How is it that Christ's death is "for our sins"?

[JonC]

Think of righteousness as a gold coin. Christ turned in his coin and gave it to Abraham. God promised Abraham that the coin would be an eternal inheritance by all of his descendants... but God meant Abraham's spiritual descendants. I'm not suggesting that Jesus sinned or committed an offense. I'm suggesting that God judged Him for the sin of the world (he became sin, he became a curse, he had our iniquity laid upon him).

Thank you for clarifying. This is, if I understand correctly, very similar to what others have expressed on this forum: that God imputed our sin to Christ and Christ's righteousness to us (to those "in Christ"). Another had described God as punishing our sin in Christ.

While I do not agree, I appreciate you taking the time to explain your position to me. If I still have misunderstood then please let me know.

 

[Dave G]

Tit 3:9-11 NASB - 9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. 10 Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, 11 knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.

Since we're not talking about The Law, we're talking about Faith, I don't think this applies.

Since all of the theological positions I'm talking about come from Galatians 2-4, maybe you should try this one:

Gal 1:8
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

I'll post it as I see it:

"But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
11 knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." ( Titus 3:9-11 )

So, as believers, we are to avoid:

1) Foolish questions
2) Genealogies
3) Contentions
4) Strivings ( fights ) about the Law

It's not just about the Law, it's about other things as well.

A man that is a divider, after the first and second admonition...reject.
Knowing that he is subverted and sins, being condemned by his own actions.

" I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." ( Galatians 1:6-8 )

Is it a perversion of the Gospel to declare that Christ the Righteous, became unrighteous, and that by believing His own Gospel by faith, He re-gained that righteousness?



I hope for your sake that it is not, sir.

 

[Revmitchell]

There has been much conversation on the BB about how people who do not hold to Penal Substitution Theory can still view Christ’s death as necessary.

The question is wrong. It is foolish to believe that of all Christians who have lived only a minority who hold to Penal Substitution Theory view the Cross as a necessity insofar as the redemption of mankind.

A better question is - How is it that Christ’s death is “for our sins”?

Some view the Cross as representing the payment for a debt owed to God because of Adam’s transgression.

Others believe the Cross represents a blood sacrifice to appease the wrath of God and satisfy a “sin debt”.


Others view Christ’s death as the destruction of sin and death by healing the corruption of sin.

Some view Christ’s death as a necessary component of becoming man (as a necessary aspect of the Incarnation).

Some view Christ’s death as being necessary at the hands of men through the will of God (embodying the principalities of sin and evil) rather than at the hand of the Father and the Resurrection as indicative of victory.

Of course there are views in between and further out. These are just examples.

All of them require the Cross. But each views how Christ’s death was for our sins differently.

And many view them all as trrue.

 

[Dave G]

Christ turned in his coin and gave it to Abraham

Respectfully, I disagree.
He kept that coin and then His Father expanded ownership of it to include Abraham and his spiritual descendants.

Transfer of ownership versus crediting of ownership.
In the licensing and titling of automobiles, it would be like someone giving up title to someone else ( and then getting it back ), versus keeping it and expanding the ownership of that title to include more owners and drivers, by privilege.

It's called justification... and imputation of righteousness, not transfer of righteousness.

Actually demonstrates the great exchange where Jesus is filled with sin and we are filled with His righteousness

The way I see you stating this is, instead of the Lord having the sins of His people laid on Him by His Father ( Isaiah 53:4-11 ) He became filled with their sins, as a vessel?

You'll have to provide the Scripture for that one...
By declaration, not by implication.
I'll also tell you in advance that I've never seen such a statement made in all of His word.


This is my final reply to you in this thread, sir.
I'm going to take the advice of the Lord and avoid contentions.


I wish you well, and may God bless you in the knowledge of Him and His grace.

 

[JonC]

And many view them all as trrue.

Many do.

 

[agedman]

Isa 53:6-12 NASB - 6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. 7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth. 8 By oppression and judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered That He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke [was due?] 9 His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. 10 But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting [Him] to grief; If He would render Himself [as] a guilt offering, He will see [His] offspring, He will prolong [His] days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. 11 As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see [it and] be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.

