Tag Archives: bloodhuilt

The doctrine of Christ’s satisfaction is not contained in the Bible.

It is a pity that so much is said and written on the doctrine of Christ’s satisfaction, and with so much untempered warmth, when the doctrine is not contained in the Bible.” — Barton W. Stone, “An Address to the Christian Churches in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio on Several Doctrines of Religion,” p. 49.  [3/01/10]

Defenders of penal substitution, intent on “glorifying” the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ against incursions by his glorious Resurrection, thinking thereby to preserve the alleged “atoning” value of his sufferings and death against any imagined compromise, HAVE HARDENED THEMSELVES AND BLINDED THEIR LISTENERS TO THE FACT THAT THE RESURRECTION IS EQUALLY A PART OF THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST, THE RISEN LORD!  Have they never read John 2:19 & 10:18, “Raze this temple and in three days I will raise it up,” “I have the right to lay [my soul] down and I have the right to get it again.  This directive I got from my Father“?  [3/06/10]

The basic simplicity of the Gospel somehow baffles theologians.  They keep looking for tortured explanations concerning God’s justice, righteousness, or fairness.  To read most Protestant (to venture no farther than that!) theologians on this fraught subject is to risk throbbing headaches.  They just don’t get it.  May God’s Spirit come rushing through afresh to dissolve the quirks, straighten out the kinks, and iron out the wrinkles.  God’s children (not to mention the needy world) deserve better than this!  The Gospel is so simple in fact, when rightly understood, that many theologians would be out of a job but for the complications they themselves feel compelled to introduce.  [3/10/10]  What? For the sake of “clarification”?  May God save us!  [3/23/21]

The offering of a mere animal sacrifice under Levitical administration was much too trivial  a compensation for willful sins of murder, adultery, stealing, false witness, etc.  It would therefore be an insult to the honor of the Law.  And thus God forbade it.  David understood this completely; therefore, after his adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of Uriah her husband, finally stricken in conscience, he appealed directly to God in Psalm 51, a supreme tribute to God’s forgiveness:

For You are not delighting in sacrifice, that I should give it;

An ascent approach You are not holding dear.

The sacrifices to God are a broken spirit;

A broken and crushed heart, O God, You shall not despise..

In Your benevolence, bring good to Zion,

Build up the walls of Jerusalem.

Then You shall delight in righteous sacrifices,

Ascent approach, and wholly fumed offerings;

Then young bulls shall be offered up on Your altar.”  [v. 16-19]

David well knew there was no ritual means of atoning for his grievous sins.  He pled for God Himself to “rescue me from bloodguilt, O God, the God of my salvation, that my tongue may be jubilant at Your righteousness/justice.”  [v. 14]

Barton W. Stone had highlighted, urged, and defended these truths already two centuries ago!  [3/11/10]

Leave a comment

Filed under Biblical patterns of word usage, justification, restorative justice, The Atonement