Divine Forgiveness

[canadyjd]

I am sorry for how I put that. I did not mean you follow philosophy, just that a particular philosophy is involved in all of our understanding and needs to be defended.

I preached a sermon on the cross. It was well reviewed and I was satisfied with the sermon. I awoke the next morning with a conviction that I had preached an understanding but strayed from God's Word.

I bought a couple of dry erase boards and took a few months going through listing every passage I could find dealing with Penal Substitution Theory. Then I erased all passages that did not state (in the text) aspects that separated Penal Substitution Theory from other views. I was left without any passages.

I could not defend its presuppositions.

Ok, thanks for the conversation

peace to you

 

[Silverhair]

I would use the word "reconcile" rather than appease (reconciled man and God....I think we mean the same thing) but I agree with your post.

I had though of using the word reconcile, which is what does happen, but it just did not feel right to me. Appease for me is to be at peace. Those that trust in the Son are at peace with the Father. The death of the Son makes that possible for all mankind.

Also when I think of reconciliation i think of this verse.
2Co 5:20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.

Through trusting in the risen Son we are reconciled, brought in to a right relationship,with God.

 

[JonC]

Ok, thanks for the conversation

peace to you

You as well. I enjoy talking about God and redemption, even if we disagree.

I never shy away from reexamining my views and greatly appreciate the conversation.

 

[37818]

But in both cases what is being forgiven is the person who committed the sin. What would suffer punishment had forgiveness not been granted is the person who committed the sin.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement separated sins from the sinner (something foreign to Hebrew thought). God must punish sins so He puts them on Another and punished them in order to forgive the transgressor.

That was the problem with the 16th century judicial philosophy (that is why Valjean had to go to jail for stealing the bread).

God's wrath abides on wickedness...this is not speaking of actions but those who commit the sins.

Sins are manifestations of sinfulness.

There are two kinds of forgiveness taught in the New Testament. Forgiveness that must be merited, Mark 11:25-26, ". . . if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses. . . ."
And the forgiveness in the New Covenant, Jeremiah 31:31-34, Hebrews 8:12, ". . . For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. . . ."

All forgiveness is conditional.

Forgiveness is either merited or not merited.

If one can be saved by meriting forgiveness then one can merit salvation.

 

[Aaron]

I was lurking on a Christian forum some time ago when this type question was posted.

Someone made an interesting observation that now seems to circle your own.

Recalling as best as I can since its been years now.

If Jesus was the sacrifice, one who took the sins of the world upon himself on the cross, why are the sins of the world still in the world?
If he took them upon himself as that final sacrificial lamb, why do we have to believe it happened for the reward of his sacrifice of taking those sins upon himself, Penal Substitution and Atonement, to benefit us?

If he took the sins as sacrifice the sins should be gone. Believing it shouldn't be a condition for it to be true for the individual.

Sin preexisted Eden. By one man sin entered the world. To enter it had to first exist in Heaven when Lucifer sinned and warred against God.
How does sin exist in God's heavenly kingdom where we're going to be one day as those redeemed from sin?

A very unique perspective I think.

Yes, unique and unburdened by any acquaintance with the Gospels.

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

The question isn't what is meant by the sacrifice? The question is, What did John mean by 'the world'?

 

[Van]

Sure, it is just dandy to ask why God chooses to rule in this way, rather than in some other way we can imagine. Can it be just to let the guilty party go free while punishing a "whipping boy?" Why does God say for the forgiveness of sin, blood must be shed?
To ask such questions is not to suggest God's word is not trustworthy, but one to seek understanding of the ways of God.

May I submit "Love" as the answer? Humans can understand that some people sacrifice themselves to protect others out of love for those being protected. A mother laying on top of her baby in a mass shooting.

The wages of sin is death, or eternal separation from God. How does God commute this sentence and remain consistent with His rules? By allowing the substitution of another death to protect the person He loves. In this God is demonstrating His love for us.

 

[Aaron]

Ok......I have tried for a decade to get a legitimate answer to a question but all I get are responces that based off the assumption the issue in question is unquestionable.

This is not true. You have gotten eminent, Scriptural answers. You just won't yield to them.

Penal Substitution Theory is based on a specific presupposition. This presupposition is based on a judicial philosophy held by some in the 16th century.

You have been soundly spanked on your revisionist history, so we can relegate this statement to the dungheap of apostacy. God's Two Pictures of the Atonement in the Sacrifices

In order to be able to forgive sins why does divine justice require that God first punish the sins to be forgiven even if this is not punishing the transgressor?

