Was the death on the cross necessary?

[justbyfaith]

Mercy is not a "desire," it is God withholding what we DESERVE! It is God not needing to be PAID OFF! You cannot have both! God either is merciful and bypasses punishment, or God demands punishment and there is nothing to forgive or be merciful about!

So, in your opinion, which one is God? merciful, or just?

Note that in picking one you must exclude the other based on what you have said above.

That there is something to forgive and be merciful about is clear from such verses as Romans 3:23, Galatians 3:22, and 1 John 1:8, 1 John 1:10.

So you are saying that God is merciful and not just?

Your god is more like the muslim god than any other.

In my view, God is both merciful and just; and that these two attributes in the heart of the Lord come together in the Cross.

Our sins were justly punished in Jesus on the Cross so that the Lord can show mercy to us; for we have indeed sinned.

 

[John Caldwell]

Then there is no "Gospel" for Jesus failed! The EXACT PUNISHMENT and WAGES OF SIN is ETERNAL SEPARATION FROM GOD IN HELL! This just factually has never been accomplished!



Mercy is not a "desire," it is God withholding what we DESERVE! It is God not needing to be PAID OFF! You cannot have both! God either is merciful and bypasses punishment, or God demands punishment and there is nothing to forgive or be merciful about!

This view of the Psychotic God is like when you pump your gas at the station. You put in your credit card, and after you are done pumping and have paid, the voice on the loudspeaker comes over and says... "I forgive you for stealing my gas! I will have mercy and let you go!"

Exactly.

That is what the PSA indoctrinated cannot understand. God is just and merciful.

 

[justbyfaith]

Exactly.

That is what the PSA indoctrinated cannot understand. God is just and merciful.

PSA deals with the problem that justice and mercy contradict each other and that both cannot be true together apart from the Cross.

But with the PSA understanding of the Cross, both justice is satisfied and mercy can also be meted out to the sinner; in that the sinner's just penalty was meted out to Jesus who took his place.

 

[John Caldwell]

PSA deals with the problem that justice and mercy contradict each other and that both cannot be true together apart from the Cross.

But with the PSA understanding of the Cross, both justice is satisfied and mercy can also be meted out to the sinner; in that the sinner's just penalty was meted out to Jesus who took his place.

And with Scientology men are seeded by aliens on Venus. There are many interesting theories, but we need to stick with the Bible - not Scientology and not Penal Substitution Theory.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

pt3;

Relationship of nature to those for whom Atonement was made is an essential element in its validity. Christ was required to be real and proper man , as well as true God. To qualify Him for the work of redemption, He needed to possess opposite attributes: a frail and mortal nature, combined with ineffable dignity of person. Humanity was requisite to fit the Messiah for suffering, to render Him susceptible of pain and death, to make it possible for Him to offer Himself as a sacrifice. Equally so was the possession of human nature required in order to impart validity to what He did , to give to His obedience and sufferings an essential value in the estimation of God’s law. The work of our redemption being a moral satisfaction to the law of God for the sins of men, there existed a moral fitness that the satisfaction should be made by one in the nature of those who had sinned. It is striking to note in the types how that redemption had to be effected by a near kinsman ( Leviticus 25:25-27; Ruth 4:7).

Unless the Redeemer Himself possesses the nature of those to be redeemed the moral government of God had not been vindicated, nor the glory of the Divine Lawgiver been maintained, nor the principles of the law been upheld. The law in its precept was suited to man, and in its curse had a claim upon man. Its requirements were such as man only could fulfill; its penalty such as one possessing the nature of man only could bear. The penalty was suffering unto death; and no angel could die ( Luke 20:36).

The death only of a man could possess a moral and legal congruity to the cause of a law given to man and broken by man. Thus, it was not only to qualify Him for suffering that the Messiah took upon Him the nature of man, but to qualify Him for such sufferings as should possess validity in the eye of the Divine law. “For both He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified, are all of one... Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren... to make propitiation for the sins of the people” ( Hebrews 2:11,17). “Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead” ( 1 Corinthians 15:21).

