Could God forgive without crucifixion?

[Clete]

Nickolai,

Please read the following verses and answer the questions which follow....

1 Corinthians 5:5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.​

1. Did Paul forgive the offender mentioned in this passage or did he judge him?
2. Did Paul teach those he was writing too to forgive the offender in this passage or did he teach to excommunicate the offender?
3. Was the excommunication to be done in the name of Satan or in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ?
4. Does Paul's teaching in this passage contradict the rest of the bible's teaching on forgiveness or does it just contradict your doctrine?


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[genuineoriginal]

There is not one single teaching anywhere in the bible where we are taught to unilaterally forgive one single soul for a single sin or offense that is not repented of - period.

Yep.

:thumb:

 

[Crucible]

There is not one single teaching anywhere in the bible where we are taught to unilaterally forgive one single soul for a single sin or offense that is not repented of - period.

Yeah, never mind the crucifixion of Christ- the CENTRAL EVENT OF THE ENTIRE BIBLE

 

[Clete]

Yeah, never mind the crucifixion of Christ- the CENTRAL EVENT OF THE ENTIRE BIBLE

Read the thread.

 

[Clete]

You know, I'm somewhat surprised at the lack of understanding among those here who at least call themselves believers. It makes me wonder just how wide spread this lack of understanding is throughout Christianity.

Perhaps it's just that, belief. I consider blind belief to be the opposite of faith. It is mere mental accent. There's no substance behind it, no reason, no understanding, no wisdom, just pure blind belief.

As the last poster stated (without having any idea how what he said relates to the thread) the death of Jesus on the cross is the central event of the whole history of history! And the thread itself asks what is perhaps the most important question that could be formulated by the mind of man; Why did Jesus have to die?

The lunatic who asked the question claims that he was enlightened by God Himself and yet answers the question in so many words.... "He didn't have to die, He just did."

Unbelievable!

If Predi boy actually believes that he's not even a Christian, never mind "enlightened". I mean what does he think Jesus was asking the Father when He prayed the night before His death? Not once but twice Jesus asked the Father, "if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me". Does Predi think, that someone was offering Jesus a cup of harsh tea and that Jesus was trying to avoid an inconvenient case of the runs?

Later, Paul teaches us that if Jesus be not risen from the dead that we are all still in our sins and to be pitied. Paul clearly believed and was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write into the bible that the death and resurrection of Jesus where necessary for the remission of sins.

Why? There can be only one answer. Justice!

Now, for the most rabidly insane Calvinists (and ironically many Catholics as well) among those reading this, the terms 'justice' and 'arbitrary' present no conflict in your broken minds but those who's minds still function, understand, unlike Predi boy, that words do have meaning and that there is a conflict between the two concepts. They are, in fact, opposites. (Isaiah 5:20)

It is justice that demands death for having rebelled against the God of Life. Any third grader can understand this exceedingly simple concept. If the death of the rebel is to be avoided, a proper substitute must be found. Where do you find an innocent substitute to sacrifice among a race of fallen sinners? Well, you don't! And even if you somehow did find an innocent man, his death would only have been sufficient to pay for one other person, not the whole race and even that is presuming that such a man would have been willing to voluntarily die for someone else. So God decided that He would become a man Himself and offer Himself as the sacrifice. He, being God, would be of sufficient value to pay the sin debt of the entire race of mankind (and then some). And so He did exactly that and did so voluntarily (John 10:18) and thereby bought the RIGHT to show mercy while meeting the demands of justice.

Now folks, that's nothing at all but the gospel itself. There is nothing there that should even be a little bit controversial. To reject a syllable of it is to reject the whole. God is NOT arbitrary! Jesus HAD to die BECAUSE God is just! If God were arbitrary, He would be unjust, by definition. And if God is unjust then who wants to have anything to do with Him in the first place, never mind worship Him or pray to Him? The whole grizzly episode of the cross would have been a gruesome, unnecessary waste of time and nothing at all about the Christian faith would make any sense whatsoever! The entire Christian faith rest on a single premise: The death penalty is justice. Believe it or die in your sin.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Predi]

You know, I'm somewhat surprised at the lack of understanding among those here(...)

