Mercy beyond the Law

[RandyPNW]

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!

I appreciate your kindness. That indicates to me that you live close to God!

[journeyman]

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.

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?

Well, "substitutionary sacrifice" or, "vicarious atonement" as it was taught to me in a Baptist church is the belief that the Father poured his wrath out on his innocent Son in place of sinners. This isn't true.

The truth is, the Father chastens all of his sons and our Savior didn't exempt himself from his Father's correction, but again, I stress that our sweet Lord Jesus needed no such correction. Only as an example to us, who desperately need to learn obedience, did the Son display the longsuffering of God,

But I say unto you, Love your enemies....that ye may be the children of your Father
Mt.5:44-45

[Fenris]

Only as an example to us, who desperately need to learn obedience

I thought the essence of Christianity was faith, not obedience. You sound more like a Muslim saying this, as "Islam" = "submission".

[RandyPNW]

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.

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?

Well, "substitutionary sacrifice" or, "vicarious atonement" as it was taught to me in a Baptist church is the belief that the Father poured his wrath out on his innocent Son in place of sinners. This isn't true.

The truth is, the Father chastens all of his sons and our Savior didn't exempt himself from his Father's correction, but again, I stress that our sweet Lord Jesus needed no such correction. Only as an example to us, who desperately need to learn obedience, did the Son display the longsuffering of God,

But I say unto you, Love your enemies....that ye may be the children of your Father
Mt.5:44-45

You sound like you have bad doctrine. The essence of Christ's sacrifice was that he was a form of God suffering *all* the sin of the world so that it proved that He forgives anybody willing to repent.

In other words, it's the repentance that counts, and not the previous sin. It is not just in accepting that he bore our sin and was willing to forgive all sin, but more, that we accept him and his spirituality as the basis of this repentance.

These are two separate issues that need to be defined, the ability to repent and receive eternal life, and the means of repentance through accepting only God's way, and leaving our own way behind.

The fact you deny the part where his atonement achieves eternal life for those who repent stuns me, and makes me wonder where you got such watered down beliefs? It isn't doctrinally-orthodoxy, whether you want to call it "Substitution" or not.

[journeyman]

I thought the essence of Christianity was faith, not obedience. You sound more like a Muslim saying this, as "Islam" = "submission".

Obedience is the result of faith and Muslims, like you, don't believe the Messiah rose from death.

[journeyman]

You sound like you have bad doctrine. The essence of Christ's sacrifice was that he was a form of God suffering *all* the sin of the world so that it proved that He forgives anybody willing to repent.

You need to look up the doctrine of substitutionary sacrifice, aka vicarious atonement, aka penal substitution.

In other words, it's the repentance that counts, and not the previous sin. It is not just in accepting that he bore our sin and was willing to forgive all sin, but more, that we accept him and his spirituality as the basis of this repentance.

The basis of repentance is acknowledging and turning from sin committed against God and nowhere is this sin more clearly displayed than when perpetrated against our Lord Jesus.

These are two separate issues that need to be defined, the ability to repent and receive eternal life, and the means of repentance through accepting only God's way, and leaving our own way behind.

The fact you deny the part where his atonement achieves eternal life for those who repent stuns me, and makes me wonder where you got such watered down beliefs? It isn't doctrinally-orthodoxy, whether you want to call it "Substitution" or not.

Im not denying his sacrifice may cause repentance, which reconciles to God. I'm simply saying God didn't pour his wrath out on his Son, as vicarious atonement, or substitutionary sacrifice teaches. Men poured their wrath out on our Savior. This is the meaning of him "bearing sin".

[RabbiKnife]

Men have no wrath.

Only God has wrath.

And yes, indeed, God poured out His righteous and holy wrath on Jesus, in an instant, once and for all, so that none of it splashed on me.

Thanks be to God!

[journeyman]

And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, Lk.4:28

For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. Jas.1:20

Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: Eph.4:31

[RandyPNW]

You sound like you have bad doctrine. The essence of Christ's sacrifice was that he was a form of God suffering *all* the sin of the world so that it proved that He forgives anybody willing to repent.

You need to look up the doctrine of substitutionary sacrifice, aka vicarious atonement, aka penal substitution.

In other words, it's the repentance that counts, and not the previous sin. It is not just in accepting that he bore our sin and was willing to forgive all sin, but more, that we accept him and his spirituality as the basis of this repentance.

The basis of repentance is acknowledging and turning from sin committed against God and nowhere is this sin more clearly displayed than when perpetrated against our Lord Jesus.

These are two separate issues that need to be defined, the ability to repent and receive eternal life, and the means of repentance through accepting only God's way, and leaving our own way behind.

The fact you deny the part where his atonement achieves eternal life for those who repent stuns me, and makes me wonder where you got such watered down beliefs? It isn't doctrinally-orthodoxy, whether you want to call it "Substitution" or not.

Im not denying his sacrifice may cause repentance, which reconciles to God. I'm simply saying God didn't pour his wrath out on his Son, as vicarious atonement, or substitutionary sacrifice teaches. Men poured their wrath out on our Savior. This is the meaning of him "bearing sin".

You want me to look up vicarious sacrifice and substitution when all of conventional Christianity bases its faith on that? I do understand your concern, but you're not going to make your point by throwing out a cardinal tenet of Christianity, which is that Christ took punishment that he did not deserve and that we deserved so that in him we may obtain eternal life.

[journeyman]

You want me to look up vicarious sacrifice and substitution when all of conventional Christianity bases its faith on that? I do understand your concern, but you're not going to make your point by throwing out a cardinal tenet of Christianity, which is that Christ took punishment that he did not deserve and that we deserved so that in him we may obtain eternal life.

My concern is that vicarious sacrifice says the Son was being punished for sins in place of us BY HIS FATHER That's not true.

[RandyPNW]

You want me to look up vicarious sacrifice and substitution when all of conventional Christianity bases its faith on that? I do understand your concern, but you're not going to make your point by throwing out a cardinal tenet of Christianity, which is that Christ took punishment that he did not deserve and that we deserved so that in him we may obtain eternal life.

My concern is that vicarious sacrifice says the Son was being punished for sins in place of us BY HIS FATHER That's not true.

I'm not sure what nuanced concern you have--it's not clear at all. But the way "vicarious sacrifice" and "substitute" are normally used apparently means more than you're giving them credit for.

It's like saying redemption isn't biblical because some people say people's souls can be bought apart from their will. But that's not what redemption normally means. It means people are bought with someone else's money and are willing to have their debt paid for.

Substitution is our willingness to have Christ pay our debt in the way someone might pay for our ticket to get to heaven. We can't afford the price, but Christ could. We substitute his payment for our own.

[RabbiKnife]

You want me to look up vicarious sacrifice and substitution when all of conventional Christianity bases its faith on that? I do understand your concern, but you're not going to make your point by throwing out a cardinal tenet of Christianity, which is that Christ took punishment that he did not deserve and that we deserved so that in him we may obtain eternal life.

My concern is that vicarious sacrifice says the Son was being punished for sins in place of us BY HIS FATHER That's not true.

Well, of course it is true.

"The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all."


Romans 3
Most of 1 John

I mean, what do you understand "propitiation" or "atonement" to mean?

God the Father killed Jesus the Son.

Why is this a difficult concept?

You obviously do not believe in penal substitutionary atonement.
So, on what basis do you believe that sin is forgiven?

[journeyman]

I'm not sure what nuanced concern you have--it's not clear at all. But the way "vicarious sacrifice" and "substitute" are normally used apparently means more than you're giving them credit for.

That false doctrine has been turned into more. My nuanced concern remains that God doesn't punish the innocent for what the guilty do. God is just, not unjust.

It's like saying redemption isn't biblical because some people say people's souls can be bought apart from their will. But that's not what redemption normally means. It means people are bought with someone else's money and are willing to have their debt paid for.

We've already discussed the price our sinless Savior paid, so that sinners would consider how unjustly he was treated and repent of it.

Substitution is our willingness to have Christ pay our debt in the way someone might pay for our ticket to get to heaven. We can't afford the price, but Christ could. We substitute his payment for our own.

Again, I know what the theory of substitution says, but God's word says the price of sin is the life of the one who committed that sin, unless that sinner desires God to forgive him, because God forgives such,

And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified Lk.18:13-14

The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit. Psa.34:18

[journeyman]

Well, of course it is true.

"The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all."

This way,

the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me. Psa.69:9

Paul cites this in Rom.15:1-4. He isn't teaching that our Lord bore sin and infirmity as a substitute. Read it.
 

Romans 3

God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. Rom.3:4

Paul is quoting Psa.51:4. Read Psa.51, where King Davids heart is broken and desires God's forgiveness,

For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. Psa.51:16-17

Read the whole Psalm, because that's the heartfelt repentance sinners should have. Romans 3 speaks of the same grace displayed by Jesus.

Most of 1 John

I mean, what do you understand "propitiation" or "atonement" to mean?

Nothing John says disagrees with God's mercy. Propitiation means to appease through mercy, thereby turning away wrath. Jesus turned his wrath away when people spit on him, beat him, mocked him and killed him.

Atonement means at-one-ment, what brings to oneness with God. It's the mercy the Son who is one with his Father that reconciles us with himself.

God the Father killed Jesus the Son.

No he didn't. God knew beforehand how sinners would kill his Son,

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Act.2:23

And here's the reason,

If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause. Jn.15:24-25

Why is this a difficult concept?

Because punishing an innocent man isn't mercy. God doesn't do that.

You obviously do not believe in penal substitutionary atonement.
So, on what basis do you believe that sin is forgiven?

Gods mercy,

I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: Mt.18:32

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: Isa.1:18

Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: Mt.7:47

[RandyPNW]

My nuanced concern remains that God doesn't punish the innocent for what the guilty do. God is just, not unjust.

That's obviously false. God allows the innocent to unjustly suffer every day. There are victims all through history, including the death of Jesus. Don't you believe that God let the "innocent suffer" when He let Jesus die on the cross?

Again, I know what the theory of substitution says, but God's word says the price of sin is the life of the one who committed that sin, unless that sinner desires God to forgive him, because God forgives such,

This is where you really mess up. Of course the price of sin is our death. God said that from the beginning! But the price to overcome death, to obtain resurrection, is not something sinful man can pay for. The price must be paid by someone whose work will not be disqualified by their sin.

This means that *only Jesus* could pay the price for our resurrection. And the price God exacted from him was that he go through the same cost that all of sinful mankind must pay--the price of his own death.

That qualified him to give us new life and resurrection. We didn't earn that right, but we obtain it legitimately when we simply accept his life in place of our own carnal life--not just once, but for the rest of our lives.