PDA

View Full Version : A sinless man was enough! Why did "fully God" need to die for us?



John Zain
Jul 25th 2011, 08:37 PM
The Father of Jesus of Nazareth was the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:26-35).
I don't see this as meaning that Jesus was "fully God".

“Adam, who is a type of Him (Jesus) who was to come” (Romans 5:14).
Pre-fall Adam and Jesus of Nazareth ... were BOTH sinless men.

God's PLAN # 1 (full of compassion and grace) ...
Produce a perfect sinless human who would stand in as our Substitute,
and be the perfect Sacrificial Lamb, and die for the sins of the human race!
I'm assuming you understand why man could NOT accomplish this for himself.
I believe continuing God's ancient blood covenant also played a part in this.

God's PLAN #2 ...
Have this human (man) actually be God ... a "fully God" man.
WHY did God choose to do the second plan? ... Was it necessary?

God produced His sinless man, which was sufficient to provide for man’s salvation.
Originally, before his fall, the man Adam was without any sin.
“Adam, who is a type of Him (Jesus) who was to come” (Romans 5:14) ... BOTH SINLESS
-- Adam’s fall resulted in sin, and death, and the condemnation of all men.
-- Jesus Christ’s righteous act was a free gift, which resulted in the justification of life for many.
Jesus corrected the grievous error of the first sinless human.

Romans 5:
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin,
and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned —
13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned
according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died,
much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ,
abounded to many.
16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned.
For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation,
but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification.
17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive
abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation,
even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners,
so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound.
But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more,
21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign
through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Love Fountain
Jul 26th 2011, 03:25 PM
Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Heb 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. kjv

Don't ever remember reading about "fully God" in the Bible but above is what the Bible says regarding why He partook of flesh and blood. Confirms to me that a good parent would only ask their child to do things that they themselves would also do.

Hope this helps.

Bless you,
Love Fountain

John Zain
Jul 26th 2011, 05:40 PM
Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same;
that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Heb 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. kjv

Don't ever remember reading about "fully God" in the Bible but above is what the Bible says regarding why He partook of
flesh and blood. Confirms to me that a good parent would only ask their child to do things that they themselves would also do.
I'm not sure who the "he" stands for ... most probably the second Person of the Trinity.
Because I'm unsure if the sinless man Jesus would have the power to defeat Satan.
And this was one of the reasons for the manifestation of the super-man Jesus.

However, the thread is about WHY God Himself decided (or needed?) to become the human Jesus.
Because I see the perfect sinless man Jesus as being enough to die for our sins.

For 1700 years since Nicea, I believe all of traditional Christianity has believed that
Jesus was "fully God" and "fully man".

notuptome
Jul 26th 2011, 06:58 PM
How can a man be sinless? Only God is without sin.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

keck553
Jul 26th 2011, 09:35 PM
Read Hebrews. Yeshua is fully God.

Or...for a condensed view, simply read John chapter 1.

Fully God.

Love Fountain
Jul 27th 2011, 05:04 AM
I'm not sure who the "he" stands for ... most probably the second Person of the Trinity.
Because I'm unsure if the sinless man Jesus would have the power to defeat Satan.
And this was one of the reasons for the manifestation of the super-man Jesus.

However, the thread is about WHY God Himself decided (or needed?) to become the human Jesus.
Because I see the perfect sinless man Jesus as being enough to die for our sins.

For 1700 years since Nicea, I believe all of traditional Christianity has believed that
Jesus was "fully God" and "fully man".


Dear John,


I thought Heb 2:14-15 answered what the thread was about in referrence to God coming as a man. Not only was it for our sins but also to defeat death or in other words to defeat satan. I never hear anyone really refer to Heb 2:14-15 and think it's very important to understand.


Not trying to change your thread but please help me to understand better what you mean by the following because I've never seen these titles in the Bible and I'm really not sure what you mean by all the different types of Jesus:

1) "the second Person of the Trinity"
2) "the sinless man Jesus"
3) "the super-man Jesus"
4) "the human Jesus"
5) "the perfect sinless man Jesus"
6) "Jesus was "fully God" and "fully man"


Thank you for your help!
Love Fountain

jeffweeder
Jul 27th 2011, 05:49 AM
The only way a sinless man could ever be, was if God himself was born of flesh. Adam was the first man and he sinned and died, and all his offspring die no matter how good they are. Death has a grip on everyone who is born of the seed of man. Jesus is of Gods own seed, and death has no right to hold him as he was sinless.If your in Christ then death will lose its sting and release its hold. He holds the keys and your in his hands...God rules and we have a blessed hope regarding our departed loved ones.

