Question about atonement....

[sscoulter]

Greetings,

I am not sure where I can post this question, this seems like the best choice of the list of forums here, so please forgive me if this is not the subject for this area, and let me know, or move this post, to the appropriate forum.


As I have earnestly sought to re-examine all of my long held beliefs, I have come upon the issue of "atonement" (so called) in what is believed in popular Christianity today. I believe this issue has a great deal to do with the doctrine of UR, as I hope you all will agree. This issue also has to do with who Jesus is, and who he is to God, and therefore has a great bearing on the doctrine of the Trinity as well IMHO. But perhaps that is for another day. The issue of atonement has been at the forefront of my mind for a while, and I would like to know what you all think.

In the common doctrine of vicarious atonement, Jesus has paid the price for our sin. But the question comes to mind, if Jesus literally "paid" the debt owed to God, and all his justice has demanded, then what exactly did God really "forgive"? If Justice has been satisfied, it should have no more to say. If God's wrath has been exhausted, and his demand for payment received, then WHAT did God actually forgive?

So I posted this question on CARM. After many posts, completely missing the point of my OP, I had someone say that I was not understanding, or using, the word "forgiveness" correctly. He said there was a "biblical" definition of forgiveness that I was not understanding. He basically said that God could "pay for all my sin, yet hold it against me relationally", whatever that means. He affirms that there can be NO FORGIVENESS, unless first atonement, or payment, is made to God. Well, this proves my question does it not? If God cannot, or will not, forgive anyone UNTIL his justice has been served, then where is forgiveness?

The question came into sharp focus as I was reading "A Treatise on Atonement" by Hosea Ballou. Mr. Ballou makes the claim that it was not God who received atonement, but man. God had no need to be reconciled to man, but man surely needs to be reconciled to God! Romans 5:11, I think, says WE have indeed "received" the atonement. So I began to see the scriptures in a different light, for instance 2 Cor 5:14-15 where Paul says God was in Christ "not counting our sins against us". The passages that say while we were yet enemies, Christ died for us. And God has "forgiven us all our trespasses" etc. etc. The fact that we have been given the "ministry of reconciliation", not the ministry of damnation, was an amazing find for me! I know I have read that passage a hundred times, and had not seen it at all. I believe, or want to believe, that the cross was not the cause of God's love and forgiveness towards us, but it is the very effect of his love and forgiveness to all mankind.

So I am very curious, how do you believers in UR see the atonement? Can you answer, if Jesus literally "paid" the price for our sins, then what did God forgive? What do you see, and understand, about Jesus' atonement on the cross? I would love to know what you believe, and what we can prove to be true by God's word.


Any thoughts?



S

[chuckt]

Mat 18:32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:

Col 3:13 Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also [do] ye. 

In my book Christ has paid the full price, which leads to life.

If your eyes are on sin, you are a slave to sin.

If your eyes are on Christ, you are a slave to Christ.

If your eyes are on judgment your a slave to fear.....ETC


So, what do we do when we mess up? ignore it? or thanks God for showing us our weakness and need to have our feet washed by the master? the cleansing is continual and we walk in a state of ""repentence"" needing NO MAN to expose our sin.

if we sin against another, are we not convicted and ask that one to forgive us making the best restitution possible?

1Ti 5:24 Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some [men] they follow after.


1Ti 5:25 Likewise also the good works [of some] are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.


churchanity has all kinds of do's and dont's and if ya do this ya gotta do that, when in our hearts we KNOW when we mess up, we gives thanks for the forgivness INCHRIST.

Do we really really beleive this? or do we play church?

2Cr 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 

All mens sins everywhere are taken care of, but those not raised to new life are just forgiven walking dead men.


the good news of babylon is:

jesus died for you but you gotta do this, its a free gift so say a sinners prayer and you are saved, BUT then you gotta do this and that and this and that and if you sin better confes or you loose salvation....that type thing. SAD real SAD.

look what paul says to BELIEVERS:

2Cr 5:17 Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.


