The just and the justifier

[Martin Marprelate]

No one is denying that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. No one is denying that Christ propitiated God's wrath. If @Martin Marprelate is going there then he has bigger problems as it's old common ground.

What I have rejected is his theory that God accomplished that by pouring His wrath upon Christ. The reason I am rejecting the theory is that I find it both "un" and "anti" biblical. It is not only an addition to Scripture but it denies what is actually written.

Because you keep saying something doesn't make it true. Because you find it unbiblical doesn't mean it is.

Psalm 75:8. 'For in the hand of the LORD there is a cup, and the wine is red; It is fully mixed, and He pours it out; surely its dregs shall all the wicked of the earth drain and drink down.'
Jeremiah 25:15. 'For thus says the LORD God of Israel to me: "Take this wine cup of fury [or 'wrath'] from My hand, and cause all the nations to whom I send you to drink it."'
John 18:11. "Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?"

If Christ has not drunk the cup of God's wrath down to the dregs, then we are going to have to drink it.

I am once again finding that there is no pleasure in our discussions. I am going to take a break for a short while because I have other, more pleasant things to do.

 

[JonC]

Because you keep saying something doesn't make it true. Because you find it unbiblical doesn't mean it is.

Psalm 75:8. 'For in the hand of the LORD there is a cup, and the wine is red; It is fully mixed, and He pours it out; surely its dregs shall all the wicked of the earth drain and drink down.'
Jeremiah 25:15. 'For thus says the LORD God of Israel to me: "Take this wine cup of fury [or 'wrath'] from My hand, and cause all the nations to whom I send you to drink it."'
John 18:11. "Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?"

If Christ has not drunk the cup of God's wrath down to the dregs, then we are going to have to drink it.

But that is not what those passages say. Those "in Christ" are not called "wicked" any more than God could have considered Christ as a sinner.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Scripture states....outright states....your theory could never happen because of God's faithfulness.
Not upon the righteous (per Scripture, not your theory). That's one of many places where your theory falls apart.

I guess you and @Martin Marprelate have to decide - believe your theory or the plain teaching of Scripture).

2 Corithians 5:21 tells us four things.

1 Christ was sinless (knew no sin).
2. Christ was made sin.
3. It was for us.
4. It was so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him (Christ).
Scripture states that the sinless One was made sin. That is fact, not theory.

 

[JonC]

But the Righteous will suffer God's curse (Galatians 3:13). Think about it.

You are missing the point. God's righteous anger is against sinners. If Christ has not borne it on our behalf, we must bear it ourselves. This is quite apart from the merits of Christ.

And you need to turn down the heat. The Doctrine of Penal Substitution is clearly taught in Scripture and you getting in a tizzy about it is not going to change that. Thousands of better men than you or I have believed that, and you are just making a fool of yourself by claiming that they were all 'invested in extra-biblical theory.'

No. It wasn't God who considered Christ a curse. He became a curse for us (hanging on a tree did not make someone cursed, read the OT reference).

I am applying no heat, so if you feel any don't look my way.

I really think that if you would just be content with the plain teachings of Scripture you'd abandon the extra-biblical Theory upon which you now cling. I understand your logic, but you need to understand the Theory is not in the Bible.

 

[JonC]

2 Corithians 5:21 tells us four things.

1 Christ was sinless (knew no sin).
2. Christ was made sin.
3. It was for us.
4. It was so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him (Christ).
Scripture states that the sinless One was made sin. That is fact, not theory.

Yes. No one has denied those points (unless you are saying Christ was made literal sin...i.e., God made Christ unholy, unrighteous, rebellious, evil...which I assume is not the case). Christ has too holy eyes to look upon sin.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It is a fair question. Martin Luther answered "absolutely" when he declared that by Christ's divine nature He outweighed the wrath and sin against us. The early church discerned this truth by appealing to what Peter called a price greater than gold and silver. I wonder why you find it too difficult to ponder.

I suspect it is because your theory elevates man and downgrades Christ's nature to a degree unheard of prior to its invention.

Luther agrees with me. I have posted this before, but I suppose I must do so again:

'For Christ is innocent as concerning His own person, and therefore He ought not to have hanged on a tree: but because, according to the law of Moses, every thief and malefactor ought to be hanged, therefore Christ also, according to the law, ought to be hanged, for He sustained the person of a sinner and a thief, not of one, but of all sinners and thieves.......'Paul therefore doth very well allege this general sentence out of Moses, as concerning Christ: "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." But Christ hath hanged upon a tree, therefore Christ was accursed of God."' [commentary on Galatians 3:13]

There is page after page of this stuff by Luther. You don't have to agree with him, but it's there in his commentary.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes. No one has denied those points (unless you are saying Christ was made literal sin...i.e., God made Christ unholy, unrighteous, rebellious, evil...which I assume is not the case). Christ has too holy eyes to look upon sin.

It means something. It does not mean that Christ was made a sinner, but He was made sin. All the sins of His people were laid upon Christ by imputation. 'And the LORD has laid upon Him the iniquity of us all.' And He bore God's wrath against sin, that God might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. If He did not, we will have to bear the wrath ourselves (Psalm 7:11 etc.).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I really think that if you would just be content with the plain teachings of Scripture you'd abandon the extra-biblical Theory upon which you now cling. I understand your logic, but you need to understand the Theory is not in the Bible.

I really think that if you would just be content with the plain teachings of Scripture you'd abandon the extra-biblical Theory upon which you now cling. I understand your logic, but you need to understand the Theory is not in the Bible.

 

[JonC]

I really think that if you would just be content with the plain teachings of Scripture you'd abandon the extra-biblical Theory upon which you now cling. I understand your logic, but you need to understand the Theory is not in the Bible.

I know it isn't....that's what I've been saying - penal substitution - yes....Penal Substitution Theory - no.

 

[JonC]

It means something. It does not mean that Christ was made a sinner, but He was made sin. All the sins of His people were laid upon Christ by imputation. 'And the LORD has laid upon Him the iniquity of us all.' And He bore God's wrath against sin, that God might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. If He did not, we will have to bear the wrath ourselves (Psalm 7:11 etc.).

No. It means he was made "sinful flesh", "bore our sins". We can't pick a definition that denies other passages just because it suits Penal Substitution Theory.

And you never did answer the question -

Was Christ's sacrifice, apart from bearing God's wrath, a price worth enough to redeem mankind?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No. It means he was made "sinful flesh", "bore our sins". We can't pick a definition that denies other passages just because it suits Penal Substitution Theory.

The Bible never says that Christ was made 'sinful flesh' and your remark shows that you don't understand the term. He came 'in the likeness of sinful flesh' (Romans 8:3), that is in appearance as a man (Philippians 2:8); 'In all things......made like His brethren, .........yet without sin' (Hebrews 2:17; 4:15). He was never made sinful flesh-- that would make Him a sinner. No, it is best to follow the Scripture rather than to advance philosophical ideas. 'And the LORD has laid upon Him the iniquity of us all.' That can only have been done by imputation, and it is the teaching of 2 Corinthians 5:21. We are become the righteousness of God in Christ. His perfect righteousness is imputed to us, but we do not become 'sinless flesh.' Likewise the sins of Christ's people were imputed to Him and He bore the wrath that God has towards sinners, and paid the penalty for them, although, 'He had done no violence, nor was any deceit in His mouth.'.

It's so simple and so clear when you lay aside philosophical prejudices and just compare Scripture with Scripture!

And you never did answer the question -

Was Christ's sacrifice, apart from bearing God's wrath, a price worth enough to redeem mankind?

I did; you just didn't like the answer. Christ's sacrifice was not apart from coming under God's curse and bearing God's wrath against sin. Therefore it is just another of you philosophical musings. I prefer to stick with the Scriptures.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I know it isn't....that's what I've been saying - penal substitution - yes....Penal Substitution Theory - no.

That's what I've been saying - The Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution - yes,.....Your penal substitution theory - no.

