Non-OSAS belief - undermines the cross

[Butch5]

I explained it to you how it works, how different portions of the Bible are connected in my previous posts. If you have a biblical question on something, you can always find an answer within the context of the Bible instead of relying on some kind of expert or authority. “SEEK and you shall find.” And I told you before that it takes effort to seek, count that as a “conversation” if you like. Otherwise, it’s your unbelief.

I explained it to you how it works, how different portions of the Bible are connected in my previous posts. If you have a biblical question on something, you can always find an answer within the context of the Bible instead of relying on some kind of expert or authority. “SEEK and you shall find.” And I told you before that it takes effort to seek, count that as a “conversation” if you like. Otherwise, it’s your unbelief.

Do you ever address the issue? Unless your Bible talks to you and explains what Scripture means, the phrase, let Scripture interpret Scripture, is a logical fallacy.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

No, it's not different. Your statement here is just one-way Christians try to sidestep the obvious problems with the doctrine. Even if it was God's plan, which it was not, it would still be the same as the pagans. Rather than try to justify a doctrine that impugns God's character, why not do some research and find out the truth. As I said before that doctrine would make God a liar and one who killed his own Son just to satisfy Himself. Firstly, why would you believe in salvation if God lies? You couldn't "know" as the Scriptures say, the best you could hope for is that the promise of Salvation is not a lie. Not only that but the subject at hand would be moot. No one could claim OSAS if God lied.

I realize many have never thought through many of these doctrines and haven't seen the problems with them. However, I'm amazed at how those how have then try to justify them. I was excited when I learned that Penal Atonement was wrong. I was excited that I didn't have to accept this horrible portrayal of God. It makes me wonder how the Reformers who claimed to love God could devise such a horrible portrayal of Him. It makes me wonder if they really did love Him or if they, just like the Catholic church before them, were just doing it so they could control the masses.

My friend, if you love God as you say you do, I would highly encourage you to research the Ransom theory. A theory where God as a loving Father, allows His Son to give Himself as a Ransom to buy back that which was taken by force, kidnapped, and redeem it, man, to Him. A theory that holds that Jesus willingly gave up His life to set man free from his kidnapper, the one who held him hostage. This is the original Theory of the Atonement, not a theory of human sacrifice to appease an angry God.

Irenaeus, was a student of Polycarp who was a student of the Apostle John. Irenaeus didn't really have to interpret much as Polycarp taught him what the apostle John had taught Polycarp. This is what Irenaeus writes in his 5th book of Against Heresies.

1. FOR in no other way could we have learned the things of God, unless our Master, existing as the Word, had become man. For no other being had the power of revealing to us the things of the Father, except His own proper Word. For what other person “knew the mind of the Lord,” or who else “has become His counsellor?” Again, we could have learned in no other way than by seeing our Teacher, and hearing His voice with our own ears, that, having become imitators of His works as well as doers of His words, we may have communion with Him, receiving increase from the perfect One, and from Him who is prior to all creation. We—who were but lately created by the only best and good Being, by Him also who has the gift of immortality, having been formed after His likeness (predestinated, according to the prescience of the Father, that we, who had as yet no existence, might come into being), and made the first-fruits of creation—have received, in the times known beforehand, [the blessings of salvation] according to the ministration of the Word, who is perfect in all things, as the mighty Word, and very man, who, redeeming us by His own blood in a manner consonant to reason, gave Himself as a redemption for those who had been led into captivity. And since the apostasy tyrannized over us unjustly, and, though we were by nature the property of the omnipotent God, alienated us contrary to nature, rendering us its own disciples, the Word of God, powerful in all things, and not defective with regard to His own justice, did righteously turn against that apostasy, and redeem from it His own property, not by violent means, as the [apostasy] had obtained dominion over us at the beginning, when it insatiably snatched away what was not its own, but by means of persuasion, as became a God of counsel, who does not use violent means to obtain what He desires; so that neither should justice be infringed upon, nor the ancient handiwork of God go to destruction. Since the Lord thus has redeemed us through His own blood, giving His soul for our souls, and His flesh for our flesh,2 and has also poured out the Spirit of the Father for the union and communion of God and man, imparting indeed God to men by means of the Spirit, and, on the other hand, attaching man to God by His own incarnation, and bestowing upon us at His coming immortality durably and truly, by means of communion with God,—all the doctrines of the heretics fall to ruin.

Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 526–527.

Did I use the term “wrath of God” anywhere in my post? Of course God was a loving father, he was portrayed as so in the parable of the prodigal son, and he was so even when he cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden - so they would not eat both trees and be condemned with Satan forever!

If you truly believe in the Ransom Theory, you wouldn’t question the power and validity of that payment for the ransom. You might have seen some brothers posting verses about “falling away”, but in reality, that never happens, because you don’t see a man falling away overnight, you only see a man SLIPPING AWAY day by day, and if he gives in to those small slips, they accumulate into a big fall. It’s “slowly”, then “suddenly”. That’s what happened to king David with Bethsheba. If salvation can be lost, does that mean it slowly slips away as well? That makes no sense. David didn’t lose his salvation, he repented and God forgave him, but make no mistake, he suffered severe consequences in the rest of his life. Anyone who denies OSAS is regarding salvation as a temporary contract, instead of an everlasting covenant.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Do you ever address the issue? Unless your Bible talks to you and explains what Scripture means, the phrase, let Scripture interpret Scripture, is a logical fallacy.

It’s not an issue because the definition of reification does not apply. I have addressed it by telling you it’s 66 books, it’s not like some leftists trashing you that you’re racist because you’re racist, the definition of racism is being a racist. You’re not discussing any Scripture, you’re just triggered by the phrase.

 

[Butch5]

It’s not an issue because the definition of reification does not apply. I have addressed it by telling you it’s 66 books, it’s not like some leftists trashing you that you’re racist because you’re racist, the definition of racism is being a racist. You’re not discussing any Scripture, you’re just triggered by the phrase.

