What I believe about the Atonement

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Waiting on him

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2018
11,674
6,096
113
56
North America
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
"One day a student called Harold Estes came into my rooms in the Dormitory to discuss an essay he had written on the atonement. He was a very gentle kindly person. It is he had spoke of the death of Christ simply as a demonstration of the love of God. He had been expounding something like what was known as a ‘moral influence theory’ of the atonement favoured by liberal thinkers but theological quite inadequate, as H. R. Mackintosh had shown us in Edinburgh. To help Harold I showed him a reproduction which I had of Grünewald’s famous painting of the Crucifixion, at Colmar, which is incredibly starkly vivid. I also showed him some of the enlargements of the painting, reproduced in a book I had with me, which focused on the fearfully lacerated flesh of Jesus which he suffered from the flagellation with thorns inflicted on him by the soldiers, deep wounds now blackened by the sun. Harold shrank back in horror at what he saw. I said to him: ‘Harold, you have written about that as a picture of the love of God. It is certainly a picture of the fearful sin and hatred of mankind, but if you can tell me WHY Jesus was crucified, WHY he endured such unbelievable pain and anguish, then you will be able to say something of the real meaning of the atonement, and about why the crucifixion of Jesus was and is indeed a revelation of the love of God – Christ was crucified like that FOR our sakes, to save us from sin and judgment. The meaning of the atoning death of Christ is expressed in that word FOR – Jesus died for you and for me, and for all people. It is only in the light of that FOR that the death of Jesus is a picture of the love of God. And what a wonderful picture it is of the infinite love of God who so loved us that ‘he did not spare his only Son but freely delivered him up for us all, that we might be saved.’"

Cited in Alister E. McGrath, T. F. Torrance: An Intellectual Biography, T&T Clark, 1999, 54-55.
Goats can be very unruly.
 

Steve Owen

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2019
385
267
63
72
Exmouth UK
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
"One day a student called Harold Estes came into my rooms in the Dormitory to discuss an essay he had written on the atonement. He was a very gentle kindly person. It is he had spoke of the death of Christ simply as a demonstration of the love of God. He had been expounding something like what was known as a ‘moral influence theory’ of the atonement favoured by liberal thinkers but theological quite inadequate, as H. R. Mackintosh had shown us in Edinburgh. To help Harold I showed him a reproduction which I had of Grünewald’s famous painting of the Crucifixion, at Colmar, which is incredibly starkly vivid. I also showed him some of the enlargements of the painting, reproduced in a book I had with me, which focused on the fearfully lacerated flesh of Jesus which he suffered from the flagellation with thorns inflicted on him by the soldiers, deep wounds now blackened by the sun. Harold shrank back in horror at what he saw. I said to him: ‘Harold, you have written about that as a picture of the love of God. It is certainly a picture of the fearful sin and hatred of mankind, but if you can tell me WHY Jesus was crucified, WHY he endured such unbelievable pain and anguish, then you will be able to say something of the real meaning of the atonement, and about why the crucifixion of Jesus was and is indeed a revelation of the love of God – Christ was crucified like that FOR our sakes, to save us from sin and judgment. The meaning of the atoning death of Christ is expressed in that word FOR – Jesus died for you and for me, and for all people. It is only in the light of that FOR that the death of Jesus is a picture of the love of God. And what a wonderful picture it is of the infinite love of God who so loved us that ‘he did not spare his only Son but freely delivered him up for us all, that we might be saved.’"

Cited in Alister E. McGrath, T. F. Torrance: An Intellectual Biography, T&T Clark, 1999, 54-55.
What was it, O our God,
Led You to give Your Son,
To yield Your well-beloved
For us by sin undone?
Unbounded love led You to give
Your well-loved Son that we might live.

What led the Son of God
To leave His throne on high,
To shed His precious blood,
To suffer and to die?
Unbounded love for sinners lost
Led Him to suffer at such cost.

Ann Gilbert, 1782-1866.

I hope there is no disagreement among any participants in this discussion that the great divine motivation for the cross is love.
There are other motivations, namely His justice and His glory, but love must surely rank first (John 3:16).
 

