ATONEMENT

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
S

Sophia

Guest
#61
The ransom of the Church is also an individual and personal ransom of each stone that builds the Church.
We don't become part of the Church in order to be saved, but become part of the Church BECAUSE we are saved.
The Bride is both collective AND individual.
 

Cassian

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2013
1,960
7
0
#62
It was much more than a mere example which is why the early Church also expounded on Recapitulation, Christus Victor and Ransom, and not only on the Moral Influence.

Please take a look at...
Atonement in Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The death of Christ has many aspects to it. Penal Substitution is NOT one of them.

The death of Christ served to purchase the Church and it is in that purchase that we are able to find release from the dominion of sin. Without that purchase there would be no forgiveness of sins.

The death of Christ put into effect the New Covenant because a covenant is only of effect after one has died. God has used the blood of Jesus as His signature, so to speak, to guarantee His part of the covenant, we are thus able to enter into that covenant with full confidence.

Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
Heb 9:18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
Heb 9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
Heb 9:20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

The shedding of blood was necessary because sins have to be purged from our conscience. The death of Christ is simply the means God has elected to do this. It is God's way of dealing with sins once and for all.

Heb 9:21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Heb 9:23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

What has happened in the modern day is that people have been deceived into believing in a false version of why Jesus died. This false version generally teaches that the basis of reconciliation to God is through Jesus "paying the sin debt due" by undergoing the full wrath of God and that the "righteousness of Jesus is credited to the believers account" thus God no longer sees the wicked sinner but rather sees Jesus instead.

The deception is this legal swap doctrine which serves to substitute what the Bible actually teaches. This is why people under this delusion can teach things like "unconditional eternal security." Instead of viewing salvation as encompassing a true purging of evil within which results in heart purity, they view salvation as a mere PROVISION which puts one in a POSITION which is totally disconnected from the true condition of the heart. In other words they utterly reject manifest heart purity in salvation.

The tragedy is that so many people believe in this Penal Substitution doctrine even though it is only FOUR HUNDRED years old and anyone can look up the history of it easily to confirm that fact. Yet people will spite the obvious and go to their graves contending for a fiction rather than simply yield to what the Bible says.

Jesus died to effect a true redemption from all iniquity and to make us pure, that we would be zealous of righteousness. That is what the Bible teaches. The Penal Substitution people don't teach that because if you ask them they believe that they sin every day in thought, word and deed. They believe that all their righteousness is as filthy rags. They believe in "sin you will and sin you must." Bring up the subject of heart purity and a cessation from sin and they become riled up and will condemn you with accusations of "works salvation," "adding to the cross," "do you sin" and so on. A true tragedy of epic proportions.
I have just finished reading this thread to this point and see that you stand alone with the Truth. You have done an excellent effort in explaining the correct Biblical understanding of atonement.

Many are creating strawmen when it comes to the issue of "righteousness". They are either totally ignoring what Christ actually accomplished or are putting the reason why Christ reconciled the world as the salvation of believers. They are not remotely the same as you have tried to point out. The fact that they accuse you of "works salvation", clearly puts them outside of understanding what Christ accomplished by His atonement and the purpose of that atonement.

There is a difference between the salvation that Christ performed for the world, and the purpose which was to be able to be united with man through faith to work out one's salvation to attain eternal life.

Keep up the good work, even though it is lonely.
 
Feb 5, 2015
1,852
13
0
#63
You have completely missed the point.

The issue has nothing to do with "living a good life under the law to attain heaven."

The issue has EVERYTHING to do with "loving one another with a pure heart having had our souls purified through obedience to the truth."

1Pe 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

What many people do is confuse the "law of Moses" with "obedience from the heart/wholehearted yielding to the grace of God." The underlying premises upon which many of the modern false doctrine are set upon set people up to fall into this confusing trap, a trap by which their eyes are closed to the very plain and obvious truth. It is very similar to how the Pharisees would reject Jesus in spite of a blind man being healed and a message preached pertaining to true righteousness. They were all caught up in their religion and rejected what was right in front of them. Very sad.
I think it is you who have missed the point.

