If you're going to reject the atonement, be consistent—REJECT IT ALL.

I did not use the word liar. Here is what I mean when I use the word. You are misusing the word wrath since the Bible not once used it with Christ being the recipient of Gods wrath.

And why didn’t you provide a verse stating Gods wrath/ anger is on the animal sacrifice ?

To equivocate is to say something in a way that can be understood multiple ways.

Maybe I’ll go with this : your argument is based upon faulty and unproven presuppositions. You have yet to prove from scripture wrath from God on the animal sacrifice and the same with the Fathers wrath/ anger on the Son.

hope this helps !!!
you frequently use words that mean other than what you claim. U say I equivocate which you think means to sayy thinks with multiple posible. meanings You know I don't do that. I say what I mean clearly. your disagreeing does not make me an equivocator
 
you frequently use words that mean other than what you claim. U say I equivocate which you think means to sayy thinks with multiple posible. meanings You know I don't do that. I say what I mean clearly. your disagreeing does not make me an equivocator
I provided a definition online and you are disagreeing with the common meaning of the word. I clarified what I meant and was not calling you a liar. Then I said its your presuppositions that you are reading into wrath, the sacrifice and the atonement.

You have yet to provide any verse with wrath/anger with God and the animal sacrifice and with the Father and the Son.

I'm still waiting for you to prove your assumption/presupposition. Maybe conflate is a better word than equivocate.
 
this post is incorrect, you have been shown many old and new testament verses that speak to wrath on men and all the sacrifices. u read and reject everything u see then claim no one showed you anything. it is tiresome
 
this post is incorrect, you have been shown many old and new testament verses that speak to wrath on men and all the sacrifices. u read and reject everything u see then claim no one showed you anything. it is tiresome
There are none which is why there are no verses to post.
 
It seems some people on here think Jesus suffered a little bit—but just enough to do something to make sins go away.


Somehow, not explained.

Not related to the Holy Perfect Law.

Not related to the wrath of God against sin.


Jesus physically suffers for a few minutes and all sins go away......... somehow in an unexplained way.


Why not just reject the concept of Jesus having to suffer for sins at all?

Why does God need Jesus to hurt to forgive people's sins?!
What the Bible is portraying as an expression of God’s love gets twisted into something dark.

Our version goes like this: "God is holy and perfect. You are not. Therefore, God is angry at you, or hates you, so he has to kill you. But because he’s merciful, he’ll let you bring this animal to him and will have the animal killed instead of you. Thankfully, Jesus came to be the one who gets killed by God instead of me. Jesus rescues us from God, so now we can go forever to the happy place after we die and not the bad place."

Is this story recognizable to you? If so, you’re not alone. The main problem with this story is that it contains enough biblical language to pass for what the Bible actually says about animal sacrifice and Jesus’ death. However, when you step back and allow Leviticus and the New Testament to speak for themselves, you can recognize this story as false. These misconceptions about God’s character most often originate in Leviticus and then go on to fundamentally twist our understanding of God in the rest of the Old Testament. This misunderstanding has a domino effect—it distorts what we believe about Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection in the New Testament.

In Leviticus, human sin is an act that vandalizes, infects, and defiles God’s good world. This idea is rooted in the depiction of human rebellion found in Genesis 3-11. Sin is the result of fractured relationships, and it leads to power struggles, violence, and widespread, systemic evil.

All of this has a corrosive, or defiling, effect, not only on the wrongdoer but on the entire community. Remember, Leviticus comes right after the tabernacle is finished, where God is going to come dwell in the center of the Israelite community. Israel’s sin doesn’t just defile the camp, it even defiles the sacred space itself. It makes God want to leave, just like vandalism and heaps of trash everywhere would make you want to leave a space.

And this isn’t just a common space. The tabernacle, and the temple, is the meeting place of Heaven and Earth—the throne of God in human space. Israel’s rebellion isn’t simply about breaking a rule. It’s about humans introducing corruption, pain, and death into God’s world. They might as well be bringing that corruption right into the dwelling place of God. If Israel’s God leaves the temple space, then the entire nation will suffer the consequences of living in a land without God.

We already know this story from Genesis 3-11 when humanity had to leave God’s presence in Eden. It led to the rebellion of Babylon and ultimately to God’s people being enslaved in Egypt. The story of what happens in Egypt is an exploration of what happens when humans hijack God’s good world and redefine good and evil on their own terms. God’s justice is the only appropriate response to this kind of rebellious vandalism.

