Christ made Sin?

[The Biblicist]

e

Our disagreement is essentially that I believe Christ's work a sufficient propitiation because of His nature and you because God punished Him with our punishment.

There is no "our" punishment versus the just punishment prescribed by law. There is no "sufficient" propitiation apart from "just" propitiation determined already by law. You view must resort to unbiblical rationalizations whereas the Biblical view has determined what is the just punishment determined law - "death."

I believe Christ being made sin refers to the substitutionary nature of His work while you believe it a legal status of actual (deserving of God's wrath).

No, you don't. There can be no "substitutionary" atonement if the substitute is not subject to the laws just penalty as part of the equation.

My observation has been that you are providing a context absent from Scripture itself. Your contention is that your theory is obvious throughout Scripture. My request is that you prove it instead of assuming it correct.

We have proved it over and over and over, but you simply refuse to accept the scriptures. The Bible over and over explicitly states it is the Father that is punishing Christ as a sacrificial offering for our sins.

It is the Father that "laid our sins" on him.
It is the Father that "chasten" him for our iniquities
It is the Father that must be "satisfied" with his suffering
It is the Father that forsook him on the cross.

You simply cannot understand and accept that he is both the obedient spotless lamb of God that was obedient unto death but in that obedience he was also the legal object of God's just wrath against us (not against him) for our sins.

 

[JonC]

Now you are changing the subject. First, you said death began with life and I said no, death began with the fall, as death entered the world by sin. Now, you are claiming it is the fall that effected death in animals. So Jon, which is it? Paul says death "entered" the world by sin but you say (based strictly upon human reasoning) say it began with life. I agree with Paul.

No. I'm trying to get back to the subject. But yes, I agree with Romans 8. We disagree. Start a thread about it if that is what you want to discuss.

 

[JonC]

."There can be no "substitutionary" atonement if the substitute is not subject to the laws just penalty as part of the equation..

According to your man-centered theory there cannot because Christ simply wouldn't have been enough. And this is where we disagree.

Christ's obedience to death, bearing our sins, is eternally more than enough to substitute for what would have been our punishment at Judgment. It is telling that you think it insufficient a substitute and demand the exact punishment for lost men be extracted.

 

[Yeshua1]

We are getting off on a tangent.

Our disagreement is essentially that I believe Christ's work a sufficient propitiation because of His nature and you because God punished Him with our punishment. I believe Christ being made sin refers to the substitutionary nature of His work while you believe it a legal status of actual guilt (deserving of God's wrath).

My observation has been that you are providing a context absent from Scripture itself. Your contention is that your theory is obvious throughout Scripture. My request is that you prove it instead of assuming it correct.

No, I believe that Jesus took the full on wrath of God in my stead, for my sin debt to be paid in full, and that while he was doing that upon the Cross, he who always remained sinless and pure and God somehow also had to suffer and experience the very separation and Hell for 3 hours that lost sinners will for eternity.

 

[JonC]

No, I believe that Jesus took the full on wrath of God in my stead, for my sin debt to be paid in full, and that while he was doing that upon the Cross, he who always remained sinless and pure and God somehow also had to suffer and experience the very separation and Hell for 3 hours that lost sinners will for eternity.

I know what you believe. Is it fair to take your inability to provide a passage of scripture as an acknowledgement that your belief here is tradition?

 

[Yeshua1]

According to your man-centered theory there cannot because Christ simply wouldn't have been enough. And this is where we disagree.

Christ's obedience to death, bearing our sins, is eternally more than enough to substitute for what would have been our punishment at Judgment. It is telling that you think it insufficient a substitute and demand the exact punishment for lost men be extracted.

Part of what Jesus experienced on our behalf was the full wrath of God towards our sin, and how can that not be as His being forsaken of God and taking on our full and due penalty for sins?

God judged jesus in our place for our sin debt, will we not experience wrath and separation from Him if still lost sinners when judged by him?

 

[Yeshua1]

There is no "our" punishment versus the just punishment prescribed by law. There is no "sufficient" propitiation apart from "just" propitiation determined already by law. You view must resort to unbiblical rationalizations whereas the Biblical view has determined what is the just punishment determined law - "death."




No, you don't. There can be no "substitutionary" atonement if the substitute is not subject to the laws just penalty as part of the equation.



We have proved it over and over and over, but you simply refuse to accept the scriptures. The Bible over and over explicitly states it is the Father that is punishing Christ as a sacrificial offering for our sins.

It is the Father that "laid our sins" on him.
It is the Father that "chasten" him for our iniquities
It is the Father that must be "satisfied" with his suffering
It is the Father that forsook him on the cross.

You simply cannot understand and accept that he is both the obedient spotless lamb of God that was obedient unto death but in that obedience he was also the legal object of God's just wrath against us (not against him) for our sins.

Jon C is confusing to me on this issue, as he does seem on one hand to agree with penal Substitution of Christ, and yet seems to use scriptures to take it to mean something different than reformed thinking on this issue.