The specific point I responded to was whether Christ died at Calvary for all a born again believers sins. According to the Apostle Paul he did:

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. [SUP]20[/SUP]Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
Righteousness Through Faith

[SUP]21 [/SUP]But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. [SUP]22 [/SUP]This righteousness is given through faith in[SUP][h][/SUP] Jesus Christ to all who believe Rom 3:19-22

If no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by works of the law, what does that mean?
It means(to use an older translation) no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by observing the law. What is the result of failing to observe the law? It is sin! Therefore, a persons righteousness before God does not depend on their personal sin(or imperfections where the law is concerned)
Paul confirms this by stating we have a righteousness of faith in Christ, APART FROM THE LAW. If Christ only died to wi[pe the slate clean at the point of conversion, the Christian MUST live under a law of righteousness, nothing else is possible. For if they fail to observe the law(sin) they stand guilty unto condemnation
Is this a licence to sin? No! For the Christian has been born again of the Holy Spirit at the point of conversion. The law God requires them to keep is written on their mind and placed on their heart.

With the true power of sin removed from the Christians life, they will far better(though not perfectly) live as God wants them to live

That is the core of Paul's Gospel message of grace
 
Last edited:
Nov 26, 2011
3,818
62
0
#64
I have talked much to souls like yours in my days regarding these issues. Seeing that others, like Elin, are doing a great job to refute your errors I have little or nothing to add seeing it would just be repetitive.

Interesting that you brought up the Pharisees, they were/are in full agreement with you regarding the matter of free will, and that ones efforts and strivings are enough to make one righteous. To the rationalist mind I am sure that penal substitution, which Paul taught, consists of "logical inconsistencies", seeing they can only believe what their own intellect perceives as "logical" enough. For wesleyans and finneyites alike the gracious doctrine of penal substitution is a great threat to their own pride, since it makes boasting in self impossible.

Next.
Actually John Wesley believed in Penal Substitution. Charles Finney rejected it and held to the Moral Government view. They were both clearly wrong.

Paul did not teach Penal Substitution. The Reformers take a few verses of Paul and rip them from their context and then using rhetoric and conjecture force the doctrine into the text.

There is no passage which teaches it and that is why no-one can produce a passage which teaches it.

A sin paid for is not a sin forgiven. One has to in effect turn their brain off and throw reason out the window in order to believe Penal Substitution.

Many cosmologists do the same thing when they teach that expanding gas in a vacuum can collapse upon itself and form stars. There are many people in this world who hold to the absurd and yet stand amongst company in prestigious positions.

Penal Substitution is rooted in an intellectual elitism amongst many theologians. "Penal Substitution" is really the theological version of "Evolutionary Theory." An absurdity people believe in simply because they want to believe in it, not wanting to be confused with the facts.
 
Nov 26, 2011
3,818
62
0
#65
I think it is you who have missed the point.

The specific point I responded to was whether Christ died at Calvary for all a born again believers sins. According to the Apostle Paul he did:
Jesus died at Calvary for all the sins of all people, both believers and non-believers. His death provided the means by which a sinner can approach God directly in seeking to be reconciled.

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. [SUP]20[/SUP]Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
Righteousness Through Faith

[SUP]21 [/SUP]But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. [SUP]22 [/SUP]This righteousness is given through faith in[SUP][h][/SUP] Jesus Christ to all who believe Rom 3:19-22

If no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by works of the law, what does that mean?
It means(to use an older translation) no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by observing the law. What is the result of failing to observe the law? It is sin! Therefore, a persons righteousness before God does not depend on their personal sin(or imperfections where the law is concerned)
A persons righteousness before God depends on the condition of their heart, whether it is pure or not. Faith purifies the heart (Act 15:9) and faith is reckoned as righteousness (Rom 4:5).

The reason no-one is declared righteous by observing the law is because one can observe the law apart from a faith that works by love. In other words one can be inwardly wicked and yet observe rites and rituals. Thus righteousness can NEVER be via adherence to external rule sets.

