civic
Well-known member
Ditto
A question just to start things off.
- Thread starter Administrator
- Start date
TibiasDad
Well-known member
Behold
Well-known member
We must believe the Gospel. (Paul's).
To believe it, you have to understand that you are a sinner, and God is offering eternal forgiveness, through Christ's Cross, that is only based on "Grace through Faith".
John 14:6
To TEACH salvation, you have to understand that Jesus is Salvation.
Those who can't understand this, .. teach, """Water, Works, Law, Commandment keeping, enduring, and trying to be like Christ"..
In other words they ad THEMSELVES to God's Grace, as that is there SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS< trying to take some of the Credit due only to the finished work of Jesus on the Cross.
TibiasDad
Well-known member
First of all, that is a straw man argument; we don’t insert ourselves anywhere nor is there any self righteousness. We take no credit for our salvation, indeed, it is impossible; the very fact that it is gracious means that we don’t deserve anything, and that God didn’t have to do anything on our behalf.
Secondly,
Forgiveness is never called eternal. Life is called eternal, but not forgiveness.
There is only one gospel.
Doug
Behold
Well-known member
Actually there are many, @TibiasDad
= Galatians 1:8
But there is only this.. as Paul's ....
John 14:6
TibiasDad
Well-known member
“Some other gospel” as Paul says, “is really no gospel at all!” There is one gospel.
Doug
Behold
Well-known member
Here is a Gospel
"Born again BY water".
That is the Catholic Bible, and the Catholic Theology, that teaches this as "baptismal regeneration".
Its a "doctrine of devils" Hebrews 13:9
That is one : Galatians 1:8 "other" Gospel
A.) Other
TibiasDad
Well-known member
Behold
Well-known member
Its a gospel that the Devil created.
Its Calvinism, for example.
It exists, and that is why its "cursed". = Galatians 1:8
See, if it was not real, then Paul would not tell you that its "another Gospel".
TibiasDad
Well-known member
Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.
Doug
Behold
Well-known member
There is one Gospel, and its Paul's.... and the reason its the "one" is because Jesus gave it to Paul, and also, gave it before.. = John 14:6.
Now, just as Jesus is THE Truth, there are many false truths .... .yet, people believe them.
And so it is with the Gospel.
There is only ONE.. that is TRUE, but there are many Gospel's in the world that are cursed because they are not true, .... Galatians 1:8.
Calvinism, is real, and He teaches his Gospel... and you can deny that it exists, but, then you have to explain why there are many Calvinists on this Forum, who teach His Gospel.
The "cult of Mary" has a Gospel, and billions currently believe it, and its false.
The JW's have a Gospel.
Islam, has a Gospel.
These are real, but they are not TRUE....
Its like a copy of the Mona Lisa, exists, but its not the original, its a FAKE, and so are the false gospels.
They are real, but they are fake, they are false, they are not TRUE.
TibiasDad
Well-known member
But the others are not the true gospel, so, as Paul says, it’s really no gospel at all! Yes, there are alternatives, but they are not “good news”, nor can they save. As there is only one Mona Lisa, nothing else can be the actual Mona Lisa.
If the devil calls these things the gospel, we should not!
Doug
Behold
Well-known member
Yes, there are alternative "gospels".
They are cursed = Galatians 1:8
And the worst offender is not Islam.
Its a Believer who is "fallen from Grace" and is in a pulpit or TV show or Mods a forum, or owns one.... and is teaching that water saves you, or that you can lose your Salvation or that John Calvin is "Christianity".
Edit by Admin
They are under a spell, and that is why they CAN'T hear Truth, anymore.
That is why they fight truth, and hate it., and think this is the Holy Spirit in them.
Yes, they are that "bewitched"., they are that "subverted within themselves" as PAUL teaches in TITUS 3.
All they can do is preach their Luke 11:35, as they are a DARK LIGHT.
Last edited by a moderator:
TibiasDad
Well-known member
Ah, I see; so anyone that disagrees with you in one of these areas is a heretic! I would ask if there are any other beliefs that you find heretical, but I am apparently already one in your eyes.
I am famously not a Calvinist, nor do I believe or teach that “water saves you”, as I do not think baptism is anything but a public confession of having been saved already, and an announcement of your intention to follow Christ faithfully.
