37 seems to have hit the nail on the head here.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Did Jesus cease being God's Son on the Cross?
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
Different question (@JesusFan was speaking of wrath and where wrath goes).
In the case above justice would be derived from secular laws (it'd be secular justice). The unfaithful part isn't punished, and neither is the neglect of me or my house. Murder would be punished per the states laws.
Insofar as divine justice, the example falls flat because while you and I can be injured (physically, emotionally, psychologically) God cannot. Man simply does not have power over God.
Divine justice is God's vindication of the righteous and punishment of the wicked. Scripture describes this as being carried out at a specific time (the "Day of Judgment", "on that day", the "day of wrath").
On this specific day the righteous will be saved but the wicked will perish to an everlasting punishment (this is called the "Second Death").
I've been traveling and it is difficult to get on this site with my phone (sometimes the site feels like a nut, some times it doesn't). But my tablet works.
By shedding His blood I am referring the wicked crucifying Jesus on a Roman cross.
While Calvinism works regardless of Jesus actually dying physically (as we die physically) I believe the cross was necessary (not only Jesus' death for our sins but Jesus public crucifixion on a Roman cross).
I believe when we, and Scripture, use "the blood of Christ" we are speaking of His death.
I also think Luther was making a point rather than a stand alone statement. In his writings he separates Jesus dying for our sins and God on the Cross, not creating doctrine but emphasizing points.
Did Jesus cease being God's Son on the Cross?
In my opinion, the answer is no. In order to be the just for the unjust, Jesus had to be perfect, without blemish. Yes, God treated Jesus as sin on the cross, but hat was necessary for Jesus to become the means of reconciliation for unjust humanity.
That provides for God the basis to be able to forgive sinners and still remain Holy
Not per Scripture. Christ and His obedience to death does (His "blood shed" for us) but not God treating Jesus as a sin.
Per Scripture God did the opposite of "unjustly oppressing" Jesus and raised Him, seated Him at His right hand, and gave Him a name above every name.
There is a reason Isaiah foreshadowing the cross describes the Servant's death as unjust oppression, and it was not because God was doing it.
Had the Father treated Jesus as sin or as a sinner then God would not longer be holy (you quoted the passage that would condemn God were your theory correct - God will not transfer a man's sin to another person or punish one person in place of another. You just left out that part of the passage.
First, the main point is Jesus was not sin nor in a sinful state. I do not want to gloss over the key to reconciliation, the just for the unjust.
Second, I believe God's characteristic of being just, requires reconciliation, something received for something given (or not given in this case).
There is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood, meaning without the loss of life. In order to become the means of reconciliation, Christ had to pay with His life to become the means of reconciliation for the whole of humanity.
Thus He bought all of us, those to be saved, and those never to be saved with His life. Or so I believe.
I agree with your post here. But I do not believe it was God who treated Jesus as sin (or, as Calvinists believe, as a sinner).
Instead I believe that Christ bore our sin in that He experienced the wages of death that we suffer as a result of sin and his reconciled man (mankind) to God (God became, fully, one of us). It was, IMO, our sin that essentially killed Jesus (sin begats death and we, not Jesus, were the ones who sin).
I am sure there is a distinction there that I am missing, but the key distinction is Jesus was not made to be sin!!! That is what matters to me.
When scripture says He born our sin, my NASB says He offered up (to take upon Himself the penalty of) our sins .
I definitely do not believe Jesus reconciled (completed action) mankind. Scripture says He is reconciling (present tense now and ongoing from when written in 1st century) humanity.
And I definitely do not believe our sin killed Jesus, He laid down His life as a ransom for all, those to be saved, and those never to be saved.
I think the key distinction here, is an offering which purchased, paid the penalty required, the sin of humanity, enabling Him to be the means of reconciliation for the whole of humanity.
I am not really sure where, or that, we truely disagree.
I do believe that Jesus lay down His life, but at the same time I believe that He suffered death which was because of our sin.
Jesus laying down His life willingly does nor, IMHO, negate that He was killed (Peter notes this when he says that wicked men killed Jesus). Death entered the world through Adam's and spread to all because all have sinned. I believe Jesus experienced the wages of our sin.
I do not view Jesus' death as paying a penality as much as suffering the wages of sin (sin begats death).
I think it is fait to say that on the cross God was reconciling man (mankind) to Himself and this reconciliation has been accomplished (for mankind, not individual men).
Because it was God's will, and sometimes God requires that we just be humble enough to accept that.
Hebrews 10:7 - Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
All this thinking that God was constrained by any necessity or anything but love for His vessels of mercy is just vain imagination serving up questions instead of godly edifying.
Death on a Roman cross was certainly secular judgement. Isaiah let's us know it was unjust "oppression". And yes, they did judge Jesus a sinner, stricken by God. That error was pointed out not only by Isaiah and Peter but also (and more importantly) by the resurrection.
The interesting part here is that nowhere in the Bible is God said to have judged Jesus as a sinner. That is what reformed Catholic doctrine teaches (a revision of Thomas Aquinas' theology). But it is not in the actual Scriptures.
Except in Galatians 3:13.
No, Galatians 3:13 is certainly not an exception.
Jesus DID become a curse for us.
But what I said was that there is not a verse in God's Word that states God judged Jesus as a sinner.
The problem with arguing theories rather than Scrioture is that theories are subjective where Scrioture is not.
You can explain all day long that the Bible teaches that God judged Jesus as a sinner, and others can explain all day long that the Bible teaches that men can choose salvation without the work of the Spirit, or that God created man through evolution, or the gap theory....whatever.
But all of that is subjective where Scrioture itself is objective.
Here we are not even talking about differing interpretations. We are talking about one man, or one group's, theories.
It doesn't work to provide a verse to "prove" what the verse does not say. That only works when preaching to the choir as they already accept the theory and merely look at Scripture to prop it up.
Exception to what? Paul is explicitly applying that very sentence to the death Christ suffered.
I think his interpretation is to trusted more than yours.
No, Paul is not applying this to Christ's death. He is explaining that nobody is justified by the Law. Christ being a curse for us does apply to Christ's death on a cross. But the application is different.
Your mistake is that you are trying to apply one verse rather than the entire passage.
And even if you had a point here that does not negate the fact that the verse DOES NOT state that God judged Jesus as a sinner.
I absolutely agree with what Paul wrote. I disagree with what you added.
But nice smokescreen ;-).
Yes, Jon, we all know what you want it to say, but the text just won't yield.