Isaiah 53...

[JonC]

Here is the difference - I say that about 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. They were killed by evil men. But this was not outside of God's sovereignty. Some here would say "No, God killed those people!".

I'd say that almost 3,000 people were killed by terrorists on SEP. 11, but this was not outside God's sovereignty. Some would say "No! God killed those people".

My point here is that there are very different understandings of God's character expressed in this thread.

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

I need to ask -

You said that Christ dying for our sin is the same as Christ dying for our sin instead of us.

Why do you believe that?

I'm serious here. Why do you believe that "Christ died for our sins" is the same as "Christ died instead of us"?



If you need help moving and I come to help you move then I am working for you. If you believe "for" means "instead of" then please don't call me to help.


I think of the CoC who insist that being baptized for the forgiveness of sins means that baptism is what pits that forgiveness in effect

 

[37818]

Again, αντι does not carry the meaning "instead of". It means "for", which could also mean "instead of".

Have you not even wondered why nobody before the 16th Century taught that Christ died instead of us?

I get that is why some of the 16th and 17th century Reformed writers appeal to many, but you are aware that Christianity existed, and Christian scholars existed, prior to John Calvin....right?

We disagree.
. . . and gave the soul of His to pay instead of many.

Isaiah 53:10 and Isaiah 53:12.

 

[JonC]

We disagree.
. . . and gave the soul of His to pay instead of many.

Isaiah 53:10 and Isaiah 53:12.

He gave himself as a ransom for many.

Matthew 17:27 However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me.

Does it really make sense to say "Take that and give it to them instead of you and Me."?

Not, of course not. The word means on our behalf. Christ died a random on our behalf, not instead of us.

You are adding to the verse by declaring what this Ransom was in addition to Christ Himself.

I am NOT saying that the language prohibits adding "instead of" in how the Ransom is giving. It just is not in the actual text.

 

[DaveXR650]

I need to ask -

You said that Christ dying for our sin is the same as Christ dying for our sin instead of us.

Why do you believe that?

I'm serious here. Why do you believe that "Christ died for our sins" is the same as "Christ died instead of us"?

Sorry if that sounded confusing. This gets me confused too. What I mean is in regards to our sins or the guilt of our sins or the consequences of our sins. To avoid the confusing language if I say that Christ's death in some way actually took care of my sin in such a way that I don't have to face the consequences of my sin, and I combine that with the idea that Christ bore my sin on the cross - then I think that lays the groundwork for the meaning of my sin being transferred to Christ or him being punished instead of me. And in that case, for me to commonly say Christ died for me I mean it in the same sense.

Now, if someone says that Christ died as a result of a huge injustice which demonstrated to all the cosmos that he had suffered more and had more of an injustice done to him than anyone else in history, ever, I would say "correct". Yet that would not mean that this would have anything directly to do with the fact that I had personally offended a holy God and it would not necessarily mean that this would solve the problem I have with reconciling to God. For Christ to help me, for God to say that I will forgive people there has to, in my opinion be some concept of a transfer of my sin or of some way of getting it off of me and onto someone else. In other words, putting my sin on Christ instead of me.

If it is said that I have broken a sacred law and the penalty must be executed then for me to be exonerated if I am guilty the penalty must be taken by someone else. Now I admit and agree that this usually can't be done. That's the beauty of this. This plan, with God involved in reconciling the world to himself through Christ, who was uniquely qualified in a way that never has nor never shall be repeated in time, has a specialness and a wonderfulness to it that is completely unique and will cause praise from humans who are saved to last forever. I don't think in our present condition we can fully appreciate this but given a stronger body and better understanding I think we will be able to praise God for years without tiring. And since we are passive in the accomplishing of this it is not necessary that we fully understand it. Our faith in Christ will suffice and if I am wrong and you are right or vice verse we will both be there someday.

 

[JonC]

Sorry if that sounded confusing. This gets me confused too. What I mean is in regards to our sins or the guilt of our sins or the consequences of our sins. To avoid the confusing language if I say that Christ's death in some way actually took care of my sin in such a way that I don't have to face the consequences of my sin, and I combine that with the idea that Christ bore my sin on the cross - then I think that lays the groundwork for the meaning of my sin being transferred to Christ or him being punished instead of me. And in that case, for me to commonly say Christ died for me I mean it in the same sense.

Now, if someone says that Christ died as a result of a huge injustice which demonstrated to all the cosmos that he had suffered more and had more of an injustice done to him than anyone else in history, ever, I would say "correct". Yet that would not mean that this would have anything directly to do with the fact that I had personally offended a holy God and it would not necessarily mean that this would solve the problem I have with reconciling to God. For Christ to help me, for God to say that I will forgive people there has to, in my opinion be some concept of a transfer of my sin or of some way of getting it off of me and onto someone else. In other words, putting my sin on Christ instead of me.

If it is said that I have broken a sacred law and the penalty must be executed then for me to be exonerated if I am guilty the penalty must be taken by someone else. Now I admit and agree that this usually can't be done. That's the beauty of this. This plan, with God involved in reconciling the world to himself through Christ, who was uniquely qualified in a way that never has nor never shall be repeated in time, has a specialness and a wonderfulness to it that is completely unique and will cause praise from humans who are saved to last forever. I don't think in our present condition we can fully appreciate this but given a stronger body and better understanding I think we will be able to praise God for years without tiring. And since we are passive in the accomplishing of this it is not necessary that we fully understand it. Our faith in Christ will suffice and if I am wrong and you are right or vice verse we will both be there someday.

Ah....sorry. I misunderstood you. Remember I'm getting older by the day.

I think you are mixing up two things - the wages of sin (death) and the Judgment where the wicked are cast into the Lake of Fire (this is Christ-centered).
The author of death (wages of sin) is Satan through His deception (Adam sinned and through Him sin entered the world). This is the bondage from which we were redeemed.

In Christ we escape the wrath to come. This is referring to Judgment (the Father judges nobody, but all judgment has been given to the Son....that is, those who do not believe are condemned already because the Light has come into the world and they rejected this Light....at Judgment the judgment is executed (they are already condemned) and God's wrath will be poured out on the wicked.

One major difference I can see between your view and traditional Christianity is traditional Christianity views God's Word as absolute - no loopholes. All flesh must die because the wages of sin is death. Christ becomes a curse for us (shares in this fate) and gives us Life (although we die so also shall we live). And then at the Judgment all of the wicked will perish but those who have been made new creations in Christ (who are no longer wicked) will live.

Penal Substitution Theory has God looking for and finding a loophole that nullifies His Word. It assumes God acquits the wicked because the Just suffered the punishment of the guilty.

 

[DaveXR650]

I think you are mixing up two things - the wages of sin (death) and the Judgment where the wicked are cast into the Lake of Fire (this is Christ-centered).
The author of death (wages of sin) is Satan through His deception (Adam sinned and through Him sin entered the world). This is the bondage from which we were redeemed.

There is an aspect in all this of the consequences we suffer because of the fall of man. It's easiest for us to see when we observe young children suffering from horrible problems even from birth. And we all face death and disease and mistreatment from nature and from other men. And I think this "cosmic" element was probably more appreciated in the ancient world that in our modern world.

But I have noticed that there is a modern tendency among theologians and modern churchmen to elevate this aspect of Christ's work and make this a matter of Christ somehow "setting things aright" so that now we can live as a new creation. I agree that there is in a sense an undoing of the curse and a renewal of everything starting for each of us individually the moment we are saved. I have kept reading Torrance and there is also a belief that a renewal has started that benefits all of humanity, even those not believers.

But I think that there is still the problem of our individual sin which we have done and have offended God. The core of Christianity is about what was done about that and penal substitution explains this better than anything else. If there is not a way for us, as individuals to have atonement for our own sins then we are undone individually, even if Christ is going to create a new world. He certainly had no obligation to do anything for us but scripture indicates he did so. And that was somehow taking our sin upon himself and suffering instead of us (or for us if you like). There is no reason to worry about our physical bodies still dying. That is a simple fact. But we can get out of Satan's kingdom and get into Christ's now, even though we will have to wait for the redemption of our bodies.

 

[JonC]

There is an aspect in all this of the consequences we suffer because of the fall of man. It's easiest for us to see when we observe young children suffering from horrible problems even from birth. And we all face death and disease and mistreatment from nature and from other men. And I think this "cosmic" element was probably more appreciated in the ancient world that in our modern world.

But I have noticed that there is a modern tendency among theologians and modern churchmen to elevate this aspect of Christ's work and make this a matter of Christ somehow "setting things aright" so that now we can live as a new creation. I agree that there is in a sense an undoing of the curse and a renewal of everything starting for each of us individually the moment we are saved. I have kept reading Torrance and there is also a belief that a renewal has started that benefits all of humanity, even those not believers.

