Was the death on the cross necessary?

[Candidus]

...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.

This is the danger of allowing a Theory to regulate what and how we interpret Scripture. Since is such a familiar message to most people, it is assumed to be stated in the Bible. Most people do not realize that they have built a foundation on a Theory, and not Scripture. Many will not change if they are shown that it does not have Scripture endorsement; Why? Fear! The cost is just too much! They can see their whole house of cards teetering and under the threat of total collapse! The fear of the unknown would be a factor... "What will be true? What doctrine would I have if it was not true? How much of what I believe is built upon this assumption?

Why would I say this? Because I have already been there. I know that it is scary.

 

[Candidus]

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).

I would ask how this would be possible. Why would God spend over 4,000 years of Jewish history saying that Atonement was by sacrifice? Why would the Bible speak of the Old Testament as a shadow of things that are fulfilled in Christ? Why would God change Atonement by Sacrifice, especially to a Western form of Judicial courtroom language that did not exist at that time?

PSA is not the Gospel! If you hang anyone's salvation on it, you are preaching "another Gospel." Paul never said "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart in Penal Substitution, you shall be saved..." In fact, faith in the Person and work of Christ to save the sinner from their sins was enough for Paul; because THAT is the Gospel!

To say it differently, everywhere the Gospel is preached in the Scriptures it always omits any reference to Penal Substitution. One thing we do know for sure, the Scriptures clearly say that The Gospel minus Penal Substitution IS the Gospel according to the Bible! No matter how someone perceives the Atonement of Christ, as long as that "view" of the atonement states that in our present condition, the work of Jesus Christ on the Cross on our behalf is the sole means by which we can be saved, it does not matter one iota what someone believes about an Atonement Theory.

Am I saying that one should not seek out the truth of Atonement to understand it? Of course not! But no one comes to salvation believing any Theory! The Gospel is trusting on Christ as our Savior! Theories and detailed explanation of Christian doctrine follow. Do not place a belief in an Atonement Theory as a substitute for Grace! We are not saved by assent to Theories.

 

[justbyfaith]

No matter how someone perceives the Atonement of Christ, as long as that "view" of the atonement states that in our present condition, the work of Jesus Christ on the Cross on our behalf is the sole means by which we can be saved, it does not matter one iota what someone believes about an Atonement Theory.

But PSA falls under this category; and you said previously that it is a false gospel.

If therefore it is a false gospel, to preach it would mean everlasting accursedness (Galatians 1:6-9).

Therefore, even in your view, it does matter what someone believes about Atonement Theory.

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying what you are peddling; because not only is it unclear what you are in fact peddling, it is that you seem to be, in what you are peddling, attempting to strip away the very basis of our belief as those who have been saved by the mercy and grace of God.

Questions also have not been answered.

Justice must be satisfied as an attribute of the Lord. Men cry out for justice over such things as the death of George Floyd. If the officer who killed him can be acquitted out of hand, apart from him receiving the substitutionary atonement in which Christ took his penalty, there is no justice.

I will preach it to my dying day, that Justice and Mercy meet at the Cross.

In shedding His blood, God is both just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

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

Hello Charity,
You correctly go to scriptures teaching the substitutionary design and nature of the atonement. Anyone who is a believer learns this early on.

 

[justbyfaith]

The teaching of the Cross (Jesus dying upon it) is directed to the sinner rather than the saved; as it it the gospel by which a man is saved from his sins.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

I really have no idea what the OP is trying to say. Can someone tell me?

yes, the OP was reaction to questions raised on a different thread.
I was asked not to participate in the other thread so this thread was opened and the designed to.question what do we believe about the cross?

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

So, the OP was merely lining up the way to have a go at one person on the forum and then to drag his posts over to this one to have go at him, and then to paste and copy other people’s comments along the way to endeavour to back you up.
You post questions with hidden agendas, sorry, but that’s deceptive and not respectful - I will be deleting my post from earlier as I want nothing to do with it.
Rita

I was asked not to post on the other thread
i had to post here to question the wrong views of the cross being posted.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Berkhof is wallowing in hopeless contradiction. Retributive Justice, and the wages of sin being spiritual death and separation from God (his teaching) proves that Jesus did not accomplish satisfying Retributive Justice! You cannot say that the rules are unbending, and that Jesus was punished equally according to Retributive Justice, and have Him succeed in taking our place without being Eternally Separated in Hell.

Since Jesus is not in Hell as we speak, Retributive Justice is not Biblical, and the Atonement was not an equal punishment. It has to be something other than Penal Substitution or Retributive justice or we need to find another Savior that is successful.

Berkhof is clear in his teaching.
Your posts do not address what he has taught.
Millions have read and learned from him.
I do not think your posts have that readership, so I will stick with him.

 

[John Caldwell]

I think it is safe to say the OP is a strawman. No Christian believes Christ's death the cross unnecessary as that would make them unChristian by definition. Scripture tells us that Christ suffered and died at the hands of godless men by the predetermined plan of God and this was God reconciling the world to Himself.

What needs to be asked is not if Christ's death was necessary but why was Christ's death necessary and what was accomplished. That is where diverse views exist within Christianity.

 

[justbyfaith]

I think it is safe to say the OP is a strawman. No Christian believes Christ's death the cross unnecessary as that would make them unChristian by definition. Scripture tells us that Christ suffered and died at the hands of godless men by the predetermined plan of God and this was God reconciling the world to Himself.

What needs to be asked is not if Christ's death was necessary but why was Christ's death necessary and what was accomplished. That is where diverse views exist within Christianity.