But God does not want to see people go down the same road and suffer the same consequences. God knows that the Israelites are corrupt humans like the rest of humanity, but he wants to be near his people. So he made a promise to Abraham that he would restore divine blessing to the nations through his descendants (remember Genesis 12).

By his own word, God has promised not to destroy Israel when they sin against him. This brings us to God’s alternative way of dealing with Israel’s sin and rebellion. It’s a symbolic ritual that takes an existing practice among Israel’s neighbors (animal sacrifice) and transforms its meaning. Let’s get into it!

That brings us to the practice of animal sacrifice introduced in Leviticus. Animal sacrifice was a common practice within the context of the ancient Near East. But it has a totally different meaning and significance in Leviticus—the Israelites are not dealing with the angry, volatile gods of their ancient neighbors.

For the Israelites, cutting an animal’s throat and watching its blood (that is, its life) drain from its body was a visceral symbol of the devastating results of their sin and selfishness. The stakes are high—human evil releases death out into the world. It may not seem like such a big deal to cheat your neighbor or steal a donkey. It’s not like you’re murdering someone, right? But multiply that wrongdoing by tens or hundreds of thousands of people and you get a violent and corrupt community. Sin released into the world compounds and begins a downward spiral that we’ve seen before in the biblical story. So the animal’s symbolic death is a physical symbol of what’s really at stake—the life or death of the community. You could call this part of the symbol a deterrent.

However, the animal’s death was not just a reminder of sin’s tragic consequences. The animal’s life was also offered as a symbolic substitute. If sin vandalizes God’s world with death and pain, then God has every right to make people face the just consequences. But God loves his creation and does not want to kill them, so the animal’s life is symbolically offered as a ransom payment that would cover them.

The word “cover” is the literal meaning of the Hebrew words kipper/kopher, and was later translated into Old English as “atonement.” The Israelites saw the blood of an animal as a symbol of the animal’s life itself (see Leviticus 17:11). Since blood represents life, or the opposite of death, its sprinkling around the temple would act like a detergent. It symbolically washed the temple of death and defilement (the natural result of sin). The end result is that God’s presence stays with the people of Israel.

These atoning sacrifices were the means by which God would deal with the Israelites’ sin and provide a reliable system to maintain a right relationship between God and sinful humans. This substitute, so to speak, is not offered by humans hoping to appease a volatile and angry deity. It’s precisely the opposite! In Leviticus, this substitute is provided by God himself.

The symbolism of animal sacrifice in the Bible is a concrete expression of God’s justice and grace. It reminded the Israelites of the serious nature of sin and the consequences for the individuals and the community at large. Ultimately, these sacrifices showed the Israelites how much God wanted to stay in his covenant relationship with them. He wanted them to become the kingdom of priests he called them to be.

If we want to better understand what the ancient Israelites thought about animal sacrifice, we should read what they wrote about it. And if we want to see how this practice brings Jesus’ sacrifice into new light, we should look toward the ancient Israelites’ writings. Fortunately for us, 1 John provides insight into this ancient practice and the significance of Jesus’ death.

John was a disciple of Jesus who grew up going to Jerusalem for Passover every year and offered many sacrifices in the temple throughout his life. He also spent time with Jesus in Galilee and Jerusalem. And most significantly, he was one of the only male disciples who watched Jesus die on the cross. When he reflected on the meaning of Jesus’ death and how it was a sacrifice for our sins, he did not say anything about God’s anger or how he wanted to kill people—just the opposite. He speaks of Jesus’ sacrificial death as the ultimate expression of God’s love.
This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

We should allow Leviticus and the story of Jesus to dismantle our distorted ideas about animal sacrifice and God’s character. At the end of the day, Leviticus, just like the rest of the biblical story, is about God’s love for his good world and his desire to be in the midst of his people. bibleproject.com

hope this helps !!!
 
this post is incorrect, you have been shown many old and new testament verses that speak to wrath on men and all the sacrifices. u read and reject everything u see then claim no one showed you anything. it is tiresome
Sure there is wrath against unbelievers but that's not what's being argued here. What's being argued is if the Father was wrathful towards Jesus. The answer to that is an definite no. If God the Father was wrathful to Jesus then He would be no better than a pagan god who demands a pure sacrifice to assuage his fury, which would be a demented and deranged act.