Still refusing to acknowledge the fallacy.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Still refusing to acknowledge the fallacy.

It’s you who are refusing to acknowledge the authority of the Bible as the word of God, which most believers agree on. If Scripture can’t interpret itself, then who can? The pope?

 

[KingJ]

If you study the history of the period, you'll find that the Jews who became Christians did continue to follow the Law of Moses. That was the whole point the Judiazers were making. They insisted that the Gentiles too, must follow the Law of Moses. Paul himself made it a priority to be in Jerusalem on the feast days. The Gentiles didn't make the trip to Jerusalem for the feast days. It wasn't required. It wasn't required of the Jewish Christians either, but they continued to do it. Paul himself did. He even said when he was with the Jews he acted as a Jew.

As I have already said, nothing wrong with most laws. There are a few that were specific to Jews like the Sabbath for example. If I were a Jew I would still respect that as a Christian.

What amuses me about you is how you think clouding the point I made with all this extra stuff makes my point irrelevant. You are a master at blurring points made in order to arrive at a belief you do not properly explain. Or a belief that people assume is yours that then suggests God is evil.

I explain in simple terms as to why a non-OSAS belief is evil here Question for non-OSAS believers, to expect you or any non-OSAS believer to answer in simple terms is like trying to get water out a rock.

Your non-OSAS belief and your annihilationist belief implies God is evil. Prove to me that it does not with logic and I will re-read all your posts.

On a side note, I would like to point out an inconsistency. in another thread you pointed out that you hold to Penal Atonement. If you are worried here about how you believe Non OSAS portrays God, why aren't you worried about how Penal Atonement portrays God? The bible says that God will forgive sins. Penal Atonement holds that God requires justice and that sin must be "paid" for. A debt paid is not forgiven. It further holds that God had His own Son die on the cross to satisfy His wrath. Personally, I find that reprehensible. Under this doctrine God promises to forgive sins, but in reality doesn't. Instead, He requires the death of HIs own Son to satisfy His wrath and "Pay" the price for sinners. How does that doctrine portray God? First a liar, sins aren't forgiven, they're paid for. Then killing His own Son. Let me ask you this, if there was a guy on the news who murdered his son because his daughter misbehaved, would expect him to be honorable to his neighbor? If God would lie and kill His own Son simply to satisfy His wrath, why would you expect Him to honor anyone's salvation?

This is a statement I expect to find on an atheist forum. But kudo's to you for chewing on a matter and considering how said belief portrays God. This is what we must do with every belief. A Christian is an ambassador of God and if we cannot explain how God remains / is good with said belief we assume scripture teaches, we ought to keep silent. As misrepresenting God to the lost as anything but good, is dangerous false teaching grounds.

On a side note, I would like to point out an inconsistency. in another thread you pointed out that you hold to Penal Atonement. If you are worried here about how you believe Non OSAS portrays God, why aren't you worried about how Penal Atonement portrays God?

I assume you are referring to Jesus paying for all our sins on the cross?

Penal Atonement holds that God requires justice and that sin must be "paid" for. A debt paid is not forgiven. It further holds that God had His own Son die on the cross to satisfy His wrath. Personally, I find that reprehensible.

If Jesus was not God, sure. But Jesus is God Isa 9:6. So, it is an absolutely amazing act of love for God of the universe to create mankind knowing that the cross would be part and parcel of this creation 1 Pet 1:20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

Under this doctrine God promises to forgive sins, but in reality doesn't. Instead, He requires the death of HIs own Son to satisfy His wrath and "Pay" the price for sinners. How does that doctrine portray God? First a liar, sins aren't forgiven, they're paid for.

You are confusing two matters. Forgiveness is a gift. As salvation is a gift. This is a matter separate to punishment of sin. Punishment for sin is levied according to the type of sin Rom 2:6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.

As God was laying His life down for the sins of mankind, only maximum punishment of death would suffice. We know Jesus experience true death because of three reasons.

1. God was made flesh so that He could die Isa 9:6. He did die on the cross. His heart stopped beating John 19:30.
2. He experienced true abandonment from God. A necessity for a state of death Matt 27:46.
3. He was made a lamb to the slaughter. He could call 1000 angels but did not Matt 26:43.

This doctrine portrays God as a loving God. As scripture says in John 15:13, there is no greater love then to lay your life down.

Then killing His own Son. Let me ask you this, if there was a guy on the news who murdered his son because his daughter misbehaved, would expect him to be honorable to his neighbor? If God would lie and kill His own Son simply to satisfy His wrath, why would you expect Him to honor anyone's salvation?

This is why Christianity is laughable if the trinity is not real. The gospel is that 'God so loved the world'. That Jesus and God are one.

Your example needs to change to ''My son chopped a neighbors finger off, I as his father, step in and give my finger' or 'my daughter misbehaved, I step in and take the punishment for her crimes'. They have both from free will 'chosen' to be my children. Another question arises from this, 'Why would someone not choose Christianity if the alternative is eternal torment'', but unless you are asking that, it is a discussion for another thread?

The key fact that you are missing is that we as Christians are made children of God. The blood of Jesus cleanses us of our sin before God and establishes us in a blood covenant with God, one where we can call Him our Father.

Luk 22:20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood'
Isa 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Gal 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

When God looks at us He does not see people who do not sin. He sees people who truly love Him and hate sin Rom 12:9, Rom 7:15.

As Heb 10:14 says 'we who go from holy to holy' are 'perfected forever'.

We see that sin is not the real issue. Rather a love or hatred of it is. Repentant verse unrepentant sinner.

why would you expect Him to honor anyone's salvation?

Well because God is good and your statement ''If God would lie and kill His own Son simply to satisfy His wrath'' is short sighted.

