Can God forgive sins, and why did Jesus die?

[37818]

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.

I am persuaded that Christ is essential to God being God. The Persons who are God are essential to God being God and His identity being God.

 

[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 Him

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.


This is a good passage to describe what I am talking about. God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of atonement (some prefer "propitiation", which is fine but not as full as "atonement"), through the shedding of His blood.

This was foreshadowed in the OT sacrifice system. There is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood.

How is this "atonement" or "propitiation" recieved? By faith, not by works of the Law.

God did this to demonstrate His righteousness.

God is Just and the One who justifies those who have faith in Christ Jesus.


Penal Substitution theorists would complain that God said nothing about punishing Jesus, about Jesus dying instead of is, bearing our sins instead of us....certainly they would complain about God describing this atonement as being recieved through faith and God justifying based on that (instead of settling a sin debt).

 

[37818]

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.

The problem is to understand how Christ is our penal substitution without God's wrath of the eternal fire of the second death. Psalms 22;1, John 19:28, . . . Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, . . . . And this before His physical death!

 

[JesusFan]

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.

I have read thru all of the postings, and still have never seen the answer to what happened to our sin debt we obligated for breaking law of God, and pay to the Father what His divine judgement requires

 

[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.

Would say that Pauline Justification is indeed the Psa view of the Atonement, not just "very close"

 

[DaveXR650]

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.

I think that to bear our sins in his body is penal substitution and I arrive at it like you do above with the Trinity. Scripture builds a case and then you develop a theological principle. If that were not the case either we should never do theology or else the Bible would have been written in the format of systematic theology.

It is substitution in that we were bearing our sins ourselves but it is said that Christ bears them. Here's my reasoning for that part. The only way to get around this referring to a transfer of the bearing of ours sins as not meaning the taking them from us and putting them on Christ would be if we truly had no personal responsibility for bearing those sins anyway. And that is exactly what the old Socinian and some of the modern theorists assert. They do this by saying either that God simply is glad to forgive without any concept of retributive justice or cosmic justice being involved, which I believe is refuted in other scriptures. But if that were true then yes, you could say look, life is hard and we are all having a hard time down here. Jesus is only acting in solidarity with us and bearing similar difficulties, (not our sins, because that would still involve transfer) but similar or equivalent "bearing" of something as it were. If there is another meaning I would like to hear it from you, not Jon, just to get another take on this as I honestly don't understand him on this.

The other thing I would say regarding this is that what exactly is he or formally we, bearing? I agree that we can't literally bear the actual sin which may consist of an act, an attitude or word or a failing of a duty so what does it mean? It means the judged consequences and judgement of that sin, and it means the wrath that is explained in other scriptures as a holy God's reaction to such sin. That is specifically what Christ bore in his body on the tree. The suffering on the cross, the shedding of blood, the physical death, and the temporary separation from the Father is what happened there and it was as our sins were laid on Jesus.

Now, I personally don't believe that every sin was put on Christ in the sense that the time Bill slapped his mom was worth a certain penalty and the time Phil grabbed a candy bar from the store had it's own specific amount of suffering penalty. But I do believe that, because of the worth of Christ and his suffering and death, the Father is satisfied that justice is done, wrath is propitiated, and forgiveness can indeed be offered in an almost outrageously generous way - but that the cost of this should be kept in mind.

The Bible says that we were bought as it were, with a price. We were "ransomed" but scripture does not specifically say to whom. Some of the church fathers thought it meant Satan. I think they were wrong, but I don't knock them because there does seem to be a sense in scripture that Satan had something on God so to speak, in that if God had directly gone after Satan in the beginning, God's own sense of justice would probably have caused us to be destroyed too. And for some reason, as C.S. Lewis says, he seems to love us. So I would say, and it's speculation, that in a sense the ransom was to God himself, and his sense of justice. In other words, to the extent we can understand it, he paid the price himself, using a plan devised by the Godhead, with the wrath and justice due us for our sin being laid on Jesus. I believe that as this happened God had in mind every sin that had been or would ever be committed by an elect person. As a side note, being all knowing, God had to have in mind the specific sins of the elect in a way that was different than the rest of humanity. You cannot get around this fact. I don't believe though, that the rest of humanity was structurally shut out in the sense that there is no sufficiency of atonement for them. But that is penal substitution, derived yes, but from a multitude of scriptures.

 

[JesusFan]

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.

His theologian was very well known, and Pauline Justification was from a Revelation of the Holy Spirit to Paul, was and is Holy Spirit inspired theology

And NO holder to Psa states Jesus was "punished" by God, no, we state per bible that The Father accepted his sin bearing atonement as full propiation for our sins

 

[atpollard]

I think that to bear our sins in his body is penal substitution and I arrive at it like you do above with the Trinity. Scripture builds a case and then you develop a theological principle. If that were not the case either we should never do theology or else the Bible would have been written in the format of systematic theology.

I am going to apologize in advanced, because I am going to be pendantic. All I will say in my defense, is that I hope to make a point and am not just striving to be a "P.I.T.A."

When I was 6 years old, I took a ten dollar bill from my mother's purse, bought something that I wanted that she had said no, and then lied to cover it up. There were THREE of 10 Commandments violated in that event:

I stole.
I did not honor my parents.
I lied.

That constitutes THREE acts of sin ... three sins.

In what sense did I bear those sins "in my body" (if at all)?
Are "sins" something that can be borne in a body?
How were those three actions transferred to Jesus?
In what sense did Jesus bear those actions (my sin) "in his body"?

Can you see why I ask "What does it mean to 'bear our sins in his body'?"
How does Jesus being mocked, mutilated and murdered (and cursed if you are correct) change the actions that I did?
How is JUSTICE served by this?

