Thereoy of the Atonement

[mondar]

His lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me Matt 18:32

Nothing about bringing a perfect sacrifice, nothing about looking for an innocent man to punish to assuage the wrath of the lord, nothing about ANY sort of price before the lord forgave. Note, BECAUSE THOU DESIREDST ME...

And THAT, Mondar, is what Jesus does. As our Mediator/Intercessor, He is the one who asks, for the entire human race, for reconciliation.

And his mediation fails? Or are you now a universalist? Is Christs shed blood so pitifully weak in saving that Christ appeals to the Father in mediation, and the Father says... "thats not good enough, I need something from the person too?"

Christs blood saves us to the uttermost, and his mediation never fails.

He continues to sit at the right hand of the Father, continuing to intercede for your and my sins. Repentance is the first stage in rebuilding the relationship, and as our "representative", the Second Adam, that is what Jesus is doing, His PRIMARY role. CONTINUING to intercede (Romans and Hebrews both note the present intercession of Jesus, not something once done)

Of course we would have to look at specific texts.

It is unbiblical, based upon a quid pro quo, which clearly, God does not consider.

You are making claims, but offering no evidence. Somehow I think you assume what you seek to prove. There is easy and obvious biblical evidence that sin has a penalty.
Romans 6:23 The wages of sin is death....
Romans 4:4 Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt.

The debt cannot be paid by anything we do, Romans 4:4 is clear. If we work, we have debt.

The bottom line is that the scriptures are clear. We are sinners with a debt. The penalty of that debt is death.

What debt? Paid to whom? Where is this in Scriptures?

See above.

 

[francisdesales]

And his mediation fails? Or are you now a universalist?

The mediation is for the human race. Individually, we must personally turn to the Christ and join with Him. God universally calls men and Jesus universally redeems men, (just as Adam universally placed all men in a state of sin - Romans 5) but some men do not heed the call to recapitulation, to a relationship with God.

Is Christs shed blood so pitifully weak in saving that Christ appeals to the Father in mediation, and the Father says... "thats not good enough, I need something from the person too?"

"Pitifully weak"??? I think you are overlapping objective redemption with subjective redemption. God only saves those who desire to be saved, no matter how imperfect that desire. Again, I suggest you consider how a person loves another person.

Can I make someone love me, Mondar? Is my extravagant love "pitifully weak" if I am ignored or despised, even because of it???

Christs blood saves us to the uttermost, and his mediation never fails.

The "us" is only those who turn to God and seek Him out.

You are making claims, but offering no evidence. Somehow I think you assume what you seek to prove.

Must I cite half of the Gospel parables? I gave you a number of examples already. Very well, Mondar, even though you have offered me nothing so far...

Jesus eats with sinners and tax collectors, telling his critics that he had come to call the sinners. They were not required to pay compensation before Jesus joined them at table (Mat 9, Mark 2). The parable of the lost sheep conveys the exact same message (Mat 18). The shepherd required nothing before setting out in search of his lost sheep. When Peter asked Jesus if he should forgive his brother 7 times, the answer had nothing to do with satisfaction, but merely on request, he must forgive (Mat 18). The parable of the unforgiving debtor is even clearer, which I already mentioned (Mat 18). The lord did not require any compensation before he let the servant out of debtor prision. The paralytic lowered through the roof was not only cured, but had his sins forgiven without any conditions, just based upon the desire (Mark 2). The sinful woman who anointed Jesus feet at banquet was forgiven on the strength of her extravagent love (Luke 7). Of course, the Prodigal Son story was already mentioned. The good thief on the cross, oh how Protestants love him, only made a simple request to the Lord, and was promised Paradise (Luke 23). The adulterous woman is another example of unconditional forgiveness (John 8). Peter's three fold profession of his love is usually understood as a disavowal of his denials and shows yet again the nature of Christ's unconditional love and forgiveness given without any sort of satisfaction (John 21). I could cite more, and I could go to the OT Minor Prophets that show that God does not desire sacrifice, but mercy and forgiveness, if you desire.

Quite frankly, with this many points that express the nature of God's unconditional forgiveness, it makes me wonder if you even read the Gospels if you missed so many of them and I brought a couple up in my last post...

There is easy and obvious biblical evidence that sin has a penalty.
Romans 6:23 The wages of sin is death....

Where do we find "penalty" there? That only describes a condition that results from separating ourselves from God.

If I say "Mondar, if you walk off that cliff, you will die", does that mean I must push you off for you to die???

We are not actively being punished, per sec. It is our actions that cause the result, death. It would be YOU walking off the cliff that caused your demise. God allows us to remain in our slavery, if we constantly reject Him and desire to remain there. WE will remain "unsatisfied".

Romans 4:4 Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt.

That has nothing to do with our conversation... That is about our inability to obligate GOD. Salvation is a gift, not a payment for services rendered...

See above.

That doesn't answer my question in the slightest on who we or God pay the debt TO. WHO must God pay this debt to that He MUST sacrifice His Son FOR? WHO is this "Justice" that holds God to such an obligation, that oversees the universal balance of justice that we have offset and now God must rebalance???

