Christ's Death

[JonC]

I'm not sure this technically belongs here, but I'm putting it here because it is based on a Calvinistic understanding of the Cross that is shared with Arminianism yet not with historic Christianity.

it has been explained that Christ was made "sin", but nor literally. This was Christ bearing our sins (I agree with him on that point).

But from there many hold that God punished our sins laid on Christ in order to redeem us. Our sin became Christ's and His righteousness became ours (our sins imputed to Him, His righteousness imputed to us).

Christ was forsaken by the Father and God separated from Christ (not in a sence as to break the Trinity).

Our redemption, per this view, was accomplished in this manner on the cross, and once it was done Christ cried out "it is finished!".

He then committed His Spirit to the Father and died.

The issue

Historic Christianity holds that our redemption was accomplished through Christ's physical death on the Cross. Christ suffered under the curse, but the culmination of this suffering was death - the "sinless One" becoming a curse and experiencing the wages of sin on our behalf by dying physically on the Cross.

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).

My question

What is, to those who hold the Calvinistic idea of the Cross, the significance of Christ's death towards our redemption?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@JonC,
Why you have to launch yet another thread on this subject, bring my name into it and mangle my beliefs yet again is beyond me, especially when I have told you how busy I am.

 

[JonC]

@JonC,
Why you have to launch yet another thread on this subject, bring my name into it and mangle my beliefs yet again is beyond me, especially when I have told you how busy I am.

Because I want to know what the death of Christ accomplished in the minds of those who hold that view.

Others believe that way as well. You don't need to respond.

 

[DaveXR650]

What is, to those who hold the Calvinistic idea of the Cross, the significance of Christ's death towards our redemption?

First of all, if you want to discuss this then fine, but I want a plain answer as to how you come up with this scenario that it is a Calvinist position that the actual death of Christ had no part in redemption. If you try to do this you are starting from a false premise. It is simply impossible to make a claim like that when the definitive work on the subject is John Owen's "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ". Does the title give you any clue as to the meaning of the Atonement in the mind of a Puritan Calvinist?

 

[JonC]

First of all, if you want to discuss this then fine, but I want a plain answer as to how you come up with this scenario that it is a Calvinist position that the actual death of Christ had no part in redemption. If you try to do this you are starting from a false premise. It is simply impossible to make a claim like that when the definitive work on the subject is John Owen's "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ". Does the title give you any clue as to the meaning of the Atonement in the mind of a Puritan Calvinist?

I didn't say it was the Calvinist position.

I said it is based on a Calvinistic understanding.

The 19th century anti-mission movement was based on a Calvinistic understanding. BUT it is far from the Calvinist position.

The way it has been related to me (by a brother who holds this view) is:

1. The Father laid our sins on on the Son
2. The Father punished our sins laid upon Christ
3. The Father poured out His wrath, the wrath due our sins, on His Son instead of punishing us
4. The Father departed from (forsook) the Son because of our sin
5. In this way the Father satisfied our debt of sin and we were freed from sin

6. After this the Son declared "it is finished"
7. The Son committed His Spirit into the Father's hands (no longer separated)
8. Christ died.


I get how all of that leading up to Christ's death (in their view) redeemed us.

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

 

[DaveXR650]

There is nothing wrong with the above description 1-8. Blood points to the violent death of the animal sacrifices in the Old Testament. These sacrifices were instructed as to their method by God. "For the life of the creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the alter; it is the blood that makes atonement." Jesus death was part of the 1-8 above because the shedding of blood in death was what God required.

 

[JonC]

There is nothing wrong with the above description 1-8. Blood points to the violent death of the animal sacrifices in the Old Testament. These sacrifices were instructed as to their method by God. "For the life of the creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the alter; it is the blood that makes atonement." Jesus death was part of the 1-8 above because the shedding of blood in death was what God required.

I understand the idea behind 1-8. And I get that those who hold this view use Christ's "death" as a metaphor for 1-7. I get that.

Let me put it this way (a theological hypothetical).

