Search results

Jesus suffered what mankind will suffer for our sins, became a curse for us, yet He was without sin. He suffered a penalty and died for our sins (for our redemption). "For", David. That is the difference. You believe it was "instead" of us but I believe it was for (as in purposed).

What I mean is that I believe Jesus died for our sins, to redeem mankind - NOT instead of us but for us. I do not believe Christ was a substitute but a representative (along the line of a "second Adam" or representative of the "new man").

I do stand in a very difficult position to understand (especially from our culture and mindset). I once held, believed, taught, and preached Penal Substitution Theory and in many ways it is the cornerstone of evangelical Protestant religion today. We come by it naturally. When I became...

It is not Jesus suffering a penalty for my sins BUT Jesus suffering a penalty instead of me suffering the penalty.

Because it was through suffering that He "learned obedience" and was "made perfect" so that He would be a High Priest. His suffering relates to his humanity as He became the "second Adam" or the "Firstborn". I believe He had to suffer and die under the curse, experience the wages of sin (be...

What we believe is very different. @David Taylor believes (correct me if I make a mistake, David) : 1. Redemption centers on our "sin debt" being paid. 2. Our "sin debt" is the demands of divine justice that must be satisfied in order for God to justly forgive sinners. 3. A just God must...

No. It is an important distinction. Steve has explained that it was our sins being punished in Christ instead of us being punished for our sins. I believe people will be punished or forgiven. Scripture repeatedly states that God will forgive men upon repentance. I believe this is true.

@CharismaticLady, I believe Christ died for our sins, suffered the penalty for our sins and we are redeemed by His blood and in Him we escape the wrath to come. But I do not believe God punished Christ instead of punishing us, that sin itself can be punished, or that God had to punish sin...

Do you believe sin can be punished? Scripture speaks of sin as an act and as a power. These things cannot be punished. People who commit sin can be punished for their sin.

You are not making sense. "If Christ were not required to be punished for our sin what would happen to our guilt" is a nonsensical question that shows your captivity to a failed philosophy.

I do consider your view akin to Mormonism. There are doctrines that would prevent debate over this issue between Mormons and my view (we do not share the same presuppositions) just as there are barriers between your philosophy here and the classic view (the view I hold). It would at least be...

I will (I will start a thread when back home, I am at a nuclear site and about to leave my phone in the vehicle for now).

I knew you wouldn't (and anticipated this smoke screen). I explained how I reached my conclusions twice. You have not done it at all as evidenced by your inability now. Scripture conditions forgiveness on repentance. We needed a "second Adam", a High Priest. We needed to be freed from the...

I believe the "cup" Christ dreaded was the suffering and death of the Cross. Christ, who knew no sin, became sin for us. He who knew no sin was suffering the wages of sin. Christ told the Disciples that they would share that cup. Do you believe they did? If so, why did they also have to drink...

I must have missed your explanation. For that I apologize. Other than providing verses, your conclusion/ interpretation of those verses and stating your theories are possible given the language I have missed your explanation. Exactly how do you get from the passages you quote to your...

Often the difference is not the doctrines people hold but how people hold these doctrines. John Piper has, for example, gone into detail about how he arrives at his conclusions (he is able to explain how he gets from Scripture to Penal Substitution Theory). C. S. Lewis rejected Penal...

You are mistaken. I never "accused you" of being Mormon as that is an odd accusation. What I said was that like my Mormon friends there are areas of your religion on this topic that is too foreign from the classic understanding to provide a common ground of debate. You are wrong to use...

That's because this child has given up on any meaningful discussion with the other kid. I already know what he's going to say..."you're a liar...a liar...a liar...." as he pounds the floor in a tantrum :rolleyes: But you are more than welcome to ask me about what I think about a scripture. I do...

That's what I thought. My friend's son is going to seminary (LDS) and on a mission trip. I did not know if there was another type. I only know of the LDS because of my friends who are Mormon, so it's only about as much as we discuss. So basically @Steve Owen would have gone through LDS seminary...

You have not stated anything in defence of your theory. You gave us verses and told us what you think they mean, that it possible given the language, and you believe it the only interpretation based on the context - but you never explained how you reasoned out that meaning.