Can God forgive sins, and why did Jesus die?

[JonC]

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

Serious? Have you read any of the replies to you or were you just thinking about your next post?

Note what @atpollard did not add to that verse (what you added to it) and you will have your answer.

 

[JonC]

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.

Name them.

While you are at it, name even one verse that states God punished Jesus instead of us or Jesus bore our sin instead of us, or Jesus experienced God's wrath, ..... come on....just ONE verse that states ONE of those things.

Let's go to Scripture. Show me the ones I rejected and provide those that state what you believe.

Yes, if I'm struggling with a refrigerator and you bear my struggle then I appreciate your help. But the words speak of the one bearing, not the other. You are reading into Scripture.

 

[JonC]

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

Verse please

 

[JonC]

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

Because you choose your "Giants".

 

[JonC]

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

You have not even provided ONE passage stating that Jesus bore our sins instead of us, God punished Jesus instead of punishing us, Jesus experienced God's wrath, we escape wrath by God punishing Jesus
...NOT EVEN ONE VERSE.


You misuse phrases (like Pauline Theology which is actually a subset of a subset within theology as a whole and is not one unified doctrine.....and Pauline Justification, which is another subset....and even justification which Reformed theology holds distinct from the Atonement and salvation as a declaration).


Stop misusing phrases you think make you sound good (they dont) and simoly give us God's Word.

 

[DaveXR650]

Name them.

While you are at it, name even one verse that states God punished Jesus instead of us or Jesus bore our sin instead of us, or Jesus experienced God's wrath, ..... come on....just ONE verse that states ONE of those things.

Let's go to Scripture. Show me the ones I rejected and provide those that state what you believe.

Yes, if I'm struggling with a refrigerator and you bear my struggle then I appreciate your help. But the words speak of the one bearing, not the other. You are reading into Scripture.

When we quote a verse that says "he was bruised for our transgressions" or that "he bore our sins in his own body on the tree" you dismiss them as not saying what they say. You're not required to accept them as evidence of penal substitution, but many others do accept them and to keep making that same claim over and over makes you look deliberately obtuse or even smart aleck.

The fact is, like in the example of the refrigerator above, the flaw in your argument is most apparent. What you are saying is that if I bear the burden of the refrigerator for you but do not specifically write out the words that I am substituting for you as the mover then even though that is the case of what is happening, it is invalid to claim that because the exact words were not in the original description. That is absurd. An explanation of what something is or of what it means when it happens is true or false on it's own merit. The claim you are making is useless. If Jesus bore sins of ours that we were responsible to bear the consequences of ourselves had he not done so, then he can be said to be our substitute period. And if Old Testament sacrificial literature has clear parallels explicitly discussed in the New Testament that backs up such an analogy then that is good and sound evidence, whether it explicitly uses word that you require or not.

 

[DaveXR650]

Because you choose your "Giants".

Stop misusing phrases you think make you sound good (they dont) and simoly give us God's Word.

This is another thing that is completely unworthy of you. We have limited options in discussing something. We can use scripture, which we all use and which seems to have wildly different meanings for everyone. We then can appeal to others, to see what they have said. Some are "giants" and some are guys like us who get on Youtube, some are referenced and peer reviewed and some are just guys with opinions.

What you are doing is very common nowadays with everything, where you seem to take everything being said as equal in stature. Fact is, it does make a difference whether I'm quoting John Owen or Bill from the internet. And your opinion is not equal to the "giants" you disparage, even though they truly can be wrong. And, it makes a difference if an organized denomination or association agrees with you or if you claim your truth was revealed to you privately. It just does.

 

[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.

Absolutely not my view. It was the rebuttal to my question ... it was a well thought out response ... it just came after 10 pages of false accusations by others, so I was more ready to quit the forum than I was interested in a long engagement. I just thought that a well crafted argument (even one I disagree with) is better than talking past one another. He provided exactly what was requested. The issue now becomes to "agree or disagree" with the actual exegesis.

[which is HONEST discussion].

 

[atpollard]

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

My 'bugbear' is transferred wrath. I don't really see that except as a "logical conclusion" that follows from theological assumptions.
Of course Jesus suffered and of course it was "because of" our sin ... but did GOD punish Jesus (people didn't think so for a LONG time)?
Was the suffering to satisfy God's Justice or for some other reason?

It is not the PUNISHMENT that I object to (Jesus was punished).
It is not the SUBSTITUTION that I question (Jesus was clearly our substitution).
It is definitely not the ATONEMENT that I doubt (Jesus most certainly redeemed us).

It is the GLUE that "PSA" uses to hold all the pieces together that I find weak in Scriptural support.
Our Punishment laid on Jesus.
Transferred wrath to balance Justice.
Father hating Son (because of our sin).

I see a propensity to ignore the many verses that speak of simple "forgiveness" ... the ability to turn from sinner to righteous without something having to die first. How many times did Jesus say "Your sins ARE FORGIVEN." ... not "will be forgiven just as soon as I am beaten beyond recognition so God CAN forgive without violating Justice".

I entertain the possibility that scripture tells of a PUNISHMENT and a SUBSTITUTE and an ATONEMENT that was first and foremost about RECONCILIATION (healing a family relationship) rather than about Justice. It was not Justice, but the greatest act of INJUSTICE ... and of AGAPE (self-sacrificial love).

 

[atpollard]

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.

I wonder if part of the problem is a need to be RIGHT. [I know that is MY Achilles heel].

