/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

Penal substitutionary atonement

Your sins require a payment, and Christ made that payment when he became sin.

>>6066

>give himself up as ransom to the devil for our sins

elevates place of a poor excuse of a creature that is the devil in idiotically unjustified manner and clearly has pagan influences.

>Penal Substitution/Satisfaction

Presents God as either a bloodthirsty tyrant or bound to certain external forces

>moral influence

SJW tier garbage devoid of any kind of spirituality

Recapitulation theory is best by far

>>6078

>Penal Substitution/Satisfaction

>Presents God as either a bloodthirsty tyrant or bound to certain external force

But christanon, God is bound to certain external forces, for example God can't go against his nature, he cannot be evil or unjust, he cannot be tempted or cause people to be tempted to sin

For God to be a just God, he has to punish the unjust and evil - that being us

>>6078

>Presents God as either a bloodthirsty tyrant or bound to certain external forces

Just admit that you don't understand how justice works.

>>6079

>>6089

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/the-river-of-fire-kalomiros/

>>6094

Ebin

I don't care what blog it is, that link was available for the book I've posted. I couldn't link anything other since I'm on a phone and Google would download pdf files instead of going to the link.

As for ancient faith, by far what I have seen, it's a decent page and I don't understand why is it mocked this fervently

Also, before you ask, no, I'm not a western convert. I am Georgian.

>>6079

You're admitting that God has to punish the unjust and evil, but saying penal substitutionary atonement makes him a bloodthirsty tyrant?

How do you mean?

The Scriptural view,

1)Everyone is a sinner under death and deserve just punishment

2)God being merciful offers Jesus as a sacrifice to end death(Christus Victor, Ransom)

3)Jesus' sacrifice is one where by destroying death and taking on sins, he is a representative of sinful men who deserve the penalty of death(Substitution and Penal)

4)Jesus' life and death is manifested through the sufferings of disciples and disciples are to be like Christ as much as it is possible(Moral)

The truth is, Atonement is multifaceted in Scripture. Even a Penal view is there. Overemphasize one and you risk destroying the mosaic

>>6108

You're seeing an agreement that isn't there, these are mutually exclusive views of the atonement

>>6101

no the parts in green aren't my opinions, they are just repeating the statements of the person I was responding to/ arguing against

What's the difference between ransom theory and penal substitution? Surely they ate literally one and the same? Also is it not concerning that four of the 6 according to OP pic were developed a 1000years after the cross, at the earliest?

Those that aren't Recapitulation are blasphemous and anti-Trinitarian.

>>10935

Elaborate pls

>>10936

God the Father damning God the Son so that humans can be free of the Law is so overtly blasphemous that it needs no explanation.

>>10937

Gotcha.

Somewhat related question, I've always wondered, if the ultimate and just consequence of sin is eternal damnation in hell, how was the atonement effective without Jesus himself being condemned to hell for eternity on our behalf? (And not to mention the logical inconsistency of this idea, given that hell is traditionally conceived of as separation from God and Jesus being God himself incarnate..). Is this just a 'mystery' that penal substitution subscribers (and others as relevant) flatout ignore? I assume the recapitulation theory wholly steps around this question on the basis of it seemingly not addressing the debt/legal/judicidal consequence of sin and wholly focusing on another area of theology? I don't know anything about it so am just guessing at this point.

What did the Jesus' death on the cross to actually achieve in relation to atonement and how? I've heard it commonly pointed out that for the three hours that the world went dark Jesus actually did experience total separation from God, i.e hell, and this is confirmed just prior when, as well as recalling the prophecy of psalm 22, he sincerely called out in total fear and terror having literally and actually been forsaken by God. To me this just seems to be inferred rather than explicit for the text though, and still doesn't address the aforementioned inconsistency of God (in the person of the Son) experiencing separation from 'himself'/his Godhood..and even if you allow for this oddity /absurdity, the separation was only for 3hours rather than eternity which is what the damned will be subject too sooo this period of darkness during which Jesus was condemned to hell was full (the only type that would be just) payment for sin how..exactly?

Another really basic question that's more to do with hell so off topic but I've never heard an answer to is: how can hell be defined as of complete separation from God when God is by definition omnipresent? orthodox 'hell is a state of the soul and its specific reaction to being in the presence of God' need not apply, this is a perfectly satisfactory answer to that question, but is not aligned with the traditionally held conception of hell, i.e separation from God, and it's with reference to this conception of hell specifically that im looking for an answer Is it just another 'mystery' that's wholly ignored/remains unanswered?

