Was the death on the cross necessary?

[Rita]

@Anthony D'Arienzo and @John Caldwell - What I am also trying to work out is why it matters if you see this in a different way - isn’t it enough to just know that Jesus went to the cross. ( see my simple faith ) This may seem a dumb question, but I figure that I don’t really care if I look stupid !, lol
Rita

 

[Enoch111]

...isn’t it enough to just know that Jesus went to the cross...

No it is not really enough to simply know that Jesus went to the cross. According to John Caldwell, God was not really involved. And that is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE, as well as heresy.

It was God -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- who designed the plan of salvation even before the foundation of the world. And it was at that time that they saw the Son as the Lamb of God paying for the sins of the world on that cross.

God poured out His wrath against sin directly on the holy soul of Jesus: Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd, and against the Man that is my Fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones. (Zech 13:7)

The Bible says that Christ was "smitten of God, and afflicted". It was God who was dealing with His own Son, and also who forsook Him temporarily while He was made Sin for us (which is blatantly denied by Caldwell). This was an earth-shaking event, and the whole world was supernaturally dark in the middle of the day while Christ suffered, and bled, and died.

Wicked men were incidental to God's plan of salvation. At the same time God held the Jews responsible for the death of Christ as murderers. But had Christ chosen to, He could have easily thwarted their evil designs. Christ CHOSE to go to the cross, according to God's plan of redemption.

 

[Rita]

Thanks Enoch, I will add that into my reflection on the matter - that’s answered one of my questions x
So this is more about ‘ who ‘ sent Jesus to the cross - I think I already know where I stand on that, but I will see what else is added x
Rita

 

[John Caldwell]

@Anthony D'Arienzo and @John Caldwell - What I am also trying to work out is why it matters if you see this in a different way - isn’t it enough to just know that Jesus went to the cross. ( see my simple faith ) This may seem a dumb question, but I figure that I don’t really care if I look stupid !, lol
Rita

Hi Rita,

This is a very good question.

I believe that our Reconciliation to God is a foundational doctrine. As such, I believe that we have to accept what is written in the Bible without adding to it (I believe so important a doctrine is stated in Scripture). That is why I do not believe PSA.

I do not know how a person can be saved believing the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement because it is so foreign to Scripture. BUT I was saved holding that position and I held that position for most of my life. My only answer is that the gospel shines through such false doctrine.

You never "look stupid" when dealing with me. I have often said I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed. What I do not always say is that I'm the dullest, but that is most likely the case. I know that Penal Substitution Theory is wrong and conversations with @Anthony D'Arienzo and others who hold the view has reaffirmed that to me. It is like finding the Santa suit in your dad's closet. You can never go back to believing the myth because it has been disproved.

But that does not mean I have the answers. I am still struggling to read Scripture apart from PSA influences (that was my tradition, it was the position of my university and seminary, it influenced by preaching and teaching). I can tell you that PSA is anti-Biblical and was not considered a Christian doctrine until the 16th Century by a small group.

The reason that I say it does matter is those who change the powers under which Christ suffered and died from the powers of sin and death to God and from a unjust death to a just death have emptied the cross of its meaning by adhering to a failed philosophy that divine justice is retributive justice; that an innocent man can justly be punished with the punishment for the guilty, that God cannot forgive sinners without first punishing the sin, etc.

Salvation in the present looks to the state of being saved "on that day" (a final state). I am not sure that PSA can lead down that path. It elevates man and devalues God. But more than that it produces a redemption which results in obedience out of thankfulness alone with no demands on the believer. It is a false doctrine that attempts to understand God through the Father and divine justice rather than through Christ. It is a "backdoor theology".

I hope that helps. I do not look to change people's position but to encourage doctrine and a closer adherence to Scripture. More are noticing the failure of PSA these days (even Calvinists who have movements within their own group to "reform the Reformed" and move to a more biblical position). Conversations like these may help in the end.

 

[John Caldwell]

No it is not really enough to simply know that Jesus went to the cross. According to John Caldwell, God was not really involved. And that is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE, as well as heresy.

It was God -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- who designed the plan of salvation even before the foundation of the world. And it was at that time that they saw the Son as the Lamb of God paying for the sins of the world on that cross.