Gal 3:13
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE”—

2Co 5:21
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.​

This seems pretty straight forward. Christ took our sin upon himself, and we got His righteousness in return.

If that was all you held of your thinking, then there would be little to disagree. But it isn't.

The reason I say that Jesus inherited righteousness the same way we do is because scripture says He was raised from the dead by the covenant God made with Abraham:

Genesis 17:2 (KJV)
And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.
3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,
4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

Hebrews 13:20
Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord,​

​

The "everlasting Covenant" was not redemption but that God would be the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, ...

This was not an offer not extension of righteousness, but that redemption would come from Him through the seed of Abraham, and that righteousness would then be not by the Law (for until Moses there was no law) but by God instilling faith into those of His choosing. (Romans 3 - end).

Why would God promise Jesus Christ Salvation?

Gal 3:14
in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ.​

18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.
19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.

Clearly God planned to resurrect Jesus through this covenant of faith. Otherwise, why would God make Jesus this promise ... this "everlasting covenant" that all of Abraham's descendants would inherit the righteousness that Abraham was credited with?

You state, "... that all of Abraham's descendants would inherit the righteousness..."

But that just isn't the truth. Not ALL of Abraham's descendants "inherited" righteousness.

ONLY those who appointed to be saved are in fact saved. (John 1)

The rest are "condemned already." (John 3)

Jesus was the ONLY spotless Lamb qualified to have the sin of the world transferred to him. He was the only one righteous. He never sinned. Right up until God forsook him on the cross when the sin of the world separated him from God.

"Forsook" does not mean abandoned.

That is the origination of the problem with what your are putting forth.

Forsook is "withhold support."

As a father who watches from the stands the son on the field of play does not rush onto the field to support, but waits (withholds support).

The Father was never "separated" from the Son. The Father withheld that protection, that sustaining, ... from the Son that the crucifixion result in the Christ laying down His own life. Humankind did not nor did the Father take life from Him.

He laid it down and He took it up again at the resurrection.

Because you have the wrong view of this "forsake" you appoint yourself to missing that which the Scriptures teach upon both the fellowship of the Father and Son, and that which pertains to righteousness.

 

[Gup20]

Thank you for clarifying. This is, if I understand correctly, very similar to what others have expressed on this forum: that God imputed our sin to Christ and Christ's righteousness to us (to those "in Christ"). Another had described God as punishing our sin in Christ.

While I do not agree, I appreciate you taking the time to explain your position to me. If I still have misunderstood then please let me know.

Honestly, I don't understand the objection to this. To me, it's like Peter's pride:

Mat 16:21-23 NASB - 21 From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. 22 Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "God forbid [it,] Lord! This shall never happen to You." 23 But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's."​

What exactly is the objection to saying a sinless man had the sin of the world laid upon him so that he could die in the place of those sinners? It does no harm to Jesus being a sinless, spotless sacrifice (just as it did no harm to the sacrifice being a spotless sacrifice when the high priest would lay his hands on it and transfer the sin of the nation to it).

 

[Gup20]

I'll post it as I see it:

"But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
11 knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." ( Titus 3:9-11 )

So, as believers, we are to avoid:

1) Foolish questions
2) Genealogies
3) Contentions
4) Strivings ( fights ) about the Law

It's not just about the Law, it's about other things as well.

A man that is a divider, after the first and second admonition...reject.
Knowing that he is subverted and sins, being condemned by his own actions.

" I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." ( Galatians 1:6-8 )

Is it a perversion of the Gospel to declare that Christ the Righteous, became unrighteous, and that by believing His own Gospel by faith, He re-gained that righteousness?



I hope for your sake that it is not, sir.

