Skinski - Black RickShafer - Red
Fallacy 2: Jesus is your substitution, suffering the wrath and penalty of God in your place, by becoming sin for you. (He purports)
The At-one-moment(already a misrepresentation, atone doesn't mean to make one, it means to reconcile) teaching of the day is a far cry from the ransom model put forth by the Primitive Church. (Matt. 20:28 & 1 Tim. 2:6) The theme of the Early Churches Reconciliation Message was aimed at the Death of Christ Rescuing man “NOT FROM THE FATHER” but instead from the wicked one (Satan) who has the whole world under his sway! (Acts 20:28 & Gal. 1:4) Christ was primarily seen as a teacher of righteousness (NOT a REPRESENTATIVE or SUBSTITUTE!) - (Utter nonsense) The ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ was foretold back to Genesis 3:15! in this period who taught people to deny themselves, take up the cross and FOLLOW Him daily! (Lk. 9:23) Due to this an abundance of stress was laid upon the Lord’s Parabolic Instruction. Free will was a given and judgment was according to works. (Everything you did mattered!) Now, when evaluating today’s main assertion that the Father punished His Son in man’s stead on the cross in order to “satisfy” His wrath, just know that this concept is UN-founded in the Patristic Documents.
This assertion is so fraught with error I don't even know where to start.....How about Isaiah chapter 53?
Or Psalms 22? Or how about the sacrificial law that was given to Moses on Mount Sinai? Read them and judge if Jesus was sent to merely be a 'teacher'?
(Beware that modern day evangelicals have a tendency to weave their doctrinal positions on Reconciliation into Early Church Writings in such a way that can dupe you into thinking the Early Christians were in line with the present day presentation of Calvary!) O.K. How about what Jesus himself said, (is that early enough in the churches history for you? - "If I be lifted up(the cross) I will draw all men unto me."John 3:14; 8:28;12:32. But we are talking early church; so let's see what Peter said - "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver or gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as a lamb who was without blemish and without spot; Who verily was foreordained
before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you. - I Peter 1:18-20. Matthew 18, the Parable of the unforgiving servant refutes this theological concept by showing that forgiveness can be forfeited due to conduct! (This is WHY a lot of the churches today will say the teachings of Christ are not applicable to doctrine.) The reality is, if the servants debt (10,000 talents) was paid by a substitute (which the Parable does NOT say it is!), then in NO possible way could the Master have revoked His forgiveness after learning of the forgiven servant’s behavior towards his fellow servant. Again, gasping at straws, this writer likes to use the term 'strawman'. So is he when he imputes other facets of Jesus' sanctification process into simple parables.See how he strains? He says 'if the servants debt was paid by a substitute then in NO possible way could the master have revoked his forgiveness after learning of the servant's behavior towards his fellow servant.' Why not? The master can do what he pleases, if the evil servant had his debt paid by another, would that matter to the master? Wouldn't the master only be concerned with the behavior of the unrighteous servant towards his fellow servant? And not concerned with who paid that unrighteous servant's debts, except to him? (This is one aspect as to HOW the heresy of Eternal Security has been formulated.) The Parable simply does NOT explain the servants penalty was paid (or “PAID IN FULL!”), but instead explains it was plainly forgiven! (Matt. 18:27) So utterly wrong. Read Calvin before you make such obtuse and general assumptions...(You might be surprised). Thus, salvation is shown to be conditional which is WHY it was taught in such a manner in the Early Church. No it hasn't. (What has changed?) You have. Many times the same word “sin,” as found in 2 Cor. 5:21 (which is the prime verse used by Reformed thinkers to explain that Christ became a MASS of sin on the cross) can be located and translated properly as “sin offering” without error. Thus, the idea of Christ becoming sin on the cross (and thus incurring man’s penalty by being punished by the Father) is entirely based on doctrinal conjecture and representation theories.You ARE the strawman! Your whole theory and basis of believe is founded in taking something you don't agree with, then comparing it to obvious false doctrine. - The atonement was prophesied well before the incorporated 'catholic' church, as I have shown you.Even if we were to disregard all the extra non Canonical evidence we can still confirm that Christ sacrifice was WITHOUT spot, since in Him, says John the apostle, there is NO sin! (Heb. 9:13-14 & 1 Jn.3:5) Thus, Christ DID NOT become blackened with imputed sin on the cross (so you could be imputed with His Righteousness), which means, the transfer is fraudulent and the WRATH of God continues to abide on the children of disobedience! (Eph. 5:6) Also keep in mind that “impute” does NOT mean “transfer.”
This writer understands nothing of the meaning of propitiation, or the meaning of sacrifice.
He believes all those animals killed in the O.T. meant nothing; and Jesus' death became only a sacrifice meant for one........(namely Him - Jesus).
Such utter noncompliance to the words of life I have never before encountered,...........
no, not in all my days.