You know, even Aethists and Muslims see through the holes of the legal view of the Atonement.

The legal view of the Atonement does not explain everything properly. It explains Jesus paying for our sins but beyond that the ontological Biblical view of the Atonement explains things better. For example, when Jesus entered Hades (when He died), He stripped it of its powers (how can anything forcefully contain the Word of God?), and led the OT Saints to Heaven. Thus, the way to Heaven for all believers has been cleared through by Jesus.
 
Last edited:
Sure there is wrath against unbelievers but that's not what's being argued here. What's being argued is if the Father was wrathful towards Jesus. The answer to that is an definite no. If God the Father was wrathful to Jesus then He would be no better than a pagan god who demands a pure sacrifice to assuage his fury, which would be a demented and deranged act.

You know, even Aethists and Muslims see through the holes of the legal view of the Atonement.

The legal view of the Atonement does not explain everything properly. It explains Jesus paying for our sins but beyond that the ontological Biblical view of the Atonement explains things better. For example, when Jesus entered Hades (when He died), He stripped it of its powers (how can anything forcefully contain the Word of God?), and led the OT Saints to Heaven. Thus, the way to Heaven for all believers has been cleared through by Jesus.
Amen !
 
The answer to that is an definite no. If God the Father was wrathful to Jesus then He would be no better than a pagan god who demands a pure sacrifice to assuage his fury, which would be a demented and deranged act.

By this same logic, eternal torment is a "demented and deranged" act of fury.

You know, even Aethists and Muslims see through the holes of the legal view of the Atonement.

No, they hate the grace Christ stands for, and establish their own righteousness.

When Jesus entered Hades (when He died), He stripped it of its powers (how can anything forcefully contain the Word of God?), and led the OT Saints to Heaven. Thus, the way to Heaven for all believers has been cleared through by Jesus.

God did not need to became a man and die to strip Hades of its power, he could have done it straight from his throne, or sent an army of angels.

Jesus had to fulfill the justice of God for humans who broke the Law.
 
Thats paganism and greek philosophy from the angry gods nowhere found in the bible and made popular by the reformation and the ungodly/corrupt judicial system of their day.

No.

It's holiness.

And without holiness, NO ONE will see the Lord.
 
By this same logic, eternal torment is a "demented and deranged" act of fury.
People get their just desserts. I'm not against that. You skipped over the fact that an extensive legal view does make God into a pagan god.
No, they hate the grace Christ stands for, and establish their own righteousness.
Again, people get their just desserts. That's not what's being argued here. What's being argued is the pagan sacrifice legal view of the Atonement.
God did not need to became a man and die to strip Hades of its power, he could have done it straight from his throne, or sent an army of angels.
If that's the case then why the Cross? Couldn't God just decree our sins forgiven? That's what Muslims promote. You're getting into Muslim territory here.
Jesus had to fulfill the justice of God for humans who broke the Law.
The legal view explains legal things so I'm not against that. But once the legal view treads into areas that make God into a pagan god then there's a problem there.
 
People get their just desserts. I'm not against that. You skipped over the fact that an extensive legal view does make God into a pagan god.

Again, people get their just desserts. That's not what's being argued here. What's being argued is the pagan sacrifice legal view of the Atonement.

If that's the case then why the Cross? Couldn't God just decree our sins forgiven? That's what Muslims promote. You're getting into Muslim territory here.

The legal view explains legal things so I'm not against that. But once the legal view treads into areas that make God into a pagan god then there's a problem there.
ditto !
 
Sure there is wrath against unbelievers but that's not what's being argued here. What's being argued is if the Father was wrathful towards Jesus. The answer to that is an definite no. If God the Father was wrathful to Jesus then He would be no better than a pagan god who demands a pure sacrifice to assuage his fury, which would be a demented and deranged act.

You know, even Aethists and Muslims see through the holes of the legal view of the Atonement.

