Mercy beyond the Law

[journeyman]

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?

Yes, but not in place of sinners. I showed how the righteous suffer for following the Lord,

Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: Mt.23:34

But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me. Jn.15:21

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.

Our Lord didn't need to be "qualified", simply because of who he is and always was. And the Father didn't "exact from the Son the cost of what sinners must pay". Evil men did that because they called him a blasphemer.

Penal substitution isn't taught in scripture. God said that from the beginning. Repentance is taught in scripture, whereby God freely forgives.

[RandyPNW]

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?

Yes, but not in place of sinners. I showed how the righteous suffer for following the Lord...

You admit that God let Jesus die in his innocence, and then attribute his death to his own sins? That is utterly inconsistent and contradictory! If Jesus was innocent, he was not dying for his own sins. Instead, he was dying by the will of God on behalf of those who were sinning against him!

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.

Our Lord didn't need to be "qualified", simply because of who he is and always was. And the Father didn't "exact from the Son the cost of what sinners must pay". Evil men did that because they called him a blasphemer.

You're utterly bypassing the point! If human kind could not merit eternal life because of their innate sin nature, then for someone to enable them to obtain eternal life required that they *not* have a sin nature. They "qualify" to do this work of redemption for God by virtue of being sinless.

You can deny Jesus "qualified" for anything at all, but the reality is, nobody could redeem mankind from the curse of death unless that person was sinless. Of course, God Himself is sinless. But He was the One who required that redemption be done through Jesus. Therefore, the work Jesus came to do required that he be qualified as sinless.

[RabbiKnife]

Geez…..  without penal substitutionary atonement, (which does not mean at-one-ment), then that would mean that sinners would have to satisfy God’s wrath by paying for their own sins in hell for all eternity resulting in God’s wrath never being satisfied and Satan being the ultimate victor

[journeyman]

You admit that God let Jesus die in his innocence, and then attribute his death to his own sins? That is utterly inconsistent and contradictory!

I never said this. I said Jesus is sinless, but was accused, sentenced and executed contrary to what the law says. Paul said Jesus died "according to the scriptures". Maybe you should take a good long look at what that means. 

If Jesus was innocent, he was not dying for his own sins. Instead, he was dying by the will of God on behalf of those who were sinning against him!

Gods will was for his Son to turn the other cheek, instead of bringing judgement against sinners, but a day is coming when that will change.

You're utterly bypassing the point! If human kind could not merit eternal life because of their innate sin nature, then for someone to enable them to obtain eternal life required that they *not* have a sin nature. They "qualify" to do this work of redemption for God by virtue of being sinless.

You can deny Jesus "qualified" for anything at all, but the reality is, nobody could redeem mankind from the curse of death unless that person was sinless. Of course, God Himself is sinless. But He was the One who required that redemption be done through Jesus. Therefore, the work Jesus came to do required that he be qualified as sinless.

All God needed to do is make sinners aware of who he always has been,

And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Exo.34:6

being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person Heb.1:3

[journeyman]

Geez…..  without penal substitutionary atonement, (which does not mean at-one-ment), then that would mean that sinners would have to satisfy God’s wrath by paying for their own sins in hell for all eternity resulting in God’s wrath never being satisfied and Satan being the ultimate victor

Have you noticed you ignored the scripture I cited in my last reply to you, showing how God forgives the repentant without sacrifice? Here's another,

when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. Lk.15:20

But you say, No, the father must pour his wrath out on his son.

[RandyPNW]

You admit that God let Jesus die in his innocence, and then attribute his death to his own sins? That is utterly inconsistent and contradictory!

I never said this. I said Jesus is sinless, but was accused, sentenced and executed contrary to what the law says. Paul said Jesus died "according to the scriptures". Maybe you should take a good long look at what that means. 

You see, this is where your theology is bankrupt. You admit that God let Jesus--an innocent man--suffer death and abuse from wicked people. And yet you fail to acknowledge that it was part of God's plan. Why would God let an innocent man, a sinless man, die?

In my view, either God planned for this to happen to provide something through Christ for sinners, or it was a complete waste of time, and an abuse of His Son.

If Jesus was innocent, he was not dying for his own sins. Instead, he was dying by the will of God on behalf of those who were sinning against him!

Gods will was for his Son to turn the other cheek, instead of bringing judgement against sinners, but a day is coming when that will change.

So you think God is so cruel as to cause His Son to suffer unspeakable torture just so he could model for us that we should turn the other cheek? Why not just *tell us* to turn the other cheek rather than have an innocent man suffer needlessly? Your theology is inconsistent and illogical. We didn't need simply an example of "turning the other cheek." We could simply be told to do so without God having to cause an innocent man to suffer!

You're utterly bypassing the point! If human kind could not merit eternal life because of their innate sin nature, then for someone to enable them to obtain eternal life required that they *not* have a sin nature. They "qualify" to do this work of redemption for God by virtue of being sinless.

You can deny Jesus "qualified" for anything at all, but the reality is, nobody could redeem mankind from the curse of death unless that person was sinless. Of course, God Himself is sinless. But He was the One who required that redemption be done through Jesus. Therefore, the work Jesus came to do required that he be qualified as sinless.

