Was the death on the cross necessary?

[charity]

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 judgement of sins.

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

Hello Anthony,

The Lord Himself told His disciples that He would be put to death by crucifixion. In the gospel of God concerning His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, emphasis is not on the cross itself, but the fact that He, 'died for our sins' (1 Corinthians 15:3). The teaching of the cross is directed to the saved, rather than to the sinner, in regard to deliverance from the world and the flesh.

* The cross was necessary, for the Lord Jesus Christ had to be made a curse:-

'Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law,
being made a curse for us:
for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: ... '
(Gal 3:13)

* The Lord Jesus Christ also came to confirm the promises made to the fathers, and therefore the prophecies concerning Him had to be fulfilled (Romans 15:8), which necessitated death by that means:-

'A bone of Him shall not be broken' (John 19:36) see (Exodus 12:46; Numbers 9:12) - In all things He was the antitype of the passover lamb.
'They shall look on Him Whom they pierced' (John 19:37) see Zechariah 12:10 - partially fulfilled at the cross: full fulfilment when grace and supplication is poured out upon Israel at the time of Christ's return.

* There are many others as you will know, but I do not have time to mention them all now.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Candidus]

Wrong.

You are the one that "corrects" the King James by changing "Chastised" to "Punishment"!

It is astonishing to me that you never have a Biblical answer or proof of what you believe, besides the fallacy of the hand/stonewalling for your answers.

It is a FACT that there is no evidence of the Byzantine Text-type for the first 500 years of Christianity. It "added" many things that have no evidence of existing the the Early Church's catalog of writings.

Go ahead, give me the hand... it's not an answer.

 

[Candidus]

The passages said it happened prior to it happening in time.

So it had to happen in time.

Get what that implies?

Right, God can't lie.

Doctrine is built on what is actually said, not what we think it implies. Sophistry built merely upon what we derive from our flawed Philosophical minds is not Bible Doctrine.

 

[justbyfaith]

You are the one that "corrects" the King James by changing "Chastised" to "Punishment"!

It is astonishing to me that you never have a Biblical answer or proof of what you believe, besides the fallacy of the hand/stonewalling for your answers.

It is a FACT that there is no evidence of the Byzantine Text-type for the first 500 years of Christianity. It "added" many things that have no evidence of existing the the Early Church's catalog of writings.

Go ahead, give me the hand... it's not an answer.

The answer is behind the link...

Was the death on the cross necessary?

 

[John Caldwell]

You are not the first to tell me that today!

I probably won't be the last either .

Sometimes it is just better to ignore people as a way to weed out those with whom you interact and hopefully facilitate a better discussion. I would never put someone on ignore because they disagree with me (we need disagreement) but sometimes you encounter people that are better ignored. It saves the peace (and keeps members from taking a short involuntary vacation from the board ).

 

[John Caldwell]

Doctrine is built on what is actually said, not what we think it implies. Sophistry built merely upon what we derive from our flawed Philosophical minds is not Bible Doctrine.

This is the key to doctrine. When people believe in doctrines that they feel are somehow implied in or taught by Scripture (like PSA) then they are in practice ignoring Scripture as the standard by which doctrine is measured. We have to trust what is written in the text, what Scripture actually says. Otherwise every doctrine is subjective to human understanding.

 

[justbyfaith]

The Holy Spirit also needs to be a factor.

 

[Candidus]

This is the key to doctrine. When people believe in doctrines that they feel are somehow implied in or taught by Scripture (like PSA) then they are in practice ignoring Scripture as the standard by which doctrine is measured. We have to trust what is written in the text, what Scripture actually says. Otherwise every doctrine is subjective to human understanding.

We do not become Christians by coming on our terms! We can only come on God's terms! It does not matter if I am a seasoned theologian or a babe in Christ, what God says is right! If I do not understand it, it does not make it untrue! Now, I do not know if it is entirely possible to disconnect yourself from all biases, influences, experiences, culture and other assumptions when reading Scripture. the best one can do is to be mindful in our approach to Scripture that these things are a threat to a pure understanding of God's will. We have to be honest enough to admit where we are "filling in the gaps" so we can wrap our heads around what God says. This is not easy, and the road of least resistance is not to worry about it.

This, I believe, differentiates the gap between true Theology based on what God actually says, and Philosophy... of what we "think" God is saying. It takes a measure of wisdom to see the difference between true Theology and Philosophy, and between Theological speculation and Philosophical speculation to fill in the gaps.