Please provide me with ANY Scriptures that back up your theology, that show that a perfect sacrifice MUST be offered to God before forgiveness is granted. I see you completely ignored much of my post, but I would be curious to know how you can call God "just" when He kills an innocent man, PUNISHES him - for the sake of paying some debt to some human "Justice" concept. Especially when the Gospels never make such statements about God or Jesus' mission.

Regards

 

[Elijah674]

the reason i make the difference is that we dont have spirtitual tribes and uh paul went to the jews first then the gentile

so then he went those saved and to tell them about the Lord? think about that when post that the next time.

th ot faith of abraham is the exact same as we have.

he belived and it was imputed rightenous, see galatians 3.

I see it perhaps otherwise? The 144000 are GENTILE/Jews. I see Matt. 23:38 as a type of the 7th Laodicean church 'SPEWED OUT' CLOSED DOOR (Matt. 25:10) I see the New Church of Acts as the REMNANT of Old Israel. (Matt. 10:5-6) And all of this again seen in Rev. 12:17's Inspired verse! (REPEATED!)

And [ALL OF THIS ] as Eccl. 3:15's Inspired Truth as [NOTHING NEW!] (A REPEATE even to whom takes over the ex/brides house! Rev. 3:9) And if this does not take place? God uses the easiest way to tell us that because of the VERY few times that it does not repeat, such as Hosea 4:6 & the rainbow in the sky.

And the Atonement will be over before Christ returnes for His own. For He Brings His REWARD WITH HIM! Rev. 22:12. (see Eccl. 12:13-14 & Dan. 12:1-2)

NO. Old Israel as a Virgin nation is PAST/TENSE. See Isa. 5:3 for what their FATAL ERROR was!

'i' see the LAND is where satan sets up his last work from.

--Elijah

 

[mondar]

The mediation is for the human race.

Of course this only demonstrates how I understand you to be saying that the mediation ministry of Christ fails. It does not actually reconcile the human race to the Father. At best, you might say that Christ mediation is a theoretical possibility of mediation based upon what we decide as individuals. Of course that is still a failed mediation.

Individually, we must personally turn to the Christ and join with Him. God universally calls men and Jesus universally redeems men, (just as Adam universally placed all men in a state of sin - Romans 5) but some men do not heed the call to recapitulation, to a relationship with God. It is certainly not the powerful saving mediation of the bible.

"Pitifully weak"??? I think you are overlapping objective redemption with subjective redemption. God only saves those who desire to be saved, no matter how imperfect that desire. Again, I suggest you consider how a person loves another person.

Can I make someone love me, Mondar? Is my extravagant love "pitifully weak" if I am ignored or despised, even because of it???

The "us" is only those who turn to God and seek Him out.

This of course is not the biblical picture of the nature of man. Romans 3:11 tells us....

"11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God. "

This is of course repeated in John 6:44
44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."

Francis, when you distort the nature of man, you distort the nature of the atonement. In your view, man is not so deep in sin that he cannot respond. So all that is needed is a theoretical possibility of mediation. Your view weakens the cross work of Christ and what he did for us in salvation.

Must I cite half of the Gospel parables? I gave you a number of examples already. Very well, Mondar, even though you have offered me nothing so far...

Jesus eats with sinners and tax collectors, telling his critics that he had come to call the sinners. They were not required to pay compensation before Jesus joined them at table (Mat 9, Mark 2). The parable of the lost sheep conveys the exact same message (Mat 18). The shepherd required nothing before setting out in search of his lost sheep. When Peter asked Jesus if he should forgive his brother 7 times, the answer had nothing to do with satisfaction, but merely on request, he must forgive (Mat 18). The parable of the unforgiving debtor is even clearer, which I already mentioned (Mat 18). The lord did not require any compensation before he let the servant out of debtor prision. The paralytic lowered through the roof was not only cured, but had his sins forgiven without any conditions, just based upon the desire (Mark 2). The sinful woman who anointed Jesus feet at banquet was forgiven on the strength of her extravagent love (Luke 7). Of course, the Prodigal Son story was already mentioned. The good thief on the cross, oh how Protestants love him, only made a simple request to the Lord, and was promised Paradise (Luke 23). The adulterous woman is another example of unconditional forgiveness (John 8). Peter's three fold profession of his love is usually understood as a disavowal of his denials and shows yet again the nature of Christ's unconditional love and forgiveness given without any sort of satisfaction (John 21). I could cite more, and I could go to the OT Minor Prophets that show that God does not desire sacrifice, but mercy and forgiveness, if you desire.

Quite frankly, with this many points that express the nature of God's unconditional forgiveness, it makes me wonder if you even read the Gospels if you missed so many of them and I brought a couple up in my last post...

Francis, you often get so dramatic when you make weak, even bad points.

First, I would certainly not deny "unconditional forgiveness." Also,

I would caution you that you are making exegetical mistakes. Parables were intended to express one main point. There were illustrations of one thing and not to be used in the way you are using them above. I could go through each of the parables you mention and set them within my own theological framework. That would not be a correct exegetical thing to do, but here is what it would look like....
*** In John 22 the issue was not Peter's salvation, but his restoration to ministry. Thus the command of the Lord "Feed my sheep."
*** The tax collectors were not to pay, but come to the table (sounds like justification by faith alone!).

I could go on with each parable and put the twist on it that would fit my theology, but it would be painful for me to abuse the scriptures in that way. I would only be using the same isogetical method to get my theology that you are using to get yours.

