Can God forgive sins, and why did Jesus die?

[DaveXR650]

@atpollard . Thanks for putting up those posts. Usually long posts are useless but that is a good one. But I have to ask, is that your view. I don't see how it goes with this:

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.

It seems like you did a pretty good job showing that it indeed is in there somewhere.

And, in that post it is somewhat discussed, and I'll go back and read it more carefully when I can. But, in the case of God's wrath, "propitiation" is found I think 3 times if you have a KJV. Since I also read commentaries I have found from more than one source that 1 of those occasions could mean expiation or propitiation legitimately, according to the Greek, which I have to rely on commentaries to understand. The other two, unless you deliberately refuse to accept the plain meaning, do refer to the removal of God's wrath against sinners by the work of Christ, just like your reference above shows.

 

[JesusFan]

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.

The Father cannot just forgive sins against His Law and Holiness, as any sin needs to have atonement by someone bearing that wrath and judgement, which will allow Him then to be true to Himself and freely forgive

 

[JesusFan]

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.

I have studied the scriptures, read from the "giants" of the Faith, and are more firmly committed to the biblical teaching of Penal substitutionary atonement

 

[JesusFan]

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.

We believe that what you call foolish and wrong regarding our view on Atonement is the very heart of Pauline Justification

 

[DaveXR650]

On the CROSS, Jesus stated "My God, why have you forsaken me" ... which points any biblical literate listener (like the Jewish Audience) to Psalm 22.
Psalm 22, then goes on to describe in perfect detail EXACTLY what was happening right before the eyes of those watching Jesus be crucified.

So my question is: WHY does Psalm 22 open with a cry that God has forsaken him and end with a declaration that God NEVER abandoned him?

That seems something worth talking about ... christian to christian.

I have read detailed and beautiful accounts of what this means. But it requires that you site commentaries and listen to some theologian's speculative reasoning. That has been repeatedly rebuffed by Jon as invalid unless the arrived at opinion is his.

 

[JesusFan]

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.

We kepr quoting to you scriptures as evidences to it, but you keep stating back not what bible teaches, Reformers all wrong etc

 

[JesusFan]

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.

we are disagreeing on what the scriptures mean, and neither one of us on those passages can claim "inspiration and revelation" from the Holy Spirit to be dogmatic and state categorically one side is fully right, and other view fully wrong

 

[JesusFan]

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.]

My studies convinced me that the so called Giants of the Faith were right regarding the biblical doctrine of PSA

 

[JesusFan]

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.

Please stay in here, as iron sharpens iron, and you have come out from a satanic religion, so please allow yourself to be exposed to Christian theology, just realize that none of us here can claim Final understanding, as none of us are like the "pope" here on theology

 

[DaveXR650]

We believe that what you call foolish and wrong regarding our view on Atonement is the very heart of Pauline Justification

This is true and it even agrees with one theologian who does not quite believe in penal substitution but is considered to be well respected. Vincent Taylor, a Methodist from the 30's and 40's is quoted a lot in John Stott's book "The Cross of Christ" some of his arguments sound a lot like @JonC . (Believe it or not I do try to find common ground with him but am getting frustrated.)

Yet, in his case he is reported to have said "Perhaps the most striking feature of the New Testament teaching concerning the representative work of Christ, is the fact that is comes so near, without actually crossing, the bounds of substitutionary doctrine. Paulinism, in particular, is within a hair's breath of substitution'(P. 288)."

I'm quoting a quote so I can't promise it's exact but what I mean is that I have tried to find common ground with Jon all along and I find his attitude impossible and even worse, harmful to someone less well aware of the theological battles going on today.

 

[JesusFan]

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.

And would recommend to all here to learn from Spurgeon, as while not an apostles, very sound in his doctrines and theology

 

[JesusFan]

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.

How can Jesus bear our sins upon Himself if not Psa?

 

[JesusFan]

Personally, I really wish it were possible to DISCUSS this subject (as distinct from debating this or arguing over this) because I see LOTS of small details that I would really like to discuss in a friendly manner.

