Now the "moral influence theory" is a broad term, and not all who follow its premise believe everything the same on all points. Thus anyone can find a point and say they "disagree" while in reality still following the basic premise.

What is the "moral influence theory"?

The bottom line of the "moral influence theory" is the denial of the Substitutional death and life of Christ.
It's main thought is that Jesus' death had nothing to do with the proper demands of a righteous God for judgements on sin.

Though they will use Biblical phrases such as "justified by His blood for the forgiveness of sins" they take away the obvious meaning and interprete it in a human subjective manner that the cross moves us to respond to God's love and move away from sin. In a sense this makes our response the ground of justification and the grounds for "forgiveness" ALONE. The covering of sin by the blood of Christ is not necessary.

The "atonement" is not equated with the "atoning sacrifice" as in the sacrificial system. (i.e. the sinner confessing his sins upon the head of the victim and then taking its life, symbolic of it absorbing the penalty of the sins so the sinner can go home justified) but is limited to only the human response once again of setting aside his misinformed hostility toward God and being on friendly more submissive terms with God. Reconciliation is limited to mankind having a change of mind.

"Moral influence denies that Jesus sacrifice was substitutionary, necessitated by God's holy wrath against evil." It places the legal atonement in opposition to a knowledgable relationship with God, when in fact both are essential.

No it's not. I never said this. You're just repeating the very thing I asked you not to do!

I'm asking you to quote what I said and then comment on that. This is exasperating! Instead of quoting what I said, and commenting on that, you repeat the very falsehood I am denying, and do so without quoting anything!

Please stop that!

Actually Teressa, I started this thread.
Certain people challenged me.
Do I not have the right here to present my beliefs?

im sorry that you misunderstood, apparently, everything i said.
i honestly have no idea of how i could have said anything so that you would hear what i said and not something else.

Yes, Tom VERY EXASPERATING.

Very exasperating indeed.

If it's not true then what in the world are you arguing about and posting long long posts about?

You are denying the SUBSITUTIONAL DEATH OF CHRIST as NECESSARY for our death to sin and resurrection to newness of life.
You are denying the that this death was NECESSARY in the reckoning of heaven's justice to forgive sins and restore mankind into justice.

i dont think any of us will be able to respond this way when we are hauled into court for breaking the sunday law.

“If you have a strong case, stick to the facts.
If you have a weak case, try to confuse the issue.
If you have no case, rail on the opposition.”

And that's exactly what happened to the presentation I tried to make on this thread.
I gave Biblical Bible study.
A certain person came on to confuse the issues.
And now people are railing against me because they don't like the study.

Why does it have to come to this?

LET'S TRY AGAIN.



Romans 5:6,8-9
For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly....God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being NOW JUSTIFIED BY HIS BLOOD, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if, when we were enemies, we were RECONCILED TO GOD BY THE DEATH of His Son, much more, BEING RECONCILED, we shall be saved by His life.


The genitive absolute: "we still being sinners"
"we" without strength being lost and helpless in our sins.
Christ died in our behalf, in our stead.

Verse 6 shows this was done for all.
The door of salvation was opened for all.
All were hopelessly lost without this hope and assurance that Christ would die in their place.
But not all will be saved.

Verse 8 focuses in on the believers, who were ALSO lost sinners, lost and helpless in their sins. Christ's voluntary sacrificial death for us while we were in our ungodly sinfulness is the height of God's love. The supreme result and effect of this sacrifice is the justification and reconciliation of believers to God.

So important is this truth that Paul states it over and over.
In verse 10 he states it more fully.

"We being enemies"
this shows the rebellious nature of sin, and
echoes Paul's former phrase. "while we were yet sinners"
Our natural enmity toward God's law and righteousness, our sin, our ungodliness placed us in a position where we deserved nothing but wrath -- God owed us nothing.
But Christ taking our sins upon Himself, and dying in our place changed our status.

Prior we were OUTSIDERS, with only the death penalty awaiting us. There are no alternatives but death for all entrapped in sin.


BUT GOD --
This, Paul writes, is the active transitive point in our reconciliation to God.

Now, God has always loved the world -- He sent His son (as per John 3:16) God didn't need to be pacified in order to love us. He loved the human race. The trouble was with us -- we being the "enemies", our treason demanding our death. We were wrong, we alone, God wasn't wrong, but we could do NOTHING about either about our alienation or escaping from sins end.

"For if, when we were enemies, we were RECONCILED TO GOD BY THE DEATH of His Son"

Notice the progress:
Christ's sacrificial death brings
Our reconciliation to God
and then
"BEING RECONCILED, we shall be saved by His life."

This is an important point.

FIRST WE ARE RECONCILED
then we live and are saved by His life!

ulicia, this is a discussion forum. people agree and disagree and have different, VALID, perspectives of the same thing. (caps for emphasis only since it is understood as shouting at the other person in netiquette.)

again i am so sorry you are not able to read what is said but hear something else entirely. i am also sorry that you feel beat up on. i have no idea why you feel that way since colin has been "on your side". elle threw out some comments, that if i remember correctly, were completely ignored.

my comments have more to do with the unChristlike behavior exhibited. i think about that investigative judgment and how we have to repent of every wrong trait in ourselves and that is the gist of my comments.

im just willing to find out where tom is coming from before i pass judgment.