The legal view of the Atonement does not explain everything properly. It explains Jesus paying for our sins but beyond that the ontological Biblical view of the Atonement explains things better. For example, when Jesus entered Hades (when He died), He stripped it of its powers (how can anything forcefully contain the Word of God?), and led the OT Saints to Heaven. Thus, the way to Heaven for all believers has been cleared through by Jesus.
the OT says that God smelled the blood sacrfices and His anger was soothed
these foretold Christ
 
the OT says that God smelled the blood sacrfices and His anger was soothed
these foretold Christ
God also said the following about sacrifices:

11 I am sick of your sacrifices. Don’t bring me any more of them. I don’t want your fat rams; I don’t want to see the blood from your offerings

So a sacrifice by itself is not automatically and always about Christ. It's also what sacrifices we perform in our hearts. When we sacrifice our desires for the advancement of God's Kingdom then His anger against us is soothed.
 
the OT says that God smelled the blood sacrfices and His anger was soothed
these foretold Christ

(1) Why Did God Regard as a ‘Soothing Aroma’ the Burning of Fat, Kidneys, and Liver – Organs that Deal with Waste and Toxins in the Body – and Not Simply the Death of the Animal Itself?

Penal substitution advocates believe that the main purpose of the animal sacrifices was to portray a punitive death sentence falling on the animal as a substitute for the Israelite. Their case would be strengthened if God was said to be ‘soothed’ by the death of the animal. This is not, however, how Leviticus describes the whole process in its various stages.

The Israelites divided the animal into different parts: blood, flesh, skin, fat, kidneys and liver, and sometimes legs (e.g. Lev.1:3 – 13; 3:1 – 17; etc.).

Interestingly, the kidneys, liver, and intestinal fat are the parts of the body which process waste or store toxins within the body.[1] Very importantly, the kidneys, liver, and intestinal fat were to never be eaten (Lev.3:17; 7:22 – 25; 8:16, 25; 9:10, 19 – 20, 24; 10:15). They were reserved for God alone. When they were consumed in fire, the Lord smelled the smoke of the fat, kidney, and liver as ‘a soothing aroma’ (Lev.3:3 – 5, 9 – 11, 14 – 16).

Nothing else triggered this response from God, including the death of the animal. This strongly suggests that penal substitution advocates are making unfortunate oversimplifications about the whole process of sacrifice. For sin offerings, in particular, burning the toxin-bearing organs became ‘a soothing aroma’ to God (Lev.4:21). And this step in particular is connected to ‘making atonement.’ For example, in the sin offering,

35 Then he [the priest] shall remove all its fat, just as the fat of the lamb is removed from the sacrifice of the peace offerings, and the priest shall offer them up in smoke on the altar, on the offerings by fire to the LORD. Thus the priest shall make atonement for him in regard to his sin which he has committed, and he will be forgiven. (Lev.4:35; emphasis mine)
The partitioning of the animal indicates that God is not ‘soothed’ by simply causing death or otherwise doling out punishments. Rather, death is a means to another end, where God separates waste-related organs from the organism and consumes them. This was surely instructive for the Israelite onlooker. Atonement via the sin offering, therefore, is connected to the act of separating one thing from another.

One cannot help but be struck by the connections to various motifs of separation that occurred before in Scripture. The fiery sword of Genesis 3:24 represented cutting/burning sinfulness away, separating something from us if ever we were to return to the garden of Eden.

Now, we observe the separating of the fat, kidneys, and liver from the rest of the animal. With the sin offering, in particular, the parts of the animal that handles waste and toxins are cut away and burned. This sheds light on why God was pleased with the sacrifice of Abel in Genesis 4:4. Abel separated the ‘fat portions’ from the animals, presumably for God to consume by fire. And this made Abel like God. God separated good things from good things in Genesis 1:1 – 2:3, and even Eve from Adam in Genesis 2:21 – 22. Human beings had to partner with God to continue in this work of separating, but with a new significance. Because of the fall into corruption, human beings had to separate sinfulness from themselves, in partnership with God. Abel was demonstrating this, through his offering, in microcosm.

The principle of separation continues. Circumcision in Genesis 17 represented the cutting of sinful attitudes of male privilege away, separating those attitudes from Abraham and Sarah so they could return to the creational ideal of Adam and Eve insofar as childbearing was concerned (as I have explained here). Circumcision was an act of separation from uncleanness for the sake of restoration to God’s original creation ideal.

Moses described salvation from sinfulness using the motif of ‘circumcision of the heart’ (Dt.10:16; 30:6). Something has to be cut away from us, from our human nature, in a partnership between each human being and God.