But I think that there is still the problem of our individual sin which we have done and have offended God. The core of Christianity is about what was done about that and penal substitution explains this better than anything else. If there is not a way for us, as individuals to have atonement for our own sins then we are undone individually, even if Christ is going to create a new world. He certainly had no obligation to do anything for us but scripture indicates he did so. And that was somehow taking our sin upon himself and suffering instead of us (or for us if you like). There is no reason to worry about our physical bodies still dying. That is a simple fact. But we can get out of Satan's kingdom and get into Christ's now, even though we will have to wait for the redemption of our bodies.

I'm not sure if you know this (this useless trivia...really) but the most common view before WW2 was that the Church would grow and things would continue to get better and better until Christ came. This changed as so many were disillusioned after the war.

Just some trivia....nothing to do with our discussion but I thought it interesting.


There is a problem with our individual sin. We have a Mediator in Christ and are forgiven upon repentance (provided we are forgiving to others....which is a part of repentance, I suppose).

What you are talking about is God having an obligation to what punish an action, even if not punishing the sinner. That does not make sense. It ultimately puts man in control of God. He has to experience harm or loss for our sins in order to "forgive" us.

 

[37818]

He gave himself as a ransom for many.

Matthew 17:27 However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me.

Does it really make sense to say "Take that and give it to them instead of you and Me."?

Not, of course not. The word means on our behalf. Christ died a random on our behalf, not instead of us.

You are adding to the verse by declaring what this Ransom was in addition to Christ Himself.

I am NOT saying that the language prohibits adding "instead of" in how the Ransom is giving. It just is not in the actual text.

Another sense of the word "in exchange"

Matthew 17:27 However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them in exchange for you and Me.

 

[JonC]

Another sense of the word "in exchange"

Matthew 17:27 However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them in exchange for you and Me.

lol....But that is not why one pays taxes.

I agree that we can make Scripture say all kinds of things by insisting. Jesus telling him to pay taxes instead of them rather than on their behalf is not even the oddest.

An eye instead of an eye and a tooth instead of a tooth.

you shall be silent and unable to speak until the day when these things take place, instead of you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their proper time.

Instead of whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light,

In the end I fully acknowledge that "for" can mean ",instead of". The issue is that there is no reason to assume that meaning in the passage. You do so because of your philosophy of the Cross, not because the text demands it. And doing so you make the verse meaningless (Christ died as a ransom instead of us....really...exactly which one of us was going to die as a ransom???)

 

[37818]

An eye instead of an eye and a tooth instead of a tooth.

In exchange.

 

[DaveXR650]

I'm not sure if you know this (this useless trivia...really) but the most common view before WW2 was that the Church would grow and things would continue to get better and better until Christ came. This changed as so many were disillusioned after the war.

I had heard that and I would like to read more on it if I ever get time. I've read some on the time period but not from theologians except Bonhoeffer.

What you are talking about is God having an obligation to what punish an action, even if not punishing the sinner.

That's probably at the core. It's not punishing an action as much as punishing the evildoer or having the wrath fall on a substitute. And it just so happens that me, and apparently a lot of Christian groups believe that this is what happened to Jesus on our behalf. They, and I, believe scripture is clear on this through many paths of argument from the example of the old testament sacrifices to the fulfilling of the law, to the detail with which scripture lays out the qualifications that make Christ the only one who could ever accomplish this for us. It is true that this cannot be understood using normal law or a normal human sense of justice. If I murder someone I get punished, not the "act of murder" and we don't have a system where someone else can take my place for punishment justly. In fact we consider it horrible when someone else is falsely accused and suffers punishment for someone else's crime. But scripture says that Jesus bore our sins. Like I said, this is not something that is normally possible or that can ever be repeated. Also, God has no obligation to anyone or to do anything at all, the only exception being that he is true to his own nature and he has graciously chosen to reveal some of it to us.

 

[JonC]

In exchange.

Eye for an eye...maybe, but not quite. More like I take your eye because you took mine.

 

[37818]

και and
δουναι gave
την ψυχην the soul
αυτου of His
λυτρον to pay
αντι instead
πολλων of many

 

[JonC]

I had heard that and I would like to read more on it if I ever get time. I've read some on the time period but not from theologians except Bonhoeffer.


That's probably at the core. It's not punishing an action as much as punishing the evildoer or having the wrath fall on a substitute. And it just so happens that me, and apparently a lot of Christian groups believe that this is what happened to Jesus on our behalf. They, and I, believe scripture is clear on this through many paths of argument from the example of the old testament sacrifices to the fulfilling of the law, to the detail with which scripture lays out the qualifications that make Christ the only one who could ever accomplish this for us. It is true that this cannot be understood using normal law or a normal human sense of justice. If I murder someone I get punished, not the "act of murder" and we don't have a system where someone else can take my place for punishment justly. In fact we consider it horrible when someone else is falsely accused and suffers punishment for someone else's crime. But scripture says that Jesus bore our sins. Like I said, this is not something that is normally possible or that can ever be repeated. Also, God has no obligation to anyone or to do anything at all, the only exception being that he is true to his own nature and he has graciously chosen to reveal some of it to us.

Yep. The problem with punishing a substitute is it negates punishing the wicked.

Think about it.

You said - It's not punishing an action as much as punishing the evildoer or having the wrath fall on a substitute.

That last part (having the wrath fall on a substitute) necessitates a demand upon God to punish the action, even if not punishing the wicked.

That isn't just.

If Jack murders Jill's sister justice doesn't demand that somebody be punished for the crime. Justice demands that Jack be punished for the crime. God, however, makes Jack a new creation (no longer guilty, no longer wicked, but requires or causes Jack to die to wicked Jack).

If a man mugged you and the judge said "we couldn't find him, so I put this innocent guy in jail so that justice would be served" you'd think him crazy.

 

[DaveXR650]

That isn't just.

You are right. The cross is in a sense an outrage. What should have happened if I were in charge would be that the Earth would go hurtling off into space on it's own or, because I am not holy, I could simply overlook the sinfulness of man and the world under me would look like the world under the Greek gods who were powerful, but no more moral or virtuous than humans. But God isn't like that. So we have Christ bearing our sins and somehow by this injustice on himself, God reconciles us to Him.

 

[Aaron]

Well, my point is that it certainly was not the spirit of God working within the sons of disobedience that crucified Christ.

No one said it was. It was still the act of God to deliver His Son into their hands. He offered His Son. Sinners didn't.

 

[JonC]

You are right. The cross is in a sense an outrage. What should have happened if I were in charge would be that the Earth would go hurtling off into space on it's own or, because I am not holy, I could simply overlook the sinfulness of man and the world under me would look like the world under the Greek gods who were powerful, but no more moral or virtuous than humans. But God isn't like that. So we have Christ bearing our sins and somehow by this injustice on himself, God reconciles us to Him.

I agree with a lot in your post.

Christ did bear our sin.
And it was an injustice (a point our salvation hinges upon).
And God will not acquit the wicked. But He will also not condemn the Just.

Do you believe that we are truly made new creations in Christ?
Do you believe that we must die to sin?

If so, then you have your answer about how God is just and the Justifier of sinners.

At Judgment God will separate the righteous from the wicked. The righteous were once wicked, but they had to die to sin - they were made new creations. There is no condemnation in Christ. The Christian is not wicked.

 

[Aaron]

Why should I stop using the word in a way it was used since at least 99 AD?

You're not*, and that's the point.

One may act as a representative, advocate and a substitute, and Christ did, but substitution means "instead of"

So when you say, "I believe Christ was stricken for our transgressions" and employ your private definitions instead of the ones understood from time of their coinage, how can it be taken as anything but subterfuge?

And how can it be lying to say, "no you really don't believe that as the terms have been understood since the time of their coinage"?


*substitute | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

 

[JonC]

You're not*, and that's the point.

One may act as a representative, advocate and a substitute, and Christ did, but substitution means "instead of"

So when you say, "I believe Christ was stricken for our transgressions" and employ your private definitions instead of the ones understood from time of their coinage, how can it be taken as anything but subterfuge?

And how can it be lying to say, "no you really don't believe that as the terms have been understood since the time of their coinage"?


*substitute | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

I understand. Many who hold to Penal Substitution Theory do not understand earlier uses of the word "substitution".

Irenaeus and Athanasius, for example, viewed Christ's death as a substitute (medical substitution) in that He died at the hands of Satan as a substitute for the human race.

I prefer "representation" because "medical substitution", "ontological substitution", and "total substitution" does not fit well in our contemporary language. We think of a substitute as something like Equal instead of sugar in tea.

That said, representation falls short. It is representative substitution. The reason is Christ takes upon Himself our curse. He shared in our infirmities. Yet they remain ours as well. He did not earn the curse, we did as a product of our own sin.