ATONEMENT

[michael56]

Of course you won't because you cannot. People like you only present a hand of subjective rhetoric and conjecture with a smattering of out of context proof texts. That is all you have. You just repeat your fallacious bullet points.


.

You cannot address the core of the new covenant the Christian is under, for it plainly shows you are in error. I will repeat, if all you can do is ignore the scripture placed before you, why do you think people should address your scripture?

Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. [SUP]12 [/SUP]But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, [SUP]13 [/SUP]and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. [SUP]14 [/SUP]For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.[SUP]15 [/SUP]The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
[SUP]16 [/SUP]“This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”[SUP][b][/SUP]

[SUP]17 [/SUP]Then he adds:
“Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.”[SUP][c][/SUP]

[SUP]18 [/SUP]And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary. Heb 10:11-18


[h=3][/h]

 

[michael56]

That is right. Yet Jesus did not die to give you a license to keep sinning but rather to present you with a means by which you can be reconciled to God through His blood, should you approach God in genuine repentance and faith.

How can you speak of victory over sin? Your teaching allows the power of sin to remain firmly in place. Anyone can quote scripture selectively, the Pharisees could quote the literal word extensively, but you cannot address the core issues, simply evade them and continually post what you do.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

How can you speak of victory over sin? Your teaching allows the power of sin to remain firmly in place. Anyone can quote scripture selectively, the Pharisees could quote the literal word extensively, but you cannot address the core issues, simply evade them and continually post what you do.

he does not understand grace is not the license to sin, it is the power which breaks sin.

 

[michael56]

The power of sin is only in place for those who refuse to yield wholeheartedly to God. Are you one of those people?

According to your preaching only those who fail to wholeheartedly(or completely) obey the law. The power of sin is the law. All your preaching does is to feed the power of sin in a person's life.

What sins do you refuse to forsake that make you so vehemently defend ongoing wickedness in salvation? I cannot think of any other reason why you contend so earnestly in favour of wickedness.

Please tell me how you know you sin less than I do?

 

[Skinski7]

Here is the Ministry of Reconciliation in a nutshell.



Now here is the lie of Penal Substitution which utterly destroys the Gospel...



Penal Substitution presents a MAGIC CLOAK for wickedness via a moral transfer and penalty paid. It is a 400 year old false doctrine which gives people a license to sin.

Penal Substitution serves to excuse future rebellion to God because its proponents believe that no penalty remains because it has been "paid in full." Thus their doctrine teaches they can sin with impunity. They will dress this "sinning with impunity" up via contending that "we SHOULD not sin" but when taken to task of "can they sin and not surely die" they will have to answer "yes we can." Usually they will dodge the question.

 

[Skinski7]

Penal Substitution proponents will always defend being saved IN sin and will claim that "sin you will and sin you must." Thus they deny heart purity in salvation. If that logic is taken to extremity it means that a child molester can keep molesting children and still enter the kingdom of heaven. If a Penal Substitution proponent is to deny that then they would also have to claim that all other willful sins would have to stop also and they CANNOT do that.

The easiest way to expose this doctrine is to ask one of its proponents if a child molester has to stop molesting children BEFORE forgiveness is granted.

[video=youtube;WU4D1iaHvWM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU4D1iaHvWM[/video]

 

[michael56]

Penal Substitution proponents will always defend being saved IN sin and will claim that "sin you will and sin you must."

For sin shall not be your master for you are not under law but under grace Rom 6:14

Paul would appear to disagree with you, for if a person is not under a righteousness of obedience to the law Christ paid the penalty of all their sin.

It isn't a 400 year old doctrine, it is a two thousand year old doctrine.

But the self righteous refuse to accept it

 

[Skinski7]

Michael,

The sacrifices under the Old Covenant could not purge sin from the heart. There still existed the veil between God and mankind due to sin. Jesus Christ came to Earth as our kinsman (He was human) and He overcame sin and thus inherited the promises which we can partake in through being near kinsman (we are human). In other words God is willing to forgive those whom forsake the service of Satan and yield themselves to the service of Christ. God accepts Christ and it is through Christ that we find acceptance to. There is no veil and we can approach God in a direct manner.