Hmm. You're asking why must the justice of God be satisfied?

Why must God be God? Couldn't He be a man? Wouldn't we feel so much better about ourselves?

 

[JesusFan]

Ok......I have tried for a decade to get a legitimate answer to a question but all I get are responces that based off the assumption the issue in question is unquestionable.

Penal Substitution Theory is based on a specific presupposition. This presupposition is based on a judicial philosophy held by some in the 16th century.

If the presupposition is false then the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is false.

In the past all I get are interpretations of Scripture assuming the presupposition is true. That is not what I am asking.

I am asking a very simple question.

In order to be able to forgive sins why does divine justice require that God first punish the sins to be forgiven even if this is not punishing the transgressor?

better question is how can God remain Holy and still be able to justify sinners if Psa is not correct view. on what basis then?

 

[BasketFinch]

Sure, it is just dandy to ask why God chooses to rule in this way, rather than in some other way we can imagine. Can it be just to let the guilty party go free while punishing a "whipping boy?" Why does God say for the forgiveness of sin, blood must be shed?
To ask such questions is not to suggest God's word is not trustworthy, but one to seek understanding of the ways of God.

May I submit "Love" as the answer? Humans can understand that some people sacrifice themselves to protect others out of love for those being protected. A mother laying on top of her baby in a mass shooting.

The wages of sin is death, or eternal separation from God. How does God commute this sentence and remain consistent with His rules? By allowing the substitution of another death to protect the person He loves. In this God is demonstrating His love for us.

The guilty?

 

[BasketFinch]

Yes, unique and unburdened by any acquaintance with the Gospels.

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

The question isn't what is meant by the sacrifice? The question is, What did John mean by 'the world'?

That actually sustains their observation.

 

[George Antonios]

But why do you believe God must punish sins (separated from the sinner)?

I don't, really.

Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:

Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death

Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him,

Rom 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ

When a lost man believes on Jesus Christ, he gets plugged into the eternal life of Christ, and therefore dies with Christ back on the cross, and gets buried with him. He may not feel it, but the operation is nonetheless real.
It's like getting plugged into a eternal current at a particular point (date of salvation) in the powerline but the plugged is in effect partaking of the power which is both before and after the plug-in point.
On the day of salvation, a man gets baptized into the eternal power/life source of Christ and as such, he spiritually reaches back to die on the cross along with his Saviour. That is how that death is imputed to us. So the sin and the sinner himself were punished, just without the pain - thankfully.

Also, I have twice (in 2 threads) asked you about the laying on of hands on the scapegoat, whereby the sins are transferred unto the goat who then dies for it, without an answer on your part.
I'm not saying this contentiously, just telling you that I have a similar claim to your claim of not having received an answer.

 

[Aaron]

I don't, really.

Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:

Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death

Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him,

Rom 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ

When a lost man believes on Jesus Christ, he gets plugged into the eternal life of Christ, and therefore dies with Christ back on the cross, and gets buried with him. He may not feel it, but the operation is nonetheless real.
It's like getting plugged into a eternal current at a particular point (date of salvation) in the powerline but the plugged is in effect partaking of the power which is both before and after the plug-in point.
On the day of salvation, a man gets baptized into the eternal power/life source of Christ and as such, he spiritually reaches back to die on the cross along with his Saviour. That is how that death is imputed to us. So the sin and the sinner himself were punished, just without the pain - thankfully.

Stop that talking like a Baptist!

I differ on the nuances, but your point is sound. Union with Christ is how He took our sins upon Himself. "Transfer" isn't really the best description. By laying one's hands on the head of the sacrifice, one was indentifying with the victim.

 

[JonC]

I don't, really.

Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:

Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death

Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him,

Rom 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ

When a lost man believes on Jesus Christ, he gets plugged into the eternal life of Christ, and therefore dies with Christ back on the cross, and gets buried with him. He may not feel it, but the operation is nonetheless real.
It's like getting plugged into a eternal current at a particular point (date of salvation) in the powerline but the plugged is in effect partaking of the power which is both before and after the plug-in point.
On the day of salvation, a man gets baptized into the eternal power/life source of Christ and as such, he spiritually reaches back to die on the cross along with his Saviour. That is how that death is imputed to us. So the sin and the sinner himself were punished, just without the pain - thankfully.

