Why is this diversity not worrying Christians?

[Lucian Hodoboc]

We might elaborate on that information a bit by pointing to the fact that no mortals could be saved prior to Christ, and that's because the whole human race fell from God with the sin of Adam and Eve. However, God in his love for his creation personally paid the price for man's sin on the Cross, therefore we say that he died for us. God is merciful, but he also is just, and it would not be justice if he merely waved his hand (as people like to suggest) and said he'd changed his mind and everybody will advance to heaven, Mao Zedong no less than Francis of Assisi.

It is not justice to punish the innocent for the actions of the guilty. It is not justice to punish yourself for the actions of the guilty. A God who changes sinful people into their original nature and simply forgives them is a lot more just than a God who punishes Himself and then forgives those who believe that He punished Himself. In fact, I don't understand how you don't see the absurdity of "God punished Jesus instead of us" statement. Next time, just type "penal substitution" instead of writing a paragraph. I'm familiar with that absurd doctrine and I reject it.

 

[Albion]

It is not justice to punish the innocent for the actions of the guilty.

If any of us--or any human anywhere--is completely innocent of any transgressions against other people or against God's order, standards, and expectations...if he or she is perfect, in other words...

then please identify him or for us.

And here's a hint...the Bible teaches us that there is none.

It is not justice to punish yourself for the actions of the guilty.

I don't know where you picked up that idea. So long as doing so is not coerced, it is supremely loving to sacrifice for another. Good parents do it every day, as a matter of fact. Couldn't the Almighty, Our Father, do the same?

A God who changes sinful people into their original nature and simply forgives them is a lot more just than a God who punishes Himself and then forgives those who believe that He punished Himself.

That's strictly a personal opinion, isn't it? It's your theory. And it's a guess, that's all.

Besides, you misstated the point. Neither I nor the Bible suggested that God "forgives those who believe that He punished Himself." The belief is that Christ's allowed the authorities to punish him, thinking him guilty of several laws that other people were known to have violated.

Simply believing that God punished himself for no good reason wouldn't mean much, I agree.

I'm familiar with that absurd doctrine and I reject it.

Quite a few people in history have rejected Christ in the same way, but I cannot make you believe in Our Lord or in the Bible, as the case may be. What I am doing is just answering your questions and pointing to your mistaken premises, hoping that you'll reconsider.

Now you're free to tell us that you don't want to accept any of it. But you don't get to come up with your own version of Christianity and then reject that version while imagining that you've identified the Christianity's fatal flaws.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

I'm not rejecting Christ. I'm rejecting the doctrine of penal substitution, which is what you're presenting. You may not be familiar with its name, case in which a simple online search for the phrase will return plenty of information.

It's perfectly loving to sacrifice yourself for another. We were not talking about love. We were talking about justice. You claimed that it would have been unjust for God to simply change people's hearts and forgive them without punishing Christ in exchange for the forgiveness. I don't agree with the idea that it would have been unjust to simply forgive. You seem to be mixing love and the judicial system created by Calvin (based on Anselm's previous writings).

 

[Fritz Kobus]

The question here concerned "diversity" among Christians...and that it might be worrisome. When it is pointed out that Protestants and Orthodox Christian both believe that Christ died for us, that's unity, not diversity.

But as for your question, our colleague "Prepared," took it on by saying "The main purpose of the Gospel is to let everyone know that Jesus is Lord and through him salvation / redemption can be obtained." (post 57)

We might elaborate on that information a bit by pointing to the fact that no mortals could be saved prior to Christ, and that's because the whole human race fell from God with the sin of Adam and Eve. However, God in his love for his creation personally paid the price for man's sin on the Cross, therefore we say that he died for us. God is merciful, but he also is just, and it would not be justice if he merely waved his hand (as people like to suggest) and said he'd changed his mind and everybody will advance to heaven, Mao Zedong no less than Francis of Assisi.

Our salvation is mercy, not justice. Men going to Hell is justice.

 

[Fritz Kobus]

I'm rejecting the doctrine of penal substitution,

Amen! A pernicious doctrine that has infected so much of the Church. It totally distracts from the sacrificial death of Jesus for our sins which is a pleasing aroma to God, not an angry meting out of justice.

Ephesians 5:2
"And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour."

 

[Albion]

Amen! A pernicious doctrine that has infected so much of the Church. It totally distracts from the sacrificial death of Jesus for our sins which is a pleasing aroma to God, not an angry meting out of justice.