Hebrews 10 does not teach Penal Substitution, it teaches reconciliation via covenant. We approach God with a true heart, in repentance and faith, via the blood and are cleansed of our past sins. THEN is we willfully sin after that cleansing the sacrifice is rendered null and void because the purpose of the Ministry of Reconciliation is to leave us in a pure state. That is why there is only no condemnation for those who WALK after the Spirit. That is why mercy is only granted to those who confess and FORSAKE their sin.

What I say is clearly in the Bible.

Are you really going to go to your grave in denial of those things with the hope that Jesus "paid your fine" when the Bible says nothing of the sort?

 

[michael56]

Penal Substitution serves to excuse future rebellion to God because its proponents believe that no penalty remains because it has been "paid in full." Thus their doctrine teaches they can sin with impunity. They will dress this "sinning with impunity" up via contending that "we SHOULD not sin" but when taken to task of "can they sin and not surely die" they will have to answer "yes we can." Usually they will dodge the question.

Ah, if only you understood the new covenant hinges on two core facts, not one, but alas:

One without the other equals no new covenant.

 

[Utah]

he does not understand grace is not the license to sin, it is the power which breaks sin.

Its interesting that folks who embrace the grace tend to be much more loving than those who don't. Since God is Love, and the core of the two Greatest Commandments is love, it suffices to say that those who embrace the grace are more Christ-like than those who do not embrace the grace.

 

[michael56]

Michael,

The sacrifices under the Old Covenant could not purge sin from the heart. There still existed the veil between God and mankind due to sin. Jesus Christ came to Earth as our kinsman (He was human) and He overcame sin and thus inherited the promises which we can partake in through being near kinsman (we are human). In other words God is willing to forgive those whom forsake the service of Satan and yield themselves to the service of Christ. God accepts Christ and it is through Christ that we find acceptance to. There is no veil and we can approach God in a direct manner.

Hebrews 10 does not teach Penal Substitution, it teaches reconciliation via covenant. We approach God with a true heart, in repentance and faith, via the blood and are cleansed of our past sins. THEN is we willfully sin after that cleansing the sacrifice is rendered null and void because the purpose of the Ministry of Reconciliation is to leave us in a pure state. That is why there is only no condemnation for those who WALK after the Spirit. That is why mercy is only granted to those who confess and FORSAKE their sin.

What I say is clearly in the Bible.

Are you really going to go to your grave in denial of those things with the hope that Jesus "paid your fine" when the Bible says nothing of the sort?

Under the old covenant sacrifices for sin had to be made, for those under that covenant. No sacrifices for sin have to made for those under the new covenant, why not? Their sins and lawless deeds will be remembered no more

There is no way round it I am afraid, though you will earnestly seek one

[SUP] [/SUP]Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. [SUP]12 [/SUP]But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, [SUP]13 [/SUP]and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. [SUP]14 [/SUP]For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.[SUP]15 [/SUP]The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
[SUP]16 [/SUP]“This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”[SUP][b][/SUP]

[SUP]17 [/SUP]Then he adds:
“Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.”[SUP][c][/SUP]

[SUP]18 [/SUP]And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary Heb 10:11-18

 

[eternally-gratefull]

he proves he does not understand the law either Which means the OT is foreign to him.

The animal sacrifices prove penal substitution. The lamb died, so the sinner could be made whole.

He rejects Christ being the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. Thus he rejects the NT also.

 

[Skinski7]

For sin shall not be your master for you are not under law but under grace Rom 6:14

Paul would appear to disagree with you, for if a person is not under a righteousness of obedience to the law Christ paid the penalty of all their sin.

Paul only "appears" to disagree with me because you are blinded by Reformed Theology.

Stop reading verses in isolation but read the whole letter to the Romans in context.

Look at the context...

Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

We are not under the LETTER OF THE LAW, the Old Covenant has been terminated. We are under GRACE WHICH TEACHES US TO DENY UNGODLINESS AND WORLDLY LUSTS AND TO LIVE SOBERLY UPRIGHTLY IN THE PRESENT AGE.