The law required that its subject should love God with all his soul and serve Him with all the members of his body, seeing both are God’s. Now none can do this but man, who consists of soul and body. Again; the law required the love of our neighbor, but none is our neighbor but man, who is of the same blood with us: hence the force of those words — “that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh” ( Isaiah 58:7). Hence our Surety must cherish us, as one does his own flesh, and consequently we have to be “members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones” ( Ephesians 4:30).

Therefore has the Holy Spirit joined together these two things about Christ: “made of a woman, made under the law” ( Galatians 4:4), intimating that the principal end of his incarnation was that He might be subject to the law. “It is not without reason that Paul, when asked to exhibit Christ in the character of a Mediator, expressly speaks of Him as a man: ‘There is one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus’ ( 1 Timothy 2:5). He might have called Him God, or might indeed have omitted the appellation of man, as well as that of God; but because the Spirit, who spake by him knew our infirmity, He has provided a very suitable remedy against it, by placing the Son of God familiarly amongst us (Christians, A.W.P.) as though He were one of us. Therefore, that no one may distress himself where he is to seek the Mediator or in what way he may approach Him, the apostle, by denominating Him a man, apprizes us that He is near, and even close to us, since He is our own flesh. He certainly intends the same in Hebrews 4:15” (J. Calvin). 2. THE MEDIATOR MUST BE SINLESS He who makes atonement for others must himself be entirely free from that which renders the atonement necessary. That which made atonement necessary was sin. The redeemer must be sinless, otherwise he would require redeeming. A sinner cannot expiate his own sins, still less can he be a savior of others. Thus it was a prime prerequisite that the substitutionary victim should himself be undefiled, pure. This was plainly foreshadowed in the types. The lamb used in sacrifice must be “without blemish.” The red heifer must not only be flawless, but also one “upon which never came yoke” ( Numbers 19:2). The levitical high priest was required to possess a high degree of ceremonial purity. “Legal obligation to the curse may arise from one or both of two things: either from being born under the curse, that is to say, from original sin; or from becoming exposed to the penalty in consequence of a personal breach of its requirements, that is by actual transgression. Infants of the human family are under it in the former way; adults in both; but Jesus was neither the one nor the other” (Dr. W. Symington on The Atonement , 1854).

 

[justbyfaith]

And with Scientology men are seeded by aliens on Venus. There are many interesting theories, but we need to stick with the Bible - not Scientology and not Penal Substitution Theory.

The Bible teaches Penal Substitution theory.

Perhaps not in words that you would use, or in words that you would accept as being reminiscent of the gospel that is presented by PSA; but the teaching is there.

The fact is, the doctrine can be preached with the use of certain doctrines that come from specific verses/passages; and that these doctrines are the foundation for the reality of PSA as being a scriptural doctrine, since it is based upon scriptural doctrines.

If I am building a building, it cannot be said that the second story of the building isn't a valid structure because it isn't built from the same materials as was the first story.

Likewise, if PSA is not built upon scripture itself (and it may in fact be built upon scripture itself; but in the case that it isn't: ) it is built upon doctrines that are based upon the scripture itself. It may in fact be the second story of the building. And the first story does in fact support it.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

PSA deals with the problem that justice and mercy contradict each other and that both cannot be true together apart from the Cross.

But with the PSA understanding of the Cross, both justice is satisfied and mercy can also be meted out to the sinner; in that the sinner's just penalty was meted out to Jesus who took his place.

Yes indeed.....The Divine Substitute answers the claims of the broken law.
Penal Substitutionary atonement is at the heart of the gospel.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

ex34
5 And the Lord descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the Lord.

6 And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,

7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

psa50:
16 But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth?

17 Seeing thou hatest instruction, and casteth my words behind thee.

18 When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers.

19 Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit.

20 Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; thou slanderest thine own mother's son.

21 These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.

22 Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver.

23 Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me: and to him that ordereth his conversation aright will I shew the salvation of God.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Hebrews10:
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

 

[John Caldwell]

The Bible teaches Penal Substitution theory.