The reason I dont wish to persue discussion of the parables is not because I could not argue my point using your method of working with the parables, but because the method itself is incorrect.

Where do we find "penalty" there? That only describes a condition that results from separating ourselves from God.

If I say "Mondar, if you walk off that cliff, you will die", does that mean I must push you off for you to die???

We are not actively being punished, per sec. It is our actions that cause the result, death. It would be YOU walking off the cliff that caused your demise. God allows us to remain in our slavery, if we constantly reject Him and desire to remain there. WE will remain "unsatisfied".

My statement was that sin has a penalty and I used Romans 6:23 to demonstrate that fact. The fact that the exact wording of that verse does not have the exact vocabulary you demand has nothing to do with the fact that Romans 6:23 does demonstrate that sin has its wage or penalty. Sin brings death.

Your illustration about the cliff only obscures the issue. It does not illustrate any good points. The issue is that sin has a penalty and has nothing to do with who walks off a cliff or you pushing me off a cliff.

In the third paragraph, yes, sin causes death, but so does the fact that we are "in Adam." Also, in the 3ird paragraph your statement on "slavery" is rather absurd. Francis, just think about what you said a little. Of course the issue of our slavery to sin is spoken of in Romans 6. The nature of the slavery in Romans 6 is a slavery to sin. Not a slavery to individual sins, but sin (sin nature). You picture the slave freeing himself by no longer rejecting Christ. Romans 6 is not about the christian freeing himself, but it is about Christ freeing us from our sin nature. Now do not misunderstand here. I am not suggesting "infused righteousness" but the freedom fron our sin nature is a legal position. The sin nature is still within us, but we are no longer in legal bondage to it. That is a long story, nevertheless, we are slaves of our sin nature, and we cannot free ourselves.

That has nothing to do with our conversation... That is about our inability to obligate GOD. Salvation is a gift, not a payment for services rendered...


That doesn't answer my question in the slightest on who we or God pay the debt TO. WHO must God pay this debt to that He MUST sacrifice His Son FOR? WHO is this "Justice" that holds God to such an obligation, that oversees the universal balance of justice that we have offset and now God must rebalance???

Please provide me with ANY Scriptures that back up your theology, that show that a perfect sacrifice MUST be offered to God before forgiveness is granted. I see you completely ignored much of my post, but I would be curious to know how you can call God "just" when He kills an innocent man, PUNISHES him - for the sake of paying some debt to some human "Justice" concept. Especially when the Gospels never make such statements about God or Jesus' mission.

Regards

If you want a verse, I would point to Hebrews 10.

14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

 

[francisdesales]

Of course this only demonstrates how I understand you to be saying that the mediation ministry of Christ fails. It does not actually reconcile the human race to the Father. At best, you might say that Christ mediation is a theoretical possibility of mediation based upon what we decide as individuals. Of course that is still a failed mediation.

Maybe you should re-read Romans 5 and ask yourself the same question regarding sin and how one man's sin "mediates" for us at the same universal level. Just as there is objective sin, the sin of Adam, there is subjective sin, our own. Paul compares and contrasts them at the same universal level. What is failing is the INDIVIDUAL taking hold of the objective offer of grace made to all men. But it is equally given that sin and redemption is attached to mankind universally.

Romans 3:11 tells us....

"11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God. "

I tire of the misuse of Paul's third chapter of Romans! How many times must I explain this to people who refuse to go to the Psalms Paul is quoting...? If you actually think Paul meant what you claim, you are wrong, because even the Psalmist himself sings a different tune, often in the very same Psalm. Clearly, that is not Paul's intent, to set the Scriptures against itself. The point is that the Jews are in no better condition, since Paul is citing David's attack on evil Jews, who have the law and still don't obey it. They are hardly superior to Gentiles. Chapter 3 is a damning litany against the arrogant Jew.

This is of course repeated in John 6:44
44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."

I think I would again direct you to the Council of Orange, since I would say nothing less - but I certainly take this to mean something other than you do. Anything that I do towards coming to God is DIRECTED, MOVED, by God Himself. I cannot come to God alone. But it doesn't follow that I am a passive bystander, a puppet that does nothing to say "Yes, Lord, I will do your will".

Francis, when you distort the nature of man, you distort the nature of the atonement.

Yea, I already said that about you... Sounds hollow coming from you with the same old well-worn verses that have constantly been misappropriated to say something they don't say.

In your view, man is not so deep in sin that he cannot respond.

Of course man can respond, but not without God prompting Him. HE IS EXPECTED TO RESPOND... Phil 2:12-13.

Francis, you often get so dramatic when you make weak, even bad points.

You must be joking. I give you over a half dozen cases of God not looking for compensation or the invisible scales of justice to be re-balanced, and that is the best you can do? Rather than actually address the issues, you complain about my drama? Sounds like you don't have an answer and must save face with such a complaint...

First, I would certainly not deny "unconditional forgiveness.

You do. Most certainly.

Again, you want it both ways and you don't see the illogic of your stance. You say you don't deny it, but don't allow God to have the ability or desire to do act upon it. Apparently, the concept is theoretical... No, for you, God MUST kill His Son for the sake of men, who DEMANDS equal satisfaction. Of course, Mondar has said nothing about WHO God is providing the rebalance for, the "Power" that God must answer to so that "Justice" is served.

