• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Can God forgive sins, and why did Jesus die?

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I believe that the person laying their hands on the animal being sacrificed was signifying the transference of their sin to the animal. The same goes with the other types of sacrifices and the things they signified. I haven't made up any of it myself and right or wrong, it is in agreement with mainstream Christianity.
I disagree that it is in agreement with mainstream Christianity (although I am sure it is in agreement with some within Mainstream Christianity).

On the Day of Atonement the ritual was performed and the scapegoat driven out for Azazel. I believe that this was symbolic, foreshadowing when Jesus woukd take away our sins. And this os mainstream as well (probably more than this ritual being an atonement).

RC Sproul, for example, claims that this was not a form of atoning for sins was symbolic of a future when their sins would be forgiven. John MacArthur agrees with Sproul, stating that this ritual was only a shadow of what was real, pointing to a day their sins would be forgiven. I agree with those mainstream Christians. So does JI Packer, Tim Keller, and John Piper.

I never said you made up anything yourself. I said that you do not take the sacrificial system as a literal picture of atonement. You exchange roles (where Scripture has the oriest representing the people as a whole you have the priest representing God).

A literal take on the symbolism would be the people killing the sacrifice because of their sins, and the culmination would be forgiveness (which is the view I hold). In Scripture the priest never represents God the Father.

How did you come to change the roles of the "players" in the OT sacrifice system?

I continue to maintain that Jesus bearing our sin is by definition incompatible with a refusal to look at it as substitution.
I know, but I can't help that. The problem is language itself. As a substitute Jesus would bear ones sins, but bearing ones sins does not indicate a substitution (other than representative substitution) without qualifying words.

My son bears my name. So what am I called now???!!!!! (Joke...kinda)

I can stop in occasionally on here and repeat that, forever. It doesn't seem to bother you to do the same but what will it accomplish?

My hope is that some other person, member or passerby, will think about it, go to Scripture, and realize that Penal Substitution Theory is based on a very flawed judicial philosophy and ultimately be able to take Scripture for what is written. It has happened a couple of times (over about 10 years) and those two were worth the effort to me.

The part about Jesus suffering unjustly has to be true since he was sinless, innocent of any wrongdoing, and he technically won his case.
I agree....BUT who caused Jesus' unjust suffering?

His being referred to as the "Lamb" has to be dealt with and your theology fails to do so.
Then you have misunderstood my theology.

Jesus is the Lamb symbolized in the OT sacrifices when the one representing the people took from then the lamb and killed it because this was God's plan.

More importantly, Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

It seems to me you may be making our disagreement larger than it is in order to "prove" it wrong.

We do disagree. But we do not disagree about EVERYTHING.

I simply believe that a foundational doctrine must be written in the text of Scripture so it can be tested against Scripture. Of such doctrines, what is not in God's Word has to be dismissed. I do not believe the Atonement to be a secondary doctrine where we can guess and theorize. The readon is this doctrine is so important to other teachings, colors our understanding of Scripture, and forms a base for other doctrines.

Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins and no word salad gyrations can get around that. It does not mesh well with our modern sensibilities
I absolutely agree. Amen.

I would even say that a person who denies "without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sins" is not a Christian.

I am not sure how much it offends the modern sensibilities....I can't imagine it would offend any believer.

I am not sure why you are bringing this up here as I also stated several times that very verse. Not only that, I provided the reason.


I'm curious.....why (what purpose did it serve) do you believe the shedding of blood was necessary for our forgiveness?


The fact is, that is what God says about our redemption and the plan of salvation is God's plan. It does help us understand the seriousness of sin in God's sight but whether it helps us see anything or whether it symbolizes anything from God's view of sin to upholding his righteousness the fact is it looks to me like Christ's death on the cross did something actual and specific for those of us who get saved in that it somehow directly handled our sin against a Holy God which incurred a debt that we are totally unable to fix.

I agree that what God says is His plan. I just believe this to be the actual text of Scripture (I believe words were chosen, included, and excluded for the reason of communicating truth to us).

Yes, obviously sin is serious in God's sight. I just believe it is more serious, and more a problem, than you are allowing.

Of course Jesus' death and resurrection (these cannot be separated into micro doctrines without comoromise....especially given that Paul says the Chriatian faith is in Christ's resurrection) did something. But of course Christ's death did something actual and specific. The Bible tells us what His death did (and we have been over this).


I'm not sure about your last part.

Scripture tells us "sin begats death", "the wages of sin is death", "sin produces death", "the mind set on the flesh is death" and "it is appointed man once to die and then the judgment".

It seems that you have shifted from the "once to die" to "the judgment". God will punish the wicked. But those who are saved will not be wicked, they will not be guilty (they are recreated).

If you mean man somehow hurt God or injured Him in some way do substantial to equate to a debt then I disagree. This would make God subject to man.

I am not sure what you mean by referring to sin as a debt (sin is evil, and it's wage is death).

What verse are you looking at?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I notice there is a tendency to try to develop an idea based on the root word definition of atonement where the primary emphasis is on the incorporation of Christ and his body, the church.
I'd add that "atonement" is also a fairly new word.
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
"The death of Christ was an expiatory sacrifice in which God judged sin and through which human guilt is completely taken away. In Christ God himself was among men and women judging sin in the flesh, but it was on the cross above all that we find a complete judgement was enacted, and it was there that Jesus Christ stepped forward as the lamb of God to bear our sin and to sacrifice himself under God's holy judgement."

Now, at that point he goes into an explanation of what if God had just disowned us when we first sinned and he explains how the law entered and begins to talk about what is being asked on here "Can God forgive sin?"

Continuing with Torrance:
"At last in his mercy and patience, in the fullness of time, God delivered his final condemnation of sin in Jesus Christ who stood under the judgement of God for us. He bore our guilt and was judged as a malefactor numbered among the transgressors, and in the judgement of Christ, our guilt was expiated and taken away."

Notice that you do not need to exclude penal substitution when talking about Jesus suffering as a malefactor, at the hands of wicked men. Now, as to the idea of whether God can just forgive or is there a problem Torrance offers this:

"Jesus takes our guilt and judgement upon himself, in perfect submission to the divine verdict. That guilt was the barrier between humanity and God, a barrier lent terrible objectivity and irremediable character by the wrath of God. That was the obstacle that had to be removed if there was to be reconciliation between God and humanity".

So, no, God does not just forgive sin. Scriptural references to him just doing so are in light of the fact that an atonement was done at a certain time in history. He goes on to explain:

"On our part that guilt was irremovable. We were helpless to emancipate ourselves from it. On our part, guilt had to be judged, judged in finality and completeness in those whom he loved and knew could not survive such judgment. .....so Christ took our place before God and bore our sins on his own body on the tree."