Also, I have twice (in 2 threads) asked you about the laying on of hands on the scapegoat, whereby the sins are transferred unto the goat who then dies for it, without an answer on your part.
I'm not saying this contentiously, just telling you that I have a similar claim to your claim of not having received an answer.

I think pretty much the same way.

Sorry, I forgot to answer.

I view the scapegoat as representing the sins of man being taken away. Remember what John the Baptist said about Christ? "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world".

That said, the goat did not die. It was released into the wilderness.

The other goat was sacrificed.

Neither animal actually bore the sins of mankind. They were used in ritual prescribed by God to foreshadow what was to come.

 

[George Antonios]

I think pretty much the same way.

Ok so we agree that the sinner is punished, so one less obstacle to substitutionary penal retribution.

That said, the goat did not die. It was released into the wilderness.

The other goat was sacrificed.

Two sides of one coin.
There was one Christ on the cross, not two, so both goats illustrate one sacrifice.

The one is slain in judgment.
The other is sent into the wilderness to illustrate:
Psa 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

Why are they being taken away only after the laying on of hands? Answer: transfer.

Neither animal actually bore the sins of mankind. They were used in ritual prescribed by God to foreshadow what was to come.

Well of course, but a ritual illustrating that Christ would bear the sins and would die for bearing them.
The laying on of hands "transferred" the sins unto the goat who is thereupon punished.

Paul transfers Onesimus' debt unto himself:
Phm 1:18 If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account;
Phm 1:19 I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.

If Onesimus would have failed to pay the debt, he would have been punished for it.
Now if Paul fails to pay the debt, it is he who would be punished for it.
Or you can look at the debt itself as being a punishment. Courts hand out fines as punishment.

That's penal and substitution.

 

[Van]

The guilty?

Does this poster deny that all humanity is guilty of falling short of the glory of God? Your guess is as good as mine.

 

[canadyjd]

Does this poster deny that all humanity is guilty of falling short of the glory of God? Your guess is as good as mine.

If I understand it correctly, he is saying the forgiveness is in place of punishment. Though Christ’s sacrifice makes salvation by faith possible, the sin is simply forgiven because it would violate God’s nature to punish Christ for someone else’s sin and it is nonsense to punish “sin” apart from the person committing the sin. If I understand his reasoning.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

Ok so we agree that the sinner is punished, so one less obstacle to substitutionary penal retribution.



Two sides of one coin.
There was one Christ on the cross, not two, so both goats illustrate one sacrifice.

The one is slain in judgment.
The other is sent into the wilderness to illustrate:
Psa 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

Why are they being taken away only after the laying on of hands? Answer: transfer.



Well of course, but a ritual illustrating that Christ would bear the sins and would die for bearing them.
The laying on of hands "transferred" the sins unto the goat who is thereupon punished.

Paul transfers Onesimus' debt unto himself:
Phm 1:18 If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account;
Phm 1:19 I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.

If Onesimus would have failed to pay the debt, he would have been punished for it.
Now if Paul fails to pay the debt, it is he who would be punished for it.
Or you can look at the debt itself as being a punishment. Courts hand out fines as punishment.

That's penal and substitution.

The issue is sins are not things to be transfered or things to be punished (apart from the sinner).

Sins are manifestations of ones sinfulness. The problem is not sinful actions but sinfulness.

 

[BasketFinch]

Does this poster deny that all humanity is guilty of falling short of the glory of God? Your guess is as good as mine.

Is this poster able to answer the question posited toward their statement in their post #26? Rather than make it personal toward the one who asked him to elaborate.

 

[George Antonios]

The issue is sins are not things to be transferred or things to be punished (apart from the sinner).

1) We have already established that the sinner is punished in Christ
2) a) Yes, sins are transferable, as evidenced by the laying on of hands
b) Sin has a concrete manifestation in the spiritual realm which is invisible to the human eye.

Job 14:17 My transgression is sealed up in a bag, and thou sewest up mine iniquity.

Psa 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

Mic 7:19 He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.

As to the objection that those expressions are merely figurative, please see note #1 in signature.

 

[Van]

If I understand it correctly, he is saying the forgiveness is in place of punishment. Though Christ’s sacrifice makes salvation by faith possible, the sin is simply forgiven because it would violate God’s nature to punish Christ for someone else’s sin and it is nonsense to punish “sin” apart from the person committing the sin. If I understand his reasoning.

peace to you

Thanks for taking a stab at it. My view remains the assertion is gibberish.