Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Penal Substitutionary Atonement

popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 10:01:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Can someone please explain to me how this isn't an obviously immoral theory of atonement? I for the life of me can't see how it isn't, and I find it somewhat mind boggling to think that this is the main and central theory of atonement among large swathes of protestant western christianity. Some will even claim that to reject this theory is to reject christianity itself which is laughable. How in the world is it not a moral absurdity to punish an innocent person in place of the guilty? I'm inclined to agree with Steven Chalke here: this theory entails "cosmic child abuse".

"They say first, God must punish the sinner, for justice requires it; then they say he does not punish the sinner, but punishes a perfectly righteous man instead, attributes his righteousness to the sinner, and so continues just. Was there ever such a confusion, such an inversion of right and wrong! Justice could not treat a righteous man as an unrighteous; neither, if justice required the punishment of sin, could justice let the sinner go unpunished. To lay the pain upon the righteous in the name of justice is simply monstrous. No wonder unbelief is rampant. Believe in Moloch if you will, but call him Moloch, not Justice. Be sure that the thing that God gives, the righteousness that is of God, is a real thing, and not a contemptible legalism. Pray God I have no righteousness imputed to me. Let me be regarded as the sinner I am; for nothing will serve my need but to be made a righteous man, one that will no more sin.

George MacDonald
from Unspoken Sermons, vol. 3, "Righteousness""
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 10:24:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 10:01:36 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Can someone please explain to me how this isn't an obviously immoral theory of atonement? I for the life of me can't see how it isn't, and I find it somewhat mind boggling to think that this is the main and central theory of atonement among large swathes of protestant western christianity. Some will even claim that to reject this theory is to reject christianity itself which is laughable. How in the world is it not a moral absurdity to punish an innocent person in place of the guilty? I'm inclined to agree with Steven Chalke here: this theory entails "cosmic child abuse".

"They say first, God must punish the sinner, for justice requires it; then they say he does not punish the sinner, but punishes a perfectly righteous man instead, attributes his righteousness to the sinner, and so continues just. Was there ever such a confusion, such an inversion of right and wrong! Justice could not treat a righteous man as an unrighteous; neither, if justice required the punishment of sin, could justice let the sinner go unpunished. To lay the pain upon the righteous in the name of justice is simply monstrous. No wonder unbelief is rampant. Believe in Moloch if you will, but call him Moloch, not Justice. Be sure that the thing that God gives, the righteousness that is of God, is a real thing, and not a contemptible legalism. Pray God I have no righteousness imputed to me. Let me be regarded as the sinner I am; for nothing will serve my need but to be made a righteous man, one that will no more sin.

George MacDonald
from Unspoken Sermons, vol. 3, "Righteousness""

The answer that I have typically heard is that it would not be morally wrong because Jesus willingly laid down his life for us. I think we all agree (Christians that is) that it should be us who are on the cross. We do deserve the punishment and we do deserve justice. One of my friends once told me, "We deserve justice, pray for mercy, and yet receive grace. Nothing is more beautiful." Probably one of my favorite Christian bands of all time Relient K said, "The beauty of grace is that it makes life not fair." So I am inclined to agree with you. It is not fair that Jesus took our punishment, but I have heard it would not be immoral because he willingly took our punishment, and it amazes me everyday that he would do that and I think that is one of the beautiful things about Christianity. Knowing that the creator of the universe loves us that intensely. It's truly amazing.
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 10:27:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 10:24:39 AM, stubs wrote:
At 8/7/2013 10:01:36 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Can someone please explain to me how this isn't an obviously immoral theory of atonement? I for the life of me can't see how it isn't, and I find it somewhat mind boggling to think that this is the main and central theory of atonement among large swathes of protestant western christianity. Some will even claim that to reject this theory is to reject christianity itself which is laughable. How in the world is it not a moral absurdity to punish an innocent person in place of the guilty? I'm inclined to agree with Steven Chalke here: this theory entails "cosmic child abuse".

"They say first, God must punish the sinner, for justice requires it; then they say he does not punish the sinner, but punishes a perfectly righteous man instead, attributes his righteousness to the sinner, and so continues just. Was there ever such a confusion, such an inversion of right and wrong! Justice could not treat a righteous man as an unrighteous; neither, if justice required the punishment of sin, could justice let the sinner go unpunished. To lay the pain upon the righteous in the name of justice is simply monstrous. No wonder unbelief is rampant. Believe in Moloch if you will, but call him Moloch, not Justice. Be sure that the thing that God gives, the righteousness that is of God, is a real thing, and not a contemptible legalism. Pray God I have no righteousness imputed to me. Let me be regarded as the sinner I am; for nothing will serve my need but to be made a righteous man, one that will no more sin.

George MacDonald
from Unspoken Sermons, vol. 3, "Righteousness""

The answer that I have typically heard is that it would not be morally wrong because Jesus willingly laid down his life for us. I think we all agree (Christians that is) that it should be us who are on the cross. We do deserve the punishment and we do deserve justice. One of my friends once told me, "We deserve justice, pray for mercy, and yet receive grace. Nothing is more beautiful." Probably one of my favorite Christian bands of all time Relient K said, "The beauty of grace is that it makes life not fair." So I am inclined to agree with you. It is not fair that Jesus took our punishment, but I have heard it would not be immoral because he willingly took our punishment, and it amazes me everyday that he would do that and I think that is one of the beautiful things about Christianity. Knowing that the creator of the universe loves us that intensely. It's truly amazing.

There's also the point that Jesus Christ is God. And God became just and the justifier.

Romans 3:
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth 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;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Dogknox
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 3:23:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 10:01:36 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Can someone please explain to me how this isn't an obviously immoral theory of atonement? I for the life of me can't see how it isn't, and I find it somewhat mind boggling to think that this is the main and central theory of atonement among large swathes of protestant western christianity. Some will even claim that to reject this theory is to reject christianity itself which is laughable. How in the world is it not a moral absurdity to punish an innocent person in place of the guilty? I'm inclined to agree with Steven Chalke here: this theory entails "cosmic child abuse".