Now, it is important here to realize that what some are saying in that this represents an acquiescence to God's will are telling the truth - but as Torrance says, it is not just a representation, it is an "actual acquiescence to an actual judgement". In other words, the guilt and judgement and wrath did really and actually fall on Christ.
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
RC Sproul, for example, claims that this was not a form of atoning for sins was symbolic of a future when their sins would be forgiven. John MacArthur agrees with Sproul, stating that this ritual was only a shadow of what was real, pointing to a day their sins would be forgiven. I agree with those mainstream Christians. So does JI Packer, Tim Keller, and John Piper.
Sure. That's explained in the book of Hebrews. The sacrifices pointed to the future work of Christ and did not remove sin in themselves, except I guess as God would be satisfied that those obeying his command to do them were in obedience to his instructions. As far as I know all those guys believe or believed that this was foreshadowing penal substitution so can I assume you not agree with them on that too?
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
If you mean man somehow hurt God or injured Him in some way do substantial to equate to a debt then I disagree. This would make God subject to man.
In a sense God was injured by man in that ultimately it was God himself who absorbed the judgement of our sin. It involved the whole Godhead, and was God's plan as Torrance explains above and you have to tread delicately here but there is a sense in which that could be said to be true. I do not believe and am not suggesting that God died on the cross.
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
RC Sproul, for example, claims that this was not a form of atoning for sins was symbolic of a future when their sins would be forgiven. John MacArthur agrees with Sproul, stating that this ritual was only a shadow of what was real, pointing to a day their sins would be forgiven. I agree with those mainstream Christians. So does JI Packer, Tim Keller, and John Piper.
Speaking of Sproul. He was also a preacher, and many times as a preacher in their zeal to make a point they may say something that might be considered "unguarded". Sproul said in one of his books that on the cross there was a period of time where God "hated Christ". A lot of people disagree with that statement as going too far because like Torrance said, it is generally believed that while God the Father ultimately absorbed the wrath due us himself and saying he temporarily hated Christ is not the way to put it.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
"The death of Christ was an expiatory sacrifice in which God judged sin and through which human guilt is completely taken away. In Christ God himself was among men and women judging sin in the flesh, but it was on the cross above all that we find a complete judgement was enacted, and it was there that Jesus Christ stepped forward as the lamb of God to bear our sin and to sacrifice himself under God's holy judgement."

Now, at that point he goes into an explanation of what if God had just disowned us when we first sinned and he explains how the law entered and begins to talk about what is being asked on here "Can God forgive sin?"

Continuing with Torrance:
"At last in his mercy and patience, in the fullness of time, God delivered his final condemnation of sin in Jesus Christ who stood under the judgement of God for us. He bore our guilt and was judged as a malefactor numbered among the transgressors, and in the judgement of Christ, our guilt was expiated and taken away."

Notice that you do not need to exclude penal substitution when talking about Jesus suffering as a malefactor, at the hands of wicked men. Now, as to the idea of whether God can just forgive or is there a problem Torrance offers this:

"Jesus takes our guilt and judgement upon himself, in perfect submission to the divine verdict. That guilt was the barrier between humanity and God, a barrier lent terrible objectivity and irremediable character by the wrath of God. That was the obstacle that had to be removed if there was to be reconciliation between God and humanity".

So, no, God does not just forgive sin. Scriptural references to him just doing so are in light of the fact that an atonement was done at a certain time in history. He goes on to explain:

"On our part that guilt was irremovable. We were helpless to emancipate ourselves from it. On our part, guilt had to be judged, judged in finality and completeness in those whom he loved and knew could not survive such judgment. .....so Christ took our place before God and bore our sins on his own body on the tree."

Now, it is important here to realize that what some are saying in that this represents an acquiescence to God's will are telling the truth - but as Torrance says, it is not just a representation, it is an "actual acquiescence to an actual judgement". In other words, the guilt and judgement and wrath did really and actually fall on Christ.
Problem is you are relying on a Presbyterian minister to provide proof Reformed theology is right.

Have you had the misfortune of studying the Renaissance? There were movements leading up to that period.

What you are claiming to be true about divine justice looks more like 16th century humanistic judicial law (a crime equates to a debt towards justice that the judge is obligated to collect).

Step back and ask yourself (not here...take your time and really prayerfully consider - open mind and open Bible):

Can God forgive sins or must God punish sins?

Is punishing sins the only way for God to justify the guilty?

What if God had the ability to make the guilty into a new creation?

IF God can make the guilty into a new creation (a legitimate new creation) then at Judgment what charge would this person have? Is it just to judge one creation for the crimes of another?

If God transfers your sins to Jesus and punishes Him instead of you, does that make you any less guilty?


I am not trying to change your mind because I once held your view. I defended your view. Nobody could change my mind. But God could, and did - not in a conversation or debate with another but through conviction and prayerfully study seeking to understand the actual text of Scripture without defending my own understanding.

I can tell you without hesitation that what you belueve is not actually in the Bible. I can also tell you that if you choose to believe what is in the Bibke regarding the Atonement you will find a depth in Scrioture you have not known before. Sin will be more serious than you have guessed. God's grace and justice more magnificent. Take that or leave it. That is between you and God. I am only saying the Atonement is greater than you are allowing it to be. Just a suggestion to do in private.

I'll give you my experience.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Speaking of Sproul. He was also a preacher, and many times as a preacher in their zeal to make a point they may say something that might be considered "unguarded". Sproul said in one of his books that on the cross there was a period of time where God "hated Christ". A lot of people disagree with that statement as going too far because like Torrance said, it is generally believed that while God the Father ultimately absorbed the wrath due us himself and saying he temporarily hated Christ is not the way to put it.
He said that in a theological discussion about the Atonement. He was very clear (as was Packer and MacArthur....Pioer's was in a sermon).

But all of them had the same view of OT sacrifices....that they symbolized real forgiveness to come and God "covered" sins until ask time - not counting their sins against them until the Promise had come.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
@DaveXR650

Here is my experience. I was almost done with my bachelor's degree when I transferred to a Baptist university and changed my degree to religion. I had become concerned that people knew what to believe but not why, and a lot of what they believed was not in the Bible....and I was one of them. It was tradition. People picked teachers they liked and believed anything from that group, and soon they read those beliefs into the Bible.

Afterwards I chose a Baptist seminary for graduate school and earned a masters in theology. I taught, preached, was ordained. I was also a Calvinist (not in seminary but shortly afterwards as I continued studies post graduate).

Years later I was a guest preacher and the sermon was on the atonement. I believed Penal Substitution Theory and made many of the points you have been making. The sermon went well and after dinner I went to bed.

I woke up with a conviction I had preached Theory instead of Scripture. I wasn't sure to what extent, so I bought several dry erase boards and put in my office. I wrote out Penal substitution with corresponding passages. This took over a month. Then I erased each point that was not actually in Scripture. Nothing was left on the board but Bible verses....no Penal Substitution Theory.

I spent years studying the Bible without reading into it my theory. This is harder than you'd think. I'd read "Jesus bore our sins" and automatically see "substitution"...and remind myself words have meanings and that isn't one of them.

I ended up with an understanding but needed to make sure it was not a lone belief. I had studied early church writings and had many in my library (I had one until about 8 years ago). Their writings matched what I had come up with. I still holding my understanding with a grain of salt. It is not above correction, but I know without a doubt Penal Substitution Theory is wrong.

I also looked up Calvin's writings (again, in my library) and the type of judicial philosophy he studied. I knew how Penal Substitution Theory had developed even when I held it, but I had not realized how much Seneca and stoic philosophy influenced his viewpoints. He was a part of the humanistic law (reviving ancient thought) movement as pertains to judicial philosophy (we'd see the Renassance soon afterwards).

What is astonishing to me is if you this judicial philosophy and apply it to God and sin you get Penal Substitution Theory. Today nobody believes this judicial philosophy works, but it still exists when applied to the cross.

Anyway, for a long time I was "to each his own". We are saved, and that's the important thing. But I began to realize how shallow a view of sin Penal Substitution Theory holds. Then I noticed that by changing that one thing how much depth of Scripture they missed. Even their view of divine justice was shallow.

So I post in the hopes that those who happen upon these topics will try to set aside their presuppositions and read the Bible for what is written.

