Actually, could be that your viewpoint might not be taking fully into account the wrath of God on Christ at the Cross.. Jesus was at same time the sinless Son of God, but also at that time was as if he was taking the place of sinners and receiving the direct wrath of God for our sakes!
-
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!
Christ made Sin?
- Thread starter Martin Marprelate
- Start date
- Status
It could be, except that thus far no one has offered Scripture stating that God punished Jesus with the punishment that we would have endured at the final judgment.
My comment is that you believe this is what had to have happened because of an extra-biblical idea. And then you appeal to mystery as to why some passages seem to contradict this view. Have you ever considered that the Cross itself (the work of Christ as a whole) was substitutionary, and no one needed to suffer the exact thing you would have suffered? I think if you look at it that way you may find a theory of atonement that is less of a mystery as it doesn't contradict Scripture.
Much of what transacted between the Trinity is a Mystery though, as Jesus being sinless and yet still our Siun bearer, to being the Son and yet forsaken and taking the full blunt of wrath of God is a seeming paradox to us!
God bore down upon Jesus His full weath against Sin, and he was taking our place at that time, so why would he not experience during those 3 hours the Hell all sinners will forever?
What verse are you referencing?
Scripture says Christ was humbled, came as man, was ridiculed, beaten, suffered and died as an atonement for our sins. It does not say that God bore down in Christ with the full wrath due us and inflicted upon Him the punishment that we would have suffered at Judgment. This part is foreign to Christianity until the 16th century and Calvinism. What you are presenting is Calvin's doctrine of Penal Substitution with the exception of changing that doctrine from Christ descending into He'll for 3 days to Him suffering "a hell" in 3 hours.
Yours is a new theory and a minority (in the scheme of things), but it is a hyper view of what is ingrained in most Baptist churches (to the degree we seldom recognize where our presuppositions begins and scripture ends).
Not at all (here anyway). Christ had to be sinless to be our sinbearer (remember we are talking about "a righteousness apart from the Law").
And he had to take the full wrath of God as the atoner for sins....
Again, if this is not just theory please provide the supporting passage.
(Thus far it seems the most important part of your theory is speculation and not scripture).
@Yeshua1 ,
What you have presented here is a definition of atonement where God punishes Jesus with the punishment that we would have received at Judgment had we not believed because this punishment is what God’s wrath required. I understand your reasoning but am asking for you to support your theory by using Scripture and not just off the cuff claims.
I have argued that this idea of punishment is foreign to Scripture because it is unjust as it addresses the will itself (a sin is an action, not a thing to bartered). But beyond this I have asked that you support your position via Scripture.
The reason I ask this is that I have found absolutely no passages that support your hyper view of Penal Substitution Theory. In fact, I can name a dozen which deny your view (something you chalk up to a “mystery”). At the end of the day, you are asking me to accept something that Scripture denies based on philosophy. While I respect your right to see things as you desire to see them, I think that it is wrong to ask that of others.
What you have presented here is a definition of atonement where God punishes Jesus with the punishment that we would have received at Judgment had we not believed because this punishment is what God’s wrath required. I understand your reasoning but am asking for you to support your theory by using Scripture and not just off the cuff claims.
I have argued that this idea of punishment is foreign to Scripture because it is unjust as it addresses the will itself (a sin is an action, not a thing to bartered). But beyond this I have asked that you support your position via Scripture.
The reason I ask this is that I have found absolutely no passages that support your hyper view of Penal Substitution Theory. In fact, I can name a dozen which deny your view (something you chalk up to a “mystery”). At the end of the day, you are asking me to accept something that Scripture denies based on philosophy. While I respect your right to see things as you desire to see them, I think that it is wrong to ask that of others.
Last edited:
Jesus became our sin bearer while upon the cross, and He as the lamb of God took on all our sins, and God was doing Isaiah 53 upon Him as the Suffering Servant, and God was delighted to have Him crushed/wounded/bruised for our sins, and what we derseved was placed upon him, was Isaiah wrong?
And you call a hyper penal theology was actually how Jesus and the Apostles themselves saw Him!
YES!!!!! This is a wonderful explanation of the work of Christ!!!
Isaiah 53:1-12 Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth. By oppression and judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered That He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due? His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.
But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.
But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.
BUT nowhere in this passage does it say that God punished with the punishment that would have been ours at Judgment. So where does that come from? It comes from John Calvin (not all of reformed theology accepted this doctrine, e.g., Martin Luther).
I am not asking you to blow smoke and pretend that for 15 centuries Christians have missed Isaiah 53. I am asking that you provide a passage that proves your theory to be correct. Thus far, you have not.
And let's just stop the foolishness about "this is how Jesus and the Apostles themselves saw Him". What we have is Scripture. You can't prove your point by appealing to some secret knowledge of how the apostles viewed things. We have what they wrote, not what they may have thought but didn't record.