God doesn't forgive anyone without the perfect sacrifice, according to your scheme. That's not unconditional forgiveness. It doesn't exist in your scheme.

I would caution you that you are making exegetical mistakes. Parables were intended to express one main point.

In other words, you have nothing to counteract Christ's own Words, so no doubt, I don't understand something so simple as a story that speaks of a father welcoming his sinful son back without retribution... Simply read the parable, Mondar. Clearly, I have addressed the main point, but since it doesn't fit into your scheme, it must be waved away and this "defense" must be invented!

Perhaps you could tell me what the "point" of the Prodigal Son story is, if it is not about unconditional forgiveness...?

I could go on with each parable and put the twist on it that would fit my theology, but it would be painful for me to abuse the scriptures in that way.

Indeed, it would pain me, as well, to see you twist the Scriptures to fit your theology. Just read them for what they are worth. Unconditional forgiveness is offered to men - if only he would truly ask for it.

My statement was that sin has a penalty and I used Romans 6:23 to demonstrate that fact.

Sorry, you didn't demonstrate any fact, Mondar. All you did was cite a verse. You provide the consequences of an action. Where does that verse speak of an active punishment?

The fact that the exact wording of that verse does not have the exact vocabulary you demand has nothing to do with the fact that Romans 6:23 does demonstrate that sin has its wage or penalty. Sin brings death.

So does jumping into boiling water. Is that consequence an active punishment? Do you realize what a punishment is? Paul is merely stating that sin has a consequence. It separates us from God.

Your illustration about the cliff only obscures the issue. It does not illustrate any good points.

I have discovered that whenever I make a point that you don't like, you revert to this utter denial without actually addressing the problem you find in it. It is just simply "obscure" or "wrong" or "dramatic". It's too bad, I had thought you could do better.

The issue is that sin has a penalty and has nothing to do with who walks off a cliff or you pushing me off a cliff.

Oh, the debate team would love you!!! By stating your premise, it proves itself!!! I think it's called "begging the question"...

You have yet to prove that any punishment is necessitated by the verse in question. Quite simply, the analogy is an example to show you that there are alternative ways to reading that passage. "The wages of falling off a cliff is death" doesn't require me to read "you were punished" into that. The unbiased person sees that death is a consequence of the action, wehther sinning or walking off a cliff. It certainly is a good analogy - but not good as far as proving your point, so thus, you wave it away...

In the third paragraph, yes, sin causes death, but so does the fact that we are "in Adam." Also, in the 3ird paragraph your statement on "slavery" is rather absurd. Francis, just think about what you said a little. Of course the issue of our slavery to sin is spoken of in Romans 6. The nature of the slavery in Romans 6 is a slavery to sin. Not a slavery to individual sins, but sin (sin nature). You picture the slave freeing himself by no longer rejecting Christ. Romans 6 is not about the christian freeing himself, but it is about Christ freeing us from our sin nature.

Again, see above. The problem, Mondar, is that you cannot understand "synergy". You "believe" in it, sort of like "unconditional forgiveness". Theoretically, it exists, but practically speaking, in the world of the "reformed", it doesn't and they won't have it. So all Scripture verses that speak of it are ignored or tossed out. Christ freely offers freedom from sin to EVERYONE. He is the Mediator between God and Man. ALL mankind, Mondar... Without exception. Without this eternal Man sitting at the right Hand of God, pleading for us, we cannot save ourselves. But because Christ makes this offer doesn't mean that He does everything and I do nothing.

And I certainly have NEVER said that the Christian frees HIMSELF. Please stop the false accusations.

If you want a verse, I would point to Hebrews 10.

14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

And how does this address my question where a perfect sacrifice must be made to God to appease His sense of satisfaction and justice??? Again, you are reaching, there is nothing here about the subject at hand. It is saying that because of Jesus' intercession, made meritorious by His sacrifice, the believer is being made holy. Note, it says "MADE HOLY", vs your legal fiction idea...

Regards

 

[Asyncritus]

The NT does not, in itself, provide any major attempt to produce a doctrine of Atonement.


The most common statement is to the effect that Christ died for our sins, and a few variations of that theme. (About 12 passages in total).


The most curious feature of all these passages is the almost complete absence of substitutionary evidence, and the rarity of the use of the Greek preposition ANTI, – which means ‘in exchange for’.

As the passages show, there are 2 Greek prepositions most commonly used:


Peri – which usually means ‘surrounding’, or ‘around’ or ‘concerning’ Here is a list of those passages:


<4012> = peri


Ro 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for <4012> sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for <4012> sin thou hast had no pleasure.

Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for <4012> sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for <4012> sin.

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for <4012> sins,

Heb 13:11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for <4012> sin, are burned without the camp.

Huper – which means ‘over’ and other such meanings. Here is a list:


Heb 5:1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:

Heb 5:3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.

Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;


The only place where ANTI is used in this connection is here:


Mt 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for (ANTI) many.

Mr 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for (ANTI) many.


That too much emphasis should not be placed on the substitution idea in these passages, is shown by Paul’s own use of the words of the Lord:


1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for (HUPER) all, to be testified in due time.

