What Did Christ's Atonement Do?

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Show me in scripture where penal substitution is only for Israel.

I already did... but there is no shortage of places where God declares Himself the Redeemer of Israel. Likewise, there are a number of places where Christ's sacrifice is declared NOT be a license to sin... I know you already rejected this argument, but I still consider it valid. We may agree to disagree. Hebrews 6:4-6 also seems relevant.

First define what you consider the Abrahamic covenant---and there were two of them.

Genesis Chapters 15-17 is what I had in mind.

What does that have to do with the post it is responding to that explains what it means when it says God passed over the former sins?

It's context. The chapter is about salvation for Jews and Gentiles. I was just pointing you back to the verse that says so.

So you don't think God knew Israel would fail? You really think God works according to contingencies? What Israel failed to do was keep the Law. The Law did not come into effect after they failed.

Of course He knew. Israel was intended to be a nation of priests that spread the good Word throughout the world. For that to be accomplished, it was necessary for them to go into diaspora. I guess you've got me there. It's not so much "Plan B" as it's multiple concurrent plans.

And yes, they failed before the Law came into effect. When Moses came down off the mountain he found them worshiping a Golden Calf. Before that they grumbled and wanted to overthrow Moses and return to Egypt. God even threated to wipe them out and start over with just Moses, and Moses inserted himself as an intercessor to save them. See Acts 7.

And a king is a theocrat, therefore under kings was a theocracy. God was their King. They wanted a human king like the other nations. But those kings were still meant to be under His Kingship---vassal kings.

No sir. From 1st Samuel chapter 8:

Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, And said unto him, 'Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.' But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us.

And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, "Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them."

That is not what the Bible says---at all. Have you ever done a straight through cover to cover read of the Bible. Amazingly it starts with "In the beginning God----" and it is one continuous story unfolding with many parts. Just like a normal book!

I don't think I agree with a single thing here!

In Genesis 1:2 the creation is "void" and "unformed." Early on we have evil giants corrupting mankind and infant sacrifices and genocide is normative. Things have gotten better since then. Not perfect, but better.

And the Bible... is not one continuous story at all, but a collection of books, some of which are collections of books themselves! It is as far from a "normal book" as a book can get.

-Jarrod

 

[Eleanor]

You could look at it that way. No problem. But the Bible does say we are under the curse of the law and that Jesus removed the curse from us.

Agreed, but that is the curse of the Mosaic covenant made with the people of God. There was no curse on mankind in the Garden.

 

[Sereni-tea]

The purpose then of the Christus Victor is based on a feeling, and then a way is found without scripture to make something, this bad feeling, go away.

This is incorrect. Christus Victor is not based on feelings, but rather has strong scriptural support in the Gospels and Epistles.

Christus Victor and substitution, rightly understood, are both essential themes needed for a full understanding of the cross of Christ. They must not be played off against each other as if one is right and the other wrong. Indeed both themes are woven together throughout the pages of Scripture. Upholding one in preference to the other creates a distorted view of what Christ accomplished on the cross.

 

[Arial]

This is incorrect. Christus Victor is not based on feelings, but rather has strong scriptural support in the Gospels and Epistles.

Christus Victor and substitution, rightly understood, are both essential themes needed for a full understanding of the cross of Christ. They must not be played off against each other as if one is right and the other wrong. Indeed both themes are woven together throughout the pages of Scripture. Upholding one in preference to the other creates a distorted view of what Christ accomplished on the cross.

In my post I said that the things of Christ's victory over spiritual powers of darkness, and His restoring the corrupted world in Christus Victor are in substitutionary atonement. It was suggested that it is left out.

From what I understand of Christus Victor they remove the satisfaction of God's justice against sin from the atonement because they find the idea abhorrent.

 

[Eleanor]

In my post I said that the things of Christ's victory over spiritual powers of darkness, and His restoring the corrupted world in Christus Victor are in substitutionary atonement. It was suggested that it is left out.

From what I understand of Christus Victor they remove the satisfaction of God's justice against sin from the atonement because they find the idea abhorrent.

Christ's atonement is both/and, not either/or.

 

[Arial]

Christ's atonement is both/and, not either/or.

Yep.

 

[Sereni-tea]

In my post I said that the things of Christ's victory over spiritual powers of darkness, and His restoring the corrupted world in Christus Victor are in substitutionary atonement. It was suggested that it is left out.