2Co 5:21
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him

Gal 3:13
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE”—

Isa 53:6
All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.​

It is not a perversion of the gospel... it is exactly the gospel that Paul was preaching. Perhaps you could tell me how the above scriptures don't mean what they clearly say. For example, in Galatians 3 it says Jesus was cursed by The Law of Moses. Do you deny that Jesus became a curse? In Isaiah it says the Lord caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him. Do you deny that this happened? In 2 Corinthians it says that He made him to be sin.... do you deny that Jesus was made to be sin?

Perhaps you could think deeply about WHY you object to this. Is it your own pride? Are you trying to defend Christ's honor? The honor you give is filthy in comparison to the honor the Father has given him for his obedience. Peter had similar pride when Jesus explained how He would suffer and die and Peter say "may it never be" and Jesus rebuked him saying "get behind me Satan."

Lev 1:4
‘He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, that it may be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf.​

If you look at how offerings work in the Old Testament, it always had to be a spotless sacrifice, and they would lay their hands on it and transfer their guilt to the animal before killing it. This was a foreshadow for Christ. I am not saying that Jesus sinned, or that He was evil or anything less than a perfect sacrifice. I'm saying that, just as the sacrifices in the Old Testament had the guilt of the offender transferred to them as they made atonement, so too did Christ have our iniquities laid on him, became a curse for us, and was made to be sin. This does no damage to Christ's perfection (just as the transference didn't tarnish or disqualify the Old Testament sacrifices).

 

[JonC]

Honestly, I don't understand the objection to this. To me, it's like Peter's pride:

Mat 16:21-23 NASB - 21 From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. 22 Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "God forbid [it,] Lord! This shall never happen to You." 23 But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's."​

What exactly is the objection to saying a sinless man had the sin of the world laid upon him so that he could die in the place of those sinners? It does no harm to Jesus being a sinless, spotless sacrifice (just as it did no harm to the sacrifice being a spotless sacrifice when the high priest would lay his hands on it and transfer the sin of the nation to it).

My objection is not the principle. I just do not think Scripture presents Christ "being made sin" as you have interpreted the passage.

 

[agedman]

Honestly, I don't understand the objection to this. To me, it's like Peter's pride:

Mat 16:21-23 NASB - 21 From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. 22 Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "God forbid [it,] Lord! This shall never happen to You." 23 But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's."​

What exactly is the objection to saying a sinless man had the sin of the world laid upon him so that he could die in the place of those sinners? It does no harm to Jesus being a sinless, spotless sacrifice (just as it did no harm to the sacrifice being a spotless sacrifice when the high priest would lay his hands on it and transfer the sin of the nation to it).

That statement does not contain all of your thinking upon this topic.

If it did, there would be little of which to object.

 

[Gup20]

Respectfully, I disagree.
He kept that coin and then His Father expanded ownership of it to include Abraham and his spiritual descendants.

Transfer of ownership versus crediting of ownership.
In the licensing and titling of automobiles, it would be like someone giving up title to someone else ( and then getting it back ), versus keeping it and expanding the ownership of that title to include more owners and drivers, by privilege.

It's called justification... and imputation of righteousness, not transfer of righteousness.

It was a credit because the full acquisition would have made Abraham immortal, and because Jesus had not yet come and done his work. It was "credited" until Jesus could come and become a curse for us. Furthermore that Jesus was to be the first resurrected so that he would have preeminence.

The way I see you stating this is, instead of the Lord having the sins of His people laid on Him by His Father ( Isaiah 53:4-11 ) He became filled with their sins, as a vessel?

What's the difference? On ... in... over... under. Sin is sin. One is EITHER sinful or righteous. One cannot be both. If sin is attached, one is no longer righteous. But if Jesus was never really touched by sin, then we are never really touched by righteousness.

You'll have to provide the Scripture for that one...
By declaration, not by implication.
I'll also tell you in advance that I've never seen such a statement made in all of His word.

2Co 5:21
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him

Gal 3:13
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE”—​

It is absolutely explicit.

This is my final reply to you in this thread, sir.
I'm going to take the advice of the Lord and avoid contentions.


I wish you well, and may God bless you in the knowledge of Him and His grace.