Thus far the New Testament.


In the most significant passage in the Old Testament where Christ’s offering for sin is described, the LXX s interesting and valuable:

AV

Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.


The LXX translation of ‘FOR sin’ is ‘PERI hamartia’ and this is the phrase the NT writers often use as shown above.


All of which is very curious, and conveys the concept that that Christ’s died as a representative, not as a substitute. In addition to which, there is the point that if He was a substitute, then we would not have to die at all, either.


Anselm and Co. would probably have something to say about that, but I’m not sure what.

 

[francisdesales]

The NT does not, in itself, provide any major attempt to produce a doctrine of Atonement.

The most common statement is to the effect that Christ died for our sins, and a few variations of that theme. (About 12 passages in total).


The most curious feature of all these passages is the almost complete absence of substitutionary evidence, and the rarity of the use of the Greek preposition ANTI, – which means ‘in exchange for’.

As the passages show, there are 2 Greek prepositions most commonly used:


Peri – which usually means ‘surrounding’, or ‘around’ or ‘concerning’ Here is a list of those passages:


<4012> = peri


Ro 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for <4012> sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for <4012> sin thou hast had no pleasure.

Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for <4012> sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for <4012> sin.

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for <4012> sins,

Heb 13:11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for <4012> sin, are burned without the camp.

Huper – which means ‘over’ and other such meanings. Here is a list:


Heb 5:1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:

Heb 5:3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.

Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;


The only place where ANTI is used in this connection is here:


Mt 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for (ANTI) many.

Mr 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for (ANTI) many.


That too much emphasis should not be placed on the substitution idea in these passages, is shown by Paul’s own use of the words of the Lord:


1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for (HUPER) all, to be testified in due time.

Thus far the New Testament.


In the most significant passage in the Old Testament where Christ’s offering for sin is described, the LXX s interesting and valuable:

AV

Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.


The LXX translation of ‘FOR sin’ is ‘PERI hamartia’ and this is the phrase the NT writers often use as shown above.


All of which is very curious, and conveys the concept that that Christ’s died as a representative, not as a substitute. In addition to which, there is the point that if He was a substitute, then we would not have to die at all, either.


Anselm and Co. would probably have something to say about that, but I’m not sure what.

Good post, I see you have done some homework. Indeed, the Bible does not say much about "substitute" or "replacement", but more, a "representative". Naturally, the later seems more in line with the relational aspect that exists between God and man (rather than "get out of my way, I have to do it myself" attitude in the former). Anselm and Co. would agree, Jesus was not required to die - they saw His death as "fitting" of a God of Love, One Who would EXTRAVAGENTLY show His self-sacrificing love for our sake.

And thus, Jesus is our Mediator, our Intercessor, Who sits at the right hand of the Father, STILL interceding for us.

God owed no one anything, so the idea that God had to pay a debt or re-balance the "JUSTICE" scales is entirely human thought, not found in Scriptures. It is a human concept, a tit for a tat, not God's justice. God is a God of unconditional forgiveness, and the Gospels make that a central theme in revealing Who the Father is - esp. parables like the Prodigal Son. Nothing is said about compensation before the Father takes the son back. A heart-felt repentance is all that is needed. "Debt" is forgiven by merely asking from a repentant heart.

Regards

 

[Bob Carabbio]

What "Rebuttal"???

Now, if you think you believe that we need to offer a sacrifice before we are forgiven of sins (or that God requires that), you need to go and immerse yourself in the Gospels.

I couldn't even BEGIN to guess what you'r trying to say here.

You seem to HAVE the concept of Jesus' PERFECT sacrifice (perfect in every respect, and perfect in every aspect) - why would think that I proposed "another sacrifice" when the price was already paid?????

 

[francisdesales]

Re: What "Rebuttal"???

Now, if you think you believe that we need to offer a sacrifice before we are forgiven of sins (or that God requires that), you need to go and immerse yourself in the Gospels.

I couldn't even BEGIN to guess what you'r trying to say here.

You seem to HAVE the concept of Jesus' PERFECT sacrifice (perfect in every respect, and perfect in every aspect) - why would think that I proposed "another sacrifice" when the price was already paid?????

Bob, I meant what I said. The Gospels clearly speak of unconditional forgiveness. Not about a perfect sacrifice prior to the forgiveness of sins. God desires mercy and forgiveness, not sacrifice - this even shows up in the OT Minor Prophets, Jesus didn't just invent this in His parables. Thus, I suggested that you read the Gospels and what Jesus reveals about His Father.

The Gospels do not support a perfect credit/debits account to God's Justice Ledger before He forgives sins. If the Gospels are too much, then just read the parable of the Prodigal Son and ask yourself where is that perfect sacrifice that the Father demanded from his sinful son before he forgave him...

I never proposed "another" sacrifice, that is a complete misreading of what I wrote.

Regards

 

[Asyncritus]

Good post, I see you have done some homework. Indeed, the Bible does not say much about "substitute" or "replacement", but more, a "representative". Naturally, the later seems more in line with the relational aspect that exists between God and man (rather than "get out of my way, I have to do it myself" attitude in the former).

Anselm and Co. would agree, Jesus was not required to die - they saw His death as "fitting" of a God of Love, One Who would EXTRAVAGENTLY show His self-sacrificing love for our sake.

