Christ being made sin Volume 2

[JonC]

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

I'm sorry, but all you can do is read the words written.

I know, and understand. That is why this topic gets heated so often. You (and others) see that in what I posted, and even in Scripture. Yet the fact remains that it is not there.

It goes back to my earlier illustration. If somebody tells you the ink blot is a bat then it will be very difficult for you not to see the bat. You'll never be able to see it as just a random ink blot without first coming to terms the bat isn't really there.

That said, I can still (perhaps only) tell you that I absolutely believe and hold central to my faith that Christ died for our sins, He is the Propitiation for the sins of the World, that 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, by His stripes we are healed and it is in Christ that we escape the wrath to come.

And I can tell you that I have completely and totally rejected the theory that God poured out His wrath on Christ instead of us, that God punished Jesus (or our sins laid on Jesus) instead of punishing us.

Until you can understand how I (and most of Christianity) holds both of those statements as true you will be unable to truly evaluate your own position.

And that's OK. I held to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement for most of my life, and to Calvinism for much of my life. I was no less saved, no less a child of God. That said, there was a lot of Scripture closed to me because of my own understanding.

 

[JonC]

I thought you were leaving because JonC is a bully.

Yes....what happened to that???

 

[JonC]

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

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.

Ok.....let's just walk through this (otherwise nothing will be gained between you and me).

I said that:

1. I absolutely believe and hold central to my faith that Christ died for our sins, He is the Propitiation for the sins of the World, that 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, by His stripes we are healed and it is in Christ that we escape the wrath to come.

2. I have completely and totally rejected the theory that God poured out His wrath on Christ instead of us, that God punished Jesus (or our sins laid on Jesus) instead of punishing us.


What, in those two statements, do you find contradictory?

 

[DaveXR650]

"Christ died for our sins".
"He is the Propitiation for the sins of the World"
"God laid our iniquities on Him"
"Christ bore our sins bodily"
The first thing that I find contradictory is the "propitiation" aspect. I have never heard anyone who rejects penal substitution accept the idea of propitiation. I believe this is because the idea is that God, not acting as a capricious or vindictive deity, but as part of His holy nature has wrath against sin. Most people against penal substitution object to this with the idea that God is God and therefore free to forgive if he chooses to without any punishment being needed. You don't reject the idea of the necessity of propitiation and I'm glad, but it is confusing.
But if the concept of this wrath is valid then who caused there to be this wrath. It was us who sinned. (Propitiation for the sins of the World). And I don't think I'm making a theological leap to say that these sins or iniquities were laid on Him, as you said.
So what I'm trying to say is that if you are willing to have the atonement involve propitiation, then it must by definition involve the wrath of God and the cause is our iniquities and you have already said yourself that these iniquities were laid on Him by God. Laying our iniquities on Jesus means that they were transferred from us to Jesus. Now, there was discussion on exactly what this means or how it was done and so on but there was a transfer first to the one being sacrificed.

Now I suppose you could say that in the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament and the case with Jesus that the idea that God got angry with the sacrifice or with Jesus is not the correct way to look at this - well maybe that's true at some level. We have to make sure we do not become irreverent or dare to try to psychoanalyze God but you have to keep in mind that this is the method of our redemption and we have enough scripture to back up the idea that the Father and the Son were in on this plan. And also, I believe there are scriptures that when you put this plan with verses like "The wages of sin is death but the gift of God...." you can easily see an aspect of deserved punishment being averted on our part. And why? Because our sin was transferred to Christ. The connection between our sin - God's wrath - our guilt - God's plan - transference of the guilt to Christ - God's justice as part of His holy nature - the necessity therefore of sin's punishment - Jesus being the propitiation for our sins - this all fits together by scripture, by linear, simple logic and it comes with parallels and symbolism from the Old Testament sacrifices.

Is there anyone else who teaches that the idea of propitiation is valid and that the translations that use the word are OK, and yet says what you say in that "I have totally rejected the theory that God poured out His wrath on Christ instead of us"?

Now I looked this over after I wrote it and it is redundant but I'm going to leave it because it might help by explaining what I'm trying to get at in several different ways. I'm not trying to win an argument because I think you are already on the page of penal substitution but that you don't like the terminology or the theologians who are getting credit for articulating it in modern form.

 

[percho]

Did God the Father sacrifice, his only begotten Son, as an appeasement unto Himself because of wrath toward the ungodly?

Am not sure I can answer myself but methinks I lean toward the affirmative.

 

[37818]

Did God the Father sacrifice, his only begotten Son, as an appeasement unto Himself because of wrath toward the ungodly?

Am not sure I can answer myself but methinks I lean toward the affirmative.

Personally as a propitiation for the ungodly, Romans 3:23-26, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

I'm sorry not to have replied before. It's been a busy weekend.
There is no sin on Christ. He had so sin of His own to pay for, but our sin was laid upon Him and He paid for it in full. 'The chastisement [NIV, ESV 'punishment'] that brought us peace was upon Him,' but by that punishment our sin is expiated, and, as I said, nailed to the cross marked 'Paid in Full.'