John Zain
Jul 27th 2011, 08:46 PM
I thought Heb 2:14-15 answered what the thread was about in referrence to God coming as a man.
Not only was it for our sins but also to defeat death or in other words to defeat satan.
Sorry, you're missing the point of the thread.

God's PLAN # 1 (full of compassion and grace) ...
Produce a perfect sinless human who would stand in as our Substitute,
and be the perfect Sacrificial Lamb, and die for the sins of the human race!

I said PLAN #1 is all that should have been required.

And I said PLAN #1 did not make Jesus "fully God".

Because of the Council of Nicea, traditional Christianity has taught for 1700 years:
-- Jesus was "fully God" and "fully man"
-- the second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, came and indwelt the human Jesus, making Him "fully God".

Since PLAN #1 was enough, WHY did Jesus also need to be "fully God"?

Rufus
Jul 31st 2011, 11:03 PM
I'm not sure who the "he" stands for ... most probably the second Person of the Trinity.
Because I'm unsure if the sinless man Jesus would have the power to defeat Satan.
And this was one of the reasons for the manifestation of the super-man Jesus.

However, the thread is about WHY God Himself decided (or needed?) to become the human Jesus.
Because I see the perfect sinless man Jesus as being enough to die for our sins.

For 1700 years since Nicea, I believe all of traditional Christianity has believed that
Jesus was "fully God" and "fully man".

I truly hope you get this straightened out in your mind and heart before you die. For as it is written:

John 8:24
24 "I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I AM [he], you shall die in your sins."

Most translations add the personal pronoun "he" after the "am". However, the pronoun is not in any of the original manuscripts. The name "I AM" was the name YHWH in the OT gave to Moses when the prophet asked YHWH, "who shall I say sent me"? "I AM" is the Eternal One -- the self-existent one. Jesus often claimed to be the Eternal One in the gospels.

The Trinunity of God is taught everywhere in the bible. Again, I hope you take the above text to heart and get this all-important issue sorted out before you die.

Rufus

the rookie
Aug 1st 2011, 03:25 AM
Why? Because He loves us that much. It's not about "God 'needing' fully God" to accomplish the "salvation of our souls" (Heb. 10). It's about God desiring, because of the "riches of His mercy" to step into our realm of existence as fully Man, to give Himself for our freedom and victory over sin because of love.

Only one "fully Man" could honor the terms of the covenants that He made with us; yet as He demonstrated to Abraham, He had a plan to cover "both sides" of the covenant - His end (as fully God) and our end (as fully Man). He is all in all.

John Zain
Aug 1st 2011, 03:35 PM
I truly hope you get this straightened out in your mind and heart before you die. For as it is written:
John 8:24
24 "I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I AM [he], you shall die in your sins."
Most translations add the personal pronoun "he" after the "am". However, the pronoun is not in any of the original manuscripts. The name "I AM" was the name YHWH in the OT gave to Moses when the prophet asked YHWH, "who shall I say sent me"? "I AM" is the Eternal One -- the self-existent one. Jesus often claimed to be the Eternal One in the gospels.
The Trinunity of God is taught everywhere in the bible. Again, I hope you take the above text to heart and get this all-important issue sorted out before you die.Rufus
Look, Rufus, ***edited by Admin***
please go and read my original post ... ***edited by Admin***

P.S. Did you borrow this stuff about John 8:24 from one of my posts?
Because it happens to be one of my favorite verses ...
maybe it's the only one that says you must believe Jesus is God to be saved.

Another P.S. I'm getting quite ***edited by Admin***

the rookie
Aug 1st 2011, 05:19 PM
1st law of teaching - if the audience does not understand, the communicator is at fault. If people don't understand, help them understand rather than penalizing them for not being in your head, or penalizing them for the imperfections of typed communication.

1st law of Bible Chat Section - do not mock other members when frustrated. When frustrated that people aren't connecting with you, take a breath, don't hit the "post" button, and dial down. That's an official warning to you friend, in case you don't read / understand my post, which happens quite often in the internet discussion forum world.

Psalms Fan
Aug 1st 2011, 10:21 PM
You say "enough"... "Enough" for what?

John Zain
Aug 1st 2011, 10:54 PM
You say "enough"... "Enough" for what?
Enough to die for your sins.

