How are we to reckon ourselves as being dead to sin?

[Eternally Grateful]

Simply your opinion. He's the same God for Muslims as He is for Jews and Christians. You should educate yourself more thoroughly.

According to the Qur'an (Q4:163; 5:69; 22:34; 29:46), Muslims worship the same divine being that Jews and Christians worship.

Allah, Arabic Allāh (“God”), the one and only God in Islam. Etymologically, the name Allah is probably a contraction of the Arabic al-Ilāh, “the God.” The name's origin can be traced to the earliest Semitic writings in which the word for god was il, el, or eloah, the latter two used in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament).

lol.. The jewish God is not the christian God either.

the jews and Muslims believe in a false God who they have made up.

they reject God and they reject Jesus..

 

[ChristisGod]

lol.. The jewish God is not the christian God either.

the jews and Muslims believe in a false God who they have made up.

they reject God and they reject Jesus..

If one rejects Christ as God they have a false god.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

If one rejects Christ as God they have a false god.

“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?” (1 John 2:22)

 

[CadyandZoe]

how is it waved?

Sins are forgiven. Did you mean to ask "why would God wave them?"

The correct theory of the atonement gives due weight to the concept of reconciliation. Unlike justice, which requires compensation or restitution or punishment, reconciliation answers to the question, "what would it take for two opposing parties to make peace and form amiable relations?

According to the New Testament, the cross was not a matter of justice; it was a matter of reconciliation. Romans 5:10-11, 2Corinthians 5:18, Colossians 1:22. A Jewish person didn't offer God a cow because the man stole God's cow. He offered God a cow because God provide this mode as the means to reconcile with God. It answers to the question, "what does it take to be at peace with you God?" God provided a better mode as the means toward reconciliation: the cross of Christ. Through the cross, Paul says, we have peace with God. Romans 5:1. Once having been reconciled with God, Paul says, he will grant us life. Romans 5:10

 

[ChristisGod]

Sins are forgiven. Did you mean to ask "why would God wave them?"

The correct theory of the atonement gives due weight to the concept of reconciliation. Unlike justice, which requires compensation or restitution or punishment, reconciliation answers to the question, "what would it take for two opposing parties to make peace and form amiable relations?

According to the New Testament, the cross was not a matter of justice; it was a matter of reconciliation. Romans 5:10-11, 2Corinthians 5:18, Colossians 1:22. A Jewish person didn't offer God a cow because the man stole God's cow. He offered God a cow because God provide this mode as the means to reconcile with God. It answers to the question, "what does it take to be at peace with you God?" God provided a better mode as the means toward reconciliation: the cross of Christ. Through the cross, Paul says, we have peace with God. Romans 5:1. Once having been reconciled with God, Paul says, he will grant us life. Romans 5:10

Here is where my studies have led me on the atonement. This is what led me out of Calvinism.

The Tri-Unity of God in the Atonement and Jesus last words | Berean-Apologetics

View Update Here> There are many misconceptions and views on the atonement. I will try and clear up some of those in this thread espe

berean-apologetics.boards.net

 

[GTW27]

It doesn't sound like you are understanding what I'm saying.

One day, in answer to a concern of mine, the Lord spoke to me and gave me this, "afterward thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness, the faithful city." This is from a passage concerning Israel, and Jerusalem, and that God used this passage to speak a word of encouragment to me doesn't change the meaning of the passage itself, and it's application to Israel.

Isaiah 1:24-26 KJV
24) Therefore saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts, the mighty One of Israel, Ah, I will ease me of mine adversaries, and avenge me of mine enemies:
25) And I will turn my hand upon thee, and purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy tin:
26) And I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning: afterward thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness, the faithful city.

This is a prophecy of the restoration of Israel, and it remains that. But God used it speak a personal word to me. Were I to be teaching on this passage, I would speak about the restoration of Israel.

Much love!

Blessings in Christ Jesus marks! Many do not know that the name written on the white stone can be a descriptive name. Mine is descriptive, and He has brought it to pass.

