Christ's Death

[JonC]

Okay, so do you have a conviction on what you are asking about ?

Yes. I believe that we were redeemed by Christ's death, as He died by the hands of the wicked (as was the predetermined plan of God).

 

[George Antonios]

it has been explained that Christ was made "sin", but nor literally.

Literally. That's what it says.

 

[DaveXR650]

You are the one being disingenuous here by acting as if I am talking about Calvinism when I have told you that I am not. I am talking about a view that is based on a Calvinistic understanding of the Cross.

I don't know how to respond when you make a statement like that. I'm acting like you're talking about Calvinism when you said you weren't. Then the very next sentence you say you are talking about a view based on a Calvinistic understanding of the cross.

The view I am speaking of holds that our redemption was accomplished BEFORE His death while there was a separation between God and Christ.

In terms of redemption Christ's actual death was meaningless (He had already redeemed man, already taken the wrath of God intended for our sins).

I have honestly never heard or read of a Calvinist who made a distinction so that Christ provided reconciliation for our sins before he died. If you have something put it up and I'll look at it. If you know someone who takes that view, I would talk to them further because I think there is probably just a misunderstanding or miscommunication somewhere. If you can find any reference to a noted Calvinist thinker who teaches that Christ need not have died please put it up or stop this nonsense.

 

[atpollard]

BUT what part did Christ's death play in actual redemption?

The wages of sin is death … so the “debt” for our sins was not paid until either WE or the LAMB died.

Hebrews 9:22 [NKJV] And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

The shedding of blood is a euphemism for the sacrificial death. A little blood letting from a living animal would not suffice. No wounding the lamb and binding its wounds.

 

[JonC]

I don't know how to respond when you make a statement like that. I'm acting like you're talking about Calvinism when you said you weren't. Then the very next sentence you say you are talking about a view based on a Calvinistic understanding of the cross.



I have honestly never heard or read of a Calvinist who made a distinction so that Christ provided reconciliation for our sins before he died. If you have something put it up and I'll look at it. If you know someone who takes that view, I would talk to them further because I think there is probably just a misunderstanding or miscommunication somewhere. If you can find any reference to a noted Calvinist thinker who teaches that Christ need not have died please put it up or stop this nonsense.

I can explain (using the same example I previously used).

The 19th century anti-mission theology was based on Calvinistic theology. But it was not Calvinism.

Insofar as people saying Christ did not have to die, I am not sure where you got that idea but it certainly was not from me.

I am saying their theology does not provide an effective purpose towards redemption for Christ's death.

I enjoy your posts, and value your insight. But this is the second time in this thread that you have argued against something I never claimed. I think we are somehow talking past one another.

 

[DaveXR650]

But if He had not risen then what? Those that trust in the risen Christ will receive grace unto salvation from the Father.

@DaveXR650 you have man placing their faith in Christ on the cross rather than the risen Christ. We are not saved by His death but rather by His life.

I have honestly never heard any Calvinist or any non Calvinist Christian for that matter claim that we would not still be in our sins if Christ had not risen. Romans 5:10 has both. If we are discussing Christs death on a thread it does not mean that we are against his life, either in the sense of his resurrection or in the sense of his life of obedience and righteousness being imputed to us. It's just that you can't discuss everything at the same time.

By the way. Get a copy of "The Works of G. Campbell Morgan" if you want to read some of the most beautiful writing you will ever see on the subject of our new life with a risen Christ. (And he was not a Calvinist, if that matters).

 

[JonC]

The wages of sin is death … so the “debt” for our sins was not paid until either WE or the LAMB died.

Hebrews 9:22 [NKJV] And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

The shedding of blood is a euphemism for the sacrificial death. A little blood letting from a living animal would not suffice. No wounding the lamb and binding its wounds.

I agree that Christ died for our sins.
I agree that the wages of sin is death.
It is appointed man to die.

I disagree with your conclusion that we or the Lamb must die (I disagree with the "or" part). The reason is that Scripture states that we will all die because of Adam's sin (the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is life in Christ).

Christ's death does not mean we will not die but that in dying we who are in Christ will live (death has lost its sting).

 

[JonC]

Literally. That's what it says.

I agree that this verse is literal (hamartia as used in the Greek language). But I do not believe the appropriate meaning is an evil (Christ was not made evil).

 

[JonC]

I have honestly never heard any Calvinist or any non Calvinist Christian for that matter claim that we would not still be in our sins if Christ had not risen. Romans 5:10 has both. If we are discussing Christs death on a thread it does not mean that we are against his life, either in the sense of his resurrection or in the sense of his life of obedience and righteousness being imputed to us. It's just that you can't discuss everything at the same time.

By the way. Get a copy of "The Works of G. Campbell Morgan" if you want to read some of the most beautiful writing you will ever see on the subject of our new life with a risen Christ. (And he was not a Calvinist, if that matters).

