Mercy beyond the Law

[journeyman]

Granted, what happened to the Prophets also happened to Jesus. What does that prove about Christ substituting or not substituting for us?

Randy, if what happened to Jesus also happened to the Prophets and Apostles and other faithful martyrs,  then Jesus wasn't "substituting" himself in place of them.

The fact is, Jesus came and died for sin *he did not commit.*

Right. Putting the Lord to death for sin he did not commit is violating God's law,

Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked. Exo.23:7

He therefore substituted his own heavenly bliss for our deserved torment on the cross. And he substituted himself for us so that we would be able to participate in a resurrection that we do not deserve.

No. God forgives the repentant and the repentant did not deserve the persecution they suffered,

They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; Heb.11:37

[RandyPNW]

Granted, what happened to the Prophets also happened to Jesus. What does that prove about Christ substituting or not substituting for us?

Randy, if what happened to Jesus also happened to the Prophets and Apostles and other faithful martyrs,  then Jesus wasn't "substituting" himself in place of them.

That seems like non-sequitur reasoning. How does it follow that Jesus suffering like the Prophets means he can't have substituted, along with his suffering?

The fact is, Jesus came and died for sin *he did not commit.*

Right. Putting the Lord to death for sin he did not commit is violating God's law,

It is violating God's Law, yes. But that doesn't mean he wasn't substituting himself for us, who could not rise from the dead without him!

He therefore substituted his own heavenly bliss for our deserved torment on the cross. And he substituted himself for us so that we would be able to participate in a resurrection that we do not deserve.

No. God forgives the repentant and the repentant did not deserve the persecution they suffered,

They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; Heb.11:37

We may be righteous, if we are obedient, but that does not mean we deserve resurrection apart from Christ substituting for those who could not do it for themselves. We all suffer. But nobody but Christ could suffer innocently so that the guilty may be raised from the dead.

[journeyman]

That seems like non-sequitur reasoning. How does it follow that Jesus suffering like the Prophets means he can't have substituted, along with his suffering?

If believers suffer as their Lord does, it follows that their Lord isn't suffering as a substitute (in place of them).

It is violating God's Law, yes. But that doesn't mean he wasn't substituting himself for us, who could not rise from the dead without him!

We may be righteous, if we are obedient, but that does not mean we deserve resurrection apart from Christ substituting for those who could not do it for themselves. We all suffer. But nobody but Christ could suffer innocently so that the guilty may be raised from the dead.

Our Lord rose from death to confirm the scriptures to the world, which teach that God freely forgives the repentant.

[RandyPNW]

That seems like non-sequitur reasoning. How does it follow that Jesus suffering like the Prophets means he can't have substituted, along with his suffering?

If believers suffer as their Lord does, it follows that their Lord isn't suffering as a substitute (in place of them).

Not to me! If the Lord suffers as a substitute, he's still suffering just like anybody suffers when going through an ordeal. I may suffer for committing a crime, or I may suffer for preaching the Gospel. Just because I suffer for preaching the Gospel, and not for committing a crime, I still suffer like one who commits a crime.

You cannot say that Christ suffered *exactly* like the Prophets suffered, because he suffered as a sinless men, whereas the Prophets suffered as sinful men. Regardless of whether the Prophets were *good* men, they still suffered as sinners.

It is violating God's Law, yes. But that doesn't mean he wasn't substituting himself for us, who could not rise from the dead without him!

We may be righteous, if we are obedient, but that does not mean we deserve resurrection apart from Christ substituting for those who could not do it for themselves. We all suffer. But nobody but Christ could suffer innocently so that the guilty may be raised from the dead.

Our Lord rose from death to confirm the scriptures to the world, which teach that God freely forgives the repentant.

The point is that since sinners cannot suffer and die and still obtain resurrection on their own, and since Christ could suffer and die and still obtain resurrection on his own, he suffered and died on our behalf, so that our receiving of his spiritual life we may obtain, with him, the benefits of his own resurrection. This is "substitution."

[Fenris]

Not to me! If the Lord suffers as a substitute, he's still suffering just like anybody suffers when going through an ordeal.