Ephesians 5:2
"And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour."

What's called the 'Doctrine of Penal Substitution' appears to be the predominant view of the matter among Christians, so I wonder if you'd comment (critically, I would expect) on the following article, which is similar to others that are available from sources usually considered reliable. Thanks.

What is the doctrine of penal substitution? | GotQuestions.org

What is the doctrine of penal substitution? What is the penal substitution understanding of the atonement?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[Albion]

I'm not rejecting Christ. I'm rejecting the doctrine of penal substitution, which is what you're presenting. You may not be familiar with its name, case in which a simple online search for the phrase will return plenty of information.

I'm aware of the doctrine, but what I dealt with in my reply to your previous post was much more than something that could be compressed into two words and dismissed out of hand like you've done here.

It's perfectly loving to sacrifice yourself for another. We were not talking about love. We were talking about justice.

I was talking about justice as well.

You claimed that it would have been unjust for God to simply change people's hearts and forgive them without punishing Christ in exchange for the forgiveness.

No, I didn't.

 

[Fritz Kobus]

What's called the 'Doctrine of Penal Substitution' appears to be the predominant view of the matter among Christians, so I wonder if you'd comment (critically, I would expect) on the following article, which is similar to others that are available from sources usually considered reliable. Thanks.

What is the doctrine of penal substitution? | GotQuestions.org

What is the doctrine of penal substitution? What is the penal substitution understanding of the atonement?

www.gotquestions.org

One point made in that article,
"In 2 Corinthians 5:21, he says that the sinless Christ took on our sins." Let's look at 2 Corinthians 5:21 in Biblegateway.com:

New International Version​

21 God made him who had no sin to be sin[a] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.​

Footnotes: a. 2 Corinthians 5:21 Or be a sin offering​

So it is not so clear as some would like it to be, though he did actually take on our sins as the sacrificial lamb to atone for those sins by His blood. Actually, hard core penalists will say 2 Cor. 5:21 says he actually became sin for us, but "sin offering" makes a lot more sense based on Old Testament sacrificial practices. The Greek word for sin used here is the same Greek word used for "sin offering" multiple times in the Septuagint.

But lets make this really simple. Give me one verse in the Bible that says Jesus paid a penalty for our sins. Sure he suffered. He paid a price in that he was beaten and died, but he did not pay a price equal to our sins as that is unnecessary since his blood covers all sin. There are numerous references to Jesus' blood cleansing our sins. What need to pay for sins that have been washed away by the blood. To suggest they must still be paid for denigrates the precious blood of Jesus.

 

[Prepared]

It doesn't just mean less important. It means less important than something else that is identified. Second degree murder is less "important" than first degree murder, therefore, but it's certainly not one of the "minor" offenses.



I could give you scores of examples. But let's take several in order to illustrate the point.

There are well-known denominations that consider abortion except to save the life of the mother to be a mortal sin, but there are others which are equally well-known and well-established that take the view that it's a mother's choice to do or not to do. And there are those that consider divorce for any reason to be morally wrong, while many believe and teach that there are reasons that justify the decision to divorce. There are churches that teach that drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes is a moral wrong. but there are others which teach that this is not the case unless it is so excessive that other harmful issues result. They all base their views on Scripture.


1. What you personally choose to think about what's minor or major, or moral or immoral, isn't the issue.

2. The "main" purpose of the Gospel may indeed be as you say, but there is no reason to think that the Bible or the Gospels in particular serve ONLY that purpose.

Indeed, a reading of the material makes it clear that there are indeed other purposes, including teaching moral or ethical conduct.

I feel the comparison you gave with Second degree murder / with first-degree murder to try to prove what I say as an error is a very poor choice.
The degree is given considering the circumstances surrounding the event.

What is the Difference Between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd-Degree Murders?

Miranda Rights Law Firm explains the technical difference between the various degrees of murder and manslaughter.

www.mirandarightslawfirm.com

The initial / original question asked Christians how they feel about diversity in the churches - isn't that a question that requires a personal answer and makes it the issue?

This is what the Bible list as moral sins

What Does the Bible Say About Morality?

Bible verses about Morality

www.openbible.info

What Does the Bible Say About Mortal Sin?

Bible verses about Mortal Sin

www.openbible.info

What are the Seven Deadly Sins? Bible List and Meaning

Discover the Bible meaning of the seven deadly sins (pride, envy, wrath, gluttony, lust, sloth, and greed), and understand why they are considered deadly.

www.christianity.com

Taking a view of whether it's the mother's choice in abortion does not say that it is morally right.
What churches teach it's okay to get an abortion?