Waiting on him

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2018
11,674
6,096
113
56
North America
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What was it, O our God,
Led You to give Your Son,
To yield Your well-beloved
For us by sin undone?
Unbounded love led You to give
Your well-loved Son that we might live.

What led the Son of God
To leave His throne on high,
To shed His precious blood,
To suffer and to die?
Unbounded love for sinners lost
Led Him to suffer at such cost.

Ann Gilbert, 1782-1866.

I hope there is no disagreement among any participants in this discussion that the great divine motivation for the cross is love.
There are other motivations, namely His justice and His glory, but love must surely rank first (John 3:16).
Any who are in agreement with this, should have no problem surrendering their throne?
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What was it, O our God,
Led You to give Your Son,
To yield Your well-beloved
For us by sin undone?
Unbounded love led You to give
Your well-loved Son that we might live.

What led the Son of God
To leave His throne on high,
To shed His precious blood,
To suffer and to die?
Unbounded love for sinners lost
Led Him to suffer at such cost.

Ann Gilbert, 1782-1866.

I hope there is no disagreement among any participants in this discussion that the great divine motivation for the cross is love.
There are other motivations, namely His justice and His glory, but love must surely rank first (John 3:16).
I think I prefer "expression" instead of "motivation" when dealing with God. But I agree that all God does is an expression of love (of God Himself). I do not know that this was Torrance's point. I think the point is in how we answer the why of Christ's work. And that is for us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Waiting on him

Steve Owen

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2019
385
267
63
72
Exmouth UK
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Let me help you, @David Taylor ,

"Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach, the authors of the recent book Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution, claim that penal substitutionary theory stretches back to the earliest fathers of the church....But scholarly opinion weighs against these authors. Most theologians and historians of the early church believe that the early church was united in upholding the broad Christus Victor theory for over a millennium. The varied language of Jesus as a healer, ransom, deliverer, and conqueror was used to denote Jesus being victorious over human sinfulness, death, and the devil. Substitution, but not penal substitution, was clearly taught, for Jesus was victorious on our behalf and for our salvation." (Mako A. Nagasawa)

Others (like N.T. Wright, C.S. Lewis, George MacDonald, Marianne Thompson, Gustav Aulén) have come to the same conclusion regarding the idea of Christus Victor as an overarching "theory". And here you have come to the exact same conclusion - Ransom Theory without a ransom being paid to Satan IS Christus Victor theory. If contemporary scholarship is correct then this "classic view" was the view held by the early church as it would include Ransom Theory (wither the ransom was paid to Satan, God, the powers of death, or to no one).

To clarify, what matters is the position, not the labels we would assign.
Everyone supposes that Origen held to a weird form of 'Ransom Theory' in which he maintained that God made a ransom payment to Satan, yet.......

'In the most recent times, God has manifested his righteousness and given Christ to be our redemption. He has made him our propitiator.......for God is just, and therefore could not justify the unjust. Therefore he required the intervention of a propitiator, so that by faith in him, those who could not be justified by their own works might be justified.' To Origen, therefore the cross is the place where God's justice is satisfied. Christ has accomplished a work of propitiation that turns away judgement. And so, 'At the present time, God's righteousness is revealed for our justification.....[but] when the day of judgement comes, it will be revealed for retribution.'
[Origen on Romans 3:25-26]

Elsewhere, Origen expounds something that seems a lot like Christus Victor. The point is that ransom, Christus Victor, even Moral Influence are not wrong so far as they go, but none of them work unless Christ has satisfied the justice of God by taking our sins upn Himself and paying the price of them in full.
 
  • Like
Reactions: reformed1689

reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2019
4,618
1,481
113
Somewhere in the USA
reformedtruths.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Everyone supposes that Origen held to a weird form of 'Ransom Theory' in which he maintained that God made a ransom payment to Satan, yet.......