Righteousness is instead by faith, a faith that works by love, love that fulfills the law, faith the upholds the righteousness of the law. That is what the Bible teaches.

In order to be righteous we have to be plugged wholeheartedly into God. God's grace is His divine influence upon our hearts, it is the power of God.

A light globe cannot shine lest it is plugged into an electrical system. A human being cannot be righteous lest they are plugged into God. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life and it is THROUGH Him, the Spirit of His life, that we connect to God.

Paul confirms this by stating we have a righteousness of faith in Christ, APART FROM THE LAW.
Carefully read the passage.

Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

Jesus walked by a faith that worked by love and thus manifested a righteousness apart from the law. The law is a mere shadow of what heart purity ought to produce. Jesus did not need the shadow for He abided in the source. Thus Jesus fulfilled the righteousness of the law.

Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

The righteousness of God is via FAITH. The same FAITH that Jesus had. A FAITH that works by love. It is upon all those whom believe because those whom believe ABIDE in that faith. Abraham was commanded to "go out" and Abraham "went," Abraham was yielded totally to God because Abraham trusted God. Abraham yielded his life into God's hands.

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

All have sinned, both Jews and Gentiles.

Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

We are justified freely by the grace of God THROUGH THE MEANS of the redemption that is IN Jesus Christ. In other words we are rescued from sin via abiding in the Spirit of life IN Jesus Christ, hence the Spirit of life IN Jesus Christ sets us free from the law of sin and death. Due to no longer sinning unto death (serving sin has ceased) God forgives us and His forgiveness does not imply license because our hearts have been made pure and we are thus no longer in rebellion.

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Jesus was set forth as the mercy seat offering (look up propitiation in the Greek) and it is through faith in His blood (the blood that dedicated the New Covenant of which we are enjoined into), where the righteousness of Jesus (He was a spotless lamb/sinless) is declared to the world for the forgiveness of past sins.

Rom 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

The righteousness of God is declared through this sacrifice and due to this God is just in forgiving those who believe. Again this means of reconciliation nullifies any notion that forgiveness creates a license to sin because the result of the reconciliation process is a PURIFIED HEART in the redeemed, thus there is no hidden motive to treat the grace of God with contempt.

Rom 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

There is no boasting in this process because it is all driven by the grace of God. Nothing can happen apart from the leading of God upon our hearts. There is nothing we can do apart from God that would bring us into salvation. We are totally dependent on God and thus there is no boasting. Remember the boasting by the Jews was in the law of Moses (read Romans 2).

Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

We are justified by faith (that works by love) without the deeds of the law. We don't have to go and get circumcised or keep some day holy or adhere to some kind of diet. We have to simply have FAITH, we simply have to be wholeheartedly yielded to God. We operate from love out of a pure heart, not from a checklist of rule keeping.

Rom 3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
Rom 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

Due to "faith being reckoned as righteousness" things like circumcision do not matter.

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Yet does faith void the law? By no means, it fulfills it, it establishes it. Faith is not a license to sin because there is no longer a penalty for sin, rather faith is the MEANS by which we walk in righteousness and uphold the spirit of the law.

Now it goes into chapter 4 where Paul speaks of FAITH being reckoned as righteousness.

If Christ only died to wi[pe the slate clean at the point of conversion, the Christian MUST live under a law of righteousness, nothing else is possible.
That is correct. We MUST live under a law of righteousness and that law is the law of "faith that works by love." Hence it is the LAW OF THE SPIRIT OF LIFE that sets us free from the law of sin and death. We must ABIDE in the Spirit of life IN Jesus Christ. That is the standard.

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

That is why there is no condemnation for those who WALK after the Spirit

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

The righteousness of the law is fulfilled IN us who walk after the Spirit. Those who refuse to walk after the Spirit are under condemnation.

Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

The death of Christ did not lower the bar, it raised it. We are no longer under outward rules and regulations, we are under the law of LOVE. Blessed be the PURE IN HEART for they shall see God. That is what the Bible teaches.

