Can God forgive sins, and why did Jesus die?

[Martin Marprelate]

But you are not talking about forgiveness. You are talking about not forgiving sins, transferring and punishing sin, in order to allow the guilty escape the wrath to come.

I think you have a disagreement with God here and you need to take it up with Him.
I previously posted Numbers 15:27-28 for your attention. Here you are again. 'And if a person sins unintentionally , then he shall bring a female goat in its first year as a sin offering. So the priest shall make atonement for the person who sins unintentionally, when he sins unintentionally before the LORD, to make atonement for him; and it shall be FORGIVEN him.' I don't really see how that could be any clearer. Much the same is also found in Leviticus 4:26, 31, 35; 5:10, 16, 18. God forgives sins, but only on the basis of the shedding of blood (Hebrews 9:22, 27-28).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Where is that iniquity today? What happened to that iniquity after Christ bore it in his body on the cross?

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You did not understand my post. What I said is God transforms man (gives us a new heart, a new spirit, puts His Spirit in us). It is, as I stated, a work of God.

Perhaps you should re-read that post. I'm sure if you do you will realize your mistake. It happens, no big deal.

Well I'm sorry, but I have read it again, and it still strikes me as a species of Roman Catholicism, whereby we are regenerated and then cooperate with God to do good deeds whereby we are saved. I also seem to detect a faint whiff of N.T. Wright. I am still not clear on why we need the Lord Jesus to suffer and die "in solidarity" with us. Why could God not simply regenerate us and Christ have stayed at home? If a man dies "for" somebody, he dies, the other person doesn't. If a man dies "in solidarity" with someone, the implication is that they both die.

Again, you misunderstood my post. I did not say we did something in order to be saved. I said God makes us a new creation, that we are born of the Spirit.

You responded to an idea I never expressed or believed. It was, I'm sure, unintentional and I'm not offended. Just pointing out that I did not write what you took my post to mean.

Well, as I say, I've re-read your post. I understand that you believe that salvation is by regeneration and not through Christ dying for us, but is that what the Bible really says? I don't think so. We are justified, not by rebirth, but through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (Rom. 3:24), and if all He has for us is solidarity, I don't see redemption there.

I hope others here can also discern that God is not only able but is willing to forgive sins.

So do I.

Think about the logic of each view:

1. God forgives sins, transforms a man, makes him a new creation, the man dies to the flesh, dies to sin, is transformed in the image of Christ, and "on that Day" is found to be guiltless.

God justifies the ungodly (Rom. 5:6). He doesn't transform them first and then justify the godly.

Vs

2. God cannot forgive sins but instead transfers sins from the guilty to the Innocent and there punishes those sins instead of punishing the guilty so that the guilty avoids the wrath to come.

You say that you want to "avoid misconceptions," but your second statement is a total travesty on the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. John 3:16.

Test each of those with the passages in post #3.

Neither of them work.

 

[JonC]

I think you have a disagreement with God here and you need to take it up with Him.
I previously posted Numbers 15:27-28 for your attention. Here you are again. 'And if a person sins unintentionally , then he shall bring a female goat in its first year as a sin offering. So the priest shall make atonement for the person who sins unintentionally, when he sins unintentionally before the LORD, to make atonement for him; and it shall be FORGIVEN him.' I don't really see how that could be any clearer. Much the same is also found in Leviticus 4:26, 31, 35; 5:10, 16, 18. God forgives sins, but only on the basis of the shedding of blood (Hebrews 9:22, 27-28).

I don't at all, and you should be ashamed about phrasing our disagreement that way. You are a Christian. Act like one.

I provided comments to @DaveXR650 about what Sproul, Piper, Packer and Keller said about those sacrifices (that they are not atonement itself but foreshadow Christ).

It still remains that you are not talking about forgiveness. You are talking about God punishing our sins laid on Christ so that we can escape punishment.

Look at two opposites - God must punish sins or God can forgive sins.