I can keep this up indefinitely.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No. It wasn't God who considered Christ a curse. He became a curse for us (hanging on a tree did not make someone cursed, read the OT reference).

It would be so much better if you would read the Scriptures before asking me to. Deuteronomy 21:23. '......For he who is hanged upon a tree is accursed of God.' So as Luther says, Christ was hanged on a tree; therefore Christ is accursed of God. Now Galatians 3:13 tells us, 'Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us.' The curse of the law is found in Deuteronomy 27:26, quoted by Paul in Galatians 3:10. Christ was not under this curse personally because He obeyed the law perfectly, but He was made sin for us, voluntarily came under the curse of God and bore our sins in His own body on the tree (1 Peter 2:24), that we might be spared the curse and its penalty and become the righteousness of God in Him.

 

[JonC]

The Bible never says that Christ was made 'sinful flesh' and your remark shows that you don't understand the term. He came 'in the likeness of sinful flesh' (Romans 8:3), that is in appearance as a man (Philippians 2:8); 'In all things......made like His brethren, .........yet without sin' (Hebrews 2:17; 4:15). He was never made sinful flesh-- that would make Him a sinner. No, it is best to follow the Scripture rather than to advance philosophical ideas. 'And the LORD has laid upon Him the iniquity of us all.' That can only have been done by imputation, and it is the teaching of 2 Corinthians 5:21. We are become the righteousness of God in Christ. His perfect righteousness is imputed to us, but we do not become 'sinless flesh.' Likewise the sins of Christ's people were imputed to Him and He bore the wrath that God has towards sinners, and paid the penalty for them, although, 'He had done no violence, nor was any deceit in His mouth.'.

It's so simple and so clear when you lay aside philosophical prejudices and just compare Scripture with Scripture!

I did; you just didn't like the answer. Christ's sacrifice was not apart from coming under God's curse and bearing God's wrath against sin. Therefore it is just another of you philosophical musings. I prefer to stick with the Scriptures.

You still have the same problem. The verse cannot mean that God literally made Jesus to be sin. Even your conclusion (that God considered Jesus to be sinful) does not take the verse literally.

So agreeing that God did not literally make Jesus evil, unholy, unrighteous, sin....the problem you have is that your version (your altering of the literal word "sin") denies the nature of God as presented in the Bible. It makes God a liar. It denies Scripture. So even here you have to choose another meaning.

Scripture does not say that Jesus was imputed our sin. You are relying (again) on your theory to interpret Scripture. Our iniquity was laid upon Him. He propitiated our sin. He bore our sin. But he was not considered by God a sinner (at least per Scripture, I know your theory holds otherwise).

That's what I've been saying - The Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution - yes,.....Your penal substitution theory - no.

I can keep this up indefinitely.

Me too. I'm good with what the Bible says of penal substitution. I'm not good with the theory that God was wrathful to Jesus (I find the theory demeaning to God, exalting to man above man's station, and unbiblical).

It would be so much better if you would read the Scriptures before asking me to. Deuteronomy 21:23. '......For he who is hanged upon a tree is accursed of God.' So as Luther says, Christ was hanged on a tree; therefore Christ is accursed of God.

Now that you have studied the passage in Deuteronomy, do you realize your error? It is not saying that by hanging on a tree one is cursed (it is not a magic incantation or spell to cause someone to be cursed by God).

Deuteronomy 21:22-23
22 If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and his body is hung on a tree, 23 you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse. You must not desecrate the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

Even your "proof" denies your theory. The Jews (not God) considered Jesus to be guilty and a blasphemer and they had Him crucified. But only because Jesus lay down His own life. He became a curse for us.

You would do well to pay closer attention to the context of passages, brother. Allow the plain words of Scripture to dictate your theology rather than reading your theories into individual verses.

