fact that it was done that way.

On the other hand, Classic Chriatianity not only requires that Jesus be handed over by the Jewish leaders, die for our sins but also that this be done publicly, by the secular powers of the world, and on a Roman cross.

This in no way lessens the importance of penal substitution, nor do advocates of penal substitution deny this happened. They suggest that other scriptures shed light on everything that was going on when this happened. I don't have anything against the early church for not explaining all this.

But Penal Substitution theorists have no use for the cross.

Can you give an example of anyone who adheres to penal substitution who says this? You know as well as I do that plenty of those who reject penal substitution have no use for the cross at least in the sense that something was actually accomplished there.

You need to start referencing what you say. You are not qualified to act as your own reference either. Either site someone specifically as to backing up what you are saying so that we can see who they are and what all they represent or stop these nonsensical claims which simply aren't true.