God poured out His wrath against sin directly on the holy soul of Jesus: Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd, and against the Man that is my Fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones. (Zech 13:7)

The Bible says that Christ was "smitten of God, and afflicted". It was God who was dealing with His own Son, and also who forsook Him temporarily while He was made Sin for us (which is blatantly denied by Caldwell). This was an earth-shaking event, and the whole world was supernaturally dark in the middle of the day while Christ suffered, and bled, and died.

Wicked men were incidental to God's plan of salvation. At the same time God held the Jews responsible for the death of Christ as murderers. But had Christ chosen to, He could have easily thwarted their evil designs. Christ CHOSE to go to the cross, according to God's plan of redemption.

This is not true. According to John Caldwell God was absolutely involved. Scripture tells us that the Father offered the Son, that while the Son was given over by the Jewish leaders and suffered and died at the hands of wicked men this was also the predetermined plan of God. And God raised Christ from the dead.

It is best not to speak about other people's positions but let them speak for themselves, Enoch. It saves you the issue of misrepresenting what other's have said.

 

[justbyfaith]

Show me where the Bible says that Atonement is for the purpose of satisfying the justice if God.

Romans 3:25-26.

And, you didn't answer my question.

Prove it!

Is it an assumption that you force God into a box you created?

You assert this, so here is your opportunity to prove it! I am open to considering anything Biblical that you find. It would be interesting to see where the Bible says that Atonement "satisfies the Justice of God."

Romans 3:25-26.

People like you and I ask for Scripture and we will always get commentators and some explanation of what Scripture "really" means - never Scripture itself proving PSA.

Romans 3:25-26 is scripture.

Prior to the 16th Century no one believed that the Father punished the Son instead of punishing us to satisfy divine justice so that men could be forgiven.

And yet, the doctrine is right there in the Bible; in Romans 3:25-26!

But had Christ chosen to, He could have easily thwarted their evil designs. Christ CHOSE to go to the cross, according to God's plan of redemption.

Indeed. Matthew 26:53.

It is like finding the Santa suit in your dad's closet. You can never go back to believing the myth because it has been disproved.

Finding a Santa suit in your dad's closet is not proof that Santa doesn't exist. Your dad might just be filling in for him because he is too busy to do everything himself.

The reason that I say it does matter is those who change the powers under which Christ suffered and died from the powers of sin and death to God and from a unjust death to a just death have emptied the cross of its meaning by adhering to a failed philosophy that divine justice is retributive justice;

What meaning does PSA empty the Cross of?

I feel that your theology empties the Cross of its meaning!

Salvation in the present looks to the state of being saved "on that day" (a final state). I am not sure that PSA can lead down that path.

The Bible does not lead down that path. In John 5:24, we are taught that salvation begins at the moment of faith; we pass from death to life the first moment we believe. Therefore, we don't have to wait for the day of our death in order to be saved. I'm not sure how that applies to your theology, however.

 

[Enoch111]

I feel that your theology empties the Cross of its meaning!

A heretic -- after the first and second admonition -- reject. (Titus 3:10)

 

[John Caldwell]

And, you didn't answer my question.

Romans 3:25-26 is scripture.

and yet, the doctrine is right there in the Bible; in Romans 3:25-26!

Romans 3:21-26
21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;
26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Please copy the passage above and highlight where it says that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us. You can't, of course, because the doctrine is fiction - a Christian myth and false doctrine that obscures the meaning of the cross and Scripture.

PSA empties the cross of its meaning by reversing Scripture (it makes the Cross a just punishment by God rather than an unjust punishment inflicted upon Christ by the World and the powers of sin and death).

 

[John Caldwell]

Does the Bible say that God punished Jesus? No.

Does the Bible say that Jesus died instead of us? No.

Does the Bible say that Jesus experienced God’s wrath? No.

Does the Bible say that God must punish sin to forgive sinners? No.

Does the Bible employ retributive judicial philosophy as divine justice? No.

Does the Bible say that Jesus suffered and died at the hands of God? No.

Does the Bible say that God esteemed or considered Jesus as stricken? No.

Does the Bible say that Christ’s death was just? No

The Bible does say that to God it is an abomination to condemn the righteous.

