Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

7

It's both, not one or the other. It started in Gethsemane and was completed on Golgotha. http://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/05/the-purifying-power-of-gethsemane We do not know, we cannot tell, no mortal mind can conceive the full import of what Christ did in Gethsemane. We know he sweat great gouts of blood from every pore as he drained the dregs ...


7

tl;dr> If Jesus isn't separated from the Father on the Cross, then the heresy of patripassianism is true, and more importantly, the notion that God does not change is not. 1. Scripture sets up cases that separate the Father from the Son Scripturally the idea that Jesus was separated from the Father is typically supported from when Jesus cries out in ...


6

There are several ideas about the atonement that can come under the heading of Christus Victor. Ultimately, the term could apply to any account of the atonement that accords with: The work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death and the devil. 1 One of the reasons why it is a bit hard to pin ...


5

I can only answer from the Western bias as I fail to comprehend the Eastern thought even when it is explained. Western thought properly includes propitiation and expiation it does not toss one out for the other or put them at competing sides. It does not exclude either. However the Eastern thought seems to be uncomfortable with the propitiation involved in ...


4

Christus Victor Christus Victor (CV) is, simply put, a understanding of soteriology where Christ paid to Satan a ransom to free man from Hell. In The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Aslan pays the queen the freedom of Edmund. Calvinist position The calvinist position states that Christ gave his life to safe those who would repent. Therefore his death ...


3

Interesting. Yes. Salvation required the sacrifice of a perfect and immaculate victim. This means that it was required of Christ to do everything in accordance with God's will. There is of course no question that He could and did carry out this obligation. He was perfectly obedient. If He was not, He could not serve as an appropriate sacrifice. But then, ...


3

Note: All Scripture is quoted from the King James version. The punishment for sin is not being sent to Hell; the punishment for sin is death. Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. That having been said there are some Denominations who ...


3

Since you did not ask for the doctrinal position from any particular denomination, I will answer this question from a biblical perspective. The Bible does not explain how Christ's sacrifice was sufficient, but it does make clear that it was sufficient. For instance: Is 53:10-11 (NASB) But the Lord was pleasedTo crush Him, putting Him to grief;If He ...


3

I am not familiar with what modern Lutherans might believe, if any different from Luther, but I am very familiar with what Calvin and Luther thought. They thought the same in many ways but used different lenses. I do not see them at disagreement. They differed in emphasis and detail. Luther emphasized Christ dying for all (which Calvin also believed). ...


3

The question, as stated, presents an misunderstood view of the economy of salvation. And although it is ultimately a mystery, we can say a fair amount about sin and salvation that makes Christ's sacrifice more reasonable sounding, and the possibility of "self-salvation" far less reasonable sounding. In essence, God created humans to be like God, humans ...


3

Limited atonement brings with it the implication that not anyone can be saved by Christ - only those for whom he atoned. The language used in the Bible to describe salvation is inclusive. It is described as being presented to whosoever wills. In 1 Timothy, Paul claims that God desires all people to be saved. 1 Timothy 2:3-6 (ESV) 3  This is ...


2

Given the massively fractured state of Christianity and the widely varied beliefs therein, a cross-denominational examination of soteriology could certainly yield strict, literal, and conflicting understandings of expiation and propitiation. However, I believe Roman Catholicism is a significant example wherein both concepts are used, amongst others, to ...


2

There are two reasons why the sacrifice needed to be perfect. First, if the sacrifice was not perfect, the sacrifice would only be paying for his own sins. Second, the perfect life of the sacrifice satisfies the human side of the covenant, so by receiving the righteousness of the sacrifice, the saved person receives the fullness of the promises. (This is ...


2

This seems to be a misunderstanding of terms on your part. Remember first that our English translations often miss nuances in translation. Words carry different meanings. These phrases are generally understood to mean that Jesus paid the price for our sins. That can certainly connote the idea of a purchase in the normal sense, as in "I paid for my ...


2

When I face this issue I think sometimes it’s just about semantics. For example, of course only those who are saved, Christ died for, because as He knew all men from eternity. He knew who He was dying for, in terms of actually providing real forgiveness to. However, with the hyper Calvinistic view (which I think you are referring to for Calvin did believe ...


2

The Wesleyan Arminians recognised the problem implied by your analogy and resolved it by proffering the Governmental Theory of Atonement. Applying it your analogy: Christ has 'made' the payment at the cross, (and he can't unmake the payment - the cost to Him was real), but rather than a completed individual transaction on behalf of each sinner (the penal ...


2

When God created man He was sinless, and would have remained so had he not disobeyed the one restriction God gave him. God also told him what he would face as a penalty should he disobey that command. Genesis 2:9, 16 & 17 KJV 9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of ...


2

I submit that the blood->payment mechanic you mention is a direct consequence of the nature of sin. Penalty of Sin Since before the Fall of man in Genesis chapter 3, the penalty of sin has been death. Genesis 2:16-17 (ESV) And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of ...


2

The reformed view would believe both those types of verses you have quoted but would add a third type to ensure the whole picture in presented: "For many are called, but few are chosen." (ESV Matt 22:14) So what we have are three things: God offers the gospel to all Only some respond Those who do respond are 'the elect' God is sovereign in his ...


2

The answer to the first part of your question, appears to lie in the fact that only the Levites responded to Moses call for all who were on the Lord's side to come to him. It is also good to understand that not all who rebelled against God on that day were killed, which may answer your, second question about the added punishment which was meted out to all ...


1

I would say the main thing to remember here when dealing with the Old Testament is that the wages for sin, no matter the sin according to God, was death. So I believe you answered your own question as to Why they were told to slay their brethren. That is was indeed to atone for the sins of the people. Now according to the passage I posted below it says that ...


1

A warning We must be very careful when defending the honor of Jesus that we do not contradict the sort of glory that He claimed for Himself: And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he said this plainly. ...


1

Your question has become a complex in nature in a sense that there are multiple question to be answered from question as well as from comments. It would have been better if you had broken them down into separate questions. Why the blood->payment mechanic in the first place,if payment for sin is required? I assume you mean to say: Why to spill only blood ...


1

As per Roman Catholics, Ministry of High Priest of Jesus is still continuing. CCC 1410: It is Christ himself, the eternal high priest of the New Covenant who, acting through the ministry of the priests, offers the Eucharistic sacrifice. And it is the same Christ, really present under the species of bread and wine, who is the offering of the Eucharistic ...


1

That is certainly how that is interpreted by a large percentage of Christian groups, and it's how the author of Hebrews interpreted it. Hebrews 10:10 KJV By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. I assume the second part of the question deals with the fact the high priest offers sacrifices for ...


1

Both versions of the atonement here considered are limited -- Calvinists limit it in scope (or recipients), while non-Calvinists limit it in power (or efficacy). It's not a matter of whether it is limited, but rather how it is limited. In the scriptures, Christ was spoken of as the last Adam, a title which confers universality (in the same way that the ...


1

The real question is: why can't you accept to be loved by your Father? Why would it it would enrage me if your father took punishment for you? You say: "it's completely unfair".Well, yes, it is. But this is the difference between Grace and Law. The Law "convinces you of your sins" and tells you what is not good. The Grace enables you to love. In the old ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible