Can God forgive sins, and why did Jesus die?

JonC said:

What if Jesus died by the powers of evil (u just oppression) and by the plan of God? What if the OT explanation was correct about who the priest represented?

Click to expand...

I think he did and at the same time it was the plan of God. I don't think that is a controversial idea among those who believe in penal substitution. The book of Hebrews I find tends to explain that Jesus himself is the one truly acting as our high priest and while not needing to bring a blood sacrifice for himself instead is acting for us. Let me just say that you have to understand that when you are discussing this with laymen, or even preachers even at the level of Spurgeon you will not have academic explanations of each and every point. For example sometimes it looks like Jesus comes to the mercy seat and sometimes he is the mercy seat. I don't claim to have answers for every exact point.

JonC said:

Yes, but he also acknowledged Calvinism suited the way he thought and suspected there were errors in his understandings and truth in the opposing view. He attributed this to the human condition.

Click to expand...

How on earth do you presuppose such a cavalier attitude on the Biblical teachings on the Atonement - a key scriptural doctrine for the faithful - to interpret his teachings as stating "I'm probably wrong and Calvin too" from Spurgeons direct teachings?

I would love to see the exact source to the words you're claiming he said and please provide the link.

Since there's virtually nothing we can't get online I'm sure it won't take long to find what your referring to.

The Charles Spurgeon I have heard was solidly grounded in his faith and sure of the doctrines he taught, even when the world was against him.

Representation of what these scholars teach is disingenuous without proof when it seems to contradict all they taught and stood for.



^^^ This Spurgeon, just in case there was not clarity.

DaveXR650 said:

I think he did and at the same time it was the plan of God. I don't think that is a controversial idea among those who believe in penal substitution. The book of Hebrews I find tends to explain that Jesus himself is the one truly acting as our high priest and while not needing to bring a blood sacrifice for himself instead is acting for us. Let me just say that you have to understand that when you are discussing this with laymen, or even preachers even at the level of Spurgeon you will not have academic explanations of each and every point. For example sometimes it looks like Jesus comes to the mercy seat and sometimes he is the mercy seat. I don't claim to have answers for every exact point.

Click to expand...

I think Peter's sermon agrees.

What I believe is that Jesus suffered unjust oppression, died under powers of evil, but that this was the predetermined plan of God.

Jesus humbled Himself to come under the oppression we justly suffer under (sin begats death, the wages of sin).

One reason this can't be God's punishment against us is that this punishment is reserved for the wicked "on that day". A lot happens to us, spiritually, before "that day". We die to sin and the flesh. We are made holy. We become like Christ. We are "refined as metal is refined in a fire", we are purified and made new creations.

This means one problem with penal substitution theory (proper) is it treats sinful acts as if they caused God loss or harm (man conquered God to an extent). Therefore God must repair the damages, make Himself whole by collecting a debt. God's justice demands the want be satisfied. This is based on humanistic judicial theory, one that was abandoned as flawed but lives on in Calvinism.

That is not what penal substitution theorists will say, not out loud anyway, but that is what the theory does.

Ask yourself, why does God have to punish sins rather than being able to dismiss sins? Many will say because His justice demands it. But if man can be recreated then this is a divine weakness (it has to do with need rather than necessity as if one can be recreated then they do not bear the guilt of what they once were).

JonC said:

What if the sacrifices actually symbolized more closely what would happen? What if Jesus died by the powers of evil (u just oppression) and by the plan of God? What if the OT explanation was correct about who the priest represented?

Click to expand...

I think that you don't believe in the priestly office of Christ which works like this according to Owen:
"We, moreover, affirm and believe, that as a priest, or, in the discharge of his sacerdotal office, he did, in his death, and sufferings, offer himself a sacrifice to God, to make atonement for our sins, - which they deny; and that he died for us or in our stead, that we might go free: without the faith and acknowledgement whereof no part of the gospel can be rightly understood."

The "they" he was referring to were the Socinians. He said right before that the following regarding the point you make as to why God can't just forgive sin outright: "That nothing is due to the justice of God for sin, - that is, that sin does not in the justice of God deserve punishment, - is a good and comfortable doctrine for men that are resolved to continue in their sins whilst they live in this world".

That is the same charge that you make against those who believe penal substitution, that is leads to loose living, so I hope you will not be offended if the same is said about your position.