These are the childish tantrums of an insecure mind. If you were serious, you would have stopped the first time you threatened to stop responding. This is more of an emotional manipulation tactic. It might work on your family members, but it won't work here. Here, you have to use reason and scripture.

 

[Gup20]

That statement does not contain all of your thinking upon this topic.

If it did, there would be little of which to object.

I really do want to understand the objection to our sin being transferred to Christ and Christ's righteousness being transferred to us. Isn't that how sin was transferred to animal sacrifices in the old testament?

 

[Gup20]

My objection is not the principle. I just do not think Scripture presents Christ "being made sin" as you have interpreted the passage.

Maybe it would be helpful if you told me how you interpret these 3 verses:

2Co 5:21
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him

Gal 3:13
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE”—

Isa 53:6
All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.​

I see our sin being transferred to Christ in all 3 verses... and in the first two Christ's righteousness being transferred to us. What possible theological damage could this way of thinking pose, especially when you consider that this is exactly how Old Testament sin offerings worked.

 

[Gup20]

The "everlasting Covenant" was not redemption but that God would be the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, ...

This was not an offer not extension of righteousness, but that redemption would come from Him through the seed of Abraham, and that righteousness would then be not by the Law (for until Moses there was no law) but by God instilling faith into those of His choosing. (Romans 3 - end).

I sense great Calvinism in you. Clearly, salvation and faith are a choice God sets before mankind. In fact, scripture explicitly states that God does not choose whom will be saved, but it is a choice he gives us.

Deu 30:1
“So it shall be when all of these things have come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call them to mind in all nations where the LORD your God has banished you,

6 “Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.

11 "For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach.
12 "It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?'
13 "Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?'
14 "But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.
15 "See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity;
19 “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,​

Life and death are a choice God sets before us. It is not a choice we are unable to make (total depravity). It is not made by God in heaven. Furthermore that choice is synergistic as it must be witnessed by both heaven and earth.

Rom 8:16
The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,
17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.​

Christ is an heir? Heir of what? If Christ is not an heir, then we are not fellow heirs.

You state, "... that all of Abraham's descendants would inherit the righteousness..."

But that just isn't the truth. Not ALL of Abraham's descendants "inherited" righteousness.

ONLY those who appointed to be saved are in fact saved. (John 1)

The rest are "condemned already." (John 3)

Abraham's spiritual descendants, not physical descendants. John Calvin himself said of God’s predestined elect, “God has attested this [predestination] not only in individual persons, but has given us an example of it in the whole offspring of Abraham." Calvin simply didn't realize that all Christians are saved by becoming qualified as the offspring of Abraham.

Galatians 3:7
Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.

Galatians 3:9
So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.

Galatians 3:18
For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

Galatians 3:29
And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.

Romans 9:4
who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises,
5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;
7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED."
8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.​

"Forsook" does not mean abandoned.

That is the origination of the problem with what your are putting forth.

Forsook is "withhold support."

As a father who watches from the stands the son on the field of play does not rush onto the field to support, but waits (withholds support).

The Father was never "separated" from the Son. The Father withheld that protection, that sustaining, ... from the Son that the crucifixion result in the Christ laying down His own life. Humankind did not nor did the Father take life from Him.

He laid it down and He took it up again at the resurrection.

Because you have the wrong view of this "forsake" you appoint yourself to missing that which the Scriptures teach upon both the fellowship of the Father and Son, and that which pertains to righteousness.

I'll look more closely into it... however, upon a cursory inspection, this is what I've found:

Strong’s Definitions G1722 and G2641; to leave behind in some place, i.e. (in a good sense) let remain over, or (in a bad sense) to desert:—forsake, leave.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon Acts 2:27, 31, T WH ἐνκαταλείπω.; T also in Romans 9:29, see his note and cf. ἐν, III. 3); (imperfect ἐγκατελειπον (WH text in 2 Timothy 4:10, 16)); future ἐγκαταλείψω; 2 aorist ἐγκατέλιπον; passive (present ἐγκαταλείπομαι) 1 aorist ἐγκατελειφθην; the Sept. for עָזַב;
1. to abandon, desert (ἐν equivalent to ἐν τίνι, in some place or condition), i. e. to leave in straits, leave helpless, (colloquial, leave in the lurch): τινα, Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 from Psalm 21:2 (Ps. 22:2); Hebrews 13:5; passive 2 Corinthians 4:9; after the Hebrew עָזַב with לְ, τινα εἰς ᾅδου (or ᾅδην), by forsaking one to let hlm go into Hades, abandon unto Hades, Acts 2:27, 31 (not R).