"They say first, God must punish the sinner, for justice requires it; then they say he does not punish the sinner, but punishes a perfectly righteous man instead, attributes his righteousness to the sinner, and so continues just. Was there ever such a confusion, such an inversion of right and wrong! Justice could not treat a righteous man as an unrighteous; neither, if justice required the punishment of sin, could justice let the sinner go unpunished. To lay the pain upon the righteous in the name of justice is simply monstrous. No wonder unbelief is rampant. Believe in Moloch if you will, but call him Moloch, not Justice. Be sure that the thing that God gives, the righteousness that is of God, is a real thing, and not a contemptible legalism. Pray God I have no righteousness imputed to me. Let me be regarded as the sinner I am; for nothing will serve my need but to be made a righteous man, one that will no more sin.

George MacDonald
from Unspoken Sermons, vol. 3, "Righteousness""

You are mixed up!!!!
God made a PERFECT world.. God does everything PERFECT!
God made Adam "PERFECT!"

Adam the PERFECT MAN.. Sinned! It was the Perfect Man that brought corruption and DEATH into God' perfect creation.. NOT GOD, (God does all things PERFECT)! Now because no man can be born PERFECT no man could be found to pay for the sin of the PERFECT MAN>> Adam!
SIN BRINGS DEATH.. So because of Adam all men DIE!

Someone had to be born PERFECT to die in the Place of Adam and his Sin, to destroy death and restore LIFE!
Jesus the PERFECT MAN died but he could not stay dead... He was without sin!
SIN brings death... Jesus was "Sinless" Jesus popped up out of the grave because he had NO SIN!

I am ADDED to the Body of the risen Jesus so I will also rise!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 3:28:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 10:24:39 AM, stubs wrote:
At 8/7/2013 10:01:36 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Can someone please explain to me how this isn't an obviously immoral theory of atonement? I for the life of me can't see how it isn't, and I find it somewhat mind boggling to think that this is the main and central theory of atonement among large swathes of protestant western christianity. Some will even claim that to reject this theory is to reject christianity itself which is laughable. How in the world is it not a moral absurdity to punish an innocent person in place of the guilty? I'm inclined to agree with Steven Chalke here: this theory entails "cosmic child abuse".

"They say first, God must punish the sinner, for justice requires it; then they say he does not punish the sinner, but punishes a perfectly righteous man instead, attributes his righteousness to the sinner, and so continues just. Was there ever such a confusion, such an inversion of right and wrong! Justice could not treat a righteous man as an unrighteous; neither, if justice required the punishment of sin, could justice let the sinner go unpunished. To lay the pain upon the righteous in the name of justice is simply monstrous. No wonder unbelief is rampant. Believe in Moloch if you will, but call him Moloch, not Justice. Be sure that the thing that God gives, the righteousness that is of God, is a real thing, and not a contemptible legalism. Pray God I have no righteousness imputed to me. Let me be regarded as the sinner I am; for nothing will serve my need but to be made a righteous man, one that will no more sin.

George MacDonald
from Unspoken Sermons, vol. 3, "Righteousness""

The answer that I have typically heard is that it would not be morally wrong because Jesus willingly laid down his life for us. I think we all agree (Christians that is) that it should be us who are on the cross. We do deserve the punishment and we do deserve justice. One of my friends once told me, "We deserve justice, pray for mercy, and yet receive grace. Nothing is more beautiful." Probably one of my favorite Christian bands of all time Relient K said, "The beauty of grace is that it makes life not fair." So I am inclined to agree with you. It is not fair that Jesus took our punishment, but I have heard it would not be immoral because he willingly took our punishment, and it amazes me everyday that he would do that and I think that is one of the beautiful things about Christianity. Knowing that the creator of the universe loves us that intensely. It's truly amazing.

That's a common response but I don't think it works at all. For instance, there was a news story a couple years back about a woman being gang raped because of an offense her brother committed. Most of us recognize that as absolutely morally abhorrent. A sister shouldn't be made to pay for her brothers crimes. She's innocent. Change a few facts: suppose the sister willingly was crucified for her brother because she loved him so much. It's an admireable sentiment, but "punishing" her for her brothers murders still is morally absurd. It simply isn't punishment in the retributive sense (penal substitution depends ob retributivism) if the wrongdoer himself isn't punished. Punishment expresses condemnation of the punishee - you can't properly condemn an innocent person. Also there's a belief condition necessary for a punisher to properly punish, but I won't get too heavy into philosophy right now.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Dogknox
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 3:34:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 10:01:36 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Can someone please explain to me how this isn't an obviously immoral theory of atonement? I for the life of me can't see how it isn't, and I find it somewhat mind boggling to think that this is the main and central theory of atonement among large swathes of protestant western christianity. Some will even claim that to reject this theory is to reject christianity itself which is laughable. How in the world is it not a moral absurdity to punish an innocent person in place of the guilty? I'm inclined to agree with Steven Chalke here: this theory entails "cosmic child abuse".

"They say first, God must punish the sinner, for justice requires it; then they say he does not punish the sinner, but punishes a perfectly righteous man instead, attributes his righteousness to the sinner, and so continues just. Was there ever such a confusion, such an inversion of right and wrong! Justice could not treat a righteous man as an unrighteous; neither, if justice required the punishment of sin, could justice let the sinner go unpunished. To lay the pain upon the righteous in the name of justice is simply monstrous. No wonder unbelief is rampant. Believe in Moloch if you will, but call him Moloch, not Justice. Be sure that the thing that God gives, the righteousness that is of God, is a real thing, and not a contemptible legalism. Pray God I have no righteousness imputed to me. Let me be regarded as the sinner I am; for nothing will serve my need but to be made a righteous man, one that will no more sin.

George MacDonald
from Unspoken Sermons, vol. 3, "Righteousness""

I add.... (To the post above) God is LOVE!
You can't LOVE if you do not GIVE of yourself!!
Jesus GIVES US "his all" in perfect LOVE!
His body, his soul and his divinity! TOTAL Giving of self.. in perfect LOVE!