'In the most recent times, God has manifested his righteousness and given Christ to be our redemption. He has made him our propitiator.......for God is just, and therefore could not justify the unjust. Therefore he required the intervention of a propitiator, so that by faith in him, those who could not be justified by their own works might be justified.' To Origen, therefore the cross is the place where God's justice is satisfied. Christ has accomplished a work of propitiation that turns away judgement. And so, 'At the present time, God's righteousness is revealed for our justification.....[but] when the day of judgement comes, it will be revealed for retribution.'
[Origen on Romans 3:25-26]

Elsewhere, Origen expounds something that seems a lot like Christus Victor. The point is that ransom, Christus Victor, even Moral Influence are not wrong so far as they go, but none of them work unless Christ has satisfied the justice of God by taking our sins upn Himself and paying the price of them in full.
Agreed
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Everyone supposes that Origen held to a weird form of 'Ransom Theory' in which he maintained that God made a ransom payment to Satan, yet.......

'In the most recent times, God has manifested his righteousness and given Christ to be our redemption. He has made him our propitiator.......for God is just, and therefore could not justify the unjust. Therefore he required the intervention of a propitiator, so that by faith in him, those who could not be justified by their own works might be justified.' To Origen, therefore the cross is the place where God's justice is satisfied. Christ has accomplished a work of propitiation that turns away judgement. And so, 'At the present time, God's righteousness is revealed for our justification.....[but] when the day of judgement comes, it will be revealed for retribution.'
[Origen on Romans 3:25-26]

Elsewhere, Origen expounds something that seems a lot like Christus Victor. The point is that ransom, Christus Victor, even Moral Influence are not wrong so far as they go, but none of them work unless Christ has satisfied the justice of God by taking our sins upn Himself and paying the price of them in full.
Hi Steve,

I hope the services for your friend went well. I know on one hand we rejoice when a brother goes home, but on another we deal with a loss.

One correction- "everyone" does not suppose Origen taught that God literally paid a price to Satan. Most contemporary scholars do not believe this to be the case. But it does not matter because we know there are some ECF's who affirmed at least a ransom theory while rejecting that idea (and the error did gain ground outside of Christian scholarship of the time).

Something similar is the use of "sheep" and "goats" (Scripture uses it as an illustration of how God will separate nations - not of people groups but on God's actions). We also see it in the imagery of the lost being spiritually dead (Scripture uses it as an illustration of lacking spiritual life while we sometimes see people pushing the illustration to link physical characteristics to spiritual abilities...or a lack thereof).

The reason people question the Ransom Theory being that God made a payment to Satan is that while it occurs in Origen's commentary on Romans the use of "Satan" symbolically is not uncommon to mean sin and death as a principle or power (similar to Paul's personification of "sin" in Romans) and it was my means of illustration in Origen's commentary.

I'd consider the various expressions of Ransom Theory (various because of how they are presented insofar as to whom a payment, if any, is made) to be under the classic view (what Gustaf Aulén coined as the "Christus Victor" position in the 1930's). Even Moral Influence seems (to me) to be at least related to the classic view (if not a direct sub-position within the view).

But it also deals with divine justice (albeit differently than Penal Substitution Theory).

" It was only Anselm of Canterbury who first articulated an atonement theory that positioned Jesus as a ‘satisfaction’ of ‘an attribute’ of God. In Anselm’s theory, Jesus satisfied God’s honor, which contributed to the idea that Jesus stored up a ‘treasury of merit’ others could
access. Anselm could therefore leave the question of the scope of the atonement open, and genuinely open to human free will to choose Jesus. However, Anselm paved the way for John Calvin and others to position Jesus as satisfying God’s retributive justice, which became a broader category that was extended across people and across time, and which was understood in such a way that Jesus exhausted God’s wrath at one time, upholding God’s retributive justice on their behalf. Unlike Anselm’s theology where Jesus satisfied God’s honor in a personal way, giving others access, person by person, to his achievement, Calvin’s theology positioned Jesus against God’s justice in a categorical way, on behalf of the elect, all at once." (same reference as my last post)
 
Last edited:

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@Steve Owen ,

As you hold Penal Substitution Theory, perhaps you can lend your insight to those questions @David Taylor could not answer (I think that they are important, and it is important to know how someone who holds your position answers the question).

