SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Atonement & all things pertaining

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread
Nile
Member



Joined: 2007/3/28
Posts: 403
Raleigh, NC

 Re:

Quote:
What debt or whoes, then?


It was not a debt that was paid, but a sacrifice.
A sin offering.

Quote:
Jesus' death was more that a "motivation" and an "inspiration"


Yes, it is much more. Nonetheless, motivation and inspiration is part of what it is.

Quote:
I think that you are implying that only a physical death by a completly inocent man was needed for God to have mecy to forgive.

The fact is, that a physical and spiritual death by a completly inocent eternal man was needed to pay for all mankind.

A completly inocent, created, finite man can only pay for one man and one of that man's many sins, furthuremore, that would leave the inocent, created, finite man who payed the debt, dead with no reserection.


I am saying that the physical, public, cruel death of a perfect man, not less than God incarnate, could make way for the pardon of all men. Nothing more is required.

Quote:
Notice what Jesus said, ""Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? Which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Sinners and those who are already separated from His Father call Him God. Jesus never called His Father God accept for this time because He was counted with the transgressors(Isa 53:12)
Isa 53:11 says he shall bear their iniquities...

Therefore, Isa 59:1-2 But your iniquities have separated you between and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear
In other words, your I forsake you because of your iniquities.
What is God hiding His face from us mean?



In what way did Christ bear iniquities?

I believe He bore them in that He died [i]because of[/i] sin and His death [i]took away[/i] sin.

I do not believe that Jesus [b]became guilty of sin[/b] before God.
Therefore, I do not believe that God forsook Him because He was "covered with sin".

I think sin is a choice, not something that can be passed from one individual to another.

Quote:
What is God hiding His face from us mean?


Not sure exactly. Not answering prayers, not delivering from trouble, not giving revelation.
What would you say?

Quote:
Furhtermore, how would Jesus not experiance spiritual death if the wages of sin is spiritual death?


If He did not need to pay the wages of sin :-)

Quote:
I don't think physical death is the penalty for sin.
The reason for my statment is that animals and plants die, but they do not sin.
Furthermore, christians still die physicaly.
If physical death was the penalty for sin, then forgiven christians still pay the penalty of that which they were forgiven of, not to mention the plants and animals paying a price for what they never commit.


Yes, I totally agree with you. As I said above, I don't see why it is necessary that Jesus pay the penalty of sin. Is there is anything in scripture that would leave us to believe this?

The Bible seems to emphasize a blood offering, rather than a payment of debt.

Hebrews 9:22
[i]And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.[/i]

Hebrews 9:12
[i]Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.[/i]

1 John 1:7
[i]But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.[/i]

Colossians 1:19-20
[i]For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.[/i]

Why doesn't say in scripture, anywhere, things like this: "having made peace through the spiritual death of His cross"?
(If there are places, by all means bring them up!)

...

I would like us to investigate this question:

[u]What is accomplished by punishing an offender for his offense?[/u]

"Justice is done."

Yes indeed. But how? Why is that the punishing of an offender satisfies justice?
I would say:

Quote:
The accomplishments of punishment. Of which are these:
a. Punishment stops/hinders the sinner from sinning more.
b. Punishment deters others from sinning.
c. Punishment declares and establishes God's sovereign rule and ability to maintain His Law.



What would you say?

Quote:
I am greatly enjoying this conversation with you. I am impressed with you, a 19 yaer old and your knowledg.


I'm greatly enjoying it also! Thank you for the compliment as well.

Nile


_________________
Matthew Miskiewicz

 2007/9/18 18:36Profile
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:
Nile wrote:
Quote:
What debt or whoes, then?

It was not a debt that was paid, but a sacrifice.
A sin offering.

Yes, Jesus was surrendered for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim.

However, He was sacrificed to redeem us:
[b]1Corinth 6:20[/b] & [b]1Corinth 7:23 [color=990000]For you are bought with a price:[/b][/color]
[b]Gal 4:5[/b] [color=990000]that He might [b]redeem the ones under Law[/b], that we might receive the adoption of sons.[/color]
[b]Titus 2:14[/b] [color=990000]who gave Himself on our behalf, "that He might [b]redeem us[/b] from all lawlessness and purify a special people for Himself," zealous of good works.[/color]
[b]Eph 1:7[/b] [color=990000]in whom [b]we have redemption through His blood[/b], the remission of deviations, according to the riches of His grace.[/color]
[b]Eph 1:14[/b] [color=990000]who is an earnest of our inheritance, to the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.[/color]
[b]Col 1:14[/b] [color=990000]in whom we have redemption through His blood, the remission of sins;[/color]

Quote:
Nile wrote:
In what way did Christ bear iniquities?