Thus should we sin because we are no longer under the letter of the law? NO WAY!!!

The reason NO WAY is because WHOM WE SERVE reveals WHOM WE BELONG TO.

We either obey sin unto death or obedience unto righteousness. Do you not know this Michael? KNOW YE NOT?

God be thanked that WE WERE the servants of sin, but WE HAVE obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine once delivered, being then MADE free from sin, we BECAME servants of righteousness.

That is what the Bible teaches. You don't teach that. You instead teach that the "penalty is paid" which is something that is not in the Bible anywhere. Why teach something alien to the Bible and contend against what the Bible plainly teaches? Are you that blind? Your eyes must be firmly shut to do such a thing.

It isn't a 400 year old doctrine, it is a two thousand year old doctrine.

Yes it is a 400 year old doctrine. You cannot find it taught by anyone before that time.Go and do your research.

[h=3]Early Church[/h] In scholarly literature it has been generally recognised for some time that the penal substitution theory was not taught in the Early Church

Penal substitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You think that some deceivers got on Wikipedia and are lying?

It was not until St. Anselm's famous work Cur Deus Homo (1098) that attention was focused on the theology of redemption with the aim of providing more exact definitions[SUP][26][/SUP] (though there is disagreement as to how influential penal conceptions were in the first five centuries). Anselm held that to sin is for man "not to render his due to God."[SUP][27][/SUP] Comparing what was due to God and what was due to the feudal Lord, he argued that what was due to God was honour. "'Honour' comprises the whole complex of service and worship which the whole creation, animate and inanimate, in heaven and earth, owes to the Creator. The honour of God is injured by the withdrawal of man's service which he is due to offer."[SUP][28][/SUP] This failure constitutes a debt, weight or doom, for which man must make satisfaction, but which lies beyond his competence; only if a new man can be found who by perfect obedience can satisfy God's honour and by some work of supererogation can provide the means of paying the existing debt of his fellows, can God's original purpose be fulfilled. So Christ not only lives a sinless life, which is again his due, but also is willing to endure death for the sake of love. Thus, Anselm's view can best be understood from medieval feudalistic conceptions of authority, of sanctions and of reparation. Anselmian satisfaction contrasts with penal substitution in that Anselm sees the satisfaction (i.e. restitution) as an alternative to punishment, "The honour taken away must be repaid, or punishment must follow" (bk 1 ch 8), whereas penal substitution views the punishment as the means of satisfaction.

Penal substitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you think that is all fiction?

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

The Reformers responded incorrectly to the false teaching of the Catholic Church. In rejecting the sacraments and indulgences of the Catholic Church they also rejected "DOING" itself as it pertains to salvation. Instead of going back to what the early church taught they only went back to Augustine and built a foundation of error upon his false teachings. That is why you will find quotes in Reformed literature denouncing the early church as teaching false doctrines and works based salvation.

Theopedia says this...

The Penal-Substitution Theory of the atonement was formulated by the 16th century Reformers as an extension of Anselm's Satisfaction theory. Anselm's theory was correct in introducing the satisfaction aspect of Christ's work and its necessity; however the Reformers saw it as insufficient because it was referenced to God's honor rather than his justice and holiness and was couched more in terms of a commercial transaction than a penal substitution. This Reformed view says simply that Christ died for man, in man's place, taking his sins and bearing them for him. The bearing of man's sins takes the punishment for them and sets the believer free from the penal demands of the law: The righteousness of the law and the holiness of God are satisfied by this substitution.

Penal substitutionary atonement - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity


Do you think that people like me got into Theopedia and falsified it? No we didn't. The development of the Penal Model 400 years ago is common knowledge among theologians. They try and imply aspects of it were taught in early church writings but they can only do this by taking single words or phrases from ancient writings and then reading their view into the text.

DO YOUR RESEARCH Michael. I know you have not done your research because you would not be saying the things you say. You are just repeating what you have been taught like a parrot.

Here is a good book to read.

https://archive.org/details/theideeaofatone00rashuoft

I don't agree with his conclusions but you will see in that book how the different models of the Atonement developed.

