How can God save us if He does not Substitute Christ for us? [Archive]

RC_NewProtestants

30th November 2006, 01:14 PM

Ok...please kindly explan to me how we are saved if its not substitutionary doctrine. I am always open to learning.

Adventtruth

Unfortunately we by and large have little knowledge about Christian church history. Actually it is true of most Christians today. We know what our denomination believes today but we don't know how we got to that place. The Christian church has a long history of trying to answer the question of how we are saved, what the atonement of Jesus does.

So here is an explaination to begin this topic with. You will notice that the substititionary theory is relatively late, yet for many it is the only theory they have ever heard of (excluding the Greek Orthodox church who it seems have never held the substitutionary view)
http://newprotestants.com/ATONHIST1.htm

Atonement History
The Christian Churches attempts to understand Christ’s Atonement and Sacrifice.

The following theories are listed in chronological order. However multiple theories may exist concurrently.

Moral Influence Theory
The Apostolic Fathers About 100-200 AD Vague time frame.
Their chief emphasis is on what Christ imparted to us: new Knowledge, Fresh life, Immortality.

Clement states: Through Him God has called us from darkness to light from ignorance to knowledge of the glory of His name. Clement further says that Christ endured it all on account of us and that His sufferings should bring us to repentance.
Hemas adds that Christ reveals to us the true God. Barnabas notes that He came to abolish death and to demonstrate resurrection from the dead.

Reiterated by Abelard in the 1100’s

Apologists also about 100-200 AD
The ideas stayed much the same with the Apologists with the addition of the concept that not only does God impart saving knowledge and bestow illumination, but principalities and powers are destroyed by Him. Justin says that the aim of the incarnation was the conquest of the serpent. Justin further adds that Christ became a man for our sakes, so that participating in our miseries He might heal them. The essence of the Moral Influence theory is that Christ’s Atoning work is directed to leading man to repentance and faith by revealing the true nature of God

Irenaeus about 180 AD
The Theory of Recapitulation (AKA Physical Theory, Mystical Theory)

This idea presupposes some kind of mystical solidarity or identity, between the father of the race and all his descendants. At the time of the fall they somehow already existed in Adam. Thus Irenaeus states that just as Adam contained in himself all his descendants (which is how all have sinned by Adams sin) so Christ recapitulated in Himself all the dispersed peoples dating back to Adam, all tongues and the whole race of mankind, along with Adam himself. His conclusion is that humanity which was seminally present in Adam has been given the opportunity of making a new start in Christ, the second Adam, through incorporation in his mystical body. The original Adam by disobedience introduced the principle of sin and death, but Christ by His obedience has reintroduced the principle of life and immortality. Because He is identified with the human race at every phase of it existence, He restores fellowship with God to all. To Irenaeus it is obedience that God requires, and in order to exhibit such obedience, Christ had to live His life through all its stages, not excluding death itself.

Origen 184-254

Origen, who had one of the greatest influences on Christian thinking, incorporated a wide range of reasons for Christ’s sacrifice. His views incorporated elements of knowledge and illumination, mysticism, Jesus as model, Ransom to the Devil, and ideas of substitution. Origen was an extremely creative thinker, however many of his ideas border on the bizarre.

Ransom Theory about 350-400
This theory with elements taken from Origen interprets the death of Christ as a Ransom paid by God to Satan in order to secure the redemption of humanity, which has been brought under his dominion by sin.

Different writers had various options on this theory. Some admitted the possession of his captives, and the death is interpreted as a ransom due to the devil on grounds of justice. Others denied the devil has a right to sinners, but by God’s graciousness in being unwilling to take by force that which was rightfully His. Still others felt that man’s deliverance was secured by deception on God’s part. Satan being deceived by the humble appearance of the Redeemer into supposing that he had to do with a mere man. Finding only too late that the Deity whose presence he had not perceived escaped his clutches through the Resurrection.

Some of the adherents to this view include Augustine, Gregory the Great, Gregory of Nyssa. Amazingly enough this theory lasted for several centuries.

Satisfaction Theory 1100
This theory was first produced in a clear coherent manner by Anselm in his treatise, Cur Deus Homo, which translated means Why a Godman? Anselm finds no reason in justice why God was under any obligation to Satan. Anselm maintains that Christ’s Atonement concerns God and not the devil. Man by his sin has violated the honor of God and defiled His handiwork. It is not consistent with the Divine self-respect that He should permit His purpose to be thwarted. Yet this purpose requires the fulfillment by man of the perfect law of God, which by sin man has transgressed. For this transgression, repentance is no remedy. Since penitence, however sincere, cannot atone for the guilt of past sin. Nor can any finite substitute, whether man or angel make reparation. Sin being against the infinite God, is infinitely guilty, and can be atoned for only by an infinite satisfaction. Thus either man must be punished and God’s purpose fail or else man must make an infinite satisfaction, which is impossible. There is only one way of escape, and that is that someone should be found who can unite in his own person the attributes both of humanity and of infinity. This is brought about by the incarnation of Christ. In Christ we have one who is very man, and can therefore make satisfaction to God on behalf of humanity, but who is at the same time very God, and whose person therefore gives infinite worth to the satisfaction which He makes. Christ death which is voluntarily given when it is not due since He was without sin, is the infinite satisfaction which secures the salvation of man.

Substitution Theory 1500’s (AKA Penal Theory)

The Protestant view held many of Anselm's presuppositions regarding Christ’s Atonement. However it was modified in one very substantial way. The central position of the Atonement was interpreted not as satisfaction, but as punishment, and hence given a substitutionary significance. The infinite guilt of man’s sin which has so utterly alienated mankind from the Kingdom of Heaven that none but a person reaching to God can be the medium of restoring peace. Such an efficient mediator is found in Christ alone. Through whose atoning death the price of man’s forgiveness is paid and a way of salvation made open. Calvin considers the Atonement not as a meritorious satisfaction accepted as a substitute for punishment, but as the vicarious endurance by Christ of that punishment itself. Calvin denies that God was ever hostile to Christ or angry with Him, yet in His Divine providence He suffered His Son to go through the experience of those against whom God is thus hostile. In His own consciousness, Christ bore the weight of the Divine anger, was smitten and afflicted, and experienced all the signs of an angry and avenging God.

The Penal Theory was severally criticized by the Socinians, who attacked the entire concept of substitutionary punishment. They held that punishment and forgiveness are inconsistent ideas. If a man is punished he cannot be forgiven, and vice versa. Under the theory of distributive justice, punishment, being a matter of the relation between individual guilt and its consequences, is strictly untransferable. The Socinians held to the Moral Influence Theory as mentioned by the Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists of the second century church.

Governmental Theory (AKA Rectoral Theory)
In response to the Socinians Hugo Grotius wrote a work entitled The Satisfaction of Christ. Grotius was writing in defense of the Penal/Substitution Theory, however he, perhaps unknowingly modified the theory. In this view God does not deal with men as a judge but as a governor, who unlike a judge may temper justice with mercy, but the motives which lead him so to temperate are never arbitrary. Thus Christ’s death is a substitute for punishment, a suffering inflicted by God and voluntarily accepted by Christ, which works upon men by moral influence in order to conserve the ends of righteousness. Such suffering on Christ’s part is necessary, since forgiveness on the basis of repentance alone might be misinterpreted by men and lead to grave carelessness. Among Arminians it has practically supplanted the older Penal Theory.
These constitute the main Salvation/Atonement theories. However there are several variations on each of the above theories, as well as different combinations of the major theories by other Theologians.
Sources:

Early Christian Doctrines J.N.D. Kelly Harper & Row, Pub. New York 1960
pp. 163-183, 375-395
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics Vol. 5 pp. 640-650
The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia pp. 349-356

(http://newprotestants.com/sda.htm)

Adventtruth

30th November 2006, 03:01 PM

woobadooba

30th November 2006, 04:06 PM

Hey RC.

Thanks for the history lesson but I don't need it. I'm no spring chicken. I have been at study for years. I also have in my library and have studied "Bible History Old Testament" by Alfred Edersheim aswell as "History of the Church" by Philip Schaff.

I just need you to outline your understanding of the said objection with scripture.

Thanks.

Adventtruth

You won't find scripture to support this view. Eisegetical notions, yes; but not sound exegesis. To the contrary, the scriptures support the idea that Christ is our substitute ( Heb. 2:14-18), and that no one could go to the Father except through Him (Jn. 14:6). Meaning, Gal. 2:20 must become a reality to everyone who is to be saved. See Acts 2:38 and Rom. 6. Moreover, Romans 5 makes this point very clear, as does also Jn. 3:16.

Anyone who objects to this is guilty of espousing a heretical view of the atonement.

Of course, I realise that you agree with what I have said here. However, I just thought that I would insert it anyway for the purpose of demonstrating that you are not alone in what you believe on this matter.

Adventtruth

30th November 2006, 05:01 PM

Of course, I realise that you agree with what I have said here. However, I just thought that I would insert it anyway for the purpose of demonstrating that you are not alone in what you believe on this matter.

Thanks woob. I would like to see his arguments. I have known about the other veiws for a while. I do believe Jack Sequeira and Weliand and Short refute a form of the substitutionary atonement aswel.

Adventtruth

RC_NewProtestants

30th November 2006, 05:38 PM

Ok so you are aware that for the majority of the time of the Christian Church they believed that God was able to save without the aid of any substitution.

Just wanted to get that fact as a beginning point because your question assumed that God can not save except for through substitution.

Woob states: To the contrary, the scriptures support the idea that Christ is our substitute ( Heb. 2:14-18) Here are those verses, please point out the clearly substitution concepts in the verses

14Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. 16For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants. 17For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for[f (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=heb+2&niv=yes&submit=Lookup#fen-NIV-29979f)]the sins of the people. 18Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.. Being like humans is most likely the method by which God reveals Himself to man. Now you may read those verses and make the assumption that propitiation is used with its pagan roots as a method to appease and angry God but that is not likely the meaning the author intended. But at this point it says nothing of substitution. What we have is a reference to the humanity of Jesus as someone who is knowledgeable about the human condition. Now an all knowing God would already be knowledgeable so the demonstration is used to give assurance to man that Jesus really does understand.