God forgiving sins due to the obedience of people (God wants obedience, not the blood of animals) makes sence ti me.

Now you say God forgave Old Testament people based on the blood of animals. How low you must view Christ's blood. He accomplished nothing that a sheep couldn't except His lasts longer??? Is that what you believe?? Well, is it?

The Old Testament sacrifices pointed to Christ's sacrifice. You are simply wrong.

 

[JonC]

Well I'm sorry, but I have read it again, and it still strikes me as a species of Roman Catholicism, whereby we are regenerated and then cooperate with God to do good deeds whereby we are saved. I also seem to detect a faint whiff of N.T. Wright. I am still not clear on why we need the Lord Jesus to suffer and die "in solidarity" with us. Why could God not simply regenerate us and Christ have stayed at home? If a man dies "for" somebody, he dies, the other person doesn't. If a man dies "in solidarity" with someone, the implication is that they both die.

Well, as I say, I've re-read your post. I understand that you believe that salvation is by regeneration and not through Christ dying for us, but is that what the Bible really says? I don't think so. We are justified, not by rebirth, but through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (Rom. 3:24), and if all He has for us is solidarity, I don't see redemption there.

So do I.

God justifies the ungodly (Rom. 5:6). He doesn't transform them first and then justify the godly.

You say that you want to "avoid misconceptions," but your second statement is a total travesty on the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. John 3:16.

Neither of them work.

Then you can not read.

I never said that we cooperate with God.

 

[JesusFan]

This topic is from a previous discussion and is based on the posts @Martin Marprelate and @DaveXR650 posted about their belief in contrast with my own.

The two questions were:

1. What role did Jesus' death play in terms of redemption?

2. Can God forgive sins?


I am continuing here to avoid running out of room (the previous thread was at 110 posts, and it took that long to get enough information to discern a Reformed answer to those two questions).

As I said on the previous thread, if I have misunderstood anybody belief then please point it out to me as it was not intentional.


This is the previous thread:

God is Just and the Justifier of Sinners (Continuation)

Do we still suffer the wages of sin? I'd answer "absolutely". God is immutable and His Word stands. We die because of sin. But although we die yet shall we live. We suffer the wages of sin, but we escape the wrath to come. So how is your position not Penal Substitution? Because I...

www.baptistboard.com

All invited, or I can simply work through the questions and see where we end up.

He died in order to provide the basis by which the Father can exercise His divine wrath and judgment upon all who have sinned, the ones that God intended to have his sacrifice die for

God can only forgive sins if there is a scapegoat, someone to intercede and take what we so richly deserved for our own sins

 

[DaveXR650]

I provided comments to @DaveXR650 about what Sproul, Piper, Packer and Keller said about those sacrifices (that they are not atonement itself but foreshadow Christ).

And when I explained to you that they didn't just foreshadow Christ but that they believed those sacrifices specifically foreshadow the penal substitutionary atonement provided by Christ in due time and that all those guys believed that you did not answer.

. I am still not clear on why we need the Lord Jesus to suffer and die "in solidarity" with us. Why could God not simply regenerate us and Christ have stayed at home? If a man dies "for" somebody, he dies, the other person doesn't. If a man dies "in solidarity" with someone, the implication is that they both die.

This gets to the core problem with your position I think. I read non-Calvinist writers who believe in penal substitution and they do tend to handle the idea of exactly how sins are atoned for in a slightly different way. And I keep trying to see if you are going in that direction but so far I don't think you are.

A serious Calvinist will argue that Christ actually atoned for our sins on the cross. Those whose sins were atoned for will certainly at the right time, according to when they exist in time hear the gospel, and come to Christ. Many non-Calvinists will argue that Christ stood in the place of all men and died so that anyone, at any time who comes to him will be saved, but it's still based on the concept of Christ bearing their sins in his own body. Now some Calvinists, in their desire to defeat Arminians, do claim that without strict Calvinism being true you don't have penal substitutionary atonement. But this is not a universal concept, with some non-Calvinists claiming a hypothetical universalism, where anyone could be saved but not all are effectively called, or the same is claimed with all having enough innate ability to come if they would, while still basing their forgiveness on the fact of substitutionary atonement for their sins.