The Bible does say that Jesus is righteous.

The Bible does say that “we” considered Jesus stricken by God but implies “we” were wrong (“yet”).

The Bible does say that Jesus suffered and died at the hands of wicked men.

The Bible does say that this was the predetermined plan of God.

Historically the Church viewed Christ as dying unjustly under the powers of darkness.

Historically the Church viewed God as capable of “simple forgiveness” upon repentance.

Historically the Church held a Christus Victor position (specifically, Ransom Theory).

Historically the Church did view the Cross under the criteria of the law or “divine justice”.

Historically PSA was not articulated until the 16th Century.

 

[Candidus]

Romans 3:25-26.

And, you didn't answer my question.



Romans 3:25-26.



Romans 3:25-26 is scripture.

Yes! It is Scripture that says absolutely NOTHING about the Atonement "satisfying the justice of God" does it!

And yet, the doctrine is right there in the Bible; in Romans 3:25-26!

Fail!

Indeed. Matthew 26:53.

Throwing mud on the wall and saying that it makes the doctrine "stick" is laughable! No!... not "indeed!"

Finding a Santa suit in your dad's closet is not proof that Santa doesn't exist. Your dad might just be filling in for him because he is too busy to do everything himself.

True! Yet the PSA "Santa Suit" is not even found in the closet!

What meaning does PSA empty the Cross of?

I feel that your theology empties the Cross of its meaning!

You haven't got a clue what I believe!

The Cross was not the scene of the Father hurling the thunderbolts of wrath down upon the Son, but Calvary was the scene of wondrous mercy and love. PSA empties the meaning of the Cross.

PSA destroys and divides the Trinity, making Jesus less than God.
PSA assumes what is clearly wrong for man, is somehow right for God to punish the innocent.
PSA proudly covers and hides Cosmic Child abuse!
PSA denies Grace.
PSA denies Mercy.
PSA denies salvation by grace through faith.
PSA denies that God pardons or forgives.

The Bible does not lead down that path. In John 5:24, we are taught that salvation begins at the moment of faith; we pass from death to life the first moment we believe.

Strange, you actually used Scripture to make a valid argument that thoroughly denies PSA! PSA demands PAYMENT of sins... WHEN were they PAID? On the Cross of course! Payment of a person's sin cannot happen when they come to faith in Jesus Christ as you just said. The nagging question is... when did Jesus "un-pay" for sins so that they could be "paid for" in some future time? You can find that doctrine right next to the necessity of Retributive Justice, Payment for sins, the wrath of God punishing Jesus Christ in the Bible.

 

[justbyfaith]

Romans 3:21-26
21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;
26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Please copy the passage above and highlight where it says that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us. You can't, of course, because the doctrine is fiction - a Christian myth and false doctrine that obscures the meaning of the cross and Scripture.

PSA empties the cross of its meaning by reversing Scripture (it makes the Cross a just punishment by God rather than an unjust punishment inflicted upon Christ by the World and the powers of sin and death).

Again, I think that you don't understand the meaning of the word propitiation...and the fact that God is both just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus because of it.

 

[Candidus]

Again, I think that you don't understand the meaning of the word propitiation...and the fact that God is both just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus because of it.

Everything hangs on a word you refuse to understand.

I can say that the Cross means Rainbow Pony, I can be dogmatic about it till the day I die. It would only prove that I was foolish to hang everything on a mere definition I like apart from what Scripture actually says!

 

[justbyfaith]

You haven't got a clue what I believe!

That's because you haven't made it clear.

The problem with denying PSA is that there is no gospel that can be articulated to replace it as the gospel.

And I believe that you know deep down that your replacement is a gospel other than what Paul preached...so you do not preach it because you know that if you did, you would be accursed (Galatians 1:6-9).

I would say also that you are condemning those who preach PSA as preaching a false gospel and in this you are in violation of Luke 6:37.

 

[John Caldwell]

@Rita

I want to add this (I did not just want to "edit" it in).

One Monday a few years ago I awoke with the conviction I had preached philosophy rather than theory. I did not try to denounce PSA but did test it against Scripture with the hope it would be proven biblical. I purchased whiteboards and wrote out PSA with every corresponding verse. Then I went through and erased every teaching that was unique to PSA but absent Scripture. When I was done PSA was gone from my board and my faith.