It would probably be best for those who believe in penal substitution to demonstrate from the Bible their best verses. History has already shown that this is a newer Christian idea and whatever verses you think you can come up with have for a long time been used without being assumed to be substitutionary. And to really look at this stuff honestly we have to get away from the assumed meanings and look at the contextual meanings.

woobadooba

30th November 2006, 06:57 PM

Ok so you are aware that for the majority of the time of the Christian Church they believed that God was able to save without the aid of any substitution.

Just wanted to get that fact as a beginning point because your question assumed that God can not save except for through substitution.

Woob states: Here are those verses, please point out the clearly substitution concepts in the verses

Being like humans is most likely the method by which God reveals Himself to man. Now you may read those verses and make the assumption that propitiation is used with its pagan roots as a method to appease and angry God but that is not likely the meaning the author intended. But at this point it says nothing of substitution. What we have is a reference to the humanity of Jesus as someone who is knowledgeable about the human condition. Now an all knowing God would already be knowledgeable so the demonstration is used to give assurance to man that Jesus really does understand.

It would probably be best for those who believe in penal substitution to demonstrate from the Bible their best verses. History has already shown that this is a newer Christian idea and whatever verses you think you can come up with have for a long time been used without being assumed to be substitutionary. And to really look at this stuff honestly we have to get away from the assumed meanings and look at the contextual meanings.

First of all, you are aware that the early church fathers didn't always teach things that are in harmony with the Bible, right?

Secondly, the passages that I have provided make it very clear that your view is false. If you are unwilling to see the truth in what they say, no argument that I present to you from this point on will suffice to convince you to believe otherwise.

Nevertheless, I will give ONLY one more further comment on this: those who died in the faith prior to Christ's Crucifixion were still reliant on the substitutionary death of the Lamb of God (Jesus Christ) for salvation, and were thus saved because God doesn't break His promises (Titus 1:2; Isa. 53:5). The juxtaposition of Romans 5 and Hebrews 11 makes this very clear.

The key in understanding the substitutionary concept insofar as it pertains to men that lived and died prior to the death of Christ, lies in understanding that God is not subject to time or space, but sees things that are future as though they have passed. Hence, He foreknew that He wouldn't fail His people, because God knows no failure. Thus He could inform His people in any manner that He so desired to address them, that they would be saved by whatever means were necessary to procure their salvation. In this case, He would have to die for His people, thus becoming the means to the end of their sin, and the road which paves the way to life eternal for all who would meet the condition of the promise as described in Jn. 3:16, and illustrated in times past via the sanctuary service.

RC_NewProtestants

30th November 2006, 08:19 PM

First of all, you are aware that the early church fathers didn't always teach things that are in harmony with the Bible, right? Yes and it is equally true that not everything that came out of the Reformation is in harmony with the Bible. The point was to leave behind presuppositions and read the Bible in its context.

For instance what are the requirements for you to forgive another person. Must they make restitution, must they be punished before they can be forgiven? Of course not. As is famously quoted in the Lord's Prayer; Forgive us as we forgive our debtors.

Secondly, the passages that I have provided make it very clear that your view is false. If you are unwilling to see the truth in what they say, no argument that I present to you from this point on will suffice to convince you to believe otherwise. I provided that quote to you and it said nothing of substitution. That passage was provided by you and you said it:
To the contrary, the scriptures support the idea that Christ is our substitute ( Heb. 2:14-18), Now I simply asked you to support your own statement and relate how those verses show substitution. If that is too hard for you then please feel free to end your part of the discussion. Because I will not tolerate the method that says "it is what I say it is because I say it is". That is worse then worthless and it projects Christians as uninfomed and unreasonable.

Adventtruth

1st December 2006, 12:41 AM

Hi RC. I do hope you I and Woob can have a great discussion here without tempers a flamed.

I am still hoping you will post your position from scripture as I asked above.

Adventtruth

woobadooba

1st December 2006, 12:46 PM

Hi RC. I do hope you I and Woob can have a great discussion here without tempers a flamed.

I am still hoping you will post your position from scripture as I asked above.

Adventtruth

I find it to be interesting that this is the second time you have asked this and haven't received a response.

As for myself, I make it a rule not to teach things that I can't immediately support with holy scripture. There are just too many people agreeing with ideas that they can't really prove are Biblically correct.

Sometimes I think such people have a low opinion of the Bible (not allowing its clear teachings to take precedence over their own ambiguous beliefs), which results in them not making good use of it in opportune times such as these. After all, the holy scriptures are designated to be used in this way (2Tim. 3:16-17)

RC_NewProtestants

1st December 2006, 12:58 PM

Ok I will, I was hoping to provoke you guys into looking at why you believed what you believe about substitution. Because as woob pointed out many Penal/substitution theorists read into verses what they want to see. Rather then reading the context and allowing the scripture to say what it says.

So go and read my article at:
http://newprotestants.com/Subatone.htm

As it has to deal with a lot of stuff, to as you say relate a scriptural view it is longer then they may want posted here. But I will post the first section to hopefully spur interest.

What is wrong with the Substitutionary theory of the Atonement

If Christ died for me then he must be my substitute, right? A law of God was broken, so someone had to pay the penalty for breaking that law, right? Isn't God a God of Justice so He can't just forgive someone He has to play by the rules, right? When it comes right down to it, the law says someone had to die, so it was pretty nice that Jesus Christ died and paid my debt to God. These are just some of the answers or maybe the questions that the typical Christian thinks of when he ponders the idea of the substitution of Christ for us, in theological terms it is called the Substitutionary theory. Christians did not simply arrive at this theory over night, it took about 14 centuries to arrive upon the scene. It was a major outgrowth from Anselm's Satisfaction theory of the atonement. But when it arrived it took off like no other previous theories of the atonement ever did. (See Appendix 1 (http://newprotestants.com/Subatone.htm#a1)) Accepted by the Roman Catholic and the Protestant alike, yet there are some who, as in the past do not accept the substitutionary theory as accurate.
What does the Substitutionary theory of the atonement say to us about God? To those who object to this theory, the problem is the implications that are drawn about God. These can be drawn into at least 3 broad categories.
1.Love
2.Justice
3.Law
Most people when looking at those three categories would see a close relationship between Law and Justice, while Love would be looked at as being on the opposite end of the spectrum. This is not at all surprising as in the western culture we live in, Justice is viewed in a penal setting, that is, to most people Justice is most related to punishment. Justice in a more Eastern or ancient tradition is more related to a restoration of harmony than to one of punishment. In the Greek language of the New Testament the same word is used for our English words of Justice and righteous, therefore in simple language righteousness is right doing and justice is also right doing.
So we can begin by acknowledging that God is righteous, certainly from the time of ancient Israel through the New Testament, God is prophetically spoken of as righteous. God by His righteousness provided to mankind principles which would aid man in his own quest to do what is right. So early on in the history of Israel we find the following guide to righteous living.
Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty. (Exodus 23:7)

The Old Testament is replete with warnings not to shed the blood of the innocent, it is to this day one of the key principles of right doing. Yet in the substitutionary theory God is required to break one of His oldest principles of right doing. In this respect the substitutionary theory has much in common with the satisfaction theory. The idea in the Satisfaction theory is that man has so greatly insulted God by sin that only someone as infinite as God can provide satisfaction. The reformers who held to the penal theory of atonement AKA the Substitutionary Theory often spoke of Christ as suffering our punishment or appeasing the wrath of God in our place. To this day Christians will often say that Christ "paid the penalty" or "paid our debt". With the obvious, though often ignored implication that the penalty or debt is paid to someone and that someone must be to God. While certainly not as frequently mentioned as during the days following the reformation the idea of appeasement of God is just as certainly present today. Typified by the word propitiation in the King James Bible or as the author of the Living Bible Paraphrase puts it:
For God sent Christ Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to end all God's anger against us. He used Christ's blood and our faith as the means of saving us from his wrath. In this way he was being entirely fair, even though he did not punish those who sinned in former times. For he was looking forward to the time when Christ would come and take away those sins. (Rom 3:25 TLB)

Compared with an actual translation:
God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--(Rom 3:25 NIV)

Even in Contemporary Christians songs we see the idea. Most people have either sang the song or at least heard it, some of the lyrics go like this:
You came from heaven to earth to show the way From the earth to the cross, my debt to pay (Lord, I lift your name on High words and music by Rick Founds)