God does not lie. His son was punished and all the wicked who do not repent will also be punished in hell according to what they did Rom 2:6.

God does what pleases Him Psalm 135:6 and it pleased Him to lay His life down for ours. To pay the price of sins for those 'that want to repent of them / choose to follow Him according to a verse like Matt 16:24 '.

Our salvation is honored because we meet the criteria He expects of us as I explain in detail here What is a Christian and how do you become one?.
__________________________

It is 'also' very important for all to understand that the worst part of punishment for sin, the only actual thing that causes someone to weep and gnash their teeth according to scripture is, separation from God.

Luke 13:28 There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out.

Rom 2:6 does not say that God repays eye for an eye.

Rom 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds.

 

[Butch5]

As I have already said, nothing wrong with most laws. There are a few that were specific to Jews like the Sabbath for example. If I were a Jew I would still respect that as a Christian.

What amuses me about you is how you think clouding the point I made with all this extra stuff makes my point irrelevant. You are a master at blurring points made in order to arrive at a belief you do not properly explain. Or a belief that people assume is yours that then suggests God is evil.

Putting things in context is not blurring the lines, my friend, it's actually clarifying things. To simply make a statement and then pull a sentence out of context in an attempt the support said claim is what we call eisegesis. It's reading things into the text. You quoted Ephesians 2:9 as evidence that works aren't necessary for salvation. Yet in the very passage you quoted Paul explains what those works are. The works Paul explains and the works you claim are not the same thing. Thus, your use of Paul's statement to support your claim is out of context. Paul is not saying what you are saying. Paul explains that the works that don't' save are the "ordinances" of the Mosaic Law. And as I've pointed out, if we study history, we find that this was a major issue for Paul. The Judiazers weren't going behind Paul telling his converts that they had to help old ladies cross the street, feed the poor, or take care of the sick. They were telling his converts that if they don't get circumcised, they can't be saved. If they don't keep the feast days, they can't be saved. If they don't offer sin offerings at the temple, they can't be saved. This was the issue that Paul was dealing. As I said, this can be seen in Acts 15.

On another note, Acts 15 also shows the premise is wrong. You argue that no works are necessary, James, the Apostles, and the Holy Spirit say otherwise.

28 For iit seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ac 15:28–29.

So Christians are required to abstain from meat offered to idols, from eating blood, from things strangled, (because of the blood), and from fornication. He says these things are necessary and apparently the Holy Spirit backs this.

I in no way suggested that God is evil. It's the doctrine you hold that suggests that. How can one justify someone killing their son simply to satisfy their anger? I don't believe you can answer that. Yet, that's exactly what Penal Atonement is. So, on one hand you claim God is good, and on the other hold a doctrine that portrays God as evil. That my friend is being inconsistent. Instead of trying to explain Penal Atonement, why not research the subject and find out what other interpretations are possible? I've already touched on the Satisfaction and Ransom models. Why not look into them? As I pointed out, the Ransom model is the original model and was what the Church believed for the first 1000 years of church history. The pattern I've seen in our discussions suggests you believe the majority is correct. If so, then shouldn't we accept the Ransom model as it was pretty much universally believed before Anslem of Canterbury came along? If it was pretty much universally believed, then it was the majority view, and if the majority must be correct, the Ransom model must be correct and the Satisfaction, and later, the Penal models must be wrong.

I explain in simple terms as to why a non-OSAS belief is evil here Question for non-OSAS believers, to expect you or any non-OSAS believer to answer in simple terms is like trying to get water out a rock.

Your non-OSAS belief and your annihilationist belief implies God is evil. Prove to me that it does not with logic and I will re-read all your posts.

It only implies that in the way you view things. I can't prove anything to you because you're not willing to receive anything. Everything I've presented you've simply rejected. You've not considered it, you've not asked questions. You've simply disagreed and tried to refute it. How can I prove anything to one who rejects everything I say. A perfect example of this is the discussion on aion. You've refused to believe the translators could be wrong, even in light of the words of Jesus Himself. You've rejected logic. You ask me to prove it to you with logic, yet you refuse to hear logic. If you've rejected Jesus' words, the apostle's words, and logic, what do I have left to make an argument with?

This is a statement I expect to find on an atheist forum. But kudo's to you for chewing on a matter and considering how said belief portrays God. This is what we must do with every belief. A Christian is an ambassador of God and if we cannot explain how God remains / is good with said belief we assume scripture teaches, we ought to keep silent. As misrepresenting God to the lost as anything but good, is dangerous false teaching grounds.

These are the issues that need to be dealt with. You expect to find them on an atheist forum, yes. The problem is, Christians can't give a valid answer. That's why atheists keep bringing them up.

I assume you are referring to Jesus paying for all our sins on the cross?

In what manner did He pay for them?

If Jesus was not God, sure. But Jesus is God Isa 9:6. So, it is an absolutely amazing act of love for God of the universe to create mankind knowing that the cross would be part and parcel of this creation 1 Pet 1:20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

What does Jesus being God have to do with it?

You are confusing two matters. Forgiveness is a gift. As salvation is a gift. This is a matter separate to punishment of sin. Punishment for sin is levied according to the type of sin Rom 2:6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.

I'm not confusing two matters. Penal atonement holds that Jesus died on the cross to satisfy the wrath of God against sinners. If that is the case then there is no place for forgiveness. Paying a debt and forgiving the same debt is not possible, they are mutually exclusive. You can't have payment to God for sins and forgiveness from God for those same sins. it's simply not possible.

As God was laying His life down for the sins of mankind, only maximum punishment of death would suffice. We know Jesus experience true death because of three reasons.

1. God was made flesh so that He could die Isa 9:6. He did die on the cross. His heart stopped beating John 19:30.
2. He experienced true abandonment from God. A necessity for a state of death Matt 27:46.
3. He was made a lamb to the slaughter. He could call 1000 angels but did not Matt 26:43.