>>10945

Not him and on the phone now so I'll cut it short. I hope other orthos will answer it more elaborately

>First point

Yes, you guessed it right. We never bothered with legalistic autism common in the west, so this is largely ignored.

>2

It's the first time I've heard such a thing, as separation of Christ from God.

>3

A)It's not "traditional", at least no more than ours at least

B)if you consider it as a self-separation, these are not contradictory theories but one and the same opinion from different viewpoints.

Penal substitution is the most absurd doctrine ever to come out of the reformation. It requires one of two heresies to even make any sense.

A: christ is nestorian, and therefore his human person was condemned by God while his divine was sinless.

B: A member of the Godhead declared another member of the Godhead a sinner. Trinity in unity and unity in trinity.

>>6066

Just read John 3

>>10950

How did you conclude that penal substitution requires A or B?

>>10952

I was just about to reply in the same vein.

>>10950

surely neither are true? PS declares neither, Christ retains his sinlessness as both God and man. PS only assert that he legally payed our debt on our behalf as someone might a fine on behalf of a criminal found guilty.

>>10952

What is hell? Hell, as can be gathered from scripture consists of separation from God, and eternal suffering. We as Christian's believe that Jesus in fact, is God. Arians believe he is not. It is Arian to believe Jesus was ever punished in hell, because Jesus would need to not be Gid to be separated from God. Jesus descended into hell to declare the gospel to the saints, but he was never punished. The only other way to see Jesus as being descended into hell is if you believe in nestorianism, believing that God's divinity and humanity can be separated. Because Jesus' divinity and humanity cannot be separated, Jesus never could have been punished in hell.

The reformers all taught penal substitution because it is required for sola fide to function, but as you can see, it doesnt work logically.

>>10949

Phoneposting here too anon so no excuse for brevity ;^) srsly though I appreciate the response.

>so this is largely ignored

To clarify, whether 'this' was ignored was with regard to the penal substitutioners ignoring the inconsistency of Jesus being separated from God/being condemned to hell, so with yourself being a recapitulator I don't what in my post you're responding to.

>3a

Fair enough, I thought it was a something that was thought up by John Romanides but reading wikipedia now see that's obviously not the case so my mistake.

>3b

I dont know what the 'theories' are that you're referring to in this part of the post? The contradiction I'm talking about lies in saying you can not be in the presence of an omnipresent being..?

>>10955

>Jesus would need not to be God to be separated from God (the father)

How did you conclude this?

>>10959

God the father and God the son are of the same substance. You cannot eternally separate God from God. That would unify the trinity, and give us two Gods, the Monity and the Binity.

>>10955

>It is Arian to believe Jesus was ever punished in hell, because Jesus would need to not be Gid to be separated from God.

This is exactly the problem I am asking what penal substitioners do with, outside of flatout ignoring it/calling it a 'mystery' (I'm not affirming they do either at this point, I'm asking the question because I simply don't know).

>Jesus descended into hades/sheol to declare the gospel to the saints, but he was never punished.

Fix'd it for clarity. Yes he did decend into 'hell' and this is why I specifically mentioned that when most people* who believe Jesus did experience hell (gehenna)/'total separation from God' it was during the 3 hours it went dark when he was still on the cross, after which and just before he died he said 'it is finished' and not when he went down to Abraham's bosom in hades/sheol to preach the gospel. i say 'most people' to caveat that I'm pretty sure Meme Pastry Anderson and I would therefore guess some others for some reason believe that Jesus was toasted in hellfire for 3 days after being laid in the tomb..

>>10960

Penal substitution doesn't claim that the two persons were eternally separated, but I'm not sure that's an issue with God's substance.

The persons are distinct, aren't they?

>>10965

Yes, the persons are totally distinct, but the hypostatic union is inseparable. Jesus Christ is eternally God, and eternally man. Jesus ever since conception has been fully man and fully God and will remain so for all eternity. His human and divine natures are inseparable. How, therefore could God experience total separation from God? It makes no sense at all.

>>10956

>I dont know what the 'theories' are that you're referring to in this part of the post? The contradiction I'm talking about lies in saying you can not be in the presence of an omnipresent being..?