This principle of separation demonstrates an affinity with medical substitution, not penal substitution. When Jesus died, God was not pleased by his death per se. Death was a means to another, deeper, end. Through death, God separated out from Jesus’ humanity the most sinister ‘toxin,’ the corruption which must be ‘circumcised’ from the human heart (Dt.10:16; 30:6), ‘the flesh’ (Jn.1:14; Rom.7:14 – 25), ‘the likeness of sinful flesh’ (Rom.8:3), ‘the old self’ (Rom.6:6), the ‘venom’ of the serpent (Lk.10:19). Thus in his resurrection, Jesus emerged without it.

It is potentially significant that the Hebrew word for ‘kidney’ is also used for ‘mind/s’ (six times in the NASB: Ps.7:9; 16:7; 26:2; Jer.12:2 17:10; 20:12), ‘heart’ (one time: Job 19:27), ‘inmost being’ (one time: Prov.23:16), ‘inward parts’ (two times: Ps.139:13; Lam.3:13), and ‘within’ (one time: Ps.73:21). The association with the ‘kidney’ with the inward part of the person which needs refinement and purification is not, by itself, conclusive. But the associations do stack up.

At the same time, the sin offering has to be considered as a regular part of the whole system of sacrifice. Thus:

  • The flesh of the animal, in the peace and sin/guilt offerings of Lev.3 – 7, was consumed by the priests or the common people. (In the burnt offerings of Lev.1:3 – 13, the flesh was consumed by fire and the fat was included in the entirety of the offering, again having the effect of providing God with ‘a soothing aroma’; cf. Gen.8:21.)
  • The exterior of the animal and its digestive tract represented the way the animal made contact with the land, which had been cursed because of Adam and Eve’s fall into corruption, and further desecrated by the sins of others. In the burnt offering, the legs and entrails of the animal needed to be washed before being offered to God (e.g. Lev.1:9, 13).
  • The blood of the animal was the cleansing agent that restores sanctity, life, and health to what it touches, as we will now examine. The Israelites were to never eat the blood.https://newhumanityinstitute.wordpress.com/2015/12/25/atonement-in-scripture-temple-sacrifices-and-a-bloodthirsty-god-part-3/
hope this helps !!!
 

Jesus: The Pagan Sacrifice to God​


A short while back I wrote a post about a few things Christians can learn from Pagans. A guy on Facebook blew up about this, leaving comment after comment after comment about how ridiculous it was to suggest such a thing. He argued that Paganism has infiltrated Christianity in numerous ways, and we must root out and destroy all such pagan influences, traditions, and customs.


I know where he is coming from, but I just think that (1) his position is logically, theologically, and realistically impossible, and (2) the most pagan things about Christianity are found at the core beliefs and behaviors of many Christians — especially those who are on the war-path against pagan influences.


In my experience, for example, those who are most concerned with getting rid of all pagan influences in Christianity, are also those who tend to be the most judgmental and critical toward those Christians who still incorporate some of those pagan traditions and customs. But which is more pagan: putting tinsel on a Christmas tree or judging and condemning the people who do?


What does all this have to do with the death of Jesus?


At the core of much of Christian theology is the pagan idea that God requires blood sacrifice to forgive sins. The vast majority of Christians believe that God hates sin so much that He is filled with wrath toward sin.


He hates sin so much, we are told, that He cannot even be in sin’s presence.


But, we are told, God’s wrath toward sin can be appeased with blood. God needs someone to pay for the eternal offense of sin against Him and His holiness. Thankfully, as the theory goes, just when God was demanding that all of us wretched sinners open our veins for God to appease His wrath toward us, Jesus stepped up and said, “I’ll take the bullet. I’ll die for them all.”


So Jesus came to earth, died as a sacrifice for our sins, poured out His blood upon God’s heavenly altar, and in so doing, appeased the wrath of God.


When God looks at us now, He doesn’t see sin; He sees Jesus. Therefore, instead of wanting to incinerate us, God can now love us.


Again, this is the basic sort of theology we hear in most churches about the death of Jesus and why He had to come and suffer and die.


But do you know where this entire theology comes from? Not from Scripture, but from Paganism!


Almost every religion in the world has the idea that the gods are mad at us for our sin, and we must do things to appease their wrath. We must sacrifice our goats, and make vows to visit holy places, and commit to treating people with more love (or commit to killing certain “enemies” of the gods).

When our sin is really serious, the gods want blood, whether it is our own blood, or the blood from someone in our family. As a last resort, the gods may accept the blood of a valuable animal.