God became man so man could be saved from death caused by the sin of Adam!
"The wages of sin is death.. so all must die because all men are sinners!"
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 3:38:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 3:28:47 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/7/2013 10:24:39 AM, stubs wrote:
At 8/7/2013 10:01:36 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Can someone please explain to me how this isn't an obviously immoral theory of atonement? I for the life of me can't see how it isn't, and I find it somewhat mind boggling to think that this is the main and central theory of atonement among large swathes of protestant western christianity. Some will even claim that to reject this theory is to reject christianity itself which is laughable. How in the world is it not a moral absurdity to punish an innocent person in place of the guilty? I'm inclined to agree with Steven Chalke here: this theory entails "cosmic child abuse".

"They say first, God must punish the sinner, for justice requires it; then they say he does not punish the sinner, but punishes a perfectly righteous man instead, attributes his righteousness to the sinner, and so continues just. Was there ever such a confusion, such an inversion of right and wrong! Justice could not treat a righteous man as an unrighteous; neither, if justice required the punishment of sin, could justice let the sinner go unpunished. To lay the pain upon the righteous in the name of justice is simply monstrous. No wonder unbelief is rampant. Believe in Moloch if you will, but call him Moloch, not Justice. Be sure that the thing that God gives, the righteousness that is of God, is a real thing, and not a contemptible legalism. Pray God I have no righteousness imputed to me. Let me be regarded as the sinner I am; for nothing will serve my need but to be made a righteous man, one that will no more sin.

George MacDonald
from Unspoken Sermons, vol. 3, "Righteousness""

The answer that I have typically heard is that it would not be morally wrong because Jesus willingly laid down his life for us. I think we all agree (Christians that is) that it should be us who are on the cross. We do deserve the punishment and we do deserve justice. One of my friends once told me, "We deserve justice, pray for mercy, and yet receive grace. Nothing is more beautiful." Probably one of my favorite Christian bands of all time Relient K said, "The beauty of grace is that it makes life not fair." So I am inclined to agree with you. It is not fair that Jesus took our punishment, but I have heard it would not be immoral because he willingly took our punishment, and it amazes me everyday that he would do that and I think that is one of the beautiful things about Christianity. Knowing that the creator of the universe loves us that intensely. It's truly amazing.

That's a common response but I don't think it works at all. For instance, there was a news story a couple years back about a woman being gang raped because of an offense her brother committed. Most of us recognize that as absolutely morally abhorrent. A sister shouldn't be made to pay for her brothers crimes. She's innocent. Change a few facts: suppose the sister willingly was crucified for her brother because she loved him so much. It's an admireable sentiment, but "punishing" her for her brothers murders still is morally absurd. It simply isn't punishment in the retributive sense (penal substitution depends ob retributivism) if the wrongdoer himself isn't punished. Punishment expresses condemnation of the punishee - you can't properly condemn an innocent person. Also there's a belief condition necessary for a punisher to properly punish, but I won't get too heavy into philosophy right now.

That's a fair point and a very good post. I don't have a rebuttal because honestly I don't really know haha. How would you, however, respond to a person who says God is the one who decides what is just. If, you agree, the bible says that God acts justly wouldn't you be concluding that your idea of trust is more morally correct than Gods?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 3:38:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 3:23:21 PM, Dogknox wrote:
At 8/7/2013 10:01:36 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Can someone please explain to me how this isn't an obviously immoral theory of atonement? I for the life of me can't see how it isn't, and I find it somewhat mind boggling to think that this is the main and central theory of atonement among large swathes of protestant western christianity. Some will even claim that to reject this theory is to reject christianity itself which is laughable. How in the world is it not a moral absurdity to punish an innocent person in place of the guilty? I'm inclined to agree with Steven Chalke here: this theory entails "cosmic child abuse".

"They say first, God must punish the sinner, for justice requires it; then they say he does not punish the sinner, but punishes a perfectly righteous man instead, attributes his righteousness to the sinner, and so continues just. Was there ever such a confusion, such an inversion of right and wrong! Justice could not treat a righteous man as an unrighteous; neither, if justice required the punishment of sin, could justice let the sinner go unpunished. To lay the pain upon the righteous in the name of justice is simply monstrous. No wonder unbelief is rampant. Believe in Moloch if you will, but call him Moloch, not Justice. Be sure that the thing that God gives, the righteousness that is of God, is a real thing, and not a contemptible legalism. Pray God I have no righteousness imputed to me. Let me be regarded as the sinner I am; for nothing will serve my need but to be made a righteous man, one that will no more sin.

George MacDonald
from Unspoken Sermons, vol. 3, "Righteousness""

You are mixed up!!!!
God made a PERFECT world.. God does everything PERFECT!
God made Adam "PERFECT!"

Adam the PERFECT MAN.. Sinned! It was the Perfect Man that brought corruption and DEATH into God' perfect creation.. NOT GOD, (God does all things PERFECT)! Now because no man can be born PERFECT no man could be found to pay for the sin of the PERFECT MAN>> Adam!
SIN BRINGS DEATH.. So because of Adam all men DIE!

Someone had to be born PERFECT to die in the Place of Adam and his Sin, to destroy death and restore LIFE!
Jesus the PERFECT MAN died but he could not stay dead... He was without sin!
SIN brings death... Jesus was "Sinless" Jesus popped up out of the grave because he had NO SIN!

I am ADDED to the Body of the risen Jesus so I will also rise!

Sorry, I don't accept the augustinian picture of things where adam was made perfect. I am an irenean type of guy. So this argument has no purchase with me.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 3:39:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 3:23:21 PM, Dogknox wrote:
At 8/7/2013 10:01:36 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Can someone please explain to me how this isn't an obviously immoral theory of atonement? I for the life of me can't see how it isn't, and I find it somewhat mind boggling to think that this is the main and central theory of atonement among large swathes of protestant western christianity. Some will even claim that to reject this theory is to reject christianity itself which is laughable. How in the world is it not a moral absurdity to punish an innocent person in place of the guilty? I'm inclined to agree with Steven Chalke here: this theory entails "cosmic child abuse".