What churches teach it's okay to get a divorce without considering the leeway that scripture gives for divorcement?

Drinking alcohol in moderation is not a moral sin.

Did I say the Bible or the Gospel serves only that purpose or even indicate that it did?

When your input is appreciated - thank you.

 

[Prepared]

What does "for us" mean? Why exactly did He have to die for us? Why exactly did anyone have to die for us? Why exactly did anyone had to die at all, whether for us or for anyone else?

If God is omnipotent (that means all-powerful, that He can do anything, that's what Jesus Himself said - that with God all things are possible), then nobody should have had to die, be it for us or for anyone.

I can only give you scripture to explain the for us - John 3:16 is a reason why Jesus came down from heaven, born in a flesh body, and died on the cross, was resurrected and went back to heaven from whence he came.

Bible Gateway passage: John 3:16 - King James Version

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

www.biblegateway.com

Scripture says sin brings death

What Does the Bible Say About The Wages Of Sin Is Death?

Bible verses about The Wages Of Sin Is Death

www.openbible.info

Since the placement of man upon this planet judgment was initiated.

I have my own personal views of why our spirits were placed and then born here on earth in flesh bodies _ why all of human flesh is under judgment but those are my personal views - views I am not quite sure I can speak of on this site.

God can do as he chooses, and if he chooses to destroy the life he give to the rebellious ones - then so be it - who can stop him? And one cannot say he's not fair - he gave warning - he left warning in scripture to whosoever may read and take heed in Scripture - the penalty of sins.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

I have my own personal views of why our spirits were placed and then born here on earth in flesh bodies _ why all of human flesh is under judgment but those are my personal views - views I am not quite sure I can speak of on this site.

@Lamb , is she allowed to share her personal views on the forums?

 

[Lamb]

@Lamb , is she allowed to share her personal views on the forums?

Hopefully they are CHRISTIAN views?

 

[1689Dave]

Only three major divisions exist in Christendom concerning salvation. A. A. Hodge writes; "What are the three great systems of theology which have always continued to prevail in the Church?"

1st. On the right hand, Augustinianism completed in Calvinism. 2d. On the left hand, Pelagianism completed in Socinianism. And 3d. Arminianism comes between these as the system of compromises and is developed Semipelagianism.

Hodge, A. A. (1878). Outlines of Theology: Rewritten and Enlarged (p. 96). Hodder & Stoughton.

1 = God alone saves sinners un-aided by them. 2 = Man alone saves himself through obedience un-aided by God. And 3 = God aids man in saving himself through obedience.

 

[Albion]

One point made in that article,
"In 2 Corinthians 5:21, he says that the sinless Christ took on our sins." Let's look at 2 Corinthians 5:21 in Biblegateway.com:


So it is not so clear as some would like it to be, though he did actually take on our sins as the sacrificial lamb to atone for those sins by His blood.

It seems clear enough to me and to most Christians. And there are a number of Bible verses that support the conclusion. So, no offense intended, but this idea of God sacrificing himself TO himself, if that's the alternative, doesn't seem persuasive.

But lets make this really simple. Give me one verse in the Bible that says Jesus paid a penalty for our sins. Sure he suffered. He paid a price in that he was beaten and died, but he did not pay a price equal to our sins as that is unnecessary since his blood covers all sin.

Hmm. So you would like to see verses that say Christ paid a penalty for our sins, but not if the idea is that his sacrifice paid for all of them since, if that were the case, it wouldn't count? Something isn't lining up here.

There are numerous references to Jesus' blood cleansing our sins. What need to pay for sins that have been washed away by the blood. To suggest they must still be paid for denigrates the precious blood of Jesus.

I don't understand this. The Cross WAS the sacrifice, so the "precious blood" refers to that event, and who is saying that those sins must be paid for again??

 

[Albion]

I feel the comparison you gave with Second degree murder / with first-degree murder to try to prove what I say as an error is a very poor choice.
The degree is given considering the circumstances surrounding the event.

If you wish. Let's use some other example. Surely, we all can agree that every criminal offense is not considered by the law or by ordinary citizens to be of the same degree of severity as every other one, ergo some crimes can rightly be described as major and others as minor.

Taking a view of whether it's the mother's choice in abortion does not say that it is morally right.
What churches teach it's okay to get an abortion?