Thus far Scripture nullifies your theory (even this passage which refers to Christ as God's Righteous One, His Servant....not His enemy in a legal sense....i.e., "unrighteous" or "unjust").
Well I think it's clear that you made the wrong decision because the cross was very obviously punitive toward Christ.
Not so. Christ is made sin, and God's righteous anger against sin is poured out upon Him. This is so obvious that I can't understand why you don't get it. 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.........He shall bear their iniquities.' As I explained above, the Father loves the Son and has never ceased to love Him, but there on the cross He was the sin-bearer and God's judicial wrath against sin was poured out directly upon Him.
No! If Christ were not justly condemned and punished by God for sins imputed to Him then two things follow:
1. God is unjust.
2. We are still in our sins and under God's righteous condemnation.
And what text do you offer for that piece of whimsy?
On the contrary, the focus is directly upon God. 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him.....' and even more importantly, '.....whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate [what? His love? To be sure, but that not what the text says] His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus' (Romans 3:25-26). Contrary to what you say, this is strict justice, and it is all about God.
God's justice demands that the guilty be punished. 'He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD' (Proverbs 17:15). And on the cross the wicked was punished. That is what the brazen serpent is all about. Christ willingly took all our sins upon Himself, and God punished Him for them.
Yes it does. You quoted it yourself. 'But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him. He was oppressed and He was afflicted.' Not only did our iniquities fall on Him, but the affliction (punishment) of them. 'He Himself bore OUR SINS in His own body on the tree.' And who punished Him? 'But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief.' How could the thing possibly be spelled out any more clearly?
This is a wild claim, brother. I hope you can bring some Scripture to the game.
I never claimed that the Cross was not punitive towards Christ. This seems obvious to me as it was the Father who offered the Son as a guilt offering and He was “cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due”.
I am claiming that the Father did not punish the Son with the punishment that awaited us at Judgment (this, not in the doctrines of grace, is what makes me a “non-Calvinist”, I suppose). And I am claiming that there is no passage in Scripture that states otherwise (that this one point on which your theology hangs….what separated Calvin’s soteriology from Luther’s…. is speculation). If you prove me wrong by Scripture (there has to be at least a few passages since this is what your theories hinge upon) then I will accept that. But I will not accept presuppositional interpretation. It has to be in the passages.
John 3:31-36 "He who comes from above is above all, he who is of the earth is from the earth and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all. What He has seen and heard, of that He testifies; and no one receives His testimony. He who has received His testimony has set his seal to this, that God is true. For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God; for He gives the Spirit without measure. The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand. He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
Isaiah 53:10-12 “But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.”
There’s more, but your turn. What text do you offer to prove that God poured out his hatred upon Jesus?
Again, there is nothing in this passage that demands God punish Jesus with the punishment due the lost at Judgment. What is here does demand a consequence, a punishment. But not a simple punishment because that is directed at the will of the offender. What is demanded is redemption, propitiation, a purchase. It is a satisfactory punishment (a propitiation) and is therefore just.
There is a huge difference between saying that Jesus bore our sins, as it was the will of the Father (who offered Him as a guilt offering), suffered for our transgressions, suffered for our transgressions (for whom the stroke was due) and saying that God punished Jesus with the punishment we would have experienced at Judgment.
If you cannot see this (not even looking at which of us is correct in interpretation, but if you cannot even see what is added through reasoning) then I don't know what to say to you. You simply will live with so much of God's revelation as "mystery". But you have the fundamentals of the faith, and Christ is sufficient.
Maybe this will help. Where you see dots to be connected I am seeing one straight line of Scripture. I disagree with the lines you draw, not the dots you see.
Only what I have offered so many times before. You can tell me I'm wrong, but you can't tell me that I have not quoted Scripture to you; I have done so copiously. But alas, you eyes are blinded to see what is staring at you from the text.
But do you not see that this positively requires Penal Substitution? The stroke is due to God's people because of their transgression; Christ is cut off for that very transgression. If that 'cutting off'' does not satisfy the Father's justice, what on earth is the purpose of it? You are turning Christ into some sort of whipping boy instead of Him actually satisfying Divine justice.
Well it's there in Isaiah 53 and elsewhere, as clear as daylight, but you will not accept it. There's no point in my writing out the texts yet again. Just read them-- read Isaiah 53 all the way through, not just text by text-- and you will see that there is no alternative but Penal Substitution Let's be clear; there is no text that states that sinners in hell will face crucifixion; is that what you are demanding? What is in the Scriptures is that God laid upon Christ the iniquity of His people (Isaiah 53:6), and that He was stricken for their transgressions(v.8); that His sufferings were the very cause of our peace with God (v.5). He bore our sins, and the LORD was pleased to crush Him for them, and that this was to satisfy the justice of God (Romans 3:26). How can the justice of God be satisfied unless the guilty is punished (Proverbs 17:15 again)? Christ satisfies it, being made sin so that He can drink the cup of God's wrath upon the cross. Here's a syllogism for you:
1. God's wrath is against sin and sinners (Psalm 7:11)
2. Christ is made sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21).
3. THEREFORE God's wrath was against Christ.
or
1. God has a cup of wrath which all the wicked must drink (Psalm 75:8).
2. Christ drank the cup of God's wrath (Matthew 26:42; John 18:11).
3. THEREFORE God's wrath was inflicted upon Christ.
And I am claiming that such Scriptures abound, and that you are denying their plain and obvious sense.
Nor is it a question of Luther against Calvin. I think that if you look at Luther's commentary on Galatians and his comments on 3:13, you will find Penal Substitution:
'But here we must make a distinction, as the words of Paul plainly show. For he saith not that Christ was made a curse for Himself, but for us. Therefore all the weight of the matter standeth in this word "for us." For Christ is innocent as concerning His own person, and therefore He ought not to have been hanged on a tree; but because according to the law of Moses, every thief and malefactor ought to be hanged, therefore Christ also ought to be hanged, for He sustained the person of a sinner and a thief, not of one, but of all sinners and thieves. For we are sinners and thieves, and therefore guilty of death and everlasting damnation. But Christ took our sins upon Him, and for them died upon the cross; therefore it behoveth that He should become a transgressor and (as Isaiah saith, chapter LIII) "be reckoned with the transgressors.'
Moreover, there is a vast array of Godly theologians and commentators who support Penal Substitution. If you would like quotes from Turretine or Owen just let me know for I have them in front of me.
You wrote,
Nothing about anyone drinking anything in those texts, nor is there anything directly about God's love for mankind. You would not accept such sloppiness from me. Do you not see that you are demanding an entirely different level of proof from me than you are requiring of yourself?JonC" said:
Well here it is again.
On the contrary, the focus is directly upon God. 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him.....' and even more importantly, '.....whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate [what? His love? To be sure, but that not what the text says] His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus' (Romans 3:25-26). Contrary to what you say, this is strict justice, and it is all about God.
God's justice demands that the guilty be punished. 'He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD' (Proverbs 17:15). And on the cross the wicked was punished. That is what the brazen serpent is all about. Christ willingly took all our sins upon Himself, and God punished Him for them.
If you cannot see it, there really isn't any point in continuing the conversation.
Brother, I try very hard to deal with your words honestly. I am sure that there are times I fail, and I do apologize if I have misrepresented what you have expressed as your position. As far as I know, this has not been the situation here on my part (please let me know if you believe otherwise). I ask that you do me the courtesy of dealing with my words in kind. I have not denied the passages that you have quoted. What I am denying are the ideas and theories of punishment that you have superimposed on the text.
Throughout the history of the Church we see men of God, scholars we often reference, affirming both penal and substitutionary aspects of the Atonement. And they are correct. Christ was, as you point out, “cut off from the land of the living for the transgressions of My people” (this is both penal as it was for transgressions and substitutionary as it was for the transgressions of God’s people). Atonement itself implies penal and substitution. What I am questioning is your theory of Penal Substitution (the theory Calvin articulated and was later softened by changing 3 days in Hell to 3 hours of equivalent to Hell).
Here are a few concerns I have with your position:
1. While I certainly affirm penal and substitution aspects of the work of Christ, for the first 14 centuries your theory was absent from Church doctrine. None of the ECF’s held to this theory, Thomas Aquinas firmly rejected this theory (while strongly affirming Christ was punished for our transgressions) and Martin Luther also held to another definition of Atonement. This in itself certainly does not disprove your theory. But it does call into question its validity since it plays such a prominent role in your overall theology. It raises the question as to why and how this theory, which is central to your theology, was overlooked for so long by such godly scholars.
2. There are no passages that state the Father punished Christ with our punishment. You keep turning to passages that tell us Christ what we already agree upon. But you have not yet provided one passage that identifies God’s offering of Christ as God punishing Him with the punishment due us, that we would have suffered at Judgment. You pretend it is there, clear as day, but you cannot put your finger on the text.
3. You continually go back to say that God’s justice must be satisfied. I agree. And Martin Luther, Anselm, Aquinas, Justin Martyr,….so many throughout the history of the Church would also agree while at the same time never affirming your theory. Where we disagree is in your view that Christ’s life and death, suffering, dying, and being cut-off from the land of the living is insufficient to satisfy God’s justice. What you are saying is that Jesus’ obedience, even to death, was not enough. This is why I have made the claim that you hold a very man-centered view of the atonement. You reject that Christ could satisfy these demands of justice through the Cross except that He suffer what we would have suffered at Judgment (in 3 hours of separation on the Cross).