So I guess you’ll deduce that I must be one who believes that one can forsake their faith and forfeit their salvation. And I hope you’ll understand that I find this quite unheretical. Salvation is the restoration of a relationship, and relationships can be broken and the benefits of that relationship are lost to the one breaking the relationship.
This is not to say it cannot be restored and reconciled, but only that any relationship is able to be broken and left unrestored. (See Rom 11:11-24)
I would also caution against the use of the term “heretic”, in that that would be considered a “personal” indictment which would not be looked kindly upon by the authorities of this establishment. You are quite able to suggest that a system of belief is, in your opinion, heretical to one degree or another, but you will neither win friends or influence people by making it personal.
Orthodoxy does not require any particular stance regarding eternal security, or a particular stance on the atonement. So I would hope that you can tone down the rhetoric a bit, for I am coming to enjoy our discussions and would like to be able to continue them in the future.
Your brother,
Doug
Behold
Well-known member
As i was telling a member yesterday.
I dont call out heretics.
I only expose the teaching that is heretical by comparing it with the "preaching of the Cross', and the rest of Paul's doctrine.
TibiasDad
Well-known member
And yet you did. When you speak of “the BELIEVER” that teaches these things or of “John Calvin” (and I suppose that would also include John Wesley), you are referring to a particular individual, thus you properly say “heretic” which necessarily refers to a person.
Doug
Members of this board will not Refer to other members in any sort of derogatory fashion.
Proverbs 14:12
"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man" .
It may refer to the blinding effects of passion and self-will, which make a man think his own way is best and most desirable
Proverbs 14:12
"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man" .
It may refer to the blinding effects of passion and self-will, which make a man think his own way is best and most desirable
Behold
Well-known member
Paul is the one who defined "heretics" not me. That's fine but you can't put members in a group such as Heretics whether directly or indirectly.
Edit by admin
He said they are "bewitched", and "in the Flesh".
In Titus 3, He says that these same, are to be put out of the Local Assembly, and never let back in, because they will destroy your Church, exactly as they are allowed to ruin every "christian" forum.
So, as i said, .. to expose teaching that is "anti-Cross" or "anti-Grace", is not naming a member.
Its simply revealing an untruth, so that the believers, can see it, .. and in this way, they are taught how to see and hear heresy.
This is so very important to do on a Forum because there are new baby Christians, who come to Forums, and they have no idea that most are a nest of heretics, ready to ruin their faith.
This Forum, is one of the least offensive in that regard, Edit by Admin
The "Trinity" fighting, is not really important.... but these other Heresies...can ruin a person's faith, forever.
So, Thats very good, regarding this particular Forum...., as im on all forums.... and some, most are just unbelievably permissive of the worst type of demonic theology.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure if this has been posted already
#1 The Moral Influence Theory
One of the earliest theories for the atonement is the Moral Influence theory, which simply taught that Jesus Christ came and died in order to bring about a positive change to humanity. This moral change comes through the teachings of Jesus alongside His example and actions. The most notable name here is that of Augustine from the 4th century, whose influence has almost single-handedly had the greatest impact upon Western Christianity. He affirmed the Moral Influence theory as the main theory of the Atonement (alongside the Ransom theory as well).
Within this theory the death of Christ is understood as a catalyst to reform society, inspiring men and women to follow His example and live good moral lives of love. In this theory the Holy Spirit comes to help Christians produce this moral change. Logically, in this theory the Eschatological development too becomes about morality, where it is taught that after death the human race will be judged by their conduct in life. This in turn creates a strong emphasis on free will as the human response to follow Jesus’ example. Although Augustine himself differs here in that he did not teach free will, but instead that human beings are incapable of change themselves, and require God to radically alter their lives sovereignly through the Holy Spirit.
This theory focuses on not just the death of Jesus Christ, but on His entire life. This sees the saving work of Jesus not only in the event of the crucifixion, but also in all the words He has spoken, and the example He has set. In this theory the cross is merely a ramification of the moral life of Jesus. He is crucified as a martyr due to the radical nature of His moral example. In this way the Moral Influence theory emphasizes Jesus Christ as our teacher, our example, our founder and leader, and ultimately, as a result, our first martyr.