All God needed to do is make sinners aware of who he always has been,

And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Exo.34:6

being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person Heb.1:3

Sorry, that just isn't the Bible. Jesus didn't need to come to let people know that God exists! He didn't need to send Jesus to show people what to do--He could just tell them. No, God sent Jesus to exemplify what they should do so that they could turn to his Spirit for their redemption.

Christ's Spirit was designed to replace our failed life. Following him as our exclusive lead was to replace going our own way. As such, he became our substitute when we choose to follow him exclusively, instead of doing our own thing. That's what "substitute" means!

[RabbiKnife]

Geez…..  without penal substitutionary atonement, (which does not mean at-one-ment), then that would mean that sinners would have to satisfy God’s wrath by paying for their own sins in hell for all eternity resulting in God’s wrath never being satisfied and Satan being the ultimate victor

Have you noticed you ignored the scripture I cited in my last reply to you, showing how God forgives the repentant without sacrifice? Here's another,

when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. Lk.15:20

Um, have you noticed that you quoted a parable about the lost Ess of the Pharisees.

That’s not a doctrinal statement or support.  It’s horrible hermeneutics
But you say, No, the father must pour his wrath out on his son.

[journeyman]

You see, this is where your theology is bankrupt. You admit that God let Jesus--an innocent man--suffer death and abuse from wicked people. And yet you fail to acknowledge that it was part of God's plan.

I never said God didn't plan for this. I cited Acts where Peter said it was according to God's foreknowledge.

Why would God let an innocent man, a sinless man, die?

For two good reasons. First, to prove his love for people,

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Jn.3:16

See also Mt.5:44-48, as our Lord practiced to the maximum what he preached. And second, as a testimony against those who remain unrepentant,

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Jn .3:18-19

In my view, either God planned for this to happen to provide something through Christ for sinners, or it was a complete waste of time, and an abuse of His Son.

We receive forgivness from God when we repent of the shameful way we've treated him. His longsuffering, proven by himself in the Person of Jesus is for this reason,

Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? Rom.2:4

So you think God is so cruel as to cause His Son to suffer unspeakable torture just so he could model for us that we should turn the other cheek? Why not just *tell us* to turn the other cheek rather than have an innocent man suffer needlessly? Your theology is inconsistent and illogical. We didn't need simply an example of "turning the other cheek." We could simply be told to do so without God having to cause an innocent man to suffer!

Well, you can talk all you want. When the children of this world ask you why "bad things happen to good people", just shrug. But when they ask me, I'll point them to Jesus, as he proved what the good book says. I'll let them know that God doesn't let the "good people" die. And God is patient with the "bad people" and that's an understatement. I'll give them the reason for the faith and hope that's in me

Sorry, that just isn't the Bible. Jesus didn't need to come to let people know that God exists! He didn't need to send Jesus to show people what to do--He could just tell them. No, God sent Jesus to exemplify what they should do so that they could turn to his Spirit for their redemption.

Christ's Spirit was designed to replace our failed life. Following him as our exclusive lead was to replace going our own way. As such, he became our substitute when we choose to follow him exclusively, instead of doing our own thing. That's what "substitute" means!

Actually, Jesus said,

If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin Jn.15:24

And after this, his greatest work was his resurrection. And you're meshing the repentant receiving the Holy Spirit, which has nothing to do with penal substitution.

[journeyman]

Um, have you noticed that you quoted a parable about the lost Ess of the Pharisees.

That’s not a doctrinal statement or support.  It’s horrible hermeneutics

I quoted the heart of a loving Father, not the heart of a father can't  forgive. If that's not doctrine to you it's your loss.

[Fenris]

When the children of this world ask you why "bad things happen to good people", just shrug. But when they ask me, I'll point them to Jesus, as he proved what the good book says. I'll let them know that God doesn't let the "good people" die. And God is patient with the "bad people" and that's an understatement.

So rather than comfort a mourner, you tell them that their deceased loved one deserved it? This is a horribly cruel thing to do.

[RabbiKnife]

Um, have you noticed that you quoted a parable about the lost Ess of the Pharisees.

That’s not a doctrinal statement or support.  It’s horrible hermeneutics

I quoted the heart of a loving Father, not the heart of a father can't  forgive. If that's not doctrine to you it's your loss.

No, it’s my gain; false doctrine is,your loss.

[journeyman]

So rather than comfort a mourner, you tell them that their deceased loved one deserved it? This is a horribly cruel thing to do.

Miserable deduction. What I said was I point people to Jesus. He's the comfort and fulfillment of scripture,

For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. Rom.15:4

[journeyman]

No, it’s my gain; false doctrine is,your loss.

God being a loving Father isn't false doctrine.Stunning.

[Fenris]

Miserable deduction.

Are you capable of disagreeing without insulting people? This is a really bad look for someone who claims to follow the loving God.

What I said was I point people to Jesus. He's the comfort and fulfillment of scripture,

what you said is, "I'll let them know that God doesn't let the "good people" die. And God is patient with the "bad people"". Which is a horrible thing to say to a mourner.

[RabbiKnife]

No, it’s my gain; false doctrine is,your loss.

God being a loving Father isn't false doctrine.Stunning.

A loving father is the reason a substitutionary atonement for wrath was possible