Christ being made sin Volume 2

[tyndale1946]

Well I want to know what it means that Christ bore our sins. If, as you say, He didn't bear them away (contra John 1:29, 1 John 3:3, and indeed Colossians 2:14), what happened to them? Where are they now? If God laid all our iniquities upon Him, and He didn't bear them away, are they still on Him? Or back on us?
If they have simply disappeared into thin air, on what basis did that happen? Is whatever it is you believe but don't want to tell us consistent with the justice of God ('by no means clearing the guilty')?

And asking, where does He take our sin' is not a nonsense question, and nor is it adding to Scripture. It is asking you to explain your philosophy.

Yeah... Percho wanted to know where our sins go, well as far as I know they go to the land of forgetfulness... So where is that?... The grave!... As far as I know when Christ was laid in the tomb, that took our sins upon himself, when he was resurrected, he left our sins in his tomb... When we are resurrected, those in Christ, we will leave ours in the grave... Those that are not, will retain them... If not how are they judged?... That's the simplest explanation I know... Brother Glen

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yeah... Percho wanted to know where our sins go, well as far as I know they go to the land of forgetfulness... So where is that?... The grave!... As far as I know when Christ was laid in the tomb, that took our sins upon himself, when he was resurrected, he left our sins in his tomb... When we are resurrected, those in Christ, we will leave ours in the grave... Those that are not, will retain them... If not how are they judged?... That's the simplest explanation I know... Brother Glen

They are nailed to the cross! 'And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with [Christ ] having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the certificate of debt with its requirements, that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way. having nailed it to the cross' (Colossians 2:13-14, NKJV margin)
Christ has paid the penalty for our sins in full, in every respect. There is no charge to pay. The charge sheet, the 'certificate of debt, is now nailed to the cross with the words 'PAID IN FULL' stamped on it. Interestingly, the ancient Greek word for 'paid in full' is tetelestai, which can also mean 'It is finished' as it does in John 19:30.

'My sin, Oh the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part, but in whole,
Is nailed to the cross and I bear it no more!
Praise the Lord, Praise the Lord, O my soul!' [Horatio G. Spafford

 

[JonC]

They are nailed to the cross! 'And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with [Christ ] having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the certificate of debt with its requirements, that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way. having nailed it to the cross' (Colossians 2:13-14, NKJV margin)
Christ has paid the penalty for our sins in full, in every respect. There is no charge to pay. The charge sheet, the 'certificate of debt, is now nailed to the cross with the words 'PAID IN FULL' stamped on it. Interestingly, the ancient Greek word for 'paid in full' is tetelestai, which can also mean 'It is finished' as it does in John 19:30.

'My sin, Oh the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part, but in whole,
Is nailed to the cross and I bear it no more!
Praise the Lord, Praise the Lord, O my soul!' [Horatio G. Spafford

Correction - tetelestai does not mean "paid in full". It means "It is finished" or "it is completed".

It was used when associated with a debt to mean it (the debt) is finished (paid, no longer a debt).

If you are paying a debt you can use tetelestai to indicate the debt is finished.

If you are running a marathon you can use tetelestai to indicate you have accomplished the marathon.

If you are climbing a mountain you can use tetelestai to indicate you made it to the top.

The reason some insist tetelestai means "paid in full" is called eisegesis. Rather than arguing their position they read it into the actual text.

That is a danger inherent when we allow tradition to drive our understanding of the Bible (when we lean on our own understanding rather than God's words). Ultimately we end up actually changing and adding to Scripture.

 

[tyndale1946]

They are nailed to the cross! 'And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with [Christ ] having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the certificate of debt with its requirements, that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way. having nailed it to the cross' (Colossians 2:13-14, NKJV margin)
Christ has paid the penalty for our sins in full, in every respect. There is no charge to pay. The charge sheet, the 'certificate of debt, is now nailed to the cross with the words 'PAID IN FULL' stamped on it. Interestingly, the ancient Greek word for 'paid in full' is tetelestai, which can also mean 'It is finished' as it does in John 19:30.