 

[Jim B]

lol.. The jewish God is not the christian God either.

the jews and Muslims believe in a false God who they have made up.

they reject God and they reject Jesus..

This is 100% wrong. Stating your opinion as truth is a serious character flaw.

BTW, Jesus was a Jew, so was He wrong about the God that He (the Son) referred to as Elohim, YHWH, the Father, etc? Do you really think that Jesus didn't know His own Father?

Neither Jews (capitalized) nor Muslims believe in a "false God".

 

[CadyandZoe]

What does "penalty is waved not served" supposed mean?

To "waive" is to refrain from enforcing. Jesus paid the price for all sin, so the penalty is waived. (not "waved" -- LOL)

I misspelled the word "waived." Thanks for catching that.

Yes, the New Testament says that Jesus "paid" the price for sin. But since the Father and Jesus promise to forgive our sins, and since the NT understands the cross in terms of reconciliation rather than justice, then what does it mean that Jesus "paid" the price for our sins?

According to Paul, God chose to publicly demonstrate his justice through the cross of Christ. For this reason, Jesus voluntarily allowed himself to be arrested and falsely accused of blaspheme and to suffer the death penalty. In response, our heavenly Father raised Jesus from the dead, demonstrating his justice. The message is understood as a contrast between the justice mediated by the Jewish officials, that punished an innocent man for crimes he didn't commit, as compared to God's justice who restored the innocent to life and seated him at his right hand. We don't understand the cross if we forget the ascension. Jesus "paid" for our sins in that he suffered the consequences of an intentional mistrial, but his suffering wasn't meant as a substitutionary punishment for them.

The Father is clear when he says that the son shall not suffer the sins of the father. That is, it is evil to punish one man for the sins of another man. The Father would never punish Jesus for our sins. He forgives our sins, if we accept, affirm and confess that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, the savior of all those who trust him.

 

[CadyandZoe]

That is not what the word says.. The word says whoever is under the law is cursed. because cursed is the one who does not obey every word.

To be accurate, Paul says "those who are of the law" [not "under" the law] referring to a supposed means to find justification with God. Those who are attempting to find justification through obedience are cursed because the task is impossible. This does not preclude, however, a Jewish person from seeking reconciliation (atonement) with God in the manner God prescribed. Seeking atonement is not the same thing as seeking justification.

God required a payment for sin. He does not just let it God.. He would not be a perfect judge if he did this.. So a broken spirit and a contrite heart is not going to save you.

God is more than a perfect judge. That is not ALL he is.

Jesus is God. that's how. If Jesus was mere man, I would agree.. But As God he could take the sin of the whole world.. which the bible says he did.

If he did not, we are under law. and we have no hope.

Well, I can think of several reasons why this can't be true. First, God declares that punishing a man for the sins of another man is evil. Punishing a man for crimes he didn't commit is immoral and unjust. This applies to the common man as well as to royalty and even to the God-man. God is not immoral.

Secondly, justice requires that the offended be compensated. How does it make sense for God to be both the plaintiff and the defendant? It makes no sense.

Finally, Jesus came to forgive sins. If sins are forgiven, they stand unpunished.

 

[ChristisGod]

To be accurate, Paul says "those who are of the law" [not "under" the law] referring to a supposed means to find justification with God. Those who are attempting to find justification through obedience are cursed because the task is impossible. This does not preclude, however, a Jewish person from seeking reconciliation (atonement) with God in the manner God prescribed. Seeking atonement is not the same thing as seeking justification.


God is more than a perfect judge. That is not ALL he is.

Well, I can think of several reasons why this can't be true. First, God declares that punishing a man for the sins of another man is evil. Punishing a man for crimes he didn't commit is immoral and unjust. This applies to the common man as well as to royalty and even to the God-man. God is not immoral.

Secondly, justice requires that the offended be compensated. How does it make sense for God to be both the plaintiff and the defendant? It makes no sense.

Finally, Jesus came to forgive sins. If sins are forgiven, they stand unpunished.

Unpunished as in pardoned in our courts . We have been forgiven and pardoned from the guilt of our sins. No counting them against us.

 

[Jim B]

I misspelled the word "waived." Thanks for catching that.

Yes, the New Testament says that Jesus "paid" the price for sin. But since the Father and Jesus promise to forgive our sins, and since the NT understands the cross in terms of reconciliation rather than justice, then what does it mean that Jesus "paid" the price for our sins?

According to Paul, God chose to publicly demonstrate his justice through the cross of Christ. For this reason, Jesus voluntarily allowed himself to be arrested and falsely accused of blaspheme and to suffer the death penalty. In response, our heavenly Father raised Jesus from the dead, demonstrating his justice. The message is understood as a contrast between the justice mediated by the Jewish officials, that punished an innocent man for crimes he didn't commit, as compared to God's justice who restored the innocent to life and seated him at his right hand. We don't understand the cross if we forget the ascension. Jesus "paid" for our sins in that he suffered the consequences of an intentional mistrial, but his suffering wasn't meant as a substitutionary punishment for them.

The Father is clear when he says that the son shall not suffer the sins of the father. That is, it is evil to punish one man for the sins of another man. The Father would never punish Jesus for our sins. He forgives our sins, if we accept, affirm and confess that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, the savior of all those who trust him.

I disagree.

Our sins are forgiven because the penalty for all sin has been paid by the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Because the price has been paid, we have been reconciled to God. Without that sacrifice there would be no reconciliation, as God is just (requires justice). So we agree that God chose to publicly demonstrate his justice through the cross of Christ.

The cross and Jesus' ascension to the right hand of God are two separate, but related things. Jesus "paid" for our sins in that he suffered the consequences for them, and His suffering was clearly meant as a substitutionary punishment. If it didn't mean that, then why was He sacrificed?

Deuteronomy 24:16, “Parents shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their parents" clearly doesn't apply, since God didn't sin. Saying that the Father is clear when He says that the son shall not suffer the sins of the father is clearly a misinterpretation, since God didn't sin!

However, the Father did punish Jesus for our sins. That is the basis of our salvation: the penalty for our sins has been paid by someone else: Jesus. If Jesus wasn't punished for our sins then what was the purpose of the crucifixion?

 

[Episkopos]

lol.. The jewish God is not the christian God either.

The Jewish God is not YOUR God perhaps. But just remember Luther didn't create the heavens and the earth.

What you are espousing sounds like the gnostic idea of the God of the OT being a "demiurge" ...or worse...

I knew you guys were way off here...but whoa nelly...

 

[ChristisGod]

I disagree.

Our sins are forgiven because the penalty for all sin has been paid by the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Because the price has been paid, we have been reconciled to God. Without that sacrifice there would be no reconciliation, as God is just (requires justice). So we agree that God chose to publicly demonstrate his justice through the cross of Christ.

The cross and Jesus' ascension to the right hand of God are two separate, but related things. Jesus "paid" for our sins in that he suffered the consequences for them, and His suffering was clearly meant as a substitutionary punishment. If it didn't mean that, then why was He sacrificed?

Deuteronomy 24:16, “Parents shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their parents" clearly doesn't apply, since God didn't sin. Saying that the Father is clear when He says that the son shall not suffer the sins of the father is clearly a misinterpretation, since God didn't sin!

However, the Father did punish Jesus for our sins. That is the basis of our salvation: the penalty for our sins has been paid by someone else: Jesus. If Jesus wasn't punished for our sins then what was the purpose of the crucifixion?

No reconciliation apart from faith and the new birth.

Next

 

[ChristisGod]

The Jewish God is not YOUR God perhaps. But just remember Luther didn't create the heavens and the earth.

Neither did you false christ create anything .

 

[Jim B]

To be accurate, Paul says "those who are of the law" [not "under" the law] referring to a supposed means to find justification with God. Those who are attempting to find justification through obedience are cursed because the task is impossible. This does not preclude, however, a Jewish person from seeking reconciliation (atonement) with God in the manner God prescribed. Seeking atonement is not the same thing as seeking justification.


God is more than a perfect judge. That is not ALL he is.

Well, I can think of several reasons why this can't be true. First, God declares that punishing a man for the sins of another man is evil. Punishing a man for crimes he didn't commit is immoral and unjust. This applies to the common man as well as to royalty and even to the God-man. God is not immoral.

Secondly, justice requires that the offended be compensated. How does it make sense for God to be both the plaintiff and the defendant? It makes no sense.

Finally, Jesus came to forgive sins. If sins are forgiven, they stand unpunished.

The KJV says "For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression." Romans 4:14-15

The NIV has better translation of these verses: "For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.". And the NET says, "For if they become heirs by the law, faith is empty and the promise is nullified." And the NRSVue says, "For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void." So under the law is valid.

Jesus paid the penalty in full for all sin. He was punished for our sins! God is just, and justice requires punishment for sins committed. Sins can only be forgiven if the penalty is paid in full.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Sins are forgiven. Did you mean to ask "why would God wave them?"

The correct theory of the atonement gives due weight to the concept of reconciliation. Unlike justice, which requires compensation or restitution or punishment, reconciliation answers to the question, "what would it take for two opposing parties to make peace and form amiable relations?

According to the New Testament, the cross was not a matter of justice; it was a matter of reconciliation. Romans 5:10-11, 2Corinthians 5:18, Colossians 1:22. A Jewish person didn't offer God a cow because the man stole God's cow. He offered God a cow because God provide this mode as the means to reconcile with God. It answers to the question, "what does it take to be at peace with you God?" God provided a better mode as the means toward reconciliation: the cross of Christ. Through the cross, Paul says, we have peace with God. Romans 5:1. Once having been reconciled with God, Paul says, he will grant us life. Romans 5:10

the problem with this theory is you forgot we are justified

Justified is a legal term..

We are justified based on the cross.

Christ redeemed us with his blood..

We are dead because of sin. God just does not wave his hand and remove the penalty. He is the perfect judge. He can’t overrule his justice, or he is not a perfect Judge.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

This is 100% wrong. Stating your opinion as truth is a serious character flaw.

BTW, Jesus was a Jew, so was He wrong about the God that He (the Son) referred to as Elohim, YHWH, the Father, etc? Do you really think that Jesus didn't know His own Father?

Neither Jews (capitalized) nor Muslims believe in a "false God".

Muslims will not go to heaven, because they reject Christ.

If they worshiped the one true God. They would recieve christ and be saved. Which means, they would not be Muslim

 

[ChristisGod]

The KJV says "For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression." Romans 4:14-15

The NIV has better translation of these verses: "For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.". And the NET says, "For if they become heirs by the law, faith is empty and the promise is nullified." And the NRSVue says, "For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void." So under the law is valid.

Jesus paid the penalty in full for all sin. He was punished for our sins! God is just, and justice requires punishment for sins committed. Sins can only be forgiven if the penalty is paid in full.

Nothing penal with His sacrifice. Try quoting the Bible sometime instead of stating your subjective opinion on the topic of the atonement.

 

[Jim B]

Muslims will not go to heaven, because they reject Christ.

If they worshiped the one true God. They would recieve christ and be saved. Which means, they would not be Muslim

Why are you changing the subject?

Muslims and Jews worship the same God as Christians. The entire Old Testament is about the worship of the one true God by the Jews. And Muslims also worship the one true God.

There is a vast difference between worshiping God and receiving Christ as Savior.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

I am wondering why you did not speak of what Jesus told him..when he asked how those things could be, especially vs 14 - 18

9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?”

10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

To me “for he is condemned already” means enough punishment; in that without God and apart from God you can do nothing. As in he who believes not is already perishing. That to me is what He said about coming not to condemn but to save from “already condemned”.

I did the best I could to answer you entire question. But for some reason you’ll continue to assume I’m trying to take away the necessity of being born of the Spirit. Which I am not.