I'm not certain about this Francis.

From the time of Gen 3, a sacrifice was required, and God provided it. He made them coats of skin, which clearly implies an animal death as a sacrifice for them.

He clearly indicates that the seed of the woman would bruise the serpent's head (thus indicating a fatal wound), and the serpent would inflict a non-fatal wound in the heel. That is, of course, a prophecy of the sacrificial death of Christ. He died, but rose again.

From that time forward, animal sacrifices were required for acceptance. Abel, Noah, Abraham, and the Law of Moses show this clearly. Hebrews says that 'without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.' (Hebrews 9.22)

Even the High priest could not enter the Most Holy Place without offering a sacrifice - so essential was the sacrifice.

In fact God goes further, and says that Christ was 'the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world' (Rev 13.8). Of course, this is not a literal statement, because Paul describes the believers are 'chosen in Him before the foundation of the world'.

So if the sacrifice of Christ was not required, then doesn't it seem somewhat extravagant for God to go to all this trouble?

It was required - if it wasn't, then Christ went through a great deal of unnecessary suffering for no good reason.

As I've pointed out, the NT indicates that his death was representative, rather than substitutionary.

A recognition of this simple fact would have prevented centuries of needless bickering and fighting, and of a grievous misunderstanding of the nature of God.

The idea that He is a vengeful creator who could not possibly be satisfied in any other way but with the brutal death of His only Son is an idea totally foreign, and completely abhorrent to scripture.

If there was another way, He would have found it - but there is no other way to convict us of the utter grievousness of sin.

And thus, Jesus is our Mediator, our Intercessor, Who sits at the right hand of the Father, STILL interceding for us.

A mediator BTW, in scripture is one who brings in a covenant, thus:

Heb 8.6 .. he is the mediator of a better covenant

Gal 3.19 '...the law? ...it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator' (Moses)

Moses was the mediator of the Old Covenant to Israel. Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant to Israel and the Gentiles.

God owed no one anything, so the idea that God had to pay a debt or re-balance the "JUSTICE" scales is entirely human thought, not found in Scriptures.

Absolutely correct.

It is a human concept, a tit for a tat, not God's justice.

Quite right too.

God is a God of unconditional forgiveness,

That is not correct. He forgives men on the basis of their acceptance of Christ's sacrifice. That is the precondition.

Acts 13.38 '...through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins'. Without Christ, there is no forgiveness.

Failure to believe on Him, and be baptised into His name is death:

"He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" Mk 16.16

Observe that this is adult baptism of a human being who understands and believes (by immersion, as the Acts makes plain).

and the Gospels make that a central theme in revealing Who the Father is - esp. parables like the Prodigal Son. Nothing is said about compensation before the Father takes the son back. A heart-felt repentance is all that is needed. "Debt" is forgiven by merely asking from a repentant heart.

Nearly correct.

I would necessarily add, as above quoted, that baptism is an absolute prerequisite too.

The prodigal son, I have no doubt whatsoever, washed himself before coming into the presence of the Father. What with all that rolling about in pig sties etc!

Asyncritus

 

[francisdesales]

From the time of Gen 3, a sacrifice was required, and God provided it. He made them coats of skin, which clearly implies an animal death as a sacrifice for them.

I am not sure that the animal death can be considered a "sacrifice", given what the definition of a sacrifice is... No offering was made by man to God. The animal gave up its life, but it was God's to take as it served His purpose.

From that time forward, animal sacrifices were required for acceptance. Abel, Noah, Abraham, and the Law of Moses show this clearly. Hebrews says that 'without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.' (Hebrews 9.22)

According to the Law, there is no remission of sins without blood. Read the context of Hebrews 9. It is not an absolute statement - and even the Minor Prophets of the OT speak of God not requiring a sacrifice - but a humble and contrite heart to receive acceptance. If you like, I could cite some...

In fact God goes further, and says that Christ was 'the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world' (Rev 13.8). Of course, this is not a literal statement, because Paul describes the believers are 'chosen in Him before the foundation of the world'.

So if the sacrifice of Christ was not required, then doesn't it seem somewhat extravagant for God to go to all this trouble?

THAT'S THE POINT!!! God's Love is extravagant! To the end. To St. Thomas Aquinas, it is "FITTING" that God manifest His Love so extravagantly. God is Love. Not just "God loves". He IS the definition of it, so His 'nature' calls out to display that Love in such a way. There is no greater love than that, according to John citing Jesus.

A mediator BTW, in scripture is one who brings in a covenant, thus:

Heb 8.6 .. he is the mediator of a better covenant

Gal 3.19 '...the law? ...it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator' (Moses)

Moses was the mediator of the Old Covenant to Israel. Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant to Israel and the Gentiles.

True, that is what a Mediator does. He is one in particular because of the Hypostatic Union between God and man in His Own Person.

That is not correct. He forgives men on the basis of their acceptance of Christ's sacrifice. That is the precondition.

True, I think my posts make that clear - that God only forgives sins of those who request it. I meant that no sacrifice was required, no conditions on top of a repentant heart.

I would necessarily add, as above quoted, that baptism is an absolute prerequisite too.