Why did the Triune Godhead decide to miraculously have the Holy Spirit
be the Father of Jesus of Nazareth (instead of a man) (Luke 1:26-35) ???
What was the purpose of this ???

It was to produce the ultimate perfect sinless human ...
who would be the ultimate perfect sinless Sacrifice for your sins.

And then we have the carrying on of God's blood covenants from the OT.

Also, please consider these 2 lines from post #1 ...

“Adam, who is a type of Him (Jesus) who was to come” (Romans 5:14).

Pre-fall Adam and Jesus of Nazareth ... were BOTH sinless men.
How does that fact fit into things ???

None of the above has anything to do with Jesus being "fully God".

So ... WHY did the Godhead choose to make Him so?

I say this was not necessary for your salvation.

Rufus
Aug 1st 2011, 11:40 PM
Look, Rufus, ***edited by Admin***
please go and read my original post ... ***edited by Admin***

P.S. Did you borrow this stuff about John 8:24 from one of my posts?
Because it happens to be one of my favorite verses ...
maybe it's the only one that says you must believe Jesus is God to be saved.

Another P.S. I'm getting quite ***edited by Admin***


Sorry, friend, but your posts are too incoherent. You're all over the map. I still hope you get it all sorted out, though.

Rufus

Psalms Fan
Aug 2nd 2011, 12:23 AM
None of the above has anything to do with Jesus being "fully God".

So ... WHY did the Godhead choose to make Him so?

I say this was not necessary for your salvation.

So then what is salvation? Getting a clean slate? Not being punished? In your opinion, is giving us a guilty record what sin did to us?

watchinginawe
Aug 2nd 2011, 05:19 AM
Enough to die for your sins.

Why did the Triune Godhead decide to miraculously have the Holy Spirit
be the Father of Jesus of Nazareth (instead of a man) (Luke 1:26-35) ???
What was the purpose of this ???

It was to produce the ultimate perfect sinless human ...
who would be the ultimate perfect sinless Sacrifice for your sins.

And then we have the carrying on of God's blood covenants from the OT.

Also, please consider these 2 lines from post #1 ...

“Adam, who is a type of Him (Jesus) who was to come” (Romans 5:14).

Pre-fall Adam and Jesus of Nazareth ... were BOTH sinless men.
How does that fact fit into things ???

None of the above has anything to do with Jesus being "fully God".

So ... WHY did the Godhead choose to make Him so?

I say this was not necessary for your salvation. John, Jesus was fully God because God is the reconciler. The uncreated reconciles the created. God reconciles humanity. Thus in Jesus Christ (man God), we have in Him man reconciled to God in one body. Through Jesus Christ's life, ministry, death, resurrection, ascension, and giving of the Holy Ghost we have humanity reconciled to God in the body of Christ. Thus, God reconciles humanity, not a perfect man reconciling humanity to God.

We have indications also that Jesus was fully God, but I don't think that is your question.

I hope this helps to move your discussion along.

John Zain
Aug 2nd 2011, 08:12 PM
Sorry, friend, but your posts are too incoherent. You're all over the map. I still hope you get it all sorted out, though.
Brother Rufus,

Sorry if I offended you.
Sorry that a Moderator doesn't like my sense of humor.
Sorry that you can't understand what I'm talking about.
Perhaps a Moderator can explain it to you.

John Zain
Aug 2nd 2011, 08:19 PM
1st law of teaching - if the audience does not understand, the communicator is at fault. If people don't understand, help them understand rather than penalizing them for not being in your head, or penalizing them for the imperfections of typed communication.Your 1st law of teaching - Are you serious?
How about a rocket scientist trying to teach kindergarden kids?
People don't understand stuff for a myrid of reasons. Please use your imagination.

BroRog
Aug 2nd 2011, 08:23 PM
It is usually argued that it would be immoral for God to punish an innocent man for our sins. Therefore, Jesus is God because God was, in effect, taking the punishment on himself. This line of argument assumes St. Anselm's view of the atonement, which posits that Jesus' death on the cross satisfied our debt to justice.

I don't agree with St. Anselm and so I see no need or basis for the argument that God was punishing Jesus for my sins. My sins were forgiven, not punished.

John Zain
Aug 2nd 2011, 08:23 PM
Why? Because He loves us that much.
It's not about "God 'needing' fully God" to accomplish the "salvation of our souls" (Heb. 10).
It's about God desiring, because of the "riches of His mercy" to step into our realm of existence as fully Man,
to give Himself for our freedom and victory over sin because of love.