I can see that your understanding made you proud and bitter and close-minded, so that you are not able to try to rethink your religion. Rather than talking to me, you chose to talk about me, calling me names, trying to mock me and diminish me. Probably it made you feel better (for a little while only), as you had no idea how little I cared.

This is what religion does to people, and I can't put it into words well enough how happy I am to be beyond that! :wave2::banana ::surf: arty: :cheers:

 

[bling]

You know, I'm somewhat surprised at the lack of understanding among those here who at least call themselves believers. It makes me wonder just how wide spread this lack of understanding is throughout Christianity.

Perhaps it's just that, belief. I consider blind belief to be the opposite of faith. It is mere mental accent. There's no substance behind it, no reason, no understanding, no wisdom, just pure blind belief.

As the last poster stated (without having any idea how what he said relates to the thread) the death of Jesus on the cross is the central event of the whole history of history! And the thread itself asks what is perhaps the most important question that could be formulated by the mind of man; Why did Jesus have to die?

The lunatic who asked the question claims that he was enlightened by God Himself and yet answers the question in so many words.... "He didn't have to die, He just did."

Unbelievable!

If Predi boy actually believes that he's not even a Christian, never mind "enlightened". I mean what does he think Jesus was asking the Father when He prayed the night before His death? Not once but twice Jesus asked the Father, "if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me". Does Predi think, that someone was offering Jesus a cup of harsh tea and that Jesus was trying to avoid an inconvenient case of the runs?

Later, Paul teaches us that if Jesus be not risen from the dead that we are all still in our sins and to be pitied. Paul clearly believed and was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write into the bible that the death and resurrection of Jesus where necessary for the remission of sins.

Why? There can be only one answer. Justice!

Now, for the most rabidly insane Calvinists (and ironically many Catholics as well) among those reading this, the terms 'justice' and 'arbitrary' present no conflict in your broken minds but those who's minds still function, understand, unlike Predi boy, that words do have meaning and that there is a conflict between the two concepts. They are, in fact, opposites. (Isaiah 5:20)

It is justice that demands death for having rebelled against the God of Life. Any third grader can understand this exceedingly simple concept. If the death of the rebel is to be avoided, a proper substitute must be found. Where do you find an innocent substitute to sacrifice among a race of fallen sinners? Well, you don't! And even if you somehow did find an innocent man, his death would only have been sufficient to pay for one other person, not the whole race and even that is presuming that such a man would have been willing to voluntarily die for someone else. So God decided that He would become a man Himself and offer Himself as the sacrifice. He, being God, would be of sufficient value to pay the sin debt of the entire race of mankind (and then some). And so He did exactly that and did so voluntarily (John 10:18) and thereby bought the RIGHT to show mercy while meeting the demands of justice.

Now folks, that's nothing at all but the gospel itself. There is nothing there that should even be a little bit controversial. To reject a syllable of it is to reject the whole. God is NOT arbitrary! Jesus HAD to die BECAUSE God is just! If God were arbitrary, He would be unjust, by definition. And if God is unjust then who wants to have anything to do with Him in the first place, never mind worship Him or pray to Him? The whole grizzly episode of the cross would have been a gruesome, unnecessary waste of time and nothing at all about the Christian faith would make any sense whatsoever! The entire Christian faith rest on a single premise: The death penalty is justice. Believe it or die in your sin.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete,

The OP is asking about the sacrifice of Christ which is the cruel torture, humiliation and murder of Christ (the Crucifixion), Paul in 1 Cor. 15 is talking only about the resurrection of Christ. Yes Christ had to die first to rise later, but that does not explain the cruel torturous death (sacrificial death).
You, like others, lump the whole torture, humiliation, murder, death, burial and resurrection together.

Paul is telling us in 1 Cor.15: 12-34, why Christ had to have risen, since it is what He (Paul) has been saying happened, so if it never happened; Paul is a false teacher and nothing he has said is correct including the forgiveness of their sins.