I know, brother, that you cannot understand Scripture except through the theory you have chosen. I was once the same. I couldn't understand how others did not see the theory throughout. So please understand that I am not trying to be rude, or "generate heat". I would like for others who read the thread, who are able (perhaps less vested in the Theory) to see beyond the theoretical suppositions through which you read the Bible, to consider what is actually taught in Scripture. I want them to see the depth and richness of what has been taught and passed down through the majority of Church history as compared to the shallow and unbiblical "doctrine" we've inherited through the Reformation as contemporary churches have adopted theory and tossed off Scripture itself. I want them to ask why Christ lived, rather than looking at His birth and death as the only relevant milestones to our redemption. I want them to consider the passages your theory rejects. I want them to read the four Gospels as well as the Pauline epistles and develop their theology from the whole.

So you are not my target audience. I know you will never leave your theory. You're too invested. And I don't blame you at all. It was very difficult for me to examine the Theory against Scripture. But others, particularly the younger generations who have already noticed the fly in the ointment, may be more open to Scripture (what "is written" rather than applied).

 

[Yeshua1]

Scripture states....outright states....your theory could never happen because of God's faithfulness.
Not upon the righteous (per Scripture, not your theory). That's one of many places where your theory falls apart.

I guess you and @Martin Marprelate have to decide - believe your theory or the plain teaching of Scripture).

While upon the Cross, Jesus still remained always the Son of God, sinless and pure, and yet in a Mystery, became sin for us in that he who knew no sin become the sin bearer, and God placed upon Him in our stead what was due to all of us!

 

[Yeshua1]

You still have the same problem. The verse cannot mean that God literally made Jesus to be sin. Even your conclusion (that God considered Jesus to be sinful) does not take the verse literally.

So agreeing that God did not literally make Jesus evil, unholy, unrighteous, sin....the problem you have is that your version (your altering of the literal word "sin") denies the nature of God as presented in the Bible. It makes God a liar. It denies Scripture. So even here you have to choose another meaning.

Scripture does not say that Jesus was imputed our sin. You are relying (again) on your theory to interpret Scripture. Our iniquity was laid upon Him. He propitiated our sin. He bore our sin. But he was not considered by God a sinner (at least per Scripture, I know your theory holds otherwise).
Me too. I'm good with what the Bible says of penal substitution. I'm not good with the theory that God was wrathful to Jesus (I find the theory demeaning to God, exalting to man above man's station, and unbiblical).
Now that you have studied the passage in Deuteronomy, do you realize your error? It is not saying that by hanging on a tree one is cursed (it is not a magic incantation or spell to cause someone to be cursed by God).

Deuteronomy 21:22-23
22 If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and his body is hung on a tree, 23 you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse. You must not desecrate the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

Even your "proof" denies your theory. The Jews (not God) considered Jesus to be guilty and a blasphemer and they had Him crucified. But only because Jesus lay down His own life. He became a curse for us.

You would do well to pay closer attention to the context of passages, brother. Allow the plain words of Scripture to dictate your theology rather than reading your theories into individual verses.

I know, brother, that you cannot understand Scripture except through the theory you have chosen. I was once the same. I couldn't understand how others did not see the theory throughout. So please understand that I am not trying to be rude, or "generate heat". I would like for others who read the thread, who are able (perhaps less vested in the Theory) to see beyond the theoretical suppositions through which you read the Bible, to consider what is actually taught in Scripture. I want them to see the depth and richness of what has been taught and passed down through the majority of Church history as compared to the shallow and unbiblical "doctrine" we've inherited through the Reformation as contemporary churches have adopted theory and tossed off Scripture itself. I want them to ask why Christ lived, rather than looking at His birth and death as the only relevant milestones to our redemption. I want them to consider the passages your theory rejects. I want them to read the four Gospels as well as the Pauline epistles and develop their theology from the whole.

So you are not my target audience. I know you will never leave your theory. You're too invested. And I don't blame you at all. It was very difficult for me to examine the Theory against Scripture. But others, particularly the younger generations who have already noticed the fly in the ointment, may be more open to Scripture (what "is written" rather than applied).

God did not reckon Jesus as being a sinner,but he did reckon Him to be the representative for all of the fallen humanity that He would bear their due penalty for!

 

[Yeshua1]

But that is not what those passages say. Those "in Christ" are not called "wicked" any more than God could have considered Christ as a sinner.