I believe He bore them in that He died because of sin and His death took away sin.

I do not believe that Jesus became guilty of sin before God.
Therefore, I do not believe that God forsook Him because He was "covered with sin".

I think sin is a choice, not something that can be passed from one individual to another.


[b]John 3:14[/b] [color=990000]And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:[/color]

The sepent referes to our judgment. Just as Israel looked on the Bronz serpent, they were seeing the judgment of their sin.
So it is when we look on Jesus, we see the judment that we deserve.
[b]Matthew 26:38[/b] [color=990000]Then said he unto them, My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death: tarry you here, and watch with me.[/color]
[b]Luke 22:44[/b] [color=990000]And being in agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.[/color]
Why do you think Jesus was so intensly agonized?
It wasn't because He was worried about the comming crusifiction, but for baring the sin of the whole worl and the wrath of God that we deserve.

Quote:
Nile wrote:
Quote:
What is God hiding His face from us mean?

Not sure exactly. Not answering prayers, not delivering from trouble, not giving revelation.

God can not look uopn sin, He hid His face from Jesus.


Quote:
Nile wrote:
I would like us to investigate this question:

What is accomplished by punishing an offender for his offense?

"Justice is done."

Yes indeed. But how? Why is that the punishing of an offender satisfies justice?

I'll get back to you on this one.

 2007/9/18 20:15Profile
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:
Nile wrote:
I would like us to investigate this question:

[u]What is accomplished by punishing an offender for his offense?[/u]

"Justice is done."

Yes indeed. But how? Why is that the punishing of an offender satisfies justice?
I would say:
Quote:
The accomplishments of punishment. Of which are these:
a. Punishment stops/hinders the sinner from sinning more.
b. Punishment deters others from sinning.
c. Punishment declares and establishes God's sovereign rule and ability to maintain His Law.

What would you say?

[b]Why is that the punishing of an offender satisfies justice?[/b]
Your a, b, & c are secondary to the foundation of justice.

To inflict a penalty for an offense of sin against law is enforcing the consequence of disobeying a command.
The command is, do not sin, the penalty that must be enforced is death.
Law can not be broken and must be fullfilled.
The fullfillment of law is justice.

Some one must die for a crime against Gods law, the one who breaks the law is the one who must pay the penalty of death.

The way that Christ takes our place is that we assume his place on the cross as we are [b]in Christ[/b]; [b]Rom 6:3[/b] [color=990000]Or are you ignorant that all who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?[/color]
[b]1Corinth 12:13[/b] [color=990000]For also we all were [b]baptized by one Spirit into one body[/b], whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, even all were given to drink into one Spirit.[/color]

Therefore, HE paid the panalty as us in a way, because we are in Him.
[b]Gal 2:20[/b] [color=990000]I have been crucified with Christ, and I live; yet no longer I, but Christ lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith toward the Son of God, the One loving me and giving Himself over on my behalf.[/color]

 2007/9/19 14:45Profile
Nile
Member



Joined: 2007/3/28
Posts: 403
Raleigh, NC

 Re:

Quote:
To inflict a penalty for an offense of sin against law is enforcing the consequence of disobeying a command.


Why are there consequences to disobeying a command?
You can resort to "just because" if you must, but I don't think the "just because" must come here.

Quote:
The command is, do not sin, the penalty that must be enforced is death.


Why is there a penalty?
"Just because"?

Quote:
Law can not be broken and must be fullfilled.
The fullfillment of law is justice.


The Law must be established and fulfilled, otherwise it will have become a void and useless law.

Quote:
Some one must die for a crime against Gods law, the one who breaks the law is the one who must pay the penalty of death.

The way that Christ takes our place is that we assume his place on the cross as we are in Christ


I can see the logic of this, and it makes more sense than imputed righteousness.
Currently though, a governmental atonement still makes the most sense to me.

Nile


_________________
Matthew Miskiewicz

 2007/9/19 21:29Profile
Nile
Member



Joined: 2007/3/28
Posts: 403
Raleigh, NC

 Re:

Quote:

Eli_Barnabas wrote:
Here is an interesting thought to ponder...



Sorry for not replying sooner!

This is kind of taking a step back in the discussion, but I wanted to clarify.

Quote:
Both forgiveness and justice can happen without the nullifaction of one or the other. Consider, a criminal is put in jail for murder, but the family of the victim forgives him. This does not mean he now doesn't have to go to jail... he goes to jail and justice is served, but at the same time he is forgiven. So both aren't mutually exclusive.


1. "Forgiveness", as it is used here is not what I was mainly referring to. Sorry for the confusion, I meant "forgiveness" as in "forgiveness, mercy, and pardon". I'll use mercy or pardon from now on to avoid confusion.
2. Substitute "forgiveness" with "mercy and pardon" in the example, and it utterly falls apart. I will explain why if needed, but I think it's self-evident.

Quote:
[i]"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."[/i] (Isaiah 53:5-6) This fact does not nullify the free grace of God in forgiving us of our sins. It was a necessity of the law and the curse which required blood, and the law has now been satisfied, and God can now forgive us. It is both.


Amen to that.


_________________
Matthew Miskiewicz

 2007/9/19 21:42Profile
Nile
Member



Joined: 2007/3/28
Posts: 403
Raleigh, NC

 Re:

Quote:
Yes, Jesus was surrendered for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim.

However, He was sacrificed to redeem us:
1Corinth 6:20 & 1Corinth 7:23 For you are bought with a price:
Gal 4:5 that He might redeem the ones under Law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
Titus 2:14 who gave Himself on our behalf, "that He might redeem us from all lawlessness and purify a special people for Himself," zealous of good works.
Eph 1:7 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the remission of deviations, according to the riches of His grace.
Eph 1:14 who is an earnest of our inheritance, to the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.
Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the remission of sins;


Amen Hallelujah!

Quote:
John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

The sepent referes to our judgment. Just as Israel looked on the Bronz serpent, they were seeing the judgment of their sin.
So it is when we look on Jesus, we see the judment that we deserve.
Matthew 26:38 Then said he unto them, My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death: tarry you here, and watch with me.
Luke 22:44 And being in agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
Why do you think Jesus was so intensly agonized?
It wasn't because He was worried about the comming crusifiction, but for baring the sin of the whole worl and the wrath of God that we deserve.


Good stuff.

Quote:
The sepent referes to our judgment. Just as Israel looked on the Bronz serpent, they were seeing the judgment of their sin.


Could you expound on this a little more please?
Thanks :-)

Quote:
Why do you think Jesus was so intensly agonized?
It wasn't because He was worried about the comming crusifiction, but for baring the sin of the whole worl and the wrath of God that we deserve.


In what way do you think Christ bore the sins of the world?
I grasp the concept presented, but I cannot fathom how it is possible.

btw, do you use firefox? you should. it has an auto spell-checker like ms word, hehe ^_^


_________________
Matthew Miskiewicz

 2007/9/19 21:52Profile
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:
Nile wrote:
Quote:
To inflict a penalty for an offense of sin against law is enforcing the consequence of disobeying a command.

Why are there consequences to disobeying a command?
You can resort to "just because" if you must, but I don't think the "just because" must come here.

God said so:
[b]Eze 18:20[/b] [color=990000]The soul that sins, it shall die.[/color]

Or are you asking why does God say so?
I thought I mentioned that:
If God forgave and not require that any punishment be made, He would not be just; that would devalue HIS Righteousness and Holyness.
The law is founded in the Personhood of God.
Moreover, it would make HIM a lier, for HIS word would not be true.
The purpose of the law is to teach one of the character of the Lawgiver, also to guide and to guard us while directing us to mercy of the Lawgiver(Galatians 3:23-24)

Quote:
Nile wrote:
Quote:
Law can not be broken and must be fullfilled.

The Law must be established and fulfilled, otherwise it will have become a void and useless law.

The law reflect the character of God, therefore, God does not establish and fulfill the law for the law's sake but for His name's sake.

Quote:
Nile wrote:
Quote:
The way that Christ takes our place is that we assume his place on the cross as we are in Christ

I can see the logic of this, and it makes more sense than imputed righteousness.