It also helps me as I invite others to challenge my view (I want to correct errors in my own understanding)
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
Problem is you are relying on a Presbyterian minister to provide proof Reformed theology is right.
With all due respect, you are way off on that. Torrance's view of the extent of the atonement goes completely against Calvinism. He pushes almost to universalism, with the idea that this atonement is so effective for everyone that the only one who will be lost is the one who for some reason absolutely refuses to accept the redemption offed to all by Christ. If the non-Calvinists on here read him it would be harder to argue with them. (Just joking).
What if God had the ability to make the guilty into a new creation?
He does. The idea of regeneration and being born again into a new creation is standard Christian theology. If there is a problem logically with penal substitution and being born again it's only in your mind. It's not a necessary issue.
If God transfers your sins to Jesus and punishes Him instead of you, does that make you any less guilty?
I think the point is not whether you are less guilty. Probably it would be more accurate to say that you are guilty but you are like those to whom God does not impute sin. You are blessed. And certainly, don't get me wrong here. All that stuff I put up from Torrance was to show that the things said about how we realize this when we are "in Christ". I don't want, and I don't think penal substitution teaches that Christ could die for my sins and now I am scott free whether I care about Christ or not because the judicial punishment has been exercised. That is possibly an unfortunate outcome of Owen's reasoning against Arminians and I have heard that it lead to some accusing him later of antinomianism, which is definitely not true of him. The fact is, our union with Christ and our reliance on Christ as our high priest to intercede for us is essential, yet I say it in no way is contrary to penal substitution.
Sin will be more serious than you have guessed.
I find that hard to believe in that advocates of penal substitution wrote "On Holy Affections" and "On the Mortification of Sin". I will say that you have a point and I mean this in this respect. Whether it's called modernism, or antinomianism, or easy believism, there is a tendency in modern times in our country at least to not take sin serious. And if you have found a group to worship with who does take sin seriously then be thankful and stay with them.
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
@JonC. Regarding post 29. I appreciate you sharing that and although I don't agree with the conclusions you came to I think you are a person of deep thought and total sincerity. All I would ask is that you would give us the same consideration considering you once held the same views. To me, arguing theology may have some value, at least in spurring each other to learn, but I am a layman, although a deacon, and more apt to be found helping someone in the church who is sick mow the yard than doing anything theological.

So, for me, as a layman, I honestly say that when you say "Christ bore our sins" that is sufficient for me regardless of the theological interpretation of that. I don't have any more to say on this subject. Please understand that a statement like "I don't believe in penal substitution" will lead someone to wonder if you are a modernist or a Socinian, as they don't either. That may not be true, and is not true in your case based on your post above but when someone says that red lights flash all over the place for me.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
With all due respect, you are way off on that. Torrance's view of the extent of the atonement goes completely against Calvinism. He pushes almost to universalism, with the idea that this atonement is so effective for everyone that the only one who will be lost is the one who for some reason absolutely refuses to accept the redemption offed to all by Christ. If the non-Calvinists on here read him it would be harder to argue with them. (Just joking).

He does. The idea of regeneration and being born again into a new creation is standard Christian theology. If there is a problem logically with penal substitution and being born again it's only in your mind. It's not a necessary issue.

I think the point is not whether you are less guilty. Probably it would be more accurate to say that you are guilty but you are like those to whom God does not impute sin. You are blessed. And certainly, don't get me wrong here. All that stuff I put up from Torrance was to show that the things said about how we realize this when we are "in Christ". I don't want, and I don't think penal substitution teaches that Christ could die for my sins and now I am scott free whether I care about Christ or not because the judicial punishment has been exercised. That is possibly an unfortunate outcome of Owen's reasoning against Arminians and I have heard that it lead to some accusing him later of antinomianism, which is definitely not true of him. The fact is, our union with Christ and our reliance on Christ as our high priest to intercede for us is essential, yet I say it in no way is contrary to penal substitution.

I find that hard to believe in that advocates of penal substitution wrote "On Holy Affections" and "On the Mortification of Sin". I will say that you have a point and I mean this in this respect. Whether it's called modernism, or antinomianism, or easy believism, there is a tendency in modern times in our country at least to not take sin serious. And if you have found a group to worship with who does take sin seriously then be thankful and stay with them.
My point is that providing theologians who support ideas you want them to support (or not support) only strengthens your argument against others who believe those theologians to be correct.

I will, of course, pay attention to Scripture. But part of the problem I am talking about is drinking the kool-aid from any theology (including my own....I examined others to make sure my belief was not unique to me, but I do not believe we should adopt other theologians conclusions.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
@JonC. Regarding post 29. I appreciate you sharing that and although I don't agree with the conclusions you came to I think you are a person of deep thought and total sincerity. All I would ask is that you would give us the same consideration considering you once held the same views. To me, arguing theology may have some value, at least in spurring each other to learn, but I am a layman, although a deacon, and more apt to be found helping someone in the church who is sick mow the yard than doing anything theological.

