E
Not By Works
- Thread starter dcontroversal
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The statement is in the modifier. I do not deny Jesus died for our sins, nor that He bore our sins. What I deny is that the bearing of sins was the perfectly just punishment demanded by God for our sin and that God's justice is satisfied in the cross.
It is the theological baggage I take issue with, not the actual Biblical statements.
It is the theological baggage I take issue with, not the actual Biblical statements.
-
1
- Show all
no, because of grace. every time you repent and want to change He gives grace. every time you try or want to try again to do right -- He helps. in fact even when we don't want to.
but the more we repent and the more we change the closer we can become to Him and the closer to being more fully in God's Kingdom. ☺
AWESOME 🌈💚🌈💙
I'd suggest you read Amos to get an idea of who the wrath of God is directed against. The cross atoned for sin by removing its penalty, but the question is whether that penalty can be seen as the just penalty imposed by God, or something else entirely. It seems to me that men's justice recognizes mitigating factors, things like the punishment should fit the crime and the need for competence of both consequences and the wrongness of the act.
Yet many act as if God's justice is totally different in kind, blindly raging at the smallest indignity because of His own majesty. There is wrath for all sin, but I'm not sure it's all God's wrath. It seems to me God's justice should more perfectly recognize the factors and that in order to truly be perfect it would aim to be restorative rather than punitive.
If the cross were God's perfect justice satiated then it raises two possibilities, both of which require further theological invention. On the one hand, there is the possibility of limited atonement where Jesus only paid the price for those who are elect. On the other, universalism where Jesus paid the price for all so all are saved.
The question is, what was atonement in the primary sacrifices Jesus is linked with(Passover, peace, sin, and yom kippur)? None of them principally addressed the wrath of God or had the sacrificial victim taking a judicial punishment. Instead they focus on the blood as the instrument and the death as incidental. The blood purifies and cleanses and it identifies the offerer with God's people.
The smoke is what is linked with God's wrath, and while Jesus is said to be a fragrant offering the context links that statement more with the cereal offering and other food offerings than the burnt offering.
What wrath God has towards us is forgiven while Jesus' sacrifice provides us restoration and healing.
Yet many act as if God's justice is totally different in kind, blindly raging at the smallest indignity because of His own majesty. There is wrath for all sin, but I'm not sure it's all God's wrath. It seems to me God's justice should more perfectly recognize the factors and that in order to truly be perfect it would aim to be restorative rather than punitive.
If the cross were God's perfect justice satiated then it raises two possibilities, both of which require further theological invention. On the one hand, there is the possibility of limited atonement where Jesus only paid the price for those who are elect. On the other, universalism where Jesus paid the price for all so all are saved.
The question is, what was atonement in the primary sacrifices Jesus is linked with(Passover, peace, sin, and yom kippur)? None of them principally addressed the wrath of God or had the sacrificial victim taking a judicial punishment. Instead they focus on the blood as the instrument and the death as incidental. The blood purifies and cleanses and it identifies the offerer with God's people.
The smoke is what is linked with God's wrath, and while Jesus is said to be a fragrant offering the context links that statement more with the cereal offering and other food offerings than the burnt offering.
What wrath God has towards us is forgiven while Jesus' sacrifice provides us restoration and healing.
-
1
- Show all
I am finding things you state contradictory? 
-
2
- Show all
I've done plenty of study on Amos. While you're right it's directed at a kingdom all of the minor prophets reveal the types of things God actually gets wrathful about.
I certainly don't ignore context, but I find it quite amusing that when the Bible says something you don't like context suddenly becomes important. I asked 11th this and didn't get a response so I'll ask you the same, why do you contextualize the OT and James but treat Paul as universal? Why is Romans, a letter directed at a particular church with particular problems, treated as a universal treatise on soteriology? Why does context only matter to you when it helps you explain away challenges to your doctrine?
I certainly don't ignore context, but I find it quite amusing that when the Bible says something you don't like context suddenly becomes important. I asked 11th this and didn't get a response so I'll ask you the same, why do you contextualize the OT and James but treat Paul as universal? Why is Romans, a letter directed at a particular church with particular problems, treated as a universal treatise on soteriology? Why does context only matter to you when it helps you explain away challenges to your doctrine?
My answer is truthful.....and if you have even bothered to actually open your eyes genius, I have said from day one on this site that CONTEXT determines the aim of scripture....the post you directed at me before this one misses the mark by 5 light years in describing my use of and promotion of context....like I said...you are not very honest!
The only time I see you or 11th use the word "context" is when you're trying to make plain words of Scripture say something else because they disagree with your doctrine. You quote Romans, Ephesians, Galatians in little tidbits without considering their context because they don't challenge what you already believe.
I've stated contextual issues in James that point to the opposite of what you claim it to be saying and instead of actually discussing the context you insist on your reading and quote Paul to supersede James.
I've stated contextual issues in Romans that challenge the typical reading of it, again you've done nothing to address them.
So quit using the word "context" like it's some kind of magic spell that twists the words of Scripture to better suit your preferred doctrine.
It's especially laughable that you behave like a bully on here while claiming to be doing so in the name of grace. Your attitude and behavior demonstrate nothing of the grace you claim to know.
I've stated contextual issues in James that point to the opposite of what you claim it to be saying and instead of actually discussing the context you insist on your reading and quote Paul to supersede James.
I've stated contextual issues in Romans that challenge the typical reading of it, again you've done nothing to address them.
So quit using the word "context" like it's some kind of magic spell that twists the words of Scripture to better suit your preferred doctrine.
It's especially laughable that you behave like a bully on here while claiming to be doing so in the name of grace. Your attitude and behavior demonstrate nothing of the grace you claim to know.
-
1
-
1
- Show all