That's what I am trying to say. Separation doesn't mean that God is not present with you, this not being an omnipresent. Rather, separation here is the attempt of self-separation or rejection of God, his love and his grace due to damned abhorring and raging over light and love. In other words, separation here refers to a spiritual dimension.

>>10955

Of course the big problem with your argument is PSA does not claim Jesus was punished in hell and neither did any of the reformers you absolute fool.

>>6066

Just noticed that the description of PSA is incorrect, it folds imputed righteousness into the atonement while these are distinct (although related). Our sins are not only imputed to Jesus on the cross, but His personal righteousness throughout His life is imputed to us, so that when God looks at us He sees doers of the law.

>>10972

What is the punishment for sin? Hell. Hell is the punishment for breaking God's law. How could Jesus have substituted for us penally if he didnt take a punishment? Besides, luther and calvin definetly did say that Jesus was punished for our sins. Even now, people like John Piper continue with this heresy.

>Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death…Hence there is nothing strange in its being said that he descended to hell, seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God. It is frivolous and ridiculous to object that in this way the order is perverted, it being absurd that an event which preceded burial should be placed after it.

t. John Calvin, Institutes of Religion, book 3, chapter 16

>So then, gaze at the heavenly picture of Christ, who descended into hell for your sake and was forsaken by God as one eternally damnedwhen he spoke the words on the cross, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani!” – “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” In that picture your hell is defeated and your uncertain election is made sure. 

t. Martin Luther, Treatise on Preparing to Die

> To help you feel in some emotional measure the magnificence of what Christ did for you when he bore not only your eternal suffering, but millions of people’s eternal suffering when His Father put our curse on Him. What a Saviour is echoed in the flames of hell.

t. John Piper, Resolved Conference 2008, session 8, the echo and insufficiency of hell, 40 min

So yes, that is what Penal Substitutionary atonement means, and how it was meant by reformers then and now.

>>10998

>What is the punishment for sin?

Death.

>How could Jesus have substituted for us penally if he didnt take a punishment?

The answer of the New Testament is the death of the cross.

>luther and calvin definetly did say that Jesus was punished for our sins

Yes they did, but not in hell. A simple google search should have revealed that when the reformers spoke like this they were merely saying that Jesus took on the full penalty of our sins upon the cross, (do note how incompatible that mere statement is with the notion He was further punished in hell) which in our case is suffered in hell. Your quote from Luther even includes the words "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani", was Jesus in hell when He said those words?

>So yes, that is what Penal Substitutionary atonement means

You should stop speaking so boldly on subjects you are plainly ignorant about. It won't look good at the last judgement.

>how it was meant by reformers then and now.

Would you include someone like James White in that? How does he react to the idea Jesus was punished in hell at 2:22:53?

>>11001

>death

Matthew 25:46

<And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

2 Thessalonians 1:9

<They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,

Apocalypse of John 20:15

<And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Matthew 25:41

<“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Jude 1:7

<Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Luke 16:24

<And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’

Clearly death is not the only punishment for sin. These verses only scratch the surface.

>only on the cross

Did you read those quotes? They were pretty clear, the reformers and modern protestants believe that when Jesus descended into hell that he was punished. Besides, if christ never was punished in hell, experiencing true punishment for sin, how could that pay for our sins? We all die already. If just experiencing death is enough to cover your sins, do all people go to paradise after they die?

>james white

Hes clearly an anomaly. The majority of reformers and modern protestants believed in Penal substitutionary by hell

The way in which Christians are saved is threefold.

1

I have been saved, being joined to Christ in holy baptism

2

I am being saved, growing in Christ through the sacramental life of the Church

3

I will be saved, through the mercy of God at the Final Judgment

Many Christian's seem to polarize faith and works, even though those baptized into christ are called to believe in Him and do good works. Under the new covenant we recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in us, leading us to the knowledge of God the Father. Salvation comes from faith in Jesus Christ, who fulfills the law. Salvation is not a legal acquittal before God, but a covenant relation with Him, centered with union with Christ.

It is first God's mercy, not our faith, which saves us.

Romans 5:1-2

>Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God

It is God who initates and makes the covenant

Justification by faith is not incorrect, but justification by faith alone, is very erroneous. It is unscriptual. James 2:24

>you see we are justified by works, and not faith only

James 1:17

>faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead

11006

You don't even get a (You) for such low effort bait

>>11008

Not low effort bait. It's pretty true. It is how the church has historically interpreted salvation

>>10969

Ah yes sorry I get you now.