History tells us that the Socinians could not accept the substitutionary theory because it replaced the concept of forgiveness with that of debt payment. To them if a debt had to be paid then God was not really forgiving anything. The corollary which is just as repugnant is the idea that because the debt was paid then God could forgive people. As if God could not forgive until appeased or persuaded to forgive mankind. To them God was perfectly capable of freely forgiving sins without requiring some debt to be paid or some appeasement of God.
It is little wonder with all the many texts in the Bible which deal with God's forgiveness, how He blots out our sins and how He remembers them no more that they would arrive at such a conclusion. However today while the Christian community frequently speaks of God's forgiveness. It is equally insistent upon the concept of Penalty and debt. To most Christians, God forgives but it is because Christ paid the penalty. Yet in most Trinitarian circles they will acknowledge that Christ is indeed God, so that in a real sense God paid the penalty. Using the debtor analogy God paid his own debt. Rather like flogging Himself because His law was broken, so that the ones who broke the law do not have to be punished. Possibly a popular activity for monks in the middle ages but hardly a very sensible activity.
One person once wrote that Christ substitution is like the following illustration:
Imagine that you went to visit a friend who owned a park and it cost 5 dollars to gain admittance. The friend tells you that you don't have to pay that, he the owner of the park will pay for you. So he takes 5 dollars out of his pocket and then puts it in his other pocket.
Now most people if they encountered such an occurrence would probably think that the owner was trying to be funny, and if he was not trying to use humor most would question his intelligence. Of course the illustration would become even more absurd if a death penalty was involved. Looking at it rationally it would be more sensible to forgive the debt, no games, no transfer of debt would be needed.
What about the concept of transference of debt? At what point would the debt owed ever cease? Let us examine this logically. We owe a debt to God because we have all sinned. Jesus Christ then pays our debt to God as our substitute. So now we would owe a debt to Christ for paying our debt to God. But if Christ is also God then God has paid a debt to Himself, and we still owe him the debt because of the debt He paid for us. Confusing isn't it. Unfortunately most people only pay lip service to the idea that Jesus Christ and the Father are One. Their view of the substitutionary theory is that God is owed a debt, God must have that debt paid, Jesus pays the debt for us. Since Jesus is so loving we do not have to fear that He will ask us to repay what we owe Him, and this is the central problem with the substitutionary view of the atonement. The love of God is polluted by our own misrepresentation about God.
"In many of the popular sermons and hymns of the last two centuries Christ is set forth as mediator between an angry God and the condemned sinner, pleading with God for mercy, at the same time receiving the divine wrath into his own bosom and thus averting from the sinner the consequences of his sin." (The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, vol. 7 page 270)

It is interesting to note that the New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia written in the early part of the 1900's points us back a couple of hundred years to the time when the substitutional theory became widely accepted. How can such an understanding coincide with the words of Christ.
In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. (John 16:26-27)

Remember the verse previously mentioned from the Living Bible paraphrase."For God sent Christ Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to end all God's anger against us..." Yet when we read of Christ life it is not God who punishes Christ, it is human beings.
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. (Acts 3:13-15)

woobadooba

1st December 2006, 01:36 PM

Adventtruth

1st December 2006, 01:56 PM

woobadooba

1st December 2006, 02:24 PM

HI RC.

Does the RC stand for Roman Catholic?)

I believe it stands for Ron Corson, since this is the authorial name associated with the article.

The article is linked to this website: http://newprotestants.com/sda.htm

RC_NewProtestants

1st December 2006, 02:37 PM

woob wrote:
So far I have presented several passages from scripture to support the idea that Christ had to become our substitute, and thus die in the place of sinners to ultimately save them. It is now up to you to prove how those passages don't teach this concept. No you have not. I posted the text you gave and asked you to show where in that text anything about substitution was present. You could not or would not do it. I can't prove that something that is not even found in the text is not found in the text anymore then the fact that it is not there. That is why I asked you to show where your claim was true.

Advent wrote:
I know why I believe it...and I've read your link. The burden of proof is still on you becasue you said we where wrong. I was hoping you would support your position from the Holy pages of the bible. Everything woob is saying concerning you is starting to ring true. Kindly give us scripture please!!!I have already showed the historical information which shows that the Substitutional theory is very recent. My article uses lots of biblical texts. You ask for scripture but when I ask for you to show your best scripture to support the substitution view you offer nothing. You have started with the assumption that your view is correct despite the historical information and despite your own ability to show a clearly substitutional text in the Bible.

I don't think either of you read the article. Atonement theory, any theory is not derived from only one text. However the Sub theory is based upon a number of presuppositions which really don't have Biblical support. As I mentioned earlier. Why is it God asks us to freely forgive yet He can't freely forgive? I say He can, the Bible says He can, He does not have to go through some kind of legal fiction to forgive and heal. The sub view is that He has to cook the books in order to forgive and heal. There is absolutely no New Testament verses which indicate that God poured out His wrath on Christ yet it is central to Sub theory. There is not one verse that says that Jesus paid the penalty or debt of sin yet it is central to sub theory. There are 5 verses in the New Testament that say that men caused Jesus' death yet according to Sub theory His death was a penalty of sin poured out by God.

Change does not come from Jesus substitution of Himself for me, it comes from the person's change in attitude toward God and allowing God to influence their lives. There is nothing in the atonement meant to affect God, it is all directed by God at man for the reason of reconciliation with God. Satisfaction and substitutionary theory have directed the atonement at God, completely opposite of reality as God has always been the one reaching out to man.

woobadooba

1st December 2006, 02:54 PM

woob wrote:
No you have not. I posted the text you gave and asked you to show where in that text anything about substitution was present. You could not or would not do it. I can't prove that something that is not even found in the text is not found in the text anymore then the fact that it is not there. That is why I asked you to show where your claim was true.

Did I merely give you one passage to look at in support of the view that I hold, or did I give you several passages?

See posts 3 and 6 (again). Examine them closely, especially post number 6.

The passages that I gave you represent a harmony of thought insofar as the substitutionary aspect of the atonement is concerned. It is now up to you to demonstrate that they do not harmonise in this way, or support the doctrine of substitution. To do this you would have to look at them as a whole as they relate to each other. To merely perceive them in bits and pieces, or to separate them from each other, would bring one to the point of missing the point altogether.

Now then, my challenge to you is to prove how those passages do not support the concept of substitution.

But you haven't done this. I've done my part. Now it is up to you to do yours.

woobadooba

1st December 2006, 03:07 PM

I have already showed the historical information which shows that the Substitutional theory is very recent.

Your point here is moot because it assumes that knowledge which appears to be fairly new has no past precedent/cognizance.

You don't think it's possible to discover old things in a new way?

Didn't Jesus make it very clear that this is possible when He gave the sermon on the mount? You know, "You have heard...but I say to you..."

My article uses lots of biblical texts. You ask for scripture but when I ask for you to show your best scripture to support the substitution view you offer nothing. You have started with the assumption that your view is correct despite the historical information and despite your own ability to show a clearly substitutional text in the Bible.

Excuse me, but you are the one who started this thread. Therefore, it is up to you to prove your point. And this is a forum, not a classroom. Expect a discussion, but don't expect us to read an article.

Now are you going to prove your point with scripture, or are you merely going to keep on telling us that we haven't proven ours? Keep in mind that you are the one who started this thread. Hence, the burden of proof is on you. Also keep in mind that passages were given to support the doctrine of substitution, but you have not addressed them as a whole.

RC_NewProtestants

1st December 2006, 04:32 PM

Here are the verses, all the verse that woob has given which somehow he things indicate substitution:

You won't find scripture to support this view. Eisegetical notions, yes; but not sound exegesis. To the contrary, the scriptures support the idea that Christ is our substitute ( Heb. 2:14-18), and that no one could go to the Father except through Him (Jn. 14:6). Meaning, Gal. 2:20 must become a reality to everyone who is to be saved. See Acts 2:38 and Rom. 6. Moreover, Romans 5 makes this point very clear, as does also Jn. 3:16.

I have already dealt with Heb 2-14-18 and we have seen it says nothing of substitution. All texts NIV

John :6
5Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" 6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know[b (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=john+14&submit=Lookup+Passage&display_option=columns&niv=yes#fen-NIV-26665b)] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." 8Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." 9Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

Again there is no substitution present here it merely is a statement that Jesus is the way the truth and the life. The way to God is through God and Jesus is God. Jesus is the revelation of God to man in its fullest form. There is no other way to get to God except by God, no one can come to God by some other means other then through the power and will of God.

Gal 2:20
1Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain. 3Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek

No substitution here but it does indicate that people have to respond to the revelation of the gospel which is the good news that God loves us and offers to save us from the result of sin.

Acts 2 :38
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

Again no substitution, repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus who is God revealed in human form so that God will forgive your sins. And receive from God the Holy Spirit. Remember Jesus has already shown that He can and will forgive sins, and the only one who can forgive sin is God.

Now I have set forth the specifics offered and not one of them reveal substitution. Now a discourse on Romans 5-6 would take a lot of space and there is no reason to think that from the previous texts offered woob has anything specific to say about those chapters. But his final verse John 3:16 offers him nothing in support of substitution.

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=john+3&submit=Lookup+Passage&display_option=columns&niv=yes#fen-NIV-26127f)] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

So we see that God sent Jesus in human form to save the world. How is that accomplished? Through belief. Again not substitution.

So now you see why I did not deal with your verses earlier but only the one. They don’t show anything about substitution. True if that substitution is your presupposition then you can fit them into your theory. Just as I can fit them into the moral influence theory or as many early Christians could fit them into the Ransom theory. What you have to do is find the foundational texts which created your theory. But you did not want to do that and you don’t want to read an article which goes through the various presuppositions which create the substitutional theory.

woobadooba

1st December 2006, 05:27 PM

RC_NewProtestants

1st December 2006, 06:28 PM

woob wrote:
You are neglecting to view these passages in light of the harmony of thought that I spoke of in a previous post.

No I am not neglecting anything. A person can make almost anything fit into a presupposition. History has already shown us how these various atonement theories could be held by Christians. It fits because they demand by their presuppositions that it fit. So the question which we really have to wrestle with is are the presuppositions valid.

woobadooba

1st December 2006, 09:54 PM

So we see that God sent Jesus in human form to save the world. How is that accomplished? Through belief. Again not substitution.

OK, but how then could we believe that God is "righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus", and thus be saved without Jesus having died in our place to give meaning and purpose to such belief, as it were?

Adventtruth

1st December 2006, 10:11 PM

Change does not come from Jesus substitution of Himself for me, it comes from the person's change in attitude toward God and allowing God to influence their lives. There is nothing in the atonement meant to affect God, it is all directed by God at man for the reason of reconciliation with God. Satisfaction and substitutionary theory have directed the atonement at God, completely opposite of reality as God has always been the one reaching out to man.

Now we are getting some place. You have finally tiped your hand RC without your long articles. :)

...it comes from the person's change in attitude toward God and allowing God to influence their lives.

Weather you believe it or not, this is a form of the "moral influence theory" of atonement. You have a moral change in ones attitude towards God and the love of God influencing their lives.