Perhaps not in words that you would use, or in words that you would accept as being reminiscent of the gospel that is presented by PSA; but the teaching is there.

The fact is, the doctrine can be preached with the use of certain doctrines that come from specific verses/passages; and that these doctrines are the foundation for the reality of PSA as being a scriptural doctrine, since it is based upon scriptural doctrines.

If I am building a building, it cannot be said that the second story of the building isn't a valid structure because it isn't built from the same materials as was the first story.

Likewise, if PSA is not built upon scripture itself (and it may in fact be built upon scripture itself; but in the case that it isn't: ) it is built upon doctrines that are based upon the scripture itself. It may in fact be the second story of the building. And the first story does in fact support it.

People believe the Bible teaches many false doctrines. The issue is Penal Substitution Theory is foreign to the Biblical text and was foreign to Christianity for over a millenia and a half after the formation of the Church.

You say it is "taught" by Scripture but can only rely on 16th century philosophy to back up your claim. It is a false doctrine, a heresy. You can provide no Scripture stating the theory but "see" it implied or taught. You are wrong.

If you want to disprove me then provide a verse (just one) stating that God punished Christ instead of punishing us.

You can't because no passage exists. You are advocating a tradition (a relatively new tradition) that is not in the Bible claiming it is somehow taught. It is taught - just not by Scripture.

 

[Behold]

If you want to disprove me then provide a verse (just one) stating that God punished Christ instead of punishing us.

.

Ive not met too man Cross deniers who literally admit they do it.
You do it in public. So, that's unique, but not in a good way.
It would be a safer place to dwell, John, if you were an atheist, then to be a literal Cross denier.

Here are some verses for you that say that Christ took our eternal punishment, on earth.

Isaiah 53:5
5 But Jesus was wounded for our transgressions,
Jesus was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Jesus,
And by Jesus stripes we are healed.

So, you say that God was not causing this to happen, and that "For God so loved the world that He Gave Jesus" is not for this reason it did happen.

Well, let me help you a little bit more.

The reason that God went to the Cross, is because God took the responsibility for the Fall of Adam and resolved it Himself on the Cross.

This Cross is where you find God Himself, receiving the judgement due the world for their SIN according to what the Law that God created, demands.

God put Himself under His own law, to bear and become the sin of the world, die for it, and thus satisfy the requirements of HIS Law, on our behalf.

This is "Salvation".

 

[justbyfaith]

If you want to disprove me then provide a verse (just one) stating that God punished Christ instead of punishing us.

Romans 3:25-26. "propitiation" means "appeasement of wrath."

2 Corinthians 4:3-4.

Acts of the Apostles 28:26-27.

1 Corinthians 2:14.

 

[John Caldwell]

Ive not met too man Cross deniers who literally admit they do it.
You do it in public. So, that's unique, but not in a good way.
It would be a safer place to dwell, John, if you were an atheist, then to be a literal Cross denier.

Here are some verses for you that say that Christ took our eternal punishment, on earth.

Isaiah 53:5
5 But Jesus was wounded for our transgressions,
Jesus was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Jesus,
And by Jesus stripes we are healed.

So, you say that God was not causing this to happen, and that "For God so loved the world that He Gave Jesus" is not for this reason it did happen.

Well, let me help you a little bit more.

The reason that God went to the Cross, is because God took the responsibility for the Fall of Adam and resolved it Himself on the Cross.

This Cross is where you find God Himself, receiving the judgement due the world for their SIN according to what the Law that God created, demands.

God put Himself under His own law, to bear and become the sin of the world, die for it, and thus satisfy the requirements of HIS Law, on our behalf.

This is "Salvation".

I do not think those who hold Penal Substitution Theory realize they deny the cross. The theory is so deep in their tradition they see it as "taught" even though it is absent Scripture itself.

The strange thing is they deny continued special revelation yet somehow cling to the myth even though they know that they cannot provide even one verse stating God punished Jesus instead of punishing men.

