Hebrews 2:14. How does the devil have the power of death?

[JonC]

If you believe that He bore our sins in his own body, and that the actual reason he suffered and died was for our transgressions, and that God set him forth as a propitiation in His blood; well, the only thing I would suggest is that you look to see if scripture shows that sin can cause a reaction from God that humanly is described as "wrath" in English. Because then, if he bore our sins, he bore God's wrath. It's not really a stretch. Do I think that God the Father was ever personally angry with Jesus? I don't, apologies to R.C. Sproul. But this plan of redemption involves these things. It is plain to see. And we are looking into something we should be careful messing with. We do know God's view of sin. We do know we are children of wrath until we are saved.

We are told directly that "he that believeth not the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him". Now, am I going too far in interpreting scripture directly if I say that I am going to assume that, since this is only 22 verses beyond John 3:14, where the Son as the one being lifted up like the serpent in the wilderness is the one you are to believe in - that is is something in that that solves the problem of God's wrath? You should be careful because if you say no, it's your faith then the question is faith in what. That the events happened? Why are you so adamant that this connection cannot be made when John clearly made it? And from other things you say, are you trying to take John 3 and start with "you must be born again" and then somehow cut out verses 14-16 or act like anyone who sees them is a heretic?

No. The truth is, you must be born again. And this is taught along with the idea that Christ gave himself for us on the cross and to reject that will cause the wrath of God to abide on you. That is clear in John 3 as far as where the look of faith is to be directed. And so I am going to make a big heretical assumption. That is that the wrath of God was abiding on us who now believe and what we believe involves Jesus getting that removed on the cross - as scripture says.

Your suggestion is misplaced.

Yes, God's wrath is against the wicked. Yes, sins are the "fruits" of a mind set on the fkesh, what wickedness produces.

But I suggest you look in the Bible and read how God forgives. This is very different from what you suggest.

And I agree that we currently sin and fall short of God's glory in the flesh. When we do sin we have an Advocate in Christ, and Mediator who as our High Priest makes propitiation for us.

I disagree that this is because God punished Jesus for our sins.

Instead I believe that our flesh dies because of our sin and live because of righteousness. I believe Christ Himself is the Propitiation.

But I also believe that our sins are propitiated rather than punished on another.

 

[DaveXR650]

Calvinism is different. Calvinists do accept many passages. But Calvinism itself is founded on a coherent integration of what they think the Bible teaches as a whole. In this way it is no different from any other cult. It is different from some cults as one can be both a Calvinist and a Christian.

Everyone attempts a coherent integration of what they think the Bible teaches as a whole. That is so natural that it is universal and it is good. Craig has a video on philosophical interpretation where he points out some of the same issues we have been discussing in these threads. To act like Calvinism is different in this area is ridiculous.

You tell me what is wrong if you find that God is loving. God is also just. God reacts to sin and disobedience with displeasure and sometimes wrath. God punishes sin. Man has sinned. Man is not holy and is unable to even look upon God directly. Blood must be shed for the remission of sin.

And you then try to philosophically integrate these scriptural statements into a coherent confession. Look at the chaos that has occurred in modern theology when we do that and just isolate "God is love" and run with that. No. In fact your method is wrong. I think that you are wrong in that the private interpretation of isolated scriptures is the real main reason for introduction of errors. Using what you already believe and then prayerfully looking at new scripture is the right way. What you already know may be challenged, or confirmed, or a new aspect may be discovered and you add that to your understanding and discard things which are determined to be in error. None of us are "there" yet, so to speak. But to always be a blank slate will guarantee error. That is how cults get going.

 

[JonC]

Everyone attempts a coherent integration of what they think the Bible teaches as a whole. That is so natural that it is universal and it is good.

I disagree to an extent (and agree to an extent).

We do all have an understanding of redemptive history as a whole. And this is natural.

When we read a book we form understandings of the characters, of their worldviews, even of their world itself. This is a part of what it means to understand.

BUT this is not necessarily good when it comes to Scripture because this understanding is subjective.

Our understanding should change as we move "from glory to glory").

This is impossible when we lean on our understanding. If we fail to keep our understanding at arms length then our faith becomes stagnant at best, or we are carried away from that faith at worst.

We always need to go back to the Word of God ("what is written", the "words that cone forth from God") and refined our understanding by removing from it what is not God's own words.


Take my view, for example.

