JESUS SUFFERED THE WRATH OF GOD EQUIVALENT OF OUR ETERNAL HELL.

[JesusFan]

I disagree.....maybe? God manifested His righteousness apart ftom the law. Not only was God not bound by the law to create but He was also not bound by the law to re-create man. We know that God's righteousness is not a legal issue but above the law. We know this because God manifested it through and apart from the law.

But that is kinda off topic because God's righteousness manifested apart from the law fulfills the law.

I will give an example of what I mean.

The law says that murder is a sin. To murder is to transgress the law.

Adultery is a sin. It is a violation of the law.
Lusting after a woman is committing adultery in one's heart.
But it is not a violation of the law.

Yet it is still a sin, not because of the law but because it falls short of the glory of God.

Sins are manifestations of a heart set on the flesh rather than the Spirit.

You take ten murderers and put their sins on Jesus, punish them on Jesus, and you still have ten murders.

But you take one murderer and he dies to sin, is made a new creation in Christ, is vonformed into the image of Christ then you have a righteous man who will hear "well done my good and faithful servant" at judgment even if Jesus was not punished for the murder his "old man" committed.


The atonement is accomplishing righteousness apart from the law. It does not nullify the law but fulfills it.

Why? At judgment those who are saved will actually be righteous, they will be glorified. Christ is the Firstborn of many brothers. God as Judge will declare them righteous as they have been conformed into Christ's image.


The only reason for God to punish our sins on Jesus is if John Calvin was correct and justice means avenging the law. But then God forgiving sins is impossible. The best He could do is to provide a substitute. This is a philosophy that did not exist until Calvin developed a theory relying on 16th century French philosophy.


Now, I grant that the relative newness of this theory does not make it wrong. It makes it suspect, but not wrong.

We live in a culture that has adopted this theory, but I do not know that it has been accurately vetted. Cal in assumed it was correct because it is what he studied at the University of Orléans and the University of Bourges in France. It was a popular movement within the law.

I think, perhaps, in a century or so Christians will equate it to the 10th century when scholars were convinced the Atonement was about reconciling man to God by restoring the honor man, through Adam, cost God (honor was an important focus during that age).

But I believe we, now, have enough time between us and 16th century France that we can objectively characterize Calvin's theory as dependent on a judicial philosophy that is no longer held apart from traditional beliefs. We know it is not justice because we look back and see it in history, but we over this it when applied to divine justice because we have held onto it for so long.

The same God though stated to us a universal law that one who sheds blood of another as min murder must die for that sin, and all who sin must die, so God cannot just make them new creatures without having someone die as atonement for their sins

 

[Charlie24]

God cannot be bound by anything, as He is by very definition Supreme Being

He promised you eternal life, do you think He's bound to that?

Not to mention many other things.

He does it all by His plan before the foundation of the world according to His good pleasure.

 

[Charlie24]

Yet He multipled loaves and walked upon sea by His own power

I don't think He did, not because He couldn't, but because He made Himself of no reputation and took upon Himself the form of a servant.

I don't think He knew what was around the next corner unless the Holy Spirit told Him.

I see Him totally lead by the Holy Spirit, waiving His rights of Deity.

 

[Charlie24]

I disagree.....maybe? God manifested His righteousness apart ftom the law. Not only was God not bound by the law to create but He was also not bound by the law to re-create man. We know that God's righteousness is not a legal issue but above the law. We know this because God manifested it through and apart from the law.

But that is kinda off topic because God's righteousness manifested apart from the law fulfills the law.

I will give an example of what I mean.

The law says that murder is a sin. To murder is to transgress the law.

Adultery is a sin. It is a violation of the law.
Lusting after a woman is committing adultery in one's heart.
But it is not a violation of the law.

Yet it is still a sin, not because of the law but because it falls short of the glory of God.

Sins are manifestations of a heart set on the flesh rather than the Spirit.

You take ten murderers and put their sins on Jesus, punish them on Jesus, and you still have ten murders.

But you take one murderer and he dies to sin, is made a new creation in Christ, is vonformed into the image of Christ then you have a righteous man who will hear "well done my good and faithful servant" at judgment even if Jesus was not punished for the murder his "old man" committed.


The atonement is accomplishing righteousness apart from the law. It does not nullify the law but fulfills it.

Why? At judgment those who are saved will actually be righteous, they will be glorified. Christ is the Firstborn of many brothers. God as Judge will declare them righteous as they have been conformed into Christ's image.


The only reason for God to punish our sins on Jesus is if John Calvin was correct and justice means avenging the law. But then God forgiving sins is impossible. The best He could do is to provide a substitute. This is a philosophy that did not exist until Calvin developed a theory relying on 16th century French philosophy.


