Can God forgive sins, and why did Jesus die?

[DaveXR650]

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?

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.

 

[Hazelelponi]

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.

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.

The Spurgeon Library | Sermon of the Week: No. 321, “Christ – Our Substitute”

www.spurgeon.org

The Spurgeon Library | Christ—Our Substitute

www.spurgeon.org

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

 

[JonC]

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.

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).

 

[DaveXR650]

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?

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.

 

[atpollard]

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

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.

 

[Hazelelponi]

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.

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 ..

 

[JonC]

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.

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.

 

[JonC]

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

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.

 

[percho]

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.

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