Still others view it as Christ's death fully propitiated and expiated all the sins of everyone yet - until one is joined to Christ, and has that union with Christ, and Christ then becomes his high priest whereupon he comes into the literal Holy of Holies offering his own blood as described in Hebrews, the person would still be lost.

@JonC. Am I to understand you in that none of the above is what you are trying to describe? I am interested in this because I grew up in a United Missionary Church which was an offshoot of the Mennonites and they were on board with penal substitutionary atonement. When I look on current Mennonite and Anabaptist websites they seem to be admittedly vague but usually not opposed to penal substitution. I have Leroy Forlines book and he is free will Baptist and totally on board with penal substitutionary atonement, and is well aware (because he writes about it) how some Calvinists refuse to accept the fact that he believes penal substitution to be the proper explanation of atonement.

I don't mean to get off track but I'm still having a hard time validating that any real Christian groups actually reject specifically, the concept of penal substitutionary atonement. I understand that many of these groups deliberately shy away from detailed discussions of systematic theology but still, there should be more visible opposition than I am seeing so far.

The idea of "in solidarity" just doesn't seem to have much meaning in itself.

 

[JonC]

He died in order to provide the basis by which the Father can exercise His divine wrath and judgment upon all who have sinned, the ones that God intended to have his sacrifice die for

All judgment is given to Him, and those who are condemned are so because they reject Him. If that is what you mean, I agree.

God can only forgive sins if there is a scapegoat, someone to intercede and take what we so richly deserved for our own sins

You will have to provide the verse you are referencing for me to agree or disagree with that one.

I tend to agree with RC Sproul here.

 

[JonC]

And when I explained to you that they didn't just foreshadow Christ but that they believed those sacrifices specifically foreshadow the penal substitutionary atonement provided by Christ in due time and that all those guys believed that you did not answer.

I was speaking of Sproul, John MacArthur, John Piper, and JI Packer on that topic (showing that not all "mainstream Christian theologians agree).

My belief is that the OT sacrifice system foreshadowed Jesus' redemptive work (the "Promise to come") and that God "overlooked" or "covered" their sins because of their faith. It was not the blood of animals that brought forgiveness but their faith in the Promise to come.

That's my view, anyway.

@JonC. Am I to understand you in that none of the above is what you are trying to describe? I am interested in this because I grew up in a United Missionary Church which was an offshoot of the Mennonites and they were on board with penal substitutionary atonement. When I look on current Mennonite and Anabaptist websites they seem to be admittedly vague but usually not opposed to penal substitution. I have Leroy Forlines book and he is free will Baptist and totally on board with penal substitutionary atonement, and is well aware (because he writes about it) how some Calvinists refuse to accept the fact that he believes penal substitution to be the proper explanation of atonement.

I don't mean to get off track but I'm still having a hard time validating that any real Christian groups actually reject specifically, the concept of penal substitutionary atonement. I understand that many of these groups deliberately shy away from detailed discussions of systematic theology but still, there should be more visible opposition than I am seeing so far.

Yes. None of that is what I am trying to describe. And yes, Mennonites to a great extent have adopted Penal Substitution Theory and Arminianism.

They, and I, however only reject Penal Substitution Theory as defined academically so this may not fit in your definition.

What I (and many others) disagree with is:

1. The materialization of sins
2. The primary focus of redemption being to satisfy Divine Justice
3. That God's justice is in accordance with the 16th century humanistic legal theory
4. That Jesus suffered instead of us on the cross
5. That what Jesus suffered was God's punishment for our sins laid on Him
6. That God will punish the righteous
7. That the result of Jesus' suffering paid a debt owed to God.