'My sin, Oh the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part, but in whole,
Is nailed to the cross and I bear it no more!
Praise the Lord, Praise the Lord, O my soul!' [Horatio G. Spafford

Your right I'm wrong... I don't how many times as a song leader for 35 years I've led this song, It Is Well With My Soul... How can I ever live this down?... Well I'm 77 years old Martin so I'll blame it on two major brain farts... I forgot the verse and I forgot the song... Brother Glen

 

[percho]

Yeah... Percho wanted to know where our sins go, well as far as I know they go to the land of forgetfulness... So where is that?... The grave!... As far as I know when Christ was laid in the tomb, that took our sins upon himself, when he was resurrected, he left our sins in his tomb... When we are resurrected, those in Christ, we will leave ours in the grave... Those that are not, will retain them... If not how are they judged?... That's the simplest explanation I know... Brother Glen

For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. Heb 8:12

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It was used when associated with a debt to mean it (the debt) is finished (paid, no longer a debt).

If you are paying a debt you can use tetelestai to indicate the debt is finished.

Exactly so. If the debt is finished, and no more a debt, then it has been paid in full QED.
But of course, if you believe that our debts were not paid in full, but only in part, there's always Purgatory.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. Heb 8:12

On what basis? I know you know, but I'd just like you to spell it out.

 

[JonC]

Exactly so. If the debt is finished, and no more a debt, then it has been paid in full QED.
But of course, if you believe that our debts were not paid in full, but only in part, there's always Purgatory.

No, there isn't Purgatory.

My point is the word does not mean "paid in full'. When written on a certificate it means the certificate is no longer in force.

If a certificate of debt then the certificate of debt is finished. It could be paid in full. It could be forgiven. It could be a nontransferable debt to a creditor who passed. Whatever the reason the debt is finished.

My point was that your post was inaccurate as you made assumptions based on your theories that were simply not true.

Christianity, for almost two thousand years before your tradition of faith was created, did not hold your view of the Cross. Many did believe in Purgatory. But many did not.

The Early Church held a view that contradicted your tradition. They viewed Christ as dying for the "whole human family", yet prior to conversion men remained in their sins. They also did not believe in Purgatory.

Anabaptists did not hold your tradition, and they rejected the idea of Purgatory.

Even earlier Catholics held neither your view or the doctrine of Purgatory.

Your "either or" argument is a fallacy.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No, there isn't Purgatory.

My point is the word does not mean "paid in full'. When written on a certificate it means the certificate is no longer in force.

If a certificate of debt then the certificate of debt is finished. It could be paid in full. It could be forgiven. It could be a nontransferable debt to a creditor who passed. Whatever the reason the debt is finished.

My point was that your post was inaccurate as you made assumptions based on your theories that were simply not true.

Christianity, for almost two thousand years before your tradition of faith was created, did not hold your view of the Cross. Many did believe in Purgatory. But many did not.

The Early Church held a view that contradicted your tradition. They viewed Christ as dying for the "whole human family", yet prior to conversion men remained in their sins. They also did not believe in Purgatory.

Anabaptists did not hold your tradition, and they rejected the idea of Purgatory.

Even earlier Catholics held neither your view or the doctrine of Purgatory.

Your "either or" argument is a fallacy.

I am getting a very definite whiff of sour grapes.

 

[JonC]

I am getting a very definite whiff of sour grapes.

I don't know how sour grapes smell. I always thought they were simply unripe grapes.

All I am saying is you are offering a false premise ("either-or fallacy).

You defined tetelestai based on tradition rather than the actual definition of the word. Then you presented Purgatory as the alternate view.

But your faith is relatively new, and developed from 15th Century Roman Catholic faith.

You assume that Christ died to pay a debt of sin. That is not biblical. Biblically, Christ's death purchased us. Biblically Christ died for our sins. But your form that f "Christianity" adds to Scripture.