God is not bound by the sacrament, there is no "absolute requirement". Not a single of the OT righteous were baptized in water and the Spirit, but we have been assured by Scriptures that they are now in heaven. We would say that baptism is the "ordinary" means.

Regards

 

[Scotth1960]

What happened at the cross is one of the defining issues in Christianity. The doctrine of atonement has development.

Anselm and Aquinas developed a "satisfaction theory of atonement."
Satisfaction theory of atonement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This view is held by some in the western Church today.

After this, John Calvin articulated the "penal substitutionary" view of the atonement. This is more often called the "limited atonement" because of the "L" in TULIP. Unfortunately, few understand what Reformed people are saying when they use the term "limited atonement." Of course in the "penal substitutionary" view, Christ's crosswork saves all those for whom he intends to save. This view is a development of the previous view.

A third view is the "governmental view of the atonement" which is the view of most non-Reformed Protestant scholars. While many protestants claim the believe in a "substitutionary atonement," this idea is not accurate to actually discribe the theology of many non-Calvinists. The substitutionary view does not extend salvation, or even the possility of salvation to the whole world, but only those for whom Christ died. Christ, was the substitute for those of faith, the elect. In the governmental view, Christ died for the whole world. He did not die for anyone in particular, but for all people in all times and places. In this view, Christ dies "For the world," but does not die in their place.

*** For those who wish to contribute, and if you do not understand the differences between one view of the atonement and another, please read up on the views before contributing. I recommend reading some of the simple articles in wiki. Just do a search on "theory of atonement."

For those who have read wiki or those who already know some of the differences, I invite you to participate. I will have to come back for a later post to defend the view of the atonement that I accept as truth. For now, I have to go.

Dear friends, I believe the Eastern Orthodox Church tends to reject the satisfaction theory of Anselm and Aquinas, the idea of propitation, that the Cross propitiates God's wrath, the Father's wrath, against sinners, as if God the Father is out to "get" people, and we need to be "saved from the Father" by Christ the Son. Not at all. God is love. God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together. The EOC tends to teach instead expiation, the actual removal and forgiveness of sins by God's grace, sins are actually taken away by Christ's blood and remembered no more against repentant sinners who believe and trust in Christ's mercy. The Christus victor belief is also taught in the Eastern Church, the idea that Christ's death and resurrection are a great victory of God over sin, death, hell, and the devil. That is what has been said to be the view of some of the Eastern Christians, if I am not misunderstanding their theology. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[savedbygrace57]

craig:

From the day Adam and Eve were ejected from Eden a savior was promised.

He was promised before that rev 13:

8And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

1 pet 1:

20Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

titus 1:

1Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

2In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Christ is that Eternal Life 1 jn 1:

2(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

1 jn 5:

20And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Christ death actually reconciles [atones] to God, all them He died for rom 5:

10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

11And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement [reconciliation].

We receive it by Christ, not by our freewill..but by Christ,,thats why paul says in vs 11 by whom we have now received the atonement..Because Christ by His Spirit applies it to all He died for..

This is no theory, but Truth of scripture..

 

[Asyncritus]

According to the Law, there is no remission of sins without blood. Read the context of Hebrews 9. It is not an absolute statement - and even the Minor Prophets of the OT speak of God not requiring a sacrifice - but a humble and contrite heart to receive acceptance. If you like, I could cite some...

That's an interesting point. But you make it sound as if the Law was not given by God, and is therefore in some way contradictory to the NT.

Hebrews 9 goes on to say:

"It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these"

He means 'with the blood of Christ' - the 'better sacrifices'. Note the NECESSARY - it is not an optional extra.

v10 By the which will, we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all

Again underlining the NECESSITY of the sacrifice of Christ. Without it, we are not 'sanctified'.

v19 adds: Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS

Without that blood, there's no entry into the holiest.

ch 10: 8,9 supports your view that the sacrifices of the law were put away. Of that there can be no doubt at all.

BUT

They are REPLACED:

v10 By the which will we are sanctified THROUGH THE OFFERING OF THE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST once for all.

So that makes this statement of yours:

I meant that no sacrifice was required, no conditions on top of a repentant heart.

more than a little suspect.

God is not bound by the sacrament, there is no "absolute requirement".

How much more absolute can you get than 'He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned'?

If it wasn't an absolute requirement, then why are so many thousands baptised by the apostles in the Acts? You'd have thought they would try saving the water!

Not a single of the OT righteous were baptized in water and the Spirit, but we have been assured by Scriptures that they are now in heaven.

Have we? Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are waiting for the resurrection - in Matt 22.31 Jesus says

But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken by God unto you, saying I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob?

Peter agrees:

Acts 2.32: For David is not ascended into the heavens...

So where do you find this being 'in heaven' thing?

 

[francisdesales]

Dear friends, I believe the Eastern Orthodox Church tends to reject the satisfaction theory of Anselm and Aquinas, the idea of propitation, that the Cross propitiates God's wrath, the Father's wrath, against sinners, as if God the Father is out to "get" people, and we need to be "saved from the Father" by Christ the Son. Not at all.

Scott,

Yet again, you speak from ignorance. You describe the twisting of Anselm (not Aquinas) by Protestant theologians. Anselm did not teach that the Cross propitiates God's wrath as if God is out to "get people".