Only one "fully Man" could honor the terms of the covenants that He made with us;
yet as He demonstrated to Abraham, He had a plan to cover "both sides" of the covenant -
His end (as fully God) and our end (as fully Man). He is all in all.
Your part 1 -- Yes, this is exactly the answer that I've been looking for. This is rarely noted.
Your part 2 -- I'm not so sure.

Noonzie
Aug 2nd 2011, 08:39 PM
It is usually argued that it would be immoral for God to punish an innocent man for our sins. Therefore, Jesus is God because God was, in effect, taking the punishment on himself. This line of argument assumes St. Anselm's view of the atonement, which posits that Jesus' death on the cross satisfied our debt to justice.

I don't agree with St. Anselm and so I see no need or basis for the argument that God was punishing Jesus for my sins. My sins were forgiven, not punished.

I am not sure that i follow you on this. I may need some clarification.
Are you saying that their was not justification?

John Zain
Aug 2nd 2011, 08:48 PM
It is usually argued that it would be immoral for God to punish an innocent man for our sins.
Therefore, Jesus is God because God was, in effect, taking the punishment on himself.
This line of argument assumes St. Anselm's view of the atonement,
which posits that Jesus' death on the cross satisfied our debt to justice.
I don't agree with St. Anselm and so I see no need or basis for the argument that
God was punishing Jesus for my sins. My sins were forgiven, not punished.
You're missing one of God's major laws: Sin must result in physical and spiritual death.

All humans are hopeless sinners.
All humans are incapable of atoning for their sins.
All humans are doomed to lose Heaven and gain Hell.
God's grace steps in with His incredibly ingenious plan.
God says, "I'm sinless ... I'll die in their place."
God miraculously produces His perfect sinless human (Jesus) (Luke 1:26-35).
Plus, Jesus shedding His blood will satisfy God's ancient blood covenant.

But, why also make Jesus totally and fully God?
It is just an INFINITELY MUCH MORE impressive demonstration of His love for us.
This is the best reason that I have heard (and from very few people, I might add).

Noonzie
Aug 2nd 2011, 08:52 PM
You're missing one of God's major laws: Sin must result in physical and spiritual death.

All humans are hopeless sinners.
All humans are incapable of atoning for their sins.
All humans are doomed to lose Heaven and gain Hell.
God's grace steps in with His incredibly ingenious plan.
God says, "I'm sinless ... I'll die in their place."
God miraculously produces His perfect sinless human (Jesus) (Luke 1:26-35).
Plus, Jesus shedding His blood will satisfy God's ancient blood covenant.

But, why also make Jesus totally and fully God?
It is just an INFINITELY MUCH MORE impressive demonstration of His love for us.
This is the best reason that I have heard (and from very few people, I might add).

Jesus is the creator. He was not made anything.

glad4mercy
Aug 2nd 2011, 09:42 PM
This line of argument assumes St. Anselm's view of the atonement, which posits that Jesus' death on the cross satisfied our debt to justice.

:confused Are you saying that you don't believe Christ's death provided a substitutionary atonement?

BroRog
Aug 2nd 2011, 10:57 PM
I am not sure that i follow you on this. I may need some clarification.
Are you saying that their was not justification?No, I am saying that justification is based on God's forgiveness, not on our debt to justice being paid for. Anselm and those that came after him, couldn't believe that God was going to just give us justification for free. Somehow we had to merit it. Well, since we couldn't merit on our own righteousness, we had to merit it on Christ's righteousness. But the NT doesn't speak about our being declared righteous on the basis of merit, but on the basis of forgiveness.

BroRog
Aug 2nd 2011, 10:58 PM
:confused Are you saying that you don't believe Christ's death provided a substitutionary atonement?What does Paul say about the cross in chapter 3 of Romans?

the rookie
Aug 3rd 2011, 02:40 AM
Your 1st law of teaching - Are you serious?
How about a rocket scientist trying to teach kindergarden kids?
People don't understand stuff for a myrid of reasons. Please use your imagination.

I'd dial down, friend. I've met some fairly socially awkward, clueless rocket scientists. '

One of the reasons folks struggle to understand stuff is an inability to detect thin ice when they are standing on it. Please change your tone if you'd like to continue to be a part of this forum.

