The death of Jesus was a sacrifice

[Joe]

An excellent article I found saved on my phone from Israel.org. (Note: The domain is no longer working)

"Golgotha is the peak of humanity’s greatest crimes — pride, rivalry, blame, violence, domination and such, which were met with judgment. Judgment of the human system called “civilization” for what it really is: a war over power and control enforced by violence so corrupted that it is even capable of murdering God Himself – in the name of “truth and justice”.

But it’s not all bad news. Golgotha is also where we experienced the ultimate love of God in its greatest form – sacrificial love. Jesus, even as he was lynched in the name of religious truth and imperial justice, was able to express God’s heart in one sentence, as He plead for God to forgive us, for we do not know what we do. At the cross, we discover the deepest level – not of God’s wrath and anger, but of God’s love and grace. Although He could have killed men for the sake of justice and set His Son free, He chose to allow His Son to die in the name of love – for ours sake.

The cross is both hideous and glorious, simultaneously ugly and beautiful. It’s as disgusting as human sin and as marvelous as divine love. It is a perfect demonstration of Paul’s line of thought when he claimed, “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more.” (Rom 5:20).

What the cross is not is a place where an angry God unloaded and discharged His frustrations and anger with humanity. Jesus did not save us from God, but revealed God as a loving Savior willing to lay down His own life so ours can be forgiven.

The understanding that God allowed us to reject, torture and kill His Son, voids the concept of a monstrous deity requiring a virgin to be thrown into a volcano, a baby to be burnt or a firstborn son to be nailed to a tree in order to satisfy his wrath and calm him down. Although we met with the depths of human depravity, we also met with the depth of God’s love for us, gaining His forgiveness.

Jesus was “sacrificed by the Father” only in the sense of the Father sending his Son into human civilization in order to reveal to us how corrupt and sinful we are – so sinful that we even murdered God Himself. God did not will the murder of His Son, He simply knew it would occur and allowed it.

Three centuries before Christ, Plato, knowing the human heart and the evil of civilization, predicted exactly that: “our just man will be scourged, racked, fettered…and at last, after all manner of suffering, will be crucified.”[31]

The death of Jesus was a sacrifice. But it was a sacrifice to end sacrificing, not a sacrifice to appease the appetite of some angry gods. It was not God who needed the sacrifice of Jesus, it was us, the human civilization who needed it.
Paul wrote that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19). And this should not be misunderstood as God reconciling Himself to the world. Jesus did not die for God’s sake, but for ours.

The crucifixion is not what God inflicts upon Jesus in order to forgive, the crucifixion is what God in Christ endures as He forgives. The cross is where God absorbs sin and recycles it into forgiveness.

The great plan of the cross was not an attempt to change God’s mind about us, but an attempt to change our minds about God. God is not a Caiaphas seeking a sacrifice. God is not a Pilate requiring an execution. God is Jesus, absorbing sin, forgiving sinners. That makes the gospel all about forgiveness, rather than about payment and punishment. It makes the gospel all about love, rather than all about wrath.

The conclusion is this: It was not God who killed Jesus. It was us, human civilization, who killed Jesus. But the all-knowing, all-loving God knew we would reject His Son, yet allowed it in order for Jesus to become the ultimate once and for all sacrifice for our sake."

God Bless

 

[civic]

Amen brother for the biblical truth of the cross. Great article and one I will be saving . Thanks for posting it my friend

 

[Logikos]

An excellent article I found saved on my phone from Israel.org. (Note: The domain is no longer working)

"Golgotha is the peak of humanity’s greatest crimes — pride, rivalry, blame, violence, domination and such, which were met with judgment. Judgment of the human system called “civilization” for what it really is: a war over power and control enforced by violence so corrupted that it is even capable of murdering God Himself – in the name of “truth and justice”.

But it’s not all bad news. Golgotha is also where we experienced the ultimate love of God in its greatest form – sacrificial love. Jesus, even as he was lynched in the name of religious truth and imperial justice, was able to express God’s heart in one sentence, as He plead for God to forgive us, for we do not know what we do. At the cross, we discover the deepest level – not of God’s wrath and anger, but of God’s love and grace. Although He could have killed men for the sake of justice and set His Son free, He chose to allow His Son to die in the name of love – for ours sake.

The cross is both hideous and glorious, simultaneously ugly and beautiful. It’s as disgusting as human sin and as marvelous as divine love. It is a perfect demonstration of Paul’s line of thought when he claimed, “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more.” (Rom 5:20).

What the cross is not is a place where an angry God unloaded and discharged His frustrations and anger with humanity. Jesus did not save us from God, but revealed God as a loving Savior willing to lay down His own life so ours can be forgiven.

The understanding that God allowed us to reject, torture and kill His Son, voids the concept of a monstrous deity requiring a virgin to be thrown into a volcano, a baby to be burnt or a firstborn son to be nailed to a tree in order to satisfy his wrath and calm him down. Although we met with the depths of human depravity, we also met with the depth of God’s love for us, gaining His forgiveness.

Jesus was “sacrificed by the Father” only in the sense of the Father sending his Son into human civilization in order to reveal to us how corrupt and sinful we are – so sinful that we even murdered God Himself. God did not will the murder of His Son, He simply knew it would occur and allowed it.

Three centuries before Christ, Plato, knowing the human heart and the evil of civilization, predicted exactly that: “our just man will be scourged, racked, fettered…and at last, after all manner of suffering, will be crucified.”[31]

The death of Jesus was a sacrifice. But it was a sacrifice to end sacrificing, not a sacrifice to appease the appetite of some angry gods. It was not God who needed the sacrifice of Jesus, it was us, the human civilization who needed it.
Paul wrote that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19). And this should not be misunderstood as God reconciling Himself to the world. Jesus did not die for God’s sake, but for ours.

The crucifixion is not what God inflicts upon Jesus in order to forgive, the crucifixion is what God in Christ endures as He forgives. The cross is where God absorbs sin and recycles it into forgiveness.

The great plan of the cross was not an attempt to change God’s mind about us, but an attempt to change our minds about God. God is not a Caiaphas seeking a sacrifice. God is not a Pilate requiring an execution. God is Jesus, absorbing sin, forgiving sinners. That makes the gospel all about forgiveness, rather than about payment and punishment. It makes the gospel all about love, rather than all about wrath.

The conclusion is this: It was not God who killed Jesus. It was us, human civilization, who killed Jesus. But the all-knowing, all-loving God knew we would reject His Son, yet allowed it in order for Jesus to become the ultimate once and for all sacrifice for our sake."

God Bless

This is frankly disgusting! This is not Christian doctrine. I don't what you call yourself but if you belief this stuff, it ought not be "Christian".

