Coming back to the topic of this thread, while y'all debate what the law is and how it's applied: "handwriting of ordinances" has been more accurately translated as "debt note", as in paying one's dues. A debt note was nailed to the cross to seure salvation. However one interprets what the debt the looked like, a debt note is a legally enforcable forfeiture of value: something is owed in the eyes of the law. That's why a debt note was nailed to the cross - a very legal event, demanded of divine justice and delivered for us by grace in Christ our Saviour.

Therefore, the cross of Christ met a legal requirement for our salvation, bearing our guilt and sinfulness to the death due it.

I think on this thread there are like twenty different suggestions as to what was nailed to the cross. I'm exaggerating a bit, but not by much, as a perusal of the thread will show.

I've noticed that the texts being used to attempt to show the penal substitution idea are texts that are among the most contested and most difficult to understand in the New Testament. I've already posted regarding Rom. 3:25. Regarding this text, reading through this thread, we can see there are many suggestions. Romans 7 was another one suggested, which is also a difficult text, and its an analogy, hardly a proof.

Why not something from the teachings of Christ? It's my belief that Paul's teachings were the same as Christ's. I can't think of anything relating to the Gospel off the top of my head that Paul taught that Jesus didn't teach. It seems to me as followers of Christ, we should be able to support our views from Christ's teachings, at least as far as the Gospel goes. That doesn't mean, of course, other authors can't be used as well, but it seems to me that Christ's teaching would make a good foundation.

This is getting a bit off topic to the thread, but I think the comments fit in the context of what happened, which was a study of Col. 2:14 from another thread where we were discussing these concepts (these concepts being relating to the Gospel and the atonement). Mostly I wanted Dedication to be aware of the thread just to see what had already been discussed.

I'm not necessarily interested in maintaining our proofs. If it is true, it will be maintained no matter what I say.

In any case, "God will kill you" can mean different things. If I went to a patient in a hospital and I unplugged his respirator, making him unable to breathe, did I "kill" him? IOW, does my act of discontinuing a life-sustaining activity, and just allowing the person's condition to deteriorate on its own until death occurs, count as "killing" someone?

Let's apply that to God. Can God give life-sustaining power to those who have rejected Him? Yes; Satan's been around all these years because of life given him by God. If He ceases to provide His life-sustaining grace to sinners, allowing their condition to deteriorate until death occurs, does that count as "killing" them?

If God did not warn them not to eat the fruit, would they have died if they ate it?

If God gave them the fruit, as He had done with every other fruit on the planet, would they have died if they ate it?

I'm guessing your answer to both questions is No. Correct?

im not clear as to how you understand Christs death as a substitute for us. forget about that penal substitute stuff which i dont get anyway...i mean i dont see it as some kind of legal bargain the Gods made between themselves. it seems the focus is off somewhere there. joshua in zechariah coming to mind.

i understand the quote is very clear to you that Christ didnt need to die for satan, but i honestly dont see it and may not this side of heaven.

if sin brings death, then it seems Christ would have had to die in satans place because even if satan had repented-how sad that he didnt-satan still would have died as a result of his sin eventually.

im going to have to think and pray about that. it seems to be a "fine distinction".

but i get your point and dont take issue with that view. it is a different view that i have issue with.

It counts as their choosing death, and God's giving them what they've chosen.



"Love" and "hate" here have to do with choice. Iow, those who choose "not Christ" choose death.

They wouldn't have been sinning in this case, right? Death is the inevitable result of sin. With no sin there would have been no death.

So if that guy in the hospital asked me to unplug his respirator and I did, allowing him to lack oxygen until his bodily functions ceased, it cannot be said truthfully that I killed him? Would you agree that I would not be responsible for it, since I had only given him what he had chosen?

No sin, no death. We agree there.

So you're saying that if God said nothing about the fruit, it would have been perfectly safe to eat it. So God's positive act of warning them against eating it made it sinful to do so, since they would not have sinned if God said nothing. Sounds like God did something to make it possible for them to die.

This was your assertion:
But it looks like avoiding death would have been guaranteed if He had NOT warned them. Right? That is the logical conclusion of the belief that if God gave no light on the matter, there would be no sin, and there would be no death. Do you agree?

On the other side of the coin, God failed to do something to keep them from dying. If God had given them that fruit to eat, just like He did with all the other fruits there, they would not have sinned in eating it. Because God did not give them that fruit to eat, it was possible for them to eat it and die. Had He given them that fruit, and told them it was fine to eat, they would have been safe.

So here we have one positive act by God and one act that God did not do that would have kept A&E safe from death. But God chose the path that allowed A&E to die.

Moreover, A&E did not choose to die. They chose to ate, hoping to avoid death anyway. Death was something they received against their wishes.