This doctrine portrays God as a loving God. As scripture says in John 15:13, there is no greater love then to lay your life down.

If God died on the cross, who raised Him from the dead?

This is why Christianity is laughable if the trinity is not real. The gospel is that 'God so loved the world'. That Jesus and God are one.

The first Christians didn't think it was laughable.

Your example needs to change to ''My son chopped a neighbors finger off, I as his father, step in and give my finger' or 'my daughter misbehaved, I step in and take the punishment for her crimes'. They have both from free will 'chosen' to be my children. Another question arises from this, 'Why would someone not choose Christianity if the alternative is eternal torment'', but unless you are asking that, it is a discussion for another thread?

The example is fine. The issue isn't the child. It's God. Instead of killing His Son, why not forgive as He said he would? That's the problem with Penal atonement. God said He would forgive sins. the Bible tells us He does that. Penal atonement says, no, God must punish sins to satisfy His wrath and in doing so, killed His own Son to Satisfy that wrath.

The key fact that you are missing is that we as Christians are made children of God. The blood of Jesus cleanses us of our sin before God and establishes us in a blood covenant with God, one where we can call Him our Father.

Luk 22:20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood'
Isa 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Gal 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

When God looks at us He does not see people who do not sin. He sees people who truly love Him and hate sin Rom 12:9, Rom 7:15.

As Heb 10:14 says 'we who go from holy to holy' are 'perfected forever'.

We see that sin is not the real issue. Rather a love or hatred of it is. Repentant verse unrepentant sinner.

But that doesn't answer the question. If God would lie, why would you believe anyone can be saved.

Well because God is good and your statement ''If God would lie and kill His own Son simply to satisfy His wrath'' is short sighted.

God does not lie. His son was punished and all the wicked who do not repent will also be punished in hell according to what they did Rom 2:6.

God does what pleases Him Psalm 135:6 and it pleased Him to lay His life down for ours. To pay the price of sins for those 'that want to repent of them / choose to follow Him according to a verse like Matt 16:24 '.

Our salvation is honored because we meet the criteria He expects of us as I explain in detail here What is a Christian and how do you become one?.
__________________________

It is 'also' very important for all to understand that the worst part of punishment for sin, the only actual thing that causes someone to weep and gnash their teeth according to scripture is, separation from God.

Luke 13:28 There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out.

Rom 2:6 does not say that God repays eye for an eye.

Rom 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds.

But again, If God would lie why would you expect anyone to be saved. You said God doesn't lie; I agree 100%. That's why I can't hold the doctrine of Penal atonement. Because it presents God as lying. God says He will forgive sins. Penal atonement allows no place for forgiveness it's all about appeasing His wrath. As I've pointed out, payment and forgiveness of the same debt are mutually exclusion. It has to be one or the other, it can't be both.

 

[Mister]

God does not torture.

Would the demons cast out of the men into the pigs disagree with this statement?

 

[joestue]

Would the demons cast out of the men into the pigs disagree with this statement?

They are liers lol. We can't get any information from them.

This includes letting them take to you through a person during an exorcism. The will lie about how they got into the person.

 

[Mister]

They are liers lol. We can't get any information from them.

This includes letting them take to you through a person during an exorcism. The will lie about how they got into the person.

Then why are they shuddering?

 

[joestue]

Then why are they shuddering?

They are going to be destroyed far as I know. I said in reply to another thread that presumably if body and soul are destroyed in hell, then there must be a process to do it. Presumably it's not instantaneous and there is some amount of suffering.

Anyhow, i do not believe God is personally torturing demons. And I don't think his angels are either. It's like when you are suffering in sick.. you don't blame God for personally causing you to suffer.

My point is the demons always lie, and we can't get any information from them.

They are like people: watch what they do, not what they say.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

I in no way suggested that God is evil. It's the doctrine you hold that suggests that. How can one justify someone killing their son simply to satisfy their anger? I don't believe you can answer that. Yet, that's exactly what Penal Atonement is. So, on one hand you claim God is good, and on the other hold a doctrine that portrays God as evil. That my friend is being inconsistent. Instead of trying to explain Penal Atonement, why not research the subject and find out what other interpretations are possible? I've already touched on the Satisfaction and Ransom models. Why not look into them? As I pointed out, the Ransom model is the original model and was what the Church believed for the first 1000 years of church history. The pattern I've seen in our discussions suggests you believe the majority is correct. If so, then shouldn't we accept the Ransom model as it was pretty much universally believed before Anslem of Canterbury came along? If it was pretty much universally believed, then it was the majority view, and if the majority must be correct, the Ransom model must be correct and the Satisfaction, and later, the Penal models must be wrong.

You remind me of the controversy over this particular line in the second stenza of In Christ Alone - "and on the cross where Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied." You must've heard of this title before, made a huge impact, it's like a modern day Amazing Grace regularly performed in a lot of churches. There was this Presbyterian organization that intended to include this hymn into their offical hymn book, but they held onto your view and rejected substitutionary atonement in that line, so they penned a letter to Keith Getty and Stuart Townend, the songwriters, suggesting to change it into your "ransom theory" version, which says, "the love of God was magnified." The answer? NO, no variation, so it didn't make into their hymn book despite its popularity. I'd like to agree with you on your view, but unfortunately, the penalty for sin must be paid, whether to satisfy the wrath of God or wrath of Satan, or you won't take God seriously. I stick with the original, and I admire the Getty and Townend for not making a compromise.

 

[KingJ]

Would the demons cast out of the men into the pigs disagree with this statement?

The context is torture of beings with high intelligence as Gen 3:22 explains. Angels and humans.

Animal cruelty is a separate topic. Perhaps start a thread on it if you want to discuss properly. Wild dogs for example are certainly guilty of torture. There is quite a lot to consider.