God was not a victim of humanity and He didn't merely let the death of Christ happen! He planned it, He predicted it, He prophesied about it, took steps to ensure it and He did it ON PURPOSE!
Have you ever heard of "The Passover", even once? Do you think that Christ's death as the spotless Lamb of God was mere coincidence?
Not to mention the fact that Jesus, while sweating drops of blood, asked, "Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.”!
Further, Jesus Himself, who is God Himself, the Creator of all that has been created, by the way, stated as clear as day that no one takes His life from Him but that He laid down His own life of His own accord and that He has the power both to lay it down and to take it back up again.

Romans 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath (i.e. God's wrath) through Him.​

 

[civic]

This is frankly disgusting! This is not Christian doctrine. I don't what you call yourself but if you belief this stuff, it ought not be "Christian".

God was not a victim of humanity and He didn't merely let the death of Christ happen! He planned it, He predicted it, He prophesied about it, took steps to ensure it and He did it ON PURPOSE!
Have you ever heard of "The Passover", even once? Do you think that Christ's death as the spotless Lamb of God was mere coincidence?
Not to mention the fact that Jesus, while sweating drops of blood, asked, "Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.”!
Further, Jesus Himself, who is God Himself, the Creator of all that has been created, by the way, stated as clear as day that no one takes His life from Him but that He laid down His own life of His own accord and that He has the power both to lay it down and to take it back up again.

Romans 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath (i.e. God's wrath) through Him.​

Though often taught from the pulpit and widely accepted within Christianity, there is a common misnomer that God cannot look upon sin.

This misnomer or idea is rooted in a misunderstanding of Habakkuk 1:13, which states, "Your eyes are too pure to look upon evil." To expand upon the meaning of this verse, God cannot look at sin favorably or with complacency. However, this verse does not state that God cannot look at sin or that He cannot allow sin in His presence. God did not turn His back on Adam when he sinned--God sought him out. God did not turn His back on David when he sinned. Jesus sought out Peter after he denied Him 3 times. Judas whom Jesus said one of you is the devil was on of His 12 disciples. In the book of Job, God allowed satan in His presence for a specific purpose. Satan wanted to make a deal with God over His servant, Job. God restricted Satan, telling him that he "can do anything but touch Job" and not to "lay a hand or finger on him." In the wilderness, Jesus allowed the presence of satan (face to face).

Jesus did not turn His back on Saul when he was persecuting the church and sought him out on the Damascus Road and said to him," why are you persecuting Me?" If God did not turn His back on sinners, then neither did the Father turn His back on His only Son who is Holy, Blameless, Sinless, and Righteous just like His Father. The Father turning His back on the Son (at the cross) is not found in Scripture. Jesus ate with sinners, lived among sinners, loves sinners and He suffered and died for sinners.

Wrath- strongs 3709 ὀργή is defined in the Greek lexicon as anger, retribution, vengeance, and indignation. God is not against Himself angrily displaying wrath from the Father to the Son. God is love. In love, He sent His Son. The wrath bearing Son is a new concept not found in Scripture nor the early church fathers (ECFs). God is not against Himself. No one in the Trinity is in opposition, no conflict, no dissension, no strife, no disunity, no dysfunction. As if God were somehow like a sinful human family. There is nothing broken in Our Blessed Trinity.

Jesus bearing God’s wrath and being despised and forsaken by the Father and Him turning His back on the Son is not found in the pages of Scripture. That doctrine was developed in the dark ages during the Reformation and called Penal Substitution Theory of the Atonement or (PSA)

Calvin's comments on Galatians 3:13,
"He could not cease to be the object of his Father’s love, and yet he endured his wrath. For how could he reconcile the Father to us, if he had incurred his hatred and displeasure? We conclude, that he “did always those things that pleased” (John 8:29) his Father. Again, how would he have freed us from the wrath of God, if he had not transferred it from us to himself? Thus, “he was wounded for our transgressions,” (Isaiah 53:5,) and had to deal with God as an angry judge."

The following scriptures affirm that Jesus' relationship with the Father on the cross was still there and not broken.

Psalm 22:24
For he has not despised or scorned
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.

Luke 23:46
Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.

John 16:32
"A time is coming and in fact has come when you will be scattered, each to your own home. You will leave me all alone. Yet I am not alone, for my Father is with me."

Hebrews 5:7
During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.

Jesus' promise to the thief on the cross that today you will be with Me in Paradise reaffirms Jesus went to be with the Father and not suffer in hell as some teach.

Jesus bearing God's “cup of wrath” and being despised and forsaken by the Father and Him turning His back on the Son is not found in Scripture.

In Matthew 26:39, Jesus says, "If it be your will, let this cup pass from me." Jesus tells us precisely what the cup was. It was the cup of his suffering, which meant that He would die an agonizing death as a martyr. In the passage below, Jesus told His disciples that they would also drink of the same "cup":

Matthew 20:17-
Now Jesus was going up to Jerusalem. On the way, he took the Twelve aside and said to them, 18 “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 19 and will hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!”20 Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him. 21 “What is it you want?” he asked. She said, "Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom."22 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?” “We can,” they answered. 23 Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”

1Thessalonians 5:9-For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

As we see above it was not the cup of wrath Jesus was speaking about but it was the suffering He was going to have to endure for our sins. God has not appointed us to wrath and the cup means the suffering of Jesus and that the disciples would also suffer death as martyrs. In fact, many scriptures testify that believers too will suffer persecution for being a follower of Jesus. Suffering persecution is a promise for a believer who follows Jesus, it is something we should expect to happen in our life.

2 Timothy 3:12- Yes, and everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.

John 15:20
Remember the word that I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you as well; if they kept My word, they will keep yours as well.

Matthew 5:10 - Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

2 Corinthians 4:9- persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed.

 

[civic]

continued below :

Wrath from God is not required for the forgiveness of sins, that is a misnomer.

Exodus 34:6
Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in faithfulness and truth;

Isaiah 48:9
For the sake of My name I will delay My wrath; for the sake of My praise I will restrain it, so that you will not be cut off.

Psalm 78:38
And yet He was compassionate; He forgave their iniquity and did not destroy them. He often restrained His anger and did not unleash His full wrath.

Psalm 85:1-3
You, Lord, showed favor to your land;
you restored the fortunes of Jacob.
2 You forgave the iniquity of your people
and covered all their sins.
3 You set aside all your wrath
and turned from your fierce anger.

The wrath of God (Isaiah 53)

Within the study of the doctrine on PSA, the central O.T. passage it comes from is found in Isaiah 53. Let us look at how the N.T. quotes Isaiah 53 and see how the N.T. writers viewed the passages and used them in the N.T. and what language from Isaiah 53 they applied to Jesus in the N.T. regarding suffering.