I do not have an answer as to what you should believe. But I can tell you without doubt what should not be believed, and that is PSA. It is a false doctrine that is not in the Bible.

The problem is not what to believe at this point but the heresy of PSA. Search Scriptures for yourself (you are the only one responsible for your beliefs).

Write down all verses that state (not that might imply but that actually say) that God punished Jesus.
Write down all verses that state God cannot forgive sinners unless he first punish sin.
Write down all verses that state Jesus experienced God's wrath.

Consider verses that state it is an abomination to God to condemn the righteous.
Consider verses that state if we confess our sins God is just to forgive.
Consider verses that state Christ died not by God's hand but by the hands of the wicked by God's predetermined plan.

Scripture, not judicial philosophy, is our authority.

Good luck if you take the challenge.

 

[justbyfaith]

Everything hangs on a word you refuse to understand.

I would say that you have three fingers pointing back at you; for it is clear that you refuse to understand this word, "propitiation."

 

[John Caldwell]

The problem with denying PSA is that there is no gospel that can be articulated to replace it as the gospel.

NO! This is wrong (it is what I was trying to convey earlier).

We never hold false doctrine simply because we do not know a suitable replacement. PSA is heresy (in that it is a false doctrine that is not in the Bible). If Scripture does not answer the questions you may ask then who cares? Believe Scripture anyway. That is not an excuse to affirm false doctrines.

So many have seen Scripture as sufficient and complete on this topic. I have stated as much and was denounced because I did not offer theories to add to Scripture. There is none needed. Just believe God's Word. It is that simple.

 

[justbyfaith]

I do not have an answer as to what you should believe. But I can tell you without doubt what should not be believed, and that is PSA. It is a false doctrine that is not in the Bible.

@Rita, don't be fooled...@John Caldwell is attempting to strip you of knowledge that is salvational to your soul.

The reality is that justice and mercy meet at the Cross.

There are two irreconcilable attributes in the heart of God:

1) Justice; which requires that every iniquity be punished exactly according to the crime.

and,

2) Mercy; which desires that less than the punishment that is deserved be meted out.

Justice is satisfied, while mercy can be divied out, in that Jesus took the just penalty for our sins in dying on the Cross. Justice is satisfied in that our sin is punished. Mercy is divied out in that we are not punished.

This is the gospel as it is related in Romans 3:25-26. Only the spiritually blind don't see it there.

2Co 4:3, But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
2Co 4:4, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Act 28:26, Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
Act 28:27, For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

1Co 2:14, But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[justbyfaith]

I suppose, therefore, that I should leave off of this discussion; for Jesus said,

Mat 15:14, Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

 

[Rita]

Thank you for the concern - but I asked John to give his input, and I am quite capable of prayerfully studying scripture and discerning - this whole subject has not been something I have looked at in depth.
Please be reassured that I am well and truly ‘ in Christ ‘ ( regardless of the very varied views that many have here ).
Rita

 

[John Caldwell]

I suppose, therefore, that I should leave off of this discussion; for Jesus said,

Mat 15:14, Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

Looking at our posts it seems obvious (at least to me, I suspect to any others) that the difference is largely our view of doctrine as it relates to Scripture. In terms of doctrine I believe that Scripture is not only sufficient but all (at least foundational) doctrines MUST be tested against God’s Word.

You hold that theology picks up where Scripture leaves off (as evidenced by the fact there are no passages that state your position here). I do not see these “gaps” in God’s Word. When it comes to our reconciliation to God, when it comes to the Cross, this seems to me to be the “point of the spear”. It is completely covered in Scripture.

That is the primary difference between how you and I approach the topic. You rest on what you see Scripture “teaches” insofar as what is implied in God’s Word. I believe Scripture states in the text what it means to communicate and does not need our help.

We come from different backgrounds and will not agree because I do hold Scripture as the authority for doctrine - not a church, not a tradition, and not other men. This type of disagreement happens on such a broad forum as we have different standards of faith. That said, I do not believe it is right to insist others accept your view when it is not in the Bible (others may not belong to your tradition or your church).