 

[agedman]

I really do want to understand the objection to our sin being transferred to Christ and Christ's righteousness being transferred to us. Isn't that how sin was transferred to animal sacrifices in the old testament?

By using the word “transferred” there is an element of exchange, of trade. In effect an agreement between the two parties developing a contractural arrangement.

Redemption of any believer requires three stages or events in which the redeemed have no say or determination.

First is the understanding of these principles:

Humankind are slaves of this world, dead in trespasses and sin.
There is no desire nor hope of escape for all die - the wages sin pays.
​

Redemption , although a core theme in the NT, actually presents redemption as the accomplishment of these three basic areas.

The purchase of the slave from the slave market (AgorazO) was by the blood of Christ (1 Corinthians, 2 Peter, Revelation)

To removed from (redeemed from - exagrazo) the slave market never available to being sold again (Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians)

Adopted as free (lutroo) children of the Father (Ephesians, Romans, Galatians...)
​

The Scriptures state the the atonement (specifically the blood) was made not only for believers but for all - everyone (1John).

Yet, redemption is to few (“God gives the authority..”) as statedin John.

Using the words exchange or transfer, limits the blood to only the redeemed, but not for the “kosmos.” The blood was for all, redemption limited to the chosen.

Abraham’s promised seed (Christ) was limited to a single redeemer. That is certainly true - Paul states that point.

However, Abraham’s hereatige was not, but included a hodgepodge of folks (many by concubines).

It then must be that redemption is not by heritage but by God’s choice.

Believers are by adoption by God placed into heritage of Abraham, but not all of Abraham’s heritage were/are believers.

Believers pass from death to life, not by exchange but by the faith gifted to the believer. The purchase (bought with a price) of ownership (title), not the transfer of such in exchange.

In writing this post, there have been much interruptions.

Please forgive it being so poorly expressed and disjointed.

 

[Yeshua1]

Are you seriously asking me to prove a negative?

I can prove that Scripture states God will not condemn the innocent (Proverbs 17). I can provide Scripture saying that Christ is innocent (1 Peter 2; 2 Corinthians 5; Luke 1; 1 John 3; Matthew 27). I can prove that God will never abandon the righteous (Deuteronomy 31; Joshua 1). I can prove Jesus is righteous (Acts 7).

Now, can you provide even one verse that states God poured out His wrath upon Christ?

You know what....I know you can't. Such a verse does not exist (it is theory, reasoned out from Scripture - not Scripture itself....hence the potential for error). @Martin Marprelate has been trying to prove the theory for well over a year now. All you can do is provide a verse and your interpretation (the only part stating God was wrathful towards Christ being your interpretation).

The Father judged Jesus in our place, for our stead, as he bore in His body the sin burden and paid that obligation in full to God in order to purchase us back and to redeem us in full to God!

God has a holy wrath and will judge in an active sense all lost sinners, so God treated Jesus while upon the Cross completing salvation just as he will the lost in their own sins!

 

[Yeshua1]

And that is where I say to you, " Please look again, sir".

His righteousness continues and is eternal.
His righteousness is what all of His sheep partake of in the sight of God the Father, and has been imputed to us.
It isn't transferred ( taken from one and given to the other ), it is imputed ( credited ).

His righteousness remains His and was always His.

" My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:" ( 1 John 2:1 )

If He gave away His righteousness to believers, then He would not be able to sit at the right hand of the Father, making intercession for His sheep ( Hebrews 7:25, Hebrews 9:24-28 ).