If Christ’s death is all that was needed: why did he not get heat stroke, fall off the donkey and break His neck?

For God to be truly “just/fair” the guilty have to be disciplined (punished) and the innocent should not be tortured and murdered by the judge (God and Christ are innocent). Sin itself cannot be punished (disciplined), but the sinner needs to be disciplined if at all possible and to do it any other way would be wrong.

Penal Substitution is not just, yet God is just.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You know, I'm somewhat surprised at the lack of understanding among those here who at least call themselves believers. It makes me wonder just how wide spread this lack of understanding is throughout Christianity.

Perhaps it's just that, belief. I consider blind belief to be the opposite of faith. It is mere mental accent. There's no substance behind it, no reason, no understanding, no wisdom, just pure blind belief.

True

As the last poster stated (without having any idea how what he said relates to the thread) the death of Jesus on the cross is the central event of the whole history of history! And the thread itself asks what is perhaps the most important question that could be formulated by the mind of man; Why did Jesus have to die?

Why? There can be only one answer. Justice!

Not really.
Justice is never served by an unjust death.

That is why I believe the crucifixion was the ultimate test of faith and obedience that was given to match the value of the reward given to Jesus, the power to grant eternal life to whosoever He chooses.

 

[Clete]

Not really.
Justice is never served by an unjust death.

If you mean murder, then yes I agree, but Jesus voluntarily laid down His own life in just payment for the sin of the whole world.

John 10:17 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 No one takes 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 command I have received from My Father.”​

That is why I believe the crucifixion was the ultimate test of faith and obedience that was given to match the value of the reward given to Jesus, the power to grant eternal life to whosoever He chooses.

What?

Who's granting the power to whom? You're going to run into problems with this idea. The Father and Jesus are One. God the Son is the Creator of all things. Everything that exists is owned by Him. In a very real sense you're suggesting that God was testing Himself and granting authority to Himself.

Further, there is no biblical basis for this idea that I can think of. The forgiveness of sin required the shedding of innocent blood. Jesus' was the only such blood that existed. Therefore the shedding of His blood was necessary or else the whole race of man would be condemned.

And then there's Romans 3....

Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all[h] who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.​

What could that last sentence mean except precisely what I've been saying in this thread?


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Clete,

The OP is asking about the sacrifice of Christ which is the cruel torture, humiliation and murder of Christ (the Crucifixion), Paul in 1 Cor. 15 is talking only about the resurrection of Christ. Yes Christ had to die first to rise later, but that does not explain the cruel torturous death (sacrificial death).
You, like others, lump the whole torture, humiliation, murder, death, burial and resurrection together.

No, I don't. I just understand that you can rise from the dead unless you first die, as you already pointed out.

Jesus did NOT have to die on the cross, He simply had to die as a sacrifice for sin. Had Israel accepted Him as their Messiah, for example, God could have had the high priest offer Christ as a sacrifice in the temple the same way a lamp or bull was sacrificed.

Paul is telling us in 1 Cor.15: 12-34, why Christ had to have risen, since it is what He (Paul) has been saying happened, so if it never happened; Paul is a false teacher and nothing he has said is correct including the forgiveness of their sins.

I think he's says a bit more than that. The resurrection was prophesied in a hundred different ways, not the least of which is Jesus Himself saying that He would rise on the third day. Had He not done so, it would have been more than proof that Paul was a liar but that Jesus Himself was a liar and therefore not worthy to be the perfect, unblemished Lamb of God.

If Christ’s death is all that was needed: why did he not get heat stroke, fall off the donkey and break His neck?

In either case, He would have become unqualified to fulfill the scriptures. He was to be the unblemished Lamb of God. He had to die healthy and without broken bones. Part of the reason this is true is to demonstrate that it wasn't happening by accident, that it was intentional and under Jesus' control. It had to be voluntary or it would have been unjust.

For God to be truly “just/fair” the guilty have to be disciplined (punished) and the innocent should not be tortured and murdered by the judge (God and Christ are innocent). Sin itself cannot be punished (disciplined), but the sinner needs to be disciplined if at all possible and to do it any other way would be wrong.

This is only so if the substitute wasn't offering Himself voluntarily. If He was forced, then its just murder.

Penal Substitution is not just, yet God is just.

Involuntary penal substitution is unjust.

Your alternative is to declare that God is unjust. Contradictions do not exist, bling. You CANNOT have it both ways. If penal substitution is fundamentally unjust, whether voluntary or not, then God is unjust by that definition. You might want to live your life pretending otherwise, but it'll be only that, pretending.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

I can see that your understanding made you proud and bitter and close-minded, so that you are not able to try to rethink your religion. Rather than talking to me, you chose to talk about me, calling me names, trying to mock me and diminish me. Probably it made you feel better (for a little while only), as you had no idea how little I cared.

This is what religion does to people, and I can't put it into words well enough how happy I am to be beyond that! :wave2::banana ::surf: arty: :cheers:

I had no doubt at all that you wouldn't care. It's always the hardest hearted fools that try to tell me that I'm heard hearted. It is consistently the most closed minded idiots who refuse to think that chastise me for not "rethink my religion" in spite of the fact that I've done nothing at all but present totally rational arguments that, in this case especially, are totally biblical arguments that you didn't even respond too! It's ever only the haters who read anger into my posts where none exists.

And to put a cherry on top, you have the audacity to claim that God Himself enlightened you! What are crock of warm horse manure that is! Ridicule is what you deserve and it is all that you will get from me - unless you repent - then I'll forgive you, not before.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I talked about you rather than too you directly because you, in fact, on my ignore list and there's no guarantee that I will read, or even notice, any post you write.

 

[genuineoriginal]

If you mean murder, then yes I agree, but Jesus voluntarily laid down His own life in just payment for the sin of the whole world.

John 10:17 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 No one takes 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 command I have received from My Father.”​

The problem with that belief is that there is nowhere in the Bible where it claims that Jesus died as a payment for our sins.

What?

Who's granting the power to whom?

What is written in the Bible about it?

John 3:35 35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.​

John 5:22 22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:​

John 5:26-27 26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.​

John 8:28 28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.​

John 12:49 49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.​

You're going to run into problems with this idea. The Father and Jesus are One. God the Son is the Creator of all things. Everything that exists is owned by Him. In a very real sense you're suggesting that God was testing Himself and granting authority to Himself.

Does the scripture state anywhere that God came to earth to die?
No.

Does the scripture state anywhere that God sent His own Son?

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

Don't confuse the actions of the Father with the actions of the Son.

Further, there is no biblical basis for this idea that I can think of.

You seem to have forgotten the trial of Abraham's faith.

Hebrews 11:17-19 17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.​

The forgiveness of sin required the shedding of innocent blood. Jesus' was the only such blood that existed. Therefore the shedding of His blood was necessary or else the whole race of man would be condemned.

Not quite.
The shedding of blood was for the establishment of the New Covenant.

Matthew 26:28 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.​

Part of the New Covenant was the forgiveness of sins.

Jeremiah 31:33-34 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.​

The shedding of blood was not done to pay for our sins.

And then there's Romans 3....

Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all[h] who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.​

What could that last sentence mean except precisely what I've been saying in this thread?


Resting in Him,
Clete

If you think it is just to kill an innocent person, then you are quite mistaken.

Jeremiah 22:3 3 Thus saith the Lord; Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place.​

 

[bling]

Jesus did NOT have to die on the cross, He simply had to die as a sacrifice for sin. Had Israel accepted Him as their Messiah, for example, God could have had the high priest offer Christ as a sacrifice in the temple the same way a lamp or bull was sacrificed

.
Wow! You are really missing the significance and importance of Christ and God allowing wicked people to cruelly torture humiliate and murder Christ.

The priest’s sacrifices were done very humanly and are but a dim shadow of the reality we find in Christ’s sacrifice.