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

That's an interesting point. But you make it sound as if the Law was not given by God, and is therefore in some way contradictory to the NT.

The Law was given by God to the Jews to teach them and prepare them for the Messiah. Otherwise, there would have been no need for another Covenant.

Hebrews 9 goes on to say:

"It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these"

He means 'with the blood of Christ' - the 'better sacrifices'. Note the NECESSARY - it is not an optional extra.

It is "necessary" in as far as being "fitting" that God would act this way. Not absolutely necessary, as if our forgiveness could not be won unless God gave up His Son to die.

WHO EXACTLY is forcing this upon God again???

Without that blood, there's no entry into the holiest.

Corresponding, again, to the Jewish Law, a shadow of the good things to come.

They are REPLACED:

v10 By the which will we are sanctified THROUGH THE OFFERING OF THE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST once for all.

God CHOSE this manner of freeing us from sin. As a result, our salvation is that much more precious, seeing the extravagance paid.

How much more absolute can you get than 'He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned'?

"Believeth not" means to willingly reject. It doesn't refer to those who are ignorant. God is just, there is no justice in condemning someone who doesn't even have the opportunity to know about Jesus.

If it wasn't an absolute requirement, then why are so many thousands baptised by the apostles in the Acts? You'd have thought they would try saving the water!

Once they heard the Good News, they realized that to accept it, they must be baptized, joined to Christ. Does this apply to those who never heard of the Word???

Have we? Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are waiting for the resurrection - in Matt 22.31 Jesus says

But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken by God unto you, saying I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob?

Peter agrees:

Acts 2.32: For David is not ascended into the heavens...

He was speaking of the BODY of David, that was his point - that the body remained in the grave. After Jesus Death, He freed the OT righteous. Peter describes this a bit in 1 Peter 3.

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. Mat 27:51-53

Regards

 

[Scotth1960]

Scott,

Yet again, you speak from ignorance. You describe the twisting of Anselm (not Aquinas) by Protestant theologians. Anselm did not teach that the Cross propitiates God's wrath as if God is out to "get people".

Regards

Dear mr. francis, If I am ignorant, inform me of the truth. Where am I ignorant of where John and Christ say "and the Son" in John 15:26? In any case, what to Anselm and Aquinas teach. What is the satisfaction theory, in actual quotes from Anselm and Aquinas. If you know what they teach, show us what you know, then, okay? Thank you kindly! Sincerely, Scott H.

 

[francisdesales]

Dear mr. francis, If I am ignorant, inform me of the truth. Where am I ignorant of where John and Christ say "and the Son" in John 15:26? In any case, what to Anselm and Aquinas teach. What is the satisfaction theory, in actual quotes from Anselm and Aquinas. If you know what they teach, show us what you know, then, okay? Thank you kindly! Sincerely, Scott H.

I have already made the statements earlier in this thread. I am sure you can find them, they are near the beginning in my comments with Mondar.

As to the Filioque, your little pet peeve that you just can't let alone, where do you find in Scriptures "proceeds from the Father ALONE"??? Nowhere. Where do the Eastern Fathers makes that statement, before the usurper from the East came upon the scene? I can cite several Eastern FAthers who mention "the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son".

Patristic evidence is clearly in my favor, not yours. The Greeks at Florence realized this and accepted the addition, once they were happy with what we MEAN by it - which you still have YET to ask - you just like to argue.

It is crystal clear that Jesus sends the Spirit, as well. The Spirit proceeds from the Son as breath upon the Apostles. That very well captures the idea of "proceed from", when the Spirit is BREATHED OUT by the Son...

Regards

 

[Scotth1960]

I have already made the statements earlier in this thread. I am sure you can find them, they are near the beginning in my comments with Mondar.

As to the Filioque, your little pet peeve that you just can't let alone, where do you find in Scriptures "proceeds from the Father ALONE"??? Nowhere. Where do the Eastern Fathers makes that statement, before the usurper from the East came upon the scene? I can cite several Eastern FAthers who mention "the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son".

Patristic evidence is clearly in my favor, not yours. The Greeks at Florence realized this and accepted the addition, once they were happy with what we MEAN by it - which you still have YET to ask - you just like to argue.

It is crystal clear that Jesus sends the Spirit, as well. The Spirit proceeds from the Son as breath upon the Apostles. That very well captures the idea of "proceed from", when the Spirit is BREATHED OUT by the Son...

Regards

Dear francisdesales, When you switch subjects away from what I was asking you, and bring up another subject, whether "from the Father ALONE" is legitimate, you fail to answer where Scripture says "and the Son". It does not matter how many Fathers cite a doctrine, if they don't agree with Scripture. In the case of the Filioquism, it is the view of Augustine of Hippo and those who follow him as a teacher respected by many Christians rather uncritically, without discernment, and Augustine is simply speculating, not offering dogma. Again you avoid the issue, and bring up the TEMPORAL MISSION, the breathing by the Son. This is the mission of the Spirit sent by the Son in time, not the eternal procession from the Father in eternity. Christ breathing the Holy Spirit proves nothing about a procession from Christ. There is no procession of the Spirit from Christ. Only a mission by Christ, along with the Father, to send the Spirit from the Father. Can you not distinguish temporal mission and sending from, from eternal procession and proceeding from? In Erie PA Scott