Let's say #8 was missing:

1. The Father laid our sins on on the Son
2. The Father punished our sins laid upon Christ
3. The Father poured out His wrath, the wrath due our sins, on His Son instead of punishing us
4. The Father departed from (forsook) the Son because of our sin
5. In this way the Father satisfied our debt of sin and we were freed from sin

6. After this the Son declared "it is finished"
7. The Son was no longer separated from the Father.

8. The Son stepped down from the Cross instead of dying.


How is this redemption different in application?

 

[DaveXR650]

It's windy here. My WiFi is down. I need to wait until it's back because I have a mini cell phone. No offense intended. I'll be on later hopefully.

 

[Brightfame52]

I didn't say it was the Calvinist position.

I said it is based on a Calvinistic understanding.

The 19th century anti-mission movement was based on a Calvinistic understanding. BUT it is far from the Calvinist position.

The way it has been related to me (by a brother who holds this view) is:

1. The Father laid our sins on on the Son
2. The Father punished our sins laid upon Christ
3. The Father poured out His wrath, the wrath due our sins, on His Son instead of punishing us
4. The Father departed from (forsook) the Son because of our sin
5. In this way the Father satisfied our debt of sin and we were freed from sin

6. After this the Son declared "it is finished"
7. The Son committed His Spirit into the Father's hands (no longer separated)
8. Christ died.


I get how all of that leading up to Christ's death (in their view) redeemed us.

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

From my understanding, the Son Voluntarily agreed to be made a sin offering for the sins of Gods chosen people, had to do with an everlasting covenant established before the world began, hence the Son had as much to do with this arrangement as the did the Father

 

[DaveXR650]

OK. Good for now.

Let's say #8 was missing:

Jon you can't do that. That specifically goes against the way God wanted the sacrifices done. It would be close to blasphemy to even start conjecture on such an important subject. We are not allowed to pick things apart like that, especially in that area.

 

[JonC]

From my understanding, the Son Voluntarily agreed to be made a sin offering for the sins of Gods chosen people, had to do with an everlasting covenant established before the world began, hence the Son had as much to do with this arrangement as the did the Father

He did (Isaiah 53).

I'm not arguing for the position that bases our salvation on demands of tge divine justice of the Father. I'm just asking about it.

 

[JonC]

OK. Good for now.

Jon you can't do that. That specifically goes against the way God wanted the sacrifices done. It would be close to blasphemy to even start conjecture on such an important subject. We are not allowed to pick things apart like that, especially in that area.

I'm asking hypothetically. It is not inappropriate as it isolates the precise issue.

Historically Christians viewed Christ's death (His actual death) as that point of redemption.

But this changed with Calvinism. The perspective shifted to the Father punishing our sins instead of us.

So what is, in that view, the purpose of Christ's actual death in regard to man's redemption?

My only conclusion is that theologies of a Calvinistic trajectory have no use of Christ's death because our redemption is based on Christ taking our punishment instead of us and that being accomplished prior to His Spirit being commended into the hands of the Father.

 

[JonC]

It's windy here. My WiFi is down. I need to wait until it's back because I have a mini cell phone. No offense intended. I'll be on later hopefully.

It's very windy here as well. I slept through most of it so far (got off work this morning).

BUT it should be a beautiful day tomorrow.

 

[JonC]

@JonC,
Why you have to launch yet another thread on this subject, . . . .

The reason to discuss Christ's death is that for most of Christian history it has been the central part of its theology of redemption. A few centuries ago this was challenged, and that challenge has become a popular position.

Christ's death for our sins needs to be discussed. And we should not feel ashamed to discuss it.

Scripture tells us that Christ's actual death was for our sins.

In your opinion, how was Christ's death (Christ commending His Spirit into the hands of the Father) "for our sins"?

 

[Silverhair]

Further to what @JonC has said. I have had it pointed out to me a number of times on this board that the "elect" were saved at the cross bit that is not what Paul says is it.
Rom_5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
1Co 15:17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.