So, for me, as a layman, I honestly say that when you say "Christ bore our sins" that is sufficient for me regardless of the theological interpretation of that. I don't have any more to say on this subject. Please understand that a statement like "I don't believe in penal substitution" will lead someone to wonder if you are a modernist or a Socinian, as they don't either. That may not be true, and is not true in your case based on your post above but when someone says that red lights flash all over the place for me.
Thanks. I only wanted you to know where I am coming from. I do believe Penal Substitution theorists can be Christians (obviously, as I was one). I also believe Roman Catholics can be Christians. And Methodists, and Presbyterians, etc. But I do believe they make serious errors in doctrine that prevent them from a fuller understanding of God's Word.

I expect you to think the same of me. That's fair.

I do understand that saying "I don't believe Penal Substitution Theory" can cause others to apply beliefs to me that do not belong. But I also believe it is important to be honest. Even if somebody believes I am wrong....even if I am wrong...I don't want them thinking I'm dishonest.

I can't not speak against Penal Substitution Theory just as you can't not speak of Penal Substitution Theory. This is an important topic and we often post for others to consider the arguments. Plus we have to express our understanding of our redemption.

As hard as it was for me to rework my understanding, it would be impossible for me to return to a position knowing where it misses the mark. And thus far nobody has pointed out any misunderstanding I have of that position.

I fully expect (and desire) that you openly express your beliefs. And I do the same. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I think less of you.
 

percho

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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?
 
Romans 3:19. 'Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may become guilty before God.'
OK, so what does the law say?

Numbers 15:27-28. '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.'
So someone who sins unintentionally acknowledged his sin by bring a sacrifice, thereby also acknowledging that 'without the shedding of blood there is no remission' (Heb. 9:22). And the priest would offer the sacrifice and the sinner would be forgiven.
But how about someone who sins intentionally or with a high hand?

Numbers 15:30-31. 'But the person who does anything presumptuously, whether he is native-born or a stranger, that one brings reproach upon the LORD, and he shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him.'
It doesn't sound too good for us, does it? Yet a man like David, who had committed sins for which the law gave no atonement, could go directly to God, without the mediation of a priest and receive forgiveness, as we see in Psalm 51. Yet he too understood the need for atonement: 'Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow' (v.7). Hyssop, of course is a plant and a bunch of it was used to daub the doorposts of the Israelites on the day of the Passover so that God would pass over them (Exodus 12:22-23). So David was pleading to be washed in the blood of the Lamb. Being a prophet, he foresaw the Lamb of God who would suffer and die to take away the sin of the world, and rise again to become KIng of heaven and our great High Priest (Acts 2:22-36).

So of course God forgives, but in order to be both 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus,' the Lord Jesus had to make propitiation for our sins on the cross.Jesus is God, but He is also man. He had to experience the wages of sin. Wine mixed with myrrh is designed to keep one from experiencing suffering.


You are right that He had to experience the wages of sin, and He had to do so
in full. Wine mixed with myrrh is an analgesic, and in order to satisfy Divine justice, our Lord did not avail Himself of anything that would ease His suffering.If the purpose of the cross was for Jesus to experience the punishment for our sins instead of us then why did Jesus die?Did Jesus' death have anything to do with our redemption? If so, why do we die?


How many times do I have to answer this? 'The wages of sin is death,' and our Lord had to suffer death on our behalf.

Of course it did! "And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?" Well, do you?


Hey Martin, thanks for laying this out so clearly! Your post really digs into the heart of how the law shows us our need for God’s grace. I appreciate how you walked through Numbers 15, showing the difference between unintentional and intentional sins—it’s a stark reminder of how serious sin is and how we all fall short. Your point about David in Psalm 51 is so powerful, especially how he looked forward to the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God. It’s amazing to think about how God’s plan for forgiveness was always pointing to the cross.