... and these were just the sins of a 6 year old.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

It still remains that you are not talking about forgiveness.

I really don't know what more I can do. I can put it in red - FORGIVEN - Can you see it now? I really don't see that there's much point in continuing this thread if I point out a text that says "forgiven" and you tell me I'm not talking about forgiveness.
I think you need to explain to the Person who wrote Numbers 15 how He got it wrong.

 

[atpollard]

I really don't know what more I can do. I can out it in red - FORGIVEN - Can you see it now? I really don't see that there's much point in continuing this thread if I point out a text that says "forgiven" and you tell me I'm not talking about forgiveness.
I think you need to explain to the Person who wrote Numbers 15 how He got it wrong.

On the plus side, we are on PAGE 8 ... it will all be over soon.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

In what sense did I bear those sins "in my body" (if at all)?

You bore the guilt of them.

Are "sins" something that can be borne in a body?

No.

How were those three actions transferred to Jesus?

Isaiah 53:6. 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' If you are saying that God cannot do that, you will have to take it up with Him.
But I have no doubt that it is your guilt that was imputed to the Lord Jesus and He bore the penalty for your sins.

In what sense did Jesus bear those actions (my sin) "in his body"?

He bore the just punishment for them

Can you see why I ask "What does it mean to 'bear our sins in his body'?"

No.

How does Jesus being mocked, mutilated and murdered (and cursed if you are correct) change the actions that I did?
How is JUSTICE served by this?

It does not change the actions that you did, but the Lord Jesus Christ has borne the penalty due to your sins, so that God may be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus (Rom. 3:26). The Bible tells you that 'The LORD is well pleased for His righteousness' sake' (Isaiah 42:21). You are also told that 'Mercy and truth have met together; righteousness and truth have kissed' (Psalm 8510). So you should praise the God who has loved you so much that He Himself, in the Person of Jesus Christ (Acts 20:28) has satisfied His own justice so that guilty sinners may go free.

 

[JonC]

His theologian was very well known, and Pauline Justification was from a Revelation of the Holy Spirit to Paul, was and is Holy Spirit inspired theology

And NO holder to Psa states Jesus was "punished" by God, no, we state per bible that The Father accepted his sin bearing atonement as full propiation for our sins

Wrong.


In The Holiness of God RC Sproul writes that Jesus "was the only innocent man ever to be punished by God."

In the book - Pierced for Our Trangressions, we read “The Lord Jesus Christ died for us . . . suffering the wrath of his own Father in our place.”

John Owen taught God punished Jesus, but emphasized it was for fault rather than guilt.

John Piper defended the idea that God was just in punishing Jesus, and said "The way to understand Jesus' substitutionary death under God's wrath is that he is doing it in such a way as to glorify or magnify the infinite worth of the glory of God.".

 

[JonC]

I really don't know what more I can do. I can put it in red - FORGIVEN - Can you see it now? I really don't see that there's much point in continuing this thread if I point out a text that says "forgiven" and you tell me I'm not talking about forgiveness.
I think you need to explain to the Person who wrote Numbers 15 how He got it wrong.

Oh...oh...I know....pick me...pick me...

You can provide a passage stating those points you claim are correct.


So.....what happens to those sins God forgives instead if punishing?

 

[JonC]

I think you need to explain to the Person who wrote Numbers 15 how He got it wrong.

You mean, obviously, your commentary on Numbers 15 (as I believe the passage). If the author of your commentary is a member here, then sure.

But only if he approaches me with unbiblical doctrine first. I don't want to be rude. Well....unless he's Brittish. Then we can be rude together.

 

[JonC]

On the plus side, we are on PAGE 8 ... it will all be over soon.

So you think.....I'm hitting my off days but in a couple of weeks I'll be on nights again looking fir something to keep me entertained.

Just trying to think of a good title...maybe "Penalsubstitutionism".

 

[DaveXR650]

When I was 6 years old, I took a ten dollar bill from my mother's purse, bought something that I wanted that she had said no, and then lied to cover it up. There were THREE of 10 Commandments violated in that event:

I stole.
I did not honor my parents.
I lied.

That constitutes THREE acts of sin ... three sins.

This may not sound very theological but in my opinion while Jesus in some way bore any need for God's retributive justice I tend to think that had Jesus been there personally he would have grabbed you by the collar and given you a swift kick in the behind. It seems like in scripture Jesus would rather have hung around with children than theologians anyway.

 

[JonC]

... God's retributive justice ...

Why assume Divine Justice adheres to this philosophy of justice?

If the Law was not a covenant that included blessings and curses then I could see how some might make that assumption. But reading Scripture I think we get a very different different picture.

And I agree about Jesus wouldn't want to hang out with theologians. Most of the time they are just Christian philosophers. Scripture was written to those who would read and heed those words, not seek out "truths" about those words.

 

[DaveXR650]

Why assume Divine Justice adheres to this philosophy of justice?

Because it is in scripture. We are forbidden revenge and told "vengeance is mine. I will repay." That is retributive justice.

 

[JonC]

Because it is in scripture. We are forbidden revenge and told "vengeance is mine. I will repay." That is retributive justice.

Vengeance is mine is, indeed, vengeance. And it is retributive (or at least, put that way so we can understand....as it also implies injury and I don't think man can do so to God). But "on that day" the wicked certainly will encounter divine wrath.

Now....do you believe that retributive justice sums up Divine Justice (that there is only justice and mercy)?

 

[DaveXR650]

Now....do you believe that retributive justice sums up Divine Justice (that there is only justice and mercy)?

I'm not sure what you are asking. Sorry.