| Re: |
"Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: ***that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures***, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me." (I Cor. 15:1-8).
Paul's gospel seems to require that one believe that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that's it- at least in regard to the atonement. I am not saying that other scriptures to not further flesh out the atonement but Paul seems to be getting to the lowest common denominator.
That phrase "Christ died for our sins" obviously carries the idea of being a substitute and of taking on Himself something that we deserved- it was OUR sins for which he died.
A person does not need to understand more than this about the atonement in order to "be saved." If reasonable mature Christians do not all agree 100% on the nature of the atonement then how can a person just coming to Christ be burdened with exact understanding?
| 2014/11/2 14:20||Profile|
| Re: |
yep tod i agree wether it is a limated or unlimated ectra as long as it is a believing in christ dieing as a sacrafice for sin ,which would be in acordence with scripture , the finer points can come later ,but we are realy talking about can that fact be denied and replaced another message , do we still have the same gosple ,wich we say infadicly no we dont have the same gosple ,becasue the atonment itself the sacrifice of christ for sin
| 2014/11/2 14:30||Profile|
| Re: |
TMK said, " If reasonable mature Christians do not all agree 100% on the nature of the atonement then how can a person just coming to Christ be burdened with exact understanding? "
I couldn't say it any better.
To help elaborate my view. http://therebelgod.com/cross1.html
Most of the early church would say, 'Jesus paid the price. That price was His life. He paid it to the Devil. To obtain the church.' This is not a protestant view, 80% of the church agrees with this early church belief. Christus Victor/Ransom View go hand in hand.
Not, "God is just. God needed a perfect sacrifice to accept the world. So, He sent Himself/Son to die and appease God's justice."
“‘As surely as I live,’ declares the Sovereign LORD, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live’” (Ezekiel 33:11)
The prodigal son didn't need to offer a sacrifice to get forgiveness from his father. The sacrifices of the Pharisee's didn't grant them forgiveness. The contrite heart of the tax collector did. God desires a relationship with us. Song of Solomon. Hosea. David's Psalms. He wants us.
I understand your views and I'm interested in learning more (as that link to Church History views of Penal, I'd like to hear them, as I don't agree that the early church embraced penal). But Penal/Christus whatever your/my view I think we are still brothers and we are love each other; patience, kindness, goodness, etc. And if we weren't brothers...well, love your enemies.
| 2014/11/2 15:41|
Whittier CA USA
| Re: |
The phrase "according to the scriptures" in 1Cor.15:3 is crucial. Just a cursory look at the Old Testament reveals the need for atonement for sins through a perfect sacrifice. The whole sacrificial system made that very clear to Israel. Just read briefly through Exodus and Leviticus and consider the myriad of times the phrase "to make atonement for sins" comes up in reference to the animal sacrifices that were commanded by God to be made by the priests. This has nothing to do with pagan worship but with the prescribed worship of Yahweh, the one true God revealed in the Holy Scriptures. For someone to say that the idea of a sacrifice being needed to atone for sins is rooted in paganism is to highly insult the character of God. You can also read Isaiah 53 and easily see that Christ, as the Lamb of God and ultimate sacrifice for the sins of the world, was the fulfillment of that whole sacrificial system. Those animal sacrifices were shadows of Christ's ultimate sacrifice as the animal sacrifices did not actually remove sin.
I'd also say that the reason pagans have offered either animal or human sacrifices to their false gods throughout history is because their consciences have told them that a sacrifice is needed to atone for sins.
In Hebrews 10:5-6 the Word of God says(quoting from Psalm 40:6), "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me. 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure".
But please don't stop there. This is a large portion of the rest of the chapter:
"Then I said, 'Behold, I have come-- In the volume of the book it is written of Me-- To do Your will, O God.' " 8 Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. 15 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, 16 "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them," 17 then He adds, "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." 18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin. 19 Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21 and having a High Priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful."