"They say first, God must punish the sinner, for justice requires it; then they say he does not punish the sinner, but punishes a perfectly righteous man instead, attributes his righteousness to the sinner, and so continues just. Was there ever such a confusion, such an inversion of right and wrong! Justice could not treat a righteous man as an unrighteous; neither, if justice required the punishment of sin, could justice let the sinner go unpunished. To lay the pain upon the righteous in the name of justice is simply monstrous. No wonder unbelief is rampant. Believe in Moloch if you will, but call him Moloch, not Justice. Be sure that the thing that God gives, the righteousness that is of God, is a real thing, and not a contemptible legalism. Pray God I have no righteousness imputed to me. Let me be regarded as the sinner I am; for nothing will serve my need but to be made a righteous man, one that will no more sin.

George MacDonald
from Unspoken Sermons, vol. 3, "Righteousness""

You are mixed up!!!!
God made a PERFECT world.. God does everything PERFECT!
God made Adam "PERFECT!"

Adam the PERFECT MAN.. Sinned! It was the Perfect Man that brought corruption and DEATH into God' perfect creation.. NOT GOD, (God does all things PERFECT)! Now because no man can be born PERFECT no man could be found to pay for the sin of the PERFECT MAN>> Adam!
SIN BRINGS DEATH.. So because of Adam all men DIE!

Someone had to be born PERFECT to die in the Place of Adam and his Sin, to destroy death and restore LIFE!
Jesus the PERFECT MAN died but he could not stay dead... He was without sin!
SIN brings death... Jesus was "Sinless" Jesus popped up out of the grave because he had NO SIN!

I am ADDED to the Body of the risen Jesus so I will also rise!

Let's be reasonable. If Adam was perfect he wouldn't have sinned.
Dogknox
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 3:48:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 3:38:53 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/7/2013 3:23:21 PM, Dogknox wrote:
At 8/7/2013 10:01:36 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Can someone please explain to me how this isn't an obviously immoral theory of atonement? I for the life of me can't see how it isn't, and I find it somewhat mind boggling to think that this is the main and central theory of atonement among large swathes of protestant western christianity. Some will even claim that to reject this theory is to reject christianity itself which is laughable. How in the world is it not a moral absurdity to punish an innocent person in place of the guilty? I'm inclined to agree with Steven Chalke here: this theory entails "cosmic child abuse".

"They say first, God must punish the sinner, for justice requires it; then they say he does not punish the sinner, but punishes a perfectly righteous man instead, attributes his righteousness to the sinner, and so continues just. Was there ever such a confusion, such an inversion of right and wrong! Justice could not treat a righteous man as an unrighteous; neither, if justice required the punishment of sin, could justice let the sinner go unpunished. To lay the pain upon the righteous in the name of justice is simply monstrous. No wonder unbelief is rampant. Believe in Moloch if you will, but call him Moloch, not Justice. Be sure that the thing that God gives, the righteousness that is of God, is a real thing, and not a contemptible legalism. Pray God I have no righteousness imputed to me. Let me be regarded as the sinner I am; for nothing will serve my need but to be made a righteous man, one that will no more sin.

George MacDonald
from Unspoken Sermons, vol. 3, "Righteousness""

You are mixed up!!!!
God made a PERFECT world.. God does everything PERFECT!
God made Adam "PERFECT!"

Adam the PERFECT MAN.. Sinned! It was the Perfect Man that brought corruption and DEATH into God' perfect creation.. NOT GOD, (God does all things PERFECT)! Now because no man can be born PERFECT no man could be found to pay for the sin of the PERFECT MAN>> Adam!
SIN BRINGS DEATH.. So because of Adam all men DIE!

Someone had to be born PERFECT to die in the Place of Adam and his Sin, to destroy death and restore LIFE!
Jesus the PERFECT MAN died but he could not stay dead... He was without sin!
SIN brings death... Jesus was "Sinless" Jesus popped up out of the grave because he had NO SIN!

I am ADDED to the Body of the risen Jesus so I will also rise!

Sorry, I don't accept the augustinian picture of things where adam was made perfect. I am an irenean type of guy. So this argument has no purchase with me.

YES true NO purchase with you... And this is what separate Christians from you!!!

Accept it or not... It changes nothing! Christians know God is PERFECT, God does all things perfectly!

You reject it because it makes a case against you.... Hmmmm.. seems to me there are others in history with your same way of thinking!!

FACT REMAINS... Adam sinned and brought DEATH!!!
Jesus died SINLESS and brought "LIFE"!
Dogknox
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 3:51:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let's be reasonable. If Adam was perfect he wouldn't have sinned.

stubs
God made man with "FREE WILL"!

You can't love without free will!
Only men can love because only men have free will!
Chickens, dogs, cats, pigs cannot love... They cannot sin!

The fact Adam was PERFECT means he has the ability to choose.. he was not made as Robot!
Dogknox
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 4:10:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 3:51:51 PM, Dogknox wrote:
Let's be reasonable. If Adam was perfect he wouldn't have sinned.

stubs
God made man with "FREE WILL"!

You can't love without free will!
Only men can love because only men have free will!
Chickens, dogs, cats, pigs cannot love... They cannot sin!

The fact Adam was PERFECT means he has the ability to choose.. he was not made as Robot!

1 John 5:2
This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands.

stubs Adam did not "Carry out God' command"! Adam did not love God! All sins are against God and LOVE! Adam sinned he was Perfect but he CHOSE not to do God' Command!

Genesis 3:11
And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 6:16:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 3:51:51 PM, Dogknox wrote:
Let's be reasonable. If Adam was perfect he wouldn't have sinned.

stubs
God made man with "FREE WILL"!

You can't love without free will!
Only men can love because only men have free will!
Chickens, dogs, cats, pigs cannot love... They cannot sin!

The fact Adam was PERFECT means he has the ability to choose.. he was not made as Robot!