In doing so, a few things stand out. There is no penal aspect/ language Isaiah used that is carried over in the N.T. but that of substitution. Isaiah 53:4- WE (not God) considered Him punished by God. The following NT passages quote Isaiah 53: Matthew 8:14-17; Mark 15:27-32; John 12:37-41; Luke 22:35-38; Acts 8:26-35; Romans 10:11-21; and 1 Peter 2:19-25. Not one of them uses any penal language where PSA gets its doctrine from in Isaiah 53 in the New Testament.

1-Matthew 8:17 Carried our diseases (Isaiah 53:4)

2-Mark 15:28 Numbered with transgressors (Isaiah 53:12)

3-Luke 22:37 Numbered with transgressors (Isaiah 53:12)

4-John 12:38 Who has believed our report? (Isaiah 53:1)

5-Acts 8:32 A lamb to the slaughter (Isaiah 53:7)

6-Romans 10:16 Who has believed our report? (Isaiah 53:1)

7-1Peter 2:22 He committed no sin (Isaiah 53:9)

8-1Peter 2:24 By his stripes you were healed (Isaiah 53:5)

Atonement- katallagé καταλλαγή -reconciliation, restoration to favor. Strongs 2643.

Thayers: adjustment of a difference, reconciliation, restoration to favor, (from Aeschylus on); in the N. T., of the restoration of the favor of God to sinners that repent and put their trust in the expiatory death of Christ: 2 Corinthians 5:18f; with the genitive of the one received into favor, τοῦ κόσμου (opposed to ἀποβολή), Romans 11:15; καταλλαγήν ἐλάβομεν, we received the blessing of the recovered favor of God, Romans 5:11; with the genitive of him whose favor is recovered, 2 Macc. 5:20. (Cf. Trench, § lxxvii.)

Romans 5:11- And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. KJV

Romans 5:11- And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. NASB

1 Corinthians 5:7 say the following: For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. This means just like the firstborn were spared by the blood on the posts of their doors from God’s wrath so to are we passed over Gods wrath from the blood of Jesus. The blood of Jesus provides forgiveness of sins and God’s wrath like with the Israelites are passed over and it falls upon the wicked, not those covered and protected by the blood of the Lamb. Gods’ wrath as Romans 1 declares is still being poured out upon sin and ungodliness and the bowls of Gods wrath and punishment is still yet to come. So, if Jesus bore Gods’ wrath for sinners, then why is God’s wrath still being poured out now and in the future if in the Atonement Gods wrath was satisfied? The fact is Jesus did not bear God’s wrath on the cross because it still exists and is being poured out in the bowls of Revelation before His 2nd Coming.

Romans 1:18- The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness

Romans 5:9- Therefore, since we have now been justified by His blood, how much more shall we be saved from wrath through Him!

Colossians 3:6-Because of these, the wrath of God is coming on the sons of disobedience.

Ephesians 5:6- Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things the wrath of God is coming on the sons of disobedience

Thessalonians 1:10- and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

Propitiation- the turning away of God's anger/wrath

Expiation- the covering for our sins

Through expiation—the work of Christ on the cross for us—the sin of all those who would ever believe in Christ was canceled. That cancellation is eternal in its consequence, even though sin is still present in the temporal sense. In other words, believers are delivered from the penalty and power of sin, but not the presence of it. Justification is the term for being delivered from the penalty of sin. This is a one-time act wherein the sinner is justified and made holy and righteous in the eyes of God, who exchanged our sinful natures for the righteousness of Christ at the cross (2 Corinthians 5:21). Sanctification is the ongoing process whereby believers are delivered from the power of sin in their lives and are enabled by the new nature to resist and turn away from it. Glorification is when we are removed from the very presence of sin, which will only occur once we leave this world and are in heaven. All these processes—justification, sanctification, and glorification—are made possible through the expiation or cancellation of sin. (gotquestions.org)

Propitiation vs. Expiation- The New Testament usage of hilaskomai and hilasmos, consistent with its precedent usage in the Greek Old Testament, speaks consistently of God’s atoning action in Christ directed toward sin on behalf of sinners, not human action directed toward God to satisfy God. The criterion for interpretation, Stott has said, “is whether the object of the atoning action is God or man.” “Propitiation” indicates an action by humans directed toward God, and “expiation” indicates an action by God toward sin and sinners. According to Stott's criterion, these texts favor "expiation" over “propitiation.” Given the choice of translating hilastērion either “propitiation” or “expiation,” therefore, “expiation” is preferable based on the textual evidence of both the New Testament and the Greek Old Testament. James Dunn summarizes well the case for preferring “expiation” to “propitiation” as a translation for hilastērion: Darrin W. Snyder Belousek, Atonement, Justice, and Peace: The Message of the Cross and the Mission of the Church (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012), 247–252.

So, as we see, the Tri-Unity of God is eternal, and the Father / Son relationship remained perfect through the crucifixion of Jesus. Our Triune God perfectly accomplished the atonement and our salvation through Jesus suffering for our sins on the cross, and His Resurrection from the dead gave Him and the church victory over sin, death, the devil, and the world.

Jesus said: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The reason my Father loves Me is that I lay down My life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord” (John 10:11; 17-18). Or again, while speaking to the multitudes, Jesus declared: “Whatever the Father does the Son also does” (John 5:19). And Jesus said: “Now my heart is troubled. ‘Father, save me from this hour?’ No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!” (John 12:27-28) The clear picture that emerges from Scripture is that Jesus was not the unfortunate victim of the angry Father. Rather, the Father and the Son were working in concert through the cross to pay for the sins of humanity and make atonement. There is no division of will between the Father and the Son. Jesus’ atonement was done in love which provided covering and forgiveness of sins. And this view harmonizes with God’s wrath that is still yet to come and was not poured out on Jesus on the cross. Our loving God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11). Our loving Father took pleasure to bruise His Son to reconcile us to God as an offering for our sins. (Isaiah 53:10).

hope this helps !!!

 

[Joe]

This is frankly disgusting! This is not Christian doctrine. I don't what you call yourself but if you belief this stuff, it ought not be "Christian".

God was not a victim of humanity and He didn't merely let the death of Christ happen! He planned it, He predicted it, He prophesied about it, took steps to ensure it and He did it ON PURPOSE!
Have you ever heard of "The Passover", even once? Do you think that Christ's death as the spotless Lamb of God was mere coincidence?
Not to mention the fact that Jesus, while sweating drops of blood, asked, "Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.”!
Further, Jesus Himself, who is God Himself, the Creator of all that has been created, by the way, stated as clear as day that no one takes His life from Him but that He laid down His own life of His own accord and that He has the power both to lay it down and to take it back up again.

Romans 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath (i.e. God's wrath) through Him.​

I must say brother, you got me to chuckle with your melodramatic response. I agree with you that God was not a victim of humanity, but made Himself one to save us.