BUT if by "penal substitution" you simply mean that Jesus bore our sins then we agree.

Solidarity is not the complete picture, but given its focus in Hod's Word I hesitate to say it does not have much meaning.

 

[JonC]

This gets to the core problem with your position I think. I read non-Calvinist writers who believe in penal substitution and they do tend to handle the idea of exactly how sins are atoned for in a slightly different way. And I keep trying to see if you are going in that direction but so far I don't think you are.

I am not. Non-Calvinist penal substitution theorists typically fall into historic Calvinism (pre- Remonstrance). Remember, Arminius died a Calvinist (when he died his position was still considered to be within orthodox Cakvinism).

So yes, that is not the direction I am going.

I am saying that Jesus' actual death served a redemptive purpose (not just where you think He was being punished instead of us, but that physical death that we will also experience).

Jesus had to experience the wages of sin as man in order to free mankind from the bondage of sin. Ot is not appointed God once to die. It is appointed man once to die. Had Jesus not died He would not have been man. Had Jesus not been man His death could not vindicate "the Son of Man".

This is really more simple. He is our representative substitute (legal term), and as one of us represents the whole.


Ignore much of @Martin Marprelate . I do not believe that we must be regenerated and then cooperate with God to be saved. I never even came close to hinting at that.

I do believe Calvinists often get into trouble with their philosophical ideas (like "logical order). You end up with a lost regenerated person, a regenerated lost person, a saved but not justified person, etc. I do not think we can make micro-doctrines out of the Atonement.

Instead I believe all of those things people try to place in order as a cause and effect are different aspects of salvation and God alone the Cause.

 

[JesusFan]

I am not. Non-Calvinist penal substitution theorists typically fall into historic Calvinism (pre- Remonstrance). Remember, Arminius died a Calvinist (when he died his position was still considered to be within orthodox Cakvinism).

So yes, that is not the direction I am going.

I am saying that Jesus' actual death served a redemptive purpose (not just where you think He was being punished instead of us, but that physical death that we will also experience).

Jesus had to experience the wages of sin as man in order to free mankind from the bondage of sin. Ot is not appointed God once to die. It is appointed man once to die. Had Jesus not died He would not have been man. Had Jesus not been man His death could not vindicate "the Son of Man".

This is really more simple. He is our representative substitute (legal term), and as one of us represents the whole.


Ignore much of @Martin Marprelate . I do not believe that we must be regenerated and then cooperate with God to be saved. I never even came close to hinting at that.

I do believe Calvinists often get into trouble with their philosophical ideas (like "logical order). You end up with a lost regenerated person, a regenerated lost person, a saved but not justified person, etc. I do not think we can make micro-doctrines out of the Atonement.

Instead I believe all of those things people try to place in order as a cause and effect are different aspects of salvation and God alone the Cause.

What was he experiencing then upon that Cross? Whose sin was he facing it for then? Again, where did the stored up for judgement divine wrath in that cup of suffering go?

 

[Hazelelponi]

All judgment is given to Him, and those who are condemned are so because they reject Him. If that is what you mean, I agree.

You might really enjoy this sermon:

The Spurgeon Library | Predestination and Calling

www.spurgeon.org

Spurgeon is one of my most favorite pastors.

 

[JonC]

What was he experiencing then upon that Cross? Whose sin was he facing it for then? Again, where did the stored up for judgement divine wrath in that cup of suffering go?

He was experience unjust oppression.

He was experiencing the consequences of our sins.

Wrath is not a material thing. The cup is symbolic (sometimes for blessings, sometimes for wrath, or for what is to come). But God does not have a literal cup where He keeps His wrath.

Wrath is stored up until "the Day of Wrath", which is "Judgment Day" or "that day". On "that day" God's wrath will be poured out on the wicked.

Read your Bible. The answers you seek are right there.

 

[JonC]

You might really enjoy this sermon:

The Spurgeon Library | Predestination and Calling

www.spurgeon.org

Spurgeon is one of my most favorite pastors.