Why would we still be in our sins of the Father punished Christ for our sins yet Christ didn't rise from the grave (or didn't die, for that matter)?

When exactly do you believe our debt of sin was paid?

 

[DaveXR650]

The 19th century anti-mission theology was based on Calvinistic theology. But it was not Calvinism.

If you mean is there a chance that the predeterminism of high Calvinism easily leads to the idea that your efforts won't help because God does it all then I agree. But that's like saying the free will theology leads to silly sales techniques in evangelism and a tendency to hold out false promises of health, prosperity, and happiness, in order to induce people to "make a decision". This is also proven true. We all have to constantly be on guard.

I enjoy your posts, and value your insight. But this is the second time in this thread that you have argued against something I never claimed. I think we are somehow talking past one another.

We are. I also feel that you have tried to create a classic straw man argument against Calvinism by putting up a set of beliefs that don't represent it and then arguing against it. The posts are here for everyone to see and judge for themselves. You put up post no. 7 which is hypothetical as you said - but you put it up. If I answer and say the hypothetical scenario you put up is blasphemous because of the modification of point 8 why would you be offended if the post was hypothetical? IF you believed that, which you said you don't, but someone who believes that probably is not an orthodox Christian.

Theologies of a Calvinistic trajectory, however, view our redemption as as being accomplished through the Father's punishment of sin (NOT through the Son's death on the Cross).

"Not through the Son's death on the Cross". You said it in post 1. I have been arguing against your claim in post 1 that the trajectory of Calvinist theology somehow leads to a denial of the importance of the Son's death on the cross. If there is some known school of thought that teaches that I have repeatedly asked that you let us know. I am familiar with older Calvinist theology, especially from the Puritan era. I am not familiar at all with what happened to the mainline Protestant churches in the late 1800's and early 1900's so maybe you are referring to that era. I know many of those churches who buckled under the modernism of that era were Calvinistic. And I also know that that is the very reason that so many IFB's of today have nothing but contempt for Calvinism. They saw this happening.

 

[George Antonios]

I agree that this verse is literal (hamartia as used in the Greek language). But I do not believe the appropriate meaning is an evil (Christ was not made evil).

It did not say "evil". It said "sin". Sin has a literal metaphysical manifestation; it is a tangible "thing" in the spiritual world:

Job 14:17 My transgression is sealed up in a bag, and thou sewest up mine iniquity.

Mic 7:19 He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.

Those are not figures of speech. Those are descriptions of a literal reality in the spiritual world, which, because we cannot understand (Joh_3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?) we treat as merely symbolic.

Christ was made sin; not "sin offering", not "evil", not anything else: sin.

 

[DaveXR650]

Why would we still be in our sins of the Father punished Christ for our sins yet Christ didn't rise from the grave (or didn't die, for that matter)?

When exactly do you believe our debt of sin was paid?

You tell me what YOU believe on this first. You are making controversial statements that when refuted you back away from and claim that you are being falsely accused of having them be your belief. So what is your belief. Then I'll share what I believe. Fair enough?

 

[JonC]

If you mean is there a chance that the predeterminism of high Calvinism easily leads to the idea that your efforts won't help because God does it all then I agree. But that's like saying the free will theology leads to silly sales techniques in evangelism and a tendency to hold out false promises of health, prosperity, and happiness, in order to induce people to "make a decision". This is also proven true. We all have to constantly be on guard.



We are. I also feel that you have tried to create a classic straw man argument against Calvinism by putting up a set of beliefs that don't represent it and then arguing against it. The posts are here for everyone to see and judge for themselves. You put up post no. 7 which is hypothetical as you said - but you put it up. If I answer and say the hypothetical scenario you put up is blasphemous because of the modification of point 8 why would you be offended if the post was hypothetical? IF you believed that, which you said you don't, but someone who believes that probably is not an orthodox Christian.



"Not through the Son's death on the Cross". You said it in post 1. I have been arguing against your claim in post 1 that the trajectory of Calvinist theology somehow leads to a denial of the importance of the Son's death on the cross. If there is some known school of thought that teaches that I have repeatedly asked that you let us know. I am familiar with older Calvinist theology, especially from the Puritan era. I am not familiar at all with what happened to the mainline Protestant churches in the late 1800's and early 1900's so maybe you are referring to that era. I know many of those churches who buckled under the modernism of that era were Calvinistic. And I also know that that is the very reason that so many IFB's of today have nothing but contempt for Calvinism. They saw this happening.

I am not arguing a strawman form of Cslvinism. That is why I indicated my hesitancy in putting this thread in this forum.

I have noticed this view as much in non-Calvinistic people as in Calvinism.

Sure free-will theology has spawned problematic ideas. I agree. I'm just talking about a specific error that originated from Calvinistic theology and spread from there.

Calvinism has given us dispensationalism and covenant theology (competing views). We can acknowledge this without it being an attack on Calvinism.