We were reconciled, brought into friendship from a state of disagreement or enmity. Because Christ had paid the sin debt for humanity God the Father could look on us with a loving favor. This does not mean that we were saved but that the Father was willing to grace all those that would trust in His son.

 

[DaveXR650]

You are wrong at multiple levels. First of all, I'm serious about what I said about the sacrificial system. The quote above about the life being in the blood is from Leviticus. You can go there and see what happened to Aaron's sons when they messed up in their priestly duties. God has been trying to teach us for several thousand years that our redemption is not to be messed with. Jesus had to die and he had to shed his blood. Because they are two different parts of something and therefore two separate mental concepts in that sense they can be discussed separately, but they are not separate in a redemptive sense.

I think you are getting mixed up in that our sins were laid on Christ and he took the punishment that would have been ours because of our sin. That does not mean that God was angry at Christ and it does not mean that our sins themselves were punished because you would be getting into logical difficulties. I have read a little church history and I have noticed that at different times different things are top of the agenda. At first there was a priority on believing Jesus was the Christ that was prophesied. Later, it was that he was fully God and also fully man. I don't know why the atonement as the Calvinists describe it was not discussed more in that way but it seems to me to be plain in scripture. I know you don't think so and I respect that but we look at the same verses and I think they are plain.

So what is, in that view, the purpose of Christ's actual death in regard to man's redemption?

It is the price or the ransom, or the propitiation for our sins. The death can be used interchangeably with the shedding of blood. The fact that this is acceptable to God the Father makes me eternally grateful but I dare not really ask why or go into it in a questioning manner.

My only conclusion is that theologies of a Calvinistic trajectory have no use of Christ's death because our redemption is based on Christ taking our punishment instead of us and that being accomplished prior to His Spirit being commended into the hands of the Father.

You simply cannot make a statement like this when you haven't answered my question as to why Owen would title his paper "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ". Calvinist theology has no use for Christ's death? That's disingenuous.

 

[DaveXR650]

@Silverhair . I know that there is the belief which is different from the Calvinist belief where Christ's death on the cross made it so that God could now forgive men who came by faith without violating His sense of justice and also that the cross took away the enmity between us and God. I know you're not a Calvinist but is it your understanding that the shed blood of Christ and his death are all involved in this?

 

[Silverhair]

@Silverhair . I know that there is the belief which is different from the Calvinist belief where Christ's death on the cross made it so that God could now forgive men who came by faith without violating His sense of justice and also that the cross took away the enmity between us and God. I know you're not a Calvinist but is it your understanding that the shed blood of Christ and his death are all involved in this?

If Christ had not gone to the cross then we could not be reconciled to God. Christ was the propitiation for humanities sins. 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.

 

[Brightfame52]

He did (Isaiah 53).

I'm not arguing for the position that bases our salvation on demands of tge divine justice of the Father. I'm just asking about it.

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

 

[JonC]

It is the price or the ransom, or the propitiation for our sins. The death can be used interchangeably with the shedding of blood. The fact that this is acceptable to God the Father makes me eternally grateful but I dare not really ask why or go into it in a questioning manner.

You simply cannot make a statement like this when you haven't answered my question as to why Owen would title his paper "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ". Calvinist theology has no use for Christ's death? That's disingenuous.

First, I was a Calvinist for a long time. I didn't hold the view I am asking about. 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 even gave you an example.

That said, I know Calvinists and non-Calvinists who will say Christ died for our sins, but they explain away His death by saying we were redeemed by the Fatger punishing Christ before His death.

It does not matter what a book was titled (for the record, I like Owen's book).


Second - the "shedding of blood" means "death" or "killing". I agree.

My point is people who hold the view that our redemption is accomplished via the Father punishing the Son on the Cross instead of punishing us already "goes there". They explain aspects of Chriat's work in detail via philosophy rather than Scripture (i.e., such and such must mean this because....).

Why is it inappropriate to ask about what is actually written in God's Word?

Christ died. Christ died for our sins. His Spirit was commended into the hands of the Father.

What did that actually accomplish?

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).