I understand your position to indicate (please correct me if I misrepresent what you believe):

1. The penalty of sin is death.
2. Sins cannot be forgiven without them being punished as this would deny God's justice.
3. Christ suffered the penalty of death, suffered and shed his blood, and died on the cross for our sins.
4. Christ took upon Himself our sins (the Father laid our sins on Christ).
5. God punished our sins in Christ instead of punishing us.


My question is, under Penal Substitution Theory, was there a reason Christ's blood had to be shed?

Why did Christ have to die (physically)?

If the "chastening" (you indicted the wounds, stripes, etc.) were punishment instead of us then why do we also experience the same thing (some have experienced exactly the same physical suffering and death)?

It seems that Christ would only have to experience something akin to a "second death".

I have more questions but I think this is a good place to start - and I appreciate your knowledge and ability to argue your position.
 
Last edited:

Steve Owen

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2019
385
267
63
72
Exmouth UK
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
@Steve Owen ,

As you hold Penal Substitution Theory, perhaps you can lend your insight to those questions @David Taylor could not answer (I think that they are important, and it is important to know how someone who holds your position answers the question).
I think that @David Taylor, like myself, sees no reason to answer your questions when you don't answer ours. Moreover, on post '311 of the 'Penal Substitution is not a theory' thread, I answered a whole pile of your questions and you promptly ignored them.
However, if I can shed a little light in your direction, I am always happy to do so.
I understand your position to indicate (please correct me if I misrepresent what you believe):

1. The penalty of sin is death.
Hebrews 9:27.
2. Sins cannot be forgiven without them being punished as this would deny God's justice.
3. Christ suffered the penalty of death, suffered and shed his blood, and died on the cross for our sins.
4. Christ took upon Himself our sins (the Father laid our sins on Christ).
5. God punished our sins in Christ instead of punishing us.

My question is, under Penal Substitution Theory, was there a reason Christ's blood had to be shed?
Hebrews 9:22.
Why did Christ have to die (physically)?
Because the wages of sin is death.
If the "chastening" (you indicted the wounds, stripes, etc.) were punishment instead of us then why do we also experience the same thing (some have experienced exactly the same physical suffering and death)?
Believers may experience these things from men for a short time in this life, but they will not experience them from God in eternity because Christ has already done so.
It seems that Christ would only have to experience something akin to a "second death".
Why would you think that?
For your unwarranted slur on David, see my comment above.
 
Last edited:

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I think that @David Taylor, like myself, see no reason to answer your questions when you don't answer ours. Moreover, on post '311 of the 'Penal Substitution is not a theory' thread, I answered a whole pile of your questions and you promptly ignored them.
However, if I can shed a little light in your direction, I am always happy to do so.

Hebrews 9:27.
Hebrews 9:22.

Because the wages of sin is death.

Believers may experience these things from men for a short time in this life, but they will not experience them from God in eternity because Christ has already done so.

Why would you think that?
For your unwarranted slur on David, see my comment above.
I do not know of a slur so I cannot speak to that.

I also do not see where I have not answered your questions. Regardless, I do not think our answering for our faith is dependent on others answering for theirs.

There is no need obscure your answers with accusations and insults.

The reason I asked them is that it vital to the topic. If Christ's physical suffering and death was our punishment for sin He suffered instead of us, then it stands to reason we cannot justly suffer them. Christ suffered and died by the preordained will of God by the hands of wicked men.

I believe we should be able to give an answer for our faith.

Your answer (that death is temporary at the hands of men) does not explain why Christ had to suffer and die (physically). It almost reduces the Cross (physical suffering and death) to a side bar to whatever you think was experienced so that we would not experience it (instead of us).

My answer is that I think that Jesus suffered and died to give Him the human experience of obedience to the point of death, even death on a cross. He had to suffer and die under the bondage of sin and death because that is common to mankind. He had to be made sin for us. The chastening for our well being had to fall upon Him. The resurrection was vindication and victory over those powers.
 
Last edited:

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
My answer is that I think that Jesus suffered and died to give Him the human experience of obedience to the point of death, even death on a cross. He had to suffer and die under the bondage of sin and death because that is common to mankind. He had to be made sin for us. The chastening for our well being had to fall upon Him. The resurrection was vindication and victory over those powers.
You are falsifying the meaning and significance of Christ's indescribable sufferings and death on cross.