>>10972

This has been my question all along >>10945 if Jesus didn't experience hell, while hell is apparently the end result of sin for us, how did the cross achieve what it is said to have achieved?

>>11001

>Yes they did, but not in hell.

I see you make a distinction between the punishment and where it occurs, i.e for us it is in hell but for some reason for Jesus it is not? (To avoid the logical inconsistency of God separated from God, presumably?).

>A simple google search should have revealed that when the reformers spoke like this they were merely saying that Jesus took on the full penalty of our sins upon the cross, (do note how incompatible that mere statement is with the notion He was further punished in hell) which in our case is suffered in hell. Your quote from Luther even includes the words "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani", was Jesus in hell when He said those words?

If hell is the full and just punishment how is what Jesus experienced on the cross equivalent? What do you mean he took on the full penalty? The full penalty for us is eternity in hell.

>How does he react to the idea Jesus was punished in hell at 2:22:53?

See 2nd para >>10961

>>11010

Jesus experienced an eternity in hell for every man who has lived or ever will live. He was capable of doing this since he is God. He was also capable of raising himself up on the third day because he is God.

>>11010

>If hell is the full and just punishment how is what Jesus experienced on the cross equivalent? What do you mean he took on the full penalty? The full penalty for us is eternity in hell.

The difference is He who died was none other than the very God-man Himself, divine and immaculate. The absolute perfection of the 'victim' dramatically inflates the value of the sacrifice.

We are but temporal creatures, sinning against an eternal being, so to make restitution we must suffer an eternal punishment. But in the death of the God-man, eternality was accounted for in the eternality of the person.

It isn't merely that someone died on the cross, but specifically who died.

>>11022

>Jesus experienced an eternity in hell for every man who has lived or ever will live.

<Jesus is God

<hell is separation from God

<Jesus spent (past tense) an eternity in hell

>He was capable of doing this since he is God.

So you're definition of omnipotence is able to do the logically impossible and nonsensical? Such a definition renders everything meaningless so there is no point continuing any dialogue if so.

>>11026

Not heard it put this way before so ty for the clarification, food for thought.

>>11027

Hell isn't separation from God. God created hell as a punishment for sinners.

Psalm 139:8

>If I ascend up into heaven, thou (God) art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

>>11029

>Sheol isn't separation from God. God created gehenna as a punishment for sinners.

>Psalm 139:8

>If I ascend up into heaven, thou (God) art there: if I make my bed in sheol behold, thou art there.

Fix'd it for u, already done this once, pls anyone else who's going to get involved in discussion learn this distinction before posting about this topic

>>11031

And what is the difference between these two words?

Is "hell" different from "the Lake of Fire?"

>>11033

Yes. The position that hades should be transliterated instead of translated as hell severely neglects the vulgar tongue. They've forgotten that what words mean in English is just as relevant as what they mean in Greek. Imo hades should be rendered as hell and gehenna as the lake of fire. This preserves the distinction while being immediately understandable to the standard average English speaker.

>>11031

You do realize there is still punishment in hell right? There was Abraham's bosom, but the damned await judgement in a region of fire.

>>11035

Do you even know what the word bosom means?

If somebody is in Abraham's bosom, they are in HEAVEN hugging him!

Quit listening to these teachers falsely so called who try to corrupt the simplicity that is Christ Jesus.

Also, awaiting judgment? What? The dead don't wait on judgment, only THE FINAL judgment.

That's why all the people IN HELL are brought up to the judgment seat of Christ. They were already judged, awaiting the FINAL judgment.

Additionally, all those who die in Christ Jesus are taken IMMEDIATELY to HEAVEN

>"This day shalt thou be with ME in Paradise"

>"How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?"

I mean, are you insinuating Abraham is somewhere other than Heaven?

"Yeah sorry Abraham I know I counted your faith as righteousness and all that but you gotta do some soul sleep before you can get into Heaven."

>>11033

Sheol/hades is the underworld where the dead go(/went depending on your view) when you die, both the righteous (a part called Abraham's bosom i.e where Jesus went when he 'descended into hell' for 3 days to preach the gospel when his body was in the tomb) and the unrighteous. There are different views as to its status now since Christmas defeated death through the resurrection (i.e.different views as to whether people still go there as a waiting place before the second resurrection and the judgement).

