Featured BIBLICAL atonement

Whew! It stinks in here. I may have to concede to Jon and agedman's confessions that Christ is not their substitute, but for the rest of us, it really is so basic. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. In other words, He took our place in judgment.

 

How would anyone do that?
How do you prove something is NOT there?

 

So Christ died for us, for our benefit, on our behalf, in our interest: that doesn’t mean He died as a substitute “for us, on our behalf, for our benefit etc”?

Peace to you

 

Nothing is causing me any trouble at all.

 

I think you are grasping at straws when you say that the idea of appeasing is not found in these verses.

G2435 Rom_3:25

Thayer Definition:
1) relating to an appeasing or expiating, having placating or expiating force, expiatory; a means of appeasing or expiating, a propitiation

G2433 Heb_2:17

Thayer Definition:
1) to render one’s self, to appease, conciliate to one’s self

G2434 1Jn_2:2 1Jn_4:10

Thayer Definition:
1) an appeasing, propitiating
2) the means of appeasing, a propitiation

The Thayer definitions include appeasing and the term works well in the verses. Try it yourself, just replace propitiation in the verse.

 

So, Christ died “for us” and He “died for our sins.”

What exactly does “He died for our sins” mean? In what way did He die for our sins?

Doesn’t that mean mean He died as punishment “for our sins”? In what other way could “He died for our sins” be understood?

peace to you

 

So, He died for our sins… He took upon Himself the wages of (our) sin,… God the Father offered Him as an offering; but He did not die as our substitute?

Peace to you

 

It is clear to me that you two have drifted very far from a biblical understanding.
I believe when truth is set aside nothing is left but denials of the biblical faith.
Neither of you have answered the posts of everyone else on this issue.
The fact that I have to agree with RM, and SBG...should raise some eyebrows.

 

No icon.
We have not drifted away, but embraced the teaching of the earliest assemblies.

What is your basis for not understanding?

Is it foreign to what you have been taught and embrace? Certainly!

What @JonC andI have attempted to present is what the Scriptures declare without the preconceived thinking the reformation nor the RCC imposed.

Is it wrong to show the Father as both pleased and satisfied when as Galatians states the Lord was victorious over the authorities and powers of darkness and sufficiently that Redemption is now by Grace?

Is it wrong to show that God’s wrath was not poured out upon the Son, but is reserved for the ungodly? That there is no condemnation because of Grace?

My friend, it was not easy to realize the teaching I presented to students was wrong. That I could not find any truthful Scripture support.

All I ask is that you search for yourself. If you have a question, ask.

There is room for us to disagree, for our Saviour isn’t hampered, He is still Sovereign.

 

No!

He did not take on the wages of sin as if that caused Him death.

The Scriptures state He was victorious over sin, death and the grave, (1 Corinthians 15)

We all die, for we all still sin. We strive to live holy and sin less but to say we have no sin is to make God a liar (1 John if I recall correctly).

Just as God was satisfied with the offering of the OT, the offering of The Christ satisfied that reconciliation and redemption is now found by Grace and not by daily sacrifices and offering.

How does the Scripture state Christ died?

He was and remained in total control of the universe, No one or thing took His life from Him.

 

You need to revisit God's picture book.

 

I've provided several. You have simply avoided them.

 

It seems you couldn't spot the verse I was quoting in the very post you replied to.

 

well, judging from your response, you neither know Hebrew or Greek! Have YOU personally checked the usage of both the Hebrew and Greek, especially in the OT, from where this Doctrine comes?

The Greek noun ἰλαστήριος, is used only twice New Testament. Romans 3:25, where Versions like the
KJV translate "propitiation".
Wycliffe, " Whom God ordained forgiver"
Tyndale "made a seate of mercy".
Geneva Bible "to be a reconciliation".
Great Bible "set forth to be the obtayner of mercy"
NIV, "a sacrifice of atonement"
NLT, "as the sacrifice for sin"
Berean "the atoning sacrifice"
NET "as the mercy seat"
Weymouth "as a Mercy-seat"
Youngs "set forth a mercy seat"
WEB "to be an atoning sacrifice"
NRSV "a sacrifice of atonement"
NAB "as an expiation"
ISV "a place where atonement"
CSB "as the mercy seat"

And in Hebrews 9:5

Where the greater majority of English Versions use "Mercy Seat". Hebrews 9:5 Above the ark were the cherubim of glory, overshadowing the mercy seat. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.

I suppose you will say that all of these Versions are wrong?

 

complete rubbish, like JonC and a few others on here, you are blind from seeing what the Bible says because of your theology!