I understand that many believe the Father punished our sins in Christ. I understand that this means our debt was paid in full.

My question is why, if these sins were taken care of prior to Christ's death - by the time Christ declared "it is finished" - that Christ had to die.

What was the purpose of Christ's physical death? Do we not still die physically?

 

[JonC]

Sin has a literal metaphysical manifestation; it is a tangible "thing" in the spiritual world:

This statement is nonsensence.

Sin has only a few meanings in the Greek language. It means "missing the mark" (as Homer used the term describing battle scenes), it means "to err" or "disobedience" (as often seen in Jewish writings referring to disobedience to God) and it means an inner quality or movement leading to the protagonists death or a tragic event (as used in Greek philosophy and literature).

 

[George Antonios]

This statement is nonsensence.

Sin has only a few meanings in the Greek language. It means "missing the mark" (as Homer used the term describing battle scenes), it means "to err" or "disobedience" (as often seen in Jewish writings referring to disobedience to God) and it means an inner quality or movement leading to the protagonists death or a tragic event (as used in Greek philosophy and literature).

How in the world does that conflict with the scriptural notion that "missing the mark" creates a tangible manifestation in the spiritual world? Bible verses are not to be dismissed.

 

[JonC]

You tell me what YOU believe on this first. You are making controversial statements that when refuted you back away from and claim that you are being falsely accused of having them be your belief. So what is your belief. Then I'll share what I believe. Fair enough?

Sure.

I believe that Christ died for our sins. Christ shared in our infirmity and became a curse for us.

We were already under the curse, we had already earned the wages of sin (which is death). Because of sin we will die.

Jesus died not because He had sinned but willingly for our sin.

Because of Christ's death we , though dying, shall live. The wages of sin is death and it is appointed man once to die. But the gift of God is life in Christ Jesus - although we will die (the wages of sin) yet shall we live (the gift of God).

 

[JonC]

How in the world does that conflict with the scriptural notion that "missing the mark" creates a tangible manifestation in the spiritual world? Bible verses are not to be dismissed.

The metaphysical is not tangible but transcendent.

The biblical use of "sin" is "disobedience to God" or "err", not "missing the mark".

"Missing the mark" was how hamartia was used in the 8th Century BC. It was literally missing the mark.

In the Greek literature 3rd Century BC forward) it meant an inner quality leading to death or tragedy.

In Scripture it refers to disobedience to God (related to the Hebrew use of "sin", not 8th Century BC Greek).

Why go back to 8th Century Greek rather than the OT Hebrew to define sin?

 

[percho]

Did Adam die when he ate or was he after eating in a state of dying awaiting that death?
When the Father put our sin on the Son, the Son was in the state of dying and therefore gave his life, died, for our sin.

Death and the wages thereof and the ransom took place when the Son committed his Spirit into the hands of the Father.

Adam's took 730 years, Christ's took minutes or less.

IMHO

 

[George Antonios]

The metaphysical is not tangible but transcendent.

Verse. And how does "transcendent" conflict with "tangible"?

The biblical use of "sin" is "disobedience to God" or "err", not "missing the mark".

I literally quoted your definition. Either way, replace it as you wish, the question stands.

Why go back to 8th Century Greek rather than the OT Hebrew to define sin?

You're the one quoting the Greek, I'm the one quoting Job and Hosea.

 

[DaveXR650]

Sure.

I believe that Christ died for our sins. Christ shared in our infirmity and became a curse for us.

We were already under the curse, we had already earned the wages of sin (which is death). Because of sin we will die.

Jesus died not because He had sinned but willingly for our sin.

Because of Christ's death we , though dying, shall live. The wages of sin is death and it is appointed man once to die. But the gift of God is life in Christ Jesus - although we will die (the wages of sin) yet shall we live (the gift of God).

I agree with everything you said. I appreciate you stating that but don't take much comfort in that because I am not known on here as a very precise student of theology. You are probably stating something wrong that I am unaware of!

Why would we still be in our sins of the Father punished Christ for our sins yet Christ didn't rise from the grave (or didn't die, for that matter)?

When exactly do you believe our debt of sin was paid?

I was just referring there to where Paul talked about how if Christ is not raised then we are of all men most miserable and still in our sins. I wasn't meaning this in a theological way but I think Paul's argument was that Christ being raised from the dead proved who he was and proved that the sacrifice was approved by the Father. So he is the first fruits of the resurrection which gives us hope.

When exactly our debt of sin was paid? The doing of it was Christ shedding his blood and then dying on the cross. When and who it is applied to gets us into the Calvinist vs Arminian controversy. Owen himself, after putting forth his arguments that Christ's redemption for each of the elect was actually accomplished on the cross insisted in his preaching that it is not actually applied to a person until they are born again and believe. R.C. Sproul said that a man before he comes to Christ and is saved - is lost. On a strictly logical basis, this could be problematic.