It is however the definition of lazy Christianity to incriminate God for such, 'just because it happens'. As you are doing with the pig example.

 

[I believe 777]

questions to ponder? the old testament saints were saved by faith and trusting the living God. question was the thief on the cross saved by faith in Jesus Christ? or was that just a simple gospel message just for him? in this conversation here i have read were we have a whole list of things to do to be saved is this correct?

Taking these scriptures, there are more and we must know them.

Items to consider to become a Christian, and our promise of the gift of Salvation,
We are to
CALL, CONFESS and BELIEVE
FOLLOW, RECEIVE and be BAPTISED
We are to DIE TO SIN, and be RAISED with CHRIST in the Spirit
We are to ABIDE in Him so He can ABIDE in us, God puts everything in our court, Jesus dies so we MAY BE SAVED.
He stands at the door of our heart and knocks, we have to open the door to Him.
Salvatioin is a Free Gift, anyone can give a gift, we have to receive it, we have to receive it, we have to not want to lose it.

v11 “These things I have spoken to you, that My joy MAY REMAIN in you,
v16 appointed you that YOU SHOULD go and bear fruit, and that your fruit SHOULD REMAIN,

LOSING THE PROMISE OF SALVATION DUE TO NOT DOING THE THINGS GOD REQUESTS OF US
What if we don't continue to abide in Him?
What if we don't bear fruit for the Father?
What if our love for the Lord grows cold?
What if we return to our wicked and sinful ways?
What if?...

v2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away
- Self explanatory

i also was told in this discussion that we need to bear fruit to stay saved or be saved? question how much fruit does it take to be saved? and what types of fruit do we need to remain saved? and then in my reading of the bible i don't get where a child could come to Jesus with child like faith with this type of message.

i mean some even add water baptism to be saved and works and then my next question is this, after all of these requirements have been met then im saved?

It would seem like man surely could boast in heaven because it looks like we are doing all of the work and have something to boast about and it looks like im putting my faith in me to be able to meet these requirements to be saved and not trusting and putting all of my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and what he did for me.

these are just some questions to ponder feel free to respond but i put this here hoping that we all can seek help from the Holy Spirit to show us all truth

Also the Holy Spirit will guide us and help with our walk with the Lord Jesus and to stay away from those things that can hurt us physically and spiritually we are to walk by the spirit but we children do tend to let the flesh get the best of us sometimes and im including me.


your brother in Christ i give this gospel message out to people online


Christ Crucified The Gospel Saves



There Is Peace And Eternal Life Only IN The Lord Jesus Christ



Testifying Both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, Repentance Toward God, and faith Toward our Lord Jesus Christ. acts 20:21).



1 Corinthians 15:1-6).

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.



11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.



12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ

Galatians 1:11-12).



For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation to everyone that believes, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Romans 1:16).



for the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.(1 Corinthians 1:18).



Titus 1 acknowledging of the truth


King James Version

1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness



2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began



For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.



Ephesians 2:8-9

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.



“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13).

 

[Butch5]

You remind me of the controversy over this particular line in the second stenza of In Christ Alone - "and on the cross where Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied." You must've heard of this title before, made a huge impact, it's like a modern day Amazing Grace regularly performed in a lot of churches. There was this Presbyterian organization that intended to include this hymn into their offical hymn book, but they held onto your view and rejected substitutionary atonement in that line, so they penned a letter to Keith Getty and Stuart Townend, the songwriters, suggesting to change it into your "ransom theory" version, which says, "the love of God was magnified." The answer? NO, no variation, so it didn't make into their hymn book despite its popularity. I'd like to agree with you on your view, but unfortunately, the penalty for sin must be paid, whether to satisfy the wrath of God or wrath of Satan, or you won't take God seriously. I stick with the original, and I admire the Getty and Townend for not making a compromise.

Let's not misrepresent anyone. Firstly, I don't reject substitutionary atonement. I reject Penal atonement. Secondly, the "ransom view" is not "my view". It is the view of the earliest Christians. It is the view held for the first 1000 years of Christian history. You say you stick with the original, you don't if you hold the Penal model. The Penal model is the latest revision. Personally, I'd rather hold the original view, the ransom view.

 

[KingJ]

Putting things in context is not blurring the lines, my friend, it's actually clarifying things.

Depends. I believe you are creating a red herring.

To simply make a statement and then pull a sentence out of context in an attempt the support said claim is what we call eisegesis. It's reading things into the text. You quoted Ephesians 2:9 as evidence that works aren't necessary for salvation. Yet in the very passage you quoted Paul explains what those works are. The works Paul explains and the works you claim are not the same thing. Thus, your use of Paul's statement to support your claim is out of context. Paul is not saying what you are saying. Paul explains that the works that don't' save are the "ordinances" of the Mosaic Law. And as I've pointed out, if we study history, we find that this was a major issue for Paul. The Judiazers weren't going behind Paul telling his converts that they had to help old ladies cross the street, feed the poor, or take care of the sick. They were telling his converts that if they don't get circumcised, they can't be saved. If they don't keep the feast days, they can't be saved. If they don't offer sin offerings at the temple, they can't be saved. This was the issue that Paul was dealing. As I said, this can be seen in Acts 15.

You are latching on to the last part of the verse and not grasping the first two phrases. They speak to the context I use the last part for. What are your thoughts on 'through faith not of yourselves? By grace you are saved?'.

''For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast.'''

I am not speaking further on this. It is a red herring. Here is a link that I agree with, outside of their non-OSAS view of course. What is the meaning of Ephesians 2:8–9? | GotQuestions.org.

On another note, Acts 15 also shows the premise is wrong. You argue that no works are necessary, James, the Apostles, and the Holy Spirit say otherwise.

28 For iit seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

If you read the full passage you will see it speaks to no need for circumcision and assumes they are following all the other laws already, which is why they only 'add' to their burden the above few laws.