2Cr 5:18 And all things [are] of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;


2Cr 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.


2Cr 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech [you] by us: we pray [you] in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.


2Cr 5:21 For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness 

Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.  


IN my book, the words "saved" and "salvation" have all but lost ALL meaning today in the 21st western world.

Christ paid it all. and ours is a ministry of reconciliation, to tell people whats ALREADY DONE.

God bless
euty..er um Chuckt  :grin:

REMEMBER


Rom 5:11 And not only [so], but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement


even though atonement is for all, not all recieve it in every generation, thats just the way it is.

later bro.

[chuckt]

hey sis and bless you.

the atonment issue i think is sorta tuff, specially with any baggage we carry.

amen though, let us love as he loves us, pretty much nips it in the bud  :girlheart:

he who is forgiven much loveth much.

superbounding grace to you
chuckt

[chuckt]

I didnt realize I was on THIS THREAD  :grin: Sorry I thought I was on the other one that is popping up along with this one. I wasnt watching where I was going (bad sign lol)

Pro 16:9 A womans heart deviseth her way: but the LORD directeth her steps.   :boydance: :boogie:


(http://bestsmileys.com/kissing2/3.gif)

[sscoulter]

So, do either of you have an opinion on my op?

:bigGrin:



S

[chuckt]

So, do either of you have an opinion on my op?

:bigGrin:



S

i already replyed Sam 2nd post in the thread...., was i off?

chuckt

[sscoulter]

i already replyed Sam 2nd post in the thread...., was i off?

chuckt

Oh sorry Chuck, you are right.


S

[Zeek]

I found this interesting, written from a preterist view, but applicable i think if have different eshcatological view sp??: 

Atonement Background
The problem is resolved when considering of the role of "atonement" in eschatology and the range of action it involves.  Israel's yearly Day of Atonement typified the once-for-all atonement Christ made. But what did it entail?  It consisted of three basic actions on the part of Israel's high priest—(1) slaying the sacrifice; (2) entering the Holy of Holies with its blood to make atonement in the presence of God; (3) his returning and appearing to Israel at the door of the tent.  His return was anxiously awaited by Israel because it signaled God's acceptance of the atonement.

The atonement, therefore, was not completed when the sacrifice was slain, nor when the high priest entered the Most Holy Place.  The atonement was accomplished when the high priest returned the second and final time. (Bear in mind that the priest entered twice with the blood of the sacrifice: first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people, Hebrews 7:27. The latter was the main focus of his return and of a consummated atonement.)

Hebrews 9 ascribes the same pattern of action to Christ's fulfillment of Israel's atonement. The Book of Hebrews intentionally prefaces comments on this matter in chapter 8 with a discussion about the New Covenant's ability to take away the sins of Israel and Judah.  Christ's atoning action is under careful consideration in 9:23-28, where we see the three-fold atonement pattern: First, the offering of the sacrifice (Himself).  Second, Christ's entrance into the true Most Holy Place with His own blood to make atonement.  Third, his returning or appearing "a second time, apart from sin, for salvation" to those eagerly waiting for Him (v.28).

The Book of Hebrews was written after Christ's death, but before His "Second Appearing."  Thus, it was composed during the time he was making atonement in the Presence of God (9:24).  In Christ's case, the atonement involved His reigning "till His enemies are made His footstool" (10:11-12)—the last of which was death (1Corinthians 15:25-26). The author of Hebrews believed that Christ's return (Second Appearing), that signaled a consummated and accepted atonement, was imminent. The writer exhorted his readers, "To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation" (9:28).  They could see the Day approaching (10:25). "For 'soon, very soon'...he who is to come will come" (10: 37, NEB).  In this way, the writer encouraged the original audience to have "boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus" (10:19f).