Gehenna was a valley outside Jerusalem that had various roles in history but from before Jesus' time until recently it was a garbage dump where people dumped everything including bodies. Because of its location in relation to the city walls the bottom was always in shadow and you could never see it from the city, but you could see the city from the valley (think the relationship between the two places in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16). When speaking about hell it was this imagery of Gehenna that Jesus chose to use, which includes fire, burning, maggots etc. because it's a garbage dump. As far as Im aware gehenna is the lake of fire spoken of in Revelation, yes, and into which sheol/hades is thrown eventually.

>>11037

And why aren't "sheol"/"hades" just the Hebrew/Greek equivalents of the English "Hell?"

And nothing about your second paragraph contradicts what I said.

Why are trying to be some pseudo-intellectual when you are devoid of anything actually intelligent to say?

Are you in Christ Jesus or not?

>>11035

>You do realize there is still punishment in hell right?

I assume you're talking of sheol/hades here? Different people say different things, I'm aware that some say hades is a place of punishment for people, yes, but also that others say it's neutral (or even good in Abe's bosom) or everyone's subject to soul sleep or that the only part of punishment is tartarus reserved for the angels.

>>11036

>Additionally, all those who die in Christ Jesus are taken IMMEDIATELY to HEAVEN

Yes, since the atoning work of the cross has made it possible, some people do have the view that those who die as believers go to heaven as the waiting place in anticipation of the resurrection and the New Heaven and New Earth while the others go to sheol/hades, again in anticpation of the final judgement. Before the atoning work of the cross however it was not possible to be with God in heaven.

>>This day shalt thou be with ME in Paradise

People again have different views on what paradise refers to, some saying Abraham's bosom, which is located in hades/sheol and where Jesus did go that day to preach the gospel to those down there.

>I mean, are you insinuating Abraham is somewhere other than Heaven?

I'm explicitly saying he was somewhere other than heaven, prior to the 'hallowing of hell' (read: sheol/hades) that Jesus did during his three days in the tomb. He's now in heaven, yes, is my understanding.

>>11039

Jesus Christ was the lamb slain from the foundation of the World.

Jesus Christ is the same today, yesterday, and forever.

Abraham was saved by Christ's atonement. He went up immediately to heaven when he died.

>>11038

>And why aren't "sheol"/"hades" just the Hebrew/Greek equivalents of the English "Hell?"

I don't know, ask the translators or someone who knows about the history of translation. My understanding is that it's just poor/unfortunate translation.

>And nothing about your second paragraph contradicts what I said.

It was never meant to point out a contradiction..you asked for information on the distinction between sheol/hades and gehenna and I provided it for you?

>Why are trying to be some pseudo-intelle-

[-]

>>11036

>If somebody is in Abraham's bosom, they are in HEAVEN hugging him!

We're reaching levels of eisegesis that shouldn't even be possible

>I mean, are you insinuating Abraham is somewhere other than Heaven?

Now he's in heaven, but he wasn't before the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

>>11044

Why wasn't he? Are you saying Jesus WASN'T the Lamb slain from the foundation of the World?

Where are you getting this from?

>>11045

First of all stop being so hysterical if you want me to speak to you. Deep breaths brother, deep breaths.

>>11047

>If you insist on reading the Bible as a little child, you are hysterical

>Implying it's bad to have zeal for the Lord

Bosom, definition:

>the human chest and especially the front part of the chest

So, why does "Abraham's Bosom" HAVE to be some special distinct form of afterlife?

>>11044

You can't accuse someone of eisegesis without explaining why in particular and giving the alternative correct reading

>Now he's in heaven, but he wasn't before the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Nope, and the thief on the cross is a proof. Heaven was accessible before the resurrection.

>>11051

>You can't accuse someone of eisegesis without explaining why in particular and giving the alternative correct reading

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+16%3A19-31&version=KJV

Speaks for itself.

>>11054

Hell is eternal punishment for sinners.

Since God is omnipotent and not a sinner (except during the atonement), he can be present in Hell is he desires. Hell is not just some metaphysical place (Hell is like… separation from God maaaaan), but is the literal punishment God gives to sinners for an eternal afterlife.

God does not dwell in hell, but in heaven, but he is omnipresent.

>>11057

>hell is not eternal seperation from God

2 Thessalonians 1:9

<They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,

Don't get me wrong, hell is also a place of eternal suffering and torment, but seperation from God is a chief component of that, as God is the fountain of all goodness, and nothing good exists without him.