There is nothing wrong with this as long as you put it in its proper order, and don't denie the other truths as you have done.

You have already called the substitution doctrine "legal fiction" showing your rejection. Sin is guilt as well as pollution. You see sin as merely pollution, therfore you see a moral condition without the legal guilt. This is a matter of justification and sanctification of the believer in that order not a matter of only sanctifcation as your idea of change and influence would suggest.

This is what your understanding rejects.:

1) The reality and truthfulness of a divine holy law, its charge and sentence against sinners, and the wrath of God incurred because of sin.

2) It fails to appreciate that the reconciliation in Christ's act of atonement was something which took place for us and in our interest while we were still God's enemies (Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:20-22).

3) It also reduces the love of God to mere exhibitionism.

There is nothing in the atonement meant to affect God, it is all directed by God at man for the reason of reconciliation with God. Satisfaction and substitutionary theory have directed the atonement at God, completely opposite of reality as God has always been the one reaching out to man.

I can't support that idea, nor does the bible, nor did Luther, that the atonement was directed at God seeing God does not change and never changed...it was sinful man that needed to change, God reconciled us to Himself, not Himself to us. The table is set...all we have to do is come and eat...God set the table.

Blessings

Adventtruth

:

Adventtruth

1st December 2006, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by RC_NewProtestants
So we see that God sent Jesus in human form to save the world. How is that accomplished? Through belief. Again not substitution.

It is only a moral belief system that one supposes saves when one denies the truth of forensic justification.

Adventtruth

RC_NewProtestants

4th December 2006, 01:02 PM

Woob wrote:
OK, but how then could we believe that God is "righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus", and thus be saved without Jesus having died in our place to give meaning and purpose to such belief, as it were?

Because the idea that Jesus died in our place is not necessary if you can accept the New Testament's testimony then God can and will freely forgive and wants us to be reconciled with Him. All the substitutionary theory does is say that God has to punish someone so that He can forgive someone else. You don't need to have belief in Substitutionary theory to have faith in Christ. You can witness the first 1500 years of the Christian church to see that. That is why you have to pay attention to history. Because it shows that the Substitutionary suppositions such as you have stated are not necessary in the first place. They may be necessary if you can only hold to the Substitutionary theory but that just places that theory as the assumed correct theory, a form of circular reasoning.

RC_NewProtestants

4th December 2006, 01:29 PM

Advent wrote;
Now we are getting some place. You have finally tiped your hand RC without your long articles.

Yes, to say "Just as I can fit them into the moral influence theory" is probably tipping my hand, it does seem straight forward to me however. Now why do I not try to place the Moral Influence theory against the Substitutionary theory? The reason is that every other theory also holds to the Moral Influence theory. It is universally accepted. The other theories however want to add on more, Ransom wants to make it a payment to the Devil. Recapitualation wants to add that mystically we have to go through everything again in Jesus. Satisfaction says that we can't pay the debt owned to an eternal God so Jesus did it. Which of course leads to the penal theory which is another term for what you called "forensic justification" Which simplified of the fancy terminology is legally make right. And this of course is done by practices which no one on earth would think of as legal. Punishing the innocent, and then substitution of the good person for the sinful person and not just one sinful person billions of them. And why do all this? Because God has set up some supposed law that He must conform to. Something by the way you never find anywhere in the Bible.

So now you see why I did not deal with your verses earlier but only the one. They don’t show anything about substitution. True if that substitution is your presupposition then you can fit them into your theory. Just as I can fit them into the moral influence theory or as many early Christians could fit them into the Ransom theory. What you have to do is find the foundational texts which created your theory. But you did not want to do that and you don’t want to read an article which goes through the various presuppositions which create the substitutional theory.

This is what your understanding rejects.:

1) The reality and truthfulness of a divine holy law, its charge and sentence against sinners, and the wrath of God incurred because of sin.

2) It fails to appreciate that the reconciliation in Christ's act of atonement was something which took place for us and in our interest while we were still God's enemies (Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:20-22).

3) It also reduces the love of God to mere exhibitionism.

1. Does holy law allow for forgiveness? Can one be forgiven without punishment? Clearly we have examples and stories by Jesus Christ which says that forgiveness is the right thing to do and it can be done without punishment incurred. So you have mistaken God's holy law.

2. is completely wrong because Jesus came and lived died and rose again while we were still sinners. Clearly the people that killed Jesus were not his friends yet he from the cross freely forgave them. That is the evidence of the nature and rightness of God's willingness to love and accept those who would see God for the God of love that He is.

3. And this is life eternal that they know the only true God. Knowing who God is is the central step in having a relationship with God. As a famous Adventist has said of Christ, "God made manifest". What your problem here is that you want to add to the Bible something else, you want to add (not just you, those holding the sub theory) a punishment of God upon Christ so you don't like the actually manifestation of the incarnation. That is not enough

woobadooba

4th December 2006, 01:32 PM

Woob wrote:

Because the idea that Jesus died in our place is not necessary if you can accept the New Testament's testimony then God can and will freely forgive and wants us to be reconciled with Him. All the substitutionary theory does is say that God has to punish someone so that He can forgive someone else. You don't need to have belief in Substitutionary theory to have faith in Christ. You can witness the first 1500 years of the Christian church to see that. That is why you have to pay attention to history. Because it shows that the Substitutionary suppositions such as you have stated are not necessary in the first place. They may be necessary if you can only hold to the Substitutionary theory but that just places that theory as the assumed correct theory, a form of circular reasoning.

You missed my point...

Faith in Christ would be meaningless had He not died for us. Thus the substitutionary concept of the atonement is vital for the purposefulness of our faith in Christ. Had Christ not died for our sins you wouldn't know what Christ to believe in, since many are claiming to be Christ. It's the substitutionary concept of the atonement that separates Jesus Christ from all of the other so-called christs in the world. Moreover, "the wages of sin is death". Not just physical death, but eternal separation from God via the second death. Jesus paid that price for humankind; but only those who receive Him will benefit from the gift. Where there is a promise, a condition is always linked to it. The condition for this promise is that we accept what Jesus has done for us. John 3:16 makes this very clear.

Furthermore, there is something else about what you had said that I find to be disturbing...

You had said, All the substitutionary theory does is say that God has to punish someone so that He can forgive someone else.

This is false. The substitutionary theory doesn't merely disclose punishment; rather, it also speaks of the highest order of love. "No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends."(Joh 15:13 NRSV)

"But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us." (Rom 5:8 NRSV)

In fact, this explains why Paul had said, "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." (Rom 3:25-26 KJV)

So why then did Jesus die for sinners? He died for sinners because "God is love" (1Jn. 4:8).

Unless a sinner comes to see Jesus' death for him/her from the perspective of God's love, he/she will never really come to understand the gospel well enough to live by genuine faith in Jesus Christ...

RC_NewProtestants

4th December 2006, 07:58 PM

You missed my point...

Faith in Christ would be meaningless had He not died for us. Thus the substitutionary concept of the atonement is vital for the purposefulness of our faith in Christ.

No once again I did not miss your point. Your point is based upon the assumption that the death of Christ was meant to pay a penalty and be a substitute. If that were the case then Paul would not have said we would be the most miserable of people if Christ had not been raised. The death obviously showed the love of God in coming to earth and showing the character of God even when tortured and killed by his own creation. But the death does not save us, it is used as a symbol for the entirety of Christ, which is the life before, the death and the resurrection and the continual life that is God, all made available through God's gift. Thus blood which is the symbol of life becomes even more important because it is the symbol of life and the symbol of the death which proves the love and the power of God. God conqures even death. None of this needs substitution or penalty. So the quotes you use all work better within the moral influence theory then the substitutionary theory. In fact if you use the verse you quoted:
"No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends."(Joh 15:13 NRSV)
If you use the substitution theory then Jesus lays down His life because God wants to kill man. The moral influence theory sees the sacrifice of laying your life down as a way of showing the love and power and the promise of God's willingness and ability to save mankind from a course that was away from God and away from life and which has only the consequence of death.

Of course this is all found in the article I linked to with the addition of numerous scriptural references, at least for those with attention spans capable of understanding.

woobadooba

4th December 2006, 09:41 PM

]If you use the substitution theory then Jesus lays down His life because God wants to kill man.[/size]

I honestly don't see how you could even arrive at such a conclusion.

When God said "surely you will die" to Adam, He said this because "the wages of sin is death". When Jesus died for man he paid man's debt to sin, not his debt to a vindictive God.

Truth is, substitution speaks of infinite love, not a will that seeks to kill. Your conclusion that substitution speaks of a God that wants to kill makes no sense at all.

Adventtruth

5th December 2006, 09:12 AM

You can witness the first 1500 years of the Christian church to see that. That is why you have to pay attention to history. Because it shows that the Substitutionary suppositions such as you have stated are not necessary in the first place.

God never rejects anyone based upon wrong theology if faith is placed in Christ as savior. Many did reject the Pauline doctrine of the eatonement, do to a fact many did not understand it.

Adventtruth

Adventtruth

5th December 2006, 09:39 AM

1. Does holy law allow for forgiveness? Can one be forgiven without punishment? Clearly we have examples and stories by Jesus Christ which says that forgiveness is the right thing to do and it can be done without punishment incurred. So you have mistaken God's holy law.

The Law forgives no one it can only show you your sin. The law said that all where guilty before God...none are righteous and that no one could be justified by law. Forgiveness is based upon the one who was manifiested with out the guilt of the law because He died for you and I R.C. becasue in Gods eyes the law pointed to you and I as law breakers. This is the witness of Rom 3. You my friend have not understood Gods law.

All the stories of Jesus forgiving in the NT falls up under the forbearance of God:

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

2. is completely wrong because Jesus came and lived died and rose again while we were still sinners. Clearly the people that killed Jesus were not his friends yet he from the cross freely forgave them. That is the evidence of the nature and rightness of God's willingness to love and accept those who would see God for the God of love that He is.