If man was made perfectly good, that would seem to mean that pre-fall man also didn't have any sinful desires or inclinations. Ths, pre-fall man wouldn't have any motivation to have sinned. Let's not even get into the more thorny issues of whether they could have been held to be culpable since they had no knowledge of good and evil, and the ethics of punishing the entire human race for the actions of two individuals.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 6:19:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 3:48:43 PM, Dogknox wrote:
At 8/7/2013 3:38:53 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/7/2013 3:23:21 PM, Dogknox wrote:
At 8/7/2013 10:01:36 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Can someone please explain to me how this isn't an obviously immoral theory of atonement? I for the life of me can't see how it isn't, and I find it somewhat mind boggling to think that this is the main and central theory of atonement among large swathes of protestant western christianity. Some will even claim that to reject this theory is to reject christianity itself which is laughable. How in the world is it not a moral absurdity to punish an innocent person in place of the guilty? I'm inclined to agree with Steven Chalke here: this theory entails "cosmic child abuse".

"They say first, God must punish the sinner, for justice requires it; then they say he does not punish the sinner, but punishes a perfectly righteous man instead, attributes his righteousness to the sinner, and so continues just. Was there ever such a confusion, such an inversion of right and wrong! Justice could not treat a righteous man as an unrighteous; neither, if justice required the punishment of sin, could justice let the sinner go unpunished. To lay the pain upon the righteous in the name of justice is simply monstrous. No wonder unbelief is rampant. Believe in Moloch if you will, but call him Moloch, not Justice. Be sure that the thing that God gives, the righteousness that is of God, is a real thing, and not a contemptible legalism. Pray God I have no righteousness imputed to me. Let me be regarded as the sinner I am; for nothing will serve my need but to be made a righteous man, one that will no more sin.

George MacDonald
from Unspoken Sermons, vol. 3, "Righteousness""

You are mixed up!!!!
God made a PERFECT world.. God does everything PERFECT!
God made Adam "PERFECT!"

Adam the PERFECT MAN.. Sinned! It was the Perfect Man that brought corruption and DEATH into God' perfect creation.. NOT GOD, (God does all things PERFECT)! Now because no man can be born PERFECT no man could be found to pay for the sin of the PERFECT MAN>> Adam!
SIN BRINGS DEATH.. So because of Adam all men DIE!

Someone had to be born PERFECT to die in the Place of Adam and his Sin, to destroy death and restore LIFE!
Jesus the PERFECT MAN died but he could not stay dead... He was without sin!
SIN brings death... Jesus was "Sinless" Jesus popped up out of the grave because he had NO SIN!

I am ADDED to the Body of the risen Jesus so I will also rise!

Sorry, I don't accept the augustinian picture of things where adam was made perfect. I am an irenean type of guy. So this argument has no purchase with me.

YES true NO purchase with you... And this is what separate Christians from you!!!


Ireneaus wasn't a Christian? This is news to me. Aren't you Catholic? He's a saint in your tradition....

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Accept it or not... It changes nothing! Christians know God is PERFECT, God does all things perfectly!

You reject it because it makes a case against you.... Hmmmm.. seems to me there are others in history with your same way of thinking!!

FACT REMAINS... Adam sinned and brought DEATH!!!
Jesus died SINLESS and brought "LIFE"!
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 6:57:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 3:38:30 PM, stubs wrote:

That's a fair point and a very good post. I don't have a rebuttal because honestly I don't really know haha. How would you, however, respond to a person who says God is the one who decides what is just. If, you agree, the bible says that God acts justly wouldn't you be concluding that your idea of trust is more morally correct than Gods?

I'd say, first off that we get our sense of justice from God himself - it's part of being created in his image. Our moral faculties aren't perfect and we are fallible of course, but we have to be able to get to the truth at least some of the time. If our moral sense is so out of whack that we can't even grasp basic moral truths than saying "God is just" simply has no meaning to us. Multiple times throughout scripture it is exhorted of us to "test" it and everything and to use our judgement in order to discern the truth. We make mistakes but that doesn't mean we can never arrive at the truth. There are some very deep moral intuitions about justice rooted in us. Like the one about punishing innocents in place of the guilty is morally wrong.

God - especially through Jesus - gives a revelation of what it is or is not supposed to be just, and the rest of scripture is interpreted through that Jesus lens. It's hard for me to see how Jesus would approve of punishing an innocent person for the sins of another (and why they just wouldn't forgive the sinner in the first place).

I, generally speaking, don't really like that sort of punt that always comes up when these moral issues that pop up. It basically rids Gods god character of any content. God is just so WHATEVER he does is JUST! In principle, I agree, but the way people use it in this context is misguided. I can say "So, if God said that raping children then murdering them for the offenses of their parents is just, would it be just?" Some will agree that it would be just. This is morally absurd, IMO. I'm of the opinion that God's character excludes such actions. We have to have SOME baseline notion of what it is to be just or the notion simply doesn't have any defnite content. The punt to mystery will then come up, "I dont' know how it could be just, when by every appearance it IS unjust, but it is. Because God." Or it may simply be the fact that the appearance is reality and it actually IS unjust and God doesn't do it.

And for that point to work, one would actually have to agree that the bible teaches penal substitution in the first place, and I'm not so sure about that.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 7:21:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 10:27:33 AM, Naysayer wrote:

There's also the point that Jesus Christ is God. And God became just and the justifier.

Romans 3:
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth 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;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.


This does nothing to allieviate my concerns about PSA. It only makes me think that PSA is even more problematic. As numerous thinkers have pointed out PSA seems to cause massive problems with the doctrine of the trinity.

God punishes God for a debt owed to God? Um...okay? Is God punishing himself? Pathological. Is God punishing the son? Sadistic.

God has to sacrifice himself to himself in order to appease his own wrath? Um...okay?

The bible says Jesus reconciles us to God, yet PSA amounts to reconciling God to us, actually. So God is reconciling himself to himself?

And so on..
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 7:26:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 7:21:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/7/2013 10:27:33 AM, Naysayer wrote:

There's also the point that Jesus Christ is God. And God became just and the justifier.

Romans 3:
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth 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;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.


This does nothing to allieviate my concerns about PSA. It only makes me think that PSA is even more problematic. As numerous thinkers have pointed out PSA seems to cause massive problems with the doctrine of the trinity.