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Did God the Father sacrifice, his only begotten Son, as an appeasement unto Himself because of wrath toward the ungodly?

Am not sure I can answer myself but methinks I lean toward the affirmative.

God's wrath is His righteous anger against sin. Christ died to expiate His justice.
Romans 3:25-26. 'Whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith ......... to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.' By doing so, God establishes His Law and makes it honourable (Isaiah 42:21; Romans 3:31).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Now I suppose you could say that in the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament and the case with Jesus that the idea that God got angry with the sacrifice or with Jesus is not the correct way to look at this

I think that the important thing to understand is that God is angry against sin, not against the animals and certainly not His beloved Son. But the animals in the OT and our Lord in the NT were the sin-bearers. The Lord laid all our sin upon the Lord Jesus and punished our sin in Him (Isaiah 53:5-6). God's wrath was not upon Him but upon the sin that He bore.

 

[JonC]

I think that the important thing to understand is that God is angry against sin, not against the animals and certainly not His beloved Son. But the animals in the OT and our Lord in the NT were the sin-bearers. The Lord laid all our sin upon the Lord Jesus and punished our sin in Him (Isaiah 53:5-6). God's wrath was not upon Him but upon the sin that He bore.

Not really. God is angry with the sinner. Sins are manifestations of one's heart.

When a child rebels we can say that rebellion makes us angry, but that is a way of speech. We are angry at the child because of his rebellion. That rebellion cannot be transferred to another person (it is not a thing to be transferred) and the guilt cannot be transferred (it is a state of having rebelled). That is just one area where Reformed tradition fails, but it is an important area. It goes back to Roman Catholic theology regarding merit (actually, Reformed theology simply exchanges justice for merit, otherwise it is Roman Catholic faith).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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 like the Eusebius quote, which I haven't seen before.
“In this he shows that Christ, being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on himself. And therefore he will suffer the penalty of sinners, and will be pained on their behalf; and not on his own” (Proof of the Gospel, 3.2).
But there are umpteen illustrations of Penal Substitution from the Fathers in the book recommended on the site: Pierced for our Transgressions By Jeffery, Ovey and Sach. This is a wonderfully detailed book that absolutely establishes Penal Substitution.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Not really. God is angry with the sinner. Sins are manifestations of one's heart.

When a child rebels we can say that rebellion makes us angry, but that is a way of speech. We are angry at the child because of his rebellion. That rebellion cannot be transferred to another person (it is not a thing to be transferred) and the guilt cannot be transferred (it is a state of having rebelled). That is just one area where Reformed tradition fails, but it is an important area. It goes back to Roman Catholic theology regarding merit (actually, Reformed theology simply exchanges justice for merit, otherwise it is Roman Catholic faith).

This is a false dichotomy. God is angry at sin; sin is committed by sinners. Therefore God is angry with sinners.

 

[JonC]

This is a false dichotomy. God is angry at sin; sin is committed by sinners. Therefore God is angry with sinners.

That is nonsense.

If your child kicks the dog ate you angry at "kick the dog" and your child for kicking the dog?

No, of course not. That does not make any sense.

 

[JonC]

"Christ died for our sins".
"He is the Propitiation for the sins of the World"
"God laid our iniquities on Him"
"Christ bore our sins bodily"
The first thing that I find contradictory is the "propitiation" aspect.

OK, let's talk about this first.

Propitiation is "the act of gaining or regaining the favor or goodwill of someone or something" (Websters).

This implies the one needing propitiation has lost at favor (here Is say it is man and God's wrath upon man).

So propitiation is an act that would make appeasement.

Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the World. In Him we escape the wrath to come. So we agree that there is a focus on wrath.

But propitiation does not mean wrath expressed. It means an appeasement or wrath escaped.

A child may propitiate a parent by a heartfelt apology and avoid the wrath that was coming.

Propitiation simply does not mean the pouring out of wrath. It means the exact opposite. It is an appeasement so that that wrath is not poured out.

 

[DaveXR650]

If your child kicks the dog ate you angry at "kick the dog" and your child for kicking the dog?

No, of course not. That does not make any sense.

This plan of our redemption was a one time thing that Jesus was uniquely qualified to accomplish. If you read a good Bible teacher on the passage where Jesus asks John the Baptist to be baptized and John balks at the idea and then Jesus says it must be done you start getting the idea. In the other thread we all were agreeing, somewhat at least, that the whole Bible is about Jesus and everything being made right so that this could be accomplished.

 

[JonC]

Laying our iniquities on Jesus means that they were transferred from us to Jesus.

This is an assumption. Laying our iniquities in Jesus could simply means that "Jesus shared in our infirmities". It does not (by definition) mean transferring them from us.

Why do you see "laying our iniquities on Jesus" as transferring them from us to Him?

And also, I believe there are scriptures that when you put this plan with verses like "The wages of sin is death but the gift of God...." you can easily see an aspect of deserved punishment being averted on our part

But seeing wrath adverted in this passage is reading into the passage.

Take the Early Church (not as an authority as they could have been wrong, but as an example). They viewed the wages of sin being death and the gift of God as being eternal life in Christ Jesus. While we do avoid the wrath to come, this is not what they viewed "death" here to be (they took the passage literally....that although they die so shall they live). So it isn't easily seen (although through contemporary eyes, perhaps you have a point).

That said, the early Christians viewed us as experiencing the wages of sin (physical death) and the gift of God (eternal life) and avoiding the wrath to come (Judgment Day).

Why read the wages of sin and the gift of God as one or another?

Is there anyone else who teaches that the idea of propitiation is valid and that the translations that use the word are OK, and yet says what you say in that "I have totally rejected the theory that God poured out His wrath on Christ instead of us"?

Yes. Most of Christianity. Penal Substitution theorists like to think that most Christians reject the idea of propitiation because it makes their arguments easy. But this is far from the case. You have to remember that the word "propitiation"deals with appeasement, not punishment. In Him we escape the wrath to come.

Now I looked this over after I wrote it and it is redundant but I'm going to leave it because it might help by explaining what I'm trying to get at in several different ways. I'm not trying to win an argument because I think you are already on the page of penal substitution but that you don't like the terminology or the theologians who are getting credit for articulating it in modern form.

Redundance often leads to clarity, so no complaints from me.

I actually don't mind the terminology used in Penal Substitution Theory. The issue is in what is assumed o added into the terms. "Propitiation" is a good example. Penal Substitution theorists add ideas about God expressing wrath, but those ideas are not inherent in the word.

 

[JonC]

This plan of our redemption was a one time thing that Jesus was uniquely qualified to accomplish. If you read a good Bible teacher on the passage where Jesus asks John the Baptist to be baptized and John balks at the idea and then Jesus says it must be done you start getting the idea. In the other thread we all were agreeing, somewhat at least, that the whole Bible is about Jesus and everything being made right so that this could be accomplished.

As far as redeeming mankind I agree it was a one time event in redemptive history. As far as forgiving our sins I do not.

 

[DaveXR650]

Propitiation simply does not mean the pouring out of wrath. It means the exact opposite. It is an appeasement so that that wrath is not poured out.

I agree with you in that it must end in an appeasement of wrath or propitiation did not occur. But you have made an error when you say that the pouring out of wrath is never a part of propitiation. It most certainly can be and it was the case historically that the propitiation of God's wrath against us occurred in this case because the wrath was poured out on Jesus.

My dog chews up a document and appeases my wrath by looking cute. But if he ran across the street and attacked the neighbors toddler that would not work. We have offended an infinitely holy God repeatedly and willfully. I realize that comparing God's wrath to ours as an illustration breaks down in the sense that we are explosive and out of control but the use of the term "wrath" when combined with our knowledge of God's wisdom and patience is what scripture chose to use to explain this to us.

 

[DaveXR650]

Why do you see "laying our iniquities on Jesus" as transferring them from us to Him?

I think that is the plain meaning. If you are struggling with your pack and I take it then the weight was laid on me. But it was also, by definition, transferred from you to me.

 

[JonC]

I agree with you in that it must end in an appeasement of wrath or propitiation did not occur. But you have made an error when you say that the pouring out of wrath is never a part of propitiation. It most certainly can be and it was the case historically that the propitiation of God's wrath against us occurred in this case because the wrath was poured out on Jesus.

My dog chews up a document and appeases my wrath by looking cute. But if he ran across the street and attacked the neighbors toddler that would not work. We have offended an infinitely holy God repeatedly and willfully. I realize that comparing God's wrath to ours as an illustration breaks down in the sense that we are explosive and out of control but the use of the term "wrath" when combined with our knowledge of God's wisdom and patience is what scripture chose to use to explain this to us.

You are making an assumption.

I do need to clarify, by the way. I said that the pouring out of wrath is never a part of propitiation as a definition.

In Calvinism God pouring out His wrath is a part of propitiation as a process or doctrine. The reason it can still be considered "propitiation" is that this is essentially God taking on His own wrath and appeasing Himself.

BUT it is not a part of "propitiation" as a word. It is just how John Calvin viewed God as working out this propitiation.

What you have ate Christians agreeing that Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world, but a relatively small sect within Christianity assuming that God did this by pouring His wrath upon Christ.

What needs to be done is to prove via Scripture that this is what occurred.

The difficulty in doing that is Scripture and scholars existed for over 1,500 years without any Christian coming to that conclusion. You'd be pouring over passages that have been read and studied for a millennia and a half to find what they somehow missed.


Thank you, BTW, for this conversation. If I ever come across as short let me know (it will be unintentional).