We've hashed this pretty good and I am going to stick with the standard penal substitution explanation of this. But thanks for the dialog and the careful responses. And just to be clear, I'm not saying you are a Socinian, just that he was writing to that group and the question they raised about why God can't just forgive sins is indeed the same point you are raising.

I do firmly believe Owen was right when he said above that without an understanding of penal substitution you will have a hard time understanding the gospel.

JonC said:

Let's go to God's Word and see what is really written. Test your theory against the Word.

Click to expand...

Don’t do it!
I accepted the challenge, confident I could PROVE what I had been taught by GIANTS OF THE FAITH from Scripture … and was hit square in the face with a very different picture in what Scripture actually states (once you recognize where we are adding words).

So my advice is to remain in blissful ignorance and just assume that it MUST be in there somewhere.

atpollard said:

Don’t do it!
I accepted the challenge, confident I could PROVE what I had been tight by GIANTS OF THE FAITH from Scripture … and was hit square in the face with a very different picture in what Scripture actually states (once you recognize where we are adding words).

So my advice is to remain in blissful ignorance and just assume that it MUST be in there somewhere.

Click to expand...

Where in Scripture does it state that Jesus didn't take the punishment for our sins on the cross?

Since Scriptures don't prove PSA according to your "giants" (and your back to screaming, it really does make people question your mental state, perhaps you should consider a different way to provide emphasis) it should be easy for people to find

I'm the newest Christian in the room and the least sure of my beliefs yet you failed to convince me. You really should question why that is, if you're position is Biblically sound ..

atpollard said:

Don’t do it!
I accepted the challenge, confident I could PROVE what I had been tight by GIANTS OF THE FAITH from Scripture … and was hit square in the face with a very different picture in what Scripture actually states (once you recognize where we are adding words).

So my advice is to remain in blissful ignorance and just assume that it MUST be in there somewhere.

Click to expand...

Lol....yep. I once held the teachings of these "giants of the faith" as well, only to ultimately have to choose between their theology and God's Word. I also chose God's Word, which was a difficult process as it's hard to stop reading those added words into the Bible once you've accepted them.

At first, "blissful ignorance" did, in fact, feel better. But in a short time I realized that those additions to Scripture, those philosophical systems, ultimately took away from God's Words.

We have the story of redemption from God Himself. Why peoole choose what others think is taught over what God actually said is beyond me.

Hazelelponi said:

Where in Scripture does it state that Jesus didn't take the punishment for our sins on the cross?

Click to expand...

Where in Scripture does it say Jesus did not have a pet elephant named "puppy"?

Asking to prove a negative (to provide what is not there) is funny, but it is also a fallacy.

If you doubt this, then provide the passage stating Jesus had no pet elephant.

We test doctrine against what is written in Scripture rather than what is not written. We test what we believe against what is written, not what we believe is taught.

Martin Marprelate said:

Iniquity is not really a physical thing that hangs around indefinitely until someone finds it and puts it on e-bay.
However, you might find it helpful to read Lev. 16:21-22. The goat, which was physical, was taken off to an "uninhabited land," with our sins laid upon it. They both effectively disappeared.

Click to expand...

So did that goat represent Christ and Christ and our sins effectively disappeared?

Bearing in mind that Lev 16 is speaking of the feast of the tenth day of the seventh month which follows the feast of the first day of the seventh month.

What is the feast of the first day of the seventh month, representative?

Has the day of the blowing of trumpets already taken place or is it yet still future? If it is yet future, is what the tenth day of the seventh month, representative, also yet in the future?

Is day of blowing of trumpets the return of Jesus and if yes why does day of atonement follow the return, which is the way I read the feasts.

Thanks for your thoughts

JonC said:

Where in Scripture does it say Jesus did not have a pet elephant named "puppy"?

Asking to prove a negative (to provide what is not there) is funny, but it is also a fallacy.

If you doubt this, then provide the passage stating Jesus had no pet elephant.

We test doctrine against what is written in Scripture rather than what is not written. We test what we believe against what is written, not what we believe is taught.

Click to expand...

Yes, and your not doing that in my opinion.

I didn't come with any presuppositions to Scripture when I opened the Book. I came from the exact opposite space to the faith and learned this faith from Scripture.

I have only recently really began to trust things like the confessions enough to refer to them.

From this point of view it seems a denial and not mere simple disagreement on perhaps some nuances of a single verse. Scripture naturally reads the way Calvin and Spurgeon read it. I was reading this way before I ever even heard of them.

With all of the puffing up, claims, quoting Reformed theologians, posting videos, explaining Penal Substitution Theory...for over a decade....ONE THING HAS NEVER BEEN DONE ON THIS FORUM.

No passage has ever been provided that states God punished our sins on Jesus, or that Jesus bore our sins instead of us, or that Jesus experienced was God's wrath against our sins.

What has been missing from penal substitution advocates is Scripture actually stating their belief.

They ALWAYS provide verses and then go on to say what those verses "really" mean, or what is "taught" even though not actually stated.


Is it that God was unable to state in His Word what He really means?


@JesusFan , first example, just said "per the scriptures" but is unable to provide any passages stating what he claims to be "per the scriptures".

@Martin Marprelate appeals to old dead theologians from his camp.

@Hazelelponi wants to be shown what is not there as "proof" rather than believing what IS there.

Hazelelponi said:

Yes, and your not doing that in my opinion.

I didn't come with any presuppositions to Scripture when I opened the Book. I came from the exact opposite space to the faith and learned this faith from Scripture.

I have only recently really began to trust things like the confessions enough to refer to them.

From this point of view it seems a denial and not mere simple disagreement on perhaps some nuances of a single verse.

Click to expand...

No. You didn't identify your presuppositions (we all have presuppositions....whether a general idea of life, culture, a Western or Eastern mindset, a contemporary understanding, etc.). Anybody who says they have no presuppositions are worse off because they failed to identify theirs.

I have provided passages that state my belief (they are actually written in God's Word).

On the other hand, you seem to think it is fine to believe anything unless Scripture specifically states otherwise.

It is obvious that you cannot even provide one verse stating your faith, which is sad because we are talking about a very important foundational doctrine.

JonC said:

No. You didn't identify your presuppositions (we all have presuppositions....whether a general idea of life, culture, a Western or Eastern mindset, a contemporary understanding, etc.). Anybody who says they have no presuppositions are worse off because they failed to identify theirs.

Click to expand...

What do you think my presuppositions came from?
.
Islam is literally the opposite, in every respect. It's works based righteousness as opposed to salvation by Grace through faith, it had a god that needs men to do what the god cannot, it's a religion based on hate and not love in total.

When I was saved my entire worldview flipped so hard and so absolutely I literally felt like a person in the wrong world or like maybe it was me that went crazy and not the whole world.

If I came with presuppositions I would say God changed them or I wouldn't be saved.

If I was following presuppositions over the truth I would be in a freewill church who saves themselves and can pat themselves on the back for their good sense and religiosity.

That is something I did with aplomb back in the day.

Hazelelponi said:

How on earth do you presuppose such a cavalier attitude on the Biblical teachings on the Atonement - a key scriptural doctrine for the faithful - to interpret his teachings as stating "I'm probably wrong and Calvin too" from Spurgeons direct teachings?

Click to expand...

I never said Spurgeon said "I'm probably wrong and Calvin too". I referenced his sermon on sectarianism (God's Will and Man's Will). What do you have against Spurgeon????

What you call "a cavalier attitude" on the Atonement is accepting "what is written" in God's Word. My belief is that foundational doctrines, doctrines as important as the Atonement, were revealed in the text of Scripture and forming theories that add to God's Word ultimately result in corrupting God's Word.

Why do you think Scrioture to be incomplete in terms of "what is written" about the Atonement?

I mean, you already admitted what you believe is not in God's Word. Why do you believe it?

More importantly, why do you condemn those like me who believe doctrine that is written in the text of Scripture itself (without adding to the text)? This is like condemning God for not saying what you wanted Him to say.

And why should we believe your theory when qe have God's Word? Are you greater than God?

Hazelelponi said:

What do you think my presuppositions came from?
.
Islam is literally the opposite, in every respect. It's works based righteousness as opposed to salvation by Grace through faith, it had a god that needs men to do what the god cannot, it's a religion based on hate and not love in total.

When I was saved my entire worldview flipped so hard and so absolutely I literally felt like a person in the wrong world or like maybe it was me that went crazy and not the whole world.

If I came with presuppositions I would say God changed them or I wouldn't be saved.

Click to expand...

I do not know where your presuppositions came from.

I'd start by considering exactly how you csme up with those ideas about the Atonement that are not actually in the Bible (those ideas you cling to not because they "are written" but because you don't seem anything disproving them).