My view is in the text of Scripture itself. Now, I may have some misunderstandings (I am sure I do). But this view is complete. The law is fulfilled, Christ bears our sins, we escape the wrath to come, we are ultimately glorified.

But I do not believe that God punished Jesus for our sins. Why? It is not in God's words and His words (the actual biblical text) is coherent.

By seeking a coherent integration I would gather what God actually said about a topic together.

I did this with the basis God forgives sins. And that stood in contrast to Calvinism.

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

I am pleading with you.

Please just do this, as an exercise at least to understand my position. I am not asking you to accept it. Just see it before you reject it. Then you will be making an informed decision.

Pretend Penal Substitution Theory is wrong. Pretend you are one of those early church writers. Actively stop anytime you start to read penal substitution into a text and pretend it means exactly what the words state.

For example, "Christ bore our sins". Stop. Do not apply this to doing anything to our sins. Just pretend that verse is speaking of Christ bearing our sins.

Now read of the Atonement, just pretending that penal substitution is wrong. Write it down.

Just do this to understand my view. I am not asking you to adopt my view. Just do this one thing.

I have read the writings you have suggested in the past so that I would understand you better. Please just do me the same favor.

 

[JesusFan]

I am not sure what you mean. We read in Hebrews 2 that Jesus currently propitiates on behalf of believers.

And Jesus is the guarantee of this better covenant. Since God has predestined us in Christ to actually be righteous and glorified, to actually be in the image of Christ, it seems that God declares us just based not on propitiation but on Christ Himself.

But I do agree that Jesus is the Propitiation for our sins. That is one way we can know without doubt that Jesus did not experience God's wrath or punishment.

Did Jesus experience being forsaken by His Father upon the Cross?

 

[DaveXR650]

@JonC. I would then do this. "Christ bore our sins". OK. We know what happened to Christ on the cross. I make the assumption that this is what was entailed in bearing our sins. If that is true, and if you believe that the cross was an intentional mission of the Son and that it redeemed people that were given to him by God, as we have recorded by Jesus himself (all of us of course assuming accurate scripture), then I would say that he was bearing something that somehow we would have been responsible to bear had Jesus not done so.

Now if you are just saying that we are not told how this works as being propitiatory in God's view, fine. In other words, we are not asked to know that the events that occurred that day caused just enough what? pain? suffering? anguish? to satisfy God. (And I want to speak reverently here.) Theologians say everything on this. It does look like there was a whole other aspect of what Jesus went through in a spiritual sense which may have been much more of a horror than the physical pain. And again, I don't want to speak irreverently of this but we are not given direct scripture on it that I am aware of. But we are told of a direct connection between these events and our sin and this will bring you back always to penal substitution.

But you still get back to Jesus doing this on account of our transgressions. Keep that in mind and I think you must link our sin being removed from us and placed on Jesus, figuratively speaking, in a way that satisfied the Father. And this is important. Anselm thought it satisfied His honor. The Reformers thought it satisfied His justice. But we know it satisfied the Father, and, lest you be tempted of misunderstanding God, we are shown that the Father and the Son were in this together and God was well pleased with the Son and the Son's greatest goal was to do this for the Father. And we are told that it was out of a desire to redeem people, who for some strange reason God loves. So that should take care of any tendency to envision an angry deity stalking around saying "somebody's gonna hafta pay" and then Jesus steps forward to calm him down.

 

[JonC]

Did Jesus experience being forsaken by His Father upon the Cross?

Yes. Jesus was forsaken to suffer and die.

This is foretold in detail in Psalm 22.

The Servant calls out through the suffeting He is forsaken to endure knowing that God will not abandon Him or hide His face from Him because God has proved His faithfulness to His forefathers when they were forsaken.

 

[DaveXR650]

Now could you say that Jesus came down, and by becoming exactly as we are, living a holy and sinless life, sharing all the things we share in this worldly existence - even to the point of dying, that that whole package was our atonement? While that all happened, it still falls short of dealing with our sin, God's justice and the clear scriptures stating Christ was bearing our sin in his own body.

 

[JesusFan]

This is true and I think we are finally getting to the core issues. Tell me if I'm wrong but I sense a real reluctance to fully give the work of Christ in his dying for us the sole credit for establishing the righteous standing we can have before God by his bearing our sin in his own body on the cross.

