The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Question asked for the Reformed

He clearly states that it absolutely necessary to have the faith to obey that law he is referencing or NOT be declared righteous by God. There are no exceptions. And he clearly states that by observing the written code no one will be declared righteous by God. The fact is the murder of Jesus Christ was NOT in anyone's place.

I am a little confused by what you have written but in particular, the above statement. Am I to understand by this, that you deny the substitutionary atonement of Christ Jesus? What is your understanding of the death of Christ?

The doctrine of substitutionary atonement is the soteriological concept of paganism and is non-perfectable since first degree murder must be committed in any attempt to put that soteriological divice into effect. Jesus Christ was murdered when he was crucified. See Acts 7:52. Murder cannot ever be a direct benefit. It is a sin. Now with that said; What is the corporate sin that was committed about fifty days previously and then repented of in Acts 2 in order to be added to the church Jesus Christ is head of?

Well?

1. And how is vicarious substitutionary atonement pagan?

2. The Scriptures are repleat with statements that Christ's atonement was substitutionary... e.g., the myriad instances where the inspired writers used the Greek word huper, i.e., in place of, in behalf of, etc. (1Cor 15:3; Gal 1:4; Heb 1:3; 1Pet 1:24, etc.) Also, Christ is said to have been a "propitiation", Greek hilaskomi, i.e., to appease the wrath of God through the removal of that which offends, aka: sins, (Rom 3:25; 1Jh 2:2, 4:10, etc. And just a couple more proofs, it is written that Christ "gave Himself for us (elect)" Gal 1:4, 2:20; Eph 5:25; 1Tim 2:6; Titus 2:14, etc. Lastly, see also the use of the word "ransom", the Greek word lutron (Matt 20:28; Mk 10:45; 1Tim 2:6).

3. Christ's crucifixion was foreordained of God and it was the Son's agreement to give His own life in behalf of those whom the Father had predestined to save, i.e., the Lord Christ voluntarily gave up His own life in order to redeem those whom He came to save (Jh 10:15,17).

There are myriad articles here on The Highway that deal with the vicarious substitutionary death of Christ which you can reference The Atonement.

The doctrine of the vicarious substitutionary atonement is the apex of orthodox biblical Christianity. You obviously are "outside the camp" and stand against the one true Church for which Christ shed His blood (Acts 20:28; Rom 5:9)

Hi Both

"Q: If God alone grants repentance, then why does God become angry at unrepentance? For example, in the letters of Revelation, Christ said that He gave Jezebel time to repent, but she didn't, so He's going to throw her into a bed of sickness. But if she's incapable of repenting (or you can substitute sinning Israel in various OT situations), then why give her "time"? She wouldn't have been any more able to repent two months later than two months earlier. Or, to give another example, unregenerate Israel had no more potential or ability to repent 390 days into the Babylonian siege than on day one. It's as if God has a repentance ray-gun sitting by His side in Heaven, and He is getting wrathful toward people, clans, and nations who constitutionally can't repent, but who would repent if He would just shoot them with His ray-gun"


I note that these words of Christ are directed to the Church. If it is regenerate believers he is addressing then, we can assume as such they were then in that state of regeneration, capable of repentance. We see this in the life of the believer, who backslides and then is restored to fellowship with God. We can assume that this the work of God in the believers heart, whereby his soul is aroused from temporary engrossment with his flesh, and makes its movement back to God.

This call to repentance then, is not to be confused with those who do not have the Grace of God in regeneration, and as such can not heed the call to repent. Even though the gospel is preached to them.
Except of course in the so called "effectual calling",when fallen and spiritualy dead people are given Divine ability power and life to comprehend and respond to the Gospel of Christ. I believe this is what is called "Effectual Calling".

Of course there are scriptures supporting this and this is a quick reply.

Cf 1 Corinthians-Paul has to address all manner of carnality in the church, where there was immorality, factions, drunkeness and so on. There is a parrallel with what is said by Christ to the Church in Revelation and with what Paul was addressing here. Note particularly what Paul says to them in Chapter 11 29-31 and Rev 2:21-22 see also 2 Cor 12:21. All speak of the requirement to repent or face Divine Measures being bought to bear upon those who refuse to.

Can I suggest that the problem you have is not so much that the death of Christ appears to be a direct consequence of an act of breaking Gods Law i.e. murder,therefor how can a lawless act be given the credit of being interpreted as an act of Salvation? But rather you have an issue with the doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of God.

True Theology puts God center as Sovereign Creator and absolute authority in governing the affairs of man. He has the ultimate right to do with sinful humanity as he sees fit. If man lives in disobedience to him, then he has every right to use even those acts of defiance to further his Glory and purpose-albeit those who prosecute such acts will face His judgement in eternity.cf Romans 9:17-18,22.Also 19:11 Rev 1:7

This presupposes that all the acts of men, even those who reject God and do things in willful sin and ignorance, are ultimately directed to the overall purpose and intent of God-even if these intentions are wicked. This as opposed to those, by the same token that are for his good purpose.cf Gen 50:20,Phil 2:13 Eph 2:8,9.

This principle is seen again in Acts 2;23, In respect of the human intent and Gods purpose. Another member has mentioned the fact that Christ submitted himself willingly to his executioners and that He recognized and affirmed, even secular authority as being an unwitting instrument of his Father. Gal 1:4 also John 19:9-11.

It also seems as if there is some confusion in what was sinful and what was substitutionary. Of course, the act of murder is not the ground of justification. The murder was not committed by the vicar. Christ lay down His life for His friends (John 15:13). It was not sinful for Him to lay down His life, so there is no contradiction to the law. Love fulfills the law (Gal. 5:14) which love He demonstrated in all His sufferings.

As far as the command and time to repent, I agree: a command does not translate to an ability. So why give time to repent when it is only God who grants repentance (2 Tim. 2:25)? This question, however, doesn't even work from the Arminian perspective, because if God is all knowing, He already knows that a person won't repent. Therefore, even if God is not sovereign, giving time could only be showing them temporal mercy because there won't be a changed outcome.

At the end of the day, we should simply live by faith and not try to wrap our minds around God-- that is a losing proposition. Let God be God-- sovereign, immutable, infinite... The question "why" is not ours to ask.