Significantly, the author of Hebrews affirmed that Christ's atonement, when consummated at his Second Appearing, would enable the saints to enter the presence of God in the true Holiest of All—the one not made with hands.  This was not possible with the atonement made by Israel's High Priest. The Old Covenant High Priest appeared at the door of the tent to bless the waiting congregation, but he could never receive them into the presence of God in the Holy of Holies. He could not even remain there himself.  However, Christ's atonement and return would be of a different order, as Jesus himself noted in John 14:1-6.

We have, therefore, a biblical atonement setting for Romans 11:26 where Israel's New Covenant salvation was still future (from Paul's standpoint) since it was tied to Christ's Second Appearing, which was near when the Book of Romans was written. "And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand" (Rom.13:11-12).

Paul was not saying that they had received no salvation when they first believed.  Rather, in view of the time, it was then nearer than when they first believed. Their salvation was nearer both in time and in fullness, as indicated in Romans 11:12.  Here Paul spoke of "how much more" the Gentiles would benefit in the near future from Israel's soteriological (salvation) "fullness."  The Gentiles received "riches" (reconciliation to God) through Israel's fall, but the "much more" to be received in Israel's acceptance would be "life from the dead" (11:15).  The "dead" here is Israel, whose acceptance/resurrection would yield the benefit of life for the Gentiles.

Paul did not change from one salvation in 11:26 (for Israel) to another salvation (in 13:11).  The salvation in 11:26 was not in the infinite future while the salvation in 13:11 was "nearer" and "at hand."  If he did, for whom is the salvation in 13:11? The Gentiles?  Were they to receive a different salvation that Israel was promised?  That cannot be because Paul in chapter 11 states that the Gentiles were grafted into Israel's olive tree to receive what precisely what Israel was to receive; nothing more, nothing less.

As noted above, the scriptures in Hebrews and Romans tell us that the salvation of all Israel in Romans 11:26 was in the immediate future, that it was tied to the New Covenant and to Christ's Second Appearing, and that it pertained to consummated atonement. Both premillennial and amillennial theologians have overlooked this historical setting, covenantal connection, and theological background.

New Covenant atonement is eschatological, and it falls into the closing period of the Old Covenant age. The end in view when "all Israel" would be saved is the precise end addressed by Jesus in Matthew 24 which was marked by the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.  This event ushered in Israel's promised New Covenant creation (Isaiah 65:17f) wherein righteousness dwells (2 Peter 1:3).

Stepping into the middle of that short eschatological period of time (from the cross to the fall of Jerusalem) and breaking off that imminent future from its past and then-present action being recorded in the New Testament texts and transferring that immediate future to some alleged end of an extended "church age" disregards the context of the first-century historical situation and the Old Covenant theological grounding.  Christ's second appearing is integrally connected to his atonement, his death, and his entering the Most Holy Place. If Christ has not yet appeared the second time, then only one of two possibilities must be valid.  One, the atonement is not yet completed.  Or worse, it was not accepted by God.  These are the only possible conclusions for the amillennial and premillennial positions.



http://www.presence.tv/cms/allisrael.php

[sscoulter]

I was sorta expressing it in that one post about forgiveness but I honestly didnt understand your question  :grin: Sorry I'm not too swift, though I dont call myself a URer or by any other name myself or defend a preset angle (left or right) because I still have too many of my own questions. I can see where its "leaned toward" but I can see where it might lean away but not after whats put on it (which varies depending on the persons). I agree 100% with no one and agree "somewhat" with everyone so Im not the person to ask, I jumped here by accident sorry sscoulter  :mblush:

I'm the wrong person for this post

OK no problem. Just to make sure you understand, may I say that most people believe that God demanded a payment for the sin man has committed. Only a perfect "Godman" could pay the price for that sin. So IF there was a debt to be paid, and Jesus paid that debt, then what was there for God to forgive?

Think of it this way, you owe the bank a debt you cannot pay. Another person pays that debt for you. Then the banker calls you and tells you your debt is "forgiven". But, in reality, the bank received every penny it was due, therefore, what did the bank really forgive? If the debt is paid in full, there is no need or place for forgiveness.

Again, this is based on the popularly believed idea that God received the atonement, or payment for sin, and that Jesus took our place and bore the punishment we were due.

Thanks for your accidental post anyway, lol. Have a good day friend.


S

[Doc]

I was sorta expressing it in that one post about forgiveness but I honestly didnt understand your question  :grin: Sorry I'm not too swift, though I dont call myself a URer or by any other name myself or defend a preset angle (left or right) because I still have too many of my own questions. I can see where its "leaned toward" but I can see where it might lean away but not after whats put on it (which varies depending on the persons). I agree 100% with no one and agree "somewhat" with everyone so Im not the person to ask, I jumped here by accident sorry sscoulter  :mblush:

I'm the wrong person for this post

OK no problem. Just to make sure you understand, may I say that most people believe that God demanded a payment for the sin man has committed. Only a perfect "Godman" could pay the price for that sin. So IF there was a debt to be paid, and Jesus paid that debt, then what was there for God to forgive?

Think of it this way, you owe the bank a debt you cannot pay. Another person pays that debt for you. Then the banker calls you and tells you your debt is "forgiven". But, in reality, the bank received every penny it was due, therefore, what did the bank really forgive? If the debt is paid in full, there is no need or place for forgiveness.

Again, this is based on the popularly believed idea that God received the atonement, or payment for sin, and that Jesus took our place and bore the punishment we were due.

Thanks for your accidental post anyway, lol. Have a good day friend.


S

Well, I could be way off base here; but in my limited understanding, I see forgiveness as relational and the atonement (in an effort to try to answer the dilemma you have outlined) as "legal". In other words, the atonement (as propitiation) was the satisfaction of the legal "contract" between God and man (Fulfillment of the law, which only God could successfully accomplish), and the forgiveness 'part' is the (ongoing) relational restoration under Grace that the fulfillment of the law helped provide. There is probably way more to atonement and forgiveness than this, but I'm oversimplifying in an attempt to help clarify.  :Whistle:

Does that help, or have I confused the issue more or missed the point entirely?  :dontknow:

[sscoulter]

Well, I could be way off base here; but in my limited understanding, I see forgiveness as relational and the atonement (in an effort to try to answer the dilemma you have outlined) as "legal". In other words, the atonement (as propitiation) was the satisfaction of the legal "contract" between God and man (Fulfillment of the law, which only God could successfully accomplish), and the forgiveness 'part' is the (ongoing) relational restoration under Grace that the fulfillment of the law helped provide.

Hey Doc,

This is essentially what I have been presented on CARM for an answer to my question. The problem is if we view this as a "legal" issue, like you have above, then clearly we find no place for forgiveness. If the demands of justice have been satisfied, and the debt paid, then what was forgiven? This brings into question both ideas, one being a debt literally paid, and another in a debt being forgiven. We see in scripture that God was "forgiving us our trespasses", and "not counting them against us", and "passing over them" etc. If this is true in a strict legal sense, then why did Jesus die for our debt, and why did God demand he pay our debt?

A debt cannot be both paid, and also forgiven, legally speaking. If sin is debt, and if that debt was paid in full, then the debt was not really "forgiven" was it?

There is probably way more to atonement and forgiveness than this, but I'm oversimplifying in an attempt to help clarify.  :Whistle:

Does that help, or have I confused the issue more or missed the point entirely?  :dontknow:

Well, you have helped by taking the time to answer, but I don't think it is any more clear. If God demanded all his due, and he received all his payment, then what exactly did he "forgive"?


S

[sscoulter]

Can I ask a question?

Of course.

Do you know of a verse in the OT containing the words God demanding payment? I ask so I can familiarize myself better with this saying and can search it out a bit better. Can you help me?

No I do not know of one. In presenting this dilemma, I am for the sake of argument, allowing the popular idea of "sin debt" to be assumed so it may be examined in the context of atonement. I am not saying I agree with this position, but generally speaking, in mainstream Christianity it is a common teaching that God is a "Just" God and in order to remain Holy and Just, sin had to be punished. This sin is referred to as a "debt", and it is said Jesus literally "paid" that debt. this is the premise of my question, and it is this idea I wish to explore.