And yes, I know that the most popular way of reading the Old Testament sees support for this idea in the Mosaic Law. When most people read the laws that are recorded in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, they see an angry god who wants blood.

But this sacrificial way of reading the Bible is influenced heavily by paganism, and is not at all what Scripture teaches.

When the Pentateuch is understood in its entirety, it appears that the message of the Pentateuch is that God was never angry at people and never wanted sacrifices and offerings, but wanted instead a people for Himself who lived by faith in God and with justice and mercy before a watching world. See Sailhamer’s magnum opus for more on this.

Furthermore, when the Israelite prophets come on the scene, nearly all of them decry and condemn the sacrificial system as not at all reflecting what was in God’s heart. Jeremiah says that God never commanded his people to offer sacrifices and burnt offerings (Jeremiah 7:22-23). Amos says that God hated their religious festivals and burnt offerings (Amos 5:21-24). Micah points out that God doesn’t need thousands of rams and rivers of oil, and definitely not a family’s firstborn son. Instead, God wants justice, kindness, and humility (Micah 6:6-8). God is not delighted with sacrifices and offerings, says the Psalmist, but with a broken and contrite spirit (Psalm 51:16-17).


So it is no surprise, when Jesus comes on the scene, that He tells people through His words and His actions that God is not angry with His people, that He does not want more sacrifices and offerings, that He loves, accepts, and freely forgives all people, no matter what.


While Jesus did proclaim freedom from sin, He did not do so on the basis of the sacrificial system (or even His own sacrifice), but simply on the basis of God’s limitless love, mercy, grace, and forgiveness.

So Why Then Did Jesus Die?​


When Jesus went to the cross, He did not die for God.

There are numerous reasons Jesus died. One was to put death to death. Another was to defeat sin and the devil (cf. Heb 2:14-18; Rom 6:4-13; 1 Cor 15:22, 45). But one reason I want to focus on here is that Jesus wanted to expose the lie of the scapegoat: the religious lie that an innocent victim must die for sin.


To put it bluntly, Jesus died to expose religion as a big, fat, satanic lie.


In His death, Jesus put to death the religious requirement of death. In His death, Jesus exposed the emptiness of the sacrificial system for what it was: a form of satanic enslavement by which humans think they are appeasing God for that which He had already forgiven them for.


Religion says: God is angry with you, but will forgive you if you do great things for Him and offer valuable things to Him. By going to the cross under the condemnation of religion, and then being raised again to new life, Jesus exposed the powerful and satanic lie of religion.


Through His death and resurrection, Jesus announced loud and clear that God is not angry at sin, and that just as sin, death, and the devil have no hold on God, they have no hold on us either.


God is not angry at sin. If He’s angry at anything, He is angry at enslavement. God wants us to live free.


And while sin does enslave, the greatest slaver of all is religion.


As such, God wants to free us from religion more than He wants to free us from sin. This is what Jesus proclaimed through His life, death, and resurrection.


The Resurrection of Religion​


Sadly, within a few short years of Jesus’ ascension, Christians returned once again the sacrificial mentality of religion. They took the satanic desire to appease God through sacrifice and applied it to Jesus Christ, saying that Jesus was the perfect sacrifice which appeased God once and for all. And ever since this shift was made under Augustine and Anselm, Christianity has been little more than another world religion which seeks to appease God through good behavior and personal sacrifice.


So if people truly want to rid themselves of all things pagan, they need to start not with their holidays and traditions, but with their theology.


Most specifically, we need to rid ourselves of this idea that God is angry at us for our sin and needs to be appeased through blood and sacrifice. This has never been true of God and is not true today.


The sacrificial reading of Scripture is a pagan reading of Scripture, which does not represent the heart of God, but represents a pagan view of God in which God is angry and must be appeased through sacrifice and human merit.


In contrast to this, the God revealed in Jesus Christ is not angry, but loves freely and forgives freely. No ifs, ands, or buts. The death of Jesus did not secure for us the forgiveness of God. God already forgave us freely by His grace.


Now, some of you might be thinking about Hebrews 9:22. But this post is already WAY too long, and an examination of Hebrews 9:22 deservers a post of its own.


God forgives, simply because He is a loving and forgiving God. End of story. No sacrifices, offerings, blood, or death are required.
 
Back
Top Bottom