Read this page for a summary of the development of Atonement theories.

Atonement in Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Skinski7]

I recommend people read the Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1 in order to realise that the Christianity taught today bears no resemblance whatsoever to what was taught in ancient times.

Here is a link to the Ante-Nicene Fathers writings...

Ante-Nicene Fathers – VOL I – IX : HolyBooks.com – download free ebooks

In Volume 1 you will find the writings of people who were taught DIRECTLY by the apostles themselves.

If someone was to teach Penal Substitution back then that someone would have been kicked out of the church as a heretic.

 

[michael56]

Paul only "appears" to disagree with me because you are blinded by Reformed Theology.

Stop reading verses in isolation but read the whole letter to the Romans in context.

Look at the context...

Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

We are not under the LETTER OF THE LAW, the Old Covenant has been terminated. We are under GRACE WHICH TEACHES US TO DENY UNGODLINESS AND WORLDLY LUSTS AND TO LIVE SOBERLY UPRIGHTLY IN THE PRESENT AGE.

Thus should we sin because we are no longer under the letter of the law? NO WAY!!!

Are you serious Skinsky? It is only you saying people who believe Jesus died for all their sin want to use that as a licence to sin!!!

Of course, Paul will tell his readers grace is not a licence to sin, what do you expect him to do?

You really cannot understand the basics of grace can you.

Christ will only be your saviour from sin if you have been born again for he will be no ones saviour from sin unless they in their heart desire to obey his Father. If a person has been born again the law God wants them to obey has been written on their mind and placed on their heart by the Spirit. This means the convert instinctively in their mind knows how God wants them to live and in their heart they want to obey.

Now how can someone who in their heart wants to obey God at the same time want a licence to sin. Your reasoning is preposterous, it is so because you cannot understand the core of the new covenant the Christian is under.

 

[Skinski7]

What has happened today is this...

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.

Millions of people have been totally deceived by a false gospel message and many of these people are so emotionally attached and invested in this deception that they refuse to examine it diligently. Thus millions will go to their grave thinking they are going to enter into the kingdom of God when the truth is they are going to face "I NEVER KNEW YOU, YOU WHO WORK INIQUITY."

Don't be one of them. Jesus gave that warning and was not playing games. Everything Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount applies today to every single one of us.

 

[michael56]

What has happened today is this...

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.
.

Absolutely

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I recommend people read the Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1 in order to realise that the Christianity taught today bears no resemblance whatsoever to what was taught in ancient times.

Here is a link to the Ante-Nicene Fathers writings...

Ante-Nicene Fathers – VOL I – IX : HolyBooks.com – download free ebooks

In Volume 1 you will find the writings of people who were taught DIRECTLY by the apostles themselves.

If someone was to teach Penal Substitution back then that someone would have been kicked out of the church as a heretic.

I recommend you read the word of God. and realise christanity in biblical times is not what you are preaching, and stip listening to men.

 

[Skinski7]

I could refute people all day long on here but, just as with the Pharisees, those who cannot see simply cannot see.

If Jesus could not convince the Pharisees with supernatural miracles what hope do I have with mere words on a forum.

It is the pure in heart who will see God. Jesus said that and Jesus meant that. Any doctrine which contradicts the words of Jesus is false.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

What has happened today is this...

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.

Millions of people have been totally deceived by a false gospel message and many of these people are so emotionally attached and invested in this deception that they refuse to examine it diligently. Thus millions will go to their grave thinking they are going to enter into the kingdom of God when the truth is they are going to face "I NEVER KNEW YOU, YOU WHO WORK INIQUITY."

Don't be one of them. Jesus gave that warning and was not playing games. Everything Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount applies today to every single one of us.

you need to look in the mirror. then read this to yourself.

Jesus was speaking to the religious like yourself. who claim to do all these works in jesus name, but have no basis for salvation, because they are trying to earn it. like you are.

the first thing jesus spoke of on the sermon was humility, you have failed this aspect thus the rest will not even apply to you. you can not be truly blessed until you first truly humble yourself.