S

[ScarletWren]

http://home.att.net/~spiritword/Adams/spirit24.htm

Hi sscoulter, I've been thinking about the same questions.  It was kinda weird to see your post.

The above is a link to an article on the atonement which I think is quite a bit along the lines of what you were saying.  I'm not sure if it answers all my questions, or yours, but I think he comes closer than the orthodox view of the atonement.

[peacemaker]

Any thoughts?

If the atonement meant a "Substitution", then, why do we still die, if the wages of sin – is death?

Because it is Not by way of an Orthodox Substitutionary theory of; "Jesus has paid the price for our sin" – a penal concept.

Rather, it is "Pick up your own cross and follow him." As observed in the Old Testament, and seen in the New Testament:

"A Covering of the Old Man AND Reconciling of  the New."

Seems to be predicated on mortality of the flesh and being born of Spirit.

And, even as Christ forgave ..., so also [do] ye.

"Father, forgive them..." is the way, the truth and life of Christ!

peacemaker

[sscoulter]

http://home.att.net/~spiritword/Adams/spirit24.htm

Hi sscoulter, I've been thinking about the same questions.  It was kinda weird to see your post.

The above is a link to an article on the atonement which I think is quite a bit along the lines of what you were saying.  I'm not sure if it answers all my questions, or yours, but I think he comes closer than the orthodox view of the atonement.

Hello there,

Thanks for the link, I will check it out tomorrow.

Peace.


S

[sscoulter]

Any thoughts?

If the atonement meant a "Substitution", then, why do we still die, if the wages of sin – is death?

Because it is Not by way of an Orthodox Substitutionary theory of; "Jesus has paid the price for our sin" – a penal concept.

Rather, it is "Pick up your own cross and follow him." As observed in the Old Testament, and seen in the New Testament:

"A Covering of the Old Man AND Reconciling of  the New."

Seems to be predicated on mortality of the flesh and being born of Spirit.

And, even as Christ forgave ..., so also [do] ye.

"Father, forgive them..." is the way, the truth and life of Christ!

peacemaker

Beautiful! Thank you and God bless you!

S

[ScarletWren]

A.P. Adams has an article entitled the atonement as seen in the law.  In that article he points out that in the annual (and all others) sacrifices for sin, the victims that were put to death were NOT substitutes for the people themselves.  The SIN was figuratively transferred to the animal and then the animal (the SIN) was destroyed or sent far away from the nation in the case of the scapegoat.  In just that way, all of mankind's sin was put upon Christ and in his ultimate death (Adams explains that Christ entered into the death realm at the moment of his incarnation as a human) on the cross the sin of the world was destroyed.  He did not die as our substitute any more than the lambs, bullocks, scapegoats, etc died in the place of the Israelites, but they became the representation of the sin of the individual Israelite or the nation on the annual day of atonement.  He died FOR us, not in place of us.  I don't claim to understand it completely, but this is a beginning and helps a lot.

I believe there are articles/books available online that delineate each sacrifice and how Jesus fulfilled each one. 

[Doc]

Well, I could be way off base here; but in my limited understanding, I see forgiveness as relational and the atonement (in an effort to try to answer the dilemma you have outlined) as "legal". In other words, the atonement (as propitiation) was the satisfaction of the legal "contract" between God and man (Fulfillment of the law, which only God could successfully accomplish), and the forgiveness 'part' is the (ongoing) relational restoration under Grace that the fulfillment of the law helped provide.

Hey Doc,

This is essentially what I have been presented on CARM for an answer to my question. The problem is if we view this as a "legal" issue, like you have above, then clearly we find no place for forgiveness. If the demands of justice have been satisfied, and the debt paid, then what was forgiven? This brings into question both ideas, one being a debt literally paid, and another in a debt being forgiven. We see in scripture that God was "forgiving us our trespasses", and "not counting them against us", and "passing over them" etc. If this is true in a strict legal sense, then why did Jesus die for our debt, and why did God demand he pay our debt?

