In this time of "politically correct" it seems that there is a general good feel attitude about religion. "You're OK, I'm OK" pretty well expresses it. Folks say it doesn't matter how you serve God, because we are all His children. I submit for your consideration this: the God of the Bible is not the same as Allah. Discussion anyone?

Morganite

If justice were superior to God, then God would not be God. However, he is a just God and he does not juggle with justice. When the law of justice was established it became an unchangeable eternal principle. Thus justice has demands for infraction that mercy cannot attenuate. However through the grace of God and the mercy of Christ the price was paid. Justice was satisfied, and man was thereby able to be relieved from the consequences of his wrongdoing.

Jesus Christ appeased the demands of divine justice and effected reconciliation between God and man. John taught: "Jesus Christ the righteous is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:1-2.)

Paul also expounds this doctrine saying, "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” The ‘natural’ ie, unredeemed, man is an enemy to God and has been cast out of his presence. But Christians, Paul continues, are "justified freely by [God's] grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." How is it that Christians are justified? It is because "God hath set forth [his Son] to be a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” (Romans 3:23-26.)

Through the atoning sacrifice of Christ and by their faith, men may be ransomed from their state of sin and spiritual darkness and be restored to one of harmony and unity with their Maker. Paul said: "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature.” That is, he has been born again. "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ."

Christ is the Redeemer and Reconciler. His atoning sacrifice opened the door so that men could return to God. And the Lord "hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation. That ministry and doctrine is "that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them."

Jesus Christ "hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” We are to preach the gospel of reconciliation to the world, inviting all men to return to the Lord and be one with him. "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.” (2 Corinthians 5:17-20.)

Paul also taught that "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us"; that the saints are "justified by his blood"; and that, accordingly, "we shall be saved from wrath through him." Mercy shall overpower justice in that Christ pays the penalty for our sins. "When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son," and "being reconciled, we shall be saved.”"we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.” Therefore, (Romans 5:8-11.) Such is the law of reconciliation and redemption achieved not without the blood of Jesus Christ.

A few passages that point out the part played by the blood and suffering of Jesus in the Atonement are subpended wihtout further comment.

~ Ephesians 2.13 - But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

~ Hebrews 9.12-14 - Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us]. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

~ 1 Peter 1.2 - [To the] Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

~ 1Peter 1.18-23 - Ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [as] silver and gold, from your vain conversation [received] by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, [see that ye] love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

~1 John 1.7 - The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

~ Revelation 1.5 - Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.




M

Morganite

Galveston,

Purely out of interest, how would you suggest someone begin their study of the Bible so they can obtain unbiased information? You will admit that the vast majority of biblical commentaries are written to convince readers to one particular viewpoint, most of which are dissimilar in some points, be they great or small, from each other.

In your opinion, would a serious study involve reading scholarly works such as Introduction literature, and do you recommend that readers learn the biblical languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine) to make their own translations so they are not sidetracked by bad interpretations of the Bible?

M

ordinaryguy

If it truly were unchangeable, then reconciliation would be impossible. The question is whether God's mercy and forgiveness is superior to a concept of justice that demands death as the punishment for sin. Jesus' life and example taught us that the Father's mercy and willingness to forgive is fundamental to His nature and will not be held hostage to a legalistic interpretation of justice.

I'm sorry, but a justice that is appeased by the gruesome suffering and death of an innocent person is not one that is worthy of a loving and merciful Father.

The truth that he lived and taught and the loving Father he revealed was entirely sufficient to effect our reconciliation. Insisting that his suffering and death was the essential element of this reconciliation distorts and negates his message that "The Father Himself loves you".

Again, I have no problem with Jesus as the Redeemer and Reconciler. What I find completely unacceptable is the notion that his suffering and death, rather than his life and the truth he embodied, is the essential element that brings about this reconciliation.

Yes, even more than some of the other apostles, Paul was intent on representing and interpreting Jesus' life and death in a manner consistent with the Old Testament temple rituals of atonement for sin by animal sacrifice. In doing so, he failed to grasp the truly radical nature of Jesus' ministry and revelation of the Father. The Christian churches of today still labor under the burden of his misunderstanding. It's tragic, really.

talaniman

I have always figured that Jesus had enough faith to know that as the son of God his suffering was just a part of his truth as he knew he was blessed and his spirit would not die, the very fact his teaching has survived this long is proof to that in my opinion. Though man is hard pressed to teach faithfully, as is the case of Mohammed in Islam.

Morganite

galveston disagrees: Deceitful? What Scripture do you find that would show God to be deceitful if what I suggest should be so?

That is the whole point. The Ransom Theory is not found in scripture and hence you are safe in fully rejecting it. It is not the only theory of atonment that is unscriptural. That being so, why would anyone cling to them?



.

Retrotia

I have to disagree with you on this. Paul wasn't like this at all. In the New Testament, God didn't want sacrifices, he desired mercy. Jesus was the Sacrificial Lamb. True, John & Peter explain this better than Paul;but, there is truly nothing tragic about it.

Morganite

Paul has had a bad press. He has even been accused of 'inventing' Christianity. However, wemust understand that Paul was the first Christian theologian, and because he labored among Greeks he had to explain what Jesus was about in terms they could understand. Although there is no continuing consistency in paul's writings - he writes to whatever matter is before him - yet it is not difficult to reconcile his positions on various essential matters with what are recorded as the teachings of Jesus.

I agree somewhat about Paul's (if indeed it is Paul writing ijn Hebrews) drawing on imagery and symbolism of the Temple and its services to illustrate who and what Jesus was in his letter to Jewish Christians. We find John using similar literary techniques in his Apocalypse.

The whole point of the works of gospellers and epistolarians is to make the Christian message relevant and available in terms with which they were familiar. This is one reason why reading an English translation of the Bible in today's world conveys to non-specialists so little of what was originally intended, because most people are unable to read it through a mindset equivalent to those of Palestinians and Greeks of two thousand years ago.

It is possible that Paul's greatest point of divergence is with John's view of eschatology, but John wrote much later when the non-appearance of Jesus was troubling the saints.

ordinaryguy

Hello, and welcome to the discussion. I'm not sure I understand you. Your statement that "Jesus was the Sacrificial Lamb" seems to imply that you agree with Paul's interpretation, i.e., that Jesus' suffering and death was necessary and instrumental in effecting God's forgiveness, in the same way that the death of the animal sacrifice was essential in the temple ritual. If that's the case, I guess we do disagree.

My contention is that the analogy between Jesus' death and the death of the animal sacrifice is a misunderstanding of Jesus' mission to reveal God as a Father who freely offers His children unconditional love, abundant mercy and willing forgiveness, not a remote and severe judge who demands the death of an innocent person as the price of forgiveness. It's the consequences of this misunderstanding that seem tragic to me.

galveston

You could not mean #80 as that was not yours. I looked at #180, but need a clearer statement of your direct question.

talaniman

Sorry I wanted clarity as to your disagreement to post!#175, as your disageement made no sense to me.

Also your response to #181 about redemption where did that come from as you directed it at me in 184 when thats not what I asked at all, please explain.