Continued from dead tulip

[Aaron]

that God laid our iniquities on Him,

You have yet to say what that means.

 

[JonC]

You have yet to say what that means.

It means that God laid our iniquities (our sins) on Christ. He became a curse for us.

Consider that death spread to all men, for all have sinned. But Christ, who knew no sin, became sin for us.

God laid our iniquities on Him (He died for our sins, not for His own as He is sinless).

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Do you hold the Psa view as being the central "error" held by Calvinists then?

What is Psa?

 

[JonC]

What is Psa?

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

Basically God's justice demands not that He punish the wicked but that He punish sinful actions. So God punished Christ for our sinful actions, thereby allowing Him to forgive us.

It comes from the "Latin view" as it developed from Anselm's satisfaction theory (from Germanic tribal law). Acquinas developed Substitution focused on merit (the RCC position) and the Reformers altered that view to PSA.

The opposing position is the "classic view" with the overarching theme of Victorious Christ. Christ suffered at the hands of wicked men, by the predetermined will of God, conquered the grave and freed us from the bondage of sin and death. God did not cause Christ's suffering, but offered Him as a sin offering (to suffer under the curse that man was under). God vindicated Christ by raising Him on the third day and glorifying Him.

 

[JonC]

@Reformed1689, see what I mean. No substance from the OP.

You have not asked anything. You said that my belief is influenced by my presuppositions, but have thus far proved unable to identify any presuppositions that I hold.

I know of some (like foundational doctrines must be in "what is written" in God's Word), and I grant I may hold some of which I am unaware. You just can't seem to identify any.

 

[37818]

Yes, I do. I believe it teaches that Christ died for us, was made sin, that God laid our iniquities on Him, etc.

Where we disagree is I do not believe essential doctrines should contain what is not written in the Bible (the highlighter test).

There is room for interpretation, but we are not even talking about interpretation. We are talking about things that are not there to be interpreted.

You have already made that argument. Ok, I do not disagree with that argument as stated. At issue are unidentified specifics. The two deaths of Christ on cross are very important.

 

[JonC]

You have already made that argument. Ok, I do not disagree with that argument as stated. At issue are unidentified specifics. The two deaths of Christ on cross are very important.

The two deaths on the cross are important (although not of equal importance) to Penal Substitution Theory. But this does not mean that is correct.

It is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment. The first death is physical. The second death is when the wicked are cast into the Lake of Fire.

 

[37818]

The two deaths on the cross are important (although not of equal importance) to Penal Substitution Theory. But this does not mean that is correct.

It is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment. The first death is physical. The second death is when the wicked are cast into the Lake of Fire.

Christ's death paying for our sins was completed before His physical death for His bodily resurrection and our justification in believing in Him. 1 Corinthians 15:17.

 

[Aaron]

It means that God laid our iniquities (our sins) on Christ. He became a curse for us.

What does it mean "laid our sins on Christ?"

Consider that death spread to all men, for all have sinned. But Christ, who knew no sin, became sin for us.

What does that mean, "became sin for us?"

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Wrong again… Im convinced that there is a distinction between Sonship and Discipleship. In the Lordship Salvation paradigm, regeneration and discipleship are so intertwined that one doesn’t exist without the other. Again I’m saying that regeneration doesn’t always produce discipleship. The practice of distinguishing between regeneration and gospel conversion… between preservation and perseverance is a critical component in interpreting God’s word

So would you put yourself in the Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, Tony Evans camp of free grace (or cheap grace as some call it)? One is saved even if there are no signs of rebirth? Jesus said go forth and make disciples, not converts. It follows that when one sees the grievousness of their sins and their need for Christ leading to faith, then they no longer want to live in sin. Preaching the fruit of the Spirit, or works, is not legalism, it is a byproduct of rebirth created by the Holy Spirit. MacArthur simply says that if you are truly born again there will be evidence. The parable of the soils is a good example.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

You literally have no idea what you are talking about. If churches closed their doors it wasn't because one man in California preached biblical truth. It was because of something else.

Wrong. MacArthur is the emperor from Star Wars, he orchestrated those closures by writing a book.

 

[agedman]

The two deaths on the cross are important (although not of equal importance) to Penal Substitution Theory. But this does not mean that is correct.

It is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment. The first death is physical. The second death is when the wicked are cast into the Lake of Fire.

What is this Two death business?

Jesus did not die twice!

He died once.

Where in the Bible does it say He died twice?

 

[JonC]

Christ's death paying for our sins was completed before His physical death for His bodily resurrection and our justification in believing in Him. 1 Corinthians 15:17.

We are back into presuppositions.

Christ died not pay for our sins. He became a curse for us, bore our sins bodily, and we are purchased by His blood.

I do not see how the passage you provide supports the idea that Christ died twice (or two deaths).

1 Corinthians 15:16–17 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.

 

[JonC]

What is this Two death business?

Jesus did not die twice!

He died once.

Where in the Bible does it say He died twice?

I have no idea. (The two deaths thing did not come from me).

 

[JonC]

What does it mean "laid our sins on Christ?"

What does that mean, "became sin for us?"

Death spread to all men for all have sinned. But Christ did not sin. He died not for His own sin but for ours.

 

[Aaron]

Death spread to all men for all have sinned. But Christ did not sin. He died not for His own sin but for ours.

You keep saying the same thing you're being asked to explain. As Austin oft asks, would you care to exegete?

 

[JonC]

You keep saying the same thing you're being asked to explain. As Austin oft asks, would you care to exegete?

That is a bit silly. What needs explaining?

The problem is not the need to exegete what God has said but to accept and understand.

If I say I missed lunch and am hungry you would want me to exegete my hunger. But the statement stands alone. You would create theories about my hunger, how it relates to spiritual hunger, what it says of the lunch I ate......but I would be simply saying I am hungry.

Those of the flesh cannot understand spiritual things. I am learning more and more how this is true. What is obvious and plain to many are complicated to others.

The passage means what it says. God laid our iniquities on Christ, He bore our sins bodily, the Word became flesh, He was made in all things like us, He became a curse for us. If you need explanations then there is perhaps a deeper underlying issue.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

You have already made that argument. Ok, I do not disagree with that argument as stated. At issue are unidentified specifics. The two deaths of Christ on cross are very important.

1 Peter 3:18 does not support the false teaching that Christ died a spiritual death. Did he suffer God's wrath due to those who will believe? Yes. The cross contained both spiritual and physical horrors, but at no time did Christ die spiritually.

 

[Aaron]

That is a bit silly. What needs explaining?

The problem is not the need to exegete what God has said but to accept and understand.

If I say I missed lunch and am hungry you would want me to exegete my hunger. But the statement stands alone. You would create theories about my hunger, how it relates to spiritual hunger, what it says of the lunch I ate......but I would be simply saying I am hungry.

Those of the flesh cannot understand spiritual things. I am learning more and more how this is true. What is obvious and plain to many are complicated to others.

The passage means what it says. God laid our iniquities on Christ, He bore our sins bodily, the Word became flesh, He was made in all things like us, He became a curse for us. If you need explanations then there is perhaps a deeper underlying issue.

It's not silly at all. If you can't paraphrase or explain what something means, then you don't understand it.

Either that, or you're trying to avoid the eminent conclusion.

In another place the Spirit says Christ bore our sins. What does it mean to bear them? What was God doing with them?

 

[Aaron]

Christ died not pay for our sins.

And just for the record, this is pretty much an apostate position.