Jesus always was the sinless lamb of God upon that Cross, but in Himself took on the our sins in the sense that when the father looked upon Jesus at that time, He was forsaken as IF he was a sinner!

 

[Yeshua1]

Thank you for clarifying. This is, if I understand correctly, very similar to what others have expressed on this forum: that God imputed our sin to Christ and Christ's righteousness to us (to those "in Christ"). Another had described God as punishing our sin in Christ.

While I do not agree, I appreciate you taking the time to explain your position to me. If I still have misunderstood then please let me know.

How else can we as sinners be in the presence of Holy God, unless God Himself pays for our salvation and then imputes us with His very righteousness!

 

[JonC]

How else can we as sinners be in the presence of Holy God, unless God Himself pays for our salvation and then imputes us with His very righteousness!

I never denied that we were purchased by tge blood of Christ. I never denied the righteousness we share in Him.

You do realize that all Christians believe their views biblical....correct? Just tossing out a few ideas and verses....and the occasional "Jesus and Paul believed all dogs go to heaven" - type statements do not lend clarity to your position or the topic.

 

[Dave G]

Jesus always was the sinless lamb of God upon that Cross, but in Himself took on the our sins in the sense that when the father looked upon Jesus at that time, He was forsaken as IF he was a sinner!

Y1,
That's not what's being spoken of here.

The issue is, did Christ give up His righteousness to become sin, or did He have the sins of His people laid on Him, while still retaining His own righteousness?
In other words, was He filled with their sin, thereby giving up His own righteousness, or were our sins laid on Him, as a righteous and spotless Lamb, and His righteousness in the sight of His Father preserved?

To me, it represents His sinless perfection as the Son of the living God.
I think that it is important, because the nature of His sacrifice, and who He is, is in view.

How else can we as sinners be in the presence of Holy God, unless God Himself pays for our salvation and then imputes us with His very righteousness!

I agree with you, fully.


Now, what does Scripture say?

1) He was sinless ( John 8:46, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 7:26, 1 Peter 2:21-22 )
2) He was spotless ( 1 Peter 1:19 )
3) He is righteous ( not "was" ) and is righteousness incarnate ( Psalms 97:6, Psalms 98:2, Isaiah 62:2, Matthew 6:33, Romans 3:25-26 )
To me, His righteousness is perfect and endures forever...The Lord's righteousness is embodied in Christ, and imputed to all believers.
At no point was there a "hiccup" or a "bump" in His being righteous.

To say that He became unrighteous, and then re-gained His own righteousness, is a theory that Gup20 has proposed, and not proven by declaration of Scripture, from my reading of his posts.

In other words, it's going beyond what is written ( 1 Corinthians 4:6 ), and we as believers should not do that, though we may often be tempted to.
It may seem like a minor point, but from my perspective, it isn't.


As I see it, there are many teachings these days that I am not going to stand for, and one of those is questioning Christ's righteousness, His sinlessness, and the embodiment of Who He is...

God's perfect righteousness come down to men.




I'm not attacking him as a person, if any of you think that is what I am doing;
I'm taking issue with something that I see as being set forth as a bona-fide teaching that will be propagated to others as fact.
I also realize that typing words on a forum does not lend as good a perspective as being face-to-face, in person, so it may seem like I'm being childish...but I'm not.

The issue of my Saviour's very nature and person is something that I treat very seriously.

This is not an emotional reaction, but a very concerned reaction to a theory which, from my perspective, seeks to undermine who Christ is, whether or not it's being understood that way by the person putting it forth.

In addition, if any of you think that I am being too hard on what I see as a false teaching ( because he hasn't, as yet, phrased it as a theory ), then please tell me why.
In my mind, it should never have been presented with such apparent conviction.


With that said, I'll put this on the table:

If Gup20 comes back and declares it a private theory of his own, then I will retract some of my comments in prior posts and ask for everyone's forgiveness accordingly.


May God, in His grace, bless you all with many good and praise-worthy gifts in the coming year.