Yes He did die while we where all sinners. You where not His friend either until you decided to trust Him for your sins. The evidence shows that you have rejected Him as your substitute while understanding the concept of substitution. You are in danger my friend...this is legalism at its best. Reject the one who satisfied the claims of the law on your behalf as being guilty before God, then what do you have??? Just the love of God who sanctifies you with out justifing you??? AS Paul would say...NO!!! May it never be!!!!

Sanctification rest upon the bases of Justification...Without it my friend you have legalism becasue it is you own Good Works through a infused righteousness that stands before a holy law that can never reconcile you before God. You're left necked to fend for your self and found wanting....Pure legalism.

3. And this is life eternal that they know the only true God. Knowing who God is is the central step in having a relationship with God. As a famous Adventist has said of Christ, "God made manifest". What your problem here is that you want to add to the Bible something else, you want to add (not just you, those holding the sub theory) a punishment of God upon Christ so you don't like the actually manifestation of the incarnation. That is not enough

I'm reminded that years ago we had a discussion on one of the old Adventist official forums that is now closed. It seems that I remember your name upon those boards. I remember Bill Diehl as being part of that conversation aswell among others. Bill and others aswell as my self where against those who pushed this idea. I do remember the Adventist theologian "Graham Maxwell' and his false theology came up because at that time he was a fore runner teaching these things.

I have to go now...we will talk later.

Adventtruth

RC_NewProtestants

5th December 2006, 01:08 PM

Woob wrote:
When God said "surely you will die" to Adam, He said this because "the wages of sin is death". When Jesus died for man he paid man's debt to sin, not his debt to a vindictive God. This is why it is so important for people to actually think about what their doctrine says. Here Woob tells us that Jesus paid man's debt to sin! What does he mean by that? Does sin demand that someone has to die, is sin more powerful then the creator of everything? What is sin that it can demand anything or be offered anything? Sin is not some power out there in the universe. It is the attitude of rebellion, it does not even exist without the use of an intelligent beings will.

The only way your statement can make any sense is if you did believe in the moral influence of Christ's life death and resurrection was directed at sinners to bring them back to God.

The wages of sin is death because that is the natural result from seperating from the source of life which is God. Clearly that is the meaning of the story in Genesis. "In that day" is idiomatic for "when", so God was talking about the natural results of rebellion and mistrust of God. They did not die on that day nor did God ever threaten them with the concept of obey or I will kill you, even though that is the general understanding of the penal/substitutionary atonement theory. ( although you have departed from the Penal theory when you say Jesus paid a penalty to sin, as the penal theory is that Jesus paid the penalty to God's law and thus to God.)

RC_NewProtestants

5th December 2006, 01:39 PM

Advent wrote:
The Law forgives no one it can only show you your sin. The law said that all where guilty before God...none are righteous and that no one could be justified by law. Forgiveness is based upon the one who was manifiested with out the guilt of the law because He died for you and I R.C. becasue in Gods eyes the law pointed to you and I as law breakers.

So your position is that in the entire spectrum of God's prinicples forgiveness was never allowed? That is really absurd, in fact it is absurd even if one limited themselves to the Old Testament. Which actually says quite a bit about forgiveness. And not all just pretty words from the Psalms. Laws are given to set standards for conduct. Forgiveness is clearly included in those standards. Every heard of the Old testament instruction to love your neighbor, can you actually love without freely forgiving? A set of standards can never save anyone that is true. Those are just words and life is far more then words.

All the stories of Jesus forgiving in the NT falls up under the forbearance of God:

Yes it is forbearance, it is mercy, it is love, that is what forgiveness is about.
The evidence shows that you have rejected Him as your substitute while understanding the concept of substitution. You are in danger my friend...this is legalism at its best. Reject the one who satisfied the claims of the law on your behalf as being guilty before God, then what do you have??? Just the love of God who sanctifies you with out justifing you??? AS Paul would say...NO!!! May it never be!!!!

Oh please. That is just circular reasoning, accept my version of atonement or you will be lost. Do you even know the words you are using? Sanctify means to be set apart for God, Justify means to be right. Can you be one without the other?

Am I guilty before God? Definately! Can God freely forgive and heal me? Definately! Do I have to hide before God and ask Him don't look at me look at Jesus my Substitute? Of course not. God sees all there is there is no hiding from God, and who is Jesus? He is God. Why the need to play all these games?

Many did reject the Pauline doctrine of the eatonement, do to a fact many did not understand it.

Paul uses various methods of explaining the atonement most have nothing to do with substitution though people often act as if he were the author of the substitution/penal idea. It is simply not true.

woobadooba

5th December 2006, 02:55 PM

Woob wrote:
This is why it is so important for people to actually think about what their doctrine says. Here Woob tells us that Jesus paid man's debt to sin! What does he mean by that? Does sin demand that someone has to die, is sin more powerful then the creator of everything? What is sin that it can demand anything or be offered anything? Sin is not some power out there in the universe. It is the attitude of rebellion, it does not even exist without the use of an intelligent beings will.

The only way your statement can make any sense is if you did believe in the moral influence of Christ's life death and resurrection was directed at sinners to bring them back to God.

The wages of sin is death because that is the natural result from seperating from the source of life which is God. Clearly that is the meaning of the story in Genesis. "In that day" is idiomatic for "when", so God was talking about the natural results of rebellion and mistrust of God. They did not die on that day nor did God ever threaten them with the concept of obey or I will kill you, even though that is the general understanding of the penal/substitutionary atonement theory. ( although you have departed from the Penal theory when you say Jesus paid a penalty to sin, as the penal theory is that Jesus paid the penalty to God's law and thus to God.)

You misunderstood my point (once again--though you won't admit to this).

When the Bible says "the wages of sin is death" it means just that. Death results as a consequence of sin, because sin separates the one who yields to it from the source of life--God. Therefore, to say that man is indebted to sin as a result of sinning is to say that that man must pay the penalty for his sin in death. For, sin represents death, not the sustenance of life, but rather the death of virtue or intrinsic goodness.

Hence, one doesn't have to give life to sin in order to support the idea that a man could be indebted to it. For, sin is a concept, not a thing. Yet, one could still be indebted to a concept, as it were. For example, I could foster the idea that it is a virtue to freely devote oneself to the service of another who has paid his debt. That doesn't mean the concept then becomes a thing; rather, it just simply continues to be what it is--a concept which I adhere to by virtue of its own merit.

In the case with sin, the concept is that the wages of it is death. Thus those who yield to it become indebted to its nature in that the effect of it (death) must take its toll on the life of the one who is subjected to its course. In fact, Paul even referred to it as a 'master' (Rom. 6:7). Does that then mean sin must become a person or thing to the one who obeys it? No. It remains a concept to which one has become enslaved by adhering to its nature (death) via the rebellion against that which is good (Eternal Life). So in essence I am basically saying the same thing that Paul had said about sin, but in different words.

So don't try to use my words as a scapegoat to avoid addressing the issue here. You can accuse me of having not put much thought into what I had said, but the truth here is that you have to demonstrate that the concept of substitution discloses the idea that God wants to kill the sinner. That's the issue. And you haven't done that, nor will you be able to for the simple fact that such a conclusion is not logically sound.

Adventtruth

5th December 2006, 04:50 PM

So your position is that in the entire spectrum of God's prinicples forgiveness was never allowed?

Hi R.C.

I did not say that. Infact this is what I said:

"The Law forgives no one it can only show you your sin. The law said that all where guilty before God...none are righteous and that no one could be justified by law. Forgiveness is based upon the one who was manifiested with out the guilt of the law because He died for you and I R.C. becasue in Gods eyes the law pointed to you and I as law breakers."

It was you who infered that statement not I. Now where in the bible does it say the law forgives.

R.C. wrote That is really absurd, in fact it is absurd even if one limited themselves to the Old Testament. Which actually says quite a bit about forgiveness. And not all just pretty words from the Psalms. Laws are given to set standards for conduct. Forgiveness is clearly included in those standards. Every heard of the Old testament instruction to love your neighbor, can you actually love without freely forgiving? A set of standards can never save anyone that is true. Those are just words and life is far more then words.

The above are wasted words about nothing.

Oh please. That is just circular reasoning, accept my version of atonement or you will be lost. Do you even know the words you are using? Sanctify means to be set apart for God, Justify means to be right. Can you be one without the other?

Am I guilty before God? Definately! Can God freely forgive and heal me? Definately! Do I have to hide before God and ask Him don't look at me look at Jesus my Substitute? Of course not. God sees all there is there is no hiding from God, and who is Jesus? He is God. Why the need to play all these games?

Why do you reject the plan teachings of scripture R.C.???
Its more than "circular reasoning" its bible truth!!!

Rom 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

What is sin???

1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the

Can the law forgive???

la
Rom 3:20 ... for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Did Jesus died becasue of a broken law?? Yes

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions (sins) that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. w

God only forgives on the basis of what Jesus did in the SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT for mankind

Paul uses various methods of explaining the atonement most have nothing to do with substitution though people often act as if he were the author of the substitution/penal idea. It is simply not true.

You seem to want forgivness and sanctification apart from Justifiction R.C. Aint gonna happen!!!

Look I do not reject the moral influence of the atonement...the bible does tell us this is true.

2Co 5:14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
2Co 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

It just that it (sanctification) falls upon the foundation of Justification.

Rom 5:10 For 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.

Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Col 1:21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled

Col 1:22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:

This was therefore something that took place objective to us and was not a subjective process R.C.

You continue to reduce the love of God to a mere exhibition.

Adventtruth

RC_NewProtestants

6th December 2006, 01:11 PM

Woob wrote:

When the Bible says "the wages of sin is death" it means just that. Death results as a consequence of sin, because sin separates the one who yields to it from the source of life--God. Therefore, to say that man is indebted to sin as a result of sinning is to say that that man must pay the penalty for his sin in death. For, sin represents death, not the sustenance of life, but rather the death of virtue or intrinsic goodness.