I also love how you tied Jesus’ refusal of the wine and myrrh to His full commitment to bearing our punishment. It really drives home the depth of His love and sacrifice. The question about why we still die even after Jesus’ redemption is a tough one, but your reference to “never die” in a spiritual sense makes me reflect on the eternal life we have through faith, even though our bodies still face physical death. Thanks for giving us a lot to chew on here—definitely encourages me to keep trusting in Jesus’ finished work!
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
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?
The same thing that happens to our obedience after we have obeyed. Where does our obedience go?

You are materializing non-material concepts.

My son bears my name. He does not bear my name instead of me. He is not my substitute.

I gave my son my name. But I did not take my name from me and put it on him. I still have my name.

Nothing happened to our past disobedience. It was done. It is not a material thing.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Hey Martin, thanks for laying this out so clearly! Your post really digs into the heart of how the law shows us our need for God’s grace. I appreciate how you walked through Numbers 15, showing the difference between unintentional and intentional sins—it’s a stark reminder of how serious sin is and how we all fall short. Your point about David in Psalm 51 is so powerful, especially how he looked forward to the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God. It’s amazing to think about how God’s plan for forgiveness was always pointing to the cross.

I also love how you tied Jesus’ refusal of the wine and myrrh to His full commitment to bearing our punishment. It really drives home the depth of His love and sacrifice. The question about why we still die even after Jesus’ redemption is a tough one, but your reference to “never die” in a spiritual sense makes me reflect on the eternal life we have through faith, even though our bodies still face physical death. Thanks for giving us a lot to chew on here—definitely encourages me to keep trusting in Jesus’ finished work!
Thank you for your kind words. :)
The apostle John tells us that 'we have passed from death to life' (1 John 3:14). He also tells us that God 'has given us [perfect tense - it's happened already] eternal life' and that we 'may know that [we] have [right now] eternal life' (1 John 5:11, 13).

So Christians who die are usually described as 'falling asleep' (Matt. 9:24; John 11:11; Acts 7:60; 1 Cor. 11:30;15:6, 51; 1 Thes. 4:14-15 etc.). This is because of our union with Christ. What He has done, so have we. We have been raised with Him (Col. 3:1); died with Him and will appear with Him in glory (v.3). We have been made alive together with Christ when we were dead in trespasses, raised up together with Him and made to sit in the heavenly places together with Him (Eph. 2:4-7). Maybe it doesn't feel like that right now, but it is no certain that the Holy Spirit has put it in the past tense. And if He has done that, so should we in our hearts.
'No condemnation now I dread;
Jesus and all in Him is mine!
Alive in Him, my living Head,
And clothed in righteousness Divine.
Bold, I approach the eternal throne
And claim the prize in Christ my own.


All that is what Christ's atoning, sacrificial death has accomplished for us. Praise His Name forever!

'When Satan tempts me to despair
And tells me of the guilt within,
Upwards I look and see His face
Who made an end of all my sin.
Because the sinless Saviour died,
My sinful soul is counted free;
For God the just is satisfied
To look on Him and pardon me.'
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
The same thing that happens to our obedience after we have obeyed. Where does our obedience go?

You are materializing non-material concepts.

My son bears my name. He does not bear my name instead of me. He is not my substitute.

I gave my son my name. But I did not take my name from me and put it on him. I still have my name.

Nothing happened to our past disobedience. It was done. It is not a material thing.
There is a way in which sin can be materialized in a wrong way. Your illustration is not a good example. You are using an English word in a completely different way in which it is used in the case of Christ bearing our sins. All that statement means is that your son has the same name as you do.

Our past disobedience is an actual fact that caused actual damage and results in actual guilt and actual punishment. The analogy falls flat.
 

Paleouss

Member
Can God forgive sins or must God punish sins?
Greetings JonC. I'm on a little mini get away with the wife. So this will be short.