#2 The Ransom Theory
The Ransom Theory of the Atonement is one of the first major theories for the Atonement. It is often held alongside the Moral Influence Theory, and usually deals more with the actual death of Jesus Christ, what it actually means and the effect it has upon humanity. This theory finds its roots in the Early Church, particularly in Origen from the 3rd century. This theory essentially teaches that Jesus Christ died as a ransom sacrifice, paid either to Satan (the most dominate view), or to God the Father. Jesus’ death then acts as a payment to satisfy the debt on the souls of the human race, the same debt we inherited from Adam’s original sin.
The Ransom view could be summarized like this:
“Essentially, this theory claimed that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the Devil at the time of the Fall’ hence, justice required that God pay the Devil a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ’s death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan’s grip.” 1
Redemption in this theory means to buy back, and purchase the human race from the clutches of the Devil. The main controversy here with this theory is the act of paying off the Devil. Some have written that this is not a fair statement to say that all Ransom Theorists believe that the Devil is paid, but rather in this act of Ransom Christ frees humanity from the bondage of sin and death. In this way Ransom relates the Christus Victor theory. But it’s worth differentiating here because in one way these views are similar, but in another way they are drastically different.
#3 Christus Victor
Classically, the Christus Victor theory of Atonement is widely considered to be the dominant theory for most of the historical Christian Church. In this theory, Jesus Christ dies in order to defeat the powers of evil (such as sin, death, and the devil) in order to free mankind from their bondage. This is related to the Ransom view with the difference being that there is no payment to the devil or to God. Within the Christus Victor framework, the cross did not pay off anyone, but defeated evil thereby setting the human race free.
Gustaf Aulen argued that this theory of the Atonement is the most consistently held theory for church history, especially in the early church up until the 12th century before Anslem’s satisfaction theory came along. He writes that “the work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil.” 2 He calls this theory the “classic” theory of the Atonement. While some will say that Christus Victor is compatible with other theories of the Atonement, others argue that it is not. Though I have found that most theologians believe that Christus Victor is true, even if it is not for them the primary theory of Christ’s death.
#4 The Satisfaction Theory (Anselm)
In the 12th century Anselm of of Canterbury proposed a satisfaction theory for the Atonement. In this theory Jesus Christ’s death is understood as a death to satisfy the justice of God. Satisfaction here means restitution, the mending of what was broken, and the paying back of a debt. In this theory, Anselm emphasizes the justice of God, and claims that sin is an injustice that must be balanced. Anselm’s satisfaction theory says essentially that Jesus Christ died in order to pay back the injustice of human sin, and to satisfy the justice of God.
This theory was developed in reaction to the historical dominance of the Ransom theory, that God paid the devil with Christ’s death. Anselm saw that this theory was logically flawed, because what does God owe satan? Therefore, in contrast with the Ransom theory, Anselm taught that it is humanity who owes a debt to God, not God to satan. Our debt, in this theory, is that of injustice. Our injustices have stolen from the justice of God and therefore must be paid back. Satisfaction theory then postulates that Jesus Christ pays pack God in His death on the cross to God. This is the first Atonement theory to bring up the notion that God is acted upon by the Atonement (i.e. that Jesus satisfies God).
#5 The Penal Substitutionary Theory
Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a development of the Reformation. The Reformers, Specifically Calvin and Luther, took Anselm’s Satisfaction theory and modified it slightly. They added a more legal (or forensic) framework into this notion of the cross as satisfaction. The result is that within Penal Substitution, Jesus Christ dies to satisfy God’s wrath against human sin. Jesus is punished (penal) in the place of sinners (substitution) in order to satisfy the justice of God and the legal demand of God to punish sin. In the light of Jesus’ death God can now forgive the sinner because Jesus Christ has been punished in the place of sinner, in this way meeting the retributive requirements of God’s justice. This legal balancing of the ledgers is at the heart of this theory, which claims that Jesus died for legal satisfaction. It’s also worth mentioning that in this theory the notion of inputed righteousness is postulated.