Here is an example:

On the CROSS, Jesus stated "My God, why have you forsaken me" ... which points any biblical literate listener (like the Jewish Audience) to Psalm 22.
Psalm 22, then goes on to describe in perfect detail EXACTLY what was happening right before the eyes of those watching Jesus be crucified.

So my question is: WHY does Psalm 22 open with a cry that God has forsaken him and end with a declaration that God NEVER abandoned him?

That seems something worth talking about ... christian to christian.

Jesus by being the sin bearer was experiencing that dreadful separation form God that all lost sinners shall, and when he stated its is finished/accomplished, was not abandon to Sheol but was resurrected

 

[JesusFan]

@atpollard . Thanks for putting up those posts. Usually long posts are useless but that is a good one. But I have to ask, is that your view. I don't see how it goes with this:

It seems like you did a pretty good job showing that it indeed is in there somewhere.

And, in that post it is somewhat discussed, and I'll go back and read it more carefully when I can. But, in the case of God's wrath, "propitiation" is found I think 3 times if you have a KJV. Since I also read commentaries I have found from more than one source that 1 of those occasions could mean expiation or propitiation legitimately, according to the Greek, which I have to rely on commentaries to understand. The other two, unless you deliberately refuse to accept the plain meaning, do refer to the removal of God's wrath against sinners by the work of Christ, just like your reference above shows.

The aspect of the Wrath of God needed to be propiated was being fought against as early as mid 20th century, as believe was CH Dodd and others who could not handle concept of God having a divine wrath needed to be appeased, so chose to water it down to needed to be expediated, such as in the Neb and others

 

[JesusFan]

This is true and it even agrees with one theologian who does not quite believe in penal substitution but is considered to be well respected. Vincent Taylor, a Methodist from the 30's and 40's is quoted a lot in John Stott's book "The Cross of Christ" some of his arguments sound a lot like @JonC . (Believe it or not I do try to find common ground with him but am getting frustrated.)

Yet, in his case he is reported to have said "Perhaps the most striking feature of the New Testament teaching concerning the representative work of Christ, is the fact that is comes so near, without actually crossing, the bounds of substitutionary doctrine. Paulinism, in particular, is within a hair's breath of substitution'(P. 288)."

I'm quoting a quote so I can't promise it's exact but what I mean is that I have tried to find common ground with Jon all along and I find his attitude impossible and even worse, harmful to someone less well aware of the theological battles going on today.

Those who oppose Psa are doing such by being outside the Reformed and Traditional Baptist views regarding atonement, as both Calvinists and Arms have to see Justification grounded in Psa view

 

[JonC]

This is true and it even agrees with one theologian who does not quite believe in penal substitution but is considered to be well respected. Vincent Taylor, a Methodist from the 30's and 40's is quoted a lot in John Stott's book "The Cross of Christ" some of his arguments sound a lot like @JonC . (Believe it or not I do try to find common ground with him but am getting frustrated.)

Yet, in his case he is reported to have said "Perhaps the most striking feature of the New Testament teaching concerning the representative work of Christ, is the fact that is comes so near, without actually crossing, the bounds of substitutionary doctrine. Paulinism, in particular, is within a hair's breath of substitution'(P. 288)."

I'm quoting a quote so I can't promise it's exact but what I mean is that I have tried to find common ground with Jon all along and I find his attitude impossible and even worse, harmful to someone less well aware of the theological battles going on today.

The issue @JesusFan cannot grasp, and I believe perhaps you as well, is that Pauline Justification is existed before Paul....it is the Biblical view explained by Paul....it is also "what is written".

I can quote Paul's words stating my position all day. You and @JesusFan have not yet provided even one passage stating that God punished Jesus instead of us, that Jesus experienced God's wrath against our sins, or that Jesus bore our sins instead of us.


It amazes me that you come on a Christian board and enter a discussion unable to provide Scripture stating your views.

Even here you appeal to an unknown theologian.