God punishes God for a debt owed to God? Um...okay? Is God punishing himself? Pathological. Is God punishing the son? Sadistic.

God has to sacrifice himself to himself in order to appease his own wrath? Um...okay?

The bible says Jesus reconciles us to God, yet PSA amounts to reconciling God to us, actually. So God is reconciling himself to himself?

And so on..

Well, as Job put it in Job 9, we don't have any way to take our case to God because He's GOD. We needed a daysman, a mediator between us and who could that be?

So God took on the position himself and became our mediator, our intercessor, our high priest, touched with the feeling of our infirmities. He knew what it was like to be like us. He fulfilled the law and broke the law because He died without sin. God accepted his sacrifice in our place in payment for our sins.

The book of Revelation calls him the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world. This wasn't a bandaid fix, this was the intent of creation. God knew when He started that this was the course He would take.

In short, yes.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 7:50:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 7:26:51 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/7/2013 7:21:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/7/2013 10:27:33 AM, Naysayer wrote:

There's also the point that Jesus Christ is God. And God became just and the justifier.

Romans 3:
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth 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;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.


This does nothing to allieviate my concerns about PSA. It only makes me think that PSA is even more problematic. As numerous thinkers have pointed out PSA seems to cause massive problems with the doctrine of the trinity.

God punishes God for a debt owed to God? Um...okay? Is God punishing himself? Pathological. Is God punishing the son? Sadistic.

God has to sacrifice himself to himself in order to appease his own wrath? Um...okay?

The bible says Jesus reconciles us to God, yet PSA amounts to reconciling God to us, actually. So God is reconciling himself to himself?

And so on..

Well, as Job put it in Job 9, we don't have any way to take our case to God because He's GOD. We needed a daysman, a mediator between us and who could that be?

So God took on the position himself and became our mediator, our intercessor, our high priest, touched with the feeling of our infirmities. He knew what it was like to be like us. He fulfilled the law and broke the law because He died without sin. God accepted his sacrifice in our place in payment for our sins.

The book of Revelation calls him the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world. This wasn't a bandaid fix, this was the intent of creation. God knew when He started that this was the course He would take.

In short, yes.

You're missing the point. PSA creates intra-trinitarian tensions and rifts in Gods' character when God is suppose to be ONE. It's introduces deep incoherencies; it simply doesn't make sense to say that God punishes himself for a debt owed to himself.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 7:56:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 7:50:36 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/7/2013 7:26:51 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/7/2013 7:21:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/7/2013 10:27:33 AM, Naysayer wrote:

There's also the point that Jesus Christ is God. And God became just and the justifier.

Romans 3:
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth 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;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.


This does nothing to allieviate my concerns about PSA. It only makes me think that PSA is even more problematic. As numerous thinkers have pointed out PSA seems to cause massive problems with the doctrine of the trinity.

God punishes God for a debt owed to God? Um...okay? Is God punishing himself? Pathological. Is God punishing the son? Sadistic.

God has to sacrifice himself to himself in order to appease his own wrath? Um...okay?

The bible says Jesus reconciles us to God, yet PSA amounts to reconciling God to us, actually. So God is reconciling himself to himself?

And so on..

Well, as Job put it in Job 9, we don't have any way to take our case to God because He's GOD. We needed a daysman, a mediator between us and who could that be?

So God took on the position himself and became our mediator, our intercessor, our high priest, touched with the feeling of our infirmities. He knew what it was like to be like us. He fulfilled the law and broke the law because He died without sin. God accepted his sacrifice in our place in payment for our sins.

The book of Revelation calls him the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world. This wasn't a bandaid fix, this was the intent of creation. God knew when He started that this was the course He would take.

In short, yes.

You're missing the point. PSA creates intra-trinitarian tensions and rifts in Gods' character when God is suppose to be ONE. It's introduces deep incoherencies; it simply doesn't make sense to say that God punishes himself for a debt owed to himself.

I'm not missing the point. I agree it doesn't make sense as to how it worked to me either, but it was also the only possible solution and God stepped in and did it because there was no one else.

If you really want to get mixed up about it, go take a look at Isaiah 52 and 53.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 8:35:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 6:57:05 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'd say, first off that we get our sense of justice from God himself - it's part of being created in his image. Our moral faculties aren't perfect and we are fallible of course, but we have to be able to get to the truth at least some of the time.

This part of what you said interest me. I agree with all that you said actually. I did want to ask you, if our "moral compass" if you will, can be wrong at times how do we know when it is and when it isn't. Say, for example, the idea of eternal punishment. One person may say it is just, another may disagree. How do we go about deciding who is correct? Not just with that example, but also with the situation that you originally posted about as well as any other disagreements.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 9:18:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 3:23:21 PM, Dogknox wrote:
At 8/7/2013 10:01:36 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Can someone please explain to me how this isn't an obviously immoral theory of atonement? I for the life of me can't see how it isn't, and I find it somewhat mind boggling to think that this is the main and central theory of atonement among large swathes of protestant western christianity. Some will even claim that to reject this theory is to reject christianity itself which is laughable. How in the world is it not a moral absurdity to punish an innocent person in place of the guilty? I'm inclined to agree with Steven Chalke here: this theory entails "cosmic child abuse".

"They say first, God must punish the sinner, for justice requires it; then they say he does not punish the sinner, but punishes a perfectly righteous man instead, attributes his righteousness to the sinner, and so continues just. Was there ever such a confusion, such an inversion of right and wrong! Justice could not treat a righteous man as an unrighteous; neither, if justice required the punishment of sin, could justice let the sinner go unpunished. To lay the pain upon the righteous in the name of justice is simply monstrous. No wonder unbelief is rampant. Believe in Moloch if you will, but call him Moloch, not Justice. Be sure that the thing that God gives, the righteousness that is of God, is a real thing, and not a contemptible legalism. Pray God I have no righteousness imputed to me. Let me be regarded as the sinner I am; for nothing will serve my need but to be made a righteous man, one that will no more sin.

George MacDonald
from Unspoken Sermons, vol. 3, "Righteousness""

You are mixed up!!!!
God made a PERFECT world.. God does everything PERFECT!
God made Adam "PERFECT!"