I should of highlighted the parts of the article that show the worldliness of PSA.. As the adage goes, .hindsight is always 20/20.

"But it’s not all bad news. Golgotha is also where we experienced the ultimate love of God in its greatest form – sacrificial love. Jesus, even as he was lynched in the name of religious truth and imperial justice, was able to express God’s heart in one sentence, as He plead for God to forgive us, for we do not know what we do. At the cross, we discover the deepest level – not of God’s wrath and anger, but of God’s love and grace. Although He could have killed men for the sake of justice and set His Son free, He chose to allow His Son to die in the name of love – for ours sake.

The death of Jesus was a sacrifice. But it was a sacrifice to end sacrificing, not a sacrifice to appease the appetite of some angry gods. It was not God who needed the sacrifice of Jesus, it was us, the human civilization who needed it.
Paul wrote that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19). And this should not be misunderstood as God reconciling Himself to the world. Jesus did not die for God’s sake, but for ours.

The crucifixion is not what God inflicts upon Jesus in order to forgive, the crucifixion is what God in Christ endures as He forgives. The cross is where God absorbs sin and recycles it into forgiveness.

The great plan of the cross was not an attempt to change God’s mind about us, but an attempt to change our minds about God. God is not a Caiaphas seeking a sacrifice. God is not a Pilate requiring an execution. God is Jesus, absorbing sin, forgiving sinners. That makes the gospel all about forgiveness, rather than about payment and punishment. It makes the gospel all about love, rather than all about wrath."

God Bless

 

[civic]

I must say brother, you got me to chuckle with your melodramatic response. I agree with you that God was not a victim of humanity.

I should of highlighted the parts of the article that show the worldliness of PSA.. As the adage goes, .hindsight is always 20/20.

"But it’s not all bad news. Golgotha is also where we experienced the ultimate love of God in its greatest form – sacrificial love. Jesus, even as he was lynched in the name of religious truth and imperial justice, was able to express God’s heart in one sentence, as He plead for God to forgive us, for we do not know what we do. At the cross, we discover the deepest level – not of God’s wrath and anger, but of God’s love and grace. Although He could have killed men for the sake of justice and set His Son free, He chose to allow His Son to die in the name of love – for ours sake.

The death of Jesus was a sacrifice. But it was a sacrifice to end sacrificing, not a sacrifice to appease the appetite of some angry gods. It was not God who needed the sacrifice of Jesus, it was us, the human civilization who needed it.
Paul wrote that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19). And this should not be misunderstood as God reconciling Himself to the world. Jesus did not die for God’s sake, but for ours.

The crucifixion is not what God inflicts upon Jesus in order to forgive, the crucifixion is what God in Christ endures as He forgives. The cross is where God absorbs sin and recycles it into forgiveness.

The great plan of the cross was not an attempt to change God’s mind about us, but an attempt to change our minds about God. God is not a Caiaphas seeking a sacrifice. God is not a Pilate requiring an execution. God is Jesus, absorbing sin, forgiving sinners. That makes the gospel all about forgiveness, rather than about payment and punishment. It makes the gospel all about love, rather than all about wrath."

God Bless

Yea and we must not forget the origin of PSA which we can see from historical facts below.

III. The penal substitutionary view

We strongly reject, therefore, every explanation of the death of Christ which does not have at its centre the principle of ‘satisfaction through substitution’ … ‘substitution’ is not a further ‘theory’ or ‘image’ to be set alongside the others, but rather the foundation of them all, without which each lacks cogency.32a.

Penal substitutionary atonement Thomas Schreiner summarises PSA in the following terms:The penalty for sin is death. Sinners deserve eternal punishment in hell from God himself because of their sin and guilt. God’s holy anger is directed against all those who have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. And yet, because of God’s great love, he sent Christ to bear the punishment ofour sins. Christ died in our place, took to himself our sin and guilt, andbore our penalty so that we might receive forgiveness of sins.33

By the time of the Reformation, feudalism had been superseded by the Roman view of criminal law, under which the only satisfaction that could be offered was punishment. Impressed by Anselm’s argument that divine justice required satisfying, Calvin and the other Reformers simply reworked it in terms of their criminal law. This resulted in a theory within which God does pass the sentence that the law demands, but carries it out on a substitute. Paul Fiddes summarisesit in the following terms:

When Calvin built a theory of atonement upon the principle of divine justice, he therefore concluded that ‘the guilt, which held us liable to punishment, was transferred to the head of the Son of God’. God’s law had been infringed through human sin, and so penalty must be inflicted upon offenders in order to maintain the moral order of the universe. In the act of atonement, Christ pays the debt to justice by bearing the necessary punishment instead of humankind.35Already, then, we are struck by a very different way of perceiving imagery of the atonement, where penal substitution functions as a ‘central hub’ from which‘all of these other doctrines fan out.’36 All the various models offer a positive contribution, but penal substitution is regarded as controlling – ‘the sine qua non of evangelical soteriology’37 and ‘a distinguishing mark of the world-wide evangelical fraternity.

The act of God is no more than an abstention from interference with their free choice and its consequence … [Paul] has therefore succeeded in disassociating the fact of retribution from any idea of an angry God visiting his displeasure upon sinful men, even though he retains the old expression‘the Wrath of God’.54Leon Morris and Grant Osborne, however, are among those who reject this‘ingenious argument’;55 God’s wrath against sin is ‘too comprehensive in Scripture to allow such a reinterpretation’.56 The idea that the wrath of God is exercised against sin ‘runs through and through the OT’ and is ‘intensely personal’.57If this is the case, though, asks Green, is it not significant that God’s wrath isnever developed in the OT in sacrificial terms and that we find no exposition of sacrifice as satisfaction or penalty?58 Finding, in Rom. 3, an implicit need to assuage God’s wrath is based on a false presumed relation of wrath, sacrifice and atonement in the OT.59Examining the role and function of sacrifice in atonement to test these points is not an entirely straight forward hermeneutical exercise. Firstly, biblical sacrifices were made not just for sin;60 sacrifice ‘is a grander idea and does not in itself require a narrative of God’s judicial wrath needing to be satisfied’.61 There is a‘kaleidoscope of images which together constitute the NT characterisation of Jesus as sacrifice’,62 as different strands of the OT language of sacrifice are applied to Jesus in different ways,63 each in its own way bearing witness to a dimension of Jesus’ work.64What then of the meaning of kipper? Penal substitution’s interpretation(propitiation) is not universally accepted. According to Jacob Milgrom, the root meaning of kipper lies in wiping off or removing, suggesting that it means ‘topurge’, to expunge impurity. Furthermore, some scholars understand He therefore sees both the Day of Atonement rituals and Rom. 3:25 in expiatory, ratherthan propitiatory, terms.65Since it seems significant that Jesus apparently chose Passover (a time for celebrating and remembering liberation) rather than the Day of Atonement (a time for atoning sins) to explicate the significance of his death,66 we will briefly consider the Passover lamb.