A debt cannot be both paid, and also forgiven, legally speaking. If sin is debt, and if that debt was paid in full, then the debt was not really "forgiven" was it?

There is probably way more to atonement and forgiveness than this, but I'm oversimplifying in an attempt to help clarify.  :Whistle:

Does that help, or have I confused the issue more or missed the point entirely?  :dontknow:

Well, you have helped by taking the time to answer, but I don't think it is any more clear. If God demanded all his due, and he received all his payment, then what exactly did he "forgive"?


S

I understand. Like I said, this represents my own limited understanding on the subject so far. I'm admittedly rather new to UR, (about 2 years) so I've not had time to work through all the issues related to that new understanding. Just so you know, when I say "legal" I simply mean fulfillment of the law, not necessarily a legal payment of debt per se. He became sin for us to remove it from us, thereby paving the way for restored relationship. There is something about the way the law was fulfilled that made the grace relationship possible, not as a payment of debt as such, but more of a wrapping up of the old covenant in preparation for the new. I see forgiveness as more relational because of things like the continued need to confess our sins, and He is faithful and just to forgive us and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. That is key somehow to maintaining good relationship. The purpose of confessing sin is not to "re-obtain" salvation, but to restore right relationship, through the cleansing power of exposing our darkness to the light so that the darkness can be abolished, and we can see God more clearly. I'm also reminded of when David asked the Lord to restore the joy of his salvation. That was a relational thing, not a debt/ payment thing.

This is admittedly a complex issue involving complex concepts, and I'm not really confident I've wrapped my own head around all of it yet. I'm still in the process of a lot of unlearning of old stuff from my roughly 36 years of subjection to the ET paradigm.  :sigh:

[sscoulter]

Gotcha thanks S, It could be looked at as He paid the *wages* since the wages of sin are death. He made his soul and offering as well for the soul that sin would die. In the garden he said, my soul is sorrowful to the point of death.

He was made Sin too how would that fit, the wages of Him?

Hello,

Now I will play "devil's advocate", if Jesus paid the wages of sin, then why do we still die? As another poster has said here, I don't think Jesus died instead of us, he died for us.

The penal substitution of most of what is called orthodox doctrine needs to be reexamined.

Thanks for you post!

Peace.


S

[sscoulter]

A.P. Adams has an article entitled the atonement as seen in the law.  In that article he points out that in the annual (and all others) sacrifices for sin, the victims that were put to death were NOT substitutes for the people themselves.  The SIN was figuratively transferred to the animal and then the animal (the SIN) was destroyed or sent far away from the nation in the case of the scapegoat.  In just that way, all of mankind's sin was put upon Christ and in his ultimate death (Adams explains that Christ entered into the death realm at the moment of his incarnation as a human) on the cross the sin of the world was destroyed.  He did not die as our substitute any more than the lambs, bullocks, scapegoats, etc died in the place of the Israelites, but they became the representation of the sin of the individual Israelite or the nation on the annual day of atonement.  He died FOR us, not in place of us.  I don't claim to understand it completely, but this is a beginning and helps a lot.

I believe there are articles/books available online that delineate each sacrifice and how Jesus fulfilled each one. 

Yes! Thank you very much!


S

[sscoulter]

I understand. Like I said, this represents my own limited understanding on the subject so far. I'm admittedly rather new to UR, (about 2 years) so I've not had time to work through all the issues related to that new understanding. Just so you know, when I say "legal" I simply mean fulfillment of the law, not necessarily a legal payment of debt per se. He became sin for us to remove it from us, thereby paving the way for restored relationship. There is something about the way the law was fulfilled that made the grace relationship possible, not as a payment of debt as such, but more of a wrapping up of the old covenant in preparation for the new. I see forgiveness as more relational because of things like the continued need to confess our sins, and He is faithful and just to forgive us and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. That is key somehow to maintaining good relationship. The purpose of confessing sin is not to "re-obtain" salvation, but to restore right relationship, through the cleansing power of exposing our darkness to the light so that the darkness can be abolished, and we can see God more clearly. I'm also reminded of when David asked the Lord to restore the joy of his salvation. That was a relational thing, not a debt/ payment thing.