For if they fail to observe the law(sin) they stand guilty unto condemnation
Is this a licence to sin? No! For the Christian has been born again of the Holy Spirit at the point of conversion. The law God requires them to keep is written on their mind and placed on their heart.

With the true power of sin removed from the Christians life, they will far better(though not perfectly) live as God wants them to live

That is the core of Paul's Gospel message of grace
The license to sin I allude to has nothing to do with law written upon the heart, it has to do with Penal Substitution teaching in that it teaches that all sin, "past, present and future" is PAID FOR and thus engaging in willful sin no longer brings condemnation. That is a license to sin doctrine that is NOT taught anywhere in the Bible.

Willful sin brings death. No sin has been "paid for." The Church has been purchased, not a sin debt paid.
 
Nov 26, 2011
3,818
62
0
#66
I have just finished reading this thread to this point and see that you stand alone with the Truth. You have done an excellent effort in explaining the correct Biblical understanding of atonement.

Many are creating strawmen when it comes to the issue of "righteousness". They are either totally ignoring what Christ actually accomplished or are putting the reason why Christ reconciled the world as the salvation of believers. They are not remotely the same as you have tried to point out. The fact that they accuse you of "works salvation", clearly puts them outside of understanding what Christ accomplished by His atonement and the purpose of that atonement.

There is a difference between the salvation that Christ performed for the world, and the purpose which was to be able to be united with man through faith to work out one's salvation to attain eternal life.

Keep up the good work, even though it is lonely.
Thank you.

I know others not participating in the thread will read it and hopefully some will question a blind belief in the Penal Model and perhaps come to a knowledge of the real truth. Perhaps even a Moral Government adherent will jump in as I would love to discuss the problems I see in that view too.

Yes it can be lonely but only in the sense of lonely amongst men. There are still plenty of Saints in the world, they are just FEW in comparison to the MANY Jesus spoke of.

All through history the MANY have followed popular religion and it was the FEW who would see the ruse for what it is. Praise God that there is still light in this very dark world.
 
Feb 5, 2015
1,852
13
0
#67
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Jesus was set forth as the mercy seat offering (look up propitiation in the Greek) and it is through faith in His blood (the blood that dedicated the New Covenant of which we are enjoined into), where the righteousness of Jesus (He was a spotless lamb/sinless) is declared to the world for the forgiveness of past sins.

.
If you would like me to fully respond to your posts, you need to make them shorter. No offence to you, but ask anyone, I find long posts too time consuming to respond to all the points made. So I will concentrate on the point our discussion started under.

In Romans3:25 Paul is referring to Jesus death being for those who lived before him. No one could enter Heaven without Jesus death at Calvary, for none could be good enough under the law.

If Jesus only died at Calvary to wipe the slate clean at the point of conversion, I must repeat, the Christian must have a righteousness before God of obedience to the law, nothing else is possible. Paul states time and time again the Christian's righteousness is faith in Christ.

Indeed, if Christ only died at Calvary for past sins, reading your post I imagine a person would be better off under the old covenant than the new one. For then sacrifices for sin could be made. You seem to be implying that unless a person performs perfect they are going to hell. The old covenant was not as harsh as you seem to be describing the new one. Sacrifices for sin could be made. However, there is only one sacrifice for sin under the new covenant, and you appear to believe it is only in effect at the point of conversion, which leaves a Christian performing perfect or condemned to hell. There wouldn't seem to be any room left for the love, mercy and compassion of God would there.

As you are aware, the measure we use to judge others will be used to judge us, I assume you believe you faultlessly follow after the Holy Spirit.


The new covenant hinges on two core facts, not one. The first stops a licence to sin, the second pays the price of the Christians imperfections. Only those who have been born again of the Holy Spirit(the law is written on their minds and placed on their heart) get their sins and lawless deeds remembered no more.