Though it is often assumed that penal substitution lies at the heart of the Passover, this is not self-evident. Clearly, the Passover lamb was ‘sacrificed’, atleast in modern terms, although in precisely what capacity we cannot be definitive.67 Milgrom is clear that the sacrifice of the lamb is not a sin-offering (hatta-’t);neither is the verb kipper used in the texts on the paschal observance.68 Stephen Finlan points out that the Passover sacrifice was ‘completely different from other sacrifices … having nothing to do with cleansing, forgiveness, or reparation.’69Neither is there any developed idea of sacrifice, in the manner of the later atonement offerings.Moreover, there are further problems here. If Passover was a penal substitutionary event, why was its application limited to Israel’s firstborn sons? Why notthe entire nation? Equally, if the lamb is a penal substitute to avoid Israel suffering the fate of God’s judgement against the Egyptians, it seems odd that this arrangement of protection should be required only for the final plague. The objectheretofore has been God’s punishment exclusively upon Egypt.Whatever the origins of Passover, it was understood at the time of Jesus as agift-offering of praise and thanksgiving to God for his deliverance.70 The first century Pesah was fundamentally a national celebration designed to keep freshthe memory of the exodus and reassure the people that God ‘would smite all future tyrants as he had Pharaoh’ – celebrating God’s past liberation and anticipating his future liberation.71 The ritual identifies the nation that Yahweh’s action isredeeming. Through its obedient cultus participation, Israel is ‘marked out’ asthe redeemed, distinguished from Egypt and ‘set apart’ as those upon whom hisblessing rests.72 This fits well with the meaning of pesah as ‘protection’. It was ‘aGod-given covenant meal that identified his people as exempt from judgementand ready for deliverance.’73By choosing Passover to explain his death, then, instead of the Day of Atonement, Jesus was choosing images of divine protection and liberation.74

Although the Last Supper is commonly assumed to be a Passover meal,75 supporting evidence is far from clear, and the balance of scholarship today is shifting away from that conclusion.76 Given that sacrifice in covenant ratification had no substitutionary function, let alone a penal one,77 it is notable that the Synoptics and Paul posit the Last Supper’s sacramental significance in covenantal terms.78 This does not preclude a forgiveness element, but this comes by sharingin the new Passover – entering covenant by participation in his meal, drinkingfrom his cup.79 The absence of reference to the lamb is curious, too. Why wouldJesus not have applied the more-natural theme of ‘this lamb is my body’ rather than the bread?80 If Passover had direct correspondence in Jesus’ thought, McKnight sees this as ‘a virtual soteriological necessity’.81 Accordingly, he concludes the supper took place in a Pesah setting, with Jesus turning a regular Passover week meal into ‘a kind of Pesah’.82In another key passage, the Suffering Servant of Deutero-Isaiah, a central question is whether Jesus thought of himself in these terms. Notably, in none ofthe sayings attributed to Jesus does he designate himself as the Servant. If one has this conclusion in mind already, of course, it is easy to find numerous ‘servant’ and ‘suffering’ references to support it. An important hermeneutical question here is whether a NT quotation from the OT indicates the whole original passage is to be brought to mind, or just the text quoted.83 Adopting the former view broadens the material available to support such an hypothesis.84 Otherwise, though, the verses from Isaiah cited in e.g. Matt. 8:16-17, Matt. 12:18-21and Luke 4:16-21 indicate different characteristics of Jesus and his mission. If a vicarious bearing of sin by the Servant is in mind, it is surprising this is not somewhere stated explicitly, especially in Jesus’ predictions of his death. One might argue the Servant was the only basis Jesus could have had for interpreting his sufferings, but this is reading into the silence. The Servant passage is a unique OT reference to vicarious atoning suffering,85 even though the idea of enduring suffering and subsequent vindication is certainly not. Paul makes no use of the Servant figure, even though he twice quotes from the fourth Song.Only in 1 Pet. 2 do we find ‘the full identification of Jesus with the Servant in all its Christological significance’.8

Although Christian orthodoxy has never required the adoption of one particular theory of atonement, Reformed and evangelical proponents of penal substitution (PSA) insist on its pivotal role. It is argued that the roots of this thinking liein Enlightenment epistemology and Modern thought, corresponding to the advent of evangelicalism. PSA’s claims to be the controlling understanding are difficult to affirm on the biblical evidence and, problematically today, its paradigm of law, justice and punishment derives from pre- and early-modern eras. The‘kaleidoscopic’ view offers a broader biblical perspective on the nature of both‘the problem’ and ‘the solution’ and is more accessible to post-Modern thoughtforms. For the sake of evangelical mission, however, seeking after synthesis is encouraged, which might be explored through a renewed centre-point in ‘recapitulation/interchange’ or ‘covenant’ imagery.

EvangelicalQuarterlyAn International Reviewof Bible and Theologyin Defence of the Historic Christian FaithVol. LXXXIV No. 4 October 2012Editors: I Howard Marshall, John-Paul Lotz, John G F Wilks. Beyond the kaleidoscope:towards a synthesis of views on theatonementStephen J. Burnhope

 

[Logikos]

continued below :

Wrath from God is not required for the forgiveness of sins, that is a misnomer.

Exodus 34:6
Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in faithfulness and truth;

Isaiah 48:9
For the sake of My name I will delay My wrath; for the sake of My praise I will restrain it, so that you will not be cut off.

Psalm 78:38
And yet He was compassionate; He forgave their iniquity and did not destroy them. He often restrained His anger and did not unleash His full wrath.

Psalm 85:1-3
You, Lord, showed favor to your land;
you restored the fortunes of Jacob.
2 You forgave the iniquity of your people
and covered all their sins.
3 You set aside all your wrath
and turned from your fierce anger.

The wrath of God (Isaiah 53)

Within the study of the doctrine on PSA, the central O.T. passage it comes from is found in Isaiah 53. Let us look at how the N.T. quotes Isaiah 53 and see how the N.T. writers viewed the passages and used them in the N.T. and what language from Isaiah 53 they applied to Jesus in the N.T. regarding suffering.

In doing so, a few things stand out. There is no penal aspect/ language Isaiah used that is carried over in the N.T. but that of substitution. Isaiah 53:4- WE (not God) considered Him punished by God. The following NT passages quote Isaiah 53: Matthew 8:14-17; Mark 15:27-32; John 12:37-41; Luke 22:35-38; Acts 8:26-35; Romans 10:11-21; and 1 Peter 2:19-25. Not one of them uses any penal language where PSA gets its doctrine from in Isaiah 53 in the New Testament.