This theory of the Atonement contrasts with Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory in that God is not satisfied with a debt of justice being paid by Jesus, but that God is satisfied with punishing Jesus in the place of mankind. The notion that the cross acts upon God, conditioning Him to forgiveness, originates from Anslems theory, but here in Penal Substitution the means are different. This theory of the Atonement is perhaps the most dominant today, especially among the Reformed, and the evangelical.
#6 The Governmental Theory
The Governmental Theory of the Atonement is a slight variation upon the Penal Substitutionary theory, which is notably held in Methodism. The main difference here is the extent to which Christ suffered. In the Governmental Theory, Jesus Christ suffers the punishment of our sin and propitiates God’s wrath. In this way it is similar to Penal Substitution. However, in the Governmental Theory, Jesus Christ does not take the exact punishment we deserve, He takes a punishment. Jesus dies on the cross therefore to demonstrate the displeasure of God towards sin. He died to display God’s wrath against sin and the high price which must be paid, but not to specifically satisfy that particular wrath. The Governmental Theory also teaches that Jesus died only for the church, and if you by faith are part of the church, you can take part in God’s salvation. The church then acts as the sort of hiding place from God’s punishment. This view contrasts both the Penal and Satisfaction models, but retains the fundamental belief that God cannot forgive if Jesus does not die a propitiating death.
#7 The Scapegoat Theory
The Scapegoat Theory is a modern Atonement theory rooted in the philosophical concept of the Scapegoat. Here the key figures Rene Girard and James Allison. Within this theory of the Atonement Jesus Christ dies as the Scapegoat of humanity. This theory moves away from the idea that Jesus died in order to act upon God (as in PSA, Satisfaction, or Governmental), or as payment to the devil (as in Ransom). Scapegoating therefore is considered to be a form of non-violent atonement, in that Jesus is not a sacrifice but a victim. There are many Philosophical concepts that come up within this model, but in a general sense we can say that Jesus Christ as the Scapegoat means the following. 1) Jesus is killed by a violent crowd. 2) The violent crowd kills Him believing that He is guilty. 3) Jesus is proven innocent, as the true Son of God. 4) The crowd is therefore deemed guilty.
James Allison summarizes the Scapegoating Theory like this, “Christianity is a priestly religion which understands that it is God’s overcoming of our violence by substituting himself for the victim of our typical sacrifices that opens up our being able to enjoy the fullness of creation as if death were not.”
that covers most but not all
There is also the recapulation theory (among the oldest) and priestly sacrificial atonement (Newly introduced by Malcom Lavender)
civic
Well-known member
How did God view His own death, atonement for sin ?
We see God the Son described His own death, the Atonement in 4 ways. Theology begins with God. He said His death was a Substitution, a Ransom, a Passover, a Sacrifice and for forgiveness of sins- Expiation.
1- Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13 Substitution, Ransom
2-No man takes my life I lay it down and I will take it up again- John 10:18 Substitution, Ransom
3- I lay My life down for the sheep- John 10:15Substitution, Ransom
4- Jesus viewed His death as the Passover John 6:51
5-just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a Ransom for many- Matthew 20:28
6-I Am the Good Shepherd who lays down His life for the sheep- Substitution, John 10:11
7-Jesus said in John 11:50- nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish- Substitution
8 -This is my blood of the Covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins- Matthew 26:28
Who put Jesus to death, who was responsible ?
Acts 2:23
this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.
Acts 2:36
“Therefore, let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”
Acts 4:10- Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole…
Acts 5:30- The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree
Matthew 16:21
From that time on Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and that He must be killed and on the third day be raised to life
Matthew 20:18-19
“We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will deliver Him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. And on the third day He will be raised to life."
Matthew 27:1- When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:
Matthew 27:35- When they had crucified Him, they divided up His garments by casting lots.
Mark 15:24- And they crucified Him. They also divided His garments by casting lots to decide what each of them would take
conclusion: The One who made Atonement for my sins completely left out PSA and not once mentioned it or hinted at it in any way, shape or form. He said His death was a substitution, ransom, Passover, sacrifice and for forgiveness of sins- expiation. There was no wrath from the Father to the Son. The anger, wrath, vengeance, retribution as the Apostles taught in Acts and Jesus taught in the gospels came from evil and wicked men.
hope this helps !!!