 

[Candidus]

The Holy Spirit also needs to be a factor.

True, but the Holy Spirit will never tell someone something contrary to what God says in Scripture. Scripture must be the final Authority because no matter what issue you bring up, someone will say that the Holy Spirit has taught them otherwise!

 

[John Caldwell]

The Holy Spirit also needs to be a factor.

I agree. But I do not believe that the Holy Spirit can be viewed as a Substitute for what is written. The Spirit guides into spiritual truth, application, etc.

We have to test spirits via Scripture. If the spirit involved is adding to Scripture and changing the meanings of verses (telling someone that the passage means something other than what is written) then the spirit involved is probably not the Holy Spirit.

 

[John Caldwell]

We do not become Christians by coming on our terms! We can only come on God's terms! It does not matter if I am a seasoned theologian or a babe in Christ, what God says is right! If I do not understand it, it does not make it untrue! Now, I do not know if it is entirely possible to disconnect yourself from all biases, influences, experiences, culture and other assumptions when reading Scripture. the best one can do is to be mindful in our approach to Scripture that these things are a threat to a pure understanding of God's will. We have to be honest enough to admit where we are "filling in the gaps" so we can wrap our heads around what God says. This is not easy, and the road of least resistance is not to worry about it.

This, I believe, differentiates the gap between true Theology based on what God actually says, and Philosophy... of what we "think" God is saying. It takes a measure of wisdom to see the difference between true Theology and Philosophy, and between Theological speculation and Philosophical speculation to fill in the gaps.

Amen.

For a very long time I affirmed a position based on tradition (based on what I grew up with). I read it into Scripture without knowing. It was eye-opening to come to the realization that Scripture is sufficient in itself. This is how the Spirit works, not by filling the gaps. I still struggle not to read my own worldview in Scripture.

I think that when we need to "connect dots" we have to at least know that is what we are doing and separate our additions from Scripture itself. The work of the Spirit when it comes to Scripture is, ultimately, understanding what is written because it exceeds anything we could add.

 

[justbyfaith]

True, but the Holy Spirit will never tell someone something contrary to what God says in Scripture.

PSA is not contradicted by holy scripture; even if it is not fully substantiated by it. Otherwise it would never be seen as a valid doctrine.

I think that when we need to "connect dots" we have to at least know that is what we are doing and separate our additions from Scripture itself.

I believe that the Holy Spirit teaches us when we "connect the dots"...at least that is the impression that I get from 1 Corinthians 2:13 (kjv); which defines for us a specific hermeneutic which we are to follow in order to get the Holy Spirit's teaching.

1Co 2:13, Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

 

[Candidus]

I agree. But I do not believe that the Holy Spirit can be viewed as a Substitute for what is written. The Spirit guides into spiritual truth, application, etc.

We have to test spirits via Scripture. If the spirit involved is adding to Scripture and changing the meanings of verses (telling someone that the passage means something other than what is written) then the spirit involved is probably not the Holy Spirit.

Being in a room where I have heard three or four "confirmed" statements that the Holy Spirit gave them clarity on a verse, and they all contradicted each other.., so "which" Holy Spirit am I to believe?

And before anyone goes there, No! The Holy Spirit does not give you an infallible private interpretation! Yes! the Holy Spirit can guide you in your personal life and convict you, but the Holy Spirit does not amend and add to Scripture to give a theological truth that is just not there for all to see.

 

[justbyfaith]

Being in a room where I have heard three or four "confirmed" statements that the Holy Spirit gave them clarity on a verse, and they all contradicted each other.., so "which" Holy Spirit am I to believe?

Which verse do you believe? Romans 6:14 or 1 Corinthians 9:21?

They seem to contradict each other; but there is most assuredly a valid reconciliation of them.

 

[John Caldwell]

Being in a room where I have heard three or four "confirmed" statements that the Holy Spirit gave them clarity on a verse, and they all contradicted each other. So "which" Holy Spirit am I to believe?

And before anyone goes there, No! The Holy Spirit does not give you an infallible private interpretation! Yes! the Holy Spirit can guide you in your personal life and convict you, but the Holy Spirit does not amend and add to Scripture to give a theological truth that is just not there for all to see.

IMHO, when it comes to Scripture I think that the "clarity" on a verse means accepting the verse as it is in the text. There will always be some disagreement in terms of interpretation, I suppose. But we should not be adding to the Bible.