This passage is not talking about salvation, receiving or losing it. Note the ''you will do well'' if you do these things. Why quote this passage though? Paul has a much harder hitting passage in 1 Cor 6:9-12.

I in no way suggested that God is evil. It's the doctrine you hold that suggests that. How can one justify someone killing their son simply to satisfy their anger?

God and Jesus are one. The correct statement would be God killing Himself. If God killed a ''son'' who was a completely separate being, with their own goals, dreams and ambitions. IE Some unlucky family member who drew the shortest straw, yes, correct, God would appear a bit demented. ''I cherry picked person X to die for the sins of mankind, so that mankind can know that I love them''.

I don't believe you can answer that.

I believe it is a very easy answer. Not sure why you have a problem with it.

Yet, that's exactly what Penal Atonement is. So, on one hand you claim God is good, and on the other hold a doctrine that portrays God as evil. That my friend is being inconsistent.

Just fyi, I am enjoying this discussion. I like arguing logic.

Lets focus on the statement you believe implies God is evil. ''God punishes sin''. Or is it ''God punishes sin, by punishing His Son''. If it is the latter, debunked above. God punishes Himself. If its the first 'God punishes sin', why is that evil?

Punishment for wrong doing is a good thing.

Instead of trying to explain Penal Atonement, why not research the subject and find out what other interpretations are possible? I've already touched on the Satisfaction and Ransom models. Why not look into them? As I pointed out, the Ransom model is the original model and was what the Church believed for the first 1000 years of church history. The pattern I've seen in our discussions suggests you believe the majority is correct. If so, then shouldn't we accept the Ransom model as it was pretty much universally believed before Anslem of Canterbury came along? If it was pretty much universally believed, then it was the majority view, and if the majority must be correct, the Ransom model must be correct and the Satisfaction, and later, the Penal models must be wrong.

Read this, don't fully agree Ransom theory of atonement - Wikipedia.

Read this, don't fully agree Satisfaction theory of atonement - Wikipedia

It was a good read though. Perhaps a discussion for another time and thread, for sure.

It only implies that in the way you view things. I can't prove anything to you because you're not willing to receive anything. It only implies that in the way you view things. I can't prove anything to you because you're not willing to receive anything. Everything I've presented you've simply rejected. You've not considered it, you've not asked questions. You've simply disagreed and tried to refute it. How can I prove anything to one who rejects everything I say.

I don't agree, unless off the bat I see a belief is incriminating God.

I have listed my beliefs that I believe are false and given the grounds in the OP for this reason False teaching.

Example on OSAS vs non-OSAS. I am waiting for a non-OSAS believer to first, logically explain to me how their belief does not insinuate God is a wicked fool. Once they do this, I will re-read their posts ten times, interrogate and learn from them. Iron sharpening iron. But if they cannot, all I see is someone who does not know God but is able to type and cherry pick scripture. Something the devil could also do Matt 4:1-11. I give my reasons for the accusation I make of non-OSAS believers implying God is a wicked fool in the OP here Question for non-OSAS believers.

What I receive is loads of cherry picked copy and pasted scripture. This is fine, but start off with 'I do not believe non-OSAS is evil as X, Y and Z are true'.

We all know what is good and evil Gen 3:22 is crystal clear on that. If you teach a belief that I can interpret as evil, with my average intelligence, every unsaved person out there will arrive at the same. Now for a Christian, whose one job is to properly represent God to the lost 2 Cor 5:20, this is completely unacceptable. No matter how much we have studied and can type, we must always return to the foundational characteristics of God as defined by prophets who knew Him better then any of us.

God is defined as good Psalm 136:1, love 1 John 4:8, light with no darkness 1 John 1:5, righteous in all His ways Psalm 145:17, Impartial Acts 10:34 and just Job 34:12.

 

[KingJ]

A perfect example of this is the discussion on aion. You've refused to believe the translators could be wrong, even in light of the words of Jesus Himself. You've rejected logic. You ask me to prove it to you with logic, yet you refuse to hear logic. If you've rejected Jesus' words, the apostle's words, and logic, what do I have left to make an argument with?

Before we even discuss aion, I want to hear from you how annihilation does not insinuate God is wicked. The statement 'accept me or die' implies no true free will, is tyrannical and puts adverse pressure on all to accept Him against their will.

As for the discussion we have had on aion, @Jonathan_Gale created a thread on it. It debunked your view, your reply there was good, but this does not mean I agreed with what you said over the others. There are two reasons for this. 1. If your interpretation of aion was correct, God would not be eternal and the more concrete reason 2. Every single translation says eternal and alludes to eternal suffering and torment.

A while back I did discuss annihilationism with someone else over many pages. They believed that only satan, the antichrist and the false prophet would be alive and tormented forever. Do you also believe that? If so, that raises a lot more questions.

These are the issues that need to be dealt with. You expect to find them on an atheist forum, yes. The problem is, Christians can't give a valid answer. That's why atheists keep bringing them up.

I believe Christians deal with them just fine. Atheists like going in circles.

In what manner did He pay for them?

By His stripes and death. Pierced and crushed below implies death. Wounds implies the beating He took.

Isa 53:5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.

What does Jesus being God have to do with it?

Everything. Do you not believe in the trinity?

I explain the importance in post no 9 here False teaching.

I'm not confusing two matters.

You are confusing two matters.

1. Jesus was punished.
2. We are forgiven. Not punished for sins we repent of now or commit in the future.

Penal atonement holds that Jesus died on the cross to satisfy the wrath of God against sinners.

Jesus died to satisfy the wrath of God against repentant sinners / the whomsoever will believe in Him John 3:16.

If that is the case then there is no place for forgiveness. Paying a debt and forgiving the same debt is not possible, they are mutually exclusive. You can't have payment to God for sins and forgiveness from God for those same sins. it's simply not possible.