1-Matthew 8:17 Carried our diseases (Isaiah 53:4)

2-Mark 15:28 Numbered with transgressors (Isaiah 53:12)

3-Luke 22:37 Numbered with transgressors (Isaiah 53:12)

4-John 12:38 Who has believed our report? (Isaiah 53:1)

5-Acts 8:32 A lamb to the slaughter (Isaiah 53:7)

6-Romans 10:16 Who has believed our report? (Isaiah 53:1)

7-1Peter 2:22 He committed no sin (Isaiah 53:9)

8-1Peter 2:24 By his stripes you were healed (Isaiah 53:5)

Atonement- katallagé καταλλαγή -reconciliation, restoration to favor. Strongs 2643.

Thayers: adjustment of a difference, reconciliation, restoration to favor, (from Aeschylus on); in the N. T., of the restoration of the favor of God to sinners that repent and put their trust in the expiatory death of Christ: 2 Corinthians 5:18f; with the genitive of the one received into favor, τοῦ κόσμου (opposed to ἀποβολή), Romans 11:15; καταλλαγήν ἐλάβομεν, we received the blessing of the recovered favor of God, Romans 5:11; with the genitive of him whose favor is recovered, 2 Macc. 5:20. (Cf. Trench, § lxxvii.)

Romans 5:11- And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. KJV

Romans 5:11- And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. NASB

1 Corinthians 5:7 say the following: For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. This means just like the firstborn were spared by the blood on the posts of their doors from God’s wrath so to are we passed over Gods wrath from the blood of Jesus. The blood of Jesus provides forgiveness of sins and God’s wrath like with the Israelites are passed over and it falls upon the wicked, not those covered and protected by the blood of the Lamb. Gods’ wrath as Romans 1 declares is still being poured out upon sin and ungodliness and the bowls of Gods wrath and punishment is still yet to come. So, if Jesus bore Gods’ wrath for sinners, then why is God’s wrath still being poured out now and in the future if in the Atonement Gods wrath was satisfied? The fact is Jesus did not bear God’s wrath on the cross because it still exists and is being poured out in the bowls of Revelation before His 2nd Coming.

Romans 1:18- The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness

Romans 5:9- Therefore, since we have now been justified by His blood, how much more shall we be saved from wrath through Him!

Colossians 3:6-Because of these, the wrath of God is coming on the sons of disobedience.

Ephesians 5:6- Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things the wrath of God is coming on the sons of disobedience

Thessalonians 1:10- and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

Propitiation- the turning away of God's anger/wrath

Expiation- the covering for our sins

Through expiation—the work of Christ on the cross for us—the sin of all those who would ever believe in Christ was canceled. That cancellation is eternal in its consequence, even though sin is still present in the temporal sense. In other words, believers are delivered from the penalty and power of sin, but not the presence of it. Justification is the term for being delivered from the penalty of sin. This is a one-time act wherein the sinner is justified and made holy and righteous in the eyes of God, who exchanged our sinful natures for the righteousness of Christ at the cross (2 Corinthians 5:21). Sanctification is the ongoing process whereby believers are delivered from the power of sin in their lives and are enabled by the new nature to resist and turn away from it. Glorification is when we are removed from the very presence of sin, which will only occur once we leave this world and are in heaven. All these processes—justification, sanctification, and glorification—are made possible through the expiation or cancellation of sin. (gotquestions.org)

Propitiation vs. Expiation- The New Testament usage of hilaskomai and hilasmos, consistent with its precedent usage in the Greek Old Testament, speaks consistently of God’s atoning action in Christ directed toward sin on behalf of sinners, not human action directed toward God to satisfy God. The criterion for interpretation, Stott has said, “is whether the object of the atoning action is God or man.” “Propitiation” indicates an action by humans directed toward God, and “expiation” indicates an action by God toward sin and sinners. According to Stott's criterion, these texts favor "expiation" over “propitiation.” Given the choice of translating hilastērion either “propitiation” or “expiation,” therefore, “expiation” is preferable based on the textual evidence of both the New Testament and the Greek Old Testament. James Dunn summarizes well the case for preferring “expiation” to “propitiation” as a translation for hilastērion: Darrin W. Snyder Belousek, Atonement, Justice, and Peace: The Message of the Cross and the Mission of the Church (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012), 247–252.

So, as we see, the Tri-Unity of God is eternal, and the Father / Son relationship remained perfect through the crucifixion of Jesus. Our Triune God perfectly accomplished the atonement and our salvation through Jesus suffering for our sins on the cross, and His Resurrection from the dead gave Him and the church victory over sin, death, the devil, and the world.

Jesus said: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The reason my Father loves Me is that I lay down My life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord” (John 10:11; 17-18). Or again, while speaking to the multitudes, Jesus declared: “Whatever the Father does the Son also does” (John 5:19). And Jesus said: “Now my heart is troubled. ‘Father, save me from this hour?’ No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!” (John 12:27-28) The clear picture that emerges from Scripture is that Jesus was not the unfortunate victim of the angry Father. Rather, the Father and the Son were working in concert through the cross to pay for the sins of humanity and make atonement. There is no division of will between the Father and the Son. Jesus’ atonement was done in love which provided covering and forgiveness of sins. And this view harmonizes with God’s wrath that is still yet to come and was not poured out on Jesus on the cross. Our loving God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11). Our loving Father took pleasure to bruise His Son to reconcile us to God as an offering for our sins. (Isaiah 53:10).

hope this helps !!!

It helps!

It helps me see that you are a faker. I don't know what sick denomination you're from but you are no more a Christian that David Koresh was.

I DO NOT understand what makes people want to intentionally pervert God's word in this disgusting manner! Where is the pay off? There isn't anyone forcing you to believe anything. You can believe whatever craziness you decide you want to believe and no one is going to try to stop you. So, where is the profit in trying to force the bible to agree with your weird doctrines?
Augustine did the same sort of literally idiotic things with the bible. He wanted to believe in Aristotle and Plato and there wasn't anyone in his society that would have tried to force him to be a Christian or to even open a bible for that matter and yet he felt this need to squeeze Aristotle's teachings out of the scripture. Why? Why not just believe whatever you want to believe and live your life? Why do you care what the bible teaches if you're going to up end it's foundational premises?

It hasn't ever made any sense to me why people do that and it never will. One thing I have learned over the years though is that it's a useless waste of time and energy debating with these sorts of people. They don't debate, they declare their doctrine to be true and no matter what you say, no matter what question you ask, they wiggle they way around into ignoring your question, ignoring any argument you mind have made and instead they simply repeat their doctrine and wait for an opportunity to call those who disagree a coward or dishonest or whatever because they refuse to waste any more time with them.