Adam the PERFECT MAN.. Sinned! It was the Perfect Man that brought corruption and DEATH into God' perfect creation.. NOT GOD, (God does all things PERFECT)! Now because no man can be born PERFECT no man could be found to pay for the sin of the PERFECT MAN>> Adam!
SIN BRINGS DEATH.. So because of Adam all men DIE!

Someone had to be born PERFECT to die in the Place of Adam and his Sin, to destroy death and restore LIFE!
Jesus the PERFECT MAN died but he could not stay dead... He was without sin!
SIN brings death... Jesus was "Sinless" Jesus popped up out of the grave because he had NO SIN!

I am ADDED to the Body of the risen Jesus so I will also rise!

Perfection brought imperfection into the world? What kind of sense does that make?
Dogknox
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 11:36:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 8:35:51 PM, stubs wrote:
At 8/7/2013 6:57:05 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'd say, first off that we get our sense of justice from God himself - it's part of being created in his image. Our moral faculties aren't perfect and we are fallible of course, but we have to be able to get to the truth at least some of the time.

This part of what you said interest me. I agree with all that you said actually. I did want to ask you, if our "moral compass" if you will, can be wrong at times how do we know when it is and when it isn't. Say, for example, the idea of eternal punishment. One person may say it is just, another may disagree. How do we go about deciding who is correct? Not just with that example, but also with the situation that you originally posted about as well as any other disagreements.

If our "moral compass" if you will, can be wrong at times how do we know when it is and when it isn't????
stubs The answer is in the scriptures!
The Holy Spirit is GUIDING the Church Jesus established.. The CHURCH is the authority.. The CHURCH is guided into all truth!
The CHURCH is the Pillar and the foundation of truth!
The CHURCH is Holy & Blameless...
>NOT individual men<!

Ephesians 5:27
and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

1 Timothy 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God"s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 11:46:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 7:56:10 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/7/2013 7:50:36 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/7/2013 7:26:51 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/7/2013 7:21:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/7/2013 10:27:33 AM, Naysayer wrote:

There's also the point that Jesus Christ is God. And God became just and the justifier.

Romans 3:
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth 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;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.


This does nothing to allieviate my concerns about PSA. It only makes me think that PSA is even more problematic. As numerous thinkers have pointed out PSA seems to cause massive problems with the doctrine of the trinity.

God punishes God for a debt owed to God? Um...okay? Is God punishing himself? Pathological. Is God punishing the son? Sadistic.

God has to sacrifice himself to himself in order to appease his own wrath? Um...okay?

The bible says Jesus reconciles us to God, yet PSA amounts to reconciling God to us, actually. So God is reconciling himself to himself?

And so on..

Well, as Job put it in Job 9, we don't have any way to take our case to God because He's GOD. We needed a daysman, a mediator between us and who could that be?

So God took on the position himself and became our mediator, our intercessor, our high priest, touched with the feeling of our infirmities. He knew what it was like to be like us. He fulfilled the law and broke the law because He died without sin. God accepted his sacrifice in our place in payment for our sins.

The book of Revelation calls him the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world. This wasn't a bandaid fix, this was the intent of creation. God knew when He started that this was the course He would take.

In short, yes.

You're missing the point. PSA creates intra-trinitarian tensions and rifts in Gods' character when God is suppose to be ONE. It's introduces deep incoherencies; it simply doesn't make sense to say that God punishes himself for a debt owed to himself.

I'm not missing the point. I agree it doesn't make sense as to how it worked to me either, but it was also the only possible solution and God stepped in and did it because there was no one else.


...no. I'm contending that it ISN'T the only possible solution. There are other theories of atonement that don't lead to crippling incoherencies like this one. You're just presuming it to be correct. That this theory leads leads to such incoherencies and moral absurdities is good reason to think isn't true.

If you really want to get mixed up about it, go take a look at Isaiah 52 and 53.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Dogknox
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 11:47:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
s-anthony you asked.. Perfection brought imperfection into the world? What kind of sense does that make?

God is PERFECT!!
God does all things PERFECTLY!!
God made a PERFECT creation.. he made the first man PERFECT!
To give MAN the ability to LOVE he had to give man "Free Will"!

FREE WILL says: I can not make you LOVE me or your love would not be real love!

Lets say: I had a pill that made you fall in love with me.. QUESTION Would your love be real love??! NO!!!

OR the reverse... Lets say: I pay you... I give you eighteen dollars .. Would you love me then !!?

Or one further.. Lets say: I beat you up until you love me!!! Would your love be real love??!

>>THE ONLY WAY<< Love must be GIVEN from the heart >> FREELY << or it is not true LOVE! God is pure love.. He knew when he made man, in his image, he would have to give man "free will"!

Adam was a PERFECT man.. Made in the image of God...
s-anthony "God IS LOVE!" Adam was made PERFECT with the ability to love>> To give of self freely!
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 8:44:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 11:47:13 PM, Dogknox wrote:
s-anthony you asked.. Perfection brought imperfection into the world? What kind of sense does that make?

God is PERFECT!!
God does all things PERFECTLY!!
God made a PERFECT creation.. he made the first man PERFECT!
To give MAN the ability to LOVE he had to give man "Free Will"!

FREE WILL says: I can not make you LOVE me or your love would not be real love!

Lets say: I had a pill that made you fall in love with me.. QUESTION Would your love be real love??! NO!!!

OR the reverse... Lets say: I pay you... I give you eighteen dollars .. Would you love me then !!?

Or one further.. Lets say: I beat you up until you love me!!! Would your love be real love??!

>>THE ONLY WAY<< Love must be GIVEN from the heart >> FREELY << or it is not true LOVE! God is pure love.. He knew when he made man, in his image, he would have to give man "free will"!

Adam was a PERFECT man.. Made in the image of God...
s-anthony "God IS LOVE!" Adam was made PERFECT with the ability to love>> To give of self freely!