Psalms Fan
Aug 3rd 2011, 05:04 AM
:confused Are you saying that you don't believe Christ's death provided a substitutionary atonement?

To say that "Jesus died for us" = "Jesus suffered and died instead of us so that we wouldn't have to be punished" is making a big assumption, an assumption made largely because of the influence of Anselm on the Western Church. Trace the history of "atonement theories" and how people understood the Scriptures about this matter back through history, both in the Western Church and in the Eastern Church... you might be surprised at what you find. The idea of "substitutionary atonement", and even more so "penal substitutionary atonement", is relatively new on the theological scene.

RollTide21
Aug 3rd 2011, 01:15 PM
What does Paul say about the cross in chapter 3 of Romans?Are you talking about this passage?

Romans 3:

25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

David Taylor
Aug 3rd 2011, 01:42 PM
You're missing one of God's major laws: Sin must result in physical and spiritual death.

All humans are hopeless sinners.
All humans are incapable of atoning for their sins.
All humans are doomed to lose Heaven and gain Hell.
God's grace steps in with His incredibly ingenious plan.
God says, "I'm sinless ... I'll die in their place."
God miraculously produces His perfect sinless human (Jesus) (Luke 1:26-35).
Plus, Jesus shedding His blood will satisfy God's ancient blood covenant.

But, why also make Jesus totally and fully God?
It is just an INFINITELY MUCH MORE impressive demonstration of His love for us.
This is the best reason that I have heard (and from very few people, I might add).

First off, You have a major problem in the question as you are framing it.

Jesus wasn't "made" to be God.

Jesus has eternally always existed as God.

That Jesus chose to become incarnate as a human, and take on a second human nature, is all that was 'made'.

Jesus had no beginning or creation.

Jesus "is" totally and fully God for several reasons.
1) The OT referred to Jesus as the Lord God Almighy, YHWH.
2) The NT referred to Jesus as the same Lord God Almighy, YHWH.
3) The OT referenced Jesus as having attributes and characteristics only belonging to the Lord God Almighy, YHWH.
4) The NT referenced Jesus as having attributes and characteristics only belonging to the Lord God Almighy, YHWH.
5) Jesus incarnate as a human to impress us....He did so to save us from our sins; something a mere mortal human being could never do.
6) A 'mortal only' Jesus couldn't have accomplished what the true Jesus accomplished...a mortal Jesus would have fallen pray to sin.
7) Jesus identified Himself as the great I AM, and said that if we do not believe Him, we will die in our sins.

BroRog
Aug 3rd 2011, 03:06 PM
Are you talking about this passage?

Romans 3:

25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.Yes, in this passage Paul gives us the reason why Jesus went to the cross, not as a satisfaction of divine justice, but as a demonstration of God's righteousness.

RollTide21
Aug 3rd 2011, 03:56 PM
Yes, in this passage Paul gives us the reason why Jesus went to the cross, not as a satisfaction of divine justice, but as a demonstration of God's righteousness.But the definition of "atonement" is reparation for wrong.

BroRog
Aug 3rd 2011, 04:01 PM
But the definition of "atonement" is reparation for wrong.No, the definition of atonement is at-one-ment, which is a synonym for "reconciliation". God decided to reconcile with man if Jesus would go to the cross in order to be a public demonstration of God's wrath. In exchange for that public demonstration, God agreed to reconcile with those who acknowledge that what Jesus suffered on the cross, is what I deserve to suffer for my rebellion. To those who make this acknowledgment, God is granting eternal life freely as a gift of his grace.

glad4mercy
Aug 3rd 2011, 04:11 PM
That is one part of it, but the other part can be found in passages like...

Isaiah 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like asheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Galatians 3:13 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:

1 Peter 2:24- 24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

2 Corinthians 5:21- For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

In the Old Testament, when a sacrifice for sin was made, the offending party would lay their hand on the sacrifice and the sin would then be transferred to that sacrifice, and the sacrifice would die in the sinners place. This is exactly what Christ has done for us.

What does the word "propitiation" mean in 1 John 2?

Without the shedding of blood there is no remission. Why is the shedding of blood required? Because the soul that sins must die, unless one, ( Christ) dies in their place.

Romans 5:8- God commended His Love to us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us...

does the words "Christ died for us"... mean on our behalf or in our place?

BroRog
Aug 3rd 2011, 07:02 PM
That is one part of it, but the other part can be found in passages like...