I'm curious. So in standard Christian theology, provided that one accepts the idea that Jesus's sacrifice provides atonement for all sin, does it therefore follow that sin is of no consequence?

[RandyPNW]

Not to me! If the Lord suffers as a substitute, he's still suffering just like anybody suffers when going through an ordeal.

I'm curious. So in standard Christian theology, provided that one accepts the idea that Jesus's sacrifice provides atonement for all sin, does it therefore follow that sin is of no consequence?

Thanks for asking. The average Christian often doesn't even ask these things. And I spend quite a lot of time on related subjects.

To answer your question, of course sin is of consequence. The atonement is to rectify things between ourselves and God, between earth and heaven. It's a long-range plan, although there are immediate benefits.

The immediate benefits of getting back into good graces with God is that we feel God is on our side. We still live in a dangerous and miserable world, but it helps to see God side with us on a number of matters.

But the long-range goal is to determine our eternal connection to God. And so, atonement is to satisfy that matter. Otherwise, we're going to be thrown away like so much garbage. It helps to know that God has obtained a renewed interest in us, as opposed to delivering us over to death and who knows what else?

We get a boost, spiritually, in our effort to do good, because we feel God is with us, adding to our efforts kindness that comes from Him, and not from ourselves. So even though we remain sinful we feel that we're less sinful, and actually working on overcoming it, perhaps a stage at a time.

None of this excuses major sins, if we think we can just slowly evolve out of that. It doesn't require Christianity to have free will, and deny ourselves things like stealing from our neighbors, coveting their wives, and hating people to the point of murdering them.

We can do these things apart from Christianity. But the atonement puts us in a better place with God, and gives us a better hope in eternity.

[Fenris]

OK, so in other words, there's no consequences for sin. That's what I thought.

[RandyPNW]

OK, so in other words, there's no consequences for sin. That's what I thought.

You're misrepresenting what I said. I said there is a definite consequence for sin. Jesus brought what God had long brought--a patient kind of judgment. God hesitated to destroy mankind, His creation. He let a lot of things go before He brought the hammer down, such as He did with the Flood.

A Christian may be disciplined for many sins, and yet still obtain eternal life. What acquires for him eternal life is not perfection--all men sin. Rather, what gets us eternal life is acceptance of Christ and his spiritual life. If we do that, his atonement works for us, and obtains for us eternal life.

It's a promise for all, given first to the Jew, and later, to everyone else. The important thing to note, however, is that when we embrace Christ as our spirituality, we must actually live it.

We don't have to live perfectly, since no man can. But Jesus' example is the spiritual quality that pleases God, because it is God's own spirituality. Choosing a mixed spirituality, mixing God with idolatrous religion, is not something God invites into His Kingdom forever.

He wants us to not only give up false religions, but He also wants us to give up our own rebellion against Him. We must choose to walk with Him, acknowledging Him as our eternal Lord.

[Fenris]

You're misrepresenting what I said. I said there is a definite consequence for sin.

Your post is very long but doesn't say anything. If someone sins but Jesus's sacrifice removes that sin, what is the consequence for that sin?

[RandyPNW]

You're misrepresenting what I said. I said there is a definite consequence for sin.

Your post is very long but doesn't say anything. If someone sins but Jesus's sacrifice removes that sin, what is the consequence for that sin?

I gave you my answer, and you don't like it--don't say I didn't answer it. You have a naïve understanding of Christ's sacrifice. He didn't take away our ability to be punished. He took away the eternal consequences of sin's punishment, which is eternal separation from God. We may be punished as a discipline, and still be restored to God. The inability to be restored to God is what Christ's sacrifice fixed.

[Fenris]

He didn't take away our ability to be punished.

Tell me more of this. How is a person punished for their sin?

[RandyPNW]

He didn't take away our ability to be punished.

Tell me more of this. How is a person punished for their sin?

I can give you my own personal experience. I was raised from day 1 in the Christian Church. It was not a deep religious experience, but it was a sincere one. I prayed every day. I lived, generally speaking, a moral life, and others recognized it.