Unfortunately, there are almost too many to name. The Southern Baptist Convention, the Evangelical Covenant Church, the Orthodox Church in America, and the United Methodist Church are some examples, and all of them are well-known denominations.

What churches teach it's okay to get a divorce without considering the leeway that scripture gives for divorcement?

Same here.

Drinking alcohol in moderation is not a moral sin.

In your own POV, you mean.

 

[tango]

It is not justice to punish the innocent for the actions of the guilty. It is not justice to punish yourself for the actions of the guilty. A God who changes sinful people into their original nature and simply forgives them is a lot more just than a God who punishes Himself and then forgives those who believe that He punished Himself. In fact, I don't understand how you don't see the absurdity of "God punished Jesus instead of us" statement. Next time, just type "penal substitution" instead of writing a paragraph. I'm familiar with that absurd doctrine and I reject it.

There's a big difference when the person who pays the price does so voluntarily.

At a simplistic human level imagine you did something wrong, went to court and were issued a fine. Now you have to pay some amount of money for your transgression. But you don't have the money. Never mind, you can go to jail instead. What if someone else comes forward, freely and voluntarily, and pays your fine for you? Now you don't have to pay it and you don't have to go to jail.

What you're describing as justice would be little more than the judge saying "You can't pay the fine? Never mind, forget about it" and letting you go free without any punishment at all. That's not justice.

 

[Prepared]

If you wish. Let's use some other example. Surely, we all can agree that every criminal offense is not considered by the law or by ordinary citizens to be of the same degree of severity as every other one, ergo some crimes can rightly be described as major and others as minor.


Unfortunately, there are almost too many to name. The Southern Baptist Convention, the Evangelical Covenant Church, the Orthodox Church in America, and the United Methodist Church are some examples, and all of them are well-known denominations.


Same here.


In your own POV, you mean.

Where major religious groups stand on abortion

Abortion is still a difficult, contentious and even unresolved issue for some religious groups.

www.pewresearch.org

Seems to me that the churches do have limitations and restrictions and some of the churches you listed shouldn't be on your list.

The Pharisees and Sadducees call Jesus a wine bibler _ what is a wine bibler / meaning he often drank wine / even if it was once a day with his dinner.
So I guess the POV you mentioned applies to him also.

Thank you for your input

 

[Prepared]

Hopefully they are CHRISTIAN views?

*A* Christian view that has no support whatsoever from scripture. It may be best not to venture there.

 

[Prepared]

If you wish. Let's use some other example. Surely, we all can agree that every criminal offense is not considered by the law or by ordinary citizens to be of the same degree of severity as every other one, ergo some crimes can rightly be described as major and others as minor.


Unfortunately, there are almost too many to name. The Southern Baptist Convention, the Evangelical Covenant Church, the Orthodox Church in America, and the United Methodist Church are some examples, and all of them are well-known denominations.


Same here.


In your own POV, you mean.

Because I am honest I felt I should relay this to you. I was going through my papers and notes that I keep for studying and I found an article that I had clipped years ago concerning same sex marriages, printed in 2005. It says the Church of Christ in Atlanta approved to endorse same-sex marriages.
That is not a minor issue - that is why I rarely use the word all.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

There's a big difference when the person who pays the price does so voluntarily.

At a simplistic human level imagine you did something wrong, went to court and were issued a fine. Now you have to pay some amount of money for your transgression. But you don't have the money. Never mind, you can go to jail instead. What if someone else comes forward, freely and voluntarily, and pays your fine for you? Now you don't have to pay it and you don't have to go to jail.

What you're describing as justice would be little more than the judge saying "You can't pay the fine? Never mind, forget about it" and letting you go free without any punishment at all. That's not justice.

I disagree. If the person who committed the crime realizes the wrong he has done and doesn't want to do that again, then that is all that justice requires! No one has to be punished because punishing for the sake of punishing serves no purpose. Who does it benefit that someone pays my fine if I don't realize the wrong I have done and I remain unchanged? I may not commit the crime again due to fear of punishment, but I have not understood why it was wrong to do said crime, nor have I been set free of the desire to do it.

Whether the person who pays the fine does so voluntarily or not is irrelevant. The entire premise is flawed. You are describing a situation in which forgiveness can't be freely offered and can offer no rational reason for it. "Justice demands it" is not a rational reason. Justice is not a sentient being, so it cannot demand anything. Whoever created the rules on which justice is based should have a rational argument for why justice demands that payment should be offered in exchange for forgiveness.