>>11066

Yes, THEY are away from the presence of the Lord.

That does not mean God is not omnipresent.

It's on their end as part of their punishment.

>>11069

Do you understand any degree of logic? Is your idea of omnipresence the idea that Gid can do the illogical? How can A be in location B, and C be in location B, with A being in the presence of C, while C isn't in the prescence of A? It makes no sense, and has no basis in reality.

Besides, Jesus couldn't have had any sin on him at the time of the atonement

1 Peter 2:22

>Who committed no sin, nor was guile found in his mouth

Aka, no guilt was found in him. Meaning he couldnt have absorbed our sins, since he had no guilt.

1 John 3:5

>And you know that he was manifested to take away our sins, and in him there is no sin 

>>11075

God can do anything. You can't bind God to your own suppositions because he IS the author of logic.

Do you remember how sacrifices work? The Passover? The lamb without blemish would stand in for Israel's sins.

>>11076

His death stood for ancestral sin only. We are saved by our faith in Jesus christ our savior, and our actions as christians.

We have been saved through holy baptism

We are being saved by the sacramental life of the church

We will be saved by the mercy of God our father at the Final Judgement

Faith without works is dead, and sola fide requires either nestorianism, arianism, or in your case: illogical action by God

>>11080

You are a thing formed. God is not capable of "illogical" action.

Before there was "logic" there was God.

Yes, an omnipotent, omnipresent being is inherently "illogical." And you, naturally, want to lean on your own understanding.

A thing formed can't fully comprehend its former. But, we can understand God good enough.

>>11082

What is inherently illogical about an omnipresent omnipotent omnignostic God?

>>11084

>Is your idea of omnipresence the idea that Gid can do the illogical? How can A be in location B, and C be in location B, with A being in the presence of C, while C isn't in the prescence of A? It makes no sense, and has no basis in reality.

You describe here that you believe omnipresence is illogical.

Omnipresent:

>present everywhere at the same time: the omnipresent God.

>>11085

No, i was saying that the idea that God is in hell when hell is seperation from God is illogical. God is not omnipresent, he is mostly present everywhere

>>11089

>God is not omnipresent

hmmmm

Well, the Son was certainly separated from the Father during the atonement

>My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

>>11090

? That would break the trinity.

>>11091

Why?

God can do anything.

Why did the Father forsake Jesus then? Why was there thick darkness on the Earth?

It's right there in the Bible.

>>11090

Besides,

>Eli, Eli, lema sabachthami!

He is praying Psalm 21 (22). When you take this first verse on it's own, it can be misinterpreted as a cry of despair. Since he took on our nature, Jesus experiences our alienation from God in our humanity, completely identifying with our condition, yet he does not despair, for in his divinity he is never forsaken by the Father.

>>11092

The thick darkness was a just a fulfillment of a prophecy of Amos 8:9.

>>11093

Or, or, get this; it could be that when the Bible says Jesus became sin, and that he tasted death for every man, that he descended into the belly of the Earth; it could be that the Bible actually meant all this.

>>11095

But Jesus wasn't forsaken by God. He willfully died, when he offered up his body on the cross. He was just empathizing with us through his humanity, and praying

>>11097

Let me ask you, have you read the Gospels as a little child? Read them, and block everything out that is not from the Bible. You will not come to the conclusion, that when Jesus is in agony on the cross, and he yells

>My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me (In Aramaic, his native language, of course, since he's yelling out in desperation)

And the whole Earth is covered in darkness; you will not come to the conclusion that Jesus is only empathizing with us.

I Implore you, my friend, re-read the Bible, with an open mind, not clouded by any outside forces.

>>11098

HE IS QUOTING PSALM 21 (22). READ PSALM 21 (22) AND YOU WILL KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT

>>11099

I know, everyone knows it.

>>11100

How could Christ Jesus' divinity ever be forsaken by the Father? That would break the trinity

>>11102

Jesus was always divine. As God, he took the punishment every man deserves, thus saving them, if they make the freewill decision to put their total faith on him.

Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ, writes that

>We are saved by grace through faith, not of works, lest any man should boast

Jesus did it all. He was/is fully God and fully man.