Now, I grant that the relative newness of this theory does not make it wrong. It makes it suspect, but not wrong.

We live in a culture that has adopted this theory, but I do not know that it has been accurately vetted. Cal in assumed it was correct because it is what he studied at the University of Orléans and the University of Bourges in France. It was a popular movement within the law.

I think, perhaps, in a century or so Christians will equate it to the 10th century when scholars were convinced the Atonement was about reconciling man to God by restoring the honor man, through Adam, cost God (honor was an important focus during that age).

But I believe we, now, have enough time between us and 16th century France that we can objectively characterize Calvin's theory as dependent on a judicial philosophy that is no longer held apart from traditional beliefs. We know it is not justice because we look back and see it in history, but we over look this it when applied to divine justice because we have held onto it for so long.

I'm sure the Lord will have no problems correcting our faults of reading between the lines.

I think we all have some surprises coming.

 

[JonC]

I'm sure the Lord will have no problems correcting our faults of reading between the lines.

I think we all have some surprises coming.

I believe we have to lean not on our understanding but on every word that comes from God.

This implies that we do have an understanding. But we suffer from the human condition - we see in part.

My mistake years ago was not that my understanding was the Penal Substitution Theory but that I leaned on that understanding as if it were actually God's Word. I was serious when I said that God yanked me back from the precipice. The danger is not always one's understanding itself but that men have a tendency to be carried away by their philosophies.

In other words, people can hold the same understandings and God will make some stand while others will be carried away. The difference, IMHO, is how we hold our understandings. Do we hold thrm at arms length or are they what we lean on?

Here is a good place to argue and examine our differences. We should always reevaluate our understanding and compare them to God's Word precisely because we know that our understanding is both limited and flawed. We will not understand perfectly in this lifetime, but we can increasingly walk our understanding towards God.

A good way of putting it is a stagnant faith is a dead faith. Not only does faith influence how we live, urge us to actions, move us "from glory to glory", but we increasingly grow in God's Word.


I enjoy learning of other positions, especially how people get from the text of Scripture to their conclusions.

With this topic, it really does not make sense to me that God would transfer our dins from us to Jesus and punish them on Him. I believed it at once, but for the life of me I do not know how. I know why but not how.

In the interest of summary, the following just do not make sence to me

1. That wicked actions we do can be taken from us and put on Jesus.
2. That justice requires sins be punished apart from addressing the one who committed the sin.
3. That punishing the sins of the "old man" that will not be at Judgment is necessary
4. That the Atonement focuses on sin rather than man falling short of the glory of God

Just to name four.

An interesting journey would be to start from the beginning (Genesis) and see our differences. But I doubt either of us would have enough patience. We ain't Job.

 

[Charlie24]

I believe we have to lean not on our understanding but on every word that comes from God.

This implies that we do have an understanding. But we suffer from the human condition abd see in part.

My mistake years ago was not that my understanding was the Penal Substitution Theory but that I leaned on that understanding as if it were actually God's Word. I was serious when I said that God yanked me back from the precipice. The danger is not always one's understanding itself but that men have a tendency to be carried away by their philosophies.

In other words, people can hold the sane understandings and God will make dome stand while others will be carried away. The difference, IMHO, is how we hold oyr understandings. Do we hold thrm at arms length or are they what we lean on?

Here is a good place to argue and examine our differences. We should always reevaluate our understanding and compare them to God's Word precisely because we know that our understanding is both limited and flawed. We will not understand perfectly in this lifetime, but we can increasingly walk our understanding towards God.

A good way of putting it is a stagnant faith is a dead faith. Not only does faith influence how we live, urge us to actions, move us "from glory to glory", but we increasingly grow in God's Word.


I enjoy learning of other positions, especially how people get from the text of Scripture to their conclusions.

With this topic, it really does not make sense to me that God would transfer our dins from us to Jesus and punish them on Him. I believed it at once, but for the life of me I do not know how. I know why but not how.

In the interest of summary, the following just do not make sence to me

1. That wicked actions we do can be taken from us and put on Jesus.
2. That justice requires sins be punished apart from addressing the one who committed the sin.
3. That punishing the sins of the "old man" that will not be at Judgment is necessary
4. That the Atonement focuses on sin rather than man falling short of the glory of God

Just to name four.

An interesting journey would be to start from the beginning (Genesis) and see our differences. But I doubt either of us would have enough patience. We ain't Job.

Yes, it's very easy to assume this or that in Scripture. I call it reading between the lines, and I have some experience with it, lol.

It's probably best kept to oneself that to bring it out here on the boards.