Not because of the words, but because it seems like it comes from a personal place. Could you please be more personal and say how did you feel it personally, and how can I get to feel this myself.
Embracement Theory[ edit ] This approach, while acknowledging the other theories, also sees the Divine voluntary self-giving as the ultimate embracement of humanity in its ultimate act of sin, viz, deicide, or the murder of God, thus canceling sin on the cross.
The depth of estrangement and contortion was manifest in the kind of death administered: Yet, the real story is not that the world rejected Him; the real story is that He was willing to let the world reject Him. Divine self-emptying, divine servanthood, and divine crucifixion are powerful themes that shock the philosophy of religion.
Nietzsche called the greatest of all sins to be the murder of God deicide.
There was nothing more sinful than that. On the reverse, the greatest of all righteousness fulfilled was in the self-giving of the Son of God. This self-giving brought an end to the history of hostility between man and God. It cancelled all debts. Man had committed the greatest of all crimes, and God had allowed it to be done to Him in the ultimate divine sacrifice.
It was where man affirmed his estrangement and God affirmed His belongedness. It was where God accepted man as he was. The one act of righteousness by the Son of God nullified forever the writ of accusation against all humanity. Packerfor example, although he maintains that "penal substitution is the mainstream, historic view of the church and the essential meaning of the Atonement Yet with penal substitution at the center", he also maintains that "Christus Victor and other Scriptural views of atonement can work together to present a fully orbed picture of Christ's work".
Kenneth Griderspeaking from a governmental theory perspective, says that the governmental theory can incorporate within itself "numerous understandings promoted in the other major Atonement theories", including ransom theory, elements of the "Abelardian 'moral influence' theory", vicarious aspects of the atonement, etc.
I think we can reach a reconciling point of view, from which each type of theory is seen to make its essential contribution to the truth, although no one theory, no any number of theories, can be sufficient to express its fullness. McGrath, for example, talking about the atonement, says that 'Paul One died for all, so that all died 2 Corinthians 5: This is not only different from substitution, it is the opposite of it.
Kenneth Grider, quoted above showing the compatibility of various atonement models with the governmental theory, nevertheless also says that both penal substitution and satisfaction atonement theories are incompatible with the governmental theory. Sometimes substitutionary atonement is used to refer to penal substitution alone,  when the term also has a broader sense including other atonement models that are not penal.
William Kent notes that the Atonement " But we can never rest in these material figures as though they were literal and adequate. As both Abelard and Bernard remind us, the Atonement is It was by this inward sacrifice of obedience unto death, And atonement is often balanced with specific Acts of Reparation which relate the sufferings and death of Christ to the forgiveness of sins.
Salvation is not seen as the acceptance of a legal exchange, but as participation in the renewal of human nature itself by way of the eternal Word of God assuming the human nature in its fullness. In contrast to Western branches of theology, Orthodox Christians tend to use the word "expiation" with regard to what is accomplished in the sacrificial act.
In Orthodox theologyexpiation is an act of offering that seeks to change the one making the offering.
The Biblical Greek word which is translated both as " propitiation " and as "expiation" is hilasmos, which means "to make acceptable and enable one to draw close to God".
Thus the Orthodox emphasis would be that Christ died, not to appease an angry and vindictive Father or to avert the wrath of God upon sinners, but to defeat and secure the destruction of sin and death, so that those who are fallen and in spiritual bondage may become divinely transfiguredand therefore fully human, as their Creator intended; that is to say, human creatures become God in his energies or operations but not in his essence or identityconforming to the image of Christ and reacquiring the divine likeness see theosis.
They believe Jesus was the " second Adam ", being the pre-existent and sinless Son of God who became the human Messiah of Israel, and that he came to undo Adamic sin.
They believe that salvation is possible only through Jesus' ransom sacrifice,  and that individuals cannot be reconciled to God until they repent of their sins, and then call on the name of God through Jesus. According to their teaching, the works prove faith is genuine. The Atonement began in Gethsemane and ends with Christ's resurrection.
Christ's agony at Gethsemane Luke Christ described this agony in the Doctrine and Covenants as follows: The relationship of justice, mercy, agency, and God's unconditional love. Christ's infinite atonement was required to satisfy the demands of justice based on eternal law, rendering Him Mediator, Redeemer, and Advocate with the Father.
One eternal law states that "no unclean thing can enter into the Kingdom of God. We are made perfect, first, through justificationfollowed by sanctification.Bible Verses about Suffering Romans ESV / 1, helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy.
Under his theology, it is quite possible for humans to reject the salvation accomplished and offered by Christ, and therefore to spend eternity in hell. But he taught that without the salvation accomplished by Christ through his life, death, and resurrection, all people would . Nov 03, · The necessity for Christ's death stems from God's holiness and absolute intolerance of sin and His obligation to judge righteously.
A substitutionary sacrifice is required to propitiate for God's wrath against the sins of mankind. There was no “survival of the fittest.” Animals did not prey on each other, and the first two humans, Adam and Eve, did not kill animals for food.
We need to realize that there is One who has overcome this problem of death and suffering—Jesus Christ. In times of suffering, Christians honor the Lord by trusting Him and knowing that. The Importance of the Death of Christ in the Plan of Salvation.
Hebrews The writer of the book of Hebrews begins his argument that the New Testament system of Christ is superior to the Old Testament law of Moses. What Was the Purpose of Christ's Death? Posted on Apr 9, by Jerold Aust 1 comment Estimated reading time: The scriptures quoted above show the necessity of Jesus’ death—that it was required because of sin.
Without sin, there would be no need for Jesus’ death, the shedding of His sinless blood. Salvation is only offered to.