 

[Paleouss]

Not tell me Owen taught this, or such and such man taught that. Not what he believes is taught. But Scripture itself.

Greetings Jon, I forgot to reiterate something from my previous post.

I had previously given a 'stages of judgment' in another post. Along with the verses in my last post, I wanted to add the ones that I presented previously in anther post in the judgment process. Those verse were...

(Rom 4:15 NKJV) 15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law [there is] no transgression. Rom 4:15 seems to connect the law and wrath. NLT translates it to "punishment". But the concept would seem to be the same.

(Jhn 3:36 NKJV) 36 "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." John 3:36 says that if one does not believe then the "wrath of God abides on him". It seems reasonable then to say that if one believes then the "wrath of God" does not abide on him.

(1Th 1:10 NKJV) 10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, [even] Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

It seems like these three verses suggest that Christ saved those that believe from "wrath" because the law brings wrath (Rom 4:15). Since all are under the law, all deserve wrath.

I do realize that these verses do not say that Jesus "bore" that wrath. But only that Jesus "saved" us from that wrath. But how did he do that in particular in conjunction with verses that say He took on “the chastisement for our peace” (Isa 53:5).

Judgement of God
A) The Deliberation phase of the Law = Considers the appropriate Laws and the relevant evidence for all mankind (1Pet 4:17).
1) Due to the Cosmic Accomplishment of Christ, two laws are
applicable for deliberation (faith & works).

B) The Verdict phase of the Law = either being justified or condemned.

C) The Sentencing Phase of the Law =
(1) Punishment, penalties, wrath (Rom 4:15, John 3:36, 1Thes 1:10)
(2) freedom, “everlasting life” (John 3:36).

 

[Van]

Can God forgive sins, and why did Jesus die?​

I did not read the first six pages of this thread, I am just addressing the thread title.

Yes, God can forgive sins as He can have mercy on whom He pleases.

Jesus died as God's act of mercy to provide the means of reconciliation for fallen humanity.

The OT saints were taken to Abraham's bosom, a place of comfort, rather than the place of torment. Thus they had received mercy, but had not been allowed to enter heaven because they had not been "made perfect." To be made perfect is to be made holy and blameless by the blood of the Lamb.

Without the shedding of blood they can be no forgiveness of sin.

One way to put these two seemingly at odds pronouncements is to say a "temporary" forgiveness can be granted, but for an eternal forgiveness, the blood of the Lamb is required.

I know it is thin, but that is all I have got.

 

[DaveXR650]

. You and @JesusFan have not yet provided even one passage stating that God punished Jesus instead of us, that Jesus experienced God's wrath against our sins, or that Jesus bore our sins instead of us.

For heavens sakes how can you keep on doing this. Numerous scriptures are ignored by you because you dismiss out of hand anything you don't agree with. If you are struggling up the steps with a refrigerator and I step in and take it from you I bore all the weight and I bore it instead of you. If we both wanted to accomplish moving the frig then we did do it in solidarity but still I bore the weight instead of you and if I carried it instead of you I was your substitute as a mover, if the responsibility to move it was upon you. It doesn't take Reformed theology or western humanistic understanding of law to see that.

If you give your name to your son the only thing that happened is that you named him. The fact that you use the English word "bears" means nothing because the meaning of the word is different in that case. And I know you know that.

It amazes me that you come on a Christian board and enter a discussion unable to provide Scripture stating your views.

Already discussed that untrue statement but what is even more amazing is that on a Christian board someone would be surprised that a lot of people, Reformed, sort of Reformed, Free Will Baptist, and Methodists are familiar with and believe in penal substitution. The fact that you can not provide a link to a healthy normal church of any denomination that refutes penal substitution without being strange in other areas is telling.

 

[JonC]

Those who oppose Psa are doing such by being outside the Reformed and Traditional Baptist views regarding atonement, as both Calvinists and Arms have to see Justification grounded in Psa view

This is true. Penal Substitution Theory is a product of Cakvinism (as is Arminianism).