From what I understand of Christus Victor they remove the satisfaction of God's justice against sin from the atonement because they find the idea abhorrent.

No, that is incorrect - although some have done that. As I said, it is a mistake to try to play Chistus Victor off against Substitutionary atonement. The two themes are woven together in Scripture and both are needed. (There are a number of other themes as well but these are the two big overarching ones.) The two themes are separate and while there is some overlap, trying to combine them both under substitution sounds confusing and unnecessary.

 

[Arial]

No, that is incorrect - although some have done that. As I said, it is a mistake to try to play Chistus Victor off against Substitutionary atonement. The two themes are woven together in Scripture and both are needed. (There are a number of other themes as well but these are the two big overarching ones.) The two themes are separate and while there is some overlap, trying to combine them both under substitution sounds confusing and unnecessary.

It is Christus Victor that is playing itself off against substitutionary atonement. I know the two themes are woven together. You can't have one without the other. There is nothing confusing about substitutionary atonement and the battle won on the cross against spiritual powers, being a unit of the person and work of Christ. It is part and parcel of it!

God is redeeming all of creation through Christ's redemption of a people. It was mankind that made the mess, and through their redemption, the imputed sin of Adam and personal sins and their power to condemn, being defeated in Christ's death and resurrection, is what wins the war.

 

[brightfame52]

What Did Christ's Atonement Do?

The atonement ransomed the born again from condemnation (Ro 5:18) to God's wrath (Ro 5:9) on their sin and guilt; i.e.,
the atonement is salvation from God's wrath (Ro 5:9).

So you believe everyone Christ died for is saved, will never undergo Gods wrath ? Is that correct ?

 

[Eleanor]

So you believe everyone Christ died for is saved, will never undergo Gods wrath ? Is that correct ?

The NT teaches that those for whom Christ died will never undergo God's wrath on their sin (Ro 5:9).

 

[brightfame52]

The NT teaches that those for whom Christ died will never undergo God's wrath on their sin (Ro 5:9).

What do you mean?

 

[Eleanor]

What do you mean?

That was a yes to your question.

 

[brightfame52]

What do you mean?

So are you a universalist or you believe in limited atonement ?

 

[Eleanor]

So are you a universalist or you believe in limited atonement ?

I believe that only those of saving faith in Jesus Christ are saved from God's wrath (Ro 5:9), and saved only through that faith.

 

[Arial]

I believe that only those of saving faith in Jesus Christ are saved from God's wrath (Ro 5:9), and saved only through that faith.

Let add an also. And those are the ones Christ died for.

 

[brightfame52]

I believe that only those of saving faith in Jesus Christ are saved from God's wrath (Ro 5:9), and saved only through that faith.

Now you seem to condition salvation on faith, your answers seem dubious. Let me ask you this, is a person Jesus shed His precious blood for, Justified before God by His Blood, prior to them having faith in Him, and while they are still in unbelief ? Yes or No please

 

[Eleanor]

Now you seem to condition salvation on faith, your answers seem dubious. Let me ask you this, is a person Jesus shed His precious blood for, Justified before God by His Blood, prior to them having faith in Him, and while they are still in unbelief ? Yes or No please

In time, no.

In eternity, it was before the foundation of the world, and which will be accomplished in time through faith, which is God's chosen means.

 

[brightfame52]

In time, no.

In eternity, it was before the foundation of the world, and which will be accomplished in time through faith, which is God's chosen means.

In time no. Thats a indictment on the efficaciousness of the Blood of Christ. I have to say you condition Justification before God on your works, Faith, your act of believing.

 

[Eleanor]

In time no. Thats a indictment on the efficaciousness of the Blood of Christ. I have to say you condition Justification before God on your works, Faith, your act of believing.

I have to say your problem is with God, take it up with him, I don't make the rules, he does, and it is found in Ro 3:28.

And I have to say that the faith required is a gift of God, not of my doing (Eph 1:29, Ac 13:48, Ac 18:27, 2 Pe 1:1, Ro 12:3).

Tell your objection regarding the condition for justification to him, not me.

 

[brightfame52]

I have to say your problem is with God, take it up with him, I don't make the rules, he does, and it is found in Ro 3:28.

And I have to say that the faith required is a gift of God, not of my doing (Eph 1:29, Ac 13:48, Ac 18:27, 2 Pe 1:1, Ro 12:3).

Tell your objection regarding the condition for justification to him, not me.

I have to say your problem is with God friend.