Since Christ willingly and voluntarily became the Lamb of God, how could He be *under the bondage of sin and death*? Do you see how nonsensical that is? And you have also deliberately avoided mentioning the penalty for sins. As though there is no penalty for sins. The fact that you have failed to mention the shedding of Christ's blood speaks volumes about your false beliefs.

Those who pervert the Gospel are simply asking for trouble since that is heresy. Therefore you should abandon your false man-made doctrine and stick to Bible truth.
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You are falsifying the meaning and significance of Christ's indescribable sufferings and death on cross.
Not at all. I am telling you why I believe Christ had to suffer and die on the cross. I am not asking you to share my view.

What about you? Why do you think Christ had to suffer and die physically?

Do you believe Christ suffered physically instead of us suffering physically?

Did Christ die physically instead of us dying physically?
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@David Taylor, @Steve Owen, and @Enoch111

Another related question is what exactly did Christ suffer instead of us?

If it was not physical suffering and death then what was this punishment experienced instead of us so that we would not experience it?

Did Jesus die spiritually?

Did He somehow experience the "second death" ("As for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.")?
 

Steve Owen

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2019
385
267
63
72
Exmouth UK
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
I do not know of a slur so I cannot speak to that.

I also do not see where I have not answered your questions. Regardless, I do not think our answering for our faith is dependent on others answering for theirs.

There is no need obscure your answers with accusations and insults.
You obscured your questions with accusations and insults against @David Taylor and therefore to say nothing would have implied that I agreed with your snide comments against him. You seem at present to be a bit obsessed with him. I think you need to get over it. Ar all events, if you are going to address me, please do not drop insults against third parties into your post.
The reason I asked them is that it vital to the topic. If Christ's physical suffering and death was our punishment for sin He suffered instead of us, then it stands to reason we cannot justly suffer them. Christ suffered and died by the preordained will of God by the hands of wicked men.
I answered this already. The Lord Jesus has suffered God's punishment for the sins of His elect. They will therefore never suffer it. However, it by no means follows that they will not suffer the punishment of men.
I believe we should be able to give an answer for our faith. I am truly sorry @David Taylor cannot.
Again, this is unacceptable. If you want to make snide comments, dressed up with false concern, about other people, do not write them on posts addressed to me.
Your answer (that death is temporary at the hands of men) does not explain why Christ had to suffer and die (physically). It almost reduces the Cross (physical suffering and death) to a side bar to whatever you think was experienced so that we would not experience it (instead of us).
Don't be so silly. I refer you to Luke 12:4-5. I seem to recall that this is one of the more foolish arguments (there are many to choose from) advanced by Gustav Aulen.
My answer is that I think that Jesus suffered and died to give Him the human experience of obedience to the point of death, even death on a cross. He had to suffer and die under the bondage of sin and death because that is common to mankind. He had to be made sin for us. The chastening for our well being had to fall upon Him. The resurrection was vindication and victory over those powers.
Just read your Bible, and more than one verse at a time. While I agree that through His suffering He is especially well-equipped to be a 'merciful and faithful High Priest' (Hebrews 2:17) in the sense that He is able to sympathize with our struggles and weaknesses, just three verses before (2:14) we are told the purpose of Christ's suffering, 'that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil.' Now to expound this properly is going to take more time than I have right now, so I'll come back to it tonight or tomorrow morning, but I think we need to look at just what the power of the devil is and Zechariah 3 may help us do it.
 

Steve Owen

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2019
385
267
63
72
Exmouth UK
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
I hope there is no disagreement among any participants in this discussion that the great divine motivation for the cross is love.
There are other motivations, namely His justice and His glory, but love must surely rank first (John 3:16).
On reflection, I believe that what I wrote here is quite a serious error, denying the simplicity of God. :oops: We must not divide up the attributes of God. His love is a righteous and holy love; His justice is holy and loving, and His holiness is just and loving. And so forth; His wrath is righteous, holy and loving; hence the cross.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Caldwell

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You obscured your questions with accusations and insults against @David Taylor and therefore to say nothing would have implied that I agreed with your snide comments against him. You seem at present to be a bit obsessed with him. I think you need to get over it. Ar all events, if you are going to address me, please do not drop insults against third parties into your post.