 

[JonC]

Jon C is confusing to me on this issue, as he does seem on one hand to agree with penal Substitution of Christ, and yet seems to use scriptures to take it to mean something different than reformed thinking on this issue.

I agree that Christ's blood was shed for our transgressions....He was wounded chastizement, punishment) for our (substitution) transgressions (penal). By His stripes we are healed, purchased by the precious blood of Christ.

What is confusing about that?

 

[JonC]

Part of what Jesus experienced on our behalf was the full wrath of God towards our sin, and how can that not be as His being forsaken of God and taking on our full and due penalty for sins?

God judged jesus in our place for our sin debt, will we not experience wrath and separation from Him if still lost sinners when judged by him?

How often does your requirement here look to man's punishment and man's sin?

I believe the Atonement was substitutionary, meeting the demands of the Law by virtue of Christ Himself, not man's penalty at Judgment.

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree that Christ's blood was shed for our transgressions....He was wounded chastizement, punishment) for our (substitution) transgressions (penal). By His stripes we are healed, purchased by the precious blood of Christ.

What is confusing about that?

That is half of it though, as Jesus would receive in his person the just due wrath as being our sin bearer, so would have been treated same way lost sinners will be!

 

[Yeshua1]

How often does your requirement here look to man's punishment and man's sin?

I believe the Atonement was substitutionary, meeting the demands of the Law by virtue of Christ Himself, not man's penalty at Judgment.

The Atonement was for both!

 

[JonC]

That is half of it though, as Jesus would receive in his person the just due wrath as being our sin bearer, so would have been treated same way lost sinners will be!

They are different views, period.

Try this - look at what Luther taught (my view is closer to his) and identify those areas your theory rejects. Then look at the reasons they are different. I think it will clarify where we differ.

 

[JonC]

The Atonement was for both!

No....I don't mean penal vs substitution.

I mean the nature of the Sacrifice (the blood of Christ) is our substitution i.e., it is His blood that purchased us, not man's punishment inflicted.

 

[Yeshua1]

They are different views, period.

Try this - look at what Luther taught (my view is closer to his) and identify those areas your theory rejects. Then look at the reasons they are different. I think it will clarify where we differ.

By what basis though are you able to say that he was right, and Calvin was not on this issue?

 

[Yeshua1]

No....I don't mean penal vs substitution.

I mean the nature of the Sacrifice (the blood of Christ) is our substitution i.e., it is His blood that purchased us, not man's punishment inflicted.

His sinless life, in perfect obedience to the Law allowed Him to die in our stead, but he face the same treatment in that as all lost

 

[JonC]

By what basis though are you able to say that he was right, and Calvin was not on this issue?

I'm not saying either are right. I am looking at why they are different.

My concern with Calvin's view is not so much what is added to Scripture but the fact that so many cannot even recognize the context PST provides as it has become so much a part of our tradition. This is why @Martin Marprelate viewed Luther's position as actually being PST and why we run into an impasse in examining the topic.

Read Luther's position and see how he got from point A (common ground) to point B (Satisfaction Theory of Atonement). And then read Calvin's position (ignoring the part about literally descending into Hell) and see how he got from point A (common ground) to point B (Penal Substitution Theory).

 

[JonC]

His sinless life, in perfect obedience to the Law allowed Him to die in our stead, but he face the same treatment in that as all lost

Why do you believe the blood of Christ insufficient apart from the suffering the lost would endure at Judgment? How is God sacrificially giving of Himself not enough to satisfy the demands of the Law and usher in a New Covenant written in His own blood?

 

[Yeshua1]

Why do you believe the blood of Christ insufficient apart from the suffering the lost would endure at Judgment? How is God sacrificially giving of Himself not enough to satisfy the demands of the Law and usher in a New Covenant written in His own blood?

It is indeed sufficent , but Jesus MUST still suffer just a sa lost will inorder to be the sin bearer, as God saw Him as being both fully sufficient and Holy, but also as deserving the wrath of God due to being the Sin Bearer. That is the paradox, as Jesus was both fully sinless, and yet treated as if full of sin!

 

[JonC]

It is indeed sufficent , but Jesus MUST still suffer just a [as the] lost will in order to be the sin bearer

Then the blood of Christ apart from man's actual punishment is not sufficient.

Why do you think Christ's sacrifice, His suffering and physical death, is not more than enough to cover the punishment we would suffer at Judgment? Wouldn't Christ being God make His sacrifice sufficient?

 

[Yeshua1]

Then the blood of Christ apart from man's actual punishment is not sufficient.

Why do you think Christ's sacrifice, His suffering and physical death, is not more than enough to cover the punishment we would suffer at Judgment? Wouldn't Christ being God make His sacrifice sufficient?

Yes, and part of His suffering was to actually experience being forsaken by God for those 3 hours.