Along with imparted righteousness, imputed righteousness is a fact, it is imputed through faith.

Quote:
Nile wrote:
Quote:
The sepent referes to our judgment. Just as Israel looked on the brass serpent, they were seeing the judgment of their sin.

Could you expound on this a little more please?

How did looking at the brass serpent heal the snake bites that was inflicted on Israel in the wilderness(Num 21:9)?
We must know why the snakes bit them to understand.
God sent the snakes as a judgment for speaking against God, and against Moses(Num 21:5).
The children of Israel had to admitt that the serpents biting them was the circumstance of their sin and when looked upon the serpent of brass, they were seeing and agreeing it is their just jugment; the object of God's judgment is their salvation.
Likewise, when we look upon Jesus, we are seeing and agreeing it as our just judgment.

Quote:
Nile wrote:
In what way do you think Christ bore the sins of the world?
I grasp the concept presented, but I cannot fathom how it is possible.

Not the "whole world" literaly, but aplicable when faith is acted on, it is available to the "whole world".

[b]Rom 3:24-25[/b] [color=990000]Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
[b]:25[/b] Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation[/color](a way to give mercy) [color=990000][u]through faith in his [b]blood[/u][/b], to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;[/color]
[b]Lev 17:11[/b] [color=990000]For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.[/color]
[b]Hebrews 9:12[/b] [color=990000]Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
[b]:13[/b] For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies to the purifying of the flesh:
[b]:14[/b] How much more shall the blood of Christ, who [b]through His eternal Spirit[/b] offered himself without spot to God, [b]purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?[/b][/color]

In the forgiveness of sins, God had retained the integrity of his character as Holy God Righteous and true, in that he had shown a due regard to his Law, which is a reflection of His character, with out disreguarding the penalty of the Law by taking the penalty onto Himself.

Should he forgive sinners without an atonement, justice would be sacrificed and abandoned, it would mare HIS character. God would cease to have any terrors for the guilty, and His judgment would be as to nothing.

In the plan of salvation, he has shown a regard to HIS character by appointing his Son to be a substitute in the place of sinners; he endured so much as to accomplish the same ends as if those who shall be saved by him had been doomed to die

He bore the sins of the "world" by His Father assuming the sins as His own from those who will have faith in what HE did on the cross.
We are reckoned righteous by reckoning Christ death as ours.

 2007/9/20 16:54Profile
Nile
Member



Joined: 2007/3/28
Posts: 403
Raleigh, NC

 Re:

Quote:
If God forgave and not require that any punishment be made, He would not be just; that would devalue HIS Righteousness and Holyness.


If this is the answer to, "Why is a sinner punished for his sin?" then can we not say that if God's righteousness and holiness could be preserved and upheld, punishment would not be necessary?
The whole point of the question is to show that punishment in it of itself is not what is needed.

Quote:
Along with imparted righteousness, imputed righteousness is a fact, it is imputed through faith.


I hope you haven't misunderstood me; I was referring to the doctrinal position on justification called "imputed righteousness" as opposed to the Biblical kind of imputed righteousness.

Quote:
He bore the sins of the "world" by His Father assuming the sins as His own from those who will have faith in what HE did on the cross.


What do you mean by this? Did Christ become sinful? Did the Father trick Himself into thinking Christ was us?


_________________
Matthew Miskiewicz

 2007/9/20 22:01Profile
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:
Nile wrote:
Quote:
If God forgave and not require that any punishment be made, He would not be just; that would devalue HIS Righteousness and Holyness.

If this is the answer to, "Why is a sinner punished for his sin?" then can we not say that if God's righteousness and holiness could be preserved and upheld, punishment would not be necessary?

That would be the logical conclusion, I guess. This is purly rhetorical though.

Quote:
Nile wrote:
The whole point of the question is to show that punishment in it of itself is not what is needed.

What would you say that is needed "in it of itself"?

Quote:
Nile wrote:
I hope you haven't misunderstood me; I was referring to the doctrinal position on justification called "imputed righteousness" as opposed to the Biblical kind of imputed righteousness.

What is the diference between the "doctrinal position" and the "the Biblical kind of imputed"
Forgive my ignorance.

Quote:
Nile wrote:
Quote:
He bore the sins of the "world" by His Father assuming the sins as His own from those who will have faith in what HE did on the cross.

What do you mean by this?

Christ did not become litteraly sinful, but maybe presumed as sinful(guilty).
[b]2Corinth 5:21[/b] [color=990000]For he has [b]made him[/b], who knew no sin, [b]to be sin for[/b] us; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.[/color]

"to be sin for us" could be two ways:
To be a sin offering for us
or
To be presumed guilty of sin for us.

For us to be presumed righteous, wouldn't HE need to be presumed guilty?

Quote:
Nile wrote:
Did the Father trick Himself into thinking Christ was us?

Please, no sarcasm, I hate it.
I believe our righteousness is credited to us by faith, couldn't God credit our guilt(unrighteousness) to Christ?

 2007/9/21 11:27Profile









 Re: A different way of looking at this

Hi everyone

I wasn't going to bother with this thread because the subject is so vast, and sometimes controversial.

However, I started pondering on where to begin to study/discuss this afresh, and realised something that doesn't seem to have been mentioned so far (forgive me if it has, not time or mental energy just now to read the thread properly - it's almost 11pm here). Also the following comments are rather off the top of my head so incomplete and maybe not always 100% accurate...

[u]A study of the Atonement has to begin in the Old Testament[/u].

In Genesis 3 when atonement first became necessary, God killed animals to provide Adam and Eve with coverings (fig leaves no good!)

Thus they learned that an innocent victim had to die (they would never in their lives up till then have seen death), and that somehow wearing its skin represented the way back to God - even though they were still banned from Eden.

At the same time there was the promise that One would come who would deal with the Serpent, though he himself would be wounded by it.

Noah was to build an ark of "gopher wood". Apparently the word is from the same as the word Atonement - "to cover" [from the word "kaph" meaning the (cupped) palm of the hand]. He and his family alone survived God's judgement upon the earth, because they were within that "covering"

Abraham was shown the same message in another form. When God cut the covenant with him he was not able to walk together with the Lord through the pieces of the sacrifice. Rather Abraham was put to sleep (as Adam was when Eve was created) and the Lord alone walked that bloody path of sacrifice.

Later he was asked to sacrifice his son, but God "provided himself a lamb" instead.

At the time of the Exodus Israel were saved through the blood of the Passover lamb. Again it is salvation from God's judgement. But they were also to [i][u]eat[/u][/i] the lamb whose blood protected them!

Gradually a picture begins to build up. The ritual law was instituted, together with the moral law. Each of the furnishings of the Tabernacle, the priestly garments and the ritual laws and sacrifices, were further pictures of different aspects of the Atonement.

There were different kinds of sacrifices.

One was for sin

Another was for failure in any of the requirements of worship (sins of ommission and commission?)

Another was for fellowship with the Lord

Another was in thanksgiving and worship.

Another was offering the whole of oneslf to Him

Another was the offering of the first and best of one's increase.

Another was prayer: incense that was also usually offered with with oil.

All the furnishings were sprinkled with blood and oil.

At their consecration the priests had blood and oil put on ear, thumb and toe.

The [u]healed leper[/u] was also treated in this way! So the unclean, outcast one became (as it were) like a priest through this anointing of healing and wholeness!

And so on...

So many different aspects, so many truths illustrated.

Another aspect is the duty and privilege of the next of kin, who was called the go-el.

He was suppposed to marry the widow if his relative died without children

He had the duty to avenge his relative's murder (called the "avenger of blood" in the KJV, but it's the same word, go-el)

He had the duty (if able) of redeeming - buying back - land or persons which had been sold.

We see aspects of this so clearly in the book of Ruth. Including the fact that there was another who had the first [u]legal[/u] claim to marry Ruth, but he was unwilling so Boaz redeemed her instead.

Thus the Law, which condemns us, is superceded by Another who redeems us and "marries" us to Himself.

We were dead in sin, slain by Satan, and He avenges us and buys us back from that slavery.

"Boaz", who married Ruth, means "strength" - He is our strong Redeemer...

The Lord indeed has a mighty and strong One!

The whole of the Old Testament Law prefigures Him, and different aspects of the Atonement.

Hallelujah!!!!

We can't argue that one aspect is more correct than others - they are ALL true!

in Him

Jeannette


 2007/9/23 17:55





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