Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He shed His blood because of our ancestors' barbarity(sins, missing the mark) in scourging Him. He died FOR us because none of us could achieve the perfect agape love that was required. We could not achieve it because of our sins (missing the mark). In that way . . . He was our substitute ("designated hitter") FOR our sins (inabilities). God did NOT require that horrendous scourging and crucifixion as payment to appease His wrath and vengeance. God IS agape love. He could NEVER require any such thing for ANY REASON!
Why did He have to die? Couldn't that all be achieved by His life?
He shed His blood because of our ancestors' barbarity(sins, missing the mark) in scourging Him. He died FOR us because none of us could achieve the perfect agape love that was required. We could not achieve it because of our sins (missing the mark). In that way . . . He was our substitute ("designated hitter") FOR our sins (inabilities). God did NOT require that horrendous scourging and crucifixion as payment to appease His wrath and vengeance. God IS agape love. He could NEVER require any such thing for ANY REASON!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej
Why did He have to die? Couldn't that all be achieved by His life?
No . . . because that is the only way we would get the Comforter to guide us to the truth God has "written in our hearts" under the New Covenant instituted by Christ's death. He was "born again" as Spirit. Jesus said He (physical Christ) had to go so that we would have the Comforter (quickening Spirit) in His name. That is how Christ abides with us.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 02-25-2015 at 04:51 PM..
It is clear that early Christians had differing views on the nature of Jesus' sacrifice, and there are 5 major theories that are presented in theology to date. As it happens, the great majority of modern institutional Christianity settled on the most viciously barbaric view. I can understand people of Calvin's character doing that, but what about the rest? Why would such a perception of the nature of God prevail?
Regardless of the various atonement views, the issue is what the Bible teaches about the death of Christ on the Cross. People disagree with much of what the Bible says about things. For example, while the Bible clearly states that Jesus is God, there are many who flat out will not accept that fact. Another example is the fact that the Bible shows Satan to be a real being, but many people choose to believe otherwise.
In the case of the atonement, the Scriptures I provided in post #5 are clear not only that Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross as our substittute, but that in doing so He propitiated or satisfied the righteous demands of the Father. And it was the plan of God the Father for Jesus to suffer and be crucified on the cross as per Acts 2:23.
Acts 2:23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
Isaiah 53:4-11 prophesies and describes the scourging of Jesus and the fact that God the Father would cause the iniquity of us all to fall on Him and that He would be satisfied with His guilt offering.
Regardless of what all the Peggys of the world think, the view called the penal substitution theory most closely describes what the Bible teaches. That Jesus paid the penalty for our sins with His spiritual (not physical) death on the cross. He died physically after He had completed His redemptive work on the cross in order to be the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep (1 Cor. 15:20).
Last edited by Michael Way; 02-25-2015 at 05:23 PM..
This one is all about taking a negative position on the dominant explanation of "The Atonement" and is simply a rejection of the idea that it was about appeasing God's "wrath" or "justice." We have talked about this elsewhere, but I'm not sure there is a thread dedicated to the idea that the Anslem/Calvin formulation is dead wrong.
Well, the view that you are attributing to Anslem\Calvin is no such thing at all. AS Mike so accurately posted it is the biblical truth of the matter. I really wish that those who desire to make up their own beliefs about Christrianity would call themselves something else because "Christian" they are not.
People disagree with much of what the Bible says about things. For example, while the Bible clearly states that Jesus is God, there are many who flat out will not accept that fact. Another example is the fact that the Bible shows Satan to be a real being, but many people choose to believe otherwise.
Folk-etymology, a popular but erroneous conception.
Well, the view that you are attributing to Anslem\Calvin is no such thing at all. AS Mike so accurately posted it is the biblical truth of the matter. I really wish that those who desire to make up their own beliefs about Christrianity would call themselves something else because "Christian" they are not.
Like all the others who would juge who is and who is not a Christian . . . you overstep and intrude on God's prerogative. Only God can judge who is and who is not a Christian, lucknow! . . . not you or any others like you who think they can.
So many Christians insist that atonement had to be about appeasing God's wrath or holiness or justice or whatever attribute of God's they think needed to be appeased, because, otherwise Jesus' life (and death) wouldn't have mattered. I just don't understand why people who claim to be Jesus' disciples/followers can't think of any other reason why Jesus would have been important, other than to be a blood sacrifice to appease God.
Greek, parasitos, one who lives at the expense of another. While contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
It totally, baffles me?
"The host does not benefit from the association; and is often harmed by it."
Like all the others who would juge who is and who is not a Christian . . . you overstep and intrude on God's prerogative. Only God can judge who is and who is not a Christian, lucknow! . . . not you or any others like you who think they can.
I disagree entirely. I can not judge or know if any person will become a Christian or not but I sure can determine if a person is presently a Christian by what they believe to be the truth.
If you claim to be a mathematician and go on to tell me that 2 plus two is 6, I can judge that you are not what you claim to be. If you do not believe that Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for your sin then YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN. There are a few other cardinal doctrines that are also essential to believe and trust in, in order to be a Christian. The person that invents their own Theology out of their own minds is deceiving themselves if they think that will avail them of anything.
I disagree entirely. I can not judge or know if any person will become a Christian or not but I sure can determine if a person is presently a Christian by what they believe to be the truth.
If you claim to be a mathematician and go on to tell me that 2 plus two is 6, I can judge that you are not what you claim to be. If you do not believe that Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for your sin then YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN. There are a few other cardinal doctrines that are also essential to believe and trust in, in order to be a Christian. The person that invents their own Theology out of their own minds is deceiving themselves if they think that will avail them of anything.
What am I?
If, a turtle loses his shell is he homeless or naked?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.