For example, Scripture does not confirm PSA, but PSA theorists can use Scripture to support its theory. That said, it is still an addition not stated in Scripture. The Spirit leads people to understand that Scripture makes sense, not to choose what additions are needed to make it make sense. That is how we can know PSA is wrong. It is not in the text of Scripture (it can be affirmed only by assuming it implied, and therefore cannot be affirmed by Scripture itself....it is subjective).

This is how I test whether or not it is the Holy Spirit clarifying a verse -

1. Write out the verse.
2. Highlight where Scripture specifically states what you believe the Spirit is teaching.

 

[Candidus]

As for the Holy Spirit helping us to "connect-the-dots," he certainly brings things to light in His time.

The difficulty is that most people cannot tell the difference between the Holy Spirit speaking and their own minds. Proof is in the vast differences that "Spirit Led" people hold. The issue of "connecting-the-dots" is whether it is a true Theological "connection" or is it just Theological "speculation." The other option confused with Theological speculation is Philosophical speculation; they are not the same.

Doctrine is founded upon what God actually says. This is true Theology.

One example of connecting-the-dots is the doctrine of the Trinity. Scripture says that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct, yet all three are said to be God; all Three are said to be One. This is not speculation, it is Scripture. The question is whether the mand can wrap itself around it. This is where the Holy Spirit can "connect-the-dots" where our reality may have problems with it. It may be to increase your faith in what you cannot understand completely, yet you accept what God says as completely true.

Most people cannot differentiate between true Theology and theological speculation. While the gaps they fill "logically" fit in, it is the product of the mind; it is speculative. If you have ever read any Systematic Theologies, these tend to have a bad habit of treating the speculative gap fillers as Scripture itself. This unfortunately, leads people to think this is a legitimate way to approach Scripture. I feel more comfortable differentiation what I know is speculative, and what I see God actually saying.

An example of a Philosophical speculation would be how many people use anthropomorphisms. God at times has revealed something of Himself by using what we know from our human experience. Psalm 91:4 "He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart." We would agree that this displays a hen with her chicks, faithfully protecting them. But that is all God is revealing. He is not saying that every aspect of a Chicken is to be accredited to Him. The same goes with the anthropomorphic Loving "Father." God has those positive traits as it relates to a positive human father, but Philosophical speculation has been used to say, "A loving Father would never send their child to an Eternal Hell!" And thus, a new false doctrine is born. Every verse must comport with this "speculative" doctrine that has been invented. The fact is that some will be in Hell, and that God is Love... these are true Theological statements. The only "Theological speculation" I could concur with would be, God is Love, and God wants to save all, but because some do end up in Hell, God is not happy with that, or if He is, giving them what they want... eternal separation from His presence is loving them enough to give them what they want. It is interesting; it is speculative. The bottom line is, I am not going out on my theological shield on this speculation.

 

[Candidus]

This is how I test whether or not it is the Holy Spirit clarifying a verse -

1. Write out the verse.
2. Highlight where Scripture specifically states what you believe the Spirit is teaching.

Is #3 you have a friend slap you upside the head with the thickest King James Bible they can find? I have found that when the Holy Spirit is not quite getting through my thick skull, sometimes God uses a metaphorical 2X4!

 

[justbyfaith]

It remains that Jesus died on the Cross for our sins; and that this is the testimony of scripture (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

Combine that with the statement in Romans 3:26 that God is both just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus; and I think you have PSA.

Because that is what propitiation (Romans 3:25) is all about.

 

[justbyfaith]

I believe that PSA is Paul's gospel...

To deny it is to leave a void which would have to be filled with a different gospel.

And whatever that is, if it is preached, it will bring condemnation on the one who preaches it (Galatians 1:6-9).

If PSA is not Paul's gospel, then the majority of preachers today are condemned for preaching a different gospel (again, see Galatians 1:6-9).

 

[John Caldwell]

Is #3 you have a friend slap you upside the head with the thickest King James Bible they can find? I have found that when the Holy Spirit is not quite getting through my thick skull, sometimes God uses a metaphorical 2X4!

Usually it's me saying something stupid and the Spirit convicting me of the stupidity of the thing I said (via Scripture).

That is why I have come to reject PSA. I preached it, awoke with the conviction it was anti-biblical, and tested the doctrine with Scripture. It is simply not there. I had been wrong for decades. It was a hard truth but one that led to a greater appreciation of Scripture and what is actually written.