I agree with you, this is strange but it it not unique. Since the Theory was invented it has gained popularity even outside Calvinistic circles. It is still a minority view but it's disciples try to hijack Christianity to bow to the Theory. That is indoctrination, I guess.

Thankfully many are recognizing the false doctrine and there are at least movements within the Reformed to seek a more biblical standing.

All we can do is pray that God will show them that classic Christianity (Scripture) is enough.

 

[John Caldwell]

Romans 3:25-26. "propitiation" means "appeasement of wrath."

2 Corinthians 4:3-4.

Acts of the Apostles 28:26-27.

1 Corinthians 2:14.

Yes. While it is debatable "propitiation" is the proper English word (I believe it is) that does not prove your point. I agree with the verse. In Christ we do escape the wrath to come.

But like I said, you are completely unable to provide a verse stating that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us because NONE EXISTS.

By definition Penal Substitution Theory is extra-biblical. You think it is somehow taught (which makes your position no different from any other heresy folks see as somehow taught).

Scripture (what is written) HAS to be our standard. Otherwise there is none.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Romans 3:25-26. "propitiation" means "appeasement of wrath."

2 Corinthians 4:3-4.

Acts of the Apostles 28:26-27.

1 Corinthians 2:14.

Hello Jbf,
Didn't that apostate Rob Bell deny the cross, and also denied hell?
I do not spend much time with those who deny Jesus as the God given substitute, or the reality on conscious eternal torment in the second death.

 

[justbyfaith]

I agree with the verse. In Christ we do escape the wrath to come.

You should agree also, then, that the Cross is the "appeasement of wrath"...that God's wrath and justice is satisfied, or appeased, by the work of the Cross.

But I think that, having departed from the truth, you will be unable to return to it apart from a true miracle (Hebrews 6:1-8).

 

[justbyfaith]

NONE EXISTS.

You are simply blind to the existence of the verses that show it forth; because the god of this world has blinded your mind.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4.

Acts of the Apostles 28:26-27.

1 Corinthians 2:14.

 

[John Caldwell]

You should agree also, then, that the Cross is the "appeasement of wrath"...that God's wrath and justice is satisfied, or appeased, by the work of the Cross.

But I think that, having departed from the truth, you will be unable to return to it apart from a true miracle (Hebrews 6:1-8).

I agree with Scripture. I know you like your theory and it is an interesting philosophy. But it is not Scripture.

 

[justbyfaith]

But it is not Scripture.

It is, in fact, based on scripture; specifically Romans 3:25-26.

 

[brionne]

Sometimes people will take one aspect of biblical truth, and ignore other parts of the facts that make up that truth.
The cross is special and sacred to biblical Christians because we know that God ordained it to save us.
The questions that have been raised in a recent thread call historic basic beliefs into question.
Some have by word manipulation and doublespeak redefined biblical terms and suggested that we have it wrong!

Could the cross have been bypassed?

Could Jesus have come at a different time in history?

Could Jesus have come in our day and died of the corona virus?

Could Jesus have died of old age?

Could Jesus have died of cancer, a car crash, a plane crash, a mugging?

Some have suggested that He just had to die like we all do
That as the last Adam he just had to experience death as a generic,general offering, as a victim of wicked men, unrelated to wrath, or judgment of sins.

Do you believe that is the message of scripture?
Or is it a distortion and denial of the faith?

It was foretold that the Christ would be attacked by Satan the devil.
Gen 3:15 "And I will put enmity between you (satan) and the woman (Gods heavenly rulership) and between your offspring (evildoers) and her offspring (the christ). He (Jesus) will crush your head, and you (satan) will strike him in the heel.

Satan was bound to make it as painful and excruciating as possible because he would have wanted Jesus to sin and disobey God so that he might have victory. Look at what satan did to Job... he caused him great pain in order to try and cause him to reject Jehovah God.

But Jesus, by standing firm and not giving in won the victory and by his victory all mankind now have the prospect of living forever under the rule of Gods kingdom and will be reunited to Jehovah God.