As you hold to a reformed Roman Catholic faith I understand thinking that RCC doctrine is the only alternative. What you miss is the fact that Christianity did not begin with the RCC. And Christianity existed throughout history apart from the RCC.

 

[percho]

On what basis? I know you know, but I'd just like you to spell it out.

Acts 22:16 BBE from blue letter bible - And now, why are you waiting? get up, and have baptism, for the washing away of your sins, giving worship to his name.

on the morrow John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, 'Lo, the Lamb of God, who is taking away the sin of the world; John 1:29

 

[percho]

Isa 53:6 NKJV
All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

2 Cor 5:21 YLT
for him who did not know sin, in our behalf He did make sin, that we may become the righteousness of God in him.

Or, the sin bearer, if you will, as a sacrifice.

I believe the above to be fact and truth.

Questions

Is that sin still on him? Is He still sin? Is the Son dirty with our sin, today? Was he cleansed of our sin? When and how?

Maybe I should have posted this in the Read our Bible thread.

 

[AustinC]

Jon keeps asserting a falsehood as though he was right when he is not.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/penal-substitution-early-church/?amp

 

[JonC]

Jon keeps asserting a falsehood as though he was right when he is not.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/penal-substitution-early-church/?amp

No, this is not true. I understand that advocates of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement see the theory in every early comment and under every rock. But the fact is it did not exist until the 16th century.

I commented on the mentality you exhibit before. You see a writer say "Christ bore our sins, died the death we deserve" and claim that is the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

That is willful ignorance. You cannot provide one Early Church writer stating Christ was punished instead of us being punished, much less with our punishment. You can't find one early writer stating God punished Jesus with the punishment intended for our sins

What you do is tout things we Christians all agree upon in early writings as proof that what we do not agree upon us there, when it obviously isn't.

That is the problem with indoctrination into human tradition. You automatically see what is not there, a fate worse than blindness.

If you doubt this then PROVE your position by providing statements FROM the Early Church (NOT Penal Substitution theorists evaluating what they might have thought).

Give us a statement from the Early Church that God punished Jesus instead of us,. BETTER YET, give us one from the Bible.

You can't because such statements do not exist. The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is nothing but a reworking of the Roman Catholic view of the Cross. You are a reformed Roman Catholic.

 

[DaveXR650]

Give us a statement from the Early Church that God punished Jesus instead of us,. BETTER YET, give us one from the Bible.

Do you accept any verse that involves the word propitiation? Any verse that says Jesus bore our sins? No. We've been over this before. There is a point where this concept cannot be further reduced. If Jesus bore our sins then yes I am going out on a limb and assuming that I don't bear my sins. If Jesus was a propitiation for our sins then Jesus was punished and not us. That implies an "instead" or a "substitution". If you consider that an invented theology then we just disagree.

If you doubt this then PROVE your position by providing statements FROM the Early Church (NOT Penal Substitution theorists evaluating what they might have thought).

Fifteen minutes on the internet and you can find scholarly articles making the same claims you make, Jon. But then you find scholarly rebuttal articles. So there again, we're all just going to end up picking a side. But you do not make a convincing case that your claims are true. And what makes it worse is that you don't articulate a clear position of your own which makes your arguments seem evasive at best.

 

[JonC]

Do you accept any verse that involves the word propitiation? Any verse that says Jesus bore our sins? No. We've been over this before. There is a point where this concept cannot be further reduced. If Jesus bore our sins then yes I am going out on a limb and assuming that I don't bear my sins. If Jesus was a propitiation for our sins then Jesus was punished and not us. That implies an "instead" or a "substitution". If you consider that an invented theology then we just disagree.

Fifteen minutes on the internet and you can find scholarly articles making the same claims you make, Jon. But then you find scholarly rebuttal articles. So there again, we're all just going to end up picking a side. But you do not make a convincing case that your claims are true. And what makes it worse is that you don't articulate a clear position of your own which makes your arguments seem evasive at best.