Why do you say that Christ's death was necessary, if not to satisfy the justice of God?

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Why do you say that Christ's death was necessary, if not to satisfy the justice of God?

Yes JBF,

Some deny the obvious need for a sin bearer, by the wording used.
Just consider what happens to sinners who die without Jesus.

 

[Rita]

I was asked not to post on the other thread
i had to post here to question the wrong views of the cross being posted.

That is not justification for manipulating others and transferring posts from another thread. The fact that you were asked not to post on that thread only makes what you did worse.
Rita

 

[justbyfaith]

That is not justification for manipulating others and transferring posts from another thread. The fact that you were asked not to post on that thread only makes what you did worse.
Rita

What's so bad about what he did?

As if it is a sin to attempt to deal with false doctrines...

 

[Rita]

What's so bad about what he did?

As if it is a sin to attempt to deal with false doctrines...

Read my earlier post - Its how he chose to deal with it that I had a problem with. He wasn’t up front with why he had started this thread and how he intended to use it. If you don’t see anything wrong in that, well that’s fine you don’t have to agree with me. However it doesn’t mean that I have to justify my opinion to you, I felt it was the wrong way to do it and voiced my ‘ opinion ‘ and deleted my first response.
Rita

 

[justbyfaith]

I think it is safe to say the OP is a strawman. No Christian believes Christ's death the cross unnecessary as that would make them unChristian by definition. Scripture tells us that Christ suffered and died at the hands of godless men by the predetermined plan of God and this was God reconciling the world to Himself.

What needs to be asked is not if Christ's death was necessary but why was Christ's death necessary and what was accomplished. That is where diverse views exist within Christianity.

Why do you say that Christ's death was necessary, if not to satisfy the justice of God?

Still waiting for an answer, @John Caldwell or @Candidus.

 

[justbyfaith]

Read my earlier post - Its how he chose to deal with it that I had a problem with. He wasn’t up front with why he had started this thread and how he intended to use it. If you don’t see anything wrong in that, well that’s fine you don’t have to agree with me. However it doesn’t mean that I have to justify my opinion to you, I felt it was the wrong way to do it and voiced my ‘ opinion ‘ and deleted my first response.
Rita

I must not have been paying close enough attention because I didn't see him doing anything wrong.

Should he have to justify his actions to you?

Yet you don't have to justify your opinion to me.

Oh well...

Matthew 7:1-5 isn't the issue here...

 

[marksman]

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?

For me and I emphasize that, the cross and the death that it produced is crucial to my and everyone's salvation.

I admit that I don't fully understand the purpose and need for the cross, as it is beyond my comprehension to see the ramifications of it all, because the instigator of it was God himself so who can fully understand the mind of God.

Personally I would rather prefer that it did not happen as I would not wish such cruelty and pain on anyone even the son of God, but if that is how God designed things to be, we have to run with it, understand it as best we can and gain the salvation it offers and live in the benefits that it brings to the believer.

I don't know if you have seen the film "The Passion of the Christ", produced by Mel Gibson a catholic. It did not pull any punches and after I watched it, I sat there in total silence trying to comprehend the utter depravity of it all. How could a human do such a thing to another human? it was heart-wrenching and it brought me to tears.

As far as all the "could it' questions the answer is, yes of course, but it didn't as God decided and orchestrated everything as it happened for his purpose which we will probably never know in detail until the New Jerusalem is ushered in.

 

[Rita]

I must not have been paying close enough attention because I didn't see him doing anything wrong.

Should he have to justify his actions to you?

Yet you don't have to justify your opinion to me.

Oh well...

Matthew 7:1-5 isn't the issue here...


No, but he asked a question in the OP , which I proceeded to answer. This brought me into the conversation.
Only after a number of people had answered the question, he drew his conclusions and then transferred posts from the other thread to have a dig at one person.
As far as I was concerned I was being used to back up his intended goal and be a part of having that dig. It was underhanded.
If someone uses my responses in an underhanded way, then I am at liberty to view an opinion on the matter.
If someone then comes back and endeavours to justify why he did that, then I am equally at liberty to express my opinion on the matter.
It is between me and Anthony. Rita

 

[justbyfaith]

I must not have been paying close enough attention because I didn't see him doing anything wrong.

Should he have to justify his actions to you?

Yet you don't have to justify your opinion to me.

Oh well...

Matthew 7:1-5 isn't the issue here...


No, but he asked a question in the OP , which I proceeded to answer. This brought me into the conversation.
Only after a number of people had answered the question, he drew his conclusions and then transferred posts from the other thread to have a dig at one person.
As far as I was concerned I was being used to back up his intended goal and be a part of having that dig. It was underhanded.
If someone uses my responses in an underhanded way, then I am at liberty to view an opinion on the matter.
If someone then comes back and endeavours to justify why he did that, then I am equally at liberty to express my opinion on the matter.
It is between me and Anthony. Rita

I think that he would not have even mentioned the person's name if that person had not previously complained about the fact that he hadn't given him credit for his words.

So he was not purposely digging at a person; but rather was attempting to deal with the false doctrine that was being purported by him.

 

[Rita]

I think that he would not have even mentioned the person's name if that person had not previously complained about the fact that he didn't give him credit for his words.

So he was not purposely digging at a person; but rather was attempting to deal with the false doctrine that was being purported by him.

That is not how it came across to me, and I addressed it. I wasn’t the only one that had an issue with it. I had not even read the other thread, I took this one on face value and presumed it was a general discussion on the Right , I need to go and support my dad x
Have a good night, day , whatever time it is with you xx
Rita