>>11104

Yes, we are saved by faith, not works. But as Jane's writes, "we are saved by works and not faith only", and "for faith without works is dead.". If we were justified only by faith, we would have no need to for baptism, or for communion, or for confession. Things Christian's all do and scripture says is needed

>>11106

your use of justification and salvation as synonymous in each of these contexts makes your view contradictory, James is contradicting Ephesians. The way to reconcile the two is to see that the justification James is referring to is external proof of the salvation having occurred.

Baptism, communion, and confession are all still instructions that Christians must practice even when they aren't necessary for salvation, like the command to "love your neighbor" is an instruction that is non-salvific even to sacramentalists.

>>11112

So, that's what you would do if you were in that position? Wow, no wonder you're not saved.

>>11113

No i wouldnt, I'm just pointing out the irrationality of your system. We as Christian's are meant to slowly but surely become as sinless as we can, and through the mercy of God our father in heaven, hope that he will not damn us

>>11112

Yes, a former murderer, rapist, or blasphemer can be saved by faith like the Bible says.

You're not giving a counter argument by the way

>>11115

>Try our best and hope he doesn't damn us

Sure sounds like some good news to me.

>>11115

>system

There is no "system", blood of Christ is not a "system" and God's judgement is not a "system". You can try working your way into heaven all you want, God himself has told you all your works are as filthy rags to him.

>We as Christian's

sure doesn't sound like your works-based salvation is anywhere near Christianity, seems more like a rejection of Christ's work on the cross in place of your own idiocy. Good luck with that.

>>11115

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

If you've sinned (you have), you can't merit salvation. God grants mercy or doesn't on the sole criteria of faith in Christ.

>>11120

>>11116

>>11118

>for we are justified by works and not faith only

>for faith without works is dead

>I have come not to end the law, but to fulfill it

>Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

>But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."

The bible views the faithless and those who unrepentantly sin as sinners.

Why dont we read what Jesus himself has to say about the final judgement?

Matthew 25:31-46

>31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,[a] you did it to me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Your pastors are lying to you.

>>11122

How does this disprove sola fide?

>>11124

It doesn't.

Matthew 19:25-26

When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

>>11125

Amen and hallelujah

>>11125

From God's mercy

>>11128

God's mercy is that all you have to do is put your full trust in him to be saved.

>>11131

Then why does Jesus and paul and james always talk about avoiding sin? If it doesnt even matter, why bother.

>>11141

If you are indeed so begrudging in obeying God that you would sin unrepentantly if He showed mercy, then you should ask yourself, "have I ever met Christ?"

>>11143

You do realize how scary this idea that we are saved only by faith is right? Imagine, if right before you die, your faith quivers. You second guess. God will have no mercy on you. He will not see that for your whole life since baptism you have tried and tried to be a good christian. Tried to avoid sin, and when you commited it you repented. He will not see that you prayed to him every day. He will not see that you went to his church and recieved his sacraments. He will just go "beep boop, sola fide, you're in hell now" because your faith wasnt at 100% at your time of death.

>>11147

>You do realize how scary this idea that we are saved only by faith is right?

I realize that divine truth is often very scary to the unregenerate heart.

>Imagine, if right before you die, your faith quivers. You second guess

I'm not relying on my self, I don't have to "do" anything. Christ is the ground of my hope and assurance, He props me up and justifies my name.

>He will not see that for your whole life since baptism you have tried and tried to be a good christian. Tried to avoid sin, and when you commited it you repented. He will not see that you prayed to him every day. He will not see that you went to his church and recieved his sacraments.

He will see all, and He will look at all your trying, and it will not be good enough. Because while you tried, you also failed, yet it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. You think it's good enough that tried? Does this excuse your bad behavior, does it justify your sin? Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them. Are you a righteous man? Have you actually kept the law? Do you pretend to be holy as God is holy? He will see that you have done those things, and He will also see that you withheld when you should have given, you boasted when you should have humbled yourself, you indulged in the flesh when you should have remained pure, you lied when you should have spoken truth, you kept silent when you should have prayed. Every idle word shall be held against you. Have you not missed the mark?

Now I am not more righteous than you, I am probably much worse. I am a chief of sinners, I commit abominations every day. God's standard is absolute perfection, because He is absolutely perfect, and He expects it of every one. Am I perfect? No, but Jesus Christ is, and because I trusted Him and relied on Him, I extended an empty hand while I fell, he has given this righteousness to me. Galatians 3:7-14

<Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The just shall live by faith.” But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

>>11153

God's mercy and our faith fill the gaps that our works do not fill