God considered Jesus to be my Sin bearer, and at that time while upon the Cross, it was like me there being judged and receiving mydue penalty!

 

[Yeshua1]

You still have the same problem. The verse cannot mean that God literally made Jesus to be sin. Even your conclusion (that God considered Jesus to be sinful) does not take the verse literally.

So agreeing that God did not literally make Jesus evil, unholy, unrighteous, sin....the problem you have is that your version (your altering of the literal word "sin") denies the nature of God as presented in the Bible. It makes God a liar. It denies Scripture. So even here you have to choose another meaning.

Scripture does not say that Jesus was imputed our sin. You are relying (again) on your theory to interpret Scripture. Our iniquity was laid upon Him. He propitiated our sin. He bore our sin. But he was not considered by God a sinner (at least per Scripture, I know your theory holds otherwise).
Me too. I'm good with what the Bible says of penal substitution. I'm not good with the theory that God was wrathful to Jesus (I find the theory demeaning to God, exalting to man above man's station, and unbiblical).
Now that you have studied the passage in Deuteronomy, do you realize your error? It is not saying that by hanging on a tree one is cursed (it is not a magic incantation or spell to cause someone to be cursed by God).

Deuteronomy 21:22-23
22 If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and his body is hung on a tree, 23 you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse. You must not desecrate the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

Even your "proof" denies your theory. The Jews (not God) considered Jesus to be guilty and a blasphemer and they had Him crucified. But only because Jesus lay down His own life. He became a curse for us.

You would do well to pay closer attention to the context of passages, brother. Allow the plain words of Scripture to dictate your theology rather than reading your theories into individual verses.

I know, brother, that you cannot understand Scripture except through the theory you have chosen. I was once the same. I couldn't understand how others did not see the theory throughout. So please understand that I am not trying to be rude, or "generate heat". I would like for others who read the thread, who are able (perhaps less vested in the Theory) to see beyond the theoretical suppositions through which you read the Bible, to consider what is actually taught in Scripture. I want them to see the depth and richness of what has been taught and passed down through the majority of Church history as compared to the shallow and unbiblical "doctrine" we've inherited through the Reformation as contemporary churches have adopted theory and tossed off Scripture itself. I want them to ask why Christ lived, rather than looking at His birth and death as the only relevant milestones to our redemption. I want them to consider the passages your theory rejects. I want them to read the four Gospels as well as the Pauline epistles and develop their theology from the whole.

So you are not my target audience. I know you will never leave your theory. You're too invested. And I don't blame you at all. It was very difficult for me to examine the Theory against Scripture. But others, particularly the younger generations who have already noticed the fly in the ointment, may be more open to Scripture (what "is written" rather than applied).

Who and How was our sin debt paid than, who bore the due penalty?

 

[JonC]

While upon the Cross, Jesus still remained always the Son of God, sinless and pure, and yet in a Mystery, became sin for us in that he who knew no sin become the sin bearer, and God placed upon Him in our stead what was due to all of us!

If you could accept the plain words of Scripture you would find the dichotomy you present much less a mystery and much more the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Who and How was our sin debt paid than, who bore the due penalty?

What verse are you speaking of here? Let's look at it together.

Here's one (but it doesn't support your theory and has been one of the primary verses supporting Christus Victor for centuries):
Colossians 2:13-15 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.

In this case, we are forgiven our transgressions, the debt (the decrees against us) being canceled. It isn't a "sin debt" as you've imagined - but the word "debt" is used in the NASB.

 

[Yeshua1]

If you could accept the plain words of Scripture you would find the dichotomy you present much less a mystery and much more the gospel of Jesus Christ.

What verse are you speaking of here? Let's look at it together.

Here's one (but it doesn't support your theory and has been one of the primary verses supporting Christus Victor for centuries):
Colossians 2:13-15 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.

In this case, we are forgiven our transgressions, the debt (the decrees against us) being canceled.

Again, who paid the due penalty for my sins, who bore the deserved wrath of God against me in my sin state?