I will also post most of Isaiah 53 here because the atoning sacrifice of Christ is clear throughout that chapter:
4 Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, And as a sheep before its shearers is silent, So He opened not His mouth. 8 He was taken from prison and from judgment, And who will declare His generation? For He was cut off from the land of the living; For the transgressions of My people He was stricken. 9 And they made His grave with the wicked-- But with the rich at His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was any deceit in His mouth. 10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. 11 He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great, And He shall divide the spoil with the strong, Because He poured out His soul unto death, And He was numbered with the transgressors, And He bore the sin of many, And made intercession for the transgressors."
If those scriptures do not convince one of the clarity of this essential doctrine of Jesus' blood-offering for our sins I don't know what will. Those are not the only clear scriptures; other scriptures have already been shared and there are many more.
LMH, you posted earlier that this whole denial of the penal view of Christ's atonement is somewhat new to you. That seems to me to imply some form of apostasy from the biblical gospel. The scripture that comes to mind is 1John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us."
I'm not saying for sure that that verse applies to your situation but I thought I'd share it just in case.
If I met you in person on the streets and you shared your view with me I'd try to reason with you from the Scriptures and call you to repentance and faith in Christ as I've been trying to do here. The same would go for anyone else I'd meet who belongs to a cult and has bought into a false gospel and false Jesus. But there comes a point when it is evident that some will not receive the truth of the gospel no matter how many clear scriptures are shared with them. That's when it's time to disagree and part ways and move on. Paul did not tolerate false gospels and false Jesus'. By God's grace I hope and pray I too never will.
Having said all that, that doesn't mean I don't care about your salvation. True love warns of danger.
"For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted--you may well put up with it!"-2Cor.11:4
| 2014/11/2 19:28||Profile|
| Re: |
Oracio said, "If I met you in person on the streets and you shared your view with me I'd try to reason with you from the Scriptures and call you to repentance and faith in Christ as I've been trying to do here."
This is sad. Jesus challenged the Pharisees, "(John 5:39)"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; (John 5:40) and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life."
The fact that you are adamant that I have received a 'different Christ', I must retreat. I don't see the point in talking with someone who doesn't listen. Because it's no longer a healthy debate. Just a time where one digs their heels in. You are entitled to your beliefs. I just flatly disagree with you and was looking forward to discussing more.
Paul's view of a different gospel wasn't written for a 21st century debate regarding Penal/Christus. Paul was talking against the mystical christ, that didn't come in the flesh (gnostic gospel). Or that christ, who wasn't God, just a man.
I don't need you nor any brother to validate that I know God. I'm saddened that you view Penal as essential, yet it doesn't arise in church history until 1000AD. This is a blatant denial of Paul, Peter, Irenaeus, and many of the early martyrs of the church.
Abraham in relationship/friendship with God put his son on the altar. But Issac. wasn't. sacrificed. A ram was. Something...that can't take away sin. Why because God doesn't desire sacrifice.
I end with scripture: Hosea 6:6, First Samuel 15:22, Isaiah 1:11-17; Amos 5:21-24; Micah 6:6-8, Romans 2:28-29, Matthew 9:13; cf. 12:7,
| 2014/11/2 20:25|
Whittier CA USA
| Re: |
I remember a few years ago hearing of many protestant evangelicals turning to and embracing Greek Orthodox doctrine. Many protestants saw it as apostasy. In more recent times there have been many protestants turning to Roman Catholicism, which I also see as apostasy. But I'm thankful for the fact that God has His remnant that He will keep from falling away from the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Call me a Pharisee if you feel you must; I cannot deny and stop declaring what my Lord and Savior had to endure for all my wickedness against Him.
| 2014/11/2 21:19||Profile|
| Re: what did justin martyr believe |
its clear that penal substatutiuon was believed by some early church fathers like justin ...theises by Ruben Videira Soengas
Justin Martyr (c. 100–165)
Justin Martyr was born to Greek parents in Samaria during the early years of the second century. Very little is known of his pre-Christian life except that he became a philosopher of the Platonic school and then left in favor of Christianity after a conversation with a mysterious man. He was also one of the most significant Christian writers of the second century, exercising a strong influence over other early Christian theologians. Justin is important for the present discussion because he is within a generation of the apostles, so most likely he would have spoken to people who personally met them.