When I reached my teens, Christianity began to stifle me, and made me look weird. I wanted to have more friends in the world. I didn't want to lose the friends I had, as they began to indulge in licentious lifestyles. And so, I consciously left God's morality and began to indulge in what I thought were "harmless sins."

Each step of the way I experienced negative consequences, which I think showed God's patience with me. I lost my reputatioin as a "good, reliable" person, and began to be accused of things I didn't even do. I had been somewhat athletic, and began to fail at that. Ultimately, I ended up at odds with school officials and with my parents. And finally, I ended up in teen prison, the juvenile hall. This was at 16 years old.

These were divine punishments. The final breaking point, for me, was while I was in my cell, in solitary confinement, I began reading a book on witchcraft and began to adopt my new identity as a rebel. At that precise moment it felt as though God's Spirit left my body--I never even knew it was there! And I begged for God to come back, apologizing for my ways.

It took some time for me to feel at peace with God again, and it took months for me to give up the bad habits I'd learned, but within a few months I started making good adult decisions again, and finally decided to live like Jesus did, the best I knew how. Please remember that much of what Jesus taught came directly out of the Jewish Law!

These punishments I call "disciplines," because God's love doesn't give you one strike and you're out. God loves those He made, and wants to give us warnings, and helps, and all kinds of ways to turn it around, if possible in our culture.

Thanks for indulging me. It's therapeutic for me to relive this...

[journeyman]

Not to me! If the Lord suffers as a substitute, he's still suffering just like anybody suffers when going through an ordeal. I may suffer for committing a crime, or I may suffer for preaching the Gospel. Just because I suffer for preaching the Gospel, and not for committing a crime, I still suffer like one who commits a crime.

Evil men saw our Lord as a criminal. His Father did not.

You cannot say that Christ suffered *exactly* like the Prophets suffered, because he suffered as a sinless men, whereas the Prophets suffered as sinful men. Regardless of whether the Prophets were *good* men, they still suffered as sinners.

No they didn't. Jesus said,

Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. Mt.5:10-12

Yea, for thy sake are we killed all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the slaughter. Psa.44:22

Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints. Psa.116:15

Because believers are transformen into the image of Christ.

The point is that since sinners cannot suffer and die and still obtain resurrection on their own, and since Christ could suffer and die and still obtain resurrection on his own, he suffered and died on our behalf, so that our receiving of his spiritual life we may obtain, with him, the benefits of his own resurrection. This is "substitution."

God could raise the dead without his Sons sacrifice. Jesus rose from death so that our faith would be in him,

Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. 1Pet.1:21

The idea of substitutionary sacrifice is one of the worst heresies ever taught be theologians. Jesus taught repentance, not substitution,

[RandyPNW]

You cannot say that Christ suffered *exactly* like the Prophets suffered, because he suffered as a sinless men, whereas the Prophets suffered as sinful men. Regardless of whether the Prophets were *good* men, they still suffered as sinners.

No they didn't.

I think you're having semantics issues. Saying the saints are "sinners" is not saying they are "living in sin," but rather, that they remain infected with the Sin Nature. All of the saints, OT and NT, have had the Sin Nature in them, even as they lived saintly lives. This is what I mean by calling them "sinners," not that they live in sin, but that they have sin, and need to regularly overcome the tendency.

God could raise the dead without his Sons sacrifice. Jesus rose from death so that our faith would be in him,

Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. 1Pet.1:21

The idea of substitutionary sacrifice is one of the worst heresies ever taught be theologians. Jesus taught repentance, not substitution,

Substitution is not opposed to repentance. You are placing them as opposites. And so, you misrepresent what "substitution" means.

Substitution refers to the fact Christ became a man in order to suffer what we suffer obtaining for us what we could not obtain for ourselves. Perhaps some people use "Substitution" in an illicit way. In that case, you may be right--if Substitution does not require repentance, it is not biblical.

I think some Christians have erred in this way by thinking Christ did all the suffering so that we don't have to do any suffering, that he did all the performing so that we have no need to do anything. This would be wrong, if that's what you mean?

[Fenris]

These were divine punishments.

I find your personal story very touching. But those look like human punishments, not divine ones.

Thanks for indulging me. It's therapeutic for me to relive this...

Glad that we can be here to help!