Already have. He is one of my favorites as well (my favorite Spurgeon sermon is Choice Portions).

 

[JesusFan]

He was experience unjust oppression.

He was experiencing the consequences of our sins.

Wrath is not a material thing. The cup is symbolic (sometimes for blessings, sometimes for wrath, or for what is to come). But God does not have a literal cup where He keeps His wrath.

Wrath is stored up until "the Day of Wrath", which is "Judgment Day" or "that day". On "that day" God's wrath will be poured out on the wicked.

Read your Bible. The answers you seek are right there.

He was tasting physical death, feeling separation from the father, and was facing the Judgement of God for our sins, as per the scriptures

 

[JonC]

He was tasting physical death, feeling separation from the father, and was facing the Judgement of God for our sins, as per the scriptures

You definitely need to provide passages stating this. You can't just add "per the Scriptures" to something not in God's Word....or you can, but should be afraid to do so.

What passage states Jesus felt separation from the Father (what passage contradicts Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22)?

What passage states Jesus faced the Judgment of God for our sins?


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

 

[DaveXR650]

I was speaking of Sproul, John MacArthur, John Piper, and JI Packer on that topic (showing that not all "mainstream Christian theologians agree).

My belief is that the OT sacrifice system foreshadowed Jesus' redemptive work (the "Promise to come") and that God "overlooked" or "covered" their sins because of their faith. It was not the blood of animals that brought forgiveness but their faith in the Promise to come.

I think all those guys you mentioned would agree that the blood of bulls and goats could not actually take away sin. But their faith in the promise to come was faith in Christ actually doing the thing that the bulls and goats were showing. Not meaning to nit pic but just meaning to say the death of Christ and shedding of his blood that as shown by the animal sacrifices was actual and effective in due time, not symbolic. And so they are saying that the laying of the hands on the animal to transfer sin (and identify with the animal being killed), the burning of the remains showing God's wrath, the scapegoat being lead away while not actually being the effective thing are indeed showing what actually happened to Christ.

Already have. He is one of my favorites as well (my favorite Spurgeon sermon is Choice Portions).

I would have to go back and look but I think one of the problems Spurgeon had in the Downgrade Controversy was what some of his fellow Baptists were doing with penal substitution. I've got it somewhere, or at least used to have it on Kindle but if you read it, and if you like Spurgeon, you will at least understand the reaction that some of us have whenever someone comes out against penal substitution. I remember that he even mentions that this was not an Arminian/Calvinist fight but was over the atonement and such.

 

[JesusFan]

Already have. He is one of my favorites as well (my favorite Spurgeon sermon is Choice Portions).

Hr held and preach Penal viewpoint strongly, correct?

 

[JonC]

I think all those guys you mentioned would agree that the blood of bulls and goats could not actually take away sin. But their faith in the promise to come was faith in Christ actually doing the thing that the bulls and goats were showing. Not meaning to nit pic but just meaning to say the death of Christ and shedding of his blood that as shown by the animal sacrifices was actual and effective in due time, not symbolic. And so they are saying that the laying of the hands on the animal to transfer sin (and identify with the animal being killed), the burning of the remains showing God's wrath, the scapegoat being lead away while not actually being the effective thing are indeed showing what actually happened to Christ.

Thank you for clarifying here. I misunderstood what you were saying. I do agree that their faith was in the Promise.

Now, whether their sins were forgiven when they made a sacrifice or if they were covered until Christ, this has been debated.

My belief is that in "His forbearance He had passed over the sins that were previously committed".

I agree that the animal sacrifices foreshadowed Jesus' death. I'm fine if the sins were passed over (Romans 3), covered (RC Sproul, JI Packer) or forgiven (as you state). This does not change my belief.

BUT you are not being forthright in distinguishing your interpretation as a nom-literal to the text view. 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?

 

[JonC]

Hr held and preach Penal viewpoint strongly, correct?

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.