A Christian continues in sin. We walk in forgiveness. Your argument speaks only to the time we are first saved. Even there you beating a dead cow.

For arguments sake, just think of sins 'blotted out' verse forgiven. Really a moot discussion this. I will not be typing further on it.

Acts 3:19 Now repent of your sins and turn to God, so that your sins may be blotted out.

If God died on the cross, who raised Him from the dead?

God the Son died and God the Father raised Him. The hardest issue for most to grasp is, 'how did Jesus pray to the Father if they are one. This link sheds light on it If Jesus was God, how could He pray to God? Was Jesus praying to Himself? | GotQuestions.org.

The first Christians didn't think it was laughable.

Not believing in the trinity does make Christianity a joke. Why would you say this? You have evidence?

The example is fine. The issue isn't the child. It's God. Instead of killing His Son, why not forgive as He said he would? That's the problem with Penal atonement. God said He would forgive sins. the Bible tells us He does that. Penal atonement says, no, God must punish sins to satisfy His wrath and in doing so, killed His own Son to Satisfy that wrath.

I think I 'get' what you are trying to say.

Wages of sin = punishment.

God punished His Son for our sins. If we continue in sin, there is no sacrifice for sins = non-OSAS.

What you are not 'getting' is that there is more to this. We never stop sinning Rom 7:15 and Sinning never ends. The cross was not merely for the payment of a sin debt, but to graft a human into heaven. Create a blood covenant with mankind Luke 22:20. A new creation 2 Cor 5:17. The blood of Jesus was shed for this purpose.

Prior to the cross, there was a divide in Hades. Repentant sinners were in Abraham's bosom, where the suffering of their sins was simply separation from God. With the rich man Luke 16:19-31 we see a suffering of fire in the other part of Hades.

You are getting yourself into a box with 'penal atonement'. Just let scripture speak for itself.

Sin causes the punishment of separation from God for all. Those who continue in sin unrepenatant pay for this lifestyle choice with an agonizing fire. Those who do not 'continue' in sin unrepentant are chosen as saints in Christ for heaven. People God wants to be surrounded with.

The death of Jesus was to graft / restore mankind into heaven. Mankind will never be perfect like God Mark 10:18 Only God is good. We will judge angels in heaven for their sin 1 Cor 6:3. We go from 'holy to holy' and are 'perfected' forever Heb 10:14. IE 'Perfect to God' is not being 'perfectly holy / truly without sin'.

But that doesn't answer the question. If God would lie, why would you believe anyone can be saved.

You say God lies because he punishes His Son and yet says He forgives us of sin? Both are true as explained above. We walk in forgiveness of sin. Paul battled daily with sin Rom 7:15.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Let's not misrepresent anyone. Firstly, I don't reject substitutionary atonement. I reject Penal atonement. Secondly, the "ransom view" is not "my view". It is the view of the earliest Christians. It is the view held for the first 1000 years of Christian history. You say you stick with the original, you don't if you hold the Penal model. The Penal model is the latest revision. Personally, I'd rather hold the original view, the ransom view.

The way you put it, substitutionary and penal theologies seem one and the same. I have no interest at playing this name game, whatever you’d like to call it, again, since God is a just, righteous God, the penalty for sin - or ransom - must be paid. It’s not really personal against anybody as you think, it’s just like playing with fire and you get burned. Sin can be forgiven, but that doesn’t mean the consequences of sin are removed. There’re always consequences - within this mortal life. The stronger our faith, the greater our awareness of these consequences.

 

[Butch5]

The way you put it, substitutionary and penal theologies seem one and the same. I have no interest at playing this name game, whatever you’d like to call it, again, since God is a just, righteous God, the penalty for sin - or ransom - must be paid. It’s not really personal against anybody as you think, it’s just like playing with fire and you get burned. Sin can be forgiven, but that doesn’t mean the consequences of sin are removed. There’re always consequences - within this mortal life. The stronger our faith, the greater our awareness of these consequences.

I'm sorry you don't understand the difference. Maybe instead of spending time here trying to prove me wrong, the time may be better spent studying the history of the Atonement and the different theories. Also, since you don't give logic any place, I can see how you accept payment and acceptance of the same debt.

 

[Butch5]

Before we even discuss aion, I want to hear from you how annihilation does not insinuate God is wicked. The statement 'accept me or die' implies no true free will, is tyrannical and puts adverse pressure on all to accept Him against their will.

I've already done that. It's a false premise. It's not accept me or die. It's everyone is going to die. But hey, I have a life preserver here if you're interested. Remember, Paul said, the "wages" of sin is death. He didn't say the penalty for sin is death. People earn death because of their sin. It's not God's fault people sin. So, they've earned death, that is their reward. However, God steps in and says, that death doesn't have to be permanent. It's an act of mercy, not one of wrath. God essentially is handing out "get out of jail free cards" for those who interested.

It's all about perspective my friend. There are more perspectives than you are aware of. As Christians we would all do well to listen and consider and not be so quick to dismiss things we don't know of. Remember, Paul praised the Bereans for going to the Scriptures to see if what he said was true, as opposed to the Jews who didn't.

As for the discussion we have had on aion, @Jonathan_Gale created a thread on it. It debunked your view, your reply there was good, but this does not mean I agreed with what you said over the others. There are two reasons for this. 1. If your interpretation of aion was correct, God would not be eternal and the more concrete reason 2. Every single translation says eternal and alludes to eternal suffering and torment.

No, it didn't debunk anything. As I pointed out it was full of fallacies. Maybe if one is irrational, it makes sense. But to those who are rational critical thinkers it is a joke. It's clearly biased and full of fallacies. The author made no attempt whatsoever at making an objective argument. If one believes it was a good article it is simply because it is reinforcing errors already believed.