You would have a point if the verse only said the wages of sin is death, but it has a huge exception, the gift of life. The rest about being indebted to sin does not make sense. Sin can only result in death it is the gift of God that brings life. As the story of Jesus points out sin and death have no hold on God. That is itself a anthropomorphic statement. What it in effect means is that God has the power over the natural laws that we all experience. It is His gift.

woobadooba

6th December 2006, 01:17 PM

Woob wrote:

You would have a point if the verse only said the wages of sin is death, but it has a huge exception, the gift of life. The rest about being indebted to sin does not make sense. Sin can only result in death it is the gift of God that brings life. As the story of Jesus points out sin and death have no hold on God. That is itself a anthropomorphic statement. What it in effect means is that God has the power over the natural laws that we all experience. It is His gift.

Had Jesus not given His life in exchange for ours (as a gift), sin would not have lost its hold on the sinner, and all humankind would perish as a consequence of the power thereof. Hence remaining indebted to sin. Thus my point stands.

Now then, when are you going to prove that substitution denotes the idea that God wants to kill the sinner?

RC_NewProtestants

6th December 2006, 01:39 PM

Advent wrote:

Can the law forgive???

We went over this the law does nothing. It is how people use the standards of the law that relates to action. Now I have no idea how you are defining the law, you seem to think that forgiveness is not found in the Torah or the old testament but of course it is. God Himself is the author of the laws so we can feel confident that the standards of a law are related to the standards which make up His own standards or His own character. Thus we see God as one who forgives as we see many times in the Old Testament like:
Numbers 14:19 "Pardon the iniquity of this people, I pray, according to the greatness of Your mercy, just as You have forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now."Now there are loads of examples of forgiveness as it reflects the activity of people. There is not one example of the law, any law doing anything. It is only words. So you have taken a simple statement which was factual and taken it on an absurd journey for no reason other then you have a confused view about what the law can and cannot do. Laws, again any laws are worthless unless there is some force behind the law, some authority that created the law some value placed upon the law by people. So my point still stands. From page 3:
1. Does holy law allow for forgiveness? Can one be forgiven without punishment? Clearly we have examples and stories by Jesus Christ which says that forgiveness is the right thing to do and it can be done without punishment incurred. So you have mistaken God's holy law.

Now it seems there is no doubt that you have mistaken God's holy law.
Advent wrote:
You seem to want forgivness and sanctification apart from Justifiction R.C. Aint gonna happen!!!

Again you have brought your traditions into the discussion without even hearing what I said. Sanctification and Justification are not separate ever. They are intrinsically connected. I thought I was pretty clear on that when I said:
"Sanctify means to be set apart for God, Justify means to be right. Can you be one without the other? "

I guess I wasn't clear the answer is no. You cannot be right and against God and you can't be set apart for God and be wrong. Because that is what all this is about have a right relationship with God. That is sanctification and justification. It is right because that reconciliation is what God wants for you and that reconciliation has set you apart for God no longer His enemies but his friends.

RC_NewProtestants

6th December 2006, 01:53 PM

Woob wrote:
Had Jesus not given His life in exchange for ours (as a gift), sin would not have lost its hold on the sinner, and all humankind would perish as a consequence of the power thereof. Hence remaining indebted to sin. Thus my point stands. But the texts says nothing about a substitution. You have to at least try and read the texts without the insertion of the presupposition of your atonment theory. Ask yourself can God give a gift to someone without substitution. You say He exchanged His life for ours...who did He exchange with? Sin is a concept you can't exchange anything with a concept. The law is a concept but it is placed by and authorized by a personal being. So either the exhange was with God or there was no exchange. He could not be exchanging with us because as you have said we were in bondage already.

The reason the penal theory says God wants to kill us is because of their confusion over the law. They think the law of God requires punishment before forgiveness can be given. So it is either God kills all of mankind or He kills Jesus and substitutes Jesus for all mankind or at least those who will accept Jesus. You have used the same logic. with the wages of sin comments. You say you sin then you have to die, the way you get to the gift is by saying that the gift has to come through Jesus having to die in our place.

The Bibles answer if allowed to speak for itself is that God is above all and can do what He wants and give a gift to whom He wants. He wants to give it to everyone, but only those who trust Him will end up accepting the gift.

There is a reason I put the following quote in my article listed earlier is that it is true of modern Christianity, I am not making it up:

"In many of the popular sermons and hymns of the last two centuries Christ is set forth as mediator between an angry God and the condemned sinner, pleading with God for mercy, at the same time receiving the divine wrath into his own bosom and thus averting from the sinner the consequences of his sin." (The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, vol. 7 page 270)

woobadooba

6th December 2006, 07:27 PM

Woob wrote:
But the texts says nothing about a substitution. You have to at least try and read the texts without the insertion of the presupposition of your atonment theory. Ask yourself can God give a gift to someone without substitution. You say He exchanged His life for ours...who did He exchange with? Sin is a concept you can't exchange anything with a concept. The law is a concept but it is placed by and authorized by a personal being. So either the exhange was with God or there was no exchange. He could not be exchanging with us because as you have said we were in bondage already.

The reason the penal theory says God wants to kill us is because of their confusion over the law. They think the law of God requires punishment before forgiveness can be given. So it is either God kills all of mankind or He kills Jesus and substitutes Jesus for all mankind or at least those who will accept Jesus. You have used the same logic. with the wages of sin comments. You say you sin then you have to die, the way you get to the gift is by saying that the gift has to come through Jesus having to die in our place.

The Bibles answer if allowed to speak for itself is that God is above all and can do what He wants and give a gift to whom He wants. He wants to give it to everyone, but only those who trust Him will end up accepting the gift.

There is a reason I put the following quote in my article listed earlier is that it is true of modern Christianity, I am not making it up:

"In many of the popular sermons and hymns of the last two centuries Christ is set forth as mediator between an angry God and the condemned sinner, pleading with God for mercy, at the same time receiving the divine wrath into his own bosom and thus averting from the sinner the consequences of his sin." (The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, vol. 7 page 270)

But the gift that was given is God Himself. Hence Eternal Life.

Your theory reduces what Christ did to a mere exhibit; but the substitutionary theory speaks of infinite Love.

"While we were yet sinners Christ died for us".

Within this context the act of dying 'for' denotes the idea of dying 'in the place of'. You won't find the words substitution or substitutionary theory within the Bible as such. Yet, you won't find many terms spelled out in black and white in the Bible that are applied to certain truths, even those that you espouse. Does the absence of such terms then mean that the concepts that they represent are equally absent? No. For example, you won't find the word "trinity" in the Bible; yet, the Bible makes it very clear that God is triune. So though it is true that you won't find the word 'substitution' within the Bible as such, if you take a closer look at the text you will find that the concept of substitution is present. Of course, you could always disagree with this on the same grounds of your argument. However, if you choose to do this, then you must also apply the absence rule to your own theory, which would mean you would have to disagree with your own view, since the Bible does not say anything in black and white about a moral influence theory.

By the way, your explanation for the idea that substitution denotes the idea that God wanted man to die does not suffice. It makes no sense because God Himself is the one who gave His life for man. You see, what makes this concept so profound is that it speaks not only of a God of infinite love, but of One who can't lie. The idea that the wages of sin is death goes all the way back to what God had said to Adam in the garden. Had it not been for Christ dying in the place of man, mankind surely would have died as a result of sin. Had God not died in man's place, but allowed mankind to sin with impunity, He would have had to go back on His word by allowing this to take place. So if we take your theory to its final conclusion in light of this, it makes God out to be a liar--One who does not keep His word. I marvel that you can't see this!

The substitutionary theory does not foster such a conclusion, however. For, not only does it speak of love, but it also discloses the truth.

RC_NewProtestants

7th December 2006, 02:16 PM

Woob wrote:
While we were yet sinners Christ died for us".

Yes Christ died for us not in place of us. All the theories acknowledge Christ died for us. They are all about explaining how His death was for us. There is absolutely nothing "mere" about the revelation of God in human form. It is as infinite in love as anything else. What the Sub theory does is set Jesus as the one with infinite love and God the Father as the stern disciplinarian who has to be bought off. If God is one you can't have that.

Within this context the act of dying 'for' denotes the idea of dying 'in the place of'

No it does not it carries the connotation of dying for the benefit of. Clearly if that verse was understood as substitutionary then that would have been the main theory from the early days of the Christian church. It is not, and it does not carry that meaning either in Greek or in English translations.

Yet, you won't find many terms spelled out in black and white in the Bible that are applied to certain truths, even those that you espouse.

Wrong. The moral influence view is held by every Christian, they just want to add more to it. so it is a view clearly present and it is the view that was first expressed by those trying to explain the meaning of Christ's death.

Moral influence theory, penal substitution theory, Ransom theory are all commonly understood Theological terms. They are headings used for discussion of topics. No one claims that the words have to be found in the Bible. The same goes for Trinity or modalism they are concept terms which label ideas.

By the way, your explanation for the idea that substitution denotes the idea that God wanted man to die does not suffice.

Of course it does not suffice that is why it is a problem. It would not be called the penal theory if the idea of punishment as paying a penalty was not present in the theory. It makes no sense for God to pay the penalty to Himself, again a problem with the Sub theory.

The idea that the wages of sin is death goes all the way back to what God had said to Adam in the garden. Had it not been for Christ dying in the place of man, mankind surely would have died as a result of sin.

What are you talking about man has been dying ever since Adam. So the result was very accurate, and would have remained accurate if God did not offer the gift of life. But such things would never be revealed in the creation story. It is only meant to tell of the fall into sin not at all about the way out of the condition that we all found around us.

So if we take your theory to its final conclusion in light of this, it makes God out to be a liar--One who does not keep His word. I marvel that you can't see this!

How? I don't see that at all, it makes no sense either. From your reasoning it would seem that you would call God a liar because He in the creation story mentions nothing about life after death, or a way of escape from death. You are really stretching here.

The substitutionary theory does not foster such a conclusion, however. For, not only does it speak of love, but it also discloses the truth.

So to you the truth is that God cannot freely forgive but must inflict a punishment (penalty) upon himself in order to forgive people. That is strange truth.

Adventtruth

7th December 2006, 02:42 PM

RC...your integrity seem to be lacking.

We went over this the law does nothing.

You are not an honest reader RC. I said the law can only point out sin. (Rom 3:20) It can not forgive. The bible bears out that God only really passed over the sins of those who sinned under the Old Covanant until the New Covanant (Rom 3:25, Heb 10:4) I never said that forgiveness is not found in the Old Testament. This is something you infered. You fail to see Christ as the foundation of Gods righteousness. Gods grace of forgivness is based upon what Jesus did on our behalf. (Rom 5:21)

You have a reconciliation with out Jesus dieing in your place RC. This is an faulty view of atonement. You want justification before God without Jesus paying the price for you. How are you then justified R.C. if you have only a moral change? Are you then justified because God said so without Jesus dieing in your place??? The death of Christ would then be silly if He only died for an exhibiton only. Once again, you see sin only as pollution.(moral) Its more than that...Its also guilt.(legal) All are guilty before the law of God (Rom 3:19) before we even commit one ounce of sin. This is the truth which you deny.

Jesus boar our judicial punishment or substitutionary death upon the cross. This you refuse to bear...so how can you be rightfully Justified??? You are still in your sins because of the guilt you deny! You are correct...God is the law giver and we see the righteous Character of God through it. But God will not allow those whom He created for His glory to trample that same law that points to the law giver as righteous. He said He would punish those who do such. The punishment was poured out on Christ for us.

Your faulty views of moralism (The Moral influence Theory) is nothing more than another name for legalism seeing that you say you are just before God because you have an inward change in character (moral)and not a legal change in standing. (guilt)

Adventtruth

Adventtruth

7th December 2006, 04:51 PM

Yes Christ died for us not in place of us. All the theories acknowledge Christ died for us. They are all about explaining how His death was for us. There is absolutely nothing "mere" about the revelation of God in human form. It is as infinite in love as anything else. What the Sub theory does is set Jesus as the one with infinite love and God the Father as the stern disciplinarian who has to be bought off. If God is one you can't have that.

This is pure nonsense and a play on words on your part. To suggest that to die for us is not the same as in place of us is a silly game. Yes there was a revelation of the love of God for us in human form, thisd we do not deny...that revelation was true love for us and inplace of us. That too is imputed to our account aswell as His death. You are correct in the sub doctrine showing the infinite love of Jesus, but it does not stop there...It also shows the infinite love of the Father towards us sinners for punishing His beloved Son on our behalf. The punishment for sin imputed to the Son insted of fallen mankind, (who willingly took our place), is the altimate Substitution of all ages. Its called the great exchange. Without it you have pure legalism as mentioned in the bible. There is a righteousness through the law of God. This is what you are trying to do through your moral influience view of the atonement.

Wrong. The moral influence view is held by every Christian, they just want to add more to it. so it is a view clearly present and it is the view that was first expressed by those trying to explain the meaning of Christ's death.

The moral influeunce theory is not denied by the bible. Its there alright, but it rest upon its brother legal guilt. One must first be justified by a substitute who has the righteousness required by the law. Fallen mankind could never provide it seeing they are missing the mark with God. This is what you deny. I afirm your claims of the moral pollution becasue the bible tells me so, but you on the other hand are not dealing with the truths containd through out the bible...you would rather have legalism as your claim before the Judgment bar of God. As the song says..."I'd rather have Jesus"...it is His doing and dying that stands for me, not a moral character change which is mere legalism.

It makes no sense for God to pay the penalty to Himself, again a problem with the Sub theory.

It makes all the sense in the world when you understand a sovereign God. He was the only person who could pay the requirment.

Adventtruth

RC_NewProtestants

9th December 2006, 06:09 PM

Earlier in response to the following quote I said:

Quote:
Within this context the act of dying 'for' denotes the idea of dying 'in the place of'
No it does not it carries the connotation of dying for the benefit of. Clearly if that verse was understood as substitutionary then that would have been the main theory from the early days of the Christian church. It is not, and it does not carry that meaning either in Greek or in English translations.

You reply:

This is pure nonsense and a play on words on your part. To suggest that to die for us is not the same as in place of us is a silly game.

Actually to suppose that the use of the word “for” suggests in the place of is the silly game. Most people realize that the word “for” can have many meanings. To assume that it must mean the idea of substitution is the silly game and the usage in the world around us as well as in the Bible plainly shows us that in fact substitution is rarely meant. For instance the same day I read you post I read the following: Celeste as healthy nurse receives her flu shot for the patients. The idea is not that she is given a flu shot as a substitute for the patients getting flu shots. The concept is that as a community the hospital employees get flu shots to curb the spread of the flu. Thus the meaning is not substitution but for the benefit of the patients. If your knowledge of language can not let you see your error here then I will have to give up on the conversation, as language is vital to communication.

Advent wrote:
You are correct in the sub doctrine showing the infinite love of Jesus, but it does not stop there...It also shows the infinite love of the Father towards us sinners for punishing His beloved Son on our behalf.

Again that is not what I said, I said that it shows no more love then coming for the benefit of mankind.

My quote:
Yes Christ died for us not in place of us. All the theories acknowledge Christ died for us. They are all about explaining how His death was for us. There is absolutely nothing "mere" about the revelation of God in human form. It is as infinite in love as anything else. What the Sub theory does is set Jesus as the one with infinite love and God the Father as the stern disciplinarian who has to be bought off. If God is one you can't have that.

Advent wrote:
The punishment for sin imputed to the Son insted of fallen mankind, (who willingly took our place), is the altimate Substitution of all ages. Its called the great exchange. Without it you have pure legalism as mentioned in the bible. There is a righteousness through the law of God. This is what you are trying to do through your moral influience view of the atonement.

I really think you are confused on what legalism is. You want to accept the theory that our sin is imputed to Christ and His righteousness is imputed to us, and yet you think a theory that denies the accounting terminology is legalism So in effect you accept the idea of transference of sin even though sin is not an object or thing that can be transferred, yet your idea of transference is not legalism and the idea which reflects reality is legalism. What is does is reflect a lot upon just how distorted the idea of substitution is to many areas of theology. It is why my article at: http://newprotestants.com/Subatone.htm
Is as long as it is, it covers topics like sin, blood, death and even the symbology of the Day of Atonement scapegoat.

Advent wrote:
The moral influeunce theory is not denied by the bible. Its there alright, but it rest upon its brother legal guilt. One must first be justified by a substitute who has the righteousness required by the law.

Really, that might come as a surprise to Elijah and Enoch. Isn’t the righteousness required by God, why plead to law? But for your sake why don’t you show us somewhere in the Bible where someone innocent pays the penalty as a substitute for the guilty. Surely if you are focused upon law you can show that in the law. When you mention being Justified, why do you take it out of it’s context. The context is that we are justified by faith. Now where to you get faith from, it is certainly not through substitution. It can’t be from the legal brother guilt either. This leaves us with the influence of God that creates in us the ability to have faith in God.

(Rom 3:22 NIV) This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

What is meant there is not faith in substitution but faith that Jesus Christ is God. This redemption is brought about by the revelation of Jesus Christ in his sacrificial life death and resurrection. Redemption is not dependent upon substitution as you must be aware. It was redemption that brought out the Children of Israel from slavery. Something done without any substitution.
(Exo 15:13 NIV) "In your unfailing love you will lead the people you have redeemed. In your strength you will guide them to your holy dwelling.

Advent wrote
Fallen mankind could never provide it seeing they are missing the mark with God. This is what you deny. I afirm your claims of the moral pollution becasue the bible tells me so, but you on the other hand are not dealing with the truths containd through out the bible...you would rather have legalism as your claim before the Judgment bar of God. As the song says..."I'd rather have Jesus"...it is His doing and dying that stands for me, not a moral character change which is mere legalism.

No I never denied that fallen man misses the mark. Why would my focus be forgiveness and reconciliation if I were denying that man misses the mark? In fact I am dealing with the truths in the Bible rather then the 15th century substitutional theory which is foreign to the Bible. It is not legalism that I claim, as you claim in a rather confused way. It is that God is on my side already, I only have to accept that God is for me not against me. I don’t stand behind Jesus as my robe of righteousness because Jesus is God and His righteousness is that He is God and His love for man is freely given to all who are willing to trust Him. For the believing Christian there is no Judgment bar for there is not condemnation for those who believe in God:

(Rom 8:1 NIV) Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus ,(Rom 8:2 NIV) because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. (Rom 8:3 NIV) For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,
(Rom 8:4 NIV) in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.
(Rom 8:5 NIV) Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. (Rom 8:6 NIV) The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace;

Notice what is conveyed here, the change of the mind of the sinful man. This is not what Substitution does, this is what the influence of God does.

Advent wrote
Quote:
It makes no sense for God to pay the penalty to Himself, again a problem with the Sub theory.
It makes all the sense in the world when you understand a sovereign God. He was the only person who could pay the requirment

What, you mean He was the only one who could pay the requirement that He requires. So you want to put forth that God requires that God kills Himself to meet His requirement. This goes back to the misunderstanding of God and the law, the assumption that forgiveness is not possible without punishment. The problem is that this presents God as less then a rational being. It diminishes the love of God as well as the Justice of God, making justice something about fulfilling particular requirements rather then doing the right thing and returning harmony. And on top of all that God performs the inflicting of the penalty at the hands of evil men. Making evil become His agent. It is a theory that is wholly unworthy of continued Christian acceptance.

StormyOne

12th December 2006, 11:24 AM

RC... I must commend you on your patience.... while this part of the forum is labeled progressive, there are few here that actually exhibit progressive thinking.....

Adventtruth

14th December 2006, 12:15 PM

Advent wrote
Quote:
It makes no sense for God to pay the penalty to Himself, again a problem with the Sub theory.
It makes all the sense in the world when you understand a sovereign God. He was the only person who could pay the requirment

What, you mean He was the only one who could pay the requirement that He requires. So you want to put forth that God requires that God kills Himself to meet His requirement. This goes back to the misunderstanding of God and the law, the assumption that forgiveness is not possible without punishment. The problem is that this presents God as less then a rational being. It diminishes the love of God as well as the Justice of God, making justice something about fulfilling particular requirements rather then doing the right thing and returning harmony. And on top of all that God performs the inflicting of the penalty at the hands of evil men. Making evil become His agent. It is a theory that is wholly unworthy of continued Christian acceptance.

I will only respond to this portion of your reply, seeing you are not going to believe the bible in context.

God can't die, if He could He would not be God...Jesus has two natures.

John 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

John 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father

1 John 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

Its clear that you don't want to believe the bible account about Jesus and his atoning death for us. Its a shame you don't believe in the great exchange. He died as our substitute because of our legal guilt before the law of God. Romans 5 bears this out.

Adventtruth:)

RC_NewProtestants

14th December 2006, 01:18 PM

I will only respond to this portion of your reply, seeing you are not going to believe the bible in context.

Its clear that you don't want to believe the bible account about Jesus and his atoning death for us. Its a shame you don't believe in the great exchange. He died as our substitute because of our legal guilt before the law of God. Romans 5 bears this out.

Adventtruth:)

This is why I wanted you to know the history of Atonement theories. The Bible in context does not nor ever has taught substitutionary atonement. It was a tradition based upon the middle age tradition of satisfaction. If a person does not let the bible verses speak for themselves they are forcing their opinions into the bible verses. This is what you have been doing. Though your version does not make contextual sense you cling to your tradition that the Substitutionary Atonement is what the Bible teaches. You have a great exchange yet you have no Bible evidence for a great exchange. You have Jesus death yet you claim Jesus can't die. But that is what they Bible says very clearly. I am not trying to say that God died. God can not die as you say. But God existed before Jesus was born, that there is an incarnation of God as Jesus does not mean that God would die when the body of Jesus died any more then there was no God until Jesus was born. I don't even know why you have chosen this tangent. Possibly somehne related to the weak thesis that is the substitutionary theory.

Apparently you think those verses you quoted say that Jesus killed Himself rather then allowed human beings to kill Him. If you are going to deal with context then you really have to look at the context. Jesus had the power to avoid being killed, in fact there were times when He did use that power, such as when the angry crowd went for him and he rather miraculously walked through the crowd. Jesus laid down His life by allowing the actions of humanity to carry forward their selfish desires. Going so far as to kill their own Creator

Matthew 26:2 "You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man is to be handed over for crucifixion."
Luke 18:32-33 "For He will be handed over to the Gentiles, and will be mocked and mistreated and spit upon, 33 "They will scourge [Him] and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again."

Act 3:15You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.

Adventtruth

15th December 2006, 09:43 AM

This is why I wanted you to know the history of Atonement theories. The Bible in context does not nor ever has taught substitutionary atonement. It was a tradition based upon the middle age tradition of satisfaction. If a person does not let the bible verses speak for themselves they are forcing their opinions into the bible verses. This is what you have been doing. Though your version does not make contextual sense you cling to your tradition that the Substitutionary Atonement is what the Bible teaches. You have a great exchange yet you have no Bible evidence for a great exchange. You have Jesus death yet you claim Jesus can't die. But that is what they Bible says very clearly. I am not trying to say that God died. God can not die as you say. But God existed before Jesus was born, that there is an incarnation of God as Jesus does not mean that God would die when the body of Jesus died any more then there was no God until Jesus was born. I don't even know why you have chosen this tangent. Possibly somehne related to the weak thesis that is the substitutionary theory.

Apparently you think those verses you quoted say that Jesus killed Himself rather then allowed human beings to kill Him. If you are going to deal with context then you really have to look at the context. Jesus had the power to avoid being killed, in fact there were times when He did use that power, such as when the angry crowd went for him and he rather miraculously walked through the crowd. Jesus laid down His life by allowing the actions of humanity to carry forward their selfish desires. Going so far as to kill their own Creator

Matthew 26:2 "You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man is to be handed over for crucifixion."
Luke 18:32-33 "For He will be handed over to the Gentiles, and will be mocked and mistreated and spit upon, 33 "They will scourge [Him] and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again."

Act 3:15You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.

What youhave written above is a testimony that you have a faulty understanding of scripture. from your point of view it is obvious that you wont see substitution.

You wont see why God is just.

You wont see why Jesus truly had to die.

You wont see legal guilt.

You and I can go back over this forever it wont do any good.

Your veiws leave you with legalism if Christ was not your substitution. A moral righteousness will never save what the law has already found guilty.

You can say I don't understand all you want, you can talk about the history of the atonement all you want but the bottom line is with out being Justified by the one who traded places with the human race, with out His imputation of righteousness through His blood for you...you have nothing,

-:) AT

RC_NewProtestants

15th December 2006, 01:12 PM

You can say I don't understand all you want, you can talk about the history of the atonement all you want but the bottom line is with out being Justified by the one who traded places with the human race, with out His imputation of righteousness through His blood for you...you have nothing,

All right I understand that it is hard for someone to leave behind their traditions. So history is of no importance to you. I do think it is a shame to say of so many Christians throughout history and currently such as the entire Greek Orthodox Church, that they have nothing. I on the other hand have a broader view which allows for God to save people without the need for them to believe in a specific atonement theory. Their belief in God is what brings them to salvation not the specifics about how they believe in the atonement. They may be wrong about their atonement theory but they are not left with nothing. This is why the moral influence theory works so much better then such views as substitution which wants to condemn people unless they accept substitution, and if they don't accept substitution too bad for them.

So if I believe that God can and does save people who may even have the wrong ideas about God, why do I care about correcting wrong beliefs? The reason is that we are actually in a post Christian world, this has been the case for Europe for quite a while and it is rapidly happening in America. Of course in countries that were never heavily influenced by Christianity they have always been in the position of having to explain Christianity.

So the point of all this is that we need to have a well defined and easily explainable doctrine of why Jesus came and lived and died and rose again. The Penal theory can't do that. I already asked to give the best Substitutionary texts from the Bible but that is ignored. Instead the current Evangelical Christian retreats to their tradition. They can't explain why Substitution is Biblical. They can't explain how substitution is just in any kind of penal system. They can't even explain how Jesus suffered the penalty of a law He did not break. All of this while denying that forgiveness is a possibility without punishment. Something that everyone knows is possible and something that the Bible tells people to do.

So the Penal theorists have only one answer. Accept what we say that Jesus paid the penalty and there was a great exchange. Don't bother your little mind with how this could be, just accept it or you are a legalist (well that is on this thread, I have never heard that charge before normally it is the antinomian charge). But all this tells people something about your religion and your concept of God. And it is that concept of God which destroys peoples confidence in the Christian message.

We watch across the world as Christianity fades from once Christian nations yet we don't seem to ask why. Why is the God of Christianity so easily abandoned. The answer is to the modern mind that that Christian God does not make sense, He may say He is love but look at how He can't even forgive but must punish, is that love. If the God is not attractive, the whole religion falls apart.

Adventtruth

15th December 2006, 03:01 PM

All right I understand that it is hard for someone to leave behind their traditions. So history is of no importance to you. I do think it is a shame to say of so many Christians throughout history and currently such as the entire Greek Orthodox Church, that they have nothing. I on the other hand have a broader view which allows for God to save people without the need for them to believe in a specific atonement theory. Their belief in God is what brings them to salvation not the specifics about how they believe in the atonement. They may be wrong about their atonement theory but they are not left with nothing. This is why the moral influence theory works so much better then such views as substitution which wants to condemn people unless they accept substitution, and if they don't accept substitution too bad for them.

So if I believe that God can and does save people who may even have the wrong ideas about God, why do I care about correcting wrong beliefs? The reason is that we are actually in a post Christian world, this has been the case for Europe for quite a while and it is rapidly happening in America. Of course in countries that were never heavily influenced by Christianity they have always been in the position of having to explain Christianity.

So the point of all this is that we need to have a well defined and easily explainable doctrine of why Jesus came and lived and died and rose again. The Penal theory can't do that. I already asked to give the best Substitutionary texts from the Bible but that is ignored. Instead the current Evangelical Christian retreats to their tradition. They can't explain why Substitution is Biblical. They can't explain how substitution is just in any kind of penal system. They can't even explain how Jesus suffered the penalty of a law He did not break. All of this while denying that forgiveness is a possibility without punishment. Something that everyone knows is possible and something that the Bible tells people to do.

So the Penal theorists have only one answer. Accept what we say that Jesus paid the penalty and there was a great exchange. Don't bother your little mind with how this could be, just accept it or you are a legalist (well that is on this thread, I have never heard that charge before normally it is the antinomian charge). But all this tells people something about your religion and your concept of God. And it is that concept of God which destroys peoples confidence in the Christian message.

We watch across the world as Christianity fades from once Christian nations yet we don't seem to ask why. Why is the God of Christianity so easily abandoned. The answer is to the modern mind that that Christian God does not make sense, He may say He is love but look at how He can't even forgive but must punish, is that love. If the God is not attractive, the whole religion falls apart.

Hey RC.

First let me say I thank you for helping to keep our conversation civil.

Now I don't want you to think I believe chirsitians have to have all the correct doctrines in place in order for salvation...as long as believers trust Jesus for salvation and are sanctified I believe they are saved.

Now I have presented scripture for you show the penal view. But now I am in the learning mold. Maybe I have the wrong Idea about the Moral theory. So kindly give me a brief out line of this doctrine so that I can learn. I am outside looking in, you are on the inside of this doctrine. So