I think he's says a bit more than that. The resurrection was prophesied in a hundred different ways, not the least of which is Jesus Himself saying that He would rise on the third day. Had He not done so, it would have been more than proof that Paul was a liar but that Jesus Himself was a liar and therefore not worthy to be the perfect, unblemished Lamb of God.

There is nothing “unjust” about Christ dying humanly (without suffering). Yes there is lots of Old Testament scripture talking about a cruel torturous humiliating murder of the Christ, so if they were not in the OT but just a death, could Christ have died without suffering and fulfilled His/God’s objective?
I am saying: NO, he had to go through this for my sake.

In either case, He would have become unqualified to fulfill the scriptures. He was to be the unblemished Lamb of God. He had to die healthy and without broken bones. Part of the reason this is true is to demonstrate that it wasn't happening by accident, that it was intentional and under Jesus' control. It had to be voluntary or it would have been unjust.

This is only so if the substitute wasn't offering Himself voluntarily. If He was forced, then its just murder.


Involuntary penal substitution is unjust.

It does not matter if it is “voluntary” or involuntary it is still unjust.

Your alternative is to declare that God is unjust. Contradictions do not exist, bling. You CANNOT have it both ways. If penal substitution is fundamentally unjust, whether voluntary or not, then God is unjust by that definition. You might want to live your life pretending otherwise, but it'll be only that, pretending.

Not at all! God is totally just! What happened is not penal substitution and it is not the ransom theory of Atonement (paying satan off), the moral example theory (although Christ is always our example there is more going on here) and it is not any of the other common “theories”.

Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and the writer of Hebrews all describe the sacrifice itself as a “ransom payment”, and they do not say it is “like” a ransom payment (an allegory), but say it is a ransom payment.

We might agree that the payment is the cruel torture, humiliation and murder of Christ.

We might agree Deity is making the payment.

We might agree the child of God is being set free to go to God the Father.

The key element of the ransom we might disagree on is: “who is/are the kidnappers” (the person holding back the child of God from going to the Father)?

Some might suggest satan, but God does not “owe” satan anything and God is powerful enough to just as easily take his child away from satan without making any payment so it would actually be wrong for God to pay satan.

Some describe it as an intangible like “sin” , but intangibles do not have to be paid off.

Some say it is God paying Himself, but God is not a kidnapper of His own children and sure would not need the cruel death of Christ.

So who would take value and benefit from the cruel torturous death of Christ?

When I look back at Acts 2 and Peter’s sermon: would 3000 have been baptized that day if Christ had died a painless death?

Would 3000 have shouted with their last breath “what can we do?”, if the had not experienced a death blow to their heart (the worst experience they could have and still live)? Acts 2:37

If Peter could not say: “whom you crucified”, would there have been 3000 baptized that day? Act 2:36

Did those 3000 needed Jesus to go through a cruel torturous murder, to get them to respond to the Gospel message that day? Did his death have value and benefit in their conversion?

Who is holding back the child of God that resides in the rebellious disobedient nonbeliever?

Is it the nonbeliever himself; keep a child of God (himself) from going to God?

That would make the nonbeliever himself the kidnapper of a child of God.

Will the kidnapper (nonbeliever) accept or reject the ransom payment, made for him and to him?
That is just an introduction.

 

[Clete]

genuineoriginal,

I'm going to assume for now that I've misunderstood your position here because otherwise you're dangerously close to denying the gospel, if you haven't already done so.

Jesus Himself said that His blood, innocent blood, was shed for the remission of sins!

Matthew 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.​

And I am not the one who claimed that the shedding of Jesus' blood met the demands of justice, PAUL THE APOSTLE DID!

Here, I'll quote it again. I wonder if you'll simply repeat your position a third time in response to it as though I hadn't quoted it or that it didn't address the issue?

Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.​

Those five verse state not only that Jesus' shed blood allowed God to justly pass over sins but that His blood paid for those sins! That's what the word redemption means. To redeem somethings means that its been bought and paid for and that the payment was satisfactory to God the Father, which is what it means for something to be a propitiation.

And there is one last point and it is by far and away the most important. I'm going to ask you three very straight forward questions, all of which require either a "yes" or a "no". ANY answer you give to any one of the following questions that is not a single syllable "yes" will mean that you ARE NOT a Christian and that any further discussion with you on Christian doctrine will be address in that context, if at all.

1. Did the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth and all that is in them become a man?
2. Did that same Creator die?
3. Did He rise from the dead?

Please get the answers right!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Bling,

You are a lunatic. I should have known better than to address your post in the first place.

:wave:



Anyone else who even suggests that Jesus' death was unjust will find themselves on my permanent ignore list. If I have to put this whole website on ignore by not posting here ever again, that's precisely what I'll do. The mere suggestion that Jesus' death was unjust, a death which HE ORCHESTRATED and allowed to occur ON PURPOSE and VOLUNTARILY, is straight up blasphemy and I simply will not put up with it any further. I'm not going to argue it and I'm not interested in discussing it any further. That's it and that's all.

Clete

 

[genuineoriginal]

genuineoriginal,

I'm going to assume for now that I've misunderstood your position here because otherwise you're dangerously close to denying the gospel, if you haven't already done so.

Jesus Himself said that His blood, innocent blood, was shed for the remission of sins!

Matthew 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.​

And I am not the one who claimed that the shedding of Jesus' blood met the demands of justice, PAUL THE APOSTLE DID!

Here, I'll quote it again. I wonder if you'll simply repeat your position a third time in response to it as though I hadn't quoted it or that it didn't address the issue?

Have you considered that it is your unwillingness to accept Jesus being given the power to forgive sins that is the issue?

Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.​

Those five verse state not only that Jesus' shed blood allowed God to justly pass over sins but that His blood paid for those sins! That's what the word redemption means. To redeem somethings means that its been bought and paid for and that the payment was satisfactory to God the Father, which is what it means for something to be a propitiation.

You seem to be reading into the verses in Romans and adding things that it is not actually stating.
If you do this with the entire Bible, then there is no reason for you to use the Bible for any doctrine.

There are several ways of looking at the death of Jesus on the cross.
The atoning sacrifice
The kinsman redeemer
The man who stood in the gap

It would be unrighteous for God to send His Son as an atoning sacrifice.
It would be righteous for the son of man (Jesus) to be a kinsman redeemer.
It would be righteous for the Son of God (Jesus) to stand in the gap.

Your idea that Jesus was an atoning sacrifice does not provide redemption, especially if you keep insisting that it was God Himself that died to appease Himself (appease is what propitiation means).

Jesus was both the kinsman redeemer (a close relative that paid for our debt) and a person who stood in the gap (stood up to God and convinced Him to spare the guilty).
He did this because His Father commanded Him to do it.

Romans 5:19 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.​

And there is one last point and it is by far and away the most important. I'm going to ask you three very straight forward questions, all of which require either a "yes" or a "no". ANY answer you give to any one of the following questions that is not a single syllable "yes" will mean that you ARE NOT a Christian and that any further discussion with you on Christian doctrine will be address in that context, if at all.

1. Did the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth and all that is in them become a man?
2. Did that same Creator die?
3. Did He rise from the dead?

Please get the answers right!

Resting in Him,
Clete

There is only one right answer for these questions, and you won't accept it.

Here is the answer:
The Bible does not state that the creator of the heavens and earth became a man, died, and was raised from the dead.
The Bible does state that God created the heavens and the earth, God sent His only Son, the Son of God died on the cross, and God raised the Son of God from the dead.

I can provide the verses that show what the Bible states.

ANY answer you give to any one of the following questions that is not a single syllable "yes" will mean that you ARE NOT a Christian and that any further discussion with you on Christian doctrine will be address in that context, if at all.

Actually, your demand means that you are not a Christian, and has nothing to do with me being a Bible Believing Christian.

 

[bling]

Bling,

You are a lunatic. I should have known better than to address your post in the first place.