Justin’s third most extant work is
The Dialogue with Trypho the Jew
. It contains his reflections about his philosophical journey and his theological explanations about the Incarnation in a conversational format between him and a Jew called Trypho. In this work, Justin reveals his understanding of penal substitution: Then Trypho remarked, “Be assured that all our nation waits for Christ; and we admit that all the Scriptures which you have quoted refer to Him. Moreover, I do also admit that the name of Jesus, by which the son of Nave (Nun) was called, has inclined me very strongly to adopt this view. But whether Christ should be so shamefully crucified, this we are in doubt about. For whosoever is crucified is said in the law to be accursed, so that I am exceedingly incredulous on this point. It is quite clear, indeed, that the Scriptures announce that Christ had to suffer; but we wish to learn if you can prove it to us whether it was by the suffering cursed in the law.” I replied to him, “If Christ was not to suffer, and the prophets had not foretold that He would be led to death on account of the sins of the people, and be dishonoured and scourged, and reckoned among the transgressors, and as a sheep be led to the slaughter, whose generation, the prophet says, no man can declare, then you would have good cause to wonder. But if these are to be characteristic of Him and mark Him out to all, how is it possible for us to do anything else than believe in Him most confidently? And will not as many as have understood the
Roger E. Olson,
The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform
(Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1999), 59.
writings of the prophets, whenever they hear merely that He was crucified, say that this is He and no other?”
After stating that Christ had to die and suffer on account of the sins of His people Justin continues with his argument and explains why He died on the cross but was not cursed for His own sins. Justin says that the curse of God rests on humanity because the Law of Moses curses all those who do not continue with the things written in it, and since nobody has accomplished it, everybody is cursed. That curse does not rest on Christ, since He is the one who saves all that have committed things worthy of a curse. In the flow of this argument Justin says: If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God.
In short, Justin believed and taught penal substitution. In fact, for him it explained why Jesus was crucified even though he committed no sin—He was innocent but bore the curse and punishment due to humanity’s sinfulness.
| 2014/11/2 22:00||Profile|
Whittier CA USA
| Re: |
LMH, please feel free to continue dialoguing with other brethren here who may be more patient than I have been here. I believe I've said more than enough here and will gladly stand down. It's up to you.
| 2014/11/2 22:22||Profile|
| Re: |
Yea im standing down too ,for me and oracio ,this was about zeal for the purity of the Gospel it self ,and this is what sermon index stands for , i hope that this discussion is seen for that .
I know of know biblical revival that came for anything other then the preaching and faith in the sacrificial cross of Christ ,the Christ who became a curse for our sakes that the curse would be lifted of or heads
| 2014/11/2 22:43||Profile|
| Re: |
Brothagary wrote: "purity of the Gospel...what sermon index stands for"
Yes. I understand this and I agree that is what this discussion was after. :)
I just want to note, Charles Finney, one of the leaders of the 2nd great awakening had this view of **edit 2**governmental theory.
(originally, I thought he held Christus Victor without Penal; but either way he wasn't penal)
Source: http://www.gospeltruth.net/1856OE/560730_the_atonement.htm (also, for later readers of this discussion, if this link breaks[no longer exists], Finney was publicly governmental, not Penal, so it should be easy to find with a search engine).
*Edit* Also, Spurgeon didn't like Finney's view. http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm
Also, Oracio, thank you for providing the information regarding your idea that penal is earlier than 1000AD, I will look into it.
Thank you everyone for adding what you could to this discussion. I appreciate everyone's take. Let's abide in Him. Live to discuss another day. :)
| 2014/11/3 0:01|