Regarding your quote above, I'm going to rewrite it to what I think the question should be for me...

(a) Can God [just] forgive sins? Or (b) must God [be consistent with His own nature] and conquer sins before he forgives sin?

Is punishing sins the only way for God to justify the guilty?
The rewrite...

(c) Is conquering sins the only way God can be consistent with His nature and justify the guilty?

What if God had the ability to make the guilty into a new creation?
The rewrite...

What if God had the ability to make the guilty into a new creation... what would He have to do to be constant with His nature?



I will be back on Tuesday to follow up on my points on this post.

Peace to you brother.
 

Hazelelponi

Member
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.

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


Would you like my input?

It's extra Biblical mixed with Biblical framing and thought but I think it's a helpful thought process and way to consider the cross. Someone got me on a roll one day with maths and I carried it through to some sort extent.

I never have gone through and checked all this thinking in its entirely, it was just what came to mind in the moment so there really can be errors in the below line of thinking but it's a different way to examine the concepts and think about them.

I originally wrote this in answer to how the serpent pole of Moses was a type of Christ

Thoughts below:

Jesus' role as sin-bearer is a type of negative energy sink—He doesn’t merely deflect wrath or neutralize it abstractly; He absorbs it entirely.

Isaiah 53:5: “He was pierced for our transgressions... the punishment that brought us peace was on him.”

2 Corinthians 5:21: “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us...”

This is pure negative transfer. Christ takes in the fullness of God's wrath without reciprocating it. He doesn't emit retaliation. He becomes the black hole of sin’s consequence—absorbing judgment, death, guilt. The result? Peace and justification radiate outward

In essence:

Absorption of divine wrath(−E)→CrossRelease of divine love (+E)
Absorption of divine wrath(−E)CrossRelease of divine love(+E)

It’s like saying:

Jesus is the “divine capacitor” in the system—He stores and absorbs the negative charge of sin and wrath, but doesn’t release it in judgment. Instead, He releases the positive voltage of grace to His people.


Quantum physics opens a parallel to this theological paradox.

Vacuum Energy and Quantum Fields


In quantum field theory, vacuum energy is not empty. It’s full of potential, even when it appears still or null. Likewise, negative energy in theoretical constructs (like Hawking radiation or black hole thermodynamics) often absorbs matter or energy, not to destroy but to transform the field.


Jesus as the Negative Quantum Field

Think of Jesus as the divine singularity—He collapses the wave function of both wrath and grace, absorbing all chaotic potential (sin, entropy, spiritual disorder) into Himself.

1.) In His incarnation, He enters the field (the universe),

2.) In His death, He takes in the sin-wave of the Bride.

3.) In His resurrection, He collapses the paradox—life comes from death, order from chaos, righteousness from judgment.

Here, negative energy isn’t evil—it’s the transformative medium. Just as quantum particles can exist in superposition (both/and), Jesus is a superposition.


The Quantum Paradox:


One might explain:

"Christ is the zero-point energy of redemption. In Him, opposing fields—justice and mercy—don’t annihilate; they superimpose. What seems like contradiction in classical space (law vs grace) becomes entangled unity at the Cross. Grace emerges not in spite of judgment, but through it."

Jesus is the divine field into which negative spiritual energy (sin, wrath, death) is drawn.

He holds that energy, absorbing it without release, until it is transmuted into grace, peace, healing and righteousness.

The Cross is the theological modulus and the quantum event horizon—a moment where reality is bent by God’s will to unite what seems forever opposed.


Final Theological-Quantum Equation:

(WrathLaw+MercyLove)modCross=RighteousnessGift
(WrathLaw+MercyLove)modCross=RighteousnessGift

And in quantum terms

min⁡(Judgment,Grace)=Grace
min(Judgment,Grace)=Grace

Did you ever note that creation event in Genesis was mentioned twice? appears to be a quantum field.

Just a few silly thoughts anyway. I believe in penal substitutionary atonement...
 
Last edited:
Top