Isaiah 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.Yes, note that Isaiah associates his being bruised with "our peace", which is consistent with the NT authors who say that the cross of Christ brought about "peace with God" and "reconciliation through his blood" etc.

Romans 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
Ephesians 2:16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near;
Colossians 1:20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, [I say], whether things on earth or things in heaven.


Galatians 3:13 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: Yes, but notice that Christ was made a curse "for" us, not "instead of" us.


1 Peter 2:24- 24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.Yes, Jesus bore our sins, but not as if being punished for what we did, but as a demonstration of what our sins deserved.


2 Corinthians 5:21- For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.Yes, to be made "sin" for us in the symbolic sense.


In the Old Testament, when a sacrifice for sin was made, the offending party would lay their hand on the sacrifice and the sin would then be transferred to that sacrifice, and the sacrifice would die in the sinners place. This is exactly what Christ has done for us.That's right. The transference was symbolic. The sacrifice wasn't being punished in place of the penitent being punished; the sacrifice was a symbolic illustration of two things: where sin would eventually lead if not forgiven, i.e. death, and what the penitent deserved in light of the sin.

What does the word "propitiation" mean in 1 John 2?an appeasement: propitiation asks the question, "what would it take to reduce the severity of, soften, or eliminate the wrath of God? What might we offer to mollify his wrath?"


Without the shedding of blood there is no remission. Why is the shedding of blood required? Because the soul that sins must die, unless one, ( Christ) dies in their place.Yes, our sins are what causes our alienation with God, who would be willing to freely forgive our since except that his wrath must first be mollified. The sacrificial offerings performed in Israel were the accepted means to gain God's favor, but only under the condition that the person making the offering was contrite of heart. The offering itself did nothing, and in fact, God said that he hated them. The same goes for the blood of Christ, which God has accepted as the means for reconciliation, but forgiveness will only be given to those who have a contrite heart.


Romans 5:8- God commended His Love to us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us...

does the words "Christ died for us"... mean on our behalf or in our place?On our behalf.

glad4mercy
Aug 3rd 2011, 07:15 PM
an appeasement: propitiation asks the question, "what would it take to reduce the severity of, soften, or eliminate the wrath of God? What might we offer to mollify his wrath?"

Christ is our propitiation that fully satisfies the wrath of God. To reduce the severity of Gods wrath or to soften it would not be enough, we need to be brought into full peace with God. Secondly, in order to eliminate God's wrath the cause of His wrath needs to be not only forgiven but also removed. "Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world." John 1:29. The only way I can see that the sin can be removed is if the justice of God is satisfied.

I do agree that Christ's atoning sacrifice can only save those who repent, and believe, but repentance and faith is not what saves us. The finished work Christ as well as His present work as our High Priest saves us from first to last. Repentance and faith is merely the means in which that Christ's work is applied to our lives, but even faith and repentance come by the Grace and goodness of God, not of ourselves. Jesus said, "no one can come to me except the Father draws Him." It is a gift from start to finish. We earn nothing. It is entirely of Grace.

God Bless

BroRog
Aug 3rd 2011, 07:21 PM
The only way I can see that the sin can be removed is if the justice of God is satisfied.The other way, of course, is if the sins were forgiven, which is what that Bible teaches. :) I know it can be hard to accept, but the traditional view of the atonement is contradictory in that it posits both forgiveness and justice which are opposite concepts. Either our sins were forgiven or they were paid for. Not both.

glad4mercy
Aug 3rd 2011, 08:28 PM
I guess since we both agree that Christ died for our sins and that forgiveness and salvation are received though His Blood and Resurrection, then we agree on the main points. I would like to mention the following passage though.


Romans 3: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

John Zain
Aug 3rd 2011, 11:03 PM
Jesus wasn't "made" to be God.
Jesus has eternally always existed as God.
That Jesus chose to become incarnate as a human, and take on a second human nature, is all that was 'made'.
Jesus had no beginning or creation.
Jesus "is" totally and fully God for several reasons.
I believe someone should point out to you that Jesus and God the Son are not the exact same "being".
Mary's first baby's Father was the Holy Spirit (and not Joseph), and thus this baby Jesus was sinless.

Luke 1:
31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS.
32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest ... (NKJV)

Notice that this baby was to be CALLED "Jesus" and "the Son of God".
These are merely names or titles, e.g. God never had any offspring.
So far ... we have a human with the name of "Jesus",
but He is special because He does not have our sin nature.

Are we still on the same page, or shall we just forget the whole thing?