SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Did Jesus really Die as a Substitute for our Sins?- by Michael Brown

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Let me remind two people who have said, "This is another Jesus." That calling me not your brother is akin to Cain saying Abel wasn't his brother. It's division. The accuser of the brethren.

I make no statement against you folks but with this lashing at me, saying 'This is another Jesus', I feel I need to speak up, ever so subtly.

I just have a different view. We can agree to disagree. I have no problem with that. Much of the early church would agree with Christus Victor without Penal.

 2014/11/2 1:32
Oracio
Member



Joined: 2007/6/26
Posts: 2039
Whittier CA USA

 Re:

Quote:
Art Katz has hundreds of sermons on this site. One if these is "Christus Victor."

there are differing views on the atonemment. This is understandable as it is a mysterious thing.

Lets not start calling people "unsaved" who have a different view than ours.


I did some brief research on Art Katz and his view of the atonement and found that he very well seemed to support the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ(Katz mentions Christ's sacrificial "expiation" for our sins). I saw the comments on that "Christus Victor" message and did not see anything that hinted on denying Christ's propitiation for our sins. I'll have to take a listen to it sometime to see if he in fact denies that doctrine. If you know of a statement from Katz which proves that he denies penal substitution please do share. Otherwise I don't believe he denied it at this point.

Throughout the years as a believer I've heard the liberal view that says Christ died only as an example of sacrificial love for us and it has always made me want to puke for lack of better words. Not saying that that's the exact view LMH is promoting here but it sure did seem very close to it in his/her posts.

I did some brief research on the Christus Victor view and the Ransom Theory view and read that mostly Greek Orthodox churches hold to it, that some Anabaptists Mennonite churches hold to it, and that many liberal churches hold to it as well.

In doing street evangelism throughout the years I have always preached that Christ took the punishment for our sins as He hung on the cross and shed His innocent blood. I have always seen that as an essential doctrine of the Christian faith. I have come across many professing Christians who deny certain essential doctrines and I've felt I had to make the decision not to fellowship with them but to call them to repentance and faith in the real Jesus Christ of the Holy Bible.

As with the doctrines of universalism and annihalationism, I see the denial of the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ as essential to both salvation and fellowship.

Brothers and sisters, there is a big push today for all professing Christians to unite and embrace one another and to throw essential doctrine out the window. May we be found among those that are not deceived and swept away but rather hold fast to sound doctrine as we are commanded in God's Word.


_________________
Oracio

 2014/11/2 1:39Profile
Oracio
Member



Joined: 2007/6/26
Posts: 2039
Whittier CA USA

 Re:

Quote:
The Christos victus view is fine if it is combined with the penal view ,but with out at least that combination ,it is not an atonement for sin and totally defeats the purpose of the Gospel by denying the clear teachings of a sacrificial atonement ,by rights it cant be called a view on the atonement ,because it doesnt atone for sin in any way ..

major fundamental doctrines of the Gospels are lost namely propitiation and expiation ,with out these thing there is no atonement for sin and know power to save ,the Vail remains intact ,therefor know holy spirit is given .

It is a great perversion of the Gospel of Christ ,and a denial of the doctrine of Christ ,the sin barer ..

And i dare say results in another Jesus, and another spirit because it is another Gospel , and rather then eternal life ,eturnal death .

The message and reality of reconciliation of fallen man to wards god ,has all it tap roots in the sacrificial offering of Christ as the spotless lamb of god and the highpriest of god ,,this is why and how he is the only mediator between god and man ,with out this part of the Gospel ,there is reconciliation as experiential reality ,but only a figment of ones imagination ,no matter how much we can talk about god and Jesus ,it avails nothing ...



Very well stated brother. You nailed it and explained it better than I've been able to.


_________________
Oracio

 2014/11/2 1:49Profile









 Re:

Oracio, thanks for some context. I appreciate that.

"Throughout the years as a believer I've heard the liberal view that says Christ died only as an example of sacrificial love for us and it has always made me want to puke for lack of better words. Not saying that that's the exact view LMH is promoting here but it sure did seem very close to it in his posts."

I see your concern but let me raise this to you. If I love my child. My child knows, through numerous actions, that I love them. Does it prevent them from all harm? What if they fall off the bike? Well, that's a learning lesson. If they hate themselves and cut themselves. Do the scars go away? No.

We are the pearl of great price. Yes, He indeed paid that price.

Oracio, you say, "I see the denial of the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ as essential to both salvation and fellowship. " but also say, "mostly Greek Orthodox churches hold to it, that some Anabaptists Mennonite churches hold to it, and that many liberal churches hold to it as well."

Are you saying much of the early church is in hell? Because...if it's essential...wouldn't that be cause for great alarm? That the entire early church got it wrong... Penal wasn't a view until the 1000's AD.

 2014/11/2 1:53
Oracio
Member



Joined: 2007/6/26
Posts: 2039
Whittier CA USA

 Re:

Quote:
Much of the early church would agree with Christus Victor without Penal.


There is indeed a claim out there that says that the denial of the penal view of Christ's atonement was prevalent for the first thousand years of Church history. Those who make that claim point out quotes by early church leaders like Ireneas and Origen to prove their point. But that claim has also been refuted with quotes from those same early church leaders, quotes that show they held to the penal view of the atonement while simultaneously holding to the ransom view.


_________________
Oracio

 2014/11/2 1:57Profile
brothagary
Member



Joined: 2011/10/23
Posts: 1863


 Re:

hi love meek and hope ,,

i was making general statements, i would say it like that weather you were opposed to penal substitution or not ,

Why i say anther Jesus another spirit and another Gospel,is because Paul said there were other Jesus and another spirit and another Gospel prevelent in his day ,and in reality if one doesnt believe in the high priest the holy sacrificial lamb of god in the context of an offering for sin as the bible states ,one is not believing the Jesus of the bible nor the Gospel ,and there for cant have the holy spirit ,,because finally the bible says he who is of god heres gods words .

This is a general statement take it personally if you must...

 2014/11/2 1:21Profile
brothagary
Member



Joined: 2011/10/23
Posts: 1863


 Re:

thanks oraco but you explained in fine and you quoted clear scripture from hebrews ..

Is that right that the herd to both in the early church ,makes scence

 2014/11/2 1:25Profile
TMK
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 5388
NC, USA

 Re:

I was not suggesting that Art Katz did not have a traditional view of the atonement- I am sure he did. I just know that he has a sermon called Christus Victor. I haven't heard it in a long time.

"Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures" seems to be all that one is required to understand about the atonement. The exact details of how it works (which is impossible to know) and whether it is limited etc does not seem to matter.


_________________
Todd

 2014/11/2 8:13Profile
Oracio
Member



Joined: 2007/6/26
Posts: 2039
Whittier CA USA

 Re:

Word of Faith teaching says that on the cross Jesus took upon Himself the nature of Satan, and that He went to suffer in hell and that He had to be born again.

I bring that up as another example of blasphemous and damnable teaching on the atonement. The same kind of damnable blasphemy is perpetrated in other forms of twisting the clear teaching on Christ's atonement.

That "Christ died for our sins" could mean many different things to different groups and/or cults. Again, the liberal churches take it to be simply an example of sacrificial love and deny the actual atonement of Christ for our sins. There is no saving power in those kinds of beliefs.


_________________
Oracio

 2014/11/2 10:38Profile
Oracio
Member



Joined: 2007/6/26
Posts: 2039
Whittier CA USA

 Re:

In case anyone is interested, I came across this article which I believe ably refutes the claim that the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ was not held to by the early church:

http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj20i.pdf

In the article five views on the atonement are discussed, ranging from acceptable views to damnable liberal views.

The article explains that one can believe in different aspects of the atonement as long as one does not deny the penal aspect of it because that is the part of it that actually atones for our sins. So for example, it's okay and biblical to say that Christ's death was a demonstration and example of God's love for humanity; but if you leave it at that and deny that Christ actually atoned for our sins in His body on the tree(1Peter 2:24), you deny an essential component of the atonement.


_________________
Oracio

 2014/11/2 11:45Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy