Obedience, A Necessary Requirement For Salvation?

[SarahM777]

I have never said "all."

I have said that the DOCTRINE being promoted in the vast majority of church congregations is FALSE.

This has been clearly evidenced to me by my dialogue with multitudes of pastors who practically all believe that salvation is purely forensic and that one can actively engage in rebellion whilst remaining justified.

Of course they won't put it that way as that is just too obvious a deception. What they will say is that "you shouldn't sin" but we all do ala 1Joh 1:8. When I ask them about child molestation or murder in that "does such a sin have to cease BEFORE God grants forgiveness" they either shutdown and avoid answering the question or they say "no it does not have to stop." They truly believe that sin is rooted in the birth nature and not the choice, thus it takes an act of God (either prevenient grace or irresistible grace) to offset the inability from birth. Hence repentance is not the forsaking of rebellion, nor is repentance connected with the crucifixion of the flesh.

They teach that the cessation of rebellion to God and the crucifixion of the flesh is a GRADUAL PROCESS. It is what they teach, I have an email box full of exchanges with these people.

I have only about 4 or 5 exceptions and only about 3 of these clearly stated the sin must stop (i remember 2 specifically but I think there was 1 other). I didn't engage deeply will all these exception so there may be some muddy water there too.

Thus out of more than 200 inquiries (1000's if you count others who have sent out similar emails) to various pastors and ministries I found that pretty much 99% all base salvation on the notion of an abstract legal exchange (Penal Substitution) and it is within this framework they present the Gospel.

This is why if you go in practically any church building on Sunday (no matter the denomination) they preach MORAL LESSONS but do not preach HEART PURITY. They do not warn the people that those who name the name of Christ MUST depart from iniquity. They preach a lukewarm double-minded message which "sounds" true for it bears the language of the Bible but its really just a perversion of Paul's teaching which is in complete contradiction with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

The cross has been perverted into a judicial legal exchange whereby one is FORENSICALLY justified whilst one remains inwardly wicked walking in the lusts of the flesh.

The aspect of "dying with Christ" whereby we share in his sufferings and thus cease walking in the lusts of the flesh has been totally ripped out of the Gospel. These deceivers simply do not understand that the blood of Christ purges the conscience of sin and that by yielding ourselves to God our hearts are made PURE.

A pure heart does not work iniquity.



I do not say one cannot some to an authentic salvation experience in the system. I say it is highly unlikely and if such a thing does happen it happens in spite of the false message being preached.

Test it for your self. Pick a small town in the USA. Google all the churches. Then email each pastor and ask them if a child molester has to stop molesting children BEFORE God will forgive them. You'll be shocked at the answers you will receive.

Skinski,

Would you mind answering this for me because I think I am picking up something. Is the problem with this penal substitution itself or is it the way it's being taught? See the thing is if it is being taught correctly it should always point to what it cost Jesus to save us. It should always point to the denial,the fact He was left,the lies,the kangaroo court,the beatings that turned His body into hamburger,the fact that His hair and beard were pulled out by their roots,then to add insult to injury to have to carry His own cross,which He would be tied to and then have spikes driven into His wrists and feet. Left almost naked,on a hill between two thieves,to be insulted and then to hang there for six hours in serve pain.
This needs to be part of it,if this is left out it,it makes a mockery of what He went through. If this is not taught it is no wonder that it becomes cheap and shallow. This is what it COST JESUS TO SAVE US,it can NOT be left out.

I sometimes wonder if it would change things if every church would show the Passion of the Christ to get through our thick skulls just what it did cost Him. And it was far from a pretty picture. That should break our heart and humble us, and it should touch us to know that He does love us that much that He was WILLING to do it.

 

[Widdekind]

Romans 5:12
through one man sin came towards to the world [Gk. cosmos], and death through sin, and in the self-same way death came through to every man, upon which every have sinned.

So, way back when, Adam sinned... and his sins are reckoned to him, and not to anybody else...

But, Adam sinned, such that "sin came to this world"; and since Adam's sin, that omni-presence of sin in humans' environment, has somehow, in effect, lured everybody since into sin.

So, there is an "indirect Original Sin", not inherited directly from Adam; but continuously re-absorbed, from the ambient environment, impregnated with sin, since Adam. Adam sinned, legally on him, and not on anybody else. But, because of his sin, "booby-traps & land-mines" were secreted everywhere; and everybody since Adam has stepped on at least one such snare.

So, 'tis an "indirect, re-absorbed but not directly inherited, Original Sin".

Tangentially, i offer the following, were one want to re-translate the Greek NT for themselves:

holos oikoumenos (G3650 + G3625) = whole of civilization
cosmos (G2889) = world
ge (G1093) = land
ouranos (G3772) = sky​

The doctrine of original sin is false...

Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Your sin is your sin and my sin is my sin and neither of us bear Adam's sin...

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.


They sinned their own sins not Adam's.

 

[Skinski7]

Skinski,

Would you mind answering this for me because I think I am picking up something. Is the problem with this penal substitution itself or is it the way it's being taught? See the thing is if it is being taught correctly it should always point to what it cost Jesus to save us. It should always point to the denial,the fact He was left,the lies,the kangaroo court,the beatings that turned His body into hamburger,the fact that His hair and beard were pulled out by their roots,then to add insult to injury to have to carry His own cross,which He would be tied to and then have spikes driven into His wrists and feet. Left almost naked,on a hill between two thieves,to be insulted and then to hang there for six hours in serve pain.
This needs to be part of it,if this is left out it,it makes a mockery of what He went through. If this is not taught it is no wonder that it becomes cheap and shallow. This is what it COST JESUS TO SAVE US,it can NOT be left out.

I sometimes wonder if it would change things if every church would show the Passion of the Christ to get through our thick skulls just what it did cost Him. And it was far from a pretty picture. That should break our heart and humble us, and it should touch us to know that He does love us that much that He was WILLING to do it.

Penal Substitution itself is a fallacy. Jesus simply was not a penal substitute for sinners. The Bible does not teach it anywhere.

Think about what Penal Substitution actually means. An innocent receives the punishment in the stead of those whom are guilty. Thus the sin is never forgiven, it is simply appropriated elsewhere.

What does this teaching lead? Well if the punishment has already been meted out then it simply cannot be due again. Thus this doctrine becomes a defacto license to sin. Hence the teaching that ongoing sin is an issue in regards to sanctification and not salvation.

The doctrine is a very fancy way of teaching that one can sin and not surely die.

Penal Substitution is only a 400 year old doctrine. That is a historical fact than anyone can research. The Reformers invented it by adding a judicial aspect to Anselm's Satisfaction model.

Anselm taught that the death of Christ satisfied divine justice but the Reformers added a "penal punishment" to the doctrine whereby Jesus literally bore the wrath of God. Thus God's wrath was satisfied by punishing Jesus instead of the sinner.

The Bible doesn't teach any of that. The Bible teaches that Jesus "bore the sins" of all men. Jesus died on behalf of sinners, not as a substitute for them.

Under Penal Substitution there is no requirement that WE DIE WITH HIM. The death on the cross was not merely a sin offering in the context of the Old Testament sacrificial system but was an example for us too. Paul clearly understood this as clearly illustrated in Romans 6.

If you look at the writings of the early Church (first few hundred years) you'll find their focus was on the resurrection as opposed to the death of Christ. They did not believe in Penal Substitution thus they did not perceive the death of Christ as a forensic legal exchange. They saw the death of Christ as something that was done in their behalf through which they could participate in and thus be raised up with Christ to newness of life. They understood that the blood of Jesus purged their conscience of all defilement if they approached God through repentance and faith thus participating in the cross. The cross was not an abstract thing they simply trusted in, no it was much more than that, the cross was a way of life.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Penal Substitution itself is a fallacy. Jesus simply was not a penal substitute for sinners. The Bible does not teach it anywhere.
....

Your reasonings are as sloppy as DeSario's, and filled with as many fallacies. You simply make stuff up and claim it is fact. If you payed as much attention to the whole bible as you do to the early church fathers, you wouldn't be so lost in your delusions. You are woefully ignorant of the whole counsel of GOD, particularly the shadows in the OT that point to Christ. Your teachings are anti-Christ, Scott. They make you an enemy of the cross of Christ, and a false witness of GOD. Repent of your unbelief and proclaiming another gospel.

 

[Widdekind]

Jesus gave his soul, as a loosening, against many:

Matt 20 = Mark 10
the Son of man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His soul as a loosening against many [psyche lytron anti polys]​

"Soul" = psyche = Rev 20, John saw the "souls" of Christian martyrs Ascended to Christ at the Throne of God in heaven
"loosening" = lytron = Rev 20, Satan was "loosened" from watchful guard
"against" = anti = 1 Pet 3, "not giving away evil against evil, or mischief against mischief"

Somehow, Jesus gave His soul as a liberating ransom, loosening / unbinding repentant Christ-accepting Christians, from someplace bad, presumably "bound in their sins, under the Authority of Satan, unto doom" or some such.

gift = "Soul"
affect = repentant Christians "loosed" from doom

From the way the word anti is used, in associating two similar related things, perhaps the intent is "a loosening against many bindings", i.e. the sacrifice of the Crucifixion was able "

to liberate many [who were bound] from misery and the penalty [= bound to doom] of their sins"

​

Christ has done all things necessary to save and redeem mankind enslaved to the Devil, sin and death, and under the wrath of God.

Literally, the word "loosening" does not denote any kind of "price" or "payment"; but simply means an "unbinding". Before the Crucifixion, all humans were sinners, bound to the wages of sin = doom (Romans 6). After the Crucifixion, those sinners were "un-bound" = "loosed" to escape doom, to Salvation (through Jesus Christ and His Church). Early Church fathers may have interpreted the word as "ransom payment"; i'm not sure if that meaning is actually implied with the word.

 

[Widdekind]

Does not the Gospel of John depict Jesus as a Paschal Lamb?

Rev 11 defines non-Christian Jewish Jerusalem = "Egypt", so implying the following analogies, between the 1st century AD of the NT, and the 13th century BC of the OT

Judaea = Egypt
Jews = Egyptians
Christians = Israelites
Lamb Jesus = Passover Lamb
Crucifixion = lamb sacrifice
70 AD = Divine Devastation of Egypt
70-325 AD = Wilderness Wandering
Christian Millennium = Promised Land to reign over

Jesus was symbolically a lamb, sacrificed for "Passover 2". However, Jesus "laid down his own life willingly" (John 10 = 1 John 3). Christians symbolically accepted His blood sacrifice, marking themselves there-with, so being Passed-Over in the 70 AD Judgement vs. Jerusalem (they fled to Pella, east of the Jordan river, in late 66 AD, at the beginning of the Jewish war vs. Rome, per the prediction of Jesus in Luke 21). Christians thereby escaped the powerful opposition, of Jews (weakened by the war), to Christianity.

Christians then endured several centuries of persistent persecutions in spiritual wilderness, until Constantine and the Christian Millennium = Byzantine empire.

Jesus was not a "scape-goat"; Jesus was a self-willing sacrificial Passover Lamb, whose blood marked faithful Christians for Salvation from God's Wrath, which Wrath destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD, and felled Rome in 476 AD, through both of which Wrath-Judgements the Church of Christ survived.

Rom 3
being justified as a free-gift by His Charity through the loosening-away in Christ Jesus​

​

​

Whom God hath set forth as appeasement through persuaded-ness [= faith] in His blood, to show off His Justice, through the fore-going of sins that became before, in the up-holding of God​

​

​

 

[Widdekind]

Jesus obeyed God, so God (as an un-earned act Charity / Grace) set forth Jesus as an appeasing expiating Passover sacrifice...

which appeasement & expiation is extended to those who have belief / conviction / faith / persuaded-ness that Jesus = The Messiah...

which persuaded belief is accredited as righteousness, comparable to Abraham; so that previous sins are over-looked...

and God up-holds them (to Salvation), un-bound / loosened from the grip of sin down to doom.

By analogy, sinners are in prison, shackled in chains symbolizing their own sins. Then, God enters the prison, and by un-earned free Charity, declares sinners justified (1A); dissolving their past sins chains (1B); so unbinding & loosing them from prison (1C); if they have faith & belief in Jesus, though Crucified, was the Christ Messiah. The Crucifixion was not a jail-break for everybody; one-by-one, individual sinners access appeasement & expiation, through their own believing convicted faith-ful persuaded-ness, that Jesus = Christ. Hypothetically, potentially every prisoner could become unbound, having their shackles dissolve away; but in practice, only those who believe Jesus = Christ are justified before God, only they are expiated, and only for them is God appeased.

"in Christ Jesus" = "in Church" = community of actual believers; only within the Church is their loosening from sin, unbinding from death-row, because past sins are over-looked, so that people become legally justified before God.

Rom 3
being justified as a free-gift by His Charity through the loosening-away, in Christ Jesus​

Whom God hath set forth as appeasement / expiation through persuaded-ness [= faith] in His blood, to show off His Justice, through the fore-going of sins that became before, in the up-holding of God​

 

[SarahM777]

Penal Substitution itself is a fallacy. Jesus simply was not a penal substitute for sinners. The Bible does not teach it anywhere.

Think about what Penal Substitution actually means. An innocent receives the punishment in the stead of those whom are guilty. Thus the sin is never forgiven, it is simply appropriated elsewhere.

What does this teaching lead? Well if the punishment has already been meted out then it simply cannot be due again. Thus this doctrine becomes a defacto license to sin. Hence the teaching that ongoing sin is an issue in regards to sanctification and not salvation.