So, here's you chance to call me whatever name you like!


Welcome to my ignore list!

 

[civic]

It helps!

It helps me see that you are a faker. I don't know what sick denomination you're from but you are no more a Christian that David Koresh was.

I DO NOT understand what makes people want to intentionally pervert God's word in this disgusting manner! Where is the pay off? There isn't anyone forcing you to believe anything. You can believe whatever craziness you decide you want to believe and no one is going to try to stop you. So, where is the profit in trying to force the bible to agree with your weird doctrines?
Augustine did the same sort of literally idiotic things with the bible. He wanted to believe in Aristotle and Plato and there wasn't anyone in his society that would have tried to force him to be a Christian or to even open a bible for that matter and yet he felt this need to squeeze Aristotle's teachings out of the scripture. Why? Why not just believe whatever you want to believe and live your life? Why do you care what the bible teaches if you're going to up end it's foundational premises?

It hasn't ever made any sense to me why people do that and it never will. One thing I have learned over the years though is that it's a useless waste of time and energy debating with these sorts of people. They don't debate, they declare their doctrine to be true and no matter what you say, no matter what question you ask, they wiggle they way around into ignoring your question, ignoring any argument you mind have made and instead they simply repeat their doctrine and wait for an opportunity to call those who disagree a coward or dishonest or whatever because they refuse to waste any more time with them.

So, here's you chance to call me whatever name you like!


Welcome to my ignore list!

Instead on name calling try refuting me with scripture. Notice I gave plenty of scripture to support my beliefs and you resorted to ad hominem attacks

 

[Logikos]

I must say brother, you got me to chuckle with your melodramatic response.

Notice the condescending tone of his opening sentence. I haven't yet read one syllable past this and I can already tell you that he isn't going to address a word I said. He'll repeat his doctrine - nothing more.

I agree with you that God was not a victim of humanity, but made Himself one to save us.

Not if you agree with that hideous article, you don't!

I should of highlighted the parts of the article that show the worldliness of PSA.. As the adage goes, .hindsight is always 20/20.

If God did not die for YOUR sins, you will die for your sins.

"But it’s not all bad news. Golgotha is also where we experienced the ultimate love of God in its greatest form – sacrificial love. Jesus, even as he was lynched in the name of religious truth and imperial justice, was able to express God’s heart in one sentence, as He plead for God to forgive us, for we do not know what we do.

Nonsense! They didn't realize that they were committing Deicide! They thought they were killing just another religious nut and didn't know that they were killing God Himself, a sin that only God Himself could forgive.

At the cross, we discover the deepest level – not of God’s wrath and anger, but of God’s love and grace. Although He could have killed men for the sake of justice and set His Son free, He chose to allow His Son to die in the name of love – for ours sake.

It was precisely for justice's sake that Jesus, God the Son, laid down His life for!

The death of Jesus was a sacrifice. But it was a sacrifice to end sacrificing, not a sacrifice to appease the appetite of some angry gods. It was not God who needed the sacrifice of Jesus, it was us, the human civilization who needed it.

It was justice that demanded Christ's death!

You deity deniers blow my mind with the pretzels that you will twist yourself into to deny the simplest truths that any child can understand intuitively!

God is just, Joe! If all you did was to get that single idea firmly planted into your mind, 90% of your errors would vanish in an instant! God love us and desires greatly to have a genuine relationship with not only us by with the whole of His creation but there is this sin problem that is in the way. If God were to simply pretend like that sin didn't happen or come up with some totally arbitrary manner of "dealing" with it then He would not be just. God desires to be merciful but is not willing to become unrighteous (i.e. unjust - same thing) to do so. Therefore, He provides a propitiation that satisfies the demands of justice and thereby provides the opportunity for mercy.

Now, THAT is THE gospel! Deny it at your own peril.

Paul wrote that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19). And this should not be misunderstood as God reconciling Himself to the world. Jesus did not die for God’s sake, but for ours.

It was both. Who taught you how to think?

The crucifixion is not what God inflicts upon Jesus in order to forgive, the crucifixion is what God in Christ endures as He forgives.

Stupidity that has exactly zero to do with scripture or the Christian faith.

The cross is where God absorbs sin and recycles it into forgiveness.

Blasphemy.

The great plan of the cross was not an attempt to change God’s mind about us, but an attempt to change our minds about God.

The cross was not some sort of plan to change anyone's mind about anything.

Serious, what lunatic taught you this nonsense?

God is not a Caiaphas seeking a sacrifice. God is not a Pilate requiring an execution. God is Jesus, absorbing sin, forgiving sinners. That makes the gospel all about forgiveness, rather than about payment and punishment. It makes the gospel all about love, rather than all about wrath."

It was the "payment and punishment" that made the forgiveness possible! Again, God is just! Get that through your head! God cannot do any old arbitrary thing at all and remain just.

God Bless

And you as you well - according to your actions.

 

[civic]

Notice the condescending tone of his opening sentence. I haven't yet read one syllable past this and I can already tell you that he isn't going to address a word I said. He'll repeat his doctrine - nothing more.


Not if you agree with that hideous article, you don't!


If God did not die for YOUR sins, you will die for your sins.


Nonsense! They didn't realize that they were committing Deicide! They thought they were killing just another religious nut and didn't know that they were killing God Himself, a sin that only God Himself could forgive.


It was precisely for justice's sake that Jesus, God the Son, laid down His life for!


It was justice that demanded Christ's death!

You deity deniers blow my mind with the pretzels that you will twist yourself into to deny the simplest truths that any child can understand intuitively!

God is just, Joe! If all you did was to get that single idea firmly planted into your mind, 90% of your errors would vanish in an instant! God love us and desires greatly to have a genuine relationship with not only us by with the whole of His creation but there is this sin problem that is in the way. If God were to simply pretend like that sin didn't happen or come up with some totally arbitrary manner of "dealing" with it then He would not be just. God desires to be merciful but is not willing to become unrighteous (i.e. unjust - same thing) to do so. Therefore, He provides a propitiation that satisfies the demands of justice and thereby provides the opportunity for mercy.

Now, THAT is THE gospel! Deny it at your own peril.


It was both. Who taught you how to think?


Stupidity that has exactly zero to do with scripture or the Christian faith.


Blasphemy.


The cross was not some sort of plan to change anyone's mind about anything.

Serious, what lunatic taught you this nonsense?


It was the "payment and punishment" that made the forgiveness possible! Again, God is just! Get that through your head! God cannot do any old arbitrary thing at all and remain just.


And you as you well -

Denying the Trinity . Are you a Unitarian ?

 

[Logikos]

Denying the Trinity . Are you a Unitarian ?

I thought I had put you on ignore?

Jesus is THE Creator God! He is the Great I AM, who was and is and is to come, who was dead and behold, is alive forever more!

Does that answer your question?

Did you even ask the question for a reason or was it just to be a jerk?

 

[Logikos]

Instead on name calling try refuting me with scripture. Notice I gave plenty of scripture to support my beliefs and you resorted to ad hominem attacks

See what I mean!!

You fools are so predictable!

Calling someone a name IS NOT what "ad hominem" means, by the way!

I made no argument because, as I explained, it would be a waste of time as you have already demonstrated in other threads where I've repeatedly tried to get you to engage and you refuse. You're a fool who thinks he's figure out something "special". You're a worthless waste of time and bandwidth.

Now, I thought I'd done this once already by I must not have clicked the right button. I won't make the same mistake again.

Welcome to my ignore list!

Good bye!

 

[civic]

I thought I had put you on ignore?

Jesus is THE Creator God! He is the Great I AM, who was and is and is to come, He was dead and behold, is alive forever more!

Does that answer your question?

Did you even ask the question for a reason or was it just to be a jerk?

Saying Jesus was separated from the Father dissolves the Tri-Unity of God . It’s the DisUnity not the Trinity.

 

[civic]

See what I mean!!

You fools are so predictable!

Calling someone a name IS NOT what "ad hominem" means, by the way!

I made no argument because, as I explained, it would be a waste of time as you have already demonstrated in other threads where I've repeatedly tried to get you to engage and you refuse. You're a fool who thinks he's figure out something "special". You're a worthless waste of time and bandwidth.

Now, I thought I'd done this once already by I must not have clicked the right button. I won't make the same mistake again.

Welcome to my ignore list!

Good bye!

Still no scripture that speaks volumes.

 

[civic]

See what I mean!!

You fools are so predictable!

Calling someone a name IS NOT what "ad hominem" means, by the way!

I made no argument because, as I explained, it would be a waste of time as you have already demonstrated in other threads where I've repeatedly tried to get you to engage and you refuse. You're a fool who thinks he's figure out something "special". You're a worthless waste of time and bandwidth.

Now, I thought I'd done this once already by I must not have clicked the right button. I won't make the same mistake again.

Welcome to my ignore list!

Good bye!

Here is the accepted definition .

Ad hominem means “against the man,” and this type of fallacy is sometimes called name calling or the personal attack fallacy. This type of fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person instead of attacking his or her argument.

 

[Joe]

Notice the condescending tone of his opening sentence. I haven't yet read one syllable past this and I can already tell you that he isn't going to address a word I said. He'll repeat his doctrine - nothing more.


Not if you agree with that hideous article, you don't!


If God did not die for YOUR sins, you will die for your sins.


Nonsense! They didn't realize that they were committing Deicide! They thought they were killing just another religious nut and didn't know that they were killing God Himself, a sin that only God Himself could forgive.


It was precisely for justice's sake that Jesus, God the Son, laid down His life for!


It was justice that demanded Christ's death!

You deity deniers blow my mind with the pretzels that you will twist yourself into to deny the simplest truths that any child can understand intuitively!

God is just, Joe! If all you did was to get that single idea firmly planted into your mind, 90% of your errors would vanish in an instant! God love us and desires greatly to have a genuine relationship with not only us by with the whole of His creation but there is this sin problem that is in the way. If God were to simply pretend like that sin didn't happen or come up with some totally arbitrary manner of "dealing" with it then He would not be just. God desires to be merciful but is not willing to become unrighteous (i.e. unjust - same thing) to do so. Therefore, He provides a propitiation that satisfies the demands of justice and thereby provides the opportunity for mercy.

Now, THAT is THE gospel! Deny it at your own peril.


It was both. Who taught you how to think?


Stupidity that has exactly zero to do with scripture or the Christian faith.


Blasphemy.


The cross was not some sort of plan to change anyone's mind about anything.

Serious, what lunatic taught you this nonsense?


It was the "payment and punishment" that made the forgiveness possible! Again, God is just! Get that through your head! God cannot do any old arbitrary thing at all and remain just.


And you as you well - according to your actions.

The article does an excellent job of demonstrating a monstrous error with the doctrine of PSA. That is all it does. It is not a platform for one to build his theological approach to the bible. It is written poetically to express the worldliness within PSA.

I could respond to your comments, but it will do no good until you realize the poetry within it. And only then will you understand what the author of the article is saying. Do I agree with all of it? No, but it speaks to the heart of PSA that God's wrath must be appeased.

You may find it ironic about punishment and wrath mentioned in the bible and the doctrine of PSA.

• The word punish is used one time in the NT. (Acts 4:21)
• The word punished is used four times in the NT. (Acts 22:5, Acts 26:11, 2Th 1:9, 2Pe 2:9)
• The word punishment is used four times in the NT. (Matt 25:46, 2Cor 2:6, Heb 10:29, 1 Pe 2:14)
• The word wrath is used 38 times in the NT

Of all these instances, not one time are any of these words used towards the Lord. And by thinking God punished His own Son, we misunderstand the wisdom and power of God in Christ that put an end to sin, made permanent reconciliation, and brought in everlasting righteousness (ref: Dan 9:24). It had nothing to do with pouring out wrath upon Christ instead of us. We know innately it is wrong to punish the righteous and let the wicked go. And God tells us, "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

I could go on, but enough has been said. I hope you begin to understand what is being conveyed (not taught) in the article.

God Bless

 

[civic]

The article does an excellent job of demonstrating a monstrous error with the doctrine of PSA. That is all it does. It is not a platform for one to build his theological approach to the bible. It is written poetically to express the worldliness within PSA.

I could respond to your comments, but it will do no good until you realize the poetry within it. And only then will you understand what the author of the article is saying. Do I agree with all of it? No, but it speaks to the heart of PSA.

God Bless

Yes the god of PSA is the false god with the false doctrine. Someone is projecting having zero biblical support. Just the heresies which came at the reformation. Jesus , the Apostles and the early church never taught that heretical doctrine .

Several of us here have refuted the doctrine with scripture whereas their objection is the doctrine they were taught.

 

[civic]

PSA was a must to fit in with tulip which is the whole reason the doctrine was created.

 

[Joe]

Yes the god of PSA is the false god with the false doctrine. Someone is projecting having zero biblical support. Just the heresies which came at the reformation. Jesus , the Apostles and the early church never taught that heretical doctrine .

Several of us here have refuted the doctrine with scripture whereas their objection is the doctrine they were taught.

Yes, PSA is a heresy coming from the reformation and quite honestly, the reformers should have left the doctrine of Anselm with the RCC and sought to establish a biblical doctrine of the atonement. Instead they brought the heresy along and enhanced it further into error.

God Bless