I answered this already. The Lord Jesus has suffered God's punishment for the sins of His elect. They will therefore never suffer it. However, it by no means follows that they will not suffer the punishment of men.

Again, this is unacceptable. If you want to make snide comments, dressed up with false concern, about other people, do not write them on posts addressed to me.

Don't be so silly. I refer you to Luke 12:4-5. I seem to recall that this is one of the more foolish arguments (there are many to choose from) advanced by Gustav Aulen.

Just read your Bible, and more than one verse at a time. While I agree that through His suffering He is especially well-equipped to be a 'merciful and faithful High Priest' (Hebrews 2:17) in the sense that He is able to sympathize with our struggles and weaknesses, just three verses before (2:14) we are told the purpose of Christ's suffering, 'that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil.' Now to expound this properly is going to take more time than I have right now, so I'll come back to it tonight or tomorrow morning, but I think we need to look at just what the power of the devil is and Zechariah 3 may help us do it.
I do not know what you are talking about with @David Taylor.

I have asked him several questions I believe to be at the heart of Christ's work (why Christ had to suffer and die physically). He cannot answer.

What part of that do you believe constitutes an obsession or insult?

I agree that Christ suffered and died so as to identify with us.

If Christ's suffering (wounds, stripes, pierced through) and death (physical) was not a punishment instead of us but rather Christ identifying with us related to the office of High Priest then what part is actually punishment instead of us?
 
Last edited:

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
On reflection, I believe that what I wrote here is quite a serious error, denying the simplicity of God. :oops: We must not divide up the attributes of God. His love is a righteous and holy love; His justice is holy and loving, and His holiness is just and loving. And so forth; His wrath is righteous, holy and loving; hence the cross.
I agree. (for example we hate sin because we love God).
 

Steve Owen

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2019
385
267
63
72
Exmouth UK
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
I do not know what you are talking about with @David Taylor.

I have asked him several questions I believe to be at the heart of Christ's work (why Christ had to suffer and die physically). He cannot answer.

What part of that do you believe constitutes an obsession or insult?
You know the full extent of your obsession, but part of it is that you can hardly send me a post without mentioning him in a derogatory way. Please stop. Insult him all you want - he can look after himself - but don't do it in posts to me.
I agree that Christ suffered and died so as to identify with us.
I know; but that is only a small part of His work.
If Christ's suffering (wounds, stripes, pierced through) and death (physical) was not a punishment instead of us but rather Christ identifying with us related to the office of High Priest then what part is actually punishment instead of us?
What are you on about? Of course Christ's life, suffering and death were He Himself taking the punishment due to us (1 Peter 2:24 etc.). That is what He came to do (Mark 10:45; Titus 2:14 etc.). A by-product of that is that He knows what it is to be a human being, so He is equipped to be a merciful and faithful High Priest.
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You know the full extent of your obsession, but part of it is that you can hardly send me a post without mentioning him in a derogatory way. Please stop. Insult him all you want - he can look after himself - but don't do it in posts to me.

I know; but that is only a small part of His work.

What are you on about? Of course Christ's life, suffering and death were He Himself taking the punishment due to us (1 Peter 2:24 etc.). That is what He came to do (Mark 10:45; Titus 2:14 etc.). A by-product of that is that He knows what it is to be a human being, so He is equipped to be a merciful and faithful High Priest.
This is weird. I know "the extent of my obsession" o_O??? What an unsubstantiated slander! I disagree with @David Taylor and ask him a few questions he has proved unable to answer and you think this obsession and insult? What do you think I have said that is an insult to Taylor? Is he beyond being expected to answer for his faith? Or are you clouding my questions of him (and you) with false accusations (false witness)?

If God punished Christ with suffering and physical death as a penalty for sin instead of punishing us then why do we still experience these wages of sin?
 
Last edited: