Satisfaction doctrine

[Nessa]

I have a draft copy of a book my pastor is writing...

There is a mention of satisfaction doctrine where God isn't really a judge as such and to look at the cross in a legal framework is wrong.

I have believed this is right... Likened to the story of a judge who has to sentence his own son but who chooses to pay the penalty himself.

Now I'm confused....what do you guys think?

I am concerned my pastor quotes alot from Gregory Boyd who is a believer in open theology which I don't agree with.

[Philip]

The unScriptural and dangerous beliefs of Greg Boyd's open theism exposed:

http://normangeisler.com/category/inerr ... ancy/boyd/

[RickD]

I have a draft copy of a book my pastor is writing...

There is a mention of satisfaction doctrine where God isn't really a judge as such and to look at the cross in a legal framework is wrong.

I have believed this is right... Likened to the story of a judge who has to sentence his own son but who chooses to pay the penalty himself.

Now I'm confused....what do you guys think?

I am concerned my pastor quotes alot from Gregory Boyd who is a believer in open theology which I don't agree with.

Nessa,

Do you have any links, or any way we can read what your pastor wrote? We can’t really judge your pastor’s writings, by Boyd’s beliefs.

[Nessa]

I have a draft copy of a book my pastor is writing...

There is a mention of satisfaction doctrine where God isn't really a judge as such and to look at the cross in a legal framework is wrong.

I have believed this is right... Likened to the story of a judge who has to sentence his own son but who chooses to pay the penalty himself.

Now I'm confused....what do you guys think?

I am concerned my pastor quotes alot from Gregory Boyd who is a believer in open theology which I don't agree with.

Nessa,

Do you have any links, or any way we can read what your pastor wrote? We can’t really judge your pastor’s writings, by Boyd’s beliefs.

Just to clarify, I am asking about satisfaction doctrine and Greg Boyd.

The book itself is in hardcopy and unpublished so I don't feel it's my right to share it openly yet.

[Kurieuo]

I have a draft copy of a book my pastor is writing...

There is a mention of satisfaction doctrine where God isn't really a judge as such and to look at the cross in a legal framework is wrong.

I have believed this is right... Likened to the story of a judge who has to sentence his own son but who chooses to pay the penalty himself.

Now I'm confused....what do you guys think?

I am concerned my pastor quotes alot from Gregory Boyd who is a believer in open theology which I don't agree with.

I dislike Greg Boyd's theology. Got his book many years ago, Letters from a Skeptic. Remain unconvinced in particular of his views of what "omniscience" encompasses and as such God's own limits in relation to known truths. So, I'm sure I'd disagree a whole lot more with Boyd's thoughts elsewhere.

As for God as judge, God is first and foremost a righteous judge. Until one realises that, then they can't comprehend the awful predicament each and every one of us is in. What need was there for Christ, except that we all rightfully deserve condemnation? God's law leads to death and destruction (cf. "the letter kills" in 2 Cor 3:6; Romans 4:16), for one transgressed we merit God's wrath, which is to be punished for our transgressions -- and the wages of sin is death, to be completely severed from the source of life.

Any theology which says God isn't judge, pulls the rug out from underneath the Gospel. Such would surely rip to shreds the good news that Christ brought, that we can look to him to appeal on our behalf. At the same time, the analogy of a judge who sentences his own son to pay the penalty, well I've never liked that one. Such feels quite immoral in certain respects, such that it has never sat right with me. It breaks down, because it isn't a true oranges for oranges reflection of God, nor does it fully represent what is going on. Yet, it is nonetheless true that Christ willingly atoned for our sin. (1 John 4:10)

I'd point you to a new Youtube video that David Wood recently released, which made me think to return to your thread here and post a link to it:

Can One Man Die for the Sins of Others?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_swP34cPY0

[Philip]

K: As for God as judge, God is first and foremost a righteous judge. Until one realises that, then they can't comprehend the awful predicament each and every one of us is in. What need was there for Christ, except that we all rightfully deserve condemnation?

And that's it, really - people simply don't understand why sin is such a big deal - because it's just not - least to US! If they could only grasp the nature of God - His absolute perfection, for whom even the tiniest transgression or corruption cannot be tolerated in His presence. And He knew when He gave us free will that man would not be able to avoid sinning - as only God can be perfect. But He well understood this and provided a way to cover the debt of our sins: HIMSELF / Jesus - the perfect life taken as a substitute for our own, to satisfy God's wrath over sin. God never expected our perfection, only our receiving and submitting ourselves to Him. God / Jesus did all of the heavy lifting over perfecting us so as to make us acceptable to God - and FOREVER so!!!