The doctrine is a very fancy way of teaching that one can sin and not surely die.

Penal Substitution is only a 400 year old doctrine. That is a historical fact than anyone can research. The Reformers invented it by adding a judicial aspect to Anselm's Satisfaction model.

Anselm taught that the death of Christ satisfied divine justice but the Reformers added a "penal punishment" to the doctrine whereby Jesus literally bore the wrath of God. Thus God's wrath was satisfied by punishing Jesus instead of the sinner.

The Bible doesn't teach any of that. The Bible teaches that Jesus "bore the sins" of all men. Jesus died on behalf of sinners, not as a substitute for them.

Under Penal Substitution there is no requirement that WE DIE WITH HIM. The death on the cross was not merely a sin offering in the context of the Old Testament sacrificial system but was an example for us too. Paul clearly understood this as clearly illustrated in Romans 6.

If you look at the writings of the early Church (first few hundred years) you'll find their focus was on the resurrection as opposed to the death of Christ. They did not believe in Penal Substitution thus they did not perceive the death of Christ as a forensic legal exchange. They saw the death of Christ as something that was done in their behalf through which they could participate in and thus be raised up with Christ to newness of life. They understood that the blood of Jesus purged their conscience of all defilement if they approached God through repentance and faith thus participating in the cross. The cross was not an abstract thing they simply trusted in, no it was much more than that, the cross was a way of life.

UMMM, Then why the cross and not some other way? Why then did Jesus have to go through all the pain and torture of the cross? Couldn't have God then just chosen to let Jesus die by be beheaded instead?

What does it mean when they say Jesus "bore our sins"? And how then does one make sense of this

2 Corinthians 5

14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

This goes to what Paul told us,that the cross is a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks. But for those that are saved it is the power of God. The cross does not and can not make sense to the natural man.

If one is using it as license to sin then where is the reality of being born again?

As long as I can remember,I was taught we are to pick up our cross and die to our selves. Jesus was very clear on that also it can not be left out. But on the other hand one cannot leave out that believers did stumble along the way,we are to restore a brother that has fallen. But there are the warnings that some will walk away from the faith. The LCMS does not teach OSAS,we are taught that people can walk away because that does line up with scripture. God does FORCE anyone to stay. It's a matter of the heart. But on the other hand if we abide in Him,His promise is that no one can pluck us out of His hand,and He will bring us to the end.

How can one be born again if one does NOT die with Him?

If you just make the cross a way of life the danger in going down that path taken to it's end,is Jesus becomes nothing more then an example of how we are live our life. It also leads to the point that one does not always need Jesus to be saved,one can be good enough to make it. In the long run it minimizes the cross. Too far either way ends up in a bad place. The message of the cross is to be so radical and life changing,but a lot of people do not see the real deal.
That is part of the reason it took me so long, I saw the falseness of those who said they believed,there was no difference then those who are not believers. And if there is no difference then how can it be real in their lives?

I believe that the resurrection is the sign that God gave us to show that what Jesus said and did is true

 

[Elin]

Does Romans 5 really teach that? Are we BORN already condemned and in a state of slavery to sin?

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Sin clearly entered the world through Adam and then death was due to this sin. Then it says that death passed upon all men in that all have sinned.

That verse does not say that sin was passed to all men does it? It says "death was passed upon all men in that all have sinned."

No, that is stated in Ro 5:18: "through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners."

Nor do you understand Ro 5:12-14.

 

[Elin]

Very cogent comment here. Just obeying will not save one. Obedience cannot EARN eternal life for one, but obedience is a condition that must be met to receive the gift of eternal life.

In fact those who break His Commandments with disdain will not inherit eternal life...

Those who break his commandment with disdain, do not have saving faith,
they have false faith (Mt 7:22-23).

That is why they will perish.

If we truly believe it, we will do it.

Flagrant disobedience manifests unbelief, which condemns.

 

[Elin]

The doctrine of original sin is false...

Not according to Jesus' revelation (Heb 1:1-2), which is the NT, where it is revealed in Ro 5:18:

"through the disobedience of the one man, the man were made sinners."

Your understanding of Ro 5:12-14 misrepresents Paul's argument.

 

[Elin]

To make it even plainer.

A subscription to Original Sin as being the reason why people engage in sin is the very reason that the cessation of rebellion to God is thrown out the window.

The notions and misunderstanding of human reasoning do not overturn God's clear word in Ro 5:18.

 

[Elin]

Penal Substitution itself is a fallacy. Jesus simply was not a penal substitute for sinners.
The Bible does not teach it anywhere.

Not so.

It is presented in Ro 3:25-26:

"God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of propitiation (atonement) through faith in his blood.

He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had passed over

(left unpunished) the sins committed beforehand (OT)--he did it to demonstrate his justice

at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies." (Ro 3:25-26)

Careful examination of these verses by the following questions and answers regarding them
show penal substitutionary atonement.

1) What did God "pass over" the sins committed beforehand (OT)?

-----Penalty on their sin was "passed over," their sin was left unpunished. (i.e., punishment = penal)

2) The "what passed over" (penalty) consisted precisely of?

-----Punishment due on their sin at the Final Judgment.

3) How did the "what passed over" (penalty) demonstrate God's justice?

-----Justice requires a penalty for law breaking.

4) For what did Jesus' sacrificial death atone?

-----The law-breaking of all those who believe in his propitiation for their sin (of breaking God's laws). (i.e., his sacrifice was atonement)

5) How does Jesus' sacrificial death atone (make reparation, amends) for it?

-----He paid the penalty due for their law-breaking. (i.e., the atonement was subsitutionary)

6) What is the connection between his atonement and my faith in it (his blood)?

-----The forgiveness of my sin, purchased by Jesus' sacrifice of propitiation paying my penalty,
is applied to me only by faith in his propitiation,
and that forgiveness is salvation, from the wrath of God (Ro 5:9) at the final judgment.

7) How is God both just and the one who justifies?

-----He is just in requiring a penalty for law breaking, and he is the one who justifies by providing payment of the penalty in presenting his own Son as a sacrifice of propitiation to make reparation.

The word of God in Ro 3:25-26 clearly presents penal substitutionary atonement.

Now, if you think these answers are not consistent with the text and the rest of Scripture, you must demonstrate such with responsive answers to all the questions, answers which are consistent with the text and the rest of Scripture.

Please use the Scriptures themselves in your responses, not fallacious human conjecture.

I await your explanation, consistent with examination of the text and the rest of Scripture, that shows Jesus' substitutionary atonement was not penal.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

1) What did God "pass over" the sins committed beforehand (OT)?

-----Penalty on their sin was "passed over," their sin was left unpunished. (i.e., punishment = penal)

This is exactly correct, IMO. The Greek word translated sins in Romans 3:25 is ἁμάρτημα (hamartēma, G265), which means sin effects (or consequences of sin, etc). It is not the normal word used for sin, and only occurs 5X in the NT. Thus, it appears to me, as you have mentioned, that Romans 3:25 means that sin's effect, or consequence (eternal death), which occurred before the cross is now being passed over for those who have faith in the blood of the lamb, just like the death angel passed over the dwellings that had blood of a lamb on their lentils and doorposts on the first Passover in Egypt. There's was a temporal Passover; ours is eternal.

 

[Skinski7]

UMMM, Then why the cross and not some other way? Why then did Jesus have to go through all the pain and torture of the cross? Couldn't have God then just chosen to let Jesus die by be beheaded instead?

First bear in mind that such questions do not legitimize the 400 year old doctrine of Penal Substitution.

I do think that such a question is a good one and I have pondered it often myself, why not some other means of death? My answer is simply that the cross is the method which God ordained and is something we can relate to (ie. one does not pick up their axe or guillotine). Jesus carried His cross to the place of execution and we are to do likewise by picking up our own cross. I see the blood cleansing us as WE PARTAKE in His sufferings, I don't see it as an abstract thing at all. This is why the Bible says "repentance for remission" as well as "no remission without the shedding of blood," for there is a connection. I see a spiritual dynamic occurring here whereby the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses our conscience of our past sin on the condition we approach God in faith with a true heart (Heb 10:22). One can only approach God with a true heart via repentance and faith, without repentance and faith the heart remains insincere.

Under the Old Covenant sacrificial system the passover lamb was not crucified on a cross. It was brought into the family for a time prior to the Passover and then it was later sacrificed and the entire animal consumed leaving nothing over. I think this clearly points how we are to actively participate in the cross by consuming all of Jesus so to speak (eat His flesh and drink His blood) for we die with Him and are raised with Him.

What does it mean when they say Jesus "bore our sins"? And how then does one make sense of this

2 Corinthians 5

14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

This goes to what Paul told us,that the cross is a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks. But for those that are saved it is the power of God. The cross does not and can not make sense to the natural man.

That is a great passage of scripture but it in no way alludes to Jesus "being punished as the sinners substitute whereby the wrath of God is satisfied." In fact Paul clearly warns in his writings that the "wrath of God abides on disobedient" those who partake in immorality (Eph 5:3-7). There is no allusion in the Scripture that Jesus "satisfied the wrath of God" like Penal Substitution teaches. In fact 2Cor 5 states...

2Co 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

Compare to...


Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

The Christian is clearly to share in the death of Christ. Our old way of life must die with Christ in order to be raised up with Christ. Penal Substitution completely ignores this aspect by treating the cross as an ABSTRACT PROVISION whereby one just TRUSTS that a LEGAL EXCHANGE took place. Penal Substitution completely excises the "crucifixion of the flesh/death of the old man" from the cross. If such a thing is mentioned at all it is taught as a "gradual transformation" AFTER the cross which completely contradicts...

2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

How can "old things be passed away" and "all thing are become new" if the old man is still alive? Penal Substitution teaches a purely a mythical forensic transformation which if often termed "being identified in Christ." Those under this theology one can be ACTIVELY DEFILED yet FORENSICALLY PURE. It's myth. Satan has been able to craft a "notion of salvation" which is completely imaginary and thus get people to buy into the this "notion" that they are saved whilst inwardly they are still wicked. Hence the defence of being able to actively produce the fruit of unrighteousness (which flows from a defiled heart) and yet claim to be saved in Christ.

If justification is purely based on a forensic legal transfer (ala sin credited to Jesus and the righteousness of Jesus credited to the sinner) whereby a FAITH THAT WORKS BY LOVE (Gal 5:6) has nothing to do with it then what is the power of the Gospel? It is powerless. It is as if God could not really have man reconciled to Himself via an actual change reformation of the inner man and so instead has to PRETEND that men are righteous due to a book keeping entry. It is pure foolishness and it astounds me how people so easily believe it. I think many choose to believe it (even when the fallacies are pointed out) because there is sin in their lives that they simply do not want to forsake. What other reason could there be?

Let's have a quick look at this verse you brought up...

2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Sin is not a "thing." Sin is not a "material substance." Sin is an ACTION (both mental and physical). When Adam disobeyed God and ate of the forbidden fruit that ACTION was sin.

Can Jesus Christ literally be "made" and "action"? Of course not. Thus Paul can not possibly be saying that Jesus was "made into sin" that is just how it appear to us in English.

Like in Romans 8:3 it says "God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:"

Is "flesh" literally sinful? No, flesh is amoral. Flesh is simply a vessel.

The flesh TEMPTS one to sin due to the passions and desires of the flesh. Hence we are to not walk after the flesh, rather we are to walk after the Spirit. The Word was made flesh and was tempted in ALL POINTS as we are.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Thus "he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin" is clearly in the context of the SIN OFFERING of Jesus.

Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Christ justifies us by his knowledge, ie...

1Pe 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
1Pe 4:2 That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.

Rom 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Thus when I see it says "he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors"

Bare - H5375 - nâśâ' nâsâh
A primitive root; to lift, in a great variety of applications, literally and figuratively, absolutely and relatively:

Jesus bore our sins in a figurative sense in that he died on BEHALF of our sin. As I pointed out earlier sin is an ACTION not a "transferable property" thus when the Bible says...

1Pe 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Jesus baring our sins is connected to us "living unto righteousness" for we DIE WITH HIM and are RAISED UP WITH HIM. It is not a "forensic legal transaction."

God only forgives sin if they are forsaken (Pro 28:13). Thus the rebellion to God CEASES when we DIE WITH CHRIST that we be RAISED UP WITH HIM.

There is an exchange in the cross but it is a LITERAL exchange. We exchange the "service of sin" for the "service of righteousness." Thus when Paul writes "we might be made the righteousness of God in him," the context is this...

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.
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Also...

Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Jesus ransomed us from sin by coming to Earth as a human being and lived His entire life where He walked after the Spirit, with the flesh crucified, serving righteousness. Adam came to this earth and yielded to carnal desire, with the flesh uncrucified and served sin. Those are the two examples for us. We either sin in Adam or are made righteous in Christ.

If one is using it as license to sin then where is the reality of being born again?

As long as I can remember,I was taught we are to pick up our cross and die to our selves. Jesus was very clear on that also it can not be left out. But on the other hand one cannot leave out that believers did stumble along the way,we are to restore a brother that has fallen. But there are the warnings that some will walk away from the faith. The LCMS does not teach OSAS,we are taught that people can walk away because that does line up with scripture. God does FORCE anyone to stay. It's a matter of the heart. But on the other hand if we abide in Him,His promise is that no one can pluck us out of His hand,and He will bring us to the end.

It is true that no man can pluck one out of the hand of God yet being in the hand of God means one abides in the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ. There can be no rebellion to God within the heart in such a relationship. If there is still rebellion then it is an evidence that a genuine repentance experience never actually took place. Worldly sorrow may have occurred, an emotional experience may have occurred, trust in a "notion" may have occurred but not the genuine "godly sorrow that works repentance unto salvation." The axe must be laid to the root of sin in repentance whereby the old man is crucified once and for all. If that does not happen then the old man will never die and the individual will likely buy into ear tickling doctrines whereby they perceive justification IN rebellion.

How can one be born again if one does NOT die with Him?

If you just make the cross a way of life the danger in going down that path taken to it's end,is Jesus becomes nothing more then an example of how we are live our life. It also leads to the point that one does not always need Jesus to be saved,one can be good enough to make it. In the long run it minimizes the cross. Too far either way ends up in a bad place. The message of the cross is to be so radical and life changing,but a lot of people do not see the real deal.
That is part of the reason it took me so long, I saw the falseness of those who said they believed,there was no difference then those who are not believers. And if there is no difference then how can it be real in their lives?

I believe that the resurrection is the sign that God gave us to show that what Jesus said and did is true

One always needs the cross because it is reflective of the shift from serving sin to serving righteousness.

One always needs Jesus Christ because He is the light of the world. We MUST be plugged into God.

The blood is essential for it cleanses our conscience of all past defilement which resulted from our rebellion to God.


One does not need the Penal Substitution Forensic Legal Exchange and the fallacies it produces (ie. sin transferred and not forgiven, OSAS, abstract salvation, heart purity being excised from the Gospel, etc).

Thanks for your response Sarah.

 

[Skinski7]

This is exactly correct, IMO. The Greek word translated sins in Romans 3:25 is ἁμάρτημα (hamartēma, G265), which means sin effects (or consequences of sin, etc). It is not the normal word used for sin, and only occurs 5X in the NT. Thus, it appears to me, as you have mentioned, that Romans 3:25 means that sin's effect, or consequence (eternal death), which occurred before the cross is now being passed over for those who have faith in the blood of the lamb, just like the death angel passed over the dwellings that had blood of a lamb on their lentils and doorposts on the first Passover in Egypt. There's was a temporal Passover; ours is eternal.

Yes God passes over the sins that are past when we come to God with a true heart. Thus the "penalty" is indeed passed over.

Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
Heb 10:21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.


Yet the "penalty" was not appropriated to Jesus whereby He "bore the wrath of God as the sinners substitute." The Bible does not teach that which is why in the parable of the unforgiving servant the penalty for sin could be made due again. If the penalty was "paid in full" as Penal Substitution teaches then the penalty could not be made due again otherwise you would have double jeopardy (ie. the same sins being punished twice).

God freely forgives sins upon certain conditions being met. There is no need for "wrath to be satisfied."

Penal Substitution is a 400 year old Reformed Doctrine. The early church did not teach it yet to speak against it today will lead one to being declared a heretic who denies the cross.

The religious system in Jeremiah's day was wrong.

The religious system when Jesus walked the earth was wrong.

The religious system today is wrong.




There is nothing forensic about salvation. The heart is literally transformed by the power of God and made pure. Salvation is a manifest reality for the believer.

Everything Paul wrote about is within the context that deeds must match the profession. This is why there are constant warnings in his letters in regards to sin in the church.

Don't be deceived for the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom. He that DOES what is right is righteous.

 

[Skinski7]

5) How does Jesus' sacrificial death atone (make reparation, amends) for it?

-----He paid the penalty due for their law-breaking. (i.e., the atonement was subsitutionary

Yet you cannot quote a single scripture in the Bible which teaches that Jesus bore the full wrath of God due the sinner as the sinners substitute. That notion originated in the Reformation when a penal aspect was added to the Satisfaction Model put forth by Anselm of Cantebury. All you have is conjecture, conjecture which falls apart when critically examined.

The origin of Penal Substitution is clear in history.

Jesus purchased YOU. Jesus did not "pay for your sins" in the sense of "absorbing your punishment."

I wrote extensively on this issue here...

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...ood-christ-ransom-not-penal-substitution.html

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Yes God passes over the sins that are past when we come to God with a true heart. Thus the "penalty" is indeed passed over.

You're very confused about Romans 3:25. Past sins, or more accurately sin-effects that occurred in the past, refers to the cross of Christ. The point of reference is not the believer, but the cross. Before the cross, the penalty for sin was death. After the cross GOD passes over the judgment rightly due all in his forbearance because justice for breaking the law was served on Jesus.