Insofar as Martin Luther is concerned – Yes, you have identified his position well with this quote. Luther affirmed substitutionary atonement – but NOT Penal Substitution Theory. And Luther was correct. Christ is innocent concerning His own person. He was hanged in order to be numbered among the sinners and thieves. We are guilty and deserve an everlasting damnation. But Christ took our sins upon Him, and for them died upon the cross – reckoned with the transgressors. NO_ONE IS DENYING THIS ON THIS THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can you truly not see the difference between the passages you quoted, the explanation from Luther you provided, and your own claims?
Even Thomas Aquinas, whose teachings (even though a far earlier argument) stand so strongly against the idea of your theory of Penal Substitution, affirmed that Christ was punished for our transgressions. The difference is that no one, until John Calvin articulated the theory and injected it into our culture, considered this to be the punishment we would have received at Judgment.
As we continue, please at least be honest with my posts and I will try my best to do the same. I enjoy conversing with you and I enjoy discussing this topic and soaking in God's Word as we go along. But iron doesn't sharpen iron unless it meets. You, and apparently @SovereignGrace , are missing the argument (and the historical arguments) entirely. I will not continue this thread should it merely become a smokescreen to prevent honest dialogue. And, to keep it honest, if you have any questions of my position (or need any documentation of those I've referenced) and don't want to ask on the open forum then please PM me. I'll respond there, or if you prefer offer you my personal email (via PM). But let's please continue in respect, love, and honest dialogue.
You are most certainly wrong here. The Bible explicitly states that sin "ENTERED" the world "by sin" not by becoming alive - Rom. 5:12. You said that death began when life began whereas the Bible says that death began when sin "entered" the world. You are wrong!
You are wrong again! God is the injured party because sin is against God as David clearly states in Psa. 51 "against thee, and thee only have I sinned." He did not say sin is against me causing a deficiency in me.
When evidence is placed before you that proves your wrong, you ignore it and redirect the arguments to a new line of thinking. I have noticed this in several of your responses. Hence, there can be no end of this discussion. You have admitted that you believe in penal substitutionary atonement but then you completely repudiate it by your definitions of terms.
Your problem is that you fail to distinguish between the sinless obedient PERSON of Christ (a lamb without spot and blemish) and the POSITION of Christ as a "sin offering" that satisfies the wrath of God against sin and sinners. There is no either/or but both. You pit one against the other.
Your next problem is that you fail to recognize in the context of your arguments that the sacificial "lamb" is also the "lion" of the tribe of Judah and as God AND man he can satisfy the eternal penalty of sin by his very person as he is eternal and so three or six hours on the cross is inconsequential as he encompasses eternity and for him to suffer at all on the cross (the legal position for satisfying sin) embraces eternity - in other words he cannot be measured by time because he is INFINITE with regard to time and thus yes, in three second, much less three hours he could suffer the just eternal penalty of sin. The scriptures distinguish between his deity and humanity (but it seems you can't) as the deity LIMITED his humanity in several areas (knowlege of the time of his own return; omnipresence - as he was in heaven as far as his deity but at the same time located on earth as far as his humanity when speaking to Nicodemus - Jn. 3:11; etc.). God prepared him (deity) a body to satisfy and pay the full payment of sin.
I have argued long enough with you to realize you are not going to be persuaded by any amount of evidence. I am through with this debate.
Last edited:
You mean "death", not "sin". And yes, that's the point. The world has been subjected to futility, it is under the curse of death. Do trees sin? No. Do they die? Yep. Do fish sin? No. Do they die? Yep. Unless you are claiming Jesus never experienced the bodily change of ageing then I don't see your point.
Your mistake is that you restrict Christ's work of redemption to His death. We use titles like "the Atonement" or the "doctrine of the Cross", but insofar as our redemption goes the true doctrine extends to the Son humbling Himself and becoming man, obedient unto death, even the death of a cross.
I suggest that your theory goes astray in that it elevates the role of man and diminishes the role of God by claiming the death of Christ insufficient without God punishing Him with the penalty lost men will endure at Judgment. You miss the point that Christ's death was substitutionary and exceeded what would have been our punishment in satisfying the demands of the Law to the point that the Law itself was nailed on that tree and a New Covenant given in Christ's own blood. I believe this is foreign to you because you have too high a view of man and perhaps even too low a view of God in the work of redemption.
John Calvin got this part of theology spot on, and Luther did not!
Jesus actually experienced being forsaken by the Ftaher while upon that Cross, or else his quoting scripture regarding that was for what purpose?
- Status