So, the idea is God made all things, perfectly; yet, Adam and Eve had a choice to choose between perfection and imperfection. If all things were perfect, from where did the imperfection come?
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 1:31:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 10:01:36 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Can someone please explain to me how this isn't an obviously immoral theory of atonement? I for the life of me can't see how it isn't, and I find it somewhat mind boggling to think that this is the main and central theory of atonement among large swathes of protestant western christianity. Some will even claim that to reject this theory is to reject christianity itself which is laughable. How in the world is it not a moral absurdity to punish an innocent person in place of the guilty? I'm inclined to agree with Steven Chalke here: this theory entails "cosmic child abuse".

"They say first, God must punish the sinner, for justice requires it; then they say he does not punish the sinner, but punishes a perfectly righteous man instead, attributes his righteousness to the sinner, and so continues just. Was there ever such a confusion, such an inversion of right and wrong! Justice could not treat a righteous man as an unrighteous; neither, if justice required the punishment of sin, could justice let the sinner go unpunished. To lay the pain upon the righteous in the name of justice is simply monstrous. No wonder unbelief is rampant. Believe in Moloch if you will, but call him Moloch, not Justice. Be sure that the thing that God gives, the righteousness that is of God, is a real thing, and not a contemptible legalism. Pray God I have no righteousness imputed to me. Let me be regarded as the sinner I am; for nothing will serve my need but to be made a righteous man, one that will no more sin.

George MacDonald
from Unspoken Sermons, vol. 3, "Righteousness""

Totally agree. Just out of interest, what's your alternative?
Dogknox
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 3:22:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
s-anthony You asked.. So, the idea is God made all things, perfectly; yet, Adam and Eve had a choice to choose between perfection and imperfection. If all things were perfect, from where did the imperfection come?

I reply... Simply the imperfection came when Adam made the CHOICE to be disobedient!

Love must be "GIVEN FREELY"!
A GIFT of self from the heart!!!!

Adam was selfish he did not want to LOVE!

LOOK...
1 John 3:7
Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous.

Do you see it???
Does what is right is righteous.. You MUST DO RIGHT.. To be Righteous!
The Righteous are saved! Abraham was righteous he "DID RIGHT!"

LOOK...
1 John 3:10
This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God"s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.

DO YOU SEE IT??? does not do what is right is not God"s child,

Adam did not do what was right!
Adam brought SIN into the world.. Sin brings DEATH all of Adams children DIE because of the sin! Adam died because he lost access to the "Tree Of Life"!
All those people "IN JESUS" have Access to the "Tree Of Life"!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 3:31:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 1:31:14 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/7/2013 10:01:36 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Can someone please explain to me how this isn't an obviously immoral theory of atonement? I for the life of me can't see how it isn't, and I find it somewhat mind boggling to think that this is the main and central theory of atonement among large swathes of protestant western christianity. Some will even claim that to reject this theory is to reject christianity itself which is laughable. How in the world is it not a moral absurdity to punish an innocent person in place of the guilty? I'm inclined to agree with Steven Chalke here: this theory entails "cosmic child abuse".

"They say first, God must punish the sinner, for justice requires it; then they say he does not punish the sinner, but punishes a perfectly righteous man instead, attributes his righteousness to the sinner, and so continues just. Was there ever such a confusion, such an inversion of right and wrong! Justice could not treat a righteous man as an unrighteous; neither, if justice required the punishment of sin, could justice let the sinner go unpunished. To lay the pain upon the righteous in the name of justice is simply monstrous. No wonder unbelief is rampant. Believe in Moloch if you will, but call him Moloch, not Justice. Be sure that the thing that God gives, the righteousness that is of God, is a real thing, and not a contemptible legalism. Pray God I have no righteousness imputed to me. Let me be regarded as the sinner I am; for nothing will serve my need but to be made a righteous man, one that will no more sin.

George MacDonald
from Unspoken Sermons, vol. 3, "Righteousness""

Totally agree. Just out of interest, what's your alternative?

I rather like the participatory theory of atonement espoused by people like tim bayne, greg restall, and robin collins.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Dogknox
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 3:43:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 3:22:39 PM, Dogknox wrote:
s-anthony You asked.. So, the idea is God made all things, perfectly; yet, Adam and Eve had a choice to choose between perfection and imperfection. If all things were perfect, from where did the imperfection come?

I reply... Simply the imperfection came when Adam made the CHOICE to be disobedient!

Love must be "GIVEN FREELY"!
A GIFT of self from the heart!!!!

Adam was selfish he did not want to LOVE!

LOOK...
1 John 3:7
Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous.

Do you see it???
Does what is right is righteous.. You MUST DO RIGHT.. To be Righteous!
The Righteous are saved! Abraham was righteous he "DID RIGHT!"

LOOK...
1 John 3:10
This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God"s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.

DO YOU SEE IT??? does not do what is right is not God"s child,

Adam did not do what was right!
Adam brought SIN into the world.. Sin brings DEATH all of Adams children DIE because of the sin! Adam died because he lost access to the "Tree Of Life"!
All those people "IN JESUS" have Access to the "Tree Of Life"!

Jesus suffered and DIED on the cross>> WILLINGLY!!!!!
Jesus >>GAVE<< himself up for us.. WILLINGLY!!!!!
Jesus was NOT being PUNISHED he accepted DEATH >>WILLINGLY.. out of pure love for us and his father!

How in the world is it not a moral absurdity to punish an innocent person in place of the guilty?

An eye for an eye!!!
The Jews of the Old Testament brought to the priest a SIN OFFERING!!
The OFFERING DIED in the place of the man for the mans sin!!
The wages of sin is DEATH something must die because of the sin of the man..!
Dogknox
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 12:02:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
unitedandy God is PERFECT!!!
God is perfect so he JUDGES fairly... He lets nothing go.. OR..
unitedandy or God would NOT BE Perfect!

FACT: Sin brings death!
The wages of sin is death! Sin must be removed to have LIFE! Very simple, very easy to understand!
popculturepooka does NOT understand it seems it is TO simple for him, he does not know what he is talking about!
His words.. How in the world is it not a moral absurdity to punish an innocent person in place of the guilty?

God does NO SUCH THING!!! popculturepooka is a "Whack-oh"!