??? Yes. I believe that Christ died for our sins. I believe He is the Propitiation for the sins of the World (although I agree with F.F. Bruce that translating the word as "propitiation" is too narrow, that it includes propitiation but is really a bit broader). I believe God was pleased to crush Him and God laid out iniquities in Him, that Christ bore our sins bodily, that He shared our infirmary, was made sin, became a curse for us and by His stripes we are healed. I believe it is in Christ that we escape the wrath to come.

The Early Church believed all of those things as well.

That is what I mean by people taking common Christian belief and saying it proves something entirely different.

But I no longer believe that God punished Jesus, that God poured out His wrath in Jesus instead of pouring it out on us.

Penal Substitution theorists like to point to passages Penal Substitution Theory uses to say anybody who believes those passages also accepts their additions to Scripture.


Yes - you can find advocates of both arguments. A few decades ago you could not (people recognized the development of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement). I think the movement towards whitewashing history is linked with challenges to the theory from within Reformed Churches (people desiring a more biblical approach).

But it does not matter what we can find insofar as opinions on the internet. You can also find the actual writings of the Early Church Fathers. I have read the link @AustinC provided (as well as a poorly researched book claiming much the same). But I also looked up and read the materials actually sourced by those people. What they did was extract portions of text, take comments out of context, and add to them ideas they do not actually express. That is intellectually dishonest, and I can have no respect for that type of "scholarship".

 

[DaveXR650]

@JonC . I think what happens is that your first paragraph above puts you in the penal substitution camp.

But I no longer believe that God punished Jesus, that God poured out His wrath in Jesus instead of pouring it out on us.

Then you say the above which looks to me like you are contradicting your self.
You don't have to be a Calvinist if you accept the idea of penal substitution. Thomas Grantham and the early general Baptists didn't. And you know this, but many of the other ideas about the atonement are additive and correct in describing the atonement and it's accomplishments, without one having to render the other as incorrect.

 

[JonC]

@JonC . I think what happens is that your first paragraph above puts you in the penal substitution camp.

Then you say the above which looks to me like you are contradicting your self.
You don't have to be a Calvinist if you accept the idea of penal substitution. Thomas Grantham and the early general Baptists didn't. And you know this, but many of the other ideas about the atonement are additive and correct in describing the atonement and it's accomplishments, without one having to render the other as incorrect.

No, and that's my point. The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement does hold those things in the first paragraph as true, but do does all other theories and views of the Atonement (including the view of the Early Church).

The things I do not believe don't contradict what I said I do believe. That is my point. Penal Substitution theorists day Justin Martyr held Penal Substitution Theory based on his affirmation what I affirmed. But if you read his writings you will find he also rejected what I rejected (same with all of the Early Church writings).

What Penal Substitution theorists would do is present that first paragraph, ignore the other, and claim I affirm Penal Substitution Theory. But I don't.

So ask yourself how all of Christianity affirmed that first paragraph while most of Christianity rejected the Penal Substitution Theory. Once you understand what they believed and why their belief contradicted Penal Substitution Theory then you will be able to at least see those paragraphs do not contradict one another.


You are right that you don't have to be a Calvinist to believe Penal Substitution Theory correct. Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism, and Penal Substitution Theory are all Calvinistic doctrines that spread out to influence other faiths.

 

[DaveXR650]

But I no longer believe that God punished Jesus, that God poured out His wrath in Jesus instead of pouring it out on us.

I'm sorry but that is what the first paragraph says. I just can't see the point you're trying to make.

What Penal Substitution theorists would do is present that first paragraph, ignore the other, and claim I affirm Penal Substitution Theory. But I don't.

I'm sorry, but all you can do is read the words written. Maybe it's just me. Everyone on here is aware that I don't have any theological training but it looks the same to me. I'll accept that you are seeing some subtlety that I don't and leave it at that.

 

[kyredneck]

Jon keeps asserting a falsehood as though he was right when he is not.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/penal-substitution-early-church/?amp

I thought you were leaving because JonC is a bully.