This is admittedly a complex issue involving complex concepts, and I'm not really confident I've wrapped my own head around all of it yet. I'm still in the process of a lot of unlearning of old stuff from my roughly 36 years of subjection to the ET paradigm.  :sigh:

Well said Doc, and I am still very new to this and many other issues as well. Perhaps we can learn more about this important issue.


Thank you for your thoughts, and your kind spirit.

Peace.


S

[Doc]

Well said Doc, and I am still very new to this and many other issues as well. Perhaps we can learn more about this important issue.


Thank you for your thoughts, and your kind spirit.

Peace.


S

No problem.

[chuckt]

Now I will play "devil's advocate", if Jesus paid the wages of sin, then why do we still die? As another poster has said here, I don't think Jesus died instead of us, he died for us.

good morning.....

why do we die? you mean physically? dirt was never ment to live forever, even adam was dying from the day he was created, he never ate from the tree of life. """ dying ye shall die"""""

our physically bodies must die they are subjected to vanity, thank God we die physically so we may be clothed in ojur true garments.

Rom 8:18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time [are] not worthy [to be compared] with the glory which shall be revealed in us.


Rom 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.


Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected [the same] in hope,


Rom 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.


Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.


Rom 8:23 And not only [they], but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body.


besides its a good thing to suffer in the old bodies  :mshock:


QUESTION:

If Jesus had not been crucified, would he have died of old age? even him being sinless would he have died of old age?


this is a great topic.

God bless
chuckt :happy3:

[sscoulter]

good morning.....

Good morning.

why do we die? you mean physically? dirt was never ment to live forever, even adam was dying from the day he was created, he never ate from the tree of life. """ dying ye shall die"""""

Hey Chuck, where does it say that Adam "never ate from the tree of life"? The tree of life was in the garden, and God only said Adam could not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. After the fall, Adam was removed so that he could not eat of the tree of life and "live forever". But I don't see where it says he did not eat of it before the fall.

The wages of sin is death. If Jesus paid all the wages of sin, why do we still die? This question is to the idea that Jesus suffered literally our sins, that he was punished for the sin of the whole world.

our physically bodies must die they are subjected to vanity, thank God we die physically so we may be clothed in ojur true garments.

Amen, which brings into question the orthodox idea of atonement.

besides its a good thing to suffer in the old bodies  :mshock:


QUESTION:

If Jesus had not been crucified, would he have died of old age? even him being sinless would he have died of old age?

I say he would have, Paul says of the risen Christ "death no longer has dominion over him". So logically, at one time death did have dominion over him. But thank God that He raised him from the dead!

this is a great topic.

God bless
chuckt :happy3:

Yes it is, and very interesting.

Peace.


S

[chuckt]

Hey Chuck, where does it say that Adam "never ate from the tree of life"? The tree of life was in the garden, and God only said Adam could not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. After the fall, Adam was removed so that he could not eat of the tree of life and "live forever". But I don't see where it says he did not eat of it before the fall.

AH, well scripture dosent say he DID eat from the tree, so i guess we both are ""speculating"" yet lets examine, what does the tree of life represent? immortality? resurrection, CHRIST??

if one can partake of resurrection, immortality, eternal life, and loose it then its not what it is. right?

some fundies say we will have to continually eat from the tree of life in heaven to have immortality  :dontknow: makes no sense to me.

your thoughts are appreciated. and we should also establish if we think these be literal ""trees""

Eze 31:9 I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that [were] in the garden of God, envied him

inlove
chuckt