A while back I did discuss annihilationism with someone else over many pages. They believed that only satan, the antichrist and the false prophet would be alive and tormented forever. Do you also believe that? If so, that raises a lot more questions.

No, they will also be destroyed. Aion does not mean eternal.

I believe Christians deal with them just fine. Atheists like going in circles.

You may believe that but it's not the case. Going in circles, do you mean like this thread?

Person 1: Aion means eternal.
Person 2: Jesus said the aion ends.
Person 1: Aion means eternal.

Person 1: People are spiritually dead.
Person 2: Where do we find that in Scripture?
Person 1: People are spiritually dead.

By His stripes and death. Pierced and crushed below implies death. Wounds implies the beating He took.

Isa 53:5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.

That's not what I'm asking. let me clarify. Was His death a payment to God?

Everything. Do you not believe in the trinity?

I explain the importance in post no 9 here False teaching.

I know you believe it has everything to do with it. That's why I asked you to explain

You are confusing two matters.

1. Jesus was punished.
2. We are forgiven. Not punished for sins we repent of now or commit in the future.

No, I'm not. Penal Atonement holds that Jesus' death for sin was to appease God's wrath toward the sinner. If that is the case, there is no forgiveness. If you can't answer, it's better to just say, I don't know.

Jesus died to satisfy the wrath of God against repentant sinners / the whomsoever will believe in Him John 3:16.

Yes, that's what Penal Atonement claims. It's also how the pagans worshipped their gods. However, you still have a problem. The Scriptures say that Jesus died for "all". John the Baptist said, 'behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world'. The apostle John spoke of Jesus saying he is the propitiation for our sins, and not ours only but for the sin of the whole world.

2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 1 Jn 2:2.

So, once again, the Penal model runs afoul of Scripture. So, how do you reconcile that with the idea of only repentant sinners? Do you believe that the "whole world" is repentant sinners?

A Christian continues in sin. We walk in forgiveness. Your argument speaks only to the time we are first saved. Even there you beating a dead cow.

For arguments sake, just think of sins 'blotted out' verse forgiven. Really a moot discussion this. I will not be typing further on it.

Acts 3:19 Now repent of your sins and turn to God, so that your sins may be blotted out.

You're just sidestepping the issue. You can't pay and forgive the same debt. The two are mutually exclusive. If Jesus paid God for sins, then sins are not forgiven, there is no way around this. It doesn't matter how you try to explain. It's a basic law of logic.

God the Son died and God the Father raised Him. The hardest issue for most to grasp is, 'how did Jesus pray to the Father if they are one. This link sheds light on it If Jesus was God, how could He pray to God? Was Jesus praying to Himself? | GotQuestions.org.

But isn't there only one God? If He died who raised Him? You really would do well to avoid that site. The author didn't even make a case for how Jesus is God praying to God. He speaks of an eternal Son, which defies logic, Scripture, and the historic faith. He calls Jesus a God-man. That's funny because John said the word became flesh. He didn't say the word became a God man. Paul said that Christ emptied Himself and was in all ways made like His brothers. I don't know you, but I know I'm not a God-man. I'm just a man.

Not believing in the trinity does make Christianity a joke. Why would you say this? You have evidence?

Because they didn't believe in a Trinity. At least not as Christians do today. The Nicene Creed, which is what the early Church believed says that Jesus is true God "out of" true God. In other words, He is the Son of God because He literally came out of God. Thus, He, as person, is not eternal. This modern idea of the Trinity being three coequal, coeternal persons as one God is a product of the 5th century. Many attribute it to the Catholic theologian Augustine.

I think I 'get' what you are trying to say.

Wages of sin = punishment.

God punished His Son for our sins. If we continue in sin, there is no sacrifice for sins = non-OSAS.

What you are not 'getting' is that there is more to this. We never stop sinning Rom 7:15 and Sinning never ends. The cross was not merely for the payment of a sin debt, but to graft a human into heaven. Create a blood covenant with mankind Luke 22:20. A new creation 2 Cor 5:17. The blood of Jesus was shed for this purpose.

Prior to the cross, there was a divide in Hades. Repentant sinners were in Abraham's bosom, where the suffering of their sins was simply separation from God. With the rich man Luke 16:19-31 we see a suffering of fire in the other part of Hades.

You are getting yourself into a box with 'penal atonement'. Just let scripture speak for itself.

Sin causes the punishment of separation from God for all. Those who continue in sin unrepenatant pay for this lifestyle choice with an agonizing fire. Those who do not 'continue' in sin unrepentant are chosen as saints in Christ for heaven. People God wants to be surrounded with.

The death of Jesus was to graft / restore mankind into heaven. Mankind will never be perfect like God Mark 10:18 Only God is good. We will judge angels in heaven for their sin 1 Cor 6:3. We go from 'holy to holy' and are 'perfected' forever Heb 10:14. IE 'Perfect to God' is not being 'perfectly holy / truly without sin'.

I'm not saying God punished His Son for our sins. I'm saying there is no payment to God for sins. Where in Scripture do we find that God requires payment for sins? The wages of sin is death. We "earn" death because of our sins. We will all die because of our sins. However, God has offered a second chance if we're willing to meet the conditions. Belief in Christ is that second chance. We all will die. But if we enter into this covenant with God, He has promised to raise us up to a life that will not end. However, we don't get to bypass the consequences of our sin, we will die. If Jesus paid a price to God for sins, then Christians shouldn't die. But they do. Therefore, the wages of their sins have not been paid for.

You say God lies because he punishes His Son and yet says He forgives us of sin? Both are true as explained above. We walk in forgiveness of sin. Paul battled daily with sin Rom 7:15.

I don't say God lies. That's the only logical conclusion of Penal Atonement. Both aren't true. If you study the different theories, you'll see that. As I said, you can't have both payment and forgiveness of sins, the two are mutually exclusive. It just can't be.