If one has to perfectly follow after the Holy Spirit and cease all sin to be a Christian, can you tell me who Paul is speaking of in the following:

We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles [SUP]16 [/SUP]know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[SUP][d][/SUP] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.[SUP]17 [/SUP]“But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! [SUP]18 [/SUP]If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker

Gal2:15-18
 
Last edited:

Elin

Banned
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#68
You forgot the scapegoat... where does the term scapegoat come from --->

Leviticus 16:10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.
Yes, the scapegoat was once a year on the Day of Atonement, it was not a daily thing like the substitutionary sin sacrifices.
 

Elin

Banned
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#69
Elin,
You cannot quote a single passage in the Bible which actually teaches the Penal Substitution model.
Nor can you quote a single passage in the Bible which actually states God is sovereign.

Sure you can quote Bible verses, but none of them say what you want them to say.

Sins paid for = Sins not forgiven.
Nope. . ."forgiveness" is an accounting term.
Go learn what it means. . .it has nothing to do with debts not being paid.


I will not be arguing the plain meanings of Scripture nor the English language with you,
nor will I be addressing your manifestly torturous explanations of them.

And I don't take my understanding from Wikipedia, right, wrong or indifferent.
I take it from the Scriputres.


The following speak for themselves. . .and each one can decide for themselves:

The whole OT sin sacrifice (propitiation) system was substitutionary atonement.

"He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities. . .
the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."
(Isa 53:5-6)

"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree."
(2Pe 2:24)

"And he is the propitiation
(atoning sacrifice) for our sins." (1Jn 2:2)

". . .he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation
(atoning sacrifice) for our sins." (1Jn 4:10)

"God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement (propitiation) through faith in his blood (death)."
(Ro 3:25)

Wounding--bruising--death (capital punishment) is penal,
for our sins is substitutionary,
as propitiation is atonement.
 
Last edited:

SoulWeaver

Senior Member
Oct 25, 2014
4,889
2,534
113
#70
Yes, the scapegoat was once a year on the Day of Atonement, it was not a daily thing like the substitutionary sin sacrifices.
I'm saying the very term scapegoat and this being ordained by God proves the point that Jesus died in our stead and drank the cup of wrath of God. As the thread was about Atonement... not sure about what you mean here because I was agreeing, not disagreeing with you... It's getting contentious here so I'm leaving anyway.
 
Last edited:
Feb 7, 2015
22,418
413
0
#71
I'm saying the very term scapegoat and this being ordained by God proves the point that Jesus died in our stead and drank the cup of wrath of God. As the thread was about Atonement... not sure about what you mean here because I was agreeing, not disagreeing with you... It's getting contentious here so I'm leaving anyway.
Be careful in calling that cup Jesus was praying about in the Garden, "The Cup of God's Wrath."

Bear in mind that Jesus asked two of His disciples if they could drink of the same cup He was going to drink of.... THEN He told them that, indeed, they WOULD drink of the same cup.
 
Last edited:
S

Sophia

Guest
#72
Be careful in calling that cup Jesus was praying about in the Garden, "The Cup of God's Wrath."

Bear in mind that Jesus asked two of His disciples if they could drink of the same cup He was going to drink of.... THEN He told them that, indeed, they WOULD drink of the same cup.
2 different cups. Jesus was making a play on words and symbols.
They cannot drink the cup which Jesus was about to drink,
but certainly would drink from the cup that Jesus poured out for us.
 

Elin

Banned
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#73
I'm saying the very term scapegoat and this being ordained by God proves the point that Jesus died in our stead and drank the cup of wrath of God. As the thread was about Atonement... not sure about what you mean here because I was agreeing, not disagreeing with you... It's getting contentious here so I'm leaving anyway.
I was agreeing with you. . .just giving more details.

Sorry that wasn't clear.
 
Feb 7, 2015
22,418
413
0
#74
2 different cups. Jesus was making a play on words and symbols.
They cannot drink the cup which Jesus was about to drink,
but certainly would drink from the cup that Jesus poured out for us.
Does this mean that when Jesus said He was going to Heaven, and then said that we would go to Heaven, that we readers can choose to decide that He was just making a play on words and symbols? That we are actually going somewhere else, not the same Heaven He was speaking of for Himself?