Figure that out and you will figure out where they came from and what they are.


I gave you one of my major presuppositions....one that affects my beliefs about the Atonement.

I approach Scripture believing it is the Word of God, and that foundational doctrines must be in "what is written".
I also believe that we must test doctrine against God's Word (testing what we think is taught against what we think is taught is a huge mistake). "What is written" matters.

Hazelelponi said:

Where in Scripture does it state that Jesus didn't take the punishment for our sins on the cross?

Click to expand...

LOL … right next to the verse that says Jesus DIDN’T eat an ice cream cone and the Paragraph that Doesn’t explain how God didn’t created the aliens that didn’t build the Pyramids.

You are asking for proof of a negative … that is typically considered cheating.

What I FOUND when I went looking for the verse that says the Father punished the Son and transferred that wrath that we deserved to Jesus so that His head would not explode because of the imbalance in His PERFECT JUSTICE was this:

Ezekiel 18:4 [ESV] Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die.
Ezekiel 18:20 [ESV] The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

(GOD does NOT transfer guilt.)

Ezekiel 18:21-23 [ESV] "But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?”

(GOD has the power to just “forgive”.)

Matthew 9:2-8 [ESV] And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven." And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, "This man is blaspheming." But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, "Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"--he then said to the paralytic--"Rise, pick up your bed and go home." And he rose and went home. When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

(Jesus exercised that power of God and … just “forgave”.)

Luke 7:45-49 [ESV] You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven--for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little." And he said to her, "Your sins are forgiven." Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, "Who is this, who even forgives sins?"

(Jesus did it more than once.)

Romans 9:14-16 [ESV] What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

(God and Paul stand in agreement that GOD can forgive as an act of mercy without violating Justice.)

Time and again, the HOLY SPIRIT had ample opportunity to clarify this need to balance JUSTICE and MERCY. Time and again the HOLY SPIRIT inspired scripture to record just the opposite.

… But what do I know. I just believe that God means what He said. I have no theology degree to teach me that the Bible really means the opposite of what it says.

Hazelelponi said:

Since Scriptures don't prove PSA according to your "giants"

Click to expand...

Point of clarification: the giants of the faith taught me that PSA (was that screaming?) was true, it was when I went looking for the scripture that said what they taught that I came up dry.
[that was whispering, just for you.]

atpollard said:

Point of clarification: the giants of the faith taught me that PSA (was that screaming?) was true, it was when I went looking for the scripture that said what they taught that I came up dry.
[that was whispering, just for you.]

Click to expand...

This place is just too much.

I'll be where I'm from... Sorry. Not one person here stares the same beliefs and I can't make heads or tails.

Hazelelponi said:

This place is just too much.

I'll be where I'm from... Sorry. Not one person here stares the same beliefs and I can't make heads or tails.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid you're right. This is exactly what I have been worrying about with Jon's views on this site for quite a while. The fact is there are plenty of verses in scripture supporting the concept of Jesus dying for our sins based upon looking at the Old Testament sacrificial system, and then the verses in the New Testament that relate and refer to them and expand on them. The fact that some won't accept them is what it is but that does not make them untrue.

You need to know that I myself have been told in the past on here of various theologians who are against penal substitution only to find out that that is not the case when you read them. Jon even tried to act like he was with Spurgeon on this even though Spurgeon wrote extensively on the fact that some in his day were subverting the faith by doing the very same thing with the atonement.

Also you will notice that there is no organized group of churches ever put forward that holds to this stuff they are saying and I think it is because they do not want everyone to examine them and see where they are on other areas of doctrine. So what you are experiencing is the sad state of affairs where on a Baptist board one of the moderators is spouting what may be at best a misunderstood reading of certain scriptures and at worse may be coming under a bad influence. I don't know.

Be advised that as a layman you need commentaries, the opinions of good theologians, and yes, even YouTube videos. There are good ones and some to avoid and you will just have to find out on your own who is what. But run from anyone who acts like they are above the need for such resources and relies on their own private interpretations of scripture, and even worse, thinks they have had special revelation or insight.

1 Peter 2:21-25 [ESV]
21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

I cannot speak for Jon, but for myself … what does this actually say Jesus did (exegesis) and what do people only assume it means (eisegesis). I just want to be careful to embrace the former and strain out the latter.