Yet the "penalty" was not appropriated to Jesus whereby He "bore the wrath of God as the sinners substitute." The Bible does not teach that which is why in the parable of the unforgiving servant the penalty for sin could be made due again. If the penalty was "paid in full" as Penal Substitution teaches then the penalty could not be made due again otherwise you would have double jeopardy (ie. the same sins being punished twice).

God freely forgives sins upon certain conditions being met. There is no need for "wrath to be satisfied."

This is the lie you teach for which you will bear judgment.

 

[Kerry]

If upon acceptance of Christ our sins are not erased, and if we sin and repent, they are not erased. What hope do we have. We are all condemned to hell fire and the wrath of the day of the Lord. Why then did the Word leave the position of glory to be born in a stink hole and die the most horrible death known to man. Rethink.

 

[Widdekind]

Penal Substitution = "one guy does the crime, another the time" = 1 Pet 3, Jesus, the Just, suffered instead of the unjust remainder of humanity. But, recall, sinners access that Justification, through faith in Jesus and "His blood"

1 Pet 2
who Himself carried-up our sins in His body upon the wood, so that we might live becoming-away-from sins, to Justification, that of His wounds you were healed...​

1 Pet 3​

Yet [it is] stronger, if the Will of God may will, [that] you suffer [for] making-good, than [for] making-bad​

in that Christ also once suffered [pascho] for sins, the Just up-over ["instead of"] the unjust, so that He might lead-forth us to God, dead indeed of flesh but made-alive of Spirit

2 Cor 5
so as if some [one is] in Christ, he is a new creation, old [things] have come-aside, see -- every [thing] has become new.
But every [thing] out of God, that ex-changed us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and gave us the Servant of ex-changing
as that God was in Christ, ex-changing the world to Himself, not counting-with-words their falling-asides to them, and set to us the Word of ex-changing
Then we are elders up-over ["instead of"] Christ, as that God called-aside you through us. We bind up-over ["instead of"] Christ, be ye ex-changed to God.
Yet He has made [to] sin up-over ["instead of"] us, that One knowing no sin, so that we might become the Justice of God in Him.
​

God in heaven Inspired Jesus on earth. So, Jesus was Just & sinless. Divinely Guided, Jesus suffered the Crucifixion. The Messiah of God, willingly submitting to wounds & martyrdom, for humanity, symbolizes & reflects God Willing to sacrifice, for humanity...

Jesus was the servant of God, to "reconciliation", literally "ex-changing down into another". Somehow, Jesus ex-changes believers, back to God, from doom under thralldom to Satan & sin.

kata-allasso = "down [to an] other" = exchange:
in the NT of the restoration of the favour of God to sinners that repent and put their trust in the expiatory death of Christ​

But, that exchanging, from sin to Salvation, occurs exclusively "through Jesus Christ", i.e. the Church, i.e. by joining the community of humans who are persuaded, to believing conviction & faith, that that-guy-from-Galilee Jesus = Christ = Messiah = Lord. Christians are, thereby, credited as Justified to God, exonerated from their "past crimes of sin". Non-Christians are not so re-Justified.

Separately, the Netbible.com translation of 2 Cor 5, in the footnotes, claims that "God begs". Is God in heaven a beggar ? Paul states, in 2 Cor 5, that he and other elders "bind" Christians, to be "exchanged to God" (by acknowledging Jesus = Messiah, and accepting Jesus = Lord). Paul et al. were giving an order to Christians, not "praying" nor "begging" but issuing a binding decree.

Think about what Penal Substitution actually means. An innocent receives the punishment in the stead of those whom are guilty. Thus the sin is never forgiven, it is simply appropriated elsewhere.

What does this teaching lead? Well if the punishment has already been meted out then it simply cannot be due again. Thus this doctrine becomes a defacto license to sin. Hence the teaching that ongoing sin is an issue in regards to sanctification and not salvation.

The doctrine is a very fancy way of teaching that one can sin and not surely die.

Penal Substitution is only a 400 year old doctrine. That is a historical fact than anyone can research. The Reformers invented it by adding a judicial aspect to Anselm's Satisfaction model.

Anselm taught that the death of Christ satisfied divine justice but the Reformers added a "penal punishment" to the doctrine whereby Jesus literally bore the wrath of God. Thus God's wrath was satisfied by punishing Jesus instead of the sinner...

The Bible teaches that Jesus "bore the sins" of all men. Jesus died on behalf of sinners, not as a substitute for them.

Under Penal Substitution there is no requirement that WE DIE WITH HIM. The death on the cross was not merely a sin offering in the context of the Old Testament sacrificial system but was an example for us too. Paul clearly understood this as clearly illustrated in Romans 6...