:wave:



Anyone else who even suggests that Jesus' death was unjust will find themselves on my permanent ignore list. If I have to put this whole website on ignore by not posting here ever again, that's precisely what I'll do. The mere suggestion that Jesus' death was unjust, a death which HE ORCHESTRATED and allowed to occur ON PURPOSE and VOLUNTARILY, is straight up blasphemy and I simply will not put up with it any further. I'm not going to argue it and I'm not interested in discussing it any further. That's it and that's all.

Clete

Obviously you did not even read my response, because I said God is totally just and so what happen with the crucifixion is totally just and fair, so that also means it cannot be penal substitution by a willing volunteer.

 

[freelight]

Reconsidering ideas about forgiveness.......

Reconsidering ideas about forgiveness.......

There is not one single teaching anywhere in the bible where we are taught to unilaterally forgive one single soul for a single sin or offense that is not repented of - period.

I disagree and addressed this here (see also linked commentary)

There are certain situational-contexts and circumstances that allow for forgiveness being given when one does not or cannot know if another person has 'repented',....and this forgiveness frees the one forgiving from any bitterness, ill-will, resentment, anger, dis-ease, etc. In these cases the persons and situation itself is wholly released to 'God'. It is surrendered.

As shared earlier here in my first post,....we can add that Love itself by its very nature is forgiving. - there no bloodshed, killing, slaughter that is necessary to somehow invoke or inspire 'God' to forgive any sincere soul who from his heart/soul asks for forgiveness and repents, makes peace by right-doing. To assume God needs blood to forgive, or having someone murdered or punished vicariously for others violates some principles later shared in the prophets, namely that one cannot make an atonement for others, - all souls must suffer for their own sins, and make their lives right by their own repentance. Beyond any symbolism for the blood, the actual act of bloodshed and the blood itself has no magical power in and of itself to affect or effect forgiveness unless faith in it somehow is efficacious to bring a positive result about, ...and even then...a soul sill has to repent and return to righteousness. Faith with works is still DEAD.

I elaborated and challenged atonement concepts in my former thread "Atonement without blood". Beyond any real inner transformation/repentance within heart, soul and will.... the blood-atonement concept is but an intellectual construct, merely symbolic/figurative.

 

[Ben Masada]

Bling,

You are a lunatic. I should have known better than to address your post in the first place.

:wave:



Anyone else who even suggests that Jesus' death was unjust will find themselves on my permanent ignore list. If I have to put this whole website on ignore by not posting here ever again, that's precisely what I'll do. The mere suggestion that Jesus' death was unjust, a death which HE ORCHESTRATED and allowed to occur ON PURPOSE and VOLUNTARILY, is straight up blasphemy and I simply will not put up with it any further. I'm not going to argue it and I'm not interested in discussing it any further. That's it and that's all.

Clete

Hold on for just a minute. The death of Jesus was not unjust but, the cause of the injustice was no one else but his own disciples who were acclaiming Jesus king of the Jews at the entrance of Jerusalem. That's what caused Jesus to be crucified. As an evidence of the truth, Jesus verdict was nailed on the top of his cross which read INRI. Crucifixion was the punishment for the insurrection to be acclaimed king in a Roman province. Read Luke 19:37-40.

 

[Clete]

There is only one right answer for these questions, and you won't accept it.

Here is the answer:
The Bible does not state that the creator of the heavens and earth became a man, died, and was raised from the dead.
The Bible does state that God created the heavens and the earth, God sent His only Son, the Son of God died on the cross, and God raised the Son of God from the dead.

Well you got one thing right, I will not accept it. If you do not repent of this heresy you will spend eternity paying your own sin debt. You have rejected the very gospel itself and are NOT a Christian in the biblical sense of the word. You are worshiping the wrong Jesus.

Nothing else you said in you post or that you will ever say about the bible will weigh an ounce so far as I am concerned unless and until you repent and believe that God died for your sin.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.​

Unlike when I say such things about morons like Nang, with you this is difficult to even say. I'm sad and deeply disappointed. I guess it just goes to show you that you never know until you ask.

Resting in Him,
Clete