You keep going back to:

This. Which I want to emphasize, is not wrong and no Calvinist I know of would say is not essential for salvation. But tell me if I am mistaken in this. Are you deliberately trying to minimize the centrality of Christ's sacrificial work or is this just being lost in the quick internet replies inadvertently. Because once again, you are talking about sheep and goats, tares and wheat, and implying we are in serious error. We are finally at the point where this has to be clarified.

And just a note: I don't mean to pile on but others beat me to the post so to speak and I know some of the questions seem redundant. Don't feel like you have to answer me separately.

I do not understand how w are making the death of jesus superficial, as we uphold Psa atonement, which is the very basis for just how the Father can declare us righteous and be given new hearts and made new creatures in Christ Jesus

 

[JonC]

Now could you say that Jesus came down, and by becoming exactly as we are, living a holy and sinless life, sharing all the things we share in this worldly existence - even to the point of dying, that that whole package was our atonement? While that all happened, it still falls short of dealing with our sin, God's justice and the clear scriptures stating Christ was bearing our sin in his own body.

I disagree. That IS God dealing with sin.

The Atonement is not as superficial as God punishing sins. The law describes a day where God will judge the wicked. This day is yet to come.

But the law itself is only one manifestation of God's righteousness. And it deals not with the "problem" (we fall short of God's glory) but the "fruits" of the problem (sins).

The Atonement fulfills the law. Our bodies are dead because of sin. We are alive in the spirit because of righteousness.

 

[JesusFan]

Yes. Jesus was forsaken to suffer and die.

This is foretold in detail in Psalm 22.

The Servant calls out through the suffeting He is forsaken to endure knowing that God will not abandon Him or hide His face from Him because God has proved His faithfulness to His forefathers when they were forsaken.

Did he actually feel and experience the father turning aside, as if he was a sinner under judgement from a Holy God then?

 

[JesusFan]

Now could you say that Jesus came down, and by becoming exactly as we are, living a holy and sinless life, sharing all the things we share in this worldly existence - even to the point of dying, that that whole package was our atonement? While that all happened, it still falls short of dealing with our sin, God's justice and the clear scriptures stating Christ was bearing our sin in his own body.

Where is the wrath and condemnation due to us as sinners went off to then?

 

[JonC]

I do not understand how w are making the death of jesus superficial

You are focusing on God addressing the "fruits" of natural man rather than the actual problem.

We fall short of the glory of God. Addressing the sins produced by that state is superficial and does nothing to redeem man.

We bear our sins bodily and die because of our sins. We are made alive spiritually because of righteousness.

 

[JonC]

Where is the wrath and condemnation due to us as sinners went off to then?

We die bodily because of sin and live because of righteousness.

That wrath that the wicked store up will be suffered by the wicked at judgment.

 

[JesusFan]

You are focusing on God addressing the "fruits" of natural man rather than the actual problem.

We fall short of the glory of God. Addressing the sins produced by that state is superficial and does nothing to redeem man.

We bear our sins bodily and die because of our sins. We are made alive spiritually because of righteousness.

and when we physical die, if the Lord jesus has not bourne our sins for us, we have to before holy Go, and face divine wrath and judgement

 

[JesusFan]

We die bodily because of sin and live because of righteousness.

That wrath that the wicked store up will be suffered by the wicked at judgment.

What happened then to the sins that God had against us and stored up as divine wrath to be laid on us at the final judgement?

 

[JonC]

What happened then to the sins that God had against us and stored up as divine wrath to be laid on us at the final judgement?

"The wicked store up for themselves wrath for the day of wrath"

Per God our sins are forgiven based on the righteousness of Christ (He is the surety of a better covenant) with a condition of faith which entails repentance and belief.

We still bear our sins bodily. We die because of our sins and are made alive because of righteousness.

But to answer what happens to that wrath, it is propitiated.

 

[JesusFan]

"The wicked store up for themselves wrath for the day of wrath"

Per God our sins are forgiven based on the righteousness of Christ (He is the surety of a better covenant) with a condition of faith which entails repentance and belief.

We still bear our sins bodily. We die because of our sins and are made alive because of righteousness.

He became the sin bearer correct?

 

[JonC]

He became the sin bearer correct?

He bore our sins and right now we bear His righteousness.

God laid our iniquity on Him and, praise God, He lays His righteousness on us.

 

[JesusFan]

He imputes that to us correct?