 

[JonC]

This is another thing that is completely unworthy of you. We have limited options in discussing something. We can use scripture, which we all use and which seems to have wildly different meanings for everyone. We then can appeal to others, to see what they have said. Some are "giants" and some are guys like us who get on Youtube, some are referenced and peer reviewed and some are just guys with opinions.

What you are doing is very common nowadays with everything, where you seem to take everything being said as equal in stature. Fact is, it does make a difference whether I'm quoting John Owen or Bill from the internet. And your opinion is not equal to the "giants" you disparage, even though they truly can be wrong. And, it makes a difference if an organized denomination or association agrees with you or if you claim your truth was revealed to you privately. It just does.

I am not taking everything as equal at all, and this level of ad hominem is unworthy of you.

I was telling @JesusFan that he was misusing phrases. YOU should have let him know so that he could better make his case. Pauline Thrology is the study of the epistles written by Paul and their implications. There is no one Oauline Theogy. Same with Paukine Justification. It is narrowing down that field of study but it is not what Paul taught about justification (although that is the goal). Both Pauline theology and Pauline Justification depend on secular ideas, 1st century culture, etc. to try and vest understsnd the topic. But there isn't one. NT Wright has a Pauline Theology, so does Reformed theology, so does Boyd, so does Mormons, so do Catholics....etc.


You can discuss anything anyway you want. I choose to limit foundational doctrines to what is written in the Bible. You can choose your "Giants", whether Owen, Wesley, Joyce Myers, Ellen White, Tim Keller, CS Lewis....whatever. That's up to you - pick the ones who "tickle your ears".

But for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. I will belueve God's Word, and His Word as perfect and complete.


We both have organized denominations that agree with us (I listed several here in the CSRA). We both have theologians we can point to who agree with us. BUT so for Jehovah Witnesses and Catholics.


IF I were to tell you that Jesus and the Father are NOT One how would you disprove that?

Would you answer with John 10:30?

Or would you quote John Owen, or a commentary?

I hope the former because that would do the trick, but I suspect the latter.


But here I ask you to prove simple statements you believe and you cannot provide any passages.

Instead you provide theologians that agree with you, youtube videos you like, etc.


And then you claim that I have rejected many passages without the ability to provide even one.



Do you and @JesusFan own a Bible? If not pm me and I will send you one.

 

[atpollard]

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

Respectfully, opinions are like belly buttons ...
... I am more impressed with well exegeted scripture.
[It still needed to be clarified that the "giants of the faith" supported PSA rather than refuted it since she had misunderstood my statement.]

 

[DaveXR650]

IF I were to tell you that Jesus and the Father are NOT One how would you disprove that?

If I were you I would believe that and prove it by saying that you can't show me one verse that has the word "Trinity" in it.

But here I ask you to prove simple statements you believe and you cannot provide any passages.

As long as you keep doing this I'm done with trying to discuss anything with you. You have been provided multiple passages at numerous times. This is a rope you are clinging to because you are out of meaningful argument and it is getting silly.

 

[atpollard]

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

What does it mean to "bear our sins in his body"?
Can you "prove" a meaning from other scripture rather than just speculating?
If not (if the definition cannot be clarified in scripture) then WHATEVER we (you or I) assume that phrase to mean is our eisegesis and assumption into the verse rather than an exegesis taken out of what Peter taught.

 

[DaveXR650]

Respectfully, opinions are like belly buttons ...

That's what I was looking for. I was thinking of something similar but I couldn't put that on Baptist board.

 

[JonC]

What does it mean to "bear our sins in his body"?
Can you "prove" a meaning from other scripture rather than just speculating?
If not (if the definition cannot be clarified in scripture) then WHATEVER we (you or I) assume that phrase to mean is our eisegesis and assumption into the verse rather than an exegesis taken out of what Peter taught.

AMEN!!!

 

[37818]

Romans 3:25-26, . . . Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

 

[JonC]

If I were you I would believe that and prove it by saying that you can't show me one verse that has the word "Trinity" in it.

If you said that you'd be a fool (and you are not).

The reason is I never asked you to show where "The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement" as a title is in Scripture. Instead I asked for you to provide passages of what is stated in that doctrine.

Can I show the doctrine of Trinity in "what is written"? Yes.

I can show that the Son and Father are One, God is One, the Spirit is the Spirit is the Spirit of God, etc.

This is not the first time a member suggested that the absence of the word "Trinity" means we should be free to accept man's word as equal to God's Word. You definitely ate not the first. But it is a stupid argument, and you (not being a stupid person) should have seen the flaw.


I take it you now realize your faith is extra-biblical. This is why we can never agree.


I am still waiting for you to back up your claim (or apologize) that I rejected passages.

You and I went back and forth over passages about Christ's work, sacrifices, the scapegoat and Azazel.

Whi h passages are you claiming I rejected?

 

[atpollard]

Romans 3:25-26, . . . Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Do you want to talk about it ... or is that all you wanted to say?
I can accept the later (that is your right) ... but admit a bit of disappointment since I had secretly hoped for the former.

 

[JonC]

Romans 3:25-26, . . . Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Amen!! I quoted this one as well (included the ". . ." part.

But I think by now we know that I can provide passages that state my belief.

What we need are the penal substitution theorists to provide passages stating that Jesus died instead of us, bore our sins instead of us, suffered God's punishment, etc.

As you point out here.....they can't because their faith fails the test.