What is the determinating factor that allows us say one verse is "Yeah... but not really." and another verse is hard fact?
 
Last edited:

Elin

Banned
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#75
Be careful in calling that cup Jesus was praying about in the Garden, "The Cup of God's Wrath."

Bear in mind that Jesus asked two of His disciples if they could drink of the same cup He was going to drink of.... THEN He told them that,
indeed, they WOULD drink of the same cup.
The same figure of speech is used in Jer 25:15; Rev 16:19 where it is the cup of wrath
(see also Eze 23:32; Hab 2:16).

And Scripture records that James did (Ac 12:2),
while church history records that John was tortured before being exiled to Patmos.
 
Last edited:
S

Sophia

Guest
#76
Does this mean that when Jesus said He was going to Heaven, and then said that we would go to Heaven, that we readers can choose to decide that He was just making a play on words and symbols? That we are actually going somewhere else, not the same Heaven He was speaking of for Himself?

What is the determinating factor that allows us say one verse is "Yeah... but not really." and another verse is hard fact?
He switched focus based on their answer.
It was obvious from His question that they could not drink the cup He was about to drink,
but then He says "you will drink the cup of me".
Jesus does this many times. Think of the conversation He had with Nicodemus about birth, or about water with the woman at the well, or about baby time He confronted the Pharisees.
Switching topics to relate truth to the hearer is a constant throughout Jesus' conversational ministry.
 
Nov 26, 2011
3,818
62
0
#77
I'm saying the very term scapegoat and this being ordained by God proves the point that Jesus died in our stead and drank the cup of wrath of God. As the thread was about Atonement... not sure about what you mean here because I was agreeing, not disagreeing with you... It's getting contentious here so I'm leaving anyway.
Mat 20:20 Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.
Mat 20:21 And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.
Mat 20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
Mat 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
 
Nov 26, 2011
3,818
62
0
#78
Does this mean that when Jesus said He was going to Heaven, and then said that we would go to Heaven, that we readers can choose to decide that He was just making a play on words and symbols? That we are actually going somewhere else, not the same Heaven He was speaking of for Himself?

What is the determinating factor that allows us say one verse is "Yeah... but not really." and another verse is hard fact?
The determining factor is the belief in a 400 year old dogma. Thus the Bible cannot possibly mean what it says to these people. By necessity, they have to twist it.
 
Nov 26, 2011
3,818
62
0
#79
penal substitution, which Paul taught

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
2Pe 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.


The Penal-Substitution Theory of the atonement was formulated by the 16th century Reformers as an extension of Anselm's Satisfaction theory.
Penal substitutionary atonement - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity



There is general agreement that no writer in the Early Church taught penal substitution as their primary theory of atonement. Yet some writers appear to reference some of the ideas of penal substitution as an afterthought or as an aside.
Penal substitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Calvin appropriated Anselm's ideas but changed the terminology to that of the criminal law with which he was familiar—he was trained as a lawyer—reinterpreted in the light of Biblical teaching on the law. Man is guilty before God's judgement and the only appropriate punishment is eternal death. The Son of God has become man and has stood in man's place to bear the immeasurable weight of wrath—the curse, and the condemnation of a righteous God. He was "made a substitute and a surety in the place of transgressors and even submitted as a criminal, to sustain and suffer all the punishment which would have been inflicted on them."[SUP][33][/SUP]

The work of the Reformers, including Zwingli and Philip Melanchthon, was hugely influential. It took away from religion the requirement of works, whether corporal or spiritual, of the need for penances, belief in purgatory, indeed the whole medieval penitential system; and it did so by emphasizing the finality of Christ's work.
Penal substitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
S

Sophia

Guest
#80
Mat 20:20 Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.
Mat 20:21 And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.
Mat 20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
Mat 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
Show me where the 2nd half of verse 22 is found in the Greek, or in any other translation.
It is an addition to the Word by the Catholic Church, and a distortion to sure up their doctrine of sacraments.